Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => The O' Club => Topic started by: DREDIOCK on June 20, 2007, 08:10:43 PM
-
Interesting read
And should provide loads of fun here
"The God Argument is based on the philosophy that if you can disprove all possible answers to a question except one, then that one answer is true! An example of this would be if you are taking a multiple choice test with four choices, and you know that B, C, and D are wrong, then you know A is correct! You prove 'A' is correct by disproving the other three choices. You do not need to directly prove that A is correct, it is correct by default"
And thus The God Argument starts with the following multiple choice question:
(http://www.thegodargument.com/?gclid=CJ78woyB7IwCFReEhgodf2aZzg)
-
His argument for the Kalam contingency is old school Thomas Aquinas stuff, great for determining the number of angels that can dance on a pin, but it begins to suffer when you get into the realm of applying it to the real world.
Argument from contingency is popular, because, as Gottfried Liebnetz suggested, you can explain away anything in a puff of logic by basing it on a shaky premise.
The problem, of course, is that it dismisses the theory of infinite regression of cause. Just because you assume that every cause must have an effect doesn't mean that, when dealing with the question of the beginning of the universe, that every effect must have a cause. We're still learning new things every day, it seems a bit early to dismiss everything because, mathematically, a bumblebee cannot possibly fly.
Philosophy is composed of questions that cannot be answered, and religion is answers that cannot be questioned.
-
a bumblebee does not understand mathematics, therefor it can fly.
or you could say mathematics does not understand bumblebees.
logic by john.
-
Originally posted by john9001
a bumblebee does not understand mathematics, therefor it can fly.
logic by john.
Now thats tagline material LOL
-
Is it just me.
Or does it seem if we were to apply the arguements used to disprove 1,2 and 3
To arguement 4
We would also be able to disprove arguement 4?
-
Oh God, another God arguement.
-
Originally posted by DREDIOCK
Is it just me.
Or does it seem if we were to apply the arguements used to disprove 1,2 and 3
To arguement 4
We would also be able to disprove arguement 4?
in that case the answer would be 5, none of the above.:D
-
Originally posted by Ripsnort
Oh God, another God arguement.
I really appreciate the comparison
But you can call me Dred ;)
-
Anyone familar with superstrings (also known as twistors)?
Or the fact that time travel occurs often in a sense?
Anyone else read quantum physics books?
CFYA
-
I believe in God and can careless. Nor will I impede on other's beliefs, as long as they steer clear of mine.
-
Sherlock Holmes solved many cases using that methodology.
-
Originally posted by Masherbrum
I believe in God and can careless. Nor will I impede on other's beliefs, as long as they steer clear of mine.
^ what he said..My brother is a minister....My grandfathers on both sides were ministers....2 uncles that are deacons. They have strong and deep beliefs....I have mine...and although we may not agree on everything...we do agree on the most important.
-
The way I see it there are only two possibilites, either there is an intelligent being (God) that created everything that is or there isn't. If there is then the whole and entire purpose of everyone (even atheists) is to accomplish what that being put us here to accomplish. We're all likely to feel awfully silly, ashamed, and/or both when we meet our maker and discover how fully we accomplished our purpose, especially those who denied we even had a purpose. The only alternative is that there isn't a creator and we end when we die meaning there is no meaning.
-
Originally posted by CFYA
Anyone familar with superstrings (also known as twistors)?
Or the fact that time travel occurs often in a sense?
Anyone else read quantum physics books?
CFYA
My brother reads quantum physics books (sadly, over my head). He's got a great blogspot that he's actually talking about the same thing: proof of God. It's interesting.
-
Originally posted by CFYA
Anyone familar with superstrings (also known as twistors)?
Or the fact that time travel occurs often in a sense?
Anyone else read quantum physics books?
CFYA
Watch this.. Fascinating stuff.. I'm reading the book right now and it goes more in depth than the program, but it's definately worth watching..
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/elegant/program.html
:aok
-
There is no god.
...but if there was, he would have my contempt.
-
Originally posted by AKIron
The way I see it there are only two possibilites, either there is an intelligent being (God) that created everything that is or there isn't. If there is then the whole and entire purpose of everyone (even atheists) is to accomplish what that being put us here to accomplish. We're all likely to feel awfully silly, ashamed, and/or both when we meet our maker and discover how fully we accomplished our purpose, especially those who denied we even had a purpose. The only alternative is that there isn't a creator and we end when we die meaning there is no meaning.
You qualify it as black and white, but what if this qualification is wrong? Who's to say there isn't a shade of gray? What if there is a really powerful being, that isn't all powerful (i.e. bad things happen to good people)?
And that's pretty much what I believe.
-
Originally posted by Sandman
There is no god.
...but if there was, he would have my contempt.
Actually, I think something similar. If god gave us free will, how could he demand obedience?
-
Originally posted by lasersailor184
You qualify it as black and white, but what if this qualification is wrong? Who's to say there isn't a shade of gray? What if there is a really powerful being, that isn't all powerful (i.e. bad things happen to good people)?
And that's pretty much what I believe.
God is just another totalitarian dictator. A benevolent one, which is even worse. See 1984 for details.
You can't have it both ways, kids. Either God is perfect or he's not. If he's not perfect, then anything he says is subject to argument and revision, including his promises of paradise for those who "believe in him". If he's not perfect, who's to say he's not lying? If he is perfect, that just leads to other obvious conundrums (which is why you decided to make him imperfect). It's a no-win situation.
And as far as "proof" of God. God is something you can't ultimately prove or disprove. Anyone who says different is conning you. But you don't need to disprove something completely to think it is as nonsensical as Santa Claus and the Tooth Fairy. For example, you can't disprove the Matrix. Doesn't mean it's true or even remotely likely. You can't disprove Zeus, or Shiva, or Allah. Doesn't mean any of them are true or remotely likely.
-
Ifs all around!
-
Proof God didn't create the universe...
The Bible..The infallable word of God states>>>The sun revolves around the earth.
So he created the earth in seven days but failed to notice everything spins around that big glowing orange ball?:aok
-
Bah humbug,
i read once from buddism, that trying to find all the answers is like a man whos been ambused and shot with a poison arrow, but before he will let the medic save him he wants to know about everything that just happened.
Where did the man stand?, what poison did he use?, where did he learn to make it?, what was his motive? and on and on.
And so he dies as the medic looks on helplessly as his friend dies trying to learn the answers to to many questions in the short time he had left.
And so this shows the futility of having to understand everything in our short lifetime, you could spend your entire life trying to prove or disprove God and still ultimately you will die having wasted your life.
So get our there and live and enjoy yourself, if god shows up in the future cool, I'll be sure to say hi, if he doesn't I shant let it bother me.
Agnostic fence sitting is the way to go :-)
--------------------------------------
So back on topic this is the other choice you get with that multichoice:
Personal choice, leave all 4 unanswered, walk out the exam, head down the beach and go for a surf.
bliss which nobody could argue with.
-
"The only alternative is that there isn't a creator and we end when we die meaning there is no meaning."
Well there can be a God but that does not mean our lives have a meaning and that we do not end when we die.
If there is a God the level of our thinking and reasoning probably cannot comprehend the nature of his existence. What I mean is that our thinking is limited by our quite simple perceptions of this world and learning and the social nature of our being. By social nature of our being I mean that everything that we say or think has to do with the nature of our existence which is mainly social in that it is about thinking what others might think and learning what others think and why. Thus our way of thinking is always hindered by certain boundaries which dictate the inner methodology of our reasoning structures. This may lead into a disturbing thought that when we fully understand what God is, we are...?
What troubles me is that it seems many times that many kinds of religious and fundamental hard values are actually a slight mockery of His possible existence and are run by a desperate fear of some missed "salvation" and are not run by a genuine love to Him and His "creation" (i.e. all that Exists). This also raises a thought of love, do we "love" because of ourselves? By this thought it is also revealed what I meant with social way of thinking and that is mainly what our religions are about. We do not believe alone, but in groups.
I have often though what would remain if a huge comet would come and render Earth into a dead piece of mud. If there was a God would He allow that to happen or would that simply be a part of his "plan" or just one event in his creation serving the meaning of "being"? Hell, even our language and words act as a means of restricting our expression but that serves as a bridge between people and different thoughts. As they cannot deliver the exact idea the other person actually has of complicated matters they simply act as a guideline and this once again shows how much our social existence dictates our thinking.
Well, that sounds complicated... :p
-C+
-
Originally posted by AKIron
Sherlock Holmes solved many cases using that methodology.
.........and a 7% solution of cocaine. So much for Sherlock. :rofl
-
what if there is a god, but god did not creat everything?
-
I'm going to make this easy for you guys. Real simple with mostly small words.
About GOD >>>>> SHE IS BLACK.
Now the rest is up to you, believe, or not. :)
-
I'm going to make this easy for you guys. Real simple with mostly small words.
About GOD >>>>> SHE IS BLACK. - Ghosth
hello? i'd like to change my lunch order; cancel the inside-ouside unagi roll with flying fish eggs. i think i'll have the chit'lins with black-eyed peas and sweet potato pie and lemonade. thank you.
-
god is not a she or a he, god is not black or white, god is not even a single entity, god is more like a group or committee.
i'm not allowed to tell you more.
-
"I'll believe in God when 1 and 1 are 5"
^ Bad Religion... (litterally)
-
Originally posted by Charge
Well there can be a God but that does not mean our lives have a meaning and that we do not end when we die.
Indeed. The existence of even the regular bronze-age santa-style God does not give human life any "real meaning." What's the purpose of life? To get into heaven? Then what is the purpose of heaven, to sit around and play a harp? It's all meaningless in the end if you choose to look at it that way. Ultimately you have to make meaning for yourself, God or no God. I think the joy of discovering more and more about our species and our universe in regular old reality provides more than enough awe and meaning for our tiny mammalian minds. The reality of the evolution of the universe is far more magnificent and vast and awe-inspiring than any creation myth ever told.
-
Originally posted by xNOVAx
Watch this.. Fascinating stuff.. I'm reading the book right now and it goes more in depth than the program, but it's definately worth watching..
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/elegant/program.html
:aok
Ah, yes, the Elegant Universe, I watched that entire show, once when I was 13, once when I saw it again on TV, and then once last semester in Chemistry 2 as a TA, and then in my Chemistry 1 class, I wish I could afford to buy it. I am now 16, and I study Physics and all other sciences whenever possible, I have highschool Chemistry and Physics textbooks, and a college Biology textbook. And I still have unwavering faith in God and Jesus. I know God created the Earth, and that we are just beginning to understand some of those concepts of how he did so now. I also know we will never fully understand it, as the end will come before we do. I also know that no one man can understand all the secrets of the earth.
-
Originally posted by SirLoin
Proof God didn't create the universe...
The Bible..The infallable word of God states>>>The sun revolves around the earth.
So he created the earth in seven days but failed to notice everything spins around that big glowing orange ball?:aok
Yeah, a slight oversight there. :D
PS- I am gonna shoot you down, you mother****er!!
-
Originally posted by SirLoin
Proof God didn't create the universe...
The Bible..The infallable word of God states>>>The sun revolves around the earth.
Where does it state this? :confused:
-
Originally posted by McFarland
I know God created the Earth
You don't know. You think you know. No one, including you, can prove that God created the Earth. By being certain, by refusing to question yourself, you open yourself up to the possibility of conmen taking advantage of it.
-
God is not a conman. I also don't think money is something to want.
-
Originally posted by phookat
You don't know. You think you know. No one, including you, can prove that God created the Earth. By being certain, by refusing to question yourself, you open yourself up to the possibility of conmen taking advantage of it.
If you were taking a walk through the woods and found a piece of wood in the detailed shape of a toy sailing ship would you think that it was just a piece of wood that formed in the very detailed shape of a toy sailing ship? Or would you think that someone or something had carved it and it found its way, somehow, to the place you found it? If so, could you prove that?
-
Originally posted by Donzo
Where does it state this? :confused:
I believe you are correct that it doesn't state this explicitly in the Bible. There are some passages that indicate "the foundations of the earth" and "the earth doesn't move", and "the sun stayed in one place in the sky for an hour", things of that nature, which show that the writers of the Bible (and most everyone else before Galileo) thought the Earth was the stationary center of the universe. I think the reason it wasn't explicitly stated is that it was too obvious. Of course the Sun goes around the Earth, that doesn't need to be revealed to you. On the contrary I think the lack of a description of the Helio-centric solar system in the Bible is very telling.
-
Originally posted by Donzo
If you were taking a walk through the woods and found a piece of wood in the detailed shape of a toy sailing ship would you think that it was just a piece of wood that formed in the very detailed shape of a toy sailing ship? Or would you think that someone or something had carved it and it found its way, somehow, to the place you found it? If so, could you prove that?
Here's a good example on someone who has been conned, in this case probably by Ray Comfort. :D
-
a bumblebee does not understand mathematics, therefor it can fly.
====
A flying bumblebee is pure mathmatics.
-
Originally posted by phookat
Here's a good example on someone who has been conned, in this case probably by Ray Comfort. :D
Conned? No.
It is an interesting thought exercise.
Do you have an answer to the question I posed?
-
Originally posted by McFarland
God is not a conman.
You don't know that either. Don't think that you know God's mind. In any case, I was referring to human conmen.
-
No I don't know his mind, why he created me, why he put the stars in the sky, but I know I can trust him.
-
Originally posted by phookat
I believe you are correct that it doesn't state this explicitly in the Bible. There are some passages that indicate "the foundations of the earth" and "the earth doesn't move", and "the sun stayed in one place in the sky for an hour", things of that nature, which show that the writers of the Bible (and most everyone else before Galileo) thought the Earth was the stationary center of the universe. I think the reason it wasn't explicitly stated is that it was too obvious. Of course the Sun goes around the Earth, that doesn't need to be revealed to you. On the contrary I think the lack of a description of the Helio-centric solar system in the Bible is very telling.
Can you elaborate on these passages you speak of?
-
Originally posted by Donzo
Conned? No.
It is an interesting thought exercise.
Do you have an answer to the question I posed?
Sure, we can discuss this. The answer is as follows. A toy boat on the shore doesn't exist in isolation. It exists in concert with your own experience and knowledge of toy boat building factories that you can visit and have evidence for. The evidence for a factory is not the boat itself, but the factory that you can visit where you can see step by step how the boat is made. Also, you know of no natural process that reasonably (and with evidence) explains toy boats. So you conclude that to the best of your knowledge, some intelligent designer made the toy boat.
Next you'll want to talk about the perfectly designed banana, no doubt. :D
-
Originally posted by McFarland
No I don't know his mind, why he created me, why he put the stars in the sky, but I know I can trust him.
No you don't. If you don't know his mind, you don't know that you can trust him.
-
Originally posted by Donzo
Can you elaborate on these passages you speak of?
Sure. Here are a few: Job 38:4, 1 Samuel 2:8, Psalms 93:1, Joshua 10:12.
-
Originally posted by phookat
Sure, we can discuss this. The answer is as follows. A toy boat on the shore doesn't exist in isolation. It exists in concert with your own experience and knowledge of toy boat building factories that you can visit and have evidence for. The evidence for a factory is not the boat itself, but the factory that you can visit where you can see step by step how the boat is made. Also, you know of no natural process that reasonably (and with evidence) explains toy boats. So you conclude that to the best of your knowledge, some intelligent designer made the toy boat.
Next you'll want to talk about the perfectly designed banana, no doubt. :D
So one would have to search the entire earth to find a factory where toy saling ships are manufactured exactly like the one you found in the woods in order to find proof that the boat was made? Or can you come to the conclusion that what you found was made because it is similar to what you have observed being made in the many factories you visited?
-
The biggest problem with the argument is that he tries to prove a faith with logic. Logic and faith are two different belief systems and one cannot be used to prove the other.
Specifically, he syas about the big band, in bold,
In fairness to the Big Bang Theory, it doesn't make any claims as to what happened before singularity. Mainstream science simply says they don't know what initially caused the universe or how singularity came to be.
He does not understand that according to the theory, there is no before, as space/time was created with the big bang. If time was created, there is no before... no time existed before time came into existance.
So his argument against the BB is flawed.
-
Originally posted by phookat
No you don't. If you don't know his mind, you don't know that you can trust him.
Yes, I do know I can trust him.
The Lord is my shepherd; I shall not want.
He maketh me to lie down in green pastures:
he leadeth me beside the still waters.
He restoreth my soul: he leadeth me in the
paths of rightousness for his name's sake.
Yea, though I walk through the valley of
the shadow of death, I will fear no evil:
for thou art with me; thy rod and
thy staff they comfort me.
Thou preparest a table before me in the
presence of mine enemies: thou anointest
my head with oil; my cup runneth over.
Surely goodness and mercy shall follow me
all the days of my life: and I will dwell in
the house of the Lord for ever.
Psalm 23
-
Originally posted by Holden McGroin
Logic and faith are two different belief systems and one cannot be used to prove the other.
/B]
Faith is defined in the dictionary as:.."the firm belief in something for which there is no proof"
amen
-
Originally posted by Donzo
Or can you come to the conclusion that what you found was made because it is similar to what you have observed being made in the many factories you visited?
Yes, it can be a similar factory. But the other details I mentioned above need to be present, you do have to be able to visit the factory and see the evidence of how it works. The important thing is that the toy itself is not the evidence for the designer. That would be circular logic.
Keep in mind also, that if you want to convince me of something, it's gotta be a bit more than some straw-grasping desperate "just might be possible" ploy. I am definitely open to the argument, but you have a lot of contrary evidence to deal with before you can convince me.
-
Well, as I can see I cain't change your ignorance and save your souls, I shall do as the Holy Bible says to do, kick the dust off of my heels. Good day, may you someday find your Saviour.
-
Originally posted by SirLoin
Faith is defined in the dictionary as:.."the firm belief in something for which there is no proof"
amen
Well, I would put it more strongly. Like "the firm belief in something for which there is no evidence."
-
And I shall pray for your souls, as I do every night.
-
Originally posted by McFarland
Yes, I do know I can trust him.
Yeah, of course you can trust him, it says so right there in the book he wrote.
Indeed, Toad, where's that rolling eye thingy when you need it?
-
Originally posted by McFarland
Well, as I can see I cain't change your ignorance and save your souls, I shall do as the Holy Bible says to do, kick the dust off of my heels. Good day, may you someday find your Saviour.
I hear this a lot. All it means is that you're probably wrong, but you don't want to admit it. But whatever, believe what you like.
-
In the future, the current religions will go the way of ancient religions and be study material... People will wonder "how anyone ever believed such things".
http://www.meta-religion.com/World_Religions/Ancient_religions/ancient_religions.htm
I am very interested in other people's views, and very much respect them. I find it fascinating listening to Seagoon and asking him questions on his beliefs, but i still cannot believe the stories of the bible - as much as i would like to.
-
Many of the stories linked to the new testament are not yet published.....
-
Furball, I agree that Seagoon brings a lot of class to this type of discussion. He makes his points lucidly, with fervor, and never seems to lose his cool....unlike those on either side who preach a mantra and utilize the "I'm here to convert the illiterate and unwashed masses" argument.
If you're interested in a clear and concise presentation of what are, perhaps, the most pertinent cosmological theories about the creation of the universe, check out these sites:
http://www.news.cornell.edu/Chronicle/98/3.12.98/Guth_coverage.html (http://www.news.cornell.edu/Chronicle/98/3.12.98/Guth_coverage.html)
http://www.pbs.org/wnet/hawking/mysteries/html/guth_1.html (http://)
-
The well-educated and knowledgeable atheist does not argue whether God exists. He or she argues that the very concept of a deity is logically incoherent not just from religion to religion, but from person to person within those religions.
-
...it seems a bit early to dismiss everything because, mathematically, a bumblebee cannot possibly fly.
This is a myth. 'Mathematics' does not fail, the classical physics models applied do. If you use modern aerodynamic learning it can be proven for the bee to fly. Which is a good thing.
-
Originally posted by Furball
In the future, the current religions will go the way of ancient religions and be study material... People will wonder "how anyone ever believed such things".
http://www.meta-religion.com/World_Religions/Ancient_religions/ancient_religions.htm
I am very interested in other people's views, and very much respect them. I find it fascinating listening to Seagoon and asking him questions on his beliefs, but i still cannot believe the stories of the bible - as much as i would like to.
Christianity is what, about 1,000 years now.
Judaism is at least twice that old dating back to at least the time of the great Pharos
Just curious how old a religeon has to be before it is considered "ancient"? ;)
-
Originally posted by DREDIOCK
Christianity is what, about 1,000 years now.
Judaism is at least twice that old dating back to at least the time of the great Pharos
Just curious how old a religeon has to be before it is considered "ancient"? ;)
hehe, you do know what 2007 AD means right?
-
If god created "life", and "life" has meaning... what about animals?
A male Lion will kill offspring from another male so that his bloodline is guaranteed to continue, acceptable behavior in Lion circles. If I were to slaughter 2 kids of some chick so that I could hump her pregnant, I'd go to prison and be considered "bad".
Does the Lion get to play a harp with the supernatural for being a successful Lion, while I go to hell for being called evil by other people?
I'm only following the example of nature, created by god... accomplishing the same thing; extending my blood line. So what matters in the end is peoples judgement, if I'm considered evil & bad, well then the assumption is it's off to hell I go. The Lion dies with no judgement, only the success, or lack, of his work killing cubs and replacing them with his own.
Does god ignore cruel acts of animals? .. as defined by humans, the little innocent cute furry harmless Lion cubs suffered a horrific death, getting chewed to death by Simba probably hurts, and doesn't look like fun.
-
Nature is an amoral system. There isn't a single animal on the face of the earth that has the intellect to make differentiations between "right" and "wrong."
Except for one....man.
Some atheists attempt to graft humanity's morality system onto the actions of nature's denizens as a means of debunking belief in God. Yet, if all of nature possessed man's aversion to killing there would be disastrous, runaway procreation by the animal kingdom, followed by mass starvation.
THAT is why one has never heard of a Biblical code of conduct for the animal kingdom. The system couldn't work any other way.
Mankind is different....we know full well what murder is....so the rules are different for us, as they should be. Therefore, we are held accountable for our actions...by governmental authorities if one is an atheist, and also by God, if one is a deist.
A religious man believes that, while mankind might have developed within this natural system, he was meant to rise above it.
Regards, Shuckins
-
Originally posted by Shuckins
Nature is an amoral system. There isn't a single animal on the face of the earth that has the intellect to make differentiations between "right" and "wrong."
Except for one....man.
well then why does "man" decide on the "wrong" action too many times?
maybe man does not have the intellect to tell the difference between right and wrong, that means man is defective.
Man was made by god so then god is defective.
-
Originally posted by Shuckins
Some atheists attempt to graft humanity's morality system onto the actions of nature's denizens as a means of debunking belief in God.
It is very much true that certain facets of what we call morality are to be found in certain parts of the animal kingdom. That does not imply that God doesn't exist or that man wasn't created in God's image. Both those ideas are perfectly compatible with morality in animals. It just has no bearing on the God question, either way.
Originally posted by Shuckins
Yet, if all of nature possessed man's aversion to killing there would be disastrous, runaway procreation by the animal kingdom, followed by mass starvation.
THAT is why one has never heard of a Biblical code of conduct for the animal kingdom.
Umm, no. The reason other animals don't follow the kind of complex "code of conduct" that we do is primarily because their brains aren't big enough, and there was no selective pressure for them to do so. In the case of humans, there was selective pressure for the foundations of morality, and we have brains big enough to extend that to higher levels of complexity.
And frankly, it's a damn good thing that we *don't* derive our morals from the Bible. The Bible contains all sorts of grotesque immorality. We use our own moral sense to judge what parts of the Bible are good and what parts need to be discarded. Any morality (and immorality) in the Bible comes from its human authors.
Originally posted by Shuckins
A religious man believes that, while mankind might have developed within this natural system, he was meant to rise above it.
It may shock you to learn that non-religious people live morally also. Sometimes more morally, because his moral sense hasn't been distorted by ancient and often barbaric scriptures.
-
"The only alternative is that there isn't a creator and we end when we die meaning there is no meaning."
Well there can be a God but that does not mean our lives have a meaning and that we do not end when we die.
If there is a God the level of our thinking and reasoning probably cannot comprehend the nature of his existence. What I mean is that our thinking is limited by our quite simple perceptions of this world and learning and the social nature of our being. By social nature of our being I mean that everything that we say or think has to do with the nature of our existence which is mainly social in that it is about thinking what others might think and learning what others think and why. Thus our way of thinking is always hindered by certain boundaries which dictate the inner methodology of our reasoning structures. This may lead into a disturbing thought that when we fully understand what God is, we are...?
What troubles me is that it seems many times that many kinds of religious and fundamental hard values are actually a slight mockery of His possible existence and are run by a desperate fear of some missed "salvation" and are not run by a genuine love to Him and His "creation" (i.e. all that Exists). This also raises a thought of love, do we "love" because of ourselves? By this thought it is also revealed what I meant with social way of thinking and that is mainly what our religions are about. We do not believe alone, but in groups.
I have often though what would remain if a huge comet would come and render Earth into a dead piece of mud. If there was a God would He allow that to happen or would that simply be a part of his "plan" or just one event in his creation serving the meaning of "being"? Hell, even our language and words act as a means of restricting our expression but that serves as a bridge between people and different thoughts. As they cannot deliver the exact idea the other person actually has of complicated matters they simply act as a guideline and this once again shows how much our social existence dictates our thinking.
Well, that sounds complicated...
-C+
great post, Charge! I have an intuitive personal faith in God and i feel a connection with God, but i distrust the various organized religeons and their doctrines, including atheism.
but its true, we clever humans cannot know what exists or what doesn't exist outside the very narrow confines of our human experience.
we can perhaps subjectively feel an inner yearning for a God, or we can perhaps feel an inner yearning for order so great that it rules out the possibillity of God or anything else we cannot directly sense...
or we can imagine, or guess at things outside our experience if we want to, but we cannot know.
it is like trying to imagine a new color unlike anything we have seen before. that is why atheism is just as much a faith or religion as is the belief in God. its also why we should all respect the beliefs of others, and keep religeon and government separate.
-
Originally posted by Gunthr
i distrust the various organized religeons and their doctrines, including atheism.
I don't know of any "doctrines" of atheism. Can you name one?
And I don't think atheists are "organized", either. ;)
Originally posted by Gunthr
but its true, we clever humans cannot know what exists or what doesn't exist outside the very narrow confines of our human experience.
we can perhaps subjectively feel an inner yearning for a God, or we can perhaps feel an inner yearning for order so great that it rules out the possibillity of God or anything else we cannot directly sense...
or we can imagine, or guess at things outside our experience if we want to, but we cannot know.
it is like trying to imagine a new color unlike anything we have seen before. that is why atheism is just as much a faith or religion as is the belief in God.
I fail to see how your last statement follows from the others. Seems like a non-sequitur to me. Atheism is simply a philosophical position stating that there is no evidence for the existence of God. That is, God is as likely as all other things that have no evidence (Santa, Flying Spaghetti Monster, teapot orbiting Mars, etc). I don't see how that is a "faith" (i.e. a belief without evidence).
Originally posted by Gunthr
its also why we should all respect the beliefs of others
Should we respect the belief that Muslim suicide bombers go to paradise? How about the one that apostates and infidels should be murdered?
Originally posted by Gunthr
keep religeon and government separate.
I'm with ya there.
-
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by Gunthr
i distrust the various organized religeons and their doctrines, including atheism.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I don't know of any "doctrines" of atheism. Can you name one?
And I don't think atheists are "organized", either. - phookat
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by Gunthr
but its true, we clever humans cannot know what exists or what doesn't exist outside the very narrow confines of our human experience.
we can perhaps subjectively feel an inner yearning for a God, or we can perhaps feel an inner yearning for order so great that it rules out the possibillity of God or anything else we cannot directly sense...
or we can imagine, or guess at things outside our experience if we want to, but we cannot know.
it is like trying to imagine a new color unlike anything we have seen before. that is why atheism is just as much a faith or religion as is the belief in God.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I fail to see how your last statement follows from the others. Seems like a non-sequitur to me. Atheism is simply a philosophical position stating that there is no evidence for the existence of God. That is, God is as likely as all other things that have no evidence (Santa, Flying Spaghetti Monster, teapot orbiting Mars, etc). I don't see how that is a "faith" (i.e. a belief without evidence). - phookat
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by Gunthr
its also why we should all respect the beliefs of others
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Should we respect the belief that Muslim suicide bombers go to paradise? How about the one that apostates and infidels should be murdered?
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by Gunthr
keep religeon and government separate.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I'm with ya there.
One doctrine of the atheist religion is the belief that there is no God.
Atheists do organize and associate with one another. - Gunthr
Originally posted by Gunthr
but its true, we clever humans cannot know what exists or what doesn't exist outside the very narrow confines of our human experience.
we can perhaps subjectively feel an inner yearning for a God, or we can perhaps feel an inner yearning for order so great that it rules out the possibillity of God or anything else we cannot directly sense...
or we can imagine, or guess at things outside our experience if we want to, but we cannot know.
it is like trying to imagine a new color unlike anything we have seen before. that is why atheism is just as much a faith or religion as is the belief in God.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I fail to see how your last statement follows from the others. Seems like a non-sequitur to me. Atheism is simply a philosophical position stating that there is no evidence for the existence of God. That is, God is as likely as all other things that have no evidence (Santa, Flying Spaghetti Monster, teapot orbiting Mars, etc). I don't see how that is a "faith" (i.e. a belief without evidence). - phookat
I can't help you if you fail to see how my last statement connects with what goes before it. it is very simple. we don't know what we don't know.
i see that you enjoy using humorous improbabilities as examples of things that have no directly observable evidence that we can detect with our narrow range of human senses. but i imagine that there are an infininite number of very serious examples of things that are real but have no directly observable evidence that we can detect. - Gunthr
-
phookat, sorry - i forgot to give my opinion on the issue of whether we should respect the beliefs of suicide bombers who believe that they will achieve 72 virgins in the afterlife if they kill infidels.
yes, i do respect their beliefs, even tho they are not my beliefs, and they have every right to them. but i also believe that every human being has the right to protect themselves and the right to fight for survival.
in other words, i respect islamists right to their beliefs, but i will kill them if they try to kill me. i hope that is clear.
-
Originally posted by Gunthr
One doctrine of the atheist religion is the belief that there is no God.
No, actually, that's not a doctrine of atheism. See my post above.
Originally posted by Gunthr
Atheists do organize and associate with one another.
You distrust people for talking to each other? That's about all atheists do, and rarely enough at that (not enough of us out there anyway). We got no churches, bro. In any case, the act of congregating in a church is no reason to distrust someone.
Originally posted by Gunthr
I can't help you if you fail to see how my last statement connects with what goes before it. it is very simple. we don't know what we don't know.
And that has nothing to do with the validity of atheism. Once again, atheism is the position that there is no evidence for the existence of God. This is a falsifiable position, and is therefore not something that is unknowable.
Originally posted by Gunthr
but i imagine that there are an infininite number of very serious examples of things that are real but have no directly observable evidence that we can detect.
The key word there is "imagine". Lots of people "imagine" that Elvis is still alive too.
Originally posted by Gunthr
i forgot to give my opinion on the issue of whether we should respect the beliefs of suicide bombers who believe that they will achieve 72 virgins in the afterlife if they kill infidels.
yes, i do respect their beliefs, and they have every right to them. but i also believe that every human being has the right to protect themselves and the right to fight for survival.
in other words, i respect islamists right to their beliefs, but i will kill them if they try to kill me. i hope that is clear.
That is a funny way of showing "respect". If you are willing to kill them for holding that belief, then you are clearly not respecting them. And FWIW, I agree...such beliefs should not be respected. In fact, I think no belief should be untouchable. All beliefs should be open to discussion and criticism. Fortunately we live in a society where that is possible.
-
Originally posted by AKIron
hehe, you do know what 2007 AD means right?
LMAO
somehow I think you get my point
-
I do not believe there is a god. I do not believe in the big bang. I do not have a theory on how the universe started. All I care is that it did start and that I am here right now to live in it. Although, it is pretty cool to think about it every once in a while and get that brain goin' :aok
-
Phoocat, exactly WHAT parts of the animal kingdom exhibit morality? No behavior that can be explained by meer instinct is sufficient to stand as an example.
My statement about the absence of a code of conduct for the animal kingdom was in response to marine's post which asked "Why, if there was a God, the animal kingdom exhibited such cruelty?" Also, he asked if a male lion killed the young of a female in order to breed could he expect to be judged for his actions? In response, I stated that no code of conduct or morality, such as those that humans impose upon themselves, or believe that God gave to them, could not work for the amoral world of nature.
I belive you missed that point entirely.
In addition, I also stated that mankind is the only species capable of understand morality and developing a concept of sin and a sense of wrong-doing. That makes us unique.
I firmly believe that the rejection of belief in a higher moral authority will lead mankind down a slippery slope toward destruction. Once the concept of final judgement and accountability is rejected, man can find arguments to justify almost any type of conduct. Witness the fledgling movement to have the age of consent for children to engage in sex with adults to be lowered to fourteen. Or the tendency of many to defend pornography as freedom of speech despite a growing body of evidence testifying to its detrimental effects on society.
Has there been evil done in the name of religion? Certainly. Would mankind be better off without it? Definitely not.
And bye the way, all religions are NOT created equal.
-
Shuckins, take it easy. People are by nature attracted to what is good for them. Destruction is not something anyone would consciously strive for unless they were misled.
Education is what got men out of the caves, and that's still true today. You don't need religion to make the right decisions in life, but it is quite a good crutch in a lot of ways.
Once the concept of final judgement and accountability is rejected, man can find arguments to justify almost any type of conduct.
That's a dark side of the moon argument. He could do just that, and the most likely conduct to be chosen is the one that's most good for him.. it's that simple.
-
Originally posted by DREDIOCK
Christianity is what, about 1,000 years now.
Judaism is at least twice that old dating back to at least the time of the great Pharos
Just curious how old a religeon has to be before it is considered "ancient"? ;)
That is not what i was trying to say...
The point i was trying to make, is that religion will have a hard time keeping up with human development, as it has done in the past.
I believe that in the future, the worlds current religions will go the same way as those which are no longer practiced, and just be for the history books.
I'm not a big fan... are there religious people in Star Trek and Star Wars? :D ;)
-
Originally posted by Shuckins
Furball, I agree that Seagoon brings a lot of class to this type of discussion. He makes his points lucidly, with fervor, and never seems to lose his cool....unlike those on either side who preach a mantra and utilize the "I'm here to convert the illiterate and unwashed masses" argument.
If you're interested in a clear and concise presentation of what are, perhaps, the most pertinent cosmological theories about the creation of the universe, check out these sites:
http://www.news.cornell.edu/Chronicle/98/3.12.98/Guth_coverage.html (http://www.news.cornell.edu/Chronicle/98/3.12.98/Guth_coverage.html)
http://www.pbs.org/wnet/hawking/mysteries/html/guth_1.html (http://)
Thanks shuckins, i will check these out later.
-
Shuckins, if you believe your bible, you can blame that directly on Adam & Eve.
Only mankind has eaten from the tree of knowledge of good and evil.
All the other animals are "innocents" they lack the capability to consider those things. As to why so many people do bad things they shouldn't, well maybe, just maybe they are reverting back to animals.
Furball, Star Wars "IS" my religion. :) Well a part of it anyway.
Believe in the force!
What do you think a "Jedi" is? A warrior monk? A future age Knight Templar?
As for religion on the grand scale, it is my belief that.
A If enough people believe strongly enough in "something" whatever that might be. That will eventually call or will that "being" into existence. Perhaps not as a person, ie I don't expect to see superman buzzing NY,NY. But on a spiritual/god level.
B Given enough time (2k years) Mankind can screw up ANYTHING. Including a religion. My point, all of the "kosher" food & diet rules, regulations stemmed from a single admonition. "Thou shalt not seeth (boil) a Kid in its own mothers milk". Some 2000 years later that has been argued over, interpreted, played with, adjusted and tweaked to become the vast mass of rules known as Kosher.
C If you can imagine something, a concept, a force, a Magick if you will.
If you can completely grasp all of it, and all of its implications. If you can see yourself bring this into existence by sheer force of willpower. And if you can "Believe" that you can do this now, that you DID just do this. (Shades of starwars, there is no try, there is do or do not)
Then you can do Magick, you can make things happen for which there is no explanation. Call it mysticism, call it force of character or will, call it belief. Call it what you will.
-
why would anyone care to prove it one way or the other?
lazs
-
phookat -
whatever belief is central to atheism - that which without, you would not be an atheist, that is your central doctrine.
i didn't say i would kill an islamist because of his belief. i respect his right to believe anything he wants. yours too. an Islamist can believe whatever he wants as long as he doesn't try to hurt me. i wouldn't kill him for his beliefs, i would kill him only because he is attacking me. i hope this makes it clearer for you.
your post sounds as if you are defending atheism, as if i'm attacking it. I'm not.
-
Originally posted by lazs2
why would anyone care to prove it one way or the other?
lazs
Now there's a good question!
-
A quick weigh-in, my problem with religion is when it affects my kids or my freedoms. I don't want my kids taught Creationism as fact or even likely in the schools, or given textbooks that go to lengths to downplay the likelihood of evolution. The US's standing is dropping internationally in science and education because of feel good PC stuff like this.
Also, when a law is passed with religion as the motivating factor behind it, we suffer. Prohibition was a morality law, and violated some of the basic ideals of freedom in our country. Same with other morality issues like prohibition of gay marriage, etc. If "Because god said so" is at the base of a law and it can't stand on its own, then it's a problem.
-
the only problem i have with the atheist belief system is exactly the same, Chair. i don't want atheism taught in schools, or used as the basis for any laws.
but using atheism or theism as a basis moral judgements? i don't have any problem at all with people doing that. i don't see it as a problem. i think i'll leave each to his own. i believe each and every person is free to, and has every right to base their moral judgements on whatever they please. i don't see it as a problem at all - even though my beliefs may be different.
-
Moral judgements: Fine, go for it. Extending those to law, though, let's make sure there's a non theocratic base.
Before you flip out, consider this: In some religions, it's considered immoral for women to expose their face in public. If you endorse christianity as a base for laws in the US (where all religions are supposed to be welcome), then you risk being labeled a hypocrite for objecting to a law based on another religion that you disagree with.
A request, you mention that you don't want atheism used as a basis for any laws. Could you provide some real-world examples so I know what you're talking about?
-
Originally posted by Shuckins
Phoocat, exactly WHAT parts of the animal kingdom exhibit morality? No behavior that can be explained by meer instinct is sufficient to stand as an example.
Here's an example from a recent experiment: "a rat is given food, its neighbor receives an electric shock, the first rat will eventually forgo eating."
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/05/27/AR2007052701056.html
Anyway, as I said, whether animals exhibit what we call moral behavior or not, has no bearing on whether God exists. I don't see why you are having such a hissy fit over this matter.
Originally posted by Shuckins
In response, I stated that no code of conduct or morality, such as those that humans impose upon themselves, or believe that God gave to them, could not work for the amoral world of nature.
It could if God wanted it to. He's all-powerful, isn't he? Trying to apply logic within the context of a faith-based idea is futile. You're going to run into an inconsistency somewhere.
Originally posted by Shuckins
In addition, I also stated that mankind is the only species capable of understand morality and developing a concept of sin and a sense of wrong-doing. That makes us unique.
This sense of morality is very likely evolutionary in origin, as I posted above.
Originally posted by Shuckins
I firmly believe that the rejection of belief in a higher moral authority will lead mankind down a slippery slope toward destruction.
93% of the National Academy of Sciences say they are atheist. Are they slaughtering each other and robbing banks? According to the UN Human Development of 2005, the healthiest societies (as evidenced by a variety of societal indicators) are the ones that are most heavily atheist. Now don't get me wrong: that does *not* mean atheism necessarily leads to happiness. But what it *does* mean is that religious belief does not necessarily lead to a better society, and that atheism does not necessarily lead to chaos. In other words, you are wrong.
Originally posted by Shuckins
And bye the way, all religions are NOT created equal.
OK then, simple question. Do you think we get our morality from the Bible?
-
Originally posted by Gunthr
the only problem i have with the atheist belief system is exactly the same, Chair.
This is a cheap way of attempting to make a moral equivalence between faith and atheism. An equivalence which does not exist. Once again, atheism is the falsifiable position that there exists no evidence for God. An atheists mind can be changed if evidence is shown. This is why atheism is not a doctrine or dogma. You can keep bleating "atheist belief system", but it won't get you anywhere.
Originally posted by Gunthr
i don't want atheism taught in schools, or used as the basis for any laws.
Give me an example of an atheist law, or how atheism is taught in schools. And keep in mind what atheism is, as I stated above. Teaching physics in physics class without saying a prayer at the beginning does not make it an "atheist physics class."
Originally posted by Gunthr
i didn't say i would kill an islamist because of his belief. i respect his right to believe anything he wants. yours too. an Islamist can believe whatever he wants as long as he doesn't try to hurt me. i wouldn't kill him for his beliefs, i would kill him only because he is attacking me. i hope this makes it clearer for you.
No, I'm afraid I still see this as simply saying one thing and doing another. Beliefs don't exist in isolation.
-
Chairboy -
Moral judgements: Fine, go for it. Extending those to law, though, let's make sure there's a non theocratic base.
i agree. if you read my posts, you will see that i fervently support the separation of what is termed "church and state". i also believe in the separation of atheist beliefs from affairs of the state. no laws should be based on either theism or atheism.
your comment "before you flip out" was uneccessary.
as i said before (it should be clear to you by now) i do not endorse Christianity as a basis for our laws. Moral judgements in my view, are quite different. People can believe whatever they want and base their moral judgements on whatever they wish. unless we want to create "thought police".
request, you mention that you don't want atheism used as a basis for any laws. Could you provide some real-world examples so I know what you're talking about? - Chair
sure. any laws based on the atheist doctrine that would restrict or impede the right of people to freely believe in any concept of God. i think the communist soviet union may be perpetrators of this kind thing.
-
Been blessed with a Theology and Computer Science Degree from Univ of Maryland.
You have no idea what is out there or what is coming.
Got GOD?
:D
Mac
-
phookat,
This is a cheap way of attempting to make a moral equivalence between faith and atheism. An equivalence which does not exist. Once again, atheism is the falsifiable position that there exists no evidence for God. An atheists mind can be changed if evidence is shown. This is why atheism is not a doctrine or dogma. You can keep bleating "atheist belief system", but it won't get you anywhere. - phookat
atheists believe that there is no God from what I've read on the internet.
respectfully, you sound more like an agnostic to me.
for example; I[/U] also take the position that there is no evidence for the existance of God. But I'm a long way from being an atheist.
as for the rest of your post, there is no where to go from here. we just disagree.
-
Originally posted by Gunthr
sure. any laws based on the atheist doctrine that would restrict or impede the right of people to freely believe in any concept of God. i think the communist soviet union may be perpetrators of this kind thing.
That is not an atheist "doctrine". Do you think that, because I am an atheist, I think all religions should be made illegal? You would be wrong to say that. This alone proves that what you think of as atheist "doctrine" is totally unfounded.
Here's an example of an atheist law: "There is no evidence for the existence of God, therefore March is National Chalk Appreciation Month". I challenge you to find such a law in the US.
Originally posted by Gunthr
respectfully, you sound more like an agnostic to me.
Nope. Agnostic means you think you can't have any knowledge at all regarding god. You can't say anything about evidence or no evidence. Agnostic means "lack of knowledge".
-
Originally posted by AWMac
You have no idea what is out there or what is coming.
You're right. The Koran says you'll go to hell if you believe in Jesus. You never know...they might be right.
Originally posted by AWMac
Got GOD?
Got dictator? :)
-
Originally posted by Furball
I'm not a big fan... are there religious people in Star Trek and Star Wars? :D ;)
I don't know much about Star Trek, but I don't think there's a whole lot of religion there.
But for Star Wars, you have to remember that was a long time ago in a galaxy far away. So yeah, they had religion. You know, the Force and Jedis, etc. :D
-
Here's an example of an atheist law: "There is no evidence for the existence of God, therefore March is National Chalk Appreciation Month". I challenge you to find such a law in the US. - phookat
here is another example of an athiest law(by your definition): "There is no evidence for the existance of God, therefore March is National Muslim Re-education month. this is an example of what i would object to. therefore, i'm against atheism as a basis for any laws, and for it being taught in schools. separation of church and state.
phookat, you define atheism as having the position that there is no evidence that God exists. you said that you could change if evidence subsequently becomes available. this logically means that you accept the possibility that evidence that God exists may be out there somewhere - and that God may, in fact exist. its just that, as of this moment, you do not know. if so, your position is no different than an agnostic.
why do you feel the need to somehow show me that my particular belief is wrong? i think that this is the single largest problem facing the athiest believers today; for far too many athiests, atheism is just a hobby. you can identify them by the way they constantly challenge those who believe in some concept of God. me, i'm the live and let live type of person. you believe what you want to, it is your right.
-
Phoo, you're still missing my point about nature, or deliberately misconstruing what I meant.
I believe God works within the established laws of physics, cosmology, and natural law. Natural selection, survival of the fittest, and predation can, logically, only work according to natural law. Anything else would lead to disaster. Thus, it isn't worthwhile to blame God for the way natural law works. Human concepts of cruelty, of right and wrong, don't fit the world of nature. To attempt to make them fit would be like trying to pound a square peg into a round hole.
Besides, as I state previously, these remarks are not directed at anything you have posted, but are in response to a query from another bulletin-board member.
Hissy fit. If I ever have one you'll know it. :D
Our laws, or more specifically our morality, have had a long developmental history, and comes from many sources. The first written code of law, Hammurabi's Code, predates the Ten Commandments. Hammurabi was the high priest of the city-state of Babylon. His religious beliefs undoubtedly influenced his thinking when the code was being drawn up. The Ten Commandments bears some similarities to it, and was also undoubtedly influenced by the moral beliefs of Zoroastrianism.
Almost every law code written since ancient times has drawn upon religious writings for inspiration. While the influence of religion has not always been positive, it is gross exaggeration for anyone to state that it had nothing to do with the development of modern ideas of equality and the rule of law.
While Islam comes in for a fair amount of bashing on these boards, Muhammad instituted some very progressive reforms during his lifetime, particularly in the area of women's rights. Could he have instituted such reforms without "the force of God" backing him up? I seriously doubt it. Have his followers always followed his more moderate teachings? Of course not, but that shouldn't negate any of the positive influences his teachings have had upon the Middle East and the world.
During the Middle Ages, Islamic nations produced the world's greatest scientists and mathematicians, for muslims scholars believed it was the will of Allah that man increase his knowledge, so that he might more fully understand the greatness and wisdom of his creator. That fervor for learning spread to Europe after the Crusades, and brought about the revival of knowledge and art known as the Renaissance. The Protestant Reformation directly resulted from the spread of literacy and learning across Europe, and eventually led, by long tortuous steps, to the concept of Freedom of Religion, or for some modern revisionists, Freedom from Religion.
So, I suppose you're right in that the human propensity for morality may be evolutionary in nature, for it has certainly evolved throughout the 7000 year history of human civilization.
Certainly, millions have been killed in the name of faith, but there is nothing that the evil of man cannot pervert; and let us not lose sight of the fact that the greatest mass murderers in history have been who forsook religion totally, and plunged the world into madness.
So, now, on to another matter. Sources state that 93% of the members of the National Academy of Sciences are atheists. wow. What a surprise. Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't membership in the Academy voluntary? Would I also be right in assuming that birds of a feather tend to flock together? Exactly what does that statistic prove? That people tend to join clubs of people that already share their beliefs? How many scientists do not belong to the Academy? Of that number, how many are Christian or Muslim or Jews or Buddhists or Hindus?
By the way, it isn't entirely accurate to state that atheists do not have a belief system and are not organized. They believe that all religion is bad and attempt to save mankind from that evil. To that end, they proselytize the unwashed masses, trying to win converts to their view, and strive to relegate religion to irrelevance.
You are proselytizing, aren't you?
-
Originally posted by phookat
I believe you are correct that it doesn't state this explicitly in the Bible. There are some passages that indicate "the foundations of the earth" and "the earth doesn't move", and "the sun stayed in one place in the sky for an hour", things of that nature, which show that the writers of the Bible (and most everyone else before Galileo) thought the Earth was the stationary center of the universe. I think the reason it wasn't explicitly stated is that it was too obvious. Of course the Sun goes around the Earth, that doesn't need to be revealed to you. On the contrary I think the lack of a description of the Helio-centric solar system in the Bible is very telling.
for your information in the bible {old testament}
its stated that GOD resides above the circle of the earth,
when the words "foundation of the earth" are stated.
its referring to when GOD created the earth the beginning of the earth or even before the earth was created.
i have read many different religions bibles'
christen bibles
they are all the same, very minor differences
the bible is the only TRUTH in this world
and science proves GOD is real
one more thing: 6 days he created, on the 7th he rested
that is by no means 6, 24 hour days.
"...to GOD a day is a thousand years and a thousand years is as a day..."
{i say he figuratively}
peace
-
Apparently Phoo *short for Poop* has never....
Dated in High School: Oh Lord, get me to 3rd base.
Had a Prom Date: Ohhh Lordy, I'm almost there.
Had Finals in College: Holy Jesus get me through this.
Got Married: Jesus Christ what did I do?
Got Divorced: Christ now what?
Gotten Drunk: GOD I'll never drink again.
Woke up with a Beast in a Hotel Room: Holy crap.... GOD if I can just slip outta this room.
Pulled over by the Cops: I swear Jesus if you pull me outta this crap....
The list goes on.... add on if you will.
:D
Mac
-
Originally posted by Shuckins
So, now, on to another matter. Sources state that 93% of the members of the National Academy of Sciences are atheists. wow. What a surprise. Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't membership in the Academy voluntary? Would I also be right in assuming that birds of a feather tend to flock together? Exactly what does that statistic prove? That people tend to join clubs of people that already share their beliefs? How many scientists do not belong to the Academy? Of that number, how many are Christian or Muslim or Jews or Buddhists or Hindus?
You completely missed the point. First of all, people don't join the NAS because they are atheists. Secondly, what this shows is that atheism does not lead to moral depravity. And finally, you are still wrong about lack of belief leading to the gutter. There are countries that have a high level of atheism but also have healthy societies. Therefore atheism does not necessarily lead to disaster, and faith does not necessarily lead to a healthy society. It's optional, and we don't need it to be good.
Originally posted by Shuckins
By the way, it isn't entirely accurate to state that atheists do not have a belief system and are not organized. They believe that all religion is bad and attempt to save mankind from that evil.
Incorrect. You can be an atheist and think there is no evidence for God, but still think that religion is a good idea for "keeping the unwashed masses in line", even if it is false.
