Amy3 Posted November 3, 2017 Share Posted November 3, 2017 6 hours ago, eagleb1 said: Amy, how can you support a belief system that rejects your life choices based on a book written thousands of years ago by primitive men? Cause I’m not God and I’m not required to be perfect in order to advocate for the existence of God. I will be judged for my life choices just like you will be. But, I have absolutely zero interest in arguing with you about my personal religious beliefs. Let’s not go there cause it will only muddy the water. Keep the discussion on topic, does God exist. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Maturin Posted November 3, 2017 Share Posted November 3, 2017 13 minutes ago, SPYING 1 said: How can these CC members doubt Amy's knowledge & faith, The atheist will never find happiness, true family love or fulfillment of life without The LORD GOD I don't doubt anyone's faith and they are welcome to it so long as they don't try to turn their faith or belief into policy and politics that affect people of different faiths and beliefs. Most rational people would argue that theological belief and knowledge are two mutually exclusive terms but there'd be no point making the effort to show the difference in this case. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Amy3 Posted November 3, 2017 Share Posted November 3, 2017 8 hours ago, Maturin said: From Amazon, the blurb from Does God Exist, Hans Kung:Does God exist? Who is God? And can we ultimately trust in any reality? These questions have been among the greatest subjects of human speculation since history began, but not until modern times has the reality of God been so strongly called into doubt. In this monumental study, written for men and women of all faiths (and of none), Hans Kung, the most renowned and controversial theologian in the world today, first traces the rise of modern atheism in the works of such great thinkers as Descartes, Pascal, Feuerbach, Marx, Nietzsche and Freud, and then demonstrates--brilliantly and in terms that make sense to us today--why a ""yes"" to God remains a more reasonable and responsible belief than its alternative, nihilism. Straight away, without even buying the book, from only reading the back cover, it is obvious that he is lying to his audience. Atheism is not nihilism. The difference between these two concepts is very easy to describe and understand: Atheism is the rejection of religious belief. It is the unwillingness to surrender to an authority that is unproven, untested and immutable. Nihilism is the rejection of meaning in existence; nothing matters anyway because we're all gonna die in the end. It is absolutely irresponsible to defer matters that affect our existence to the "teachings" of the Bible or the word of God, a book that is wholly unreasonable in the correct sense of that word. Existence is full of emergent meaning for all of us; family, friends, career, sport, arts, the self, the community etc etc. These meanings are shared by all of us no matter our religious or lack of religious belief. There is no motivation to read this book based on that blurb because I can 99.9% guarantee that it will be filled with the same rehashed pseudoscience and cod-philosophy that people who feel threatened about atheism come out with all the time. I'm willing to accept that I may be wrong about that assumption however, so if you don't mind could you please write a short summary of how he demonstrates that "Yes to God," is the best choice to make? What you’re missing is that Kung forces the atheist ideology to deal with the inevitable progression of atheism which ultimately leads to nihilism. I believe that it does. I understand that you remain unconvinced. That’s fine, but if you actually read the book, you can see that the argument is quite compelling, but you’d have to read the full breath of it to grasp it. The idea that someone can nutshell what Kung argues is naive. You can always deny it, but to say that his argument is a waste of time, is really just a cop out. The argument he makes is that it makes more sense to believe in the existence of God as a natural progression toward reality and purpose then to deny God and end up in a place of meaningless nothingness. No, I’m sorry I can’t show you a picture of God. I don’t pretend to be able to unequivocally prove the existence of God. I fully respect the notion that to believe takes a certain amount of faith. I can understand that you want to deny faith as a reason to commit to a God belief, but if my reality is my choice and my choice is to believe in God then who is anyone to tell me that I’m wrong to live that life that I have chosen. And don’t give me that bs that I was forced into this somehow through upbringing, My family was non-religous and I was non-religious practically my whole life. I didn’t come to my belief system until I was 29 years old. I made the choice to believe. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Maturin Posted November 3, 2017 Share Posted November 3, 2017 45 minutes ago, Amy3 said: What you’re missing is that Kung forces the atheist ideology to deal with the inevitable progression of atheism which ultimately leads to nihilism. I believe that it does. I understand that you remain unconvinced. That’s fine, but if you actually read the book, you can see that the argument is quite compelling, but you’d have to read the full breath of it to grasp it. The idea that someone can nutshell what Kung argues is naive. You can always deny it, but to say that his argument is a waste of time, is really just a cop out. The argument he makes is that it makes more sense to believe in the existence of God as a natural progression toward reality and purpose then to deny God and end up in a place of meaningless nothingness. No, I’m sorry I can’t show you a picture of God. I don’t pretend to be able to unequivocally prove the existence of God. I fully respect the notion that to believe takes a certain amount of faith. I can understand that you want to deny faith as a reason to commit to a God belief, but if my reality is my choice and my choice is to believe in God then who is anyone to tell me that I’m wrong to live that life that I have chosen. And don’t give me that bs that I was forced into this somehow through upbringing, My family was non-religous and I was non-religious practically my whole life. I didn’t come to my belief system until I was 29 years old. I made the choice to believe. I didn't offer any bullshit about your personal circumstances, perhaps that was a different conversation. You made the choice to believe, that's fine with me and you'll find that it is fine with most atheists. Where people who have faith run into problems with atheists is when they use their beliefs to try to dictate government policy or social morals using the bible/Qu-ran/Torah as their unquestionable authority. That is absolutely the wrong way to make policy or force people to conform to standards drawn up well over 1,000 years ago. You choose whatever reality you like, only a total dick would be against your freedom to do that but if you were trying to force your reality onto someone else who believes a different thing, then that's when the problems would start. I'd only ask you for a picture of God, or something like his definitive instructions regarding how to deal with a specific problem that society faces, if you were to start saying that everyone should do things the way you tell them because God told you so. I hope you understand that people who don't believe in your God would have no intention of taking your demands seriously unless you were to provide an argument containing testable data and logic with which the majority could discuss. tl:dr The problem lies with religionists dictating to non-religionists or people of different religions that the world should be ordered according to some guy that no one can see hear or question. There is no problem with people being religious, just don't try to foist it onto others - essentially, do unto others as as you would have them do unto you (a maxim that existed for many years before it was credited to Jesus). 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
maxfactor Posted November 3, 2017 Share Posted November 3, 2017 12 minutes ago, Amy3 said: What you’re missing is that Kung forces the atheist ideology to deal with the inevitable progression of atheism which ultimately leads to nihilism. I believe that it does. I understand that you remain unconvinced. That’s fine, but if you actually read the book, you can see that the argument is quite compelling, but you’d have to read the full breath of it to grasp it. The idea that someone can nutshell what Kung argues is naive. You can always deny it, but to say that his argument is a waste of time, is really just a cop out. The argument he makes is that it makes more sense to believe in the existence of God as a natural progression toward reality and purpose then to deny God and end up in a place of meaningless nothingness. No, I’m sorry I can’t show you a picture of God. I don’t pretend to be able to unequivocally prove the existence of God. I fully respect the notion that to believe takes a certain amount of faith. I can understand that you want to deny faith as a reason to commit to a God belief, but if my reality is my choice and my choice is to believe in God then who is anyone to tell me that I’m wrong to live that life that I have chosen. And don’t give me that bs that I was forced into this somehow through upbringing, My family was non-religous and I was non-religious practically my whole life. I didn’t come to my belief system until I was 29 years old. I made the choice to believe. The only reason the religion ever existed is because of human nature to control what we cannot. In this case people and how they think. People use/used religion in the past against those who were uneducated and needed to be controlled. In other words...create a bogey man to use a s threat and higher authority providing leverage for those who seek control. As people have become more educated over time, they began to put logic in place and question the role of religion in general. Religion still acts in this way...as we see in the middle east (isis used religion to terrorize the population in order to exploit the oil resources of Iraq and Syria though I am convinced that they are not religous...they are simply a cartel like in Mexico) and Africa has religious conflict as well. Religion always needs a bogey man to exert control and exploit resources. In western society today, we have replaced god and traditional religions with environmentalism. The earth has become the new god. It nicely fits with the control element even better than an unseen god...because we can see it and we live on it. Threaten people with the extinction of the earth and guess what...control! The left has embraced this idea and is seeking to redistribute wealth throughout the world and remove control from the advanced industrialized countries. Antifa is leading the charge here. They are collecting the disenfranchised, Black lives matter, LBGQ, and many others (including Muslims in North America at the moment) and lets not forget environmentalism and pitting them against western values and capitalism. This is blatant exploitation. Western religion is also their target, because they are the traditional control element in western society. Communism figured that out long ago. They have also figured out that in order to control, you need violence...thus the justification for their riots and disorder. Something the communists were also experts at. Oh and remember...in Germany in WWII the Third Right was the god that was policed by the Nazis...again for control and through the use of violence. Lets not forget that all of these need an enemy to focus on, western capitalism, Sunnis, Shiites, Totsies, Houtus, Jews, Trump...etc. Just some things to reflect on Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Amy3 Posted November 3, 2017 Share Posted November 3, 2017 1 hour ago, Maturin said: I didn't offer any bullshit about your personal circumstances, perhaps that was a different conversation. You made the choice to believe, that's fine with me and you'll find that it is fine with most atheists. Where people who have faith run into problems with atheists is when they use their beliefs to try to dictate government policy or social morals using the bible/Qu-ran/Torah as their unquestionable authority. That is absolutely the wrong way to make policy or force people to conform to standards drawn up well over 1,000 years ago. You choose whatever reality you like, only a total dick would be against your freedom to do that but if you were trying to force your reality onto someone else who believes a different thing, then that's when the problems would start. I'd only ask you for a picture of God, or something like his definitive instructions regarding how to deal with a specific problem that society faces, if you were to start saying that everyone should do things the way you tell them because God told you so. I hope you understand that people who don't believe in your God would have no intention of taking your demands seriously unless you were to provide an argument containing testable data and logic with which the majority could discuss. tl:dr The problem lies with religionists dictating to non-religionists or people of different religions that the world should be ordered according to some guy that no one can see hear or question. There is no problem with people being religious, just don't try to foist it onto others - essentially, do unto others as as you would have them do unto you (a maxim that existed for many years before it was credited to Jesus). Your response is diatribe, not an aruguement dealing with the existence of God. Have a nice day! 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Amy3 Posted November 3, 2017 Share Posted November 3, 2017 1 hour ago, maxfactor said: The only reason the religion ever existed is because of human nature to control what we cannot. In this case people and how they think. People use/used religion in the past against those who were uneducated and needed to be controlled. In other words...create a bogey man to use a s threat and higher authority providing leverage for those who seek control. As people have become more educated over time, they began to put logic in place and question the role of religion in general. Religion still acts in this way...as we see in the middle east (isis used religion to terrorize the population in order to exploit the oil resources of Iraq and Syria though I am convinced that they are not religous...they are simply a cartel like in Mexico) and Africa has religious conflict as well. Religion always needs a bogey man to exert control and exploit resources. In western society today, we have replaced god and traditional religions with environmentalism. The earth has become the new god. It nicely fits with the control element even better than an unseen god...because we can see it and we live on it. Threaten people with the extinction of the earth and guess what...control! The left has embraced this idea and is seeking to redistribute wealth throughout the world and remove control from the advanced industrialized countries. Antifa is leading the charge here. They are collecting the disenfranchised, Black lives matter, LBGQ, and many others (including Muslims in North America at the moment) and lets not forget environmentalism and pitting them against western values and capitalism. This is blatant exploitation. Western religion is also their target, because they are the traditional control element in western society. Communism figured that out long ago. They have also figured out that in order to control, you need violence...thus the justification for their riots and disorder. Something the communists were also experts at. Oh and remember...in Germany in WWII the Third Right was the god that was policed by the Nazis...again for control and through the use of violence. Lets not forget that all of these need an enemy to focus on, western capitalism, Sunnis, Shiites, Totsies, Houtus, Jews, Trump...etc. Just some things to reflect on ...And yet, none of what you said matters as to question of whether or not God exists. Yet another diatribe against the religion, not a compelling argument that deals directly with the question at hand, "Does God Exist?" Even if religion, as known by man, is a figment of man's imagination for the purpose of control, it does not mean that God does not exist. It is entirely possible for God to exist and for there to be no human alive to falsley create one. That is, God existed since even before the beginning of our time, even when life itself did not exist. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Maturin Posted November 3, 2017 Share Posted November 3, 2017 10 minutes ago, Amy3 said: Your response is diatribe, not an aruguement dealing with the existence of God. Have a nice day! Your response is exactly the sort of nonsense that a religionist would come out with. Cheerio. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Amy3 Posted November 3, 2017 Share Posted November 3, 2017 4 minutes ago, Maturin said: Your response is exactly the sort of nonsense that a religionist would come out with. Cheerio. And yet another non-argument to answer the question at hand. Only this time its starts to get personal. Classic! Well, I think we'll just have to let others decide now won't we! 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
maxfactor Posted November 3, 2017 Share Posted November 3, 2017 3 minutes ago, Amy3 said: ...And yet, none of what you said matters as to question of whether or not God exists. Yet another diatribe against the religion, not a compelling argument that deals directly with the question at hand, "Does God Exist?" Even if religion, as known by man, is a figment of man's imagination for the purpose of control, it does not mean that God does not exist. It is entirely possible for God to exist and for there to be no human alive to falsley create one. That is, God existed since even before the beginning of our time, even when life itself did not exist. Diatribe...may be your opinion but I thought you were a little more open minded and smarter. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mic351 Posted November 3, 2017 Share Posted November 3, 2017 3 minutes ago, maxfactor said: Diatribe...may be your opinion but I thought you were a little more open minded and smarter. Smarter? If you study Einstein you'll note he believed in a God and an afterlife. He proposed that all matter is energy and energy never dies, it simply changes form. Taking it a step further he also believed that the formation of life on earth was simply to much to be entirely coincidence. That a higher form must have started things off.. Einstein wrote: "Everyone who is seriously involved in the pursuit of science becomes convinced that a spirit is manifest in the laws of the Universe-A spirit vastly superior to that of man. "Einstein and God" Robert Barron.. You statement to Amy3 you thought she was smarter than that leads me to believe that you feel you are smarter than Einstein. So please expound and explain to a simple man like myself, what did Einstein's Theory of Relativity really state? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Maturin Posted November 3, 2017 Share Posted November 3, 2017 17 minutes ago, Amy3 said: And yet another non-argument to answer the question at hand. Only this time its starts to get personal. Classic! Well, I think we'll just have to let others decide now won't we! Seriously? I try to entertain what's going on in your mind and you respond by trying to insult me and then accuse me of starting to get personal. What is it that you want? For me to prove that God doesn't exist? That's really the conversation you're after? The burden of proof is on the person making the claim, sorry but that's the way it works. You can't prove that God exists so I'm not pressing you on that. A far more interesting conversation is why is it that religionists resort to personal insults when faced with the resaonable replies of atheists. Or indeed what I was getting at with my replies, Why Do Religionists Feel That Everyone Must Share The Same Beliefs As Them? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts