Generation Terrorists » Forum
Sign up   |   Start new thread   |   Lost password?   |   Edit profile   |   Member List   |   myGT   |   Blog
Keyword
From
To
 

Arguement for the un-existence of god
Beep Posted: Wed Mar 22 15:47:51 2006 Post | Quote in Reply  
  I was arguing with a friend about the existence of the Judaeo-Christian god. i came up with what i thought was a good logical arguement for him not existing. in my philosophy class we come across lots of arguements for the existence of god (ontological, teleological, moral, etc etc.). so i decided to write this one up:


The Anti-Christ argument for the un-existence of god

First:
We accept that god exists, and that he is the god described in Judaeo-Christian belief (he is omniscient, omnipresent, omnipotent and omnibenevolent).

„h In the future either:
1.'Good¡¦* will triumph over 'evil' and form utopia.
2.'Evil¡¦ will triumph over 'good' and form dystopia.
or 3.'Good¡¦ and 'evil' will stay as they are now, in a constant struggle.

„h God, being the omniscient, omnipresent, omnipotent and omnibenevolent being described above, must already know the outcome of this world and what happens.
„h If outcomes 2 or 3 happen then god has 'failed/lost' as either evil wins, or good never wins.
„h This is illogical and impossible if the definition of god is true.
„h If outcome 1 occurs then it renders what happens in the present pointless, as it will happen anyway, and there is no point for us here and now. It also raises questions about why he needs us and the present if he already knows the outcome.

„h so life is pointless, otherwise god does not exist/is not the Judaeo-Christian deity
or
„h God is infact not omnibenevolent
or
„h Good can never triumph.

Which leads me to believe that the Judaeo-Christian god does not exist.

* ¡¥The ¡¥good¡¦ and ¡¥evil¡¦ discussed are the good and evil as thought of by followers of the Judaeo-Christian god.


Thoughts?
The Anti-Christ argument for the un-existence of god

First:
We accept that god exists, and that he is the god described in Judaeo-Christian belief (he is omniscient, omnipresent, omnipotent and omnibenevolent).

„h In the future either:
1.'Good¡¦* will triumph over 'evil' and form utopia.
2.'Evil¡¦ will triumph over 'good' and form dystopia.
or 3.'Good¡¦ and 'evil' will stay as they are now, in a constant struggle.

„h God, being the omniscient, omnipresent, omnipotent and omnibenevolent being described above, must already know the outcome of this world and what happens.
„h If outcomes 2 or 3 happen then god has 'failed/lost' as either evil wins, or good never wins.
„h This is illogical and impossible if the definition of god is true.
„h If outcome 1 occurs then it renders what happens in the present pointless, as it will happen anyway, and there is no point for us here and now. It also raises questions about why he needs us and the present if he already knows the outcome.

„h so life is pointless, otherwise god does not exist/is not the Judaeo-Christian deity
or
„h God is infact not omnibenevolent
or
„h Good can never triumph.

Which leads me to believe that the Judaeo-Christian god does not exist.

* ¡¥The ¡¥good¡¦ and ¡¥evil¡¦ discussed are the good and evil as thought of by followers of the Judaeo-Christian god.


Thoughts? Problems? Discuss.


 
DanSRose Posted: Thu Mar 23 00:06:54 2006 Post | Quote in Reply  
  If the Bible, et al., was written by Mank-ind, how do we know God is good, or even on our side?

I read a great book recently (actually it was 'reread'). The Autobiography of God by African-American (who converted to Judaism) writer Julius Lester. http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0312348487/sr=8-2/qid=1143084070/ref=pd_bbs_2/103-5455595-8139817?%5Fencoding=UTF8
Essentially, the daughter of Holocaust survivors, who was a practicing rabbi, now a social worker at a liberal arts New England college, gets a Torah that was last read the night the town was taken away. God thinks that she may be open to His side of the story, and she wasn't the first to receive the Autobiography and it's not a pleasant tale. There's a murder-mystery backstory also.

Anyway, that's the question both she and God ask that-
Why does God have to be good? If we are just a reflection of him, and he a reflection on him [for all you atheists and cultural/religious studies people], what indication is that he is all good? Why can't he be a flip-flopper? The twentieth century was a hundred years of anger and crap, and it was a hundred years of creativity and good things.


http://wigu.com/overcompensating/2006/03/yhwh-and-son.html
http://wigu.com/overcompensating/2006/02/meanwhile-at-pearly-gates-trailer-park.html

God was workin' on his truck


 
Asswipe Posted: Thu Mar 23 04:35:25 2006 Post | Quote in Reply  
  (Disclaimer: I am terribly sorry for shitting on your pancakes here. i had the need to rant as i still have this huge bitter spot towards 6 of 9 philosophy courses (all of the western ones) that i've ever taken.)



put down your philosophy text books and try this one on for size:

could God microwave a burrito so hot that even he could not eat it?

think about that one, mr. fancy-pants.

part of the problem with your "logical argument" and, in my opinion, all philosophical arguments is that they depend on definitions of words like "utopia," and "reflection of Him" which, if you do think about it, are pieces of shit farces, with absolutely no definition if trully examined. And if you present your argument to a good christian, they will tell you to go get a job. They don't see god as a man on a horse with some great agenda. He is. they are. And that is all.

yes, according to the book he has powers that could not ever exist in a person! amazing. TO take the terms/tools/religion of the masses and scrutinize them under a scholarly-philosophical microscope--not to mention, try to prove them logically wrong--is about as intelligent as making Britney Spears the president of the united states and expecting her to stop all violence.

also, "„h If outcome 1 occurs then it renders what happens in the present pointless, as it will happen anyway, and there is no point for us here and now. It also raises questions about why he needs us and the present if he already knows the outcome. "

To THAT I say, who bloody fucking cares? you're taking God and applying human characteristics as if he's your neighbor who never mows his lawn.

Philosophy debates are a load of bull shit and boil down to logical problem solving, where the question of God existing is just as relevent as whether Sparky the dog has spots or not. A->-B, B, therefore: who fucking cares. but to each his own. some people like jigsaw puzzles, others like to study philosophy.




 
addi Posted: Thu Mar 23 07:57:32 2006 Post | Quote in Reply  
  Asswipe said:
>(Disclaimer: I am terribly sorry for shitting on your pancakes here. i had the need to rant as i still have this huge bitter spot towards 6 of 9 philosophy courses (all of the western ones) that i've ever taken.)

"..and we'll all rant on Okay..and we'll all rant on Okay..."


>is about as intelligent as making Britney Spears the president of the united states and expecting her to stop all violence.

actually, it would be an improvement over our current pres.


>Philosophy debates are a load of bull shit and boil down to logical problem solving,

Clarification here: Philosophical debates on the existence of God may be a load of bullshit. Other philosophical debates can be quite good for the brain. Learning to use critical reason, rationality, and sharpen your thinking skills is never a bad thing. You just applied learned skills of logic and reason in your response.

*Always good to get an Asswipean perspective on things


 
Beep Posted: Thu Mar 23 12:18:48 2006 Post | Quote in Reply  
  Asswipe said:
>ra ra ra i don't like philosophy.

meh to you. atleast i'm thinking, which is more than a lot of people.

the idea that most people wont take notice is complete bollocks, because when it comes to the largest religion in the world being based on teachings from a guy who in my opinion isn't there, we have a problem. if you can logically prove he isn't there then you might solve a bit of their 'oh you just don't understand my god' crap. you might say that i don't understand their god, but i would disagree with you.
the thing is, a religion is not only a set of beliefs, but it's a set of beliefs that have no room for arguement or improvement, as they are divine. that leaves someone who doesn't believe in god in a sticky situation. if you can prove that god doesn't exist, then you have a pretty big arguement against stuff like 'god is pro-life'. that way we can get of all the crap about humans being in gods image, all the opposition to scientific advances, all the opposition to people trying to logically get somewhere without looking towards bogus teachings, and do something, which you apparently are dead against - using our fucking brains.

and to your point about god microwaving a burrito, i think that's more of a waste of time than my arguement personally. a theist would probably say that god does not break his own rules, i.e. he cannot make 5=7. in this way, a 'rule of god' is that he is a being than which nothing greater can be concieved, so he can't prove himself out of existence.

and meh to me not getting a job, get off your rant and stop telling me what to do, god or no god i think your comments and twatishness is pointless and helps nothing, if you're going to disagree you don't have to make it into a personal vendetta.
:) don't take anything as me being offended, whether you think i am/aren't/should/should not be, i appreciate your opinion and think that arguements like this are the spice of life.


 
Asswipe Posted: Thu Mar 23 12:45:45 2006 Post | Quote in Reply  
  Beep said:
>Asswipe said:
>>ra ra ra i don't like philosophy.

heh, nice sum up.

>
>meh to you. atleast i'm thinking, which is more than a lot of people.

well i suppose.

>
>the idea that most people wont take notice is complete bollocks, because when it comes to the largest religion in the world being based on teachings from a guy who in my opinion isn't there, we have a problem. if you can logically prove he isn't there then you might solve a bit of their 'oh you just don't understand my god' crap. you might say that i don't understand their god, but i would disagree with you.

i'm curious, where do you see the problem of "you just don't understand my god" actually being a problem? i'm not saying it's not, i'm just wondering your point to wanting to correct these people's thinkings.

*rant on*: anyone who takes the bible and takes everything word for word and 100% accurate is a moron, and your logical reasoning will only make them want to hurt you. most christianers do not believe the bible word for word and only take the stories in the bible as moral guidelines to help live their lives. anyways, the existance of god is less important than the existance of jesus. and i'm ignoring the jews here because they really don't care about God, from what i've seen.

>the thing is, a religion is not only a set of beliefs, but it's a set of beliefs that have no room for arguement or improvement, as they are divine. that leaves someone who doesn't believe in god in a sticky situation. if you can prove that god doesn't exist, then you have a pretty big arguement against stuff like 'god is pro-life'. that way we can get of all the crap about humans being in gods image, all the opposition to scientific advances, all the opposition to people trying to logically get somewhere without looking towards bogus teachings, and do something, which you apparently are dead against - using our fucking brains.

eh, people attempt to interpret the bible in various ways every damned day. you know people actually study religion and the bible in graduate study and make it their lives to help people get a better message from the book? there are old school ministers who say abortion is gay, and then there's ministers who examine the story of the crucifixion and use it to tell a one hour speech on why rascism, in all of it's forms, is inherently wrong.

>
>and to your point about god microwaving a burrito, i think that's more of a waste of time than my arguement personally. a theist would probably say that god does not break his own rules, i.e. he cannot make 5=7. in this way, a 'rule of god' is that he is a being than which nothing greater can be concieved, so he can't prove himself out of existence.

the same argument could be used against your argument. except you add non-definable concepts to give you new terms.

>
>and meh to me not getting a job, get off your rant and stop telling me what to do, god or no god i think your comments and twatishness is pointless and helps nothing, if you're going to disagree you don't have to make it into a personal vendetta.

i don't mean it to be a personal vendetta. i just hate philosophy. it's mental masturbation.

>:) don't take anything as me being offended, whether you think i am/aren't/should/should not be, i appreciate your opinion and think that arguements like this are the spice of life.

oh, i've been there.


 
addi Posted: Thu Mar 23 13:25:15 2006 Post | Quote in Reply  
  Asswipe said:


>most christianers do not believe the bible word for word and only take the stories in the bible as moral guidelines to help live their lives.

Just felt like extending this a bit further.
Actually a significant percentage of christians do take the bible literally word for word (a belief in divine inspiration and biblical inerrancy). Noah did take two of every animal in the ark. Joshua did made the sun stand still during the battle of Jerico. It's a pivital foundation for most evangelicals theology because once they start allowing for human interpretation it opens up a pandora's box. I know...I know...there's all sorts of holes in that belief system. I'm only trying to point out that a literal belief in the bible is not religated to the fringe of christians today.



anyways, the existance of god is less important than the existance of jesus.

To these same christians I mentioned above they would argue that as part of the holy trinity jesus and god can not be separated. If an arguement is put forth for the existence of god that person is also necessarily arguing for the existence of jesus and the holy spirit, because the three are one to them.

Ahhh..the divine mystery of the triumvirate.














 
Beep Posted: Thu Mar 23 16:32:22 2006 Post | Quote in Reply  
  heh, addi you took the words out of my mouth :)

Asswipe said:
you know people actually study religion and the bible in graduate study and make it their lives to help people get a better message from the book? there are old school ministers who say abortion is gay, and then there's ministers who examine the story of the crucifixion and use it to tell a one hour speech on why rascism, in all of it's forms, is inherently wrong.
>

yes, but we don't need god or a book to give us a sense of morals, if we're allowed to work them out for ourselves it's a lot better. you may say that people disagree on the idea of good blah blah, but i argue that people disagree already, and that when it's written down in a book inspired by god it allows no room for negotiation.
plus 'existence of god' i would have thought would make up a big part of studying religion, in my religion course it does, the arguements for the existence of god laid out by christian philosophers (especially anslem) was what i based by opposing view around

>>
>>and to your point about god microwaving a burrito, i think that's more of a waste of time than my arguement personally. a theist would probably say that god does not break his own rules, i.e. he cannot make 5=7. in this way, a 'rule of god' is that he is a being than which nothing greater can be concieved, so he can't prove himself out of existence.
>
>the same argument could be used against your argument. except you add non-definable concepts to give you new terms.
>

how exactly? i don't understand how god not being able to go against his own rules is anything like arguing that god does not exist?

normally when i question the existence of god to a theist they say that they have been spoken to by the lord, and against that you cannot have an arguement (a la the work of william james). All my arguements against god being good, and a good thing to base your life around are met by people saying that i just 'don't understand' their god. that i;m not getting what their god is about. so proving that he doesn't exist sidesteps the entire issue of whether god is good or not.


 
Asswipe Posted: Thu Mar 23 17:03:00 2006 Post | Quote in Reply  
  addi said:
>Asswipe said:
>
>
>>most christianers do not believe the bible word for word and only take the stories in the bible as moral guidelines to help live their lives.
>
>Just felt like extending this a bit further.
>Actually a significant percentage of christians do take the bible literally word for word (a belief in divine inspiration and biblical inerrancy). Noah did take two of every animal in the ark. Joshua did made the sun stand still during the battle of Jerico. It's a pivital foundation for most evangelicals theology because once they start allowing for human interpretation it opens up a pandora's box. I know...I know...there's all sorts of holes in that belief system. I'm only trying to point out that a literal belief in the bible is not religated to the fringe of christians today.

i don't know of any who do. of course, it doesn't mean they're not out there. of course i'm from no where near the bible belt, so am probably far removed from a lot of that stuff.

>
>
>
>anyways, the existance of god is less important than the existance of jesus.
>
>To these same christians I mentioned above they would argue that as part of the holy trinity jesus and god can not be separated. If an arguement is put forth for the existence of god that person is also necessarily arguing for the existence of jesus and the holy spirit, because the three are one to them.
>
>Ahhh..the divine mystery of the triumvirate.

as a moral codeline i'd say jesus is more important, that's all. God just sort of further justifies the whole ordeal, as if codes like "being a good person and being nice to your neighbors" actually need justification.

i am sorry for swaying this discussion/argument, as i think the existance of god has very little affect on the world, while the actual practice of religions has far more so. although i'm not terribly sure how much influence they have these days.


 
addi Posted: Thu Mar 23 17:14:53 2006 Post | Quote in Reply  
  Beep said:
>heh, addi you took the words out of my mouth :)

I'm only borrowing them from you to impress this one girl here. I'll return them (clean, of course).


 
beetlebum Posted: Thu Mar 23 17:18:28 2006 Post | Quote in Reply  
  Asswipe said:

>i am sorry for swaying this discussion/argument, as i think the existance of god has very little affect on the world, while the actual practice of religions has far more so. although i'm not terribly sure how much influence they have these days.

i was enjoying what you had to say and the dicussion; i don't think you "swayed" anything. i would jump in on this discussion, but it's a subject that tires me. sigh. there's no point, because most people deep down have already made up their mind (including myself), and so i just grow frustrated when discussing the topic because at the end of the day, both sides are just two trains passing in the night. or something like that. heh. i'm going to bed.


 
addi Posted: Thu Mar 23 17:24:10 2006 Post | Quote in Reply  
  Asswipe said:

>
>i don't know of any who do. of course, it doesn't mean they're not out there. of course i'm from no where near the bible belt, so am probably far removed from a lot of that stuff.


I think you've just been lucky enough to run into more intelligent christians in your life, Asswipe. : )

I know they're out there too because When I was in my thirties I left the ignorant ways of the evangelical church and joined the Episcopalian Church. They, as a general rule, take the bible's teachings much more symbolically (I no longer attend any church).
I only made that point because the literal minded christians are still very much out there all over the world too. Sometimes I think they're even growing and spreading....like a bad weed.


 
Asswipe Posted: Thu Mar 23 17:38:13 2006 Post | Quote in Reply  
  Beep said:
>yes, but we don't need god or a book to give us a sense of morals, if we're allowed to work them out for ourselves it's a lot better. you may say that people disagree on the idea of good blah blah, but i argue that people disagree already, and that when it's written down in a book inspired by god it allows no room for negotiation.

perhaps you do not need the bible and it's stories to help you feel better at times, but some people do. the stories have a very uplifting feeling, and with the right preacher can be quite invigorating. I'd argue that a lot of people read the bible and go to church and study religion for the same reason that you study and practice philosophy. both have their flaws, but both have their *personal* benefits.

as a moral basis, i don't think the bible is terribly useful. the only code that i've come across that really matters is to treat your neighbor's with care. basically, be nice to everyone. the problem is controlling this, and actually being able to live this. and to do that, the biblical stories, and hearing a professional bible analyzer dissect stories and their meanings for you, can really help a lot of people.

and no, the messages in the bible are not cut into stone because it is language and literature, and with that comes infinite interpretations, mostly based around your current position, cultures and present day. so there is room for negotiation. interpretations have changed drastically over the years and will continue to change.

>plus 'existence of god' i would have thought would make up a big part of studying religion, in my religion course it does, the arguements for the existence of god laid out by christian philosophers (especially anslem) was what i based by opposing view around

Anselm of 1000 years ago? try finding one present day professional bible-geek who would care to take up the debate with you.

>
>>>
>>>and to your point about god microwaving a burrito, i think that's more of a waste of time than my arguement personally. a theist would probably say that god does not break his own rules, i.e. he cannot make 5=7. in this way, a 'rule of god' is that he is a being than which nothing greater can be concieved, so he can't prove himself out of existence.

well, my argument only took 3 seconds to read, compared to yours which took considerably longer. and since i'd consider both a waste of time, well, nevermind. and your answer is very apt, nice job.

>>

>>the same argument could be used against your argument. except you add non-definable concepts to give you new terms.
>>
>
>how exactly? i don't understand how god not being able to go against his own rules is anything like arguing that god does not exist?

it is another argument for the non-existance of an all-powerful god. because if he cannot break rules than he is not all powerful. similarly to you looking at his own intentions and using them against his definitions.

>
>normally when i question the existence of god to a theist they say that they have been spoken to by the lord, and against that you cannot have an arguement (a la the work of william james). All my arguements against god being good, and a good thing to base your life around are met by people saying that i just 'don't understand' their god. that i;m not getting what their god is about. so proving that he doesn't exist sidesteps the entire issue of whether god is good or not.

because you do not understand the idea of religion. it helps people get by, because, as you'll probably see first hand, too much logic drives anyone insane. especially when you realize that you're using terms to start with that have no basis in reality, and are creating this completely perfect logical world using flawed starting points. IE. mental masturbation.


and i know i'm not arguing with you about the existance of God because, as you know, i don't care. but what i'm arguing for is that his existance does not even matter to the study of religion or to the religious church-goers out there, which is why they can say they feel his presence, and they don't care about your arguments, because, at base, it doesn't concern them.


 
maybeitwillwork Posted: Thu Mar 23 21:11:40 2006 Post | Quote in Reply  
  I'm not getting into this argument.

As long as they leave me out of there attempts to convince one another. I really don't care if people believe in god, or if they don't.

It's a free world, I say let people think what ever makes them happy.


 
addi Posted: Thu Mar 23 21:45:39 2006 Post | Quote in Reply  
  maybeitwillwork said:
>I'm not getting into this argument.

Well I'll be damned. Milk came back. We even had a GT funeral for you..with milk and cake on Penis Day. I hope you're happy.

: )


 
DanSRose Posted: Thu Mar 23 22:27:22 2006 Post | Quote in Reply  
  Asswipe said:
>and i'm ignoring the jews here because they really don't care about God, from
what i've seen.

And quite frankly, you've pissed me off without a prompt and are acting as your namesake without reason or discussion.

Religion is an aspect of , if not a full, culture.


 
Mouse Posted: Thu Mar 23 22:59:27 2006 Post | Quote in Reply  
  I saw this bumper sticker I really liked online, it said Who are you to question your gods reasons for not making me believe in him?
I stay out of religious debates unless I am drawn into them for the most part. I do not try to change the beliefs of christians or any other creed, though I alway note with some statifation that they seldom afford me the same respect if I let them know that I do not believe what they do.
People who want to believe in a god, just as anyone who really wants to believe something whether or not it's true, cannot be convinced that their god is a lie made to control what they do and think. I can't say if athesists are happier people than those who believe in a Judaeo-Christian god, I have my own biased opinions, but I won't try to change anyone's life because of what I believe, or don't believe.
Mouse


 
maybeitwillwork Posted: Fri Mar 24 01:25:51 2006 Post | Quote in Reply  
  addi said:

>Well I'll be damned. Milk came back. We even had a GT funeral for you..with milk and cake on Penis Day. I hope you're happy.

I feel loved. And special.

I was overly busy for a while and just didn't have time to stop by here. I think part of the problem was my laptop went dead on me, so I wasn't able to do this during my chem lecture.


 
Asswipe Posted: Fri Mar 24 01:47:34 2006 Post | Quote in Reply  
  DanSRose said:
>Asswipe said:
>>and i'm ignoring the jews here because they really don't care about God, from
>what i've seen.
>
>And quite frankly, you've pissed me off without a prompt and are acting as your namesake without reason or discussion.

well woopty-doo.

>
>Religion is an aspect of , if not a full, culture.

agreed


 
maybeitwillwork Posted: Fri Mar 24 02:22:32 2006 Post | Quote in Reply  
  How about a new conversation topic.

For example, lets talk about why people feel the need to debate if god exists or not. Or why they feel the need to convince others that they are right.


 
HSolo216 Posted: Fri Mar 24 02:26:01 2006 Post | Quote in Reply  
  Beep said:
>I was arguing with a friend about the existence of the Judaeo-Christian god. i came up with what i thought was a good logical arguement for him not existing. in my philosophy class we come across lots of arguements for the existence of god (ontological, teleological, moral, etc etc.). so i decided to write this one up:
>
>
>The Anti-Christ argument for the un-existence of god
>
>First:
>We accept that god exists, and that he is the god described in Judaeo-Christian belief (he is omniscient, omnipresent, omnipotent and omnibenevolent).
>

The entire reason for Christianity is the crusifixion and resurrection of Jesus Christ. Beacuse of the nature of the Trinity, it is hard to view the Cristian beliefs about God as the same as the Jewish beliefs. I am a Christian and can only talk about my views and not the Jewish views.

I have talked with four Christian friends from different Christian backgrounds and not one of us has ever heard of omnibenevolence. The other three are used all of the time but that word is new to me.

>„h In the future either:
> 1.'Good¡¦* will triumph over 'evil' and form utopia.
> 2.'Evil¡¦ will triumph over 'good' and form dystopia.
>or 3.'Good¡¦ and 'evil' will stay as they are now, in a constant struggle.
>

The Christian belief is not even given as an option. God defeated Satan at the cross thousands of years ago. It is not about the future. There is a heaven and a hell and the line between them cannot be crossed, but they exist at the same time. The Christian belief is that all people have sinned and the only way to get to heaven is by grace. This grace comes as a result of faith and love. Having said that, God is the judge of who gets in and it is beyond anyone's ability to make that judgment.

>„h God, being the omniscient, omnipresent, omnipotent and omnibenevolent being described above, must already know the outcome of this world and what happens.
>

True

>„h If outcomes 2 or 3 happen then god has 'failed/lost' as either evil wins, or good never wins.
>„h This is illogical and impossible if the definition of god is true.
>„h If outcome 1 occurs then it renders what happens in the present pointless, as it will happen anyway, and there is no point for us here and now. It also raises questions about why he needs us and the present if he already knows the outcome.
>

God cannot be defined. It is beyond our ability to fathom the greatness of God. We can imagine omnipotence, omnipresence, and omniscience but they are way beyond anyone's ability to understand.

Arguing about the existence of fate is pointless.

This argument is also pointless for the reason mentioned in previous posts: Everyone has made their minds up and no one is likely to change their mind about God due to anything that anyone online posts.

God does not need us. He is omnipotent. God loves us. He sent His only son to die so that we may be washed clean of our sins.

>„h so life is pointless, otherwise god does not exist/is not the Judaeo-Christian deity
>or
>„h God is infact not omnibenevolent
>or
>„h Good can never triumph.
>

Determining that life is pointless does not solve the problem of fate.

Please let me know what your understanding of omnibenevolent is. I could not find a solid definition anywhere. Does it refer to perfection or is it more along the lines of "completely good"? The only websites I could find with the word on them were created to prove the point that you are trying to prove. (I did not search for very long)

>Which leads me to believe that the Judaeo-Christian god does not exist.
>

Obvoiusly we disagree here.

>* ¡¥The ¡¥good¡¦ and ¡¥evil¡¦ discussed are the good and evil as thought of by followers of the Judaeo-Christian god.
>
>
>Thoughts?
>

The Bible has many descriptions of God. God is love...God is just...and so on. The descriptions of God could go on forever but even with all that we know, "we see but a poor reflection as in a mirror"(1 Corinthians 13:12 NIV).

I agree that philosophical arguments are about as useful as running in circles, but I think they are very important. They are important because you need to know what you believe and why you believe it. If you are not sure of your beliefs, you can be convinced to follow someone else's.

I did not go into proving that God does exist because it cannot be done. We know that Jesus walked the Earth. We have seen God's creations. However, believing in God requires faith and cannot be logically proven. We are not called to accept God, but to love and believe in Him.

I guess the main point of my post is to provide a Christian response other than "you don't get it".
And for a Christian, the argument is flawed when you assume that the fate of the world will be determined in the future.





 
DanSRose Posted: Fri Mar 24 05:05:36 2006 Post | Quote in Reply  
  Asswipe said:

>well woopty-doo.


No. No, that ain't gonna cut it.
What the hell did you mean by:

>Asswipe said:
>and i'm ignoring the jews here because they really don't care about God, from
>what i've seen.


 
addi Posted: Fri Mar 24 06:42:01 2006 Post | Quote in Reply  
  maybeitwillwork said:

>I feel loved. And special.

You are loved, and every poster here is special (a few of us though fit the definition of "special" as in mentally challenged)

Now if we could only do something about that wild hair of yours...

: )


 
addi Posted: Fri Mar 24 07:16:59 2006 Post | Quote in Reply  
  maybeitwillwork said:

>For example, lets talk about why people feel the need to debate if god exists or not.


To me that's a pretty straightforward answer.
Any person with an ounce of introspection to them sees and feels the craziness and pointlessness of life around them sometimes. Since the dawn of man's ability to reason and reflect we have created dieties, or some Greater Being, in an attempt to give our lives meaning and purpose...to make some sense of why we are here, and where we will go after our physical bodies perish.

Belief in God(s)also gives daily life some kind of structure. Whether you're Jewish, Hindu, Buddhist, Muslim or Christian the tenets of each of those religions give a person a kind of moral compass to assist them with the daily challenges of living...a "this is right and this is wrong" kind of guidebook. I believe most people are naturally drawn to structure and guidance, black and white, in their lives.

Life was a bit easier for me when I was a fundamentalist Christian..at least in the metaphysical realm of living. Jesus, my pastor, the Holy Spirit and the Bible told me what to believe and how to act righteously....with the carrot in front of my face being entrance to eternal bliss in heaven.

I am now an agnostic, and while I have a peace about escaping from the rigid mindless hypocracy of that belief system, I now have to deal with uncertainty, doubt, unanswered questions and existence in a world full of grayness.

I could never go back to the way I was, but there is a cost to spiritual liberation.


 
Beep Posted: Fri Mar 24 07:24:17 2006 Post | Quote in Reply  
  heh, i will attempt to reply to all the comments chronologically.

asswipe-for a case in point, the blocking of evolutionary theory being taught in american schools is a fine example of a religion having a m assive effect on life, not only that, but in my opinion god being a designer is flawed, so not only does it stop other ideas being taught, but it replaces them with flawed ones.

it seems to me that jesus is automatically assumed to be the pinnacle of morality, him being the son of god and all. however, i do not think he is actually all that great. a couple of examples being the 1.cursing of the fig tree - jesus wants some figs and goes to a fig tree, however it is not the season for figs so there aren't any. jesus curses the fig tree so it never bares figs again.
also 2. jesus damns many people to eternal hellfire and 'nashing of teeth'. when the greek philosophers or even those who believed in zeus came across oppostition they took it, thought about it, and either argued a bit or agreed to disagree. this to me has a lot more morality in it than 'either you agree with my rules or you will be damned for all eternity'.

and finding a present day bible geek to take up the arguement is part of my point, there are no arguements about it any more, this means that people accept their views, when possibly thier views are false.

maybeitwillwork - the problem is that it is not a free world, for example the intelligent design/evolutionary theory debate as i mentioned vaguely above.

solo - omnibenevolence is exactly what you mentioned without knowing it - 'god is love'. i.e. god loves humanity and loves humans.
your point about 'god defeated satan 2000 years ago' interests me. it made me think for a second. however, if satan was really 'defeated' 2000 years ago, why is there evil in the world now, and why are heathens like me having this discussion? you must admit that in the future, everyone will follow christianity, no-one will follow christianity, or we will be struggling between the two just as we are now? that is the point i was making about the future.
i agree god cannot be truly defined, i do however think that by the definition let in the bible, and the fact it is understood and agreed upon by most theologians, god is omnipotent, omniscient and omnibenevolent &c.
where did i ever mention fate? this is not about discussing fate. i have many ideas of my own about fate, but that is not apparent here. i mean to say that god knows what will happen in the future, does he not? as he is all knowing and all powerful. i do not mean to say that it is set in stone, only that god knows everything that will happen, that is close to fate, but it is not nearly the same thing.
i think the fact most people have made up their minds already is a perfect reason for why these arguements are important and totally not pointless. people have already made up their minds, without looking at all the facts, and without being able to have a debate about what people think when their ideas come under scrutiny. even if i one day agree with the idea of a god, it is still important to question it, otherwise we might all choke on blind faith.

my conclusion is the life is only pointless is you believe in a god who is omnibenevolent, omniscient &c. &c. for a non believer it opens up a whole new idea that it is possible to make life here and now into eutopia, and not rely on a god, or on a heaven, it is the future of this world that matters, not the next.

heh, i thankyou for your response not being 'i don't get it' :)


 
maybeitwillwork Posted: Fri Mar 24 10:39:25 2006 Post | Quote in Reply  
  addi said:

>Now if we could only do something about that wild hair of yours...


So what you are trying to say is that you absolutly love my wild hair.

: P


 
maybeitwillwork Posted: Fri Mar 24 10:40:50 2006 Post | Quote in Reply  
  addi- I agree with what you've said completely.

I know that there is a cost to spiritual liberation. I stopped to believe in a higher power “god” long ago. I can remember back to when I believed in a god, it was easier being able to look at things from that perspective, there was always a right and wring. Good people went to heaven and bad people went to hell.

When I became old enough the question the beliefs that had been instilled in me from early childhood. In a way it was religion that “killed” god for me. I came across many individuals who possessed strong religious beliefs and saw the books that came along with religion as the word of god. Overly religious people who tried forcing their beliefs on me convinced me that there was on god. I have argumentative tendencies and enjoy looked for flaw and reasons to refuse what they were saying.

Personally I tend to avoid conversations concerning god, they quickly result in the two opposing sides trying to convince each other of who is right. And people tend to get aggravated.



Beep- You have a point, it isn’t a free world. Someone’s personal beliefs will always be compromised in a society. And this is where I am tempted to start ranting about why intelligent design is a bunch of bullshit and why religion/beliefs/god/ect. should be a person’s private life only. But I won’t do that, because it will do no good, and I know that it would never work.

The problem is everyone wants things to be their way and no one is willing to compromise, it’s like a room full of 5 year olds all saying “I’m right and you are wrong. And you should listen to me because I know I’m right”

The way I see it the intelligent design debate is an example of religious beliefs trying to be forced into the real world as actual facts. And it simply can’t be dismissed because there isn’t a way to prove it wrong, but we must not forget that there also isn’t a way to prove it right.


 
Asswipe Posted: Fri Mar 24 13:30:36 2006 Post | Quote in Reply  
  DanSRose said:
>Asswipe said:
>
>>well woopty-doo.
>
>
>No. No, that ain't gonna cut it.
>What the hell did you mean by:
>
>>Asswipe said:
>>and i'm ignoring the jews here because they really don't care about God, from
>>what i've seen.

I meant this as a joke and to say, with a bit of humor towards the jews, that i wasn't referring to the jews or their beliefs in any of my posts. my above thoughts were directed primarily towards christianity. quite frankly, i'm jewish but non-practicing, so i can get away with jewish jokes as every jewish person in my family are cynical, athiest bastards. i commend you on zeroing in on one of the few parts of my posts that i didn't actually regard with much thought. sorry if i did offend, but understand that it was more of a personal joke on my own family than on jews at large. even though i do think, at their bases, christianity is far more evolved. but there are probably newage jewish groups which practice the same beliefs as every other bloody religion out there, ones which i don't know about. *shrug*


 
Asswipe Posted: Fri Mar 24 13:47:04 2006 Post | Quote in Reply  
  Beep said:
>heh, i will attempt to reply to all the comments chronologically.
>
>asswipe-for a case in point, the blocking of evolutionary theory being taught in american schools is a fine example of a religion having a m assive effect on life, not only that, but in my opinion god being a designer is flawed, so not only does it stop other ideas being taught, but it replaces them with flawed ones.

each is a theory. and neither should be blocked, but i suppose the question of where to draw the line is important. afterall, there's the flying spaghetti monster theory, and don't forget those scientologists. i suppose the more popular in the school district should be taught, with special attention be paid to the idea that no one knows exactly where we came from.

>
>it seems to me that jesus is automatically assumed to be the pinnacle of morality, him being the son of god and all. however, i do not think he is actually all that great. a couple of examples being the 1.cursing of the fig tree - jesus wants some figs and goes to a fig tree, however it is not the season for figs so there aren't any. jesus curses the fig tree so it never bares figs again.

I'm unfamiliar with this story. But, again, i'm sure there are many interpretations regarding the tale.

i think the most important are the writings of Paul or John, i forget which, the one who stated the only commandment that really needs to be followed, because it encompasses all others, is to love thy brothers.

>also 2. jesus damns many people to eternal hellfire and 'nashing of teeth'. when the greek philosophers or even those who believed in zeus came across oppostition they took it, thought about it, and either argued a bit or agreed to disagree. this to me has a lot more morality in it than 'either you agree with my rules or you will be damned for all eternity'.

here i have absolutely no idea what you're talking about and am afraid you may have picked this up in a Marvel comic book.

>
>and finding a present day bible geek to take up the arguement is part of my point, there are no arguements about it any more, this means that people accept their views, when possibly thier views are false.

like i've stated, his existance is, at a deep level, unimportant to most people. He is a symbol of all things good and dandy in the world and that alone is enough for most.

>
>maybeitwillwork - the problem is that it is not a free world, for example the intelligent design/evolutionary theory debate as i mentioned vaguely above.
>
>solo - omnibenevolence is exactly what you mentioned without knowing it - 'god is love'. i.e. god loves humanity and loves humans.
>your point about 'god defeated satan 2000 years ago' interests me. it made me think for a second. however, if satan was really 'defeated' 2000 years ago, why is there evil in the world now, and why are heathens like me having this discussion? you must admit that in the future, everyone will follow christianity, no-one will follow christianity, or we will be struggling between the two just as we are now? that is the point i was making about the future.

