I'm not laying any weight on the bible, but if someone wants to use it as their whole argument, I have to know how to show it's irrelevance.
I'm not being snappy, I'm sorry you're interpreting it that way.
As far as your question is concerned, I apologize, I missed that post as you posted while I was working on my post. When I was a Christian, I came across many things that I knew was ridiculous, but I made excuses for them, and always came up with explanations and rationalizations for them, which of course held no water. Like most Christians, I had plenty of moments and even felt like I was "speaking with god". After a while, I started doing my own research, and actually found out what evolution was, vs. what I was always told it was (which was waaaay off). After learning more about evolution, I eventually started researching some of those doubts I had about the Christian bible and found them plausible enough to not let my life be dictated by a book.
As far as my hostility is concerned, I'm not being hostile, once again, I'm sorry you're interpreting it that way, you would know if I was being hostile.
I see your point, though personally I would hardly call the Bible irrelevant to any faith.
It sounds like you had quite a religious upbringing, I truly understand your suspicion towards the kind of faith you describe. Though I don't see it neccessary to dismiss all forms of faith due to those circumstances, as I said, I'm of faith and I share your view you described. An illusion of religion is that you need to conform to a stereotypical type of "religious person" to have faith. You don't, really. You don't need to be a Christian, Jew or Muslim to believe in the God of Abraham. You can do it in your own right. That's what I do.
Sorry for misinterperating you as hostile and snappy.
It's alright.
I didn't mean that the bible was irrelevant for faith, I meant it is irrelevant to their argument that their particular god exists.
For the record again, I do not dismiss all faiths, and I tend to respect people who truly want to make this world a better place, regardless of their faith. However, if someone wants to use their faith as an excuse to extort money, control people, go to war or cause harm to another person, then we've got a problem. Thank you for not blowing up at me like you usually do, I really don't have anything against you.
You either believe in a eternal God, or you believe in a eternal universe.
Either everything that's here now always was here (and I'm referring to the matter/energy that makes up everything, not the thing itself) or God always existed then he spoke everything into existence. (The word "spoke" being used to represent information, and not necessarily a audible voice)
Both conclusions require faith...
Anyone who tells you they know 100% for sure is foolish. Really no one knows for sure. There may very well be a god, just as there very well may not be. It is important to ask yourself if it is worth forming your life around a book based on the evidence given. If you're looking at the Christian bible as a source of morality, you might as well stop it. Christianity does not teach morals, it teaches obedience to authority.
/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/
That Really Hot Chick
now on the Xbox Live Marketplace!
I figured out morality. There is only 1 right, the right to property. Everything else is a subset of that.
Don't murder, that life is not your property to take
Don't steal, again property
Don't rape, that vagina is not your property
this also means it's immoral to
tell people what they can and cant smoke
forcibly tax
tell people how to run their businesses
tell people who they can sleep with
Going into that "tell people how to run their businesses", I always like George Carlin on Prostitution.
"Selling is legal, F%@$ing is legal, so why isn't selling F%@$ing legal?"
/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/
That Really Hot Chick
now on the Xbox Live Marketplace!
For the record again, I do not dismiss all faiths, and I tend to respect people who truly want to make this world a better place, regardless of their faith. However, if someone wants to use their faith as an excuse to extort money, control people, go to war or cause harm to another person, then we've got a problem. Thank you for not blowing up at me like you usually do, I really don't have anything against you.
quote>
Originally Posted by HorrendousGames Going into that "tell people how to run their businesses", I always like George Carlin on Prostitution.
"Selling is legal, F%@$ing is legal, so why isn't selling F%@$ing legal?"
I remember when arguing about legalized marijuana a friend brought that up. But i figured it's better if prostitution is legal. It would be a lot safer for the prostitutes as they can form unions and get protections and what not. My attitude is people are gonna do stuff weather its legal or not, but it's always safer if we make it legal.
The only thing I can believe at this point in my life is that we probably only can know 0,1% of what there really is, and of that 0,1% we have figured about about 10% by now. All the religions I have come across are way too focused on mankind and our own questions for me to be able to believe any of it. They explain how we got here, what we are doing here, how we should behave and what happens to us when we die. It doesn't explain much to me. That said I do realize I grew up in a atheist enclave and sometimes do envy people who do have faith in something.
Interesting thread. I was coming on here expecting, like two replies, to see four whole pages of discussion is good. Keep it up TDC.
The internal doubt I talked about was not me suffering from a lack of faith in God, but the other way round; that I'm starting to believe in that idea. And by God I don't mean a judgmental creator, or some higher image of man but just the 'something else' which we can never fathom.
