472 replies to this topic

[rozz666]

Doing something "in the name of God" doesn't mean God told them to do it or approved of it.

That doesn't matter. How can you tell the difference? How could they prove that he did? How would you prove that he didn't (hint: we have examples in the Bible of God commanding genocide, human sacrifice etc. so it's plausible for believers)?

That was O.T.

So what?

and done for a reason (to ensure God's people survived).

I'm sorry for you if are able to come up with good reasons to justify genocide and human sacrifice. I really find your morality repulsive.

You can tell the difference by seeing if said people follow the example of Christ. For the record - neither the people responsible for the Crusades, nor Hitler nor David Koresh, nor ... followed this example.

It still doesn't matter. They believed they were right without evidence. That's what Christianity teaches you, that faith is a virtue. Just like you do not question the what god supposedly did in the Old Testament.

That just makes them misguided or deceived.

I agree. Since there's no evidence for god, all believer are misguided or deceived.

There is evidence (note: I didn't say proof), but you just don't accept it.

So you have some evidence that is so weak that any reasonable person will reject it?

[Machaira]

Doing something "in the name of God" doesn't mean God told them to do it or approved of it.

That doesn't matter. How can you tell the difference? How could they prove that he did? How would you prove that he didn't (hint: we have examples in the Bible of God commanding genocide, human sacrifice etc. so it's plausible for believers)?

That was O.T.

So what?

The O.T. is not Christianity, it's Judaism and an entirely different set of rules.

and done for a reason (to ensure God's people survived).

I'm sorry for you if are able to come up with good reasons to justify genocide and human sacrifice. I really find your morality repulsive.

Ummm, it's not my morality and I don't have (and just like all humans am not qualified) to justify God's actions.

You can tell the difference by seeing if said people follow the example of Christ. For the record - neither the people responsible for the Crusades, nor Hitler nor David Koresh, nor ... followed this example.

It still doesn't matter. They believed they were right without evidence. That's what Christianity teaches you, that faith is a virtue. Just like you do not question the what god supposedly did in the Old Testament.

No, that's not what Christianity teaches, but I guess you couldn't be bothered to verify it before you condemned it.

As for questioning what God did in the O.T. I do sometimes wonder why God couldn't have done it differently.

So you have some evidence that is so weak that any reasonable person will reject it?

Nope, millions of people have accepted it. If you call us unreasonable, that's your opinion.

[SeraphLance]

You're mistaken on the perception of free will. Free will is defined as a conscious decision, where you are free to choose what you decide. In a purely deterministic universe, you are not free to choose. It is already chosen. In a non-deterministic universe, you may or not be free to choose. For some reason, you're conflating free will with determinism.

It's you who are mistaken. If decisions brought about by "free will" are non-deterministic, then they're not conscious decisions, at least not for any meaningful definition of "conscious" (e.g. existing within the mind). If I decide to, say, save someone's life with my "free will," then the fact that, if time were "rewound" to precisely the same state, I might still make a different decision is not comforting in the least. In fact, it necessitates that my original decision was not a conscious decision, nor, would I argue, is it a decision at all. Decisions are only meaningful if they have intentionality, that is, they are about something. If they are non-deterministic, then by definition the actual decision itself stems from something not within the measurable universe.

The fact that "deterministic free will" also seems to be a contradiction merely suggests that "free will" itself is a logical absurdity.

I'm a little confused by your logic here. You're claiming that a decision that is not set in stone is not a decision at all. It seems to be the inverse of what most would claim. A decision that is made for you by a deterministic universe is not a decision, because you haven't decided anything. Decisions do not exist without the free will for more than one choice to be possible. Otherwise there's no distinction between decisions and events. At best, in a deterministic universe, you can claim a decision is something that gives off the illusion of free will.

I'm also confused by why you claim these decisions are not conscious. Why presume consciousness is naturally deterministic? I don't see where you've established that all conscious processes are known and controlled. That's certainly not a priori in the slightest, at least not in the scope of this argument.

