Do you believe in God?

[TenEightyOne]

The reason that I was told when I asked the same question in church once was that god wanted humanity to guide their own decisions and therefore be in charge of their own fate.

So why does sin exist?

 

[TexRex]

The reason that I was told when I asked the same question in church once was that god wanted humanity to guide their own decisions and therefore be in charge of their own fate.

It actually makes enough sense to me.

Why would God create Man capable of acts for which the punishment is eternal damnation?

 

[Imari]

The reason that I was told when I asked the same question in church once was that god wanted humanity to guide their own decisions and therefore be in charge of their own fate.

It actually makes enough sense to me.

I suppose that's the same sort of logic that leads to the fork-and-electrical-board school of childcare. Children need to learn to guide their own decisions and therefore be in charge of their own fate. The sooner they learn to do that the better, or at least the sooner they make more room for kids who aren't dumb enough to put a fork in an electrical socket.

Who would have thought God would be in favour of radical Darwinism? I guess that's why He made evolution a thing. So that He could get some chuckles while humanity stumbled towards being at least moderately able to intuitively take care of themselves when surrounded by things that are unequivocally dangerous.

I mean, the answer I got was "stop asking stupid questions", but your one works too.

Why would God create Man capable of acts for which the punishment is eternal damnation?

It's funny, because if the punishment is eternal damnation then it means that God knows that there's no possibility that the sinner could ever change or be rehabilitated. But if their fate is suddenly sealed with no opportunity for free will after the sin, it questions whether there was really free will before the sin.

Turns out that free will is an illusion, and God is just setting humans up like lines of dominoes so that they fall down in pretty ways. Some dominoes have a good time, some are crushed under the bodies of their peers, some turn out to be that one domino that knocked over thousands of other dominoes.

 

[TexRex]

It's funny, because if the punishment is eternal damnation then it means that God knows that there's no possibility that the sinner could ever change or be rehabilitated. But if their fate is suddenly sealed with no opportunity for free will after the sin, it questions whether there was really free will before the sin.

Turns out that free will is an illusion, and God is just setting humans up like lines of dominoes so that they fall down in pretty ways. Some dominoes have a good time, some are crushed under the bodies of their peers, some turn out to be that one domino that knocked over thousands of other dominoes.

That's precisely[!] why sin as a construct of some supernatural being bumps for me.

This may come as a surprise to some if (and that's a big if) they've paid attention to my remarks here, but I'm not an atheist. Thing is...I'm also not not an atheist. I don't know what's out there.

Life as we know it coming to be seems to me like a pretty extraordinary coincidence, especially if you believe what scientists have laid out, and so I find comfort in the notion that the events were...let's call it "guided"...by a supreme being. I'm definitely not a Creationist.

I'm fine with people believing whatever they want to believe. If you don't walk out the door and stab the first person you see because you're concerned about the consequences you believe God has established, well that's just great. I won't even try to belittle that by suggesting somethings wrong with you because that's the only thing stopping you. I don't have to fight the urge to commit such an act, but if I did, my very first thought would be that it's wrong. Should that fail, I'd consider the consequences established by society.

Where we're going to tussle is when you try to impose your beliefs on me and control my actions. Believe what you want to believe but don't use that belief to negatively affect others.

People are capable of doing both good and bad, equally with and without a belief in God.

 

[Aphelion]

That's precisely[!] why sin as a construct of some supernatural being bumps for me.

This may come as a surprise to some if (and that's a big if) they've paid attention to my remarks here, but I'm not an atheist. Thing is...I'm also not not an atheist. I don't know what's out there.

Life as we know it coming to be seems to me like a pretty extraordinary coincidence, especially if you believe what scientists have laid out, and so I find comfort in the notion that the events were...let's call it "guided"...by a supreme being. I'm definitely not a Creationist.

I'm fine with people believing whatever they want to believe. If you don't walk out the door and stab the first person you see because you're concerned about the consequences you believe God has established, well that's just great. I won't even try to belittle that by suggesting somethings wrong with you because that's the only thing stopping you. I don't have to fight the urge to commit such an act, but if I did, my very first thought would be that it's wrong. Should that fail, I'd consider the consequences established by society.

Where we're going to tussle is when you try to impose your beliefs on me and control my actions. Believe what you want to believe but don't use that belief to negatively affect others.

People are capable of doing both good and bad, equally with and without a belief in God.

