CreateDebate is a social debate community built around ideas, discussion and democracy.
If this is your first time checking out a debate, here are some quick tips to help get you started:
Arguments with the highest score are displayed first.
Argument replies (both in favor and in opposition) are displayed below the original argument.
To follow along, you may find it helpful to show and hide the replies displayed below each argument.
To vote for an argument, use these icons:
You have the power to cast exactly one vote (either up or down) for each argument.
Once you vote, the icon will become grayed out and the argument's score will change.
Yes, you can change your vote.
Debate scores, side scores and tag scores are automatically calculated by an algorithm that primarily takes argument scores into account.
All scores are updated in real-time.
To learn more about the CreateDebate scoring system, check out the FAQ.
When you are ready to voice your opinion, use the Add Argument button to create an argument.
If you would like to address an existing argument, use the Support and Dispute link within that argument to create a new reply.
You can share this debate in three different ways:
#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.
Should people believe in God or not?
Nowadays it's very popular question, because two main points of view exists: Charles Darwin theory and religion with it sacrd books. What do you think about this?
I take the view that human beings should believe in God. Every culture throughout history has been convinced that there is a higher power and force that watches over them. Almost all of the people have the idea of God in their consciousness because deep in their hearts every person know that God supports and give his advice for them. There are a lot of cases when people survived with the help og God. I support the idea that people should have one belief.
Every culture throughout history has been convinced that there is a higher power and force that watches over them.
This has not always been a god though. Sometimes it's ancestors, sometime tree spirits. There's all kinds of superstitions. That people believe something in large part does not make that thing true, as we see with examples like our lack of a flat earth and that stars aren't literally holes in the sky.
Almost all of the people have the idea of God in their consciousness because deep in their hearts every person know that God supports and give his advice for them
Almost all people have an idea of god becaus they are told over and over from birth that there is one. There is no provable natural inclination to believe a single all powerful being is watching over us any more than there is a provable natural inclination to believe in Santa Clause - outside of the inclination to believe what our parents tell us when we're little.
And even the most fervent believer has never received a word of advice from god I promise, only a manifestation of subconscious thought they label as such because they want it to be such.
There are a lot of cases when people survived with the help og God. I support the idea that people should have one belief.
There is not a single case of this happening in fact, ever as far as you know in all of history.
As a side note, I do find it amazing if one survives some thing the religious are so quick to give god credit, yet when something goes horribly wrong they rarely blame this all-powerful all-knowing being.
It is a ridiculous double standard the faithful hold this fanciful and fickle character.
Yeah, but ancient human beings thought that tree spirits and their ancestors were their God. They consider God in that way, because they could not comprehense and understand real meaning of existance God, however by the time, people became muche smarter and noticed various cases when they felt the support from God. For each of people has got their own view about God who always support and help him/her.
... from what you're saying I find it hard to believe you have "became muche smarter"
There is nothing more complex about your faith than about theirs. If anything it's simpler, just one god, believe in him you go to heaven don't you go to hell.
Other religions at least you have to do stuff. I find yours boring.
If you're going to tell tall tales about all powerful beings, why not make it interesting? Zeus with thunder, Loki playing tricks. Giant turtles holding up the earth. These are imaginitive and fun. If you must believe in silliness, believe in something cool.
I don't agree with you. The existense of God is possible, and in some cases it's exact. For example, a lot of prophecies from sacred books of religions came in true. For instance, from a history of Islam, we know that in sixths year after Prophet Muhhamad was forced to migrate from Mecca to Medina, he teturned to Mecca with his companions, who protected them for praying. And it was written in Quran before this.
There's not a shred of evidence a single word of any holy book of any religion ever came to pass. That a bunch of people all agree with one another "yeah, it happened" - does not make it so. There has never been evidence.
I mean, there's never even been circumstantial evidence. Literally the only "proof" of any of it is the holy book itself. No recovered journals from the period, no historical notes, nothing.
Actually, that's completely untrue. If you're looking for just regular evidence that anything in any holy text came to pass, you'll find a mountain. Just take the time and look it up. For example, the man Jesus did exist, as proven by several documents written in the time period and found in non-religious texts. The man Mohammed actually existed to, as evidenced through much of the same methods. So there's your argument killed right there. All I need to prove is one instance where something in a holy text actually happened, and you're wrong.
Just take the time and look it up. For example, the man Jesus did exist, as proven by several documents written in the time period and found in non-religious texts.
Citation please. You'll find this to be completely false with just a little research. Nothing exists about Jesus from that time period outside of the Bible - which incidently is not from that time period either.
If you're looking for just regular evidence that anything in any holy text came to pass, you'll find a mountain.
Harry Potter has Mountains, so does Lord of the Rings. Since they have mountains and we have mountains, both stories must be talking about the same mountain therefore must be true - See how ridiculous that sounds.
All I need to prove is one instance where something in a holy text actually happened, and you're wrong.
Ironically that is almost word for word the definition of a fallacy. Even so however, you just think you've proven me wrong because people go around saying "oh yeah, jesus existed blah blah" You'll find no proof of it though. You've been lied to from a very young age and accepted that lie as truth so it's hard to wrap your head around the fact, he likely never existed.
Why No?? There is a lot of Books of contemporaries of Prophets. Also there is a lot of evidences that prophecies really came true. I think you should find and read them.
Yes, I agree with you. Belief in God is located in the heart of people since birth. We should believe in God, because first of all it presents different feelings. For exmple, hope. In my opinion it's very important feeling, which saved millions of life. And only belief presents hope.
If you believe that "[e]very culture throughout history has been convinced that there is a higher power", then how would you compare them to cultures that did not believe in a higher power to see which one has better outcomes?
I support the idea that people should have one belief.
wow - sounds like a terrible idea. luckily we didn't all lock in on one belief while we thought the earth was flat and the center of the solar system, etc.
wow - sounds like a terrible idea. luckily we didn't all lock in on one belief while we thought the earth was flat and the center of the solar system, etc.
Why is that a terrible idea? If you logically look at all the beliefs only one of them can be true. By the rules of logic, if one is true the others are false. You can make the claim that you think they are all false but then you support the idea that your belief is true and the others are false so you're really in the same boat. That DOES NOT mean that you shouldn't be tolerant but tolerance does not require that you accept everything to be true.
People should not try to hold a monopoly on "the truth." I am a firm believer in doing your own research and coming to your own conclusions.
That said, you can ask your question about anything. Why is our current belief that humans are causing global warming true? Some data seems to suggest it, but it is not clear. I like to use almost a scientific method towards figuring out which best fits the facts. What makes the most sense... If I take the Big Bang as the beginning of the universe, what would have caused it to happen? Does it make sense that it just randomly popped into existence for no reason? Ok, so that makes me believe there is a Creator. Now that I think there is a Creator, what idea makes the most sense? Because our Universe is finite (at least according to the most recent scientific data) that rules out Pantheism and etc. because if the Universe is God, how can it bring itself into existence? Ok, so what best explains the idea of an all powerful, timeless, immaterial, and personal Creator? From all the research I've done on my own I believe Christianity best fits the evidence that we have.
You don't get to just say, "Ohhh but who is to say our current belief is even close" and give up. Could you imagine if scientists did that? Make no mistake, I am entitled in saying that only one can be true because ALL of the ideas conflict with each other. Unless you provide some sort of hypothesis that could be true (with some sort of evidence anyways) that refutes all of the current ideas while being true itself then you are not being very helpful in the discussion.
That is not what I'm saying. I'm saying only one of the beliefs can logically be true. Ironically enough you tell me that people should not believe in God but this in itself is your attempt to make a truth claim is it not? I'm merely saying:
1.) Only one of the religions can be true (I consider atheism a religion)
2.) You should not try to force your truth on people, however that does not mean that you can't have an intelligent discussion about it with someone and present your arguments.
If god is an excuse to hold one or more beliefs/values that are off limits as far as your willingness to reconsider and reevaluate it/them then I would say no.
If god is a reason to ALWAYS leave room for doubt about the adequacy of your own or someone else's understanding, or if you think god=love, then I suppose it can be good to "believe in" god.
To my mind our life on the Erth is a kind of test. God testing us for belief in Him. There are a lot of religions, including paganism, but we understands that creator is one.
I worry about beliefs like that. I once heard of a woman who decided to kill her children because she believed that to do so was doing them a favor, sending them to a better place. She drowned them.
Most people I've talked to that profess a belief in god, also profess to believe that a pleasant (and better) afterlife awaits those who god favors. Are you saying this is an abnormal belief among theists?
We should just live doing good things...
Each person decides for themselves what good things are. That lady who drowned her kids took a commonly professed belief to it's ill-logical conclusion. She looked at the world that her kids were facing, and perhaps thought "I am willing to go to hell to make sure my kids don't have to grow up in this hopelessly evil place".
If she believed that she was ending their lives entirely, I doubt as a mother she could have brought herself to do that.
It's abnormal belief I think. I don't talk about belief in God among people who have problrms with their head. I'm talking about people, who are normal and believe in God.
Most people have problems with their head, and god is their opiate.
Life is messy, it can be difficult to deal and if you ask most religious people where they would be without their belief in their god, they will usually tell you a very bad place. The women who drowned her children wasn't that abnormal form your normal church goer, perhaps 1 or 2 standard deviations more crazy than the others and likely in a bad environment which amplified her crazy.
i think, people should believe in God. i think, it is stupid to think that the God does not exist, because then who created us? i think, you have to first of all answer to this question, after that you can say that people should not believe in God.
i think, it is stupid to think that the God does not exist, because then who created us?
A. Why do you automatically assume there is an intelligence behind it?
B. Even if there was intelligence behind creation, how does that tell us anything else about the number or nature of intelligences involved?
C. Numerous aspects of our creation have, in fact, been answered satisfactorily without invoking intelligence or omnipotence.
D. Even if there is not satisfactory explanation available, why MUST it be answered by this time? If there is not strong evidence to support an explanation, than we should not be forced to provide an answer simply for the sake of providing an answer. We should keep investigating.
A. Why do you automatically assume there is an intelligence behind it?
Why do you automatically assume there is none? I find there to be some pretty good arguments to support it. You'll have to explain to me what sounds more probable.... The Big Bang happened on its own accord by no cause what-so-ever or the Big Bang had a specific cause. If you accept that the Big Bang has a specific cause then you necessarily need to accept that the cause is a personal, uncaused, beginningless, changeless, immaterial, timeless, spaceless, enormously powerful, and enormously intelligent being via the Kalam cosmological argument.
B. Even if there was intelligence behind creation, how does that tell us anything else about the number or nature of intelligences involved?
The same properties above. That said you will rightly notice that it does not necessarily describe God on its own but it is used as more of a cumulative case for Him.
C. Numerous aspects of our creation have, in fact, been answered satisfactorily without invoking intelligence or omnipotence.
Really? Is that why scientists really have no idea as to how life began on Earth? Is that why we have to invoke a multi-verse with absolutely no evidence to support it because we just can't accept that our universe had a first Cause in order to exist? Even if you don't believe in God I don't think you can say that any of these questions have been satisfactorily answered.
D. Even if there is not satisfactory explanation available, why MUST it be answered by this time? If there is not strong evidence to support an explanation, than we should not be forced to provide an answer simply for the sake of providing an answer. We should keep investigating.
I would agree that investigation should still continue but for me it seems like everything we discover about our universe and origins pushes us more and more towards a Creator.
I don't. I don't automatically assume anything until the evidence is in. But when I hear the old "WHO created everything" argument, I am left wondering why we would look for a "who" when so many of the phenomena we have observed to this point have never required one.
If you accept that the Big Bang has a specific cause then you necessarily need to accept that the cause is a personal, uncaused, beginningless, changeless, immaterial, timeless, spaceless, enormously powerful, and enormously intelligent being via the Kalam cosmological argument.
No you don't. You don't have to accept anything about it until you have a method of determining its nature, which we do not currently. One thing to keep in mind is that time may not flow as linearly in all scenarios as we are used to observing it, which can throw typical understandings of the order of it all right out the window. Also, the "first cause" could have ceased to exist when the universe was created. Or our universe could just be like a "seed" or "air bubble" inside of something larger, and the "first cause" of that something is unknowable until we know the nature of what that something even is.
Meanwhile, the Kalam CA has been attacked for centuries for multiple reasons, but the most glaring is that the premise and the conclusion deny each other. If we truly accept that there is nothing that did not have a first cause, then we can never reach the conclusion. If we accept the conclusion, than the premise is obviously false, and certainly doesn't tell us how many uncaused causes there could be or anything else about them.
Is that why scientists really have no idea as to how life began on Earth?
This is a false statement. We have numerous theories concerning abiogenesis, including a step-by-step method for creating protobionts that are susceptible to natural selection in the types of environments that we could expect find in undersea volcanoes. There are other viable theories as well. None have been fully confirmed as yet, but to say we have "no idea" hasn't been true for about a century. Also, you are perpetuating the notion that just because we don't know something now, it cannot be known without invoking the supernatural, which is illogical.
Is that why we have to invoke a multi-verse with absolutely no evidence to support it because we just can't accept that our universe had a first Cause in order to exist?
Actually we don't have to. Some physicists choose to, and in quantum physics there is indeed mathematical evidence to support the notion, but it is hardly a requirement.
Even if you don't believe in God I don't think you can say that any of these questions have been satisfactorily answered.
I said "numerous", not all. We may not know what caused the Big Bang, but we know what its effects were. We have a very viable explanation for the formation of elements, great understanding of the chemistry that brings those elements into complex compounds, we get how solar systems can be formed, we understand multiple methods of reproduction and adaptation....etc. etc. So yes, numerous questions concerning how it is possible for us to exist have been answered satisfactorily and without invoking intelligence or omnipotence.
I would agree that investigation should still continue
Which seems to be defied by your previous statement concerning our knowledge of how life formed on Earth.
but for me it seems like everything we discover about our universe and origins pushes us more and more towards a Creator.
I am not convinced that you have suitable knowledge of what we are actually learning about the universe and its origins to make such a statement. You also seem to pull your thought processes short in defense of your prior biases.
The question is not whether or not God actually exists, it's simply whether people should believe in Him, which could be re-worded as "Would it be beneficial for human society if human beings believed in a higher power?". I definitely believe so. Disregarding the fact that I DO personally believe in God, the simple idea is beneficial in the way that it promotes charitable and humane actions in believers that are inspired by the literary works associated with the religion. This has been seen countless times on the individual level. The problem is when that very message is twisted and perverted by influential men seeking their own personal advancement (the Crusades, Holocaust, KKK, etc). So to sum up, believing in God is a perfectly sound practice. Just be on guard for those who seek to manipulate that belief.
Religion isn't defined as a system of belief which promotes charitable and human actions. Claiming that those religions or religious sects that do not do such are "perversions" is a defence mechanism of the religious.
Religion causes less independent thought, by replacing a persons own experiences by a standard document as their standard of decison. Group think, rarely has been a positive thing for human society.
Further more, the method of religion propagation is relient upon insecurities. It is common in many religions to have a sense that humans are evil or not good enough by nature, and that we have a need for approval by a higher being. This makes it easy for some to "manipulate" the belief in god, by taking on the postion of intermediary between the higher being and the people.
Those amongst other reasons are why religious belief in god should be lacking.
However, ritual is an important aspect of our lives, as are methods of reflection,meditation and so forth. Humans are also social beings, and developing a social connection with the universe is important for our health as well. Thus belief in a non-religious god may very well be beneficial. Pantheism is one option that would be very beneficial for human society.
Religion isn't defined as a system of belief which promotes charitable and human actions.
I think you would agree that everyone without exception, operates by a system that's not fashioned entirely independently, but rather with a great deal of help from, and influence by others. This belief/value system is necessarily desire/aversion and experience based. It is always fashioned with the aim of bringing about desirable conditions. The most effective ones are used by those who recognize the value of considering other peoples perspectives.
