So do you believe in God?

Remove all ads!

You don't need proof to reject the absurd...

 

While I agree with you, Aik, I have to ask this question: What person has the right to define "absurd" for any other person? Why, for example, should Gnarff be forced to live according to your thinking any more than you should be forced to live according to his?

 

Thats what I said a while back, but some of these blind comments are making me outraged. We'll see you in a page or two

So if you're saved based on your faith, who cares if you do good deeds? So you can gain praise and glory in heaven? Sounds selfish to me... Or rather, it goes back to the thing a couple pages back about how non-theists do moral things without being promised any glory, and theists do it because they want eternal glory.

 

Then what makes some of these things "good" and some "bad". If you're touting science and logic, then "good" and "bad" are irrelevent to you, and same result or behaviour ought to be the same classification.

Repeatedly asking the same question and getting the same answer counts as legitimate reason to believe, doesn't it?

Is it any less rational to accept God and the record of Creation as written in Genesis so that you may go on with your life than to spend your life asking questions about how this all came about and put your life on hold?

That "evidence" is my personal experience. It still is faith because only I have had that specific personal experience. Others have reported similar experiences, but not my exact experiences.

The parts about fornication are covered in the ten commandments under adultery. The reference to alcohol and Drugs is specific to the Mormon faith, which forbids it (Doctrine and Covenents 89:4 for alcohol, later prophets have included drugs as they became prevalent.)

When Adam and Eve were cast out of the Garden of Eden, they were commanded to go forth, be fruitful and multiply. That command is in force today. Homosexual behaviour does not further this commandment. Further, it is forbidden in both Old and New testaments.

Grace and faith just keep you from Hell. It is living properly and doing good that elevates you. But those who merely seek glory shall not find it. How you live ought be determined by how you feel about God and the Saviour, Jesus Christ. The Lord will know if you are sincere...

 

But why?

 

I'm not defining what's absurd for Gnarff etc. - I define them as absurd for myself. Who said anything about 'forcing' people to believe what I do (or what he does?)? I simply see Christian beliefs as a bad thing and would like them to disappear on their own accord. I'm not advocating gunpoint deconversions...

... Yes. Yes it is.

You don't need to put your life on hold to gain the basic knowledge needed to understand how things work. Deciding to believe in a fantasy story rather than dispell ignorance is a copout, and there is nothing about that which strikes me as rational...

I was refering to objective evidence, because subjective evidence isn't a valid thing to be basing your life on. Why? Because your brain is deceiving. Your personal experience could for all you know be just neurons firing away inside your brain or chemicals being released. If you were working with the evidence using rationality you should probably be rather open to the idea of being wrong about the things you experience on the God front being God.

But maybe I'm totally off the mark. I don't suppose you would mind describing one of these personal experiences which you consider as evidence for the existence of God?

Ah, true - I'd forgotten about the Mormon thing...

Yeah - okay, that's what your doctrine says and I acknowledge that ... but you still haven't answered what I was asking. *Why* - without appealing to dogma - is homosexuality a bad thing? The reason I press this is that you were making it out as though following Christian doctrine will lead to a better life - I can't see how marginalising homosexuals (or ... y'know, stoning them...) is a good and wholesome idea.

And might I point out that being fruitful and multiplying - while a grant idea when the world has two people in it - it a bloody horrible idea today when we're overpopulated...

 

Yeah, yeah. You win. Less than one page. But I'm just clearing up one point

Gnarfflinger, I don't mind if you believe in things that are completely undefinable - there is nothign wrong with that. I couldn't care less, to be honest. What I do not like though is people putting words into my mouth.

Never once have I said that religion is bad. Just like those other possibly blinding forces, I will admit freely (and have done so) that religion certainly does have it's good points - scroll back a few pages if you don't believe me. All of them can be bad, if applied wrongly. Patriotism has lead to countless lives lost through wars amough other things; and love and anger... well, the list is even longer.

