Religious beliefs

[wa3zrm]

Don't you boys realize that there are three things you are never supposed to do:

1. Discuss Religion;
2. Discuss Politics; and,
3. Loan money to anyone that you want to keep as a friend!

And no, the Bible is not a bunch of bs... it is a book of wisdom! JMO.

[mistahARK]

Bible is just a story book with some moral values that should be clear to people without reading a book. The fact that some people believe it's really the word of god is just absurd to me.

I think there's alot of values and life lesons in there that aren't that clear to your 'normal' person at all. Selflessness, taking the time to help others, meekness (restraint of power), etc. But yes, people should really do some research outside of the Bible and ChristianAnswers.net before calling the Bible the infallible word of God. If you truly believe what you do, than being able to logically defend it without using circular reasoning is key.

[Nuusku]

I actually really respect the character of Jesus, and there are many lessons to be learned from the Bible, regardless of the fact that it is not infallible, nor historically correct.



Christians who believe in 'free will' agree that we all have the choice to do good or evil, to choose God or to choose evil. They believe that though God is willing and able to stop evil, if he were to step out of the sky every time evil was about to occur, that would negate the reason he created us, to choose to love Him. Though evil does regularly happen, it's because humans are being humans, not because God isn't being God. Basically, evil is the abscence of God; it exists where humans are choosing to live by their selfish nature, and it's existence doesn't necessarily disprove Him.

I'm not switching sides here, just playing the devil's advocate, in a sense i suppose.

Bible is just a story book with some moral values that should be clear to people without reading a book. The fact that some people believe it's really the word of god is just absurd to me.

Who is the worst one; the evil it self, or the "one" who allow evil to exist?

[mistahARK]

The Bible is bs. That much we can all agree?

I actually really respect the character of Jesus, and there are many lessons to be learned from the Bible, regardless of the fact that it is not infallible, nor historically correct.

A great quote:
"Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent. Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent. Is he both able and willing? Then whence cometh evil? Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him God?"
-Epicurus

Christians who believe in 'free will' agree that we all have the choice to do good or evil, to choose God or to choose evil. They believe that though God is willing and able to stop evil, if he were to step out of the sky every time evil was about to occur, that would negate the reason he created us, to choose to love Him. Though evil does regularly happen, it's because humans are being humans, not because God isn't being God. Basically, evil is the abscence of God; it exists where humans are choosing to live by their selfish nature, and it's existence doesn't necessarily disprove Him.

I'm not switching sides here, just playing the devil's advocate, in a sense i suppose.

[Nuusku]

A great quote:
"Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent. Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent. Is he both able and willing? Then whence cometh evil? Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him God?"
-Epicurus

[Nuusku]

The Bible is bs. That much we can all agree?

[mistahARK]

I agree with you on all counts thunder. I can't logically show that there is a God, and there is too much evidence showing that there isn't one, or that if there is one, he can't be the Christian God, if we're really holding the Bible accountable for its literal translation. Because of my upbringing, I'd love to be proven wrong, as I still feel like I'm missing something after leaving Christianity, but I don't know if that will happen. I really would love to be proven wrong though. I was never happier than when I was blindly following what the Bible said, sure that Jesus was watching my every move and making me a better person in His way. Strange how knowledge changes you.

[Thunder_Snus]

Love love LOVE this video. I have always been a Christian (of the Episcopalian variety) but never really took my faith seriously until I started watching William Lane Craig absolutely obliterate his atheistic opponents in debate after debate, and reading scholarly works by Christians, Jews, and atheists, about the New Testament. CRAZY SHART right there.

For all you atheists and agnostics out there, I would pose the following argument, called the Moral Argument.

1: Absent God, objective moral values and duties do not (and cannot) exist.
2: Objective moral values and duties do exist (some actions, like, say, rape of children, or the Holocaust, are really, truly wrong, objectively (i.e., regardless of how anyone feels about them).
Conclusion: Therefore, God (a deistic God) exists.

I actually participated in a debate about this subject last weekend, and once the TV station gets done with it, I'll post it on youtube, and link to it here. This argument, if successful, does not get us to a Christian God (the life, ministry, death, and resurrection of Jesus is needed for this) but it does get you to a general, deistic God.

I am curious: what do you all make of this argument? Theists and atheists alike, please respond!

I respect anyone who wants to believe but i have to say....that is the worst argument ive ever heard in my entire life. Morals exist....but that doesnt mean god does and i have no idea how anyone would come to that conclusion. Thats like saying bread exists but when you heat it up it becomes toast so.......god exists. As for whoever this Mr. Craig is, i highly doubt he obliterates anyone in debates about the existance of god when all FACTUAL evidence points to no. I definitely dont want to come off as an asshole although its hard to phrase this response without sounding like one, so i apologize if anyone takes offense. I have no ill wishes on people that wish to worship and respect their right to do so, but you will never have an argument about gods validity that will make sense or trump any scientific evidence pointing to no.

