Hey, thought I'd start up another debate thread seeing as everyone seemed to enjoy the last one; I know I did!
My question is: do you believe in a god (of any sort) or are an atheist? Or a complete agnostic?
I personally go down the route of deism.
Anyone care to debate?
(PS: I've seen how heated the God debate can get in the past, so while I may have partaken in some quite heated moments in previous treads, I'm going to make an effort to be less volatile, given how much people tend to invest in religious beliefs. I would appreciate everyone else doing the same, and refrained from making any (I'll use the word colourful) remarks. Thanks!)
This won't end well.
But anyways, I'm a Christian. I believe in God and go to church on a semi-regular basis, but I still believe in things like evolution and the big bang theory.
Gotta say though. Being in the club kind of sucks these days. They got rid of the free punch at the functions cause they're too busy going on about gay marriage or something.
Gotta say though. Being in the club kind of sucks these days. They got rid of the free punch at the functions cause they're too busy going on about gay marriage or something.
I'm just being sarcastic about the punch. Mostly an analogy there that I wish some Christians would just let live so I wouldn't have to deal with the fall out of their behavior.
I don't believe in God, but recently, having been translating the Gospel of John from the original Greek, I've been thinking about Christianity and what Jesus had to say about the world.
I'm still atheist, but I don't know...atheist Christian?
Testify wrote:I'm still atheist, but I don't know...atheist Christian?
Just cause there's a religion about doesn't mean there wasn't anything worthwhile said. Take and leave what suits you imo. Its what most people do
Yeah, the moment I realised what religion actually *is*, and what it always has been, was when I started wondering.
There were plenty of people in the middle ages who denied the existance of God yet were stalward Christians. I know many catholics who don't give a gak about virgin birth or papal infallability.
Not directed at anyone above me, just betting on how things go in these threads. We should just sticky the best religious thread and when someone wants to make a thread on religion have them read the saved one as punishment! It is not like the same arguments do not get thrown around/avoided on a consistent basis.
But in the spirit of the thread, I am an atheist. I have no beef with religion it just has never seemed valid to me.
Next week Bacchus week? Can we settle on Dionysus? Greek vs Roman!
LordofHats wrote:You know, we get all caught up on the whole monotheism and polytheism thing, but can't we just give henotheism a try? For the children.
I will admit my knowledge of Greek failed and I had to google that.
That's "traditional" judaism right there. Not "my God is the only God" but "my God is better than your God". Won't solve any problems. Could be fun, though.
I'm a deist. A good author does not appear in their work.
What I think we need in the world is more cults. Evil cults, that do ritual sacrifices and stuff. When a major religion does violence because of their religion we have to take them seriously and say "oh, they're just extremists." I don't like it.
Speaking of Cults, why can't there be any that just end well you know? Why we gotta spike the punch with rat poison and cyanide culties? Can't we just mix in some Mike's Hard Lemonade and make it about flowers and rainbows or something?
Don't gotta get into the whole mass suicide, or hold up against the FBI and ATF thing guys. I mean, if your gonna be 'non-conformist' how about actually being different from all the other cults?
Well, most cults just shrivel and die. The problem with cults being "good" is that the methods of indoctination are usually morally grey at best, which doesn't lend well to the future of the organization. The other problem is that leader types tend to be egotistical and this is more easily noticed in circle as small as most cults.
That said, a cult can help people with certain mental/social problems like addiction and depression.
J-Roc77 wrote:Next week Bacchus week? Can we settle on Dionysus? Greek vs Roman!
The Romans stole their Gods from the Greeks...
Those dirty thieves! (I know, I just like the older school name just in spite of the romans).
Jihadin wrote:
The Romans stole their Gods from the Greeks...
We have the Coliseum though bring on the gladiators!!
Ok, I will concede the point, Bacchus it is. The coliseum is what keeps me from revolting, bring on the entertainment! Floorgies and fights!
xole wrote:Well, most cults just shrivel and die. The problem with cults being "good" is that the methods of indoctination are usually morally grey at best, which doesn't lend well to the future of the organization. The other problem is that leader types tend to be egotistical and this is more easily noticed in circle as small as most cults.
That said, a cult can help people with certain mental/social problems like addiction and depression.
Testify wrote:I don't believe in God, but recently, having been translating the Gospel of John from the original Greek, I've been thinking about Christianity and what Jesus had to say about the world.
I'm still atheist, but I don't know...atheist Christian?
Might want to check out the Jefferson Bible. Thomas Jefferson excised all the supernatural bits from his, but still believed Jesus' teachings were the most sublime system of morality yet conceived.
Cheesecat wrote:Atheist, I don't like the idea putting my faith into something I can't prove.
That's why it's called faith.
Don't worry I'm aware of that.
To argue against putting your faith into something you can't prove would require you to be able to put faith into something you can. Which goes against that particular definition of faith.
That depends. Do you have an overpowering urge to obtain:
Or do you just have to point out the obvious, like this:
Or do you just want to go to the nearest jungle planet and live in a swamp?
I think there is a church of the jedi, actually. In England I think they are considering making it an actual religion.
On an unrelated note, I just burnt all the front of my hair starting the barbeque. Depending entirely on faith, we can see that as diving judgement for my IG shenanigans or bad luck. Or idiocy.
I think there is a church of the jedi, actually. In England I think they are considering making it an actual religion.
On an unrelated note, I just burnt all the front of my hair starting the barbeque. Depending entirely on faith, we can see that as diving judgement for my IG shenanigans or bad luck. Or idiocy.
Testify wrote:I don't believe in God, but recently, having been translating the Gospel of John from the original Greek, I've been thinking about Christianity and what Jesus had to say about the world.
I'm still atheist, but I don't know...atheist Christian?
Might want to check out the Jefferson Bible. Thomas Jefferson excised all the supernatural bits from his, but still believed Jesus' teachings were the most sublime system of morality yet conceived.
I think Atheist Christian is actually a thing. If I recall it basically reduced Christianity into a philosophy and you follow the morality of Jesus but don't put your faith into salvation. Kind of like a "If Jesus was Budha' kind of thing.
Testify wrote:I don't believe in God, but recently, having been translating the Gospel of John from the original Greek, I've been thinking about Christianity and what Jesus had to say about the world.
I'm still atheist, but I don't know...atheist Christian?
Might want to check out the Jefferson Bible. Thomas Jefferson excised all the supernatural bits from his, but still believed Jesus' teachings were the most sublime system of morality yet conceived.
I think Atheist Christian is actually a thing. If I recall it basically reduced Christianity into a philosophy and you follow the morality of Jesus but don't put your faith into salvation. Kind of like a "If Jesus was Budha' kind of thing.
Except, it's nothing like Buddhism I think it's more like, most people think you can either be spiritualist or materialist. Seems to me that we live in a material world, but viewed through our own consciousness becomes spiritual.
I don't think there's such a thing as God, on the other hand I do think there is more to the world than physical objects. Not spiritualism, more the warmth and insanity of human existance
Secular Humanist. ...Its a less complex way of saying Atheist who believes everything's survival of the fittest. He our symbol is the "Happy Human", doesn't that sound more pleasant than "thing they used to torture people to death"....Crucifix. XD
Testify wrote:I don't believe in God, but recently, having been translating the Gospel of John from the original Greek, I've been thinking about Christianity and what Jesus had to say about the world.
I'm still atheist, but I don't know...atheist Christian?
Might want to check out the Jefferson Bible. Thomas Jefferson excised all the supernatural bits from his, but still believed Jesus' teachings were the most sublime system of morality yet conceived.
I think Atheist Christian is actually a thing. If I recall it basically reduced Christianity into a philosophy and you follow the morality of Jesus but don't put your faith into salvation. Kind of like a "If Jesus was Budha' kind of thing.
Christian Atheism is indeed a thing. If I adhere to anything it would be Christian Atheism.
Testify wrote:I don't believe in God, but recently, having been translating the Gospel of John from the original Greek, I've been thinking about Christianity and what Jesus had to say about the world.
I'm still atheist, but I don't know...atheist Christian?
Might want to check out the Jefferson Bible. Thomas Jefferson excised all the supernatural bits from his, but still believed Jesus' teachings were the most sublime system of morality yet conceived.
I think Atheist Christian is actually a thing. If I recall it basically reduced Christianity into a philosophy and you follow the morality of Jesus but don't put your faith into salvation. Kind of like a "If Jesus was Budha' kind of thing.
Except, it's nothing like Buddhism
I was trying to compare it to Budhism in the sense of it being a religion based on the moral teachings of a person, not trying to compare the actual teachings of Budha or Jesus. Sorry if it came across differently.
Atheist. As in I cannot conceive of any intelligent being creating this world we live in, at least not with us in mind. Not because of some teenage 'the world is so dark' nonsense, because the world isn't that dark, but because the world is mainly just kind of random. I would have thought if there was a God then there'd be a little more order, or consistency to everything, not just the random grab bag of happenings that we try to make sense of.
That said, I am friends with a lot of religious people, and one of the things I like most about many of them is their faith, and how it informs how they see the world.
And I am very disappointing with how atheism in the last five or so years has swung so heavily away from just not believing to feeling a need to actively disparage the beliefs of others.
My view on religion is that anything we can come up with is inevitably wrong. The things that religion seeks to address are fundamentally beyond our comprehension. We are wired to hunt prey, reproduce, evade predators. Not puzzle out the nature of "god(s)". If there is any kind of higher power, deity, universal entity, it would be so utterly alien to us that we would never be able to wrap our tiny carbon-based minds around it. If we can think it and picture it in our minds, it's wrong. Any explanation for anything that we could ever come up with is so anthropomorphized that it is impossible for it to be the truth.
Example:
We know that there are dimensions beyond the three we know and live in, yet we cannot picture things in more than three dimensions. That is because you only have to be able to see a saber tooth tiger pouncing at you in three dimension to avoid it. Or see a wooly mammoth in three dimensions to throw a stick at it. There is no evolutionary advantage to us seeing the tiger or the mammoth in 5, 6, or 10 dimensions, otherwise we would be able to. That's not what we are wired for, and thus why we will never understand this crazy stuff.
youbedead wrote:I'm Jewish, closer to agnostic Judaism though. Any questions on Judaic teachings ask away
Do Jewish chicks put out easily?
It depends, Isreali chicks yeah, though don't piss em off. They will break you
Wasn't there a dude who lied about being Jewish to get in a girl's panties and got charged with rape? Yeah. I'll be sqeaky clean in my dealings with the ladies of the chosen people
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Khornholio wrote:No flamewar by page three?! What has happened to Dakka?
Every other website claims that Dakka is the 4chan of wargaming sites. Honestly? Since I've been here, I've never really saw anything so bad. Belloflostsoul is crappier IMHO. I'd put a price on Eldargal's head if I was wealthier
youbedead wrote:I'm Jewish, closer to agnostic Judaism though. Any questions on Judaic teachings ask away
Do Jewish chicks put out easily?
It depends, Isreali chicks yeah, though don't piss em off. They will break you
Wasn't there a dude who lied about being Jewish to get in a girl's panties and got charged with rape? Yeah. I'll be sqeaky clean in my dealings with the ladies of the chosen people
That's the least of his worries, remember they all carry assault rifles and know at least 10 different ways to make you balls explode
Kovnik Obama wrote:
Every other website claims that Dakka is the 4chan of wargaming sites. Honestly? Since I've been here, I've never really saw anything so bad. Belloflostsoul is crappier IMHO. I'd put a price on Eldargal's head if I was wealthier
Kovnik Obama wrote:
Every other website claims that Dakka is the 4chan of wargaming sites. Honestly? Since I've been here, I've never really saw anything so bad. Belloflostsoul is crappier IMHO. I'd put a price on Eldargal's head if I was wealthier
There are only two gods I worship: money and science.
I believe it is a logical certainty that all the world's religions are wrong and that if there is an intelligent creator, it was merely a creator and has no powers over life after death. I also believe that such a god has not ever interacted with (or is not even aware of) humanity.
Kovnik Obama wrote:
Every other website claims that Dakka is the 4chan of wargaming sites. Honestly? Since I've been here, I've never really saw anything so bad. Belloflostsoul is crappier IMHO. I'd put a price on Eldargal's head if I was wealthier
Search "Gailbraithe" or "Stelek".
Seriously? 2 donkey-cave suffice to give an entire forum a bad reputation? Wow, must have been real donkey-caves.
I knew of Stelek. I've red a few of his 'battlereports' on his site, and anyone ever having to face that dude in a comp goes straight to heaven.
Gailbraithe and his infamous slogan are news to me. I'll do some digging
Kovnik Obama wrote:
Every other website claims that Dakka is the 4chan of wargaming sites. Honestly? Since I've been here, I've never really saw anything so bad. Belloflostsoul is crappier IMHO. I'd put a price on Eldargal's head if I was wealthier
Search "Gailbraithe" or "Stelek".
Seriously? 2 donkey-cave suffice to give an entire forum a bad reputation? Wow, must have been real donkey-caves.
I knew of Stelek. I've red a few of his 'battlereports' on his site, and anyone ever having to face that dude in a comp goes straight to heaven.
Gailbraithe and his infamous slogan are news to me. I'll do some digging
To venture down that path is to venture down the path of madness, ye shall encounter abyssal terrors the like of which you have never seen, may god have mercy upon your soul.
Kovnik Obama wrote:
Seriously? 2 donkey-cave suffice to give an entire forum a bad reputation? Wow, must have been real donkey-caves.
There have been others. GWAR! might be a worthwhile search as well, there was also some guy (whose handle escapes me) that used to rant about how having an MA and teaching at community college made him a unique intellectual snowflake.
There's also Drew Riggio and Snord, but that was the old website. Though, honestly, a lot of the stuff from the old site is likely what lead to the present site's reputation.
Kovnik Obama wrote:Wasn't there a dude who lied about being Jewish to get in a girl's panties and got charged with rape? Yeah. I'll be sqeaky clean in my dealings with the ladies of the chosen people
It was in Israel. He was Palestinian. And he wasn't just charged, he was convicted and served 18 months for the crime.
dogma wrote:There have been others. GWAR! might be a worthwhile search as well, there was also some guy (whose handle escapes me) that used to rant about how having an MA and teaching at community college made him a unique intellectual snowflake.
There's also Drew Riggio and Snord, but that was the old website. Though, honestly, a lot of the stuff from the old site is likely what lead to the present site's reputation.
Oh well. I spend half my life in classes where the students beleive they'll revolutionnize the world of philosophy..
Anyway, thanks, that's gotta be a few nightshifts worth of hilariousness. Any hint as to where I might find the 'blame the victim' origin?
Kovnik Obama wrote:
Every other website claims that Dakka is the 4chan of wargaming sites. Honestly? Since I've been here, I've never really saw anything so bad. Belloflostsoul is crappier IMHO. I'd put a price on Eldargal's head if I was wealthier
Search "Gailbraithe" or "Stelek".
Seriously? 2 donkey-cave suffice to give an entire forum a bad reputation? Wow, must have been real donkey-caves.
I knew of Stelek. I've red a few of his 'battlereports' on his site, and anyone ever having to face that dude in a comp goes straight to heaven.
Gailbraithe and his infamous slogan are news to me. I'll do some digging
To venture down that path is to venture down the path of madness, ye shall encounter abyssal terrors the like of which you have never seen, may god have mercy upon your soul.
Woohoo!
I love me some fascistswinepigswine victim blaming, Gailbraithe style!
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Kovnik Obama wrote:
dogma wrote:There have been others. GWAR! might be a worthwhile search as well, there was also some guy (whose handle escapes me) that used to rant about how having an MA and teaching at community college made him a unique intellectual snowflake.
