What God Would Say

[eyeswideshut]

You only said: Because God made them (animals) that way. You also said that societies need religion/God to have morality in order to survive.

Thats little dishonest, in otherwords, not honorable, to take piece of the text out of context would you say? This is what I said:

"That doesnt prove anything as far I can tell, from my point of view thats the way God created them, we, on the otherhand are self-reflective and that put us in the position that we have to decide what is moral thing to do, or, get our morals from outside, and around we go, to the starting point of this discussion"

This was final conclusion, before that I said in same post:

"But is it really the kind morality what we are discussing then, if one isnt aware why one is doing something, that sounds automaton. I bet we are not witnessing animal to do good with no selfintresting motive behind it any time soon, example man giving charity while nobody knowing it. I think there is big difference there."

Now what? As I said earlier, I think you are over simplifying this subject matter.
Coherence, please.

If other animals can have their societies because of morality without religion or God, why do we need those things? Why would some stupid God need to create humans different just to worship him?

First of all, we were created as image of God and animals were created for us. Animals dont need religion hence no self reflecting morality in their kind. If you want to discuss why God is stupid when wanting worship from us we would need another thread I think, kind of a new subject matter, I will answer in my best ability.

 

[eyeswideshut]

Perhaps, but you're missing the connection.

Nations that deign to tell their population what they shall or shall not believe in, in the privacy of their spritiual lives, are not going to go over well with the population.

Thats the thing, why is so that we hunger for something other than pragmatic reason although we know it all?
Like in China, why they need religion again? Why societes wont work without God although some argue we dont need God at all?
I will argue we urge for absolute thruths and so on morals, to make our life truly coherent as a whole, Atheism does only deliver relative moralism and so on confusion. Example, on what morals USA would have been founded if there were not Christianity and would the declaration of indepence still looked the same? Christianity gives every human intrinsic value.

 

[spidergoat]

Christianity gives every human intrinsic value.

This is too easy. Tell that to the Native Americans and the slaves.

 

[DaveC426913]

Why societes wont work without God

Societies won't work when governments tell them what to believe.

I can imagine the reverse, where a nation tells its people that they must worship some specific god. That is doomed to fail as well.

It's not God that's the sticking point, it's fascism that's the sticking point.

 

[DaveC426913]

Christianity gives every human intrinsic value.

Except those who aren't Christian.
For a long time, the only value non-Christians had to Christians was as firewood.

 

[eyeswideshut]

If other animals can have their societies because of morality without religion or God, why do we need those things? Why would some stupid God need to create humans different just to worship him?

Ok, short answer, we need to worship him because we love him, if we dont love him no point of worshipping.
Why to love him? Because we are in existence from His Glory, and more over, even when we rebelled against Him, He gave us new beginning and redemption with Christ, we just need accept what He is offering.
Like i said this is deep one and needs its own thread

 

[Beer w/Straw]

Thats little dishonest, in otherwords, not honorable, to take piece of the text out of context would you say? This is what I said:

"That doesnt prove anything as far I can tell, from my point of view thats the way God created them, we, on the otherhand are self-reflective and that put us in the position that we have to decide what is moral thing to do, or, get our morals from outside, and around we go, to the starting point of this discussion"

This was final conclusion, before that I said in same post:

"But is it really the kind morality what we are discussing then, if one isnt aware why one is doing something, that sounds automaton. I bet we are not witnessing animal to do good with no selfintresting motive behind it any time soon, example man giving charity while nobody knowing it. I think there is big difference there."

Now what? As I said earlier, I think you are over simplifying this subject matter.
Coherence, please.



First of all, we were created as image of God and animals were created for us. Animals dont need religion hence no self reflecting morality in their kind. If you want to discuss why God is stupid when wanting worship from us we would need another thread I think, kind of a new subject matter, I will answer in my best ability.

I was paraphrasing a different post:

No, I merely gave examples to what societies with no God can turn easily, to challenge your premise that "we could figured out with no religion" and your statement that "there isnt Natural Selection used in any societies", the point being; from where we have got our moral values, "to be honorable", I will argue that without religions it wouldnt be possible.

And if you want to make a 'Why God is Stupid' thread, well I'll assume it'll invite 'Why God is Good' comments and should differentiate 'God' and 'Religion' because they tend to be used pretty much synonymously.

 

[eyeswideshut]

Societies won't work when governments tell them what to believe.

