-
Re: The One they call "God"
Quote:
Hitler himself said that he was acting on god's direct command, that he merely continued Jesus' fight against the jews. That his actions were not religously motivated is out of the question.
Jesus was a jew, and in his lifetime he knew only jews. Hitler was lying to use religion as an excuse. He was not religiously motivated. The same can be said of all of your historical cases.
Have you read the bible? And I mean all of it, and taken it on balance, rather than focussing on the cases that suit you best? The bible was written by men, though they may have been guided by God, they were not his puppets.
There's a great passage by John the Baptist, all about the fire and brimstone that awaits the rich. He was a poor man, and he was surely angry with the lack of compassion these rich people had displayed to him. He was a man, and like all men (bar one :wink:) had human failings.
-
Re: The One they call "God"
Vicious Monkey, you're argument is perfectly valid against organized religion. However, religion as a whole is not the problem. A gun can be used for good or evil depending on the holder. So can religion.
-
Re: The One they call "God"
Quote:
Originally Posted by Myrddraal
By free will we all mean independent consiousnesses and the ability to make a decision which is (however limited) our own. This we do have, there is no denying it.
this has been debated for like 2000+ years, and basically every major philosopher has had something to say about it. some of them would indeed deny your characterization.
Quote:
Have you actually read the debate you started? You just re-stated your proposition. :inquisitive:
well, he may not be particularly interested in what we had to say.
Bijo, as someone else mentioned before, the book of job is a good place to start. iirc, god's response to job and his friends is basically, "i got a lot of mouths to feed man! you don't know what it's like being god, so don't judge me." not very satisfying to me, but some people like it, i'm sure. anyway, god pimps job's ride after all is said and done. so job comes out ahead in the end. just like in real life! ;)
Quote:
Jesus was a jew, and in his lifetime he knew only jews. Hitler was lying to use religion as an excuse. He was not religiously motivated. The same can be said of all of your historical cases.
either you're vastly overstating your case, or you're basically admitting that religion/spirituality is just a product of societal power structures, and consequently, little more than a tool.
Quote:
Have you read the bible? And I mean all of it, and taken it on balance, rather than focussing on the cases that suit you best? The bible was written by men, though they may have been guided by God, they were not his puppets.
well if he can't pick and choose, neither should you be able to. there is a lot of violence in the bible to go along with all the peace. its a clichéd example, but look at moses's advice in numbers, 31. if you open the door to undermine the import of parts of the bible, where can you draw the line?
-
Re: The One they call "God"
Quote:
Originally Posted by Myrddraal
Jesus was a jew, and in his lifetime he knew only jews. Hitler was lying to use religion as an excuse. He was not religiously motivated. The same can be said of all of your historical cases.
Hitler did not agree with you, and just saying that he was lying is a little bit too easy. Do you have any evidence of that?
Quote:
Have you read the bible? And I mean all of it, and taken it on balance, rather than focussing on the cases that suit you best? The bible was written by men, though they may have been guided by God, they were not his puppets.
I don't need to have read the whole bible, no. But I have read enough of it to support my claims, much thanks to others who have read the whole thing.
But what are you really saying here? That you cannot trust the bible? Then from where do you get your ideas about god? Do you mean to say that you can only trust parts of it? If so, how do you know which parts you can trust and which parts you cannot
There are also at least a lot of Christians who claim that the bible was written through "divine inspiration". Why are they wrong and you right?
Quote:
Originally Posted by woad&fangs
Vicious Monkey, you're argument is perfectly valid against organized religion. However, religion as a whole is not the problem. A gun can be used for good or evil depending on the holder. So can religion.
Irrationality, the brainwashing of children, the blocking of critical thinking, the bigotry, the "holier-than-thou" mentality etc., such things would still not go away. And even disregarding that, is there any actual reason to believe that religions would ever deorganize to never reorganize again?
-
Re: The One they call "God"
Quote:
Originally Posted by The Vicious Monkey
Irrationality, the brainwashing of children, the blocking of critical thinking, the bigotry, the "holier-than-thou" mentality etc., such things would still not go away. And even disregarding that, is there any actual reason to believe that religions would ever deorganize to never reorganize again?
charity, inspiration, happiness. there are counter-examples to consider. being an atheist, i'm certainly not in favor of abandoning rationality at any cost, but a society can seek to minimize the harmful effects of religion without simply abolishing it. maybe societies will evolve past the need to lean on belief to gain some of it's positive effects, and one fine morning---
but until then, not every believer is hitler.
-
Re: The One they call "God"
Quote:
Originally Posted by The Vicious Monkey
Irrationality, the brainwashing of children, the blocking of critical thinking, the bigotry, the "holier-than-thou" mentality etc., such things would still not go away. And even disregarding that, is there any actual reason to believe that religions would ever deorganize to never reorganize again?
Irrationality-Einstein believed in a divine presence. I highly doubt that you could call him irrational. Also, following that grain of thought, since god created the universe wouldn't it make since that the best way to come closer to understanding god is through understanding his creations?
Brainwashing of Children- Organized Religion brainwashes.
Blocking of Critical thinking-See Irrationality
Bigotry-Jesus taught to be patient and calm and to respect other people.
"Holier-than-thou"- Jesus taught to be humble
-
Re: The One they call "God"
What? Hitler was not religious, he was an atheist, or pagan at best. To argue that he was Christian is interesting, considering the amounts of Christian leaders he imprisoned. Also, as Myrddraal pointed out, religion can be used as an excuse for something, but often there is another underlying cause, and religion is only invoked to make it acceptable to the people it is being done in the name of.
-
Re: The One they call "God"
Quote:
Originally Posted by woad&fangs
Irrationality-Einstein believed in a divine presence.
that's rather misleading. einstein characterized himself as an agnostic and explicitly stated that he did not believe in a "personal god". but there are plenty of amazingly intelligent true theists out there, so your point could be considered safe.
Quote:
Bigotry-Jesus taught to be patient and calm and to respect other people.
"Holier-than-thou"- Jesus taught to be humble
this is, again, just the 'no true scotsman' idea. villains and saints alike can claim to follow the word. who are you say which is doing it correctly?
-
Re: The One they call "God"
Quote:
Originally Posted by Evil_Maniac From Mars
What? Hitler was not religious, he was an atheist, or pagan at best.
hitler was never an atheist. he was born and baptized roman catholic, iirc. as a statesman, he referenced the importance of "faith" in mein kampf, advocated 'positive christianity', and believed himself to be doing god's work.
but you most people would consider stalin, mao, and pol pot to be atheists, use them instead. :wink:
-
Re: The One they call "God"
Quote:
Originally Posted by Big_John
this is, again, just the 'no true scotsman' idea. villains and saints alike can claim to follow the word. who are you say which is doing it correctly?
"A good tree bears good fruit, a bad tree bears bad fruit"
Okay, I admit that my memory of the parables is a bit rusty but I think that Jesus said something along those lines.
-
Re: The One they call "God"
Quote:
Originally Posted by woad&fangs
"A good tree bears good fruit, a bad tree bears bad fruit"
Okay, I admit that my memory of the parables is a bit rusty but I think that Jesus said something along those lines.
that reasoning works for either side.
-
Re: The One they call "God"
Quote:
Originally Posted by Big_John
but you most people would consider stalin, mao, and pol pot to be atheists, use them instead. :wink:
Yes, I was going to cite them in the same post. However, I would argue that with the Catholic and Lutheran leaders Hitler imprisoned, while he believed in faith, associating him directly as a follower of the Catholic Church during adulthood is interesting.
Also, being baptized Catholic at birth, common in Hitler's era and before, does not mean you are necessarily a devout follower of the faith. My own mother is a prime example.
-
Re: The One they call "God"
Quote:
Originally Posted by Evil_Maniac From Mars
However, I would argue that with the Catholic and Lutheran leaders Hitler imprisoned, while he believed in faith, associating him directly as a follower of the Catholic Church during adulthood is interesting.
i'm not sure what you're trying to argue here.
Quote:
Also, being baptized Catholic at birth, common in Hitler's era and before, does not mean you are necessarily a devout follower of the faith. My own mother is a prime example.
sure, it's just an observation. but the sum total of like observations could not lead a reasonable person to believe that hitler was ever an atheist.
-
Re: The One they call "God"
Hitler was mad, he can believe whatever he likes, it doesn't change the fact.
It's a totally unrelated point that means very little.
-
Re: The One they call "God"
Quote:
Originally Posted by Myrddraal
Hitler was mad, he can believe whatever he likes, it doesn't change the fact.
anyone can claim anyone else is mad. one could easily claim people who believe jesus could work miracles must be mad. what does that have to do with hitler's theism?
edit: meh, all of this is OT anyway. or just peripherally related.
-
Re: The One they call "God"
Anyone can claim anything. Who are you or I to decide which claims are right and wrong?