There's also Drew Riggio and Snord, but that was the old website. Though, honestly, a lot of the stuff from the old site is likely what lead to the present site's reputation.
Oh well. I spend half my life in classes where the students beleive they'll revolutionnize the world of philosophy..
Anyway, thanks, that's gotta be a few nightshifts worth of hilariousness. Any hint as to where I might find the 'blame the victim' origin?
I do think that legendary thread was stricken from the records. A shame, it was my favorite!
dogma wrote:There have been others. GWAR! might be a worthwhile search as well, there was also some guy (whose handle escapes me) that used to rant about how having an MA and teaching at community college made him a unique intellectual snowflake.
There's also Drew Riggio and Snord, but that was the old website. Though, honestly, a lot of the stuff from the old site is likely what lead to the present site's reputation.
Oh well. I spend half my life in classes where the students beleive they'll revolutionnize the world of philosophy..
Anyway, thanks, that's gotta be a few nightshifts worth of hilariousness. Any hint as to where I might find the 'blame the victim' origin?
Philosophy is fun and engaging and all (although I'm existentialist myself), but just because you have your own private thoughts doesn't make you some prodigy who knows how to solve all the metaphysical problems in the world.
Of course, deconstructing an argument by such an individual is great fun.
Kovnik Obama wrote:
Oh well. I spend half my life in classes where the students beleive they'll revolutionnize the world of philosophy..
My test was always "You probably won't be a Kripke."
If they knew who Kripke is, I would take them seriously. If not, they got the "I'm bored." spiel.
Feth you didn't go easy on them! But I guess it's a crime to have taken epistemology classes and not knowing intuitionnistic logic.
Oh and it's true. I don't know anyone who'll be a Kripke, a Whitehead or a Wittgenstein, myself included. On the other hand, I'd like to write readable books.
dogma wrote:There have been others. GWAR! might be a worthwhile search as well, there was also some guy (whose handle escapes me) that used to rant about how having an MA and teaching at community college made him a unique intellectual snowflake.
There's also Drew Riggio and Snord, but that was the old website. Though, honestly, a lot of the stuff from the old site is likely what lead to the present site's reputation.
Oh well. I spend half my life in classes where the students beleive they'll revolutionnize the world of philosophy..
Anyway, thanks, that's gotta be a few nightshifts worth of hilariousness. Any hint as to where I might find the 'blame the victim' origin?
A) That was marvelous. Special mention to Rubiksnoob for the ''whatever, just throw them a lolcat and leave'' comment.
B) I want a cat snuggie for my cat.
C) We should really feel ashamed for causing the holocaust.
D) Frazz was a mod?!?
Thanks again guys! That was a freakout for the ages!
Kovnik Obama wrote:A) That was marvelous. Special mention to Rubiksnoob for the ''whatever, just throw them a lolcat and leave'' comment.
B) I want a cat snuggie for my cat.
C) We should really feel ashamed for causing the holocaust.
D) Frazz was a mod?!?
Thanks again guys! That was a freakout for the ages!
He's made appearances in other forums as well, he was on brassgoogles until he was banned for freaking the feth out about furry's, I believe he had a similar furry freak-out on this board as well, though I cant remember what it was from
I'm an Atheist. I don't beleive in any gods or anything supernatural. To me all supernatural and religious experiences are false, and can be proven to be through investigation. I don't have anything against anyone beleiving in a religion however, it's up to them, I just wish more people looked at all the evidence available to them before making an informed decision instead of just going on what their parents or similar figure told them was true when they were younger.
redbristles wrote:I'm an Atheist. I don't beleive in any gods or anything supernatural. To me all supernatural and religious experiences are false, and can be proven to be through investigation. I don't have anything against anyone beleiving in a religion however, it's up to them, I just wish more people looked at all the evidence available to them before making an informed decision instead of just going on what their parents or similar figure told them was true when they were younger.
Alright, this does kind if annoy me.
Note this is not directed at you, but there are many atheists that preach the glories of science and then in the same breath say that you can disprove a supernatural being. As a scientist that fething pisses me off because it show a deep, deep misunderstanding of the scientific method and process. You can state that there is not ample evidence to prove a supernatural being but you can't state that a lack of evidence disproves it. It would be like saying that a man is innocent because there was insufficient evidence to prove his guilt. All it shows is that the prosecution didn't present sufficient evidence and is completely separate from his actual innocence of a crime.
redbristles wrote:I'm an Atheist. I don't beleive in any gods or anything supernatural. To me all supernatural and religious experiences are false, and can be proven to be through investigation. I don't have anything against anyone beleiving in a religion however, it's up to them, I just wish more people looked at all the evidence available to them before making an informed decision instead of just going on what their parents or similar figure told them was true when they were younger.
Alright, this does kind if annoy me.
Note this is not directed at you, but there are many atheists that preach the glories of science and then in the same breath say that you can disprove a supernatural being. As a scientist that fething pisses me off because it show a deep, deep misunderstanding of the scientific method and process. You can state that there is not ample evidence to prove a supernatural being but you can't state that a lack of evidence disproves it. It would be like saying that a man is innocent because there was insufficient evidence to prove his guilt. All it shows is that the prosecution didn't present sufficient evidence and is completely separate from his actual innocence of a crime.
I'm a scientist too. I didn't mean that really, I was more referring to when people come along and claim to have experienced something supernatural. Such as being visited by a spirit, or hearing from a god. These things can be given a perfectly rational explanation.
Although you are always considered innocent until proven otherwise, and usually in science you can form a hypothesis but should normally assume a negative until the evidence indicates otherwise.
I'm an atheist, always have been. There's no mystical energy field that controls my destiny.
I don't mind theists at all, they are everywhere after all. But what I don't like are the ones that use it to justify their prejudice. And sadly, naming no names, there are a couple of rabidly homophobic posters on Dakka who always pollute every thread that touches on the topic using the most disgusting language. These people ruin any sort of debate that can be had between theists and atheists , and the subject of religious rights, because they are so revolting and extreme.
Howard A Treesong wrote:Although you are always considered innocent until proven otherwise, and usually in science you can form a hypothesis but should normally assume a negative until the evidence indicates otherwise.
I'm an atheist, always have been. There's no mystical energy field that controls my destiny.
I don't mind theists at all, they are everywhere after all. But what I don't like are the ones that use it to justify their prejudice. And sadly, naming no names, there are a couple of rabidly homophobic posters on Dakka who always pollute every thread that touches on the topic using the most disgusting language. These people ruin any sort of debate that can be had between theists and atheists , and the subject of religious rights, because they are so revolting and extreme.
In the US court system you are not innocent until proven guilty, you are not-guilty until proven guilty. In order for you to be found innocent of a crime then you have have to request a letter of factual innocence from the judicial, legislative or executive branches of either your local or in some cases national government. As for the second, you should try to not assume anything and base any assumptions or conclusions on observations and data. Insufficient data to prove X does not mean X has been disproved, it only means you can'y prove X.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Palindrome wrote:Gailbraithe has to have been a troll. If not he evidentally had serious issues.
No the man was genuine, and as I said before, yeah he had some serious issues
Palindrome wrote:He looks like a professional troll to me. Someone who has been doing that for so long and in such a wide variety of places has to be a troll.
It took a friend of mine about 5 seconds to find his real name and address when he graced these hallowed pages. If he was a troll, he was an awful one.
Dreadwinter wrote:I believe that something created the universe, but I do not believe that thing to be a deity of any sort.
So what created the thing that created the universe?
Or do you just not want to use the name deity to describe something that is effectively a deity?
I do not want to call it a deity because whatever created the universe is not a deity. I am thinking something like a machine, a person built a machine that made the universe. Something like that. Think computer program.
And yes, as Dogma said, it is pretty much an infinite loop. Something created the thing that created us and one day I am sure we will create a universe of our own. (WAAAAAAY down the line and it might not even be us)
But the argument of "what created the thing that created the universe?" can also be applied to God or Gods.
Dreadwinter wrote:I believe that something created the universe, but I do not believe that thing to be a deity of any sort.
So what created the thing that created the universe?
Or do you just not want to use the name deity to describe something that is effectively a deity?
I do not want to call it a deity because whatever created the universe is not a deity. I am thinking something like a machine, a person built a machine that made the universe. Something like that. Think computer program.
And yes, as Dogma said, it is pretty much an infinite loop. Something created the thing that created us and one day I am sure we will create a universe of our own. (WAAAAAAY down the line and it might not even be us)
But the argument of "what created the thing that created the universe?" can also be applied to God or Gods.
'it's turtles all the way down'
Though the answer to both questions of 'what came before' are pretty much the same. Nothing. In the case of no god then the universe had no before, as spacetime had not yet been created so there was nothing before the singularity as the concept of before didn't exist. If god created the universe then before the creation he had yet to create time so there was no concept of before.
youbedead wrote:But the argument of "what created the thing that created the universe?" can also be applied to God or Gods.
To God it cannot be applied, because outside of our reality there is no sense of time or timeline... God simply is.
How can you be satisfied with your belief system? It is an impossibility. All things in time must have a beginning, though they do not need an end. How did this cycle start? I guess your idea of reality would be possible if reality started at a point in time, and then we started living history forward and others started living it backwards...
Do you believe these "machines" are governed by the laws of science as we know them?
@deadwinter: to be honest, it actually cannot be applied to a god; I had this problem for a number of years, but as people have stated, a God who created time by definition resides outside of time; as such there is no need for it to have a beginning because it doesn't function under the 'time-laws' of our universe.
Okay... honestly... who DIDN'T do what I did yesterday...
I was working outside and knicked my knee.. blood was rivuletting down my legs and I shouted "BLOOD! BLOOD FOR THE BLOOD GAWD!". Scared the crap outta my two boyz (they knew what I was doing )
c'mon... fess up... you know you did this at one point in your life.
Atheist, and getting more evidence for it each time I attend any religious event.
It's goign to cause problems when I get called into court, because I refuse to swear on the ramblings of a lunatic text that simultaneously takes two opposing views on what is morally correct.
poda_t wrote:Atheist, and getting more evidence for it each time I attend any religious event.
It's goign to cause problems when I get called into court, because I refuse to swear on the ramblings of a lunatic text that simultaneously takes two opposing views on what is morally correct.
I think swearing on the bible is merely a tradition now, plenty of people don't take the oath seriously.
Lots of people take oaths seriously. Some religions specifically forbid taking them, too.
poda_t wrote:Atheist, and getting more evidence for it each time I attend any religious event.
It's goign to cause problems when I get called into court, because I refuse to swear on the ramblings of a lunatic text that simultaneously takes two opposing views on what is morally correct.
In the US you can Affirm instead. You should certainly be able to do it in Canada, too, since the right to do so in place of swearing an oath has existed in English law since 1695.
youbedead wrote:But the argument of "what created the thing that created the universe?" can also be applied to God or Gods.
To God it cannot be applied, because outside of our reality there is no sense of time or timeline... God simply is.
Yeah, cause that doesn't sound implausible at all...
As I said before the same thing applies to the big bang, before there was a universe there was no space and therefore there is no time. The 'before' the universe period didn't exist because the concept of time didn't exist. Time itself began with the big bang
Mannahnin wrote:Lots of people take oaths seriously. Some religions specifically forbid taking them, too.
poda_t wrote:Atheist, and getting more evidence for it each time I attend any religious event.
It's goign to cause problems when I get called into court, because I refuse to swear on the ramblings of a lunatic text that simultaneously takes two opposing views on what is morally correct.
In the US you can Affirm instead. You should certainly be able to do it in Canada, too, since the right to do so in place of swearing an oath has existed in English law since 1695.
you'd think and or hope so. I've been working my job well enough for the past 6 years. I go in and see the clerk at the counter when I'm trying to file stuff, and she's been aroudn for 6 months... I'm trying to tell her she needs to certify the order, she's telling me orders don't get certified. Ignore the fact that I've been having orders certified for the past 6 years. I've also seen clerks insist that one needs to swear an affidavit on the bible. And proceed to insist on it after every person in the lineup has verified that you can in fact also use other religious texts. 20 minutes and a supervisor later, the quran was produced from the shelf. The one that held the bible there..... we had another judge tell our client with chronic pain to go see a chinese accupuncturist, because, he had his back pain solved after one visit.............. Sure, we have the justice system, that took centuries of practice and great minds to pull together and build up, but it only takes one iddiot to invalidate all the effort.
Mannahnin wrote:Lots of people take oaths seriously. Some religions specifically forbid taking them, too.
poda_t wrote:Atheist, and getting more evidence for it each time I attend any religious event.
It's goign to cause problems when I get called into court, because I refuse to swear on the ramblings of a lunatic text that simultaneously takes two opposing views on what is morally correct.
In the US you can Affirm instead. You should certainly be able to do it in Canada, too, since the right to do so in place of swearing an oath has existed in English law since 1695.
you'd think and or hope so. I've been working my job well enough for the past 6 years. I go in and see the clerk at the counter when I'm trying to file stuff, and she's been aroudn for 6 months... I'm trying to tell her she needs to certify the order, she's telling me orders don't get certified. Ignore the fact that I've been having orders certified for the past 6 years. I've also seen clerks insist that one needs to swear an affidavit on the bible. And proceed to insist on it after every person in the lineup has verified that you can in fact also use other religious texts. 20 minutes and a supervisor later, the quran was produced from the shelf. The one that held the bible there..... we had another judge tell our client with chronic pain to go see a chinese accupuncturist, because, he had his back pain solved after one visit.............. Sure, we have the justice system, that took centuries of practice and great minds to pull together and build up, but it only takes one idiot to invalidate all the effort.
I would argue it takes at least twelves idiots, depending on which idiot you blame.
youbedead wrote:But the argument of "what created the thing that created the universe?" can also be applied to God or Gods.
To God it cannot be applied, because outside of our reality there is no sense of time or timeline... God simply is.
This could be one of the worst arguments ever applied. "God simply is." does not get a point across at all. You have not shown me any evidence or proof. He is simply there? No thanks.
walker90234 wrote:@deadwinter: to be honest, it actually cannot be applied to a god; I had this problem for a number of years, but as people have stated, a God who created time by definition resides outside of time; as such there is no need for it to have a beginning because it doesn't function under the 'time-laws' of our universe.
Why can it not be applied to god? If God were to exist, Time would have had to be in place before he was brought in to being. Nothing can exist without time, not even your god.
youbedead wrote:But the argument of "what created the thing that created the universe?" can also be applied to God or Gods.
To God it cannot be applied, because outside of our reality there is no sense of time or timeline... God simply is.
This could be one of the worst arguments ever applied. "God simply is." does not get a point across at all. You have not shown me any evidence or proof. He is simply there? No thanks.
walker90234 wrote:@deadwinter: to be honest, it actually cannot be applied to a god; I had this problem for a number of years, but as people have stated, a God who created time by definition resides outside of time; as such there is no need for it to have a beginning because it doesn't function under the 'time-laws' of our universe.
Why can it not be applied to god? If God were to exist, Time would have had to be in place before he was brought in to being. Nothing can exist without time, not even your god.
Because time=space if you make the assumption that god created space then it follows he created time. It is as I have said repeatedly the exact same argument for why there need not be anything before the big bang space=time, no space no time
youbedead wrote:But the argument of "what created the thing that created the universe?" can also be applied to God or Gods.
To God it cannot be applied, because outside of our reality there is no sense of time or timeline... God simply is.
This could be one of the worst arguments ever applied. "God simply is." does not get a point across at all. You have not shown me any evidence or proof. He is simply there? No thanks.
