God's choice: quick question for Christians

[DaveM]

what about critical thinking, employment of the scientific method , experimentation, peer reviewed papers and an accepted conclusion .
That's what I would do.

Good idea.  It would be very helpful if you could perhaps provide an example demonstrating how you would use this approach to prove, say, a beautiful sunset. (Or don't you do beautiful sunsets?).  Or perhaps to convince me that a work of modern art (ugh) really is superb and worth spending a lot of money on

[bluehillside Retd.]

DaveM,

Two questions.  First what is the information source you use on which to base your claims that God appears to act unjustly?

As I understand, two claims of Christianity are:

1. There is a just God; and

2. This God so arranges things that those who believe His "offer" are privileged over those who don't regardless of the behaviours of either group.

Prima facie those two statements appear to be contradictory. My question therefore is about that contradiction, not about the texts that set it out.   

Second if you deny me the right as a Christian to use the Scriptures as my information source, which sources do you suggest I use?

You've missed the point – you're answering a question about why you believe what you believe by telling me what you believe. "Scripture says" as your answer is just circular reasoning: "a book says its claims are true/it's in the book so it must be true/a books says its claims are true etc..."

Lots of books make lots of claims about lots of truths - what makes yours so special, especially when its claims are mutually inconsistent?

[Gordon]

Good idea.  It would be very helpful if you could perhaps provide an example demonstrating how you would use this approach to prove, say, a beautiful sunset. (Or don't you do beautiful sunsets?).  Or perhaps to convince me that a work of modern art (ugh) really is superb and worth spending a lot of money on

Oh c'mon Dave - you surely know that 'beauty' is no more than subjective opinion.

[bluehillside Retd.]

DaveM,

I think you are missing the point.  If you do not want Christians to use the Scriptures, as they stand, to provide answers to issues pertaining to the Christian faith, then don't ask the questions.  You might as well ask Gabriella to provide answers on what she believes on issues pertaining to Islam, and then rule out her use of the Koran as information source.

No, you are: you're being asked a why question, not a what question. Specifically, why would a just god privilege one group over another for their beliefs rather than for their actions?

[bluehillside Retd.]

DaveM,

Good idea.  It would be very helpful if you could perhaps provide an example demonstrating how you would use this approach to prove, say, a beautiful sunset. (Or don't you do beautiful sunsets?).  Or perhaps to convince me that a work of modern art (ugh) really is superb and worth spending a lot of money on

Are you asking for proof of the sunset or for proof of the fact that some find it beautiful? It's easily done either way.

Assuming for now the latter, what you're doing here is conflating an objective claim of fact ("God") with a subjective claim of opinion ("beautiful").

Doesn't work does it.

[DaveM]

DaveM,

Are you asking for proof of the sunset or for proof of the fact that some find it beautiful? It's easily done either way.

Assuming for now the latter, what you're doing here is conflating an objective claim of fact ("God") with a subjective claim of opinion ("beautiful").

Doesn't work does it.

Unfortunately, as so often happens on this Board, I believe the thinking behind my post is pretty clear but find it being misinterpreted.  Whether by design or due to the fact that English as used here has diverge considerable from the UK I wouldn't be knowing.  But I have already spent too much time on this Board for one day and a list of more essential things to be is building up.  So for the moment I will leave it at that.

[bluehillside Retd.]

DaveM,

Unfortunately, as so often happens on this Board, I believe the thinking behind my post is pretty clear but find it being misinterpreted.  Whether by design or due to the fact that English as used here has diverge considerable from the UK I wouldn't be knowing.  But I have already spent too much time on this Board for one day and a list of more essential things to be is building up.  So for the moment I will leave it at that.

That's disappointing. The English you used and that was used in reply was plain enough I'd have thought for there to be no ambiguity. You attempted an analogy that failed is all because of the qualitative difference between the comparables. Where's the misinterpretation?

For what it's worth, you strike me as potentially one of the more thoughtful theists here so I'd be interested to hear what you have to say. Just now though we're talking past each other because you assume your beliefs and want to discuss them as givens, whereas I want to question your assumptions.

 

[SwordOfTheSpirit]

#129

Yet he persists with his ridiculous equivalent of asking someone to swim from A to B, not allowing them to use any kind of swimming stroke and then gleefully claiming that it is impossible to swim from A to B.

