I am a christian, i and i strongly belive in my lord jesus christ, and i also belive that if you belive in him and except him as your savior, u will go to heaven. and i also believe that he created the world, not the big bang, or that we came from stupid apes.
Most of the time God (should he exist) doesn't reveal himself because then everyone believes in him only because they have seen him, which is not what he wants.
simply because we cannot understand whether or not they are possible to commit by a higher being.
The only evidence that could lean in favor of the existance of God would be something that could not be commited by normal human beings. That kind of evidence would normally end up becoming false evidence since it doesn't make logical sense.
The lord works in mysterious ways right? That's just a cop out. You know, there are scientists out there that are actually quite eager to see evidence of god or the paranormal. The James Randi foundation has been offering a million dollar prize to someone that can produce psychic abilities (which as we know it - don't make logical sense to date) in a controlled test environment. Nobody's picked up the prize yet...
Regardless, it is the only record of what may or may not have happened. I was only pointing out that you said there was no evidence, and it is a source of evidence.
Perhaps I wasn't firm enough with my original statement. The bible is not evidence - full stop. You just said yourself that you'd chuck the Harry Potter text out the window - what makes the bible any different? Do we send murderers to prison based on something that *might* be true, or legistlate action based on ancient prophecy? No, we don't - because it's entirely irrational.
I find it no stupider than assuming there is no afterlife. Then there's really no point to your life, since you will die. No offense to atheism, but all to often I've been criticized for having faith in what has no proof, so I wanted to point that out.
If you can't find a point or meaning to your own existence without belief in god.. then you have *all* of your work ahead of you my friend. What about the impact that you have on friends & family? Loved ones? Positive contribution to soceity? It's the same embarassing argument I hear on moral & ethical dilemma without religion. "Where do you get your morals if god isn't going to punish you in the afterlife?"
"Where do you get your morals if god isn't going to punish you in the afterlife?"
Indeed. As an atheist, I find it rather insulting, as it implies that only people with the fear of God have morals. However, on the flip side, it shows how little faith (some) Christians have in humanity, to believe that without the threat of hell, there would be chaos. This is also negated by the fact that before Moses proclaimed the 10 commandments people weren't going on crime sprees.
Every theist I've argued on the subject of innate morality.
It's not an 'absolute' code, but morals are innate in humanity. Even if it's not altruistic, it's in self service to 'get along' with the rest of society.
@hidden: Morals are innate, but not absolute, like you said. Many Christians seem to think that the Bible=morality, which is untrue. ------- To add on to my earlier statement, there are a few things I may not understand that you may say, though I've been able to understand about 97% of what's been said insofar.
Excellent - I wasn't sure if you were in agreement or disagreement that morality is innate, wanted to clarify before I summoned a block of text to support my point
It's not an 'absolute' code, but morals are innate in humanity. Even if it's not altruistic, it's in self service to 'get along' with the rest of society.
I read an interesting theory on morals, that they are evolutionary. Back in the day, when all humans were hunter gatherers, groups that could co-exist peacefully due to sets off morals, were more likely to work together and outcompete other groups for resources. Thus, these basic morals enbaling social cohesion were passed down genetically. Of course there are other theories, but I can see a correlation between successful societies and those with a shared code.
Indeed. Some refer to it as a 'meme' It's an interesting topic that Dawkins speaks at length on in one of his books:
Richard Dawkins first introduced the word in The Selfish Gene (1976) to discuss evolutionary principles in explaining the spread of ideas and cultural phenomena. He gave as examples melodies, catch-phrases, and beliefs (notably religious belief), clothing/fashion, and the technology of building arches.
@Hiddendistance: Lol, i agree with you mostly in stuff regarding religion. . .I've changed my thinking slightly since page 36 when I first hit this thread, so I'll post an updated version sometime. . . . ---------- @Firefly: That is an interesting theory. It makes sense too, seeing as many successful civilizations have similar, if not identical, sets of morals. Time to ponder my stance on that proposition.. . .
@Hiddendistance: Lol, i agree with you mostly in stuff regarding religion. . .I've changed my thinking slightly since page 36 when I first hit this thread, so I'll post an updated version sometime. . . .
Good. Your phenominist view, (if you stil hold it that is) is downright odd. It is just as and illogical as the belief in the Christian God, if you don't mind me saying.
Indeed. Some refer to it as a 'meme' It's an interesting topic that Dawkins speaks at length on in one of his books:
I highly recommend you read this article. It is a theory that religion stemmed from (ironically) evolution:
I find the theory interesting, but there does seem to be a lot of bridge hopping and confirmation bias in the article.
As for the 'common sense dualism' concept mentioned, I find it nothing more than another take on the division between animistic thinking (preoperational cognitive concept) and a supposed further break with egocentrism; the problem being that egocentrism isn't nescessarily a measure indicating a lack of awareness in others, simly an inability to understand they are different from the self. How Bloom, the author jumps from here to the idea of a conceptualisation of 'mind and matter' is something I can't see and since no explanation is given I would presume it ot be a case of ''well it sounded nice''.
Still, that paragraph I just types will mean nothing to those of you who cannot be bothered to read the article, but I urge you to do so. It does introduce some interesting new slants on the subject.
"Where do you get your morals if god isn't going to punish you in the afterlife?"
Sorry, left for a while. I agree that that statement is ubsurd, since atheists have morals and don't believe in God. All I meant was that if life ends the same way for everyone, that reasoning really doesn't call you to change your life at all. While it may be the most logical, it also gains nothing to understand it, while if Christianity were correct, it would call you to change your life in order to create for yourself a better life. I'm saying that even if there's no proof of Christianity, it offers you something if it is correct, where as atheism does not. I guess you could say it's kind of like hoping for the best. Anyway, I respect atheism though, especially after all the posts I see on here. I hope nothing I said was offensive, if so I'm sorry.
I consider myself to be more of an atheist agnostic. I think that it is possible that there is some sort of God, but I'm not counting on it. Of course, I consider it to be pretty obvious that religion is a psychological construct, and I have a few examples buried in this thread somewhere. In fact, humans are apparently basically wired to believe in some sort of higher power, and though I understand that that argument could go both ways, the belief in a God is natural in human thought. I think that there is no absolute code of morals-and altruism is actually a survival technique. (I'll explain if asked, if you don't already know what I'm getting at.) Of course, I don't believe that there isn't a God necessarily, but I don't believe in a God either.
Basically, if truth be told, in most religions if you act in a generally moral way, you'll obtain good fortunte in the afterlife. So hopefully that little statement will bring us all together! I'm gone, I have to watch Barney.
No, definitely not - you've added good stuff to the discussion.
I guess my position is that I don't need some unseeable unknowable force to want to better myself, my life, and the lives of those around me. My father was an atheist; I dabbled with religion a little in my adult life before abandoning it, and.. self-improvement is enough motivation in itself without needing any addition driving force behind it.
I'm saying that even if there's no proof of Christianity, it offers you something if it is correct, where as atheism does not
Perhaps - but I would also argue that an atheist will try harder to make their life on this Earth as good as it can be, because there is nothing else. What we do here counts - it's not just a test for... something else, something better. If this is all I've got, I have to make the most of it, where as a religious person might (key word) not feel the same way because they think they're going to paradise after they die.
