Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 87 (8914 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 06-25-2019 12:49 PM
30 online now:
Aussie, DrJones*, dwise1, Hyroglyphx, JonF, ringo, Tanypteryx, Taq, Theodoric (9 members, 21 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: 4petdinos
Post Volume:
Total: 854,714 Year: 9,750/19,786 Month: 2,172/2,119 Week: 208/724 Day: 47/93 Hour: 4/8


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Prev1
...
67
8
910
...
14Next
Author Topic:   What makes you unbelieve Crash ?
One_Charred_Wing
Member (Idle past 4327 days)
Posts: 690
From: USA West Coast
Joined: 11-21-2003


Message 106 of 200 (102923)
04-26-2004 10:07 PM
Reply to: Message 104 by atrejusan
04-26-2004 8:45 PM


atrejusan is off to a bad start...
Captain Obvious saves the day:

Science is ever questioning. Let's get that straight, peeps. Science does not "dictate".

Exactly, so I guess when I said that nothing scientificly dictated the existence of God I'd be right, eh? I'm not a scientist but I know that science does not dictate, kiddo.

Let's continue:

...rather a refinement process hinging upon what believers in the supernatural (or tutu-wearing pink elephants on the planet Neptune) tend to dismiss, or else do not give the scrutiny and respect it deserves: the simple fact that human perception is flawed.

So all believers tend to dismiss this, huh? Furthurmore, the 'respect it(science I think) deserves'?? Please, I agree that humans are flawed but science is conducted by humans so I think it deserves the respect that I give to those who conduct it; which is a lot more than you seem to think that us believers give it.

atrejusan writes:

Belief in supernatural, theistic concepts (or, for that matter, grossly over-assumed material propositions such as pink tutu-wearing elephants on the planet Neptune) are, on the other hand, arrogant dismissals of this human limitation. They are also -- which strikes me as most odd in such exchanges -- dictatorial. As in "I shall believe, despite reason, because it simply is so."

I'm trying to debate politely, but two replies to me with this kind of arrogance and you're pushing your luck...

Anyway, how is theism a dismissal of human limitations? Christianity especially reminds us that we are limited in everthing including perception. Which brings up the possibility that your perception is simply wrong and mine is right. I realize that could go both ways, where you don't seem to.

atrejusan writes:

Science does not dictate; arrogant misperception, on the other hand...

Does. You have shown us a perfect example of arrogance due to misperception of theists by simply posting that last message.

[This message has been edited by Born2Preach, 04-26-2004]


Wanna feel God? Step onto the wrestling mat and you'd be crazy to deny the uplifting spirit.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 104 by atrejusan, posted 04-26-2004 8:45 PM atrejusan has not yet responded

    
AdminAsgara
Administrator (Idle past 474 days)
Posts: 2073
From: The Universe
Joined: 10-11-2003


Message 107 of 200 (102928)
04-26-2004 10:28 PM
Reply to: Message 104 by atrejusan
04-26-2004 8:45 PM


atrejusan, welcome to EvC. I agree with Mike and the Preach that your posts in Faith and Belief border on arrogance. Making sweeping, generalized statements concerning people's beliefs is dismissive and rude.

We have many different levels of belief represented here on EvC and many of our more devout believers are also some of our most open minded and tolerant members. Many of our theists here do NOT dismiss science or the scientific method, and are perfectly happy to admit that they believe ON FAITH. Some are coming to the realization that belief in a deity and acceptance of science do not have to rule each other out.

Please do NOT become the atheist version of fundamentalism. People who insist that the two viewpoints cannot work together are part of what we are fighting here. Insisting on this can only hurt both.


AdminAsgara
Queen of the Universe

This message is a reply to:
 Message 104 by atrejusan, posted 04-26-2004 8:45 PM atrejusan has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 113 by mike the wiz, posted 04-27-2004 9:59 AM AdminAsgara has not yet responded

    
DBlevins
Member (Idle past 1947 days)
Posts: 652
From: Puyallup, WA.
Joined: 02-04-2003


Message 108 of 200 (102933)
04-26-2004 10:55 PM
Reply to: Message 54 by Lammy
04-15-2004 4:10 PM