Ancient thought processes, continue to develop and evolve as they take root in each new generation. Regarding your claim that "religion causes less independent thought" That very statement is apt to cause "less independent thought" It promotes the reader to regard religion in an overly generalized way as if there could be no such thing as a religion that values wildly diverse, and highly individualized thought. Since the statement that "Group think, rarely has been a positive thing for human society" is conspicuously lacking of any statement(s) that might logically support it, I will just call bullshit. :)
the method of religion propagation is relient upon insecurities.
Any effort at propagating anything is based on feeling insecure about how well things will turn out without enough active concern.
It is common in many religions to have a sense that humans are evil or not good enough by nature, and that we have a need for approval by a higher being.
It's nice to read a comment that addresses a specific variety of religious belief, as opposed to just another blatant over-generalization about religion. As I understand it you are describing the practice of worship. As I see it, the practice of worship can be propagated just fine even among the ostensibly non-religious.
This makes it easy for some to "manipulate" the belief in god, by taking on the postion of intermediary between the higher being and the people.
It's rather impractical to worship non-existent entities now isn't it?
Those amongst other reasons are why religious belief in god should be lacking.
I am curious to read an explanation of how you logically distinguish a religious belief from a non-religious belief.
However, ritual is an important aspect of our lives, as are methods of reflection,meditation and so forth. Humans are also social beings, and developing a social connection with the universe is important for our health as well.
So in other words having religion is OK as long as we use some other words to describe whats going on!? I find plenty of people share the same attitude about worship. They don't mind being worshipful types, they just take issue with the term god.
Pantheism is one option that would be very beneficial for human society.
I think our definitions of religion are different.
Religion, as i am using the term; involves current thought having a strong reliance on previous thought, such that current thought is restricted by previous generations ideology. Discordianism, a religion in the more general sense that you seem to be using, is one that encourages independent thought. however, in the popular mindset it is at least questionably, if not obviously not, a religion. Btw, I consider myself a discordian, hail ERIS!
yes, my statement on group think did lack support in my previous argument; however i believe the truth of the statement is rather apparent. Most scientific and technological advancements have been or involved deviations from accepted theory of the time; for example calculus involves infinitesimals which are philosophically dubious in that their analogous to the smallest number greater than zero. Such a number does not exist due to the infinate amount of values between any two values on the real number line(ie, infinitely divisible values). Yet calculus is a tool or technology that has allowed for much progress. There are numerous other examples I could conjure up which show how deviating from the common form of thinking has lead to great advancements, which never would of been reached otherwise. I can also mention how group think leads towards negative phenomenon as well, many of which I am sure you are familiar with so I won't waste your time unless you ask.
lets assume you are skeptical of how anything can be concluded from a contradiction. if I present an argument convincing you that it is such, would you of accepted the conclusion based on an insecurity or on the merits of the argument presented?
Worship is more general than what I was describing, I was specifically referring to the spread of an inferiority complex that many forms of religion in general, and all forms of religion used in the specific sense i am using, depend on. In many cases this inferiority complex is their life blood, without it the corner stone to the entire religion would be missing.
There are many practical benefits to worship, irregardless of the existent of that which is worshiped. It releases stress, similar to meditation, but also posses a social aspect that helps form a sense of community as well.
Before I distinguish a religious belief from a non-religious one, We should first have an operational definition of religion correct? what would you suggest, both in general and in the specific way I am using the term. I would like to know what you think so that I may tailor my attempts at a definition to your world view.
Pantheism, discordianism, modern day satanism, pastafarianism, church of the subgenius, cthulhu etc all possess many positives of religion, in the specific sense, without many of the negatives. Such as useful rituals, ways of connecting, and so forth, but without such inferiority complexes and the psychological manipulation towards dogmatism which seems so common in the more popular religions(in the general sense).
I think our definitions of religion are different.
Regarding how I understand and define religion, I'd be thrilled and honored to have any logical inconsistencies you may notice pointed out to me.
Religion, as i am using the term; involves current thought having a strong reliance on previous thought, such that current thought is restricted by previous generations ideology.
Such restrictions I suppose can be minimized to an extent. I don't however think they're entirely inescapable or escapable. Adequate identification of a limitation is necessary in order to develop the skill to transcend it.
Discordianism, a religion in the more general sense that you seem to be using, is one that encourages independent thought. however, in the popular mindset it is at least questionably, if not obviously not, a religion.
~laughs~ I enjoyed reading about Discordianism. Seems to me that if I read enough, I find more and more of these original ideas of mine aren't (paraphrasing I forget who) so original after all.
Btw, I consider myself a discordian, hail ERIS!
word.
Most scientific and technological advancements have been or involved deviations from accepted theory of the time
Not to disagree, but ideologically I would argue, the deviations did not require reinvention of the wheel so to speak.
lets assume you are skeptical of how anything can be concluded from a contradiction. if I present an argument convincing you that it is such, would you of accepted the conclusion based on an insecurity or on the merits of the argument presented?
I suppose both...
Worship is more general than what I was describing, I was specifically referring to the spread of an inferiority complex that many forms of religion in general, and all forms of religion used in the specific sense i am using, depend on. In many cases this inferiority complex is their life blood, without it the corner stone to the entire religion would be missing.
Interesting. The way I understand it, worship is the resulting behavior of an inferiority complex.
There are many practical benefits to worship, irregardless of the existent of that which is worshiped. It releases stress, similar to meditation, but also posses a social aspect that helps form a sense of community as well.
I think our definitions of worship are different.
Before I distinguish a religious belief from a non-religious one, We should first have an operational definition of religion correct?
Sure. I'd like to call to attention to some specific ways of using the word. (I am not referencing a dictionary, I am telling you how I think so..)One which could readily be replaced by "church" or "sect", and another much more broadly inclusive, which refers to a "reverent practice" integral to the development of an individual's belief/value system. Everyone finds certain things attractive, and certain things repulsive. Everyone embraces and tries to propagate some things, and rejects other things with variant intensity. I once supposed that "Religion consists of those specific philosophical principles that an individual has chosen to live up to and promote." Etymologically speaking, the "lig" in religion has to do with connections or ties. I would concede that these ties can be limiting, conversely however I would argue that they can also be liberating, empowering and inspiring.
what would you suggest, both in general and in the specific way I am using the term.
I would suggest that you be clear as to whether you are referring to a religion or religion itself.
ways of connecting, and so forth, but without such inferiority complexes
I'd love to, but I have never seen such a group congregated. I have heard rumors that it happens.
People should believe in what they believe in. In other words, if you believe in God, believe in him, if you don't, don't. but, please have some conviction in what you believe in!
I like it.... it is simple, to the point;It is also very true. I wonder if anyone ever thinks of it like that, You are really gambling on your belief that you are right. If you think of it in those terms it is very profound. To say that there is no God, no Hell, and no hear after is a huge gamble, you are betting your immortal soul on your belief that you are right... Wow.
I agree that we should all believe in something i don't just believe god exists i know he does. here is my thing if a person chooses to disbelieve then fine its their choice but remember if you are wrong then u lose the option of being giving the ultimate afterlife..
Yes I think they should.As a Christian we know whats right and whats wrong. We believe in a God who died on the cross for our sins and that He rose from the grave. Its the person decision on whether or not to believe in God. If the person does not believe in Him then that is there choice but just to let you know you set your self up for hell because you decided not to believe in Him and go on your own way and not God's way. Which there is one way to get to heaven and that is through Jesus Christ.
i read tht jesus christ had a part of the soul of osiris in a metaphysical book!.and if u dont believe no ones going to hell..your just giving yourself spiritual retrospection and questioning the basis of religion and belief in the most humane way possible and using your brains for once and questioning your faith and how strong is it. if i were to ask you ..make me believe in god...or how do you know god exists? what would you say? would you tell me that im going to hell for not believing ? or would you ask me to read the bible? which again speaks more about karma . its just that we fail to interpret the meaning. think about this...jesus said that "do unto others as you want them to do unto you" or something like that....now dont you think thats the what karma is all about...?
Its up to the person choice to believe in God because God gave us free will on what to believe in. But there is only one way and that is through Jesus Christ. But many people choose not to believe in God and that's there choice.
"Its up to the person choice to believe in God because God gave us free will on what to believe in. "
You clearly have no apprehension of the paradoxical natue of the above statement, do you?
" But there is only one way and that is through Jesus Christ"
And how exactly do we get through him?
"But many people choose not to believe in God and that's there choice."
Ya many people also choose not to beleive in fairies and wicked wizards wondering through the wilderness, there called rational people, maybe someday you'll join us.
Religion isn't a kind of fairy tales. And, for example, if Jesus or Muhammad didn't exist, why nowadays they have a lot of followers. I think we should think about it. And if ou think, that only atheist are rational people, then 80 % of the population are crazy, aren't they?
I think if they were just men, nowadays they wouldn't have a lot of followers. If people follow these people, they would be real Prophets, I think. May be there were some reasons or evidence to believe them
"I think if they were just men, nowadays they wouldn't have a lot of followers"
You can think it all you want. What you are effectively saying is because people beleive they were Gods and have beleived for so long that makes it true, thats very strange kind of logic, wait its not logic is bullshit.
" If people follow these people, they would be real Prophets, I think"
I beleive Jesus was a prophet as well but i also beleive Gandhi was a prophet, i don't beleive either of them had magical powers though.
"May be there were some reasons or evidence to believe them"
Well if all of man's kinds reasoning was contructed on maybes then i sincerely doubt we would have evr reached this level of technological advancement.
say u have a room with 100 ppl. 99 say the apple is an orange. and one says the apple is an apple. and the 99 ppl say tht one person is crazy. now tell me whos crazy? so the same way 80% of the population maybe crazy.
You clearly have no apprehension of the paradoxical natue of the above statement, do you?
I don't understand how its paradoxical. If you believe in God, at least the Christian God, you believe that he gave you free will. With that free will you can either choose to follow Him and love Him back or not.
And how exactly do we get through him?
I would consult your nearest Bible.
Ya many people also choose not to beleive in fairies and wicked wizards wondering through the wilderness, there called rational people, maybe someday you'll join us.
Oh that's right, I forgot that fairy tales have ancient texts that properly depict very specific historic events and people and were written within AT LEAST a couple decades of the actual events, if not earlier. Let's not pretend the Bible is some big fairy tale shall we? If that's truly what you believe then you sorely need to do some research of your own.
"If you believe in God, at least the Christian God, you believe that he gave you free will. With that free will you can either choose to follow Him and love Him back or not."
Yes i know but that presupposes you beleive in God, thus it is paradoxical as the statement is contradicting itself.
"I would consult your nearest Bible."
I meant that from a reducionist standpoint, i know that probablt escaped you but for most it won't.
"Oh that's right, I forgot that fairy tales have ancient texts that properly depict very specific historic events and people"
Actually many myths, legends, and fairy tales have factual bases, just like the bible;-)
"Let's not pretend the Bible is some big fairy tale shall we"
I know enough about the bible to know it deserves to be lumped in with other fairy tales e.g. resurrection of Jesus following the thrid day of his death by cruxifixion, need i say anymore?
"If that's truly what you believe then you sorely need to do some research of your own"
You have no idea what i truly beleive, let me give you a sample. The bible is full of ancient knowledge, this is undeniable, it contains centuries of accumulated wisdom, and should be cherished because of that, but this wisdom should not ever be taken literally, the bible consits of metaphors that are not meant in the literal sense.
Yes i know but that presupposes you beleive in God, thus it is paradoxical as the statement is contradicting itself.
I still don't see the contradiction. If God exists then you have free will. If there is no God, the human being has no free will. He is a robot, whose every action is dictated by genes and environment.
I meant that from a reducionist standpoint, i know that probablt escaped you but for most it won't.
I was just attempting to be funny as you clearly know where I stand :) But seriously there is a ton of awesome reading material I would consult. I've loved all of Lee Strobel's books but probably the best one is Mere Christianity by CS Lewis if you want to know more.
Actually many myths, legends, and fairy tales have factual bases, just like the bible;-)
That's fine, I wouldn't say many I think you could say some. That being said, many of the Biblical events can be tied to ACTUAL events. There is no or at least evidence of alterations of those events.
I know enough about the bible to know it deserves to be lumped in with other fairy tales e.g. resurrection of Jesus following the thrid day of his death by cruxifixion, need i say anymore?
No you don't know enough of the Bible to come to that conclusion. You don't believe in Jesus or believe Jesus was God and therefore you assume the resurrection is ridiculous. Something is a fairy tale because it was made up whereas Jesus' resurrection has historicity to back it up. You may not accept it but let's not pretend it is not the case.
You have no idea what i truly beleive, let me give you a sample. The bible is full of ancient knowledge, this is undeniable, it contains centuries of accumulated wisdom, and should be cherished because of that, but this wisdom should not ever be taken literally, the bible consits of metaphors that are not meant in the literal sense.
I didn't make a comment on what you believe in general, merely pointing out I believe that what you think you believe of the Bible I believe is wrong. The Bible does have some sayings and metaphors that aren't literal but it does have a lot of information that should be taken literally. I.e., Jesus existed. Jesus is God. Jesus died so as to open a path for you to be with God. Those are not metaphors. The Bible is not ALL metaphor or ALL literal. When reading it you can usually tell but during the times you can't it is always a good idea to consult someone who would be considered an expert on the subject. A lot of times, this means doing independent reading. I would suggest Lee Strobel, Dallas Willard, CS Lewis, and certainly listen to some of the debates that Dr. William Lane Craig has done. If you're looking at the historicity of the Bible I would highly suggest Norman Geisler.
To be honest i think you simply don't want to see the contradiction, the contradiciton is simple, look at your own statement closely this time;
"If you believe in God, at least the Christian God, you believe that he gave you free will. With that free will you can either choose to follow Him and love Him back or not"
You see the bit at the start:"If you believe in God"
Thats what makes it a contradiction, you're effectively saying God gave us the free will to beleive or not to beleive, therefore you can either choose to beleive in him, or not, but if you don't beleive in him in the first place you certainly don't beleive he gave you the free will to not beleive, is it clearer now?
"If there is no God, the human being has no free will"
I actually don't beleive we have free will but free will is a vague term that can be debated ad naseum.
"He is a robot, whose every action is dictated by genes and environment."
Ya that sums it up pretty well.
"That being said, many of the Biblical events can be tied to ACTUAL events."
Ya but they come up short when they try to justify all the magic.
"No you don't know enough of the Bible to come to that conclusion."
How would you know, i went to mass till i was 15, i was educated in a seminary, i think i know plenty about the bible.
"You don't believe in Jesus or believe Jesus was God and therefore you assume the resurrection is ridiculous. "
I assume Jesus was a man, but thats what he was, he was not God anymore than i am, or you are, but the thing is we are God, both of us, we are both God, and so was Jesus.
"Something is a fairy tale because it was made up whereas Jesus' resurrection has historicity to back it up."
So you must also beleive God parted the sea for Moses.
"You may not accept it but let's not pretend it is not the case."
Lets not pretend whats not the case, that some superstituous man wrote the he saw Jesus rise from the dead, come off it, theres no more evidence for jesus rising from the dead than there is of crop circles, they both rely on the testimony of of very unreliable people, they are backed up with no empirical data.
"you think you believe of the Bible I believe is wrong."
Well let me make it clear for you, i don't beleive in magic, and theres a lot of magic in the bible.
"I.e., Jesus existed. Jesus is God"
A prophet named Jesus did exist, he was prbably a great man, but he was a man, was he God, yes i beleive he was God, but i also belevie i am God, and you are God, and everything is God, you get my drift?
". Jesus died so as to open a path for you to be with God"
Why are you so focused on Jesus?
"The Bible is not ALL metaphor or ALL literal"
The bible is all metaphor, anything literal is not meant as a message i.e. people, and places etc.
"A lot of times, this means doing independent reading"
I do intend on reading more of bible but i don't view it in any special light. Thanks for references.
