[Guest]

After reading though some of the other discussions and debates, ie. Religious debate, War Club sign up, and Athiest discussion, I feel that the concept of theism is misrepressented on this site.

I would like a thread were people can ask questions and talk about theism, and calmly explain why they believe the way they do.

Its a gross misinterpetation that religous people are ignorant and that they dont believe in science and reasoning.

Anyone can post, but in this thread but I would like to keep to the assumption that there is a god, regardless of who you think he/she/it is. The purpose of this is not to argue over the existence of something that can neither be proven nor disproven. Otherwise it will just turn into the religous debate part 2, and I dont think anyone wants that.

And we will define religion as a belief system, not neccissarily organized.

[Guest]

Right, I'm nto saying that this suffering disproves God, just that if there is all-loving God , and he is our father, then like a father even if his children go astray for whatever reason, should that love still be unconditional? And shouldn't God protect us from these ailments, being the all-powerful being that the Bible labels him to be?

And if this isn't true then I think the Bible is a bit hypocritical is thy say he's an all-loving God but he lets his children suffer.

If we are talking about the Christian God, then there are multiple rational Biblical reasons and examples for this suffering. If you want to hear about it let me know, we'll just talk outside of this thread because the answers dont really belong here.

[Guest]

but what are your feelings of good?

Think of "Good" as light, and "Evil" as darkness. Light is a property, Darkness however is merely the absence of light. Therefore, Evil is merely the absence of Good. This is why Jesus was called the "Light of the World" because in him there is no evil; and Satan is refered to as the "Prince of Darkness" because in him there is no Good.

This is also why Hell is a place of torment...because it is complete seperation from GOOD.

Edit: Darn! Impervious beat me to it!

Edited September 12, 2008 by puzzlegirl

[Guest]

If we are talking about the Christian God, then there are multiple rational Biblical reasons and examples for this suffering. If you want to hear about it let me know, we'll just talk outside of this thread because the answers don't really belong here.

I'm familiar with a good part of it. But me being me, and that being part cynic part sarcastic and part questioner...still thinks it to be a bit hypocritical. When I read into mythology though, that stuff makes more sense, the Gods did what they had to do for a reason and never claimed to be all loving. In fact a few of them were douche bags.

[unreality]

I get what you're saying and - dare I say - agree. ;D What confused me is that you didn't pose some sort of killer question that was going to wrack my brain and get me running for advil. What an unusual quandry to be in.

Hehe, yes my goal was to actually make a statement that theists would agree with

And I perfectly agree that everything is a balance, but 'good' and 'bad' and subjective phrases invented by people to assign to moral values... however I definitely think that the universe is in a balanced state, and that's how it's came to evolve. Matter and energy remain conserved, with equal amount of antimatter, so it all balances to exactly 0, all the time. That's the way I see it, in a way... and if you worshipped a deity where 'good' and 'bad' were objective, divine principles than it would make sense and would follow along with the universe to have an equal amount of good and bad. However, that's universally, and there could more bad than good on earth, or vice versa, but universally it would be equal since technically there would be infinite of both ("heaven" and "hell"), so it would balance out no matter how much 'goodness' or 'badness' was on earth. So if I was a theist I would understand the problem of evil. If I worshipped a god it could only be one that was like Yin-Yang, equal parts dark and light.

However 'dark' and 'light', 'good' and 'evil', etc, are all subjective which change based on your perspective. For example, it would be a tough thing to argue if there is more good or more badness on the Earth, because how do you define those values? You can't just say "Hmmm my Goodometer is telling me 450 points of goodness while my Badometer is reading about 379"

[Guest]

In Zen, there is the source, neither good nor evil. It is infinity and nothging, and also neither. Very illogical I know, but as soon as you try to describe the source with words or ideas, you have already put it out of context. From the source spawned the two opposites, hence yin and yang. and from the two opposites you have the ten thousand things (or the world as we see it). They believe that we as humans cannot define things without having an opposite to compare it to. Now for the delima...if God is the source, neither good nor evil, then why does hell and the devil represent evil and God and Heaven represent good??

