Is God real post your thoughts!

[Kenshinjapan]

 

 

 

6. Examples of things that religion has taught you (which Logic could not) that you can use practically?

 

 

 

Faith and love are the two that come to my mind. Logic doesn't tell us to help the less fortunate and be kinder to others. If anything, logic tells us to leave those behind.

 

 

 

Logic brings several people the conclusion that there is no God.

 

 

 

Logic brings several people to the conclusion that without an afterlife, all human knowledge and memory will be wiped out if we all die.

 

 

 

The atheist wishes to keep other intellectuals alive. Other humans alive.

 

 

 

Logic dictates that we keep our species going.

 

 

 

Logic says to keep the species alive, it never said who to keep alive and to do so with compassion.

 

 

 

Doesn't it ever make you wonder that you would never have known god or gods existed if a HUMAN BEING hadn't told you that they did?

 

 

 

Most christian religions don't tell you to go by what a person says. Only to go by the Bible and the Bible alone.

[Lenticular_J]

 

@ I get angry when arguing with theists, simply because the concept of faith demands that you believe something without evidence. Whenever I've talked to Christians irl, they always resort to saying well "I believe in God, and it doesn't matter if you disprove my arguments, because I have faith." There is no evidence of a God. Its as simple as this. SUPPLY ME WITH SOME, AND I WILL CONVERT. No joke, just give me the evidence. As long as it is real, credible, testable evidence, then I will have no problem converting.

 

 

 

Let me guess.. you can't? But you believe it anyway, because the concept of faith demands that you do. This, is a hindrance to both the progression of science, and the progression of our understanding of life, consciousness, time, and existence. I apologize if I come across as an arrogant atheist, but this is because what you're saying makes absolutely no sense. I get angry because it annoys me that still, with the level of technology we have, and the things we can create, we still have people that believe something no matter what the evidence suggests, and that this concept is actually COMMENDED in theistic circles. The arguments you supply just seem so childish, and even if I disproved every single one of them, you would still have "faith." Do you not realise now ridiculous such a notion is?

 

 

 

This is the question I would like answered as well. However, I've simply been told I don't understand faith and been passed by. Stay on topic, theists. I'd like to see a well-reasoned debate out of you. How about some evidence?

 

FAITH HAS NO LOGIC. FAITH IS NOT REASON. NO HOLY TEXT CAN TEACH YOU TRUE FAITH.

 

 

 

AAAAAAAAAAAAAUGH, you can't complain about something you don't. Under. Stand. It isn't faith if God reaches down and says "Hey guys, stop arguing. I'm listening." It's a fact, not faith. Faith IS blind! That's the entire point. Believing in something greater than yourself, even without definite proof.

 

 

 

I don't give a damn if you want to convert, to be honest, I could care less about organized religion completely. I care only about faith, mainly my own faith in God and His Son, and defending it.

 

 

 

You think atheists provide "well-reasoned" arguments? NOBODY DOES. PERIOD. It's God and faith! >_<

 

 

 

I sigh. Faith cannot be expressed to someone with no concept of faith. It's hard to explain, and you'll probably throw a fit calling me "another typical theist", but if you don't understand the concept of faith, I truly doubt you ever will. There aren't examples for faith. Faith is not a rational, hypothesized experiment. Nobody can prove it to you. People will try. But you won't understand it. It's teaching a bird to use a hammer. The occasional one may be able to grasp it, but eventually they drop it. Plus, they have no use for it.

 

 

 

Atheists aren't people who understand faith. Many so-called religious people actually have no idea what their faith is, but have it all the same. Even some religious folks operate like atheists, requiring facts and data for whatever they do.

 

 

 

I hate debating about theocratic things, or even over the existence of God, because neither side can work. Atheists want facts. They could care less about faith, most just want to be right in some way or another, and have facts. Most theists can only provide their faith, which is one of the purest things imaginable.

 

 

 

Have you ever held a young infant in your arms? That sparkle in their eyes. It's faith in you. They can't even form a thought, and they don't even know what you're doing, but they have faith that you will protect them.

 

 

 

Faith will never be explainable. EVER.

[EdgedThesis]

Calm down.

 

The very definition of faith you provided is what they are attacking.

 

They are calling to attention the feeble ground that you stand on--one supported by faith.

 

 

 

They aren't asking for a scientific breakdown of what drives you to believe in God, they are asking you if you know how ridiculous the concept of faith is.

 

 

 

The people asking for evidence are just trying to get you to know (and you already do, so meh) that all you have is your faith.

 

 

 

It seems like you both understand this, yet keep going at it for no reason.

 

 

 

You have to agree to disagree--there's no winning this debate.

