thats a stupid thing to say, going on that basis i could say that Seattle is actually a piece of plastic as no-one has given me solid proof that its there and i have not been there.Quote:
Originally Posted by Satirical
Printable View
thats a stupid thing to say, going on that basis i could say that Seattle is actually a piece of plastic as no-one has given me solid proof that its there and i have not been there.Quote:
Originally Posted by Satirical
You can say what you will, it is meant for one to keep an open mind about everything. If you would rather agree with dogma then that is for you. If you would rather not than that is equally up to you. The problem with this subject is the attempt at being universal when universal was as incomplete a topic as the "soul".
No strong convictions. And maybe somewhere there is a piece of plastic named Seattle, or maybe it is not, either way that would not be the problem would it?
As far as proof for God being a trick then it may very well be and it may not, once again either way there is no point in such a circular discussion involving it. We have a tendency to view problems as problems if they are unsolvable, instead of soluble. Some things in life are part and the base of life. Or even the origin lol.
There is no evidence of God's existence, and it helps to look at things objectively. God's existence is a circular (invalid) argument:
"P1" is Premise 1
P1: God inspired the Bible
P2: Everything the Bible says is true
C: God exists.
One cannot accept this argument if he does not already believe in God. After reading the Bible objectively, as a piece of literature without religious significance, it is hard for me to understand why anyone can take the book seriously, let alone literally. The things that God does in the OT are incredibly cruel, sexist, and "bad," especially comparing the laws and actions to our modern society.
Take Adam and Eve, for example. Adam and Eve eat from the Tree of Knowledge and God punishes them. First, God must have planted the Tree in the first place, and second, what does that say about Him except that he wants his followers to be ignorant?
Deuteronomy 21: 18-21 explicitly states that disobedient children can be lawfully murdered.
And how about poor Job, his life destroyed because of a little game between Satan and God? Does God really not care about human life?
I also do not feel that Jesus' actions make up for his Father's abuse of Humanity. Thousands of years before Jesus was Gotama Buddha, a far more benevolent teacher without an abusive Father. Buddha's teachings, also, did not result in widespread violence, sexism, and corruption thousands of years later.
As for Creationism/Intelligent Design, the idea is compatable with anything. "God put the bones there." It's a circular argument, again, and is wholly unacceptable if the listener doesn't accept God's existence in the first place.
Just as a side note, where I am from everyone seems to believe that the greatest thing about the Bible is that it was written by several people, but is as one. I bring this up because you brought up Job, and to this I say, Come on people! That story is written completely different from the rest! It is incredible what people accept as they have been primed as it were. Another thing about it being so concise is that the church fathers excluded many "apocrapha" that they conveniently thought was not divinly inspired. Once again, Come on! Check this out misanthrope, you may enjoy it as much as I do http://www.sacred-texts.com/chr/apo/
they don't believe in anything. They believe NOTHING!
It doesnt matter who wrote which section, I know it was written by several people, but Christians believe it just the same. I am referring to the widely-accepted, traditional Bible, not the omitted texts. Not only that, but you are avoiding my arguments. :flare:Quote:
Originally Posted by Satirical
It's not true that atheists believe nothing. I believe what is earthly, objectively provable, and externally valid. I tend to be very skeptical of people who say "God told me," and I will NOT jump into his bandwagon to give him all of my money for a free ticket to Heaven.
There is a big misconception that atheists have inadequate morality, and this is simply not true. Atheists do good things purely because they want to and find satisfaction in it, not because a Big Brother/Santa Claus figure is watching their every move. In fact, many studies found, such as the Journal of Religion & Society and The Science of Good & Evil by Michael Shermer (Copyright 2004), that the more religious a person, or a society as a whole, is, the more likely he will do bad things, or the more "social ills" that society will have. The JoRS can be found here: http://moses.creighton.edu/JRS/2005/2005-11.html
I was unaware that we were in confrontation. I thought that I had made it clear that the discussion was circular to begin with. Even with the misunderstanding, I say that we are still in agreement. You have said nothing that I have not thought myself. I was merely pointing out something humorous to me in the context of the discussion.
You are right by the way, it does not matter who wrote that compilation of ancient myths, but I guess my sarcasm was lost in the writing. Either way, I do agree.
'Nothing is better than nothing' - Samuel BeckettQuote:
Originally Posted by yellowfeverlime
Read the Tao Te Ching.
I don't think atheist believe nothing...I mean I think they do believe in friendship, love, humanity.. just don't believe in divine being...
I'm a theist, but I do agree with you there MisanthropeQuote:
There is a big misconception that atheists have inadequate morality, and this is simply not true.
Quote:
Originally Posted by MiSaNtHrOpE
So when they do those good things, they are doing them purely for themselves. Good.
Excellent point and well stated. :nod:Quote:
Originally Posted by bhekti
Quote:
Originally Posted by bhekti
Not always. You can't put aside the fact that sometimes people do things based on motives, that relates to certain interest and needs towards other people.