I can imagine the reverse, where a nation tells its people that they must worship some specific god. That is doomed to fail as well.

It's not God that's the sticking point, it's fascism that's the sticking point.

I see what you are saying, god mitt uns fascism, if there is absolute truths in religion it will probably accepted easily, and society will survive better than with no God, human heart is easily corrupted and so nations go and come. The real battle is in individual, like you said, religion doesnt work well if not accepted in individual.

 

[eyeswideshut]

Except those who aren't Christian.
For a long time, the only value non-Christians had to Christians was as firewood.

Care to give an example? I´m guessing that you take Catholism as Christianity? Thats common mistake, Catholism is perversion of Christianity, few examples: idolatry, worshipping Mary. Keep the Sabbath, moved to sunday, the list goes on and on, hence the Protestant movement and so on, Constantine hijacked Christianity after Rome slaughtered true Christians couple hundred years.
Thats why true Christians only author is the word of God.

 

[eyeswideshut]

And if you want to make a 'Why God is Stupid' thread, well I'll assume it'll invite 'Why God is Good' comments and should differentiate 'God' and 'Religion' because they tend to be used pretty much synonymously.

Again, it was little deeper than that, I said: "If you want to discuss why God is stupid when wanting worship from us."
I should have leave the stupid word out of it but it was your assertion, not mine.
You are right, it is stupid to use religion and God synonymously, it depends on the context, which is everything in meaningful discussion.

 

[spidergoat]

Care to give an example? I´m guessing that you take Catholism as Christianity? Thats common mistake, Catholism is perversion of Christianity, few examples: idolatry, worshipping Mary. Keep the Sabbath, moved to sunday, the list goes on and on, hence the Protestant movement and so on, Constantine hijacked Christianity after Rome slaughtered true Christians couple hundred years.
Thats why true Christians only author is the word of God.

Africans, Native Americans, Hindus...

 

[eyeswideshut]

Africans, Native Americans, Hindus...

Going this road again, no thanks, I need specific case to study, it is easy to throw generalisations. There are over 5000 sects of Christianity, I bet its clear minority that had followed the word of God and clear majority that has corrupted the word of God, example Mormons and Jehovas witness etc. In this case I wont defend Christianity (as it is understood by mainstream) as a whole.

 

[eyeswideshut]

This is too easy. Tell that to the Native Americans and the slaves.

OK, I have to clarify, because it is not so easy to stay in context in this subject matter.
Its not fault of the word of God, in this case the bible (which gives you intrinsic value) if somebody misuses it to kill somebody, I will argue that it is a heresy in God eyes to misuse it.

 

[spidergoat]

OK, I have to clarify, because it is not so easy to stay in context in this subject matter.
Its not fault of the word of God, in this case the bible (which gives you intrinsic value) if somebody misuses it to kill somebody, I will argue that it is a heresy in God eyes to misuse it.

Such naivety. If bad things came of it, it was either misused or they weren't "real" Christians in the first place.

 

[Jan Ardena]

DE: "Sarkus, when I say that I believe in God, I mean that I believe that He exists, that He is Perfect and that I should worship Him."
It is that definition of "Belief in God" that was being discussed.

Again I can't speak for DE, but it sounds to me as though he believes God exists, but gives reasons as to his belief in God. It doesn't read as though he defined God.

If you want to take the usage of the terms differently and equivocate between the usages then that is up to you, but I won't be playing, thanks.

I could say the same to you.

At its heart it is a very specific description about a very specific position one holds: lack of belief in the existence of God.

It isn't necessarily specific, and says little about the people who adopt these descriptions.

Where? I must have missed it. I'm not being facetious: I genuinely do not see where you have answered these questions:
What do you consider to a "fundamental" in this regard, and why do you consider them to be exempt from scrutiny?

#An theist doesn't ponder on whether or not God exists, as God is the ultimate of everything. Again a fundamental principle based on the acceptance of God.#

A fundamental, in this regard, partly represents the basis of perception of what we consider to be our reality. It is the reason we discuss the things we discuss.

jan.

 

[wegs]

It can be argued that God would declare, "Be honorable." This is overtly obvious and you don't need to be a Prophet to know this. From this statement there can be generated an infinity of similar statements, such as 'Be honorable to your neighbor two doors down', 'Be honorable to your neighbor three doors down', Be honorable to your neighbors on other continents' and 'Be honorable to your neighbors who live on islands that are not large enough to be considered a continent'. DE

It should be ''obvious'' but many people don't do it.