Thats what makes it a contradiction, you're effectively saying God gave us the free will to beleive or not to beleive, therefore you can either choose to beleive in him, or not, but if you don't beleive in him in the first place you certainly don't beleive he gave you the free will to not beleive, is it clearer now?
I don't see it as a contradiction.
Contradiction - A combination of statements, ideas, or features of a situation that are opposed to one another.
I'm not providing a contradiction, I'm providing an IF-ELSE type of relationship. IF God exists, then he gave you free will ELSE God doesn't exist and you don't have free will.
How would you know, i went to mass till i was 15, i was educated in a seminary, i think i know plenty about the bible.
I apologize about reaching such conclusions, I'm just trying to point out that there are many scholars out there who would disagree especially since you're acting like this subject has already been closed. I thought I knew plenty about the Bible as well until I started reading other resources WITH the Bible. Unfortunately all of the translations seem to leave room for interpretation and it helps to search for the scholarly acceptance of what certain things mean.
I assume Jesus was a man, but thats what he was, he was not God anymore than i am, or you are, but the thing is we are God, both of us, we are both God, and so was Jesus.
That's quite the assumption. That's a strange kind of polytheism... Are you Mormon by any chance?
So you must also beleive God parted the sea for Moses.
I believe that God is all powerful and if God is all powerful it surly could have happened. I've also heard of naturalistic explanations of what may have happened there but that's for the individual to come to I suppose.
Lets not pretend whats not the case, that some superstituous man wrote the he saw Jesus rise from the dead, come off it, theres no more evidence for jesus rising from the dead than there is of crop circles, they both rely on the testimony of of very unreliable people, they are backed up with no empirical data.
Some superstitious man certainly did not write this. If you recall, many of the disciples doubted it until they came into direct contact with Jesus. Empirical data doesn't really come into play when you are talking about historical events, otherwise I might ask you to empirically prove that George Washington was the first president.
Well let me make it clear for you, i don't beleive in magic, and theres a lot of magic in the bible.
To each his own.
A prophet named Jesus did exist, he was prbably a great man, but he was a man, was he God, yes i beleive he was God, but i also belevie i am God, and you are God, and everything is God, you get my drift?
Would you mind if I asked for a miracle?
Why are you so focused on Jesus?
That's what Christianity is all about.
The bible is all metaphor, anything literal is not meant as a message i.e. people, and places etc.
So you're saying the metaphorical sayings are metaphorical? The people, places and EVENTS are also literal.
I do intend on reading more of bible but i don't view it in any special light. Thanks for references.
Completely acceptable to start that way. I would check out those other source, they are a fountain of information!
You're saying people can only have no faith in God as long as they fall within the umbrella of God's existence, thats the exact definition of a contradiction, the statement is conflicting, your saying people can choose to beleive or not to beleive because God exists, and allows us to choose whether to beleive or not to beleive. Thats fits the definition you provided perfectly, can you not see that?
"I'm providing an IF-ELSE type of relationship. IF God exists, then he gave you free will ELSE God doesn't exist and you don't have free will."
Thats what you're saying now, thats not what i originally disputed, don't change your statement and then try to claim its what you were saying from the start, your orginal was quite clear, as was srom's i.e.
""Its up to the person choice to believe in God because God gave us free will on what to believe in"
"I apologize about reaching such conclusions, I'm just trying to point out that there are many scholars out there who would disagree especially since you're acting like this subject has already been closed."
I don't belweive it has been closed, far from it, but i refuse to accept that any of the stories in the bible that defy ordinary reality have any real basis exept in the minds of heavily indoctrinated individuals who lived before the age of enlightenment.
"That's quite the assumption. That's a strange kind of polytheism... Are you Mormon by any chance?"
No i am a pantheist but i don't like to categorise myself.
"I believe that God is all powerful and if God is all powerful it surly could have happened."
Well i don't, i take a rational logical positivists view of reality, the parting of the sea is something i coulod never beleive in because it requires faith in supernatural forces, it has no more of a factual basis than most fairy tales or myths, this is not up for dispute.
"I've also heard of naturalistic explanations of what may have happened there but that's for the individual to come to I suppose"
The only kind of truth that can be beleived is objectively veriable truth, that effectively eliminates every supernatural story in the bible.
"Some superstitious man certainly did not write this. If you recall, many of the disciples doubted it until they came into direct contact with Jesus."
You're missing my point completely, were relying on evidence given by people who were already convinced this man was the son of God, i don't beleive it is within the bounds of reality for a man to rise from the dead unless he was not actually dead. My ponit is that there is no evidence for this, you have to beleive the words of men that lived millenia ago, its ridiculous, id be mroe prepared to beleive in crop circles and alien abductions, at least i can interview those me myself.
"Empirical data doesn't really come into play when you are talking about historical events"
Not true. My point is when common sense is applied to the bible it falls flat on its face, other religions (e.g. Hinduism, Buddhism) are not so arrogant in what they purport to have happened.
"To each his own."
Ya exactly, i have reached satisfactory explanations about my own existence without the need to incorporate magic into my beleifs, but fair enough if you haven't.
"Would you mind if I asked for a miracle?"
I don't follow.
"That's what Christianity is all about"
Thats probably the fundamental flaw of Christianity.
"So you're saying the metaphorical sayings are metaphorical? The people, places and EVENTS are also literal."
Im saying that many of the people and places detailed in the bible existed but then Jesus comes in and waves his magic wand, that what never transpired, thats exactly what is not meant to be taken literally.
Your saying people can choose to beleive or not to beleive because God exists, and allows us to choose whether to beleive or not to beleive.
No not really, the phrasing previously may have been poor. I'm saying God created us with free will. With that free will you can either choose to love Him back or not. You're not believing that He exists falls into the "not loving Him back" camp.
Thats what you're saying now, thats not what i originally disputed, don't change your statement and then try to claim its what you were saying from the start, your orginal was quite clear, as was srom's i.e.
That's what I meant to say, sorry for the confusion.
I don't belweive it has been closed, far from it, but i refuse to accept that any of the stories in the bible that defy ordinary reality have any real basis exept in the minds of heavily indoctrinated individuals who lived before the age of enlightenment.
You are free to do so. I personally find it hard to believe that the writers of the Bible would be so meticulous with all of the history they record and then just randomly throw in miraculous events. You have to remember the historicity of the Bible can be traced back to within AT LEAST a decade or two of the original events. At that time, it was not beneficial to be a Christian as you were persecuted and killed so I see no reason they would make this up just to get themselves killed.
No i am a pantheist but i don't like to categorise myself.
I've always thought that was an interesting position which I found contradicting. If "all is one," then there is no ontological space for any kind of diversity, even in morality. The conclusion of that being under pantheism there would be no objective moral values?
Well i don't, i take a rational logical positivists view of reality, the parting of the sea is something i coulod never beleive in because it requires faith in supernatural forces, it has no more of a factual basis than most fairy tales or myths, this is not up for dispute.
The belief or non-belief in these events will stem from your world view, so if you believe the super natural can't happen of course you can't believe in some of these. I will point out however that it seems like you will not believe unless you have empirical evidence of it. It sounds like this is the problem... if there is a super-natural event you cannot empirically prove it because the mere definition of super-natural would imply something which cannot be empirically proven, right?
The only kind of truth that can be beleived is objectively veriable truth, that effectively eliminates every supernatural story in the bible.
I would ask.. Is it an objectively verifiable truth that the only kind of truth that can be believed is non-supernatural?
For this I will defer to the great William Lane Craig:
The first challenge is that religious claims cannot be verified using the 5 senses, and therefore religious statements are objectively meaningless.
Consider the statement “Only propositions that can be verified with the 5 senses are meaningful”. That statement cannot be verified with the 5 senses. If the statement is true, it makes itself meaningless. It’s self-refuting.
You're missing my point completely, were relying on evidence given by people who were already convinced this man was the son of God, i don't beleive it is within the bounds of reality for a man to rise from the dead unless he was not actually dead. My ponit is that there is no evidence for this, you have to beleive the words of men that lived millenia ago, its ridiculous, id be mroe prepared to beleive in crop circles and alien abductions, at least i can interview those me myself.
No I think I understand your point, I just don't accept it. You see if you read the Bible you can clearly see that the apostles were all bummed out because they were just witness to God-in-the-flesh being murdered! They did not completely believe until they were in his presence after he was resurrected.
Although with that being said... I suppose we should ignore Caesar as well? Based on your criteria anyways
Thats probably the fundamental flaw of Christianity.
I would disagree, I see it as its main strength. It was God reaching out to us and giving us a way back to Him.
Im saying that many of the people and places detailed in the bible existed but then Jesus comes in and waves his magic wand, that what never transpired, thats exactly what is not meant to be taken literally.
You keep making truth claims that you can't support. I don't mind if you say "that may never have transpired" but you can't honestly tell me that they DIDN'T transpire as you were not there and there is written evidence showing that these certain events did transpire. You call the writers unreliable but you'll forgive me if I accept their version of the events over yours as they were actually alive when they would have happened.
"No not really, the phrasing previously may have been poor"
Ok fair enough you can change it now if you wish but we both know i was right to call the the initial statement by SROM paradoxical, and we both now you were wrong in thinking it wasn't.
". I'm saying God created us with free will."
Please describe this God to me, waht do you know of him.
"With that free will you can either choose to love Him back or not"
Yes and thats why it was a paradoxical statement as it precludes the belief that God didn't create us, and therefore i don't have to choose to love anyone back as theres nobody to love back. I don't have tosay oh God created me with free will therefore i am choosing not to beleive in him, that negates the entire process of disbeief in a deity, and creates a contradiction. The correct phrasing, the one that actually works without intentionally creating errors goes something like this:
People can choose to beleive God created us with free will, and thus based on that people can either chose to beleive in him or not to beleive in him. This is the Chrisitian point of view, and it becoems a contradciction is you try to assert that is applies to evryone cause it most certainly doesn't what does apply is:
People can chose to beleive God created us, and thus beleive in him, or they can choose to beleive there is no such thing as God, they can completely extricate the very notion of the existence of a higher power from their conciousness, and thus they can live their lives with the knowledge that there is no supernatural entity examining their every move getting really really pissed off with the fact that he's not being beleived in.
"You're not believing that He exists falls into the "not loving Him back" camp"
Yes thats exactly what id expect a person such as yourself to say cause if you even begin to entertain the possibility that your God may not exist as you know him your entire ideology comes crumbnling in around you.
"You are free to do so."
Ya because God gave me the freedom to do so right?
"I personally find it hard to believe that the writers of the Bible would be so meticulous with all of the history they record and then just randomly throw in miraculous events"
I don't find that hard to beleive at all, look at human history, look at what people widely beleived even 80-100 years. If you go back before the age of enlightenment then everyone (even intellectuals) were incredibly superstituous.
"You have to remember the historicity of the Bible can be traced back to within AT LEAST a decade or two of the original events"
Even it thats true it doesn't add any credence to your argument.
" At that time, it was not beneficial to be a Christian as you were persecuted and killed so I see no reason they would make this up just to get themselves killed"
You really are only succeeding in convincing yourself here, its widely known that the vatican re-wrote much of the bible and bestowed jesus with much the supernatural power he is purported to have had.
"If "all is one," then there is no ontological space for any kind of diversity, even in morality. "
No true, i hold the opposite opinion, diversity and novelty are natural expression of the universe and are oberved in eveything observable, the fact that they all have the same orgin doesn't restrict or constrain diversity in the least.
" The conclusion of that being under pantheism there would be no objective moral values?"
Actually your entirely correct(im surprised), i don't subsribe to objective morality in the slightest, i beleive morality is the rsponsibility of the individual. Societies and cultures cannot tell me what is right and what is wrong, i know in my heart what is right and what is wrong.
"The belief or non-belief in these events will stem from your world view"
I agree.
"so if you believe the super natural can't happen of course you can't believe in some of these."
I reserve 100% belief only in what is observed, i like anyone else would like to beleive in other things but if you want to succeed in obtaining truth you must put serious restraints on what can and cannot be beleived in otherwise you end up sitting on a rock saying "wow isn't the universe mysterious"
" I will point out however that it seems like you will not believe unless you have empirical evidence of it"
No it can be of a variety of forms, but it cannot be because i was brainwashed when i was younger into beleiving some man was wondering around waving a magic wand at everything.
"It sounds like this is the problem"
Not necessarily.
"if there is a super-natural event you cannot empirically prove it because the mere definition of super-natural would imply something which cannot be empirically proven, right?"
Correct, thats precisely why supernatual events are hogwash.
"I would ask.. Is it an objectively verifiable truth that the only kind of truth that can be believed is non-supernatural?"
No in the grand scheme of thigns i don't beleive it is but i do beleive it is within the context of our current understanding of the mind, and our capacity to examine the and test the reality with whcih we are presented.
"Bible you can clearly see that the apostles were all bummed out because they were just witness to God-in-the-flesh being murdered!"
It is not beyond the bounds of mankinds biology for a man to die and come back to life(i.e. heart stopping and re-starting), and to behesont he may not have even died, i don't think they knew how to check pulses back then, and that if you go along with the story itself with which im sure plenty of holes could be picked.
"I would disagree, I see it as its main strength"
Well i hold the complete opposite view, jesus was no more Gods son than i am.
"It was God reaching out to us and giving us a way back to Him"
I don't need to follow the narrow path of Christianity to find God, i am God, i simply need to rediscover myself.
"You keep making truth claims that you can't support."
Seriously? Thats rich, you're telling me im making claims i can't support, and then trying to convince me miracles a real, and the God parts the sea for his followers, and all the other absolute hogwash that goes with it, but no im the one maiing claims i can't support.
" I don't mind if you say "that may never have transpired" but you can't honestly tell me that they DIDN'T transpire "
No you are absolutely correct sorry about that, its very easyu to take an absolutist position when your not keeping check on your words. I beleive they didn't happen, and whats more im very sure those events (e.g. 90% degree of certainty) didn't happen but in all homesty they could have happened, there is no way for me to state categorically they didn't happen and i was wrong to do so.
"You call the writers unreliable but you'll forgive me if I accept their version of the events over yours as they were actually alive when they would have happened."
I don't have a version of events i just don't beleive in magic, call me crazy;-)
Please describe this God to me, waht do you know of him.
This is probably a very long conversation.
Yes thats exactly what id expect a person such as yourself to say cause if you even begin to entertain the possibility that your God may not exist as you know him your entire ideology comes crumbnling in around you.
Oh I have entertained the possibility. As you asked before, please don't presume to know how I came to my faith in Jesus and in God.
Ya because God gave me the freedom to do so right?
Yup.
I don't find that hard to beleive at all, look at human history, look at what people widely beleived even 80-100 years. If you go back before the age of enlightenment then everyone (even intellectuals) were incredibly superstituous.
I wouldn't argue that there was a lot of superstition, but I don't think that means you get to disregard anything they would have written down. I assume we should ignore all interesting/unbelievable events that happened before 80-100 years ago because science was not as advanced back then? That doesn't seem like a logical position to me.
Even it thats true it doesn't add any credence to your argument.
I think it does. You can't make the argument that the events described in the Bible were a result of legend because people would have still been alive to refute it! That is a huge!
You really are only succeeding in convincing yourself here, its widely known that the vatican re-wrote much of the bible and bestowed jesus with much the supernatural power he is purported to have had.
Now who's trying to convince themselves? Is there actual evidence of this? Please don't tell me you're getting this from a misunderstanding of the Council of Nicaea?
Actually your entirely correct(im surprised), i don't subsribe to objective morality in the slightest, i beleive morality is the rsponsibility of the individual. Societies and cultures cannot tell me what is right and what is wrong, i know in my heart what is right and what is wrong.
Ahhhh and we get to the Heart of it so to speak. Pardon the pun :) Why do you know what is right and what is wrong? If the Nazi's had won World War II and brain washed the populace into believing the Holocaust was a good thing (i.e., purification of the specifies) is it then a good thing? Objective moral values would hold that the actions of the Holocaust were "wrong" regardless of what you think about them. I believe Objective Moral values exist because you have a standard to measure them against, i.e. God (The absolute Good). If there is no God, there are no objective moral values and then everything is permissible as long as you personally feel what you are doing is "Right." I think this is very dangerous to believe.
