This should be interesting, Christians...

Blade Golem said:
Which Pagan gods were these miracles based on?

Well I'll just name a few parallels with pagan religions. You can go search about the gods and where they're from yourself.

Jesus's divine birth is based upon Danae, Melanippe, Auge, Attis, Antiope, Dionysus, Zoroaster.

His walking on water is based on Poisedon riding his chariot over water and also on Osiris. His turning water to wine is based on Dionysius changing water to wine.

His resurrection is based on Attis and Mithras, who both died and got resurrected 3 days later...Around the same time as Easter.

Attis' worshipers at a sacramental meal of bread and wine. The wine represented the God's blood; the bread became the body of the savoir.

Every year at first minute of December 25th the temple of Mithras was lit with candles, priests in in white garments celebrated the birth of the Son of God and boys burned incense. Mithras was born in a cave, on December 25th, of a virgin mother. He came from heaven to be born as a man, to redeem men from their sin. He was known as "Savior," "Son of God," "Redeemer," and "Lamb of God."

Heracles(also known as Hercules) was born to a mortal mother and was Son of Zeus. He was sacrificed on Spring Equinox(also known as Easter or Spring Solstice).

Osiris was betrayed by Typhon, crucified between two thieves on the 17th day of the month of Athyr. Buried in a tomb from which he arose on the third day (19th Athyr) and was resurrected.

Osiris' suffering, death, and resurrection celebrated each year by His disciples on the Vernal Equinox -- Easter.

Osiris was born of the virgin Isis-Meri on December 25th in a cave / manger, with his birth announced by a star and attended by three wise men

As we've come to notice, many of the pagan religions are even parallel. This is because paganism was brought from the Asia minor region and spread amongst Europe etc and the names were changed.
 
I agree with what Deron, and only Deron, has said.

As a Christian myself, i find that a great deal of people claiming to represent Christianity in fact do not. for those who do believe (and by no means are we faultless) these bad apples ruin our portrayal for everyone.

GoD said one reason he's against our beliefs is because it dominates ways of life. YES, i wholeheartedly agree that it does. it's supposed to. if you aren't dominated by God in your life, then calling yourself Christian is a lie. this doesn't mean you can't live a normal life with normal stuff. just that in everything, think of what God would want. i think people should follow what Jesus taught us, and live for his ways. i do not think people should live and follow his ways as a means to get into heaven. to live for heaven is in my opinion to live for death. God has given us life on this earth with reason: that reason being the gift of choice. Choice to do or not do, our actions here and now to decide what his final judgment will be upon us each. i do not think mankind should have power of death, it is against the commandments to kill (even as death penalty. we are not God). these are just my beliefs, you may or may not agree. i'm not saying you must think the same as I.

As for GoD's comment about pity/weakness, i agree. i don't believe people should live for the sake of the weakest link, they would only promote laziness and misconduct, then claim their station caused it. however i don't think this warrants total disregard for the weak and sick. i think caring for those less fortunate is important, but allowing them total dependence on the strong is also a mistake. to seek equalization of all people by lowering to the lowest level is error. instead, those who are strong should pass on their strength and raise up the weak. raise them up and strengthen them so the weakest becomes stronger and the whole becomes stronger. i also think that the strong should strive to be stronger, as should the weak.

imo, Christianity is about following Jesus and his ways because they are the ways that God wants for us. to follow our own ways, or to follow his path with selfish intent, is meaningless.

again, this is my belief. you may feel free to disagree.
 
I think it's a shame how Christians take Jesus to be God when he said himself he was a servant of his God and our God and a prophet sent only to Israel.
 
alright. Here we go.

First, Son and Servant stem from the same word in the 'original' texts. Observe the difference in meaning of the SAME VERSE in two different translations: KJV first, then the NKJV

KJV:Acts 3:25 - Ye are the children of the prophets, and of the covenant which God made with our fathers, saying unto Abraham, And in thy seed shall all the kindreds of the earth be blessed.
Acts 3:26 - Unto you first God, having raised up his Son Jesus, sent him to bless you, in turning away every one of you from his iniquities.