I have exactly the same mindset. Sometimes i catch myself thinking about the reality we live and I just cannot help but think its just all too convenient

I am, however, definately not Chistian. My mum is Christian, and my dad is supportive of christianity and some of its values, just like I am. I have grown up knowing many christians who are actually incredible, genuinely selfless people who just love everyone around them and help wherever they can, and I think thats awesome. I was pretty lucky in that the church i went to as a kid was actually pretty progressive, in the sense that it was laid back and genuinely supportive, even of kids who admitted they didnt beleive in god. They never tried to force their beliefs on anyone. Unfortunately not all christan churches are like that.

Why would God create Man capable of acts for which the punishment is eternal damnation?

My somewhat basic understanding of it is that when he created the first humans, Adam and Eve, he didn't think they would sin, but they did anyway. This made him realise humanity was not perfect, but capable of good, which why "judgment" happens. As to why he didnt just delete Adam and Eve and make a better pair of animals, I dont entirely know.

Another strong aspect of the whole thing is that god will forgive almost anything as long as you ask for forgiveness, and he deems you redeemable.

I suppose that's the same sort of logic that leads to the fork-and-electrical-board school of childcare. Children need to learn to guide their own decisions and therefore be in charge of their own fate. The sooner they learn to do that the better, or at least the sooner they make more room for kids who aren't dumb enough to put a fork in an electrical socket.

Who would have thought God would be in favour of radical Darwinism? I guess that's why He made evolution a thing. So that He could get some chuckles while humanity stumbled towards being at least moderately able to intuitively take care of themselves when surrounded by things that are unequivocally dangerous.

I mean, the answer I got was "stop asking stupid questions", but your one works too.



It's funny, because if the punishment is eternal damnation then it means that God knows that there's no possibility that the sinner could ever change or be rehabilitated. But if their fate is suddenly sealed with no opportunity for free will after the sin, it questions whether there was really free will before the sin.

Turns out that free will is an illusion, and God is just setting humans up like lines of dominoes so that they fall down in pretty ways. Some dominoes have a good time, some are crushed under the bodies of their peers, some turn out to be that one domino that knocked over thousands of other dominoes.

Thinking about it, that genuinely makes sense. "Manual selection" instead of natural selection.

 

[zzz_pt]

This may come as a surprise to some if (and that's a big if) they've paid attention to my remarks here, but I'm not an atheist. Thing is...I'm also not not an atheist. I don't know what's out there.

If you don't know (as no one knows), you're an agnostic.

But regarding atheism or theism it's impossible to not be one of the two. If you believe in a god,gods or godesses, you're a theist (or politheist, etc). If you don't belive or don't even know if you do, you're an atheist by default, which simply means you lack a belief in god/gods.

It's an ON/OFF thing. Like being alive or dead. If you're not one, you're the other by definition.

 

[TexRex]

If you don't know (as no one knows), you're an agnostic.

But regarding atheism or theism it's impossible to not be one of the two. If you believe in a god,gods or godesses, you're a theist (or politheist, etc). If you don't belive or don't even know if you do, you're an atheist by default, which simply means you lack a belief in god/gods.

It's an ON/OFF thing. Like being alive or dead. If you're not one, you're the other by definition.

I'm not convinced what I am is agnostic. I may very well be misinformed (I'd even say it's a pretty good bet I am, just as a general rule), but I'm given to understand that agnosticism revolves around the notion that God's existence is unknowable, and so faith in God's existence is stressed. That's absolutely not what I am.

The "late", great Douglas Adams was a self-described radical atheist, not because he was radical in his atheism but because he was tired of people asking if he was actually agnostic.

I'm not convinced I'm an atheist either. I don't have a problem with the idea of being an atheist, point of fact I actually quite like it. I just don't know it to be the case. I suppose I'm more likely to be than not be.

I don't believe in God, a god or gods...I merely don't not believe in something I can't quite put my finger on.

And not to be contrarian, I don't think it's fair to say it's an on or off thing either. Switches can have resistors. Valves can be opened part-way.

Call me...

...

...Ishmael complicated.

 

[ryzno]

No wonder......

 

[Aphelion]

I was under the impression that being agnostic was simply thinking that there was likely some higher being but having no idea what it is.

 

[TexRex]

I was under the impression that being agnostic was simply thinking that there was likely some higher being but having no idea what it is.

That could be, but it doesn't really apply to me either.

