The Faith & Religion mega Thread

Originally Posted by bluegospel So basically, the agnostic position is that if there is a God, the agnostic knows better than him. That's a statement, not a question. This is necessarily the agnostic position if they hold that no scripture supercedes agnostic philosophy.

You seem to have (intentionally?) missed the fact that the agnostic doesn't assume scripture comes from a God.

Originally Posted by XavierP Despite the title of this thread, I have noticed a distinct lack of ranking of religiousness around these here parts. So, where 0 is "not at all", alpha is "somewhere around the middle" and 57 is "very", could you all rank your religiousness please.

ϵ

Originally Posted by bluegospel So basically, the agnostic position is that if there is a God, the agnostic knows better than him.

No, the agnostic says that the agnostic is not in a position to know of the existence of God. Nothing to do with knowing more than God does (if He exists).

Originally Posted by ntubski You seem to have (intentionally?) missed the fact that the agnostic doesn't assume scripture comes from a God.

I'll consider that an invitation.

First, let's distill all the attributes claimed (if assumed) by most "God-people," and specifically evangelical Christians--his divinity, omniscience, omnipotence, omnipresence, holiness, purity, compassion, perfect love, perfect justice, perfect mercy, and everything else. These can all be distilled to this: God is perfect. That's our claim as Christians. That's what atheists and agnostics refute.

For the agnostic to be sincere, they must dismiss resolutely either that God is perfect or that he is the origin of life. Otherwise their position that God might exist is a lie, making the agnostic position worse than that of the atheist.

This becomes necessary because if God is the author of human life, and he is perfect, and as human inventions of written scripts (alphabets and what not) are a vital part of the human experience, a perfect God would not neglect to furnish fallible people with a written script about the nature of human relationship with God.

So either there is no God, or, in the case the agnostic resolutely refutes that God is perfect or that he is the origin of life, then agnostics should default to a helter-skelter way of life, or at least an amoral one, which they don't. So either agnostics deceive themselves, or they deceive one another.

Originally Posted by XavierP Despite the title of this thread, I have noticed a distinct lack of ranking of religiousness around these here parts. So, where 0 is "not at all", alpha is "somewhere around the middle" and 57 is "very", could you all rank your religiousness please.

Mine's at zero.

Of course, when you put it that way, it makes it sound like a deficiency. One that you could level up by doing repetitive tasks or by drinking potions. Like in Skyrim.

I'm convinced. 58

Originally Posted by XavierP Despite the title of this thread, I have noticed a distinct lack of ranking of religiousness around these here parts. So, where 0 is "not at all", alpha is "somewhere around the middle" and 57 is "very", could you all rank your religiousness please.

I'm not good with numbers. Could we use smiley faces instead?


If not, I'd say 0.

Originally Posted by bluegospel First, let's distill all the attributes claimed (if assumed) by most "God-people," and specifically evangelical Christians--his divinity, omniscience, omnipotence, omnipresence, holiness, purity, compassion, perfect love, perfect justice, perfect mercy, and everything else. These can all be distilled to this: God is perfect. That's our claim as Christians. That's what atheists and agnostics refute.

You appear to be inventing a position for agnostics/atheists that will be easier for you to argue against, aka the straw man argument.

This becomes necessary because if God is the author of human life, and he is perfect, and as human inventions of written scripts (alphabets and what not) are a vital part of the human experience, a perfect God would not neglect to furnish fallible people with a written script about the nature of human relationship with God.

I don't see how this follows. What about humans who lived before writing was invented? What about humans who can't read now? What about furnishing a way for humans to tell if a written script is in fact from god, and not from other humans?

So either there is no God, or, in the case the agnostic resolutely refutes that God is perfect or that he is the origin of life, then agnostics should default to a helter-skelter way of life, or at least an amoral one, which they don't.

The old "can't have morality without god" thing again

Originally Posted by ntubski You appear to be inventing a position for agnostics/atheists that will be easier for you to argue against, aka the straw man argument. I don't see how this follows. What about humans who lived before writing was invented?

The earliest historically verified scripts rest with the Sumerians, but script has always been in development.

Originally Posted by ntubski What about humans who can't read now?

They still depend on people who can.

Originally Posted by ntubski What about furnishing a way for humans to tell if a written script is in fact from god, and not from other humans?

God gives each of us enough sense to discern that. People willfully exchange what they know to be truth for what they know to be error. They prefer freedom from God over freedom from sin.

Originally Posted by ntubski The old "can't have morality without god" thing again

That's not what I said. You just quoted me as saying:

So either there is no God, or, in the case the agnostic resolutely refutes that God is perfect or that he is the origin of life, then agnostics should default to a helter-skelter way of life, or at least an amoral one, which they don't.

Minister of the Universal Life Church since 1987
Student of A Course in Miracles since 1993

Nothing real can be threatened.
Nothing unreal exists.
Herein lies the Peace of God.

Originally Posted by bluegospel script has always been in development.

I don't see how you could possibly know that.

God gives each of us enough sense to discern that [godly origin of the script].

