Your standing on religion

[NewHaiku]

Something I discovered when learning my torah potion for my bar mitzvah. Read from Deut 28:15. Apparently, God will force me to eat my children if I don't believe in him.

[insane]

And how would you know it is true? You just assume? Just like everyone else who believes in an absolute moral Law? They contradict eachother - which is right?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

No - you misunderstood. Assuming there is an objective moral law. It's how I was making an argument.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Just like further down I assumed there was *no* objective moral law, and then built an argument on that :) I assumed both true, and then looked at what was most rational. It's a form a logical thinking I think o_O.

[Death_By_Pod]

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Horrible according to what? This is where we run into a problem, there's nothing to justify, because horrible is a relative term. What's horrible to one person could be amazingly kind to another person, so justification becomes relative as well - justice ceases to exist and all actions become impossible to interpret one way or another. How can you possibly call us arrogant, assuming morals are relative? Arrogant is now, a relative term, that only applies to your point of view - trying to force that view on us, is simply being arrogant yourself. But wait, I can't use the word arrogant because it's relative!

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

This is ridiculous! We can't even communicate using moral/personal terms anymore because they only apply to the person using them.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Most definitions are drummed into you as a child. Why do you know the shirt you are wearing is red and not blue? Everyone has some concept on what it is to be horrible or to be kind. The objective part is how you choose to assign the value of an action (eg. as being good, bad, indifferent etc.) not the definition itself.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

For example some see killing animals as wrong but if you were a farmer and you killed animals all the time to protect the farm (crops and animals) you may think killing animals is normal regardless of all the people that hate killing animals. So where does absolute morals play into situations like this where it is bad or good depending on whom you are? To me a set of strict morals just don't work.

[insane]

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Horrible according to what? This is where we run into a problem, there's nothing to justify, because horrible is a relative term. What's horrible to one person could be amazingly kind to another person, so justification becomes relative as well - justice ceases to exist and all actions become impossible to interpret one way or another. How can you possibly call us arrogant, assuming morals are relative? Arrogant is now, a relative term, that only applies to your point of view - trying to force that view on us, is simply being arrogant yourself. But wait, I can't use the word arrogant because it's relative!

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

This is ridiculous! We can't even communicate using moral/personal terms anymore because they only apply to the person using them.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Most definitions are drummed into you as a child. Why do you know the shirt you are wearing is red and not blue? Everyone has some concept on what it is to be horrible or to be kind. The objective part is how you choose to assign the value of an action (eg. as being good, bad, indifferent etc.) not the definition itself.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

My point still stands - be it true or not, communication is rendered almost useless. Every time we assign a value, we'd have to define the word, how we're using it, because everyone uses it differently (and then define any words in the definition that might be subjective...)... :| does this follow correctly or am I being stupid? (I just woke up)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Could you rexplain your argument? I don't quite follow how we assign a value of an action (clearly a subjective action) objectively?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

For example some see killing animals as wrong but if you were a farmer and you killed animals all the time to protect the farm (crops and animals) you may think killing animals is normal regardless of all the people that hate killing animals. So where does absolute morals play into situations like this where it is bad or good depending on whom you are? To me a set of strict morals just don't work.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

It works, just one side would be wrong :) just like I don't think a truely relativist life would work, so you think this wouldn't work. *shrugs* I guess it always boils down to a matter of opinion. I'd like to say motives behind killing animals would come into play, but maybe that would make it too hard to see from an absolute point of view - you'd have to start judging motives (clearly I believe most people would say killing a duck at a petting zoo by lighting it on fire for 90 minutes is sick, and that farming animals for food might be seen by some as justified)... I don't know, now I'm way too confused :| I guess it's easy for me to understand since I believe in a supreme deity who *is* the source of all morality, therefore this deity makes the judgement calls, and I am definately not responsible for judging others in this way.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

So if morals are objective, it's not up to us to judge others (IMO, assuming a supreme being, which I guess is the only way morals could be objective), I guess we'll have to leave it up to the majority (maybe contradictory, but for the sake of the population and everyone's beliefs it's all thrown out the window) to decide what is right and wrong, for "us", since it is clearly impossible to define right and wrong for people with so many beliefs. But we can assume complete relativism either, because we could not serve "justice" for anything.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

So I guess for practicality's sake in this world, we need to find a balance between subjectivity and absolution in morality, if that's possible at all.