 

[Sarkus]

Again I can't speak for DE, but it sounds to me as though he believes God exists, but gives reasons as to his belief in God. It doesn't read as though he defined God.

Yes he did define God, as "Perfect".
Either way, the issue at hand (at least as discussed between him and me to which you have inserted yourself) is indeed one of existence: belief in the existence of God, and whether that is a choice or not.

I could say the same to you.

You could, but since I am not equivocating but instead using the terms as defined by DE in my discussion with DE, you'd be wrong. Your the only one here trying to argue with different definitions.

It isn't necessarily specific, and says little about the people who adopt these descriptions.

It is quite specific: it says precisely that this person lacks belief in the existence of God. Sure, there are undoubtedly many other things that the individual may believe, many reasons for why they believe what they do, but that is all in addition to the core of their atheism.
You seem to have an issue that atheism actually means so little, that it is a label for a person holding a rather simple position (even if that position opens up a plethora of subsequent alternatives, differences etc). You seem to want to build the term up to something it isn't and then try to knock it down. Any idea what we call such tactics?
Once you grasp what atheism actually is, and more importantly what it is not, then discussions with you may not get sidetracked so often into semantics,

#An theist doesn't ponder on whether or not God exists, as God is the ultimate of everything. Again a fundamental principle based on the acceptance of God.#

A fundamental, in this regard, partly represents the basis of perception of what we consider to be our reality. It is the reason we discuss the things we discuss.

"A fundamental principle based on..."? Doesn't sound particularly fundamental if it is based on something else.

So the second question I asked: why do you consider such fundamentals to be beyond scrutiny?

 

[Jan Ardena]

"A fundamental principle based on..."? Doesn't sound particularly fundamental if it is based on something else.

'Perception', and 'reality' have to be percieved by minds. They have to be based on the mind. It is as fundamental as it gets.

So the second question I asked: why do you consider such fundamentals to be beyond scrutiny?

I didn't say that such fundamentals are exempt, or beyond scutiny. Just that they are not the topic of this discussion.

Yes he did define God, as "Perfect".

A lot of things are perfect, which is not God, so 'perfect' does not define God.

Either way, the issue at hand (at least as discussed between him and me to which you have inserted yourself) is indeed one of existence: belief in the existence of God, and whether that is a choice or not.

Apologies for butting in. I'll make this my last response so you can continue.
We choose to accept God, we cannot choose to believe in God, anymore than we can choose to be happy. We can make ourselves lose interest, and become forgetful, hence lack belief in God. In this way we can limit how much we choose to believe in God, by replacing God with other stuff.


jan.

 

[Sarkus]

'Perception', and 'reality' have to be percieved by minds. They have to be based on the mind. It is as fundamental as it gets.

Actually that would put "mind" as fundamental. Anything perceived by the mind is thus based upon the mind and no longer fundamental. It then gets into issues of how the mind works and whether, as you claim, such things can be a choice or not.

I didn't say that such fundamentals are exempt, or beyond scutiny. Just that they are not the topic of this discussion.

When you say that "they themselves are not the subject of scrutiny" (post #82) it would need some further qualifications from you at the time so as not to read that as a claim of them being exempt from scrutiny.
But whether that is an absolute claim or merely in reference to this thread is actually neither here nor there: why do you consider them exempt from scrutiny within this discussion?

A lot of things are perfect, which is not God, so 'perfect' does not define God.

Youll have to talk to DE about that.

Apologies for butting in. I'll make this my last response so you can continue.

I somehow doubt you will.

We choose to accept God, we cannot choose to believe in God, anymore than we can choose to be happy.

Is this your opinion or are you claiming this as fact, just to be clear?
Either way, I disagree. I do not think it is a choice for me "to accept God", at least as anything other than lip-service. You can keep shouting it from the rooftops if you want, but it won't get you anywhere. Ever heard of Doxastic Involuntarism?

We can make ourselves lose interest, and become forgetful, hence lack belief in God. In this way we can limit how much we choose to believe in God, by replacing God with other stuff.

I'm glad you think belief is just a matter of how much we think about something.

 

[sideshowbob]

I merely gave examples to what societies with no God can turn easily

And there are just as many examples of nations that did turn to gods for moral guidance and were told to slaughter their enemies. Obviously, the guidance of gods is no guarantee of good moral behaviour.