[Lenticular_J]

I know I should have calmed down, but I was tired of trying to explain faith to them.

 

 

 

Faith isn't feeble ground to those who truly have it; and they do want some sort of data proving God, which just is impossible. God is faith, in a sense.

 

 

 

We actually all agreed to disagree a few pages and a month or so ago, but someone brought this page back up from page five or so. :?

[warri0r45]

Lenticular, I don't think the people here can't understand faith. They just don't agree with it.

 

 

 

Obviously the two sides of the debate don't agree on that point. Edged is right, it's worth just agreeing to disagree or opting out of the discussion if others want to talk about it.

 

 

 

Oh, Logic also disproves the Big Bang Theory. There was 'nothing' that exploded into something. According to Science, matter cannot be created out of nothing, so that matter had to come from somewhere. But where did that matter come from, and so on. It's like how God is said to have created himself. He can't create himself if he didn't exist, so that is untrue.

 

 

 

That's a fairly big misconception, aquarius. The big bang theory is a cosmological model for the universe dealing with it's expansion over time from a singularity of matter and energy. It doesn't suggest that the matter came from nothing.

[Cup Lion]

Atheists want facts that theists can't give them; this is due to the fact that atheists argue with the idea of faith and the Bible, pretty much the only two things that support that God exists.

 

 

 

For myself, the thought of something out there is comforting.

 

 

 

Where's Barihawk when you need him? :P

[flipflop121]

 

 

 

6. Examples of things that religion has taught you (which Logic could not) that you can use practically?

 

 

 

Faith and love are the two that come to my mind. Logic doesn't tell us to help the less fortunate and be kinder to others. If anything, logic tells us to leave those behind.

 

 

 

Logic brings several people the conclusion that there is no God.

 

 

 

Logic brings several people to the conclusion that without an afterlife, all human knowledge and memory will be wiped out if we all die.

 

 

 

The atheist wishes to keep other intellectuals alive. Other humans alive.

 

 

 

Logic dictates that we keep our species going.

 

 

 

Logic says to keep the species alive, it never said who to keep alive and to do so with compassion.

 

 

 

Doesn't it ever make you wonder that you would never have known god or gods existed if a HUMAN BEING hadn't told you that they did?

 

 

 

Most christian religions don't tell you to go by what a person says. Only to go by the Bible and the Bible alone.

 

 

 

 

 

right, and who may i ask you wrote the bible or first spoke the words of "god"... wow wat do you know it was a human.

 

 

 

i think your confusing belief with morals. Christianity also says to kill jews, sell your daughters as slaves and to kill disobedianet children. im sure this fits in with what you have been [cabbage]ting about god... he aint a nice guy, read the old testament and you should realise this.

[Cup Lion]

You've got to be kidding me. If someone you respected told you to jump off a building, would you do it?

 

 

 

You have to examine the time period in which the Old Testament was written. You obviously haven't interpreted the Bible correctly and analyzed it with the time period in mind. Its the damn Old Testament, get it through your skull. For discussion sake, please point out these texts from the Old Testament that tell followers of God to kill Jews, sell our daughters as slaves, and kill disobedient children. Really. I want to know.

 

 

 

He ain't a nice guy? You lived back then? You know? You know him personally? I am very sorry, then for contradicting you, sir.

 

 

 

And what did you expect? The evidence you want is pretty much a piece of writing coming directly from God. Dearly sorry, you aren't going to get it.

[warri0r45]

You've got to be kidding me. If someone you respected told you to jump off a building, would you do it?

 

 

 

You have to examine the time period in which the Old Testament was written. You obviously haven't interpreted the Bible correctly and analyzed it with the time period in mind. Its the damn Old Testament, get it through your skull. For discussion sake, please point out these texts from the Old Testament that tell followers of God to kill Jews, sell our daughters as slaves, and kill disobedient children. Really. I want to know.

 

 

 

He ain't a nice guy? You lived back then? You know? You know him personally? I am very sorry, then for contradicting you, sir.

 

 

 

 

Instructing anyone to do the things in Leviticus is nice to you? It's horrific, and yes, that is judged by today's standards. The thing that I don't get is that he's supposed to be a god above and beyond our human concepts of time. Why is he playing to the time period and instructing people to abide by archaic rules which include killing disobedient children and homosexuals? Punishments like stoning and being burnt to death? [1] Why not set out the nice rules back then?

 

 

 

It sounds more likely that archaic people made these archaic rules, not a timeless, all loving being.

[flipflop121]

You've got to be kidding me. If someone you respected told you to jump off a building, would you do it?