I believe i answered your questions now i would like to ask you and any other believer a question as well.....and please remember i have no bad intentions or means of mocking anyone.
If i met you in person....told you i was the son of god...and that god put me here to die to free you of your sins that he originally created you with, would you believe me? If books were written about me now would you believe it was true? I guess my question is, coming from a person raised catholic....do you ever look at what you read and say you believe in....and ask yourself if it makes sense? Does it bother you that the bible was originally much much longer and things were taken out and eventually lost to time. The bible teaches that basically sex no matter what is a sin (maybe they say its cool if youre married and trying to have a child im not sure) but the book of eve used to be in there talking about things like the pleasure of orgasms and the "pull out" method. Theres TONS of things that were taken out, and things have been being taken out and revised since the creation of the bible depending on what the pope and whoever else makes those decisions decides. Do you find things like mormonism weird where the guy found golden plates he had to decipher despite you believe in a bearded man in the sky that grants wishes? Does it bother you that so much blood is shed and lives lost because of wars resulting from two different faiths arguing over who the true god is despite no evidence that either exists? I'm terribly sorry if i offend anyone but i'd personally like to get some responses to this.

And just one more question....why do you trust something so old? Let's remember...up until the mid 1800's people believed maggots spontaneously appeared wherever meat was until someone put meat in a jar with a cover over it. We used to use leaches to try to cure people of all diseases. We used to say smoking wasnt harmful. We can look back at so much that people believed in the past 200 years alone......do you know how unadvanced and stupid society was during Jesus' time? The methods of thought and logic during those times are so baffling to think about standing in a 21st century perspective but we still keep the idea of an overlord ruling over us as absolute and total fact.

[lxskllr]

This doesn't work as a counterargument, because it commits the logical fallacy of begging the question, presupposing objective morality. Many, many atheistic philosophers are also nihilistic, because they have concluded that if there is no God, there is nothing binding us to a given course of action.

Think of it this way: in order to get from is to ought, you need some form of authority that can say what is good and evil, obligatory or prohibited, without possibility of error. Otherwise, who is to say that the sociopath is wrong, and you right? You'd just be two differently-evolved subsets of the same species with different preferences for how to treat fellow members of the same species; it is impossible for either of you to judge the other as incorrect on anything other than a purely subjective basis.

You're conflating morality with legality with the only difference being who made the laws( we're being philosophical here, because it's clear humans made all the laws ;^) ). Legal/illegal isn't the same as right/wrong. Kicking my cat is legal in almost every jurisdiction, but it isn't right in any jurisdiction. A sociopath is neutral due to defective wiring in his brain. He isn't exactly responsible for his actions, same as the retarded can't be held fully responsible. I'm not sure what to say to you if the only reason you don't do good things(or at least non-negative things) is due to fear of punishment. That would be clear indication of a sociopath.

[mistahARK]

Love love LOVE this video. I have always been a Christian (of the Episcopalian variety) but never really took my faith seriously until I started watching William Lane Craig absolutely obliterate his atheistic opponents in debate after debate, and reading scholarly works by Christians, Jews, and atheists, about the New Testament. CRAZY SHART right there.

For all you atheists and agnostics out there, I would pose the following argument, called the Moral Argument.

1: Absent God, objective moral values and duties do not (and cannot) exist.
2: Objective moral values and duties do exist (some actions, like, say, rape of children, or the Holocaust, are really, truly wrong, objectively (i.e., regardless of how anyone feels about them).
Conclusion: Therefore, God (a deistic God) exists.

I actually participated in a debate about this subject last weekend, and once the TV station gets done with it, I'll post it on youtube, and link to it here. This argument, if successful, does not get us to a Christian God (the life, ministry, death, and resurrection of Jesus is needed for this) but it does get you to a general, deistic God.

I am curious: what do you all make of this argument? Theists and atheists alike, please respond!

I think that this can be simply explained by the Golden Rule. Objective morals do exist, because the things we know are wrong, we would never want done to us. So basically, objective morality works off of empathy.

In other words I don't believe I can pray for special favors and they will just happen. No matter how many times like many other things it has happened to PP. Actually I wonder what PP's version of God is actually like. I mean does he condone fleshlights and Blue barrels. I mean if your just gonna make it up as you go along and say well I go to church that means I'm saved but frick the rules the rest of the time, you may as well just not believe in anything.

That's pretty hostile.

[Crow]

You can observe morality in species outside of our own, yet I don't see any other animals preaching religion or worshipping a deity.

[CzechCzar]

I don't understand the connection between "God" and morals. It's wrong to inflict discomfort on other creatures. It doesn't take deep thought to figure that out. "God" says nothing about kicking my cat, but it's wrong because it makes her life worse. I didn't get that out of a book, or anything else. If anyone needs a book to figure that out, then I'd call them defective, and they should probably be locked away, or killed before they negatively affect anyone else.

This doesn't work as a counterargument, because it commits the logical fallacy of begging the question, presupposing objective morality. Many, many atheistic philosophers are also nihilistic, because they have concluded that if there is no God, there is nothing binding us to a given course of action.

Think of it this way: in order to get from is to ought, you need some form of authority that can say what is good and evil, obligatory or prohibited, without possibility of error. Otherwise, who is to say that the sociopath is wrong, and you right? You'd just be two differently-evolved subsets of the same species with different preferences for how to treat fellow members of the same species; it is impossible for either of you to judge the other as incorrect on anything other than a purely subjective basis.

[Bigblue1]

found it

http://www.cafepress.com/mf/49375944...-emblem_tshirt

[Crow]

I want that on a t-shirt

I'm sure it exists

[Bigblue1]

I want that on a t-shirt