Dear God...

[stuartj]

Originally posted by Lothar
Why God must be removed from public discourse:

1. If moral absolutes can be exclusively associated with God and religion, then they can be discounted under the perverted, and incorrect I might add, notion of separation of church and state. Then moral relativism can prevail and everyone can do what feels right to them.

2. If God is "The Creator", and rights are endowed by our creator, then removing God eliminates our individual rights. Then government is free to decide what rights people can have. Socialist and totalitarian government cannot be far.

1. So, if the idea that there is a god is the only thing that stops you killin', rapin' amd lootin' is it? If you thought there was no god keeping an eye on you, that you'd be of to hell? Dont think id like to live near you.

2.If God is the creator. See, theres your problem, right there....That noise you hear is your Founding Fathers turning in their graves. LOL.

[Victor]

Originally posted by stuartj
...........it is very unlikely that god exists. I cannot conclusively say god, or the faeries in my garden for that matter, doesnt exist ofcourse............

What about Gremlins? In particular those of the electrical variety. Surely you believe in those.

Mine seem to be temporarily exorcised.

[Jeff Higgins]

Originally posted by stuartj
God is not fair, or anything else, Jeff. Because it is very unlikely that god exists. I cannot conclusively say god, or the faeries in my garden for that matter, doesnt exist ofcourse, but your proposition that this god exists and is so complex as to have created the universe and everything in it, and can at the same time monitor the concisuoness of all we humans and make judegments as to whether he will break his own cosmic rules (or not) when we ask- immeadiately poses the even BIGGER question....where did this god come from?

"Your rememberances of this life on earth will be as those you hold today of your early childhood. This life is a shadow of what is to come."

You know this how, Jeff? Superstitious, dangerous claptrap.

You are the perfect candidate for the Dawkins challenge Jeff. I dont think you are as far gone as Trekker or Doug. Read "the God Delusion."

Hell, I'll buy it for you.

Actually, I have been meaning to read that one, Stuart.

Just to be clear on a small point (or two) I really do not think He has the ability to, or would be bothered with, monitoring our every thought. I have said elswhere I do not believe He is "omnipotent". I see evidence for that in the very Bible that many would have you believe "proves" His existance.

The other point is that I readily admit that I "know" nothing. And I can prove it... I am admittedly making suppositions based on my interpretation of the evidence I have seen. Some of that evidence is quite strong, some is exceedingly weak. But they are my suppositions; I would never deign to impose them upon another. Everyone needs to arrive at their own; mine are my own, and no one else can have them, thank you very much.

I put as much stock in your suppositions as anyone else's, believe it or not. I will debate yours with you, and I will debate my fellow Christians' over theirs. I'll learn from both; at least I hope I will. I can do that because the cornerstone of my beliefs are that I don't know anything for sure. I can guess; I can hope. In the end that's all it is. My guesses and hopes are different than yours, that's all. Can I "prove" any of it? Hardly. Then again, neither can you. Or anyone else for that matter.

[Lothar]

Originally posted by stuartj
1. So, if the idea that there is a god is the only thing that stops you killin', rapin' amd lootin' is it? If you thought there was no god keeping an eye on you, that you'd be of to hell? Dont think id like to live near you.

2.If God is the creator. See, theres your problem, right there....That noise you hear is your Founding Fathers turning in their graves. LOL.

Stuart,

Can you even read. How you arrived at your response from what I wrote is mind-boggling.

Point 1. That is not even remotely what I said. Please read again and more carefully. Let me give you an example of my first point. "Thou shalt not kill" and "Thou shalt not steal" are bad because they are from the Bible. Yet, are they bad precepts on which to create order in a society simply because their source is of a religious nature?

Point 2. You can call "The Creator" by whatever name you want. The Founding Fathers were the product of the Judeo-Christian beliefs. The point is that rights and freedom are not bestowed upon individuals by the government.

[kang]

Originally posted by Jeff Higgins
"No doubt", huh? You make a lot of baseless assumptions. You actually could not be further off on this one. Go ahead and convince yourself you know what I would say to any given point you raise. You have been quite universally wrong up to this point. You are lumping me in with your perceived stereotype of Christians; a stereotype clearly born of theological ignorance mixed liberally with a good deal of prejudice.

