How can you possibly be religious

How can you be atheist either? The only logical choice IMO is agnosticism.

(not talking to you OP just some folk in this thread)

Lethalhazard

While I wouldn't call myself an atheist it's really not hard to not believe in something that has no proof.

[QUOTE="MirkoS77"]

I posted this in my alt account on The Atheism Union board. Seems like a good place to repost it as I'd like to hear thoughts from the OT crew:

This has kind of been bugging me lately, and I would like to hear yall's opinions on it.

All too often I hear the Bible isn't meant to be taken literally, some say it is and live their lives as such. But many interpret its teachings to fit better with their life, picking some things to follow and others to disregard. For example, my father's a Mormon. He LOVES beer. Has two kegs in an outside reefer. Of course, Mormons don't drink alcohol and consider it a sin, and I've confronted him with this and asked him what his justification is, and he explains that there's some loophole in the teachings that can be interpreted in different ways.

My point is, what is the point of having any faith at all if it can be modified and seen in any light one chooses? Doesn't that fundamentally defeat the purpose of believing, period? If you're not going to strictly adhere to a certain ethical, moral, spiritual code or whathaveyou, it essentially falls apart and breaks down, and while doing so also potentially invalidates or weakens all other tenants in that system as they are all dependant on one another to some extent.

We live in a world of laws, laid down by courts and society. These are not flexible nor open to interpretation (as much as can be helped), so why should faith be given a free pass? I heavily disagree with fundies, but I have to admit I admire their discipline and loyalty to what they believe, no matter how absurd it may be. In my eyes, you either believe in your faith entirely, or you don't. There is no agnosticism.

ChampionoChumps

Way to miss the point. Read my second paragraph, I used it as something to exemplify the rest of my post.

Also, agnostic can mean: "a person who is unwilling to commit to an opinion about something". According to Merriam Webster.

Simple. The Problem of Evil. Pretty simple logic in its most basic form.

Ilovegames1992

Is "The Problem of Evil" a logical statement? Actually write down your argument; don't demand that everyone else create it for you and agree with it.

And I can't wait to see what it is. I bet in the centuries Christianity has existed, no onehas thought of this argument before. You're the first one to pose this unshakable challenge.

[QUOTE="blabbyboy"][QUOTE="Meinhard1"]Dude, he TOTALLY answered your question. Meinhard1

[QUOTE="Ilovegames1992"]

Simple. The Problem of Evil. Pretty simple logic in its most basic form.

Palantas

Is "The Problem of Evil" a logical statement? Actually write down your argument; don't demand that everyone else create it for you and agree with it.

And I can't wait to see what it is. I bet in the centuries Christianity has existed, no onehas thought of this argument before. You're the first one to pose this unshakable challenge.

What are you talking about? No its a well known philosophical argument.... did i claim it as mine...? If you got that idea i apologise.

The idea that God cannot exist because evil exists in the world. Yet, he/she/it is omniscient, omnipotent and omnibenelovent. How can that be? Either he/she/it cant do anything about it or he wont. Either way, that is illogical is it not? Dont have to be so aggressive mate, i'm not ragging on peoples beliefs and i have a healthy respect for religion. Peace brah. :)

[QUOTE="ChampionoChumps"][QUOTE="Ilovegames1992"]Lets just get one thing straight here. A Christian God, using logic, cant exist.Ilovegames1992

Simple. The Problem of Evil. Pretty simple logic in its most basic form.

[QUOTE="Ilovegames1992"]

[QUOTE="ChampionoChumps"] Enlighten me.ChampionoChumps

Simple. The Problem of Evil. Pretty simple logic in its most basic form.

[QUOTE="Ilovegames1992"]

[QUOTE="ChampionoChumps"] Enlighten me.ChampionoChumps

Simple. The Problem of Evil. Pretty simple logic in its most basic form.

Which God knew would, and let, happen. A la, God cant exist. Genesis is so full of weird stuff though its insane. I'm surprised its still even taken literally today.

Free will isnt even an issue as it doesnt address as to why God let it happen.

[QUOTE="ChampionoChumps"][QUOTE="Ilovegames1992"]

Simple. The Problem of Evil. Pretty simple logic in its most basic form.

Ilovegames1992

Which God knew would, and let, happen. A la, God cant exist. Genesis is so full of weird stuff though its insane. I'm surprised its still even taken literally today.

What are you talking about? No its a well known philosophical argument.... did i claim it as mine...? If you got that idea i apologise.

