Why I'm not an Atheist

[john!]

pluvia and oasis made this thread take a significant step downhill

i know i'm not contributing anything, by the way

 

[Holder of the Heel]

the belief that empirical evidence can result in truths does kind of hinder don't you think?

It doesn't exactly limit anything, unless you consider not being able to accept things like unicorns and leprechauns as limiting.

Those circumstances I outlined are knowledge as learned from a class I took in church history. I can't prove that those were the exact circumstances, but mine has a lot more circumstantial evidence. Your conclusion is just speculation. Regardless, the point is still made: Christians are capable of being thinkers.

No, that isn't speculation, that is how it was.

The writings were based on greek schools of thought, and they took it further.

Huh, then that seems to contradict what you said about philosophical thought stemming from that period, don't ya think? :D

However, it was founded by a person who believed in theological and philosophical principles. You've been asserting that religious people won't think past what their religion tells them, but this guy kinds squashes that idea.

Not sure how the Big Bang Theory goes beyond religion, in fact, you yourself use it as a reason to believe in a God, however poor the reasoning, you still do it. So I'm incredibly confused as to your point.

The evidence defeats your argument. I said earlier in this thread that my own philosophical argument for God was contrived completely independently of my religion. That argument itself was inspired by Thomas Aquinas's 5 Proofs, which are another example of non-religious philosophy from a religious individual. Then there's again the example of Georges Lemaitre. I fail to see where one's thought is limited by religion. I have assessed and continue to assess the virtue of every religious belief I hold or held. Some beliefs I've thrown away, like creationism, and some I still hold to, like Jesus being God.

How can you not see that by accepting the Bible, there are many things you have to then explain and not contradict? Being able to think of things outside of religion... how does that have to do with religion? Considering, as you say yourself, it is entirely independent. But many propositions, ethical, metaphysical, etc. you necessarily must limit yourself, because they make such stances and you must follow them and explain them. Your "evidence" doesn't defeat anything, again I'm confused as to your point. You didn't even really look at what I said and decided something else defeats the argument. You're more limited than atheists in what you believe, it is a simple and self-evident thing to accept.

 

[Oasis_S]

pluvia and oasis made this thread take a significant step downhill

i know i'm not contributing anything, by the way

Nah, see, it's getting back on track.

How shameful putting Pluvia in the same category as me.

 

[MuraRengan]

No, that isn't speculation, that is how it was.

You want to dispute history? That's pretty pointless, and doesn't really harm my point any. I'll just keep saying you're wrong and leave it at that.

Huh, then that seems to contradict what you said about philosophical thought stemming from that period, don't ya think? :D

Well, I was being ambitious. I've already made the point that Christians were thinkers, which was all I needed.

Not sure how the Big Bang Theory goes beyond religion, in fact, you yourself use it as a reason to believe in a God, however poor the reasoning, you still do it. So I'm incredibly confused as to your point.

Pay attention to my word choice. I said "past" religion, not beyond. The term past in that context was meant to be "without" not "beyond." The Big Bang presupposes no deities, so it was developed without religion in mind.

How can you not see that by accepting the Bible, there are many things you have to then explain and not contradict? Being able to think of things outside of religion... how does that have to do with religion? Considering, as you say yourself, it is entirely independent. But many propositions, ethical, metaphysical, etc. you necessarily must limit yourself, because they make such stances and you must follow them and explain them. Your "evidence" doesn't defeat anything, again I'm confused as to your point. You didn't even really look at what I said and decided something else defeats the argument. You're more limited than atheists in what you believe, it is a simple and self-evident thing to accept.

I practice a thing I call "multi-mindedness." Its basically the principle of thinking of things with different perspectives. I can consider nay topic as both a religious and non-religious person, despite ascribing to the religious. Simply believing something doesn't make understanding other perspectives impossible. My belief in God doesn't limit my ability to understand why people wouldn't believe in God, nor does it limit anything else. My religion says that murdrer is wrong, but that doesn't mean I'm now incapable of thinking of murder in any other way than that, nor am I limited to believing what my religion believes. Your problem is that you've classified religion in a way that my religion, Catholicism, doesn't conform to. My religion doesn't demand that I think a certain way, it just demands that I follow certain rules.

The evidence I presented does defeat your point because it shows clearly that despite having religious ideas, people are still capable of thinking without religion. The statement of freedom in not believing does not place a limit on my thoughts as a believer, because I'm still capable of thinking as a non-believer.

 

[Holder of the Heel]

You want to dispute history? That's pretty pointless, and doesn't really harm my point any. I'll just keep saying you're wrong and leave it at that.

Agreed, and I'll still say medieval times were largely theological. I'm quite confident of that.

I practice a thing I call "multi-mindedness." Its basically the principle of thinking of things with different perspectives. I can consider nay topic as both a religious and non-religious person, despite ascribing to the religious. Simply believing something doesn't make understanding other perspectives impossible. My belief in God doesn't limit my ability to understand why people wouldn't believe in God, nor does it limit anything else. My religion says that murdrer is wrong, but that doesn't mean I'm now incapable of thinking of murder in any other way than that, nor am I limited to believing what my religion believes. Your problem is that you've classified religion in a way that my religion, Catholicism, doesn't conform to. My religion doesn't demand that I think a certain way, it just demands that I follow certain rules.

The evidence I presented does defeat your point because it shows clearly that despite having religious ideas, people are still capable of thinking without religion. The statement of freedom in not believing does not place a limit on my thoughts as a believer, because I'm still capable of thinking as a non-believer.

My point is not that you can't think as you wish, but you must conform and believe certain principles, and therefore you are limited. It demands you follow certain rules, as you said. That is all I'm saying. You must conform your thoughts to understanding that in order to justify it, I'm not saying you are by virtue of that incapable of measuring other options. It is though an obligation to follow the rules of a religion you subscribe yourself to, and either you do not care to think about it, which isn't your case, or you do, and you must justify it, which what thinkers have and do that subscribe to a religion. Again, my point wasn't that religious people are physically incapable of thinking outside of religion, but insofar as they are considering things that are in the realm of the Bible, they must think inside its confines or else be betraying the word of God.

