Our server costs ~$56 per month to run. Please consider donating or becoming a Patron to help keep the site running. Help us gain new members by following us on Twitter and liking our page on Facebook!
October 3, 2009 at 3:23 pm (This post was last modified: October 3, 2009 at 3:28 pm by Retorth.)
(October 3, 2009 at 2:44 pm)fr0d0 Wrote: LOL I think you completely misunderstood that Retorth
If you feel that I have misunderstood, I apologize. Please enlighten me.
fr0d0 Wrote:What I was saying but you read differently.. was not the 'Christianity' was anything - more that the perfect model people aspire to would be another way of thinking about it. You failed to look at that in an unprejudiced way.
Please explain to me how it is I read what you wrote differently.
fr0d0 Wrote:So anyway.. lets move on...
1. Not inflexible. Indecisive more like.
What??? God is precisely decisive and this is exactly what you're condemning him for. If you choose not to believe in him, to do bad stuff, you are choosing hell for yourself - no one is imposing that on you - you are completely free to choose that. Explain to me why you are not.
Why is it you automatically associate "not believing in him" with "doing bad things"? Right from the very start, I only refer to him condemning me for not believing in him but you suddenly throw in morals and "choosing hell for myself". This is the christian mindset, that life without god is evil and hellish. Is this not prejudice thinking? I merely ask a simple question "Why condemn me if you give me free will in the first place?".
fr0d0 Wrote:
Retorth Wrote:If I smoke weed and take other assorted drugs and end up a drug addict on the verge of death then yes I have condemned myself.. However, here it is god who condemns us for not following him while still claiming to give us free will that confuses me.
What???
How does God giving you free will and you choosing to not believe (which then makes you anti God/ lost) then not equate to you having free will??? This is completely illogical to me. Again... Please explain.
If I give you the option to eat an apple or an orange and I say eating the orange is something I want you to do but you have the free will to choose either fruit, and you choose to eat the apple anyway. If I condemn you for that, does that still mean you had free will to begin with?
If he does give us free will, why does he condemn us for not believing in him? Free will means being free to choose as you desire.
With that said, yes my choosing not to believe does equate to free will. Obviously this doesn't apply to god. He has his own version of "free will" it appears.
fr0d0 Wrote:
Retorth Wrote:If choice equals morality as you say then god isn't moral since he does not give you a choice anyway. Whats more he still condemns you for making what he perceives to be the wrong choice. That is being plain indecisive.
There can be no morality without choice. Choice ≠ morality.
Which is it? Choice = morality or choice ≠ morality?
Earlier you stated the following:
fr0d0 Wrote:Without the choice, there is no morality.
This means choice = morality. Now you tell me choice ≠ morality. :S
fr0d0 Wrote:A god giving you no choice cannot be enabling you to have morals. Morals are only possible with choice. Outside of Christianity... If you perceive yourself to make moral decisions then you are already claiming this choice. How does you're consideration of God then take moral decisions away from you. Again... complete bemusement from me.
What choice are you referring to being claimed, just so I do not misunderstand.
fr0d0 Wrote:God is giving you a choice. You are free to choose completely, within the normal physical constraints of the universe.
If you choose to deny God, God being life, then you are condemning yourself to death/ Hell. You choose it. It is your choice.
If I do not believe in god, he isn't "life" then as you claim. I choose to lead my life away from religion, away from god, but he did give me free will, did he not? If so, why condemn me?
Now you say I am condemning myself, but it is he who is condemning me, is he not?
(October 3, 2009 at 3:05 pm)solarwave Wrote: I don't care about the other gods because i have reason to believe in my God which counts out the others.
And those who worship other gods have reason to believe in their gods too.
The dark side awaits YOU...AngryAtheism "Only the dead have seen the end of war..." - Plato “Those who wish to base their morality literally on the Bible have either not read it or not understood it...” - Richard Dawkins
Mark Taylor: "Religious conflict will be less a matter of struggles between belief and unbelief than of clashes between believers who make room for doubt and those who do not."
