Support NeoGAF

[Drinky Crow]

As for morality, what's right and wrong is, as ever, viewed through the lens of your current culture and society. There's a few basic tenets: not killing folks is a good idea, because as a whole anything less than a somewhat instinctual need to preserve life tends to end up with a society of corpses, and as evolution goes, that's generally a dead end.

That said, we abandon even that basic tenet in the name of warfare: are YOU going to denounce soldiers as morally debased creatures? Even the Bible doesn't go that far. "Thou shalt not kill" is implicitly amended with "unless the potential victim is strange, geographically distant, and seems to disagree with your society on some level". Hell, even your notion of JUSTICE amends that fundamental tenet to add "unless the victim did something bad by society's standards and had it comin' to 'em".

Outside of those basic tenets, dark grey as they are, the rest of your morals often don't exist or are completely amended in other cultures that have existed throughout history. You can consider them willful sinners all you like, but the point still stands that most of them thought they were doing the right thing, just as you do now. The light of morality is refracted by a certain degree of cultural relativity, like it or not.

Ultimately, morality is the fiat of a social majority, and our instinct to move with the majority (in order to ensure survival within the community) is the criticial impetus we feel, not the specific "morals" themselves.

 

[RiZ III]

Faith is blind. God never asked people to believe blindly. His signs are all over the place. Its just a matter of seeing them and then realizing God. We got eyes, ears, and a thinking brain. Thats my 2 cents anyways.

 

[OmniGamer]

I will just paraphrase some things I said in one of the "what happens after we die" threads.

In my opinion, the universe owes us NOTHING...and by that I mean there doesn't "have" to be an explanation "just cuz". "Oh, there HAS to be a God...I mean, look at the colors man, groovy". How does your demand for a reason(God) create said reason? God exist because you can't wrap your head around the possibility of there being no God?

In my opinion, the idea of God is a testiment to the endless arrogance of Man....so arrogant are we that we believe that an all powerful, all knowing, all loving being created US, loves US, will grant US eternal happiness, etc.

In my opinion, religion only makes since if you are hopelessly optimistic(heaven), or hopelessly fearful(hell). Afterlife is a simple concept...duh, we all have a survival instinct, hence a want to live and a fear of dying....of course the idea of an afterlife has "mainstream appeal" so to speak. So what? Your desire to cling to life is of no concern to the universe...we go around thinking we matter, or we're in control, but something could come alone and snuff us out, and it wouldn't even make a ripple in the grand scheme of things.

In my opinion, religion is manipulative....someone always has an agenda, and what better way to accomplish that than to make people fearful of what will happen if they don't agree with you, or condemn people who don't live as you do to enternl damnation. Not to knock anyone's personal beliefs, which I actually support, but in terms of organized religion, it just comes across as very sheep like to me. Very cult like, very brainwashed....get 'em young(what other time are most people at their most uninformed, most fearful, and most suggestable?), they grow up with that engrained in their minds, start a family, and do the same with their children...very virus like in a way. Sure, a lot of people turn to religion later in life, but it's hardly when things are on the up in up....it's usually after tragedy. Someone close dies, they feel lonely, the finality of mortality becomes very palpable, they decide to turn to church...and hey, that's really not a bad thing if it helps them come to terms with things and not drown in sorry. But is it really "GOD" that is helping, or simply the fact that this person has a place to go, has a place where he/she feels loved and cared for, etc....that's my only gripe, the personification(or deification, if that's a word), of everything good and helpful as, "GOD".

In my opinion, religion is so eye-rollingly insulting a lot of times, especially in pop culture. Why the need for EVERYBODY in the public eye to thank god for this or that...I can't imagine God being concerned one way or another who wins an oscar or a grammy...if he did, he would have created movies and music right after he kicked adam and eve out of the garden and started watching awards way back in "biblical" times. It's so goddamn fake and insulting, and clearly just stated so that one doesn't appear "ungrateful". And like Bill Maher said, if you pray to win this baseball game and I pray to win, can i "out-pray" you? Which brings me to another eye-rollingly insult....prayers and miracles. Pray for this, pray for that. "Oh, thank god, what a gorgeous day for our wedding, it's a miracle"...no, it's a warm front and favorable jet stream conditions. And if something bad happens, it's "God's will"....then why pray for any damn thing if everything is already laid out according to "God's will" since the very beginning of time? God's will is such a no-answer.

And lastly, I wonder why the universe can't exist "just cuz", yet an omnipotent,omniscent, omnipresent God CAN exist "just cuz". Explain the logic there.

 

[Phoenix]

It is inherently 'unprovable' - you have to take it on faith and based on how you view events and circumstances in your life. Can't prove God, can't disprove God - neither is a possible scenario.

You can believe whatever you want, but you can't prove either.

 

[God's Hand]

Pigs fly. Why don't you see them flying?

Don't question it. Have faith.

Thread should have ended there.

 

[Link648099]

For one, I have yet to see anyone here define what they mean by the word "faith", and on top of that, everyone here seems to actually get the biblical definition wrong anyways. Go here to read what true biblical faith really is.

It's nothing blind, nor is it believing in something you have no idea about. To summarize the above link, true biblical faith can be defined as "believing in something about the future based on evidence observed in the past." Ironically, this definition is surprisingly close to the scientific method. But anyways, a good example of it is this: The 11 apostles have faith in the future of the resurrection of all Christians because they witnessed the resurrection of Jesus first hand. They have a strong reason to believe that what was told them would happen, will happen.

Faith is not blind, and people who claim it is, simply do not know what they are talking about. Why then, do you think Jesus went around performing miracles, healing the sick, raising the dead, feeding the 5,000, walking on water? He did it to confirm all that he was saying. He was claiming to be the very son of God. Any quack on the street could claim that! But it really starts to mean something when a person is able to actually back up those extraordinary claims with extraordinary events. Jesus could have just as easily said "Hey, take my word that im who i say I am, or else!" and gone from there, but instead, he actually showed them who he was. Nothing blind about it.

People have faith in the future based on what they have seen in the past. Everytime God speaks in the Bible, he uses signs and miracles to confirm all that was said, or to prove to the people that such and such prophet was truly from God.

Read the link above. Heck, the rest of the site is pretty darn good as well, and covers almost any type of objection to the Christian faith that anyone on this board could come up with, and thats saying a lot! It is a very well researched website, not the kind run by your typical armchair theologian.



Concerning the whole discussions about the Big Bang, etc. As far as we can tell from our limited place and knowledge, the Universe at one point began to exist. That is the current theory, and as with all theories, it has the possibility of changing and being revised/discarded. Now, did it exist previously in another state? Is this a cyclic universe, ever collapsing and exploding again, in an endless, infinite cycle? That kind of stuff is rather hard to figure out conclusively, but I do think we can get a good idea that that is not really the case. Science can only tell us so much. There comes a time when we hit a brick wall and our ability to gain knowledge stops. I dont think we will ever know what, if anything, preceded the current universe.

But, like I said, based on what we do know now, I do not think that this is the case. As science has progressed, it has discovered various laws governing the operation of matter. The laws of thermodynamics are some of these laws, and they tend to put a damper on the whole idea of an infinite universe. The second law states that all closed systems will eventually run out of available energy, and simply stop functioning. If the Universe is all that there is, and there is nothing else except the physical universe, then by definition, it is a closed system, and it will someday run out of usable energy and cease to function. Now with that, if something has an ending, then it obviously is not infinite. If it is not infinite, then it also had a beginning.

Experience shows us that all things that have a beginning have something that begins them. All effects have a cause. All things that begin to exist have a cause.

So well, if the universe began to exist, then it must have a cause outside of itself. Pretty simple, really.

The fun part is talking about what this cause is. To some, it must be God. To others, there must be some other natural explanation for the cause.

Now, whatever you believe could be called faith, really. Faith in theism, or faith in naturalism. But remember, it is still not blind faith, but based on experience. The beginning of all kinds of faiths must be rooted in some kind of experience, because how can someone have faith in something they have no clue about? Can someone have faith in a God they do not know is even a concept? Probably not.