If they do things for themselves, then they are being driven by a motive, albut an egotistical one, but a motive nonetheless. When it is said this is good, how good is it if it is self motivated? Gratification seems to be a bad word that could possibly be applied her.
You totally missed the point. The point isnt that they feel they would get ahead if they do something good, its just general kindness and satisfaction by way of positive emotions that result from that gracious act. You maybe return someone's lost wallet and you feel good about doing that, only without the brownie points with God.
How do religious people decide when to do things? I'd rather have someone help me because he wants to out of genuine kindness, not because he wants a ticket to Heaven. I'd rather he help me because of self-motivation than to be ego-centric with the supernatural. (My friend is Catholic purely because he wants to go to Heaven.)
This, then, is atheists' theism.Quote:
Originally Posted by MiSaNtHrOpE
I am afraid that you have missed the point. I know what you mean and the individual will still gain some level of egotistical satisfaction. Think outside the box for a minute.
FYI Nobody really believes in heaven, not REALLY
Okay, I admit that I haven't been following this thread that closely and perhaps have missed something.Quote:
Originally Posted by Satirical
Your post stuck out to me and I had to ask what you mean by this. I am not chosing a side to debate, I am just curious.
I am joking really, I cannot say that for sure. I myself was raised in the heartland of the American Bible Belt and at a young age thought to myself that people do not really believe the scripture, and they were all just acting. I am sure that I am wrong and that some people do believe, but this is here nor there.
I see. Well, your post made me think, so that's a good thing.
Your comment made me wonder about how many people truly believe in Heaven, as in it being a paradise where the faithful reap the reward of a good life, and how many just consider it a better fate than Hell.
As a child I had a Bible school teacher who described Heaven as if it was a never-ending church service with constant worship and singing. That did not leave me all that enthused about my options for the afterlife. :)
I think, and do not quote me on this, that influences of an industrial society, existential, and rebelliousness in those aspects has a large bearing on the way our generation thinks about things of this nature. We are raised to be obedient and commercial with a wide array of technology opening up other possibilities, and showing us other perspectives that make us question. When I was young I doubted my faith for the first time when I realized it to be not a universal position. It has never recovered and probably never will.
I also read much comparative mythology and that may influence me. Influences, however, are another topic in these regards.
A true atheist is a sensitive person, a very sensitive person. He/she is honest, upright, and reasonable, very reasonable. What is lacking in him/her is patience.
And all Cretans are liars.
overrated......
Quote:
Originally Posted by bhekti
It's unfair to generalize theists with such argument. Theist may do good deeds with the reason of humanity, love, or even for the sake of kindness it self. Punishment and rewards may become considerations to some theists, but not always. And I believe not all (or always) atheists do such thing called "genuine goods"....
Quote:
Originally Posted by MiSaNtHrOpE
That's nice of you to say, Bhekti, and very generous...but I don't know if it can really be applied to all atheists. An atheist is merely someone who does not believe in a god or gods; nothing more. It would be nice if all atheists were ethical, sensitive, and reasonable, but I'm afraid that would be something of a dream. Every atheist is different, an atheist is (usually) not part of a set group - each atheist can go his or her own way.Quote:
A true atheist is a sensitive person, a very sensitive person. He/she is honest, upright, and reasonable, very reasonable. What is lacking in him/her is patience.
Of course there are atheists exactly how you described out there; however I feel that sensitivity and reasonableness can't be called general traits of the atheist. ;) Some atheists are very unreasonable, and some very skeptical, insensitive, etc. etc. and they're still atheists.
:) Loki
Contrary to popular belief, and I mean POPULAR belief, ethics and religion are very, very different things. To say someone of some faith or not is not to say that they are good or bad. I think this is called the non sequitor fallacy.(It does not follow)
Just as not all theists are good people, especially considering the dire straits of religion today, with both Islamic and Christian extremism, and, unfortunately, these people are wrongfully famous and their "warnings" about gays, endorsement of racism/sexism, and anti-sex attitudes are heeded by the majority. The UCC (United Church of Christ), however, is the first Christian organization to speak against their hateful brethren, and I do hope more outcry from the moderates follows suit.
Am i the only one who could not keep from laughing through this whole thread?
Some situation we have!
But really, I was just hoping that someone was going to tell those 2 off.
I mean really lay it on thick.
(not in an offensive way, but just an eye opener) :eek2:
I was going to jump into the fray, but It has slowed.
Exhausted from going around.
It needed some fire somewhere along the line.
Maybe a car bomb.
Glad you're enjoying the topic :)Quote:
Originally Posted by A Hard Rain
We try to be as respectful as possible to others and their opinions and faith, but I daresay it's difficult for some.
But really, I was just hoping that someone was going to tell those 2 off.
I mean really lay it on thick.
