I think that examining how dogmatically one holds faith is very important. This comes as a response to a statement made by Moegreche regarding faith. I think his post sums up a lot of common arguments, so let's take a look:
''We believe what is presented before us. Now, maybe later on we get evidence that is incompatible with our belief and then we can assess whether or not to abandon that belief. I think it's hard to fault someone who was raised in a religious environment and counts certain experiences as God's love for them. It's what their environment surrounds them with, so their belief is completely understandable (to me, at least).''
I was talking to my brother the other day (who is devoutly Greek Orthodox) and I stumbled on a question I htought would be interesting: ''If someone had a time machine and could take you back to 33 AD and showed you that Jesus' ressurection took place, would you stop believing in Christ?'' Keep in mind that the resurrection is the cornerstone to the salvation described in Christianity. Unsurprising to me, he replied he didn't know what he would do (he has very good reasons for believing, trust me), but for others who haven't been through the experiences he has, I'm wondering whether your response would be similar, which would make me question why exactly you believe in Christianity in the first place.
So the question I ask, is what point of logical, or objective proof must one reach to fundamentally change another's faith/belief where applicable (whether it be Christian, Muslim, agnostic, atheist etc.)? Or are there too many irrational emotions involved in this part of human decision making?
Other than merely answering those questions, I would like everyone to state their faith and what the threshold of it would be. I will start.
I am an agnostic atheist. It would take objective proof of the existence of a deity to convince me. Scientific inconsistencies and gaps in human knowledge about the origins of the universe really don't annoy me, as practically everything in this universe within the realm of human knowledge has been explained using scientific method, and the things which haven't been explained are being worked on.
Perhaps no scientific evidence whatsoever can breach the divide between faith and reason - at least not in principle. I realize this claim is quite contentious, but maybe it would be a nice conversation restarter to get this thread back on topic :P
I find your response very intriguing. But doesn't that beg the question ,'who is the true master, reason or emotion?' If you hold this the view that no proof could ever convince you of the existence of god, is your original atheistic belief justified in the first place, even if that was aqcuired by rational means? If we humans really are so emotional to have blind faith in a deity or lack of one, doesn't that imply we have a screw loose, and consequently all efforts to quantify god will be fundamentally flawed?
Those that God killed are those that deserved to be killed.
Potential flamebait. Through the many discussions I've had with my brother about god, it is clear to me that you can justifiably see evil in this world and still not think that the christian god is a complete ***hole. Yours isn't a plausible explanation and certainly isn't compatible with Christian conceptions of god. I don't want to delve too deeply into this as it's slightly off topic, but I hope this post can be considered sufficient to drop this question of gods niceness/badness.
Now to get get this thread going again, I have another question to add:
For atheists, would you worship this newly proven diety. Why/why not?
For theists, would you still continue to be practicing Christians/Muslims/Jews etc. and by practicing I mean go to church, abide by your faiths principles etc? Why/why not?
Again, I will start things off with my own view:
I would not worship this new god until I got some answers. Assuming he was now open to communication, I would begin with ''Sir, why did you go to such great lengths to conceal yourself from rational inquiry? And see where things went from there. I certainly wouldn't jump on the religion bandwaggon until I got some answers.
For atheists, would you worship this newly proven diety. Why/why not?
As I said it really depends on how this being behaves and has behaved. God made you, god loves you, god killed millions doesn't cut it.
Wanting a few answers first is a pretty good idea as well. I think I would also like to know why he/she/it/they when through such great length of concealment. More questions would follow depending on which deity it turns out to be.
If we are speaking about a perfect all loving being, I question if such a being would even want our worship in the first place.
God made you, god loves you, god killed millions doesn't cut it.
Hmm. It seems I am going to have to go more deeply into the issue of god being considered to be a nasty guy. Really I'm looking at this from the Abrahamic perspective, so apologies to other faiths. Succinctly though, god created the world and humankind. He cares about us. If god constantly intervenes to prevent injustice from occuring, we stop caring about ourselves and just trust god to fix everything. He doesn't want to be the one to stop terrible things like wars from happening. He would like us to do that of our own accord.
Also, when did god kill millions? I'm sure if he revealed his presence in such a dramatic manner, I wouldn't need to be asking these questions in the first place!
Also, when did god kill millions? I'm sure if he revealed his presence in such a dramatic manner, I wouldn't need to be asking these questions in the first place!
Of course, this is just the case if the Christian/Muslim/Jewish perception of a god is to be trusted.
