Stephen Fry ladies and gentlemen
APPOSE WHAT OSCAR BE_ |: REVED IN v, fl),,! , HE DIED, IN OE
YO’ UFE (idfc'
YO’ UFE (idfc'
...
| |
Anonymous comments allowed.
211 comments displayed.
#673 to #46
-
anon (01/31/2015) [-]
One of his premises is that God only created people to worship him and that is what he demands you devote your life to to get into heaven.
I do not think that is the meaning of life nor why God made this universe.
When you ask God about why he made all the bad and evil in the world he will respond, "What did you do about it? Why should I remember you?"
I do not think that is the meaning of life nor why God made this universe.
When you ask God about why he made all the bad and evil in the world he will respond, "What did you do about it? Why should I remember you?"
#260 to #87
-
caradecocou (01/31/2015) [-] Marcus Aurelius was a stoic, but that phrase belongs to Epictetus, i think
#629 to #504
-
echotheambient (01/31/2015) [-] Not really, if I recall, correct me if i'm wrong , Pascal's wager involves beleiving in god(s), whilst this one only involves being a good person.
#671 to #629
-
anon (01/31/2015) [-]
Pascal's Wager is that if you look at the potential loss and gain of believing god if he exists vs. if he doesn't(Heaven/Hell if he does or Nothing if he doesn't) then any sane person would live in a way as if there was a god since the loss of a few luxuries is a small risk to that of not believing if he's real.
It was based in a christian framework which has high loss/gain and requires little effort due to the believe that you can't be good enough and so need Jesus to save you.
Obviously other religions can require you give up more for less payoff.
It was based in a christian framework which has high loss/gain and requires little effort due to the believe that you can't be good enough and so need Jesus to save you.
Obviously other religions can require you give up more for less payoff.
#667 to #629
-
ZakisBak (01/31/2015) [-] That's the point of his wager though. To live good anyways with the additional bonus of an afterlife, otherwise-hey you lived a good life. Or was wikipedia I know..wikipedia.. puts it "It posits that humans all bet with their lives either that God exists or not."
#891 to #667
-
CoolStoryBrosky (01/31/2015) [-] It's almost the opposite of Pascal's wager, really. The point of Pascal's wager is that the potential gain of believing in god outweighs the potential gain in not believing in him, and thus the "smart better" should believe in him. This quote suggests that you shouldn't worry about god, but rather how you live your life. He suggests that there is no wager.
#973 to #891
-
ZakisBak (02/01/2015) [-] I wouldn't go as far to say it's almost the opposite, nor that he's saying there is no wager. I think he is just saying live a good life, and reap the benefits of whatever is actually true in the end. So he acknowledges the possible outcomes of each situation. I think you're right on the fact that Pascal's Wager is persuasive in the fact of it being more beneficial to believe than to not, but at the same time there are close similarities between this quote and the wager (since they both list outcomes and say to live a good life, the wager just says it's to your benefit to try and persuade . IMO of course
#974 to #973
-
CoolStoryBrosky (02/01/2015) [-] I suppose you're right in the sense that he isn't denying the existence of a wager. However, he is telling us to live our lives irrespective of any such wager -- which tends to be the opposite of Pascal's wager; which suggests you should base your entire belief system on being the smarter better.
#979 to #974
-
ZakisBak (02/01/2015) [-] Thats a really good point about living irrespective of a wager. My logic was pretty much equating no wager (in the quote) to the worse half of Pascal's wager (no god). Even if the worse half of his wager is true, you're still partaking in it, which is different than there being no wager. Do you agree with that being the flaw in my reasoning?
#982 to #979
-
CoolStoryBrosky (02/01/2015) [-] Yeah, I see where you were coming from now, and it's understandable. It's important to remember that Pascal's wager is predicated on the fact that no rational human being should consider the "worse half" of the wager. But you're absolutely right, in either instance you're part of the wager.
#565 to #87
-
trollolololgabe (01/31/2015) [-] Yea I'm a huge fan of Marcus Aurelius and his writings however this is a false quote...sadly.
undeniably-atheist.blogspot.com/2011/10/fabricated-marcus-aurelius-quote.html
undeniably-atheist.blogspot.com/2011/10/fabricated-marcus-aurelius-quote.html
#903 to #565
-
sabertoothmoose (01/31/2015) [-] also that's a picture of Carcalla, and not Aurelius
how's it possible to get absolutely everything wrong in one picture
how's it possible to get absolutely everything wrong in one picture
#65
-
tinkotin (01/31/2015) [-] "lol nice fedora" comments on **** like this infuriate me to no end because unlike most fedora wearers, Stephen Fry manages to present a compelling argument in a way that doesn't make you instantly despise him.
#76 to #65
-
Greevon (01/31/2015) [-] He has a good argument, but it still makes a lot of his own assumptions. The largest of which is that God cares if we undergo physical suffering.
Assuming he's real and everything, just like their assumption: why would he care about any of this? Because he's benevolent? Benevolence doesn't mean shielding humans from all harm. It doesn't mean nothing bad should ever happen. In the Bible, we left the garden. We're put into harm's way because of our sin and our knowledge. We could have remained blissful stupid creatures without pain and suffering, but we sinned and chose knowledge over ignorance; free will over obedience.
We could look at it the way many do: God punishes us for our "original sin" or we could look at it this way: we left the nest. We're not ignorant children that need to be protected. And we're better for our suffering. Without suffering, we have nothing. (I know, I know, I'm not trying to be an edge lord, but almost everything great we do comes from suffering)
This is all for the sake of the assumption that specifically the Bible is true. I personally believe in a God that can manifest in many ways, essentially that whatever way you choose to worship is correct so long as it helps you become more enlightened spiritually. I once had a teacher tell me "Well that's awfully convenient, isn't it?" is a snide voice after I explained that I believe in everything Science has to offer, but I also believe that it can co-exist with religion. I just replied "Why should religion be inconvenient?"
Anyway, just my thoughts on the matter.
Assuming he's real and everything, just like their assumption: why would he care about any of this? Because he's benevolent? Benevolence doesn't mean shielding humans from all harm. It doesn't mean nothing bad should ever happen. In the Bible, we left the garden. We're put into harm's way because of our sin and our knowledge. We could have remained blissful stupid creatures without pain and suffering, but we sinned and chose knowledge over ignorance; free will over obedience.
We could look at it the way many do: God punishes us for our "original sin" or we could look at it this way: we left the nest. We're not ignorant children that need to be protected. And we're better for our suffering. Without suffering, we have nothing. (I know, I know, I'm not trying to be an edge lord, but almost everything great we do comes from suffering)
This is all for the sake of the assumption that specifically the Bible is true. I personally believe in a God that can manifest in many ways, essentially that whatever way you choose to worship is correct so long as it helps you become more enlightened spiritually. I once had a teacher tell me "Well that's awfully convenient, isn't it?" is a snide voice after I explained that I believe in everything Science has to offer, but I also believe that it can co-exist with religion. I just replied "Why should religion be inconvenient?"
Anyway, just my thoughts on the matter.
#125 to #76
-
testaburger (01/31/2015) [-] He's talking about the god of the bible, who's usually portrayed as caring.
#336 to #76
-
nigeltheoutlaw (01/31/2015) [-] Like testaburger says, Fry is specifically referring to the Christian god who is explicitly described as benevolent. If god were said to be a sociopathic dick then there'd be no argument.
#562 to #507
-
nigeltheoutlaw (01/31/2015) [-] Well this was referring to the Christian god for one, which means the Old Testament is old news, and even in the Old Testament god was called benevolent.
#721 to #76
-
anon (01/31/2015) [-]
The bible, arguably, must be interpreted with assumptions, but your argument right now has two major assumptions that is riddled with wrong information.
1) Adam and Eve were kicked out of the Garden of Eden b/c they disobeyed God by listening to the snake and ate the apple of knowledge (original sin b/c they became self-aware). They did not choose "free will over obedience" b/c they did not know what either were until they ate the apple.
