|
Griffen posted:If you are honestly looking for God, you will find Him; at least, that's been my experience. Please don't feel obligated to answer if you don't wish to, but do you believe that there are people who have honestly looked for God who didn't find him? How does one look for God?
|
#
¿
Jun 9, 2016 19:15
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 22, 2024 15:52 |
|
|
Griffen posted:Do you consider "being gay" a condition of the body or a conscious choice of who you sleep with? If it is the latter, than my previous post stands. If it is the former, how can you tell me it is not an illness or condition that needs to be corrected? Biologically speaking, it does sorta kill off passing on your genes, which is the definition of an evolutionary negative trait Actually, no, this is 100% false. It's a very common misconception that evolution is concerned with individuals passing on their genetic lines, when actually evolution is concerned with population groups propagating a new generation. Homosexuality does have several evolutionary benefits to a societal species like us, as it allows for either the homosexuals to focus on non-caregiving tasks while the breeding members focus on child-rearing or for the homosexual members to adopt infants that are abandoned or orphaned, which in both cases increases the rates of infant survival. To put it into an analogy, say you have ten sisters who each can do the work of 1 person (gathering food, ensuring safe shelter, ect.), for a total work-power of 10. Then let's say that when one of them has a child they split their work 50/50 between work and mothering, meaning if all the sisters are straight and rearing a child they have a total work-power of 5. Now let's say each child needs 1 work-power to survive, leaving 5 out of 10 children to reach adulthood. Now let's take 2 of those sisters and make them homosexual. So we're left with 8 children being raised but a work-power of 6, meaning 6 out of 8 children survive to reach adulthood. Thus the advantage of having a limited population of non-breeders to support the breeding population. And while this thought example was overly-simplified, this is exactly what we see both in society and in the wild, it's a very well-documented phenomenon. So no, you can't use evolution to back up your case against homosexuality. Quite the opposite, in fact, as homosexuality is very clearly a good thing under those terms.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 10, 2016 16:33
|
|
|
The Kingfish posted:It's debatable. Especially when you consider the desirability of population growth and traditionally necessary (now largely obsolete) of sexual specialization of the workforce. Humans have largely removed themselves from natural selection pressures, yes, but that change happened in the blink of an eye when considering the scale at which evolution happens and doesn't change the fact that homosexuality is not a strictly negative trait in regards to evolution as Griffen said.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 10, 2016 17:02
|
|
|
Griffen posted:I have no illusions that you are here to honestly debate the nature of whether homosexuality is a sin or not. I don't think you're wrong when you say that the bible lays out the homosexuality is a sin. In fact I agree with you when you admit to be surprised that other Christians don't. I was just correcting a faulty argument that you made in the hopes that you would stick with theological reasons against homosexuality.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 10, 2016 17:12
|
|
|
Griffen posted:The problem is that for those people with seminary backgrounds, they have to rely on indirect arguments, such as condemning homosexuality harms homosexuals and is therefore wrong (if that is the case, condemning alcoholics is wrong, or condemning sloth is wrong). There is no Biblical basis to argue that homosexuality is not a sin. There aren't many cases in the Bible where something is so clear-cut, but this is one of them. Blaspheming, cursing ones parents, witchcraft, and a number of other sons are just as clearly established in Leviticus as well. So the questions becomes what should be done to/for the sinners? Should sins be criminalized? If so, what should the punishments be? If not, isn't there an onus for Christians to save people actively as well as passively? quote:Very true, and I apologize if my arguments were unsatisfactory to you. I'm not used to people wanting to stay in the realm of theology with me. No worries.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 10, 2016 20:44
|
|
|
FilthIncarnate posted:Though I would further argue that all modern western society is based on misreadings of Jesus, Adam Smith, and Darwin, which is probably a controversial assertion, and one I don't raise often. I'd definitely agree that most people misunderstand what Darwin meant by "survival of the fittest".
|
|
#
¿
Jun 11, 2016 02:36
|
|
|
JFairfax posted:Milton you ain't Well duh, FilthIncarnate is writing poetry, not making board games.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 11, 2016 05:08
|
|
|
When you say "free will", could you expound on what you mean by that?