And in that whole long post where you describe the sources and inspiration of various legal systems, you still didn't address my question: Do we get our morality from the Bible? In my view, all the religious texts are manmade, and whenever some law "gets inspiration" from a religion, it is just getting inspiration from a manmade source. Nothing wrong with that. Since it is manmade, we can pick and choose the parts we want, and everything is open to discussion and criticism.
So maybe I should step back and ask you this. Are you a Christian? Do you believe the Christian God exists and is perfect? Do you believe the Bible is His perfect word?
-
Originally posted by AWMac
The list goes on.... add on if you will.
I just use Satan for all of that. Hail! :D
-
Satan will do you Wonders.... go for it!.
:O
Mac
-
Originally posted by ink
i have read many different religions bibles'
christen bibles
they are all the same, very minor differences
Yeah, just minor things, like in one of them believing in Jesus gets you to heaven, and in the other believing in Jesus sends you to Hell. No big differences though.
Originally posted by ink
the bible is the only TRUTH in this world
Yes, absolutely, see right there in the Bible, it says "the Bible is true". Praise Jesus!
Originally posted by ink
and science proves GOD is real
You're not a writer for "The Onion", are you?
Originally posted by ink
one more thing: 6 days he created, on the 7th he rested
that is by no means 6, 24 hour days.
"...to GOD a day is a thousand years and a thousand years is as a day..."
A common copout. Actually, there are several Hebrew words for "day", and the one they used in this passage of Genesis was the one that very specifically meant "a single day, a night and day cycle". So when they said "day" they didn't mean "time in general", they really meant "day". I'm not a Hebrew expert myself, but I have had some discussions with others. It's an interesting textual argument, anyway.
More likely what happened was that the people who wrote this myth didn't know very much about the origins or structure of the universe, and they knew everyone else was as ignorant as they were on the subject. So they could come up with whatever they wanted, and they knew it would be believed. Of course they tried for something epic and awe-inspiring. What science has been able to find out about actual reality is, IMO, far more awe-inspiring than all those creation myths.
-
Originally posted by AWMac
Satan will do you Wonders.... go for it!
Plus she's a pretty hot babe, according to that movie I saw. :D
-
Originally posted by Shuckins
Nature is an amoral system. There isn't a single animal on the face of the earth that has the intellect to make differentiations between "right" and "wrong."
Except for one....man.
Some atheists attempt to graft humanity's morality system onto the actions of nature's denizens as a means of debunking belief in God. Yet, if all of nature possessed man's aversion to killing there would be disastrous, runaway procreation by the animal kingdom, followed by mass starvation.
THAT is why one has never heard of a Biblical code of conduct for the animal kingdom. The system couldn't work any other way.
Mankind is different....we know full well what murder is....so the rules are different for us, as they should be. Therefore, we are held accountable for our actions...by governmental authorities if one is an atheist, and also by God, if one is a deist.
A religious man believes that, while mankind might have developed within this natural system, he was meant to rise above it.
Regards, Shuckins
Huh?
Amoral animals kill "lesser" beings for food. Doh - so do most moral and pious men.
Amoral animals kill their own kind protecting territory or in protecting dominance. Doh - so would most moral and pious men (at least those posting here).
Animals kill indiscriminately to protect themselves from immediate mortal threat. Doh - so would most moral and pious men (t least those posting here).
Differences:
Amoral animals kill what they need to survive and do not waste. Only man kills other animals as a sport for pleasure.
Very few territorial disputes or dominance trials result in killing in the animal kingdom, and most are a result of the intruder not backing down, not of extreme aggression on the part of the "defender". It's rare that an animal will pro-actively kill to stave off a future threat. That's Man's domain.
Who's to say that base thoughts equivalent to: "I really don't want to hurt or kill you, but I cannot become subservient to you or be cast out of my territory because doing so would almost surely mean my own death," aren't running through an alpha wolf's brain when he's challenged by a junior?
How are these moral "decisions" different from what man demonstrates?
Aren't man's moral decisions just at a more complex level, in keeping with our more complex brain.
Or maybe....
Man is a much lesser moral being than any other natural creature. As we seem to need a divine book and the promise of a greater purpose (more accurately the threat of eternal damnation) to keep us on the correct moral path.
Perhaps an atheist who is leading a good and moral life can be trusted far more than a deeply religious person who is being moral only out of fear or from the suggestion of a book or like-minded followers.
Just like I can trust my dog to be true and loyal to the end much more than I can trust most of the people in my life - and particularly some of the deeply religious people who only answer to God.
Isn't it more likely that man is moral by nature, as an evolutionary bi-product of protecting the species, and that we have projected that morality through the creation of religion, than morality is ours alone as a gift given by God?
I tell you it's some funny joke God is playing, that man, alone in the universe as a moral being, fails so miserably so often while all around the natural world sets an example.
-
Few would debate the morality of killing for food or protection. As to killing for pleasure, every predator enjoys the kill.
Is that wrong? Hardly. I personally believe the inclination to hunt is instinctive. Fossil evidence indicates that our ancestors have been doing it for millioins of years. Man is an omnivore, like the bear.
The male bear will kill and devour the offspring of another male bear in order to breed the mother. Is that cruel? Only to some ditzy-minded, sensitive modern urbanite who thinks human morality has some sort of relevance when judging the natural world.
If you are not a vegetarian, then you probably have enjoyed a well-cooked ribeye at some point. Undoubtedly, you did not kill it yourself. Nevertheless, someone else killed it on your behalf so that you could "enjoy" your steak. In effect, you had a living, breathing animal killed for your own pleasure.
Oh, it is a myth to state that predators kill only for food and do not waste. Wolves are notorious for killing more than they need. What is that, if not killing for the sheer joy of killing. Perhaps they need the practice. So spare me the platitudes about the purity of the natural system and animals existing in a "state of grace." That is strictly a human judgement.
As to your statement that only man kills preemptively to protect himself, I can only say balderdash. Wolves will kill a coyote on sight, provided they can catch it. Need I remind you of the constant, never-ending warfare that lions and hyenas wage? Hyenas are a constant danger to lion cubs. There is definitely much safer prey to stalk than a lion cub surrounded by a pride of irate females. So why do they do it? Preemptive strike perhaps, to reduce the number of lions? Who knows for certain.
Suffice it to say that the modern idea that the natural world is somehow "purer" than that of man is sheer fantasy. It is neither cruel nor unjust. It is what it is....urban notions notwithstanding.
-
Hi All,
Sorry to be jumping in so, late. I was away all last week in Memphis and then I've been catching up and organizing a conference for most of this week. Forgive me if I respond to some points in prior posts.
Originally posted by Chairboy
The problem, of course, is that it dismisses the theory of infinite regression of cause. Just because you assume that every cause must have an effect doesn't mean that, when dealing with the question of the beginning of the universe, that every effect must have a cause. We're still learning new things every day, it seems a bit early to dismiss everything because, mathematically, a bumblebee cannot possibly fly.
Philosophy is composed of questions that cannot be answered, and religion is answers that cannot be questioned.
Chair respectfully, while it makes for a nifty catchphrase the AH OC disproves your second point. Around here and indeed throughout Europe and most of America, Christianity is treated with a hermeneutic of suspicion - everything that it declares is considered suspect. I myself grew up automatically doubting the veracity of everything taught in the bible. Interestingly enough, the bible itself states that the natural man will be absolutely disinclined to believe what it teaches.
In any event, the high priests of our society who teach unquestionable doctrines these days are not ministers but scientists. Just as an example of this phonomenon, the minister at your local mainline church may be permitted to disbelieve any and every doctrine taught in the bible, a teacher of theology in a divinity school may actively teach that the bible is a book of myths and fables, that Christianity is a historical oddity, and that there is no God (many do) but a scientist who publically doubts doctrines like evolution or even global warming is likely to be branded a heretic and a fool and loose his place in the academy.
As to your first point regarding contingency, the laws of the universe that we can identify such as the first and second laws of thermodynamics forbid an infinite regression (additionally, there are good philosophical arguments that show an infinite regression is theoretically impossible).
As I stated in another thread, there are really only three possibilities to explain the existence of the Universe:
"1) It Was Spontaneously Generated - Nothing Generated Everything. This violates the First Law of Thermodynamics.
2) It is Eternal - This violates the Second Law of Thermodynamics, the amount of energy in a closed system is constant and that energy and that energy while not lost is becoming less and less usable, entropy as I quoted earlier means that "the amount of energy available to do work is decreasing and becoming uniformly distributed. The universe is moving irreversibly toward a state of maximum disorder and minimum energy."
Had the Universe always been here entropy would have been completed - you'd already have maximum disorder and minimum energy.
3) It Was Created - this violates neither of the Laws of Thermodynamics, but it does obviously upset a great number of people who don't like the implications. I can sympathize having been there myself."
Regardless Chair, there is far more evidence for the existence of God than there is that my great, great, grandfather existed. No one alive has ever met my great, great grandfather or knows his name, he has left behind no record, or evidence that he lived, and all efforts to trace him have proven fruitless. As far as the available evidence is concerned my great grandfather might well be the product of spontaneous generation, and yet I can almost guarantee that despite a total lack of evidence, no one on the board doubts his existence. By comparison, there is ample evidence for the existence of the Triune God; many alive today know Him quite well and know His name, He has revealed Himself to us both through nature and an entirely sufficient written record and those who genuinely seek Him, find Him - and yet doubts about the existence of God are legion. As such, evidence alone will never be the key to believing or disbelieving in God, as I mentioned in the beginning, we are not naturally inclined to believe in the God of the bible and only He can change that state of affairs. Thank heavens that He does or I'd still be an non-believer myself. ;)
- SEAGOON
-
Originally posted by phookat
Yeah, just minor things, like in one of them believing in Jesus gets you to heaven, and in the other believing in Jesus sends you to Hell. No big differences though.
show me these?
-
Hi Sandy,
Originally posted by Sandman
There is no god.
...but if there was, he would have my contempt.
Actually, your summary above comes pretty close to what scripture says about relations between God and man in His fallen state - the reality being that there is a God but that he is treated with contempt by His creation. This includes what the Bible says of his Son, Jesus, both prophetically as in Isaiah:
"He is despised and rejected by men, A Man of sorrows and acquainted with grief. And we hid, as it were, our faces from Him; He was despised, and we did not esteem Him." (Is. 53:3)
as well as in application, as Jesus taught his Apostles, they should expect to be hated by the world, as He was hated and rejected by the men of his own generation, and indeed still is to this very day:
"If the world hates you, you know that it hated Me before it hated you. If you were of the world, the world would love its own. Yet because you are not of the world, but I chose you out of the world, therefore the world hates you. "Remember the word that I said to you, 'A servant is not greater than his master.' If they persecuted Me, they will also persecute you. If they kept My word, they will keep yours also. But all these things they will do to you for My name's sake, because they do not know Him who sent Me. If I had not come and spoken to them, they would have no sin, but now they have no excuse for their sin. He who hates Me hates My Father also. If I had not done among them the works which no one else did, they would have no sin; but now they have seen and also hated both Me and My Father. But this happened that the word might be fulfilled which is written in their law, 'They hated Me without a cause.'" (John 15:18-25)
Having once felt nothing but contempt for Christ and Christians myself, I can well understand the response of British author Kingsley Amis to Russian poet Yevgeny Yevtushenko’s question if he was an atheist, "It's more than that. You see I hate Him."
Sadly, we are as stiffnecked and stubbornly opposed to God as ever and John 1:11 is still as true today as it ever was: "He came to His own, and His own did not receive Him."
- SEAGOON
-
seagoon very well written
allthough i dont think truine GOD is bible teaching,
its mans teaching
ive heard all the arguments why people believe this is so but like every thing we have our own opinions,mine is based on the word of GOD not what man has said or done.
i think most christen religions have a aspect of truth but have been turned into something thats not the truth.
people blame GOD for the things that happen in this world,
GOD gave us freewill what happens to us is our own fault we brought it on ourselves
but most people will dispute that, thats cool remember FREEWILL
IMHO when people stop judging, or feeling that they have the capacity to judge others, this world might be on a better road.
-
Originally posted by Seagoon
Hi Sandy,
Actually, your summary above comes pretty close to what scripture says about relations between God and man in His fallen state - the reality being that there is a God but that he is treated with contempt by His creation. This includes what the Bible says of his Son, Jesus, both prophetically as in Isaiah:
"He is despised and rejected by men, A Man of sorrows and acquainted with grief. And we hid, as it were, our faces from Him; He was despised, and we did not esteem Him." (Is. 53:3)
as well as in application, as Jesus taught his Apostles, they should expect to be hated by the world, as He was hated and rejected by the men of his own generation, and indeed still is to this very day:
"If the world hates you, you know that it hated Me before it hated you. If you were of the world, the world would love its own. Yet because you are not of the world, but I chose you out of the world, therefore the world hates you. "Remember the word that I said to you, 'A servant is not greater than his master.' If they persecuted Me, they will also persecute you. If they kept My word, they will keep yours also. But all these things they will do to you for My name's sake, because they do not know Him who sent Me. If I had not come and spoken to them, they would have no sin, but now they have no excuse for their sin. He who hates Me hates My Father also. If I had not done among them the works which no one else did, they would have no sin; but now they have seen and also hated both Me and My Father. But this happened that the word might be fulfilled which is written in their law, 'They hated Me without a cause.'" (John 15:18-25)
Having once felt nothing but contempt for Christ and Christians myself, I can well understand the response of British author Kingsley Amis to Russian poet Yevgeny Yevtushenko’s question if he was an atheist, "It's more than that. You see I hate Him."
Sadly, we are as stiffnecked and stubbornly opposed to God as ever and John 1:11 is still as true today as it ever was: "He came to His own, and His own did not receive Him."
- SEAGOON
Strangely enough, you have my respect. You sir, are a true believer. The rest can go **** themselves.
-
hmm. Sandy says there is no God. According to PhooKat, Sandy is not an atheist... its confusing.
maybe there are different sects of Atheists...
-
Originally posted by Seagoon
As I stated in another thread, there are really only three possibilities to explain the existence of the Universe
Are you a scientist seagoon? Have you really studies the various theories of cosmology? Do you have the appropriate education to understand all of them? If not, then I think it is unwise of you to offer them as proof or evidence of your position. The events of that time in the ancient past are a great challenge for even the greatest geniuses of our time. And if the history of science has taught us anything, it has taught us this: our intuitions are often wrong and always to be suspected. Quantum mechanics, for example, is an unbelievably unintuitive science. So we can't discuss cosmology off-the-cuff, as it were, and expect to arrive at any conclusion.
The first cause argument is undoubtedly the strongest possibility for the existence of God, because it deals with an area of science that we haven't figured out yet (and we may never do so). As history progresses, there is always a frontier of our knowledge of reality. The religious and theologians have always eagerly inserted God at this frontier: we don't know how that works, therefore God did it. As science uncovers more and more, the religious are forced to place their "God of the knowledge gaps" further and further back. Now the first cause happens to be our frontier, and the many-times-failed God currently resides there.
There are several problems with the first cause argument:
1) We don't even know if there was a first cause. A 4-dimensional closed manifold is one cosmological theory that eliminates the idea.
2) The first cause is just an infinite regression. What caused the first cause?
3) There is nothing to indicate that such a first cause would be intelligent.
4) There is nothing to indicate that even an intelligent first cause is actually the Christian God, the perfect author of the Bible.
Only a sufficient answer to all of that would constitute evidence for your God. I will be surprised if you are actually able to answer those challenges, Seagoon. If you can, I'd suggest you buy your tickets for Stockholm and pick up your prize (not to mention the Templeton prize you would get right here, which I understand is an even higher dollar amount than the other). :D
As far as the rest of your long post (which deals with how the Bible says some people will reject God), it all has a fatal flaw. A flaw that many of your posts share. You assume the Bible is true, and is the perfect word of God. There is no reason to assume that, in fact it is quite a fantastic assumption to make. So although you can make all sorts of brilliant intellectual maneuvers, it all hinges on that weakest link.
BTW a good website that discusses some of this is here:
http://www.whydoesgodhateamputees.com/
BTW Ike, if you are reading this: My comment was referring to Islam vs Christianity, in response to your statement about "many religions being similar".
-
no one can explain the existence of the Universe, all you can do is speculate.
-
phookat,
You are working overtime on this board to silence the voices of persons like seagoon in favor of your as yet disclosed professional persona, title and bonafides as the ultimate arbiter of the structure and nature of the universe. Or at least telling this audience it lacks the right to any discource because you can detect fallicies in our arguments. Science as a vocation accomplishes only decoding the language which describes the existance and mechanics of the universe. It does not grant you dominion over us because you can speak some of the phrases.
Science does not know who, what, how and when that language was created and placed into function. It can only describe it's phenominon and duplicate imperfictly some of it's functions. Your statements to seagoon about his fitness to speak on this subject sound exactly like Midevil Catholic clergymen telling the masses they are too stoopid to know the nature of God.
-
"Science is a technique, social and institutionalized, whereby even unintelligent people can be useful in the advance of knowledge." --Abraham Maslow
-
When you don't understand physics, but still apply it to you arguments, you get an interesting philosophical arguments. When you do start to understand the physics you realize:
a) People that give these arguments use bad physics.
b) Physics is not meant to answer these questions.
c) People that apply bad physics to answer questions that are not relevant to physics, are trying to sell you something.
A not so relevant side note: I once had this talk with a religious friend of mine, which I highly respect for his open minded and inquisitive approach to religion. We were only undergrad physics students at the time. I asked him "Lets say we do come to a conclusion, using pure science, that there is a god. This still doesn't tell us which one is it. Why are you Jewish?". He said, "Well, you have to pick one. I pick the one I know".
-
Originally posted by bozon
When you don't understand physics, but still apply it to you arguments, you get an interesting philosophical arguments. When you do start to understand the physics you realize:
a) People that give these arguments use bad physics.
b) Physics is not meant to answer these questions.
c) People that apply bad physics to answer questions that are not relevant to physics, are trying to sell you something.
A not so relevant side note: I once had this talk with a religious friend of mine, which I highly respect for his open minded and inquisitive approach to religion. We were only undergrad physics students at the time. I asked him "Lets say we do come to a conclusion, using pure science, that there is a god. This still doesn't tell us which one is it. Why are you Jewish?". He said, "Well, you have to pick one. I pick the one I know".
I think one of the points in our musings in this and various other threads is that none of us (some less than others perhaps) really understand "physics". Oh sure, some bandy terms and/or concepts upon which they don't have a firm grip but that doesn't necessarily mean they are missing the true nature of our existence any less than those who fully understand their beliefs.
-
Granting yourself authority over others because of being infatuated with your own cleverness is neither good science or religion. But more accurately a sublime rendering of a donkey making whoopy with itself.
-
Originally posted by bustr
Granting yourself authority over others because of being infatuated with your own cleverness is neither good science or religion. But more accurately a sublime rendering of a donkey making whoopy with itself.
ouch!
-
My view is that believing in God means I don't end when I die. If there is a God I continue on, if there isn't, I don't. Beyond this basic "black and whiteness" there is room for much speculation.
-
http://www.reason.com/blog/show/120984.html
-
Originally posted by Chairboy
http://www.reason.com/blog/show/120984.html
In the absence of eloquence, allow me. Some abstain from sex because it's too much like dancing. ;)
-
Originally posted by bustr
Granting yourself authority over others because of being infatuated with your own cleverness is neither good science or religion. But more accurately a sublime rendering of a donkey making whoopy with itself.
If that remark was directed at me you missed my point. I wasn't saying I'm clever or doing good science. I am just clever enough to know what problems NOT to apply my knowledge of physics on and that philosophy is a load of crap.
There's a saying that University presidents like Mathematicians and philosophers, because they cost so little money. All a mathematician needs is a pen a block of paper and a waste basket. A philosopher doesn't even need the waste basket.
-
Originally posted by bozon
There's a saying that University presidents like Mathematicians and philosophers, because they cost so little money. All a mathematician needs is a pen a block of paper and a waste basket. A philosopher doesn't even need the waste basket.
thats a keeper. :D
-
Bozon,
More accuratly my observation is for anyone of any disapline on this board or other. Much of this thread has been dominated by a syntactical competition that rivals the best Vegas stage magician working a room for the addiction to the audiences attention. It doesn't make for very good science or religion while the show is in progress. It just becomes the daily show.
-
Originally posted by phookat
Only a sufficient answer to all of that would constitute evidence for your God.
Saint Thomas Aquinas did a fine job reasoning God's existence from observable fact.
To let it end there renders the account incomplete.
Another piece of evidence for God's existence is the reaction of the human heart that crys "Father" when God reveals himself.
Also, the changed lives under the sway of God direction and ordering. A study of such can be found in William James' Varieties of Religious Experience.
To say "a person's reaction to what they say is God and how they conduct their affairs afterwards is all silliness because all sorts of people say and do the most outlandsh things because they say God revealed Himself to them," is a true statement. To say, therefore, "reaction" and "the contrast between past and present conducts fails to prove God's existence" errs.
In our present state something is missing.
To object that since our knowledge and experience is incomplete, therefore all knowledge is suspect and poppycock errs.
Becuase many, if not most, reason poorly if not wrongly and have not digested the sailient points of discussions that can be culled from the time of Saint Augustine to Saint Thomas Aquinas, for example, (the discussion predates them, but they and others pick-up the thread well), we confront a bit of a problem.
It's not too far from trying to reinvent the wheel if today "the wheel" were considered useless. What good today is a once handy invention if it be no longer valued or considered useful. At best it is thought to be a quaint antiquarian notion. At worst, a dangerous idea whose power has been demonstrated able to scuttle empire and ambition. In our time, the rise and fall of Communism would evidence such. Prior to our time Francis Bacon's The New Atlantis lays out well the ambitions and assumptions that run counter to the claim that God not only exists, but also He is as much a fact as we are and has not hid Himself and has something to say to us about what He would have us do and be. Bacon is pretty approchable. And, contemporary also in his ambitions and answers.
The information and records of honest attempts to answer the question What Is There[/b] remain open to all who want to delve.
That the methods employed and some of the conclusions reached from roughly B.C. 500 - 1300 A.D. are "out of fashion" and not taken seriously -- other than as a museum is taken seriously -- is true. Especially at most colleges.
That they have been shown to be false by superior reasoners and men is false.
As to Pooh's claim that our knowledge and/or our understanding is incomplete, he's correct.
As to his concluding, therefore no substantive answer can be reached is false.
As to his "Nobel Prize" jest -- if it be in good humor -- I know, you know, and he knows it's irrelevant.
If he be saying such to mock, and I am not saying he is since he has not told me why he has done so,-- appleaing to what he expects to be a point of view by most of us all -- he guilty merely of bad form.
If he expects his jest will carry the day, causing readers to agree with him because since we do not know all we cannot know at all, he errs.
-
Originally posted by bustr
You are working overtime on this board to silence the voices of persons like seagoon in favor of your as yet disclosed professional persona, title and bonafides as the ultimate arbiter of the structure and nature of the universe. Or at least telling this audience it lacks the right to any discource because you can detect fallicies in our arguments. Science as a vocation accomplishes only decoding the language which describes the existance and mechanics of the universe. It does not grant you dominion over us because you can speak some of the phrases.
Absolutely incorrect in every way. Pointing out that their statement is wrong or baseless is not forcing my point of view on anyone. I'm just saying what I think, and telling people why I think they are mistaken. I may be trying to convince people of something (as everyone here is), but I am not seeking dominion over them.
Originally posted by bustr
Science does not know who, what, how and when that language was created and placed into function. It can only describe it's phenominon and duplicate imperfictly some of it's functions. Your statements to seagoon about his fitness to speak on this subject sound exactly like Midevil Catholic clergymen telling the masses they are too stoopid to know the nature of God.
Also incorrect. I told you before in another thread why you are wrong on this point. You seem to have ignored it, and are now jumping in here saying the same thing. Just because science is available to everyone and not restricted to clergy, doesn't mean anyone off the street can comment correctly or intelligently on Quantum Mechanics or Cosmology. In the case of Seagoon's comments, he is attempting to indicate that there is evidence for God. I am pointing out that we as a species do not understand enough about the origins of the universe to make that claim. If Seagoon really has some insight into this, he is free to pick up his Nobel Prize. :)
-
Originally posted by AKIron
"Science is a technique, social and institutionalized, whereby even unintelligent people can be useful in the advance of knowledge." --Abraham Maslow
Indeed, anyone can be useful in science. But not by preaching to credulous throngs of hungry seekers on a BBS. :) If you or Seagoon think you have something to contribute to the science of Cosmology, publish a paper and head over to a conference. There you will meet a number of people on all sides of the issue, and your work will be reviewed and debated. You up for that? :t
-
Originally posted by AKIron
My view is that believing in God means I don't end when I die. If there is a God I continue on, if there isn't, I don't. Beyond this basic "black and whiteness" there is room for much speculation.
This gets at the real issue. The reason people don't want to let go of religion, is because they don't want to die. It is wishful thinking, and there's a readymade institution willing to take advantage of it.
-
Originally posted by Hap
Saint Thomas Aquinas did a fine job reasoning God's existence from observable fact.
No he didn't. Incidentally, Aquinas thought heretics should be killed, do you agree with that too?
Originally posted by Hap
Another piece of evidence for God's existence is the reaction of the human heart that crys "Father" when God reveals himself.
The human imagination is extremely powerful. People imagine UFOs too, UFOs are "real" to them. Imagination and internal reactions are not evidence of God's existence.
Originally posted by Hap
To object that since our knowledge and experience is incomplete, therefore all knowledge is suspect and poppycock errs.
