What is God to you?

philologos

smokingman wrote: »

I know it is indeed a common debate and I'm sure you can see where both sides are coming from but you seem to have selective logic the same as I have selective belief.

I don't know if this is entirely the case. I think believing in God is actually more logical than the denial of His existence, in that it makes a lot more sense.

smokingman wrote: »

Thing is though, logic is, and always will be more powerful than god in my eyes and I do find it hard to ever imagine it otherwise. That whole proof thing is where it gets sticky for me. I know you feel the same about god and we'll just have to agree to disagree on that one.

Or is logic, and our faculty to reason the very product of God Himself?

smokingman wrote: »

It's the interpretation of absolute truth that starts a bargie
If you could explain your thoughts on what this is though, I'd be interested to hear. Is it just the "be good to those around you" or something else?
I think a lot of atheists get annoyed at this, thinking that the religious use it as a superiority stick to hit them over the head with when being nice to others is simply an evolutionary trait in the human race and not something exclusive to the teachings of Jesus.

Not really. Absolute truth being what has been revealed to us about God and His nature. Either Jesus rose from the dead, or He did not. Both cannot be true. Either God exists or He does not. Either Jesus was the Son of God, or He was not. There isn't much wriggle room in those types of claims. All of those claims, and many others, will change your life if believed.

smokingman wrote: »

Same goes for everyone dude, I'd really like to know what happens inside a black hole and whether, as one new theory suggests, separate universes exist within them. I do sometimes pretend I know when I'm drunk though

We'll just have to wait and see

smokingman wrote: »

Can I ask what you think the difference between societal ethical codes and gods defined one is? I suppose it's an eternal debate but the way I see things, we're pretty good at seeing what is good and what is bad already.

One slides because it is defined by humanity. The other is firm because it is defined by God. That's pretty much the main difference.

smokingman wrote: »

There's a thing I disagree with on a personal level, that you "belong" to god.
I think of that and I think of how wives used to "belong" to their husbands.
Kinda riles me up to be honest but if you're ok with it then I won't press.

I belong to God, because this world is His. That's the thinking.

smokingman wrote: »

I get what you're saying alright but I still see it as purposely throwing your free will away and doing "what you're told", if you will.

My free will remains, I just choose to follow God freely.

smokingman wrote: »

Putting god first before your loved ones is something I will never even pretend to understand but this is what I think you're getting at there.
I'd like to think it wasn't but I know one or two people personally who take their religion as seriously as you do and that bit scares the bejebus out of me when I talk to them about this in particular.

OK - If God is omniscient, then at least in my case, it makes sense to seek advice from Him in order to be a better person in all walks of life. In regarding God first, understanding flows into everything else.

It is different to how others think certainly!

smokingman wrote: »

I've never seen it as good news but I still think that religion was necessary all the same. In these modern times though, I do think it's holding us back with the automatic guilt and reward mechanism you speak of.

Remember when I was talking about how we don't earn our own salvation, that it is the free gift of God. If it is a free gift, how can it be earned as a reward?

As for guilt, I think guilt serves a functional purpose in guiding us to doing the right thing. Do you think that guilt should just be gotten rid of?

smokingman wrote: »

We may have completely opposite views Jackass and I'll never understand you completely but cheers for not repeating gospel verses at me :cool:

I think the Gospels tell it much better than I do though :pac:

Sam Vimes

Now the rest of your post but I'd really like you to respond to the previous post first

raah! wrote: »

That is most certainly not what you started out doing. In fact, quite recently you've been arguing for a system with "no ought" ie, just let things happen and everyone will be moral because it's biologically impossible to do immoral things.

LOL I said nothing like that, pay attention mate and stop building straw men. I said that our biology makes us want to be social animals, not that it's impossible to ignore those compulsions. I also said that the benefits of social living are abundantly clear to our reason too, in that living in a house surrounded by loved ones who help you in your times of need and vice versa is preferable to being banished to live in a cave and fend for yourself.

raah! wrote: »

But it doesn't matter, we'll accept that you're using reason now. While I would like you to qualify this use of reason exactly, it still doesn't mean they are non-arbitrary. The fact is, you cross hume's gap into the realm of "ought" or reason even. This application reason, and evolution are separate. The sentence "evolution is good" is arbitrary. The sentence "living in society is good" is arbitrary. Wanting something doesn't make it good. We have been over this.

I gave multiple levels of "ought" that ended in something for which there is no ought, it just is. You should understand this because you say that god "just is", I say the universe "just is" instead.

raah! wrote: »

Also, what I conceded was that if a society accepted certain rules it would destroy itself.

Then how are the rules arbitrary? You can say that wanting to live in a society is arbitrary but human beings do want to live in a society and from this fact non-arbitrary rules can be dervied that punishes people by depriving of society. Just because the starting point is arbitrary does mean that everything derived from it is.

raah! wrote: »

Ok, you're using what people do automatically to support your system, and then you say it's based on reason. Do you know that they use your reasons. It is either based on reason or is not.

So lets actually finally and definitivley say what your system is. And we'll have this one definitino, put it in bold, and never change it for the rest of the argument. Is it "what people would do anyway is good?". Is it "whatever you want to do is ok?". Asking me if I consider if society is worthless again shows that you are not really taking hume's gap into account.

All this argument amounts to your thinking society is great because it would be automatically. Even if it would, I have more enough times stated how people don't need moral systems.

More straw men. My definition, without referring to the concepts of good and bad, is as follows:

People value living in society. Why this is doesn't even matter. You can say this is an arbitrary fact but it's still a fact.
People also care about others. Not everyone but they care about their friends and loved ones and want to protect them from harm. Again this may be an arbitrary fact but it remains a fact.
A society can only accept certain rules or it will destroy itself. Anyone breaking these rules is not living in a way that is compatible with society and must be expelled if they are caught.
Yes there are ways that people can avoid getting caught but only a certain level of socially incompatible behaviour can go unnoticed and unpunished. The world as it exists today demonstrates that the desire to live in society, fear of getting caught and caring about others is enough that most people can live peacefully together and as many offenders as possible are punished.

You can point out any flaws you want in comparing it to your god based system but that's the way the world is even though there are religious people going around telling everyone they're doing wrong, which you think should make the world better than it is. This is another problem with logic over empiricism btw, your logic tells you that telling people they're doing wrong should stop them but a cursory glance at the world shows that this is not the case.

raah! wrote: »

I suppose you could consider it to be an argument from authority, but I cannot think of anymore authorative figure. We've already stated, the question had to stop somewhere. And "why god said whatever he said" depends on the definition. Those things fit into the definition.

An argument from authority remains an argument from authority regardless of who the authority is. You say that theists need reasons for doing things but "because an authority figure said so" is not a reason, it's an excuse to avoid thinking for yourself.

raah! wrote: »

One proceeds from axioms. I never ever said use logic alone.

Here is an example: Take your axioms of addition, along with things like definitions of what two is (1+1) and what three is (2+1). Then if we have a definition of 5 as (1+1+1+1+1). We can deduce that 2+3 is the same as five, ie. 2+3=5. That is deductive reasoning.

Yes mathematics is the only area of human endeaviour where that method can be applied and where the word proof actually means proof. The rest of the universe isn't like that.

raah! wrote: »

Do not take my saying your statements are contradictory and circular as saying empiricism is contradictory and circular. I have been criticising you for over-extending empiricism, and using it to criticise things which it isn't able to by definition.

Empricism isn't able to criticise things that have been defined as being unfalsifiable for the purposes of keeping them out of its grasp. It something that's done by all good pseudo-scientists. I could say that there's a metaphysical pink unicorn behind my couch but that when anyone goes to look at it it disappears. That would be beyond the reach of empiricism but it would still be a ridiculous thing to believe.

