I'd say, if you have to choose a religion based on style and/or coolness factor alone and if you want to remain a layman, Catholicism is tough to beat.
To quoteMike Krahulik/"Gabe"(in reference to Devil May Cry, iirc), "Catholicism is the best fantasy setting".
I don't know I always found Greek and Norse mythology more fun. :-p
It's happenin'. I'd say, if you have to choose a religion based on style and/or coolness factor alone and if you want to remain a layman, Catholicism is tough to beat.
Episcopalian is the way to go man, it's Catholic Lite.
"God" is science. Physics. Why everything happens. Not a logical, emotional being like any religion portrays it as. God is literally existence and how it interacts with itself. Everything in and including the 26 dimensions.
Just a definition I pulled out of my head. Wouldn't be surprised if their was actually a word for this type of philosophy already.
Theory of Knowledge classes have really messed my mind up..
Hmm...This'll definitely run into an FSM argument, but you asked. How I define God...
God is the Father. He exists beyond our dimension (Let's say within the 10th dimension for all of you string theorists out there), and can manipulate what happens. But that's not the most important part. I define him as unending love. God created us out of love. He loves us, so he made us. Any other argument for why God created us is illogical. To praise him? Then why give us free will? To do good things for the world? Why can't he do it himself? This can go on and on. So, if God is love, then why not believe in him? If he created you, loves you unconditionally, and has provided a simple and easy-to-access method that any human can use to achieve Heaven, then isn't it foolishness to curse him? Even if you don't entirely believe in him (agnostics) or really, really, really don't believe in him (Atheists), there is really no negative side of believing in Jesus Christ. He saves your soul, and he understands that you're not perfect and will still sin. But He will keep forgiving you. So, it's only logical that you should choose the option that provides redemption, if their is one. If you're right, you're safe. If you're wrong, at least you lived morally for your life. In this situation, being a non-believer would ruin your chances if you were wrong, and much like believing, prove absolutely nothing if you were right. I know some philosopher came up with that and made it a theory, but I don't remember what it's called. I will continue looking for it, as he/she worded it better than me.
Edit: Ah, here it is. Pascal's Wager. Makes sense to me.
So, it's only logical that you should choose the option that provides redemption, if their is one. If you're right, you're safe. If you're wrong, at least you lived morally for your life. In this situation, being a non-believer would ruin your chances if you were wrong, and much like believing, prove absolutely nothing if you were right.
Pascal's Wager fail. Just so you know, this is widely considered a flawed argument.
So, it's only logical that you should choose the option that provides redemption, if their is one. If you're right, you're safe. If you're wrong, at least you lived morally for your life. In this situation, being a non-believer would ruin your chances if you were wrong, and much like believing, prove absolutely nothing if you were right.
Pascal's Wager fail. Just so you know, this is widely considered a flawed argument.
Okay...But how are you taking the argument? Not as proof, I hope. This is no proof that God exists. It's just logical. I mean, you can pretty much believe anything you want, as long as you believe in Christ and don't blaspheme him. I know this seems selfish, and I don't like to think of it this way, but anyone, even someone who didn't intend to be good, could ask for forgiveness, and as long as they truly wanted to be forgiven and they repented, then Jesus would forgive them. So, if God exists, anyone can be a Christian without changing their lifestyle. If he doesn't exist, you may have wasted your time, oh well. At least you didn't change that much. Again, selfish sounding, but...You know...It's true...
Okay...But how are you taking the argument? Not as proof, I hope. This is no proof that God exists. It's just logical. I mean, you can pretty much believe anything you want, as long as you believe in Christ and don't blaspheme him. I know this seems selfish, and I don't like to think of it this way, but anyone, even someone who didn't intend to be good, could ask for forgiveness, and as long as they truly wanted to be forgiven and they repented, then Jesus would forgive them. So, if God exists, anyone can be a Christian without changing their lifestyle. If he doesn't exist, you may have wasted your time, oh well. At least you didn't change that much. Again, selfish sounding, but...You know...It's true...
Why stop with the Christian god? Hell, might as well increase your chances by believing in all the other gods as well, can't hurt your chances. You are also assuming that God won't punish you for believing in him just to hedge your bets.
Okay...But how are you taking the argument? Not as proof, I hope. This is no proof that God exists. It's just logical. I mean, you can pretty much believe anything you want, as long as you believe in Christ and don't blaspheme him. I know this seems selfish, and I don't like to think of it this way, but anyone, even someone who didn't intend to be good, could ask for forgiveness, and as long as they truly wanted to be forgiven and they repented, then Jesus would forgive them. So, if God exists, anyone can be a Christian without changing their lifestyle. If he doesn't exist, you may have wasted your time, oh well. At least you didn't change that much. Again, selfish sounding, but...You know...It's true...
Why stop with the Christian god? Hell, might as well increase your chances by believing in all the other gods as well, can't hurt your chances. You are also assuming that God won't punish you for believing in him just to hedge your bets.
I believe that what is in the Bible is what you believe. Any extraneous crap (no offense Catholics/Mormons) is useless and lies. Nowhere does God mention punishing a person for believing in him selfishly. So, I don't really believe he would, as long as the person really was seeking forgiveness. Also, your first point is true. But, one must also note that Christianity, despite its reputation, is really the most lenient of many religions, being one of few that does not actually forcefully require you to live up to its doctrine in order to seek forgiveness. It promises that one simple prayer will forgive your sins, and all of your disobedience towards the Ten Commandments, something that no human being can follow perfectly, will be wiped away. As such, Pascal's Wager doesn't work as much with other religions, as those religions do require you to drastically change your life in order to seek forgiveness, whereas Christianity instead provides forgiveness, which it hopes will change your life.
