Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I would say that as long as a god and its feelings are mentioned, they are both equally unreliable. We don't know unless we ask this god.
A few Christians, obviously not all, are painting their god in a bad light by claiming to know its intentions and how it intends to interact with humans. I think it indirectly illuminates how these believers structure their own lives with others- a sort-of "my way or the highway."
You definitely have point. But I think backing off of it because "we don't know" is basing an action on "we don't know." I like to talk about things I do know to form a belief. we are reasonable straight forward people that can think. Charlie may not be, but you are.
1) so long as we are doing the best we can with what we have god doesn't care.
2) only believing in christ will be saved.
we don't know what type of god is there. What statement seems like a more reliable claim based on what we see around the world?
I also think approaching like that helps for recovery and activism.
You definitely have point. But I think backing off of it because "we don't know" is basing an action on "we don't know." I like to talk about things I do know to form a belief. we are reasonable straight forward people that can think. Charlie may not be, but you are.
1) so long as we are doing the best we can with what we have god doesn't care.
2) only believing in christ will be saved.
we don't know what type of god is there. What statement seems like a more reliable claim based on what we see around the world?
I also think approaching like that helps for recovery and activism.
Yes. If we don't know what type of god there is, then number one is most reliable. But that is not what some Christians are claiming. They are claiming to know their god and what it wants.
So you have to go back further. The argument now surrounds this question: Does the Christian religion know the mind of a god?
I think that is a fair thing to say as regards the god of the Bible. That still leaves some sorta creator - god and some gap for god about that, but that isn't really importants. The Personal gods or religions are what concerns us, and that of Christianity in particular.
The only claim that concerns me about Christianity is that we need redemption but I really don't have to believe it. So I wonder what my concern is really about.
I can easily say to my child who I don't want to experience anything similar to my childhood, "Don't believe in the Christian claim of redemption. You don't need forgiveness from a god (and even from another human)." But then I wouldn't be any different from the next religious person who believes in redemption and I certainly would be setting her up for failure in her interactions with others.
So right now I am sticking with making observations to see what is there and distinguishing this from preference, what I hope to be there.
Yes. If we don't know what type of god there is, then number one is most reliable. But that is not what some Christians are claiming. They are claiming to know their god and what it wants.
So you have to go back further. The argument now surrounds this question: Does the Christian religion know the mind of a god?
yes, you are correct ... that's what many people do. They say their way or no way. actually, rational people are outnumbered. Four broad classification that fit are addiction, abuse, mental, and the rest of us. the rest of us are out numbered.
I don't believe in their type of god.
I would say that the ones that focus on principles (you like that phet ... I put that in there specifically for you) are more healthy than the ones that are focusing on a type of deity.
I would also say that about atheist. Atheist that focus on principles are more healthy than the ones that focus on a deity.
people defined by a statement of belief about god tend to be more dangerous than those that are not.
The only claim that concerns me about Christianity is that we need redemption but I really don't have to believe it. So I wonder what my concern is really about.
I can easily say to my child who I don't want to experience anything similar to my childhood, "Don't believe in the Christian claim of redemption. You don't need forgiveness from a god (and even from another human)." But then I wouldn't be any different from the next religious person who believes in redemption and I certainly would be setting her up for failure in her interactions with others.
So right now I am sticking with making observations to see what is there and distinguishing this from preference, what I hope to be there.
The two things that I find very unreliable is "sent a son to die and rise for our sins" and "go spread the word".
Although the second is dicey ... teaching is spreading the word, so the idea is sound.
yes, you are correct ... that's what many people do. They say their way or no way. actually, rational people are outnumbered. Four broad classification that fit are addiction, abuse, mental, and the rest of us. the rest of us are out numbered.
I don't believe in their type of god.
I would say that the ones that focus on principles (you like that phet ... I put that in there specifically for you) are more healthy than the ones that are focusing on a type of deity.
I would also say that about atheist. Atheist that focus on principles are more healthy than the ones that focus on a deity.
people defined by a statement of belief about god tend to be more dangerous than those that are not.
What kind of principles? Principles that inform of a system that is already there or principles that people prefer? Both of these exist and the only time I worry about them is when a person doesn't recognize the difference.
The two things that I find very unreliable is "sent a son to die and rise for our sins" and "go spread the word".
Although the second is dicey ... teaching is spreading the word, so the idea is sound.
That makes sense if you believe that humans can't redeem themselves and need a form of redemption. It is just a solution to a problem with a wrapping that is very much human.
The principles are there. Not so much 'already', but have been put there as social ethics evolve. And may evolve further. Arach mistakes atheism yet again because the principles that inform atheists (in general, I'd say, in the absence of a god -belief) are those of humanism, just as rationalism informs atheism (as a rationale) as to the logical basis. The only time 'deity' (the god -claim) comes into it is in the rejection of the god -claim and giving reasons why the evidence for it isn't good enough.
That in itself is nothing to do with principles or ethics, no more than with scientific research: something else that gets misconstrued, because neither the atheism nor the science is ethical or moral in itself, but the social knock - ons from atheism and science are of course, very important, but are not the atheism or the science in themselves.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
