#1 |
#2 |
#3 |
Paste this URL into an email or IM: |
Click here to send this debate via your default email application.
|
Click here to login and CreateDebate will send an email for you.
|
F@#k The Theistic God.
Live free or fuck you is my motto, I refuse to be a slave to any man or God, I would much rather burn in hell then to be told how to live with rules created by anyone that sets condredictery boundaries.
I Am Free.
Side Score: 97
|
Nope Still a Slave.
Side Score: 105
|
|
4
points
Well. I consider myself atheist in that I don't regard any beings I have ever become aquainted with, as worthy of worship. But I do think that gods exist (beings that are thought to be worthy of utter devotion/worship). As an atheist, my "god" is not a being but a principle. Though it is not an entity, I do think this principle is worthy of utter devotion, meaning devotion to this principle is appropriate on any and all occasions as far as I am concerned. Side: I Am Free.
1
point
Define '' God '' '' the one Supreme Being, the creator and ruler of the universe.'' Grammatically there can not be an atheistic God. A God is a theistic creature, it is like saying '' I am a non-smoking smoker '' .. it simply doesn't make sense. You can have your principles and stuff, just don't call it atheistic Gods. Side: Nope Still a Slave.
I do not have to adhere to the orthodoxy you support concerning the nature of god. It's as if you think this way of looking at god (the one Supreme Being, the creator and ruler of the universe.) is "more appropriate" than other possible ways such as mine or for example...the way pantheists understand god. Side: I Am Free.
1
point
How about this.... god=The label we give to the interplay of ideas which constitute a persons ruling logic. I think THAT definition is superior to the one you provided, or what you'll find in dictionaries but I just think whatever I want about god....despite what people tell me I should and shouldn't. Side: I Am Free.
1
point
I just think whatever I want about god....despite what people tell me I should and shouldn't. And that's fine .. you just need to accept the fact that you believe in a theistic God. Not a christian God, not an islamic God, but you do believe in a theistic God. Side: I Am Free.
1
point
1
point
1
point
I disagree. Theism is a stereotype. God is defined differently by different people and I know atheists who seem as theistic to me as fundamentalist christians, and christians who upon deep examination are more atheistic than many professed atheists I've come across. Since I don't regard any beings to be worthy of my worship, I think I can rightfully identify as atheist. Let me ask you a question. Do you think that gods are imaginary beings? Side: Nope Still a Slave.
1
point
1
point
1
point
Interesting that in the same breath you judge as ridiculous what you admittedly don't understand. Why does it upset you so much to think of god as a belief? Oh I know because then you would have to admit what god -really is- instead of clinging to some ridiculous, logically unsound, albeit very very popular definition of god. If you don't like to explore different ways of thinking about things Fuck off. Side: I Am Free.
1
point
Discussing god as a "belief complex" makes a hell of a lot more sense to me than discussing god as a non-existent being. Also what is considered proper is not necessarily the most optimal way of interpreting a word. If you believe that god is a belief complex (even if not active in your mind) then you believe in god and would fit the description of theist that you consider proper and want to stick on me. These belief complexes are active in the real world and cause all sorts of problems but if discussion about god is continually derailed due to this persisant orthodoxy, (One that you call "proper" and support by accepting and using the theistic interpretation of the word god) it makes it nearly impossible to engage in a logical discussion about this very important topic. Side: I Am Free.
1
point
Discussing god as a "belief complex" makes a hell of a lot more sense to me than discussing god as a non-existent being. We aren't discussing either of those. We are discussing whether there can be a non-theistic God. Also what is considered proper is not necessarily the most optimal way of interpreting a word. Okay. I am not a woman. What I consider a woman is someone who does dishes, cleans the house, is interested in fashion and likes tea parties. I fit under non of those, so I am going to ignore the original definition of woman (which is somebody with a vagina) and say I am in fact not a woman because I don't like those things. I am a man. Side: I Am Free.
We aren't discussing either of those. We are discussing whether there can be a non-theistic God. I am telling you that to a non-theist (me) god describes a belief complex. Okay. I am not a woman. What I consider a woman is someone who does dishes, cleans the house, is interested in fashion and likes tea parties. I fit under non of those, so I am going to ignore the original definition of woman (which is somebody with a vagina) and say I am in fact not a woman because I don't like those things. I am a man. This is meant to ridicule my point rather than take it seriously. If you want to think of god as a magical sky daddy or a worship worthy supreme being, instead of a belief complex, then you are the theist. I tire of having my arguments being dismissed as silly. Add your perspective here if you wish to have a god of convincing me that the way I think of go makes me a theist. Side: I Am Free.
1
point
I am telling you that to a non-theist (me) god describes a belief complex. And I am saying, grammatically that doesn't make sense at all. It is like saying I am a non-smoking smoker. It doesn't make sense. This is meant to ridicule my point rather than take it seriously. Exactly. If you want to think of god as a magical sky daddy or a worship worthy supreme being, instead of a belief complex, then you are the theist. I am not thinking in God in any way. I am just saying the definition of a theist is somebody who believes in a higher power of some kind. And you fit under that definition. I tire of having my arguments being dismissed as silly Then make some smart arguments. Add your perspective here if you wish to have a god of convincing me that the way I think of go makes me a theist. I have. The definition of theist is not '' Somebody who believes God is interfering with the world '' the definition of a theist is IN FACT '' Somebody who believes in an existing higher power'' You do that right, or at least deists do that. Which makes them theists. I am not saying you aren't a deist, I am just saying deists are theists, just like Muslims are theists, Buddhists are theists ( I think ) .. All religion where a higher power is involved you can call the believers ''theists'' - so why should deism be any different? Are you to fancy for that word or what? Side: I Am Free.
And I am saying, grammatically that doesn't make sense at all. You can't fathom viewing god as a belief complex instead of as a higher power? Ok It is like saying I am a non-smoking smoker. It doesn't make sense. Whenever a smoker is not smoking...Voila! you have a non-smoking smoker! I am not thinking in God in any way. I am just saying the definition of a theist is somebody who believes in a higher power of some kind. And you fit under that definition. And I am saying that to accept the theist definition of god (and you do) makes you a theist. I NEVER CLAIMED TO BELIEVE IN ANY "HIGHER POWER" so quit pretending like I did IT'S DISHONEST! I presented you with atheistic ways of defining the term god and you appear unable to comprehend any of them. I am convinced that YOU are a theist. Then make some smart arguments. What you lack is nuance of thought, so when you are confronted with someone capable of it it's confusing to your black and white, either/or mentality. So you quickly move to using insulting tactics. You do that right, or at least deists do that. From where do you get the idea that I believe in a "higher power" or "supreme being"? Are you to fancy for that word or what? I am looking to have converation with people who aren't so desperate to find a label to identify people with so they can "stereotype and dismiss" It's apparent that you are someone who doesn't recognize a spectrum, but only black and white. I am not interested in engaging you further unless we can refrain from being insulting towards each other. I can trade insults...but I'd rather not ....DIG? Side: I Am Free.
