religion

[Zierro]

If I know an outcome already why have an experiment? Why would I be a loving God when I know which people I will be casting aside before they are born, yes I realize I am not controlling their decisions but what is the point of testing them? I am God, they dont need a test they are either going to pass or fail I knew it a infinite number of years ago, what is the point?

 

This. I don't see why anything would need to be proven to a god. And free will is pretty much an obsolete term when referring to God, because he has already dictated what your genetics and environment will be at your initial creation, and thus is the greatest, scratch that - the only, deciding factor of your choices. Essentially, he would just be trying to prove something to himself.

 

That extends to all of creation? I am a perfect God, I know all the infinite possibilities that can come out of creation, so why did I feel the need to create everything, was I not perfect? Was I not content being by myself?

 

I don't think the fact that a god would decide to act and do something renders him imperfect. His definition of "imperfect" could very well be "laziness" for all we know. We are mortal beings guessing an immortal being's intentions, so we must always bare our ignorance in mind when rambling about theology.

[Zygimantas]

Sums up what I said, and another thing, if God knows Adam and Eve will eat the apple before they eat it why create them only to have them suffer forever? "Why did he not make creation wholly blissful, free from misfortune?" Surly God would have had to have known how miserable so many people he created would be, why did he create them knowing that suffering would be the end product?

 

 

It points to one of two things, that God is malicious or that God doesnt exist.

 

Maybe to enjoy true happiness we need to experience suffering first?

[Da_Latios]

Sums up what I said, and another thing, if God knows Adam and Eve will eat the apple before they eat it why create them only to have them suffer forever? "Why did he not make creation wholly blissful, free from misfortune?" Surly God would have had to have known how miserable so many people he created would be, why did he create them knowing that suffering would be the end product?

 

 

It points to one of two things, that God is malicious or that God doesnt exist.

 

Maybe to enjoy true happiness we need to experience suffering first?

Imagine a serial killer(or a rapist), who tortured his victims relentlessly, using that excuse.

[Zygimantas]

Sums up what I said, and another thing, if God knows Adam and Eve will eat the apple before they eat it why create them only to have them suffer forever? "Why did he not make creation wholly blissful, free from misfortune?" Surly God would have had to have known how miserable so many people he created would be, why did he create them knowing that suffering would be the end product?

 

 

It points to one of two things, that God is malicious or that God doesnt exist.

 

Maybe to enjoy true happiness we need to experience suffering first?

Imagine a serial killer(or a rapist), who tortured his victims relentlessly, using that excuse.

Done. What about it?

[Da_Latios]

Sums up what I said, and another thing, if God knows Adam and Eve will eat the apple before they eat it why create them only to have them suffer forever? "Why did he not make creation wholly blissful, free from misfortune?" Surly God would have had to have known how miserable so many people he created would be, why did he create them knowing that suffering would be the end product?

 

 

It points to one of two things, that God is malicious or that God doesnt exist.

 

Maybe to enjoy true happiness we need to experience suffering first?

Imagine a serial killer(or a rapist), who tortured his victims relentlessly, using that excuse.

Done. What about it?

Well, that wouldn't excuse his crimes, would it?

[Da_Latios]

Sums up what I said, and another thing, if God knows Adam and Eve will eat the apple before they eat it why create them only to have them suffer forever? "Why did he not make creation wholly blissful, free from misfortune?" Surly God would have had to have known how miserable so many people he created would be, why did he create them knowing that suffering would be the end product?

 

 

It points to one of two things, that God is malicious or that God doesnt exist.

 

Maybe to enjoy true happiness we need to experience suffering first?

 

What would be the point of having the Garden of Eden before anyone suffered then?

Umm, you know, as their home?

Besides, according to many Christian pastors there are other worlds out there untouched by sin. Wouldn't that mean that they are all Garden-of-Eden-esque worlds with no suffering? That would make your point moot.

Our world is supposedly the only one touched by Sin. There are probably hundreds of thousands of other planets with life. Is Satan on those worlds too?

[IeatWindex]

I've never been the religious type. To me, religion usually dictates how to live your life, how to act, and what to do to please a god that might not even exist. Though some of how religions encourage you to act is typically the right way to act, the "do this you'll be rewarded and if you don't you'll face punishment" gets to me. I'm more of a person who's free minded. The biggest restraint to me, in any religion, is your thinking. Your not a true believer if you doubt anything that is taught in that religion. I can't say there is a god, and I can't say there isn't. I just find it hard to believe that a god made all of this around us, because then where did the god come from? Did he just one day appear out of thin air with abilities far beyond comprehension? This is my train of thought. All of this around us had to of started somehow, and that's what I'm interested in.

[Myweponsg00d]

I can't believe how hard you're trolling right now.

Why should you make a choice based on what you think will happen?

Because of what I think will happen.

