Maybe we’re all trapped in some sort of Schrödinger’s paradox until we die.
Well, that’s what your words read like to me. Whatever.
I wasn’t referring to (any) god, rather, I was alluding to the larger set of impossible-to-disprove-their-existence concepts, of which god(s) is an element. With respect to the members of that set, is their existence, in your mind, dependent solely upon whether it “feels right”?
OK, so it is an opinion. But either way, it is a valid opinion. This was my only point. For me, God exists. This is my valid opinion. For you, God doesn’t exist. This is your valid opinion. Since there is no proof either way, they are equally valid in my eyes to the person who holds them, and IMO, that’s all that matters. What I think about God has no effect on you whatsoever, and vice versa.
I didn’t mean to put you off…I really was kind of puzzled, because I was trying to say the opposite! To me, it’s not about saying no matter what data is presented, I’m not going to change my mind. What I was trying to say was that there are lots of things we don’t know about, but it doesn’t mean they don’t exist. Once people didn’t know giant squids existed. Now we do. Does that mean giant squids didn’t exist, or that we brought them into existance by discovering them? No, it just means we didn’t have the data needed to know.
Well, that is a good question. I don’t think I believe in God because it feels right. I belong to the specific religion I do because it feels right. I don’t know why I believe in God. I just do. It’s part of me, and that is the best I can really do to explain it.
First, I would be more diplomatic about the subject if it wasn’t being discussed freely on a message board designed to offer a forum for (sometimes heated) debate. So you can climb down off the cross now. However, I thnk it’s a perfectly valid question for the curious to ask why this particular part of your world view is in complete contrast to the way you conduct the rest of your reasoning. I’m sure for many it’s simple brain-washing, but I’m equally certain it’s not that way for everyone. I just don’t know unless you try to verbalize it.
In the case of my in-laws, it’s probably a little bit of both, depending on who you talk to. The problem I have with it is that pretending you *do * believe (particularly when you don’t go through the traditional motions but just follow the standard “get out of jail free” process of saying you believe to get saved) is based on fear. I don’t think it’s healthy for people to be motivated by fear.
Kalhoun –
No, validation can’t occur in either scenario, since the premise is not amenable to proof. To those who wish to talk about what can be “known” in terms of what can be “proven” – and I am one of them, although I don’t ascribe to Pseudotriton’s IMO overly-draconian insistence that the two terms be used only as terms of art and never interchangeably, not even in casual conversation – God cannot be “known” but only “believed”. There is ultimately no “validation” possible by either side, so not invalidation should be inferred just because someone believes something you don’t.
Does it surprise you that there are many, many atheists who feel it’s their sworn duty to “squash the ignorance” of believers, even when asked politely to shut up?
Can we assume that you believe the big points of christianity; resurrection from the dead, actual son of god on earth, and the existence of heaven and hell?
Fine, so long as you understand your brand of “free discussion” probably inhibits, as opposed to encourages, legitimate debate. I’m perfectly willing to take at face value that you’re not so undiplomatic IRL, but you self-evidently are that undiplomatic here, and here is the only place we know you.
It isn’t. Why would you assume that the way I evaluate questions of faith is in complete contrast to the way I conduct the rest of my reasoning? This is your assumption that you are dragging in – more baggage. It’s certainly not based on anything I ever said.
I’m not sure what you’re asking here. Is it that I verbalize my beliefs and process so you can decide whether I’ve been brainwashed? Because I’ll have to take a pass on that.
OK, sure.
I think this thread is setting a record for the (mis)use of this comment. I’d count them, but my connection is too slow.
Are you quibbling over whether “offensive” is the same as “rude”? I’m willing to restate my comment:
Based on this definition of what is offensive, then going simply based on a ratio of assertions of knowledge (about the unknown) to overall posts, Der Trihs has to be the most offensive poster, with badchad coming up closely in the top five, and no theist anywhere in the top ten.
If you do not wish to make that accusation, you may want to reconsider your claim.
But nobody’s yet said “. . . somebody needs the wood!” so actually we’re only beating that horse half to death.