First, it assumes that the Christian model of the afterlife is the correct one. What if reality is the Hindu model of the afterlife, but Pascal's Wager leads you to believe in God? Oh snaps! You done fucked up! Extrapolating this out, you find that, in the absence of evidence (which is a necessary facet of all religious beliefs), all afterlife scenarios are equiprobable, so the table for Pascal's Wager is infinitely large. It would also have to contain afterlife scenarios that no man actually believes. So, the decision as to where to place your faith becomes totally arbitrary.
Second, it's misleading. Yes, if the Christian afterlife is true, and you're a good Christian, you gain eternal happiness. And yes, if there really is no God, and you live your life as if there is no God, you technically only gain finite happiness. My beef is that it's a weaselly comparison; if there's no God, the concept of eternal happiness shouldn't even be on the table. By making that sort of comparison, you're slyly nudging people in the direction of faith.
Third, it wouldn't work. If you just believe to hedge your bets, you go to hell. I know how this works. You can't dupe God, and you need to truly have faith if you want to get into heaven. Faking it won't work.
This discussion is pointless. As far as all the adult (no offense Axel, I mean age only) participants are concerned, the assertion that there is no god has been proved (or can't be proved), so what's the point in defining him?
It's very easy to explain why god can't logically exist, Next time just link to some atheist page and save your time.
This discussion is pointless. As far as all the adult (no offense Axel, I mean age only) participants are concerned, the assertion that there is no god has been proved (or can't be proved), so what's the point in defining him?
It's very easy to explain why god can't logically exist, Next time just link to some atheist page and save your time.
Okay, as long as you're not actually trying to use an age argument and say that I believe in God because I'm an unintelligent, uninformed kid.
But you're right, this discussion is pointless, I just like to bring up points. I really oughtn't to, though...
As for TheWhaleShark... 1. Okay, that's true. Whatever. I'm just saying. 2. Umm...Okay...My point was sorta that even if you don't believe in infinite happiness, if it could truly exist, isn't it more logical to assume that you could be wrong and choose the path that could provide for some positive outcome in the future? 3. And I suppose I've worded this wrong. I really don't mean that you falsely believe...I don't know how to explain it.
I suppose Pascal's Wager is flawed, in many ways. But there is a genuine point deep within there that is worthy of some, minute discussion.
2. Umm...Okay...My point was sorta that even if you don't believe in infinite happiness, if it could truly exist, isn't it more logical to assume that you could be wrong and choose the path that could provide for some positive outcome in the future?
But again, look at point #1. What I'm saying is that being an atheist is every bit as likely to lead to heaven as is believing in any one religion to the exclusion of others. If they're all equally likely, and they must be (as you conceded), then how can you actually say that choosing your path will lead to heaven? You can't. It's just as likely not to.
Think of this: Most sects of Christianity state (loosely) that if you live a good life, you get into Heaven, right? So that means anybody can get into heaven if they open themselves to the love of Christ, right?
Jehova's Witnesses, who believe in the same God that you do, believe that 144,00, and only 144,000, have been chosen to be saved. There's nothing you can do about it one way or another. They believe this with at least as much ardor as you believe what you do.
Clearly, these two belief systems are mutually exclusive. Both of them cannot possibly be correct simultaneously. How do you resolve that?
Here's my question to you, and think about what this means: let's say I stay an atheist forever. I never pray, never believe, never do any of that, ever. For the rest of my life. I remain unrepentant even on death. Let's also say that, starting tomorrow, I give up all my worldly possessions, give them to the poor, and go to sub-Saharan Africa, where I spend the rest of my life, every waking moment, saving people from a variety of horrible illnesses. To top it off, since I don't go to church, or pray, or do any of that, I have more net time available to me to save more lives, and I use that extra time to do so. I remain an atheist this entire time. Do I go to Heaven, or do I go to Hell?
Didn't say it. You're the first one in the thread who took the "religious side". Up to that point it was just Atheists\Agnostics arguing about something they all firmly agree.
Didn't say it. You're the first one in the thread who took the "religious side". Up to that point it was just Atheists\Agnostics arguing about something they all firmly agree.
It's funny how those of us in the FRC tend to argue about points upon which we all fundamentally agree. We all have this need to be right about things.
Of course, we're pretty much always right about things, so we tend to argue a lot. :P
Didn't say it. You're the first one in the thread who took the "religious side". Up to that point it was just Atheists\Agnostics arguing about something they all firmly agree.
Okay, just confirming it. I know you didn't say it, I was just making sure.
2. Umm...Okay...My point was sorta that even if you don't believe in infinite happiness, if it could truly exist, isn't it more logical to assume that you could be wrong and choose the path that could provide for some positive outcome in the future?
But again, look at point #1. What I'm saying is that being an atheist is every bit as likely to lead to heaven as is believing in any one religion to the exclusion of others. If they're all equally likely, and they must be (as you conceded), then how can you actually say that choosing your pathwilllead to heaven? You can't. It's just as likelynotto.
Think of this: Most sects of Christianity state (loosely) that if you live a good life, you get into Heaven, right? So that means anybody can get into heaven if they open themselves to the love of Christ, right?
Jehova's Witnesses, who believe in thesameGod that you do, believe that 144,00, andonly144,000, have been chosen to be saved. There's nothing you can do about it one way or another. They believe this with at least as much ardor as you believe what you do.
Clearly, these two belief systems are mutually exclusive. Both of them cannot possibly be correct simultaneously. How do you resolve that?
