AGS Steam Games

Forums → WEPR → Theism and Atheism

4668 1486241
thepyro222
offline
thepyro222
2,150 posts
Peasant

I grew up atheist for 16 years. I had always kept an open mind towards religion, but never really felt a need to believe in it. My sister started going to a Wednesday night children's program at a church. Eventually, I was dragged into a Christmas Eve service. Scoffing, I reluctantly went, assuming that this was going to be a load of crap, but when I went, I felt something. Something that I've never felt before. I felt a sense of empowerment and a sense of calling. Jesus called upon my soul, just like he did with his disciples. he wanted me to follow him. Now, my life is being lived for Christ. He died on the cross for my sins, and the sins of everyone who believes in him. He was beaten, brutalized, struck with a whip 39 times, made to carry a cross up to the stage of his death. This I believe to be true, and I can never repay him for what he has done.
I still have my struggles with Christianity, but I've found this bit of information most useful. Religion is not comprehensible in the human mind, because we cannot comprehend the idea of a perfect and supreme being, a God, but we can believe it in our heart, and that's the idea of faith. Faith is, even though everything rides against me believing in Jesus, I still believe in him because I know that it's true in my heart. I invite my fellow Brothers and sisters of the LORD to talk about how Jesus has helped you in your life. No atheists and no insults please

  • 4,668 Replies
HahiHa
offline
HahiHa
8,256 posts
Regent

Thanks to evolutionism we all know that there weren't just two people, but a group of monkeys who evolved...

Evolutionism? ....er, riiight. Anyway, there's two things not quite right. First, monkeys and apes (including humans) are modern groups and came from a common ancestor; second, we're closer to the apes than to monkeys, in fact we're technically african great apes.
That has not to do with the point you are trying to make though, just wanted to correct that^^
MageGrayWolf
offline
MageGrayWolf
9,462 posts
Farmer

Evolutionism? ....er, riiight. Anyway, there's two things not quite right. First, monkeys and apes (including humans) are modern groups and came from a common ancestor; second, we're closer to the apes than to monkeys, in fact we're technically african great apes.


I missed that evolutionism bit. Evolution isn't a belief. that common ancestor was a type of monkey (not any modern monkeys).
erPicci
offline
erPicci
38 posts
Peasant

Anyway, there's two things not quite right. First, monkeys and apes (including humans) are modern groups and came from a common ancestor; second, we're closer to the apes than to monkeys, in fact we're technically african great apes.

Thanks for the correction
Actually, in the language I speak, there is no difference at all between monkeys and apes, we translate them with the same word. Ah, grammar mistakes...
qwerty1011
offline
qwerty1011
554 posts
Peasant

Yes, I'd better do that. I think any episode of genocide has a different "meaning" (a bad meaning). Honestly, the more I look at the OT, the more I think that OT god is different from "modern" god. Maybe I'm a little heretic, or maybe it's the church's interpretation which changed in the last millennia.


But they are the same god who changed over time. And since his mroals changed too how can you follow gods rules as morals since they are as moral as morals used in our society since they too are subject to change
Rigoezbweno
offline
Rigoezbweno
43 posts
Nomad

atheist FTW apparently LOL I agree with magewolf

erPicci
offline
erPicci
38 posts
Peasant

But they are the same god who changed over time. And since his mroals changed too how can you follow gods rules as morals since they are as moral as morals used in our society since they too are subject to change

I'm not sure I understood what you mean, it's 10.30 PM and my English isn't good in evening.
Anyway, I think that it was men interpretation of god's moral to change, not god's moral itself. I also think that nowadays we have a more serious interpretation of it. Let's just say that ancients' interpretations of the world and the religion were... a bit weird.
You could answer "what guarantee that nowadays interpretation is correct?", there is nothing that guarantee that. If there was something, that would mean Christianity to be the True Religion, but there isn't.
So... we can only trust the fact that nowadays interpretations have stronger bases than ancients one. After all, ancients were ridiculously superstitious. Just look at medieval &quotroof" of god's existence ("god exists because it must exists"... ore "god exists because the bible says it does"... makes no sense). Looking back at those times I cannot blame any Atheist for not believe.
Nowadays moral is the fruit of theological studies and serious comparison with other religion, philosophies, doctrines...
Of course this doesn't prove that nowadays interpretation is the correct one, but surely it is based on something. I'd say it is based on rationality.
Using rationality we understood that creationism wasn't possible, and agreed with evolutionism; we understood that doing literally what is written on a 2000-years old book which talks about different times, societies, people, etc, was stupid, so we understood the importance of a morality based on the same concepts of scriptures (the Ten Commandments, Jesus's teachings...) but that actually responds to modern mankind and that doesn't force anyone in following it.
Men changed, human needs changed, so men's interpretation had to evolve. It's natural...
erPicci
offline
erPicci
38 posts
Peasant

So TLDR, the bible shouldn't be used as morality?

