Generally, the problem is that Creationists will attempt to prevent evolution from being taught in schools, or, failing that, try to make evolution appear as though it is not a sound concept by allowing teacher's to "Teach the Controversy" or by writing textbooks which cast doubts on the validity of the theory of evolution through natural selection.

The problem with this is that it significantly weakens a child's education.

>>52188

Do Americans really have creationism in their textbooks?

Once upon a time in the magical land of Equestria...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wedge_strategy

This is the "goal" of the politically and religiously motivated proponents of Creationism/Intelligent Design. They intend to attack scientific theories because they feel that they threaten their particular interpretation of Christianity.

To quote.

The document sets forth the short-term and long-term goals with milestones for the intelligent design movement, with its governing goals stated in the opening paragraph:

"To defeat scientific materialism and its destructive moral, cultural, and political legacies"
"To replace materialistic explanations with the theistic understanding that nature and human beings are created by God"

>>52192

You can believe whatever you want, but forcing it on others is simply silly.

As an East European I am usually surprised by the zealous religious people you have in the US.

>>52190

Not exactly. My understanding is that in the states that are more friendly to creationism, evolution will simply be omitted from the science curriculum. Or teachers will teach nothing but the "flaws" of Darwinism.

I recall one case of biology textbooks all having a sticker put in them by the schools that said something about evolution being "just a theory", but I can't remember the specifics.

Creationists have to be very careful about teaching creationism directly in schools, because they've been smacked down by the courts so many times that they know they can't get away with it. So they're sneaky.

>>52190
Have you ever heard of, Of Pandas and People?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Of_Pandas_and_People

>What is the goal of the evolution - creationism debate?
What we see today isn't really a debate, it's an attempt to spread understanding of evolution to (American) creationists and the other few remaining groups in the modern world that deny evolutionary science.

>it doesn't matter what the people believe
It does matter what the people believe because those people influence government appointments and public policy, among other things. Education standards in particular have always been under fire by creationists.

>>52194
>just a theory

I'm not a materialist, naturalist etc. but that is the most silly thing I usually hear.

>killing the basis of biology from the school

That is a cool science o be honest, good for the people and the industry.

They want to take your jobs!

>>52198

The only thing I don't understand about them is their double standard.

I can mess up the earth and deplete all the resources because god gave it to me, but I can't buff up plants so we could have more food.

>>52197

I doubt that the people have anything to say in politics.

>>52200
Actually, those who oppose Genetically Modified Organisms generally fall on the left side of the political spectrum, while those who oppose the teaching of Evolutionary science generally fall on the right side of the political spectrum. Of course that's not always true, and there's some overlap there too, especially when it comes to cloning.

>>52202

But leftists are supposed to be militant materialist, don't they?

>>52201

In terms of district school boards (Which is where most creationists exert their influence), people are actually able to influence the process a lot if they were to vote more.

Compared to national elections, almost nobody votes when it comes to deciding school board members, so it's very easy for a small group of people to influence the people and policy in the direction that they please.

A population that mistrusts science will have a negative impact in that context, while a population that has a positive outlook and enthusiasm for science will have a positive impact. Assuming that your goal is to teach accurate science to students, anyway.

>>52201
>I doubt that the people have anything to say in politics.
Government officials that support creationism/Intelligent Design include:

Rep. Steve Chabot (Ohio)
Sen. Judd Gregg (New Hampshire)
Rep. Sheila Jackson Lee (Texas)
Rep. Roscoe Bartlett (Maryland)
Rep. Charles Canady (Florida)
Senator Mike Fair (South Carolina)
Rep. Bruce Borders (Pennsylvania)
Jim Hoops (Ohio)
Senator Karen Johnson (Arizona)
Rep. Thomas Petri (Wisconsin)
Rep. Joseph Pitts (Pennsylvania)
Rep. Mark Souder (Indiana)
Rep. Charles Stenholm (Texas)
Rep. George Allen (Virginia)
Rep. John Boehner (Ohio)
Senator James Inhofe (Oklahoma)

All of these people were voted into Congress by somebody.

>>52203

It's my understanding that right-wing Christians and post-modern leftists have a fair amount of common ground in their distaste for scientific materialism.

>>52207

That is kinda cool, I never knew that.

>>52204

That makes sense!

>>52206

People lie the most popular lie so they can get elected.

>>52208
If they fail to follow through on their lies, they get kicked out of office rather promptly. For better or for worse, the U.S. Congress is generally very responsive to the specific demands of their constituents.

>>52209

That is good to hear.

The goal of the debate is to understand. Humans have a great desire to know everything. This is why we have encyclopaedias. It originates from the Age of Enlightenment.

But creationism vs evolution? Creationism is widely regarded as a misinterpretation of the Bible.
Very briefly, the original language of the bible does not say "Day" as in period of 24 hours. That's the english translation. It would have been more accurate to translate it as "At first... and then".
Secondly, the whole "On the first day" passage is poetic, meaning that it is full of metaphor. So "Day" does not necessarily mean 24 hours, both in the translation of the meaning and also in the fact that it's very probably metaphorical.
Once you accept that the creation passage of the bible is more metaphorical than literal (the fact that it is written out in the poetic form indicates how we are supposed to read it) then it becomes quite acceptable to consider that the bible and evolution are not mutually exclusive, in fact as a Christian I would argue that they prove each other.

>>52206
Ah, but creationism isn't the same as intelligent design.

Intelligent design can be reconciled with evolution, while creationism definitely can't.

Evolution does not disprove intelligent design. It is true that evolution could exist without intelligent design, but this doesn't prove that it definitely does. I could be typing on my laptop outside, but that doesn't prove that I definitely am.
It is possible to conceive that evolution is guided by an intelligent entity, while appearing random to us. This is my thought.

>>52190
I attended a private baptist school in Florida roughly a decade ago. Our public school systems were pretty bad then.

In this religiously-oriented school I actually received an above average education (relative to Florida's public school system) in most areas. Probably all. Things like chemistry and biology and had I the capacity for it, math, were a lot more informative and effective classes in the private school than they were in public.

They DID teach both creationism and evolution. Evolution was taught in some detail: so was creationism. They were presented as two theories, one with bible verse backup the other with different scientific methods. There were even sections trying to marry how these discoveries could be with what the bible said: but the book, a religiously based one, did teach evolution in mild detail.

There was a great deal of indoctrination and what I suppose you could consider brainwashing in one sense or another, but overall the maths/sciences of the private baptist school I attended were more complete than anything available to public school resources in the area, and years ahead of their curriculum.

I believe in God, and I have doubts to most origin theories. BUT, all that matters is that I believe God created the universe and its life, whether it was direct through "young earth creationism" or indirect through evolution, big bang whatever.

I think the goal of the debate is to label religious people as irrational superstitious people, and atheists as the epitome of reason. Pretty much to create a divide between science and religion.

>>52220

And that just takes an elegant, beautiful bit of science and perverts it.

Evolution doesn't require intelligent design. Intelligent design merely overcomplicates it.

I don't know why people consider religion beautiful. It just ruins truly beautiful science.

>>52239
I also don't understand why some people watch My Little Pony.

>>52227
>I think the goal of the debate is to label religious people as irrational superstitious people, and atheists as the epitome of reason. Pretty much to create a divide between science and religion.

Yes. The fact is, there doesn't have to be a divide between the two. It's not a science vs. religion debate, it's an evolution vs. creationism debate. Many religious people don't believe in creationist ideas, or even in intelligent design. I know I don't.

>>52227

>I think the goal of the debate is to label religious people as irrational superstitious people, and atheists as the epitome of reason. Pretty much to create a divide between science and religion.
No. Atheism is the epitome of reason at present. Religion is close to the epitome of irrationality. That has nothing to do with atheists or religious people.

Besides, it's not creating a divide. I don't think there's much more to religion than bad science. Science is a way of analyzing data.. So if something is the most rational conclusion that can be drawn from the data, it is science.

So if religion is rational and supported by evidence, science and religion should be the same thing. If it is irrational, religion should die out.

However, right now religion gets some special treatment as free from rationality. Religion is seen as separate from science. Why is this? Why isn't religion subject to the exact same tests and analysis as any other form of science? Why is it a big journal like Nature publishes rational tests and analysis of every other subject there is but religion is somehow exempt?

If someone walked into a public school and claimed that Columbus was from Mars, they would tell him he's wrong. If he claimed that his religion claims Columbus is from Mars, he suddenly gets a free pass to be crazy.

Religion is given a pass as beyond science. It isn't beyond science. If religion is true, scientific tests will confirm this. If religion is false, scientific tests will confirm this, too.

inb4 you can't prove God exists or doesn't.
Science doesn't prove things. It merely decides what is most rational at the moment.

So why do you present science and religion as two different things? Afraid of being proven wrong? What are you... chicken?

Back to the Future reference. Not serious at all.

TL;DR: Science is the epitome of human reason. Religion is just shitty science.

>>52227
I don't think making religious people look stupid and atheists was the goal but a side effect of ignorance, usually from those who have no or very little understanding of both sides. Being an atheist isn't about disproving the existance of a God and being religious isn't about shoving God down one's throat and one attacking the other "side" is certainly not the point of either. Belief is a very personal thing and one has to realize that is what belief or non-belief is.

>>52244
Wow. Columbus from Mars, huh. Well that's enlightening. I had no fucking clue that was what religion was about. Contrary to popular belief, strawman arguements don't actually work.

>>52247

1. Not a strawman. It was an analogy. There is a difference.
2. Are there any religious claims less ridiculous and better supported than my analogy?
3. You missed the point entirely, namely that scientific inquiry is the best way to investigate any question and religion should not be exempted from this. If religion is scientific, it is rational. If it isn't scientific, it is irrational.

The point was that claiming there is no conflict between science and religion still portrays them as two different things. It puts religion outside of science and, therefore, outside the scope of rational inquiry.

That's why I don't differentiate: if I say "religion vs science", that implies that the two are somehow separate. They aren't. I maintain any belief should be rational. If religion is rational, it is good science. If it is irrational, it is bad science. That doesn't change the fact that it should be investigated through the same scientific techniques as any other belief.

Why do people claim religion is outside the bounds of science? This is no longer a joke: I think they're just chicken.

>>52246

>belief is a very personal thing

And now we see where the problem is.

Something is either true or false. It can't be "true for one person" or a "personal truth".

The options are true or false. So either your belief is the one truth and everyone else's beliefs are irrational or your belief is false and irrational.

"True for me" is a cop-out. It's dodging the need for actual proof or evidence.

>What is the goal of the evolution - creationism debate?

Financial gain.

>>52253
I disagree. Why is your dictation of what a belief is, and how people should live their lives right?

Furthermore, I think you should buy a dictionary and review the definition of the word "science" before using it anymore in your "my opinion is righter than yours" posts.

I don't care about evolution, even if that is the truth.

>>52260

Science:
>knowledge attained through study or practice
>knowledge covering general truths of the operation of general laws, esp. as obtained and tested through scientific method [and] concerned with the physical world
It's a system of determining how the natural world works. As such, it would be the perfect system for determining whether or not God exists or how the universe began.

Personally, I prefer this definition from Wikipedia:
>a systematic enterprise that builds and organizes knowledge in the form of testable explanations and predictions about the universe
So it is a method of organizing and testing knowledge.
Either way, it is the best method we have ever devised for testing factual claims.

>I disagree. Why is your dictation of what a belief is, and how people should live their lives right?
My "dictation of what a belief is"? No. It's what a belief is. It's merely what you think is the truth.
Where we disagree is with what the truth is. I loathe the claim that anything can be true for one person. Here's why:
1. It is completely untestable. If you can have a "personal truth" without external evidence, any personal truth is equally valid. Who are you to say that what you feel in your heart to be true is true but what someone else believes to be true isn't?
If you can believe in God without evidence, Khalid Sheikh Mohammed and Osama Bin Ladin can believe their jihad was justified without further need for proof.
2. Nothing can be true for one person. How does that make sense? "God exists" is a factual claim. It can either be true or false. How is it that you can say "God exists to me"? Either he does or he doesn't.
A fact cannot be true for one person and false for another. People will have differing beliefs, but only one can be true.

>how people should live their lives
1. Because the burden of proof lies on people making factual claims, and no one has ever raised a valid point in favor of religion being true. So unless you can disprove my notion of truth, my belief is correct and you should convert to it immediately.
So it is your job to prove my belief false. You claim God exists. I claim that is unsupported by evidence. Until you prove that false, I have every reason to believe that the way you live your life is wrong.
2. Because that is the point of any debate: to prove yourself right. I believe I'm right; you believe you're right.
3. Because "atheists are mean" isn't an argument. I wasn't being unreasonable. I was, perhaps, being a bit obnoxious, but I think any complaint you can have there is pretty minor.
I have every right to attack religion, just as much as anyone else has any right to attack any other belief any other person holds.

>>52264
Damn it, do I really have to do this?

Ok, give me a couple of minutes and I'll calm you down a I have had to do with all the other extremists on this board on both sides of the spectrum.

>>52264
>1. Because the burden of proof lies on people making factual claims, and no one has ever raised a valid point in favor of religion being true. So unless you can disprove my notion of truth, my belief is correct and you should convert to it immediately.
So it is your job to prove my belief false. You claim God exists. I claim that is unsupported by evidence. Until you prove that false, I have every reason to believe that the way you live your life is wrong.

You can believe that, but don't expect the people you're arguing with to agree.

Anyway, you say that religion should die out. It's not a matter of whether it should, but whether it will. I don't believe it will. It might in first world countries (except the religion-mad US) but it sure as hell isn't dying out in most parts of the world.

>>52264

[spoiler]And yes, I tend to be confident in my beliefs. I'm sorry if this comes across as arrogance or dismissiveness of other people's opinions.
This explains me pretty well:
http://www.personalitypage.com/INTJ.html
I've thought through my opinions extensively and consider them bulletproof. I will stand by that. I do not believe anyone here will find a flaw. I consider this area of thought a particular strength of mine. However, this confidence frequently comes across as contempt on the Internet.
[spoiler]

>>52271
That's wonderful and I'm sorry that your personality causes you to act a certain way; but we in this board prefer debate to be calm, civilized, and non-militant. We ask and prefer you keep the feelings and beliefs of others in mind; they have the same right o have opinions as much as you do. and if you're going to use this site, you have a responsibility to respect others. If you are unable to do that, here's a board just for you:

http://www.atheistforums.com/

And even there I bet they require respect and civility. We used to have a very good poster on this board who was capable of expressing ideas and opinions civilly, until the topic became feminism or atheism. Then he went completely wacko, treated those who disagreed as inhuman, crazy test subjects, and had an overall disrespectful conduct that eventually got him permabanned.

TL;DR: Be respectful or be ready to be reported.

Thank you and have a magical day. :D

>>52268

>You can believe that, but don't expect the people you're arguing with to agree.

They should agree. It's true.

1. Religion makes factual claims.
2. I make no factual claims. I don't even claim God doesn't exist. I merely claim there is no evidence he does.
3. The burden of proof lies on the person making the claim. This is well-established in all philosophical discourse.
If you'll pardon Wikipedia as a reference:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophic_burden_of_proof
4. Ergo, the burden of proof lies on you. If I can disprove all of a religious person's claims, he has every reason to believe in God and I have none.

I can't prove that no proof of God exists. Because of this, a religious person must present his arguments that God does exist and I must shoot them down.

>Imagine that a Christian presents a laundry list of arguments in favor of God. I shoot down all of them unambiguously. I have no reason to change my beliefs. However, the Christian has every reason to change his.
>Imagine instead that a Christian presents a laundry list of arguments in favor of the Christian faith. I address some of them, but I am unable to disprove a few. Now the Christian has reason to revise his beliefs, as do I. He would change what he believes slightly, and I would convert to Christianity.
>Finally, imagine that a Christian presents a list of arguments in favor of the Christian faith. I fail to address any of them. The Christian has no reason to change his beliefs at all, but I would instantly convert to his belief system.

That's how burden of proof works.

>>52275
I have no arguments in favor of God's existence. I can actually think of a lot more against his existence. Yet I believe God exists. I'm not interested in convincing you or anybody else of that, and in fact I don't care what anybody else believes about it.

>>52274

>That's wonderful and I'm sorry that your personality causes you to act a certain way; but we in this board prefer debate to be calm, civilized, and non-militant.

That's not really what I said. I think the way I act is reasonable. It's confident, but rational. I assert my beliefs strongly. That isn't really arrogance. It's not militant, either.

I don't actually like these styles of personality tests, but this is just too accurate to pass up.
>To outsiders, INTJs may appear to project an aura of "definiteness", of self-confidence. This self-confidence, sometimes mistaken for simple arrogance by the less decisive, is actually of a very specific rather than a general nature; its source lies in the specialized knowledge systems that most INTJs start building at an early age.

So I'm self-assured. I'm confident in what I believe.

Also, I know who Flutterguy is. That's not what I do. I don't go psycho and call everyone stupid. Instead, I either fail miserably at explanation in one of two ways:
1. I assume everyone else already holds the same beliefs as I do, or
2. I assume everyone hasn't even begun to think about what I know.
Either one can come across as arrogance. In the first, I state my opinions as facts because I can't conceive anyone else would think something different. Things seem so obvious to me it doesn't make sense anyone else wouldn't see it. The second can seem condescending.

So Flutterguy launches into abuse, but I'm confident and matter-of-fact.

>>52277

If you don't want to talk about it, you don't have to. However, until you can prove me wrong I will continue believing religion is wrong. Since I believe it does damage to the world, I will continue to hate it. I will continue to campaign against it. If you want me to stop, I don't think it's unreasonable to ask you to prove me wrong.

TL;DR: Fine, but don't expect me to be quiet.

Don't worry, though. I'm not a dick about it. I'm always willing to argue against religion, but I don't fly into a rage when I see someone wearing a cross necklace.

>>52278
Hey everyone, I'm rational, confident, reasonable and self-assured.

It doesn't matter I use a discussion board to campaign for my personal beliefs and I call others names, if you think I'm being a dick, it's just because you're not rational!


Oh, and btw, you better not campaign for those silly little theism stories in this board; I don't want you shoving your beliefs down my throat!




You in a nutshell.

>>52282

>Hey everyone, I'm rational, confident, reasonable and self-assured.
I believe that to be the case. I was explaining why I am sometimes perceived as brusque and arrogant.

>It doesn't matter I use a discussion board to campaign for my personal beliefs and I call others names, if you think I'm being a dick, it's just because you're not rational!
Never called anyone names. I said "religion is irrational". I maintain that is true.
And no, if you think I'm a dick, it's probably because I was being a bit of a dick. My post was intended as a preemptive apology for the brusque manner in which I discuss things.
Also, I am not "campaigning for personal beliefs". Two reasons:
1. What is a personal belief? It's just a belief.
2. It's the point of a discussion board to try to reach the truth. Since I believe my beliefs are true, I will try to prove so. If you prove me wrong, I will change my opinion. It's not campaigning. My style of discussion can be perceived as confrontational, but it's still discussion.

>Oh, and btw, you better not campaign for those silly little theism stories in this board; I don't want you shoving your beliefs down my throat!
Go ahead. I'll try to disprove them. That's what discussion is for.
"Shoving your beliefs down my throat" is a good thing. Please do more of that. We need more open discussion of religion in Western culture.

>You in a nutshell.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jKMK3XGO27k

Anyway, can we get back to addressing my argument now rather than criticizing my tone? I apologize for any perceived rudeness. It was certainly not intended.
>Reminder: my argument in a nutshell is the following:
1. Science is a method for constructing and testing theories about how the universe works.
2. God existing is a possible theory of how the universe works.
3. The existence of God is a scientific theory.
4. Scientific theories are tested with the scientific method.
5. God should be tested with the scientific method.

So, as I said before, either God is the best explanation for observed phenomena or he isn't. Why is it that a certain theory is given a pass from the rigorous scientific testing others are subjected to?

Telling someone they have the burden of proof is a horrible debate tactic. You have inconclusive evidence, and you count it as proof against God. We have inconclusive evidence and reason to believe in a god, but because it's not conclusive, BURDERRRRRDEN OF PROOF BURDERRRRRDEN OF PROOF!

>>52284

>Telling someone they have the burden of proof is a horrible debate tactic. You have inconclusive evidence, and you count it as proof against God. We have inconclusive evidence and reason to believe in a god, but because it's not conclusive, BURDERRRRRDEN OF PROOF BURDERRRRRDEN OF PROOF!

Horrible debate tactic? Probably. It certainly doesn't work very well.

Is pointing out the burden of proof wrong? No.

>proof against God

No. I have no reason to believe God doesn't exist. I make no claim that God doesn't exist. I don't need to prove God isn't real to disprove religion.

>inconclusive evidence

Inconclusive evidence means you can't draw a conclusion. Religion is a conclusion. Lack of religion isn't.

>reason to believe

Tell me what it is, then. I haven't heard any.

1. If it's inconclusive, don't draw a conclusion.
2. You have an obligation to point out the evidence for God. Claiming God exists is a factual claim. You must support it.

It's got a point only if you care about it. Either way it's not gonna change anything really.

>>52287
You can assume something based on inconclusive evidence. It just isn't necessarily a correct assumption. Even if everything about evolution was conclusively confirmed, it isn't conclusive on whether or not God exists. It's just irrelevant.

>>Inconclusive evidence means you can't draw a conclusion. Religion is a conclusion. Lack of religion isn't.
Religion is an assumption, like anything drawn from inconclusive evidence. Sometimes assumptions end up being correct.

http://www.ponychan.net/chan/dis/res/48831.html#51035

Read up and get back to me.

I'm not sure why this is turning into a science versus religion debate. That's exactly what the creationists want.

Science conflicts with a strict literalist interpretation of the Bible, that's true. That's the interpretation of Christianity creationist groups tend to have, so they will try to deny things like evolution of the extreme age of the earth. But to say that creationism is the only interpretation of religion does a disservice to the complexity of religion, I think.

To quote Judge Jones from the Kitzmiller v. Dover case.

The proper application of both the endorsement and Lemon tests to the facts of this case makes it abundantly clear that the Board's ID Policy violates the Establishment Clause. In making this determination, we have addressed the seminal question of whether ID is science. We have concluded that it is not, and moreover that ID cannot uncouple itself from its creationist, and thus religious, antecedents.

Both Defendants and many of the leading proponents of ID make a bedrock assumption which is utterly false. Their presupposition is that evolutionary theory is antithetical to a belief in the existence of a supreme being and to religion in general. Repeatedly in this trial, Plaintiffs' scientific experts testified that the theory of evolution represents good science, is overwhelmingly accepted by the scientific community, and that it in no way conflicts with, nor does it deny, the existence of a divine creator.

To be sure, Darwin's theory of evolution is imperfect. However, the fact that a scientific theory cannot yet render an explanation on every point should not be used as a pretext to thrust an untestable alternative hypothesis grounded in religion into the science classroom or to misrepresent well-established scientific propositions.

The citizens of the Dover area were poorly served by the members of the Board who voted for the ID Policy. It is ironic that several of these individuals, who so staunchly and proudly touted their religious convictions in public, would time and again lie to cover their tracks and disguise the real purpose behind the ID Policy.

>>52298
God that was a great judgement. NOVA did a terrific job profiling that case a while back. I don't know if anyone's interested, but it's available here.

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-404729062613200911

>>52298
>I'm not sure why this is turning into a science versus religion debate.
I have a theory that the more specific a OP, the more the thread will gravitate towards the base issue and the more broad the OP, the more the thread will gravitate towards a specific issue(s).

>>52293

>sometimes end up being correct
Yes. That's why I don't claim God doesn't exist.

I instead claim there is no evidence He does.

>>52298

Well, of course. However, I do consider disproving the existence of God a great and easy way to disprove Creationism.

Anyway, I don't understand why ID is treated any differently than science. What is the difference? It's a scientific theory that presupposes God exists.

It's still a scientific theory. It's a shitty one. Why is it that it can't be discussed in school as something we "used to believe until we knew better"? Why give it a pass?

Even leaving our former debate, I just plain don't understand. The above really isn't rhetoric. I don't understand how religion is different from science.

>>52355
ID was never forwarded as a legitimate scientific theory, unlike failed scientific theory's such as Geocentrism or the belief in Static Continents. It was only really developed after Creationism was barred from being taught in schools as part of the Wedge Strategy.