 

[Dre89]

Speaking of the science analogy you made earlier, why do you try and compare philosophy to it? The thing with science is if you're more educated you can easily prove someone wrong. The person doesn't have to believe said facts, but what they believe is irrelevant.

You're showing your lack of reading here. Philosophy no longer attempts to answer scientific questions. It only did that before specific scientific fields were invented, the invention of which philosophy was pivotal in.

Nowadays, no one uses philosophy to make scientific propositions, the fact you think people do that suggests you haven't read any remotely contemporary philosophy.

Secondly, you're making out that I have something against science, that I think philosophy and science are in a battle for authority. I have nothing against science, they have different jobs and address different issues.

Another question, if you don't think anyone is as well versed in philosophy as you, then why don't you layman your posts down? You spend your time thinking yet you never took the time to think that maybe it's pointless you try and argue with people that don't follow you? The science analogy comes in good here, rocket science, a lot of us know how rockets continue to travel upwards. Why? Because educated people laymaned it down for us to understand, we're not rocket scientists by a long shot, but we understand to an extent. Everywhere you go in life you'll have to layman things down, I spend time doing it in real life and on the Internet, but why don't you for this one subject?

Uh I was laymanning my posts. I'd get crap marks in papers if I wrote like this.

The arguments I used to refute yours are incredibly laymanned anyway. If you actually tried to refute them you might realise that.

To answer that for you, it's because you know that what you are saying it's complete and utter nonsense. You aren't saying anything. You're writing a lot but nothing has any substance. Once you break it down to the bare minimum you'll see what you're saying, the drivel it is, is just as good as saying nothing at all.

Firstly, you were the one who made the first claim, saying philosophy is rubbish, so the burden of proof is on you, yet you haven't presented any arguments to back up your claim.

Not only did you not list the philosophy you've read, but you've completely ignored my arguments. You haven't quoted them and showed why they're wrong, you just play the 'you think you're right because you're more educated card'.

To the neutral watching us argue, what reason have you given for them to think my arguments are wrong other than that I'm supposedly a snob?

 

[Pluvia]

So i'll edit your post here Dre.

Just as I expected, you didn't list what philosophy you've read because you probably haven't read any.

How much authority would you give a person's opinion on science if they weren't educated in science at all?

Notice what I did? I removed the nonsense. All the extended, unnecessary fluff that was clogging that post up, and clogs up 95% of your posts. This is what you did above me too I presume, I just sighed when I saw you still hadn't got the picture. I'm so glad Holder of the Heel is here, as he actually said something worthwhile when he showed the difference between religion and philosophy, and I don't even know how much philosophy he's read.

The thing is, we generally do not know what questions can or cannot be answered. We can find that some are, and then with some philosophizing we can find that they aren't; in fact, it is only religion that generally makes such absolute statements such as "This has no answer", or "This has an answer". Also, it isn't necessarily about the catch, you see, that is what I meant about what I said. Religion is about the catch. Philosophy is more so about what is derived from the chase. It is a process, it teaches you to examine critically, it teaches you many things while chasing all sorts of answers, be it impossible to obtain or not.

Though it's pretty safe to assume that once you delve into the supernatural your questions aren't going to be answered.

Right and now I make my leave. Glad in the knowledge I've learnt that not all philosophy is pointless, and reaffirmed in the knowledge that philosophy for the supernatural is. I would say report back to me if someone does make a breakthrough in that field, but you wont need to, because that person will be on TV having changed human history.

 

[Dre89]

I see you're still avoiding my arguments.

Mentioning that you hasn't made any arguments for your position wasn't pointless.

Mentioning that you haven't adressed my arguments wasn't pointless.

How can you criticise philosophy if you didn't even know what the difference between philisophy and theology is?

That's like critcising science when you don't even know what the difference between biology and chemistry is.

Why do you constantly avoid my arguments? Can you at least tell me why you think they're nonsense?

You say I haven't said anything worthwhile, when I was the one who had premises for my conclusions. You just stated your conclusion without any justification.

 

[Vermanubis]

Sorry to bring this up from four pages ago, but there're only so many days I can go before I just get sick of arguing for a while lol.

Also, how would you explain how culturally contextual the Bible is?

The Old Testament is entirely. The New Testament isn't.

The Bible is written in Israel, and let's look at some facts-

-The OT God, whether his actions are justified or not, certainly acts very similar to Gods that were floating around at the time. He has many characteristics similar to Greek gods in his temperament. You may not like that analogy but any neutral would consider it fair.

This isn't something I'd consider a valid comparison, primarily because it's a fallacy of composition. God also shared the characteristics of godliness, intangibility, etc. Also, God, even God in the OT, was far less permissive than any other god, Assyrian, Greek, and so forth. Which brings up an interesting point that with the scrolls of Isaiah predating the Greeks, so the similar temperament is a void comparison.

-People are allowed to have slaves, except if they're Israeli.

Not slaves as we imagine them. Slaves as in, men who owe someone a debt, and the fair-treatment of slaves is always encouraged, before that becomes a question.

-Favouritism towards men (Adama coming first, 'neighbour's wife' commandments, the passages mentioned in Chue's post etc.) which was promiment at the time.

God never favors men. Both are assigned specific roles, but women are afforded and promised the same human rights as men in both the OT and NT.

-No mention of any countries that Israelis did not know about at the time, or just anything in general Israelis didn't know about.

With what purpose would there be? This is another vacuous comparison.

-Things like this:

For something that's meant to be the word of God, it's very culturally similar to Israel, which is where it was made.

I personally think if it actually was the objective word of God, you'd think there would be some passages which detail something that Israelis weren't aware of at the time.