|
|
#
¿
Jun 13, 2016 17:32
|
|
|
Tatum Girlparts posted:I mean to boil it down to probably extremely too boiled down points, I think that functionally speaking God guided us on our path of creation, he set rules for the correct path of living, and there's nothing in the world stopping us from going 'nah' and ignoring them. But how "free" is our free will? Is it part of our physical brains, or does our free will derive from something non-physical? If you believe in the concept of an all-knowing God how do you rectify the concept of a free will with God knowing what action you will take before hand? Edit: What would a "violation" of free will look like? If someone chooses to, say, eat and apple and I take the apple away from them have I denied them their free will? What if the prevention is proactive, such as imprisonment, is that a violation of the prisoner's free will to leave prison? Who What Now fucked around with this message at 18:13 on Jun 13, 2016 |
|
#
¿
Jun 13, 2016 18:07
|
|
|
Tatum Girlparts posted:I mean now we're in an argument that's been part of faith since the beginning. I don't know how 'free' our will is. I think an all knowing god doesn't mean free will doesn't exist, though. I don't believe God's very much in the business of jumping in and saying 'woah woah woah no no don't do that', so the fact that God knows what I'll do doesn't mean it affects me in any way. Can you really say they are your choices when there was no other options available to you? Is "You can choose [A] or you can choose [A]" really a choice? It may superficially seem like you exercised free will, but to me that isn't any different than handing a younger sibling an unplugged controller so that they "feel" like they're playing the game with you when in fact they aren't doing anything at all. Furthermore, if all your choices are set in stone long before you "make" them then can you realistically be held culpable for their outcomes? quote:As for the edit, to channel my inner stereotype let me answer that with a question of my own. If you chose to take an apple from someone who chose to eat it, are you 'violating free will' or is the fact that two people's wills can be allowed to conflict the entire point of free will? I don't believe in free will at all, but in that instance I would say my free will trumped theirs in that specific instance, which brings up issues of who's will wins, when, and why. Edit: And it's fine not to have any answers to these questions. I don't expect you to solve questions that have been plaguing philosophers for ages. I'm looking to have a better insight into your positions, not trap you in any kind of "gotcha" situation. Who What Now fucked around with this message at 18:28 on Jun 13, 2016 |
|
#
¿
Jun 13, 2016 18:25
|
|
|
Tatum Girlparts posted:yea no we're good, you're not being a dick, I'm actually really surprised how a thread about 'why do you believe in god' on the internet seems be mostly genuine conversation. Thanks. I try to tailor my demeanor to the topic and the audience. quote:Yea honestly this kinda comes down to 'I dunno, I have faith that this is how the world works and that's good enough for me'. I believe that because in my perspective the choices are genuine that's what matters. I might not have 'really' made the choice in the grand cosmic sense, but in my perspective I did, and that affects how I live my life. Sure, and I understand that free will is a useful shorthand / placeholder in a lot of regards. For example, I firmly believe that my thoughts are a byproduct of the electro-chemical reactions happening in my brain and nervous system in response to external stimuli, none of which I have any control over. If that weren't the case then I probably wouldn't be on the regimen of medications I'm on in order to try and correct my particular combination of brain chemicals. But that's knowledge isn't particularly useful in a practical day-to-day sense. Assuming that we do have a sort of control over our actions and the world around us is still the best way we have of ensuring society continues to function. After all, by my beliefs someone who commits murder is no more responsible for their actions than a schizophrenic is for hearing voices, or for a rock falling off a cliff and crushing a person for that matter. But civilization would break down if we accepted that, so we act as if people are ultimately responsible. It's a useful lie in my view. But I suppose what I don't understand is what free will offers to you, in regards to your belief in God? quote:Along with that, not every choice is 'A or B'. I wake up in the morning, yea the idea of an all knowing god means God knows that I'm gonna go use the last of my toothpaste, get busy in the day, forget to buy more, wake up the next morning, and brush my teeth with mouthwash because I forgot toothpaste. These are choices I made that yea, he knows the answer to, but didn't I still 'learn' in an incredibly minor way 'hey idiot don't put off shopping for needed poo poo'? Not everything is 'shoot the baby' vs 'give the baby candy' kinda Bioware moral choices, many choices just shape how your week goes and how your week goes shapes how you treat others and how you treat others shapes how others see you and so on and so on until these choices all matter in their own ways as choices. Well, yes and no. I was using simple choices for the sake of argument, and you're right that our choices are often a lot more complicated than a simple A or B choice. However, that being said, each choice can still be broken down into negation statements. For breakfast you either will or you will not eat an apple. You either will or you will not eat an orange. You either will or will not eat your cat with your bare hands (almost certainly will not, but it's technically an option, if a horrifically grizzly one). And so on so on so forth for every potential possibility you could choose to eat. But we almost never take the time to frame our decisions in that way, because it's faster and easier to just skip over the absurd possibilities like eating a pet and instead focus on others. And we do this automatically, often without realizing. We also tend to lump multiple decisions in together as another time saving measure. But, besides me being pointlessly pedantic, I agree with the substance of your point; we're a culmination of all of our "decisions", and past decisions affect future ones. At least, I think that was your point? I may have lost track.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 13, 2016 19:21
