I would like to take this time to express my thanks to those in this thread that have taken the time to express themselves in a civil manner. I have found this discusion to be very informative. Although I accept many of us will never see eye to eye on religion, I personaly have garnered a respect for all those who have contributed to the topic on both sides of the eternal debate. And to those who can't remain respectful of their fellows...well I'll just not post what I'd like to say to them. ;p
I can only assume you lump me into those who "can't remain respectful of their fellows." I haven't attacked anyone; I've attacked positions. If you're going to infer an attack on those who hold those positions, then I can't stop you, but I submit that by doing so you're rendering debate impossible.
Passive-aggressive, poorly-veiled accusations of intolerance, while perhaps serving to focus attention elsewhere, do nothing to address the points I've raised that have gone unanswered.
The existence of God is interesting, because it is a matter of fact. That is, God either exists or he doesn't; the only real debate is: Which is it? Since religion simply changes its position as science reveals previous doctrine to be false, God can never be disproved. In essence, God is a moving target, forever retreating to the next area of human ignorance. So we have a matter of fact that neither side can ever prove. Therefore, my rational mind demands I go with the preponderance of the evidence. Those who choose to follow a different path are free to do so, but I'm under no obligation (in fact, it would be dishonest) to call their position anything other than irrational.
That doesn't mean I want to silence people who disagree with me, or that I hate them. In fact, if the silly "number of the beast" crap from Revelations ever comes to pass, I'll be among the first to pick up a weapon. Because as quickly as I'll call your position ridiculous to your face, I'd give my life to defend your right to hold it. Maybe that makes me a bastard, but I can live with that.
Contributor, RPG Superstar 2010 Top 8
|
I'm already refusing to pay my taxes (I don't believe in God), and if, in the end, I've misinterpreted the tax code (there is a God, and I've passed up my chance for salvation), I'll gladly go to prison...I wouldn't. If the Abrahamic deity was real, I still would not welcome eternal torment. I mean, it's eternal torment. :)
I would, however, be horrified by the injustice of torturing anybody forever for what amounts to either a simple mistake or a simple difference of opinion. So convincing me of the reality of the Christian deity wouldn't lead to my worshiping him. In fact, I'd probably be trying to find a way to kill him. He's a monster worse than anything humanity can ever produce and deserves no mercy. You could at least end your suffering in the gulag or Auschwitz with death. Eternal torture offers no such luxury. I know which one I'd pick.
Ok, maybe "gladly" wasn't the best word. In the face of the omnipotent absolute sovereign of everything, you really don't have a choice where you end up unless your sitting in a really badass mecha.
More accurately, I have accepted that I might potentially be wrong about the Abrahamic deity and his role in my life, and thus accordingly acknowledge the chance I might end up in Hell, yet do not find this possibility likely enough to enact any substantive change in my behavior.
True that about Hell though, that's another one of those things I never could understand about Christianity. Why is Hell eternal?
|
I would like to take this time to express my thanks to those in this thread that have taken the time to express themselves in a civil manner. I have found this discusion to be very informative. Although I accept many of us will never see eye to eye on religion, I personaly have garnered a respect for all those who have contributed to the topic on both sides of the eternal debate. And to those who can't remain respectful of their fellows...well I'll just not post what I'd like to say to them. ;pI can only assume you lump me into those who "can't remain respectful of their fellows." I haven't attacked anyone; I've attacked positions. If you're going to infer an attack on those who hold those positions, then I can't stop you, but I submit that by doing so you're rendering debate impossible.
Passive-aggressive, poorly-veiled accusations of intolerance, while perhaps serving to focus attention elsewhere, do nothing to address the points I've raised that have gone unanswered.
The existence of God is interesting, because it is a matter of fact. That is, God either exists or he doesn't; the only real debate is: Which is it? Since religion simply changes its position as science reveals previous doctrine to be false, God can never be disproved. In essence, God is a moving target, forever retreating to the next area of human ignorance. So we have a matter of fact that neither side can ever prove. Therefore, my rational mind demands I go with the preponderance of the evidence. Those who choose to follow a different path are free to do so, but I'm under no obligation (in fact, it would be dishonest) to call their position anything other than irrational.
That doesn't mean I want to silence people who disagree with me, or that I hate them. In fact, if the silly "number of the beast" crap from Revelations ever comes to pass, I'll be among the first to pick up a weapon. Because as quickly as I'll call your position ridiculous to your face, I'd give my life to defend your...
Just as I would defend your rights to your position. But you can have discussion without hostility, it shows an open mind. I don't know you from Adam and wouldn't assume to infer that you are any less intellegent or sane than I am even if we differ on certain matters. But I don't just lump you into the "uncivils" I include parts of my earliest post as well. You seem to think this thread is about trying to prove our points to one another... maybe it is, but I see it as an opportunity to express why we feel the way do and better understand eachothers positions. I have remained civil to those around me and can and do respect their beleifs... should I show a lack of respect to those who don't enjoy the same political veiws as me? No they have different experiences from me that have shaped the people they are, the best I can hope for is to receive the same respect from them as I give them in return. I do find it odd that you seem to feel the need to turn this into a right/wrong discussion. You can't claim any more sense of the truth than I can... we can only know what is true for us.
|
Contributor, RPG Superstar 2010 Top 8
|
Hopefully no one is making the argument that the world was perfect under Christian rule at some point. After all, a key part of Christianity is the un-perfectness of every man, woman and child on earth.A big problem for assertions like 'crime rates among Christians are no lower than any one else' is how you acquire that data. I had my car stolen while I was at church. No one will ever catch the thieves, but let's say they had. If I'm a Christian and he's not, are we both counted in the crime statistic? If I go to church, tithe, pray and witness, maybe it's pretty safe to say I'm a christian. Let's say the theif is a young adult white male with a big gold cross around his neck. He doesn't pray, read his bible or anything. Apparently the reason he goes to church is to boost someone's car. You ask him in jail if he's a Christian, and he thumps his chest and says 'heck, yeah, man. God will forgive me for being in here.'
Not that there aren't firms doing this sort of thing, but maybe a better approach is to ask people active in their church if they've comitted a crime since they started believing or going to that church.
I dunno. I haven't committed any crimes, but I was threatened in my driveway last night by a stoned driver. So we're up 1-0. HA! ; )
Nobody is making the claim that Christian rule has been perfect, but Digitalelf did make the claim that our country was stronger and more moral back when Christian values were taught in schools. People are reacting to that by pointing out that our society has made great advances in several areas since moving to a more secular morality.
This is not to say that Christianity is the Source of evil things like racism and rape, instead the assertion is that non-christian ideologies have successfully fought against many evils since the 60's. It is a defense of our modern era's morality, not a condemnation of it's past.
Of course, if one considers abortion or homosexuality to be evil, then I can see how one might not agree that we're doing pretty good nowadays, I'd just have to kindly disagree.
(Edited to clarify point.)
The problem is, there is no such experiment, and there never will be.
Which proves my point.
Our country is currently aborting over a million babies a year, low-income families have been led down a road of fatherlessness and godlessness until the inevitable outcome of out-of-control poverty reached its goal of creating a permanent demographic.
Are you actually suggesting that poverty is a result of a specific religious affiliation (or lack thereof) and not just greed on the part of variously affiliated people?
I wish I could articulate that we are not sovereign, and therefore what seems right to us might not be the final argument.
I have no capacity to make an all powerful god do right. I expect a good god would. So I accept that if there is an all powerful god, he is sovereign and does not answer to me. My difficulty is resolving why a loving god would do some of the things he does in the bible and some of the things he allows to happen now.
I also understand my finite understanding could never understand the infinite, or, to be snarky, god works in mysterious ways. There could be an all powerful, loving god and he would most likely do things I would not understand. But, the mysterious ways line and all of its variations (which are numerous), could also be the perfect cover.
Even with my limited understanding, I expect to understand some of the reasons behind the machinations of an all powerful, loving god. Is this pride?
For me, the question comes down to which is more likely. To the best of my knowledge, I have never felt the spirit of god moving through me, so it seems more likely to be a cover.
A somewhat unrelated point I would like to discus is the idea that god has revealed himself to non-believers and they have rejected him. If god reveals himself to someone and they know the punishment for rejecting god is an eternity in hell, why would anyone in their right mind reject god? Surely pride alone is not a powerful enough motivator to curse oneself to eternal damnation.
|
Therefore, my rational mind demands I go with the preponderance of the evidence.
But even your "tested and proven" evidence changes with the next greatest discovery...
Remember, people used to think the Earth was flat, and that the Sun revolved around the Earth? These were considered "proven" concepts, and to challenge them, was unthinkable...
Yes, eventually, challenges to these were accepted...
Right now, there are a few in the realm of "science" that are showing evidence towards, intelligent design, that is just as valid as the evidence Darwin gave on evolution...
My point is that science is a moving target as well...
Why is it that people have this need to make the world around them smaller than the human mind? What I mean is that we dumb everything around us down so we can understand it, never really excepting that anything could ever possibly be bigger than us and therefore totally and irrevocably beyond our simple understanding as human beings...
*EDIT*
People are more willing to believe and accept that there could be a civilization living on the head of a pin, than to accept or believe there is a God...
Why is that?
I do find it odd that you seem to feel the need to turn this into a right/wrong discussion. You can't claim any more sense of the truth than I can... we can only know what is true for us.
But it is a "right/wrong" issue, whether we want it to be or not. That said, you're correct that isn't what this thread needs to be about, and it is selfish of me to turn it in that direction if that isn't the way most participants want it to go.
But even your "tested and proven" evidence changes with the next greatest discovery...Remember, people used to think the Earth was flat, and that the Sun revolved around the Earth? These were considered "proven" concepts, and to challenge them, was unthinkable...
Yes, eventually, challenges to these were accepted...
Right now, there are a few in the realm of "science" that are showing evidence towards, intelligent design, that is just as valid as the evidence Darwin gave on evolution...
My point is that science is a moving target as well...
Why is it that people have this need to make the world around them smaller than the human mind? What I mean is that we dumb everything around us down so we can understand it, never really excepting that anything could ever possibly be bigger than us and therefore totally and irrevocably beyond our simple understanding as human beings...
But that is the point of science...it doesn't claim to be "the one true way." As our understanding grows and new evidence becomes available to us, new theories are developed. Science doesn't claim to have all the answers, merely to be the best possible answer we have now. It should be a moving target. Whereas religion, having claimed to be immutable divine truth, should not be forgiven for inconsistency in the light of new information, because new information should be impossible.
As for the evidence of ID being on par with the evidence for evolution, I don't know how to respond to that. It just isn't correct, but you aren't going to take my word for it. I'd honestly suggest some biology and zoology classes. No snark intended.
I have no need to "make the world around me smaller than the human mind." On the contrary, I don't have a need to understand everything, so I don't feel the need to make up stories to explain that which, for the time being, at least, lies outside the realm of human understanding.
People are more willing to believe and accept that there could be a civilization living on the head of a pin, than to accept or believe there is a God...
Why is that?
Both of those things could be true, but in the absence of evidence, I will proceed as if neither one is. I can't speak for "people."
My standards are those of logic and evidence. Show me an experiment that demonstrates God, and I'm sold. The problem is, there is no such experiment, and there never will be. If you're conceding that, by the standards of science, theists cannot win, then I certainly won't offer any argument.
I could play Devil's advocate and flip this around and say: Show me an experiment the disproves God and I'm sold.
God is a theory. No one has hard facts to his/her/its actual existence one way or another. It is an interesting discussion to theorize what exactly God would want from us, should he/she/it actually exist. Nothing more.
If God does not actually exist, then it is no worse discussing him/her/it then it is discussing other wrong theories. Even wrong theories sometimes lead to larger discoveries.
@ Courtfool: While I can't say why bad things happen if you posit a loving God, think on this. How many bad things have happened to characters/NPCs in your games over the years? Why did bad things happen to them? You had the power to say: Everyone in my world is at the peak of health, immortal, rich and handsome. Why didn't you?
I could play Devil's advocate and flip this around and say: Show me an experiment the disproves God and I'm sold.
God is a theory. No one has hard facts to his/her/its actual existence one way or another. It is an interesting discussion to theorize what exactly God would want from us, should he/she/it actually exist. Nothing more.
If God does not actually exist, then it is no worse discussing him/her/it then it is discussing other wrong theories. Even wrong theories sometimes lead to larger discoveries.
First of all, God is not a theory; it isn't even a hypothesis. A hypothesis must be testable. Calling it a theory lends it unwarranted weight.
As has been discussed exhaustively earlier in the thread, I can suggest any number of (often mutually exclusive) things that could be true, yet no one is expected to accept them without evidence. The short version is that the burden of proof rests with he who asserts the positive. See "Russell's Teapot" or "Flying Spaghetti Monster" if you're really interested.
But even your "tested and proven" evidence changes with the next greatest discovery...
You've not read a single post about science, nor ever studied any of how it works, have you? IIRC, I personally have explained at least six times in this thread alone, about once per 15 pages, that in science THERE IS NO PROOF. EVER. If you argue scripture, I'll discuss it with you; I've read it. Do me the same courtesy. Otherwise, this ceases to be a discussion and consists of baseless claims with no resemblance to reality.
Right now, there are a few in the realm of "science" that are showing evidence towards, intelligent design, that is just as valid as the evidence Darwin gave on evolution...
Incorrect. There has yet to be produced any "evidence" for ID other than "these structures look too complicated to have evolved, so God must have made them." That's what Michael Behe calls "irreducable complexity." For every single one of his examples, however, an ecolutionary mechanism has been provided.
But you can have discussion without hostility, it shows an open mind. I don't know you from Adam and wouldn't assume to infer that you are any less intellegent or sane than I am even if we differ on certain matters. You seem to think this thread is about trying to prove our points to one another... maybe it is, but I see it as an opportunity to express why we feel the way do and better understand each others positions.
Here's something you and I agree on completely, Moorluck. Excellent post. Thank you!
As has been discussed (exhaustively) earlier in the thread, I can postulate any number of things that could be true, yet no one is expected to accept them without evidence. The short version is that the burden of proof rests with he who asserts the positive. See "Russell's Teapot" or "Flying Spaghetti Monster" if you're really interested.
Sorry, I am a latecomer to the thread, I have not seen any of these discussions. (Flying spaghetti monster? Really?)
If you don't want to call God a theory, fine. I can live with that. Why does it matter so much to you whether God exists or not then? It can't be proven, it can't be disproven (at least by any methods we have available at the current time). You seem very keen to prove that God doesn't exist. I could bring forward the very fact that we have intellegence as evidence of the divine, but I have the feeling this wouldn't pass your standards for evidence.
I'll bow out of the discussion, as I didn't mean for it to become contentious.
As has been discussed (exhaustively) earlier in the thread, I can postulate any number of things that could be true, yet no one is expected to accept them without evidence. The short version is that the burden of proof rests with he who asserts the positive. See "Russell's Teapot" or "Flying Spaghetti Monster" if you're really interested.
Sorry, I am a latecomer to the thread, I have not seen any of these discussions. (Flying spaghetti monster? Really?)
If you don't want to call God a theory, fine. I can live with that. Why does it matter so much to you whether God exists or not then? It can't be proven, it can't be disproven (at least by any methods we have available at the current time). You seem very keen to prove that God doesn't exist. I could bring forward the very fact that we have intellegence as evidence of the divine, but I have the feeling this wouldn't pass your standards for evidence.
I'll bow out of the discussion, as I didn't mean for it to become contetious.
On the contrary, I cannot prove God doesn't exist. I can merely point out that it seems highly unlikely, and therefore in the absence of evidence there is but one rational conclusion. Should the available evidence change, I will be happy to revisit the issue.
And you're right, I do not accept intelligence as evidence of the divine. I'm curious as to why you do, but, like you, I doubt I would view your reasons as evidence.
This is pure posturing, with exactly zero basis in fact.
My sex life was illegal in parts of this country until 2003. I'm sorry, but that is indeed a fact. Perhaps you forgot the howls of outrage that came from the religious right when the decision was handed down? I mean, it wasn't that long ago but I've noticed that some people have very selective memories.
But I'm sure you somehow still think it's posturing.
As if Christianity in the 50s had some sort of stranglehold on the world, and as if rape and racism are somehow tenets of Christianity. It is the single grossest mischaracterization in this discussion, and not intellectually honest.
I didn't say that rape and racism were tenets of Christianity. When complaining about the intellectual honesty of others, it behooves the complainer to discover some of his own. I listed the lack of respect for the rights of non-Christians as one of a number of major reasons not to wish for a return to 1959 society, not the root cause of them all.
I did say that the rights of non-Christians were not especially respected, which is in fact true. The 1950s are in fact the decade when the United States Congress turned the Pledge of Allegiance into a Christian prayer (at the behest of the Knights of Columbus, in fact). Somehow I don't think "under no gods" would have flown. Nor do I expect that "under one or more or fewer gods" would have flown. That same decade, In God We Trust, a Christian creedal statement, ended up on our printed money. Not "In No Gods We Trust", not "In many gods we trust", not equal printings with each slogan, even. Apparently we're not entitled to equal treatment, so therefore we can be nothing but subhuman.
I'd be very interested in seeing landmark cases where a woman was denied the right to say no to her husband legally.
There are none. That was assumed until the courts and state governments having attacks of conscience got involved. Note the date on the article, by the way. Traditionally, a woman was considered to have given permanent, irrevocable consent when she married. (So also had the husband, but he also got to keep all the property and such.) In defense of this notion:
"Let the husband render to his wife the affection due her, and likewise also the wife to her husband. The wife does not have authority over her own body, but the husband does. And likewise the husband does not have authority over his own body, but the wife does. Do not deprive one another except with consent for a time, that you may give yourselves to fasting and prayer; and come together again so that Satan does not tempt you because of your lack of self-control." (1 Corinthians 7:3-5, NKJV)
According to that, apparently the only reason to say no to your spouse is to engage in fasting and prayer. I know, dirty activist judges taking the Bible out of the schools, right?
I'd be thrilled to see video of credible, evangelistic Christian leaders enforcing some cowardly racist law.
Given the origin of the Southern Baptist Convention, is it really so hard to believe that white Evangelicals in the South would defend Jim Crow? White people in general in the South and indeed in a lot of the North, were huge fans of it. If it had only been up to them, segregation would have remained forever. That's why it took the federal government to make a difference. But I suppose the segregated South was full of atheists, right? Especially the white people. All atheists. I mean, historically it's the least believing part of the country. Right? I mean, how could segregation have endured if the white South was overwhelmingly Christian and thus inherently opposed to it? The only possible explanation is that they're all a bunch of very confused atheists who just happen to go to church on Sundays, pray a lot, and believe in Jesus.
But of course you've prejudged any material I could offer. Any video I dug up would be deemed that of a non-credible person. Or someone who was not "really" a Christian, or whatever. I've had this conversation dozens of times. If you want credit for the Christians who have been ahead of the social curve on issues of the day, you have to accept responsibility for those on the other side. There were as many Christian defenses of slavery, for example, as there were Christian attacks upon it.
Nor, contrary to what I presume is your other point buried in that long and paranoid screed about how liberals hate America and want to destroy us all just because it says Chaotic Evil on our character sheets, it is not my point that nonbelieving societies are perfect. It is my point that we have made a lot of progress since 1959 (even in this overwhelmingly believing society!) and going back would be absolutely dreadful for millions of people, unless of course one is actually in favor of all the injustices we have corrected since then and wishes them resurrected. Which was more or less the position that appeared advocated in the post which I quoted in my response.
@ Courtfool: While I can't say why bad things happen if you posit a loving God, think on this. How many bad things have happened to characters/NPCs in your games over the years? Why did bad things happen to them? You had the power to say: Everyone in my world is at the peak of health, immortal, rich and handsome. Why didn't you?
I am not a loving god. I could care less what happens to most of the NPCs in my universe.
Bugleyman, just as you deride believers for using "faith-thinking" when discussing science, so you can't use standards of evidence when discussing faith. Like I posted a while ago: different world views -- there is absolutely no standard of evidence in the world that compares in a believer's mind to his or her leap of faith. Nor should there be, to him or her. Until you can accept this, and until some of the believers can begin to understand evidence-based no-proof science, we're not even all speaking the same language.
On the contrary, I cannot prove God doesn't exist. I can merely point out that it seems highly unlikely, and therefore in the absence of evidence there is but one rational conclusion. Should the available evidence change, I will be happy to revisit the issue.
OK, I was going to stop posting, but I have one last question: What would constitute evidence of the divine for you? Just curious.
@ Courtfool: While I can't say why bad things happen if you posit a loving God, think on this. How many bad things have happened to characters/NPCs in your games over the years? Why did bad things happen to them? You had the power to say: Everyone in my world is at the peak of health, immortal, rich and handsome. Why didn't you?I am not a loving god. I could care less what happens to most of the NPCs in my universe.
Perhaps God is about as loving as you ....
@ Courtfool: While I can't say why bad things happen if you posit a loving God, think on this. How many bad things have happened to characters/NPCs in your games over the years? Why did bad things happen to them? You had the power to say: Everyone in my world is at the peak of health, immortal, rich and handsome. Why didn't you?
Dude...NPCs aren't real. We are. Or did I miss something? :P
Perhaps God is about as loving as you ....
That would make sense. But then, I would not worship me either.
I am relatively new to this thread, and this thread has over 3400 posts. So, sorry, I did not go back more than a few pages...
You seem like a nice fellow, and this is a long thread. For you're convenience, I'll repost my discussion on world views here. It's no great work of philosophy or anything, but it might give you and Bugleyman as well some idea of each others' standpoints.
There's a lot of talk thrown around like "proof" and "faith" and "obvious." The thing is, we're dealing with two totally different mind-sets that need to be bridged before meaningful discussion can be achieved. Contrary to what would seem to be common sense, there actually is very little overlap between them.
(a) A true scientist has only one belief, which can be summed up as "men lack omniscience, and therefore nothing is ever proven." Everything is is either theory (supported by a preponderance of physical evidence -- statistical probability counts for nothing here -- and having withstood every test thus far), hypothesis (a testable idea), or falsehood. There is no "truth," only theories that can forever be either improved upon or eventually shown to be false. A scientist makes no absolute claims regarding the amino acid soup hypothesis, and fully accepts that it might one day be falsified; he merely asserts that no other testable hypotheses have been proposed for the origin of life (and, please, people: to a scientist, the origin of life is a TOTALLY SEPARATE ISSUE from the evolution of life; evolution by natural selection is a theory, not a hypothesis, because it fits the propenderance of observable physical evidence; it is not an Absolute Truth, and in fact is constantly being refined and improved). The limitations of this type of world-view are obvious: absolutes have no part in it, incredulity is a paramount virtue, and these kinds of people expect a preponderance of physical evidence before they'll accept that your view is a theory. Until then, they'll consider it either a hypothesis to be tested, or a falsehood. This is why Dawkins is so militant; he cannot take God seriously as a theory without a preponderance of observable, testable physical evidence in His favor. Without that, the existence of God is an untestable hypothesis, or, to put it more bluntly, a likely falsehood.
(b) To one with faith, especially Abrahamic religious faith, life deals in absolutes. There is no improving a hypothesis; there's only Truth or Falsehood. The insistence of Truth implies that "proof" is attainable. They therefore view a theory incorrectly: either as a claim of absolute Truth, or as a vague, unfounded guess (which is not at all what a "theory" is). The very strong advantage of this mind-set is that you can make intuitive leaps, rely on instinct and scripture, and resolve all apparent contradictions and paradoxes and break through any supposed barriers to your ideas through simple faith. These are exceptionally powerful tools that can make seemingly impossible things possible. The down side is that you are very seldomly able to understand people who require more scientifically rigorous thinking.
Bugleyman, just as you deride believers for using "faith-thinking" when discussing science, so you can't use standards of evidence when discussing faith.
I had not looked at it like that, Kirth. Thanks.
Dude...NPCs aren't real. We are. Or did I miss something? :P
@ Courtfool: While I can't say why bad things happen if you posit a loving God, think on this. How many bad things have happened to characters/NPCs in your games over the years? Why did bad things happen to them? You had the power to say: Everyone in my world is at the peak of health, immortal, rich and handsome. Why didn't you?
I am just using it as an example. People say: Why does God let bad things happen? Maybe Creation is a crucible. Maybe the whole point of existence is to grow through adversity. Maybe if everyone was handsome and rich and immortal we'd all be bored crapless.
Who knows? As you have said, it's all unprovable.
OK, I was going to stop posting, but I have one last question: What would constitute evidence of the divine for you? Just curious.
Statistically significant efficacy of prayer.
Direct contact by a divine creature.Precognition.
Honestly, that is a very hard question to answer without first defining "Divine." The bar is significantly lower if we simply call it "something greater than us," in which case I would be much, much easier to convince. If we go with "anthropomorphic omnipotent creator," then the bar is much higher.
|
|
Dude...NPCs aren't real. We are. Or did I miss something? :P
@ Courtfool: While I can't say why bad things happen if you posit a loving God, think on this. How many bad things have happened to characters/NPCs in your games over the years? Why did bad things happen to them? You had the power to say: Everyone in my world is at the peak of health, immortal, rich and handsome. Why didn't you?
Oh nobody told you we arn't real... just PCs in the most F@^*^! up RPG ever...( new by WoTC the game,Lifes A Beeotch:non compatable with the OGL) ;p
Life could be a test.
I do not understand why an all powerful, loving god would need to test us this way, though. He could give us whatever wisdom he wished for us to gain from this test. That which is given is of less value than that which is earned. But an all powerful god does not have to play by the rules of the universe. He could give us the wisdom without it loosing any value.
To put it another way, I find it more plausible god is all powerful, but not necessarily totally loving or totally loving but not necessarily all powerful. For me, this better fits my experiences. This is also why I find fault with real life father analogies. I am not a perfectly loving, all powerful father.
Hopefully no one is making the argument that the world was perfect under Christian rule at some point. After all, a key part of Christianity is the un-perfectness of every man, woman and child on earth.
I agree, but the claim that "everything sucks now because our nation isn't Christian enough anymore" was indeed made.
Let's say the thief is a young adult white male with a big gold cross around his neck. He doesn't pray, read his bible or anything. Apparently the reason he goes to church is to boost someone's car. You ask him in jail if he's a Christian, and he thumps his chest and says 'heck, yeah, man. God will forgive me for being in here.'
I'm with you completely; that hoodlum is no Christian, despite his claims. Then again, neither is Ted Haggard, by any reasonable standard, although he was a megachurch pastor.
I dunno. I haven't committed any crimes, but I was threatened in my driveway last night by a stoned driver. So we're up 1-0. HA!
Yeah, me, either, but I've had people driving out of their Church parking lot fail to legally yield the right of way, and nearly strike and kill me while I was in a crosswalk, with a walk signal. So we're 1-1, even-steven, which is sort of what I was getting at.
The Bible, and especially the New Testament, give some excellent suggestions on how to live a good life. Sadly, many self-proclaimed church-going Christians do not follow them. Many others do. Some non-Christians are murderous thugs. Others are decent, law-abiding, unimpeachably moral individuals.
Where does that leave us? Every person must be seen as an individual. No one group is "better" than any other reasonable group (although some groups in history have manifestly been a lot worse than the rest).
Bugleyman, just as you deride believers for using "faith-thinking" when discussing science, so you can't use standards of evidence when discussing faith. Like I posted a while ago: different world views -- there is absolutely no standard of evidence in the world that compares in a believer's mind to his or her leap of faith. Nor should there be, to him or her. Until you can accept this, and until some of the believers can begin to understand evidence-based no-proof science, we're not even all speaking the same language.
Here's the thing though, Kirth: It is very common for people to claim that, for example, creationism (sorry: ID) and evolution should be on par. As if science doesn't play by it's own rules, and that there is just as much evidence for one as there is the other. They essentially invoke pseudo-science (and in so doing, throw their hats into the evidence game) and then get upset when they don't have the data (or comprehension) to back it up.
If you want to say it's just faith, fine. I actually can respect that, because you get that you can't prove your point. I can't tell you what you're feeling; only you can do that. It's when people won't or can't admit it comes down to faith that rubs me the wrong way.
Honestly, that is a very hard question to answer without first defining "Divine." The bar is significantly lower if we simply call it "something greater than us," in which case I would be much, much easier to convince. If we go with "anthropomorphic omnipotent creator," then the bar is much higher.
I am more of the opinion of 'something greater than us' than 'anthropomophic omnipotent creator'. One reason I don't follow Abrahamic religions is I find the whole Heaven/Hell dichotomy illogical. Quite frankly I wouldn't want to be in either place. I much prefer the Hindu/Buddhist lines of thought on the matter. Reincarnation feels right to me.
I guess it boils down to the thought (to me) that it seems a waste that all your life experiences end at your death. That's all. If I am wrong and my individuality dies at death, ehh. No loss, I won't notice. Non-existance by its implication is not able to be experienced. If I am wrong about Hell, well, I'll have lots of company.
... just PCs in the most F@^*^! up RPG ever...
No kidding! At least give me point buy. I rolled some crappy stats.
Where does that leave us? Every person must be seen as an individual. No one group is "better" than any other reasonable group (although some groups in history have manifestly been a lot worse than the rest).
Someone actually called me on this very belief a few weeks ago (can't remember who, but it was here on the boards), and I had to admit he was right. No group has a monopoly on intolerance, violence, or having horrible things done in their name.
Where does that leave us? Every person must be seen as an individual. No one group is "better" than any other reasonable group (although some groups in history have manifestly been a lot worse than the rest).
Oh, but you are so wrong. Poodles FTW!
I now return you to your civil discussion.
I am more of the opinion of 'something greater than us' than 'anthropomophic omnipotent creator'. One reason I don't follow Abrahamic religions is I find the whole Heaven/Hell dichotomy illogical. Quite frankly I wouldn't want to be in either place. I much prefer the Hindu/Buddhist lines of thought on the matter. Reincarnation feels right to me.
Well, there quite possibly is something greater than us; I certainly can't rule it out. I hope we find it someday. But until we do, the best we can do is stop flying planes into buildings in the name of God (or anything else, for that matter).
