Why do/don't you believe in a higher power? (Any HP)

[Des-Bal]

What are you trying to say?

That I don't think people believe in god the way they believe in gravity,. I mean that's what I said.

[Dogmeat]

I wonder how many Christians believe but cannot explain or justify their belief? I used to be a virulent atheist until I wasn't anymore. I can't explain the change, I can't point to one event that set me to faith, but there it is.

Anyone else have a similar experience (or lack of it)?

I think that's how it happens for a lot of folks, myself included - though I was never an atheist per se, I didn't always have a living or defining faith. To this day, I certainly can't explain or justify my belief. I also don't feel any need to do so. I couldn't tell you why I fell in love, either, or why a very beautiful day will sometimes make me cry. The explanation's not the point.

While I can sometimes be snippy at certain apologists who I find dishonest, I want to say that I have no quarrel with this, and am happy for you.

[El-Amin Caliphate]

What are you trying to say?

That I don't think people believe in god the way they believe in gravity,. I mean that's what I said.

Yeah, I don't understand what you're trying to say.

[Des-Bal]

Yeah, I don't understand what you're trying to say.

That what people call "faith" often isn't. That what they call "belief" is more likely "belief in belief" belief in the idea that they believe and the religious are often just non-practicing atheists.

[Australian rePublic]

Well considering that your entire argument against him/her is "I have a different opinion to you, therefore, you're automatically wrong" he/she has a better argument than you

That wasn't NCR's argument. Considering your complaints when others incorrectly interpreted your arguments, doing the same to NCR is quite hypocritical.

How exactly am I doing the same

Which to me, seems exactly like a system designed by Satan. The very fact that this world drives otherwise good to be bad seems exactly like a system designed by an omnimalevolent creature. The very fact that otherwise good people commit evil in order to survive, seems to me like a system designed by the intentional malice of Satan (The Bible says that Satan is the king and ruler of this world, after all) . And God allows Satan to implement malice on the world for the same reason He allows humans to implement malice on the world- free will

'Free will' sounds like a cop-out now. If God is all-loving, Satan ruling this world shouldn't be possible. 'Free will' isn't an excuse.

Same reason why he doesn't stop a human rapist. Free will

If people are dickhead's, that's not God's fault.

And yet when they're good it's God's fault. You can't have it both ways. You can't blame humanity for their evil then attribute their good bits to God.

Nope. People are good, people are bad. God's job is to judge them and guide them

So it's not God who is responsible for people being good?

No, and I never claimed that He was. However, God is repsonaible for establishing a moral standard that humans are free to choose to obey

Wouldn't judging and guiding His creation be part of God's job?
Also, no, Job's suffering was Satan

I'm pretty sure God let Satan cause Job's suffering.

God had to permit slavery, as everyone's hearts were hardened

And this all-powerful God was incapable of unhardening their hearts.

He needs to protect us from ourselves

Except he could totally remove the evil so he doesn't have to. And he's doing a shit job at protecting us from ourselves considering all the evil.

And He does, you complain about it

[Reverend Norv]

Calling a "bet" is a very poor understanding of the situation of Job

I don't trust your understanding of the Bible to any degree whatsoever. So far you have demonstrated nothing which leads me to believe you are more qualified to interpret the Bible then I am, and several thing which lead me to believe you are not.

And yeah, a "bet" is functionally what that was. Go back and read it if you don't believe me.

This isn't exactly accurate. And this clarification comes without any desire to make the Job story less problematic than it is; its power is rooted in its painful refusal to conform to our moral expectations, and I have no wish to detract from that power. But a little context is useful.

When the Book of Job was written in post-exilic Israel, nobody believed in Satan in the modern or medieval Christian sense. The figure in the book of Job who's traditionally rendered as Satan is better translated as the Adversary. This figure is not a locus of evil; rather, he's a kind of special prosecutor at large, whose distinctive feature - as his introduction suggests - is that he goes "to and fro in the earth," testing how righteous and faithful folks actually are. He does this, in fact, on God's behalf, in order to reveal His servants' true character. This explains the dialogue between the two figures, which is deferential on the Adversary's part rather than hostile as one would expect of "Satan." And it justifies the extensive legal language later in the book of Job, in which Job repeatedly longs for an Advocate: a heavenly defense attorney, essentially, to balance the Adversary's prosecution.

