NationStates Jolt Archive

Then have fun with the consequences. God does love us and it saddens Him that you have rejected his love.

Or... like, alternatively... not.

Yes?

That would still be doing 'good', without the actual requirement for an 'evil' to be done as a contrast.

The evil here is that they're hungry and omeless. You're eliminating the evil with food and houses. That is the contrast. Feeding the fed and housing the housed just wouldn't work. you NEED that contrast for your efforts to have any worth whatsoever.

My paralyzed buddy is quite capable of imagining stabbing somebody, as much as you or I are capable of doing so. He just doesn't have the capacity to act on his thoughts, the way you or I might have. So, does my friend lack free will, or not?

If my friend retains his free will despite being incapable of stabbing somebody, then it is possible to have a human being who cannot stab anybody but who still has free will. Therefore, God could make humans incapable of stabbing each other without removing free will.
Obviously, then, he already has.

No. You can't.

Any more than you could 'choose' to disbelieve.

One believes, or one doesn't. You don't get to choose.

:rolleyes:

Now you're being silly. One can choose to believe or disbelieve. We do have that choice. You made a choice to not believe in God. I made the choice to believe in God.

You just seemed to be arguing the Christian side.

I have read about unarmed people killing big cats... a Tsavo African (called Mahini, I think), who strangled a lion to death... and was later eaten by lions, being one example.

The reason I asked about the Christian scripture thing... is that the book of Judges actually describes an unarmed human killing a lion...

lol, worth a try I guess. But i'm not walking into that old trap, I'm well aware of the millions of contradictions in that thing.

Yes it does, it means you have no context with which to judge it. How can you say, "Phew, I'm glad there's no burglary here!" if you didn't know what burgalry even was?

You don't NEED to know about burglary to appreciate still having your video player. Just the fact that, when you want to watch a movie... BAM, there it is... is enough.

You don't NEED to know that somewhere else, some other poor bugger is having their JVC half-inched, to appreciate your own Toshiba.

Yes you CAN CHOOSE to believe.
Can you choose to believe there is no God?

Or... like, alternatively... not.

You have and it saddens him and me :(

Tree of LIFE and the Tree of Knowledge.

Instructed not to eat from the tree of knowledge and eve did it anyway.

Tree of Life was one...

Tree of Knowledge isn't the FULL name of the other, now is it...?

Yes?

That would still be doing 'good', without the actual requirement for an 'evil' to be done as a contrast.

You don't think homelessness and hunger are, in and of themselves, evils?

Edit: And by "hunger", I mean extreme hunger - someone who cannot obtain food, not the rumbling in your tummy you get when its just about dinner time. =)

Good without evil is like light without dark. If every place in the world were equally lighted and darness never occurred, we wouldn't even have a word for a "lack of light". There would be no conception of darkness because darkness, to us, would not even exist. Light would certainly exist, but we would have no frame of reference to compare it to anything else. It would simply be "the way things are".

Can you choose to believe there is no God?

Yes you can choose to believe that there isn't a God. I wouldn't want to make that choice though.

OK, i think the curry analogy just fell apart. There is either good or evil. No lack of either. Even if you're just sat about, that's good because you're not hurting anyone. Or maybe you're evil because you're skiving work. Sometimes they overlap. It's like you only know and appreciate being happy if you know what it is to be sad.

So - when I'm murdering someone... that is GOOD, because I'm not raping them?

And - when I am at church, that is EVIL because I'm not out ministering to the needy?

How can there be ONLY good or evil... but they overlap?

You don't NEED to know about burglary to appreciate still having your video player. Just the fact that, when you want to watch a movie... BAM, there it is... is enough.

You don't NEED to know that somewhere else, some other poor bugger is having their JVC half-inched, to appreciate your own Toshiba.

But you'd appreciate it a hell of a lot more if you knew there was a chance it could be gone tomorrow. You ever known anyone who's died? Makes you appreiate your own life a lot more. Same thing, really.

Tree of Life was one...

Tree of Knowledge isn't the FULL name of the other, now is it...?

Well Good and evil are there in the title as well. And Eve still ate the forbidden fruit.

The evil here is that they're hungry and omeless. You're eliminating the evil with food and houses. That is the contrast. Feeding the fed and housing the housed just wouldn't work. you NEED that contrast for your efforts to have any worth whatsoever.

So - you describe simple LACK as evil?

Then - surely, the fact that I 'lack' the capacity to believe in God, makes him intrinsically evil?

This is "Do You Believe In God?" Does it have to be te christian god?
Well, that was the discussion that you jumped into. ;)

:rolleyes:

Now you're being silly. One can choose to believe or disbelieve. We do have that choice. You made a choice to not believe in God. I made the choice to believe in God.

I challenge you to stop believing... right now.

Prove that it happened without God knowing about it?

Are you putting forth the idea that God chose to rent his kindom of heaven apart and create the kindom of hell and provide it's demons from his own most favoured angels?

Nice guy.... so which was it - omnipotent and ultimately unkind God, or impotent and judgemental God?

Simply: Hell no!

If there would be a loving god then why we have some much suffer in our world? Why little kids are dying to cancer and all kind of disease.

in fact, I hate all religions. They should be banned.

So - when I'm murdering someone... that is GOOD, because I'm not raping them?

And - when I am at church, that is EVIL because I'm not out ministering to the needy?

How can there be ONLY good or evil... but they overlap?

Choose the lesser of two evils. Generally, that's whatever's less selfish. As I say, it's subjective. Someone might steal off you - you may hire someone to kill him to get your money back - you'd appreciate his services, but the victim's family sure wouldn't. That's the problem of subjective issues.

You have and it saddens him and me :(

I'm not to worried about upsetting 'god'... since, to me, that is like the idea I might offend the Easter Bunny.

I do regret saddening you, though. But - not enough to pretend to be something I'm not.

You would become familiar with it... it would seem to be less spicy, I'm not sure how that equates allegorically.

But the times were you were eating curry, just contrasted to the times when you were eating nothing, would be a reference point for the 'heat' of the curry.
Well, my point was that there does have to be something to contrast to 'good' in order to distinguish it from anything else. 'Evil' seems to be a blanket term for anything that can contrast to good.

That's why they (some, most) define 'evil' as the lack of 'good'.

You don't think homelessness and hunger are, in and of themselves, evils?

Edit: And by "hunger", I mean extreme hunger - someone who cannot obtain food, not the rumbling in your tummy you get when its just about dinner time. =)

Good without evil is like light without dark. If every place in the world were equally lighted and darness never occurred, we wouldn't even have a word for a "lack of light". There would be no conception of darkness because darkness, to us, would not even exist. Light would certainly exist, but we would have no frame of reference to compare it to anything else. It would simply be "the way things are".

Yes.

Exactly.

We would still 'appreciate' it - we just 'wouldn't have words for the opposite'.

I don't see that as a problem.

I challenge you to stop believing... right now.

NO. I will not stop believing in the Lord Savior Jesus Christ. You already knew this answer was coming though and I know that you know that I was going to say no.

I challenge you to start believing....right now.

But you'd appreciate it a hell of a lot more if you knew there was a chance it could be gone tomorrow. You ever known anyone who's died? Makes you appreiate your own life a lot more. Same thing, really.

Yes. My father died. Did it make me appreciate my own life more? No. It just made me more conscious of the fact that - if I want to do stuff in my life, I better get the hell on with it.

So - you describe simple LACK as evil?

Then - surely, the fact that I 'lack' the capacity to believe in God, makes him intrinsically evil?

Lack of having basic needs of survival would, I say, be a form of evil, yes. And you do have the capacity to believe in god. If he rode down on a silver horse and told told you to believe in him, you'd probably do so. It's just you lack the inclination, as this apparantly hasn't happened to you yet.

Well Good and evil are there in the title as well. And Eve still ate the forbidden fruit.

Yes.

The fruit was of the "Tree of KNOWLEDGE of Good and Evil".

Only the KNOWLEDGE. Good and Evil existed BEFORE she ate the fruit... she just didn't KNOW about them.

NO. I will not stop believing in the Lord Savior Jesus Christ. You already knew this answer was coming though and I know that you know that I was going to say no.

I challenge you to start believing....right now.

I can't. And neither can you.

It's not that you WON'T... it is that you CAN'T, as well you know.

Try.

Yes you can choose to believe that there isn't a God. I wouldn't want to make that choice though.
No, I wasn't speaking generally, but to you.

Close your eyes. Go ahead, and disbelieve in God. It's okay. You can always go back to believing in him later. Go ahead, do it.

Yes. My father died. Did it make me appreciate my own life more? No. It just made me more conscious of the fact that - if I want to do stuff in my life, I better get the hell on with it.

Yes - appreciate that you still have the time in which to do these things.

Belief is not a choice. you can pretend to believe in something, of course. I don't believe in a god simply because there is an utter lack of evidence.

I knnow I've already said this but didn't get an answer:

How do we know God, when all his teachings come from man? I could never understand that.

Or rather, how can we do his bidding?

I believe that there is only one God.

I can't. And neither can you.

It's not that you WON'T... it is that you CAN'T, as well you know.

Try.

Hell no. That would betray my Lord and Savior and I will not do that.

Lack of having basic needs of survival would, I say, be a form of evil, yes. And you do have the capacity to believe in god. If he rode down on a silver horse and told told you to believe in him, you'd probably do so. It's just you lack the inclination, as this apparantly hasn't happened to you yet.

What makes 'ass' of 'u' and 'me'?

Ah yes... 'assume'.

Been there. Done that.

Did believe. Don't anymore.

If 'god' DID ride down to me, of course I'd believe. That is belief with evidence. That is NOT what we were discussing.

I simply cannot believe without evidence. I lack that capacity. Which means - if 'god' NEEDS 'belief without evidence', he made me wrong. And, now (allegedly) he's going to punish me for his own poor workmanship.

Belief is not a choice. you can pretend to believe in something, of course. I don't believe in a god simply because there is an utter lack of evidence.

Belief is totally a choice, there's no denying that, your not born Christian.

No, I wasn't speaking generally, but to you.

Close your eyes. Go ahead, and disbelieve in God. It's okay. You can always go back to believing in him later. Go ahead, do it.

I will not do so for that would betray Him and I will not betray Him.

Yes - appreciate that you still have the time in which to do these things.

That is your creation. It isn't even implied in what I actually said.

Hell no. That would betray my Lord and Savior and I will not do that.

You can't.

Yes.

Exactly.

We would still 'appreciate' it - we just 'wouldn't have words for the opposite'.

I don't see that as a problem.
If there were only light, we would be blind. How do you propose we could 'appreciate' it?

You can't.

I could but I won't

Believing something is absolutely not a matter of choice. Can you make yourself believe that the earth is uninhabited? Of course not. Belief is determined by evidence. Some people are just more easily convinced than others.

Here is the official God FAQ:
http://www.400monkeys.com/God/
:lol:

This is "Do You Believe In God?" Does it have to be te christian god?
The belief in any God of any God is irrational and usually based on fear and false-hope.

What makes 'ass' of 'u' and 'me'?

Ah yes... 'assume'.

Been there. Done that.

Did believe. Don't anymore.

If 'god' DID ride down to me, of course I'd believe. That is belief with evidence. That is NOT what we were discussing.

I simply cannot believe without evidence. I lack that capacity. Which means - if 'god' NEEDS 'belief without evidence', he made me wrong. And, now (allegedly) he's going to punish me for his own poor workmanship.

No, that's what we're arguing. You said you have no capacity. You obviously do, espeially as you say you used to believe. I have the capacity to shoot someone - but I can't, having no gun. You have the capacity to believe, everybody does - but you can't, having no faith. Everyone has the capacity to do anything they are physically and/or mentally capable of. Playing the trumpet, running a marathon, believing in god, whatever. We all have that potential.

Belief is totally a choice, there's no denying that, your not born Christian.

No. You are born an Atheist, in the truest sense... you have to learn about God. But you don't CHOOSE to accept that teaching... it either 'works' or it doesn't.

The belief in any God of any God is irrational and usually based on fear and false-hope.

Life isn't rational in any way, fear is an essential survival device, and hope is always better than resignation at your fate

I will not do so for that would betray Him and I will not betray Him.

