quote:Seriously, what kind of a God would let three groups of people kill in his name for thousands of years, in the same place?
This is just too simplistic (given your tone in this thread, steven, I had to think again before choosing that word instead of a different one) because it makes too many assumptions.
One, it assumes a God who can literally change anything to suit His whim.
Two, it assumes a God who would.
And three, it assumes that changing humanity in such a way would result in a positive.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by King of Men: You know just as well as I do that that would have been Resh's very next post.
Right, coming from the guy who actually brought it up in the first place. I'm not sure that I ever used the Hitler argument... yeah, ever. Guilt by association indeed, Dagonee. We ignorant Christians and our stupid Hitler comparisons.
Posts: 1286 | Registered: Dec 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I didn't really want to be in this discussion, but there is something I thought was worth mentioning. From God's viewpoint, when people die, it just means they are coming back to him.
Posts: 1287 | Registered: Apr 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Mucas, you post is full of unfounded statements. Eugenics was not particularly religious, if I'm not mistaken. It was developed from Darwinistic theory and was generally embraced by atheists like... Hitler, for instance. After all, Evolution allows you to be an intellectually fulfilled atheist.
quote:Originally posted by Reshpeckobiggle: Agreed, if God were evil, how could I continue to worship him?
It is actually pretty easy to discount the entire line of reasoning, and although I did not read the article, I'm sure it did not adequately address this: Supposing God exists, and God is as he is commonly defined (the Creator of Existence), then all the beauty of this world, be it art and music, or love and charity, and self-sacrifice, would be his creation. Therefore, even if the argument could be made that all the horrors of the world were the result of God, one could not honestly state that God was evil, because goodness could not be the product of something that was evil.
In Dungeons and Dragons people worship evil gods all the time, why? Because the said evil god offers power and wealth in exchange for your servitude. Which in my opinion is a heck of alot better of an exchange then the current one "worship me or go to hell".
Like wtf, where's the choice in that?
IP: Logged |
posted
Mmm. You've got two things under the one word 'worship', there. The evil gods of roleplaying games demand sacrifices and temples and suchlike, while the Christian god demands prayer and love and submission. Not the same thing.
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
Blayne Bradley
unregistered
posted
The Christian god demanded that someone or other sacrifice his son, that he sent down an angel to stop it at the last second doesn't instill confidence in me.
IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Blayne Bradley: The Christian god demanded that someone or other sacrifice his son, that he sent down an angel to stop it at the last second doesn't instill confidence in me.
You read from a very peculiar bible.
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
Blayne Bradley
unregistered
posted
I read nothing, its what I hear my friends talk about, afaik they're baptists.
quote:Originally posted by Blayne Bradley: I read nothing, its what I hear my friends talk about, afaik they're baptists.
Well then you have friends who read from a peculiar bible, or else something was lost in translation when they talked to you about it.
edit: lol after looking at your link I now realize you were talking about Isaac. I was under the impression you were referring to Jesus.
edit: Say you saw a man fire a bullet from a gun at the head of a man 50 feet away and he managed to dash after the bullet and stop it after 10 feet, leaving 40 feet of space to spare. If he then repeated the feat and each time let the bullet travel 10 feet further. When he finally stopped the bullet a millimeter before it entered the man's head would you question his control over the situation?
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
"This is just too simplistic (given your tone in this thread, steven, I had to think again before choosing that word instead of a different one) because it makes too many assumptions.
One, it assumes a God who can literally change anything to suit His whim.
Two, it assumes a God who would.
And three, it assumes that changing humanity in such a way would result in a positive."
Yeah, see, the whole Mormon idea of a non-omnipotent God has absolutely Jack Squat to do with what the rest of Christianity is talking about. I respect that position, and I sympathize with it, if anything, a little more strongly (than with the Omnipotent God theory), but I was not making an argument against a non-omnipotent God. I'll fight the non-omnipotent God later, if ever. I'm much more at peace with the theory of a God who is still learning, or who has very limited self-awareness/power. This makes a ton more sense. The Universe has a past and a future (from a certain point of view). Time has its cycles, like the seasons, etc., but it also has a linear component. I am not convinced that time is completely circular. I think there may be a net linearity to it, although I'm not making bets either way. Given a universe where time is fundamentally linear, it is much easier to imagine a limited God, or a God that learns and grows and changes.
