God.

[Distruzio]

I have no problem with voluntary submission.

on the basis of nothing? Awesome. Alright I have this piece of land down south I'd like to sell you. You should believe me because selling land has a long history.

I have my own reasons for converting from misotheism. I appreciate the offer, but I already own enough land in the south.

[Dyakovo]

Oh, religion. People arguing about who has the better imaginary friend -.-

Really, now? Please enlighten me, O great being.

Can you prove the existence of your magical sky faerie?

[House Roland]

Well since you asked...let me get drunk,and punish you...BRB im off to the boozeMart...

[Tarish]

<-- Agnostic
leaning more towards atheism, though.

[Dyakovo]

No, we didn't know all that; we thought that to be true, despite all of it being false. Although, I wish to point out that the flat earth thing, from what I have learned, wasn't as widely accepted as it is believed to have been.

The thing about science is that, yes, it can't answer everything... yet. However, unlike the bible, it can change to fit facts. The bible doesn't.

Science will never be able to answer everything.

Again confusing knowledge with belief... Unless you can see the future with perfect clarity you don't know that it will never be able to answer all of man's questions.

[DaWoad]

So you're making an atheistic argument, right? Because this seems to be saying that god is just an excuse we use to fill in gaps in our knowledge that haven't been given a better explanation yet.

I'm saying that atheists tend to think that theists are nutjobs. If thinking of God in such a way is what helps them to understand that we aren't nutjobs, just merely viewing the world in a more inter-relational point a of view, then why not do so? Unless you disagree with my position. If that be the case, then *shrug*. Whatevs.

why not do so? Because a god of the gaps slows progress. Every time anyone comes up with something new they're faced by theistic idiots who will argue against any amount of evidence with no standing in a desperate attempt to not have their god loose more ground. See: the evolution "Debate".

Galileo didn't have the support of the church either. We saw how correct they were then.

Actually, he did have the support of the Church until he declared that he was right and all the other scientists that were questioning his findings were wrong. The Church merely required him to wait for the rest of the scientific community to catch up to him. Granted, that may have taken a longer amount of time than Galileo had years left, but the Church is anything but quick to make decisions.

so they placed him under house arrest for the rest of his life? Moreover why (oh gods why) should the church have any say whatsoever in the physical.

Then there's valid evidence for a shit ton of claims made throughout history. Do you honestly believe Christianity is the oldest religion?

Being Christian, I honestly believe that it is the only pertinent religion to me.

on . . . what . . . .grounds?

No, until evidence is produced that they exist, it's safe to say they aren't valid. Oops! We can't use that honest and symmetric criterion because it also applies to god. Better invent something that let's us keep god but not anything else without evidence.

I'm saying you can't deny something merely b/c it doesn't conform to standard empirical data studies. Remember, I'm an Austrian. So I think in terms of logical a priori reasoning.

You certainly can deny something that doesn't conform to empirical data study. That would be the whole point to empirical studies.

[Dyakovo]

That could be a false valuation.

How does that make any sense? This form of value is literally the only logically possible origins for intrinsic valuation.

Or only apply to yourself for some reason.

What?

Only your mind works?

[The Merchant Republics]

I see God as the clock-maker and occasional repairman of the universe.

[Dyakovo]

"Science doesn't explain everything" is not proof of the existence of a god.

I see your inability to understand what you read is present even when not discussing politics. I said that what ever is not explainable yet, is attributed to God. Whatever is not explained, is proof of God. He is the mystery.

Obviously you don't know what proof means...

[Distruzio]

I have no problem with voluntary submission.

How voluntary is it? Doesn't the Church hold the ultimate monopoly of force, in that it can condemn your immortal soul to everlasting perdition? And you have nothing to say in the matter save, "Mea culpa, mea culpa, mea maxima culpa" or however the Greek has it.

Hehe, if you don't accept the parameters of the Christian faith, then their (our) concerns for your soul don't matter. We aren't you.

Moreover, you're mistaking the orthodox (that is, traditional Orthodox, Anglican, and Catholic) Church for the Protestant churches. We do not advocate a condemnation for your soul alone. Part of orthodox theology is that all of creation will be redeemed. That means that all rocks go to heaven. Until humanity, as the stewards of creation, comes to approximate the perfection that God is, then that redemption lies beyond our reach.

[The Ideal Society]

God is an invention of mankind in an effort to feel more important. The bible is usually just something to lean on when your opinion is unfounded.

[Dyakovo]

God. Do you believe in him? Or is he not real? Please share your opinions/beliefs.

(the Christian God is the one I am talking about)

Of course I believe in him, because he is definately real

Prove he exists then.

[The Murtunian Tribes]

Well I would tell you to ask God.

What's his number? I'll ask him.

Beeb. God is not in right now, please leave a message at the sound of the choir.

[Dyakovo]

As this entire thread shows, debatable.