With what purpose though? The Israelis were all that was relevant in the OT. For what reason would God interpolate extraneous information? To humor skeptics?

Also, the differences in the NT aren't an example of counter-culture. Remember, the earliest NT scriptures were written decades after Jesus' death, so if Jesus did exist (merely as a historical figure) and was as influential as the scripture suggests, then decades is plenty of time for his work and philosophy to influence the scripture.

If anything, I think that explains the difference between the OT and NT Gods the greatest. The OT God is much like a Greek God, and the NT God behaves much the same as Jesus does in the NT. I think the NT God is modelled off the historical figure of Jesus.

The behavior of God in the OT and NT is evident. It's made clear that the point of the OT was demonstrative; to show that the promised Christ whom was prophesied centuries prior with unequivocal accuracy was required to meet the demands of God, and that it could not be done by one's works alone.

That's certainly a far more reasonable explanation of the difference between the OT and NT Gods than the idea of Jesus coming down and fulfilling the OT, which somehow warrants almost a complete change in God's behaviour.

Considering what I said above (and citations are available upon request), the fulfillment of the OT Law by Christ is more than reasonable to explain God's restraint. Truth be told, the difference in behavior is not at all that radical.

How is God constricted to the culture back then? Isn't God good ALL the time, that is the saying is it not? It just doesn't make sense that God can't supersede the poor morals you can see until the humans come up with better ideas. Nonsense I say.

Let me answer this question with one of my own: was God going to beam down a prison cell from the Starship Enterprise to contain the profligate drunkard? Was he going to violate the very purpose of the Old Testament's history by manifesting a sterile syringe to humanely end the criminals and imminent threats to Israelite society? Was He just going to warp everything to make things slightly more palatable?

He is an omnipotent God... he can make him not a drunkard, he can take him elsewhere, etc. Such a being would have unlimited options surely. It could even be argued it would be morally better if he was simply left alone, but that is beside the point.

Just... make him not a drunkard? Wouldn't that violate the entire premise of the Christian belief? To earn eternal life through one's choices? Considering we're predicating this argument on the assumption that God exists, this was a pretty monumental blunder on your part. You've repeatedly made these errors (which, in this case, you can't deny; your folly is tautological) yet you continue to tell me that it makes no sense?

Also, were such things arguably more moral, you'd then be burdened to demonize a mother who recently, in defense of her child, shot a criminal that broke into her house with heavy weaponry. The parallel, despite varying severity, is principally equivalent; taking a life for the preservation of a greater good.

You seem to be someone who has a sense of morality about you, which is why I am confused you pretend to have an understanding of such a poor form of it.

I'll only entertain this sentence seriously if you can successfully demonize the mother defending her child in the analogy above.

If you were a God and you lacked the imagination to come up with better ideas than people who had very poor concepts of morality, then that is a poor job, anyone could say see that. So please explain why you condescend.

Condescend? I don't see where I did that.

Anyway, this is a short-sighted view of things. Within the parameters of humans having the ability to freely choose for themselves, <and> the conjunction of an objective needing to be met, it was inescapable. I could liken your argument to the one so many use regarding the presence of cancer and disease precluding the existence of a loving God, when in reality, it is physically impossible within universal parameters for genetic mutation to not occur, thus causing disease. Life and disease are inexorably and logically bound, much like the pairing mentioned above.

Also, you don't have the morality I spoke of, do you? You wouldn't ACTUALLY stone someone, and think it justified? This is a joke right?

If there was a person threatening the security and well-being of my tribe, and there was no other alternative, I absolutely would not enjoy doing so, but it would be justified. You confirm my suspicions of a life in Disney land if you say otherwise at the behest of a tribe's overall well-being and safety. An absence of alternatives is what modifies morality. In today's world, stoning's would be unacceptable. In ancient Israel, however, as I poked a bit of fun at before, God's not going to send a syringe down or provide the Israelites with tempered blades for swift deletion.

I still wouldn't plague them. We wouldn't even use atomic bombs on places like that nowadays. Also, explain about the firstborns for me and how it is justified?

You didn't read my two prior explanations that were <directed at you>? The Egyptians were plagued because of how God and the Jews can be analogized to a mother defending her child. The Egyptians were wicked in every sense of the word and would stop at nothing to persecute the Jews. The firstborns were swept up in it because the firstborns typically were young men who were conditioned with rancor against the Israelites.

 

[Holder of the Heel]

Let me answer this question with one of my own: was God going to beam down a prison cell from the Starship Enterprise to contain the profligate drunkard? Was he going to violate the very purpose of the Old Testament's history by manifesting a sterile syringe to humanely end the criminals and imminent threats to Israelite society? Was He just going to warp everything to make things slightly more palatable?

The above quote hasn't really addressed anything or made any points. Anything is better than killing someone. You aren't even addressing the fact that God is somehow limited to the primitive morals and social laws the people could come with back then. It's all nonsense.

Just... make him not a drunkard? Wouldn't that violate the entire premise of the Christian belief? To earn eternal life through one's choices? Considering we're predicating this argument on the assumption that God exists, this was a pretty monumental blunder on your part. You've repeatedly made these errors (which, in this case, you can't deny; your folly is tautological) yet you continue to tell me that it makes no sense?

Again, I don't understand what you're trying to do here. We can't do something that is morally and logically superior because it denies that which is making the immoral and illogical statements? Well DUH, I wouldn't be trying to battle what God stands for if I wasn't willing to attack their beliefs.

Also, were such things arguably more moral, you'd then be burdened to demonize a mother who recently, in defense of her child, shot a criminal that broke into her house with heavy weaponry. The parallel, despite varying severity, is principally equivalent; taking a life for the preservation of a greater good.

Those aren't principally equivalent. Somehow, I see a difference between a drunkard and someone who is attacking a child and mother. Nonetheless, it isn't even necessary to kill the person who is attacking you, if your intention is to murder, then you'd likely be considered baring bloodlust. If you killed on accident when defending, then it is different. Whoa, this turned out to be way different from a harmful drunkard.