Actually, I think I have adequately demonstrated elswhere that my mind is open to "both" answers. You have demonstrated quite convincingly that yours is not. You divide the "theological" from the "common sense" while readily admitting you don't know one hell of a lot about the theological. You debate a subject in which you have admitted limited knowledge. I guess that doesn't keep you from having well-formed opinions about it, though.

I think I'm gaining some measure of additional insight into what makes the common atheist tick. If you are any example, it appears to be the same thing that makes the common Christian tick. A less than cursory understanding of the basic tenets of "the other side". A somewhat more complete understanding of the basic tenets of "your side", although falling well short of the recognized "experts". An unwillingness to explore "the other side", because you already feel as though you know enough about it to make an informed choice. A respected "leadership" on your side that says the other side is bad. You can't understand all of their justifications for their claims, but you buy into them none the less. Granted, there are those on both sides whose knowledge of both their own and the other side's arguments are either greatly above or below the norm, but I'm addressing the "average Joe". The similarities are remarkable.

Again, if you would like to speak intelligently about theology, like any other somewhat complex topic, it would behoove you to do one thing first. Go learn about it. It is very frustrating to try to carry on a conversation with one who desires to discuss subject matter with which he is not familiar. It really bogs down the whole process. You are making incorrect assumptions, basing challenges upon your own missunderstandings, and finally holding fast to some very unfortunate stereotypes. This topic seems to interest you. Follow that interest and explore it.

First, the “you have not been chosen” comment was really directed at Doug. He is the major proponent of that argument, not you. Sorry, I got my posts and threads mixed up, and was probably replying to two posts at once, at least in my mind.

The rest of your post was a major attempt at discrediting me, and I don’t really appreciate that. If anything “bogs down the whole process” it’s that. I also detect a lot of anger, but maybe that’s just because it is Monday morning. Are you really angry? Why? Did I touch a nerve?

You say I have been quite universally wrong up to this point. That is not even remotely true. For one thing, this is a topic that is ripe for personal opinion. Look at all the opinions from the believers. They are all over the map, from people like you, far removed from mainstream Christianity, to those who take every word in the bible literally, and everything in between. You say to study theology, but what aspect of it? Yours? The “bible is literal” approach? Something in the middle? From my perspective, there are many different theological answers to any given question.

This is what I see from my perspective. Take the theological question, “why doesn’t god heal amputees?” I see many theological answers to this. First, the miracle is in the abilities of the physicians. Another answer was “why would he want to” or god gave the physicians the brains to learn the skills in medical school or prevented the physician from getting hit by a bus. Someone else says the miracle is in the removal of the limb in the first place, which saved the persons life. There are more and more along the same lines. If you check youtube, you can see responses to the video. There are literally dozens of answers to this question. Why so many theological answers, and which is the correct one? Because there are so many answers, to me, they are all wrong. To me, the simplest, most common sense answer is the correct one. There is no god.

Yes, it is just my opinion, but it seems really absurd to say that a physician is able to heal a patient because god prevented the physician from getting hit by a bus. It just seems absurd that god won’t help school children because we have separation of church and state. The people who take the bible 100% literally just seem absurd to me.

No, I am no theological expert, but every theological answer I see just seems absurd. The correct theological answer seems to be whatever works for the person making it. Perhaps they are not theological experts either. It is just so much simpler if you “unplug” from the matrix, take the red pill, and realize that there is no god. None of this complex theological stuff is required.

To sum up, whenever I see a theological answer, there is always, and I really mean always, a common sense answer that doesn’t require a god.

[Jeff Higgins]

Kang, I'm sorry. I'm neither angry at you nor trying to discredit you in any way. Please accept my appology if what I said came accross like that; it wasn't meant to.

I'm merely trying to point out the absurdity, from a theological standpoint, of the video you linked. It attacks the existance of God on theological grounds, using the Bible as its resource. It attempts to disprove the existance of God by using scripture itself. Every bit as ridiculous as trying to prove the existance of God by using the Bible; many of you have objected to that (and I do too). So why do you find it acceptable to use it to disprove His existance?

All I am trying to say is that you would understand the absurdity of the points raised in that video if you had a more solid understanding of theology. The alleged "contradictions" or "inconsistancies" it tries to point out simply do not exist. They are based upon common missunderstandings held by those who have no theological foundation on which to stand. If you had that foundation, we could move right past this kind of nonsense and into some meaningful discussion. It is at this level that I see this conversation as "bogged down". Again, I would implore you to actually study the subject matter which you choose to debate.