We could go down that route forever, and ever, and ever.
-
Re: The One they call "God"
Quote:
Originally Posted by Big_John
even if that were true, why add god into the mix? just one more level of absurdity for the heck of it?
Why not add God into the mix?
Not adding God into the mix is making a value judgement that the absurdity of the concept of the Universe, all it's laws, and everything in it randomly coming into existence by happenstance is less absurd than a God concept.
But, there is no tangible way to measure those two absurd concepts against each other. There is no definitive answer to which is less absurd. Therefore, any value judgement about which is less absurd, or more likely to be true, is merely a matter of perception and opinion. Therefore there can be no reasonable claim that the "Universe by random happenstance" concept is irrefutably less absurd than a God concept.
Bottom line: it's an opinion-based choice. Everyone must pick which absurdity he chooses to put faith in.
-
Re: The One they call "God"
Quote:
Originally Posted by Myrddraal
Anyone can claim anything. Who are you or I to decide which claims are right and wrong?
We could go down that route forever, and ever, and ever.
we can look at people's words and deeds, and make an informed decision. for example, hitler's words indicate that he was a theist of some sort. hitler's deeds? well, that's open to interpretation, i suppose.
-
Re: The One they call "God"
Quote:
Originally Posted by Navaros
Why not add God into the mix?
Not adding God into the mix is making a value judgement that the absurdity of the concept of the Universe, all it's laws, and everything in it randomly coming into existence by happenstance is less absurd than a God concept.
But, there is no tangible way to measure those two absurd concepts against each other. There is no definitive answer to which is less absurd. Therefore, any value judgement about which is less absurd, or more likely to be true, is merely a matter of perception and opinion. Therefore there can be no reasonable claim that the "Universe by random happenstance" concept is irrefutably less absurd than a God concept.
Bottom line: it's an opinion-based choice. Everyone must pick which absurdity he chooses to put faith in.
except that, if you beileve that physical reality exists, we already have that at hand. we don't need to conceptualize a metaphysical "will" to pick up and eat an apple, for example. i can see the apple, and i can touch it and interact with it. so if i believe i exist as a physical being (which i think is a foundational belief for anyone that's not a schizophrenic), if i have any sort of personal identity, the existence of the physical universe is a given. i don't need to imagine an elaborate set of unlikely circumstances to believe in it, because it's right in front of me.
so to not have a god concept is no more absurd than to pick up and eat an apple. unless, of course, there are signs of god in the physical world.
edit: this is the difference between making a positive claim, and making no claim. i take the world as i experience it. if you tell me there is something beyond, that is no onus on me.
-
Re: The One they call "God"
Quote:
Originally Posted by Big_John
except that, if you beileve that physical reality exists, we already have that at hand. we don't need to conceptualize a metaphysical "will" to pick up and eat an apple, for example. i can see the apple, and i can touch it and interact with it. so if i believe i exist as a physical being (which i think is a foundational belief for anyone that's not a schizophrenic), if i have any sort of personal identity, the existence of the physical universe is a given. i don't need to imagine an elaborate set of unlikely circumstances to believe in it, because it's right in front of me.
so to not have a god concept is no more absurd than to pick up and eat an apple. unless, of course, there are signs of god in the physical world.
edit: this is the difference between making a positive claim, and making no claim. i take the world as i experience it. if you tell me there is something beyond, that is no onus on me.
How does this disprove his point?
I beleive physical reality exists, I can also touch an apple. How does that disprove or prove anything?
The physical universe is a given to you, you don't care about what happened to make it occure thus you deem an explanation of it's creation as absurd?
-
Re: The One they call "God"
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bopa the Magyar
How does this disprove his point?
I beleive physical reality exists, I can also touch an apple. How does that disprove or prove anything?
The physical universe is a given to you, you don't care about what happened to make it occure thus you deem an explanation of it's creation as absurd?
perhaps i misunderstood what he was trying to say. but if you're arguing that invoking god is simply replacing one absurdity with another, ok. is that the best a theist can do?
even still, that is one added level of absurdity, because it posits an absurd cause (god). whereas, an atheist need posit no cause. taking existence for granted is like taking an apple for granted, instead of imagining johnny appleseed put it there.
moreover, though it may be hard to fathom, there is nothing necessarily absurd about an uncaused universe, since a fundamental aspect of causality, time, did not necessarily exist "before" the universe.
