Does God Exist?

[Red_Emma]

Catholocism..in my very always ignorant opinion..is stupid because Jesus obviously is a myth...or the story of him wasnt meant to be taken literally....So there isnt a Jesus and he isnt God ..(to further illustrate read M.M. Mangasarian's "The Truth About Jesus: Is He a Myth?" ....So God...If there is a God and as someone said earlier he isnt about caring for the masses anymore...If he doesnt care for the masses what triggered this change? did he ever? and if he doesnt care about the masses is it logical to beleive that he does care about individual needs? i certaintly dont think so but id love to hear other views on this...I myself am Agnostic..

[Matthew Cromer]

Interesting question, and one that I'm not sure has an answer. Generally when we are talking about "God" we have in mind some kind of super-powerful being that sits back outside the universe and observes it. If that is what is meant by God, it seems too small and poor an idea to be true.

On the other hand, athiests typically believe in a universe that came into existence by chance, that the truth about reality is that we are the outcome of an accidental collision of atoms, and that our existence has no ultimate sense or meaning. I hold no truck with this viewpoint either.

I think Brian Swimme, Matthew Fox, and some of the mystics are probably closer to a more useful intellectual model. What we does, is a part of something greater than ourselves. That love is the answer, not hate. That death is a door to something more, not an end to our universe and a negation of our lives and meanings.

[antayla]

Hey howcome there isn't an "I don't care" vote?
Either God exists and is "perfect", God exists and is imperfect, or God doesn't exist. In the first, I figure a perfect God would create a perfect universe... so we are perfect too, in the second we have our futures in our own hands since we can't depend on God, and in the third it doesn't matter anyways.

[buliwuf]

</span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (libertyminded,)
Buliwuf,

Don't you see how fallible your circular logic is? You speak constantly of the fact that we must "submit" ourselves and our understandings to the metaphysics laid out in the Bible, but how can someone that has come to their understanding of reality based on only perceptible evidence, knowingly alter that perception without emperical evidence?

As I was reading your post I was waiting for you to say that magic word that cures all logical inconsistancies in any God theory, faith .

Once you ran into one of my arguments that you couldn't reasonably disect into your skewed understanding of reality, you invoked this thing of faith.<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'>

You had no argument to begin with and once again failed to understand what was said. The circular reasoning you accuse me of is your problem as well, since the validity of empirical evidences is completely conditional on non-empirical evidences. You don't like the way I've described reality, but have hardly refuted it.

In The Matrix, when Morpheus offers Neo the red or blue pill, it is clear that Neo's perception of reality is faulty for reasons he cannot empirically explain or verify. This illustration, while not Christian in and of itself, does explain to me why so many, including yourself, took the blue pill metaphorically speaking. You believe whatever you want, not knowing the reality is far different than you've concocted.

[libertyminded]

Alright Buliwuf... lets see you get out of this one with your circular logic.

[malaise]

God is a really tough topic to discuss, because there is no physical proof to show that he exists.

The only written proof that God ever showed himself, or performed any miracles, is in the Bible! After the bible, there were no true signs of God.

Is God simply a powerful scientist, and we are one of his experiments?

Why would God create us, when he already has anglels?

Why would God care if we worship him or not?

If God can predict all of our actions, does that mean everything that happens, was because he wanted it to, and everything is pre-determined?

God cannot exist because as humans, we cannot comprehend the existence of God.

[Paavo]

</span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (malaise,)
Why would God care if we worship him or not?<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'>

Funny, but I think that's a really good question. I see the whole god thing being very childish somehow. I mean, why would something create us, just to "test" how we do in our lives before being taken to heaven or something? Why would this god give a shit if we pray, as praying shouldn't be needed if he's in all of us etc etc. Nothing makes sense with a christian god actually existing, it's all just so flawed one doesn't know where to start.

[TANSTAAFL]

[quote=malaise,]
If God can predict all of our actions, does that mean everything that happens, was because he wanted it to, and everything is pre-determined?

