Do you believe in God? (1 Viewer)

[smeethaj]

Re: Do you believe is God?

the whole point about observing and questioning belief is not necessarily whether it is the truth or not, but what the effects are of holding it to be so (truth effects). see the following.

"Michigan's state Senate has passed an anti-bullying law which contains a GOP mandated exemption for bullying which has a "religious or moral basis."

yer :S
so wats your point? what exactly are your trying to say?

 

[funkshen]

Re: Do you believe is God?

yer :S
so wats your point? what exactly are your trying to say?

if you ignore it, it wont go away

 

[smeethaj]

Re: Do you believe is God?

if you ignore it, it wont go away

no one said it would
just that by proving god doesnt exist all your really doing is convincing everyone who either already agrees with you or is unsure. these are the people whose actions affects you the least. the ones with high religious values are the ones whos actions really affect you negatively, to whom, proving that god doesnt exist isnt going to effect their beliefs in the slightest. or rather, i highly doubt it would.

 

[funkshen]

Re: Do you believe is God?

your premise, that anyone who is ever going to be convinced is unsure or already agreed with you, is not falsifiable. i also suspect it is incorrect given that many resolute atheists have converted to theism and vice versa. you are either making a very poor apatheist argument, but more likely a nihilistic argument.

the point of any 'atheist project' is not necessarily to prove god does'nt exist (indeed, this is logically a supertask, and thus impossible). but the notion that the unsure 'affect [me] the least' simply isn't true, as it is these many fickle people that might be persuaded by any number of moral discourses. likewise, non-believers continue to be subject to numerous forms of religious/moral legislation, e.g. in Michigan, which surely draw on the support of the unsure and sure alike.

i'm clearly not arguing for belligerent or antagonistic atheism. but as i have said, if you ignore religion, it won't go away. and it is a problem.

 

[smeethaj]

Re: Do you believe is God?

your premise, that anyone who is ever going to be convinced is unsure or already agreed with you, is not falsifiable. i also suspect it is incorrect given that many resolute atheists have converted to theism and vice versa. you are either making a very poor apatheist argument, but more likely a nihilistic argument.

i didnt say everyone, i was just generalising. appologies for that. but you have as little grounds for making that judgement as i have of making otherwise.

the point of any 'atheist project' is not necessarily to prove god does'nt exist (indeed, this is logically a supertask, and thus impossible). but the notion that the unsure 'affect [me] the least' simply isn't true, as it is these many fickle people that might be persuaded by any number of moral discourses. likewise, non-believers continue to be subject to numerous forms of religious/moral legislation, e.g. in Michigan, which surely draw on the support of the unsure and sure alike.

i'm clearly not arguing for belligerent or antagonistic atheism. but as i have said, if you ignore religion, it won't go away. and it is a problem.

your so keen to point out the negative repercussions of a religious persons beliefs. would it really be that ludicrous for me to suggest that some degree of religious faith is not actually a bad thing but a good thing?

maybe you are right to suggest that about the fickle minded, but in proving to them otherwise what difference is it really going to make. wouldnt a fickle minded person still be as easily 'persuaded by any number of moral discourses' as a non-believer as they would as a believer?
(by the way, what are you trying to achieve exactly? World peace? :S)

so much of the modern world is based upon the religious/moral beliefs of the past. correct me if im mistaken but as a human being im assuming you have some degree of personal morals even if you dont realise that many of these morals have some form of religious origins. likewise politics based on religious/moral ideals are not always negative in nature. republican congressman ron paul for example. his political ideals convey an anti-war, humanitarian and somewhat idealisitc stance which, despite its questionable qualities, is still mostly commendable irrespective of its religious origins.
Religion when misinterpreted is troublesome. what it originally intends is not. i would think you would be more successful in helping people interpret their religious faiths correctly than by proving otherwise.

oh and just for the record, i know you probably dont care, but my beliefs may not qualify me as an apatheist but i highly doubt i qualify as a nihilist either.

 

[funkshen]

Re: Do you believe is God?

i didnt say everyone, i was just generalising. appologies for that. but you have as little grounds for making that judgement as i have of making otherwise.

I have evidence of the conversion of both resolute atheists and theists. You do not have evidence of the contrary. I'm not saying it's easy to change peoples minds, or that it happens all the time, but it does happen. And unlike you, I don't make unfalsifiable claims as to why this happens.

your so keen to point out the negative repercussions of a religious persons beliefs. would it really be that ludicrous for me to suggest that some degree of religious faith is not actually a bad thing but a good thing?