Einstein: “The most unintelligible thing about nature is that it is intelligible”
October 3, 2009 at 4:41 pm (This post was last modified: October 3, 2009 at 4:42 pm by Ace Otana.)
Quote:A big reason your an atheist is because God doesn't conform to what you want?
No. It's because god cannot be tested. He cannot be proven in anyway and so I reject the claim. I am an atheist because there is no evidence to suggest there is a god. Just as there is no evidence for the easter bunny.
Quote:I don't care about the other gods because i have reason to believe in my God which counts out the others.
Well if you educated yourself in other gods from other cultures you'd might gain some wisdom. You'd see that gods no matter their name or definition, they are all the same. Allah is no differant from your god. The god thor, odin and ra are also no different from your god. Unless you have evidence that points directly to this particular god. Do you have evidence? If not then your god remains nothing more than an unproven assertion. No more real than santa or the easter bunny. Can you please give reasons of why you reject every other god apart from this one?
(October 3, 2009 at 4:07 pm)solarwave Wrote: I would be interested to hear their reasons.
Their reasons would be the same as yours. Don't think for a moment you've got it all right and they haven't.
Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence - Carl Sagan
Mankind's intelligence walks hand in hand with it's stupidity.
Being an atheist says nothing about your overall intelligence, it just means you don't believe in god. Atheists can be as bright as any scientist and as stupid as any creationist.
You never really know just how stupid someone is, until you've argued with them.
fr0d0 Wrote:What I was saying but you read differently.. was not the 'Christianity' was anything - more that the perfect model people aspire to would be another way of thinking about it. You failed to look at that in an unprejudiced way.
Please explain to me how it is I read what you wrote differently.
I just tried to!
I was wanting you to substitute Christianity with the aspiration to do healthy stuff - forget Christianity.
(October 3, 2009 at 3:23 pm)Retorth Wrote:
fr0d0 Wrote:What??? God is precisely decisive and this is exactly what you're condemning him for. If you choose not to believe in him, to do bad stuff, you are choosing hell for yourself - no one is imposing that on you - you are completely free to choose that. Explain to me why you are not.
Why is it you automatically associate "not believing in him" with "doing bad things"? Right from the very start, I only refer to him condemning me for not believing in him but you suddenly throw in morals and "choosing hell for myself". This is the christian mindset, that life without god is evil and hellish. Is this not prejudice thinking? I merely ask a simple question "Why condemn me if you give me free will in the first place?".
Because that is all Christianity is about - being a healthy positive fulfilled person. Nothing else. 'Choosing him' is precisely 'choosing life'. I can do nothing else but equate God with life (in that context).
Christians happen to think there is no better way. We've tried doing it alone and know how that is limited. Personally (because I couldn't recall the bible verse) I know that it is possible to achieve the same state on your own; but it's incredibly hard to do. That is why I think there is value in atheist investigation scraping away to the root of the questions posed.
So the condemnation is, in secular terms: the result of unhealthy choices over healthy choices. Exactly the same as with a choice to steal for greed.. you choose the 'condemnatory' attachment of that choice.
(October 3, 2009 at 3:23 pm)Retorth Wrote:
fr0d0 Wrote:
Retorth Wrote:If I smoke weed and take other assorted drugs and end up a drug addict on the verge of death then yes I have condemned myself.. However, here it is god who condemns us for not following him while still claiming to give us free will that confuses me.
How does God giving you free will and you choosing to not believe (which then makes you anti God/ lost) then not equate to you having free will??? This is completely illogical to me. Again... Please explain.
If I give you the option to eat an apple or an orange and I say eating the orange is something I want you to do but you have the free will to choose either fruit, and you choose to eat the apple anyway. If I condemn you for that, does that still mean you had free will to begin with?
I think I've just covered this.. You are suggesting here that God/ not God means nothing. You suppose not sin/ sin to be two equal states. It is only when you see that not sin = health and sin = ill health that the choice becomes clear. I'm not adding anything to the choice here. I'm merely defining it precisely for you.