Malaise,
You have cited some of the more interesting fallacies of the concept of God. The Judeo-Christian faith has concocted the concept of "the ultimate God" far superior from the many hundreds of other Gods. Attributes are generally attributed to this God which demonstrate his superiority over other, lesser, Gods:

1. God is omniscient: God knows everything - even before it happens he knows what will occur. (Yes, therefore everything must be pre-destined.)
2. God is omnipotent: God can make anything do anything he wants at any time he chooses.
3. God is "all-good": All of God's acts are good, wether we understand them or not, they are good acts as God is not capable of doing evil.

These attributes are universally used by Judeo-Christians asserting belief in God. What becomes problematic is that these attributes contradict each-other. For example:

If God omnicient and everything is pre-destined then God could not change it and therefore is not omnipotent.

If God is omnipotent then he would be capable of doing evil and cannot be all-good.

Finally, a fun one, if God is omnicient and knows everything while being omnipotent having the power to do anything and is all-good then why does he allow evil to exist? Are one of these three attributes false or is God just too lazy exercise his powers against the evil he knows is occuring? A lazy apathetic God - not very Godly!

What really amazes me is that in this day and time with all the knowledge and science that surrounds us that people still cling to this completely unsubstantiated belief of religions and God.

[antayla]

Well, what if we were god?

An omniscient god would be able to know "the whole picture," if the entirety of "him" was made up of us. Just because the parts don't know what the whole is doing, doesn't mean the whole doesn't know. (You can use a body as an analogy if you like... our cells were once discrete, self-contained units, but they integrated to form a higher mind that better ensured their survival.) If we are god, we can do what we want, and the outcome changes as we change it. You can't think of time in a linear sort of way to understand it... Because we are god, we have free will. But the whole knows what the net result of our changes are, in a cause/effect kind of way. Not only does the whole know, but the whole is capable of getting better, because we are capable of getting better, which in a way is better than being perfect... perfection is a static state, whereas a changing state might be imperfect, it can also get better. Which makes it more perfect.

ack, words fail

[johnsonwood]

Even if there were a god like the God which the believers claim exists, He, She or It is irrevevant, has always been irrelevant. And not only irrelevant but dangerous. It is the Believers who have always been responsible for the horrors that plague us humans.
Wouldn't you think that power, bounty and beauty of the earth would be enough for a rational species? Of course, who ever said homo sapiens was rational?

[tman_ndsu08]

This is why i'm agnostic.

No point in arguing if neither side has any proof supporting it.

[Stigmata66]

If god was jealous abotu Abraham's child then wouldn't GOD BE COMMITING A SIN ???? Lets look at the ten commandments. Remember people follow these principles by choice(most are good but some are shit).

I
I AM THE LORD YOUR GOD, YOU SHALL HAVE no other gods BEFORE ME.
I will be your autocrat, do what I say even if it's bullshit.


II
YOU SHALL NOT MISUSE THE NAME OF THE LORD YOUR GOD.
Limiting the speech of people; what an asshole.



III
REMEMBER THE SABBATH DAY BY KEEPING IT HOLY.
What an ego, Sunday is the day you all worship me. If he was a fair god he would have said worship when you can and respect my laws for you dont need a chruch to crowd into and beg for mercy.


IV
HONOR YOUR FATHER AND YOUR MOTHER.
Ok, respect your parents. First good one so far.


V
YOU SHALL NOT MURDER.
Well at least he's not a compelte idiot.


VI
YOU SHALL NOT COMMIT ADULTERY.
Another one that makes sense.



VII
YOU SHALL NOT STEAL.
Ok.


VIII
YOU SHALL NOT BEAR FALSE TESTIMONY AGAINST YOUR NEIGHBOR.
Don't lie, ok.


IX
YOU SHALL NOT COVET YOUR NEIGHBOR'S WIFE.
Derrrrr.


X
YOU SHALL NOT COVET YOUR NEIGHBOR'S GOODS.
Don't be jealous of your neighbors good or take them. Hmmm looks like someone's a little jealous and broke number 10!!!

[membower]

Stiggy,

You're assuming that God is himself bound by that law. However, only man is bound by that law (except for # 8).

It seems that the people who are whining about the Judeo-Christian God don't even understand the Judeo-Christian concept of ethics. GOD IS THE AUTHOR OF THE LAW! There is no higher authority to impose rules on God. Therefore, it's absurd to talk about God committing sins and doing evil if there is no one he is accountable to. He is necessarily good because he is the one who decides what's good and what's bad.