Evil is a product of the flesh, good is a product of the soul. Carnal desires vs. spiritualness. i think at some level, christianity will never really go away. plato preached much of the same ideas as christianity. so whether christ is forgotten, and the stories all burn, some people will always follow the message that the most important thing in the world is love and caring for your fellow man.


>i agree god cannot be truly defined, i do however think that by the definition let in the bible, and the fact it is understood and agreed upon by most theologians, god is omnipotent, omniscient and omnibenevolent &c.
>where did i ever mention fate? this is not about discussing fate. i have many ideas of my own about fate, but that is not apparent here. i mean to say that god knows what will happen in the future, does he not? as he is all knowing and all powerful. i do not mean to say that it is set in stone, only that god knows everything that will happen, that is close to fate, but it is not nearly the same thing.

You mention fate when you bring men into the discussion on God, and conclude that, if he exists, life is meaningless.

>i think the fact most people have made up their minds already is a perfect reason for why these arguements are important and totally not pointless. people have already made up their minds, without looking at all the facts, and without being able to have a debate about what people think when their ideas come under scrutiny. even if i one day agree with the idea of a god, it is still important to question it, otherwise we might all choke on blind faith.

you will much sooner choke on pure reason.

>
>my conclusion is the life is only pointless is you believe in a god who is omnibenevolent, omniscient &c. &c. for a non believer it opens up a whole new idea that it is possible to make life here and now into eutopia, and not rely on a god, or on a heaven, it is the future of this world that matters, not the next.

i'll toast to that.




 
ifihadahif Posted: Fri Mar 24 15:55:25 2006 Post | Quote in Reply  
  C'mon Beep, ya gotta do better !
Asswipe has trounced you much like the dinosaur on the caveman in that new Fedex commercial.


 
Beep Posted: Fri Mar 24 17:25:04 2006 Post | Quote in Reply  
  Asswipe said:
>each is a theory. and neither should be blocked, but i suppose the question of where to draw the line is important. afterall, there's the flying spaghetti monster theory, and don't forget those scientologists. i suppose the more popular in the school district should be taught, with special attention be paid to the idea that no one knows exactly where we came from.

indeed each is a theory, but it doesn't make each of them correct, you have to question them and when you fail to answer one of these question you conclude that your theory is incorrect. evolution hasn't been proven wrong yet, whereas intelligent design has.

>here i have absolutely no idea what you're talking about and am afraid you may have picked this up in a Marvel comic book.

i think you talk bollocks. i'm talking about followers of other religions not damning those who don't agree with them to eternal pain. this i feel is more moral than jesus' teachings. i am disagreeing with the idea that jesus is the pinnacle of morality, or that we should get our moral ideas from him.
the fig tree is 'mark 11:13-14':

And seeing a fig tree afar off having leaves, he came, if haply he might find any thing thereon: and when he came to it, he found nothing but leaves; for the time of figs was not [yet].
And Jesus answered and said unto it, No man eat fruit of thee hereafter for ever. And his disciples heard [it].
he curses a fig tree for no good reason and kills it [later on in the book they come back to the tree and it is withered]

>like i've stated, his existance is, at a deep level, unimportant to most people. He is a symbol of all things good and dandy in the world and that alone is enough for most.

the existence of god is unimportant to most religious people? this is where i can't agree with you. you're main arguement is that people don't care if god exists or not, but to me this is a bogus arguement.

>Evil is a product of the flesh, good is a product of the soul. Carnal desires vs. spiritualness. i think at some level, christianity will never really go away. plato preached much of the same ideas as christianity. so whether christ is forgotten, and the stories all burn, some people will always follow the message that the most important thing in the world is love and caring for your fellow man.

you have totally missed my point. either, carnal desires will be conquered and good will reign, or good will fail and carnal desires will reign, or we will stay as we are now. these 3 outcomes are not satisfying [refer back to my original arguement]

>
You mention fate when you bring men into the discussion on God, and conclude that, if he exists, life is meaningless.

i never mention fate, and i do conclude that if he exists life is meaningless, this is not fate, this is logical reasoning. put aside playing devils (or gods) advocate, put aside your hate of reason for a second and actually argue against my point instead of sidestepping it. can you logically find a fault with my arguement? if not then we must conclude that god does not exist.
>
you will much sooner choke on pure reason.
>
i would rather choke and die from pure reason than live in a world full of hypocrites and blind theologians.

hif, i would argue that asswipe has not had a proper arguement against anything i have said. meh.

my main reason against the belief in god is that we don't need him. rather, we are better off without him, and all he is doing is holding our morality back, rather than guiding us.


 
Beep Posted: Fri Mar 24 17:48:31 2006 Post | Quote in Reply  
  Hokay, So.

a religion is founded upon the teachings of a bein named brian. brian lives on top of a mountain. brian teaches lots of commandments and solves a fair few problems, however, creates a couple too.
one day a man climbs to the mountain and finds that there is no brian.
brian does not exist. the proof is unequivocal. anyone who still believes in brian is a fool.
however, this is not the same as saying anyone who still follows rules laid out by brian is a fool. merely belief in brian.
in this way i'm saying if you prove that god does not exist then religion falls and cannot be believed. however, i do not disagree with statements such as, love your brother as yourself, this i agree is an honorable statement.


 
ifihadahif Posted: Fri Mar 24 17:56:21 2006 Post | Quote in Reply  
  Beep said:

>i would rather choke and die from pure reason than live in a world full of hypocrites and blind theologians.
>
Ah, but you do live in a world full of hypocrites and blind theologians, and no matter who wins this debate, it will always be so.

>hif, i would argue that asswipe has not had a proper arguement against anything i have said. meh.
>
>my main reason against the belief in god is that we don't need him. rather, we are better off without him, and all he is doing is holding our morality back, rather than guiding us.
>
Really ?
Maybe you should go back and check your history. What do you think was the inspiration for almost all of man's great accomplishments ? Art, architecture, music . . .etc.
How bout man's most recent experience with a godless society ? CCCP ? Where did they get their moral standards ?
Without religion, where does man get his moral compass ? Who decides what is right or wrong ? Do you think it just comes to us naturally ?
Man has always demonstrated a need to worship, and you ain't gonna change that with your little argument here.


 
Beep Posted: Fri Mar 24 18:17:08 2006 Post | Quote in Reply  
  ifihadahif said:

>Ah, but you do live in a world full of hypocrites and blind theologians, and no matter who wins this debate, it will always be so.

not if i get my way :P

>Really ?
>Maybe you should go back and check your history. What do you think was the inspiration for almost all of man's great accomplishments ? Art, architecture, music . . .etc.
>How bout man's most recent experience with a godless society ? CCCP ? Where did they get their moral standards ?
>Without religion, where does man get his moral compass ? Who decides what is right or wrong ? Do you think it just comes to us naturally ?
>Man has always demonstrated a need to worship, and you ain't gonna change that with your little argument here.

i have never heard of the cccp, so i'm not sure what you mean. google gave me The Cambridge Conference on Contemporary Poetry weekend, and i don't think that's what you meant :)

we can check our history together :P. at times of highest rates of religion, did we live in a more moral society? no, we got the crusades, we got burning witches at the stake, we got the inquisition, today religion causes suicide bombers. even if religion did cause some advances that is no reason to keep it going today. would art and music have evolved without religion? i think it most definatley would. would we have had the inquisition? most likely not.
the person who discovered that rainbows were not divine blessings, but caused by refraction of light through water was excommunicated. and i might add excommunication was a huge deal in those days.
man has needed worship in the past, perhaps he will not in the future, that is not my point at all. i am not against worship, you could argue people worship science or logic. i am against worshiping something that is incorrect and that is detremental to our existence.
man does make his own sense of morality, and we do not need a god to give it us, many people do not believe, but they are not immoral.
if you will forgive my logical reasoning i will attempt to prove that man makes his own morality:

take the sentance 'puppies are young dogs'. this will seem to you perfectly true and perfectly self explanatory. however, without the word 'young' you cannot have the word 'puppies', as puppies are young dogs. therefore we must have a knowledge of young without puppy.
now take the sentence 'god is moral' by the same logic we have a sense of 'morality' seperate to a sense of god. in order to say god is moral we must already have a sense of morality. it is incorrect, therefore, to say that god gives us our sense of morality.

also, i would like to add, that if at any point anyone proves me wrong to my satisfaction, not only will i accept that i am wrong, i will be happy that my understanding and knowledge has been widened. this is another difference between logic and religion.


 
DanSRose Posted: Fri Mar 24 19:42:55 2006 Post | Quote in Reply  
  Asswipe said:
>I meant this as a joke and to say, with a bit of humor towards the jews, that i wasn't referring to the jews or their beliefs in any of my posts. my above thoughts were directed primarily towards christianity. quite frankly, i'm jewish but non-practicing, so i can get away with jewish jokes as every jewish person in my family are cynical, athiest bastards. i commend you on zeroing in on one of the few parts of my posts that i didn't actually regard with much thought. sorry if i did offend, but understand that it was more of a personal joke on my own family than on jews at large. even though i do think, at their bases, christianity is far more evolved. but there are probably newage jewish groups which practice the same beliefs as every other bloody religion out there, ones which i don't know about. *shrug*


So what you're saying is that you are a non-practicing Jew, with little understanding of the modern movements, so therefore modern Judaism is less evolved.
Which is a load of bull.

Also, if you are a non-practicing Jew, you lose your 'Jewish self-humor' card. You are still seen as a Jew, but you lose your 'Knowing what you're talking about' card.

Modern Judaism, via Wikipedia
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Judaism
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chabad
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conservative_Judaism
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orthodox_Judaism
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hasidic_Judaism
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reform_Judaism
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reconstructionist_Judaism
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Who_is_a_Jew%3F

I practice as a Reconstructist, leaning toward, at times, modern Conservative.

You know what the biggest difference between Judaism and Christianity is? It's the lack of buracracy. To get close to God as a Christian, you need a medium, whether it be the Host, the Pope, a congregation, a minister, the Church, a church, a Great Symbol.
You know what you need to pray as a Jew? 10 people- a minyan.
Another popular question, which seems relevant here, is the idea of keeping Kosher. It's not simply a way to be "different"- this isn't high school with the goths and the jocks and the cheerleaders and the newspaper people and the stoners. The idea of Kosher is staying holy though the mundane, that by doing the everyday occurance as it were something than just Eating, it becomes More. There is a prayer for everything just for that- to make life in all its intricacies Holy.

It was explained to as this:
"For the Western World, what is beautiful is holy. For the Jew, what is holy is beautiful."


 
FN Posted: Fri Mar 24 20:22:27 2006 Post | Quote in Reply  
  I'm not going to get into this due to lack of time but I highly doubt one needs religion to have a successful society, quite the contrary (even though exceptions are always found, ofcourse).

Look at what is happening in the US for example with euthanasia, abortion, creationism, etc.

Or in other religious societies like Afghanistan where you can get murdered by the state for being a converted muslim, it seems.

And what has islam brought us all lately?


 
maybeitwillwork Posted: Fri Mar 24 20:39:59 2006 Post | Quote in Reply  
  Christophe said:

>And what has islam brought us all lately?

In the words of Sartre, "Terrorism is the atomic bomb of the poor".

I think that works well as my response.

Oh by the way I think that lately religion, seems only to the decay of society as a whole.


 
maybeitwillwork Posted: Fri Mar 24 20:56:13 2006 Post | Quote in Reply  
  Here I'll sum up how the debate if god exists will go for the most part.

God exists.
Atheist's counterargument
Yes he does.
Atheist's counterargument
Yes he does!
Atheist's counterargument
YES HE DOES!!!
Atheist gives up and goes home.
God exists, glad you agree.

The debate will also be filled with countless utterly trivia questions. That have no clear answer.

I think that's over simplified but I think it sums up the general idea well.

So I must ask why you all continue this. I'm sure that you all had the debate with someone before.