More on all this later. I'm sure I made plenty of leaps in there, some possibly unsupportable.
Posts: 3354 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Way to latch on to one aspect of my post while entirely ignoring the latter three items.
Whether or not God can change anything to suit His will has nothing at all to do with whether He would, and it has zero to do with whether it would result in a positive.
Anyway, I doubt very much whether you're actually knowledgeable about what the 'rest of Christianity' thinks about how omnipotent or not their God is, steven.
We're not talking martial arts, here. You're not the expert on everythingPosts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade: edit: Say you saw a man fire a bullet from a gun at the head of a man 50 feet away and he managed to dash after the bullet and stop it after 10 feet, leaving 40 feet of space to spare. If he then repeated the feat and each time let the bullet travel 10 feet further. When he finally stopped the bullet a millimeter before it entered the man's head would you question his control over the situation?
In the first place, no such sequence occurs in Isaac. In the second place, sod the control, playing such games with human lives is evil whether or not you have the skill to minimise accidents.
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
What I find very interesting in this ‘debate’ about God is that no one really addresses the consequences of our freedom to choose. ‘God is good’ should really be found on a personal level, not debate. He’s the MEASURE of what mankind ought to aspire to. Because of the abuse of our freedom to choose -which is the very reason we see war or bloodshed of any kind, drug abuse, sexual deviance, etc- It’s the ABUSE of that God-given freedom that produces tragedy in the world and it’s hardly God’s fault for granting us to act how we want to. Extremism in ANY way of our lives is absurdly idiotic, whether it’s in the Christian mainstream, Islamic militarism, or the seemingly pointless disbelieving of atheism (when there are so many witnesses to the existence of a God, why disbelieve?). God has never sanctioned extremism. I haven’t come across it in any valid scripture. In fact, the scriptures covers this very debate in outlining exactly what human nature will do as time carries on and their disbelief effectively destroying their potential on an eternal scale. Human nature is what we battle against -the dreadful repetition of our own carnality- that makes this world miserable, confusing, and tragic. God’s ways aren’t our ways and His thoughts aren’t our thoughts. We cannot hope to really understand Him or what He does, unless He deems it prudent for us to know. Human science is linear and cannot fathom God’s infinitum nor prove that He exists or doesn’t exist, because of human science’s fallibility and the variableness of human reasoning. Manmade religion shouldn’t act in God’s name because they invariably abuse it for their own ends, to exercise dominion over the weak, suppressed through warfare, etc, which makes finding the truth more important that it’s ever been. Manmade religion will fall eventually (it’s already begun, actually), exposing their rotting cores, revealing the truth to those who are unsure, solidifying the faith of those who’ve already found the truth, and fence sitters will suddenly realize it’s too late to their own sorrow. Anyway, I suggest that people won’t truly know whether God’s good or not until they put their own faith on the line by exercising their free-agency and stop relying on other’s opinions, theories, or on weak human rationalization and weak human science to point their way through life.
Posts: 42 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Steven said: "the whole Mormon idea of a non-omnipotent God has absolutely Jack Squat to do with what the rest of Christianity is talking about."
So-called Mormonism doesn't teach that God is 'non-omnipotent'. They teach the exact opposite.
Posts: 42 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote: So-called Mormonism doesn't teach that God is 'non-omnipotent'. They teach the exact opposite.
Huh?
-------
quote:In the first place, no such sequence occurs in Isaac. In the second place, sod the control, playing such games with human lives is evil whether or not you have the skill to minimise accidents.
Heh, says the man who wants to send the recalcitrant religious to camps for re-education? Or is exerting such control over human lives evil strictly based on the degree of power one has?
Anyway, in that story God did not have the skill to minimize accidents; furthermore, no human life was in danger there, though you probably did not mean the term 'human lives' there literally.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:(when there are so many witnesses to the existence of a God, why disbelieve?)
There are often witnesses to all kinds of things that aren't true. Epistemologically, there's only a certain measure of safety in numbers, and certainly not enough for me to devote my entire life to a figment, thank you very much.