Also, it is claimed that god regularly intervenes in the world. A resurrection is not a metahpysical being outside our universe, it's an actual event that actual people are supposed to have seen and that could have been studied had it not happened 2000 years ago. god is claimed to answer prayers and people have attempted to study this but have found that god "answers prayers" with exactly the same frequency as would be expected by probability. They also found that the only prayers that are ever "answered" are ones that could have happened anyway without divine intervention. No amputees are going to grow their arms back no matter how hard they pray. People are supposed to be cured at Lourdes but the statistics show that it has a success rate of .0000335% or 1 out of every 3 million. Any rational person would conclude that there is something else going on other than divine intervention but people love their unfalsifiable god where they remember the hits and forget the vastly greater number of misses, it's called comfirmation bias, so they say that he picked 1 out of 3 million to cure and left the rest to suffer, but he's still good. You can argue that the theory of god himself is beyond empiricism but the things he is claimed to do and to have done are not. Empiricism can't disprove god any more than it can disprove unicorns or goblins but nothing can be definitively disproved outside of mathematics

raah! wrote: »

I'm saying that certain misunderstandings of yours about empiricism (the most astounding of which that it is the only system that can verify claims) are leading you to make claims which are circular in the proof, and self contradictory in nature.

Please give me an example of one of these other systems. You accused me of straw manning a while ago for saying you mentioned such systems.

raah! wrote: »

Well to be brief, it's necessary to have some descision making faculty which is exempt from the laws of physics (a soul fits the bill here, but any other such idea will do), and no material things are exempt from these laws. Now we can ignore quantum mechanics for the moment (because it doesn't make a difference) and lets just say F=ma. F=ma for all particles, including the electrons in your brain. That these electrons can move freely from F=ma would disrupt alot of physics. To suppose that the matter in our brain is somehow special is also ridiculous. In short, free will from a materialistic, or empirical point of view, is ridiculous.

Que? Who says that a decision making faculty must be exempt from the laws of physics? My computer can make decisions.

Also do you think humans have completely free will? If so how do you explain things like addiction, where someone could desperately want to stop something but does not have the strength of will to overcome their compulsion to do it?

raah! wrote: »

I have no desire to convince you of anything. Everything you need to know, should you like to see my motivation, is already contained within the arguments, though it doesn't seem you are paying too much attention to them.

Looks to me then like you believe in him because you think he would be useful if he existed

coffee_cake

Jakkass wrote: »

I don't know if this is entirely the case. I think believing in God is actually more logical than the denial of His existence, in that it makes a lot more sense.

/headdesk
People having irrational beliefs is one thing, we all do, but pretending they're logical is just bizarre.

George Orwell 1982

Jakkass wrote: »

I don't know if this is entirely the case. I think believing in God is actually more logical than the denial of His existence, in that it makes a lot more sense.

/Facepalm

Sam Vimes

Jakkass wrote: »

I don't know if this is entirely the case. I think believing in God is actually more logical than the denial of His existence, in that it makes a lot more sense.

The first rule of tautology club is the first rule of tautology club.

philologos

bluewolf wrote: »

/headdesk
People having irrational beliefs is one thing, we all do, but pretending they're logical is just bizarre.

It's nothing about pretending. As far as I'm concerned, God makes more coherent sense than anything that I have ever heard about origins from an atheistic perspective.

If one doesn't like this, that's tough I guess :pac:

George Orwell 1982

Jakkass wrote: »

It's nothing about pretending. As far as I'm concerned, God makes more coherent sense than anything that I have ever heard about origins from an atheistic perspective.

If one doesn't like this, that's tough I guess :pac:

Good point.

Sam Vimes

Jakkass wrote: »

It's nothing about pretending. As far as I'm concerned, God makes more coherent sense than anything that I have ever heard about origins from an atheistic perspective.

If one doesn't like this, that's tough I guess :pac:

Yeah an infinite regress of universes is a nonsense but an infinite being of infinite power, infinite knowledge and infinite love who has existed for infinity, will exist for infinity and will allow us all to exist for infinity makes perfect sense.

You've just dressed up infinity as a human being with magical powers because it fits into your brain more easily that way.

George Orwell 1982

Christianity — The belief that a cosmic Jewish Zombie who was his own father can make you live forever if you symbolically eat his flesh and telepathically tell him you accept him as your master, so he can remove an evil force from your soul that is present in humanity because a rib-woman was convinced by a talking snake to eat from a magical tree...