Anyway, this is a short-sighted view of things. Within the parameters of humans having the ability to freely choose for themselves, <and> the conjunction of an objective needing to be met, it was inescapable. I could liken your argument to the one so many use regarding the presence of cancer and disease precluding the existence of a loving God, when in reality, it is physically impossible within universal parameters for genetic mutation to not occur, thus causing disease. Life and disease are inexorably and logically bound, much like the pairing mentioned above.

...You are comparing stoning, plaguing, etc. to life as disease is to life? Is that what you are doing here?

If there was a person threatening the security and well-being of my tribe, and there was no other alternative, I absolutely would not enjoy doing so, but it would be justified. You confirm my suspicions of a life in Disney land if you say otherwise at the behest of a tribe's overall well-being and safety. An absence of alternatives is what modifies morality. In today's world, stoning's would be unacceptable. In ancient Israel, however, as I poked a bit of fun at before, God's not going to send a syringe down or provide the Israelites with tempered blades for swift deletion.

What classifies as being unworthy to live in a tribe? Why couldn't he be banished either by the tribe or better yet by the power of God? What makes stoning acceptable back then and not now? Why wouldn't God provide a more painless option of death, if death was the only possible conclusion?

You didn't read my two prior explanations that were <directed at you>? The Egyptians were plagued because of how God and the Jews can be analogized to a mother defending her child. The Egyptians were wicked in every sense of the word and would stop at nothing to persecute the Jews.

First off, it isn't parallel to the mother being attacked. Complete annihilation of a people with a grossly unjust plague (why couldn't he have just taken them to hell/heaven, instead of causing so much suffering?) The children and people who weren't involved also wiped out, even if they were to go to heaven, doesn't justify it, for it is murder and life on Earth is important, even to God. It just seems like all really bad decisions.

The firstborns were swept up in it because the firstborns typically were young men who were conditioned with rancor against the Israelites

This is another one of them jokes, right? ...Right?

 

[Vermanubis]

The above quote hasn't really addressed anything or made any points. Anything is better than killing someone. You aren't even addressing the fact that God is somehow limited to the primitive morals and social laws the people could come with back then. It's all nonsense.

You're an escape artist, I'll give you that. I have a feeling that no matter what I say, and how plain it is, your rancor's gonna yield me a "this is nonsense" no matter what I say. I'm one for futility though, so might as well give it one last shot.

Again, we're assuming God exists in this context, so these aren't social laws that people constructed. It's not that God's "restricted to primitive morals," it's that for people to exist in such a time and have the ability choose for themselves concomitantly, then the alternatives were slim. Stoning and such were the most humane and immediate method of ending a threat to the safety and well-being of the tribe.

What do you propose the solution be? You've kicked up a lot of dirt by now, so "I don't know" would be a pretty catastrophic response.

Again, I don't understand what you're trying to do here. We can't do something that is morally and logically superior because it denies that which is making the immoral and illogical statements? Well DUH, I wouldn't be trying to battle what God stands for if I wasn't willing to attack their beliefs.

A relevant idiom: Oy vey

Can't do morally and logically superior things? Again, I pose the same challenge as above: what alternatives? The setting is a nomadic encampment, food and water are limited, the tribe's well-being is contingent upon morale and they do not own weapons, nor means to detain someone. Now your turn to propose an alternative.

Also, it's not about you attacking beliefs or discrediting them, but rather that you blatantly are demonizing God for not violating a law upon which He makes clear that He does not trespass (disallowing a person to make their own choices). I know rebuking won't do any good at this point, but this a fine example of how you literally misunderstand just about everything I'm saying. What you said is the equivalent of me going to someone's house, being told that running down a flight of stairs is a bad idea, running down a flight of stairs, injuring myself, then screaming at the person whose stairs I fell down despite a warning.

Those aren't principally equivalent. Somehow, I see a difference between a drunkard and someone who is attacking a child and mother. Nonetheless, it isn't even necessary to kill the person who is attacking you, if your intention is to murder, then you'd likely be considered baring bloodlust. If you killed on accident when defending, then it is different. Whoa, this turned out to be way different from a harmful drunkard.

Yes, it actually <is> principally equivalent, as the principal regards the safety of the tribe. "Principally equivalent" and "equivalent" don't mean the same thing. Again, you're thinking of a drunkard as that funny guy who tells jokes and shares a cab ride with you. That isn't this kind of drunkard. A profligate in said times threatened the tribe's morale, resources and physical safety. And you truly must live in a cozy world if you believe that someone's going to be thinking on behalf of the armed assailant when being approached with a sawed off shotgun.

To recapitulate the point of principal equivalence: alternatives in those times for such profligates and drunkards was to have someone on duty 24/7 to physically restrain them. They didn't have police, AA or cells to keep them in, nor the resources to humor their antics. In both scenarios, of both mother and drunkard, there is a distinguished parallel of zero alternatives. Unless of course, you'd voluntarily put yourself in an immediate life-threatening situation, say, being a store clerk and being robbed at gunpoint.

...You are comparing stoning, plaguing, etc. to life as disease is to life? Is that what you are doing here?

No. I'm saying that two stipulations creates a logical framework, and within that logical framework, only so many things can be done. In your example, it's that God isn't going to warp reality at will to make harsh realities less harsh, or distort the course of human events to make sure that nobody ever dies or commits atrocities, ever. In my example, people grieve at God for allowing things like cancer to exist, when in our current universe, it's impossible for genetic mutation to not transpire, and equally impossible for a disease such as cancer to not happen.

Again, express clarity: you can't demonize God for holding fast to his stipulations, which is what you're trying to do by saying that He is committing immoral acts by not directly intervening and leaving a person bereft of their conscious ability to make choices.

What classifies as being unworthy to live in a tribe? Why couldn't he be banished either by the tribe or better yet by the power of God? What makes stoning acceptable back then and not now? Why wouldn't God provide a more painless option of death, if death was the only possible conclusion?