[johnnyblue]

The term athiest implies "I believe there is no God". Agnostic , "I do not know if there is one or not". I think that unless you are all knowing, you cannot be an atheist. It requires all knowledge to prove there is no God. At best you can say "i do not know if there is or not", I have much more respect for this view then to say " I believe there is no God". Reason and Logic dictates that in order to prove something conclusively you must have all the facts. But hey, if you want to be an atheist, just spend a lot of time determining why you are. :D

[Pete_the_Viscous]

Although I agree with you (and am agnostic for that reason), is it not exactly as reasonable to believe in there being no god as there being "a" or "many" god or gods?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

There is no proof either way, of course, but then again there is no proof of pretty much anything in the world, especially all sorts of laws of physics which we all take as being true. Sure, there's plenty of evidence, and (if you ask me) we seem to be on the right track with them, but there's no actual proof, what with our being unable to prove things in physics, only disprove them and all.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

What I'm suggesting, then, is that it's reasonable to believe there is no god -- just as reasonable as it is to believe that all these laws work: there's plenty of evidence (if you see it as evidence -- I'm sure lots of religious types will of course see it another way, which is down to their own beliefs).

[____]

The term athiest implies "I believe there is no God". Agnostic , "I do not know if there is one or not". I think that unless you are all knowing, you cannot be an atheist. It requires all knowledge to prove there is no God. At best you can say "i do not know if there is or not", I have much more respect for this view then to say " I believe there is no God". Reason and Logic dictates that in order to prove something conclusively you must have all the facts. But hey, if you want to be an atheist, just spend a lot of time determining why you are. :D

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

It also requires all knowledge to prove there is a god aswell.

 

 

 

Nice try though, better luck next time ;)

[johnnyblue]

My point being that either way: to be a atheist or a deist or a theist, all take faith, faith that you are right, based on no hard physical evidence. To be an agnostic takes no faith, you simply know, that you dont know. I believe there is a God, by faith, for me to try to prove that to somone who does not have faith is really a futile argument. Debates over wether there is a God or not are pointless. Either you believe there is by faith, or believe there isnt by faith in your own sense that there isnt. The term athies implies, I could be wrong on this, that you know there is no God, how? based on hard evidence?

 

 

 

If you dont know all then you cant say there is no God, and equally and fairly the same is true if you believe there is a God. My post was meant to address the original which was [i have recently decide I dont believe in god, which means im Atheist.

 

 

 

I just dont understand how everyone believes in it. What is your standing on this? ] My answer is they believe by faith. just as He must believe by faith that there is no God.

[bjbj1991]

i believe life was a fluke an axident. nothin is special with it other than its more complicated than anything else we have seen. when the reactions that make us live stop thats all. even if i am rong and there is a god i dont see anyway for him to be vain enough to condem a man to hell for not believing in him. and to kill another is not a bad thing ethor in your mind it was selfdefence or somthing is wrong inside your brain that you cant control. i believe in the m-theory and that the universe began with a colision of membranes. as far as we know the 11th diminsion has existed forever so i am happey with that idea.

[Lionheart_0]

The term athiest implies "I believe there is no God". Agnostic , "I do not know if there is one or not". I think that unless you are all knowing, you cannot be an atheist. It requires all knowledge to prove there is no God. At best you can say "i do not know if there is or not", I have much more respect for this view then to say " I believe there is no God". Reason and Logic dictates that in order to prove something conclusively you must have all the facts. But hey, if you want to be an atheist, just spend a lot of time determining why you are. :D

:roll: in your logic then, christains dont exist cause they dont have ultimate proof that a good exists.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Its all about belifes.

[Barihawk]

I am a staunch creationist who believes in the Big Bang theory. According to me, God said "BANG!" and it all happened. I believe in micro-evolution, which explains how we all came from Adam and Eve but have different physical characteristics. I even go out on the crazy branch and believe that this wierd guy named Jesus was God in human form!