You can claim that everybody has this sense and I can claim that nobody has this sense, and we might both claim that those who say otherwise are deluding themselves; there doesn't seem to be any way to resolve this issue.

Originally Posted by bluegospel Originally Posted by ntubski The old "can't have morality without god" thing again That's not what I said. You just quoted me as saying: So either there is no God, or, in the case the agnostic resolutely refutes that God is perfect or that he is the origin of life, then agnostics should default to a helter-skelter way of life, or at least an amoral one, which they don't.

You seem to be saying "not(God) OR refute(God) --> not(morality)". If that's wrong, then please break the sentence down into simpler ones.

Originally Posted by bluegospel God created the human mind and heart. He gave humans the intelligence to study and engages them not only in writing the Scripture, but interpreting all sorts of difficult things, including Scripture. Show me a discrepancy of the various Protestant interpretations of Scripture that contradicts the Scripture's fundamental thought, or an unreasonable explanation from the interpreters for their departure from an otherwise acceptable translation, and I will give you that the agnostic position is at least sincere. God didn't need them. But what better method--for a holy God--to convey by "script" his nature and desires to sinful people, than through the best human examples of godliness--Moses, David, John, and yes, Paul, and others, together with their faults--overcome. What attested attributes of the Christian God preclude his prerogative to include such examples as co-authors with him of the true Scripture?

*blinks*

Well, that didnt answer my questions at all, not that I was expecting a real answer. I believe that you dont know anywhere near as much as you think you do about religion in general, or teh histroy of the church, or politics. Its more circular logic....which seems to be all you produce when you get asked a question you cant answer properly.

Originally Posted by bluegospel I'll consider that an invitation. First, let's distill all the attributes claimed (if assumed) by most "God-people," and specifically evangelical Christians--his divinity, omniscience, omnipotence, omnipresence, holiness, purity, compassion, perfect love, perfect justice, perfect mercy, and everything else. These can all be distilled to this: God is perfect. That's our claim as Christians. That's what atheists and agnostics refute. For the agnostic to be sincere, they must dismiss resolutely either that God is perfect or that he is the origin of life. Otherwise their position that God might exist is a lie, making the agnostic position worse than that of the atheist. This becomes necessary because if God is the author of human life, and he is perfect, and as human inventions of written scripts (alphabets and what not) are a vital part of the human experience, a perfect God would not neglect to furnish fallible people with a written script about the nature of human relationship with God. So either there is no God, or, in the case the agnostic resolutely refutes that God is perfect or that he is the origin of life, then agnostics should default to a helter-skelter way of life, or at least an amoral one, which they don't. So either agnostics deceive themselves, or they deceive one another.

Ye gawds.

Even after someone has posted a nice, neat definition of what an agnostic is, you still dont understand.

You are AGAIN making circular arguments, using your definition of god to explain how agnostics are wrong.

If an agnostic was going to believe a book, then which book should they believe? Its not like we just have the bible....there is also the Torah (and associated works), and the koran. That is just dealing with the abrahamic religions as well, there is all those pesky Buddhist, Sikh, Hindu, Zoroastrian (plus far, far more) books of religion. Then you get religions that possibly had books in the past but no longer exist, like the Aztec religion *shudders at the idea of a Tezcatlipoca/Smoking Mirror 'scripture'*.

It is impossible for anyone with an open mind to be sure of the divinity of any 'scripture'. Sure, you believe in X, that does not mean that Y or Z can be dismissed.

*edit- interesting little snippet from Alan Moore here-

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dHKvVS7qUjk

1:20-1:40 points out the problem 'scripture' in general.

Originally Posted by XavierP Despite the title of this thread, I have noticed a distinct lack of ranking of religiousness around these here parts. So, where 0 is "not at all", alpha is "somewhere around the middle" and 57 is "very", could you all rank your religiousness please.

Couldnt you have made it nice and easy, like 0-100?

I'd probably give myself about 60-85 on a 0-100 scale, but I'd score myself very differently to what other people might score me. My uncle rates me as -something (he is a in a crazy 7th day adventist splinter church).

Originally Posted by brianL 3.14159

Looks like bluegospels circular arguments are rubbing off. Couldnt you have gone 1.61803?

Originally Posted by XavierP Despite the title of this thread, I have noticed a distinct lack of ranking of religiousness around these here parts. So, where 0 is "not at all", alpha is "somewhere around the middle" and 57 is "very", could you all rank your religiousness please.

13.37
And Going down!

Originally Posted by XavierP Despite the title of this thread, I have noticed a distinct lack of ranking of religiousness around these here parts. So, where 0 is "not at all", alpha is "somewhere around the middle" and 57 is "very", could you all rank your religiousness please.

0, of course.

It still surprises me though that even nowadays people still run around believing in imaginary muppets sitting on clouds, or whatever other form their imaginary boy/girlfriend takes...

<you know what, forget I said anything. >

Originally Posted by MrCode <you know what, forget I said anything. >

OK, but I'll have to know what you said before I can forget it.