Ilovegames1992

You believe theargument is valid. So I feel comfortable in calling it "your argument," as in, "the argument you are using in this thread." The one that you believe is so self-evident, you can make statements like this...

Lets just get one thing straight here. A Christian God, using logic, cant exist.Ilovegames1992

...with no accompanying explanation. Since you are content to simply reference a well-known philosophical problem, and not actually explore it in any depth, I am happy to be just as lazy and note to this thread's readership that there are a myriad of well-known philosophical solutions to this problem.

[QUOTE="Ilovegames1992"]

[QUOTE="ChampionoChumps"] Let me show you how you are wrong in the most basic form. Evil=sin (knowing something is wrong but doing it anyway) to be evil, you must sin, and vice versa. To commit sin, you must know the difference between good and evil, if you do not know the difference then you cannot sin. The story of Adam and Eve represents original sin, or when humans first learned the difference between good and evil.ChampionoChumps

Which God knew would, and let, happen. A la, God cant exist. Genesis is so full of weird stuff though its insane. I'm surprised its still even taken literally today.

Maybe its my limitations but i will never see God as anything other than ominpotent, omniscient and omnibenevolant and as such must take the blame as God created man and knew we would choose evil, you just cant really argue against that can you? Something that will never make sense to me. Unless i am subject to a religious experience and the infallible naature of God becomes slightly more comprehensible to me. But i'm always wanting to learn and know so if there is anything more to know there i'd be glad to hear it.

[QUOTE="Ilovegames1992"]

What are you talking about? No its a well known philosophical argument.... did i claim it as mine...? If you got that idea i apologise.

Palantas

You believe theargument is valid. So I feel comfortable in calling it "your argument," as in, "the argument you are using in this thread." The one that you believe is so self-evident, you can make statements like this...

Lets just get one thing straight here. A Christian God, using logic, cant exist.Ilovegames1992

...with no accompanying explanation. Since you are content to simply reference a well-known philosophical problem, and not actually explore it in any depth, I am happy to be just as lazy and note to this thread's readership that there are a myriad of well-known philosophical solutions to this problem.

Sweet. Well we're on the same page then.

...but i will never see God as anything other than ominpotent, omniscient and omnibenevolant...

Ilovegames1992

Then maybe you should change this...

A Christian God, using logic, cant exist.Ilovegames1992

...to read "A Christian God--under my specific interpretation of the nature of God, which I should really write down when making statements like this--using logic, can't exist.

[QUOTE="ChampionoChumps"][QUOTE="Ilovegames1992"]Lets just get one thing straight here. A Christian God, using logic, cant exist.Ilovegames1992

Simple. The Problem of Evil. Pretty simple logic in its most basic form.

[QUOTE="Ilovegames1992"]

...but i will never see God as anything other than ominpotent, omniscient and omnibenevolant...

Palantas

Then maybe you should change this...

A Christian God, using logic, cant exist.Ilovegames1992

...to read "A Christian God--under my specific interpretation of the nature of God, which I should really write down when making statements like this--using logic, can't exist.

Duly noted.

However i assumed that was everyones definition of a Christian God.

However i assumed that was everyones definition of a Christian God.

Ilovegames1992

Why would you assume that everyone's definition of any abstract concept is identical to your own? If you're familiar with the problem of evil, then you should be familiar with its rebuttals, many of which are based on a different definition of God than the one you're using. Were you unaware that solutions to the problem of evil exist, until I mentioned them a post ago?

[QUOTE="ChampionoChumps"][QUOTE="Ilovegames1992"]

Which God knew would, and let, happen. A la, God cant exist. Genesis is so full of weird stuff though its insane. I'm surprised its still even taken literally today.

Ilovegames1992

Maybe its my limitations but i will never see God as anything other than ominpotent, omniscient and omnibenevolant and as such must take the blame as God created man and knew we would choose evil, you just cant really argue against that can you? Something that will never make sense to me. Unless i am subject to a religious experience and the infallible naature of God becomes slightly more comprehensible to me. But i'm always wanting to learn and know so if there is anything more to know there i'd be glad to hear it.

I'm a fundamentalist in that I believe the fundamentals of Christianity to be true and I live as if they are true. However, I am not a fundamentalist in the sense that I believe that not everything is worth fighting over. I will fight for the fundamentals of the Gospel (metaphorically speaking) but I do not care to fight over secondary doctrines.mindstorm

Whynot? What makes them any less relevant?

