|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 Posted: Sat Dec 08, 2007 8:37 am
 |
|
|
 |
Lethkhar GuardianAngel44 Lethkhar GuardianAngel44 Lethkhar Would you like to rephrase that? Or can I use this one in another of my "Weekly Funny Internet Quotes" printouts? "No, officer, I didn't kill him. He killed himself by disobeying me." rolleyes Let me break it down for you: -God is the Creator of the universe. -Given that, he is allowed to make the rules. -He gave us a choice: Love him, follow the rules, and as a reward live in paradise for all eternity; or break the rules and live on earth without God as a punishment. -We chose the latter. No, I didn't. But go on. 3nodding You would have done it too. Ipso facto: I didn't.
If you had been given that choice, the result would have been the same.
Quote: Quote: Quote: Quote: -Seeing as he is a merciful God, he gave us a second chance through Jesus Christ. -We now have the choice to love him and spend eternity in heaven, or not and go to hell. -You might not think it's fair, but does a child think that their parents rules are fair? But sometimes parents' rules aren't fair. That's why there are child protection agencies. Is there an organization that monitors God? And why do we go to Hell now instead of going to a Godless earth? Note the word "sometimes". Noted. What's the point?
These rules aren't unfair. You're just like a child who thinks they're unfair but cannot comphrehend them.
Quote: Quote: God gave us a chance. We screwed it up. He's now giving us a second chance. Don't screw up this time. You didn't answer the question.
Second screw-up, worse punishment.
Quote: Quote: Quote: Quote: Quote: "Worship me or you will burn for the rest of eternity." Sounds malicious to me. confused How about this: "Accept my gift of my son, whom I gave to die on a cross for all of your sins, and do something as simple as love me, and you will go to heaven." Sounds like you're pessimistic to me. rolleyes I dunno. I suppose you could make the same point of Pol Pot. As long as you didn't question the government, you lived. In fact, his government would defend you as long as you didn't question it. I'm sure we can both agree that Pol Pot's system was not a moral system. Yeah, but how does that relate? Pol Pot wouldn't kill you as long as you supported him and commended his system.
That statement just contradicted itself. Was that a typo?
Quote: God doesn't burn you as long as you worship Him and commend His system.
That's looking at it pessimistically.
Quote: Quote: Quote: Quote: Quote: No, your argument is not logical. The burden of proof is on you because you made the claim. I could say the same of a silver spoon right outside Jupiter, or the Flying Spaghetti Monster, or that I have the ability to shoot lasers of my eyes. You might say that all of these are false, and if your "logic" holds true I could say "disprove it" and all of those things would automatically be true. Neither is yours. You can claim that anything is true based on the fact that no one can disprove it. You can claim that anything is false based on the fact that no one can prove it. Neither of our arguments are "logical" in your eyes, so it renders those arguments null and void. And that, my friend, it why we establish the burden of proof. You claim there is a God. The burden of proof is on you. You claim time travel is impossible. The burden of proof is on you. I claim that determinism is perfectly possible. The burden of proof is on me. The burden of proof isn't on me. I can't prove God. He's beyond proof. Then you have no means to support your claim. If God is "beyond proof", the possiblity of His existence is rendered negligible.
That's where faith comes in. If everything about Christianity was proved to you without a doubt, then how would it be religion? You would believe because there was no other logical course of action, not because of the love you held for God.
Quote: I accept that. Why can't you?
Oh, I can accept it. In fact I have; that's why I'm a weak atheist.
Quote: Quote: Quote: Quote: By the way, who said something had to be logical for it to be true? Plato was the first, I believe. wink And he was an atheist. Really? Where'd you hear that? I'm pretty sure you just made that up. It's much more likely that Plato worshipped Greek deities, just like everyone else in his culture.
I'm pretty sure Greek gods weren't "logical" either. Why would he say that if he worshipped a God?
Even if he wasn't an atheist, though, his statement was atheistic in nature.
Quote: Quote: A very flawed way of life, atheism. Atheism is not a way of life. It is a single belief (Or lack thereof, I suppose).
Whatever you want to call it, it's still flawed.
Quote: Quote: Quote: Quote: 9/11 isn't logical. Worshippers that have twisted a religions meaning to make it like we should kill any others that don't worship their religion on sight have attacked our country in a suicidal attack, crashing a plane into the Twin Towers. That follows no logic of yours, yet it happened. Of course it follows logic. They believed that America was a threat to their religion. Their religion was the most important thing to them because they had been conditioned to think so. Therefore, they decided that they had to help to destroy America. They hijacked planes with guns. They crashed airplanes into the Twin Towers. The Twin Towers fell down. Name one part of the situation that didn't follow logic. I would think that their religion didn't follow YOUR logic. No, it didn't. And look at what not following logic did. stare
Those were extremists. You can't lump all religious people into that category. Do I sound like an extremist?
Quote: That's a figment of human psyche. It's a belief. When I speak of logic always being right, I only speak of material happenings and reasonings for occurences. For instance, the reason why they believed in that religion followed complete logic.
But religion doesn't follow logic because you can't see it with your own two eyes?
Quote: Quote: Quote: Quote: Quote: No, it didn't. That's why it's not believed anymore. If it followed total logic, then I would believe it. That's the only reason you would believe it? Why else would I believe it? Faith. Why?
I'll say it again. . . faith.
Quote: Quote: Quote: Quote: I don't think that you grasp why people believe in religion. It's not cause it's logical; to the contrary, it goes against most rational logic. It's not because it's been proven to us scientifically. It's because we have faith. Whatever religion it is, we all have faith that ours is the right course. I believe with all my heart, soul, and mind that I am on the right path, and nothing anyone could say or do to me would make me think or even admit otherwise. That's the key to any religion: faith. That's also exactly the reason why the Catholic Church didn't recognise that the earth was round until quite recently. Poor Galileo... They went about expressing their faith in the wrong way. Other examples of this include the radical Muslims and the "fire and brimstone" preachers. It happens all too often, in my humble opinion.
Yes it does, but you can't make an accurate analysis of religion based on the followers. You have to look at the source: the Bible for you, because it's physical.
Quote: Quote: Quote: Quote: "I believe in Christianity as I believe that the sun has risen: not only because I see it, but because by it I see everything else." - C.S. Lewis "I think fish is nice, but then I think that rain is wet, so who am I to judge?" -Douglas Adams I don't understand. question Think about it; I'm not about to spell it out for you.
Then let's just drop this. |
|
|
|
|
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sat Dec 08, 2007 2:08 pm
|
|
|
|
GuardianAngel44 Lethkhar GuardianAngel44 Lethkhar GuardianAngel44 rolleyes Let me break it down for you: -God is the Creator of the universe. -Given that, he is allowed to make the rules. -He gave us a choice: Love him, follow the rules, and as a reward live in paradise for all eternity; or break the rules and live on earth without God as a punishment. -We chose the latter. No, I didn't. But go on. 3nodding You would have done it too. Ipso facto: I didn't. If you had been given that choice, the result would have been the same.
Again, ipso facto: I wasn't.
Quote: Quote: Quote: Quote: Quote: -Seeing as he is a merciful God, he gave us a second chance through Jesus Christ. -We now have the choice to love him and spend eternity in heaven, or not and go to hell. -You might not think it's fair, but does a child think that their parents rules are fair? But sometimes parents' rules aren't fair. That's why there are child protection agencies. Is there an organization that monitors God? And why do we go to Hell now instead of going to a Godless earth? Note the word "sometimes". Noted. What's the point? These rules aren't unfair. You're just like a child who thinks they're unfair but cannot comphrehend them.
But sometimes a child can think that rules are unfair with good reason. How do you know that I am not such a child?
Quote: Quote: Quote: God gave us a chance. We screwed it up. He's now giving us a second chance. Don't screw up this time. You didn't answer the question. Second screw-up, worse punishment.
But I'm not the one who screwed up the first time. I'm being punished for a sin that I did not commit.
Quote: Quote: Quote: Quote: Quote: How about this: "Accept my gift of my son, whom I gave to die on a cross for all of your sins, and do something as simple as love me, and you will go to heaven." Sounds like you're pessimistic to me. rolleyes I dunno. I suppose you could make the same point of Pol Pot. As long as you didn't question the government, you lived. In fact, his government would defend you as long as you didn't question it. I'm sure we can both agree that Pol Pot's system was not a moral system. Yeah, but how does that relate? Pol Pot wouldn't kill you as long as you supported him and commended his system. That statement just contradicted itself. Was that a typo?
