religious debate

[Guest]

That's no tactic. I seriously thought you were not calm. lol. my mistake.. sorry.

Those are the defintions of faith that I believe in.

I'd like to know more about Buddism, just out of curiosity, if you'd like to share.

I'm finished with the faith discussion, even though I did receive some input on it. Unless you all would like me to keep on going with it... then I will only explain why I feel that way about faith...

see ya

[Guest]

Ok. I'm new here. As you can tell, this is my first post. Anyway... let's get to the point:

I'm a Theist.

I believe in the "Big Bang," "Macro (and of course micro) Evolution," and pretty much anything else you throw at me.

I like debating.

Now that we have that straight... I haven't taken the time to read this whole thread, but I have read page 41 and 42, and what jumps out is the discussion of faith. I see that the issue of faith has been resolved, but it can still be confusing as to which definition of "faith" is meant. I suggest we put "faith" in all caps (FAITH) when we refer to the faith in God, and all the theology stuff, and lowercase when we refer to faith in general. How's that sound?

On the topic of God's gender, I agree with Sharpie on that one. God is not human, therefore he does not have a gender. We call God a "Him" because that is what we have heard our whole life. When the Bible says "mankind," it technically means "humankind," but that's just how it was translated.

Now. Let's get to the real stuff. What is one argument that you propose against theology?

While I was writing this, some more people have posted... so I'll respond to those in a second.

[Guest]

"God created man in His own image, in the image of God He created him; male and female He created them." (Gen 1:27)

As for Jesus:

"For God so loved the world, that He gave His only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in Him should not perish, but have everlasting life" (John 3:16).

But then again, God isn't human, so he doesn't really have a gender. . . . . But if he was. . . . ^

yes but this was written by a man. If it had been written by a women it would say she. and all over the bible it puts the man first and places him as an immortal figure while women are placed as the destroyers of the earth. its sexist.

[Guest]

[Moderator hat on/]

I explained earlier in this thread that the main topic has become a debate on whether or not evidence exists for God/gods. It's been going well since then until recently. Let's stick to one topic and not have several different debates occurring at once. If anyone wants to discuss specific aspects of Hell, sexism in the Bible, Buddhism, etc. start another thread specifically outlining what you'd like to discuss.

[/Moderator hat off]

[Guest]

If anyone wants to discuss specific aspects of Hell, sexism in the Bible, Buddhism, etc. start another thread specifically outlining what you'd like to discuss.

Probably a good idea. I agree it's become a bit chaotic here lately, and I'm certainly guilty of contributing to that. I started a new thread to continue the discussion about hell, if anyone's interested.

[Guest]

Don't you think that believing the above statement is hate-filled, nonsensical and/or unforgiving and hence it is not compassionate and therefore should not be preached by any religious organization?

Personally, I have a huge moral problem with the idea that Hell exists, that this idea is heavily preached and that people actually believe it. I believe it to be religious terrorism forcing people to do and believe out of fear. I also believe it to be in direct contrast with the moral goodness I'd expect people of faith to derive from their religion.

I understand your response here. I am a Christian but am so disappointed when the "hell card" is played, so to speak! No one should believe out of fear. I personally feel that it would be impossible. I feel we must serve out of love, not fear. I have no definite belief in hell one way or the other because I don't need to believe in it one way or the other. As a Christian, I have been taught that I am not to judge another and deem them condemned to hell or anything else. In trying to give the benefit of the doubt to those Christians who speak of others going to hell, I am hoping that there is a concern for that person's everlasting life. I hope it's not one of those things like we all heard our mother's say....you just wait until your daddy gets home.

The truth of the matter here is that many books have been written "proving" both sides of this coin with "absolute" proof of their claim in re God or no God. I do believe in God and do believe that when all this is said and done in this old world, I will look around and see faces of all walks of life and beliefs...or non beliefs. I trust that their will be a judging of the heart. When that day comes, we can all sit around and laugh about these discussions because NONE of us are going to be right. What a hoot!

[Guest]

I trust that their will be a judging of the heart. When that day comes, we can all sit around and laugh about these discussions because NONE of us are going to be right. What a hoot!

it makes me really happy to hear you say this.

especially after the hundreds of times I've heard people tell me I'm going to go to hell for my beliefs

[Guest]

i believe in science and the bible. My 2 best friends are athiest, i dont discriminate for anything, race, gender, or religion. That is one of the reasonss i love the neternet u dont no those things. Is the big bang real? can the bible be explained with science?

[Guest]

There is nothing to debate any more. To each their own Religion. Peace y'all.

Is peace better than truth? Perhaps that's a topic for another thread, but it seems to me that an understanding of our origin will certainly influence our future, and an honest and level-headed discussion of the evidence and corresponding reasoning can only be beneficial. I think Marx, Dawkins, and other outspoken atheists are logically correct to assert that, if there really is no God (or even if there is one, but it has absolutely no interaction with the universe), then religion is not only valueless, but detrimental. How could it possibly benefit humanity in the long term to defend and propagate a delusion? On the other hand, if there is a God that has provided instruction for humans, then disregarding such an authority would be similarly delusional and detrimental, and perhaps even more so, if one considers the possibility of life after death. In either case, the search for truth does not end when one has reached a conclusion regarding the existence of God, but it seems like a pretty logical place to start.

