"You can't prove God doesn't exist!"

[Fenrir502]

Yes...
But if you read further into Genesis, you will find that Adam and Eve had two sons... and it is rather hard to create a human race from two sons, hence the metaphor. I know what Genesis said about crop growth, I was simply putting it into historical context: Linking it to an event that could have happened and would explain much. Noah's Ark, for example, could have meant a flood after the thawing of ice after the Ice Age, and the race to high ground that ensued.

And from what you said afterwards, you seem to believe that only Christians may go to heaven? What happens to the people who are raised to believe differently.

@Killshot: It seems that we are bouncing between extremes, what with your complete lack of faith, and Krendall's too literal interperetations.

[darkarcher]

Not quite. Adam and Eve originally had two sons, yes, but they went on to have many more children following the story of Cain and Able.

[Krendall]

This is the saddest thing I have heard all day. I truly feel sorry for you.

*shrug* The one thing my dad has always taught me is that a bad deed needs a consequence. Asually on top of the consequence of dealing with the bad deed I did.

What purpose does hell serve? Why is hell necessary in God's eyes? Why create a hell at all?

Hell was originally created as the place to send the fallen angels after the battle in Heaven.

The only conceivable reason for hell to exist is that God doesn't care if we suffer.

The thing is, no one knows what exactly Hell is or what it's like. Everyone assumes it's some place filled with fire where demons torture us endlessly. It's possible, but I don't think so. I think Hell is simply a place where we are completely removed from God's presence, and we know it. I think all the talk about anguish, burning, and torture is a metaphor for what that would feel like.

Every time I hear someone say we make the decision to go to hell ourselves, I picture God as a little kid making a hit list of all the people who don't want to join his club.

More like He makes a list of those who have joined His "club," but that statement is not all THAT far off.

If God cared at all whether we went to hell or not, he wouldn't make his existence a secret.

Except He wants us to truly love and accept Him through faith. If He revealed Himself, poeple would believe just to avoid punishment, not out of genuine acceptance or belief.

The Flying Spaghetti Monster has as much evidence backing him up as God. Do you think it would be fair to be sent to hell for not believing in divine pasta?

If it made the universe and everything, I'd say that'd be up to it to decide.

God ALWAYS helps his children? If God's idea of help is sending me to hell, then I can do without.

Well, see, if we accept His help, we won't be sent to Hell. People who constantly reject/don't accept/don't believe in His help are the ones who are damned.

If I came up to you and put a gun to your head, then told you I would shoot if you didn't obey me, do you really have a choice?

Of course I do, though the consequences are pretty blatent if I choose not to obey at that point. However, that analogy is wrong. We have no proof that God or Hell even exist. A better example would be if you threatened that you have a gun without showing it to me. Then you told me that if I disobeyed you would shoot me at some point, though I would never know when. Though this whole concept is flawed since simply disobeying God doesn't send a person to Hell.

Like I said, no one chooses to go to hell. I don't believe in hell so what makes you think I am choosing to go there?

No, no one chooses to specifically go to Hell. However, by not believing in God, you are rejecting Him. Therefore, your soul cannot go to Heaven because your sins haven't been forgiven. The only place for your soul to go is Hell, which is, I believe, a place where God simply does not exist. In other words, God is granting your wish of not wanting anything to do with Him.

And from what you said afterwards, you seem to believe that only Christians may go to heaven? What happens to the people who are raised to believe differently.

Sadly, I believe that they all go to Hell. Of course, I believe anyone who accepts the grace of God and the forgiveness of sins to be a Christian of some sort.

It seems that we are bouncing between extremes, what with your complete lack of faith, and Krendall's too literal interperetations.

Sorry, but I believe most of the Bible to be taken literally, especially with the qualification to enter Heaven. While I do believe things like the six-day creation happened as it is described in the Bible, I'm not about to get into a heated debate with those who don't. Whether you want to take things like that literally or not is up to the individual, as far as I'm concerned. The greatest part about Christianity is that it's extremely flexible that way.

[Fenrir502]

Sorry, but I believe most of the Bible to be taken literally

Don't be sorry for your opinion, it just makes me feel horrible, as though I've insulted you.

[Krendall]

Well, the way you put it I thought you were annoyed for my thinking that way.

[Tatterdemalion]

Well, I certainly don't believe in the concept of a soul, at least not in the conventional manner. For me, the mind is the soul. It is what I am. When I die, the electrical currents and whatever else keeps my brain going will stop and I will cease to be. I definitely do not identify with my body. It's just a tool, really. Not that there's a really blatant distinction between the body and the mind, but...Well, the mind is certainly something more than the body. Almost a parasite, in a way. Anyway, I am starting to digress again.

