Let's just all agree to disagree here. Because, lets face it, nobody is gonna change anybodies opinion and no matter how long this debate goes on one side is always gonna think the other side is wrong.
/2cents
There's 2 consequences of a debate
A ) You change your opinion
B ) You defend your opinion properly.
So far it is not A and looking towards B but most people going for B are failing at it.
Wow, no. You willingly sin, not automatically. The bible teaches that 'original sin' is not right and that sin is not passed on, for example, your dad's sins are not passed to you. You only sin when you make the choice to. God knows at some point everyone will sin, not that he forces us, just that we will give in to our selfish desires.
Okay so the Christian God is omnipotent, and if he caring and loving why doesn't he help guide us not to sin, unless he is malevolent? Or is it plain ignorance thus making him caring and loving mute? Or is it because he can't making him un-omnipotent?
Actually you did have a say in Jesus' death since he died for your sins. Jesus wouldn't have had to had died for humanity if mankind would have never sinned out of their own free will. So Jesus died for you, you had a say in it, you just refuse to think that your sin should be connected to his death.
That's basically saying that if I lived in North America and somebody in the Middle East sacrificed himself because humanity in the Middle East was bad, I should care for him? I don't even know the guy, and some how every future bad deed I did from that moment was connected to his death? I refuse to think said guy's death is connected to my moral actions when he and I live on opposite sides of the world.
DOn't know much about Catholicism and am not going to argue in it's favor because they hare hypocritical and wrong in their doctrines. And God and Satan never made a bet, lol that's an absurd thing to say. When Jesus was tempted he refuted Satan with doctrine and by saying you don't tempt God (because he was God in the flesh). This bet things... seriously, why do you make up stuff that you don't even know is true then role with it?
I made an error here in confusing the fall of Lucifer with Job scriptures, but let's go on the Job scriptures a bit. Starting from Job 1:6, God and Satan do indeed make a bet on testing Job's faith. Now wait a moment, why would God do such an absurd thing to his follower? And since this bet was made casually then couldn't this bet be one of many made between God and Satan?
If so, then many people who commit sin or "lose their faith/path in God" are the effect of God losing a bet with Satan. If not and this bet was just a one-time-thing, then what's the purpose of putting a faithful servant through such trials?
Man walking with dinosaurs theory vs. Man didn't walk with dinosaur theory... There is evidence for both of those, backed with science, and are completely opposites of each other.
Yes, obligation. If God exists (the christian God) then you have an obligation. Because if God exists, then you're a sinner who had someone die for your sins. You have an obligation to follow God and not reject his son he gave for you.
Dude. If you go kill someone who's fault is that? God's? Yeah-no. You made the choice. If I give you a knife and you kill my mom, is it my fault my mom died?
Woah, hold the phone. If the Christian God exists then automatically I sinned? So if Christian God exists then new born babies sin with no say? Or are you talking about future sin? If so then where does Catholicism/Christianity emphasis on free will come to play? Obviously I sinned by just existing and that makes me bad [insert sarcasm].
As for having someone die for my sins, I had no say in Jesus' death I guarantee you that even my ancestors had no say. Come to think of, I'd say that during around Jesus' time around 95% of the world had no idea who Jesus was and didn't have any say on his death.
And according to my Christian/Catholic knowledge, didn't Lucifer (now Satan) bet God in saying he can turn humans to his side and at the end of the world he will have more believer/followers in him than God? If this is indeed true then the concept of 'Christian sin' is played by on a bet by God and Satan?
If there is never proof (which there never will be) for one way or the other, are you okay with living your life without taking a stance on either side? Let's say God exists, and let's say it's the Christian God, are you okay with the way you believe as compared to if he didn't exist?
If he doesn't exist you're line of thinking doesn't really matter in an eternal since, but if he does, then it does.
Since no one knows, why not just live by what God wants, just in case he is real. Except a 'just in case' attitude isn't what God wants either...
Just wondering
A just-in-case attitude/belief won't cut if for society. Humans are driven by their desire, improvement, whatnot, a just-in-case aspect shows willing submission and most people won't simply accept that, one of the reasons why Christianity is controversial because it wants its followers to be submissive (you must believe in one God, the only God, the one true God, the Christian God).
And even the Christian God did exist I would happily live in Hell knowing I did not submit to a God whose concept of compassion is that of absenty to his followers.
You cannot attach to anything an adjective that carries no meaning, and the word "perfect" carries no meaning indeed. What is "perfect"? Seems something that's so far from what man is and represents there can never be ANY connection between these two classes of beings.