No?
Well, I suppose depending on how you want to look at it, the fact that we don’t live in endless bliss proves 1) god doesn’t exist as defined by the bible (i.e., omnipotent and loving all his creatures), or 2) that he doesn’t exist at all. If the basic premise of all-powerful and all-loving isn’t met, the rest of it becomes meaningless.
That’s not to say that the basics on how to treat your fellow man can’t be useful to some people, or that a sense of community can’t be enjoyed. I’ve always felt that the fact that he’s never made an appearance or done anything the bible says he’s capable of is proof alone that the writers of the bible didn’t expect anyone to really believe he exists. The attributes are so far-fetched that it was obvious the word “god” is as symbolic as any other wild story you’ll find in the bible. The whole concept was just a ploy to keep people in line.
That’s the either/or fallacy, Kalhoun.
Do you have children? Do they live in absolute bliss and contentment? Do you grant their every wish? I’m sure you dont, but yet you love them anyway, and I would figure most of the time they still love you and know you have their best intrest at heart.
Simplistic example? Yep. But so is saying God is either this or that, or nothing. There are shades of grey.
Speakng as an atheist who has done my fair share of arguing against religion and such: I’m going to have to dial it back a bit. The arrogant, self-centered, smug, rude, dismissive behavior exhibited by Der Trihs and badchad, and their ass lackeys Kalhoun and psedotriton, makes me wonder if I ever appeared to a tenth as close-minded and monomaniacal as they are. God, I hope not.
Where are we promised “endless bliss”? Is an all-loving God one who takes away free will? Or just takes away the consequences of free will (and how “free” is our “will” if there are no consequences to our choices)? I believe in an omnipotent and omnibenevolent God, but I also believe in a pretty hand-off God, who largely chooses the allow the universe to unfold according to the rules He has set down – rules of nature, science, and physics. I was never promised eternal bliss; I don’t know why you think you were.
Your lukewarm concession that my faith might have some minor utility under some limited circumstances is appreciated. 
I’m not following you here. The Bible recounts numerous miracles performed by Jesus and numerous diety acts performed by God, starting with the creation of the earth and all that is in it. There is obviously room for debate as to whether all of these things actually occurred or not, but there appears to be little foundation for thinking the authors did believe they had occurred, and were documenting what they knew or believed in order to encourage people to believe the same. Paul, for all his faults, put much time and effort in to shepherding the early church through some significant growing pains – are we Jews ourselves? Do we follow Mosaic law? Do we let Gentiles in? – and did so firmly grounded in his belief in God, a divine Jesus, and the supreme importance of faith.
Obvious to you, you mean. In fact, this POV, while interesting – God as construct – is pretty well disproven, at least insofar as you allege that’s all God was ever intended to be. God is not a metaphor in any book in the Bible; He is an integral part of the Biblical reality. He has a name, He is an actor (meaning, one who affirmative acts), He walks with Adam and Eve in the garden, He sends his Son in the NT, He sends His prophets in the OT. I have never heard of any evidence, either as theology or as history, suggesting that He was consciously “invented” to symbolize anything other than Himself, the idea of God.
A ploy invented by whom, and to what end? Regardless of your personal belief in the existence of God, or any god, the universality and continuousness of a believe in the Divine Something would seem to contradict your theory that it’s all just a ploy.
You keep saying it’s me with the baggage, but you’re the one tethered to the church! You don’t believe in faeries, but you do believe in god. Why one and not the other? You don’t have to explain yourself, but please don’t be surprised when people notice that you apply a different standard of proof with regard to religion.
Regarding the brainwashing, I was simply asking a question. If you don’t want to answer it, that’s your call. You don’t have to participate in the thread at all if you don’t want to. But it does come off as a bit thin-skinned. I tried to phrase it in a way that I thought would be non-offensive, offering up the “brainwashed” as one of many possibilities, but that’s not good enough to crack the code. Whatever.
Thank you. Sincerely.
And there’s a “not” missing from my last post: " . . . appears to be little foundation for thinking the authors did not believe they had occurred . . . ."