|
|
|
I cut out the first few paragraphs here because for the most part I agree with what you wrote, and where I didn't agree I can address below. But I'm glad we've found a piece of common ground about the nature of choices and how they shape who we are and how we act going forward. quote:I guess if I can put on my big fancy God beard and pretend to know what God thinks, I think God knows the points. I think he knew the path I'd take, but I don't think he knew what it would do to me. It's like having a map. If I have a map I know objectively the path I'll take, but I don't know what that path will actually BE like until I've taken it. I think in the grand scheme that God has the map, but you still have to take the routes, and that's where it actually matters. I kinda think at the end of the day God doesn't really care about how we feel. I think 'all knowing' and 'all feeling' are exclusive paths. It's not to say he doesn't love us, but I think for God to be God I think he'd have to be such a thing beyond any humanity that for him to genuinely care about our emotions it'd be like you trying to care about an ant's emotion. You can love an ant, you can want nothing but the best for an ant, but have you genuinely ever wondered how an ant feels about living in a pile of dirt on your lawn? Has an ant's emotions ever caused you to alter your plans for the day? I don't think that ants are even capable of feeling emotion, which is why I don't worry about it. But if it were shown that, yes, ants really do have a full range of emotion like they do in, say, A Bug's Life then I'd absolutely take the time to consider whether or not I should lay out some traps filled with poison or not. I don't want to cause undue suffering if it can be avoided, and I also want to actively minimize suffering when I can, especially when it would be trivial for me to do so like by not putting ant poison out. I care about my dog's and my cat's emotions all the time, to give a real life example. Their emotions, and their emotional well being, has caused me to alter my plans for the day all the time from taking the dog out for a walk and playing with her when I'd rather be playing the new DOOM or to making sure I get the healthier food options in order for our new cat to lose weight when the alternatives would be cheaper and more convenient for me. If ants have even half the emotional capability that my pets do I'll be forced to seriously reconsider how I treat them going forward. quote:I think to be God, to be all knowing, with a grand plan for humanity, I think caring about emotions would be impossible, because I don't know how a being who cares about our emotions can have a plan that involves free will, and pain, and suffering, and all that. I think if he cared about that stuff we'd be perfectly happy as a race, never warring never wanting never hurting, but also not humans. We'd be some weird drone alien sci-fi poo poo, and I guess even if free will has really hurt me in the past, I'm happy to be a human and not a weird god-drone. Why would it turn us into weird God-drones, though? We'd still be able to make your own choices between what would make you happiest, wouldn't you? I don't see how free will necessitates suffering as well, and I don't believe suffering is required to be a person.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 13, 2016 20:13
|
|
|
Wafflecop posted:I can remember the first time (I was definitely under 10) I really thought about there not being an afterlife, I was terrified. The complete extinguishing of your consciousness - no light, no dark, just nothing. I am still afraid but tell myself that my death is a long time away (hopefully). To paraphrase Mark Twain, you didn't exist for billions of years before your birth and it didn't bother you one bit, so why should it bother you after death?
|
|
#
¿
Jun 13, 2016 21:08
|
|
|
Annual Prophet posted:I'm guessing Twain read some Diogenes. Not that I fully buy his perspective, since being born and existing does change the game a bit. Obviously I don't want to die any time soon, but once I am dead there won't be a me to care about being dead any more, so there doesn't seem to be much reason to fret about it now.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 13, 2016 21:52
|
|
|
Annual Prophet posted:They probably shouldn't (in most cases) even be using words as a tool of persuasion. As the quote attributed to St. Francis puts it "Preach the Gospel at all times. Use words if necessary." Or, more prosaically (but to the same effect), "[a]ll the Friars . . . should preach by their deeds." A shared experience would, of course, be even better (imagine two people arguing about the flavor of ketchup where either (i) one of them had never tasted it, or (ii) neither had). The issue with promoting your religion through your actions is that there's nothing unique a believer can do that a secular person can't do also. So if I can have the same kind of love and compassion for my fellow man as you, why would I need to go to the extra trouble of adopting beliefs that don't actually add anything of value (that I can tell)?
|
|
#
¿
Jun 15, 2016 02:34
|
|
|
The Kingfish posted:Had a good long cry, talked with my pastor and some church leaders who I respect. We all decided that Islam is a trash religion. How awkward was it trying not to discuss that the victims were all in hell where they belong?
