02 Jun 10
Originally posted by galveston75You see? I knew that you wouldn't admit it. Whatever you choose to believe, your actual level of knowledge regarding the numinous is the same as everybody else. Zero. You know diddly, mate. Kinda silly to imply otherwise...
Well sorry to burst your bubble but your way off on assuming what I know... Kinda silly to say that to anyone I think.
02 Jun 10
1 edit
Originally posted by divegeesterPersonally I don't think Atheists are the greatest danger, not saying that
The fool says in his heart, “There is no God.”
Notably the psalmist does not say: "The fool says in his heart, “Jehovah is not God.” And also centers the premise on the "heart".
Is this a direct warning against the dangers of stubborn atheism, or just an attack on the contemporary unenlightened?
they are not in danger but not the worst, I believe it to be the Agonistics
that have the most to fear. Since they are luck warm on the whole debate
to begin with.
Kelly
Revelation 3:15-16
15 I know your deeds, that you are neither cold nor hot. I wish you were either one or the other! 16 So, because you are lukewarm—neither hot nor cold—I am about to spit you out of my mouth.
02 Jun 10
Originally posted by KellyJayYou think agnostics pose a danger? To whom? You think they'll convince others not to be dogmatic? Is that a problem in your mind? You think it's better to believe unprovable hypotheses?
Personally I don't think Atheists are the greatest danger, not saying that
they are not in danger but not the worst, I believe it to be the Agonistics
that have the most to fear. Since they are luck warm on the whole debate
to begin with.
Kelly
Revelation 3:15-16
15 I know your deeds, that you are neither cold nor hot. I wish you were either one o ...[text shortened]... r! 16 So, because you are lukewarm—neither hot nor cold—I am about to spit you out of my mouth.
03 Jun 10
1 edit
Originally posted by avalanchethecatTo themselves they are luke warm on the issue they neither believe or
You think agnostics pose a danger? To whom? You think they'll convince others not to be dogmatic? Is that a problem in your mind? You think it's better to believe unprovable hypotheses?
reject, at least an atheist has settled the matter in their hearts right or
wrong, because of that they have something within themselves God can
work with.
Kelly
03 Jun 10
Originally posted by KellyJayOh I see, you're being sympathetic! Well gee, thanks buddy. Personally I feel huge sympathy to you guys who live your life according to a bizarre code laid down by con-artists to try to control the behaviour of a tribe of illiterate iron-age goat-herders.
To themselves they are luke warm on the issue they neither believe or
reject, at least an atheist has settled the matter in their hearts right or
wrong, because of that they have something within themselves God can
work with.
Kelly
04 Jun 10
4 edits
Originally posted by avalanchethecatBetween you and me I could care less if you feel sympathetic to me or not,
Oh I see, you're being sympathetic! Well gee, thanks buddy. Personally I feel huge sympathy to you guys who live your life according to a bizarre code laid down by con-artists to try to control the behaviour of a tribe of illiterate iron-age goat-herders.
as I'm sure my feelings are as meaningful to you as well. It does not matter
when God choose to impart laws to mankind, and personally doing it when
life was very simple compared to complex nature of our life now would be
the best time to do it back then as more could and would relate to it. Very
difficult for someone who doesn't grasp our modern lifestyles to relate to
them in such a way that they would get understanding out of it. If God did
indeed create the universe we live in as well as all other things, missing
out on a relationship with God Himself would be the largest loss man could
ever have, then to be held accountable for everything you have ever done
it would be a double loss of the grandest scale.
Kelly
04 Jun 10
Originally posted by divegeesterNo and no.
The fool says in his heart, “There is no God.”
Notably the psalmist does not say: "The fool says in his heart, “Jehovah is not God.” And also centers the premise on the "heart".
Is this a direct warning against the dangers of stubborn atheism, or just an attack on the contemporary unenlightened?
04 Jun 10
diveqeester
all the so called gods of the old testament and new testament, and the koran and every other god that has been put forward by silly man, are all myth.
this does not mean there is no god at all. but the god that you put forward mr jehovah, is a god of the imagination, because the so called teachings of this god are pathetic.
your god endorses animal sacrifices and speaks not of reincarnation, and tells us we will be punished for not bowing before him.
these teachings could never be part of the real god/creator, but is the fictitious nonsense of delusional religious teachers. (not for me) i am only interested in the true blue god, which is inconceivable to our mind cheers vishvahetu
04 Jun 10
Originally posted by vishvahetuYou have the rule book of what God would and should do, do ya?
diveqeester
all the so called gods of the old testament and new testament, and the koran and every other god that has been put forward by silly man, are all myth.
this does not mean there is no god at all. but the god that you put forward mr jehovah, is a god of the imagination, because the so called teachings of this god are pathetic.
your god e ...[text shortened]... only interested in the true blue god, which is inconceivable to our mind cheers vishvahetu
Kelly
04 Jun 10
1 edit
Originally posted by KellyJayThe whole "if there is a god and you reject him..." argument sounds like the worst kind of reason for believing. Your other argument about god delivering his message to a select few iron-age farmers also sounds weak to me.
Between you and me I could care less if you feel sympathetic to me or not,
as I'm sure my feelings are as meaningful to you as well. It does not matter
when God choose to impart laws to mankind, and personally doing it when
life was very simple compared to complex nature of our life now would be
the best time to do it back then as more could and would r ble for everything you have ever done
it would be a double loss of the grandest scale.
