[Scotty]

Well, I might believe in God so much that I might accept any instruction from a religious authority

Those people are not God, and once again, I reference Jeremiah 14:14b.  If you read into it, Radical Islam is just that, completely radical.  fewer than one percent are actually willing to do that. 

There are plenty of examples where faith in God has led to rather grievous consequences.

Most of which happen at the hands of the criminal, the psychotic, and the radical.

(after all they do have God to guide them so obviously they are right, right?

According to the Bible, so do you.  That said, you are not always right.  people are by their nature imperfect and subject to temptations (even Jesus was tempted)  If you assume that any priest, pastor, etc. has the divine right of God to tell you to do somethingm suicidal or murderous, you are being a stupid misguided idiot. 

the Westboro Baptist Church believe that everyone that is not part of the Westboro Baptist Church is going to hell.

That would fall under the heading of 'radical'

the assumption that not believing in God would result in separation from him is just that, an assumption. No one knows that any more than whether or not God exists in the first place.

The Bible is quite firm on the concept of Hell.  My own view of Hell is eternal separation from Him.  Others may prefer to see it as a fire and brimstone scenario.  However, my point stands that the 'not believeing in God' section would have serious consequences (read:  Hell).

I notice you didn't actually refute the argument.

That's because I can see by the tone of his arguments that he would be more the subject of that House quote last page than a religious person.  You just can't reason with him (her?  I can never tell on forums).  I prefer not to engage in the ultimately futile that would serve no purpose whatsoever.  Thinking God is a dick (while still meaning that in some way he/she believes He exists) is an opinion, and people have a right to have those.  I personally hold the opposite opinion.

I do believe Mr. Pascal might be somewhat biased.

As is every single other person in the world.  the definition is: an inclination of temperament.  Everyone has thier own inclinations.

[Galemp]

To Galemp:  I had an answer a couple pages ago that no one seemed to even notice.  I re-posted it in one of my earlier posts, but I can post it again here.

*snip*

Hm... interesting. That's sort of the point of the Book of Job, and meshes with what a lot of people here have been saying about free will. But I base my answer on something more fundamental: the premise that evil exists.

The way I see it, there is no cosmic, absolute basis for defining Good or Evil. What some see as evil others may not. Mass murder, pedophilia, and slavery, for example, were both condoned in ancient times and are still practiced in modern times, and even institutionalized (formally or informally) by religious groups.

Hence, my Rorschach post earlier in the thread. Epicurius' paradox goes away if we eliminate Evil as an absolute.

Of course that's moral relativism, and would get me beheaded in any other century.

*hopes for replies*

[Axem]

Harumph....let me just state, once and again, that there is NO WAY that you can prove God doesn't exit. Nada. Niet.

Nor can you prove that your logic is applicable to God, nor that it's infallible, nor that your starting assumptions are correct. Which leaves us with what exaclty? Nothing at all.

 

Equally, there's no way you can prove God didn't create the universe 5 minutes ago. Being a omnipotent being that defies logic, I would certainly expect him to fake a few billion years of history to make it look like there was a history at all.

[Galemp]

Equally, there's no way you can prove God didn't create the universe 5 minutes ago. Being a omnipotent being that defies logic, I would certainly expect him to fake a few billion years of history to make it look like there was a history at all.

For that matter, you could just be a brain in a vat with electrical impulses feeding you all your experiences.

Sheesh. Nobody can seriously debate this sort of thing unless they've done their philosophical homework.

Trashman's right though-- it is impossible to prove. We can determine probabilities though.

[Wobble73]

Why did god give us the free will and intelligence to question his existence in the first place? Or do you believe we stole the intelligence by eating an apple from the tree of knowledge? Why did the bible portray Eve the flawed one by listening to the serpent? What happened to the lost scriptures of the thirteenth disciple, Mary Magdelene?

[Galemp]

Wobble: That's off-topic. Try finding a priest/pastor/preacher/cleric and asking them.

Sorry, trying to re-kindle the discussion here...

[Axem]

Equally, there's no way you can prove God didn't create the universe 5 minutes ago. Being a omnipotent being that defies logic, I would certainly expect him to fake a few billion years of history to make it look like there was a history at all.

For that matter, you could just be a brain in a vat with electrical impulses feeding you all your experiences.

Sheesh. Nobody can seriously debate this sort of thing unless they've done their philosophical homework.

Trashman's right though-- it is impossible to prove. We can determine probabilities though.

