Saturnine Pariah,
What makes you think the Bible is written for everyone?
jan.
What makes you think the Bible is written for everyone?
jan.
God needs Devil to make the show?
- Thread starter Saint
- Start date
Given the shear number of religions somebody has got to be wrong. I'm betting it's everybody except the Atheist of the world IMO.
Given the shear number of religions somebody has got to be wrong. I'm betting it's everybody except the Atheist of the world IMO.
The idea of ''right'' and ''wrong'' isn't supported in scriptures. This is your idea of religion, and probably variations of that type of thinking drives all the different religions. It's like music, there are many different styles and emphasis in music, we even name them ''genres'', but there is no such thing as ''right'' or ''wrong'' music.
Atheists (explicit) do not understand the concept of God, which is precisely why they are atheist.
jan.
That's like saying that people who don't understand the concept of the Loch Ness monster don't believe in the Loch Ness monster. The opposite seems more likely to me - that people who do understand the concept are more likely to realize that it's fiction.
I'm actually saying that atheists don't understand the concept of God, IOW, they don't actually get the point of God.
The video link from Saturnine Pariah is a perfect example.
jan.
But I do get the point of God. I just like to think humans should be able to rise above the need to believe that an all powerful spirit is looking after us on a personal level.
Not believing in God.
What the hell are you talking about?
You keep making these claims, yet never support them. What's wrong with the video? What's the true "concept" or "point" of God?
Balerion,
What I said.
They're supported here all the time.
There's nothing ''wrong'' with the video. He's entitled to his opinion.
What do you think the ''true'' concept of God is (bearing in mind I never added the word ''true'')?
jan.
What I said.
They're supported here all the time.
There's nothing ''wrong'' with the video. He's entitled to his opinion.
What do you think the ''true'' concept of God is (bearing in mind I never added the word ''true'')?
jan.
Not believing in fairy tails would be a good start. If we were ever to meet aliens I'd be so embarrassed for the human race, it would actually hurt.
You're not really responding to the questions and points. You make statements and then justify them with more statements, never actually
giving reason for your position of theism. This is characteristic of explicit atheists, which is why I say they have no understanding of God.
Why is belief in God equal to belief in ''fairy tales''?
jan.
Because non-belief is more noble. There are no devils or boogeymen to blame for bad actions, nor any benevolent spirits to give credit to--and therefore devalue the deed--when good is done. Non-belief is about accountability, and living for the life we have, not for some promised existence after death. It's more mature, as it accepts the finite nature of reality, and isn't afraid of the unknown. It doesn't attempt to rot the minds of the poor, the young, or the disenfranchised. Non-belief's only agenda is truth, or at least a free pursuit of it.
Which was, as usual, entirely inscrutable. Feel free to clarify.
Where?
Bullshit. You just said the video was a "prefect example" of someone not understanding the concept of God. Please explain what he got wrong.
You're dodging. You said that atheists are atheists because they don't understand the concept of God. You then said the video posted was a perfect example of this, which implies that you do. So let's hear it.
Balerion,
No it's not. It's a state of mind.
One doesn't believe something, because one can't, not because one doesn't decide to.
That not what ''belief in God'' is, or means.
Pure fantasy.
''Belief in God'' is not about doing it for the reason of existence after death. It's just ''belief in God'', not for any external reason. This is what you're currently incapable of comprehending. For you there is always a trade-off, or some angle.
You can't even respect somebody for being somebody, they have to have something that you regard as credible, then they are worthy of your respect. This is your nature, and such a nature cannot percieve a simple concept of God.
If you can't comprehend what is written, then don't bother.
The post that I, now, on this day, at this moment, am responding to.
Can you comprehend that?
Exactly, that's what I said, and that's what I meant.
Your question ''what's wrong with the video'' does not address that point. The correct question would have been ''why do I think so'' or words to that effect. Just in case you decide to ask that question, I've already responded to it earlier in this response.
Dodging?
There's nothing to dodge.
If I think you don't understand the concept of God, and you ask me a question which is different to the point I made (by adding ''true''), then you've simply proven my point (from my perspective). So it's perfectly reasonable to ask your position on the point I made in order for me to give you a response.
jan.
No it's not. It's a state of mind.
One doesn't believe something, because one can't, not because one doesn't decide to.
That not what ''belief in God'' is, or means.
Pure fantasy.
''Belief in God'' is not about doing it for the reason of existence after death. It's just ''belief in God'', not for any external reason. This is what you're currently incapable of comprehending. For you there is always a trade-off, or some angle.