 

[zzz_pt]

I'm not convinced what I am is agnostic. I may very well be misinformed (I'd even say it's a pretty good bet I am, just as a general rule), but I'm given to understand that agnosticism revolves around the notion that God's existence is unknowable, and so faith in God's existence is stressed. That's absolutely not what I am.

The "late", great Douglas Adams was a self-described radical atheist, not because he was radical in his atheism but because he was tired of people asking if he was actually agnostic.

I'm not convinced I'm an atheist either. I don't have a problem with the idea of being an atheist, point of fact I actually quite like it. I just don't know it to be the case. I suppose I'm more likely to be than not be.

I don't believe in God, a god or gods...I merely don't not believe in something I can't quite put my finger on.

And not to be contrarian, I don't think it's fair to say it's an on or off thing either. Switches can have resistors. Valves can be opened part-way.

Call me...

...

...Ishmael complicated.

I get what you're saying. I'm merely going with the meaning of the words or at least as I understand them. Agnosticism is a matter of knowledge. Atheism is matter of belief.

- Agnostic is the contrary of gnostic, so if gnostic means "to have knowledge of", agnostic means "to lack the knowledge of". If you're not convinced that you know of the existence of god or that its existence is knowable, you're agnostic. Unless you somehow think it's possible to know something without being aware of it.

- Atheist is the contrary of theist, so if theist means "to belief in a deity", atheist means "to lack of belief in a god"

In my opinion these are the possiblilities in regards to agnosticism and atheism:

1) If a person is agnostic, he's either:
- a rational atheist (beause he can't rationaly believe something he can't know or think to be impossible to be known)
- a comon atheist (who doesn't care about the god question)
- an irrational theist (who doesn't know about God or thinks it's impossible to know anything about its existence but still believes it exists).
- a comon theist (who grew up in a religious enviorment and never even questioned his beliefs).

2) If a person is a gnostic theist or gnostic athiest, he's either lying or deluded - because no one has ever been able to show or prove the existence of a deity. And since knowledge needs to be unbiased, demonstrable, shared and tested, gnosticism falls flat on its face.


On Douglas Adams, as with other people who get asked the same questions over and over, it's normal they resort to a couple of words to close the subject and move on. That doesn't mean he would say, in private, to a firend that he was agnostic too - because being agnostic and atheist are not mutually exclusive.

 

[Aphelion]

That could be, but it doesn't really apply to me either.

Call me...

...

...Ishmael complicated.

Why'd you have to go and make things so complicated - Avril Lavigne

 

[TexRex]

I get what you're saying. I'm merely going with the meaning of the words or at least as I understand them. Agnosticism is a matter of knowledge. Atheism is matter of belief.

- Agnostic is the contrary of gnostic, so if gnostic means "to have knowledge of", agnostic means "to lack the knowledge of". If you're not convinced that you know of the existence of god or that its existence is knowable, you're agnostic. Unless you somehow think it's possible to know something without being aware of it.

- Atheist is the contrary of theist, so if theist means "to belief in a deity", atheist means "to lack of belief in a god"

In my opinion these are the possiblilities in regards to agnosticism and atheism:

1) If a person is agnostic, he's either:
- a rational atheist (beause he can't rationaly believe something he can't know or think to be impossible to be known)
- a comon atheist (who doesn't care about the god question)
- an irrational theist (who doesn't know about God or thinks it's impossible to know anything about its existence but still believes it exists).
- a comon theist (who grew up in a religious enviorment and never even questioned his beliefs).

2) If a person is a gnostic theist or gnostic athiest, he's either lying or deluded - because no one has ever been able to show or prove the existence of a deity. And since knowledge needs to be unbiased, demonstrable, shared and tested, gnosticism falls flat on its face.


On Douglas Adams, as with other people who get asked the same questions over and over, it's normal they resort to a couple of words to close the subject and move on. That doesn't mean he would say, in private, to a firend that he wasn't agnostic too - because being agnostic and atheist are not mutually exclusive.

I don't know, maybe I'm ignostic. Or maybe I'm just a really tough pigeon to...erm..."hole".

Avril Lavigne

Ew.

 

[Aphelion]

Ew.

Heheheheh.

 

[zzz_pt]

I don't know, maybe I'm ignostic. Or maybe I'm just a really tough pigeon to...erm..."hole".

If you were ignostic you wouldn't be wasting time on this thread though.