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Thats what I believe, you can believe what I want. We can just futilly try to force our beliefs on eachother.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Arguing on the internet is pointless, so why bother?

[johnnyblue]

I sense some circular reasoning here. I think you are missing the point of the first post, and how I tried to adress it. It really has to do with faith vs absolute knowledge. The christian (or for that matter anyone who believes in some kind of God of god) relies on faith as reason for existence or being. The athiest relies on faith in his own reasoning that there is no God and really no reason for being other than chance. All I wish people to see is that we dont have the ability to see all and know all, therefore we should search, not just blindly accept what others decide must be true becuause the feel that this is so. I have and am admitting this goes both ways, this you seem to miss. I as a Christian have to say I dont have have all kwowledge, there fore there could be no God, but (the big but here) I believe [by faith] that there is. Therefore the same must be said of the the "atheist" -- I dont have all knowledge, there fore there could be a God, but - I believe there is not by faith in my own reasoning. This would be i suppose, an athiest by faith, if you wish to call it. Hence, recognizing we come to these conclusions by faith or belief or whatever you want to call, just dont call it absolute. Christians, for the most part aknowledge they are christians by [faith], whereas many, not all, atheist feel that Science dictates that there is no God, so they believe it by ["fact"]. This is simply not the case, Science does not have all knowledge,

 

 

 

and it can be shown with Science that there could be the existence of an Intelligent Designer.

[Hannibal]

 

 

 

Universal Right is extremely dangerous, because it allows people to do horrible things and justify it.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Assuming it's true (moral absolution), horrible things are never justified, because "horrible" things, would contradict the moral Law.

 

 

 

And how would you know it is true? You just assume? Just like everyone else who believes in an absolute moral Law? They contradict eachother - which is right?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Would you mind explaining how they contradict each other, and what exactly are "they'? :confused: Sorry for not understanding what you meant there.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Insane assumed there was some absolute moral law that was true. Supposing that was true, you would still need a way to figure out yourself what that law is (ie, which one of the infinitely many possible moral laws is the absolute true moral law). So you would not be able to *know* what law is true (at least, that was the argument I meant to give). Then, since you don't know, you can reason to it and assume (like, maybe your reasoning is sound and you're right, but you're never 100% sure) that one of these moral laws is the true absolute moral law. Then someone else comes along and thinks another absolute moral law is true. You would not have any way of determining which of you is right, hence the concept of having some absolute moral law which is always right does not help us - because we would not be able to 'know' this law.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I hope that was a better explanation, I admit my previous post was somewhat vague :).

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Subjective Justice allows people to do horrible things aswell, but never to justify it.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Assuming morals are relative:

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Horrible according to what? This is where we run into a problem, there's nothing to justify, because horrible is a relative term. What's horrible to one person could be amazingly kind to another person, so justification becomes relative as well - justice ceases to exist and all actions become impossible to interpret one way or another. How can you possibly call us arrogant, assuming morals are relative? Arrogant is now, a relative term, that only applies to your point of view - trying to force that view on us, is simply being arrogant yourself. But wait, I can't use the word arrogant because it's relative!

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

This is ridiculous! We can't even communicate using moral/personal terms anymore because they only apply to the person using them.

 

 

 

It's not ridiculous, it means everyone is entitled to an opinion. The law is formed based on the common denominator of morals amongst the majority of a country's population, and you are judged on that. In the same way, sometimes judges find people guilty or innocent based on the law, while they themselves disagree with that (one of the reasons it's so hard to be a judge).

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

See also Matthew 7:1-7.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Might I ask what that passage has to do with what you said? "Judge not, lest you be judged. For with the measure you use, so it will be measured unto you."