We all understand that tolerance is critical regardless of which side you stand on. Both religious and atheistic governments have been guilty of intolerantly imposing their will on people, resulting in tremendous suffering and bloodshed. If forcing belief upon others doesn't work, can consensus be reached through dialog or education? If history is any guide, no. There have always been those who ignore evidence or misinterpret it to conform to their own thinking. Sometimes this is done in naivety; sometimes it's willful denial. To a degree, this is natural. We all tend to believe what we want to, and to see the world around us through the glasses of our choice. Anyone who thinks he has objectivity down pat is fooling himself. But I really do believe that a person who is sincerely interested in knowing truth is obligated to investigate. So, while debating the existence of God may slightly disturb the peace, I'd have to conclude it's worthwhile, provided it's done with appropriate tolerance and respect.

[Guest]

The search for truth will remain a mystery involving religion. Its like trying to determine how something happened when it already has without evidence other than hear-say of what happened without credible existing sources. How many groups have made up stories and taken credit for having something that they did not truly have or experience to make them "more" than what they truly are? I believe that there were many ideas of creation around the time of Jesus's birth and what better way for glorifying one group but to give him the title.. "son of god". Its like playing the secret password game. When you involve a comment or story through hundreds or thousands of people, the end result is something manipulated over time and not initially what was presented.

Where would government stand without religion tho? What would be determined morally right without God's eyes? "In God We Trust" When are we going to re-evaluate our options?

[Guest]

Where would government stand without religion tho? What would be determined morally right without God's eyes? "In God We Trust" When are we going to re-evaluate our options?

"Religion is considered by the common people as true, by the wise as false, and by rulers as useful." - Seneca

[Guest]

"Religion is considered by the common people as true, by the wise as false, and by rulers as useful." - Seneca

Good quote. Now what? Things will never change so is it hopeless to search for answers when even the answers cannot bring change? Some will spend their entire lives in a religious debate. So when this thread reaches PAGE 1,465,110.. I think we will still be at a fresh beginning.

[unreality]

We have little hope of specifically convincing the people we argue against... but many people may read this thread, and see the stuff we're saying, and realize things they might not have even considered before, even if they don't post... we try to help as much as we can

[Guest]

Where would government stand without religion tho? What would be determined morally right without God's eyes? "In God We Trust" When are we going to re-evaluate our options?

You don't need the guidence of a god to tell right from wrong

We Athiests have no more trouble making moral decisions than you do

but many people may read this thread, and see the stuff we're saying, and realize things they might not have even considered before,

I know I have

[Guest]

You don't need the guidence of a god to tell right from wrong

We Athiests have no more trouble making moral decisions than you do

I know I have

I think you misunderstood the meaning of what I was saying. The "guidance from god" to tell you right from wrong is what we (as humans) base morality on and what govern the majority of our laws. I agree that you don't need god to tell right from wrong but now that we both know that, Athiests and whatever I am, now try to re-write right from wrong without legs to stand on regarding only what you may believe is right.

I'm not sure who you are defining regarding the "more trouble making moral decisions than you do" as it is news to me that decisions is made by class. Its not that you can make a moral decision, but really, what the government says you are allowed to make.

[Guest]

Okay, I see what you mean

like the argument over gay marriage

even without saying "god says it's wrong" you could still argue that it's against tradition

I think I understand

I said, "no more trouble" not "more trouble"

I'm not sure if that clears anything up

[Guest]

Okay, I see what you mean

like the argument over gay marriage

even without saying "god says it's wrong" you could still argue that it's against tradition

I think I understand

I said, "no more trouble" not "more trouble"

I'm not sure if that clears anything up

Its not that "gay marriage" is wrong, just not logical. You're satisfying a desire to be happy by including the untraditional. If people have to be "married" to be happy then so be it, but thats like saying that once you're married you stop desiring others. Marriage is not logical and goes against human impulse. We speak of freedom but who that is married feels 100% free? Maybe some of us are more "animal" than others.

I'm just talking logically from a 50,000 ft. view-point without including my own opinion and not having a stand in any direction of right and wrong with one foot in each and looking at the merge of where it becomes an idea to think that way. Judging it as only an idea and figuring out why it came to be.

I understand what you meant about "no more trouble" but its not really any more trouble than one person makes it regardless of belief. That is the only reason I kinda caught that in that way. I know what you mean tho.

[unreality]

There are no absolute morals, no good and evil, etc. We as animals do what we do to survive and keep surviving... to live and keep living... we do everything to get satisfaction which is doled to us from our own brains... all of these functions which have evolved to further the continued survival of our species. Morals don't fit into the picture... but some governments definitely get some of their morals from religious texts. However most are common sense, since we as people (advanced animals) are altruistic, we like to help others, not just ourselves. So things like murder- sometimes we see them as a bad thing, but sometimes a good thing. We've had wars for thousands of years. Monkeys have wars, too- at least they murder each other sometimes. What I'm saying is, laws are made by what the government feels as common sense of what is commonly accepted... and thus some of this can derive from what religions say, but what the religions say is what's also commonly accepted, know what I mean? So it doesn't matter, the laws would be the same either way- the laws are made to please the people. And nobody wants to be murderered- thus, that law. See?

