Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free
x Turn on thread page Beta
    Offline

    9
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Treblebee)
    We aren't in need of God? Maybe you'd better start talking to people out there who realise their need for him. There are loads, absolutely loads of stories of people who have had their lives moulded by God, and who have been placed in the right condition, at the right time, to carry out his wish. So you say we don't need him. I can tell you one thing for sure, and this is that, even at such a personal level, we all need him. I can only pray that you will realise this some day. I hope you will. Why is it that you're all so fiery about atheism? Why are you all angry that we choose to believe in a God who has helped us so much? Is it because, deep down, something in you knows that there is a God who lives, and you're trying to resist him with a vengeance? I'm not sure, but only you can answer that question.
    No, most of us are not angry at those who choose to believe in god.

    Remember that we are in the internet forum, and most of people here are just debating. With no hard feelings echanging opinions.

    I am not angry at god, because I don't believe he exists. I am not even angry at my parents for making me believe so, even if said belief brought me a lot of pain. Emotion has never been any good for me, but reason has always helped to see further and brought me a lot of comfort.
    Using time for hating someone, that according to our knowledge doesn't exist is not very healthy mindset.

    Making a claim such as everyone needs god, while I understand you mean only good for us, could be very insultive for some people.

    Ps. thanks for your compassion. It is apprechiated.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Scrappy-coco)
    So ultimately you have to support your claim that the literal interpretation was 'what the ancient leaders first brainwashed them into'.
    I'm happy to let Moslems around the world demonstrate to you that they follow the literal interpretation. You will not have seen a single post on TSR from a Moslem that denies that man was made from clay or that Mohammed flew.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Scrappy-coco)
    Aha. This is what I was waiting for.

    The point is that history does not fit your argument. Religious leaders were seeing it as non literal well before any discoveries put literal interpretations in trouble. Its not as though it was seen as literal up until the last minute, when science finally poured doubt on it. Throughout the centuries non literal interpretation was always there.

    So ultimately you have to support your claim that the literal interpretation was 'what the ancient leaders first brainwashed them into'.

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    So you're saying its all non-literal and has been for hundreds of years? Then you're back to the question "If all the other claims are only metaphors, surely gods must be metaphors too?"
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Hydeman)
    Bold part is obviously false. There are plenty of people who don't -- the fact that some people do is not an argument in favour of the view that everyone needs a god. Unless those 'loads of stories' of people include everybody who's ever lived, the argument doesn't stand, I'm afraid.

    I'll answer that one for you, in three very simple sentences.
    Everybody sins. Everybody is accountable. Everybody needs God.
    Surely you can't actually believe that it doesn't matter what we do? Don't you ever feel bad when you do something wrong? Mere animals, with no conscience and no accountability, don't feel bad about that. But we do. We need God.

    No, we're 'fiery' about it because this is a thread about the OP not being able to tolerate 'religion bashers', who tend to be atheists. Most of the people arguing against you on this thread don't exactly spend their free time randomly professing their atheism to strangers, you know.
    I don't either, outside of TSR, but I like a good debate, and you guys stir me up a lot with your comments!
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Good bloke)
    I'm happy to let Moslems around the world demonstrate to you that they follow the literal interpretation. You will not have seen a single post on TSR from a Moslem that denies that man was made from clay or that Mohammed flew.
    I'm fine with that, I haven't got anything to disagree with, mainly because I've never read the Quran or know much about Islamic history.

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Emilia1320)
    No, most of us are not angry at those who choose to believe in god.

    Remember that we are in the internet forum, and most of people here are just debating. With no hard feelings echanging opinions.

    I am not angry at god, because I don't believe he exists. I am not even angry at my parents for making me believe so, even if said belief brought me a lot of pain. Emotion has never been any good for me, but reason has always helped to see further and brought me a lot of comfort.
    Using time for hating someone, that according to our knowledge doesn't exist is not very healthy mindset.

    Making a claim such as everyone needs god, while I understand you mean only good for us, could be very insultive for some people.