 

Why do you think what you think? Assumption. Why do I think what I think? Assumption. We both have our predictions by assumption so I don't understand why you think yours is any better.

My choice is equally likely and cannot be disproven.

You can test it in a very simple way, and you know that.

 

Again, if you'd like to test it...be my guest.

 

But I'm not really concerned with what happens after we test it, I'm concerned with taking the possible scenarios and making the best decision possible before we decide to shoot or not shoot the gun. Clearly we have two very different predictions so how can we pick one over the other?

 

Also I think you don't really even understand the meaning of trolling. If "trolling" means "disproving your logic" then yeah I'm a huge troll.

 

 

I have seen people pretend that their system of science and math is superior to my beliefs in a higher power. They think I'm ridiculous because I have no proof, and my beliefs are based on nothing. I KNOW that their system of math and science are based off statements that cannot be proven, and they're equally ridiculous (and ignorant or hypocritical) in thinking their system is based in fact.

 

You can't prove that one does not equal zero, I can't prove that it does. I can't prove that God exists, you can't prove that God doesn't. It means that one of us is wrong, no more and no less. Your claims that religion is on the whole destructive to humanity is absolutely ridiculous, especially since you can't prove the most basic of beliefs that you hang your entire argument on.

 

 

Waiting for your proof that you getting shot in the head will kill you. If you can't prove it then both our theories are equally respectable.

[Zygimantas]

Sums up what I said, and another thing, if God knows Adam and Eve will eat the apple before they eat it why create them only to have them suffer forever? "Why did he not make creation wholly blissful, free from misfortune?" Surly God would have had to have known how miserable so many people he created would be, why did he create them knowing that suffering would be the end product?

 

 

It points to one of two things, that God is malicious or that God doesnt exist.

 

Maybe to enjoy true happiness we need to experience suffering first?

 

What would be the point of having the Garden of Eden before anyone suffered then?

Well maybe to show that life can be beautiful but humans in their nature bring suffering upon themselves.

 

 

Either way... People who believe in a god should be able to worship without having to believe in The Bible. Worship god but not The Bible, as it is flawed and written by men and their ideas.

[Da_Latios]

I'm sure there have been more in this thread, but I've only crossed off the ones I can remember.

Feel free to add to the bingo.

 

EDIT: Crossed out another one I remembered.

[Zygimantas]

It comes down to what we assume. There is no "right" answer. If an atheist says there is no god he is as wrong as a theist saying there is a god.

[Da_Latios]

It comes down to what we assume. There is no "right" answer. If an atheist says there is no god he is as wrong as a theist saying there is a god.

Then you'll be pleased to know none of the atheists in this thread are claiming, "There is no god."

[Guest Rob]

Hmm. I've been wondering, would the world be better off if there was no religion? (actually, to make that less offensive, if everyone believed the same thing, regardless of what it was)

[Zygimantas]

It comes down to what we assume. There is no "right" answer. If an atheist says there is no god he is as wrong as a theist saying there is a god.

Then you'll be pleased to know none of the atheists in this thread are claiming, "There is no god."

Great, then we should all be getting along ;)

 

 

Hmm. I've been wondering, would the world be better off if there was no religion? (actually, to make that less offensive, if everyone believed the same thing, regardless of what it was)

I guess you can say it would. Though, we are human, and that is not going to happen. The diversity in beliefs can be a beautiful thing, people just need to accept the diversity.

[Zygimantas]

http://i.imgur.com/juj1N.jpg

I'm sure there have been more in this thread, but I've only crossed off the ones I can remember.

Feel free to add to the bingo.

 

EDIT: Crossed out another one I remembered.

 

The hitler/stalin was an atheist too was brought up and atheism is a religion too

 

 

Just need someone to say "the evidence of God is all around you" for a bingo

The evidence of God is all around you.

[Myweponsg00d]

To anyone who lives their life "having faith" that a god exists: how do you feel about adults not having faith in Santa Claus?

[Zierro]

To anyone who lives their life "having faith" that a god exists: how do you feel about adults not having faith in Santa Claus?

 

Are you suggesting that Santa Claus and a deity are equally plausible entities?

 

Surely an Omniscient God wouldnt be so needy as to make a cheerleading squad to cheer him on.

 

That's what boggles me about Christianity's version of God - if he existed and were as reasonable as some claim, I don't think he'd really be bothered if people were skeptical about him or not - let alone get angry that some people wouldn't "worship" him. My response was just about creationism not necessarily implying imperfection.

[fakeitormakeit2]

It comes down to what we assume. There is no "right" answer. If an atheist says there is no god he is as wrong as a theist saying there is a god.

Then you'll be pleased to know none of the atheists in this thread are claiming, "There is no god."

