Muslim shop owner has no problem with my open carry

[marshaul]

I'll throw gas on the fire. As one of, probably very few, atheists on these boards I have to agree with Sam Harris. The fundamentals of Islam are fundamentally wrong. If there was actual coherence with Christianity I'd say the same. but with 30,000 denominations they can fight amongst themselves.

That being said, it sounds like SVG had a nice conversation from one human to another. Plus, the shirt is awesome.

I agree about the fundamental incorrectness of faith and the inevitable negative effects of organizing around it, but I would point out that Islam is by no means a unified religion.

On a related note, I feel about Muslims the same way I do about Christians: their religion is ludicrous (and frequently hilarious), and I will oppose any tendencies towards aggression that it might engender in its followers. However -- and this is a lesson that Christians taught me first -- there are far too many of them to let that color my reactions to them as individuals. Were I to do so, I would likely have very few friends indeed.

As a result, I have long been able to be friends with many Christians (I've been seriously romantically involved with one), and also I've become friends with many Muslims, and followers of just about every other kooky religion.

Good people are good people. Even if we don't always share the same perspective on certain issues.

 

[Metalhead47]

Ok you godless heathens, this is way off topic, take it to PM. same goes for the religious zealots.


And just for the record, I find the idea that there is no higher power to be the height of both hilarity and ludicrousness, and hypocrisy

 

[marshaul]

Hypocrisy, huh? That's a new one. I've long argued that many religious types are hypocrites in that they don't practice what they preach, but I wonder how you might assume that a mere lack (or, for that matter, presence) of faith constitutes hypocrisy.

I can assure you that there is no internal inconsistency in my values. And, they are just as strong as, or stronger than, any Christian's. And, whereas hypocrisy is generally only demonstrable in the presence of actions inconsistent with externally advocated philosophy, I can't imagine how you propose to find examples of such actions.

 

[Metalhead47]

Again, if you really want to talk religion, pm me. Don't belong on here.

 

[marshaul]

Again, if you really want to talk religion, pm me. Don't belong on here.

Should I PM you what I just posted? Or perhaps you could just respond in PM?

 

[Metalhead47]

Very well, give me a few hours so I'm not typing on an iPhone with crappy reception in a bumping truck.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[gogodawgs]

Hypocrisy, huh? That's a new one. I've long argued that many religious types are hypocrites in that they don't practice what they preach, but I wonder how you might assume that a mere lack (or, for that matter, presence) of faith constitutes hypocrisy.

I can assure you that there is no internal inconsistency in my values. And, they are just as strong as, or stronger than, any Christian's. And, whereas hypocrisy is generally only demonstrable in the presence of actions inconsistent with externally advocated philosophy, I can't imagine how you propose to find examples of such actions.

Hence why I am Deist....

 

[sudden valley gunner]

I'll throw gas on the fire. As one of, probably very few, atheists on these boards I have to agree with Sam Harris. The fundamentals of Islam are fundamentally wrong. If there was actual coherence with Christianity I'd say the same. but with 30,000 denominations they can fight amongst themselves.

That being said, it sounds like SVG had a nice conversation from one human to another. Plus, the shirt is awesome.

We have a similar religious past, I though am agnostic, I don't exclude any or all possibilities, no religion or science has proved anything to me beyond a doubt.

And yes I did have a great encounter one human to another. I posted and titled my thread the way I did to specifically point out a good encounter with a group of people that are very demonized lately in the western world. Hopefully now when someone Googles muslim/guns or anything to that effect they can run across something positive and not negative.

 

[Metalhead47]

Hypocrisy, huh? That's a new one. I've long argued that many religious types are hypocrites in that they don't practice what they preach, but I wonder how you might assume that a mere lack (or, for that matter, presence) of faith constitutes hypocrisy.

I can assure you that there is no internal inconsistency in my values. And, they are just as strong as, or stronger than, any Christian's. And, whereas hypocrisy is generally only demonstrable in the presence of actions inconsistent with externally advocated philosophy, I can't imagine how you propose to find examples of such actions.

Well since everyone else keeps going there s'pose I will too.