You got it wrong. Our knowledge is incomplete, but that doesn't mean the knowledge that we have is "poppycock". What we should suspect is people taking the gaps in our knowledge and simply saying with such certainty that "God did it". No one is in a position to know that, for starters, and it doesn't make sense as an automatic conclusion anyway.
Originally posted by Hap
Becuase many, if not most, reason poorly if not wrongly and have not digested the sailient points of discussions that can be culled from the time of Saint Augustine to Saint Thomas Aquinas
Augustine was another winner who thought heretics should be killed, but he also said they should be tortured first. :D
Here's an thought. Why doesn't God simply appear on Earth as a huge giant bearded glowing guy? And then point to Mount Everest, break it off the surface of the Earth, and have it hover over Manhattan? That would not be proof of God, actually...it could be space aliens playing with us. But it would definitely be some pretty strong evidence for God. If that happened, I'd submit and make myself a serf in His eternal celestial petty dictatorship, just for fear of eternal torture in Hell. Why do you suppose that doesn't *ever* happen? ;)
-
agnostics don't bother me.. I can see their point...
athiests creep me out because I can see their agenda and... almost every athiest I ever new was dishonest about his particular agenda.. you don't go from a logical agnostic to a true believer athiest without an agenda. It may be as simple as a hate for religion and reiligious people to jealousy to anger at a god.
those who believe that god has told some man or another exactly how we are to worship and believe kinda creep me out too but not as bad.
people like stalin who kill millions and use athiesm as an excuse are very dangerous... muslim islamofacists who kill innocents in the name of their god dangerous.
As Johnny Cash believed... I have a "personal jesus".. my god listens to me and helps me when no one else can. I got a pretty good deal. As to what happens to me when I die... well.. won't know till it happens but don't fear it.
lazs
-
Originally posted by phookat
This gets at the real issue. The reason people don't want to let go of religion, is because they don't want to die. It is wishful thinking, and there's a readymade institution willing to take advantage of it.
I think that everyone shares my "wishful thinking", especially those who aren't young and/or have loved ones that have died. This is no revelation though, unexamined beliefs and faith are not worth having. I think most of us who believe there is more to us than we know deal with the question of self-delusion for comfort's sake.
-
Originally posted by phookat
No he didn't. Incidentally, Aquinas thought heretics should be killed, do you agree with that too?
[/b]
Thanks for taking the time to answer.
You're mistaken about Thomas and his reasoning the existence of God from nature and the like. Best to read him first, and not the summaries or internet synopses. The Summa is fairly lengthy. Give me a shout when you finished it. Well, that's not fair is it? How about PM'ing me when you've spent sufficent time with it without recourse to glosses to get of sense of how Thomas' mind works.
Also, we can come back to Thomas' opinion of and treatment of heritics after you're done with portions of the Summa. He had quite the time with them. Don't believe he knocked off any either. I'm in favor of letting them live also. Should you want to read something, Chesterton's The Dumb Ox is really good. And you might enjoy how Chesterton's mind works too. His writing is top notch too.
The human imagination is extremely powerful. People imagine UFOs too, UFOs are "real" to them. Imagination and internal reactions are not evidence of God's existence.
[/b]
Yes, I agree. I addressed this objection directly in my post.
You got it wrong. Our knowledge is incomplete, but that doesn't mean the knowledge that we have is "poppycock".
[/b]
I agree.
What we should suspect is people taking the gaps in our knowledge and simply saying with such certainty that "God did it". No one is in a position to know that
[/b]
I agree.
Augustine was another winner who thought heretics should be killed, but he also said they should be tortured first. :D
[/b]
I'm glad you've looked into Augustine. Might want to dig a bit more. It does revolve around the Donatists, Montanitst, and Novatians though. You'll get a fuller picture. Lots to find out. It's fun and interesting.
If that happened, I'd submit and make myself a serf in His eternal celestial petty dictatorship, just for fear of eternal torture in Hell. Why do you suppose that doesn't *ever* happen? ;)
That one is easy. But I won't tell you. You'll get to find out the answer to that one yourself. Saint Augustine's Confessions might be a really good place to start.
It's quite a ride and touches where we truly live. Not, as you well know, on an internet bulletin board.
-
Originally posted by Hap
Thanks for taking the time to answer.
Thanks for taking the time to explain.
Originally posted by Hap
You're mistaken about Thomas and his reasoning the existence of God from nature and the like. Best to read him first, and not the summaries or internet synopses. The Summa is fairly lengthy. Give me a shout when you finished it. Well, that's not fair is it? How about PM'ing me when you've spent sufficent time with it without recourse to glosses to get of sense of how Thomas' mind works.
Also, we can come back to Thomas' opinion of and treatment of heritics after you're done with portions of the Summa.
I accept your criticism, in the sense that I haven't studied it completely in its original. However, I have seen the descriptions of the "proofs", and none of them convince me. They are either logically invalid, or else just another God-of-the-gaps. For example, the "argument from degrees": just because there are degrees of quality between things (in our own opinion), there is therefore something that is perfect? Does not logically follow at all. Furthermore, he does not provide "proof" that the first cause is the Christian God.
Now maybe since you have studied these things, so you can answer me this: do you agree with Aquinas that heretics should be killed? Aquinas says: "Heretics are to be compelled by corporeal punishments, that they may adhere to the faith." And "heretics may not only be excommunicated, but justly killed." Does that seem like wise advice to you?
Originally posted by Hap
That one is easy. But I won't tell you.
Oh, you're not getting away so easily. :) Come on, tell us. We can handle it. It's easy, right? If you don't answer, then I think the real answer is that you don't have an answer that stands up to any scrutiny. So, the question again: why doesn't God reveal himself in a big miracle?
-
Originally posted by AKIron
I think that everyone shares my "wishful thinking", especially those who aren't young and/or have loved ones that have died.
The desire to live forever and meet lost loved ones again is indeed a powerful one. To me, the fact that we grieve at the loss of loved ones demonstrates that we don't really believe in these fairy tales. That is why it is truly a matter of grief; we "know" deep down that we will never see them again, and that is one of life's great sorrows. That isn't a "disproof" of God or heaven, of course, any more than hearing voices in our head is "proof" of God.
-
Originally posted by phookat
The desire to live forever and meet lost loved ones again is indeed a powerful one. To me, the fact that we grieve at the loss of loved ones demonstrates that we don't really believe in these fairy tales. That is why it is truly a matter of grief; we "know" deep down that we will never see them again, and that is one of life's great sorrows. That isn't a "disproof" of God or heaven, of course, any more than hearing voices in our head is "proof" of God.
It is possible to feel severe pain and sorrow at the passing of a loved one while still truly believing they live on. I know this from experience and I'm sure there are others here who can say the same.
-
phoocat.. the fact that you have no god in your life or that you think your god does not listen to you is no proof that there is no god. You hear no voices so they must not exist.
Some people just hear better than others.
lazs
-
Originally posted by AKIron
It is possible to feel severe pain and sorrow at the passing of a loved one while still truly believing they live on. I know this from experience and I'm sure there are others here who can say the same.
Quite possibly.
-
Originally posted by lazs2
phoocat.. the fact that you have no god in your life or that you think your god does not listen to you is no proof that there is no god. You hear no voices so they must not exist.
Some people just hear better than others.
lazs
Maybe you haven't been following the thread laz. As I said, no one can "prove" or "disprove" God. Certainly not by voices in the head, either way. Besides, I thought you didn't care about this subject? :)
-
I don't care if you have a god or not. I am only listening to what you say and trying to see if it makes sense or not.
I believe that athiests are dangerous and silly and dishonest at the same time..
I told you...agnostics don't bother me in the least. Are you saying that you are an agnostic? that no one can prove it either way?
lazs
-
phookat, on a slightly different tack, please explain the difference between an atheist and an agnostic in your view.
-
What is God?
answer: God is all
Who is God?
answer: God is all
What is religion?
answer: Man made nonsense.
Man has a limited understanding of the universe. The universe is a complex mathamatical wonder that has many questions unanswered.
We exsist in many ways it is our perception and our rational minds that confuse us. Does God exsist? Answer: Of course!
-
Originally posted by Gunthr
phookat, on a slightly different tack, please explain the difference between an atheist and an agnostic in your view.
An Athiest is someone who has overcome his/her fear of being judged of their beliefs from a non-existant God.
An Agnostic is someone who has not overcome this fear.
-
Originally posted by SirLoin
An Athiest is someone who has overcome his/her fear of being judged of their beliefs from a non-existant God.
An Agnostic is someone who has not overcome this fear.
Winner!
-
Originally posted by SirLoin
An Athiest is someone who has overcome his/her fear of being judged of their beliefs from a non-existant God.
An Agnostic is someone who has not overcome this fear.
The inability to entertain uncertainty might be characterized as fear.
-
What does fear have to do with anything-spiritual, philosophical, or even intellectual? That's just bogus. Sounds more like a Deus Ex.
-
Hello Ink,
Originally posted by ink
seagoon very well written
allthough i dont think truine GOD is bible teaching,
its mans teaching
ive heard all the arguments why people believe this is so but like every thing we have our own opinions,mine is based on the word of GOD not what man has said or done.
i think most christen religions have a aspect of truth but have been turned into something thats not the truth.
I'd love to talk to you further about this, but my fear is that an in-depth discussion of the points you raised would be a major thread hi-jack, and end up moving the thread discussion from apologetics to systematic theology (which would admittedly add a touch of irony - a discussion of the nature of the very God whose existence is being disputed).
So let me try to give you what for me is a very short answer, first off let me caveat this by saying that I was not raised in the church, and while I had heard the term "Trinity" prior to becoming a Christian and had some vague understanding of what it meant, I did not accept the doctrine because that is what the church taught me, but rather I accepted that God is Triune (three persons in one God) because that is what I understood the bible to be teaching. For instance, the OT tells us that the Messiah would Himself be Yhwh, that is why his name in Isaiah (7:14, 8:8) is given as Immanuel literally meaning "with us is God" a fulfillment of the promise that God would literally "tabernacle" or dwell with his people - and elsewhere that he would be YHWH tsidkenu again literally God our Righteous (God himself will save us). This theme is picked up in the NT with the name Jesus which means literally "the Lord Saves." Jesus himself pointed out that the Messiah would be God incarnate to the Pharisees in Mark 12:35-37, Matt. 22:43-46, Luke 20:41-44 and this theme was picked up in the preaching of the Apostles (Peter references it in Acts 2:34 in his first sermon for instance). Jesus himself used the Greek version of the OT name of God "I AM" (from which we get YHWH) in John 8:58 "Truly, truly, I say to you, before Abraham was born, I am." and the Jews hearing him immediately picked up stones to throw at him because they understood what he was saying and thought it was blasphemy. Anyway, this and other passages identify the Son of God as God as well, and elsewhere the Holy Spirit is spoken of as both a person and God. Father Son and Holy Spirit are all spoken of in Scripture as God and yet are all declared to be one (the same in substance) and therefore we have three persons, but only one God.
If you'd like I'd be willing to send you a helpful little book called The Forgotten Trinity by James White, which has a very helpful discussion of the biblical basis and historical battles over the subject of the Trinity (as always, I'll extend that offer to anyone who wants to send me a PM request).
As for your comments about free will, I would affirm that the Bible teaches that men are free agents but that in their fallen state they are inclined to choose evil, I really don't want to get into a long discussion of what Thomas Boston (following Augustine) called "Human Nature in its Fourfold State."
Regarding Judgment, the Bible calls us to Judge aright, and to be discerning, what it condemns is a harsh, hypocritical, and judgmental spirit. So for instance, if a man steals things that do not belong to him on a regular basis and the evidence of that is clear, then we are not doing anything wrong (and neither is a court of law) when we rightly judge that man to be a thief. The problems come when we pridefully forget that "there but for the grace of God go I" and that while our own thievery may not be as blatant, we too have broken the 8th commandment ("You shall not steal"). So that man may be a thief, but then again, so am I - the question is will I have the humility to repent and ask God's forgiveness admitting that I have done nothing to deserve it? May I never be the Pharisee who saw other men's sins while denying his own, and instead be the Tax Collector who cried out to God "God, be merciful to me a sinner!" (Luke 18:13)
- SEAGOON
-
Hello Phookat,
Sorry this can't be a full reply, I've only just noticed the time time my horror, and I work on Sunday mornings. ;-)
Originally posted by phookat
Are you a scientist seagoon? Have you really studies the various theories of cosmology? Do you have the appropriate education to understand all of them? If not, then I think it is unwise of you to offer them as proof or evidence of your position. The events of that time in the ancient past are a great challenge for even the greatest geniuses of our time. And if the history of science has taught us anything, it has taught us this: our intuitions are often wrong and always to be suspected. Quantum mechanics, for example, is an unbelievably unintuitive science. So we can't discuss cosmology off-the-cuff, as it were, and expect to arrive at any conclusion.
No, I'm not a scientist Phookat, neither would I ever claim to be one. The extent of my formal Science education ended with Geology in University. My wife, is far more qualified than I having done Geochemistry at the University of Rochester. The only degrees I have are an M.A. from the University of St. Andrews and an M.Div. from Westminster Theological Seminary (I'm about to start work on my T.h.D but that's years away). I'm an avid reader of books on the subject of science, but that has slowed down in recent years. However, when we are talking Cosmology we are primarily talking philosophy not hard science and that is something I have had some training in.
But even then, I'm not sure of the value of this line of argument. I'm especially wary of ivory tower arguments that seek to disqualify someone from expressing an opinion because they don't have "formal training" in the subject. For instance, some of the wisest individuals I've met have been largely self taught and some of the people I've met with the least common sense have been highly educated - and I know whom I'd rather ask for personal advice. Also, when it comes to the board, as far as I know I'm one of the only individuals here who has formal training in theology and the bible, but you can feel free to whack me in the head with a two-by-four if I suggest that only people with "formal education" be allowed to discuss God.
Additionally, just because a question is complex or contentious doesn't mean there isn't a true answer to that question, and often the answer is more simple than we'd like to admit. In fact, often we pretend something simple is complex merely so we can excuse ourselves from having to form an answer.
Anyway, if there really is no God and no one "outside the box" then I'd agree with philosophers like Satre and Nietzsche that true knowledge is impossible and that all we can have is epistemology and never really ontology. I am convinced however that there is a God and that He is not silent and that therefore we can know things as they really are. Now I realize you might not believe that I'm smart enough or educated enough to have the right to be convinced of that (or anything) but I'd say that that there that even a young child can know for certain that there is a God and that when they sing "Jesus Loves Me this I know" they aren't lying, while many a well-credentialed genius like Bertrand Russell or Stephen J. Gould will never be able to grasp the truth that that child has.
If you wish to sneer at me as yet another idiot child, with his simple assurance of a mighty God, then feel free to do so. I can assure you, you aren't the first, you won't be the last, and I don't take it personally.
- SEAGOON
-
Originally posted by Seagoon
This theme is picked up in the NT with the name Jesus which means literally "the Lord Saves."
If you were able to go back 2000 years and call the guy "Jesus" he would not understand who you are talking to. His given name was "Yeshu'a" and it always puzzled me that cristians pronounce their god's name wrong. If on the other hand you'd shout "Yeshu'a" in the street 2000 years ago, quite as few people would turn as it was a rather common name back then. Most hebrew names of the time involved god: "God knows", "God helped", "god gave" etc. A lot of those were criminals and scums. I'm sure that a lot of the many other "Jesus" were scum too, so I can't see how the name has any special meaning.
I am sure seagoon knows that, and that most cristians don't.
-
Step right up! There are enough Gods to go around! Get em while they're hot!
God Super Sale Blowout Extravaganza! (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_deities)
If there were no God, it would have been necessary to invent him.
-
Originally posted by phookat
So, the question again: why doesn't God reveal himself in a big miracle?
:huh
Someone has not heard of the book of Revelation.
At the appointed hour, he will. It simply has not yet come to pass.
Jeesh, even I knew that one.
-
LOL.. an athiest is someone who is brave enough to admit that there is no god?
That is beyond silly. it is a little boy whistling in the dark past a grave yard... an insecure person shaking his fist at people because they have found something he can not.
An agnostic is someone who hasn't found the courage? LOL... you little boys and your agendas... You will admit the possibility of ghosts or aliens or bigfoot or mindreaders or ... any of a number of silly things but when it comes to a god...
you not only refuse to admit the possibility... even tho you have no other answer.. but... you attack anyone who does have a god.. unless they are PC at the time like muslims... (enemy of my enemy and all that)
To declare oneself an athiest is to declare an agenda. It is a belief every bit as strong as the most fervent muslims... Yours is the only god and that god is... no god.. or man in most cases. It is easy to make fun of most organized religions and their beliefs... it makes you look smart and witty.
Stating your athiest belief makes you look like an idiot with an agenda... much like a televangilist to me.
Agnostic seems a logical thinking path to me for one who has seen no evidence of god in their life... who sees all around him and says... "I still don't know how this came about"
I put athiests in the same class as the unwashed nutjob on the street wearing the huge wooden cross neckless and babbling in tounges... Just a person to avoid.\
lazs
-
Originally posted by lazs2
I don't care if you have a god or not. I am only listening to what you say and trying to see if it makes sense or not.
Am I saying anything that doesn't make sense to you? Out with it then. I know you have a tendency to be softspoken, but please feel free to point out any errors in what I am saying. :)
Originally posted by lazs2
I believe that athiests are dangerous and silly and dishonest at the same time..
I don't think that necessarily follows. You can be an atheist and be a bad person, no doubt, but you can also be an atheist and be a good person.
Originally posted by lazs2
I told you...agnostics don't bother me in the least. Are you saying that you are an agnostic? that no one can prove it either way?
As I've said repeatedly in this thread, no one can prove it 100% either way. That doesn't mean I am an agnostic. To address both you and Gunthr on this point, I think SirLoin put it very well:
Originally posted by SirLoin
An Athiest is someone who has overcome his/her fear of being judged of their beliefs from a non-existant God.
An Agnostic is someone who has not overcome this fear.
And I would just add this, to those like Lukster who think this is a statement of "certainty". It is not. If there is no evidence for God, then God is as likely as the Bogeyman, and there is no reason to fear either. An agnostic says there's a 50-50 chance. An atheist says that, based on the lack of evidence, God is extremely unlikely, but he (usually) recognizes the inherently unfalsifiable nature of the concept of God. If you read someone on the internet saying they are "disproving" God, chances are that the position they actually hold is the one I describe above, i.e. they don't really think it is possible to be 100% sure (although I have heard that there are a few people who think otherwise, and I would say they are incorrect).
-
Before I get to the rest of the replies, I'll respond to this. I think I've addressed most of the things you say here, but a couple points:
Originally posted by lazs2
you attack anyone who does have a god.. unless they are PC at the time like muslims... (enemy of my enemy and all that)
Don't assume that. I think that the Muslim faith contains a number of absolutely repulsive and barbaric beliefs and is a source of great evil.
Originally posted by lazs2
Agnostic seems a logical thinking path to me for one who has seen no evidence of god in their life... who sees all around him and says... "I still don't know how this came about"
We are in agreement here; I think we are just calling things by different names. Any intellectually honest person recognizes that we don't know everything, indeed it may be possible that we cannot know everything. With our partially evolved mammalian brains sitting here in this tiny corner of the universe, what right have we to assume that all knowledge is available to us? But that's not evidence for God. Just because we don't (or can't) know everything, doesn't mean there's someone who does.
-
Originally posted by Gunthr
phookat, on a slightly different tack, please explain the difference between an atheist and an agnostic in your view.
See my reply to laz above.
-
you are saying that the defenition of athiest is bravery? that the defenition of agnostic is one who holds a 50/50 chance belief?
These are defenitions I have not heard before. I would say they were more justifications than they were definitions.
You seem to think that there are degrees of athiesm... that is like saying there are degrees of believing in god.... that a thiest may admit the possibility of there not being a god.
Why have agnostic at all in the mix? you are saying that you are some kind of enlightened athiest.. that you can't get your science to really actually 100% prove there is no god and you can't explain 90% of what is around you..
so we have it... you think there are degrees of theist and athiest and well.. maybe not agnostic...you define them as being at an exact 50/50 split.... laughable.
you admit your agenda by calling yourself an athiest but giving it a degree of faith... an athiest scientist so to speak... you say that you can not be sure but you strongly feel that... that what?
There there may or may not be a god? You are an agnostic who just likes to look hip.
The word athiest is worthless without the religion of belief it entails.. the agenda.. you can't be a degree of athiest...you either are or are not.
if you don't pray at the altar of athiesm or at the alter of theism then you are just a plain old garden variety agnostic..
nothing special.
lazs
-
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by Gunthr
phookat, on a slightly different tack, please explain the difference between an atheist and an agnostic in your view.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
See my reply to laz above. - phookat
Phookat, respectfully, your answer to Lazs does not address my question. it would be helpful to my understanding of your position if you would please give your working definitions of:
1. atheist
2. agnostic
-
Originally posted by uberhun
What is God?
answer: God is all
Who is God?
answer: God is all
What is religion?
answer: Man made nonsense.
Man has a limited understanding of the universe. The universe is a complex mathamatical wonder that has many questions unanswered.
We exsist in many ways it is our perception and our rational minds that confuse us. Does God exsist? Answer: Of course!
This is the way Spinoza and Einstein saw it. Basically, it is defining God = Universe, or God = Reality. Einstein especially was fond of talking about his sense of awe of the wonders of the cosmos (an awe which myself and many others share). But this is not an intelligent God, or a personal God who answers prayers or cares about using his name "in vain".
-
Originally posted by lazs2
that you can't get your science to really actually 100% prove there is no god and you can't explain 90% of what is around you..
My science? It's your science too. If you don't think so, stop driving your car. :D
Originally posted by lazs2
you admit your agenda by calling yourself an athiest
What's *your* agenda, laz? Have I actually said anything incorrect, or are we just quibbling about terms? The "points" you are raising do not address the substance of anything I said.
Let me ask you this. What's *your* position? Do you think there's a 50-50 chance that God exists? Or do you think it's a bit more unlikely than that? And what are the reasons for your position?
-
Originally posted by Gunthr
Phookat, respectfully, your answer to Lazs does not address my question. it would be helpful to my understanding of your position if you would please give your working definitions of:
1. atheist
2. agnostic
Agnostic: thinks it is impossible to say anything about God one way or another, hence a-gnost (lack of knowledge). Therefore 50-50 chance that God exists.
Atheist: thinks there's no evidence for God. God as likely as Celestial Teapot orbiting Mars, and other non-disprovable non-falsifiable notions.
-
Originally posted by AKIron
The inability to entertain uncertainty might be characterized as fear.
See my reply above. This is not a matter of "certainty", it's a matter of lack of evidence.
-
Originally posted by lazs2 Stating your athiest belief makes you look like an idiot with an agenda[/B]
Lazs, I just started reading a slim volume, 150 pages, that you might like. You and the author's mind both pick up on the same sort of things.
Maybe even work some of the same ways.
I venture to say that your conclusions may differ, but when I read you last post, I immediately thought of the book. I'm about 30 pages in so far.
Or, you're starting to make sense to me, and I'm doomed. :D
G.K. Chesterton's Orthodoxy is the book.
He has wit, he's smart, writes really well without ever boring his audience. He talks about important things.
Probably can get it at the library or they can get it for you if you're interested.
-
Originally posted by E25280
:huh
Someone has not heard of the book of Revelation.
At the appointed hour, he will. It simply has not yet come to pass.
Jeesh, even I knew that one.
That doesn't answer the question. Why doesn't God appear now and dispell most of our doubts by a simple demonstration as I described?
-
Originally posted by phookat
And I would just add this, to those like Lukster who think this is a statement of "certainty". It is not. If there is no evidence for God, then God is as likely as the Bogeyman, and there is no reason to fear either.
I think it faulty reasoning to assume there is no evidence of the God many claim. I suggest that evidence abounds and is even clear in your very ability to question it. Attributing everything that is to the poorly understood magic of quantum mechanics as a means of denying accountability is certainly your prerogative (free will and all), at least for now.
-
Of course it is everyones science but most of us have a very agnostic view of most scientific theory that is stated as fact.
And yes... I am indeed quibbling about "terms" as you put it. Words mean something despite your feeble attempts to justify an untenable position.
As to my posititon.. I believe in god... just as I have stated here and in the past... I have a Johnny Cash "personal Jesus" who listens to me and guides me and gives me strength when I could not have gotten the strength otherwise.
I have to do some work tho... I have to accept it even when it is difficult. I would not expect you to understand but I would expect you to be happy for me.
An athiest by pure definition.. would attack such a belief.. I believe that to attack others belief is an agenda. When someone says that he has a god in his life and that it is good and then an athiest spouts off that there is no god.. well.. you have to be pretty stupid or dishonest to not recognize the agenda..
Agnostisism on the other hand... is rooted in science.. it says that there is no proof so he will wait and see... no harm no foul.
An agnostic can have degrees.. unlike theist or athiest.. an agnostic has the right to say that he thinks that there is no god but that he admits the possiblility that there may be.. the athiest has no right to say such.