1
point
You can't fathom viewing god as a belief complex instead of as a higher power? OK Yes. Because you are talking nonsense. I am a non-smoking smoker. Does that makes sense to you? That is exactly the same as saying I am a non-theistic believer in God. Whenever a smoker is not smoking...Voila! you have a non-smoking smoker! So what you're saying is for a smoker to be a nonsmoker he must in the present not smoke. So for a believer in God to be non-theistic, he must just not in the present believe in God. Are you saying you have believed in God in your past, but currently don't believe in him? I am convinced that YOU are a theist. Why? And I am saying that to accept the theist definition of god (and you do) makes you a theist. So .. you have to accept the nouns before you want to call yourself. And you just expect everyone to deal with that? Read my previous argument again, where I explained how I am not a woman. So you quickly move to using insulting tactics. You said that you are tired of your arguments being ridiculed. I just presented you a proper solution for that. From where do you get the idea that I believe in a "higher power" or "supreme being"? If you are a deist, then you believe in God's existence. You said so yourself. By definition, God is some sort of higher power or a superior. If you don't believe in a higher power or superior, then don't go around saying you believe in ''God''. I am looking to have conversation with people who aren't so desperate to find a label to identify people with so they can "stereotype and dismiss" You did. Deist. A theist is not a stereotype. A Muslim and a Christian can meet somewhere and say ''hey, we are both theists'' even though their beliefs are extremely different, and religiously speaking they are enemies. A Mormon and someone from a tribe in Africa who believes the tree in his yard is possessed by evil demons can meet and agree that they are both theists, even though their beliefs are so different. A satanist and a Jew can both sit down and agree that they are both theists. So no, theism is not a stereotype, since you can be a theistic satanist, a theistic Christian, a theistic Muslim, a theistic demon chaser or whatever you like. Side: I Am Free.
Yes. Because you are talking nonsense. It's clear that you hasitly judge as ridiculous what you have yet to comprehend. I am a non-smoking smoker. Does that makes sense to you? If you aren't currently smoking yes. No wonder you can't understand my point when you struggle with this! That is exactly the same as saying I am a non-theistic believer in God. When an atheist talks about god intelligently they are referring to a belief complex, understanding that many of these belief complexes exist does not render one a theist, except among simple minded people like you who are accustomed to ridiculing what they don't understand. So what you're saying is for a smoker to be a nonsmoker he must in the present not smoke. So for a believer in God to be non-theistic, he must just not in the present believe in God. DUH Are you saying you have believed in God in your past, but currently don't believe in him? I have entertained many beliefs about god. I find that understanding god as a belief complex is more reasonable than viewing god as a higher power or supreme being, if I were a theist I would think the definition of god that you accept was more appropriate. Why? Because you think it's appropriate and proper to define god as a "higher power". An atheist dictionary would define god differently than currently popular dictionaries do. Here maybe this will help. Pretend you are in charge of fashioning the definition for god in an atheist dictionary, how would you describe god then? So .. you have to accept the nouns before you want to call yourself. And you just expect everyone to deal with that? speaking of not making sense.... Read my previous argument again, where I explained how I am not a woman. It was lame You said that you are tired of your arguments being ridiculed. I just presented you a proper solution for that. Look if you insist on taking an insulting tone, I guess I will oblige. The lack of intelligence is on the part of the one who ridicules what they admittedly don't understand. If you are a deist, then you believe in God's existence. You said so yourself. I told you what I think a god is, and you weren't bright enough to understand that I view god in a starkly differently manner than a theist. By definition, God is some sort of higher power or a superior. And if you are atheist, you should reject this definition. But you accept it as valid. If you don't believe in a higher power or superior, then don't go around saying you believe in ''God''. i will do as I please thank you very much. besides, It's not like I didn't qualify the statement with an explaination that would have clued you in...if you were smarter...that I am atheist. You did. Deist. I did what? A theist is not a stereotype. It's not necessarily. But in your case it is because you altogether lack the cognitive ability to make fine distictions, it seems Side: I Am Free.
1
point
It's clear that you hasitly judge as ridiculous what you have yet to comprehend. Stating your argument to be nonsense is not judging. It is an observation. When an atheist talks about god intelligently they are referring to a belief complex, understanding that many of these belief complexes exist does not render one a theist, except among simple minded people like you who are accustomed to ridiculing what they don't understand. And none of this changes the meaning of the word ''theist'' DUH So you are seriously saying, that a deistic God is a God you no longer believe in? That makes sense ... not. An atheist dictionary would define god differently than currently popular dictionaries do. I am not an atheist. Pretend you are in charge of fashioning the definition for god in an atheist dictionary, how would you describe god then? I would describe him as I describe fairytale figures. Non-exist. But that has nothing to do with the word theist. If I were to make an atheistic dictionary, when I came to the word ''theist'' I would still say that a theist is somebody, opposite from me, believes in a superior or higher power. It was lame It might be lame, that was kind of what I tried to point out. You are lame. You are basically saying that for me to be a woman, I must accept the noun ''woman''. It's ridiculous. The lack of intelligence is on the part of the one who ridicules what they admittedly don't understand. I understand that you like to redefine nouns. I told you what I think a god is, and you weren't bright enough to understand that I view god in a starkly differently manner than a theist. Look buddy. Do you believe in God's existence? Yes - you are a theist No - you are and atheist, unless you believe in demons or other type of .. shit. And if you are atheist, you should reject this definition. But you accept it as valid. I accept the word ''theist'' as a valid noun to describe a person who believes in Gods and stuff like that. Are you saying that all the words I ''accept'' I immediately become them? Are you saying that by accepting the definition of ''ugly'' being someone that isn't very pleasant to look at - I become ugly by accepting this is a proper word for describing a person like that? Are you saying that by accepting the definition of the word ''fat'' being someone who weighs more than they should, I immediately gain weight somehow and become this? I don't think you understand words, which explains a lot. that I am atheist.* Cool.. still doesn't change the subject. We were debating about whether there can be an atheistic God. If you are atheist yourself doesn't change anything. It's not necessarily. But in your case it is because you altogether lack the cognitive ability to make fine distictions, it seems Sorry. I am not the dictionary. I just own one, unlike you. Side: I Am Free.
Stating your argument to be nonsense is not judging. It is an observation. Oh look you misunderstand other words too! Can't say I'm surprised. And none of this changes the meaning of the word ''theist'' But if taken into consideration it can be used to fashion a definition that better conveys the meaning. For example "Theist: One who worships a god" is better than "Theist: One who believes in god" But trying to get you to wrap your mind around the fact that not every dictionary definition is the best it could be, is like trying to teach algebra to a snail So you are seriously saying, that a deistic God is a God you no longer believe in? That makes sense ... not. No fucktard, this is just a side point from one of your stupid questions and it's clear I am demanding more thought from you than you can muster, so I won't bother expecting you to understand what I am saying. I am not an atheist. Says the utter moron who earlier said "I don't believe Gods are anything at all" It might be lame, that was kind of what I tried to point out. You are lame. You are the queen of lame. You are basically saying that for me to be a woman, I must accept the noun ''woman''. It's ridiculous. You are just pulling shit out of your ass now...it stinks I understand that you like to redefine nouns. Would you say that we should never revisit the way any nouns are defined, Ms. Stuckbrain? Look buddy. Do you believe in God's existence? Yes - you are a theist No - you are and atheist, unless you believe in demons or other type of .. shit. That sews it up for the majority of idiots, you are no exception. I accept the word ''theist'' as a valid noun to describe a person who believes in Gods and stuff like that. Well don't let me disturb your simple little mind and stuff Are you saying that all the words I ''accept'' I immediately become them? Are you saying that by accepting the definition of ''ugly'' being someone that isn't very pleasant to look at - I become ugly by accepting this is a proper word for describing a person like that? Are you saying that by accepting the definition of the word ''fat'' being someone who weighs more than they should, I immediately gain weight somehow and become this? How dumb can you be? I don't think you understand words, which explains a lot. No you just don't think Cool.. still doesn't change the subject. We were debating about whether there can be an atheistic God. If you are atheist yourself doesn't change anything. You were presumably looking for an alternative perspective to immediately dismiss on the unquestionable authority of your favorite dictionary. Sorry. I am not the dictionary. I just own one, unlike you. I own a dictionary, I'm just able to recognize a poor quality definition within it, unlike you Side: I Am Free.