Thomas doubted. Provided you 'came back', you are forgiven.

You are making excuses for the simple fact that you just can't choose.

I will not do so for that would betray Him and I will not betray Him.
Will = can't.

If there were only light, we would be blind. How do you propose we could 'appreciate' it?

If there were only light, we would be blind? How does that work?

"Fear paints pictures of ghosts and hangs them in the gallery of ignorance" -Robert Ingersoll

Yes.

Exactly.

We would still 'appreciate' it - we just 'wouldn't have words for the opposite'.

I don't see that as a problem.

How is that appreciation? If that is "just the way it is", it is nothing special. It is simply "the way it is." There's nothing to appreciate.

Perhaps you are simply using the word differently, but I would say you generally appreciate having something good for which there is an alternative. Someone who has only ever seen light could not "appreciate" light, because there is nothing to appreciate - that is just the way it is. Without the contrast of darkness, there is no reason to think that light is worthy of appreciation.

Thomas doubted. Provided you 'came back', you are forgiven.

You are making excuses for the simple fact that you just can't choose.

Doubted that the other disciples saw Jesus. Not exactly the samething.

I could but I won't

And, I say you can't.

Do you believe in the Holy Spirit, dwelling inside you? Are you a different creature, since you embraced Jesus?

Will = can't.

Don't twist my refusal.

And, I say you can't.

Do you believe in the Holy Spirit, dwelling inside you? Are you a different creature, since you embraced Jesus?

Yes I am different since I brought Jesus back into my heart.

The belief in any God of any God is irrational and usually based on fear and false-hope.
Spoken as an expert on the topic, no doubt.

Quote:
______________________________________________________

Originally Posted by Corneliu
Prove that it happened without God knowing about it?
______________________________________________________

Are you putting forth the idea that God chose to rent his kindom of heaven apart and create the kindom of hell and provide it's demons from his own most favoured angels?

Nice guy.... so which was it - omnipotent and ultimately unkind God, or impotent and judgemental God?

"Fear paints pictures of ghosts and hangs them in the gallery of ignorance" -Robert Ingersoll

"Fear is an essential survival device" -Me, who is probably about as qualified to talk about Fear as Robert Ingersoll

1. I'm not 100% but sometimes it's nice to think that someone up there is watching you and hopefully everything will turn out good if you're in deep poop and
2. this may be off topic but if anyone can think of another topic that has had more threads than this I'd like to know coz this has got to be some sort of record.

Quote:
______________________________________________________

Originally Posted by Corneliu
Prove that it happened without God knowing about it?
______________________________________________________

Are you putting forth the idea that God chose to rent his kindom of heaven apart and create the kindom of hell and provide it's demons from his own most favoured angels?

Nice guy.... so which was it - omnipotent and ultimately unkind God, or impotent and judgemental God?

Maybe neither. Maybe all part of the great plan. Maybe.

No, that's what we're arguing. You said you have no capacity. You obviously do, espeially as you say you used to believe. I have the capacity to shoot someone - but I can't, having no gun. You have the capacity to believe, everybody does - but you can't, having no faith. Everyone has the capacity to do anything they are physically and/or mentally capable of. Playing the trumpet, running a marathon, believing in god, whatever. We all have that potential.

I only had the capacity to 'believe with evidence'... but, as a child, I was willing to accept different evidence.

I no longer believe in Santa Claus, because the evidence was juvenile, and didn't last beyond a certain point in my growth and maturity.

I no longer believe in 'god', because the evidence just isn't any good.

"Believing WITHOUT evidence" is what we were talking about.

*snip*

I asked you to prove that he didn't see it coming and you have yet to prove it.

No. You are born an Atheist, in the truest sense... you have to learn about God. But you don't CHOOSE to accept that teaching... it either 'works' or it doesn't.

Atheism is to go against religion, you are born a blank board, this is the 'nature versus nurture argument', religion is man-made, or we would have a sense of it as babies. And if were all athiest and it;s not our choice, then how do we become Christian, that's impossible!

How do we know God, when all his teachings come from man?

Do they? Is it impossible to get guidance directly from God?


If 'god' DID ride down to me, of course I'd believe. That is belief with evidence. That is NOT what we were discussing.

Just to play devil's advocate, if you cannot choose to believe, how do you know what circumstances would cause you to believe? God might appear right in front of you and say "Boo!" and you might still not believe.

How is that appreciation? If that is "just the way it is", it is nothing special. It is simply "the way it is." There's nothing to appreciate.

Perhaps you are simply using the word differently, but I would say you generally appreciate having something good for which there is an alternative. Someone who has only ever seen light could not "appreciate" light, because there is nothing to appreciate - that is just the way it is. Without the contrast of darkness, there is no reason to think that light is worthy of appreciation.

We are using the word differently.

I 'appreciate' breathing, although I've not tried the opposite.

Appreciate, at heart, means 'be aware of'.

If there were only light, we would be blind? How does that work?
*blink* ...no shadows, no colours, nothing indistiguishable visually.

Do they? Is it impossible to get guidance directly from God?



Just to play devil's advocate, if you cannot choose to believe, how do you know what circumstances would cause you to believe? God might appear right in front of you and say "Boo!" and you might still not believe.

Yes, otherwise wouldn't he tell us sinners what path we should go?

Doubted that the other disciples saw Jesus. Not exactly the samething.

Doubted that Jesus WAS Messiah, surely?

I only had the capacity to 'believe with evidence'... but, as a child, I was willing to accept different evidence.

I no longer believe in Santa Claus, because the evidence was juvenile, and didn't last beyond a certain point in my growth and maturity.

I no longer believe in 'god', because the evidence just isn't any good.

"Believing WITHOUT evidence" is what we were talking about.


So you don't have the capacity to believe without evidence? Doesn't this make you mentally inferior to those who can? Huh? Huh? Thought not. No, you're perfetly apable, you just don't want that. I'm not begrudging it, it's your choie, but don't say you literaly don't have the capacity.

Doesn't that suggest that God chose to create the evil? That maybe he was bored with his "perfect" creation and decided he needed something to fight against? And if that's the case why hasn't he been actively doing so for so long?
Did he lose? Did he just decide to give up the fight and bugger off on a nice long holiday?

Personally I prefer the thought of "what a crockload of monkey testicles." and just not believe in a figmant of some-ones imagination while they did drugs trying to figure out how the world worked.

Yes I am different since I brought Jesus back into my heart.

Then it is not a 'choice' that prevents you losing him again...

Doubted that Jesus WAS Messiah, surely?

No. He doubted that the apostles saw Jesus after Jesus rose from the dead.

Then it is not a 'choice' that prevents you losing him again...

I will not lose him again for my faith in the Savior is actually growing.

Atheism is to go against religion, you are born a blank board, this is the 'nature versus nurture argument', religion is man-made, or we would have a sense of it as babies. And if were all athiest and it;s not our choice, then how do we become Christian, that's impossible!

No - Atheism is being without god.

I don't believe in goblins, either... that doesn't mean I 'go against' Goblins.

We are using the word differently.

I 'appreciate' breathing, although I've not tried the opposite.

Appreciate, at heart, means 'be aware of'.

Yeah, and you're aware of the oppsite to breathing, aren't you? Hence, without knowledge (not trying, just knowledge) of that opposite, would you appreciate breathing? And the sense of appreciate I mean is "be grateful for".

Just to play devil's advocate, if you cannot choose to believe, how do you know what circumstances would cause you to believe? God might appear right in front of you and say "Boo!" and you might still not believe.

I figured it was implicit in his scenario that 'god' would be somehow recognisable. If 'god' looks like Bob Hope, and I see him in the street, I might think "Oooh, Bob Hope", but I wouldn't consider it 'evidence of god'.

Yes, otherwise wouldn't he tell us sinners what path we should go?

I believe God will "tell us sinners what path we should go", if we ask for such guidance. Of course, being human, all such guidance is filtered through our own fallible consciousness, so we still might choose the "wrong" path, even when trying to follow.

Doesn't that suggest that God chose to create the evil?

Depends on how you define evil. If evil is moving away from God - moving away from goodness, does it have to be created separately? Or is it simply a result of the existence of good.

If you create light in a room, do you also create the shadows behind the furniture? Or are the shadows a result of the light in the room?

I asked you to prove that he didn't see it coming and you have yet to prove it.

So you are saying that God is omnicogniscient and chose to send his most favoured angels to become the demons and devils of hell? That he chose to inflict that kind of evil on the universe? That he needed an enemy to prove his greatness?

Sounds like this god of yours is something of an egotist.

*blink* ...no shadows, no colours, nothing indistiguishable visually.

No colours? And, I think you mean "nothing distinguishable".. :)

So you are saying that God is omnicogniscient and chose to send his most favoured angels to become the demons and devils of hell? That he chose to inflict that kind of evil on the universe? That he needed an enemy to prove his greatness?

Sounds like this god of yours is something of an egotist.

Don't even try to presume god's motives or personality. He doesn't NEED motives or personality. He is god, after all.

I figured it was implicit in his scenario that 'god' would be somehow recognisable. If 'god' looks like Bob Hope, and I see him in the street, I might think "Oooh, Bob Hope", but I wouldn't consider it 'evidence of god'.

Don't you decide what you will and will not consider "evidence of god"?

So you are saying that God is omnicogniscient and chose to send his most favoured angels to become the demons and devils of hell? That he chose to inflict that kind of evil on the universe? That he needed an enemy to prove his greatness?

Sounds like this god of yours is something of an egotist.

You are still asking questions and not proving what I have asked you to prove.

So you don't have the capacity to believe without evidence? Doesn't this make you mentally inferior to those who can? Huh? Huh? Thought not. No, you're perfetly apable, you just don't want that. I'm not begrudging it, it's your choie, but don't say you literaly don't have the capacity.

Maybe it DOES make me inferior.

But - I didn't design me, now did I?

And - what IS this bizarre obsession you and Corneliu have that everyone CHOOSES their religious outlook???

Don't twist my refusal.
That isn't my intent. I simply meant that that you will not means you cannot.

You are aware of God, so yours is not belief that lacks evidence. You have evidence, so you cannot but believe.

For the atheist, they lack evidence, so they cannot but not believe.

No. He doubted that the apostles saw Jesus after Jesus rose from the dead.

Really? What's that thing with hands in wounds, then?

Life isn't rational in any way, fear is an essential survival device, and hope is always better than resignation at your fate
What a sad little life you must lead.

I will not lose him again for my faith in the Savior is actually growing.

Exactly.

You can't choose.

You are still asking questions and not proving what I have asked you to prove.

Asking me to prove something of a non-existant being is something of a moot point. All I can do is ask theoretical points.

It would be like asking me to open a sealed crate using a crowbar which is inside the crate.

Maybe it DOES make me inferior.

But - I didn't design me, now did I?

And - what IS this bizarre obsession you and Corneliu have that everyone CHOOSES their religious outlook???

I'm not saying you choose your beliefs. I'm saying you have the apacity to believe in anything. Pink Unicorns, Shoe People, God, ANYTHING. It's all to do with oustide inlfuence. He all have the capacity, whether we fulfil it or not, it's still there. That's what capacity IS. A samll point, yes, but one I feel is worth making.

That isn't my intent. I simply meant that that you will not means you cannot.

That's like saying I can eat a hamburgher but I can't because I'm a vegitarian. Sorry but no. I could means I have the ability to do so. I won't means I am not going to act on the ability to do so.

You are aware of God, so yours is not belief that lacks evidence. You have evidence, so you cannot but believe.

I'll agree with you there but then, I could deny God even with the evidence. I CHOOSE not too.

For the atheist, they lack evidence, so they cannot but not believe.

Despite the fact that the evidence is there for all to see.

Yeah, and you're aware of the oppsite to breathing, aren't you? Hence, without knowledge (not trying, just knowledge) of that opposite, would you appreciate breathing? And the sense of appreciate I mean is "be grateful for".

I have always been breathing, and that has always seemed like a positive thing. Finding out that you could die (not breathe) didn't make me any happier about the process.

Really? What's that thing with hands in wounds, then?

I see you did not read what I typed.