|
|
#
¿
Jun 20, 2016 16:03
|
|
|
Crowsbeak posted:Also once again no one can ever be "actively malicious". Why can't they? Crowsbeak posted:Well someone said God can't create people who can cause suffering, but free will can cause that as any choice can be made with free will. So I can use my free will to choose not to be affected by gravity, thus attaining the power of levitation? Can I also freely choose to become immune to diseases and aging as well? Edit: To try and (possibly futilely) get you to argue in good faith, to be clear you need to be clear on what you believe the limits of free will are and why you believe that, because simply saying "because free will" isn't a valid argument if nobody knows what you even mean by it. Who What Now fucked around with this message at 19:01 on Jun 20, 2016 |
|
#
¿
Jun 20, 2016 18:49
|
|
|
Crowsbeak posted:Being that none of you have ever argued in good faith, in any of these threads I being a flawed person decided to return the favor. Sorry if you can't deal. The small chide notwithstanding, where have I not argued in good faith in this thread specifically?
|
|
#
¿
Jun 20, 2016 19:23
|
|
|
Crowsbeak posted:Yeah I think you know very well that you do not actually argue in good faith in these threads. I'm making an effort to in this thread. I'm asking you to set aside any childish grudges you might have and meet me halfway here. I'll ask again, how do you define the concept of "free will"? quote:Actually it does, as slavery would be worse then any evil committed. Then why was it condoned by God?
|
|
#
¿
Jun 20, 2016 19:48
|
|
|
Crowsbeak posted:If you truly know the presence of God as all who enter Heaven will by God s litteral presense, you will of course not commit evil. So people are unable to commit evil? How is this not exactly like what you're saying is slavery? quote:God commanded you mess with someones brain so it would be impossible for them to ever think some actions? Not as such, but he did allow for actual, you know, chattel slavery of non-Jews. He did personally steal the free will of the pharaoh to be force him to stop Moses from leaving Egypt, though.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 20, 2016 23:28
|
|
|
Crowsbeak posted:Yeah I see you seem to think I am a biblical literalist. I can't know what you are if you won't tell me, so the only recourse I have is to turn towards the bible, which a majority of Christians believe gives at least a reasonably accurate depiction of god's character. So, if God can't take away our free will, are there any limits on our free will? If so, what are they? quote:Also people are unable to commit evil when they truly know God. Most will probably not in this lifetime achieve that. Unable in what sense? In the sense that it's literally impossible even if they try, or that they won't choose to? In either case how is this significantly different than God mind controlling us by virtue of having knowledge of him?
|
|
#
¿
Jun 21, 2016 01:32
|
|
|
Crowsbeak posted:In the sense that most choose to not live to be Godly. That doesn't tell me why people who do choose to be Godly can't or won't commit evil. It also doesn't tell me how you define what you mean when you say "free will" and what limits it does or doesn't have.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 21, 2016 02:19
|
|
|
Crowsbeak posted:Because to be Godly is to choose to not commit violence, to choose to completely dedicate your life to others. So if someone dedicates their life to others for, say, forty years and then develops a psychosis that leads to them injuring someone have they lost their knowledge of the Godly, were they never Godly, or are they still Godly?
|
|
#
¿
Jun 21, 2016 02:52
|
|
|
Crowsbeak posted:They can redeem themselves at any time. Even in Hell. But do they retain their Godliness after causing harm? If a Godly person suddenly has a seizure, the first in their life, and causes a car accident do they need be redeemed for the harm that is caused or are they not culpable for that?
|
|
#
¿
Jun 21, 2016 03:20
|
|
|
Crowsbeak posted:If they realize what they did is wrong and take responsibility for their actions then they are still Godly. It's morally wrong to have a seizure?
|
|
#
¿
Jun 21, 2016 03:53
|
|
|
Crowsbeak posted:ITs morally wrong to kill. Ok, but how direct does my involvement have to be for me to be morally culpable? If I make and sell artisanal peanut butter and my customer unwittingly gives some to a person with deadly peanut allergies am I at all to blame for the victims death? After all, I choose to make what ultimately killed that person.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 21, 2016 04:29
|
|
|
Crowsbeak posted:You might want to send them your condolences. If you feel responsible you may be. So guilt is necessary to not be Godly?
|
|
#
¿
Jun 21, 2016 05:17
|
|
|
Crowsbeak posted:Well if there is something you feel is unfufilled you probably should remedy that right? I agree, but does that mean if I feel no guilt at all, even if I directly harmed someone, then I am not morally culpable?
|
|
#
¿
Jun 21, 2016 05:27
|
|
|
Crowsbeak posted:No I have this life first. Also is that Farange? Alao if one feels no guilt at all at any action one probably is deliberately ignoring God. "Probably"? Are they or aren't they?
