|
On November 20 2007 07:55 Jibba wrote:Show nested quote +On November 20 2007 05:54 Rev0lution wrote:On November 19 2007 20:36 Jibba wrote:
re·li·gion /rɪˈlɪdʒən/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[ri-lij-uhn] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation
–noun
1. a set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe
Atheism is a religion. It's an issue of semantics, but most would consider it a religion that believes no God exists. what do atheist believe is the purpose of the universe? Depends who you ask. A nihilist would say there is no purpose. I'm in the school of thought of men like Bertrand Russel/Plato that man's purpose is a self-made one to reach for higher ideals like goodness, logic, science, beauty and reject selfishness and petty troubles. It's still possible to have hope even if you don't believe in God. I think it would be a pretty sad world if you didn't. Show nested quote +God made a perfect world. Humanity corrupt themselves with it in te beginning. God made humanity thus God created an imperfection. How can a perfect being (God) make something imperfect (humans)?
Because God gave us "free will" to choose between bad and good. God didnt made monkeys for him to enjoy.
The Bible tells us that the Genesis creation was "good." There was no sin and therefore no suffering or death. Why then did God give Adam and Eve the ability to sin, knowing full well that they would sin and bring death and pain to the human race? Some believe that if Adam had been created without the ability to choose, then he would have been a "robot." A father cannot make his children love him. They choose to love him because they have a free will. Others point out that humanity would never have seen the depth of the love of God, as displayed in the cross, unless Adam had sinned, and that fact could be one reason why God allowed sin to enter the world.
|
That's irrational thinking though TesisMech, 'cos are you then implying that if Adam and Eve had never eaten the apple then they would never have been able to experience God's love?
Also:
+ Show Spoiler +If God wanted us to develop maturity and discernment, doesn't it seem slightly backward that the tree they were forbidden to touch was said to offer that very thing - the knowledge of good and evil? God says: "if you eat from it you will surely die". Which is true of course - when they figure out they can try things their own way they pretty much immediately start stuffing things up and killing each other and things. The serpent says of it: "You will not surely die, for God knows that when you eat of it your eyes will be opened, and you will be like God, knowing good and evil." And perhaps that's true too - there's no certainty they'll die; there's a slim chance they'll get it right themselves and not ruin everything. In any case the serpent is just trying to incite them to rebellion - don't listen to everything Mr Big says; don't submit to being His slave. Do what you want.
Some possible solutions to the puzzle:
1) My argument is wrong - God didn't want us to develop maturity etc; He wanted us to get everything right, and for the world to stay perfect, and therefore when He said He didn't want them to eat the fruit, He meant it.
Question - so why put it there? To give them the choice? But if they're better off without the choice, isn't that kinda stupid?
2) God knew all along that they'd take the fruit, and put it there intentionally, so that they'd take it and learn some important lessons - painful though it would be for all concerned - which would ultimately be to their/humanity's betterment.
Question - so why does He forbid them to touch it? Is it even plausible to say we're somehow better off in a post-fall world? Is that kind of sick and sadistic? Or is that like saying it's sadistic of a parent to take the training wheels off their kid's bike, knowing they'll fall off the first time, but will eventually acquire a new skill?
3) Perhaps it wasn't so much that He was forbidding them, but just that He had to warn them, in all fairness, that it would be a path of suffering, even though it would ultimately be the best.
Question - but in that case, why not just say "kids, you have the following two options - you decide"? Instead, He says: "you must not take option 2".
4) Perhaps in their auto-pilot state they're not able to make decisions like that anyway, so He has to trick them, and maybe overstate the case a little just to make it more interesting.
Question - though potentially it could be seen as a parallel to a parent who tells his kid not to cross the road on her own, not because he never wants her to cross the road, but because she's not ready yet, and in this stage of her development what she needs is set rules that will keep her safe. So, we're currently in the state of having disobeyed, strayed onto the road, been hit by a bus, and are now very slowly recovering, and very slowly figuring out how to conduct ourselves better in future - possibly mixed with a good deal of angst directed towards our dad who should have protected us better.