Banish him? Isn't starvation and forcing someone into exile to suffer to death and be cast to mongrels a mite bit crueler than a quick death such as stoning? Also, even if banishment were a good idea, how're they going to do it? Escort him out into the desert, ask him/her to count to 10 while they run away so they can't find their way back? How's God going to banish him? Physically lift him and toss him and catapult him into the desert? Consign a Greek Feudal warlord from millennia ahead to wheel a trebuchet in? Maybe an SUV?

As for a painless alternative, got any ideas? Apparently they just stoned people to be capricious and because they didn't have clay pigeons to skeet-shoot back then, so proffer an alternative. As I said before, God doesn't tend to work in such a way that he manifests items from the sky, which would be required to make a blade or other sharp object used for killing.

First off, it isn't parallel to the mother being attacked. Complete annihilation of a people with a grossly unjust plague (why couldn't he have just taken them to hell/heaven, instead of causing so much suffering?) The children and people who weren't involved also wiped out, even if they were to go to heaven, doesn't justify it, for it is murder and life on Earth is important, even to God. It just seems like all really bad decisions.

You clearly pride yourself in your alleged grasp on logic, yet you make it a ritual to commit fallacies. I explained how it is parallel to a mother defending her child. How is a plague unjust against the Egyptians who murdered, *****, sacrificed, enslaved and abused God's chosen people? The Exodus needed to be fulfilled, and that couldn't very well be done if the Egyptians were well enough to pursue the Jews in full force. And how is it not justified if the child goes to heaven? Are you saying that it's better for a child to be left in the desert to suffer to death or grow and be condemned than to die swiftly from sickness? You say the promise of paradise doesn't justify it under the premise of life on Earth being important. Well, let me ask you, Holder: can you explain <how> it's important? From my perspective, yes, it is, but you're burdened with a defense of your own position. Where does God say that life on Earth is more important than life in Paradise? It's important, sure, but unless it takes precedence over one or the other, that seems like a pretty vacuous and dangerously misguided thing to say.

 

[Holder of the Heel]

You're an escape artist, I'll give you that. I have a feeling that no matter what I say, and how plain it is, your rancor's gonna yield me a "this is nonsense" no matter what I say. I'm one for futility though, so might as well give it one last shot.

No, I don't conduct any sophistry. I'm a bit more honest then you take me for.

Stoning is not at all humane, in fact, it is a slow and painful death. People back then had blades, and could have swiftly ended his life. Even if they didn't have such things, you are doing that thing again where you said he "doesn't work that way" in terms of bringing down things or enacting in such ways. This is not only false, for he has interfered and interacted with humans before, but it only is not a valid defense because once again I mention I am not standing up for the beliefs of God, I'm against your stance here, if one has noticed this thus far. Why I bring that up is that I am saying it would be wrong for God not to act that way, so simply saying that I am misunderstanding God's law is empty to me. It is you who misunderstands. Although again, God does indeed interfere, but that is immaterial to the main point.

Yes, it actually <is> principally equivalent, as the principal regards the safety of the tribe. "Principally equivalent" and "equivalent" don't mean the same thing. Again, you're thinking of a drunkard as that funny guy who tells jokes and shares a cab ride with you. That isn't this kind of drunkard. A profligate in said times threatened the tribe's morale, resources and physical safety. And you truly must live in a cozy world if you believe that someone's going to be thinking on behalf of the armed assailant when being approached with a sawed off shotgun.

They never defined what they meant by profligate particularly, in fact, the stoning was primarily enforced because he wouldn't follow his parents' demands. But anyways, it would be a terrible deed to stone someone who merely threatens resources, morale, and physical safety. I'm sorry, that isn't very respectable behavior. If someone is being unruly and potentially threatening to the tribe, I can't imagine a death sentence. You can say that is me being in a cozy world, but I'd gladly take that more logical and respectable stance. As for thinking about the well being of someone who is attacking you as being strange, that is quite strange from a Christian, considering they're suppose to live their enemies. Nonetheless, an example of principal equivalence would be that it is parallel to how men typically don't find hitting girls as right even in defense. The reason being obviously because in most instances they are much weaker and it is unnecessary to hit one if they are attacking you, you can simply restrain them or if in a serious case, knock them out. It is the same with some stranger coming in to attack you. WHY must you kill them? Where does that mentality come from? You're like the thread poster who creates these strange ideas that what necessarily happens is very limited. I couldn't possibly imagine why you must kill them, in fact, it is as I said, that is straight up bloodlust. If someone breaks in, and you are like, "I am going to **** them up!" Well, that would be a likely response, but that isn't a logical reason to do it. Although, if you kill the intruder on accident, there isn't much to fault you with. If someone breaks into your house, PLEASE don't let a strange sense of blood lust build up in you, that is not Christian-like, and in general immoral to most.

No. I'm saying that two stipulations creates a logical framework, and within that logical framework, only so many things can be done. In your example, it's that God isn't going to warp reality at will to make harsh realities less harsh, or distort the course of human events to make sure that nobody ever dies or commits atrocities, ever. In my example, people grieve at God for allowing things like cancer to exist, when in our current universe, it's impossible for genetic mutation to not transpire, and equally impossible for a disease such as cancer to not happen.

Oh, so that IS what you're doing. Well, just so you know, stoning is not impossible to avoid. One is a conscious decision, let alone one that is needed to be made, whereas one is a mutation that happens against anyone's will.

Again, express clarity: you can't demonize God for holding fast to his stipulations, which is what you're trying to do by saying that He is committing immoral acts by not directly intervening and leaving a person bereft of their conscious ability to make choices.[/QUOTE]

This is a bit on the side of everything I've said thus far, but if God's goal is not to be the ultimate good and let humans be as evil as they like, and therefore give them free options to act, isn't allowing them to stone those who are wrong instead of giving people who have done wrong a choice to repent or turn over a new leaf? And again, God has interfered on multiple occasions, so there is a bit of hypocrisy and cherry picking with that.

