Originally posted by The Dude 84Faith isn't about believing in something that isn't real.
This post isn't debating whether or not God's love is great. It's about prioritizing your life around god, something that has so little evidence of existing.
If your belief in God's love makes you happy that's terrific, but it has nothing to do with his existance.
There are people who would be miserable without their imaginary friends companionsh ...[text shortened]... ational to the point where its followers justify belief by saying "you gotta have faith".
Faith is the expression of belief in some we know is real.
Originally posted by josephwNO IT'S NOT! You don't need faith to believe in something that's real. I know I'm looking ay my computer, I don't need faith to tell me that.
Faith isn't about believing in something that isn't real.
Faith is the expression of belief in some we know is real.
Faith is only required when there is no logical grounds to believe in something.
Originally posted by whodeyIt's not about what people WANT to do. It'd be great if God existed. But he doesn't and nobody has a choice about it.
How about devoting yourself to something you know exists but is fleeting and you know for a fact that it will not last forever nor does it fulfill all your needs and never will? Is that insane?
The fact is we will all die and before that happens I want to be good to the people around me and learn to play several instruments really really well. I like playing chess and reading. If that's insane then Im a nut. But personally I've read posts from too many nuts on this forum and in ones similar.
1 edit
Originally posted by The Dude 84All we have is what we are presented with in this world. That includes the people and things around us. We are then confronted with how to interact with those things presented to us if at all. Just don't claim that God is not part of this presentation because he is. After all, God is why we are debating here.
It's not about what people WANT to do. It'd be great if God existed. But he doesn't and nobody has a choice about it.
The fact is we will all die and before that happens I want to be good to the people around me and learn to play several instruments really really well. I like playing chess and reading. If that's insane then Im a nut. But personally I've read posts from too many nuts on this forum and in ones similar.
Originally posted by whodeyHow do you know what you're "presented" with? If you were interested in what's in this world you'd follow scientific observations dedicated to understanding exactly what is in this world!
All we have is what we are presented with in this world. That includes the people and things around us. We are then confronted with how to interact with those things presented to us if at all. Just don't claim that God is not part of this presentation because he is. After all, God is why we are debating here.
The scientific process's sole purpose is to understand what is in this world. Religious people think it has an agenda to dismantle the bible. The reason it dismantles the bible is because it is based in reality, and keeps updating itself by people all over the world who test its theories instead of accepting anything from the past. There is nothing tested more than the theory of evolution.
By rejecting it in favour of a piece of 5/2000 year old literature you betray your interest in selecting what you choose to be presented with instead of seeing this world be presented to you.
Originally posted by NordlysIf you believe in love and christian values you neccesarily believe in a God that doesn't exist. If God doesn't exist in a nebulous form than he/she only exists in the abstract...he is as we created him...by believing in the values, you believe in the God created by man.
Just because I don't believe in any gods or in eternal life, it doesn't mean I don't believe in love or hope. My values aren't that different from Christian values, and I don't find them meaningless. Do you believe that values like love and compassion become false and meaningless if you don't put them in a religious context?
Originally posted by Red NightIf you define "God" as "values", then yes, I believe in the existence of God. If you define "God" as "a cup of tea", then yes, I believe in the existence of God (and I find its existence quite comforting). You can come up with all kinds of idiosyncratic definitions of God, but they don't necessarily make much sense.
If you believe in love and christian values you neccesarily believe in a God that doesn't exist. If God doesn't exist in a nebulous form than he/she only exists in the abstract...he is as we created him...by believing in the values, you believe in the God created by man.
Originally posted by NordlysThey make more sense than defining god as a player in bet with Satan over the loyalty of Job.
If you define "God" as "values", then yes, I believe in the existence of God. If you define "God" as "a cup of tea", then yes, I believe in the existence of God (and I find its existence quite comforting). You can come up with all kinds of idiosyncratic definitions of God, but they don't necessarily make much sense.
Originally posted by NordlysI think that many Christians believe they are worshipping the one true god. I don't see any need to attack or criticize their belief structure anymore than I see a need to attack the belief structure of Muslims or Satanists.
So what would you like to call the Christian god, if you don't think it makes sense to call him a god?
I do see a need to attack their actions when they stray outside the acceptable bounds of the brotherhood of humanity.
If you need to define something in order to make it real for you, let's just call the Christian god a facet of a greater god.
Originally posted by josephwWe're both sure. However, only one is right. You believe you're right; I believe I'm right; guess we'll never know who's truly right. So, to sum it all up, I am sure, and apparently, so are you. Whether he said "may not" is irrelevant, because I was referring to the "not" in that statement.
He did say "may not exist." Even venom isn't sure, and neither can you be.
Originally posted by scherzoOr you could both be wrong..I'm betting on that one.
We're both sure. However, only one is right. You believe you're right; I believe I'm right; guess we'll never know who's truly right. So, to sum it all up, I am sure, and apparently, so are you. Whether he said "may not" is irrelevant, because I was referring to the "not" in that statement.