Did God actually intend for us to develop autonomy? Did He create us in order to be ourselves, or in order to be His? Is the whole journey of self-discovery that humanity has been on since then good in God's eyes, or bad? Did He want us to be 'gods' - capable of determining our own future? And if so, are we in some sense genuinely independent of Him now?
My answer is it is not explained in the Bible, just like for example why God exists isn't explained. That doesn't make it right or wrong, it just means we don't know, and I don't know any Christians that do know without answering it without illogical answers that they made up themselves (eg. how you said we would be like robots) with no Biblical authority.
|
na i look that up on google since i cant speak english so fluently and im tired of constantly translating. but it makes a good point , just a possibility tho on why god did that,
The point is that they would have still experience god's love but not the full understanding of it.
My conclusion: its greater to belief in god by choice than to belief in god by force.
i have a hard time explaining myself i wish it was on spanish;/
|
United States22883 Posts
On November 20 2007 08:56 JesusCruxRH wrote:That's irrational thinking though TesisMech, 'cos are you then implying that if Adam and Eve had never eaten the apple then they would never have been able to experience God's love? Also: + Show Spoiler +If God wanted us to develop maturity and discernment, doesn't it seem slightly backward that the tree they were forbidden to touch was said to offer that very thing - the knowledge of good and evil? God says: "if you eat from it you will surely die". Which is true of course - when they figure out they can try things their own way they pretty much immediately start stuffing things up and killing each other and things. The serpent says of it: "You will not surely die, for God knows that when you eat of it your eyes will be opened, and you will be like God, knowing good and evil." And perhaps that's true too - there's no certainty they'll die; there's a slim chance they'll get it right themselves and not ruin everything. In any case the serpent is just trying to incite them to rebellion - don't listen to everything Mr Big says; don't submit to being His slave. Do what you want.
Some possible solutions to the puzzle:
1) My argument is wrong - God didn't want us to develop maturity etc; He wanted us to get everything right, and for the world to stay perfect, and therefore when He said He didn't want them to eat the fruit, He meant it.
Question - so why put it there? To give them the choice? But if they're better off without the choice, isn't that kinda stupid?
2) God knew all along that they'd take the fruit, and put it there intentionally, so that they'd take it and learn some important lessons - painful though it would be for all concerned - which would ultimately be to their/humanity's betterment.
Question - so why does He forbid them to touch it? Is it even plausible to say we're somehow better off in a post-fall world? Is that kind of sick and sadistic? Or is that like saying it's sadistic of a parent to take the training wheels off their kid's bike, knowing they'll fall off the first time, but will eventually acquire a new skill?
3) Perhaps it wasn't so much that He was forbidding them, but just that He had to warn them, in all fairness, that it would be a path of suffering, even though it would ultimately be the best.
Question - but in that case, why not just say "kids, you have the following two options - you decide"? Instead, He says: "you must not take option 2".
4) Perhaps in their auto-pilot state they're not able to make decisions like that anyway, so He has to trick them, and maybe overstate the case a little just to make it more interesting.
Question - though potentially it could be seen as a parallel to a parent who tells his kid not to cross the road on her own, not because he never wants her to cross the road, but because she's not ready yet, and in this stage of her development what she needs is set rules that will keep her safe. So, we're currently in the state of having disobeyed, strayed onto the road, been hit by a bus, and are now very slowly recovering, and very slowly figuring out how to conduct ourselves better in future - possibly mixed with a good deal of angst directed towards our dad who should have protected us better.
Did God actually intend for us to develop autonomy? Did He create us in order to be ourselves, or in order to be His? Is the whole journey of self-discovery that humanity has been on since then good in God's eyes, or bad? Did He want us to be 'gods' - capable of determining our own future? And if so, are we in some sense genuinely independent of Him now? My answer is it is not explained in the Bible, just like for example why God exists isn't explained. That doesn't make it right or wrong, it just means we don't know, and I don't know any Christians that do know without answering it without illogical answers that they made up themselves (eg. how you said we would be like robots) with no Biblical authority. Nice post. I don't think there is a fair, logical explanation to the evil problem (for Christianity) but the closest you can get is to say as humans, we can't comprehend ultimate good/evil like God can (ie a greater good eventually comes from all evils.) Personally I think it's a huge cop out that's unprovable (even if true) and uses circular logic.