What have you said that is not correct? what have you even said? the definitions you gave of the types are incorrect.. the whole wall of words justifiying your agenda are meaningless. who cares if the person who believes in god also believes those who don't need to be put to death? especially in a time where belivers and non believers both believed that a person should be put to death for any number of crimes including stealing a loaf of bread or being adultrous...or killing the kings deer to survive.
lazs
-
Originally posted by Seagoon
But even then, I'm not sure of the value of this line of argument. I'm especially wary of ivory tower arguments that seek to disqualify someone from expressing an opinion because they don't have "formal training" in the subject. For instance, some of the wisest individuals I've met have been largely self taught and some of the people I've met with the least common sense have been highly educated - and I know whom I'd rather ask for personal advice. Also, when it comes to the board, as far as I know I'm one of the only individuals here who has formal training in theology and the bible, but you can feel free to whack me in the head with a two-by-four if I suggest that only people with "formal education" be allowed to discuss God.
That's not what I was getting at Seagoon. And I think you know it. I have to say I am a little disappointed that you would stoop to a strawman version of my post to make a demagogic statement like the above. In all of this post you failed to address the points I raised against your position: namely that even is you assume a creative entity, there's nothing to indicate that it is intelligent, or that it is the Christian God.
The point once again, is that Cosmology is indeed a science, not a philosophy. When evidence is examined and theories proposed based on the evidence, it is science at work. Philosophers (such as you and Aquinas) don't know enough to say much of anything about this extremely complex and confounding topic, any more than you can say anything about quantum mechanics. So yes, you do have to have knowledge to comment constructively in this field. You are giving us a simple answer (like Aquinas) and saying "hey there's no reason to think a simple answer can't work, except for those atheists that want to deny God."
Here's why both you and Aquinas are incorrect to think that you have a proof. Both of your "proofs" depend on an intuitive understanding of reality, an understanding that often fails. For example, consider the following "proof":
1) Rocks have certain physical characteristics.
2) When I cut a rock in half, I get two rocks that are smaller and of the same character as the original rock.
3) By induction, therefore, rocks are made of continuous and solid matter.
Can you spot the flaw here?
Our intuitions often mislead us in science. The reason for that is simple: our intuition is the product of a long and contingency-filled evolution. Those traits of our intuition that helped us survive and reproduce were selected for. An intuitive understanding of matter at the atomic level, or of the cosmos at the extremes of space-time, were not among the selection criteria in a world of sabre-tooth tigers and wooly mammoths. So our intuition is especially suspect in those far-ranging areas of theory.
Look at Aquinas's Prime Mover "proof". How does he come to that conclusion? Because he can put a ball on a table, and it doesn't move until he pushes it.
-
I can tell you one thing for sure - if phookat published his opinions for review by his peers, as he described to Seagoon, he'd be laughed out of the scientific community for refusing to define his terms - atheist and agnostic.
-
Originally posted by AKIron
I think it faulty reasoning to assume there is no evidence of the God many claim. I suggest that evidence abounds
OK. What is the evidence?
Originally posted by AKIron
Attributing everything that is to the poorly understood magic of quantum mechanics as a means of denying accountability is certainly your prerogative (free will and all), at least for now.
Do you actually know anything about quantum mechanics? Do you know what others understand about quantum mechanics, and to what degree?
-
Originally posted by Gunthr
I can tell you one thing for sure - if phookat published his opinions for review by his peers, as he described to Seagoon, he'd be laughed out of the scientific community for refusing to define his terms - atheist and agnostic.
I already posted a reply to you. Look further up on this page. And given the fact that what I posted about atheism is in probably what most atheists think, I think it'll pass peer review.
-
It would pass peer review so long as you were preaching to the athiest choir. A choir with similar er.... "flexible" honesty of agenda.
to the rest of us it seems pretty weak and dishonest.
If you don't have the courage of your beliefs then you simply need to not debate with anyone who holds a different view.
lazs
-
Originally posted by phookat
OK. What is the evidence?
Do you actually know anything about quantum mechanics? Do you know what others understand about quantum mechanics, and to what degree?
The evidence of God is everywhere you look, especially in your own ability to look.
I have always been interested in science. I have read enough about quantum mechanics to know that probablity is only an obervation and not an explanation.
-
Originally posted by lazs2
As to my posititon.. I believe in god... just as I have stated here and in the past...
Actually in the past you I thought you said you didn't believe in God. Some thing like (paraphrasing) "I don't believe in God, but I don't see why people have a problem with it. It's just good morals after all." I could be wrong.
Originally posted by lazs2
I would not expect you to understand but I would expect you to be happy for me.
That's cool with me. Be happy yourself. :)
Originally posted by lazs2
An athiest by pure definition.. would attack such a belief.. I believe that to attack others belief is an agenda.
Why should religious belief be immune to criticism, any more than any other belief? These are not completely private beliefs, after all. When someone says that we should deny the right of homosexuals to get married or ban gays in the military, they are proposing public policy on the basis of religious beliefs. Therefore those beliefs should be discussed.
Originally posted by lazs2
An agnostic can have degrees.. unlike theist or athiest.. an agnostic has the right to say that he thinks that there is no god but that he admits the possiblility that there may be.. the athiest has no right to say such.
In that case almost everyone is an agnostic. This kind of definition equates the person who thinks there almost certainly is a God, and the person who thinks there almost certainly is not. Seems like a meaningless definition to me.
-
Originally posted by AKIron
The evidence of God is everywhere you look, especially in your own ability to look.
Seems like you don't actually have any evidence. Just saying "evidence exists" does not make it magically appear.
Originally posted by AKIron
I have always been interested in science. I have read enough about quantum mechanics to know that probablity is only an obervation and not an explanation.
OK. Sounds like you don't know very much about the subject though.
-
Originally posted by phookat
Seems like you don't actually have any evidence. Just saying "evidence exists" does not make it magically appear.
OK. Sounds like you don't know very much about the subject though.
I'm saying that everything that is is evidence of Creation. That you can't or won't consider or allow for that doesn't make it go away.
I didn't claim to be an expert in quantum theory. I'm simply saying that denying casuality does not erase it. Please tell me what you know of quantum mechanics and how it can explain a creatorless creation?
-
I already posted a reply to you. Look further up on this page. And given the fact that what I posted about atheism is in probably what most atheists think, I think it'll pass peer review. - phookat
yes, you posted a reply. and you have refused to define your working terms for the following;
1. atheist
2. agnostic
considering it would only take you about 5 mins to do this, your continued refusal reveals you as a charlatan.
you would most certainly be laughed out of the scientific community if you somehow were able to get your incomplete position statement published.
-
Originally posted by McFarland
Well, as I can see I cain't change your ignorance and save your souls, I shall do as the Holy Bible says to do, kick the dust off of my heels. Good day, may you someday find your Saviour.
Originally posted by phookat
I hear this a lot. All it means is that you're probably wrong, but you don't want to admit it. But whatever, believe what you like.
No, it means we have the sense to quit arguing when we know we won't change you anyways. We walk away and spend our valuable time and energy elsewhere, where we can actually make a difference, instead of wasting it on people like you that talk to hear themselves talk and would argue with a stump.
-
Originally posted by AKIron
I'm saying that everything that is is evidence of Creation. That you can't or won't consider or allow for that doesn't make it go away.
I am willing to consider it. Give me evidence. Just making unsupported statements does not qualify as evidence. I have already stated earlier in the thread a good example of evidence that would convince me that God exists.
Originally posted by AKIron
I didn't claim to be an expert in quantum theory. I'm simply saying that denying casuality does not erase it. Please tell me what you know of quantum mechanics and how it can explain a creatorless creation?
I say what I said before. I don't know how to explain the universe. And neither do you. If you think you know, it is you who is guilty of certainty in the face of no evidence. As I said before, intuition usually fails at the extremes of science. I have explained why I think this is the case, and this notion is supported by our current understanding of reality. Are you trying to convince me of something AKIron? These are very pallid statements you're making, that would not and probably should not convince anyone (except the pre-indoctrinated).
-
Originally posted by Gunthr
yes, you posted a reply. and you have refused to define your working terms for the following;
1. atheist
2. agnostic
considering it would only take you about 5 mins to do this, your continued refusal reveals you as a charlatan.
I'll assume you just didn't see my reply. Here it is again:
Agnostic: thinks it is impossible to say anything about God one way or another, hence a-gnost (lack of knowledge). Therefore 50-50 chance that God exists.
Atheist: thinks there's no evidence for God. God as likely as Celestial Teapot orbiting Mars, and other non-disprovable non-falsifiable notions.
Those are the definitions you requested. Were you looking for something more? Please be specific.
Charlatan. LOL. Praise Jesus, he answers your prayers and heals your ills! :D
-
Originally posted by phookat
I am willing to consider it. Give me evidence. Just making unsupported statements does not qualify as evidence. I have already stated earlier in the thread a good example of evidence that would convince me that God exists.
I say what I said before. I don't know how to explain the universe. And neither do you. If you think you know, it is you who is guilty of certainty in the face of no evidence. As I said before, intuition usually fails at the extremes of science. I have explained why I think this is the case, and this notion is supported by our current understanding of reality. Are you trying to convince me of something AKIron? These are very pallid statements you're making, that would not and probably should not convince anyone (except the pre-indoctrinated).
It would appear you know less of quantum mechanics than I. No problem, I haven't seen you claim to be a scientist either. It seems to me that any person with the least sense of curiosity would have to form a belief about their own existence.
-
Originally posted by lazs2
to the rest of us it seems pretty weak and dishonest.
I see. Explain this then:
Originally posted by lazs2
As to my posititon.. I believe in god... just as I have stated here and in the past... I have a Johnny Cash "personal Jesus" who listens to me and guides me and gives me strength when I could not have gotten the strength otherwise.
Originally posted by lazs2
I am not in the least religious but unlike you.... I don't see the christian teachings as a problem.... most are common sense moral guidelines that would not harm any child...
And you're calling me dishonest? ;)
-
"An Athiest is someone who has overcome his/her fear of being judged of their beliefs from a non-existant God."
BS. Fear is not a rational argument. Agnostic principle that no evidence can possibly prove or disprove God is a rational conclusion.
"If there is no evidence for God, then God is as likely as the Bogeyman"
No, lack of evidence doesn't prove inexistence. It may just be (among many other possibilities) that you simply failed to interpret evidence that's in plain sight.
"and there is no reason to fear either"
There's good (better than anything, or I'm all ears) reason to not fear anything.
" An agnostic says there's a 50-50 chance.
An agnostic says there's no judging it, no scaling it or any such quantifying. That's one of the simplest and most central notions of all the discussions on this topic, here in the OC and everywhere else.
-
Originally posted by AKIron
It would appear you know less of quantum mechanics than I. No problem, I haven't seen you claim to be a scientist either.
I have taken courses in quantum mechanics (like real physics courses, I mean, not pop philosophy), but that is an extremely deep subject and I would not presume to claim any level of expertise in that field even after that. Yes, I've read some of the layperson QM books, as you say it is a very interesting subject.
Originally posted by AKIron
It seems to me that any person with the least sense of curiosity would have to form a belief about their own existence.
That's neither here nor there. But you are correct to say that humans naturally look for explanations, whether they have knowledge or not. That's one of the things that explains religions. Whether it is the Shaman that prays to the rain god, or Zeus or Odin, or the Jewish/Christian God, it's all fairy tales that try to explain reality. IMO.
-
Originally posted by moot
BS. Fear is not a rational argument. Agnostic principle that no evidence can possibly prove or disprove God is a rational conclusion.
SirLoin can defend his statement, I'm sure. But I will say this. I agree that fear does not provide the basis for a rational argument. But one of the consequences of the non-existence of evidence of God, is that there is no need to fear the Eternal Celestial Totalitarian Dictator. There's no "disproof" of the Bogeyman either, but since there's no evidence for the Bogeyman, there's no need to fear him.
Originally posted by moot
No, lack of evidence doesn't prove inexistence.
I never said it did. And I completely agree with your statement.
Originally posted by moot
There's good (better than anything, or I'm all ears) reason to not fear anything.
This is a little convoluted, but I think I agree if I understand you right.
Originally posted by moot
An agnostic says there's no judging it, no scaling it or any such quantifying. That's one of the simplest and most central notions of all the discussions on this topic, here in the OC and everywhere else.
I guess that's true. I'll provisionally accept your correction, pending a little further thought.
-
Originally posted by phookat
I have taken courses in quantum mechanics (like real physics courses, I mean, not pop philosophy), but that is an extremely deep subject and I would not presume to claim any level of expertise in that field even after that. Yes, I've read some of the layperson QM books, as you say it is a very interesting subject.
That's neither here nor there. But you are correct to say that humans naturally look for explanations, whether they have knowledge or not. That's one of the things that explains religions. Whether it is the Shaman that prays to the rain god, or Zeus or Odin, or the Jewish/Christian God, it's all fairy tales that try to explain reality. IMO.
I think you may be dismissing fairy tales to casually if not contemptuously. To assume that reality is limited to a physical universe which can be known completely through human "science" seems a bit imprudent if not foolishly arrogant to me.
-
"But one of the consequences of the non-existence of evidence of God, is that there is no need to fear the Eternal Celestial Totalitarian Dictator."
Suppose he existed, why is there need to fear such a Dictator? Why is it a necessary consequence?
"There's no "disproof" of the Bogeyman either, but since there's no evidence for the Bogeyman, there's no need to fear him."
Like I (we) said, fear is something you can just rule out altogether, if you follow some common sense. Being such a non-factor, it doesn't justify anything anyway.
-
Charlatan. LOL. Praise Jesus, he answers your prayers and heals your ills! - phookat
actually, i said you were a charlatan for your apparent refusal to define your terms, not for your beliefs... I respect other people's beliefs.
thanks for your response, btw.
i don't want to play the "war of the dictionaries" game, but your definitions differ from generally accepted definitions. However, i certainly accept your defintions as a basis for your beliefs.
i'm still wondering how you can reject all present concepts of God for lack of evidence, while acknowledging that God could exist - not a teapot in orbit - but a real Being, yet mock the beliefs of those who believe differently than you.
i'm afraid that i'll stick with the commonly accepted definitions for myself. An atheist doesn't believe in God. An agnostic doesn't know if there is a God or not, and believes that God is unknowable. i still do not see much distinction btw your atheism and agnostcism, except agnostics seem less inclined to mock the beliefs of others.
-
God, Family, Guns and AH what else do we need.
Jugman
-
Originally posted by moot
[ii]
"BS. Fear is not a rational argument.
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.
-
There are many views of hell and who belongs there among christians Sir Loin. I think C.S. Lewis' description in "The Great Divorce" rings true though he claimed it wasn't his theology. A place where people just drift further and further apart by their own choosing. He also said in something else though I don't recall exactly what that the gates of hell are indeed locked but from the inside.
-
Originally posted by phookat
That doesn't answer the question. Why doesn't God appear now and dispell most of our doubts by a simple demonstration as I described?
Of course it answered your question. You, apparently, are either simply too blind to see it, or are ignorant of the subject matter that you are trying to dismiss.
You ask for his direct intervention -- to "prove his existance" beyond a shadow of the doubt. Revelation states it will occur at the appointed time. That is to say, HIS time, not Phookat's.
Until then, there is ample evidence of his existence, if one has the eyes to see it.
There are many witnesses to his works throughout recorded history, if you have ears to listen.
That you refuse to do so is, in the end, your choice.
-
SirLoin, you (generaly speaking) don't do the right thing out of fear, but because it is right. That's true by principle, with or without religion.
And even in the case of an honest religious perspective, consequences of wrong-doing aren't to be feared, since they are due: you should wholeheartedly agree to damnation if you had earned it. You wouldn't fear it, since it would be exactly as things ought to happen.
In any case, fear plays no part in the agnostic idea that something such as God cannot be determined.
-
phoo... now you are getting it.. if you think there is a good possibility that there is a god but aren't sure... you are an agnostic.
If you think that there is a good chance there is no god but admit that it is possible.. you are an agnostic..
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.
I seen nothing wrong with believing in a god that is different than the mainstream religious teachings either. I don't see how that makes my arguement wrong in any way. My god is who he is. I can't prove it nor do I care to. The proof is in what I have seen and felt. I don't have any words passed down from my god to tell you or any laws. I don't have a church and I have no advice written by me while possesed of god...
And yes...we are all agnostic on most things.. many are not tho and they have an agenda... take man made global warming... many have a religious belief that is 100% even tho it makes no sense scientifically.
They have an agenda just as athiests have an agenda.
To me... the athiest has an agenda... most "athiests" are just agnostics trying to look hip to their friends... real athiests have a burning hate that is born of either poor personalities or a wrong commited to them by a god at one time or... just plain envy. Even worse.. maybe political.. great wrongs have been done by the religious but some good... maybe more good than evil...but.. great evil has been done in the name of athiesm and no good.
hap.. which brings me back to you... yes I would be glad to read the book.. I read most everything.
lazs
-
Originally posted by AKIron
I think you may be dismissing fairy tales to casually if not contemptuously. To assume that reality is limited to a physical universe which can be known completely through human "science" seems a bit imprudent if not foolishly arrogant to me.
That is a strawman. I have not said that it is guaranteed (or even likely) that our small human brains can completely know everything about the universe. But on the contrary, it is incorrect to "assume" that the supernatural exists, simply because of our lack of knowledge. And here's real arrogance for you: to claim not only that you *know* that the supernatural God exists, but that you know his mind and his minutest instructions and can tell everyone else what those instructions are.
As far as dismissing fairy tales. You yourself probably dismiss all the other fairy tales: Islam, Greek Gods, Roman Gods, Norse Mythology, Scientology, and any number of other fantasies that humans have invented. You are an atheist with respect to all those beliefs. Are you wrong to dismiss those? Did you study Odin and Thor and determine that those beliefs were false? Doesn't it make you just a little suspicious of your own belief, in a myth that is as fantastic as any of the others? Don't you think perhaps the real reason you believe in this particular myth in simply the fact that you were indoctrinated into it as a kid?
-
Originally posted by moot
Suppose he existed, why is there need to fear such a Dictator? Why is it a necessary consequence?
...
Like I (we) said, fear is something you can just rule out altogether, if you follow some common sense.
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.
-
Originally posted by Gunthr
i still do not see much distinction btw your atheism and agnostcism
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.
Laz and yourself correctly point out that some atheists *additionally* think that we can be 100% sure that God doesn't exist, that we have "disproof" of God. I think that the number of atheists that actually think this is extremely small. Contrasted especially with the number of theists who are 100% certain of God (and all his instructions).
-
Originally posted by E25280
You ask for his direct intervention -- to "prove his existance" beyond a shadow of the doubt. Revelation states it will occur at the appointed time. That is to say, HIS time, not Phookat's.
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?
Originally posted by E25280
Until then, there is ample evidence of his existence
OK, what's the evidence?
Originally posted by E25280
There are many witnesses to his works throughout recorded history
Such as?
-
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?
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.
-
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.
-
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
-
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
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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?
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
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?
-
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.
-
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
-
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
-
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.
-
Won't you guys settle the semantics once and for all?
-
Well Chair, that's not completely true. I've visited a number of atheistic web-sites. Some of them talk about their creed, their belief system, and their goals. Whether one believes it or not, atheism does display some of the characteristics of a religion: the knee-jerk defense of that creed against all criticism; the attempt to win converts to the movement; the citing of the writings and works of their leaders and high-priests; the denigration and condemnation of all opposing religions; they worship the various gods of science and reason, in a variety of permutations.
Gallup Polls have consistently shown that the vast majority of Americans are not buying what atheists are selling. Religion offers something that atheism cannot: comfort and reassurance about the hereafter. That is something that atheism will never be able to overcome. All it can offer as an alternative is "We are here and now....there is no hereafter....so we pursue material and fleshly fullfillment....that's what WE are here after."
As to the subject of miracles, which was mentioned earlier, the faithful see them almost every day, in a variety of things. Some are contained within the miracle of nature, others are in the realm of the spiritual.
The atheist will never see the latter type, for they are meant only for the faithful. An atheist wouldn't believe them even if he witnessed them. Even in the case of miracles of nature, the atheist sees only the results of random chance.
You can preach all you want to about the evils of religion and the liberating effects of atheism, but the public isn't listening.
-
Actually, I don't think I'm preaching, I'm just trying to make sure my kids don't grow up in an american theocracy. A formal christian US government with the Ten Commandments as law and so on (which I know some people here would like) wouldn't be the USA that I love and would go against the founding principles of the patriots that established this great country over two hundred years ago.
-
Chair, the U.S. government will only be in danger of becoming a theocracy if radical muslims take over.
Till then, your rights are protected by the ACLU, the American Bar Association, and free and fair elections.
And always remember; all laws are forms of legislated morality, whether of your version of morality or someone else's. If you don't like the laws, campaign for change, but don't complain about other individuals and groups exercising that same right.
Regards
-
Originally posted by lazs2
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.
You're right, you didn't claim to be agnostic. My mistake. However, you did claim that you were not religious at all in an earlier post (which you attempted to deny), and now you are saying you 100% believe in God with no doubt. If you believe in God 100%, then you are religious. That's what religious means.
Originally posted by lazs2
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.
OK, but I think "your God" has at least a couple of the following characteristics. And certainly anyone who believes in the Bible believes God has the following characteristics. He is everywhere and has absolute power and authority. He knows all your thoughts and can convict you of thought-crimes. He will torture you eternally in the afterlife for not "believing in him". And unlike an earthly dictatorship, he continues to rule you forever, even after you are dead.
Yes, this is an eternal totalitarian dictatorship. A petty dictator, given his horrifying conduct in the Old Testament. And what kind of being makes "no graven images" one of his main commandments, punishable by death? Not just a petty dictator, but an insecure petty dictator.
Originally posted by lazs2
marxism is a jealous god. I believe that you are not seeing the truth in that statement.
Actually, I am. All my points regarding the 20th century dictatorship stand, and you haven't refuted any of it. Instead you go back to the tired "atheism is a faith", which it is not, and I have already demonstrated why it is not. And in any case, as I said in my previous post, the problem in those dictatorships was the instinct to worship and place someone else in total control. This is a religious action, not the action of a Jefferson or Paine. Those dictatorships were not "in the name of atheism". They were "in the name of Stalin" or "in the name of Mao". As I said before, no society goes bonkers because its people become reasonable and ask for evidence instead of relying on faith.
Originally posted by lazs2
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.
Moot already explained this above. Read his reply again. You are just not getting it.
-
Originally posted by lazs2
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...
The whole doctrine of vicarious forgiveness preached by Christians is in fact an elimination of personal responsibility. Jesus's death forgives your unavoidable sins and sends you to Heaven. He has no right to make any such claim. If you steal money from someone, it is only the victim of your theft who is in a position to forgive you. Vicarious forgiveness of crimes is an immoral idea, and is completely opposite to the idea of taking responsibility for your own actions.
-
The doctrine of forgiveness does not eliminate personal responsibility. Where do you come up with this stuff?
The doctrine actually states that man, being fallible, cannot, by his own actions, attain righteousness or salvation. Asking forgivenes of God, who is the source of all moral law, is the only way to do so. That does not mean that you are relieved of all responsibility for the moral decisions one makes after that. Most Christian doctrine teaches that God chastises his own for their transgressions.
Your statement that Stalin, and by inference Mao, were not the leaders of atheistic governmental systems flatly contradicts the conclusions reached by every reputable historian who has ever written on the subject. "Religion is the opiate of the masses," became their creed, and it certainly does not indicate any sympathy on their part for religion in any form. Russian Orthodox Churches were closed and many of their leaders imprisoned or persecuted. The same happened in China. The ban on public displays of religion was not lifted until the Soviet Union broke up.
Even in the case of Hitler and the Nazis your statement falls short. Hitler may have been born a Catholic, but he never developed calluses on his knees from praying too much. He used ancient religious beliefs and prejudices when it suited him. However, he considered Christianity to be a debilitating influence upon the German people. His policies concerning the Jews took advantage of ancient religious prejudices, but were based mainly on his beliefs in crackpot genetic "science" and hate-filled theories of "racial purity." In effect, he made use of the worst elements of atheism, science, and religious bigotry.
-
While I'm not interested in converting anyone, a statement you made Shuckins leads me to ask the following:
Assume that person X has killed thousands of people. He is a dictator and has had thousands executed in various terrible ways, and is on his deathbed.
Before he dies, he has a spiritual transformation. He honestly, and to the very core of his being, accepts Jesus Christ into his heart (no deception, no trickery) and asks for forgiveness.
Does god forgive him and accept him into heaven? Remember, it's an unreservedly honest transformation and request for forgiveness by a newly, honestly pious man.
-
Originally posted by Shuckins
Phoocat, exactly WHAT parts of the animal kingdom exhibit morality? No behavior that can be explained by meer instinct is sufficient to stand as an example.
Hmm.. (http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/06/070625085134.htm)
-
Chair, theoretically yes. However, I think the chances of someone like Stalin or Hiler or Mao suddenly exchanging a lifetime of evil for a cloak of righteousness to be highly unlikely. You see, Christians believe that the spirit of God has to move or motivate a person to seek salvation. Yet, scripture also states that the Holy Spirit will not always abide with man, indicating that for the most intransigent and evil of sinners, the chance of salvation is withdrawn by God himself.
Indeed, there are no records or accounts of either of those three undergoing any such transformation.
If there is an actual Hell, those three certainly deserve it. I think we can all agree on that.
Regards, Shuckins
-
Originally posted by E25280
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.
You're right. Everything you give below as "evidence" is taken from a book of what looks like pure mythology (just like a lot of other mythology in other cultures including the idea of a "second coming"). If someone writes in a book and says "Joe went to the supermarket today and bought some bread", I don't have any particular reason to doubt it. But if the book says "Today Joe walked on water and raised the dead", then I'm not going to believe it unless it can actually be demonstrated. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.
