Questions for Noel and other believers

Dades

kelly1 wrote:

If my faith is correct then the first is tragic and the second is just truth, not arrogance. If you're right then the first is true and the second is delusional.

Spot on there. You subscribe to (2) and many here subscribe to (1).

So depending on which side of the fence you stand, the truth of the two statements is totally different. Remember for believers of (1) however, this is not a rejection of God - more a rejection of the concept of god. To reject God you would have to believe in his existence in the first place.

*edited for being a gimp with numbers!

Attractive Nun

kelly1 wrote:

Yes, I'm referring to social and political problems: wars, murders, poverty, crime, drugs, corrupt politics etc. I think it's very clear that that we as a human race are virtually out of control. We're unable to fix our own problems. It's also clear to me that self-reliance and non-reliance on God are at the root of our problems.

Whereas, in other times (Medieval Europe, for example), when virtually everyone believed in God and put a lot more effort into practising his 'will', things were fine and dandy?

kelly1

Attractive Nun wrote:

Whereas, in other times (Medieval Europe, for example), when virtually everyone believed in God and put a lot more effort into practising his 'will', things were fine and dandy?

If people truly did God's will, there wouldn't be any problems to speak of. I think it's fair to say that most of the world's problems are rooted in selfishness.

kelly1

kelly1 wrote:

If people truly did God's will, there wouldn't be any problems to speak of. I think it's fair to say that most of the world's problems are rooted in selfishness.

Let's not get into scotsman fallacy =/

kelly1

bluewolf wrote:

Let's not get into scotsman fallacy =/

Sorry, you've lost me there.

Scofflaw

kelly1 wrote:

bluewolf wrote:

Let's not get into scotsman fallacy =/

Sorry, you've lost me there.

It's the problem of reverse definition, a form of circular argument:

1. X argues that being a Christian makes people good

2. Y raises counter-example of A, a Christian who is bad

3. X states that A cannot be a real Christian, because otherwise A would be good

One can use it to argue absolutely anything. I could, for example, claim that all Scotsmen are violent. Any counter-example of famous Scottish pacifists would be met with the dismissal that such people are not true Scotsmen, because true Scotsmen are violent.

cordially,
Scofflaw

kelly1

Scofflaw wrote:

It's the problem of reverse definition, a form of circular argument:

1. X argues that being a Christian makes people good

2. Y raises counter-example of A, a Christian who is bad

3. X states that A cannot be a real Christian, because otherwise A would be good

One can use it to argue absolutely anything. I could, for example, claim that all Scotsmen are violent. Any counter-example of famous Scottish pacifists would be met with the dismissal that such people are not true Scotsmen, because true Scotsmen are violent.

cordially,
Scofflaw

I don't see how this applies to my point really. Being Christian doesn't automatically mean you never sin. If everyone lived according to the Gospel of Christ i.e. love God and you neighbour, feed the hungry, clothe the naked, give drink to the thirsty, don't judge others, don't be a hypocrite etc, the world would be a far better place. Of course this isn't going to happen anytime soon...

kelly1

kelly1 wrote:

I don't see how this applies to my point really. Being Christian doesn't automatically mean you never sin. If everyone lived according to the Gospel of Christ i.e. love God and you neighbour, feed the hungry, clothe the naked, give drink to the thirsty, don't judge others, don't be a hypocrite etc, the world would be a far better place. Of course this isn't going to happen anytime soon...

Except back in medieval times they were all christian and supposedly following the gospel. And you say they couldn't be because there were still problems.
Hence, the scotsman fallacy.

Dades

kelly1 wrote:

If everyone lived according to the Gospel of Christ i.e. love God and you neighbour, feed the hungry, clothe the naked, give drink to the thirsty, don't judge others, don't be a hypocrite etc, the world would be a far better place. Of course this isn't going to happen anytime soon...

What would be the difference be if everybody was do all the above except the "love God" part?

If the world all acted like Buddhists, for example, it would be a pretty shiny place too.