-
Re: The One they call "God"
Quote:
Originally Posted by The Vicious Monkey
Let me first just point out to all of you Christians or muslims (or anyone else of a religion that invokes an equivalent to hell): Your religion do not say you have free will! Or if it does, then it contradicts itself by having hell (or the equivalent). To have free will you cannot be punished for any decision you make (or equally punished no matter what your choices are). Since hell punish everyone who choose not to do as your god commands, but not those who do follow the commands, your choice isn't free.
I tried to not get involved here but I feel I must make a comment on free will.
You have to understand the whole picture before discussing the particulars.
Men were given freedom to eat of every tree in the Garden which contradicted another statement about eating of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil.
To me this reads: you shall not eat of that tree, but you can freely choose to do so.
Free will in the Judeo/Christian theology necessitates a few principles.
1. The need for a law.
2. Opposites in all things.
3. Knowledge if what is right and what is wrong.
3. Freedom to choose.
God have laid down the law: You can do this and this. You can't do this and this.
There are opposing forces in play. Good vs. evil, vice vs. virtue, true vs. false. Etc…
For man to be accountable for his choices, he must have knowledge of what is right and what is wrong.
And man must be granted the freedom to choose.
There are consequences for choices, and they work outside free will.
Like the law we live under, there are consequences for breaking them. If you murder, the law demands jail time. The picture of Justice as a blindfolded woman with a scale and a sword is quite fitting. Justice is blind and it demands that the scale is in balance. If a law is broken, something must be paid to rebalance order. Free will ensures that man have the ability to unbalance the scales of justice. But payment is still needed to rebalance it.
So free will is: man is free to choose salvation by obeying the laws and is free to choose damnation by breaking the laws.
God put down the laws and we are free to obey them or not. We are however not exempted any consequence for breaking them. Justice will be paid either while on earth or in the worlds to come.
This is where the Saviour comes into the equation. He paid justice with his atonement and set down a payback plan that would free mankind from their debt to justice.
The payback plan only demands that humankind does their best in following the outline in it; an outline which includes repentance.
How many times can you repent? Seven score seventy… which is such a high number in ancient times that you could as well put always in.
This is how I understand the Judeo/Christian notion of free will.
-
Re: The One they call "God"
Could every theist please answer these three questions: 1) what, exactly, is “god”? 2) Why is he necessary? 3) Why do you believe in the god you believe in, and not any other?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Big John
charity, inspiration, happiness. there are counter-examples to consider. being an atheist, i'm certainly not in favor of abandoning rationality at any cost, but a society can seek to minimize the harmful effects of religion without simply abolishing it. maybe societies will evolve past the need to lean on belief to gain some of it's positive effects, and one fine morning---
Why can’t charity, inspiration and happiness exist without religion? Yeah, that’s just a rhetorical question as reality says it does. To then ignore the bad things that religion do bring, which lack of religion do not bring (but granted do not block either), is wrong.
If you’re not in favour of abandoning rationality too, why are you arguing that religion could stay in any form? The belief in anything without evidence is irrational by definition, and since there is no evidence for any god keeping religion is keeping irrational beliefs.
but until then, not every believer is hitler.
I know, but that still doesn’t make the brainwashing, the anti-gays, the stoning of people, the bigotry etc. that DOES exist and IS NOT just confined to 10 or so people any better.
Quote:
Originally Posted by woad&fangs
Irrationality-Einstein believed in a divine presence. I highly doubt that you could call him irrational.
Sigh. First of all, I’m sick of the Einstein example. It’s just an appeal to authority. Secondly, as Big John points out, he was not talking of any god like that.
But let’s just accept that he believed in the Christian god (which he in reality didn’t). Then that belief would be irrational. I’ve never said that a theist can’t be rational in every other aspect of his life, but when it comes to religion the theist mind bars the gate for rationality.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Evil_Maniac From Mars
What? Hitler was not religious, he was an atheist, or pagan at best. To argue that he was Christian is interesting, considering the amounts of Christian leaders he imprisoned.
He was not an atheist. Read his book “Mein Kampf”. He time and time again says straight out that he’s Christian, that he was working on the command of the Christian god etc. He believed that Jesus was not a Jew and that he himself was descended from him... he even said, and I quote: “I will not teach anyone in atheism”. He simply thought that every other church was wrong, something he’s not the only one to have done and still do, what with all the Christian denominations that all claim to be the “true way”.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Big John
but you most people would consider stalin, mao, and pol pot to be atheists, use them instead.