As far as your explanation below, it even if it is true it points to a vindictive God who wants us to suffer. Don't want to live under Stalin? See how you like the Gulag, and then maybe you'll enjoy my dictatorship! In any case, if he were to actually reveal himself for real (and not just in myth), then you know as well as I do that most everyone would bow the knee to him and accept the fact that what he says is true, and thus avoid Hell. The fact that he doesn't do this means he wants anyone who thinks for himself to suffer eternally, even if they act morally as best they can. This whole thing is a wicked belief.
Furthermore, all successful religions have anti-doubt antibodies. The Bible especially has a lot of them: the story of Satan ruling the world now and causing doubt, the verses Seagoon mentioned about contempt for God, the stuff about unbelievers being fools, the condemnation of unbelievers to hell, the notion of blasphemy as a thought-crime, etc. Islam has antibodies too, e.g. kill apostates (actually the Bible shares this one too). Hinduism has a story of a Demon who did a lot of bad **** (with God watching all the while), but one day he says "What God? I don't see God. There is no God!" And at that point God jumps out of the wall and tears him painfully to shreds. Somewhat crass, but the message is pretty clear isn't it.
The presence of this anti-doubt immune system in various religions is capable of a perfectly reasonable, non-miraculous explanation. Those stories which have such anti-doubt mechanisms survive, and the rest do not. After thousands of years of fairy tales, only the ones with the most viral survivability are still believed. The people who wrote the Bible realized it was a pretty fantastic-sounding fairy tale. And furthermore, they were immersed in a sea of varied religious beliefs and cults (at the time of the writing of the Jesus story, there were a lot of "savior myth cults" in particular, whose stories were very similar to the Jesus one). So they knew there would be people who didn't believe in it. They cleverly anticipated the doubts and placed verses in the Bible to demonize those who held them.
Originally posted by E25280
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.)
Ah yes, now we finally get to it. Please elaborate on these actual examples.
Originally posted by E25280
Christ will return, do away with this system of things, and restore the order that was originally intended.
Yes, the return of complete servility. Something to look forward to, no doubt.
-
Originally posted by E25280
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.
So you don't believe in Hell? What do you think happens to people who are condemned with "original sin" and do not accept Jesus as their saviour? Here are the some of the passages in the Bible which talk about Hell:
Matthew 5:22
Matthew 5:29-30
Matthew 18:9
Mark 9:43-47
Matthew 10:28
Luke 12:5
Mattthew 23:33
-
Moot, you do know, don't you, that male chimpanzees have been known to conduct warfare?
They have been observed traveling through several miles of jungle to conduct raids on smaller neighboring troops. They kill rival males and steal females. Do they see it as wrong? Is it a violation of moral law?
Certainly not, if one believes what I do about natural law. Such behavior can be explained in terms of thel law of survival of the fittest.
Does this give us insight into the origins of human warfare? Absolutely, but it also raises questions about the origins of human thought concerning concepts such as right and wrong, murder, and sin. Are such concepts purely natural adaptations or the gift of God....or a combination of the two?
As I stated earlier, mankind is the only animal on the face of the earth capable of distinguishing between the two.
Regards, Shuckins
-
Originally posted by Shuckins
The doctrine actually states that man, being fallible, cannot, by his own actions, attain righteousness or salvation. Asking forgivenes of God, who is the source of all moral law, is the only way to do so. That does not mean that you are relieved of all responsibility for the moral decisions one makes after that. Most Christian doctrine teaches that God chastises his own for their transgressions.
The latter part of this makes sense. I stand corrected on the personal responsibility issue. However, I still think vicarious forgiveness of sins is an immoral idea. God is not in a position to offer forgiveness for a crime committed against someone else.
Furthermore, you say God is the source of all moral laws. So I'm going to ask you again. Do you believe God is perfect, and the Bible is his perfect word?
Originally posted by Shuckins
Your statement that Stalin, and by inference Mao, were not the leaders of atheistic governmental systems flatly contradicts the conclusions reached by every reputable historian who has ever written on the subject. "Religion is the opiate of the masses," became their creed, and it certainly does not indicate any sympathy on their part for religion in any form. Russian Orthodox Churches were closed and many of their leaders imprisoned or persecuted. The same happened in China. The ban on public displays of religion was not lifted until the Soviet Union broke up.
It is false to say "atheism caused these dictatorships". The reason historians refer to these dictatorships as "atheist" is because they did not believe in supernatural God. Religious worship need not be applied to the supernatural only. It can be applied to human beings as well, and it was in these cases. As I said before (and which has still not been refuted), the cause of those terrible regimes was a desire of the people to worship a God in the form of a man. The instinct to worship is the same whether the object of worship is supernatural or not. And I'm going to have to repeat myself: no society goes nuts following the principles of Jefferson and Paine. That is what you have to argue against if you want to say "atheism causes catastrophe".
Furthermore, all religions have suppressed others when they had the power to do so. In Islamic states today, we can see what happens when supernatural religion takes over a state. Brutal oppression is the order of the day. Christianity today in most of the West looks very meek and mild and friendly, a smile and handshake. But remember what it was like when it was in control. Absolute tyranny, torture and murder. Those who wish or think the US is a "Christian country" might do well to remember this. It's a damn good thing that the US is a secular republic.
Only in a secular society such as ours, can you have freedom of thought and freedom of belief.
Originally posted by Shuckins
Even in the case of Hitler and the Nazis your statement falls short. Hitler may have been born a Catholic, but he never developed calluses on his knees from praying too much. He used ancient religious beliefs and prejudices when it suited him. However, he considered Christianity to be a debilitating influence upon the German people. His policies concerning the Jews took advantage of ancient religious prejudices
Those "ancient" prejudices were not so ancient in Christianity, as I pointed out. And anyway, the warrant to hate Jews is explicitly in the Bible. The Jews "killed your saviour and asked for his blood to be on their heads to the remotest generation", at least according to that fairy tale. This is pure barbarism, and it is Biblically warranted.
-
Originally posted by Shuckins
Chair, theoretically yes.
What you are suggesting and advocating and believing and defending here is wicked. And it originates in your religious belief. Here is a clear example of someone believing something evil because of faith. You don't question this dogma, and you see it as a virtue to believe in this sort of thing without questioning.
Originally posted by Shuckins
However, I think the chances of someone like Stalin or Hiler or Mao suddenly exchanging a lifetime of evil for a cloak of righteousness to be highly unlikely.
If it is even possible for such a thing to happen, for God to forgive something on "someone else's behalf" just because he believes in Him, then God is acting immorally.
-
Phoo, how can you quote so much of the Bible and yet not understand it?
The quote "His blood be on us and on our children" was shouted in response to Pilate's statement "I am innocent of the blood of this just person. See you to it."
While later Christians used this as justification for persecuting the Jews of the Diaspora, in the beginning Christians were simply a minor Jewis sect. Early Christians observed the Jewish orders of worship and knelt in the temple. They only separated from the main body of the Hebrew faith after the Jewish revolt against Roman rule circa 72 a.d. This they did in order to survive Roman might and vengeance. While Orthodox Jews were largely cast out of the Holy Land, becoming the Jews of the Diaspora, the fledgling Christian faith was, for the most part, left alone.
Modern Christians have, in many cases, returned to that ancient affiliation with the Jewish faith.
As the matter of Hell and the inerrancy of scripture, I've already presented my views on that in an earlier post. I believe the Word of God is inerrant, and Christians view Christ as The Word. See the previous statements I made about the use of allegory and parables in the New Testament.
At no time did I state that "atheism caused" the Marxist dictatorships of the twentieth century. Those systems adopted atheism as part of their law systems, as should be apparent to any serious student of the history of modern government systems.
Your attempt to paint modern Christianity as a momentarily subdued, yet dangerously subversive element in modern society is backed up by an attempt to tie it to the evils of the past. That doesn't wash. Christianity has been evolving toward a more tolerant and loving creed since the day, 500 years ago, when Martin Luther nailed his Theses to the door of the Church of Wittenberg. The Reformation that followed transformed Christianity, and it has been slowly returning to its original teachings of peace and love ever since.
Islam has undergone no such transformation. That is one reason that I said that all religions are not created equal.
You stated that all religions have suppressed others when it suited them. Are you certain you want to stand by that statement, for you are professing a belief in an absolute. Many modern atheists don't believe in absolutes. Do you have any proof to back up that statement? Do you know for a FACT that every religion has done this...or are you merely restating something a mentor has told you?
What I'm ultimately getting at here is that the source of evil resides not with God or atheism or religion. It comes from man. His evil is capable of corrupting anything.
So lay the blame where it truly lies.
-
Originally posted by Shuckins
The quote "His blood be on us and on our children" was shouted in response to Pilate's statement "I am innocent of the blood of this just person. See you to it."
It may be true that early Christians prayed in the Jewish temple. That does not absolve the evil nature of this verse, which specifically incites anti-Semitism. Martin Luther was an anti-Semite also, as I'm sure you know. He wrote a little manifesto called "The Jews and Their Lies". We can do well without any of this.
Originally posted by Shuckins
At no time did I state that "atheism caused" the Marxist dictatorships of the twentieth century.
Good. Then you agree that these dictatorships were not "in the name of atheism". They disavowed supernatural religion and replaced it with worship of dictators. Both are forms of religion. Once again, no society went nuts following the principles of Jefferson and Paine.
Originally posted by Shuckins
Your attempt to paint modern Christianity as a momentarily subdued, yet dangerously subversive element in modern society is backed up by an attempt to tie it to the evils of the past. That doesn't wash. Christianity has been evolving toward a more tolerant and loving creed since the day, 500 years ago, when Martin Luther nailed his Theses to the door of the Church of Wittenberg. The Reformation that followed transformed Christianity, and it has been slowly returning to its original teachings of peace and love ever since.
Do you suppose that the teachings of the Old Testament were teachings of "peace and love"? These are the actual "original teachings". Incitements to slavery, genocide, and all sorts of other complete evil is to be found in these scriptures. So I agree that Christianity is "evolving" into a better system by ignoring all those barbaric parts, but in doing so it makes the tacit and unspoken admission that the supposed God was mistaken and imperfect and immoral in many cases. It also shows that morality comes from us, not God--we humans judge the Bible and decide ourselves that certain parts are good and other parts are evil. The less religion, the better.
Furthermore, what do you think would happen if the Dominionists had their way, and the US became a Christian theocracy? A Protestant theocracy, even? Do you think it would be all "peace and love"? Would such a theocracy legally codify the 10 commandments and the penalties for disobeying them, for example?
Originally posted by Shuckins
Islam has undergone no such transformation. That is one reason that I said that all religions are not created equal.
No, what this means is that all religions are not treated with the same level of fanatic belief. It is true that large parts of Islam have not been reformed and tamed--which can only be done if you ignore parts of this "unalterable final revelation".
Originally posted by Shuckins
You stated that all religions have suppressed others when it suited them. Are you certain you want to stand by that statement, for you are professing a belief in an absolute.
You're right, remove the word "all".
Originally posted by Shuckins
What I'm ultimately getting at here is that the source of evil resides not with God or atheism or religion. It comes from man. His evil is capable of corrupting anything.
So lay the blame where it truly lies.
I agree the source of evil is man. All the evil preached in religion comes from man, since religions are manmade. All the good in religions comes from man also, for the same reason.
-
phoo... you keep going on and on about what I believe in and you are wrong every time.. now you claim that I am a christian who believes the bible to be literal truth.
give it up. I say that my god would hate socialism and then you say that my god is a christian god who loves socialism.
chair... and moot... words mean something.. it is really more than a matter of semantics lest.... well.. they "athiests' here would be quite happy to be agnostics... and why not? unless they have an agenda that is both dishonest and not rooted in science.
I am just trying to get them to think if they have not and to be honest if they are not...
An agnostic admits he does not know... the athiest says that he does know and he knows because he has faith... no science will sway him..
a believer is a believer based on faith when science can't explain...
There can be degrees of agnostisism.... many would be happy in that... there can be no degrees in theism or athiesm... you either believe in a god or you don't and it is based soley on faith... it leaves science out of the equation..
To say that you are an athiest who admits the possibility of a god is to say you are agnostic or... scientific.
There is no such thing as "athiest light".
edit... as shuckins so elequently points out... even a cursory glance at any athiest website reveals the agenda.. it is not a scientific belief in the least... it is a religious fervor to mach the most rabid inquisition christian. It leaves out any possibility of god.
lazs
-
The evil nature of the verse? The author of this verse of scripture was reciting the facts as he knew them to be. Truthful testimony is not evil. Only later, much later, was it used as an excuse for the persecution of the Jews.
There has not always been agreement between the various sects of Christians or Jews as to the inerrancy of scripture. Again, go back and read my earlier post.
A number of the books of the Old Testament are merely history. Some of the ancient Jews maintained that the Torah, the first five books, were the only ones needed for the worship or instruction of the faithful. The other books were added later, but hardly with unanimous support.
There has even been disagreement, also in ancient times, as to the exact nature of God (Yahweh). There were some who disputed the belief that Yahweh was one and alone. They believed he had a royal companion. This particular sect eventually died out, but the fact remains that it existed.
Does this negate the "truth" of the scriptures. By no means. Christ himself stated that he came not to negate the scriptures, but to fulfill them. Many of his statements reflect his attempt to point out to the Pharisees and Sadducees their hypocrisy in abiding by the letter of the law, and not its spirit. This is why he called them "whited sepulchres," bright and clean on the outside, but inside being filled with rotteness and corruption.
In another instance, He was presented with a woman caught in the act of adultery. "Our laws state that she should be stoned to death. What do you say?"
Recognizing the hypocrisy of the accusers, for the man involved was most conspicuously NOT there for Him to judge, Christ said, "Let He among you who is without sin cast the first stone."
The accusers turned and left, for had no adequate response.
Is there any more beautiful and profound passage in the entire New Testament than that of The Sermon on the Mount?" : Blessed are the Peacemakers, for they shall see the Kingdom of God; Blessed are the merciful, for they shall obtain mercy."
Any person who sincerely practices the core beliefs of Christianity need apologize for it.
Now, the Soviet Union and Communist China did not accept the teachings of Jefferson or Paine. That isn't even the issue in this particular discussion. These were modern dictatorships which adopted a sadistic and murderous brand of atheism. In the judgement of history, that is an incontrovertible truth.
As to the danger of the U.S. Government becoming a theocracy, with the changing nature of Christian life and thought in modern times, it isn't likely to happen. The vast majority of Christians would not want a theocracy. While we may speak out against things that we deem to be evil, and prod the government to take action, you and your atheistic cohorts are free to do the same thing. We all will win some of those struggles, and lose some of them. That is as it should be.
Isn't democracy beautiful?
Lastly, I do not believe that Christianity is man made. I believe Christ's teachings came directly from the Father, for the express purpose of correcting the error of man in the interpretation of the true nature and purpose of God.
-
Originally posted by phookat
So you don't believe in Hell? What do you think happens to people who are condemned with "original sin" and do not accept Jesus as their saviour? Here are the some of the passages in the Bible which talk about Hell:
Matthew 5:22
Matthew 5:29-30
Matthew 18:9
Mark 9:43-47
Matthew 10:28
Luke 12:5
Mattthew 23:33
All of those passages refer to "Gehenna." Gehenna was a real place in ancient Jerusalem . . . it was a place where garbage was incinerated. The occasional criminal was sometimes sent there after execution to be cremated. It clearly represents total destruction. It is a fate that contrasts with the Everlasting Life promised to those who follow God's Will.
So, yes, I differ with many "Christian" teachings in this regard. I do not believe in "Hell" as a place where people are condemned to eternal torment.
-
Originally posted by phookat
The whole doctrine of vicarious forgiveness preached by Christians is in fact an elimination of personal responsibility. Jesus's death forgives your unavoidable sins and sends you to Heaven. He has no right to make any such claim. If you steal money from someone, it is only the victim of your theft who is in a position to forgive you. Vicarious forgiveness of crimes is an immoral idea, and is completely opposite to the idea of taking responsibility for your own actions.
Phoocat, you are nothing if not prolific in your responses. My apology for not keeping up. I would like to answer at least this of your statements. You aren't taking into consideration, or at least acknowledging, the responsibility of a Christian to Christ. This means dying to self. It is much harder than you might imagine if you've not endeavored to walk that path.
-
Originally posted by Vulcan
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?
Again, my point is that the "Original Sin" was that of Adam and Eve disobeying God. God told them that if they ate from the Tree, they would die. Had they not eaten from the tree; that is, had they continued in obedience to God's simple rules, they would have lived forever.
Read about two paragraphs above your quoted section, Romans 5:12: "That is why, just as through one man sin entered into the world and death through sin, and thus death spread to all men because they had all sinned --"
But because they sinned, they did eventually die . . . as do all their offspring (including you and I). Baptism can not reverse this fact. That is what I was trying to get at.
Not sure if perhaps we are talking past one another?
-
Originally posted by Shuckins
As I stated earlier, mankind is the only animal on the face of the earth capable of distinguishing between the two.
Only by your judgement, yet another fundamental christian flaw.
-
Vulcan,
Prove it. Prove that there are animals capable of distinguishing between right and wrong, of making moral judgements that cannot be explained by the presence of mere instinct. In the absence of verbal communication between humans and other species it isn't possible to do so.
The closest we can come is with some of the great apes, and even then, drawing any concrete conclusions isn't possible.
Since you consider Christians to have fundamental flaws, would you say that atheists do too? Would those flaws include intellectual arrogance, elitism, and bigotry?
Atheists do not have a monopoly on intellect, reasoning, wisdom, or virtue.
The vast majority of Americans are fully aware of the flaws of atheism, and that is one reason why I said earlier that they are not buying what atheism is selling.
Regards, Shuckins
-
Originally posted by Shuckins
Vulcan,
Prove it. Prove that there are animals capable of distinguishing between right and wrong, of making moral judgements that cannot be explained by the presence of mere instinct. In the absence of verbal communication between humans and other species it isn't possible to do so.
It depends on your set of moral values. If your moral code says that sleeping 17 hours a day, making the females get the food, and procreating with as many babes as possible is good, then Lions turn out to be very good morally.
Rogue males are feeling bad that they cannot measure up to the moral code. They choose to challenge a pride lead male and according to the moral code, that is an acceptable choice.
-
Originally posted by phookat
I believe you are correct that it doesn't state this explicitly in the Bible. There are some passages that indicate "the foundations of the earth" and "the earth doesn't move", and "the sun stayed in one place in the sky for an hour", things of that nature, which show that the writers of the Bible (and most everyone else before Galileo) thought the Earth was the stationary center of the universe. I think the reason it wasn't explicitly stated is that it was too obvious. Of course the Sun goes around the Earth, that doesn't need to be revealed to you. On the contrary I think the lack of a description of the Helio-centric solar system in the Bible is very telling.
What are your thoughts on people such as weather-persons reporting the "sunrise" and "sunset" times?
-
Originally posted by Shuckins
Vulcan,
Prove it. Prove that there are animals capable of distinguishing between right and wrong, of making moral judgements that cannot be explained by the presence of mere instinct. In the absence of verbal communication between humans and other species it isn't possible to do so.
The closest we can come is with some of the great apes, and even then, drawing any concrete conclusions isn't possible.
Since you consider Christians to have fundamental flaws, would you say that atheists do too? Would those flaws include intellectual arrogance, elitism, and bigotry?
Atheists do not have a monopoly on intellect, reasoning, wisdom, or virtue.
The vast majority of Americans are fully aware of the flaws of atheism, and that is one reason why I said earlier that they are not buying what atheism is selling.
Regards, Shuckins
Prove that all christian morals are right?
For example what is the christian moral stance on homosexuality, birth control, OTHER religions, a whole range of issues. Look at lazs, he labels me a dishonest person because I do not buy into the whole god fairy tale. Is that your christian morals you seek in apes?
-
Religion is the Opium of the people :D
-
I believe the true quote is "Religion is the opiate of the masses"
-
That, my friens is wrong.
It's..."Die Religion ... ist das Opium des Volkes"
-
In Britain - a largely secular society - I would say reality TV and the cult of celebrity is the opiate of the masses
-
Modern days....
-
bible thread take 200,001:) ever hear dont preach apon death ears? hehe.. atheist are not going to change christian minds and same goes for christians changing atheist...dont think either side will learn from bad mouthing each others views.. suprized this hasnt been shut down like most of the god threads. lol
-
vulcan... as I have stated.. I am not a christian. You may or may not be dishonest as an athiest.. the ones on most athiest sites don't seem that dishonest... they admit that they have a fervent belief that has nothing to do with anything scientific or logical... a simple religion of athiesm.. they admit that they have an agenda.. that they hate christians and other religious people (their real hard on seems to be for christians tho)
If you openly admit these basic tennents of athiesm then... you are not dishonest about it.
If you are simply an agnostic who leans towards not believing in god... well so be it.
You can't be an "athiest light" tho... you either buy the whole athiest package or you don't. Just as a thiest buys the whole god thing.
lazs
-
Originally posted by Shuckins
The evil nature of the verse? The author of this verse of scripture was reciting the facts as he knew them to be. Truthful testimony is not evil. Only later, much later, was it used as an excuse for the persecution of the Jews.
The writer was writing a fairy tale that has *strongly* anti-Semitic implications, and is a *clear* warrant for hatred of the Jewish people. When your God calls those people a "brood of vipers", and that same "brood of vipers" calls for your God's death, how do you think the true believers are going to react? Again, we can do without any of this nonsense.
Originally posted by Shuckins
A number of the books of the Old Testament are merely history. Some of the ancient Jews maintained that the Torah, the first five books, were the only ones needed for the worship or instruction of the faithful. The other books were added later, but hardly with unanimous support.
So you know God's mind, and can tell us which parts of the Bible are "true" and which ones are "false"? I don't think you can. I think you are making a pretty transparent attempt at disowning parts of "God's Word" that we all know today are totally barbaric, while at the same time retaining a completely unwarranted belief in the rest of it.
If you think some parts of it are manmade, if you are willing to take God's Word so lightly, then why not question the whole thing as manmade? You as a human being have no special connection to God which allows you to tell us which parts of the Bible are true. In fact I'm pretty sure that "Adam & Eve" literalists like LTARget would disagree with your blasphemous rejection of the True Word.
Originally posted by Shuckins
Does this negate the "truth" of the scriptures. By no means. Christ himself stated that he came not to negate the scriptures, but to fulfill them. Many of his statements reflect his attempt to point out to the Pharisees and Sadducees their hypocrisy in abiding by the letter of the law, and not its spirit. This is why he called them "whited sepulchres," bright and clean on the outside, but inside being filled with rotteness and corruption.
Actually it dose negate the truth of the scriptures. The rest of this paragraph does not support the first two sentences. All of Christ's life and sayings were inside the document that we are disputing; you make the same mistake of thinking "the Bible says the Bible is true, therefore the Bible is true". By denying parts of the Bible, you are stuck with an irreconcilable contradiction, which you cannot solve due to your human and fallible nature. Bad move man. The literalists are at least internally consistent.
Originally posted by Shuckins
In another instance, He was presented with a woman caught in the act of adultery. "Our laws state that she should be stoned to death. What do you say?"
Recognizing the hypocrisy of the accusers, for the man involved was most conspicuously NOT there for Him to judge, Christ said, "Let He among you who is without sin cast the first stone."
The accusers turned and left, for had no adequate response.
This is obviously a story calculated to appeal to our sympathy. The poor defenseless woman all alone, drowning in a sea of sexually repressed thugs, finally finds a friendly face. The law says both the man and woman engaging in adultery are to be stoned. Where is the man then? He is conspicuously absent, for the obvious reason that his presence would not add to the heartstring-tugging nature of the scene.
The "cast the first stone" part of it is fine. You didn't mention the sequel, where Jesus forgives her. Something which he has no right to do. If a crime has been committed, the victim is not Jesus. If the wife in question is not a swinger and the husband has been cheating on her behind her back, then clearly the wife is the victim here and if there is any forgiveness to be given only she can supply it.
Originally posted by Shuckins
Is there any more beautiful and profound passage in the entire New Testament than that of The Sermon on the Mount?"
There are parts of it which are not so beautiful, IMO. It is certainly not a perfect statement of morality. For example, "take no thought for the morrow" is a pretty stupid piece of advice. But I won't go into a detailed analysis of the Sermon, because I will grant you that there are parts of the Bible that are nice and friendly and moral. Not all of it is evil. That doesn't mean it is divinely written, or divinely inspired, or perfect, or anything but a manmade myth. Humans are capable or moral thought, even though they are not perfect. The manmade Bible is a good demonstration of this.
Originally posted by Shuckins
Any person who sincerely practices the core beliefs of Christianity need apologize for it.
I assume you meant "need not". So, good news: those who subscribe to the Shuckins Bible need not apologize. BTW, do you think the verses in the Old Testament regarding homosexuality being an "abomination" are God's word, or are they not in your version of the scripture?
Originally posted by Shuckins
Now, the Soviet Union and Communist China did not accept the teachings of Jefferson or Paine. That isn't even the issue in this particular discussion. These were modern dictatorships which adopted a sadistic and murderous brand of atheism. In the judgement of history, that is an incontrovertible truth.
You are again missing the point here. What actually allowed those 20th century dictatorships to happen was the religious instinct of people to worship the dictator. This is a religious problem, though not a supernatural one. The point is this: those dictatorships did not happen because people stopped believing in God. They happened because the religious instincts of the credulous were taken advantage of by cruel and cynical dictators. Credulity is the problem here, not "lack of God". As I mentioned in the beginning, the evidence of societal health I mentioned earlier in this thread shows that atheism does not necessarily lead to chaos. And of course we all know the obvious examples that show that religious belief does not necessarily lead to societal health. The evidence points the other way in fact, but is only a correlation (which is why I make my statements in the negative). To make the statement a little stronger, I think it is safe to say that there is a specific cause and effect relationship between religious belief and certain societal disasters (inquisition, suicide bombing, etc).