Gegerty

kelly1 wrote:

As we both know, nobody can prove God's existence and nobody can prove His non-existence.

We can prove that the bible is nonsense and hence your beliefs are nonsense.

kelly1 wrote:

God is not subject to scientific observation.

In the scientific world (i.e the real world) this means there is nothing there.

kelly1 wrote:

God will only "reveal" Himself when we take the first step towards Him.

I thought he revealed himself when he sent down Jesus? Where has your god been since?

kelly1

Gegerty wrote:

We can prove that the bible is nonsense and hence your beliefs are nonsense.


In the scientific world (i.e the real world) this means there is nothing there.


I thought he revealed himself when he sent down Jesus? Where has your god been since?

This kind of arrogance doesn't deserve a reply frankly.

Gegerty

kelly1 wrote:

The atheist may believe he is humble but if He denies His creator he places himself on the top of the pile. He says I don't need God. He trusts science/man will (eventually) provide all the answers. That to me is arrogance. Humans will never find the answers to life's problems if they trust in themselves alone. I think you need only look at the daily news to see this.

Regards,
Noel.

With all due respect (to you, not your god) the god you talk about seems to have a certain evil streak to him. He will only pick those people who adore and worship him to come into his kingdom. This of course all started when the churches started charging people to get into heaven. How come you don't have to pay anymore? Or do you? Will only those with money be allowed into Gods kingdom?

Arrogance, btw, is to assume that you have it all figured out, thats religion not science. And the only thing apparent in the daily news is the pain and suffering and war and division which faith and religion cause. Faith will not cure cancer or aids or stop global warming.

Is their any place for science in your world? Should it be abolished completely or only the bits and pieces you don't like?

Dades

Gegerty wrote:

We can prove that the bible is nonsense and hence your beliefs are nonsense.

Unless you have a time-machine™, I doubt that.

And let's try to maintain a civil tone here, please.

aidan24326

kelly1 wrote:

God doesn't actually need us or our worship. He is totally self-sufficent but He created us to share in His happiness. God *deserves* our adoration because He created us and is so good to us. Often we can't see this but I believe God always does what's best for us.

Sorry Noel but that's a big load of crap. So good to us? Does what's best for us? Really? Tell that to the child in Malawi who's about to die from malnutrition, tell it to the stillborn baby whose funeral I attended a while back, god didn't give him much of a chance, tell it to the young person who's right now dying in agony and wondering why their god has forsaken them and why all the prayers have been met with stonewall silence from this god of endless love.

I tell you one thing, if there is a god he's uncaring and uninterested at the very best so surely not worthy of our adoration. A god deserving of worship would not have created a world full of war and famine and pain and suffering and millions of people killing each other in his name. So wake up will you. Believe in a god creator if you like but don't be kidding yourself that we're all his little pet lambs.

Heaven's not about entertainment. It's about love. It is God's plan that we spend an eternity united with Him in a state of pure joy that's ever new and never stale or boring. How could God be boring???

Think about what eternity means though. Forever and ever and ever with no escape. Ever. Infinity cannot be 'ever new'. It's not possible. Do you actually stop to think about what you're saying at all? Tell me how an infinite existence could never be boring? And God? Well if the bible is anything to go by we can say that he's not boring anyway, whether he's actually very nice is another matter.

kelly1

aidan24326 wrote:

Sorry Noel but that's a big load of crap. So good to us? Does what's best for us? Really? Tell that to the child in Malawi who's about to die from malnutrition, tell it to the stillborn baby whose funeral I attended a while back, god didn't give him much of a chance, tell it to the young person who's right now dying in agony and wondering why their god has forsaken them and why all the prayers have been met with stonewall silence from this god of endless love.

I tell you one thing, if there is a god he's uncaring and uninterested at the very best so surely not worthy of our adoration. A god deserving of worship would not have created a world full of war and famine and pain and suffering and millions of people killing each other in his name. So wake up will you. Believe in a god creator if you like but don't be kidding yourself that we're all his little pet lambs.