Posts: 2907 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:He’s the MEASURE of what mankind ought to aspire to.
Sez you. This is precisely the assumption we are discussing; you are trying to make an end run, and going in a circle.
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: Seriously, are we talking again about the "superman in the sky" god?
I think we're talking about a god that somehow effects the real world. Could be a 'superman in the sky' god, and could be a 'does fancy magic tricks' god.
If we're talking about any kind of god that doesn't effect the real world, then that god is in the interesting position of appearing as if he doesn't exist, and so there's no need to bring him into any discussions.
If you were going to bring up a god like that. Which I don't know if you were or not.
Posts: 3852 | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Constipatron: the seemingly pointless disbelieving of atheism (when there are so many witnesses to the existence of a God, why disbelieve?).
When there are so many witnesses to the existence of Allah, why disbelieve?
When there are so many witnesses of the existence of Krishna, why disbelieve?
When there are so many adherents to Communism (over 1 billion, I think), why disagree?
Shall I give more examples?
Posts: 3852 | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Javert, unfortunately you are valiantly shouting into the wind. If there's one thing I've discovered about this perennial debate, it's that your brain, the way it connects observations and ideas together in order to construct a palatable fabric for the universe you experience, functions uniquely. There are many similarities; there would have to be, but the God thing is not about to go away, and what you and I may call logic, reason, sanity, is what another person can never understand.
Posts: 9912 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade: edit: Say you saw a man fire a bullet from a gun at the head of a man 50 feet away and he managed to dash after the bullet and stop it after 10 feet, leaving 40 feet of space to spare. If he then repeated the feat and each time let the bullet travel 10 feet further. When he finally stopped the bullet a millimeter before it entered the man's head would you question his control over the situation?
In the first place, no such sequence occurs in Isaac. In the second place, sod the control, playing such games with human lives is evil whether or not you have the skill to minimise accidents.
My point is, that God was in total control of the Abraham/Isaac situation. The event was planned out and executed exactly as God intended it to play out. There was not a last second change of plans. God wasn't playing games with Abraham, he presented an obstacle that allowed Abraham to learn for himself just how resolved he was to be faithful and with the obstacle came the opportunity to obtain a blessing nobody has ever been given since then. The situation is also a striking illustration of what God himself would do down the road hundreds of years later. The whole situation had multiple positive applications.
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Ok KoM, but I was not the one who brought up eugenics. And I don't see how someone can discuss eugenics without bringing up Hitler.
How long did it take you to find that example, anyway? Between you and Samprimary, I'm starting to feel like I've got a cult following.
Posts: 1286 | Registered: Dec 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Roughly two seconds, the board has a search function.
quote:My point is, that God was in total control of the Abraham/Isaac situation.
And my point is, that doesn't matter. Of course Abraham is going to follow the orders of a god who is well known for massacring people who don't; devotion has nothing to do with it. Playing games like that is evil.
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
Blayne Bradley
unregistered
posted
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade:
quote:Originally posted by King of Men:
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade: edit: Say you saw a man fire a bullet from a gun at the head of a man 50 feet away and he managed to dash after the bullet and stop it after 10 feet, leaving 40 feet of space to spare. If he then repeated the feat and each time let the bullet travel 10 feet further. When he finally stopped the bullet a millimeter before it entered the man's head would you question his control over the situation?
In the first place, no such sequence occurs in Isaac. In the second place, sod the control, playing such games with human lives is evil whether or not you have the skill to minimise accidents.
My point is, that God was in total control of the Abraham/Isaac situation. The event was planned out and executed exactly as God intended it to play out. There was not a last second change of plans. God wasn't playing games with Abraham, he presented an obstacle that allowed Abraham to learn for himself just how resolved he was to be faithful and with the obstacle came the opportunity to obtain a blessing nobody has ever been given since then. The situation is also a striking illustration of what God himself would do down the road hundreds of years later. The whole situation had multiple positive applications.
And how do we know that? The Bible, the stories, everything could be an elaborate play by an omnipotent critin whose only goal is to get giggles from tormenting us.
Seriously put anyone in the position of a god and it turns into much lessa bout benelovent parenhood and much much more about target practice.
IP: Logged |
posted
KoM, if your point is that it doesn't matter that God was in control of the situation, you probably shouldn't have suggested otherwise, at least initially.
Furthermore, I am not convinced that it is evil to play games like that if you are willing to be sacrificed yourself*.
*Which, according to many Christian traditions, is precisely what would happen to God years later, and under much more brutal circumstances.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by King of Men: Roughly two seconds, the board has a search function.
quote:My point is, that God was in total control of the Abraham/Isaac situation.
And my point is, that doesn't matter. Of course Abraham is going to follow the orders of a god who is well known for massacring people who don't; devotion has nothing to do with it. Playing games like that is evil.
Yes yes it all makes sense now. Abraham after being given what he wanted more than anything else, (an heir) at the age of 100 years old decided to snuff out his son so as to preserve his life a few more years.
Abraham does not seem to have been pissed off in the wake of this experience. Why are you offended on his behalf? Is it really evil for our creator to ask that we love Him more than any other living being? edit: Assuming of course that he has our best interests at heart.
Lastly by Abraham's time the only time God had killed anybody was with the great flood, and according to God that only happened because everyone in the world was in a state of constant warfare and hatred abounded. It had nothing to do with following orders.
Blayne: I don't understand what you are getting at. I of course agree that if fallible human beings are given omnipotence they would certainly abuse that power in some way or other.
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh: Furthermore, I am not convinced that it is evil to play games like that if you are willing to be sacrificed yourself*.
*Which, according to many Christian traditions, is precisely what would happen to God years later, and under much more brutal circumstances.
Well, if one is to consider becoming an omnipotent god (or merging...or reverting) a sacrifice, then your point would be correct.
Posts: 3852 | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged |
Yes yes it all makes sense now. Abraham after being given what he wanted more than anything else, (an heir) at the age of 100 years old decided to snuff out his son so as to preserve his life a few more years.[/quote]
Not to mention keeping himself out of hell for all of eternity.
quote:Abraham does not seem to have been pissed off in the wake of this experience. Why are you offended on his behalf? Is it really evil for our creator to ask that we love Him more than any other living being?
Well, yes, actually I think it is. Love is not under rational control. If you have children, will you (without whom they would not exist) demand that they love you more than their spouses and children? I would call that evil; I see no reason to apply any other standard to your god. As for Abraham, he did not write those chapters himself; I am disinclined to trust what the Hebrew propagandists wrote about what he felt after that nasty little trick.
quote:Blayne: I don't understand what you are getting at. I of course agree that if fallible human beings are given omnipotence they would certainly abuse that power in some way or other.
And the assumption that your god is infallible (in this case, infallibly good) is - precisely what we are discussing. So perhaps you should dial back that assumption and argue from the facts on the ground.
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:And the assumption that your god is infallible (in this case, infallibly good) is - precisely what we are discussing. So perhaps you should dial back that assumption and argue from the facts on the ground.
Your continued insistence on this point is missing the point being made by others, KoM.
You and several others have presented a line of argument essentially like this:
1. God did X. 2. Beings who do X are bad. 3. Therefore God is bad."
People have responded by pointing out explanations of why beings who do X, when done by a particular type of being in particular situations, are not bad.
In other words, they are disagreeing with statement 2 above, not statement 3.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Well, if one is to consider becoming an omnipotent god (or merging...or reverting) a sacrifice, then your point would be correct.
Heh, well given that according to most Christian traditions, Isaac would have died and been transported to Heaven where he would be in eternal paradise.
So no, Isaac would not have to become God after dying for God not to have been evil to demand such a sacrifice of Abraham.
Isaac: swift death at the blade of a sharp knife Jesus: slow death after days of torment and ridicule
Seriously, Javert, you're stretching. God was not demanding anything of Abraham He was not willing to endure himself.
-------
KoM,
quote:Not to mention keeping himself out of hell for all of eternity.
According to some Christian traditions, yes.
quote:As for Abraham, he did not write those chapters himself; I am disinclined to trust what the Hebrew propagandists wrote about what he felt after that nasty little trick.
