The great and all powerful religion thread!

[Zephyrus]

I hear this answer to problems all the time at my school. Every time someone talks about a problem they're having, they respond with "oh, don't worry, it's God's plan, he'll take care of it". It's kind of selfish to think that God is using the bad to create good, because what if your life just goes downhill from there? Will you stop believing in him? That's not the answer at all.

Of course, I fell victim to this for years, I usually gave people this response to their problems.

Our misfortunes, whether on an individual or global scale, are not precipitations of divine will, regardless of God's existence or lack thereof. Our misfortunes are caused either by nature, which the divine has never taken advantage of (at least since the supposed "great flood", after which God promised never again to use nature to incur his wrath), or by human nature, which is exposed to perilous paths due to the existence of free will (which was granted by God, if he exists to grant such a privilege).

Therefore, it is wrong to blame God for things that are the fault of nature and humanity toward itself. God is a force of pure love, and for him to execute a wrathful agenda is to go against the act of forgiveness, which is an institution of divine love.

 

[zabu of nΩd]

Try saying that again in non-religious terms. You're kinda creeping me out with all those Christian buzzwords...

 

[Zephyrus]

In non-religious terms: our misfortunes are caused by ourselves and nature.

 

[cookiecutter]

First off, I don't believe in any such thing as meaning or purpose in life, nor do I think anyone can truly find it. But I do think it's important to feel a sense of purpose from time to time.

Secondly, I'm pretty sure that without a sense of purpose in life, motivation cannot exist. And I'm guessing that you're a reasonably motivated person. So I'd say that you do need a sense of purpose. To say "I don't need or want an innate purpose" sounds to me more like a spiteful anti-religious stance than an accurate statement about one's nature.

I did not mean it in that way. I meant that I want to decide my motivations, not have them born into me or forced upon me. The only religious connection is that I reject the claim that religion has some special knowledge of the purpose of humanity, which I feel is up to us.

Our misfortunes, whether on an individual or global scale, are not precipitations of divine will, regardless of God's existence or lack thereof. Our misfortunes are caused either by nature, which the divine has never taken advantage of (at least since the supposed "great flood", after which God promised never again to use nature to incur his wrath), or by human nature, which is exposed to perilous paths due to the existence of free will (which was granted by God, if he exists to grant such a privilege).

Therefore, it is wrong to blame God for things that are the fault of nature and humanity toward itself. God is a force of pure love, and for him to execute a wrathful agenda is to go against the act of forgiveness, which is an institution of divine love.

I have a few questions for you. First, as an intelligent thinking person, how do you rationalize the lack of evidence for God's existence and the truth of Christianity to your belief in those things?

Secondly, how do you rationalize your belief that "God is a force of pure love" with the biblical account of God, in which he was distinctly not loving?

 

[zabu of nΩd]

Wait... is Zephyrus actually Christian?

 

[skeptik]

mhmm

 

[AchrisK]

a) as a Christian I agree that there are way too many pat answers to tough questions given by Christians to other Christans and to others as well.

b) The Bible actually says that (paraphrase) God works in bad situations and brings good out of them.

I agree that most of our problems are a result of our own bad decisions, or the bad decisions of others, as well as natural disasters. But I would not say that God would never cause anything that seemed bad...but I would also not just blow people off by giving that to them as a pat answer. Life is so complex and I think giving answers like that reveal either that someone just feels the need to say something (this can cause any number or dumb comments or advice), or they totally forget that they are talking to people who have entire existences that they themselves are not familiar with, and those existences are currently flooded with pain and confusion.

 

[cookiecutter]

God caused innumerable bad things in the Bible.

 

[AchrisK]

I have a few questions for you. First, as an intelligent thinking person, how do you rationalize the lack of evidence for God's existence and the truth of Christianity to your belief in those things?

Why do you ask these questions? Are you interested in God for yourself, or do you only seek to try to argue against it and try to convince someone who believes that they are an idiot? Or are you just trying to convince yourself that you're right?

I know this wasn't directed at me, but...

There is no lack of evidence, though there is a lack of proof. Evidence is a gathering of data in an attempt to make the right decision. I think there is adequate evidence for a person to decide that there is a God, as well as an adequate lack of evidence for someone who wants to decide there is no God.

 

[~Derek~]

God hardened and softened people's hearts in the Bible to do things, so does this make him a manipulator? Or do people interpret that as just a metaphor? It seems free will isnt involved there.

 

[AchrisK]

God caused innumerable bad things in the Bible.

See my post, above yours, where I said:

But I would not say that God would never cause anything that seemed bad...

 

[AchrisK]

God hardened and softened people's hearts in the Bible to do things, so does this make him a manipulator? Or do people interpret that as just a metaphor? It seems free will isnt involved there.

It could be that he only "manipulated" in the direction that the person was already headed. Do you think Pharaoh was just all happy to let his slaves go, but God didn't allow it?

I cannot say for sure, but it seems logical.

 

[skeptik]

Why do you ask these questions? Are you interested in God for yourself, or do you only seek to try to argue against it and try to convince someone who believes that they are an idiot? Or are you just trying to convince yourself that you're right?

I know this wasn't directed at me, but...

There is no lack of evidence, though there is a lack of proof. Evidence is a gathering of data in an attempt to make the right decision. I think there is adequate evidence for a person to decide that there is a God, as well as an adequate lack of evidence for someone who wants to decide there is no God.

Name one piece of this lovely evidence, please.

 

[cookiecutter]

Why do you ask these questions? Are you interested in God for yourself, or do you only seek to try to argue against it and try to convince someone who believes that they are an idiot? Or are you just trying to convince yourself that you're right?

I know this wasn't directed at me, but...

There is no lack of evidence, though there is a lack of proof. Evidence is a gathering of data in an attempt to make the right decision. I think there is adequate evidence for a person to decide that there is a God, as well as an adequate lack of evidence for someone who wants to decide there is no God.

I do not want to call anyone an idiot. Believing in God does not make you an idiot. I ask these questions because those are questions I find impossible to rationalize and therefore I don't believe. I want to find out how others deal with these questions, and I would like everyone to examine their beliefs and make sure they are correct.

And there is no lack of evidence? Please enlighten me on this evidence for the existence of God. Remember the Bible is not evidence. I would also like to point out that the default position on an issue such as this should be disbelief until incontrovertible evidence is found. Believing and then trying to fit natural phenomona as part of "God's creation" is not evidence. I don't know if that is what you mean, but those are pieces of "evidence" often presented.

See my post, above yours, where I said:

I apologize, I misread your statement.

 

[AchrisK]

Name one piece of this lovely evidence, please.

I already have, at the same type of request from cookiecutter on an earlier page. Go read it if you're so interested. But I assume your only interest is trying to prove (to yourself maybe) that the things I take as evidence are invalid.

As I said before, there is plenty of evidence for someone who is willing to consider the existence of God, and there is plenty of lack of evidence for someone who doesn't want to believe in God.

 

[cookiecutter]

The whole point of evaluating whether a claim is true is to be skeptical of it and the evidence presented in support. If we blindly accept something because we want the claim to be true, we are fooling ourselves.

As for your evidence, are you referring to your version of the Watchmaker argument? If so, that argument has been proven wrong.

 

[~Derek~]

^To me that's like what my religious studies professor at college said "People want to deny the supernatural, but unless you go into the abnormal state of brainwaves you won't find things you normally would, and we in society today, rely lie too much on our normal brain ststaes to really see what's out there" But what's really oput there is just the chemicals of the brain, nothing more. Which is how I view what you're saying about evidence and lack of evidence of God, the evidence for God seems very shaky and by scientific terms seems easily disprovable.

 

[~Derek~]

Edit:I was referring to AchrisK

 

[cookiecutter]

If examined scientifically God does not exist. Period. There is just no evidence. Since the default state when evaluating the veracity of a claim is disbelief, one must remain at that conclusion pending enough evidence. It is a fallacy to assume that the default position is in the middle and the available evidence could push you either way as AchrisK is saying.

 

[~Derek~]

^But people see it as being true even though science tells them otherwise and that's the middle ground.