I'm afraid I don't see the contradiction. confused
Quote: Quote: God doesn't burn you as long as you worship Him and commend His system. That's looking at it pessimistically.
What's your point?
I can look at Pol Pot optimistically:
"Well, on the bright side, all of the peasants were equal in Pol Pot's eyes! And as long as you supported him, you were fine! A little hungry, sure, but at least you weren't dead! mrgreen "
It still doesn't change the fact that Pol Pot was an evil dictator.
Quote: Quote: Quote: Quote: Quote: Neither is yours. You can claim that anything is true based on the fact that no one can disprove it. You can claim that anything is false based on the fact that no one can prove it. Neither of our arguments are "logical" in your eyes, so it renders those arguments null and void. And that, my friend, it why we establish the burden of proof. You claim there is a God. The burden of proof is on you. You claim time travel is impossible. The burden of proof is on you. I claim that determinism is perfectly possible. The burden of proof is on me. The burden of proof isn't on me. I can't prove God. He's beyond proof. Then you have no means to support your claim. If God is "beyond proof", the possiblity of His existence is rendered negligible. That's where faith comes in. If everything about Christianity was proved to you without a doubt, then how would it be religion?
Quite easily. A religion is just a set of beliefs or doctrine in support of a common figure(s).
Quote: You would believe because there was no other logical course of action, not because of the love you held for God.
So? It's not like everyone that believes in God right now loves Him. There are a lot of people that just believe in Him so they won't burn in Hell.
Quote: Quote: I accept that. Why can't you? Oh, I can accept it. In fact I have; that's why I'm a weak atheist. Quote: Quote: Quote: Quote: By the way, who said something had to be logical for it to be true? Plato was the first, I believe. wink And he was an atheist. Really? Where'd you hear that? I'm pretty sure you just made that up. It's much more likely that Plato worshipped Greek deities, just like everyone else in his culture. I'm pretty sure Greek gods weren't "logical" either. Why would he say that if he worshipped a God?
The same reason people like Galileo and Newton believed in God. It's called compartmentalization in psychology. They believed in logic in every facet of their lives, but turned the other way when God was concerned. Of course, both Newton and Galileo's beliefs concerning God changed with some of their discoveries...
Quote: Even if he wasn't an atheist, though, his statement was atheistic in nature.
So logic is atheistic?
There are a lot of theist scientists out there that would disagree with that statement. Including Newton and Galileo.
Quote: Quote: Quote: A very flawed way of life, atheism. Atheism is not a way of life. It is a single belief (Or lack thereof, I suppose). Whatever you want to call it, it's still flawed.
How so?
Quote: Quote: Quote: Quote: Quote: 9/11 isn't logical. Worshippers that have twisted a religions meaning to make it like we should kill any others that don't worship their religion on sight have attacked our country in a suicidal attack, crashing a plane into the Twin Towers. That follows no logic of yours, yet it happened. Of course it follows logic. They believed that America was a threat to their religion. Their religion was the most important thing to them because they had been conditioned to think so. Therefore, they decided that they had to help to destroy America. They hijacked planes with guns. They crashed airplanes into the Twin Towers. The Twin Towers fell down. Name one part of the situation that didn't follow logic. I would think that their religion didn't follow YOUR logic. No, it didn't. And look at what not following logic did. stare Those were extremists. You can't lump all religious people into that category. Do I sound like an extremist?
Sometimes.
Quote: Quote: That's a figment of human psyche. It's a belief. When I speak of logic always being right, I only speak of material happenings and reasonings for occurences. For instance, the reason why they believed in that religion followed complete logic. But religion doesn't follow logic because you can't see it with your own two eyes?
No, it usually doesn't.
Quote: Quote: Quote: Quote: Quote: That's the only reason you would believe it? Why else would I believe it? Faith. Why? I'll say it again. . . faith.
But why have faith?
Quote: Quote: Quote: Quote: Quote: I don't think that you grasp why people believe in religion. It's not cause it's logical; to the contrary, it goes against most rational logic. It's not because it's been proven to us scientifically. It's because we have faith. Whatever religion it is, we all have faith that ours is the right course. I believe with all my heart, soul, and mind that I am on the right path, and nothing anyone could say or do to me would make me think or even admit otherwise. That's the key to any religion: faith. That's also exactly the reason why the Catholic Church didn't recognise that the earth was round until quite recently. Poor Galileo... They went about expressing their faith in the wrong way. Other examples of this include the radical Muslims and the "fire and brimstone" preachers. It happens all too often, in my humble opinion. Yes it does, but you can't make an accurate analysis of religion based on the followers. You have to look at the source: the Bible for you, because it's physical.
I have, and I have found that most of its claims are unsupported and many do not follow logic. I can hardly believe it.
So I assess the religion by its followers, who sometimes take its claims and turn them into something very undesirable. |
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sun Dec 09, 2007 4:42 pm
|
|
|
|
Lethkhar GuardianAngel44 Lethkhar GuardianAngel44 Lethkhar No, I didn't. But go on. 3nodding You would have done it too. Ipso facto: I didn't. If you had been given that choice, the result would have been the same. Again, ipso facto: I wasn't.
Again, it doesn't matter that you weren't given that choice. I don't see how I can make this any clearer.
WHATEVER COULD HAVE POSSIBLY HAPPENED THE RESULT WOULD HAVE BEEN THE SAME.
Quote: Quote: Quote: Quote: Quote: But sometimes parents' rules aren't fair. That's why there are child protection agencies. Is there an organization that monitors God? And why do we go to Hell now instead of going to a Godless earth? Note the word "sometimes". Noted. What's the point? These rules aren't unfair. You're just like a child who thinks they're unfair but cannot comphrehend them. But sometimes a child can think that rules are unfair with good reason. How do you know that I am not such a child?
With a good reason, but an illogical one because the child cannot comphrehend the rules.
I'm sick of these metaphors, can we talk normal?
Quote: Quote: Quote: Quote: God gave us a chance. We screwed it up. He's now giving us a second chance. Don't screw up this time. You didn't answer the question. Second screw-up, worse punishment. But I'm not the one who screwed up the first time. I'm being punished for a sin that I did not commit.
You would have committed it. Anyways, you are commiting sin right now by not believing in God.
Quote: Quote: Quote: Quote: Quote: I dunno. I suppose you could make the same point of Pol Pot. As long as you didn't question the government, you lived. In fact, his government would defend you as long as you didn't question it. I'm sure we can both agree that Pol Pot's system was not a moral system. Yeah, but how does that relate? Pol Pot wouldn't kill you as long as you supported him and commended his system. That statement just contradicted itself. Was that a typo? I'm afraid I don't see the contradiction. confused
Oh, it said commended, not condemmed. My bad.
Quote: Quote: Quote: God doesn't burn you as long as you worship Him and commend His system. That's looking at it pessimistically. What's your point? I can look at Pol Pot optimistically: "Well, on the bright side, all of the peasants were equal in Pol Pot's eyes! And as long as you supported him, you were fine! A little hungry, sure, but at least you weren't dead! mrgreen " It still doesn't change the fact that Pol Pot was an evil dictator.
You are comparing an evil dictator to God. And you were looking at God's system pessimistically.
Quote: Quote: Quote: Quote: Quote: And that, my friend, it why we establish the burden of proof. You claim there is a God. The burden of proof is on you. You claim time travel is impossible. The burden of proof is on you. I claim that determinism is perfectly possible. The burden of proof is on me. The burden of proof isn't on me. I can't prove God. He's beyond proof. Then you have no means to support your claim. If God is "beyond proof", the possiblity of His existence is rendered negligible. That's where faith comes in. If everything about Christianity was proved to you without a doubt, then how would it be religion? Quite easily. A religion is just a set of beliefs or doctrine in support of a common figure(s).
The kind of religion that worships a supernatural being.
Quote: Quote: You would believe because there was no other logical course of action, not because of the love you held for God. So? It's not like everyone that believes in God right now loves Him. There are a lot of people that just believe in Him so they won't burn in Hell.
Sorry, worship.
