A Question for Religious People

[C-Nub]

I got this from a book.

Oh, and for the atheists out there, I'm one of you, don't post that there is no God. Just sit on your hands and be good for a while.

Please?

Anyways, here's the question. It might be better suited for the philosophy area, but once again, I'm an internet Jedi, and moderators will leave this thread alone.

Would you rather continue more or less as you are, believing in God and telling people that you know he exists and loves you, or would you rather know for a fact that there's a god, that mankind has been in actual, factual contact with him, but he's a giant worm that lives on mars?

Odd question, I know, but I'm curious. Options again are

A) I believe in God, but I'm kind of not sure even though I sometimes pretend I am.

B) I've seen pictures of God! He's a giant Martian Worm that loves me!



Personally, I have to default to B. I don't believe in God, so if I were to be faced with the choice between having faith and having proof, I opt for the proof. Worms never bothered me though.

[Flail]

It is one thing to think their might be a God or Gods. It is quite another to claim to actually 'know' a God;and quite another yet to claim to 'know' which indoctrination and rituals this God requires of us. How do I determine which indoctrination God requies? Do I rely on the words in a book that defy logic and reason which were written by men uneducated about science and the universe? Do I accept popular notions just because those around me have capitulated to them? Do I accept the notions in other old books from other indoctrinations,equally popular and equally without evidence?

What about the Christian contention that only they are saved by the book? Such claims seem to me ungodly,destructive and mindless and I refuse to allow my reason to be indoctrinated by fools.

[Sjoerd]

I am sad to see the way this thread progresses. It started out light-hearted and when it turned more seriously it got some very valuable contributions. Personally, I was particularly impressed by MagusYanam who feels the same way I do but who can describe it much better.

However, the last few pages the level of the debate has been sinking considerably.

Is it possible to report a whole thread to the moderators? I have gathered some violations of the rules below, I really hope that something can be done to get this interesting debate back on track.

"Examine yourselves, whether ye be in the faith; prove your own selves. Know ye not your own selves, how that Jesus Christ is in you, except ye be reprobates?"

There's your substance!

Unfounded statement, as pointed out by McCulloch

St. Paul wrote as well:
“So now faith, hope, and love abide, these three; but the greatest of these is love.� Cor. 13.13

God is love.

Unfounded statement, as pointed out by Zzyzx

Faith and hope – conglomerate of subjective feeling and ideas about God. I would say it is not quite the same. It is the food from tomorrow... and tomorrow is known never to come. It uses to remain tomorrow every day and forever.
Only love is actual and timeless. If somebody is really hungry they must act now to get it and not to spend time in arguing in the hope of tomorrow.
Unfortunately, arguing is the most beloved business of mankind. They don’t care about real God and love, they have greatest interest in arguing about those ones.

Preaching and unfounded statements, as pointed out by Zzyzx

Only love is life. Only love is sane and real. Everything else is second hand product of human’s confused mind i.e. fancies and ‘Absurdity’.
...
Reality is now. God is reality.

Unfounded statements, as pointed out by Zzyzx

Christians here have been, for lack of a better word, losing, and they need some new blood and enthusiasm to bolster their mostly-defeated arguments

Unfounded statement. Can you provide statistics for this?

"Out of context" is a very common assertion in these threads – usually by theists.

Unfounded statement. Can you provide statistics for this?

My overall objective in debating here is NOT to convince or convert anyone – particularly "opponents", but rather to present ideas for readers to consider as reasoned and sound alternatives to the religious dogma and propaganda that permeate our societies.

My primary approach is to ask questions that religionists cannot or will not answer honestly and openly.

This is preaching; it generalizes religion and religionists.

Without the "resurrection", Christianity is a fraud.

This is not only an unfounded statement, it is also not true. First, there are Christians who are open to the idea that the resurrection is a symbolic parable. Second, even without the resurrection, Christianity would be a fraud only if it was taught by priests who knew that it wasn't true and were in it only for the money. That's a conspiracy theory, and you should provide substantial evidence when making such a claim.

What about the Christian contention that only they are saved by the book? Such claims seem to me ungodly,destructive and mindless and I refuse to allow my reason to be indoctrinated by fools.

This *might* be read as "all Christians are fools", hopefully you didn't mean it that way.

[AB]

.

God is love.

This is a baseless claim

No, you are wrong. This is not a baseless claim. It is stated in the Bible. Now, I don't care if you beleive in the bible or not. Just because you don't, doesn't make it true. It is in the bible God is Love. So by saying 'God is love' is not a baseless claim.

So ZZ, you are incorrect in that response. Come on now, lets keep this debate true.

[Zzyzx]

.

God is love.

This is a baseless claim

No, you are wrong. This is not a baseless claim. It is stated in the Bible. Now, I don't care if you beleive in the bible or not. Just because you don't, doesn't make it true. It is in the bible God is Love. So by saying 'God is love' is not a baseless claim.

So ZZ, you are incorrect in that response. Come on now, lets keep this debate true.

Because a statement appears in a "holy book" does not make it true or does not form a basis for debate. Do you accept all statements in the koran as being true? Will you accept them as valid in debate?

