Is there a GOD?

[GumbyLearner]

It's almost embarrassing to point out the obvious, but, unfortunately old chap, you are making assumptions all over the place.

My position, for the moment, is, as previously posted. I of course reserve the right to re-argue my position, if a refutation is forthcoming.

jog on
duc

Get real my friend. You are the one making assumptions. You cannot answer the question as to whether a moral absolute exists? To do so, would put your whole line of argument into peril.

I don't claim either moral absolutism or moral relativism as any foundation
for my blogging.

If you think there is no moral absolutism? That's fine I respect that.
But just remember the things that I claim. My right to think and fight for myself as a rational and logical individual as distinct from all others whether they be the church and/or state.

Great debate
cheers ducati

Gumby.

 

[ducati916]

Get real my friend. You are the one making assumptions. You cannot answer the question as to whether a moral absolute exists? To do so, would put your whole line of argument into peril.

But old chap, I have indeed answered the question. If religions exist, and they most certainly do, then by definition, moral absolutism exists. What I haven't answered is do I believe in moral absolutism. Currently, my beliefs are immaterial to the discussion.

I don't claim either moral absolutism or moral relativism as any foundation
for my blogging.

Which is fine. However, in our world today, both exist, both form arguments refuting the other's position [arguments] thus, for me to engage you, you must posit an argument [it's irrelevant whether you actually believe the argument] so that I can [try] to refute it [said argument]

If you think there is no moral absolutism? That's fine I respect that.
But just remember the things that I claim. My right to think and fight for myself as a rational and logical individual as distinct from all others whether they be the church and/or state.

Au-contraire: I absolutely state, categorically, that if there is religion, there is moral absolutism. Rationalism is again widening the argument, although in relation to epistomology and the question: Is there a God? I can see where you might have some very valid arguments as opposed to my empirical argument. But you need to make them.

Great debate
cheers ducati

Gumby.

Ahhh, we are but warming-up. The really tough questions/arguments are yet to come!

jog on
duc

 

[GumbyLearner]

But old chap, I have indeed answered the question. If religions exist, and they most certainly do, then by definition, moral absolutism exists. What I haven't answered is do I believe in moral absolutism. Currently, my beliefs are immaterial to the discussion.



Which is fine. However, in our world today, both exist, both form arguments refuting the other's position [arguments] thus, for me to engage you, you must posit an argument [it's irrelevant whether you actually believe the argument] so that I can [try] to refute it [said argument]



Au-contraire: I absolutely state, categorically, that if there is religion, there is moral absolutism. Rationalism is again widening the argument, although in relation to epistomology and the question: Is there a God? I can see where you might have some very valid arguments as opposed to my empirical argument. But you need to make them.





Ahhh, we are but warming-up. The really tough questions/arguments are yet to come!

jog on
duc

You didn't answer ****.

I'm not willing to bow down to you either.

You still have not answered the ultimate question.

That is "Is there a moral absolute?"

Still waiting for a reasoned response.

 

[bulldoza]

.......and I suspect a lot of believers believe because that is the easier thing to do.

I disagree - IMO it is much harder to believe than to not believe.

Imo you can't just say "I believe in God" and then live your life however you see fit. To truly believe in God means living your life in the way His Son Jesus Christ showed us and taught us in the Bible - doing unto others as you would expect them to do unto you, turning the other cheek, abstaining from sex outside of marriage etc etc.

Imo to say God does not exist or I am not sure if God exists and to then live your life however you like morally, ethically etc etc is a much easier thing to do.

 

[brty]

What is Damnation??

Please could one of the believers spell it out and give one example/testimonial of someone who has had to endure it.

Likewise, could someone give an example and description of Paradise, again an example/testimonial of someone who has endured it would be helpful.

brty

 

[wayneL]

"Is there a moral absolute?"

A view from the fringe of the discussion:

Religious people point to the 10 commandments a evidence of moral absolutes. Ecclesiastes 3 seems to indicate otherwise.

Likewise, Lao Tzu would likely have scoffed at the suggestion. I'm sure some well constructed Socratic questioning could deconstruct just about any "moral" position.

I quite like the Taoist take on it... Yin & Yang etc.

 

[brty]

Ecclesiastes 3 seems to indicate otherwise.

Owhhh, I've never been rend before.

With apologies to the makers of Bwian's life story..

brty

 

[wayneL]

I should point out that although I don't think there are moral absolutes, there are always consequences.

 

[Sdajii]

One thing of note that I have observed is that people with strong beliefs in GOD seem to be happier and more content in their belief than the people who put themselves forward as non believers.

