What good reason is there to believe the Christian God exists? [The Debate Thread]

[Det. Bart Lasiter]

So, you are talking about the OT god. The Christian god is from the NT which appeared as the image of His son, Jesus Christ (therefore Christian, the one who follow the teachings of Christ). When you talk about the Christian god you should focus more on the NT. WHy you discharged the NT and only talked about the OT?

 

even if we ignore the first half of the bible (which is a pretty **** argument) the new testament is still pretty ****ty, though a lot of the torture and such is much more theoretical than the stuff in the old testament, which the new testament only adds onto anyway.

[Tommycat]

I realize that lots of people probably believe in God for the reasons you mentioned. But to me, that seems a lot like pascal's wager. Whether god exits or not is completely unrelated to any of that.

No, I'm not saying that the god exists. Just that belief in something higher even if that something is something like "The Universal equation" from which springs the chaotic balance we see. Belief in fate, Karma or whatnot do loads to make a person feel better regardless of whether they exist.

[Ray Jones]

I ask what caused the Big Bang? They say molecules were jumbled up together and eventually escaped creating an explosion.

Well, most of all, technically, molecules come after the big bang.

 

 

So I ask what created the molecules. They say one of two things.

1. I don't know

or

2. They just are/did

3. Chemical reactions? Atoms?

 

So, if this is possible, is it not also possible that God just is?

From a certain aspect, it seems that everything "just is".

 

Or that God created what was or/and is?

It seems that the difference from "things just came into existence beginning with the big bang (or whatever, for that matter)" to "god just came into existence to bring things into existence eventually" is rather quite non-existent. Now, if you see god as simply the "first cause" to everything, big bang, the universe, multiverse, whatever there might be, whatever science might discover, there is not even the need to label god "a being".

[SD Nihil]

In my opinion I don't think you can prove i"the Christian God" exists. With Christians it's a matter of faith. Proof or not matters not to them. They have a belief that focuses on the unsean. Even if you were to see an angel and get it on tape the other side might say it's just a fake with current technology you can manufacture anything. But the other side believes what they believe.

 

People can be closed minded regardles if they say they are not. Because they might simply be asking you to prove them wrong simply to give a reason to validate their decision they already made. Kinda like how some wil go to the doctor and he might say you have this and this is the only treatement. Well the patient might think another treatement is all that is needed. They'll then go from doctor to doctor until they find the doctor that agrees with their opinion they already made.

 

And finally one man's miracle is another man's ah that person just had really good luck. So I don't think either way you can decide the debate. One side is focusing more on faith than proof. The other only cares about proof, and won't want to just have faith. And again others are simply looking to validate their opinion. I don't think it can be decided either way.

[Darth Avlectus]

In my opinion I don't think you can prove i"the Christian God" exists. With Christians it's a matter of faith. Proof or not matters not to them. They have a belief that focuses on the unsean. Even if you were to see an angel and get it on tape the other side might say it's just a fake with current technology you can manufacture anything. But the other side believes what they believe.

 

People can be closed minded regardles if they say they are not. Because they might simply be asking you to prove them wrong simply to give a reason to validate their decision they already made. Kinda like how some wil go to the doctor and he might say you have this and this is the only treatement. Well the patient might think another treatement is all that is needed. They'll then go from doctor to doctor until they find the doctor that agrees with their opinion they already made.

 

And finally one man's miracle is another man's ah that person just had really good luck. So I don't think either way you can decide the debate. One side is focusing more on faith than proof. The other only cares about proof, and won't want to just have faith. And again others are simply looking to validate their opinion. I don't think it can be decided either way.

 

Seconded.

[Dark Jedi Han]

About the Bible:

 

What my CHRISTIAN teacher told me is that the first written texts about Jesus came much later than him, like a few hundred years after, if I'm not completely wrong. To preserve his miracles, stories were orally carried through generations.

The result is that we get different versions of one story. This becomes really complicated for you then...

 

Second: What Marcus wrote, is the same as what Lucas wrote, but yet differs from him. I don't really remember which of them said these following things, but I've kept it well in my head:

 

When Jesus (peace upon him) was crucified, he told God to forgive their sins as they're ignorant. (With their referring to the crucifiers eg Roman soldiers, etc...)

 

While another says:

 

When Jesus (peace upon him) was crucified, he spoke to God, saying: "Lahi" or "Eli (= God), did you leave me?" (it may be wrong, but I remember well that there were two contradictions in the different Gospels)

 

Another thing: Jesus asks for water.

 

In one Gospel, a Roman centurion puts a sponge on his spear, drips it in water and tends it to Jesus. In another one, it was completely different.

 

This is just to say that many versions exist, but we will never know which one is true.