[according to Christianity as I understand it]
God created time and he exists outside of it. There is no sense of time outside of what we know as reality. There is no argument here. God does not exist in what we understand time to be and thus does not have a beginning nor an end, and needs no creator to exist.
Also, (this kind of is cheap to include in a discussion but...) God did not create us to understand his complexity and nature, the Bible says no one truly understands God.
Also Dogma, please elaborate. I'm not saying you're wrong I'm just saying that I don't understand how you come to that conclusion. I see it as a chain of dominoes, where there has to be a beginning to the chain, yet you could set them up forever and have a chain that goes on forever - starting when you set the off.
poda_t wrote:Atheist, and getting more evidence for it each time I attend any religious event.
It's goign to cause problems when I get called into court, because I refuse to swear on the ramblings of a lunatic text that simultaneously takes two opposing views on what is morally correct.
In Australia they give you the option of swearing on the bible, or making a declaration.
Most people just go with the bible one because it's shorter and easier.
Dreadwinter wrote:
This could be one of the worst arguments ever applied. "God simply is." does not get a point across at all. You have not shown me any evidence or proof. He is simply there? No thanks.
xxx wrote:This could be one of the worst arguments ever applied. "God simply is." does not get a point across at all. You have not shown me any evidence or proof. He is simply there? No thanks.
Show me evidence or proof.
Of anything.
Could we not make this another unending debate thread? It's cool if people want to explain why they believe that they believe, but this thread was a lot more friendly and novel before people started calling each other out and picking fights.
If we could get it back on track that'd be great, thanks.
I'm an apathetist, with the exception that I think there's an interest in developping one's argumentative skills, and that the God debate is an excellent way to do that.
The Bringer wrote:
Also Dogma, please elaborate. I'm not saying you're wrong I'm just saying that I don't understand how you come to that conclusion. I see it as a chain of dominoes, where there has to be a beginning to the chain, yet you could set them up forever and have a chain that goes on forever - starting when you set the off.
Well, my immediate contention would be that its impossible for absolute nothingness to exist, and that when we use the term "nothing" we're generally doing so relatively. For example, if I say there is nothing in a box I mean "nothing relevant" as even an "empty box contains air. Similarly, I generally have found that when people say there was nothing before the universe as we know it existed, they really mean "Nothing like the universe as we know it." which is actually a reasonable position to take for a number of reasons.
But, to elaborate, a beginning is also an end to whatever state existed prior to the beginning. To use your domino analogy there was once a time when there were no dominoes, and once the first domino appeared, or began to exist, the time when there were no dominoes ended. This is important because it demonstrates that no series of events, or state of being, can truly be infinite as we have already introduced a bound (the beginning/end event), and established that there exist conditions which disrupt the "normal" functioning of reality.
A lot of people find this confusing, which is fair because "infinite" is actually a pretty difficult concept, but the basic idea is that once you introduce a single end point when discussing the universe as a whole it becomes logically impossible for the universe, or anything else, to go on forever.
Kovnik Obama wrote:In the spirit of what Mannahnin said,
I'm an apathetist, with the exception that I think there's an interest in developping one's argumentative skills, and that the God debate is an excellent way to do that.
I also like to debate (as long as it is friendly) because quite often you will be asked questions by non-believers (or believers who have doubts) that force you to go back and take another look at your faith. Debating people has helped my faith mature.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
xole wrote:I'm starting to become a donkey-cave theist, which means that I just like to argue with people without actually expressing my own views.
I've been thinking about starting a cult, if anyone is interested.
Almost sounds like the Church of Trolling .
But there is a purpose to debating without having an endpoint in mind as well though.
I'm an ordained universalist minister, all faiths are a valid path to the divine. It's all based on you and your personal perception of the universe even within the bigger faiths like Catholicism.
The Bringer wrote:
Also Dogma, please elaborate. I'm not saying you're wrong I'm just saying that I don't understand how you come to that conclusion. I see it as a chain of dominoes, where there has to be a beginning to the chain, yet you could set them up forever and have a chain that goes on forever - starting when you set the off.
Well, my immediate contention would be that its impossible for absolute nothingness to exist, and that when we use the term "nothing" we're generally doing so relatively. For example, if I say there is nothing in a box I mean "nothing relevant" as even an "empty box contains air. Similarly, I generally have found that when people say there was nothing before the universe as we know it existed, they really mean "Nothing like the universe as we know it." which is actually a reasonable position to take for a number of reasons.
But, to elaborate, a beginning is also an end to whatever state existed prior to the beginning. To use your domino analogy there was once a time when there were no dominoes, and once the first domino appeared, or began to exist, the time when there were no dominoes ended. This is important because it demonstrates that no series of events, or state of being, can truly be infinite as we have already introduced a bound (the beginning/end event), and established that there exist conditions which disrupt the "normal" functioning of reality.
A lot of people find this confusing, which is fair because "infinite" is actually a pretty difficult concept, but the basic idea is that once you introduce a single end point when discussing the universe as a whole it becomes logically impossible for the universe, or anything else, to go on forever.
Unless the event created it's own parameters, as I've said it is possible to literally have nothing before the beginning of the universe, because the creation of the universe entailed the creations of time. before the big bang (or the first day) nothing existed beforehand because time itself didn't exist, So there was no before, once the big bang happened then space time expanded infinitely. You could say that after the big bang then the universe can be treated as not having a beginning as space-time is expanding into the future and into the past simultaneously, so the current universe has no end and no beginning. (It does, just not one that we can ever observe though)
xole wrote:I'm starting to become a donkey-cave theist, which means that I just like to argue with people without actually expressing my own views.
I've been thinking about starting a cult, if anyone is interested.
Actually, I think a 40k cult might be fun.
I knew a guy who switched religions depending on who he was talking to.
"Oh, you're a Christian? Well I'm Scientologist. Have you considered letting the Church into your life? We could definitely help with your Thetan levels."
"Oh, you're a Scientologist? Well I'm a Jehovah's Witness. Have you considered letting Christ into your life?"
"Oh, you're an atheist? Well I'm Hindi. Have you considered letting Vishnu into your life?"
xole wrote:I'm starting to become a donkey-cave theist, which means that I just like to argue with people without actually expressing my own views.
I've been thinking about starting a cult, if anyone is interested.
Actually, I think a 40k cult might be fun.
I knew a guy who switched religions depending on who he was talking to.
"Oh, you're a Christian? Well I'm Scientologist. Have you considered letting the Church into your life? We could definitely help with your Thetan levels."
"Oh, you're a Scientologist? Well I'm a Jehovah's Witness. Have you considered letting Christ into your life?"
"Oh, you're an atheist? Well I'm Hindi. Have you considered letting Vishnu into your life?"
youbedead wrote:
Unless the event created it's own parameters, as I've said it is possible to literally have nothing before the beginning of the universe, because the creation of the universe entailed the creations of time.
At which point terms like "before" have no meaning.
You're basically just talking about an infinite series.
youbedead wrote:But the argument of "what created the thing that created the universe?" can also be applied to God or Gods.
To God it cannot be applied, because outside of our reality there is no sense of time or timeline... God simply is.
This could be one of the worst arguments ever applied. "God simply is." does not get a point across at all. You have not shown me any evidence or proof. He is simply there? No thanks.
[according to Christianity as I understand it]
God created time and he exists outside of it. There is no sense of time outside of what we know as reality. There is no argument here. God does not exist in what we understand time to be and thus does not have a beginning nor an end, and needs no creator to exist.
Oh yeah, I forgot the bible has one of those weird Plot Device/Deus Ex Machina systems going on.
Well, that completely disproves my theory, it says so in the book.
<-- PS: Finally hit 1k Posts, I am a real boy now!
xole wrote:I'm starting to become a donkey-cave theist, which means that I just like to argue with people without actually expressing my own views.
I've been thinking about starting a cult, if anyone is interested.
Actually, I think a 40k cult might be fun.
I knew a guy who switched religions depending on who he was talking to.
"Oh, you're a Christian? Well I'm Scientologist. Have you considered letting the Church into your life? We could definitely help with your Thetan levels."
"Oh, you're a Scientologist? Well I'm a Jehovah's Witness. Have you considered letting Christ into your life?"
"Oh, you're an atheist? Well I'm Hindi. Have you considered letting Vishnu into your life?"
I should store this somewhere.
That's awesome
Reminds me of a story my dad would tell me...
Whenever a Jehovah's Witness would knock on the door, he'd invite them in EVERYTIME.
He's a good sport... he'll sit there and listen to what they have to say and offer drinks/snacks.
Then, he'll get out a can of sardines, open it up and eat it right in front of them (??!?!)... says "This is what I worship... nothing beats a good can".
First time I heard this... I was like.. .Wha-what? o.O it's so off the wall, how do you address that?
Eventually, they got the message... bless 'em, they're persistent.
I'm an Atheist. Or a "Secular Humanist" as I tell the Christians. Seems to make them less intolerant.
I don't believe in anything spiritual (though I do quite like Buhdist teachings nonetheless.) I think given enough time, science could explain everything, because as far as I'm concerned, everything happens in the natural world.
Also I think space exploration is the most important thing we can do as a species, and that's a big part of my life as well.
Sometimes I just don't get why people have to "search for something deeper/greater" in life. It's all around us. Look up at the night sky, or the latest picture sent back from Curiosity, or even just some mold on a piece of bread, and realize how special our existence is. That all of this happened without some form of intelligent design is a beautiful thing indeed.
I'm not an atheist, there might be a God, there is feth all evidence for it, but you never know.
But I am an anti-theist.
Basically, I don't much care if there is a God or not, but I properly fething hate devoutly Religious people.
Muslims first, followed by Christians and Jews, and then everyone else.
I must also point out that I don't hate normal Religious people, the wishy washy "each to their own" types that are most common in the world. I don't class them as Religious. A "Muslim" that drinks beer, watches football and eats bacon ain't a fething Muslim as far as I'm concerned.. same with all these lapsed Catholics. If you use contraception and like gay people, as far as I'm concerned your a wishy washy fence sitter and thus we can be friends.
But devout?
Then I hate you, because you are helping to seriously feth the world up, and deep down, you must know it. Iron rules make it inevitable. How can you ever be really fair, or really just, or really impartial, when there is a text you dogmatically follow that demands you act in a certain way?
Gays, lesbians, women, kids, and almost everyone else who doesn't happen to share your Religion of choice would be far far better off if dogmatic Religious zealots didn't exist, and it is clearly impossible to refute the claim. A cursory glance at any of their scriptures contains enough xenophobia and hatred to make me vomit, I don't care how much of the good stuff people cherry pick, they are packed to the rafter with divisive hate as well.
Its just another divide, another reason to hate those different from yourself, and its not like angry apes need much of an excuse in the first place.
mattyrm wrote:Gays, lesbians, women, kids, and almost everyone else who doesn't happen to share your Religion of choice would be far far better off if dogmatic Religious zealots didn't exist, and it is clearly impossible to refute the claim. A cursory glance at any of their scriptures contains enough xenophobia and hatred to make me vomit, I don't care how much of the good stuff people cherry pick, they are packed to the rafter with divisive hate as well.
I refute your claim, as it is clearly possible to do.
I don't care if my neighbor is lesbian or not, I don't care if my neighbor is an atheist or not. I don't care if they disagree with my beliefs or not. And the Bible isn't filled with this so called hate that you claim it is filled with. We are called to love people regardless of their choices in life, mattrym. Saying what you say so strongly doesn't make it any more correct. I am not a cherry-picking Christian, I accept the entirety of Scriptures, and I dislike those who do cherry pick.
I cannot argue that there are many Christians who fail to honor the Lord's commandment to love their neighbor as theirself...
In the eyes of God all sins are of the same weight, and thus the homosexual is not worse nor better than the slanderer, or the murderer, or the thief... and I see things the same way.
You might say it is unfair to call homosexuality sinful because some people are born with homosexual tendencies, just like others are born with heterosexual tendencies. I do not disagree that different people are born with different sexual orientations. Sin is common to all man, and so the person born with homosexual tendencies is just like the man born with impatience or hateful tendencies. There is no discrimination against the homosexuality as a sin anywhere in the Bible, it is regarded as another sin and is treated as such throughout the Bible with the utmost consistency.
edit: I would just like to let you know that I am not excited or mad, and I only spoke using stronger language because of your strong claim.
Bringer makes a good point, most hate caused by the devout of the Jehovah family of faiths (Judeism, Christianity and Islam) is the individual in question twisting faith to fit their own intolerant and hate filled attitudes. There's no justification for suicide bombing in the Koran, but if some evil jackass can manipulate illiterate shepherd's sons to /think/ there is then really what's the difference?
One of the more illuminating conversations I had on Islam was with a fellow Marine. The man himself was a practicing muslim and I asked him what he thought about the whole mess overseas. He explained to me that the terrorists and other certain unsavory aspects of the Islamic faith had about as much correlation to the actual Muslim faith as the Westboro Baptist Church did to the non fethed up portions of Christianity.
The Bringer wrote:I am not a cherry-picking Christian, I accept the entirety of Scriptures, and I dislike those who do cherry pick.
Does this mean you believe in Genesis? *rubs hands together* This could be fun I respect you more than other christians who cherry-pick for the fact that you accept it's either all true or we can't take any of it seriously, however if you do believe in genesis then suddenly my respect evaporates once again. Prepare to be converted to agnosticism
TheBringer, why is homosexuality a sin? It's not a choice and it hurts no one. Do you think the Bible is rational when it says sodomy is an abomination and calls for killing gay people?
I'm not an atheist, there might be a God, there is feth all evidence for it, but you never know.
But I am an anti-theist.
Basically, I don't much care if there is a God or not, but I properly fething hate devoutly Religious people.
Muslims first, followed by Christians and Jews, and then everyone else.
I must also point out that I don't hate normal Religious people, the wishy washy "each to their own" types that are most common in the world. I don't class them as Religious. A "Muslim" that drinks beer, watches football and eats bacon ain't a fething Muslim as far as I'm concerned.. same with all these lapsed Catholics. If you use contraception and like gay people, as far as I'm concerned your a wishy washy fence sitter and thus we can be friends.
But devout?
Then I hate you, because you are helping to seriously feth the world up, and deep down, you must know it. Iron rules make it inevitable. How can you ever be really fair, or really just, or really impartial, when there is a text you dogmatically follow that demands you act in a certain way?
Gays, lesbians, women, kids, and almost everyone else who doesn't happen to share your Religion of choice would be far far better off if dogmatic Religious zealots didn't exist, and it is clearly impossible to refute the claim. A cursory glance at any of their scriptures contains enough xenophobia and hatred to make me vomit, I don't care how much of the good stuff people cherry pick, they are packed to the rafter with divisive hate as well.
Its just another divide, another reason to hate those different from yourself, and its not like angry apes need much of an excuse in the first place.
How the feth can that possibly be a good thing?
I'm surprised I'm saying this again, but I totally agree.
There are plenty of pleasent Religous people, but sure as hell, there are still far more sly and passive aggressive Religous.
The Bringer wrote: I am not a cherry-picking Christian, I accept the entirety of Scriptures, and I dislike those who do cherry pick.
Oh boy, I hope you don't wear cotton/polyester blends. . . that's a sin!
Hence my easy win!
feth me.. there must be literally thousands of demonstrably insane gak in there! I cant be arsed looking for the best ones, but even off the top of head there are some absolute pearlers!
What about, people who have flat noses cannot go to the altar of God?