Correct, thats precisely why supernatual events are hogwash.
So supernatural events are hogwash because they can't be empirically proven? Could you please empirically prove to me that mathematics exist? Or Logic? Or Science for that matter. Since I'm assuming you can't, does that mean that Science is hogwash?
No in the grand scheme of thigns i don't beleive it is but i do beleive it is within the context of our current understanding of the mind, and our capacity to examine the and test the reality with whcih we are presented.
I don't think you can say yes it is one way.. but no it is another in the same statement.
Seriously? Thats rich, you're telling me im making claims i can't support, and then trying to convince me miracles a real, and the God parts the sea for his followers, and all the other absolute hogwash that goes with it, but no im the one maiing claims i can't support.
I cannot make a truth claim that I know these things to have happened. I can only say that I believe they could have and probably did.
No you are absolutely correct sorry about that, its very easyu to take an absolutist position when your not keeping check on your words. I beleive they didn't happen, and whats more im very sure those events (e.g. 90% degree of certainty) didn't happen but in all homesty they could have happened, there is no way for me to state categorically they didn't happen and i was wrong to do so.
You are quite forgiven, I knew you probably didn't mean to say it that way but you never know with the internet... hard to read between the lines :)
I don't have a version of events i just don't beleive in magic, call me crazy;-)
I wouldn't call you crazy, I would call you pragmatic to a fault :)
"As you asked before, please don't presume to know how I came to my faith in Jesus and in God"
Sorry i was being presumptuous.
" wouldn't argue that there was a lot of superstition, but I don't think that means you get to disregard anything they would have written down"
No just the parts that talk about aparitions, , clairvoyance, conjuring, demons, and in any magical events in general.
"I assume we should ignore all interesting/unbelievable events that happened before 80-100 years ago because science was not as advanced back then?"
Not at all, we should instill a certain level of soubt into the ones that lack seriously credible evidence.
"That doesn't seem like a logical position to me."
Its not, thats why its not my position.
"Now who's trying to convince themselves? Is there actual evidence of this? Please don't tell me you're getting this from a misunderstanding of the Council of Nicaea? "
i don't need to back up my position with history, if i go to a hospital and try to heal a dying man and fail, that tells me all i ned to know about what Jesus was and wasn't capable of doing.
"Why do you know what is right and what is wrong?"
Because i am equippeed with the faculites for judging and the capacity to judge.
"If the Nazi's had won World War II and brain washed the populace into believing the Holocaust was a good thing (i.e., purification of the specifies) is it then a good thing?"
No because any free thinker can realise it was a very bad thing for the people who were subjected to it.
"I believe Objective Moral values exist because you have a standard to measure them against"
No they exist because they must exist.
"If there is no God, there are no objective moral values and then everything is permissible as long as you personally feel what you are doing is "Right."
No, from the persons point of view that may be correct but not that of the society, keep in mind i don't advocate a soceity constructed beleif in a judicial ssytem based on subjective morality, and the only reason it because i cannot envisage how it would function successfully, that does not however require me to accpet objective morality as a the gold standard.
"I think this is very dangerous to believe."
To a certain extent you are right.
"So supernatural events are hogwash because they can't be empirically proven?"
No then are hogwash because the level of doubt that is placed on them is so much greater that effectively invalidates them as thigns that should be taken seriously.
"Could you please empirically prove to me that mathematics exist?"
That is not possible, its about degrees of truth, i am not trying to deny that there is no such things as purely objective knowledge, i am well aware of that, there is an element of personal judgement involved in screening out effects of background noise in all instances, but that does not mean we should not strive for objective knowledge, it may be an unattainable goal but the fundamental axioms upon which mathematics is based are acknowledged as being the closest mankind has ever come to obtaining purely objective knowledge.
"Since I'm assuming you can't, does that mean that Science is hogwash?"
No it means it deserve to be taken seriously.
"I don't think you can say yes it is one way.. but no it is another in the same statement."
You misunderstand, i am taking a hardline position against religion simpyl because i have to, there is no other option for me, i am not going to sit on the fence like an agnostic, i did that enough from the ages of 14-17, but i acknowledge the existence of things whose explanation is beyond the capacity of science as is exists currently, in fact i have experienced some of these phenomena.
"I wouldn't call you crazy, I would call you pragmatic to a fault"
You aere not wrong to beleive in Christianity, or any other religion but i do belevie it is wrong to elevate a man to the status of God, God is everything, and everyone, and this can be experienced thorugh perseverance, many Chrisitians have experienced this but they simply fit it into there own ideology, as do the others there not wrong to do so.
" wouldn't call you crazy, I would call you pragmatic to a fault "
You do not understand my views, my views are all encompassing, i don't exclude any religion from my beleifs, they are all fundamentally the same, please watch this video from the great great master philosopher Alan Watts:
i don't need to back up my position with history, if i go to a hospital and try to heal a dying man and fail, that tells me all i ned to know about what Jesus was and wasn't capable of doing.
I would argue to the contrary. You just claimed that the miracles detailed in the Bible were added after the fact by the Church. That would require some sort of evidence.
if i go to a hospital and try to heal a dying man and fail, that tells me all i ned to know about what Jesus was and wasn't capable of doing.
I believe all that would mean is that you are not in fact equivalent to God or his power.
Because i am equippeed with the faculites for judging and the capacity to judge.
What are those faculties?
No because any free thinker can realise it was a very bad thing for the people who were subjected to it.
That doesn't answer the question. Let's remove any sort of brain washing. I think I can safely say that we can assume that Hitler assume the Holocaust was a great thing. (In fact one might argue that it is the logical end to Darwinism, but I digress) Under the system that you just described to me, this is not wrong because Hitler was attempting to purify the Arian race and thus believed in what he was doing. So the end result is the Holocaust is a matter of personal preference as far as whether it is wrong or not.
No they exist because they must exist.
Wait, didn't you just say you didn't believe in Objetive Moral Values?
No, from the persons point of view that may be correct but not that of the society, keep in mind i don't advocate a soceity constructed beleif in a judicial ssytem based on subjective morality, and the only reason it because i cannot envisage how it would function successfully, that does not however require me to accpet objective morality as a the gold standard.
I hate to hammer the same point.... The Nazi's believed in what Hitler was doing and believed it to be right. You've had countless societies commit attrocities because they believed they were doing the "Right" thing. We're back to this just being a matter of personal preference instead of an Objective Moral Value.
No then are hogwash because the level of doubt that is placed on them is so much greater that effectively invalidates them as thigns that should be taken seriously
Ah yes here is a problem. "Level of doubt" is not something that is objectifyable. That sounds like personal preference to me. "I don't believe because THEY don't believe" is not a logical position to take.
That is not possible, its about degrees of truth, i am not trying to deny that there is no such things as purely objective knowledge, i am well aware of that, there is an element of personal judgement involved in screening out effects of background noise in all instances, but that does not mean we should not strive for objective knowledge, it may be an unattainable goal but the fundamental axioms upon which mathematics is based are acknowledged as being the closest mankind has ever come to obtaining purely objective knowledge.
So... Mathematics and Science can be accepted based soley on personal judgement?
No it means it deserve to be taken seriously.
I'm a little confused. This fails the same standard that you say rules out miracles. Why?
You misunderstand, i am taking a hardline position against religion simpyl because i have to, there is no other option for me, i am not going to sit on the fence like an agnostic, i did that enough from the ages of 14-17, but i acknowledge the existence of things whose explanation is beyond the capacity of science as is exists currently, in fact i have experienced some of these phenomena.
That's interesting. So if you were to detail these phenomena, would you be cross with me if I were to tell you that they didn't happen? After all, no scientific explanation means that it couldn't have happened, right?
You aere not wrong to beleive in Christianity, or any other religion but i do belevie it is wrong to elevate a man to the status of God, God is everything, and everyone, and this can be experienced thorugh perseverance, many Chrisitians have experienced this but they simply fit it into there own ideology, as do the others there not wrong to do so.
I don't think that's true. As pantheism and Christianity can't both be true, then one or both of us is wrong. You can and should be tolerant, as you seem to be with our nice discussion here :) but make no mistake, we can't both be right on this.
You do not understand my views, my views are all encompassing, i don't exclude any religion from my beleifs, they are all fundamentally the same, please watch this video from the great great master philosopher Alan Watts
Logically you have to exclude certain religions however. Christianity and Islam would certainly be excluded and I'm sure there are many others. If Pantheism is true, they are false... likewise if either of them are True then Pantheism is false. You can be tolerant of everyone's belief, but someone is wrong if not everyone (As an atheist would point out)
If I get some free time maybe I will take a peak. With that said, there are certain logical problems that would need to be addressed first. I believe that the universe is not infinitely old, i.e. Big Bang Cosmology. If that is true then I believe Pantheism has quite the hurdle to overcome.... For if the existence of the universe is finite that means that God as you describe Him began to exist, but how can something bring itself into existence out of nothing? Furthmore, if I am God, why am I so stupid, powerless and sinful?
"I would argue to the contrary. You just claimed that the miracles detailed in the Bible were added after the fact by the Church. That would require some sort of evidence."
If i had the time i would find but i don't.
"I believe all that would mean is that you are not in fact equivalent to God or his power."
But i am the problem is we are not bestowed with supernatural powers.
"What are those faculties?"
Everything that i am, everything that i use to interact with this reality, i can judge based on my interaction what way i would like to be treated by others like me, and based on that i know how others would like to be treated.
"That doesn't answer the question. Let's remove any sort of brain washing"
Oh but you see it does simple because you must be brainwashed in some way to deem behaviour of that kind acceptable.
"I think I can safely say that we can assume that Hitler assume the Holocaust was a great thing. (In fact one might argue that it is the logical end to Darwinism, but I digress)"
You could not argue that as i have never seen any evidence claiming the Nazis really were a uperior race, or that Jews were inferior in anyway.
"Under the system that you just described to me, this is not wrong because Hitler was attempting to purify the Arian race and thus believed in what he was doing."
To a madman with a predisposition towards genocide im sure it seemed like a swell idea.
"So the end result is the Holocaust is a matter of personal preference as far as whether it is wrong or not."
No because even though the Holocaust highlighted the horror mankind is capable of unleashing in his fellow man the reality is that thorughout the time span of human history there is mroe evidence of man lving side by side with man in peace and harmony than there is of the opposite, and this i beleive is because peoples personal perferences invariably resolve around self interest for themselves and/or the group which wouldn't accord well with killing oneanother. Its simply not an evolutionary favorable trait to want to kill your fellow man, thats why genes for homocide are not too prominent within the human species.
"Wait, didn't you just say you didn't believe in Objetive Moral Values?"
No i don't but understand why they are needed, at least within the context of our current fucked up society.
"I hate to hammer the same point.... The Nazi's believed in what Hitler was doing and believed it to be right. You've had countless societies commit attrocities because they believed they were doing the "Right" thing. We're back to this just being a matter of personal preference instead of an Objective Moral Value"
No actually were not, what you seem to be missing is the fact that in Nazi Germany under Hitler beleiving Jews and Gipsy's were vermin was an objective moral value, thus people who even knew it was wrong would have had to subscribe to it, you see its quite easy to turn your very argument around on you.
"Ah yes here is a problem. "Level of doubt" is not something that is objectifyable."
NO but its can be based on your perception of objectivity, lets not get too abstract here, ill say right now that if i witness a miracle with my own two eyes then ill chabge my views in a split second but i just find that chances of that happebng absolutely miniscule
""I don't believe because THEY don't believe" is not a logical position to take."
I like the way you have in inverted commas as if i had written those words, i don't beleive in magic i have observed the real magic of the universe and it does not need to be tarnished by tales of fairies, and wizards. I have perceived reality well enough to know that on any given day i can go about my business without possibility of the sea parting, and this is baqcked up by virtually everything i consider to be truly enlightened scholarship.
"So... Mathematics and Science can be accepted based soley on personal judgement"
I r4eally don't know what you are trying to do here, what i am saying is that mathematics has a tiny element of personal judgement as nothing can be perceived without it vbut that in no way leaves the door open for God. Mathematics is the closest the human species has come to true objective knowledge.
"That's interesting. So if you were to detail these phenomena, would you be cross with me if I were to tell you that they didn't happen?"
Not at all, in all honesty they probably didn't happen, in least in as far as we can understand happenings (hope im not being too vague).
"After all, no scientific explanation means that it couldn't have happened, right?"
No it means they don't have a satisfactory explanation, and thus cannot be explained and any attempts to exaplin they without objectively veriafable evidence should be met with severe scepticism.
"I don't think that's true. As pantheism and Christianity can't both be true"
I think they can to be honest, i panthiesm is compatible with all religions, the vast majority of religions are not exclusionist in their teachings, and i don't have to beleive in Christianity in the way that you do, beleiving in Chrisitianity as you do requires me to isolate myself from all other religions and requries doublethink whenever science comes into conflcit with it, and it reqiuires wholehearted belief in utterly irrational and illogical events.
"You can and should be tolerant, as you seem to be with our nice discussion here :) but make no mistake, we can't both be right on this."
Yes you're right thats why i beleive you are wrong.
"Logically you have to exclude certain religions however. Christianity and Islam would certainly be excluded and I'm sure there are many others. If Pantheism is true"
Not really, both fo these religions fit nicely into the umbrella of panthiesm, once you understand what it really is you begin to realise that.
"likewise if either of them are True then Pantheism is false."
No the truth is that saome of their teaches just need to be latered, panthiesm is not false, and lifewise both fo those religion (for the most part) are not false.
"You can be tolerant of everyone's belief, but someone is wrong if not everyone (As an atheist would point out)"
It depends on what you mean by wrong, i am tolerant but i beleive the majority of most religous scriptures are hogwash if interpreted literally, i would agree with an athiest on everything he would say, the problem is he would take it too far.
"i.e. Big Bang Cosmology. If that is true then I believe Pantheism has quite the hurdle to overcome"
I more or less what from a person who has no clear understnading of it.
"For if the existence of the universe is finite that means that God as you describe Him began to exis"
Godn is both existence and non-existence which are two sides of the samke coin, existence and non-existence are inseparable, like birth and death, male and female, yin and yang.
"Furthmore, if I am God, why am I so stupid, powerless and sinful?"
Because you are playing a game with yourself, and it wouldn't be much fun if you knew you were God.
Everything that i am, everything that i use to interact with this reality, i can judge based on my interaction what way i would like to be treated by others like me, and based on that i know how others would like to be treated.
So we've established again... your faculties are personal preference which differ from human to human.
You could not argue that as i have never seen any evidence claiming the Nazis really were a uperior race, or that Jews were inferior in anyway.
'master race', was a concept in Nazi ideology in which the Nordic peoples, one of the branches of what in the late-19th and early-20th century was called the Aryan race, represent an ideal and "pure race" that was the purest representation of the original racial stock of those who were then called the Proto-Aryans,[1] themselves believed by the Nazis to have prehistorically dwelt on the North German Plain and ultimately to have originated from Atlantis.[2] The Nazis declared that the Nordics (i.e., the Germanic peoples) were the true Aryans because they claimed that they were more "pure" (less racially mixed with non-native Indo-European peoples) than other people of what were then called the Aryan peoples (now generally called the Indo-European peoples), such as the Slavic peoples, the Romance peoples, the Iranian peoples, and the Indo-Aryans.[3] Claiming that the Nordic peoples were superior to all other races, the Nazis believed they were entitled to world domination.
As you can see, they truly thought they were the superior race which is how they justified genocide. So my point stands. They believed they were doing the "Right" thing. The concept of Objective Moral values would mean that they were still doing the wrong thing even though they had justified it and thought they were doing the right thing.
To a madman with a predisposition towards genocide im sure it seemed like a swell idea.