Strawman much? I never suggested otherwise. Faith is, by definition, a gamble, and is therefore bound to have positive and negative repercussions. This does not in turn justify religion, which indeed does not have a monopoly on faith. A secular humanist might have a faith in the good will of humanity. Faith is important to some, but religious faith is only necessary for the purpose of religion.

maybe you are right to suggest that about the fickle minded, but in proving to them otherwise what difference is it really going to make. wouldnt a fickle minded person still be as easily 'persuaded by any number of moral discourses' as a non-believer as they would as a believer?

which just goes to show how ridiculous morality is (see theories of truth)

correct me if im mistaken but as a human being im assuming you have some degree of personal morals even if you dont realise that many of these morals have some form of religious origins.

I can't be sure of my personal morals. But why do you assume a religious origin, and if this is the case, where did religious morals originate from?

likewise politics based on religious/moral ideals are not always negative in nature. republican congressman ron paul for example. his political ideals convey an anti-war, humanitarian and somewhat idealisitc stance which, despite its questionable qualities, is still mostly commendable irrespective of its religious origins.

Ron Paul's political morality is based on Jeffersonian republicanism and the natural laws of liberty. In this he differs remarkably from his colleagues that share his Baptist morality yet endorse far different policies. He is commendable for his consistency and humanitarian values, not his religious morality, which may have informed them.

Religion when misinterpreted is troublesome. what it originally intends is not. i would think you would be more successful in helping people interpret their religious faiths correctly than by proving otherwise.

Correct interpretations? Rubbish. What right have you to declare that any person of faith "isn't doing it right." There are no objective conditions to determine this. Of course, different persons can communicate their beliefs and try to explain why they think others are doing it wrong, but this debases the notion of absolute moral truth (which is rather moral debate).

oh and just for the record, i know you probably dont care, but my beliefs may not qualify me as an apatheist but i highly doubt i qualify as a nihilist either.

I didn't say you were a nihilist. I said that rather than an apathetic attitude, you, you exhibit a nihilistic approach (despair, hopelessness, nothing we can do about it, people will be people). You think there's nothing that can be done about it and religious morality is absolutely entrenched (explain the worldwide rise in nonbelief) whereas an apatheist is not interesting in accepting or denying claims that god does or doesn't exist due to the practical irrelevance of such existence. I agree with this apatheist position - it doesn't matter whether god exists, however it matters that people believe in all sorts of other gods anyways, and in doing so perpetually impose on others.

 

[Subhas Bose]

Re: Do you believe is God?

^ check ur pms brah

 

[funkshen]

Re: Do you believe is God?

i wont have pms for another few weeks atleast br8

 

[katie tully]

Re: Do you believe is God?

wat da hell

someone give me a 25 words or less summary of the last page

cbf

 

[Garygaz]

Re: Do you believe is God?

god punishes those who he makes intelligent and those who search for actual evidence of him with an eternity in hell

 

[smeethaj]

Re: Do you believe is God?

I have evidence of the conversion of both resolute atheists and theists. You do not have evidence of the contrary. I'm not saying it's easy to change peoples minds, or that it happens all the time, but it does happen. And unlike you, I don't make unfalsifiable claims as to why this happens.

if i had said anyone and everyone as you seem to percieve then you'd be correct in saying my claims are unfalsifiable. however i made a general statement which intended to say exactly what youve expressed. that is "its not easy to change a persons beliefs". my claims as to why this happens however is more general in nature than specific.

Strawman much? I never suggested otherwise. Faith is, by definition, a gamble, and is therefore bound to have positive and negative repercussions. This does not in turn justify religion, which indeed does not have a monopoly on faith. A secular humanist might have a faith in the good will of humanity. Faith is important to some, but religious faith is only necessary for the purpose of religion.
I can't be sure of my personal morals. But why do you assume a religious origin, and if this is the case, where did religious morals originate from?

faith in the 'good will of humanity'? define the 'good will of humanity'. if your talking about moral/ethically based faith then id like to point out that the very concept of morality is intrinsic to religion as religion is to the concept of morality. religious faith, in its direct most obvious form, is only nessesary for the purposes of religion. its influences in an indirect manner expand much greater than this. e.g. loyalty within the confinds of a relationship is an ethically accepted normality within modern society irrespect of your religious faith. however this social norm, and in turn its reflection in the legal systems refusal to accept polygamy, is influenced by religious perceptions and values though not in as clear a manner as the michigan legislation. as to the origins of religious faith however, i dont know. im guessing whoever invented a sense of faith. but i really haven't the faintest clue.