2) God did two major events to cleanse humanity of sin. The first was the Great Flood back in Noah's days. The second was sending his son, Jesus, down to Earth and dying for "our sins". From this point on humans were expected to praise the lord if they wanted to go to heaven.
1) Adam and Eve were kicked out of the Garden of Eden b/c they disobeyed God by listening to the snake and ate the apple of knowledge (original sin b/c they became self-aware). They did not choose "free will over obedience" b/c they did not know what either were until they ate the apple.
2) God did two major events to cleanse humanity of sin. The first was the Great Flood back in Noah's days. The second was sending his son, Jesus, down to Earth and dying for "our sins". From this point on humans were expected to praise the lord if they wanted to go to heaven.
#1
-
ordanj (01/31/2015) [-] I'm a Christian, and I now know the reasoning behind Atheism. And all I have to say is..........Jesus.....
#51 to #1
-
therealtjthemedic (01/31/2015) [-] This isn't the reasoning behind it. There is no universal reasoning.
#641 to #1
-
gentledragon (01/31/2015) [-]
He should bow down before spaghetti monster in all his delicious glory , it's better than being crossed.
#14 to #1
-
blueflags (01/31/2015) [-] I understand what the Athiest is saying in contrast to what, I consider, Christian extremists believe. However, I've been exposed to the Catholic understanding that evolution and other scientific theories can, and probably do, accurately depict truth. If that's the case, things like cancer are simply biological imperfections, or in the case of the insects, just evolution taking its natural course.
However, even if the church claims that's what they believe, it's a whole other matter of the laymen, and clergy for that matter, actually believing in those ideas
However, even if the church claims that's what they believe, it's a whole other matter of the laymen, and clergy for that matter, actually believing in those ideas
#709 to #696
-
blueflags (01/31/2015) [-] check out my comment 687 just under this. I addressed the insects, frankly becuase it would be easier to explain (btw idk who is thumbing people down, I imagine some pissed christian lol, I'll thumb you guys up cuz you're willing to debate)
Okay, so tl;dr version of the other comment is that without seeming "imperfections" nothing would be perfect, and so all causes of death and pain are just unavoidable extensions of evolution and existence itself.
Basically, cancer is the "yang" version of the yin-yang of existence (I know it's Buddhism, but it works well with the topic at hand) In order for DNA and the attributes of our bodies to function the way "God intended to", if you will, it had to allow for the possibility of cancer. Another way to see it is that everyone has to die. Of course biology claims this, but also, religions believe, specifically Christianity, death is the means to achieving eternal afterlife (which is whole other topic for another day) So for creation to be perfect, people have to die somehow in order to go to heaven, and you could argue that's why God "made" cancer.
Although I personally believe in a much more Deist-like god, where god basically created existence in order to create humans, the apex of evolution, to rule over for themselves. Basically, other than "knocking down the first Domino", I believe God doesn't really do much, and leaves it to us. But obviously that has nothing to do with what I'm arguing here, I just figure it might help to see what I'm saying if you can see what I actually believe.
Okay, so tl;dr version of the other comment is that without seeming "imperfections" nothing would be perfect, and so all causes of death and pain are just unavoidable extensions of evolution and existence itself.
Basically, cancer is the "yang" version of the yin-yang of existence (I know it's Buddhism, but it works well with the topic at hand) In order for DNA and the attributes of our bodies to function the way "God intended to", if you will, it had to allow for the possibility of cancer. Another way to see it is that everyone has to die. Of course biology claims this, but also, religions believe, specifically Christianity, death is the means to achieving eternal afterlife (which is whole other topic for another day) So for creation to be perfect, people have to die somehow in order to go to heaven, and you could argue that's why God "made" cancer.
Although I personally believe in a much more Deist-like god, where god basically created existence in order to create humans, the apex of evolution, to rule over for themselves. Basically, other than "knocking down the first Domino", I believe God doesn't really do much, and leaves it to us. But obviously that has nothing to do with what I'm arguing here, I just figure it might help to see what I'm saying if you can see what I actually believe.
#732 to #718
-
blueflags (01/31/2015) [-] That's a good point, but, at least in most perceptions of heaven, the souls aren't really doing much other than (the way I see it) basking in a hot tub thinking "this is really nice"
Okay so, if that feeling could happen for eternity, I think we all would be down. But, at least the Catholic understanding I've been taught and grown to believe, is that why would god want people just enjoying what already is? Think about it. God is god; he (or whatever you want to call god) could, at a whim, have that same feeling for eternity doing nothing at all. no existence other than him, no humans, nothing.
Christianity claims that God created humans in his image. God created. Therefore, humans, to be in his image, needs to be able to create. Think of all the things humans have created. Whether you think anything that pops into your head is "good" or "bad" is beside the point. We made something by ourselves. Isn't that just like who Christians claims God to be? We are creators, inventors, etc. and therefore we are like god. So, our creations therefore must be real, and therefore (taking logic from Descartes) those creations must affect others. That's where the "real" bad stuff comes into play. If all humans were good in the full Christian understanding, nothing of our creations would kill, harm, or hurt another person in anyway.
Because we are like god, we have the ability to do good and evil. So, evil stems only through humans, not God. I hope I described this accurately And that is what the foundation of "Free Will" and "sin" is made of.
Okay so, if that feeling could happen for eternity, I think we all would be down. But, at least the Catholic understanding I've been taught and grown to believe, is that why would god want people just enjoying what already is? Think about it. God is god; he (or whatever you want to call god) could, at a whim, have that same feeling for eternity doing nothing at all. no existence other than him, no humans, nothing.
Christianity claims that God created humans in his image. God created. Therefore, humans, to be in his image, needs to be able to create. Think of all the things humans have created. Whether you think anything that pops into your head is "good" or "bad" is beside the point. We made something by ourselves. Isn't that just like who Christians claims God to be? We are creators, inventors, etc. and therefore we are like god. So, our creations therefore must be real, and therefore (taking logic from Descartes) those creations must affect others. That's where the "real" bad stuff comes into play. If all humans were good in the full Christian understanding, nothing of our creations would kill, harm, or hurt another person in anyway.
Because we are like god, we have the ability to do good and evil. So, evil stems only through humans, not God. I hope I described this accurately And that is what the foundation of "Free Will" and "sin" is made of.
#754 to #742
-
blueflags (01/31/2015) [-] I wouldn't say so. Like, take a computer program for instance. Let's just say they are the exact same, but they are both able to type either "A" or "B". one program types "A" and the other types "B". now, let's assume "A" is a good thing, and "B" is a bad thing. There is no difference between the programs themselves, but the actions of them are entirely different.
I know that this analogy can't explain why one program did one thing and the other did something else, but it's the best I could come up with to get this point across: the likeness of god and humans are not in how we act or think, but our ability to act and think.
I know that this analogy can't explain why one program did one thing and the other did something else, but it's the best I could come up with to get this point across: the likeness of god and humans are not in how we act or think, but our ability to act and think.
#687 to #144
-
blueflags (01/31/2015) [-] like I said to wtfduud I don't see why that's a logical conclusion. Putting aside the argument of the existence of god, why would people associate bad things, or good things by extension, with the doing of God?
I understand Jews, Muslims, and Christians alike believe that God is good and his work is good, but who's to say what exactly "good" is? Take those eye-insects for instance. Are they not another "creation" of God? Are they not also supposed to live and behave the way their genetics dictate themselves to? The burrowing in eyeballs, while unfortunate and "bad" to those children, grant the insects another generation of life. If you believe in evolution, you can't really say that those insects are evil. They're just another form of life.
I have the understanding that the religions based off of the abrahamic god all agree that death, although sometimes painful, sad, unfair, etc. is a natural, unavoidable, good thing innate in creation. So, all diseases, natural disasters, and all unfortunate events are natural in the whole scheme of existence, and therefore good.
