god?

12-02-2009 01:29AM

Jakkass wrote: »

I'm rather open to it being. I don't see Genesis 1 and 2 as being a complete scientific recount of how the world was formed, it merely is a chronicling of it being formed, and of the first lives coming into it. One must beg the question of why there are two creation accounts in Genesis if they are intended to be scientific recounts. If you look to the passage following the rib incident it explains that this is the reason why a man leaves his family and becomes joined to his wife and they become one (through marriage).

I'd agree with you in that I don't see Genesis as being a full scientific account either, infact I don't see it as being a scientific account in the remotest sense. It is, to me, just a poetic story full of metaphor and analogy.

I'm open to both possibilities, but at the same time I'm meant to be making an attempt to understand the Bible as it was originally intended to be understood.

Some good old exegesis - that hasn't been argued to death already.:pac:

I consider it excessive to suggest that theistic evolution is a watered down form of evolution when many Christian scientists thus far have assisted in making progress while having these beliefs.

Sorry, that probably was a bit excessive. I suppose there are actually very few differences in evolution and theistic evolution - they only differ at the moment(s) of abiogenesis, which evolution isn't concerned with.

I think the problem only arises if the theistic evolutionist believes in Adam and Eve, as they then believe in two human ancestors to all of humanity. And, as evolution has shown, that isn't the case: as we have evolved from a different ancestor species which we wouldn't consider human.

I disagree that original sin is somehow compromised in either situation, I also don't see how Adam and Eve could be accounted for with the concept of the Most Recent Common Ancestor (MRCA) taken further and further back. However I concede inferior knowledge of the subject of evolution to you.

I don't think there are only two options in this case, or rather you have put forward a false diachotomy.

But the idea of two human ancestors is at absolute odds with evolutions main premise: that we (in the collective of all animals) have evolved from what we would consider different animals. So, unless Adam was the very first spark of life on Earth, and Eve was the second (which would of came from Adam), the concept of two human ancestors is at odds with evolution. But, that's an interesting metaphor for Adam and Eve, I think (that they were the first instances of life on Earth).

anladmór · 12-02-2009 02:46AM

id have no problem identifying as catholic if i grew up in a country with a multitude of different religions and complete seperation between church and state. its imperative to put atheist/agnostic down on census as to show the catholic church they are a thing of the past and to stop thinking they have any say in irish society.

KnifeWRENCH · 12-02-2009 07:35AM

-JammyDodger- wrote: »

But this is a direct contradiction to evolutionary theory. I don't see how somebody could say that they believe in theistic evolution (at least what I understand it to be) and believe that humans have two human ancestors. They're simply not at all compatible.

Yeah, I would have thought that too.

I have no great knowledge of evolution or Genesis, but surely they contradict each other?

Insect Overlord · 12-02-2009 09:58AM

Today is the 200th anniversary of Charles Darwin's birth, for anyone who's interested.

wiki link: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_Darwin

Crumble Froo · 12-02-2009 10:00AM

man, i remember standing at mass, listening to the adam and eve story, and the priest saying in his homily it was just a story.

but this thread's been making me think of religion for me, cos up till about a year ago, i would have been somewhat spiritual.

my ma was brought up really strict catholic (apparently she was about 20, had my dad over at her house, picking her up to go out or something, and she dropped something/whatever and said 'jesus christ', and received a slap across the face from her mother for using our lord's name in vain... )...

but we went to mass every sunday... occasionally saturday night if it really went against all our various sporting activities, but even foreign holidays, we sat through foreign mass (i always love how spanish jesus looks spanish)... and for the most part i didn't mind. remember my english cousins, one a year older than me, must have been 12 or 13 throwing the biggest temper tantrum ever because she didnt want to go to church. absolutely shocked, i was.

making my confirmation, i took the whole thing very seriously, pledge, too (ha, i made it to 17! at my graduation night from secondary). i always paid attention in mass, and even went by myself at half nine every sunday, up till about age 14.

i can't remember what changed my mind, but i do recall in second year history, doing the reformation and agreeing with most of luther's points... but yep, definitely gave up on transubstantiation and stopped receiving communion about then. to me, to continue taking it when i didn't believe in it, would be an insult to the people who did believe that it was the body of christ.