Quote: Quote: I accept that. Why can't you? Oh, I can accept it. In fact I have; that's why I'm a weak atheist. Quote: Quote: Quote: Quote: Plato was the first, I believe. wink And he was an atheist. Really? Where'd you hear that? I'm pretty sure you just made that up. It's much more likely that Plato worshipped Greek deities, just like everyone else in his culture. I'm pretty sure Greek gods weren't "logical" either. Why would he say that if he worshipped a God? The same reason people like Galileo and Newton believed in God. It's called compartmentalization in psychology. They believed in logic in every facet of their lives, but turned the other way when God was concerned. Of course, both Newton and Galileo's beliefs concerning God changed with some of their discoveries...
Then he might not have been an atheist, but refer to the lower statement.
Quote: Quote: Even if he wasn't an atheist, though, his statement was atheistic in nature. So logic is atheistic? There are a lot of theist scientists out there that would disagree with that statement. Including Newton and Galileo.
That logic is atheistic.
Quote: Quote: Quote: Quote: A very flawed way of life, atheism. Atheism is not a way of life. It is a single belief (Or lack thereof, I suppose). Whatever you want to call it, it's still flawed. How so?
You have no outside source to go to when you are struggling; you steal morals from Christianity; you are going to go to some form of hell because you don't worship any religion. I can go on and on.
Quote: Quote: Quote: Quote: Quote: Of course it follows logic. They believed that America was a threat to their religion. Their religion was the most important thing to them because they had been conditioned to think so. Therefore, they decided that they had to help to destroy America. They hijacked planes with guns. They crashed airplanes into the Twin Towers. The Twin Towers fell down. Name one part of the situation that didn't follow logic. I would think that their religion didn't follow YOUR logic. No, it didn't. And look at what not following logic did. stare Those were extremists. You can't lump all religious people into that category. Do I sound like an extremist? Sometimes.
I think of extremists as "fire and brimstone" preachers, or people like the terrorists.
Quote: Quote: Quote: That's a figment of human psyche. It's a belief. When I speak of logic always being right, I only speak of material happenings and reasonings for occurences. For instance, the reason why they believed in that religion followed complete logic. But religion doesn't follow logic because you can't see it with your own two eyes? No, it usually doesn't.
Again, religion wouldn't be religion if it followed total logic.
Quote: Quote: Quote: Quote: Quote: Why else would I believe it? Faith. Why? I'll say it again. . . faith. But why have faith?
Why shouldn't I?
Quote: Quote: Quote: Quote: Quote: That's also exactly the reason why the Catholic Church didn't recognise that the earth was round until quite recently. Poor Galileo... They went about expressing their faith in the wrong way. Other examples of this include the radical Muslims and the "fire and brimstone" preachers. It happens all too often, in my humble opinion. Yes it does, but you can't make an accurate analysis of religion based on the followers. You have to look at the source: the Bible for you, because it's physical. I have, and I have found that most of its claims are unsupported and many do not follow logic. I can hardly believe it. So I assess the religion by its followers, who sometimes take its claims and turn them into something very undesirable.
They are only unsupported because you aren't trying to support them. They don't follow logic because it wouldn't be religion if they all did.
The followers don't make the religion. They follow the religion based on their opinions of what it says. Most of the time they aren't right. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sun Dec 09, 2007 6:26 pm
|
|
|
|
GuardianAngel44 Lethkhar GuardianAngel44 Lethkhar GuardianAngel44 You would have done it too. Ipso facto: I didn't. If you had been given that choice, the result would have been the same. Again, ipso facto: I wasn't. Again, it doesn't matter that you weren't given that choice. I don't see how I can make this any clearer. WHATEVER COULD HAVE POSSIBLY HAPPENED THE RESULT WOULD HAVE BEEN THE SAME.
I don't know how I can make this any clearer, either. confused
Your statement is pure conjecture. I was never given a chance; naturally assuming that I would have done the same is a mistake, even if it's true. The fact is that I wasn't even given a chane.
Quote: Quote: Quote: Quote: Quote: Note the word "sometimes". Noted. What's the point? These rules aren't unfair. You're just like a child who thinks they're unfair but cannot comphrehend them. But sometimes a child can think that rules are unfair with good reason. How do you know that I am not such a child? With a good reason, but an illogical one because the child cannot comphrehend the rules.
Sure it can be logical.
"Son, I am going to brand you with that iron the next time you open your mouth."
Sound logical? No, of course not. Again, that is why there are child protection agencies.
Quote: Quote: Quote: Quote: Quote: God gave us a chance. We screwed it up. He's now giving us a second chance. Don't screw up this time. You didn't answer the question. Second screw-up, worse punishment. But I'm not the one who screwed up the first time. I'm being punished for a sin that I did not commit. You would have committed it. Anyways, you are commiting sin right now by not believing in God.
"Why did you shoot him?"
"He WOULD have shot me!"
"But he didn't even have a gun!"
"He would have! I swear!"
Yup, I am sinning. Therefore, I should remain on a godless earth.
Quote: Quote: Quote: Quote: Quote: Yeah, but how does that relate? Pol Pot wouldn't kill you as long as you supported him and commended his system. That statement just contradicted itself. Was that a typo? I'm afraid I don't see the contradiction. confused Oh, it said commended, not condemmed. My bad. Quote: Quote: Quote: God doesn't burn you as long as you worship Him and commend His system. That's looking at it pessimistically. What's your point? I can look at Pol Pot optimistically: "Well, on the bright side, all of the peasants were equal in Pol Pot's eyes! And as long as you supported him, you were fine! A little hungry, sure, but at least you weren't dead! mrgreen " It still doesn't change the fact that Pol Pot was an evil dictator. You are comparing an evil dictator to God. And you were looking at God's system pessimistically.
That's generally the idea when you criticize something. stare
Quote: Quote: Quote: Quote: Quote: The burden of proof isn't on me. I can't prove God. He's beyond proof. Then you have no means to support your claim. If God is "beyond proof", the possiblity of His existence is rendered negligible. That's where faith comes in. If everything about Christianity was proved to you without a doubt, then how would it be religion? Quite easily. A religion is just a set of beliefs or doctrine in support of a common figure(s). The kind of religion that worships a supernatural being.
Still perfectly possible.
Quote: Quote: Quote: You would believe because there was no other logical course of action, not because of the love you held for God. So? It's not like everyone that believes in God right now loves Him. There are a lot of people that just believe in Him so they won't burn in Hell. Sorry, worship.
Same deal, really.
Quote: Quote: Quote: I accept that. Why can't you? Oh, I can accept it. In fact I have; that's why I'm a weak atheist. Quote: Quote: Really? Where'd you hear that? I'm pretty sure you just made that up. It's much more likely that Plato worshipped Greek deities, just like everyone else in his culture. I'm pretty sure Greek gods weren't "logical" either. Why would he say that if he worshipped a God? The same reason people like Galileo and Newton believed in God. It's called compartmentalization in psychology. They believed in logic in every facet of their lives, but turned the other way when God was concerned. Of course, both Newton and Galileo's beliefs concerning God changed with some of their discoveries... Then he might not have been an atheist, but refer to the lower statement. Quote: Quote: Even if he wasn't an atheist, though, his statement was atheistic in nature. So logic is atheistic? There are a lot of theist scientists out there that would disagree with that statement. Including Newton and Galileo. That logic is atheistic.
What? confused
Quote: Quote: Quote: Quote: Quote: A very flawed way of life, atheism. Atheism is not a way of life. It is a single belief (Or lack thereof, I suppose). Whatever you want to call it, it's still flawed. How so? You have no outside source to go to when you are struggling; you steal morals from Christianity; you are going to go to some form of hell because you don't worship any religion. I can go on and on.
That's not illogical, though.
Besides, 1 of those is completely false, 1 is debatable, and the other is unbased.
Quote: Quote: Quote: Quote: Quote: I would think that their religion didn't follow YOUR logic. No, it didn't. And look at what not following logic did. stare Those were extremists. You can't lump all religious people into that category. Do I sound like an extremist? Sometimes. I think of extremists as "fire and brimstone" preachers, or people like the terrorists.
Well you were only speaking a week ago about how fun the Apocalypse is going to be...
Quote: Quote: Quote: Quote: That's a figment of human psyche. It's a belief. When I speak of logic always being right, I only speak of material happenings and reasonings for occurences. For instance, the reason why they believed in that religion followed complete logic. But religion doesn't follow logic because you can't see it with your own two eyes? No, it usually doesn't. Again, religion wouldn't be religion if it followed total logic.
Sure it can. There are some perfectly logical religions. Deism, for example.
Quote: Quote: Quote: I'll say it again. . . faith. But why have faith? Why shouldn't I?
Because it's unnecessary.