You don't have to agree with me btw, I'm just trying to point out the way many religions refute the idea that god is evil. hopefully I did that well enough
I understand Jews, Muslims, and Christians alike believe that God is good and his work is good, but who's to say what exactly "good" is? Take those eye-insects for instance. Are they not another "creation" of God? Are they not also supposed to live and behave the way their genetics dictate themselves to? The burrowing in eyeballs, while unfortunate and "bad" to those children, grant the insects another generation of life. If you believe in evolution, you can't really say that those insects are evil. They're just another form of life.
I have the understanding that the religions based off of the abrahamic god all agree that death, although sometimes painful, sad, unfair, etc. is a natural, unavoidable, good thing innate in creation. So, all diseases, natural disasters, and all unfortunate events are natural in the whole scheme of existence, and therefore good.
You don't have to agree with me btw, I'm just trying to point out the way many religions refute the idea that god is evil. hopefully I did that well enough
#970 to #687
-
hydraetis (02/01/2015) [-] In Judaism and Christianity, the rule against murder came directly from god, thus you can pretty confidently say that murder is indeed evil. But, murder is still happening constantly everyday, and we have seen zero sign of divine intervention to stop it from happening.
In other words, god is not stopping something from happening that he himself told us was evil.
In other words, god is not stopping something from happening that he himself told us was evil.
#1021 to #1015
-
hydraetis (02/01/2015) [-] The abrahamic religions state that their system of what is good and evil came DIRECTLY from god himself. Therefore, no matter how it is spun, god cannot exist as described. If the good and evil system he gave us is true, then he cannot exist as described as he is clearly not stopping the things he himself deemed evil from happening. If the good and evil system he gave us is untrue, then he still cannot exist as described, as the act of intentionally lying would go against his described nature.
#1020 to #1015
-
hydraetis (02/01/2015) [-] My point was that the abrahamic god cannot exist in the way he's described. Not that just 'a' god is impossible.
As in, he's supposed to have infinite power, infinite knowledge, and is the epitome of 'good'. He gives us a list of things that he deems to be evil, but then allows those things to continue happening. Thus, he either lacks to power to stop those evil things from happening, lacks the omniscience to know those things are happening, or lacks the desire to stop them. Any one of those things means that he does not exist in the way he is described.
As in, he's supposed to have infinite power, infinite knowledge, and is the epitome of 'good'. He gives us a list of things that he deems to be evil, but then allows those things to continue happening. Thus, he either lacks to power to stop those evil things from happening, lacks the omniscience to know those things are happening, or lacks the desire to stop them. Any one of those things means that he does not exist in the way he is described.
#1025 to #1020
-
blueflags (02/01/2015) [-] oh I see now. I think the reason he allows evil to happen because he wants humans to be able to choose between evil and good. The alternative would be making us only able to do good, which defeats the reasoning behind why certain things are good or evil. Kind of like the yin-yang principle. For every shade of blue, there has to be a shade of grey to differentiate
#1050 to #1029
-
blueflags (02/01/2015) [-] That's not true. The negation of that statement then would be if person X did not stop at least one evil act, they are not perfectly good, which is ludicrous. Just because god, as christians see him, allows humans to do evil (in order to keep them in his image-which is the ability to choose between good and evil) doesn't mean he is not good.
#494 to #210
-
blueflags (01/31/2015) [-] Well I know Catholicism says that if your conscience tells you to do something/not do something, that is the most important thing to follow. However, it also tells us to be constantly shaping our conscience and making it more perfect, and the way we do that is through the bible and church teachings, which the latter ultimately is lead by the pope.
So basically, you do what you think is right, and as long as you've lived your life trying to find out what's good and bad in order to do good yourself, you go to paradise. And I think the current pope, and probably a lot of the higher-up dudes are creationists, but the catechism (basically the big book of rules and beliefs of the Catholic church) clearly says evolution is something people can believe in (and even says sentient life forms across the galaxy could exist)
The only problem I have with that statement is that why does the church say basically "you can believe in evolution if you really want" as if evolution isn't a reasonable, plausible theory of how humans came about while no other theory can explain the same consequences logically. But you can still believe it with no conflict
So basically, you do what you think is right, and as long as you've lived your life trying to find out what's good and bad in order to do good yourself, you go to paradise. And I think the current pope, and probably a lot of the higher-up dudes are creationists, but the catechism (basically the big book of rules and beliefs of the Catholic church) clearly says evolution is something people can believe in (and even says sentient life forms across the galaxy could exist)
The only problem I have with that statement is that why does the church say basically "you can believe in evolution if you really want" as if evolution isn't a reasonable, plausible theory of how humans came about while no other theory can explain the same consequences logically. But you can still believe it with no conflict
#132 to #1
-
testaburger (01/31/2015) [-] Stephen is wrong about this thing.
Atheism is literally just "I don't believe in god(s)"
Nothing more to it.
Atheism is literally just "I don't believe in god(s)"
Nothing more to it.
#11 to #4
-
thatoneiranianguy ONLINE (01/31/2015) [-] TAA probably was never the best source for atheist material to begin with.
He's just kind of an insufferable douche who equates himself to intellectuals in which he is clearly not.
He's just kind of an insufferable douche who equates himself to intellectuals in which he is clearly not.
#203 to #11
-
popeflatus (01/31/2015) [-] Untrue. He may have an 'in your face' approach sometimes, but for the most part he is well read and knowledgeable on the things he talks about.
#923 to #203
-
buttseckss (01/31/2015) [-] Except for misinterpreting Aquinas, and Francis, and Plato, and Aristotle
He may be well-read, but he's not knowledgeable.
He may be well-read, but he's not knowledgeable.
#136 to #4
-
watermelonkittie ONLINE (01/31/2015) [-] Yeah, don't do that. All that guy does is yell into the camera in a very annoying way
#405 to #4
-
keroberios (01/31/2015) [-]
The difference between an Atheist and someone whom is religious is generally just a matter of one. Except in special cases. To give it a nice round number, I don't believe in 1000 gods, religious people don't believe in 999.
But, on the same note, it only gives religious people a 0.001 chance of being right. For all we know, if there is a true religion, it may have died off centuries ago. We have no way to say otherwise.
But, on the same note, it only gives religious people a 0.001 chance of being right. For all we know, if there is a true religion, it may have died off centuries ago. We have no way to say otherwise.
#343 to #4
-
pseudobro (01/31/2015) [-] You can't trust labels on YouTube. I don't know if you care, but Messianic Manic is probably the best atheist channel out there. Amazing Atheist isn't worth your time. Thunderf00t... god, no. And a lot of the other big channels are lame without being insidious.
#1012 to #4
-
anon (02/01/2015) [-]
don't do it bruh, i'm an atheist and I watched most of his videos. He's entertaining sometimes, but generally a poor example of atheism, I fear he will give you the wrong impression
Incredibly entertaining if you want to watch some guy yell at people, I prefer his videos where he yells at feminists though. No matter what you believe here on FJ, everyone would get a laugh out of a fat guy yelling at feminists.
Incredibly entertaining if you want to watch some guy yell at people, I prefer his videos where he yells at feminists though. No matter what you believe here on FJ, everyone would get a laugh out of a fat guy yelling at feminists.
#13 to #3
-
rzpdisciple (01/31/2015) [-] that isnt atheism that you described, its anti-theism.
atheism = (all) god/gods is/are not worthy of my worship
anti-theism = creationism/the afterlife/higher beings such as gods are a silly idea.
i only know because i learned this in my humanities class last week
atheism = (all) god/gods is/are not worthy of my worship
anti-theism = creationism/the afterlife/higher beings such as gods are a silly idea.
i only know because i learned this in my humanities class last week
#35 to #13
-
sephirothpwnz ONLINE (01/31/2015) [-] ...... Atheism-The lack of a belief in a god or gods. -The ******* Dictionary.