The only exception is when God promises that he will not do a certain thing. An instance of this would be the multiple times in the Bible where God claims he will never lie. He has thus placed a restriction on himself. But there is no one who imposes restrictions of God.

The mistake that several people are making in their arguments is to assume that there is an ethical standart that exists apart from God's decree, and that we can judge God by this standard.

Now, this clearly doesn't square with the Judeo-Christian concept of God, and thus all arguments that attempt to condemn God in the above manner are nonsensical.

The purpose of this post is simply to clarify: when arguing within the framework of Christian philosophy/theology, make sure you do so consistantly, and don't leave out important aspects.

[kellbing]

It is refreshing to read so many posts from people who share opinions similar to mine. I have found no proof or reason that I should believe in a god. I know many people do simply because they have been taught that one exists. Most believers need something to believe in, or are afraid not to believe. I am not burdened with that need. I take responsibility for my own actions and depend upon myself to get through tough times. I don't need to pray to god for strength. That would just show that I am weak.

[damnrad]

</span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (antayla,)
Hey howcome there isn't an "I don't care" vote?
Either God exists and is "perfect", God exists and is imperfect, or God doesn't exist. In the first, I figure a perfect God would create a perfect universe... so we are perfect too, in the second we have our futures in our own hands since we can't depend on God, and in the third it doesn't matter anyways.<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'>

One of the more-interesting opinions I've seen on here; and there aren't many. Of course, your assumptions can be wrong: e.g., a perfect god might decide to create an imperfect universe; and imperfect god might still do a good job, so be worth relying on; and so forth. But at least your view gives us something to chew over, unlike much of the dogma spewed by both the god-believers and god-unbelievers.

[damnrad]

</span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (tman_ndsu08,)
This is why i'm agnostic.

No point in arguing if neither side has any proof supporting it.<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'>

Oh, I agree that there's likely no hope of answering the questions. But there's always a point in arguing. What good does it do to be an agnostic if one doesn't argue with the believers in belief and believers in unbelief?

[Spyder Jerusalem]

</span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by
Main Entry: re·li·gion
Pronunciation: ri-'li-j&n<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'>

</span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by
***snip***<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'>
Is this supposed to mean something?
Please be more clear with your inconsistent quotes.
Y'know, like make'em mean something!

</span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by
Who's reality? Mine or yours? Using the dictionary only proves one of my unspoken assumptions, namely that language itself has objective meaning.<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'>
Oh shit, I love this part.
"You're wrong because language is objective."
Really, what your saying is:
"The dictionary definition doesn't fit my point, so I disregard it as true. The only truth is that which fits my lie."
</span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by
By appealing to this standard, you show yourself to be dependent on a unproven presupposition which you have taken on faith.<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'>
No, Dimbulb, I rely on language to make the point becaus that is how we humans discuss things.
Perhaps when we learn telepathy, this imperfect language that we suppose the meanings of will be obsolete.
But, not yet.
</span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by
I know that you will deny this, but the fact of the matter is that you have borrowed this from a belief system outside of atheism.<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'>
What belief system, babe?
The belief that language is all we have to express ideas?
Oh, yeah.
</span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by
Atheism, in all its impersonal and material glory, can recognize language but can't really account for it.<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'>
Now, this makes ZERO sense.
Clarify, if you can.
</span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by
Main Entry: phi·los·o·phy
2 a : pursuit of wisdom b : a search for a general understanding of values and reality by chiefly speculative rather than observational means c : an analysis of the grounds of and concepts expressing fundamental beliefs
3 a : a system of philosophical concepts b : a theory underlying or regarding a sphere of activity or thought <the philosophy of war> <philosophy of science

Well, well, looky there.
Seems as if atheism fits this definition quite well!
Point one demolished!<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'>
</span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by
Ah, not quite. Still borrowing an objective standard of meaning quite foreign to atheism, you then "prove" philosophy is atheistic. I hate to break it to you, but theologians do this kind of thing all the time and have been doing it for centuries. If anything, you show (once again) how atheism must borrow from other systems of thought (especially Christianity) to even function.<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'>
Now your really not making much sense?
Atheism "borrows" from christianity?
"borrowing an objective meaning"?
Gimme a freakin' break!
</span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by