There are some questions to which we can not, and could never, find the answer. And so to search for 'proof' of God is self-defeating. The idea of God exists entirely within the mind. You can't prove belief. Eternal Man is right with his bucket analogy.
I think the idea of God is co-existent with that of sin. All religions talk about sin. Even atheists talk about sin, except they say that there is none. But if there is no sin, why do we feel guilt? That's why I could never be an atheist (now, at least). We - as humans - have morals and feelings which can't, and could never, be explained by science. And what's more, we are the only beings to have these feelings, it is literally, in my view, what sets us apart from animals.
By the way, anyone believing at face value the creationism of the Bible, and dismissing the theory of evolution because of it, is missing the point. Look at the story of Adam and Eve, and the eating of the forbidden fruit and you'll find it's entirely consistent with us being from, but now seperate to, animals. Adam did not know sin before eating that fruit; so to know sin is what makes us human.
But I'd never follow a religion, or pray to a God, or believe in eternal damnation. I believe religion is personal.
Incidentally Hayo, what more do you need to know other than "how we got here, what we are doing here, how we should behave and what happens to us when we die"? Next week's lottery numbers?
I was born and raised in a Christian household, and while my parents considred me Christian, I don't believe anyone before their teen years and really be of any faith because they can't grasp the idea of a deity, after life, and all the various aspects of religion.
I as I approached my teen years approached, I eventually admitted to myself that I was an atheist, and was quite happy with it for a while.
After many years of being an atheist, I started to regain the idea of faith in a way that works well for me and my life has felt more enlightened as a result.
Originally Posted by Matt Boothman Interesting thread. I was coming on here expecting, like two replies, to see four whole pages of discussion is good. Keep it up TDC.
The internal doubt I talked about was not me suffering from a lack of faith in God, but the other way round; that I'm starting to believe in that idea. And by God I don't mean a judgmental creator, or some higher image of man but just the 'something else' which we can never fathom.
There are some questions to which we can not, and could never, find the answer. And so to search for 'proof' of God is self-defeating. The idea of God exists entirely within the mind. You can't prove belief. Eternal Man is right with his bucket analogy.
I think the idea of God is co-existent with that of sin. All religions talk about sin. Even atheists talk about sin, except they say that there is none. But if there is no sin, why do we feel guilt? That's why I could never be an atheist (now, at least). We - as humans - have morals and feelings which can't, and could never, be explained by science. And what's more, we are the only beings to have these feelings, it is literally, in my view, what sets us apart from animals.
By the way, anyone believing at face value the creationism of the Bible, and dismissing the theory of evolution because of it, is missing the point. Look at the story of Adam and Eve, and the eating of the forbidden fruit and you'll find it's entirely consistent with us being from, but now seperate to, animals. Adam did not know sin before eating that fruit; so to know sin is what makes us human.
But I'd never follow a religion, or pray to a God, or believe in eternal damnation. I believe religion is personal.
Incidentally Hayo, what more do you need to know other than "how we got here, what we are doing here, how we should behave and what happens to us when we die"? Next week's lottery numbers?
On the feelings matter, I have to disagree completely with you. Love, hate, guilt and so on aren't exclusive to humans. If you ever had a pet you'd understand what I'm talking about. Not only they can feel as much as we do, they can see when you are sad or not. The difference is the way they rationalize things, not because we are god creations but simply because we are an intelligent race while dogs and cats are not. Of course, feelings aren't exclusive to pets, I think every living being with a brain has emotions, even they express them differently from us.
The notion of guilt has to do with your conscience. If you did something wrong you know there might be repercussions.
In addition, in specific situations some people feel guilt while some people don't. It's all about your background, your character and the way you were raised. For example, if some mexican drug lord killed someone he wanted wiped out he would be happy about killing said person while in his place I'd probably feel guilty for the rest of my life.
Ironically it's likely that the drug lord is more religious than I am.
By the way, the area of science that studies feelings is called psychology and trust me, not all psychologists believe in god.
"There are some questions to which we can not, and could never, find the answer. And so to search for 'proof' of God is self-defeating. The idea of God exists entirely within the mind. You can't prove belief. Eternal Man is right with his bucket analogy."
I went through that in two different posts. For him or someone else who believes in god he's right, but for everyone else he's not. Different points of views will generate different meanings. It's impossible to prove or deny the existence of something that was created by the imagination of someone. God's existence will never be proven to be true, nor will someone ever find proof that he didn't exist. Of course, if you believe in god, you won't assume it's the product of someone's imagination, but you get the point.