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

You know, if you believe that there is a universal moral law which everyone is accountable to, then what's wrong with judging people according to it, since you yourself are judged according to it? It declares others guilty just as it declares you guilty. As a Christian, this is where God's grace and the death of Christ come in - they enable you to avoid the punishment for moral guilt, since Christ took that guilt. Anyway, I'm going off on a tangent.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

And yes, everyone is entitled to an opinion. Their opinion may be wrong - I know I've had and do have many wrong opinions - but they're entitled to their own opinions no matter how incorrect they may be. It's their right to be wrong. Note that I don't mean to sound arrogant, since I make all those same mistakes.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

There is something wrong with judging people according to the law you think is universal, because they may not agree with it, and you cannot be sure that your law is the actual universally right one. The point of the passage, from my point of view, was to illustrate that it doesn't make sense to judge only from one law that only you support - it makes much more sense to take the common denominator of the majority of the population, as that way most people would actually agree with the law most of the time. For me, the passage actually warns you not to judge. It says that if you judge someone else, from your own (selfish) moral standpoint, then you too will be judged, from someone else's (selfish) moral standpoint. So the best thing would be not to judge by yourself, but find a way to have a universal 'thing' judge everyone. From a Christian standpoint, this 'thing' would be God, of course. While on earth, given that we need justice systems and police and whatnot, I would say it would have to be said common denominator of the moral laws people agree upon, incorporated in a law like countries have and whatnot.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

The judge thing illustrates that: a judge may not personally agree with the verdict, but the law should be set up so that the majority of people would agree with it.

[jak722]

religion eh?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I only use it for morals/guidance. I dont let it get in the way of anything else. (im partly agnostic)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Anyways why bump up an old topic? :|

[Astralinre]

It also requires all knowledge to prove there is a god aswell.

 

 

 

Nice try though, better luck next time ;)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Actually, it doesn't require absolute knowledge to prove there is a God, while it is required to prove there is no God. It's the difference between a positive universal claim and a negative universal claim.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Imagine the universe as a room, and you want to prove that there is a spider in the room. If you want to prove the spider's presence, you only have to know one part of the room - the part where the spider is. However, if you wish to prove that there is no spider in the room, you must know every nook and crany of the room, lest the spider be hiding in some unknown corner.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

It's the same thing with God. To prove the existence of God, one would only have to have knowledge of one place where God is. But to prove that there is no God, one would have to know every bit of reality (be omniscient), lest God be in some far reach of the universe that man doesn't know about. Therefore, to say that there absolutely is no God is to claim omniscience. However, if you were omniscient, you'd probally fit the definition of God, hence proving that there is a God.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

All of that to say this: Man will never be able to conclusively say that there is no God, though one can reasonably say that one doesn't believe in God's existence. However, it is possible that someone could find direct proof of a God without being all-knowing.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Insane assumed there was some absolute moral law that was true. Supposing that was true, you would still need a way to figure out yourself what that law is (ie, which one of the infinitely many possible moral laws is the absolute true moral law). So you would not be able to *know* what law is true (at least, that was the argument I meant to give). Then, since you don't know, you can reason to it and assume (like, maybe your reasoning is sound and you're right, but you're never 100% sure) that one of these moral laws is the true absolute moral law. Then someone else comes along and thinks another absolute moral law is true. You would not have any way of determining which of you is right, hence the concept of having some absolute moral law which is always right does not help us - because we would not be able to 'know' this law.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

------

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

There is something wrong with judging people according to the law you think is universal, because they may not agree with it, and you cannot be sure that your law is the actual universally right one. The point of the passage, from my point of view, was to illustrate that it doesn't make sense to judge only from one law that only you support - it makes much more sense to take the common denominator of the majority of the population, as that way most people would actually agree with the law most of the time. For me, the passage actually warns you not to judge. It says that if you judge someone else, from your own (selfish) moral standpoint, then you too will be judged, from someone else's (selfish) moral standpoint. So the best thing would be not to judge by yourself, but find a way to have a universal 'thing' judge everyone. From a Christian standpoint, this 'thing' would be God, of course. While on earth, given that we need justice systems and police and whatnot, I would say it would have to be said common denominator of the moral laws people agree upon, incorporated in a law like countries have and whatnot.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