I'd say that qualifies as a belief in a soul. What you're saying is that there is a part of you, or perhaps something that is you as a whole, not a part, that exists beyond your corporeal body and its components. That your body facilitates the existence of this thing, but that it is still something more than just the sum of the matter and energy in your body. That's a soul, a spirit, a part of you that is intangible. Call it the "mind" if you will, but they're just different words for the same thing.

Because of the above beliefs, I do think your body loses something after death, even if it is only the activity of the brain. So, in light of that, you, as an individual mind and person, do cease to exist.

Yes, but again, that thing that your body loses isn't exactly a thing is it? I mean, by any stretch of science, we cannot reasonably define brain activity to be an entity. So what you're saying is that we can cease to exist because a part of us that does not have any tangible/physical presence ceases to exist. So how can we really make any assertions about it at all?

From my experience, things cease to exist all the time. That's what life is, things coming in and out of existance constantly. That's what change is. For example, if a living person were to be beheaded, that living person would cease to exist and a newly made corpse would come into being.

Well yes, but that's more of a philosophical argument about when things start to become other things, and identity, and what things can be classified as things, and while this whole sort of ontology is indeed very interesting, it's a bit to the side of what I'm saying. Whether or not something's identity is distinct from the sum of its parts is one matter, but at the same time we need to recognize that any thing is just made of other, smaller things, and that while those parts may reorganize themselves, or change form, they don't cease to exist.

So for example, if a star explodes and sends matter and energy spewing out into the universe, we can argue that the star ceases to exist, but at the same time everything that it was made of still exists. Now, you make the analogy to a person being beheaded. If a person dies, you could say that technically they cease to exist, and a "corpse" will come into being, but at the same time the corpse hasn't been summoned into existence, its parts have always existed, just serving a different function, with different properties, and under a different name. And then, even if that corpse decomposes, and eventually becomes indistinguishable from dirt, everything that made up that corpse still exists in some way shape or form.

Now, this part is easy, because we know what the body is, what the body is made of, and what happens to the body after we die. The problem with applying this same principle to identity, or to the "mind" as you call it, is that if you address the mind as being distinct from the body, then there's absolutely no way of knowing what the mind is, how it exists, what it is made of, and what happens to it when the body ceases to be. Yes, we can understand how the phyiscal body and the mind relate to one another, but if the mind is, as you suggest, something that is facilitated by the body, yet is at the same time distinct, then we have absolutely no information to work with, and any discussion of death and life, and existence and nonexistence is reduced to abstract philosophy, leaving us with no real objective way of knowing what we're talking about.

Speaking from purely religious viewpoint, yes, it does matter, with Christianity and the related religions in particular. Their point of view is not a personal philosophy, but the way that everybody should be acting. In their religion, speaking generally, there is a set of laws handed down by a divine being who determined what right and wrong really meant and then told the world through the Bible. The gist of it is that anything that is not Godly is wrong. Anything not of God is of sin and that is all there is. The war in heaven between Satan and God is a prime example of this. After God won, he cast down not only Satan and his followers, but also everybody who did not fight for God. So, you are either good or you are bad. Except, according to the Bible, everybody is a sinner and imperfect in God's eyes from birth, age of accountability notwithstanding. So, it's not your own personal set of morals and identity. You adopt your diety's morals when you become a Christian and strive to be more like him. That's what a Christian is, a follower of Christ. Heck, that's one of the reasons I'm not too keen on the idea of a Christian Heaven. Since a Christian's greatest desire would obviously be to be closer to God and be more like him, what do you think eternal paradise is going to be? But I ramble again. Basically, it's not self identification. It is group identification based on a single set of morals in this case.

Yes, but they still identify themselves as belonging tothat group. I mean, I think that's the line between religion and the Church, that the Church is a religious organization, whereas the religion is a set of ideas and practices. So if you recognize these ideas and practices, or some variation of them, and you identify/recognize yourself as a person who follows these ideas and practices, then you recognize yourself as a follower of that religion. So you count as being a follower of that religion.

[Tatterdemalion]

That's not what I mean. What I do mean is this: If everyone from this world went to Heaven, we would have the same inherent problems and suffering as we would in this world, so it wouldn't be very heavenly, would it?

Yes, but that depends on the notion that this Heaven is exactly like this world. That is to say, a place where people live day to tay lives, interact with one another and engage in social activity. Which is a very, very closed-off way of looking at it and, as far as I see it, doesn't even make much sense. That is to say, the reason, the practical purpose, for most of the things that we do in day to day life, including social interaction, are at their heart ways of maintaining homeostasis and supporting life. If Heaven is a place where none of these needs exist, isn't it safe to say that none of these things would exist either? So considering that mostly everything we experience and encounter in life relates directly to maintaining life, wouldn't Heaven, even applying a very narrow interpretation, be barely recognizeable to us, considering that it doesn't involve anything we experience now?

And also, I don't see how all of the inherent problems of the world would exist in this Heaven place if people in Heaven don't need to worry about continuing to survive. I mean, what are the problems of the world? DIsease, death, rape, murder, famine...but none of these things would exist, would they?

I mean, let's say, just for argument's sake, that this Heaven place resembles the phyiscal world, in that people walk around, and interact, and all that stuff. Now, let's say that there's someone who, in life, killed 500 people, and raped a small village. Now, let's also say, that this person goes to this Heaven. Now, what would happen? He couldn't kill people, could he? He couldn't rape people, could he? (That is, if sex is a physical mechanism used to sustain life, you wouldn't have it in Heaven, would you?). So what's so bad?

I think the real question is why the things people do in life would effect their fate after death, when in a world beyond life and death all of the terrible things people can do would be completely irrelevant.

[Tatterdemalion]

...But God is omniscient, and presumably would have known this would happen. Sorry, but the idea of humans adapting over time simply doesn't work with the idea of them being created in an all-knowing god's perfect image.

I'm just going to bring this up, not that it's of major importance, but keep in mind that nowhere in the Bible does it say that God is omniscient. In reality, the Bible is incredibly vague as to the nature of God and the like (especially in the Scriptures).

I mean, think about it, the Bible begins "In the beginning, God created the Heaven and the Earth, etc." What other book do you know that starts like that? Unlike all the other characters in the Bible, there is almost no attempt made to introduce God, or explain God, or characterize God. With the exception of a handful of prophets, very little is said about God at all.

It's really pretty fascinating.

[agrajagthetesty]

All those who don't believe or accept God are damned.

This basically sums up my point. I can phrase this as a yes or no question: Do all non-believers go to hell? Most of the Christians I have talked to here have said no, it's more complex than that, and now here's Krendall telling me yes. The bottom line is, I don't trust a book that allows such a vast range of interpretation.

[Tatterdemalion]

All books allow for a vast range of interpretation. If they didn't, then there would be no English Literature courses, would there?

But seriously though, I've said this before, a religion is more than the text that is central to it, it also incorporates, to perhaps an even grater extent, the traditions, culture, rituals and ideas that have evolved along with the text (as well as the ideas from which the text itself evolved). So it's a given that over time as different groups and schools of thought develop in conjuncture with the religion there are going to be different interpretations. I don't think there are any ideas, philosophies, or anything else of that nature that are entirely static, and never change.

Why does it seem that in these sorts of discussions people seem to criticize religion for being too dictatorial, then at the same time criticize religious interpretation for being too liberal and varied? Isn't the obvious answer that religion as a whole is not as dictatorial as they assume it to be in the first place?

[agrajagthetesty]

But the difference is that not all books claim to be the literal Gospel truth.

A religion is more than the text that is central to it, it also incorporates, to perhaps an even grater extent, the traditions, culture, rituals and ideas that have evolved along with the text (as well as the ideas from which the text itself evolved).

Yes, obviously those other things are important too. But the text contains all the rules; it holds the religion together; it dictates the values and tells the stories of the religion; and most importantly, it's the easiest way for an outsider to learn about the religion. And I was being a little vague earlier. I didn't just mean that it's open to interpretation. I meant that it's self-contradictory, with some passages encouraging kindness and others condoning slavery, lynching and genocide. There's an enormous range of values which you can adopt after reading the Bible, some of which strike me as, well, evil. (But then of course there are the good things too.)

Why does it seem that in these sorts of discussions people seem to criticize religion for being too dictatorial, then at the same time criticize religious interpretation for being too liberal and varied? Isn't the obvious answer that religion as a whole is not as dictatorial as they assume it to be in the first place?

Religion is dictatorial because religious texts contain a ridiculous amount of rules concerning how people's lives should be led. As these rules supposedly come from God, one would think that religious believers would follow them to the letter. But they don't, and that seems hypocritical. Basically the answer is that religion tries to be dictatorial, but parts of it are inappropriate for modern life, leading to it being watered down and censored by its own followers, which outsiders view as a little odd considering it is supposed to be the words of the almighty God which these followers claim to worship so much.

But in my view it's better to be too liberal in your interpretation of it than too literal.

[Zairak]

Well, I see no good reason for me to wait to debate just because of a time warp. I move that, pending the wiped posts being restored, we discuss just why God, assuming of course that He does exist, would need us to go through all this if He knows whether or not we will be saved or not. Omniscience and all. To set the ball rolling, I'll play the Devil's Advacote (Or, as is the case here, the Christian's Advocate, I suppouse...)

Even though God may know everything that will ever happen to you and thus knows exactly what you will become, it matters not at all. To make an analogy:

Suppouse there was a Martial Arts master, the strongest man on the planet. One day, the master is walking down the street when he sees an 8 year old child. Now, this master can tell from experience (One way or another, it doesn't matter) that the child will grow up to be the greatest warrior ever known. Does this mean, then, that the master should immediately give up his title to the child? Of course not. The child is still, after all, a child. He may become the strongest, but he hasn't become so yet.

So it is with God and humans. The fact that God knows whether or not you will be saved or not is irrelavent. You still have to go through your life and experience the hardships, the happiness, all of it so that you will become what you were fated to be. So, in conclusion, it is perfectly logical for you to have to go through your life, whatever it may be like, until you are judged and sent to Heaven or Hell. You still have to become what you are fated to be, not continue on as you are now.

I hope my analogy made sense. I believe it is relevant, if not perfectly fitting to the situation.

[Tatterdemalion]

I move that, pending the wiped posts being restored, we discuss just why God, assuming of course that He does exist, would need us to go through all this if He knows whether or not we will be saved or not.

The inherent problem with this is that assuming that there is a God, or any sort of diety, means assuming certain qualities or characteristics of this diety, which, if we're going to have a common definition, means were probably going to have to base it on some sort of single religious doctrine.

Now, the problem is that we've already established that we here do not share a common belief in a deity, a common idea of what the nature of this deity, if any, may be, or a common religious doctrine, which is what makes the discussion interesting, because we all get to learn a bit about each other's beliefs.

Now, you are operating from a specific religious doctrine, and a specific concept of God. On the surface, I could say that we're assuming the existence of the "Abrahamic god," a belief not shared by a significant number of the people involved in the discussion. Going beyond that, you're specifically relying on the Christian concept of this deity, even more specifically the concept of this deity in Protestantism, or, perhaps most accurately, the Calvinist concept of unconditional election.

I think the obvious problem is that most of the people here are not Calvinists. So what you're asking is that people (including yourself) assume certain axioms they do not actually believe in, in order to argue about the intricacies of this idea, even though they do not subscribe to it. So what's the point? What do we have to learn from it? At best it's nothing but an exercise in rhetoric, at worst it's outright hypocrisy.

The two things that accomplish nothing in discussions regarding religion are assuming a particular belief for the sake of argument (because such an argument reflects made-up beliefs, not actual ones), and disputing a particular belief for the sake of argument (because since religion reflects individual and cultural values, myths, beliefs and spirituality there is no common ground on which to base an argument, as well as nothing to be accomplished from such an argument).

I've said it before and I'll say it again, you can't debate religion. We could still have a nice discussion, where we each talk about our ideas, and ask questions, and provide opinions, in an attempt to get a better understanding of one another, however this sort of thing would involve not taking up a particular position, then trying to defend it while simultaneously trying to dispute an opposing position taken up by another party. Which means that for some it would probably seem less fun on the surface.

Any takers?

[Tatterdemalion]

Oh, also one more thing

(Or, as is the case here, the Christian's Advocate, I suppouse...)

The word you're looking for is "Christian Apologist"

[Zairak]

My apologies, I was just wanting to get the thread moving as soon as possible.

As for the Christian's Advocate thing, that was a bad joke, I guess. I chose that particular phrase since I was going to try and argue from a Christian perspective instead of my own Athiest perspective. Guess I did a bad job of it, sorry.

I'm willing to discuss things, certainly. However, since I've already messed up the specific topic selection once, perhaps you would like to pick an aspect?

[Tatterdemalion]

As for the Christian's Advocate thing, that was a bad joke, I guess. I chose that particular phrase since I was going to try and argue from a Christian perspective instead of my own Athiest perspective. Guess I did a bad job of it, sorry.

It wasn't bad joke. It wasn't a great joke, but it wasn't a bad joke. Don't be sorry, you haven't done anything worth apologizing for.

[daibunni]

XD
I believe it all! But can you be invisible, and pink at the same time? i dunno...I would be invisible and orange...much more pretty...
~dai bunni <img src='/images/emoticons/smiley2.png'> <img src='/images/emoticons/smiley2.png'> <img src='/images/emoticons/smiley2.png'> <img src='/images/emoticons/smiley2.png'> <img src='/images/emoticons/smiley2.png'> <img src='/images/emoticons/smiley2.png'> <img src='/images/emoticons/smiley2.png'>

[daibunni]

<i>Post censored by darkarcher.</i>

[Bakura136]

<i>Post censored by darkarcher.</i>

[Underling]

If I thought I could get away with it I would have locked this long ago...

[killshot]

<i>Post censored by darkarcher.</i>

[darkarcher]

If you people are going to bring the topic back to life, then please stay on topic about the whole thing.

[Arbaal]

<i>Post censored by darkarcher.</i>

[RationalInquirer]

Hello everyone! I am a new member of this website (being a big fan of the Abridged Series), and have just stumbled upon this interesting topic. I see that this discussion has attracted many arguments. Some informative, and others plain rude. I thought i'd pitch in my two cents <img src='/images/emoticons/smiley1.png'> .

I would appreciate each replier to post which position they are in this scale from 1 to 7. As well as specifying which God you happen to believe in if you want)

Here are some defintions for those who are confused in an way on the terminology! (and who want to see themself at)
THEISM- Belief in an interventionist God (created the universe according to the Bible/Quran or other ancient book and answering prayers, forgiving and punishing sins, sends you to Hell/Heaven/, performs miracles and disasters. ex. Christian God, Muslim God excetera...) (has chuches built for worship and money and time spent)
DEISM- Belief in a non-interventionist God (created the universe and presumably exploded what we call the Big Bang, retires/removes itself and never to be heard from again, and certainly not at all interested in human affairs, sins, afterlife) (no churches for worship and no money and time spent)
AGNOSTICISM- Belief that the existence of god is equiprobable and beyond human comprehension. (self explantory) (no churches or money and time spent)
PANTHEISM - Belief that God is synonymous with the Universe. In other words God is the Universe (a god that reveals itself as the physical constants, and laws of the universe ex. What Albert Einstein beleived in) ( no churches or time and money spent)
ATHEISM- Lack of belief in any type of God. (May lead to accepting Darwinian Evolution By Natural Selection and the Big Bang or other scientific theory.) (obviously no churches time and money spent)

#1- I don't believe in God. I KNOW there is a God! (FUNDAMENTALIST)
#2- I believe in god and live my life under the assumption that He/She/It is there. (NORMAL THEIST)
#3- I don't know for sure but I am inclined to believe in God. (NORMAL THEIST leaning to #2 or #4?)
#4- The existence of God is equalprobable and inherently unknownable. (ESEENTIALLY AGNOSTIC)
#5- I don't know for sure but I am inclined to be skeptical in God. (NORMAL ATHEIST leaning to #4 or #6?)
#6- I do not believe in a God and live my life under the assumption that He/She/It is not there. (NORMAL ATHEIST)
#7-I don't believe there is no God. I KNOW there is no God! (EQUALLY FUNDAMENTALIST)

I myself am on #5 (leaning towards #4) an agnostic atheist. Professor Dawkins himself is on #6 as well leaning slightly to #7, a de facto atheist. I also don't rule out the possibility of the existence of the Deist God. However, I reject all the Human theistic conceptualizations of God for obvious reasons; such as being mutally incompatible with Science, other Religions, with the exception of their own. Thanks for replying and reviving a controversial thread
<img src='/images/emoticons/smiley3.png'>

[killshot]

I seem to have the ability to stumble into these topics seconds after a new post is made. I feel special.

I guess I'll give this a go. I would be a #6 on this scale. I'm not sure where this is going, but I'll see what happens. Also, you may want to ease up on calling people "wacko," as the term is open to interpretation.

[darkarcher]

#2

Also, I find that things aren't quite as cut-and-dry as you have presented it, since there are many more worldviews than just those that you listed.

[RationalInquirer]

I guess your right killshot i'll edit it <img src='/images/emoticons/smiley1.png'>

[RationalInquirer]

I agree with you darkarcher, but I just listed the ones I know of and believe to be the most common amongst modern society.

[agrajagthetesty]

#6. The most theistic I have ever been is #2. I've been through some changes. :P

[Zairak]

I would say that I am #6 as well. I'm not sure I could ever be arrogant enough to be a #7, considering the vast amount of knowledge that would seem to require. Same goes for #1.

On a side note, I really hope this doesn't die out again...