Or, to put it another way: "Your" choices are necessarily either deterministic, or they are random*. In the latter case, they are in no sense your choices at all; you could just as easily say that they were the choices of the Random-God. If the choices "I" make are completely random, and independent of everything that I call me (specifically, my brain/mind) it's nonsensical to say that I am exercising my will to make them.

*that is, independent of every present, past, or future state in the observable universe

Where you imply random, I imply stochastic. There's an ocean of meaning between being completely arbitrary and being wholly dependent on known variables. You said it yourself, there are "hidden variables" that govern this behavior. However, "rewinding" does not allow us to fix these hidden variables into their prior state; that's why they're "hidden". If you can control these hidden variables, you're no longer modeling a non-deterministic universe.

[mikeman]

Can you prove there is such thing as free will?

No.

Free will is an intresting one and I would argue that we don't have it, at least not completely.

If you like it or not, the fact is your choices and actions depend on the chemcial layout of your brain at the time you have to make the choice. I know this from experiance as I suffer from swings into depression and an action which seems perfectly clear and logical one day becomes not so the next once my mood shifts.

At best any choices we make depend on our mood/chemical levels and cultural contamination as well. There is also the question of determinism in the universe; if we had the maths to do it then could we simulate the universe from start to finish such that the same things happen in the simualtion as happened in reality? If so then there is no free will as you will always react the same given the same combination of inputs and outputs.

The introduction of an all knowing god just complicates things; how can god be all knowing if I have free will? If he knows the outcome of my actions before I have even come across them how can I have free will? And if he doesn't know then how could god be god as this lack of knowledge would break the ideal of being 'perfect'.

How about love?

No.

As mentioned 'love' is nothing more than a chemical state of the brain.

Something about someone trips off the correct chemical path ways which cause certain chemcials to be produced and induce a feeling of pleasure. Thus, because our brains are setup to react to these checmials and effectively seek out more, we spend more time with that person. Humans have called this attraction 'love' but the same pair bonding can be seen in animals making it a non-unique thing which is not exculsive to humans.

In essense, there is no 'self' either. It's all an illusion.

Pretty much, yes... at some point we become 'aware' that the creature doing the thinking is seperate from the others we are looking at and thus invest in this 'self' but it is something which arises from the way our brains are layed out and a learned condition; children when they are very young and are still forming their nurological connections have little to no concept of self, it is something which develops over time.

See, now we're getting somewhere. I believe in free will, because I want to believe. (Obviously, I argued initially from the reverse side to make a point). I don't want to think that my actions are all the result of "dumb", mechanical chemical processes in my head. Obviously, I do believe genetics and chemistry play a role(I too have suffered from depression incidents that were alliviated by medicine), but I also believe that there is a "core" of "self" that is beyond deterministic laws or pure chance(if you want to go "quantum", although it's not proven if quantum mechanics play any role in the brain function). I want to believe that, because, to believe otherwise, would indeed make me depressed . That's just me. Inside my current worldview, I consider this free will as a gift from God.

Things are more complicated that you guys are making them to be. It's not like a read a book about magical beings and stories and went 'oh yeah, that's the truth'. There was much critical thinking that went into the process, at least for me, and there still is, for years(I was an atheists, and I still like very much many atheists for their ability think free- you can't deny that). The New Testament, for example, is the story of the founder of our faith, and the various authors(of gospels, epistles, Acts, etc...) state that this story is real. This story contains many very deep material about morality, the relationship of man with the divine(if you want to accept that there is such thing), love, compassion, forgiveness, etc etc, that, if someone wants to ridicule them, the joke's on them. Even strong atheists like Dawkins pay respect to the figure of Jesus and have formed the 'atheists for Jesus' group).