NKJV:Acts 3:25 - You are the sons of the prophets, and of the covenant which God made with our fathers, saying to Abraham, 'And in your seed all the families of the earth shall be blessed.
Acts 3:26 - To you first, God, having raised up His Servant Jesus, sent Him to bless you, in turning every one of you away from his iniquities.

Which is it? son or servant? The greek word for both 'son' and 'servant' in Acts 3:26 is 'pais'.

Two translations, two very very different meanings.

Well, Jinn, that's cool but that's the opinion of the translators of the NKJV.

Sure, but it's also the translation used by the Jehovah's witnesses, and the translators of the NIV, ASV, NASB and other modern Bible translations.

Could it be that these modern translators disagree that 'pais' can be translated 'son?' No, the NKJV committee translates this very word as 'boy,' 'child" or 'son' in Matthew 2:16; 17:18; 21:15; Luke 2:43; 9:42; and John 4:51. Yet they refused to translate the word as 'son' in this powerful sermon where Peter presents Jesus as Messiah and 'Son [servant, possibly?] of God'.

Now that we have doubt about the translation of 'pais' to be 'son' or 'servant', let's give you a little more info to chew on.

Check Psalm 2:7. Not only does God call David his Son, but said that he has begotton David.

God also says that ISRAEL is His firstborn Son.

Hmm....

Now, I'd like to quote from the Bible and bring God's opinion into this whole matter of Christ's divinity.
Isaiah 43:10-11 'Ye are My witnesses, saith the Lord, and My servant whom I have Chosen: that ye may know and believe Me, and understand that I AM He: before Me there was no God formed, neither shall there be after Me.
I, even I, AM the Lord; and beside Me, There is No Saviour.'

So, to rehash those verses, There was no God before I AM [Jehovah, Yahweh, Elohim, Allah, take your pick of name], and there will not be a God formed after Him. Besides him, THERE IS NO SAVIOR.
Jesus was formed after God was, therefore invalidating any claim to Divinity.

A Canaanite woman from that vicinity came to him, crying out, 'Lord, Son of David, have mercy on me! My daughter is suffering terribly from demon-possession. Jesus did not answer a word. So his disciples came to him and urged him, 'Send her away, for she keeps crying out after us.' He [Jesus] answered, 'I was sent only to the lost sheep of Israel.' The woman came and knelt before him. 'Lord, help me!' she said. He [Jesus] replied 'It is not right to take the children's [Jews] bread [blessings and miracles reserved for them] and toss it to their dogs [the Canaanite, or the Philistines].' 'Yes, Lord' she said, 'but even the dogs eat the crumbs that fall from their masters' table.' Then Jesus answered, 'Woman, you have great faith! Your request is granted.' And her daughter was healed from that very hour. ~ Matthew 15:22-28


That's enough for now.

Show me where Jesus claimed to be God Almighty.
 
translational disputes are inevitable. we're talking about a book that was written over a thousand years ago and has been rewritten countless times in many languages. you stress certain words and the same sentence can mean any number of things.

Perhaps it is meant that Jesus is both son AND servant, as any son is meant to serve his father. nowhere in your evidence does it show He is one and not the other. It simply identifies Him by the word that can potentially mean son, savior, or possibly both. as for God identifying people and places as children; because He created all of those things, it is no surprise He would call them children. Any creation capable of thought thinks of its creator as father, and many creators feel paternal bonds to their creations. How should this be different?

my evidence:

John 1:1-4
Before the world was created, the Word already existed; he was with God, and he was the same as God. From the very beginning, the Word was with God. Through him God made all things; not one thing in all creation was made without him. The Word was the source of life, and this life brought light to mankind.

^ evidence that Jesus existed before he was "born" as one of us for our sake. God sent him to us, he was not simply "born" to Mary. he is the Word because he is the one who spoke on behalf of God. see next.

John 1:14
The Word became a human being and, full of grace and truth, lived among us. We saw his glory, the glory which he recieved as the Father's only Son.

^more evidence of above. that the Word "became" human shows the Word previously existed as something besides human (ie. God). He became man, he was not created as man. the Word is the only Son of the Father (God).

John 5:31-34
Jesus says: If I testify on my own behalf, what I say is not going to be accepted as real proof. But there is someone else who testifies on my behalf, and I know that what he says about me is true. John is the one to whom you sent your messengers, and he spoke on behalf of the truth. It is not that I must have a man's witness; I say this only in order that you may be saved.

Jesus tells people that John spoke truth of his coming and his identity.

John 5:36-38
But I have a witness on my behalf that is even greater than the witness that John gave: what I do, that is, the deeds my Father gave me to do, these speak on my behalf and show that the Father has sent me. And the Father, who sent me, also testifies on my behalf. You have never heard his voice or seen his face, and you do not keep his message in your hearts, for you do not believe in the one whom he sent.

Jesus continues to confirm that he is the one sent by God and spoken of by John, Moses, and others.
so what DID John say that Jesus affirms as true?

John 1:32
And John gave this testimony: "I saw the Spirit come down like a dove from heaven and stay on him. I still did not know that he was the one, but God, who sent me to baptize with water, had said to me, "You will see the Spirit come down and stay on a man; he is the one who baptizes with the Holy Spirit." I have seen it," said John, "and I tell you that he is the Son of God."

more evidence from the book of John:
1:48
"Teacher," answered Nathanael, "you are the Son of God! You are the King of Israel!"
Jesus said, "Do you believe just because I told you I saw you when you were under the fig tree? You will see much greater things than this!"

Jesus not only doesn't deny Nathanael's proclamation that he is God's Son, but asks if he believes it is so because of what Jesus told him about spotting him under the tree, or something else.

As for God saying He is the one and only saviour, how does that rule out Jesus? "God" pertains to three simultaneous entities that are also one being. When Jesus was "born" may not have been when He was "created". the bible only states that "He became man"; that is, became a mortal being. through God he was raised to heaven.

in the book of John, Jesus is referred to as teacher, Messiah, Lamb of God, Son of God, Prophet, among other things. often from the same people. he denies none of these titles and confirms many. what contradiction do you see in his simultaneous role as all of them?

by the way: both versions that I have of these verses used the word "Son" and not "Servant" in all quoted passages.
 
There is also, Mark 14:61 - 62:
61
But he held his peace, and answered nothing. Again the high priest asked him, and said unto him, Art thou the Christ, the Son of the Blessed?
62
And Jesus said, I am: and ye shall see the Son of man sitting on the right hand of power, and coming in the clouds of heaven.

I wouldn't rely on the Jehovah's Wittnesses to give a good account of the Bible as they have vested interests and actually misrepresent key passages to edit Jesus' divinity out of the Bible:
(http://www.skepticsannotatedbible.com/acts/jw_list.html)

I think there was some good points made in this thread but GoD has a pretty confused arguement, and I want to address a couple of the things he said:

I do, however, feel that belief in a deity clearly has no basis in reason and every basis in the fact that it provides an answer, meaning and refuge for those who fear mortality. Anyone can doublethink as long as it means they have a meaning!

Some of the greatest practitioners of reason actually used it to prove God's existance(!) If you want to rely so heavily upon the implications of reason I suggest you read a philosopher like Spinoza or Leibnitz who both set out arguements for the existence in God. In Spinoza's "Ethics Geometrically Proven" The existence of God is derived logically from 7 axioms I challenge anyone to contradict:

I. Everything which exists, exists either "in" itself or "in" something else.
(By "in" Spinoza means logically "in" i.e. A is "in" B means A "is logically dependant upon" B. For example; an apple exists "in" the concept of matter, because its existence is dependant upon the concept of matter)
II. That which cannot be conceived through anything else must be conceived through itself.
III. From a given definite cause an effect necessarily follows; and, on the other hand, if no definite cause be granted, it is impossible that an effect can follow.
IV. The knowledge of an effect depends on and involves the knowledge of a cause.
V. Things which have nothing in common cannot be understood, the one by means of the other; the conception of one does not involve the conception of the other.
VI. A true idea must correspond with its ideate or object.
VII. If a thing can be conceived as non-existing, its essence does not involve existence.
(by essence he means a predicate that a thing MUST logically have i.e. couldn't be otherwise)

From this follows the existence of God and a lot of other moral implications. I personaly have a lot of problems with reason and Kant does a good job of laying these out "antinomies of reason" which can be googled for or found later on in his magnum opus "The Critique of Pure Reason".

To directly contradict what GoD says, belief in God has every place in reason, the real question is how you can keep faith in reason and not believe in God!

Important: You don't understand why I'm linking a few of these things to Christianity because you think what I'm talking about is simply human nature, but in reality the collective human mentality has been shaped primarily by Judeo-Christianity. Many people don't realise how much the world is still based upon the core Christian values, regardless of how corrupt it may seem on the surface. Note that these couple of examples weren't supposed to be your belief as a whole, I'm just describing a couple of spin-offs from the Christian worldview. I'm not even suggesting it's what the religion intends, I'm far more interested in the end than the reasons for coming to said end. I'm not trying to "blame", I'm just trying to trace problems to their source.

Your views seem to be along the same lines of Freidrich Nietzche. I think that it is easy to get confused with arguements, especially from charismatic writers like Nietzsche, however his arguements have some pretty major flaws and you have based your own views upon these problems.
Firstly the idea that all the ideals of modern society are Judaeo Christian seems wrong. Thou shalt not kill and thou shalt not steal are hardly unique. Honour they mother and farther is hardly unique either, nor are taboos around adultary and incest, and plenty more besides. To me general aversion to these things seem more like features any society needs to be sucessful, and satisfy some archetypal images in the collective unconscious. Even if you were to trace every instance of these laws back to Judaism, you simply beg the question "where did the Jews get them from?" and indeed "if they go so much against our true nature why are they so readily accepted and for so long.

This leads nicely into the second aspect of the attack on the "Judaeo-Christian" elements in our society. I don't know what your own objection would be but Nietzche's was that they were a "weak" doctrine, that originated from the Jews slavery in Egypt. The idea was that they inverted the "rule of the strong" and created the "rule of the weak". Bad things become good and good things are made Evil. However the idea that a semitic culture is a weak culture is madness. From the military success they had as a nation state in antiquity to the modern day, they have had a lot of success. The Jewish culture has stood the test of time far better than societies such as Rome where the views you encourage were more heartily endorsed. Also there is perhaps the idea that the Jews are falling appart under their terrible philosophy, but on the contrary the percentage of Jews in prominant economic, scientific, academic and political circles is surely a sign of their success. The bulk of anti Jewish critisim is merely anti Semitic.

Humanism arose from the Christian idea of "loving thy neighbour". Egalitarianism arose from Humanism as a way of superficially wiping out our strengths and weaknesses (instead of letting nature genuinely wipe out our weaknesses) - it's unnatural, unfounded and perilous, serving only to discourage strength and progression. And our society is obsessed.

This is the strangest part of your arguement, for the "Will to Power" is an inherantly humanist doctrine. The basic idea of the human experiance being the most important factor in making descisions isn't something I would have thought you would have been so opposed to:
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Humanism)
Read this, I think it will change your mind about humanism and dispel some of the lies spread about it that you seem to have bought into. The idea being to trancend the shackles of society and acheive the latent potential of all humans to become almost Godlike ("Companions the creator seeks, not corpses, not herds and believers. Fellow creators the creator seeks--those who write new values on new tablets. Companions the creator seeks, and fellow harvesters; for everything about him is ripe for the harvest. ")

in fact we're conditioned to do so, but it's mentally impossible to do something that doesn't benefit you in some way. To do so would be to cease to be.

er?!?!?!


To refer to Spinoza, (and therefore for a doctrine about as founded in reason as it is possible to be!) two people working together are stronger than two people working alone. To become as stong as we can possibly be is not gauged by individual merits because noone is so mighty they can "go it alone". We will always need the help and suppourt of those around us. With some people the best way to help them is obviously to give them a good kick up their lazy ass, but at the end of the day everyone is capable of greatness, so it is in our own interests to foster as much of it as we can.

Regards,
Korona
 
Episteme said:
Well I'll just name a few parallels with pagan religions. You can go search about the gods and where they're from yourself.

Jesus's divine birth is based upon Danae, Melanippe, Auge, Attis, Antiope, Dionysus, Zoroaster.

His walking on water is based on Poisedon riding his chariot over water and also on Osiris. His turning water to wine is based on Dionysius changing water to wine.

His resurrection is based on Attis and Mithras, who both died and got resurrected 3 days later...Around the same time as Easter.

Attis' worshipers at a sacramental meal of bread and wine. The wine represented the God's blood; the bread became the body of the savoir.

Every year at first minute of December 25th the temple of Mithras was lit with candles, priests in in white garments celebrated the birth of the Son of God and boys burned incense. Mithras was born in a cave, on December 25th, of a virgin mother. He came from heaven to be born as a man, to redeem men from their sin. He was known as "Savior," "Son of God," "Redeemer," and "Lamb of God."

Heracles(also known as Hercules) was born to a mortal mother and was Son of Zeus. He was sacrificed on Spring Equinox(also known as Easter or Spring Solstice).

Osiris was betrayed by Typhon, crucified between two thieves on the 17th day of the month of Athyr. Buried in a tomb from which he arose on the third day (19th Athyr) and was resurrected.

Osiris' suffering, death, and resurrection celebrated each year by His disciples on the Vernal Equinox -- Easter.

Osiris was born of the virgin Isis-Meri on December 25th in a cave / manger, with his birth announced by a star and attended by three wise men

As we've come to notice, many of the pagan religions are even parallel. This is because paganism was brought from the Asia minor region and spread amongst Europe etc and the names were changed.


Thank you. The only book I've read on Paganism is on the Norse version of it, hence, why I wasn't seeing the parallels.
 
damnit, I was interested in the thread, but all your posts are too long for me to read.
So I'll just say that:

I've been baptized and received all the ceremonies and stuff. So technically, I'm a christian. But, I don't really believe in this religion and I tend to make my own religion instead, which has a lot of values in common with christianity, but a lot of others that fits with my ideas ( like keeping abortion legal and making same sex marriage legal too ).

Also, I think people are wayyy too much concerned about religion. Up here in Quebec, ( I say Quebec because I think it's a little bit different in the rest of Canada ) we just never talk about religion, and we receive most religions with open arms. But that's comprehensible in the USA, because religion has a much wider influence than here. It has influence on your politics ( which is awful ), while it has none here. Mixing politics with religion is simply stupid.
 
AsModEe said:
damnit, I was interested in the thread, but all your posts are too long for me to read.
So I'll just say that:

I've been baptized and received all the ceremonies and stuff. So technically, I'm a christian. But, I don't really believe in this religion and I tend to make my own religion instead, which has a lot of values in common with christianity, but a lot of others that fits with my ideas ( like keeping abortion legal and making same sex marriage legal too ).

Also, I think people are wayyy too much concerned about religion. Up here in Quebec, ( I say Quebec because I think it's a little bit different in the rest of Canada ) we just never talk about religion, and we receive most religions with open arms. But that's comprehensible in the USA, because religion has a much wider influence than here. It has influence on your politics ( which is awful ), while it has none here. Mixing politics with religion is simply stupid.

well, ceremonies and rites mean nothing in my opinion, if the belief doesn't follow. i can be baptized and confirmed, but if i don't adhere to and live by those codes, who am i to call myself part of that belief? know what i mean?

i, like you, have some disagreements with the major churches. however most of what is in the Bible, and most of what the churches have in common, i do believe in. by trying to follow those things which i believe in, i call myself Christian. i agree that many places are too intolerant of other views. personally i won't flip out on people who don't believe the same as me. we are all different people with different views. i won't shove my views on anyone (outside of debate lol). i'll simply go about my life and maybe people will see and admire this path and follow it.
 
Like I said, technically, I'm a christian, but I don't consider myself to be one. What I consider important is that people aren't sheeps. They must make their own ideas of what they believe is right.
 
i totally agree. believing blindly in something because someone tells you to, is not real faith. its far better to base your beliefs on your own values and ideals, that you believe in, and your own logic and reasoning. when you find answers yourself, they make a stronger foundation.
 
Korona said:
Some of the greatest practitioners of reason actually used it to prove God's existance(!) If you want to rely so heavily upon the implications of reason I suggest you read a philosopher like Spinoza or Leibnitz who both set out arguements for the existence in God. In Spinoza's "Ethics Geometrically Proven" The existence of God is derived logically from 7 axioms I challenge anyone to contradict:

I. Everything which exists, exists either "in" itself or "in" something else.
(By "in" Spinoza means logically "in" i.e. A is "in" B means A "is logically dependant upon" B. For example; an apple exists "in" the concept of matter, because its existence is dependant upon the concept of matter)
II. That which cannot be conceived through anything else must be conceived through itself.
III. From a given definite cause an effect necessarily follows; and, on the other hand, if no definite cause be granted, it is impossible that an effect can follow.
IV. The knowledge of an effect depends on and involves the knowledge of a cause.
V. Things which have nothing in common cannot be understood, the one by means of the other; the conception of one does not involve the conception of the other.
VI. A true idea must correspond with its ideate or object.
VII. If a thing can be conceived as non-existing, its essence does not involve existence.
(by essence he means a predicate that a thing MUST logically have i.e. couldn't be otherwise)

From this follows the existence of God and a lot of other moral implications. I personaly have a lot of problems with reason and Kant does a good job of laying these out "antinomies of reason" which can be googled for or found later on in his magnum opus "The Critique of Pure Reason".

To directly contradict what GoD says, belief in God has every place in reason, the real question is how you can keep faith in reason and not believe in God!

Let me make it clear that I wasn't referring to "reason" in the philosophical sense but simply as *common sense*. Maybe this is a misuse of the term, apologies if so. Regardless, those rules may suggest some form of substantial 'God', but a conscious being who judges humans according to his rules and then gives them their deserved afterlife?... Maybe I should've specified as "the Christian deity".

Firstly the idea that all the ideals of modern society are Judaeo Christian seems wrong. Thou shalt not kill and thou shalt not steal are hardly unique. Honour they mother and farther is hardly unique either, nor are taboos around adultary and incest, and plenty more besides.

Unique? No, I never implied as such. My primary concern is about current Western society however, and it's only natural that I should refer to the Christian movement which oppressed the current values upon the West originally.

"if they go so much against our true nature why are they so readily accepted and for so long

Because it was an adequately clever idea executed well enough to manipulate the mentality of the herd.

From the military success they had as a nation state in antiquity to the modern day, they have had a lot of success. The Jewish culture has stood the test of time far better than societies such as Rome where the views you encourage were more heartily endorsed. Also there is perhaps the idea that the Jews are falling appart under their terrible philosophy, but on the contrary the percentage of Jews in prominant economic, scientific, academic and political circles is surely a sign of their success. The bulk of anti Jewish critisim is merely anti Semitic.

Of course Jews are successful within a society they essentially have control over. As for why it's standing "the test of time", the Ship of Fools link was a pretty good reference. The leaders do everything to emphasise the importance of petty issues of human rights, so the herd distractedly squabble amongst themselves and their power isn't threatened - nothing really changes. Nothing, except that the ship is steadily heading towards doom.

This is the strangest part of your arguement, for the "Will to Power" is an inherantly humanist doctrine. The basic idea of the human experiance being the most important factor in making descisions isn't something I would have thought you would have been so opposed to:
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Humanism)
Read this, I think it will change your mind about humanism and dispel some of the lies spread about it that you seem to have bought into. The idea being to trancend the shackles of society and acheive the latent potential of all humans to become almost Godlike ("Companions the creator seeks, not corpses, not herds and believers. Fellow creators the creator seeks--those who write new values on new tablets. Companions the creator seeks, and fellow harvesters; for everything about him is ripe for the harvest. ")

Again, I wasn't referring to Humanism in that sense, rather, the dictionary definition stating "concern with the interests, needs, and welfare of humans".


Rawr.

To refer to Spinoza, (and therefore for a doctrine about as founded in reason as it is possible to be!) two people working together are stronger than two people working alone. To become as stong as we can possibly be is not gauged by individual merits because noone is so mighty they can "go it alone". We will always need the help and suppourt of those around us. With some people the best way to help them is obviously to give them a good kick up their lazy ass, but at the end of the day everyone is capable of greatness, so it is in our own interests to foster as much of it as we can.

The italicised statement doesn't contradict me, on the contrary it supports my view that selflessness is illusory. Furthermore, I totally disagree with the bolded statement. What makes you think everyone is capable of greatness?
 
It doesn't matter how "rational" theistic arguments may seem. There's still so many specious presumptions involved in said arguments. These presumptions can be boiled down to 1. Because we are able to rationally apprehend an idea of a God, we are justified in claiming the reality of its existence despite the utter impossibility of empirical evidence demonstrating the truth of this conclusion and 2. That if we can conclude that a God exists, we are justified in saying that this God is necessarily the one purported in Christian doctrine and that we can understand the nature of this God which is wholly beyond the sphere of the only reality that we can actually experience: earthly reality.

Even appeals to seemingly convincing arguments such as the argument from design still leaves us with an unknown. We still have to tack on all these qualities to this designer which more than likely are merely in accordance with our own inclinations, and anyone should know what a fallacy it is to draw conclusions on that basis. An argument can be valid; it can progress logically from point A to point B but that doesn't mean that the argument is sound. How much soundness is there in all the presumption of Christian thinkers? Skepticism my friends, skepticism.

this just in: the tooth fairy is REAL!
 
Hi GoD, thanks for taking the time to reply, I see I still have some convincing to do... :p


Let me make it clear that I wasn't referring to "reason" in the philosophical sense but simply as *common sense*. Maybe this is a misuse of the term, apologies if so. Regardless, those rules may suggest some form of substantial 'God', but a conscious being who judges humans according to his rules and then gives them their deserved afterlife?... Maybe I should've specified as "the Christian deity".

From your use of the word "reason" I took you to mean the ability to think and reason rationally, as opposed to being swayed by emotions or some other form of persuasion that is irrational, if this isn't what you mean by *common sense* then I guess I misunderstood you but any other definition is pretty bland and meaningless. Under this formulation Spinoza is *common sense* too.
In any case, I would say accepting the existence of any God at all is a pretty big step..! The beauty of Spinoza's ethics is to show why it IS *common sense* to follow a set of ethics that are basically 'Chrisitan' ethics. It is true that his route to this isn't by invoking divine retribution but in my opinion his theory is stronger becasue of that, indeed to accept the implications of what he says means a fair few commitments, and perhaps with his pantheism he renders heaven obsolete... Anyway he has a lot of fans in the Jewish community, so he can't be all that incompatible with the Semitic view of God.


The italicised statement [so it is in our own interests] doesn't contradict me, on the contrary it supports my view that selflessness is illusory. Furthermore, I totally disagree with the bolded statement [everyone is capable of greatness]. What makes you think everyone is capable of greatness?

I added the own interests bit to show that it IS common sense to accept these principles, even on a self serving level it is pretty obvious to me that it makes sense to help people. I can't help thinking that you have missed the boat a little on this issue though, espeically with the statement:

" it's mentally impossible to do something that doesn't benefit you in some way. To do so would be to cease to be." :loco:

I dont quite know how to deal with this as I havent got a clue how you came to this conclusion!.. But the main problem as I see it with this is that even with two contradictory statements you have to accept that they are both benificial. In reality you are saying I can do anything and it would benifit me... That just seems ludicrous... Either way this makes the term "benificial" so all encompasing and watered down it becomes essentially meaningless as it can't be distinguished from anything. On a very basic level it also means seeing benifit in solely self destructive actions caused by depression or some other mental problem.

As for the second point, I see no biological reason short of a birth defect that incapacitates someone from achieving any of the commonly held ideals of greatness. Anthing else is environemental, and so can be changed. I agree that a crappy upbrining is commonplace, but the attitudes that keep a lot of people in a state of stagnation are learned, not given at birth, and in any case can be overcome.

Unique? No, I never implied as such. My primary concern is about current Western society however, and it's only natural that I should refer to the Christian movement which oppressed the current values upon the West originally.

You seem to be saying that our culture would not have had ideas such as private property, prohibitions against murder, sexual taboos, etc. without Christianity. I'm sorry that's just flase, these ideas are to be found in just about every society on Earth, what makes you think that pre-Christian society in the West was any different? Also why do you think there was any form of opression involved? Most cultures readily accepted Christianity in some form or another, and by the time the Catholic church was established it was a common religion.

There are many problems with Western society but to claim that compassion, alturism and faith in ones fellow man are some of them is madness.

Cythraul said:
It doesn't matter how "rational" theistic arguments may seem. There's still so many specious presumptions involved in said arguments. These presumptions can be boiled down to 1. Because we are able to rationally apprehend an idea of a God, we are justified in claiming the reality of its existence despite the utter impossibility of empirical evidence demonstrating the truth of this conclusion and 2. That if we can conclude that a God exists, we are justified in saying that this God is necessarily the one purported in Christian doctrine and that we can understand the nature of this God which is wholly beyond the sphere of the only reality that we can actually experience: earthly reality.

Even appeals to seemingly convincing arguments such as the argument from design still leaves us with an unknown. We still have to tack on all these qualities to this designer which more than likely are merely in accordance with our own inclinations, and anyone should know what a fallacy it is to draw conclusions on that basis. An argument can be valid; it can progress logically from point A to point B but that doesn't mean that the argument is sound. How much soundness is there in all the presumption of Christian thinkers? Skepticism my friends, skepticism.

this just in: the tooth fairy is REAL!

:D I'm afriad you're way off. Spinoza shows how the assumptions needed to derive the existence of God are essentially common sense axioms, so no crazy presumptions. Also it is nothing like the arguement from design or any of the "classic" arguements. It doesn't leave anything open to the reader's judgement but rather argues in a way that is rationally compelling. An example would be a mathamatical problem, if you accept the rules of mathamatics you HAVE to accept that 2+3=5, it isn't just sensible it is compelling. If you accept reason you must accept Spinoza :D

Regards, Korona
 
GoD, I'm curious, do you ultimately belive in perhaps an ultimate life force, such as Karma, an order to the universe perhaps?

P.S. Sorry if you said it in one of the arguments, just to lazy to read them all,
 
Korona said:
the real question is how you can keep faith in reason and not believe in God!

This seems utterly ludicrous to me. Please explain.
 
Korona said:
:D I'm afriad you're way off. Spinoza shows how the assumptions needed to derive the existence of God are essentially common sense axioms, so no crazy presumptions. Also it is nothing like the arguement from design or any of the "classic" arguements. It doesn't leave anything open to the reader's judgement but rather argues in a way that is rationally compelling. An example would be a mathamatical problem, if you accept the rules of mathamatics you HAVE to accept that 2+3=5, it isn't just sensible it is compelling. If you accept reason you must accept Spinoza :D

Common sense is not the same thing as the rigorous application of formal reasoning. People used to think the sun revolved around the earth. Back then, that was common sense. Yeah I know, that's kind of a weak example but... Anyway, explain some more about this Spinoza character. All I know about him is that he was a sort of pantheist, which is much much different than the Christian conception of God. I still maintain that no matter how great an argument looks on paper, it just doesn't cut it when you're trying to use it to posit the existence of a being that is outside the limits of sense experience. In fact, I'd like you to tell me why you think such an undertaking is even necessary!
 
I don't think there's too much I can bring to this discussion...other than to say that faith itself requires an abandonment of critical analysis, a dangerous concept. Belief in god constitutes a denial of acceptance of personal responsibility--teleology is a way of manipulating and controlling people; painting them a future so they'll ignore the present.