Quote: Quote: Quote: Quote: Quote: They went about expressing their faith in the wrong way. Other examples of this include the radical Muslims and the "fire and brimstone" preachers. It happens all too often, in my humble opinion. Yes it does, but you can't make an accurate analysis of religion based on the followers. You have to look at the source: the Bible for you, because it's physical. I have, and I have found that most of its claims are unsupported and many do not follow logic. I can hardly believe it. So I assess the religion by its followers, who sometimes take its claims and turn them into something very undesirable. They are only unsupported because you aren't trying to support them. They don't follow logic because it wouldn't be religion if they all did. The followers don't make the religion. They follow the religion based on their opinions of what it says. Most of the time they aren't right.
If you don't think you're right, then why defend it? |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sun Dec 09, 2007 7:34 pm
|
|
|
|
Lethkhar GuardianAngel44 Lethkhar GuardianAngel44 If you had been given that choice, the result would have been the same. Again, ipso facto: I wasn't. Again, it doesn't matter that you weren't given that choice. I don't see how I can make this any clearer. WHATEVER COULD HAVE POSSIBLY HAPPENED THE RESULT WOULD HAVE BEEN THE SAME. I don't know how I can make this any clearer, either. confused Your statement is pure conjecture. I was never given a chance; naturally assuming that I would have done the same is a mistake, even if it's true. The fact is that I wasn't even given a chance.
Granted.
Another fact is that you would have done the same. I would have done the same; Priestly would have done the same; my sister would have done the same; everyone would have done the same exact thing as Adam and Eve did.
Quote: Quote: Quote: Quote: These rules aren't unfair. You're just like a child who thinks they're unfair but cannot comphrehend them. But sometimes a child can think that rules are unfair with good reason. How do you know that I am not such a child? With a good reason, but an illogical one because the child cannot comphrehend the rules. Sure it can be logical. "Son, I am going to brand you with that iron the next time you open your mouth." Sound logical? No, of course not. Again, that is why there are child protection agencies.
No, it's not logical. What's your point?
Quote: Quote: Quote: Quote: Quote: You didn't answer the question. Second screw-up, worse punishment. But I'm not the one who screwed up the first time. I'm being punished for a sin that I did not commit. You would have committed it. Anyways, you are commiting sin right now by not believing in God. "Why did you shoot him?" "He WOULD have shot me!" "But he didn't even have a gun!" "He would have! I swear!" Yup, I am sinning. Therefore, I should remain on a godless earth.
Ah, but it's not a punishment anymore, not for you. Before I go onto this explanation, let me clarify this: Do you live in the US?
Quote: Quote: Quote: Quote: Quote: Yeah, but how does that relate? Pol Pot wouldn't kill you as long as you supported him and commended his system. That statement just contradicted itself. Was that a typo? I'm afraid I don't see the contradiction. confused Oh, it said commended, not condemmed. My bad. Quote: Quote: Quote: Quote: God doesn't burn you as long as you worship Him and commend His system. That's looking at it pessimistically. What's your point? I can look at Pol Pot optimistically: "Well, on the bright side, all of the peasants were equal in Pol Pot's eyes! And as long as you supported him, you were fine! A little hungry, sure, but at least you weren't dead! mrgreen " It still doesn't change the fact that Pol Pot was an evil dictator. You are comparing an evil dictator to God. And you were looking at God's system pessimistically. That's generally the idea when you criticize something. stare
But it's not true.
Quote: Quote: Quote: Quote: Quote: Then you have no means to support your claim. If God is "beyond proof", the possiblity of His existence is rendered negligible. That's where faith comes in. If everything about Christianity was proved to you without a doubt, then how would it be religion? Quite easily. A religion is just a set of beliefs or doctrine in support of a common figure(s). The kind of religion that worships a supernatural being. Still perfectly possible.
No. It wouldn't be religion. You would believe in God like you believed in gravity. You're worship and love wouldn't mean anything because it's not hard.
If Christianity was proved to the world, then the world would be perfect because everybody worshipped and believed in God. Yet your love for God wouldn't mean crap because there was no other choice.
Quote: Quote: Quote: Quote: You would believe because there was no other logical course of action, not because of the love you held for God. So? It's not like everyone that believes in God right now loves Him. There are a lot of people that just believe in Him so they won't burn in Hell. Sorry, worship. Same deal, really.
Not really. Worship - true worship - comes from the heart, from the soul. If you don't truly love God, how can you truly worship him?
Quote: Quote: Quote: I accept that. Why can't you? Oh, I can accept it. In fact I have; that's why I'm a weak atheist. Quote: Quote: Really? Where'd you hear that? I'm pretty sure you just made that up. It's much more likely that Plato worshipped Greek deities, just like everyone else in his culture. I'm pretty sure Greek gods weren't "logical" either. Why would he say that if he worshipped a God? The same reason people like Galileo and Newton believed in God. It's called compartmentalization in psychology. They believed in logic in every facet of their lives, but turned the other way when God was concerned. Of course, both Newton and Galileo's beliefs concerning God changed with some of their discoveries... Then he might not have been an atheist, but refer to the lower statement. Quote: Quote: Quote: Even if he wasn't an atheist, though, his statement was atheistic in nature. So logic is atheistic? There are a lot of theist scientists out there that would disagree with that statement. Including Newton and Galileo. That logic is atheistic. What? confused
Gravity is what makes objects fall. That's non-atheistic logic.
God is imaginary because it is illogical. That's atheistic logic.
Quote: Quote: Quote: Quote: Quote: Atheism is not a way of life. It is a single belief (Or lack thereof, I suppose). Whatever you want to call it, it's still flawed. How so? You have no outside source to go to when you are struggling; you steal morals from Christianity; you are going to go to some form of hell because you don't worship any religion. I can go on and on. That's not illogical, though. Besides, 1 of those is completely false, 1 is debatable, and the other is unbased.
Let me guess -
False: No outside source to go to.
Debatable: Going to some form of hell.
Unbased: Stealing morals from Christianity.
Quote: Quote: Quote: Quote: Quote: No, it didn't. And look at what not following logic did. stare Those were extremists. You can't lump all religious people into that category. Do I sound like an extremist? Sometimes. I think of extremists as "fire and brimstone" preachers, or people like the terrorists. Well you were only speaking a week ago about how fun the Apocalypse is going to be...
And I realized how wrong I was and repented. Fire and brimstone preachers don't. And I have never acted on anything like that, so I'm not like a terrorist.
Quote: Quote: Quote: Quote: Quote: That's a figment of human psyche. It's a belief. When I speak of logic always being right, I only speak of material happenings and reasonings for occurences. For instance, the reason why they believed in that religion followed complete logic. But religion doesn't follow logic because you can't see it with your own two eyes? No, it usually doesn't. Again, religion wouldn't be religion if it followed total logic. Sure it can. There are some perfectly logical religions. Deism, for example.
That's based on evidence alone. There isn't anything supernatural about that belief, so it's not the kind of religion I'm talking about.
Quote: Quote: Quote: Quote: I'll say it again. . . faith. But why have faith? Why shouldn't I? Because it's unnecessary.
On the contrary, it's quite necessary. You live a fuller, richer, better existence knowing that there is a God out there that loves you; knowing that you are going to paradise after your death. That and you don't have to go to hell, but for me that's a small matter.
Quote: Quote: Quote: Quote: Quote: It happens all too often, in my humble opinion. Yes it does, but you can't make an accurate analysis of religion based on the followers. You have to look at the source: the Bible for you, because it's physical. I have, and I have found that most of its claims are unsupported and many do not follow logic. I can hardly believe it. So I assess the religion by its followers, who sometimes take its claims and turn them into something very undesirable. They are only unsupported because you aren't trying to support them. They don't follow logic because it wouldn't be religion if they all did. The followers don't make the religion. They follow the religion based on their opinions of what it says. Most of the time they aren't right. If you don't think you're right, then why defend it?
I didn't say that. I said most of the time. I think that some followers express their religion in the wrong ways, or express the wrong ideas of that religion.