1
point
Says the utter moron who earlier said "I don't believe Gods are anything at all" Ever heard of agnosticism? You are the queen of lame. Lol, lame ;) How dumb can you be? You told me that if I accept the definition of ''theist'' then I become a theist. That must mean I am also a house, because I accept the definition of house being a .. whatever the definition of a house is. I'm just able to recognize a poor quality definition within it So the definition of theism is poor quality? What would you suggest it is then? Side: I Am Free.
Ever heard of agnosticism? Sure. You should be aware that agnostics are atheists. You told me that if I accept the definition of ''theist'' then I become a theist. That must mean I am also a house, because I accept the definition of house being a .. whatever the definition of a house is. I won't say anything rude about the leap you are making there....in hopes that we can be more polite to each other ;) I do think that for one to accept the dictionary definition of god as valid requires one to be theist. I will explain why I think this if you like. So the definition of theism is poor quality? What would you suggest it is then? Off the top of my head... Theist: One who regards certain real or mythological beings as being worthy of worship Side: I Am Free.
1
point
Sure. You should be aware that agnostics are atheists. No. An agnostic believes anything is possible. There might be a God, there might not. Theist: One who regards certain real or mythological beings as being worthy of worship But will you still accept the fact, that in my opinion, you are a theist? Because the original definition is not yours. I mean .. you know? Just because you have one way to interpret a word, doesn't mean everybody else does it. I don't know. I just think what you are doing creates confusion. Side: I Am Free.
I'm applying your logic here. ie "those who do not believe in god are by definition atheists". According to this logic, unless you believe in god, you are atheist. Most atheists agree with this logic. Poll the atheists on this site if you doubt this. But will you still accept the fact, that in my opinion, you are a theist? I understand, but it bugs me to be thought of as theist. To be perfectly honest, I'm not entirely comfortable identifying as atheist either. Because the original definition is not yours. Original? Scholars disagree on the origin of the term. Because the original definition is not yours. I mean .. you know? Just because you have one way to interpret a word, doesn't mean everybody else does it. Sure, I was defending my admittedly atypical perspective I don't know. I just think what you are doing creates confusion. If you don't find my perspective to be AT ALL intellectually stimulating, and you just think I'm dishonest and dumb, I lost this argument. Side: I Am Free.
1
point
"those who do not believe in god are by definition atheists". Exactly. The problem with calling me an atheist is, that I do not ''not'' believe in God. Or to put it another way, I have no disbelief towards God, neither to I have a belief. To not believe in God does not fit into theism. And to not disbelieving in God does not fit into atheism. Side: Nope Still a Slave.
1
point
Define ''atheist'' a person who denies or disbelieves the existence of a supreme being or beings. I do not fit under that definition. Define ''theist'' Belief in the existence of a god or gods, especially belief in a personal God as creator and ruler of the world I do not fit under that definition either. Side: Nope Still a Slave.
1
point
Exactly. The problem with calling me an atheist is, that I do not ''not'' believe in God. You can remain neutral as to whether or not there are gods, and as you say, "have no disbelief" but unless you -believe in a god- you would still be classified as atheist. The thought of being classified in a way you'd rather not be is irritating isn't it? Side: I Am Free.
2
points
Define ''atheist'' a person who denies or disbelieves the existence of a supreme being or beings. I do not fit under that definition. Define ''theist'' Belief in the existence of a god or gods, especially belief in a personal God as creator and ruler of the world I do not fit under that definition either. Side: Nope Still a Slave.
1
point
There is a third choice yes. There is a thing called neutral, you can't deny people to not have an opinion. If you didn't vote for Obama, then you voted for Romney - that is basically what you are saying, and it is not true. You don't have to choose one side in everything. Side: Nope Still a Slave.
1
point
1
point
1
point
1
point
I'm going to bed, they explain it really well in this link, as I can't seem to be able to. Side: I Am Free.
1
point
The article says basically what you are saying. There are two choices. Which is nonsense. You are not obligated to choose a side. If my mother and father are fighting, I am capable of staying out of it, and let them fight. There aren't two choices - Obama vs. Romney. You can vote for one, or no one - there are three choices. You can't say I disbelieve when I say '' I don't know ''. I don't know does not immediately take the opposition's side. Side: Nope Still a Slave.
When you say "I don't know" that means you haven't accepted a claim of god. If you haven't accepted any god claims you are an atheist. Being an atheist doesn't require absolute certainty, I don't know if a god exists either, there could be one, I'm just reserving belief until I see evidence. Side: I Am Free.
1
point
When you say "I don't know" that means you haven't accepted a claim of god. If you haven't accepted any god claims you are an atheist. When I say I don't know, that means I haven't accepted any claims against God. If I haven't accepted any claims against God, then I am not an atheist. That thing goes both ways. Side: Nope Still a Slave.
Most thinking atheists accept that they have no way of disproving that there is a god, so they understand that the position of "disbelief" (or actively denying the existence of god) is untenable. Some few atheists however, who may be more properly classified as anti-theists, take the (poorly thought out IMO) approach of claiming they have proof of the non-exitence of god. All agnostics are atheist since they lack a belief in god (notice I didn't say disbelieve or deny the existence of). But not all atheists are agnostics. Some few are actually silly enough to think they have conclusive proof of gods non-existence. Understanding all this hinges on being able to make a distinction between disbelief and lack of belief. What's interesting to me is that in some portions of your arguments, you seem to be able to make this distinction, and in other portions you seem to argue as if "lack of belief" is indistinguishable from disbelief. Can you clarify for me what your position is on this? Side: I Am Free.
1
point
''Lack of belief'' is never mentioned in the definition of atheism. Look it up, it clearly says ''disbelief''. So I am not an atheist. I am not trying to prove to you that I am agnostic, I am trying to explain to you why I am neither atheist or theist. Read the definitions. Why do keep denying definitions? It's ridiculous. ''Lack of belief'' can be basically anyone. You can take a christian, who prays everyday, but he is also in doubt whether there is a God or not. There are plenty of people who claim they are being christian, but have doubts. Are you saying they are all atheists? Side: Nope Still a Slave.
Ok. I give up trying to convince you that you are atheist. Maybe you will find this article convincing. It adheres strictly to dictionary definitions and may deliver the point to you better than I could. If you happen to read it and change your mind...well ok, but I definately did not convince you. You win this argument. Side: Nope Still a Slave.