I mean when did he actually kill millions. I don't really count the old testament for proof that god is an ***hole. It's really mostly semi related fictional adventure stories. It may be proof that ideologically abrahamic beliefs are inconsistent. But I certainly wouldn't hold Sodom and Gomorrah against god, since there is no archaeological evidence to suggest any such an event took place.
I mean when did he actually kill millions. I don't really count the old testament for proof that god is an ***hole. It's really mostly semi related fictional adventure stories. It may be proof that ideologically abrahamic beliefs are inconsistent. But I certainly wouldn't hold Sodom and Gomorrah against god, since there is no archaeological evidence to suggest any such an event took place.
Mage had a list... Maybe he could fetch it again?
According to the Bible, he just assisted and promoted the killing, mostly in the adventure stories you pointed out. But Christians have to take all or none on the Bible, and we are speaking hypothetically if the Biblical god was correct.
And his way of assisting in killing was just as if it was merely a puppet killing. He endorsed it and empower them, some times killing himself with a genocidal flood or a stray lightning bolt.
Well, then, of course, he didn't, at least not actively. Otherwise this thread wouldn't even exist in the first place. Sorry for my failure at linking, by the way. One last try...]
But Christians have to take all or none on the Bible
Everything other than the resurrection of Christ can be taken as symbolic for Christians to retain the integrity of their beliefs. Also let's try and not go too far off topic. As thread creator, I think I'll make this an axiom to prevent the discussion from going in circles, and getting too far off topic.
Everything other than the resurrection of Christ can be taken as symbolic for Christians to retain the integrity of their beliefs. Also let's try and not go too far off topic. As thread creator, I think I'll make this an axiom to prevent the discussion from going in circles, and getting too far off topic.
Then why can't the resurrection of Christ be taken as symbolic as the rest is? Why can Christians pick and choose what is symbolic and what is not when it goes against science or logic? A few hundred years ago, they believed the Bible to the letter. When science came in and proved it wrong( For example Christians thought the sun revolved around the earth because there god is said to have made the earth more important or something to that effect)they state that it was merely symbolic.
Then why can't the resurrection of Christ be taken as symbolic as the rest is?
Nice to see my axiom has been acknowledged. Want to discuss that? Go back intot he Christianity vs Atheism thread. Suffice to say, the resurrection is the cornerstone of the Christian concept of salvation. It's what underpins their faith. Everything else can be symbolic.
Nice to see my axiom has been acknowledged. Want to discuss that? Go back intot he Christianity vs Atheism thread. Suffice to say, the resurrection is the cornerstone of the Christian concept of salvation. It's what underpins their faith. Everything else can be symbolic.
Yes it is one of the corner stones, but so is the ten commandments and how they were founded, the supposedly virgin birth of Jesus, and pretty much whatever said man said. In fact, his name is Christianity...And of course the concept of heaven.
Ill go back to that thread when an antagonist posts on it...
I mean when did he actually kill millions. I don't really count the old testament for proof that god is an ***hole. It's really mostly semi related fictional adventure stories. It may be proof that ideologically abrahamic beliefs are inconsistent. But I certainly wouldn't hold Sodom and Gomorrah against god, since there is no archaeological evidence to suggest any such an event took place.
If we're talking about discovering the Christian God as being real then we also have to consider the events taking place in the Bible as also possibly being real event's. The old and new testaments aren't so easily divorced. Of course it's possible these events depicting God as beign so cruel and nasty didn't really take place but this is why I said "If this being is as described in the Bible"
If we are speaking of this particular God being real I would question why he felt human sacrifice was necessary for him to say your forgiven. Sending(or allowing) people to go to hell is another questionable act. The argument I have heard is those who don't except Jesus's sacrifice eliminating an aspect of there very being can't stand being in the presence of God, making hell preferable. However this is just saying you have the choice to either A. Stop being who you are. (If you take away your negative aspects your not going to be you) B. Suffer in the presence of God. C. Suffer in hell.
Even if we were to say A. doesn't do what I think it does. Still leaving B. and C. true This still leaves a questionable system. God could easily set up a place without torture for those who do not accept him.
If we're talking about discovering the Christian God as being real then we also have to consider the events taking place in the Bible as also possibly being real event's.
Why? The bible was written by man, not god. The existence of god would not validate the content of the bible.
The old and new testaments aren't so easily divorced.
Why? The bible was written by man, not god. The existence of god would not validate the content of the bible.
I'm not saying it would. But it would be worth having a second look at if given the light of the most incredible aspect of it being true.
Christianity and Judaism.
Judaism doesn't acknowledge the new testament. However the new testament does often refer back to the old. So if you're going to say new testament is what to follow for this God you do also have to take into account the old.