continued going to mass then, had quite a good priest, and he'd often do some meditation during the homily, which involved peace, relaxation, some self examination... i found it quite beneficial and relaxing.

theeeeennn we got a new priest. and in the space of about 3 weeks, he managed to majorly piss me off three times. i can't remember all of it, but it definitely included some bull on gays, at least one of the times, and it always always bugged me how we were told how to vote in referenda, etc.

kinda opened my eyes a bit to all the bull in the catholic church, and i just couldnt continue to have any involvement/support of that organisation and that way of thinking.

over the next while, i looked at various other belief systems, and tried to discover what my true views were, and became quite interested in various philosophies, paganism, pantheism, buddhism all quite interested me. but i never studied them much further.

i've got a pretty good personal philosophy, i think, and i swear, surfing is the most soul enhancing thing ive ever done, and as far as im concerned, look after yourself, look after nature, the earth, our planet, look after the people who matter to you and respect all around you, and you can't do too wrong.

philologos · 12-02-2009 10:14AM

Crumble Froo: Interesting that you found what was on the 2nd year JC history course to be a decent insight into Protestantism. I personally found it actually rather biased in the course I was studying. I think in terms of Lutheranism, again something which I admire (with teachings such as to work on your own personal salvation and to gain a relationship with Christ through reading the Bible for yourself), it was accurate but when it got to the English Reformation it basically summed it down to Henry looking for an annulment which totally removes the influence of many great figures such as Tyndale, Cranmer etc.

However, just because you don't believe in transubstantiation doesn't mean that you shouldn't receive communion, but then again I'm not a RC. I personally believe that Christ is present spiritually at the Eucharist, but in terms of flesh and blood I don't think after analysing the substance of the bread before and after that it has changed, but in terms of spiritual value I believe it does have some.

As for political motivations in church, I think it's up to the layman to use his or her own personal conscience to make political decisions. However in terms of social ethics as discussed in the Bible I think it's quite acceptable for the priest / pastor to bring the message of Christ alive in the church.

JC 2K3 · 12-02-2009 10:25AM

Does anyone else get highly confused by the word "spiritual"?

Insect Overlord · 12-02-2009 10:46AM

JC 2K3 wrote: »

Does anyone else get highly confused by the word "spiritual"?

I'm of the opinion that spirituality can be whatever an individual wishes it to be. For some, getting in touch with their spiritual side can mean going to mass every week and praying to God. For others, meditation and yoga serve the same purpose. Crumble Froo's example of surfing is proof that hobbies/talents can take on intense spiritual meaning.

I have no particular religious beliefs, as I mentioned in another recent thread. However, as a child, I was always involved in my school choir for the yearly Christmas carol show in the local church. When I was 11 I started doing the second reading at mass most weeks, and I kept that up for nearly two years. Similarly I did Prayers of the Faithful for Scouts masses until I was 11.

From doing readings I got the chance to attend the Taize mass most Saturday nights. If there was ever a Catholic spiritual experience for me, that style of mass was it. The church would be lit by candles, hundreds of them, around the altar and the sides of the building. Our local choir has been esteemed as one of the best in the country on several occasions. The combination of the candle-light, harp music and angelic singing was stunning.

But I never had any real grá for Catholicism. I went through a year or so of praying/talking to God every night before going to sleep. By the time I had done my Confirmation I had realised just how strategically written my R.E. book was in school. I saw it as little more than iondoctrination. The first few years of secondary school showed me nothing to keep me interested, and I gradually drifted further and further away from the faith, and then from any faith.
I still kept up my involvement with school masses, and I even did a short reading at my uncle's wedding, but it meant nothing to me except "I'll do this for my family because they believe in it."
In 5th Year I was selected as one of a grouop of 6 to visit a Canadian CBS, experience their retreat programme and bring it back to Ireland to set up a similar programme here. I was put in the same group as my R.E. teacher for all of our activities, and I shocked her by revealing my lack of faith. Did that stop me from being a very effective retreat leader? No.

I feel that by believing in me, in the convictions of my own actions, that I can live a pefrectly good life without God.

