Author Topic: The God Arguement  (Read 6202 times)

Offline phookat

  • Nickel Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 629
The God Arguement
« Reply #195 on: June 25, 2007, 12:44:03 PM »
Quote
Originally posted by lazs2
only the thiest and athiest believe in a manner that is 100% certain and based only on faith.   As I have said.. I believe in god and have no doubt.. I base this soley on faith.

I have always said so here so the quote you attributed to me was wrong.
According to your own definition then, you are a theist, not an agnostic as you claimed before.

And yes, actually, you did say that you "are not religious at all" in your previous post that I quoted.  Do you really need me to give you a link to that message?  I'll do this if you request it.  Now you are saying you have complete faith in God, no doubt at all, and have always believed in God. Seems pretty dishonest to me. Seems like you are willing to say whatever you think will help you win an argument, even if it is false.

Any anyway, in most of your posts you express your absolute hatred for all forms of control and authority.  Socialism this, and socialism that.  Now here you are defending this evil and total dictatorship from Heaven.  What's up with that?

Quote
Originally posted by lazs2
great evil has been done in the name of athiesm
This is false. No society becomes deranged by being reasonable and asking for evidence instead of taking things on faith.  No society goes nuts following the principles of Thomas Jefferson and Thomas Paine and Einstein.  If you want to argue that "atheism is bad for society", these are the people you are up against.

The dictatorships of the 20th century were not "in the name of atheism".  Tom Clancy had it right when he said that "Marxism/Leninism was a jealous God, who tolerated no competing deities."  The problem in the USSR, as in many other places, was the instinct to worship and put someone else in total control--a very religious idea.  The Russian population was held in a theocracy for centuries before 1917.  They were ready to worship a God...well, Stalin was quite ready to arrange one for them.  Same problem in China, same in North Korea with different originating circumstances.  Same problem in Hirohito's Japan (the kamikaze pilots were additionally induced by some version of Zen Buddhism).

And how about Hitler then.  The same leader-cult-worship problem applies here, but in the case of the Nazis there are also strong ties to supernatural religion.  Hitler called himself a Christian and used the Bible in speeches, e.g. the scourging of the Temple scene.  For many centuries, anti-semitism and the pogroms against Jews were unquestionably caused and incited by an explicit Biblical warrant to hate Jews.  Hitler was riding a wave of anti-Jewish sentiment that was explicitly supported by Christianity.  The catholic church only rescinded the charge of "deicide" against the Jews in the latter half of the 20th century.  It also until the early 1900s accused the Jews of "blood libel", which is the barbaric and obviously false accusation that Jews kill Christians and use their blood to thicken the Matzo.  Furthermore, the Catholic and/or Orthodox church has supported fascism from the beginning to this day: Franco to Serbia.

Offline phookat

  • Nickel Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 629
Re: Re: phookat
« Reply #196 on: June 25, 2007, 01:14:21 PM »
Quote
Originally posted by SirLoin
Fear is the cornerstone of most every religion...You don't accept the Lord as your savior?..you ain't goooooin' up to heaven!"

My father is almost 80..Never drank,smoked,lied..He is an athiest and NEVER violated one of the Ten Commandments.But you see,he is condemned to eternity in Hell according to religion.

Being judged on your beliefs instead of your actions or morals is wrong.If there is an afterlife,i would rather spend it with people like my father..rather than "born again" liars,cheaters,rapists etc.

I would rather rule in hell than serve in heaven...Besides,who wants to sit around all day playin the harp?Much better musicians down below.


:D Agreed.  Well said, Sir.

Offline lazs2

  • Radioactive Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 24886
The God Arguement
« Reply #197 on: June 25, 2007, 02:31:26 PM »
phoo... I have never claimed to be an agnostic.  I 100% believe in god... I am agnostic on other peoples god.   I am not religious at all in the common idea of the term.   I follow no religion that I know of... as I have said.. my god is a personal one.  I am indeed a theist.  I believe in god even tho I have no proof.

My god does not dictate to me in the least so I don't know what you are talking about... my god hates socialism as best I can tell.

marxism is a jealous god.  I believe that you are not seeing the truth in that statement.   the fact is... athiesm is a religion based soley on faith..  They can't prove there is no god so they deny his existence with a religious fervor strong enough to make a crusader proud.   God was driven from marxism and millions died.   At least as strong a connection can be made to these deaths and athiesm as can be made to a modern christian country and the deaths it's government causes.

your distinction between agnostic and athiest is perhaps an example of the weakest hair splitting I have ever seen... I don't know you but would attribute dishonesty to anyone who used such a distinction.