[Guest]

Its not that "gay marriage" is wrong, just not logical. You're satisfying a desire to be happy by including the untraditional. If people have to be "married" to be happy then so be it, but thats like saying that once you're married you stop desiring others. Marriage is not logical and goes against human impulse. We speak of freedom but who that is married feels 100% free? Maybe some of us are more "animal" than others.

I'm just talking logically from a 50,000 ft. view-point without including my own opinion and not having a stand in any direction of right and wrong with one foot in each and looking at the merge of where it becomes an idea to think that way. Judging it as only an idea and figuring out why it came to be.

I understand what you meant about "no more trouble" but its not really any more trouble than one person makes it regardless of belief. That is the only reason I kinda caught that in that way. I know what you mean tho.

oh, I was using the "gay marriage" just as an example

not actually based on your personal beliefs.

[Guest]

God and religion are absolutely unnecessary for morality. This is made very clear by the fact that even people who profess a certain faith disregard aspects of that faith. For example, there are many things that the Bible states that most Christians ignore. It would be hard to get a Christian to argue that women really are inferior to men (hopefully), or that slavery is ok, or that someone who renounces their faith should be executed. The Bible states all of these things, but (again, hopefully) most Christians would say these things are not morally right. To be able to say that some things in the Bible are morally right and some are morally wrong, when all of it is purported to be the word of God demonstrates that there is a criterion independent of God and religion for determining morality. If an outside criterion exists, it follows that we can cut out the middleman, and use our own sense of reason to determine what is right and what is wrong.

[Guest]

After 25+ years of scientific study and research, I find no plausible reason for the existence of the universe BUT for the will of God. Sorry, I didn't read all 45 pages of this topic, so if this is repetitive, please forgive me.

I can not come to believe that the cosmos flew into existence from some quantum singularity for any reason except that God willed it so. I'm cool with the big bang, but WHY did it happen? It is certainly an "extraordinary claim" to attempt to quantify the extent of the universe. And even more extraordinary to assert its origin from a quantum singularity. Yet I concede that common ground with my atheist friends without proof. But why did it happen? Pondering that question has established my faith in a Creator. I can live without proof, but not without faith.

I'll be happy to hear the explanations of the atheists as to what "triggered" the big bang. [but I warn you, I'll just ask you to explain what triggered the trigger.] So I proffer my post simply for the fun of a healthy, respectful, intellectual discourse. Peace!

[Guest]

Your logic defeats itself, though. To say that God must exist because "something had to trigger the trigger" is illogical, because the existence of a creator necessarily begs the question "what created the creator?" You can't argue that a universe can't form on its own (Big Bang), and say that because of that, a "God" must exist, without something creating it. It's just silly.

[Guest]

Your logic defeats itself, though. To say that God must exist because "something had to trigger the trigger" is illogical, because the existence of a creator necessarily begs the question "what created the creator?" You can't argue that a universe can't form on its own (Big Bang), and say that because of that, a "God" must exist, without something creating it. It's just silly.

I understand that argument, and it's obviously at the heart of the assertion that positing a God is an extraordinary claim. However, using that logic, aren't both sides making an equally illogical claim? According to the theist, there must be something which got it all started. That it all happened on its own without any cause whatsoever seems impossible, certainly an extraordinary claim which would require support. According to the atheist, suggesting that there needs to be a creator begs the question of the creator's existence, and thus doesn't stand up to logical scrutiny. The problem is that the atheist hasn't provided any better solution to the "How did it start?" enigma. He uses a trivial piece of logic to shoot down the opposing theory, without offering anything in its place. Unfortunately, anything he suggests (e.g., everything was always here) suffers the same logical flaws as the existence of an uncreated First Cause. It still doesn't answer the question.

So, if neither a creator nor an eternally existing universe (a particularly difficult proposition in view of the Big Bang) is logically viable on its own, then we have to choose which is the more likely explanation based on what we can observe. This is where we typically get into the questions about apparent intelligent design in nature, the finely-tuned nature of the universe, etc. Those are far more worthy topics to base one's conclusion on than a weak philosophical assertion which has no explanatory merit of its own.

Incidentally, it's nice to see new voices on the thread. It's been stagnant for a while, but there are still some loose ends that I would like to discuss when I have time.

[itachi-san]

If this has been posted ...sorry. I have a quick question for the theists out there:

How do you explain infant death?

[Guest]

If this has been posted ...sorry. I have a quick question for the theists out there:

How do you explain infant death?

Not sure what the question is, but I think different religions will provide different answers, depending on whether or not they think God determines the time of death. I don't believe God chooses for people to die, so asking why infants die is similar to asking why my dog got hit by a truck. Infants die for the same reason adults and animals die. Their body fails, either due to something external (car accident) or to a defect (sudden-infant-death-syndrome). Can you explain exactly what you're asking?