Weren't you just criticizing people for circular reasoning?
Pot, kettle. You're including the assumption that it was 'propagandists' who would lie who wrote those chapters as a key portion of your reasoning.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
"Seriously, Javert, you're stretching. God was not demanding anything of Abraham He was not willing to endure himself."
Sorry Rakeesh, but it's only equal if Isaac got to be god after death.
And not that I want to turn this into an argument about little issues, but as far as 'slow deaths' go, historically and modern, Jesus got off pretty light.
Posts: 3852 | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged |
You're seriously nitpicking here. If Isaac were sacrificed, eternal bliss after his quick death. The only point I was making before is that God was not asking of Abraham anything He wouldn't endure later, i.e. sacrificing his son.
Quibble all you like, but that remains true within the confines of the story. You're being ridiculous to assert otherwise. Abraham would have been reunited with his son in Heaven after Abraham died anyway, had God insisted Abraham do it.
So it's pretty strange to hear you say you don't want to turn it into an argument about little issues, and then go right ahead and make an argument about a very little issue.
Which wasn't relevant to what I said anyway. I was comparing the death of Jesus to the potential sacrifical death of Isaac. 'Slow' is the obvious comparative word to choose there, man.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
What Abraham wanted was not so much a son, as to be the progenitor of a people who would become numerous in the land. In other words, he wanted grandchildren. He is still giving that up.
quote:People have responded by pointing out explanations of why beings who do X, when done by a particular type of being in particular situations, are not bad.
Granted, but BlackBlade's explanation does rather hinge on the prior assumption that his god is in fact infallibly good, which kind of spoils the point.
quote:Pot, kettle. You're including the assumption that it was 'propagandists' who would lie who wrote those chapters as a key portion of your reasoning.
I'm saying that BlackBlade doesn't know any more about what Abraham felt than I do; therefore I am justified in assuming that Abraham would react as an ordinary human who has been played passive-aggressive "prove your loyalty" games with, namely, pissed.
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:I'm saying that BlackBlade doesn't know any more about what Abraham felt than I do; therefore I am justified in assuming that Abraham would react as an ordinary human who has been played passive-aggressive "prove your loyalty" games with, namely, pissed.
I admit I'm puzzled by your claim of equal knowledge of what Abraham might have felt compared to people who actually share Abraham's faith*. I mean, in the story Abraham was obviously a very faithful man. You're virulently anti-religious. I could just as well claim to understand the likely thought processes of a rutabaga as well as a turnip would, as you could Abraham.
*I recognize that there are a great many people in the world who can sincerely claim to share Abraham's specific faith, given his position as the 'father' of numerous religions.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
I do not think there is any meaningful sense in which you, or anyone else alive today, can say that they share the faith of a man who, if he existed at all, died four thousand years ago.
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:I do not think there is any meaningful sense in which you, or anyone else alive today, can say that they share the faith of a man who, if he existed at all, died four thousand years ago.
I am not saying that people of the faiths Abraham founded all share his precise faith. I'm rejecting your claim of equal uncertainty.
Hypothetically, you may of course be right. But if Abraham did exist, and did have faith of a sort as we are taught, then given your hatred* towards religious people, you can hardly claim to guess at his motives as well as someone who shares his faith.
Lots of ifs, yes. But then again that's what this whole silly conversation is founded on.
*Yes, I said 'hatred'. You may very well say you don't hate religious people, in which case I obviously disagree, but that would be a long drawn out discussion that goes nowhere and has been had before several times.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Well, if you really think you have a better claim to read the mind of a man four thousand years dead, an illiterate who had never seen anything written down, a sheep-herder who thought thunder was caused by a god, based on nothing more than that you both believe in something supernatural, then I wish you much joy of it. I don't agree, though. If anything you are more likely to be wrong, just from overlaying your own religious patterns of thought on a man whose religion had absolutely no room for mercy or love.
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
I shouldn't be surprised that you weren't listening, but I am, kinda.
I didn't claim to be able to read his mind, or guess his thoughts, I claimed that someone who shared something similar to his faith could be assumed to do so better than you.