I guess its good to mention the first law too, that states that matter cannot be either created or destroyed, only altered. Doesn't this law go against the universe beginning, or at least, beaing "brought" into existence by something other then itself? Not really, for a very simple reason, actually. What came first, the universe, or the laws to govern that universe? Well, can the first law exist without a universe to operate in? No, it cannot. The first law requires matter to exist first before itself can even exist. No matter, no law. Once matter begins to exist, then the first law also begins to exist. One needs the other to exist, and that only goes in one direction.



So I guess thats all my thoughts on the topic. I always tend to get into these conversations a little late, hence why im bactracking a bit.

 

[Date of Lies]

Man I hope religion wont exist in the next century.

 

[Link648099]

And lastly, I wonder why the universe can't exist "just cuz", yet an omnipotent,omniscent, omnipresent God CAN exist "just cuz". Explain the logic there.

I'll try I guess.

Gotta begin with time. Time is change, right? If nothing ever changed, would time even exist? No. How do we know time is passing? Because things change. The earth turns, the seasons pass, things grow and die, etc. Thus, for time to exist, matter must also exist. If matter does not exist, then time does not exist.

Next, the universe. Is it finite or infinite? Refer to my previous post, I think it is finite. If it's finite, then at one point in "time" (i doubt that word could even be used) the universe began to exist. Prior to it beginning to exist, it did not exist. Now, if the universe is by defnition all the known matter, then if the universe did not exist, then time also did not exist. So, what was the state called prior to the beginning of time? Well, best word I think would be "eternity." But, if not for physical matter, what could exist in eternity? Well, as pertaining to your question, the spiritual could exist there. Or better yet, God could exist there. By definition, God is eternal and unchanging. If God could change, then God wouldnt be perfect, now would he?

Now in eternity, time does not exist, so it could never be said that God "began" to exist. Instead, God just always existed. So we are at your question now. Is this "just cause"? Not entirely. This whole idea was actually tackeled several centuries, if not a mellinia ago by some pretty great thinkers. What they determined was God is the only "absolutly necessary" being. God is the first cause, the cause that must exist, because without it's existence, then absolutly nothing would exist. Think about it. What comes out of nothing? More nothing. Something could never come out of nothing. Now, what these thinkers went on to do was show that an infinite amount of causes was impossible (according to the current Big Bang Theory, as far as we can tell, they were right). Hence, by necessity, there must be a first cause, and they figured this first cause was God.

The universe, based on what we currently know about it, needs a cause because it is confined within the physical realm, a realm where time is part of the make up of the fabric of the cosmos. Outside of the universe, these same rules really dont apply, so the phrase "just cause" could be used for the existence of God, but a better way to say it would be God exists out of causal neccessity. God doesnt exist "just cause," but he exists simple because if he did not, then nothing at all would exist.

So, when you think about your question, remember that the two subjects that you are talking about (God and the universe), are entirely different from each other. One is spirtual and resides on another plane of existence, and the other is physical, finite, limited in power, and subject to the degredation of time.

Of course, I could be wrong too. But thats the best answer I could think up at the moment.

 

[Date of Lies]

I'll try I guess.

Gotta begin with time. Time is change, right? If nothing ever changed, would time even exist? No. How do we know time is passing? Because things change. The earth turns, the seasons pass, things grow and die, etc. Thus, for time to exist, matter must also exist. If matter does not exist, then time does not exist.

Next, the universe. Is it finite or infinite? Refer to my previous post, I think it is finite. If it's finite, then at one point in "time" (i doubt that word could even be used) the universe began to exist. Prior to it beginning to exist, it did not exist. Now, if the universe is by defnition all the known matter, then if the universe did not exist, then time also did not exist. So, what was the state called prior to the beginning of time? Well, best word I think would be "eternity." But, if not for physical matter, what could exist in eternity? Well, as pertaining to your question, the spiritual could exist there. Or better yet, God could exist there. By definition, God is eternal and unchanging. If God could change, then God wouldnt be perfect, now would he?

Now in eternity, time does not exist, so it could never be said that God "began" to exist. Instead, God just always existed. So we are at your question now. Is this "just cause"? Not entirely. This whole idea was actually tackeled several centuries, if not a mellinia ago by some pretty great thinkers. What they determined was God is the only "absolutly necessary" being. God is the first cause, the cause that must exist, because without it's existence, then absolutly nothing would exist. Think about it. What comes out of nothing? More nothing. Something could never come out of nothing. Now, what these thinkers went on to do was show that an infinite amount of causes was impossible (according to the current Big Bang Theory, as far as we can tell, they were right). Hence, by necessity, there must be a first cause, and they figured this first cause was God.

The universe, based on what we currently know about it, needs a cause because it is confined within the physical realm, a realm where time is part of the make up of the fabric of the cosmos. Outside of the universe, these same rules really dont apply, so the phrase "just cause" could be used for the existence of God, but a better way to say it would be God exists out of causal neccessity. God doesnt exist "just cause," but he exists simple because if he did not, then nothing at all would exist.

So, when you think about your question, remember that the two subjects that you are talking about (God and the universe), are entirely different from each other. One is spirtual and resides on another plane of existence, and the other is physical, finite, limited in power, and subject to the degredation of time.

Of course, I could be wrong too. But thats the best answer I could think up at the moment.

Ok this is all well and good, I can agree with most of it, but where does christianity, the 10 commandements, God's son dying for our sins all fit into this? This SOMEWHERE does get screwed when people try to fit the bible, the sins, the messengers of god and all that nonesense. Not that I dont agree with what you said but the people that do promote the existance of god always attach a flock of bullshit to something that can appearently be easy to swollow. God is everlasting, God is everywhere, SO DON'T SAY HIS NAME IN VEIN. DONT DO THIS AND THIS! TALALALA. If people could just use the bible and other scriptures as a philosophy, a way of living for the best and not reattach God and the universe along with it, I'd be fine. When people say don't do this BECAUSE GOD IS WATCHING, it's just a lazy way of saying 'dont do this "just because" '. It's hard to believe anything they say about God or other things because it always does end in a "just because" somewhere down the line.

Although embodying the creation of the universe in a spiritual entity is a poetic vision of which I can see the charm.

 

[FightyF]

The existance of God cannot be proved nor disproved.

The choice of whether to believe in God or not, is based on faith AND reasoning.

Athiest think it's reasonable to believe that there isn't a God. Religious people think it's reasonable to believe that there is.

 

[Link648099]

Ok this is all well and good, I can agree with most of it, but where does christianity, the 10 commandements, God's son dying for our sins all fit into this?.

It actually tends to fit in very nicely. I think what you are complaining about are all the detractors of the Christian religion, the ones who make it look bad, etc. I'll give a quick run down of the entire storyline of the Bible.

"In the beginning" God created everything, then mankind. God created mankind to be in direct fellowship with God. Mankind then disobeyed God, and that direct fellowship was destroyed. What follows is the story of God working throughout history to redeem mankind and bring him back to direct fellowship with Himself. This is where the idea of sin comes in, as it is the gulf that seperates a holy God from fellowship with us. Sin is the problem, and has to be overcome. Thus, God creates the nation of Israel, in order to bring in the Messiah, also known as Jesus Christ, the one who would be able to finally and ultimatly defeat sin and restore mankind's direct fellowship with God. The ten commandments were sort of a way to show mankind that God demands perfect obedience if we are to be able to work our way back into fellowship with him. But check out the commandments, and you can see that they are all impossible to follow throughout ones lifetime. So, thats where Jesus comes into the picture. Jesus, being the son of God, WAS able to follow all the commandments perfectly, and thus he is the only one worthy of fellowship with God. But, thats not what his purpose was. His purpose was to finally defeat sin so that we too can also become worthy of fellowship. This was done by Jesus taking the punishment for all the sins of mankind.

