Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free

What a world without God means Watch

Announcements
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by SunnysideSea)
    No, it isn't designed as a scientific text. The two creation stories both tell us that we were created by God, we were created out of nothing a finite time ago, we were created in God's image, we have a purpose etc. By providing two parallel accounts we can cross reference them to work out the true meaning of the text.

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    So are you saying you don't believe in evolution? 'Created in god's image' sure seems like it to me.
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    TSR's resident God troll.
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Ladymusiclover)
    I went to a religious society at uni and one thing that struck me is that the speaker said " Don't base your happiness on something that can be taken away from you".
    you could also say 'Don't base your happiness on attempting to appease a non-existent deity'
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by SunnysideSea)
    No, it isn't designed as a scientific text. The two creation stories both tell us that we were created by God, we were created out of nothing a finite time ago, we were created in God's image, we have a purpose etc. By providing two parallel accounts we can cross reference them to work out the true meaning of the text.

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    if you're so ready to accept that god created the universe out of nothing, why can't you accept that the universe itself probably emerged out of nothing? why would you need a builder when you don't have the materials and tools? and what good is a builder (god) without those two former things? it makes no sense. the big bang is a perfectly competent explanation surely? what is your problem with it? what problem exists for the big bang that god is a sufficient and necessary explanation for?
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    Wow! Really? All of a sudden all of that struck you today? Or have you been hoarding it all for months and months and finally thought you'd come down from the mountain, Zarathustra-like, and spread your wisdom?

    I do believe in God, but that he's a hate-filled, violent psychopath and that we get our morality by subverting his. 80 years, if we're lucky, so make it as pleasant as possible as we can for ourselves and each other. Jerry.

    If you really believe that death leads to eternal bliss then why are you wearing a seat-belt?
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Racoon)
    . I would suggest you reread it.
    It's not an Irish referendum, you know, and its deceiving nature becomes clearer every time you read it.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    11
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by k.russell)
    So are you saying you don't believe in evolution? 'Created in god's image' sure seems like it to me.
    Of course I believe in evolution, what do you take me for? There's no contradiction whatsoever. For example, it's perfectly possible for God to have fine-tuned the constants of the universe to allow the origin of life, and have created the universe in such a way as to allow for evolution. I'm not even saying I necessarily believe this, but so long as it is possible (it is) there is no inherent conradiction.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    11
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by FrogStupid)
    Wow! Really? All of a sudden all of that struck you today? Or have you been hoarding it all for months and months and finally thought you'd come down from the mountain, Zarathustra-like, and spread your wisdom?

    I do believe in God, but that he's a hate-filled, violent psychopath and that we get our morality by subverting his. 80 years, if we're lucky, so make it as pleasant as possible as we can for ourselves and each other. Jerry.

    If you really believe that death leads to eternal bliss then why are you wearing a seat-belt?
    No it really was a rather sudden realisation actually. Perhaps 'epiphany' is the wrong word, but, yes, it was along those lines.

    I don't particularly care what you believe about God, believe what you want. When you want to substantiate your beliefs study some philosophy and theology.

    As for the seat belt, to not wear one would essentially mean I wouldn't be taking care of my (God given) life - many churches teach against suicide for the same reason. I imagine it might rather upset my family and friends if I died as well.
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by SunnysideSea)
    This is such a silly argument, but I can give an alternatie example if you wish:

    The 'dictionary defintion' of tall doesn't mention being over 5 foot 10" in height.

    But if you're a guy who isn't over 5 foot 10" in height you aren't tall.

    You need to realise that Plantagenet is trying to be consistent with his atheism. He could never admit an objective moral standard, because that doesn't work in naturalism. It does lend itself to the conclusion of the existence of God though... But what does Romans 1 say about suppressing the truth in unrighteousness?

    (Original post by SunnysideSea)
    Not necessarily, no. I normally class myself as a 'theist', though I've grown up a Catholic so that's the tradition I know most about. To know what I actually think about the afterlife I'd have to study the texts on which the Church comes to its conclusions, and the theological reasoning behind their conclusions. This is why it's so nonsensical for people like Dawkins to have a go at Theology as an an academic subject - if he ever wants people to realise how (allegedly) poor various religions' thinking is, people have to study the theology behind them. If the religions' reasoning is actually unfounded/inaccurate/illogical then, guess what? People would realise! And you'd have a whole bunch more atheists on your hands. You can't ignore Theology and just attack religion, it simply doesn't work that way, but Dawkins is such a bigot he'd never even consider this.