 

And by the way: I'm a muslim, and recognize Jesus as a Messenger of God, but not as His son. Of course, that is for another thread.

[Alexrd]

Here we go again...

[Achilles]

About the Bible:

 

What my CHRISTIAN teacher told me is that the first written texts about Jesus came much later than him, like a few hundred years after, if I'm not completely wrong.

 

It's difficult to say with any degree of certainty. We have very good reasons to believe that the first gospel was written at least 40 years after jesus' alleged death (~75 AD per a reference to the destruction of the temple by the Romans).

 

The oldest fragment that we have is dated to about 125 BC (iirc EDIT: See P52). Obviously other writing could have existed elsewhere in that ~50 year gap, but we don't have any evidence for them.

 

To preserve his miracles, stories were orally carried through generations.

 

The fact that you acknowledge apparent discrepancies in your post says a great deal about how accurate and/or consistent that process was

 

HINT: we can't get people to agree on jesus even after everything was written down and the advent of the movable type made it possible to eliminate "scribal error".

 

The result is that we get different versions of one story. This becomes really complicated for you then...

 

Second: What Marcus wrote, is the same as what Lucas wrote, but yet differs from him. I don't really remember which of them said these following things, but I've kept it well in my head:

 

When Jesus (peace upon him) was crucified, he told God to forgive their sins as they're ignorant. (With their referring to the crucifiers eg Roman soldiers, etc...)

 

While another says:

 

When Jesus (peace upon him) was crucified, he spoke to God, saying: "Lahi" or "Eli (= God), did you leave me?" (it may be wrong, but I remember well that there were two contradictions in the different Gospels)

 

Another thing: Jesus asks for water.

 

In one Gospel, a Roman centurion puts a sponge on his spear, drips it in water and tends it to Jesus. In another one, it was completely different.

 

This is just to say that many versions exist, but we will never know which one is true.

 

Indeed. So if we have different, conflicting stories, then on what basis should we assume that any of them are true? If these stories are the only reason that we believe that jesus existed, then why should we believe that either?

 

quasi-off-topic: If I may recommend a book...

 

And by the way: I'm a muslim, and recognize Jesus as a Messenger of God, but not as His son. Of course, that is for another thread.

 

"Peace be upon him" was a dead give-away, but thanks for clarifying nonetheless

[neal8929]

A good reason to believe in the Christian god:

 

Everything in our known universe has an end and a beginning. Stars are born, and stars are destroyed. You cannot create something, without destroying something else. There is something missing that physics cannot explain. If everything had a beginning, and you cannot create something without destroying something else, how did the universe come to be?

 

But this in no way proves a Christian god exists... it only proves there is a source of all things.

 

The only way to prove that a Christian god exists is to read and understand the Bible. What the Bible does better than any other religious book is take real things that can be proven historically, and ties them in with the unknown, things that cannot be proven with secular sources. It creates an interpretation of the purpose of humanity, and it actually makes sense. It covers all bases, there is nothing happening now days, there is nothing that cannot be explained with the Bible.

 

And btw, what the Bible says is NOT always in agreement with what your preacher says at your church. The irony is that when the bible is speaking of "false religion" it is not always referring to non-Christian. Church is a business/ social gathering.

[Achilles]

A good reason to believe in the Christian god:

 

<snip>

 

But this in no way proves a Christian god exists...

 

I'm not sure I need to say much here.

 

Everything in our known universe has an end and a beginning. Stars are born, and stars are destroyed. You cannot create something, without destroying something else. There is something missing that physics cannot explain.

 

Ever or just at this point? If "physics" does "explain" it at some point in the future, what happens then?

 

This is known as "the god of the gaps" argument, and while some people find it compelling, I don't think it necessarily provides the answers that it presumes to.

 

If everything had a beginning, and you cannot create something without destroying something else, how did the universe come to be?

 

A good question that deserves an answer, but as you yourself point out, this isn't an argument for the existence of the christian god. It's not even an argument for a non-christian god. All it is the acknowledgment of a presumed gap in our knowledge of the universe. We don't get to "just make up an answer" and declare it "truth".

 

The only way to prove that a Christian god exists is to read and understand the Bible.

 

At the risk of sounding confrontational, it has been my experience that comments such as these can only be made by people who are not themselves familiar with the bible. For the record, I feel comfortable assuming that you're probably familiar with parts of it, but I seriously doubt that you've read the whole thing.

 

What the Bible does better than any other religious book is take real things that can be proven historically, and ties them in with the unknown, things that cannot be proven with secular sources.

 

Such as?

 

It creates an interpretation of the purpose of humanity, and it actually makes sense.

 

For sake of argument, let's say that I accept this. How does that make christianity any different than any other religion? Every belief system offers up "an interpretation of the purpose of humanity". Are you telling me that muslims don't equally believe that their system "actually makes sense" to them?