1
point
Yeah that basically said what you've been saying all along. You can force me to choose a side all you want, but I am neutral - and that IS possible. It is possible to not have an opinion at all. There are lots of things in this world I don't have an opinion about, and just because I don't have an opinion does NOT mean I automatically take the opposition's side. Side: I Am Free.
Atheism isn't the opposite side. You can tell from my photo that I have hair on my head. If I tell you that I have an even number, and you don't accept that claim, that doesn't mean you believe I have an odd number of hairs. If someone tells you that a god exists, and you don't accept that claim, it doesn't mean you are saying there are no gods. Side: Nope Still a Slave.
1
point
If someone tells you that a god exists, and you don't accept that claim, it doesn't mean you are saying there are no gods. But that goes against the definition of atheism. If you look it up, it clearly says disbelief of the existence of God. And I don't do that .. so. You can say all you want, I go with the definition. And the definition is in FACT ''disbelief of a God's existence '' - and again, I do not do that. If I tell you that I have an even number, and you don't accept that claim, that doesn't mean you believe I have an odd number of hairs. Agnosticism is when someone tells you that you have an even number of hair, and you choose to not have an opinion whether your hair is odd or even, simply because it is impossible to know for sure. Side: I Am Free.
I agree. You see atheism as taking a side, and I don't. I understand that because the dictionary uses the term disbelief, that you see atheism, not as just "lack of belief", but as active disbelief. I think that if you looked at the definitions of the key terms in the definitions, and some of the valid alternate definitions, you could see that it's not necessary to view atheism as being a necessarily opposing position to theism. Maybe you could realize that a person inclined to believe in god but unsure would be an agnostic theist and a person inclined not to believe in god but unsure is an agnostic atheist. And a person actually opposed to belief in god as anti-theist atheist. I understand however that atheism is commonly thought of as an opposing position so I see why you resist the label. Side: I Am Free.
1
point
It's not just ''lack of belief'' .. I don't have an opinion at all. I am totally neutral when it comes to religion, and an atheist isn't neutral. An atheist has taken the possibility of God not existing over the possibility for him actually existing, and I have not done this. Side: Nope Still a Slave.
I understand your position. I understand that since you don't believe atheists can be totally neutral and/or because they are typically not seen as neutral, that you are unwilling to identify as atheist. I disagree with you, but have lost almost all interest in trying to persuade you to think differently about it. Perhaps you may be apatheist...I dunno "If you choose not to decide you still have made a choice" ~Neil Peart Side: I Am Free.
1
point
1
point
1
point
No but if there is some higher power, I am willing to bet my life that God is not the theistic version but a deistic one. I know I come off strong on my views on the subject of God, it's not that I don't believe in the concept of a higher power, creator/God, because without proof no one really knows one way of another, my problem is with mans made up unproven bullshit version of God, or a theistic God, we humans have a sick way of tacking on human emotions to God as if we have any fucking clue what so ever, books like the Bible, Quran, ect. boil my blood and do nothing but push me away from any concept of God, at least the theistic version of the psychopath they call God. Side: I Am Free.
1
point
No it's not, a theistic God is a personal God, like the one people pray to, a humanized version of God, a Deistic God is a Force or a grand creator, no form, plays no role in the universe, (picture Star Wars the Force). A theist believes there is a God who made and governs all creation. A deist believes there is a God who created all things, but does not believe in His superintendence and government. He thinks the Creator implanted in all things certain immutable laws, called the Laws of Nature, which act per se, as a watch acts without the supervision of its maker. Unlike the theist, he does not believe in the doctrine of the Trinity, nor in a divine revelation. Side: Nope Still a Slave.
1
point
If the God deists believe in made the universe, doesn't that make him a superior? Doesn't that make him much more powerful than us? The thing you don't understand is that believing in a God, any type of God, makes you a theist, and all God's are theists. Define '' Theism '' : 1. the belief in one God as the creator and ruler of the universe, without rejection of revelation (distinguished from deism ). 2. belief in the existence of a god or gods. See the second one? Theism goes for deists too, so there you have it. You are a deist who believes in a theistic God. You can however use the terms '' the Christian God '', '' the Islamic God '', ''the Jewish God '' and so on. But just like ''the Deist God '' they are all ''theistic God's '' Side: I Am Free.
1
point
I'm agnostic dude, I go where the proof is, but anyways I found this, pretty much a deist God just made us and left us be, anyways link is below with bold quote. Deism versus Theism Prior to the 17th century the terms ["Deism" and "Deist"] were used interchangeably with the terms "theism" and "theist", respectively. . . Theologians and philosophers of the seventeenth century began to give a different signification to the words.... Both [theists and Deists] asserted belief in one supreme God, the Creator.... and agreed that God is personal and distinct from the world. But the theist taught that God remained actively interested in and operative in the world which he had made, whereas the Deist maintained that God endowed the world at creation with self-sustaining and self-acting powers and then abandoned it to the operation of these powers acting as second causes Side: Nope Still a Slave.
1
point
2
points
1
point
1
point
1
point
If you accept the equation god=love Then the statement: "Either you are motivated by love or you are a slave to pleasure and pain" this may help free you from all these idiotic notions about god. Here's a tip. If you read, or are told really stupid stories about god...don't use them to shape your understanding of god. Side: I Am Free.
Im not trying to instruct you in exactly what to think about god but instead to suggest that you let love be the dominant consideration as you make up your own mind about the nature of what the term god refers to. From my experience with you so far, I have strong doubts as to whether you will interpret what I have to say in a positive way, so I admit that I feel hesitant. I'd rather have a give and take conversation than write an essay, so in good faith I will ask you a question: What's wrong with thinking of god as loving intelligence? Side: I Am Free.
What's wrong with thinking of god as loving intelligence? I'm not sure what this means, so I will rewrite it in the ways I can think of: What's wrong with thinking of a god as loving intelligence? The word "god" already has a meaning, so to use a different meaning would be confusing to everyone I talk to. I suppose you could propose a god to me, and describe it as loving intelligence, but we wouldn't be any further, I don't know what "loving intelligence" means, or how that could be the sole description of a being. What's wrong with thinking of God as loving intelligence? The name God is already taken by Christians, all knowledge about the Christian god can only be taken from the Bible, trying to redefine it or add something more would be dishonest. Side: I Am Free.
2
points
in my opinion if god is what the bible says he is there would be no way he'd allow people to be tortured for eternity.. i know i'd feel bad for branding cattle and i'm not some all loving being, if this all loving being does allow people to be tortured just for not following his very strict rules then i'd say he's no better than a spiteful child who throws a tantrum because he didn't get his own way Side: I Am Free.
It's not characteristic of a loving parent to give up on their children. According to the stories you believe, isn't it true that once someone is condemned by this god you imagine, to this supposed place you call hell, that they still remain alive, but are tortured eternally? As I see it, a loving parent would only punish one of their children in order to teach them a lesson they could later benefit from. Do you disagree? Side: I Am Free.
God does not give up on His children; His children are His elect, whom He has chosen to be in heaven with Him. Everything else is simply a creation. People's souls are eternal, while people's spirits can die. Hell is a place of eternal spiritual death. If someone is sentenced to hell, then it is just for that person to be there. It isn't about teaching people a lesson, in the sense of people normally use it. It is about justice and about God displaying His wrath towards the unrighteous so that His elect may be shown mercy. Side: Nope Still a Slave.