According to the Zen belief, God would just be one of the opposites, leaving an even greater and mysterious whatchamacallit out there. Because of my Zen and Christian view point, I get conlficted over this b/c in Zen, your goal is to give up your attachment to the world and just be extinguished like a candle, into nothing, thereby doing away with the idea of good and evil, God and the devil. But with Christianity, the goal is to enter Heaven with God.

Now for my belief...I believe that God is the source and is both devil and Jesus (we'll just use Jesus as the good part of God here) and the devil's view of being seperate from God is that he did not want to return to the source, hence the people that supposedly go to hell just enjoy wordly things too much and don't want to go back. The Buddhists describe this as reincarnation, the Christians just take the impatient (and also Zen style ) of saying that you only get one shot in life, better make it count! Jesus on the other hand wants us all to follow his teachings and desire one thing in life, to return to the source...kinda the idea behind the soul if you will...a part of the source (God) that we pocess and must release b/c that is what the soul wants more than anything.

So in closing, I don't believe it's fair to say that God and the devil are the yin and yang...actually that God is both good and evil combined. If you were to take yin and yang and combine them into One, that would be God, or the source of all things. The devil simply wants all in existence to be seperate from God due to desire, and Jesus wants everything in existence to be one with God due to the only worthwhile desire. ( In a Theist's perspective anyway )

Does this make sense to anyone or am I just rambling on about combining Eastern and Western thought here...kinda like yin and yang!!

[Guest]

Right, I'm nto saying that this suffering disproves God, just that if there is all-loving God , and he is our father, then like a father even if his children go astray for whatever reason, should that love still be unconditional? And shouldn't God protect us from these ailments, being the all-powerful being that the Bible labels him to be?

And if this isn't true then I think the Bible is a bit hypocritical is thy say he's an all-loving God but he lets his children suffer.

The New Testament actually says the exact oposite. It says that if you believe in Jesus then to EXPECT suffering...that it comes with the territory (persecution and such.) God doesn't promise deliverance from all things yucky or un-fun, he tells us to be prepared because Sh*t happens.

Again, see my post about why God allows suffering...that it has nothing to do with his complete unconditional love for us.

[unreality]

dnae see my post #130, about balance in the universe

[Guest]

dnae see my post #130, about balance in the universe

Took me a while to type all that, before you guys started talking about yin and yang...I just don't agree with God being seen as the opposite to evil as a Theist.

[Guest]

Hehe, yes my goal was to actually make a statement that theists would agree with

You sly fox!

however I definitely think that the universe is in a balanced state, and that's how it's came to evolve.

I am curious to know how you think that the universe came to be in this balanced state? Is there something in science that explains how a "big bang" created perfect balance?

If I worshipped a god it could only be one that was like Yin-Yang, equal parts dark and light.

I think Dnae already mentioned about Jesus and Satan, so no need for me to go there. But, I will mention that the Bible says that in the end, good wins out! Hoorah! This is the cause of our hope, why life has meaning, why we can celebrate victory while we are still in the trenches.

"Hmmm my Goodometer is telling me 450 points of goodness while my Badometer is reading about 379"

Heehee!

[Guest]

However 'dark' and 'light', 'good' and 'evil', etc, are all subjective which change based on your perspective. For example, it would be a tough thing to argue if there is more good or more badness on the Earth, because how do you define those values? You can't just say "Hmmm my Goodometer is telling me 450 points of goodness while my Badometer is reading about 379"

Yay, my favorite argument:)

The subject of good and evil. It is definitely most subjective. I mean look at Hitler, he thought he was doing a good thing, whereas the rest of the world thought he was insane and evil.

[Guest]

Yay, my favorite argument:)

The subject of good and evil. It is definitely most subjective. I mean look at Hitler, he thought he was doing a good thing, whereas the rest of the world thought he was insane and evil.

"For Satan himself masquerades as an angel of light" (2 Corinthians 11:14 - gosh, I'm quoting a lot from Corinthians today!)

[Guest]

"For Satan himself masquerades as an angel of light" (2 Corinthians 11:14 - gosh, I'm quoting a lot from Corinthians today!)

In my opinion, everyone's gotta do, what everyone's gotta do

BUT

The right to hit another ends at their nose

[unreality]

You sly fox!

you enchanting vixen ;D

Uh-oh let's not get into this again

I am curious to know how you think that the universe came to be in this balanced state? Is there something in science that explains how a "big bang" created perfect balance?

