I don't see how God could plausibly exist (Christian definition of God)

[JocktheMotie]

Then STFU and leave the thread.

 

[Nicodemus]

It's easy to fight Nicodemus when you have no Chips on the table, or no stake in the game.

You have nothing to lose, yet I have everything to lose because I have laid bare my core belief for you.

If you are so sensitive, then maybe you should not expose yourself so shamelessly.

You disgust me.

Your disgust is a compliment to me.

 

[DiscoBiscuit]

I won't stop what I'm doing until he does.

If he's gonna make it uncomfortable for us, then the least I can do is return the favor...

 

[JocktheMotie]

I won't stop what I'm doing until he does.

If he's gonna make it uncomfortable for us, then the least I can do is return the favor...

As far as I can tell, he's asking probing questions designed to get you to examine your faith from a skeptical point of view.

All you're doing is employing a pompous, alpha male facade that just makes you look foolish and juvenile, while attacking his character. That may work in politics, but not when attempting rational discourse.

 

[DiscoBiscuit]

All I'm doing is showing him what he's doing to the people on the other side of the argument.

 

[DiscoBiscuit]

Rational fucking discourse goes out the window when humiliation is as much the aim as discourse.

 

[Totenkindly]

Both are books after all, what is important is tradition and a living faith, if faith is bound in a book then it is surely dead.

I actually agree with that.

I've read the bible and scripture but never had this problem you speak of, perhaps it is to do with the expectation or way in which you approached the book? I know plenty of people who claim to be buddhists or have an affinity with buddhism who could not read The Light of The World for instance.

You and I have bumped heads before with the "culture shock" thing. Trust me. I'm still kind of boggled about how you describe your environment, because over here it is completely different and what Q is saying makes sense. Your comment above about how the "Bible is just a book" is basically heresy here in the general evangelical population. It's not just a well-meant, useful, wise book to the bulk of Baptists and Evangelicals; even if they accept the NIV or other modern translations, it's still The Word of God and it is studied voraciously and applied to every aspect of life, and any discordance between different verses and books has triggered a slew of texts meant to explain why the inconsistency does not really exist... since the Bible is God's Word and comes straight from God and thus must be consistent.

I won't stop what I'm doing until he does.
If he's gonna make it uncomfortable for us, then the least I can do is return the favor...

Less pissing match, more listening.

btw, while I've had issues with Nico before in our discussions, at least in the last twenty or so posts, he's just espousing a rational viewpoint that you're doing nothing to address. I'm kinda confused why things are so heated.

Absolute norms. There are none.

That's my biggest issue with religious debates.
Even if absolute norms do exist, we can't "prove" them, can we?
So belief is a CHOICE, not a rational proof.

My biggest issue in the religious discussions I've been involved with is when one side assumes that their beliefs are more than just beliefs, that they somehow have special factual knowledge on something. That hubris ends up permeating the entire discussion.

And I really want to know the insult that has been removed.

Embrace the mystery.

The obvious example of hypocrisy is that atheists condemn christians for living lives based upon illusions, but even though they may believe that they are grounded in the truth atheists do not live lives in accordance to the natural workings of their beliefs. That is they do try to live with a sense of meaning and purpose even though they beliefs would make it quite obvious that there is no meaning or purpose to life.

Your post here still tends to use a modernist framing of atheism. I think it would help if you stepped back further. I was kinda in the same boat too for many years -- I could never understand where meaning could come from rationally if there was no inherent meaning, so atheism and existentialism seemed to be inconsistent to me.

In my 30's, my life experience and continued reading and thought on the matter gave me more of a perspective shift. I recommend examining Kierkegaard (theocratic existentialist) and Camus (absurdist) in order to get a better feel for why and how one can choose to live with meaning coherently, even if absolute meaning cannot be shown to exist or be clarified.

(I think part of the problem is that you assume meaning HAS to be absolute to have value, where existentialists define meaning as an investment and an act of creation... which, ironically, is possibly how any sort of Christian God would have to view meaning as well, so it's not really that much of a stretch at least on that level.)

You might still not end up accepting it, but at least you would see the rationality behind it.

 

[DiscoBiscuit]

^ Yes Ma'am.

Although.

If my faith is questioned, I will defend it to the ends of the Earth and back.

I will never back down on it, so don't ask.

 

[Nicodemus]

All I'm doing is showing him what he's doing to the people on the other side of the argument.

I think all you are actually doing is revealing, more than you intend, how you feel about people who openly disagree with your version of the truth.

