What is the true purpose of human progression? Is it all about God?

[Radagast97]

What happens when you erase God from our lives? I think it's fair to extrapolate mayham and total destruction on Earth since 80 percent of us believe in a God.

This is a conclusion without supporting argument. Buddhists have lived in this world for some time with few believing in a god, or certainly no god like you define, all without mayhem and destruction. Typically with a great deal less wars in the name of religion, as a matter of fact.

Besides enshrined laws that keeps us alert of what we can and cannot do, it is moral values (i.e what happens if I burn in hell) that keeps us sane and hence less violence is commited.

You are again assuming that people will be immoral without laws handed down by god. Buddhist and atheist tend to contradict that notion. Assuming you don't define immorality in terms of your specific god's rules, but rather those used by most of humanity.

Glenn

 

[DM]

Buddhists have lived in this world for some time with few believing in a god, or certainly no god like you define, all without mayhem and destruction. Typically with a great deal less wars in the name of religion, as a matter of fact.

That's completely different, they did not believe in a God. They adapted to secular beliefs.

Typically with a great deal less wars in the name of religion, as a matter of fact.

Recent wars do not coincide with your view.

You are again assuming that people will be immoral without laws handed down by god.

What is a religious person without moral laws handed down by their deity? I am not talking about secular people that learn to live moraly without a God. I have read some would reject life as it is if they learned God did not exist.

 

[Jameson]

theblueprint_Nick :

You have explained how Everything is about God provided that he exists and that those who don't believe it are in defiance of reality. But the other side of the coin is that you must show, in order to prove your argument, that "everything is about God" is true provided that God DOES NOT exist, unless you can prove that GOD EXISTS. You have half of an argument.

He hasn't proven anything. He's simply giving us his opinion under his interpretation of the word "about".

 

[theblueprint_Nick]

Yes, Jameson. You are correct. I guess I wasn't specifically clear about "about". About, I say, would mean all things to be done either for God or against God. Let me get micro for a second. I brush my teeth in the morning so that when I go out into the world I can go in a presentable, clean manner in hopes that I might attract or render the attention of another to perhaps tell them about God. If I go out with foul breath then not many would be in favor of speaking with me face to face. It might be said that they should be brushed simply because they are dirty. True, but when I brushed them before I believed, I wanted them clean for my sake, but now I want them clean for God's sake. Anything put into motion that is not ULTIMATELY for God is against God. That is my claim. Ultimately I believe God holds the truth, establishes truth and anything outside His truth is a lie and false. I also believe that every religion outside of mine is false and so negating the thought that we all worship the same God because we don't. I believe they are false because they center around what man can do for himself with(maybe) God's help and not what God can do for a man, period. Self-realization, transcendency, and all such things I reject because it's man-centered.

Also Jameson, If I did not KNOW that the heart of every man knows of God's existence then my belief would be in vain. I do not hold to the common definition of "belief", but what I believe about God I know and not just believe.

If I presented what I believe to be A truth and not THE truth then I would not differ from any other religion or belief. If what I presented did not offend the heart of every person that did not believe then it would not be what I claim it to be. The truth isn't something that can be contorted to fit the ideal of an individuals perception of "truth" because doing so is a blatant contradiction. The truth hurts to the core of every man(I mean man/woman) because it reveals falsehood. Now if I say this is truth or that is truth then it can be quickly dismissed because I am but I man. But if I say that God says this is the truth, then it becomes something to look into. It is a bold thing to say and it must endure the test of scrutiny and to some it appears as though it doesn't but the subject still stands through the ages. One thing that still remains is a man who seeks an answer that forever remains unanswered because what he seeks he already knows and what he says he asks is, "Does God exist?" but what he really asks in his heart is, "How can I become God?"

I know how this looks. "Why isn't it clear?", "Why sound so evasive?". My purpose is not to give "proof" that God exists because like I said before, you cannot measure omnipotence. That's what is sought to be done in proving/disproving God. God is not measured in the scientific method or a mathematical formula.

This all relies on faith, not reason. Nick's argument is based in faith and can't be argued with using reason.

- Huckleberry

I receive my reason from my faith. I am using reason but just not your inner workings of reason. A statement such as this is a quick way to discredit a message of faith. I must argue then, if I receive my reason from my faith, do you then receive your reason by means of no faith? If you have no faith and believe only what you want to believe without God to tell you what you should or should not not do, then who's to say that murder is wrong? Common sense? Conscience? Social majority? It made sense to Hitler to wipe out the Jews and all who were not part of his arian race. It made sense to the many who were under the sway of his deceptive influence.

If one truly desires peace then it is best to let people make their own decisions based on their faith.

People are sadistically murdered under the faith of satanic cults. Are they best left alone to make their own decisions? If justice crys out, then who's justice should we render? Yours? Mine? Or do you punish them but tell them at the same time, "You weren't really wrong at all. Your way of life is just not as good as mine and you're really just a victim of discrimination under the powers that are currently in authority." Communism is strictly atheist because it shifts the position of the state as God. It demands all reliance to be on the state. No matter how you look at it, the leaders of a fascist country, whether it be lead by one man or a few men, want to be God and denying Him as they may, they want His authority. Everything they do is about God, or rather, about becoming like God, rebelling against his ordained order of things and mans position in the world.

These are the things that need to be discussed because like I said, this is what it's really about and it's also the most controversial. :) If it was between religion and politics I think that religion is by far the most sensitive.