>>52355
to much religion, it is not about evidence, nor proving right or wrong, much of it is faith and a little philosophy. Especially christianity. seriously, read the bible and good luck taking a drink every time you find the word faith. in order to be faithful ya gotta keep believing, be loyal and trusting against all odds.

science is about evidence, and being skeptical until finding the evidence to prove something is true.

therefore, the scientific way of thinking with skepticism, and the religious way of thinking with faith, will always be at each other's throats.

Goal of evolution was to create me, as I am the perfect me.

>>52355
P.s. I like you. You're aggressive, sure, but certainly not insulting, just like me. Hehe.

>>52358
Aye, but people prefer to use science when they have something to risk. Going into action at war? How about faith? Nope, this helmets sounds better. Faith is just a self-defensive mechanism to deal with real world, a mental fortitude against reality, that's why people mostly pray, and most genuinely, when they are emotionally unstable. Science feeds of reason, religion feeds on emotional weaknesses. The two use different methods to prove something, but only one is correct, guess which one?

>>52361

>You're aggressive
Thanks? I've been called "arrogant", but I like the sound of "aggressive" much better.

>>52358

And I've never understood that way of thinking. The way I see it, either something is true or it isn't. If it's true, incorporate it into your beliefs. If it's false, don't. I can't understand accepting something as a cornerstone of your belief without making damn sure it is the closest to the truth you can come.

>>52366
I've already had a similar discussion earlier. You want me to just post the juicy parts?

>>52367

Could you link to it? I'd prefer to read the whole thing.

>>52368
erm...>>52324

>>52366
What is important to keep in mind here is the difference between

"Is one way or thinking or another correct/logical?", and "Should the way of thinking more supported by natural evidence (evolution, in this case) be believed by everyone; should those who do not believe it be treated with negativity?"


The first question has been practically answered. Evolution is a theory very well cemented in Biology (remember, that means the study of life, not some secret society-like entity) by way of the scientific method. There's not much to argue there.

Now the second question is important. I, personally, do not believe that just becuase someone does not accept the theory of evolution, obsess over it, advocate it, or simply ignores/doesn't care abotu the topic, that they are not some type of evil, bible thumping nazi.

I think everyone in this thread needs to calm down and understand that not only does religious concept and scientific theory differ, but that they do not contradict each other.

>>52369
I read all of it and I just want to address this part:

>I have come to the preclusion that there is some type of something that made the physical universe. ...The preclusion, God(s), is outside of science's field...

You're correct in thinking that the universe may have been created, the problem with that is that you automatically attributed it's creation to deities, instead of simply saying that there was a process from which the universe was created

>>52375
>that they are NOW some type of evil, bible thumping nazi.

Fixed.

>>52375
No, but the problem is that they're trying to undermine the scientific method to push forward their own preconceived and baseless ideas which can cause some real problems when people resort to faith healing instead of real medicine.

>>52361
You're assuming that I only have the choice between science (the helmet) and religion (no helmet, but praying you don't get shot in the head or hit with shrapnel or something.)

99.99 percent of people who profess a religion will still put the helmet on. Why? Because the scientific method is the reason we've come so far; it's how we know that metal in a certain shape might deflect bullets etc.

And it's not at all at odds with religion. You can put on a helmet and still pray for protection. If religion really were opposed to scientific advancement, the Islamic golden age of science, literature and astronomy would have never happened, and by extension the Renaissance would have also never happened. The reason we're hitting a wall now is that we're learning about what it really means to be human and even possibly how to change that, and those ideas don't jibe with some people's views of religion. I personally don't have a problem reconciling them though, and neither do scientists who happen to be religious, of which there are a lot.

My view of God is as an infinite being that gives some meaning and order to an ultimately meaningless and chaotic universe, but that is also basically beyond human understanding. It's an irrational belief, and it may well be an incorrect one, but I will keep it anyway.

>>52375
Obviously, the problem starts when they teach "controversial theories" to their kids, try to pass it into schools or try to brainwash the public.

However, if an adult were to say that they do not believe that earth is flat, what can we say about them? Simply that they do not believe it? I personally would label their statement stupid and cluster them with evidence against, unless they had some bloody good evidence to support their view, otherwise off you go! Same goes with those that OPPOSE science (I won't react to you if you do not cross science, if you think evolution is false, fine, but keep it to yourself), it is harmful, and I am going to make a famous comparison here, Hitler believed that Jews should be killed, that doesn't mean he acquired some sort of free pass (thanks uu) to do what he wants to do. The moment your believes become harmful to those around you is the moment I pull out heavy artillery.

>>52382
Nah, it just means that there are nearly no chrisitians, look at the churches today, a perfect example to how the original beliefs have degraded.
"15 And they came to Jerusalem. And he entered the temple and began to drive out those who sold and those who bought in the temple, and he overturned the tables of the money-changers and the seats of those who sold pigeons. 16 And he would not allow anyone to carry anything through the temple. 17 And he was teaching them and saying to them, “Is it not written, ‘My house shall be called a house of prayer for all the nations’? But you have made it a den of robbers.” 18 And the chief priests and the scribes heard it and were seeking a way to destroy him, for they feared him, because all the crowd was astonished at his teaching. 19 And when evening came they[a] went out of the city."
Also,
>chaotic universe
Nope. From the way I see it, universe is perfectly ordered, otherwise it wouldn't work.

>>52386
Although on the other had it depends how you define chaos.

>>52386
How do you know that the universe isn't chaotic and we arose from it's chaos?

>>52387
I didn't mean chaos in a scientific sense. I don't know nearly enough about physics or math to understand that stuff.

>>52390
If it was chaotic, then we; 1. Wouldn't be be able to learn anything about the universe. 2. Probability theory wouldn't work.
Unless you have different definition of chaos.

All right, I'm off for today! See you later!

>>52381
>No, but the problem is that they're trying to undermine the scientific method

It's these absolute, unsupported statements that should be avoided in debate. They do not make a point other than, "well they're bad because they do something i don't like". It is important to understand not everyone who believes in something other than evolution either advocates, pushes, or spreads their belief. I would care to say most of them don't even care. Yes, there have been cases in which such has happened, such as in the Dover case. There was a clear and present danger in the inclusion of intelligent design, not because it supported religion or not, but because it was stated to be a theory supported by the scientific method. It's not.

The poster with only a trip has stated he hates religion because it is the cause of certain evils. In all technicality, anything could be considered as such. Atheists have done pretty evil things in violation of basic human rights as a way to spread their beliefs. So have theists. And members of everything else too. I find his hate to be somewhat nihilistic. In any case, that is no reason for him not to hate. He can hate all he wants. He has a right to. At the same time, those who believe in what he hates have a right to their opinion, and to avoid being harassed (outside of where it's appropriate). That includes this board. Now, I believe his motivations are tame. He believes in something strongly and wishes to advocate it. That's fine. But it is important he does not resort to arrogance or strawmen arguments. Something he has gone into borderline. If you wish, I can point these out specifically.

Allow me to provide another example. Yesterday I decided to spend some time meditating in the church I go to. I sometimes just sit in a pew and enjoy the stillness and peace in the air. The father was organizing what seemed to be an upcoming baptism, so he kept moving chairs and decorations around. Because of this, he was busy. A little later, a young man of my age arrived with his camera equipment, as he was the cameraman the family had hired to record the baptism. Since the father was busy, he asked me to show him around and help him get his things ready. I accompanied him to the sanctuary where the main microphone is wired; and obviously he began to remove some obstructions in the altar to be able to wire the camera and microphones correctly. For Catholics, the altar is a place where one must be very respectful and careful to not be reckless. Of course the man did not know this, so I kindly asked him to move things with care, and to allow me to handle the scriptures around the sanctuary area. He was somewhat bothered by my request, but did as I asked. We then went to the technical room, and when we came back to the altar, some of the scripture was once again placed on the altar, presumably by the father whom was not aware of our organizing the wires there. Losing his patience, the man tossed the Bible on the altar aside onto the credence table nearby. I would be lying if I said I wasn't pissed at that. I more strongly told him not to touch the scripture, and to let me do it. We weren't very happy campers with each other after that, but we finally got the mike wired.

The point of the story: the man may not find the items in the church nor the church itself sacred, as I do. And that's perfectly fine. he does not have to, nor do i see him any differently because of it. But he does need to respect the beliefs of others and respect what they hold sacred. In order to come to solutions and compromise, we must learn to be at peace. That is why I find the largely growing divide between faith and scientific study so alarming. It is very possible to be someone who is both faithful, and a student of the natural world. I myself am such an example.

>when people resort to faith healing instead of real medicine.

Somewhat off topic, but if someone wishes to heal themselves through faith rather than "real" medicine (I suppose you mean medicine utilizing chemical drugs as treatment), that is their right and decision. What is the problem with such?

>>52395
Since you meant that by the universe working then it's alright

Goodnight

>>52396
>What is the problem with such?
The problem is that people die preventable deaths without their fully informed consent.

>>52399
Ah, but make sure to be attentive to detail. Form what the poster wrote, I understand he meant people who CHOSE to heal trough faith themselves. Not hospitals or doctors doing so without the patients' consent.

If I am wrong, please do correct me.
And if I am wrong and the comment mean doctors or hospitals choosing such, you can be SURE that has not happened in the United States in a hundred or so years. Using it as a point against religious belief is going down the slippery slope.

Comparable to saying "the problem with homosexuality is that if we allow it to exist, people will resort to marrying only homosexual couples" or "the problem with atheism is if we allow it to exist, it will cause people to burn down churches"

Both are slippery slope, implausible arguments that don't really provide a point.

>>52396

1. Frequently parents teach their children these beliefs. As such, many of the victims are children who cannot legally choose for themselves.
2. If a person dies for a preventable reason, I want to prevent it. A person dying even if it is his own decision is a bad thing. Because of this, I want to convince people not to die for preventable reasons.

So they have the legal right to refuse treatment, but I don't think they have any right to subject their children to it. Also, if I can save a life by correcting false beliefs that is always good. It might not hurt me, but it does hurt others and I want to correct that.

>>52400
It also, as the helmet example above, completely disregards the fact that the the two do not contradict. A cancer patient can heal themselves through chemotherapy and weekly meetings with a priest at the same time. In fact, psychology extensively supports the benefits of faith as a tool for healing and internal peace.

Of course psychologists don't actively attack theism, so it is mostly ignored by many militant advocates attempting to "seek the truth" (while ignoring other truths). A perfect example would be Richard Dawkins. So intelligent in biology, yet so bigoted and ignorant in anything not under a microscope. I still can't believe such an educated man could have made such ignorant comments about people and society reminiscent of homophobics or racists.

>>52400
You can't consent without being fully informed. A fully informed individual would know that there is no evidence to support faith healing. Faith healers deliberately misinform their adherents, and this is a problem. I have no problem with the adherents, my problem lies with those who prey upon the sick and dying and convince them to avoid conventional medical therapies which could prevent their untimely death.

>>52402

>1. Frequently parents teach their children these beliefs. As such, many of the victims are children who cannot legally choose for themselves.
>2. If a person dies for a preventable reason, I want to prevent it. A person dying even if it is his own decision is a bad thing. Because of this, I want to convince people not to die for preventable reasons.


The problem here is now you are straying from a topic in biology to constitutional right. Number 1 basically states you feel your way of thinking is what parents should teach to their children, and that you know how to raise children better than their parents. I find that somewhat 1984-like. We teach evolution in public schools since the 70's or earlier. Everyone with a high school diploma has heard the theory.

Do they not have a right to choose? Of course they do. If they choose to not believe it, let off. They have a right to believe what they want. Your being nosy is not only annoying, but disrespectful. Because of this reason, I don't fain any child who is taught creationism by their parents a "victim". Specially because victim implies some type of harm was inflicted. Not everyone will agree with you on this. And believe it or not, what you say is not absolute fact. You may THINK it is harmful, others may think it's not. And personally, I don't believe it is. If the kid grows up and finds another theory to be more believable, he will switch. If not he won't. Your shoving it down his throat will only make him begin to take a dislike to your belief.

Number 2 both implies professionals will not treat a child in their care because of their parents views, something that happens in only some places; and again, that your way of raising the kid is better than the parents'. Let parents raise their kids. They're not yours. I'm not going to tell you what ot do with your kids. Do the same. When it comes to law, I am a man of word. United States law, and some of it's most base constitutional law allows one to have the freedom of belief and the freedom of exercising belief that nobody can infringe against.

If that means letting someone die because they feel medicine goes against their beliefs (something classical Christians don't believe, mind you), so be it. I'm not some type of savior protecting you against yourself. If we have to prevent people from making wrong choices, shouldn't we also prevent them from drinking or smoking as well, or from driving a car?


Others' personal choice comes before your personal sense of righteousness.

>>52396
I have no problem with respecting other people's belief in their own environment/settings as long as they don't try to exorcise me or anything, public settings are different if they're being dicks about it ala WBC.

You asked if they should be treated negatively for believing otherwise, to which I said no, they should be tried to convince without having to shun them or anything.

However, it's not what they believe that's the problem, the problem is that they're actively trying to get their agenda in public education where it simply has no place in.

And adding to what >>52399 said, it's also a problem when parents refuse to send their kids to get checked out properly. By real medicine I mean medicine that has actual scientific backing behind it's use, not that there's anything wrong with using chemicals as medicine, properly that is.

>>52407

>hey're actively trying to get their agenda in public education where it simply has no place in.

The question is, where is this being done?

Better yet, why are we supposing everyone who is religious is that way and judging due to the actions of a minority?

>>52408
Well, this thread is about the evolution - creationism debate. So we're talking about the people that are involved in it. Not your average christian family, but people that were in the dover trials, that vote in favor of creationism in school boards, the discovery institute, etc

>>52405

>Number 1 basically states you feel your way of thinking is what parents should teach to their children, and that you know how to raise children better than their parents.
Of course. Absolutely. I know almost as surely as it is possible for a human being to know anythingh that it is wrong to subject children to child abuse as severe as letting them die from treatable diseases rather than angering a cruel, nonexistent God.

And if there is no legal ground to oppose it in court, I won't. However, that doesn't mean I will pretend it is anything short of insane.

I also think that if someone's beliefs are so far off base that they believe they should kill a child, I don't have any problem overruling them. After all, we do that all the time. If a mother kills a child for religious reasons, the mother goes to jail. If a father starves his son for religious reasons, the father goes to jail. Why is there some exception for faith "healing"?

Neglect is just as clearly abuse as rape, murder, or anything else. We wouldn't give a pass for any of those crimes because of religion. Why should we give a pass for letting your kid die?

So it is the job of the government to enforce some standard of morality. If the people feel that faith "healing" is so insane that it should be illegal, so be it. They have the same right to outlaw that kind of abuse as they do to outlaw any other.

Democracy is frequently a tyranny of the majority. You have to stick to the laws of the land. If the people decide that you have to give your kid necessary medicine, tough shit.

Still kind of irrelevant, though, since I am not trying to get anyone arrested. I think it would be proper to do so, but all I am doing is criticizing. That is hardly Orwellian.

>>52405

Freedom of choice is a wonderful thing. But if you're dead, you're incapable of making any more choices, as far as we know.

When people reject science-based medicine in favor of faith healing, or its lefty equivalent, they should be strongly discouraged. And we should do our best to educate them about how those kinds of treatments just don't work. But we can't force sober, informed adults to get a treatment if they don't want it, and if that leads to deaths that could have been prevented, that makes me sad.

In the case of children, I think it is okay to treat a child over the objections of the parents. It's usually agreed that parents ought to be the stewards of their children, which at the very least protecting them from death, disease and injury.

A parent that puts a child at risk of dying of a disease that could have been prevented through medicine is failing in his duty to be a good parent. So I don't really have a problem with the state stepping in and taking over, because a child's right to live is far more important to me than a parent's right to deny that child treatment.

I'm not saying you can't pray or take alternative treatments for disease. I would just plead with people to do those things in addition to seeking proper medical treatment.

>>52412

Yup. That's a difficult decision to make, but I think it's fair and essential.

>>52396
The problem with faith beliefs is that it is, if I may be blunt, foolish.

From your writing I can see that you are a Christian. Me too. And yet I abhor "faith-healing".

Think. God puts everything that we find on the earth. Are we to assume that he did not put the herbs and chemicals that make medicines here too? Did he not intend man to discover medicine? And did he intend man to ignore that medicine when he discovered it?

Faith-healing, if one truly supports it, should be accompanied by a lifestyle stricter than the Amish. It makes no logical sense, and taken to its logical conclusion means that we should reject all man-made creations.

God makes man, and man makes things. If these things do good, like medicine, is it so unreasonable to assume that God helped us to find them?

>>52428
Rats. I meant *faith healings at the top of that post.

>>52396
Therefore, the problem with faith-healing is that while people do have a right to do whatever they want, it is surely neglectful if their desires are uninformed and damaging.

If someone had been encouraged to trust in faith-healing by their pastor, I would have no hesitation in telling them what I said above about medicine.

In the same way that if you visited a tribe of natives and found a sick woman, to whom they were administering river water because their beliefs stated that the river had healing powers, and yet she was impossible pain, you would administer medicine. Not to do so would be terribly politically correct and sensitive, and at the same time very cruel because it is doing nothing to help people from their mistakes.

All this must be done in a loving and Christian way. Faith means conviction that you are right, but Christian faith means loving your neighbour. It's a difficult balance to strike, but that's why we pray to God for help and guidance.

>>52402
See, Christianity and Atheism do not have to disagree on everything. In fact, the logical, reasonable Christian and the logical, reasonable Atheist should agree on the vast majority of things.

And I agree, as a Christian, with everything that you said in your post.

>>52410
You tar all Christians with the same brush. Don't be so quick to judge a religion on the misguided actions of a few of its members.

There are atheists who burn crosses and picket churches. And yet I don't accuse you of the same bigotry and hate.

There are Christians who, apparently, would take their faith spectacularly far enough away from its intentions to kill a child. Please don't accuse us all of the same thing.

>>52433

>You tar all Christians with the same brush. Don't be so quick to judge a religion on the misguided actions of a few of its members.

Oh believe me, I don't. I have nothing but respect for plenty of religious people. I know that Creationists and "faith healers" are the extremists and I don't judge the rest by them.

I do disagree with all Christians. That doesn't mean I think you're all completely crazy or evil. Wrong, certainly. I would even say that Christianity is an inferior moral framework to mine. However, it's a giant leap from "wrong" to "crazy" and from "founding your morality on what I consider a flawed basis" and "evil".

TL;DR: I respect Christians and don't judge you based off the psychos.

>>52434
Fair.

But could you explain to me why the moral framework is inferior, please?

>>52435

My general criticisms. May not apply to you. They each target specific variants of the common belief systems I've seen.

1. The afterlife really destroys any reason I can see not to kill someone. If I want to destroy the world, there are very clear reasons I shouldn't. It destroys all of humanity. Billions of people and thousands of years of progress cease to be.
What reason is there not to kill everyone if they just go to Heaven later?
2. If someone behaves well in order to get a privileged position after he dies, that isn't moral. It is following the rules, but that isn't morality.
The idea of earning a privileged position in Heaven seems abhorrent to me, anyway. God has he ability to make everyone equally happy. Alongside infinite bliss, anything less than that is just spiteful vengeance. I believe everyone fundamentally deserves the best happiness I can give him. That means that if I were omnipotent, everyone would be as happy as I could make him regardless of his actions.
3. Either morality is accessible to humanity, or it doesn't. If morality doesn't exist in any form on its own, what business does God have creating it?

I am about to pass out from exhaustion, though, so bye-bye.

>>52436
>1. The afterlife really destroys any reason I can see not to kill someone. If I want to destroy the world, there are very clear reasons I shouldn't. It destroys all of humanity. Billions of people and thousands of years of progress cease to be. What reason is there not to kill everyone if they just go to Heaven later?
With a belief in the afterlife must go the belief in the commandment Do Not Murder. So I don't condone "Holy wars". What is more, with a belief in the afterlife must surely go the belief that God put us here on earth deliberately, so what right have we to take someone out of it? None.
>2. If someone behaves well in order to get a privileged position after he dies, that isn't moral. It is following the rules, but that isn't morality.
>The idea of earning a privileged position in Heaven seems abhorrent to me, anyway. God has he ability to make everyone equally happy. Alongside infinite bliss, anything less than that is just spiteful vengeance. I believe everyone fundamentally deserves the best happiness I can give him. That means that if I were omnipotent, everyone would be as happy as I could make him regardless of his actions.
The Bible is not a case of following rules. I dispute your statement. Paul writes in 2 Corinthians 3:6 : [God] has made us competent as ministers of a new covenant - not of the letter [that is, the letter of the Law] but the Spirit; for the letter kills, but the Spirit gives Life . Paul also says in Galations 5:1 It is for freedom that Christ has set us free. Stand firm, then, and do not let yourselves be burdened again by a yoke of slavery. .
The Laws and their punishments were impossible to keep. They condemned all men to death. They can perhaps be thought of as a measure, a goal to aim for, until Jesus came to Earth. When Jesus came and sacrificed himself, he made a new relationship between man and God, not of Laws and punishments, but of love.
Does this then mean that we live lawless lives? No. If you love your father, you actively want to do right by him. In the same way, in loving God, we actively want to do right by him. Thus we keep the laws, through love, not through arbitrary rules.
The morality of this love is clear. Jesus says "Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind" , and that that is the greatest commandment, and the second is like it: "Love your neighbour as yourself . Is the morality of this not clear? Is there a greater morality that man could comprehend than treating his neighbour as he would treat himself?
In your second point of a privileged position in Heaven. Heaven means existence in the presence of God. This is the bliss; the fulfilment of the loving relationship. How can someone who does not love God be happy in his presence? Therefore it is surely not by God's hand but by his own that a person who does not love God is excluded from Heaven. God is omnipotent but not foolish. He loves his people but that doesn't mean he will ignore all reason.
>3. Either morality is accessible to humanity, or it doesn't. If morality doesn't exist in any form on its own, what business does God have creating it?
This is a very secular statement. You cannot cherry-pick the Christian faith, and then point out the holes that you yourself left. God created everything. So a question of whether or not he has a business in creating morality seems to me very odd.


Everything above is my opinion. But I arrive at it through reasoned analysis of the bible, and my own experience, and the opinions of the people I talk to. I was not told my faith by a man in a pulpit.

>>52439

No time to address everything, so I'll just point this out:
>So a question of whether or not he has a business in creating morality seems to me very odd.
How does he create morality? If God makes the world, wouldn't morality already exist in it?
Morality is a way of determining what is right and wrong. So either the things are intrinsically right and wrong or God just tacks rightness onto something that doesn't possess it intrinsically.

So either something is right intrinsically or God merely tacked on morality that doesn't actually exist. Either murder is wrong, in which case it would still be wrong regardless of whether or not God decrees it to be so, or it isn't wrong, in which case God merely decrees it to be wrong and enforces this decree with his omnipotence.

I don't care who is right and who is wrong.

It's nothing more than an intellectual/theological masturbation, the outcome is totally irrelevant for me.

>>52442
I still don't see what your problem is.

Let us agree that morality is not a construct. It is as much of a fundamental fact as the laws of physics. It is difficult and confusing for man to find it alone, although not impossible.

But I'm sorry to say that your argument still is secular and pointing out holes that you yourself have made. There is no use in saying "If God had decreed murder was right then it would be merely a decree enforced with omnipotence". That is not the case, and it never is. Something like that is not a hypothetical situation, it is just not true. It's like saying "Maths is wrong because what if 2+2 = 5? But it doesn't, so maths can't be right". Saying 2+2 = 5 is not a hypothetical statement, it is plainly untrue. Hypothesising about whether God could decree that murder is right is not a hypothetical statement, it is plainly untrue.

It is simple to me: God creates everything. This includes the laws of physics, and the laws of morality. Let us agree that morality is a constant, which is difficult for us humans to understand, or agree on, and yet we do need to agree on them.
Something is right intrinsically. This is the case. God commands that we should not murder, that we should love each other as ourselves, to help us to understand them. Is this a bad thing?

It's like an instruction manual explaining how to use a car. You would not say "Either the car rolls on the wheels or the makers decree it. The makers could decree it rolled on boulders." The makers made the wheels, and the facilitate our use and understanding of the car, explain to us how to use the wheels.

Tl;dr (even though /dis/ is no place for the tl;dr) If God made everything, it makes sense that he also created morality, and even if morality is intrinsic fact, which I believe it is, then God explaining it to us and helping us to understand it is not arbitrary decree in the slightest.

>>52444

>explaining it
No.
>making it
How would that work?

Here's my argument in much more verbose and complete form because I have to head off:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Euthyphro_dilemma

>>52445

My beliefs are the "second horn". That explains them better than I can.

Here's the juicy bit:

>No reasons for morality: If there is no moral standard other than God's will, then God's commands are arbitrary (i.e., based on pure whimsy or caprice). This would mean that morality is ultimately not based on reasons: "if theological voluntarism is true, then God's commands/intentions must be arbitrary; [but] it cannot be that morality could wholly depend on something arbitrary... [for] when we say that some moral state of affairs obtains, we take it that there is a reason for that moral state of affairs obtaining rather than another."[37] And as Michael J. Murray and Michael Rea put it, this would also "cas[t] doubt on the notion that morality is genuinely objective."[38] An additional problem is that it is difficult to explain how true moral actions can exist, if one only acts out of fear for God, or in an attempt to be rewarded by him.[39]

>>52445

Terribly, terribly sorry for the triple post.

>>explaining it
>No.
>>making it
>How would that work?

I meant that God explaining morality would make sense, but I don't believe it to be possible to create morality. See the link I posted.

I normally don't argue by posting links, so sorry for that, too.

>>52442
You're attempting to describe a supernatural, omnipotent being above all natural law (considering he's the one that decides what's "natural") using the scientific method, a method used for explaining THE NATURAL WORLD (science is the study of THE NATURAL WORLD, not a system of anything, or an entity in any way). That's why the "god-no god" argument is moot. There is nothing you can say that would "disprove" it's existence. And nobody is able to provide evidence proving it either. SO then what happens is you decide until you are shown proof, you will not belive it. That's fine and dandy. Whether or not the rest of the world will stop to care what you think is a different story.

I fail to provide proof for the existence of God and go on happily with my day having faith (as that is, what it is called - faith; if not it wouldn't be called FAITH), somebody else fails to provide proof for the existence of God and you spend the rest of the week actively dwelling and bothering yourself thinking about whether it exists or not.

The difference between you and me in this hypothetical situation- I may be wrong yet accept it and move on. You may be wrong yet you spend your whole life worrying about it.

It's funny how some atheists worry more about religion than religious people do; it's like a homophobic spending all of his time inside a gay bar telling homosexuals they're wrong.

>>52446
You have not read my posts thoroughly enough. I have already answered much of this. I will write it again for you.

>No
If I may say so, "Yes". And since you give no justification for your "No", I can't say anything other than that I think you're wrong.

>How would that work?
A Christian believes that God created everything. Everything means, oddly enough everything. And even if we want to say that God didn't create morality directly, and that it is a logical factor of his creation, this does not disprove my point, which is that God's commands are there to explain morality to us and help us to live by it.

>Your second horn
Firstly the whole passage begins with a giant "If" that we both disagree with - namely that "morality" is an arbitrary thing of God's will. I don't think it is, and neither do you, I believe. Onwards.
>Then God's commands are arbitrary
This is now irrelevant because we disagree with the original "if".
>Morality is ultimately not based on reasons
Again, irrelevant because we disagree with the original "if". Morality is a logical and reasonable deduction from creation, which itself was created by God.
>A whole load of stuff still based on the original "if"

>An additional problem is that it is difficult to explain how true moral actions can exist, if one only acts out of fear for God, or in an attempt to be rewarded by him.

This is why I say you have not read my post. I will copy and paste for you.

>The Bible is not a case of following rules. I dispute your statement. Paul writes in 2 Corinthians 3:6 : [God] has made us competent as ministers of a new covenant - not of the letter [that is, the letter of the Law] but the Spirit; for the letter kills, but the Spirit gives Life . Paul also says in Galations 5:1 It is for freedom that Christ has set us free. Stand firm, then, and do not let yourselves be burdened again by a yoke of slavery. .
The Laws and their punishments were impossible to keep. They condemned all men to death. They can perhaps be thought of as a measure, a goal to aim for, until Jesus came to Earth. When Jesus came and sacrificed himself, he made a new relationship between man and God, not of Laws and punishments, but of love.
Does this then mean that we live lawless lives? No. If you love your father, you actively want to do right by him. In the same way, in loving God, we actively want to do right by him. Thus we keep the laws, through love, not through arbitrary rules.
The morality of this love is clear. Jesus says "Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind" , and that that is the greatest commandment, and the second is like it: "Love your neighbour as yourself . Is the morality of this not clear? Is there a greater morality that man could comprehend than treating his neighbour as he would treat himself?
(written at >>52439)

>>52449

Let's start this discussion over since I screwed it up by rushing through it. I didn't address your claims and I don't believe you addressed mine. We're just arguing about semantics and things neither of us actually believes or both of us believe.

>>52448
If I may, "Faith" does not mean belief with no proof.

The Bible is my proof. My own relationship with God is proof (what Dawkins would love to call deluding myself). The fact that there is more historical evidence for Jesus than just about any other man on earth is my proof. The fact that no plausible explanation for the resurrection other than the biblical one has been put forward is my proof.

I do not mean in the slightest to undermine your faith, but we mustn't set God aside from Science. Surely as Christians we must agree that God created science? Therefore we can treat God as scientific fact?

What you are perhaps referring to is approaching God and criticising him in a secular way, which is more often actually a criticism of the religion itself and the people who follow it than God himself. And I do believe that that is wrong, because it involves a presupposition that God doesn't exist, which will colour anybody's argument. We must approach any debate, even as a Christian, even as an Atheist, with fully balanced and open views or we'll get nowhere.

Faith is putting enough trust in God that you aren't afraid to examine the difficult questions of the bible with an open mind.

>>52452
Which of your claims did I not address? I thought I was being pretty thorough.

>>52448

>Whether or not the rest of the world will stop to care what you think is a different story.
They should. Sorry, but I happen to like reason. They mights not, but that is irrational.

>It's funny how some atheists worry more about religion than religious people do; it's like a homophobic spending all of his time inside a gay bar telling homosexuals they're wrong.
Back to the good ol' "Get a life! Stop spending all your time telling me I'm wrong!"
Sorry, but no. I happen to like philosophy. Religion is a philosophy. Ergo, I like discussing religion.
I also think it's such a bad philosophy that disproving it would help the world, so I'm an activist, too.

You have the burden of proof. Until you can prove God exists, it is irrational to believe He does. So if you're comfortable holding irrational beliefs, I can't stop you. However, if you actually want to be reasonable, you should attempt to address all my claims rather than claiming I'm being mean, I have no life, or that religion is exempt from rationality.

Two options:
Religion is rational, or
Religion is irrational.

If you believe it to be the former, defend yourself. That's what discussion is for: destroying false beliefs and replacing them with correct ones.

>>52455
>>52453

I need to go into town and get a haircut. I'll be a little while.

By the way, trip with no name, I am very much enjoying this debate; and it is deepening my own understanding of God, so thank you.

>>52455
>"Get a life! Stop spending all your time telling me I'm wrong!"

The Internet would be a better place to be.

Since that is what this thread has turned into, I'll try to give my opinion on the matter.

Unlike my atheist-with-just-a-tripcode friend, I don't really care that a belief in god is rational or not, I believe that to be an issue that has been long settled in philosophy. To quote my good friend Immanuel Kant.

The wish to talk to God is absurd. We cannot talk to one we cannot comprehend — and we cannot comprehend God; we can only believe in Him

Belief in God is a matter of faith, or trust. It's not something that most people arrive at rationally, so trying to have a purely reason based discussion about it seems counterproductive to me. My issue is less with a belief in God and more with the kind of God that's believed in.

Well, from what I can tell, the average believer in a western, monotheistic God thinks of God as a person* who created reality, has complete control over it, and sits outside the universe judging and giving commandments. In this sense he (it's always "he") is like some kind of divine parent, or a celestial superego.

*Not a person as in "something that looks like a Home sapien, has two arms, two legs, etc. but just a being that does things that humans do - thinking, planning, feeling, judging etc.

This way of looking at God as a being that exists as a creator or divine architect of the universe is not really core to many religions, it's a very Western concept that started with Aquinas ( who was drawing influence from Aristotle and the Muslim Faylasufs ) and was developed into Newton's "divine lawmaker". Comparative religions scholar Karen Armstrong deals with this process in her book, The History of God very well.

With our current understanding of the natural world, that kind of God is impossible to reconcile with a logical understanding of reality. But remember, that kind of God was created by rationally minded westerners anyway, and disproving that concept doesn't kill God outright, unless we tell ourselves that it is the only way of thinking about God.

So are there other ways of thinking about God? Yes, I think so. It may be different for each person, but I happen to think that Bishop Spong is on the right track for a God concept that better serves humanity. >>51921

When I talk to people with religious convictions, what they tend to emphasize is not the certain orthodox beliefs in their texts (such as the crucifixion, the story of genesis etc.) What they talk about is the morals that they perceive in their religion. Things like "love thy neighbor".

The creedal trappings (like the crucifixion story or Noah's Flood) around those moral messages seem like, to me, distractions from the moral messages of religion. But that's just me. Maybe some people find they better understand and appreciate those messages in the context of their particular religious tradition. So what is "the message"? I don't think I'd be able to explain that well, so I'll turn over to Karen Armstrong.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FcyYh4XHkMw

As far as I can tell, the "message" at the core of every religion, when you get past the distracting liturgy and confusing metaphysics is a deceptively simple one: Compassion. And it's not just "hey, be nice to each other", it's encouraging people to radically change the way they think and behave so that they can move beyond the greed and hatred that causes so much suffering. Is it oversimplification to boil every religion down to one word? I don't think so, not when it seems we still haven't mastered that idea yet.

I don't consider myself a believer, but when I see people like strict creationists (this is my attempt to tie this rant back to the thread topic) try to say that "the point" of their religion is that stories like Genesis need to be literally true, or there is no purpose in their faith. I feel like they're denigrating all of Christianity and religion, by implying it's about some bronze-age creation myths that obviously contradict science.

I think that promoting such an interpretation ultimately harms religion, since it just makes religion more of a target for people like Richard Dawkins or Mister atheist-with-just-a-tripcode over here. And if that's the case, I don't have much of a problem with it. If religion goes in the direction of strict literalism, it becomes the enemy of both reason and compassion. And to paraphrase Bishop Spong.

If we can kill a particular concept of God, then it should die.

>>52464
>
If we can kill a particular concept of God, then it should die.

>>52470

That may have been a little too abstruse of a concept to state like that, so I'll happily explain the metaphor in more detail if anyone actually wants me to. Not right now though, I've got to sleep.

Or you can just look into what Nietzsche meant when he said "God is Dead", it's the same concept.

God is the Universe,creation a bud of leaves coming from this particular tree.

If he was dead,we wouldn't exist.

>>52448
>You're attempting to describe a supernatural, omnipotent being above all natural law . . . using the scientific method, a method used for explaining THE NATURAL WORLD
I'm going to expand on Tamar's response. Yep, I'm posting this textwall again

Philosopher Richard Carrier defines the supernatural as an explanation that appeals to ontologically basic mental things, mental entities that cannot be reduced to nonmental entities. For example, imagine we come across someone who has the power to move objects by act of will like a Jedi. We would call that a supernatural ability. But what if scientists turned their instruments on this ability and were able to quantify it, confirm it within the requirements of peer review, and explain it in terms of particles interacting according to physical laws, like other physical forces. The ability would no longer be supernatural. Likewise for the supernatural being, like an angel or a tree spirit, who turns out to be made of ordinary plant cells and not magical tree spirit stuff.

The concept of the supernatural then is logically incoherent. Humans make models of things on different levels e.g. the car, the parts that make up the car, the particles that make up the parts that make up the car, etc. but reality has only one level, the level of fundamental particles and the physical rules that they follow. And even if the force powers or tree spirit, unlike everything else science has ever examined, turned out not to be made of simpler parts, we would just add force powers and tree spirits and the rules we observe to govern them as new fundamentals, so they'd still land in plain old reality with everything else natural.

All things that exist are best evaluated by rational, scientific methods. When people say "X is excluded from science", they're usually just doing so to avoid having to say "X has been tested by the scientific method and found false".

>There is nothing you can say that would "disprove" it's existence. And nobody is able to provide evidence proving it either.
An explanation that cannot in principle be supported by any observation also can't be opposed by any observation, yes, but I doubt you could describe a god for which this would be true, and most believers in god certainly wouldn't agree with your definition if you did because most of them make all sorts of testable claims about their god, like claims about history. You could describe a deistic god that doesn't interact with the universe in any detectable way at all, but if the god is at all complex, if it has a mind, that alone has to decrease its probability versus the natural-world-minus-god explanation which is strictly simpler.

>>52453
>The Bible is my proof. My own relationship with God is proof (what Dawkins would love to call deluding myself). The fact that there is more historical evidence for Jesus than just about any other man on earth is my proof. The fact that no plausible explanation for the resurrection other than the biblical one has been put forward is my proof.
I can accept all these as evidence of god, but

>The fact that there is more historical evidence for Jesus than just about any other man on earth is my proof
You're just being rhetorical here, right? I mean, if you're not then how would you characterize the amount of historical evidence for Jesus versus the amount of historical evidence for Abraham Lincoln?

>The fact that no plausible explanation for the resurrection other than the biblical one has been put forward is my proof
The body was removed from the tomb by someone (disciple or non-related) and the gospels, written decades after the fact by non-eyewitnesses, were embellished with a fictitious account?

>>52475

>>52486

>>52475

I'm not sure I follow. Keep in mind that "God is dead" refers not to some literal God with a knife in his back, but to the concept of God being rendered impossible to believe in the minds of believers.

Whether or not God exists, I think we can all agree that God at least exists as a concept in the minds of people.

Nietzsche lived on this side of the scientific age and the enlightenment, and he thought that given what we know about the universe, the concept of God wouldn't be able to survive much longer. That is to say, God as a literal person sitting outside the universe that can be accounted for rationally.

He might have been onto something, since in the 19th century the Western world was becoming more and more secular. Religion was losing ground in Europe, and the United States had entered into the "Golden Age of Free-thought", with people like Robert Ingersoll becoming extremely popular. God seemed like it was on the way out.

What Nietzsche didn't anticipate was the great revival of the 20th century, and the rise of fundamentalism around the world ( Mostly in the United States and the Middle East ) So the problem of dead Gods was really averted by people either denying science, or compartmentalizing away the "God" part of reality from the "natural" part of reality.

Karen Armstrong describes this process happening over and over throughout history. God will "die" for one particular generation because the concept doesn't gel with the values and knowledge of society, and God will be reinvented as a God that can better serve humanity at that time. Historically, "atheist" hasn't really meant a person that doesn't believe in Gods, it was a pejorative for a person that had a radically different idea of what God was compared to the accepted wisdom of the time. For example: early Christians were called "atheists" by the Romans because the way they thought about God wasn't how Romans thought about the Gods.

To extend the metaphor, I like to think of the current God concept that's popular among most people to be on extended life support. It should be dead, but it's being kept alive by the fundamentalists who feel threatened by their worldview collapsing and the institutions that have no interest in any kind of theological revolutions. If God is to be a concept that can serve humanity in the future, I think it does need to finally and properly die first, so that it can be brought back as something better.

>>52479

It seems we agree on everything, but you stated it much better. Well done! I tend to be pretty good at rhetoric, but something about the online medium just throws me for a loop. I'm not bad at discussion online, but I'm not as good as I am elsewhere.

>>52479
I will admit, having done some research, that I might have got a little carried away in my declaration of how much historical evidence there is for Jesus.
That notwithstanding, there is still a great, great deal of historical evidence, and more about Jesus is written than Caesar.

But the "Graverobbers" idea is flawed.
We are told that the wrappings were neatly folded. The embalming of the body would have stuck the bandages to the flesh so firmly that it would be virtually impossible to peel them off neatly. But that could, I'll grant, easily be pulled off by taking away the body and leaving fresh bandages in their place.
There are however numerous firm confirmations of the resurrection. I'll list the most common two for you:

- Many of the apostles died for Jesus and went through the most incredible hardships. Would they have done all that to perpetuate something they knew was a lie? Perhaps, but not to the extent of death, since if they were doing it for a lie they would not have believed in an afterlife, so martyring would have been pointless. And if it had been Jesus who had conned them, they would have seen the lie when Jesus didn't rise from the dead.

-There is wide eyewitness for the risen Jesus. Of course there was an even larger crowd that saw his death, and nobody can dispute that. Paul writes in 1 Corinthians 15:6 that Jesus was seen by more than 500 eyewitnesses - and he states in this letter to the Corinthians that many of those eyewitnesses are still alive as he is writing, in case they want to check his account.


I still haven't heard God's morality proven inferior to any other. I am enjoying the debate. Please continue!

>>52521
That is, more than 500 eyewitnesses who saw him alive after his death.
Sorry, I wasn't very clear.

>>52521
>I will admit, having done some research, that I might have got a little carried away in my declaration of how much historical evidence there is for Jesus.
>That notwithstanding, there is still a great, great deal of historical evidence, and more about Jesus is written than Caesar.
Not in terms of primary sources, I don't think. I'm not an expert on history, but I'm pretty sure Caesar wrote a lot (prose and campaign reports), was written about by many historians and others who were actual contemporaries, and left behind artwork and coinage of himself. Whereas Jesus, on the other hand, is not written about by many contemporaries, and not at all at the time of the supposed events involving him. Correct me if I'm wrong.

>Many of the apostles died for Jesus and went through the most incredible hardships. Would they have done all that to perpetuate something they knew was a lie?
Probably not. Radio evangelist Harold Camping commanded a large following who made significant life changes and spent extremely large sums of money promoting a message of rapture. They probably wouldn't have done all that to perpetuate something they knew was a lie either.

>And if it had been Jesus who had conned them, they would have seen the lie when Jesus didn't rise from the dead.
And yet, when Camping's predictions failed to come true in September of 1994, his supporters didn't give up the belief. Nor when Camping's revised prediction again failed to come true in May of 2011. Nor when Camping's revised interpretation of his revised prediction again failed to come true in October of 2011. This is actually incredibly typical of extreme religious belief.

>There is wide eyewitness for the risen Jesus. Of course there was an even larger crowd that saw his death, and nobody can dispute that. Paul writes in 1 Corinthians 15:6 that Jesus was seen by more than 500 eyewitnesses - and he states in this letter to the Corinthians that many of those eyewitnesses are still alive as he is writing, in case they want to check his account.
The dispute follows from the facts that you've written here. We don't have 500 eyewitness reports about Jesus' resurrection, we have one report claiming that there were hundreds of eyewitnesses. And that report was written decades after the fact by someone who wasn't there and is not confirmed by all other gospel accounts. That's not much evidence.

And some of those issues are going to apply to all of the gospel accounts. Eyewitness testimony is known to be the least reliable form of evidence. Reports written decades after the fact by non-eyewitnesses are simply not much evidence.

>>52525
The debate is turning into one of evidence, which I am not so well knowledgeable in.
Christianity is enormous and I am studying and researching it bit by bit - for now, perhaps, we might have to agree to disagree about evidence. I have definitely heard things about solid hard historical proof, but I can't provide any examples at the moment.

You do, however, leave out the martyr element of Jesus' followers. How many of Camping's followers have died for him? And yet how many of Jesus' direct followers, who we can presume would have been aware if there was a lie, died for him?

As I said above, if they thought it was a lie, they wouldn't have thought there was an afterlife, and thus would be unlikely to martyr themselves.

Camping's followers, while fervently supporting him, don't seem to have martyred themselves in the same way. Correct me if I am wrong.

>>52521

>I still haven't heard God's morality proven inferior to any other. I am enjoying the debate. Please continue!

Could you kindly state your opinion on "God's morality"? Do you mean that God created it or that God merely tells us what it is? Is Christianity the source of morality in your belief or is it merely a moral system?

Also, another question: in the afterlife, do you have to earn rewards?
Do you believe in Hell?
If not, do you believe that good people will be rewarded more than bad people?
Will Hitler, Gandhi, and Joe Schmoe all go to the same place and all experience the same things? Will Hitler be punished, or will he just not get the same level of bliss as Gandhi?

>Also, another question: in the afterlife, do you have to earn rewards?
Earn rewards? I'm going to assume you mean earning your way into Heaven. Which would be yes.
>Do you believe in Hell?
Yes
>If not, do you believe that good people will be rewarded more than bad people?
Yes
>Will Hitler, Gandhi, and Joe Schmoe all go to the same place and all experience the same things? Will Hitler be punished, or will he just not get the same level of bliss as Gandhi?
I don't know, I'm not God, I'm not any of those people, and it is not my place to determine their fate. I can guess with high probability that Hitler is in Hell and Ghandi is in Heaven, but I can't be absolute 100% sure.

PS: God doesn't 'send' you to Hell, He merely doesn't force you to go to Heaven.

Still waiting for you to respond to my arguments in the linked thread

>>52529

I did state my opinion on God's morality above, twice, but I'll go into it again if you like.

God created the universe, and everything in it. Morality is a logical fact, a necessary feature of this universe. Thus God created morality, but not by arbitrary decrees; it is logically compatible with the universe. Therefore, when God makes commandments, this is to educate us about morality and teach us how to live morally just lives.
This morality includes loving God. Jesus says the greatest commandment is to love God with all your heart - this is of course missing from atheistic morality. The second greatest, Jesus says, is to love your neighbour as yourself - and on these hang all the other commandments. Christianity is founded on love. God loves his creation, and the Christian response to understanding that fact is to firstly love God back, and then secondly to love everybody else, following his example. All morality can be traced to love for your fellow man.

For the Christian morality comes from God - although that is not to say that it is an arbitrary set of rules, as I have explained above in detail, it is founded on love. The concept of a morality founded on love, though, is so universal that it can apply even in secular societies. Much of modern Western morality has strong Christian influences simply because of Christianity's history of being the dominant Western religion.

>In the afterlife, do you have to earn rewards?
I'm not sure what you mean by this. And if I said I did know anything about the afterlife I'd be lying. Man cannot know what the afterlife looks like or what it is like. It is one of the few things that I have to trust God in without any proof, because it is logically impossible to see any proof. But, if your parents tell you when you small that after school comes university, it is fair to trust them. They were right in everything they told you about school, so why should you not trust them about university? So I will admit that I can't make any definite statements about the afterlife.

>Do you believe in Hell?
I believe less in a fiery hellish furnace and more in exclusion from God. Heaven is simply the state of being in God's presence, being with the father. The power of God's love is indescribable, and thus to be in its presence is total bliss - what is called "Heaven". Hell is the antithesis of that. Hell is to be excluded from God's love.

>If not, do you believe that good people will be rewarded more than bad people?
This bit is important: There is no good and bad of people. This is one of the main reasons for misconceptions about heaven and hell. I will explain.
The act of sin is a rebellion from God. When a person sins, we decide, either consciously or subconsciously, that God is not important enough for us to follow his commands.
All rebellion from God is absolutely unforgiveable. There are no degrees of rebellion. Every person sins, therefore every person is equally guilty in the eyes of God of rebellion from him.
There are no good people. Not even Christians. (Sorry if this is sounding a little harsh, but I never pretended Christianity is about marshmallows and fairies). Everybody is equally guilty of the same crime - rebellion from God. It is so terrible that there is no greater or lesser rebellion - the slightest rebellion is the worst - possible - thing.

So wait - if we are all guilty of the unforgiveable, then are we all damned?

This bit is also important: We are not all damned. That is fairly obvious. But what is more important is to understand is that God does not simply turn a blind eye and forgive the unforgiveable.

This is the real, core reason why Jesus died on the cross. When Jesus died, he atoned for all of the sins of mankind.

Thus, when God judges us, he can see the whole sorry list of sins we have committed. They all come in one big paragraph headed "Rebellion", and rebellion is totally unforgiveable, so the length of that paragraph does not actually matter. But then God screws up the sheet of paper and throws it away.

Am I forgiven of the unforgiveable? No. The reason that I am not punished is because Jesus has already borne the punishment. Jesus is the scapegoat. Jesus sacrificed himself, for me, for you, and for everybody, purely out of love. So when God allows "sinners" into heaven, it is not because he is stupid. It is because the price for the crime has already been paid in full.

But there is a catch. There is one thing that Jesus asks for his sacrifice and only one: trust him. This is why he says "There is no way to the Father except through me". We cannot reach heaven by our own works, since every human ever born is guilty of rebellion from God. The only way to Heaven is to accept Jesus' sacrifice, and return his love for us.



This is my understanding of Christianity. Fire at will.

>>52531
See my post above.

>Earning rewards
I fundamentally disagree that any man can earn his way into heaven. Paul writes in Ephesians 2:8 : "It is by grace you have been saved, through faith - and this is not from yourselves, it is the gift of God - not by works". This means that it is not by our own works that we achieve heaven. It is by the grace of God.

