Unscientific survey of 'poly religious beliefs

[Tassadar500]

Originally posted by MOBIUS




Who's the child now - go believe in god or something...

First of all, you can't even see an obvious troll. Second of all, Ming only let you keep it because he thought it was temporary.

[Sava]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi


To speak of the law written on everyone's heart is different from the doctrines required to be accepted by all members of the Catholic church.

The former is a case of invitation, the latter, of cramming doctrine.

well IMHO, an "invitation" to join a religion is not that much different from "cramming" it...

as you know, I don't believe in God per se, but I know what I would believe in if I were to concretely believe in God... it would be more of a Deist belief.

For instance, I don't think that God would punish non-believers. I believe that many good people would be unfairly excluded from heaven if God discriminated based on belief. I mean, what of the Native Americans for instance. Would all of them be disqualified from entering heaven because they knew nothing of Jesus and the Judeo-Christian God?

If God would disqualify them from heaven just because they never heard of him, that would make God unjust, IMO. And God would not be unjust. So I therefore conclude that believing in a human religion is not a requirement for entering the kingdom of heaven.

That's precisely why I've said before that if there is a God and he is exactly what is described in the Bible, I would not want to be with God in heaven because God would be unjust. That's also why I've concluded Christianity is a false belief and should not be trusted.

[Heresson]

Originally posted by Odin
No, we have brains.

So people like Plato, Aristotle, Jesus, St Augustine, St Thomas, like Leonardo, like Erasmus, like Pascal, like Cartesius, like Kant and thousands of others did not have brains...
Only Odin and alike atheists do...

Originally posted by quantum_mechani
I think saying that they are close to 'believers' is a somewhat deceptive generalization. While you might say one is halfway between a deist and an atheist, all three are a long way from religions with very specific beliefs (i.e. christianity, islam, almost any other religion).

Nah. Agnostic is someone who accepts possibility of existance of God and accept possibility of lack of His existance, or, sometimes a person wondering in the world of religion, but belonging to it.
In the first option it's in the middle of atheist/believer controversy, in the second one it's on the latter side.
Having "agnostic" merged with "atheist" option, that's deceptive.

Originally posted by Whaleboy
No. Atheism is the position of positive proof against God (not predicated by faith I might add, though there are those who do make that mistake I am not one of them) while agnosticism is the belief that God is not/cannot be known, in which case Occams razor kicks in as I said earlier and means the agnostic position is God = 0.

No, that's not true. Not always the simpler version is the better, not always people believe it is, and not always if they see sence in both faith and lack of it, they choose the latter.
I guess You do, and You're showing us your way of thinking, but You can not say it's about all the agnostics.
I practically am one. There can be God, and there's a possibility there's no God. Still, I'm far from describing myself as atheist.

[MOBIUS]

Originally posted by Lord Nuclear

First of all, you can't even see an obvious troll. Second of all, Ming only let you keep it because he thought it was temporary.

"Hello, my name iz Lord Nuclear. I am very cleva - I believe in god."

[Ben Kenobi]

Generally I reply to questions, rather than putting them forth, but there are places for both types of ministry.

Both are forms of invitations.

For instance, I don't think that God would punish non-believers. I believe that many good people would be unfairly excluded from heaven if God discriminated based on belief. I mean, what of the Native Americans for instance. Would all of them be disqualified from entering heaven because they knew nothing of Jesus and the Judeo-Christian God?

That's a very good question. Which is why they cannot be faulted for not knowing Christ, and why they have to have a law written on their hearts.

Paul talks about this in Romans, that everyone has some knowledge of God, even if they have never read scripture, or listened to a sermon. This is why all are without excuse.

For the one without the law, who lives according to the law, has shown that the requirements of the law are written on their hearts.

On the day of judgement, it won't be me you have to answer to but you will be responsible to Christ. Christ can read your heart, and since there is some knowledge of God in everyone, they will be judged based on their responsiveness to what they know of God.

However, it is quite a different state for those who do know Christ, who have had this presented to them. They will be judged based on how they respond to Christ, whether they accept him in their hearts or not.