Wow, it sounds like you have actually convinced yourself of that! I suppose I shouldn't be surprised. As ridiculous as it is, you had to first swallow the whole concept of religion and convince yourself of it, so you've already shown you'll believe anything. People with strong religious beliefs tend to be fanatical and have to twist their minds into forcing themselves to believe silly things in the face of blatant evidence to the contrary of those beliefs. Non religious people don't have any strong reason to care, or any barrier preventing them from deciding on their own beliefs, or changing them if necessary; there is no fear that if they change they will be struck down by god and go to Hell or some such nonsense. If they actually did have a strong belief in god or a strong desire to believe, they would just start believing in god. As a religious person you are an expert in seeing what you want to see or believe you should see, rather than what is actually there, so you probably won't accept or understand this, but people who are free to believe whatever they want to and make up their own mind are more comfortable with their beliefs than people who feel they have no choice.

Have you actually read the bible? Celebrating xmas and easter is a sin! The people who actually follow the bible are called crazy even by the majority of the folks who claim to be Christians!

 

[bulldoza]

....People with strong religious beliefs tend to be fanatical and have to twist their minds into forcing themselves to believe silly things in the face of blatant evidence to the contrary of those beliefs......

Imo your unconditional generalisation is simply not true.

Yes, granted a small minority of all religious faiths will adopt 'extreme' interpretations of their beliefs but I for one, although having strong religious beliefs, am not a fanatic (ie..one who shoves their beliefs down other peoples throats) and I am certainly not forcing myself to believe anything.

I am choosing to believe in God just as freely as anyone else is choosing to believe they do not believe in God or otherwise.

 

[roland]

Wow, it sounds like you have actually convinced yourself of that! I suppose I shouldn't be surprised. As ridiculous as it is, you had to first swallow the whole concept of religion and convince yourself of it, so you've already shown you'll believe anything. People with strong religious beliefs tend to be fanatical and have to twist their minds into forcing themselves to believe silly things in the face of blatant evidence to the contrary of those beliefs. Non religious people don't have any strong reason to care, or any barrier preventing them from deciding on their own beliefs, or changing them if necessary; there is no fear that if they change they will be struck down by god and go to Hell or some such nonsense. If they actually did have a strong belief in god or a strong desire to believe, they would just start believing in god. As a religious person you are an expert in seeing what you want to see or believe you should see, rather than what is actually there, so you probably won't accept or understand this, but people who are free to believe whatever they want to and make up their own mind are more comfortable with their beliefs than people who feel they have no choice.

Have you actually read the bible? Celebrating xmas and easter is a sin! The people who actually follow the bible are called crazy even by the majority of the folks who claim to be Christians!

mmm, actually I don't believe in GOD

- see what happens when you don't read the whole thread

 

[Duckman#72]

Duckman. The quote I was responding to was not about unhappiness in one's life or about the Church destroyed my life type of thing. It was about being happy and content in their belief or in their non-belief in the case of non-believers. It is harder to hold a position that your earlier upbringing has told you leads to damnation compared to a position that your earlier upbringing has told you leads to eternal happiness.

I watched one of the Dawkins TV series about two years ago when he was touring the Bible belt in the US. One preacher he interviewed actually said that he preaches about eternal damnation just to instil fear in his younger congregation because they are then less likely to question their faith if they fear eternal damnation and to him that is all that mattered.

If what I said isn't the case, why do so many believers use the Pascall argument for maintaining a belief. If a believer is wrong then he loses nothing, but if a non-believer is wrong then he is forever damned.

I personally am very satisfied and content with my life and would be regarded by my friends as someone who is a happy person. But when it comes to my beliefs, I had a lot of psychological baggage to overcome when I rejected Christianity and started referring to myself as an atheist, even though the more I examined Christianity and a belief in a God in particular, the more nonsensical it seemed. And yes, I am one of those over 50.

Thanks for that Bellenuit. I tend to look at religion in black and white sometimes.

If you're a believer - great. But don't preach to me or beat me around the head with your Bible.

If you're not a believer - great. But don't tell me how stupid I am for having faith.

For me there are only those two views (and perhaps a third - when people are moving in between the two).

I apologise if I came across as unsympathetic in my post. I was not trying to trivialise your situation or others like you. But I just haven't been exposed nor personally ever seen evidence of psychological damage through the threat of eternal damnation by the Church. I am Catholic, Mrs Duckman is Anglican and I was raised Uniting. I attended a Catholic school and have attended varieties of services for 30 something years but your situation is one that is foreign to me.