Yeah, makes perfect sense...

philologos

Sam Vimes wrote: »

Yeah an infinite regress of universes is a nonsense but an infinite being of infinite power, infinite knowledge and infinite love who has existed for infinity, will exist for infinity and will allow us all to exist for infinity makes perfect sense.

More often than not an infinite regress won't make sense, at least in as far as I've looked at from a philosophical perspective. An infinite regress of causation about makes as much sense. As for the attributes that you have given to God, I would probably make the point that God's attributes are infinite in the sense that they aren't comparable to anything else.

Sam Vimes wrote: »

You've just dressed up infinity as a human being with magical powers because it fits into your brain more easily that way.

I'm not sure if I did anything, I merely assessed what Christianity has to say, and I found that it makes a lot more sense than anything I have heard from a secular perspective (in terms of the rejection of God's existence).

Without an overarching purpose or meaning to all that we have around us, we effectively relegate our lives to nothingness.

Sam Vimes

Jakkass wrote: »

More often than not an infinite regress won't make sense, at least in as far as I've looked at from a philosophical perspective. An infinite regress of causation about makes as much sense.



I'm not sure if I did anything, I merely assessed what Christianity has to say, and I found that it makes a lot more sense than anything I have heard from a secular perspective (in terms of the rejection of God's existence).

Without an overarching purpose or meaning to all that we have around us, we effectively relegate our lives to nothingness.

More ceiling cat

http://grahamten.files.wordpress.com/2009/06/ceiling-cat2.jpg

Lolcat bible, John 3:16: So liek teh Ceiling Kitteh lieks teh ppl lots and he sez 'Oh hai I givez u me only kitteh and ifs u beleeves him u wont evr diez no moar, kthxbai!

philologos

Sam Vimes wrote: »

More ceiling cat

http://grahamten.files.wordpress.com/2009/06/ceiling-cat2.jpg

Lolcat bible, John 3:16: So liek teh Ceiling Kitteh lieks teh ppl lots and he sez 'Oh hai I givez u me only kitteh and ifs u beleeves him u wont evr diez no moar, kthxbai!

Just let us know when you want to have a proper conversation about this again :pac:

Sam Vimes

Jakkass wrote: »

Just let us know when you want to have a proper conversation about this again :pac:

Jakkass, with you it's never a proper conversation, that's why I refuse to partake

George Orwell 1982

Jakkass wrote: »

As for the attributes that you have given to God, I would probably make the point that God's attributes are infinite in the sense that they aren't comparable to anything else.

Gibberish.

Your ideas have no basis in reality. They are just so outlandish that it is impossible to test if they are true or untrue. Therefore one is left with a choice: you can choose to believe them without evidence (faith) or you can say no, on the balance I believe this is not the case.

Jakkass wrote: »

Without an overarching purpose or meaning to all that we have around us, we effectively relegate our lives to nothingness.

No.

philologos

George Orwell 1982 wrote: »

Your ideas have no basis in reality. They are just so outlandish that it is impossible to test if they are true or untrue. Therefore one is left with a choice: you can choose to believe them without evidence (faith) or you can say no, on the balance I believe this is not the case.

Oh dear! - Are we just going to have a tit for tat where one person says "Your ideas have no basis in reality", then "NO, your ideas have no basis in reality".

I'm sorry, but I just amn't interested in such an argument. It is evident that whether or not your ideas have basis in reality is dependant on whether or not God exists.

If God exists, then yes of course my ideas are based on reality, and if God doesn't exist, then of course my ideas aren't. It's really that simple.

I personally don't think that I believe without evidence by the by. Such a definition of faith certainly isn't accurate anyway. Do you believe without evidence that when you go on a plane that your pilot is qualified, or do you have assurance that airlines only hire trained pilots?

I personally find it more outlandish that the universe and all that is within it came from absolutely nothing by chance.

George Orwell 1982 wrote: »

No.

Any reason for that? Or just no!

coffee_cake

Jakkass wrote: »

It's nothing about pretending. As far as I'm concerned, God makes more coherent sense than anything that I have ever heard about origins from an atheistic perspective.