 

And btw, what the Bible says is NOT always in agreement with what your preacher says at your church. The irony is that when the bible is speaking of "false religion" it is not always referring to non-Christian. Church is a business/ social gathering.

 

But you know "the truth" about how the bible should be interpretted and how christianity should be represented, correct?

[Dark Jedi Han]

Half of what I wanted to say is said by Achilles.

 

Other than that:

 

1. The bible is global. E.g: Someone can say "do something good". You can help people, or you can kill a cruel dictator, but killing is against the rules. It's the same with the bible, a "normal" believer can understand something in another way than a radical believer.

 

2. The purpose of humanity is different to every single being. What's the purpose of a dog? A fly? Dinosaurs? Aren't they created and destroyed by the same god?

 

3. Historical truth? Prove me Jesus walked on the water. Prove me YOU can walk on water, heal dying people, ... . These are "parabels (idk the English name, only Dutch)". They didn't happen litterally, they are here to make people think. And miracles are "Parabels in action"

 

4. "The Kingdom of God is all around us."

Means that no church or such things are needed, but the Vatican tries to convince us otherwise, because if this is the truth, then the Vatican will be destroyed.

 

And sorry if you don't really understand what I say, my English isn't very good afterall.

[Achilles]

1. The bible is global. E.g: Someone can say "do something good". You can help people, or you can kill a cruel dictator, but killing is against the rules. It's the same with the bible, a "normal" believer can understand something in another way than a radical believer.

 

I think our language barrier is making this a little difficult for me to interpret. When you say "the bible is global", do you mean "universal" (in that the concepts espoused in the bible are found in other moral teachings as well)?

 

If so, then I would probably say that I agree. The problem is that religious texts tend to be incredibly inconsistent. Per your own example of "killing being against the rules" both the bible and qu'ran promote non-violence on one hand and extreme violence with the other.

 

A simple study of moral philosophy will tell you that murder is wrong but that killing is sometimes justified (i.e. self-defense, cruel dictators, etc). If we can come to these conclusions via a means that does not require any unnecessary baggage, why subscribe to the option with tons of it (i.e. religion)?

 

2. The purpose of humanity is different to every single being. What's the purpose of a dog? A fly? Dinosaurs? Aren't they created and destroyed by the same god?

 

The first part of this seems to acknowledge that there is no inherent purpose (a position I support), however the latter parts appear contradictory to this. If living things have no "purpose" (outside of their utility in the ecosystem), then why even ask the question?

 

3. Historical truth? Prove me Jesus walked on the water. Prove me YOU can walk on water, heal dying people, ... . These are "parabels (idk the English name, only Dutch)". They didn't happen litterally, they are here to make people think. And miracles are "Parabels in action"

 

Does this apply to muhammed and the winged horse as well? This question is largely rhetorical, however if you do opt to answer, please be sure to clarify whether you are speaking for yourself or all muslims.

 

4. "The Kingdom of God is all around us."

Means that no church or such things are needed, but the Vatican tries to convince us otherwise, because if this is the truth, then the Vatican will be destroyed.

 

Which implies the premise itself is correct.

 

And for what it's worth, catholicism is not the only religious faction with an established hierarchy.

 

And sorry if you don't really understand what I say, my English isn't very good afterall.

 

Your English is quite good.

[Dark Jedi Han]

With the bible being global, I mean very open, general, like one phrase can have different meanings, or people can interpret it differently (like the example of killing).

 

With the human purpose, I couldn't explain it well, I meant that it's different for everything. Like you said, the ecological system, but the purpose of two dogs can be different: You have (mostly) dogs who obey, guard, ... others are made to guide blind people. There's a big difference between a chiwawa and a mastiff or pitbull. Everything has a different purpose.

 

 

I myself can't explain the winged horse. Maybe it was an illusion, maybe Gabriel was hiding behide the horse? I don't know, but if you compare the bible to the qur'an, you'ld admit that the bible has more unlikely miracles than the qur'an.

 

 

 

And for what it's worth, catholicism is not the only religious faction with an established hierarchy.

 

 

 

One of the things I didn't really understand. Can you please explain that ?

And thanks for the compliment

[Achilles]

With the bible being global, I mean very open, general, like one phrase can have different meanings, or people can interpret it differently (like the example of killing).

 

First, thanks for clarifying.

 

Second, in that case, how is the bible different for any other holy book? Are you putting forth the argument that the qur'an isn't equally open to interpretation?

 

Food for thought:

 

Is this islam?

 

 

Or is this? Who decides?