One can legitimately say "according to the bible god is love". That is a true statement just as one can say "according to the bible serpents and donkeys converse with humans". However, one CANNOT claim that "serpents and donkeys converse with humans" is a true statement or that it is anything other than baseless without the qualifier "according to the bible" or "according to Christian doctrine" (or words to that effect).

Let's keep this debate true and accurate.

[Zzyzx]

.

"Out of context" is a very common assertion in these threads – usually by theists.

Unfounded statement. Can you provide statistics for this?

A quotation from my signature: "What I say is opinion. What you say is opinion. Neither is inherently superior. Readers evaluate the merit of ideas we present." That statement appears on each of my posts. Is it necessary to ALSO repeat it within the text of every post or after each sentence?

Do you wish to debate the accuracy of the statement? Do you actually doubt that the "out of context" claim is used frequently in these threads or that it is used more by theists than non-theists? If that is your sincere position and you are willing to debate the issue, I may be willing to compile the frequency of use of the term "out of context" with reference to the apparent or identified religious preference of the user.

My overall objective in debating here is NOT to convince or convert anyone – particularly "opponents", but rather to present ideas for readers to consider as reasoned and sound alternatives to the religious dogma and propaganda that permeate our societies.

My primary approach is to ask questions that religionists cannot or will not answer honestly and openly.

This is preaching; it generalizes religion and religionists.

You are entitled to that OPINION but you have made an unfounded statement. Stating clearly and concisely one's objectives in debate does not constitute "preaching" by any definition with which I am familiar.

I agree that it generalizes religion and religionists. I debate religionists generally in these threads – and find few willing to honestly and openly answer questions of substance regarding their professed beliefs. I will modify the statement to read, "My primary objective is to ask questions that my religionist opponents cannot or will not answer honestly and openly".

Without the "resurrection", Christianity is a fraud.

This is not only an unfounded statement, it is also not true. First, there are Christians who are open to the idea that the resurrection is a symbolic parable. Second, even without the resurrection, Christianity would be a fraud only if it was taught by priests who knew that it wasn't true and were in it only for the money. That's a conspiracy theory, and you should provide substantial evidence when making such a claim.

A currently active thread discusses the matter of Christianity being a fraud if the claimed "resurrection" is not literally true. The thread contains a poll of reader response to that question. Currently the votes are 10 for yes (fraud) and 0 for no. Though that does not represent a cross section of world opinion, it is some indication of the sentiments of voting members of this forum.

Perhaps you will be good enough to contribute to that debate.

What about the Christian contention that only they are saved by the book? Such claims seem to me ungodly,destructive and mindless and I refuse to allow my reason to be indoctrinated by fools.

This *might* be read as "all Christians are fools", hopefully you didn't mean it that way.

One "might" read the statement as you suggest. It also "might" be read as referring to claims of being "saved" from "eternal damnation" (or whatever) by a book IS ungodly, destructive and mindless. In which case I agree.

It also "might" be read as a rejection of foolish attempts to "indoctrinate my reason" with mindless claims. I agree with this position also but would change "indoctrinate" to "insult".

[AB]

.Because a statement appears in a "holy book" does not make it true or does not form a basis for debate. Do you accept all statements in the koran as being true? Will you accept them as valid in debate?

Lets get back to your original accusastion. Yes, we can debate if a particalar thing in the Bible is "true(I am sure you got some self fulfilling definitions here.. anyway..) or not. But you countered a point saying it was baseless. But as we see this is wrong.

ZZ, please stop this bogus activty so that meaningful debate can occur.

[dgruber]

I know I will get shot down for posting this but the argument post after post is "unfounded statement" and "you can't prove that". It always comes back to those points. By default you can always make yourselves feel right because all you have to say is "you can't prove that".

Do you believe in black holes? Now have you seen one? Do you believe in string theory? Have you seen these strings that are in question?

You believe that there is evidence of these phenomenons but you can't prove that they are real. So you choose what to think is real based on people's explanations. You believe there was a big bang, but still there is no true proof that it actually happened.

There are plenty of people who have had experiences where they felt God. They believe in Him, in part, because of this.

So you have taken people's word on multiple scientific phenomena blindly with no actual proof, but you argue over and over with religious people who claim that they know God and have experienced Him.

Please get over yourselves.

[OnceConvinced]

.

God is love.

This is a baseless claim

No, you are wrong. This is not a baseless claim. It is stated in the Bible. Now, I don't care if you beleive in the bible or not. Just because you don't, doesn't make it true. It is in the bible God is Love. So by saying 'God is love' is not a baseless claim.

So ZZ, you are incorrect in that response. Come on now, lets keep this debate true.

This is a topic I think I could debate one on one. The bible quite clearly SHOWS that God is not love even though it says otherwise. The world also shows that God is not love. So AB, if you are up to it, I'd like to challenge you on that.

[Sjoerd]

.
A quotation from my signature: "What I say is opinion. What you say is opinion. Neither is inherently superior. Readers evaluate the merit of ideas we present." That statement appears on each of my posts. Is it necessary to ALSO repeat it within the text of every post or after each sentence?