If one doesn't like this, that's tough I guess :pac:

And of course you've considered in depth all the other world religions.
"Makes sense to me because I like it" != "logical"

Jakkass wrote: »

I'm not sure if I did anything, I merely assessed what Christianity has to say, and I found that it makes a lot more sense than anything I have heard from a secular perspective (in terms of the rejection of God's existence).

Conveniently being the religion you were born into

Without an overarching purpose or meaning to all that we have around us, we effectively relegate our lives to nothingness.

You may be depressed enough that your life is "nothingness" without god, but believe me a lot of us aren't.

smokingman

Jakkass wrote: »

I don't know if this is entirely the case. I think believing in God is actually more logical than the denial of His existence, in that it makes a lot more sense.

It might make sense to you after you start believing but you can see that it's not that logical a priori. If there were no-one to tell you of this god, there's no way you could possibly figure out he exists. In a theoretical world without the writings of people thousands of years ago, how would we figure it out in modern times?

Denial of his existence isn't the same as lack of proof of his existence.
That's a key thing in polite atheism

Jakkass wrote: »

Or is logic, and our faculty to reason the very product of God Himself?

You're going back to your assumption that we are his creation which I don't believe in myself (why the hell would he put nipples on men!?).
That aside, logic is a fancy word for figuring out how to survive - it's just been expanded now that we don't have to run from predators any more.
Animals use logic too so it's not really a candidate for something god-given.

Jakkass wrote: »

Not really. Absolute truth being what has been revealed to us about God and His nature. Either Jesus rose from the dead, or He did not. Both cannot be true. Either God exists or He does not. Either Jesus was the Son of God, or He was not. There isn't much wriggle room in those types of claims. All of those claims, and many others, will change your life if believed.

That sounds suspiciously like empiricism

Jakkass wrote: »

One slides because it is defined by humanity. The other is firm because it is defined by God. That's pretty much the main difference.

I would say societal ethical codes don't slide, they just keep going up.
I know it may not seem like that but two thousand years ago it was ok to crucify people - look how far we've come!

Jakkass wrote: »

I belong to God, because this world is His. That's the thinking.

Ever wonder if this is his first creation or is there a second-hand one he sold on somewhere?

Jakkass wrote: »

My free will remains, I just choose to follow God freely.

But you still live by his rules, rules that have become outdated and reinterpreted to suit societies advance. There's a question for you actually, what's your opinion on the differences in the rules when the bible was written and the ones now prevalent?

Jakkass wrote: »

OK - If God is omniscient, then at least in my case, it makes sense to seek advice from Him in order to be a better person in all walks of life. In regarding God first, understanding flows into everything else.

Still won't ever understand that myself. Say you had a choice of being with god on one hand and being with your family on the other, why would you choose god?

Jakkass wrote: »

It is different to how others think certainly!

Everyone thinks differently, there are only trends and fads.
That's what makes our race so brilliant :cool:

Jakkass wrote: »

Remember when I was talking about how we don't earn our own salvation, that it is the free gift of God. If it is a free gift, how can it be earned as a reward?

Then if it is free, how is there any need to live a life by his rules?

Jakkass wrote: »

As for guilt, I think guilt serves a functional purpose in guiding us to doing the right thing. Do you think that guilt should just be gotten rid of?

It's part of human nature and can't really be gotton rid of (no mam, I'm not coming down this weekend...:rolleyes:) but the specific religious guilt just isn't fair imo. People have enough guilt in this would without adding to it.

Jakkass wrote: »

I think the Gospels tell it much better than I do though :pac:

I trust the word of modern man over ancients any day so I think I'll stay with yourself over Paul.

philologos

bluewolf wrote: »

And of course you've considered in depth all the other world religions.
"Makes sense to me because I like it" != "logical"

This would be an incorrect assumption. It makes sense irrespective of whether I like it or not. Even if my lifestyle isn't in accordance with Christianity, and even if I may well have enjoyed doing what was wrong, Christianity makes sense on its own merit (Pretty much where I was at before I became a Christian).

Christianity demands quite a bit of change in peoples lives, and it isn't the easy option by any means.