Perfect meaning unfalsifiable, omnipotent, all. Perfect does indeed have a meaning, it is the status that all people know as the highest, the top, the untouchable, God is that status. As for the connection between us and God being nonexistant, I'm not really going against that. My whole point is that God is the creator but either
A) has no reason to concern himself/herself/itself with us
B ) Is only observing us from afar
C) Something else entirely.
he doesn't concern himself with creations or something else entirely.
You mean you're saying he forgot? Generally, when you create something, there's a reason for it. He could have left us alone, but in that case, he does no longer matters to us.
God created everything, yes, doesn't mean God isn't going to specifically attend to every singly little creation God made.
I have no idea what you're trying to say here tbh.
You create something but you are not going to concern yourself with said creation. For all we know we as a species can be a failed experiment or on the other extreme we could be a test of sentience, emotion, free will, humanity. Or again, something else entirely.
You can't just blame God for everything. You can't pin evil on God. You can't pin good on God, either. God created man, and it's safe to say that man created good and evil.
If god created man (directly, e.g., god himself is not man, and man was not copied from somewhere else), god was the creator of everything man does, and god is therefore the originator of that good/evil. There honestly wasn't anything else for it to originate from, in that case.
To say man created good and evil is just silly. In pretty much any context.
If we take the evolutionary approach, saying man is evil for doing X is like saying wolves are evil for killing rabbits. You really can't argue with the evolutionary imperative.
If we take the god-created-man scenario, man comes pre-built with a bunch of crap that man has no ability to stick in there. The entire emotional basis. The intelligence capacity. The perception method. Pretty much all of Christianity and most other similar religions are built around blocking stuff in man that's actually pre-built. Man is like a broken machine Christianity and many other religions (especially Buddhism) needs to keep repairing all the time.
Yes, I can pin pretty much everything on god.
I can pin sexual drive on god.
I can pin periods on god.
I can pin neurosis on god.
I can pin pride and inferiority/superiority complexes on god.
I can blame all the people with IQ of ~90 on god.
I can pin any physiological function, and automatic reaction humans have in large amount on god because all those automatic reactions go back to the imperfect and broken physiological and mental processes with which we were created. Before there was nurture, there was nature, and nature is all god. ALL god. We could have been done without all of this shit, but we weren't, so stop pinning your shit on us when it's working exactly as it was intended, actually.
I can trace 90% of all human problems to these two things:
1. Low intelligence.
2. Sexual drive.
Neither of these are something the run of the mill human has much choice in or control over. It's just there. And that leads to our definition of evil. That was created by god. Therefore, god created evil.
I stick to the theory that god is man or similar to man and he just replicated himself, which is why the human shell is imperfect. Because god is imperfect. And he knows it. And we're not here to be something he is not.
Well that's your theory about God, and I respect it, but I disagree with it. :starwars:
I believe that God is not man, why? Because I also believe in extra terrestrial life. I believe God is a supreme being, perfect, he created the universe and existence but also has a Greek Mythological aspect to him, he doesn't concern himself with creations or something else entirely.
I don't necessarily think it is wise to put a moral stigma to God's aspect, why? Because it brings up too many unanswerable variables in addition to already existing unanswerable variables. God created everything, yes, doesn't mean God isn't going to specifically attend to every singly little creation God made.
You asked for a religion that didn't originate from the Middle East...
-yawns- Sorry had a brainfart.
Anyways, you've just proved my original point that religion is not entirely subject to a 'badtrack record against open-mindedness and self-morals' .
What??? Whoa whoa... Stop right there. If anything, I just provided an example for you that completely disproves your idea that "No religion has ever formed outside the Middle East". But I guess that doesn't mean anything anymore.
Alright, here are some throw-ins of lack of open-mindedness and self-morals by religion.
- The Big Bang Theory is fake
- Evolution is fake
- Science is a lie
- Homosexuality is a sin
- Creation according to the Religion Book is the only way
- The Religion Book is your life and you must live by it
- Unknown knowledge = proof of God
- Technology is a evil and corrupting thing
Religion has a bad track record huh? Name a bad religion that didn't originate from the Middle East (Islam, Chatholicism/Christinaity, Jew, etc.). Again if your gonna use the broad term 'religion' instead of specific religions then you must take into account the many religions around the world.
Bolded the part for you, the statement was directed as a semi-rhetorical question. You claimed that religion (not a specific religion but the whole broad term of religion) has had a bad-track record on open-mindedness and self-morals. Obviously this isn't true and I assume even though you used the broad term of 'religion' you were specifically targetting similar religions that originated in the Middle-East.
Thus by answering the semi-rhetorical question above, you have proved my point that 'Religion (the broad term) doesn't have a bad-track record of said assumptions (by you) if you just look over the multiple histories and cultures of different societies.
And what happens when the unexplainable just remains that, unexplainable? There are somethings that are better left unknown or shall remain unknown throughout time.