[QUOTE="Ilovegames1992"]

However i assumed that was everyones definition of a Christian God.

Palantas

Why would you assume that everyone's definition of any abstract concept is identical to your own? If you're familiar with the problem of evil, then you should be familiar with its rebuttals, many of which are based on a different definition of God than the one you're using. Were you unaware that solutions to the problem of evil exist, until I mentioned them a post ago?

A Christian God? I assumed in most if not all cases, a Christian God in religion is an omnipotent, omniscient and omnibenelovant being, if i've got that wrong then i apologise, thats what i've grown up with since primary school. Genuinely. No, i knew the arguments and criticisims. I studied it in school.

[QUOTE="Ilovegames1992"]

[QUOTE="ChampionoChumps"] Simply put, evil is something man made. Not being evil is application of limitations to our biological selves to give ourselves inner peace. ChampionoChumps

Maybe its my limitations but i will never see God as anything other than ominpotent, omniscient and omnibenevolant and as such must take the blame as God created man and knew we would choose evil, you just cant really argue against that can you? Something that will never make sense to me. Unless i am subject to a religious experience and the infallible naature of God becomes slightly more comprehensible to me. But i'm always wanting to learn and know so if there is anything more to know there i'd be glad to hear it.

Read above for answer ^^.

So for curiosity sake, you do not see God possessing that trio of characteristics.

[QUOTE="ChampionoChumps"][QUOTE="Ilovegames1992"]

Maybe its my limitations but i will never see God as anything other than ominpotent, omniscient and omnibenevolant and as such must take the blame as God created man and knew we would choose evil, you just cant really argue against that can you? Something that will never make sense to me. Unless i am subject to a religious experience and the infallible naature of God becomes slightly more comprehensible to me. But i'm always wanting to learn and know so if there is anything more to know there i'd be glad to hear it.

Ilovegames1992

Read above for answer ^^.

So for curiosity sake, you do not see God possessing that trio of characteristics.

A Christian God? I assumed in most if not all cases, a Christian God in religion is an omnipotent, omniscient and omnibenelovant being, if i've got that wrong then i apologise, thats what i've grown up with since primary school. Genuinely. No, i knew the arguments and criticisims. I studied it in school.

Ilovegames1992

No, a Christian God is not necessarily any of those things to all people. In any case, there are solutions to the sin problem that allow for a God that is all of those.

[QUOTE="ChampionoChumps"][QUOTE="Ilovegames1992"]Lets just get one thing straight here. A Christian God, using logic, cant exist.Ilovegames1992

Simple. The Problem of Evil. Pretty simple logic in its most basic form.

Oh and there are no absolute goods and evils, good and evil is only relative to us.

[QUOTE="GreySeal9"]

[QUOTE="sirkibble2"]Well, to answer your question in clarity the bible isn't the only proof but it's among them to answer your question. Well, the bible says that the word was inspired by the Holy Spirit. The bible also says that proof is clear in creation--the world, us, etc. It's complexity, it's beauty, etc. So, there's written proof and there's actual proof also. It's just a choice of believing or not.msfan1289

Just because the Bible says it was inspired by Holy Spirit doesn't mean it was.

How in the world does the complexity and beauty of the world prove God?

If it's a matter of believing or not because God hasn't been proven. If he had been proven,his existence would be as undeniable as the sun rising in the east.

How would you disprove the bible being inspired by the holy spirit?

I don't need to disprove anything. You need to prove it.

[QUOTE="GreySeal9"]

[QUOTE="sirkibble2"]Well, to answer your question in clarity the bible isn't the only proof but it's among them to answer your question. Well, the bible says that the word was inspired by the Holy Spirit. The bible also says that proof is clear in creation--the world, us, etc. It's complexity, it's beauty, etc. So, there's written proof and there's actual proof also. It's just a choice of believing or not.sirkibble2

Just because the Bible says it was inspired by Holy Spirit doesn't mean it was.

How in the world does the complexity and beauty of the world prove God?

If it's a matter of believing or not because God hasn't been proven. If he had been proven,his existence would be as undeniable as the sun rising in the east.

The fact that the sun rises in the east every day can't be nothing else but something that created it. We believe the wind exists and have even felt the wind but have never seen the wind but we know it exists. In the same way, I've never seen God but I know he exists but the tangible elements that exist today.