Anti-Theism The rejection of the beliefs and practices of religion(s)
Anti-Theism The rejection of the beliefs and practices of religion(s)
#243
-
zeldamasterace (01/31/2015) [-] well let me just say, i'm a christian
and hoo wee, i'm loving the debates in this comment section
its less flamey than usual. yay
my opinion: you do you, i'll do me. believe what you want, it's your decision.
however, just wanted to clarify some things.
i don't think Fry is specifically talking about the christian God.
but let me just talk to you about the christian God while I have the chance.
the christian God isn't all-kind or all-beneficent. however the christian God is All-just
when we talk about world hunger/poverty/suffering, that isn't what my God intended.
according to my religion, the world is a ******** because at the dawn of time, we made it that way.
agree or disagree, its up to you. But the Christian God is one of love and justice.
as crazy as that sounds. not trying to stuff this down your throat just trying to inform people.
have a good one and don't feed too many trolls.
< MFW im a christian and i still struggle processing who God is
and hoo wee, i'm loving the debates in this comment section
its less flamey than usual. yay
my opinion: you do you, i'll do me. believe what you want, it's your decision.
however, just wanted to clarify some things.
i don't think Fry is specifically talking about the christian God.
but let me just talk to you about the christian God while I have the chance.
the christian God isn't all-kind or all-beneficent. however the christian God is All-just
when we talk about world hunger/poverty/suffering, that isn't what my God intended.
according to my religion, the world is a ******** because at the dawn of time, we made it that way.
agree or disagree, its up to you. But the Christian God is one of love and justice.
as crazy as that sounds. not trying to stuff this down your throat just trying to inform people.
have a good one and don't feed too many trolls.
< MFW im a christian and i still struggle processing who God is
#247 to #243
-
Gandalfthewhite (01/31/2015) [-] he still didn't need to invent the bad diseases and insects though. I mean yeah if a warband rapes and burns a village that's our fault not his but i don't see how you can blame cancer on us
#858 to #243
-
zeldamasterace (01/31/2015) [-] holy hell this thread is a mess.
< just a lighthearted webm to be a break from the debates, also my favorite
< just a lighthearted webm to be a break from the debates, also my favorite
#268 to #243
-
cktan (01/31/2015) [-]
Hi man, not trying to start an argument, just purely curious, how is one considered to be a deliverer of love and justice when He/She creates a world with injustice and plague?
I understand that wars and such are made by man and their greed, but how does one justify natural plagues and disasters? I mean, is there like some explanation or justification as to why these things happen? Other than "It's all part of His plan"
As someone trying to find something to believe in, I would really like to know... Sorry if I sound hostile, that really isn't my intent to sound like that
I understand that wars and such are made by man and their greed, but how does one justify natural plagues and disasters? I mean, is there like some explanation or justification as to why these things happen? Other than "It's all part of His plan"
As someone trying to find something to believe in, I would really like to know... Sorry if I sound hostile, that really isn't my intent to sound like that
#298 to #268
-
zeldamasterace (01/31/2015) [-] no you're good man! i'll try to answer your questions as best as i can. but i am no bible scholar.
to begin with, according to my religion God didn't create a world with injustice or plague. when God created the world it was originally perfect. the Garden of Eden.
according to my religion at the beginning of time, God created the earth, but also people. i'm sure you've heard of these people, Adam and Eve.
Everything was great, but in order to live with God, Adam and Eve had to obey his law. don't eat from this one special tree. pretty simple. of course, they eat from it.
but that's because God gave them free will. Free will is important here because without it they wouldn't be able to have a relationship with God. what is love if it isn't freely chosen?
After Adam and Eve did the thing, God cursed them. along with the earth. all of the sudden, things were not the way God planned. Sin had entered the world. Adam symbolizes the first man and all of humanity as a result. And in turn he caused all of his progeny to enter his legacy. Because of Adam and Eve's choice we bear this curse, this separation from God, and this broken earth filled with broken people.
to begin with, according to my religion God didn't create a world with injustice or plague. when God created the world it was originally perfect. the Garden of Eden.
according to my religion at the beginning of time, God created the earth, but also people. i'm sure you've heard of these people, Adam and Eve.
Everything was great, but in order to live with God, Adam and Eve had to obey his law. don't eat from this one special tree. pretty simple. of course, they eat from it.
but that's because God gave them free will. Free will is important here because without it they wouldn't be able to have a relationship with God. what is love if it isn't freely chosen?
After Adam and Eve did the thing, God cursed them. along with the earth. all of the sudden, things were not the way God planned. Sin had entered the world. Adam symbolizes the first man and all of humanity as a result. And in turn he caused all of his progeny to enter his legacy. Because of Adam and Eve's choice we bear this curse, this separation from God, and this broken earth filled with broken people.
#759 to #298
-
skabbalabba (01/31/2015) [-] Sorry, but it really annoys me that you say love is freely chosen, it's not, love simply arises without any intervention on your part.
If i do something awesome for you, you will helplessly like me more for it, there is no choice there.
Also, if God is the designer of all, he is the designer of sin itself, and thus he is indirectly responsible for all the **** that happens, if we have free will (in the way i think you think it is). However, free will makes no psychological sense, so really, he is responsible.
<--- free will video and why it makes no sense
If i do something awesome for you, you will helplessly like me more for it, there is no choice there.
Also, if God is the designer of all, he is the designer of sin itself, and thus he is indirectly responsible for all the **** that happens, if we have free will (in the way i think you think it is). However, free will makes no psychological sense, so really, he is responsible.
<--- free will video and why it makes no sense
#820 to #759
-
zeldamasterace (01/31/2015) [-] you're forgiven. and you seem to be defining love as a feeling. in my religion i don't solely define love as a feeling.
Also in my religion we wouldn't say that God designed sin. and that just because He is aware of something doesn't mean He's responsible for it.
And I watched the video and i disagree with its content. however, in my religion i believe that there is a healthy balance of predestination and free will.
but hey, you can believe what you want
and i can believe what i want.
its all good.
Also in my religion we wouldn't say that God designed sin. and that just because He is aware of something doesn't mean He's responsible for it.
And I watched the video and i disagree with its content. however, in my religion i believe that there is a healthy balance of predestination and free will.
but hey, you can believe what you want
and i can believe what i want.
its all good.
#310 to #307
-
zeldamasterace (01/31/2015) [-] quick question not related to this conversation
how do you tag comments like that?
how do you tag comments like that?
#316 to #314
-
zeldamasterace (01/31/2015) [-] do you have to specifically use the two greater than signs?
#1019 to #981
-
zeldamasterace (02/01/2015) [-] well according to my religion that's what happened.
but like i said before you're free to believe what you want.
but like i said before you're free to believe what you want.
#1058 to #1039
-
zeldamasterace (02/01/2015) [-] well actually if you've read other conversations i've had in this thread you'd realize i have answered that question and i haven't avoided it.
also, you don't really know my religion that well because that's not true. my God created everything in the beginning of time but he did not create sin at that point in time.
sin came about because of what Adam did. cancer and everything else came about because of Adam messing things up. God did not make or intend for cancer or those other things to be.
all you have to do is read my other conversations. its not that hard.
also, you don't really know my religion that well because that's not true. my God created everything in the beginning of time but he did not create sin at that point in time.
sin came about because of what Adam did. cancer and everything else came about because of Adam messing things up. God did not make or intend for cancer or those other things to be.
all you have to do is read my other conversations. its not that hard.
#1077 to #1074
-
zeldamasterace (02/02/2015) [-] fine fine fine
explain to me what it is that i'm saying that is ******** and how i'm contradicting myself
then i'll do some research for you
explain to me what it is that i'm saying that is ******** and how i'm contradicting myself
then i'll do some research for you
#279 to #268
-
neonbrony (01/31/2015) [-] Well God initially made the world to be without trouble and pain. The thing that made things go to **** was Adam and Eve being tempted by Satan and eating the forbidden fruit. This caused Humans to lose their innocence and then allowed humans to suffer. In the bible God didn't want suffering but we ourselves brought it on ourselves
#299 to #279
-
iamkagji (01/31/2015) [-] No, "we" didn't. Two assholes did at the dawn of creation. If you have a problem with the three generations sentence in north korea you see why that's ******** and not the act of a benevolent god. It's the actions of a malevolent, tempermental child with too much power.
