Poll

What's Your Religon?

Christian
24 (43.6%)
Judaism
3 (5.5%)
Buddhism
0 (0%)
Muslim
1 (1.8%)
Other (Please Explain)
9 (16.4%)
Atheist
18 (32.7%)

Total Members Voted: 55

Print

Author Topic: What's Your Religion?  (Read 128351 times)

« Reply #420 on: January 21, 2010, 10:42:56 PM »
What religion is backed by logical arguments?

« Reply #421 on: January 21, 2010, 11:08:39 PM »
The problem with such a loaded question: You view religion as being contrary and adverse to science, while we see science as an element of God's creation, therefore under religion and thus impossible to compare.
YYur  waYur n beYur you Yur plusYur instYur an Yur Yur whaYur

« Reply #422 on: January 22, 2010, 12:43:25 AM »
Why do you post in 2s?

Because editing is stupid.
Luigison: Question everything!
Me: Why?

WarpRattler

  • Paid by the word
« Reply #423 on: January 22, 2010, 02:08:42 AM »
Clearly you should make your whole post the first time instead of making posts you'd need to go back and add to a minute later. Editing isn't "stupid." You're just trying to excuse your own laziness, inability to think things through from the start, and/or love for postcount++.

TEM's post a few pages back (which obviously wasn't copy-pasted from elsewhere; it would've been easy to tell that if you paid any attention at all to TEM's writing style) was probably the most brilliant argument I've seen in this thread.

« Reply #424 on: January 22, 2010, 07:42:25 AM »
Clearly you should make your whole post the first time instead of making posts you'd need to go back and add to a minute later. Editing isn't "stupid." You're just trying to excuse your own laziness, inability to think things through from the start, and/or love for postcount++.

Lizard Dude has done this many times before and you get mad at me first? God[darn], you do worship him.
Luigison: Question everything!
Me: Why?

WarpRattler

  • Paid by the word
« Reply #425 on: January 22, 2010, 07:58:39 AM »
Lizard Dude doesn't feel the need to do this every single time he posts or make excuses for it.

Or quote posts right above him, for that matter. We can all look up a couple of inches, thank you.

There's some irony in someone who argues against religion in a religion thread saying "God[darn]" in said religion thread.

Koopaslaya

  • Kansas
« Reply #426 on: January 22, 2010, 11:25:21 AM »
Why There Can Never Be Conclusive Scientific Evidence of God's Existence

There can never be undeniable proof towards the existence of God (specifically the monotheistic Abrahamic God). The reason lies in the nature of free will and the story of Adam and Eve.

Also the question of "Why is there evil in the world, why does God allow it?" "Why do bad things happen to good people" etc., etc. is answered.

When God made the perfect land of Eden for his first humans to live in he inexplicably put in the middle of it all an evil, forbidden tree. Why? To instate free will into his humans.

God didn't want robots that loved him undeniably. If you create a creature that has no choice but to love you, does it really love you? The only way to truly love someone is it have the free will to choose to do so, otherwise it isn't a conscious choice, but just a robot following its programming.

So, God placed the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil into Eden so Adam and Eve wouldn't be ceaselessly loving automatons. God gave them the opportunity to screw up so they could make a conscious, free decision to obey and love him.

This is the nature of our world. God exists, but he let's injustice and evil to exist as well. He has put animalistic, tyrannical, sinful urges in us. God has done this so we can choose to hate him. So when we choose to love him it is a choice made by free will.

What does this have to do with there never being scientific proof of God?

If it were possible to prove God existed, we would all become automatons. If we saw or heard some kind of undeniable proof of God's existence we would love God without a choice. The mere knowledge of his for certain existence would strip  us of our free will to either hate or love God.

Discuss.

Warp, thanks for bringing my attention to this post. I'll try to be more brief this time and not use philosophical "jibbergabber."


TEM: I agree with much of your post. You make astute observations and good logical use of mythical, lesson-teaching stories. The last paragraph of argumentation, however, seems to suggest to me that knowledge necessitates action; that is,  if we know then we MUST act in accord with said knowledge. It is my belief that if an undeniable scientific proof of God is possible (and it very well might be), then people, while still believing, still might make sinful decisions. Knowledge of God's existence (or even, for that matter, absolute knowledge of God's will) is still indeed consistent with action against the divine will. How does this happen? The capacity for free will (which you readily acknowledge), might take to lower, temporal pleasures. Motion toward base things occurs when the rational part of the human being -- which very well might contain hard "facts,"like a proof of God's existence -- does not properly order the other parts of the human being. Passions, desires, and appetite, unchecked by will and even a reason which contains many hard facts can seize control of action.

Even with certain knowledge of things, action contrary to that knowing is possible because apparent goods carry a particularly strong pleasurable nature to them. The problem is that this pleasure is disordered.