You must be brimming with joy to think of yourself as one of god's few elect instead of being an ordinary person. Do I stand corrected thinking now that you DO NOT believe god allows people to live eternally tortured lives? Please explain the difference between a soul and a spirit. If someone is sentenced to hell, then it is just for that person to be there. Only if the punishment is commensurate with the crime. Any sound understanding of justice must recognize this. It isn't about teaching people a lesson, in the sense of people normally use it. It is about justice and about God displaying His wrath towards the unrighteous so that His elect may be shown mercy. I wish I could convince you that judges who can't administer justice without displaying "wrath" aren't mature enough to judge. There is a perverted concept of justice at work here and I wish I could reveal it to you. Let me ask you directly...Do you think it's a good example of justice for someone who is innocent to pay for a crime that someone else committed? Side: I Am Free.
Soul is the consciousness and life of a person. It does not go away with physical death. It is also home to the heart, which bears the emotional aspect of the person, and rational aspects of the person. The spirit is the connection to God. Only if the punishment is commensurate with the crime. Any sound understanding of justice must recognize this. And every sin is worth an eternity length of anguish. I wish I could convince you that judges who can't administer justice without displaying "wrath" aren't mature enough to judge. There is a perverted concept of justice at work here and I wish I could reveal it to you. Let me ask you directly...Do you think it's a good example of justice for someone who is innocent to pay for a crime that someone else committed? It is not justice for someone to pay the price for someone else's crime; however, if you are going to refer to Isaiah, then let me say that it is in a different context. The wrath aspect has no bearing on whether or not one is a good judge or not. It is more in line with executioner, in a sense. Side: Nope Still a Slave.
Soul is the consciousness and life of a person. It does not go away with physical death. It is also home to the heart, which bears the emotional aspect of the person, and rational aspects of the person. The spirit is the connection to God. So you do think it's reasonable to construe eternal punishment as a form of justice. Wild. And every sin is worth an eternity length of anguish. This seems like the result of shabby theology to me It is not justice for someone to pay the price for someone else's crime; however, if you are going to refer to Isaiah, then let me say that it is in a different context. Nah, I'll apply it to the supposed sacrifice Jesus made. You call yourself Christian right? The wrath aspect has no bearing on whether or not one is a good judge or not. I am convinced you are wrong about that. A judge should be concerned with administering justice not revenge. It is more in line with executioner, in a sense. Execution is no administration of justice. Side: I Am Free.
That is a different form of sacrifice that Isaiah talked about. If you want to try explaining how scapegoating can qualify as execution of justice....by all means teach...you who call yourself teacher. Of course it is. SO.... I see you have a problem discerning the difference between vengence and justice. Teach me why I am wrong about that teacher. Side: I Am Free.
There is condescension in your voice. However, I will answer your questions. If you want to try explaining how scapegoating can qualify as execution of justice....by all means teach...you who call yourself teacher. When one pays another person's fine, it is just for the person who has been paid for to be set free. SO.... I see you have a problem discerning the difference between vengence and justice. Teach me why I am wrong about that teacher. I never said that they are the same thing. However, they are interconnected and very similar. Justice simply refers to a judge's sentencing of the guilty and the punishment following from that. Vengeance is regaining a status equal to what it was before through violence, whether it be just or unjust. God does both simultaneously. Side: Nope Still a Slave.
There is condescension in your voice. However, I will answer your questions. Make no mistake I both expect to learn from AND teach those I engage.. your condescension is explicit in your claim that you are not here to learn. When one pays another person's fine, it is just for the person who has been paid for to be set free. That's cute but untrue. If someone commits an injustice, it is them who should bear the burden of making things right. The concept of justice you are attempting to teach is perverted. I never said that they are the same thing. However, they are interconnected and very similar. Justice simply refers to a judge's sentencing of the guilty and the punishment following from that. Vengeance is regaining a status equal to what it was before through violence, whether it be just or unjust. God does both simultaneously. This only demonstrates how confused you are. The execution of justice necessarily entails making repairations or mitigating harm done. Vengence is just causing more harm. You should learn this from someone. Side: I Am Free.
That's cute but untrue. If someone commits an injustice, it is them who should bear the burden of making things right. The concept of justice you are attempting to teach is perverted. Who says any of this? This only demonstrates how confused you are. The execution of justice necessarily entails making repairations or mitigating harm done. Vengence is just causing more harm. You should learn this from someone. None of your statement here follow. Non sequitur, those are non sequiturs. Side: Nope Still a Slave.
Who says any of this? You pretend to be curious...how lame None of your statement here follow. Non sequitur, those are non sequiturs. This is an informal discussion. Accusing me of various logical fallacies isn't helping your position here. Anyone with half a brain can tell that you are misinformed about justice and revenge. Side: I Am Free.
You pretend to be curious...how lame It was rhetoric to demonstrate that if justice is not grounded in God, then justice is subjective and reverted into preference. This is an informal discussion. Accusing me of various logical fallacies isn't helping your position here. Anyone with half a brain can tell that you are misinformed about justice and revenge. Revenge is not equivalent to vengeance. Also, if one is going to try and convince someone of anything, then this someone needs to be logical and consistent. Side: Nope Still a Slave.
1
point
1
point
that didn't really answer my question.. do people deserve to tortured for eternity for something as petty as sex out of marriage? and what about an orphan child in a third world country that steals a loaf of bread to prevent themselves from starving, are they evil? and do they deserve eternal torture? Side: Nope Still a Slave.
2
points
2
points
if the child is about to starve to death, obviously god isn't providing for the child, so if the child provides for themselves the only way they can, they are evil and deserve eternal torture?.. doesn't make sense to me that god would allow a child to starve in the first place Side: Nope Still a Slave.
2
points
The only Three things humans cannot live without are food, water and air.. So if having food doesn't equal being provided for, what does? Are we expected to survive on water and air? Air is everywhere but food and water are not so what does god actually provide? Accept misery for most Side: Nope Still a Slave.
That which is physical will pass away. Providing for that of the spirit is what matters most. God uses suffering to bring people to Him, which is to grow greater in the spirit. Therefore, having a lack of food actually leads to being provided for; it is why Africa has one of the highest conversions rates to Christianity right now. Side: I Am Free.
2
points
Or it could be that Christians are targeting Africa and using shit like that to convert them.. Only thing to it is god will make people suffer and if they try to end their suffering he will make them suffer more.. God is not a nice man and that is that Side: Nope Still a Slave.
2
points
1
point
I live my life according to these laws because I love Christ, not because I fear God, though I do fear God. However, when following these rules, you are actually more free because you are under faith, which sets you free, and you are not dead in your sins: a fish is more free in water, than on dry land. Side: I Am Free.
1
point
If the end does not justify the means does that mean that if I'm attacked and someone is trying to kill me and my only way of survival is by killing my attacker then I will be sent to hell because I have sinned? Should I allow myself to be killed to please God and allowing my attacker to go on and kill others? Side: Nope Still a Slave.
No, I'm saying that the original Hebrew does not say "kill". It says "murder". Most people who bring up this argument are people who have only read the King James version, which was translated from the Latin translation of the Bible. Refer to English Standard Version: it is what translators have claimed is the best, or one of the best, translations of both Hebrew and Greek. Side: I Am Free.