And really what's wrong with believing in a deity?
Like what? Honestly, just because we don't know what happened, it does not mean that a deity is responsible. This is the attitude of the people in the Dark Age, where everything was unexplainable and it was all apparently the work of God.
And what type of question is the last question? This is a religion vs. Atheism debate. I believe in an open-mind and the ability for each person to figure out his or her own morals. A belief of a deity has a bad track record with both of those, so I'm just going with the statistics, but there are a lot of religions that promote both.
Thought it was Religion vs Science debate, might wanna change that title there.
Religion has a bad track record huh? Name a bad religion that didn't originate from the Middle East (Islam, Chatholicism/Christinaity, Jew, etc.). Again if your gonna use the broad term 'religion' instead of specific religions then you must take into account the many religions around the world.
Well it really depends on how you look at God. For Catholics/Christians and subdivisions of it, they look to God as a father figure that is always loving and cares for everyone no matter what. That's a nice view no matter how you look at it, but then there's the question of "why is he/she/it absent from the world right now?"
Well the real question is, "Why is this person only recorded in time where believing in Zues, Hera, Thor, and witches acceptable?"
I think that's the birth of Athiesm and in a way, Deism. Deism still holds God into account, but does not enforce the prospect of said God being caring or whatnot. Basically that God created the universe and existence, and that's where ends, from there it can evolve into many different beliefs
Yet we don't know anything about existence or the creation of the universe. Why does a deity have to be responsible for creation? I prefer to wait to so that we can find a naturalistic explanation for the universe.
Could God just believe that the affairs of mortals are too simplistic and not worth attention/intervention? Or could it be that God has a grand plan for it all, or something else entirely?
...
And what happens when the unexplainable just remains that, unexplainable? There are somethings that are better left unknown or shall remain unknown throughout time.
And really what's wrong with believing in a deity?
Well it really depends on how you look at God. For Catholics/Christians and subdivisions of it, they look to God as a father figure that is always loving and cares for everyone no matter what. That's a nice view no matter how you look at it, but then there's the question of "why is he/she/it absent from the world right now?"
I think that's the birth of Athiesm and in a way, Deism. Deism still holds God into account, but does not enforce the prospect of said God being caring or whatnot. Basically that God created the universe and existence, and that's where ends, from there it can evolve into many different beliefs.
"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
Bolded the part I want to take into account. Not willing doesn't directly translate into malevolent, Epicurus is wrong on this one. Malevolent means wishing evil and harm onto one, not willing doesn't mean this, more likely translates into apathetic or ignorant.
Could God just believe that the affairs of mortals are too simplistic and not worth attention/intervention? Or could it be that God has a grand plan for it all, or something else entirely?
With all due respect, this sounds like, from the context, another issue with translation. Similar to the way Murder in the Ten Commandments doesn't mean generic murder but rather murder of an Israelie. I can't comment on this one as much as I'd like, because I don't have all the information. :/ Sorry!
Where is it confirmed that the Ten Commandments from Moses only apply to Israelites? Sure it is believed that it was given to Moses by God for the sake of how to guide his people (the Israelites) but it does not confirm that this only applied to said people when this principle applied worldwide amongst the course of 2K years.
There is a new aproach in today's world that combines the aspects of spirtuality with science. I like to believe in this and have hope that someday there will be no more seperation between the two. Because after all, the holy books are some kind of history books with alot of scientific material in them. Especially the Quran that is.
Please don't take this the wrong way as I am trying to say this in a kind fashion (Which as many people know, is difficult for me ) but...what science is in the holy books? I don't remember reading that the universe is 14 billion years old, or that e=mc^2, or that light travels at 299,792,458 m/s... If I am mistaken and these facts are in the Bible and Quran and Torah and Bagavad Gita or other such holy books then please enlighten me, as I don't like not knowing stuff.
Wel if you want to be literal about it, there is no natural science I recall in any holy books (correct me if I'm wrong) but there's is philosophical science.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
There's 2 consequences of a debate
A ) You change your opinion
B ) You defend your opinion properly.
So far it is not A and looking towards B but most people going for B are failing at it.
That's basically saying that if I lived in North America and somebody in the Middle East sacrificed himself because humanity in the Middle East was bad, I should care for him? I don't even know the guy, and some how every future bad deed I did from that moment was connected to his death? I refuse to think said guy's death is connected to my moral actions when he and I live on opposite sides of the world.
I made an error here in confusing the fall of Lucifer with Job scriptures, but let's go on the Job scriptures a bit. Starting from Job 1:6, God and Satan do indeed make a bet on testing Job's faith. Now wait a moment, why would God do such an absurd thing to his follower? And since this bet was made casually then couldn't this bet be one of many made between God and Satan?