    Ps. thanks for your compassion. It is apprechiated.
    I'm v sorry if what I said is insulting to some people, but that is really what I believe, and I feel an obligation to God to stand up for him
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    yeah i hate it when they bash the bishop
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by ceryss)
    So you're saying its all non-literal and has been for hundreds of years? Then you're back to the question "If all the other claims are only metaphors, surely gods must be metaphors too?"
    A better question is what is the genre of the book you are reading? The old Testament alone is a composite of books written centuries apart. Deuteronomy will be literal especially in its outline for the Jewish society.

    You'll have to go through each book and see which genre. You can't treat Paul's letters to the Corinthians the same as a creation story on the origin and identity of man and the world. You can't treat an apocalyptic book like Revelation like an ancient biography like the Gospel of Luke.

    To see what was most likely meant to be taken literal upon the writing of each book you'll need to treat each one individually, and as there are different claims in different books you'll have to treat them accordingly.

    Making sweeping generalisations like 'the bible is to be taken litetally' or the opposite is refusing to take it seriously.

    Interesting side note, if God is a metaphor what is he representing?



    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    18
    (Original post by Treblebee)
    I'll answer that one for you, in three very simple sentences.
    Everybody sins. Everybody is accountable. Everybody needs God.
    I'm not sure whether you're trolling or not, but that's a shoddy argument. A sin is, by definition, an offence against some god. First you have to prove that there is a god; once you've accomplished that, then you have to prove the nature of this god. By that I mean you'll have to prove that this god is a) an interventionist god who cares about the actions of his/her/its creation and b) that the rules set by this god are in agreement with the ones you're claiming (i.e. the Christian ones).

    I highly doubt you can do either and so your argument falls apart on the first hurdle. That's a nice little triplet and probably makes for good advertising but, unfortunately, it's just not a good argument.

    Surely you can't actually believe that it doesn't matter what we do?
    I do, in fact, believe that. There's no objective reason why anything we do is inherently good or bad or has any meaning of the kind often claimed by religious people.

    Don't you ever feel bad when you do something wrong? Mere animals, with no conscience and no accountability, don't feel bad about that. But we do. We need God.
    It depends what you mean by 'wrong.' The concept of 'wrong' is so subjective that I could easily answer that rhetorical question with either yes or no without having lied in either instance. An ultraconservative Saudi preacher probably classifies having lustful thoughts as 'something wrong' -- I don't feel bad when such a thought crosses my mind.

    You're also pulling a fairly obvious non sequitur. There's no logical link from 'we have morality' to 'we need god.' There are any number of explanations for the origin of altruism in animals (and yes, it is observed in non-humans as well ) that don't invoke a god. So no, we don't necessarily need god.

    I don't either, outside of TSR, but I like a good debate, and you guys stir me up a lot with your comments!
    I was responding to your assertion that atheists are somehow offended by the fact that you believe in a god and the conclusions you drew from that. I wasn't making a general comment about liking debate. It was a fairly silly conclusion to say that we're somehow closet theists fighting the urge to worship your god -- that's an exceptionally condescending view and one of the most irritating traits of some creationists who go around offering people salvation in exchange for a monthly donation to their church.
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Hydeman)
    I'm not sure whether you're trolling or not, but that's a shoddy argument. A sin is, by definition, an offence against some god. First you have to prove that there is a god; once you've accomplished that, then you have to prove the nature of this god. By that I mean you'll have to prove that this god is a) an interventionist god who cares about the actions of his/her/its creation and b) that the rules set by this god are in agreement with the ones you're claiming (i.e. the Christian ones).


    I highly doubt you can do either and so your argument falls apart on the first hurdle. That's a nice little triplet and probably makes for good advertising but, unfortunately, it's just not a good argument.



    I do, in fact, believe that. There's no objective reason why anything we do is inherently good or bad or has any meaning of the kind often claimed by religious people.

    Now you'll need to prove that If you can't prove it, then the above statements wont work.

    It depends what you mean by 'wrong.' The concept of 'wrong' is so subjective that I could easily answer that rhetorical question with either yes or no without having lied in either instance. An ultraconservative Saudi preacher probably classifies having lustful thoughts as 'something wrong' -- I don't feel bad when such a thought crosses my mind.

    No, wrong is when you feel bad about doing something, even if it sometimes could be "right" with someone else. The thing about it is that it relies to some extent as to the circumstance, plus the fact that different things are wrong for different people.