The judge thing illustrates that: a judge may not personally agree with the verdict, but the law should be set up so that the majority of people would agree with it.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I'd have to agree that we aren't 100% sure whether or not we're right, but then again, everything we know is based on assumptions, axioms, unproven beliefs. I know I'm going off on a tangent here, but I can't think of any other response, so please humor me for a moment. =P

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Christianity is based on the assumption that there is an infinite-personal, triune God (to use Schaeffer's term) who created man in his image and wants man to spend eternity with him. Science is based on the assumptions that the universe is reasonable and that man's reason and senses can accurately explain reality. Democracy is based on the assumption that the masses can govern themselves well. We assume that knowledges is better than ignorance, that wealth is better than poverty, and that excitement is better than boredom. This conversation we're having is based on the assumption that we can communicate meaning to another human being.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I think what I'm getting at is that we have to make assumptions and base our lives on them, so how is making moral assumptions any different? One of my assumptions is that it's better to believe in something and follow it than to say "All assumptions are equally valid, so I won't measure others against my assumptions." In the sea of pluralism, I prefer to find a voice, make in mine, and defend it, rather than try to accept all the voices at once. I'm not trying to advocate close-mindedness, just confidence and faith in your own assumptions.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Well, that was a long post for me. :o :P

[MyPurpleCrayon]

I am a staunch creationist who believes in the Big Bang theory. According to me, God said "BANG!" and it all happened. I believe in micro-evolution, which explains how we all came from Adam and Eve but have different physical characteristics. I even go out on the crazy branch and believe that this wierd guy named Jesus was God in human form!

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Thats what I believe, you can believe what I want. We can just futilly try to force our beliefs on eachother.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Arguing on the internet is pointless, so why bother?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

That is basically what I believe, but I'm not going to go in depth about it.... I'm really against blind faith too and I find it very hypocritical.

[Silent969]

although the beginnings of christianity are pretty hypocritical in the sense that the church conned the masses into killing a bunch of people in the crusades for the sake of god is terrible, people that decide not to worship god and believe in god nowadays arent forced into it and burned at the stake for being heretics. I wish i could believe in god... because if i had nothing else to turn to i could turn to god, but I think the Bible is ridiculous. Supposedly its a gigantic Metaphor for things in general, but a while ago, before science proved Genesis and Noah's Ark impossible, all the religious people said that it was completely true. To each their own.

[Lionheart_0]

 

It also requires all knowledge to prove there is a god aswell.

 

 

 

Nice try though, better luck next time ;)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Actually, it doesn't require absolute knowledge to prove there is a God, while it is required to prove there is no God. It's the difference between a positive universal claim and a negative universal claim.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Imagine the universe as a room, and you want to prove that there is a spider in the room. If you want to prove the spider's presence, you only have to know one part of the room - the part where the spider is. However, if you wish to prove that there is no spider in the room, you must know every nook and crany of the room, lest the spider be hiding in some unknown corner.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

It's the same thing with God. To prove the existence of God, one would only have to have knowledge of one place where God is. But to prove that there is no God, one would have to know every bit of reality (be omniscient), lest God be in some far reach of the universe that man doesn't know about. Therefore, to say that there absolutely is no God is to claim omniscience. However, if you were omniscient, you'd probally fit the definition of God, hence proving that there is a God.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Ya but your thinking physical, god is sappoused to be spiritual, is it not?

[angels2522]

you cant blame anyone or anything for thier belifs everyone gets to make thier own chooice

[insane]

 

 

It also requires all knowledge to prove there is a god aswell.

 

 

 

Nice try though, better luck next time ;)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Actually, it doesn't require absolute knowledge to prove there is a God, while it is required to prove there is no God. It's the difference between a positive universal claim and a negative universal claim.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Imagine the universe as a room, and you want to prove that there is a spider in the room. If you want to prove the spider's presence, you only have to know one part of the room - the part where the spider is. However, if you wish to prove that there is no spider in the room, you must know every nook and crany of the room, lest the spider be hiding in some unknown corner.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

It's the same thing with God. To prove the existence of God, one would only have to have knowledge of one place where God is. But to prove that there is no God, one would have to know every bit of reality (be omniscient), lest God be in some far reach of the universe that man doesn't know about. Therefore, to say that there absolutely is no God is to claim omniscience. However, if you were omniscient, you'd probally fit the definition of God, hence proving that there is a God.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Ya but your thinking physical, god is sappoused to be spiritual, is it not?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

It's really irrelevant to the point he's trying to prove. He's saying that if you can establish the existence of God, then you don't need to know all of reality to prove it, because you've already shown God to exist.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

However to show God *not* to exist - then you need to show *everywhere* God is not.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Get it? There He is! Stop searching. There He isn't, keep going until you've searched everything.

[MyPurpleCrayon]

 

It also requires all knowledge to prove there is a god aswell.

 

 

 

Nice try though, better luck next time ;)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Actually, it doesn't require absolute knowledge to prove there is a God, while it is required to prove there is no God. It's the difference between a positive universal claim and a negative universal claim.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Imagine the universe as a room, and you want to prove that there is a spider in the room. If you want to prove the spider's presence, you only have to know one part of the room - the part where the spider is. However, if you wish to prove that there is no spider in the room, you must know every nook and crany of the room, lest the spider be hiding in some unknown corner.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

It's the same thing with God. To prove the existence of God, one would only have to have knowledge of one place where God is. But to prove that there is no God, one would have to know every bit of reality (be omniscient), lest God be in some far reach of the universe that man doesn't know about. Therefore, to say that there absolutely is no God is to claim omniscience. However, if you were omniscient, you'd probally fit the definition of God, hence proving that there is a God.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

All of that to say this: Man will never be able to conclusively say that there is no God, though one can reasonably say that one doesn't believe in God's existence. However, it is possible that someone could find direct proof of a God without being all-knowing.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Insane assumed there was some absolute moral law that was true. Supposing that was true, you would still need a way to figure out yourself what that law is (ie, which one of the infinitely many possible moral laws is the absolute true moral law). So you would not be able to *know* what law is true (at least, that was the argument I meant to give). Then, since you don't know, you can reason to it and assume (like, maybe your reasoning is sound and you're right, but you're never 100% sure) that one of these moral laws is the true absolute moral law. Then someone else comes along and thinks another absolute moral law is true. You would not have any way of determining which of you is right, hence the concept of having some absolute moral law which is always right does not help us - because we would not be able to 'know' this law.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

------

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

There is something wrong with judging people according to the law you think is universal, because they may not agree with it, and you cannot be sure that your law is the actual universally right one. The point of the passage, from my point of view, was to illustrate that it doesn't make sense to judge only from one law that only you support - it makes much more sense to take the common denominator of the majority of the population, as that way most people would actually agree with the law most of the time. For me, the passage actually warns you not to judge. It says that if you judge someone else, from your own (selfish) moral standpoint, then you too will be judged, from someone else's (selfish) moral standpoint. So the best thing would be not to judge by yourself, but find a way to have a universal 'thing' judge everyone. From a Christian standpoint, this 'thing' would be God, of course. While on earth, given that we need justice systems and police and whatnot, I would say it would have to be said common denominator of the moral laws people agree upon, incorporated in a law like countries have and whatnot.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

The judge thing illustrates that: a judge may not personally agree with the verdict, but the law should be set up so that the majority of people would agree with it.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I'd have to agree that we aren't 100% sure whether or not we're right, but then again, everything we know is based on assumptions, axioms, unproven beliefs. I know I'm going off on a tangent here, but I can't think of any other response, so please humor me for a moment. =P

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Christianity is based on the assumption that there is an infinite-personal, triune God (to use Schaeffer's term) who created man in his image and wants man to spend eternity with him. Science is based on the assumptions that the universe is reasonable and that man's reason and senses can accurately explain reality. Democracy is based on the assumption that the masses can govern themselves well. We assume that knowledges is better than ignorance, that wealth is better than poverty, and that excitement is better than boredom. This conversation we're having is based on the assumption that we can communicate meaning to another human being.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I think what I'm getting at is that we have to make assumptions and base our lives on them, so how is making moral assumptions any different? One of my assumptions is that it's better to believe in something and follow it than to say "All assumptions are equally valid, so I won't measure others against my assumptions." In the sea of pluralism, I prefer to find a voice, make in mine, and defend it, rather than try to accept all the voices at once. I'm not trying to advocate close-mindedness, just confidence and faith in your own assumptions.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Well, that was a long post for me. :o :P

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Wow....you are genius.

[Barihawk]

although the beginnings of christianity are pretty hypocritical in the sense that the church conned the masses into killing a bunch of people in the crusades for the sake of god is terrible, people that decide not to worship god and believe in god nowadays arent forced into it and burned at the stake for being heretics. I wish i could believe in god... because if i had nothing else to turn to i could turn to god, but I think the Bible is ridiculous. Supposedly its a gigantic Metaphor for things in general, but a while ago, before science proved Genesis and Noah's Ark impossible, all the religious people said that it was completely true. To each their own.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Wait, is this documented somewhere? I do not remember hearing any scientific law that rules out a massive flood, Creation, or the fact that a massive petrified boat sits atop Mt. Ararat.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

People fail to realize that even after 500 years, the theory of evolution is still a theory. And you are judging the entire faith on a single facet. Realize that there are hundreds of denominations, not just the Catholic church.

[MyPurpleCrayon]

although the beginnings of christianity are pretty hypocritical in the sense that the church conned the masses into killing a bunch of people in the crusades for the sake of god is terrible, people that decide not to worship god and believe in god nowadays arent forced into it and burned at the stake for being heretics. I wish i could believe in god... because if i had nothing else to turn to i could turn to god, but I think the Bible is ridiculous. Supposedly its a gigantic Metaphor for things in general, but a while ago, before science proved Genesis and Noah's Ark impossible, all the religious people said that it was completely true. To each their own.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Sorry to burst your bubble but that is not a correct statement. In fact, I have heard the opposite...of course neither of us actually knows the real truth. But where Noah's Ark is, on the mountain, many men have tried going up there, and actually have been struck by lighting multiple times. This is not a made up myth, it is true, and I have read documents etc. on it.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

But it isn't the facts that keeps me going and believing, it is my faith.

[Lionheart_0]

 

 

 

It also requires all knowledge to prove there is a god aswell.

 

 

 

Nice try though, better luck next time ;)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Actually, it doesn't require absolute knowledge to prove there is a God, while it is required to prove there is no God. It's the difference between a positive universal claim and a negative universal claim.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Imagine the universe as a room, and you want to prove that there is a spider in the room. If you want to prove the spider's presence, you only have to know one part of the room - the part where the spider is. However, if you wish to prove that there is no spider in the room, you must know every nook and crany of the room, lest the spider be hiding in some unknown corner.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

It's the same thing with God. To prove the existence of God, one would only have to have knowledge of one place where God is. But to prove that there is no God, one would have to know every bit of reality (be omniscient), lest God be in some far reach of the universe that man doesn't know about. Therefore, to say that there absolutely is no God is to claim omniscience. However, if you were omniscient, you'd probally fit the definition of God, hence proving that there is a God.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Ya but your thinking physical, god is sappoused to be spiritual, is it not?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

It's really irrelevant to the point he's trying to prove. He's saying that if you can establish the existence of God, then you don't need to know all of reality to prove it, because you've already shown God to exist.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

However to show God *not* to exist - then you need to show *everywhere* God is not.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Get it? There He is! Stop searching. There He isn't, keep going until you've searched everything.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

:? No acutly the point i made was valid, cause there is no proof at all that a god exists, therefore what he siad didnt make sense. Cause what if you say there is a spider is in the room, yet you cant see the spider at all, but you still feel that its there... theres no proof that a spiders there, only a feeling, and a bleif.

[insane]

No acutly the point i made was valid, cause there is no proof at all that a god exists, therefore what he siad didnt make sense. Cause what if you say there is a spider is in the room, yet you cant see the spider at all, but you still feel that its there... theres no proof that a spiders there, only a feeling, and a bleif.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

You missed the point again. He's speaking theoretically.