|
|
#
¿
Jun 21, 2016 13:46
|
|
|
Lampsacus posted:EDIT: Christ, there is no way Crowsbeak isn't trolling. Especially the part where he says those in hell can be redeemed. That's some gnarly theology bro. I think Crowsbeak's stated views are genuine, even if he's being needlessly antagonistic about it for no good reason.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 21, 2016 14:54
|
|
|
Crowsbeak posted:There is free will Prove it. Edit: Crowsbeak posted:Well I a tally do sedan it's just that you are mad my belief doesn't pigeonhole me. It's really obvious you atheist ls in these threads just want them so you can have a circle jerk while all the theists will be stereotypical yec biblical literalists who you can show are all wrong because how can the bible be right. Or else if they had a religious experience they must be mentally ill. You don't like that when people won't be pigeonholed and will also call you out. Sorry if we won't play ball. I think you need to step away from the computer until you calm down enough that you can type straight. If you're so angry you can't even make coherent sentences you aren't in a good place, it's not healthy. 
Who What Now fucked around with this message at 17:13 on Jun 21, 2016 |
|
#
¿
Jun 21, 2016 17:10
|
|
|
Crowsbeak posted:Now I want the Atheists here to answer the question why do you not like religion. As most of you obviously have some major problems with it or you wouldn'tpsot in these threads and declare theists to be mentally ill. I haven't declared any theist to be mentally ill, and I like most of them just fine. But I do care about people having consistent beliefs, because I think it's in everybody's interest to be consistent.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 21, 2016 17:27
|
|
|
Griffen posted:It is one thing to answer honest questions for information or to share personal stories, but when was the last time an atheists or theists changed their opinion based on arguments on SA? More often than you think, I'd wager. And in general D&D changes people's minds fairly often. For example, I used to think I was a good poster.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 21, 2016 20:36
|
|
|
bitcoin bastard posted:This is something I can comment on. My feeling is that pain is necessary to enjoy pleasure*, if you don't understand how bad poo poo can suck, how can you possibly understand how good you have it right now? Do I need to have a third degree burn to understand that ice cream is cold? If not, then why would I need to suffer to enjoy good things?
|
|
#
¿
Jun 27, 2016 01:30
|
|
|
bitcoin bastard posted:I don't have any citations other than my life, but I can personally attest to the idea that until poo poo gets bad, you don't actually understand how good life can get. I can personally attest that poo poo getting bad doesn't guarantee you'll appreciate your life more, and in many cases does the opposite.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 27, 2016 02:04
|
|
|
bitcoin bastard posted:Then we disagree and with something like faith I don't think we can come to a fact based agreement. I'm sorry about your personal situation and I wish you nothing but the best. My point was that what may have been your case can't be applied to everyone, and can't be used to justify that suffering is necessary to appreciate good.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 27, 2016 02:59
|
|
|
I Like Jell-O posted:It HAS been dealt with, in many different ways, by many different religions. Look, if the problem of evil is central to your belief (or lack of belief) in God, then share that. But don't argue about it in some kind of "gotchya" tit-for-tat. We can all acknowledge that there are a range of logical ways to approach Evil, and while you may find some more convincing than others there are answers out there. Personally as a Mormon, I thought the article did a good job of summarizing my answer. In the context of my religion, the problem has been thoroughly dealt with. I've never met someone who's religious beliefs were based on or even influenced by Wikipedia, so why would I go there instead of, you know, talking to them?
|
|
#
¿
Jun 27, 2016 23:08
|
|
|
I Like Jell-O posted:If you want in on that action, atheists are under exactly the same constraints as theists when it comes to making things up. Yeah, but then we get yelled at for making up the wrong stuff.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 28, 2016 00:13
|
|
|
I Like Jell-O posted:It wouldn't matter without the first part, but the other part of my belief is practical. I have learned a set of principles and been told "if you follow these teachings to the best of your ability, you will have joy in this life and the life to come". It has been the experience in my own life and what I have observed in those around me, that joy and true happiness increases as people get closer to living God's plan for us. The opposite is also, unfortunately, true. What is God's plan for us?
|
|
#
¿
Jun 28, 2016 01:00
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 22, 2024 15:52 |
|
|
Noam Chomsky posted:I don't see what atheists would be making up. Atheism is a lack of belief in the existence of God or gods There isn't really much to make up. Whereas theists can make up literally anything up to and including their own religion. It's not nonsensical at all, you just can't make up things about atheism. You can make things up about other positions you might have, or about positions other people in the dialog have, though.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 28, 2016 13:48
|
|