Hitler did not have some predisposition towards genocide. This came from the above belief that his race was superior than those around him, as I demonstrated above.
No because even though the Holocaust highlighted the horror mankind is capable of unleashing in his fellow man the reality is that thorughout the time span of human history there is mroe evidence of man lving side by side with man in peace and harmony than there is of the opposite, and this i beleive is because peoples personal perferences invariably resolve around self interest for themselves and/or the group which wouldn't accord well with killing oneanother. Its simply not an evolutionary favorable trait to want to kill your fellow man, thats why genes for homocide are not too prominent within the human species.
I don't really think this answers anything of my point. One can clearly see that there are obviously less people that are being murdered than not and this is not really a relevant point. Besides, one might argue that your above statement really only applies to the current times.
No i don't but understand why they are needed, at least within the context of our current fucked up society.
I would argue our current society is "fucked up" because people are being brain washed by the media to believe... "Ohh what's right is what you think is what's right for you. No one is 'wrong' they are just different than you." This moral relativism is what is wrong with society (or at least a big part of it).
No actually were not, what you seem to be missing is the fact that in Nazi Germany under Hitler beleiving Jews and Gipsy's were vermin was an objective moral value, thus people who even knew it was wrong would have had to subscribe to it, you see its quite easy to turn your very argument around on you.
Wait, above you just said that the Nazi's did not consider themselves superior to the Jews. That aside, I don't think you understand what Objective Moral values mean. You are not turning my argument around on me, you are further strengthening it! An Objective Moral value is something that is independent of what the Nazi's thought. Them believing the Jews and Gypsies were "vermin" is a SUBJECTIVE moral value, which under your belief system is permissible because that is what their faculties tell them is true. An Objective Moral value in this case would mean that what the Germans were doing was WRONG even though they subjectively thought they were RIGHT. So my original question stands. If the Nazi's had won the World War and dominated the world, would their actions then have been right?
NO but its can be based on your perception of objectivity, lets not get too abstract here, ill say right now that if i witness a miracle with my own two eyes then ill chabge my views in a split second but i just find that chances of that happebng absolutely miniscule
ob·jec·tive/əbˈjektiv/
Adjective:
(of a person or their judgment) Not influenced by personal feelings or opinions in considering and representing facts.
As you can see by definition (or at least what I'm talking about) is things that are not influenced by personal feelings or opinions. So there is no "perception" of objectivity for that would mean that it is not objective and is self-refuted by the definition above. If I may paraphrase what you said, "It can be based on your personal feelings of objectivity." A self-refuting statement no?
I like the way you have in inverted commas as if i had written those words,
I wasn't trying to put words in your mouth, I was merely trying to paraphrase your point. Points do not always come across properly over the internet and I apologize about that.
I r4eally don't know what you are trying to do here, what i am saying is that mathematics has a tiny element of personal judgement as nothing can be perceived without it vbut that in no way leaves the door open for God. Mathematics is the closest the human species has come to true objective knowledge.
I'm only trying to point out that you have unfair standards for judging the supernatural. The same reasons you exclude the supernatural, or God if you like, exist for things that you accept. So if that's true, your disbelief is just a matter of choice. Which made me think of another point. If the universe came into being and was not eternal, then it required a supernatural event. I say that because before the universe existed there was no space, time, natural laws, and etc. So by definition, a "super natural" event had to happen in order for the universe to exist. Would you disagree with that assessment?
Not at all, in all honesty they probably didn't happen, in least in as far as we can understand happenings (hope im not being too vague).
That is a little vague but that's ok :)
No it means they don't have a satisfactory explanation, and thus cannot be explained and any attempts to exaplin they without objectively veriafable evidence should be met with severe scepticism.
It is not completely bad to meet those kinds of things with skepticism. That said, can't we say the same thing about the Biblical accounts? There is no satisfactory explanation? Prior to this you were telling me that these things DIDN'T happen because you don't believe in magic. I would say I am still sometimes skeptical of certain events recorded in the Bible, but that doesn't mean you get to dismiss them as false.
I think they can to be honest, i panthiesm is compatible with all religions, the vast majority of religions are not exclusionist in their teachings, and i don't have to beleive in Christianity in the way that you do, beleiving in Chrisitianity as you do requires me to isolate myself from all other religions and requries doublethink whenever science comes into conflcit with it, and it reqiuires wholehearted belief in utterly irrational and illogical events.
In the words of Highlander, "There can be only one!" You can't believe in the main aspect of Christianity differently than I do for then you would not believe in Christianity. That main aspect was Jesus and who he claimed to be and what he claimed to do. If you deny that, then you don't believe in Christianity and thus Christianity and Pantheism are not compatible because one denies the nature of the other.
Yes you're right thats why i beleive you are wrong.
Excellent! I'm tired of hearing this, "We can all be right" BS that is put out by modern media. You can be tolerant but still think someone is wrong. For the record, I think you're wrong too :)
Not really, both fo these religions fit nicely into the umbrella of panthiesm, once you understand what it really is you begin to realise that.
As I explained above, they would not fit nicely.
It depends on what you mean by wrong, i am tolerant but i beleive the majority of most religous scriptures are hogwash if interpreted literally, i would agree with an athiest on everything he would say, the problem is he would take it too far.
No no no, don't back pedal. Stand with your previous statement where you said you thought I was wrong. I believe an atheist would say you are going to far :) They would call Pantheism hogwash. At least for Christianity you have texts and scriptures for evidence. There is no such thing for Pantheism. Although now that I'm thinking about it, this is a very weird position to take on your end. You believe in Pantheism, which I would argue is a supernatural belief because you can't empirically prove this to be true, but you disagree with Christianity which is a super natural belief that has evidence (whether you disagree with it or not is another matter, but its there).
I more or less what from a person who has no clear understnading of it.
I'm not sure I follow. Are you saying I, which is backed by the current scientific data, have no clear understanding?
Godn is both existence and non-existence which are two sides of the samke coin, existence and non-existence are inseparable, like birth and death, male and female, yin and yang.
That's cute and symmetrical but doesn't answer the question. What caused non-existence to become existence? Are you saying that non-existence willed itself into being existence?
Because you are playing a game with yourself, and it wouldn't be much fun if you knew you were God.
Oh I don't know about that. I love to use cheat codes in video games to become all powerful and I'm sure I'm not the only one. But that aside, why am I playing a game? Why not just be God without this charade? Is God just bored?
"So we've established again... your faculties are personal preference which differ from human to human."
I suppose i simply beleive that there exists within all people the capacity for good, and that capacity for good is more prevalent than the capacity for evil in the way we express ourselves.
"Really?"
You misunderstand, what i meant was i am unaware of any tangible evidence that gives credence to the views espoused by the Nazis.
"As you can see, they truly thought they were the superior race which is how they justified genocide. "
I know but this relied soley on their twisted ideology, not on any real evidence.
"They believed they were doing the "Right" thing."
Thats why faith in an ideology is such a dangerous thing.
"The concept of Objective Moral values would mean that they were still doing the wrong thing even though they had justified it and thought they were doing the right thing."
No it really doesn't and im surprised you think so, objective morality applies to a certain society, and its prevailing culture, the culture in Germany under the Nazis would have condoned their behaviour based on the objective morality they subscribed to, thats the problem with objective moral vlaues, they are not universal or multicultural, in fact that are the opposite of mutlicultural, they act as a barrier between cultures.
"Hitler did not have some predisposition towards genocide."
Any human can have a predispostion towards genocide in the right circumstances, it all depends on ones psychological state.
"This came from the above belief that his race was superior than those around him, as I demonstrated above."
I am, and was well aware of this.
"I don't really think this answers anything of my point. "
I could say the same of your source and quote.
"Besides, one might argue that your above statement really only applies to the current times."
I don't beleive so, then again im not an expert historian but from i do i know i beleive the statement is applicable over the time span of human history.
""Ohh what's right is what you think is what's right for you."
I really don't agree, and i think the emergence of secular humanism in the 19th and 20th centuries effectively refutes this point.
"No one is 'wrong' they are just different than you." This moral relativism is what is wrong with society (or at least a big part of it)."
I think morals are more uniform than you suggest, there is a collectivised concensus on what is and isn't appropriate behaviour in every soceity, and thinking things would be better if those morals weren't as flexible is in opinion a fallacious, and can easily be rfuted by considering the persecution and horros that were inflicted on people who strayed from what was deemed the "moral path" in the past in societies when morals really were quite inflexible.
"Wait, above you just said that the Nazi's did not consider themselves superior to the Jews. "
No you misunderstood me, im actually quite surprised you thought i didn't think the Nazis considered themselves superior to the Jews as anyone who knows anything about WW2 knows that was the case, what i was aying is that there eisted no real scientific evidence supporting their claims.
"An Objective Moral value is something that is independent of what the Nazi's thought."
Not necessarily, i beleive that objective moral values are shaped by the environment, and are open to change, and this is clearly demonstrated across the broad spectrum of muna cultures that have existed and currently exist, you seem to be subsribing to the view that they are universal, and thus fixed in time, i have heard of this before and i do not beleive it is the correct interpretation.
"hem believing the Jews and Gypsies were "vermin" is a SUBJECTIVE moral value,"
Subjective moral values apply to the individual, they imply that every individual has his/her own conception of what is right and wrong, this was definitely not the case in Nazi germany, quite the opposite, thats why i beleive your own argument works against you.
"An Objective Moral value in this case would mean that what the Germans were doing was WRONG even though they subjectively thought they were RIGHT. "
Can you not see the prblem here, you are using the word subjective but applying it to anyone who subscribed to Nazi ideology.
"If the Nazi's had won the World War and dominated the world, would their actions then have been right?"
No, even if the entire world beleived objectively that they were morally right, my subjective conception of morality would never allow me to think that they were acting morally.
"If I may paraphrase what you said, "It can be based on your personal feelings of objectivity." A self-refuting statement no?"
It would be if i wasn't trying to tell you that your perception of objectively morally is incorrect.
"I'm only trying to point out that you have unfair standards for judging the supernatural. "
And what standards do you think are fair? Belief in anything that relies soley on faith, that cannot be proven, or tested, and verfied by anyone is in my opinion a redundant personaly philosophy.
"So if that's true, your disbelief is just a matter of choice. "
Everthing is a matter of choice, you seem to be attempting to make these systems of belief equivalent in their validity this i do not agree with.
"If the universe came into being and was not eternal, then it required a supernatural event."
By that logica everything from supernovas to the birth of children are supernatural events, i think it is more logical to beleive they are natural events given the wealth of scientific evidence supporting that claim. You seem to be suggesting that because science cannot explain what transpired prior to teh big bang we must therefore resort to a supernatural explantion but it is quite obvious (to me at least) that if that kind of reasoning was aapplied we would never even discovered the big bang.
"So by definition, a "super natural" event had to happen in order for the universe to exist. Would you disagree with that assessment?"
If you inist on calling it supernatural then im not going to argue as i can present no explantion to the contrary but agin that kind of thinking is not how scientists discovered the reality of the big bang or our place within the universe, or pretty much everything science has discovered.
"I would say I am still sometimes skeptical of certain events recorded in the Bible, but that doesn't mean you get to dismiss them as false."
There is always an element of doubt in everything we dismis as false because there is no such thing as absolute truth or pure objective knowledge but circumstance dictates that ideas, and theoies that cannot be verified analytically should be discarded as useless ideological baggage, if however objectively verifiable scientific evidence sheds light on the truth of theories that weren't up until then deemed supernatual then those theories will quickly become scientific orthodoxy. Science adjusts its views based on reality, it is a self correcting system of understand, and can be summed up as a best guess answer based on available evidence, religion is not.
"You can't believe in the main aspect of Christianity differently than I do for then you would not believe in Christianity."
You are right but i beleive in the truth of its metaphors.
"That main aspect was Jesus and who he claimed to be and what he claimed to do. If you deny that, then you don't believe in Christianity"
Then i don't belevie in Christianity but i also don't think its as rigid as you are suggesting.
"nd thus Christianity and Pantheism are not compatible because one denies the nature of the other."
This isn't entirely correct but i will acknowledge that there are fundamental differences, and they are in no way completely compatible.
"For the record, I think you're wrong too"
I have't doubted that for a second.
"Stand with your previous statement where you said you thought I was wrong"
I do beleive you are wrong, you couldn't be more wrong if you tried.
"They would call Pantheism hogwash."
No they definitely wouldn't call it hogwash they would say it relies too heavily on a natural feeling of connectedness with ones environment but they would acknowledge how close the philosophy is to their own views, i dare say they would even beleive it more logical than agnosticism. Naturalistic panthiesm has gained widespread acceptance among atheists, even Richard Dawkins referred to it as "sexed-up" athiesm.
"At least for Christianity you have texts and scriptures for evidence."
Words written by men are meaningless to me, i could write my own scripture and it would have just as much validity as the one you worship from.
"There is no such thing for Pantheism. "
Panthiesm is as much a state of being as it is understanding but agin you seem to be pigeon holing me into this pathiest box from which i cannot escape, as i said at the beginning i really do not like categorising my views, i mentioned panthiesm because it is the philosophy that best describes them, i could have equally said spiritual athiesm but you would have said as an athiest that this is too vague a categorisation.
"You believe in Pantheism, which I would argue is a supernatural belief because you can't empirically prove this to be true, but you disagree with Christianity which is a super natural belief that has evidence"
Its impossible not to feel bigger than what you are when you have a comprehension of the scientific realities that bind us to our existence. You can try to qualify this as supernatural if you wish but i can assure no one else would. With regard to "evidence", i do believe it has anymore credibility than a book i write claming i am the son of God.
"(whether you disagree with it or not is another matter, but its there)."
Again whether you beleive in my bible claiming im the son of God or not, its there.
"What caused non-existence to become existence?"
Im sorry but this just seems so ridiculous to me, as humans we can only think linearly, therefore we interpret events naturally in a linear fashion, nothing can exist without non-existence, existence is a function of relationship. The state of existence implies non-existence, it is impossible to know one without the other, this is not something that be interpreted using causality. You cannot have something without nothing, this is a nonsense argument.
"Are you saying that non-existence willed itself into being existence?"
No i am saying that there is no difference between them.
"But that aside, why am I playing a game? Why not just be God without this charade? Is God just bored?"
This is probably my biggest problem with the thiestic God i.e. an omnipotent being that can be thought of as having anthropomorphic qualities
I suppose i simply beleive that there exists within all people the capacity for good, and that capacity for good is more prevalent than the capacity for evil in the way we express ourselves.
I believe this to, however I believe that this exists because we were created by a God who is the standard for Good. Otherwise, why else would this good exist? Pure chance?
You misunderstand, what i meant was i am unaware of any tangible evidence that gives credence to the views espoused by the Nazis.
Ah ok. Yes I wouldn't think there is any evidence to support the Nazis were truly superior. That said, that doesn't mean they believed it any less.
I know but this relied soley on their twisted ideology, not on any real evidence.
Doesn't matter. They thought they were doing the right thing.
Thats why faith in an ideology is such a dangerous thing.
Faith in an ideology which can not stand up to scrutiny and discussion is a dangerous thing.
No it really doesn't and im surprised you think so, objective morality applies to a certain society, and its prevailing culture, the culture in Germany under the Nazis would have condoned their behaviour based on the objective morality they subscribed to, thats the problem with objective moral vlaues, they are not universal or multicultural, in fact that are the opposite of mutlicultural, they act as a barrier between cultures.
You could not be more wrong here. I gave you the definition of what "Objective" means in my previous post. If you tie Objective Moral Values to a society then they are not objective anymore, they are subjective of that society. Objective Moral Values ARE universal and independent of personal preference. That's what I'm saying. I would argue not murdering an infant would be an Objective Moral Value. What that means is that, if you are in a society that thinks it is ok to murder an infant you are still WRONG even though your culture tells you its right. You need to understand what Objective Moral Values are before we can continue in this discussion.