See, God is a god of Justice. Everyone that breaks the Law of God (the ten commandments) must be justly punished. But, God is also a god of love and mercy, so how can the two be reconciled? Through Jesus, who took the justice of God by his death on the cross, so that we can obtain the mercy of God. Or in other words, Jesus took our punishment so that we do not have to, giving us a direct method straight to God. But of course, this mercy isnt just handed out to everyone. The only thing that a person has to do is really believe thats Jesus did what he did. Thats where the whole idea of the son of God comes into play. Did I explain that alrigth? If not, I could explain it better when im not as tired, or someone else could.

This SOMEWHERE does get screwed when people try to fit the bible, the sins, the messengers of god and all that nonesense. Not that I dont agree with what you said but the people that do promote the existance of god always attach a flock of bullshit to something that can appearently be easy to swollow.

Well, some people are able to explain the Bible and Christianty in a strong, coherent manner, and some others just blabber on and on about this or that, making a very convoluted picture. The Bible itself is actually made up of two main section, the Old and New Testaments, and between these, there are actually 66 seperate, individual books within the Bible. I have a somewhat long summary of the content and overall purpose of the Bible. It is very informative so I'll just quote it right here:

The Bible is the only book that was:
1. Written over about a fifteen hundred year span.

2. Written by more than forty authors from every walk of life, including kings, military leaders, peasants, philosophers, fisherman, tax collectors, poets, musicians, statesman, scholars, and shepherds. For example: Moses, a political leader and judge, trained in the universities of Egypt; David, a king, poet, musician, shepherd, and warrior; Amos, a herdsman; Joshua, a military general; Nehemiah, a cupbearer to a pagan king; Daniel, a prime minister; Solomon, a king and philosopher; Luke, a physician and historian; Peter, a fisherman; Matthew, a tax collector; Paul, a rabbi; and Mark, Peter’s secretary.

3. Written in different places: By Moses in the wilderness, Jeremiah in a dungeon, Daniel on a hillside and in a palace, Paul inside prison walls, Luke while traveling, John while in exile on the isle of Patmos.

4. Written at different times: David in times of war and sacrifice, and Solomon in times of peace and prosperity.

5. Written during different moods: Some writing from the heights of joy. Others writing from the depths of sorrow and despair. Some during times of certainty and convictions. And others during days of confusion and doubt.

6. Written on three different continents: Asia, Africa, and Europe.

7. Written in three different languages: Hebrew, Greek, and Aramaic.

8. Written in a wide variety of literary styles, including: poetry, historical narrative, song, romance, didactic treatise, personal correspondence, memoirs, satire, biography, autobiography, law, prophecy, parable, and allegory.

9. The Bible address hundreds of controversial subjects, subjects that create opposing opinions when mentioned or discussed. The biblical writers treated hundreds of hot topics, such as marriage, divorce and remarriage, homosexuality, adultery, obedience to authority, truth telling and lying, character development, parenting, and the nature and revelation of God. Yet from Genesis through Revelation these writers addressed them with an amazing degree of harmony.

10. In spite of all this diversity, the Bible presents a single unfolding story: God’s redemption of human beings.

11. Finally, and most important, among all people described in the Bible, the leading character throughout is the one, true, living God made known through Jesus Christ. Consider first the Old Testament: The law provides the foundation for Christ, the historical books show the preparation for Christ, the poetical works aspire to Christ, and the prophecies display an expectation of Christ. In the New Testament, the Gospels record the historical manifestation of Christ, the Acts relate the propagation of Christ, the Epistles give the interpretation of Christ, and in Revelation is found the consummation of all things in Christ.

God is everlasting, God is everywhere, SO DON'T SAY HIS NAME IN VEIN. DONT DO THIS AND THIS! TALALALA. If people could just use the bible and other scriptures as a philosophy, a way of living for the best and not reattach God and the universe along with it, I'd be fine. When people say don't do this BECAUSE GOD IS WATCHING, it's just a lazy way of saying 'dont do this "just because" '. It's hard to believe anything they say about God or other things because it always does end in a "just because" somewhere down the line.

Although embodying the creation of the universe in a spiritual entity is a poetic vision of which I can see the charm.

I tend to agree with you here, actually. Personally, I do agree with much of biblical morality. You know, that just follows from what I beleive really. I hold that God is the source of the Bible, that it contains, and is, God's very word, and so it is extremly wise to obey to the best of my ability.

But thats me, a Christian. I think it is wise for everyone else as well, but I also know that no where in the Bible does it command Christians to force others to adhere to these same morals, etc. People tend to forget that at times.

Now, I guess it is good right now to point out that, according to Christianity and the Bible, one cannot regain fellowship (and ultimatly heaven and salvation) with God by what that person does in their life. What I mean by that is none of the rewards God offers to us can be earned by us, by how good we are, etc. Salvation is not a works based reward, but a faith based one. Read my previous post about faith to get a better understanding of it.

This is really what seperates Christianity from every other religion out there. All the other faiths say you have to do this or that and be this good, etc. to gain salvation. But Christianity, on the other hand, says that we can never please a holy and perfect God. I mean, with a God that has created the entire Universe, what is it that this God lacks from us? Salvation is a gift from God, offered to us. We dont earn it from God, it is given to us. The reason for this being, if I could earn my salvation, then I have something to boast about to other people, I have a motive to look at someone else and say "Im better than you!" With Christianity, the exact opposite is true. Its a gift from God, it is given to us, we cannot earn it by anything special that we can do, and so because of that, all of mankind is in the same boat. No one is better then the other, and God is the sole source of salvation. This of course is good because it also gives all the glory to God.

And I guess im done for the night, its late and im tired now.

 

[midnightguy]

I have faith that God exists, because their are so many AWESOME things in this world, that defy explaination or things like 'evolution' or accidental, randomness, etc.



God exists, and thats a fact...of my faith

 

[Rei_Toei]

The existance of God cannot be proved nor disproved.

The choice of whether to believe in God or not, is based on faith AND reasoning.

Athiest think it's reasonable to believe that there isn't a God. Religious people think it's reasonable to believe that there is.

Well put. I just happen to think religious people are unreasonable most of the time. But then again I believe the concept of (a) god or gods and religion is one of the very worst ideas/concept humanity has ever come up with, but I guess me calling religion an idea or concept could already be seen as trolling. Interesting discussion anyway.

 

[RonaldoSan]

I don't believe in god and yet I don't consider myself an atheist. I don't think you necessarily have to choose a camp. I don't know how we got here and why. I have come to the conclusion that no person or book will give me the answers. In the end it doesn't matter. I live my life by my heart and no scientific fact or religion will ever change that.

Though I always wondered why humans received god's teachings/words/rules so late in our timeline.

 

[FightyF]

Thus, God creates the nation of Israel, in order to bring in the Messiah, also known as Jesus Christ, the one who would be able to finally and ultimatly defeat sin and restore mankind's direct fellowship with God.

God created Sin when he defined it. You did mention the 10 Commandments. That is a great example of how God created sin.

If you ask me, sin is not something physical. It's when one ventures outside the boundaries decided by God. To do that, is to sin.

The only thing that a person has to do is really believe thats Jesus did what he did.

Are there any quotes in the Bible that sum up this statement? I'm just wondering. You don't have to answer, other people can answer too since you're off to bed.

 

[Gregory]

Man I hope religion wont exist in the next century.

Indeed. But the only way for that to happen in the future is that the stupid human race gets wiped out and perhaps some other smarter apes can evolve to a higher level.

I like how people think god helps them with their trivial shitty problems, yet he can`t be arsed to snap his fingers to let it atleast perhaps rain a little more than usual to save some of the millions of african children that dies every year from starvation and disease. But I guess the africans aren`t christians so... :/

Anyway, glad I live in a secular family and country, where religious people are mostly seen as wackos. Would have gone crazy in america.

 

[Zaptruder]

Indeed. But the only way for that to happen in the future is that the stupid human race gets wiped out and perhaps some other smarter apes can evolve to a higher level.

I like how people think god helps them with their trivial shitty problems, yet he can`t be arsed to snap his fingers to let it atleast perhaps rain a little more than usual to save some of the millions of african children that dies every year from starvation and disease. But I guess the africans aren`t christians so... :/

Anyway, glad I live in a secular family and country, where religious people are mostly seen as wackos. Would have gone crazy in america.