 

[Huckleberry]

I receive my reason from my faith. I am using reason but just not your inner workings of reason. A statement such as this is a quick way to discredit a message of faith. I must argue then, if I receive my reason from my faith, do you then receive your reason by means of no faith? If you have no faith and believe only what you want to believe without God to tell you what you should or should not not do, then who's to say that murder is wrong? Common sense? Conscience? Social majority? It made sense to Hitler to wipe out the Jews and all who were not part of his arian race. It made sense to the many who were under the sway of his deceptive influence.

I don't believe that a person can reason from faith. Their epistemologies are mirror images of each other. Faith does not require reason and reason does not require faith. As far as I know, God himself does not direct the action of man. If he does then it is without our knowledge. This goes into the argument of determinism and free will.

Who is to say that murder is wrong? This is a moral dilemma that can be approached using either reason or faith. One could say that murder is wrong because God's scripture says it is wrong and that requires no reason. A satanistic cult could claim that their scriptures say it is right and that also would require no reason. Hitler could argue his belief that murder is right based on genetic purity and he would argue his point using reason. One could also argue that it is wrong to commit murder from a social stability standpoint or human rights, and nowhere in their argument would be anything that requires belief in God.

You believe in God and that is fine. It seems that you believe that belief in God is what motivates all people to do anything. It is fine that you believe that, but it does not make it true. In order to communicate the truth you need to provide evidence. You would need to provide proof of God. That is why I wrote my previous post the way I did. You cannot expect people to accept your faith based argument without reason, and on the same note, nobody can disprove your faith with reason unless they also can disprove the existence of God. This is why these debates rage out of control on a global scale.

These are the things that need to be discussed because like I said, this is what it's really about and it's also the most controversial.

This is what it is really about for you. A person who does not believe in God does not use God as the motivation for their actions. You can believe they are influenced by God unknowingly, but to try to force anyone to agree with you is wrong. Religion shouldn't try to prove its faith is valid. It should just believe it. Let scientists use reason and skepticism to reveal the universe.

 

[Lisa!]

People are sadistically murdered under the faith of satanic cults. Are they best left alone to make their own decisions? If justice crys out, then who's justice should we render? Yours? Mine? Or do you punish them but tell them at the same time, "You weren't really wrong at all. Your way of life is just not as good as mine and you're really just a victim of discrimination under the powers that are currently in authority." Communism is strictly atheist because it shifts the position of the state as God. It demands all reliance to be on the state. No matter how you look at it, the leaders of a fascist country, whether it be lead by one man or a few men, want to be God and denying Him as they may, they want His authority. Everything they do is about God, or rather, about becoming like God, rebelling against his ordained order of things and mans position in the world.

You know I think everything is about human.Why do human try to do sth against/for God?I think coz of himself.I can't explain it well but you know human is so selfish.He believes or denies God coz he loves himself.God don't need us but we need him.he created us selfish but gave us the chance to step out of our sel-love circle if we try.At first we accept him coz we're selfish and don't want to hurt ourselves in this world and also the other world .some people just worship God coz they're afraid of their destiny here and after death.but some of people after trying hard,get the place that they worship God coz they love him.they think they have no existence and everything is God.
some people denies God coz they want to do whatever they want in this world,they try to reject God and then there would be nothing to limit them about things they want to do.
and I think most of people in authority try to have God's power.some of them try to do it by misusing people's religious beliefs.they pretend to be so religious but they aren't.

 

[Radagast97]

What happens when you erase God from our lives? I think it's fair to extrapolate mayham and total destruction on Earth since 80 percent of us believe in a God.

Buddhists have lived in this world for some time with few believing in a god, or certainly no god like you define, all without mayhem and destruction. Typically with a great deal less wars in the name of religion, as a matter of fact.

That's completely different, they did not believe in a God. They adapted to secular beliefs.

So if you don't originally believe in a god, then not having it doesn't result in mayhem and total destruction, but having it and losing it does. A broad statement, with no support, and something that seems to fly in the face of the loss of belief in god in Europe, and more distantly, in the Soviet Union, with the imposition of communism.

Recent wars do not coincide with your view.

Hmm, does that mean you can show me a war that was fought in the name of Buddhism, or that there are no wars fought in the name of religion today (hint, perhaps we should direct our attention to the middle east for this one).

What is a religious person without moral laws handed down by their deity?

I think I fall into that category. As someone that's been working toward the priesthood (Zen Buddhism) for nine years, having no belief in a diety or god, yet living a moral life. I don't consider priest or intendent priest as secular.

I am not talking about secular people that learn to live moraly without a God. I have read some would reject life as it is if they learned God did not exist.

Yes, and I've read that some would learn to fly if they just knew how to breath correctly (TM). Just because you've read it doesn't mean it's true. Provide some support for such a statement, if you want to make such a statement. Otherwise, it's just another unsupported internet assertion.

Glenn

 

[theblueprint_Nick]

What you say, Huckleberry, I fully and wholeheartedly reject. You are under the impression that all religion is unintelligable, requiring no thought, simply acting blindly without the use of reason.

You can believe they are influenced by God unknowingly, but to try to force anyone to agree with you is wrong.

That's a pretty bold statement. You sound a little like me, almost completely certain that this is indeed wrong. Can you prove it?

 

[hypnagogue]

It's clear that you can't talk about God unless you have absolute beliefs about who He is. And this I know because without a dogmatic belief, God becomes less than who God really is.

It should also be clear from PF policy that you can't argue from absolute, dogmatic beliefs about God in these forums. It's evident at this point that your methods and concerns in this thread far outpace the limitations we've set on theistic discussions.