<p>I believe in God...i mean...the entire universe couldn't have just been there....</p>
<p>"The only person you can change is yourself..."</p>
<p>I'm sure you've all heard of this quote. I believe in God. But the people who are on here trying to change those who "don't" believe, 99% of the time they are going to fail. Lets get over it guys. We can't change each other. If someone believes, they are going to believe no matter what. If someone is an atheist, they will always want to remain atheist (though there have been several occasions where atheists soon became believers). The result of believers becoming atheist also occurs, but, if I am correct, it's more miniscule than atheists believing.</p>
<p>oh gee wiz...im sorry to sound rude....if i wouldve known people were taking offense to my posts i wouldnt been more lady like....i promise i'll try to be less sarcastic...wait, too late i guess...oops! but as trance has told everyone, dont take everything so personally! we're all friends after all!</p>
<p>sadly for me, tomorrow also is the end of break. no more trying to talk to people who wont listen. gosh darnit, whatever will i do?</p>
<p>
[Quote]
too muuch generalization. focus on his point.
[/Quote]
</p>
<p>haha trance...and i thought you were all about generalization? what in the world happened?</p>
<p>
[Quote]
haha...glad we can shed the formality
[/Quote]
</p>
<p>anytime :)</p>
<p>
[Quote]
implimentation of chrisitian morals
[/Quote]
</p>
<p>hmm...so do does this mean you are saying there is a link between religion and morals. and if so what happened to your previous thoughts that they are based solely on society. and if you still believe they are based only on society, what exactly are "christian morals"</p>
<p>one last thing...do i offend you with my religion? and if i do, why? and if i dont, whats the point of trying to change people? please answer this because im seriously confused i guess because i cant think of anything...</p>
<p>oh none of know if there's a God or not...we wont know that any time soon - all we have is faith...but i would like to point out that if there isnt one, im not losing anything by believing there is one...and your not gaining anything. and if there is one, i'm gaining something, and you're losing something...so what is the point of trying to change any christians beliefs???</p>
<p>
[quote]
hmm...so do does this mean you are saying there is a link between religion and morals. and if so what happened to your previous thoughts that they are based solely on society. and if you still believe they are based only on society, what exactly are "christian morals"
[/quote]
</p>
<p>actually, yeah, as the Ten Commandments are what heavily influenced morals/logic of wrong and right. At least that's what I think so. But I'm not Christian and this isn't pertaining ot christian morals, but morals in general (not killing, not stealing, being courteous and kind, etc).</p>
<p>actually, yeah, as the Ten Commandments are what heavily influenced morals/logic of wrong and right. At least that's what I think so.</p>
<p>Um, to be perfectly blunt... no, you're way wrong on that point. No one dictates the rules of logic (not even god, if you believe in one)
Morality is a bit more tricky, but the end result is the same - god (or whatever things - i.e. ten commandments - you believe are the words of such a being) do not determine the rules of morality.</p>
<p>Ic, you don't believe in God, right?</p>
<p>If I could get a believer to respond to this quest. por favor (no atheists please!): According to what we know, nothing "defeats" God. So he is what created logic, right?</p>
<p>See, that's the thing. Whether I (or anyone else for that matter) believes in god or not is inconsequential to this argument. Even the believer must yield to the facts that logic is what it is and even god himself cannot change it's rules. Same with morality. To say otherwise is to be ignorant of the argument.