If there is such a creature, and he makes Himself known to some people (what we call faith), all I can say is that He hasn't made Himself known to me. Unless and until He does, I have to go with the data.
|
Contributor, RPG Superstar 2010 Top 8
|
There's a lot of talk thrown around like "proof" and "faith" and "obvious." The thing is, we're dealing with two totally different mind-sets that need to be bridged before meaningful discussion can be achieved. Contrary to what would seem to be common sense, there actually is very little overlap between them.
(a) A true scientist has only one belief, which can be summed up as "men lack omniscience, and therefore nothing is ever proven." Everything is is either theory (supported by a preponderance of physical evidence -- statistical probability counts for nothing here -- and having withstood every test thus far), hypothesis (a testable idea), or falsehood. There is no "truth," only theories that can forever be either improved upon or eventually shown to be false. A scientist makes no absolute claims regarding the amino acid soup hypothesis, and fully accepts that it might one day be falsified; he merely asserts that no other testable hypotheses have been proposed for the origin of life (and, please, people: to a scientist, the origin of life is a TOTALLY SEPARATE ISSUE from the evolution of life; evolution by natural selection is a theory, not a hypothesis, because it fits the propenderance of observable physical evidence; it is not an Absolute Truth, and in fact is constantly being refined and improved). The limitations of this type of world-view are obvious: absolutes have no part in it, incredulity is a paramount virtue, and these kinds of people expect a preponderance of physical evidence before they'll accept that your view is a theory. Until then, they'll consider it either a...
Kirth, at the risk of sounding like a complete suckup, I just wanted to say its been really awesome seeing you discuss this stuff. I've been involved in evolution vs. intelligent design debates before, and I've always felt somewhat crippled by my lack of formal science education (beyond the basic High School stuff, which as you've discussed, isn't that great).
It is very common for people to claim that, for example, creationism (sorry: ID) and evolution should be on par.
Well, in different ways. In a science classroom or a discussion of how the natural world actually works, ID has absolutely no place at all. But in a theological discussion, proponderance of naturalistic evidence is a joke. Each thing in its place.
Kirth, at the risk of sounding like a complete suckup, I just wanted to say its been really awesome seeing you discuss this stuff. I've been involved in evolution vs. intelligent design debates before, and I've always felt somewhat crippled by my lack of formal science education (beyond the basic High School stuff, which as you've discussed, isn't that great).
As a non-scientist, but someone who has respect for the scientific method (as I understand it), I have only this to add:
I would have Kirth's man-babies.
I just wanted to say its been really awesome seeing you discuss this stuff. I've been involved in evolution vs. intelligent design debates before, and I've always felt somewhat crippled by my lack of formal science education (beyond the basic High School stuff, which as you've discussed, isn't that great).
That means a lot to me, Benchak. I have a somewhat unique standpoint, being a non-Christian religious person and a professional scientist, and have read scripture as well. So I sort of end up trying to act as a translator a lot of the time, and occasionally lose my self-control and post something forceful about "creation science," which in my view makes a sham of both science and religion both.
I would have Kirth's man-babies.
Those are satyr-babies! DR 5/cold iron FTW! And you're only saying that because my avatar appears drunk and easy to take advantage of... But while I personally support gay rights (for the simple reason that gays have always supported my rights, and I like to return favors), the fact is I don't swing that way at all -- cyberwise or otherwise ;)
Thanks for the nice post!
Kirth, how long did it take you before you were able to silence the chittering monkey?
Another hypothetical question, which seem dangerous in this environment...a slave in 17th century America, should he accept his position in life and not desire freedom? I cringe as I write this because it sounds like I am trying to poke you with a stick until you yield. I promise you, that is not my intent. I am honestly trying to iron out all the possibilities and wrap my head around truly abandoning desire.
I would have Kirth's man-babies.Those are satyr-babies! DR 5/cold iron FTW! And you're only saying that because my avatar appears drunk and easy to take advantage of... But while I personally support gay rights (for the simple reason that gays have always supported my rights, and I like to return favors), the fact is I don't swing that way at all -- cyberwise or otherwise ;)
Thanks for the nice post!
Meh, me either, but I make an exception for drunken fey.
No one can prove God exsist as much as I'd like to, what I can prove is my FAITH in a higher being that for lack of a formal name I call God. That and the word "proof" is misused sometimes(thank you Kirth ;p)
And I would not presume to tell you about your faith. Just don't expect me to take anything on your faith and we'll get along just fine. :)