For example: The Catholics and their Crusades; the extremist Muslims; the fire and brimstone preachers of Christianity; the list goes on and on. I'll say it again: you can't lump all the followers together and judge the religion based on that category. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sun Dec 09, 2007 8:45 pm
|
|
|
|
GuardianAngel44 Lethkhar GuardianAngel44 Lethkhar GuardianAngel44 If you had been given that choice, the result would have been the same. Again, ipso facto: I wasn't. Again, it doesn't matter that you weren't given that choice. I don't see how I can make this any clearer. WHATEVER COULD HAVE POSSIBLY HAPPENED THE RESULT WOULD HAVE BEEN THE SAME. I don't know how I can make this any clearer, either. confused Your statement is pure conjecture. I was never given a chance; naturally assuming that I would have done the same is a mistake, even if it's true. The fact is that I wasn't even given a chance. Granted. Another fact is that you would have done the same. I would have done the same; Priestly would have done the same; my sister would have done the same; everyone would have done the same exact thing as Adam and Eve did.
It's irrelevant. I did not commit the crime. Neither did you, Priestley, nor your sister.
I probably would have tried to escape from the reign of Pol Pot; a crime that was sentenced by death. Should I be shot because of this?
Quote: Quote: Quote: Quote: Quote: These rules aren't unfair. You're just like a child who thinks they're unfair but cannot comphrehend them. But sometimes a child can think that rules are unfair with good reason. How do you know that I am not such a child? With a good reason, but an illogical one because the child cannot comphrehend the rules. Sure it can be logical. "Son, I am going to brand you with that iron the next time you open your mouth." Sound logical? No, of course not. Again, that is why there are child protection agencies. No, it's not logical. What's your point?
So the child's reason for questioning the rules would be logical.
Quote: Quote: Quote: Quote: Quote: Second screw-up, worse punishment. But I'm not the one who screwed up the first time. I'm being punished for a sin that I did not commit. You would have committed it. Anyways, you are commiting sin right now by not believing in God. "Why did you shoot him?" "He WOULD have shot me!" "But he didn't even have a gun!" "He would have! I swear!" Yup, I am sinning. Therefore, I should remain on a godless earth. Ah, but it's not a punishment anymore, not for you. Before I go onto this explanation, let me clarify this: Do you live in the US?
I do.
Quote: Quote: Quote: Quote: Quote: Pol Pot wouldn't kill you as long as you supported him and commended his system. That statement just contradicted itself. Was that a typo? I'm afraid I don't see the contradiction. confused Oh, it said commended, not condemmed. My bad. So...? Quote: Quote: Quote: Quote: That's looking at it pessimistically. What's your point? I can look at Pol Pot optimistically: "Well, on the bright side, all of the peasants were equal in Pol Pot's eyes! And as long as you supported him, you were fine! A little hungry, sure, but at least you weren't dead! mrgreen " It still doesn't change the fact that Pol Pot was an evil dictator. You are comparing an evil dictator to God. And you were looking at God's system pessimistically. That's generally the idea when you criticize something. stare But it's not true.
What's not true?
Quote: Quote: Quote: Quote: Quote: That's where faith comes in. If everything about Christianity was proved to you without a doubt, then how would it be religion? Quite easily. A religion is just a set of beliefs or doctrine in support of a common figure(s). The kind of religion that worships a supernatural being. Still perfectly possible. No. It wouldn't be religion. You would believe in God like you believed in gravity. You're worship and love wouldn't mean anything because it's not hard.
It would be a religion. I would believe in God.
I'm pretty sure both my parents exist, and I love them. Is my love for them meaningless because I don't need very much faith to believe that they exist?
Quote: If Christianity was proved to the world, then the world would be perfect because everybody worshipped and believed in God. Yet your love for God wouldn't mean crap because there was no other choice.
Sure there would be; You could still choose not to believe in Him and worship Him and go to Hell.
Quote: Quote: Quote: Quote: Quote: You would believe because there was no other logical course of action, not because of the love you held for God. So? It's not like everyone that believes in God right now loves Him. There are a lot of people that just believe in Him so they won't burn in Hell. Sorry, worship. Same deal, really. Not really. Worship - true worship - comes from the heart, from the soul. If you don't truly love God, how can you truly worship him?
The same way people have been doing for thousands of years now.
Quote: Quote: Quote: Quote: I accept that. Why can't you? Oh, I can accept it. In fact I have; that's why I'm a weak atheist. Quote: Quote: Really? Where'd you hear that? I'm pretty sure you just made that up. It's much more likely that Plato worshipped Greek deities, just like everyone else in his culture. I'm pretty sure Greek gods weren't "logical" either. Why would he say that if he worshipped a God? The same reason people like Galileo and Newton believed in God. It's called compartmentalization in psychology. They believed in logic in every facet of their lives, but turned the other way when God was concerned. Of course, both Newton and Galileo's beliefs concerning God changed with some of their discoveries... Then he might not have been an atheist, but refer to the lower statement. Quote: Quote: Quote: Even if he wasn't an atheist, though, his statement was atheistic in nature. So logic is atheistic? There are a lot of theist scientists out there that would disagree with that statement. Including Newton and Galileo. That logic is atheistic. What? confused Gravity is what makes objects fall. That's non-atheistic logic. God is imaginary because it is illogical. That's atheistic logic.
I'm afraid I don't understand.
Gravity is an atheist theory. There is no God involved. confused
Quote: Quote: Quote: Quote: Quote: Whatever you want to call it, it's still flawed. How so? You have no outside source to go to when you are struggling; you steal morals from Christianity; you are going to go to some form of hell because you don't worship any religion. I can go on and on. That's not illogical, though. Besides, 1 of those is completely false, 1 is debatable, and the other is unbased. Let me guess - False: No outside source to go to. Debatable: Going to some form of hell. Unbased: Stealing morals from Christianity.
False: No outside source to go to.
Debatable: Stealing morals from Christianity
Unbased: Going to some form of Hell
And none of those attest to atheism being illogical.
Quote: Quote: Quote: Quote: Quote: Those were extremists. You can't lump all religious people into that category. Do I sound like an extremist? Sometimes. I think of extremists as "fire and brimstone" preachers, or people like the terrorists. Well you were only speaking a week ago about how fun the Apocalypse is going to be... And I realized how wrong I was and repented. Fire and brimstone preachers don't. And I have never acted on anything like that, so I'm not like a terrorist.
You're telling me that I'm going to Hell. You're trying to scare me. That's the definition of terrorism, my friend.
Not that I blame you for it; it's quite alright.
Quote: Quote: Quote: Quote: Quote: But religion doesn't follow logic because you can't see it with your own two eyes? No, it usually doesn't. Again, religion wouldn't be religion if it followed total logic. Sure it can. There are some perfectly logical religions. Deism, for example. That's based on evidence alone. There isn't anything supernatural about that belief, so it's not the kind of religion I'm talking about.
Of course there's something supernatural about deism. They believe in a deity. Deities are supernatural by definition.
Quote: Quote: Quote: Quote: Quote: I'll say it again. . . faith. But why have faith? Why shouldn't I? Because it's unnecessary. On the contrary, it's quite necessary. You live a fuller, richer, better existence knowing that there is a God out there that loves you; knowing that you are going to paradise after your death. That and you don't have to go to hell, but for me that's a small matter.
I think you'll find that many atheists are happier people than many Christians. In fact, I would challenge you to prove to me that all religious people are happier than all nonreligious people.
Quote: Quote: Quote: Quote: Quote: Yes it does, but you can't make an accurate analysis of religion based on the followers. You have to look at the source: the Bible for you, because it's physical. I have, and I have found that most of its claims are unsupported and many do not follow logic. I can hardly believe it. So I assess the religion by its followers, who sometimes take its claims and turn them into something very undesirable. They are only unsupported because you aren't trying to support them. They don't follow logic because it wouldn't be religion if they all did. The followers don't make the religion. They follow the religion based on their opinions of what it says. Most of the time they aren't right. If you don't think you're right, then why defend it? I didn't say that. I said most of the time. I think that some followers express their religion in the wrong ways, or express the wrong ideas of that religion. For example: The Catholics and their Crusades; the extremist Muslims; the fire and brimstone preachers of Christianity; the list goes on and on. I'll say it again: you can't lump all the followers together and judge the religion based on that category.
But how do you know that your personal beliefs are the right ones? |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon Dec 10, 2007 4:48 pm
|
|
|
|
Again, the quotes are getting too long.
You can't compare God to an evil dictator. And you are rebelling against God right now, the same sin that every non-Christian is doing or has done. Every Christian has done it before they changed, and we do it sometimes. Rebelling = not following God's commands = sin.
They would be logical, but you can't compare any parents to God.
Then living on a godless earth wouldn't be a punishment for you because you live in comfort. You have a nice, warm house; good food; the option to go to movies, the mall, and any other form of entertainment. It's not really a punishment for you.