 

 

 

You have to examine the time period in which the Old Testament was written. You obviously haven't interpreted the Bible correctly and analyzed it with the time period in mind. Its the damn Old Testament, get it through your skull. For discussion sake, please point out these texts from the Old Testament that tell followers of God to kill Jews, sell our daughters as slaves, and kill disobedient children. Really. I want to know.

 

He ain't a nice guy? You lived back then? You know? You know him personally? I am very sorry, then for contradicting you, sir.

 

 

 

And what did you expect? The evidence you want is pretty much a piece of writing coming directly from God. Dearly sorry, you aren't going to get it.

 

 

 

Delivered

 

homosexuals (lev 20:13, rom 1:26-32)

 

adulterers (Lev 20:10, Deut 22:22)

 

disobedient children (Deut 21:20-21, Lev 20:9, Exod 21:15)

 

women who are not virgins on their wedding night (Deut 21:13-21)

 

All non-christians... even though Christ himself was jewish (go figure) (Luke 19:27)

 

Those accused of wickedness by at least two people (Deut 17:2-7)

 

And any1 who works on the sabbath, that includes you paramedics and fire fighters. (Exod 35:2-3)

 

God actually supports slavery and even gives information on how to sell your daughter to become a slave (Exod 21:7-8)

 

 

 

 

 

of course god isnt a nice guy, he destroyed entire village's with fire because they followed a different deity. if you think that is a god thing then you must have also liked Hitlers policies. he did that as well ya know.

[Sly_Wizard]

Instructing anyone to do the things in Leviticus is nice to you? It's horrific, and yes, that is judged by today's standards.

 

 

 

And, seeing as how you're judging by today's standards, whether or not you find ancient Biblical law to be nice becomes a moot point.

 

 

 

The thing that I don't get is that he's supposed to be a god above and beyond our human concepts of time. Why is he playing to the time period and instructing people to abide by archaic rules which include killing disobedient children and homosexuals?

 

 

 

Wait wait wait! The laws you deem as "archaic" are only as such because you happen to live approximately 3,400 years after their inception. If you happened to live in the year 1400(ish) BC, you would find the laws no more archaic than you find the laws of today. Anywho... Care to explain how it's playing to the time period. The direct implication here is that God suddenly decided to change his mind concerning the law. However, last I checked, there was the whole "Not a letter shall pass away from the law until both Heaven and Earth pass away" (Matthew 5:18) thing.

 

 

 

Punishments like stoning and being burnt to death? [1].

 

 

 

Ummm... Yeah. Those were the punishments for certain crimes. It's no different than some of the sentences rendered today (Lethal injection anyone?).

 

 

 

Why not set out the nice rules back then?

 

 

 

I'm sorry, but what are these "nice rules" you continue to mention?

 

 

 

It sounds more likely that archaic people made these archaic rules, not a timeless, all loving being.

 

 

 

The sooner you realize that God being both good and all-loving is not changed by His actions, the better.

[Sly_Wizard]

Delivered

 

homosexuals (lev 20:13, rom 1:26-32)

 

adulterers (Lev 20:10, Deut 22:22)

 

disobedient children (Deut 21:20-21, Lev 20:9, Exod 21:15)

 

women who are not virgins on their wedding night (Deut 21:13-21)

 

All non-christians... even though Christ himself was jewish (go figure) (Luke 19:27)

 

Those accused of wickedness by at least two people (Deut 17:2-7)

 

And any1 who works on the sabbath, that includes you paramedics and fire fighters. (Exod 35:2-3)

 

God actually supports slavery and even gives information on how to sell your daughter to become a slave (Exod 21:7-8)

 

 

 

I don't even have to read all that stuff concerning the OT, because it is what it is. Those were the governing laws set forth by God at the time, like 'em or not. However, there is one thing I must respond to. Luke 19: 11-27 = Parable. I hope you know realize that a parable is not to be taken literally and is often used to illustrate a point-- This case being that those who are dilligent in their faithfulness will be rewarded (With the kingdom of Heaven); those who are not or are faithless will die. This is not a commandment to kill any non-Christian. It's rather asinine to believe otherwise.

 

 

 

of course god isnt a nice guy, he destroyed entire village's with fire because they followed a different deity. if you think that is a god thing then you must have also liked Hitlers policies. he did that as well ya know.

 

 

 

What's all this talk about "niceness" (I really must have missed something). As I said above, God's essential character-- That he is good and all-loving-- Is not changed by the actions he engages in. The sooner everyone realized this, the better (:

[dusqi]

Face it, if everything ran on magic and fairy dust, then the world world be a pretty dull place for us.

 

 

 

I agree! And yet, that is your God. Magic and fairy dust. A way to describe the unexplained.

