Can a person choose to believe in god?

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(fshagan @ Feb 10 2007, 01:01 AM) [snapback]387875[/snapback]</div>

But this is the point I try to make. Unless there is some evidence that something exists you can only argue about the possibility of its existence. Now, consider what we know about the natural world. There is no evidence, whatsoever for the existence of god. In fact everything in nature argues against an intelligence behind creation. The reasonable assumption is that there is no god.

It is possible unicorns exist but it is so unlikely that reasonable people don't argue for their existence. The same should apply to the concept of god.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(fshagan @ Feb 10 2007, 01:01 AM) [snapback]387875[/snapback]</div>

Isn't that the first sentence of Genesis, 'God was created in Man's image...'?

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(hyo silver @ Feb 10 2007, 01:21 AM) [snapback]387889[/snapback]</div>

Good one!

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(tripp @ Feb 9 2007, 04:58 PM) [snapback]387698[/snapback]</div>

It's quite funny - the boundaries between an atheist and agnostic are rather vague - atheism = no belief in a god/gods. I share the same view as Alric. Absolutely no evidence for one - and for the sake of argument let's say there was proof - then you'd need proof that worshipping it would do anything... perhaps maybe it's a collective of natural forces and gaseous particles that evolved into a rather omnipotent sentient being - or maybe one of many such naturalistic beings - or let's say a supernatural creator - then how the heck did the Creator come about? Who the heck created this creator? Or what? Or maybe a group of creators that got created by numerous other creators?

Now, if I lived in the world of Zelda - in which there is clear evidence of the existence of several sentient spirits/gods... then I'd be praying my arse off... by giving money - in a consistent, standardized, scientific manner (for the game anyhow) - I actually gain something tangible out of it! (for sake of argument, of course!)... I'll be giving money to every damn reveler!

I like to use the phrase "Man created God in his image." Now there's reality.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(tripp @ Feb 7 2007, 11:38 PM) [snapback]386868[/snapback]</div>

God may be a brute to some people. We know there is scripture that says we were made for His pleasure, so that sounds like some kind of kinky slavery thing. We know there is scripture that says God ordered men, women and children killed, and that's against the Geneva Convention.

The belief in God predates my foray into theology; no one "proved" God existed, and as we've discussed before, the idea that people are either predisposed to belief in God or not seems to be reasonable to me. There is no logic involved here.

So, working from that premise ... that God exists ... I struck out to find Him. Sounds a bit dramatic, but this was the late 1960's remember. In the end, it was a spiritual experience that convinced me that Christianity was the right religion, as it "fit" with me and I felt I was able to embrace it. Again, there is no logic involved here, but instead the "mystery" of religion.

Christians turn to study to answer questions, understand more about God, and synthesize all of life's inconsistencies into their faith. Having come this far, with a presupposition and a mystical experience, we are finally at the point where logic and reason can be used.

And for my money, the Calvinist ideals fit to explain those things I can observe in life and harmonize them with what I know about God (both from the mystical/spiritual standpoint and the study of scripture).


<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(tripp @ Feb 7 2007, 11:38 PM) [snapback]386868[/snapback]</div>

I think you misunderstand. You don't need the Bible if you are chosen by God. It is like being your father's son ... its not something you can screw up, and not something you can undo. You could be alone, on a deserted island, and God would come to you. There isn't a theological misunderstanding you can make that will jeopardize that status.

The purpose of studying scripture is to further your understanding of things, not to gain entrance into heaven once you can determine just how many angels can dance on the head of a pin. You don't work your way into salvation; you don't buy with money, volunteer hours at the mission, or by being nice to your grandmother. it is a gift.

The reason you want to know more about God is the same reason you want to know more about your wife. Its a relationship. The reason you study scripture, volunteer, do good deeds, and be nice to your grandmother is not because you get some gain out of it, but because its what God wants you to do, and it pleases Him.

There is a school of Calvinism that holds all humanity is saved, and no one is lost. That school denies the idea of "limited atonement" which, in the Calvinist theology, is the glue that holds salvation is only for the elect. I'm not in that "4 point Calvinist" camp yet, although I don't believe in limited atonement.


<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(tripp @ Feb 7 2007, 11:38 PM) [snapback]386868[/snapback]</div>

I've never said anything of the sort! (Well, not in the last 15 years, anyway). All people can (and should) live good, moral lives.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(fshagan @ Feb 9 2007, 10:34 PM) [snapback]387899[/snapback]</div>

Sorry mate. That was directed at Schmika, not you.

Daniel, well put. Joker and AngryOmnigod may be the same guy. It just depends upon how long it's been since he took his Lithium.

You could also say the same for scientists save the "pleases" part. Though I suppose you could say that current and future generations are pleased by advances in medicine and our understanding of the planet. I would say that you should do things not because someone wants you to do them but because they're the moral thing to do.

That's basically my outlook as well. I'm agnostic out of principle but I haven't seen anything that suggests the existence of a god. Certainly not any of the gods that are found in this corner of the galaxy.

One thing I do find interesting is the Roman view. They seemed to think that there were all sorts of gods and didn't want to piss any of them off so they were often incorporated. They seemed to really dig the Greek gods.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(tripp @ Feb 10 2007, 04:00 PM) [snapback]388139[/snapback]</div>

Some have done research into the Romans/early Christians and believe that they incorporated Jesus from the gods Osirus, Dionysus, Adonis, Attis, & Mithras (all dated before Jesus and had virgin births, baptism, death on a tree, and resurrection...along with promise of eternal life). The early chruch tried to bury this but history has a funny way of poking its head up from time to time.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(huskers @ Feb 10 2007, 02:31 PM) [snapback]388145[/snapback]</div>

I've always thought it interesting how similar Catholicism is to the Roman/Greek polytheistic religions. The saints sort of take the place of the lesser gods. The patron saints smack of this, with each saint having their own niche. They're a bit like pro wrestlers with their signature moves.

 

It is almost a mirror image of the pagan myths in every detail. And the New Testiment was written at this time with all of the different sects of the christian religion around. They took what they new for 100s of years and made it fit. The battle between the literalists and the gnostics resulted in the domination of the Roman Church. So all Christian branches are at the mercy of this distortion. Bottom line...we are buying into the old Greek/Roman pagan religions in a different package. What a cover up...and what some have discribed as The Greatest Story Ever Sold (and the world bought it).

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(daniel @ Feb 10 2007, 07:30 AM) [snapback]388019[/snapback]</div>

In other words, if an idea is popular enough, for long enough, that alone gives it validity?
[/b][/quote]

No, I said what I mean. I don't reject tradition out of hand; modern man often makes the mistake of thinking he is smarter than the "ancients", when we are not smarter even though knowledge has increased. Tradition is there for a reason, and prior to chucking it out the window, you have to learn, and analyze, and make a decision. Otherwise you run the risk of repeating the mistakes of the past.

Before I reject a belief held by some very smart people, I will investigate and decide. Would that all people would do that ... we wouldn't have the evolution vs. creation debate, for instance, if that tack were taken.


<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(daniel @ Feb 10 2007, 07:30 AM) [snapback]388019[/snapback]</div>

No, nothing that dramatic. Its not a story that would be interesting even if given in a church setting among like-minded people. There were no voices, no visions and no dreams involved. Pretty mundane really, and more in the "emotional feeling" class for those that don't believe man has a spiritual side.

I never took any hallucinogens, and although I was involved in some illegal drug use, it was of the "green and God grew it" variety.

My point was that my belief in a god preceded my search for which god, and my belief in the Christian concept of God was based on spiritual experiences. Therefore, I can't argue for either of them from a logical or rational standpoint. There are some that do argue that way, but I have to shrug and admit that belief in God, for me, was neither rational nor logical.

I honestly don't think anyone can argue for the existence of God from a rational or logical standpoint. Most religious people who believe in god and are either from religious homes where the choice is obvious, or are converted to religion not on logical grounds, but from a need for spiritual fulfillment and had the same kind of experience I had (or more dramatic ones with visions, dreams, etc.)

But, study of theology is based on logical and rational thought, as you have to use reason to see if the theory meets the "facts" you have accepted.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(daniel @ Feb 10 2007, 07:30 AM) [snapback]388019[/snapback]</div>

And you would therefore frame the argument from your frame of reference, which is that only universalism is acceptable (if you must do something as illogical as believe in God in the first place). The debate question would really be "Resolved: Only Universalism makes sense to Daniel." It would be a short debate.

I am surprised by the comment that the acts of murderous tyrants would be "nothing" as their victims would all go to heaven. That's very similar to a concept used to extract conversions by torture, where the torturer believed that he was doing a good deed in ushering the victim into the kingdom of heaven.

Is there no punishment for someone like Charlie Manson? Or those like Pol Pot? Certainly, even the most loving of fathers would think of something for a son who kills a few dozen of his other sons. Perhaps a stern "Now, Pol Pot, that wasn't very nice!" Time out in the corner? Or does the Universal God so demean life that He views the medieval torturer, Pol Pot and William Wiberforce in the same light?

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(tripp @ Feb 9 2007, 03:46 PM) [snapback]387571[/snapback]</div>

Daily proofs are simply seeing people who live like Christ and how that affects them and those who do not and how that affects them.

All scripture is useful for teaching and rebuking (that is in the Bible) Do unto others as you would have them do unto you?...How do you know God is NOT abiding by that. Should God sin and refuse to believe in Himself...I am sure He would be cast into the lake of fire as well......hahahaha that was kind of a silly statement Tripp.

God SO loved the world that he gave his only begotten son......when one of us do that, THEN we will see how He reacts to that person. God so loved us He gave us a way to have eternal life.....nope, don't see any scientists doing that yet. Poor, poor argument to a believer.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Alric @ Feb 9 2007, 04:15 PM) [snapback]387599[/snapback]</div>

Science has not PROVEN that creation did not occur...sorry. If the LAW says you will not work on the sabbath, and the punishment is death....how is that irrational? At the time, that is the way it was. Thanks be to Jesus we no longer have to be under this law. The law was, bery basically, ANY sin, regardless of severity, had the death penalty. God is not a man, you cannot put human rationality up against him any more than you can anthropomorphize a goat.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(daniel @ Feb 9 2007, 04:49 PM) [snapback]387627[/snapback]</div>

I am surprised at this argument Daniel....he gave us reason and free will in order to NOT make us robots. You are assuming reasonable people would not believe in God, I am saying reasonable people will.

I never said you hated me....there are others that do however.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Alric @ Feb 9 2007, 09:25 PM) [snapback]387776[/snapback]</div>

Nope, Tripp is right, BELIEF in atheism is a faith.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Schmika @ Feb 11 2007, 01:28 PM) [snapback]388541[/snapback]</div>

That proves nothing. There are many buddists, muslims, jews, atheists, jains, hindus, etc that provide excellent examples of how to live "like" Christ without believing that he was the son of god. If anything you've just provided proof that the process isn't what's important, it's the outcome that matters.

The onus isn't on science to prove it. Science isn't making the claim that creation did occur as proclaimed in the bible.

No, it's your warped view of morality and sin that is silly.

That seems rather irrational to me. These two statements seem to be at loggerheads with each other. So why was Jesus' death on the cross the preferred way to introduce the era of Grace. Is there any reason it had to be done this way?

And who's fault was that? I'm sure you'll say Adam's but that's the easy way out.

I would think that there would be punishment in that view but it wouldn't be eternal torture. Eternal torture would make the punishment far worse than the crime. That doesn't seem very just to me.

 

Tripp, you are one of my daily proofs....you do not believe and you do not understand.

I am simply stating what I believe and you begin anew an argument to convince me of your point of view......don't waste your breath. I was answering a question and giving my point of view, it did not need a reply.

I agreed it was circular logic...and, being that i was "born again" less than 2 years ago at age 47, I understand you more than you understand me because I have been where you are, you have not been where I am.

Oh, before ANYONE says they were born again and then changed their mind...I don't believe that is possible. What more likely happened is that you "faked" it.

See, another circular argument...hahahaha!

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Schmika @ Feb 12 2007, 08:42 AM) [snapback]388863[/snapback]</div>

Well, I suppose we've exhausted the potential for any further useful discussions along this line. We clearly think about topics such as these in very different ways. As always, more questions have been raised than answers found but that's a good thing. There's lots to think about and new lines of thought to pursue. How does that old VW ad tag line go? Something about the Journey...

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(daniel @ Feb 11 2007, 03:41 PM) [snapback]388613[/snapback]</div>

Then, as a theology, it utterly fails. Approaching the issue from the idea that afterlife does not exist gives you the luxury of sitting back and judging which theological system seems the most consistent and makes the most sense, but there is no requirement to go beyond the surface. You are judging only from your frame of reference, which is tainted by the idea that only the temporal world exists.

While God has every prerogative to treat all creation in any way he chooses, it seems incompatible for Him to simply ignore those incidents that violate the rules he set down. If he does not intervene to ensure that justice is done during mortal life, he surely must deal with the problem in the afterlife. Otherwise, he is not consistent at all; he becomes the OmniApathetic God, a category you might want to add to your pantheon for your Universalist friends.