The hypocrisy of the atheist. Now maybe this doesn't apply to you, but it seems to be applicable to most of the atheists I've encountered. Their hypocrisy is in the fact that they disparage and look down upon people of faith while at the same time saying, "there is no god," which in fact IS a statement of faith. The atheist cannot PROVE there is no god anymore than I can PROVE that there is. To say so is a statement of faith, because it cannot be proven.

I think there are very few true atheists in this world. Again, this may not apply to you marshaul, but I think what we have instead is God-haters. They do not merely not believe, they hate God and those who claim to be His followers, for their beliefs. Hence their enmity towards any display of faith, especially public, and the flinging around of terms like "hypocrite" and "fanatic." Try to put a cross in a public place and watch these "atheists" go ballistic. That display they put up in the capitol in Olympia a little while ago was filled with hateful language towards those of faith, not merely the statement "there is no god," which is all an actual atheist would really need to say. Now, to hate something, one must acknowledge it exists, or in other words, believe in it.

Now, do I deny being a hypocrite? Hell no. I freely admit to being one. I'm also a liar, a lecher, and occasionally an *******. I confess that I have sinned through my own fault, in my thoughts and in my words, in what I have done, and what I have failed to do. I claim no "consistency of values" or moral superiority. I am an imperfect being, and will be till they day I die. I am made perfect only in the willful self-sacrifice of the one Perfect Being.

Are your values and behavior truly consistent marshaul? Are they really? If they are, hey, good for you. Only YOU really know that for sure. But do you honestly think such consistency is unique to the faithless? I don't deny that it's there among them, probably in the same minute proportions as it exists in Catholic nuns, Buddhist monks, Hindu gurus, Muslim muftis, and all the other ascetics and religious of the world, as well as the laity. I think such consistency is a very rare and unique gift and accomplishment. One rarely hears about such true consistency, since those who have achieved it, by definition, do not broadcast it.

What you hear about instead are all the assholes of religion (and lack thereof). The boastful, the hateful, the condemning. I don't blame those who point at the faithful and scream "hypocrite!", at least not that much. But I do believe they are looking in the wrong place, and are seeing only the side they choose to see, just like those whom they condemn.

I don't believe in the perfection of Man without the perfection of God, and to strive for the former while denying the latter is the height of arrogance. It's like trying to become a master marksman while denying that training or education materials are needed, or even exist.

Do I practice what I preach? Well I generally avoid preaching as I'm not very good at it and just don't have the voice. Yes, I try. And I fail. I certainly don't say "hey look at me and how good I am, you should be like me!" Instead I say "Look at this Guy I'm trying to be like, you should be like Him."

Ok this got way too long winded so I'll stop now.

"The True One is the Christ, and not the Christians." --Detritus, "So Far Away"

 

[marshaul]

The hypocrisy of the atheist. Now maybe this doesn't apply to you, but it seems to be applicable to most of the atheists I've encountered. Their hypocrisy is in the fact that they disparage and look down upon people of faith while at the same time saying, "there is no god," which in fact IS a statement of faith. The atheist cannot PROVE there is no god anymore than I can PROVE that there is. To say so is a statement of faith, because it cannot be proven.

Good point! I would say that I refuse to believe in God without something resembling proof (or concrete evidence), and that I incline towards disbelief in the absence of such (the same way one may be disinclined towards belief in, say, leprechauns). However, I do not, as an article of faith, assert categorically that God doesn't exist. Such an entity may well be. As with leprechauns, I would accept proof were it to become available. In the meantime...

I think there are very few true atheists in this world. Again, this may not apply to you marshaul, but I think what we have instead is God-haters. They do not merely not believe, they hate God and those who claim to be His followers, for their beliefs. Hence their enmity towards any display of faith, especially public, and the flinging around of terms like "hypocrite" and "fanatic." Try to put a cross in a public place and watch these "atheists" go ballistic. That display they put up in the capitol in Olympia a little while ago was filled with hateful language towards those of faith, not merely the statement "there is no god," which is all an actual atheist would really need to say. Now, to hate something, one must acknowledge it exists, or in other words, believe in it.