    You're also pulling a fairly obvious non sequitur. There's no logical link from 'we have morality' to 'we need god.' There are any number of explanations for the origin of altruism in animals (and yes, it is observed in non-humans as well ) that don't invoke a god. So no, we don't necessarily need god.

    I'm not referring to altruism. I'm referring to conscience. Altruism can be fairly easily explained by science; conscience can not.

    I was responding to your assertion that atheists are somehow offended by the fact that you believe in a god and the conclusions you drew from that. I wasn't making a general comment about liking debate. It was a fairly silly conclusion to say that we're somehow closet theists fighting the urge to worship your god -- that's an exceptionally condescending view and one of the most irritating traits of some creationists who go around offering people salvation in exchange for a monthly donation to their church.
    No, I'm sorry, you're right on that point. It just sometimes seems that people get very angry about religion, and I don't mean you guys personally.
    Offline

    9
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Hydeman)
    I'm not sure whether you're trolling or not, but that's a shoddy argument. A sin is, by definition, an offence against some god. First you have to prove that there is a god; once you've accomplished that, then you have to prove the nature of this god. By that I mean you'll have to prove that this god is a) an interventionist god who cares about the actions of his/her/its creation and b) that the rules set by this god are in agreement with the ones you're claiming (i.e. the Christian ones).

    I highly doubt you can do either and so your argument falls apart on the first hurdle. That's a nice little triplet and probably makes for good advertising but, unfortunately, it's just not a good argument.



    I do, in fact, believe that. There's no objective reason why anything we do is inherently good or bad or has any meaning of the kind often claimed by religious people.



    It depends what you mean by 'wrong.' The concept of 'wrong' is so subjective that I could easily answer that rhetorical question with either yes or no without having lied in either instance. An ultraconservative Saudi preacher probably classifies having lustful thoughts as 'something wrong' -- I don't feel bad when such a thought crosses my mind.

    You're also pulling a fairly obvious non sequitur. There's no logical link from 'we have morality' to 'we need god.' There are any number of explanations for the origin of altruism in animals (and yes, it is observed in non-humans as well ) that don't invoke a god. So no, we don't necessarily need god.



    I was responding to your assertion that atheists are somehow offended by the fact that you believe in a god and the conclusions you drew from that. I wasn't making a general comment about liking debate. It was a fairly silly conclusion to say that we're somehow closet theists fighting the urge to worship your god -- that's an exceptionally condescending view and one of the most irritating traits of some creationists who go around offering people salvation in exchange for a monthly donation to their church.
    Just a side note, for atheists "sin" doesn't exist.

    We however do have moral values, guided by our reason and tought. Claiming that we didn't (like some Christian did earlier) is inaccurate.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Emilia1320)
    Just a side note, for atheists "sin" doesn't exist.

    We however do have moral values, guided by our reason and tought. Claiming that we didn't (like some Christian did earlier) is inaccurate.
    It's true that anyone can be good regardless of their faith or lack of.

    Problem is that on naturalism *not necessarily all atheists* morality is subjective.

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    18
    (Original post by Treblebee)
    Now you'll need to prove that If you can't prove it, then the above statements wont work.
    No, I don't need to prove that. It's for you to prove that there is, not for me to prove that there isn't, because that would be asking me to prove a negative. If there's any reason for you to think that there is an objective reason for any action to be considered right or wrong, by all means share it. I'm certainly not aware of any good reason for that view and, as such, I don't believe it.

    And another no: This statement was isolated from the other things I've said (hence the multi-quote). In other words, none of the other things I've said depend on it for validity so it's not quite the knock-out blow you think it is. You are not relieved of the burden of proof for everything else I've asked for in my previous post.

    No, wrong is when you feel bad about doing something, even if it sometimes could be "right" with someone else. The thing about it is that it relies to some extent as to the circumstance, plus the fact that different things are wrong for different people.
    And what is the evidence that the 'wrongness' of an action is determined by how any particular individual feels about something? If what you said was true, you wouldn't be able to argue that certain actions that Christianity holds to be absolutely wrong, such as murder, theft, perjury and so on, are not always wrong. That's the equivalent of you cutting the branch you're sitting on.