Sin is not a choice; sin is a nature It is why Jesus said that a bad tree only bears bad fruit and why a good tree only bears good fruit. We are born into sin and evil at conception. Sin is simply falling short of the glory of God, which is not a choice in many aspects. Also, the Bible does not condemn homosexuality; it condemns the act of it. Side: I Am Free.
I don't believe in destiny. I think that destiny is something created by some human with an inferiority complex to make themselves more significant than they actually are. At the same time i don't believe in god. I do not think god determines my life or my actions. If i make 'sins' so what? did someone come from hell or heaven and tell us that it exists? as far as i know we do not know what happens to us before we were born and after we die so why worry about the unknown? This life is all we know for sure exists so its enjoy it our way and together because were all in the same boat. Side: I Am Free.
1
point
1
point
O shit, Slaves are climbing, as of 7/20/13 3:38am score is Freemen-57/Slaves-52, come on slaves you can do it, show us who's boss...well slaves/bosses/slaves what ever, Slavebosses yeah that's it, you know what I mean, anyways, you can do it, do it for Jesus !!! Side: I Am Free.
We don't know that the rules set by God are actually contradictory, all we have is man's interpretation which is were the contradictions come in, God's original rules might have been at all contradictory we don't know. I know people are going to say I've posted on the wrong side but I posted over here because my beliefs do not enslave me. Side: I Am Free.
1
point
My position is inconclusive and yet it does not make me an agnostic. I think that any conclusion regarding the concept God is premature in that there is no certainty if there is a God or no God. There is not even certainty that it is impossible to prove if there is an intelligent designer or not. The whole issue here is to make claims that are unqualified in a Scientific perspective and I think one needs to have a healthy Skepticism. God in this regard do not currently have such a rational qualification in a world of causation yet it may have a basis for fantasy,fiction and creativity. I am open to the God debate I am willing to listen to all philosophical positions but my criteria will be rational. I am siding with ' I am free ' faction for the following reasons: 1. The statement is antagonistic and fails as a polemic statement. It is a bit offending to those that are entitled to have different views and convictions relating to God. The ambiguous word 'f....k' is there for me to make an assumption that it is a swear word and it must not be necessary for me to make any assumption on a debate statement that must be clear. Inserting an emotional word in a statement that must start a rational debate is unreasonable and dooms such a constructive discussion from the beginning. It does not further the aim and noble attempts of atheism or humanism in anyway. I am just sorry that the statement was constructed in such a way. It could have been a great debate. Side: I Am Free.
1
point
Even a God would not be free from delusions and therefore suffering, I believe only a Tahagata an enlightened being is free from mental suffering so I take refuge in the Buddha to achieve that, even if a God were real it would not be able to give you guidance to attain enlightenment. Side: I Am Free.
1
point
|
If I am wrong and there is a God I hope this God is nothing like what the theistic books teach or say about God, I truly hope there is something good, at least what we human deem as good, if not I am screwed lol, well so was Lucifer for questioning Kim Jong Un. Side: Nope Still a Slave.
Okay suit yourself. You won't like it when you get there and I feel sad for you because you want to go to a horrible place that has no joy, sorrow, and there is constant pain and there is 100% conversion rate in hell because people already converted when it was too late. And those people who are in hell they will count back to the many times they should have accepted Christ into their life but they didn't . God actually doesn't hate you because if He hated you He would have never died for our sins. Side: Nope Still a Slave.
1
point
Romans 9: 14 What shall we say then? Is there injustice on God's part? By no means! 15 For he says to Moses, “I will have mercy on whom I have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I have compassion.” 16 So then it depends not on human will or exertion,[b] but on God, who has mercy. 17 For the Scripture says to Pharaoh, “For this very purpose I have raised you up, that I might show my power in you, and that my name might be proclaimed in all the earth.” 18 So then he has mercy on whomever he wills, and he hardens whomever he wills. Side: Nope Still a Slave.
God didn't create sin or evil at all. All God did was create human beings and told them to not eat from the certain fruit and He gave them a warning that they would surely die if they did and they choose to eat from the fruit and so sin entered our world and that is how evil is here because of them not God. God didn't create evil, He gave man over to this earth so as a result you see that in the past we have wars, slavery, racism, and other bad things as result of man's sin. So its not God's fault of all this its our fault. We caused all of this to happen. Side: Nope Still a Slave.
So if God created man and God created the fruit and if God is all seeing and all knowing he would have known the consequences of putting man and that tree in the vicinity of each other, so God technically did create sin and evil or he is at least responsible for it. Side: I Am Free.
No God isn't responsible for evil or sin. If the careless workman throws sand into the delicate machine should the manufacturer be held responsible? We don't know why God didn't stop Adam and Eve from eating the fruit because we can't comprehend God because we have finite minds that only knows limited information then what God knows. We only see a fraction of what God's sees but God see's the whole big picture while we don't. Side: Nope Still a Slave.
Even if God did stop Adam and Eve to not eat of the fruit then that would make God a puppet and then they would have to depend on God to make their own decisions. God gave them the decisions that they were going to make and that is why they had free will to choose. Side: Nope Still a Slave.
This is true. He is the creator of all. The thing one must know is that when he made it for humans it was perfect. His creation became tainted with the acts of Satan, Adam, and Eve. Then they necame bad. This is when his creation was used for evil things. He only created good. For example, God made rocks. If you meld the rock into a sword and kill somebody God still didnt make the sword, the human did. God made the rock but the human corrupted its use. Side: Nope Still a Slave.
But you still have to ask yourself a serious question? Q. Why did God create the devil, sin, evil or even give us the thought patterns to even do such things? Those questions are what drove me away from a theistic beliefs system years ago to a agnostic point of view on the subject, and I'm sorry with all due respect as I don't think I ever had the honor of debating you but I'm not buying the God game us freewill, reason is because that still begs the question as to why even bother creating exists in the first place, unless it's to watch humans fail and torment them out of pure evilness. That being said the universe never asked to even exists, so why bother, because of this I am lead to believe we humans don't know jack about God and make stuff up out of emotions, mainly fear with not reason and logic behind it, however if there is a God I am sure he/she/it plays no role at all, so this means no hell, heaven good or evil, only balance as everything in nature/universe already proves. Side: I Am Free.
Why did God create the devil, sin, evil or even give us the thought patterns to even do such things? This question is not being thought through fully. For one God created Lucifer, a beautiful angel who was to be a worship leader. Lucifer turned himself into the devil by trying to dethrone God. God did not make sin. Humans made sin. God made everything perfect in all of its intrinsic nature. We have tainted it and warped them into evil things. God didnt give you any thought patterns. You think for yourself. God created perfect beings with free will and they can decide what the want to do or pursue or believe in. Thought patterns can be given to you by God though. He didn't give us a sinful thought pattern when he made is though. Side: Nope Still a Slave.