>Good and bad people
See my post again.

As for the rest, I will agree with you that it is very, very hard for us to know. But again, my post above explains my opinion.

>>52533
Jas 2:14-26 ... what good is faith w/o works?
Heb 10:26 ... must avoid sin.
Jas 5:20 ... "earning" forgiveness.
Lk 6:46; Mt 7:21; Mt 19:16-21; Jn 5:29 ... must do will of God.
1 Cor 9:27 ... "buffet my body ..."
Phil 2:12; 2 Cor 5:10; Rom 2:6-10, 13, 3:31; Mt 25:32-46; Gal 6:6-10; Rev 20:12 ... works have merit.
1 Jn 2:3-4; 1 Jn 3:24; 1 Jn 5:3 ... keep commandments.

>>52531

I'll start off with this post because it's easier to state my opinion.

1. God has the ability to make everyone have perfect happiness.
2. You believe God chooses to deny this perfect happiness from some people.
3. God intentionally restricts the happiness of some people.
4. All suffering is relative. Compared to infinite bliss, anything less than that would be suffering or punishment. So depending upon what you believe Hell to be, God either subjects people to outright torture or merely restricts their access to heavenly bliss. Either is still punishment, although the severity varies.
5. God intentionally makes some people suffer.
6. This suffering can do nothing to prevent suffering for others since the person is already dead. The only reason to make this person suffer is for vengeance or to try to get "justice", which is completely pointless because making that person suffer doesn't help anyone else.
7. God inflicts suffering on some people for no reason other than to inflict suffering upon them.

If God can make anyone happy and makes some people unhappy for no reason than to make them unhappy, that is evil or, at the very least, falls far short of the standard of divine morality you believe he represents.

There is no reason to make anyone suffer. Doing so is merely vengeance. Why would God wants vengeance? Shouldn't He want everyone to be as happy as possible? Why would He subject some people to less than the perfect happiness He could give them?

>>52531

>Still waiting for you to respond to my arguments in the linked thread

Where might that be?

>>52537
Oh, gee. I don't know...
>>52295
>>52367
>>52369

>>52535
All right then, the two go hand in hand.

But you cannot be saying that one can "earn" his way into heaven by works?

"There is no way to the father except through me".

>>52540
And you have to convince the Father you are worthy...

>>52541
Convince the father that you are worthy?

Nobody is worthy. Who could be? Is there a certain level of sin that's sort of okay, he'll let it slide as long as it's not too bad?

God's standard is perfection. Only one man has ever lived a perfect life free of sin, which was Jesus.

No man can possibly attain it. This is why Jesus died for us, so that we wouldn't be damned for failing to reach perfection.

This does not of course mean that we should live lawless lives. As I said earlier in this thread, in the same way that you want to do right by a father who loves you, a Christian wants to do right by the God that loves him. So we do our best to keep God's laws as acknowledgement of his love for us, but while acknowledging that it is not by our own actions that we are graced with a place in heaven.

If I may ask, what is your Christian teaching?

>>52544
Sorry, perhaps I said that wrong. I meant that if throughout, by your actions, your life you tell God to go fuck himself, then you show God you don't want to be in Heaven (or else you would follow His words).

We're stuck in a hole, a deep one. God's offering His hand, but we still need to grab it. And that may require moving a few feet or climbing over a rock. And if we do reach it, it would not do any good to bite it.

>If I may ask, what is your Christian teaching?
Catholic high school

>>52545
Please don't think me prejudiced if I say that I had thought it was Catholic theology.

Anyway, the two issues of:
a) we cannot get into heaven by our own works
b) so what's our incentive to do good at all?
are reconciled in my post above about wanting to do right by the father through love.

>>52539

So you expect me to pick through that entire thread, address any point you raised, and report back.

Not happening. You responded to other people. Sorry, but I won't defend someone else's argument.

I read it. Any specific points you want me to address? Saying "address this thread" isn't fair.

>>52544

>This is why Jesus died for us, so that we wouldn't be damned for failing to reach perfection.

What is that? Why does God need to kill Jesus in order to not damn people? Couldn't he just say, "Alright, ladies and gents! Come on up!"?

>>52536

I will still ask boredhooman to address that post, too.

>>52547
"But hey, why can't everything be pretty with rainbows and lollipops?"

Trip with no name, I'm disappointed. You spend this whole thread being rational, and now you start criticising Christianity because it is not a delirious and unrealistic idea where everything is lovely and all the nasty things don't matter any more. You're criticising Christianity because it is not a fiction you have created. This is not reasonable debate.

Firstly, God did not kill Jesus. God is Jesus. He sacrificed himself.

Secondly, even though God is omnipotent, he does not hand out lollipops and marshmallows to every person on earth, just cause. That would deny morality. That would deny any reason whatsoever for man to act in a rational or moral way. Mankind would implode and God's creation would be destroyed.

>>52546
Please don't think me prejudiced if I say that I had thought it was Catholic theology.

Anyway, the two issues of:
a) we cannot get into heaven by our own works
b) so what's our incentive to do good at all?
are reconciled in my post above about wanting to do right by the father through love.

>>52547
>So you expect me to pick through that entire thread, address any point you raised, and report back.
>Not happening. You responded to other people. Sorry, but I won't defend someone else's argument.
>I read it. Any specific points you want me to address? Saying "address this thread" isn't fair.
1) I put you at my first post
2) I asked if you wanted me to just post the good parts, which you said no to. I will now do that (at a later post)

Sorry, didn't see this part.

>1. God has the ability to make everyone have perfect happiness.

>2. You believe God chooses to deny this perfect happiness from some people.
No, they choose (by sinning) and God merely follows through with their wish.
>Everything else
Relies on point 2, which I have issue with.

>If God can make anyone happy and makes some people unhappy for no reason than to make them unhappy, that is evil or, at the very least, falls far short of the standard of divine morality you believe he represents.
God doesn't make people unhappy, people run their own lives and, through their choice, determine their own fate. God 'sending' you to Hell is nothing more than letting you go where you want to go.

>There is no reason to make anyone suffer. Doing so is merely vengeance. Why would God wants vengeance? Shouldn't He want everyone to be as happy as possible? Why would He subject some people to less than the perfect happiness He could give them?
Because some people don't choose Heaven.

It's impossible to have proof either way for there being God, so I have to turn to logic. When you booted your computer, it had programs installed. Their mere existence implies a programmer. "But I know that people make programs, I've seen it happen/done it myself" Of course you have, you are a 3rd party, a god to them if not their direct creator. The programs themselves don't know this, however. Microsoft word is to you as you are to God. I don't know how the programmer made the keyboard's input go into certain characters, I don't know how it deletes things (well I do, but...), all I know is that things happen because of what the programmer typed and science is there to figure out how. Any time proof comes in that contradicts my mental flowchart, I merely adjust it to fit. For example, in 2nd grade I thought the world was literally made in 7 24 hour days. When I learned of modern physics and theories, I adjusted it to mean 7 stages of development, Big Bang and evolution non-contradictory.

There being a programmer makes more sense than the programs just spontaneously appearing due to their own programming; I believe that's called "circular logic".

---------------------

>"What physical processes allowed the universe to be made without God?"
>"I don't know, but I'm sure we'll figure it out."
"Hey what physical process caused Windows XP to just spontaneously code itself and start running?"
Again with the circular logic. Protip: Things can't cause things when they don't exist. Ergo, things can't cause themselves. Physics don't happen because of physics, and matter doesn't exist because it's matter.

>Okay, then. So God can break the laws of physics because he's God, no more explanation needed.
God breaks the laws of physics like I break US law by smoking pot in the Netherlands.

---------------------

Your reasoning requires evidence to be useful. However, there is no evidence of God's presence or absence, so your reasoning is rather useless. The only thing to look at is the implications of anything existing in the first place. Following these implications, I have come to the preclusion that there is some type of something that made the physical universe. The missing piece is the middle (beginning of the universe), and present day being the conclusion. As only the middle and conclusion are in the physical realm, only they can be studied by science and comprehended. The preclusion, God(s), is outside of science's field in the same way we are not digital, and are outside the study of circuit boards and programs that do not have physical sensors, such as microphones and cameras.

Or, rather, a different dimension entirely (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UnURElCzGc0).

All we can do is observe what is and how is (science) and guess as to who and why (religion). These two only clash when religion says what/why (the sun is Apollo flying across the sky) or when science attempts who/why (there is no God, there is God). To say that God must be bound to the laws of physics in order to exist is directly analogous to a computer saying humans can't exist because they are not bound by digital code, or a 2nd-dimension-person saying there is no 3rd dimension.

There is one right religion, and the rest are wrong. Not all religions are just conclusions thought up and see things they support, in fact most aren't. Let's look at ancient Greek polytheism. At first, people believed in many different gods that did different things, such as Apollo being the sun. They did not think "Apollo" and then say he flies around the Earth. They observed that there's this flying shiny thing in the sky, and thought that something must cause it. They believed that it was a god, whom they named "Apollo". Then, in the Middle East IIRC, come in Abraham. He was polytheist like everyone else, until God appeared to him. He wasn't like "Oh, hey I just thought of some really cool religion!", it was more like "HOLY SHIT DID YOU SEE THAT!? This... something just appeared and told me stuff. I better listen." His new monotheistic religion was not just some random conclusion, but an idea forming from experience and evidence (yes, physical evidence. Whether or not you want to believe that the evidence appeared at all is a different discussion) and based his new religion around that. It is my choice whether or not to believe the the Church is right that the previous Church was right that the previous Church was right... that God appeared to Abraham, and later came down as Jesus.

Your greentexted reasoning was not circular logic, saying that everything exists because the laws of physics says so is circular reasoning. Physics are not a transcendent set of rules, they are how matter interacts with itself. If there is no matter, then there are no physics. To say that matter came into existence because of the laws of physics is a fallacy. To say that something outside of matter must be bound by physics is to say that physics exist where matter is not, thus physics existing because physics says it exists. Hence, circular logic (Does "God exists because the Bible says He does; the Bible is right because God said it is" sound familiar?)

>And what do you call saying, "God made the universe. I have no obligation to explain where God came from or how He is physically possible."?
I call that a strawman.

----------------------

My stance is that evidence is useless in determining the presence or absence of God(s), therefor we can only use logic and reasoning based on implications made by the physical universe.

The strawman is that we should believe in everything until it is physically disproven.

>>52536
Suffering in the afterlife is exclusion from God's presence. Since being in the presence of God's love is absolute bliss, being excluded from it is the opposite, or what people call hell.

God loves all people, and sacrificed himself for all of us, so that we could be with him in heaven. Isn't it logical that if he loves us, he should want us to be in heaven with him when we die?
Yet we have to accept Jesus' sacrifice. We have to accept that we are sinners, and say that we are sorry for what we have done.

If someone doesn't accept Jesus' sacrifice, then he still bears full responsibility for his sin. Since God is absolute perfection, he cannot bear to be in the presence of a sinful person, so the person is excluded from his presence - by his own refusal to accept God.

Is this making sense to you? You seem intelligent. I have hopefully put forward my arguments as clearly as possible.

>>52396
1. They don't have to care to spread a belief, there's a reason why a child born in a country with high religious concentration will turn out to be of that religion. The sole reason that it forces people to be satisfied with not knowing is bad enough for me.

2. Although I do not support these atheists (just to be clear), the difference here is that the very concept of religion is harmful, the very foundation of every religion is corrupted (or most), which is a reason why religion is harmful. No religion as abrahamic religion have accumulated so much disgust and despise within me, these three religions are monuments to the evil of a man.
Mind you, the very fact that it's a lie is enough for me to oppress it with truth, but abrahamic religions just take it a step further and activate militant mode.

3. It's not whether it was sacred or not, that's meaningless, it's whether it was important to someone or not, this rule doesn't apply only to your sacred book, but everything people care about. You borrow a game, you better not brake it, you get the idea?

4. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kara_Neumann_case

>>52400
If it wasn't for religion, they wouldn't be so deluded to rely on prayer, no well informed person would. Faith feeds of 4 forms of human weaknesses; 1. Delusion, 2. Emotional weakness, 3. Wilful ignorance, 4. Mental weakness, all believes fall into these 4 categories.

>>52403
No. A cancer patient can heal themselves through chemotherapy and apply placebo effect of the power of prayer, statements like this are the very reason why I am for abolition of religion, if you think prayer heals you, fine, but if you tell someone else that prayer will heal them, then you can be sure that I will butt in, all faith does is raise hopes for someone in the moment of desperation and then crash them.

And the last paragraph. Yet again you have attempted to disguise religion as a valid theory with such comments as "(while ignoring other truths)." (Implying faith is a valid method of seeking the truth) "So intelligent in biology, yet so bigoted and ignorant in anything not under a microscope." (Obviously implying that faith is a valid method of acquiring truth, again) "I still can't believe such an educated man could have made such ignorant comments about people and society reminiscent of homophobics or racists." (Although I'm not sure how racist britain is, but it is still well homophobic, and funnily enough, this homophobia is most present among theist society, yet I knew of only 1 atheists that was a homophobic (and a racist), not only that, we were taught in christian school that homosexuality is a sin, although I'm not going to use this as an argument against you since it's not strong enough, these aren't actual, valid and confirmed statistics)

>>52405
Funnily enough, you're the one straying of topic now. Right now the discussion here was whether we have valid reasons to try to abolish religion, not whether parents have a right to brainwash their kids or not.
And no, when they grow up, it is unlikely they will change their mind, that's how brainwashing works and why in certain areas there are higher chances of child belonging to said religion.

And I don't give a damn whether I'm nosey or not, if you beat your child, I will rip out your arms, to me this is a minor case of mental abuse and I am against it.

Not everyone will agree with me on this? Well, boo hoo hoo, I know people personally that bloody speak openly how they will (quote)"beat the living shit out of them", and I'm not pulling it out of context, they actually believe it's a valid method of raising your child.

Shoving down their throat? Not once it was mentioned here, the argument here is whether debunking religion is fine and the parents brainwashing their children was an example of the harm religion drags with itself.

>They're not yours.
Children are not a fucking property! They do not fucking belong to them! I don't care that this women went through labour for this "brat", you kick him, I punch your face, end of story. As a parent you accept to take best care of a child, and yes, I do believe that my methods of raising a child are helluva better than theirs, I wouldn't poison my kid's mind with this bullshit!
/rage

Yes, you have the right to exercise your belief, what's your point?

>>52407
Let me add that alternative medicine is not uncommon practice, either. It's actually frightfully common.

>>52433
The difference here is that atheistic fundamentals are not corrupted. Although I like your personal moral compass, you did not derive it from the bible, you are probably just a cherry picker that manipulates the bible to their own will, why do you think god agrees with you on every term? Every decision? Appears to be very much like you? Because you don't believe in 'god of the bible', the god you believe in is the reflection of yourself, or more like the perfect vision of yourself, your own super ego. You are like a nazi nurse, the only reason for you being a nazi is because you want to help war victims and your husband is in the army, great! But that doesn't prove that ideology of nazism is good or taken out of context.

>>52439
Cherry picking.
“The doom of a nation can be averted only by a storm of flowing passion, but only those who are passionate themselves can arouse passion in others.”

>>52444
Most ANIMALS don't kill their kind and they don't need any deities to dictate them these rules, they also don't steal and care about each other often time more than humans do.

>>52448
I call such arguments Collective Fallacies, simply put, fallacies being explained using other fallacies, it's pointless to answer them fully, so;
>You're attempting to describe a supernatural, omnipotent being
>supernatural, omnipotent being
Prove that is exists and is supernatural and omnipotent and a being.
>above all natural law
Prove it.
>(considering he's the one that decides what's "natural")
Prove it.
>using the scientific method, a method used for explaining THE NATURAL WORLD (science is the study of THE NATURAL WORLD, not a system of anything, or an entity in any way).
Empty assumption.
>That's why the "god-no god" argument is moot.
Never heard of that argument.
>There is nothing you can say that would "disprove" it's existence.
Burden of proof.
>And nobody is able to provide evidence proving it either.
So it doesn't exist then?
>SO then what happens is you decide until you are shown proof, you will not belive it.
Pretty much. I mean, it's the same story as claiming that there's a pixie in my penis.
>Whether or not the rest of the world will stop to care what you think is a different story.
We don't have to, religion is dying by itself and it has been for a good while.
>I fail to provide proof for the existence of God and go on happily with my day having faith (as that is, what it is called - faith; if not it wouldn't be called FAITH)
This is why religion is false, too.
>somebody else fails to provide proof for the existence of God and you spend the rest of the week actively dwelling and bothering yourself thinking about whether it exists or not.
False, we simply discard it and pressure theists to back up their claims regarding god. I do not think god exist as there is no proof, if god fails to prove himself, he's not even worthy to be called a god or worshipped.
>The difference between you and me in this hypothetical situation- I may be wrong yet accept it and move on. You may be wrong yet you spend your whole life worrying about it.
Yes, yes I do, and this is because unlike some people, I do not like being lied to, I like knowing the truth and I care about the future and the world, because then I kill people simply because someone told me that some genie that created a universe with the use of some incantation spell told him to kill these people.
>It's funny how some atheists worry more about religion than religious people do; it's like a homophobic spending all of his time inside a gay bar telling homosexuals they're wrong.
Nope, that's your job, all I do is spend my entire day with homophobes, stripping them from respect so that no one in the future will take them seriously. And it's not actually funny, it's sad.

>>52449
I don't see a reason why anyone would discuss whether such immoral monster created morality.

>>52453
Yes it does, otherwise it's not faith.
However, if you have any valid proof, we'd be glad to hear it.

Also, there is NO evidence for jesus, only supposedly records of a preacher that travelled around the country, teaching people and healing, if I remember correctly, but no mention of any supernatural phenomena that the NT is so fond of, yes, a person that inspired did probably exist, no, there is no proof for biblical jesus.
Also, your jesus wasn't the first one to resurect after 3 days, it's an old concept. (not that he actually did)

>>52464
You speak that god should not be looked upon with rationality, then tell me, what is the difference between a god and a delusion? I see none.
You seem to be sugar coating a religion, trying to ridicule using reason to prove god, and forcing a different thought process that could benefit god, even though the thought process is flawed.
You are seriously sugar coating religion, you could make nazis sound like a group of fun-loving, misunderstood and mistreated people.

>I don't consider myself a believer, but when I see people like strict creationists (this is my attempt to tie this rant back to the thread topic) try to say that "the point" of their religion is that stories like Genesis need to be literally true, or there is no purpose in their faith. I feel like they're denigrating all of Christianity and religion, by implying it's about some bronze-age creation myths that obviously contradict science.
So now you see how I feel about religions (especially abrahamic)
Plus it's hypocrisy from your side.

>I think that promoting such an interpretation ultimately harms religion
Yes, truth can be painful.

Let me point out that there's such thing as cultural christianity. Search it up. Basically, christianity with the freedom to cherry pick without the embarrassment in a form of abrahamic god.

>>52475
Baseless assumptions.
Prove both of your statements.

>>52521
Firstly, yes, they would, maybe because as I stated, the person that resembled jesus was well spoken of and they were willing to die in the name of the idea, the assumption that there are no atheists in the foxholes has always been faux.
Secondly, proving jesus existence with a bible, not only that, but you also chose the most ridiculous of the 4 testaments, great proof. And isn't it funny that the older the NT, the more supernatural phenomena is being included?

>>52532
Assumptions, assumptions, assumptions...
God created the universe, and everything in it.
Prove it.
>Morality is a logical fact, a necessary feature of this universe.
False, morality is not necessary, there are animals that slip by with lower forms of morality as far as I know it, plus morality has nothing to do with universe, it's a concept that is useful only to living beings.
>Thus God created morality
Assumption
>but not by arbitrary decrees; it is logically compatible with the universe.
How?
>Therefore, when God makes commandments, this is to educate us about morality and teach us how to live morally just lives.
Very shitty commandments, not only did he waste 3 spots to fulfil his egoism and made no mention of the more serious issues, such as child molestation or rape. Bravo! Your god thinks that greed is worse than child molestation! What a great moral compass!
>This morality includes loving God.
Ah, because god is so insecure that if we won't worship this spawn from hell, he's going to send us there, eh? Rather insecure for a perfect being.
>Jesus says the greatest commandment is to love God with all your heart - this is of course missing from atheistic morality. The second greatest, Jesus says, is to love your neighbour as yourself - and on these hang all the other commandments.
Completely false, read the bible properly. Jesus said that these are the TWO most important commandments for when he was asked which is the most important commandment, he didn't specify which is important, he said that the two are equally important.
>Christianity is founded on love.
Lies, OT is anything but love.
>God loves his creation,
Again, lies. If he did, there would be no flood, he wouldn't kill innocent first borns in egypt or there would be no hell, that aren't attributes of a benevolent deity, those are attributes of a malevolent deity, if anyone is worthy to be called the devil, then it's him.
>and the Christian response to understanding that fact is to firstly love God back, and then secondly to love everybody else, following his example.
According to god, yes, according to jesus, no. And if you don't love god, he will avenge your lack of love by torturing you for eternity.
>All morality can be traced to love for your fellow man.
I'll agree with this one.
>For the Christian morality comes from God - although that is not to say that it is an arbitrary set of rules, as I have explained above in detail, it is founded on love.
Lies.
>The concept of a morality founded on love,
Debatable.
>though, is so universal that it can apply even in secular societies.
Lies, it doesn't 'even' apply to secular societies, it also applies in secular societies.
>Much of modern Western morality has strong Christian influences simply because of Christianity's history of being the dominant Western religion.
Lies.

>It is one of the few things that I have to trust God in without any proof, because it is logically impossible to see any proof.
"one of the few things"? Does that mean you have any proof for any part of your belief?
>But, if your parents tell you when you small that after school comes university, it is fair to trust them.
Or college. Or apprenticeship. Or straight to work, because some people can be satisfied with simple life and do not like the idea of constant stress. Your statement is false.
>They were right in everything they told you about school, so why should you not trust them about university?
Because they weren't? Unless you mean some very specific family.
>So I will admit that I can't make any definite statements about the afterlife.
Or god.

>I believe less in a fiery hellish furnace and more in exclusion from God.
>Heaven is simply the state of being in God's presence, being with the father.
>and thus to be in its presence is total bliss - what is called "Heaven". Hell is the antithesis of that. Hell is to be excluded from God's love.
>So I will admit that I can't make any definite statements about the afterlife.
You seem to know enough about afterlife to know that much.
>The power of God's love is indescribable,
Then mine has to be infinitely times larger.


>This bit is important: There is no good and bad of people.
Not what your bible says again.
>This is one of the main reasons for misconceptions about heaven and hell.
Ah, so you know what afterlife is like?
>The act of sin is a rebellion from God. When a person sins, we decide, either consciously or subconsciously,
Or we're born in the wrong country.
>that God is not important enough for us to follow his commands.
Which god again?
>All rebellion from God is absolutely unforgiveable.
Definition of tyrant anyone?
>There are no degrees of rebellion. Every person sins, therefore every person is equally guilty in the eyes of God of rebellion from him.
Wow, so you know how god thinks now? Didn't you just say that you had no idea how god judges people? How can you know that? And way to go with benevolence!
>Everybody is equally guilty of the same crime - rebellion from God.
What a benevolent character...
>It is so terrible that there is no greater or lesser rebellion - the slightest rebellion is the worst - possible - thing.
HAH! I like the way you contradict yourself.
>So wait - if we are all guilty of the unforgiveable, then are we all damned?
>This bit is also important: We are not all damned. That is fairly obvious. But what is more important is to understand is that God does not simply turn a blind eye and forgive the unforgiveable.
So you do know how god thinks and what awaits us in afterlife?
I like all the proof you have for all of this. It's, erm, almost as much as my friend's proof that there were fairies beneath his garden.
>This is the real, core reason why Jesus died on the cross. When Jesus died, he atoned for all of the sins of mankind.
Like mayans used to sacrifice their people to satisfy their bloodthirsty god?
>They all come in one big paragraph headed "Rebellion", and rebellion is totally unforgiveable, so the length of that paragraph does not actually matter. But then God screws up the sheet of paper and throws it away.
Ah, you must be on special conditions with god, aye?
>Am I forgiven of the unforgiveable? No. The reason that I am not punished is because Jesus has already borne the punishment. Jesus is the scapegoat. Jesus sacrificed himself, for me, for you, and for everybody, purely out of love. So when God allows "sinners" into heaven, it is not because he is stupid. It is because the price for the crime has already been paid in full.
Totally like mayans. And what about me forgiving god? Because to me, the only true sinner above them all, is him. The most vile, corrupted and malicious being ever invented by men.
>Fire at will.
Done. Collective fallacy anyone?