    I'm not referring to altruism. I'm referring to conscience. Altruism can be fairly easily explained by science; conscience can not.
    Conscience is not fully understood, yes. But you've presented no evidence that a) it cannot be proven by science and b) it can only be proven by religion. It cannot be predicted with such certainty that something cannot be explained by science; and even if it could, the logical conclusion from that would not be to say that the it can only be explained by Christianity.

    Do you know how to multi-quote, by the way? I could explain it to you if you want. :3
    Offline

    18
    (Original post by Emilia1320)
    Just a side note, for atheists "sin" doesn't exist.

    We however do have moral values, guided by our reason and tought. Claiming that we didn't (like some Christian did earlier) is inaccurate.
    I know that; that's why I said that the premise of the argument presented by the person I was replying to doesn't stand up to scrutiny, because it rested on the generalisation that everybody sins, despite 'sin' not being a valid concept for everybody.
    Offline

    9
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Scrappy-coco)
    It's true that anyone can be good regardless of their faith or lack of.

    Problem is that on naturalism *not necessarily all atheists* morality is subjective.

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Same can be said about religious people. What about discrimination of gays? What about raising kids to religion and scaring them with horror stories about hell? (like my story above on this discussion, and I am only one example among thousands).

    What about bible verses I referred above on this discussion? And they are only drops of a sea.
    Offline

    9
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Hydeman)
    I know that; that's why I said that the premise of the argument presented by the person I was replying to doesn't stand up to scrutiny, because it rested on the generalisation that everybody sins, despite 'sin' not being a valid concept for everybody.
    I know that you know, appeearly I accidentally quoted wrong person! Sorry, I meant to quote the guy you were quoting.
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Hydeman)
    No, I don't need to prove that. It's for you to prove that there is, not for me to prove that there isn't, because that would be asking me to prove a negative. If there's any reason for you to think that there is an objective reason for any action to be considered right or wrong, by all means share it. I'm certainly not aware of any good reason for that view and, as such, I don't believe it.

    And another no: This statement was isolated from the other things I've said (hence the multi-quote). In other words, none of the other things I've said depend on it for validity so it's not quite the knock-out blow you think it is. You are not relieved of the burden of proof for everything else I've asked for in my previous post.



    And what is the evidence that the 'wrongness' of an action is determined by how any particular individual feels about something? If what you said was true, you wouldn't be able to argue that certain actions that Christianity holds to be absolutely wrong, such as murder, theft, perjury and so on, are not always wrong. That's the equivalent of you cutting the branch you're sitting on.



    Conscience is not fully understood, yes. But you've presented no evidence that a) it cannot be proven by science and b) it can only be proven by religion. It cannot be predicted with such certainty that something cannot be explained by science; and even if it could, the logical conclusion from that would not be to say that the it can only be explained by Christianity.

    Do you know how to multi-quote, by the way? I could explain it to you if you want. :3
    I, Hellodave, Grant you (with my magical powers instilled by Jesus) a honorary doctorate in, Religion Bashing.
    Congratulations, Dr. Hydeman
    Offline

    9
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by hellodave5)
    I, Hellodave, Grant you (with my magical powers instilled by Jesus) a honorary doctorate in, Religion Bashing.
    Congratulations, Dr. Hydeman
    He want bashing anything but presenting valid arguments. Your comment was unneeded and offensive, and disturbs a good debate we have here.

    Unless you meant it as sarcasm, hard to tell over internet.
    Offline

    18
    (Original post by Emilia1320)
    I know that you know, appeearly I accidentally quoted wrong person! Sorry, I meant to quote the guy you were quoting.
    No worries.
    Offline

    18
    (Original post by hellodave5)
    I, Hellodave, Grant you (with my magical powers instilled by Jesus) a honorary doctorate in, Religion Bashing.
    Congratulations, Dr. Hydeman
    I, Hydeman, graciously accept this doctorate that I haven't really worked for. :lol:

    PRSOM.

    (Original post by Emilia1320)
    He want bashing anything but presenting valid arguments. Your comment was unneeded and offensive, and disturbs a good debate we have here.

    Unless you meant it as sarcasm, hard to tell over internet.
    It's most likely sarcastic based on earlier posts by him so I'm fine with it.
 
 
 
Reply
Submit reply
Turn on thread page Beta
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: December 1, 2015
Poll
Do you like carrot cake?
Useful resources

Groups associated with this forum:

View associated groups

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

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