Definition of 'God'--A Contradiction

[MalReynolds]

Well, I myself no longer attend church (I know, my loss), but I thought the idea of a sacrafice was to give something up to God. Giving money to the church who spends it on themselves/charity, is quite a bit different than giving up a cow. I understand how the word from the Book changed, and I'm glad you're not one of those people that blindly says "THE BIBLE IS ALL KNOWING WITHOUT FALLACIES YOU WILL BURN IN HELL MALREYNOLDS!" Anywhome, good chat.

Good day, sirs. And any lady that may read this. Good day to you, especially .

Mal

[pixabee]

I dunno how serious any of you are about looking into the facts or possible changing your own very well thought out ones that you've stated but if any of you would happen to like to see a very well developed view of God/his exist/ human nature than I suggest reading "Mere Christianity" by CS Lewis. He was an atheist for most of his life and viewed Christianity as merely a myth or crutch people used to to give meanings to their lives. Anyway he set out to prove Christianity wrong and simply ended up coming to the conclusion that Christianity was the most logical answer to the world. The book is very logical, takes no leaps of faith at any point and simplifies Christianity to the level it should be on without all the divisions provided by the modern church. so if any of you are serious about your belief in atheism then i strongly urge you to pick up this book and read through it-it may be very well that you are actually the one taking leaps of logic and depending on a crutch, and not the other way around.

[Nonexistent_One]

Last I checked, you were the one that started off the thread stating something as fact that is very much an opinion.

Do you mean that my title is an opinion, or that my opening statement, "The way I see it," (A.K.A. "In my opinion") is an opinion (because it is obviously so)? The first line was stated as an opinion to give the argument a basis to start from. You still need to be more specific and explain to me what you mean. Tell me exactly what my opinionated statement is, and I will be glad to clear it up. Try not to answer with only one sentence--it will then be easier for me to understand. I'm sorry if I am being more trouble than it's worth, but I think there is a misunderstanding.

Not necessarily. Being all good isn't not being able to bad, but choosing to not do anything bad. God could do something bad, but then reality would cease to exist.

You said that reality would not exist if 'God' could do something 'bad.' If 'God' is a reality, then God could not exist if he could do evil. Yes, 'God' could choose to not commit evil, but he is also unable to, whether he chooses to or not. If he could commit evil, he wouldn't exist, therefore, to exist, he must be incapable of doing evil.

To pixabee: I will sincerely consider reading this book. If there is a logical answer that leads to religion that is more potent than my own, it will be well worth the read. I don't understand how believing in God could be logical when his definition itself is illogical, but maybe I am missing something that I haven't come in contact with before. Thanks for the recommendation.

~NEO

[insomniakxz]

Hey, uh... Chromer. Do you eat shellfish? Nope, you can't. It makes you unclean. Do you wear a polyblend shirt? You could get publicly stoned for this. Do you sacarafice a cow to God? Supposed to do this every certain amount of time. You ever wanna sell your daughter into slavery? You're allowed to. Bible says so. Do you go to work on Sunday? This'll get you a one way ticked to hell. And hey, riddle me this. The bible states that I can buy slaves from neighboring countries, but my friend says this applies to Mexico but not Canada. Why can't I buy Canadians?

Just reexamining the holy book for you gents.

Mal

LOL That was hilarious. Yes those were some crazy times but as Christians we understand that sacrificing a cow in this day and age is just weird. So we give tithes. Giving 10% of your money to God every Sunday is better than slicing open a cow and burning its entrails O_o

'God' does not need money. 'God' does not want your money. Since money gives you power, he is omnipotent. 'God' just wants you to believe in him or else you'll suffer after you die. Also if you believe in another god you're up for the same fate. Oh well...this 'God' must be pretty powerful. He likes cow sacrifices, though.xD

[Squeek]

There's no way anybody can 100% say they believe in the definition Christians give to their god. It's impossible. Not even a Catholic can say it. There is always doubt that the higher entity could exist and because that doubt exists it will never be proven or disproven that such a being can exist.

End of story.

~Squeek

[MalReynolds]

He probably ran the first big-assed Burger King, which he used to finance his infinite kingdom. How did he get the cows? Through the sacrafice. And he's so rich off of the Burger King, that he doesn't need money! It's all very logical and takes no leaps of faith at all!

Mal

[Omeganitros]

Yes, yes. Of course. His domain now lies in White Castle.

[insomniakxz]

That HAS to be it.

[Nonexistent_One]

Let's not mock others' faith now. This was (and still is) meant to be an intelligent discussion. I do find the Burger King analogy pretty humerous, though.

LOL That was hilarious. Yes those were some crazy times but as Christians we understand that sacrificing a cow in this day and age is just weird. So we give tithes. Giving 10% of your money to God every Sunday is better than slicing open a cow and burning its entrails O_o

Why is this? Why is the "One True Religion" always changing? It was a vital part of the faith 2000 years ago to sacrafice animals, as well as many other things that, in this day and age, are unheard of. And paying tithes are in no way comparable to the sensless slaughter of life. In my opinion, if something's life is ended, one should end it with purpose, even if it is only to sustain our life. It goes to show how religion is influenced so much by society. Controlled by 'God?' Supposedly...

~NEO

[Laharl]

Last I checked, you were the one that started off the thread stating something as fact that is very much an opinion.

Do you mean that my title is an opinion, or that my opening statement, "The way I see it," (A.K.A. "In my opinion") is an opinion (because it is obviously so)? The first line was stated as an opinion to give the argument a basis to start from. You still need to be more specific and explain to me what you mean. Tell me exactly what my opinionated statement is, and I will be glad to clear it up. Try not to answer with only one sentence--it will then be easier for me to understand. I'm sorry if I am being more trouble than it's worth, but I think there is a misunderstanding.

I really think that you like to present your arguements as entirely factual even though they are opinions, and that anything relatively non-serious must be eliminated to present a good arguement.

I also believe you're probably a relatively unhappy person at most times, or at least empty. I could go on for a long time about my own little hypothesis for just about anything, but I've long since given up because no one else wants to hear it.

You must realize that everything you've even bothered to say in this thread has been said a zillion and a half times, at this very site? That's one reason I'm coming across as bored and not really arguing. I've been there, done that, with people that actually bothered to listen and understand my side. You're not worth my time. In fact, I've spent way too much time with this post already.

Good day, sir, and God bless.

[MalReynolds]

So, Laharl, just because someone chooses not to believe in your God, they must be unhappy or empty inside? Listen, I lost my invisible friend with I was 7. It was the Velvatine Rabbit. And I also learned about him from a book. But sometimes, you just have to let go.

And I don't feel empty or sad at any point. Except last night at "Garden State". Part of that made me cry.

Mal

[Privateer]

...it will never be proven or disproven that such a being can exist.

Wow. How can you say that?

[emccky]

why does god need money?

[Nonexistent_One]

I really think that you like to present your arguements as entirely factual even though they are opinions, and that anything relatively non-serious must be eliminated to present a good arguement.

I also believe you're probably a relatively unhappy person at most times, or at least empty. I could go on for a long time about my own little hypothesis for just about anything, but I've long since given up because no one else wants to hear it.

You must realize that everything you've even bothered to say in this thread has been said a zillion and a half times, at this very site? That's one reason I'm coming across as bored and not really arguing. I've been there, done that, with people that actually bothered to listen and understand my side. You're not worth my time. In fact, I've spent way too much time with this post already.

Good day, sir, and God bless.

You do understand that your argument is also opinionated, don't you? You are critisizing my argument for being supposedly the same way, and yet you are guilty of it yourself. You still have not explained how my argument is opinionated. Your argument will not be valid to me until you directly explain exactly what you mean, and stop avoiding specifics to make it seem like you have one bit of validity.

Are you trying to tell me that 'God' being omnimax is an opinion? Explain to me how it could be any other way, and I'll consider it. But if that's not what you mean, then I suggest you directly state your problem with my post.

Also, it is a horrible fallacy to conclude that, just because I don't put my beliefs into illogical but comforting things, I am an unhappy/'empty' person. I have to admit that I was slightly irritated at this statement, because it is a totally false assumption/steriotype. I do not need an invisible, all-powerful friend to keep me happy. I do not rely on illogical comforts, but rather, I take pride in my ability to overcome such irrational thinking.

I searched through the critical thinking forum for a post that was even similar to mine. I looked to see if anyone had posted about this specific topic--the definition of 'God'--and I did not find one. If it has been brought up before, it deserves to be re-posted, because it is something that is still debatable--I doubt it reached a definite conclusion before. This is a 'discussion' forum, right? Just because you have discussed this before doesn't mean that it cannot be discussed by others. Either you share your views, and be willing to debate them, or you don't--at all.

Like the very begining of my post states--you must have common ground to start an argument from; yet you have not given me a specific thing to debate (regarding my 'opinionated' argument), therefore you have wasted my time.

I don't mean to make enemies, and I had hoped that this discussion remain civil. Please show me that you can have a healthy, valid argument, and I will be glad to debate in a friendly manner. I will 'bother to understand' your side if you give me reason to; I swear it.

May good consequence show you favor. (that's my version of 'God bless')

~NEO

[Laharl]

I really think that you like to present your arguements as entirely factual even though they are opinions, and that anything relatively non-serious must be eliminated to present a good arguement.

I also believe you're probably a relatively unhappy person at most times, or at least empty. I could go on for a long time about my own little hypothesis for just about anything, but I've long since given up because no one else wants to hear it.

You must realize that everything you've even bothered to say in this thread has been said a zillion and a half times, at this very site? That's one reason I'm coming across as bored and not really arguing. I've been there, done that, with people that actually bothered to listen and understand my side. You're not worth my time. In fact, I've spent way too much time with this post already.

Good day, sir, and God bless.

You do understand that your argument is also opinionated, don't you? You are critisizing my argument for being supposedly the same way, and yet you are guilty of it yourself. You still have not explained how my argument is opinionated. Your argument will not be valid to me until you directly explain exactly what you mean, and stop avoiding specifics to make it seem like you have one bit of validity.

YES I REALIZE THAT. Have you not noticed that I'm not even arguing your point? You first started to criticize me for being opinionated, so I'm telling you you've been the same way. Follow?

Are you trying to tell me that 'God' being omnimax is an opinion? Explain to me how it could be any other way, and I'll consider it. But if that's not what you mean, then I suggest you directly state your problem with my post.

Omnimax is your definition of perfect, correct? It's what you feel God should be. Why must God meet your expectations of what he SHOULD be if he's already something else?

Also, it is a horrible fallacy to conclude that, just because I don't put my beliefs into illogical but comforting things, I am an unhappy/'empty' person. I have to admit that I was slightly irritated at this statement, because it is a totally false assumption/steriotype. I do not need an invisible, all-powerful friend to keep me happy. I do not rely on illogical comforts, but rather, I take pride in my ability to overcome such irrational thinking.

Hence my point entirely. I have a feeling you don't exactly get along with anyone. Love is irrational, but it's one of the most pleasurable feelings on earth. Do you push away that "illogical comfort" as well?

I searched through the critical thinking forum for a post that was even similar to mine. I looked to see if anyone had posted about this specific topic--the definition of 'God'--and I did not find one. If it has been brought up before, it deserves to be re-posted, because it is something that is still debatable--I doubt it reached a definite conclusion before. This is a 'discussion' forum, right? Just because you have discussed this before doesn't mean that it cannot be discussed by others. Either you share your views, and be willing to debate them, or you don't--at all.

Maybe the extreme utter loathign I have for people much like yourself isn't coming through at all?

People like you make me tired, to the core, to my very inner soul. Leave those of us that believe alone, please. Just go away and do your own thing. If someone jumps down your throat with their own belifs about a God, feel free to banter and argue with them. At one point in time, religion was a topic that was not to be discussed at FFR because it's a touchy subject.

Like the very begining of my post states--you must have common ground to start an argument from; yet you have not given me a specific thing to debate (regarding my 'opinionated' argument), therefore you have wasted my time.

Creating rules for a topic on an open-discussion internet forum unless you're an admin or moderator is foolish.

And I'm glad to have wasted your time. It's been an honor.

I don't mean to make enemies, and I had hoped that this discussion remain civil. Please show me that you can have a healthy, valid argument, and I will be glad to debate in a friendly manner. I will 'bother to understand' your side if you give me reason to; I swear it.

I was once cabable of having a good, healthy arguement, and then some stuff happened, and my mind isn't quite what it used to be. I am no longer capable of doing much in a friendly manner. It happens when life decides to throw you an unlucky hand when it comes to the chemistry that creates your brain.

I tell you what I do here, for reasons I don't even know. I'm probably just mostly talking for the sake of talking. I honestly don't even know.

May good consequence show you favor. (that's my version of 'God bless')

~NEO

I never say God Bless in all seriousness. I did it mostly to poke under your skin.