Here's my question to you, and think about what this means: let's say I stay an atheist forever. I never pray, never believe, never do any of that, ever. For the rest of my life. I remain unrepentant even on death. Let's also say that, starting tomorrow, I give up all my worldly possessions, give them to the poor, and go to sub-Saharan Africa, where I spend the rest of my life, every waking moment, saving people from a variety of horrible illnesses. To top it off, since I don't go to church, or pray, or do any of that, I have more net time available to me to save more lives, and I use that extra time to do so. I remain an atheist this entire time. Do I go to Heaven, or do I go to Hell?
Yeah, you would go to Hell. Lemme tell you why. Firstly, nowhere does it say in the New Testament that living a good life sends you to Heaven. I don't believe that. Jesus said that it is based on faith and his forgiveness of you. That's what he said, so I'm ignoring anything in the Old Testament that disagrees with that. Jesus overrode some form of Hebrew law, but not all of it. Secondly, no one's perfect. I don't care how many good things you do. You can be a pinnacle of human goodness and willpower. You will still make some form of sin in your life, no matter how minor. The fact is, God hasn't. God is perfect. Heaven is perfect. Letting a human heart, which is stained by even a single sin, into perfect Heaven, would corrupt it and ruin it and God. So God separates himself from sin. It's not about how much good you do. It's not that you deserve to go to Heaven. No one does. No single human deserves Heaven. But we get it anyways. But we have to ask for forgiveness. God has to provide forgiveness to our hearts so that when we go to be judged, there isn't a sin on them that separates us from God.
Yeah, you would go to Hell. Lemme tell you why. Firstly, nowhere does it say in the New Testament that living a good life sends you to Heaven. I don't believe that. Jesus said that it is based on faith and his forgiveness of you. That's what he said, so I'm ignoring anything in the Old Testament that disagrees with that. Jesus overrode some form of Hebrew law, but not all of it.
I don't even know where to start with this. Are you going to tell me that every priest who has ever said "Live a good life and get into Heaven" was wrong? I was an altar boy for a number of years. I've heard my share of Bible passages and sermons. That's the message, bucko. It happens to be that the Biblical sense of "doing the right thing" involves believing in Christ as well. I understand that. The question has more to do with whether or not a virtuous life alone is sufficient, and clearly it's not. I'm not going to touch the whole ignoring things in the Old Testament bit. That's way too much.
Now that we know that I'm going to Hell no matter what, if I'm an atheist, let's try this one. Take the same person I described, and let's say that he believes in God (in his heart), but doesn't really...act on it. He doesn't utter any prayers in the Bible, he doesn't go to any services, nothing. Just believes in God. He goes to Heaven, right?
Yeah, you would go to Hell. Lemme tell you why. Firstly, nowhere does it say in the New Testament that living a good life sends you to Heaven. I don't believe that. Jesus said that it is based on faith and his forgiveness of you. That's what he said, so I'm ignoring anything in the Old Testament that disagrees with that. Jesus overrode some form of Hebrew law, but not all of it.
I don't even know where to start with this. Are you going to tell me that every priest who has ever said "Live a good life and get into Heaven" was wrong? I was an altar boy for a number of years. I've heard my share of Bible passages and sermons. That's the message, bucko. It happens to be that the Biblical sense of "doing the right thing" involves believing in Christ as well. I understand that. The question has more to do with whether or not a virtuous life alone is sufficient, and clearly it's not. I'm not going to touch the whole ignoring things in the Old Testament bit. That's way too much.
Now that we know that I'm going to Hell no matter what, if I'm an atheist, let's try this one. Take the same person I described, and let's say that he believes in God (in his heart), but doesn't really...act on it. He doesn't utter any prayers in the Bible, he doesn't go to any services, nothing. Just believes in God. He goes to Heaven, right?
Yeah. But, I'm pretty sure the Bible says your rewards in Heaven will be determined by your actions. So, that man may lose some rewards for not praying and such. But, for doing tons of good things, he will probably get rewards as well. So I guess it balances out.
And yes, those priests who told you that were wrong. I also don't believe in priests, as I'm non-denominational and don't really like a lot of Catholic policies. I believe that you can have a pastor who might be more educated than you. But some holier-than-thou priest is a dumb concept.
I don't even know where to start with this. Are you going to tell me that every priest who has ever said "Live a good life and get into Heaven" was wrong? Take the same person I described, and let's say that he believes in God (in his heart), but doesn't really...act on it. He doesn't utter any prayers in the Bible, he doesn't go to any services, nothing. Just believes in God. He goes to Heaven, right?
Speaking strictly of the brands of protestantism that I grew up in and around, Axl-of-the-Key has it right. Absolutely the only thing you have to do to go to Heaven is accept Jesus into your heart. If you don't do that, you can be the best person that ever lived, and you go to Hell. Also, Catholics go to Hell, because even though they believe in Jesus, they DON'T believe that their salvation comes EXCLUSIVELY from Jesus. (I will note that my mother managed to find some amazing denial-based loophole for why her Catholic parents are in Heaven, though.)
I already know that the only stated requirement for getting into Heaven is accepting Jesus into your heart. I did go to a Catholic school, and I was a Christian for many years. I'm making a point here, though, and that's why I'm asking little baby-step questions.
Yeah. But, I'm pretty sure the Bible says your rewards in Heaven will be determined by your actions. So, that man may lose some rewards for not praying and such. But, for doing tons of good things, he will probably get rewards as well. So I guess it balances out.
And yes, those priests who told you that were wrong. I also don't believe in priests, as I'm non-denominational and don't really like a lot of Catholic policies. I believe that you can have a pastor who might be more educated than you. But some holier-than-thou priest is a dumb concept.
