Aug 25 2006, 11:41 pm
|
|
Dr. Hood
 |
Actually, it is. If you read about His will, it's practically guidelines to being a good person.
|
Yes. Of course. A good person shall genocide people for the crime of living somewhere God wants His Chosen People to settle.
Think before opening your mouth, Dr. Hood. If your conditioning lets you, that is. Omnibenevolent = Perfectly good. Someone who is omnibenevolent does no wrong. Commiting someone to eternal torture, no matter what they've done, is a wrong. No argument there. It could be argued that finite torture is deserved by some people, but infinite torture for finite immorality is clearly evil. | |
Hey i'm just going by what the religion says. I think it's a load of crap too.
| |
"It could be argued that finite torture is deserved by some people, but infinite torture for finite immorality is clearly evil."
That's the church stepping in to control people. Actually I think early christianity held ideas of finite torture and ways to get out of hell. | |
JP wrote:
Iain, the argument that God can't prove his existance through anything physical is sheer ridiculousness.... If a flaming pillar landed on my lawn and told me in a loud, booming voice, to become a Christian [...] I would be forced to acknowledge the existance of a God. You bring up the completely valid idea of 'proof' being subjective. Perhaps that would be enough to prove to you that god exists, but it would not be enough to prove to me that god exists. Proof, as known to the english language, is at it's core a subjective word; when used with the assuption that there is objective truth, proof can take on an objective quality. Could god form a reality in which he could prove, based on objective truth, his own existance? Given the proper definition of God and Reality, sure. What it requires is a reality which could not exist without god. If you choose to opperate from the standpoint that the word reality denotes an existance that can be self explained, then all occurances of falling pillars are just the unavoidable result of the following of those rules. In the end, proving which conforms to objective truth only depends on one thing: objective truth. Which happened? So as to conform my model of reality as closely as possible to objective reality, I have taken into consideration the vast number of variables present in the universe. These variables form a normal curve so wide that any phenomena I can think of could easily be placed within three standard deviations. From a subjective standpoint, there's nothing natural (observable) that could happen to me now which would prove subjectively that god exists. I would doubt my own eyes and ears, and those of the other witnesses, before believing in such a god. | |
Think before opening your mouth, Dr. Hood. If your conditioning lets you, that is. You're delightfully humorous. Commiting someone to eternal torture, no matter what they've done, is a wrong. No argument there. It could be argued that finite torture is deserved by some people, but infinite torture for finite immorality is clearly evil. I agree wholly on you with this. Is burning in a lake of fire for eternity really a just punishment for sins of when you were alive (which is argued to be as short a time as "a blink of an eye")? Anyways, in Christian ways of thinking, it's like if you're not with God, then you're with Satan. I don't quite get it either, yet. | |
You guys best stop whining. You've been screaming for the past 300 trillion years, and you've yet to begin your eternity of TORTURE!
| |
Some wacko ( http://www.gotquestions.org/Does-God-exist.html ) wrote:
Answer: Does God exist? I find it interesting that so much attention is given to this debate. The latest surveys tell us that over 90% of people in the world today believe in the existence of God or some higher power. Yet, somehow the responsibility is placed on those who believe God does exist to somehow prove that He really does exist. To me, I think it should be the other way around. From this alone it should be clear how biased they are. First, they quote an (unreferenced) statistic of people who believe in an idea as evidence to the validity of that idea. They don't even do their own idea the justice of examining it on it's own merit >:( Next, they try to shift burden of proof away from the person presenting the idea. Solbadguy500 wrote: You guys best stop whining. Is the only question which matters (the question of wether or not anything is of value, wether it can be obtained, and how it can be obtained) not worth putting a minimal effort into trying to answer, especially when spurred on by the idea that it may be within the reach of every person? Heck, if I can't even devote the commercial time between "Full Metal Alchemist" and "Big O" to the consideration of this question, what sort of logical beast am I? The very fact that I am here talking with people in the BYOND community would indicate that I hope to draw a greater understanding from the exchange, and not just banter at people. | |
Iain, you've misunderstood me. It wouldn't prove God to me. In fact, I actually said:
"He or she or it or they couldn't prove it, certainly - anything physical has to be perceived, inductive logic, yadda yadda." I know it can't be proved. But in a similar way to how science works - never proving anything, just suggesting that something is a bloody good answer - that sort of event would suggest to me that some sort of God is extant. I'm fully aware that something else could have caused it, but such an event would be pretty miraculous if it did occur. If I couldn't find the merest shred of how it could have happened without divine intervention, I may well have to conclude divine intervention. I know God is unprovable (Amusingly, because he's unfalsifiable). That doesn't mean that he she it or they can't be a good answer. Anyways, in Christian ways of thinking, it's like if you're not with God, then you're with Satan. I don't quite get it either, yet. So you admit that the idea is nonsensical, and yet you still subscribe to it? Ummm... interesting. | |
Ah you misunderstood me. It was a parody of hell. The "stop whining" was in reference to the people in screaming agony.
Well whatever i'm going to bed, I know for you guys it's daytime but i'm tired. | |
Iain said:
The formation of stable social-familial relationships (included under this heading would be the phenomena of monogamy) seems to be just as intrinsic to the nature of the humans as the desire to mate (including the desire to mate with as many attractive persons as possible). Really? I'd say that monogamy isn't a phenomenon nor is it intrinsic to the nature of humans (or, at least, if it is instrinsic to the nature of humans then it is not just intrinsic to humans only) ... plenty of animals practise mongamy with a lot more success than humans seem to have! The seemingly universal concept of 'marriage' seems to be present in pretty much every culture would, I agree, suggest that it is intrinsic to human nature but not just human nature only (as how I interpreted your post was seeming to suggest) and it's not really a phenomenon. Or something. | |
Elation wrote:
it is intrinsic to human nature but not just human nature only (as how I interpreted your post was seeming to suggest) Agreed, which is why I used 'monogamy' instead of 'marraige'; monogamy isn't anything unique to humans. it's not really a phenomenon. I'm not sure how you understand the word 'phenomenon' then. To me it just denotes anything which is discrete and observable. | |
Of course the bible promotes ethnic superiourness, Israel was born from it. Very few people seem to remember the fact that the Zionists attacked british soldiers and often hung them in orchards as a sign of deterant and that the British should stop all hopes of a peaceful joint muslim-jewish solution. And thus, we've had 60 years of hell in the middle east, and most likely 60 more at least.
Religion is dangerous in anyones hands, especially when they start claiming god gave them land over other people. | |
IainPeregrine said:
I'm not sure how you understand the word 'phenomenon' then. To me it just denotes anything which is discrete and observable. Hahah okay yeah, total misunderstanding. =P I need to re-learn English, sorry!! | |