" As Moot pointed out, an agnostic thinks you can't say anything about the chances of God existing or not. An atheist thinks you can. You can say it is very unlikely. There is a difference."

the agnostic in your explanation simply says there is no proof either way so you can't say.. he can still believe in the likelyhood of it being one way or the other.

the athiest says that he can say something about the chances of their being a god or not.    And what would that be?   How does he come by this special insight that even science isn't capable of proving... why.... faith of course.   Faith that there is no god.   religious, unsupported fervor... just like the theist... he has a belief that has no proof.

Your explanation leaves no room between an agnostic and an athiest... they are interchangeable terms by your defenition.. you show no real difference at all.

It is the agnostic that says that can say that a god is "very unlikely" not the athiest... the athiest must say that he BELIEVES that there is not.

otherwise he is simply an agnostic who leans toward the no god side.

lazs

Offline lazs2

  • Radioactive Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 24886
The God Arguement
« Reply #198 on: June 25, 2007, 02:34:59 PM »
and... why would any god want socialism?   God would want people to be responsible for themselves and for their actions.   God would certainly be pleased with charity freely given but would abhor making people dependent on government handouts I would think...

what value would god find in charity that was extorted from the "giver".?  

I have no way of knowing these things but it is what I believe.

lazs

Offline Chairboy

  • Probation
  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 8221
      • hallert.net
The God Arguement
« Reply #199 on: June 25, 2007, 03:22:31 PM »
Lazs, it's telling that you brand anyone who's atheist as 'dishonest' while we atheists feel that theists honestly believe their faith.

Also, we live good lives because we think it's the right thing to do, while theists operate under the assumption that if they don't, they'll go to hell.

We donate to charity even though we're not going to curry favor with a 'god', too.  

If you want to make it personal, which it seems you do, then consider for a moment how effective of a technique that'll be in the long run.
"When fascism comes to America it will be wrapped in the flag and carrying a cross." - Sinclair Lewis

Offline E25280

  • Gold Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3475
      • http://125thspartanforums.com
The God Arguement
« Reply #200 on: June 25, 2007, 08:28:45 PM »
Quote
Originally posted by phookat
You still don't get it.  That is simply a statement of "fact" (likely a false fact in this case).  A statement of fact is not a reason.  You still haven't provided a reason why God doesn't show himself now.  It would be very easy for him to do, it would remove most doubts, and it would certainly vindicate you and all the others who are certain of God.  So why doesn't he do it?  All the obvious miracles seem to have happened in the past, none are happening now...doesn't that make you a little suspicious about the truth of the original outlandish miracle claims?

 OK, what's the evidence?  

 Such as?
The best source for information, evidence, and witnesses to God's works is the Bible.  There are many writings beyond The Book, but it is the most obvious source.

But, you don't believe in the Bible, and so anything I point to in it, you will dismiss out of hand.  So, although I know there is very little point in the exercise, let me try to answer your specific question as to why God doesn't reveal himself.

To put it as briefly as possible, he already has.  He walked in the garden of Eden with Adam.  He spoke directly to many of the first humans.  He appeared to Moses.  He sent his only begotten Son to walk among men.  Then he took a step back.

Then I point to the book of Revelation.  As with many of the writings in the Bible, Revelation is prophecy of events that have not yet occurred.  At the end times, Christ will be enthroned as the true King, and mankind will live under his benevolent rule.

We are at a time in between what I refer to as "the step back" and the time of Christ's return.  Asking God to reveal himself in your so-called "great miracle" is to ask for the events of Revelation to occur right now, on your timetable.  God has his own timetable.

The next obvious question from what I have written is, what is the "step back" and why did God do it.  To answer that, you must understand the theme of the Bible in its entirety, from Genesis to Revelation.  

To put it as succinctly as possible, the Bible describes the conflict between God and Satan.  Satan has done much of what you are doing -- he denies that God has the right to rule what He has created.  Satan's claim is that either he or man himself have as much right to rule as God, and can do just as good a job of it.

The only way to answer such a claim is to let it occur.  With the first humans, God tried to give a set of laws.  Parts of the Old Testament read like an instruction manual, and in many ways, that is what it was meant to be.  Invariably, we as humans screwed it up anyway.  Other parts of the Old Testament give plenty of examples of both people who followed God's Will closely, and those that did so poorly.

Finally, God sent his Son to be the ultimate example for humankind to follow.  After that ultimate example, complete with the proof that those who follow God's Will exactly will even conquer death, God took his "step back."  (There have been examples of His intervention since then, but they seem to be fewer and farther between to my observation.)

