Wouldn't it be nice is there really was a God?

[Bodhi]

1. Why put yourself in a position where you are not in control of anything? In control of what?

2. So theism is sort of a crowd control, so that no one steps "out of place"? It has nothing to do with enlightenment?

 

[alissowack]

There is this sense that if someone is in control of something, that it is always good or that it is always right. It isn't. There are people whose control over something had been destructive to themselves as well as others. Theism is not meant to be "crowd control", it is just to say that there is a standard that is above all standards and that it will never change regardless of what someone tries to do to rebel against it.

 

[Bodhi]

We're better off in control of ourselves than expecting a made up god to take care of us.

If theism is that standard you describe then it fails.

 

[alissowack]

I didn't say that theism is a standard. I didn't say that theism "works". It suggests that there is a standard above all standards. I can be guilty of it sometimes as well, but you are reading what you are wanting my posts to say instead of "what it says" or..."what is".

 

[Bodhi]

If the standard is god (or god's rules), then the same applies. God and theism both fail by your description of this standard. If this standard you're talking about is not god or theism, and you're going to deviate from the original topic, then you should have explained what the standard is, otherwise that's what I'm going to interpret it as because that's what we're talking about. Your entire argument is suggesting that theism works or else we wouldn't be having this conversation. If you're going to admit that theism doesn't work then that's fine by me.

 

[alissowack]

If the standard is god (or god's rules), then the same applies. God and theism both fail by your description of this standard. If this standard you're talking about is not god or theism, and you're going to deviate from the original topic, then you should have explained what the standard is, otherwise that's what I'm going to interpret it as because that's what we're talking about. Your entire argument is suggesting that theism works or else we wouldn't be having this conversation. If you're going to admit that theism doesn't work then that's fine by me.

Just because I suggest that God is the standard, doesn't mean people helplessly have to choose it. I haven't suggested that people do follow it nor have I made it a point through any experiences that it does work. You want me to say whether or not it works and I'm not going to...because theism isn't about what works...it's what is (and only if it God exists).

 

[Bodhi]

if God exists.

So you're assuming god exists based on 0 amount of evidence. And you said yourself that we can't rest on assumptions of who god is or what god does so really it's not even productive, in your opinion, to speak about god even if at all he does exist because if we talk about him at all, we're assuming what he does or who he is.

 

[alissowack]

if God exists.

So you're assuming god exists based on 0 amount of evidence. And you said yourself that we can't rest on assumptions of who god is or what god does so really it's not even productive, in your opinion, to speak about god even if at all he does exist because if we talk about him at all, we're assuming what he does or who he is.

...but, you are assuming that I am trying to give you "evidence". Just about every response I have made are met with this "prove it" viewpoint. It's never on this...can I place my trust in who God is (or what people say who God is). I would rather someone say that they don't trust the assumptions of God than to just say that God doesn't exist. It's like this...if God exists and it is found that this deity is nothing of what the religious texts say that are our there, then we are wrong in our assumptions. But, you can't seem to get to that point for you are wanting a "miracle" first.

I believe people use the "evidence" card as a front for their mistrust in something. I also believe people use the "evidence" card as a front for deception as well; that some people will take advantage of what the evidence has to show in order to support selfish intentions.

 

[Bodhi]

My attitude is based off your argument. Again, you said that we can't rest on assumptions of god. Okay, cool. My point was that if you have no concrete evidence of his existence, you are assuming... so to say that we can't rest on assumptions and then admit that you have no proof of God or that God is not observable whatsoever; that didn't make any sense to me.

God allegedly does miracles. That's part of his job description. To ask for a miracle isn't asking for much since first of all, he's had infinite years of experience in the field and since he's omnipotent, it takes 0 amount of effort to actually perform a miracle anyway. Yet, we see none.

What reason do we have to trust in anything that we have no evidence for benefiting or harming us, being neutral or even existing at all? You said God is not observable. God does not effect us to any degree as far as we know. Why trust that a god exists? There's no reason for it.

 

[alissowack]

And there you go with the "evidence" thing again. You made the assumption that God is about performing miracles. Where did that come from? You sure didn't make it up. It is based on what you may have read or what someone said from some religious text. Is it right to assume that God is only about performing miracles? For it is the case, then people have reason to question this assumption for nowadays "miracles" don't happen. But, I believe it is not the case.

 

[Rock_Well]

One does not simply rule out God existence.

The scriptures tell us God is a SPIRIT. The Greek word for spirit is pneuma which one of the literal meaning for is wind. One does not simply rule out the wind existence. We don't physically see the wind; we see evidence of the wind existence by those things which it moves to effect ie the trees, the waters of the oceans, the clouds etc.

 

[BlackxChild]

Solid ur fuckin retarded the wind can be seen frozen and tested god cant be....

 

[BlackxChild]

Allissowack your so fuckin lame... Why should I believe in something when there's no proof... Should I be as ignorant as you and just say I have faith/hope just because someone else says so? Do you know how to think for yourself. Im not saying there's no god but there probably isnt.

 

[Rock_Well]

A glimpse of God character can be seen through the very things which He made, just as the scriptures say. God has also communicated with us through His word. His word gives the truth. We can also see this; through honest examination of the scriptures.

 

[Rock_Well]

Ane how many cats even get opportunity to actually see and test frozen wind first hand, and/or even need to so before believing it exist anyway? We can already see the effects it has on the environment for Christ sake. -_-

 

[Bodhi]

LMAO... observing the wind and observing a god's existence is not even comparable. Anybody can obviously see the effects of wind and anybody can walk outside and actually feel the wind pushing against them. Anybody who is not deaf can hear the wind.

 

[Bodhi]

A glimpse of God character can be seen through the very things which He made.

Including evil? Which goes against his character?

Solidanalysis, you should go back in that thread you created about god being the only reason for human existance and try to finish what you started. You still didn't answer my questions in there.

 

[alissowack]

Allissowack your so fuckin lame... Why should I believe in something when there's no proof... Should I be as ignorant as you and just say I have faith/hope just because someone else says so? Do you know how to think for yourself. Im not saying there's no god but there probably isnt.

Peep my signature, Black. To get back on track, would it be fair to say that you are not thinking for yourself as well? You didn't come up with these ideas and perspectives on life just off the top of your head. It took people, places and things before you to aid in your understanding on life and it still does. You can take responsibility and try to do what it right by it, but you can't take credit for it.

 

[Bodhi]

^^^ Thinking for yourself means that you test things out before you blindly believe something. If you follow something without evidence or concrete proof of whatever you're following actually being true, then you don't really know; you're just assuming with blind faith and you're not thinking for yourself.

 

[Bodhi]

Allissowack your so fuckin lame... Why should I believe in something when there's no proof... Should I be as ignorant as you and just say I have faith/hope just because someone else says so? Do you know how to think for yourself. Im not saying there's no god but there probably isnt.

Peep my signature, Black.

@ BlackxChild ... In other words, he's a troll