Banish him? Isn't starvation and forcing someone into exile to suffer to death and be cast to mongrels a mite bit crueler than a quick death such as stoning? Also, even if banishment were a good idea, how're they going to do it? Escort him out into the desert, ask him/her to count to 10 while they run away so they can't find their way back? How's God going to banish him?

God can do anything, can he not? Never mind, you pretend he cannot. Banishing him is arguably not less moral. He is given a chance to repent, he is given a chance to live, and mongrels getting a hold of him as being significantly worse than stoning? They are both incredibly painful, and one is being done by those you know and are consciously done, whereas mongrels get fed and are wild animals that you can at least defend against.

Physically lift him and toss him and catapult him into the desert? Consign a Greek Feudal warlord from millennia ahead to wheel a trebuchet in? Maybe an SUV?

Your consistent sardonic bouts wreak of your past mention of my supposed puerile behavior.

You clearly pride yourself in your alleged grasp on logic,

Nou.

XD But seriously, I don't know the basis of this.

I explained how it is parallel to a mother defending her child. How is a plague unjust against the Egyptians who murdered, *****, sacrificed, enslaved and abused God's chosen people? The Exodus needed to be fulfilled, and that couldn't very well be done if the Egyptians were well enough to pursue the Jews in full force. And how is it not justified if the child goes to heaven? Are you saying that it's better for a child to be left in the desert to suffer to death or grow and be condemned than to die swiftly from sickness? You say the promise of paradise doesn't justify it under the premise of life on Earth being important. Well, let me ask you, Holder: can you explain <how> it's important? From my perspective, yes, it is, but you're burdened with a defense of your own position. Where does God say that life on Earth is more important than life in Paradise? It's important, sure, but unless it takes precedence over one or the other, that seems like a pretty vacuous and dangerously misguided thing to say.

I never said it was more important... it is obviously important or else we wouldn't be here? We'd just all be in heaven, happy hunky dorry, if heaven is all that mattered. It doesn't need to take precedence, there simply needs to be a reason why one must be removed from Earth without having done anything. Unfortunately, there isn't any. Babies being starved and alone in the desert? I'm confused, you're assuming I'm taking your stance again, I said there was no reason for everyone to be wiped out, let alone any of them. As for living a life condemned or death, then I would think a condemned life would be picked? Otherwise that'd be a very defeatist and unnecessary decision. Life is still life, and it is a beautiful and important thing, it should be so to God most of all, but oddly it is probably least cared for him by him.

 

[Spire]

Why be anything? Why be Christian, Atheist, Muslim, Buddhist, Jew, Hindi, Zoroastrian, Deist, Theist, or anything of the matter? Why not be a human being capable of traversing any, all, or none of these walks of life?

Just breathe.

 

[Holder of the Heel]

Because it is impossible to be all of them at once, and difficult to not have an opinion on it at all.

 

[Deleted member]

and difficult to not have an opinion on it at all.

nihilism says hi

 

[Dre89]

Why be anything? Why be Christian, Atheist, Muslim, Buddhist, Jew, Hindi, Zoroastrian, Deist, Theist, or anything of the matter? Why not be a human being capable of traversing any, all, or none of these walks of life?

Just breathe.

The only people who say stuff like this are the people who think they're all logically equal, when they're not.

Paprika, the more extreme the form of nilhism is, the more stupid it is.

Nilhism is self defeating, because it basically rejects logic, yet the rejection of logic must itself be logically valid for nilhism to be true.

 

[Holder of the Heel]

How does nihilism reject logic? I think you mean skepticism. Nihilism rejects value.

nihilism says hi

I say goodbye, because I don't understand how nihilism somehow makes that make sense.

 

[Starphoenix]

It is sad how drunk the world is on their own ideas of knowledge. Knowledge without wisdom is nothing.

 

[Dre89]

That's your own idea about knowledge, which you're potentially drunk on.

 

[MuraRengan]

My point is not that you can't think as you wish, but you must conform and believe certain principles, and therefore you are limited. It demands you follow certain rules, as you said. That is all I'm saying. You must conform your thoughts to understanding that in order to justify it, I'm not saying you are by virtue of that incapable of measuring other options. It is though an obligation to follow the rules of a religion you subscribe yourself to, and either you do not care to think about it, which isn't your case, or you do, and you must justify it, which what thinkers have and do that subscribe to a religion. Again, my point wasn't that religious people are physically incapable of thinking outside of religion, but insofar as they are considering things that are in the realm of the Bible, they must think inside its confines or else be betraying the word of God.

Ok, I can accept that.

The only people who say stuff like this are the people who think they're all logically equal, when they're not.

You know, I really like the way you think.

 

[crawlshots]

Why be anything? Why be Christian, Atheist, Muslim, Buddhist, Jew, Hindi, Zoroastrian, Deist, Theist, or anything of the matter? Why not be a human being capable of traversing any, all, or none of these walks of life?

Just breathe.

I like this question. The answer is wonderfully simple. It's because for most people, one of those options just makes more sense to them than the "why be anything?" option. But if your religion feels like baggage then yeah, something needs to change.

I also like the "just breathe" advice because I've found my worldview (Christianity) to help me just breathe really, really well... better than anything else actually.

I just like this thread, it's a good one.

 

[GwJ]

It's a nice post, but it doesn't actually address anything.

 

[Budget Player Cadet_]

If I may interject something into the debate... I absolutely don't buy this "If things were more clear, we would be robbed of our free will". The reason is simple: God reveals himself to people who then go on to reject him.

It's not even just that he creates a book of solid logic of his existence, or even a prophetic book reaching forwards thousands of years and exactly predicting events, or even an accurate recounting of natural history from a time when we couldn't have known that... He literally reveals himself to various biblical figures and demands them to do things.