 

 

 

Don't even bother insulting any belief/religion. It comes off as nothing but rude.

 

 

 

I am making a point. You said that the world would be a dull place if everything happened magically (without a reason discernible by science). That's what God is. God comes along and everything "magically" happens without any scientific reason.

 

 

 

I find science and the world around us to be beautiful, startling and thrilling. So that makes you and your idea of God the rude ones.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

6. Examples of things that religion has taught you (which Logic could not) that you can use practically?

 

 

 

Faith and love are the two that come to my mind. Logic doesn't tell us to help the less fortunate and be kinder to others. If anything, logic tells us to leave those behind.

 

 

 

So if there was no God, you'd go around killing people you didn't like? No? Because humans have evolved compassion. We have evolved reason, and it tells us that equality and freedom are good things that we should love, even if a God won't reward us for it in an afterlife. Faith contains no inherent conception of goodness, the Holy Texts are interpreted in thousands of different ways, many of them evil (e.g. the Taleban) - the only goodness comes from our evolved capacity for reason and compassion.

[Sly_Wizard]

(I gotta' say, when it comes to religion and philosophy, I have a fairly strong dislike for the English in this regard.)

 

I agree! And yet, that is your God. Magic and fairy dust. A way to describe the unexplained.

 

 

 

Or not. That may be your explanation, but it's by no means correct nor indicative of the truth.

 

 

 

...Oh! I almost forgot. Let's play a little game. It's called "Spot the logical fallacy". 3K if you can spot the logical fallacy in the above quoted four sentences.

 

 

 

I am making a point. You said that the world would be a dull place if everything happened magically (without a reason discernible by science). That's what God is. God comes along and everything "magically" happens without any scientific reason.

 

 

 

Ummm... How about... No? The same thing I said above holds true here. That may be your understanding of God but that in no way, shape or form even closely embodies the truth. Simply because you want to play the God of the gaps game doesn't make it so.

 

 

 

I find science and the world around us to be beautiful, startling and thrilling. So that makes you and your idea of God the rude ones.

 

 

 

And just doubly no. I wish I could write no gazillion times, because I would. I just don't have that much time on my hands.

 

 

 

A.) You can break down almost all of nature using nothing but numbers. Pythagoras figured this out about 2500 years ago. Galileo expounded on it. Sir Isaac Newton even more. And almost all of modern physics is based on this fact. Really, there's nothing "beautiful, startling and thrilling" about that and

 

 

 

B.) It's impossible for God to be considered rude when speaking of nature, as to do so would be to argue that he imposes himself on nature. Unfortunately for you, last I checked, God is closer to supernatural (Above nature) than He is unnatural (Not of nature).

 

 

 

Because humans have evolved compassion. We have evolved reason, and it tells us that equality and freedom are good things that we should love, even if a God won't reward us for it in an afterlife.

 

 

 

Reason tells us that freedom is bad. Reason tells us it's okay to lie, cheat and steal. Reason tells us that it's okay to be mass murderers. Reason tells us that extorting others for personal use is perfectably acceptable. Reason tells me that you fail to understand that reason is limited by itself and provides no gauge of what is right and what is wrong; what is good and what is evil; what is acceptable and what is unacceptable, etc. etc. etc.

 

 

 

Faith contains no inherent conception of goodness...

 

 

 

Well, of course it wouldn't. That's not what faith is.

 

 

 

...The Holy Texts are interpreted in thousands of different ways, many of them evil (e.g. the Taleban).

 

 

 

Which says more about the inherent evilness of man than it does the 'Holy Texts' (Whatever you define that as).

 

 

 

The only goodness comes from our evolved capacity for reason and compassion.

 

 

 

"Truly, if there is evil in this world it lies within the hearts of men."-- Edward D. Morrison, Tales of Phantasia

 

 

 

Goodness doesn't come from man. Evil does, however.

[warri0r45]

The thing that I don't get is that he's supposed to be a god above and beyond our human concepts of time. Why is he playing to the time period and instructing people to abide by archaic rules which include killing disobedient children and homosexuals?

 

 

 

Wait wait wait! The laws you deem as "archaic" are only as such because you happen to live approximately 3,400 years after their inception. If you happened to live in the year 1400(ish) BC, you would find the laws no more archaic than you find the laws of today. Anywho... Care to explain how it's playing to the time period. The direct implication here is that God suddenly decided to change his mind concerning the law. However, last I checked, there was the whole "Not a letter shall pass away from the law until both Heaven and Earth pass away" (Matthew 5:18) thing.

 

 

 

Yeah, I live in this time and I deem those laws archaic. Thats how the term archaic works. It really goes without saying. But it is a good point that Id probably see those laws as the norm if I were around at the time, however thats not what I was getting at.

