Originally posted by Ms.Marvel
why not?
Why? Because he's a supreme being. Notice how there's only a select group of people on this earth that are arrogant enough to try. The religious people know that they won't understand God's decisions unless they're explicitly stated in their bibles, and that it's pointless to make a fool out of yourself and try it.
Also, do you think "God works in mysterious ways" is just a punch line?
Example:
Ignorant statement: Samaria shall bear her guilt, because she has rebelled against her God; they shall fall by the sword, their little ones shall be dashed in pieces, and their pregnant women ripped open.
Conclusion: God must NOT be merciful, or GOD must be a murderer/*******/whatever noun I can use because I'm so angry grrrrrrr.
because obviously, as an omnipotent, omniscient master of the universe who owns all beings as pets, he knows what's right and what's wrong far more than us.
10 But when that which is perfect is come, then that which is in part shall be done away.
11 When I was a child, I spake as a child, I understood as a child, I thought as a child: but when I became a man, I put away childish things.
12 For now we see through a glass, darkly, but then face to face: now I know in part; but then shall I know even as also I am known.
Originally posted by Dr McBeefington
Why? Because he's a supreme being. Notice how there's only a select group of people on this earth that are arrogant enough to try. The religious people know that they won't understand God's decisions unless they're explicitly stated in their bibles, and that it's pointless to make a fool out of yourself and try it.Also, do you think "God works in mysterious ways" is just a punch line?
i think that points to the concept that "god can do whatever he wants and he can kill us if we disagree", more then just him being the ultimate good. its the bigger stick thing you and i were talking about awhile ago.
that delves into relativism which i know you hate though, so lets not get into that.
Originally posted by Ms.Marvel
i think that points to the concept that "god can do whatever he wants and he can kill us if we disagree", more then just him being the ultimate good. its the bigger stick thing you and i were talking about awhile ago.that delves into relativism which i know you hate though, so lets not get into that.
Yea I'm not familiar with that concept. Kills us if we disagree? That would destroy the concept of free will. Why would he do that? That makes no sense.
(Seriously guys, are your keyboards on crack or something?)Not any more than "God doesn't exist, humans make the rules, everything is relative, everything is permitted, etc."
Find the ignorance in both statements. However, nobody really uses that punch line. I was just making a point.
Well the difference being that people usually disbelieve in god for reasons, while people only use the myaterious ways line when they're getting their asses handed to them as a giant '**** you' to their opponent.
Originally posted by NephthysI know but I don't know anyone who uses that in an argument.
Well the difference being that people usually disbelieve in god for reasons, while people only use the myaterious ways line when they're getting their asses handed to them as a giant '**** you' to their opponent.
Originally posted by Dr McBeefington
Yea I'm not familiar with that concept. Kills us if we disagree? That would destroy the concept of free will. Why would he do that? That makes no sense.
well, that would kind of kill the concept of free will, which kind of gives evidence to the idea that free will is an illusion (depends on your definition of it, going by christian beliefs, you have "free will" but when judgment day comes if ultimately you disagree with gods teachings then he mercs you, some would consider that a lack of free will).
the concept that im referring to though is the relative idea that there is no such thing as a universal right or wrong, rather, right or wrong is simply defined by a dominant force, and we all go with that force's definition out of fear of punishment.
an example being, that, the reason why we follow the law is because we know that if we dont, police will beat our ass, not because the law is inherently right. in that same manner, god isnt inherently right just because hes god. its just that his interpretation of right is the only one that really matters because he could wipe us all out if we disagree.
i didnt word that very well, but, do you understand what im saying?
I know but I don't know anyone who uses that in an argument.
Yeah, you'd have to be pretty thick to think you can brush off your opponent becuase they can't 'comprehend the inner workings of God'. I mean, anyone who tried to use a line like that would have to be thinking like a little, retarded child, amiright?