(October 3, 2009 at 3:23 pm)Retorth Wrote: If he does give us free will, why does he condemn us for not believing in him? Free will means being free to choose as you desire.
With that said, yes my choosing not to believe does equate to free will. Obviously this doesn't apply to god. He has his own version of "free will" it appears.
How does the result of the choice limit the choice? If you desire heroin you can have it. You know it'll screw you up but that doesn't stop you choosing it. So you're saying you have no free will when it comes to buying heroin?
(October 3, 2009 at 3:23 pm)Retorth Wrote:
fr0d0 Wrote:
Retorth Wrote:If choice equals morality as you say then god isn't moral since he does not give you a choice anyway. Whats more he still condemns you for making what he perceives to be the wrong choice. That is being plain indecisive.
There can be no morality without choice. Choice ≠ morality.
Which is it? Choice = morality or choice ≠ morality?
Earlier you stated the following:
fr0d0 Wrote:Without the choice, there is no morality.
This means choice = morality. Now you tell me choice ≠ morality. :S
Every quote of mine above states that choice ≠ morality.
1. There can be no morality without choice - ie: choice enables morality. Choice is not morality.
2. Without the choice, there is no morality - the above statement rephrased. ie: choice enables morality
To explain further... Morality is only possible if an individual has a choice. Without a choice you don't get to decide anything...
Heresy translates to choice. the 4th Century Christian church in making a pact with Rome decreed that it would be heretical to believe anything but Christianity. You would be put to death for believing anything else. They took away the right to choose. An Irish monk pointed out to them that without the choice to believe, there couldn't be either virtue or evil - because both of those things required a choice to achieve. The monk was declared a heretic.
(October 3, 2009 at 3:23 pm)Retorth Wrote: If I do not believe in god, he isn't "life" then as you claim. I choose to lead my life away from religion, away from god, but he did give me free will, did he not? If so, why condemn me?
God is always 'life'. You are seeking life elsewhere. If you are denying 'life' you are also denying God. Geddit? You can remove God from the equation if you like. Either way we're talking about your health here.
October 3, 2009 at 6:23 pm (This post was last modified: October 3, 2009 at 6:27 pm by solarwave.)
(October 3, 2009 at 4:41 pm)Ace Wrote: Well if you educated yourself in other gods from other cultures you'd might gain some wisdom. You'd see that gods no matter their name or definition, they are all the same. Allah is no differant from your god. The god thor, odin and ra are also no different from your god. Unless you have evidence that points directly to this particular god. Do you have evidence? If not then your god remains nothing more than an unproven assertion. No more real than santa or the easter bunny. Can you please give reasons of why you reject every other god apart from this one?
I havn't had time to yet but I do plan to. The Hindu god is different from the christian one and quite obviously the polytheistic gods are. Do you not see that not all gods are the same? It depends what you call evidence; wether your willing to use reason rather than falling back on no measurable results. I'll give me reasons soon, I just wanna get more used to the forum first.
Quote:Their reasons would be the same as yours. Don't think for a moment you've got it all right and they haven't.
You think your right so I dunno why your one to talk lol. They may have reasons similar to mine, but I dont know so I wont assume that.
Mark Taylor: "Religious conflict will be less a matter of struggles between belief and unbelief than of clashes between believers who make room for doubt and those who do not."
Einstein: “The most unintelligible thing about nature is that it is intelligible”
October 3, 2009 at 7:11 pm (This post was last modified: October 3, 2009 at 7:12 pm by Ace Otana.)
Quote:I havn't had time to yet but I do plan to.
You should of done it way before going into deciding which god. When I was looking into christianity I looked into other religions as well. Which lead to the realisation that all gods from all religions are the same. Only different names and definitions which doesn't make any god more real.
Quote: Do you not see that not all gods are the same?
They are all the same. All that is different is the name and definition. They all lack supporting evidence. Neither of them are any more likely or more real than any other imaginable character.
Quote:It depends what you call evidence
Scientific evidence. Scientific methods.