You can't even respect somebody for being somebody, they have to have something that you regard as credible, then they are worthy of your respect. This is your nature, and such a nature cannot percieve a simple concept of God.
If you can't comprehend what is written, then don't bother.
The post that I, now, on this day, at this moment, am responding to.
Can you comprehend that?
Exactly, that's what I said, and that's what I meant.
Your question ''what's wrong with the video'' does not address that point. The correct question would have been ''why do I think so'' or words to that effect. Just in case you decide to ask that question, I've already responded to it earlier in this response.
Dodging?
There's nothing to dodge.
If I think you don't understand the concept of God, and you ask me a question which is different to the point I made (by adding ''true''), then you've simply proven my point (from my perspective). So it's perfectly reasonable to ask your position on the point I made in order for me to give you a response.
jan.
Couldn't have said that better myself. It's at times like this that I wish inow was in this forum. One of the most articulate atheist I ever met.
That's simply not true. For one, there are millions of identifying Christians, Jews, and Muslims in the United States and abroad who would very much disagree with that assertion. Secondly, there are millions of self-identifying atheists and agnostics who would very much disagree with that assertion. While it may be true that some people do not believe because they simply can't bring themselves to (wynn comes to mind) there are many more for whom belief--or lack thereof--is a decision, rather than a condition. Do you know how many people abandoned Christianity after reading The God Delusion or God Is Not Great? Thousands, perhaps? It can be an intellectual revelation, or a gut feeling, or it can be simply because they've always been told God is real/isn't real, but it certainly isn't always because of one's capacity for belief.
Of course it is. I'd love to hear your alternative explanation, but until then, your protest is nothing more than a petulant "Nuh-uh!"
Says the guy who believes in an invisible overlord who knows what you're thinking...
Speaking of pure fantasy...
In many cases, belief is exactly that: a trade-off. Think of Pascal's Wager. Do you really believe he's the only one to consider the proposition? What is evangelism if not the offer of a choice between eternal damnation and everlasting life? The whole of religion--at least the Abrahamic ones--is a gamble between darkness and light, and whether or not you're on the right side of things. Anyone who isn't born into faith must take this into account when coming to whatever denomination they've chosen. In fact, most people who were born into their faith consider the very same questions as those who weren't. Everybody questions their faith eventually, and they have to come to a decision one way or the other.
I can't make heads or tails of this. For one, if the concept of God is so simple, why haven't you been able to explain it? Secondly, I don't know what "You can't even respect somebody for being somebody" is supposed to mean. If you're trying to say I don't respect religious people, you're talking out of your backside. I don't respect religious belief, but that doesn't mean I don't respect religious people. There are plenty of devout people whom I greatly respect.
If you can't write a coherent sentence, perhaps you shouldn't bother.
But you haven't supported it.
Semantic dodge. The question was phrased perfectly well, and you knew exactly what I was asking. And no, you haven't explained "why do you think so," in this post.
Strike 2. Are you going to answer the question or not?
The potential for becoming evil is activated in conditioned life, and conditioned life is the belief that we are the body and mind, and we belong to this family, society, nation and so on.
In this mode of thinking all our efforts are ultimately for the satisfaction of our senses.
What can happen in this mode of thinking is that, we can become so attracted to this gratification, that we find ourselve
wanting more and more, which increase our desires to the point where we become overly lustful, and greedy. If we do not attain
the level of satisfaction we crave we can become angry, and there lies the gateway to evil actions.
jan.
eBalerion
Crap logic.
Wynn has some understanding of God which is why she can't be like you. She can become atheist, but it won't be a simpleton atheist. You don't understand God, so you are atheist by default. There are those who, like you, don't understand God, but are religious, part of an institute that, on the surface, appears to be theistic, but is by default atheistic. Discussion Jesus had with some Jews in the NT spring to mind.
They abandoned the institute, but they didn't abandon God, because they never believed in God in the first place.
Dawkins is going after those types to increase the number of atheists in a bid to replace one institute with another.
That the world is atheistic, is no surprise to me. Every scripture will tell you about the characteristics of this time. It is very difficult to cultivate real belief in God at this moment.
You should learn to listen, and then comtemplate.
Well in one sense you're correct. God is invisible to me, meaning He is out of my visual range, but so are other things.
And yes, God is an overlord as such, althought I wouldn't use that terminology as it doesn't really capture His uniqueness.
That's just basic common sense. One can become a theist through common sense, but one cannot believe anything without
actually believing it. Try and understand that before you try to come back with a smarty-pants answer.
Anybody can say anything, but what is the source of this choice?
Show it to me, then lets break it down.