I believe it does say something about rewards being tied to actions somewhere, though that doesn't make a lot of sense if you look back at the previous example of the virtuous atheist. And I gathered that you were non-denominational, which is a good thing. It makes this all the more pertinent to your situation.
So, let's say he prays, but he defines praying on his own. In other words, does he have to utter any of the prayers in the Bible to actually be "praying?" Does he need to say the Lord's Prayer? Or is praying a deeply personal matter, one that involves the personal relationship that you've established with Christ? I believe it to be the latter case, and I'm sure you will agree.
In other words, faith is independent of anyone else's version of it, right? As in, your faith in God is valid even if a Catholic priest thinks otherwise. Do you necessarily need a pastor or a prayer group, or is the Bible sufficient? Do you need anyone else to believe in God?
EDIT:
and will go to Hell if they don't accept Christ under the "correct" conditions.
I don't even know where to start with this. Are you going to tell me that every priest who has ever said "Live a good life and get into Heaven" was wrong?Take the same person I described, and let's say that he believes in God (in his heart), but doesn't really...act on it. He doesn't utter any prayers in the Bible, he doesn't go to any services, nothing. Just believes in God. He goes to Heaven, right?
Speaking strictly of the brands of protestantism that I grew up in and around, Axl-of-the-Key has it right. Absolutely the only thing you have to do to go to Heaven is accept Jesus into your heart. If you don't do that, you can be the best person that ever lived, and you go to Hell. Also, Catholics go to Hell, because even though they believe in Jesus, they DON'T believe that their salvation comes EXCLUSIVELY from Jesus. (I will note that my mother managed to find some amazing denial-based loophole for why her Catholic parents are in Heaven, though.)
Well, Catholics aren't necessarily not going to Heaven, I don't think. If they truly believe Jesus has forgiven them, then thinking that they need to do good will do them no harm. However, priests who believe that they are holy and chosen and therefore exempt, and think that they will go to Hell unless they are perfect, are wrong, and will go to Hell if they don't accept Christ under the "correct" conditions.
My responses aren't in chronological order. @ Rym: 1.They hold that God is truth, among other things, and if truth is the result(i.e. the end) of reasoning, then so is God. This was included not to reason for the existence of God, but to answer the original question in part. 2.Concerning my bringing up of Shrodinger's Cat: I used the idea derived from it, that by observing something one affects the outcome. Should we then assume that this claim is false? It is an unfalsifiable proposal. 3.Catholics believe that God is omnipresent , and thus would be an unobservable affect. Your reasoning also begs the question if everything is nothing.
This is last and most important because it is the tool you have used to disprove the existence of the spiritual:
4.The burden of proof has no place here. Where does it lie and how can this be determined when arguing philosophy? What makes the claim no existence of God any more or less ordinary than the claim of the existence of God? So in the arguments of philosophy where the argumentum ad ignorantiam is so common in philosophy. Nothing can be assumed here, as opposed to arguments of law, so the claim of spiritual being can neither be proven nor denied.
I already know that the only stated requirement for getting into Heaven is accepting Jesus into your heart. Ididgo to a Catholic school, and I was a Christian for many years. I'm making a point here, though, and that's why I'm asking little baby-step questions.
Yeah. But, I'm pretty sure the Bible says your rewards in Heaven will be determined by your actions. So, that man may lose some rewards for not praying and such. But, for doing tons of good things, he will probably get rewards as well. So I guess it balances out.
And yes, those priests who told you that were wrong. I also don't believe in priests, as I'm non-denominational and don't really like a lot of Catholic policies. I believe that you can have a pastor who might be more educated than you. But some holier-than-thou priest is a dumb concept.
I believe it does say something about rewards being tied to actions somewhere. And I gathered that you were non-denominational, which is a good thing. It makes this all the more pertinent to your situation.
So, let's say he prays, but he defines praying on his own. In other words, does he have to utter any of the prayers in the Bible to actually be "praying?" Does he need to say the Lord's Prayer? Or is praying a deeply personal matter, one that involves the personal relationship that you've established with Christ? I believe it to be the latter case, and I'm sure you will agree.
In other words, faith is independent of anyone else's version of it, right? As in, your faith in God is valid even if a Catholic priest thinks otherwise. Do you necessarily need a pastor or a prayer group, or is the Bible sufficient? Do you need anyone else to believe in God? No, you don't need anyone else. Faith is personal, and based entirely on yourself. Praying is about a conversation with God, and it's what you want to say. Formal prayers are only useful to put into words feelings that you may not be able to describe. But, need is different from want. I mean, being alone is bad. After all, we believe ourselves to be saved. Don't we wish that other people could enjoy our happiness as well? And while God doesn't say you have to go to Church and be with other Christians, he wants you to. He wants us to help each other through life, and to have a network of people with whom we can confide our doubts and religious problems, and be supportive of one another. It's not required to get to Heaven, but God wants us to do it to better our lives.
No, you don't need anyone else. Faith is personal, and based entirely on yourself. Praying is about a conversation with God, and it's what you want to say. Formal prayers are only useful to put into words feelings that you may not be able to describe. But, need is different from want. I mean, being alone is bad. After all, we believe ourselves to be saved. Don't we wish that other people could enjoy our happiness as well? And while God doesn't say you have to go to Church and be with other Christians, he wants you to. He wants us to help each other through life, and to have a network of people with whom we can confide our doubts and religious problems, and be supportive of one another. It's not required to get to Heaven, but God wants us to do it to better our lives.
Oh, of course you'd want to be around other people. Most people do, religious or not. This is a hypothetical. I'm asking what you need to do to get into Heaven; anything more than that is bonus.