KalashnikovMarine wrote:Bringer makes a good point, most hate caused by the devout of the Jehovah family of faiths (Judeism, Christianity and Islam) is the individual in question twisting faith to fit their own intolerant and hate filled attitudes. There's no justification for suicide bombing in the Koran, but if some evil jackass can manipulate illiterate shepherd's sons to /think/ there is then really what's the difference?
One of the more illuminating conversations I had on Islam was with a fellow Marine. The man himself was a practicing muslim and I asked him what he thought about the whole mess overseas. He explained to me that the terrorists and other certain unsavory aspects of the Islamic faith had about as much correlation to the actual Muslim faith as the Westboro Baptist Church did to the non fethed up portions of Christianity.
I must respectfully disagree.
(Quran 9:30)"And the Jews say: Uzair is the son of Allah; and the Christians say: The Messiah is the son of Allah; these are the words of their mouths; they imitate the saying of those who disbelieved before; may Allah destroy them; how they are turned away!"
This is merely one of many, and this is actually one of the nicer verses as it doesn't call Muslims to violence, it merely asks Allah to kill them.
(Quran 17:16) "And when We would destroy a township We send commandment to its folk who live at ease, and afterward they commit abomination therein, and so the Word (of doom) hath effect for it, and we annihilate it with complete annihilation. "
It should be noticed that before 9/11 Osama Bin Laden issued a call for Americans to join Islam.
Anyone who claims that Islam is a "Religion of Peace" know nothing about Islam and have clearly never read the Qur'an.
It is a warlike Religion, like most of them lets be honest!
The only good fortune for us is that the majority of so called "Muslims" do not practice Islam properly and happily ignore large parts of their holy book.
KalashnikovMarine wrote:Bringer makes a good point, most hate caused by the devout of the Jehovah family of faiths (Judeism, Christianity and Islam) is the individual in question twisting faith to fit their own intolerant and hate filled attitudes. There's no justification for suicide bombing in the Koran, but if some evil jackass can manipulate illiterate shepherd's sons to /think/ there is then really what's the difference?
One of the more illuminating conversations I had on Islam was with a fellow Marine. The man himself was a practicing muslim and I asked him what he thought about the whole mess overseas. He explained to me that the terrorists and other certain unsavory aspects of the Islamic faith had about as much correlation to the actual Muslim faith as the Westboro Baptist Church did to the non fethed up portions of Christianity.
Actually, the extremists claims to Islam are just as legitimate as apologists and moderates. Suicide bombing isn't prohibited or condemned in the Quran. However, these kinds of attacks are approved of within the sharia tradition. Take a moment to look up Ibn Tamiyya, Ibn Abi Zayd al-Qayrawani, Shayk Burhanuddin Ali, Al-Mawardi-- four of the most influential jurists from the medieval period. Tamiyya is particularly vehement in his "anything goes" attitude (he advocated the use of siege equipment against enemy civilian populations if it would also kill enemy soldiers). It's worth noting that the so-called sword verses almost universally abrogate the verses of peace in the Quran. Reformers and apologists tend to characterize the sword verses as referring to spiritual struggle, but the weight of historical evidence as well as explicit statements within the Sharia, Jurisprudential, and Hadith (and I'm talking about the so-called "sound" Hadith compiled by Bukhari and Muslim) traditions are against them. There is no indication that Jihad meant anything other than armed conflict before the colonial period (even within the Sufi tradition).
Umar, Muhammad's immediate successor, (according to tradition) said before the conquest of the Iraqi region: "Summon the people to God; those who respond to your call, accept it from them, (this is to say accept their conversion as genuine and refrain from fighting them) but those who refuse may pay the poll tax out of humiliation and lowliness. (Quran 9:29) If they refuse this, it is the sword without leniency. Fear God with regard to what you have been entrusted."
And it's no secret that Muhammad had his political opponents assassinated, and exterminated the Jewish tribes that failed to convert in Medina.
This is not to say that the reformers are absolutely wrong, or that their vision isn't legitimate-- all religions are subject to change and revisionism; I'm just pointing out that groups like Al-Qaeda have plenty of textual and historical justification to point to. Contrary to what reformers and apologists say (who largely write and live in the western world) they are not "bad" or "ignorant" Muslims; groups like the taliban, Hamas, Al-Qaeda, and the Muslim Brotherhood actually enjoy a great deal of support from what one might call the "mainstream" Muslim world. , though this also has a great deal to do with their political stance.
Thing is, (although I have no evidence to back this up) I expect that there are plenty of times it says that simply attacking something isn't the best way to go, just as the bible contradicts itself on this subject. You can't just quote those things and say "Therefore true muslims always attack people". You could, however, say "There is no way to always follow holy books as they contradict themselves".
p_gray99 wrote:Thing is, (although I have no evidence to back this up) I expect that there are plenty of times it says that simply attacking something isn't the best way to go, just as the bible contradicts itself on this subject. You can't just quote those things and say "Therefore true muslims always attack people". You could, however, say "There is no way to always follow holy books as they contradict themselves".
Of course. The Jihadist literature basically boils it down to "convert where possible, attack when in a position of power, defend when attacked, make Hijra where defense is impossible."
The thing that bothers me the most is when people make comments about how "X" was an amazing person, and we should be greatful unto him, not realizing that everything that "X" stood for would essentially mean the marginalization of every right that the person in question has.
Then there's the minor inconsistencies or problems in religious texts pertaining to certain specific accounts. Press people on it, and they don't know. Press the "knowledgeble' people, and they present it as either the work of the devil (so..... why is there evil content and filth present in your holy book if it's misguiding your parishioners?) or a test by the deity (because not only is it insufficient for you to believe without evidence, you also have to have to see through the smoke and mirrors designed to distract you......). Disregard the generational gaps between event and recording, the multiple and wiflul errors in translation and paraphrasing. Also disregard the idioms, slang and jargon of the times. (lets be serious, we know what we mean when we call something "hot, cool, sick or sweet", and people in a few hundred years will read or see comments or remarks of today's time and fail to understand how we describe events by reference to temperature, taste or moral/physiological condition. It stands to reason that we need to understand the jargon of the times and the mental attitudes in order to truly comprehend what's written.)
p_gray99 wrote:Thing is, (although I have no evidence to back this up) I expect that there are plenty of times it says that simply attacking something isn't the best way to go, just as the bible contradicts itself on this subject. You can't just quote those things and say "Therefore true muslims always attack people". You could, however, say "There is no way to always follow holy books as they contradict themselves".
Of course. The Jihadist literature basically boils it down to "convert where possible, attack when in a position of power, defend when attacked, make Hijra where defense is impossible."
You are quite right.
And then there is all the social issues addressed in the texts. Fun!
p_gray99 wrote:Thing is, (although I have no evidence to back this up) I expect that there are plenty of times it says that simply attacking something isn't the best way to go, just as the bible contradicts itself on this subject. You can't just quote those things and say "Therefore true muslims always attack people". You could, however, say "There is no way to always follow holy books as they contradict themselves".
I'm not an ace on where to find it in the bible, but during exodus i believe, the proto-jews go a genocide and rape spree exsanguinating an entire area of it's original inhabitants, "and god saw that it was good". And yet, they spend this same period of time meandering about with the two stone tablets instructing the people of israel not to kill, nor to covet "the neighbours wife". In one turn the bible advises that it's appealing to god to slaughter the pagans that stand in the way of the chosen, and in the next, it outlines things that the chosen cannot do--clearly though, this is selective and inapplicable to everyone. Adherents of one faith are required to hold to the rules when interacting with members of their own society, but step beyond those bounds, and you are at liberty to violate every single law written therein.
So yes, you are right, but this is not a philosophical model for the establishment of world peace. It is in fact a philosophical model for arbitrary hatred, division, strife and hundreds of years of war and murder.
My problem with theistic beliefs boils down to: Arbitrarily establishing which elements of a spiritual document shall constitute doctrine and a basis of moral action, while dismissing the rest. Many, many, many christians are not even aware of the many books which are not part of the bible, which were actually omitted, deleted or even destroyed by the holy Roman Church. The first that comes to mind and strikes me as utterly bizarre is the book of Ezekiel, though there are many and more besides.
poda_t wrote:Adherents of one faith are required to hold to the rules when interacting with members of their own society, but step beyond those bounds, and you are at liberty to violate every single law written therein.
And yet, they are told in the new testament "There is neither Jew nor Greek," which basically means it doesn't matter which country someone's from
While I enjoy discussion theology... in a larger context... I think fanaticism is the true danger:
A fanatic is one who can't change his mind and won't change the subject.
Winston Churchill
Fanaticism consists in redoubling your efforts when you have forgotten your aim.
George Santayana
Fanatics are picturesque, mankind would rather see gestures than listen to reasons.
Friedrich Nietzsche
Fervor is the weapon of choice of the impotent.
Frantz Fanon
I carry from my mother's womb a fanatic's heart.
William Butler Yeats
In the history of mankind, fanaticism has caused more harm than vice.
Louis Kronenberger
The worst of madmen is a saint run mad.
Alexander Pope
There is no place in a fanatic's head where reason can enter.
Napoleon Bonaparte
And one of my fav:
In the fevered state of our country, no good can ever result from any attempt to set one of these fiery zealots to rights, either in fact or principle. They are determined as to the facts they will believe, and the opinions on which they will act. Get by them, therefore, as you would by an angry bull; it is not for a man of sense to dispute the road with such an animal.
Thomas Jefferson
The Bringer wrote: I am not a cherry-picking Christian, I accept the entirety of Scriptures, and I dislike those who do cherry pick.
Oh boy, I hope you don't wear cotton/polyester blends. . . that's a sin!
Hence my easy win!
feth me.. there must be literally thousands of demonstrably insane gak in there! I cant be arsed looking for the best ones, but even off the top of head there are some absolute pearlers!
What about, people who have flat noses cannot go to the altar of God?
And if anyone ever rapes any female members of his family he better be prepared to marry them to their rapist. . . she's ruined, damn it!
Mr Nobody wrote:Here's a better question, where do you draw the line at extremist and the wishy-washy types? What defines a good balance when observing a religion?
For example, could you just disagree with a homosexual lifestyle, but not think it's evil because it does no harm to others or yourself.
I have no opinion on the homo lifestyle other than the fact that they're a repressed group. (they make great wingman! )
blood reaper wrote:So a good amount of the Bible is pointless?
I mean, in my personal opioin it's completely pointless, but your saying that the Old Testements, the foundation of the Bible is Effectivly pointless?
Really?
That's like saying the first three Harry Potter books are pointless after reading the series.
Also, wouldn't that make the ten commandments pointless, due to the fact they where Jewish laws!?
I spent twenty minutes writing a response to this....... i realized that it would be pointless anyway.... and still needed to vent my frustration by typing this out.
blood reaper wrote:So a good amount of the Bible is pointless?
I mean, in my personal opioin it's completely pointless, but your saying that the Old Testements, the foundation of the Bible is Effectivly pointless?
Really?
That's like saying the first three Harry Potter books are pointless after reading the series.
Also, wouldn't that make the ten commandments pointless, due to the fact they where Jewish laws!?
I spent twenty minutes writing a response to this....... i realized that it would be pointless anyway.... and still needed to vent my frustration by typing this out.
whembly wrote:While I enjoy discussion theology... in a larger context... I think fanaticism is the true danger:
Spoiler:
A fanatic is one who can't change his mind and won't change the subject.
Winston Churchill
Fanaticism consists in redoubling your efforts when you have forgotten your aim.
George Santayana
Fanatics are picturesque, mankind would rather see gestures than listen to reasons.
Friedrich Nietzsche
Fervor is the weapon of choice of the impotent.
Frantz Fanon
I carry from my mother's womb a fanatic's heart.
William Butler Yeats
In the history of mankind, fanaticism has caused more harm than vice.
Louis Kronenberger
The worst of madmen is a saint run mad.
Alexander Pope
There is no place in a fanatic's head where reason can enter.
Napoleon Bonaparte
And one of my fav:
In the fevered state of our country, no good can ever result from any attempt to set one of these fiery zealots to rights, either in fact or principle. They are determined as to the facts they will believe, and the opinions on which they will act. Get by them, therefore, as you would by an angry bull; it is not for a man of sense to dispute the road with such an animal.
Thomas Jefferson
Which was more or less my point about the Koran, not that Islam is purely a religion of peace, no faith I can think of (exception to Buddhism, Quakers and a couple others) are truely peaceful. It's just that extremist feth heads are ALWAYS going to find some scrap of material to excuse their behavior with religion. It's slightly easier with Islam. Given the Inquisition, Crusades, Witch Trials and massive explotation of faith for temporal power by Catholicism in particular and Christianity in general it's apparently pretty easy for them to, and that's with a savior who's rules boiled down to "Love thy neighbor as you would love thy self" and "Don't be a feth head".
blood reaper wrote:So a good amount of the Bible is pointless?
I mean, in my personal opioin it's completely pointless, but your saying that the Old Testements, the foundation of the Bible is Effectivly pointless?
Really?
That's like saying the first three Harry Potter books are pointless after reading the series.
Also, wouldn't that make the ten commandments pointless, due to the fact they where Jewish laws!?
Sorry but why would you come to the conclusion that "a good amount of the BIble is pointless"?
If you are referring to the sections of the Pentatuch that deals with the Law of Moses, it's not pointless, in that it is at a minimum a history of how the God of the Bible had dealings with the Hebrews. Most theologians divide the Old covenant law into ceremonial laws, governmental laws and moral laws. Ceremonial, and governmental laws which were specifically for the nation of Israel or anyone wanting to convert to Judaism. And the Moral laws which are considered transcendant (The 10 commandments for example)
There are also subtle things you can learn about God's character through studying the Law of Moses.
Anyway..that is way to short of an answer but, I disagree that any book or section of the Bible is pointless. :-)
xxx wrote:This could be one of the worst arguments ever applied. "God simply is." does not get a point across at all. You have not shown me any evidence or proof. He is simply there? No thanks.
Show me evidence or proof.
Of anything.
Could we not make this another unending debate thread? It's cool if people want to explain why they believe that they believe, but this thread was a lot more friendly and novel before people started calling each other out and picking fights.
If we could get it back on track that'd be great, thanks.
Because we have crossed that line by a good stretch.
As far as I know, Jesus didn't say a single thing about homosexuals, contraception or stem cells. The fact that these people call themselves "Christian" is mind-blowing.
Doctrinally they're Jewish.
The old testament rituals do not apply anymore..as Christ fulfilled the Law. He is the "Lamb of God".
GG
Oh, i just got the whole 'lamb of god' thing. Christ was seen as the ultimate form of ritual sacrifice which was used to atone for ones sins, that makes sense.
Because we're humans I assume. Religion doesn't necessarily cause conflict (coming from an Atheist here), it's human nature in general. If there was no religion we would just find something else to argue and slaughter each other over. Like race, or social class.
Though, we can supress our warlike instincts if we have the will to Seriously, take a deep breath lol.
The Bringer wrote:I am not a cherry-picking Christian, I accept the entirety of Scriptures, and I dislike those who do cherry pick.
Does this mean you believe in Genesis? *rubs hands together* This could be fun I respect you more than other christians who cherry-pick for the fact that you accept it's either all true or we can't take any of it seriously, however if you do believe in genesis then suddenly my respect evaporates once again. Prepare to be converted to agnosticism
I believe in Genesis.
And one might say that all Christians are agnostics because we cannot know if God exists, there is only Faith. Faith in God and his promises. I am sure at one time we could have been fairly certain, as in the time of Jesus, but even then our senses could have been possible deceiving us. So I guess you could call me an agnostic right now.