This reminds me of a conversation I had with my significant other. She is Catholic and has lived in a family which believe in witches and ghosts and other supernatural things. An ongoing discussion we have is on whether ghosts exist. She asked me what kind of evidence ity would take for me to believe in ghosts. I told her that even if I thought I saw a ghost myself I wouldn't believe it because I understand that the brain can see things which aren't there, especially at night. I told her that if we both saw the "ghost"; then wrote down independantly and privately, without consulting each other, a description of what we saw and both descriptions matched, then I may lean towards believing. I would still need more evidence to be secure in that idea, but I would give the idea of ghosts a more serious glance and lean towards believeing they probably exist. I especially like the saying by Carl Sagan who said something like -Extraordinary claim's require extraordinary evidence.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 54 by Lammy, posted 04-15-2004 4:10 PM Lammy has not yet responded

  
atrejusan
Inactive Member


Message 109 of 200 (102934)
04-26-2004 10:55 PM


quote:
mike the whiz (message 105) wrote:
Then preach it in the science section. This is faith and belief. And by the way, I'll believe in what I darn well want.

You did not proffer a justification for your first imperative. You did not clarify the relevance of your second statement of the obvious. And your third sentence is irrelevant and unduly defensive, both of which are staples of an irrational motive. Why did you bother?

quote:
A theistic outlook is not an arrogant dismissal. If anything, we don't dismiss. It is you who dismiss possibilities, because of your limited newbie brain.

You did not justify your first and second assertions, and your third is merely a naked insult [attempt]. Why did you bother?

quote:
Pink exists, so do elephants, so do planets and so does Neptune etc. How this bares relevance to theists is beyond me. Just how much did you "make" these things up?

You misunderstood the reference altogether, or else this is your confusion of logic made apparent. Neither did the symbolism entirely consist of pink, nor of elephants, nor of “planets” or Neptune. If you re-read the example, you will see it actually implies a hypothetical assertion of the existence of pink tutu-wearing elephants on the planet Neptune. Unless you misread it, or are deliberately misrepresenting it, the analogy should be clear: it is an assertion of an unwarranted claim (and this particular example a material one, as already stated, because all components are material and not supernatural. All the more presumptuous, by comparison, the claim of supernatural…)

quote:
Born2Preach (message 106) wrote:
Exactly, so I guess when I said that nothing scientificly dictated the existence of God I'd be right, eh? I'm not a scientist but I know that science does not dictate, kiddo.

(*scientifically*, kiddo.)

You might want to state things in the proper tense as well: “…there are no statistical accounts or scientific finds that will…” is suggestive of existing finds alone; and “will” does not resolve the ambiguity.

More importantly, however, my response is broadly directed; so I’ll assume your above rejoinder is a masked display of a personal motive. It was empty.

quote:
So all believers tend to dismiss this, huh? Furthurmore, the 'respect it(science I think) deserves'?? Please, I agree that humans are flawed but science is conducted by humans so I think it deserves the respect that I give to those who conduct it; which is a lot more than you seem to think that us believers give it.

You do not make clear that you are properly identifying what “this” is, in your first sentence/question. It is not responsible to blur the distinction between “human” and “human perception”. The consequence of this misdirected mixing of concepts shows in your conclusion: doubting in “scientists” as “humans” is not immediately relevant to the issue of doubting human perception. I made it clear that, in addressing the imperfection of human perception, rational scientific inquiry provides the best means by which to most accurately guard against false suggestions resulting from that flawed perception. You commit a logical fallacy rendering your doubt in scientists equal in merit to one’s proper doubt in human perception; it neither addresses the specific flaws of perception, nor does it properly equate (as it pretend to do) the merits of doubting scientific claims versus claims derived by naked, unchecked human perception. I invite you to try again, kiddo.

quote:
I'm trying to debate politely, but two replies to me with this kind of arrogance and you're pushing your luck...
Anyway, how is theism a dismissal of human limitations? Christianity especially reminds us that we are limited in everthing including perception. Which brings up the possibility that your perception is simply wrong and mine is right. I realize that could go both ways, where you don't seem to.

If I make a reply specific to you, I shall make that clear in my reply. If you do take my generalization of religious belief as an address to your sensibilities, that is not my concern. I do, however, state my reasoning here in an emotionally neutral fashion. Arrogance is to denote an unwarranted conceit; and since context is assertions of reality, the unwarranted conceit addresses unwarranted assertions of reality. That’s pretty simple.

