This site makes extensive use of JavaScript.
Please enable JavaScript in your browser.
Live
PTR
10.2.7
PTR
10.2.6
Beta
Do you believe in God?
Post Reply
Return to board index
Post by
588688
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
MasterOfDisguise
Let's just call that the end of this sidetracking discussion and return to the subject at hand, okay?
As a friendly reminder to everyone, given that this subject has a tendency to cause heated discussions, if we could please be tolerant of other religions by not making potentially offensive or insensitive statements towards them, that would be very much appreciated.Thank you.
Please carry on.
Post by
Gone
What makes your motives more pure than his?
Because he did due to someone telling him to do it, where as I did it because I felt like it was the right thing to do based purely on my feelings toward that particular human being. My motives cannot be selfish, where are potentially selfish, as he could either be doing it due to blindly following the words of another, or to avoid going to hell / to go to heaven.
I have nothing to gain, he does. There's a difference from
feeling
something is right or wrong because of your own personal feelings that you formed on your own, naturally, and
thinking
it is right or wrong because someone told you. And I disagree with the "good done in the name of evil is still good, and evil done in the name of good is still evil", motives are the only morality, as virtually any evil action can be justified in certain contexts, and good deeds are meaningless if there's no benevolent motives behind them. Oh sure, if a selfish jerk is doing nothing but good because he wants to go to heaven when he dies, I won't complain. But he's still a selfish jerk and any good deed he does purely for his own benefit won't change that.
I'm sure most of us have heard the saying "it's the thought that counts", ya, I apply that to morals, not just christmas.
Sold, I kind of feel like you're talking out of your arse a bit. Nobody has Gods voice in their ear telling them what to do and what not to do. If somebody lives their life by the creed of "what would Jesus do" then they are just following their own moral standards. You say that your motives are different because its what you think is right, where as the religious person is doing what they think, God thinks is right. There is no difference.
In the end your making a judgement based on your morals, so is the other hypothetical person. The only difference is they are using God as a factor in their decision of whether the choice is right or wrong. It still comes from within them, just like yours did.
Post by
1101980
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
588688
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
craftyard
I'm not a believer in any religion, mysticism or spirituality.
I'm broadly against organised religions.
I'm a sceptic who looks for facts and respects evidence above all things.
That's my position.
This is pretty much exactly how I am as well.
Post by
1069282
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
OverZealous
These threads never fail to heat up.
Post by
Gone
Can you not see the difference between forming an opinion yourself and following someone else's opinions? There's liking the color blue because you like how it looks, and liking the color blue because your favorite singer likes it.
Thats a poor example. Following Gods moral system is no different than choosing any other ethical system, If somebody subscribes to a utilitarian philosophy and decides to make decisions based on whatever will yield the greater good, does that mean that they are forming opinions because John Mill tells them to? If you avoid speeding in a school zone, are you doing it because the government tells you to?
Its just a decision somebody makes and uses their faith to guide them. You cant refer to God as a third party telling people to think a certain way, because to a person of faith he is more than that. To a religious person God is part of the natural universe, he created our conscience so following it is just a way of glorifying him. A person who uses God as a reason to do a good thing has no less value in his decision than anybody else using any other philosophical justification.
So no, just because you think you made the decision to go get the ball on your own (and I doubt that you did, everybody is influenced by something), that doesn't have any more inherent value than somebody doing a nice thing because they think it will please God.
Post by
588688
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
Gone
@Sold
I'm not gonna keep debating this with you. You're completely missing my point, and now your using an absurdly over the top example of God commanding people to rape. All I can say is you are wrong here.
Post by
588688
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
MyTie
From hell? What else could I possibly mean? Yes, saved from hell.
I would find it more accurate to say "from sin", and by extension death, which is manifested, by default, in Hell.I actually don't really care, and I'm not intentionally being close minded.
don't carenot close minded.You've been given interpretations of what that verse says, and what it means, or how it relates from four different people. All four of those people arrived at nearly the exact same interpretation. Those four people don't know each other. We don't go to the same Church. We don't study the same. We don't have the same teachers. But, all four of us arrived at the same conclusion about it, and independently either gave that verse as a Biblical citation for an example (Magician), explained what that verse has to do with that example (MyTie), supported conclusions on those interpretations (Ryja), or patiently explained the verse and its implications (ofLegends). Of all the people in these threads, we would be the "local experts" on what it says, as I'd wager we have studied it longer than others. Speaking for myself, I am a minister, trusted by my Church to give teachings on Biblical understanding to the congregants about 3 times a week, and council individuals and couples on Biblical application to their lives. This is what I do.
Based on that, is it more likely that myself, and the other three people involved, are all just reading into the scripture what they want, and that those happen to all be the same, or is it possible that you are just being stubborn? Either the text is meaningless gibberish that should be ignored, in which case you are welcome to believe whatever you want and I wish you a nice day, or the text has meaning and all of us are wrong and you have the answers, in which case you've got your hands full trying to explain why we are all wrong. You can't have it both ways. It can't be meaningless gibberish whose meaning we don't understand.