 

 

 

What I mean by playing to the time period is that he sees that these people are archaic and makes archaic laws to suit them. Presumably, good to a good and all loving god doesnt include going around burning or stoning others, especially not for ridiculous reasons like disobeying parents or being homosexual. Do you agree? Do you think those are good commands from a good god?

 

 

 

But then you bring up Jesus comments on Mosaic Law. Fair enough. So am I right in saying that god still commands these things of some people? If so then obviously the point I was making is moot and he wasnt playing to archaic people hes just got a seriously skewed moral compass himself. If thats the case, then I think that kind of god is no more venerable than any other obviously man-made god with seriously outdated characteristics.

 

 

 

It sounds more likely that archaic people made these archaic rules, not a timeless, all loving being.

 

 

 

The sooner you realize that God being both good and all-loving is not changed by His actions, the better.

 

 

 

What do you mean by this? Why would god command such nonsense if he didnt think it was a good thing to do? Just for [cabbage]s and giggles? I dont think those commandments are good in any way shape or form, therefore I dont think they could have possibly come from a good god. To me, they indicate anything but.

[flipflop121]

What's all this talk about "niceness" (I really must have missed something). As I said above, God's essential character-- That he is good and all-loving-- Is not changed by the actions he engages in. The sooner everyone realized this, the better (:

 

 

 

Then what the [bleep] do you judge a person on, if not by his actions?

 

 

 

i may have a kind and gentle sole but if i run around killing babies your going to judge as a [bleep]ing maniac. of course, that doesnt really work, just as much as the percption of God being good and all-loving while killing over 2million people.

 

 

 

yeah, go figure out that logic :wall:

[Sly_Wizard]

Yeah, I live in this time and I deem those laws archaic. Thats how the term archaic works. It really goes without saying. But it is a good point that Id probably see those laws as the norm if I were around at the time, however thats not what I was getting at.

 

 

 

It seems you semi-grasped the point being made. And ummm... I know.

 

 

 

What I mean by playing to the time period is that he sees that these people are archaic and makes archaic laws to suit them. Presumably, good to a good and all loving god doesnt include going around burning or stoning others, especially not for ridiculous reasons like disobeying parents or being homosexual. Do you agree? Do you think those are good commands from a good god?

 

 

 

Two things.

 

 

 

1.) You fail to realize that laws are "archaic" only with the passing of time.

 

 

 

2.) You fail to understand what was meant by essential character, so let's try this again. God is what He is. His actions do not change that. For example, humans are typically seen as evil creatures. However, simply because man is an evil creature does not mean that all of his actions are evil nor can he do good. It simply means that his nature is one of evil. The inverse is true for God. Simply because He is good and all-loving does not mean he can not commit evil (If you want to call it that) nor does it mean he is any less good or loving for doing so. Hell, even the Bible and Quran both attest to this fact (God/Allah makes evil for His own purpose). Double hell... You play Runescape. I know for a fact there are instances of Sara doing what would be considered evil and Zammy doing what would be considered good.

 

 

 

But then you bring up Jesus comments on Mosaic Law. Fair enough. So am I right in saying that god still commands these things of some people? If so then obviously the point I was making is moot and he wasnt playing to archaic people hes just got a seriously skewed moral compass himself. If thats the case, then I think that kind of god is no more venerable than any other obviously man-made god with seriously outdated characteristics.

 

 

 

I do believe we've gone over this point before. Twice, if not three times. In this very thread no doubt. The laws are still there. Jesus simply fulfilled them (He did not abolish them). The laws will remain until the day Jesus returns and Heaven and Earth are washed away. Pretty simple, really.

 

 

 

What do you mean by this? Why would god command such nonsense if he didnt think it was a good thing to do?

 

 

 

What nonsense? You continue to make value judgments concerning a system of laws because it does not conform to what you personally deem as right and wrong.

 

 

 

Just for [cabbage] and giggles? I dont think those commandments are good in any way shape or form, therefore I dont think they could have possibly come from a good god. To me, they indicate anything but.

 

 

 

That's great for you buuut... What you think of any particular law/commandment is irrelevant. I happen to think quite a few current laws we have are idiotic, but that doesn't make them so now does it?

[Sly_Wizard]

Then what the [bleep] do you judge a person on, if not by his actions?

 

 

 

i may have a kind and gentle sole but if i run around killing babies your going to judge as a [bleep] maniac. of course, that doesnt really work, just as much as the percption of God being good and all-loving while killing over 2million people.

 

 

 

yeah, go figure out that logic :wall:

 

 

 

It seems to me that your gripe is solely based on the punishment handed down by God. Right or wrong (Hah!)?

[Lateralus]

(I gotta' say, when it comes to religion and philosophy, I have a fairly strong dislike for the English in this regard.)

 

I agree! And yet, that is your God. Magic and fairy dust. A way to describe the unexplained.

 

 

 

Or not. That may be your explanation, but it's by no means correct nor indicative of the truth.

 

 

 

...Oh! I almost forgot. Let's play a little game. It's called "Spot the logical fallacy". 3K if you can spot the logical fallacy in the above quoted four sentences.

 

 

 

I am making a point. You said that the world would be a dull place if everything happened magically (without a reason discernible by science). That's what God is. God comes along and everything "magically" happens without any scientific reason.

 

 

 

Ummm... How about... No? The same thing I said above holds true here. That may be your understanding of God but that in no way, shape or form even closely embodies the truth. Simply because you want to play the God of the gaps game doesn't make it so.

 

 

 

I find science and the world around us to be beautiful, startling and thrilling. So that makes you and your idea of God the rude ones.

 

 

 

And just doubly no. I wish I could write no gazillion times, because I would. I just don't have that much time on my hands.

 

 

 

A.) You can break down almost all of nature using nothing but numbers. Pythagoras figured this out about 2500 years ago. Galileo expounded on it. Sir Isaac Newton even more. And almost all of modern physics is based on this fact. Really, there's nothing "beautiful, startling and thrilling" about that

 

 

 

Don't you think that fact in itself is beautiful? You can biologically explain birth, but try telling a new parent that there's nothing special about their baby. Richard Feynman is probably the most often quoted on this subject.

 

 

 

I have a friend whos an artist and hes some times taken a view which I dont agree with very well. Hell hold up a flower and say, "look how beautiful it is," and Ill agree, I think. And he says, "you see, I as an artist can see how beautiful this is, but you as a scientist, oh, take this all apart and it becomes a dull thing." And I think hes kind of nutty.

 

 

 

First of all, the beauty that he sees is available to other people and to me, too, I believe, although I might not be quite as refined aesthetically as he is. But I can appreciate the beauty of a flower.

 

 

 

At the same time, I see much more about the flower that he sees. I could imagine the cells in there, the complicated actions inside which also have a beauty. I mean, its not just beauty at this dimension of one centimeter: there is also beauty at a smaller dimension, the inner structurealso the processes.

 

 

 

The fact that the colors in the flower are evolved in order to attract insects to pollinate it is interesting it means that insects can see the color.

 

 

 

It adds a question does this aesthetic sense also exist in the lower forms that arewhy is it aesthetic, all kinds of interesting questions which a science knowledge only adds to the excitement and mystery and the awe of a flower.

 

 

 

It only adds. I dont understand how it subtracts.

 

 

 

Because humans have evolved compassion. We have evolved reason, and it tells us that equality and freedom are good things that we should love, even if a God won't reward us for it in an afterlife.

 

 

 

Reason tells us that freedom is bad. Reason tells us it's okay to lie, cheat and steal. Reason tells us that it's okay to be mass murderers. Reason tells us that extorting others for personal use is perfectably acceptable. Reason tells me that you fail to understand that reason is limited by itself and provides no gauge of what is right and what is wrong; what is good and what is evil; what is acceptable and what is unacceptable, etc. etc. etc.

 

 

 

You don't include ethics and compassion and empathy and all that other good stuff in your reasoning?

[user1991]

I know I should have calmed down, but I was tired of trying to explain faith to them.

 

 

 

Faith isn't feeble ground to those who truly have it; and they do want some sort of data proving God, which just is impossible. God is faith, in a sense.

 

 

 

We actually all agreed to disagree a few pages and a month or so ago, but someone brought this page back up from page five or so. :?

 

 

 

I know exactly what you mean when you say faith. It isn't that I don't understand what it is, I don't understand why or HOW you can believe it.

 

 

 

It is so frustrating debating with people who openly admit that they subscribe to a concept that ignores evidence and bases "reality" on simply what you want to be. Its the ultimate cop out.

 

 

 

"It doesn't matter if you prove all of our arguments wrong, because we have faith. Nothing you can say will change that."

 

 

 

Okay, you have faith, and nothing I say can change it. But on the off chance that in future years you see how ridiculous this concept is, I'll say one thing and leave it at that.

 

 

 

If one of your closest friends told you that your parents had died in a car crash, but later you find out that they're still alive, and you confront the friend and he says "It doesn't matter if they're alive, I have faith that they're dead, so they're dead!!!, and he went on to arrange funeral proceedings and send out RIP notices to family members" - what would you think?