Rational fucking discourse goes out the window when humiliation is as much the aim as discourse.

My aim is not to humiliate christians but to make them stumble a bit, to question their beliefs. That I take a certain pleasure in that can hardly be a problem.

You and I have bumped heads before with the "culture shock" thing. Trust me. I'm still kind of boggled about how you describe your environment, because over here it is completely different and what Q is saying makes sense. Your comment above about how the "Bible is just a book" is basically heresy here in the general evangelical population. It's not just a well-meant, useful, wise book to the bulk of Baptists and Evangelicals; even if they accept the NIV or other modern translations, it's still The Word of God and it is studied voraciously and applied to every aspect of life, and any discordance between different verses and books has triggered a slew of texts meant to explain why the inconsistency does not really exist... since the Bible is God's Word and comes straight from God and thus must be consistent.

From the one (half) lecture on the bible I managed to sit through and from the conversations with theology students I have had, I take it that catholics in Germany do not regard the bible as a mere book either. That was the reason why I left the lecture halfway through.

 

[DiscoBiscuit]

I have questioned my belief's more than you ever could...

The only thing I am showing with my anger, is what I think of those who cannot be considerate of those on the other side of the argument.

 

[Nicodemus]

Even if absolute norms do exist, we can't "prove" them, can we?

I believe we cannot prove absolute norms (for the obvious reason). Some moral realists believe otherwise but fail at the task.

 

[Nicodemus]

I have questioned my belief's more than you ever could...

Then why are you whining so much?

 

[DiscoBiscuit]

I'm being forced to.

 

[Nicodemus]

By whom?

 

[DiscoBiscuit]

[YOUTUBE="ws66aAdthE0"][/YOUTUBE]

 

[Nicodemus]

That much for the kid: If we had the same parents, you could not be my older brother.

 

[erm]

The obvious example of hypocrisy is that atheists condemn christians for living lives based upon illusions, but even though they may believe that they are grounded in the truth atheists do not live lives in accordance to the natural workings of their beliefs. That is they do try to live with a sense of meaning and purpose even though they beliefs would make it quite obvious that there is no meaning or purpose to life.

Whoa, whoa, whoa, whoa...

...whoa.

Hold on.

How is a universe with a god any more meaningful or purposeful than a universe without a god? How exactly are you going to turn "meaning" into something that exists outside of people's minds without fundamentally changing its definition? (Or using one of its other definitions like the synonym for "definition" definition)

Also, if you do change "meaning" into something external from the mind, then why does a god have to be the thing to make it exist in the universe? Why, if a proton or a triangle can exist without god, can meaning in this sense not also? (assuming you think anything can exist without a god)

 

[figsfiggyfigs]

I haven't read the entire thread, only a few post in the end. . .

Disco, you're allowing someone else's clashing beliefs effect your own negatively.
Why do you even allow it to do so?
Why should it matter if a Nic questions your faith, or discredits it?
Isn't the whole point of faith is to continue believing in something no matter what others may say to discredit it?

Faith is the confident belief or trust in a person, idea, or thing that is not based on proof. -wiki

You don't need to attack Nic on a personal basis. He is merely sharing his views, whether he sees the belief of god relative to the belief in Santa clause, or the tooth fairy.

Faith is not rational( in most cases anyways), although some might believe otherwise, and that is alright. You don't have to apply reason and logic to everything you believe in.


Disco, you are forgetting that there are people who do NOT believe in god, who believe in multiple gods, etc. Are they wrong because your beliefs don't coincide with theirs?


Nic, I understand your points of view, and I like that you are questioning things, this is how people learn.
I also think you understand the concept of faith. Whether you share/accept it or not is a different story.

Tbh, I had a hard time believing in the concept myself initially. My current belief was set through personal experiences.

I do believe the belief in god is irrational to an extent, but thats the thing isn't it, It's easy to believe in something you can see.

 

[DiscoBiscuit]

YWIR...

I'm only affected insofar as anything I discuss on the internet can affect me you know.....

And no I think you should believe in whatever you want to.

But you shouldn't belittle those whose beliefs are not your own.

 

[figsfiggyfigs]

YWIR...

I'm only affected insofar as anything I discuss on the internet can affect me you know.....

And no I think you should believe in whatever you want to.

But you shouldn't belittle those whose beliefs are not your own.

I don't necessarily believe he was belittling. I don't see it as belittling, I think Nic just does not understand why it exists.


When did he belittle it?