Just curious, do you acknowledge that Christianity (along with every other religion) is a man made institution? It's important, because as you said, many answers aren't found in scripture. I don't think there is any logical reason to believe in God by reading other peoples' writing/opinion/experiences; you either must do so through faith or personal experience. I call myself an agnostic because an irrational part of me still believes a creator exists, even though every logical part of me accepts Atheism as truth and it's completely unprovable to anyone else because it's a personal experience thing. Wishful thinking maybe.
|
The fact that there is no explanation for why there is evil doesn't prove nor disprove Christianity. The Bible touches on evil in the sense that it acknowledges evil happens when man doesn't love his fellow neighbour, but it doesn't deal with how it got there in the first place (eg. it had already existed prior to Adam eating the apple, as it simply 'entered' the world).
I believe in Christianity because of Jesus Christ, who I don't believe is a man-made myth but rather a historical person.
That's pretty dedicated that you're willing to put effort into debating something that's not in your language Tesis, well done 
|
If God was the origin of all things, and is of essence omnipotent and pure good - how did evil arise? How did imperfection arise? Theists dance around this basic question in many complicated ways, but never convincingly address it at its source.
"Freewill" is not an acceptable answer. If God was in the beginning perfectly good, he would have created freewill to have all its positive aspects without its negative consequences. Freewill implies preexisting choices. A perfect world would not even have evil possibilities or choices. Evil, is the opposite of good. Pure, omnipotent, and omniscient goodness cannot be the source of evil - there is simply no way around that.
|
If God was the origin of all things, and is of essence omnipotent and pure good - how did evil arise? How did imperfection arise? Theists dance around this basic question in many complicated ways, but never convincingly address it at its source.
"Freewill" is not an acceptable answer. If God was in the beginning perfectly good, he would have created freewill to have all its positive aspects without its negative consequences. Freewill implies preexisting choices. A perfect world would not even have evil possibilities or choices. Evil, is the opposite of good. Pure, omnipotent, and omniscient goodness cannot be the source of evil - there is simply no way around that.
|
Like I said above Aphelion - it is not known nor recorded in the Bible. There are basic premises set out in the Bible - that God is all loving and powerful. But it doesn't say anything about why evil exists, it is just a presumption. The simple fact that evil exists, however, does not automatically prove that God doesn't exist - it simply doesn't explain why there is evil and ceteris paribus doesn't disprove God.
For example, if you were a black and white 2D drawing, no matter how the characters tried to explain to one another in words what colour and 3D means, unless they live in a colourful and 3D world they cannot comprehend it. Therefore to be limiting God to your own understanding and therefore assuming you know the whole concepts of good and evil is similarly wrong. Take another example, that would be like saying could God create a rock so heavy He couldn't lift? Or could He simultaneously be moving upwards and downwards at the same time? Those are questions that cannot be answered within the limits of our understanding, just like how 3D is incomprehensible for a 2D drawing. So the real answer, if God is all-powerful (ie. unlimited, rather than limited, like us), then we simply do not know why evil exists. Because it does does not automatically prove the non-existence of God, but rather it proves our lack of understanding and limit in logic.
Like I said above, the Bible isn't trying to make our understanding like God's - it reveals to us some of His knowledge to some extent, but it's mostly a book which teaches morals. It is full of intelligence too, but there are aspects which are not touched upon. For example, the Bible doesn't tell us what Heaven is like - yet that is quite an important part of Christian belief. It teaches Christians to focus on things such as loving our neighbours, and trust God to look after us after we die.
|
United States22883 Posts
I think as a source of morals the Bible does its job for many people, although as I said before I think man can create his own morals and follow good/bad without needing God/Heaven.