There are african christians. Bucketloads of them. Of course, God is putting them through trial...

Or more likely, There Is No God; and the reality is that none are born equal in equal situations that lead equal lives. Moreover, the world situation is a little more complex than the snapping of fingers of a magic old guy.

 

[Sean ConnerOWN3D]

I have faith that God exists, because their are so many AWESOME things in this world, that defy explaination or things like 'evolution' or accidental, randomness, etc.



God exists, and thats a fact...of my faith

What the sweet hell are you talking about? Good things couldn't possibly happen otherwise?

 

[fse]

In space there is no time. Its a man made thing. So how is there a beginning and/or an end?

 

[Instigator]

Indeed. But the only way for that to happen in the future is that the stupid human race gets wiped out and perhaps some other smarter apes can evolve to a higher level.

I completely disagree.

Though ignorance can be blamed for supertitions and many other things, intelligence is no guarantee that someone will turn away from religion. One of the most interesting aspects of doomsday cults and the such is that many of the members are not by any means stupid or uneducated. It seems that even smart people can feel a void and might try to fill it somehow, albeit with the wrong crowd with this example.

Furthermore, just like you have genetic diversity within a population, a diversity vital to its survival, it seems the same goes for personalities, more so in humans than in other higher animals. That means not all humans will do the same thing or think the same way. Even if you make reason triumph over faith, there will always be excentrics or people who are more spiritual, people who will feel there's something more than meets the eye or simply people who will go against the flow just for the gist of it (let's assume you have an utopian society run through reason and facts and that would be the 'flow'). Those people are likely to keep religious faith alive in some fashion and I don't care how smart your monkeys are, this is very likely to be true for them as well.

 

[Zaptruder]

I completely disagree.

Though ignorance can be blamed for supertitions and many other things, intelligence is no guarantee that someone will turn away from religion. One of the most interesting aspects of doomsday cults and the such is that many of the members are not by any means stupid or uneducated. It seems that even smart people can feel a void and might try to fill it somehow, albeit with the wrong crowd with this example.

Furthermore, just like you have genetic diversity within a population, a diversity vital to its survival, it seems the same goes for personalities, more so in humans than in other higher animals. That means not all humans will do the same thing or think the same way. Even if you make reason triumph over faith, there will always be excentrics or people who are more spiritual, people who will feel there's something more than meets the eye or simply people who will go against the flow just for the gist of it (let's assume you have an utopian society run through reason and facts and that would be the 'flow'). Those people are likely to keep religious faith alive in some fashion and I don't care how smart your monkeys are, this is very likely to be true for them as well.

Intelligent people are relatively more intelligent, but are generally still by and large, even for the smartest people, relatively clueless about all aspects of life and the world... it just depends what topics they're clueless about. Given that, it's likely that they'll be intelligent people that haven't informed themselves about all the jazz that goes into deciding whether or not there is a God; after all, that kinda study is a relatively long complex pursuit, not filled with 100% sure answers.

 

[Dice]

As for morality, what's right and wrong is, as ever, viewed through the lens of your current culture and society. There's a few basic tenets: not killing folks is a good idea, because as a whole anything less than a somewhat instinctual need to preserve life tends to end up with a society of corpses, and as evolution goes, that's generally a dead end.

That said, we abandon even that basic tenet in the name of warfare: are YOU going to denounce soldiers as morally debased creatures? Even the Bible doesn't go that far. "Thou shalt not kill" is implicitly amended with "unless the potential victim is strange, geographically distant, and seems to disagree with your society on some level". Hell, even your notion of JUSTICE amends that fundamental tenet to add "unless the victim did something bad by society's standards and had it comin' to 'em".

That's pretty assumptive of my views, and you assume wrong. I also find it silly to say "people see differently, so nobody is right!" and to oversimplify issues of the enforcement of justice like that in an attempt to brush it off. Confidence doesn't validate a statement, and your stating that "Thou shall not kill" was a hardline rule for everyone in every situation that was then amended doesn't make it so.

If laws were truly given by God and God gave them along with the conditions thereof--like priority to obey God's explcit commands and special commissions, the nature of law and estabishment of governmental rule on earth to enforce it, etc.-- those conditions would the the context by which any law He gave is established, things that man left out in his false initial interpretation of the law. That doesn't mean the law changed because of man, it only means that man's understanding of it changed.

Outside of those basic tenets, dark grey as they are, the rest of your morals often don't exist or are completely amended in other cultures that have existed throughout history. You can consider them willful sinners all you like, but the point still stands that most of them thought they were doing the right thing, just as you do now. The light of morality is refracted by a certain degree of cultural relativity, like it or not.

I don't deny the fact that society affects a person's view of morality, but that doesn't mean morality is decided entirely by such things. I think of it more as different camera lenses looking at the same object--they distort the picture in their various ways but it doesn't change the reality of the object itself. And whether or not they felt that they were doing the right thng as I do (when I do so feel that I am) doesn't change whether they were or I am or not. You do realize that you can only come away with such a view if you take on the assumtion to derive your morals from men, right?

Now of course with that notion one would immediately wonder--assuming that morals originate from anywhere else--how anyone would know who is closer to what is objectively right and true, because finite perspective of something objective would be nearly the same as it being subjective. But how mankind senses truth isn't the issue I'm looking at right now, I'm merely stating my problems with the belief that they are entirely subjective.

Ultimately, morality is the fiat of a social majority, and our instinct to move with the majority (in order to ensure survival within the community) is the criticial impetus we feel, not the specific "morals" themselves.

I fail to see where social reform of morality comes into this view, or how it holds true when I don't have hardly anyone to pressure me into the greater majority of my morals which I feel strongly about. Society in general doesn't agree with the greater portion of them, even those within my similar faith community don't.

And your whole post kind of glossed over my problems with the view in general. Is there any real reason to have morality if there is not an infinite mind of purpose to validate it? If it's merely survival instincts, then wouldn't that give one liberty to practice what they wish as long as their survival is secured amongst the societal notions of justice? This assuming of course that they agree with society that their own survival is a good thing--note the champion of a sociopath I mentioned previously.

The view lacks any real right or wrong, only punished and unpunished--there's no morality there, only selfish preferenes. How is there any room for any basis of justice within such a view? You could only denounce a person for not agreeing with what the society views as beneficial, but what right would that give society to do anything? On a personal level it would be easy to recognize you have no place to judge another for going against the grain, you can only wonder if they realize the consequences that will come when society finds out.

But if such is the case on a personal level, who is to decide that this "society" has any more right to deal out those consequences? Society is made up of individuals, and the multiplication of a preference doesn't doesn't validate it, it only gives it power to do what it wishes. Don't you see the dead end such a view hits? If you truly follow the pure reason on that, there is no value within any given view, to think of it as greater or lesser, good or bad.

If you really believe that then I suppose that's your choice, but the most I see anyone being able to do with such a view is say they don't prefer what someone else does or thinks. I don't see how you could ever make a value claim on anything without considering yourself a hypocrite, but then I guess it would merely be a personal preference to consider being a hypocrite a bad thing.

I guess it would also especially leave me confused as to how anyone with such a view finds it reasonable to denouce those who adhere to a religious base of morality. If one finds preference in developing morality from their society, then the religious would only be a portion of that society or a differing one. In fact one could even view the major religions as meta-societies that aren't limted to the borders of any given country, possibly giving them greater weight.

Ok, those are just some of my thoughts. I hope you don't take it as me being aggressively argumentative, because about 95% of this is me honestly not understanding how such a view can work out in any practical way. Just so you know I'm gonna be gone all day, I'm heading up to the city for a baseball game with some friends.

 

[OmniGamer]

I will just paraphrase some things I said in one of the "what happens after we die" threads.

In my opinion, the universe owes us NOTHING...and by that I mean there doesn't "have" to be an explanation "just cuz". "Oh, there HAS to be a God...I mean, look at the colors man, groovy". How does your demand for a reason(God) create said reason? God exist because you can't wrap your head around the possibility of there being no God?

In my opinion, the idea of God is a testiment to the endless arrogance of Man....so arrogant are we that we believe that an all powerful, all knowing, all loving being created US, loves US, will grant US eternal happiness, etc.

In my opinion, religion only makes since if you are hopelessly optimistic(heaven), or hopelessly fearful(hell). Afterlife is a simple concept...duh, we all have a survival instinct, hence a want to live and a fear of dying....of course the idea of an afterlife has "mainstream appeal" so to speak. So what? Your desire to cling to life is of no concern to the universe...we go around thinking we matter, or we're in control, but something could come alone and snuff us out, and it wouldn't even make a ripple in the grand scheme of things.

In my opinion, religion is manipulative....someone always has an agenda, and what better way to accomplish that than to make people fearful of what will happen if they don't agree with you, or condemn people who don't live as you do to enternl damnation. Not to knock anyone's personal beliefs, which I actually support, but in terms of organized religion, it just comes across as very sheep like to me. Very cult like, very brainwashed....get 'em young(what other time are most people at their most uninformed, most fearful, and most suggestable?), they grow up with that engrained in their minds, start a family, and do the same with their children...very virus like in a way. Sure, a lot of people turn to religion later in life, but it's hardly when things are on the up in up....it's usually after tragedy. Someone close dies, they feel lonely, the finality of mortality becomes very palpable, they decide to turn to church...and hey, that's really not a bad thing if it helps them come to terms with things and not drown in sorry. But is it really "GOD" that is helping, or simply the fact that this person has a place to go, has a place where he/she feels loved and cared for, etc....that's my only gripe, the personification(or deification, if that's a word), of everything good and helpful as, "GOD".

In my opinion, religion is so eye-rollingly insulting a lot of times, especially in pop culture. Why the need for EVERYBODY in the public eye to thank god for this or that...I can't imagine God being concerned one way or another who wins an oscar or a grammy...if he did, he would have created movies and music right after he kicked adam and eve out of the garden and started watching awards way back in "biblical" times. It's so goddamn fake and insulting, and clearly just stated so that one doesn't appear "ungrateful". And like Bill Maher said, if you pray to win this baseball game and I pray to win, can i "out-pray" you? Which brings me to another eye-rollingly insult....prayers and miracles. Pray for this, pray for that. "Oh, thank god, what a gorgeous day for our wedding, it's a miracle"...no, it's a warm front and favorable jet stream conditions. And if something bad happens, it's "God's will"....then why pray for any damn thing if everything is already laid out according to "God's will" since the very beginning of time? God's will is such a no-answer.

And lastly, I wonder why the universe can't exist "just cuz", yet an omnipotent,omniscent, omnipresent God CAN exist "just cuz". Explain the logic there.

I'd still like some of my points to be addressed and counter-pointed, like prayer and God's will. And something being helpful because it's actually helpful, not because "God touched my heart" or whatever.

Furthermore, why the need for such minutiae in religious functions/ceremonies? Is God really sitting down, Olympic Judge style, going "Oh boy, he didn't rotate fully, that's going to be a point deduction...one candle is a fifth of a flame-height taller than the other...oh this is a disaster, can he stick the prayer? *dramatic pause*....just barely...but I think he's out of Heaven contention now".

And what's the deal(Seinfeld style), with "Sunday Best"? I thought God didn't care about the superficial? Or is this more thinly-veiled social grandstanding in the guise of being "respectful and reverant"?

Oh, and my last issue is that it seems the perception is that "non-believers" think they have all of the answers....but speaking personally, it's the reverse that is true. I simply think that learning is a continuing process, that there's always room for improvement, refinement, drastic new ideas, etc. Whereas the other side is quite content with just pointing at an ancient book and saying "That's that" for almost any given issue. It's so lazy, and so impractical...and why such a thing has no place in law making or law enforcing.

Guess that wasn't my last issue....another is, people saying "God told me" this or "God told me" that, and thus, they are his mouthpiece....more arrogance. I highly doubt God would need a mouthpiece, and if he did, it would be Jesus, performer of miracles....not some sweaty pastor or subway rambler....but oh ho! Here comes another "get out of jail free card"....that being "God comes in all forms", along with "God acts in mysterious ways"...."Surpise! You're on Canaan camera!" "So tell me, did you ever suspect that the guy reeking of 3 week old funk was God" "Hahaha, not at all, ah man, you sure got me" That God, such a kidder :lol.

 

[milanbaros]

God has been created as an answer for the unexplainable. As time passses more and more has become explainable and as a result God's role changes and evolves in order to still fit in with society.

If faith in a God was replaced by faith in humanity and what is around us the world would undeniably be a greater place in which to live.

The human race will keep on answering questions and God will continue to have a smaller role in everybody's life. I hope one day, when religion is all said and done, which one day it will be, people will look back on it as the human race's biggest mistake and have a good laugh about it.

If the entire human race died would God still exist? The answer is no, he exists only in our consiousness.

 

[midnightguy]

What the sweet hell are you talking about? Good things couldn't possibly happen otherwise?

that's true. because without God, nothing good can happen. in fact, nothing can happen at all.


but that is a matter of faith. if you don't have faith, none of this makes sense

 

[Zaptruder]

God has been created as an answer for the unexplainable. As time passses more and more has become explainable and as a result God's role changes and evolves in order to still fit in with society.

If faith in a God was replaced by faith in humanity and what is around us the world would undeniably be a greater place in which to live.

The human race will keep on answering questions and God will continue to have a smaller role in everybody's life. I hope one day, when religion is all said and done, which one day it will be, people will look back on it as the human race's biggest mistake and have a good laugh about it.

If the entire human race died would God still exist? The answer is no, he exists only in our consiousness.

A god that changes to suit its peoples needs is NO GOD AT ALL!

 

[geogaddi]

Zaptruder and anyone;

I recommend a listen to this speech (in MP3) at Harvard by Dr. Ravi Zacharias.

Is Atheism Dead, Is God Alive? (Part 1)
Is Atheism Dead, Is God Alive? (Part 2)

 

[milanbaros]

Undeniably? Feel free to back that up. :lol

I can't. Sometimes I just put things in my posts to deliberately annoy people.

 

[Jeffahn]

Zaptruder and anyone;

I recommend a listen to this speech (in MP3) at Harvard by Dr. Ravi Zacharias.

Is Atheism Dead, Is God Alive? (Part 1)
Is Atheism Dead, Is God Alive? (Part 2)

Sounds like presumption to me?

...

 

[geogaddi]

Sounds like presumption to me?

...

Heh, I don't understand what you are trying to say. Anyhow, take what you will from those lectures, I don't care. I just found them quite interesting.

 

[Cerebral Palsy]

Faith.

Ding ding ding. We have a winner.

Can't give an answer!? Pull the faith card.

Then again that is my same problem with Atheists. No one really knows shit. Agnostic for teh win.

 

[bjork]

 

[Date of Lies]

This is really what seperates Christianity from every other religion out there. All the other faiths say you have to do this or that and be this good, etc. to gain salvation. But Christianity, on the other hand, says that we can never please a holy and perfect God. I mean, with a God that has created the entire Universe, what is it that this God lacks from us? Salvation is a gift from God, offered to us. We dont earn it from God, it is given to us. The reason for this being, if I could earn my salvation, then I have something to boast about to other people, I have a motive to look at someone else and say "Im better than you!" With Christianity, the exact opposite is true. Its a gift from God, it is given to us, we cannot earn it by anything special that we can do, and so because of that, all of mankind is in the same boat. No one is better then the other, and God is the sole source of salvation. This of course is good because it also gives all the glory to God.