 
SntSaturn Posted: Fri Mar 24 21:29:15 2006 Post | Quote in Reply  
  A believer won't or shouldn't ever change their mind based on logic. "If there were proof, it wouldn't be called faith." I've heard that so many times in church.


 
Kira Posted: Fri Mar 24 23:00:59 2006 Post | Quote in Reply  
  maybeitwillwork said:
>
>So I must ask why you all continue this. I'm sure that you all had the debate with someone before.


Perhaps you would prefer we enter a serious discussion on the more fruitful subject of snakes on planes.


 
DanSRose Posted: Fri Mar 24 23:50:21 2006 Post | Quote in Reply  
  Damn straight.

You know what the difference between this thread and the Snakes on a Plane thread? One of them discussed something that mattered to millions of people around the world, something that changed the face of world, something that you can discuss intelligently, whether or not you've heard of it or know anything about or can know what you're talking about, something wonderful and beautiful.
And then one of them discussed God. Poorly.


 
HSolo216 Posted: Sat Mar 25 00:02:09 2006 Post | Quote in Reply  
  Beep said:
>
>indeed each is a theory, but it doesn't make each of them correct, you have to question them and when you fail to answer one of these question you conclude that your theory is incorrect. evolution hasn't been proven wrong yet, whereas intelligent design has.
>

Not only have I never heard of this proof, but I cannot imagine any way that you could prove intelligent design to be incorrect. Along those same lines, evolution cannot be proven incorrect because it cannot be tested. I have seen scientific evidence that indicates that the earth is thousands rather than millions of years old. There are also scientists who say the earth is millions of years old. But to allow one theory to be taught and the other to be criticized as religious fanaticism doesn't serve the scientific community very well in the search for the truth.

>
i am disagreeing with the idea that jesus is the pinnacle of morality, or that we should get our moral ideas from him.
>the fig tree is 'mark 11:13-14':
>
>And seeing a fig tree afar off having leaves, he came, if haply he might find any thing thereon: and when he came to it, he found nothing but leaves; for the time of figs was not [yet].
>And Jesus answered and said unto it, No man eat fruit of thee hereafter for ever. And his disciples heard [it].
>he curses a fig tree for no good reason and kills it [later on in the book they come back to the tree and it is withered]
>


Mark 11:20-25 NIV

In the morning, as they went along, they saw the fig tree withered from the roots. Peter remembered and said to Jesus, "Rabbi, look! The fig tree you cursed has withered!"
"Have faith in God," Jesus answered. "I tell you the truth, if anyone says to this mountain, 'Go, throw yourself into the sea,' and does not doubt in his heart but believes that what he says will happen, it will be done for him. Therefore I tell you, whatever you ask for in prayer, believe that you have received it, and it will be yours. And when you stand praying, if you hold anything against anyone, forgive him, so that your Father in heaven may forgive you your sins."

The entire story was for the purpose of teaching about the power of prayer. The fig tree was not cursed because it wasn't following God's rules but because it was unfruitful.


>however, if satan was really 'defeated' 2000 years ago, why is there evil in the world now, and why are heathens like me having this discussion? you must admit that in the future, everyone will follow christianity, no-one will follow christianity, or we will be struggling between the two just as we are now?
>

When Satan was defeated he was kicked out of heaven. However, he still has influence in this world. He has this influence because God allows it. If there was no evil in the world, there would be no need for heaven. Satan tries to pull as many people into hell with him as he can. Defeated does not mean dead.


>you have totally missed my point. either, carnal desires will be conquered and good will reign, or good will fail and carnal desires will reign, or we will stay as we are now. these 3 outcomes are not satisfying [refer back to my original arguement]
>
>my conclusion is the life is only pointless is you believe in a god who is omnibenevolent, omniscient &c. &c. for a non believer it opens up a whole new idea that it is possible to make life here and now into eutopia, and not rely on a god, or on a heaven, it is the future of this world that matters, not the next.
>

If you truly believe that in the future human beings will be able to create a utopia you have much more faith than I have given you credit for. Where there are people there will be sin and evil. It is impossible for a human to be perfect. So if a utopia exists, humans will not be allowed. From the Christian viewpoint, believers will recieve new bodies at the Second Coming of Christ. This is how we will be able to enter heaven and how others will be able to burn forever without dying.

Life is not pointless if you are a believer because God has told us how to live. If Christianity was about getting to heaven then once a Christian, life is over. However, being a Christian is about dying to self and following the will of God. This can only be done through faith and love.

>now take the sentence 'god is moral' by the same logic we have a sense of 'morality' seperate to a sense of god. in order to say god is moral we must already have a sense of morality. it is incorrect, therefore, to say that god gives us our sense of morality.
>

It is tricky to deal with God in this way because of our inability to understand Him. I agree that we must have a sense of morality outside of our sense of God to make that statement. I do not know anyone who makes that statement though. It is definitely not Biblical. God is above morals. If you can find a 'God must be nice' verse let me know. We get our sense of morality from God because he created us and everything around us.


>also, i would like to add, that if at any point anyone proves me wrong to my satisfaction, not only will i accept that i am wrong, i will be happy that my understanding and knowledge has been widened. this is another difference between logic and religion.
>


I would disagree. If I get into a logical argument and am proved wrong, while a little disappointed about being proved wrong, I am glad that I learned something. The same is true for religion. If a Christian friend and I are arguing over religious ideas and I get proved wrong I am glad to have learned more about my faith. If a person is proved wrong by a person of a different religion and converts I would assume that they would also be glad for the correction. It is simply harder to prove someone wrong to their satisfaction when discussing any kind of personal belief (religion, politics, etc.).


 
Mesh Posted: Sat Mar 25 00:41:35 2006 Post | Quote in Reply  
  DanSRose said:
>Damn straight.
>
>hilarity


I <3 you DanSRose.


 
Asswipe Posted: Sat Mar 25 03:19:42 2006 Post | Quote in Reply  
  DanSRose said:

>You know what the biggest difference between Judaism and Christianity is? It's the lack of buracracy. To get close to God as a Christian, you need a medium, whether it be the Host, the Pope, a congregation, a minister, the Church, a church, a Great Symbol.
>You know what you need to pray as a Jew? 10 people- a minyan.
>Another popular question, which seems relevant here, is the idea of keeping Kosher. It's not simply a way to be "different"- this isn't high school with the goths and the jocks and the cheerleaders and the newspaper people and the stoners. The idea of Kosher is staying holy though the mundane, that by doing the everyday occurance as it were something than just Eating, it becomes More. There is a prayer for everything just for that- to make life in all its intricacies Holy.
>
>It was explained to as this:
>"For the Western World, what is beautiful is holy. For the Jew, what is holy is beautiful."


*pushes dan off of his jewish-high horse and runs away laughing.*


 
HSolo216 Posted: Sat Mar 25 03:47:27 2006 Post | Quote in Reply  
  DanSRose said:
>You know what the biggest difference between Judaism and Christianity is? It's the lack of buracracy. To get close to God as a Christian, you need a medium, whether it be the Host, the Pope, a congregation, a minister, the Church, a church, a Great Symbol.
>You know what you need to pray as a Jew? 10 people- a minyan.
>

Christianity is very broad and there are many denominations. Personally, I go to a non-denominational Christian church. To get close to God all that is required is that we talk to him. He speaks to us through the Bible and the Holy Spirit. We are to pray without ceasing and can pray anytime and anywhere. There are no limits to God's ability to hear or speak to us. He is omniscient, omnipotent, and omnipresent.


 
Asswipe Posted: Sat Mar 25 03:48:56 2006 Post | Quote in Reply  
  Beep said:
>
>indeed each is a theory, but it doesn't make each of them correct, you have to question them and when you fail to answer one of these question you conclude that your theory is incorrect. evolution hasn't been proven wrong yet, whereas intelligent design has.

As mr. hsolo has already told us, intelligent design has not been "proven wrong" just yet. and hell, you know what those scientologists believe? that shit'll have you spinning.

>
>i think you talk bollocks. i'm talking about followers of other religions not damning those who don't agree with them to eternal pain. this i feel is more moral than jesus' teachings. i am disagreeing with the idea that jesus is the pinnacle of morality, or that we should get our moral ideas from him.

Please specify what story this is so i can investigate further. Searching for Jesus and the Greeks on google only led me to an interesting article on the similarities between Jesus and Socrates. Do ya smell any irony, mr. philosopher?

>the fig tree is 'mark 11:13-14':
>
>And seeing a fig tree afar off having leaves, he came, if haply he might find any thing thereon: and when he came to it, he found nothing but leaves; for the time of figs was not [yet].
>And Jesus answered and said unto it, No man eat fruit of thee hereafter for ever. And his disciples heard [it].
>he curses a fig tree for no good reason and kills it [later on in the book they come back to the tree and it is withered]

this story i did search for on google and easily found 2-3 websites analyzing the story. Solo man already offered up one interpretation which justifies the teaching, but there are about 4-5 others out there which i found in under 15 minutes.

>
>>like i've stated, his existance is, at a deep level, unimportant to most people. He is a symbol of all things good and dandy in the world and that alone is enough for most.
>
>the existence of god is unimportant to most religious people? this is where i can't agree with you. you're main arguement is that people don't care if god exists or not, but to me this is a bogus arguement.

Let me clarify to you what i was thinking. Whether he exists or not, the benefit of religion is still there. This is what I was trying to get at. Take, for instance, prayer. Now, what good is prayer if no god exists?? If these people send messages out and no one receives them, then, well, wasted message, right? No. What happens, in this case, is it focuses this person's brain on what matters to them, and helps them prioritize their life. Little sally prays for good grades in school. Then she prays for her sick uncle. Then, whatever, but it's asking yourself on a regular basis what you want more than anything. Basically, keeps you in check, regardless if the big man's there or not.

Now, I don't pray, but hell, after what I just wrote, i probably should.

Religion helps in other areas as well, so whether god is there or not, the results are good.

And if you ask what about the bad, what about evil committed in God's name? Well, i'll tell you that God's name is being used in rhetoric, with other hidden motives. Mostly power/greed/etc. Here, god and religion are not to blame, but corruption is.

but how do we get the people to question and see through the corruption? that's a good question. hell, i don't know, not being an idiot, i guess.


>
>i never mention fate, and i do conclude that if he exists life is meaningless, this is not fate, this is logical reasoning. can you logically find a fault with my arguement? if not then we must conclude that god does not exist.

fate, destiny, only one possible course of action. You listed three, but acknowledged that only one course would be possible, one of three. God, however, would know the end result, as he's smarter than you. So if God knows the result, there is only one result, meaning there is only one path, and we have fate. So, walah, fate AND logical reasoning. But, hell, maybe we've two different definitions of fate as well. Words are funny like that.

Note: i don't remember why I brought fate up in the first place, but I just wanted to show you how it relates. Not that it matters much.

>>
>you will much sooner choke on pure reason.
>>
>i would rather choke and die from pure reason than live in a world full of hypocrites and blind theologians.

oh, mighty master of the melodrama, please take a seat.

>
>hif, i would argue that asswipe has not had a proper arguement against anything i have said. meh.

I'm sorry. G > B, B, ~R, F > U, ~I, therefore: Who gives a fuck?

>
>my main reason against the belief in god is that we don't need him. rather, we are better off without him, and all he is doing is holding our morality back, rather than guiding us.

Maybe you're right. Maybe the people of religious power use the blissful words to hurt more than it helps. I don't know what it has harmed, and I don't know what it has helped. I know it has done both, and I especially like the pretty Bible's pictures and, to be honest, it is the greatest piece of literature ever written. So that means something. This ain't an argument. I don't know what sort of world you envision without the churches and the temples and the mosques and the voodoo doll shack i have in my backyard. Do you?


 
FN Posted: Sat Mar 25 06:29:38 2006 Post | Quote in Reply  
  Scientology has made the guy who's the voice of chef in southpark quit because southpark made fun of his religion.

So they made an episode where chef turns out to be a pedophile and they use his voice from other episodes (but in a way that it is very noticeable what's going on). Very funny

You can get the episode here:

http://rapidshare.de/files/16192750/SPEpisode1001_-_The_Return_of_Chef_-_irc.tveps.net.rm.html

Just click on "free", then wait for the 30 minute delay counter to count down, and then you can click the download link.