God isn't an evil dictator, and his system isn't bad.
It's not the same type of religion that I'm talking about.
You don't love your parents the same way you would love God.
Everyone would believe in God because they would know. God would reveal himself to them, and they would believe. There would be no choice to do otherwise. That's why he doesn't prove himself. That and he's given enough proof through the Bible.
It's not true worship. They just make the motions. If you're heart isn't in it, then it's just noise.
When I say atheistic, I mean directly against God. Gravity isn't against God.
The theory that God is illogical is against God.
You don't have a supernatural, everloving source to go to. We do.
Granted that you might not have stolen morals from Christianity.
The fact that you are going to hell is based on the Bible.
And I said flawed, not illogical.
The terrorism I'm talking about is like extremist action, such as torturing you do believe.
And I'm not trying to scare you.
They only believe in God because of evidence, not because of love or faith. There is nothing supernatural about it.
Of course not all religious people are happier then atheistic people. The ones that aren't don't have a strong faith. I would say that I'm happier than you, but that's totally unbased.
I don't know. Again: faith comes up. That's religion. When logic fails, faith fills the gaps.
When logic fails for you, what fills up the gaps?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon Mar 03, 2008 11:33 pm
|
|
|
|
GuardianAngel44 Again, the quotes are getting too long. You can't compare God to an evil dictator. And you are rebelling against God right now, the same sin that every non-Christian is doing or has done. Every Christian has done it before they changed, and we do it sometimes. Rebelling = not following God's commands = sin.
And my question is why.
Quote: They would be logical, but you can't compare any parents to God.
Then don't compare them to parents and answer the question.
Quote: Then living on a godless earth wouldn't be a punishment for you because you live in comfort. You have a nice, warm house; good food; the option to go to movies, the mall, and any other form of entertainment. It's not really a punishment for you.
Ah, but isn't living with material wealth of the world supposed to be one of the worst acts possible?
Quote: God isn't an evil dictator, and his system isn't bad.
I beg to differ.
Quote: It's not the same type of religion that I'm talking about. You don't love your parents the same way you would love God.
But I love them regardless.
Quote: Everyone would believe in God because they would know. God would reveal himself to them, and they would believe. There would be no choice to do otherwise. That's why he doesn't prove himself. That and he's given enough proof through the Bible.
There will always be black sheep that refuse to believe something despite proof.
Quote: When I say atheistic, I mean directly against God. Gravity isn't against God. The theory that God is illogical is against God.
"atheist" is "lacking God", not "against God".
Quote: You don't have a supernatural, everloving source to go to. We do.
No, you don't. You just think you do.
I, on the other hand, concentrate on relationships that I know are real and I can count on. It's a matter of personal preference.
Quote: The fact that you are going to hell is based on the Bible.
Which itself is unbased.
Quote: And I said flawed, not illogical.
Meh...Then none of them attest to it being flawed.
Quote: The terrorism I'm talking about is like extremist action, such as torturing you do believe. And I'm not trying to scare you.
Whether you're trying to or not, Hell is a pretty obvious scare tactic.
Quote: They only believe in God because of evidence, not because of love or faith. There is nothing supernatural about it.
Deists don't believe in God because of evidence. They believe in God because they have faith that He exists with or without evidence.
Quote: Of course not all religious people are happier then atheistic people. The ones that aren't don't have a strong faith. I would say that I'm happier than you, but that's totally unbased.
Quite.
Quote: I don't know. Again: faith comes up. That's religion. When logic fails, faith fills the gaps. When logic fails for you, what fills up the gaps?
I don't know. Logic has never failed me before. That's kind of the point. What use would logic be if it were ever wrong? |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed Mar 05, 2008 5:55 pm
|
|
|
|
Lethkhar GuardianAngel44 Again, the quotes are getting too long. You can't compare God to an evil dictator. And you are rebelling against God right now, the same sin that every non-Christian is doing or has done. Every Christian has done it before they changed, and we do it sometimes. Rebelling = not following God's commands = sin. And my question is why.
It's just like growing: You might think something is wrong, but then you learn that it's right. Other than that, I dont' know. Ask God. That's just the way it is. One of those has to answer those questions.
Quote: Quote: They would be logical, but you can't compare any parents to God. Then don't compare them to parents and answer the question.
God's rules are logical because he is not human. He is perfect, and therefore his rules are perfect.
Quote: Quote: Then living on a godless earth wouldn't be a punishment for you because you live in comfort. You have a nice, warm house; good food; the option to go to movies, the mall, and any other form of entertainment. It's not really a punishment for you. Ah, but isn't living with material wealth of the world supposed to be one of the worst acts possible?
What? And that's still not punishment. I like to think of hell as torture for all eternity. No one likes that.
Quote: Quote: God isn't an evil dictator, and his system isn't bad. I beg to differ.
That's your opinion. But when you die and stand before God, you will have no excuse.
Quote: Quote: It's not the same type of religion that I'm talking about. You don't love your parents the same way you would love God. But I love them regardless.
Do you know why there are several different Greek words for love? Because there are different types of love.
Quote: Quote: Everyone would believe in God because they would know. God would reveal himself to them, and they would believe. There would be no choice to do otherwise. That's why he doesn't prove himself. That and he's given enough proof through the Bible. There will always be black sheep that refuse to believe something despite proof.
Like you. (not racist, in case you could possibly take it that way. There are those kinds of people.)
Quote: Quote: When I say atheistic, I mean directly against God. Gravity isn't against God. The theory that God is illogical is against God. "atheist" is "lacking God", not "against God".
However, the people who call themselves atheists are indeed against God. You can see how we would get "confused."
Quote: Quote: You don't have a supernatural, everloving source to go to. We do. No, you don't. You just think you do. I, on the other hand, concentrate on relationships that I know are real and I can count on. It's a matter of personal preference.
You still don't have or think you have it.
So do I.
Quote: Quote: The fact that you are going to hell is based on the Bible. Which itself is unbased.
Why? Because you are stubborn enough to believe that it has no "proof?"
Quote: Quote: And I said flawed, not illogical. Meh...Then none of them attest to it being flawed.
What?
Quote: Quote: The terrorism I'm talking about is like extremist action, such as torturing you do believe. And I'm not trying to scare you. Whether you're trying to or not, Hell is a pretty obvious scare tactic.
Only if it's meant that way. It obviously doesn't scare you, and if God made it that way then it would scare you.
Quote: Quote: They only believe in God because of evidence, not because of love or faith. There is nothing supernatural about it. Deists don't believe in God because of evidence. They believe in God because they have faith that He exists with or without evidence.
You were talking about other people who believe in God because of evidence. I think?
Quote: Quote: Of course not all religious people are happier then atheistic people. The ones that aren't don't have a strong faith. I would say that I'm happier than you, but that's totally unbased. Quite.
I believe that I am happier than you. Maybe not unbased?
Quote: Quote: I don't know. Again: faith comes up. That's religion. When logic fails, faith fills the gaps. When logic fails for you, what fills up the gaps? I don't know. Logic has never failed me before. That's kind of the point. What use would logic be if it were ever wrong?
It would be use on the things that it's not wrong on. Does that sentance make sense? |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed Mar 05, 2008 8:12 pm
|
|
|
|
Quote: Quote: Quote: They would be logical, but you can't compare any parents to God. Then don't compare them to parents and answer the question. God's rules are logical because he is not human. He is perfect, and therefore his rules are perfect.
And how do you define "perfection"?
Quote: Quote: Quote: Then living on a godless earth wouldn't be a punishment for you because you live in comfort. You have a nice, warm house; good food; the option to go to movies, the mall, and any other form of entertainment. It's not really a punishment for you. Ah, but isn't living with material wealth of the world supposed to be one of the worst acts possible? What? And that's still not punishment. I like to think of hell as torture for all eternity. No one likes that.
Yeah, I like to think of Hell as a place where people suffer for an eternity as well. rolleyes Sadism is the way to go.
If this earth isn't torture, then why were we sent here as a punishment for the whole Eden scandal?
Quote: Quote: Quote: God isn't an evil dictator, and his system isn't bad. I beg to differ. That's your opinion. But when you die and stand before God, you will have no excuse.
No, but I'll have my dignity and my morals, and I will accept that I am standing up for what I believe. I could never worship a monster like that. God gave me free will, and I won't waste it on the cruel likes of Him.