Right, but we do have people saying they know more and exerpt power over all other believers. For Catholics, the Pope can never be contradicted in whatever he says, he holds the truer knowledge above all others, atleast to the catholic community. But where does that come from? The Bible? What about when the Vatican gave out tickets to heaven in exchange for donation money? What about when Pie XII almost approved Hitler and even did the nazi salut upon his arrival? I've first-hand read a speach given to colonial cardinals about to invade africa to use religion as a way to passify the blacks, telling them to embrace poverty while their lands are stripped of everything valuable. Telling them to endure the injustices commited by the colonials and not to rebel against them because that would be the "un-christian" thing to do. Telling them to "turn the other cheek" while their country gets raped. And on top of this, on his last visit to Africa, the Pope still condemed the use of codoms and other preservatives when the country is being ravaged by aids. I could go on with the inquisition, the conservatism that halted scientific advances for more than a millenia, the sin repenting in exchange for money (cardinals could kill any layman and be forgiven for 15 piastres, and if he killed more than one on the same day, it's still 15 piastres), anti-homosexualism, anti-communism, anti-feminism (the woman is still nothing more than a matrone in the church, and the Pope pushed back any ideas of her being anything more), anti-democratic (NO ONE can speak against the Pope or even question him).


I guess all in all, my problem is not with the religion but it's followers, but it's very much to the point where religion should not exist simply because of it's believers and human nature.

 

[Link648099]

God created Sin when he defined it. You did mention the 10 Commandments. That is a great example of how God created sin.

If you ask me, sin is not something physical. It's when one ventures outside the boundaries decided by God. To do that, is to sin.

Can I ask you this?: Is there a difference between actually committing a sin, and acknowleding what sin is? Going with that, the creation of sin didnt really come about when God defined it, such as with the ten commandments, but more or less stems from God's very nature. Anything that is contrary to God's nature, as far as it pertains to mankind, could be labeled as sin. And Since God is eternal, that "definition" has also been eternal. Of course, the consequences of sin were not felt until mankind was given it's spirtual nature and the ability to choose, or free will.

I can agree with you that sin isnt something physical. Going with that, neither is evil as it is properly understood. Sin and evil are really corruptions of what is fundamentally good. Back to God's nature, i wouldnt call them "boundaries decided by God." I guess a better way to describe it would be to say that God cannot help but condemn all sin, due to his very nature, being holy and just. So anything contrary to the virtues of his nature (i.e. what is good) would be sin.

Mankind, I think being created in the image (spiritual) of God has a fundamental understanding of what is inherently good and bad. This is regardless of culture, time, and place. Concerning the first four commandments dealing with mankind's communion with God, people throughout the mellinia have all had a concept of a being higher then themselves in some form or fashion. With the other six commands, dealing with out interactions with fellow humans, most of those are inherent to our conscience. People may like to murder, steal, lie, covet, and disobey their parents, but the easiest way to know that these are all wrong is to have them done to yourself. No one likes these things done to them. People dont like to be murdered against their will, nor stolen from, lied to, and disobeyed.

Are there any quotes in the Bible that sum up this statement? I'm just wondering. You don't have to answer, other people can answer too since you're off to bed.

Romans 5 is a good intro to the whole gospel, in a way. But to answer your question directly, Romans 10 is a good place to start.

Romans 10:8-10
On the contrary, what does it say? The message is near you, in your mouth and in your heart. This is the message of faith that we proclaim: if you confess with your mouth, "Jesus is Lord," and believe in your heart that God raised Him from the dead, you will be saved. With the heart one believes, resulting in righteousness, and with the mouth one confesses, resulting in salvation.

 

[Link648099]

Date of Lies,

Have to go to work now, but I'll respond to you later on tonight, ok? Or if you want, feel free to PM me or use AIM, screen names the same as my name here.

 

[JoshuaJSlone]

Thousands of cultures worldwide (that were not interconnected) all formed beliefs around a diety/god of some sort. How is that not proof that we all inherently believe in a greater power? The planet Earth was a giant collection of petri dishes, and most of the results all came out the same.

I have a hard time going along with your (that were not interconnected) bit. Of course the culture's of the world have overlapped and shared many common roots going back thousands of years.

I had a discussion with one my profs about this ealier this year and he simply said,

"Where there is a watch, there is a watchmaker", thought I'd bring this into your discussion. See what you guys think of this.

Of course you then need a watchmaker maker, and a watchmaker maker maker, going back infinitely.

So, when you think about your question, remember that the two subjects that you are talking about (God and the universe), are entirely different from each other. One is spirtual and resides on another plane of existence, and the other is physical, finite, limited in power, and subject to the degredation of time.

On the whole, nice post. But it really just comes down to "The universe needed something else to boot it up. Must be something that's external; thus it must be God." That's a pretty basic definition of God, though. Just as there are natural nonconscious forces in our physical realm, why not in this theoretical spiritual realm as well? In which case, "God" might really just be... let's say "spiritual gravity".

 

[WARCOCK]

PROFF!?!? MY BIRTHMARK IS A CROSS ON MY LEFT TESTICLE!11

 

[Zaptruder]

Ding ding ding. We have a winner.

Can't give an answer!? Pull the faith card.

Then again that is my same problem with Atheists. No one really knows shit. Agnostic for teh win.

As an agnostic; I'm not saying there is not God, just that among all the possible forms of God, the abrahamic God is a very unlikely form, not only because of the contradictive nature, but the fact he seems to take on a very amorphorous form... that is, he is what the people that believe him want him to be. In other words.

 

[Link648099]

On the whole, nice post. But it really just comes down to "The universe needed something else to boot it up. Must be something that's external; thus it must be God." That's a pretty basic definition of God, though. Just as there are natural nonconscious forces in our physical realm, why not in this theoretical spiritual realm as well? In which case, "God" might really just be... let's say "spiritual gravity".

Thanks!

I guess the whole discussion about "What caused the Universe to exist" is a fun discussion because it all depends really on what a person wants to believe. I wrote this in a previous post:

The fun part is talking about what this cause is. To some, it must be God. To others, there must be some other natural explanation for the cause.

And I guess that is true really. Some see it as undeniable proof for the existence of God, while others use their faith in naturalism to assume there simply must be a natural cause for the universe, etc. So where does that leave us really? I dont know. I have heard the phrase "I dont have enough faith to be an Atheist," and I think I can agree with that statement. When all the evidence is taken into consideration, really, what explains it all the best? Naturalism tries to do a good job by describing religion in evolutionary terms, but so does theism. But, is there something that tips the scale either way?

I think there is. It just might be the whole thing I wrote about the Universe itself needing a cause. Naturalism only goes as far as matter goes. All matter is by definition found within the Universe, thus, naturalism stops once the Universe ends. Out of the two theories, which accounts for things out of the universe? Well, theism really, or some form of it.

So we have two theories. One fully explains it all, and the other explains most of it, but leaves one final detail unanswered. When compared, the theory that rationally explains the most, is theism. Hence, one must take a blind leap of faith to hold to atheism, or naturalism.

Thats my thoughts on it all at least, and I cannot really figure a way out of it for the atheist, hence my definite claims above. Nothing that is finite can cause itself to exist. Thats rather impossible. Naturalism entails that the universe is all that there is, and thus, it must have caused itself to exist. But, there is nothing finite that can do that, simply because it is a contradiction, and id really just ask anyone who disagrees to show me one thing that caused itself to exist.

 

[Link648099]

Right, but we do have people saying they know more and exerpt power over all other believers.

True, but that happens with pretty much anything. Your teachers or professors do that all the time.

For Catholics, the Pope can never be contradicted in whatever he says, he holds the truer knowledge above all others, atleast to the catholic community. But where does that come from? The Bible?

Your talking about the idea of Papal Infallibility here. I think at least. I personally do not agree with papal infallibilty, but I have studied it a bit. According to Catholicism, its not as bad as it seems, and is only "Infallable" when the pope speaks "ex cathedra", which is not very much. In addition, for something to be infallably proclaimed by the pope, it has to be agreed on also by a majority of the cardinals beneath the pope. Here is a good catholic webpage describing what this means: http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/07790a.htm#IIIB

What about when the Vatican gave out tickets to heaven in exchange for donation money?

I think Martin Luthor took care of that about 500 years ago. The church was wrong then.

What about when Pie XII almost approved Hitler and even did the nazi salut upon his arrival?

Once again, the church was wrong.