What a sad little life you must lead.

Beause I'm hopeful, irrational and have the good sense to run away from bouncers pumped up on test? Lol, forgive me, but i'd say the opposite is true. What are you, Mr Logic?

Don't you decide what you will and will not consider "evidence of god"?

No. Otherwise I'd decide that trees are plenty good enough.

Life would be so much easier with a 'god', especially here.

I have always been breathing, and that has always seemed like a positive thing. Finding out that you could die (not breathe) didn't make me any happier about the process.

Yet, without the opposite of breathing, what is breathing? Who cares? And the same goes for good if the opposite to THAT didn't exist. Thank you and goodnight.

That isn't my intent. I simply meant that that you will not means you cannot.

You are aware of God, so yours is not belief that lacks evidence. You have evidence, so you cannot but believe.

For the atheist, they lack evidence, so they cannot but not believe.

Exactly.

I could choose to SAY I believe. I can't choose to DO it.

I'm not saying you choose your beliefs. I'm saying you have the apacity to believe in anything. Pink Unicorns, Shoe People, God, ANYTHING. It's all to do with oustide inlfuence. He all have the capacity, whether we fulfil it or not, it's still there. That's what capacity IS. A samll point, yes, but one I feel is worth making.

I have the capacity to believe in it... if there is evidence.

Hard as I might try, I simply cannot buy into the Easter Bunny.

That's like saying I can eat a hamburgher but I can't because I'm a vegitarian.

No - it's like saying you could eat the SUN, but you can't because you are a vegetarian.

Despite the fact that the evidence is there for all to see.

The evidence is there for Shiva, too.

How IS your belief in Shiva?

No. Otherwise I'd decide that trees are plenty good enough.

Life would be so much easier with a 'god', especially here.

So those who do not believe empirical evidence aren't making a conscious choice?

Why then, are we upset when they try to teach their views in our classrooms? After all, neither they nor their children can choose to accept empirical evidence, so why bother teaching about it? They either will or they won't.

I see you did not read what I typed.

I read it - I'm looking for the deeper meaning behind the flippant remark.

Beause I'm hopeful, irrational and have the good sense to run away from bouncers pumped up on test?
I have no idea what bouncers have to do with anything, but the fact that you are vainly hopeful and shamelessly irrational does make you someone to look down on. I can’t imagine how you survive the disappointments that are inevitable with such a mindset. Oh, wait. Yes, I can. You rely on an imaginary God.
Lol, forgive me, but i'd say the opposite is true. What are you, Mr Logic?
No. Just a rational human being.

No - it's like saying you could eat the SUN, but you can't because you are a vegetarian.

That makes absolutely no sense.

I have the capacity to believe in it... if there is evidence.

Hard as I might try, I simply cannot buy into the Easter Bunny.

The capacity's still there though... two year olds can believe in the Bunny, what have they got that you haven't?

Yet, without the opposite of breathing, what is breathing? Who cares? And the same goes for good if the opposite to THAT didn't exist. Thank you and goodnight.

Breathing is what feeds the flesh. Whether or not I 'accept' it, or it's alternative.

The evidence is there for Shiva, too.

How IS your belief in Shiva?

I do not believe in False Gods.

No colours? And, I think you mean "nothing distinguishable".. :)
Yes, no colours. Colours are a result of reflection off surfaces, and appear in varying shades of ...dark.

So those who do not believe empirical evidence aren't making a conscious choice?

Why then, are we upset when they try to teach their views in our classrooms? After all, neither they nor their children can choose to accept empirical evidence, so why bother teaching about it? They either will or they won't.

I'm not sure where you are going with this.

I have no problems with me being taught 'non-empirical' evidence, or anyone else being taught 'empirical evidence'.

That makes absolutely no sense.

Exactly.

I read it - I'm looking for the deeper meaning behind the flippant remark.

That Thomas didn't believe that the other apostles saw Jesus after Jesus was crucified and was ressurrected from the Dead?

I have no idea what bouncers have to do with anything, but the fact that you are vainly hopeful and shamelessly irrational does make you someone to look down on. I can’t imagine how you survive the disappointments that are inevitable with such a mindset. Oh, wait. Yes, I can. You rely on an imaginary God.

No. Just a rational human being.

Fear, my friend. You're not scared of 800 pound bouncers on test legging it towards you? I think that might be a lie.

Rational Human Being = Mr. Logic. Rationalising everything just doesn't work. It makes you even more miserable when you finally realise that everything is allscrewed up anyway.

The capacity's still there though... two year olds can believe in the Bunny, what have they got that you haven't?

A lack of knowledge, perhaps?

The capacity's still there though... two year olds can believe in the Bunny, what have they got that you haven't?

Are you a two-year-old?

I'm no expert on kids... I can't tell you the WHY of it. I just know kids accept everything they are told... even when two things conflict.

Maybe they just don't know enough to know people CAN lie?

I do not believe in False Gods.

Why?

Not a bible verse... a REASON.

Rationalising everything just doesn't work. It makes you even more miserable when you finally realise that everything is all screwed up anyway.

So its better to live in an imaginary bubble where mystical creatures roam?

Yes, no colours. Colours are a result of reflection off surfaces, and appear in varying shades of ...dark.

Nope. Colours are components of white light... they are the 'hue' component. Shades are... well, shades! And the 'vividness' is the saturation.

Fear, my friend. You're not scared of 800 pound bouncers on test legging it towards you? I think that might be a lie.
Of course I'm scared of that. I just don't need the mental construct of God to deal with it.
Rational Human Being = Mr. Logic. Rationalising everything just doesn't work. It makes you even more miserable when you finally realise that everything is allscrewed up anyway.
Knowing that the world is screwed up doesn’t make me unhappy. I certainly didn’t do anything to make it that way.

Breathing is what feeds the flesh. Whether or not I 'accept' it, or it's alternative.

Let me explain my point, which you keep inexpliably missing. Right:

If there was no alternative to breathing - Which there is, only it results in death, so no-one ever does it - but if there WAS no alternative, and no-one had even THOUGHT of the possibilty of not breathing.. right.. you following?... WHO WOULD CARE ABOUT BREATHING? You wouldn't even THINK about breathing. Right? It would just be there. And now...

If there was no alternative to good - Which there is, only it results in death, but people still do it - but if there WAS no alternative, and no-one had even THOUGHT of the possibilty of not being good.. right.. you following?... WHO WOULD CARE ABOUT DOING GOOD? You wouldn't even THINK about doing good. Right? It would just be there.

You see what I just did there? That, my friend, is an analogy.

That's like saying I can eat a hamburgher but I can't because I'm a vegitarian. Sorry but no. I could means I have the ability to do so. I won't means I am not going to act on the ability to do so.
No, it's not like saying that at all.

I'll agree with you there but then, I could deny God even with the evidence. I CHOOSE not too.
No, you cannot choose not to, because to do so would be being untrue to yourself.

Despite the fact that the evidence is there for all to see.
It isn't, actually. It's there for you to see.

That Thomas didn't believe that the other apostles saw Jesus after Jesus was crucified and was ressurrected from the Dead?

He SAW, but he didn't believe. He doubted the Resurrection.

So its better to live in an imaginary bubble where mystical creatures roam?

Yup. Why there hell not? Must be more fun thatn living in a mindset where everything has to be weighed up against all avaliable evidence and applied rigouresly to all other alternatives etc etc etc

I have always been breathing, and that has always seemed like a positive thing. Finding out that you could die (not breathe) didn't make me any happier about the process.
Have you never held your breath? Been underwater? Then you have contrasted breathing with something in order to appreciate it.

I'm not sure where you are going with this.

I have no problems with me being taught 'non-empirical' evidence, or anyone else being taught 'empirical evidence'.

There are those who do not believe empirical evidence. They, instead, believe a literal Creation story handed down to them. For istance, such a person might believe that God created the world in 6 literal days. I would generally say that such a person is being irrational - that the evidence is clearly there to deny both that interpretation of Genesis and the empirical evidence we have of this world.

You, on the other hand, appear to be stating that no human being can ever decide what evidence they will accept and what evidence they will not accept. They will either believe something or not believe it - and they do not choose what evidence will change that belief. Thus, they have absolutely no choice in the matter. Human beings either believe or do not believe - either accept evidence or do not accept evidence, with no input of their own. Why then, do we argue with those who want their religion taught in schools, when we have no reason to say that empirical evidence is better than other types? We didn't choose what evidence we will accept - and they cannot choose what evidence they will accept.

If this is true, how can we debate anything? There is no sense in trying to convince another to accept the evidence we are using, because they have no choice in whether or not to accept it.

Let me explain my point, which you keep inexpliably missing. Right:

If there was no alternative to breathing - Which there is, only it results in death, so no-one ever does it - but if there WAS no alternative, and no-one had even THOUGHT of the possibilty of not breathing.. right.. you following?... WHO WOULD CARE ABOUT BREATHING? You wouldn't even THINK about breathing. Right? It would just be there. And now...

If there was no alternative to good - Which there is, only it results in death, but people still do it - but if there WAS no alternative, and no-one had even THOUGHT of the possibilty of not being good.. right.. you following?... WHO WOULD CARE ABOUT DOING GOOD? You wouldn't even THINK about doing good. Right? It would just be there.

You see what I just did there? That, my friend, is an analogy.

But, it is still irrelevent. You would still be 'aware of' your world, even if you didn't use the word 'good' for it.

I don't see what the problem is. Do you just mean we would feel some sense of relief at NOT being surrounded by evil?

Have you never held your breath? Been underwater? Then you have contrasted breathing with something in order to appreciate it.

I have NOW.

Yup. Why there hell not? Must be more fun thatn living in a mindset where everything has to be weighed up against all avaliable evidence and applied rigouresly to all other alternatives etc etc etc

Yeah, screw being right. Just make shit up. Evidence, who needs that?

There are those who do not believe empirical evidence. They, instead, believe a literal Creation story handed down to them. For istance, such a person might believe that God created the world in 6 literal days. I would generally say that such a person is being irrational - that the evidence is clearly there to deny both that interpretation of Genesis and the empirical evidence we have of this world.

You, on the other hand, appear to be stating that no human being can ever decide what evidence they will accept and what evidence they will not accept. They will either believe something or not believe it - and they do not choose what evidence will change that belief. Thus, they have absolutely no choice in the matter. Human beings either believe or do not believe - either accept evidence or do not accept evidence, with no input of their own. Why then, do we argue with those who want their religion taught in schools, when we have no reason to say that empirical evidence is better than other types? We didn't choose what evidence we will accept - and they cannot choose what evidence they will accept.

If this is true, how can we debate anything? There is no sense in trying to convince another to accept the evidence we are using, because they have no choice in whether or not to accept it.

I've not argued "with those who want their religion taught in schools"... only those who want the non-empirical AS empirical.

But, it is still irrelevent. You would still be 'aware of' your world, even if you didn't use the word 'good' for it.

I don't see what the problem is. Do you just mean we would feel some sense of relief at NOT being surrounded by evil?

GAHH! NO! What is WRONG with you!? You wouldn't know what evil WAS! You wouldn't feel relief! You wouldn't know what to feel AT ALL if you had nothing to contrast it with! Yes, you would be aware of your world, but you wouldn't know if it was a good world or and evil world! AND THAT WOULD BE SO MUCH WORSE THAN A WORLD WITH BOTH GOOD AND EVIL! At least then you can appreciate the good when it happeeeeeens! Goddamm.

Yeah, screw being right. Just make shit up. Evidence, who needs that?

You sound like a barrel of laughs.

Nope. Colours are components of white light... they are the 'hue' component. Shades are... well, shades! And the 'vividness' is the saturation.
No, frequecy of light is a component of white light. It's not colour until it reflects off something ....dark.

Yeah, screw being right. Just make shit up. Evidence, who needs that?
It’s no wonder those kind of people don’t like science.

It’s no wonder those kind of people don’t like science.

Hey, I like science. Unless it's being boring, then I just tend to ignore it.

I've not argued "with those who want their religion taught in schools"... only those who want the non-empirical AS empirical.