Crumble Froo · 12-02-2009 10:48AM

Jakkass wrote: »

Crumble Froo: Interesting that you found what was on the 2nd year JC history course to be a decent insight into Protestantism. I personally found it actually rather biased in the course I was studying. I think in terms of Lutheranism, again something which I admire (with teachings such as to work on your own personal salvation and to gain a relationship with Christ through reading the Bible for yourself), it was accurate but when it got to the English Reformation it basically summed it down to Henry looking for an annulment which totally removes the influence of many great figures such as Tyndale, Cranmer etc.

well, to me, henry, 'the defender of the faith', was just pished cos he wasnt allowed do something he wanted, so said screw it, ill make up my own religion/rules, and none of you have an option on the matter... and there we go...

but the lutheran things that got me (oh god, *strains to recall all those years ago*), were things like truth coming from the bible, as opposed to the christian bible and traditions... consubstantiation vs transubstantiation, then the obvious abuses, simony, nepotism, etc etc...

i can remember reading it (it was just a table where the two disagreed), and going 'yeah, i agree with this luther dude'.

it was a while after that that i came to the consubstantiation belief. and the roman catholic belief is that during mass, the bread and wine *do* turn to the body and blood of jesus.

since then, nah, i have no belief/interest in the catholic/christian faiths. i don't look down on anyone who does, i just have my own way, and my own beliefs, and priorities in life.

philologos · 12-02-2009 02:37PM

Crumble Froo wrote: »

well, to me, henry, 'the defender of the faith', was just pished cos he wasnt allowed do something he wanted, so said screw it, ill make up my own religion/rules, and none of you have an option on the matter... and there we go...

This isn't the full truth. Yes Henry did do this, but the English Reformation was about a lot more than Henry. English people were angry for decades that the Bible wasn't translated into English, people had been put to death at the stake for using anything apart from the Latin translation. People had become increasingly dissatisfied with the stronghold that the Church seemed to be having in their relationship with God, and since we have a Bible each to our own, we can have this direct relationship with God.

JammyDodger wrote:

So, unless Adam was the very first spark of life on Earth, and Eve was the second (which would of came from Adam)

Isn't this very similar to the way the Genesis account portrays it, Adam is seen to be the first life, and Eve to be the second, and Eve came to life from Adam? Your thought process is more enlightening than you may think it to be

12-02-2009 07:08PM

Jakkass wrote: »

Isn't this very similar to the way the Genesis account portrays it, Adam is seen to be the first life, and Eve to be the second, and Eve came to life from Adam? Your thought process is more enlightening than you may think it to be

That's what I was thinking, that perhaps Genesis is accounting for the first life, and it's using humans as metaphors for the actual first instance of life; but, there are two problems with this.

The first is that God made the animals and plants before Adam and Eve, so that whole idea kind of goes out the window.

And, the second is that it says God made man in His image. Original life would of been nothing more than a complex concoction of chemicals and molecules, certainly nothing any way remotely similar to humans.

But, it's interesting nonetheless!

philologos · 12-02-2009 07:31PM

-JammyDodger- wrote: »

The first is that God made the animals and plants before Adam and Eve, so that whole idea kind of goes out the window.

And, the second is that it says God made man in His image. Original life would of been nothing more than a complex concoction of chemicals and molecules, certainly nothing any way remotely similar to humans.

But, it's interesting nonetheless!

Yes this is what I was thinking in relation to the first problem.

However the second isn't so much. In Christianity and Judaism that verse (Genesis 1:26-27) our likeness is considered due to our common spirit nature which allows us to be receptive to God in most takes of this passage.

JC 2K3 · 13-02-2009 01:19AM

An File wrote: »

I'm of the opinion that spirituality can be whatever an individual wishes it to be. For some, getting in touch with their spiritual side can mean going to mass every week and praying to God. For others, meditation and yoga serve the same purpose. Crumble Froo's example of surfing is proof that hobbies/talents can take on intense spiritual meaning.

Yes, but why call this "spiritual"? What's the point of the word? It has to have *some* base meaning. Otherwise, what's the point in describing anything as "spiritual"?