I've first-hand read a speach given to colonial cardinals about to invade africa to use religion as a way to passify the blacks, telling them to embrace poverty while their lands are stripped of everything valuable. Telling them to endure the injustices commited by the colonials and not to rebel against them because that would be the "un-christian" thing to do. Telling them to "turn the other cheek" while their country gets raped.

I have not heard of this, but if it was done specifically in the context, and with the meaning that you say it was done in, then of course, it was wrong.

And on top of this, on his last visit to Africa, the Pope still condemed the use of codoms and other preservatives when the country is being ravaged by aids.

I may somewhat disagree with the popes stance on contraceptive birth control, but really, the problem here is not allowing the use of condoms, but the extreme sexual promiscuity going around in Africa. I think that is the bigger problem, not the non-use of condoms cause of what the pope says. I mean, if you go around having lots of sex, why would you listen to the what the pope says about condoms anyways?

I could go on with the inquisition,

When the church did it, that was wrong.

the conservatism that halted scientific advances for more than a millenia,

Sorry, but this is just plain false. If anything, the Christian faith made science what it is today. Do not let the last 150 years of the conflict between science and religion cause you to assumme that that is how it has always been, because it has not. I actually just did a presentation on this very topic in my Evolutionary Biology class, so all the research is fresh on my mind. I'd recommend the book "Christianity on Trial," the 3rd chapter where it spends considerable time analyzing the history between science and Christianity. Barnes and Noble usually has it, if you get a chance to stop by.

the sin repenting in exchange for money (cardinals could kill any layman and be forgiven for 15 piastres, and if he killed more than one on the same day, it's still 15 piastres),

Once again, i have never heard of that happening, but if it is true, then of course it is wrong.

anti-homosexualism,

Not to get into a huge discussion on this topic, but you seem to be assumming that homosexuality is a good thing. I simply cannot agree with that, the same way i see no-fault divorce as a bad thing, adultery as a bad thing, and anything else that is a sin against God as a bad thing.

anti-communism,

I dont understand how being anti-communist is bad. To much of the world, the fall of Russian communism was a good thing.

anti-feminism (the woman is still nothing more than a matrone in the church, and the Pope pushed back any ideas of her being anything more),

I think here you are first assumming that what is current and popular (feminism) is also good, when that is not always true. Second, you completly seem to be disregarding the biblical teachings on this subject. And if you even did regard them, I am confident that you would probably misrepresent them anyways, as most people do. But, here is what I always say to the many people who like to bring up this subject: The Bible declares that, before God, men and women are equally valued. Genesis declares that they were both created in the very image of God, so they automatically have inherent worth.

Now, here is where the conflict arises. What the Bible also puts forth is that men and women have different roles. Only men are allowed to be ministers/priests. Husbands are called to be leaders of their households. In no way does this deminish a woman's inherent value, all it does is designate seperate roles, etc.

Of course, that is extremely politically incorrect. But so what? Of course, modern culture usually has it all backwards anyways. It assummes that the only way to be of worth is to be strong, assertive, active, in control of yourself and others, etc. But from a biblical perspective, the exact opposite is true. It is better to be humble then it is to be prideful. The best example is Jesus Christ. He was willingly submissive to God the Father, even to the point of his own death. Taking that further, Jesus Christ, who was also God in the flesh (known as God the Son) humbled himself so much as to remove himself from the throne of heaven, and dwell among mankind. Think about that for a moment. A holy God willingly living among a sinful people, and ultimatly, allowing these same people to put him to death. If that isnt humbleness, then I dont know what is. It is the humble people, not the prideful, that God is pleased by.

anti-democratic (NO ONE can speak against the Pope or even question him).

So what? The US military is the same way. Just because something is not democratic does not make it a bad thing. But, I disagree with your initial premise anyways. Many times throughout history people have disagreed with the pope. Henry the 8th is a good example, so is our current president, concerning the war in Iraq. But perhaps you mean within the Catholic Church. But then I again ask, so what? The whole point of the pope is to have a leader of the Catholic Church, someone the cardinals choose to be an authority over themselves. That is the whole idea of a leader, isnt it? Popular opinion is not always the best or right choice to make, and it takes a real leader to make the really hard decisions, some which will obviously anger some people. But, democracies aren't free from these problems either.

I guess all in all, my problem is not with the religion but it's followers, but it's very much to the point where religion should not exist simply because of it's believers and human nature.

Yes, most people I seem to meet have this problem as well. The church (all Christians throughout all time) were never said to be perfectm, as you can see, and their imperfection does not at all prove, or even suggest, that the actual Christian faith, as it is according to the Bible, is false.

You seem to like to point out all the bad things, but have you forgotten all the good? I can promise you, Christianity has done more good for the world, then it has done bad, and if I may make a bold claim, I will say that nothing else has ever benefited humanity more then Christianity. Some may disagree, I am sure, but then I'd just ask, what thing has shown itself to be better then Christianity?

Alright, enough for now, even though I just did it the other night, I must go to sleep once again for another day.

 

[FightyF]

Thanks for the quotes, I wanted to see where it was mentioned explicitly and those were perfect.

I'd like to discuss the concept of sin further but unfortunately I don't have the time now. Maybe for another thread and another time.

 

[Zaptruder]

So we have two theories. One fully explains it all, and the other explains most of it, but leaves one final detail unanswered. When compared, the theory that rationally explains the most, is theism. Hence, one must take a blind leap of faith to hold to atheism, or naturalism.

Thats my thoughts on it all at least, and I cannot really figure a way out of it for the atheist, hence my definite claims above. Nothing that is finite can cause itself to exist. Thats rather impossible. Naturalism entails that the universe is all that there is, and thus, it must have caused itself to exist. But, there is nothing finite that can do that, simply because it is a contradiction, and id really just ask anyone who disagrees to show me one thing that caused itself to exist.

Your argument for theism is a little disingenious, assuming that there is no 'final answer' for atheism...

You yourself have stated that you're at least partly aware that atheists believe that the universe and existence came about through some sort of natural occurence... that is, it sprang out of no where.

Ridiculous you say, but perhaps no more ridiculous than the idea a God sprang forth out of nowhere existed forever, to an atheist.

At its basic, it's simply taking the unproven and unjustified belief that God had the power to self create and displace it onto the universe itself... or at least displace it onto an area of void that had the small but real chance of causing something to occur given a really long time.

Just because you don't understand the 'final piece' of the atheist argument doesn't necessarily make theism more right... perhaps to yourself, but now that you know that there are possible alternatives that have at least as complete a realisation as the theist argument...

But another part of your argument that's also disingenious is that it only assumes that there is atheism and theism... for many of us, the current proof of either is not enough... well from the agnostic standpoint, any single religion is very unlikely to be the real answer; rather, if the universe does have God(s), his nature will not be yet apparent to humans, if ever.

 

[Date of Lies]

Alright, enough for now, even though I just did it the other night, I must go to sleep once again for another day.

Alright let's end it at that.

 

[Link648099]

Your argument for theism is a little disingenious, assuming that there is no 'final answer' for atheism...

Do you have one? I cannot think of one, and I even asked for others to help me out. All I know is this much: Atheism explains most, but not all, while theism explains it all. I go where the evidence leads, thats all I can say really.

You yourself have stated that you're at least partly aware that atheists believe that the universe and existence came about through some sort of natural occurence... that is, it sprang out of no where.

Ridiculous you say, but perhaps no more ridiculous than the idea a God sprang forth out of nowhere existed forever, to an atheist.

Reread my previous posts please, I make a clear distinction between what is natural, and what is necessary. The idea of the universe causing itself to exist, that is a ridiculous stance because it is simply a contradiction. From a theistic understanding, there was never a "time" when God did not exist, thus he never "sprang" into existence, nor would he be a self caused being either. Try and think about this concept outside the realm and contraints of time, something the universe is limited by, but not something God would be limited by.

At its basic, it's simply taking the unproven and unjustified belief that God had the power to self create and displace it onto the universe itself...

Unproven and unjustified? Ok, I'll take that when you tell me a better explanation for the cause of the universe, one that takes all the known evidence into account, then the one I have just provided in previous posts.