You people love to debate, but this isn't debatable. GODS continued existance isn't decided by mere mortals

Yes, we like to actually think. Now, again, if he is definitely real you should have no problem proving his existence.

[Dyakovo]

Even Thor. Well, especially Thor.

If you can't see the proof around the world, then you must be blind to it.

That's not offering proof. It is just a cop-out.

[DaWoad]

I see God as the clock-maker and occasional repairman of the universe.

what has he repaired? ever? and why is his creation winding down to a slow, painful but inevitable end.

[Dyakovo]

<-- Agnostic
leaning more towards atheism, though.

Saying you are agnostic says nothing about whether or not you believe in a deity.

[Ceannairceach]

I see God as the clock-maker and occasional repairman of the universe.

what has he repaired? ever? and why is his creation winding down to a slow, painful but inevitable end.

Remind me not to hire god to repair my house...

[Conserative Morality]

I believe that there are two possibilities in this world for a God:

A. He is a bastard who enjoys our suffering, and if this is true I hate him every bit as much as he deserves.

B. He is just a creator, he observes us but does not influence the world or universe. If this is true, I don't hate him, but he shouldn't expect my worship either.

[The Murtunian Tribes]

I believe that there are two possibilities in this world for a God:

A. He is a bastard who enjoys our suffering, and if this is true I hate him every bit as much as he deserves.

B. He is just a creator, he observes us but does not influence the world or universe. If this is true, I don't hate him, but he shouldn't expect my worship either.

God? He iz ze biggest beetch of zem all.

[DaWoad]

what has he repaired? ever? and why is his creation winding down to a slow, painful but inevitable end.

Remind me not to hire god to repair my house...

Agreed, he'd be the worst repairman ever. Show up for a week, declare his repair "perfect" and then consistently show up for the next few thousand years tweaking his repair all because of some snake in the walls that he introduced (snakes in wall is a necessity for perfection, who knew?) at one point demolishing the house down to a single foundation stone then build it again from there. Later he'd bring in the big guns for one last attempt at which point the person would crucify himself and god would leave without cleaning up the mess.

[Jasonovia]

Agreed, but the intrinsic properties don't come from you valuating them as such; they are just there. So where do the intrinsic properties come from, then?

But self-valuation is a bit different, as the act of valuation IS part of your being.

Not... seeing it, sorry.

I suppose I don't give much consideration for myself.

[Dyakovo]

But self-valuation is a bit different, as the act of valuation IS part of your being.

Not... seeing it, sorry.

I suppose I don't give much consideration for myself.

Maybe if you did you wouldn't "need" "God"?

[Juristonia]

I see God as the clock-maker and occasional repairman of the universe.

what has he repaired? ever? and why is his creation winding down to a slow, painful but inevitable end.

Apparently God is in charge of the company I rent my house from.

[Distruzio]

why not do so? Because a god of the gaps slows progress. Every time anyone comes up with something new they're faced by theistic idiots who will argue against any amount of evidence with no standing in a desperate attempt to not have their god loose more ground. See: the evolution "Debate".

Not true in the slightest. You are mistaking us for Protestant extremists - they are the nutjobs, I will admit. There is absolutely nothing wrong with scientific discoveries. The Church has ever seen a valid place for any amount of exploration of the world so long as we do not deny the sovereignty of God. For example, if, when the planets were discovered, the scientific community decided that the fact that there was space filled with other planets beyond our own was proof that God did not exist. We would take offense. All that the observations of space have proven is that we do not understand God in the way we thought we did. Now there are more planets, rather than simply one, to explore! All it proves is that creation is a sight larger than we previously thought.

so they placed him under house arrest for the rest of his life? Moreover why (oh gods why) should the church have any say whatsoever in the physical.

B/c we are not Protestants. There is no distinction between the salvation offered to the spiritual and the salvation offered to the physical. Christ was God incarnate. Which means that since humanity is called to be the steward of creation, and God deigned to be incarnate as fully man and yet fully God, then all of creation must be redeemed.

on . . . what . . . .grounds?

My back was broken in a workplace accident. I suffered for 9 months. Before the accident I was a misotheist. Throughout the subsequent 9 months, I railed against God more furiously than ever before. I relearned to walk. I avoided surgery. I stayed angry and on the last day of my therapy, 6 months in, I fell, and undid everything that had been accomplished. The anger remained. The frustration grew. And yet, after 3 additional months, I discovered I was certain that God was still there. Despite my anger.

This is the ground upon which my faith is based. He didn't take away my pain. He didn't submit to my calls for proof or satisfaction. He never submitted to me. He just took the abuse I levied at him and stayed anyway. He was always there. So I accept Him now.

Is this satisfactory?

You certainly can deny something that doesn't conform to empirical data study. That would be the whole point to empirical studies.

We disagree.