An File wrote: »

In 5th Year I was selected as one of a grouop of 6 to visit a Canadian CBS, experience their retreat programme and bring it back to Ireland to set up a similar programme here. I was put in the same group as my R.E. teacher for all of our activities, and I shocked her by revealing my lack of faith. Did that stop me from being a very effective retreat leader? No.

I don't mean to be patronising, but how could you be an effective retreat leader without a belief in God? Retreats are essentially a form of indoctrination, at least in my experience, but I can't really see the point of them otherwise....

raah! · 13-02-2009 03:26AM

JC 2K3 wrote: »

Does anyone else get highly confused by the word "spiritual"?

Yes, it has always confused me. The relationship between belief in a deity and of spirts and souls has always been something I've found very interesting too.

It seems most of the argumentation around these issues is always centered on the existence of a god. But people never mention things like 'soul', 'spirit' or the vast range of associated concepts.

The only logical justification I can see for a theist to have these ideas"God is nice and likes things like souls and heaven". Deists(of a sort), athiests and the like don't seem to have any justifiable reason to believe in things like souls, spirits and other such concepts based on these.

Fad · 13-02-2009 03:49PM

JC 2K3 wrote: »

I don't mean to be patronising, but how could you be an effective retreat leader without a belief in God? Retreats are essentially a form of indoctrination, at least in my experience, but I can't really see the point of them otherwise....

In the 6 retreats I went on in the entire of 2nd level, only one of them had anything that could be described as indoctrination involved.

Some deacon went through the morals of past and present, and asked wether things were better or worse. He proceeded to ignore our opinions and draw up a graph (Dont ask, hideously complicated!) that suited the point he was trying to make. Everyone else didnt really seem to notice what he was at, so I pointed it out to him, and he completely denied this, saying he was only correcting our opinions (That statement troubled me too).

It was awful!

All the other retreats were really a day off with meditation or something, only the one in first year and the one I described above involved any form of mass. (4 different retreat centres).

Although this is just my personal experience.

cautioner · 13-02-2009 04:14PM

We went on a retreat this year. First thing we did was receive a piece of paper and a pencil and write down what we wanted from the day. Almost everyone said "I don't want to pray". So we didn't. It was great.

illiop · 13-02-2009 05:37PM

I said yes..but I don't really believe the whole organised religon thing. Having said that I do plan on raiseing my children the same religon I was raised 'cause I think it gives you a good moral grounding and it's kinda part of my heritage.

I do find it sad though that a lot of people seem to be under the impression that only idiots believe in god. In my opinion I find it highly illogical that there is no God; it's just completely nonsenseical and a little depressing.

jason&arthur · 13-02-2009 05:38PM

i believe in a higher force

dinosaurs

JC 2K3 · 13-02-2009 05:42PM

illiop wrote: »

I said yes..but I don't really believe the whole organised religon thing. Having said that I do plan on raiseing my children the same religon I was raised 'cause I think it gives you a good moral grounding and it's kinda part of my heritage.

I do find it sad though that a lot of people seem to be under the impression that only idiots believe in god. In my opinion I find it highly illogical that there is no God; it's just completely nonsenseical and a little depressing.

How is it illogical to not believe in something which doesn't even have a proper definition?

Piste · 13-02-2009 06:53PM

I take it to mean you don't believe in Love then?

seamus-2k7 · 13-02-2009 08:04PM

Don't believe in God unless proven otherwise. I believe in the morals taught by most Religions but for the amount of conflict these Religious belief cause, I do my own thing. I full respect for anyone of any religious belief except the likes of Scientology like is is a perfectly valid religion with much to give to humanity

13-02-2009 11:45PM

illiop wrote: »

I said yes..but I don't really believe the whole organised religon thing. Having said that I do plan on raiseing my children the same religon I was raised 'cause I think it gives you a good moral grounding and it's kinda part of my heritage.

Religion, to be honest, doesn't give a good moral grounding at all. Selectively chosing certain passages from the respective texts does indeed provide moral values. But, by what standard are you selectively chosing the passages to take as morally right and morally wrong? Don't tell me that you're using the entire text as your source of moral value, because, you're not. Now, if this is the case, why would you raise a child into this ambiguity? Why not raise your children to do right and not do wrong? Why complicate it with a religion? It's not needed; it's just superfluous (and not even superfluous in a positive sense).