Maybe it's because I'm comfortable with my level of religious beliefs and am not "hardcore", that I don't have to juggle internal struggles. Do I go to mass every week? - no way. By not going to mass will I end up in hell? - no way. I believe in a God "of some sort", try and live my life as a good person, follow the teachings of the Bible(the ones that are relevant and society friendly) and that is enough for me.

I really don't understand the hatred and contempt people can have for the Church (particularly by those people who have had very little exposure to religion), nor the pious, holy and judgemental attitudes of the religious right.

Duckman

 

[bulldoza]

In a nation which imo is becoming more secular each day, it is encouraging to see in this thread's poll that the split between believers + potential believers and non-believers + potential non-believers is still about 50/50

I split the 'fence sitters' 121 to believers and 122 to non-believers.

Summary of Results

Believers + possibles: 148 + 121 = 269 (49%)

Non-believers + possibles: 156 + 122 = 278 (51%)

I hope my maths is right

 

[explod]

In a nation which imo is becoming more secular each day, it is encouraging to see in this thread's poll that the split between believers + potential believers and non-believers + potential non-believers is still about 50/50

I split the 'fence sitters' 121 to believers and 122 to non-believers.

Summary of Results

Believers + possibles: 148 + 121 = 269 (49%)

Non-believers + possibles: 156 + 122 = 278 (51%)

I hope my maths is right

Not to sure about the maths but I think you may be a bit generous towards your case for the split.

If we give your side the top 3 plus half of the 4th (25 votes, which I think is generous,) your toal comes to 265. If the side I favour has the botton 2 plus half of the 4th then we have a total of 382

And I maintain that we are dealing with something here that cannot be proven by an actual physical piece of evidence, it is all based on belief, In my very very humble opinion of course and as always

 

[bulldoza]

That's ok explod

The numbers can be massaged however you like.

To be honest, after all the discussion in here over the last few days I hadn't noticed any change in the poll numbers (I could be wrong) and so the 'hidden agenda' behind my posting a poll summary was to hopefully subliminally encourage readers to cast a vote one way or the other if they haven't already done so

 

[wayneL]

Not to sure about the maths but I think you may be a bit generous towards your case for the split.

If we give your side the top 3 plus half of the 4th (25 votes, which I think is generous,) your toal comes to 265. If the side I favour has the botton 2 plus half of the 4th then we have a total of 382

And I maintain that we are dealing with something here that cannot be proven by an actual physical piece of evidence, it is all based on belief, In my very very humble opinion of course and as always

Either way, adding the numbers of each is a logical fallacy and an irrelevance.

I really great phrase I saw (on a church sign would you believe) - "A foolish thing said by 500,000 people, is still a foolish thing". I'm not so sure the pastor saw that the way I did, but it illustrates that being in a small minority doesn't make you wrong...

..as a matter of fact, when I see a minority view, I want to know what it is they know that everybody else doesn't.

That's not an endorsement of any argument, just food for thought.

 

[Buckfont]

His name used to be Eric Clapton

 

[wayneL]

His name used to be Eric Clapton

And the devil, apparently, is Angus Young.

 

[Julia]

Thanks for that Bellenuit. I tend to look at religion in black and white sometimes.

If you're a believer - great. But don't preach to me or beat me around the head with your Bible.

If you're not a believer - great. But don't tell me how stupid I am for having faith.

For me there are only those two views (and perhaps a third - when people are moving in between the two).

I apologise if I came across as unsympathetic in my post. I was not trying to trivialise your situation or others like you. But I just haven't been exposed nor personally ever seen evidence of psychological damage through the threat of eternal damnation by the Church. I am Catholic, Mrs Duckman is Anglican and I was raised Uniting. I attended a Catholic school and have attended varieties of services for 30 something years but your situation is one that is foreign to me.

Maybe it's because I'm comfortable with my level of religious beliefs and am not "hardcore", that I don't have to juggle internal struggles. Do I go to mass every week? - no way. By not going to mass will I end up in hell? - no way. I believe in a God "of some sort", try and live my life as a good person, follow the teachings of the Bible(the ones that are relevant and society friendly) and that is enough for me.

I really don't understand the hatred and contempt people can have for the Church (particularly by those people who have had very little exposure to religion), nor the pious, holy and judgemental attitudes of the religious right.

Duckman

Ah, dear Duckman, if we had more Christians like you, religion would have a much better rap.

 

[Buckfont]

And the devil, apparently, is Angus Young.

What heaven and hell duelling guitars that would be. I`ll be the first in line for the tickets.