Of course its impossible to prove, you can't prove a negative. The burden of proof would be on me to prove that the universe was created 5 minutes ago.

[Herra Tohtori]

Well, I might believe in God so much that I might accept any instruction from a religious authority

Those people are not God, and once again, I reference Jeremiah 14:14b.  If you read into it, Radical Islam is just that, completely radical.  fewer than one percent are actually willing to do that.

Actually, there is not radical/fundamental Islam, there's just radical people who choose to follow Islam as it is interpreted by the radical authorities, and then there are non-radical people who don't follow Islam's all the bloodiest orders but still call themselves moslems, but that's neither here nor there. Suffice to say that the basic tenets of Islam actually do aim to completely Islamic world with no other religions, and that's the basic line where that religion stands.

And I would also like to raise the question, if you know that priests, clergymen and whatnot are not God, why then Bible is? Did you know personally the people that wrote the Bible and formed the canon of Bible as we know it? I certainly didn't. And even if I had known them I still couldn't be sure if the text came from them or God.

You're still stuck in the loop of circular reasoning. There is no way we can know whether or not the Bible actually was written under divine influence.

There are plenty of examples where faith in God has led to rather grievous consequences.

Most of which happen at the hands of the criminal, the psychotic, and the radical.

And how is their faith different from yours?

Or is it so that true faith only causes positive things, and thus bad things seemingly caused by faith are actualle results of false faith?

If that is what you think, it stinks.

(after all they do have God to guide them so obviously they are right, right?

According to the Bible, so do you.  That said, you are not always right.  people are by their nature imperfect and subject to temptations (even Jesus was tempted)  If you assume that any priest, pastor, etc. has the divine right of God to tell you to do somethingm suicidal or murderous, you are being a stupid misguided idiot. 

Well right back at you, if you assume that the authors of Bible, every prophet and historian and rabbi and apostle in Bible, and the Council of Nicaea, and all the theologists that have been deciding what the Bible means had the divine right of God to tell you to do or not do something, you are being stupid misguided idiot.

I'm certain you can see where this is going. The basic assumption that the Bible is correct is based on the Bible itself. There's no source criticism here at all, so let's practice it a bit:

Assuming that the Bible is from God does not make it certain. Quite like reading something in the Internet doesn't make it true. Or like Siddhartha Gautama said, don't believe in old stories just because they are written down. The whole thing with religions is built on cascading evidence, and if the basic assumption is abandoned, the whole thing loses a lot of it's certainty. After questioning the origins of religions, taking things like "you go to hell if you don't believe in God" at face value seems rather silly, and instead one starts to think why would I go to hell if I didn't believe in God. And after questioning the divine truth of the Bible, the traditional explanations of Christian theology - that man is inherently flawed and needs the faith to be salvaged from his sins - become compromised and unconvincing.

the Westboro Baptist Church believe that everyone that is not part of the Westboro Baptist Church is going to hell.

That would fall under the heading of 'radical'

Well they believe so, why is their belief wrong?

The Bible is quite firm on the concept of Hell.  My own view of Hell is eternal separation from Him.  Others may prefer to see it as a fire and brimstone scenario.  However, my point stands that the 'not believeing in God' section would have serious consequences (read:  Hell).

The Bible can tell me many things but it can't prove itself to be true. The question is, why would not believing in God have serious consequences. Try to explain it without using the Bible as a source. Why would God put so much importance on faith that it alone would decide your fate in the assumed afterlife?

[Turambar]

I present the following visual aids to help this discussion

[Mars]

You know what? I've had it with the stupid flaming.

I realize that there are religious people who piss people off, but you know what? It's not religious people who piss people off: It's assholes, and there are plenty of assholes everywhere who believe in everything.

A self righteous hedonist is just as annoying as a self righteous methodist, IMHO. Why argue about religion? Discuss, sure, compare yes, but there's no reason to have giant war of the bandwagons.

[iamzack]

I present the following visual aids to help this discussion

*snip*

Stop it. :[

[TrashMan]

Harumph....let me just state, once and again, that there is NO WAY that you can prove God doesn't exit. Nada. Niet.

Nor can you prove that your logic is applicable to God, nor that it's infallible, nor that your starting assumptions are correct. Which leaves us with what exaclty? Nothing at all.

 

Equally, there's no way you can prove God didn't create the universe 5 minutes ago. Being a omnipotent being that defies logic, I would certainly expect him to fake a few billion years of history to make it look like there was a history at all.