[kang]

Jeff,

I think you may have missed the point of that video. He’s not trying to prove that god does not exist, as that is just as impossible as proving that the FSM doesn’t exist. Instead, he is pointing out how much simpler things are when you take the stance that there is no god. You might want to watch it again with this in mind. I just watched it again myself, and yes, a couple of the questions are absurd, but most seem like valid questions to me. Also, he is addressing mainstream Christianity, which you are not a proponent of. Some of these questions do not apply to your god. Some can be answered with “that’s just a metaphor” which is a good answer to you and me, but not to those who take the bible literally.

One of the best examples of this is the age old question, why does evil exist. This takes many forms, like why do bad things happen to good people. I’ve heard numerous theological answers to the evil question, mostly along the lines of we need evil to understand what good is. I’ve also heard many answers to why bad things happen to good people. They relate to god’s plans, or he is testing you, etc. Isn’t it far simpler to just say that bad things happen to all people at the same statistical rate, and be done with it? Why do you need to create some rationalization?

Another example of this from the video is question 5, why is god such a huge proponent of slavery in the bible? I’m sure there is some complicated theological explanation of this, but isn’t it far simpler just to say that the bible was written by men, not some all-knowing, loving being? Why rationalize why a loving, caring god would advocate slavery?

What was your point in the original post in this thread? You listed some students that god did not help because they were in school. There are plenty of students outside school, in the hospital, beaten by their parents, starving in Africa, etc, that god is not helping? You know this, why did you raise this question? I should mention that this stance about god in school is a pretty mainstream Christian position. You have clearly distanced yourself from them. I thought you didn’t think that god performed miracles or muddled with our daily affairs. Another thought I had about you is why have you distanced yourself from mainstream Christians?

[nostatic]

Originally posted by Icemaster
Who is this "God" of which you all speak.....?

it's Tabs. But don't tell anyone. If peoplel find out they'll come here and suck up allthe bandwidth. Then he'll get popular and head off to some bigger and better bbs.

hmmm....

[Jeff Higgins]

Originally posted by kang
Jeff,

One of the best examples of this is the age old question, why does evil exist. This takes many forms, like why do bad things happen to good people. I’ve heard numerous theological answers to the evil question, mostly along the lines of we need evil to understand what good is. I’ve also heard many answers to why bad things happen to good people. They relate to god’s plans, or he is testing you, etc. Isn’t it far simpler to just say that bad things happen to all people at the same statistical rate, and be done with it? Why do you need to create some rationalization?

I have heard it argued that evil is the absence of good. Kind of like there is no "darkness"; it is the absence of light. Chew on that one for awhile.

Originally posted by kang
Another example of this from the video is question 5, why is god such a huge proponent of slavery in the bible? I’m sure there is some complicated theological explanation of this, but isn’t it far simpler just to say that the bible was written by men, not some all-knowing, loving being? Why rationalize why a loving, caring god would advocate slavery?

The "slavery" of the Bible is far different than the "slavery" of today. It was often incured for a failure to pay debts, it may have been the spoils of war, etc. In any case it was law to set them free after a prescribed period of time, with all of their belongings, their entire family, etc. This is a great example of where some knowledge of the topic would prove helpful.

Originally posted by kang
What was your point in the original post in this thread? You listed some students that god did not help because they were in school. There are plenty of students outside school, in the hospital, beaten by their parents, starving in Africa, etc, that god is not helping? You know this, why did you raise this question? I should mention that this stance about god in school is a pretty mainstream Christian position. You have clearly distanced yourself from them. I thought you didn’t think that god performed miracles or muddled with our daily affairs. Another thought I had about you is why have you distanced yourself from mainstream Christians?

Just stirrin' it up. Also, as I alluded to in my answer to livi a few days ago, to see who could ponder the moral questions raised outside of "God". Only the first few bullets even mentioned Him. The entire ensuing discussion has been about Him. In that manner, I believe I have made a point. Mention "morals" and "God" in the same breath and the atheists will only hear "God" and completely tune out on the "morals". As a matter of fact, they will fight tooth and nail against any morals, no matter how basic and common-sense, if there is any connotation of God involved in them whatsoever. I find that rather telling.