 
FN Posted: Sat Mar 25 06:31:29 2006 Post | Quote in Reply  
  HSolo216 said:
>He speaks to us through the Bible and the Holy Spirit. We are to pray without ceasing and can pray anytime and anywhere. There are no limits to God's ability to hear or speak to us. He is omniscient, omnipotent, and omnipresent.

Seriously man, what are you saying.

It freaks me out that there are people like you around.


 
addi Posted: Sat Mar 25 07:36:07 2006 Post | Quote in Reply  
  Christophe said:

>It freaks me out that there are people like you around.

: )
You make me smile when you get indignant, Christophe.

Here's an interesting link regarding the faith of comic book Superheros...

http://www.adherents.com/lit/comics/comic_book_religion.html

It seems my past church affiliation, the Episcopalians, were well represented.





 
HSolo216 Posted: Sat Mar 25 07:46:07 2006 Post | Quote in Reply  
  Christophe, I assume that what freaks you out is the complete confidence I have that I am correct and the willingness to tell others about my beliefs. But in previous posts you have been just as confident on just about every topic. I have come to respect you as an intelligent person that has given deep thought to many issues, but I have never known you to be extremely open-minded. Your views on religion are probably just as deeply planted as mine.

I guess it all comes down to the fact that the religious environment is gonna be different in Belgium than it is in Texas.

Please let me know if it was something completely different that freaked you out.





 
addi Posted: Sat Mar 25 08:08:23 2006 Post | Quote in Reply  
  HSolo216 said:

>Please let me know if it was something completely different that freaked you out.


Such a reserved and respectful response, HSolo. Very mature of you. Had he directed that at me I would have gotten angry, then hurt, then a little sleepy, then horny, then angry again.



And sooner or later everyone here posts something that freaks out Chris. Welcome to the club.

: )


 
ifihadahif Posted: Sat Mar 25 08:26:30 2006 Post | Quote in Reply  
  Beep said:

i have never heard of the cccp, so i'm not sure what you mean. google gave me The Cambridge Conference on Contemporary Poetry weekend, and i don't think that's what you meant :)
>
No, that's not what I meant.
What the fuck are they teaching in schools these days.
Try Wikipedia.
This is fucking hilarious, does anyone here know ?
Here's a hint: Union of Soviet Socialists Republic.


 
addi Posted: Sat Mar 25 08:39:02 2006 Post | Quote in Reply  
  ifihadahif said:

>Here's a hint: Union of Soviet Socialists Republic.

I think the young'uns are probably more use to hearing it as the U.S.S.R., hif.

We're just too old school.
: )


 
FN Posted: Sat Mar 25 09:13:52 2006 Post | Quote in Reply  
  HSolo216 said:
>Please let me know if it was something completely different that freaked you out.

No, it was exactly that.

I still had my doubts that it might have been a tongue-in-cheek thing.

But now it seems that it wasn't.

I'm smiling in shocked disbelief, seriously.



I don't recall ever taking people on on the fact that they're agnostic, or religious with in the back of their head the idea that they might just be talking to an empty sky, but having a little speech like you did earlier about how "he speaks to us" and what not brings me to the brink me crapping my pants out of pure affront of everything that has to do with


Seriously, and then people call me arrogant sometimes for saying something they don't agree with even though I'm backing it up, but any lunatic with a bible, koran or whatever in hand can spew this vile and icky mumbojumbo as an absolute certainty and then it would be weird for me to call them on the bullshit?



And the very fact that you yourself claim that the religious climate here is probably different here than there, doesn't that ring any bells for you as to thinking about how you might have been forced or at least pushed into believing something because it's the thing to do?


 
DanSRose Posted: Sat Mar 25 09:14:23 2006 Post | Quote in Reply  
  HSolo216 said:
>Christianity is very broad and there are many denominations. Personally, I go to a non-denominational Christian church. [and continues to explain a rarity in the broad field of Christianity, a diamond in the rough, a snake on a plane, if you will]

I've been to a nondemoninational service and loved it, except the Jesus parts (another time, another explaination). I think it is truly what religion should be- open, excepting, and if an outsider comes to visit, it doesn't happen to be on a "The Jews are bad" day. It makes a visitor squirm even if they aren't of that faith. (that's what happened last weekend at a friend's church- the pastor, who always seems like a nice man, read the portion John [i believe it's John] where Jesus kicks the moneychangers out of the Temple and it goes on a diatribe against the Jews. You get used it after a while)

Chef was killed by falling off a cliff while on fire, falling on the rocks and crags, landing and being attacked by a mountain lion, then a bear, then a mountain lion and bear, all being shot by a group of pedophiles who are trying to shoo the mountain lion and bear away. There is a face riping off and a final "movement", if you will, to declare Chef dead. Kyle makes a great eulogy saying we should remember the good Chef, and the events of the past week (it takes about 3 days to make an episode South Park). Then the pedophiles bring Chef back from the dead as Darth Chef, which was pretty cool to see.


>Had he directed that at me I would have gotten angry, then hurt, then a little sleepy, then horny, then angry again.

Yeah, I've noticed that. I've also noticed that it usual lingers on step 4 for a little while.

And there's no excuse for not knowing what CCCP means. All my elementary/middle school had pictures of Soveit propaganda. Also, when you read things and look at old propaganda posters, who learn crap



Also, I just read this, 1st article
http://www.imdb.com/news/wenn/2006-03-24/
An R rating and this line:
"I want these motherf**king snakes off the motherf**king plane!"


 
FN Posted: Sat Mar 25 09:17:32 2006 Post | Quote in Reply  
  Christophe said:
>brings me to the brink of crapping my pants out of pure frustration caused by the affront you just uttered to everything that has to do with the last 500 years of... just about anything that needs more than a book written by an arab to be backed up.


That was what it was supposed to be, but apparantly things got screwed while posting


 
FN Posted: Sat Mar 25 09:19:16 2006 Post | Quote in Reply  
  DanSRose said:
>Chef was killed by falling off a cliff while on fire, falling on the rocks and crags, landing and being attacked by a mountain lion, then a bear, then a mountain lion and bear, all being shot by a group of pedophiles who are trying to shoo the mountain lion and bear away. There is a face riping off and a final "movement", if you will, to declare Chef dead. Kyle makes a great eulogy saying we should remember the good Chef, and the events of the past week (it takes about 3 days to make an episode South Park). Then the pedophiles bring Chef back from the dead as Darth Chef, which was pretty cool to see.

Yeah, you can download it from the link I posted a few posts above this one


 
DanSRose Posted: Sat Mar 25 10:03:08 2006 Post | Quote in Reply  
  I know you did, thank you for that, but some people are lazy.


 
addi Posted: Sat Mar 25 11:38:45 2006 Post | Quote in Reply  
  Christophe said:

>Seriously, and then people call me arrogant sometimes for saying something they don't agree with even though I'm backing it up, but any lunatic with a bible, koran or whatever in hand can spew this vile and icky mumbojumbo as an absolute certainty and then it would be weird for me to call them on the bullshit?

You know where I stand on my religious beliefs, Christophe. We're probably pretty similar in that department. But (there's always a "but" with me), the point above works both ways. The first thing you fail to comprehend is that your "backing it up" arguements aren't solid facts. In most cases it boils down to backing up your personal beliefs with nothing more than opinions...especially on topics like faith and God. I'm not saying your wrong, what I'm saying is your arguements against religion are made up of your personal beliefs and not "facts". What's "truth" to one person is "bullshit" to you. That's all well and good, but turning your opinions into facts, just because you believe them to be true can't be done.

By the same token, I can't tell you that your feelings on Christians, Muslims, and Jews is all bullshit just because I believe I have "facts" that prove me right and you wrong. We can say what we believe, back it up with reason and logic as best we can, and that's about it.

If HSolo says 2 + 2 = 5, then you can cry "Bullshit", and back it up with the irrefutible evidence to the contrary within the rules we have layed down for mathematical principles. But when he says, "He speaks to us through the Bible and the Holy Spirit" the only thing you have the right to do is state why you doubt that by expressing your opinions to the contrary.

The arrogant accusations that you may get from people aren't due to expressing your thoughtful opinions here (I'm sure most people here think you're fairly intelligent). It's because you sometimes turn your opinions into facts, and use your life experience to back up that belief as some kind of irrefutible proof that you are correct beyond a shadow of a doubt, and anyone differing from your point of view is full of bullshit.

Personally, I believe you are a very bright and intelligent person, especially in light of your age. You do not, however, grasp the certain truth in all matters of life yet, especially on matters of faith and religion.

Perhaps you will attain that knowledge by next year : )


 
Beep Posted: Sat Mar 25 12:11:51 2006 Post | Quote in Reply  
  heh, a lot has been said in my absence. thank 'god' GT does not stay on topic or there would be just too much to argue against :P

Saturn-that's the point. there is 'no good reason' apparently for a religious person to change their view, which makes it insane, i'm surprised there's enough room for jesus and your head in your anal cavity. [perhaps i stepped over the line in that last sentence...]

the point of the parable of the fig tree is that it is unfruitful because it is not the season for figs. jesus is getting pissy with the tree because it follows god's own rules? hmm. but aside from that that's not the only reason not to disagree with jesus. the whole damnation to hellfire is more than enough for me to believe he isn't totally moral. anyone who believes in that, in my opinion leaves something to be desired.

>When Satan was defeated he was kicked out of heaven. However, he still has influence in this world. He has this influence because God allows it.

why would god allow it? it doesn't make any sense to me? to test us? surely god doesn't need the devil to know which of us is good or bad, he might as well just take the earth step out completely and go straight to creation to damning us.

>Where there are people there will be sin and evil. It is impossible for a human to be perfect.

i disagree, i think that's another problem with religion. there's so much emphasis on how crappy us humans are. personally i think we're a lot better than we give ourselves credit for, and every day i look around and the world puts a smile on my face.
you must admit that in the future, either everyone will be good, bad, or the same as it is now? i don't see how there can be a 4th option? so either life is pointless or there is no god. i still don't see how that is a flawed idea.

>It is tricky to deal with God in this way because of our inability to understand Him. I agree that we must have a sense of morality outside of our sense of God to make that statement. I do not know anyone who makes that statement though.

that's the point of religion? God is the being that tells us what is right and wrong, if we disagree with gods teachings then we are immoral or wrong. that's what i mean by we don't need god. there is no need for a god, and i believe more evidence to say there isn't one.

>I would disagree. If I get into a logical argument and am proved wrong, while a little disappointed about being proved wrong, I am glad that I learned something.

fair enough, i think i agree with you in this case then. however, in most cases religious people i have met are not nearly so understanding.

>Whether he exists or not, the benefit of religion is still there.

I am not disagreeing with some of the benefits of religion, but we do not need a religion in order to have these benefits.

>Take, for instance, prayer. Now, what good is prayer if no god exists?? If these people send messages out and no one receives them, then, well, wasted message, right? No. What happens, in this case, is it focuses this person's brain on what matters to them, and helps them prioritize their life.

but, me, without prayer has a prioritized life. you yourself say you don't pray, would you say you don't know what matters to you? or that you were unprioritized? i think not. the problem with religion though, is that you must take the whole package, you can't just pick and choose the bits that work. if you do pick and choose the bits that work then i would say you don't belong properly to that religion.
heh, i would say i am a christian. just without the belief in church, god or jesus :P

>So if God knows the result, there is only one result, meaning there is only one path, and we have fate.

i disagree that this is fate, having only one route possible is not the same as having no choice in the matter. the choices we make are the choices we would make anyway, with or without the choice. fate, in my opinion atleast, does not mean this. fate to me is that existence is set in stone. the idea of one path is related to this, but is not the same thing in my opinion.

>oh, mighty master of the melodrama, please take a seat.

:P i resent that.

>Who gives a fuck?
me. to name one. if you don't then you can very easily leave.

>I don't know what sort of world you envision without the churches and the temples and the mosques and the voodoo doll shack i have in my backyard. Do you?

A world where people are judged by their thoughts and not by what god the prescribe to.

Chinese communist party? meh, one mistake doesn't take out a theory, otherwise priests fiddling with altar boys would destroy the church.