Quote: Quote: Quote: It's not the same type of religion that I'm talking about. You don't love your parents the same way you would love God. But I love them regardless. Do you know why there are several different Greek words for love? Because there are different types of love.
That's not the point.
Quote: Quote: Quote: Everyone would believe in God because they would know. God would reveal himself to them, and they would believe. There would be no choice to do otherwise. That's why he doesn't prove himself. That and he's given enough proof through the Bible. There will always be black sheep that refuse to believe something despite proof. Like you. (not racist, in case you could possibly take it that way. There are those kinds of people.)
How so? Doyou have proof of God's existance?
Don't get me wrong; being the black sheep isn't always bad. Galileo was the black sheep.
Quote: Quote: Quote: When I say atheistic, I mean directly against God. Gravity isn't against God. The theory that God is illogical is against God. "atheist" is "lacking God", not "against God". However, the people who call themselves atheists are indeed against God. You can see how we would get "confused."
People who call themselves atheist do not believe in God.
How can you be conciously against something that you don't believe in?
Quote: Quote: Quote: You don't have a supernatural, everloving source to go to. We do. No, you don't. You just think you do. I, on the other hand, concentrate on relationships that I know are real and I can count on. It's a matter of personal preference. You still don't have or think you have it.
Then I won't be let down by it the next time someone I know dies of leukemia.
I'm sure you do. But, you see, I'm obviously going to be more reliant on mine than you will be, because you'll always have your invisible friend.
Quote: Quote: Quote: The fact that you are going to hell is based on the Bible. Which itself is unbased. Why? Because you are stubborn enough to believe that it has no "proof?"
No, because it doesn't cite any references.
Quote: Quote: Quote: And I said flawed, not illogical. Meh...Then none of them attest to it being flawed. What?
That's what happens when you stop the quotes.
Quote: Quote: Quote: The terrorism I'm talking about is like extremist action, such as torturing you do believe. And I'm not trying to scare you. Whether you're trying to or not, Hell is a pretty obvious scare tactic. Only if it's meant that way. It obviously doesn't scare you, and if God made it that way then it would scare you.
It's not the end, but the intent that makes me say that you are a terrorist. I'm not scared by Al-Qaeda, either. They're still terrorists.
Quote: Quote: Quote: They only believe in God because of evidence, not because of love or faith. There is nothing supernatural about it. Deists don't believe in God because of evidence. They believe in God because they have faith that He exists with or without evidence. You were talking about other people who believe in God because of evidence. I think?
I was talking about people who believe in a logical God.
Quote: Quote: Quote: Of course not all religious people are happier then atheistic people. The ones that aren't don't have a strong faith. I would say that I'm happier than you, but that's totally unbased. Quite. I believe that I am happier than you. Maybe not unbased?
There's no reason for me to believe that you believe that you are happier than I am. But if you say that you believe that you are happier than I am, I trust you enough to take your word for it. It doesn't mean you are, but I could believe that you believe you are.
Quote: Quote: Quote: I don't know. Again: faith comes up. That's religion. When logic fails, faith fills the gaps. When logic fails for you, what fills up the gaps? I don't know. Logic has never failed me before. That's kind of the point. What use would logic be if it were ever wrong? It would be use on the things that it's not wrong on. Does that sentance make sense?
Yes, but that sort of defies the entire point of logic. Logic is universal. It applies to all aspects of the universe. It is the language and guidelines of the universe. The whole purpose of logic is to describe how the universe works. Logic is, therefore, always correct. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Thu Mar 06, 2008 8:24 pm
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Fri Mar 07, 2008 12:09 am
|
|
|
|
ryuu_chan Lethkhar Yes, but that sort of defies the entire point of logic. Logic is universal. It applies to all aspects of the universe. It is the language and guidelines of the universe. The whole purpose of logic is to describe how the universe works. Logic is, therefore, always correct. Ah yes, but everyone's logic is different. It's always correct, but only to the person thinking it. What makes sense to me doesn't always make sense to anyone else, but it's perfectly logical to me. In essence, I could logic it out to where yesterday doesn't exist. It would make sense. You would just have to argue the logic. But logic's always correct. Whose logic is MORE correct? What measuring stick do you use? We've already agreed that just because the masses don't argue a point amongst each other doesn't mean that it's right. So, what logic is more logical?
Logic, in the sense of the word that I'm using, is not subjective.
For instance: 2+2=4 is not matter of opinion. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Fri Mar 07, 2008 6:32 pm
|
|
|
|
Lethkhar Quote: Quote: Quote: They would be logical, but you can't compare any parents to God. Then don't compare them to parents and answer the question. God's rules are logical because he is not human. He is perfect, and therefore his rules are perfect. And how do you define "perfection"?
How do you define something you cannot comprehend?
Quote: Quote: Quote: Quote: Then living on a godless earth wouldn't be a punishment for you because you live in comfort. You have a nice, warm house; good food; the option to go to movies, the mall, and any other form of entertainment. It's not really a punishment for you. Ah, but isn't living with material wealth of the world supposed to be one of the worst acts possible? What? And that's still not punishment. I like to think of hell as torture for all eternity. No one likes that. Yeah, I like to think of Hell as a place where people suffer for an eternity as well. rolleyes Sadism is the way to go. If this earth isn't torture, then why were we sent here as a punishment for the whole Eden scandal?
As I recall, Adam and Eve were followers of God.
Quote: Quote: Quote: Quote: God isn't an evil dictator, and his system isn't bad. I beg to differ. That's your opinion. But when you die and stand before God, you will have no excuse. No, but I'll have my dignity and my morals, and I will accept that I am standing up for what I believe. I could never worship a monster like that. God gave me free will, and I won't waste it on the cruel likes of Him.
When you die, this "monster" will explain everything to you and you will realize your mistake too late.
Quote: Quote: Quote: It's not the same type of religion that I'm talking about. You don't love your parents the same way you would love God. But I love them regardless. Do you know why there are several different Greek words for love? Because there are different types of love.
That's not the point.
Then what is the point?
Quote: Quote: Quote: Quote: Quote: Everyone would believe in God because they would know. God would reveal himself to them, and they would believe. There would be no choice to do otherwise. That's why he doesn't prove himself. That and he's given enough proof through the Bible. There will always be black sheep that refuse to believe something despite proof. Like you. (not racist, in case you could possibly take it that way. There are those kinds of people.) How so? Do you have proof of God's existance? Don't get me wrong; being the black sheep isn't always bad. Galileo was the black sheep. Do you have proof of evolution or the Big Bang? Quote: Quote: Quote: Quote: When I say atheistic, I mean directly against God. Gravity isn't against God. The theory that God is illogical is against God. "atheist" is "lacking God", not "against God". However, the people who call themselves atheists are indeed against God. You can see how we would get "confused." People who call themselves atheist do not believe in God. How can you be conciously against something that you don't believe in? You just might be a part of an minority in the atheist belief system, because every atheist I have heard of or known was been against God. Quote: Quote: Quote: Quote: You don't have a supernatural, everloving source to go to. We do. No, you don't. You just think you do. I, on the other hand, concentrate on relationships that I know are real and I can count on. It's a matter of personal preference. You still don't have or think you have it. Then I won't be let down by it the next time someone I know dies of leukemia. What? Quote: I'm sure you do. But, you see, I'm obviously going to be more reliant on mine than you will be, because you'll always have your invisible friend. That is totally unbased. You don't know me. I am the most devoted friend that you could possibly ever meet. Quote: Quote: Quote: Quote: The fact that you are going to hell is based on the Bible. Which itself is unbased. Why? Because you are stubborn enough to believe that it has no "proof?" No, because it doesn't cite any references. The Big Bang has no proof. Why do you believe that? Because if that didn't happen, then there is only the fact that someone created this world, and you are too stubborn to accept that. Quote: Quote: Quote: Quote: And I said flawed, not illogical. Meh...Then none of them attest to it being flawed. What? That's what happens when you stop the quotes. It's better than page stretching. Quote: Quote: Quote: Quote: The terrorism I'm talking about is like extremist action, such as torturing you do believe. And I'm not trying to scare you. Whether you're trying to or not, Hell is a pretty obvious scare tactic. Only if it's meant that way. It obviously doesn't scare you, and if God made it that way then it would scare you. It's not the end, but the intent that makes me say that you are a terrorist. I'm not scared by Al-Qaeda, either. They're still terrorists. How is my intent terrorism? Quote: Quote: Quote: Quote: They only believe in God because of evidence, not because of love or faith. There is nothing supernatural about it. Deists don't believe in God because of evidence. They believe in God because they have faith that He exists with or without evidence. You were talking about other people who believe in God because of evidence. I think? I was talking about people who believe in a logical God. That in itself is an oxymoron. Any god or god-like being transcends logic. Quote: Quote: Quote: Quote: Of course not all religious people are happier then atheistic people. The ones that aren't don't have a strong faith. I would say that I'm happier than you, but that's totally unbased. Quite. I believe that I am happier than you. Maybe not unbased? There's no reason for me to believe that you believe that you are happier than I am. But if you say that you believe that you are happier than I am, I trust you enough to take your word for it. It doesn't mean you are, but I could believe that you believe you are. Wow, I actually got that!!!!! Quote: Quote: Quote: Quote: I don't know. Again: faith comes up. That's religion. When logic fails, faith fills the gaps. When logic fails for you, what fills up the gaps? I don't know. Logic has never failed me before. That's kind of the point. What use would logic be if it were ever wrong? It would be use on the things that it's not wrong on. Does that sentance make sense? Yes, but that sort of defies the entire point of logic. Logic is universal. It applies to all aspects of the universe. It is the language and guidelines of the universe. The whole purpose of logic is to describe how the universe works. Logic is, therefore, always correct. Ok, how about this: Intelligent Design Theory. Go outside and look around. Look at the world around you. How could all of this possibly be made by chance? How could something just randomly explode and not only make earth a perfect planet for human habitation, but also create human life in a way to make it fit to this world? That is logical. An object the size of a pinhead exploding to create the universe is not logical. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sat Mar 08, 2008 2:49 pm
|
|
|
|
GuardianAngel44 Lethkhar Quote: Quote: Quote: They would be logical, but you can't compare any parents to God. Then don't compare them to parents and answer the question. God's rules are logical because he is not human. He is perfect, and therefore his rules are perfect. And how do you define "perfection"? How do you define something you cannot comprehend?