[nostatic]

but morals are a buzz kill

[kang]

Originally posted by Jeff Higgins
I have heard it argued that evil is the absence of good. Kind of like there is no "darkness"; it is the absence of light. Chew on that one for awhile.

Another rationalization. Evil is the absence of good. R i g h t…. Ok, how does that apply to Osama, or Cho, or Hitler? Hitler was the absence of good… Hmmm… What does that really mean? How about “Evil is part of our universe, and there is no god to make it go away.” See how simple that is?

Originally posted by Jeff Higgins
The "slavery" of the Bible is far different than the "slavery" of today. It was often incured for a failure to pay debts, it may have been the spoils of war, etc. In any case it was law to set them free after a prescribed period of time, with all of their belongings, their entire family, etc. This is a great example of where some knowledge of the topic would prove helpful.

This is purely a justification of slavery. You are saying that the slavery they had then was OK because it was for a failure to pay debts or spoils of war, or whatever. In my mind, there is no justification for slavery, any where, any time. Yet you are justifying it. How about “The slavery in the bible was put there by ruthless men, not a loving god.” See how easy and sensible that answer is? (And I don’t see how theological knowledge would have been helpful. Slavery is wrong, no matter what. That the bible advocates it, and people accept that, is beyond theology. It is absurd, plain and simple.)

Originally posted by Jeff Higgins
Just stirrin' it up. Also, as I alluded to in my answer to livi a few days ago, to see who could ponder the moral questions raised outside of "God". Only the first few bullets even mentioned Him. The entire ensuing discussion has been about Him. In that manner, I believe I have made a point. Mention "morals" and "God" in the same breath and the atheists will only hear "God" and completely tune out on the "morals". As a matter of fact, they will fight tooth and nail against any morals, no matter how basic and common-sense, if there is any connotation of God involved in them whatsoever. I find that rather telling.

The entire discussion was not about him, so no, you have not made a point. My objection to your opening post was based on your logic. My objection had nothing to do with god or morals. You mentioned a few children whom god did not help and I mentioned millions of others that he has not helped. That’s a simple error in logic, nothing more, nothing less. I see lots of errors in logic when it comes to mainstream Christianity. And since your opening premise was faulty, any conclusions you draw from it are invalid.

[Superman]

Decisions, decisions........

I will say this: I usually imagine my conservative friends here to be religious conservatives. I imagine they believe in God. In these threads, I get to see that I'm wrong about some of those guys. And, quite frankly, for at least two good reasons, conservatives with atheistic beliefs are less surprising than conservative christians. Because......as I said in the following thread, I have a hard time connecting capitalism with Christianity. They seem, very clearly, antagonistic. Yes, I know about the theories that attempt to reconcile them. No, I don't think they pass the Straight Face Test.

http://forums.pelicanparts.com/showthread.php?threadid=155372&highlight=conservative+christian

This thread is a good read, in my always-humble opinion.

[JCF]

Can you guys please keep it down - I'm trying to sleep.

God

[Jeff Higgins]

O.k. Kang, I give up. You win. You are clearly incapable of giving any thought whatsover to anything that does not rear right up and hit you right between the eyes. Subtler points are clearly lost on you. You appraoch this as some kind of contest, in which you need to continually demonstrate you are right; in which there are "winners" and "losers". Typical internet forum bravado bull*****. You will never learn anything that way. Ironic, though, that you consistantly choose a topic in which you admittedly have little knowledge.

Edited - personal attack removed. -Z-man.

There are degrees of good, just as there are degrees of light. I know this is too sublime, too difficult for you to grasp in your need to be confrontational, in your need to "win" the "debate"; in your purely black and white perspective. Your examples were shades of gray; those men were a mix of good and evil, just like the rest of us. Towards the darker end of the spectrum, but not totally lacking in "good". That's probably too hard to grasp in your little black and white world. You appear to see these men as "bad" with no potential for good whatsoever. How unimaginative.

Just as with your view of slavery. I will begin by pointing out I never condoned it at any level - just said it was "different" in Biblical times. I would suggest you educate yourself as to how. The word does not carry the same connotations as it does in your severely limited modern understanding of it. The Bible nowhere "advocates" it; it chronicles it. Do you understand the difference? Probably not...