And if I do mention good and bad, these certainly can have meaning without religion. When I say "That apple looks bad" no where am I needing religion or faith to support that statement. Likewise, if I say that something was good - a movie for instance - it's implying that the benefits of seeing it outweigh the cost. But that's a side thought. Prehaps if I was a computer I would have no concept of good and bad, but believe it or not there is a human behind this writting who has his own set of morals and values. For example, I would class descrimination against homosexuals as bad. Been an atheist and having no moral values do not come hand in hand. Just like believing in a god and blowing yourself up do not.

But back to the main point of this post. Religion itself is not bad. If you can find anywhere I said that, I deeply apologise and take back that statement. It has bad points and it has good points. What is bad is the type of thinking (or lack of) associated with religion. Prehaps it encourages it, or prehaps a certain type of people just seem more attracted to the ideas - it's not for me to say. Now, just so I don't get words shoved into my mouth again, let me be clear. I'm not saying that all religous people are like this- back a few years ago all my best friends were strongly religous and some of the people I have the greatest repect for a devoted to their faiths - nor am I saying that there are not atheists who are like this as well.

Hope I have cleared up my point. Let's see if I can last a few more pages this time

[ September 22, 2006, 12:18: Message edited by: Rotku ]

 

@Aik:

Good luck getting an answer. I've asked that question many time in many different threads, and never gotten an answer that wasn't laced with doctrine. I'm beginning to suspect that there isn't one, and that vehemence is substituting for reason.

 

The source of any religious argument is doctrine... you'll find that if you keep following the "why is that?" branch of questions you'll always end up with "because it says so in <book> <chapter> <verse>".

Again, the proof they fall back on to legitimise the holy book they gain their arguments from is found in the very same book! When the Bible proves the legitimicy of the Bible and people believe it you know there's a serious lack of rational thought going on. You should believe everything I say because I say it's true!

 

Basic knowledge is part of life, but finding other, more scientifically acceptable answers as an alternate to what is stated in Genesis chapter 1 is what I called an irrational waste of your life.

I have as much right to demand proof on that one as you have to demand proof that I'm right in my beliefs. That statement is rejected until you can PROVE it's a fantasy.

It is by subjective experiences that we learn anything. Even objective evidence is learned through subjective experience.

How about the fact that I wasn't happy when I was drinking and toking, and didn't become happy until I got with God's program and did the right things. When I put mself first, I felt no peace or comfort. When I put God first, I do feel that.

The idea is that homosexuality is not in human nature, but rather a temptation. When viewed as a sin, it then can be resisted. The belief is that if they honestly try, through prayer and faith, to rise above that temptation, God will help them overcome this. I back up this claim also in Mormon scripture, which you of course, give little validity to.

The need to multiply is not as great, but one or two children per family is a good thing. Further, if the resources of this world could be distributed properly, there would be less starvation (and perhaps less obesity), but that may well be for another thread...

So does a rifle, but I'm guessing that more people oppose religion than guns...

These threads sometimes take on an attacking feel. While perhaps not said, it seems to be implied. Naturally I disagree with that implication, and try to defend what I believe.

I have thought it out, and do believe. When examined, the doctrine makes sense.

Just like I won't get an explanation of complex scientific principles that don't on some level refer to science textbooks. The basis of this stance is in doctrine. I believe this doctrine, and build my position on that doctrine.

But that book is the primary source of knowledge about God. It was written by prophets many years ago who have received that revelation. It's no different than people citing a long dead scientist. He did his research first hand, we simply refer to it.

 

Sounds to me like replacing one mind altering drug with another one...

 

How do you know they weren't just making it up? I hope people don't pick up an L. Ron Hubbard book in 2,000 years and accept everything in it ar face value as undeniable truths. Not that I have any more evidence that Hubbard is wrong than I do that St Peter was.

 

That's just as much of a copout. As has already been discussed before, you can't prove a negative. Need we bring the ninja space monkeys into this again? (BTW, I've seen them recently, and they're actually red, not purple. )

Then you guess wrong. What you see on SP is not an accurate cross-section of the world. There are a LOT more people who like religion than there are people who don't.