Point two:

You christers are so freakin' funny!
You assume that just because I am atheist, that my disgust is rerserved exclusively for your puny "god".
Nope, sorry, wrongo bub!
I despise every concept of "god" ever invented, yes invented, by man for the purpose of controlling other men's actions.
That christers get their panties in a wad is incidental.
I submit that Yahweh, Allah, and all the rest are equally invalid and figments of the fevered dreams of empire-builders.<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'>

</span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by
That men would invent gods to suit their fancy is not foreign to the Bible at all and says more about man than it does God.<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'>
Ity says everything necessary about the will of Man and the LIE of "god".
The fact that men invented gods belies the ridiculous nature of "god" in general.
In fact, the christers' "god" is the most ridiculous of all, since they have been "modifying" their "god" to suit the state of the world.
That proves that it is a lie.
Isn't "god" supposed to be the same "yesterday, today, and forever"?
Whoops, more christer lies.
</span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by
And I find you atheists just as amusing. You use words like "puny", "invalid", "figments", as if you somehow bring the debate to your corner by insults. That's a pretty poor debating tactic and were I grading you, you would lose points. And I thought this site was about serious debate.<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'>
I nevert said I was debating, you did.
A "debate relies on their being TWO valid standpoints to argue.
I only see one, the nonexistence of "god".
Since you cannot prove "god" exists, except by using christer rhetoric, whereas I can prove there is no such thing using dictionary defined words and logical rhetoric, that just serves to prove my position even more.
This is not a debate, this is an education for poor deluded theists who persist in their fever-dreams.
</span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by
That is yet another limitation of the theist.
His inability to conceive of a positive moral outlook without a "god" to enforce it.
What a maroon.
My moral center is quite well, thanks, and has no need of an imaginary enforcer to keep me "honest".<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'>
</span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by
Keep the insults coming...you're bound to win!!<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'>
Don't you get it, christer?
I don't NEED to win!
I have already won, since the argument "for god" is BS, while the argument against is simply evident.
Occam's Razor, man, Occam's Razor.
Don't know what that is?
Look it up, brick.
</span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by
Your moral center is a joke because you are nothing more than a talking ape, friend.<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'>
Aren't we all, "friend", aren't we all?
</span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by
And somehow this moral center of yours does not prevent insulting those who differ in their opinions, since in the atheistic mindset, your moral code is about as good as my cat's.<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'>
I insult anyone I care to, bub, and it has nothing to do with an "atheistic mindset".
It has to do with being disgusted by deluded fools who persist in maintaining fantasies and living by propaganda and deceit.
</span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by
Of course my cat cannot type (yet) so we're stuck with your moralizing instead.<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'>
Give it a few million years.
Evolution is a beautiful thing, man.
As for my "moralizing".
I thought my "moral center" was a "joke".
Contradicting ourselves now?
Typical theist, especially a christer.
Their whole "religion" is contradictory.
</span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by
I am impressed that you would find slavery morally repugnant, despite your atheism.<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'>
Good.
You're not a complete idiot then.
</span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by
But cut the act - you don't believe in objective standards of behavior so don't go importing my Christian belief into your atheistic mindset.<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'>
Hey, just because i believe your "god" is bullshit, don't go claiming that your "morality" is unique to christers.
That's just bull.
Buddhists despise slavery too, did they "steal" or "import" your christer "belief" into their "mindset"?
In fact, I seem to remember a bunch of christers in Japan, around the 1600's, rounding up a buncha Buddhists and m,aking them slaves, simply because they refused to fight back.
Now who's evil?
Didn't your Yeshua Ben Yusef say to "turn the other cheek".
Why haven't the christers EVER believed that?
More lies from the christers.
Typical.
</span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by