I'm not sure that I've ever said on this site that I bought fully into the 'big bang'. Obviously a lot of work has been done and such subjects and I think the "beginnings" of the universe is something beyond my grasp at this point. I think the term "beginning of the universe" is redundant since, if 'universe' is being used to describe EVERYTHING, then it has no beginning and no end. Though I could be completely wrong... like I said, I just have no clue, and don't pretend to

But what I do know is that the universe is definitely in a balanced state, always was, and always will be.

Think of it as a graph... a basic 2d graph to keep it simple. Say a line divides the graph longwise into an upper half and a lower half, exactly midway between. Now imagine a spiky line coming in from the left, going up and down with beautiful fractal fluidity (), but always staying above the center line. Now imagine another dot tracing a line beneath the central divider, exactly matching the image above. Say one is positive, the other is negative. They will always add to be 0. So there is always the same "net matter" in the universe IMO, and that number would be zero.

To be clear: ZERO, not NOTHINGNESS. At some point - and I'm not sure whether this point exists in the timeline or not - say the upper and lower parts are both exactly on the origin line. At this stage in the universe, there wouldn't be "nothing": it's hard to explain what I'm thinking right now lol, but it would be like the universe existing in the state of ultimate equilibrum (not just your everyday normal equilibrum ;D), a state of Zen I guess. Where everything is nothing and nothing is everything. Perhaps both lines jump away from this point, and this is called the "Big Bang".

You may think I'm a hypocrite for all this philosophy without empirical evidence, but it differs because:

1) I don't follow this religiously. In fact, I just made up a lot of it just now lol, though it was putting various scattered thoughts from my life into a description

2) I do have evidence - and that's the world around us. It is in perfect balance now, and between one second and the next, what's the difference? It's always in perfect balance, thus perhaps when both + and - are at 0, going outward from that is a big deal. Though I suspect, whether or not such 'equilibrum points' exist, the timeline goes forever in either direction

I think Dnae already mentioned about Jesus and Satan, so no need for me to go there. But, I will mention that the Bible says that in the end, good wins out! Hoorah! This is the cause of our hope, why life has meaning, why we can celebrate victory while we are still in the trenches.

Interesting. So you do think either "side" will "win"? I don't see this as some sort of "cosmic war" - more of two things complimenting each other, yin and yang. Neither side is able to win, since they both need each other. Neither side can have a higher value than the other, or it would throw the whole universe askew ;D

Yay, my favorite argument:)

The subject of good and evil. It is definitely most subjective. I mean look at Hitler, he thought he was doing a good thing, whereas the rest of the world thought he was insane and evil.

me too (see below post)

In my opinion, everyone's gotta do, what everyone's gotta do

BUT

The right to hit another ends at their nose

But who decides that right and where it ends? You just did Morality is also a favorite subject of mine. What matters is what is currently accepted by the society for the society's continued existence - everything's purpose is to further its own existence so as to enjoy its own existence ;D So from this simplicity, complexity emerges, like all things.

That would be morals between individuals and eventually societies. It is definitely subjective. What a primitive Amazon tribe considers right is probably different from our picture of right and wrong, but for them, that IS right and wrong. The society's morals and individuals' morals evolve together based on everyday interactions. Many years ago in the US, people with a different light-reflecting pigment gene were seen as lesser people, and it was commonly accepted. It was right - for most people. There are always people who's own morals have progressed differently from the society's - you might say "for better or for worse", but that's subjective

[Guest]

But who decides that right and where it ends? You just did Morality is also a favorite subject of mine. What matters is what is currently accepted by the society for the society's continued existence - everything's purpose is to further its own existence so as to enjoy its own existence ;D So from this simplicity, complexity emerges, like all things.

That would be morals between individuals and eventually societies. It is definitely subjective. What a primitive Amazon tribe considers right is probably different from our picture of right and wrong, but for them, that IS right and wrong. The society's morals and individuals' morals evolve together based on everyday interactions. Many years ago in the US, people with a different light-reflecting pigment gene were seen as lesser people, and it was commonly accepted. It was right - for most people. There are always people who's own morals have progressed differently from the society's - you might say "for better or for worse", but that's subjective

Touche'

I wish I still had access to my old online class, I had this response on the question of 'what is morality' my teacher told me he was literally LOLing while stiil concurring with my valid points.