 

[TexRex]

If you were ignostic you wouldn't be wasting time on this thread though.

I mean...if I'm on this site at all it's because I dont have anything better to do. Or I do but I don't feel like doing it.



Edit: Is it really so bad to simply not be something? I'm already a great many things; it's rather exhilarating to not be something.

 

[Aphelion]

I mean...if I'm on this site at all it's because I dont have anything better to do. Or I do but I don't feel like doing it.



Edit: Is it really so bad to simply not be something? I'm already a great many things; it's rather exhilarating to not be something.

I mean I was sort of thinking that. Do you really need to be labelled as "x". Does it matter in any way.

 

[TexRex]

I mean I was sort of thinking that. Do you really need to be labelled as "x". Does it matter in any way.

I like to think self-identity is important. While it may cause anxiety, particularly if the notion that an aspect of that identity is inferior has been ingrained in one, but I also think it can be comforting...even in the case of the aforementioned if one comes to terms with this.

Let's see...I'm an early-middle-aged, heterosexual, tan, caucasian, clean-shaven male liberal [naturalized] Texan with long, brown hair, a few tattoos but no piercings, a bad knee and perfect eyesight. And that's just barely scratching the surface. People may infer about me whatever they wish from any number of those but I maintain that not a single one of them actually defines me.

 

[Imari]

I don't believe in God, a god or gods...I merely don't not believe in something I can't quite put my finger on.

That's atheism. An atheist would happily admit the existence of God upon actually meeting him, as no belief would then be needed. However, as there is no reliable evidence for God, an atheist takes the logical route of assuming that He doesn't exist until there's actually a sensible reason to think otherwise.

Atheism has nothing to do with unfingerable objects or beings that are not gods. You sure you're not just coming down with a case of hipsterism?

And not to be contrarian, I don't think it's fair to say it's an on or off thing either. Switches can have resistors. Valves can be opened part-way.

And some things are binary. A switch that is conducting current is on, no matter if it passes a variable current. A valve that is passing fluid is open. This is part of the idea of "on" and "off"; if you have an object to which those descriptors can be sensibly applied then it's one or the other. There may be different types of "on", but that's really neither here nor there.

If you don't believe in any gods, then that's pretty self-explanatory. If you don't not believe in any gods, then you do believe. Even if it's only a little bit. Which is fine, some people believe in leprechauns just a little bit. It's better to be honest with yourself and your emotion/intuition, even if you continue to understand logically that there's no substantive reason to feel that way.

 

[zzz_pt]

I mean...if I'm on this site at all it's because I dont have anything better to do. Or I do but I don't feel like doing it.



Edit: Is it really so bad to simply not be something? I'm already a great many things; it's rather exhilarating to not be something.

This site has plenty of discussions about other topics other than gods. An ignostic wouldn't spend time on a thread about gods.

Also, I don't really care what you call yourself. I was simply replying to a post where it seemed to me you were confused about some words and what they mean.

Labeling isn't always a bad thing. Classifying things by their names makes sense, especially when talking in specifics.

576 people are theists and 934 are atheists according to the poll. There's nothing wrong in "labeling" them that way.

 

[TexRex]

That's atheism. An atheist would happily admit the existence of God upon actually meeting him, as no belief would then be needed. However, as there is no reliable evidence for God, an atheist takes the logical route of assuming that He doesn't exist until there's actually a sensible reason to think otherwise.

Atheism has nothing to do with unfingerable objects or beings that are not gods.

Then I'm an atheist. That's just another box that I can tick without having a moment.

You sure you're not just coming down with a case of hipsterism?

Nope (which is to say that I'm not sure, not that I'm not).

This site has plenty of discussions about other topics other than gods. An ignostic wouldn't spend time on a thread about gods.

I'd say that one can discuss belief in God without discussing the existence of God.

Also, I don't really care what you call yourself. I was simply replying to a post where it seemed to me you were confused about some words and what they mean.

Labeling isn't always a bad thing. Classifying things by their names makes sense, especially when talking in specifics.

576 people are theists and 934 are atheists according to the poll. There's nothing wrong in "labeling" them that way.

I didn't say you do; I was merely thinking...externally.

I also didn't say labeling is always a bad thing. Point of fact, in a subsequent post I cited a manner in which I consider labeling to be a good thing.

Hopefully we've cleared up what each other said and didn't say.

 

[Imari]

This site has plenty of discussions about other topics other than gods. An ignostic wouldn't spend time on a thread about gods.

Nor would an atheist. Except that we're not really talking about gods. We're talking about people, specifically in relation to how they think about gods. People are kind of interesting, especially to people who don't believe in gods. At the moment, people are kind of the most societally complex creatures available.

 

[zzz_pt]

I'd say that one can discuss belief in God without discussing the existence of God.

I think ignostics don't bother with the god question at all. Meaning beliefs, existence, definitions, etc. Unless there's more than one definition for the word, which is possible. Why would someone who thinks people can't even think clearly about the god concept and/or think the whole topic is a non-issue, spend time with it? Dunno. Seems odd.

Nor would an atheist. Except that we're not really talking about gods. We're talking about people, specifically in relation to how they think about gods. People are kind of interesting, especially to people who don't believe in gods. At the moment, people are kind of the most societally complex creatures available.

Atheists don't necessarily think the god question is irrelevant. That's not what the word means. On the other hand, ignosticism is very close to that by definition. Just went to rationalwiki and this is the first paragraph:

Ignosticism, or igtheism is a theological position. If followed to its logical end it concludes that the entire question about God's existence is a non-question and that taking a yes, no or even ambivalent position is absurd. [...] The answer is invariably that they are non-questions not worth taking seriously.

Hopefully if an ignostic comes to the thread, he/she tells us in advance they're not here for the God question but for the people discussing it, whatever that may be.

 

[zzz_pt]

DP - website was strange

 

[HenrySwanson]

The Pride parade in London today and a discussion I had in another thread got me thinking: Which view in Christianity is "right" on the topic of homosexuality?

Doing Google searches for Christian views on homosexuality returned results overwhelmingly saying that acting on homosexual urges was a sin, and not to be tolerated citing both the Old and New Testament for evidence. Some denominations have had gay clergy for years whereas others are steadfast in their refusal to even recognise gay marriage. There have even been splits in some Churches over LGBT decisions.

My question to Christians on this site is, what do you believe is acceptable?

 

[zzz_pt]

The Pride parade in London today and a discussion I had in another thread got me thinking: Which view in Christianity is "right" on the topic of homosexuality?

Doing Google searches for Christian views on homosexuality returned results overwhelmingly saying that acting on homosexual urges was a sin, and not to be tolerated citing both the Old and New Testament for evidence. Some denominations have had gay clergy for years whereas others are steadfast in their refusal to even recognise gay marriage. There have even been splits in some Churches over LGBT decisions.

My question to Christians on this site is, what do you believe is acceptable?

The correct view according to the bible, is pretty clear, IMO. But as with many other christian views, is immoral and outdated, which is the reason why some christians started to tolerate and even accept homossexuals as normal people.

 

[TenEightyOne]

The correct view according to the bible, is pretty clear

No it isn't.

 

[zzz_pt]

No it isn't.

There's an "IMO" after that. So it is, in my opinion.

Is there any favorable thing said about homosexuality? I can only remember it being considered a sin punishable by death.

I don't know of any christian sect ever being favourable towards homosexuals until recently. They only play catch up with our social development, as in every other controversial issue. Some say the bible isn't clear now, because the pressure from the outside is strong.

 

[Dotini]

Open questions:

Is it a good idea to have a purpose for your life, to live a meaningful life, to make yourself a better person and maybe even leave the world a better place? If so, would these all be more achievable if you already had the idea that the world - the whole universe itself - was meaningful, had a purpose, and that purpose was for you to experience a meaningful life and fulfill your potential? Or, on the other hand, must this all be rejected at the outset because it cannot be reconciled with rationality?

 

[Danoff]

Open questions:

Is it a good idea to have a purpose for your life, to live a meaningful life, to make yourself a better person and maybe even leave the world a better place?

Yes. But it's up to each person to determine how best to satisfy their desire to be fulfilled by their lives. Every mind is a little different.

If so, would these all be more achievable if you already had the idea that the world - the whole universe itself - was meaningful, had a purpose, and that purpose was for you to experience a meaningful life and fulfill your potential?

Very questionable. The presumption that the universe is for you is likely to have some unintended psychological or rational consequences that undermine the goal of having a meaningful life.

Or, on the other hand, must this all be rejected at the outset because it cannot be reconciled with rationality?

I've never seen a good argument put forth for self-deception.