Yes, I am familiar with the kind of person to whom you refer. I cannot speak for others, of course. I suspect that much of what you see is a manifestation of feelings of disgust and resentment towards the actions, general and specific, of the agents and followers of organized religion.

In my own case, what animosity I hold is exclusively for the politicization of faith. I view individual faith as nothing more than a curiosity, one of what are undoubtedly many disagreements of fact between myself and the other. It may be, however, that my animosity towards such organization comes across, in some cases, to some, as animosity towards individual faith itself, which it is not.

Now, do I deny being a hypocrite? Hell no. I freely admit to being one. I'm also a liar, a lecher, and occasionally an *******. I confess that I have sinned through my own fault, in my thoughts and in my words, in what I have done, and what I have failed to do. I claim no "consistency of values" or moral superiority. I am an imperfect being, and will be till they day I die. I am made perfect only in the willful self-sacrifice of the one Perfect Being.

Fair enough. It's reasonable to admit that such a high standard is difficult to maintain with perfection. Not especiallly hypocritical if you accept the same from others, also.

Are your values and behavior truly consistent marshaul? Are they really? If they are, hey, good for you. Only YOU really know that for sure.

I hope so. In my view, the absolute do-not-cross line of morality is dictated by the Principle of Non-aggression. I certainly hope that I have not aggressed in my adulthood. If I have done so, it is assuredly by mistake.

While I also consider it good karma to be good and charitable towards others, and to do as little harm as possible (where aggression is absent), I would punish no one, including myself, for failure in this regard. It is not mandatory, merely best practice. I hope my own failures are minor and irregular, but I suppose I do not consider them hypocrisy since I consider them allowable.

But do you honestly think such consistency is unique to the faithless?

Oh, certainly not. I hope I didn't come across as suggesting otherwise!

Personally, as a member of the "faithless", I am inclined to credit such moral consistency to an internal drive found in a certain personality, regardless of faith or lack thereof, which is merely attributed to faith (or lack thereof) by those with a self-confirming interest in seeing it so.

I don't deny that it's there among them, probably in the same minute proportions as it exists in Catholic nuns, Buddhist monks, Hindu gurus, Muslim muftis, and all the other ascetics and religious of the world, as well as the laity. I think such consistency is a very rare and unique gift and accomplishment. One rarely hears about such true consistency, since those who have achieved it, by definition, do not broadcast it.

This may be true. In my own case, I make no claims of asceticism, or guruhood, or anything of the sort. I would say that my ability to maintain internal consistency of morality is possible simple due to having a simple and clear standard, which is easy in compliance and inexcusable in failure.

What you hear about instead are all the assholes of religion (and lack thereof). The boastful, the hateful, the condemning. I don't blame those who point at the faithful and scream "hypocrite!", at least not that much. But I do believe they are looking in the wrong place, and are seeing only the side they choose to see, just like those whom they condemn.

I do not disagree.

I don't believe in the perfection of Man without the perfection of God, and to strive for the former while denying the latter is the height of arrogance. It's like trying to become a master marksman while denying that training or education materials are needed, or even exist.

I understand this perspective. In my view, humanity is evidently imperfect, incredible though we may be. It is therefore not unreasonable to credit it to the imperfect but continually-optimizing process of evolution.

Do I practice what I preach? Well I generally avoid preaching as I'm not very good at it and just don't have the voice. Yes, I try. And I fail. I certainly don't say "hey look at me and how good I am, you should be like me!" Instead I say "Look at this Guy I'm trying to be like, you should be like Him."

That's not especially hypocritical.

I myself am an advocate of the teachings of Jesus (minus the hocus-pocus attributed to him by later admirers). I have a copy of the Jefferson Bible readily at hand. I simply find it to be a moral framework not requiring a belief in a deity, although that was a most convenient vehicle for dissemination of the framework the time and place of its inception.