#313 to #299
-
neonbrony (01/31/2015) [-] I hate saying it like this, but what happens in North Korea is far from the same things as talking about a instance (in Christianity) that involved the fate of two of the first people of our species. Eating the fruit made them and any future generation become more like God, literally eating the knowledge of God. Once that happened it was humanities blood and never could fade away, hence making the sin never go away
#318 to #313
-
iamkagji (01/31/2015) [-] According to Christian dogma, though, since no other religion has original sin as a concept we are being punished for something we had no part in simply because our ancestors ****** up, and according to Christianity after Jesus did the thing that sin would be gone anyway.
#338 to #318
-
neonbrony (01/31/2015) [-] Yeah it is interesting that Christianity is the only one to have that. Oh and about Jesus, he didn't take away sin he just made it possible to be forgiven for ones sin. Before him it was ridiculously tough to get a chance at heaven. And yes according to the principles of Christianity we are punished for what the few have done, that's why Christians focus on their growth in the faith so that in the case of two instances, Revelations or death, they would escape a world of sin and pain.
#355 to #345
-
iamkagji (01/31/2015) [-] More of a talking point, trying to further the debate and possibly come to a conclusion that both of us can agree on compromise is the father of understanding . I grew up Christian Northern baptist so I'm pretty well-versed in the dogma. I'm just really tired right now and slipped up. Thing is, I'm not actually opposed to there being a god or anything, it's just that the evidence doesn't support it right now. However, if there WERE a God, I'd be of the same mind as Stephen Fry: " **** that God person, he's an asshole."
#375 to #355
-
neonbrony (01/31/2015) [-] Well just remember, even when the crazy **** happened during the times of the bible, most people didn't believe it was God. Christianity is based on faith. It's like someone saying if you follow them into a alley in downtown Chicago they will give you 10 million dollars, they may have the most sincere voice you ever heard but reason tells you not to follow. Lets say you moved on with your day, and that nothing in your life has changed. That's the tough thing about believing in God, he is that man in that alley and that whole time the money was there just with the catch you only will get it later
#875 to #375
-
zeldamasterace (01/31/2015) [-] i like you. you say alot of good things upon which i agree on.
and thats saying something cuz typically i stay away from MLP etc. hahaha
and thats saying something cuz typically i stay away from MLP etc. hahaha
#900 to #318
-
anon (01/31/2015) [-]
If were talking the christian God, he is patient. very patient. The "punishment" we receive while ON EARTH, for someone who spends his life walking as close as he can to god, is nothing short of hollow pain. We believe that the only real punishment is eternal separation from God after death, if we refuse Gods offer in this life.
#325 to #299
-
dorfdorfdorf (01/31/2015) [-] so you've never sinned? you're only being punished for what they did, you've never done anything wrong?
#333 to #329
-
dorfdorfdorf (01/31/2015) [-] it's not a loaded question at all. if you've ever sinned, even once, then you're being punished for what you did.
and god doesnt punish us for sinning, so the idea that hurricanes and bone cancer are punishments is ludicrous.
and god doesnt punish us for sinning, so the idea that hurricanes and bone cancer are punishments is ludicrous.
#921 to #916
-
dorfdorfdorf (01/31/2015) [-] he doesnt punish it right after you sin, he punishes it either once your dead or when he returns, im not sure. but it's not like an instant thing
#344 to #342
-
dorfdorfdorf (01/31/2015) [-] how was i straying from the argument? god doesnt punish us for sins, so it's impossible that he's punishing us for someone else's sins.
#360 to #344
-
iamkagji (01/31/2015) [-] Then why did he create disease and cancer? That is the talking point here. If god is benevolent, then why do these things exist the serve no purpose aside from causing suffering in his supposedly most-beloved creations? It's like if I got a bunch of cats and decided that, for no reason in particular, I'd torture one or two of them to death every once in a while
#363 to #360
-
dorfdorfdorf (01/31/2015) [-] he didnt create disease or cancer. they didnt exist until sin.
except that analogy is no where near what happens. god doesnt give people cancer.
except that analogy is no where near what happens. god doesnt give people cancer.
#376 to #366
-
dorfdorfdorf (01/31/2015) [-] because that's not how it works. when was the last time you heard of ANY god from ANY religion who just stepped in and fixed everything even if people didnt believe in him?
#865 to #376
-
zeldamasterace (01/31/2015) [-] Noah. the story in Christianity you're looking for is Noah. the world was so ****** up God was like, "yea control z lets try again" and Noah was like "wait God let me try to find so godly people" and God was like "ok i'll give you a chance to save people but i'm still wiping the earth cuz almost everyone here is a douche." etc etc read it yourself not sure if this hurts or helps your conversation, but this is an example of God indeed giving a **** and doing something about it. alot of people forget/don't talk about
#878 to #865
-
dorfdorfdorf (01/31/2015) [-] its different than what the other guy is describing, but definitely related
#389 to #376
-
iamkagji (01/31/2015) [-] Greek and roman pantheons did it. Hindus too. Same with the germanic and norse religions. It's pretty much just the judeo-christian religions that have an almighty dickwad in charge of absolutely everything, every other religion in the world is about balance except for hinduism, it's basically just a death cult waiting for entropy to consume the universe
#304 to #268
-
ltsparky (01/31/2015) [-] I'm sure you already had your question answered, but the idea is that God created a perfect world, Satan rebelled and was cast out of Heaven. Humans have free will, and they can choose to live a life of evil (influenced by dark forces) but they can also choose to do the right thing. They aren't forced to do either.
#352 to #268
-
dorfdorfdorf (01/31/2015) [-] he didnt create a world with injustice or plague, he created perfection. humans sinned, and you cant just have one little bit of in in perfection. it spread, the whole universe is infected with sin. it's steeped in everything, and thats what gives us natural disasters and things like measles or bone cancer. humans are born with it, sin runs through our veins, shortening our lifespans and poisoning our minds
#398 to #352
-
cktan (01/31/2015) [-]
But isn't God omnipotent? Why would he create sin?
And even if somehow he's not the one that created it, why not remove it?
Why would he hurt the children he loves because of the sin of their ancestors? He gave us free will and wants us to obey him willingly, that seems kinda of..... I dunno man, it just seems like the ultimate form of domination? To want to have someone serve, love, trust and obey you without question
And even if somehow he's not the one that created it, why not remove it?
Why would he hurt the children he loves because of the sin of their ancestors? He gave us free will and wants us to obey him willingly, that seems kinda of..... I dunno man, it just seems like the ultimate form of domination? To want to have someone serve, love, trust and obey you without question
#409 to #398
-
dorfdorfdorf (01/31/2015) [-] he didnt create sin. what would give you that idea?
he's not going to step in and remove all consequences of our actions just because he loves us. he's loving, but he's just. you commit evil, someone has to suffer the consequences. and he sent his son so that we wouldn't have to suffer.
he gave us free will and wants us to love him, yes. doesnt sound like domination at all.
he doesnt want mindless servants, if he did he would have just created robots. and he doesnt expect us to obey without question.
he's not going to step in and remove all consequences of our actions just because he loves us. he's loving, but he's just. you commit evil, someone has to suffer the consequences. and he sent his son so that we wouldn't have to suffer.
he gave us free will and wants us to love him, yes. doesnt sound like domination at all.
he doesnt want mindless servants, if he did he would have just created robots. and he doesnt expect us to obey without question.
#446 to #409
-
cktan (01/31/2015) [-]
The part where him being the creator of everything gave me that idea actually... Which takes me to my next point, so you're saying, sin just appeared out of nowhere? Something that has the ability to corrupt, ruin and push lives in a very dark direction just came out of nowhere?