Lulz @ relativism. There either is a god or isn't, it isn't subjective. Now saying definitively that you know there is a god, or lack thereof, is a different story. However, to be a theist one does not have to eliminate the possibility that there could possibly be no god, any person with a brain has doubted the existence of a god, from your grandmother to Mother Teresa (supposedly confirmed in her letters). Existential questioning is a heavy component of Neo-Classical Theology. But an atheist, atheos, which literally means without god is a definitive affirmation of there being no god. So either people need to not as readily deem themselves atheists or watch the consistency of their claims.

 

And to the Santa Claus post, see post above mine.

 

Edit: And to everyone who keeps saying the Christian God is omnipotent and omniscient, I applaud you're promotion of eurocentric thought. The concept of a perfect God-being theology comes from Greek corrupts on Semitic concepts, which have been perpetuated by Western Christianity until about the 19th Century. See Whitehead, Process Theology, Weak Theology, Teilhard DeChardin, complexity-consciousness, etc. Perfect Being Theology is one of many belief systems. I like how people generalize an entire religion by one type of outdated theology, regardless of popularity.

[Myweponsg00d]

But an atheist, atheos, which literally means without god is a definitive affirmation of there being no god. So either people need to not as readily deem themselves atheists or watch the consistency of their claims.

 

Absence of belief is not the same thing as undoubted rejection of possibility.

 

If someone says "Yeah I was late to class because the world's largest funeral cut in front of me!" I might say "I don't believe you." This doesnt mean that I don't think theres any chance that the person is telling the truth, it means that I've weighed the possibilities, and I am choosing to act on the premise that he is lying.

 

Are you suggesting that Santa Claus and a deity are equally plausible entities?

 

I wasnt really suggesting that, my question was more in regards to whether a person who believes in a god would look at someone who believes in Santa Claus and think that the person is stupid/silly/immature/incompetant. Of course, now that you mention it, both Santa Claus and an intelligent creator have the same amount of physical evidence going for them, so I guess they are equally plausible.

[Zierro]

See Whitehead, Process Theology, Weak Theology, Teilhard DeChardin, complexity-consciousness, etc. Perfect Being Theology is one of many belief systems. I like how people generalize an entire religion by one type of outdated theology, regardless of popularity.

 

Lol, I have to admit, I've never even heard of most of these terms. Should be interesting to read about something new for a change. :thumbup:

 

zierros so hott! <3

 

*blows kisses to the crowd of 15-year-old skanks*

[Zierro]

If someone says "Yeah I was late to class because the world's largest funeral cut in front of me!" I might say "I don't believe you." This doesnt mean that I don't think theres any chance that the person is telling the truth, it means that I've weighed the possibilities, and I am choosing to act on the premise that he is lying.

 

What? "I do not believe you" literally means "I think what you said is untrue" not "Well maybe you're right, maybe you're wrong". "I don't know what to believe" would be a much more accurate way of expressing how you are neither rejecting nor accepting their claim. And "I'm extremely skeptical, but it is possible," would be the most fitting way of articulating your point to your classmate. But "I do not believe you" is an absolute by literal semantic definition and it doesn't paint the picture you intended.

 

Of course, now that you mention it, both Santa Claus and an intelligent creator have the same amount of physical evidence going for them, so I guess they are equally plausible.

 

Indeed, but may I ask why you decided to choose Santa Claus, let's say... over aliens? It's probably because you're pretty certain yourself that Santa Claus doesn't exist - because all parents can vouch for Santa not being the one who puts the presents under the tree and how it's been historically documented that people have 'conjured' him (made him up on the spot for a purpose) in order to give Christmas a more cheerful atmosphere. Also, Santa Claus is described as visible (whereas in most religions, it is claimed that you cannot physically see god), he goes to all the good kids' houses every year, but has yet to ever be recorded. We also haven't found anything in the North Pole yet, which is much less to ask for than scoping out the entire universe and ethereal realm. I guess my point here is that there is much more evidence of Santa's nonexistence than there is for a god's.

[Myweponsg00d]

What? "I do not believe you" literally means "I think what you said is untrue" not "Well maybe you're right, maybe you're wrong". "I don't know what to believe" would be a much more accurate way of expressing how you are neither rejecting nor accepting their claim. And "I'm extremely skeptical, but it is possible," would be the most fitting way of articulating your point to your classmate. But "I do not believe you" is an absolute by literal semantic definition and it doesn't paint the picture you intended.

 

There is a huge difference between a lack of belief in something and a negative belief in something. Saying "I do not believe in god" does not imply "I believe there is no god." If I say that I don't believe in fairies, it means that I am not firmly convinced that fairies exist. I could be 50/50 for existence/nonexistence, I could be 10/90 for existence/nonexistence. Or, I COULD be firmly convinced that they do not exist.

 

"I do not believe in fairies" means only that I am not firmly convinced of fairies.

