Not really necessarily true...if God is all-forgiving, wouldn't he forgive someone who admitted they were wrong and confessed to being so?FEOS wrote:
Not believe and be wrong = significant consequences
Wat?Poseidon wrote:
Not really necessarily true...if God is all-forgiving, wouldn't he forgive someone who admitted they were wrong and confessed to being so?FEOS wrote:
Not believe and be wrong = significant consequences
If you've done that, then you don't fall into that category. That's like answering a test question wrong then demanding credit for the question once you've seen the answer key.
“Everybody is a genius. But if you judge a fish by its ability to climb a tree, it will live its whole life believing that it is stupid.”
― Albert Einstein
Doing the popular thing is not always right. Doing the right thing is not always popular
― Albert Einstein
Doing the popular thing is not always right. Doing the right thing is not always popular
I'm saying if you got to the pearly gates with St. Peter and admitted you were totally wrong and were truly sorry, wouldn't you be forgiven?FEOS wrote:
Wat?Poseidon wrote:
Not really necessarily true...if God is all-forgiving, wouldn't he forgive someone who admitted they were wrong and confessed to being so?FEOS wrote:
Not believe and be wrong = significant consequences
If you've done that, then you don't fall into that category. That's like answering a test question wrong then demanding credit for the question once you've seen the answer key.
So your beliefs in this life wouldn't have mattered, no?
Faith is belief absent proof. If you wait until you have proof (ie, at the Pearly Gates), it's not a matter of faith anymore. Thus, you failed in the basics of the test.Poseidon wrote:
I'm saying if you got to the pearly gates with St. Peter and admitted you were totally wrong and were truly sorry, wouldn't you be forgiven?FEOS wrote:
Wat?Poseidon wrote:
Not really necessarily true...if God is all-forgiving, wouldn't he forgive someone who admitted they were wrong and confessed to being so?
If you've done that, then you don't fall into that category. That's like answering a test question wrong then demanding credit for the question once you've seen the answer key.
So your beliefs in this life wouldn't have mattered, no?
“Everybody is a genius. But if you judge a fish by its ability to climb a tree, it will live its whole life believing that it is stupid.”
― Albert Einstein
Doing the popular thing is not always right. Doing the right thing is not always popular
― Albert Einstein
Doing the popular thing is not always right. Doing the right thing is not always popular
Well presumably there are those times in a man's life where one's own powers are just not enough, and that's when the deities and the superior beings come into play... I can actually understand that. Some people in some cases - and I'm not excluding myself from this one no matter how anti-religious I may be - just can't cope without some "outside" help.Braddock wrote:
Comfort? ...how about the notion that all your power comes from within and not from some deity who hands it out in measly portions? My good friend Lowing will testify to this belief: we are all in control of our own destiny, if you want success and happiness go out and create it.
ƒ³
oh, noes! "what have you to loose?"-argument - again!FEOS wrote:
None whatsoever.ATG wrote:
Still; what risks just going with faith?Let me put it this way:ATG wrote:
What risks are there is the Godless is wrong?
When I die, I'd much rather be wrong about believing than be wrong about not believing.
Believe and be wrong = no consequences
Not believe and be wrong = significant consequences
It's nothing if not pragmatic.
fine, then answer me this: how do you know that the religion you follow is the true one? because they all pretty much reject one another - if you follow certain religion and it turns out to be wrong you are still doomed. and if we take into account the huge number of different religious systems out there your chances of choosing "the one and only" are practically vanishing.
so, how do you know? is it that "faith" of yours that allows you to tell which is which? i'm not going to argue against that faith-thing btw: it's something i've never experienced myself (and i'm told my convictions that "2 times 2 nets 4" and that "if you drink form a bottle marked 'poison', it is almost certain to disagree with you sooner or later" (c) don't count). i can see this stuff working in people around me, the comfort they get from it is evident. what i don't get though is why the hell some people try to present their faith in a rational manner when, imho, it's so balantly obvious it cannot be done at all? it's like trying to explain what "green" is to a blind person.
