Religious beliefs

[mistahARK]

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

[Nuusku]

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

[Nuusku]

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

[mistahARK]

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

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

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

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

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

[Nuusku]

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



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

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

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

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

[mistahARK]

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

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

[wa3zrm]

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

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

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

[Reynard]

My religion is LOVE :-)

[phantom]

Amen

[texastorm]

I have to jump on the bandwagon as well.

Morals cannot have anything to do with the existence of a god, simply put there are many conflicting religions that come to the same moral conclusions. If there was one religion that had "all the right stuff" then all the other religions are what? Thrown into the lake of fire? Left in purgatory? Damned to hell? No loving infinitely wise god could drop a book on stupid peasants, expect them to perfectly pass that book down through generations unchanged, and then penalize anybody who could not follow these half man, half inspired by god bastard laws years later. No in my opinion if there where a god, and he expected me to follow a plan the evidence would meet my intelligence level, and the intelligence level of my peers as well.

Sure one can argue the ten commandments but what about the rest of the book? What about the parts of the book lost over time? What about the changes priests made over time for political gain? How could a loving god allow for these things to happen? How could a loving god leave a message of total chaos? One could argue that god is not love... but everyone seems to think he is... So if god represents love, and love evidently is confusing and sometimes evil.... hmm so is god?

Therefore I cannot conclude that god exists. Still I cannot say he doesn't, but I have yet to find evidence one way or the other. Jesus you say... wow dont get me started down that path... I could argue for hours against his very existence, but the fact remains I cannot prove he wasnt here, and you cannot prove he was. That leaves alone the fact that he does not appear in many other religions that have come to the same moral conclusions.

Morals are just a consensus that something is not right. We all came to the same conclusion on our own that killing someone=bad and screwing your neighbors wife=also bad. It fairly easy to explain that, think of how you feel when a relative dies, when someone steals from you, or when your partner cheats. Makes you feel bad... duh...

[Thunder_Snus]

I have to jump on the bandwagon as well.

Morals cannot have anything to do with the existence of a god, simply put there are many conflicting religions that come to the same moral conclusions. If there was one religion that had "all the right stuff" then all the other religions are what? Thrown into the lake of fire? Left in purgatory? Damned to hell? No loving infinitely wise god could drop a book on stupid peasants, expect them to perfectly pass that book down through generations unchanged, and then penalize anybody who could not follow these half man, half inspired by god bastard laws years later. No in my opinion if there where a god, and he expected me to follow a plan the evidence would meet my intelligence level, and the intelligence level of my peers as well.

Sure one can argue the ten commandments but what about the rest of the book? What about the parts of the book lost over time? What about the changes priests made over time for political gain? How could a loving god allow for these things to happen? How could a loving god leave a message of total chaos? One could argue that god is not love... but everyone seems to think he is... So if god represents love, and love evidently is confusing and sometimes evil.... hmm so is god?

Therefore I cannot conclude that god exists. Still I cannot say he doesn't, but I have yet to find evidence one way or the other. Jesus you say... wow dont get me started down that path... I could argue for hours against his very existence, but the fact remains I cannot prove he wasnt here, and you cannot prove he was. That leaves alone the fact that he does not appear in many other religions that have come to the same moral conclusions.

Morals are just a consensus that something is not right. We all came to the same conclusion on our own that killing someone=bad and screwing your neighbors wife=also bad. It fairly easy to explain that, think of how you feel when a relative dies, when someone steals from you, or when your partner cheats. Makes you feel bad... duh...

I really dont have a problem with people believing but it just pisses me off that so many people miss out on so much knowledge because "The answer is God" stops them from asking further questions. Evolution IS A REAL THING, it's been proven, documented and shown to still be occuring to this day, there is literally no argument that will even make a logical person question evolution. "But then why are there monkeys?" has got to be one of my all time favorite arguments for saying evolution is not real because all that argument does is show that you never took the time to read about what evolution actually is. I dont care if you want to shun evolution and say its all malarkey but when a common news article is about NOT TEACHING evolution in schools, that just shows we have failed as a society. We have un(logically)disputed proof of one of the natural processes of biology....and people are upset that their children are being taught about it. That doesnt just show stupidity it literally condenses a class that could be taken for multiple years while learning fascinating information and turns it into "lol nope god did it."

What do we have to do to get out of this train of thought that learning about real things is against religion. Do we need to start our own religion and start a rally claiming its offensive that creationism is taught in school? Then will we have our way as a society and have people learning real information?

[lxskllr]

Sure one can argue the ten commandments but what about the rest of the book? What about the parts of the book lost over time? What about the changes priests made over time for political gain? How could a loving god allow for these things to happen? How could a loving god leave a message of total chaos? One could argue that god is not love... but everyone seems to think he is... So if god represents love, and love evidently is confusing and sometimes evil.... hmm so is god?

[Skell18]

I'm going to borrow that one!

[Nuusku]

And that pretty much sums it all up.

[CzechCzar]

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




That's pretty hostile.

Again, you’re begging the question here, by stating that we do, in fact, know that objective morality exists. This means you agree with my conclusion, but the question is, how do you get there on an atheistic basis? The evolved morality you speak of could have turned out differently if we were to rewind the evolutionary clock and start all over. So, contradictory morals could evolve, which means the morals aren’t objective.

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

I don’t think that I am… I never mentioned legality. Pretty much the only alternative to God-based morality is that over the course of human evolution, one of the traits that emerged as advantageous was a sense of morality. Whether this morality is developed in a cultural, national, or religious context, is of little importance. The crucial point is that the morality we sense as objective is actually the result of a long process of evolution.

This view has multiple problems:

In this view, morality is only perceived
as objective. If we were to rewind the evolutionary clock, a different
set of morals might very well emerge. Since contradictory morals could emerge
from the evolutionary process, these morals are in no sense objective as the
theist uses the word.
Moreover, what makes this set
of morals binding upon all members of society? One cannot use this theory
to convince someone whose moral feelings disagree with yours that he is wrong,
and ought to behave differently. Nor can he convince you. If you made such an
argument to a sociopath who took this position on the sources of morality, but
who had a taste for human flesh, he could say to you: “your rules are
just the outcome of a long process of totally contingent events, each of which
was governed by nothing but happenstance. Every one of them might have turned
out differently. The same goes for me. My rules are different..” And he
would be correct. Because under this theory, the rules of society are not
really moral, in the sense that they are not objectively binding on us; they do
not oblige us.

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

This question that atheists throw about with such abandon as if it were a defeater for theism was actually answered, I believe by Augustine, over a millennium ago. The answer is, briefly, that God’s moral commandments necessarily flow from His nature: He IS the Good. Any evil in the world is a deprivation of His will.