Heh, and you bear me out by the last sentence in your post just now. If Abraham's religion had no room for mercy or love, the story would never have been told at all. It would be irrelevant.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
By the way I apologize for the bad timing with this thread for those of you who celebrated Easter this Sunday. I didn't realize this was a religious weekend and I dislike greeting you all with this thread.
Posts: 722 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:I didn't claim to be able to read his mind, or guess his thoughts, I claimed that someone who shared something similar to his faith could be assumed to do so better than you.
And I disagreed. Would you like to offer something new to the conversation, or shall we leave it there?
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Rakeesh, What I meant was that Mormonism teaches that God IS omnipotent. For application to this earth, He knows all there is to know about it and everything relative to it. As a God, yes, He could still be learning, but not where we're concerned.
Juxtapose, Of course you’re free to live your life the way you see fit. No one’s holding a gun to your head. And I can’t condemn anyone for that.
And to Rakeesh and Juxtapose both, I said in my last post (if you’d have read the whole thing): “I suggest that people won’t truly know whether God’s good or not until they put their own faith on the line by exercising their free-agency and stop relying on other’s opinions, theories, or on weak human rationalization and weak human science to point their way through life.” In other words, everyone’s got to find out ON THEIR OWN, FOR THEMSELVES and in the end they can’t rely on anyone else’s opinion, belief, etc. No one or no thing is going to convince them unless they come to their own conclusion through their own independent search for knowledge. Perhaps put religion to the test, not to point out flaws in scripture or to scoff at the whole thing, but by honestly and truthfully seeking the answer to the debate. Of course, if Christianity is wrong, or any other established religion, then what’s the problem? Those people (not the militant extremists the news is so fond of portraying, but the honest worshipers who try to live as best they can) will invariably lead a better life than someone who lives an unstructured, chaotic life. Such a perspective is more appealing to me than someone who has no direction or higher purpose. And if the agnostics or atheists are wrong… we’ll just have to see, eh?
King of Men, No, I’m not “trying to make an end run and going in a circle”. It’s my belief, my knowledge, based on my own personal experiences that are further augmented by scriptural knowledge, study and prayer. It’s the same as if anyone else were to share about what they know, etc. Would you rather everyone speak about things they don’t know about? I certainly couldn’t speak about quantum physics…
Javert, I’ve friends who are atheistic or agnostic in belief. And although I can understand their disbelief in God, I don’t understand why, when posed with the ability to search further, they simply close up and claim that a belief in a God is ‘illogical’, ‘foolish’, ‘stupid’, etc. There are many, many examples and parallels that can be drawn to any subject you talk about. By all means, go ahead and list, it still doesn’t change the validity of my statement.
I sincerely doubt that mankind, in its current instability, will be able to puzzle out the vast nuggets of knowledge that exist within the cosmos. They may find a portion, but invariably, their lives burn out well before they scrape the surface of deeper knowledge that I believe God does posess. It’s perfectly logical, reasonable, and sane to believe in a God for those who believe in it. To dismiss someone’s belief simply because that individual is ignorant of what another knows is what’s illogical, unreasonable and insane. I cannot convince an atheist, Hindu, etc. of my beliefs just as they cannot convince me of theirs. But at least we can be open and talk about our beliefs without hostility or ridicule. I’m not trying to dismiss atheism or agnosticism, or any other religious belief. I’m simply expressing what I think on the matter of whether God is good; in which I said that I felt the key factor is human fallibility in their unwise execution of agency. These are just my beliefs and opinions anyway. Answer me this, why do atheists and religion have to be so hostile?
Posts: 42 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:I certainly couldn’t speak about quantum physics…
Not to speak for KoM, but I suspect that he'd assert that you couldn't speak about God, either. And probably that you know more about quantum physics than you do about the Creator.
quote:It’s perfectly logical, reasonable, and sane to believe in a God for those who believe in it.
More accurately, those who believe in God generally believe that their belief is logical, reasonable, and sane.
quote:Answer me this, why do atheists and religion have to be so hostile?
I wouldn't say that atheists are hostile to religion. They just think religion is largely made up of manipulative lies and self-delusion, and there aren't many polite ways to put that. In return, I think that tends to make believers hostile to atheists.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