Other than that, it's your choice or not to believe the authors, that are witnesses and state that the stories are real. The decision will have many factors in it, your whole 'self', biological, historical, moral, personal, rational, emotional(the story just moved me, personally) etc etc. My method was down-to-top. I read the story of Jesus, and admired his moral teaching. Regardless of his divinity or not, I believed that those words, if applied, could radically change human nature and societies at large. At some point, I decided that the existence of a Creator of the physical universe can be a possibility, and, if it existed, I would wanted to be like the God Jesus described. I then decided that the authors, and Jesus himself, were not lying or being delusional, and that the words were true, that it was not just some magnificent human moral teaching, equal to others before that(say Konfucius) but knowledge handed over by that caring Creator to the human race, as a means for bettering ourselves. The Sermon on the Mount was a critical factor in that decision. I still have many unanswered questions, like the problem of evil(I throught, for example, that isn't it a bit hypocritical to hear,say,the Pope pray to God to help those inflicted by the quake in Japan, where God is supposed to have full control of nature?), but I consider them just that: Unanswered, and very possibly outside of my mental capabilities. I don't regard my faith as a dead, stationary thing: It will change, and hopefully new things will be revealed in the future.

Now, If you still want to equate that long process with "beliving in fairies or the Easter Bunny", go ahead. But I won't take you seriously, as I assume you are not taking me. Oh well.

[rozz666]

The O.T. is not Christianity, it's Judaism and an entirely different set of rules.

It's still part of your Bible. It's the same god.
So the ten commandments do not apply?
Matthew 5:19

and done for a reason (to ensure God's people survived).

I'm sorry for you if are able to come up with good reasons to justify genocide and human sacrifice. I really find your morality repulsive.

Ummm, it's not my morality and I don't have (and just like all humans am not qualified) to justify God's actions.

Of course, you have to. You worship a being that does disgusting things.

You can tell the difference by seeing if said people follow the example of Christ. For the record - neither the people responsible for the Crusades, nor Hitler nor David Koresh, nor ... followed this example.

It still doesn't matter. They believed they were right without evidence. That's what Christianity teaches you, that faith is a virtue. Just like you do not question the what god supposedly did in the Old Testament.

No, that's not what Christianity teaches, but I guess you couldn't be bothered to verify it before you condemned it.

Read John 20:24-29.

As for questioning what God did in the O.T. I do sometimes wonder why God couldn't have done it differently.

But judging from your previous posts it's not a big problem.

So you have some evidence that is so weak that any reasonable person will reject it?

Nope, millions of people have accepted it. If you call us unreasonable, that's your opinion.

Ah, appeal to popularity.

I have just 2 questions I've asked before, but you haven't answered.
1. Do you believe in things until proven false, or not believe until proven true?
2. What evidence do you have that god exists?

EDIT: added a question

[rozz666]

See, now we're getting somewhere. I believe in free will, because I want to believe. (Obviously, I argued initially from the reverse side to make a point). I don't want to think that my actions are all the result of "dumb", mechanical chemical processes in my head. Obviously, I do believe genetics and chemistry play a role(I too have suffered from depression incidents that were alliviated by medicine), but I also believe that there is a "core" of "self" that is beyond deterministic laws or pure chance(if you want to go "quantum", although it's not proven if quantum mechanics play any role in the brain function). I want to believe that, because, to believe otherwise, would indeed make me depressed . That's just me. Inside my current worldview, I consider this free will as a gift from God.

Things are more complicated that you guys are making them to be. It's not like a read a book about magical beings and stories and went 'oh yeah, that's the truth'. There was much critical thinking that went into the process, at least for me, and there still is, for years(I was an atheists, and I still like very much many atheists for their ability think free- you can't deny that). The New Testament, for example, is the story of the founder of our faith, and the various authors(of gospels, epistles, Acts, etc...) state that this story is real. This story contains many very deep material about morality, the relationship of man with the divine(if you want to accept that there is such thing), love, compassion, forgiveness, etc etc, that, if someone wants to ridicule them, the joke's on them. Even strong atheists like Dawkins pay respect to the figure of Jesus and have formed the 'atheists for Jesus' group).