Whether Stalin was an atheist or not is debatable. I think not, based on the fact that his daughter in interviews said that she believed he was a theist, that he had told her that he believed in Jesus, and that the poems he wrote also support that. But that doesn't matter, because his actions were not religiously based at all - it was all political. He wanted the people to worship the government and see them as gods instead.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Navaros
Why not add God into the mix?
Why not add the Flying Spaghetti Monster into the mix? Why not add the Invisible Pink Unicorn into the mix? Why not add fairies, dragons, undetectable teapots orbiting Uranus or that little Schnarfwidget on my shoulder into the mix? Because it's COMPLETELY IRRATIONAL and devoid of any reason or function at all. It may have worked for the dark ages, but I would have thought that we'd moved on by now.
It's also switching the burden of proof. It's up to the theist to prove not only that there is a god, but also that it is theirs and not some other god, before it can be brought into the mix.
Quote:
Bottom line: it's an opinion-based choice. Everyone must pick which absurdity he chooses to put faith in.
No. Atheism is the lack of faith. Please tell me how it requires faith to lack faith.
Oh, and while we’re at it, science doesn’t require faith either. Faith is belief without evidence or belief despite evidence to the contrary. Any scientific claim is based on evidence, and thus does not require faith.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bopa the Magyar
How does this disprove his point?
I beleive physical reality exists, I can also touch an apple. How does that disprove or prove anything?
The physical universe is a given to you, you don't care about what happened to make it occure thus you deem an explanation of it's creation as absurd?
That’s switching the burden of proof. Anyone who makes the claim that a god exists must prove that claim to be true. If he cannot, then the rational thing is not to believe. There is no evidence and no need for a god.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sigurd Fafnesbane
Men were given freedom to eat of every tree in the Garden which contradicted another statement about eating of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil.
To me this reads: you shall not eat of that tree, but you can freely choose to do so.
Ignoring the begging of the question, the fact that “the Garden” you speak of never existed and that getting knowledge to eating one frigging fruit is utterly ridiculous…
No, you could not “freely choose to do so”. You could choose to do so, but hardly “freely” because… well, Adam and Eve were punished for that, you know.
And while we're at it, is not the Christian god all-knowing? Would he not know what would happen if he put such a tree there? Why did he put it there in the first place? If he knew that they would eat of it, he'd know that he would punish them for it, and that would not be the work of a good god, which Christianity and Christians claim that their god is.
Quote:
Free will in the Judeo/Christian theology necessitates a few principles.
1. The need for a law.
2. Opposites in all things.
3. Knowledge if what is right and what is wrong.
3. Freedom to choose.
God have laid down the law: You can do this and this. You can't do this and this.
There are opposing forces in play. Good vs. evil, vice vs. virtue, true vs. false. Etc…
For man to be accountable for his choices, he must have knowledge of what is right and what is wrong.
And man must be granted the freedom to choose.
There are consequences for choices, and they work outside free will.
Changing the definition isn’t a valid argument, you know. I could say that “according the mighty Schnarfwidgetmagidwah, the true god on my shoulder, slavery is freedom” and then claim that slaves do have freedom. See the absurdity of that claim?
Quote:
And man must be granted the freedom to choose.
Let’s imagine that Sweden attacked and defeated Norway, for whatever reason, and a puppet dictator was installed. Anyone who don’t openly confess his or her own love for this dictator and follow the cruel rules he set up would be put to death on the spot. Would you call yourself free? If no, then you seem to have a different definition of free in reality and when it comes to god. After all, with death AND eternal torture, the christian god's threat to breakers of the commandments is endlessly worse than anything the dictator in the example could ever give.
If he really gave us free will, he wouldn’t torture us for not following his commands. If he had just done nothing to those disobeying, and brought all who did obey up to heaven, then free will could be argued. Dealing out eternal torture to those who don’t believe and/or don’t follow his commands removes the free part. It also removes this whole :daisy: about how "he loves us".
Quote:
This is where the Saviour comes into the equation. He paid justice with his atonement and set down a payback plan that would free mankind from their debt to justice.
Prove that he even existed. Hint: you can’t.
Besides, how the cuss can you claim that I am of any debt to an absurd and unproven notion of “god”? That two people who never existed ate a fruit that never were that somehow gave them something they never were given that the god that doesn't exist didn’t want them to have is not my sin. I'm not in debt for what "they" allegedly did, and to say that is completely :daisy: up.
Quote:
This is how I understand the Judeo/Christian notion of free will.
I see it as the same thing. I just don’t alter the definition of “free”.