I do find it sad though that a lot of people seem to be under the impression that only idiots believe in god.

The only people that I know of who hold that opinion and idiots themselves. But, there is a positive correlation with education and atheism/agnosticism. Make of that what you will.

In my opinion I find it highly illogical that there is no God; it's just completely nonsenseical and a little depressing.

I'd love for you to elaborate on this. Usually, somebody who expresses such a view can not articulate why they feel that way. So, please, elucidate why you feel this to be true.

There's an inherent contradiction in expressing something that's unknowable as illogical. Infact, to issue some irony, the statement you've just made is illogical. In what way is it nonsensical to not believe in the metaphysical and supernatural? Again, another contradiction. Oh, just so you know, the universe doesn't owe you a cheerful and non-depressing life. You can't use the fact that the thought of no god being depressing is evidence for there being a god.

seamus-2k7 wrote: »

Don't believe in God unless proven otherwise. I believe in the morals taught by most Religions but for the amount of conflict these Religious belief cause, I do my own thing. I full respect for anyone of any religious belief except the likes of Scientology like is is a perfectly valid religion with much to give to humanity

The morals thought by most religions are absolutely horrendous and, indeed, enormous. If you think that the Bible, for instance, teaches a good moral framework, then I doubt you've actually read it; or, if you have, you're selectively chosing what is right and what is wrong.

Oh, and what delineates those who believe in scientology with those who believe in the Judeo-Christian or Asian religions?

philologos · 14-02-2009 12:53AM

-JammyDodger- wrote: »

The morals thought by most religions are absolutely horrendous and, indeed, enormous. If you think that the Bible, for instance, teaches a good moral framework, then I doubt you've actually read it; or, if you have, you're selectively chosing what is right and what is wrong.

Oh, and what delineates those who believe in scientology with those who believe in the Judeo-Christian or Asian religions?

I'd love to discuss about Biblical morality with you, it's clear that you don't understand Biblical ethics if you say things like this. I've read the Bible the whole way through, and I'm reading it again for the second time. The Bible explains perfectly that Christians are bound to the Moral laws of Torah (not the ceremonial or the judicial which were intended for the Biblical State of Israel), and the Christian laws of Christ and the Apostles revealed by the Spirit.

I was just listening to a speaker tonight speaking about this at a conference at my university, and he was top notch in explaining it.

14-02-2009 01:00AM

Jakkass wrote: »

I'd love to discuss about Biblical morality with you, it's clear that you don't understand Biblical ethics if you say things like this. I've read the Bible the whole way through, and I'm reading it again for the second time. The Bible explains perfectly that Christians are bound to the Moral laws of Torah (not the ceremonial or the judicial which were intended for the Biblical State of Israel), and the Christian laws of Christ and the Apostles revealed by the Spirit.

I was just listening to a speaker tonight speaking about this at a conference at my university, and he was top notch in explaining it.

I know that Christians are bound to the Moral laws of the Torah, and, I know that there isn't anything bad in those laws. But, you can't say that there aren't certain passages in the Bible that turn your stomach? I can give examples if you like, but, I'm sure you know that many passages I'm speaking of. What I'm saying is that there is no benefit to raising a child to be Christian just for the moral framework it offers. The good morals it teaches are the obvious "rules" that most humans live their lives by - be they Christian or not. I just don't see the benefit of gaining ones morality from the Bible when a parent, and indeed a society, is there to teach you the very same moral guidelines.

illiop · 14-02-2009 02:06AM

-JammyDodger- wrote: »

Religion, to be honest, doesn't give a good moral grounding at all. Selectively chosing certain passages from the respective texts does indeed provide moral values. But, by what standard are you selectively chosing the passages to take as morally right and morally wrong? Don't tell me that you're using the entire text as your source of moral value, because, you're not. Now, if this is the case, why would you raise a child into this ambiguity? Why not raise your children to do right and not do wrong? Why complicate it with a religion? It's not needed; it's just superfluous (and not even superfluous in a positive sense).