LoneLictor wrote:TheBringer, why is homosexuality a sin? It's not a choice and it hurts no one. Do you think the Bible is rational when it says sodomy is an abomination and calls for killing gay people?
Were you not listening to me? Sin is never a choice, it is part of us. Anything that is not according to God's ways in an abomination.
There were many crimes in Leviticus that called for a death penalty, not just homosexuality. Whose the one cherry picking scripture now?
Rarely do I kill two birds with one stone, let alone 4.
rubiksnoob wrote:Oh boy, I hope you don't wear cotton/polyester blends. . . that's a sin!
blood reaper wrote:Or if he shaved his beard! By god, he's doomed!
mattyrm wrote:Hence my easy win!
feth me.. there must be literally thousands of demonstrably insane gak in there! I cant be arsed looking for the best ones, but even off the top of head there are some absolute pearlers!
What about, people who have flat noses cannot go to the altar of God?
p_gray99 wrote:Bringer, how often do you sacrifice animals, as leviticus chapters 1-9 tells you to do?
Really people, Leviticus was part of the Old Covenant. The Old Covenant was overthrown when the New Covenant was made and the law was written on our hearts, with Christ as our high priest and our perfect sacrifice. So to answer you p_gray99, Jesus was the perfect sacrifice and I no longer need to sacrifice animals continually as atonement for my sins. For all you others, the law was written on our hearts, voiding the law of Leviticus.
For all those that realize that this voids what Leviticus says about homosexuality (assuming that is what the Greek refers to), read Romans 1:26-27. The fact is Leviticus is not the only book of the Bible that addresses homosexuality.
Mattrym, what do you have to say about the Bible discriminating against homosexuals now? I would rather like to stay on that topic.
I am a firm believer that everyone should get to believe whatever they feel they need to to keep their moral compass pointing towards "good".
I'm a complete mess when it comes to having a faith, though.
I am not a member of any faith, but if anything I would have to lean the most towards Wicca, as I believe in their moral rules. Most importantly, the Threefold Rule: which means that anything you put out into the world will eventually come back to you threefold.
I believe that everything has a force about it, and that animals have souls just like people. Otherwise they wouldn't have individual personalities. A well-treated dog shows it's soul when it cares how you treat it, tries to please you, and reacts compassionately towards if you are sad or hurt, just like a human would.
I believe in the big bang, evolution (even the common flu bug becoming resistant to drugs is evidence of evolution), and the fact that there must be life out there besides Earth, even if there's a God(s). Nothing that intelligent (or belonging to a group of beings that intelligent) would waste the time to make the rest of space be the equivalent to the poster behind a fish tank.
I believe that faith is different than religion, and faith does not in any way require religion.
Faith is something inside of you that guides you, and gives you a conscience. It's what makes good people good, with compassion for others.
Religion is something that is a made-up way for humans to convince/force others to believe the same way they do, rather than embracing constructive differences.
GalacticDefender wrote:So, Bringer, are you of the opinion that, to have good morals, one must be a Christian? What's your stance on Atheism?
(I am genuinely curious)
Just answering for myself here.
I don't think that having good morals makes you a Christian, or that becoming a Christian gives you good morals.
"Doing good things" is not the monopoly of Christianity, and "making people have good morals" should not be the goal of Christianity.
Morals and having a relationship with God are two separate things. I would hope that people who have a genuine relationship with God have that relationship spill over into their interactions with other people and therefore try to display better morals. But everybody can have good morals.
The Bringer wrote:
In the eyes of God all sins are of the same weight...
The Pope may take issue with that supposition.
Catholicism in general. Actually, christianity in general.
Also,
“Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them."-Jesus
That said, jesus was a super nice guy. I doubt he had issues with gay people for what they were, considering some of his other company. He was sort of a "spirit of the law over letter of the law" guy.
The Bringer wrote: In the eyes of God all sins are of the same weight...
The Pope may take issue with that supposition.
Catholicism in general. Actually, christianity in general.
Also, “Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them."-Jesus
That said, jesus was a super nice guy. I doubt he had issues with gay people for what they were, considering some of his other company. He was sort of a "spirit of the law over letter of the law" guy.
Actually, very letter of the law guy. Considering that a big part of the law was "you sinned, something innocent and sinless has to be sacrificed and killed for your sins."
And all sins have the same weight. That is part of what makes me angry when people try to claim that being gay is so much worse of a sin. By saying "his sin is worse" you are really saying that "my sin is better" or "I might sin, but I'm not that bad compared to them". It's almost as much of a pride issue than it is an issue of being judgmental.
d-usa wrote:
And all sins have the same weight. That is part of what makes me angry when people try to claim that being gay is so much worse of a sin. By saying "his sin is worse" you are really saying that "my sin is better" or "I might sin, but I'm not that bad compared to them". It's almost as much of a pride issue than it is an issue of being judgmental.
It depends on who you talk to. There's a pretty good argument to be made from either side.
The Bringer wrote:
In the eyes of God all sins are of the same weight...
The Pope may take issue with that supposition.
Catholicism in general. Actually, christianity in general.
Also,
“Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them."-Jesus
That said, jesus was a super nice guy. I doubt he had issues with gay people for what they were, considering some of his other company. He was sort of a "spirit of the law over letter of the law" guy.
Actually, very letter of the law guy. Considering that a big part of the law was "you sinned, something innocent and sinless has to be sacrificed and killed for your sins."
And all sins have the same weight. That is part of what makes me angry when people try to claim that being gay is so much worse of a sin. By saying "his sin is worse" you are really saying that "my sin is better" or "I might sin, but I'm not that bad compared to them". It's almost as much of a pride issue than it is an issue of being judgmental.
Strange for a letter of the law guy to work on Sundays.
I suppose I shouldn't have spoken for all christians. I was using logic that stealing a quarter is not equal to murdering someone in the eyes of God.
In the Catholic Church there are two or three categories of sin, as well as a list of qualifications for something to be a sin. Depending on how liberal you are, it may be impossible to sin in the Catholic tradition.
xole wrote:
In the Catholic Church there are two or three categories of sin, as well as a list of qualifications for something to be a sin. Depending on how liberal you are, it may be impossible to sin in the Catholic tradition.
Mannahnin wrote:To me, saying that being gay is a sin, is sinful.
I don't think pointing out a sin is sinful. Being judgmental of that sin, or thinking that you are better because you don't commit that particular sin is sinful. I also acknowledge that nobody is without sin. So being gay is just one sin of many, and doesn't make make that person any better or any worse than me. I think a big part of the whole "Being gay is a sin" is that certain people attach a social stigma to that statement, which then also extends into trying to legislate against particular sins which is total bullocks in my opinion.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
xole wrote:I was using logic that stealing a quarter is not equal to murdering someone in the eyes of God.
But it's not.
For one it would be prideful to think "God has to like me better because I only stole a quarter, that guy murdered somebody."
You are also attaching human judgement and standards to God. The basic idea is that God is the most perfect being that ever existed, He is completely and utterly without sin. And compared to Him and in His eyes we are all sinners and of equal statue to be unworthy of ever having a relationship with Him or being in His presence. As soon as we try to start thinking that God would go "The punishment for Sin is eternal separation from Me, but your sin wasn't really that bad compared to his so you are good to go" then we have corrupted the basic essence of who God is.
To put another spin on it. If God asks you "You sinned because you stole a quarter, tell me why I should forgive you", do you think "at least I didn't kill somebody" should be a valid criteria for forgiving your sin?
I dont think there's anything sinful about being gay. I think it's one way the gods make people, and it's every bit as right and natural and sacred as being straight.
From my perspective, calling it sinful is a sin in multiple ways. It's a slander against creation, and it's harmful to people.
Mannahnin wrote:To me, saying that being gay is a sin, is sinful.
I don't think pointing out a sin is sinful. Being judgmental of that sin, or thinking that you are better because you don't commit that particular sin is sinful. I also acknowledge that nobody is without sin. So being gay is just one sin of many, and doesn't make make that person any better or any worse than me. I think a big part of the whole "Being gay is a sin" is that certain people attach a social stigma to that statement, which then also extends into trying to legislate against particular sins which is total bullocks in my opinion.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
xole wrote:I was using logic that stealing a quarter is not equal to murdering someone in the eyes of God.
But it's not.
For one it would be prideful to think "God has to like me better because I only stole a quarter, that guy murdered somebody."
You are also attaching human judgement and standards to God. The basic idea is that God is the most perfect being that ever existed, He is completely and utterly without sin. And compared to Him and in His eyes we are all sinners and of equal statue to be unworthy of ever having a relationship with Him or being in His presence. As soon as we try to start thinking that God would go "The punishment for Sin is eternal separation from Me, but your sin wasn't really that bad compared to his so you are good to go" then we have corrupted the basic essence of who God is.
To put another spin on it. If God asks you "You sinned because you stole a quarter, tell me why I should forgive you", do you think "at least I didn't kill somebody" should be a valid criteria for forgiving your sin?
Do you believe in hell then? I don't, personally, but it'd be funny to have a hell without some sort of tally system.
Mannahnin wrote:I dont think there's anything sinful about being gay. I think it's one way the gods make people, and it's every bit as right and natural and sacred as being straight.
From my perspective, calling it sinful is a sin in multiple ways. It's a slander against creation, and it's harmful to people.
But according to Christianity all humans are sinful. So how is that slander against creation?
Is saying that cheating on your spouse a sin sinful and harmful to people, or do you think that we shouldn't say that anything is a sin at all?
d-usa wrote:I think a big part of the whole "Being gay is a sin" is that certain people attach a social stigma to that statement, which then also extends into trying to legislate against particular sins which is total bullocks in my opinion.
I think its quite difficult to construct a belief system that gives sin weight, while also refraining from attaching a social stigma to it.
Mannahnin wrote:I dont think there's anything sinful about being gay. I think it's one way the gods make people, and it's every bit as right and natural and sacred as being straight.
From my perspective, calling it sinful is a sin in multiple ways. It's a slander against creation, and it's harmful to people.
But according to Christianity all humans are sinful. So how is that slander against creation?
Because I think the Christians are mistaken.
d-usa wrote:Is saying that cheating on your spouse a sin sinful and harmful to people, or do you think that we shouldn't say that anything is a sin at all?
Cheating on your spouse is harmful to people. It's a violation of your sacred oath, of your honor and the bond of trust and love you agreed to, and on which that person relies.
GalacticDefender wrote:So, Bringer, are you of the opinion that, to have good morals, one must be a Christian? What's your stance on Atheism?
(I am genuinely curious)
Just answering for myself here.
I don't think that having good morals makes you a Christian, or that becoming a Christian gives you good morals.
"Doing good things" is not the monopoly of Christianity, and "making people have good morals" should not be the goal of Christianity.
Morals and having a relationship with God are two separate things. I would hope that people who have a genuine relationship with God have that relationship spill over into their interactions with other people and therefore try to display better morals. But everybody can have good morals.
I come across Christians all the time who think that because I am an Atheist, I am not a good person. I had a friend who went into a sort of depression for a while because of this, until he found out that people like that were simply intolerant feth heads. I have been insulted and told I was a bad person doomed to hell by people who I would otheriwise consider to be at least semi-reasonable individuals though, so whatever. I know Christians aren't all like that, but past experiences have made me want to avoid most religious people.
I have no big issue with people who believe in the existance of a deity. The thing I do have an issue with is people why try to hinder the progress of science, wether intentionally or because they think they are doing the right thing. That is something that harms them and the rest of Humanity, wether they realize it or not. Also, Evolution is simply 100% proven to exist. It has been observed within a human lifetime.
I like this thread. Sure, some people are getting a bit defensive as can be expected, but really, Its not often an Atheist gets to talk to a Theist without being totally chastised. So
I believe that Christianity (and life in general) leads to two endpoints. But I disagree with the common way that hell is proclaimed as some sort of giant fire pit where you are tortured.
I will try to explain the way I interpret the whole point of Christianity and both heaven and hell.
I think the biggest lesson of the relationship between God/Jesus and ourselves is relationship, and I think all of humanity is on one of the two paths.
Heaven is being in God's presence, and hell is being forever out of God's presence.
Heaven:
If you have a relationship with God and believe the Gospel (the message, not the books) then you continue to have that relationship and walk with Him. Bad stuff can still happen in your live and probably will. Having a relationship with God is not the key to a magic awesome life where nothing will go wrong and you will have everything (aka: the prosperity gospel is bogus IMO). Life can still suck horribly (aka: bad stuff will happen to "good" people) but God will be there to give you comfort. I get a feeling of comfort from having a relationship with God and I do feel Him in my life. I know that some people will likely dismiss that as non-scientific feel-good voodoo or something like that. When you die, your soul lives on forever in the presence of God aka Heaven.
Hell:
Hell would simply be being forever separated from having a relationship from God. That doesn't mean that you will be tortured or that it will be painful. For all I know it could well be a version of the first Matrix Utopia experiment where everybody is happy and has whatever they want, except ever being able to be in God's presence. You can lead a wonderful life on earth, be a "good" person, and never have any suffering on earth and end up not having a relationship with God.
I think that also addresses the common complaint of "what happens to people that never heard of Jesus? If they never heard of Jesus do they go to hell? Why is that fair that they go to hell? They never heard of Jesus and suddenly the devil goes 'eat pitchfork baby'!". If hell is simply the endpoint of not never being able to have a relationship with God, then somebody that never had a relationship with God to begin with would not suffer from being in hell. They might never even know that they are in hell. If they never knew God, would they be missing God?
The concept of hell becomes problematic when we attach the aspects of physical punishment and torture to it.
I don't, personally, but it'd be funny to have a hell without some sort of tally system.
In Christianity there is a tally system, but it is not "who had the lesser sins". The tally is that everybody starts out in the hell category and there is only one way out.
The problem is when different denominations add extra "what ifs" and procedures into the process.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Mannahnin wrote:
d-usa wrote:
Mannahnin wrote:I dont think there's anything sinful about being gay. I think it's one way the gods make people, and it's every bit as right and natural and sacred as being straight.
From my perspective, calling it sinful is a sin in multiple ways. It's a slander against creation, and it's harmful to people.
But according to Christianity all humans are sinful. So how is that slander against creation?
Because I think the Christians are mistaken.
Okay, so it's not so much about the different categories of sin, but the concept of sin in general then if I am understanding you right?
Automatically Appended Next Post:
GalacticDefender wrote: I like this thread. Sure, some people are getting a bit defensive as can be expected, but really, Its not often an Atheist gets to talk to a Theist without being totally chastised. So
I try to be a follower of the motto that you can be disagree without being disagreeable.
I think even Dante had a view of hell sort of like that, where the "virtuous damned" or whatever stay in a place that isn't bad but is without god. (of course the fire and suffering takes place a bit further down lol)
So that idea of Hell has been around for a while, actually.
GalacticDefender wrote:I think even Dante had a view of hell sort of like that, where the "virtuous damned" or whatever stay in a place that isn't bad but is without god. (of course the fire and suffering takes place a bit further down lol)
So that idea of Hell has been around for a while, actually.
It's is definitively not some magical conclusion that I came up with. I just think that the concept of "hell is fire and brimstone and Satan torturing you every day" has taken the center stage for many Christians and as such it is the version often cited by people who disagree with Christianity because "how could a loving God send good people to a place like that just because they don't believe in Him".
I believe that Christianity (and life in general) leads to two endpoints. But I disagree with the common way that hell is proclaimed as some sort of giant fire pit where you are tortured.
I will try to explain the way I interpret the whole point of Christianity and both heaven and hell.