Kelly
To change the focus of our discussion slightly, you appear to end your post by implying that someone who doesn't share your belief in god would live a somehow less morally correct life. Am I understanding you correctly there? Do you imagine that the lack of belief in god leads inevitably to moral turpitude?
(edit - incidentally, you say you could care less about my sympathy, when I think what you mean is that you couldn't.)
04 Jun 10
1 edit
Originally posted by avalanchethecatI'm looking at it from my perspective which is God is alive and well, God
The whole "if there is a god and you reject him..." argument sounds like the worst kind of reason for believing. Your other argument about god delivering his message to a select few iron-age farmers also sounds weak to me.
To change the focus of our discussion slightly, you appear to end your post by implying that someone who doesn't share your b ...[text shortened]... ld[/i] care less about my sympathy, when I think what you mean is that you couldn't.)
created the universe and everything in it, and people are missing out on
a relationship with Him. Those that outright reject Him have settled a few
things in their thinking which I believe God can work with, those that just
refuse to take a stand one way or another will as the scripture pointed out
just simply be spewed out because they are not hot or cold. They have
one of the greatest questions of the universe before them and they just
will not take a position for whatever reason, they demand a level of proof
which they will never get or they are afraid of what a stance will mean one
way or the other no matter what way they are leaning.
Moving on to morals, I believe God leads, guides, teaches, and instills
within man what we need for understanding and righteousness. Without
God one basically makes it up as they go, they can accept whatever they
want, use it till they want something else or like something else and go
with that. With God the rules and laws of life are not all man generated,
some are, but many come from Him, because of that man cannot alter,
bend, ignore, scrap, twist or whatever to suit man, because those laws are
Gods. So how do you compare morals when looking at one that has God,
and one that does not? If the righteousness of God were a plum line
without God showing us that line we would be building some skewed
from the truth, compared to someone who believes right and wrong are
just human constructs we are left with comparing apples and oranges.
People Christian and otherwise are born into a world where sin abounds
all of us have within our nature to be sinners, without God lighting up our
lives in such a way that both shows us how bad we are which the Law of
God does, we can be left with this notion that desiring wrong can be
justified just as well as doing it no matter how wrong, wrong can be.
Some will think might make right, some will think stealing is okay as
long as they can get away with it, some will think they are better than
others in their own right, and so on. The difference between a Christian
and a non-Christian as far as personal righteousness is concern is there is
no difference both are sinners, what sets one apart is Jesus Christ coming
into the lives of those that accept Him, the sinless one for the lives of
sinners, Christ is our righteousness.
Kelly
04 Jun 10
1 edit
Originally posted by KellyJayI'm looking at it from my perspective which is God is alive and well, God
I'm looking at it from my perspective which is God is alive and well, God
created the universe and everything in it, and people are missing out on
a relationship with Him. Those that outright reject Him have settled a few
things in their thinking which I believe God can work with, those that just
refuse to take a stand one way or another will as the scr ...[text shortened]... that accept Him, the sinless one for the lives of
sinners, Christ is our righteousness.
Kelly
created the universe and everything in it, and people are missing out on
a relationship with Him. Those that outright reject Him have settled a few
things in their thinking which I believe God can work with, those that just
refuse to take a stand one way or another will as the scripture pointed out
just simply be spewed out because they are not hot or cold. They have
one of the greatest questions of the universe before them and they just
will not take a position for whatever reason, they demand a level of proof
which they will never get or they are afraid of what a stance will mean one
way or the other no matter what way they are leaning.
So what you're saying is that from god's point of view it is better to simply accept an unprovable hypothesis than to continue to question it? Personally I'd imagine an all-powerful god could come up with a better way of getting his message across. I mean, why bother giving us the gift of reason if he doesn't want us to use it? And why assume it is fear which prevents one from choosing to believe an unprovable hypothesis? Take my word for it, fear doesn't even enter the equation.
Moving on to morals, I believe God leads, guides, teaches, and instills
within man what we need for understanding and righteousness. Without
God one basically makes it up as they go, they can accept whatever they
want, use it till they want something else or like something else and go
with that. With God the rules and laws of life are not all man generated,
some are, but many come from Him, because of that man cannot alter,
bend, ignore, scrap, twist or whatever to suit man, because those laws are
Gods. So how do you compare morals when looking at one that has God,
and one that does not? If the righteousness of God were a plum line
without God showing us that line we would be building some skewed
from the truth, compared to someone who believes right and wrong are
just human constructs we are left with comparing apples and oranges.
You may believe your morals come from god, but of course they come via human intermediaries. You have no way of knowing if these intermediaries are actually passing on "god's will" or not. But you accept these morals without question. So in fact, your moral code may be completely fallacious. A non-believer, alternatively, can question his morals in any given context and thus, if he is sincerely well-meaning, is inevitably going to be your moral superior. You can imagine that such a non-believer might make up his morals in order to suit his own greedy ends, but this reflects more of your nature than theirs.
Personally, I would treat you as I treat all other humans, which is to say as though you are myself. I do this not because I seek reward or fear punishment, but simply because I believe that that is the right way to behave as a civilized, ethically aware human being. I don't adapt my moral code to suit my own personal desires and I don't imagine many other people do either.