And you know what? From time to time... they refuse. Noah got a command straight from Yahweh himself, and then failed to follow said command, instead running away from his duties. If he still had his free will after directly communing with god, I fail to see how god revealing himself would rob us of our free will, let alone simple things like the bible being less obtuse than the story of Gantz and more accurate than the average Chick Tract!

 

[Holder of the Heel]

It's a nice post, but it doesn't actually address anything.

It is very easy to sound wise when one says something with an Eastern philosophical air.

 

[crawlshots]

It's a nice post, but it doesn't actually address anything.

You mean my post? (Sincere question.) If you want more things addressed, feel free to ask me something about my post and maybe we can spark a good discussion.

 

[TeSik]

you could aswell see religion as something that is supposed to make you go in a positive direction, and to find to god, you could aswell replace with find love, find freedom, find yourself ... it's all the same, i believe. people discuss the hell out of it, disputing, when in reality everything could be so easy.

 

[Budget Player Cadet_]

you could aswell see religion as something that is supposed to make you go in a positive direction, and to find to god, you could aswell replace with find love, find freedom, find yourself ... it's all the same, i believe. people discuss the hell out of it, disputing, when in reality everything could be so easy.

Here's the thing though: religion has a strong tendency towards dogma, towards unquestionable ideas, towards things you have to take on faith. And time and time again, we've seen these dogmas and faiths abused in the most horrific of ways. I think Thunderf00t really nailed exactly what you're talking about when he spoke of religion as "the best emotional porn ever":

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nSqJ-7tg0Eo

This faith, this belief, can be an amazing emotional high. The idea that you're personally friends with, loved by, and watched over by the most powerful being in the universe is amazingly attractive and incredibly powerful for many people. However, when this high leads to antisocial behavior, be it discrimination based on sexuality, gender, or race; enforcement of barbaric or unjust laws; or attacking science... Well, then your "habit" has to be reigned in, much in the way one would have to reign in a crackhead who goes around breaking windows and stealing car radios.

 

[TeSik]

thing is that whenever we try to find sense in ANYTHING, and question things further, there is always the question of faith in the end. and faith is what you make out of it, there is a good reason it ain't called knowledge. in history, people liked to confuse/deliberately abuse these two words to gain (political) power, which is based on fear (as it is always limiting you) in my opinion, which is the exact opposite of love: cover the truth when necessary, so your reputation and status ain't harmed.
personally, i think that each kind of this behavior can be traced back to the fear of death, because people start to hurry and get as much satisfaction as possible, one life is too short of time. we start to cling to materialistic goods, money and economic growth, because we want more and more and we stop to appreciate what we have. our handling with other people and animals is dominated by advantage, not by love through this. but i'm wandering from the subject.

speaking of dogmas which i'm disapproving of too, you cannot verify or falsify transcendental questions. no human being probably can ever do that in a convincing way, so that each person in the world has the right answer. if you're an atheist, you can tell believers as much as you want that there ain't no god, they won't be convinced. believers will make the same experience when telling their ideas to atheists, you surely know what i'm speaking of.
resulting from that, in my opinion, the only solution left is being agnostic - you cannot answer the question of god's existance. or how i'd rather express it, you have to find the answer on your own, because each answer can only be individual. many times, people use different words for the same ideas, and start to argue about it. why? i can't answer that, honestly. fetish for argueing, your ego, showing that you're right and the other is not? i think language is sufficient for approaching ideas, but there will never be this wannabe objective and scientific language in everyday life. people should be aware of this whenever speaking with friends and others, i've seen several cases where conflicts could have been avoided with this in mind.

meh getting off topic again

doesn't matter, just felt like writing down thoughts. i think i've pointed out that i'm speaking of my opinion several times, but i'm not stating that my opinion is fact, which applies for the whole post basically. feel like i suffer from mental incontinence lol

 

[crawlshots]

the only solution left is being agnostic - you cannot answer the question of god's existance. or how i'd rather express it, you have to find the answer on your own, because each answer can only be individual.

What do you mean by the bold?

 

[Luigitoilet]

I think TeSik is trying to express an "existentialist" viewpoint, wherein (in basic terms) the meaning of life is entirely dependent on self-definition.

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

 

[GwJ]

You mean my post? (Sincere question.) If you want more things addressed, feel free to ask me something about my post and maybe we can spark a good discussion.

Nah, I was talking about Spire's.

 

[TeSik]

it might be that there are overlaps between my thoughts and existentialism, but i wasn't thinking of that in particular.

@crawlshots
i mean it the following way: every single person has had a different life up to now. assuming that each life makes one the person he/she is today to some extent, one has always different associations because of different experiences and different speed in learning certain things.
you have to experience god or whatever you call it in some way first to have a feel for what it is about and you cannot force it on others.
you can compare it to playing smash. you can watch others and how they do, they can inspire you, but to play good, you have to get it YOURSELF.

 

[crawlshots]

i mean it the following way: every single person has had a different life up to now. assuming that each life makes one the person he/she is today to some extent, one has always different associations because of different experiences and different speed in learning certain things.
you have to experience god or whatever you call it in some way first to have a feel for what it is about and you cannot force it on others.
you can compare it to playing smash. you can watch others and how they do, they can inspire you, but to play good, you have to get it YOURSELF.

Agreed! Hence why the Western world is full of "nominal Christians" where Christianity was forced on them in some way but they've never actually experienced God, or realized they've experienced God. They think that they're doing Christianity by going to church sometimes and not drinking or swearing, which is really not even close (thankfully). (Not trying to over-generalize but I know many people like this, myself sometimes.) It all started with the emperor Constantine mandating the religion in the Roman Empire. The citizens became "Christian" but their motivation was to avoid opposition to the government, instead of to experience God.

Anyway. I would say that it's true that you can't just convince someone to be an atheist or a Christian, using your examples. We need some kind of tangible, experiential knowledge to hold fast to one of these worldviews, to be convinced. And we'll never as a whole human race answer the question of God's existence any time soon. But I don't think that means that the only logical choice is agnosticism--I think it means that people need to actually seek experiential knowledge regarding atheism or Christianity to find out if one of them is true.