Ron Paul's political morality is based on Jeffersonian republicanism and the natural laws of liberty. In this he differs remarkably from his colleagues that share his Baptist morality yet endorse far different policies. He is commendable for his consistency and humanitarian values, not his religious morality, which may have informed them.

and what is "jeffersonian republicanism and the nautral laws of liberty' based upon? i think your failing to recognise the relationship between humanitarian values and religious morality.

Correct interpretations? Rubbish. What right have you to declare that any person of faith "isn't doing it right." There are no objective conditions to determine this. Of course, different persons can communicate their beliefs and try to explain why they think others are doing it wrong, but this debases the notion of absolute moral truth (which is rather moral debate).

true. i guess i do have no right to say that. appologies if it offended anyone. what i intended wat rather to attempt to promote various religious faiths in its purest most accepting form.

I didn't say you were a nihilist. I said that rather than an apathetic attitude, you, you exhibit a nihilistic approach (despair, hopelessness, nothing we can do about it, people will be people). You think there's nothing that can be done about it and religious morality is absolutely entrenched (explain the worldwide rise in nonbelief) whereas an apatheist is not interesting in accepting or denying claims that god does or doesn't exist due to the practical irrelevance of such existence. I agree with this apatheist position - it doesn't matter whether god exists, however it matters that people believe in all sorts of other gods anyways, and in doing so perpetually impose on others.

i think youve completely misinterpreted my argument. not your fault, rather mine for failing to express myself accuratly. i never really intended to even suggest to begin with that a religious persons perspectives should ideally be changed even though i accept that some religious perspectives have negative represcussions. rather ideally we should prevent the negative repercussions of religion as much as possible without thwating the religious faith itself. this is what i believe is difficult to achieve, and this is what i believe is a failed mission(esspecially when we have some relgious faiths demanding that there is only one way to achieveing spiritual salvation and all other approaches are sin). i never said religious morality is absolutly intrenched, i said that religion is intrenched in the concept of morality(and vis versa) irrespective of whether your a believer or not. im not accepting or denying the existance/nonexistance of god. rather i maintain as i initially expressed that an individuals relgious faith is inconsequencial. every individual is entitled to believe whatever they wish so long as the negative repercussions on others arnt there. one possible attempt to achieving this would be to promote various religions in their most peaceful and accepting form. but i guess even that on a large scale will only have minimal results.

 

[Charles Bean]

Re: Do you believe is God?

I think i subconsciously believe that God exists. I don't want him to, I try and convince myself he doesn't, but in the end I feel like there is a God. However, I don't like God. I think he's a fuckwit.

 

[scuba_steve2121]

Re: Do you believe is God?

I think i subconsciously believe that God exists. I don't want him to, I try and convince myself he doesn't, but in the end I feel like there is a God. However, I don't like God. I think he's a fuckwit.

don't be a shit cunt and disespect the name of Charles Edwin Woodrow Bean, by making it your user k?, thanx

 

[Blastus]

Re: Do you believe is God?

 

[Blastus]

Re: Do you believe is God?

 

[Subhas Bose]

Re: Do you believe is God?

lol

gross

 

[Graney]

Re: Do you believe is God?

faith in the 'good will of humanity'? define the 'good will of humanity'. if your talking about moral/ethically based faith then id like to point out that the very concept of morality is intrinsic to religion as religion is to the concept of morality. religious faith, in its direct most obvious form, is only nessesary for the purposes of religion. its influences in an indirect manner expand much greater than this. e.g. loyalty within the confinds of a relationship is an ethically accepted normality within modern society irrespect of your religious faith. however this social norm, and in turn its reflection in the legal systems refusal to accept polygamy, is influenced by religious perceptions and values though not in as clear a manner as the michigan legislation. as to the origins of religious faith however, i dont know. im guessing whoever invented a sense of faith. but i really haven't the faintest c

i don't think monogamy is a very good example of something that is accepted irrespective of your religious faith. Plenty of modern societies accept polygamy. For youth in the modern west, in many relationships loyalty is a peripheral concern.

 

[RANK 1]

Re: Do you believe is God?

hahahaha damn, thats just nasty

 

[Subhas Bose]

Re: Do you believe is God?

oUCH

OUCH

 

[Subhas Bose]

Re: Do you believe is God?