You can use the complexity of the world as reasoning for a belief in God, but by no means it is proof. Proof would establish that the complexity couldn't have happened any other way. The complexity itself does not establish that.

Religious people have lost sense of reality, i think

Zurrur

[QUOTE="Lethalhazard"]

How can you be atheist either? The only logical choice IMO is agnosticism.

(not talking to you OP just some folk in this thread)

worlock77

While I wouldn't call myself an atheist it's really not hard to not believe in something that has no proof.

This is a good point. In our daily lives, we constantly don't believe in things with no proof, and think that's logical, yet when one does it with God, it's somehow illogical. I don't buy that.

Trying to prove that there's no God is highly illogical because it can't be done. But simply not believing there is a God due lack of evidence is perfectly logical.

How can you be atheist either? The only logical choice IMO is agnosticism.

(not talking to you OP just some folk in this thread)

Lethalhazard

You can't disprove there being an invisible floating squid that you can neither feel nor see. There's no point in considering its possbility of existence. Well, even that is less silly than "The Lord."

SparkyProtocol

You just ended the thread and made me an atheist. I think it was MrGeezer who said the other day something like, "All the arguments about religion here involve the same people writing the same arguments as if it's some great revelation."

[QUOTE="DroidPhysX"]Don't force your views on other people?LiftedHeadshot

You are, there are many forms and levels of religion. It is not up to you to define what people choose to believe in.

and not be a fundamentalist?

If you don't take the scripture word for word, how can you call yourself a Christian, or a Muslim, etc.

Scripture is the only "proof" of your Gods, so if you aren't a fundamentalist believer, how can you call yourself a believer at all?

Or is it justifiable to believe in your religion while not fully believing in your scripture?

Discuss.

LiftedHeadshot

[QUOTE="msfan1289"]

[QUOTE="GreySeal9"]

Just because the Bible says it was inspired by Holy Spirit doesn't mean it was.

How in the world does the complexity and beauty of the world prove God?

If it's a matter of believing or not because God hasn't been proven. If he had been proven,his existence would be as undeniable as the sun rising in the east.

GreySeal9

How would you disprove the bible being inspired by the holy spirit?

I don't need to disprove anything. You need to prove it.

excuse me? yes you do, how do you know the holy spirit didn't inspired it? what did you live that long ago? did you have something to do with writing the bible? did you whiteness it? how can you say that with a 100% and get ask to prove it.

and i dont need to prove anything, because anything i bring up as proof will be shot down, no matter if i bring in people testimonials and stuff like that you will just find a way to say "no no that's not true" even tho those people can say 100% what happened to them or what they saw.

You can use the complexity of the world as reasoning for a belief in God, but by no means it is proof. Proof would establish that the complexity couldn't have happened any other way. The complexity itself does not establish that.

GreySeal9

I agree with you.

I'm just not sure what you believe or what the general thought of people in this topic who are not Christian believe but using the "everything was created through an explosion" surely does not make any logical sense. This is the only time in history where an explosion actually created something and to create something so complex? Thinking about photosynthesis, pregnancy, our bodies itself, it's too complex to be created by nothing other than someone that created it; that designed it. Even if everything evolved from a single cell, that one single cell had all of the universe, every living thing in it or even just one of something and most of everything evolved from it? That would blow my mind and even if that happened, there has to be something beyond anything natural for that to occur.

That's what I mean by the complexity as being proof.

A growing number of Christians I know carry New Testament only now, in fact, discounting half their holy book.Piroshki

They "carry" it? In what sense? If you mean literally, then this may come as news to you, but Bibles with just the New Testament are not a new thing. And they exist more as a function of portability than doctrine.

So we're on again? I seriously wish OT would drop discussing religion all the time.

It's pointless.:x

So we're on again? I seriously wish OT would drop discussing religion all the time.

It's pointless.:x

Mehdi-Y

No one's forcing you to open these threads. You are perfectly free to ignore them.

[QUOTE="Mehdi-Y"]

So we're on again? I seriously wish OT would drop discussing religion all the time.

It's pointless.:x

worlock77

No one's forcing you to open these threads. You are perfectly free to ignore them.

sigh Atheists always continuously forcing their views on others... I'm not religious or Athiest really but it gets tiresome with the large amount of topics about this on Gamespot, just the same thing repeatedly said.shadowkiller11

Posting in a public forum isn't forcing ones views on anyone. Attempting to make laws based on religious doctrine is.