If you can't comprehend it, then don't argue assuming certain attributes of it. My opinion is that there is no such thing as "perfection".
Quote: Quote: Quote: Quote: Quote: Then living on a godless earth wouldn't be a punishment for you because you live in comfort. You have a nice, warm house; good food; the option to go to movies, the mall, and any other form of entertainment. It's not really a punishment for you. Ah, but isn't living with material wealth of the world supposed to be one of the worst acts possible? What? And that's still not punishment. I like to think of hell as torture for all eternity. No one likes that. Yeah, I like to think of Hell as a place where people suffer for an eternity as well. rolleyes Sadism is the way to go. If this earth isn't torture, then why were we sent here as a punishment for the whole Eden scandal? As I recall, Adam and Eve were followers of God.
Hence why they directly disobeyed Him. rolleyes Right...
Quote: Quote: Quote: Quote: Quote: God isn't an evil dictator, and his system isn't bad. I beg to differ. That's your opinion. But when you die and stand before God, you will have no excuse. No, but I'll have my dignity and my morals, and I will accept that I am standing up for what I believe. I could never worship a monster like that. God gave me free will, and I won't waste it on the cruel likes of Him. When you die, this "monster" will explain everything to you and you will realize your mistake too late.
You're terrorizing again. wink
Quote: Quote: Quote: Quote: It's not the same type of religion that I'm talking about. You don't love your parents the same way you would love God. But I love them regardless. Do you know why there are several different Greek words for love? Because there are different types of love. That's not the point.
Then what is the point?
The point is that I could still love God even if I knew He existed.
Quote: Quote: Quote: Quote: Quote: Quote: Everyone would believe in God because they would know. God would reveal himself to them, and they would believe. There would be no choice to do otherwise. That's why he doesn't prove himself. That and he's given enough proof through the Bible. There will always be black sheep that refuse to believe something despite proof. Like you. (not racist, in case you could possibly take it that way. There are those kinds of people.) How so? Do you have proof of God's existance? Don't get me wrong; being the black sheep isn't always bad. Galileo was the black sheep. Do you have proof of evolution or the Big Bang? I have abundant evidence for both. Quote: Quote: Quote: Quote: Quote: When I say atheistic, I mean directly against God. Gravity isn't against God. The theory that God is illogical is against God. "atheist" is "lacking God", not "against God". However, the people who call themselves atheists are indeed against God. You can see how we would get "confused." People who call themselves atheist do not believe in God. How can you be conciously against something that you don't believe in? You just might be a part of an minority in the atheist belief system, because every atheist I have heard of or known was been against God. Those people are morons. They're the loud-mouthed minority we've talked about before. Quote: Quote: Quote: Quote: Quote: You don't have a supernatural, everloving source to go to. We do. No, you don't. You just think you do. I, on the other hand, concentrate on relationships that I know are real and I can count on. It's a matter of personal preference. You still don't have or think you have it. Then I won't be let down by it the next time someone I know dies of leukemia. What? I'm not dependent on something that's not dependable. Quote: Quote: I'm sure you do. But, you see, I'm obviously going to be more reliant on mine than you will be, because you'll always have your invisible friend. That is totally unbased. You don't know me. I am the most devoted friend that you could possibly ever meet. I'm sure you are. That has nothing to do with what I said. Quote: Quote: Quote: Quote: Quote: The fact that you are going to hell is based on the Bible. Which itself is unbased. Why? Because you are stubborn enough to believe that it has no "proof?" No, because it doesn't cite any references. The Big Bang has no proof. Why do you believe that? Because if that didn't happen, then there is only the fact that someone created this world, and you are too stubborn to accept that. The Big Bang has plenty of evidence in support of it. Quote: Quote: Quote: Quote: Quote: The terrorism I'm talking about is like extremist action, such as torturing you do believe. And I'm not trying to scare you. Whether you're trying to or not, Hell is a pretty obvious scare tactic. Only if it's meant that way. It obviously doesn't scare you, and if God made it that way then it would scare you. It's not the end, but the intent that makes me say that you are a terrorist. I'm not scared by Al-Qaeda, either. They're still terrorists. How is my intent terrorism? You're trying to get me to believe in God by scaring me. That's terrorism. Quote: Quote: Quote: Quote: Quote: They only believe in God because of evidence, not because of love or faith. There is nothing supernatural about it. Deists don't believe in God because of evidence. They believe in God because they have faith that He exists with or without evidence. You were talking about other people who believe in God because of evidence. I think? I was talking about people who believe in a logical God. That in itself is an oxymoron. Any god or god-like being transcends logic. Not all of them. That's the point. Quote: Quote: Quote: Quote: Quote: Of course not all religious people are happier then atheistic people. The ones that aren't don't have a strong faith. I would say that I'm happier than you, but that's totally unbased. Quite. I believe that I am happier than you. Maybe not unbased? There's no reason for me to believe that you believe that you are happier than I am. But if you say that you believe that you are happier than I am, I trust you enough to take your word for it. It doesn't mean you are, but I could believe that you believe you are. Wow, I actually got that!!!!! Hm...Yeah, it sounds like something Captain Jack Sparrow would say, doesn't it? mrgreen Quote: Quote: Quote: Quote: Quote: I don't know. Again: faith comes up. That's religion. When logic fails, faith fills the gaps. When logic fails for you, what fills up the gaps? I don't know. Logic has never failed me before. That's kind of the point. What use would logic be if it were ever wrong? It would be use on the things that it's not wrong on. Does that sentance make sense? Yes, but that sort of defies the entire point of logic. Logic is universal. It applies to all aspects of the universe. It is the language and guidelines of the universe. The whole purpose of logic is to describe how the universe works. Logic is, therefore, always correct. Ok, how about this: Intelligent Design Theory. Go outside and look around. Look at the world around you. How could all of this possibly be made by chance? How could something just randomly explode and not only make earth a perfect planet for human habitation, but also create human life in a way to make it fit to this world? That is logical. An object the size of a pinhead exploding to create the universe is not logical. An invisible man saying "let there be light", creating the world in 6 days, then needing a rest day, creating man out of dust and then creating a woman out of that man's rib, a talking snake, and everything else that comes with the bible is not logical. Light patterns leading toward a singularity, however, are. It just seems well-designed because everything is dependent on one another. When one things changes, everything changes. The world naturally fits together. We both agree: The world is beautiful. "Isn't it enough to see that a garden is beautiful without having to believe that there are fairies at the bottom of it too?" - Douglas Adams |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sat Mar 08, 2008 5:49 pm
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