Yes and no. There are some general concepts which are good stand alone points (like the Ten Commandments), there are others which are a good starting point, but need to be carefully evaluated (like those metaphor about good and evil) and other which are too far in space and time to be relevant in nowadays society.
This is because bible is written by men (inspirited by god, but still men) talking about their own epoch and society.

Sorry about my posts' length. I'll try to make them shorter.
erPicci
offline
erPicci
38 posts
Peasant

True, true. But it would mean starting from zero. It would be possible, but will take years and years. Maybe more that just one lifetime.
Using bible and other scriptures as a starting point is faster and safer, because is suggest you which topics are the most important ones. Even better, you can use essays made by other people in order tu argue pro or against a certain topic, in a few word studying morality is a long process... someone begun it 2000 years ago, we are keeping on with it.

erPicci
offline
erPicci
38 posts
Peasant

Umh, I'm not sure I understood what you mean. I think (forgive me if I am wrong) that you are assuming that there are two possibilities:
1) god has to get morality from somewhere. In this case we don't need god, we can get that morality by ourselves, because it's universal;
2) morality is arbitrary, so we don't need god;

The first one makes sense to me, but it imply that god and morality are two separate things, and that god isn't omnipotent, because he needs to get morality from somewhere else than him. The process seems rational, but you need to demonstrate both the premises.
Anyway, are we sure that we can get that universal morality without god's help? It's another premises to demonstrate.
If you don't assume those premises you can actually assume other premises that bring you to different results. For instance, let's assume that god itself is the morality (it is just a silly example): you need god in order to get morality. Or let's assume that morality is separated from god, and men can get morality without god, but god helps in doing so; in this case we don't strictly need god, but it's cheaper to have it.

About the second one: if morality is subjective, then mr A morality may says to him "morality is universal". This seems to contradict, but we affirmed that morality is subjective and we didn't put any limit to it, so mr A's morality is legitimate even if contradictory. Shall we accept the existence of something that contradict itself or should we put a limit to morality's subjectivity? In that case, who can decide that limit? Mankind? God? I think it's complicated.

I see you are the rational-one, which is nice. I think the only problem is with the premises.

Einfach
offline
Einfach
1,448 posts
Nomad

Is certain morales innate and therefore, god is unneeded or is it entirely subjective, therefore, god is unneeded.

It is for this reason - Christianity implies that all morals stem from God. It makes Christians closer to moral relativists than other ethical theories, paradoxically, because if God doesn't exist, under their ethical theory, that would mean that no morals exist (objectively), as well.
MageGrayWolf
offline
MageGrayWolf
9,462 posts
Farmer

There are some general concepts which are good stand alone points (like the Ten Commandments)


Half of those ten (the ones I'm only guessing your talking about) don't even deal with morality, it's just rules of worship. Even then the rest are conditional.

This is because bible is written by men (inspirited by god, but still men) talking about their own epoch and society.


How do we know it's inspire by God and not just all the work of men? Prophecies, miracles, person feeling and other personal experiences are all things shared to one degree or another by every religion.

It is for this reason - Christianity implies that all morals stem from God. It makes Christians closer to moral relativists than other ethical theories, paradoxically, because if God doesn't exist, under their ethical theory, that would mean that no morals exist (objectively), as well.


We can even argue that there are no objective morals even if God does exist as those morals from God are just that God's subjective view of morality.
Einfach
offline
Einfach
1,448 posts
Nomad

We can even argue that there are no objective morals even if God does exist as those morals from God are just that God's subjective view of morality.

But God could not accept morals that were not themselves virtuous...so it's paradoxical - a contradiction.

( God -> ~God ) -> ~God, so ~God.
MageGrayWolf
offline
MageGrayWolf
9,462 posts
Farmer

But God could not accept morals that were not themselves virtuous...so it's paradoxical - a contradiction.