 

[gsx1138]

I was going to type a long ass response but Marshaul did it for me, thank you. SVG, I considered myself Agnostic for a long time. Only because I believed we could not "know" for sure. That is pretty much Atheism. Atheist don't, at least they shouldn't, claim there is no God. I merely claim that there is no evidence for a God and all evidence we do have points in the opposite direction. Unless of course you go the Deist or even Pantheist route. Both of which are untestable, so far. Normally I would have a person define their God and help deconstruct after that. While I don't find faith to be any kind of virtue I don't look down on those who choose to have it. Unless they feel the need to tell everyone else outlandish and childish things like they are going to hell if they don't agree with them.

SVG you make a good point with the search thing. I only know of two muslim gun owners, through the internet, who are very pro-America. I'm sure there's more but you know that kind of story doesn't sell well. Just like a group of OC'ers having a BBQ in a park where nothing happens. Not going to sell. We need to hear about the batsh!t crazy guy shooting.

This lady sounds like she's pretty cool. As humans we can always find some common ground even if it's just mutual benefit. I have someone I know that I'd put my life in danger for that is an evangelical Christian. He's just a good person and we simply need more good people. I'm sure deep down he must wish I'd "come to Jesus" but we both don't seem to have an issue being friends.

 

[Metalhead47]

I was going to type a long ass response but Marshaul did it for me, thank you. SVG, I considered myself Agnostic for a long time. Only because I believed we could not "know" for sure. That is pretty much Atheism. Atheist don't, at least they shouldn't, claim there is no God. I merely claim that there is no evidence for a God and all evidence we do have points in the opposite direction. Unless of course you go the Deist or even Pantheist route. Both of which are untestable, so far. Normally I would have a person define their God and help deconstruct after that. While I don't find faith to be any kind of virtue I don't look down on those who choose to have it. Unless they feel the need to tell everyone else outlandish and childish things like they are going to hell if they don't agree with them.

From Wikipedia:

Atheism, in a broad sense, is the rejection of belief in the existence of deities. In a narrower sense, atheism is specifically the position that there are no deities. Most inclusively, atheism is simply the absence of belief that any deities exist. Atheism is contrasted with theism, which in its most general form is the belief that at least one deity exists.

Further:

Agnosticism is the view that the truth value of certain claims—especially claims about the existence or non-existence of any deity, but also other religious and metaphysical claims—is unknown or unknowable. Agnosticism can be defined in various ways, and is sometimes used to indicate doubt or a skeptical approach to questions. In some senses, agnosticism is a stance about the similarities or differences between belief and knowledge, rather than about any specific claim or belief.


Italics mine.

there is no evidence for a God and all evidence we do have points in the opposite direction.

Really man? NO evidence? I think that's a bit of a stretch don't you? No proof perhaps, but there is no proof the other way either. There are thousands examples out there that are evidence of a higher being: miraculous healings, survival against impossible odds, testimonies of divine experiences, etc etc. Things that no amount of science can explain or disprove. Evidence not proof. Proof is something that's actually very rare in this world. Remember, for example, there's no proof of the theory of evolution, merely evidence.

To deny faith is to deny an essential part of the human experience, like love. A person could go through life rejecting love or even claiming it does not exist, but they'd be missing out, don't you agree? Faith in that which cannot be empirically proven has been a part of every single human culture since the dawn of man. Every single culture. From the Aztecs, to the Romans, to the Aborigines. Just like love. Don't you think there might be a reason for that? An atheist culture has never existed anywhere on earth. Individuals, yes. But never an entire culture. There's evidence in that.

Yes, I do think one lives a deprived existence who must have everything empirically proven beyond a doubt to them. I do not think such people are (necessarily) damned in the afterlife, but they certainly are in this one, in a sense. To refuse to step out of that box one has created for one's self, to deny the search, to maintain such a rigid psyche that one is unable to admit even the possibility of something greater than one's self, is to deny a crucial part of one's self, and to close off a piece of humanity that is as critical to living as breathing or eating. Living, not merely existing. It's like constantly being at "red alert" in terms of situational awareness. If you don't relax that guard at some point, you will do damage to your mental state. One who maintains a similar state of psychological "awareness," who cannot, at some point, in some way, relax and just believe, is doing damage to their psyche and spirit.

This is not to say one should go around believing everything one hears of course. As intelligent, thinking beings, we are capable of discernment, which I'm sure you'll agree is practiced much too infrequently these days.

Marshaul mentioned leprechauns. *I* do not believe in leprechauns, but I will stop well short of saying they do not exist. And if someone does believe in leprechauns, I will not disparage them for believing so, or make snide remarks about "hocus pocus" or lacking "rationality." Now, if they want to debate the theology of leprechauns, that's another discussion altogether.

Now I'll ask you marshaul, what happens if you do cross your personal, and "inexcusable" moral standard? Do you think that's impossible for you?





(And for the "thread relevancy" record, I'm sitting in a McDonalds mooching their wifi and OCing while I type this. And I've already gotten the "are you a cop?" line ).

 

[marshaul]

Really man? NO evidence? I think that's a bit of a stretch don't you? No proof perhaps, but there is no proof the other way either. There are thousands examples out there that are evidence of a higher being: miraculous healings, survival against impossible odds, testimonies of divine experiences, etc etc. Things that no amount of science can explain or disprove. Evidence not proof. Proof is something that's actually very rare in this world. Remember, for example, there's no proof of the theory of evolution, merely evidence.

Sure. But there is plenty of evidence in the other direction. Enough that, frankly, if God were real, I do not consider him to be a benevolent being worthy of my respect, praise, love, or worship. Witness rape, murder, torture, genocide, endless global war. Witness children's arms cut off by machete by the thousands, the heads of enemies in trivial wars sawed off with dull kitchen knives as standard practice. Witness poverty, natural disaster (take a look at Japan). Hell, take a look at religion itself. Take a look at the crusades, the inquisition, 9/11, etc etc etc.

No, I am not inclined to believe that, if there were a God, he would allow such things, and especially such things in his name. I am certain that if there were a God and he would so allow, that I would choose to reject him, even if it damned my eternal soul to hell.

The third possibility is that there is a God, and he simply has no ability to control such events. If this is the case, we're back to square one, since all the other evidence you've cited clearly cannot be his doing. Furthermore, I fail to see the point in worshipping so impotent a God.

Nor am I afraid for my soul in the unlikely event that God exists. If he is benevolent, than he will forgive my ignorance and appreciate my attempts to be a moral person without his guidance. If he is malevolent, I would not accept "salvation" on his terms anyway.

To deny faith is to deny an essential part of the human experience, like love. A person could go through life rejecting love or even claiming it does not exist, but they'd be missing out, don't you agree? Faith in that which cannot be empirically proven has been a part of every single human culture since the dawn of man. Every single culture. From the Aztecs, to the Romans, to the Aborigines. Just like love. Don't you think there might be a reason for that? An atheist culture has never existed anywhere on earth. Individuals, yes. But never an entire culture. There's evidence in that.

War and strife and murder and rape have been present in every culture in history. That does not render them an "essential part of the human experience".

It may be an essential part of your human experience, but it is the height of arrogance to assume that what holds for you must hold for others.

It is for me and me alone to decide whether and what my "human experience" is lacking. And I assure you that a religious component does not qualify.

I could argue that experimentation with hallucinogens is a part of the human experience, if not essential than certainly one which folks would be missing out for not experiencing. In fact, I might so argue. But I would not presume to assert that folks who have no interest in such experimentation live unfulfilled lives, if they believe their lives to be fulfilled.

I am certain that the human intellect appreciates many avenues to a fulfilled existence.

Yes, I do think one lives a deprived existence who must have everything empirically proven beyond a doubt to them. I do not think such people are (necessarily) damned in the afterlife, but they certainly are in this one, in a sense. To refuse to step out of that box one has created for one's self, to deny the search, to maintain such a rigid psyche that one is unable to admit even the possibility of something greater than one's self, is to deny a crucial part of one's self, and to close off a piece of humanity that is as critical to living as breathing or eating. Living, not merely existing. It's like constantly being at "red alert" in terms of situational awareness. If you don't relax that guard at some point, you will do damage to your mental state. One who maintains a similar state of psychological "awareness," who cannot, at some point, in some way, relax and just believe, is doing damage to their psyche and spirit.

You misunderstand the psychology of the atheist/agnostic.

My psyche is anything but rigid. I merely devote my time to enlightening my ignorances in other areas.

Your assertion that a lack of belief implies unrest is baseless. Having been raised as a Christian, I find myself far more at peace with atheist-agnosticism than I ever did with the doctrine of the church. I am finally at peace with by ability to be a moral actor in the world I inhabit. I am calmly confident that I need only my own compass to treat my fellow man peacefully and respectfully. I no longer experience any existential insecurity about the future of my eternal soul.

This is not to say one should go around believing everything one hears of course. As intelligent, thinking beings, we are capable of discernment, which I'm sure you'll agree is practiced much too infrequently these days.

Marshaul mentioned leprechauns. *I* do not believe in leprechauns, but I will stop well short of saying they do not exist. And if someone does believe in leprechauns, I will not disparage them for believing so, or make snide remarks about "hocus pocus" or lacking "rationality." Now, if they want to debate the theology of leprechauns, that's another discussion altogether.

My mention of leprechauns was not an attempt to be snide. Merely a use of analogy. If it seems disrespectful I apologize, but remember to me there is little difference between God and leprechauns.

Same goes for my mention of hocus-pocus. I was referring to the magical powers attributed to the man Jesus by admirers after his death. There are plenty of God-believing Christians who do not subscribe to the literal truth of the miraculous powers of Jesus. Which is a rational position, for, unlike the existence of God itself, a majority of Jesus's miracles may be discounted as scientifically, empirically impossible (I do not consider this to be an article of faith, for myself). The exceptions are those things in the medical realm, which is today a massively incomplete "science".

Now I'll ask you marshaul, what happens if you do cross your personal, and "inexcusable" moral standard? Do you think that's impossible for you?

Not impossible. But I would have to transgress significantly. Remember, the standard to which I referred is the principle of non-aggression.

It should not be difficult for a person to live his life never utilizing force in an initiatory capacity.

If I fail, it will be hypocritical of me, and it will be "karmically appropriate" for society to punish me. I'm not sure what you might be asking beyond that.

(And for the "thread relevancy" record, I'm sitting in a McDonalds mooching their wifi and OCing while I type this. And I've already gotten the "are you a cop?" line ).

LOL! I'm back in Virginia, my favorite gold star state. So assume I'll be open carrying for this discussion as well.

 

[gogodawgs]

Hence why I am Deist....

Most agnostics and atheists are not really what they think they are... more of them are Deist if they would examine the reason behind their beliefs.

Deism (pronounced /ˈdiːɪzəm/ ( listen), US dict: dē′·ĭzm)[1][2] in the philosophy of religion is the standpoint that reason and observation of the natural world, without the need for organized religion, can determine that a supreme being created the universe. Further the term often implies that this supreme being does not intervene in human affairs or suspend the natural laws of the universe. Deists typically reject supernatural events such as prophecy and miracles, tending to assert that God (or "The Supreme Architect") has a plan for the universe that is not to be altered by intervention in the affairs of human life. Deists believe in the existence of God without any reliance on revealed religion, religious authority or holy books. Two main forms of deism currently exist: classical deism and modern deism.

 

[marshaul]

Most agnostics and atheists are not really what they think they are... more of them are Deist if they would examine the reason behind their beliefs.

I don't think so.

Deism... is the standpoint that reason and observation of the natural world, without the need for organized religion, can determine that a supreme being created the universe.

This is precisely the opposite of my view.

That said, I respect deist thought immensely, for divorcing the issue of faith from the political institutions of organized religion. (It is my opinion that the overwhelming majority of the harm attributable to religion is solely a result of the politicization and organization of religion. Organized religion is the disease for which individual faith is the cure.)

 

[Metalhead47]

Marshaul:

Aw cmon man, really? The old "if there is a benevolent God then how can there be evil in the world
?" argument? Honestly I expected a little more from you.

If a benevolent God prevented anything bad from ever happening, there would be no free will, and we would be no different from the animals, who have none. We would be little more than slaves. If there are no consequences, good or bad, for one's choices, then one HAS no choice. And to delve into the theological for a moment, one cannot love if one does not have free will.