Technicly He doesn't need to fake anything when He can change reality at a whim. With a snap of His finger he CAN make the universe 5 minutes old. Or change reality in any other way convievable and inconcievable.

What I wanted to say is that our meager minds cant describe or explain Him fully. Hard to explain what I mean exactly.


Herra, regarding your universe graaphs, when you say "Everything", you go far beyond our known and mesurable universe - we're talking other dimensions (where completely other laws may apply) and possible other universes and "places" like heaven and Hell, which certanly defy any scientific mesures, and probably even logic to a good degree.

So is God Everything. Well yeah. Are we all, in a sense, a part of God? Yeah, after all He created us.
Does that mean that we form God and that out thoughts, our existance forms God? No.
While God may act logicly (if He so wishes), using our logic to describe Him from questionable premises is simply doomed to faliure.

That said, given that there is a large vocal majority of atheists on this forums (with powers to boot) I have no desire to continue this discussion thing.

[Polpolion]

Question: Seeing as how God is all-powerful, can he make a triangle with 4 sides?

[Flipside]

I think 'blaming the moderators' when I've deliberately left this thread open regardless of personal feelings on the matter is a bit off.

Edit: Particuarly when you consider that both Goober and Sandwich are not Atheists, but are Admin.

[Turambar]

Question: Seeing as how God is all-powerful, can he make a triangle with 4 sides?

but that's just silly, he'd either be making a quadrilateral or redefining a triangle

[TrashMan]

I think 'blaming the moderators' when I've deliberately left this thread open regardless of personal feelings on the matter is a bit off.

Edit: Particuarly when you consider that both Goober and Sandwich are not Atheists, but are Admin.

I'm not blaming anyone from anything.

I just fear, that as usual, religious threads will end up in a flame war and bannage, and for what? Nothing. Not worth it.
Oh, and from my experience on other forums, HLP does come off as more "atheist" than most...If I can use that expression

[Polpolion]

Question: Seeing as how God is all-powerful, can he make a triangle with 4 sides?

but that's just silly, he'd either be making a quadrilateral or redefining a triangle

So the answer is no, he cannot make a triangle with 4 sides. Therefore, unless there is some insane way to make a triangle with four sides, God is subject to logic in the way that he cannot create paradoxes. So I guess you can apply logic to God. Huh, that's not what Trashman said.

[Flipside]

I think 'blaming the moderators' when I've deliberately left this thread open regardless of personal feelings on the matter is a bit off.

Edit: Particuarly when you consider that both Goober and Sandwich are not Atheists, but are Admin.

I'm not blaming anyone from anything.

I just fear, that as usual, religious threads will end up in a flame war and bannage, and for what? Nothing. Not worth it.
Oh, and from my experience on other forums, HLP does come off as more "atheist" than most...If I can use that expression

Threads get locked based on the behaviour of the people in it, not the views. As for this forum being 'Atheist', I'd personally say it's actually more 'scientific', there seems, to me, to be a far higher percentage of qualified and scientifically minded people on this Forum than most others I go to.

I think a lot of people here don't rule out the possibility of a God, since there is no actual scientific evidence to disprove Him, but DO rule out the possibility that the Bible, the Quoran or any book is the definitive description of Him. That's, at least for my part, how I feel.

I certainly wouldn't want anything to do with a God who creates us in His image and then spends all eternity judging us, I suspect we invented the Judgement part all by ourselves, because we love to judge other people by our own standards.

Personally, I'd say the one essence of humanity that most resembles Godhood is the urge to create, which leads me to the conclusion that if God did 'create man' he didn't do it to judge us, he did it because he could, nothing more. We are, in effect, God's high-poly amoeba. And even then, I suspect the effect is more procedural than design.

[Galemp]

Oh, and from my experience on other forums, HLP does come off as more "atheist" than most...If I can use that expression

Well, we're sci-fi geeks, and as a whole our demographic tends to be young, highly educated, and well-grounded in science, which overlaps significantly with the non-religious.

Part of it self-selection, too. The moderate and indifferent almost never poke around in these threads, yet the opinionated always do. And they're the ones who have the strongest thoughts and feelings about their beliefs.

[Turambar]

Part of it self-selection, too. The moderate and indifferent almost never poke around in these threads, yet the opinionated always do.

If he didn't these theads would just kind of go away, cause we'd all agree or something, and then nobody would comment anymore.

Where's the fun in that?