What good are distinctions such as "empirical" and "non-empirical" if we have no choice in what we will and will not accept as evidence. It is all simply "evidence" with the only distinctions being what individuals will accept - something they have no choice in and thus cannot come to any agreement on.

Edit: Meanwhile, I believe I have seen you argue that religion should not be taught in public schools. It had something to do with "freedom of religion", but without choice, there really is no point to "freedom of religion" anyways.

GAHH! NO! What is WRONG with you!? You wouldn't know what evil WAS! You wouldn't feel relief! You wouldn't know what to feel AT ALL if you had nothing to contrast it with! Yes, you would be aware of your world, but you wouldn't know if it was a good world or and evil world! AND THAT WOULD BE SO MUCH WORSE THAN A WORLD WITH BOTH GOOD AND EVIL! At least then you can appreciate the good when it happeeeeeens! Goddamm.

I don't accept your premise.

How would a world that had no evil in it - even if we didn't KNOW it was 'good' or 'evil' - how would that world be "WORSE THAN A WORLD WITH BOTH GOOD AND EVIL"?

Me - I'll pick blissful ignorance over rape and murder.

Am I really THAT unusual?

No, frequecy of light is a component of white light. It's not colour until it reflects off something ....dark.

Colour was proved to be a part of white light by refraction through a prism... nothing dark about a clear prism or a white piece of paper.

No, frequecy of light is a component of white light. It's not colour until it reflects off something ....dark.

Ugh

White light is light composed of all visible wavelengths. When an object reflects a certain wavelength, it appears to be that corresponding color. Color depends on the wavelengths being reflected.

No, frequecy of light is a component of white light. It's not colour until it reflects off something ....dark.

Don't make me get my Physics book...

Tell you what - go get your record collection, and flip through to the Pink Floyd selection. Meditate on the sleeve to "Dark Side..."

I don't accept your premise.

How would a world that had no evil in it - even if we didn't KNOW it was 'good' or 'evil' - how would that world be "WORSE THAN A WORLD WITH BOTH GOOD AND EVIL"?

Me - I'll pick blissful ignorance over rape and murder.

Am I really THAT unusual?

Think about it more along these lines:

If everything we ever knew was evil -if there was no good with which to contrast it, would we know it was a bad thing? You will pick bliss over rape and murder. But if rape and murder were all you ever knew - were an integral part of your existence and you did not know that an existence without them could exist, would you see them as "evil". Would you even be able to conceive of "taking blissful ignorance over rape and murder", since you wouldn't even know of any alternative?

Colour was proved to be a part of white light by refraction through a prism... nothing dark about a clear prism or a white piece of paper.
But the refraction broke up the spectrum of frequencies to different angles, and displayed them (reflection) on a surface. It wasn't colour until they hit that surface.

What good are distinctions such as "empirical" and "non-empirical" if we have no choice in what we will and will not accept as evidence. It is all simply "evidence" with the only distinctions being what individuals will accept - something they have no choice in and thus cannot come to any agreement on.

Edit: Meanwhile, I believe I have seen you argue that religion should not be taught in public schools. It had something to do with "freedom of religion", but without choice, there really is no point to "freedom of religion" anyways.

I have argued we shouldn't teach religion to children... without some form of qualification.

Once people are old enough to discern for themselves, teach them what you want - just don't misrepresent it.

And that's my point about 'emprical' versus 'non'. Teach non-empirical to your hearts content - just don't misrepresent it. Don't pretend ID is science - because neither concept can live up to the 'rigours' of the OTHER.

Do you have faith = light fequency = physics. looks like a good answer to me. It all comes down to physics.

So here's my challenge to all you religious persons - provide me with evidence, conforming to the scientific principle of proof, that God exists.

Please. Make me laugh.

Ugh

White light is light composed of all visible wavelengths. When an object reflects a certain wavelength, it appears to be that corresponding color. Color depends on the wavelengths being reflected.
Yes, thank you for restating my point.

I don't accept your premise.

How would a world that had no evil in it - even if we didn't KNOW it was 'good' or 'evil' - how would that world be "WORSE THAN A WORLD WITH BOTH GOOD AND EVIL"?

Me - I'll pick blissful ignorance over rape and murder.

Am I really THAT unusual?

But.. but...if it was just blissful ignorance, it wouldn't be blissful. I mean, how many exclamation marks do I need to get my point across? I just cannot believe how this can be going over your head so badly. Without good and evil, they'd be no happiness. Can you not see this? No-one would think anything was good or bad... it would be awful. You need something to contrast EVERYTHING with, or you have no frame of reference. If you lived in wealth all your life, you wouldn't know what it is to be poor. You would take it for granted. The wealth wouldn't make you happy beause you wouldn't know any different. Now substitute "wealth" for "good". Okay?
How many more analogies do you need?

Think about it more along these lines:

If everything we ever knew was evil -if there was no good with which to contrast it, would we know it was a bad thing? You will pick bliss over rape and murder. But if rape and murder were all you ever knew - were an integral part of your existence and you did not know that an existence without them could exist, would you see them as "evil". Would you even be able to conceive of "taking blissful ignorance over rape and murder", since you wouldn't even know of any alternative?

It isn't how it is perceived by US that matters.

I perceive a difference between good and evil, and would happily shed the evil. According to some, THIS is how 'god' wants it.

If only good existed, I would be none the wiser... but no less happy for that lack. GOD would know... and would have chosen only good.

In the inverse, GOD would have chosen only evil. I wouldn't be partying because I was unaware that there COULD be an alternative to the constant abuse.

Do you have faith = light fequency = physics. looks like a good answer to me. It all comes down to physics.

So here's my challenge to all you religious persons - provide me with evidence, conforming to the scientific principle of proof, that God exists.

Please. Make me laugh.
That is impossible. God is supernatural.

Do you have faith = light fequency = physics. looks like a good answer to me. It all comes down to physics.

So here's my challenge to all you religious persons - provide me with evidence, conforming to the scientific principle of proof, that God exists.

Please. Make me laugh.

No thanks. You see, God doesn't have to adhere to science, or vice-versa. Is "faith" a dirty word around here or something?

Through logic, we can determine that God/Goddess does indeed...not exist. What I would liek to say is that gods can exist, but not the general monotheistic view of a permanent, all-powerful, omniscient 'God'. Firstly, God is permanent. This however cannot be true: God thinks, feels, he created, he even feels jealousy. This implies that he has changes of state or at least emotions: thus God is not permament, but impermanent and created (in fact, nothing at all can be non-created and independently arise). If he is all-powerful, even though he gave us 'free-will', he could if he wanted to just stop us doing whatever we want. Why doesn't he then stop killers before they kill? If he is all-knowing, then he knows eons and eons before you were even born that you will go to Hell. What a lovely, compassionate God...

But the refraction broke up the spectrum of frequencies to different angles, and displayed them (reflection) on a surface. It wasn't colour until they hit that surface.

ummm... yes it was - the light entered a dark room through a slit in a blind, a prism was put in the way and the clolours were visible in the air - the card was used to allow the colours to be recorded for the ensuing scientific paper.

But the refraction broke up the spectrum of frequencies to different angles, and displayed them (reflection) on a surface. It wasn't colour until they hit that surface.

Rainbows. Refracted light on the surface of water droplets.

It isn't how it is perceived by US that matters.

I perceive a difference between good and evil, and would happily shed the evil. According to some, THIS is how 'god' wants it.

If only good existed, I would be none the wiser... but no less happy for that lack. GOD would know... and would have chosen only good.

In the inverse, GOD would have chosen only evil. I wouldn't be partying because I was unaware that there COULD be an alternative to the constant abuse.

Yes, you would be less happy. Can we just leave it at that. I think I've gone over WHY this should be enough times now.

That is impossible. God is supernatural.

Thank you - proof for God is impossible - I'm outta here. I'm going to go have sex.

But.. but...if it was just blissful ignorance, it wouldn't be blissful. I mean, how many exclamation marks do I need to get my point across? I just cannot believe how this can be going over your head so badly. Without good and evil, they'd be no happiness. Can you not see this? No-one would think anything was good or bad... it would be awful. You need something to contrast EVERYTHING with, or you have no frame of reference. If you lived in wealth all your life, you wouldn't know what it is to be poor. You would take it for granted. The wealth wouldn't make you happy beause you wouldn't know any different. Now substitute "wealth" for "good". Okay?
How many more analogies do you need?

You miss the point.

I understand your 'argument... I just don't think it is worth anything.

1) Why is 'happy' involved in the discussion?

2) No one would THINK anything was good or bad... but it would ALL [i]be[/b] 'good', in spit of our ignorance.

3) You don't NEED to contrast everything. I'm not sitting here thinking "Shit! Infinity does my head in, because I don't have an 'opposite' for it..."

He did create the world without evil. Man screwed it up because of.....

Free Will.
Maybe "God" is just a sadist asshole.

ummm... yes it was - the light entered a dark room through a slit in a blind, a prism was put in the way and the clolours were visible in the air - the card was used to allow the colours to be recorded for the ensuing scientific paper.
What's that? You say the light hit the surface of dust particles in the air?

Yes, you would be less happy. Can we just leave it at that. I think I've gone over WHY this should be enough times now.

You make a leap of faith... WHY would I be 'less happy'? And, ultimately... what does that have to do with it?

Or - are you trying to convince me 'god' engineered all of reality to 'cheer me up'?

If he did - he sucks, because there's a whole lot of 'not cheery' stuff going on, here.

You miss the point.

I understand your 'argument... I just don't think it is worth anything.

1) Why is 'happy' involved in the discussion?

2) No one would THINK anything was good or bad... but it would ALL [i]be[/b] 'good', in spit of our ignorance.

3) You don't NEED to contrast everything. I'm not sitting here thinking "Shit! Infinity does my head in, because I don't have an 'opposite' for it..."

1) I'm saying our world is better than "all-good world", i'm using the happiness of its populous as a tool of measurement as to which is "better".

2) Good and bad are just names for things, and what's the point of everything being all good if we are ignorant of what "good" is?

3) Well the opposite of "infinity" is "finite". And yes, "infinity" would be totally meaningless if it weren't for "finite". So for anything to have meaning, you NEED NEED NEED an oppositie counterpart with which to compare it. Comprende?

Rainbows. Refracted light on the surface of water droplets.
Rainbow: a bow or arc of prismatic colors appearing in the heavens opposite the sun and caused by the refraction and reflection of the sun's rays in drops of rain

Thank you - proof for God is impossible - I'm outta here. I'm going to go have sex.
Have fun.

You make a leap of faith... WHY would I be 'less happy'? And, ultimately... what does that have to do with it?

Or - are you trying to convince me 'god' engineered all of reality to 'cheer me up'?

If he did - he sucks, because there's a whole lot of 'not cheery' stuff going on, here.

You would be less happy. Everyone would be. It would be inevitable.

And why else would you want to eliminate evil if not to make people more happy? It has to do with everything we're arguing about.
And I'm not trying to convince you of anything god has done or why, since I personally have no idea. I'm just telling you this world is better now than if it were engineered entirely without evil.

I have argued we shouldn't teach religion to children... without some form of qualification.

Once people are old enough to discern for themselves, teach them what you want - just don't misrepresent it.

How can they "discern" anything without some choice as to what evidence they will and will not accept?

And that's my point about 'emprical' versus 'non'. Teach non-empirical to your hearts content - just don't misrepresent it. Don't pretend ID is science - because neither concept can live up to the 'rigours' of the OTHER.

But if you have no choice as to what evidence you will accept, how are such distinctions useful? Why should we even make a distinction between "empirical" and "non-empirical", if no person has a choice in the matter. If I cannot choose what evidence to accept, what does it matter if it is empirical or not?


It isn't how it is perceived by US that matters.

Of course it is. Words like "better" or "worse" are subjective - completely dependent upon perception.

I perceive a difference between good and evil, and would happily shed the evil. According to some, THIS is how 'god' wants it.

But, if there were no evil, you could not perceive that difference. Thus, there wouldn't even be a good and evil as far as you were concerned (which is all that matters when we are talking about perception) - there would only be existence.

In truth, you would most likely be no more "happy" about your world if it were pure good than if it were pure evil. Without that contrast, you cannot even choose which is the "better". Thus, either alternative would be equal. However, with the contrast, you can be happy about the good things (and sad about the bad).