No, but per the forum rules, you must back up your statements, be they opinion or not. Your statements are as equally unsupported as those of InTheFlesh, blackbird and the others you were criticizing, yet you cry foul when the same measure is applied to you.

.
Do you wish to debate the accuracy of the statement? Do you actually doubt that the "out of context" claim is used frequently in these threads or that it is used more by theists than non-theists? If that is your sincere position and you are willing to debate the issue, I may be willing to compile the frequency of use of the term "out of context" with reference to the apparent or identified religious preference of the user.

You are making a generalized statement against a large and diverse group. Technically, such statements should be avoided altogether: providing evidence is the least that you can do. Whether the statement itself is accurate is [strike]out of context[/strike] irrelevant.

My overall objective in debating here is NOT to convince or convert anyone – particularly "opponents", but rather to present ideas for readers to consider as reasoned and sound alternatives to the religious dogma and propaganda that permeate our societies.

My primary approach is to ask questions that religionists cannot or will not answer honestly and openly.

This is preaching; it generalizes religion and religionists.

You are entitled to that OPINION but you have made an unfounded statement. Stating clearly and concisely one's objectives in debate does not constitute "preaching" by any definition with which I am familiar.

I agree that it generalizes religion and religionists. I debate religionists generally in these threads – and find few willing to honestly and openly answer questions of substance regarding their professed beliefs. I will modify the statement to read, "My primary objective is to ask questions that my religionist opponents cannot or will not answer honestly and openly".

Well, we seem to have a difference of opinion on what constitutes preaching, but I agree that your modified statement is fair and free of it.

Without the "resurrection", Christianity is a fraud.

This is not only an unfounded statement, it is also not true. First, there are Christians who are open to the idea that the resurrection is a symbolic parable. Second, even without the resurrection, Christianity would be a fraud only if it was taught by priests who knew that it wasn't true and were in it only for the money. That's a conspiracy theory, and you should provide substantial evidence when making such a claim.

A currently active thread discusses the matter of Christianity being a fraud if the claimed "resurrection" is not literally true. The thread contains a poll of reader response to that question. Currently the votes are 10 for yes (fraud) and 0 for no. Though that does not represent a cross section of world opinion, it is some indication of the sentiments of voting members of this forum.

Perhaps you will be good enough to contribute to that debate.

I have done so. In summary, it is the word "fraud", in contrast to a word such as "meaningless", to which I strongly object.

What about the Christian contention that only they are saved by the book? Such claims seem to me ungodly,destructive and mindless and I refuse to allow my reason to be indoctrinated by fools.

This *might* be read as "all Christians are fools", hopefully you didn't mean it that way.

One "might" read the statement as you suggest. It also "might" be read as referring to claims of being "saved" from "eternal damnation" (or whatever) by a book IS ungodly, destructive and mindless. In which case I agree.

It also "might" be read as a rejection of foolish attempts to "indoctrinate my reason" with mindless claims. I agree with this position also but would change "indoctrinate" to "insult".

I hope this is how it should be understood. I fail to see how it relates to the OP, but at least it isn't uncivil.

[MagusYanam]

Unfortunately, arguing is the most beloved business of mankind. They don’t care about real God and love, they have greatest interest in arguing about those ones.

Just because we argue here does not mean we are incapable of love. Abraham argued with God over the fate of Sodom and Gomorrah, but he loved God more than anything else in the world, and such was the strength of his subjective trust in God that he was willing to sacrifice to God control over everything that mattered to him - his future, his security, his son.

I wouldn't presume to dictate who values what here, but love is meaningful to me - therefore it is real. If love itself is not subjective, it cannot be love, but something else and something less (an animal impulse, a genetic predilection, what have you).

Well, you probably do not see yet the full magnitude of that total ideological and moral crisis in the modern world. I have enough life experience not to call ‘sane’ this loveless desert drowned in deliberate lie, hate, greed, brutalities, conflicts and destroying at any levels of human society.
Only love is life. Only love is sane and real. Everything else is second hand product of human’s confused mind i.e. fancies and ‘Absurdity’.

I wasn't saying that the world was sane; no, I said the world was often absurd and full of contradictions. I was saying that I need faith to be sane in the world.

You bring up a good point, though - what is it that makes love 'real'? Only its subjectivity. The love that Jesus had for the world, or its saving power, cannot be understood objectively - nor should one try. Only in the context of ich und du (not ich und es) can Jesus be understood - this was why he needed the parables.

You seem to have your personal, special attitude to this matter. I must admit it is not too easy to grape it in full at ones. So, to make it easier and to come back to context of my previous message; do you want to experience that phenomenon called love, to prove it, to live in it or you opt to wait for a redeemer?

Please note, I’m not going to proselytize you, to offer you to join a ‘special’ sect, or advertise for a ‘special’ practice. I’m asking just for sake of discussion and understanding only.

Not a problem. I have no need to prove the love of Christ (it simply is and anything I could do to 'prove' it as some kind of logical necessity would be presumption on my part), and I experience and live in it daily. I hope I've answered your question somewhat.