Of course religon gives a moral grounding. Children only learn the basics about religon anyway; be good you go to heaven, be bad you go to hell (though I don't nessicerily belief this), "do unto others...", be tolerent, be kind, don't kill, don't steal and all that. I've never read the bible cover to cover, to be honest, and none of the kinda dodgey stuff is coming to mind now so I very much doubt that a child will ever be confused by them. Religon also makes kids think...I remeber having this crazy disscusion about the existance of dinosaurs when I was about 7. O.k, I'm a bad debater and I've kinda rambled now but what scenario could arise that would lead to confusion (in a bad sense) for a child?

I'd love for you to elaborate on this. Usually, somebody who expresses such a view can not articulate why they feel that way. So, please, elucidate why you feel this to be true.

Of course they can! Have you never heard anybody say that they can't comprehend the world simply existing (which is also my reason). It didn't just happen all by itself. It just doesn't seem possible to me.

There's an inherent contradiction in expressing something that's unknowable as illogical. Infact, to issue some irony, the statement you've just made is illogical. In what way is it nonsensical to not believe in the metaphysical and supernatural?

So wait, now you're saying that to believe in god is just as logical as not believing, thats something I never thought I'd hear an atheist say. And as I said above it's nonsensical because the world can't simply exist.

Oh, just so you know, the universe doesn't owe you a cheerful and non-depressing life. You can't use the fact that the thought of no god being depressing is evidence for there being a god.

No way! Really? I thought my life just had to be perfect. I'm not useing it as evidence I'm just saying that it is depressing to me. Besides I don't think there ever will be concrete evidence to support the existence of god, that would do away with faith which no god would ever allow

Insect Overlord · 14-02-2009 02:32AM

JC 2K3 wrote: »

Yes, but why call this "spiritual"? What's the point of the word? It has to have *some* base meaning. Otherwise, what's the point in describing anything as "spiritual"?

I would guess that originally the word was used by people who did believe in the holy spirit or the soul. It then became so widely used in that context that when people of alternative viewpoints wanted to describe their own experiences, it was only natural that they would use a word with the most widely experienced* meaning.

* I say "experienced" rather than "understood" because I do not believe that the majority of people ever really understand, in literal terms, what the word means.

JC 2K3 wrote: »

I don't mean to be patronising, but how could you be an effective retreat leader without a belief in God? Retreats are essentially a form of indoctrination, at least in my experience, but I can't really see the point of them otherwise....

I understand your dim view of retreats in general, and believe me I can empathise with the indoctrination P.O.V.
However, I'm disappointed that you feel my lack of religious belief could affect my abilities. Positive leadership, compassion, understanding, self-confidence, self-awareness, trust and open-ness were required of me, and the 5 other leaders, at all times during the retreat I was referring to. Are these qualities fostered by Christian teachings? Yes. Are they perfectly exclusive to Christianity? No.

14-02-2009 02:54AM

illiop wrote: »

Of course religon gives a moral grounding. Children only learn the basics about religon anyway; be good you go to heaven, be bad you go to hell (though I don't nessicerily belief this), "do unto others...", be tolerent, be kind, don't kill, don't steal and all that. I've never read the bible cover to cover, to be honest, and none of the kinda dodgey stuff is coming to mind now so I very much doubt that a child will ever be confused by them. Religon also makes kids think...I remeber having this crazy disscusion about the existance of dinosaurs when I was about 7. O.k, I'm a bad debater and I've kinda rambled now but what scenario could arise that would lead to confusion (in a bad sense) for a child?

But why not just teach the child these things without convoluting it with religion? Why not teach it what's right and what's wrong without resorting to introducing a larger and more fantastic meaning to morality?

The wonders and beauty that science has given us can make a child think, too. It doesn't necessarily have to be religion. And, one could argue that there is far more beauty in the natural world (thus, science) than there is in the supernatural world (religion). Infact, there's probably infinitely more beauty - as you cannot access the supernatural world (if it exists, that is). So, I would imagine the natural world is more thought-provoking than the supernatural world.

Of course they can! Have you never heard anybody say that they can't comprehend the world simply existing (which is also my reason). It didn't just happen all by itself. It just doesn't seem possible to me.

But, introducing "god did it" into the equation really doesn't make things any simpler, infact, it complicates things greatly. You've to ask yourself why is there an intelligent being just eternally existing? Where is the satisfaction in thinking that?

The existance of the Earth, or at least the processes that lead to its existance, can be quite well explained with science. Granted, our knowledge isn't perfect - but, it's getting there. I honestly don't see where the problem lies. Does your problem lie with Earth "evolving" to be able to support life? That it just so happened that Earth can support us? Or, does it lie with the existance of the universe without a "prime mover"?

Introducing a god into the scenario is just complicating things. Now, not only do you've to explain how God managed to create the universe, but, you've to attempt to explain how He came about, too. Ockham's razor would suggest that the scenario without the presence of a god would be exponentially more likely to be the correct one (I.e. all things being equal, the less superfluous explanation tends to be the correct one).

So wait, now you're saying that to believe in god is just as logical as not believing, thats something I never thought I'd hear an atheist say. And as I said above it's nonsensical because the world can't simply exist.

It appears that's what I've said, I phrased my sentence badly I must admit. Basically, you say it is logical to conclude that a supernatural being created everything. Now, I say that it is far more logical to conclude that everything has came about by natural processes (and there is a vast amount of evidence to support this). I'll explain why this is so.

I can use logic on what I know, i.e. natural processes (as there is evidence to support this, so, I can apply logic to this evidence and arrive at a conclusion). So, these natural processes are knowable.

You say that it is more logical to conclude that God created everything, but, how can you apply logic to something that you don't know? I didn't say that I was applying my logic to atheism, I apply it to science. Science is knowable, God is not. Therefore, it is a fallacy to apply logic to that which you do not know.

Don't get into the argument that I'm applying logic to what I don't know, too. I'm not, I'm applying logic to science, not to my atheism.

No way! Really? I thought my life just had to be perfect. I'm not useing it as evidence I'm just saying that it is depressing to me.

To quote Borne, "Losing an illusion makes one wiser than gaining a truth."

Just because you find what may be the truth to be depressing, doesn't mean you should hide from it - it's a cowardly stance to take.

Besides I don't think there ever will be concrete evidence to support the existence of god, that would do away with faith which no god would ever allow

Beautiful circular logic, I must say. "I can't prove this to be untrue, because, the thing I'm trying to prove to be untrue won't let me attempt to prove it untrue". Kind of like saying that there is a box in the corner of my room, but, the box won't let me see it; so, I can never say that the box is not there.

God will never be proven untrue as it's an unfalsifiable hypothesis. It's the same as my saying that gremlins will never be proven untrue.

JC 2K3 · 14-02-2009 12:24PM

illiop wrote: »

So wait, now you're saying that to believe in god is just as logical as not believing, thats something I never thought I'd hear an atheist say. And as I said above it's nonsensical because the world can't simply exist.

Where did God come from then?

Why is it illogical for the world to simply exist, but not for God to simply exist?

Crumble Froo · 14-02-2009 01:04PM

Piste wrote: »

I take it to mean you don't believe in Love then?

must..... not..... sing...... .darkness.....

Just listen to the rhythm of my heart
There's a chance we could make it now
We'll be rocking 'til the sun goes down

JC 2K3 · 14-02-2009 01:23PM

An File wrote: »

I would guess that originally the word was used by people who did believe in the holy spirit or the soul. It then became so widely used in that context that when people of alternative viewpoints wanted to describe their own experiences, it was only natural that they would use a word with the most widely experienced* meaning.

* I say "experienced" rather than "understood" because I do not believe that the majority of people ever really understand, in literal terms, what the word means.

So it's something to do with experiences then...? What kind of experiences?

An File wrote: »

I understand your dim view of retreats in general, and believe me I can empathise with the indoctrination P.O.V.
However, I'm disappointed that you feel my lack of religious belief could affect my abilities. Positive leadership, compassion, understanding, self-confidence, self-awareness, trust and open-ness were required of me, and the 5 other leaders, at all times during the retreat I was referring to. Are these qualities fostered by Christian teachings? Yes. Are they perfectly exclusive to Christianity? No.

But surely the idea of a Christian retreat is to foster a greater sense of belief in the attendees? I just find the idea of a non-Christian leader at a Christian retreat a bit silly.....

god?

Comments