Two Gods or One

Quote: Evenbob

Yes, this is why I tread lightly around Christians
in my real life. They give the impression that
without their belief in god constantly reigning
them in every minute, they would go absolutely
nuts and go postal on everybody. It's why I
never argue with them, and pat them on the
head like they're children. They have so little
faith in their innate moral character that they
frighten me. Like losing faith in god would
give them permission to become monsters.

I have heard this from random xtians as well. They speak of such ungodly sin that would surely turn the earth into a firey mass if they hadn't found the lord.

Occasionally I make the mistake of finding out what their terrible, horrible offense against god and nature is, and often it is something like "I thought about sex with a woman", or had two beers and started on a third. My internal response is like "your kidding right, right" ? They must be trying to make me feel like a sinner. What a hypocritical mass of meat.

I think to self, "that is your greatest sin"? Lucky you got off the sin train when you did before the universe collapsed in on itself. Spend a few days in Petro's mind, you will never, ever, get out of confession. If that is their thing, feeling bad about what evolution devised to keep the species alive.

FWIW, I don't feel guilty about eating cows either.

Quote: petroglyph

Occasionally I make the mistake of finding out what their terrible, horrible offense against god and nature is, and often it is something like "I thought about sex with a woman",

They're afraid if they give in to one
sin, they will just go crazy and lose
it and become Charles Manson.
Silliness.

Quote: petroglyph

Occasionally I make the mistake of finding out what their terrible, horrible offense against god and nature is, and often it is something like "I thought about sex with a woman", or had two beers and started on a third.

It gets worse, or at least it can.

You may find out the commit actual immoral acts which they regard as either neutral or good. Like campaigning to deny equal rights to some people. That's nowadays. In the past it was much worse. A pious Christian, let's say Stonewall Jackson, saw nothing wrong in owning slaves.

Quote: Evenbob

What? They've been saying all the other
religions are wrong for centuries.

There is a big difference between saying that someone is wrong about certain aspects of their religion and in saying that someone is wrong about the fundamental truth that there is a God.

Quote:

Atheists have nothing
to do with any of it, they are the sane
unemotional observers on the sidelines.

Atheists most definitely are NOT sane and not unemotional observers. They are the cause of the many lawsuits to remove nativity scenes, 10 commandments, crosses on the side of the road, and menorahs. They don’t observe they prosecute. Thank God they don’t have the power to kill religious people like they have had in the past and in the very recent memory of the 20th century. The common philosophical and religious beliefs of the 20th century’s worst human beings have all been atheists who hated the Church and actively persecuted it.

Quote: Evenbob

Which is something I will never understand.
Religious faith in something that has no proof,
no evidence, just because it sounds good
you want it to be true Or somebody taught
you it's OK because they do it. I have faith
the plane I get on will fly because I can see the
science behind it. I can see the data, I
can see other planes flying. I have yet
to have a dead relative come back and
tell me it's the right thing to believe in
Jesus. Has anybody? I didn't think so.

Religious belief and the mechanics of flying a plane are very different. You do see and I am sure you have a relative whose life has been changed for the better by faith in God. You can look at the data and you can see the difference faith and religion makes in people’s lives and you still say there is no evidence. I say you are blind. The unseen power of the air can cause planes to fly. The unseen power of the Spirit can cause human beings to soar and become the best versions of themselves.

Quote: Evenbob

You nailed it. Theists are so wrong so often
that I just take it for granted. It's not that
I'm wrong all the time, that's not possible.
It's that FrG is so wrong most of the time
and I'm so used to it, I don't even look at
it as being wrong anymore. I just accept
it as Christians having a 'problem'. Like
my Uncle Jake who thinks he's Teddy
Roosevelt.

Please name just one time I have been wrong about something we have discussed about religion.

Quote: TheCesspit

That's just nonsense on a stick. I don't know why you try to engage with atheist on this level when you are so far wrong about what they actually stand for, it's shocking.

What do atheists stand for? I said very clearly that they belief that every religious person in the world is wrong about the existence of God. If you are uncomfortable with that perhaps you should reexamine your atheism. I know I would feel uncomfortable saying that the vast majority of the world and human beings throughout history have been wrong.

Quote:

But what always gets me is his complete unwillingness to understand that you don't need a divine power to be a moral being. The existence of morality does necessitate a God. Or vice versus. And how offensively he holds that position towards atheists.

You do not need a divine power to be a moral being. I think I have been clear about this position many times. However, you do need a divine power to establish a concept of what is morally good or bad. Subjective morality is only based on what one person or culture thinks may be correct and if this was true then we would be forced to say cannibalism or genocide or rape was okay if that person or community decreed it to be so. However, we know that this is not possible. There are universal objective moral truths and for these to hold to every culture they have to grounded in something universal that rises above our own authority as individuals and communities to determine for ourselves what is right or wrong. We need to have something that is immune to our emotional desire for power, wealth, lust, and fame to provide our moral guidelines. This is God.

Quote:

Or that the prime mover concept does not lead us to require a moralistic, divine being.

This is correct and that is why the prime mover argument, which provides us clear evidence that there is a God needs more thought to complete the picture. A discussion about morality will help us to see that this prime mover is not just some impersonal force but has rather implanted in all of us a moral compass pointing to goodness and truth. A compass that we have the freedom to not follow and a compass that we can lead others to ignore, but nevertheless a help to living a moral life. That is why many good atheists live extraordinarily happy and moral lives, oblivious to the obvious existence of God who guides them and determines objectively the good and right things to do.

Quote: rxwine

Well, I would go with that, but I think FrGamble has gotten to the point where he insists there is evidence for God -- enough evidence to declare him real as anything else.

So, he's the one talking to the real god, I guess.

The problem arises when you say, “as real as anything else”. God is more real than anything else, He is the reason for everything else’s existence and the reason it stays in existence. You also seem to think that the only things that are real are the things you can touch or observe with your senses. Such a limited view of reality ignores our highest ability to think abstractly, create, dream, and debate philosophical positions about the meaning of life, love, death, and God.

Quote: FrGamble

This is correct and that is why the prime mover argument, which provides us clear evidence that there is a God needs more thought to complete the picture.

No argument, no matter how clever, can trump even the flimsiest evidence, or in this case the complete and total lack of any evidence.

Quote: Nareed

No argument, no matter how clever, can trump even the flimsiest evidence, or in this case the complete and total lack of any evidence.

Exactly why Atheism is to be rejected!

Quote: FrGamble

What do atheists stand for?

Why do you insist in taking a very general lack of belief in a made up being as being a cogent, cohesive, consistent, led group of people?

Further, what would it take for you to admit the character of a person is not determined by whether or not they offer ritual human sacrifices to the one true god Huixilopoxtli.

I mean, given the general tenor of your ideology as displayed here, you'd consider the Aztec religion as being "more true" than atheism, human sacrifices or not.

Quote: Nareed

I mean, given the general tenor of your ideology as displayed here, you'd consider the Aztec religion as being "more true" than atheism, human sacrifices or not.

That is an excellent question and represents in some ways a dilemma for me. In the case between Atheism and the Aztec religion two different fundamental truths are being ignored. In Atheism the existence of God is denied and while this leads to all kinds of dangers and falsities these do not necessarily follow. In the Aztec religion some type of God is recognized but the fundamental and universal moral truth of not killing innocents is denied. This obviously leads to true and real danger and must be rejected.

I will always side with the argument that is morally sound and good. Even though there is no foundation to the correct morality good atheists very often live, it is inherent in the human person to gravitate to what is good. I would rather be an atheist than follow the Aztec religion.