So, faith is personal. Of course it is. How could it be anything else if you can't test it empirically? So now here's a question. Take that man, the virtuous believer who doesn't go to church or otherwise appear religious. Let's say that he's really into what he does, and he's really into his faith. Makes sense. Let's say, that to motivate himself, he finds a little bit of God in everything. I mean, God is omnipresent, right? And he works in mysterious ways, right? He might present himself in any number of situations or scenarios, in ways that you might not expect. The Bible never defines him, and you really can't, since faith is so personal, right?
So let's say this guy starts finding God in everything he does. Let's say he prays to water, being thankful for God's manifestation as hydration in the midst of a desert. Makes sense, right? Is that still OK?
No, you don't need anyone else. Faith is personal, and based entirely on yourself. Praying is about a conversation with God, and it's what you want to say. Formal prayers are only useful to put into words feelings that you may not be able to describe. But, need is different from want. I mean, being alone is bad. After all, we believe ourselves to be saved. Don't we wish that other people could enjoy our happiness as well? And while God doesn't say you have to go to Church and be with other Christians, he wants you to. He wants us to help each other through life, and to have a network of people with whom we can confide our doubts and religious problems, and be supportive of one another. It's not required to get to Heaven, but God wants us to do it to better our lives.
Oh, of course you'dwantto be around other people. Most people do, religious or not. This is a hypothetical. I'm asking what you need to do to get into Heaven; anything more than that is bonus.
So, faith is personal. Of course it is. How could it be anything else if you can't test it empirically? So now here's a question. Take that man, the virtuous believer who doesn't go to church or otherwise appear religious. Let's say that he's really into what he does, and he's really into his faith. Makes sense. Let's say, that to motivate himself, he finds a little bit of God in everything. I mean, God is omnipresent, right? And he works in mysterious ways, right? He might present himself in any number of situations or scenarios, in ways that you might not expect. The Bible never defines him, and you really can't, since faith is so personal, right?
So let's say this guy starts finding God in everything he does. Let's say he prays to water, being thankful for God's manifestation as hydration in the midst of a desert. Makes sense, right? Is that still OK?
Sure. It's okay, I 'spose. He's happy that the water is there. He prays to God, thanking him that God has brought him to the water, and that God has given him the refreshment. Thanking God for all the blessings he's done is something I wish I consciously remembered to do more.
If you can not answer my next question, this thread is closed.
Is there a such thing as the Flying Spaghetti Monster?
WhaleShark, your line of inquiry went in the wrong direction. You started off right, but didn't finish. The right way to go is this:
1) God doesn't let good people into heaven just because they don't believe in him. 2) God is perfectly willing to let the shittiest most evil people into heaven just because they believe in him. 3) If there is a God, and this is true, what does that say about God? It says he's a crazy evil douche! Even if such a God really existed, who the fuck would want to worship such a piece of shit? I would fight until my last breath to destroy such a petty, vengeful, and evil God, and so would all good people. Better to rule in hell than serve in heaven.
Sure. It's okay, I 'spose. He's happy that the water is there. He prays to God, thanking him that God has brought him to the water, and that God has given him the refreshment. Thanking God for all the blessings he's done is something I wish I consciously remembered to do more.
OK.
So now, let's drop the name "God." It's just a translation from an old language anyhow, right? And I think (correct me if I'm wrong) that the Bible talks about God having many names as it is. It's really just a name that we use to talk to other people about our faith anyhow. What matters is the belief in your heart and not whatever name you want to use, right?
So let's say that, to keep his prayers organized, he decides to give a different name to each manifestation of God that he finds. Maybe he decides that he'll call God, when he manifests as a rainstorm, "Thor." Let's say he decides that he'll call God, when he manifests as a raven, "Odin." Still just one God, technically, but he gives Him multiple different names depending on where he finds Him manifest. Are we still OK?
EDIT: Since closure of the thread is imminent, here's my request. Look back at the path of reasoning I just walked you along. Look at where we wound up. Functionally speaking, it's impossible to distinguish any polytheistic religion from Christianity. By your own admission, God is what a person decides it is. So, if someone decides that God is Yahweh, they're right. If they decide God is Thor, they're right. No single interpretation can possibly be more correct than any other, and you just agreed to that. Therefore, you're as likely to get to heaven as someone who believes something radically different than you.
EDIT 2: I elected to not go in that direction on purpose. Simply saying "God is evil and I don't want any part of it" just plays into well-established beliefs. Carefully guiding somebody into the realization that any religion is equally likely, because faith is inherently personal, is much more satisfying. At the very least, it's more likely to actually give the other person something to take away from the conversation.
If you can not answer my next question, this thread is closed.
Is there a such thing as the Flying Spaghetti Monster?
WhaleShark, your line of inquiry went in the wrong direction. You started off right, but didn't finish. The right way to go is this:
1) God doesn't let good people into heaven just because they don't believe in him. 2) God is perfectly willing to let the shittiest most evil people into heaven just because they believe in him. 3) If there is a God, and this is true, what does that say about God? It says he's a crazy evil douche! Even if such a God really existed, who the fuck would want to worship such a piece of shit? I would fight until my last breath to destroy such a petty, vengeful, and evil God, and so would all good people. Better to rule in hell than serve in heaven.
Scott did you ever think Pete went in the different direction to continue the argument instead of closing the thread. This is the problem Scott, you can't convince someone of your argument if you just say one line and go "until you understand this" no conversation, your not going to win anyone over. Pete going through and confronting each point politely is the best way to talk to someone. Not calling the other person an idiot also helps.