You, in turn, oversimplify my suggestion that theism or belief in the supernatural entail unwarranted conceits regarding the limitations of human perception. I shall explain: the reason an assertion based upon “personal experience” attesting to the realness of a supernatural entity is arrogance is that it implies very precisely that insular human perception is valid as an absolute determinant of what is real and what is not. Hardly anyone’s place to declare that such a thing is offensive to the universe… but since we are addressing what is arrogant (in the sense of being overly presumptuous, in this case), it’s relevant.

Your misrepresentation of this logic means that your attempt at refutation above, ending in a weak reversal of claim, is fallacious.

quote:
Does. You have shown us a perfect example of arrogance due to misperception of theists by simply posting that last message.

I beg to differ. It is your onus, as a believer in unsubstantiated, irrational claims, to either concede that your claims are such, or to acknowledge that your assertions of certitude are arrogant.

I believe that, without myself making this a personality contest, I have presented a rational argument. My respondents have, on the other hand, responded in a very personal manner, misconstrued or blatantly misunderstood my arguments, presented fallacious counterarguments and no logical refutation.


It knows only that it needs, commander. But, like so many of us, it does not know what.
- Spock
Replies to this message:
 Message 111 by One_Charred_Wing, posted 04-27-2004 1:55 AM atrejusan has not yet responded
 Message 115 by mike the wiz, posted 04-27-2004 10:19 AM atrejusan has not yet responded

  
1.61803
Member
Posts: 2841
From: Lone Star State USA
Joined: 02-19-2004
Member Rating: 5.3


Message 110 of 200 (102967)
04-27-2004 1:27 AM
Reply to: Message 105 by mike the wiz
04-26-2004 9:43 PM


Hi Mike,
My sister and I went into Old Mexico on Sat. She disappeared on me and I sat at the border for hours waiting for her to come out of the crowd. 2 hours later I silently said a prayer. Against my agnostic rational mind I said a prayer because I was at my wits end. I said God, if you do exist please help.. have her walk out to this border and be ok. Within 10 minutes a very drunk sister with a new tattoo on her ankle came stumbling up to me. I took her home safe. Was this evidence of God? Or coincidence? I do not know. All I know is when there was nothing else to do but pray... I did and it made a difference to me... Praying felt silly but I did it anyways. Thought I would share that with you. Take care Mike.


"One is punished most for ones virtues" Fredrick Neitzche
This message is a reply to:
 Message 105 by mike the wiz, posted 04-26-2004 9:43 PM mike the wiz has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 114 by mike the wiz, posted 04-27-2004 10:04 AM 1.61803 has not yet responded

  
One_Charred_Wing
Member (Idle past 4327 days)
Posts: 690
From: USA West Coast
Joined: 11-21-2003


Message 111 of 200 (102972)
04-27-2004 1:55 AM
Reply to: Message 109 by atrejusan
04-26-2004 10:55 PM


And the peace on this thread is officially over
atrejusan writes:

You might want to state things in the proper tense as well: “…there are no statistical accounts or scientific finds that will…” is suggestive of existing finds alone; and “will” does not resolve the ambiguity.

More importantly, however, my response is broadly directed; so I’ll assume your above rejoinder is a masked display of a personal motive. It was empty.

You're right about the tenses and I appriciate the correction. And a broadly directed response doesn't always apply to me; please don't use the straw man tactic on me.

Masked display of a personal motive? The only motive I had was to correct you, it kind of sounds like you're accusing me of some kinda conspiracy.

atre writes:

You do not make clear that you are properly identifying what “this” is, in your first sentence/question.

Look at what I said, then look at the quote I am replying to. I'll make sure to be more specific next time but you should be able to figure it out.

The consequence of this misdirected mixing of concepts shows in your conclusion: doubting in “scientists” as “humans” is not immediately relevant to the issue of doubting human perception.

Humans and human perception are both flawed, for one thing. When I say doubt you seem to imply I don't believe a word scientists say and that's not true; but if you're going to tell me scientists are perfect then you are mistaken.

You commit a logical fallacy rendering your doubt in scientists equal in merit to one’s proper doubt in human perception; it neither addresses the specific flaws of perception, nor does it properly equate (as it pretend to do) the merits of doubting scientific claims versus claims derived by naked, unchecked human perception. I invite you to try again, kiddo.

I didn't say anything was wrong with scientific claims, did I?Science is tentative; old theories are getting revamped and old ideas of how things worked are being thrown out all the time. So with that in mind I see nothing wrong with being open to the idea that current science could be outdated someday.

And speaking of unchecked human perception, you sure seem to assume a lot about theists that just aren't true. You should've asked first, kiddo.

If I make a reply specific to you, I shall make that clear in my reply. If you do take my generalization of religious belief as an address to your sensibilities, that is not my concern. I do, however, state my reasoning here in an emotionally neutral fashion. Arrogance is to denote an unwarranted conceit; and since context is assertions of reality, the unwarranted conceit addresses unwarranted assertions of reality. That’s pretty simple.

You, in turn, oversimplify my suggestion that theism or belief in the supernatural entail unwarranted conceits regarding the limitations of human perception. I shall explain: the reason an assertion based upon “personal experience” attesting to the realness of a supernatural entity is arrogance is that it implies very precisely that insular human perception is valid as an absolute determinant of what is real and what is not.

No, it doesn't. Perceiving the world around you leads to knowing; when it's religion we're talking about faith. There's perception when it comes to how you percieve God, but not in believing in him.

...anyone’s place to declare that such a thing is offensive to the universe… but since we are addressing what is arrogant (in the sense of being overly presumptuous, in this case), it’s relevant.

You are very quick to call things arrogant for someone who struts in and makes sweeping generalizations about what theists think and then call that narrow-minded. Very hypocritical. I will not deny that I'm being a little less friendly to you than most people, but you need to consider that if you slap someone across the face, they will probably slap you back. Look what happened to Rick James.

Please try to lighten up, I don't care if you want to deprive yourself of emotion on this forum; lots of robots are nicer than you've been so far.

[This message has been edited by Born2Preach, 04-27-2004]


Wanna feel God? Step onto the wrestling mat and you'd be crazy to deny the uplifting spirit.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 109 by atrejusan, posted 04-26-2004 10:55 PM atrejusan has not yet responded

    
crashfrog
Inactive Member


Message 112 of 200 (102980)
04-27-2004 2:40 AM
Reply to: Message 104 by atrejusan
04-26-2004 8:45 PM


Belief in supernatural, theistic concepts (or, for that matter, grossly over-assumed material propositions such as pink tutu-wearing elephants on the planet Neptune) are, on the other hand, arrogant dismissals of this human limitation.

That's a pretty bold claim. While I'm not sure that I disagree, I don't believe that I would have called it "arrogant". Maybe it is, but I might have led with softer language.

But I see your point. The theist claims to have knowledge that, by any rational epistomology, he can't possibly have.

Then again I don't see a lot of theists walking around claiming belief in God is universally sensical, so might it not be that you're trying to hold them to a standard that they don't claim to share?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 104 by atrejusan, posted 04-26-2004 8:45 PM atrejusan has not yet responded

  
mike the wiz
Member
Posts: 4656
From: u.k
Joined: 05-24-2003


Message 113 of 200 (103033)
04-27-2004 9:59 AM
Reply to: Message 107 by AdminAsgara
04-26-2004 10:28 PM


Well said Queen! Here here!

<< Asgara fan.

[This message has been edited by mike the wiz, 04-27-2004]


This message is a reply to:
 Message 107 by AdminAsgara, posted 04-26-2004 10:28 PM AdminAsgara has not yet responded

  
mike the wiz
Member
Posts: 4656
From: u.k
Joined: 05-24-2003


Message 114 of 200 (103034)
04-27-2004 10:04 AM
Reply to: Message 110 by 1.61803
04-27-2004 1:27 AM


I took her home safe. Was this evidence of God? Or coincidence? I do not know. All I know is when there was nothing else to do but pray... I did and it made a difference to me... Praying felt silly but I did it anyways. Thought I would share that with you. Take care Mike.

Brother 1.61803
Thanks for sharing that with me. I guess what matters is that you did pray - and therefore you opened your mind to that possibility. Whether it was a coincidence or an answered prayer is up to you. I personally believe it was answered. These things are very similar to what I have experienced, and I have had many prayers answered. I choose to believe that it has gone beyond chance. Keep praying my friend!