(Please note that I'm not used to writing big posts like this, so expect certain errors to pass my vigilance. I'm just a man, and since I'm not possessed by the Flying Spaghetti Monster, I'm not flawless. ~;))
-
Re: The One they call "God"
Quote:
Originally Posted by The Vicious Monkey
(Please note that I'm not used to writing big posts like this, so expect certain errors to pass my vigilance. I'm just a man, and since I'm not possessed by the Flying Spaghetti Monster, I'm not flawless. ~;))
I've stepped back into the peanut gallery on this thread but as a word of encouragement I think your doing great.
Give em hell (pun intended) :thumbsup:
-
Re: The One they call "God"
@ The Vicious Monkey:
I will answer you in full regarding your comments to my recent post at a later time (at work now).
However I feel I must insert that I am not a theist. I was only showing what the theistic views on free will are.
But one thing I will answer since I am already typing. The first commandment of God to mankind was to go forth and mulitply. Somehow according to the lore, they couldn't until they had broken the commandment of eating of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. Somehow by doing so.. their bodies were changed and they were able to conceive.
So you have..
1. You must go forth and mulitply
2. You can't eat of that tree.
3. *Can't multiply without eating from that tree*
A dilemma that Eve solved and introduced sin and eternal condemnation for humankind.
But humankind could not have come about without it and Adam and Eve would have lived in the garden still, eternaly ignorant.
I have discarded my agnosticism during the period of the debate I am supposed to have with Cheetah. I guess he is a little occupied in the mafia game. So, I'll play along as a theist.
-
Re: The One they call "God"
Quote:
Originally Posted by Big_John
but there are plenty of amazingly intelligent true theists out there, so your point could be considered safe.
Yeah, take me for example.
-
Re: The One they call "God"
Quote:
Originally Posted by The Vicious Monkey
Why can’t charity, inspiration and happiness exist without religion? Yeah, that’s just a rhetorical question as reality says it does. To then ignore the bad things that religion do bring, which lack of religion do not bring (but granted do not block either), is wrong.
the point is that hatred and war would exist without religion as much as charity and peace would exist with it. humans are violent animals, we're going to go to war over real-world things like land and water. religion is just a belief system that helps unite the ranks.. like nationalism, communism or democracy. if you want to peg religion with the 'bad', you should consider the 'good' too.
Quote:
If you’re not in favour of abandoning rationality too, why are you arguing that religion could stay in any form? The belief in anything without evidence is irrational by definition, and since there is no evidence for any god keeping religion is keeping irrational beliefs.
i said i was not in favor of abandoning rationality at any cost. we live in the real world, and i'm a pragmatist. we're not going to be able to eliminate superstition over night. the truth is, the uperstitions some people hold onto have great meaning for them and, according to studies, make them happier, healthier, and more productive than they would be without those beliefs.
of course there are negative fallouts from most of these beliefs. but if we consider the plenty of 'good' people who still believe in god(s) and aren't bigots or racists or hatemongers or whatever, it seems evident that we could seek to live in a world that lets people have their irrational beliefs about things like the origin of existence, and be happier for it, and still respects rationality in the public sphere. pragmatically, we should seek to encourage these 'good' theists, and discourage the others. and after that is accomplished, we can encourage rationality in all things.
but, rationality about remote concepts with little bearing on how we live our lives is not, in my opinion, worth a whole lot of turmoil. eventually, people will come around.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Husar
Yeah, take me for example.
i won't take you anywhere for less than $20.
-
Re: The One they call "God"
Quote:
Originally Posted by The Vicious Monkey
Oh yes, let's all be irrational and completely discard critical thinking. I mean, if that's what it takes to believe in something so stupid as the god-concept... :shrug:
So what your saying is you wouldnt believe in Jesus..
.. because this happened loong time ago..
..and even though he's the _son of God_ he shouldnt be able to walk on water because YOU cant do it... right?
I mean if all you can attack me with is hate and see it to believe it then next aethiest plz
-
Re: The One they call "God"
Quote:
Originally Posted by Big_John
i won't take you anywhere for less than $20.
Actually you should pay me for my allowance to use me as an example, not everybody gets that honour from me. ~;)
The rest of your post was very nice though. :2thumbsup:
-
Re: The One they call "God"
Quote:
Originally Posted by Boyar Son
.. because this happened loong time ago..
..and even though he's the _son of God_ he shouldnt be able to walk on water because YOU cant do it... right?
this is conjecture. that's not a very useful place to start to have a meaningful discussion.
husar, i'll pick you up at 8.