It also suggests another reading of the story: the Adversary, essentially, keeps going back to God to ask for authority to apply more and more extreme tests of Job's character. God, confident in Job's innocence, agrees to allow this. But this isn't necessarily a callous bet, any more than agreeing to allow a man's pretrial detention, or the subpoena of his private papers, is a bet. It's cooperating with a process that is intended to establish guilt or innocence. The metaphor of the law, not the metaphor of gambling, is most consistent both with the text and with the cultural context in which it was written.

Now, it still seems patently unjust to torture an innocent man just to prove he's innocent, and most of the Book of Job is involved with demonstrating this point. Its power as a story for grown-ups flows precisely from the fact that it's not a cozy parable of a just God and a faithful man. But calling the precipitating incident a bet misunderstands the book's structure in a subtle but important way.

[El-Amin Caliphate]

Yeah, I don't understand what you're trying to say.

That what people call "faith" often isn't. That what they call "belief" is more likely "belief in belief" belief in the idea that they believe and the religious are often just non-practicing atheists.

So are you saying that:
A: We can't prove our belief in Allah SWT?
B: We're lying?
C: Both?
D: Other (please explain)?
And what's a non-practicing atheist? Like how does that fit into "the religious are often just non-practicing atheists"?

[Des-Bal]

How exactly am I doing the same

Same reason why he doesn't stop a human rapist. Free will


And yet when they're good it's God's fault. You can't have it both ways. You can't blame humanity for their evil then attribute their good bits to God.



No, and I never claimed that He was. However, God is repsonaible for establishing a moral standard that humans are free to choose to obey


And this all-powerful God was incapable of unhardening their hearts.

And He does, you complain about it

You're talking about the supposed architect of mankind. A being of omniscience, or frankly even reasonable competence would understand how people are going to handle certain situations. If I don't fence in my pool I'm responsible for kids falling in because I should have fucking known they'd do that. If I know your schedule and put a bear trap in your path that's not the product of your free will it's me being an asshole. God set all this up and God knows how we'll handle it- he's basically the jigsaw killer but also eternity.

[Australian rePublic]

Yes

You understand the scientific method and how it can be trusted, right?

You have got to learn how to put all these responses together into one post, Australian rePublic.

it can be hard on mobile. on a comp, there's no excuse.

Who said I was a computer? 99%, if not, significantly more, of NationStatesing these days is on a mobile

[Des-Bal]

So are you saying that:
A: We can't prove our belief in Allah SWT?
B: We're lying?
C: Both?
D: Other (please explain)?
And what's a non-practicing atheist? Like how does that fit into "the religious are often just non-practicing atheists"?

B.

Someone who observes the requirements of a faith but genuinely on a fundamental level doesn't actually believe in it.

[El-Amin Caliphate]

How exactly am I doing the same

Same reason why he doesn't stop a human rapist. Free will


And yet when they're good it's God's fault. You can't have it both ways. You can't blame humanity for their evil then attribute their good bits to God.



No, and I never claimed that He was. However, God is repsonaible for establishing a moral standard that humans are free to choose to obey


And this all-powerful God was incapable of unhardening their hearts.

And He does, you complain about it

You're talking about the supposed architect of mankind. A being of omniscience, or frankly even reasonable competence would understand how people are going to handle certain situations. If I don't fence in my pool I'm responsible for kids falling in because I should have fucking known they'd do that. If I know your schedule and put a bear trap in your path that's not the product of your free will it's me being an asshole. God set all this up and God knows how we'll handle it- he's basically the jigsaw killer but also eternity.

Y'all are arguing over free will, huh?

[Des-Bal]

Y'all are arguing over free will, huh?

That's how it would appear.

[El-Amin Caliphate]

So are you saying that:
A: We can't prove our belief in Allah SWT?
B: We're lying?
C: Both?
D: Other (please explain)?
And what's a non-practicing atheist? Like how does that fit into "the religious are often just non-practicing atheists"?

B.

We're not lying when we say that we believe in Allah SWT.

Someone who observes the requirements of a faith but genuinely on a fundamental level doesn't actually believe in it.

Well that's a hypocrite. Or someone being forced to practice a religion that believes in Allah SWT.

[Australian rePublic]

Because I don't spend every second of my life in this thread

Or are you just ignoring the posts that are difficult or where you lose the point being contested.

No. At this stage I was 20 pages behind this page. Re-read the OP

[Des-Bal]

We're not lying when we say that we believe in Allah SWT.

Well that's a hypocrite. Or someone being forced to practice a religion that believes in Allah SWT.

I don't think you know you are.

Yep.

[El-Amin Caliphate]

We're not lying when we say that we believe in Allah SWT.

Well that's a hypocrite. Or someone being forced to practice a religion that believes in Allah SWT.

I don't think you know you are.

What? Are you saying that we're lying and we don't even know it?

[Australian rePublic]

Many Christians have comitted evil. That doesn't mean that Christianity in and of itself is evil. It's like arguing that atheism in and of itself is evil because many atheists have comitted evil

Atheism is not an organization nor an ideology nor a doctrine, atheism is only the lack of belief in a deity. Religious organizations however can be held accountable as institutions.

Yes they can. However, Christianity never is and never was a single institution. The theology of some Christian institutions vary so greatly that they're not even compatible

[Dogmeat]

I don't trust your understanding of the Bible to any degree whatsoever. So far you have demonstrated nothing which leads me to believe you are more qualified to interpret the Bible then I am, and several thing which lead me to believe you are not.

And yeah, a "bet" is functionally what that was. Go back and read it if you don't believe me.

This isn't exactly accurate. And this clarification comes without any desire to make the Job story less problematic than it is; its power is rooted in its painful refusal to conform to our moral expectations, and I have no wish to detract from that power. But a little context is useful.

When the Book of Job was written in post-exilic Israel, nobody believed in Satan in the modern or medieval Christian sense. The figure in the book of Job who's traditionally rendered as Satan is better translated as the Adversary. This figure is not a locus of evil; rather, he's a kind of special prosecutor at large, whose distinctive feature - as his introduction suggests - is that he goes "to and fro in the earth," testing how righteous and faithful folks actually are. He does this, in fact, on God's behalf, in order to reveal His servants' true character. This explains the dialogue between the two figures, which is deferential on the Adversary's part rather than hostile as one would expect of "Satan." And it justifies the extensive legal language later in the book of Job, in which Job repeatedly longs for an Advocate: a heavenly defense attorney, essentially, to balance the Adversary's prosecution.

It also suggests another reading of the story: the Adversary, essentially, keeps going back to God to ask for authority to apply more and more extreme tests of Job's character. God, confident in Job's innocence, agrees to allow this. But this isn't necessarily a callous bet, any more than agreeing to allow a man's pretrial detention, or the subpoena of his private papers, is a bet. It's cooperating with a process that is intended to establish guilt or innocence. The metaphor of the law, not the metaphor of gambling, is most consistent both with the text and with the cultural context in which it was written.

Now, it still seems patently unjust to torture an innocent man just to prove he's innocent, and most of the Book of Job is involved with demonstrating this point. Its power as a story for grown-ups flows precisely from the fact that it's not a cozy parable of a just God and a faithful man. But calling the precipitating incident a bet misunderstands the book's structure in a subtle but important way.

To be honest, this presents me with something of a challenge. Because I agree with you 100%. There are even parts of the story I really like and find interesting. Like the subtle turn of phrase "did not sin with his lips," and all that that might imply.

But you're not the type of Christian I'm arguing with, and I don't think the type of Christian I'm arguing with appreciates the nuance of the evolution of Satan between these two periods. I could be wrong about that, and if so I am willing to accept fault here, but I'm led to believe he's only using the Medieval interpretation. And by that interpretation of Satan, this can really only be interpreted as a bet.

[Des-Bal]

What? Are you saying that we're lying and we don't even know it?

Yes. Still.

[El-Amin Caliphate]

Atheism is not an organization nor an ideology nor a doctrine, atheism is only the lack of belief in a deity. Religious organizations however can be held accountable as institutions.

Yes they can. However, Christianity never is and never was a single institution. The theology of some Christian institutions vary so greatly that they're not even compatible

To add onto this, religious orgs =/= religion.

[Reverend Norv]

This isn't exactly accurate. And this clarification comes without any desire to make the Job story less problematic than it is; its power is rooted in its painful refusal to conform to our moral expectations, and I have no wish to detract from that power. But a little context is useful.

When the Book of Job was written in post-exilic Israel, nobody believed in Satan in the modern or medieval Christian sense. The figure in the book of Job who's traditionally rendered as Satan is better translated as the Adversary. This figure is not a locus of evil; rather, he's a kind of special prosecutor at large, whose distinctive feature - as his introduction suggests - is that he goes "to and fro in the earth," testing how righteous and faithful folks actually are. He does this, in fact, on God's behalf, in order to reveal His servants' true character. This explains the dialogue between the two figures, which is deferential on the Adversary's part rather than hostile as one would expect of "Satan." And it justifies the extensive legal language later in the book of Job, in which Job repeatedly longs for an Advocate: a heavenly defense attorney, essentially, to balance the Adversary's prosecution.

It also suggests another reading of the story: the Adversary, essentially, keeps going back to God to ask for authority to apply more and more extreme tests of Job's character. God, confident in Job's innocence, agrees to allow this. But this isn't necessarily a callous bet, any more than agreeing to allow a man's pretrial detention, or the subpoena of his private papers, is a bet. It's cooperating with a process that is intended to establish guilt or innocence. The metaphor of the law, not the metaphor of gambling, is most consistent both with the text and with the cultural context in which it was written.

Now, it still seems patently unjust to torture an innocent man just to prove he's innocent, and most of the Book of Job is involved with demonstrating this point. Its power as a story for grown-ups flows precisely from the fact that it's not a cozy parable of a just God and a faithful man. But calling the precipitating incident a bet misunderstands the book's structure in a subtle but important way.

To be honest, this presents me with something of a challenge. Because I agree with you 100%. There are even parts of the story I really like and find interesting. Like the subtle turn of phrase "did not sin with his lips," and all that that might imply.

But you're not the type of Christian I'm arguing with, and I don't think the type of Christian I'm arguing with appreciates the nuance of the evolution of Satan between these two periods. I could be wrong about that, and if so I am willing to accept fault here, but I'm led to believe he's only using the Medieval interpretation. And by that interpretation of Satan, this can really only be interpreted as a bet.

Fair enough. That sounds reasonable and respectful to me.

[El-Amin Caliphate]

What? Are you saying that we're lying and we don't even know it?

Yes. Still.

That doesn't fit the definition of lying. Are you looking for "ignorant"?

[Australian rePublic]

Well, isn't that the pot calling the kettle black...

No.

This always seems to happen with - in particular - bad apologists. At some point they realize that their arguments are flimsy, so they try to inflict them on the other side. Rather then being proud of their faith, or believing themselves justified by their faith, they resort to, "oh yeah, well you guys have faith too!"

No, no. That was refering specifically and exclusively to Salandriagado who was arguing that anyone who disagrees with him/her is uneducated. That was not refering to any other atheists

[The Free Joy State]

So, those good Christians who step over the homeless man on their way home from the sermon about loving their neighbour would feel free to spit on the homeless man without the Bible?

Or those atheistic doctors working on cures for cancer would just go "nah, don't feel like it, mate" if science could ever prove they were correct?

Wouldn't that say more about the individuals than the existence of God?

Yes, which was the point that I was trying to make

Not very sporting to cut off the rest, and most relevant, part of my post:

And no... not all -- not many/most, delete as appropriate -- Christians would step over the homeless man and not all atheists are seeking cures for cancer but of all the arguments in all the world, this one is one of the worst for God: the idea that man has no self-control without fear of the hereafter.

Because it carries with it conceit -- the in-born, and usually unintentional, idea -- that those who believe are somehow more moral, more compassionate, kinder than those who do not. And, in truth, there are good and compassionate people of all religious stripes and none and arseholes of all religious stripes and none.

You do not need a conception of God to behave compassionately. In fact, I would actually fear any person who fears they may be uncompassionate or cruel without a fear of hell.

I know you've seen this part, so why not answer it.

If there are good people and arseholes of all religious stripes and none -- where the existence/nonexistence of God is uncertain -- why would atheists receiving confirmation of their theory or Christians a denial make one blind bit of difference?

Should we not fear anyone who is only compassionate due to some taught fear of hell?

[Des-Bal]

That doesn't fit the definition of lying. Are you looking for "ignorant"?

In this case it's a small difference. I think that people establish a meaning of "belief" for gravity that's separate from the one they specifically tailor to their religion. I think if they looked seriously they'd see it and if they were humble enough admit it.