What makes you think God is responsible for the problems WE create?? Why do some people find the concept of free will so hard to grasp?

It a common pattern I've noticed among atheists in that they often see God as tryannical, vengeful, uncaring etc. I see the complete opposite.

aidan24326 wrote:

Think about what eternity means though. Forever and ever and ever with no escape. Ever. Infinity cannot be 'ever new'. It's not possible. Do you actually stop to think about what you're saying at all? Tell me how an infinite existence could never be boring? And God? Well if the bible is anything to go by we can say that he's not boring anyway, whether he's actually very nice is another matter.

You're severely limiting your concept of God. He's NOT human!!!

I'm beginning to sound like a broken record now

The Mad Hatter

kelly1 wrote:

What makes you think God is responsible for the problems WE create?? Why do some people find the concept of free will so hard to grasp?

Well, he created us. Yes, free will, but that doesn't mean that he couldn't have made us differently.

It a common pattern I've noticed among atheists in that they often see God as tryannical, vengeful, uncaring etc. I see the complete opposite.

Well, the old testament is pretty compelling evidence in atheists' favour...

You're severely limiting your concept of God. He's NOT human!!!

I'm beginning to sound like a broken record now

In fairness, I think your view of eternity is rather limited as well.

To quote from Good Omens (as I've been doing so often lately)

Terry Pratchett and Neil Gaiman wrote:
<Crowley (a demon) and Aziraphale (an angel) are getting very drunk, as the end of the world is coming>

'Just you think about it,' said Crowley relentlessly. 'You know what eternity is? You know what eternity is? I mean, d'you know what eternity is? There's this big mountain, see, a mile high, at the end of the universe, and once every thousand years there's this little bird-'
'What little bird?' said Aziraphale suspiciously.
'This little bird I'm talking about. And every thousand years-'
'The same bird every thousand years?'
Crowley hesitated. 'Yeah,' he said.
'Bloody ancient bird, then.'
OK. And every thousand years this bird flies-'
'-limps-'
'-flies all the way to the mountain and sharpens its beak-'
'Hold on. You can't do that. Between here and the end of the universe there's loads of-' The angel waved a hand expansively, if a little unsteadily. 'Loads of buggerall, dear boy.'
'But it gets there anyway,' Crowley perservered.
'How?'
'It doesn't matter!'
'It could use a space ship,' said the angel.
Crowley subsided a bit. 'Yeah,' he said. 'If you like. Anyway, this bird-'
'Only it is the end of the universe we're talking about,' said Aziraphale. 'So it'd have to be one of those space ships where your descendants are the ones who get out at the other end. You have to tell your descendants, you say, "When you get to the mountain, you've got to-"' He hesitated. 'What have they got to do?'
'Sharpen its beak on the mountain,' said Crowley. 'And then it flies back-'
'-in the space ship-'
'And after a thousand years it goes and does it all again,' said Crowley quickly.
There was a moment of drunken silence.
'Seems a lot of effort just to sharpen a beak,' musied Aziraphale.
'Listen,' said Crowley urgently, 'the point is that when the bird has worn the mountain down to nothing, right, then-'
Aziraphale opened his mouth. Crowley just knew he was going to make some point about the relative hardness of birds' beaks and granite mountains, and plunged on quickly.
'-then you still won't have finished watching The Sound of Music.'
Aziraphale froze.
'And you'll enjoy it,' Crowley said relentlessly. 'You really will.'




* * *


Sorry, yes, I know I should take this more seriously, but I think it's a great extract/book, and I have work to avoid.

Son Goku

kelly1 wrote:

What makes you think God is responsible for the problems WE create??

All though I understand what you are trying to say, how is still birth a problem we create?

Scofflaw

I must admit, I don't have any difficulty with the idea of eternal bliss. The mistake is thinking that you will have any awareness of time passing, which, if you think of any occasion on which you've been absolutely blissful, you don't.