It's logical, because it makes coherent sense.

bluewolf wrote: »

Conveniently being the religion you were born into

Interestingly, I did actually read much of the Qur'an and other religious texts before deciding in Christianity. Secondly, even though I may have gone to a Christian-ethos school, and attended church as a child, I certainly found much in the Biblical text that I had never heard before that point.

bluewolf wrote: »

You may be depressed enough that your life is "nothingness" without god, but believe me a lot of us aren't.

It's objectively meaningless. You're born, you live, you die. What is there to live for though?

I didn't mean this in an ad-hominem sense, or that my life is meaningful and your life is meaningless. Rather what I mean is that all people can find their objective purpose in life, but without God there is no objective purpose.

Ush1

Jakkass wrote: »

Oh dear! - Are we just going to have a tit for tat where one person says "Your ideas have no basis in reality", then "NO, your ideas have no basis in reality".

I'm sorry, but I just amn't interested in such an argument. It is evident that whether or not your ideas have basis in reality is dependant on whether or not God exists.

If God exists, then yes of course my ideas are based on reality, and if God doesn't exist, then of course my ideas aren't. It's really that simple.

I personally don't think that I believe without evidence by the by. Such a definition of faith certainly isn't accurate anyway. Do you believe without evidence that when you go on a plane that your pilot is qualified, or do you have assurance that airlines only hire trained pilots?

I personally find it more outlandish that the universe and all that is within it came from absolutely nothing by chance.



Any reason for that? Or just no!

Yes, similarly, I know you have a brain in your head. I can't be 100% certain unless I cut open your head open and check, but science makes it very, very likely you do.:)

I hope you aren't talking about natural selection when talking about chance.

Canis Lupus

Jakkass wrote: »

It's nothing about pretending. As far as I'm concerned, God makes more coherent sense than anything that I have ever heard about origins from an atheistic perspective.

If one doesn't like this, that's tough I guess :pac:

I can understand the perspective of: There is a god and it created the universe I really can. I can even understand how people can believe that. You don't really even need to think about it much (once you bypass infinite regress etc)

But

How can you square all the stuff in the bible? How can you honestly say to yourself that you believe this god impregnated a woman to have his son to die for our sins and who after 3 days of being apparently dead came back to life and then ascended bodily into heaven where ever that is and that's just paraphrasing a tiny bit of the main story. There is (as you know)a complete ream of utterly ridiculous, pointless and crazy stuff.

How can you accept all that? Why does it sound more logical and likely to you? I just.....don't.....get.......it.. to the point that I just want to break stuff.

philologos

smokingman wrote: »

It might make sense to you after you start believing but you can see that it's not that logical a priori. If there were no-one to tell you of this god, there's no way you could possibly figure out he exists. In a theoretical world without the writings of people thousands of years ago, how would we figure it out in modern times?

If you think about it step by step there is a process by which individuals go from unbelief to belief. I was an agnostic when I read the Bible. In that process I was reading, seeing what made sense, what didn't make sense, and what was starting to make sense but needed more thought. There had to be a point whereby Christianity clicked (I don't know when exactly this was, but I do know when I started to say I was a Christian.) It was only after this point had been reached, that I really could make the step to believe.

Things make sense gradually. It isn't just after you start to believe that everything makes sense. Even then the are some things that you need to think about.

As for thousands of year old rules. Christians take very seriously the importance of studying the society that the texts were written in in order to better make sense of the texts themselves. If we understand the society, we can get a better picture of how this advice can apply to us in the modern world.

smokingman wrote: »

Denial of his existence isn't the same as lack of proof of his existence.
That's a key thing in polite atheism

OK, I will concede this much to you

smokingman wrote: »

You're going back to your assumption that we are his creation which I don't believe in myself (why the hell would he put nipples on men!?).
That aside, logic is a fancy word for figuring out how to survive - it's just been expanded now that we don't have to run from predators any more.
Animals use logic too so it's not really a candidate for something god-given.

Just who do you think in my view was responsible for the existence of animals and their cognitive faculties?

smokingman wrote: »

That sounds suspiciously like empiricism

Well either something is or it isn't. Truth isn't dependant on my mind, it is dependant on reality. If Jesus Christ didn't rise from the dead, then I do not believe in the truth, and vice versa. There is no way that both are true.

smokingman wrote: »

I would say societal ethical codes don't slide, they just keep going up.
I know it may not seem like that but two thousand years ago it was ok to crucify people - look how far we've come!

I don't regard the death penalty as being immoral. I do think it is probably best if we don't have a death penalty though which is why I am quite happy not having one.

smokingman wrote: »

Ever wonder if this is his first creation or is there a second-hand one he sold on somewhere?

It is possible that there are other lifeforms living in this universe. Even so, I believe God would have been responsible for their creation.

smokingman wrote: »

But you still live by his rules, rules that have become outdated and reinterpreted to suit societies advance. There's a question for you actually, what's your opinion on the differences in the rules when the bible was written and the ones now prevalent?

I don't believe that the Bible has become outdated, but has significance to people of every nationality in the world if they come to learn more about God.

As for the difference between the rules, I'd need to ask you more in detail what you mean. If you are referring to the Jewish law, much of that was fulfilled at the time of Jesus Christ. If you are referring to the moral laws and codes from Jesus onwards, then I don't see all that much of a difference except that many people have attempted to justify what is wrong by claiming that it is right.

smokingman wrote: »

Still won't ever understand that myself. Say you had a choice of being with god on one hand and being with your family on the other, why would you choose god?

I would choose God, because without Him there is little point to life. God will remain forever, and if my family trust in Him, I will see them in the here-after.

smokingman wrote: »

Then if it is free, how is there any need to live a life by his rules?

Remember, what I said about Jesus dying in my place? - I am forgiven already. The reason why I follow God is because I love Him, and I am grateful for Him sending Jesus to die for me. I follow God because it is natural for me to follow God, He is my Creator. It is like a homecoming of sorts.

smokingman wrote: »

It's part of human nature and can't really be gotton rid of (no mam, I'm not coming down this weekend...:rolleyes:) but the specific religious guilt just isn't fair imo. People have enough guilt in this would without adding to it.

What do you mean by religious guilt? - It comes up in a lot of threads. I would suspect that most guilt arises out of ethical issues, rather than out of anything else. Personally, if I feel guilty, it is an indicator to me that there is something I need to think about, and something I need to put right.

If I do wrong by God, I should expect to feel guilt, because I have done wrong. The term "convicted of sin" is often used amongst Christians.

The great thing about doing wrong is, we can turn around and make ourselves right with Him, and others again if we are truly sorry.

philologos

Canis Lupus wrote: »

I can understand the perspective of: There is a god and it created the universe I really can. I can even understand how people can believe that. You don't really even need to think about it much (once you bypass infinite regress etc)

Infinite regress doesn't make sense, on a philosophical level. I've studied quite a bit into the arguments for and against the idea of an infinite regress when I studied the Philosophy of Religion nearly 2 years ago (Have another module in it next year).

If an infinite regress exists, the Creation would still be ongoing. For a process to complete, it needs a finite starting point. I.E - A terminating factor. I'm not sure how easy his source is to find, but a philosopher James Sadowsky has done a lot of work in this area. Much easier to find is Thomas Aquinas and his explanation of contingent and necessary existence in his 5 Ways.

Canis Lupus wrote: »

How can you square all the stuff in the bible? How can you honestly say to yourself that you believe this god impregnated a woman to have his son to die for our sins and who after 3 days of being apparently dead came back to life and then ascended bodily into heaven where ever that is and that's just paraphrasing a tiny bit of the main story. There is (as you know)a complete ream of utterly ridiculous, pointless and crazy stuff.

If God created the world, and if God actually exists, then yes I believe that Jesus was born of Mary, and that He died for our sins, and rose from the grave. Christian history from Jesus onwards makes absolutely no sense unless something extraordinary happened after His death.

Where we have agreement, is that in the absence of God, this stuff could well be regarded as crazy.

So in summary: If God doesn't exist, the Biblical accounts are crazy. If God does exist, the Biblical accounts are well and truly possible to have come about.

Canis Lupus wrote: »

How can you accept all that? Why does it sound more logical and likely to you? I just.....don't.....get.......it.. to the point that I just want to break stuff.