Not necessarily, i beleive that objective moral values are shaped by the environment, and are open to change, and this is clearly demonstrated across the broad spectrum of muna cultures that have existed and currently exist, you seem to be subsribing to the view that they are universal, and thus fixed in time, i have heard of this before and i do not beleive it is the correct interpretation.
Again as I pointed out above, this is not what Objective Moral Values are. Think of it this way. We've discovered some Objective fact in a scientific experiment. What if I said, "Oh no that is subject to change and is dependent on each individual experiment." Doesn't sound right does it?
Subjective moral values apply to the individual, they imply that every individual has his/her own conception of what is right and wrong, this was definitely not the case in Nazi germany, quite the opposite, thats why i beleive your own argument works against you.
Again, above I've described them again. Subjective Moral Values would apply to a society or an individual. Objective Moral Values are independent of both.
Can you not see the prblem here, you are using the word subjective but applying it to anyone who subscribed to Nazi ideology.
Yup. As explained above.
No, even if the entire world beleived objectively that they were morally right, my subjective conception of morality would never allow me to think that they were acting morally.
With this statement you are coming close to agreeing with me finally :) Even if the rest of the world thought that killing infants were OK, it would not be OK. That's because you sense an Objective Moral Value independent of what people and societies say. You sense this because God has written these laws on your and everyone else's hearts.
By that logica everything from supernovas to the birth of children are supernatural events, i think it is more logical to beleive they are natural events given the wealth of scientific evidence supporting that claim. You seem to be suggesting that because science cannot explain what transpired prior to teh big bang we must therefore resort to a supernatural explantion but it is quite obvious (to me at least) that if that kind of reasoning was aapplied we would never even discovered the big bang.
You misunderstand. And no those events are not similar to what I'm saying. Time and Space BEGAN to exist at the moment of the big bang. Whatever CAUSED the big bang to happen exists outside of time and space and thus by definition is a supernatural event. See what I'm saying?
can be summed up as a best guess answer based on available evidence, religion is not.
I find the ID movement to be very compelling so I would disagree with this point.
Then i don't belevie in Christianity but i also don't think its as rigid as you are suggesting.
Jesus says it pretty clearly:
"I am the way, the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father, except through me." John 14:6
If you don't accept Jesus for who he says he is, then you are in conflict with Christianity.
Words written by men are meaningless to me, i could write my own scripture and it would have just as much validity as the one you worship from.
I wouldn't think so. These were inspired words written by inspired men during the time of Jesus Christ. You certainly not would have any validity because you have no corroborating evidence in philosophy, science, history, and etc for your personal work.
Its impossible not to feel bigger than what you are when you have a comprehension of the scientific realities that bind us to our existence. You can try to qualify this as supernatural if you wish but i can assure no one else would. With regard to "evidence", i do believe it has anymore credibility than a book i write claming i am the son of God.
What would you qualify it as then? The belief in a God, pantheistic or not, is a supernatural belief.
Im sorry but this just seems so ridiculous to me, as humans we can only think linearly, therefore we interpret events naturally in a linear fashion, nothing can exist without non-existence, existence is a function of relationship. The state of existence implies non-existence, it is impossible to know one without the other, this is not something that be interpreted using causality. You cannot have something without nothing, this is a nonsense argument.
I think you misunderstand my point. A pantheistic God would have been created at the time of the Big Bang because nature is God and etc. What created Him/It? My question is how can a Pantheistic God will itself from non-existence to existence?
No i am saying that there is no difference between them.
One is the opposite of the other, how is there no difference?
This is probably my biggest problem with the thiestic God i.e. an omnipotent being that can be thought of as having anthropomorphic qualities
You are the one who was implying it wouldn't be "fun" to know that we are God. I think that is applying the same concept is it not?
"Otherwise, why else would this good exist? Pure chance?"
Evolutionary biology and group psychology, people are good to oneanother beause genes for being good to oneanother were selected given the evolutionary advantage they provided.
"Faith in an ideology which can not stand up to scrutiny and discussion is a dangerous thing."
No i don't beleive in the value of any ideology to be honest.
"I gave you the definition of what "Objective" means in my previous post"
And i told you that your definition may well be flawed, objective morality as a theory is still very widely debated among a range of academics within a broad range of fields and disciplines.
In truth what you are doing is taking that definition and stretching it to suit your interpretation as far as it will go when in reality the definition itself is debatable.
I happen to agree with a growing concensus among evolutionary theorist's that these objective moral vlaues evolve over time within different cultures, and societies.The notion that there exists universal moral values is something i have trouble beleiving.
"If you tie Objective Moral Values to a society then they are not objective anymore"
Yes they are, maybe not to an outsider but to the soceity thsoe are their objective moral standards, this in my mind is the onyl way morals can be even considered objective, please stop playing semantics, different objective moral values can exist within different cultures
e.g. in thailand touching someone on the head is deemed very bad, and highly insulting, in India if you were to slaughter a cow you may well end up being slaughtered yourself, the punishment would be very severe indeed.
Now you can argue that these are subjective if you wish but many of them have been evolved over time based on the behaviour and ideology of the societies, and are the accepted norms of behaviour which all people in thiose soceities must conform to, if objective moral values exist at all, this is how they exist.
"Objective Moral Values ARE universal and independent of personal preference. That's what I'm saying."
I know, and im saying you're wrong in many cases, there are some morals that are universal to all societies, and if you want to call these objective fair enough i will not argue but i don't beleive the lines of demarcation are as clear and fixed as you make out. Personally i don't beleive any morals are even objective because there is no such thing as pure objectivity(as i already pointed out), even those morals that you would argue are universal to all have been circumvented in the past. Now the morals the Nazi party subsribed to was their standard of objective morality, from our perspective it was subjective but not definitely not from theirs, thats my point.
"I would argue not murdering an infant would be an Objective Moral Value"
Yes thats a very good one, not murdering infants would be genetically programmed into all of us has it harms the propagation of our species.
"if you are in a society that thinks it is ok to murder an infant you are still WRONG even though your culture tells you its right"
A soceity that had that as an subjective/objective moral standard would not have lasted very long at all, and thats why we have no recollection of them if they ever existed because they deselected themselves from the gene pool, i have no doubt large groups have existed with subjective moral views as twisted as this but over time this harmed the population, and thus this behaviour did not last.Again though to them, those were their objective moral values.
"You need to understand what Objective Moral Values are before we can continue in this discussion."
I understand what you take the defintion to mean, i just don't accept the way you view them, i don't really think objective morals in the way you understand them really exist.
"We've discovered some Objective fact in a scientific experiment. What if I said, "Oh no that is subject to change and is dependent on each individual experiment." Doesn't sound right does it?"
No it does not but the interpretation of human ethics is not comparable to a scientific experiment.
Im telling you right now that your view that objective moral values are universal, and fixed in time and space is suspect, and many would contest it.
"Subjective Moral Values would apply to a society or an individual."
That is true but to the scoety holding them they woudl not be viewed as subjective.
"Yup. As explained above."
I accept that my interpretation was not as refined as your own, the fact is though what you would call group subjective morality, i would call objective morality, and what you would call objective morality i would argue simply doesn't exist.
I should have realised that from the beginning.
"That's because you sense an Objective Moral Value independent of what people and societies say"
No its because i am programmed that way, i don't really think you can argue these values are in everyones hearts because they are clearly not in mnay peoples hearts.
"Whatever CAUSED the big bang to happen exists outside of time and space and thus by definition is a supernatural event. See what I'm saying?"
I understand perfectly, the problem is while i agree with you 100% on that it doe not vindicate your beliefs.
"I find the ID movement to be very compelling"
This consists of a bunch of very intelligent creationists so indoctrinated that they devoted their time and effort into coming up with sophisticated alternative theories to existence that are based heavily in science in order to justify their religion, i don't want to get into a big argument about so ill just that i couldn't disagree more and leave it at that.
"If you don't accept Jesus for who he says he is, then you are in conflict with Christianity."
If Jesus actually said those words then he was truly a very egotistical man, i don't subscribe to Christianity, or Islam but they are tolerant religions, and i don't views myself as being in conflcit with them, and i beleive in some of their teachings, as i said they have very powerful metaphors.
"I wouldn't think so. These were inspired words written by inspired men during the time of Jesus Christ"
You see all i take from that is: "these were words written by men during the time of another man was alive"
"You certainly not would have any validity because you have no corroborating evidence in philosophy, science, history, and etc for your personal work"
Could you please explain what scientific evidence exists that proves any of the irrational beliefs you hold.
"What would you qualify it as then? The belief in a God, pantheistic or not, is a supernatural belief."
You have to understand i don't beleive in a personal God, even the name is redundant, i prefer the universe or simply existence, beleiving is this is not a supernatural belief. I simply beleive that their are exist forces of which i have no intellectual understanding, because if this i glorify these forces in a way that no hardcore atheist would, but just because much of our existence is not readily explicable via science it doe not give you the right to say i hold beleifs that are supernatural, name one thing i beleive that could be called a supernatual belief?
Any athiest would recognise that my views are much more akin to his own, while any theist would recognise the opposite as im sure you have, this has been demonstrated by the vatican denouncing pantheist on many occsasions.
"I think you misunderstand my point. A pantheistic God would have been created at the time of the Big Bang because nature is God and etc"
No this is simply rubbish, im sorry but we simply have to qualify what we mean by God before we move on, i beleive in existence, and reality, that is my God, i use the term God because people know exactly what i mean when i do, otherwise i would simply use existence, now the notion of existence being created is not comprehensible so me, the big bang is simply the current limit of scientific understanding, it cannot be used as an argument for thiesm, and more importantly is cannot be used as an argument agaisnt panthiesm. Existence comes from non-existence, they are same thing so to suggest that first you have one, and then the other is ridiculous, please watch the following video for further clarification:
"What created Him/It? My question is how can a Pantheistic God will itself from non-existence to existence?"
We are nothing, but by the same token everthing comes from nothing.
"What created Him/It? My question is how can a Pantheistic God will itself from non-existence to existence?"
The notion of something being willed into existence from non-existence is simply doesn't make sense.
"One is the opposite of the other, how is there no difference?"
Nothing can be percieved without a background, without existence as a background we could not comprehend non-existence, and vice versa, one manifests the other, in the same way that thiesm gave birth to athiesm, there was no such beleif as theism in millenia gone by, and thus there was no athiesm to counter it. To be honest they were probably more rational in their religious beliefs than most are today.
"You are the one who was implying it wouldn't be "fun" to know that we are God."
Thats because there isn't anyway of comprehending God, we are what we are, our perception is extremely limited, this is one of the main reasons theism came into being.
"I think that is applying the same concept is it not?"
Yes because crude analogies and metaphors are the best that can be done when trying to describe existence, it is beyond human description.
Could it be possible that God itself is the metephor for "something we don't understand"?
"something we don't understand" created an earthquake and shook the earth
"something we don't understand" caused a giant (but local) flood
"something we don't understand" causes disease
"something we don't understand" sends fiery rocks from the sky
"something we don't understand" makes lightning and wind and thunder
"something we don't understand" made that mountain spew lava
As we have come to learn about platetechtonics, bacteria and viruses, the climate, volcanoes and asteroids, etc. God/"something we don't understand" has diminished. And while some people are still inclined to credit God for the things we still don't understand, others realize that "something we don't understand" is only that, and we should continue researching and reaching for understanding rather than just calling "something we don't understand" a God...
We have to believe that Jesus was the Son of God and that He died on the cross for our sins,and that He rose from the dead. Also we have to live His way for the rest of our life. Thats how we can go through Him
We have to believe that Jesus was the Son of God and that He died on the cross for our sins,and that He rose from the dead. Also we have to live His way for the rest of our life. Thats how we can go through Him
Why do we have to believe in that? Will I die if I don't? Will I go to jail? Oh I know! I'll go to a magical fairyland under the earth where the devil tortures me for eternity (I mean, despite the fact that I am DEAD so I can't feel anything anyway...kinda seems pointless, doesn't it?). Nah I'm happy being a 'non-believer' thank-you-very-much.
You don't have to believe in Jesus. God gave us free will to choose what ever we want to believe. If you don't believe in Jesus than you go to hell the only way to get to heaven is believing in Jesus Christ for the rest of your life and living His way. Just to let you know your setting your self up for hell because you choose not to believe in Jesus so your setting yourself up for hell not God. You wanted your way and not God's way.
"If you don't believe in Jesus than you go to hell the only way to get to heaven is believing in Jesus Christ "
Thats what you beleive, i beleive if i don't beleive in Jesus i won't be shackled with a ugly ideology, and ill get to spend this breif moment i have alive on this earth enjoying myself and trying to determine the true nature of reality, and truth
without having to put all my faith in a book written by men before the age of enlightenment.
"believing in Jesus Christ for the rest of your life and living His way"
But there are multiple different froms of Christianity, if i an catholic is that also "his way" ?
"Just to let you know your setting your self up for hell "
Thanks for the heads up bud;-)
"not to believe in Jesus so your setting yourself up for hell not God."
Thats it keep saying it like a mantra, get it right into that noggin.
did u know that jesus belonged to a sect called the essenes and that he spent his hidden years learning numerology and astrology .....and what he meant by following his path was not literally going and staying all sad and mourning and not for the rest of your life. he showed us a way how to live... and he was a great man ..and he also said that we can do what he did, as in magic and etc. and its not like we have to believe he is the son of god. we can chose to believe what we want ...its the church which made not believing a taboo cause they needed to propagate Christianity in the past.
Ironically, I can argue that if we humans have free will, then God does not exist.
One version of the argument against the existence of God is as follows. If God is time-less as proposed by the most prominent Christian theologian St. Thomas Aquinas, then God timelessly knows a choice (let's call this "choice A") that a human would claim to be making "freely". If "choice A" is in the timeless realm, then it is now-necessary that A is decided. If it is now-necessary that A, then A cannot be otherwise (because this is the definition of "necessary" - that there are no actual possibilities due to predestination). According to the Principle of Alternate Possibilities, if you cannot do otherwise when you act, you do not act freely. Therefore, when you do an act, you will not do it freely. Thus, since humans have free will, there cannot be a timeless entity that exists. Ergo, God does not exist.
The second version of this argument is from Dan Barker, a former pastor.
1. God is defined as a personal being who is omniscient (and also omnipotent and morally perfect).
2. Personal beings have free will. (by definition)
3. In order to have free will, one must have more than one option, each of which can be avoided. Meaning, before one makes a choice, there must be a state of uncertainty during a period of potential, i.e. you cannot know the future. Even if you think you can predict your decision, if you claim to have free will, you must admit the potential and/or the desire to change you mind before the decision is made.
4. A being who knows everything can have no "state of uncertainty". Thus, it knows its choices in advance.
5. A being that knows its choices in advance has no potential to avoid any of its choices. Therefore, such a being would lack free will since its choices are pre-known and thus cannot avoid any of them.
6. Since a being that lacks free will is not a personal being, a personal being that is omnipotent (i.e. knows everything) cannot exist.
7. Ergo, God does not exist.
There. Two arguments from free will against the existence of God. I have given sufficient logical arguments against the existence of God. Until you show both of these arguments to be illogical without a shadow of doubt and give sound and logically coherent arguments of your own, we have to accept that God does not exist.
Sure. God can exist as an idea, figure, or simply a symbol. Whatever people want to be believe, they 'should' do so. I don't see how anyone has the right to say someone shouldn't believe in something. God as a omnipotent, omnipresent deity may not exist, but that doesn't mean that people shouldn't believe everything that God represents.
well beliveing in god does one good thing a person goes to a right path or good path he fears that if went to bad path god will punish him so it help a human to be a good human
Yes you should . Think of this if he doesn't exist you won't loose anything from believing in him. But if he does exist you can avoid any punishment that would come from not believing. It is always best to cover ones bases.