I find it disturbing that this echoes what I say about the 2e ruleset... >_>

 

Okay - I'm pretty much over bashing my head against this particular brick wall...

 

The problem I have with the commandment portion of this argument is that it also implies that women that are barren (or impotent men) along with women that find love and get married when going through menopause should be grouped into that category since they cannot "go forth, be fruitful and multiply." Since they cannot have children, which is the point of not being homosexual, then why aren't those things a sin? And since they can't have children, why are they not allowed to be homosexual since it doesn't make a difference either way?

Since it is, apparently, a sin to not be able to "go forth, be fruitful and multiply" (since that is the basis of the sin of homosexuality) then how is that fair, just, to those that can't have kids due to a childhood disease that causes such?

Of course there was a certain couple (Abraham, yes?) that had a child after menopause would have set in (from what I can gather about the ages) as well as were barren, but then again, if God can do this, why can he not make it so one of the two males in a homosexual relationship (or females, whatever) conceive a child? Same concept - those that cannot have children biologically having children. And if God allowed those that are barren to have children but those that are homosexual he makes it so they can't, how is that merciful, benevolent, loving?

And if the prophets were actually schizophrenic and wrote down their delusions and hallucinations, would it still be a quotable, believable text? I remember how many people were offended when professor postulated such in my Abnormal Psychology class...

How true. I think the consistency required to make something relatively objective has to be, measurably, the same and not just similar, which is where the difference lies, from what can be gathered, between religious experiences and scientific experiences. But then again, psychology experiments, from what I know of, aren't much more (if at all) consistent than religious experiences.

[ September 24, 2006, 16:47: Message edited by: a soubriquet ]

 

I believe that life is where you try to find answers to the questions you need answered. Picking up a religion or believing in a God is, in my eyes, the easy way out. I believe that some people act out of fear because they cannot find a meaning with life - so they find some answers in religion, which can help them be soothed. This is all acceptable, in my eyes, as long as they do not change their life for it.

A person should do what they feel like, not what they are being told. I don't think anyone should let a book lead their life. That, I feel, is truly ignorance.

 

Night of the Living Thread!

Did YOU know that God is a crazy woman?

 

Thats simply not true. Any scientific eksperiment has to be able to be redone using the same equipment. so any scientific data and fact, can be tested again and again. a long dead mans claim to have gotten laws by a burning bush, who was really god, untop of a mountain can not be tested or recreated and thierin lies the difference. Religion builds on a few peoples statements, you have to take for the truth, because you cant test or prove them.

Scinece you can allways question and test to see if its really true. Several hypoteses throughout time has been shot down like that. hell even in simply college matematics, you never take a rule for granted, you allways have to proof it.
while in religion you take everythig written in the holy scriptures for the trueth without questioning it.

This is one of the ageold religius statemens, you cant prove god dosn't exist,so he must excist. Fair enough, i cant prove god dosn't excist. but then agian i cant prove that unicorns, lebricons, the gold at the end of the rainbow and the anoying alf that hides your car keys in the sofa, dosn't excist. that hardly meens they do.
Sorry but if you cant prove something excist, its fair to asumme it dosn't. thats how science works, you cant just state something excist, you have to back it up with proof.

oh and if people can notice it out from my post. im definetly not religius

[ November 15, 2006, 13:35: Message edited by: Equester ]

 

Only partly true. While you can't conduct scietific tests on God like you can on physical laws, you can test the claims of religious leaders. The first test is: is the text consistent within itself? All modern major religions seem to be farily consistent within themselves (if you take things in context). The next test is: is this religious leader's position consistent with the text? This is where things get interesting, because many current religious leaders are preaching things that are contradictory to their own texts. :cough:thepope:cough: Lastly, there's the test of reality: do the claims made by the text/authority conform with current reality? If the religion claims that any believe who dies will instantly be raised from the dead and walk among us again, but believers who die stay dead, then the religion is wrong. If it says their souls will go to heaven, but we don't know what happens to their souls, then you can't say it is right or wrong from that, either may be true. Basically, use logic.