>I've been to a nondemoninational service and loved it, except the Jesus parts (another time, another explaination). I think it is truly what religion should be- open, excepting,

the thing for me is though, that a lot of the time, people enjoy these sorts of things a lot, but it clouds the fact that when it comes down to it, it's a religion. a set of beliefs. there are lots of people who say to me stuff like 'but if it weren't for christianity there wouldn't be school A, and fund raising for project B'. however, if there was another religion,who had the best schools, and raised lots and lots of money for needy kids, but part of the religion was that, on the second sunday of the month you have to shoot people with blonde hair, you would not accept this teaching,just because of the good schools, or community benefits.

meh.
besides whether it is important or not, does anyone have any objections to the arguement for the existence of god?


 
ifihadahif Posted: Sat Mar 25 15:09:12 2006 Post | Quote in Reply  
  Yeah, if there is no god, then where did all this stuff come from ?


 
addi Posted: Sat Mar 25 16:06:33 2006 Post | Quote in Reply  
  ifihadahif said:
>Yeah, if there is no god, then where did all this stuff come from ?

Sears


 
maybeitwillwork Posted: Sat Mar 25 16:50:52 2006 Post | Quote in Reply  
  addi said:
>ifihadahif said:
>>Yeah, if there is no god, then where did all this stuff come from ?
>
>Sears

It couldn't have come from Sears. Isn't it obvious that it came from Kmart.


 
ifihadahif Posted: Sat Mar 25 18:30:22 2006 Post | Quote in Reply  
  addi said:
>ifihadahif said:
>>Yeah, if there is no god, then where did all this stuff come from ?
>
>Sears
>
That's Sears & Roebuck to you Yankee.


 
DanSRose Posted: Sat Mar 25 18:31:07 2006 Post | Quote in Reply  
  Depends on the thing/place/lifeform.
Some of it came from IKEA, some from Walmart, a bit from Harrods and Lord and Taylor. What confuses me is where the stuff from the vintage store comes from.


 
SntSaturn Posted: Sat Mar 25 19:46:09 2006 Post | Quote in Reply  
  Beep said:

>Saturn-that's the point. there is 'no good reason' apparently for a religious person to change their view, which makes it insane, i'm surprised there's enough room for jesus and your head in your anal cavity. [perhaps i stepped over the line in that last sentence...]
>


Well, that's not a very nice thing to say. I wasn't being not nice to you.

I have analyzed the creation theory. I even went through a period where I didn't believe in God. I have my own reasons, which would probably never be substantial enough for you, as to why I believe.


 
ifihadahif Posted: Sat Mar 25 20:40:03 2006 Post | Quote in Reply  
  Beep said:

>it seems to me that jesus is automatically assumed to be the pinnacle of morality, him being the son of god and all. however, i do not think he is actually all that great. a couple of examples being the 1.cursing of the fig tree - jesus wants some figs and goes to a fig tree, however it is not the season for figs so there aren't any. jesus curses the fig tree so it never bares figs again.
>also 2. jesus damns many people to eternal hellfire and 'nashing of teeth'. when the greek philosophers or even those who believed in zeus came across oppostition they took it, thought about it, and either argued a bit or agreed to disagree. this to me has a lot more morality in it than 'either you agree with my rules or you will be damned for all eternity'.
>
Let's see what you've done here, you have found two instances in the man's life and decided that none of the rest of his life's work mattered, that these two occurrances make him a not-so-moral guy.
That's some real deep thinking there Mr. Handey.
If I'm not mistaken, part of the teachings of the New Testament are that Jesus was a man, only a man, albeit he was the son of God, he was still a man, and therefore imperfect. You have taken this a step further and decided he was not very moral. Although I fail to see how losing one's temper over not getting a fig makes one less than moral.



 
addi Posted: Sat Mar 25 22:27:47 2006 Post | Quote in Reply  
  see what you did, Beep..ya went and got everybody all ticked at each other talking about God

: )

I say let people believe what they want to. We don't need to agree with each other to validate our personal views on religion. It will always degenerate at some point to calling someone else an idiot. I may think certain beliefs are off base, but any amount of debating I do with someone about why their views are wrong has always proven to be a useless endeavor. If someone wants to believe in a literal bible, or in intelligent design, or in any other of the thousand different interpretations of the bible then that's their business.

My personal rule of thumb is that only when a persons religious beliefs directly lead to the physical (or mental) harm of others, in the name of their god, that I draw the line and feel justified in telling that person they are a dangerous nutcase and need to be locked away.

any religion that doesn't stress the ultimate value of loving others and the sanctity of all life isn't worth following.


 
ifihadahif Posted: Sat Mar 25 22:30:43 2006 Post | Quote in Reply  
  addi said:
>
>any religion that doesn't stress the ultimate value of loving others and the sanctity of all life isn't worth following.
>
Well, that looks good on paper Addi, but you can't really believe in the sanctity of ALL life can you ?
I mean, some people just need to be killed.


 
ifihadahif Posted: Sat Mar 25 22:41:33 2006 Post | Quote in Reply  
  Beep if you continue to apply logic to matters of faith and actually expect to get results, then you reveal yourself to be an idiot. No offense intended, I don't really think you're an idiot. I think you've armed yourself with a minimal grasp of logic and philosophy and embraced it wholly thinking you found some answers.
You must understand that trying to apply logic to matters of faith is like bringing a knife to a gunfight or drawing Betty Boop in color. It just ain't right.
Logic and faith live in two separate worlds and never the twain shall meet.
They operate under two wholly different sets of rules and neither is applicable to the other.
If you are smart, you will accept that the other exists and deserves the same respect you demand of your discipline.
Religion has accomplished much in the history of man, much more than you give it credit for. You cited a couple of blips in the history of man and said religion did this bad thing, therefore religion is bad.
Not a very good argument.
I am not a person of faith, I consider myself to be an agnostic, but I do recognize and respect the worlds of both the faithful and the secular and see the good in both.


 
addi Posted: Sat Mar 25 23:04:01 2006 Post | Quote in Reply  
  ifihadahif said:

>Well, that looks good on paper Addi, but you can't really believe in the sanctity of ALL life can you ?
>I mean, some people just need to be killed.

I was referring to the doctrine or teachings of a religion (or that religion's leaders) stressing that as something we should strive for. I wasn't talking about how we as humans so often fall short of that goal.

If that makes any sense.


 
marsteller Posted: Sat Mar 25 23:57:42 2006 Post | Quote in Reply  
  god is a logical necessity. there must have been, at one point, an un-moving mover to set the universe in motion.


 
Asswipe Posted: Sun Mar 26 03:44:34 2006 Post | Quote in Reply  
  marsteller said:
>god is a logical necessity. there must have been, at one point, an un-moving mover to set the universe in motion.

your mom's an un-moving mover, bitch.


 
Asswipe Posted: Sun Mar 26 03:48:01 2006 Post | Quote in Reply  
  Asswipe said:
>marsteller said:
>>god is a logical necessity. there must have been, at one point, an un-moving mover to set the universe in motion.
>
>your mom's an un-moving mover, bitch.

and stellerson, i just spoke to the REL, for half an hour tonight, and he and Early are coming up to G-seo for a weekend in the incoming future. God cannot comprehend the shananigans that will go down. Dig it, you're invited.

P.S. Ryan started talking to girls.


 
Asswipe Posted: Sun Mar 26 04:14:38 2006 Post | Quote in Reply  
  Beep said:
>heh, a lot has been said in my absence. thank 'god' GT does not stay on topic or there would be just too much to argue against :P
>
>
>the point of the parable of the fig tree is that it is unfruitful because it is not the season for figs. jesus is getting pissy with the tree because it follows god's own rules? hmm. but aside from that that's not the only reason not to disagree with jesus. the whole damnation to hellfire is more than enough for me to believe he isn't totally moral. anyone who believes in that, in my opinion leaves something to be desired.

No. Do some research on the subject and you'll find interpretations that tell you about the parable of the fig tree being metephors for always being fruitful in your endeavors. The fig tree was supposed to have figs, as flowers come before fruits, which come at the same time of leaves, and when there are leaves there are figs, so this particular tree was wasting it's existance. Now, you can make an anti-capitalist argument here if you want, and i won't stop you. But there is a clear-cut message.

>
>>When Satan was defeated he was kicked out of heaven. However, he still has influence in this world. He has this influence because God allows it.
>
>why would god allow it? it doesn't make any sense to me? to test us? surely god doesn't need the devil to know which of us is good or bad, he might as well just take the earth step out completely and go straight to creation to damning us.

To me, this sounds like we're arguing about a hollywood movie. THe image of God in the bible, and jesus in the bible, were both written down by man. The same type of man who invented Road Trip and American Pie. Obviously, the point of life isn't to get to heaven. ANyone worth their salt can tell you that.

>
>>Where there are people there will be sin and evil. It is impossible for a human to be perfect.
>
>i disagree, i think that's another problem with religion. there's so much emphasis on how crappy us humans are. personally i think we're a lot better than we give ourselves credit for, and every day i look around and the world puts a smile on my face.

you're lying. there ain't a religion out there that preaches about happy people in the present life. and there ain't a sober person who does so either.

>you must admit that in the future, either everyone will be good, bad, or the same as it is now? i don't see how there can be a 4th option? so either life is pointless or there is no god. i still don't see how that is a flawed idea.
>
>>It is tricky to deal with God in this way because of our inability to understand Him. I agree that we must have a sense of morality outside of our sense of God to make that statement. I do not know anyone who makes that statement though.
>
>that's the point of religion? God is the being that tells us what is right and wrong, if we disagree with gods teachings then we are immoral or wrong. that's what i mean by we don't need god. there is no need for a god, and i believe more evidence to say there isn't one.

Do you disagree with God's teachings? If you do so, you can actually read the bible and interpret the words in a way better suited to fit you, ya know? I'm not sure whose interpretation of the bible you're working off here, but there are literally hundreds, if not thousands of views in varying denominations. There is, however, a basic desire to comprehend and study the world, which unifies all of those studying religion. Just like you philosophers.

>
>>I would disagree. If I get into a logical argument and am proved wrong, while a little disappointed about being proved wrong, I am glad that I learned something.
>
>fair enough, i think i agree with you in this case then. however, in most cases religious people i have met are not nearly so understanding.

words are meaningless if you do not have the experiences to relate to them. so, no, you will not change your view point on words alone if your experiences do not relate to the person speaking.

>
>>Whether he exists or not, the benefit of religion is still there.
>
>I am not disagreeing with some of the benefits of religion, but we do not need a religion in order to have these benefits.
>
>>Take, for instance, prayer. Now, what good is prayer if no god exists?? If these people send messages out and no one receives them, then, well, wasted message, right? No. What happens, in this case, is it focuses this person's brain on what matters to them, and helps them prioritize their life.
>
>but, me, without prayer has a prioritized life. you yourself say you don't pray, would you say you don't know what matters to you? or that you were unprioritized? i think not. the problem with religion though, is that you must take the whole package, you can't just pick and choose the bits that work. if you do pick and choose the bits that work then i would say you don't belong properly to that religion.
>heh, i would say i am a christian. just without the belief in church, god or jesus :P

I have a very unprioritized life. I don't know what is worth living for, or what is worth dying for. I study and read and write as whimsical as the path of a falling snowflake. I yearn for order, direction and meaning. How's that?

And, you can pick and chose, in fact, you have no choice but to pick and choose, as the only meaningful information you pick up will be the information you pick up. You will only be open to matters regarding you and your current life, and all other statements and facts will not concern you. Similarly, when you listen in on a conversation, you will really have no way of relating unless you have been through similar situations.

>
>>So if God knows the result, there is only one result, meaning there is only one path, and we have fate.
>
>i disagree that this is fate, having only one route possible is not the same as having no choice in the matter. the choices we make are the choices we would make anyway, with or without the choice. fate, in my opinion atleast, does not mean this. fate to me is that existence is set in stone. the idea of one path is related to this, but is not the same thing in my opinion.

You say, NO! I say, YES! That's lovely logic.

>
>>oh, mighty master of the melodrama, please take a seat.
>
>:P i resent that.

GOOD! I just liked the alliteration.