Why couldn't he?
vesperbot
offline
vesperbot
955 posts
Nomad

Again, can you prove a single miracle with unbiased witnesses. And considering that you have a few miracles which may or may not actually be miraculous I don't think that is much proof of Gods existence.
You don't even bother checking proofs. Go page 82 for some.
oh yeah, I forgot, there are so many kids TV shows that try and tell them things repeatedly to brainwash them. The kind of things that could brainwash are mainly on shows watched by adults.
oh yeah I forgot, you haven't been left alone with a TV when the children's program abruptly ended, your babysitter wasn't long left and f*****g somewhere, and you haven't been told that it's a long way into the night and you can already sleep. Anyway, I don't know if there are children's TV channel accessible that's completely free of any ads, we here have none, and those ads are shown ignoring context, so you can get an arousing ad mid-toon. YMMV but since there's a damger for any kid left by TV to switch channels and not being able to switch back, there is a danger of him get spoiled irreversibly.
So there is absolutely no point in praying since they will all be granted once the prayer is dead then. Because that is basically what you are saying.
Basically, everything what should be prayed for is located above mundane world, still, healings have been granted occasionally. It's just people are excepting them getting healed *right now*, and get frustrated if they hadn't been. There is always point in praying, you however shouldn't expect immediate effect in any case.

And I see you started perverting my words, aka trolling.
I guess there are parts of the infallible perfect word of God you can ignore. Of course this just sounds like a complete load, but hey if you can excuse it away right?
Basically these particular words are part of the Old Testament, which is extended to all humanity by New Testament. And since Old Testament applied only to Jewish, and the Decalogue is brought into New Testament by direct word of Jesus, indeed some of the words of Old Testament should not be followed to letter. You know what MGW, you start repeating yourself.
you're slow to catch up with the times
Hello pal, you might have to know that to catch with times, which are accelerating exponentially, requires ditching one's cross, and that's not the way you could live a life with God. And, what do you exactly mean at "catching up with the times"? LGBT tolerance? Democracy with double/triple standards? Blatant ignorance of poverty of your neighbor? Feeding psychotropics to children? Rating everything that happens with money alone? Or something else?
Until you supply one which can't say be attributed to Krishna then I will continue to poke more holes in this big hole you call christianity
You are to prove that a given miracle can be attributed to Krishna. If you will not, you'll have to stuff the hole you tried to poke with your own head. So, start with Fatima.
It's easily explained, dust in the atmosphere created an optical illusion of the sun changing color and moving around in the sky.
It's easily refuted, the sun's image dancing by more than angular diameter of the sun cannot be a result of dust. A dust clous can only obscure parts of sun disc and spread the rays of the visible parts to form a circle. And you failed to explain why the sun's disc is darker than the sky around the sun.
We all know that no one REALLY believes the Christian religion, and I can prove it
Wow. Prove ME not believing.
Christianity teaches that only a select few will live their life in such a way that they will enter heaven.
Plain wrong. Rest TLDR'd by the false assumption.
Which means that he is essentially condemning you to hell because you do not believe, and he makes no effort to make you believe.
There will still be people complaining "God didn't give me enough to believe in Him". God is always there in your heart, knocking at the door, and while your heart is closed, it's yet your own fault. I don't think you'll like your heart to be ripped open by force (even spiritually).
Religion also says that anyone who believes can go to the paradise. Those who don't believe don't care about god, so the "go" to a place where there isn't god: the hell (I repeat: no huge fire, no eternal ****ation, just a regular place, but without god).
Nearly true, God is not present in Hell. Hell as a place is a representation of what happens to the soul when God isn't there where the soul is. Hell as a condition, however, isn't so regular. Here is God, and in Hell He won't be around. So your soul feels God's love any single time while you're here, and you're so accustomed to this that you treat this as normal, like having air to breathe, and stop noticing this. Once a soul enters Hell, it suffers like you will if the air will suddenly go away entirely, but here you will die in minutes, there a soul can't die, so it suffers for eternity, since that air which is God's love will never return.
Kasic
offline
Kasic
5,552 posts
Jester

There will still be people complaining "God didn't give me enough to believe in Him".


No there won't, because he's omnipotent and can do what he wants. If you don't believe, that means he didn't make you. If you end up in hell, it's because he wants you there.
Showing 1201-1215 of 4668