Other than that, it's your choice or not to believe the authors, that are witnesses and state that the stories are real. The decision will have many factors in it, your whole 'self', biological, historical, moral, personal, rational, emotional(the story just moved me, personally) etc etc. My method was down-to-top. I read the story of Jesus, and admired his moral teaching. Regardless of his divinity or not, I believed that those words, if applied, could radically change human nature and societies at large. At some point, I decided that the existence of a Creator of the physical universe can be a possibility, and, if it existed, I would wanted to be like the God Jesus described. I then decided that the authors, and Jesus himself, were not lying or being delusional, and that the words were true, that it was not just some magnificent human moral teaching, equal to others before that(say Konfucius) but knowledge handed over by that caring Creator to the human race, as a means for bettering ourselves. The Sermon on the Mount was a critical factor in that decision. I still have many unanswered questions, like the problem of evil(I throught, for example, that isn't it a bit hypocritical to hear,say,the Pope pray to God to help those inflicted by the quake in Japan, where God is supposed to have full control of nature?), but I consider them just that: Unanswered, and very possibly outside of my mental capabilities. I don't regard my faith as a dead, stationary thing: It will change, and hopefully new things will be revealed in the future.

Now, If you still want to equate that long process with "beliving in fairies or the Easter Bunny", go ahead. But I won't take you seriously, as I assume you are not taking me. Oh well.

So to sum up. You believe because you like the teachings of Jesus, think of them as divine and you just want to believe that.
I'd argue that sermon of the mount is nothing extraordinary, some parts are immoral (thought crimes?!!!) etc. but apart from that you still haven't provided any evidence.
Therefore it's still valid to compare god to fairies or Santa (at least Santa brought me presents every year a long time ago :-) )

[Machaira]

The O.T. is not Christianity, it's Judaism and an entirely different set of rules.

It's still part of your Bible. It's the same god.

So? Would you pick up a history book and read about slavery in the U.S. and say "Gee it must be ok, because it's in this book and this is the U.S."? Apologies if you're not in the U.S., I didn't check. But the logic is the same. Christianity is not defined by the historical books in the O.T. and that's what being questioned here, not God's actions in the O.T.

Read John 20:24-29.

Ummm, try some context next time.

Ah, appeal to popularity.

You're the one that brought up "any reasonable person". If you're going to claim that all Christians are not reasonable then there's no point in continuing.

I have just 2 questions I've asked before, but you haven't answered.
1. Do you believe in things until proven false, or not believe until proven true?
2. What evidence do you have that god exists?

1. Depends on the thing in question
2. There are entire books written on this and it's futile to go into it yet again as I'm sure you'll just dismiss it out of hand. If you would really consider the evidence without bias then we can talk.

[rozz666]

So? Would you pick up a history book and read about slavery in the U.S. and say "Gee it must be ok, because it's in this book and this is the U.S."? Apologies if you're not in the U.S., I didn't check. But the logic is the same. Christianity is not defined by the historical books in the O.T. and that's what being questioned here, not God's actions in the O.T.

Slavery is a bad example. It's supported by your Bible ;-)
But you don't seem to get it. Your god committed evil acts and you just dismiss it saying it's the old testament. That's cherry picking. You just pick the parts you like.
What about ten commandments?

Read John 20:24-29.

Ummm, try some context next time.

I gave you the quote when Jesus said that blessed are those who believed without evidence. Now you claim it's taken out of context, so it's your turn to provide one that supports your position.

Ah, appeal to popularity.

You're the one that brought up "any reasonable person". If you're going to claim that all Christians are not reasonable then there's no point in continuing.

When regarding faith - yes. When regarding other areas, not at all.
Believing in a magic being that create universes without evidence is hardly reasonable.

I have just 2 questions I've asked before, but you haven't answered.
1. Do you believe in things until proven false, or not believe until proven true?
2. What evidence do you have that god exists?

1. Depends on the thing in question

So, special pleading?

2. There are entire books written on this and it's futile to go into it yet again as I'm sure you'll just dismiss it out of hand. If you would really consider the evidence without bias then we can talk.

Why do you thing I have a bias instead of being skeptic? I asked for your evidence that convinces you. Just give the one best you've got. Surely you should be able to defend it if it's correct.

One more question. How old is the Earth?

[phantom]

I will try and come back and respond to the rest but I wanted to pick this out...

The New Testament, for example, is the story of the founder of our faith, and the various authors(of gospels, epistles, Acts, etc...) state that this story is real. This story contains many very deep material about morality, the relationship of man with the divine(if you want to accept that there is such thing), love, compassion, forgiveness, etc etc, that, if someone wants to ridicule them, the joke's on them. Even strong atheists like Dawkins pay respect to the figure of Jesus and have formed the 'atheists for Jesus' group).

Firstly, the problem with using the 'various authors' arguement is that none of them are independant. Without independant and non-related verification of the events they have no more weight (with regards to Jesus and god) than a story book with historical elements in it. Basically it's the "single reference" problem.

Secondly, no one is saying that Jesus didn't (apprently) have some good ideas. I have no problem with the aspects of morality, love, compassion, forgiveness etc and the world would be a much better place if everyone paied more attention to them. No one has been ridiculing them, what they have been debating is the need for some divine reason behind them to make them relevant.

[A Brain in a Vat]

While I'm done with the God discussion, this "free will" discussion is very interesting.

cowsarenotevil, you provide a very lucid and well thought-out opinion that I agree with. The whole difficulty with the concept of "free will" arises because what we perceive to be the case really isn't.

We know that we make decisions. That seems to us to be free will, something different from how non-life things work. But what is a decision? A decision can be thought of as a function. There are input parameters and there is the decision reached is the value of the function at those given input parameters. The input parameters can be thought of things like the state of the neurons in your brain, input signals to those neurons, and perhaps (or perhaps not) some element of randomness (whether due to quantum dynamics, or some other source of randomness).

As cowsarenotevil says, there are no other options. Either it's completely deterministic, or there's an element of randomness. What else could there be? We feel like we are some entity making some "choice", but does a movement sensor make the "choice" to open a door? Does that movement sensor then have free will? Does Schrodinger's box make a "choice" to kill the cat or not kill the cat? If so, does that box then have free will?

A physical system evolves. That's all that happens in the universe. They physical system may or may not involve an element of randomness. But what is this "free will" if it's not either pure physical evolution or a random event? Is it something extra-physical or supernatural?

If we can agree there's no such thing as an extra-physical "soul", then how exactly do you define "free will"? From my point of view, my choice to eat a sandwich or not eat a sandwich is no different from my TIVO's choice to record NOVA Science Now or not record it.

[chlerub]

Another topic about christian beliefs? Seriously?
How about we talk about real life issues for a change, that might actually make a difference in our lifes.

These endless threads about desert dwelling dogmas make me sick.
Wake up and shrug it off, it's about time you come to your senses.

Faith is NOT a virtue. It's just a believe, and that's where it ends.
Faith is believing in something without good reason, i don't see how this deserves any respect whatsoever.
It's make believe. Period.

And to put some sugar on top:
Even if every single word in the bible was real, i'd refuse to participate.
As Hitchens perfectly framed it: I'm not, and will never be, willing to live in a spiritual North Korea.

Christian morality is repulsive. It is in fact deeply immoral.
Child sacrifice, blood spilling rituals, love your enemy, never question the godly authority (which by the way is of course mysterious and unpredictable),
leave your family and life behind to follow another person-cult, etc. etc. - and yes, there are many more examples

Christianity is an immoral CULT, with extremely twisted stances on moral and ethics.
Cults are not rated by their numbers, but their substance. Go figure.

[mikeman]

See, now we're getting somewhere. I believe in free will, because I want to believe. (Obviously, I argued initially from the reverse side to make a point). I don't want to think that my actions are all the result of "dumb", mechanical chemical processes in my head. Obviously, I do believe genetics and chemistry play a role(I too have suffered from depression incidents that were alliviated by medicine), but I also believe that there is a "core" of "self" that is beyond deterministic laws or pure chance(if you want to go "quantum", although it's not proven if quantum mechanics play any role in the brain function). I want to believe that, because, to believe otherwise, would indeed make me depressed . That's just me. Inside my current worldview, I consider this free will as a gift from God.

Things are more complicated that you guys are making them to be. It's not like a read a book about magical beings and stories and went 'oh yeah, that's the truth'. There was much critical thinking that went into the process, at least for me, and there still is, for years(I was an atheists, and I still like very much many atheists for their ability think free- you can't deny that). The New Testament, for example, is the story of the founder of our faith, and the various authors(of gospels, epistles, Acts, etc...) state that this story is real. This story contains many very deep material about morality, the relationship of man with the divine(if you want to accept that there is such thing), love, compassion, forgiveness, etc etc, that, if someone wants to ridicule them, the joke's on them. Even strong atheists like Dawkins pay respect to the figure of Jesus and have formed the 'atheists for Jesus' group).

Other than that, it's your choice or not to believe the authors, that are witnesses and state that the stories are real. The decision will have many factors in it, your whole 'self', biological, historical, moral, personal, rational, emotional(the story just moved me, personally) etc etc. My method was down-to-top. I read the story of Jesus, and admired his moral teaching. Regardless of his divinity or not, I believed that those words, if applied, could radically change human nature and societies at large. At some point, I decided that the existence of a Creator of the physical universe can be a possibility, and, if it existed, I would wanted to be like the God Jesus described. I then decided that the authors, and Jesus himself, were not lying or being delusional, and that the words were true, that it was not just some magnificent human moral teaching, equal to others before that(say Konfucius) but knowledge handed over by that caring Creator to the human race, as a means for bettering ourselves. The Sermon on the Mount was a critical factor in that decision. I still have many unanswered questions, like the problem of evil(I throught, for example, that isn't it a bit hypocritical to hear,say,the Pope pray to God to help those inflicted by the quake in Japan, where God is supposed to have full control of nature?), but I consider them just that: Unanswered, and very possibly outside of my mental capabilities. I don't regard my faith as a dead, stationary thing: It will change, and hopefully new things will be revealed in the future.

Now, If you still want to equate that long process with "beliving in fairies or the Easter Bunny", go ahead. But I won't take you seriously, as I assume you are not taking me. Oh well.

So to sum up. You believe because you like the teachings of Jesus, think of them as divine and you just want to believe that.
I'd argue that sermon of the mount is nothing extraordinary, some parts are immoral (thought crimes?!!!) etc. but apart from that you still haven't provided any evidence.
Therefore it's still valid to compare god to fairies or Santa (at least Santa brought me presents every year a long time ago :-) )

So, to sum up: That's your view, and what "you'd argue" is of no more of higher value that what "I'd argue". End of story. You can shout all you want and compare whatever with whatever, that doesn't change. I'd argue that your comparisons are utterly stupid.

Amazing. In a thread like this, the atheists are more rigid and judgmental than the theists.

Bye. Nice nick by the way.

[mikeman]

If we can agree there's no such thing as an extra-physical "soul", then how exactly do you define "free will"? From my point of view, my choice to eat a sandwich or not eat a sandwich is no different from my TIVO's choice to record NOVA Science Now or not record it.

Well, I argue that I do have an extra-physical "soul", a "self", a "core" that is independent of the deterministic laws of nature and pure chance, and that makes me very, very different from my TIVO. You can disagree, of course. You can also call me ignorant, but last time I checked you're didn't have access to the Absolute Truth About Anything And Everything, in which case I'd go my way and you'd go yours.

[rozz666]

So to sum up. You believe because you like the teachings of Jesus, think of them as divine and you just want to believe that.
I'd argue that sermon of the mount is nothing extraordinary, some parts are immoral (thought crimes?!!!) etc. but apart from that you still haven't provided any evidence.
Therefore it's still valid to compare god to fairies or Santa (at least Santa brought me presents every year a long time ago :-) )

So, to sum up: That's your view, and what "you'd argue" is of no more of higher value that what "I'd argue". End of story. You can shout all you want and compare whatever with whatever, that doesn't change. I'd argue that your comparisons are utterly stupid.

In your post you used appeals to emotion, you wrote that the sermon moved you, that you'd like the god in the Bible to be real, etc. That's neither evidence nor a good reason to believe in anything.
What someone wants to be true does not matter.
Do you know how scientific method works?

As for Jesus' teaching, why did you leave out the bad part? Follow me or you will burn in hell (John 3:18) and stuff and just focused on the parts you like?

Bye. Nice nick by the way.

Thanks.
Too bad you've edited out your previous answer before I could reply.

[A Brain in a Vat]

Well, I argue that I do have an extra-physical "soul", a "self", a "core" that is independent of the deterministic laws of nature and pure chance, and that makes me very, very different from my TIVO. You can disagree, of course. You can also call me ignorant, but last time I checked you're didn't have access to the Absolute Truth About Anything And Everything, in which case I'd go my way and you'd go yours.

Yes, that's correct. You don't agree with one of the premises of my argument and therefore you and I can't really talk seriously about this topic.

I don't see why you would want to participate in this argument anyway, as it's not really very interesting from the Christian standpoint. From the Christian standpoint the argument is as follows:


Hypothesis: I have free will
Premise A: If the bible is correct, then I have free will.
Premise B: The bible is infallible and thus correct.
By modus ponens, QED

[mikeman]

In your post you used appeals to emotion, you wrote that the sermon moved you, that you'd like the god in the Bible to be real, etc. That's neither evidence nor a good reason to believe in anything.
What someone wants to be true does not matter.
Do you know how scientific method works?

Seriously? Scientific method? Maybe I should use science to tell me what kind of girl I should marry, you know, make a graph, statistics about the success of marriage, compatibility charts, gather evidence that she's the one.

I'm a whole person. Insticts,passions, emotions,intelligence. I don't deny any of those. I don't deify logic. Those elements make me, I'm neither a cyborg nor a reptile. That a certain philosophy deeply moves me, intellectually and emotionally, is a very good reason to follow it in my life. I don't nag others demanding or expecting to conform to my beliefs. Reading Jesus' teachings elevate me, and that's that. I feel good. I'd rather be happy than right, although in this case I think I'm both, but I don't mind those that disagree neither I judge them.

As for Jesus' teaching, why did you leave out the bad part? Follow me or you will burn in hell (John 3:18) and stuff and just focused on the parts you like?

I don't preoccupy myself with the concept of 'Hell'. The doctrine I follow says that, after death, we will be in the presence of God, all of us. I will perceive it as bliss, you will perceive it as torture(obviously, having your whole life's view shattered and spending eternity with someone the idea of whom you never liked and rejected). Other than that, it's not my place to tell a fellow human being what is his place. I hope for the best though.

Thanks.
Too bad you've edited out your previous answer before I could reply.

That you're an idiot is indeed my personal opinion, but I thought twice and decided that it was a very bad decision to to insult you like this, nor there was any reason too. Not that you care, it's just my personal philosophy, not insult others when you're overcame by emotion, not try to pretend that you can take out the splinter out of one's eye if you have a clog in yours. Sermon on the mount and all.

Yes, that's correct. You don't agree with one of the premises of my argument and therefore you and I can't really talk seriously about this topic.