Last edited by Shahter (2009-04-14 04:26:06)
if you open your mind too much your brain will fall out.
Perfectly content, no. Not in any aspect of life. The key for sanity is compromise imho.ATG wrote:
What about spiritual success?
Are you perfectly content in the knowledge that this life is all there is?
Somehow, I doubt it.
ƒ³
Empty hole? I'm a being that evolved from a single cell being into a 70 trillion cell being and I'm chatting with people across the globe with little to no problem. I'M AWESOME. That's all I really need.ATG wrote:
Do you have one?
That empty space in your heart that nothing can fill.
What comfort does the atheist offer?
What knowledge we agnostics can purvey?
These questions annoy me.
Don't really have a hole because I never lost anything to begin with. I stopped believing in God at the age of like 10-13 when I figured out Noah's arc was wrong. Santa clause? It was possible he existed for me back then. Boogieman? Possible too. A random loser who was able to rally all the animals on earth within weeks onto a boat that he himself built with 6 other people? Oh dear.
God would just make more holes thou. Like how bad the bible is too correspond with the history of mankind. Or how God being so bad at leaving proof after himself. Or who is this god person and why did he give us this earth as our home when it's a death trap for people like us?
Like volcano's, earth quakes, tornado's, poisonous animals, large predators, poisonous plants, over flooding, way to strong winds and lots of more things. Oh plagues and such. Lovely stuff that God doesn't want to get rid of when people actually need his help. But oddly enough he wants to help some random person to get his eyesight back like 2000 years ago. But when a country is in trouble. Sorry can't help you there.
Then why should we need him when he pretty much NEVER help the people? Well not anymore at least.
God isn't an insurance policy.ATG wrote:
Well. I can only say the I have to stick with Unknowable.
We will never know, until we die.
Still; what risks just going with faith?
What risks are there is the Godless is wrong?
You're right, Catholics are cheaters.FEOS wrote:
If you've done that, then you don't fall into that category. That's like answering a test question wrong then demanding credit for the question once you've seen the answer key.
Fuck Israel
So you will believe in god just in case there really is a hell? Just lookin out for number 1 right?FEOS wrote:
Believe and be wrong = no consequences Not believe and be wrong = significant consequences
One do have a dilemma believing in God or not ATG, just believing to safeguard your entry to heaven doesn't work if that in fact exist
Wait behind the line ..............................................................
That is why it is faith, and not evidence. A couple of notes, though. People who firmly announce with authority and conviction that there is no such thing as God are using just as much faith as those who announce with the same conviction that there IS. Also, when it comes to the point of using blind faith to override basic evidence of everyday truths (such as drinking poison and expecting in not to harm you because your soul is pure), that is when it becomes stupidity.Shahter wrote:
so, how do you know? is it that "faith" of yours that allows you to tell which is which? i'm not going to argue against that faith-thing btw: it's something i've never experienced myself (and i'm told my convictions that "2 times 2 nets 4" and that "if you drink form a bottle marked 'poison', it is almost certain to disagree with you sooner or later" (c) don't count). i can see this stuff working in people around me, the comfort they get from it is evident. what i don't get though is why the hell some people try to present their faith in a rational manner when, imho, it's so balantly obvious it cannot be done at all? it's like trying to explain what "green" is to a blind person.
You must show a bit of care, however. Not everyone who believes in God is a ravaging bible-thumper, nor are they all irrational. Belief in Creationism or Intelligent Design is not always a pre-requisite to believing. That whole stereotyping thing again.