Thank you - proof for God is impossible - I'm outta here. I'm going to go have sex.
Lucky.

But, if there were no evil, you could not perceive that difference. Thus, there wouldn't even be a good and evil as far as you were concerned (which is all that matters when we are talking about perception) - there would only be existence.

In truth, you would most likely be no more "happy" about your world if it were pure good than if it were pure evil. Without that contrast, you cannot even choose which is the "better". Thus, either alternative would be equal. However, with the contrast, you can be happy about the good things (and sad about the bad).

I love you, and I want to have your babies.

I love you, and I want to have your babies.

hehe. Sorry, I'm spoken for, and I'm probably going to have my own. =)

;) Is there a God. Yes, because we need to believe such to feel comfortable and OK with ourselves....that there is security and a higher being to watch, guide and maybe protect us-- even when all logical evidence shows otherwise.
:) Is there a God. No, becuase if we understood the concept of GOD, we will know that we are anything we want to be, and from us comes the 'WILL', of life, creation, being, existence, security and all the things we need to feel comfortable- in a world that tends to prove otherwise...in a vast universe that we know little about.

I am not saying I would know, but deducing from what I know of our collective knowledge as humans, the questions start to change thier demands and concerns, and present many different considerations- like, why is this world in existing and especially in the state that it does?- hence we feel the need to contemplate if there is such a thing as God.

With closer attention to the way the world works, on the physical level alone- there is no action without a reaction hence it took the universe a long time to get to this state. If we focus on action alone, it would mean that somethiong must have happened to start a reaction that has got us this far, probably from nothing at all or concievably from a state we have no comprehension of-- like 'GOD'.
This probably means that the question of God should be one that focuses on what we want to accept as a reasonable conception of what we find understandable, acceptible and probably comforting, be it yeah or neah, As such, whichever way we tend to lean, our actions be it positive or negetive will enforce the concept of God or No God, for those who believe and those who do not, knowingly or not knowingly.

For us who say Yes, maybe we pay respect to the source we concieve to be our life's source and try to use this as a refernce to benchmark our actions as good or bad,(Those thing that we know preserve life), and those who learn more as they go along, feel quite comfortable with themselves knowing that they do not feel the need for a guide to do good things...or bad things. Whatever we want to do, we learn quite quickly that our WILL plays a major role in accomplishing it, If we need to have faith in an entity or on the other hand, entirely on ourselves or on nothing at all.

For us who say NO, it is, as is commonly the case, not question of serious concern as we feel it hardly influences our day to day life. This being the case, we dont necessarily rely on faith (in something we cant quite explain) to see us through our diffucult tasks or times. Having said this, we still rely on our will or sometimes the will of others at such times.
This therefore must mean that if there is a GOD we
believe it, if there is Not a GOD we also have to beleive it.

Panthers are tree-dwellers.
Do you even know what a "panther" is? I'm guessing not since you seem to think it's a species of its own...

"panther" refers to both leopards and jaguars who have the right genetic mix to have a dark base coat (and still have their spots, tho its difficult to see without good sunlight)

neither leopards, no jaguars are predominately tree dwelling, though both are CAPABLE of climbing trees, and only leopards tend to eat their prey in trees because they're too small to defend it from larger cats.

check your "facts" before you speak please

Evil is in the World becuase of sin? ask the Devil! He told Eve there was a nice Juicy tree that God dosnt want you to eat but think of the Knowledge of Good and Evil, devil says " Hey you'd be smarter then God himself" so Eve tells Adam and they say okies lets go for some chewwie chewwie, Eat Eat Eat then BANG eating the fruit of Good and Evil, urm start to realise there Naked!!!! Shock (maybe not for a nudist) but God walks along in the Garden calling for Adam and Eve "Where Are you" then behind some bushes "why you hiding?" Adam and Eve says "where naked and embarresed" God says "I told you not to eat from that Tree, but you Disobaed me, so the Serpant has to ride on his belly for eternity and Adam you have to toil in the Soil until you Die and then Eve you'll have pain through Child Birth"

So thats a short run down on why there is Evil in this world :P thankyou and goodnight READ GENESIS it's GREAT!

Why?

Not a bible verse... a REASON.

Because it is a sin to worship a false God.

You sound like a barrel of laughs.

He is.

Hey, I like science. Unless it's being boring, then I just tend to ignore it.

My kind of fellow :D

No thanks. You see, God doesn't have to adhere to science, or vice-versa. Is "faith" a dirty word around here or something?

Yes it is.

I love you, and I want to have your babies.

Wait...So if it's all determined by the contrast...Wouldn't overall happiness always average out to the same amount? If whether it's good or bad is based on deviation from the standard...Ummm...Wait, lemme figure this out.

I really rather like the analogy made of lightness/darkness to good and evil. In the analogy, the universe is dark, everywhere in darkness. Light is a thing added to this dark world with the result of casting illumination on things, and that allows us to see them. The light is energy, and with this energy colours, textures, shapes, relationships ... basically knowledge of all things, as they appear, is revealed to our eyes. Without light, everything would be cast back into darkness.

Good, then, the Christian God, is presented as something introduced to a spiritual world of evil, everyone evil, that illuminates that evil and allows us to see (understand): we are those things in the dark. Just as light is not there to combat the dark, nor defeat it --that can never be done, there will always be shadows --good does not defeat evil. Good provides us with knowledge of itself, and hence our evil selves are illuminated and allows us to make the choice between remaining in the dark or standing in the illumination of the light. This concept of God presents us with a choice that the Christian sees as irrational not to choose. Without God, everyone would be cast back into evil.

I see things in a different light. I've said before on these forums that I think people are inherently good. I don't believe in evil people. 'Evil', that lack of light, is not the thing being illuminated by 'good' --rather, objects in the dark (us) are illuminated. When the lights go out and we are in the dark, we are not the darkness. We have our own inner light of good that is the "image of God" we are made in, and that can never go out.

We are all shining lights in the dark.

Do you even know what a "panther" is? I'm guessing not since you seem to think it's a species of its own...

"panther" refers to both leopards and jaguars who have the right genetic mix to have a dark base coat (and still have their spots, tho its difficult to see without good sunlight)

neither leopards, no jaguars are predominately tree dwelling, though both are CAPABLE of climbing trees, and only leopards tend to eat their prey in trees because they're too small to defend it from larger cats.

check your "facts" before you speak please
I stand corrected.

Do you have faith = light fequency = physics. looks like a good answer to me. It all comes down to physics.

So here's my challenge to all you religious persons - provide me with evidence, conforming to the scientific principle of proof, that God exists.

Please. Make me laugh.
It's already been done and is quite humorous actually, it's called the Baysian Thoery and is now used as a spam filter :)

basically, he created a formula to prove the existance of God by disproving the non-existance... and failed, but we have awesoem spam filtering now :)

I really rather like the analogy made of lightness/darkness to good and evil. In the analogy, the universe is dark, everywhere in darkness. Light is a thing added to this dark world with the result of casting illumination on things, and that allows us to see them. The light is energy, and with this energy colours, textures, shapes, relationships ... basically knowledge of all things, as they appear, is revealed to our eyes. Without light, everything would be cast back into darkness.

Good, then, the Christian God, is presented as something introduced to a spiritual world of evil, everyone evil, that illuminates that evil and allows us to see (understand): we are those things in the dark. Just as light is not there to combat the dark, nor defeat it --that can never be done, there will always be shadows --good does not defeat evil. Good provides us with knowledge of itself, and hence our evil selves are illuminated and allows us to make the choice between remaining in the dark or standing in the illumination of the light. This concept of God presents us with a choice that the Christian sees as irrational not to choose. Without God, everyone would be cast back into evil.

I see things in a different light. I've said before on these forums that I think people are inherently good. I don't believe in evil people. 'Evil', that lack of light, is not the thing being illuminated by 'good' --rather, objects in the dark (us) are illuminated. When the lights go out and we are in the dark, we are not the darkness. We have our own inner light of good that is the "image of God" we are made in, and that can never go out.

We are all shining lights in the dark.

That's interesting, but not exactly how I would put it.

The very concept of "darkness", to me, is an absence of light. I know that light is energy being added, but the universe would not be "dark" if there were no "light". Thus, darkness is defined by light, not the other way around.

The very concept of evil, to me, is defined by the absence of - or a movement away from - good. Human beings, I believe, if we are "inherently" good or evil, are good. In our fallibility, however, we make choices which lead us away from good (ie. to evil). The choice, I believe, is not to move towards good out of evil. The choice is whether or not to reject good - thus becoming evil.

That isn't my intent. I simply meant that that you will not means you cannot.

You are aware of God, so yours is not belief that lacks evidence. You have evidence, so you cannot but believe.

For the atheist, they lack evidence, so they cannot but not believe.
This is a very well made point, and I agree with it in the context of the dogmatic approach to (Christian) religion that mostly pervades this thread. However, isn't there an alternative approach to belief in which one can choose to believe, by consciously opening onself up to the possibility of God? Through meditation on the nature of divinity, or grace, or whatever, one may thereby attain true belief.

There's certainly that strand in most religions that I'm aware of, and the complementary one of deliberately turning away from God.

There is no god and anyone who believes there is massively deludes themselves.

You are aware of God, so yours is not belief that lacks evidence. You have evidence, so you cannot but believe.

For the atheist, they lack evidence, so they cannot but not believe.

What about the issue of interpretation? All evidence is interpreted. A theist and an atheist may have access to the same evidence, and simply interpret it differently. None of us can really say what personal experiences others have and have not had, or how they might have seen such experiences.

1) I'm saying our world is better than "all-good world", i'm using the happiness of its populous as a tool of measurement as to which is "better".

2) Good and bad are just names for things, and what's the point of everything being all good if we are ignorant of what "good" is?

3) Well the opposite of "infinity" is "finite". And yes, "infinity" would be totally meaningless if it weren't for "finite". So for anything to have meaning, you NEED NEED NEED an oppositie counterpart with which to compare it. Comprende?

1) I don't accept your choices. I don't think a generally 'happy' population (and I have only YOUR WORD that 'happiness' is intrinsically linked) outweighs a population where no child is raped, tortured or murdered.

2) The point of everything being 'all good' is self explanatory. 'No murder' is good even if you DON'T have a word for it.

3) No - the opposite of INFINITE is 'finite'.

You really need to slow down and actually READ what you are responding to.

Rainbow: a bow or arc of prismatic colors appearing in the heavens opposite the sun and caused by the refraction and reflection of the sun's rays in drops of rain

How does that contradict what I said?

You were talking about the shade, etc as intrinsic to the colour... and yet you can both refract and reflect light through/across an effectively colourless interface.

I don't think it's an issue of whether I belive in God but rather if he believes in me (us).

I can hope that he does and act accordingly. You (or others) are perfectly free to believe the opposite OR nothing at all.

I don't know and won't log in to find out if you (or anyone else) reads or responds to this post. What you say/do won't effect how I think or feel about it... just as what I have posted will (most likely) have little or no impact on your lives.

I do, however, wish you well, hope that you find peace and don't end up selecting the same lucky Powerball numbers as I will tomorrow ;-)

Reg - Atlantis Minoros > Roly Poly Fishheads for all!

You would be less happy. Everyone would be. It would be inevitable.

And why else would you want to eliminate evil if not to make people more happy? It has to do with everything we're arguing about.
And I'm not trying to convince you of anything god has done or why, since I personally have no idea. I'm just telling you this world is better now than if it were engineered entirely without evil.

And, I think you are wrong, and deluded.

And, I don't mean 'just a bit' wrong. Or even 'mostly' wrong.

I mean - about as wrong as it is possible to be.

You may think the world better... I pay attention to the world, and I read about three children drowned in a bath, or a mother that uses a knife to saw off her infant daughters arms... and I think ignorance is better than your semantic battles over 'happiness'.

If there was a 'god', and he loved his creation - that god, and that creation, are far from here.