Again, it's all using common sense (at least in the begining), to come to a specific platform of knowledge, where one can begin to make decisions about what's best for ones self.
You can't be ''born into faith'', one has cultivate faith. One can be born into a family who are faithful devotees of God, and cultivate faith from a early point in their short life. But still one has to step up to that.
If the concept of the two times table is so simple, why can't you explain it to a 1 year old?
It means what it says. Stop trying to interpret and just understand the words. If it helps, read what was said regarding respect or lack of respect for me in the last thread we spoke in.
I just don't believe you cannot understand the sentence. You're merely trying enhance a stereo-type, which although may work for you, because people can be gulible, but is not an intelligent move, because it means you may be missing out on something, but have to take cheap shots as a get out clause. If you can't comprehend what I've just said then it doesn't matter.
The forest is there, it's the thing the trees are planted in.
The question was phrased perfectly well, and I knew exactly what you was asking, but it wasn't in relation to my point.
As this is something you do alot (interpret my points instead of taking them literally), I have decided to take a stand, as the alternative is to go off on different tangents.
If you want to take it to a different place, I don't mind, but I need to know what you're idea of the ''true'' concept of God is, so that I can answer you properly.
You asked two questions;
1) what's wrong with the video?
2) what is the true concept or point of God?
These questions were in response to this sentiment;
''I'm actually saying that atheists don't understand the concept of God, IOW, they don't actually get the point of God.
The video link from Saturnine Pariah is a perfect example.''
What is this ''true'' concept of God? A concept is a concept, and atheist of your type don't understand the concept of God.
My point with the video, is not that it's ''wrong'', but the presenter doesn't understand the concept of God.
So because you have interpreted my points in the way that you have, means we off on different tangent because they aren't related to the point I'm making.
jan.
Crap logic.
Wynn has some understanding of God which is why she can't be like you. She can become atheist, but it won't be a simpleton atheist. You don't understand God, so you are atheist by default. There are those who, like you, don't understand God, but are religious, part of an institute that, on the surface, appears to be theistic, but is by default atheistic. Discussion Jesus had with some Jews in the NT spring to mind.
They abandoned the institute, but they didn't abandon God, because they never believed in God in the first place.
Dawkins is going after those types to increase the number of atheists in a bid to replace one institute with another.
That the world is atheistic, is no surprise to me. Every scripture will tell you about the characteristics of this time. It is very difficult to cultivate real belief in God at this moment.
You should learn to listen, and then comtemplate.
Well in one sense you're correct. God is invisible to me, meaning He is out of my visual range, but so are other things.
And yes, God is an overlord as such, althought I wouldn't use that terminology as it doesn't really capture His uniqueness.
That's just basic common sense. One can become a theist through common sense, but one cannot believe anything without
actually believing it. Try and understand that before you try to come back with a smarty-pants answer.
Anybody can say anything, but what is the source of this choice?
Show it to me, then lets break it down.
Again, it's all using common sense (at least in the begining), to come to a specific platform of knowledge, where one can begin to make decisions about what's best for ones self.
You can't be ''born into faith'', one has cultivate faith. One can be born into a family who are faithful devotees of God, and cultivate faith from a early point in their short life. But still one has to step up to that.
If the concept of the two times table is so simple, why can't you explain it to a 1 year old?
It means what it says. Stop trying to interpret and just understand the words. If it helps, read what was said regarding respect or lack of respect for me in the last thread we spoke in.
I just don't believe you cannot understand the sentence. You're merely trying enhance a stereo-type, which although may work for you, because people can be gulible, but is not an intelligent move, because it means you may be missing out on something, but have to take cheap shots as a get out clause. If you can't comprehend what I've just said then it doesn't matter.
The forest is there, it's the thing the trees are planted in.
The question was phrased perfectly well, and I knew exactly what you was asking, but it wasn't in relation to my point.
As this is something you do alot (interpret my points instead of taking them literally), I have decided to take a stand, as the alternative is to go off on different tangents.
If you want to take it to a different place, I don't mind, but I need to know what you're idea of the ''true'' concept of God is, so that I can answer you properly.
You asked two questions;
1) what's wrong with the video?
2) what is the true concept or point of God?
These questions were in response to this sentiment;
''I'm actually saying that atheists don't understand the concept of God, IOW, they don't actually get the point of God.
The video link from Saturnine Pariah is a perfect example.''
What is this ''true'' concept of God? A concept is a concept, and atheist of your type don't understand the concept of God.
My point with the video, is not that it's ''wrong'', but the presenter doesn't understand the concept of God.
So because you have interpreted my points in the way that you have, means we off on different tangent because they aren't related to the point I'm making.
jan.