 

"I believe that fairies do not exist" would mean that I am firmly convinced that there are no fairies.

 

A lack of belief in something doesn't automatically align you with the opposite.

 

Indeed, but may I ask why you decided to choose Santa Claus, let's say... over aliens? It's probably because you're pretty certain yourself that Santa Claus doesn't exist - because all parents can vouch for Santa not being the one who puts the presents under the tree and how it's been historically documented that people have 'conjured' him (made him up on the spot for a purpose) in order to give Christmas a more cheerful atmosphere. Also, Santa Claus is described as visible (whereas in most religions, it is claimed that you cannot physically see god), he goes to all the good kids' houses every year, but has yet to ever be recorded. We also haven't found anything in the North Pole yet, which is much less to ask for than scoping out the entire universe and ethereal realm. I guess my point here is that there is much more evidence of Santa's nonexistence than there is for a god's.

 

Ah yeah...its too bad the people who started telling stories about Santa Claus didn't throw in the "He cant be seen or detected ever" clause that helps to convince people that god is a reasonable theory.

 

There still really isn't disconfirming evidence though. Maybe Santa only comes to homes of those who believe in him. Maybe all of those families keep quiet about the whole thing because they know the rest of the world would probably think they are crazy. Also, perhaps he relocated his headquarters after the North Pole expeditions started. Or maybe, again, his headquarters are only visible and detectable to those who believe in him.

 

Hell it sounds like I'm making a pretty convincing argument. Maybe now we should be telling our kids that we really don't know if Santa exists.

[Zygimantas]

Edit: And to everyone who keeps saying the Christian God is omnipotent and omniscient, I applaud you're promotion of eurocentric thought. The concept of a perfect God-being theology comes from Greek corrupts on Semitic concepts, which have been perpetuated by Western Christianity until about the 19th Century. See Whitehead, Process Theology, Weak Theology, Teilhard DeChardin, complexity-consciousness, etc. Perfect Being Theology is one of many belief systems. I like how people generalize an entire religion by one type of outdated theology, regardless of popularity.

 

There are so many 1000's of interpretations of christianity, while most christians I talk to whether catholic or baptist all believe in an Omnipotent/Omniscient God. You can write it off as an outdated idea (I agree with you that it is an outdated idea) however it is a near fundamental idea of Christianity not an obscure one that is misleadingly categorizing a whole religion.

 

It is almost a central idea that God is all knowing and all powerful, and I have been pointing out some logical flaws with the belief

What if god is beyond our logic? Therefore our logic can not make sense of it.

[Myweponsg00d]

Edit: And to everyone who keeps saying the Christian God is omnipotent and omniscient, I applaud you're promotion of eurocentric thought. The concept of a perfect God-being theology comes from Greek corrupts on Semitic concepts, which have been perpetuated by Western Christianity until about the 19th Century. See Whitehead, Process Theology, Weak Theology, Teilhard DeChardin, complexity-consciousness, etc. Perfect Being Theology is one of many belief systems. I like how people generalize an entire religion by one type of outdated theology, regardless of popularity.

 

There are so many 1000's of interpretations of christianity, while most christians I talk to whether catholic or baptist all believe in an Omnipotent/Omniscient God. You can write it off as an outdated idea (I agree with you that it is an outdated idea) however it is a near fundamental idea of Christianity not an obscure one that is misleadingly categorizing a whole religion.

 

It is almost a central idea that God is all knowing and all powerful, and I have been pointing out some logical flaws with the belief

 

You aren't going to beat the God hypothesis by trying to question God's logic. If you find any flaws, it doesn't matter, because God is everything. God is flawed and unflawed. He is stupid and smart.

 

You aren't able to debate his existence by examining the stuff that you are examining.

[Da_Latios]

Edit: And to everyone who keeps saying the Christian God is omnipotent and omniscient, I applaud you're promotion of eurocentric thought. The concept of a perfect God-being theology comes from Greek corrupts on Semitic concepts, which have been perpetuated by Western Christianity until about the 19th Century. See Whitehead, Process Theology, Weak Theology, Teilhard DeChardin, complexity-consciousness, etc. Perfect Being Theology is one of many belief systems. I like how people generalize an entire religion by one type of outdated theology, regardless of popularity.

 

There are so many 1000's of interpretations of christianity, while most christians I talk to whether catholic or baptist all believe in an Omnipotent/Omniscient God. You can write it off as an outdated idea (I agree with you that it is an outdated idea) however it is a near fundamental idea of Christianity not an obscure one that is misleadingly categorizing a whole religion.

 

It is almost a central idea that God is all knowing and all powerful, and I have been pointing out some logical flaws with the belief

What if god is beyond our logic? Therefore our logic can not make sense of it.

Do you have any evidence to support this claim? > No. > Guess we're done with that, then.