This message is a reply to:
 Message 110 by 1.61803, posted 04-27-2004 1:27 AM 1.61803 has not yet responded

  
mike the wiz
Member
Posts: 4656
From: u.k
Joined: 05-24-2003


Message 115 of 200 (103038)
04-27-2004 10:19 AM
Reply to: Message 109 by atrejusan
04-26-2004 10:55 PM


You misunderstood the reference altogether, or else this is your confusion of logic made apparent. Neither did the symbolism entirely consist of pink, nor of elephants, nor of “planets” or Neptune. If you re-read the example, you will see it actually implies a hypothetical assertion of the existence of pink tutu-wearing elephants on the planet Neptune. Unless you misread it, or are deliberately misrepresenting it, the analogy should be clear: it is an assertion of an unwarranted claim

No, there was no failure to understand, and there is no logical error--> Pink elephants can exist. I can paint it pink and put it on the shuttle for it's mission to planet Neptune. Why is that? --> Because these things exist already - they are based on realities - that is my only point.

So you have two options.

1. If you associate God with "pink elephants" or "easter bunnies" or even "mutating Spock insects" then you are saying God is based on reality.

2. You can admitt this is a lame attempt to insult believers, and that "pink elephants" bare no relevance to God.

So basically - you lose either way. It's no good touting Spock and making out you have all the necessary debate skills when you actually need to think before posting.

"Limited newbie brain" however, is what I am guilty of. But your approach to this forum is all wrong and you have seen AdminAsgara's thoughts on this. Some of your posts bare no relevance to the topic or the forum. This is the faith and belief section. If I walked into the science section waffling on about some invalid creationism argument, then I would be hammered by the wise. Infact, I done a similar thing recently. Well, it's the same here, unwarranted assumption hogwash banter bullweed is fit for slaughter - regardless of who is touting it. Fact is - like Asgara said, many here have no problem with science, including me and Born2Preach.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 109 by atrejusan, posted 04-26-2004 10:55 PM atrejusan has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 117 by Unseul, posted 04-27-2004 11:02 AM mike the wiz has responded

  
purpledawn
Member (Idle past 1629 days)
Posts: 4453
From: Indiana
Joined: 04-25-2004


Message 116 of 200 (103051)
04-27-2004 11:01 AM
Reply to: Message 96 by crashfrog
04-24-2004 6:35 PM


Prayer Test
I grew up as a Christian and trusted God implicitly as our church taught. As I got older and actually read more of what was preached I had questions they couldn't answer reasonably.

Anyway over the past 3 years I have been digging deeper into the Bible to see the truth that is there. I found a lot more questions.

I did a prayer test of my own. I had grown up praying and some prayers were answered and some not. Over the past year I have prayed to the ancesters and some prayers were answered and some were not. I have also stopped myself from praying to see how the situation would pan out and sometimes things went well and sometimes not. I don't feel that one method was any better than the others.

Prayers I considered answered did not always come in the form I requested. I just thought to myself "OK not what I asked for but that will work."

Now I did not keep track of the statistics, this was for my own purposes only. I don't expect anyone to trust my results. Just thought I would share my own prayer experiences.

I also feel that a supernatural being would have no problem making its existence known clearly to an individual if it truly wants our trust. Trust is earned.

I do like one passage that says roughly "You will know them by their fruit." I feel the same goes for a god.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 96 by crashfrog, posted 04-24-2004 6:35 PM crashfrog has not yet responded

  
Unseul
Inactive Member


Message 117 of 200 (103052)
04-27-2004 11:02 AM
Reply to: Message 115 by mike the wiz
04-27-2004 10:19 AM


Hey Mike,

Your original claim, that sorta leads onto this one nicely. Is that we cannot just come up with the idea of God, its not as though its sometihng that is made from parts that already exists such as these wonderful pink elephants.

However i disagree, your arguement is very similar to one Descartes used in his meditations, that we can know god to be real because we start off with an intrinsic idea of him, that cannot be put there by anything because nothing compares. However this is obviously false, most people i suspect see god as a large father figure of all power. Its not difficult for me to think of a face that i consider to be extremely wise and benevolent, then make it appear more wise and benevelont in my mind, I have an idea of this, and just exaggerate on it. Once again this can easily be done with omniscience, and omnipotence, if i can see a physical thing i can think of all sortsa tihngs that i know about that could happen to it, and just have to attribute the ability to making any of these things happen to my idea of a supreme power.

I dont feel that an idea of god is any more than me thinking of all the best things that i can think of, exaggrate them as much as possible, and place them all into one object.

So i feel that an idea of god is based on a reality, albeit then exaggerated.