Sword,

To the contrary, you can use any kind of swimming stroke you like. So far though, you've never managed to propose one. And no, "it's magic innit" is not a swimming stroke.

It's not like I had to wait long for you to illustrate what I said, is it?

Your opening post:

Just thought I'd ask: would the Christian God be more accepting of a kind atheist than a hateful Christian, or vice versa?

A question which assumes the Christian God, therefore anything that is said about Him in the Bible.

DavidM has addressed your questions. Yet rather than accepting his biblically-based answers, you are asking him to prove that they are true. So you are effectively asking him to swim from A to B, whilst denying him the right to use any kind of swimming stroke, i.e. What does the Christian God think about xxx, but you cannot use the Bible

If you wanted to challenge anything he wrote, show where from the bible that anything he said is wrong. That would be in the spirit of any meaningful attempt at discussion from the opening post.

Anyway, I see that he will be ceasing his input (at least for now), so congratulations on alienating yet another Christian poster. Run along now and celebrate that your so-called questions remain unanswered by any Christian. Fortunately for Christians here, their faith is in God, not arguments about Him.

[Gordon]

Unfortunately, as so often happens on this Board, I believe the thinking behind my post is pretty clear but find it being misinterpreted.  Whether by design or due to the fact that English as used here has diverge considerable from the UK I wouldn't be knowing.  But I have already spent too much time on this Board for one day and a list of more essential things to be is building up.  So for the moment I will leave it at that.

I think it is more the case that your thinking is muddled, Dave, in using 'prove' in relation to subjective opinion - all that can be 'proved' is that you have a subjective opinion regarding a sunset: but 'beauty' is not an attribute of the sunset in question.

[Stranger]

DavidM has addressed your questions. Yet rather than accepting his biblically-based answers, you are asking him to prove that they are true. So you are effectively asking him to swim from A to B, whilst denying him the right to use any kind of swimming stroke, i.e. What does the Christian God think about xxx, but you cannot use the Bible

If you wanted to challenge anything he wrote, show where from the bible that anything he said is wrong. That would be in the spirit of any meaningful attempt at discussion from the opening post.

Look up! The point is sailing majestically about 30,000ft over your head.     

How do you reconcile a just god with one that favours believers over non-believers, regardless of their actions? The bible (apparently) says that both are true.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Sword,

It's not like I had to wait long for you to illustrate what I said, is it?

What you actually said was:

“Yet he persists with his ridiculous equivalent of asking someone to swim from A to B, not allowing them to use any kind of swimming stroke and then gleefully claiming that it is impossible to swim from A to B.”

To which I replied:

“To the contrary, you can use any kind of swimming stroke you like. So far though, you've never managed to propose one. And no, "it's magic innit" is not a swimming stroke.”

What exactly do you think has been illustrated?

Your opening post:

Quote
Just thought I'd ask: would the Christian God be more accepting of a kind atheist than a hateful Christian, or vice versa?
A question which assumes the Christian God, therefore anything that is said about Him in the Bible.

All it “assumes” is that some people believe in a particular god, and moreover that they believe this god’s wishes and intentions to be written in a book.

DavidM has addressed your questions. Yet rather than accepting his biblically-based answers, you are asking him to prove that they are true. So you are effectively asking him to swim from A to B, whilst denying him the right to use any kind of swimming stroke, i.e. What does the Christian God think about xxx, but you cannot use the Bible

If you wanted to challenge anything he wrote, show where from the bible that anything he said is wrong. That would be in the spirit of any meaningful attempt at discussion from the opening post.

You’ve missed the point entirely. At no point did I ask him what the Bible says, so there’s no need to challenge what he says it says. I’ve taken the positions “just god” and “believers get special treatment” as givens. What I actually asked was how this apparent inconsistency could be squared.

Anyway, I see that he will be ceasing his input (at least for now), so congratulations on alienating yet another Christian poster.

If someone feels alienated because he can’t answer a question that’s a matter for him. My advice to him and to you though would be that it’s a bad idea to hang on to a mistake just because you’ve invested a lot of time in making it. 

Run along now and celebrate that your so-called questions remain unanswered by any Christian.

A question doesn’t become a “so-called question” by dint of you being unable to answer it, and there’s nothing to celebrate. Would have been nice though if someone could at least have attempted to answer it. 

Fortunately for Christians here, their faith is in God, not arguments about Him.

Which is lovely for them no doubt and no business of mine provided of course they don’t overreach by claiming their personal beliefs to be true for anyone else too, or indeed by expecting their beliefs to be privileged over any other guesses.

[Gordon]

DavidM has addressed your questions. Yet rather than accepting his biblically-based answers, you are asking him to prove that they are true.

If he, or you, can't demonstrate the Bible is free of mistake, exaggeration or lies then it can't be regarded as reliable. So, how have you excluded these risks?

So you are effectively asking him to swim from A to B, whilst denying him the right to use any kind of swimming stroke, i.e. What does the Christian God think about xxx, but you cannot use the Bible

You can indeed use the Bible - but unless you can exclude the risks I mentioned then your conclusions may not be reliable and, as such, are best discounted.

If you wanted to challenge anything he wrote, show where from the bible that anything he said is wrong. That would be in the spirit of any meaningful attempt at discussion from the opening post.

Don't be silly - if there are reasons to think the Bible is unreliable, bearing in mind its proponents haven't addressing the risks that it could be unreliable, then what it says is indistinguishable from fiction. In addition your suggestion that the Bible can only be challenged by what is said in the Bible is self-referential circularity built on a fallacious argument from authority.

Anyway, I see that he will be ceasing his input (at least for now), so congratulations on alienating yet another Christian poster. Run along now and celebrate that your so-called questions remain unanswered by any Christian. Fortunately for Christians here, their faith is in God, not arguments about Him.

That is indeed your problem: lots of faith but no credible arguments.

[floo]

#129
It's not like I had to wait long for you to illustrate what I said, is it?

Your opening post:
A question which assumes the Christian God, therefore anything that is said about Him in the Bible.

DavidM has addressed your questions. Yet rather than accepting his biblically-based answers, you are asking him to prove that they are true. So you are effectively asking him to swim from A to B, whilst denying him the right to use any kind of swimming stroke, i.e. What does the Christian God think about xxx, but you cannot use the Bible

If you wanted to challenge anything he wrote, show where from the bible that anything he said is wrong. That would be in the spirit of any meaningful attempt at discussion from the opening post.

Anyway, I see that he will be ceasing his input (at least for now), so congratulations on alienating yet another Christian poster. Run along now and celebrate that your so-called questions remain unanswered by any Christian. Fortunately for Christians here, their faith is in God, not arguments about Him.

You should NEVER accept anything as true, which can't be verified like much of the stuff in the Bible.

[torridon]

torridon, Blue,

I think you misunderstand Buddhism. Only the Theravada teaches no God, no Atma etc. But more on that some other time.

Almost all religions, including the Mahayana Buddhism have a God of some sort (not necessarily Jehovah type)  or a spiritual objective of some sort that regulates and enforces discipline. 

Without the centuries of such discipline and such enforced love, altruism, charity, brotherhood....humans would never have learned to live together or trust anyone beyond their immediate geographical, linguistic and racial groups. 

Religion is the first and the most powerful institution that has made people feel a kinship beyond such natural boundaries.  In fact this is largely true even today.

I think you have morality and religion the wrong way round.  Religions codify morality, as Blue puts it I think, that requires social morality as a prerequisite. Having a moral conscience is ubiquitous in humans with the exception of some individuals with some or other disorder such as psychopaths.  Religiousness on the other hand is not ubiquitous, it is widespread, but not ubiquitous.  Religiousness requires a higher order of cognition than mere moral conscience.  It was the agricultural revolution that saw humans learning to live together and to tolerate neighbours from different tribes. Being tied to particular plots of land necessitated the development of villages and communities that transcended tribal allegiances.  I think religions have also played a part as you suggest, but the imperatives of the need for prosperity, security and trade have been the real drivers of how we evolved from lives based on narrow tribal loyalties to become community minded citizens.

[ekim]

One last time then as what I am suggesting is outside of the scope of this topic.

Well fine, but the question remains: would whatever god you do believe in favour the hateful theist who believed the offer, or the kind atheist who didn’t?