 

 

 

With the human purpose, I couldn't explain it well, I meant that it's different for everything. Like you said, the ecological system, but the purpose of two dogs can be different: You have (mostly) dogs who obey, guard, ... others are made to guide blind people. There's a big difference between a chiwawa and a mastiff or pitbull. Everything has a different purpose.

 

At the risk of attacking the analogy rather than the argument: dogs are intentionally bred for specific purposes. The range of dog breeds we see today did not evolve by natural selection, rather by artificial selection (carried out by humans). This fact is why I intentionally geared my rebuttal toward inherent purpose. My position is that nothing has an inherent purpose within the context of how we typically discuss "purpose" (hence the caveat about ecological utility). Obviously, I'm open to opposing viewpoints, but the argument would have to be pretty persuasive.

 

 

I myself can't explain the winged horse. Maybe it was an illusion, maybe Gabriel was hiding behide the horse? I don't know, but if you compare the bible to the qur'an, you'ld admit that the bible has more unlikely miracles than the qur'an.

 

hehe, I'd tend to think that this is a function of word count more than anything else

 

Joking aside, I think we still end up at the conclusion that both religions have holy books which make unsubstantiated claims of a fantastic nature. Which one is "guilty" of doing it "more" seems irrelevant to the discussion when the topic is veracity. My 2 cents.

 

 

One of the things I didn't really understand. Can you please explain that ?

 

I'd be happy to.

 

The mormon church is another example of a religious sect with internal hierarchy. In catholicism, the guy with hotline to god is the pope. In mormonism, it's the prophet. And so on.

 

Obviously not all religious groups are so rigidly structured, but I only sought to point out that catholics aren't the only group with this practice.

 

 

And thanks for the compliment

 

You're welcome

[Dark Jedi Han]

The 2nd picture is what Islam most likely is, the first one is people I would ignore, because in my eyes, they completely missunderstood the Islam (I'm telling you, I would love to go back to the 12th century. There, WE were much more noble IMO). But every religion has that. You've got the KKK, neo-nazis, strict believers, ... . The Jews who wanted Yeshos' death were equivalent to "them in the pic."

 

As for the dogs, long ago you also had little dogs and big ones, that's what I meant.

 

Bible-Qur'an reference:

I already told about the bible, and now the Qur'an. One of the passages clearly say that Rabbi's words are true and complete and that the definition is clear. If He says: "Cover your body where needed", then a "light" religious woman will cover her upperbody and legs, a "medium" religious woman will also cover her head and a strict believer will cover her body such that you even can't see her ... 'silhouette'. They ALL will certainly cover their breasts and legs, because that's the most important thing to cover.

 

 

And yes, I got a "lil' bit" off topic with the miracles hehe. But it's true!

 

As for the hierarchy. I don't know a "general" leader of the Islam. If I want, I can go and preach people, or my sister can, my 5-year old brother can. It all depends on who can tell it better and who knows more and rightously. In the Islam, your status isn't important, your intelligence and knowledge is.

And if you're going to quote the "righteously" part, it means "that what moral is"

 

To roughly answer "the question of religion" is "the answer to "Why are we here?". "

[Achilles]

The 2nd picture is what Islam most likely is, the first one is people I would ignore, because in my eyes, they completely missunderstood the Islam

 

So the answers to my questions are: 1) the favorable one and 2) you. No offense, but this is what I was expecting. The point remains is that they both represent islam. Specifically the parts of islam which are cherry-picked to support the viewpoint the follower in question likes more. In this regard, your religion is no different than the christianity on which you're commenting. Interestingly, you appear to concede as much a few lines down (which would seem to invalidate everything you've said above )

 

(I'm telling you, I would love to go back to the 12th century. There, WE were much more noble IMO).

 

Hehe, I'd like to introduce you to Bernard Lewis

 

But every religion has that. You've got the KKK, neo-nazis, strict believers, ... . The Jews who wanted Yeshos' death were equivalent to "them in the pic."

 

And per my point, these agents feel that they are the ones correctly interpretting the holy book in question. Which makes the whole "let's use these texts as the basis for our culture" thing a little difficult to understand.

 

As for the dogs, long ago you also had little dogs and big ones, that's what I meant.

 

No, you had wolves, which is my point. Some wolves became domesticated and then bred for specific traits which lead to the array of dog breeds we see today. So with regards to dogs specifically, they have "purpose" because we bred them with "purpose" in mind. Inherently, there was no "purpose" to their existence. I would argue that this is the same for all animals, including the ape species we commonly refer to as "us".

 

Bible-Qur'an reference:

I already told about the bible, and now the Qur'an. One of the passages clearly say that Rabbi's words are true and complete and that the definition is clear. If He says: "Cover your body where needed", then a "light" religious woman will cover her upperbody and legs, a "medium" religious woman will also cover her head and a strict believer will cover her body such that you even can't see her ... 'silhouette'. They ALL will certainly cover their breasts and legs, because that's the most important thing to cover.