Sure. It's okay, I 'spose. He's happy that the water is there. He prays to God, thanking him that God has brought him to the water, and that God has given him the refreshment. Thanking God for all the blessings he's done is something I wish I consciously remembered to do more.
OK.
So now, let's drop the name "God." It's just a translation from an old language anyhow, right? And I think (correct me if I'm wrong) that the Bible talks about God having many names as it is. It's really just a name that we use to talk tootherpeople about our faith anyhow. What matters is the belief in your heart and not whatever name you want to use, right?
So let's say that, to keep his prayers organized, he decides to give a different name to each manifestation of God that he finds. Maybe he decides that he'll call God, when he manifests as a rainstorm, "Thor." Let's say he decides that he'll call God, when he manifests as a raven, "Odin." Still just one God, technically, but he gives Him multiple different names depending on where he finds Him manifest. Are we still OK?
EDIT: Since closure of the thread is imminent, here's my request. Look back at the path of reasoning I just walked you along. Look at where we wound up. Functionally speaking, it's impossible to distinguish any polytheistic religion from Christianity. By your own admission, God is what a person decides it is. So, if someone decides that God is Yahweh, they're right. If they decide God is Thor, they're right. No single interpretation can possibly be more correct than any other, and you just agreed to that. Therefore, you're as likely to get to heaven as someone who believes something radically different than you.
EDIT 2: I elected to not go in that direction on purpose. Simply saying "God is evil and I don't want any part of it" just plays into well-established beliefs. Carefully guiding somebody into the realization that any religion is equally likely, because faith is inherently personal, is much more satisfying.
Why do I always do this to myself? Sorry, everybody. Guess I ruined your social experiment, my bad.
As to answer your final question, there is a difference. Other religions still rely on a list of rules to get you to Heaven/Nirvana/Enlightenment. Christianity does not. Therefore, while you are right in believing that the concepts of the Gods are essentially the same, the bread and butter of what each religion tells you is the same until you get to Christianity, where things differ quite a bit. That is why Jesus stands out to me.
To Apreche: Firstly, first time I've been directly talked to by Scrym. Should be special, but it's not, because I'm a minority. Secondly, you're right in the FSM argument, that all gods are fundamentally the same, and believing in one means accepting any proof or lack of proof for any others as reasoning. And I do. Although no one (or at least no one I've heard of) has ever seriously argued for the FSM, so I think the point is a little misguided. Ultimately, your real point should be simpler, and less complex and construable. Instead, you should just say: "No religious arguments. This is a geeky forum. Stop making religion battles. They solve nothing." And if you want to ban me for doing this for what I believe is the 2nd time now, go right ahead. I probably deserve it.
As to answer your final question, there is a difference. Other religions still rely on a list of rules to get you to Heaven/Nirvana/Enlightenment. Christianity does not. Therefore, while you are right in believing that the concepts of the Gods are essentially the same, the bread and butter of what each religion tells you is the same until you get to Christianity, where things differ quite a bit. That is why Jesus stands out to me.
Can you refer to God as "Odin" and still go to Heaven? Ignore all the beliefs associated with Odalism. Just look at it as a rebranding.
EDIT: You've already said that it's OK to find God in multiple places. Can I give him multiple names if I still keep my faith?
As to answer your final question, there is a difference. Other religions still rely on a list of rules to get you to Heaven/Nirvana/Enlightenment. Christianity does not.
It most certainly does. The rule is that the individual must have moved toward God, Love, Truth, and Being, and away from Satan/Evil, Hate, Falsehood, Isolation, and Absence. That is part of the definition of Evil they have: a corruption and absence of Good.
And if you want to ban me for doing this for what I believe is the 2nd time now, go right ahead. I probably deserve it.
Chill out, this is not some great martyrdom you have taken.
Comments
Just a definition I pulled out of my head. Wouldn't be surprised if their was actually a word for this type of philosophy already.
Theory of Knowledge classes have really messed my mind up..
God is the Father. He exists beyond our dimension (Let's say within the 10th dimension for all of you string theorists out there), and can manipulate what happens. But that's not the most important part. I define him as unending love. God created us out of love. He loves us, so he made us. Any other argument for why God created us is illogical. To praise him? Then why give us free will? To do good things for the world? Why can't he do it himself? This can go on and on.
So, if God is love, then why not believe in him? If he created you, loves you unconditionally, and has provided a simple and easy-to-access method that any human can use to achieve Heaven, then isn't it foolishness to curse him? Even if you don't entirely believe in him (agnostics) or really, really, really don't believe in him (Atheists), there is really no negative side of believing in Jesus Christ. He saves your soul, and he understands that you're not perfect and will still sin. But He will keep forgiving you. So, it's only logical that you should choose the option that provides redemption, if their is one. If you're right, you're safe. If you're wrong, at least you lived morally for your life. In this situation, being a non-believer would ruin your chances if you were wrong, and much like believing, prove absolutely nothing if you were right. I know some philosopher came up with that and made it a theory, but I don't remember what it's called. I will continue looking for it, as he/she worded it better than me.
Edit: Ah, here it is. Pascal's Wager.
Makes sense to me.
Also, your first point is true. But, one must also note that Christianity, despite its reputation, is really the most lenient of many religions, being one of few that does not actually forcefully require you to live up to its doctrine in order to seek forgiveness. It promises that one simple prayer will forgive your sins, and all of your disobedience towards the Ten Commandments, something that no human being can follow perfectly, will be wiped away. As such, Pascal's Wager doesn't work as much with other religions, as those religions do require you to drastically change your life in order to seek forgiveness, whereas Christianity instead provides forgiveness, which it hopes will change your life.
