Loading...
View unanswered posts | View active topics It is currently Mon May 20, 2019 9:16 pm



Reply to topic  [ 41 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3  Next
 Religion Revisited 
Author Message
Sheikah Elder
User avatar

Joined: Fri Apr 20, 2007 9:30 am
Posts: 1005
Location: In the middle of Knowhere
Gender: Female
Post Re: Religion Revisited • Posted: Tue Jun 30, 2009 7:58 pm
The trick to Epicurus is to treat his questions with Divine Intelligence instead of assuming that there's a right and wrong way to be God.

Epicurus wrote:
Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able?
-Then he is not omnipotent.

I believe that the God described in the bible is an intelligent creator. Thus, this question is similar to that of "Can God create a rock so big that even he himself cannot lift it?" Obviously, it's a paradoxical statement that would like to deny the existence of a God in the first place. It's not a question of preventing evil from happening all the time, but rather that life comes with lessons, and we should learn to take the high road, and a path of righteousness even if the right choice to others is a path of destructiveness. Life would be less than intelligent if there was only one choice to make, and it would be the good choice, no bad choices, or vice-versa.

Epicurus wrote:
Is he able, but not willing?
-Then he is malevolent.

I see this as calling God lazy. Shame on you.
Malevolence:
1. Having or exhibiting ill will; wishing harm to others; malicious.
2. Having an evil or harmful influence: malevolent stars.
Obviously, the God in the bible is described as a caring God. If you're telling me that he's willing to stand by and watch us destroy ourselves on a daily basis, then you are calling him lazy.

Epic Fail wrote:
Is he both able and willing?
-Then whence cometh evil?

The question seems as though God, again, in unintelligent and can only make the good choices happen. I believe what he lacks to remember in this question is a little influence from cause and effect. If you remove evil from the equation, then why would we need a God? Everything would be right! Without evil, there is nothing.

Epicurus wrote:
Is he neither?
-Why call him God?

Ignorance is bliss.

_________________
Image
Image
[12:08:29 PM] AkaAnonymous: I buy expensive things and talk to pretty girls all day. When I'm not doing that, I usually act like I'm 10. Because 10 is awesome.


Profile
Online
Administrator
User avatar

Joined: Tue Oct 24, 2006 3:40 pm
Posts: 2342
Location: Earth
Gender: Male
Post Re: Religion Revisited • Posted: Tue Jun 30, 2009 9:15 pm
AkaAnonymous wrote:
I believe that the God described in the bible is an intelligent creator. Thus, this question is similar to that of "Can God create a rock so big that even he himself cannot lift it?" Obviously, it's a paradoxical statement that would like to deny the existence of a God in the first place. It's not a question of preventing evil from happening all the time, but rather that life comes with lessons, and we should learn to take the high road, and a path of righteousness even if the right choice to others is a path of destructiveness. Life would be less than intelligent if there was only one choice to make, and it would be the good choice, no bad choices, or vice-versa.

I believe I already discussed this. Please, bear with me as I repost what you didn't read:
If a god allows the choice for evil, he is indirectly allowing evil itself. What makes you think we have free will in the first place? If a god were benevolent, he would drive the evil from the world, and, as good cannot exist without evil, would leave us with only choices that are purely neutral. There is evidence that states that we did not all come from one man and his rib-wife just seven thousand years ago, such as genetics, and nobody has been able to find this so-called "Garden of Eden," from whence all evil is supposedly absent. If evil can be absent from the Garden of Eden, it can be absent from Earth.

AkaAnonymous wrote:
I see this as calling God lazy. Shame on you.
Malevolence:
1. Having or exhibiting ill will; wishing harm to others; malicious.
2. Having an evil or harmful influence: malevolent stars.
Obviously, the God in the bible is described as a caring God. If you're telling me that he's willing to stand by and watch us destroy ourselves on a daily basis, then you are calling him lazy.

Shame on me? For what, expressing a clear, objective viewpoint as to why a god may not exist? And while your wonderful definition of malevolence is appreciated, it should be known that your crass effrontery of my intelligence is not. Yes, the Bible's god is described as caring, but that in no way makes it fact. No, it actually is rather contradictory with how the world is carrying on. What makes you think that any god may exist is benevolent? We could all be unwanted, forgotten, or a crude Science experiment. Assuming that a god is benevolent is rather naïve.

AkaAnonymous wrote:
The question seems as though God, again, in unintelligent and can only make the good choices happen. I believe what he lacks to remember in this question is a little influence from cause and effect. If you remove evil from the equation, then why would we need a God? Everything would be right! Without evil, there is nothing.

Without evil there is neutrality; things would not cease to exist with the absence of good or evil. The rest of your paragraph is indecipherable to me.

AkaAnonymous wrote:
Ignorance is bliss.

And what the hell does this have to do with anything? If a god is neither willing nor able to prevent evil, there is no reason to call him a god, for there is nothing he can do that would merit that. A god without power or benevolence is just another person, and if that is true, I might as well get on a pedestal today and claim to be godly, because surely there would be no greater power to object.

_________________
Image
Twenty years from now you will be more disappointed by the things that you didn't do than by the ones you did do.
So throw off the bowlines. Sail away from the safe harbor. Catch the trade winds in your sails. Explore. Dream. Discover.

~Samuel Clemens


Profile
Goron Warrior
User avatar

Joined: Wed Jun 11, 2008 2:41 pm
Posts: 642
Gender: None specified
Post Re: Religion Revisited • Posted: Fri Jul 03, 2009 9:48 pm
Quote:
If a god allows the choice for evil, he is indirectly allowing evil itself. What makes you think we have free will in the first place? If a god were benevolent, he would drive the evil from the world, and, as good cannot exist without evil, would leave us with only choices that are purely neutral. There is evidence that states that we did not all come from one man and his rib-wife just seven thousand years ago, such as genetics, and nobody has been able to find this so-called "Garden of Eden," from whence all evil is supposedly absent. If evil can be absent from the Garden of Eden, it can be absent from Earth.


DL, have you ever seen the movie "the day the earth stood still"? The original that is. Because this is a perfect example of how absolute and utter deprivation of free will is, in no way, loving.

_________________
Image


Profile
Online
Administrator
User avatar

Joined: Tue Oct 24, 2006 3:40 pm
Posts: 2342
Location: Earth
Gender: Male
Post Re: Religion Revisited • Posted: Fri Jul 03, 2009 10:21 pm
Last Hylian wrote:
DL, have you ever seen the movie "the day the earth stood still"? The original that is. Because this is a perfect example of how absolute and utter deprivation of free will is, in no way, loving.

You haven't been listening; that is a very distinct possibility, why do you refuse to consider it? It is infinitely possible that any god which may exist to care about us, may not actually care at all.

_________________
Image
Twenty years from now you will be more disappointed by the things that you didn't do than by the ones you did do.
So throw off the bowlines. Sail away from the safe harbor. Catch the trade winds in your sails. Explore. Dream. Discover.

~Samuel Clemens


Profile
Goron Warrior
User avatar

Joined: Sun Aug 12, 2007 12:17 am
Posts: 634
Location: Australian Canada, eh?
Gender: None specified
Post Re: Religion Revisited • Posted: Fri Jul 03, 2009 11:07 pm
I think I see what DL has kept trying to say: that the perfect world is one without good or evil; a neutral world. Perhaps that's what you guys should be focusing on, hmm? :P

_________________
Image

Image

Image


Profile
Online
Administrator
User avatar

Joined: Tue Oct 24, 2006 3:40 pm
Posts: 2342
Location: Earth
Gender: Male
Post Re: Religion Revisited • Posted: Fri Jul 03, 2009 11:42 pm
An interesting conversation between Yazstromo and I: (I'm Seamus, for those who don't know)
Quote:
Yazstromo says:
I have to agree with them, though.
If there is a god, I think it's a far greater act to allow us to make mistakes than to remove all possibility of evil.
Seamus says:
I'd have to disagree.
Yazstromo says:
Why?
You said it yourself.
Without evil, there is no good.
Only neutrality.
Seamus says:
Exactly.
Yazstromo says:
What sort of world is that?
A sucky world.
Seamus says:
I disagree, again.
Yazstromo says:
Why?
Seamus says:
We learn to love and accept the hand we are dealt, regardless of what others may think of it.
Yazstromo says:
See, the problem is you haven't explained why you think neutrality is better than the balance of good and evil.
And what do you mean "accept the hand we're dealt"?
If there is no evil, there's no such thing as a bad hand.
There's just a hand.
There's no point to existing.
Seamus says:
I disagree.
Yazstromo says:
So you'd rather live in a completely sterile, emotionless world?
Seamus says:
I don't think that we can even begin to comprehend what total neutrality would be like.
Because it simply cannot exist.
I think it would be just fine.
If we knew nothing of this world, that is.
Perhaps there is a better, unimaginable system.
Yazstromo says:
Stop talking about "what ifs".
Seamus says:
Perhaps there are several.
Why?
Yazstromo says:
The point is whether or not it is a better act to allow evil to exist.
And so far you haven't argued why a world without good and evil is better.
Only that it could be.
Seamus says:
Alright, let me take a different slant on this.
Yazstromo says:
Good.

Seamus says:
Heaven is supposed to be purely good. How is this possible? It isn't according to what we have already established.
Same goes for hell.
Yazstromo says:
No.
Seamus says:
No?
Yazstromo says:
We have an ideal of good.
And an ideal of evil.
Seamus says:
Hmm.
Yazstromo says:
All that we consider to be evil exists in "Hell".
And all that is good in "Heaven".
Seamus says:
Touche
Yazstromo says:
See, good and evil is the very essence of choice.
At its most extreme.
Seamus says:
Sure, but that does not prove that choice itself exists, merely that it is possible.
possible that it exists*
Yazstromo says:
Good and evil are concepts invented by man.
Seamus says:
Of course they are. Why?
Yazstromo says:
I see them as...opposing decisions.
Seamus says:
Perhaps neutrality already exists, and we have merely divided them into categories of "things most people like" and "things most people dislike."
Yazstromo says:

leaf juice or bean water?
Seamus says:
We could divide it several different ways.
Yazstromo says:
Actually, I prefer milk.
Seamus says:
I'll take leaf juice, thanks.
Yazstromo says:
One lump or two?
Seamus says:
One, preferebly.
Those are neutral choices. I see no good or evil choice.
Yazstromo says:
The choice is in your preference.
That's why I think good or evil is a load of rubbish.
It's about what we prefer.
Seamus says:
Exactly.
Yazstromo says:
Most people prefer to get cake, rather than to be murdered.
Seamus says:
Most, perhaps.
Yazstromo says:
Indeed.
Seamus says:
There is almost always a minority to consider.
Yazstromo says:
How does the saying go?
Sanity is defined by the majority.
See, look at war.
Both sides see themselves as doing good.
And the other evil.
Seeing how the other side is trying to kill them.
And frankly, we'd prefer not to be killed, or invaded, or what-have-you.
Seamus says:
This is true.
Yazstromo says:
So we are doing good by going out there and killing them, before they kill us.
This is a very generalised example.
But you get the drift?
Seamus says:
Of course, but it makes the point rather vividly.
And the fact is, if you take the illusion of good and evil that we have created, neither side is in the right or wrong.
Yazstromo says:
Exactly.
Alright, say you see a child thrashing in a river, about to drown, and you save that child.
Did you do good?
Seamus says:
Of course not.
Yazstromo says:
Why not?
Seamus says:
Because, you had a choice, and you felt that if you were in the child's position, you would not want to drown.
Yazstromo says:
Exactly.
And frankly, society as a whole considers it a "good" thing to not let someone else die if you have the ability to save them.
Correct?
Seamus says:
Correct.
Yazstromo says:
Now, suppose that same child grows up to be the next Hitler.
Now, wouldn't most of society say you committed an act of "evil" in letting Hitler v2 to grow up and commit these unspeakable acts?
When you had the ability to let him die.
Seamus says:
Of course they would, because hindsight is 20-20.
Yazstromo says:

So then, why did the rules change?
When did letting a child die become an act of "good"?
Seamus says:
When we saw that the child would become somebody who would deprive others of their preferences.
Yazstromo says:
Ah!
Preferences!
There is that key word.
Seamus says:
Indeed.
Yazstromo says:
Congratulations.
You have just discovered that good and evil is simply an extension of preference utilitarianism.
Seamus says:
You do realize that when you layed out the initial concept, it made me realize this, right?
Yazstromo says:

I know.
Seamus says:
(laid?)
Yazstromo says:
I just wanted you to say the word "preference".

_________________
Image
Twenty years from now you will be more disappointed by the things that you didn't do than by the ones you did do.
So throw off the bowlines. Sail away from the safe harbor. Catch the trade winds in your sails. Explore. Dream. Discover.

~Samuel Clemens


Profile
Goron Warrior
User avatar

Joined: Wed Jun 11, 2008 2:41 pm
Posts: 642
Gender: None specified
Post Re: Religion Revisited • Posted: Sat Jul 04, 2009 12:03 pm
But, you're speaking of a world of good and evil as if it's not clearly defined, when the group your speaking with sees good and evil in a definitive manner. If your trying to make an impact on the opposite side of the conversation, such an assumption is rather illogical.

_________________
Image


Profile
Goron Warrior
User avatar

Joined: Sun Aug 12, 2007 12:17 am
Posts: 634
Location: Australian Canada, eh?
Gender: None specified
Post Re: Religion Revisited • Posted: Sat Jul 04, 2009 8:46 pm
Well, LH, please: define for me what good and evil are.

_________________
Image

Image

Image


Profile
Goron Warrior
User avatar

Joined: Wed Jun 11, 2008 2:41 pm
Posts: 642
Gender: None specified
Post Re: Religion Revisited • Posted: Sun Jul 05, 2009 1:21 pm
Whatever pleases and displeases God. That's the view of a Christian, at least. So, if you're trying to tell me what a world with a loving God would be, this would seem to be a understandable standard to use.

By the way, whatever is written in response to this will probably not receive a response for a while, as I'm leaving for the week in about an hour.

_________________
Image


Profile
Zora Guard
User avatar

Joined: Fri May 01, 2009 8:50 am
Posts: 122
Location: Right here of course. Where else?
Gender: None specified
Post Re: Religion Revisited • Posted: Wed Jul 15, 2009 3:51 am
Wow LH, hah hah, I think that's check and mate right there. Despite all the evidence posed against you, despite all of the flaws pointed out in everyone's arguments, boom. Hah hah, as long as you play the God card, we're stuck. Tis like saying that you believe, under your definition, that a teapot is an elephant. We can't say anything of it, simply because that's just your definition. Blast. But, while we're sharing opinions, I might jump on the back of this band wagon again. It hurt falling off the last time. Bump on my head.

So, good and evil? Bah. Who needs 'em. In a good ole fashioned God fearing universe there is no good and evil, only God's will and those who oppose it. This is a great stand point to stand on... point... because like I said it is virtually an unbeatable Drumpf card. However, I'd like to consider a world where God is not in fact a reality and is simply a fictional character devised by some poor deluded soul. In this world, it could still very well be that God chooses the 'goods and evils', although those two opposites would still have to be defined and agreed upon by man. In this world there would in fact be logic and reason behind the meanings of good and evil, otherwise people simply wouldn't agree on them. What I mean by this is that in a world where God exists and his will defines good and evil, things would simply be intuitive. Hah hah, our factory settings would be pre-programmed by God if you will. In the world I propose however, our concepts of good and evil would be defined by something else. What defines them have been theorized over by many people. Some take the utilitarian view and say it is what causes the overall greatest amount of good. So Yaz, that'd mean that suddenly the values involved in saving a drowning child could remain constant and still be considered in very different ways. Hah hah, but that's just one view. Another is, yes, the God theory, that there is a big book of "do"s and "don't"s made by the same thing that made us, the big Guy. This seems to make a lot (and I mean a LOT) of people very comfortable in their actions.

"Why'd you save that man?"
"God wants me to, so it's okay."

"Why'd you fight in that war?"
"God's will states that I should have, so no worries."

"Why are you aiming that gun at me?"
"My God compels me, so stand still if you please."

Personally, I'm the stubborn type and don't like to be given a great big instruction manual for life, so I try to avoid that definition if I can. One more that I can remember off hand is that really political one that's really vague. It says something about everything being right so long as it doesn't stop anyone doing something they want to do. This definition intuitively includes excluding killing, so some people flock to it. Eh.

Oh right! Free will! Don't get me started on free will. :P

But yes, this is a really great discussion guys! I'm so pleased to see so many people so interested in this subject. Don't feel sheepish about saying something because you're afraid of hurting someone's feelings, as a lot of this stuff can be touchy business. Just try to say it in the most civil possible way and without any ill intent and I'm sure no one will mind.:)

_________________
Image
ImageImage


Profile
Goron Warrior
User avatar

Joined: Wed Jun 11, 2008 2:41 pm
Posts: 642
Gender: None specified
Post Re: Religion Revisited • Posted: Wed Jul 15, 2009 12:09 pm
Quote:
Wow LH, hah hah, I think that's check and mate right there. Despite all the evidence posed against you


Hold it right there. What evidence? You mean DL's utterly ridiculous post on Dracula. Well, when he has a billion followers on that little cult, we'll talk. Until then, it seems to be an extremely exaggerated and under thought out point. So, what evidence are you referring to?

_________________
Image


Profile
Sheikah Elder
User avatar

Joined: Thu May 03, 2007 8:33 pm
Posts: 1456
Gender: Male
Post Re: Religion Revisited • Posted: Wed Jul 15, 2009 3:40 pm
Last Hylian wrote:
Quote:
Wow LH, hah hah, I think that's check and mate right there. Despite all the evidence posed against you


Hold it right there. What evidence? You mean DL's utterly ridiculous post on Dracula. Well, when he has a billion followers on that little cult, we'll talk. Until then, it seems to be an extremely exaggerated and under thought out point. So, what evidence are you referring to?


Is it just me, or are you completely ignoring all the points these people are making? You choose to quote little bits and pieces of some of these posts and blatantly ignore the rest. Perhaps it's an honest mistake, or perhaps you just don't have the answer nor evidence to back up your own ideas. I'm going to (Respectfully of course) assume it's the latter.

I for one choose not to believe the bibles teachings. The bible was written by man, not god. The bible is pretty much a book of Christian mythology, just as a book of Greek mythology is obviously not true, it's apparent the Bible is just the same, the only difference is that Christianities mythology has spurred thousands if not millions of atrocities world wide. The inquisition? The Crusades? This is just my personal opinion, but isn't it ignorant to believe something that isn't based off of logic or proof?

_________________
Deku Lord wrote:
I only do stupid *Navi* out of necessity, and necessity only


Profile
Zora Guard
User avatar

Joined: Fri May 01, 2009 8:50 am
Posts: 122
Location: Right here of course. Where else?
Gender: None specified
Post Re: Religion Revisited • Posted: Wed Jul 15, 2009 10:31 pm
@LH :

Hah hah, my word... LH, that seemed a lil' bit aggressive... ^^; Mate, I was just referring to the countless posts seemingly against your points including this Dracula one I must have missed (sorry to the poster of that, I'll try to find it ^^;) and the carbon dating as well. But yes, lad, I'm terribly glad that you are so enthused about this topic. It is, after all, one of my favourites. :) However, yeah, it seems a lil' bit mean and even ignorant to simply call someone's post or opinion ridiculous. I mean, the literal meaning of the word is worthy of ridicule and that hardly seems fair especially in an enlightened philosophical conversation. I can understand getting caught up in heat of the argument though, so I'm not too worried... just... yeah.:)

Hah hah, also, I'm not sure if you understood my statement... I was actually giving you a compliment... I just wasn't sure if that was properly conveyed. ^^;

_________________
Image
ImageImage


Profile
Administrator
User avatar

Joined: Tue Mar 06, 2007 2:19 pm
Posts: 4427
Location: Kanada
Gender: Male
Post Re: Religion Revisited • Posted: Tue Jan 19, 2010 12:48 pm
GREAT BUMP OF JUSTICE. My original post was from October, I thought this deserved more attention. As such, it is now stickied.

Hey everybody, it's everyone's favourite topic that for some reason has fallen under the radar.

I'm here to change this.

Not pertaining to any previous debates/arguments/etc., I thought I'd place my own personal views here and see if I have anyone contest them for authenticity. Which of course, would be useless seeing as there is no such thing as absolute truth when it comes to belief systems.

First of all, I respect the major monotheistic religions that we all know and love. Or at least know a little tiny bit about. If I were to have to make any claim to any of them, I would prefer to follow Judaism (and to be part of olden time Pharisees). But, I don't follow any of the three, nor do I plan on doing so. I understand the trouble each group has been through to maintain their systems of belief in the modern world, their actions however in some instances are not justified (and yes, we'll use good old Crusades for Christians, the genocide in Canaan by the Jews, and then the Holy War in India by the Muslims to establish a rule in its Northern states) by MODERN STANDARDS. Which people seem to forget. Back in the day when ignorance led to establishing God to blame for greed and power, these things happened, but should not be ignored. Corruption by any other name or force is still corruption.

But hey, everything can be interpreted in every way, can't it?

I'll say out right. In my own personal opinion, I think what I believe in has the most truth to it. I am an Atheist, go figure. But in that same sense I border on 'practical atheism', or otherwise known as Apatheism or Apathetic Agnosticism. I do not believe in any god or gods. And in the end, it doesn't matter to me any way. I will contest their existence if need be, ask Blue55 or Tetromino or Dragon_Master804 all about that. But I must make special mention that in the run of the world about theology, I simply don't give a *Navi*.

With Apathetic Agnosticism, I see no 'proof' or 'disproof' (by this I mean empirical or logical) or motivation to follow a religions sect or cult (jump down my throats if you will, but in literal terms minus MODERN INFLUENCE (see what I do there :p), cult is a perfectly applicable name to any religion). Despite the ideals of Free Will, this also means I have seen no reason to believe that any Intelligent Designer has concern for the fate of humanity or influence in its affairs from past historical events.


Either way, perhaps if any of the more widespread religions today are correct, then I guess that probability decided to kick me in the *Navi*. Thousands of religions have existed before, and so there shall be more after. Each thought they were right. Go figure.

I think I would have preferred the time when only the Sun was worshipped. That'd be cool. :p

_________________
Image Image Image
It is far better to grasp the universe as it really is than to persist in delusion, however satisfying and reassuring.

-Carl Sagan


Profile WWW
Online
Administrator
User avatar

Joined: Tue Oct 24, 2006 3:40 pm
Posts: 2342
Location: Earth
Gender: Male
Post Re: Religion Revisited • Posted: Tue Jan 19, 2010 3:31 pm
I'd like to express my thoughts from the last few weeks pertaining to the topic of free will as it relates to the Christian diety. Consider: If God has a plan for everybody, then it should be considered useless to pray for a change, because the creator will quite likely not change his master plan based on your requests. Now, with that in mind, there will always be those that do not believe, and so we find that in God's master plan there are those destined to go to Hell and those destined for Heaven (unless it's some twisted game at death, if any of you have seen the one-scene play Tracks). Thus, we find that, if the Bible is taken into strict accordance, Calvinism is the only rational way to interpret Christianity, given that God has a plan for you to go wherever he sees fit.

For those who don't know, Calvinism is a Christian derived religion that has lost popularity (likely due to the hopelessness it instilled) that states that there are a select few destined to be saved from birth, and that the rest are damned. It also states that we must try to live virtuously just in case we are one of the selected.

_________________
Image
Twenty years from now you will be more disappointed by the things that you didn't do than by the ones you did do.
So throw off the bowlines. Sail away from the safe harbor. Catch the trade winds in your sails. Explore. Dream. Discover.

~Samuel Clemens


Profile
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Reply to topic   [ 41 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3  Next

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group.
Designed by STSoftware for PTF.