It's worth noting that Paul doesn't even say you go to Heaven. He says it's a possibility and you must have faith within the religion (although Christianity wasn't around then) that an all loving God will raise you as he did for Jesus. Of course it relies on the pre-existing belief that Jesus was in fact resurrected. Personally, I don't buy the whole "perfect form" stuff and I think the resurrection angle unfortunately has become a way for those in power to coerce everyone else to continue leading unhappy lives (whether Paul was sincere or not), just like Hindu and the cast system.
|
In taking up Dawkins’ gauntlet, this does not mean that science can 100% prove God’s existence or non-existence. Like all religious believers, I argue that the supernatural is, by definition, outside the reach or control of a branch of human study that restricts itself only to investigating the natural.
Like Dawkins, however, and like advocates of Intelligent Design, I argue that the fingerprints of God – if they exist – can in principle be found embedded in the natural world. Dawkins, of course, believes the evidence to be so non-existent as to almost be zero. This book, on the other hand, presents evidence that I believe makes the existence of God almost certain.
Well, I think we should be skeptical. We'll see. We'll see if, this guy is the first Christian in the history of the world to really have evidence for God. The other 1028301298312038 have been wrong, but let's not make assumptions. It's not like one guy would just be fooling himself or lying to sell books. Let's take a wait and see attitude for everyone that makes outrageous claims.
It looks like a bunch of smoke to me. If he arguments were anything else we would have them already and we wouldn't be waiting for him to release them in a book. They'd be published elsewhere, there would be news about them, etc. So I doubt he will really be unveiling any true discoveries.
edit: Yes, there are "smart" "atheists" here saying "I really got to check that book out." Dude, no. No. If some guy said he had evidence that when you take 2 oz salt and mix it with 2oz sugar it defies everything we know about the physical world, and that he would unleash this discovery in his new book, you should not go "oh really i gotta buy that!!" You should say, "why don't you tell us now, why don't you publish it in a serious journal of some sort, why don't you get your ass to a journalistic outlet for this kind of thing", etc. You should never have to buy a book to find out whether a "discover" of this magnitude is real or not. You should see the problem with that kind of system (if not, here: we would be buying books of crap until we were all broke). When his discovery is public and peer reviewed then we will all rejoice or whatever. Till then, 
I hope this clears up why we don't greet this kind of talk with open arms. It's not prejudice, just a little common sense.
|
On November 20 2007 07:46 Jibba wrote:
I don't believe in Intelligent Design. I explained ID because most people here (especially you) don't understand how it works and the book is all about it, and then I pointed out two major flaws in the theory.
Given that you're an idiot, I probably could win a debate with you about ID, even though I don't believe in the crap.
The definition of religion is absolutely important because everyone interprets the word differently. A theist is one who believes in God, atheist being one who doesn't believe in God. I consider it a religion as do many other people, including the United States Legal System.
1. Argumentum ad Hominem: The Argumentum ad Hominem is an easy fallacy to recognize. It consists in an attack (i.e., an insult) on the person who disagrees with us. The Latin translates as "an argument to the man." We prefer, however, to call it an attack on the man, or against the man.
You have already lost the Debate Mr.Jibba by commiting the fallacy of ad hominem.
when you said "I consider it a religion as do many other people, including the United State Legal System" You have commited yet again another FAllacy
3. Argumentum ad Populum: The Argumentum ad Populum consists in an attempt to justify a claim by appealing to sentiments that large groups of people have in common. Three versions of this fallacy are especially important. The first we call "Flag Waving." It appeals to the sentiment of nationalism (or patriotism). The second version of this fallacy is "Snob Appeal." It plays on our desire to be a little superior to, or better than, others. Finally, the third version we call "Bandwagoning." It appeals to our feeling of wanting to belong to the crowd.
Let me tell you what you are going to say next, 1) you are going to completely shuts down reason, and you are going to attack me personally instead of attacking my logic, and call it a rational response. 2) or you are going to completely Ignore me and admit defeat and save whatever dinity you have left and whatever respect I have for you.