I wouldn't say we have the same amount of faith in us when we say we don't believe in God like those who believe in him.imortal wrote:
That is why it is faith, and not evidence. A couple of notes, though. People who firmly announce with authority and conviction that there is no such thing as God are using just as much faith as those who announce with the same conviction that there IS. Also, when it comes to the point of using blind faith to override basic evidence of everyday truths (such as drinking poison and expecting in not to harm you because your soul is pure), that is when it becomes stupidity.Shahter wrote:
so, how do you know? is it that "faith" of yours that allows you to tell which is which? i'm not going to argue against that faith-thing btw: it's something i've never experienced myself (and i'm told my convictions that "2 times 2 nets 4" and that "if you drink form a bottle marked 'poison', it is almost certain to disagree with you sooner or later" (c) don't count). i can see this stuff working in people around me, the comfort they get from it is evident. what i don't get though is why the hell some people try to present their faith in a rational manner when, imho, it's so balantly obvious it cannot be done at all? it's like trying to explain what "green" is to a blind person.
You must show a bit of care, however. Not everyone who believes in God is a ravaging bible-thumper, nor are they all irrational. Belief in Creationism or Intelligent Design is not always a pre-requisite to believing. That whole stereotyping thing again.
Lets point out some things.
1: The bible is full of errors.
2: Stories have been proven wrong countless of times. Noahs ark is just a small story made much much much bigger.
3: God never show up.
4: People claim he does miracles on earth but a miracle is something that can not be explained. Black holes are the only example in real life for now that breaks the law of universe. Or so they say.
5: There is no proof of there being a Soul. We can detect the magnetism pull but a Soul is impossible? Even thou it should have all of our memmories and such?
Why should we believe in something that have such a hard time to leave ANY kind of proof? We are talking about a being able to create the ENTIRE universe in 6 days but unable to leave enough proof. Talk about universal fail there.
We need less faith than those believers need. Way way less faith.
Belief in creationism or intelligent design is fucking stupid. Being religious doesn't mean you disregard all science, and the folk who do so are giving the rest of us a bad image. The Bible is something you interpret and make your own, even though the Church has taken its own stance from it, you can and should still use your own interpretation of what it means as a non-literal, non-scientific work.imortal wrote:
You must show a bit of care, however. Not everyone who believes in God is a ravaging bible-thumper, nor are they all irrational. Belief in Creationism or Intelligent Design is not always a pre-requisite to believing. That whole stereotyping thing again.
well, you misunderstood me here - it's my poor english again i guess. i don't disagree with you at all, this is my own post in this same thread where i said similar stuff. what i was trying to point out is "what's there to loose?"-argument doesn't work at all, because it tries to back irrational stuff with rational arguments. "i beleave in religion because it's a win/win, it's only pragmatic" ya-fucking-hoo, but how do you know what to beleave in the first place? everybody and their mother in law have their own religion these days and everybody says theirs is the genuine article - how do you know which is the true one?imortal wrote:
That is why it is faith, and not evidence. A couple of notes, though. People who firmly announce with authority and conviction that there is no such thing as God are using just as much faith as those who announce with the same conviction that there IS. Also, when it comes to the point of using blind faith to override basic evidence of everyday truths (such as drinking poison and expecting in not to harm you because your soul is pure), that is when it becomes stupidity.Shahter wrote:
so, how do you know? is it that "faith" of yours that allows you to tell which is which? i'm not going to argue against that faith-thing btw: it's something i've never experienced myself (and i'm told my convictions that "2 times 2 nets 4" and that "if you drink form a bottle marked 'poison', it is almost certain to disagree with you sooner or later" (c) don't count). i can see this stuff working in people around me, the comfort they get from it is evident. what i don't get though is why the hell some people try to present their faith in a rational manner when, imho, it's so balantly obvious it cannot be done at all? it's like trying to explain what "green" is to a blind person.
You must show a bit of care, however. Not everyone who believes in God is a ravaging bible-thumper, nor are they all irrational. Belief in Creationism or Intelligent Design is not always a pre-requisite to believing. That whole stereotyping thing again.
"they aren't all irrational" you say - of course they aren't, their religious beleafs are and they know it.
if you open your mind too much your brain will fall out.