Just because you don't understand the 'final piece' of the atheist argument doesn't necessarily make theism more right... perhaps to yourself, but now that you know that there are possible alternatives that have at least as complete a realisation as the theist argument...

I never said I did not understand it, I just said I can think of no way an atheist could circumvent the problem of a self creating universe. Can you? If so, I am all ears. Theism best explains it. Atheism does not.

But another part of your argument that's also disingenious is that it only assumes that there is atheism and theism... for many of us, the current proof of either is not enough...

Well, for one, I intentionally limit my discussion between theism and atheism for a reason. There are four other "alternatives" we can readily discuss. Deism, agnostism, pantheism, and panentheism. Deism, when it comes to the beginning of the universe, is really not much different from theism. The last two, pantheism and panentheism, still contain the concept, although vague, of a deity. Agnosticism is self defeating, because it makes the contradictory assertion that one knows enough about God in order to affirm that nothing can be known about God. That then leaves the discussion between theism and atheism, just what I have been doing this whole time. And from what I have been able to discern, and if you can prove otherwise, then I am all ears, theism has the slight upper hand over atheism. Thus, it shows itself to be the most rationalistic and logical position to take.

well from the agnostic standpoint, any single religion is very unlikely to be the real answer;

From an agnostic position, how do you so certainly know that "any single religion is very unlikely to be the real answer"? You are contradicting yourself here, sorry.

rather, if the universe does have God(s), his nature will not be yet apparent to humans, if ever.

Once again, contradicting yourself. If you allow God to exist, then you state that "his nature will not be yet apparent to humans, if ever," but you claim to already know something about his nature, that it is unknowable.

Nothing further on my part needs to be said, as you defeated your own reasoning. But, I will bring up the idea that perhaps God, being by definition all powerful and all knowing, to name a few, would be able to formulate a way of revealing himself to us humans, if he so desired to do so, and would not be limited by his nature from doing it.

 

[Dilbert]

Look, people -- if you keep posting, Link648099 will keep responding. Please, PLEASE let this thread die. Now.

 

[J2 Cool]

Didn't Einstein believe in God as well?

 

[WHOAguitarninja]

In space there is no time. Its a man made thing. So how is there a beginning and/or an end?

I don't really feel like getting too deep in the whole god thing here, but if you're familiar with einstein's relativity, you'll realise time is actually a very real entity and something that is nowhere near as constant as people generally assume.

The concept of the big bang raises many interesting questions that even now people aren't quite sure how to answer in regards to time.

Didn't Einstein believe in God as well?

No but many of his statements were mis interpreted as him beleiving in god. He explicitly stated he beleives in no personal god.

 

[Jeffahn]

In case anyone's wondering who created God -it was my cat.

...

 

[DCharlie]

"God is a ... gas. He's not a small gas like Calor gas, but ... a large gas, like oxygen or carbon dioxide. No, carbon dioxide, that's bad isn't it? That's the Devil. .... "

 

[Zaptruder]

Look, people -- if you keep posting, Link648099 will keep responding. Please, PLEASE let this thread die. Now.

As I've argued before; with such deeply ingrained issues, even if you make the most coherent and sound arguments, a person will only be polarized and will not admit defeat for their position... at least, not right away. But if the argument is sound, then they'll be force to question their beliefs... and may in time use the arguments to reassess their belief system.
Moreover, it's good to have a person with an adamant position; you express your ideas and arguments in their totality; if they can make a serious breach, you have to reassess your own beliefs, which is something worthwhile to find out about.

Do you have one? I cannot think of one, and I even asked for others to help me out. All I know is this much: Atheism explains most, but not all, while theism explains it all. I go where the evidence leads, thats all I can say really.

Actually I do. If you read my post, you might've extracted what I allured to... but if not, let me state again explicitly.

On the issue of creation of the universe; to an atheist, while the universe might not necessarily come about on its own, it does come about with no 'divine' or sentient aid. That is to say, imagine nothing... then imagine that nothing that has a chance to bring about the occurence of something. Then give that nothing+chance of something infinite chances... eventually something resembling the universe will come about. There may be infinite other universes that fail, fail to be anything, fail to produce life, fail to produce life such as ourselves...

That nothing/void+chance of something possesses the 2 attributes needed to be a universal creator; that is to exist outside of time/space (which comes about with the advent of universe), to have always existed.... and to be able to create something from nothing. If you wish, you can arbitarily assign the God title to this void+chance, to acknowledge the idea that it is a creator of sorts. But that's just been facetious.

Given this nothing+something, it's disingenious to argue that there is a certain design that brought us about; we see from the start of the universe and believe it shapes us... but if you think of us as something of chance... but that the we will occur given the number of chances, then we necessarily exist... just as a function of infinite universes of infinite variety.

Reread my previous posts please, I make a clear distinction between what is natural, and what is necessary. The idea of the universe causing itself to exist, that is a ridiculous stance because it is simply a contradiction. From a theistic understanding, there was never a "time" when God did not exist, thus he never "sprang" into existence, nor would he be a self caused being either. Try and think about this concept outside the realm and contraints of time, something the universe is limited by, but not something God would be limited by.

Well, for one, I intentionally limit my discussion between theism and atheism for a reason. There are four other "alternatives" we can readily discuss. Deism, agnostism, pantheism, and panentheism. Deism, when it comes to the beginning of the universe, is really not much different from theism. The last two, pantheism and panentheism, still contain the concept, although vague, of a deity. Agnosticism is self defeating, because it makes the contradictory assertion that one knows enough about God in order to affirm that nothing can be known about God. That then leaves the discussion between theism and atheism, just what I have been doing this whole time. And from what I have been able to discern, and if you can prove otherwise, then I am all ears, theism has the slight upper hand over atheism. Thus, it shows itself to be the most rationalistic and logical position to take.

From an agnostic position, how do you so certainly know that "any single religion is very unlikely to be the real answer"? You are contradicting yourself here, sorry.

Despite your words, agnosticsm is simply the idea where a person is unsure of what to believe in terms of a divine entity. To a true agnostic, all possibilities have an equal likelihood, because nothing can be confirmed; simply because most if not all variations of theism are self-confirming in a logical sense. If they all say they're right and true, then in a direct and literal intepretation, most of them are likely wrong; most likely wrong in the sense they've been made up by man. Given the huge number of concievable alternatives that can be made up by man, with self-reinforcing logics (read an near infinite number), and even more variables that go into making a religion successful, then it's obvious to a logically thinking agnostic (as opposed to one that doesn't think about it much), that none of the current religions are likely the 'right one'. So, no, there's no contradiction.

Once again, contradicting yourself. If you allow God to exist, then you state that "his nature will not be yet apparent to humans, if ever," but you claim to already know something about his nature, that it is unknowable.

Once again, see above. If you allow a creator to exist and arbitarily name it God, then it doesn't give you any more information on it. As an agnostic, even if you accept that there was a creator to the universe, you don't have any information on how, why, etc it created the univese, if you don't automatically accept on of the current religions.

Nothing further on my part needs to be said, as you defeated your own reasoning. But, I will bring up the idea that perhaps God, being by definition all powerful and all knowing, to name a few, would be able to formulate a way of revealing himself to us humans, if he so desired to do so, and would not be limited by his nature from doing it.

Once again, the problem with most Gods, especially an abrahamic God is that the logic behind it is self-reinforcing. You know what else can be self-reinforcing? Delusions.

Finally... I believe that any concientious believer of any religion, must at least once assess their stance and their beliefs deeply from an agnostic point of view; that is, to step away from a stance that takes some factors for granted and seeks to further prove by way of indoctrination. You don't even have to stop believing in your religion; rather just don't take certain things for granted, question all facets of the belief. Do you find yourself making up reasons and coming up with circular logic and specious thinking in defense of your religion?

If that isn't done, then that person does themselves and society a disservice, by not only continuing to waste their time, but wasting the time of others if they manage to convince those people (that might not necessarily have deeply examined religion from an agnostic point of view (it's important to note, that this is far from the default stance of people)) of their religion... as well as how their religious beliefs effect their views and actions on a multi-religion, secular world.