Originally posted by Ms.Marvel
well, that would kind of kill the concept of free will, which kind of gives evidence to the idea that free will is an illusion (depends on your definition of it, going by christian beliefs, you have "free will" but when judgment day comes if ultimately you disagree with gods teachings then he mercs you, some would consider that a lack of free will).
the concept that im referring to though is the relative idea that there is no such thing as a universal right or wrong, rather, right or wrong is simply defined by a dominant force, and so we all go with it out of fear of punishment.
an example being, that, the reason why we follow the law is because we know that if we dont, police will beat our ass, not because the law is inherently right. in that same manner, god isnt inherently right just because hes god. its just that his interpretation of right is the only one that really matters because he could wipe us all out if we disagree.
Originally posted by Dr McBeefington
Why? Because he's a supreme being. Notice how there's only a select group of people on this earth that are arrogant enough to try. The religious people know that they won't understand God's decisions unless they're explicitly stated in their bibles, and that it's pointless to make a fool out of yourself and try it.Also, do you think "God works in mysterious ways" is just a punch line?
Translation: I am unable to think for myself and require an imaginary superbeing to provide for my basis of morality. Even when this imaginary superbeing reportedly does horrible things, it must be good since he "works in mysterious ways" and it would be too difficult to think for myself and maybe realize that believing in a primitive book written by primitive men just might be a stupid idea. I fully admit that I cannot prove that this superbeing exists and that I have no logical basis for anything I believe; however, I still expect the atheist to quit being an arrogant fool and realize that my beliefs are right because only an arrogant fool would challenge the rules of the superbeing that I worship even though I cannot prove that he exists and have no empirical reason for doing so.
MM
well, im bored.
I just don't see the point in it for either side; there's no conclusion that can be derived from any of this; no new information gleaned or a correct position to take. It seems a lot like argument for argument's sake.
The Christian's position on God is that God is a higher power, an almighty being who exists beyond the scope of the human intellect and humanity's tools with which to gauge it.
The atheist perspective seems to be a resounding NO to this.
Originally posted by Nephthys
Yeah, you'd have to be pretty thick to think you can brush off your opponent becuase they can't 'comprehend the inner workings of God'. I mean, anyone who tried to use a line like that would have to be thinking like a little, retarded child, amiright?
You'd have to be pretty thick to claim God is illogical, and then try to argue his actions and motives logically, and then trying to prove that God is a (enter noun here).
The sad fact is philosophy vs. religion can't be debated for the most part. That was what I've been trying to say for a while now. But you gotta give credit to the pseudo intellectuals. They'll keep trying as long as it takes care of some insecurity at the end of the day.
Originally posted by Autokrat
[b]Translation: I am unable to think for myself and require an imaginary superbeing to provide for my basis of morality. Even when this imaginary superbeing reportedly does horrible things, it must be good since he "works in mysterious ways" and it would be too difficult to think for myself and maybe realize that believing in a primitive book written by primitive men just might be a stupid idea. I fully admit that I cannot prove that this superbeing exists and that I have no logical basis for anything I believe; however, I still expect the atheist to quit being an arrogant fool and realize that my beliefs are right because only an arrogant fool would challenge the rules of the superbeing that I worship even though I cannot prove that he exists and have no empirical reason for doing so. [/B]
Translation: I'm both insecure and antisocial so I got into a specific field so maybe people can appreciate my intelligence and maybe I'll make friends and meet a girl one day. Until that time I will regurgitate what I've learned and hope people don't think I'm full of shit. I don't understand the concept of beliefs and faith but I'm just insecure enough to criticize people for having them. I can't disprove God's existence but I'm going to ignore that so I can sleep at night. I don't believe in God but I'm going to argue him rationally anyways and I'm going to spout versus from the bible and pass judgments on the illogical higher being because I'm too ignorant to understand there can't be an argument.
Originally posted by One Free Man
because obviously, as an omnipotent, omniscient master of the universe who owns all beings as pets, he knows what's right and what's wrong far more than us.10 But when that which is perfect is come, then that which is in part shall be done away.
11 When I was a child, I spake as a child, I understood as a child, I thought as a child: but when I became a man, I put away childish things.
12 For now we see through a glass, darkly, but then face to face: now I know in part; but then shall I know even as also I am known.