Quote:wether your willing to use reason rather than falling back on no measurable results.
It's reasonable to disbelieve in god. No one on this planet has ever managed to provide any real scientific evidence. God remains nothing more than an unproven assertion.
Quote:I'll give me reasons soon, I just wanna get more used to the forum first.
I'll wait.
Quote:You think your right so I dunno why your one to talk lol.
I don't claim to know I'm right. I consider it possible that I am wrong. Have you ever considered that you are wrong? That you are following the wrong religion? A false religion? Maybe you are wrong and that odin is the one true god and we both will burn in hell for not worshiping him. Odin has the same chance/possibility as your god. All gods are the same and hold the same equal possibilities as well as other imaginable character.
Quote:They may have reasons similar to mine, but I don't know so I wont assume that.
Why not? You could ask them yourself. What reasons could someone have to believe in a being that cannot be proven to exist? You'll find they have the same reasons you do.
Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence - Carl Sagan
Mankind's intelligence walks hand in hand with it's stupidity.
Being an atheist says nothing about your overall intelligence, it just means you don't believe in god. Atheists can be as bright as any scientist and as stupid as any creationist.
You never really know just how stupid someone is, until you've argued with them.
October 4, 2009 at 1:48 am (This post was last modified: October 4, 2009 at 1:48 am by Retorth.)
(October 3, 2009 at 4:58 pm)fr0d0 Wrote:
(October 3, 2009 at 3:23 pm)Retorth Wrote:
fr0d0 Wrote:What I was saying but you read differently.. was not the 'Christianity' was anything - more that the perfect model people aspire to would be another way of thinking about it. You failed to look at that in an unprejudiced way.
Please explain to me how it is I read what you wrote differently.
I just tried to!
I was wanting you to substitute Christianity with the aspiration to do healthy stuff - forget Christianity.
(October 3, 2009 at 3:23 pm)Retorth Wrote:
fr0d0 Wrote:What??? God is precisely decisive and this is exactly what you're condemning him for. If you choose not to believe in him, to do bad stuff, you are choosing hell for yourself - no one is imposing that on you - you are completely free to choose that. Explain to me why you are not.
Why is it you automatically associate "not believing in him" with "doing bad things"? Right from the very start, I only refer to him condemning me for not believing in him but you suddenly throw in morals and "choosing hell for myself". This is the christian mindset, that life without god is evil and hellish. Is this not prejudice thinking? I merely ask a simple question "Why condemn me if you give me free will in the first place?".
Because that is all Christianity is about - being a healthy positive fulfilled person. Nothing else. 'Choosing him' is precisely 'choosing life'. I can do nothing else but equate God with life (in that context).
Christians happen to think there is no better way. We've tried doing it alone and know how that is limited. Personally (because I couldn't recall the bible verse) I know that it is possible to achieve the same state on your own; but it's incredibly hard to do. That is why I think there is value in atheist investigation scraping away to the root of the questions posed.
So the condemnation is, in secular terms: the result of unhealthy choices over healthy choices. Exactly the same as with a choice to steal for greed.. you choose the 'condemnatory' attachment of that choice.
(October 3, 2009 at 3:23 pm)Retorth Wrote:
fr0d0 Wrote:
Retorth Wrote:If I smoke weed and take other assorted drugs and end up a drug addict on the verge of death then yes I have condemned myself.. However, here it is god who condemns us for not following him while still claiming to give us free will that confuses me.
How does God giving you free will and you choosing to not believe (which then makes you anti God/ lost) then not equate to you having free will??? This is completely illogical to me. Again... Please explain.
If I give you the option to eat an apple or an orange and I say eating the orange is something I want you to do but you have the free will to choose either fruit, and you choose to eat the apple anyway. If I condemn you for that, does that still mean you had free will to begin with?
I think I've just covered this.. You are suggesting here that God/ not God means nothing. You suppose not sin/ sin to be two equal states. It is only when you see that not sin = health and sin = ill health that the choice becomes clear. I'm not adding anything to the choice here. I'm merely defining it precisely for you.
(October 3, 2009 at 3:23 pm)Retorth Wrote: If he does give us free will, why does he condemn us for not believing in him? Free will means being free to choose as you desire.
With that said, yes my choosing not to believe does equate to free will. Obviously this doesn't apply to god. He has his own version of "free will" it appears.
How does the result of the choice limit the choice? If you desire heroin you can have it. You know it'll screw you up but that doesn't stop you choosing it. So you're saying you have no free will when it comes to buying heroin?
(October 3, 2009 at 3:23 pm)Retorth Wrote:
fr0d0 Wrote:
Retorth Wrote:If choice equals morality as you say then god isn't moral since he does not give you a choice anyway. Whats more he still condemns you for making what he perceives to be the wrong choice. That is being plain indecisive.
There can be no morality without choice. Choice ≠ morality.
Which is it? Choice = morality or choice ≠ morality?
Earlier you stated the following:
fr0d0 Wrote:Without the choice, there is no morality.
This means choice = morality. Now you tell me choice ≠ morality. :S
Every quote of mine above states that choice ≠ morality.
1. There can be no morality without choice - ie: choice enables morality. Choice is not morality.
2. Without the choice, there is no morality - the above statement rephrased. ie: choice enables morality
To explain further... Morality is only possible if an individual has a choice. Without a choice you don't get to decide anything...
Heresy translates to choice. the 4th Century Christian church in making a pact with Rome decreed that it would be heretical to believe anything but Christianity. You would be put to death for believing anything else. They took away the right to choose. An Irish monk pointed out to them that without the choice to believe, there couldn't be either virtue or evil - because both of those things required a choice to achieve. The monk was declared a heretic.
(October 3, 2009 at 3:23 pm)Retorth Wrote: If I do not believe in god, he isn't "life" then as you claim. I choose to lead my life away from religion, away from god, but he did give me free will, did he not? If so, why condemn me?
fr0d0 Wrote:God is always 'life'. You are seeking life elsewhere. If you are denying 'life' you are also denying God. Geddit? You can remove God from the equation if you like. Either way we're talking about your health here.
I do not believe in god so as far as I am concerned, he is not "life". My life is my own. If he is going to condemn me for living my own decent life, thats just sad lol
Thanks for taking the time to explain it all to me. I sincerely appreciate it very much.
The dark side awaits YOU...AngryAtheism "Only the dead have seen the end of war..." - Plato “Those who wish to base their morality literally on the Bible have either not read it or not understood it...” - Richard Dawkins
How can there ever be more than one God? That is assuming for the moment
that there is such an entity.
If there is more than one then the Universe must have been created by
more than one....a kinda committee of Gods?
Omnicommitted
If only created by one what were the others doing at that time?
That's the trouble with you damn Gods. You pose plenty of questions
but have never given me a rational answer.
Albert.
"People are like black holes. They are self centred!"
"You are what was in your mother's genes and what was in your father's jeans!"
"If the Buck stops here, how can the Doe go all the way?"
That is the problem with religion. Everyone believes in a different god and they believe their own god to be the true and only god, so who is to say which god is real and which isn't.
The dark side awaits YOU...AngryAtheism "Only the dead have seen the end of war..." - Plato “Those who wish to base their morality literally on the Bible have either not read it or not understood it...” - Richard Dawkins
fr0d0 Wrote:God is always 'life'. You are seeking life elsewhere. If you are denying 'life' you are also denying God. Geddit? You can remove God from the equation if you like. Either way we're talking about your health here.
I do not believe in god so as far as I am concerned, he is not "life". My life is my own. If he is going to condemn me for living my own decent life, thats just sad lol
Aaaargh!
So you substitute yourself for God. You are doing the same thing as Christians do yourself. You condemn 'yourself' for making unhealthy choices. You are your own 'god'. Are you sad too then? It follows that you must be (read my post).
That's incredibly frustrating that you just dump the whole of the discussion. I can only conclude that you cannot justify anything you believe.