Originally posted by Shuckins
The vast majority of Christians would not want a theocracy.
Glad to hear it. I hope you are right.
-
Originally posted by AKIron
Phoocat, you are nothing if not prolific in your responses. My apology for not keeping up. I would like to answer at least this of your statements. You aren't taking into consideration, or at least acknowledging, the responsibility of a Christian to Christ. This means dying to self. It is much harder than you might imagine if you've not endeavored to walk that path.
No worries, I know I've made a lot of posts in this thread. :) This solves the problem of responsibility, as I acknowledged to Shuckins in another post. However, it does not solve the issue of vicarious forgiveness, which is still a wrong thing to do or even claim to be able to do.
-
Originally posted by E25280
So, yes, I differ with many "Christian" teachings in this regard. I do not believe in "Hell" as a place where people are condemned to eternal torment.
OK, tell us what you think happens to those who do not accept Jesus as their personal saviour. What happens to these people in the afterlife?
You and many others claim to have knowledge of God's mind. Funny how you all seem to disagree on it.
-
Originally posted by hyena426
bible thread take 200,001:) ever hear dont preach apon death ears? hehe.. atheist are not going to change christian minds and same goes for christians changing atheist...dont think either side will learn from bad mouthing each others views.. suprized this hasnt been shut down like most of the god threads. lol
Personally this thread has been quite useful for me. I have been reading stuff and talking with like-minded friends, but it is easy to come to false conclusions when you aren't challenged. This thread has been a good place to see if my ideas hold up.
-
Originally posted by lazs2
even a cursory glance at any athiest website reveals the agenda.. it is not a scientific belief in the least... it is a religious fervor to mach the most rabid inquisition christian. It leaves out any possibility of god.
I have an idea. Instead of going back and forth about what you think atheists believe, how about we simply deal with the arguments brought up in this thread?
-
Hello Vulcan et al,
Originally posted by Vulcan
Wasn't the bible written a mere 17 centuries ago by a committee of roman bishops?
I've been staying out of this discussion for the most part, because I don't have the time to get involved at present and also because I don't know where to begin.
Anyway, rather than getting into full blown debate, I hope you won't mind too much if I simply try to address some of the biblical and theological issues in the debate where there are some more obvious fallacies going on. If you want to put it in AH2 terms, I don't have time to debate whether the Spitfire or the Mustang is a better plane, but I can add some of the technical details that will hopefully advance the discussion.
First off, almost every Christian theologian and for that matter historian is unbelievably frustrated at the damage Dan Brown and his "Da Vinci Code" have done by creating a popular but totally inaccurate history of the development of the Bible in general and the NT canon in particular. Nicea was not called to discuss which books should be in the bible or to edit the books contained in the bible, and it did not do this. Nicea was called in 325 AD specifically to address the the Arian heresy named after its chief advocate, a presbyter (elder) named Arius. The Arians were a movement who believed that Jesus was not actually the eternally begotten second person of the Trinity and thus actually God, the Son. They claimed Jesus was the first born of all creation and of “like” but not the “same” substance as God the father. Please note that neither camp was arguing that Jesus was a mere man, even the Arians held he was more exalted than all the angels, and the greatest of God’s creatures, but not actually God. The argument eventually turned on a “jot” the little mark in Greek over the letter o that changes “ homoousious” (of the same substance) into ”homoiousious” (of like substance).
The council itself was attended by bishops (episkopoi – or overseers, not the elders of the bible but not yet quite the Roman or Anglican office of Bishop as we know it today, at this point it was closer to the Eastern Orthodox office of “metropolitan”) from around the empire, most of whom had until recently been suffering through the terrible persecutions that preceded the relatively recent legalization of Christianity. Eventually, by an overwhelming vote the council upheld the biblical teaching that Jesus was of the same substance as the Father, and condemned the teaching of the Arians. The council also produced the Nicene creed which confesses that Jesus is “the only begotten Son of God, begotten of his Father before all worlds, God of God, Light of Light, very God of very God, begotten, not made, being of one substance with the Father.”
The other lesser points discussed at the council were: 1) The celebration of Easter (at this point the date for celebrating it was not fixed and was being argued over by the churches) 2) The Meletian Schism (a division in the church at Antioch), 3) The Baptism of Heretics (was it a legitimate baptism or did they need to be baptized?), 4) The status of the lapsed in the persecution of Licinius (what should become of those who had renounced the faith under torture and persecution who now wished to be readmitted to the church?).
Determining which books were in the canon and suppressing the others WAS NOT DISCUSSED AT NICEA! In a follow up to this post I’ll discuss the historical development of the canon, but if you need confirmation of this fact please check out:
The Schaff-Herzog Encyclopedia of Religious Knowledge article on The Council:
http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/encyc08.n.iv.html
or even the Wikipedia article on the council:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Council_of_Nicaea
- SEAGOON
-
Seagoon,
I'll clean the egg off my face later. It's been many years since I read about the Council of Nicea.
If I understand you correctly, the council met to settle matters of doctrine, not to settle disputes over scripture.
Could you point me to some sources on the events or meetings where the Church leaders made the decisions as to which books about the life of Christ would be included in the New Testament?
Regards, Shuckins
-
Are such concepts purely natural adaptations or the gift of God....or a combination of the two?
Hmm... Mixing religion and reason... what should I say to that?
Your next reply to Vulcan (starting with "Prove it [...]") is the same: asking for reasons in religion.
Religion needs no reason. There's nothing to argue about it.
-
Moot, I was asking Vulcan to offer proof that animals are capable of making what humans would call moral decisions....of recognizing the concepts of right and wrong...of sin and virtue.
I have asked for proof because I believe that mankind is unique in this regard. Others have disagreed, and evidently believe that some animals are capable of this. While some have attempted to offer proof, I have found these to be less than convincing. Understanding such concepts as sin and morality requires the ability to reason. In the absence of verbal communication, how is it possible to prove that animals understand the concept?
My challenge still stands. I'm willing to listen to any proof that others are willing to offer.
As to the first statement of mine that you mentioned, an unfortunate turn of phrase on my part. I didn't think it through before I typed it up. You're absolutely correct. It would have been a more accurate explanation of what I meant for me to have said that, while others believe the human ability to grasp such concepts as right and wrong are the result of natural evolution, I believe that God used evolution to give man that ability.
Regards, Shuckins
-
Well, I wouldn't hold my breath for that proof.. It's not that important, but if it really matters to you, we ought to have the power to emulate brains in a few years.
If any definite proof or clue is to be found, such a method ought to find it. Brains are fairly well known but disproportionately understood yet.
Anyway, I'm not refuting your intended points, just saying that proof of morality itself is sort of a wild goose chase, in my opinion. I mean it's a lot like the old "how much does a soul weigh" sort of inquiry.
Science will never have a grasp on religion. Suppose we stripped ourselves of all irrationality. Even then, I mean even if we turned the whole universe into a computing construct, we would then be wondering about what's next and/or beyond; from prehistoric cavemen justifying whatever it was cavemen did by their visions of archetypal beings and forces, to the middle ages and their mystical pseudosciences arguing for strange bodily humors as vessels of the spirit or some other hand-waving claptrap, to today when you ask about definite proof of morality in apes, to the time when we'd expand the size of our "brains" to the extent of all matter, it's an ever-receding fog of war. That's what religion does, and religion will remain a possible idea until we have reached the infinite in knowledge.
A long time ago, I read Camus' Myth of Sisyphus, in which at one point someone asks another (latter a "scientist") about physics at a macroscopic scale. At some point the scientist runs out of "answers", and the former points out the futility of such an incomplete "truth".
Nevertheless, you cannot have civility without reason. Without reason, we can bend laws and order to any whim of faith, e.g. someone "feeling they were experiencing God" as they stood in a trance in the middle of rush hour traffic, or the classic witch hunt.
Reason, not faith, has sovereignty on concrete reality.
-
Hi Shuckins,
Originally posted by Shuckins
Seagoon,
If I understand you correctly, the council met to settle matters of doctrine, not to settle disputes over scripture.
Could you point me to some sources on the events or meetings where the Church leaders made the decisions as to which books about the life of Christ would be included in the New Testament?
Yes, Nicea met to settle doctrinal disputes. In fact all of the first six great "ecumenical councils of the church" essentially met to consider new systems of doctrine that were being promoted within the church and determine if they were scriptural and thus orthodox or if they conflicted with the teaching of scripture and were thus heterodox (meaning “other” doctrine) The question was ever was this doctrine in keeping with the teaching of Christ and the Apostles and thus what Jude described in verse 3 of his letter as “the faith which was once for all delivered to the saints” and Paul called “sound doctrine” (see 1 Tim. 1:3, 1 Tim. 4:6, 16, 1 Tim. 6:3, 2 Tim. 3:10, 16, 2 Tim. 4:3, etc.) or were these new doctrines that would lead people into error? So for instance, Nicea dealt with Arianism, Ephesus dealt with Nestorianism and so on.
In terms of meetings in the early church were church leaders decided on which books would be in the New Testament, such meetings didn’t really exist. There was no definitive assembly were some books were canonized and others discarded. Rather the church gradually came to recognize which first century books comprised the canon of the New Testament (the Old Testament canon that was accepted and used by the early church was for all intents and purposes the same list of books comprising the Hebrew Tanach read in the Synagogue, although most Christians used the Greek Translation of the Old Testament known as the Septuagint or LXX). The evidence is that even as most of the books of the NT were being written and distributed in the first century (especially the epistles or letters of the Apostles) they were accepted by the church as inspired Scripture. For instance, Paul directs that his letters be read in the churches, and Peter calls the letter of Paul “scripture” (2 Peter 3:15-16)
Thus the early lists of books from the mid 100s (the Muratorian, Tertullian, etc.) - that list the books read in the 2nd century churches were essentially made up of the same list of books we have in a modern New Testament. Admittedly there were some disputes over certain books that were being circulated, such as Hebrews and thus you don’t find them in every list, but the only list that doesn’t contain all four gospels (Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John) is the abridged list of Marcion, the leader of a Gnostic second century cult that only accepted Luke and Paul’s Epistles (Marcion also dismissed the entire Old Testament claiming the God of the OT was a different God).
The books that you find in the modern New Testament were all first century works, generally dating from a period spanning almost 50 years from about 50 AD through 98 AD. Some of the letters of Paul are the earliest books in the NT and the oldest is the Revelation of John. As far as the authenticity of the text is concerned, this is confirmed in that whenever we find an old Papyri, such as the early 2nd Century Chester Beattie Papyri which is a fragment of John, the text matches up with what we have.
Now, you’ve probably heard of other Gospels such as the “Gospel of Thomas”, Dan Brown wrongly identifies these as part of the “Dead Sea Scrolls” in the Da Vinci Code. The Dead Sea Scrolls were something entirely different, they were an Essene collection of Old Testament and Intertestamental books discovered in Wadi Qumran in Israel. These other gospels largely come from Nag Hamadi in Egypt and were written in the Second and Third centuries by Gnostics under assumed names (Gnostics like Valentinus for instance knew that writing under the name of an Apostle gave more credibility than writing as a Gnostic). The important thing to note is that these books were written well after the first century (no one disputes this) by promoters of Gnosticism a Greek mystical philosophy that promoted a view that the physical or material world was inherently bad and that the spirit was good and that one obtained release from the material world via the knowledge of “secret teachings” (hence gnosis meaning knowledge). In some respects their philosophy of salvation or enlightenment via the secret teachings of ascended masters is akin to that of the Theosophists, Christian Scientists, and Scientologists. These Gnostic gospels were never accepted as genuinely canonical outside of localized Gnostic cults, and when the cults disappeared the writings ceased to be circulated. Today they are gaining attention because as in the second and third century, many people are uncomfortable with the Jesus taught in the first century works.
In any event, by the time Nicea met, the modern list of the books of the NT was well accepted throughout the church, one may, like Gnostics ancient and modern, not like or agree with those books and what they taught, but they are what the church believed.
As for scholarly sources on the accumulation of these books, please check out:
http://www.monergism.com/directory/link_category/Bibliology/Formation-of-the-Canon/
All of them are good, and the articles by Bruce and Warfield are classics in the field.
-
Originally posted by lazs2
vulcan... as I have stated.. I am not a christian. You may or may not be dishonest as an athiest.. the ones on most athiest sites don't seem that dishonest... they admit that they have a fervent belief that has nothing to do with anything scientific or logical... a simple religion of athiesm.. they admit that they have an agenda.. that they hate christians and other religious people (their real hard on seems to be for christians tho)
If you openly admit these basic tennents of athiesm then... you are not dishonest about it.
If you are simply an agnostic who leans towards not believing in god... well so be it.
You can't be an "athiest light" tho... you either buy the whole athiest package or you don't. Just as a thiest buys the whole god thing.
lazs
I don't like christianity, but I do like *some* christians, just like I don't like some athiests. But I do like some religions, buddhism for exampe (which is a religion that doesn't necessarily believe in god nor attempts to explain creation).
Where does that put me in your books?
-
Originally posted by Seagoon
Hello Vulcan et al,
...
First off, almost every Christian theologian and for that matter historian is unbelievably frustrated at the damage Dan Brown and his "Da Vinci Code" have done by creating a popular but totally inaccurate history of the development of the Bible in general and the NT canon in particular.
- SEAGOON
seagoon, for your sanity - I've never read the book nor watched the movie. Deliberately :)
Although I did take great interest in recent developments around the Judas document.
-
Originally posted by phookat
No worries, I know I've made a lot of posts in this thread. :) This solves the problem of responsibility, as I acknowledged to Shuckins in another post. However, it does not solve the issue of vicarious forgiveness, which is still a wrong thing to do or even claim to be able to do.
I'm still slow in catching up. All men (including women) have a sinful nature. How exactly we came by this is subject to debate. I'll lean on C.S. Lewis once more for his description of sin as being nothing more than being centered around self. We were not created to live for ourselves apart from God. At some point, mankind desired and acted to live for himself. We all suffer this and God calls it sin. Only through following Christ can we be forgiven our selfishness and learn to live for God.
That is a basic tenet of Christianity. It isn't about acquiring enough points to go to heaven. It is about changing your very nature in such a way as to enable you to live in God's presence. God will not tolerate sin so he made a way for us to be free from it. Death is only the beginning of a new life which will likely hold more challenges and excitement than we can possibly imagine.
-
Originally posted by phookat
OK, tell us what you think happens to those who do not accept Jesus as their personal saviour. What happens to these people in the afterlife?
These are the scriptures that guide my thinking on the matter.
Ecclesiastes 9:5 states "For the living are conscious that they will die, but as for the dead, they are conscious of nothing at all . . . " So, the dead have simply ceased to be. Other parts of the Bible refer to those who are dead as being "asleep" in death (examples, Acts 7:60, 1 Corinthians 15:6). Then there is John 11:11-14: " . . . 'Lazarus our friend has gone to rest, but I am journeying there to awaken him from sleep.' Therefore, the disciples said to him, 'Lord, if he has gone to rest, he will get well.' Jesus had spoken, however, about his death. But they imagined he was speaking about taking a rest in sleep. At that time, therefore, Jesus said to them outspokenly: 'Lazarus has died', . . . "
The raising of Lazarus from the dead also speaks to the fact that when we die, we do not go to Heaven. If Lazarus had gone to Heaven, raising his body would have been rather cruel. So, when we die, it is much like being asleep -- we know nothing at all.
Now you have to put this into the context of God's original purpose for Humans when he created Adam and Eve. Humans were meant live forever as caretakers of the Garden of Eden and all of Earth. By disobeying God, Adam and Eve brought death upon themselves and their offspring, and the conflict between God and Satan was set in motion. (Note, he did not tell Adam that because he disobeyed he would be eternally tormented in Hell . . . rather, God told him in Genesis 3:19 "You will return to the ground, for out of it you were taken. For dust you are, and to dust you will return.")
Fast forward to Revelation 20:13 "And the sea gave up those dead in it, and death and Hades gave up those dead in them, and they were judged individually according to their deeds." Again, if we all went to Heaven after we died, there would be no reason for the mass resurrection of the dead or of Judgement Day.
"According to their deeds" is an important phrase. It holds out the hope that anyone, even those who did not come to know God's word, can still be judged favorably if they lead a clean life. Those who actively opposed God, on the other hand, will surely be judged unfavorably and suffer the second death, which is to say, total oblivion.
So there, then, is your literal "afterlife." Mankind (the ones who accept God's Will and are therefore judged favorably) returns to the original purpose for our existance -- to live on a Paradise Earth, forever, caring for it in God's name (Genesis 2:15, Revelation 21:1-4).
-
Interesting. Why was all the truth in the world written back then?
Is there any truth to be discovered today that deserves to be in the Bible?
Who decided when the writing of the Bible ended? Did it end when the people living the days of Jesus deceased or where these written well after his death? What is the defining date when the wisdom of men ended and all that was written to that date was the only truth?
If our truth today is not fit for the Bible then why is the truth of that day more fit to our days? Or we could just simply accept the truth of that day and obey it to the end of the world no matter how our existence and understanding develops?
It is handy to use all kinds of references to ancient writings or letters and pieces of them but what are these grasping? Some ancient wisdom of God and his will and existence that we cannot possibly possess today?
My point is that according to Seagoons post I understood that the Bible is a man made truth cleaned of any opposition and confusion so it is merely a picture of the religion of its day, not today, and not that of eternity.
Of course I'm not sure if that is good. Maybe it is.
-C+
-
Originally posted by E25280
"According to their deeds" is an important phrase. It holds out the hope that anyone, even those who did not come to know God's word, can still be judged favorably if they lead a clean life. Those who actively opposed God, on the other hand, will surely be judged unfavorably and suffer the second death, which is to say, total oblivion.
So if i didn't know God but led a "clean life", i "might" be let in?
However,if i opposed God and led a clean life..eternal damnation...Sounds rather hypocitical to me.
Nice person this God...And if he doesn't like whats goin on in this planet he created,he'll tell someone to build an arc so he can flood the earth again and murder billions of people?.."Thou Shalt Not Kill" ,remember that one allmighty hypocrite?
Remember i brought up "Fear" as the cornersone of religion?
i rest my case
-
I am pretty sure that god allows us to create our own hell right here.
lazs
-
Look guys, what's your beef? Several Christian posters have already stated that a literal burning Hell may not be scriptural. If that is indeed the case, the following verse becomes of great importance:
"The soul that sinneth, it shall die."
Pretty straightforward isn't it?
Undoubtedly God, being a gentleman, has laid out his plan for the afterlife in a pretty straightforward way. If you sin, you cannot enter into his presence when you die. Therefore, your soul returns to the state of nothingness from which it came prior to your conception. In such case, you won't even be aware that you no longer exist. Accepting his plan for the continued existence of the soul is up to the individual.
What could be more fair? Your fate is entirely in your own hands.
There are some Christians who believe that Christ's death on the cross and subsequent resurrection paid the price for everyone's sins, and therefore salvation is universal.
I don't buy it for a second.
-
What actually is "sin" and who defines it?
I mean that its definition varies quite a bit.
-C+
-
since I have made enemies of the "athiests" on this board it is only fair that I say....
I don't think the christian god will send me to hell even tho I do not accept jesus christ as my savior. If he does.... well... so be it... I guess I was wrong.
lazs
-
I'm an Athiest and do not consider you my enemy Laz2 :)
-
thank you hazzer... normally people of your religion are very intolerant.
lazs
-
Anyone in specific? I don't hate you either, though I'm annoyed with your silly "atheism is a religion" arguments because you should know better but have some sort of agenda that prevents you from being honest.
I still agree with you on the stuff that really matters, like our fading liberties and the danger that strong central government puts our constitutional rights to.
-
Originally posted by Shuckins
There are some Christians who believe that Christ's death on the cross and subsequent resurrection paid the price for everyone's sins, and therefore salvation is universal.
I don't buy it for a second.
Christ's death on the cross and subsequent resurrection did not make salvation universal. It made the potential for salvation universal. It's still up to the individual.
-
Originally posted by AKIron
I'll lean on C.S. Lewis once more for his description of sin as being nothing more than being centered around self. We were not created to live for ourselves apart from God. At some point, mankind desired and acted to live for himself. We all suffer this and God calls it sin. Only through following Christ can we be forgiven our selfishness and learn to live for God.
I'm afraid I'll have to repeat myself, as you haven't addressed my point. I know that's what the Christian belief is. I think that is an immoral belief. The word "forgive" has a very specific meaning, it doesn't just mean "eliminate". You can believe that our selfishness will go away if we follow Christ (a baseless belief, but not necessarily an immoral one), but you can't claim we are "forgiven" of our selfishness until the actual victim of that selfishness forgives us. Once again, God/Christ is not in a position to do this.
-
Phookat you are reasoning religion, dictating what God thinks.
-
Originally posted by Shuckins
Undoubtedly God, being a gentleman, has laid out his plan for the afterlife in a pretty straightforward way. If you sin, you cannot enter into his presence when you die. Therefore, your soul returns to the state of nothingness from which it came prior to your conception. In such case, you won't even be aware that you no longer exist.
Originally posted by E25280
The raising of Lazarus from the dead also speaks to the fact that when we die, we do not go to Heaven. If Lazarus had gone to Heaven, raising his body would have been rather cruel. So, when we die, it is much like being asleep -- we know nothing at all.
Good grief. Theological "logic". How silly it would look if we derived somber statements of "fact" like this about the Grimm Brothers or the Odyssey. But anyway, according to both of you, all the unbelievers and people of other religions simply cease to exist upon death. Yes, people of other religions too: the Bible specifically says Jesus is the "one true path to salvation". So even the holiest and humblest monk in another religion won't make it.
Personally all this is fine by me, that's what I was planning on anyway. As a mammal I have a survival instinct, so I can't say I am particularly pleased about ceasing to exist upon death (and I'm not particularly pleased about losing my loved ones forever). But lying to myself about it with false consolations seems like a worse course of action. So I can accept it, indeed I already have.
But I'll say this. If no one thought there was a Hell all these years, Christianity would have died out a long time ago. If we cease to exist, there is nothing to fear (except perhaps the followers of these religions, and that's in *this* life :D). Fear is a *major* (perhaps *the* major) motivating factor in people sticking with it and indoctrinating the kids.
-
Originally posted by moot
Phookat you are reasoning religion, dictating what God thinks.
Incorrect. I am taking what others say is the mind of God, and saying that what *they* think God thinks or does is in fact immoral.
I am not claiming any of this is true, quite the contrary. I am saying, *if* it were true, it would be immoral.
-
chair.. I have no agenda and I am being as honest as I can about it... you are either an athiest or a theist of an agnostic.
the only one of those that has any wiggle room is agnostic. I am saying that most of the people who say they are athiests are just agnostics who lean more toward there not being a god than their being one.
why even have the term agnostic if you can be an athiest who believes in the possibility of god? and... if you do not believe it is possible then obviously.. it is a faith based religion that has nothing to do with science or how science works..
I just like to get terms and agendas straightened out.
There simply is no such thing as "athiest lite".
I am glad you agree with me on important things tho... and while I think that my god is very important to me.. I realize it is not to you and don't really care. I also think that words are important and like to get their meanings straight.
lazs
-
Originally posted by phookat
Incorrect. I am taking what others say is the mind of God, and saying that what *they* think God thinks or does is in fact immoral.
I am not claiming any of this is true, quite the contrary. I am saying, *if* it were true, it would be immoral.
God expects everyone to both ask and grant forgiveness for offenses against one another. There is nothing immoral in this. Changing one's nature should be the goal of a Christian, not just receiving forgiveness when one inevitably falls short.
-
Originally posted by phookat
I'm afraid I'll have to repeat myself, as you haven't addressed my point. I know that's what the Christian belief is. I think that is an immoral belief. The word "forgive" has a very specific meaning, it doesn't just mean "eliminate". You can believe that our selfishness will go away if we follow Christ (a baseless belief, but not necessarily an immoral one), but you can't claim we are "forgiven" of our selfishness until the actual victim of that selfishness forgives us. Once again, God/Christ is not in a position to do this.
This is just foolish.
If we do wrong and someone is hurt, we can ask that person for forgiveness. He may or may not do so -- after all, he is human and subject to human frailties, and may hold a grudge. We may also ask his forgiveness and receive it, yet be deceiving the person, because we are not truly repentant for the wrong we have inflicted.
"Vicarious forgiveness" as you term it has nothing to do with it. If we have inflicted harm on another person, chances are we have also broken one of God's rules. It is the breaking of God's law that must be forgiven. The only one who's forgiveness we can ask for sinning against God is God. He can not be deceived, thus only the truly repentant ones will be forgiven.
So, you obviously do NOT know what the Christian belief is, as you continue to demonstrate.
-
Originally posted by phookat
Incorrect. I am taking what others say is the mind of God, and saying that what *they* think God thinks or does is in fact immoral.
I am not claiming any of this is true, quite the contrary. I am saying, *if* it were true, it would be immoral.
Immoral by an athiest's standards? Let me get this straight -- God should bow to the morality of Man, not the other way around?
You labor under some very peculiar notions, one of which is evidently that God should tolerate in his presence those that would destroy Him if they could.
-
Originally posted by Shuckins
Look guys, what's your beef? Several Christian posters have already stated that a literal burning Hell may not be scriptural. If that is indeed the case, the following verse becomes of great importance:
"The soul that sinneth, it shall die."