Hell, on the other hand, presumably includes a full realisation of time passing, with all of eternity yet to pass.

cordially,
Scofflaw

aidan24326

kelly1 wrote:

What makes you think God is responsible for the problems WE create?? Why do some people find the concept of free will so hard to grasp?

I don't find the concept of free will hard to grasp at all that's not what this is about. The problem is that if god created us and everything in the world then why didn't he create a perfect blissful world without all the suffering and cruelty? Should have been an easy enough task for an almighty god wouldn't you say? After all your religion assures us that god is all-powerful AND completely loving and benevolent. A god of absolute love for us would end the suffering right now, wouldn't he? Or more to the point why create beings with the capacity for such cruelty at all? You can talk about free will all you like but if god created us then it's god's fault and he/she/it/them has to take the blame. See I don't think this god of yours put us here at all which is why I DO believe in free will and why I do believe that human actions are of our own doing. By your rationale it's all god's fault, every bloody bit of it.

It a common pattern I've noticed among atheists in that they often see God as tryannical, vengeful, uncaring etc. I see the complete opposite.

Well the god of the bible is certainly all of those things and worse but I'll be fair and asume that you don't take all of that stuff literally. A god who created the universe is likely to be sophisticated enough that words like vengeful, which describe human actions, are not likely to apply to such an entity. So no I don't think a god would be very likely to be any of those things. Uncaring maybe, insofar as taking no interest in the trivialities of whether Farmer Brown's crops get that rainshower he's been praying for.

You're severely limiting your concept of God. He's NOT human!!!

No in actual fact it's religion that severly limits the concept of god, so you're being very hypocritical here!! It's religion that has portrayed god as some sad egomaniac that needs to be worshipped. It's hardly likely that an entity with such extraordinary abilities would need it's ego massaged by us little ants, but that's what your religion would have us believe.

I'm prepared to accept the possibility that the universe may have had some sort of 'designer' or creative influence. Something beyond our current level of understanding. We can't rule out the possibility with certainty, but that type of a hypothetical 'god' bears little resemblance to the one that listens to our pathetic little prayers and sends homosexuals to hell. So who really has the backward concept of what a god might be?

Zillah

kelly1 wrote:

Doesn't that make you an automaton/puppet?

Yes. You are too whether you like it or not.

So if you murder someone, you blame your genes/environment??

Yes, of course. My conscience and compassion for others is also shaped by my genes and environment, luckily enough.

Zillah

aidan24326 wrote:

Think about what eternity means though. Forever and ever and ever with no escape. Ever. Infinity cannot be 'ever new'. It's not possible. Do you actually stop to think about what you're saying at all? Tell me how an infinite existence could never be boring?

Well you see, these sort of questions are truly very easy when you can just make shit up: Sure, heaven lasts for eternity. But God is omnipotent. An all-powerful God can create infinite happiness for ever.

Its just a ridiculous word game but one has the distinct advantage when one can just invent swathes of metaphysical crap.

Talliesin

Agent J wrote:

Heard a Great term the other day.

"Christian Atheists"

LOL. It's funny because it's true.

The history is pretty much following the Enlightenment a certain train of thought came to the conclusion that the bible must be either literally true or worthless, some decided it was literally true and became Christian Fundamentalists and some decided it was worthless and became Atheist Fundamentalists - that some people (covering a wide range of beliefs including other Christians and other Atheists) don't consider the bible fundamental to belief at all is something they sometimes acknowledge but don't really grok.

aidan24326

Zillah wrote:

Well you see, these sort of questions are truly very easy when you can just make shit up: Sure, heaven lasts for eternity. But God is omnipotent. An all-powerful God can create infinite happiness for ever.

Its just a ridiculous word game but one has the distinct advantage when one can just invent swathes of metaphysical crap.

Oh I know. And some of the theists who post in these fora regularly do that. Just pull rabbits out of a hat when they've nowhere left to go. I was just curious if kelly1 would have anything to offer other than the standard textbook answers, hadn't seen him post here much before.