From the point of creation to our salvation, Christianity is coherent with human nature, it explains what has gone wrong with us, it explains why it went wrong, and it provides a real solution for putting it right. From start to end there is a progression.

Likewise, in terms of cosmology, it also makes sense in that it recognises that a cause is necessary for our existence, and for the universe to have come about.

Des Carter

Only read a few pages of this and thought id give my opinion.

for all the atheists who blame sh!t on religion like the abuse in the church etc religion isnt to blame its peoples fault for abusing and manipulating religion to justify their actions.

In other words I believe in god but I dont believe in humanity.

raah!

Sam Vimes wrote: »

While I'm dying to respond to the rest I'd just like to focus on this part for the moment. You believe in a god who has defined an system of morality where he has decided what is good and bad arbitrarily. You believe that whatever god says is good is good. (You also believe in a god who commanded people to slaughter and enslave outsiders throughout the old testament btw)

Hahahah, well actually you don't know what I believe. And I'll add that I only mentioned a christian god once. I came onto this thread to make certain comments about the weakness/strength of certain moral systems when contrasted with other more openly arbitrary ones.

Also, much of this conversation is about the nature of good. You are here criticising certain definitions of "good" because they are not good. This is nothing more than an appeal to the majority, or people watching it.

But when I suggest that god could have defined killing yourself and your children as good you describe this god as "bad". How can god be "bad"? Surely good is whatever god says it is and if he says that killing your children and yourself is good then it's good because good is whatever god says it is? How can killing your children and yourself be bad if god says it's good?

I've never argued against these points, and infact they were contained in all my previous arguments. Highlighting cases which will shock people reading has nothing to do with the truth of these statements. I mean that you were using these points simply to convince people reading this, who perhaps haven't been following it properly that "god is bad". I never said that myself.

Sam Vimes

raah! wrote: »

Hahahah, well actually you don't know what I believe. And I'll add that I only mentioned a christian god once. I came onto this thread to make certain comments about the weakness/strength of certain moral systems when contrasted with other more openly arbitrary ones.

Also, much of this conversation is about the nature of good. You are here criticising certain definitions of "good" because they are not good. This is nothing more than an appeal to the majority, or people watching it.


I've never argued against these points, and infact they were contained in all my previous arguments. Highlighting cases which will shock people reading has nothing to do with the truth of these statements. I mean that you were using these points simply to convince people reading this, who perhaps haven't been following it properly that "god is bad". I never said that myself.

I'm not trying to convince anyone that god is bad. God didn't actually define killing your children and yourself as good, I'm asking you could he have and if he did, would you view killing your children and yourself as good? Please answer the question

fontanalis

Des Carter wrote: »

Only read a few pages of this and thought id give my opinion.

for all the atheists who blame sh!t on religion like the abuse in the church etc religion isnt to blame its peoples fault for abusing and manipulating religion to justify their actions.

In other words I believe in god but I dont believe in humanity.

What does that even mean?
And which god are you referring to, and why do you believe in that one and not others?

raah!

blaaaaaaaargh

Your submission could not be processed because you have logged in since the previous page was loaded.

Please push the back button and reload the previous window.

That was one of the longest posts I ever made, and it dissappeared when the stupid back butten was pressed.

raah!

Sam Vimes wrote: »

I'm not trying to convince anyone that god is bad. God didn't actually define killing your children and yourself as good, I'm asking you could he have and if he did, would you view killing your children and yourself as good? Please answer the question

I did answer the question. In that post, and in all previous posts I made. But I'll answer it again, though I would like you to read my posts a bit more carefully.

So if a god existed, and I believed in it, and accepted it's definitino of good, then I would see what he said as good. This can be "deduced" from my previous points and arguments. My arguments entail this statement.

Pace2008

God is the gremlin that saves this thread's readers from really, really long posts.

dvpower

AskMyChocolate wrote: »

Btw, if you're an atheist and you're struggling to carry a 36" television down four flights of stairs and a christian turns to you and says," Do you want a hand with that mate?" What do you say?

Hallelujah!