If so, then many people who commit sin or "lose their faith/path in God" are the effect of God losing a bet with Satan. If not and this bet was just a one-time-thing, then what's the purpose of putting a faithful servant through such trials?
Woah, hold the phone. If the Christian God exists then automatically I sinned? So if Christian God exists then new born babies sin with no say? Or are you talking about future sin? If so then where does Catholicism/Christianity emphasis on free will come to play? Obviously I sinned by just existing and that makes me bad [insert sarcasm].
As for having someone die for my sins, I had no say in Jesus' death I guarantee you that even my ancestors had no say. Come to think of, I'd say that during around Jesus' time around 95% of the world had no idea who Jesus was and didn't have any say on his death.
And according to my Christian/Catholic knowledge, didn't Lucifer (now Satan) bet God in saying he can turn humans to his side and at the end of the world he will have more believer/followers in him than God? If this is indeed true then the concept of 'Christian sin' is played by on a bet by God and Satan?
A just-in-case attitude/belief won't cut if for society. Humans are driven by their desire, improvement, whatnot, a just-in-case aspect shows willing submission and most people won't simply accept that, one of the reasons why Christianity is controversial because it wants its followers to be submissive (you must believe in one God, the only God, the one true God, the Christian God).
And even the Christian God did exist I would happily live in Hell knowing I did not submit to a God whose concept of compassion is that of absenty to his followers.
Perfect meaning unfalsifiable, omnipotent, all. Perfect does indeed have a meaning, it is the status that all people know as the highest, the top, the untouchable, God is that status. As for the connection between us and God being nonexistant, I'm not really going against that. My whole point is that God is the creator but either
A) has no reason to concern himself/herself/itself with us
B ) Is only observing us from afar
C) Something else entirely.
Explained above.
You create something but you are not going to concern yourself with said creation. For all we know we as a species can be a failed experiment or on the other extreme we could be a test of sentience, emotion, free will, humanity. Or again, something else entirely.
Well that's your theory about God, and I respect it, but I disagree with it. :starwars:
I believe that God is not man, why? Because I also believe in extra terrestrial life. I believe God is a supreme being, perfect, he created the universe and existence but also has a Greek Mythological aspect to him, he doesn't concern himself with creations or something else entirely.
I don't necessarily think it is wise to put a moral stigma to God's aspect, why? Because it brings up too many unanswerable variables in addition to already existing unanswerable variables. God created everything, yes, doesn't mean God isn't going to specifically attend to every singly little creation God made.
You misread my statement:
Bolded the part for you, the statement was directed as a semi-rhetorical question. You claimed that religion (not a specific religion but the whole broad term of religion) has had a bad-track record on open-mindedness and self-morals. Obviously this isn't true and I assume even though you used the broad term of 'religion' you were specifically targetting similar religions that originated in the Middle-East.
Thus by answering the semi-rhetorical question above, you have proved my point that 'Religion (the broad term) doesn't have a bad-track record of said assumptions (by you) if you just look over the multiple histories and cultures of different societies.
-yawns- Sorry had a brainfart.
Anyways, you've just proved my original point that religion is not entirely subject to a 'badtrack record against open-mindedness and self-morals' .
Buddhism? Wrong. Originated in India, which is not in the Middle East.
Thought it was Religion vs Science debate, might wanna change that title there.
Religion has a bad track record huh? Name a bad religion that didn't originate from the Middle East (Islam, Chatholicism/Christinaity, Jew, etc.). Again if your gonna use the broad term 'religion' instead of specific religions then you must take into account the many religions around the world.
And what happens when the unexplainable just remains that, unexplainable? There are somethings that are better left unknown or shall remain unknown throughout time.
And really what's wrong with believing in a deity?
I think that's the birth of Athiesm and in a way, Deism. Deism still holds God into account, but does not enforce the prospect of said God being caring or whatnot. Basically that God created the universe and existence, and that's where ends, from there it can evolve into many different beliefs.
"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
Bolded the part I want to take into account. Not willing doesn't directly translate into malevolent, Epicurus is wrong on this one. Malevolent means wishing evil and harm onto one, not willing doesn't mean this, more likely translates into apathetic or ignorant.
Could God just believe that the affairs of mortals are too simplistic and not worth attention/intervention? Or could it be that God has a grand plan for it all, or something else entirely?
Good for you, I'm still waiting for Irrational's rebuttal.
Where is it confirmed that the Ten Commandments from Moses only apply to Israelites? Sure it is believed that it was given to Moses by God for the sake of how to guide his people (the Israelites) but it does not confirm that this only applied to said people when this principle applied worldwide amongst the course of 2K years.
Wel if you want to be literal about it, there is no natural science I recall in any holy books (correct me if I'm wrong) but there's is philosophical science.