Your last point is such a desperately childish lunge for a "win" that is almost does not warrent a response. No one can argue that this thread has not been almost entirely about God. Not much has been mentioned about the moral questions raised. So yes, I did make a point. Folks like you are altogether too eager to blather on about "God"; a topic which you have already admitted you know little. Don't let that stand in your way, though. You go, girl. Signing off now...

[Superman]

Kang, and so many others, prefer a belief system that is simple and elegant. They imagine this to be a hallmark of Truth. What I find so amusing is that nowhere in nature does this happen. The Greeks used to think that gravity is an example of love. The Earth loves its inhabitants, and holds them close. The truth, as it turned out, was not so simple.

For this reason, Jeff, you will not be successful in Kang's enlightenment. His decision is simple. Yours isn't.

[kang]

Originally posted by Jeff Higgins
O.k. Kang, I give up. You win. You are clearly incapable of giving any thought whatsover to anything that does not rear right up and hit you right between the eyes. Subtler points are clearly lost on you. You appraoch this as some kind of contest, in which you need to continually demonstrate you are right; in which there are "winners" and "losers". Typical internet forum bravado bull*****. You will never learn anything that way. Ironic, though, that you consistantly choose a topic in which you admittedly have little knowledge.

So, I will try to implore you one last time. This time in language that seems to suit you a little better; maybe something you will actually understand. Here we go: Pull your head out of your ass and try to learn something about this topic; you seem to so dearly love to debate it. You won't come off as such a ******* idiot to the rest of us who know a little about it. Your last post puts an exclamation point on the "idiot" part, by the way.

There are degrees of good, just as there are degrees of light. I know this is too sublime, too difficult for you to grasp in your need to be confrontational, in your need to "win" the "debate"; in your purely black and white perspective. Your examples were shades of gray; those men were a mix of good and evil, just like the rest of us. Towards the darker end of the spectrum, but not totally lacking in "good". That's probably too hard to grasp in your little black and white world. You appear to see these men as "bad" with no potential for good whatsoever. How unimaginative.

Just as with your view of slavery. I will begin by pointing out I never condoned it at any level - just said it was "different" in Biblical times. I would suggest you educate yourself as to how. The word does not carry the same connotations as it does in your severely limited modern understanding of it. The Bible nowhere "advocates" it; it chronicles it. Do you understand the difference? Probably not...

Your last point is such a desperately childish lunge for a "win" that is almost does not warrent a response. No one can argue that this thread has not been almost entirely about God. Not much has been mentioned about the moral questions raised. So yes, I did make a point. Folks like you are altogether too eager to blather on about "God"; a topic which you have already admitted you know little. Don't let that stand in your way, though. You go, girl. Signing off now...

Calling someone a ******* idiot is pretty low, Jeff. Pull my head out of my ass? I don't see any effort by you to comprehend my position. Last time I was called a girl by someone was in the third grade. You have brought this discussion down to a level at which I will no longer participate.

[stuartj]

Originally posted by kang
Another rationalization. Evil is the absence of good. R i g h tE Ok, how does that apply to Osama, or Cho, or Hitler? Hitler was the absence of goodE HmmmE What does that really mean? How about “Evil is part of our universe, and there is no god to make it go away.E See how simple that is?

Osama Bin Laden is not evil, in his eyes or in the view of a large part of the world's population. Osama Bin Laden beleives precisely what he says he beleives. And he will die for those beliefs, and take you with him, if he has the chance. Osama is the poster boy for the pox that religion, religous belief and god visit on humanity.

Hitler was a Catholic, Stalin was an Orthodox priest candidate turned atheist.

[trekkor]

Nice try...

Not ALL religions kill, hate and promote false doctrine for financial gain.


KT

[Dennis Kalma]

Originally posted by stuartj
Osama Bin Laden is not evil, in his eyes or in the view of a large part of the world's population. Osama Bin Laden beleives precisely what he says he beleives. And he will die for those beliefs, and take you with him, if he has the chance. Osama is the poster boy for the pox that religion, religous belief and god visit on humanity.

Hitler was a Catholic, Stalin was an Orthodox priest candidate turned atheist.

Using the same logic throughout your life ought to be interesting to watch.....

Don't take aspirin for sure....

Dennis

[stuartj]

Originally posted by Dennis Kalma
Using the same logic throughout your life ought to be interesting to watch.....

Don't take aspirin for sure....

Dennis

I dont understand what you mean.