 

 

 

Of course, I'm being overly dramatic to place emphasis on the irrationality of such concepts - and I know that by the very essence of your faith you don't even listen to reason, but whatever.

[monkeyboo2]

(I gotta' say, when it comes to religion and philosophy, I have a fairly strong dislike for the English in this regard.)

 

I agree! And yet, that is your God. Magic and fairy dust. A way to describe the unexplained.

 

 

 

Or not. That may be your explanation, but it's by no means correct nor indicative of the truth.

 

 

 

...Oh! I almost forgot. Let's play a little game. It's called "Spot the logical fallacy". 3K if you can spot the logical fallacy in the above quoted four sentences.

 

 

 

I am making a point. You said that the world would be a dull place if everything happened magically (without a reason discernible by science). That's what God is. God comes along and everything "magically" happens without any scientific reason.

 

 

 

Ummm... How about... No? The same thing I said above holds true here. That may be your understanding of God but that in no way, shape or form even closely embodies the truth. Simply because you want to play the God of the gaps game doesn't make it so.

 

 

 

So explain what 'the truth' is and the support it with evidence and reason. For this exercise i will assume that a god exists; you must prove that your interpretation is more truthful than everybody elses.

 

 

 

I find science and the world around us to be beautiful, startling and thrilling. So that makes you and your idea of God the rude ones.

 

 

 

And just doubly no. I wish I could write no gazillion times, because I would. I just don't have that much time on my hands.

 

 

 

A.) You can break down almost all of nature using nothing but numbers. Pythagoras figured this out about 2500 years ago. Galileo expounded on it. Sir Isaac Newton even more. And almost all of modern physics is based on this fact. Really, there's nothing "beautiful, startling and thrilling" about that and

 

 

 

I find it really quite startling how you all argue about which point of view makes the world seem the most "Beautiful, Startling and Thrilling". OK, so by scientific and logical approach means you can decode everything (theroretically) into formulae, rules and numbers; and that, for you, may make the world seem less thrilling but you shouldn't scrap logic because you don't like the answer it gives. The answer that is the one you like, doesn't make it truth. The answer which has reason behind it makes it truth.

 

 

 

B.) It's impossible for God to be considered rude when speaking of nature, as to do so would be to argue that he imposes himself on nature. Unfortunately for you, last I checked, God is closer to supernatural (Above nature) than He is unnatural (Not of nature).

 

 

 

Because humans have evolved compassion. We have evolved reason, and it tells us that equality and freedom are good things that we should love, even if a God won't reward us for it in an afterlife.

 

 

 

Reason tells us that freedom is bad. Reason tells us it's okay to lie, cheat and steal. Reason tells us that it's okay to be mass murderers. Reason tells us that extorting others for personal use is perfectably acceptable. Reason tells me that you fail to understand that reason is limited by itself and provides no gauge of what is right and what is wrong; what is good and what is evil; what is acceptable and what is unacceptable, etc. etc. etc.

 

 

 

And where did you get that idea? This is the anti-intellectual approach of faith. Can you not see that you have been told this by the Church to scare you away from reasoning for yourself?

 

 

 

Now the real test here is if you can back up your statements about how Evil reason is by using reason, because that is the only acceptable form of argument- not just statements based on blind faith.

 

 

 

Research for yourself (independant of relgious influence) about how logic and reason have eliminated Smallpox, created windfarms and many other revolutionary things.

 

 

 

I won't start on your actual statements until you actual give them any weight by using reason.

 

 

 

Faith contains no inherent conception of goodness...

 

 

 

Well, of course it wouldn't. That's not what faith is.

 

 

 

...The Holy Texts are interpreted in thousands of different ways, many of them evil (e.g. the Taleban).

 

 

 

Which says more about the inherent evilness of man than it does the 'Holy Texts' (Whatever you define that as).

 

 

 

So why are you so sure that your interpretation is so correct and good?

 

 

 

The only goodness comes from our evolved capacity for reason and compassion.

 

 

 

"Truly, if there is evil in this world it lies within the hearts of men."-- Edward D. Morrison, Tales of Phantasia

 

 

 

Goodness doesn't come from man. Evil does, however.

[Lenticular_J]

I know exactly what you mean when you say faith. It isn't that I don't understand what it is, I don't understand why or HOW you can believe it.

 

That's the essence of faith! You have stated before you want logic and facts to prove faith. That isn't faith. That's science. What you want is a scientific God that can be proved with experiments and numbers, instead of the God I believe in, who is a God of faith and the unexplained. You could even say God is the mystery I find in the universe that I can't find in science, which breaks it down into numbers and theories. Call me romantic, but that is no way I would want to look at life. That's more of leaning on machines instead of humanity, which is completely fallible. And that's the beauty of it. Our imperfections.