I am neither a theist nor an atheist but my view of the Christian God would be that it expresses disinterested love to all and I base this on this paraphrase of Matt 5 (45-48):
"Just as God causes the sun to shine and the rain to fall on all no matter whether considered good or bad, so should you express your love to enemies as well as friends so that those who curse you are blessed, those who hate you are loved and those who persecute you are commended to God so that you may be recognized as an expression of the Divine.   Otherwise you are no better than a despised tax collector if you select to give only to those who give to you. Imitate God, be complete, just as God is." 
So as far as I can see there is no judgement based upon a balance sheet of credits and debits, belief and disbelief, but more about a transformed heart and mind which is in tune with a divine benevolence by following a straight and narrow path to attain this.  In other words you are your own judge based upon a decision to follow the 'straight and narrow' or the 'wide path' leading to separation from the divine.

But to work an analogy must bear some relationship to the reality it’s attempting to model. DaveM for example told us that he knows because he knows because he knows. That’s nice for him, but lots of other people with lots of different beliefs think they know because they know because they know too – so your analogy requires several such people all claiming to know the way to the glass of water.

But that is Pascal’s wager – “it’s a free bet so you might as well take it. If the offer is real, happy days; if it isn’t, you’re no worse off than you are now” etc. It fails for several reasons that have been well-rehearsed on this mb, and whether you meant to or not that is the argument you’re making.

I was trying to simplify the analogy because you only selected one belief system.  You have multiple choices to look for the water.  You can trust your companion, you can remain where you are, you can leave your companion and choose your own path to the north or south or east or west because you believe you know better.  The point I was making is that the truth or otherwise of the result will come from the experience not from the belief or a lot of metaphysical debate.

It might be. And there might be tap dancing unicorns on Alpha Centauri. Anything might be. What we’re trying to get here is to what's more probably is than isn’t.

If you look at what I said, it wasn't about 'tap dancing unicorns on Alpha Centauri', it was about inner experiences of overwhelming joy or blissfulness, timelessness, fulfilment, enlivenment etc.  As it will be a personal experience to you it is unlikely that an assessment of probability will work.  Sometimes we have to just experiment with a method ourselves and see what happens rather than expect others to pay for a scientifically based probability assessment.  Jesus promoted his method, other religious initiators have promoted theirs.

[Samuel]

Hi Blue

As I understand, two claims of Christianity are:

1. There is a just God; and

2. This God so arranges things that those who believe His "offer" are privileged over those who don't regardless of the behaviours of either group.

Prima facie those two statements appear to be contradictory. My question therefore is about that contradiction, not about the texts that set it out.   

Ok, then to my mind there are only three logical answers to your challenge

a) "he picks the believer, obviously. This is God's justice you moron, not some simpering, liberal, lily-livered human justice. Get over it and shut the hell up"

b) "You have a point... that Is a contradiction, but listen I have many reasons for my personal belief in God so rather than dismantle so much of what gives my life meaning, I'm just going to accept that I don't know and hope that God is merciful and would welcome both people in the name of true forgiveness"

c) "good question, but listen, scripture is not infallible and there are many ways to understand the message of Jesus, rather than through what is an unhelpful binary examination of who is in and who is out of heaven"

Now, it seems to me that you have had versions of all three of these answers over the course of the thread, and all three you (or others) have dismissed. 'A' simply reinforces your point, 'B' is a cop-out and 'C' ignores the plain meaning of the scripture (an argument used by fundamentalist believers I might add). You apparently set the rules here.

Fair enough

but it leaves me wondering what the point is. It seems like you would rather wrestle over religious theory than actually engage with the human dimension that originates those theories. You treat these ideas as if they are somehow detached from human life and emotion, which I find confusing. A less generous person might suspect that all you are interested in is intentionally laying traps to demonstrate the error of religious belief, which sounds entertaining but is ultimately hollow.

I might be wrong about all that, but reading the entire thread has left a somewhat bitter taste in my mouth, and I think this is why: Not that you are wrong, but simply that no one has said anything of any value. For my money any of those three answers is valid, but the interest lies in what they say about the people who give them, rather than a posited god that you nor I believe in anyway. 'A' is pretty horrific, not much else to say about that. 'B' is honest in its doubt, which at least takes courage and marks someone as willing to be flexible in how their personal beliefs interface with the real world. 'C' is the most interesting because it attempts to keep religion relevant within the wider modern context, rather than just the personal.