Unseul


Give a man a fire and he's warm for a day. Set a man on fire and he's warm for the rest of his life....
This message is a reply to:
 Message 115 by mike the wiz, posted 04-27-2004 10:19 AM mike the wiz has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 120 by mike the wiz, posted 04-27-2004 5:36 PM Unseul has responded

  
nator
Member (Idle past 341 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 118 of 200 (103053)
04-27-2004 11:02 AM
Reply to: Message 105 by mike the wiz
04-26-2004 9:43 PM


quote:
A theistic outlook is not an arrogant dismissal. If anything, we don't dismiss. It is you who dismiss possibilities, because of your limited newbie brain.

Holding to one particular faith to the exclusion of all others is the dismissal of many, many possibilities, mike.

Science doesn't dismiss any religious notions at all, since it ignores them all.

quote:
Theists have concepts yet God is not their idea. Certainly nowaday Theists have not "made" God up, and you cannot prove their predecessors did.

Mike, entirely new religions have formed in the last century.

Your claim that belief in God has somehow "always" existed, and therefore God must exist is a lot like the idea that men are more important and better than women has somehow "always" existed, therefore it must be true that men are more important and better than women.

People have to be taught these things.

quote:
God also cannot be compared logically relevant to "pink elephants" or any other realities you stick together.

It is precisely the case that you have exactly the same amount of evidence for your God that every other religion has for their diety.

The arrogance comes in not just because believers have belief.

The arrogance is the lack of any doubt whatsoever that you have in your belief, even though you have no evidence of the sort that rational people use to determine fact from fiction. You reject the same kind of stories from people who believe in a different god, or many gods that you use as proof of your god to yourself.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 105 by mike the wiz, posted 04-26-2004 9:43 PM mike the wiz has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 119 by mike the wiz, posted 04-27-2004 5:28 PM nator has responded

    
mike the wiz
Member
Posts: 4656
From: u.k
Joined: 05-24-2003


Message 119 of 200 (103141)
04-27-2004 5:28 PM
Reply to: Message 118 by nator
04-27-2004 11:02 AM


I find it hard to believe you have chosen to side with this newbie. It seems to me that you say one thing Schraff, but believe another. You say you think there is a possibility of God. You seem to always be arguing against that possibility. And you know that I myself do not see it as a bad thing necessarily, if we have different names for the one true God. Now you say I have arrogance because of my lack of doubt?

I thought it was okay for me to believe in what I want?

Your claim that belief in God has somehow "always" existed, and therefore God must exist is a lot like the idea that men are more important and better than women

Where did I claim that? Can you quote - I have either forgotten through process of time or I didn't claim it.

Men are not more important to women - and I would never argue such things. I don't claim that because we have always believed - he exists. I claim he exists.

I chose to argue for Theists against the newbie, I was NOT attacking your side.

Holding to one particular faith to the exclusion of all others is the dismissal of many, many possibilities, mike.

You exclude all of them - I just reject one less. Are you saying you yourself still worship Pharoh?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 118 by nator, posted 04-27-2004 11:02 AM nator has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 125 by nator, posted 04-28-2004 12:21 AM mike the wiz has responded

  
mike the wiz
Member
Posts: 4656
From: u.k
Joined: 05-24-2003


Message 120 of 200 (103142)
04-27-2004 5:36 PM
Reply to: Message 117 by Unseul
04-27-2004 11:02 AM


Your original claim, that sorta leads onto this one nicely. Is that we cannot just come up with the idea of God, its not as though its sometihng that is made from parts that already exists such as these wonderful pink elephants.

Credit where credit is due - you have found my thoughts correctly.

I dont feel that an idea of god is any more than me thinking of all the best things that i can think of, exaggrate them as much as possible, and place them all into one object.

Only, you presume that people came up with the idea of God. I think they're too dumb to think up God. And I certainly think they are too dumb to come up with someone like Christ. It amuses me that people claim that we "made" God. Everything in me sees the opposite to this. Human's are too selfish to think up a God who rejects "the flesh". The bible is indeed full of laws which are too hard to follow. I doubt men could or would give themselves this hard time.

Just look at todays society, and how it is the opposite to what the bible teaches. The spirit is willing, but the flesh is weak. It insults my faith that people are so arrogant to actually claim my "God" as their invention. But then - the heart is desperately wicked and decietful above all things. And it also is written, people will lie to themselves and reject God, and that is when they are forsaken - which leads to such societies.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 117 by Unseul, posted 04-27-2004 11:02 AM Unseul has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 121 by Unseul, posted 04-27-2004 6:23 PM mike the wiz has responded

  
Prev1
...
67
8
910
...
14Next
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2019