I did say it was a pragmatic approach, didn't I?El Beardo wrote:
So you will believe in god just in case there really is a hell? Just lookin out for number 1 right?FEOS wrote:
Believe and be wrong = no consequences Not believe and be wrong = significant consequences
“Everybody is a genius. But if you judge a fish by its ability to climb a tree, it will live its whole life believing that it is stupid.”
― Albert Einstein
Doing the popular thing is not always right. Doing the right thing is not always popular
― Albert Einstein
Doing the popular thing is not always right. Doing the right thing is not always popular
Believe it or not (no pun intended), some people believe that Armageddon will entail facing Christ in his return, and he will give everyone the option to admit their wrongdoings and be forgiven.FEOS wrote:
Faith is belief absent proof. If you wait until you have proof (ie, at the Pearly Gates), it's not a matter of faith anymore. Thus, you failed in the basics of the test.Poseidon wrote:
I'm saying if you got to the pearly gates with St. Peter and admitted you were totally wrong and were truly sorry, wouldn't you be forgiven?FEOS wrote:
Wat?
If you've done that, then you don't fall into that category. That's like answering a test question wrong then demanding credit for the question once you've seen the answer key.
So your beliefs in this life wouldn't have mattered, no?
Revelations leaves a lot of stuff up to interpretation.
Are you sure it's not just because I said it, Shahter?Shahter wrote:
well, you misunderstood me here - it's my poor english again i guess. i don't disagree with you at all, this is my own post in this same thread where i said similar stuff. what i was trying to point out is "what's there to loose?"-argument doesn't work at all, because it tries to back irrational stuff with rational arguments. "i beleave in religion because it's a win/win, it's only pragmatic" ya-fucking-hoo, but how do you know what to beleave in the first place? everybody and their mother in law have their own religion these days and everybody says theirs is the genuine article - how do you know which is the true one?imortal wrote:
That is why it is faith, and not evidence. A couple of notes, though. People who firmly announce with authority and conviction that there is no such thing as God are using just as much faith as those who announce with the same conviction that there IS. Also, when it comes to the point of using blind faith to override basic evidence of everyday truths (such as drinking poison and expecting in not to harm you because your soul is pure), that is when it becomes stupidity.Shahter wrote:
so, how do you know? is it that "faith" of yours that allows you to tell which is which? i'm not going to argue against that faith-thing btw: it's something i've never experienced myself (and i'm told my convictions that "2 times 2 nets 4" and that "if you drink form a bottle marked 'poison', it is almost certain to disagree with you sooner or later" (c) don't count). i can see this stuff working in people around me, the comfort they get from it is evident. what i don't get though is why the hell some people try to present their faith in a rational manner when, imho, it's so balantly obvious it cannot be done at all? it's like trying to explain what "green" is to a blind person.
You must show a bit of care, however. Not everyone who believes in God is a ravaging bible-thumper, nor are they all irrational. Belief in Creationism or Intelligent Design is not always a pre-requisite to believing. That whole stereotyping thing again.
"they aren't all irrational" you say - of course they aren't, their religious beleafs are and they know it.
Trying to rationalize an inherently irrational process is what this thread is really about. How do you know what to believe? You just know. No other way to explain it. I'm sure that how you're raised has something to do with it, but I know a lot of religious people who were "raised" in a different religion/denomination than they currently practice/observe.
“Everybody is a genius. But if you judge a fish by its ability to climb a tree, it will live its whole life believing that it is stupid.”
― Albert Einstein
Doing the popular thing is not always right. Doing the right thing is not always popular
― Albert Einstein
Doing the popular thing is not always right. Doing the right thing is not always popular
I would be one of those.
1) Did I ever mention a single word about the Bible? Ideas about God (gods) and worship have been around longer than the written word. Yes, the Bible is full of inaccuracies. But I was not talking about the Bible, or about Religion. I was talking about God. Yes, there is a difference.Zefar wrote:
Lets point out some things.
1: The bible is full of errors.
2) Again, part of the Bible. Not where I was going.Zefar wrote:
2: Stories have been proven wrong countless of times. Noahs ark is just a small story made much much much bigger.