But I already know what your going to say - that these claims must be challenged if people ask for special treatment based on religion like seats in the Lords, lessons in our schools blah, blah blah. As if that justifies your own dogmatic position that drives you to repeat the same narrow questions over and over and over again. Its reductive. Like god, you present your own poisoned chalice, challenging people to agree with you or be paraded as fools. Either way you win. And that, in the end, is what makes this so unbearably dull.

I suspect what comes next is a pedantic evisceration of my post, point by point. Well, who am I to deny you your fun?

Enjoy

[jeremyp]

No.  As I pointed out in my very first post on this topic the 'hateful Christian' does not exist -not in Christ's eyes which is the only verdict of importance.

Really. You don't get out much, do you.

That claim remains unchallenged.  It is a contradiction in terms.

No, really it isn't.

[bluehillside Retd.]

ekim,

One last time then as what I am suggesting is outside of the scope of this topic.

OK…

I am neither a theist nor an atheist but my view of the Christian God would be that it expresses disinterested love to all and I base this on this paraphrase of Matt 5 (45-48):

"Just as God causes the sun to shine and the rain to fall on all no matter whether considered good or bad, so should you express your love to enemies as well as friends so that those who curse you are blessed, those who hate you are loved and those who persecute you are commended to God so that you may be recognized as an expression of the Divine.   Otherwise you are no better than a despised tax collector if you select to give only to those who give to you. Imitate God, be complete, just as God is." 

So as far as I can see there is no judgement based upon a balance sheet of credits and debits, belief and disbelief, but more about a transformed heart and mind which is in tune with a divine benevolence by following a straight and narrow path to attain this.  In other words you are your own judge based upon a decision to follow the 'straight and narrow' or the 'wide path' leading to separation from the divine.

Leaving aside for now whether the “straight and narrow” should be as the Bible describes or something else, this God’s “unconditional love” doesn’t though seem to extend to His entrance criterion for an afterlife. DaveM has favoured us with a quote that tells us the believers get first dibs by dint just of being believers, after which from somewhere between straight away and a 1,000 years it seems (why do the superstition stories so often favour round numbers I wonder - 40 days and 40 nights etc?) the non-believers are dug up or something, when they are judged by some unspecified means.

Hence the question: why does belief get you the gold card, whereas non-belief means you travel coach regardless of the behaviour of each group?
 

I was trying to simplify the analogy because you only selected one belief system.  You have multiple choices to look for the water.  You can trust your companion, you can remain where you are, you can leave your companion and choose your own path to the north or south or east or west because you believe you know better.  The point I was making is that the truth or otherwise of the result will come from the experience not from the belief or a lot of metaphysical debate.

Well if there is an “experience” then yes, as Pascal tells us. One of several problems there though is that though most of these gods are pretty insecure and thin-skinned. Following the wrong one is a big deal it seems punishable with all sorts of unmentionable tortures, so guessing at the path to the water one of them suggests carries risk too - namely that the real one is even more p***ed off than He would have been if you’d followed Him, or indeed if you'd done nothing.

I tell you, it’s a minefield!

If you look at what I said, it wasn't about 'tap dancing unicorns on Alpha Centauri', it was about inner experiences of overwhelming joy or blissfulness, timelessness, fulfilment, enlivenment etc.

No, it was about what might be. What you filled that “might be” space with is a different matter.

As it will be a personal experience to you it is unlikely that an assessment of probability will work.  Sometimes we have to just experiment with a method ourselves and see what happens rather than expect others to pay for a scientifically based probability assessment.  Jesus promoted his method, other religious initiators have promoted theirs.

But what would you look for or investigate? Let’s say I think really, really hard about Jesus, about Mohammed and about Colin the Nabob of the Leprechauns and – lo and behold – each time I feel all snuggly and transcendent when I do it.

What would that tell me? What it would tell me is that the act of contemplation gave me an altered mental state, but it would tell me nothing whatever about whether the object of that contemplation was in fact real.