 

According to whom? I sense circular reasoning at play here

 

And yes, I got a "lil' bit" off topic with the miracles hehe. But it's true!

 

Per your opinion, which means that it's not "true" in any objective sense of the word. And that's my point

 

To roughly answer "the question of religion" is "the answer to "Why are we here?". "

 

So our "purpose" for being here is to have religion?

 

On what basis should I find this argument compelling? What if I determine that I want my life to have some other purpose (or no purpose at all)? What makes me wrong?

[Dark Jedi Han]

The favorable one? What did I just tell you: These people were blinded by their rage. What would you do if the man you admire, and whose path you follow gets insulted by a cartoon? And severely insulted. I could insult Jesus by saying that he was the result of Maria and a donkey in a cave, as a payback, but what would that do? What would you do if I said George Washington raped Indians and slaughtered tons of Natives? Where would I differ then from those who insulted us? I would degrade to the same level of the ignorant or the "infidel".

 

So 1) is NOT an answer to your question, not at all. 2) is me, people I know, my parents and my community. And heck, of course my religion is no different than the christianity: We are based on them. Jesus is one of our major prophets.

 

It's like this:

The Jews were the first. God orded Moses to lead them. Moses did what God asked, until the Jews worshipped a golden calf.

God didn't like that, so centuries later he sent a new prophet named Yeshos. He would show the right way to the Jews and most likely succeeded. But centuries later, man began to lose his mind and thought Jesus was the son of God.

God didn't like that neither, so he sent his last prophet, named Mahomet. And so on...

 

 

I didn't understand the "Bernard Louis joke". Keep it simple, I'm a bit stupid lol (concetration problems..)

 

 

YOU didn't understand what I wanted to say. You've got your good sides, and bad sides. Light side - Dark side. Religion has that too. Every religion.

 

I give up on the dogs heh..

 

 

 

According to the "laws of shame" (if you know the story of Adam and Eve). I would like to see you run naked through town. No, scratch that, I wouldn't. But you understand what I meant, I guess.

 

 

Then it's true in subjective sense. I'll give up here too.

 

And lastly, again, you didn't understand me.

Some people ask themselves "Why are we here?" and find their answer in some religions. Seriously, why do we exist, does the earth exist? Galaxies? Why?

For me, and I'm sure many other religious people, this world is an exam. We must show our loyalty to JHWH, God, Allah, ... by succeeding in this world, by acting morally and helping others. If we do, we'll get our highly wanted price: The Heaven.

 

If we fail, ... ouch, it's Satan, Iblis, Shaytan,.. waiting for us.

[Achilles]

The favorable one?

 

Yes, the favorable one. I asked you which picture was "the real islam" and predictably you responded that the second one. Nevermind that people in either picture would turn to the qur'an to justify their choices.

 

What did I just tell you: These people were blinded by their rage.

 

So what? Is that supposed to make it okay?

 

What about the part where they justify their behavior with cherry-picked lines from your holy book?

 

This is the part where you tell me that they are "interpretting it wrong" and fail to realize that the book itself is probably the problem.

 

What would you do if the man you admire, and whose path you follow gets insulted by a cartoon? And severely insulted.

 

I live in a country where free speech is taken very seriously. Even if I did not, I don't think I could justify such behavior by claiming that my feeling were hurt. I'm pretty sure someone would tell me to go home a put my big boy pants on.

 

I could insult Jesus by saying that he was the result of Maria and a donkey in a cave, as a payback, but what would that do?

 

Indeed you could. And for all my distaste of "christians", I at least have to give them credit for not issuing a fatwah on you for the above statement. No innocent men, women, or children will be trampled to death during the protests of your internet post. No store fronts burned. No calls for boycotts of products manufactured in your country.

 

Yes, for all their warts, most christians don't demonstrate their peaceful way of life by calling for the deaths of those that dare to draw cartoons of their religious icons.

 

What would you do if I said George Washington raped Indians and slaughtered tons of Natives?

 

Ask anyone here; I would ask for your source.

 

It's like this:

The Jews were the first. God orded Moses to lead them. Moses did what God asked, until the Jews worshipped a golden calf.

God didn't like that, so centuries later he sent a new prophet named Yeshos. He would show the right way to the Jews and most likely succeeded. But centuries later, man began to lose his mind and thought Jesus was the son of God.

God didn't like that neither, so he sent his last prophet, named Mahomet. And so on...

 

I wonder if any jews or christians would like to jump in here...

 

 

I didn't understand the "Bernard Louis joke". Keep it simple, I'm a bit stupid lol (concetration problems..)

 

It wasn't a joke, it was suggested reading.

 

According to the "laws of shame" (if you know the story of Adam and Eve). I would like to see you run naked through town. No, scratch that, I wouldn't. But you understand what I meant, I guess.

 

"laws" of shame, eh? I guess I'm not familiar with those laws. I like to think I familiar with "norms". Familiar enough to recognize that they differ from culture to culture. How big a shocker do you think my nudie jog would be in a nudist colony? A beach in France? Spring Break in Miami?

 

The point is that your assertion that some things are "most important to cover" is something fairly arbitrary dictated by the norms you subscribe to. They are in no way universal, however I'm more than willing to listen to your counter argument if you'd like to correct my thinking on the matter.

 

Some people ask themselves "Why are we here?" and find their answer in some religions.

 

This is true, but that doesn't mean that they are right. It also doesn't mean that religion is a good thing.

 

Seriously, why do we exist, does the earth exist? Galaxies? Why?

 

My opinion is that this is poor application of the question. 'How did we get here?' is a useful question. 'How was the earth formed', 'How are galaxies created', etc, these are useful questions. 'Why' is not. 'Why' presumes that there is a purpose and I find no good reason to include such a premise in any related investigation. It isn't useful in any way.

 

For me, and I'm sure many other religious people, this world is an exam. We must show our loyalty to JHWH, God, Allah, ... by succeeding in this world, by acting morally and helping others. If we do, we'll get our highly wanted price: The Heaven.

 

And what happens if you die and find out that it was really Zeus all along? The Greeks had it right and you're screwed.

 

If this is all a test and passing that test is the most important thing you should be doing with your life, don't you think it would be beneficial to make sure you're taking the right test first?

 

And if your point is that the important thing is really to "be nice", then why not just do that and leave all the contradictory religious stuff in century in which in was written?

 

If we fail, ... ouch, it's Satan, Iblis, Shaytan,.. waiting for us.

 

Or nothing. See above.

[mimartin]

Ask anyone here; I would ask for your source.[/Quote] No doubt, he would. Two, three times or more if you were not careful.

 

 

I wonder if any jews or christians would like to jump in here...

Not really.

 

However, my first thought upon reading Dark Jedi Han's remark you quoted was if we had any Mormons here.

[purifier]

If I may, I believe have a answer as to one of the "WHY" questions. To......

 

NEW TESTAMENT

"Do unto others as you would have them do to you."

 

 

And I think it's just that simple. Also the phrase is probably in every ancient religious text of the many different religions, but worded differently, with the same meaning in mind. (I know I've seen it in Confucianism and Zoroastrianism texts, which predates Christianity.)

 

But I really believe you could worship anybody or anything (or not) and it wouldn't really matter as long as you follow that little golden rule; which does serve a useful purpose.

 

It seems to me as though many different religions have come and went over the thousands of years that have passed, but that simple moral rule remained constant and probably because it's a eternal universal truth IMO.

[Dark Jedi Han]

IF Zeus was the god, then it doesn't matter to me, because whatever you do, you'll just dwell in the underworld. And besides, I'm insulting Zeus right now, just to see if a lightning bolt will hit me...

 

Nope, nothing

 

And for the "laws of shame" or norms as you call it, it's universal in the civilized world. Go then, go to a nudist beach and walk around. I wouldn't do that, even if they pay me. But of course, that's MY choice.

 

And if someone chooses for a religion, then HE did it, not you. For him, or her for that matter, it will be the right choice as long as the religion relies on moral ethics.

 

Then I'm asking you: How did we get here?

 

And I agree with purifier.

[Achilles]

If I may, I believe have a answer as to one of the "WHY" questions. To......

 

<snip>

 

And I think it's just that simple.

 

Let's try that in dialog, just to see if it makes any sense:

 

"Why are we here?"

"Do unto others as you would have them do unto you".

 

Forgive me, but I just don't see it.

 

Your input would seem more appropriate to questions of to HOW (!!!) we should conduct ourselves, but I don't see anything related to why we are here.

 

And for what it's worth, Kant's categorical imperative carries the same theme, with a superior structure and without any superstitious baggage. So again, why opt for the inferior option?

 

Also the phrase is probably in every ancient religious text of the many different religions, but worded differently, with the same meaning in mind. (I know I've seen it in Confucianism and Zoroastrianism texts, which predates Christianity.)

 

So why not follow one of those religions?

 

But I really believe you could worship anybody or anything (or not) and it wouldn't really matter as long as you follow that little golden rule; which does serve a useful purpose.

 

Welcome to the argument for secular humanism

 

It seems to me as though many different religions have come and went over the thousands of years that have passed, but that simple moral rule remained constant and probably because it's a eternal universal truth IMO.