 

 

 

However, hey, if you like to look at everything logically and predictably, go ahead. I just prefer mystery.

 

 

 

It is so frustrating debating with people who openly admit that they subscribe to a concept that ignores evidence and bases "reality" on simply what you want to be. Its the ultimate cop out.

 

 

 

That's the exact thing I feel, only as I said, it's frustrating because you want the opposite. You want theists to explain what we believe is unexplainable, and that that is the beauty in it.

 

 

 

"It doesn't matter if you prove all of our arguments wrong, because we have faith. Nothing you can say will change that."

 

I don't think anybody has said that in the past ten pages, though I may be wrong. That's just an oversimplification.

 

 

 

Okay, you have faith, and nothing I say can change it. But on the off chance that in future years you see how ridiculous this concept is, I'll say one thing and leave it at that.

 

I find it just as ridiculous to want everything explained, obvious, and logical. I believe in humans evolving via our own means, relying solely on technological means - which I think is quite plausible of an idea. Like Teilhard's theories, about evolving via things like Empathy to the Godhead. While I don't believe exactly what he believed, I do believe humanity can evolve to something resembling God's own perfection, and that's the point. But, hey, maybe I'm write in the theory, but wrong in how we're supposed to get there.

 

 

 

If one of your closest friends told you that your parents had died in a car crash, but later you find out that they're still alive, and you confront the friend and he says "It doesn't matter if they're alive, I have faith that they're dead, so they're dead!!!, and he went on to arrange funeral proceedings and send out RIP notices to family members" - what would you think?

 

That isn't even close to overly dramatic. Another complete oversimplification and showing how you don't understand what faith is to those of us who have it. I don't mean that in a rude way, but you don't.

 

 

 

Of course, I'm being overly dramatic to place emphasis on the irrationality of such concepts - and I know that by the very essence of your faith you don't even listen to reason, but whatever.

 

Yep. And I'm tired of trying to respond to quite petty insults, so go ahead.

[Zierro]

Wow, even as an anti-religious person, I have to say the religious people here are making much more sense. For some reason, people think that logic is an infallible tool that can crack all the codes in the universe. There's a problem with that. Logic is a tool used by man, just like faith therefore neither can be ever considered "perfect".

 

 

 

Just think about animals. They use some degree of logic and to them, it probably seems 'perfect'. For example, there is an experiment where a mouse presses a button to get food - logic is being applied there, even though it's a very scant amount. Human logic is more advanced, but I'm pretty sure it's nowhere near perfect. I'm sure if there are higher beings out there, they are capable of making our logic look like that of a mouse's. There are some things in the universe that we still cannot grasp and I doubt we ever will. Why? Because our logic is limited, just like a mouse.

 

 

 

In other words, the logic of human is not perfect so I don't see why people put so much trust into it. If you ask me, that's just the definition of closed-mindedness.

 

 

 

I know I'm gonna regret posting this, but oh well. I'll be happy if at least one person understands. *submits*

[Lateralus]

Wow, even as an anti-religious person, I have to say the religious people here are making much more sense. For some reason, people think that logic is an infallible tool that can crack all the codes in the universe. There's a problem with that. Logic is a tool used by man, just like faith therefore neither can be ever considered "perfect".

 

 

 

Just think about animals. They use some degree of logic and to them, it probably seems 'perfect'. For example, there is an experiment where a mouse presses a button to get food - logic is being applied there, even though it's a very scant amount. Human logic is more advanced, but I'm pretty sure it's nowhere near perfect. I'm sure if there are higher beings out there, they are capable of making our logic look like that of a mouse's. There are some things in the universe that we still cannot grasp and I doubt we ever will. Why? Because our logic is limited, just like a mouse.

 

 

 

In other words, the logic of human is not perfect so I don't see why people put so much trust into it. If you ask me, that's just the definition of closed-mindedness.

 

 

 

I know I'm gonna regret posting this, but oh well. I'll be happy if at least one person understands. *submits*

 

 

 

I can understand what you're saying, but the point is that logic is all we have.

[monkeyboo2]

I can understand what you're saying, but the point is that logic is all we have.

 

 

 

I can understand what he's saying, but the point is that logic is the Best form of reasoning that we have.

 

 

 

To say that anything else is a superior decision system without evidence is plain ignorant. Logic has got us this far, despite the setbacks of non-logic. It may not be 'perfect' but the nice thing is that science/logic/reason is willing to change when presented with valid evidence to do so. It changes therefore it can become increasingly more perfect unlike many other non-logical decision systems.

 

So its not perfect but its the best we have got.