In conclusion, most of the post is very good. It simply does not follow, however, that knowledge of God necessitates action which is always in accord with the divine mind. If there is an absolute, undeniable proof God, it is is still very possible that man could choose to act against what God would want.
Εὐθύνατε τὴν ὁδὸν Κυρίου

« Reply #427 on: January 22, 2010, 11:56:32 AM »
There's some irony in someone who argues against religion in a religion thread saying "God[darn]" in said religion thread.

How so? People who aren't religious say "god[darn]" all the time.

Also, **** your rules. Who cares if people post twice in a row, quote posts, use sigs and/or a different layout, etc.?
Luigison: Question everything!
Me: Why?

WarpRattler

  • Paid by the word
« Reply #428 on: January 22, 2010, 01:45:08 PM »
There is some irony in someone who is not only not religious but who is against religion saying "God[darn]," especially in a religion thread.

How about these rules, then?

« Reply #429 on: January 22, 2010, 06:19:23 PM »
I suppose someone who doesn't believe in God can use the word god[darn] just as much as someone who doesn't believe in Tyr, Odin, Thor, Frigg, or Saturn can use the words Tuesday, Wednesday, Thursday, Friday, and Saturday.

I long assumed Paper posted like that to goad someone into yelling at him for it so he could point out that I've done it. It took a lot longer than I expected!

WarpRattler

  • Paid by the word
« Reply #430 on: January 22, 2010, 06:33:42 PM »
Completely unrelated, but: If the religions whose gods the names of the days of the week are derived from were still around today, do you think we'd be using the corrupted names today, or refer to them as Moon Day, Tyr's Day, Woden's Day, et cetera?

The term "god[darn]" and its variants clearly imply the [darn]ation of something by a god. It seems rather counter-intuitive to make that implication if you don't believe in gods.

TEM

  • THE SOVIET'S MOST DANGEROUS PUZZLE.
« Reply #431 on: January 25, 2010, 12:51:51 PM »
- stuff KS said -
It is definitely true that humans do stupid things in spite of knowing certain facts. BUT I think any kind of undeniable, unarguable proof of God's existence would incite a stronger reaction than say, knowledge of gravity or knowing that drugs are harmful. The difference being that the infinite happiness caused by this proof is unlike anything a human would (or in the case of my argument can) normally experience. I imagine it would have a consciousness altering effect similar to when Adam and Eve ate the forbidden fruit. I think this feeling is probably reserved for those in heaven. I admit that this potential reaction to proof of God is just speculation and I don't really have any further proof or reference.
« Last Edit: January 25, 2010, 12:54:18 PM by TEM »
0000

Turtlekid1

  • Tortuga
« Reply #432 on: January 25, 2010, 01:57:38 PM »
This is starting to remind me of the theory postulated in Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy that if the universe were ever explained, it would only be replaced by something bigger and even more unexplainable.
"It'll say life is sacred and so is death
but death is life and so we move on"

TEM

  • THE SOVIET'S MOST DANGEROUS PUZZLE.
« Reply #433 on: January 25, 2010, 06:04:09 PM »
That would be because you're a retard who makes inane connections so he can show off that he's read a book before.
0000

Koopaslaya

  • Kansas
« Reply #434 on: January 25, 2010, 06:14:35 PM »
I imagine it would have a consciousness altering effect similar to when Adam and Eve ate the forbidden fruit.

If you are willing to accept that, then you are willing to accept at least the possibility that someone could have absolute proof of God, yet think that he be greater than God, for Adam and Eve certainly knew God's existence, yet they disobeyed.
Even those who have convinced themselves of the absolute necessity of God (whether or not they are right) have sinned. This is significant because the force of their absolute belief, which, in this case, would hold the same weight of absolute knowledge for them, is still not enough to stop them from sinning. Knowledge of God is not knowledge of God's will. I will stick to that point.

Also, knowledge of God does not hijack the will. Though your conclusion that people would all act as God wills might be true (and is actually the hope and prayer of Christians when they say "thy kingdom come, thy will be done on earth as it is in heaven"), they are not robotic slaves to God's will, because everything the person does would have to still come as the result of a free choice of the will; I would still need to choose the best option among many possible options to do something in accord with God's will. Knowledge of God would not take away the plurality of options or the choice that one would have to make, even if in every instance he chose the good. Socrates calls this the examined life; Plato, virtue; and the Christian, holiness.

I suppose the necessary conclusion to your argument is as follows: because of some aspect of human nature (which I still don't understand from what you have written), any proof for God that does not result in all people's conversion to sinlessness and God's will necessarily be a poor proof. I'm still not sure that this is right from what you said.
Εὐθύνατε τὴν ὁδὸν Κυρίου

Print