[QUOTE="worlock77"]

[QUOTE="Mehdi-Y"]

So we're on again? I seriously wish OT would drop discussing religion all the time.

It's pointless.:x

Mehdi-Y

No one's forcing you to open these threads. You are perfectly free to ignore them.

Wow, clever.

so what i can understand from the TC is that being fundamentalist is a bad thing ?? i fail to understand how? if a muslim is a fundamentalist muslim then he is a good musllim .if any hindu/christian is a fundamentalist hindu/christian then he is a good hindu/christian . just like a doctor has to be fundamentalist in his field to be a good doctor. a mathematician has to be a fundamentalist to be a good mathematician . if a mathematician doesnt know 2+2 is 4 then he has his basics(fundamentals) wrong and he is not a good mathematician

i am a muslim and i consider myself afundamentalist muslim .i try to follow what my religion tells me .as i am a muslim i can only talk for Islam .Islam is not a Mahzab i.e religion Islam is Deen i.e way of life .Islam guides you through every suitation of life .Islam doesnt want to you to follow some of its commandments that favour you and not follow the commandants that seem unprofitable to you ,like if Islam says drink milk and eat dates you follow the teachings and when Islam says help poor peoplefinancially you refuse to obey.so either youtry tofollow every teaching of Islam or you dont follow any meaning that either you are a fundamentalist muslim or you are not a muslim .and i am sure every religion is like this

[QUOTE="GreySeal9"]

[QUOTE="msfan1289"]

How would you disprove the bible being inspired by the holy spirit?

thegerg

I don't need to disprove anything. You need to prove it.

What I am saying is that before anybody goes about proving that the Holy Spirit didn't inspire the Bible, it needs to be established that it did. Otherwise, what is there to disprove?

He is taking issue with my argument that the Bible is not proof of God by asking me to disprove that it was inspired by the Holy Spirit. So doesn't it make sense that before I do that (and I really wouldn't waste my time with that because it's not something that can be proven or disproven), he actually establishes in some way that it was inspired by the Holy Spirit?

[QUOTE="GreySeal9"]

[QUOTE="msfan1289"]

How would you disprove the bible being inspired by the holy spirit?

msfan1289

I don't need to disprove anything. You need to prove it.

excuse me? yes you do, how do you know the holy spirit didn't inspired it? what did you live that long ago? did you have something to do with writing the bible? did you whiteness it? how can you say that with a 100% and get ask to prove it.

and i dont need to prove anything, because anything i bring up as proof will be shot down, no matter if i bring in people testimonials and stuff like that you will just find a way to say "no no that's not true" even tho those people can say 100% what happened to them or what they saw.

I didn't say the holy spirit didn't inspire it. I don't know one way or the other (though I think it's more likely that the Bible is not divinely inspired). I simply said that the scripture is not proof of God. If you think it is, then you should demonstrate why, not ask me prove a negative.

The things you will bring up will probably be shoot down because they are not proof. Testimonials are not proof.

so what i can understand from the TC is that being fundamentalist is a bad thing ?? i fail to understand how? if a muslim is a fundamentalist muslim then he is a good musllim .if any hindu/christian is a fundamentalist hindu/christian then he is a good hindu/christian . just like a doctor has to be fundamentalist in his field to be a good doctor. a mathematician has to be a fundamentalist to be a good mathematician . if a mathematician doesnt know 2+2 is 4 then he has his basics(fundamentals) wrong and he is not a good mathematician

i am a muslim and i consider myself afundamentalist muslim .i try to follow what my religion tells me .as i am a muslim i can only talk for Islam .Islam is not a Mahzab i.e religion Islam is Deen i.e way of life .Islam guides you through every suitation of life .Islam doesnt want to you to follow some of its commandments that favour you and not follow the commandants that seem unprofitable to you ,like if Islam says drink milk and eat dates you follow the teachings and when Islam says help poor peoplefinancially you refuse to obey.so either youtry tofollow every teaching of Islam or you dont follow any meaning that either you are a fundamentalist muslim or you are not a muslim .and i am sure every religion is like this

blaze_adeel

Fundamentalism is not inherently a bad thing, but sometimes it can have a negative effect on society.

I don't think a strong Christian/Muslim or whatever=a fundamentalist Christian/Muslim or whatever.

That's not to say that a fundamentalist can't be a good member of their religion. It just means that being a strong believer of a religion does not have to lead to fundamentalism, which is essentially an interpretation so literal that it can be unreasonable.