He has given us all we need to make our own choice, whether following God's Will benefits us, or whether we want to decide our own way, or follow Satan.

Now it is Satan that rules this system of things.  He is doing all he can to turn people away from God.  The book of Job is a good microcosm of Satan's overall methodology.  Job followed God and loved God deeply.  Satan claimed the only reason he did so was the blessings God gave to Job.  Take them all away, he argued, and Job would surely turn against God.  God allowed Satan to test that theory.  Satan inflicted all kinds of harm on Job, but Job did not turn away from God, despite the many influences that tried to get him to do so.

As Satan did to Job, he now does to the entire Earth.  This will continue until the appointed time.  At the appointed time, after things have become much worse than they are today, when it is entirely, overly, and abundantly clear that neither Satan nor Mankind can ever possibly rule themselves wisely, Christ will return, do away with this system of things, and restore the order that was originally intended.

It is unfortunate that my explanation was so long because I know most will not bother to read it, but there it is.
Brauno in a past life, followed by LTARget
SWtarget in current incarnation
Captain and Communications Officer~125th Spartans

"Proudly drawing fire so that my brothers may pass unharmed."

Offline E25280

  • Gold Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3475
      • http://125thspartanforums.com
Re: Re: Re: Re: phookat
« Reply #201 on: June 25, 2007, 08:32:00 PM »
Quote
Originally posted by phookat
No I really disagree completely on this.  Dictatorship is bad, especially the benevolent kind.  There's no reason to assume that your dictator shares your "common sense".  We are talking about a dictatorial God who will torture you eternally for the thought-crime of "not believing in him".  Yes, this is something that we should fear and loathe.  This is not morality at all, but rather extreme immorality of a Stalinist/1984 kind.
Please quote for me where in the Bible it states that you will be tortured for eternity.

To my knowledge, that is one of the many confused teachings of man, and is NOT a teaching of God.
Brauno in a past life, followed by LTARget
SWtarget in current incarnation
Captain and Communications Officer~125th Spartans

"Proudly drawing fire so that my brothers may pass unharmed."

Offline Vulcan

  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 9891
The God Arguement
« Reply #202 on: June 25, 2007, 08:36:14 PM »
Wasn't the bible written a mere 17 centuries ago by a committee of roman bishops?

And while we're at it, care to explain original sin, infancts, baptism and how that stacks up with mens free will under the christian god?
« Last Edit: June 25, 2007, 08:41:35 PM by Vulcan »

Offline Holden McGroin

  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 8591
The God Arguement
« Reply #203 on: June 25, 2007, 08:55:10 PM »
The commission of bishops was appointed by Emperor Constantine to confer and decide which books / stories should be in an official bible to take care of the squabbling among the various sects.

As I understand it, the books were already written by Peter, Paul, the other Paul, Mark, Luke, and John and the plethora of Jewish scribes who wrote the old testament. The Constantine commission edited them into an official agreed upon text.
Holden McGroin LLC makes every effort to provide accurate and complete information. Since humor, irony, and keen insight may be foreign to some readers, no warranty, expressed or implied is offered. Re-writing this disclaimer cost me big bucks at the lawyer’s office!

Offline E25280

  • Gold Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3475
      • http://125thspartanforums.com
The God Arguement
« Reply #204 on: June 25, 2007, 09:27:21 PM »
Quote
Originally posted by Vulcan
And while we're at it, care to explain original sin, infancts, baptism and how that stacks up with mens free will under the christian god?
(At the risk of people thinking I might actually know what I am talking about . . .)

The "original sin" was Adam and Eve disobeying God's command to not eat from the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Bad.  They were told, do not eat from it, or you will surely die.  They ate from it anyway . . . thus entered death into the human race.  Not only did they eventually die, but all of their offspring inherited the "original sin" and were also subjected to death.  That Satan goaded them into doing so was the initial salvo of the struggle that permiates the rest of the Bible.

Baptism is a symbol of the repentance for your sins and your rebirth into a life following God's word.

The Catholic notion of baptism washing away original sin (if I understand this to be your question) is a Church teaching, and is not Bible based AFAIK.
Brauno in a past life, followed by LTARget
SWtarget in current incarnation
Captain and Communications Officer~125th Spartans

"Proudly drawing fire so that my brothers may pass unharmed."

Offline Vulcan

  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 9891
The God Arguement
« Reply #205 on: June 25, 2007, 10:02:20 PM »
Quote
Originally posted by E25280
(The Catholic notion of baptism washing away original sin (if I understand this to be your question) is a Church teaching, and is not Bible based AFAIK.


its based on interpretation of what is written in the bible. As are all things christian.