Now compare that with a materialistic proposition – that jumping out of a 20th storey window will bring you to a sticky end for example. You can test this claim and, regardless of your background, your culture, or your opinions the result will be the same and so on that basis we can construct a probabilistic model of gravity being real.

Can you see the difference here?

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Now compare that with a materialistic proposition – that jumping out of a 20th storey window will bring you to a sticky end for example. You can test this claim and, regardless of your background, your culture, or your opinions the result will be the same and so on that basis we can construct a probabilistic model of gravity being real.

Oh no. serious problems trying to use methodological materialism to justify a position on religion.

It has nothing to say about it as you have kindly demonstrated over the years.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Samuel,

Ok, then to my mind there are only three logical answers to your challenge

a) "he picks the believer, obviously. This is God's justice you moron, not some simpering, liberal, lily-livered human justice. Get over it and shut the hell up"

And yet we’re told it’s for the poor sap to do the picking. All this God does apparently is to decide on the test that will afford different outcomes for each pick.

b) "You have a point... that Is a contradiction, but listen I have many reasons for my personal belief in God so rather than dismantle so much of what gives my life meaning, I'm just going to accept that I don't know and hope that God is merciful and would welcome both people in the name of true forgiveness"

Fair enough. If it makes no sense but you like it anyway, that’s no-one’s business but your own. Provided you don’t try to evangelise for it, you won’t be challenged on it.

c) "good question, but listen, scripture is not infallible and there are many ways to understand the message of Jesus, rather than through what is an unhelpful binary examination of who is in and who is out of heaven"

Oooff: “Scripture is not infallible” eh? You’ll get no argument from me, but I suspect that some here won’t be comfortable with relegating it to an early, crude and perhaps hit-and-miss attempt at moral philosophy.

Now, it seems to me that you have had versions of all three of these answers over the course of the thread, and all three you (or others) have dismissed. 'A' simply reinforces your point, 'B' is a cop-out and 'C' ignores the plain meaning of the scripture (an argument used by fundamentalist believers I might add). You apparently set the rules here.

I set nothing; logic does.

Fair enough

Really, no.

…but it leaves me wondering what the point is. It seems like you would rather wrestle over religious theory than actually engage with the human dimension that originates those theories. You treat these ideas as if they are somehow detached from human life and emotion, which I find confusing. A less generous person might suspect that all you are interested in is intentionally laying traps to demonstrate the error of religious belief, which sounds entertaining but is ultimately hollow.

Not at all. I’d be genuinely intrigued to hear an argument for “God” that isn’t hopeless. It doesn’t do any harm either when the likes of Alan Burns come here just to evangelise to remind him that building a house on sand is a bad idea.

I might be wrong about all that,…

You are.

…but reading the entire thread has left a somewhat bitter taste in my mouth, and I think this is why: Not that you are wrong, but simply that no one has said anything of any value. For my money any of those three answers is valid, but the interest lies in what they say about the people who give them, rather than a posited god that you nor I believe in anyway. 'A' is pretty horrific, not much else to say about that. 'B' is honest in its doubt, which at least takes courage and marks someone as willing to be flexible in how their personal beliefs interface with the real world. 'C' is the most interesting because it attempts to keep religion relevant within the wider modern context, rather than just the personal.

But I already know what your going to say - that these claims must be challenged if people ask for special treatment based on religion like seats in the Lords, lessons in our schools blah, blah blah. As if that justifies your own dogmatic position that drives you to repeat the same narrow questions over and over and over again. Its reductive. Like god, you present your own poisoned chalice, challenging people to agree with you or be paraded as fools. Either way you win. And that, in the end, is what makes this so unbearably dull.

Blimey. Ok...I respect your opinions here, and I have no particular issue with some of it. I also think though that truth matters (even in Trump times) and that claims of fact like “God” should be examined and tested before they are accepted.

Is that so bad?

I suspect what comes next is a pedantic evisceration of my post, point by point. Well, who am I to deny you your fun?

Enjoy

I’ll leave you to judge whether it’s pedantic, but if you think something can be eviscerated why post it? As it happens, while I don’t share your beliefs I found your thoughts to be some of the more stimulating I’ve seen. Thank you.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

Oh no. serious problems trying to use methodological materialism to justify a position on religion.

It has nothing to say about it as you have kindly demonstrated over the years.

Sadly though, nor does anything else. Unless that is you've taken time out during your brief sojourn finally to figure out a way to distinguish your religious beliefs from just guessing about stuff?

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Vlad,

Sadly though, nor does anything else. Unless that is you've taken time out during your brief sojourn finally to figure out a way to distinguish your religious beliefs from just guessing about stuff?

Since you are bothering people on the issue of distinguishing religious beliefs from ''just guessing'' perhaps you could explain what you mean by it.....

and why religious beliefs? Isn't that just special pleading on your part.

If I had to guess a belief I might not choose the ones I have derived by encounter and response which up to now are so poorly explained by those people who for some reason best known to themselves start guffing on about science.

Who knows I might even have settled on yours.

[ippy]

Well ippy...its nice that you are actually discussing my points instead of merely trolling me around. Welcome change!

About your points above....I had started a thread some months back about 'Role of Religions'.
 
http://www.religionethics.co.uk/index.php?topic=12949.0

I believe that we (many of us...not everybody) have today reached a level of mental discipline and altruism only because of the teachings of religions and the  discipline enforced by religions all these centuries.   If religions did not exist we would today still be savages, fighting with one another with no sense of universal brotherhood or humanism or self control.

So...you have to thank religions for the discipline enforced on earlier generations ...such that today you have enough self control and sense of justice that you will not commit a fraud or a murder. But having said that, without law enforcement of today, how long this self discipline will last...no one can say.

We all need supervision....even today!

Cheers.

Sriram

I just picked up your post and carried on having a read through the rest, untill I noticed torridon's post 163, a well laid down explaination of how we humans arrived where we are today and it's also more or less where the evidence lies about the foundations of where and how our moral and ethical ideas originate.

None of the religious subscribers here or anywhere else have managed to supply any material that could be used as anything near to substantive supporting evidence for any of these, many, god or gods ideas

The whole idea of the various religions are to me so obviously man made, I see it  mainly because  life would be just the same as it is now without a god of any kind and there's no good reason to think there is such a thing as a god.

I susspect a lot of so called followers of the various gods have invested some considerable time and effert into the various proceedings involved worshipping them etc, they, even after the penny has droped don't like to admit as much.

How can anyone that thinks they have god presented in human form with the head of a blue elephant, expect to be taken seriously?

What's the point of having a discussion with someone that thinks a blue elephant headed human, figures in any way with day to day life?

Regards ippy

[SweetPea]

Indeed...

I seem to remember on another forum a while back, an attempt to get round this problem was to have an Atheism section. There was nothing there!
........

Thanks, SwordOfTheSpirit, for understanding what I was trying to express. At one time, I thought it may be an idea to have a 'peanut gallery' running alongside the threads on the Christian Topic, and then Christians would at least have a chance to have some discussion amongst themselves and t'other side could shout from the gallery. What intrigues me is the constant interest by those not interested in God to continue day after day, weeks turning into months and years, with conversations that get them nowhere.

Thanks, also for this rebuttal:
   
Quote from: Walter on March 21, 2017, 07:28:24 AM

'the god' of science
those few words are so revealing about your way of thinking and is so disappointing to any right thinking person.

A euphemism for someone who thinks like you.

How did you get to this point?

Perhaps when she critically thought about what she heard

when did you loose your critical thinking abilities

She didn't!

and was anyone else involved ?

God perhaps? (correct me if I'm wrong SweetPea)

Not wrong, SwordOfTheSpirit.... spot-on..

First time I've been able to get back to this thread, in a couple days, due to being without the internet and busy, busy with zee grandchildren. And to Blue.... will no longer derail the thread ('twas only in answer to DaveM's confusion). As you were.... as they say..

[Robbie]

Your post is good sweetpea and so is Swordofthespirit's, I'm in agreement but others would say the Faith Sharing Area is the place for Christians to talk about their faith - & for people of other faiths.

What I do not understand is why a thread was started, addressed specifically to Christians & inviting answers from Christians, with the purpose of shouting down everything they say? Especially when it was a question that cannot be answered satisfactorily from a non-Christian point of view & the author must have known that.