For one God created Lucifer, a beautiful angel who was to be a worship leader. Lucifer turned himself into the devil by trying to dethrone God. Q. Why didn't God just zap old Lucifer out of existence? God did not make sin. Humans made sin. God made everything perfect in all of its intrinsic nature. We have tainted it and warped them into evil things. Q. So God is powerless to fix it, or maybe don't want to fix it, if so why call God all powerful and loving if God does nothing? God didn't give you any thought patterns. You think for yourself. God created perfect beings with free will and they can decide what the want to do or pursue or believe in. Thought patterns can be given to you by God though. He didn't give us a sinful thought pattern when he made is though. Q. So God gave us freewill and just so happen to thrown evil in the mix just to see what happens? That's kind of warped if you ask me, as I said none of us asked for any of this, life, existence, any of this so why create at all if only to watch and see if one fails so then God can torment with the evil creations that be created but is powerless or unwilling to do something about it, this does not sound like a all powerful or loving God if you ask me. Side: I Am Free.
Why didn't God just zap old Lucifer out of existence? Can you explain to me what that would have done? Eventually a being would commit a sin. A being, with power, would want the throne of God. Also it is not in the intrinsic nature of the universe for him to do so. God has mercy and grace on Satan, but now he must pay. He was a beautiful creation of God and was ranked highly in the heavens. So God is powerless to fix it, or maybe don't want to fix it, if so why call God all powerful and loving if God does nothing? I never mentioned anything about his power but I will explain anyways. God is a just God. God brings justice to those who sin and he shows us the sin in hopes that we will learn from it. If people do not sin what would we know of God? Also an all loving God must show justice to his followers if he loves them. He must try to correct them if he loves them. That is what he is trying to do and humans won't accept his hand. So God gave us freewill and just so happen to thrown evil in the mix just to see what happens? Nope. You missed what I said. God only made good. Everything was good. Humans, with their own power and free will committed evil actions. God did not make evil. God made good. Humans tainted the good works and used it for bad. That's kind of warped if you ask me, as I said none of us asked for any of this, life, existence, any of this Of course you didn't ask for it. You weren't in existence. How could you ask? Also you were a child when you started this life, well you were really a baby, so how would you truly know what you wanted or not? so why create at all if only to watch and see if one fails so then God can torment with the evil creations that be created He didn't. You are asking questions without even knowing the intentions God has set forth. God made us to share his good works. God also didn't make Hell for us. It was for Satan and his angels. Humans made it possible for Hell to be entered. God is lending out his hand and telling us that he wants us to follow him to paradise. Satan will try his best to pull you into Hell. Satan wants you to be a slave to sin. Satan wants you to fail, because all he wants to do is kill, steal, and destroy. God wants you to live in peace. Its up to you to choose God or Satan's path. powerless or unwilling to do something about it, this does not sound like a all powerful or loving God if you ask me. He is powerful enough to make everything and loving enough to make everything good. You are complaining about the sins of the but follow the paths of Satan (when I say "you" I do not mean you directly). You are saying that God cannot be loving yet he holds Satan back from unleashing his fury. He keeps the universe at bay with his gracious hand. He gave you life. He is giving you air, his own creation of which he did not have to create, but he isn't loving? God made water available, the water he made and still didn't have to, but he is not loving? He isn't powerful yet he created all this? That doesn't make sense. Also you are abandoning justice and love. If a parent loves a child the parent will discipline them, not pardon their mishaps or get rid of their children. A parent will teach their child what is right. Side: Nope Still a Slave.
1
point
God only mad good. God couldn't have made good, if it were that way it would have stayed good. He could have only have made neutral (that's giving him more credit than he deserves) and all the evil and the good that came after that neutral was because of human's freewill. It is on that logic that it makes no sense to worship him. We are what we are, after he made us neutral, because of our own doing. TO praise him, and say he made us good, is not fair for those who are evil who you also claim were made good. Side: I Am Free.
God couldn't have made good, if it were that way it would have stayed good That statement does not make sense. God can make rocks. Rocks to divide the land from the sea. Human make weapons from the rocks and kill people. The rock was good for all his creation was for good. I can drown somebody in water. Is the water now bad? No. It is being used for bad. Water, the gift from God to sustain life, is naturally good, but humans can taint its use and use it in malevolent ways. He could have only have made neutral (that's giving him more credit than he deserves) and all the evil and the good that came after that neutral was because of human's freewill. Explain to me what a neutral water is. Or what neutral oxygen is. What is a neutral rock? God's creation was for good. Humans have committed acts and manipulated them for evil means. It is on that logic that it makes no sense to worship him What logic? He created good. He created everything in a good nature. You can use that good thing for bad means. The object in its original state is still good. Remember what God created. Everything he made was good during that time. We are what we are, after he made us neutral, because of our own doing He made Adam and Eve in good nature. Not on neutral nature. The bible would has clearly said neutral. It did not. Everything he created was good. TO praise him, and say he made us good, is not fair for those who are evil who you also claim were made good. You are not thinking fully. Everything he made is good. Remember the time he made these things. He made Adam and Eve. They were good. They committed evil and released it among the world. He still created only good. Name something he created that wasn't good. Side: Nope Still a Slave.
1
point
Is the water now bad? That's the point I'm making. The water is neutral. People are neutral. At best God made us neutral. Christians give him too much credit saying we were made good, when evil exists. Explain to me what a neutral water is What is neutral water, really? How about water that's not out to help anyone, or made to do anything, but also not out to harm anything or anyone, as water is. You can use that good thing for bad means. How does that even make sense. A good thing was used to do bad, yet bad was never made. If God did not make evil, he could have only made neutral. If we have true free will, then making us good, is against that freewill. For it to be real, neutrality is the only option. The bible would has clearly said neutral. It did not. Everything he created was good. I've made this argument thousands of times before. The bible was written by people, so it's only as reliable as people. If you want any real answers you have to question it, and I am here with one of the answers to the question why does evil exist. You just refuse to accept it, because some words in your bible, or lack of words, tells you otherwise. This is why people think Christians are brainwashed. You are not thinking fully. I don't think you are. How can something good, do bad? Name something he created that wasn't good. I have, and you turned away. Side: I Am Free.
That's the point I'm making. The water is neutral. People are neutral. At best God made us neutral. Christians give him too much credit saying we were made good, when evil exists. God made us in good nature. Nice, respectful, holy, obedient, and more. Humans twisted its nature. Water is made for good. Humans can use it for bad but the water is still good. What is neutral water, really? How about water that's not out to help anyone, or made to do anything, but also not out to harm anything or anyone, as water is. You are made up of mostly water. I would declare it as something good. How does that even make sense. A good thing was used to do bad, yet bad was never made. What time are you talking from? A modern stance or a Genesis stance because you seem to be talking from a modern stance. I am talking about in Genesis. I would have to re word everything in order to make it fit to modern day. I don't think you are. How can something good, do bad? You mean how can something good be used for bad? Thats my assertion. Now tell me. Which sense of creation are you speaking from? I have, and you turned away. What did you specifically name that God created that wasnt good? Side: Nope Still a Slave.
1
point
God made us in good nature. Nice, respectful, holy, obedient, and more. Because the Bible says so, so arguing is useless? I realized this was a lost cause but still went into this argument. I must be insane. What time are you talking from? No specific time. Any and all times, anything ever made had to be neutral for anything outside of neutral to exist. You mean how can something good be used for bad? Thats my assertion. If it's your assertion you're claiming nothing good has ever done evil. If that is the case then humans are not good, seeing as that's not what you're trying to say then it must still be my assertion. How can something good do evil? What did you specifically name that God created that wasnt good? If God created everything then anything I name qualifies. Last time I'll say it since debating with religious people always ends in a bust. Something made good, only has the potential for good, it cannot do evil. Something made evil only has the potential for evil, it cannot do good. Something made neutral has the potential for either, and can do either based on it's own freewill. There I have given you an explanation of why people simply cannot be made good. I think it's black and white, clear as day, a great explanation, but you don't have to accept my answers, I know how faith works, and I'll understand if you blindly follow words written from 6000 years ago over the logic right before you. Side: I Am Free.