I'll reply more later but that one I just had to pull over & hit back


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[gsx1138]

There is no evidence. Conjecture and wishful thinking is not evidence. There is a sliding scale to Atheists but science based evidence doesn't allow for too many absolutes especially with concern to something like God. Therefore I can't say there is no god. But I can look at what evidence we do have and conclude that there more than likely is not a god. And if there is it does not deserve worship. I don't believe that there is a supreme being because there is no evidence for it. I can choose to believe in any version of god I wish, even multiple gods, but they still must all pass an evidence test.

I agree with the organized religion point. I do think there is a difference between being religious and being spiritual. I get a very spiritual experience when I study nature and science. I know it's just chemicals in my brain giving me that rush but it's awesome anyway. But that was only after rejecting religion and supernatural explanations for natural phenomena.

Man, Marshaul keeps stealing my thunder. I'm typing this out and your response pops up.

To stay relevant, I'm OC'ing around my house.


The "free will" argument is also old hat. I recommend: http://wiki.ironchariots.org/index.php?title=Main_Page

It discusses every apologetic argument for and against the existence of god.

 

[marshaul]

Marshaul:

Aw cmon man, really? The old "if there is a benevolent God then how can there be evil in the world
?" argument? Honestly I expected a little more from you.

If a benevolent God prevented anything bad from ever happening, there would be no free will, and we would be no different from the animals, who have none. We would be little more than slaves. If there are no consequences, good or bad, for one's choices, then one HAS no choice. And to delve into the theological for a moment, one cannot love if one does not have free will.

I'll reply more later but that one I just had to pull over & hit back


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

My argument wasn't exclusively limited to free will. What about natural disasters? These are equivalent to miracles; they are either spontaneous occurrences of chance, or they are acts of God.

It seems to be picking and choosing to claim that miracles are the work of God, since they are good, but natural disasters are just chance, since they are bad. I see no rational basis for distinction.

 

[gogodawgs]

Most agnostics and atheists are not really what they think they are... more of them are Deist if they would examine the reason behind their beliefs.

See here where I say most? (not marshaul) You are then the exception. Again, most agnostics and atheists are lazy and do not formulate an opinion on nature, natures laws and the world around them, they simply have come to say that they are either agnostic or atheist so as to avoid the world of organized religion around themselves and the world of organized religion that most were brought up with, usually driven by family history.

I don't think so.

This is precisely the opposite of my view.

That said, I respect deist thought immensely, for divorcing the issue of faith from the political institutions of organized religion. (It is my opinion that the overwhelming majority of the harm attributable to religion is solely a result of the politicization and organization of religion. Organized religion is the disease for which individual faith is the cure.)

Thanks, as I respect atheists/agnostics who have taken time to formulate their opinions.

 

[Metalhead47]

See here where I say most? (not marshaul) You are then the exception. Again, most agnostics and atheists are lazy and do not formulate an opinion on nature, natures laws and the world around them, they simply have come to say that they are either agnostic or atheist so as to avoid the world of organized religion around themselves and the world of organized religion that most were brought up with, usually driven by family history.



.

As he usually does gogodawgs is making a very good point here, and I'm going to steal it

The "failures" of faith in general, and organized religion, that are so often brought up by these agnostics and atheists, are not failures of these things themselves but of individuals who are taken to the same kind of "spiritual laziness" that gogo just mentioned. Whatever their professed religious ideas (and atheism is a religion in this sense), they have formulated them not through personal reflection and examination of the world around them, but because it's what their family has always done, it's what everyone else does, or in simple rebellion to these two, none of which are enlightened, well thought out ways to formulate one's spiritual identity. That make sense?

Such people, who are probably the majority, are also the easiest ones for crafty "spiritual leaders" (bin laden, Madelin Murray o'Hare, crusader kings, & such) to subvert and drive into actions that are contrary to their professed religious ideals.

Now the thing about deism that doesn't make sense to me, is that a Creator who would crate such an amazing universe, and then top it off with an incredible creature like Man, would desire no interaction with His creation and creations...