I wish I could change my dispute to a support, I thought you were replying to another argument of mine at first. Any ways, due to the plethora of potential gods, there really is no "safe" religious position.
we should believe in God, because we were created by God... and the Darwin's theory, I think is wrong because it is impossible logically how we can created by monkeys during a lot of time... I believe in God, and belief in God make me stronger...
God is out there watching us and helping us.Anyone who doesn't believe is wrong if you read the bible or something you will know he is real so get some common sense!
how do u know whats right and whats wrong ?...for a murderer killing in his eyes would mean that he is right ..deciding whats wrong and right is arbitrary..and who doesn't believe is not wrong..its just that in the non-believers eyes he is right..and if u read the "bible or something" it only tells god exists ..but never answers who created god ?...
This is just incoherent. The belief in the Christian God is that God is the source of all good. God is the standard. God cannot be evil because that would be against his nature and thus there is nothing arbitrary here.
As for your last question:
In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth (Genesis 1:1)
This verse tells us that God was acting before time when He created the universe. Therefore, God has no need of being created because He created the time dimension of our universe . Because Cause and Effect only exist in the dimension of time, cause and effect would never apply to His existence.
Behind every person and item whether it is unknown or other otherwise there is a belief. When someone sees or hears something which they cannot identify with their own experiences they instantly scrutinize it. If people were all the same they would all possess the same beliefs. The one thing we all share is our own need for self-destruction. Mankind can find justification for any act no matter how deplorable, big or small. Pan out with your imagination from the place you are and imagine the world, brilliant and blue spinning in the cosmos, steadfast in its resolve to be perfect and different from the rest of the solar system with its life and death. Now bring yourself back down to earth with all the people living on earth and remember why you’re alive. Your life began with an accident; your conception was one-in-a-million mathematical chance and your death will most likely be one to. People hang onto beliefs to give themselves meaning, so they won’t feel like an accident. Why is this illusion of self-importance so necessary? People think they are messengers from god, think they can make the world a better place through genocide and science, and believe that art, poetry, religion, and the realm of the imagination can save them from their accident. All this bravado, noise and entertainment are distracting. It’s like too much icing on the cake or too many toppings on a cheeseburger. It’s sickening. There is no purpose or reason behind anything on this earth. No grand scheme like you would like to believe. Conspiracy theories are another farce to give the human race importance. They’re beliefs just like everything else. What would happen if everyone, one day, just decided to stop believing? No one would aspire to do anything human; we would all be animals, driven by our own instincts not needing hobbies, jobs or toppings on our cheeseburgers. People need purpose and that’s what beliefs give them, a reason to live that is. We’re too smart to just migrate from place to place in search of food and shelter like the animals, too dumb to stop killing each other over differences and most certainly too lazy to stop ourselves. We must share the burden of belief in concert with one another.
yes people should believe in God and yes God does exist. he dies on the cross for our sins to be forgiven.but even before that he \s a miracle worker like raising the dead , making the blind see , curing people, of disease then and now that could not and cant be cured God is amazing we should all believe in him
How do you know? And please don't say because you read it from a piece of paper.
"he dies on the cross for our sins to be forgiven"
How do you know this?
"but even before that he \s a miracle worker like raising the dead ,"
No such things ever happened, dead people are dead, and nobody has the power to bring them back to life beleiving in such fanciful notions is deterimental to your own deveopment.
"now that could not and cant be cured God is amazing we should all believe in him"
The reason these thigns cannot be cured now is because they could not be cured then, you have been fed what are commonly referred to as lies about what Jesus was and wasn't capable of doing, if someone gave me the chioce of being treated by a man who claimed to be the son of God, and being treated in hospital i know which ill be choosing, call me crazy;-)
know i read a book that book is the bible , try reading it sometime it will help widen ur views on jesus.how do i know God existsthrew my beilief and faith and no dead people arent just dead iff read the bible God brought people from the dead there is no way to convence u just read the bible ur a skepticread for ur self
", try reading it sometime it will help widen ur views on jesus"
I have read substantial portions of it, i was educated in a seminary, and was rasied as a catholic so i do feel i am reasonably knowledgeable, but i do plan to give some in depth study when i have time.
"do i know God existsthrew my beilief and faith"
Well you see thats the problem with faith, it requires faith.
"and no dead people arent just dead "
Im sorry i have ti disagree, they are just dead, try starting up a chat with one like were having, i can gaurantee it will prove very difficult, all one way traffic if you know what i mean.
"iff read the bible God brought people from the dead"
Well all i can say is the human race would probably have gone extinct already if everyone beleived everything they read.
"there is no way to convence u just read the bible "
As i said i am no stranger when i comes to the bible i just view its contents in a less undiversified and immutable manner.
that is a n understandable opinion but its not true how do u explain doctors brining people wh are legally dead back to life and like urself iam very educated as well how explain all the sign that have happen like us in california having a tornado God said their will catatropihes in diffrent places to mark the end of days and since ur catholic u have 70 books of the bible we as chrstian we have 67 so u should know this i know jesus exist and im not changing that
"that is a n understandable opinion but its not true how do u explain doctors brining people wh are legally dead back to life "
In those instances the person was not fully dead or they were dead for a very short period of time (e.g. maybe their hearts had stopped for a few minutes), in these instances tested medical procedures for getting you heart strated again which are based on sound scientific knowledge of human physiology were applied.
"how explain all the sign that have happen like us in california having a tornado God "
Random events of nature, the reasons for this chaos can be explained scienticically why would you need ascribe supernatual powers to the root causes of natural disasters?
"said their will catatropihes in diffrent places to mark the end of days "
People have been predicting this for a long time, and theres not scientific evidence that gives any credence to the belief that it is going to happen now, or in the not too distant future.
"and since ur catholic u have 70 books of the bible we as chrstian we have 67 "
I was a catholic when i was younger (about 14), events in my life made me question my faith and i became agnostic, around the same time i started studying science which brought me around to athiesm, and then i have became a panthiest, of all the beliefs i have held in my life catholicism was the most irrational.
" i know jesus exist and im not changing that"
I don't expect you to, i beleive Jesus existed as well, and i also beleive he was the son of God, but i also belevie i am the son of God because we are all children of this existence, i don't beleive in supernatural powers, i don't beleive in anything that isn't supported by credible and objectively verifiable evidence, and it would take an event of biblical proportions to make me change my mind.
Fact 3.) he died on the cross and there was witnesses
Fact 4.) the tomb they put him in was found empty yes that is a fact in the history books it was found empty they dint say he came to life but it was found empty.... o look at fact 3 again then read the next fact.
Fact 5.) there where witnesses of seeing Jesus with his disciples
Fact 6.) Christianity exploded where this all took place, (so that means people saw all this go down and was changed and became a follower of Jesus Christ.
Finlay Fact 7.) the body of Jesus has never been found even when searched for back then and some still look to this day....
my thoughts.) if his body was never found after he said this was all going to happen before it even did, then saying he will leave and come back for us.... ya it just makes to much seance to not believe that. thats just some historical FACTSSSS that prove this there are many more through out the bible......
nothing in the bible has been pr oven wrong or a lie yes they may say its all lies or believe its just made up but no one can prove it wrong. and yet we have facts
"Fact 3.) he died on the cross and there was witnesses
Fact 4.) the tomb they put him in was found empty yes that is a fact in the history books it was found empty they dint say he came to life but it was found empty.... o look at fact 3 again then read the next fact"
Seriously, thats all it tkaes for you to beleive in devine resurrection? Hey i got some great volcano insurance to sell ya.
"Fact 5.) there where witnesses of seeing Jesus with his disciples "
You know just because you say something is a fact it doesn't make it so, why not provide some evidence for this so called fact i bet you'll run into trouble then, oh wait no you'll just post some bible verses, how convincing.
"Fact 6.) Christianity exploded where this all took place, (so that means people saw all this go down and was changed and became a follower of Jesus Christ."
If everyone had your power of logical reasoning i dare say we'd still be clubbing ourselves to death with bones.
"Finlay Fact 7.) the body of Jesus has never been found even when searched for back then and some still look to this day...."
Zonbee Jesus:-O
"thats just some historical FACTSSSS that prove this there are many more through out the bible...... "
Ya you better run and get these explosive facts published you'll completely vindicate Christianity, and disprove all those foolish scientists and rationalists.
"nothing in the bible has been pr oven wrong or a lie yes they may say its all lies or believe its just made up but no one can prove it wrong. and yet we have facts"
Science also can't prove anything in Grimm's Fairy Tales to be false.
People should believe in God if that makes them feel more secured and satisfied or more happy. People have their choices. They can believe in God. The only problem is that it becomes an obsession. There has to be a solution for that now. But, the solution is not, not believing in God!
I strongly believe that there is God and people should also believe in God. Many people who believe that there is no God in the world think that it is just a sort of legend and is a fiction. However, if we study or do research about a certain religion, we could realize that there is God and it affects our lives. When I go to church the first in my early twenties, I was also one of them who don't believe in God. And yet, after I was taught by my pastor about the evidences that proves the fact that God exists such as Noah's ark. Also, other historical records are corresponded with the content of bible. Also, unlike others' general belief, the bible is not about just ancient history, but it includes many of what we should keep in mind for our lives. I also got many instructive messages and I often reflect on myself, reading bible because there are many sayings that the God have reproached toward human. It's not only instructive but also interesting like history book. For the reason, I think people should believe in God.
One clever professor once asked a student at the university is an interesting question. Professor: God is good? Student: Yes. Professor: And the Devil is good? ... Student: No. Professor: That's correct. Tell me son, is there evil in the world? Student: Yes. Professor: Evil is everywhere, is not it? And God created everything, right? Student: Yes. Professor: So who created evil? Student: ... Professor: On the planet there is ugliness, arrogance, disease and ignorance? All it is, right? Student: Yes, sir. Professor: So who created them? Student: ... Professor: Science says that a man has five senses to explore the world around them. Tell me, son, have you ever seen God? Student: No, sir. Professor: Tell us, did you hear God? Student: No, sir. Professor: Have you ever felt God? I tried it taste like? Smelled it? Student: I'm afraid not, sir. Professor: And you still believe in him? Student: Yes. Professor: Based on the conclusions of science can claim that there is no God. You can do something to counter this? Student: No, the professor. I only have faith. Professor: That's it. Faith - is the main problem of science. Student: Professor, does cold exist? Professor: What's the matter? Of course there are. Have you never been cold? (Students snickered at the young man's question) Student: Actually, sir, cold does not exist. In accordance with the laws of physics, what we consider cold is in reality the absence of heat. A person or object is susceptible to study that it has or transmits energy. Absolute zero (-273 degrees Celsius) is the total absence of heat. All matter becomes inert and incapable of reaction at this temperature. Cold does not exist. We have created this word to describe how we feel if we have no heat. (The audience hung silence) Student: Professor, does darkness exist? Professor: Of course there is. What is night if not dark: Student: You are wrong again, sir. Darkness does not exist. Darkness is in reality the absence of light. We can study light, but not darkness. We can use Newton's prism to break white light into many colors and study the various wavelengths of each color. You can not measure darkness. A simple ray of light can break into the world of darkness and illuminate it. How can you know how dark a certain space is? You measure the amount of light present. Is not it? Darkness is a term used by man to describe what happens in the absence of light. Now tell me, sir, there is death? Professor: Sure. There is life and there is death - the reverse side of it. Student: You are wrong again, Professor. Death - this is not the flip side of life, is its absence. In your scientific theory appeared serious rift. Professor: What you are doing, young man? Student: Professor, do you teach students that we are all descended from monkeys. You have observed the evolution of your own eyes? Professor shook his head with a smile, knowing what would follow the conversation. Student: No one saw this process, which means you are more a priest, not a scientist. (The audience exploded with laughter) Student: Now tell me, is there anyone in this class, the professor who saw the brain? I've heard it, smelled it, touched it? (Students continued to laugh) Student: It seems that no one else. Then, based on scientific facts, we can conclude that the professor is not the brain. With all due respect to you, Professor, how can we trust what you say in class? (The audience hung silent) Professor: I think you should just trust me. Student: That's it! Between God and man there is a connection - it is FAITH! Professor sat down. The student's name was Albert Einstein.
Of course, everyone has his own views on religion. But I know many people who found new faith in a time when no one could hope, and when there was someone to believe in and it was very bad. I want to say that everyone should believe in God because he is always with us.
What's to argue? ?????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????
Each person decide it for himself - believe in God or not believe. For those who believe much He exists, but fo those who do not believe he does not exist.
Person got a habit always to base on his 5 senses because they are prooved by sience and he can not believe for 100 % in things that he can not feel, touch, hear...
And what about theory of ideas? In fact ideas have no limit, but everything that exist now in our everyday life in the begining was an idea.
I think that it is better for people not to know answers for some questions for the balance. If any side(pro or con) will proove that God exists or not exists, the filling of one bowl on scales will devastate another bowl and chaos will begin in our world.
I believe that there is some type of higher power. Even though i don't believe in the bible or the quran or any other religion, i do believe that some higher power(god) create this universe. Also when i read near death experiences, i truly think that there is an afterlife.
To know the God must necessarily. Knowledge strengthens faith. A faith without knowledge is blind and weak. But to know him, do not necessarily see it. There are many things that we do not see, but know that they are. For example, air, electricity, radio waves and the like. We do not see them, but the knowledge of them to escape us, that they exist and no one doubts their existence.
WHAT THE HELL IS WRONG WITH YOU PEOPLE? OF COURSE PEOPLE SHOULD BELIEVE IN GOD. HE CREATED US. HOW DO THINK JESUS WAS BORN. GOD MADE THIS EARTH. IF YOU DONT BELIEVE IN GOD YOUR STRAIGHT UP GOING TO HELL...THE NURVE OF YOU PEOPLE!!!!!!!!
Looking at the point of view of reason in a scientific way, you would have to believe that there is no reason to trust reason. Your not free, you are just an accident, and you are just a chemical reaction that just happened by chance. You are programmed to do what every you are made to do (by chance). Why should you trust your mind if there is no reason to trust your mind? All your thoughts, feelings, and ideas are just accidents. Love is just a chemical reactions its not real its only chemistry.
The way scientist’s decide what theory is right and true, is the theory with the most exclamatory power. Well at a Christian point of view I have no worries on how I feel, why I’m here, and what I should do in this life. There are so many more logical ways to prove that God is our creator, and that Jesus Christ is our savior. That not only sounds more logical then coming from nothing or matter that has been here for all eternity, that everything is an accident, we just happened by chance, we have no real meaning, we will just become dust.
Reasoning and thinking is what faith consists of. Do not go off your first reacting and run with it, think! Do not look at something and just base everything off of that, but look at the big picture. Sight can lead you to not have faith. A reactions is how your quickly answer your question. Think and try and figure it out and don’t just tell yourself science is the answer, it not logical. Yes science is a major tool in are way of living an understanding of the world. Science is true in so many ways, but the theory of life is just not logical at all, and we need to except that. There is a supreme being that made everything and is all knowing. Faith in God is the reason for the universe, faith in science is not logical at all.
You have your facts wrong. "Faith" is, by definition, "belief without reason and proof". Thus, faith is the opposite of reasoning and thinking. It is the lack of logical reasoning. If you are going to base what you believe on faith, then there is absolutely no evidence, from your point of view, to say that Santa Claus or unicorns do not exist because, according to your line of reasoning, it is logical to take things on faith.
Furthermore, you have mentioned that "there are so many more logical ways to prove that God is our creator". However, you have not proved at all that (1) God exists and (2) God is our creator. Those two arguments are not at all the same although the truth of (2) does necessitate the truth of (1). If order to support your stand, you need to prove that (1) God exists and (2) God is our creator. Let's analyse how you could prove that. To prove that (1) God exists, you need to prove that (i) there are good arguments to believe in the existence of God and (ii) there are not good arguments not to believe in God. To prove that (2) God is our creator, you need to prove that (i) there is only 1 creator, (ii) that single creator is God because (iii) there is no good arguments for any other singular creator to have created the universe.