Incidentally Hayo, what more do you need to know other than "how we got here, what we are doing here, how we should behave and what happens to us when we die"? Next week's lottery numbers?
That is not the point at all. I mean those questions are only important to me. Why would there be a god to solve my problems. The problems of mankind? There is so much more. All religions are self-centered and narrow-minded like that.
"There are some questions to which we can not, and could never, find the answer. And so to search for 'proof' of God is self-defeating. The idea of God exists entirely within the mind. You can't prove belief. Eternal Man is right with his bucket analogy."
I went through that in two different posts. For him or someone else who believes in god he's right, but for everyone else he's not. Different points of views will generate different meanings. It's impossible to prove or deny the existence of something that was created by the imagination of someone. God's existence will never be proven to be true, nor will someone ever find proof that he didn't exist. Of course, if you believe in god, you won't assume it's the product of someone's imagination, but you get the point.
I don't see how you can judge it right or wrong for anyone, it's just a stated fact.
Scientifically approved proof of God's existance or non-existance is not to be found through the scientific method, that's what I'm saying. No serious scientist would argue with that.
The important aspect of the question is rather the fact that nothing proves God's existance an impossibility. For a person of belief this can be very important, for a person already mindset on the opposite, it shouldn't be relevant to argue about at all.
A person of belief doesn't utilize the scientific method for his or her conviction, for them there are plenty of other forms of evidence for their faith.
There is nothing to be gained by trying to convince a believer that his or her notion of God is just the product of someone's imagination which they just did the fault of not assuming in the first place, that's merely a form of an insult, the atheistic viewpoint is equally unproven.
So a better way of getting along is respecting each others standpoints and talk about them with a touch of respect and openness.
I'm surprised no insults have emerged. Some time ago, I'd be interested in debating against the existence of such a being. Now, I find it irrelevant to pose the question (because there's no interaction, only supposition). I don't really want to spend time explaining the view, but the conclusion, I didn't get with science. The conclusion shows up (which really leads to more questions) with non-cartesian philosophy and a bit of human anthropology. Eventually, it becomes apparent that even considering the matter of god is very irrelevant and out-of-the-way.
I don't see how you can judge it right or wrong for anyone, it's just a stated fact.
Scientifically approved proof of God's existance or non-existance is not to be found through the scientific method, that's what I'm saying. No serious scientist would argue with that.
The important aspect of the question is rather the fact that nothing proves God's existance an impossibility. For a person of belief this can be very important, for a person already mindset on the opposite, it shouldn't be relevant to argue about at all.
A person of belief doesn't utilize the scientific method for his or her conviction, for them there are plenty of other forms of evidence for their faith.
There is nothing to be gained by trying to convince a believer that his or her notion of God is just the product of someone's imagination which they just did the fault of not assuming in the first place, that's merely a form of an insult, the atheistic viewpoint is equally unproven.
So a better way of getting along is respecting each others standpoints and talk about them with a touch of respect and openness.
Since I don't believe in god, I can only assume that he's the product of one or more people's imaginations so if I insulted someone with that I'm sorry, I didn't mean to. And I already said that I don't want to convince anyone of my point of view, I don't feel the need to and I wouldn't win anything with it.
As whether or not what you said was a fact then I disagree and I already explained why. For me it's no fact, it's a theory and a theory that don't make sense to me since I don't believe in god or the afterlife. Perhaps it makes sense for someone else, but not me.
"The important aspect of the question is rather the fact that nothing proves God's existance an impossibility. For a person of belief this can be very important, for a person already mindset on the opposite, it shouldn't be relevant to argue about at all."
So people believe in god because no one proved he doesn't exist (which you himself said that it's impossible) ?
I don't believe in god but I'm not closed mind about it. Still, I can't see how this makes any sense.
"A person of belief doesn't utilize the scientific method for his or her conviction, for them there are plenty of other forms of evidence for their faith."
What sort of "evidence" exactly ?
By the way I respect everyone's point of views on this matter and I am open minded. I was raised in a christian household, went to sunday school until the end, and believed in everything that was told to me. I did need to ask myself many questions before doubting in what I believed.
The concept of a superior entity watching over us is great, and I really like investigating religion-related stuff even if I don't believe in it. A man's belief can be a really powerful thing, it can change someone, make him see the world differently. I've been in the side of the believer and in the side of the non-believer and I can see for myself how it made me approach life in a different way. This debate has been interesting even if no one told me anything new until now, mostly because I've been there before. The reason why I entered the debate was to see if people told me something new that could change my point of view. For me that's being open minded.
Since I don't believe in god, I can only assume that he's the product of one or more people's imaginations so if I insulted someone with that I'm sorry, I didn't mean to. And I already said that I don't want to convince anyone of my point of view, I don't feel the need to and I wouldn't win anything with it.
As whether or not what you said was a fact then I disagree and I already explained why. For me it's no fact, it's a theory and a theory that don't make sense to me since I don't believe in god or the afterlife. Perhaps it makes sense for someone else, but not me.
"The important aspect of the question is rather the fact that nothing proves God's existance an impossibility. For a person of belief this can be very important, for a person already mindset on the opposite, it shouldn't be relevant to argue about at all."
So people believe in god because no one proved he doesn't exist (which you himself said that it's impossible) ?
I don't believe in god but I'm not closed mind about it. Still, I can't see how this makes any sense.
"A person of belief doesn't utilize the scientific method for his or her conviction, for them there are plenty of other forms of evidence for their faith."
What sort of "evidence" exactly ?
By the way I respect everyone's point of views on this matter and I am open minded. I was raised in a christian household, went to sunday school until the end, and believed in everything that was told to me. I did need to ask myself many questions before doubting in what I believed.
The concept of a superior entity watching over us is great, and I really like investigating religion-related stuff even if I don't believe in it. A man's belief can be a really powerful thing, it can change someone, make him see the world differently. I've been in the side of the believer and in the side of the non-believer and I can see for myself how it made me approach life in a different way. This debate has been interesting even if no one told me anything new until now, mostly because I've been there before. The reason why I entered the debate was to see if people told me something new that could change my point of view. For me that's being open minded.
First of, Yyou clearly misunderstand my post. What I stated a fact was the following (to quote myself) :
"Scientifically approved proof of God's existance or non-existance is not to be found through the scientific method, that's what I'm saying"
But I can rephrase it from
'it's a fact' (since the word is ever so slightly open for interpretation)
to
'it's a matter of well belayed general consencus that scientifically approved proof of God's existance or non-existance is not to be found through the scientific method.'
I stated it a 'fact' since a general concencus between opposing pairs which a vast majority of the observers can agree upon in this kind of issue is usually known as a fact.
Secondly, I was'nt really implying that you had insulted anyone, just stating that wording is a usual source of unneeded bickering and flaming. Nice to hear your approach anyway!
Thirdly, you were too quick in the following quote:
"The important aspect of the question is rather the fact that nothing proves God's existance an impossibility. For a person of belief this can be very important, for a person already mindset on the opposite, it shouldn't be relevant to argue about at all."
So people believe in god because no one proved he doesn't exist (which you himself said that it's impossible) ?
I never stated that people believe in God because no one proved he doesn't exist, I laid my focus on another way of reading the sentence, that nothing proves God's existance an impossibility.
That sense of the argument is what I said could be very important for a person of belief. I don't imply that it's vital for faith in general, I imply that it can be of importance to some people in some situations.
For example, a serious scientist's credability shouldn't be questioned on the grounds of said's belief in God, or a person's mental health shouldn't be questioned on the grounds of his/her belief in God either. But that tends to happen anyway. Do you understand what I'm pointing at?
And lastly, about the evidence.
That which leads someone to true belief in something, or that which strengthens it, is the plentiful evidence abound. One person can claim that God spoke to him, another that the world doesn't make perfect sense without God, a third by intuition. It can really be anything, then it's up to the individual to weigh the evidence and see if it gives him/her enough to stand on for true belief in something science won't ever produce scientifical proof of.
Am I clear? There really is no argument between our standpoints, just textual misunderstanding due to not speaking irl.
The rest of your post deserves a , so here you go:
Johnny Look - I don't believe animals have consciences. I don't believe they feel sad, or happy - they don't love, they don't hate either. And I have had pets. The idea that animals feel guilt is ridiculous - they are not intelligent enough even to understand the concept of guilt, or of love - and that makes the argument fall down. We are unique in that we understand the concept of self, whereas animals do not. Only humans can 'override' their senses; no animal ever committed suicide (on purpose). This - if taken to its full logical conclusion - means we are separate (or at least, I am separate).
Furthermore, I think our consciences are inherent, and not learned. A baby brought up by animals will still feel sad, guilty, happy, and is capable of love.
Advertisement
Post Reply
Edited by Johnny Look