Quote
Therefore, as one trespass led to condemnation for all men, so one act of righteousness leads to justification and life for all men. For as by the one man's disobedience the many were made sinners, so by the one man's obedience the many will be made righteous. Now the law came in to increase the trespass, but where sin increased, grace abounded all the more, so that, as sin reigned in death, grace also might reign through righteousness leading to eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord.
—Rom. 5:18-21, ESV


...but like any religious argument, especially a christian one, this will all boil down to intepretation with regards to the argument, not unlike the traditional 'well he's not a real christian' fallback.

p.s. given the church wrote the bible, how is it you differentiate the teachings?

Offline moot

  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 16333
      • http://www.dasmuppets.com
Re: Re: Re: Re: phookat
« Reply #206 on: June 26, 2007, 08:42:13 AM »
Quote
Originally posted by phookat
No I really disagree completely on this.  Dictatorship is bad, especially the benevolent kind.  There's no reason to assume that your dictator shares your "common sense".  We are talking about a dictatorial God who will torture you eternally for the thought-crime of "not believing in him".  Yes, this is something that we should fear and loathe.  This is not morality at all, but rather extreme immorality of a Stalinist/1984 kind.

That's not the point.  Fear is a pretty dumb choice (pardon my French!) to make.. It is irrational, and even dismissing that (apparently you do), there are plenty of better irrational alternatives.


About God showing himself:  You wouldn't know it, think about it.  You couldn't tell the difference between "God" and a sufficiently advanced being.. "It takes one to know one"; so man will never "know" God until he is one himself...

SirLoin, the artificial form given to organised religion are a different thing than Religion the idea.  You're saying the original (Godly) idea is bunk because of flaws in the human derivative.  That's not valid.
Hello ant
running very fast
I squish you

Offline lazs2

  • Radioactive Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 24886
The God Arguement
« Reply #207 on: June 26, 2007, 08:47:05 AM »
chair..  I don't care how effective the arguement.. athiests are dishonest if the say they have no agenda.. that athiesm is not faith based.

Theists at least admit that their religion is faith based.. some are indeed dishonest and claim to be theists when they really do not believe in god.. faith based or otherwise.

To me... the dishonest thing about athiests also is that they are mostly just agnostics with a strong leaning toward there is no god but it just plays so much better with their peers if they say they are athiests.

Then again.. some of em have never really though it out.

lazs

Offline Shuckins

  • Gold Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3412
The God Arguement
« Reply #208 on: June 26, 2007, 09:04:34 AM »
Vulcan, the commission that Holden speaks of met at the Council of Nicea, which was sponsored by the Emperor Constantine.

It went through a staggering number of works that had been written about Christ in order to determine which were authentic.  The council was long and contentious.  Indeed, the Emperor himself had to step in at one point to settle a major dispute and preserve order.

The nascent Catholic Church had just been legitimized by this same Emperor, and found itself in the position of strengthening its own power over Christianity and the Roman government.  The temptation to reinforce its influence by hand-picking the stories that would be incorporated into the New Testament was probably too strong to resist.  Thus, one studying this period will note the emergence of such doctrines as excommunication, the sacraments, and the like, which could be used to whip church critics and malcontents into line.

Prior to this period, there had been no reference in the Old Testament to a literal, burning Hell.  Any references to Hell in the original Hebraic or Greek texts used terms that were literally translated as "death" or "the grave."  This tradition is reflected in the later work of St. John called the Book of Revelations.  According to St. John, during the vision of the final judgement, death and Hell were cast into the lake of fire.  Since much of the Bible is allegory or parables told to instruct the faithful, this states that death and the grave are swept from reality, and are no more.

Was Hell an invention of the early Church?  I don't know.  But doubts about the scriptural basis of excommunication and the sale of indulgences fueled the writings of Martin Luther and gave rise to the Protestant Reformation.  So, even this great religious leader had his doubts about some of the Church's long established beliefs.

Regards, Shuckins
« Last Edit: June 26, 2007, 09:07:57 AM by Shuckins »

Offline Chairboy

  • Probation
  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 8221
      • hallert.net
The God Arguement
« Reply #209 on: June 26, 2007, 09:17:30 AM »
Quote
Originally posted by lazs2
chair..  I don't care how effective the arguement.. athiests are dishonest if the say they have no agenda.. that athiesm is not faith based.
Onec again, atheism is "no theism" ala "no faith".  If atheism is a faith, then being healthy is a type of illness.
"When fascism comes to America it will be wrapped in the flag and carrying a cross." - Sinclair Lewis