;831070']Science will never prove that there never is a god, nor will it prove that there is.
science will never prove that there never is a santa claus, nor will it prove that there isscience will never prove that there never is a tooth fairy, nor will it prove that there isscience will never prove that there never is a Leprechaun, nor will it prove that there isscience will never prove that there never is a Loch Ness Monster, nor will it prove that there is............
The rules and morales presented in the Bible are probably taken from what people knew to be common sense but the Bible isn't wrong for repeating them.
Then you stated your "Rule of Bell (TM)" (just quoting, not being pompous ) .
As Nick said, people don't NEED the bible to have a set of morales.No the Bible isn't wrong for restating common sense but it doesn't make it right either.If I write down the "Rule of Bell" in a book write some other nutty rules then let it simmer in society for 2000 years does that make all my nutty rules right too?
can you give us a example of one of your experiences so we can rationally explain it?
Not saying the Bible is right, but is it wrong if someone reads the Bible and decides that they will live their life by the morales set out by it, even if some of these are found outside of religion or Christianity. They don't NEED the Bible to have those of morales set out by it or any other, by they can if they choose to and they can also choose to believe in the stories which teach these morales and that theres a big bearded face in the sky which check to see they are following them, if it helps them to live by them.No one NEEDS to do anyhting, but the choice is theirs if they want to.
I think we both agree on the same thing, I am saying NOT following the bible or any other religion is not a bad thing, because you can have morales without it.You are saying following the bible isn't a bad thing because it teaches morales.I agree on that point.I was replying to forsaken who was suggesting the Bible is awesome because it lists a set of morales, I disagree that it makes it particularly awesome because the basic set of morales are usually built into us (empathy) and is taught in many different texts/religions.The 10 commandments don't make the bible overly special or different.But saying its not awesome and saying it is bad are two different things.To put it another way, If the bible never existed I don't believe peoples morale frameworks would be different.
its the choice of the extra stuff thats the problem and a sense of "we are right, everyone else is wrong"sorry religous people but your faith based belief does not allow you to EVER point at any other system of faith (including the spaghetti monster) and say "you are wrong"yet thats exactly the thing religion has been doing since its been around
But Atheists are allowed to sit outside of religion and say "You are all wrong "?
Yes. What we need more of is science.
to choose to be a complete atheist is also a logically untenable position as you can never be certain, you can lean towards an idea but theres no way you can say for sure
yes but in terms of, if there is something greater (advanced alien super human thing) we cannot really say "no, no chance of this thing existing" becuase it is not logical to make that claim based on what is not knownGod isn't well defined enough for us to say there is definatly no godat the very least though we can say what is more likely, more probable, more reasonable and then base our BELIEFS and ACTIONS on that
I had this argument put to me once, that God is powerful but directly affecting someones heart is more difficult than God intervening. I replied:"Saint Paul also known as Saul"This won the argument instantly
I fail to see how. Please explain?
According to the bible, as told in Acts ch 9, Saul had a very real, probably very frightening, experience with God, and his name was changed as a result, to wipe clean the reputation that went with the old name. Saint Paul isn't also known as Saul, he was known as Saul, which is an important distinction when telling the story.Aside from that, the conversion of Saul is a powerful story, as it again shows that no-one can be too far away from God to engage in a relationship with him.
I was enlightened in the weekend. I had been forever trying to figure out what it was that i believed in and where i stood.Then i had Agnosticism explained to me and everything felt right. I don't necessarily believe in God but i believe that there is something...Agnostic theism.
Deism nurtures the inherent mysticism/wonder of life by pointing to the interconnectedness of things irregardless of dogmatic teachings.
I was thinking yesterday about how I could both simplify and clarify the Epicurius and 'The problem with evil' argument. If you are not familiar with it, it goes like this:Quote from: Tiwaking!;409899Epicurus taught this incredibly simple, yet ultimately infallible logic:"If God is all powerful, why does God allow evil to exist? If God is willing, but unable to prevent evil, then God is not all powerful. If God is able, but unwilling then God is malevolent. If God is unwilling and unable then Why call him God?"Although the Wiki goes on abit(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Problem_of_evil) You could reduce this further with a simple logic flow diagram:1. Does God exist? Yes/No/MaybeIf 1. NO then ENDIf 1. YES then Goto 2If 1. Maybe then 2, 3, 4, 5 count as Maybe. END2. Is God omnipotent? Yes/No3. Is God omniscient? Yes/No4. Is God omnipresent? Yes/No5. Is God benevolent? Yes/NoObviously Agnostics will say 'Maybe' to question 1, Atheists answer 'No' and Deists/Theists answer 'Yes'.Now, the interesting thing is answering NO to any of the remaining questions(except for 5) technically qualifies you as a DEIST, since the 2-4 are the generally accepted theological powers demonstrated by what could be considered a deity.
Epicurus taught this incredibly simple, yet ultimately infallible logic:"If God is all powerful, why does God allow evil to exist? If God is willing, but unable to prevent evil, then God is not all powerful. If God is able, but unwilling then God is malevolent. If God is unwilling and unable then Why call him God?"
No. You are a deist
How so?Remember, i said that i don't necessarily believe that God exists. By your quote, to be a Deist i have to understand that God exists.
Agnostic theism.
I saw a fantastic t-shirt in Auckland this weekend that reminded me of this thread:"I'm agnostic because I don't know and neither do you."