We can always talk, but a meaningful conversation would require for 2 parties to have a minimum amount of respect for the other's opinion(note: Not for the right to have an opinion, for the opinion itself). I don't think your worldview is laughable, just different. But you do. I don't perceive myself smarter than you, but you do. Therefore, you're right, a conversation cannot happen.

As for free will, the subject interests me very much, and it's one of the reasons I believe in God. You said it, without an extra-physical soul, there are only impersonal natural laws and randomness. I believe there is something more, hence, the Creator God and his gift to humanity, free will.

[A Brain in a Vat]

We can always talk, but a meaningful conversation would require for 2 parties to have a minimum amount of respect for the other's opinion(note: Not for the right to have an opinion, for the opinion itself). I don't think your worldview is laughable, just different. But you do. I don't perceive myself smarter than you, but you do. Therefore, you're right, a conversation cannot happen.

As for free will, the subject interests me very much, and it's one of the reasons I believe in God. You said it, without an extra-physical soul, there are only impersonal natural laws and randomness. I believe there is something more, hence, the Creator God and his gift to humanity, free will.

LMAO!!

[rozz666]

Seriously? Scientific method? Maybe I should use science to tell me what kind of girl I should marry, you know, make a graph, statistics about the success of marriage, compatibility charts, gather evidence that she's the one.

The scientific method is not about graphs etc. It's about reasoning in order to understand reality.

As for marriage, that's your personal choice.

Existence of god is a scientific claim and therefore has to be decided using scientific method.

I'm a whole person. Insticts,passions, emotions,intelligence. I don't deny any of those. I don't deify logic. Those elements make me, I'm neither a cyborg nor a reptile. That a certain philosophy deeply moves me, intellectually and emotionally, is a very good reason to follow it in my life. I don't nag others demanding or expecting to conform to my beliefs. Reading Jesus' teachings elevate me, and that's that. I feel good. I'd rather be happy than right, although in this case I think I'm both, but I don't mind those that disagree neither I judge them.

I think that's the main difference between us. I care about the truth regardless of emotions attached to it.

As for Jesus' teaching, why did you leave out the bad part? Follow me or you will burn in hell (John 3:18) and stuff and just focused on the parts you like?

I don't preoccupy myself with the concept of 'Hell'. The doctrine I follow says that, after death, we will be in the presence of God, all of us. I will perceive it as bliss, you will perceive it as torture(obviously, having your whole life's view shattered and spending eternity with someone the idea of whom you never liked and rejected). Other than that, it's not my place to tell a fellow human being what is his place. I hope for the best though.

I won't argue about hell since it's obvious that you've already decided what you want to believe and it makes you feel good, therefore you are not willing to change.
Good luck.

[mikeman]

I won't argue about hell since it's obvious that you've already decided what you want to believe and it makes you feel good, therefore you are not willing to change.

I am willing to change, if I want to of course. You don't really think I will change because of your arguments, do you? Don't flatter yourself, everything you have said to me, I have thought of too, and said to others, in past times. It's not like it's a groundbreaking argument. "We haven't seen god, therefore there isn't any reason to believe he exists". I've took that under consideration and, after a long process, I decided my personal philosophy for myself, with all the contradictions and unanswered questions that come with it.

I think that's the main difference between us. I care about the truth regardless of emotions attached to it.

Well, that's good. As long as you accept that it's only what you perceive as "truth", and not the objective one.

LMAO!!

I won't pretend I don't care what caused this. Care to elaborate, if possible?

[alnite]

Seriously? Scientific method? Maybe I should use science to tell me what kind of girl I should marry, you know, make a graph, statistics about the success of marriage, compatibility charts, gather evidence that she's the one.

The scientific method is not about graphs etc. It's about reasoning in order to understand reality.

As for marriage, that's your personal choice.

Existence of god is a scientific claim and therefore has to be decided using scientific method.

What? How is the existence of god is a scientific claim?

PS: I didn't bother to read a 10-page long thread. just point it out to me if this is a reference to the previous discussion.