The problem with Diest thought is that it removes all the interactions between God, and the world, and man. He would not listen to our prayers, nor would he answer them. Nor could Christ be his Son, because God would not want to become incarnate.

[Sava]

Having "agnostic" merged with "atheist" option, that's deceptive.

While the two are not the same thing, I think it's reasonable to have them lumped into one category because both question the validity of a belief in God. I think that was the purpose of this poll. To seperate believers from those who don't share that faith.

[Ben Kenobi]

I practically am one. There can be God, and there's a possibility there's no God. Still, I'm far from describing myself as atheist.

what makes you doubt, Heresson?

[MOBIUS]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi

what makes you doubt, Heresson?

[Heresson]

It was not the intent of this thread. Otherwise, why do You have distinguishment between religions?
Agnostics are not unbelievers. They are in the middle.
If distinguishing between believers and unbelievers was the cause for this thread, there should be 3 options:
believer
agnostic (in this case)
unbeliever
showing possible answers: yes, no, not sure/I don't know

[Sava]

The problem with Diest thought is that it removes all the interactions between God, and the world, and man. He would not listen to our prayers, nor would he answer them. Nor could Christ be his Son, because God would not want to become incarnate.

Why is that a "problem"?

A deist God is much more likely than a theistic God. I've not seen any proof that God answers prayers or that he interacts with the world. Nor have I seen proof that Jesus Christ was the incarnate of God to the extent that he performed miracles and whatnot.

The case for a theistic God is much more of an extraordinary claim. And as Carl Sagan put it, "extraordinary claims demand extraordinary evidence". Why is it unreasonable to want evidence? If God is in fact our creator, you cannot deny that God gave us the ability to reason. Why would God create us with the ability to reason, but then not provide evidence of his existence. The notion of faith conflicts with our sense of reason. God requiring a "reasonable" human being to accept him based solely on faith is like God requiring a fish to survive outside of water. By forcing us to have this conflict, God is undoubtedly creating people more likely to not believe. So God is condemning people by design. Why would a just God do such a thing?

There are just too many things that don't make sense, BK. I accept the notion that God may be beyond our comprehension, but these conflicts of logic and reason are not beyond our understanding.

And your answer to the paradoxical nature of omnipotence was not good enough. The issue of creating a boulder so large, God himself cannot lift it may be a situation constructed within the limits of our universe; but the overall concept has a universal context that you failed to address.

Perhaps a rephrase is necessary.

"If God is omnipotent, could he create a task/situation/problem so difficult that God himself could not resolve?"

That scope of that question takes into account the limitations of our universe.

If God exists, surely his existence can stand up to the scrutiny of our simple human minds. But yet, it doesn't seem to be able to.

I'm not discussing this with you for the purpose of changing or mocking your beliefs. I can't speak for other Apolytoners, but I am seeking answers. My belief in God is dependent on my doubts being proven false. If you can prove my doubts false and provide reasonable answers to my questions to my satisfaction, you would create a believer out of me.

[quantum_mechani]

Originally posted by Heresson


So people like Plato, Aristotle, Jesus, St Augustine, St Thomas, like Leonardo, like Erasmus, like Pascal, like Cartesius, like Kant and thousands of others did not have brains...
Only Odin and alike atheists do...




Nah. Agnostic is someone who accepts possibility of existance of God and accept possibility of lack of His existance, or, sometimes a person wondering in the world of religion, but belonging to it.
In the first option it's in the middle of atheist/believer controversy, in the second one it's on the latter side.
Having "agnostic" merged with "atheist" option, that's deceptive.



No, that's not true. Not always the simpler version is the better, not always people believe it is, and not always if they see sence in both faith and lack of it, they choose the latter.
I guess You do, and You're showing us your way of thinking, but You can not say it's about all the agnostics.
I practically am one. There can be God, and there's a possibility there's no God. Still, I'm far from describing myself as atheist.

Let me get this strait, you are unsure if there is or is not a god, but you are sure that if there is one it would have specific (christian) atributes? I admit that there is a lot of fuzziness as to where to draw the line between agnostic/atheist/believer, (for instance, there are few atheists that would say there is absolutely no possibility of a 'hands-off' kind of god/being). However, to me the big line in belief systems is between those that have rituals, holy texts, sacred days, ect.-which I have a very hard time believing that a god that ruled the cosmos would care about-, and those that have simple belief or lack of one.