Pretty straightforward isn't it?
They may deny 'hell', but they still have a 'we get to end up going to a better place than you do' angle on it. The greatest irony of christianity is the need for a concept of heaven itself.
-
Originally posted by Vulcan
They may deny 'hell', but they still have a 'we get to end up going to a better place than you do' angle on it. The greatest irony of christianity is the need for a concept of heaven itself.
if you deny 'hell' that would make 'heaven' irrelevant let alone a god.
besides... man is is own god, he splits the atom and splices genes.
-
Yep, God's probably envious by now.
-
12 pages so far. Keep it up.
-
That's a startling thought. Mankind as his own gods.
Kim Jong Il (sp.), one of the non-atheistic atheistic religious cult figureheads of a "modern" communistic nation that is and is not founded on atheistic dogma, has the god-like power to launch nuclear-tipped missiles against his neighbors, wiping them from existence and initiating events that could bring an end to mankind.
Makes ya feel kinda proud, don't it? What's God got that we haven't got?
-
Hi Guys,
I don’t know if this is worthwhile, but I’ve been going through the thread looking at posts from most recent to least recent. I’m trying to select a few posts where a point is made (usually a recurring issue) that I think needs to be responded to:
Originally posted by Shuckins
Look guys, what's your beef? Several Christian posters have already stated that a literal burning Hell may not be scriptural. If that is indeed the case, the following verse becomes of great importance:
"The soul that sinneth, it shall die."
Pretty straightforward isn't it?
Undoubtedly God, being a gentleman, has laid out his plan for the afterlife in a pretty straightforward way. If you sin, you cannot enter into his presence when you die. Therefore, your soul returns to the state of nothingness from which it came prior to your conception. In such case, you won't even be aware that you no longer exist. Accepting his plan for the continued existence of the soul is up to the individual.
What could be more fair? Your fate is entirely in your own hands.
Shuckins, Let me divide up these points for ease of reply.
First the idea that there is no hell, but that the souls’ of unbelievers are annihilated at death, is not the historic Christian belief, nor has it had many adherents until relatively recently. This is largely due to the fact that all denominations and the vast majority of theologians have agreed that the scriptural support for a literal hell is overwhelming, and perhaps the strongest scriptural support for hell is provided by Christ himself. Generally speaking, the denials of hell that exist have largely been powered by a repulsion at the idea rather than sound biblical exegesis or a coherent systematic theology. With a few exceptions (John Stott comes to mind) those theologians and academics who have denied hell, would also deny the verbal plenary inspiration of scripture (the idea that the Word of God is all “Theopneustos” or “God breathed” as Paul puts it in 2 Tim 3:16.)
Biblically, Hell is the just counterpart to heaven. But before I unpack that statement, let me explain the way the bible speaks of salvation and why in a very real sense, Hell is more “just” than heaven. To do this, I’ll need to compress quite a bit of scripture and redemptive history to fit into one paragraph. God created man in His own image, upright and sinless, with a knowledge of His Holy will (Gen 1&2). Man in his original state, was created as a union of body and soul that was intended to be indivisible. Unlike God however, man was created mutable - that is capable of a change in his state. Man was warned that if He broke God’s law he would become subject to sin and death (i.e. while his soul would still be immortal it would cease to be holy and upright by nature, and rather become corrupt and hopelessly inclined towards sin and wickedness (Gen. 8:21, Eph. 2:1-3, etc.), his body would also become corruptible, and the union between body and soul would be subject to dissolution) Through pride and the temptation of Satan, man sinned by disobeying God and so became subject to the penalties of the curse (Gen. 3).
However, God who is omniscient, was not taken by surprise by the fall of man. Scriptures like Eph. 1:1-14 tell us that even before man’s fall, God had determined to redeem or save many from the condition of sin and death, to redeem and restore the creation, to eliminate sin and death, and to create for himself a people who would love, worship, and enjoy communion with Him eternally. In order to do this it was necessary that the penalty for their sins be paid, and their righteousness be established. No mere man could do this, neither would he be inclined to do so. In fact, the only person qualified to redeem man by providing a spotless sacrifice in his place and establish a perfect righteous was God Himself, but in order to do so in the place of man he had to become man – hence the incarnation in which the Second person of the Trinity, God the Son, took on a new nature and was born as Jesus in Bethlehem. Jesus suffered in our place, paying our sin debt, and lived a sinless life. Through faith in Him we are united to Him, our sins are paid for by His sacrifice, and His own perfect righteousness is given to us. Hence the Gospel message of believing in the Lord Jesus Christ in order to be Saved from our sinful condition, or as Paul put it so well: “Now then, we are ambassadors for Christ, as though God were pleading through us: we implore you on Christ's behalf, be reconciled to God. For He made Him who knew no sin to be sin for us, that we might become the righteousness of God in Him.” (2 Cor. 5:21) Please note that this redemption was not deserved nor could it be earned, it is therefore not strictly speaking just when we received it, rather it is a gracious gift. So, God’s mercy is seen when man receives salvation through Christ, and God’s justice is seen when man instead comes before God for judgment and receives the just punishment for His sins in Hell. God is never unjust in that the actual deserved penalty for sin is either paid for by the sinner in an eternity in Hell or by Christ on the cross.
Hell is thus a place where the unsaved receive the due penalty for their sins. Just as the rewards of heaven are described as eternal (aiownion) by Christ , the punishment of hell are also described by Christ with exactly the same word: Matthew 25:46 "These will go away into eternal punishment, but the righteous into eternal life." As Heaven is a place where there are no longer tears, or pain, or sorrow, or corruption, Hell is exactly the opposite, these are the only things that shall make up existence in hell. Hence Christ’s descriptive metaphor (taken from Is. 66:24): Mark 9:44 “where THEIR WORM DOES NOT DIE, AND THE FIRE IS NOT QUENCHED.”
Finally, the verse you reference from Ezek 18:20 is not intended to support annihilation, it uses the word Nepesh which can mean a soul (in distinction to a body) or a soul as in an individual person (hence "Save Our Souls" - SOS meant rescue us not our immaterial souls). In this verse the second meaning - i.e. an individual is meant. The context of the verses is a discussion of the individual responsibility for sins. Ezekiel points out that son is not condemned for the sins of his fathers, he is condemned to die on the basis of his own sin. So God will judge and condemn individuals for their own sins, not the sins of their fathers. As Victor Hamilton points out in his commentary on Ezekiel: “Ezekiel is not creating a new doctrine. Actually, he is echoing Moses who said: “Fathers shall not be put to death for their children, nor children put to death for their fathers; each is to die for his own sin” (Deut. 24:16).”
- SEAGOON
-
Hello Phookat,
Originally posted by phookat
You're right. Everything you give below as "evidence" is taken from a book of what looks like pure mythology (just like a lot of other mythology in other cultures including the idea of a "second coming"). If someone writes in a book and says "Joe went to the supermarket today and bought some bread", I don't have any particular reason to doubt it. But if the book says "Today Joe walked on water and raised the dead", then I'm not going to believe it unless it can actually be demonstrated. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.
As I've been reading through your posts, it strikes me that given that you start out with an absolute presumption of the truth of materialism there is no way to "prove the existence of God." For instance, if someone says to me, "assuming that there is no God and that miracles are impossible, prove that Jesus is the Son of God" no answer other than "given those assumptions, I can't" is possible. To put it more simply, it is like trying to prove the existence of something outside of a sandbox when only the existence of the sandbox and the things in it are assumed to exist. One cannot even speak of the stones out of which the sand in the box was made, because that would contradict the starting assumption that only the sand and the box have ever existed.
It reminds me of a point Robert L. Wilken of UVA makes in his Remembering the Christian Past:
"A pernicious feature of Christian discourse in our day is its tentativeness, the corrosive assumption that everything we teach and practice is to be subject to correction by appeals to putative evidence, whether from science, history, or the religious experience of others. Nicholas Wolterstorff and Alvin Plantinga call this the evidentialist fallacy, the claim that it is not rational for a person to be a Christian unless he "holds his religious convictions on the basis of other beliefs of his which give to those convictions adequate evidential support." In this view, one's religious beliefs are to be held "probable" until evidence is deployed from elsewhere to support and legitimate them. The "presumption of atheism" must be the starting point of all our thinking, even about God.
One way of responding to this line of thought has been to offer arguments for the existence of God based on what is considered evidence acceptable to any reasonable person. Conventional wisdom has had it that proof of the existence of God has to be established without reference to the specifics of Christianity (or Judaism) or to the experience of the church. Atheism is to be countered by a defense of theism, not of Christian revelation. But this strategy has failed. In his book At the Origins of Modern Atheism, Michael Buckley helps us to understand why. To defend the existence of God, Christian thinkers in early modern times excluded all appeals to Christian behavior or practices, the very things that give Christianity its power and have been its most compelling testimony to the reality of God. Arguments against atheism inevitably took the form of arguments from nature or design, that is, philosophical arguments without reference to Christ, to the sacraments, to the practice of prayer, to the church. Buckley 's book is an account of how this came to be, but within its historical description is to be found an argument that the "God defined in religion cannot be affirmed or supported adequately . . . without the unique reality that is religion." Or, to put the matter more concretely: "What God is, and even that God is, has its primordial evidence in the person and in the event that is Jesus Christ."
What has given Christianity its strength as a religion, as a way of life, and as an intellectual tradition is that it has always been confident of what it knows and has insisted from the very beginning, again to cite Origen, that the "gospel has a proof which is peculiar to itself." This phrase occurs at the very beginning of Origen's defense of Christianity to its cultural despisers, his Contra Celsum. Celsus, a Greek philosopher who lived in the second century, had said that the "teaching" that was the source of Christianity was "originally barbarian," which meant that Chris¬tianity had its origins in Judaism. Origen grants the point and even compliments Celsus that he does not reproach the gospel because it arose among non-Greeks. Yet Celsus adds a condition. He is willing to accept what Christians have received from barbarians as long as Christians are willing to subject their teaching to "Greek proof," that is, to measure it by Celsus' standards as to what is reasonable. Celsus believes that "the Greeks are better able to judge the value of what the barbarians have discovered, and to establish the doctrines and put them into practice by virtue." This is presumptuous, says Origen, for it implies that the "truth of Christianity" is to be decided by a criterion external to itself; but, he continues, the "gospel has a proof which is peculiar to itself and which is more divine than a Greek proof based on dialectical arguments." This more "divine demonstration" St. Paul (1 Cor. 2:4) calls "demonstration of the Spirit and of power."
Insisting that the gospel has a "proof peculiar to itself" did not mean that Christian thinking ignored the claims of reason, dismissing questions that arose from history or experience or logic. In discussions with Greeks, Christian thinkers presented the new faith not only by reference to the Scriptures but also by appeal to classical literature and general conceptions, "common ideas" that they shared with other educated men and women. Critics tried to brand the Christians as mere "fideists," but the charge rang hollow. From the beginning, Christians heeded the claims of reason, and it did not take long for their adversaries to learn that they were able to match them argument for argument. Pagan thinkers had no franchise on rationality. The existence of a serious dialogue between Christians and Greek and Roman philosophers, conducted at the highest intellectual level for over three centuries (the mid-second century to the mid-fifth), is evidence that Christian thinkers did not supplant reason by faith and authority. The assertion that the gospel had a "proof peculiar to itself" was not a confession of unreasoning faith but an argument that commended itself to thoughtful men and women.
At issue in the argument about reason was the question of its starting point. Origen argued that with the coming of Christ reason had to attend to something new in human experience. In the earliest period of the church's history Christian thinkers did not become philosophers in order to engage the philosophers. Or, to put the matter more accurately, to engage in philosophical discussion they did not assume a traditional philosophical starting point. In the philosophical texts of the time, knowledge of God was derived through certain well-defined ways of knowing: by a process of successive abstractions _ for example, in the way one moves from a surface to a line and finally to a point in geometry; by analogy _ that is, by comparing the light of the sun and visible things with the light of God and intellectual things; or by contemplating physical objects and gradually moving to the contemplation of intellectual matters. Against the intellectualism of these ways of knowing God, Christian thinkers argued that the knowledge of God rested on "divine action" and on "God's appearance" among human beings in the person of Christ. Even when speaking to the outsider, they insisted that it was more reasonable to begin with the history of Jesus (and of Israel) than with abstract reasoning. Reason could no longer be exercised independently of what had taken place in history and what had come to be because of that history: the new reality of the church, a people devoted to the worship of the one true God."
[Remembering the Christian Past by Robert L. Wiken (http://www.amazon.com/Remembering-Christian-Robert-Louis-Wilken/dp/0802808808/ref=pd_bbs_sr_1/002-7353069-9795200?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1183159375&sr=8-1) ]
-
Originally posted by Seagoon
First the idea that there is no hell, but that the souls’ of unbelievers are annihilated at death, is not the historic Christian belief, nor has it had many adherents until relatively recently. This is largely due to the fact that all denominations and the vast majority of theologians have agreed that the scriptural support for a literal hell is overwhelming, and perhaps the strongest scriptural support for hell is provided by Christ himself. Generally speaking, the denials of hell that exist have largely been powered by a repulsion at the idea rather than sound biblical exegesis or a coherent systematic theology. With a few exceptions (John Stott comes to mind) those theologians and academics who have denied hell, would also deny the verbal plenary inspiration of scripture (the idea that the Word of God is all “Theopneustos” or “God breathed” as Paul puts it in 2 Tim 3:16.)
I am curious as to whether the concept of "Hell" was part of the Jewish belief in the times before Christ? There is no doubt that it is "historically" a Christian teaching, but some of the early Christian churches adopted / adapted many of the existing pagan beliefs of the time. Watch the History Channel's show about the origins of the modern Christmas celebration, and you easily see what I mean. The concept of "if you are good you go to the Elysian Fields, whereas if you are bad you go to Tartarus" pre-dates Christ. Is the Heaven and Hell taught by modern Christianity borrowed from these, or is there an Old Testament basis for Hell as well?
Originally posted by Seagoon
Matthew 25:46 "These will go away into eternal punishment, but the righteous into eternal life."
I am also curious as to the word "punishment". The New World Translation does not use the word "punishment", but "cutting-off," meaning eternal separation from God, and therefore eternal death. Since "The wages sin pays is death" (Romans 6:23), which is to say, the punishment incurred by sinning is that you die, eternal "punishment" (if indeed that word is more appropriate to the original text) would again seem to indicate eternal death, not eternal torment.
Originally posted by Seagoon
As Heaven is a place where there are no longer tears, or pain, or sorrow, or corruption, Hell is exactly the opposite, these are the only things that shall make up existence in hell. Hence Christ’s descriptive metaphor (taken from Is. 66:24): Mark 9:44 “where THEIR WORM DOES NOT DIE, AND THE FIRE IS NOT QUENCHED.”
One of my previous posts stated my opinion of Jesus's use of the word "Gehenna" in his teachings as representing complete destruction. In my opinion, the metaphor taken from Isaiah does not contradict my earlier statements. Paraphrasing Isaiah 66:23, "all flesh" (peoples) come before God, then Isaiah 66:24 "and they will actually go forth and look upon the carcasses of the men that were transgressing against me, for the very worms upon them will not die and their fire itself will not be extinguished, and they must become something repulsive to all flesh." It does not indicate to me that the "carcasses" are aware and suffering, rather that those who opposed God are dead, forever, and that the notion of being dead forever should be repulsive to mankind.
I am very interested to hear your thoughts on this. You have obviously been studying these things much longer than I. Also, if you wouldn't mind letting me know which translation of the Bible you generally use. I was told (being aware of many different opinions) that the New World Translation was one of the better ones because it went back to the original texts, whereas many other Bibles are translations of translations, and therefore have some words that have subtly changed meaning over the course of generations.
-
Hi LTARget,
Originally posted by E25280
I am curious as to whether the concept of "Hell" was part of the Jewish belief in the times before Christ? There is no doubt that it is "historically" a Christian teaching, but some of the early Christian churches adopted / adapted many of the existing pagan beliefs of the time. Watch the History Channel's show about the origins of the modern Christmas celebration, and you easily see what I mean. The concept of "if you are good you go to the Elysian Fields, whereas if you are bad you go to Tartarus" pre-dates Christ. Is the Heaven and Hell taught by modern Christianity borrowed from these, or is there an Old Testament basis for Hell as well?
First off, be wary of anything on the History Channel that has to do with biblical history (and you'd be well advised to take the general history stuff with at least a grain of salt as well - and I say that as a frequent watcher). Like the Discovery Channel's "Lost Tomb" debacle, they tend to push sensationalized "debunking" theories to gin-up viewer interest as the general theory is that broadcasting the old established stuff would be boring. They tend to also favor theological liberals from the higher critical, history of religions and feminist schools of theology and generally not even the best of them. Very seldom will you get evangelical or a first rate scholar like Richard Bauckham or the late Bruce Metzger. I know its more time consuming, but your best references in this field are not going to be TV or the Internet, they are going to be books, and generally not the ones printed for the popular market. For instance, I'd recommend starting out picking up a good systematic theology like Robert Reymond's (http://www.amazon.com/New-Systematic-Theology-Christian-Faith/dp/0849913179/ref=sr_1_4/002-7353069-9795200?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1183169246&sr=1-4) and in terms of the history of the development of Christian Doctrine, I would recommend either J.N.D. Kelly's (http://www.amazon.com/Early-Christian-Doctrines-J-Kelly/dp/0826452523/ref=pd_bbs_sr_1/002-7353069-9795200?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1183169348&sr=1-1) which is the gold standard, or Louis Berkhoff's (http://www.amazon.com/History-Christian-Doctrines-Louis-Berkhof/dp/0851510051/ref=sr_1_2/002-7353069-9795200?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1183169324&sr=1-2) which is a slightly easier read.
As for Hell, yes there is an OT basis for it as well, In Daniel 12:2 for instance, you have a vision of the general resurrection of the dead, and then a division as to their final destiny - "And many of those who sleep in the dust of the earth shall awake, Some to everlasting life, Some to shame and everlasting contempt." Throughout the OT you have Sheol listed as the place that the wicked go down to while the righteous dwell with the Lord forever. Believers such as David, rejoiced that the Lord had delivered their souls from Sheol (hell) and that they could look forward to dwelling with Him forever: "I will praise You, O Lord my God, with all my heart, And I will glorify Your name forevermore. For great is Your mercy toward me, And You have delivered my soul from the depths of Sheol." (Psalm 86:12-13). As a general rule though, you'll note that you have a general rule of progressive revelation in the bible, generally doctrines do not start out with the completeness of explanation they later attain. For instance, the testimony to the idea of a resurrection is sparse in the Torah (the first five books of the bible) and becomes more and more fleshed out in the later historical, poetical, and prophetic books. So it is not surprising that the Saducees, who only held to the authority of the Torah, did not believe in a resurrection, while the Pharisees who accepted all the books of the OT were emphatic believers in the resurrection.
I am also curious as to the word "punishment". The New World Translation does not use the word "punishment", but "cutting-off," meaning eternal separation from God, and therefore eternal death. Since "The wages sin pays is death" (Romans 6:23), which is to say, the punishment incurred by sinning is that you die, eternal "punishment" (if indeed that word is more appropriate to the original text) would again seem to indicate eternal death, not eternal torment.
[/b]
You may or may not be aware of this, but the New World Translation is the Jehovah's Witness bible, and it is a terribly inaccurate translation of the Greek and Hebrew. In order to promote the the doctrinal distinctives of the JWs words are ommitted, changed, or inserted wholesale, so in terms of its accuracy, it is actually one of the least accurate translations. Of the original six translators of the NWT only one, Frederick Franz had any training whatsoever in Biblical Languages, consisting of 21 semester hours of classical Greek (the bible is in Koine a related language), a partially completed two-hour survey course in Biblical Greek from a liberal arts college and he was self-taught in Hebrew and Aramaic. In other words, I have more formal training in Koine and Hebrew, and that is just enough to make me dangerous, I wouldn't even dream of working on translation of the bible.
Since the JWs believe in annihilationism it isn't surprising they don't include the English word "punishment" in regards to Hell. However, the words for punishment kalazo,kolasis do occur in texts speaking of Hell, for instance:
2 Peter 2:9 then the Lord knows how to deliver the godly out of temptations and to reserve the unjust under punishment for the day of judgment
Matthew 25:46 "And these will go away into everlasting punishment, but the righteous into eternal life."
One of my previous posts stated my opinion of Jesus's use of the word "Gehenna" in his teachings as representing complete destruction. In my opinion, the metaphor taken from Isaiah does not contradict my earlier statements. Paraphrasing Isaiah 66:23, "all flesh" (peoples) come before God, then Isaiah 66:24 "and they will actually go forth and look upon the carcasses of the men that were transgressing against me, for the very worms upon them will not die and their fire itself will not be extinguished, and they must become something repulsive to all flesh." It does not indicate to me that the "carcasses" are aware and suffering, rather that those who opposed God are dead, forever, and that the notion of being dead forever should be repulsive to mankind.
[/b]
Whenever Hell is described by Christ it is spoken of as a place of conscious torment, the most obvious description of this coming from the parable of Lazarus and the Rich Man (Luke 16:22-24): "So it was that the beggar died, and was carried by the angels to Abraham's bosom. The rich man also died and was buried. And being in torments in Hades, he lifted up his eyes and saw Abraham afar off, and Lazarus in his bosom. Then he cried and said, 'Father Abraham, have mercy on me, and send Lazarus that he may dip the tip of his finger in water and cool my tongue; for I am tormented in this flame.' Additionally, we here of Hell as a place of "weeping and gnashing of teeth."
Also, if you wouldn't mind letting me know which translation of the Bible you generally use.
It depends. I use the NKJV for daily reading, and the NASB for study. The reason being the NASB is more wooden, but so closely literal that I can usually guess the Greek or Hebrew root word that is being translated into English. Aside from that, for sermons, articles, essays, etc. I use the standard Greek and Hebrew Texts (BNT - NA27 and WTT BHS 4th Edition) and a goodly number of Lexicons. Anyway, thanks for asking.
(Btw - shouldn't you be shooting me down in an Ostwind somewhere? :D )
- SEAGOON
-
I will simply re-iterate my signature...
"OCEAN: a body of water occupying two thirds of a world MADE for man..who has no gills."
-
Thanks, Seagoon. I can't say you have convinced me, but I definitely have some more reading to do. We'll see where that takes me.
Originally posted by Seagoon
(Btw - shouldn't you be shooting me down in an Ostwind somewhere? :D )
Nah, I can't hit anything from an Ostwind (nor from anything else, for that matter.)
-
God is not in a position to offer forgiveness for a crime committed against someone else.
Forgive me for being a bit late on this one, or if someone else has already answered it.
Sin, or crime as you put it, is firstly against God. Lets use the example of murder. A murderer not only committed a sin against the victims family, but also a sin against God. Therefore, the murderer does need God's forgiveness.
-
I may be wrong (I'm willing to risk it) but I think that neither disbelieving in a fiery pit called Hell will ensure your visit, nor will believing grant you a pardon. I do believe that sin will not be allowed in God's presence and so to avoid separation we must be willing to have our nature changed.
I also believe that no one alive has experienced existence apart from God's presence. Whatever that outer darkness may be I think it will be a very unpleasant place whether it is a place of punishment or simply our inability to be anywhere near God.
-
E25280 go to this link to download a free electronic Bible. There are multiple versions available including one that will give you the original Greek/Hebrew word so that you can check the meaning of various verses.
http://www.e-sword.net/downloads.html
There are also some add-ons that you might want to take a look at, things like a daily devotional.
-
Originally posted by Elfie
E25280 go to this link to download a free electronic Bible. There are multiple versions available including one that will give you the original Greek/Hebrew word so that you can check the meaning of various verses.
http://www.e-sword.net/downloads.html
There are also some add-ons that you might want to take a look at, things like a daily devotional.
Wow! Looks like a great site. Thank you. :aok
-
I was given a copy of ESword on a cd with some extras. I just went and looked at all the stuff and all I can say is wow!! I just upgraded my version to the latest version and downloaded/installed a bunch more stuff. (I may have gotten a bit greedy. :t)
Some stuff you have to buy if you want it, but the majority of it is free.
The King James Version Bible that comes with the basic download has the Strong's numbers. That is the one that I was talking about in my previous post. The latest version you can just move your cursor over any number and see the original Greek or Hebrew word and it's definitions. Previously I had to click on a number to see what that word was. So a very nice new feature.
-
i dont know why i am posting in here again, but i keep feeling compelled to
so first let me say this
original sin is NOT mans, it is lucifer's
being the most beautiful of all GODs creations he felt he should be worshipped as GOD himself.
heaven is NOT a place for GODS children. the earth is where we will reside when we are gifted with eternal life.we do not deserve it, it is an undeserved kindness from our saviour Yeshua(JESUS) not GOD but, our god through his death, he is our brother he is GODs first creation.he is NOT GOD, he is GODs son. our brother.
Adam and Eve where going to live for ever, until they sinned death is there punishment. they were allowed to eat every thing in the garden, except the tree of knowledge, once they had eaten from that tree they where kicked out from the garden " lest they reach out and eat from the tree of life and live forever like us..."
hell, is a real place
it is not going to be very fun
the way i got it out of the bible, was: its going to be a place without love
sounds like fun?
our lives are very short
our souls live forever, ether eternal life or eternal damnation.
YOU HAVE THE FREEWILL TO CHOOSE WHICH.
one last thought
anything that is worth it isnt,going to ba easy, and anything that is easy isnt worth it.
peace