 

I don't know that I would agree with the "eternal universal truth" part, but I could definitely subscribe to the argument that it's a good idea and that good ideas should be accepted over bad ideas, etc, etc.

 

IF Zeus was the god, then it doesn't matter to me, because whatever you do, you'll just dwell in the underworld.

 

Oh, so you're not "good" because it's morally correct, you just fear the consequences?

 

And besides, I'm insulting Zeus right now, just to see if a lightning bolt will hit me...

 

It seems you're trying to have it both ways: You can insult Zeus right now and feel justified in expecting immediate consequences. Yet I suspect that if you insulted your deity right now and nothing happened, you'd posit that your punishment would await in the afterlife. Would you be willing to put your "soul" where your mouth is and try the same experiment with "the prophet" muhammed, or some other religious icon that live a little closer to home?

 

Also, how hypocritical of you is it that you're willing to insult other people's gods (with impunity assumed, it would seem), but you try to justify the actions of others when the target is a god that you share? It seems that on some level you're willing to argue that your religion deserves special treatment. Hmmm.

 

Nope, nothing

 

I'm sorry, because you're not quoting the part of my post you're responding to, I can't tell which argument you're categorically dismissing.

 

What's more, it's a shame that you felt the desire to participate in this discussion, yet when pressed, you have reply thusly. If you have good arguments to present but choose not to, then you're missing an opportunity to change my mind (or the mind of someone else who's reading along). If you do not, then the flippant tone of your (perceived) dismissal might suggest that you've no intention of seriously considering the points that have been raised for you...which would further imply that you're not here to debate in good faith, but rather to preach.

 

And for the "laws of shame" or norms as you call it, it's universal in the civilized world. Go then, go to a nudist beach and walk around. I wouldn't do that, even if they pay me. But of course, that's MY choice.

 

I'm glad to see that you at least read my words. I hope that at some point you also understand them.

 

And if someone chooses for a religion, then HE did it, not you. For him, or her for that matter, it will be the right choice as long as the religion relies on moral ethics.

 

The rules of logic are not subjective. People either have good reasons for believing in something or they do not. Because people frequently allow their religious beliefs to influence their political beliefs, social beliefs, etc, those choices have consequence outside of just their lives. So I'm sorry, there is no "live and let live" in this regard.

 

Then I'm asking you: How did we get here?

 

I'd be happy to discuss the current scientific thinking on that very question in any of the related threads already existing in this forum. Pick one and I'll meet you there.

[Dark Jedi Han]

 

 

 

Oh, so you're not "good" because it's morally correct, you just fear the consequences?

 

Yes, I do fear the consequences, because there isn't always a "moral" good, just like I said. But ofcourse, I prefer non-violent ways, like speaking. Either way, whether I fear the consequences or the morality, I'm acting "good" and that's what counts the most.

 

 

It seems you're trying to have it both ways: You can insult Zeus right now and feel justified in expecting immediate consequences. Yet I suspect that if you insulted your deity right now and nothing happened, you'd posit that your punishment would await in the afterlife. Would you be willing to put your "soul" where your mouth is and try the same experiment with "the prophet" muhammed, or some other religious icon that live a little closer to home?

 

1) There's a difference between that religion and mine: Polytheisme and Monotheisme. Further than that, the Greek religion is ... "direct", that's what I mean: Arachne insulted Athena, what happened? She popped out and challenged her. Zeus changes into an animal every second to couple with a woman. "They" respond immediately when you insult them, that's why I insulted them. And my excuses to those who believe in Zeus etc... . I pull it back. (Are there any here?)

 

And besides, by "nope nothing" I meant that nothing happened to me after that.

 

2) If Allah interferes everytime when something bad happens, why would he send a messenger then ? How would Mahomet convince other people? God's messengers always have a rough time, they're all martyrs.

 

I mean, when a war break outs, the prophet had to fight. He could snap his fingers and say "disappear", but that would be pointless if you want to prove something... I know you're going to quote this hehe, but I really can't explain it by writing.

 

It seems that on some level you're willing to argue that your religion deserves special treatment. Hmmm.

Every religion deserves that. But wait, isn't half of the Muslims living in poverty? Aren't we discriminated in the world? I can tell you, I am, here in Belgium, especially after 9/11. I understand those people, we're foreigners, have other habits, other religion... But that's no reason to NOT accept us, because if they do, then hate escalates in both sides and this only leads to a "vicious circle". I presume you know what that is . However, there are people who respect us and we respect them back. Naturally, there always are people disturbing the peace, on both sides.

 

What's more, it's a shame that you felt the desire to participate in this discussion, yet when pressed, you have reply thusly. If you have good arguments to present but choose not to, then you're missing an opportunity to change my mind (or the mind of someone else who's reading along). If you do not, then the flippant tone of your (perceived) dismissal might suggest that you've no intention of seriously considering the points that have been raised for you...which would further imply that you're not here to debate in good faith, but rather to preach.