PS. this will be it for me, I won't waste more time with you Jibba, you are not worth it.
|
+ Show Spoiler +On November 19 2007 14:27 Rev0lution wrote:
if there was a bit of evidence for the existance of god i would start believing. But trust me if such god were to exist i would tell him fuck you for 9/11 and fuck you for the tsunami and fuck you for katrina.
@jibba. A-Theism is not a religion, I believe you got the definiton of atheism totally backwards.
There is, unfortunately, some disagreement about the definition of atheism. It is interesting to note that most of that disagreement comes from theists — atheists themselves tend to agree on what atheism means. Christians in particular dispute the definition used by atheists and insist that atheism means something very different.
The broader, and more common, understanding of atheism among atheists is quite simply "not believing in any gods." No claims or denials are made — an atheist is just a person who does not happen to be a theist. Sometimes this broader understanding is called "weak" or "implicit" atheism. Most good, complete dictionaries readily support this.
There also exists a narrower sort of atheism, sometimes called "strong" or "explicit" atheism.
With this type, the atheist explicitly denies the existence of any gods — making a strong claim which will deserve support at some point. Some atheists do this and others may do this with regards to certain specific gods but not with others. Thus, a person may lack belief in one god, but deny the existence of another god.
Below are links to a variety of references pages to help understand how atheism is defined and why atheists define it the way they do. From About.com
Also if you are a christian you are probably an atheist towards Allah or Thor or Poseidon or Zeus.
Just as if you are a muslim you are probably an atheist towards Jesus or Jehova or Thor or Zeus.
You don't deny any of these false gods, right? you simply analyze the facts and come to a conclusion that the probability of there being a god in this universe is probably as low as 0.000001% Atheist just go one god further than you, it's as simple as that. There is no religion or faith backing it up. Nobody goes around denying unicorns or leprechauns they just simply don't exist. Once you understand why you don't believe in unicorns then you will understand why an atheist doesn't believe in your god.
To expand on why the chance of there being a god. Hundreds of years ago before Darwin, we thought that the only explanation for life in this planet was that a creator was behind it all.
Darwin explained it, and scientist tested, researched and expanded on his theory to develop neo-darwinism. Evolution is a fact, tested rigorously by science and proven right every time.
Then in the 70's the big bang theory explained how the universe came to be. That also leaves god out of the equation. So you have a all powerful god who has nothing to do with the beginning of life or the origin of the universe and stars and planets and galaxies for that matter. You have a god who is BELIEVED to have started the universe and then left it alone.
there is absolutely no evidence for the christian god, just as there is no evidence for unicorns leprechauns, the god of thunder, the moon god, the sun god, the mother earth god, jehova or allah.
all these physical phenomenas explained by physics, biology, astronomy, geology and so on. There is no reason for anyone to believe in these false gods whatsoever. gb
That's what we call a debate, he commited no fallacy in his arguement.
|
United States22883 Posts
You're not particularly deft at debating.
An ad hominem fallacy would be saying that "your position is wrong, because you're an idiot." I'm saying that you're an idiot because you completely misread what I typed. I have every right in a debate to criticize you for misreading my post and putting words in my mouth. If in a debate, Clinton told Obama that he supported Nazism, would he "lose" the debate by criticizing her complete misjudgment?
You're right in some sense about the bandwagoning, however we're debating the definition of a word rather than a logical sentiment. Any word can be widely defined, and in this case my definition is backed up by the United States government, which is an authoritative figure.
According to Webster the definition of atheism is:
a disbelief in the existence of deity
So a religion is an institution of those who believe in God(s)? Then what is Buddhism? Buddhas are not Gods, they are individuals who have reached Bhuddahood.
If you really wanted to attack me, you could've gone after the statement where I said that I could argue FOR ID (which I don't believe) and still beat you in a debate because I believe you're an idiot. That is a clear ad hominem fallacy, however it does absolutely nothing to refute my assertion that Atheism is a religion.
|
United States22883 Posts
Revolution wasn't even addressing me with the bulk of his argument. Just the part about atheism, which I disagree with.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