Post by
Magician22773
You've been given interpretations of what that verse says, and what it means, or how it relates from four different people. All four of those people arrived at nearly the exact same interpretation. Those four people don't know each other. We don't go to the same Church. We don't study the same. We don't have the same teachers. But, all four of us arrived at the same conclusion about it, and independently either gave that verse as a Biblical citation for an example (Magician), explained what that verse has to do with that example (MyTie), supported conclusions on those interpretations (Ryja), or patiently explained the verse and its implications (ofLegends).
"Don't waste what is holy on people who are unholy. Don't throw your pearls to pigs! They will trample the pearls, then turn and attack you.
'nuff said
Post by
Monday
Honestly, I'm starting to agree with Magician here. This feels less like debating and more like a "Nuh uh. YAH HUH!" type argument. I'd love to participate if there was more actual discussion that could be held. I feel like I could be a valid source for explaining scripture to those who don't understand, as I've spent about 5-8 hours a week for four years learning about not only the Bible, but the other two books of scripture that my religion considers holy.
Post by
MyTie
While I agree with the substance of Magician's post, I think it could be said nicer.
Post by
asakawa
@Benzene, but your contribution to the thread was just one word. After which you made a post complaining about the respectful and friendly discussion that was taking place. Now you say that you would like to participate but recent posts have made you feel like it would be pointless to do so?
Personally I don't want to "debate". Debating implies winning and I don't have anything to win. I would like to discuss things with other adults who are interested in that discussion.
With that said, I have no interest in Soldrethar's line of discussion either (just speaking as another participant in the thread). I agree with ofLegends, that replying to frank and well-composed answers to your questions by saying "I don't care" is rude but I also agree with MyTie that Magician's response is a little harsh too.
I would really like if people stopped seeing sides in this thread and in other discussions like this one. There aren't two opposing forces here just some people talking to each other. If someone says or asks something that interests you then you should reply. If someone does or says something you think crosses a line or breaks a forum rule then report it but please don't decide that the entire thread is a waste of time or decide things about a group of people based on a single person's posts.
Post by
gamerunknown
Real morals are something you form on your own, through your own feelings, not influenced by anyone else.
I disagree with this (though Bertrand Russell said morals imposed from the outside are worthless). Morals develop in a social context and for facilitating social behaviour. Altering one's moral positions requires thought and discourse. Totally asocialised individuals (such as Jeanie) are incapable of articulating any moral positions. I do believe it's possible to ascend beyond the ethical norms of the society one resides in and I reject ethical normative relativism, though.
Post by
MyTie
Real morals are something you form on your own, through your own feelings, not influenced by anyone else.
I disagree with this (though Bertrand Russell said morals imposed from the outside are worthless). Morals develop in a social context and for facilitating social behaviour. Altering one's moral positions requires thought and discourse. Totally asocialised individuals (such as Jeanie) are incapable of articulating any moral positions. I do believe it's possible to ascend beyond the ethical norms of the society one resides in and I reject ethical normative relativism, though.
So then what defines morals that transcend social norms, if morals don't come from within?
Post by
Monday
@Benzene, but your contribution to the thread was just one word. After which you made a post complaining about the respectful and friendly discussion that was taking place. Now you say that you would like to participate but recent posts have made you feel like it would be pointless to do so?
Perhaps I was merely being fatalistic, but it turned out far better than the myriad of other threads in the past. Generally, however, the rule has been that they turn very unstable very quickly. Additionally, I wasn't complaining about the respectful or friendly discussion taking place, but that it immediately turned into an atheists vs. religious thread.
Whenever these types of threads pop up, I always wish that they would at least give people a chance to answer (though a page is definitely an improvement over the previous ones). Instead, however, it immediately turns into a debate- which is almost always led by the atheists. Don't get me wrong, I'm not attempting to lump all atheists into one group and place all the problems on them. However, whenever these types of threads do appear, the "interrogation" is led by the atheists in every situation. The last time it was the opposite was when HSR was here, and it's been quite some time since he has been present.
I would enjoy participating very much if it moved beyond arguments of why religion (whether organized or the belief in a higher power) is wrong and instead discussed other religions. I would love to learn about others (though I don't have the time to express my questions in any particularly coherent way at the moment), but for that to happen, I feel that we must respect each other, and I feel that it simply won't happen with the discussion that has been taking place currently.
Personally I don't want to "debate". Debating implies winning and I don't have anything to win. I would like to discuss things with other adults who are interested in that discussion.
Sadly, not all share your point of view.
I would really like if people stopped seeing sides in this thread and in other discussions like this one. There aren't two opposing forces here just some people talking to each other.
I'm afraid I must disagree, and I feel that the thread has been proving my point.
If someone says or asks something that interests you then you should reply. If someone does or says something you think crosses a line or breaks a forum rule then report it
Of course I will do that. However, our ideas of what crosses a line differ, to be frank, and I'm not sure that it would make too much of a difference.
but please don't decide that the entire thread is a waste of time or decide things about a group of people based on a single person's posts.
Perhaps I judged too soon, and this thread will be the anomaly to break the rule. However, in all of my time here, religion threads almost always turned out exactly as I described.
Post Reply
You are not logged in. Please
log in
to post a reply or
register
if you don't already have an account.