    So, to answer your question, I'm in no position, as of now, to comment intelligently on the true nature/existence of an afterlife. Unlike Dawkins, I generally try to talk only about things I've studied/know something about
    I guess what I'm getting at, is that Catholicism teaches that the magisterium teaches the truth about God, Jesus and salvation. If you disagree with the magisterium, you are wrong, according to the Catholic Church, which you claim to follow.

    So I guess what I'm pointing at is the problem with the Catholic Church, especially with this issue of afterlife. The CC teaches that there is purgatory. I think that teaching distinguishes so well, because it clearly demonstrates a misunderstanding of the gospel, which includes that Jesus' sacrifice took away sin once and for all (Hebrews 10, and other places).

    I'm sure you will read further about this and perhaps if you haven't already, be pointed to Maccabees for justification of the doctrine of purgatory, but I would be very happy to demonstrate further the contradiction of this teaching with the bible. It's so important because it implies that there is some other way apart from Jesus, through which mankind can reach the Father. Jesus clearly said that that wasn't the case.

    At the end of the day, I asked you those questions because I think the problem with the CC comes down to having the wrong authority. Followers of the CC are under the authority of the magisterium, who claim to be under the authority of Jesus. But to justify this, Catholics say that Jesus specified that the CC is the "true Church", the one that he claimed the gates of hell would not prevail against. But you need to see that one needs to interpret the bible to come to that conclusion, which is self-contradictory. We must view scripture the way Jesus did. Jesus said scripture is God speaking to mankind. So we can interpret it. Jesus spoke to people all the way through his ministry. The Berean Jews read the scriptures to check Paul's teaching (Acts 17:11). I'm happy to chat more with you about this.
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by MamzZass)
    How is enjoying life not a purpose? Your whole point relies on the idea that for something to be purposeful there needs to be a future\god but that idea itself is delusional. You are refusing to accept/consider that our purpose may be as simple as living. Why cant life be purposeful? Just because we cease to exist, that doesn't necessarily mean life is purposeless.

    What most theists struggle to accept is that they are not divine/special beings and are just animals. Hence if God were proven not to exist, atheists wouldn't care less and would carry on with their lives smug. Theists would be in outcry, only to accept that to live is purposeful. And do you know why? Because they rely on the future for purpose. You dont seem to consider that there is purpose in the present. Your only rebuttal is that we cease to exist so it isnt. That is delusional and naive.

    And my argument is quite clear and logical. Life has purpose with/without god. Gods existence is irrelevant, by definition humans have a purpose. To reject that we have purpose is the same as rejecting that we have instinct. To exist is to be. That is a purpose of humanity.

    Its irrelevant if an action will be remembered or not. Why does ending up the same negate having a purpose? What led you to that conclusion? To reject life because of this is irrational. Utterly irrational. What part of this is rational? "God doesn't exist so i'm not going to bother living." Are you meaning to tell me you'd commit suicide? No, you wouldn't as despite everything you'd want to live because suicide is irrational. Because its in our nature to want to live. To reject living is to reject being human and so is irrational .To say otherwise is utterly delusional. Its our purpose to live.
    [referring to what I have highlighted in your quote] You can't demonstrate that to be true without resorting to subjective ideas. Go on, try. You won't be able to.

    "It's in our nature to want to live."

    Is it in my nature to want to sleep with multiple women, including people who are not my wife? Perhaps.

    But I make a decision, regardless of my nature, to not do that. In the same way, we make decisions about whether or not to commit suicide, regardless of any survival mechanisms wired into our DNA. All you can say is "if you commit suicide, you're abnormal", but of course, rationality =/= normality.