God is bound by the rules of logic and morality. God could not make it so that 2+2=43, or create a round square, or make it so modus tollens or modus ponens are false, or a multitude of other things.</p>
<p>But I am also interested to hear from someone who is strongly religious on this matter.</p>
<p>I'm a die-hard atheist and I'm proud of it.</p>
<p>Believing just gives me hope.. dnt know if ireally do.. but wen i need hope.. i think of god..</p>
<p>willmingtonwave, "How is that possible, you can't be partly a religion. You are or you aren't."</p>
<p>Yes, I can. I'm somewhat Buddhist (and keep in my mind, Buddhism is essentially a god-less religion).</p>
<p>And trancestorm, I'm female, so it would be "her" not "his." :)</p>
<p>Regarding the question about logic and God's subjection to it, I disagree that God is "subject" to them. God transcends all things and created the rules of the universe - he's not subject to them. "Logic" as we humans see it is very limited to what we can imagine and reason - God is not subject to our logic. God created the universe out of nothing - can you really explain this out of human logic? I don't pretend to be a big bang expert, but I would have to believe that even big bang proponents have to concede that either there always existed energy/matter for an infinite past or something got created out of nothing. Do any of these really make sense to have happened on its own? It makes more sense to me that something that is outside the natural/physical universe (God), intervened to create something out of nothing. </p>
<p>Regarding the question of morality, without God, there is no such thing as morals. There only would exist what the society generally considers a good or bad thing because it is beneficial or hurtful to that society. However, there would be no absolute gauge for what is intrisically good or bad. Maybe stealing/adultery is acceptable in one culture but not another? There's nothing to say it is intrisically wrong, unless there is a God who defines this.</p>
<p>Yes, I don't have enough time for this either, but it was interesting and enjoyable.</p>
<p>"Regarding the question of morality, without God, there is no such thing as morals. There only would exist what the society generally considers a good or bad thing because it is hurtful to that society. However, there would be no absolute gauge for what is intrisically good or bad. Maybe stealing/adultery is acceptable in one culture but not another? There's nothing to say it is intrisically wrong, unless there is a God who defines this."</p>
<p>And that is completely subjective. Morals, then, would only be a name to mean a certain set of what is right and what is wrong.</p>
<p>It's like the sun being called "the moon." If a whole society believes it, who am I to tell them it's wrong?</p>
<p>Same thing with morals. If morals, according to a society, means what a higher being defines as right and wrong, then so be it.</p>
<p>And besides, the Bible was written by men. "God" therefore doesn't define these morals, but men who decided they had the right to dictate right and wrong do.</p>
<p>Morality is subjective. Morals depend on the individuals, who are reasonably subjected to their respective societies. There is no black and white area, just infinite shades of grey.</p>
<p>I'm sure what one Christian defines as wrong by way of "God" isn't the same for every other. For example: say you were on a cliff, and you were holding two of your children. You can only haul one up, less you fall, leaving the children with no care (and let's say the circumstances are that you're a single parent that doesn't own much).</p>
<p>So here are your choices: you drop one child, and care for the other, who would most likely live reasonably well, since you would be able to make a living to take of it.
The other choice: you save both children, but you fall to your own death. The children are now subjected to the life of orphans, and are most likely going to live a hard and struggling life.</p>
<p>So, either choice you choose, you can either be wrong or right. What does the Bible tell you to do? It's not defined absolutely or intrinsically. You kill a child, or you commit suicide, which I'm sure both are condemned somewhere in your beloved Bible.</p>
<p>So my point is: morality exists for everything. It's all subjective.</p>
<p>And that's why I think it's so ludicrious to believe in a "God." "God," to me, then, would seem to be a scapegoat for people's ignorance.</p>
<p>Stealing and adultery is not black and white. It's all levels of grey. Look at it this way: the Bible, undoubtedly, condemns both--correct?</p>
<p>And let's say your family was dying from starvation. You steal food. Stealing = "wrong" by the Bible. They live by your stealing.</p>
<p>The other scenario is that you don't steal. Your family dies. So what, you and your family go to "heaven"? That idea is stupid, if anything. Why die when you can live? And so what if your means for living is unrespectable?</p>
<p>"Heaven" is an idea of which the only purpose is to console people who are more pre-occupied with their deceased selves than with living.</p>
<p>
[quote]
The other scenario is that you don't steal. Your family dies. So what, you and your family go to "heaven"? That idea is stupid, if anything. Why die when you can live? And so what if your means for living is unrespectable?</p>
<p>"Heaven" is an idea of which the only purpose is to console people who are more pre-occupied with their deceased selves than with living.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>The chance of everyone dying is 100%. You cannot claim heaven does not exist. since there is no proof supporting (nor there ever will be). Heaven is not just an "idea to console people." People die, but there is an afterlife. Can you or science ever "proove" that there is no afterlife? Bodies decay, but what happens to the soul? Once again that is beyond human logic.</p>
<p>"The chance of everyone dying is 100%. You cannot claim heaven does not exist. since there is no proof supporting (nor there ever will be). Heaven is not just an "idea to console people." People die, but there is an afterlife. Can you or science ever "proove" that there is no afterlife? Bodies decay, but what happens to the soul? Once again that is beyond human logic."</p>
<p>There is no such thing as a soul.</p>
<p>It's called a personality.</p>
<p>
[quote]
There is no such thing as a soul.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>A soul is what makes a human/animal different from a tree :)</p>
<p>Effulgent, the statement that "there is no soul but only personality" goes off the assumption that the only things that exist are what can be physically explained or visible (i.e. chemical reactions/structures in the brain determining a person's personality). Because you cannot "prove" in the existence of a soul, doesn't suddenly mean it doesn't exist. I personally don't believe that human behaviors/emotions/longings can all be explained by random chemical reactions in our brain. We "will" for things to happen. </p>
<p>Anyway, not to side-track, I'd like to address the post you made above. We are disagreeing on the definition of morality/morals. My definition of morals, as you have implied, is that morals is something that is considered objectively good or bad (intrisically), whereas your definition of morals is something that is considered subjectively good or bad (based on an individual and/or society). </p>
<p>That's fine. However, the picture you paint, speaks to my very point. Without a God who defines right from wrong, you can never really say to someone else what they do is right or wrong. You could say you broke the law (which is basically set to execute what the majority of the society believes to be right or wrong -or- what the aggressor/dictator of the society says is right or wrong), but that's about it. </p>
<p>This kind of world which you paint (which may very well be the world we live in), is a dog-eat-dog world. Basically, whoever is in the majority or is the aggressor/dominantor defines the morals that everyone else will be subject to. Who is to say what Hitler did was wrong? If Hitler was successful in wiping out non-Aryan races because he believed them to be immoral/impure according to his values, no one could ever say to him that he did anything wrong. He acted according to his own set of morals and his followers also held the same set of morals. He should be hailed for being a moral man. But instead, because he lost the war, he and his followers became war criminals. Why? Because the winners of the war said so. In the type of morality you speak of, this is the type of world we live in. We can never really say for certainty to anyone else that what they did was wrong or right. I think you would agree with this point. What were the writers of our Constitution/Bill of Rights thinking when they wrote that people had "inalienable human rights?" What a load of crock. Without God, this is the world we live in. </p>
<p>My personal belief, as you know, is that this isn't the world we live in. There is a God who defines right from wrong, and we should be doing our best to do what is intrinsically right and avoiding doing things that are instrinsically wrong because there are eternal consequences to doing right and wrong. If there is no God and there only existed this life we live on earth, then I would agree that we should whatever we could to survive on this earth as long as possible and make it as enjoyable as possible (even if it means we have to steal/decieve/lie/cheat, etc. to do so). The main difference is that I do believe their is a God and an after-life that has consequences based on what we do with our life here on earth. </p>
<p>Anyway, I digress... </p>
<p>I had not mentioned the Bible in my original argument (my original argument is independent of the Bible, only dependent on the existence or non-existence of a God that defines right from wrong). But since you brought that up, I'll speak to it as well. You suggested that the Bible is unable to always give a clear answer given some tough "moral" decisions. I never claimed that it did. </p>
<p>So how do we know right from wrong? Well, I think the Bible does help answer a majority of "moral" questions, but not all of them. Some things, we just have to make the best judgement call based on what we do know and also ask God for guidance through prayer - but some things we just won't know until we can ask God face-to-face some day (yes, I know that to some, what I just said sounds like spiritual nonsense, but stick with me here). </p>
<p>The Bible, which Christians believe is God's word/message to us to let us know more about who God is and His personality, the state of humanity, what is right/wrong in God's eyes, and ultimately how to go to heaven. The Bible answers the most important/critical questions (what is the meaning of life? what is our purpose? how did the world come to be? what is going to happen when I die? how should I live my life here?), but doesn't answer all the questions we have (like some of the scenarios you brought up). </p>
<p>Also, God chose to use man to write down his message to us - this doesn't suddenly make the Bible a man-made book. Overwhelming evidences speak to the contrary (which I could go over at a later time). </p>
<p>My main point is, the existence of a God determines whether or not we have objective or subjective morality. As a believer in the Christian God, I believe many moral questions are answered by the Bible, which is God's Word to me, but the Bible doesn't answer all moral questions and what to do in every possible scenario. </p>
<p>However, the Bible let's me know that the God I believe in is a loving God as well as a just God, who will carrying out consequences based on what we do and believe. I think the most important question for non-believers to ask is, does God really exist? And is the Bible God's inspired word of truth to us? If the answer is yes, we really need to heed what the Bible is telling us. The consequences of answering these questions is paramount. </p>
<p>Even from a very humanistic viewpoint, you have everything to lose, if you don't believe but you have nothing to lose and everything to gain if you do believe.</p>
<p>Let's say that you decide not to believe and die. Then you find out there really is such a God - by that time, it's too late - and you will be eternally separated from God in hell (yes, I used the "h" word). But let's say that you believe in such a God, and after you die, there is no such thing. What did you lose? Nothing. But if there is such a God, you get to enjoy eternal paradise with him in heaven. You have everything to gain and nothing to lose if you believe, but everything to lose if you don't believe. From a humanistic standpoint, I'd rather air on the cautionary side. </p>
<p>No one can make the decision for you. It does take a leap of faith at some point, although there are many evidences/logical reasonings to suggest in the existence of God. I personally hope everyone makes the correct decision (including myself). :)</p>
<p>"A soul is what makes a human/animal different from a tree."</p>
<p>A brain is what separates an animal from a tree. And I believe in a sort of thing like the Hindu "atman" or some sort of circuit of life (meaning, I think that the amount of life has a maximum capacity).</p>
<p>I can assure you, if I die and found out there is a God (which won't happen, since I'll cease to exist once I'm dead), I would certainly call it unjust if I went to hell. I don't believe in a "God." I, however, consider myself to be a good person, subjectively speaking. So, even if I'm charitable, even if I've devoted a life to the betterment of society and fighting for social rights, I'd be condemned to hell because of my beliefs? Once more, Christianity strikes me as remarkably unreasonable.</p>
<p>Objective morality doesn't exist. Even then, it's still subjective because it's impossible to know what's "intrinsically right or wrong." And if you heard "God" speaking explicitly to you, I say you need to visit a psychotherapy clinic.</p>
<p>I don't think a personality is a product of chemical balances and imbalances. I'm saying a personality is what separates a person from the next, a dog from the next, a tree from the next, a rose from the next, like a physical feature. And no, it's not a "soul." It's not something that is eternal. A personality is a product of our society, our upbringing, the way we think. All people are not equal. No one is equal, in my opinion.</p>
<p>And my decision is correct for myself. I believe in no higher supreme being that dictates my life. I am happy, I have a good life, I do good things. Of course, this is all subjective. But I'm satisfied, so what's the need for a god?</p>
<p>And, I'm actually glad that you completely understand the world "in which * paint." That is exactly what I'm speaking of; at least you're open-minded.</p>
<p>I say I'm somewhat atheist, because I consider myself to be somewhat spiritual. I know, the irony of ironies. I think each individual is his or her own god. There is no other "higher being" than yourself.</p>
<p>
[quote]
There is no other "higher being" than yourself.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>No need to argue this anymore. I just want to say that you will regret what you just said.</p>
<p>
[quote]
The chance of everyone dying is 100%. You cannot claim heaven does not exist. since there is no proof supporting (nor there ever will be). Heaven is not just an "idea to console people." People die, but there is an afterlife. Can you or science ever "proove" that there is no afterlife?
[/quote]
</p>
<p>I think this assumption has the burden of proof wrong. It is not sciences burden to disprove heaven but rather religion's burden to provve it. Remember that science is tangible. </p>
<p>
[quote]
"Regarding the question of morality, without God, there is no such thing as morals. There only would exist what the society generally considers a good or bad thing because it is hurtful to that society. However, there would be no absolute gauge for what is intrisically good or bad.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Such is the inevitable conclusion. Immanuel Kant tries to explain this using Categorical and Hypothetical imperatives, but even he makes distinctions between culture and universal morality. I like to derive my "moral" sense in a utilitarian manner that weighs societal benefit. I believe that killing is thought to be immoral because it is harmful to society and thus does not benefit members within a society. SAving 10 people is more beneficial than saving 1 people. In short, though absolute morality is often an intangible concept, morality is made manifest with respects to societal welfare. I would agree that theoretical perfect morality is all relative. </p>
<p>
[quote]
My main point is, the existence of a God determines whether or not we have objective or subjective morality.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>That is not true at all. With the bible (and biblical law) comes interpretations. These interpretations are certainly subjective (at least to the interpreter); this leads to subjective morality. Then there are those that are more conservative in interpretation who could be deemed objective. Then some believe in some aspects and not the other.</p>
<p>Even among atheists, there are moral relativists and moral absolutists.<br>
Objective: buddhists (judging morality based on the criteria of suffering of individual and society)</p>
<p>Subjective: Nihilists </p>
<p>
[quote]
However, the Bible let's me know that the God I believe in is a loving God as well as a just God, who will carrying out consequences based on what we do and believe. I think the most important question for non-believers to ask is, does God really exist? And is the Bible God's inspired word of truth to us? If the answer is yes, we really need to heed what the Bible is telling us. The consequences of answering these questions is paramount. </p>
<p>Even from a very humanistic viewpoint, you have everything to lose, if you don't believe but you have nothing to lose and everything to gain if you do believe.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>why live life for the future? More importantly, why Christianity? What about all the other religions that claim they are the right one. There is the same risk of dying and encountering Allah under your premise as there is meeting the christian God. Why believe christianity over all others?</p>
<p>Under your nothing to lose by believing example, how do you know another god isnt the right one? You certainly cannot believe in all of them, can you? which one do you choose?</p>
<p>
[quote]
What did you lose? Nothing.
[/quote]
You lived your life in ignorance submitting to an ideal that is of no significance. that is what is to lose.</p>