First, it assumes that the Christian model of the afterlife is the correct one. What if reality is the Hindu model of the afterlife, but Pascal's Wager leads you to believe in God? Oh snaps! You done fucked up! Extrapolating this out, you find that, in the absence of evidence (which is a necessary facet of all religious beliefs), all afterlife scenarios are equiprobable, so the table for Pascal's Wager is infinitely large. It would also have to contain afterlife scenarios that no man actually believes. So, the decision as to where to place your faith becomes totally arbitrary.
Second, it's misleading. Yes, if the Christian afterlife is true, and you're a good Christian, you gain eternal happiness. And yes, if there really is no God, and you live your life as if there is no God, you technically only gain finite happiness. My beef is that it's a weaselly comparison; if there's no God, the concept of eternal happiness shouldn't even be on the table. By making that sort of comparison, you're slyly nudging people in the direction of faith.
Third, it wouldn't work. If you just believe to hedge your bets, you go to hell. I know how this works. You can't dupe God, and you need to truly have faith if you want to get into heaven. Faking it won't work.
As far as all the adult (no offense Axel, I mean age only) participants are concerned, the assertion that there is no god has been proved (or can't be proved), so what's the point in defining him?
It's very easy to explain why god can't logically exist, Next time just link to some atheist page and save your time.
But you're right, this discussion is pointless, I just like to bring up points. I really oughtn't to, though...
As for TheWhaleShark...
1. Okay, that's true. Whatever. I'm just saying.
2. Umm...Okay...My point was sorta that even if you don't believe in infinite happiness, if it could truly exist, isn't it more logical to assume that you could be wrong and choose the path that could provide for some positive outcome in the future?
3. And I suppose I've worded this wrong. I really don't mean that you falsely believe...I don't know how to explain it.
I suppose Pascal's Wager is flawed, in many ways. But there is a genuine point deep within there that is worthy of some, minute discussion.
Think of this: Most sects of Christianity state (loosely) that if you live a good life, you get into Heaven, right? So that means anybody can get into heaven if they open themselves to the love of Christ, right?
Jehova's Witnesses, who believe in the same God that you do, believe that 144,00, and only 144,000, have been chosen to be saved. There's nothing you can do about it one way or another. They believe this with at least as much ardor as you believe what you do.
Clearly, these two belief systems are mutually exclusive. Both of them cannot possibly be correct simultaneously. How do you resolve that?
Here's my question to you, and think about what this means: let's say I stay an atheist forever. I never pray, never believe, never do any of that, ever. For the rest of my life. I remain unrepentant even on death. Let's also say that, starting tomorrow, I give up all my worldly possessions, give them to the poor, and go to sub-Saharan Africa, where I spend the rest of my life, every waking moment, saving people from a variety of horrible illnesses. To top it off, since I don't go to church, or pray, or do any of that, I have more net time available to me to save more lives, and I use that extra time to do so. I remain an atheist this entire time. Do I go to Heaven, or do I go to Hell?
You're the first one in the thread who took the "religious side". Up to that point it was just Atheists\Agnostics arguing about something they all firmly agree.
Of course, we're pretty much always right about things, so we tend to argue a lot. :P
Firstly, nowhere does it say in the New Testament that living a good life sends you to Heaven. I don't believe that. Jesus said that it is based on faith and his forgiveness of you. That's what he said, so I'm ignoring anything in the Old Testament that disagrees with that. Jesus overrode some form of Hebrew law, but not all of it.
Secondly, no one's perfect. I don't care how many good things you do. You can be a pinnacle of human goodness and willpower. You will still make some form of sin in your life, no matter how minor. The fact is, God hasn't. God is perfect. Heaven is perfect. Letting a human heart, which is stained by even a single sin, into perfect Heaven, would corrupt it and ruin it and God. So God separates himself from sin. It's not about how much good you do. It's not that you deserve to go to Heaven. No one does. No single human deserves Heaven. But we get it anyways. But we have to ask for forgiveness. God has to provide forgiveness to our hearts so that when we go to be judged, there isn't a sin on them that separates us from God.
Now that we know that I'm going to Hell no matter what, if I'm an atheist, let's try this one. Take the same person I described, and let's say that he believes in God (in his heart), but doesn't really...act on it. He doesn't utter any prayers in the Bible, he doesn't go to any services, nothing. Just believes in God. He goes to Heaven, right?
And yes, those priests who told you that were wrong. I also don't believe in priests, as I'm non-denominational and don't really like a lot of Catholic policies. I believe that you can have a pastor who might be more educated than you. But some holier-than-thou priest is a dumb concept.
So, let's say he prays, but he defines praying on his own. In other words, does he have to utter any of the prayers in the Bible to actually be "praying?" Does he need to say the Lord's Prayer? Or is praying a deeply personal matter, one that involves the personal relationship that you've established with Christ? I believe it to be the latter case, and I'm sure you will agree.
In other words, faith is independent of anyone else's version of it, right? As in, your faith in God is valid even if a Catholic priest thinks otherwise. Do you necessarily need a pastor or a prayer group, or is the Bible sufficient? Do you need anyone else to believe in God?
EDIT: Who defines the "correct" conditions?
@ Rym:
1.They hold that God is truth, among other things, and if truth is the result(i.e. the end) of reasoning, then so is God. This was included not to reason for the existence of God, but to answer the original question in part.
2.Concerning my bringing up of Shrodinger's Cat: I used the idea derived from it, that by observing something one affects the outcome. Should we then assume that this claim is false? It is an unfalsifiable proposal.