    Happy to clarify further.
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by SunnysideSea)
    Of course I believe in evolution, what do you take me for? There's no contradiction whatsoever. For example, it's perfectly possible for God to have fine-tuned the constants of the universe to allow the origin of life, and have created the universe in such a way as to allow for evolution. I'm not even saying I necessarily believe this, but so long as it is possible (it is) there is no inherent conradiction.
    So God basically made the universe, then left it alone since then and never interferes with it? Why would he do that?
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    11
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by k.russell)
    So God basically made the universe, then left it alone since then and never interferes with it? Why would he do that?
    No one in the Abrahamic traditions believes God 'left it alone'. What do you think revelation is? Let alone the Christian belief of God literally coming to earth - quite the opposite of leaving it alone.
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by SunnysideSea)
    No one in the Abrahamic traditions believes God 'left it alone'. What do you think revelation is? Let alone the Christian belief of God literally coming to earth - quite the opposite of leaving it alone.
    So he created the universe, and is interested in the fate of humans. So why is our world so bad in a lot of ways?
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    11
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by k.russell)
    So he created the universe, and is interested in the fate of humans. So why is our world so bad in a lot of ways?
    People have literally written gazillions of pages worth on this very topic - look up problem of evil and you'll find a lot.

    One response is to say that (even if we don't know what they are fully), it's perfectly possible that God has good reasons for allowing suffering to exist, so there is no contradiciton between omnibenevolence, omnipotence and the presence of evil. For instance, you probably know of situations where you cause suffering for a greater good.
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Pride)
    You need to realise that Plantagenet is trying to be consistent with his atheism. He could never admit an objective moral standard, because that doesn't work in naturalism. It does lend itself to the conclusion of the existence of God though... But what does Romans 1 say about suppressing the truth in unrighteousness?
    I have never said anything "inconsistent" with agnostic atheism so stop trying to make it look like I'm hiding something that I know contradicts that view.

    There is no evidence for an objective morality and invoking God to resolve it does nothing because it simply gives rise to the Euthyphro Dilemma.

    What lends itself to God's existence? Naturalism certainly doesn't.
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by SunnysideSea)
    People have literally written gazillions of pages worth on this very topic - look up problem of evil and you'll find a lot.

    One response is to say that (even if we don't know what they are fully), it's perfectly possible that God has good reasons for allowing suffering to exist, so there is no contradiciton between omnibenevolence, omnipotence and the presence of evil. For instance, you probably know of situations where you cause suffering for a greater good, such as causing a child to be upset (bad) by taking them to the dentist (good).
    Right, well there's a fair old difference between the 'evil' of taking a child to see a medical professional, and the evil of say... paedophiles why did god make some people develop brains that make them sexually attracted to children, what's the message for us there?
    It's basically impossible to put this matter to rest, but all of religion is essentially dependent on irrational belief, basically fear of the unknown. I think the doom and gloom of your first post shows that - in reality, life has no purpose, apart from for you to live it.
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    Less BS.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by SunnysideSea)
    No it really was a rather sudden realisation actually. Perhaps 'epiphany' is the wrong word, but, yes, it was along those lines.
    I don't believe this for a second, particularly as the arguments you make are so trite.


    (Original post by SunnysideSea)
    I don't particularly care what you believe about God, believe what you want. When you want to substantiate your beliefs study some philosophy and theology.
    I've studied philosophy and some theology. I already know all the arguments you're going to use, and I already know my responses. The whole thing is so tired.

    (Original post by SunnysideSea)
    As for the seat belt, to not wear one would essentially mean I wouldn't be taking care of my (God given) life - many churches teach against suicide for the same reason. I imagine it might rather upset my family and friends if I died as well.
    Why would it upset family and friend if you died? Aren't you going to heaven forever? They should be happy!!!

    "Yes he was crushed to death beneath an overturned lorry - it's wonderful! Heaven everlasting's his reward!!!! We only have to wait 50 or so years and then we'll be with him for eternity!!!! HURRAH!!!!!!"

    Not wearing a seat-belt doesn't equate to suicide.


    My main problem with those who are religious is their jump from "God exists" to "God is benevolent, caring, loving", when nothing substantiates this. It's blind, ego-driven, wish-fulfillment.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by FrogStupid)
    My main problem with those who are religious is their jump from "God exists" to "God is benevolent, caring, loving", when nothing substantiates this.
    Indeed, the documented deeds of the Abrahamic god are replete with particularly nasty and arbitrary deeds like destroying whole cities and wiping out mankind and visiting plagues on people. This is not consistent with the claims of mercy and benevolence.
 
 
 
Reply
Submit reply
TSR Support Team

We have a brilliant team of more than 60 Support Team members looking after discussions on The Student Room, helping to make it a fun, safe and useful place to hang out.

Updated: October 10, 2016
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • Poll
    Should Spain allow Catalonia to declare independence?
    Useful resources

    Groups associated with this forum:

    View associated groups
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

    Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

    Quick reply
    Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.