|
Post by vertigo on Feb 8, 2006 11:27:04 GMT -5
Since everyone agrees with each other, I must be wrong. After all, when people agree that something is true, it becomes true. People have some fantastical ability to make things become true.
|
|
|
Post by guerrillasaint on Feb 8, 2006 20:01:56 GMT -5
A lot of interesting thoughts.
The information that you have presented doesn't debunk my life experiences. What has science brought up that totally blows the Idea of a God out of the water?
I can say the same to you.
the definition for good is long. So by good what do you mean?
Why?
You could say my philosophy in life is to align myself with God's will
No, it isn't thoughts that makes someone because Thomas Jefferson was a great thinker. With wonderful ideas but was a hypocrite because he owned, what?, thousands of slaves.
life is full of absolutes and relatives. Just because I think one thing is an absolute doesn't mean that I am incapable of believing in relatives. For example it is an absolute that you are human right. Also the truth is not relative. I would say our society has allowed the definition of truth to be watered down to people's opinoins about the truth. (this is just extra) So it is either true that there's no God or that ther is a God.
Logic can be preformed inside of Religion because Martin Luther used it when he tacked his thesis to the Church doors. The things illuminated in the bible didn't match up with what was happening in the church so logically something was wrong.
|
|
|
Post by vertigo on Feb 8, 2006 20:48:28 GMT -5
Answer the question using your preferred definition.
|
|
|
Post by Dragon*of*Heaven on Feb 9, 2006 12:51:51 GMT -5
Finaly we get to the point me and I suppose vertigo are trying to make. Yes you are correct that just because a person is a theist this doesnt make them a bad person. But in a way it dose make them somewhat of a lier if to no one else than to themselves. You see if a person states that they hold honesty as a good thing then are not able to apply that honesty to all things in their lives then it in fact holds them as haveing contradictory belives. Of course this means that they are a lier at least to them selves, and in turn that they are not thinking on a higher level. I doubt that any one will disagree with me that a persons thoughts mandate his status. If this is held to be true then in effect a atheist is indeed higher than a theist on a level of thought.
|
|
|
Post by guerrillasaint on Feb 10, 2006 0:04:38 GMT -5
Do you have proof that there is no God? If you don't then you can state that believers' lie to themselves because they believe.
Being a believer doesn't mean that I lie to myself. If anything having a relationship with God makes me take a look at who I am. Jesus was the perfect example of who a person should be and if I am not like him then I have work to do. So since you know me so well tell me how I am lying to myself.
Since my thought process are so inferior to yours please explain to me how a persons thoughts will mandate there status. A lot of people have great ideas but if they don't act upon there ideas or vision then they are nothing but daydreamers. Dealing with theory is one thing but no one truly knows if their theory will work until they act it out.
What I think about good and God is. It doesn't matter. Good is irrelevant to him.
|
|
|
Post by guerrillasaint on Feb 10, 2006 3:06:47 GMT -5
I am going to recant on what I said about good.(I was wrong)
Good is not irrelevant to God.
Man's definition of Good is irrelevant to what God's definition of Good is.
Man's good changes over time and God's good is consent.
Although I am not sure if I answered your question that answers my question about atheist.
|
|
|
Post by Mistwalker on Feb 10, 2006 3:09:23 GMT -5
[edit] In reponse to vertigo's last remark to me:
"I refuse to address any points until you agree with me, without me having to show there's a logical reason for what I think!"
|
|
|
Post by vertigo on Feb 10, 2006 8:33:21 GMT -5
Guerillasaint, I take it you are saying that God's good might not be good for us but good for him.
Mistwalker, saying "people agree with me" is not a good way to conduct an argument. In the face of that, how should I respond? I don't care if everyone agrees with you or no-one agrees with you, agreement doesn't define truth. You can all have a consensus; if it seems wrong to me, I will maintain it is wrong.
What points should I address? Morals are not arbitrary. Beliefs are not equally worthy, justified beliefs are more worthy than unjustified beliefs. Believing one can fly is less worthy than believing one can't. Believing one can walk on water is less worthy than believing one can't. I can't say it more plainly than this.
I'm not interested in a contest, just be honest for once and admit that some beliefs are better than others.
|
|
|
Post by guerrillasaint on Feb 12, 2006 3:35:09 GMT -5
No. God's Good is good for us. What makes his good different from ours is that his Good is not subjective to time, place, or opinion, or society like man's is.
|
|
|
Post by vertigo on Feb 12, 2006 9:24:31 GMT -5
And you know this how?
|
|
|
Post by guerrillasaint on Feb 12, 2006 22:48:52 GMT -5
I have a relationship with him and experience with him.
|
|
The Reservoir Dog
Seasoned Citizen
I'm sick of following my dreams, I'm just gonna ask where they're goin' and meet up with em' later.
Posts: 136
|
Post by The Reservoir Dog on Feb 13, 2006 16:41:02 GMT -5
How do you know he isn't just either using you for his own glory or simply toying with you like a child with anyother play thing?
|
|
|
Post by guerrillasaint on Feb 13, 2006 18:42:36 GMT -5
For the past 17 years that I have believed in him he hasn't toyed with me yet.
|
|
The Reservoir Dog
Seasoned Citizen
I'm sick of following my dreams, I'm just gonna ask where they're goin' and meet up with em' later.
Posts: 136
|
Post by The Reservoir Dog on Feb 13, 2006 21:13:05 GMT -5
But how can you know that for sure? There is no way to know for sure, maybe you just havn't looked at your relashionship hard enough with god. There is no way to be sure.
|
|
|
Post by Mistwalker on Feb 14, 2006 2:30:11 GMT -5
Vertigo, I was making fun of your ridiculous response to me, which was "Morals aren't arbitrary! Until you relativists understand that, I have nothing to say."
You were stating your intention to cease the discussion until everyone agreed with you.
Regardless, I didn't say morals were arbitrary, I said your decision to say lying was wrong was arbitrary. You're attacking a claim I never made.
Lying, in many cases, can be the better choice. If lying to yourself gives you the ability to carry on, then why is it "wrong"? The question you should ask to determine if something is wrong or not is "who is being hurt?". If there's no victim, there's no wrong being done.
|
|