If I can find it I'll repost it since we seemed to have gone from suffering to morality and balance

[Guest]

you enchanting vixen ;D Uh-oh let's not get into this again

yes, let's not, Mr. Abs. Last time I had a complete mental breakdown and had to take sabatical.

I think the term "beginning of the universe" is redundant since, if 'universe' is being used to describe EVERYTHING, then it has no beginning and no end. Though I could be completely wrong... like I said, I just have no clue, and don't pretend to

Now that is the sign of a truly intelligent man: one who can admit that he doesn't have all the answers.

But what I do know is that the universe is definitely in a balanced state, always was, and always will be.

How do you KNOW this? What evidence is there for this? I understand your graph analogy but that does not explain how you KNOW that the universe is DEFINITELY balanced. Has someone figuered out a way to create a universal seizmograph then travelled through time to measure it at all points of existance and greated such a graph? How can anyone DEFINITELY KNOW the ultimate state of the universe unless they can span the both the universe and time and have some quantitative way to measure such a thing. Oh wait...I know someone who knows...his name is GOD! If science can prove that the universe was, is and always shall be "balnaced" then it has just proven God. And what force is it that you think makes the universe continue in this balanced state? Does it somehow generate it's own force? From what? Oh wait...I know...an Intelligent Designer!

I think you see what I'm getting at so I won't drone on.

Think of it as a graph... a basic 2d graph to keep it simple. Say a line divides the graph longwise into an upper half and a lower half, exactly midway between. Now imagine a spiky line coming in from the left, going up and down with beautiful fractal fluidity (), but always staying above the center line. Now imagine another dot tracing a line beneath the central divider, exactly matching the image above. Say one is positive, the other is negative. They will always add to be 0. So there is always the same "net matter" in the universe IMO, and that number would be zero.

it would be like the universe existing in the state of ultimate equilibrum (not just your everyday normal equilibrum ;D), a state of Zen I guess. Where everything is nothing and nothing is everything. Perhaps both lines jump away from this point, and this is called the "Big Bang"

Did you ever consider that this everything and nothingness that banged together was GOD?

You may think I'm a hypocrite for all this philosophy without empirical evidence

No, I think you are a seeker of truth and that you have not yet found it because it does not exist completely in the sources you're relying on.

Interesting. So you do think either "side" will "win"? I don't see this as some sort of "cosmic war"

Interesting. That is EXACTLY how the Bible describes it: a spiritual battle waging war for our souls. See the entire book of Revelations for one heck of a cosmic battle!

[unreality]

Now that is the sign of a truly intelligent man: one who can admit that he doesn't have all the answers.

Thanks Admitting you do not know is infinitely better to assigning the name "God" to all the unknowns, which is basically what you do in the following paragraph:

How do you KNOW this? What evidence is there for this? I understand your graph analogy but that does not explain how you KNOW that the universe is DEFINITELY balanced. Has someone figuered out a way to create a universal seizmograph then travelled through time to measure it at all points of existance and greated such a graph? How can anyone DEFINITELY KNOW the ultimate state of the universe unless they can span the both the universe and time and have some quantitative way to measure such a thing. Oh wait...I know someone who knows...his name is GOD! If science can prove that the universe was, is and always shall be "balnaced" then it has just proven God. And what force is it that you think makes the universe continue in this balanced state? Does it somehow generate it's own force? From what? Oh wait...I know...an Intelligent Designer!

I think you see what I'm getting at so I won't drone on.

About evidence for it, it's already been proven. Matter/energy is not created or destroyed. There is antimatter, with reverse charges. Positive and negative seek each other out to reach neutral charges in atoms. I don't need to prove anything; the Universe is balanced, it's essentially a fact. If it wasn't, we wouldn't be here right now

Did you ever consider that this everything and nothingness that banged together was GOD?

Nope. What about the Flying Spaghetti Monster? Sorry but I don't think anyone believed in a deity because of an abstract example using a semi-2d graph. It's much better to admit you don't know rather than to pull out the ol' God of the Gaps

No, I think you are a seeker of truth and that you have not yet found it because it does not exist completely in the sources you're relying on.