>
>>I don't know what sort of world you envision without the churches and the temples and the mosques and the voodoo doll shack i have in my backyard. Do you?
>
>A world where people are judged by their thoughts and not by what god the prescribe to.

No one is judged by what God they prescribe to, although what God they prescribe to is often related to their thoughts.



 
Beep Posted: Sun Mar 26 07:37:42 2006 Post | Quote in Reply  
  heh, this has been a very worthwhile and enjoyable arguement, i thank all of you for it :)
i apologise to anyone i have offended, saturn, what i said was meant to be taken with a pinch of salt, apologies again for any hard feelings.

>you're lying. there ain't a religion out there that preaches about happy people in the present life. and there ain't a sober person who does so either.

i could argue that buddhism does to some extent, but i still think that this world is amazing, and that humans are 'good' and great, even the ones you would like to shoot sometimes, heh.
I would say that the need for god comes from 'the god of the gaps', not being able to explain something, and with limited knowledge attributing it to god.

in response to: >No one is judged by what God they prescribe to, although what God they prescribe to is often related to their thoughts.

i would say that religion is the only thing that is prescribed to children. when a catholic couple have a child, the child is assumed to be catholic too, and will be brought up as one, and usually, this will mean they get a biased upbringing, and will mean that it's harder for the child to break free of the religion and make it's own decisions. when liberal democrat couple have a child, the child is not assumed to take the parents political party. well, not in england, i can't speak for other countries.

>god is a logical necessity. there must have been, at one point, an un-moving mover to set the universe in motion.

arguably not, if you look at some of the writing of stephen hawking. however, my arguement does not dismiss the unmoved mover, it merely dismisses a god who is omniscient, omnipresent, omnibenevolent and omnipotent. an unpersonable god (the god aristotle believed in when he came up with the un-moved mover) is still a viable option.


 
Ahriman Posted: Sun Mar 26 13:43:50 2006 Post | Quote in Reply  
  The party says 2+2=5 so love Big Brother

Just exist to exist


and Brian Greene does a better job than Hawking about the T.O.E.


 
Asswipe Posted: Mon Mar 27 02:01:54 2006 Post | Quote in Reply  
  Beep said:
>
>>you're lying. there ain't a religion out there that preaches about happy people in the present life. and there ain't a sober person who does so either.
>
>i could argue that buddhism does to some extent

The whole beginning premise to buddhism is that life is suffering. Note "the 8 forms of suffering" which start out Dharma's are not real! I could argue that buddhism is essentially the same thing as christianity. Hell, tell me this doesn't sound exactly like christianity, at the basics.

The First Noble Truth is that there is pain and suffering in the world. Gautama realized that pain and suffering are omnipresent in all of nature and human life. To exist means we will all encounter suffering. Birth is painful and so is death. Sickness and old age are painful. Throughout life, all living things encounter suffering.


The Second Noble Truth relates to the cause of suffering. Gautama believed the root cause of suffering is desire. It is the craving for wealth, happiness, and other forms of selfish enjoyment which cause suffering. These cravings can never be satisfied for they are rooted in ignorance.


The Third Noble Truth is the end of all suffering. Suffering will cease when a person can rid himself of all desires.


The Fourth Noble Truth is the extinguishing of all desire by following the eight-fold path. "The eight-fold path is a system of therapy designed to develop habits which will release people from the restrictions caused by ignorance and craving."(3)


Here are the eight steps in following the eight-fold path. The first is the Right Views. One must accept the four noble truths. Step two is the Right Resolve. One must renounce all desires and any thoughts like lust, bitterness, and cruelty. He must harm no living creature. Step three is the Right Speech. One must speak only truth. There can be no lying, slander, or vain talk. Step four is the Right Behavior. One must abstain from sexual immorality, stealing, and all killing.


Step five is the Right Occupation. One must work in an occupation that benefits others and harms no one. Step six is the Right Effort. One must seek to eliminate any evil qualities within and prevent any new ones from arising. One should seek to attain good and moral qualities and develop those already possessed. Seek to grow in maturity and perfection until universal love is attained. Step seven is the Right Contemplation. One must be observant, contemplative, and free of desire and sorrow. The eighth is the Right Meditation. After freeing oneself of all desires and evil, a person must concentrate his efforts in meditation so that he can overcome any sensation of pleasure or pain and enter a state of transcending consciousness and attain a state of perfection. Buddhists believe that through self effort one can attain the state of peace and eternal bliss called Nirvana

taken from: http://wri.leaderu.com/orgs/probe/docs/buddhism.html

>I would say that the need for god comes from 'the god of the gaps', not being able to explain something, and with limited knowledge attributing it to god.

but "not being able to explain something" IE. the big thing, IE. the meaning of life, is intertwined into more issues than just a bloke with a straw hat sitting back and thinking "ain't that weird that all them stars is up theres?" It's tied into, hell, everything. Ambitions, fears, interests, hobbies, lifestyle choices...

>
>in response to: >No one is judged by what God they prescribe to, although what God they prescribe to is often related to their thoughts.
>
>i would say that religion is the only thing that is prescribed to children. when a catholic couple have a child, the child is assumed to be catholic too, and will be brought up as one, and usually, this will mean they get a biased upbringing, and will mean that it's harder for the child to break free of the religion and make it's own decisions. when liberal democrat couple have a child, the child is not assumed to take the parents political party. well, not in england, i can't speak for other countries.

buzzzzzzzzzzz. At some point children are forced to cope with their decisions and their religions on their own terms. I've not known a single person who has practiced religion as their parents before them have. There are influences, sure, but i'd argue they aren't too far off from their political party beliefs.

I'm bored, and i'm sorry if i'm beating a dead horse or if no one's really interested anymore.


 
addi Posted: Mon Mar 27 07:40:44 2006 Post | Quote in Reply  
  Asswipe said:

>I'm bored, and i'm sorry if i'm beating a dead horse or if no one's really interested anymore.


Naw...keep going. I just learned things about Buddhism I didn't know from reading your post...and learning new things is always spiffy....unless it's something like learning the IRS is going to audit you.

*But feel free change your metaphor use. How about something like "I'm sorry if I'm beating a Dead Head"? I don't care for the image of beating a horse, dead or alive, but beating on those aging pot smoking Grateful Dead groupies is okay.

: )


 
DanSRose Posted: Mon Mar 27 08:42:12 2006 Post | Quote in Reply  
  Asswipe said:
>
>I'm bored, and i'm sorry if i'm beating a dead horse or if no one's really interested anymore.

You should "If I'm beating a dead Buddha." That'd be funnier.


 
ifihadahif Posted: Mon Mar 27 09:08:42 2006 Post | Quote in Reply  
  How bout "Dead Babies" ?


 
addi Posted: Mon Mar 27 09:43:30 2006 Post | Quote in Reply  
  ifihadahif said:
>How bout "Dead Babies" ?

If Condaleza Rice read that post she'd be very unhappy with you.




 
Beep Posted: Mon Mar 27 11:30:57 2006 Post | Quote in Reply  
  meh, you've misunderstood me slightly. buddhism is about the illusion of life. but the basis of the teaching comes out of the bhuddas love for people and life. i read somewhere that he said, or one of his followers, that the reason they teach is because they love the world, in an odd way.
infact i think it may have been hesse, which is probably not recognised as buddhist teaching, heh, but made sense to me at any rate.
yeah, i can see the similarities tween christianity. since writing i have come off my evil religion mode, and have looked at my arguement again, and disproved it, not for any religious reasons, but logically :) :

1. outcome three is not logically impossible, we could be in a struggle forever.

2. whether or not god knows the end result it still matters whether we do good or bad.
i am too tired too explain fully, but i think most of you will be able to get the gist of what i mean anyway.


 
maybeitwillwork Posted: Mon Mar 27 11:42:58 2006 Post | Quote in Reply  
  ifihadahif said:
>How bout "Dead Babies" ?

You seem to have stumbled across the meaning of life. Dead Baby jokes.


Now I must ask, what's difference between a dead bady and my girlfriend?

The baby didn't say no last night.



 
ifihadahif Posted: Mon Mar 27 11:52:55 2006 Post | Quote in Reply  
  addi said:
>ifihadahif said:
>>How bout "Dead Babies" ?
>
>If Condaleza Rice read that post she'd be very unhappy with you.
>
That's Condoleezza.
Is that because she's not a fan of Alice Cooper ?


 
Mesh Posted: Mon Mar 27 15:05:32 2006 Post | Quote in Reply  
  maybeitwillwork said:
>ifihadahif said:
>>How bout "Dead Babies" ?
>
>You seem to have stumbled across the meaning of life. Dead Baby jokes.
>
>
>Now I must ask, what's difference between a dead bady and my girlfriend?
>
>The baby didn't say no last night.
>




Oh yeah, well what's the difference between a Porsche and a pile of dead babies?


I don't have a Porsche in my garage.



*For more of these extremely tasteful, inoffensive, endearing and heartwarming jokes, please visit my sponsors page at http://www.dead-baby-joke.com/introduction.htm Thank you in advance and enjoy :)


 
beetlebum Posted: Mon Mar 27 15:46:50 2006 Post | Quote in Reply  
  How old were you when you became privvy to the dead baby joke phenomenon? Because I must have missed that in my adolescence; I only found out last year, when I heard this joke:

What's worse than ten dead babies in one garbage can?

One dead baby in ten garbage cans.

(Although to be honest, I didn't really get it, because really, they're both disgusting: either you collect dead babies, or you mutilate them-- both are equally wretched. But maybe I think too much.)


 
maybeitwillwork Posted: Mon Mar 27 15:46:56 2006 Post | Quote in Reply  
  Mr. Misses said:

>*For more of these extremely tasteful, inoffensive, endearing and heartwarming jokes, please visit my sponsors page at http://www.dead-baby-joke.com/introduction.htm Thank you in advance and enjoy :)

They are perfect for first dates, and for conversation over dinner.


 
maybeitwillwork Posted: Mon Mar 27 15:51:09 2006 Post | Quote in Reply  
  beetlebum said:
>How old were you when you became privvy to the dead baby joke phenomenon? Because I must have missed that in my adolescence; I only found out last year, when I heard this joke:

I would have to say that I was first exposed the the glory of dead baby jokes about 6 years ago. And for better or worse I've been telling them ever since.


 
Mesh Posted: Mon Mar 27 15:52:19 2006 Post | Quote in Reply  
  beetlebum said:
>How old were you when you became privvy to the dead baby joke phenomenon? Because I must have missed that in my adolescence; I only found out last year, when I heard this joke:
>


I never heard one until about two years ago. Some drunken ponce at a restauraunt sitting in the booth behind me had printed up pages and pages of them off the internet and was reading them one after the other to his drunk friends.


 
ifihadahif Posted: Mon Mar 27 15:54:08 2006 Post | Quote in Reply  
  "But Mommy, I don't like running in circles".

"Shut up, or I'll nail your other foot to the floor" !


 
DanSRose Posted: Mon Mar 27 20:01:24 2006 Post | Quote in Reply  
  What's the difference between a pile of bowling balls and a pile of dead babies?

You can't load a truck of bowling balls with a pitchfork!


Why'd the deda baby cross the road?
'Cause it was stapled to the chicken.


What's better than a series of bad dead baby jokes?
Snakes. Snakes on a plane.....
Yes! I manage to bring it all the way home!


 
marsteller Posted: Wed Mar 29 01:25:04 2006 Post | Quote in Reply  
  gt's moving a lot faster than it did back in the day....

'slow down, everyone, you're movin too fast.....'


 
everyday_daisy Posted: Wed May 31 23:34:47 2006 Post | Quote in Reply  
  This has been long-abandoned and though I stopped reading three-quarters through, I must point out that not all theologians are blind. Christianity has a Philosophy too and use their logic to prove the existence of God.


 
son-perdition Posted: Mon Apr 16 20:41:19 2007 Post | Quote in Reply  
  not necessarily people still worshipped satan in the http://jesus-survival.com/Abomination-desolation.htm


 
leanhnam220 Posted: Wed Oct 7 21:29:51 2015 Post | Quote in Reply  
  Thank you
http://www.tinytanksunblocked.com/


 



[ Reply to this thread ] [ Start new thread ]