3) How do you know? Granted, there was never a 40 foot tall glowing being in NYC answering the the name "God," but if we have no idea what he/she/it looks like, or if we could ever perceive God, then we can not say with certainty whether he actually showed up.Zefar wrote:
3: God never show up.
4) If God exists, then he made the laws what they are; think he can't find a loophole? There are other unexplained events; most notably in the realm of medicine and human physiology.Zefar wrote:
4: People claim he does miracles on earth but a miracle is something that can not be explained. Black holes are the only example in real life for now that breaks the law of universe. Or so they say.
5) Before the 16th century, there was no way to measure electricity, magnetism, the wavelengths of light, or to split the atom. Does that mean none of these things existed? Did microbes (bacteriua and viruses) exist before the microscope was invented? Do you believe we now know everything there is to know in the universe? They felt much the same way a couple centuries ago, I am sure.Zefar wrote:
5: There is no proof of there being a Soul. We can detect the magnetism pull but a Soul is impossible? Even thou it should have all of our memmories and such?
Oh, go for the Bible again. What did I say about that? Actually, in this instance, it is just as hard to prove the negative as it is to prove a positive. None of your arguments are actually proof.Zefar wrote:
Why should we believe in something that have such a hard time to leave ANY kind of proof? We are talking about a being able to create the ENTIRE universe in 6 days but unable to leave enough proof. Talk about universal fail there.
We need less faith than those believers need. Way way less faith.
About the Bible. Looking through the arguments, the Bible was a deliberate creation of the Council of Nicea to formalize the Christian faith into a cohesive whole by creating and regulating the Dogma of the religion. It was a gathering of stories and writings. There is no actual proof that the Gospels were even written by the Apostiles that they were actually named for. But I was not talking about religion or the Bible. I was just talking about God. I did not specify the Christian God, or the Jewish Jaweh, or the Muslim Allah, or even the polytheistic views of the Hindus or ancient Romans or Greeks. I simply bring forth the concept of "God." There is NO way at our disposal to confirm or deny the existance of such a being. So, belief in it's existance is a matter of personal faith. HOW you choose to exercise that belief is where religion comes in.
much editing to correct minor spelling issues. I think faster than I type.
Last edited by imortal (2009-04-14 17:35:01)
Survival of the fittest yes?El Beardo wrote:
So you will believe in god just in case there really is a hell? Just lookin out for number 1 right?FEOS wrote:
Believe and be wrong = no consequences Not believe and be wrong = significant consequences
you guys must think your god is a real dipshit if you don't think he'd be avare of your motives.Stingray24 wrote:
Survival of the fittest yes?El Beardo wrote:
So you will believe in god just in case there really is a hell? Just lookin out for number 1 right?FEOS wrote:
Believe and be wrong = no consequences Not believe and be wrong = significant consequences
People are twisting what I've said into a strict "survival" interpretation, which is not at all what I said. I broke it down to simplistic terms for discussion. That does not mean faith is a simplistic endeavor.Reciprocity wrote:
you guys must think your god is a real dipshit if you don't think he'd be avare of your motives.Stingray24 wrote:
Survival of the fittest yes?El Beardo wrote:
So you will believe in god just in case there really is a hell? Just lookin out for number 1 right?
“Everybody is a genius. But if you judge a fish by its ability to climb a tree, it will live its whole life believing that it is stupid.”
― Albert Einstein
Doing the popular thing is not always right. Doing the right thing is not always popular
― Albert Einstein
Doing the popular thing is not always right. Doing the right thing is not always popular
Do I really have to put in the /sarcasm indicator? Of course God is aware of each and every one of our motives.Reciprocity wrote:
you guys must think your god is a real dipshit if you don't think he'd be avare of your motives.Stingray24 wrote:
Survival of the fittest yes?El Beardo wrote:
So you will believe in god just in case there really is a hell? Just lookin out for number 1 right?