It's terribly unbecoming for the godless.<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'>
What's terribly "unbecoming" is your persistence in believing a lie.
Wake up!
</span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by
Yet, not even the "god of israel" thought so, nor his followers.
</span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by
What does that say about the christers' "moral center", huh?<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'>
Slavery is regulated by the Bible, just like every area of life it speaks to. But what's so compelling about your moral standard, as opposed to the Bible's? Why is yours so much superior? Especially since you haven't said why slavery is repugnant, only that you don't like it.<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'>
Christers don't have a monopoly on the "golden rule", and the "bible" wasn't even the first place it was stated.
Hindus and Buddhists were talking about compassion based on self-love long before the Jews, dude.
Its a shame that I have to give you an education on comparative religion, but it seems that you are a proud recipient of "no child left behind" educational poliices, so I guess you can't be blamed.
</span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by
Compassion? Give me a break. Survival of the fittest man!! Damn the torpedoes!! No accountability except to self; that's ultimately what atheistic morality is and no amount of whining about it changes this.<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'>
Exactly the kind of bullshit I would expect from a christer.
This is the philosophy they have followed for 2000 years, so I don't expect any different from you.
And no, I don't think you were being sarcastic, since the christers really do feel that way.
They say differently, but they lie, yet again.
Again, typical.
</span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by
The Catholic Church were some of the biggest slave traders in Europe, and went deep into Africa to claim new, warm bodies, yet none of them thought that "god" might not like it, did they?
Hypocrits and liars.<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'>
</span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by
Actually to the Church's great shame, I freely admit that many things contrary to the Bible were accomplished in God's name. But once again, this says more about the sinfulness of man than it does about the existence of God.<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'>
"god" exists because man exists, not vice versa.
There is no sinfulness on the part of mna, because that assumes a judge where none exists.
We judge ourselves.
</span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by
If you really want to talk about blights on history, how about a survey of the consistent atheism of the communists? 190 million dead in the 20th century alone - great record.<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'>
Those are the result of bad political philosophy, very simply.
Y'know, Hitler was a CATHOLIC, and persisted in calling himself a "christian", and he's got Stalin beat all to hell, man.
Then there's the Crusdades, and the Inquisition, as well as what is known as the "Christian Wars" during the reformation.
Sorry, but, you are wrong about "atheists".
Christers have, historically, killed WAY more people for their "god" than any atheist ever killed for lack of one.
And that's just a fact.
History.
Try reading more, babe!
</span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by
There is nothing logical about "faith" in a "god", bub, yet the argument against it is infinitely logical.
Try arguing from an existential point of view, and you might understand.
But, I doubt it.<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'>
</span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by
Logic proceeds from a set of unproven assumptions, which you keep borrowing from somewhere else. Please stop taking things that don't belong to you.<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'>
This, quite simply, is a crock o' shite, bub.
If you wanna argue, fine.
Just don't be so damned ignorant, okay?
It's quite frustrating to have to educate you in simple logic and such.
How old are you, anyway?
</span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by
The existential pov is interesting but not very compelling because ultimately its too personal to make a dent when debating logic. I was once an existential atheist, not an intellectual one, but existential atheism is exhausting to the mind.<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'>
Not at all.
Perhaps you just have a WEAK MIND!
Didja ever consider that?
Of course not.
Your weak mind wouldn't let ya.
Typical.
</span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by
Weak? Perhaps, but suicide started looking like a good answer since ultimately, there are none in the atheist's life.<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'>
The big problem is that you seem to be looking for answers, while I'm not.
Perhaps you should be satisfied with being ignorant, and led by others, rather than an independent thinker.
It seems to make you happy.