For the domination part I actually meant something like 1984, where the party makes people obey willingly and love big brother willingly, a very nice piece of work actually, would recommend it haha
Anyway, back to the topic, you said that God is just, and when you do evil, you'll get punished, but why are we allowed to pay the price for the disobedience of two people? They ate the fruit and now sin runs in our blood, and because of them, we are forced to live in world full of plague and disease? What happened to "The son will not bear the punishment for the father's iniquity"?
For the domination part I actually meant something like 1984, where the party makes people obey willingly and love big brother willingly, a very nice piece of work actually, would recommend it haha
Anyway, back to the topic, you said that God is just, and when you do evil, you'll get punished, but why are we allowed to pay the price for the disobedience of two people? They ate the fruit and now sin runs in our blood, and because of them, we are forced to live in world full of plague and disease? What happened to "The son will not bear the punishment for the father's iniquity"?
#467 to #446
-
dorfdorfdorf (01/31/2015) [-] humans created sin. they disobeyed, and it went into everything. it didnt come out of nowhere, god gave them a choice.
as i just said, he gives free will and a choice. if you choose poorly then you choose poorly, he's not going to change your answer for you.
if this generation never sinned, and still got cancer and hurricanes, then you'd have an argument. but that's not what happens. people sin every second of every day, sin is in everything. you dont pay for what your dad did, you pay for what you're doing.
as i just said, he gives free will and a choice. if you choose poorly then you choose poorly, he's not going to change your answer for you.
if this generation never sinned, and still got cancer and hurricanes, then you'd have an argument. but that's not what happens. people sin every second of every day, sin is in everything. you dont pay for what your dad did, you pay for what you're doing.
#480 to #467
-
cktan (01/31/2015) [-]
What did children do to get diseases that they can't even pronounce? Did they sin? Or did they have to pay the price for something other babies did? You said that I'll get judge for what I did wrong, but yet right before that, you said that we would have to pay for what OUR generation did? You said that sin is in everything, that it's in us, and it flows in our veins, but right before that you said that it was a choice?
#850 to #480
-
zeldamasterace (01/31/2015) [-] im not sure how to clarify this one because i'm not sure what part of dorfdorfdorf's convo your talking about
#807 to #467
-
skabbalabba (01/31/2015) [-] Are you implying that eternal suffering is a punishment fit for even the worst sin?
How that would add up?
How did humans create sin?
If only your base assumptions were solid and sound, you would have an argument, but they're not.
How that would add up?
How did humans create sin?
If only your base assumptions were solid and sound, you would have an argument, but they're not.
#837 to #807
-
zeldamasterace (01/31/2015) [-] alright dorfdorfdorf let me tag in.
eternal suffering as punishment for sin makes sense. but you have to look at it differently. Sin is a term coming from archery. it means "missing the mark". when we sin, not only are we "missing the mark" we're also saying that we don't want God.
being sent to hell in my religion specifically means we're separated from God. but when we sin, we choose to be separated from Him.
and see >>[298] as to how we created sin.
but hey, we can all choose to believe our personal stuff. its all good.
eternal suffering as punishment for sin makes sense. but you have to look at it differently. Sin is a term coming from archery. it means "missing the mark". when we sin, not only are we "missing the mark" we're also saying that we don't want God.
being sent to hell in my religion specifically means we're separated from God. but when we sin, we choose to be separated from Him.
and see >>[298] as to how we created sin.
but hey, we can all choose to believe our personal stuff. its all good.
#844 to #837
-
dorfdorfdorf (01/31/2015) [-] exactly. to do the comment reference, do exactly what you did but dont include the brackets
#1035 to #837
-
skabbalabba (02/01/2015) [-] Why would the mere separation from God also have eternal suffering?
There is a big difference between "Not getting a reward" and "Getting punishment".
You speak as if you merely don't get a reward after death if you sin, but that's not all, is it?
So much of sin is ridiculous, and "god is testing us" or something like that is not the best explanation for why that is.
No gay guy who looks with lust upon some other guy is thinking "man, i really want to be separated from god right now."
And again, the only question i really care about: how does sin work?
And just say you don't know, if that is the case.
The answer to that would/could be the start of a solid assumption, and i don't care much what you believe and why, unless you have a solid base. You can't build a palace on water, build it on solid ground.
It's really annoying to hear people go on about how awesome their palace is going to be, when in the end, the plan is to build it on water, and you know it will sink no matter how amazing it is.
There is a big difference between "Not getting a reward" and "Getting punishment".
You speak as if you merely don't get a reward after death if you sin, but that's not all, is it?
So much of sin is ridiculous, and "god is testing us" or something like that is not the best explanation for why that is.
No gay guy who looks with lust upon some other guy is thinking "man, i really want to be separated from god right now."
And again, the only question i really care about: how does sin work?
And just say you don't know, if that is the case.
The answer to that would/could be the start of a solid assumption, and i don't care much what you believe and why, unless you have a solid base. You can't build a palace on water, build it on solid ground.
It's really annoying to hear people go on about how awesome their palace is going to be, when in the end, the plan is to build it on water, and you know it will sink no matter how amazing it is.
#1037 to #1035
-
zeldamasterace (02/01/2015) [-] People can only understand separation from God as eternal suffering after they've experienced His presence. It sounds like you haven't experienced the true person of the God I believe in.
sorry i should have said being separated from God is a spiritual ramification for sinning whether we realize that or not.
According to my religion I have a certain belief about how sin works. but if we never agree on a similar worldview before we talk about this subject or any for that matter its very hard for you to understand what i'm talking about or where i'm coming from. its not impossible but its hard for us to understand each other's viewpoints if we are firmly set in not believing the opposing viewpoint.
in all of my debating i have never judged another person's belief system or disrespected someone's else's opinion.
you saying that it's annoying for me to believe in "a water foundation" just sounds like your frustrated because you don't like or understand what i'm saying.
that's fine, go ahead, i don't really care.
my goal isn't convert you or anybody i'm talking to.
i just want to have an intelligent mature conversation.
so like i said before, you can believe what you want and i'll believe what i want
and it's all good.
sorry i should have said being separated from God is a spiritual ramification for sinning whether we realize that or not.
According to my religion I have a certain belief about how sin works. but if we never agree on a similar worldview before we talk about this subject or any for that matter its very hard for you to understand what i'm talking about or where i'm coming from. its not impossible but its hard for us to understand each other's viewpoints if we are firmly set in not believing the opposing viewpoint.
in all of my debating i have never judged another person's belief system or disrespected someone's else's opinion.
you saying that it's annoying for me to believe in "a water foundation" just sounds like your frustrated because you don't like or understand what i'm saying.
that's fine, go ahead, i don't really care.
my goal isn't convert you or anybody i'm talking to.
i just want to have an intelligent mature conversation.
so like i said before, you can believe what you want and i'll believe what i want
and it's all good.
#1038 to #1037
-
skabbalabba (02/01/2015) [-] The water foundation is annoying in the sense that most religious folk never ever adress it, and if they do, it's some woo woo sounding stuff, pardon the expression.
Take evolution for instance. Perhaps not me, but some evolutionary biologist could explain in exquisite detail how evolution works, how it manifests, why it manifests, down to the atomic level. Could you do the same for sin, or any other principle of religion?
It only get's cloudy when we get to stuff like "why does down quarks have -1/3 electric charge?" The very foundation of the universe itself.
Who knows, shaky foundation, but at least we can agree that it does.
It ties together and explain what we observe, and without breaking anything.
What have we observed that requires sin, and how would you go about mapping it onto reality without any contradictions?
I am not trying to convert you either, but i find it quite disheartening to watch people talk of their awesome palace (to go back to the analogy), making people come in, and watch them all drown.
Take evolution for instance. Perhaps not me, but some evolutionary biologist could explain in exquisite detail how evolution works, how it manifests, why it manifests, down to the atomic level. Could you do the same for sin, or any other principle of religion?
It only get's cloudy when we get to stuff like "why does down quarks have -1/3 electric charge?" The very foundation of the universe itself.
Who knows, shaky foundation, but at least we can agree that it does.
It ties together and explain what we observe, and without breaking anything.
What have we observed that requires sin, and how would you go about mapping it onto reality without any contradictions?
I am not trying to convert you either, but i find it quite disheartening to watch people talk of their awesome palace (to go back to the analogy), making people come in, and watch them all drown.
#1059 to #1038
-
zeldamasterace (02/01/2015) [-] alright then i'll do my best to answer your question. and now that you put it that way, i think i'm starting to understand what you're saying. you're saying that it's sad to see anyone not just christians believe something with the utmost sincerity without having solid evidence or a solid foundation for all the things they believe.
but first, tell me exactly what it is about sin you don't understand?
where it came from?
how it works?
what it does?
tell me all the things you want answers for.
and after that, i'll do some research and come back with answers. like i said before i'm not a bible scholar but i do want to give you answers especially when i know i can find them. granted it'll take some time.
but first, tell me exactly what it is about sin you don't understand?
where it came from?
how it works?
what it does?
tell me all the things you want answers for.
and after that, i'll do some research and come back with answers. like i said before i'm not a bible scholar but i do want to give you answers especially when i know i can find them. granted it'll take some time.
#1075 to #1059
-
skabbalabba (02/02/2015) [-] I think you're still off on the foundation thing, maybe this helps:
The whole concept of God rests on certain fundamental ideas, right? For the concept of God to be possible, certain grounding ideas must be in true. Like a palace (God, or whatever other idea you wanna pick) on a foundation (the base ideas that must be in place).
Another example: for a radio to work, radiowaves must be a real thing. If radiowaves were not a real thing, then it doesn't matter what argument you make in support of a radio, the concept fails, no matter what. Like a palace on water, no matter how amazing the palace, on water it will sink. You get the idea?
What annoys me is when religius folk don't ever bring forth the foundational priciples that allow the concept of God to work. Loads of people just go straight to defending God on other fronts, as if it was a given that the foundation was in place.
I don't see that it is, it seems like God and his combination of attributes can't exist in this universe as far as we know it. Take true omnipotence or omniscience, or a disembodied mind for instance.
This kind of stuff seems to run true for sin as well.
Now, as far as the questions are concerned. I suppose those you pointed out are a good start.
The whole concept of God rests on certain fundamental ideas, right? For the concept of God to be possible, certain grounding ideas must be in true. Like a palace (God, or whatever other idea you wanna pick) on a foundation (the base ideas that must be in place).
Another example: for a radio to work, radiowaves must be a real thing. If radiowaves were not a real thing, then it doesn't matter what argument you make in support of a radio, the concept fails, no matter what. Like a palace on water, no matter how amazing the palace, on water it will sink. You get the idea?
What annoys me is when religius folk don't ever bring forth the foundational priciples that allow the concept of God to work. Loads of people just go straight to defending God on other fronts, as if it was a given that the foundation was in place.
I don't see that it is, it seems like God and his combination of attributes can't exist in this universe as far as we know it. Take true omnipotence or omniscience, or a disembodied mind for instance.
This kind of stuff seems to run true for sin as well.
Now, as far as the questions are concerned. I suppose those you pointed out are a good start.
#1076 to #1075
-
zeldamasterace (02/02/2015) [-] well it looks like i have my work cut out for me.
i'll do some research and get back to you.
i'll do some research and get back to you.
#797 to #409
-
skabbalabba (01/31/2015) [-] Are you implying robots couldn't question?
The idea of a human still works fine if you think of it as a hyper-sofisticated robot.
The idea of a human still works fine if you think of it as a hyper-sofisticated robot.
#793 to #352
-
skabbalabba (01/31/2015) [-] By what mechanism(s) does sin operate?
How does it work?
How does it work?
#300 to #243
-
ltsparky (01/31/2015) [-] Dude you hit the nail on the head. I think of this the exact same way. God is loving, just, but at the same time gave mankind a great gift and that is one of free will. The alternative is where we are slaves. Actually reminds me of that Futurama episode where Bender meets God and that whole conversation, though obviously humorous, actually made good points.
#743 to #300
-
skabbalabba (01/31/2015) [-] We don't really have free will though.
I'd rather not have to explain it all to you in text, but you can look up Sam Harris' talks on it on Youtube
I'd rather not have to explain it all to you in text, but you can look up Sam Harris' talks on it on Youtube
#776 to #765
-
skabbalabba (01/31/2015) [-] See, here is where you walk down the wrong alley.
There still is no choice. There reason why you diddn't kill would be because your empathy and/or your concern for thee law and/or concern for doing something you had previously your life concluded to be bad, you name it. These are the things screaming "don't kill that guy" from your subconsciousness. They inevitably arise (if you accually have tham, that is) in such a situaion, and now you will helplessly not want to kill that guy anymore.
But again, getting to that point might trigger you to think of reasons to do it, you might find some, which triggers you to think of some to not do it. Eventually the scale tips to one side and the decition is made.
All this stuff simply arose from your subconsciousness, with no need of conscious intervention.
There still is no choice. There reason why you diddn't kill would be because your empathy and/or your concern for thee law and/or concern for doing something you had previously your life concluded to be bad, you name it. These are the things screaming "don't kill that guy" from your subconsciousness. They inevitably arise (if you accually have tham, that is) in such a situaion, and now you will helplessly not want to kill that guy anymore.
But again, getting to that point might trigger you to think of reasons to do it, you might find some, which triggers you to think of some to not do it. Eventually the scale tips to one side and the decition is made.
All this stuff simply arose from your subconsciousness, with no need of conscious intervention.
#904 to #776
-
CoolStoryBrosky (01/31/2015) [-] A good short novel I read which touches on a universal mechanism (The view I assume you're proposing) is God's Debris by Scott Adams. It's a short read, 100 or so pages, and you can find the pdf online. I suggest reading it if you get the chance.
#880 to #776
-
zeldamasterace (01/31/2015) [-] like i said before i watched the video and disagree.
but your stance from the subconscious really intrigues me. seriously.
i'm a christian but i'm also majoring in counseling where i go to college. so i learn alot about psychology etc. all that to say, i want to do more research on this subconscious ideology your talking about. purely for educational purposes. got any more links?
but your stance from the subconscious really intrigues me. seriously.
i'm a christian but i'm also majoring in counseling where i go to college. so i learn alot about psychology etc. all that to say, i want to do more research on this subconscious ideology your talking about. purely for educational purposes. got any more links?
#1056 to #776
-
ltsparky (02/01/2015) [-] choice
noun
1. an act of selecting or making a decision when faced with two or more possibilities.
Despite what you just said, whether it be empathy or law or personal concerns, you still make decision, whether its based on your fear of being caught or being judged or not. No one decides for you, right? Sounds like a choice to me.
noun
1. an act of selecting or making a decision when faced with two or more possibilities.
Despite what you just said, whether it be empathy or law or personal concerns, you still make decision, whether its based on your fear of being caught or being judged or not. No one decides for you, right? Sounds like a choice to me.
#1057 to #1056
-
skabbalabba (02/01/2015) [-] Yes, but the factors that make up your decition are out of your control.
You act according to how you "feel", and your feelings simply arise.
Point being: there is no fundamental difference between how a robot might make a decition and how we do it, so in a sense (referring to your first comment) we are slaves to our mental character, if our character was one that wanted to follow god like slaves/robots we would not care one way or the other, so it wouldn't be an act of love for god to give us "free will". Practically speaking, free will is simply the ability to not want to do as god wills, that's no privilage.
You act according to how you "feel", and your feelings simply arise.
Point being: there is no fundamental difference between how a robot might make a decition and how we do it, so in a sense (referring to your first comment) we are slaves to our mental character, if our character was one that wanted to follow god like slaves/robots we would not care one way or the other, so it wouldn't be an act of love for god to give us "free will". Practically speaking, free will is simply the ability to not want to do as god wills, that's no privilage.
#499 to #300
-
anon (01/31/2015) [-]
That justifies the existence of evil people. Stephen's argument is specifically targeted at horrible things happening that are not anyone's fault. Such as bone cancer in children, or insects that cause blindness in infants.
I also recent the idea that, as the OP of this particular comment section stated, "at the dawn of time, we made it that way." I was not present at the time and had no part in the acts commited. The fact that this punishment (I'm presuming hes talking about the banishment from paradise) somehow carries over to people even after 100s and 1000s of generations is absolutely capricious. Even in a horrible place like North Korea punishments only last for 3 generations at the most.
I also recent the idea that, as the OP of this particular comment section stated, "at the dawn of time, we made it that way." I was not present at the time and had no part in the acts commited. The fact that this punishment (I'm presuming hes talking about the banishment from paradise) somehow carries over to people even after 100s and 1000s of generations is absolutely capricious. Even in a horrible place like North Korea punishments only last for 3 generations at the most.
#638 to #499
-
rockamekishiko (01/31/2015) [-] What about Satan? he is powerful, he was the most powerful angel God had. He has power to create such illnesses and insects and what not. OR it's just nature taking place as it should in this world of free will.
#861 to #638
-
IamSofaKingdom (01/31/2015) [-] Satan was the most beautiful. They didn't say he was the most powerful.
#7
-
aneithereaper (01/31/2015) [-]
I would supremely love it if someone would combine those images into one big giant thing. You would earn my eternal thanks.
#6
-
CosplayNinja ONLINE (01/31/2015) [-]
Apatheist - Don't care if there is a god or not - can't we all just agree not to be dicks?
#37 to #23
-
fiveblackmen (01/31/2015) [-] No, agnostic literally means you don't know. It is the difference between ignorance and apathy.
#220 to #23
-
bobbysnobby (01/31/2015) [-]
Agnostic= a non gnostic. Gnostic is a position of what is and is not knowable. If your a Gnostic Theist you believe in a God and you believe that it is possible to know that god exists. If your an Gnostic Atheist you dont believe in God and you believe it is possible to know that God does not exist.
Atheist= a non theist. You dont believe that there are God(s)
Atheist= a non theist. You dont believe that there are God(s)
#38 to #23
-
epicbanjoman (01/31/2015) [-] Agnosticism is the idea that you do not know if there is a omniscient being. Apatheism is the belief that the existence of a higher being has no impact on their lives. It is also the sense of not having an interest in religion.
#223 to #38
-
bobbysnobby (01/31/2015) [-]
Agnostic means you answer the question "Can we know that God Exists" with "No"
You arent an agnostic thus not a Theist or an Atheist. You can be an Atheist Gnostic or Agnostic, a Theist Gnostic or Agnostic.
For example an Agnostic Christian would believe in God but its not because they can prove that he exists, instead that they have faith that he exists. Basically that you cannot prove that God exists like you can prove a table exists, but that they still believe that he does.
In contrast a Gnostic Christian would believe in God and would say it is possible to know that God does exist. They often would make appeals to creation, the fundamental laws of physics, the source of morality or other such things.
TL; DR version. Agnostic is not "soft atheism" Agnostic doesnt mean "I dont know/care" Agnostic means you think the question "Does God Exist" is a question which cannot be answered objectively.
You arent an agnostic thus not a Theist or an Atheist. You can be an Atheist Gnostic or Agnostic, a Theist Gnostic or Agnostic.
For example an Agnostic Christian would believe in God but its not because they can prove that he exists, instead that they have faith that he exists. Basically that you cannot prove that God exists like you can prove a table exists, but that they still believe that he does.
In contrast a Gnostic Christian would believe in God and would say it is possible to know that God does exist. They often would make appeals to creation, the fundamental laws of physics, the source of morality or other such things.
TL; DR version. Agnostic is not "soft atheism" Agnostic doesnt mean "I dont know/care" Agnostic means you think the question "Does God Exist" is a question which cannot be answered objectively.
#8 to #6
-
noblexfenrir (01/31/2015) [-] an atheist or a theist can apply to apatheism. You still have a current state of belief regardless of the priority by which you set to it.
#18
-
uniden (01/31/2015) [-]
Well, I'm not an expert on Christianity and similar religions, but I know they believe in (a) A temporal world full of suffering and affliction and (b) an eternal afterlife of happiness and fulfillment of all human desire. Thus, no affliction, regardless of how horrible and I mean even unimaginably horrid things that happen to people completely undeserving of it. and unfair it is doesn't even register compared to an "eternity." Any amount against an infinite amount is meaninglessly insignificant.
So, assuming a "God" does exist, and he'll pop you in heaven when you die, christian stuff, everyone's happy for forever, so on and so on... it's unfair to say he's a maniac based of suffering and misery alone.
But, that's just my opinion. I'm agnostic, so I don't think "God" can be either proved or disproved. Goin down with this post prbly
So, assuming a "God" does exist, and he'll pop you in heaven when you die, christian stuff, everyone's happy for forever, so on and so on... it's unfair to say he's a maniac based of suffering and misery alone.
But, that's just my opinion. I'm agnostic, so I don't think "God" can be either proved or disproved. Goin down with this post prbly
#128 to #18
-
testaburger (01/31/2015) [-] He will render unto you infinite punishment for a finite crime.
And as you said: "Any amount against an infinite amount is meaninglessly insignificant. "
If that's not being an asshole, then I dunno what is.
And as you said: "Any amount against an infinite amount is meaninglessly insignificant. "
If that's not being an asshole, then I dunno what is.
#20 to #18
-
pokemonstheshiz (01/31/2015) [-] you could say it's kind of a ridiculous requirement that you have to believe in him and follow his teachings in order to receive that eternal happiness, when he's given no real proof that any of it's true.
I understand is supposed to be about faith, but seems like a pretty big gamble imo
I understand is supposed to be about faith, but seems like a pretty big gamble imo
#21 to #20
-
uniden (01/31/2015) [-]
I get you. It seems ridiculous that you have to find and follow one of thousands of religions to be happy for eternity. I was speaking with a christian friend though, and he told me you have to consciously reject god to miss out on that. I guess that honestly trying to find truth and do the right thing is the best you can do whether or not "God" is real. If he is, I wouldn't mind following whatever teaching of his as long as it isn't obviously bad.
#682 to #21
-
anon (01/31/2015) [-]
Yeah in Christianity all you need to do is not reject/deny him(Jesus) since the idea is you can never be good enough no matter what you do so Jesus already died to make up for that.
In other words it basically asks "will you let Jesus save you" and your options are "yes" in which you go to heaven with god or "no" in which you go to hell without him well people like to push the burn forever aspect if you read the bible it also says god set up hell as a place where he is not for people who do not want him since even on earth he is everywhere.
So in that regard he is actually just giving you the option to go where you want and sent his son to die in order to let you pick.
In other words it basically asks "will you let Jesus save you" and your options are "yes" in which you go to heaven with god or "no" in which you go to hell without him well people like to push the burn forever aspect if you read the bible it also says god set up hell as a place where he is not for people who do not want him since even on earth he is everywhere.
So in that regard he is actually just giving you the option to go where you want and sent his son to die in order to let you pick.
#79 to #20
-
citruslord (01/31/2015) [-] especially when multiple multiple renditions all same that same thing. You get like a 10% chance of nailing it.
#659
-
oosulley (01/31/2015) [-] Everyone in the comments be all arguing about religion, and im just amazed RTE and Gaybo ever showed up on FJ.
Oh, and don't scroll down, Mother of all ********** below.
Oh, and don't scroll down, Mother of all ********** below.
#736 to #659
-
CyborgNinja (01/31/2015) [-] Comments section is a ******* riot. Nothing more amusing than seeing people trying to defend their religious beliefs, when they know very well that someone will always disagree.