[Ben Kenobi]

I'm not discussing this with you for the purpose of changing or mocking your beliefs. I can't speak for other Apolytoners, but I am seeking answers. My belief in God is dependent on my doubts being proven false. If you can prove my doubts false and provide reasonable answers to my questions to my satisfaction, you would create a believer out of me.

Never implied as such, that you were motivated to mock me.

A deist God is much more likely than a theistic God. I've not seen any proof that God answers prayers or that he interacts with the world. Nor have I seen proof that Jesus Christ was the incarnate of God to the extent that he performed miracles and whatnot.

Very good point. The question that really troubles me, is how can a Deist God be said to have love for his creation?

Why is it unreasonable to want evidence? If God is in fact our creator, you cannot deny that God gave us the ability to reason. Why would God create us with the ability to reason, but then not provide evidence of his existence.

Agreed wholeheartedly. For me, well before I was a Christian, I remember asking the question as to what had to happen in order for human beings to live on the planet Earth.

We still don't know all the factors required, all our biospheres have been miserable failures.

The notion of faith conflicts with our sense of reason. God requiring a "reasonable" human being to accept him based solely on faith is like God requiring a fish to survive outside of water. By forcing us to have this conflict, God is undoubtedly creating people more likely to not believe. So God is condemning people by design. Why would a just God do such a thing?

I wouldn't say it is contrary to reason, rather that reason is limited. Faith, in a sense goes where reason cannot.

And your answer to the paradoxical nature of omnipotence was not good enough. The issue of creating a boulder so large, God himself cannot lift it may be a situation constructed within the limits of our universe; but the overall concept has a universal context that you failed to address.

What would be the physical characteristics of a boulder with infinite mass?

Would we be able to see such a boulder?

"If God is omnipotent, could he create a task/situation/problem so difficult that God himself could not resolve?"

God is eternal, and omnipresent. He also doesn't change.

He would already know all the consequences of his acts, before he did them, because he can see all time as one.

The only thing that I understand about this is that he can refrain from using his power, in order to allow things to happen contrary to his will. But there could not be a situation he could not resolve, should he desired to intervene.

If God exists, surely his existence can stand up to the scrutiny of our simple human minds. But yet, it doesn't seem to be able to.

It goes back to that infinite hotel. It doesn't correspond with anything that we know because it is outside of what we know.

Logically, you can perform operations on infinity, but to translate infinity to the world in which we live doesn't make sense at all.

It doesn't mean that there is no God, rather that God cannot be bound by the universe.

[Heresson]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi


what makes you doubt, Heresson?

A lot of stuff
For example
It can't be proven. If God exists, He's not showing himself directly - why?
Or
Some people die without hearing the prophets and Jesus - I guess it's the deeds that count, not faith,
but if You hear words of Jesus, You have bigger chance of doing good (perhaps an answer to this one is in Jesus' story about a vineyard).

Let me get this strait, you are unsure if there is or is not a god, but you are sure that if there is one it would have specific (christian) atributes?

About right

However, to me the big line in belief systems is between those that have rituals, holy texts, sacred days, ect.-which I have a very hard time believing that a god that ruled the cosmos would care about-, and those that have simple belief or lack of one.

The belief is based on these holy books in large part.
The rest You may be right - That's in fact what Jesus said to pharisees when they were criticising Him for not obeying sabat. It's not the thing that counts.
But still, it has nothing to do with the discussion itself.
One can doubt existance of God, and follow rituals,
and one can believe in God and in rituals, and not follow them.

[Tassadar500]

Originally posted by MOBIUS


"Hello, my name iz Lord Nuclear. I am very cleva - I believe in god."

Since when do I spell like that? And so what if I believe in God?

[Provost Harrison]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi


Are you familiar with the logic of infinity?

Suppose we had an infinite hotel, we could evict all the customers in even rooms, and still have the same number of guests in the hotel.

The same applies to an infinite mass. What sense does such an object have?

Idiot. Infinity is a concept, not a number