(not in an offensive way, but just an eye opener)
By all means, please.
Well, why don't you take the honour and be that so-called "eye opener"...
Quote:
Originally Posted by A Hard Rain
My eyes are already opened after this discussion. Yet the thought keeps haunting me, why is believing in nothingness after death, depressing, I dare-say i accepted that as fact ever since.. i don't know when.. and its casted into the long list of the biological ( not devine ) ways of life, such as evolution, or lack of higher power and devine path. Thus being the "oh well" situations of life.
Quote:
Originally Posted by MrBojangles
Why should there have to be nothingness after death? It is not depressing to me but I do not feel having a after life should mean that you have faith in a higher being. I would love to be a spirit and travel around the world without having to hand out cash for it. :) In truth we believe what be want to believe about life after death. Personally have felt spiritual energy has helped me accept that there is. If your beliefs or if you do not believe and you are happy with the person you are then that is more important. I know I had said that before so forgive me repeating myself. :)
What does this spiritual energy feel like? And it sounds like to me, that having a happy ending (life after death) is just hot air or wishful thinking, you can go as far to say that some sort of higher power (god etc.) is to. I see the downside of these hopes (in which the events in history has taught us) and that is why I'am atheist.
Why only see the downside of life when there is more then one side of life. They energy I can feel off of living and deceased is hard to describe but I can give you a example. I felt my sister's foot once and knew that she was going to lose it and three days after her 25 birthday the doctors amputated. I can still feel her amputated foot and knee it is a weird experience. I however do not feel it is hot air but having been lived part of my life without hope did not make me a happy person. I now deal with the bad and good but do not lose hope that my life wont' get any better anymore. That is up to me on whether it gets better or not. Caught a story tonight about a young man who had more physical pain then you could imagine. He had true courage to wake up each day and face the world. His disease was of the skin and it caused tremdous soars and even touch was painful. Never complained out load and made others laugh. Never lost hope of being free from his when death came and that was not hot air for him but a tool to survive. Sorry to get hot and no offense is intened and I hope I was not offensive to you. If so my apologies.Quote:
Originally Posted by MrBojangles
I personally find that the concept of afterlife is merely a form of reasurrence, "all right so you messed it up this time, no sweat, have another go." to those who wish to believe in that, I have no concern. However for several religions, the afterlife was a threat, a means of controling the people. The entire concept of paying for your sins to encourage people to treat each other better. My concern is the misuse that this power has led to, and the indulgence. People could pay their sins away, by giving money to the church (just an example) Killing a man was possible, and all the while i am convinced that the big losers in all this were the poor, and the people left without a choice, while the big winners were the arch bishops, and the rich men, who could get away with what was otherwise "sin". Pardon my opinion, but really? This is why my conviction is not for afterlife, i simply don't believe it. (of course other religions have different ideas, spirits, and kharma and what not.) But again, the point is to make you a better person in the current life by promising you a better life later.
Quote:
Originally Posted by MrBojangles
Atheists are sensitive people people who, unfortunately, always forget that "If God does not exist, everything is permitted" (as the events of history has taught us)
PS: the quote is from Dostoevsky
Hello, I'm new - as in, I just joined 15 minutes ago, not as in I was born yesterday. I have always found the topic of God compelling, esp so many excellent authors have written extensively upon the subject.
I believe in God based on first principles and the ontological, cosmological, teleological arguments as well as Intelligent Design Theory, Pascal's Wager (although it has never converted a soul) as well as Anselms / Aquinas syllogistic proofs (yes, there is great layover between the forementioned.)
If one is a Christian of the reformed variety, one will readily recognize that all these arguments are made in vain; that is, that they have never converted a soul because they lack conversion *power*. The power of conversion obviously, lies with the converter, which is the Holy Spirit, or God.
Arguments, then, are not plied with the intent of convincing anyone of the existence of God since, as we have said, that is impossible. Rather, they exist as a means of reinforcing one's own faith and removing intellectual obstacles to faith, which are sundry and inhibiting.
Thus, no atheist shall ever grow to love God because he was presented with Aristotle's "Metaphysics" or Descartes "Meditations" or even anything written by John Piper. He will grow to love God because God reached down and touched his soul aka: it is the personal experience with God that is radically altering, and that is not something we can mimic with vainglorious humanistic reasoning.
T
What do you mean exactly?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ancestor
I was trying to say that I believe we become spirits after we die. I do have faith in a higher being but even if you do not believe in higher being why should you not still believe in a after life.Quote:
Originally Posted by subterranean
It made feel that why should we have nothingness in the after life whether believing in a higher being or not. I do and I also believe in life after death and it was not just hot air to me. When I becaome a Spirit I believe that I will be able to roam the physical plane to help guide the living. Hope that explains if not I will try again. Not feeling to well today but I thought I should try to answer you suterranean also you get the nicest avatars. :wave:Quote:
Originally Posted by MrBojangles