Religion...

[DanCa]

The most terrifying description of hell that I've ever heard was - it is a 'place' completely devoid of God's grace.  Think about that for a minute or two. 

God's grace sorrounds us every day in some shape or fashion...followers and non followers alike.  Can you imagine an existence w/o God's amazing grace...that he has turned his back on your soul FOREVER?  Talk about a completely miserable existence - and it would never end.

So it's in East St. Louis?

[Maitre D]

I'm talking about direct communication with you as we can communicate.  If the last time your god talked was a couple thousand years ago, it's probably dead.

I suppose that's one way of looking at it.


We should probably toss the writings of Confucious too, and burn the US Constitution.  Dead, antiquated documents that don't mean squat today.

[ShowMeKC]

If any supernatural/spiritual force is out there, they are absolutely horrible at communicating with us.  Believers claim obscure 'mysterious ways' and do not apparently have a need for direct communication.  If these intelligent forces are not able to communicate to us with specific clarity, then they probably do not have powers above nature - or more likely these claims of communication are in believers heads.

It isn't about communication or knowledge of his existence. There is faith, and we can believe in God, or we don't believe in him. Where is the free will in God showing himself to everyone (before the end) and thus forcing everyone to recognize his existence?

[mean]

I suppose that's one way of looking at it.


We should probably toss the writings of Confucious too, and burn the US Constitution.  Dead, antiquated documents that don't mean squat today.

So in your mind, it stands to reason that since James Madison doesn't communicate directly with us from the grave, we can't expect a magical mystical God, who many believe directly communicated with people in the past, and demands we believe in him or be punished, to do so?

You defy all logic.

It isn't about communication or knowledge of his existence. There is faith, and we can believe in God, or we don't believe in him. Where is the free will in God showing himself to everyone (before the end) and thus forcing everyone to recognize his existence?

You'd have the free will to say it was a hallucination, and continue your non-belief. I'm sure a lot of people would. So, I don't see a problem.

[ignatius]

I suppose that's one way of looking at it.


We should probably toss the writings of Confucious too, and burn the US Constitution.  Dead, antiquated documents that don't mean squat today.

The Constitution was written by people who are now dead.  The ideas survived, not the authors.  If the words of the Bible has meaning to you, that's fine.  But to claim it was written with influences from communication by supernatural forces that are still 'alive' today is an entirely different statement.  The supernatural force (god) whom you claim was communicating apparently no longer is communicating so is likely be dead too.  But in the end, the Bible was very highly likely written entirely by people with ideas that came from people, not imaginary supernatural forces.  Confucius was a person with ideas, not a god.  He died, his ideas did not.  You are claiming that your source is still alive yet it's no longer communicating with us.

Now comeon MD, I now question your ability to even think things through at this point.

[Maitre D]

The Constitution was written by people who are now dead.  The ideas survived, not the authors.  If the words of the Bible has meaning to you, that's fine.  But to claim it was written with influences from communication by supernatural forces that are still 'alive' today is an entirely different statement.  The supernatural force (god) whom you claim was communicating apparently no longer is communicating so is likely be dead too.  But in the end, the Bible was very highly likely written entirely by people with ideas that came from people, not imaginary supernatural forces.  Confucius was a person with ideas, not a god.  He died, his ideas did not.  You are claiming that your source is still alive yet it's no longer communicating with us.

Come on man, people get inspiration from all sources.  Lots of people say their deceased relative is still "with them" or inspiring them.  The grandfather you had that taught you life lessons may be dead but he certainly lives on in your memory and in your actions.  Writings, books, letters, heirlooms etc - still communicate things to the living.


You're asking the impossible anyway.  Faith is unprovable.  By asking for proof (which is what a talking Deity would be), you're getting away from the basic concept of what Faith even is.

Now comeon MD, I now question your ability to even think things through at this point.

Darnit!  You have no idea how badly that hurt. 

[mean]

You're asking the impossible anyway.  Faith is unprovable.  By asking for proof (which is what a talking Deity would be), you're getting away from the basic concept of what Faith even is.

Humbug. Some people have voices in their heads all the time, and some believe it is God communicating with them. Maybe it is? I don't know.

But we're not talking about a talking God, we're talking about a communicating God. It doesn't have to be verbal communication. It doesn't even have to be direct communication. It only needs to be communication which appears to be unexplainable by anything other than divinity. If that kind of proof denies faith, then I guess all those super-faithful people who say God communicated with them in some way (by having their cat save them from a fire, or whatever--a reasonably unlikely event) must not actually have faith?

[ignatius]

You're asking the impossible anyway.  Faith is unprovable.  By asking for proof (which is what a talking Deity would be), you're getting away from the basic concept of what Faith even is.

When things are unprovable then you have to ask, is it reasonable. Is it reasonable to accept something that is based on a history of severe superstition.  When I hear people say you need faith, it tells me they have no interest in reason.

[kcmetro]

When things are unprovable then you have to ask, is it reasonable. Is it reasonable to accept something that is based on a history of severe superstition.  When I hear people say you need faith, it tells me they have no interest in reason.

Not that I'm religious....but, is it reasonable to believe in anything then?  I mean, theoretically everything we think we know about life could be utter bs.  There's no way to prove that I'm posting in a message board.  It only seems that I'm doing this, but there is no way to prove it.  The notion of observation, which is used in science, is flawed because it assumes that what is taking place all around us...and what we can observe...is actually happening or somehow based in reality.

Since we cannot prove we are real in any certain terms, we'll never be able to prove whether or not a god does or doesn't exist in any certain terms.  That's why discussions like this are basically worthless when it comes to trying to prove anything one way or another.

You'll never be able to prove anything to a philosopher.

[Maitre D]

When things are unprovable then you have to ask, is it reasonable. Is it reasonable to accept something that is based on a history of severe superstition.  When I hear people say you need faith, it tells me they have no interest in reason.

There are tons of human constructs that are only theoretical.   Show me justice.  If you can't, then I don't believe it exists.


Show me hope.  Fear.   Love.  And some concepts that are even scientific:  evolution/molecular biology/nuclear physics.   We have an idea they exist, and we believe them based on our limited brains.  But they're not provable either.

[Maitre D]

Not seeing either of your points.  I'm talking about what is reasonable, not proof.

Ok.  Then your hurdle has been lowered to "reasonable" from "provable" then?

[ShowMeKC]

Why should we focus so much on our own rationalizing and reasoning when humans by far are not perfect, and always make mistakes?

Today we believe certain things in Science, and other fields that we treat as facts, but as technology advances, we could easily find that those things aren't completly true, no matter how solid they seem to be.

Faith however, isn't like that. You can believe something and do not always have to change it, and it isn't always accompanied by new revelations or discoveries.

Besides, much of our modern ideas came out of the Enlightenment period and the Renaissance. Over time most societies have gone from being pagan and polytheistic to being near atheistic or unrecognizing of any God/gods.

It's like this...
Today we believe that if you have a problem controlling yourself, then it's a mental/psycological problem. But back 2000 years ago, most would agree you had a demon or a bad spirit.
Many Christians today would still agree with that. It may indeed be in your mind, but that still doesn't rule out demonic influence.

[kcmetro]

Not seeing either of your points.  I'm talking about what is reasonable, not proof.

Do I think it's reasonable that a man walked on water or that a god is judging us based on whether or not we believe in a hippie who lived 2,000 years ago? No.

Do I think it's reasonable that we live on a rock that hurtles around a giant ball of fire at 67,000 mph and that we live within an infinite universe that magically appeared out of nowhere without the influence of a powerful mind (maybe even our own?)? No.

So I don't really buy the religious nuts' bs nor do I buy the staunch scientist bs.  I don't buy any of it.

[LenexatoKCMO]

Us agnostics do not suffer from such a dillema - by acknowledging that man is incapable of knowing such truth, we can equally disdain those that claim their deity is fact and those that claim they are false.  Both are fooling themselves with false knowledge.  

[ShowMeKC]

You can also look at it this way...

The baptism of Christ. The Bible says that a dove descended and the voice of God was heard.

"Rational" people could say that this is unreasonable and couldn't have happened because we have no proof that God has ever spoken aloud to anyone.

However many Christians today recognize that not just anybody saw and heard that. If there was a random fisherman walking by the Jordan River, he wouldn't have seen a dove (possibly) and wouldn't have heard the voice of God.

With the Transfiguration, it is written that Elijah and (Moses?) were seen alongside Christ, and they were bathed in light.
However I think many Christians today would recognize that if there was a shepherd or someone walking on the mountain, he probably wouldn't have seen this.

The Bible isn't unreasonable because of so-called "superstitions" and "myths" contained in it. Many Christians indeed recognize that many of those things written in it wouldn't have been seen by just anybody.

It isn't about us believing in things that are completely unreasonable and impossible. We believe in things that are in fact completely possible and reasonable.

[mean]

Not that I'm religious....but, is it reasonable to believe in anything then?  I mean, theoretically everything we think we know about life could be utter bs.  There's no way to prove that I'm posting in a message board.  It only seems that I'm doing this, but there is no way to prove it.

You're essentially right. Nothing is 100% certain. This is why it was essential to the advancement of humankind that we develop a method to test our observations, to at least come as close as we can to certainty in the most objective way possible.

You'll never be able to prove anything to a philosopher.

Perhaps, but a smart philosopher will concede the point that being kicked in the nuts repeatedly with a steel toed boot does, in fact, hurt, and will likely not require a demonstration to prove it.

[kcmetro]

Perhaps, but a smart philosopher will concede the point that being kicked in the nuts repeatedly with a steel toed boot does, in fact, hurt, and will likely not require a demonstration to prove it.

Touche

[Maitre D]

You can also look at it this way...

The baptism of Christ. The Bible says that a dove descended and the voice of God was heard.

"Rational" people could say that this is unreasonable and couldn't have happened because we have no proof that God has ever spoken aloud to anyone.

I was about to bring that up actually.   The Bible says that John the Baptist performed the ceremony.   But after he was arrested and imprisoned, he lost faith in Jesus.   Publically asking if this guy was really a deity or not.


The point: even a booming voice of God won't guarantee faith!    Very appropo to Ignatius' concerns about needing proof.   John the Baptist had proof, and it wasn't enough.

[LenexatoKCMO]

John the Baptist allegedly had proof, and it wasn't enough.

fixed for accuracy. 

[mean]

The point: even a booming voice of God won't guarantee faith!    Very appropo to Ignatius' concerns about needing proof.   John the Baptist had proof, and it wasn't enough.

Exactly. So, I say, come on God! Where's the booming voice to at least give me something? It does not guarantee my faith, even the Bible agrees with this. I still have free will. I just need a little push in the right direction.