I think the biggest lesson of the relationship between God/Jesus and ourselves is relationship, and I think all of humanity is on one of the two paths.
Heaven is being in God's presence, and hell is being forever out of God's presence.
Heaven:
If you have a relationship with God and believe the Gospel (the message, not the books) then you continue to have that relationship and walk with Him. Bad stuff can still happen in your live and probably will. Having a relationship with God is not the key to a magic awesome life where nothing will go wrong and you will have an awesome life (aka: the prosperity gospel is bogus IMO). Life can still suck horribly (aka: bad stuff will happen to "good" people) but God will be there to give you comfort. I get a feeling of comfort from having a relationship with God and I do feel Him in my life. I know that some people will likely dismiss that as non-scientific feel-good voodoo or something like that. When you die, your soul lives on forever in the presence of God aka Heaven.
Hell:
Hell would simply be being forever separated from having a relationship from God. That doesn't mean that you will be tortured or that it will be painful. For all I know it could well be a version of the first Matrix Utopia experiment where everybody is happy and has whatever they want, except ever being able to be in God's presence. You can lead a wonderful life on earth, be a "good" person, and never have any suffering on earth and end up not having a relationship with God.
I think that also addresses the common complaint of "what happens to people that never heard of Jesus? If they never heard of Jesus do they go to hell? Why is that fair that they go to hell? They never heard of Jesus and suddenly the devil goes 'eat pitchfork baby'!". If hell is simply the endpoint of not never being able to have a relationship with God, then somebody that never had a relationship with God to begin with would not suffer from being in hell. They might never even know that they are in hell. If they never knew God, would they be missing God?
The concept of hell becomes problematic when we attach the aspects of physical punishment and torture to it.
I don't, personally, but it'd be funny to have a hell without some sort of tally system.
In Christianity there is a tally system, but it is not "who had the lesser sins". The tally is that everybody starts out in the hell category and there is only one way out.
The problem is when different denominations add extra "what ifs" and procedures into the process.
So, according to your belief system, I could murder a whole group of people and still make it into Heaven based purely off of belief, while other Good people will not? I don't care how you dress it up, to you that place is still hell. It is still "bad". And I know there are many people who want the truths of the universe and don't seek it through Christian passages. They are just screwed?
GalacticDefender wrote:
I have no big issue with people who believe in the existance of a deity. The thing I do have an issue with is people why try to hinder the progress of science, wether intentionally or because they think they are doing the right thing. That is something that harms them and the rest of Humanity, wether they realize it or not. Also, Evolution is simply 100% proven to exist. It has been observed within a human lifetime.
So, a question: What is right? Terms like "morality" and "good" have different connotation depending on where you're standing. Some view hindering science as "good," while other view it as "bad." So, who decides? How can you define an absolute when everything is relative?
xole wrote:
So, according to your belief system, I could murder a whole group of people and still make it into Heaven based purely off of belief, while other Good people will not?
God is the ultimate judge, but His teachings are that if you accept Jesus and salvation and have a relationship with Him then you are forgiven. You can get into schematics of trying to argue "if he was really saved and knew God he wouldn't have killed lots of people". That is a difficult question and a difficult answer.
If somebody is a mass murdered and at some point after his/her crimes accepts salvation then according to the Gospel they are forgiven. Where people have a problem with that is not Biblical teachings, but because they apply human standards to categories of sin and wanting different punishments for different crimes.
xole wrote:I don't care how you dress it up, to you that place is still hell. It is still "bad". And I know there are many people who want the truths of the universe and don't seek it through Christian passages. They are just screwed?
Why do you think hell is bad? If you don't have a relationship with God, then how is not having a relationship with God forever "bad"?
GalacticDefender wrote: I think given enough time, science could explain everything, because as far as I'm concerned, everything happens in the natural world.
Also I think space exploration is the most important thing we can do as a species, and that's a big part of my life as well.
Sometimes I just don't get why people have to "search for something deeper/greater" in life. It's all around us. Look up at the night sky, or the latest picture sent back from Curiosity, or even just some mold on a piece of bread, and realize how special our existence is. That all of this happened without some form of intelligent design is a beautiful thing indeed.
I completely agree with you here, the natural world to me is far more amazing and beautiful than anything conjured up by any man-made religion. I would go so far as to say that I'm not even generally interested in the acheivements of humans that much. I see us as just another species of animal, who happens to have (mostly) a higher level of intelligence than others. I've studied evolution and palaeontology for many years now at Masters and PhD level, and cannot express my awe at the simplicity and beauty of the evolution of life up to this point, it's just a simple fact to me, religion can't add anything to it at all.
To me, it's obvious all religions and the afterlife are man-made concepts created to instill control over a populace, and to help humans come to terms with their own insignificance and mortality. Just look at how many different religions there are in the world, they can't all be right, yet their individual believers are convinced that their religion is the "true" religion. To me it's obvious that they all developed independantly (most many years before science could explain nature) as a way of explaining how the world works and to justify inherant moral values present in humans as a species.
As much as I respect anybody's right to beleive in whatever they want, I just wish people would take time to look at the natural world around us and throughout history before they come to the conclusion that a god must have done it.
GalacticDefender wrote: I think given enough time, science could explain everything, because as far as I'm concerned, everything happens in the natural world.
Also I think space exploration is the most important thing we can do as a species, and that's a big part of my life as well.
Sometimes I just don't get why people have to "search for something deeper/greater" in life. It's all around us. Look up at the night sky, or the latest picture sent back from Curiosity, or even just some mold on a piece of bread, and realize how special our existence is. That all of this happened without some form of intelligent design is a beautiful thing indeed.
I completely agree with you here, the natural world to me is far more amazing and beautiful than anything conjured up by a man made religion. I would go so far as to say that I'm not even generally interested in the acheivements of humans that much. I've studied evolution and palaeontology for many years now at Masters and PhD level, and cannot express my awe at the simplicity and beauty of the evolution of life up to this point, it's just a simple fact to me, religion can't add anything to it at all.
And I am also a man of science. We do have a modern society where we have two firmly entrenched fronts with one being "God is truth, and science is evil and tries to discredit Him" and the other being "Science is truth, God is a fairy tale and science will prove He isn't real". But I also think that many people are in the middle.
I think that science is amazing, and I don't think that there is a problem with accepting the natural laws as fact (evolution, gravity, everything) and also believing that God put them in place.
GalacticDefender wrote:I come across Christians all the time who think that because I am an Atheist, I am not a good person.
To be fair, just like there's plenty of people who assume because they decided to be Christian they must be good people, there's at least the same proportion of atheists who assume that because they're atheists they must be rational people with a strong understanding of science.
I think picking a team and letting that make you think good things about yourself is a lot easier than actually doing the hard work to be good, or to actually gain an understanding of science. And people are nothing if not lazy.
GalacticDefender wrote:I come across Christians all the time who think that because I am an Atheist, I am not a good person.
To be fair, just like there's plenty of people who assume because they decided to be Christian they must be good people, there's at least the same proportion of atheists who assume that because they're atheists they must be rational people with a strong understanding of science.
I think the better comparison would be "I come across Atheists all the time who think that because I am a Christian, I am a dumb person."
Both sides have a history of being judgmental and dismissive. Some Christians think they have the upper hand on morality, some Atheists think they have the other hand on Intelligence, maybe Buddhist think they have the upper hand on tranquility, what do I know. Which is why I generally ignore conversations on here that turn into "this is why you are wrong!" arguments. But I like to answer questions about my faith and why I believe what I believe and exchange ideas. I am not trying to convert people on here, just explaining what I believe.
But there are also many people of all faiths who can have civil conversations as the first 5 pages of this thread demonstrated.
GalacticDefender wrote: I think given enough time, science could explain everything, because as far as I'm concerned, everything happens in the natural world.
Also I think space exploration is the most important thing we can do as a species, and that's a big part of my life as well.
Sometimes I just don't get why people have to "search for something deeper/greater" in life. It's all around us. Look up at the night sky, or the latest picture sent back from Curiosity, or even just some mold on a piece of bread, and realize how special our existence is. That all of this happened without some form of intelligent design is a beautiful thing indeed.
I completely agree with you here, the natural world to me is far more amazing and beautiful than anything conjured up by a man made religion. I would go so far as to say that I'm not even generally interested in the acheivements of humans that much. I've studied evolution and palaeontology for many years now at Masters and PhD level, and cannot express my awe at the simplicity and beauty of the evolution of life up to this point, it's just a simple fact to me, religion can't add anything to it at all.
And I am also a man of science. We do have a modern society where we have two firmly entrenched fronts with one being "God is truth, and science is evil and tries to discredit Him" and the other being "Science is truth, God is a fairy tale and science will prove He isn't real". But I also think that many people are in the middle.
I think that science is amazing, and I don't think that there is a problem with accepting the natural laws as fact (evolution, gravity, everything) and also believing that God put them in place.
Hi d-usa, it's nice to hear from the middle ground. My only question is why people who share your beliefs must factor a creator into the mix? Isn't it satisfying enough to see the simplicity of such natural laws without factoring in a creator as well?
d-usa wrote:You are also attaching human judgement and standards to God. The basic idea is that God is the most perfect being that ever existed, He is completely and utterly without sin. And compared to Him and in His eyes we are all sinners and of equal statue to be unworthy of ever having a relationship with Him or being in His presence.
This is one thing I can't stand about catholicism, it's one big guilt trip. So invested are they in making us all guilty of something they have the original sin, that we carry because of what our ancestors did. I don't hold any Germans responsible for what their parents did in the war. What right dies the church and god have to hold us to some hereditary guilt from generations ago? It's just complete crap to make everyone feel guilty of something.
GalacticDefender wrote: I think given enough time, science could explain everything, because as far as I'm concerned, everything happens in the natural world.
Also I think space exploration is the most important thing we can do as a species, and that's a big part of my life as well.
Sometimes I just don't get why people have to "search for something deeper/greater" in life. It's all around us. Look up at the night sky, or the latest picture sent back from Curiosity, or even just some mold on a piece of bread, and realize how special our existence is. That all of this happened without some form of intelligent design is a beautiful thing indeed.
I completely agree with you here, the natural world to me is far more amazing and beautiful than anything conjured up by a man made religion. I would go so far as to say that I'm not even generally interested in the acheivements of humans that much. I've studied evolution and palaeontology for many years now at Masters and PhD level, and cannot express my awe at the simplicity and beauty of the evolution of life up to this point, it's just a simple fact to me, religion can't add anything to it at all.
And I am also a man of science. We do have a modern society where we have two firmly entrenched fronts with one being "God is truth, and science is evil and tries to discredit Him" and the other being "Science is truth, God is a fairy tale and science will prove He isn't real". But I also think that many people are in the middle.
I think that science is amazing, and I don't think that there is a problem with accepting the natural laws as fact (evolution, gravity, everything) and also believing that God put them in place.
Hi d-usa, it's nice to hear from the middle ground. My only question is why people who share your beliefs must factor a creator into the mix? Isn't it satisfying enough to see the simplicity of such natural laws without factoring in a creator as well?
I honestly can't tell you why we "must" factor a creator into the mix. I know that for myself having a creator in the mix doesn't take away from the awesomeness of nature though.
d-usa wrote:I think the better comparison would be "I come across Atheists all the time who think that because I am a Christian, I am a dumb person."
Yeah, that'd be fair.
Both sides have a history of being judgmental and dismissive. Some Christians think they have the upper hand on morality, some Atheists think they have the other hand on Intelligence, maybe Buddhist think they have the upper hand on tranquility, what do I know.
I'd like to point out, in my experience as an atheist, I've noticed the trend line for Christians has been getting better over time, while the atheists have been getting worse. It's this whole thing with Richard Dawkins, hearing him I can take the good with the bad, because he is very intelligent and well informed on matters of science, so I can ignore how dismissive and arrogant he is towards people of faith. But unfortunately too many other atheists seemed to have taken up the arrogance and dismissiveness, but don't also happen to have his intelligence or scientific background.
Which is why I generally ignore conversations on here that turn into "this is why you are wrong!" arguments. But I like to answer questions about my faith and why I believe what I believe and exchange ideas. I am not trying to convert people on here, just explaining what I believe.
Yeah, I figured out a little while ago that just about everyone is fascinating when they talk about their own beliefs, but are really annoying when they talk about why other people are wrong. I read CS Lewis' On Christianity recently and noticed that the rule even applied to someone as well spoken as him - when he talked about his faith he was utterly fascinating and full of fantastic insight, when he talked about why other people were wrong his arguments were hollow.
And the same applies to Dawkins as mentioned above. When you listen to him talk about the creation of life he really is fascinating, and there's a genuine sense of awe in what he describes. But when he goes off on religion he just sounds like a douche.
So yeah, I gotta say I agree with you on 'this is why you are wrong' arguments, or debates about religion in general. They just end up sounding like people arguing against pluralism more than anything else.
The old testament rituals do not apply anymore..as Christ fulfilled the Law. He is the "Lamb of God".
GG
Oh, i just got the whole 'lamb of god' thing. Christ was seen as the ultimate form of ritual sacrifice which was used to atone for ones sins, that makes sense.
It's even deeper than that. During the exodus God told Moses to have the Hebrews sacrifice a lamb and put the blood of the lamb over the door post of their dwellings. When the angel of death came to fulfill the last of the 10 plagues of Egypt, the angel of death passed over any door that had the blood of the lamb.
Jesus was crucified during the passover festival.
So in Christian theology it is taught that, in the same way that the blood of the passover lamb prevented God's wrath from the Hebrews, the blood of Christ prevents Gods wrath from anyone that has embraced Christ as their Lord and Savior.
@ Redbristles: I completley agree with you about the whole universe being wondrous thing.
one of question though:
Morality - despite my agnostic/deistic beliefs (basically I believe there COULD be a deistic god, but I'm not devout about it or anything) I believe in an objective morality - even if there isn't a god, I simply don't accept the idea that morality can be subjective, or man made - I was just wondering, given your particular world view, do you believe in a n objective morality (IE: the torture, rape and murder of small children is objectively wrong and not just something we have said is wrong as a society) outside of mankind? as a sort of inbuilt-part-of-the-universe?
@sebester:
I really don't like dawkins.
The problem with him is the fact that he TRIES TO BE A PHILOSOPHER when he's not - he's an evolutionary biologist. I mean, I used to be quite convinced by him, and one of my scientist friends still is. However now that I've moved to A-level philosophy, I can see how shallow so many of his arguments actually are:- they appear convincing to anyone who isn't versed in them, however once you hit degree level, or even A-level in philosophy, you realise that he barely touches the surface, and fails to mention a number of things simply because he isn't versed in the subject. I say he should stick to evolutionary biology - he's a scientist attempting to philosophise, and should leave the bible-burning to real philosophers (you don't see Hume trying to dip into evolutionary biology)
Rant over
xole wrote:
So, according to your belief system, I could murder a whole group of people and still make it into Heaven based purely off of belief, while other Good people will not?
God is the ultimate judge, but His teachings are that if you accept Jesus and salvation and have a relationship with Him then you are forgiven. You can get into schematics of trying to argue "if he was really saved and knew God he wouldn't have killed lots of people". That is a difficult question and a difficult answer.
If somebody is a mass murdered and at some point after his/her crimes accepts salvation then according to the Gospel they are forgiven. Where people have a problem with that is not Biblical teachings, but because they apply human standards to categories of sin and wanting different punishments for different crimes.
xole wrote:I don't care how you dress it up, to you that place is still hell. It is still "bad". And I know there are many people who want the truths of the universe and don't seek it through Christian passages. They are just screwed?
Why do you think hell is bad? If you don't have a relationship with God, then how is not having a relationship with God forever "bad"?
What about jews and muslims? How do they fit into this view of yours?
Hell is bad because there is something more that you'll never have because of a choice you didn't really make over the course of your insignificant life span. It doesn't really matter what it is, as long as there is something more. See the thread on immortality. And, as mentioned, lots of people don't have a relationship with the christian concept of the divine. How would denying them "truth" not be bad?
If you want to talk about what you believe, then feel free. After all that is what this thread is all about.
If you want to continue to attack what others believe and tell them that they are wrong because you don't agree with their interpretation of something that you don't even believe exists, then you can do that too even though that is not what this thread is about.
walker90234 wrote:
@sebester:
I really don't like dawkins.
The problem with him is the fact that he TRIES TO BE A PHILOSOPHER when he's not - he's an evolutionary biologist. I mean, I used to be quite convinced by him, and one of my scientist friends still is. However now that I've moved to A-level philosophy, I can see how shallow so many of his arguments actually are
Yes, because now you are doing A-level philosophy you are seriously awesome, a paragon of intellectual genius.
You should write a book, I would buy it even if it was a million pounds, such is your cutting insight.
walker90234 wrote:
@sebester:
I really don't like dawkins.
The problem with him is the fact that he TRIES TO BE A PHILOSOPHER when he's not - he's an evolutionary biologist. I mean, I used to be quite convinced by him, and one of my scientist friends still is. However now that I've moved to A-level philosophy, I can see how shallow so many of his arguments actually are
Yes, because now you are doing A-level philosophy you are seriously awesome, a paragon of intellectual genius.
You should write a book, I would buy it even if it was a million pounds, such is your cutting insight.
Replying to walkers comment would take too much of my precious time, I honestly can't be bothered wasting it.
If you want to talk about what you believe, then feel free. After all that is what this thread is all about.
If you want to continue to attack what others believe and tell them that they are wrong because you don't agree with their interpretation of something that you don't even believe exists, then you can do that too even though that is not what this thread is about.
Up to you really.
I hardly consider asking questions an attack. If your belief system is sound and consistent, then it should hold up perfectly well to me trying to get a better understanding of it.
lol, I wasn't trying to be arrogant It's just the fact that when you compare the arguments DAWKINS puts forwards, to those put forwards by such philosophers as Fauerbach (not sure on the spelling, read his stuff yolks ago) and Hume, they really appear very shallow, and easy to overturn - fauerbach and hume have lasting, impactful arguments, that actually WORK on a much deeper level than those of Dawkins.
I'm not saying that I'm better than Dawkins, or that I could come up with better stuff than him.
just that from everything I've studied, his work is pretty shallow. it's because it's not his profession.
And for your information I am a paragon of intellectual genius. I though about it for five minutes yesterday and came up with the answer to life, the universe and everything.
Apparently the answer is pancakes.
With chocolate chips.
good day to you sah
walker90234 wrote:lol, I wasn't trying to be arrogant It's just the fact that when you compare the arguments DAWKINS puts forwards, to those put forwards by such philosophers as Fauerbach (not sure on the spelling, read his stuff yolks ago) and Hume, they really appear very shallow, and easy to overturn - fauerbach and hume have lasting, impactful arguments, that actually WORK on a much deeper level than those of Dawkins.
I'm not saying that I'm better than Dawkins, or that I could come up with better stuff than him.
just that from everything I've studied, his work is pretty shallow. it's because it's not his profession.
And for your information I am a paragon of intellectual genius. I though about it for five minutes yesterday and came up with the answer to life, the universe and everything.
Apparently the answer is pancakes.
With chocolate chips.
good day to you sah
Because he used the arguments of others doesn't mean his are shallow.
walker90234 wrote:lol, I wasn't trying to be arrogant It's just the fact that when you compare the arguments DAWKINS puts forwards, to those put forwards by such philosophers as Fauerbach (not sure on the spelling, read his stuff yolks ago) and Hume, they really appear very shallow, and easy to overturn - fauerbach and hume have lasting, impactful arguments, that actually WORK on a much deeper level than those of Dawkins.
I'm not saying that I'm better than Dawkins, or that I could come up with better stuff than him.
just that from everything I've studied, his work is pretty shallow. it's because it's not his profession.
And for your information I am a paragon of intellectual genius. I though about it for five minutes yesterday and came up with the answer to life, the universe and everything.
Apparently the answer is pancakes.
With chocolate chips.
good day to you sah
Because he used the arguments of others doesn't mean his are shallow.
Honestly, you just seem quite pious right now.
As a scientist, very few of the things you say are supposed to be your own ideas. I don't know much about him, but if he used other peoples' works as a basis for his own he was just being consistent.
Dont understand how you came to the assumption that he used others works...
Just that the real philosophers are much better than him. If I were going to argue against christianity I would use the arguments of hume rather than dawkins, simply because the arguments of hume are so much better.
walker90234 wrote:Dont understand how you came to the assumption that he used others works...
Just that the real philosophers are much better than him. If I were going to argue against christianity I would use the arguments of hume rather than dawkins, simply because the arguments of hume are so much better.
OK.
But you do realise he's got his own opinion right of what is better? I mean, when you have written several books, debated on the level of Dawkins, then we can decide who is better, but right now I'm going for Dawkins.
What about jews and muslims? How do they fit into this view of yours?
Both of those are hard for me. It is "easy" as a Christian to be dismissive of Atheism, because there is an easy divide between believing in God and not believing in God. It is easy to be dismissive of other religions that have other gods (Hindu, Wicca, Satanism as examples) because there is again an easy divide between gods and God. By "easy to be dismissive" I don't mean it in a "clearly you are wrong" kind of way, but more of a "they are easy to categorize into different subjects" kind of way.
Jews and Muslims are a lot harder in that regard for me. They do worship and believe in the same God that I do after all. If Jews follow the old laws and the old rituals, do they still find grace in God? If so I think it would depend on faith again though. I have looked a little bit at messianic Jews and I think that they have an interesting take on that and if there is somebody who follows that faith here I would also love to get more insight on that. Muslims are in the same boat for me, which means it is hard to understand.
As a Christian it is easier to justify that somebody is wrong if they don't believe in the same God as you. It is harder to justify that somebody is wrong if they believe in the same God but approach Him differently. I do believe that Jesus is the only way, but does that mean that there is no partial credit?
The tl;dr version would be: "I don't know. It's a hard question that I do struggle with."
Hell is bad because there is something more that you'll never have because of a choice you didn't really make over the course of your insignificant life span. It doesn't really matter what it is, as long as there is something more. See the thread on immortality. And, as mentioned, lots of people don't have a relationship with the christian concept of the divine. How would denying them "truth" not be bad?
I am having a hard time understanding what you are saying here. Are you saying hell is bad simply because it is a consequence? And how would it deny people "truth"?
Oh, blood reaper, also check out his Inquiry Into Human Understanding, that's some of my favourite of his stuff (although less on the god aspect, it's still utterly brilliant)
What about jews and muslims? How do they fit into this view of yours?
Both of those are hard for me. It is "easy" as a Christian to be dismissive of Atheism, because there is an easy divide between believing in God and not believing in God. It is easy to be dismissive of other religions that have other gods (Hindu, Wicca, Satanism as examples) because there is again an easy divide between gods and God. By "easy to be dismissive" I don't mean it in a "clearly you are wrong" kind of way, but more of a "they are easy to categorize into different subjects" kind of way.
Jews and Muslims are a lot harder in that regard for me. They do worship and believe in the same God that I do after all. If Jews follow the old laws and the old rituals, do they still find grace in God? If so I think it would depend on faith again though. I have looked a little bit at messianic Jews and I think that they have an interesting take on that and if there is somebody who follows that faith here I would also love to get more insight on that. Muslims are in the same boat for me, which means it is hard to understand.
As a Christian it is easier to justify that somebody is wrong if they don't believe in the same God as you. It is harder to justify that somebody is wrong if they believe in the same God but approach Him differently. I do believe that Jesus is the only way, but does that mean that there is no partial credit?
The tl;dr version would be: "I don't know. It's a hard question that I do struggle with."
Hell is bad because there is something more that you'll never have because of a choice you didn't really make over the course of your insignificant life span. It doesn't really matter what it is, as long as there is something more. See the thread on immortality. And, as mentioned, lots of people don't have a relationship with the christian concept of the divine. How would denying them "truth" not be bad?
I am having a hard time understanding what you are saying here. Are you saying hell is bad simply because it is a consequence? And how would it deny people "truth"?
Alright. That's healthy. I'll stop asking about it.
It's bad in the same way that limbo is bad. It simply isn't heaven.
Lots of people seek answers in the universe. That's a part of karma. If in the end of all things, they don't get them, it is "bad". The pleasures of the world have their limitation, which is why Christianity holds such a vague concept of heaven. Anything short of unimaginable perfection would be unfulfilling.
GalacticDefender wrote:
I have no big issue with people who believe in the existance of a deity. The thing I do have an issue with is people why try to hinder the progress of science, wether intentionally or because they think they are doing the right thing. That is something that harms them and the rest of Humanity, wether they realize it or not. Also, Evolution is simply 100% proven to exist. It has been observed within a human lifetime.
So, a question: What is right? Terms like "morality" and "good" have different connotation depending on where you're standing. Some view hindering science as "good," while other view it as "bad." So, who decides? How can you define an absolute when everything is relative?
How is finding out more information about the natural world ever "bad"? Because after all, that is what science is. So people who think hindering science is a good thing should stop driving their cars, using their cell phones, getting medical care, and pretty much doing everything else in their lives, because without science none of those things would exist. So people who view hindering science as good are not only wrong, they are hypocritical.
I'm sure there are plenty of religious people out there that would think the same way, but simply throw in a God as the creator of physics, chemistry, biology, etc.
Jews and Muslims are a lot harder in that regard for me. They do worship and believe in the same God that I do after all. If Jews follow the old laws and the old rituals, do they still find grace in God? If so I think it would depend on faith again though. I have looked a little bit at messianic Jews and I think that they have an interesting take on that and if there is somebody who follows that faith here I would also love to get more insight on that. Muslims are in the same boat for me, which means it is hard to understand.
As a Christian it is easier to justify that somebody is wrong if they don't believe in the same God as you. It is harder to justify that somebody is wrong if they believe in the same God but approach Him differently. I do believe that Jesus is the only way, but does that mean that there is no partial credit?
the problem here is disagreement pertaining to who is correct in their belief, because their belief also deals with matters of practice and doctrine. Christians believe that god and JC are one and the same. This is anathema to the jews, who don't even acknowledge JC, and the muslims acknowledge the JC as just another prophet. Jews and Muslims still await the coming of their savior, and in both cases, it's to liberate and achieve freedom for them and their kind. Think about Calvins, Lutherans, Anglicans, Catholics and any other of the christians and how at eachotehr's thrroats they are over who is right and correct in their faith. It's one thing to look at everything a a giant family tree with one patriarch, the fact however is that the differences make the different faiths irreconcilable because they disagree on principles of morality and faith.
Different approach is the difference between catholic and lutheran. Jew and Christian follow a different god entirely. (On that note, my reading has suggested that Jesus was the same kind of hardline fundamentalist that we see with some muslims today).
I don't deny that there are certain things in the universe that we don't know and probably can't comprehend but personally as I see it, it doesn't affect me and whether or not there truly is a higher power I would never opt to be part of a Religion even if there was proof.
I'm definitely Atheist/Agnostic. There is also no way to prove that Tzeech did not create Games Workshop.
It's not like this hasn't been discussed over 9,000 times before.
*takes seat at the bar with the other Dakka regulars*
Automatically Appended Next Post: There are also 11 dimensions in the universe, and those who commit the heresy of advocating for a 10 dimensional universe are leading civilization into barbarism and will regress us irreversibly.
Inquisitor Ehrenstein wrote:
There are also 11 dimensions in the universe, and those who commit the heresy of advocating for a 10 dimensional universe are leading civilization into barbarism and will regress us irreversibly.
I was at some point goign to bring this up, but decided to wait for someone else.
The problem that's raised is between the 4-6 dimensions. Problems exist higher up too, but, trying to bring theism into a discussion on an infinity of parrallel universes, I imagine doesn't bode well.
While this doesn't pertain to all religious people, I refuse to believe that I must be a member of an organized religion to have good morals and be a good person, which seems to be all that keeps being driven into me.
I'm sorry, but it's complete crap. I never go to church unless it is to be nice to someone(maybe once every two years), and I don't officially prescribe to any religion on Earth. And yet, two weeks ago, at two o-clock in the morning while coming home from a DnD game with buddies, I was the second car on the scene of a horrendous wreck on the highway. I stopped the car and ran to help. Something inside of me that I can't define demanded that I had no other choice.
Afterwards, I couldn't help but think about the five minutes it took for emergency vehicles to hit the scene, and how many cars (at least a dozen, even at that time of night) screamed by at full speed while I (with no first aid training) held a comatose girl's head steady where she landed after being thrown from the wreck- so hard that her clothes had been stripped almost completely off, probably on the way out of the window.
I'll bet for sure that at any other time of the day, some of them would consider themselves far more godly and much better church-goers than a heathen like me, and i think the situation proved the truth.
AegisGrimm wrote:While this doesn't pertain to all religious people, I refuse to believe that I must be a member of an organized religion to have good morals and be a good person, which seems to be all that keeps being driven into me.
I'm sorry, but it's complete crap. I never go to church unless it is to be nice to someone(maybe once every two years), and I don't officially prescribe to any religion on Earth. And yet, two weeks ago, at two o-clock in the morning while coming home from a DnD game with buddies, I was the second car on the scene of a horrendous wreck on the highway. I stopped the car and ran to help. Something inside of me that I can't define demanded that I had no other choice.
Afterwards, I couldn't help but think about the five minutes it took for emergency vehicles to hit the scene, and how many cars (at least a dozen, even at that time of night) screamed by at full speed while I (with no first aid training) held a comatose girl's head steady where she landed after being thrown from the wreck- so hard that her clothes had been stripped almost completely off, probably on the way out of the window.
I'll bet for sure that at any other time of the day, some of them would consider themselves far more godly and much better church-goers than a heathen like me, and i think the situation proved the truth.
yes, but, your country's litigious system is one where everyone sues for everything. Your moral standard may have just shot you in the foot for having done something that you had no training to do. Ah, the joys of america, where a predominantly christian nation proceeds to be litigious on every account of everything..... I love how the entire basis of the tort legal system goes against the christian grain, and yet, it is 11/10 times the first thing moralised christians resort to..... i find it sad, but amusing.
yes, but, your country's litigious system is one where everyone sues for everything. Your moral standard may have just shot you in the foot for having done something that you had no training to do. Ah, the joys of america, where a predominantly christian nation proceeds to be litigious on every account of everything..... I love how the entire basis of the tort legal system goes against the christian grain, and yet, it is 11/10 times the first thing moralised christians resort to..... i find it sad, but amusing.
Absolutely not. It's called the "Good Samaritan Law" in my state (Michigan). Simply the fact that you were willing to help versus letting them lie there alone protects you. As if at that point I even cared.
The paramedics, Firefighters and cops thanked me and the married couple that stopped just barely before me (they luckily were first responders) personally with handshakes.
Is it just me or is there a direct link between people poo-pooing organised religion, and a lack of knowledge about theology? Possibly a lot of it stems from modern day evengelical baptist movement in the united states - a movement that, as far as I'm aware, has no theological basis whatsoever.
The slave trade was abolished by and large as a result of evangelical Christianity in the UK. Not to mention centuries of charitable work.
Testify wrote:Is it just me or is there a direct link between people poo-pooing organised religion, and a lack of knowledge about theology? Possibly a lot of it stems from modern day evengelical baptist movement in the united states - a movement that, as far as I'm aware, has no theological basis whatsoever.
The slave trade was abolished by and large as a result of evangelical Christianity in the UK. Not to mention centuries of charitable work.
In my opinion it depends on who it is doing the not knowing.
I think that makes sense but I don't actually understand it. Headache.
Coolyo294 wrote: I'm a Christian. I believe in God and go to church on a semi-regular basis, but I still believe in things like evolution and the big bang theory.
Pretty much that, barring the attending formal church meetings. The churches I have attended seem to be celebrations of dogmatism and hearsay, rather than a gathering of people who have actually studied the scripture that they profess belief in, let alone the scholarship and historical contexts necessary to grapple with their own faith. Granted, this is (hopefully) a geographical issue with local churches, but suffice it to say that it has mostly poisoned me against regular attendance of organized church meetings.
Granted, this is (hopefully) a geographical issue with local churches, but suffice it to say that it has mostly poisoned me against regular attendance of organized church meetings.
Not really. Up here in Michigan my wife has had trouble with churches before she met me because she was going to school to be a Science teacher. They treated her like she must be trying to disprove God. She felt like they were trying to make an opponent out of her, rather than accept her.
Granted, this is (hopefully) a geographical issue with local churches, but suffice it to say that it has mostly poisoned me against regular attendance of organized church meetings.
Not really. Up here in Michigan my wife has had trouble with churches before she met me because she was going to school to be a Science teacher. They treated her like she must be trying to disprove God. She felt like they were trying to make an opponent out of her, rather than accept her.
The biggest weakness in church is that it contains people. Most often, it's not church doctrine that drives people away, but other people ostracising others.
The Bringer wrote:Really people, Leviticus was part of the Old Covenant. The Old Covenant was overthrown when the New Covenant was made and the law was written on our hearts, with Christ as our high priest and our perfect sacrifice. So to answer you p_gray99, Jesus was the perfect sacrifice and I no longer need to sacrifice animals continually as atonement for my sins. For all you others, the law was written on our hearts, voiding the law of Leviticus.
For all those that realize that this voids what Leviticus says about homosexuality (assuming that is what the Greek refers to), read Romans 1:26-27. The fact is Leviticus is not the only book of the Bible that addresses homosexuality.
Mattrym, what do you have to say about the Bible discriminating against homosexuals now? I would rather like to stay on that topic.
D*mn, he knows what he's talking about! Oh well, this calls for some proper conversion time.
Ok, time for a few old favourites. How do you deal with the following:
1) The problem of evil. God is all-powerful, so can stop evil, all-knowing so knows evil exists, and is all-loving so wants to stop evil. So why does evil still exist?
2) Contradictions. Don't say there aren't any, there are. If you can say that none of these are contradictions, well done. But until then, how can all the bible be right when it contradicts itself?
3) Uh... to be honest, I think you've already got plenty enough there to explain. Good luck, you'll need it
I'm not one for listening to atheist talk about the bible but, when this guy did "Thou shalt not kill" in the John Cleese voice I couldn't breath I was laughing so hard.
Right, so GENERALLY all of the morals in the bible are based around the idea that you shouldn't harm other people:
Thou shalt not kill - yeah, killing harms other people
Thou shalt not steal - stealing harms other people (in a round about way)
Thou shalt not commit adultery - given marriage was basically there in order to raise kids, adultery would not only emotionally harm your spouse, but also your children. it destabilises the marriage, and allows for the possibility for kids outside of marriage, which could lead to them being harmed as they aren't brought up in a secure family environment.
It seems that the majority of (at least new testament) laws are not only commanded by god, but are also morally correct in and of themselves - harming human beings is generally a no-no, in all societies, because lets face it, no one wants to be harmed. It's very beneficial to all of us.
NOW, the commandments about homosexuality; homosexuality does not harm anyone. If both parties consent, and it doesn't clash with the adultery law (which does harm people) then it doesn't cause harm.
As such it is one of the only laws in the bible which don't have a moral basis outside of it being commanded by God (sex outside of marriage, IN THE TIME THE BIBLE WAS WRITTEN, was technically harmful, as since there was no reliable contraception (YAY! CONDOMS! ) sex generally lead to kids. Without being bound by marital law, a parent could easily abandon their partner and children, as such leaden to harm) and as such, the only reason behind it is divine command.
So basically, the only logic behind homosexuality being wrong is because "God" (was written by men) said so. There's no other reason behind it.
Now, some might say; "god is perfect and completely moral, and therefore whatever he commands is completely moral". However there's a problem with this:
THE EUTHYPHRO DILLEMA:
Now, there are two options about morals:
1) God commands morals because they are right.
OR
2) Morals are right because God commands them.
Now, let's take a look at the first one:
If this is the case, then morals appear to be a force separate from god; if he follows the laws of morality in his commandments it stands to reason he didn't create them, and that they existed prior to the universe. As such, it would mean god hadn't created everything and wasn't all powerful. This is not the definition of God. there fore it cannot be the case.
THEREFORE we must choose option 2:
If morals are moral because God commanded them, and that is the only reason they are moral (rather than being built on logic or existing separate to him) then we reach a problem. Because if morals are only moral because god commands them, whatever god commands automatically becomes moral. Now, why does god command such morals? They don't exist externally to him. He decides what they are with nothing external aiding or affecting his decision - its all on him. Now, since he has no reason or logic behind choosing the morals (as such would fall under option one and violate the definition of God) then it stands to reason that such decisions are ARBITRARY.
Hence, all morals are simply the result of God's whim. Therefore, those morals for which we can find no reason for following OURSELVES beyond gods command, have no reason behind them apart from whimsy. There's no reason for following them. There is no more reason behind god saying homosexuality is wrong than there is reason behind me fancying a chicken sandwich for lunch, i just looked in my fridge and acted on whim (loose analogy, analogies are weak in general, i will agree with that, (i.e.; I can eat chicken, God can't, or morals aren't physical ect. ect.) however no matter how loose it is, it isn't intended as a proof, it just demonstrates the rest of my point, so you know what i mean )
I'm not sure I want to follow a moral law thats the result of a whim, unless i can justify it myself.
Im pretty sure the command against homosexuality therefore is wrong.
EDIT:
I would like to add;
Generally a reason given for worshiping god is that he is perfectly moral.
How do we measure how moral God is? Well, we measure him against the moral code of christianity - god is free of all sin and loves everyone, which according to the Christian moral code means he is perfectly moral.
However, this is according to the christian moral code.
God created the christian moral code.
Therefore all we are saying is that by being perfectly moral, god is following the commandments he himself created, to the letter.
So, by worshiping god for being perfectly moral, all we are really worshiping him for, is the fact that he is consistent.
We are worshiping god for not being a hypocrite.
Or we could focus on the aspect of the laws that existed to mark God's people as distinct from the other people around them. Those laws existed for no other purpose than to mark them as a distinct people and nation.
So homosexuality could have easily been outlawed not because of some complex code of morality and sense of right or wrong. It could have been outlawed because everybody around them was having gay sex so Israel wasn't gonna do that.
In which case it's not morals, its snobbery. Not something we should really be worshiping.
Therefore, the Christians (not the general christians, I'm not being prejudice, I just mean the bigoted ones) really have two options:
1) forget the gay hate. Accept that those particular commandments are the result of the authors decision - the HUMAN who wrote leviticus, while he followed many of God's commandments in doing so, also inserted some of his own laws, which weren't those of God.
2) accept that morality is built on whim, snobbery and narcissism, and therefore we should reject God.
walker90234 wrote:In which case it's not morals, its snobbery. Not something we should really be worshiping.
Therefore, the Christians (not the general christians, I'm not being prejudice, I just mean the bigoted ones) really have two options:
1) forget the gay hate. Accept that those particular commandments are the result of the authors decision - the HUMAN who wrote leviticus, while he followed many of God's commandments in doing so, also inserted some of his own laws, which weren't those of God.
2) accept that morality is built on whim, snobbery and narcissism, and therefore we should reject God.
I wonder which one they'll pick...
Neither. It's a fallacy. They have other options, such as not caring about our opinion. People have vastly different opinions on the bible, even within individual faiths. They'll do what they want.
The Bringer wrote:Really people, Leviticus was part of the Old Covenant. The Old Covenant was overthrown when the New Covenant was made and the law was written on our hearts, with Christ as our high priest and our perfect sacrifice. So to answer you p_gray99, Jesus was the perfect sacrifice and I no longer need to sacrifice animals continually as atonement for my sins. For all you others, the law was written on our hearts, voiding the law of Leviticus.
For all those that realize that this voids what Leviticus says about homosexuality (assuming that is what the Greek refers to), read Romans 1:26-27. The fact is Leviticus is not the only book of the Bible that addresses homosexuality.
Mattrym, what do you have to say about the Bible discriminating against homosexuals now? I would rather like to stay on that topic.
D*mn, he knows what he's talking about! Oh well, this calls for some proper conversion time.
Ok, time for a few old favourites. How do you deal with the following:
1) The problem of evil. God is all-powerful, so can stop evil, all-knowing so knows evil exists, and is all-loving so wants to stop evil. So why does evil still exist?
2) Contradictions. Don't say there aren't any, there are. If you can say that none of these are contradictions, well done. But until then, how can all the bible be right when it contradicts itself?
3) Uh... to be honest, I think you've already got plenty enough there to explain. Good luck, you'll need it
1. is pretty simple to my memory so I'll answer for The Bringer with what I remember from asking a Catholic Bishop that exact question. God is all-powerful, all-knowing, all-loving, all-forgiving but He gave us the choice. It all comes down to free will, you don't have to accept god, or anything else, if god wanted servants or slaves he could make more mindless beasts exactly to his design, but he created children in his own image, and the ability to make up their own minds. Just like a loving parent with a child the parent knows the child has to be free to make their own mistakes and learn and grow.
Edit: and doesn't Carlin always do everything better?
The Bringer wrote:Really people, Leviticus was part of the Old Covenant. The Old Covenant was overthrown when the New Covenant was made and the law was written on our hearts, with Christ as our high priest and our perfect sacrifice. So to answer you p_gray99, Jesus was the perfect sacrifice and I no longer need to sacrifice animals continually as atonement for my sins. For all you others, the law was written on our hearts, voiding the law of Leviticus.
For all those that realize that this voids what Leviticus says about homosexuality (assuming that is what the Greek refers to), read Romans 1:26-27. The fact is Leviticus is not the only book of the Bible that addresses homosexuality.
Mattrym, what do you have to say about the Bible discriminating against homosexuals now? I would rather like to stay on that topic.
D*mn, he knows what he's talking about! Oh well, this calls for some proper conversion time.
Ok, time for a few old favourites. How do you deal with the following:
1) The problem of evil. God is all-powerful, so can stop evil, all-knowing so knows evil exists, and is all-loving so wants to stop evil. So why does evil still exist?
2) Contradictions. Don't say there aren't any, there are. If you can say that none of these are contradictions, well done. But until then, how can all the bible be right when it contradicts itself?
3) Uh... to be honest, I think you've already got plenty enough there to explain. Good luck, you'll need it
1. is pretty simple to my memory so I'll answer for The Bringer with what I remember from asking a Catholic Bishop that exact question. God is all-powerful, all-knowing, all-loving, all-forgiving but He gave us the choice. It all comes down to free will, you don't have to accept god, or anything else, if god wanted servants or slaves he could make more mindless beasts exactly to his design, but he created children in his own image, and the ability to make up their own minds. Just like a loving parent with a child the parent knows the child has to be free to make their own mistakes and learn and grow.
Edit: and doesn't Carlin always do everything better?
If god is omnipotent, then god is omniscient, if god is omniscient, then free will doesn't exist since we cannot do anything other than what god knows we will do.
The Bringer wrote:Really people, Leviticus was part of the Old Covenant. The Old Covenant was overthrown when the New Covenant was made and the law was written on our hearts, with Christ as our high priest and our perfect sacrifice. So to answer you p_gray99, Jesus was the perfect sacrifice and I no longer need to sacrifice animals continually as atonement for my sins. For all you others, the law was written on our hearts, voiding the law of Leviticus.
For all those that realize that this voids what Leviticus says about homosexuality (assuming that is what the Greek refers to), read Romans 1:26-27. The fact is Leviticus is not the only book of the Bible that addresses homosexuality.
Mattrym, what do you have to say about the Bible discriminating against homosexuals now? I would rather like to stay on that topic.
D*mn, he knows what he's talking about! Oh well, this calls for some proper conversion time.
Ok, time for a few old favourites. How do you deal with the following:
1) The problem of evil. God is all-powerful, so can stop evil, all-knowing so knows evil exists, and is all-loving so wants to stop evil. So why does evil still exist?
2) Contradictions. Don't say there aren't any, there are. If you can say that none of these are contradictions, well done. But until then, how can all the bible be right when it contradicts itself?
3) Uh... to be honest, I think you've already got plenty enough there to explain. Good luck, you'll need it
1. is pretty simple to my memory so I'll answer for The Bringer with what I remember from asking a Catholic Bishop that exact question. God is all-powerful, all-knowing, all-loving, all-forgiving but He gave us the choice. It all comes down to free will, you don't have to accept god, or anything else, if god wanted servants or slaves he could make more mindless beasts exactly to his design, but he created children in his own image, and the ability to make up their own minds. Just like a loving parent with a child the parent knows the child has to be free to make their own mistakes and learn and grow.
Edit: and doesn't Carlin always do everything better?
But between genesis and the tower of bable that pretty much proves that god is none of those things.
Eat one apple, banished from the garden forever. one snake tricks eve, all snakes lose their legs forever. humans build a tower to the sky, god freaks out and doesn't want them to know he doesn't really live in this reality, so he curses everyone with different languages. not very forgiving or loving IMO. Both stories of genesis really show how unknowing and powerless god really is. Good companion for Adam? takes two tries to get it right.
walker90234 wrote:@deathholydeath: technically if god exists outside of space and time that doesn't matter all that much.
Care to clarify that some?
God doesn't subscribe to a linear view of time. God is in all places and all things, and all TIMES at once. It's not that he knows what choice you're going to make, it's that you've already made your choice.
walker90234 wrote:In which case it's not morals, its snobbery. Not something we should really be worshiping.
Therefore, the Christians (not the general christians, I'm not being prejudice, I just mean the bigoted ones) really have two options:
1) forget the gay hate. Accept that those particular commandments are the result of the authors decision - the HUMAN who wrote leviticus, while he followed many of God's commandments in doing so, also inserted some of his own laws, which weren't those of God.
2) accept that morality is built on whim, snobbery and narcissism, and therefore we should reject God.
I wonder which one they'll pick...
3) Understand that the regulations against homosexual behaviour are not motivated by 'gay hate' and that determination of absolute morality is the rightful province of a just God.
This is achieved by understanding the spirit in which Gods laws are contained, a spirit of both judgement and mercy, with compassion at its core.
Anyone making application of what God says any other way is missing the point.
I declare all next week Bacchus Week 
(actually, more like "South Park Conservative" 
I had a friend who went into a sort of depression for a while because of this, until he found out that people like that were simply intolerant feth heads. I have been insulted and told I was a bad person doomed to hell by people who I would otheriwise consider to be at least semi-reasonable individuals though, so whatever. I know Christians aren't all like that, but past experiences have made me want to avoid most religious people.