On the contrary, I think I've found the truth. The truth that fits everything, and the truth for truth's sake. The Truth has nothing to do with what I want. The truth doesn't care about anything, it just IS. No one religion can be 'the truth'

Interesting. That is EXACTLY how the Bible describes it: a spiritual battle waging war for our souls. See the entire book of Revelations for one heck of a cosmic battle!

Then I frown on that. Is there a war between yin and yang? No. Is there a war between electrons and protons? No. Positrons and electrons? Protons and anti-protons? No, no. The universal law is that opposites attract. and thus neutralize each other - it's always about reaching neutrality, or equilibrum.... they don't fight it out in some "epic divine battle". The two forces I'm talking about here aren't good or bad, dark or light, they represent values we can't really fathom. I mean, what's the difference between matter and antimatter if they're in their separate universes? Nothing. But they complete each other.

Anyway, this is off-topic. Back on topic please

One thing I was wondering about theists is your view on animal emotions.

*psst, before anyone says anything, I'll lose all respect for you if you say that animals don't have emotions* lol

[Guest]

ADParker, I know you can't please everyone, but I found the picture you inserted to be very offensive and unnecissary. Just to answer your question.

'If you don't wish to answer my questions, then don't, no biggie. By the way; what exactly was it that you found to be:

1. "Atheistic Propaganda"

I'll try to keep quiet about things like this from now on, because you do have just as much of a right to post here as anyone else. But for the sake of the discussion, lets not get in a religious debate.

Um; that was answering my question?!

What was offensive about the picture? It was put in a humorous way (using a "(de)motivators" site which lets us make our own versions of those tiresome motivational posters you see around) but all it had was the "catch phrase" definition I have developed for what Faith means. So just an image (made months ago) describing what the word means. Do you disagree with the definition? Then by all means present a better one. Or does the fact that it is an image, which grabs attention offend you, don't you like that flaw (and Faith is a flaw) shown so prominently?

What is it with the Personal Offense card?!

[Guest]

t looks like we are on the topic of suffering right now and I think it has been explained very fairly. Human suffering does not eliminate the possibility of god, in many ways, it can support it. Does anyone have anything else to add to this or shall we move on?

Anything else? Sure - How on earth does human suffering support the possibility of gods?!

This smacks of an appeal to consequences Logical Fallacy.

What is it about people suffering that makes gods (or anything else for that matter) more likely to exist?

Attributing things to your chosen god might be of some comfort, it might make one feel better to believe that there is some divine purpose behind the pain and suffering in their lives and that it will all be for the best because you are the focus of that divine plan, but that in no way renders the thing you attribute it to any more plausible.

Comfort does not equal evidence! Comforting lies can be just as successful as truths.

Before anyone gets on their high horse again about atheist propaganda or anti-theism or some such rot; THIS HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH THE TRUTH VALUE OF THE GOD-HYPOITHESIS. It is about SLOPPY REASONING! Something everyone should be concerned and vigilant about.

It is that which leads to ridiculous and even deadly consequences if left to fester and spread. Things like Doctors strapping a bomb to their chest and walking into a crowded plane terminal in order to kill as many people as possible, all enabled by the Faith that he will be rewarded with 72 virgins after he survives his own death! (Having meticulously planned for this by carefully rapping his genitalia in a towel before embarking on his glorious mission )

Does it sadden anyone else that I didn't have to make that story up at all?

[Guest]

true. The idea of evil is a deterant (sp?), but what are your feelings of good? One cannot exisit without the other, which I might be wrong about. If you can look at something and say its good, then doesnt there have to be evil, or at least bad? If there were no evil, and no bad, then wouldnt everything be good, and we wouldnt even have the notion of the idea of good, it would be normal?

Ah the old one without the other claim.

No; of course there could be good without evil. It would be all good It would probably result in the word good being either discarded as redundant, or converted into something else (really really good for example - better that the ordinary good) but not the goodness itself.