Evil is in the World becuase of sin? ask the Devil! He told Eve there was a nice Juicy tree that God dosnt want you to eat but think of the Knowledge of Good and Evil, devil says " Hey you'd be smarter then God himself" so Eve tells Adam and they say okies lets go for some chewwie chewwie, Eat Eat Eat then BANG eating the fruit of Good and Evil, urm start to realise there Naked!!!! Shock (maybe not for a nudist) but God walks along in the Garden calling for Adam and Eve "Where Are you" then behind some bushes "why you hiding?" Adam and Eve says "where naked and embarresed" God says "I told you not to eat from that Tree, but you Disobaed me, so the Serpant has to ride on his belly for eternity and Adam you have to toil in the Soil until you Die and then Eve you'll have pain through Child Birth"

So thats a short run down on why there is Evil in this world :P thankyou and goodnight READ GENESIS it's GREAT!

Methinks you should read Genesis. It's made very clear that it was the serpent who was 'more crafty than any of the wild animals' who persuaded Eve to eat the fruit; Satan isn't even mentioned until the book of Numbers if I recall correctly.

I really rather like the analogy made of lightness/darkness to good and evil. In the analogy, the universe is dark, everywhere in darkness. Light is a thing added to this dark world with the result of casting illumination on things, and that allows us to see them. The light is energy, and with this energy colours, textures, shapes, relationships ... basically knowledge of all things, as they appear, is revealed to our eyes. Without light, everything would be cast back into darkness.

Good, then, the Christian God, is presented as something introduced to a spiritual world of evil, everyone evil, that illuminates that evil and allows us to see (understand): we are those things in the dark. Just as light is not there to combat the dark, nor defeat it --that can never be done, there will always be shadows --good does not defeat evil. Good provides us with knowledge of itself, and hence our evil selves are illuminated and allows us to make the choice between remaining in the dark or standing in the illumination of the light. This concept of God presents us with a choice that the Christian sees as irrational not to choose. Without God, everyone would be cast back into evil.

I see things in a different light. I've said before on these forums that I think people are inherently good. I don't believe in evil people. 'Evil', that lack of light, is not the thing being illuminated by 'good' --rather, objects in the dark (us) are illuminated. When the lights go out and we are in the dark, we are not the darkness. We have our own inner light of good that is the "image of God" we are made in, and that can never go out.

We are all shining lights in the dark.
very nicely said.

it allows for us to have flaws but doesnt condemn us as basically evil.

How can they "discern" anything without some choice as to what evidence they will and will not accept?


Why would they have no choices or no evidence? You are twisting my arguments somewhere they are anatomically not capable of going.


But if you have no choice as to what evidence you will accept, how are such distinctions useful? Why should we even make a distinction between "empirical" and "non-empirical", if no person has a choice in the matter. If I cannot choose what evidence to accept, what does it matter if it is empirical or not?


Pragmatism. If we are dealing with empirical matters, we deal with them empirically. Thus - let us not confuse that with non-empirical irrelevence.

Similarly - the matters best dealt with non-empirically, are poorly served by purely empirical tools.



Of course it is. Words like "better" or "worse" are subjective - completely dependent upon perception.


However - as I said - OUR interpretations are irrelevent.

If all we knew was good, we wouldn't think it 'better' than good AND evil. But- empirically - it would be 'better' and 'good'... no matter WHAT we thought.



But, if there were no evil, you could not perceive that difference. Thus, there wouldn't even be a good and evil as far as you were concerned (which is all that matters when we are talking about perception) - there would only be existence.

In truth, you would most likely be no more "happy" about your world if it were pure good than if it were pure evil. Without that contrast, you cannot even choose which is the "better". Thus, either alternative would be equal. However, with the contrast, you can be happy about the good things (and sad about the bad).

I don't want to be sad about the bad. No amount of extra cheese on my pizza is going to make up for Myra Hindley.

Because it is a sin to worship a false God.

I'm sure you do lots of things that are sins.

You don't blieve in false gods, because you CAN'T.

Because it is a sin to worship a false God.
Sinner.

That's interesting, but not exactly how I would put it.

The very concept of "darkness", to me, is an absence of light. I know that light is energy being added, but the universe would not be "dark" if there were no "light". Thus, darkness is defined by light, not the other way around.

The very concept of evil, to me, is defined by the absence of - or a movement away from - good. Human beings, I believe, if we are "inherently" good or evil, are good. In our fallibility, however, we make choices which lead us away from good (ie. to evil). The choice, I believe, is not to move towards good out of evil. The choice is whether or not to reject good - thus becoming evil.
I should make it clear that, in my personal beliefs, an absence of good, to me, is just nothing, like an absence of matter would be. I don't believe in evil at all. I define good as that which is beneficial to life and the quality of life, and bad is detrimental, and everything is a bit of both. I've never been able to define evil well, nor find a definition that seemed appropriate.

I like the analogy, though. It's pretty.

Sinner.

Yes I know I am a sinner and I acknowledge that I am a sinner.

All religions treat worship of other gods as sinful... who's to say which religion is the true one? or if multiple are? or none? noone alive can honestly and irrevicably say beyond ALL doubt that they KNOW the truth of the matter. All we can say is what we believe to be the truth.

Until one or more gods step forward and evidense themselves, our truth is either faith, or non-existance of such beings

Yes I know I am a sinner and I acknowledge that I am a sinner.
...

Ruffy, why do you let good people suffer?
Just euthanize the thread. Softly. Here's a pillow. Here's the syringe. Here's the bag. Here's the shovel. And i know in these past 63 pages, someone has added the most-likely final lines to the last will and testament of this thread.
Deicide.
*begs*
http://www.websmileys.com/sm/sad/1346.gif

Ruffy, why do you let good people suffer?
Just euthanize the thread. Softly. Here's a pillow. Here's the syringe. Here's the bag. Here's the shovel. And i know in these past 63 pages, someone has added the most-likely final lines to the last will and testament of this thread.
Deicide.
*begs*
http://www.websmileys.com/sm/sad/1346.gif
I work for Satan.

Bump.

I work for Satan.
I hope you're getting your pay in sex 'cuz the $'s all forged/counterfeit.
*thinks Rev. 22:20, thinks Cobbleism*
http://www.websmileys.com/sm/evil/1176.gif

1) I don't accept your choices. I don't think a generally 'happy' population (and I have only YOUR WORD that 'happiness' is intrinsically linked) outweighs a population where no child is raped, tortured or murdered.

2) The point of everything being 'all good' is self explanatory. 'No murder' is good even if you DON'T have a word for it.

3) No - the opposite of INFINITE is 'finite'.

You really need to slow down and actually READ what you are responding to.

1. - Well i think it does. Pure opinion here.

2. - But how could it be "all good" if we don't know what "all good" is? And what would be the point? If there was no murder, we wouldn't know if it was good or not unless we have experience with murder and know what it is.

3. - yeah very clever. Maybe we don't have a word for it, but we know what the opposite of Infinity IS, so we can still appreciate it.

I hope you're getting your pay in sex 'cuz the $'s all forged/counterfeit.
*thinks Rev. 22:20, thinks Cobbleism*
http://www.websmileys.com/sm/evil/1176.gif
Sex, *nods*

:)

They don't even take tax out!

I'm a noob to Nation States and most likely someone has said something like what I am about to say but I thought I would give my 2 cents anyway.

I believe in God, although I think the way the majority of people who believe view God in a completely irrational and uneducated way. IMO, the more "believers" are able to admit they know next to nothing about God or His behavior, the easier it will be to seek Him.

I hope you're getting your pay in sex 'cuz the $'s all forged/counterfeit.
*thinks Rev. 22:20, thinks Cobbleism*
http://www.websmileys.com/sm/evil/1176.gif

I think you mean kabbalism, named after the god Kabbalah :)

Why would they have no choices or no evidence? You are twisting my arguments somewhere they are anatomically not capable of going.

You said that one cannot choose what evidence they will and will not accept. From this follows the idea that one cannot choose what evidence they will and will not accept.

Pragmatism. If we are dealing with empirical matters, we deal with them empirically. Thus - let us not confuse that with non-empirical irrelevence.

Similarly - the matters best dealt with non-empirically, are poorly served by purely empirical tools.

If you cannot choose what evidence you will and will not accept, how can you determine what matters are to be dealt with empirically or non-empirically. You just accept or don't accept evidence - you cannot choose which evidence to accept or not accept.

However - as I said - OUR interpretations are irrelevent.

I was under the impression you were talking about what would make a "better" world. As the word "better" is inherently subjective, our perception and interpretation is all that can possibly matter in the discussion.

If all we knew was good, we wouldn't think it 'better' than good AND evil. But- empirically - it would be 'better' and 'good'... no matter WHAT we thought.

"Better" is not an empirical term. It is subjective. You may think that a world with only good would be "better". Someone else might disagree. Neither can be demonstrated empirically, as they are based completley in your subjective of view of what would be "better".

I don't want to be sad about the bad. No amount of extra cheese on my pizza is going to make up for Myra Hindley.

But, without sadness, would you ever know happiness?

I believe there was a disclaimer in there about "unless you have a psychotic streak". I would say that Fred Phelps is, if not clinically psychotic, neurotic to a very unhealthy degree.

P.S.: Although the "Yes" answer on the poll has never been down by more than two points, I think this may be the first time I've seen it ahead-- 997 to 996
No, it's been ahead before. It's been going back and forth, but I've never seen a difference of more than 5 votes -- both ways.

No, it's been ahead before. It's been going back and forth, but I've never seen a difference of more than 5 votes -- both ways.

How special! I get a post of mine replied to from a couple hundred back, and just as I'm logging on!

I've seen the "no" option ahead by as much as a dozen on occasion. And I'm sure it had been ahead before (it's statistically ridiculous that it would hover within a point or two and never lead), I just never saw it.

But, without sadness, would you ever know happiness?
I'm not sure you could. Granted, an existence without unhappiness is beyond the scope of my personal experience, so I'm really just guessing and hypothesizing here.

He does accept you for who you are if you believe in the Lord Savior Jesus Christ.
<snip>
In other words, he'll accept you for who you are, as long as you're the right person?

What about pagans like me? I don't beileve in the Lord Savior Jesus Christ. Are you saying that even though you think your god made me, he won't accept me for who I am?

Or are you suggesting that your god didn't make pagans?

Sex, *nods*

:)

They don't even take tax out!
Oh, good, good.
I suspect the act itself would be taxing enough :p
*AGAIN thinks of Saddam and Satan in South Park:Bigger, Longer, and Uncut*
http://www.websmileys.com/sm/violent/niko_saddamhussein.gif

I think you mean kabbalism, named after the god Kabbalah :)
No, i mean Monopalido, the provider of all things Lehrer and Jhonen Vasquez.
Nothin' wrong w/a good kabbalism ref, though ... peculiar as it may be ...

Originally Posted by Willamena
You are aware of God, so yours is not belief that lacks evidence. You have evidence, so you cannot but believe.

For the atheist, they lack evidence, so they cannot but not believe.
What about the issue of interpretation? All evidence is interpreted. A theist and an atheist may have access to the same evidence, and simply interpret it differently. None of us can really say what personal experiences others have and have not had, or how they might have seen such experiences.
None of us can say, yes. The perception and interpretation of this evidence is necessarily unique to the individual.

I used to be a practicing Christian, but my inquisitive nature got the best of me and I lost faith. So, you could say I have no faith in God.

Now, I'm trying to answer a few questions I have about God, if there is a God, and maybe someday I'll get a few answers.

One question has alway bothered me, and that is the question of evil in the world. From the time I spent in church and reading over a few old theological texts, I gather the prevailing opinion of God is that he is entirely good and benevolent, not evil in any way. Positing, then, that God created all of existence, how did evil come to be? Is God partly evil himself and creation simply mirrors that quality in God? Or did evil come from another source, and if it did, how could God allow evil to taint his creation?

How does that contradict what I said?

You were talking about the shade, etc as intrinsic to the colour... and yet you can both refract and reflect light through/across an effectively colourless interface.
It doesn't contradict what you said, just expands on it to include what I said.

One question has alway bothered me, and that is the question of evil in the world. From the time I spent in church and reading over a few old theological texts, I gather the prevailing opinion of God is that he is entirely good and benevolent, not evil in any way. Positing, then, that God created all of existence, how did evil come to be? Is God partly evil himself and creation simply mirrors that quality in God? Or did evil come from another source, and if it did, how could God allow evil to taint his creation?

Evil is a widely misused term. It is like the term, "cold". Cold is really just a lack of heat, as evil is a lack of the ability to be considerate to others.

The things in the world which are named evil are not of God's making. They are the making of the free will of humankind. God created us and all of existence, but he gave us the ability to choose, and we decided to take rather than leave well enough alone.

A frightening thought occurs: maybe, for some people, that's exactly how it works. Maybe they can only understand good if there is a diametrically-opposed evil with which to contrast it.

*Shudder*
Maybe that's why some people spend so much time thinking about evil, looking for it in other people, and making it up if they don't find any.

But, without sadness, would you ever know happiness?
Emotions are a bad example of the contrast of polar opposites, simply because 'happy' and 'sad' are not polar opposites the way 'good' and 'evil' are supposed to be. People are perfectly able to be both happy and sad at the same time.

People are perfectly able to be both happy and sad at the same time.
Yes they are, and it feels really fucked up.

in response to the title of the thread: Do you have faith in the invisible flying purple hamster?

I thought it was the invisible pink flying unicorn.

yes, because I can't belive that something so magnificent was made out of nothing, what I'm speaking of is life. Stuff can't appear out of nothing, the world couldn't of just appeared out of, or evolved out of nothing. Can you create things without materials, of course not, it's impossible isn't it, unless your.........

yes, because I can't belive that something so magnificent was made out of nothing, what I'm speaking of is life. Stuff can't appear out of nothing, the world couldn't of just appeared out of, or evolved out of nothing. Can you create things without materials, of course not, it's impossible isn't it, unless your.........

And was God created out of nothing?

And was God created out of nothing?
In order to allow the universe to exist, god extracted itself - and the manner of extraction which it employed initiated our movement in regards to entropy. We are actually compiling god in a manner of reciprocity to the nature of entropy, for which at the very end of the semi-stability between entropy and creation, god comes to fruition upon the summation of all conscious experience. When god comes to the realization of self, the universe again is so full and manifest that all lesser sentience hasn't room, and the big bang goes another time. Everybody wins.

I should add that the nature of sentience is the difference between the biological and the semantic, for which one tags another ... and the plethora of lifeforms all serve a function somewhat as a metacomputer to calculating the nature of creation with about a gazillion simultaneous programs all working the proof. Ultimately god ends up not alone, neither do we, god learns what could have been (and if we're lucky so do we) and god also figures out itself and us at the same time.

That's interesting, but not exactly how I would put it.

The very concept of "darkness", to me, is an absence of light. I know that light is energy being added, but the universe would not be "dark" if there were no "light". Thus, darkness is defined by light, not the other way around.

The very concept of evil, to me, is defined by the absence of - or a movement away from - good. Human beings, I believe, if we are "inherently" good or evil, are good. In our fallibility, however, we make choices which lead us away from good (ie. to evil). The choice, I believe, is not to move towards good out of evil. The choice is whether or not to reject good - thus becoming evil.
I bolded that part because it comes close to my conception of good and evil. I do not believe that there are existing qualities -- like energy frequencies or something -- that are "good" and "evil". I think "good" and "evil" are determined by the intention of the person or people involved. I draw a distinction between "evil" and "bad" and "misfortune."

EXAMPLE 1: A person who commits genocide because he personally hates a certain ethnic group and wants them all dead is evil and so are his actions and the results of his actions, because it all stems from his evil intentions. It is all one parcel of evil intention and action tied together.

EXAMPLE 2: A cop who shoots and kills a deranged person to prevent them from killing someone else is not evil, even though it is bad to kill another person. In this context, the intention was not evil, so even though the action and its outcome were, technically, bad things, there is no evil involved.

EXAMPLE 3: GnI and Willamena (I think) were discussing earlier whether it is evil that there are homeless people, i.e. that much poverty in the world. I would not call poverty evil. I would call it misfortune. That so many suffer from it is a grave misfortune that others who have better fortune should, in my opinion, try to alleviate. But suffering misfortune is not an evil, whether it is poverty or disease or natural disaster.

But now we come full circle, because it is possible for evil intentions to exploit misfortune. Now there is evil involved, but it is not in the misfortune but rather in the actions of people with evil intentions regarding those misfortunes. So someone who sells fake medicines to the sick is evil, but the disease he is pretending to cure is not itself evil.

This is just the way I see it. When I try to wrap my brain around the terrible things that happen in this world, I keep coming back to the intentions and choices of human beings. No matter how terrible the event, if there is no intention behind it, I cannot think of it as "evil." To me, "evil" is a choice human beings make.

Evil is a widely misused term. It is like the term, "cold". Cold is really just a lack of heat, as evil is a lack of the ability to be considerate to others.

I never liked that definition of evil, because it seems to imply that evil is never explicitly willed, as if those that kill, rape, or steal simply lacked one quality or another. It almost removes evil acts from the realm of free will since it seems to claim that a different choice would have been made if only the person making the choice had possessed consideration or compassion.

Many people have compassionate or condsiderate urges, but still do evil things in spite of those desires. In that way, an evil act lacks consideration, but it is not simply the lack of consideration, but it is the conscious choice to override consideration that I regard as evil.

The things in the world which are named evil are not of God's making. They are the making of the free will of humankind. God created us and all of existence, but he gave us the ability to choose, and we decided to take rather than leave well enough alone.

So, human beings alter creation by creating evil? Either God imbued us with greater power than we realised, or we simply took what already existed and named it evil. The latter possibility, though, conflicts with the concept of sin, since if there is no evil in all of creation, then humans can do nothing to earn damnation.

The former, that we somehow alter creation to create evil by choice, implies that we were created with that ability. If God created human and is himself without evil, then how was God able to give humanity an ability to create a quality he lacks?

I'm not sure you could. Granted, an existence without unhappiness is beyond the scope of my personal experience, so I'm really just guessing and hypothesizing here.

By what reference would you guage happiness if you had never known unhappiness?


Now, I'm trying to answer a few questions I have about God, if there is a God, and maybe someday I'll get a few answers.

One question has alway bothered me, and that is the question of evil in the world. From the time I spent in church and reading over a few old theological texts, I gather the prevailing opinion of God is that he is entirely good and benevolent, not evil in any way. Positing, then, that God created all of existence, how did evil come to be? Is God partly evil himself and creation simply mirrors that quality in God? Or did evil come from another source, and if it did, how could God allow evil to taint his creation?

What if evil is simply a movement away from God - away from good? If God were to allow free will, would the choice of moving away from God not be a part of that? Or would it be "free will, but only to do good things," just as Augustine posited "free will, but only to do evil"?


Emotions are a bad example of the contrast of polar opposites, simply because 'happy' and 'sad' are not polar opposites the way 'good' and 'evil' are supposed to be. People are perfectly able to be both happy and sad at the same time.

Happiness and sadness (ie. unhappiness) are polar opposites, but can exist in the same person, at the same time. The question still remains, however - would we recognize one without the other as a reference?

This is a very well made point, and I agree with it in the context of the dogmatic approach to (Christian) religion that mostly pervades this thread. However, isn't there an alternative approach to belief in which one can choose to believe, by consciously opening onself up to the possibility of God? Through meditation on the nature of divinity, or grace, or whatever, one may thereby attain true belief.

There's certainly that strand in most religions that I'm aware of, and the complementary one of deliberately turning away from God.
I think one can choose to be open and receptive, but that does not guarantee that one will actually receive anything. So, in other words, you can choose to WANT to believe.

Likewise, if you believe, you can "turn away from god," but can you actually stop believing in his existence? Or would you just be choosing to ignore his existence?

There is a God, and there is only one path to him. Jesus.

What if evil is simply a movement away from God - away from good? If God were to allow free will, would the choice of moving away from God not be a part of that? Or would it be "free will, but only to do good things," just as Augustine posited "free will, but only to do evil"?

Doesn't that notion run contrary to the concept of God's omniscience? He created everthing and is everywhere, so how can you move away from him?

Further, if you equate good with God, where does evil come from? All things come from God, yet not evil? Then is there another source, and is that what I move towards when I move away from God?

All religions treat worship of other gods as sinful... who's to say which religion is the true one? or if multiple are? or none? noone alive can honestly and irrevicably say beyond ALL doubt that they KNOW the truth of the matter. All we can say is what we believe to be the truth.

Until one or more gods step forward and evidense themselves, our truth is either faith, or non-existance of such beings
Your premise is based on an erroneous assumption. NOT all religions treat worship of other gods as sinful. Buddhism, which, technically, does not have a god of its own, I suppose, syncretizes nicely with other god-worshipping religions. Animist religions also permit of multiple-faith, by which you can be an animist, worshipping animist deities, AND be a Buddhist, Christian or Muslim at the same time.

There is a God, and there is only one path to him. Jesus.
Apparently, since so many have said it, there is only one path to the Christian god. Other gods offer several paths each.

Doesn't that notion run contrary to the concept of God's omniscience? He created everthing and is everywhere, so how can you move away from him?
Moving away from Him is more accurately described as widening the gulf between his will and your actions.

Further, if you equate good with God, where does evil come from? All things come from God, yet not evil? Then is there another source, and is that what I move towards when I move away from God?
There is no elemental evil, and there is no source of it. The things which we name as evil are a misapplication of human free will.

We humans have the hubris to believe that because we have tasted of the fruit, we are like unto gods and can therefore substitute our own wills for that of God. Evil comes of human fear, selfishness, and pride.

Because it is a sin to worship a false God.
It would be dishonest for anyone to claim to believe in something they don't really believe in. So if you think a god is false, then you shouldn't worship that god.

Your premise is based on an erroneous assumption. NOT all religions treat worship of other gods as sinful. Buddhism, which, technically, does not have a god of its own, I suppose, syncretizes nicely with other god-worshipping religions. Animist religions also permit of multiple-faith, by which you can be an animist, worshipping animist deities, AND be a Buddhist, Christian or Muslim at the same time.

Buddhism is not a religion, it's a philosophy. It can co-exist with any religion. Nice try tho.

Buddhism is not a religion, it's a philosophy. It can co-exist with any religion. Nice try tho.

Buddhism is a religion. The fact that it can coexist with other religions does not disqualify it as a religion.

http://www.religioustolerance.org/buddhism.htm

Buddhism is the fourth largest religion in the world, being exceeded in numbers only by Christianity, Islam and Hinduism. It was founded in Northern India by the first known Buddha, Siddhartha Gautama. In 535 BCE, he attained enlightenment and assumed the title Lord Buddha (one who has awakened)

Interesting how a non-religion can be the fourth largest in the world.

And followers of Buddhism will all tell you the same. It is NOT a religion. Just because a government classifies it as one, doesn't make it so.

Edit: sorry, felt the need to add a supporting source and exerpts

http://www.buddhanet.net/nutshell03.htm

It is neither a religion in the sense in which that word is commonly understood, for it is not "a system of faith and worship owing any allegiance to a supernatural being."

Buddhism cannot, therefore, strictly be called a religion because it is neither a system of faith and worship, nor "the outward act or form by which men indicate their recognition of the existence of a God or gods having power over their own destiny to whom obedience, service, and honor are due."

Also, at it's inception, Judaism, while mono-theistic in and of itself, did not deny the existence of other Gods, notably the Gods of Egypt. It was not until much later that the denial of all other Gods became apparent. Notably even the 1st commandment:

Do not have any other gods before Me. Do not represent gods by any carved statue or picture of anything in the heaven above, on the earth below, or in the water below the land. Do not bow down to or worship them. I am God your Lord, a God who demands exclusive worship.

does not deny the existence of other Gods, merely forbids their worship by Jews.

Buddhism is not a religion, it's a philosophy. It can co-exist with any religion. Nice try tho.
I know some Buddhists who would disagree with you, but whatever. And what about the animist religions? (Warning: I am an animist.)