>>52540
Cherry picking and blind faith, I heard it tastes like bacon?

Bah! Trying to catch up with discussion is such a pain! Hopefully I haven't written anything stupid.

>>52544
>>52546
Yet another case where you claim that you know what god thinks.
>>52548
And here.
Although I'm going to point out that the problem is that god is the beast.

>>52549
Fucking bullshit.
I'm sorry, but you're actually doing something I despise the most, trying to justify torture (as it has been described in the bible, instead of apologetics making up a completely different version of hell.)
Just because a child was born to abusive family or in iran doesn't make them any more or less suitable to be punished than a child born to a rich, loving christian family.

What if I choose not to exist? Or someone who didn't believe in god throughout their life that they DO want to spend time with god? That's not them choosing, that's him being a monster.

>>52550
Ah! The watchmaker argument! Been a long time!
The problem is this, you assume the person knows that the programs were created by programmer, if you were to leave a laptop in the middle of a desert and someone who never interacted with technology, that was just born, would have no idea what it is, they wouldn't think this had some sort of a designer, because recognising designs is not an intrinsic ability, it's a skill we develop, like calculating.
Another thing is, why do programs stand out when compared to the rest of the nature? If god designed everything and recognising designs was intrinsic, then the programs wouldn't grab our attentions anymore than an average rock, but we do not look at every piece of rock, even different looking rock, and wondering who designed it.

>>52555
>Fucking bullshit.
as opposed to celibate bullshit?
>I'm sorry, but you're actually doing something I despise the most, trying to justify torture (as it has been described in the bible, instead of apologetics making up a completely different version of hell.)
I'm not trying to justify torture. I'm saying that if people show that thye want to be separate from God, they will be separate from God. As for "in the Bible", not all of Catholic teaching comes from the Bible. There's Tradition too.

>Just because a child was born to abusive family or in iran doesn't make them any more or less suitable to be punished than a child born to a rich, loving christian family.
What does that have to do with anything?

>What if I choose not to exist?
Then maybe God might oblige. You'd have to ask yourself.

>Or someone who didn't believe in god throughout their life that they DO want to spend time with god?
Is (s)he the type of person who would go with God if given proof? If so, that would factor into the equation. Aside from that, I have no input or direct knowledge of the afterlife other than what has been stated.

>Ah! The watchmaker argument! Been a long time!
That's what she said. Wait, wrong come back... YOUR MOM!

>The problem is this, you assume the person knows that the programs were created by programmer, if you were to leave a laptop in the middle of a desert and someone who never interacted with technology, that was just born, would have no idea what it is, they wouldn't think this had some sort of a designer, because recognising designs is not an intrinsic ability, it's a skill we develop, like calculating.
I was relying on the specific audience knowing what a program was. Considering we're having a discussion through programs, I consider that pretty likely. And actually, I didn't really use the watchmaker argument. I used the "shit doesn't randomly appear because of physical properties that haven't been created yet because the shit hasn't appeared yet" argument, also known as "circular logic doesn't work"

>Another thing is, why do programs stand out when compared to the rest of the nature? If god designed everything and recognising designs was intrinsic, then the programs wouldn't grab our attentions anymore than an average rock, but we do not look at every piece of rock, even different looking rock, and wondering who designed it.
Because that was part of my analogy for why we can't detect God by ourselves. That has nothing to do with my point I was making.


Watchmaker argument: argues that complexity is caused by design
My argument: If matter is to exist because of a physical property, but physics are how matter interacts with matter, and matter doesn't exist yet, then physics can't exist to create matter.

>However, there is no evidence of God's presence or absence.
Full stop.
In order for a man to know something, one has to first to experience some sort of proof, and then we're still chance for illusions and false assumptions based on little proof. If there is no proof, you can't know something under no circumstance, you can have faith that you know how I look like, but chance are that you're wrong.

>I have come to the preclusion that there is some type of something that made the physical universe.
It's an empty assertion, you cannot know how universe behaved before the beginning, although it sounds logically to pull out such conclusion, it's just a hypothesis and cannot be used to form any facts whatsoever, you first need to know how the universe behaved before the beginning before you jump to conclusion, it's a very unscientific.

>The preclusion, God(s), is outside of science's field in the same way we are not digital, and are outside the study of circuit boards and programs that do not have physical sensors, such as microphones and cameras.
I don't think you meant to use 'preclusion' here. Anyway, it's an empty assertion based on assumption that god exists, you cannot do that.

>guess as to who and why (religion). These two only clash when religion says what/why (the sun is Apollo flying across the sky) or when science attempts who/why (there is no God, there is God).
Or that a pixie lives in my penis. Faith is not a valid method to search for truth.
>To say that God must be bound to the laws of physics in order to exist is directly analogous to a computer saying humans can't exist because they are not bound by digital code, or a 2nd-dimension-person saying there is no 3rd dimension.
False, you are the one making assertion that god is not bound to the laws of physics, don't try to twist the burden of proof on me.

>There is one right religion, and the rest are wrong.
False, the second option is that there are not right religions.
>Not all religions are just conclusions thought up and see things they support, in fact most aren't.
Yes they are, they are just a mean for people to explain the scary unknown or simply difficult unknown.
>Let's look at ancient Greek polytheism. At first, people believed in many different gods that did different things, such as Apollo being the sun.
False, at first people believed that when people died, they spirit lived on...possibly. The possibilities of what the first religion was based on are enormous.
>They did not think "Apollo" and then say he flies around the Earth. They observed that there's this flying shiny thing in the sky, and thought that something must cause it.
Exactly, and they made up a conclusion to cover it up.
>They believed that it was a god, whom they named "Apollo". Then, in the Middle East IIRC, come in Abraham. He was polytheist like everyone else, until God appeared to him.
Oh yes, because a story of an old man in the middle of a desert hearing voices is completely due to god speaking to him and not some sort of dehydration and desperation for gods to answer his prayer.
>He wasn't like "Oh, hey I just thought of some really cool religion!", it was more like "HOLY SHIT DID YOU SEE THAT!? This... something just appeared and told me stuff. I better listen."
Yes. He was either mentally ill or suffered from poison/dehydration/hunger/drugs
>His new monotheistic religion was not just some random conclusion, but an idea forming from experience and evidence (yes, physical evidence. Whether or not you want to believe that the evidence appeared at all is a different discussion)
Empty assertion.
>and based his new religion around that. It is my choice whether or not to believe the the Church is right that the previous Church was right that the previous Church was right... that God appeared to Abraham, and later came down as Jesus.
Wow, that story has so much credibility.

>saying that everything exists because the laws of physics says so is circular reasoning.
What? No, seriously, can you clarify this part?
>Physics are not a transcendent set of rules, they are how matter interacts with itself.
So?
>If there is no matter, then there are no physics.
Prove it. All we know is that if there is no matter, there is no our physics, we don't know how 'nothing' behaves, so we can't make ANY assumptions.
>To say that matter came into existence because of the laws of physics is a fallacy.
And we don't. We don't know how matter came into existence, or even space time, assuming we do is foolish.
>To say that something outside of matter must be bound by physics is to say that physics exist where matter is not, thus physics existing because physics says it exists. Hence, circular logic (Does "God exists because the Bible says He does; the Bible is right because God said it is" sound familiar?)
No it's not, refer to last answer.

>And what do you call saying, "God made the universe. I have no obligation to explain where God came from or how He is physically possible."?
>I call that a strawman.
No it's not, it's exactly your position right now and you can refer back to your posts where you claimed that 'god cannot be explained', if this is a straw man, then you surely can answer where god came from and how he is physically possible? Right? Or at least why these answers don't apply to him without referring to collective fallacy?

----------------------

>My stance is that evidence is useless in determining the presence or absence of God(s), therefor we can only use logic and reasoning based on implications made by the physical universe.
No we don't, logic is as true as the data you feed into it. GIBO - Garbage In, Garbage Out, this is logic.

>The strawman is that we should believe in everything until it is physically disproven.
We don't claim that, what we do claim is that science is the best tool for finding truth and that faith doesn't work when it comes to truth, such as the claim that there are pixies in my penis (Why the hell do I keep repeating this example?) or that magic exists.

>>52556
I'm not even going to continue with the discussion if you're going to refer to insults. I'm out of here before the worst happens.

>>52558
k

>>52560
Wait, what? Insults? Where did I insult you?

Replace my above "k" with this: Well, I see the fun's gone if we're going to have to scientifically prove our guesses, which we know can't be scientifically proven either way (thus my entire damn text wall), and you're going to cherry-pick each one of our sentences which are not meant to stand alone.

This creation/evolution debate is much more about politics than academia; both sides want to control schools, but this is more true for the advocates of evolution. Regulations and spending has grown more and more in education for decades, yet grades have remained stagnant. In high school, one only requires 2 years of science class to graduate and 3 years of math, but 4 years of English and 4 years of physical education are require to graduate, and this was by design of the federal government.

THE FREE MARKET SHALL FIX IT.
To most efficiently improve education, there must be competition and liberty. With no regulations, no subsidies, and freedom to choose between institutions, and vice versa (freedom to choose students), the success of a school would necessarily depend upon the success of the students, as parents and students would attend the school that they demand the most, demand being a function of quality and price. In the natural and organic system of the free market, the fittest of schools would survive and pass on their curricula and practices to the next academic generation.
Isn't that right, fellow Darwinists?

>>52566
Not sure if satire or sincerity.

>>52528
>The debate is turning into one of evidence, which I am not so well knowledgeable in . . .
Fair enough.

>You do, however, leave out the martyr element of Jesus' followers. How many of Camping's followers have died for him? And yet how many of Jesus' direct followers, who we can presume would have been aware if there was a lie, died for him?
>As I said above, if they thought it was a lie, they wouldn't have thought there was an afterlife, and thus would be unlikely to martyr themselves.
>Camping's followers, while fervently supporting him, don't seem to have martyred themselves in the same way. Correct me if I am wrong.
No, though some of Camping's followers gave up their life savings, for example, which is still fairly excessive.

However, I wasn't arguing that Jesus' followers didn't believe, I was arguing that even if they did believe, Jesus returning from the dead isn't the only or the best explanation for gospel accounts written decades later by other people claiming that he did.

>>52566
This post is off topic and will probably be disruptive. Would you mind taking it to a new thread if you want to discuss that?

>>52567
>>52569
This is completely on topic. This debate is never over the question "Should the federal government intervene in education at all, or is academia sacrosanct," but rather, "What paradigm should the federal government force schools to teach students." I think that schools should have the freedom to teach anything to their students; their success and the demand for curricula would then be based on the utility of the lessons taught to the students. The Department of Education should be abolished and the government should have absolutely no influence over what people think.

Why is liberty never a discussed choice in mainstream political discussion? And this is a political discussion.

Welcome to Libertarian threads: Episode 3.

>>52552

I feel like I've been miss understood, but I did ramble on a bit, so that's understandable.

>You speak that god should not be looked upon with rationality, then tell me, what is the difference between a god and a delusion? I see none.

I wouldn't say "should not", it's more along the line of "is not". I think it's important to recognize the fact that rationalism is a Western invention, and it was used by people like Aquinas and Descartes to "prove" the existence of God. But in the ancient world, that wasn't the case. To a peasant in bronze-age Palestine, God simply was a fact of life. Literal thinking and metaphysical thinking was not separated as it is today. And questioning the existence of God would have been just absurd. And trying to "prove" that he existed would make no sense.

Do I mean we should start thinking about God in the same way as bronze-age mystics? Absolutely not! We live on this side of the scientific age, we can't stop using reason, logic and evidence now that we know how valuable they are for knowing the truth.

I consider the question of whether or not God exists to be a rather boring one. It's a matter of "settled philosophy" to me. The arguments in favor of him existing in a rational sense haven't really advanced since Aquinas, and if a person isn't going to accept the refutations of those arguments from David Hume or Immanuel Kant, they're probably not going to accept anything I have to say anyway.

The metaphysics don't really matter to me - I think it's obvious that bronze-age mystics would get it wrong when making wild conjectures about the nature of the universe. But I don't really see those innaccurate creation stories as "the point" of religion.

To me, the point is the morals behind them - the metaphors that they create to illustrate some moral or ethical truth, or to motivate us into acting some way.

People use metaphorical thinking all the time to help them understand a concept that might be illusive when thought about literally. It seems to be something that we're just wired to do.

The point of the "God" metaphor, as far as I can tell. Is to give people an eternal parent figure. Something that will eternally love them, care for them, provide for them, and do all the other things a loving parent would do.

Of course, this concept has a dark side too. If imagine there's a divine parent in the sky, he can judge, condemn, and hate you. Or the things that you hate. He can order you to commit atrocities and get angry with you if you fail him.

To me, such concepts of a personal God are ultimately harmful. But I don't think it has to be the only concept of God out there. A lot of people seem so attached to the God-metaphor, that they may need some kind of concept called God to understand the world. I would like that concept to change into something that can serve humanity more.

>You seem to be sugar coating a religion, trying to ridicule using reason to prove god, and forcing a different thought process that could benefit god, even though the thought process is flawed.
You are seriously sugar coating religion, you could make nazis sound like a group of fun-loving, misunderstood and mistreated people.

I wouldn't say I'm sugar-coating religion. It takes only a small understanding of history to know how much death and suffering has been caused throughout time in the name of religion. It appears that religion has been with humanity for thousands of years, so it's touched nearly everything we've done, from the greatest atrocities to the greatest acts of kindness. What I'm trying to do is paint a realistic picture of it, one that doesn't glorify it or demonize it unfairly. (Though I did emphasize what I thought were the positive aspects of religion in that post)

As for a "different thought process that could benefit God", I see it as the other way around. I want to encourage a way of thinking about God that benefits humanity. God is a human concept, and if that concept can no longer move us in a positive direction, then it deserves to be abandoned. I see another way of thinking about God that could potentially serve humanity, promoted by people like Bishop Spong, Spinoza, or Gandhi. If believers embrace that God, rather than the personal God they think of now, God just might survive.

Myself, I'm not particularly attached to the God concept, so if it dies, then I won't be very upset. But at the same time, I can sort of see the value of something like Spinoza's God, which is why I make efforts to promote it to people who are attached to the idea of God.

>Let me point out that there's such thing as cultural christianity. Search it up. Basically, christianity with the freedom to cherry pick without the embarrassment in a form of abrahamic god.

I'm aware of that. In fact, that's exactly what I'm trying to promote here. Christianity (and religion in general) cutting ties with the idea of a personal God so that it can grow into something better.

>>52587

> Christianity (and religion in general) cutting ties with the idea of a personal God so that it can grow into something better.

o.o that... sounds pretty interesting, I like it

>>52596

Thanks, I think so too.

But it seems I just irritate people on both sides of debate with these ideas. Believers for not accepting the same things that they do, and atheists for not being quite so down on religion.

>>52596
I approve of this, it believe it would hasten angostic-ization of society.

No ill will meant.

>>52552
You. Did you do that deliberately? Almost everyone above in this post has been reasonable and thoughtful. And you have genuinely spouted a pile of absolute rubbish that is not based on genuine knowledge of the bible.

It is not a case of misunderstanding, Pinkie, it is a case of misinformation. And since you were so kind to go into my argument in so much detail, I'll go into yours.

I won't go into your points on the other posters as it would confuse things too much - just what you had to say to me.

>The difference here is that atheistic fundamentals are not corrupted. Although I like your personal moral compass, you did not derive it from the bible, you are probably just a cherry picker that manipulates the bible to their own will, why do you think god agrees with you on every term? Every decision? Appears to be very much like you? Because you don't believe in 'god of the bible', the god you believe in is the reflection of yourself, or more like the perfect vision of yourself, your own super ego. You are like a nazi nurse, the only reason for you being a nazi is because you want to help war victims and your husband is in the army, great! But that doesn't prove that ideology of nazism is good or taken out of context.
I have rationalised almost everything I have said with quotes from the Bible. My teaching is the VERY OPPOSITE of cherry picking. I do not learn the bible from a man in a pulpit, or from ignorance, which is where you appear to have learnt it. I would like you to point out something that I have left behind in my cherry picking. I assure you, nothing.
Before you even turn to Leviticus, I can explain that quite easily - again, with quotes from the gospels and the letters of Paul. Contrary to popular belief the first and second testaments of the bible do not contradict each other, rather, the new testament builds on the old.
You say that atheistic fundamental morals are not corrupted. Firstly, how can you accuse me of not deriving my moral compass from the bible when I back it up with quotes? Show me one thing of my moral compass I have not derived from the bible. Now on what grounds do you say atheistic morals are not corrupted? What bases? What evidence? Holy wars and crimes in the name of religion are not the fault of God, they are the fault of people misinterpreting God, and bending his word to their own desires, and creating false religions with false teachings.

>Cherry picking.
“The doom of a nation can be averted only by a storm of flowing passion, but only those who are passionate themselves can arouse passion in others.”
Cherry picking? Then tell me what I have left out! Your argumental technique is appalling and you do nothing to back up your claims, so they are baseless and worthless.
I had to google that quote - turns out its from Hitler. I honestly don't understand what you're trying to say.

>>52444
Most ANIMALS don't kill their kind and they don't need any deities to dictate them these rules, they also don't steal and care about each other often time more than humans do.
You sir are living in a dream world. A baboon will easily pull the head off a baby baboon that has angered it.
http://discovermagazine.com/photos/31-cannibalism-the-animal-kingdoms-dirty-little-secret
A large number of animals do eat their kind.
Animals do steal. Have you never watched nature programs? Birds steal from each others nests frequently. Most of the time the reasons animals don't steal is because they don't have POSSESSIONS. I would have thought that was obvious.
Animals care about each other more often than humans do? Of the animal kingdom a certain percentage are "Social animals", ie they live in family groups. The rest don't care about each other at all, and if they invade each others' territory, they're swift to rise to fight.
Humans are social animals, and a larger proportion of people live in family units than animals do.

>I don't see a reason why anyone would discuss whether such immoral monster created morality.
You are once more guilty as charged of making wild claims with no basis. I consider this statement ignorant and lazy.

>Yes it does, otherwise it's not faith.
>However, if you have any valid proof, we'd be glad to hear it.
I listed my proof. If you like we can call it something other than faith - "reasoned conclusions" would satisfy me well.

>Also, there is NO evidence for jesus, only supposedly records of a preacher that travelled around the country, teaching people and healing, if I remember correctly, but no mention of any supernatural phenomena that the NT is so fond of, yes, a person that inspired did probably exist, no, there is no proof for biblical jesus.
>Also, your jesus wasn't the first one to resurect after 3 days, it's an old concept. (not that he actually did)
I honestly wish you bigots would do your research.
http://carm.org/non-biblical-accounts-new-testament-events-andor-people
Again, why can you not give EVIDENCE of your claim that Jesus was not the first to resurrect? You are frustrating.

>Firstly, yes, they would, maybe because as I stated, the person that resembled jesus was well spoken of and they were willing to die in the name of the idea, the assumption that there are no atheists in the foxholes has always been faux.
I disagree, sir. What idea would they be willing to die in the name of? A lie? Why die for a lie? Who would sacrifice themselves for something they knew wasn't true? To con and swindle everyone? But then you can't reap the benefits of a lie once you are dead.
>Secondly, proving jesus existence with a bible, not only that, but you also chose the most ridiculous of the 4 testaments, great proof. And isn't it funny that the older the NT, the more supernatural phenomena is being included?
You cannot simply dismiss the bible as evidence. Much of the New Testament is a collection of letters that were sent, and historically confirmed in that, around the middle east and mediterranean at that time. And as I said, Paul writes that there were 500 witnesses, of which many are still alive at the time of writing, should the Corinthians wish to check. Don't you think if the Corinthians had checked and found the witnesses to deny the fact that it would have been struck from the bible?

>God created everything
>Prove it
Disprove it. And don't start talking about flying spaghetti monsters, because of the entirety of Christianity, which is built on reason and proof, the creation is one of the very, very few things that we do actually have to trust in without evidence. This doesn't undermine the rest of Christianity, it is merely a facet that relies on trust based on the validity of everything else, which I am willing to give after reasoned judgement.

>False, morality is not necessary, there are animals that slip by with lower forms of morality as far as I know it, plus morality has nothing to do with universe, it's a concept that is useful only to living beings.
And yet before you were saying animals had higher morality than men. You are incoherent.

>Assumption
False. A logical conclusion from the original statement that God created everything. Wouldn't you agree?

>but not by arbitrary decrees; it is logically compatible with the universe.
>How?
Christian morality is founded on love. Amongst living things in the universe this morality logically works out so that all can be as happy has possible - if everybody followed the morality to the letter, and loved their fellow man, and acted out of love and kindness for everybody, I put it to you that there wouldn't be strife and wars. There honestly wouldn't. Is that not logically compatible with how all living things have been created?

>Therefore, when God makes commandments, this is to educate us about morality and teach us how to live morally just lives.
>Very shitty commandments, not only did he waste 3 spots to fulfil his egoism and made no mention of the more serious issues, such as child molestation or rape. Bravo! Your god thinks that greed is worse than child molestation! What a great moral compass!
Fulfill his egoism? You accuse God of a base, manly vice. The "egoist" commandments are commandments of love, although it is easy for people like you to misinterpret that. Think of it, logically. God created his people. God loves his people. And yet, if they start to make their own false religions to false deities, and start making up their own moralities, and rituals, he won't be able to look after them. So does it not make sense that he would command them to remain loyal to him? It is for our own protection. Once he commands that we remain loyal to him, he goes on to list a series of commands about loyalty.
You are simply wrong. Child molestation does appear in the ten commandments, even if it wasn't spelt out word for word for simple people like you. The phrase "To commit adultery" in the modern sense means merely to cheat on one's wife. Well, in the bible, one should be monogamous, and also one should not have sex before marriage. Therefore to molest a child is cheating in the sense that that child is clearly not going to be your wife, and also it is sex before marriage because you are not going to marry that child. Does that make sense?
Also you make the mistake to assume that the ten commandments are the only commandments in the bible. I am beginning to wonder upon what grounds you base this spouting of mis-informed prejudice.
Read Leviticus 18.

>This morality includes loving God.
>Ah, because god is so insecure that if we won't worship this spawn from hell, he's going to send us there, eh? Rather insecure for a perfect being.
You have not read what I said about what heaven and hell is. Therefore these comments are irrelevant, misinformed, and damaging to you.

>Jesus says the greatest commandment is to love God with all your heart - this is of course missing from atheistic morality. The second greatest, Jesus says, is to love your neighbour as yourself - and on these hang all the other commandments.
>Completely false, read the bible properly. Jesus said that these are the TWO most important commandments for when he was asked which is the most important commandment, he didn't specify which is important, he said that the two are equally important.
You really have not read your bible? Quote from Matther 22:36-40 NIV - "37 Jesus replied: “‘Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind.’ 38 This is the first and greatest commandment. 39 And the second is like it: ‘Love your neighbor as yourself.’ 40 All the Law and the Prophets hang on these two commandments.” . Tell me why I should believe anything you say about the bible. "First and greatest", Jesus said. What book have you been reading?

>Christianity is founded on love.
>Lies, OT is anything but love.
Yet another claim that is not backed up. God's love is not some disney romantic lovey-dovey thing where he willfully ignores the sins of the world. God's love does not mean that he restrains from righteous anger, which comes out of love. In the old testament people were fully responsible for their sins because Jesus had not yet sacrificed himself for us, and therefore the full strength of God's righteous anger was turned upon them. Imagine if you loved someone with all your heart, and they kept telling you you were worthless and unimportant. Wouldn't you get angry at them? Wouldn't you say it would be a fool who did nothing about it?
You misunderstand "love". God is not in a dopey love with his people that makes him blind to all sense. This would render morality irrelevant and nonexistent. There would be no reason to be good whatsoever. As, actually, I stated in an above post.

>God loves his creation,
>Again, lies. If he did, there would be no flood, he wouldn't kill innocent first borns in egypt or there would be no hell, that aren't attributes of a benevolent deity, those are attributes of a malevolent deity, if anyone is worthy to be called the devil, then it's him.
I have said above what I think of your definition of love.
>Flood
The people had been sinful and wicked; considerably more so than the majority of societies are today. What, did they not deserve their fate? If God were to lovingly ignore everyone's sins, then what incentive would people have to follow any of his commands? It would be self-destructive.
>Kill innocent first borns in Egypt
God gave many warnings before this. It was a demonstration of power; again, the people of that time were fully guilty of all kinds of sin and they were held responsible to them because Jesus had not yet sacrificed himself.
>Hell
As I said above, Hell is exclusion from God, and that is achieved by a man's refusal to accept God.
>Benevolent deity
Disney, lovey-dovey, nonsense. God is loving but he is not stupid. You decide what you think God should be - this omnipotent idiot who exists for nothing but to make people on earth happy - and then crow gleefully when he does not match up to it.

Man, this is going to take forever.

>and the Christian response to understanding that fact is to firstly love God back, and then secondly to love everybody else, following his example.
>According to god, yes, according to jesus, no. And if you don't love god, he will avenge your lack of love by torturing you for eternity.
Why not according to Jesus? And again, it is your own lack of love for God that excludes you from his heaven. The torture is the exclusion itself, for which the man is guilty.

>All morality can be traced to love for your fellow man.
>I'll agree with this one.

>For the Christian morality comes from God - although that is not to say that it is an arbitrary set of rules, as I have explained above in detail, it is founded on love.
>Lies.
I left out a comma. I meant to say, "For the Christian, morality comes from God". Anyway ... what? I did explain how it is not an arbitrary set of rules, and we agreed that it is founded on love.

>The concept of a morality founded on love,
>Debatable.
Again, see my opinion of disney lovey-dovey idiocy.

>though, is so universal that it can apply even in secular societies.
>Lies, it doesn't 'even' apply to secular societies, it also applies in secular societies.
I'm delighted you have a favourite word, but "Lies" actually means wilfully false. Anyway your point here is merely one of semantics.

>Much of modern Western morality has strong Christian influences simply because of Christianity's history of being the dominant Western religion.
>Lies.
THIS is not lies. This is historical and cultural. In your haste to denounce God you are ignoring recent history that has nothing to do with whether or not you actually believe in God. See monogamy, for example - very prevalent in the West, and a cornerstone of Christianity, and yet in other regions of the world it is not so important.

>It is one of the few things that I have to trust God in without any proof, because it is logically impossible to see any proof.
>"one of the few things"? Does that mean you have any proof for any part of your belief?
You are so quick to jump on the slightest thing! I cannot see proof of how God created the world (incidentally I am not a creationist, I support evolution, which I reconcile with God), and I cannot see heaven. But I can reason about them.

>But, if your parents tell you when you small that after school comes university, it is fair to trust them.
>Or college. Or apprenticeship. Or straight to work, because some people can be satisfied with simple life and do not like the idea of constant stress. Your statement is false.
Again you have resorted to semantics. Petty.

>They were right in everything they told you about school, so why should you not trust them about university?
>Because they weren't? Unless you mean some very specific family.
Is it not obvious that I was referring to a specific example? Forgive me for not choosing an example that applies to absolutely everyone in the world ever. Again you are jumping on semantics, which is childish.

>So I will admit that I can't make any definite statements about the afterlife.
>Or god.
No. I won't list here what I have spent goodness knows how many words above explaining.

>I believe less in a fiery hellish furnace and more in exclusion from God.
>Heaven is simply the state of being in God's presence, being with the father.
>and thus to be in its presence is total bliss - what is called "Heaven". Hell is the antithesis of that. Hell is to be excluded from God's love.
>So I will admit that I can't make any definite statements about the afterlife.
>You seem to know enough about afterlife to know that much.
I said "I believe" at the beginning. You completely ignored my statement for the sake of your argument. Your technique is appalling.

>The power of God's love is indescribable,
>Then mine has to be infinitely times larger.
Have you sacrificed yourself in the most painful possible way, to death, for someone you loved? I didn't think so.

>This bit is important: There is no good and bad of people.
>Not what your bible says again.
No, no, no! You presume that just because the bible does not say in the exact words "There is no good and bad of people" that it is not so. Or perhaps you think the US constitution should not apply to crimes committed on helicopters because it doesn't have the word helicopter in it.

>This is one of the main reasons for misconceptions about heaven and hell.
>Ah, so you know what afterlife is like?
We cannot say unequivocably what the afterlife is like, because we have not seen it, but we can interpret what it is like from the Bible, and thus have what we consider correct or false interpretations.

>The act of sin is a rebellion from God. When a person sins, we decide, either consciously or subconsciously,
>Or we're born in the wrong country.
This is the purpose of spreading the gospel around the world.

>that God is not important enough for us to follow his commands.
>Which god again?
I'm not sure what you mean but honestly you're probably jumping on semantics again so if you don't mind I won't check.

>All rebellion from God is absolutely unforgiveable.
>Definition of tyrant anyone?
No, definition of authoritarianism if you really want to get political. Tyranny is abused authoritarianism. Who taught you politics?

>There are no degrees of rebellion. Every person sins, therefore every person is equally guilty in the eyes of God of rebellion from him.
>Wow, so you know how god thinks now? Didn't you just say that you had no idea how god judges people? How can you know that? And way to go with benevolence!
No, I know what Jesus has taught us, and also I have read the bible, in the old and new testament. You appear to be as guilty of cherry picking as you first accused me, only picking out the bits that you could dispute.
I did not say I had no idea. You are twisting my words, which is very bad technique and shows a lack of strength in your own argument. I said that I cannot have seen it myself and therefore cannot speak with 100% certainty. This is not the same as saying I have no idea. Or can you not understand the difference?
I have explained above the definitions of love, benevolence, and Disney love.

>Everybody is equally guilty of the same crime - rebellion from God.
>What a benevolent character...
Again, you crow gleefully when God does not live up to this character from some children's fantasy you have created. Before you return that accusation to me, I justify everything I say, whereas your argument is rife with wild and unjustified statements.

>It is so terrible that there is no greater or lesser rebellion - the slightest rebellion is the worst - possible - thing.
>HAH! I like the way you contradict yourself.
In what way have I contradicted myself? Or have you made a spectacular accusation about my wording in that sentence, which is an error of your misunderstanding me and not of my writing? Are you really jumping on my word choice, when you yourself have misread my words?
How old are you?

>So wait - if we are all guilty of the unforgiveable, then are we all damned?
>This bit is also important: We are not all damned. That is fairly obvious. But what is more important is to understand is that God does not simply turn a blind eye and forgive the unforgiveable.
>So you do know how god thinks and what awaits us in afterlife?
>I like all the proof you have for all of this. It's, erm, almost as much as my friend's proof that there were fairies beneath his garden.
Is what I have said above not reasoned and logically drawn from what I have said previously? I did not think you would be so dimwitted and thick that I would have to reference every sentence with a piece of proof for simpletons to understand. Please keep up.

>This is the real, core reason why Jesus died on the cross. When Jesus died, he atoned for all of the sins of mankind.
>Like mayans used to sacrifice their people to satisfy their bloodthirsty god?
No, because Jesus is God. He sacrificed himself out of love. My opinion of your intelligence is dwindling.

>They all come in one big paragraph headed "Rebellion", and rebellion is totally unforgiveable, so the length of that paragraph does not actually matter. But then God screws up the sheet of paper and throws it away.
>Ah, you must be on special conditions with god, aye?
I don't understand what you're saying.

>Am I forgiven of the unforgiveable? No. The reason that I am not punished is because Jesus has already borne the punishment. Jesus is the scapegoat. Jesus sacrificed himself, for me, for you, and for everybody, purely out of love. So when God allows "sinners" into heaven, it is not because he is stupid. It is because the price for the crime has already been paid in full.
>Totally like mayans. And what about me forgiving god? Because to me, the only true sinner above them all, is him. The most vile, corrupted and malicious being ever invented by men.
Totally like the mayans in the way their own god sacrifices himself to them? Oh wait, it's not like that at all. You just made an idiotic and stupid connection.

Your arguments are wildly misinformed, bigoted, and prejudiced. You do not back up half of your statements with any kind of proof while accusing me of having none; and those sentences of mine which are not footnoted and referenced that you jump on so joyfully are fully backed up earlier in my own argument. You have not proven that the morality of God is flawed; merely that your interpretation is flawed, which I have proved is based on a misinterpretation of the bible.

I don't think I can write any more - I'm supposed to be revising for university exams at the moment, so I will have to leave myself at the mercy of you having the last word, unless I can't resist coming back. But I am confident that you will condemn yourself with as much ignorance as you displayed above.

>>52610
Tamar, honestly, with all respect to everyone on here... Why do you keep this up? They feed off this, you know. You're not going to change your mind and neither are they. It makes no sense to me. Oh well.

>>52611
Honestly, I find it useful.

It helps me to understand my own faith, to hear it questioned and criticised. If I always ignored criticisms it would be because I was too afraid they might be right. I have enough confidence in God to wade in.

Although that previous post exhausted and frustrated me, so as I said above I may well abandon this thread and do more useful things. Like, you know, university exams!

Tamar, you are aware that the events of the flood and the escape from Egypt didn't actually happen right? There's plenty of things in the bible that are far from reality, this book makes very strong archaeological cases against how some things are depicted in the bible http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Bible_Unearthed

>>52597
>But it seems I just irritate people on both sides of debate with these ideas.

I wouldn't say that. Just is a powerful word to throw in there.

In the same token though, people need to have their boats rocked from time to time. Forging ahead into topics like religion and such, you're bound to do that so I wouldn't take the irritation as a bad sign either.

It can be disturbing to be given certain perspectives or information that challenges you to change your own. Some people are also 'wired' to be inclined to lean certain ways.

You aren't going to please them all, you'd be hard pressed to if you tried because people will undoubtedly criticize and challenge what you have to say. On top of that, different people respect/want different things. Some don't want to hear anything that goes against their traditional views and values, and some respect conflict management and criticism and will always seem to take issue with you.

I enjoy reading your posts though, you communicate well and often have things to add that I find are valuable to the topic. I also agree with a bit of it but don't often personally relate to how you seem to have arrived there.

Probably a good reason why I value your input. So basically: irritating other people especially in subjects that have people naturally entrenched almost by design into it, is an inevitability and even a good thing in a number of ways. Making the 'right' choices and observations in those subjects are going to be perceived by someone else to be 'wrong' and vice versa.

I think as far as 'sides' or 'opinions' go, having ones people from opposing viewpoints can both genuinely consider are valuable as suggestions and for catalyzing ideas and efforts on all sides.

People taking issue with them is kind of the whole point and process if you look at it like that. Besides implementation of course.

>>52548

"Alright, people. My son hasn't committed suicide yet, so you're going to burn for eternity. Sorry."
Seems reasonable.

Christianity could be all sunshine, lollypops, and marshmallows for everyone. I take God's insistence on making there be suffering as a sign of his lack of morality or his impotence.

So there is no reason I can fathom why an omnipotent God wouldn't stop suffering. If it's because it would destroy morality, that makes some sense. However, why does He need Earthly morality at all? Why does He make an Earth which is torture compared to Heaven? Why not just bring everyone to Heaven? Why must they suffer first? What purpose does the Earth serve?

Also, by what process could Jesus dying possibly help anything? Saying "He died for you!" is a lovely sentiment, but why does he have to die for you? When God is omnipotent, surely He could just do whatever Jesus did without forcing his own son to die. That's another big, overarching problem with Christianity: lots of sentiment, but little explanation.
>God made the universe!
By what process? What existed before that? Where was God?
>Jesus saved you from sin!
By what process? Why is Jesus dying necessary?
>The Lord our God watches over each and every one of us! Hallelujah!
By what process? Spy satellites?

So yes, when God could solve all the problems everywhere at once and I see no reason why He doesn't, I am upset that Christianity doesn't resemble the fiction I created.

That's why it's wrong: an omnipotent, loving God would not allow the horrors that take place here to continue taking place. He would not require you to suffer on Earth. He would not punish people in the afterlife because he feels like it. Why should the Earth even exist?
And I know you don't claim He does. That was for hooman.

Furthermore, if your morality is based on the reward you get after you die that isn't morality at all. That's a supernatural rewards system. You get a paycheck for being good rather than just being good for its own sake.

When the alternative is the paradise that God could offer everyone, our world is torture.

Can we go back to the debate that isn't subjective and is black-and-white, namely the existence of God rather than His morality or lack thereof?

>>52610

I now see that the thread has gone into the long posts where you just quote literally every line of someone else's post. Not going to join in.

>>52620
>>I take God's insistence on making there be suffering as a sign of his lack of morality or his impotence.

See these knives?
If someone uses these knives as weapons of murder, is the manufacturer to blame?

>>52624
continued

God insists on FREE WILL. With it, good and evil both exist. There's no honor in being worshiped by cybermen.

(I can't believe I'm about to use a sex analogy...)
Would you rather clop, or have sex with someone whose trust and love you've earned after a lot of relationship development?

>>52629
I thought god was some kind of transcendental being that isn't confined by such simple things like common sense.

>>52629

Let me ask two things.

1. Does God have free will?

2. Can God commit evil deeds?

I think most people would answer that yes - God does have free will. In the sense that he is omnipotent. If he didn't have free will, I think that would pose a lot of problems for personal-God theology.

As for the second question, again. Most believers I know would answer with a no. Either because they see it as a logical contradiction. (God is perfectly good, it is impossible for him to do evil) or because it's not in God's nature. (God is not the kind of "person" who would commit evil, so he never will, even though it's in his power.)

I think the answers that I gave are fairly uncontroversial in theology. But maybe I'm wrong.

However, if you take them as true. Then you run into a bit of a problem vis-à-vis the whole "humans need to have free will" thing. Since you've already accepted the existence of a being that 1: has free will, and 2: can do no evil. Namely, God. So why didn't God simply create beings like himself? Humans that had free will, but were either not capable of or disinclined to do evil things.

If you give "free will" as the answer to the problem of evil. I think you're stuck with three theologically unattractive options for your God.

1. God has no free will.

2. God is capable of evil in the same way a human is.

3. God created humans with capability of doing evil even though he didn't have to.

I hope that makes some sense. I'm having trouble with phrasing this idea perfectly.

>>52614

Thanks. It's nice to know at least someone thinks I'm saying something worth saying. As for how I arrived at my opinions - well, I like to think I haven't arrived yet. But that's just a minor quibble. My family is a bit of a weird one, my mother's side is highly secular, with most of them being agnostic or apathetic towards religion. While my father's side is very religious and fairly conservative too - his brother being a Baptist preacher from Texas. So I feel like I've been able to get acquainted with Christianity (well, a particular flavor of Christianity) without getting "sucked in", so to speak.

I think I've been able to see first hand both the harm and bigotry that religion can cause, and the good that it can inspire in people. What I'd like to see more than anything is for religion to abandon all of the things that makes it hateful and bigoted, so all that's left is the compassion and goodness that it seems to inspire in a lot of people.

And from where I stand, the thing standing in the way of a truly compassionate religion emerging that can serve mankind is the idea of a personal God. As long as God is a person who is capable of feeling, thinking and judging in the same way a human does, it's far too easy for people to simply project their own feelings onto him - God loves what I love, God hates what I love, et cetera.

But at the same time, it seems that a lot of people need the idea of God in their lives to give them a sense of security or meaning. I don't think it would be very easy to simply convince them to give him up.

It's not particularly fun for me to deconstruct religious ideas constantly. Unless I think the ideas are interesting for whatever reason. Besides, I think other posters here do a much better job of arguing against the factual claims of religion. I suppose what I'm trying to do is offer some kind of alternative - a way for a certain God concept to exist in a person's worldview without that worldview butting heads with what we understand about the universe.

I guess the problem is that that idea of God as a person is so entrenched in the minds of believers that to ask them to abandon it is to ask them to abandon their faith entirely. But maybe someone won't see it that way, and they might think about things.

>>52610
Sorry, I must have over-reacted about the comeback, I'm very, very careful to avoid getting involved in flamewars, I had too much of it in the past.
First off, I was making quick replies to every post that I found worth replying after my last post, but to accuse me that it is not based on genuine knowledge of the bible? Well, you're right, depending whether you are referring to pre-apologetics or post-apologetics interpretation, the very fact that you claim to know nothing about afterlife, yet still manage to make absolute statements about afterlife shows how you like to bend bible to your will. The very fact that you mention that there is a way to 'misinterpret' the bible.
If god exist, a loving, caring god, then I can assure you that it would despise the idea of abrahamic religions.

>I have rationalised almost everything I have said with quotes from the Bible. My teaching is the VERY OPPOSITE of cherry picking.
Let's pay attention to the good parts and ignore the bad parts. At least that's how I view it, everyone likes to speak how GOOD the bible is, they always pull out quotes they like most, but ignore the bad ones.
It's funny how you quote Corinthians reasonable, yet clearly Paul mentions that god had some sort of problem with women, “Let your women keep silence in the churches: for it is not permitted unto them to speak” 1 Corinthians 14:34
“I praise you for being faithful in remembering me. I also praise you for staying true to all my teachings, just as I gave them to you. Now I want you to know that the head of every man is Christ. The head of the woman is the man. And the head of Christ is God. 4 Every man who prays or prophesies with his head covered brings shame on his head. 5 And every woman who prays or prophesies with her head uncovered brings shame on her head. It is just as if her head were shaved. What if a woman does not cover her head? She should have her hair cut off. But it is shameful for her to cut her hair or shave it off. So she should cover her head. A man should not cover his head. He is the likeness and glory of God. But the woman is the glory of the man. 8 The man did not come from the woman. The woman came from the man. Also, the man was not created for the woman. The woman was created for the man. 10 That's why a woman should have her head covered. It shows that she is under authority. She should also cover her head because of the angels. “ Yep, definitely not sexist at all.
"If any of you has a dispute with another, do you dare to take it before the ungodly for judgment instead of before the Lord’s people? 2 Or do you not know that the Lord’s people will judge the world? And if you are to judge the world, are you not competent to judge trivial cases?" 1 Corinthians 6:1-2
Wait, wasn't the God the only one allowed to judge?

>Contrary to popular belief the first and second testaments of the bible do not contradict each other, rather, the new testament builds on the old.
The two testaments don't only contradict each other, they also contradict themselves.

>Firstly, how can you accuse me of not deriving my moral compass from the bible when I back it up with quotes?
Maybe you did, I don't know, I'll have to admit that I was generalizing here, most people before they read the bible have already decided what they will accept and what not, then it's just all about finding verses that wrap their ideas in the nicest wraps.

>Now on what grounds do you say atheistic morals are not corrupted? What bases? What evidence?
Because atheism has no morals. It is an amoral state of belief, it has no rules, it has no foundations, you cannot kill in the name of atheism to the same extent as you cannot kill in the name of apathetism.

>they are the fault of people misinterpreting God
How do you know they're the ones misinterpreting the bible? Has the god personally spoken to you anymore he did to them? Do you have some sort of ultimate knowledge above all else that you know that not only your interpretation is the correct one, but also your god is the right one?

>Cherry picking? Then tell me what I have left out! Your argumental technique is appalling and you do nothing to back up your claims, so they are baseless and worthless.
I had to google that quote - turns out its from Hitler. I honestly don't understand what you're trying to say.
I think I will cover it soon enough, also, one good quote doesn't justify the evil.

>You sir are living in a dream world. A baboon will easily pull the head off a baby baboon that has angered it.
http://discovermagazine.com/photos/31-cannibalism-the-animal-kingdoms-dirty-little-secret
A large number of animals do eat their kind.
Animals do steal. Have you never watched nature programs? Birds steal from each others nests frequently. Most of the time the reasons animals don't steal is because they don't have POSSESSIONS. I would have thought that was obvious.
Animals care about each other more often than humans do? Of the animal kingdom a certain percentage are "Social animals", ie they live in family groups. The rest don't care about each other at all, and if they invade each others' territory, they're swift to rise to fight.
Humans are social animals, and a larger proportion of people live in family units than animals do.

I was supposed to say that most "animals have morals, they do not kill", even though baboons do have some bloody practices, however, most animals will have SOME sort of morals, although it'd be lying to say it's true, because when I say most animals, I'm thinking of land mammals, if we were to compare the amount of land mammals to amount of fish, the numbers suddenly change. Anyway, maybe the most precise wording would be to say that humans aren't the only ones with morality?

>You are once more guilty as charged of making wild claims with no basis. I consider this statement ignorant and lazy.
They entered into a covenant to seek the Lord, the God of their fathers, with all their heart and soul; and everyone who would not seek the Lord, the God of Israel, was to be put to death, whether small or great, whether man or woman. (2 Chronicles 15:12-13 NAB)
Or should I say, most of the OT, which the NT is based on.
Let's top that, as it was said already, no loving god, at least omnipotent, would allow for people to go to hell, no loving god would look down upon his creation, whatever this god is, is not loving, maybe your god, but not the biblical god.

>I honestly wish you bigots would do your research.
http://carm.org/non-biblical-accounts-new-testament-events-andor-people
Again, why can you not give EVIDENCE of your claim that Jesus was not the first to resurrect? You are frustrating.
Firstly, I am familiar with Flavius, the only man to write about jesus AFTER jesus' so called death, have you checked when flavius was born? 37 AD.
I'm going to name one demigod, Dionysus.

>I disagree, sir. What idea would they be willing to die in the name of? A lie? Why die for a lie? Who would sacrifice themselves for something they knew wasn't true? To con and swindle everyone? But then you can't reap the benefits of a lie once you are dead.
Hmm? What lie? You're the one claiming that the so-called jesus was claimed to be the son of god, and even if they truly believed him to be the son of god, then let me point out that throughout history he wasn't the only man to be given this title, there are historical accounts of people proclaiming themselves gods or others proclaiming them gods.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_people_who_have_been_considered_deities

>You cannot simply dismiss the bible as evidence.
Yes I can, you first have to prove the bible as a valid evidence for anything. Your religion is no exception to this rule.

>Much of the New Testament is a collection of letters that were sent, and historically confirmed in that, around the middle east and mediterranean at that time.
Irrelevant, just because it's old, doesn't mean it's true.

>And as I said, Paul writes that there were 500 witnesses, of which many are still alive at the time of writing, should the Corinthians wish to check. Don't you think if the Corinthians had checked and found the witnesses to deny the fact that it would have been struck from the bible?
Yet there are no records of these 500 witnesses, no records of their sightings beyond the Paul's letters.

>Disprove it.
I'm not the one making assumptions here.
>And don't start talking about flying spaghetti monsters,
I will, because your god and FSM is one and the same thing.
>because of the entirety of Christianity, which is built on reason and proof,
Why do you refuse to use your proof? And how come I can't see this so called reason?
>the creation is one of the very, very few things that we do actually have to trust in without evidence.
No we don't, that's just wilful ignorance.
>This doesn't undermine the rest of Christianity,
Actually, yes it does. Any belief that is entirely faith-based has no credit.
>it is merely a facet that relies on trust based on the validity of everything else, which I am willing to give after reasoned judgement.
Yet there's still no difference between olden religions, other religions and delusion, funny, aye?

>And yet before you were saying animals had higher morality than men. You are incoherent.
False, I claimed that some animals had higher morality in certain areas than humans, never did I claim that animals have overall superior morality.

>False. A logical conclusion from the original statement that God created everything. Wouldn't you agree?
No, you made an assumption based on assumption that morality is required that just because it's required, it had to be created by god. Still no more no less of an assumption as claiming that a monkey farted out morality, it's absurd. Also, collective fallacy.

>Christian morality is founded on love. Amongst living things in the universe this morality logically works out so that all can be as happy has possible - if everybody followed the morality to the letter, and loved their fellow man, and acted out of love and kindness for everybody, I put it to you that there wouldn't be strife and wars. There honestly wouldn't. Is that not logically compatible with how all living things have been created?
You claim that religion is founded on love, yet there's still so much stupidity in the bible, from old testament were god is portrayed as some homicidal maniac to the new testament where they try to soften the god based on a story of a person with no historical accountability regarding the claim that he was a god.

>Fulfill his egoism? You accuse God of a base, manly vice.
Yes, yes I am. I am accusing him of being no better than any other god that came before him.
>The "egoist" commandments are commandments of love,
I don't see how "love me or you will writhe in pain (still sticking to biblical version of hell) is a commandment of love.
>although it is easy for people like you to misinterpret that.
The question here is, who's the one misinterpreting the bible? Me for sticking to what it says in the bible or you sugar coating it?
>Think of it, logically. God created his people. God loves his people. And yet, if they start to make their own false religions to false deities, and start making up their own moralities, and rituals,
Hypocrisy much? How dare you accuse other deities being false on such fallacious premises as "I feel my god is right", the reason why there aren't any theist A vs theist B debates is because they would end in stalemate.
>he won't be able to look after them.
So far goes his omnipotence, eh?
>So does it not make sense that he would command them to remain loyal to him?
Yes, because a sensible god wouldn't rely on blind faith.
>You are simply wrong. Child molestation does appear in the ten commandments, even if it wasn't spelt out word for word for simple people like you. The phrase "To commit adultery" in the modern sense means merely to cheat on one's wife.
So, as long as you marry the child, you can have sex with it? Sounds reasonable to me.
>Well, in the bible, one should be monogamous, and also one should not have sex before marriage. Therefore to molest a child is cheating in the sense that that child is clearly not going to be your wife,
Did god condemn marrying children?
>Also you make the mistake to assume that the ten commandments are the only commandments in the bible. I am beginning to wonder upon what grounds you base this spouting of mis-informed prejudice.
Read Leviticus 18.
I didn't assume that the 10 commandments are the only commandments in the bible, I just wasn't expected you to refer to the ridiculous 613 commandments.
Leviticus 20:13 (wow, what a loving deity), or my favourite, 4:6 (he was one blood-thirsty god, wasn't he?), 19:26 is neat too, according to the bible magic is real, heh. I don't see a reason why such ridiculous text I should take seriously.

>You have not read what I said about what heaven and hell is. Therefore these comments are irrelevant, misinformed, and damaging to you.
Not really, I'm just sticking to the biblical hell, since if anything you said is true, then certainly I will enjoy my time in 'hell'. Your interpretation is your own, it's no more valid than another interpretation that earth is hell and after death, if we were bad, we are reborn to try again.

>You really have not read your bible?
I referred to a different interpretation, one interpretation is that he claims that one is more important than another, another one is that they both are equally important, because otherwise it's pointless to name both commandments when a person asked for the most important
So, according to you, what is more important than being a good person? Blindly following god? Sounds reasonable.

>God's love does not mean that he restrains from righteous anger,
And this is where our moralities split, I believe that under no circumstances is a child allowed to be killed, you claim that if a child as much as curses their parents is excusable to be killed, that's why I claimed to have superior morality to god.

>Imagine if you loved someone with all your heart, and they kept telling you you were worthless and unimportant. Wouldn't you get angry at them? Wouldn't you say it would be a fool who did nothing about it?
Even if they hurt me, I wouldn't hurt them, I wouldn't hit them, curse them, speak badly of them, because that is love, I still would care about their well-being even if they didn't care about mine, if I had a child that cursed on me, a child that got mad at me, I wouldn't be angry, I would be sad, and what I wouldn't do is punish them simply because they don't love me, because that is not an act of love, that is an act of hate.

>What, did they not deserve their fate?
You're a cruel person. No one, not one person deserves to die simply because I don't like them, his actions were no better than hitler's, no, they were exactly the same, purifying the world.

>God gave many warnings before this.
That is not an excuse! That does not excuse a god to simply kill people just because someone was born here and not over there! That is the epitome of evil, one that has infinite power, yet has to refer to such vile actions, one that is supposed to be benevolent, yet manages to be so cruel, one that is supposed to be omniscient, yet is so stupid, that book isn't a book of god, it is a book of a mad man.

>Why not according to Jesus? And again, it is your own lack of love for God that excludes you from his heaven. The torture is the exclusion itself, for which the man is guilty.
Ignore that, it was based on the alternate interpretation to what jesus meant by greatest commandment.

>I left out a comma. I meant to say, "For the Christian, morality comes from God". Anyway ... what? I did explain how it is not an arbitrary set of rules, and we agreed that it is founded on love.
Comma made a helluva difference.

>Again, see my opinion of disney lovey-dovey idiocy.
What I meant is that some argue that morality is based on the emotion of compassion, others that it's based on the need of stable society, so it's debatable what morality was founded on.

>I'm delighted you have a favourite word, but "Lies" actually means wilfully false. Anyway your point here is merely one of semantics.
I tried to think of polite synonym for 'bullshit', funnily you have mentioned semantics in the same sentence, because based on context and the structure of this short, one worded sentence, you should've and probably did realise that I didn't mean it in a "You're lying" way. Also, I won't disagree, it is based on semantics simply because they mattered.

>THIS is not lies. This is historical and cultural. In your haste to denounce God you are ignoring recent history that has nothing to do with whether or not you actually believe in God. See monogamy, for example - very prevalent in the West, and a cornerstone of Christianity, and yet in other regions of the world it is not so important.
I disagree. I am not going to go into details how sympathy and empathy are intrinsic abilities and how christianity just spoke of something that should be obvious to most human beings or how morality predates your book and how jesus didn't even bother to question slavery.

>It is one of the few things that I have to trust God in without any proof, because it is logically impossible to see any proof.
>"one of the few things"? Does that mean you have any proof for any part of your belief?
>You are so quick to jump on the slightest thing! I cannot see proof of how God created the world (incidentally I am not a creationist, I support evolution, which I reconcile with God), and I cannot see heaven. But I can reason about them.
So, you do not have any proof for any part of your belief? (Before you shout "bible", let me remind you that you have to first prove that it is a valid proof.)
How come that your so-called logic I find very illogical then? Or on the par with any other religious logic?

>But, if your parents tell you when you small that after school comes university, it is fair to trust them.
>Or college. Or apprenticeship. Or straight to work, because some people can be satisfied with simple life and do not like the idea of constant stress. Your statement is false.
>Again you have resorted to semantics. Petty.
Not really, you were the one that claimed an absolute choice, as if university was some sort of heaven, yet completely ignored every other possibility, such as dying of a car crash soon after school finishes. You have made no worse no better assumption in your university example than with heaven, chosen one possibility among infinite others, except that in this example university is very likely compared to heaven.

>They were right in everything they told you about school, so why should you not trust them about university?
>Because they weren't? Unless you mean some very specific family.
>Is it not obvious that I was referring to a specific example? Forgive me for not choosing an example that applies to absolutely everyone in the world ever. Again you are jumping on semantics, which is childish.
Yes, you did make it obvious that you were referring to my parents, it's not my fault that without the principle of charity your argument didn't make sense.

>So I will admit that I can't make any definite statements about the afterlife.
>Or god.
>No. I won't list here what I have spent goodness knows how many words above explaining.
That you can't prove anything and rely on faith?

>I believe less in a fiery hellish furnace and more in exclusion from God.
>Heaven is simply the state of being in God's presence, being with the father.
>and thus to be in its presence is total bliss - what is called "Heaven". Hell is the antithesis of that. Hell is to be excluded from God's love.
>So I will admit that I can't make any definite statements about the afterlife.
>You seem to know enough about afterlife to know that much.
>I said "I believe" at the beginning. You completely ignored my statement for the sake of your argument. Your technique is appalling.
So, you hope others will accept your wishful thinking as ultimately true simply because you like your wishful thinking?

>The power of God's love is indescribable,
>Then mine has to be infinitely times larger.
>Have you sacrificed yourself in the most painful possible way, to death, for someone you loved? I didn't think so.
The very fact that you assume that jesus' sacrifice was 'the most painful way' is just ridiculous. And the very fact that a sacrifice to yourself in order to forgive someone a sin that I have bestowed upon them is love is hilarious. "Hey, tom! Do you remember the time I have caught you masturbating? Well, I have sacrificed this here video game to cleanse you of your sin, now bow to me! You now have to love me and worship me!" Again, egoistical much? Give me infinite power and I sure will send a copy of myself to be sacrificed.

>This bit is important: There is no good and bad of people.
>Not what your bible says again.
>No, no, no! You presume that just because the bible does not say in the exact words "There is no good and bad of people" that it is not so. Or perhaps you think the US constitution should not apply to crimes committed on helicopters because it doesn't have the word helicopter in it.
No, what I presume is that by "wicked" people, the bible refers to bad people.

>This is one of the main reasons for misconceptions about heaven and hell.
>Ah, so you know what afterlife is like?
>We cannot say unequivocably what the afterlife is like, because we have not seen it, but we can interpret what it is like from the Bible, and thus have what we consider correct or false interpretations.
... Matthew 13:50, Mark 9:48, Revelation 20:15, why is it that all biblical descriptions are consistent, yet yours is so different that I'd presumed you found some secret gospel no one heard of? And how do you interpret it otherwise without being wilfully ignorant or delusional?

>The act of sin is a rebellion from God. When a person sins, we decide, either consciously or subconsciously,
>Or we're born in the wrong country.
>This is the purpose of spreading the gospel around the world.
So... you do agree with me that muslims are going to hell simply because they were born in muslim country? In other words, god fucked up their chances for heaven the moment they were born?

>that God is not important enough for us to follow his commands.
>Which god again?
>I'm not sure what you mean but honestly you're probably jumping on semantics again so if you don't mind I won't check.
No, it was a direct attack on your god with a purpose of saying that "Your interpretation of god is no better in my opinion to any other interpretation of god"

>All rebellion from God is absolutely unforgiveable.
>Definition of tyrant anyone?
>No, definition of authoritarianism if you really want to get political. Tyranny is abused authoritarianism. Who taught you politics?
Speaking of semantics much? You should've known by now that I view god as a cruel oppressor, combine it with authoritarianism and you get tyranny.

>There are no degrees of rebellion. Every person sins, therefore every person is equally guilty in the eyes of God of rebellion from him.
>Wow, so you know how god thinks now? Didn't you just say that you had no idea how god judges people? How can you know that? And way to go with benevolence!
>No, I know what Jesus has taught us, and also I have read the bible, in the old and new testament. You appear to be as guilty of cherry picking as you first accused me, only picking out the bits that you could dispute.
You KNOW what jesus has taught us? There is no room for interpretation, because you know what the bible says?
>I did not say I had no idea. You are twisting my words, which is very bad technique and shows a lack of strength in your own argument. I said that I cannot have seen it myself and therefore cannot speak with 100% certainty. This is not the same as saying I have no idea. Or can you not understand the difference?
Yes you did, you said you don't know what it all is, but you believed, in order to know something, you need to have proof for it, you have claimed to have no proof, therefore no knowledge, not only that, but also the very definition of faith is direct opposite of proof.
>I have explained above the definitions of love, benevolence, and Disney love.
your personal definitions where cruelty is excusable.

>Everybody is equally guilty of the same crime - rebellion from God.
>What a benevolent character...
>Again, you crow gleefully when God does not live up to this character from some children's fantasy you have created. Before you return that accusation to me, I justify everything I say, whereas your argument is rife with wild and unjustified statements.
Irony much? Aren't you the one sugar coating what bible says? About hell and all, even though it says in black and white what hell is like?

>It is so terrible that there is no greater or lesser rebellion - the slightest rebellion is the worst - possible - thing.
>HAH! I like the way you contradict yourself.
>In what way have I contradicted myself? Or have you made a spectacular accusation about my wording in that sentence, which is an error of your misunderstanding me and not of my writing? Are you really jumping on my word choice, when you yourself have misread my words?
Ignore that, I completely don't remember what was on my mind back then, I must have made some sort of connection with one of your previous posts or something, but what it was, I truly can't remember, although according to what I have written, I must have thought it was rather obvious.

>So wait - if we are all guilty of the unforgiveable, then are we all damned?
>This bit is also important: We are not all damned. That is fairly obvious. But what is more important is to understand is that God does not simply turn a blind eye and forgive the unforgiveable.
>So you do know how god thinks and what awaits us in afterlife?
>I like all the proof you have for all of this. It's, erm, almost as much as my friend's proof that there were fairies beneath his garden.
>Is what I have said above not reasoned and logically drawn from what I have said previously?
No, no it wasn't.
>I did not think you would be so dimwitted and thick that I would have to reference every sentence with a piece of proof for simpletons to understand. Please keep up.
I surely will.

>This is the real, core reason why Jesus died on the cross. When Jesus died, he atoned for all of the sins of mankind.
>Like mayans used to sacrifice their people to satisfy their bloodthirsty god?
>No, because Jesus is God. He sacrificed himself out of love. My opinion of your intelligence is dwindling.
It's just going to get worse. Your god is omnipotent and omniscient. Your god couldn't skip sacrificing himself in order to forgive us. No difference to me.

>They all come in one big paragraph headed "Rebellion", and rebellion is totally unforgiveable, so the length of that paragraph does not actually matter. But then God screws up the sheet of paper and throws it away.
>Ah, you must be on special conditions with god, aye?
>I don't understand what you're saying.
Here I remember what I meant. You are claiming that you know exactly what god is like, unless I missed the point where you said that it's what you believe. (No, seriously, did I?)

>Am I forgiven of the unforgiveable? No. The reason that I am not punished is because Jesus has already borne the punishment. Jesus is the scapegoat. Jesus sacrificed himself, for me, for you, and for everybody, purely out of love. So when God allows "sinners" into heaven, it is not because he is stupid. It is because the price for the crime has already been paid in full.
>Totally like mayans. And what about me forgiving god? Because to me, the only true sinner above them all, is him. The most vile, corrupted and malicious being ever invented by men.
>Totally like the mayans in the way their own god sacrifices himself to them? Oh wait, it's not like that at all. You just made an idiotic and stupid connection.
Idiotic and stupid connection with the fact that mayans had to sacrifice people in order to not be punished? I don't think so. Especially given the fact that OT was rather fond of sacrifices (for some reason leviticus comes to my mind).

>Your arguments are wildly misinformed,
According to whom?
>bigoted, and prejudiced.
Sure, I'll take it.
>You do not back up half of your statements
Did you miss the part where I mentioned that I was answering in a rush? Some answers were there simply to voice my opinion of god. This post should be slightly nicer.
>with any kind of proof while accusing me of having none;
You claimed to have no proof, I don't even have to accuse you anything.
>and those sentences of mine which are not footnoted and referenced that you jump on so joyfully are fully backed up earlier in my own argument.
Which sentences exactly? I can't remember one.
>You have not proven that the morality of God is flawed;
No to you at least.
>merely that your interpretation is flawed, which I have proved is based on a misinterpretation of the bible.
Again, opinions. You don't know whether your definition is the correct one.

>I don't think I can write any more - I'm supposed to be revising for university exams at the moment, so I will have to leave myself at the mercy of you having the last word, unless I can't resist coming back. But I am confident that you will condemn yourself with as much ignorance as you displayed above.
At least here we're on the same boat here.

For some reason it appears to me as if you were losing your cool. Make sure not to explode.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-j8ZMMuu7MU

>I wouldn't say "should not", it's more along the line of "is not". I think it's important to recognize the fact that rationalism is a Western invention, and it was used by people like Aquinas and Descartes to "prove" the existence of God. But in the ancient world, that wasn't the case. To a peasant in bronze-age Palestine, God simply was a fact of life. Literal thinking and metaphysical thinking was not separated as it is today. And questioning the existence of God would have been just absurd. And trying to "prove" that he existed would make no sense.
Ah, sorry, I missed the "concept" part when you were referring to god in your first conclusion and assumed you were talking about redefining god, instead of god concept.

>Do I mean we should start thinking about God in the same way as bronze-age mystics? Absolutely not! We live on this side of the scientific age, we can't stop using reason, logic and evidence now that we know how valuable they are for knowing the truth.
Yeah, I get you, but I'm for a complete abolition of god outside of romanticizing the universe sort of god (such as higgs boson being the god particle), it's just that misinterpretation of your first conclusion threw me off balance.

>I consider the question of whether or not God exists to be a rather boring one. It's a matter of "settled philosophy" to me. The arguments in favor of him existing in a rational sense haven't really advanced since Aquinas, and if a person isn't going to accept the refutations of those arguments from David Hume or Immanuel Kant, they're probably not going to accept anything I have to say anyway.
It's a beautiful quote, but some people think that belief in god is valid enough method to go around proving something, which is the main reason why I haven't caught up on your intentions.

>The metaphysics don't really matter to me - I think it's obvious that bronze-age mystics would get it wrong when making wild conjectures about the nature of the universe. But I don't really see those innaccurate creation stories as "the point" of religion.
I am going to just apologise here.

>To me, the point is the morals behind them - the metaphors that they create to illustrate some moral or ethical truth, or to motivate us into acting some way.
I agree with you here completely, I am a rather interested in what part religion played in the past and how the change of religion reflected on society back then, although to what seems to us brutal in the scriptures, it did more good than evil in the past, however, the fact that religion didn't die out throughout all this time is horrifying.

>People use metaphorical thinking all the time to help them understand a concept that might be illusive when thought about literally. It seems to be something that we're just wired to do.
I have to say I'm quite fond of this skill.

>The point of the "God" metaphor, as far as I can tell. Is to give people an eternal parent figure. Something that will eternally love them, care for them, provide for them, and do all the other things a loving parent would do.
I'm not sure what's your stance here, but from my perspective god was a subconscious metaphor...

Of course, this concept has a dark side too. If imagine there's a divine parent in the sky, he can judge, condemn, and hate you. Or the things that you hate. He can order you to commit atrocities and get angry with you if you fail him.
...which it's dangerous.

>To me, such concepts of a personal God are ultimately harmful. But I don't think it has to be the only concept of God out there. A lot of people seem so attached to the God-metaphor, that they may need some kind of concept called God to understand the world. I would like that concept to change into something that can serve humanity more.
With you here, and sorry again.

>You seem to be sugar coating a religion, trying to ridicule using reason to prove god, and forcing a different thought process that could benefit god, even though the thought process is flawed.
You are seriously sugar coating religion, you could make nazis sound like a group of fun-loving, misunderstood and mistreated people.

>I wouldn't say I'm sugar-coating religion. It takes only a small understanding of history to know how much death and suffering has been caused throughout time in the name of religion. It appears that religion has been with humanity for thousands of years, so it's touched nearly everything we've done, from the greatest atrocities to the greatest acts of kindness. What I'm trying to do is paint a realistic picture of it, one that doesn't glorify it or demonize it unfairly. (Though I did emphasize what I thought were the positive aspects of religion in that post)
Again, sorry, it's all based on the previous error. However, in the current day of age, religion brings more harm than good. Let me compare this to an rpg game, early in the game, when you still have rather low level, you have crappy equipment, and suddenly, you find this super awesome bow. However, later on in the game, when you reach much higher level, this bow is no longer as useful as it was in the beginning of the game, so when you find better bow or a better piece of equipment, such as a gun or crossbow, it's reasonable to swap it, right? That's a metaphor for religion for a day. (religion being the bow)

>As for a "different thought process that could benefit God", I see it as the other way around. I want to encourage a way of thinking about God that benefits humanity. God is a human concept, and if that concept can no longer move us in a positive direction, then it deserves to be abandoned. I see another way of thinking about God that could potentially serve humanity, promoted by people like Bishop Spong, Spinoza, or Gandhi. If believers embrace that God, rather than the personal God they think of now, God just might survive.
Indeed.

>Myself, I'm not particularly attached to the God concept, so if it dies, then I won't be very upset. But at the same time, I can sort of see the value of something like Spinoza's God, which is why I make efforts to promote it to people who are attached to the idea of God.
I'm going to use the fact that I can't seem to be not not answer a post and apologise once again for an error, because of that it appeared as if I was making (empty) accusations, so sorry.

>Let me point out that there's such thing as cultural christianity. Search it up. Basically, christianity with the freedom to cherry pick without the embarrassment in a form of abrahamic god.

>I'm aware of that. In fact, that's exactly what I'm trying to promote here. Christianity (and religion in general) cutting ties with the idea of a personal God so that it can grow into something better.
... or die out completely and give way for other philosophical concepts. Indeed, I support this concept.

I think it would be ok to say that I, hehe, derped.

>>52597
Woah! Hold on for a moment right there! Even when I have misread your post, you most certainly did not irritate me, but the opposite! You made me so much happier! I don't debate to convince others to leave their religions or prove myself right (although I'd be lying to say it's not part of the motivation, I cannot begin to describe how much I value truth), neither am I debating to prove something to myself, I already have one, solid piece of evidence that basically renders any pro-god arguments I have stumbled upon useless, instead I argue for myself. Such arguments don't only develop my arguing and typing skills (you should've seen my sentence structures 2 years ago, they were completely terrible) and thinking skills (my arguments are far more powerful than they used to be 2 years ago), but also make me learn some really interesting and new concept, the other thread I have made wouldn't be there unless it was thanks to religious debates! Also, I just find it fun to argue!

>>52611
>They feed off this, you know.
I cannot even describe how accurate this is.
>It makes no sense to me.
Let me explain, right now I could be doing something else, such as playing games, but in my opinion games do not benefit my thinking skills or any skills whatsoever, therefore I have decided to spend my time doing something that will at least benefit me.

PONYCHAN! Y U NO HAVE HIDE POST BUTTONÉ?!

>>52624
If the manufacturer is the murderer, then why not? Or if manufacturer had the complete knowledge that someone is going to be stabbed and the power to prevent it, then sure.

>>52629
If that 'person' is a blow-up doll, then I think I'll choose the latter.

>>52631
Beautiful. Mind if I borrow this? It just makes so much sense that my eyes are glowing.
My preciousSsSssSsSsSSssSssssSSsSSsSSsSs....
Hehe.

>>52632
Interesting... I think I'll read it once or twice more. Also, you gave me an idea, thanks!

>>52634

Let's not forget the old testament laws still apply regardless of jesus' "sacrifice"

>"For truly, I say to you, till heaven and earth pass away, not an iota, not a dot, will pass the law until all is accomplished. Whoever then relaxes one of the least of these commandments and teaches men so, shall be called least in the kingdom of heaven; but he who does them and teaches them shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven.” Matthew 5:18-19

>"It is easier for Heaven and Earth to pass away than for the smallest part of the letter of the law to become invalid." Luke 16:17

>"Do not think that I have come to abolish the law or the prophets. I have come not to abolish but to fulfill. Amen, I say to you, until heaven and earth pass away, not the smallest part or the smallest part of a letter will pass from the law, until all things have taken place." Matthew 5:17

>"Know this first of all, that there is no prophecy of scripture that is a matter of personal interpretation, for no prophecy ever came through human will; but rather human beings moved by the holy Spirit spoke under the influence of God." 2 Peter 20-21

>>52624

No, but if they knew someone was going to use them for evil they shouldn't have sold them.

Also, consider the following:
Heaven is promised as a place free from suffering.
I would assume that also means people would have free will there.
So Heaven is a perfect place.
God sends people to a flawed world where they will endure hardship after hardship.
Why?

God can create a perfect world, namely Heaven. I assume that people have free will in your conception of Heaven, so why not do the same thing here?

>>52636

I think you apologized something like five times in that post - really, don't worry about it. I was afraid that I was going to be misread when I made that post anyway, so I'm glad things could be clarified. No biggie.

>I'm not sure what's your stance here, but from my perspective god was a subconscious metaphor...

God has been a metaphor for a lot of things, for such a tiny word, it's got a lot of baggage with it. So yes, I do think it's been used as a metaphor for the subconscious - or something similar to that.

>However, in the current day of age, religion brings more harm than good.

That does seem to be the case, given how many large-scale violent conflicts are fueled by religious sentiments. But at the same time, religion seems to give people a sense of security and meaning, and it inspired them to be loving and compassionate on a small scale. It's a strange paradox.

I like the comparison to obsolete RPG equipment. Karen Armstrong (who I'm stealing a lot of these ideas from) makes a similar observation about how society has treated the concept of God throughout history. Every time it becomes obsolete or doesn't connect to how people view the world, it is reinvented.

>>52639

>Beautiful. Mind if I borrow this?
Go ahead, I doubt I came up with it myself anyway. I just can't remember where I heard it. I'm just glad I was able to explain it in a way that makes sense to someone.

>Interesting... I think I'll read it once or twice more. Also, you gave me an idea, thanks!

I feel like this all turned out better than expected.

>>52641
To save him the trouble, to brush up our souls. When we break our bones, they grow back stronger, when we cut our skin, it grows stronger, when we suffer lose, we grow wiser, we we are thrown into a life full of hardship, so that our souls will grow stronger (metaphorically).
If you don't agree with this anon, feel free to object, I just find this to be the most common answer (and the only one I've found sensible in a least).

To those that do agree with this metaphor, I have a question to you. If you break your spine, you won't be able to walk, if the wound is too deep, you will bleed out to death, if the loss is too great, we become insane, so why would god send some people to lives that are so utterly difficult that it pulverises every bone in the body, peel every inch of skin and muscle from the body and melts entire brain? Then he dares to send the same people to hell, simply because he didn't made their bones, muscles and psyche strong enough to sustain this life.

>>52642
I felt as if it was necessary to apologise five times, heh. I just didn't like the idea that you might have felt accused of something you haven't done.

>God has been a metaphor for a lot of things, for such a tiny word, it's got a lot of baggage with it. So yes, I do think it's been used as a metaphor for the subconscious - or something similar to that.
WAIT! I mean yes!... I mean no!... I mean yes!... I mean no! Yes! No! Maybe! I mean, well, yes and no, haha! Yes, it is true, but no, this isn't what I meant, hehe, what I meant is that god was a metaphor that has been created subconsciously, rather than consciously, although it can be a metaphor for subconscious, true, or as you called it, personal god, however, when I made my statement, I mean that god wasn't intentionally created, it probably started with speculation and moved to assumption before it turned into a fact, something on these line.
"Fire. Why fire? Where fire from? Fire from hands. Why I no fire hands? Special hands. He special hands, make fire, me no special hands, me no fire. Why he special hands? He special." Ergo, magic and magicians, but this the first beliefs weren't consciously induced, they solely assumptions some ancestor made about the natural world and natural phenomena he/she could explain.

>That does seem to be the case, given how many large-scale violent conflicts are fueled by religious sentiments. But at the same time, religion seems to give people a sense of security and meaning, and it inspired them to be loving and compassionate on a small scale. It's a strange paradox.
It seems like it, but it's actually quite simple concept. Religion gives people to have something in common, this propels peace, if you compared how people with similar interest are treated (or people who they respect) to, for example, animals, you would realize that animals, who have less in common with humans, are less respectable and are of little use to us alive (such as cow or pig), is much more likely to be killed that human, however, one has to consider that some preferences are more powerful than others, which allows us to live with people that otherwise would be impossible to live with, such as atheist with chrisitan. If they share something in common they care more about than their belief state, then they will be able to live in peace, that's why in college I, a strong vocal atheist, and my friend, a strong vocal muslim, used to be very good friends, because one thing we shared in common is a strong liking to argue, debate and discuss, we basically did that for almost entire time and our difference in believes just propelled our numbers of topics, causing religion to be a reason why we were such good friends instead. If we however didn't like to argue, yet remained so vocal, we would instead dislike one another's company. Ergo, not much paradox as long as religion doesn't become a priority interest (then expect WW3).

>>52641
Again, God doesn't send you as much as He does not force you. If you show that you don't want to be in Heaven, He's not going to force you.

>>52661
Erm... trip didn't ask about hell, but about earth. The answer is irrelevant.

>>52666
If you use some critical thinking you will see he states about not going to heaven, which by default sends you to hell. supposedly.

>>52667
Irrelevant. The question is why god couldn't make this universe suffering-free.

>>52671
maybe people need to prove themselves, god will then decide if they go to heaven or hell, there is no suffering in heaven
or
god doesn't exist
or
god exists but doesn't do anything
maybe god just guards the gate to heaven and hell?

>>52672
>maybe god just guards the gate to heaven and hell?
Not if you're referring to christian god, which this discussion is all about. (P.s. I wasn't the one that asked the question by the way, I was just clarifying what the poster meant.)

But regarding your points.
1. That would mean that god is not benevolent.
2. Atheism.
3. Deism.

>>52671
If the universe is suffering-free, that means we (and other beings out there) wouldn't be able to hurt each other, and thus that we wouldn't have free will. We can't have both free will and a suffering-free universe. We have to be stuck in a Garden of Eden-style place where we have no self-awareness or agency.

Of course, this doesn't account for natural disasters and the like, but it's an argument to consider.

>>52675
Refer to
>>52631

>>52646

>To save him the trouble,
He is omnipotent, you know...
>to brush up our souls. When we break our bones, they grow back stronger, when we cut our skin, it grows stronger, when we suffer lose, we grow wiser, we we are thrown into a life full of hardship, so that our souls will grow stronger (metaphorically).
A few problems I see with that:
1. Many evil people are clearly the product of physiological conditions. If someone is born with a mutation making them a psychopath, they will never become not evil.
So Earth does nothing to "temper the souls" of people with medical conditions.
2. Many evil people are born in conditions which lead to them being evil. Someone born in a slum has a higher chance of sinning than someone not born in a slum. Someone born rich has a higher chance of certain sins than other people.
So Earth actually leads to the corruption of many people's souls.

It would seem to me most evil is a result of either physical defects, which are clearly not the person's fault, or the result of the world, which is clearly not the person's fault. It would appear that the majority of evil is not actually because of that person's free will.

This is why I like the idea of multiple lives, even though I disagree with it:
You're created. You're spiritually nowhere. You live through a life, gain some knowledge, and die. Some of this wisdom carries on to your next life. This wisdom continues to accumulate until you are a good enough person to enter Heaven.

The idea of this happening in one shot doesn't make sense to me, though. You don't stay on Earth until you make enough progress to leave. You stay on Earth until you die, at which point you're done progressing spiritually. What is the point? If it's really to forge your soul, shouldn't you stay forever? Doesn't that make more sense?

Having only one shot? That doesn't seem conducive to spiritual progress.

If God really wants spiritual progress, it would seem to me He would just strip away all your memories and make you a baby again while keeping your soul intact. This would allow you to actually progress rather than just exist.

Also, do you believe in angels? This is relevant because if you do then you believe in a being that is not God that is morally perfect without needing to be forged in the fires of Earth.

>>52705
By "him" I meant the anon you were replying to in the post I was replying to.
And no, I don't believe in any supernatural phenomena, I'm all for SCIENCE! Hehe.

>>52675
Why does the inability to hurt each other completely undermine the notion of free will? In any case we'd just have less options to choose from, but still very many.

It's ridiculous to try to understand the concept from the point of view that god gave it to us. It's like being in charge of a daycare center and putting toys on one side and knives and guns on the other, yet still being loving?

It makes a lot more sense that we just evolved it like the rest of the animals that have free will and the reason there's suffering is because it's a battleground where only the ones that reproduce more than they die survive regardless of everyone else's feelings.

>>52710
It undermines the notion of free will for the very reason that it removes certain options. If I have a dispute with you, but neither of us can resort to violence to settle it no matter whether we'd like to, our free will is constrained, right?

We're talking about free will as God-given because the argument on the table is that a benevolent God wouldn't allow people to suffer. It's an assumption we're making for the sake of that argument.

>>52748
Then I don't see what's so great in having such options available. I shouldn't have to fear for my life just so someone can have the option of killing me

>>52748
I wouldn't say so. Being unable to hurt someone is not the same as not being able to attempt to hurt someone. If, for example, we had some sort of a shield that would protect us from getting hurt, like divine shield, pope wouldn't need his popemobile.
Let's also drop in;
>>52631

Also, we're no omnipotent, why? Why aren't we omnipotent? Doesn't that undermine our free will, because we can't do certain things?

>>52761
I can't play all my videogames at once read all the books at the same time and win every contest ever while on my road to becoming the most valuable human being humankind has ever had?

Ergo there is no free will.

*lol*

>>52749
Okay, but since we live in a world with free will, it's impossible to say what life would be like without it. So it's hard to assert that opinion convincingly. I'd personally rather have the choice and fear for my safety; that's a lot of what gives life worth.

>>52761
Take that up with the creationists, who believe that God planned us out in advance. I don't believe that, so I don't really have an answer for it.

The problem here is that we're approaching an ancient idea with modern concepts of "benevolence" and other traits in ways that ancient people never would have thought of. The "benevolent God" idea was never meant to mean that God is a nanny who constantly protects people from every scrape. It has a lot more to do with justice, social order, and afterlife. That's all aside from the question of whether God exists.

sticking my ass into an already developed thread. oh joy,
buuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuut

I believe in Creationism, and that Evolution is a bit too far fetched for me to believe in, which is weird coz my Biology teacher is teaching us about evolution, yet she believes in Creationism. weird

>>52825
They are required by law to teach evolution regardless. Evolution is a very important part of Biology; and much of biology is based on it. I respect you view but do suggest you closely look at the facts of evolutionary theory without regard for emotional bias on either side of the stupid evolution vs creationism debate. At least for me, evolution has shown more than enough proof to be very probable as compared to creationism which is dependent on faith. I am a biologist though, so I may be biased; and again, you decide for yourself what you think and make sure you don't allow anyone to force a view on you.

One other thing to keep in mind always, is that evolutionary theory does NOT contradict anything in a religion other than all creatures having appeared at once. And of course the planet being formed in a couple thousand years. As many charlatan evolutionphiles will not ever say so, it is very possible to be both a believer in evolutionary theory and a religious person at the same time. I myself, and Darwin himself (most the time) are proof of it.

>>52827

Between supporting evolution and believing in God? Not too much conflict, although I would say it is evidence of one of the flaws of religion that one of its core tenets can be torn down and religion builds up just as strongly as it did before. I'd argue that shows that religion doesn't depend on facts but instead depends on constant backpedaling.
That's not important, though, so I won't argue that.

I would say there is a pretty major conflict between science and religion. Science is a technique of collecting and drawing conclusions from date. Even if religion doesn't directly contradict scientific theory, the thought processes are contradictory.
One is the epitome of human reason.
The other is what I consider the epitome of human irrationality.
Even if the specific doctrines are compatible, I believe religion to be incompatible with scientific thinking. So even if a person does good science at their day job and reads scientific journals, if he's religious I cannot in good faith say he has truly internalized the thought processes that are essential in modern science.

And that's what's odd: there are people who are perfectly rational in every area other than religion. I don't get it. Someone can be a genius, logical, rational, and knowledgeable, and still be borderline insane in relation to this one subject.

It's weird and it scares me.

>>52830
>I believe religion to be incompatible with scientific thinking. So even if a person does good science at their day job and reads scientific journals, if he's religious I cannot in good faith say he has truly internalized the thought processes that are essential in modern science.

Well that's your opinion and I respect it; although I disagree. Beginning simply by the fact that almost all of the most innovative, great scientists in history were religious, some of them even did their work for the church. The concept that the two are incompatible is a fallacy I believe has been recently brought about by the hostile conflict brought about by both radical fundamentalists like WBC as well as militant atheists (of whom some happen to be great scientists); which have split the two further apart when they need not be. A scientists' work is simple: to ask unanswered questions about the natural world and attempt to answer them using objective and unbiased data. A good scientist does not allow his personal beliefs to interfere with the reporting and publishing of data in an objective manner. In either way. Certain scientists who also pride themselves in being atheist advocates break this rule by allowing their views on divine existence to influence if not dictate the way they report and publish their data.Some of them gather data not to answer questions about the natural world and attempt to (sometimes even practically) explain them but simply to politically advance their view. It's sad really.

Of course this also applies to the other side. Any scientist organizing and reporting his data in a way as to further a view on religion or divine existence is breaking a fundamental taboo of the community and study. As for me, as long as I gather my data objectively and report it the same way, and also honestly, I don't see how reading a piece of scripture in a church on sunday, consuming some bread and wine, and confessing my sins to a spiritual guide affect my work. I do not use "god" as an answer to questions. Mostly because I believe that a god is the entity who made science how it is. The "designer" of science. It's a purely personal view and could not help me explain any hypothesis at all.

Okay i am a theist, but i just want to say there is no definite proof of God so far(in the sense we cant see him) and there is no definite proof of Macro evolution(it has not been observed).

And this is the part of the internet i hate so much, eg sometimes when i go to a pony video there is a debate of creationists vs evolutionists. Really, i mean believe whatever you want but dont force it on other people.
I feel this debate is more common in the West.
Main thing is Love & Tolerate :D

Okay i am a theist, but i just want to say there is no definite proof of God so far(in the sense we cant see him) and there is no definite proof of Macro evolution(it has not been observed).

And this is the part of the internet i hate so much, eg sometimes when i go to a pony video there is a debate of creationists vs evolutionists. Really, i mean believe whatever you want but dont force it on other people.
I feel this debate is more common in the West.
Main thing is Love & Tolerate :D

oops sorry double post, anyone know how to delete it

>>52834
Why does everyone assume that christianity is the only true religion, i mean there are others like Islam, Hinduism, Buddhism, Jew

You can delete a post by ticking the square at the top left of the post, then scrolling to the bottom of the page and clicking the delete button on the far right.

>>52835
>no definite proof of Macro evolution(it has not been observed).

Then how do you explain transitional fossils that match with radiometric dating?

>>52825
Which part seems too far fetched? I would gladly try to dispel any doubts you have on the subject

>>52835

>Macro-evolution
There is no such thing. There is evolution and only evolution. "Macro-evolution" has exactly as much support as anything else. It just takes more time.

I'd actually say it's better supported because of the transitional fossils.

>>52834

>militant atheists

GOOD GOD STOP USING THIS TERM!

>Any scientist organizing and reporting his data in a way as to further a view on religion or divine existence is breaking a fundamental taboo of the community and study.

Why? What makes religious claims exempt from science? They are factual claims and, as such, I hold them to the same standard as any other. They should observe the observable phenomena. If they do not, they are irrational and should be changed. If they do, they are a viable theory worthy of further investigation.

So science and religion being separate is purely the result of political correctness in my eyes.

Religion is a belief. Science rejects all beliefs. Skepticism is one of the core traits of a good scientist, so if a scientist rejects skepticism on this one issue that means they are not thinking like a scientist. A scientist might hold religion as a theory, but actually believing that? I don't think so.

There are plenty of rational people who believe in God. That's why I say that they are irrational in relation to this one issue. So a great scientist might believe in God, but religion still conflicts with science in my eyes.

>militant atheists

I can't think of a better terminology for what is hoped to be described. Perhaps evangelical atheism, but that doesn't really embody the hatred-of-all factor.

>>52838
because some people have no inclination to look further than the things they feel they hate

Like when I challenged one anon to produce a few religions that are non theistic. Response was to say that it was an oxymoron, a non theistic religion.

I rest my case.

>>52838
Definitely not everyone. Christians believe Christianity is the one true faith, Muslims believe Islam is the one true faith, and so on because their scriptures claim it. Some belief systems say there are many true religions.
It's not wrong to think differently, because none of us know for sure.

Criticisms of militant/hostile atheism
Obviously a very rhetorical term. To my knowledge, modern groups that have been described thus have rarely actually been militant in the sense of employing violence. It seems to mean, "any atheist who is open about their atheism and hostile towards religion to a degree that I don't like". So putting aside the issue of selecting a group of atheists that we can all agree are the "militant" ones, I have a few criticisms of militant atheism:

1. I think a big reason for the hostility of many atheists is that the intelligentsia (atheists, skeptics, humanists, etc.) use hostility towards religion, Christianity in particular, as a social signal. Do not get me wrong. Many members of these groups hold their beliefs for rational reasons, and many members do have real or perceived grievances with religion that make them, perhaps legitimately, very upset and hostile about it. But I think more are just in the habit of hanging out in moderately educated circles, pick up that religion is not an accepted belief of that tribe, and go on to aggressively attack religion whenever possible to emphasize their membership in the group. This has been referred to as undiscriminating skepticism or anti-non-mainstreamism.

On the internet, or wherever the proportion of atheists is high, you tend to get atheists aimlessly flooding and attacking religious people, even when they specifically state that debating religion is not the purpose of their thread/meeting/whatever. I don't think this is acceptable, and I'd guess it's actually detrimental to the atheist "cause".

http://lesswrong.com/lw/1ww/undiscriminating_skepticism/


2. Atheism correlates with intelligence and education, and a little intelligence and education can be a dangerous thing. Atheists I see tend to have above average knowledge of critical thinking and logical fallacies, but it is disproportionately knowledge about errors and fallacies that religious people usually make, not typically knowledge about errors and fallacies that they themselves are likely to make. The result is that atheists constantly see errors in the reasoning of other people but never in their own.

Likewise, selective application of intelligence and education, by which I mean spending a disproportionate amount of time researching or arguing for your favourite position rather than investigating evenly and honestly, can hurt one as well. With a little knowledge of classical biases and basic ability to conduct research on the internet, one has almost unlimited ammunition with which to argue against anything they don't like. If you apply a highly critical eye to your opponents but not to yourself, you will again always see problems with their reasoning but not with your own.

Criticisms of religion
1. Empirical investigation works for generating accurate beliefs. Faith-based belief doesn't. I would go so far as to say that science is objectively and mathematically guaranteed to be more capable of generating accurate beliefs, and it is impossible for an alternative method to be knowably, significantly better. That may sound a bit extreme, but really it just follows if you accept that mathematics and statistics works.

Science works, and can be known to work, because it follows the rules of probabilistic reasoning. These rules are as objective as the rules for arithmetic, on the lowest level they support themselves (according to probability theory we can be very sure that probability theory works), and their effectiveness is trivially demonstrable. Most religious thought doesn't work as well, and can be known not to work as well, because it does not follow those rules as well. The results of performing empirical, scientific investigation are entangled well with reality. The beliefs of ancient uneducated and illiterate cultures, even when they are transcribed into holy books and debated for centuries, are not entangled well with reality. That's basically what it comes down to.


2. I believe religion, which was once the largest sphere of human empathy, may now actually be holding back the progress of empathic civilization.

Early civilization, which emerged during the neolithic and cultural revolutions, about ten thousand years ago, had a problem. Humans evolved to function in small groups of less than 150, where the best way for your group to survive was basically to attack and kill anyone else on sight. And our brains are designed to facilitate this: we can be pretty damn violent to other people, and we naturally form small in-groups of people who we easily empathize with, and out-groups of people that we don't. The populations even in early civilization were much larger than 150, so the average person quickly found themselves living in an environment where most of the people they saw day-to-day would be perceived by the brain as outsiders. Combine this with the fact that when population numbers are very large, if two arbitrary people get into a fight it's unlikely that they will have any friends or family in common to intervene, and you can see that violence and specifically violence resulting in killing would be a major issue for emerging civilization.

This problem was addressed in two major ways. First, the state ended up taking control of violence and the establishment of laws governing the use of violence by individuals. Second, religion became more organized, and more structured after the advent of writing, and we ended up with this idea of common religious ties as grounds for empathy. This made religious societies generally more effective than non-religious ones and helped with the spread of civilization.

Religion, until very recently, represented the furthest reaches in the expansion of human empathy. But in the last few hundred years we have gone beyond religion and expanded the range of our empathy to include the empire and nation-state, which may consist of people of many religions, and in modern times we are starting to see the final step, a concept of empathy that encompasses all humans on the planet. The function of religion as a social glue has thus largely been replaced, leaving only an amount of social divisiveness.


3. My experience is that religion "teaches people to be satisfied with trivial, supernatural non-explanations and blinds them to the wonderful real explanations that we have within our grasp. It teaches them to accept authority, revelation and faith instead of always insisting on evidence". Now, the extent to which this is true varies, with the culture of the American religious south or certain islamic countries being the more extreme cases, but I do have to echo what one of the anons said in the other thread, a scientist who, outside of the laboratory, believes in religion would seem to have either (a) extremely compartmentalized their beliefs, or (b) failed to understand why, inside the lab, they do the things that they do.

http://lesswrong.com/lw/gv/outside_the_laboratory/

"Suppose that an apprentice shepherd is laboriously trained to count sheep, as they pass in and out of a fold. Thus the shepherd knows when all the sheep have left, and when all the sheep have returned. Then you give the shepherd a few apples, and say: "How many apples?" But the shepherd stares at you blankly, because they weren't trained to count apples - just sheep. You would probably suspect that the shepherd didn't understand counting very well."

"In modern society there is a prevalent notion that spiritual matters can't be settled by logic or observation, and therefore you can have whatever religious beliefs you like. If a scientist falls for this, and decides to live their extralaboratorial life accordingly, then this, to me, says that they only understand the experimental principle as a social convention. They know when they are expected to do experiments and test the results for statistical significance. But put them in a context where it is socially conventional to make up wacky beliefs without looking, and they just as happily do that instead.

The apprentice shepherd is told that if "seven" sheep go out, and "eight" sheep go out, then "fifteen" sheep had better come back in. Why "fifteen" instead of "fourteen" or "three"? Because otherwise you'll get no dinner tonight, that's why! So that's professional training of a kind, and it works after a fashion - but if social convention is the only reason why seven sheep plus eight sheep equals fifteen sheep, then maybe seven apples plus eight apples equals three apples. Who's to say that the rules shouldn't be different for apples?

But if you know why the rules work, you can see that addition is the same for sheep and for apples."

Religious thought tends to promote systematically bad epistemology. Ideas like "not all beliefs require evidence" or "religion and science are non-overlapping magisteria", which are clearly invented not in the course of pursuing the truth, but in the course of protecting some belief from the truth.

>>52855

The real answer is that Christianity is the main religion here in the good ol' USA. Any atheist with a clue about debate be able to argue about any religion anywhere exactly as easily, but it is unfair to ask them to do so in every debate. Instead, they start from the most specific proofs and go to the most general. If I can prove the Christian God doesn't exist, very few Christians will instantly convert to Hinduism.

So I address the specific reasoning of the person I am debating. If the person is a Hindu, I will address that. If he's a Muslim, I'll address that, too. However, where I come from it's a safe bet any random person is a Christian.

The most common nontheistic religions I can think of are Buddhism, Hinduism, and certain Quakers.

Now that I've stated my argument, I will attempt to address your appalling behavior.

Your comment is the most absurd, uneducated, illogical piece of ad hominem I've ever read.

"Guys, he can't list the one random fact I ask! All atheists are like this! This one guy's inability to know the one piece of trivia proves his other points are invalid!"

Three nontheistic religions I can name: certain Quakers, Hinduism, Buddhism. As a test, I asked my roommate who is a Christian if he knows of any nontheistic religions. He couldn't name one. I got three. By your logic, Christians are uneducated as a group.

So enough ad hominem, accusations that we're all meanies who are oppressing the poor Christians, and cop-outs that your belief is "beyond logic" and cannot be argued with logic.

As a rule of thumb, when you find yourself jumping to logical fallacies to justify your point instead of fighting fair, you're probably wrong. You should probably save face and leave or stay and make a rational argument.

>>52876

>So I address the specific reasoning of the person I am debating. If the person is a Hindu, I will address that. If he's a Muslim, I'll address that, too. However, where I come from it's a safe bet any random person is a Christian.

Bit of clarification: I don't to see discussions as an attempt to prove other people wrong. However, the burden of proof does lie on the person making the claim. A Christian makes different claims than a Buddhist. As such, in order to actually address that person I need to address his specific argument. Talking about Hinduism to a Christian if fruitless.

>>52872

I love that website, but I don't have a clue where to start. Is there some recommended reading plan?

>>52878
The most important posts are in the Sequences section, which is more-or-less a collection of Eliezer Yudkowsky's writings from a previous blog that was used to start the site. Unfortunately, there is no really good reading plan at the moment, which is why Yudkowsky is currently working on a series of books that will organize the material into a more approachable format.

There are two ways people typically read through the sequences: you can use the wiki's Complete list of blog posts page to read chronologically, or you can use the actual Sequences index off of the main page to read by topic.

Personally, I've read through the lot and I didn't have too much difficulty using the index. If you'd like to do what I did, start with the four sequences given in the Core Sequences section and then just proceed down the page, top to bottom. Within any particular article, if the article says it is a followup to something you haven't yet read, pause within that article and read that other stuff first.

Index: http://wiki.lesswrong.com/wiki/Sequences
Chronological list of posts: http://wiki.lesswrong.com/wiki/Less_Wrong/All_articles

>>52876
easy there, anon

wasn't addressing you, was addressing a previous anon who obviously isn't you (unless you learned from our discussion awhile back)

>"Guys, he can't list the one random fact I ask! All atheists are like this! This one guy's inability to know the one piece of trivia proves his other points are invalid!"

You're really taking a lot of liberty in interpreting my posts, aren't you? *lol*

Hey if you want me to be the bad guy and it makes you feel smart/good go for it.

>Your comment is the most absurd, uneducated, illogical piece of ad hominem I've ever read.

Now that you know it was not aimed at you, don'tcha feel a little silly?

>Three nontheistic religions I can name: certain Quakers, Hinduism, Buddhism. As a test, I asked my roommate who is a Christian if he knows of any nontheistic religions. He couldn't name one. I got three. By your logic, Christians are uneducated as a group.

lol what am I reading...

>accusations that we're all meanies who are oppressing the poor Christians, and cop-outs that your belief is "beyond logic" and cannot be argued with logic.

Citations for these please. I'm curious where you got this. I can't seem to remember where I left it. Perhaps you can help me?

>As a rule of thumb, when you find yourself jumping to logical fallacies to justify your point instead of fighting fair, you're probably wrong. You should probably save face and leave or stay and make a rational argument.

speaking of jumping to logical fallicies, pretty sure you just constructed one hell of a straw man :)

what point was I justifying? I'm curious to know how you've interpreted me and what else you've inserted into my mouth and then perceive to be spewing forth at you.