3.Catholics believe that God is omnipresent , and thus would be an unobservable affect. Your reasoning also begs the question if everything is nothing.
This is last and most important because it is the tool you have used to disprove the existence of the spiritual:
4.The burden of proof has no place here. Where does it lie and how can this be determined when arguing philosophy? What makes the claim no existence of God any more or less ordinary than the claim of the existence of God? So in the arguments of philosophy where the argumentum ad ignorantiam is so common in philosophy. Nothing can be assumed here, as opposed to arguments of law, so the claim of spiritual being can neither be proven nor denied.
So, let's say he prays, but he defines praying on his own. In other words, does he have to utter any of the prayers in the Bible to actually be "praying?" Does he need to say the Lord's Prayer? Or is praying a deeply personal matter, one that involves the personal relationship that you've established with Christ? I believe it to be the latter case, and I'm sure you will agree.
In other words, faith is independent of anyone else's version of it, right? As in, your faith in God is valid even if a Catholic priest thinks otherwise. Do you necessarily need a pastor or a prayer group, or is the Bible sufficient? Do you need anyone else to believe in God?
No, you don't need anyone else. Faith is personal, and based entirely on yourself. Praying is about a conversation with God, and it's what you want to say. Formal prayers are only useful to put into words feelings that you may not be able to describe.
But, need is different from want. I mean, being alone is bad. After all, we believe ourselves to be saved. Don't we wish that other people could enjoy our happiness as well? And while God doesn't say you have to go to Church and be with other Christians, he wants you to. He wants us to help each other through life, and to have a network of people with whom we can confide our doubts and religious problems, and be supportive of one another. It's not required to get to Heaven, but God wants us to do it to better our lives.
So, faith is personal. Of course it is. How could it be anything else if you can't test it empirically? So now here's a question. Take that man, the virtuous believer who doesn't go to church or otherwise appear religious. Let's say that he's really into what he does, and he's really into his faith. Makes sense. Let's say, that to motivate himself, he finds a little bit of God in everything. I mean, God is omnipresent, right? And he works in mysterious ways, right? He might present himself in any number of situations or scenarios, in ways that you might not expect. The Bible never defines him, and you really can't, since faith is so personal, right?
So let's say this guy starts finding God in everything he does. Let's say he prays to water, being thankful for God's manifestation as hydration in the midst of a desert. Makes sense, right? Is that still OK?
If you can not answer my next question, this thread is closed.
Is there a such thing as the Flying Spaghetti Monster?
WhaleShark, your line of inquiry went in the wrong direction. You started off right, but didn't finish. The right way to go is this:
1) God doesn't let good people into heaven just because they don't believe in him.
2) God is perfectly willing to let the shittiest most evil people into heaven just because they believe in him.
3) If there is a God, and this is true, what does that say about God? It says he's a crazy evil douche! Even if such a God really existed, who the fuck would want to worship such a piece of shit? I would fight until my last breath to destroy such a petty, vengeful, and evil God, and so would all good people. Better to rule in hell than serve in heaven.
So now, let's drop the name "God." It's just a translation from an old language anyhow, right? And I think (correct me if I'm wrong) that the Bible talks about God having many names as it is. It's really just a name that we use to talk to other people about our faith anyhow. What matters is the belief in your heart and not whatever name you want to use, right?
So let's say that, to keep his prayers organized, he decides to give a different name to each manifestation of God that he finds. Maybe he decides that he'll call God, when he manifests as a rainstorm, "Thor." Let's say he decides that he'll call God, when he manifests as a raven, "Odin." Still just one God, technically, but he gives Him multiple different names depending on where he finds Him manifest. Are we still OK?
EDIT: Since closure of the thread is imminent, here's my request. Look back at the path of reasoning I just walked you along. Look at where we wound up. Functionally speaking, it's impossible to distinguish any polytheistic religion from Christianity. By your own admission, God is what a person decides it is. So, if someone decides that God is Yahweh, they're right. If they decide God is Thor, they're right. No single interpretation can possibly be more correct than any other, and you just agreed to that. Therefore, you're as likely to get to heaven as someone who believes something radically different than you.
EDIT 2: I elected to not go in that direction on purpose. Simply saying "God is evil and I don't want any part of it" just plays into well-established beliefs. Carefully guiding somebody into the realization that any religion is equally likely, because faith is inherently personal, is much more satisfying. At the very least, it's more likely to actually give the other person something to take away from the conversation.
As to answer your final question, there is a difference. Other religions still rely on a list of rules to get you to Heaven/Nirvana/Enlightenment. Christianity does not. Therefore, while you are right in believing that the concepts of the Gods are essentially the same, the bread and butter of what each religion tells you is the same until you get to Christianity, where things differ quite a bit. That is why Jesus stands out to me.
To Apreche:
Firstly, first time I've been directly talked to by Scrym. Should be special, but it's not, because I'm a minority.
Secondly, you're right in the FSM argument, that all gods are fundamentally the same, and believing in one means accepting any proof or lack of proof for any others as reasoning. And I do. Although no one (or at least no one I've heard of) has ever seriously argued for the FSM, so I think the point is a little misguided.
Ultimately, your real point should be simpler, and less complex and construable. Instead, you should just say:
"No religious arguments. This is a geeky forum. Stop making religion battles. They solve nothing."
And if you want to ban me for doing this for what I believe is the 2nd time now, go right ahead. I probably deserve it.
EDIT: You've already said that it's OK to find God in multiple places. Can I give him multiple names if I still keep my faith?
That is part of the definition of Evil they have: a corruption and absence of Good. Chill out, this is not some great martyrdom you have taken.