 

I am here to debate in good faith, but you suddenly changed orientation towards the Islamic believe. I only commented about the bible saying that it had discrepancies and anachronisms everywhere after time.

And I'm not preaching, otherwise I would try to convert you into islam, but am I ? Nope. I know you won't convert and that it is your choice and I respect your choice.

 

 

The rules of logic are not subjective. People either have good reasons for believing in something or they do not. Because people frequently allow their religious beliefs to influence their political beliefs, social beliefs, etc, those choices have consequence outside of just their lives. So I'm sorry, there is no "live and let live" in this regard.

 

IF religion influences your political or social beliefs, it most likely is positive. You'll act good and friendly.

I know, you'll direct me to that picture, but harm was done to them. That's why they act like that. If the Danish cartoonist didn't insult our prophet, nothing would have happened. It's like that one saying: "Eye for eye, tooth for tooth" or something like that.

[Alexrd]

I'd be happy to discuss the current scientific thinking on that very question in any of the related threads already existing in this forum. Pick one and I'll meet you there.

 

Could you tell me under which title are those threads? Can't find them...

 

I'm interested on hearing what's the scientific answer for that question.

[Achilles]

1) There's a difference between that religion and mine: Polytheisme and Monotheisme.

 

That doesn't tell me anything. I could probably conclude that you assume that polytheistic religions are "wrong" and that monotheistic religions are "right", but I'm not sure why we should assume that.

 

Further than that, the Greek religion is ... "direct", that's what I mean: Arachne insulted Athena, what happened? She popped out and challenged her. Zeus changes into an animal every second to couple with a woman. "They" respond immediately when you insult them, that's why I insulted them.

 

And there are numerous examples of god taking direct action in the bible. So I'm afraid that argument doesn't help your point.

 

And my excuses to those who believe in Zeus etc... . I pull it back. (Are there any here?)

 

Does it matter whether or not there are any pagans here? If insulting religions is categorically wrong, then I don't see why it should matter. You've insulted another religion.

 

And besides, by "nope nothing" I meant that nothing happened to me after that.

 

Okay. But you better hope that you're right and that zeus isn't keeping score.

 

Of course, I doubt you think that is a consideration that should be taken seriously. And if I pressed you as to why, your arguments would probably sound remarkably similar to the reasons why no religion should be taken seriously.

 

2) If Allah interferes everytime when something bad happens, why would he send a messenger then ? How would Mahomet convince other people? God's messengers always have a rough time, they're all martyrs.

 

I mean, when a war break outs, the prophet had to fight. He could snap his fingers and say "disappear", but that would be pointless if you want to prove something... I know you're going to quote this hehe, but I really can't explain it by writing.

 

But allah does "interfere" doesn't he? That's what the whole islam thing is about, isn't it? Submission to allah's will? So clearly you do believe that he "interferes".

 

Every religion deserves that.

 

Why? Why do belief systems deserve special treatment and/or respect?

 

But wait, isn't half of the Muslims living in poverty?

 

First, source please?

 

Second, relevance?

 

Aren't we discriminated in the world?

 

Hehe, get in line.

 

I can tell you, I am, here in Belgium, especially after 9/11. I understand those people, we're foreigners, have other habits, other religion... But that's no reason to NOT accept us, because if they do, then hate escalates in both sides and this only leads to a "vicious circle". I presume you know what that is . However, there are people who respect us and we respect them back. Naturally, there always are people disturbing the peace, on both sides.

 

I think the last sentence above in important (and might help to provide context for the others).

 

I am here to debate in good faith, but you suddenly changed orientation towards the Islamic believe. I only commented about the bible saying that it had discrepancies and anachronisms everywhere after time.

 

As do most all religions, including yours (see my earlier post with photos).

 

IF religion influences your political or social beliefs, it most likely is positive. You'll act good and friendly.

 

And this assumption is based on what?

 

Shall we take a look at how non-believers, women, homosexuals, etc are treated in your religion?

 

I know, you'll direct me to that picture, but harm was done to them.

 

No, a cartoon was published. No "harm" was done to them.

 

That's why they act like that. If the Danish cartoonist didn't insult our prophet, nothing would have happened. It's like that one saying: "Eye for eye, tooth for tooth" or something like that.

 

Which assumes that the Danish cartoonist did something wrong.

 

Could you tell me under which title are those threads? Can't find them...

 

I'm interested on hearing what's the scientific answer for that question.

 

There are a few evolution threads buried on older pages. IIRC, I'm sure that one or more of them have touched on the question of origins, however rather than make you dig, I'll simply start a life origins thread and we can take it from there.