 

[Dre89]

You don't have to experience something to know whether it exists or not.

I know that square circle doesn't exist, because it is a contradiction.

I also know that my doctor had parents via conditional necessity (my doctor exists, which necessarily entails he had parents) even though I've never experienced them.

This talk about experience is really just simplifying the issue.

 

[crawlshots]

1) You don't have to experience something to know whether it exists or not.

2) I know that square circle doesn't exist, because it is a contradiction.

3) I also know that my doctor had parents via conditional necessity (my doctor exists, which necessarily entails he had parents) even though I've never experienced them.

4) This talk about experience is really just simplifying the issue.

(added numbers to line up my responses with what you said specifically)

1) Maybe not; my point is that experience is a great (maybe the greatest?) tool for helping us know or believe something, so people should seek experiential knowledge... Especially regarding the topic of God's existence, where people are always ready to forcefully share their beliefs, and where the experiential knowledge I'm talking about doesn't seem to fall right in our laps for us in a way we can easily recognize. If it did, people would agree a lot more about the existence of God. Summary: personal experience is really helpful.

2) Let's direct this point to the topic. Do you think that God doesn't exist because the idea of him is a contradiction in some way? Or do you think he does or does not exist based on some grounds other than experience? I genuinely want to know.

3) I see your point. In fact, some people use this very thought process to make a case for the existence of God. "Life and everything in the universe exists, and stuff can't create itself, so I must believe that God exists, even though I've never seen him." (Further undeveloped, this begins to resemble deism.) Just as you know something about your doctor's parents through experiencing your doctor, we know things about God (assuming he exists) by experiencing what he's created.

If this thought process leads one to believe in the existence of God, then great. But I would say that because of the nature of our idea of God, and because of what believing he exists would/should entail, it's not enough. We ought to try to experience him personally.

4) Not trying to simplify any issues per se, but breaking them down is helpful.

 

[meowth_]

I was raised as an atheist, but in my years of living I have noticed that many of my positions as a human are the products of my environment, combined with my past experiences. I bring this up because my position as an atheist is basically the byproduct of my childhood. Many religions are influential, cultural, and they can impact young children. Lots of things are. Our personalities, thoughts, attitudes, choices - they are all based on our experience leading up to the current moment. Little kids grow up to believe X concept, or feel X way about X moral dilemma, or whatever.

Eventually, they leave their homes and are typically altered by many different factors.... They lead lives, play sports, play video-games, learn things, practice a religion, and then they are off. Certain experiences tend to impact people in different ways, but it is our upbringing that typically stands out the most in our young lives. Our upbringing even manages to seep its way into our adult lives, and make itself evident in different ways.

I don't know which side will win in the grand battle of atheism vs religion, but I have a feeling that neither of the two concepts will compare to the jaw-dropping solution that presents itself with each passing moment. You are alive, you are here, and you are sailing through your experience. Do with it what you will, and be a good person. Don't blindly follow man's corrupt religions, but do not become blinded by the corruption itself that dwells within the scriptures. Take all of the knowledge you can find. Hunt for it, yank it out of every crevice in every scripture and every algorithm, in ever essay and every little observation. Be a good person. GoOoOoOooD luck, playa

 

[PsychoIncarnate]

I have a question. How can someone be a scientologist knowing the religion was created as satire?

Does anyone actually believe scientology, or is it people just continuing the satire as one big joke?

What is the basis for people following religion? Do they actual believe the religion or do they just want a moral guidance system? I've seen people that follow a religion because it teaches certain things but don't believe in it's got - WTF is that about? Isn't that NOT following the religion?

I don't see how someone could follow a religion knowing it was created under those circumstances.

Other religions, such as Jewish and especially Hindu, where created so long ago we don't know the origin for a fact, so those are more understandable. But religions such as mormonism and scientology we DO know how and why they were created - yet they gain support.

 

[Dre89]

Psycho- It makes no sense to half follow a religion at all, I agree.

As for Scientology, it probably gets vulnerable people who need to fill a hole in their lives.

As for celebs, these people have so much money it's probably the only thing accessible to them that isn't a material experience, and it has been recommended by other celebs.

Crawl- I believe in a being with God- like properties, but from metaphysical necessity.

There's a difference between a physical and metaphysical arguments. Physical arguments are based on the specific nature of the world (eg. The complexity of the world). So if the world wasn't complex that argument wouldn't work. Metaphysical arguments say God is necessary if simply anything exists, regardless of what it is.

I personally think mp arguments are far superior, but the public really only knows about physical ones, which is why they always say 'I'll believe in God if there's evidence'.

You don't need to be too educated, if at all, to understand physical arguments or appreciate physical evidence, but you do need to be educated to understand complex metaphysics.

Everyone applies metaphysical propositions. The people who hate mp use them too, they don't realise they just uncomplicated and axiomatic propositions, and are against arbitrarily more complex ones because they're not educated enough to understand them.

 

[GwJ]

You don't have to experience something to know whether it exists or not.

I know that square circle doesn't exist, because it is a contradiction.

I also know that my doctor had parents via conditional necessity (my doctor exists, which necessarily entails he had parents) even though I've never experienced them.

This talk about experience is really just simplifying the issue.

You know those based on experience and knowledge you already have though. You know there's no square circle because you already know the definition of a circle. You know your doctor has parents, because humans need parents to exist (currently).

 

[R h y m e]

It's hard to explain, but I'll try.

...

I'll admit that technically, you can be an agnostic and not have a BoP, but I think no one is like that. Not only would you have to be 50/50 on whether God exists, but also 50/50 on whether God is necessary or not, meaning you couldn't even say 'I'll believe in him when I get empirical evidence'. Most agnostics say that though.

I am a 50/50 Agnostic.