No specific time. Any and all times, anything ever made had to be neutral for anything outside of neutral to exist. You have to be specific so I can explain my case for a time period. I need you to give me a frame. If it's your assertion you're claiming nothing good has ever done evil. You are missing my point. God named certain things as good. I am saying that something that something that is good can be used for bad. Do you see what I am saying or do you want me to explain it more? If God created everything then anything I name qualifies. Eveeything he created is named in the bible and has inly changed form as time goes on depending on hiw humans interacted with it. So you need to be specific so I can make an argument. Otherwise I cant do much. There I have given you an explanation of why people simply cannot be made good. My claim is that something good can be used for bad things. Also I would prefer you not try to insult me with what you posted below. It doesnt seem right or necessary for debating. We are only debating. Not slinging insults at each other. Side: Nope Still a Slave.
1
point
You have to be specific so I can explain my case for a time period. I need you to give me a frame. So you want a specific time...for something good or evil to have been created? How about you give me all that you know, I'll listen and shape my knowledge around what I learn, rather what I already believe and refuse to change. You are missing my point. God named certain things as good. I am saying that something that something that is good can be used for bad You are missing my point and I gave a clear example of why good things can't be used for bad. The point I'm making is that you don't question God labeling those things as good, when those 'good' things can be used for evil. Honestly tell me how something good, can be used for evil. Eveeything he created is named in the bible and has inly changed form as time goes on depending on hiw humans interacted with it. This is proof that you see the words and don't question them when logic says something else, thus no point in arguing. My claim is that something good can be used for bad things. How? Also I would prefer you not try to insult me with what you posted below. It doesnt seem right or necessary for debating. We are only debating. Not slinging insults at each other. For future reference highlight what it is you accuse me of, because I delicately chose my words to avoid outright insulting you. I'll see what I said, and apologize if I find it. Side: I Am Free.
Honestly tell me how something good, can be used for evil. Well I guess the best example I can give you is a nice person. If this person is too nice they may be duped into doing something bad with the thought that they are doing good. This person can be manipulated if they are too nice. This is proof that you see the words and don't question them when logic says something else, thus no point in arguing. What logic? Both things are of logic. Logical to you may be illogical to me and so on and so on. Also my statement was only given in hopes you would give me a time frame for explaination. I havent recieved a time frame from you. So now you just assume I never questioned the bible. How? How? How do I describe the action other than saying "by doing it?" Thats like asking me how do I lift my arm. You lift it. I'll listen and shape my knowledge around what I learn, rather what I already believe and refuse to change. If your mind is not open for change then what is the point of me typing this for? Side: Nope Still a Slave.
1
point
Well I guess the best example I can give you is a nice person. If this person is too nice they may be duped into doing something bad with the thought that they are doing good. That's not an example. The nice person, as I already explained, is not good, he's neutral. Even if his intentions are good, he as the capability for both good and evil because he is neither perfectly. I gave you an example, good is made to do good, bad is made to do bad, neutral can do either. Why are we good? Is it only because God said we are, so is there more to it? If it's only because God said so then don't bother, you'll just be proving you won't question the Bible. What logic? I told you I won't repeat it. Both things are of logic. You haven't shown me how. You've only said (loose quote) "God made us good, but we have the potential for bad" yet you haven't said how. I've said clearly how good is only capable of good, and bad is only capable of bad. Since nothing is only capable of good or bad, then it stands to reason nothing was made good or bad, everything had to have been made neutral. If your mind is not open for change then what is the point of me typing this for? It's ironic that you say that, because you yourself is not open to change. You only say we're good because it's written in the Bible, yet I tell you how something made good would only be able to do good, but you shirk it off. In fact, I'm almost so certain you aren't open to think about what I say, rather than just telling me I'm wrong, that I bet you press dispute, then begin to read my argument, instead of the other way around. This is not something you have to admit to me, nor is it something you even have to respond to, just think about it. Do you read first, then dispute or agree. Or do you press dispute and then begin to read? Side: I Am Free.
1
point
If this sounds judgmental, I apologize in advance, but here is why I think you do. You accept that I've been wrong before and assume that I will continue to be, and have already closed yourself off to learn from me, are pretty much just responding to me until I quit. I really want you to think about it. How something made good, could do anything other than good. I don't see how it's possible. We were made with free will, meaning we have the capabilities to do whatever. If we were made good, instead of with free will we would only have the capability for good. That's not to say God made evil, that is to say whoever wrote that God made us good, was wrong. He had to have made us neutral. Side: I Am Free.
I am still waking up a little, can you answer a couple questions for me so I can give a better response. Did God give us computers? Did God give us medicine? Is God the reason we have cars? When all of those athletes praise God for helping them win, did He actually do anything to help? Side: Nope Still a Slave.
1
point
That's the difference between me and you, I would burn for honor, my family and friends, to me that is life, to live for others and to die for what's right, if god whats me to burn for that then that is no god of mine, I would gladly burn for ever and turn my pain into smiles. Side: I Am Free.
It's like you didn't even read my post. Congrats, now you don't get to choose between being a prideful coward or being a prideful idiot. You get all three descriptions! -_- Now, are we done throwing words at each other and willing to read each others arguments before replying to one another? It's obviously not productive the other way. For me, choosing eternal hell has nothing to do with my ego and not wanting to be a coward. It has to do with the fact that I would have the overwhelming urge to fight the wrong that this hypothetical god would be enforcing. If all that exists is a torture happy deity, it's not even worth worshiping and it's worth all the world could be to stand against said deity. With all that said, it's not idiotic to stand up to a bully, and if that means I'm proud that I'm not a coward who let's a bully keep on keeping on, then so be it. That's your lack of a moral compass, not mine. Side: I Am Free.
It's like you didn't even read my post. Standing up against what is wrong is more than just pride. You said it was more than just pride, which means the pride places a role in your decision. I was addressing that (as you didn't give me anything else to address). With all that said, it's not idiotic to stand up to a bully I disagree, there is no possible way for you to have any effect on a god, it is idiotic to think anything you do will make a difference. if that means I'm proud that I'm not a coward who let's a bully keep on keeping on, then so be it. Agreed. That's your lack of a moral compass, not mine. Agreed, I never stated otherwise. Now that you have added morality to the discussion, let me adjust my position to include it. I would rather be an immoral coward who has pride in not being an idiot than an idiot who has pride in not being an immoral coward. Side: Nope Still a Slave.
1
point
1
point
1
point
1
point
You may be free in this world all you atheists and good for you. Yes, Christians are bond servants (slaves of God) but we still have freedom. I am not one of those emotional, music driven, ritualistic and self seeking Christians but won't let sin enslave me. The fact that Christianity is not popular is normal and makes me a more firm believer. Side: Nope Still a Slave.
-1
points
|