And followers of Buddhism will all tell you the same. It is NOT a religion. Just because a government classifies it as one, doesn't make it so.
Not true. I know many Buddhists who call it a religion. And it calls itself a religion, meaning that Buddhist leaders call it a religion, and I think they can be taken as authorities on the matter, don't you? And if it is not a religion, then what are all those monks and nuns doing in all those monasteries and convents?

Animism is a believe in spirit beings, particularly those that inhabit inanimate objects. How is that a religion? Animism is an ideal that is included as part of many religions, but is not itself a religion.

and I updated my above statement with a source btw

And followers of Buddhism will all tell you the same. It is NOT a religion. Just because a government classifies it as one, doesn't make it so.

Edit: sorry, felt the need to add a supporting source and exerpts

http://www.buddhanet.net/nutshell03.htm
However, the same source article also says:
Though there is no blind faith, one might argue whether there is no worshipping of images etc., in Buddhism.
In Buddhism there is not, as in most other religions, an Almighty God to be obeyed and feared. (emphasis mine)
If, by religion, is meant "a teaching which takes a view of life that is more than superficial, a teaching which looks into life and not merely at it, a teaching which furnishes men with a guide to conduct that is in accord with this its in-look, a teaching which enables those who give it heed to face life with fortitude and death with serenity,"[6] or a system to get rid of the ills of life, then it is certainly a religion of religions. (emphasis mine)

So it seems that, by some criteria, Buddhism is actually considered a religion by those who practice it, as evidenced by the fact, the article does actually refer to Buddhism as a religion.

Nice try, tho.

Do you even know what a "panther" is? I'm guessing not since you seem to think it's a species of its own...

"panther" refers to both leopards and jaguars who have the right genetic mix to have a dark base coat (and still have their spots, tho its difficult to see without good sunlight)

neither leopards, no jaguars are predominately tree dwelling, though both are CAPABLE of climbing trees, and only leopards tend to eat their prey in trees because they're too small to defend it from larger cats.

check your "facts" before you speak please

I am glad to see someone else enjoys the glory of panthers like I do.

http://www.a-zanimals.co.uk/animals/images/zoo/black_panther.jpg

Animism is a believe in spirit beings, particularly those that inhabit inanimate objects. How is that a religion? Animism is an ideal that is included as part of many religions, but is not itself a religion.

and I updated my above statement with a source btw
Yeah, I was reading your source and responding to it while you were writing the rather mystifying remarks above.

Did you miss the parenthetical in which I told you that I am an animist? I practice an animist religion -- actually I practice several, since I follow the traditions of my European ancestors, and they come from five different parts of Europe (and all but one of those religions were never codified and given names anyway), so that's why I say I'm an animist rather than, for instance, a Shintoist. So I wonder where you get off telling me there is no such thing as an animist religion.

In fact, I wonder how Shinto got to be the national religion of Japan if there is no such thing as an animist religion.

Or how Evo Morales, the new leader of Bolivia (?), got to be described as the first animist elected to lead a South American country if there is no such thing as an animist religion?

You do understand that "animist" is a descriptive heading for a certain kind of religion, don't you? "Animism" refers to the type of belief system, and under the aegis of "animism" there are many religions. We're clear on that, right? So when I say "animist religions," I AM talking about existing religions.

So, now that we've got that cleared up, do you feel like addressing my point?

I do not believe in False Gods.

But the evidence for Shiva is all around us, you only need to open your eyes and cast away your sinful thoughts.

Yeah, I was reading your source and responding to it while you were writing the rather mystifying remarks above.

Did you miss the parenthetical in which I told you that I am an animist? I practice an animist religion -- actually I practice several, since I follow the traditions of my European ancestors, and they come from five different parts of Europe (and all but one of those religions were never codified and given names anyway), so that's why I say I'm an animist rather than, for instance, a Shintoist. So I wonder where you get off telling me there is no such thing as an animist religion.

In fact, I wonder how Shinto got to be the national religion of Japan if there is no such thing as an animist religion.

Or how Evo Morales, the new leader of Bolivia (?), got to be described as the first animist elected to lead a South American country if there is no such thing as an animist religion?

You do understand that "animist" is a descriptive heading for a certain kind of religion, don't you? "Animism" refers to the type of belief system, and under the aegis of "animism" there are many religions. We're clear on that, right? So when I say "animist religions," I AM talking about existing religions.

So, now that we've got that cleared up, do you feel like addressing my point?
Shinto has gods as well as the animist spirits. Religion by definition requires the worship of some form of deity. I can't say I'm strongly familiar with Shinto, but as I recall, its gods don't allow the worship of outsiders as well as themselves. They acknowledge other gods, but don't allow you to be Shinto if you follow them, do they?

As for the comments on my source above, the last paragraph which you say contradicts my quotes, amounts to saying "sure, if you blur the meaning, then yeah Buddhism is a religion" so it only reinforces my quotes.

Shinto has gods as well as the animist spirits.
The Shinto gods ARE spirits. Amaterasu and the cellphone god are both kami.

Religion by definition requires the worship of some form of deity.
That does not seem to be a universally accepted definition, since we have already established that both Buddhists and non-Buddhist authorities consider Buddhism to be a religion, yet it does not worship any deity. I suggest you read your buddhanet nutshell article a little more closely as it describes a different, more inclusive (though perhaps less convenient?) conception of what a religion is, which focuses more on spiritual experience and less on ritualistic form.

I can't say I'm strongly familiar with Shinto, but as I recall, its gods don't allow the worship of outsiders as well as themselves. They acknowledge other gods, but don't allow you to be Shinto if you follow them, do they?
No, you are mistaken about Shinto. You most certainly may practice Shinto and other religions at the same time. There is no exclusivity requirement.

EDIT: Now that I think of it, the only element of exclusivity in Shinto is that many of the Shinto kami are not relevant to non-Japanese. These would be the gods associated with the ancestor veneration aspects of the religion, which are in both Nationalist Shinto (worshipping the emperor as having a divine lineage) and the ancestor-spirit aspects of the folk culture form of Shrine Shinto. But non-Japanese can still commune with the kami of the natural and man-made world around them. And Shintoists who venerate ancestral kami can also still worship other gods as well.

As for the comments on my source above, the last paragraph which you say contradicts my quotes, amounts to saying "sure, if you blur the meaning, then yeah Buddhism is a religion" so it only reinforces my quotes.
That is not at all what it says. What it says is that there is another conception of what constitutes a religion that is more about direct personal experience than about the external form of ritual, extending (properly, in my opinion) the term "form of ritual" to include the name and form of a god/object of worship.

Now, of course, if you were to accept that views other than yours are possible, and that Buddhists and animists may know more about their own religions than you do, then you would necessarily have to give up this cavalier and convenient dismissal of Buddhism and animism as religions. If you do that, then you would have to concede my point that not all religions view the worship of other gods as sinful, since I have given you as examples the fourth largest religion in the world and a family of religions whose declared practitioners are conservatively estimated at minimum 400 million worldwide (from the last time I calculated the numbers from adherents.com; they divvy the animist religions up among geographic areas, so one has to look up several sets of data and do the math oneself).

But the evidence for Shiva is all around us, you only need to open your eyes and cast away your sinful thoughts.


:D Well done.:fluffle:

citing opinions is no way to get a person to concede.

I will concede however, based on fact, which I obtained on my own.

religion

• noun 1 the belief in and worship of a superhuman controlling power, especially a personal God or gods. 2 a particular system of faith and worship. 3 a pursuit or interest followed with devotion.

— ORIGIN originally in the sense life under monastic vows: from Latin religio ‘obligation, reverence’.

so, I shall admit that "religion" has a more broad meaning than I was using, and therefor Buddhism and animist faiths can in fact be considered religions in and of themselves.

citing opinions is no way to get a person to concede.
I agree, which is why I objected to your statements. :p

I will concede however, based on fact, which I obtained on my own.

Originally Posted by Oxford-English Dictionary
religion

• noun 1 the belief in and worship of a superhuman controlling power, especially a personal God or gods. 2 a particular system of faith and worship. 3 a pursuit or interest followed with devotion.

— ORIGIN originally in the sense life under monastic vows: from Latin religio ‘obligation, reverence’.

so, I shall admit that "religion" has a more broad meaning than I was using, and therefor Buddhism and animist faiths can in fact be considered religions in and of themselves.
How extraordinarily large of you. I hope the effort wasn't too painful.

Now, are we ready to follow that up by amending the statement of yours that started all this, to wit:
Originally posted by Sensible Insanity
All religions treat worship of other gods as sinful...
Perhaps it could read: "Most monotheist religions, etc..."


EDIT: Note that I can be outrageously generous too. Notice how I don't expect you to apologize for implying that what I know about my own religion is nothing but "opinion." I realize that might be too cruel an effort to put you through.

But the evidence for Shiva is all around us, you only need to open your eyes and cast away your sinful thoughts.:D Well done.:fluffle:
Yes indeed.

By my definition of religion, Buddhism is not one. In my mind, a religion involves worship, and since the Buddha is not considered a god but is simply venerated to a considerable degree, Buddhism does not fall under my definition of a religion. Obviously, however, many other definitions out there disagree with me.

Yes indeed.

By my definition of religion, Buddhism is not one. In my mind, a religion involves worship, and since the Buddha is not considered a god but is simply venerated to a considerable degree, Buddhism does not fall under my definition of a religion. Obviously, however, many other definitions out there disagree with me.
Yes, well, having just proved this point (see above), I will only add that, if we are going to have a proper ecumenical conversation, then we should be willing to accept our fellow debaters' definitions of themselves. Otherwise, we'd all just be talking to members of our own private little clubs and all just saying the same things and agreeing with each other, while learning nothing.



EDIT: Oh, and Hakartopia's Shiva line -- yes, very well done. Good one. :D

Dictionary.com:

Religion: 3) A set of beliefs, values, and practices based on the teachings of a spiritual leader.



Straight forward commonly accepted definition. Everyone happy with it? No? Too bad. That's the one most people use.

Yes, well, having just proved this point (see above), I will only add that, if we are going to have a proper ecumenical conversation, then we should be willing to accept our fellow debaters' definitions of themselves. Otherwise, we'd all just be talking to members of our own private little clubs and all just saying the same things and agreeing with each other, while learning nothing.

Hey! Don't tell me what to think!:mad: :mad: :mad:


I'm just saying that as it applies to interactions between religions, Buddhism is different because it has no deity that Buddhists worship, and therefore the issue of conflicting deities does not arise.

Hey! Don't tell me what to think!:mad: :mad: :mad:


I'm just saying that as it applies to interactions between religions, Buddhism is different because it has no deity that Buddhists worship, and therefore the issue of conflicting deities does not arise.
I know that's what you're saying, and you are correct.

I'm just saying that, in conversations like this one, we have to go with the broader definitions of religion that you mentioned in order to avoid doing what Sensible Insanity tried to do -- namely, cut Buddhism and the animist religions out of the conversation altogether simply by declaring them not to be religions by his own criteria. He did not question whether Buddhism and animism are religions, he just declared that they aren't in order to avoid addressing the fact that they are big exceptions to a religious rule he had made up.

a religous rule I made up? No, wrong. Based on the definition of religion as I had always understood it, my statements were true.

You use the broader definition, which, while a valid definition, is not what I have come to know as the common definition. I based my statements on the definition I knew, which also is a valid definition.

Now if you don't mind, the personal attacks are not appreciated. To the best of my ability, I have respected you. I expect the same.

Believe in a God?

...

...

yes and no I guess. I dont go to any organized meeting to listen to some guy tell me what is right and wrong...

but that doesnt mean I dont mind the idea of a higher power. Oh yes it would be great to NOT rot in the ground

plus, I would rather believe in a god, and find out there isnt one, than to not believe in him and find out there is one, right before Im cast into hell to burn for eternity

a religous rule I made up? No, wrong. Based on the definition of religion as I had always understood it, my statements were true.

You use the broader definition, which, while a valid definition, is not what I have come to know as the common definition. I based my statements on the definition I knew, which also is a valid definition.

Now if you don't mind, the personal attacks are not appreciated. To the best of my ability, I have respected you. I expect the same.

True. Sensible Insanity did concede very graciously.

Now what were we talking about?



EDIT: This is post #8500 and we're still sorta on topic!!!! A record!:cool: