Safehands wrote: » You know Festus, the way are posting, throwing muck about in every direction, hoping bits will stick,
Festus wrote: » Ah, so marianbad is allow to throw mud but I'm not even allow to rebut. Why am I not surprised. Je suis Catholic
indioblack wrote: » OK then. No evidence either way. "..you makes your choice." Based on what? Why do you believe. Why do you choose to believe? Why do you want to believe? If you want this - what need do you have to make you choose to believe? I could probably put this better - no offence - but what's in it for you?
it seems to be hardwired into humans
People are born with a tendency to bebelieve in God.
They lack any clarity as to the nature of characteristic of this being and project their own onto it. They don't choose, they come that way.
I'm saying that bbelief comes before evidence
I refuse to accept that love, truth, beauty, find no answer in a cold harsh universe.
Festus wrote: » Yes, because they were created by God and have a God given soul. Animals on the other hand were also created by God but without souls and while I have seen animals learn I have yet to see an animal display any understanding of logic, mercy or justice. However, you still have not explained how matter can give rise to logic, mercy and justice. All you have done is make a statement about humans and as humans are Gods creation you have added nothing.
tommy2bad wrote: » Features, the lack of these attributes in animals should give you pause for thought. If logic, met y, and justice are God given then surely all of his creation would carry some trait of these? None the less only humans have this god given morality. Which leads me to suppose these traits are traits of humans not God at all. After all what need has God for morality?
tommy2bad wrote: » Yes, no evidence, I'm saying that belief comes before evidence, it seems to be hardwired into humans and not just a flaw in thinking either. People are born with a tendency to bebelieve in God. They lack any clarity as to the nature of characteristic of this being and project their own onto it. They don't choose, they come that way. I doubt this is just true of religious types either, I've read some quite religious stuff from atheists as well, though they would claim it appreciation of the splendour of nature but at it's most basic, it's a religious feeling. Why do I believe? Because that's the way I am. Why do I want to believe? I don't. I just do. Yout keep framing g this as though belife was a psychological flaw, something to be cured or corrected. I'm saying it's closer to having blue eyes or red hair. What's in it for me? Not much tbh. I don't profit from it, I don't get comfort from it, it raises more questions than it answers but still I refuse to let go, possibly out of some kind of obsessive defiance. I refuse to accept that love, truth, beauty, find no echo in this cold harsh universe. So it just a mission statement, you say. OK, I can live with that.
indioblack wrote: » I don't think belief is a psychological flaw - my Christian friends probably think I am flawed with my present inability to believe! And your last paragraph struck a chord in me. It may be an anger shared by both sides in this debate - a reluctance to accept the harshness of existence - or maybe a willingness to accept it if there is a purpose to that acceptance.
Unless we accept that this universe is not designed as a test or designed with our needs in mind we are doomed to repeat the mistakes of the past.
neither is turning our back on the deep human desire for a better world.
RikuoAmero wrote: » In my case it isn't. Anyone else?
Safehands wrote: » Oui, vous êtes Catholic, and don't we know it, are you a member of a religious order by any chance?
Festus wrote: » I fail to see the relevance of that question.
RikuoAmero wrote: » Given that there have been many catholic orders implicated in the sex abuse scandals, it's obvious that a cry of innocence or an attempt to deflect attention away from the real issues from a member of one of those orders would be treated very skeptically.
Festus wrote: » The question has no relevance to the thread title. Or are you trying to continue the sex abuse discussion here?
RikuoAmero wrote: » Am I attempting to continue it here? Nope, I just didn't realise which thread I was on. I just clicked on whichever thread had most recently been updated without reading the title, read your response and thought we were still on the sex abuse thread.
Festus wrote: » Ah, seems suspiciously like stalking
RikuoAmero wrote: » ...except it's not. It's simply me reading and replying to threads I've been on and am still interested in. For it to even attempt to rise to the level of stalking, I'd have to be following you around on any other threads you've been on, which I haven't. I restrict my conversations with you strictly to the religious related threads.
Festus wrote: » The evidence suggests otherwise but I'll take your word for it that it is mere coincidence. Perhaps it might help if you put me on your ignore list.
RikuoAmero wrote: » Tommy, are you typing on a mobile device of some kind? If so, try to clean up your posts before actually posting them. 1) The vast majority of the planet Earth, never mind the universe, is hostile to human life. Go on, without the aid of technology, try living in the ocean or in outer space. You'll find you can't do it. We as humans need to breathe oxygen, which we can't do underwater or in space. 2) How so? I don't believe obviously in either of the two scenarios you posted there, yet I do learn from history (such as WW2). I try not to repeat the mistakes of the past, e.g. I'm not racist. So please, explain further, how a non-belief in intelligent design somehow leads one to repeating past mistakes. (Indeed, I can argue for the exact opposite - there are many ID proponents and creationists who don't care about maintaining the environment, saying something along the lines of "God will provide", thinking that they can repeat what was done in the past in terms of pollution without a care in the world) There are bible verses that teach humans not to improve on their lot, such as the opening of the Sermon on the Mount, which when read, teaches not to despair of your poor lot in this life, don't bother trying to improve it, things will be a nebulous better in some nebulous other life with no supporting evidence.
tommy2bad wrote: » We are not so far apart as you would think, I believe morality comes from people not God, I believe we are partners in creation, from my view God is the other partner, you might see creation as the other partner.
sbsquarepants wrote: » Live for the present, the past is gone you can't change it, just accept that and let it go, the future is less set in stone but it may or may not exist for you, there's no way of knowing - you could get hit by a bus tomorrow! Being miserable while your alive so you can be happy once your dead is insane! The present is where you need to concentrate your efforts - don't waste what you have by worrying about what you don't have anymore, or may or may not have at some point to come. Do your living now!
ScumLord wrote: » How can we be partners in something that happened billions of years before the sun our planet would eventually orbit was even around? I think if there is a god, we aren't the sole focus of all his work, I really don't think the universe was created for one particular ape that will probably be a flash in the pan by cosmic standards.
Festus wrote: » is this not essentially atheism? or some form of Satanism or occultism. Seems a lot like what Aleister Crowley was about.
Your life is your own. Rise up and live it
RikuoAmero wrote: » Atheism is a position on a claim.
RikuoAmero wrote: » Hmm...Tommy, I might word what you're saying a bit differently. I would say that we are a piece of the universe that is conscious, a piece of the universe that is able to observe itself.