</span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by
Nothing exists for which there is no proof, it can only be "supposed" or "theorized", then we strive to prove the theory.
The existence of a "deity" cannot be proved, therefore does not exist, until it can be.
Simple.<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'>

</span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by
God's non-existence cannot be proved either. <hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'>
It doesn't need to be.
It is not necessary to prove the NON-EXISTENCE of something, brick!
Now that's just dumb.
Prove there aren't 15' tall purple bunny rabbits on the dark side of the Moon planning to invade Earth.
Damn, I can't believe I'm taking this much time to educate you on the finer points of critical thinking.
</span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by
Simple. But like I already challenged in my first post, you cannot "prove" your own existence. Does this mean you don't exist? I could be sitting here talking to myself...<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'>
</span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by
Primitive men believed the Earth was flat, till it was proved it wasn't.
They also believed the Earth was the center of the universe, till it was PROVED otherwise.<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'>
Specious and immaterial.
You are trying to drag the question down into the mire of your own theism.
Get back to reality.
</span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by
I won't go into a history lesson here but its obvious the government had a hand in your education. And your assertion above PROVES it.<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'>
Whoops!
Now you really sound stupid.
So I guess you believe the Earth is the center of the Universe, and it's flat aa a tabletop, huh?
Oh, and it's square, right?
Four corners of the world and all that, huh?
Oh shit, I'm talking to a real squib now.
"Government education"?
Aaaaaaaaaggggggghhhhh.
Somebody stop me from really goin' off on this dweeb.
</span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by
The christers must "prove" the existence of their "god" otherwise it does not exist.
Again, simple.<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'>
</span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by
I don't have to prove anything - God exists whether we like it or not, and certainly whether you believe it or not.<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'>
Then you acknowledge that your "god" could just as easily be a figment of your limited imagination and/or a result of conditioning and propaganda furthered by other christers with an agenda to make more theist morons?
Good.
That's a start then.
</span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by
Was this supposed to mean something?
Try again, and this time try to actually say something that means something.<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'>
</span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by
Ok...I'll use small words this time.<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'>
</span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by
Atheism is based on unproven assumptions, and I will freely grant that Christianity is as well. Given this simple proposition, I must assume your pov and you mine, in order to show inconsistencies and contradictions in each system of thought. Thus far, you have attempted to disprove god, religion, whatever, using ideas and concepts foreign to atheism. This is a no-no; you cannot debate this way.<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'>
This is a "no-no"
I "cannot" debate this way?
Puh-leeze!
Get real, bubeleh.
"Let there be no moaning at the bar."
You need to read up on debate, I think.
Using your own reasoning against you is perfect tactics, babe.
</span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by
using ideas and concepts foreign to atheism.<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'>
Which ones are those, exactly?

You see, you have picked the wrong guy to argue this shite with, man.
I was a Monk for a few years, as well as a theology student looking to get a Doc of Divinity.
I was gonna be a priest.
Till I "saw the light" and the lies, and the hypocrisy.
I hope someday you do too.

[damnrad]

</span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (Stigmata66,)
If god was jealous abotu Abraham's child then wouldn't GOD BE COMMITING A SIN ???? Lets look at the ten commandments. Remember people follow these principles by choice(most are good but some are shit).<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'>

I don't know. If there is a god, does god get to decide what sin is? If not, is such jealousy a sin?

</span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (Stigmata66,)

I
I AM THE LORD YOUR GOD, YOU SHALL HAVE no other gods BEFORE ME.
I will be your autocrat, do what I say even if it's bullshit.<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'>

Maybe it's just concern with identity theft. ;-)

</span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (Stigmata66,)

II
YOU SHALL NOT MISUSE THE NAME OF THE LORD YOUR GOD.
Limiting the speech of people; what an asshole. <hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'>

See #1 above.

</span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (Stigmata66,)

III
REMEMBER THE SABBATH DAY BY KEEPING IT HOLY.
What an ego, Sunday is the day you all worship me. If he was a fair god he would have said worship when you can and respect my laws for you dont need a chruch to crowd into and beg for mercy.<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'>

Hey, those ancient Hebrews didn't have labor unions or wage-and-hour laws -- they needed some way to get a day off once in a while.

</span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (Stigmata66,)

IV
HONOR YOUR FATHER AND YOUR MOTHER.
Ok, respect your parents. First good one so far.<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'>

Except the envelope often got pushed a bit too far by power-hungry patriarchs.

And it gets extended to obeying civil authority, which is fine until you get power-hungry politicians. So revolutionaries attack the concept -- until they get enough power to be power-humgry revolutionaries.

All in all, not a bad concept, but it should always be taken with a grain of salt.

</span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (Stigmata66,)

V
YOU SHALL NOT MURDER.
Well at least he's not a compelte idiot.<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'>

Yeah, but then we get into definitional issues. If someone is trying to murder you and can only be stopped by killing, is such self-defense murder? Is there such a thing as a just war?