I have not seen any of these arguments in your comment. Therefore, I do not believe that God exists.
Finally, you have made two contradictory statements in your argument. You say that "science in true in so many ways" and yet, you conclude that "faith in science is not logical at all". First, we do not take science by faith because faith is believing without reason and proof. We do have proof to believe the current facts that have been put forth by the scientific method. Second, in epistemological terms, for an argument to be true the premises must be true and follow in a logical manner in order for the conclusion to follow. I have proven that (1) your premise that "faith in science is not logical at all" to be false because we do not take scientific facts on faith and (2) your contradictory statements make the conclusion to be inconsistent with your premises. Therefore, your argument is illogical.
"Nope. If you reason with the proper information, it will enforce faith"
No if your indoctinated, and beleive in fairy tales it will inforce faith, your point contradicts itself, and i really don't know how you can't see that.
"Who says "reason" is the opposite of faith?"
Nobody, the opposite of faith is the absence of faith.
"Some mindless philosopher"
Ya those mindless philosophers, i wish we could return to a time in human history where those mindless guys barely existed, and if they did they were burned at the stake for saying anything that went against the crazy superstituous beliefs of the prevailing culture of the day.
It was a simpler time, where the church was the supreme authority, and peoples lives were so incredibly painful they had to be fed an incredible lie about how they would be rewarded when they died.
What were they called again, oh yeah, the dark ages, you clearly never moved on, did you?
Obviously, you have difficulty understanding my argument.
My argument is faith is the "belief without information or reason", that is definition. If one can "reason with proper information", that is NOT faith, it is an argument or, at the very least, a justified belief.
Furthermore, your weak argumentum ad hominem just goes to show your lack of ability to reason and argue and have to resort of such fallacies to make yourself feel superior.
Honestly, I'm posting on this side because the other side is, 'Yes, they should believe in God.' It almost sounds like it should be forced. People shouldn't have to believe in anything if they don't want to. The world is what you make of it and nothing else.
I know this. I'm disputing on this side because this side supports 'people SHOULD believe'. That implies everyone should believe whether they want to or not. I am against this. I'm for people believing in whatever the hell they want, but by no means should they be forced to believe anything.
Why pray tell must one who believes in Darwinism not believe in a god? Or one who does not believe in Darwinism must believe in a god? They are not self-contradicting to a god in general, just a god that created people out of mud a few thousand years ago.
At any rate, I find it amazing how the human idea of a god that is popular today is an all-powerful ominiscient being, yet one who is so petty that you must believe in some fantastical tale that there is not a scrap of evidence for or you will burn in fire for all of eternity.
God sounds like a selfish child when described by this crowd, more often than not.
Even if that guy did exist I'd ignore him, he doesn't though I'm positive.
Really? Selfish Child? Wow! I listen for it first time. In addition, religion sais that first people were Adam and Eve. And Darwinism sais we are from monkeys. I guess our parents are Adam and Eve.
... wtf are you talking about? Are you speaking in tongues or something?
Here's what I think you're trying to say:
1. You're offended I say god is portrayed as a selfish child. I only say this because he tends to throw fits when he doesn't get his way, according to how he is portrayed, what with plagues, floods, raining frogs, etc. These are childish reactions, especially if one accepts this god is all powerful, why should he become so offended by what mere mortals do unless he's being childish?
2. I know where religion says we came from, and that has been proven false. We did in fact, not opinion, evolve.
3. We did not evolve from monkeys, we have a common ancestor, some of whom evolved into various monkeys and apes, others into us eventually.
If you spent more time studying and thinking instead of jerking off to fictional Bible verses you might know that.
You're absolutely right. Furthermore, since believers of God say that they believe that an "omniscient, omnipotent and perfectly good (or pure)" God exists, then a God that is portrayed as a selfish god does prove exactly the opposite of what they believe because no "perfectly good" God would use evils means, natural or human, to right the wrongs in the world. This must be true since he is also omnipotent and therefore must have the ability to use means that are not evil to achieve the same end.
1. How would I equate myself with a mythical being?
2. There's more proof of evolution than there is proof of gravity.
3. No. Generally we're evolved from a common ancestor. Saying generally we evolved from monkeys is like saying generally my cousin is my great grandfather.
1. Atheists and agnostics do not equal themselves with a non-existent being.
2. It is not a hypothesis. There has been abundant fossil records of evolution by natural selection. And therefore, Darwin's theory has been proven to be true.
3. First, we are not "created". Secondly, if you say that "we are created from monkeys", the pivotal word "from" proves that you do believe in evolution by natural selection because you believe, since you used the phrase "from monkeys", that first monkeys were "created" and then humans evolved from monkeys. Furthermore, we were not "created from monkeys". We are an evolved species, Homo sapien, from a common ancestor shared by the apes and monkeys.
If a man is caught in the act of raping a young woman who is not engaged, he must pay fifty pieces of silver to her father. Then he must marry the young woman because he violated her, and he will never be allowed to divorce her. Deuteronomy 22:28-29.
What kind of lunatic would make a rape victim marry her attacker?
There are two points to note here. First, even though the verse may seem to be instructing the rapist to marry the victim the passage nowhere sanctions, condones or even approves of rape. This is simply a gross misreading of the text. The injunction is intended to instruct the Israelites on how to deal with and address a rape situation if and when it occurs.
Second, by taking a careful look at the context and consulting the original languages of the Scriptures a strong case can be made that this is citation isn’t even addressing a rape case at all. We must remember that the Holy Bible was not written in English. The OT was written in Hebrew, with parts of it being written in Aramaic. The NT was written in Koine or common Greek. This means that if we want to know whether an English translation has faithfully and accurately translated the inspired author’s intended meaning we must turn to the original language of the sacred text. Once this is done, it will become quite apparent that the Holy Bible does not sanction rape at all. The word shakab can refer to a voluntary sexual act between two consenting parties. See Leviticus 15:18 and Numbers 5:11-13.
There are also other translations of that passage. For example the King James version has it this way: "If a man finds a damsel that is a virgin, which is not betrothed, and lay hold on her, and lie with her, and they be found...."
Please do proper research before you post such things.
In this case, the word translated to 'rape' is the Hebrew word chazaq. This does not explicitly mean rape, but rather seizing and having sex with a woman. Different words for rape that are more accurate in the Hebrew language are used in other parts of the Bible.
Also, rape today and back then was not the same. You cannot look at it from a modern cultural world view. By no means was every rape a violent conflict. In fact, many times in the Bible it is equated to consensual sex.
It does get fuzzy, but you can't make any assumptions without studying the Hebrew language and translation, which I don't think you have done.
I like how the only two options are either god doesn't exist, or you belive in IT. I'm not too sure if there is a god, but I know they don't deserve what they get. Anything that has a place where you suffer eternally for not being on their side isn't benevolent.
You are not threatened in any sort of way. From what I've come to understand in my studying and reading, God is benevolent because he ALLOWS you to choose whether or not you want to be part of his kingdom after this life. There is no eternal torture as people would try to have you believe. The idea of hell is an idea of an existence apart from God. He's not throwing you into a fiery chasm and watching you get poked and prodded by little red men. God so loves you that he has given you the free will to follow him or not. It would truly be immoral for God to force you to be in his presence for the rest of eternity if you did not want to be there. That said, an existence apart from God is described as something that you probably do not want to experience but it is not constant torture.
He allows you the freedom to choose, so yes I would argue he is benevolent. I'm very sorry to hear that you have come to such conclusions. If that is what you believe then I don't believe you actually understand Christianity.
Why God doesn't deserve worship. Look around you. There is so many wonders in life, and the first wonder is your life, construction of your body, natural world. All of these are evidence of the existence of God.
When a man strikes his male or female slave with a rod so hard that the slave dies under his hand, he shall be punished. If, however, the slave survives for a day or two, he is not to be punished, since the slave is his own property. (Exodus 21:20-21 NAB)
Keeping slaves is one thing, but condoning the mistreating of slaves seems a little illogical.
That is just ridiculous. Please stop with this taking of Biblical passages out of context. The texts is referencing what the litigious result are to be if this happens and there is absolutely no indication in the entire Bible that any such beating is being commanded or allowed. A good analogy would be... In Illinois if you commit aggravated criminal sexual assault you are looking at between 6 to 30 years in prison and/or a fine of up to $25,000. Does that mean that Illinois condones sexual assault? Think about it for a minute.
Yeah... Um, if you're going to support every word that this "God" states, read Deuteronomy. :/ stoning your kids to death when they talk back, killing the raped woman because she didn't scream out for help... Sounds pleasant, right?
People are afraid of hell so they try to be good. People believe their god is the only god, so the create war and strife. Not having a god would help some of the craziness in the middle east.
How the hell does a debate with the title "Should people believe in God or not?" get the winning supposition "God doesn't exist"? This isn't about God existing or not. It's about weather or not people should believe in God. Plenty of people believe things they should or shouldn't and often times its better for everyone else. Some examples: People tell their children not to talk to strangers because they don't want them to get kidnapped even though the vast majority of strangers are not kidnappers. Some cubs fans believe that their team has a shot at winning the world series and its best to keep them believing that so they don't go insane and kill all of us.
Since this isn't a matter of who is a better person, An Atheist vs Theist? This is a matter of control and free will. Every human being on this planet has the ability to think for themselves. Unfortunately, speaking for themselves is a different matter. But, no one should be forced to believe in one set of beliefs or another. This is a debate that truly comes out of the novel 1984.
Now it is such a bizarrely improbably coincidence that anything so mindbogglingly useful [the Babel fish] could have evolved by chance that some thinkers have chosen to see it as a final and clinching proof of the non-existence of God.
The argument goes something like this: "I refuse to prove that I exist," says God, "for proof denies faith, and without faith I am nothing."
"But," says Man, "the Babel fish is a dead giveaway isn't it? It could not have evolved by chance. It proves you exist, and so therefore, by your own arguments, you don't. QED"
"Oh dear," says God, "I hadn't thought of that," and promptly vanishes in a puff of logic.
Believing in God isn't harmful per-say, however religion doesn't remind or warn their flock that the clergy isn't completely sure about God and all the fantastic stories portrayed in the Bible, so keep an open mind, because it might all be a load of crap, don't they? The Bible, Quran etc. doesn't ask the reader to follow the rules and guidelines at their discretion either and just wing it.
Religion is about having blind faith and accepting all the stories and the existence of God without having any doubt about it. And thus, live according to it's rules without question. Any doubt about them will get you at least banned from the local community, village or even your family. Religion will sentence you to eternal punishment and torture in hell for asking doubtful questions and if you are an unlucky sob, your family and former friends will help their God by killing you. This is the true face of religion and without God there wouldn't be religion.
Any system were followers are not allowed to doubt it, is very dangerous and became most clear in Germany. After the Nazis came to power, anyone doubting the Jews of being sub-human would end up in a death-camp with the Jews and all because some Germans and Austrians had blind faith that the Jews were vermin like rats and therefor needed to be destroyed. We all know how that played out, don't we? However there are still people believing without a shred of doubt that the holocaust didn't happen at all. Should we not tell these "holocaust deniers" they're wrong? Should we let such people spread their madness to children, risking yet another holocaust?
Religion is just as evil. It tells us to behave in immoral ways towards other religions or people without religion. It tells us how and when we're allowed to kill women, homosexuals, slaves, even our own children etc. It is discriminatory at its core and if you're not a follower, you too are vermin and your life is worthless.
You are free to disagree with this conclusion, but this only shows you don't know the religious texts well enough and just follow "your" religion because your parents followed it, because their parents (your grandparents) followed it and you were simply conditioned as a child not to question it, thanks to the help of the church and its religion. You really should read the book you use as a guideline for life since it will become clear your parents and grand parents did not because they too were conditioned as a child to do so. And while reading here's a tip (spoiler). The old testament is part of the Bible. It has always been and always will stay part of the Bible. However if you know what i'm talking about you either found a way to accept it without really knowing what you're accepting e.g. you are an complete idiot.. or you're a sociopath lacking compassion and like to murder in the name of God.
And I said it before. Without God there wouldn't be religion and without religion there would not be a system for psychopaths ruling the gullible, keeping them inline by killing the doubtful and the non-followers in gruesome ways and start wars and commit genocide and feel righteous because God commanded it!
I don't believe that people should believe in God, and therefore I have to take the position that God doesn't exist. Personally, to believe something, it must either have been proven, or be the most realistic/plausible argument. In this case religion isn't the only answer, nor is it the most plausible one and so I don't believe in it or think that others 'should' believe in it.
There is no good reason to believe in God. I think that the belief in god is a sad world view because it deminished the true awe of the world as an emergent phenomenon. It being created seems to deminish the force of its beauty by removing its having natural origins.
Their infants will be dashed to pieces before their eyes; their houses will be looted and their wives ravished (shakab).
(The word "shakab" appeared in the original bible, which means to lay with, or rape, this clearly means that they were forcibly raped, because why would you kill babies, loot houses and then ask politely to the women after destroying their lives)
This text indicates that the armies of the Lord rape the wives of those God judges. But even this does not validate rape. Rather, the point is that those who act wickedly toward the Lord's people will themselves be treated wickedly by foreign invaders. Just as in the case of the men God ordained to kill Jesus, however, the rapists in this case will not go unpunished. God will judge them as well, despite the fact that he uses their wickedness for his own ends.
But if God is omniscient, omnipotent and perfectly good as all believers in God must believe (unless you're telling me that you do not believe that God "is everywhere", "all powerful" and "pure"), then why does he need to use wickedness for his own ends?
First, if he is perfectly good, then he would not advocate wickedness to do anything at all. Second, if he is all powerful, he has the ability to mete out judgement without using wicked means. Finally, if he is omniscient, he will be able to eliminate all evil in the world without resorting to wickedness.
According to your arguments I may say that religion causes strict discipline? Isn't it good? People are fearing God and don't do any evil deals. Subsequently, our world is kinder.(were kinder)
Its not fear as you are describing it. He doesn't want you to be terrified of him. Rather, it is a reverential awe of God; a reverence for His power and glory. However, it is also a proper respect for His wrath and anger. In other words, the fear of the Lord is a total acknowledgement of all that God is, which comes through knowing Him and His attributes.
There's a difference between respect and worship. A man respects his leader, not worship him. If an all knowing being deems worship as 'respect', they have a serious insecurity complex. I like how christians refer to god as 'he', too.
I don't believe God wants blind worship; it is another reason we were created to have free will. You are clearly just hostile to the idea for some reason. Do you mind if I ask why?
I take everything with a dose of salt. And besides, if god was that benevolent, wouldn't it be alright with my stance? I mean, if god's truly nice and kind, than it wouldn't mind a heckler like me, would it?
As an analogy..... which I'm sure wouldn't do the relationship justice..... Would you be ok if your son/daughter didn't love you back? Obviously you can't force them to love you, otherwise its not love.
If they don't love you, is it "benevolent" of you to force them to be with you for the rest of eternity? God doesn't send anyone to hell, or if you like "out of his presence;" You choose to go there. He will be sad that you have chosen that but he loves you so much that he's not going to override your free will to force you to love him back.
So, I'm either with it, or against it. Also, for god to be benevolent, it would have to be YOUR idea of god. And that's an extremely slim chance of that being.
You can try to twist the words all you like. The idea of Hell, as I've come to understand it, is the idea that God won't force you to be with him for eternity if you don't want to be so he has prepared a special place for you to exist where you won't have to. He has done this because it would be immoral for God to annihilate anyone (as He respects your decision) or force you to be with Him (also because he respects your decision). In order for God to be benevolent in this since he would have to be the Christian God but yes I will always claim him :)
If you would like some authors I could recommend some to you to better understand the idea behind Christianity and God. You have a very hostile stance towards Him and I just thought you should know that he doesn't have any hostility towards you and will love you regardless of your decision.
Really now, as if this god of yours hasn't wiped out entire cities before. You have a big book of its' deeds, you know. And if god is so loving, why would it make the alternative less desirable?