Just like "atheism" would become entirely redundant (calm down; it is just a topic being discussed in my regular forum at the moment so it sprang to mind as a good analogy) if everyone were to become one. As "atheism" means without-theism. Kind of redundant if theism was no longer relevant to anything or anyone, it wouldn't exist. Rather like the word A-purple-people-eaterist (one who lacks a belief in purple people eaters) is redundant as everyone is one (I would hope.)

[unreality]

You don't believe in the magnificent Purple People Eaters?

[Guest]

No; of course there could be good without evil. It would be all good It would probably result in the word good being either discarded as redundant, or converted into something else (really really good for example - better that the ordinary good) but not the goodness itself.

...So you agree with the old one without the other?

[unreality]

He meant the LINGUISTIC WORD "good" would be redundant, not the actual concept

[Guest]

"Oh, and as for using faith to believe in the supernatural, that's like saying "I chose to believe in things that I not only don't understand but will not even try to understand (since I am confident that I will never be able to rationalise them)."

Yup. At some point we have to admit that we don't know it all and we are limited by our brains and our 3-dimentional environment. We are finite beings, God is infite...we will NEVER have the ability to fully grasp him as long as we are in our flesh. Personally, I would rather put my faith in someone that is infinately more intelligent than me, who spans existance as sees and knows all; than some other dude down here on the dirt who is finite as well...even Scott!

I haven't had a proper rant about the supernatural yet (I have about faith, so I'll let that lie).

What's wrong with the supernatural?

First we have to decide what the supernatural is. There are things that we cannot see or experience directly, which are still considered natural. Like magnetism for example. Why are other things considered supernatural? What is the distinction? The difference is that there is plenty of evidence for the existence of magnetism. We can see its effects and understand its nature.

Things such as ghosts, fairies and gods are supernatural because we cannot detect their existence. If you choose to believe in such things you can justify it by saying that they are intrinsically beyond science, rationality or any reliable observational methods. It saddens me that so many people are all too eager to take such a step, because by doing so you give up on understanding your reality. This is the mind-set that supports all superstition. For example there is no reason why breaking a mirror, or spilling salt, or the number 13, would bring you bad luck. Nor is there any empirical evidence to suggest that it does. If you prefer not to use reason and simply say "it's supernatural, it doesn't have to make sense", then you can believe this or any other nonsense that comes your way. By accepting the supernatural you lose the ability to differentiate between sense and nonsense.

Of course it may turn out that there really is more to reality than can be understood. In which case we are all equally blind, whether we choose to believe in the supernatural or not. If there were a powerful reason to think that this is the case, we may have to accept it, but what reason is there? In the absence of such a reason we can happily proceed on the assumption that all of reality can be understood, at least until we find that it can't. The alternative is irrationality and delusion.

I accept that there is an assumption involved. Consider the idea that all of your life is a dream from which you will wake up soon, and is therefore utterly inconsequential. For all I know that could be true, but I certainly will not start believing it. If you believe it, you lose the incentive to make the most of the life you have now. If it then turns out not to be true, you may have wasted your one chance to exist, for the sake of an unsubstantiated delusion. It is better to proceed on the assumption that life is not a dream, you have lost nothing even in the unlikely event that you are wrong.

In other words, you should live in the world you live in, rather than obsess over empty hypotheses about what else might exist.

Arguably that goes against the "theist" topic since traditionally God is considered to be supernatural. But if faced with strong evidence of God's existence my first inclination would be to consider God as a natural phenomenon and try to expand my understanding to see how God could exist in a world that still makes sense. It troubles me that so many people rush to embrace the concept of the supernatural, and in so doing abandon all hope of a world that makes sense.

[Guest]

What is it with the Personal Offense card?!

In my opinion, those who prominently display Bioinc stats obviously have very little self esteem and feel the need to boast in one form or another in order to conpensate for not their lack of social skills and quite likely, under-developed genetalia. But that's just a definition I came up with. I think I'll create a poster just to show you all how clever I am...I hope you won't find that inappropriate.

[Guest]

What is it with the Personal Offense card?!

In my opinion, those who prominently display Bioinc stats obviously have very little self esteem and feel the need to boast in one form or another in order to conpensate for their lack of social skills and quite likely, under-developed genetalia. But that's just a definition I came up with. I think I'll create a poster just to show you all how clever I am...I hope you won't find that inappropriate.

Edited September 13, 2008 by puzzlegirl