</span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (Stigmata66,)

VI
YOU SHALL NOT COMMIT ADULTERY.
Another one that makes sense.<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'>

Again, we get into definitional issues. Does this literally mean, as many would have it, that one must abide for the rest of one's life by a decision confirmed by a community, religious, or civil affirmation -- no matter how much situations, and people, change? And remember that not all marriages, even today, are made by mutual consent. Or does it simply mean that would should abide by current agreements so long as they are mutually acceptable? Grains of salt.

</span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (Stigmata66,)

VII
YOU SHALL NOT STEAL.
Ok.<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'>

Again, one gets into definitional issues. Can one take food if one needs it to live -- if so, does it matter whether or not that food was essential to the owner's own life? Even the Old Testiment sometimes seems to allow that one can take what one needs to live, under some circumstances. So, perhaps even what to do with grains should be dealt with ... with a grain of salt.

</span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (Stigmata66,)

VIII
YOU SHALL NOT BEAR FALSE TESTIMONY AGAINST YOUR NEIGHBOR.
Don't lie, ok.<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'>

This one also has always been subject to interpretation. Does one have to always blab the truth? Can one purposely mislead without directly speaking an untruth? Can one tell an untruth in order to avert a worse evil? Yeah, we use a lot of salt on this one; but a lot of salt tears have been shed over some of those grains.

</span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (Stigmata66,)
IX
YOU SHALL NOT COVET YOUR NEIGHBOR'S WIFE.
Derrrrr.<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'>

Darn, there goes all our fun.

But where's the coveting line lay? Can one appreciate but still not covet?

</span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (Stigmata66,)
X
YOU SHALL NOT COVET YOUR NEIGHBOR'S GOODS.
Don't be jealous of your neighbors good or take them. Hmmm looks like someone's a little jealous and broke number 10!!!<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'>

Well, there goes our entire economy. And let's face it: much of the fun of having some things is so that others will covet them.

Taking them would seem to come under stealing, so this one seems to say to not even THINK about such things. Or does it just mean to not obsess over them, to be resentful about them, and so on?

All in all, many of the 10 Suggestions likely do record some hard-won moral lessons from various civilizations, but they must always be interpreted in terms of a civilization and its times.

And by the way, I see that you use the 'Catholic' version of the 10 Suggestions: two covets and no problem with graven images. Well, that does keep the purely-religious ones down to 3, rather than 4.

[damnrad]

</span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (membower,)
Stiggy,

You're assuming that God is himself bound by that law. However, only man is bound by that law (except for # 8).

It seems that the people who are whining about the Judeo-Christian God don't even understand the Judeo-Christian concept of ethics. GOD IS THE AUTHOR OF THE LAW! There is no higher authority to impose rules on God. Therefore, it's absurd to talk about God committing sins and doing evil if there is no one he is accountable to. He is necessarily good because he is the one who decides what's good and what's bad.

The only exception is when God promises that he will not do a certain thing. An instance of this would be the multiple times in the Bible where God claims he will never lie. He has thus placed a restriction on himself. But there is no one who imposes restrictions of God.

The mistake that several people are making in their arguments is to assume that there is an ethical standart that exists apart from God's decree, and that we can judge God by this standard.

Now, this clearly doesn't square with the Judeo-Christian concept of God, and thus all arguments that attempt to condemn God in the above manner are nonsensical. <hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'>

Not necessarily. It could be that the JC concept is the nonsensical concept, and attempts to condemn the JC god perfectly sensical. In fact, the issue of whether morality is just what God decrees or whether God is also bound by it is itself a question debated by theologians. And you yourself fall afowl of the problem when you exempt God from Suggestion #8 (by the Catholic count). If morality really is whatever God decrees, then God is in no way bound not to lie.

So, should we judge the morality of different peoples' concepts of god? I argue that we certainly should. No, our ethics are not absolute; but a hard-won sense of ethics should be respected, else there's no use in having it. So I DO judge concepts of god that are pushed in terms of my sense of ethics. What I find is that many religious believers are what I term 'monster worshippers' -- their concepts of god are so monstruous that the concepts can only reflect poorly on the believers; the gods they worship are so monstrous that if they are actually correct, I am better off not knowing it. Think of the gods of the Aztecs, to which so many human sacrifices were offered every year. Now, I find just as abhorent the god worshipped by Fred Phelps, and nearly so that claimed by Jerry Falwell.