"When you don't believe in God..........

[BeerMoney]

U believe you are God.."

I realize there's a problem with this statement logically, but let's ignore that.

A wise person said this to me one time...

I can't help but think of David when I think of this statement.

[maurile]

[ QUOTE ]
A wise person said this to me one time...

[/ QUOTE ]
That's doubtful. It's a rather unwise thing to say.

[ QUOTE ]
U believe you are God.."

I realize there's a problem with this statement logically, grammatically, syntactically, and factually, but let's ignore that.

[/ QUOTE ]
FYP

[Dov]

[ QUOTE ]
U believe you are God.."

I realize there's a problem with this statement logically, but let's ignore that.

A wise person said this to me one time...

[/ QUOTE ]

Why would you consider someone who said this to you to be wise?

Wisdom implies the ability to think clearly and articulate clearly. This is clearly neither well thought out, nor well conveyed.

What are some other gems they gave you?

This is just a simple explanation of satanism. There is nothing wrong with this.

[phage]

[ QUOTE ]
U believe you are God.."

[/ QUOTE ]

UHHH no. /images/graemlins/tongue.gif

[BeerMoney]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
U believe you are God.."

I realize there's a problem with this statement logically, but let's ignore that.

A wise person said this to me one time...

[/ QUOTE ]

Why would you consider someone who said this to you to be wise?

Wisdom implies the ability to think clearly and articulate clearly. This is clearly neither well thought out, nor well conveyed.

What are some other gems they gave you?

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm quite confident the person has more education and seen more of the world then you, as well as having better SAT scores! I know Sklansky would respect the last qualification.

[NotReady]

This is a basically true statement. It doesn't mean each individual thinks he is an eternal, all-wise, all-powerful being. It means that if one rejects the true God, he takes over the position of final authority for himself, effectively performing the role of God for his own life. The only ultimate he recognizes is himself.

[Dov]

[ QUOTE ]
I'm quite confident the person has more education and seen more of the world then you, as well as having better SAT scores! I know Sklansky would respect the last qualification.

[/ QUOTE ]

I guess we'll just have to take your word for it since you don't seem to be able to substantiate anything.

The original statement was still idiotic, BTW.

As I said that is the definition of Satanism

[David Sklansky]

"This is a basically true statement. It doesn't mean each individual thinks he is an eternal, all-wise, all-powerful being. It means that if one rejects the true God, he takes over the position of final authority for himself, effectively performing the role of God for his own life. The only ultimate he recognizes is himself."

OK. Stipulated. Therefore what?

[Alex/Mugaaz]

You are forgetting that these people recognize that there may be an ultimate beyond them, they just haven't run into yet. There is not much of a difference between your view and this one.

[NotReady]

[ QUOTE ]

OK. Stipulated. Therefore what?


[/ QUOTE ]

I think it's important to demonstrate that all non-theistic worldviews are fundamentally irrational and that no one really lives by that principle.

The great theologian Van Til used to say that non-theistis are living on borrowed capital - they use the ideas of reason, meaning and purpose but deny the only justification for believing in them.

I'm simply trying to point that out. I've said before, it doesn't prove that God exists (which Van Til thought it did), but highlights the consequences if He doesn't. My hope is that God will use this truth to open minds and hearts to His truth. My job is simply to defend the faith.

[NotReady]

[ QUOTE ]

You are forgetting that these people recognize that there may be an ultimate beyond them, they just haven't run into yet


[/ QUOTE ]

This is a good definition of blind faith. Christianity isn't blind.

[maurile]

[ QUOTE ]
It means that if one rejects the true God, he takes over the position of final authority for himself, effectively performing the role of God for his own life.

[/ QUOTE ]
No it doesn't. He may defer to Britney Spears.

[ezratei]

[ QUOTE ]
as well as having better SAT scores! I know Sklansky would respect the last qualification.

[/ QUOTE ]

Does the Big S talk about his SAT scores? That's pretty lame if he even remembers them.

[David Sklansky]

"I've said before, it doesn't prove that God exists (which Van Til thought it did), but highlights the consequences if He doesn't"

What are the consequences to poodles if he doesn't exist?

[David Sklansky]

I remember them because I bet on them. Your high school SAT scores don't matter. But what you could score on them NOW definitely does.

[NotReady]

[ QUOTE ]

What are the consequences to poodles if he doesn't exist?


[/ QUOTE ]


They have a chance of evolving into a higher being and telling some future DS where to get off.

[fishsauce]

[ QUOTE ]

I think it's important to let everyone know that I believe on a completely emotional basis that all people in this world who don't agree with me are wrong, and I make this incredibly broad, obtuse generalization (in which I assume I have god-like powers and know squat about the principles that everyone in the world lives by) based entirely on nothing scientific or provable using rudimentary logic.

[/ QUOTE ]

fixed your post to reflect what you really said.

[NotReady]

So you disagree with DS? And of course that you're right (about whatever you're trying to say which happens to be unintelligible) is so obvious that you can't bother with making any rational explanation.

[fishsauce]

You're kidding, right? I thought my post was pretty self-explanatory. But if you want me to break it down for you, here goes:

You said: "I think it's important to demonstrate that all non-theistic worldviews are fundamentally irrational and that no one really lives by that principle." Which, interpreted by anyone who can pass the rouge test, is the same as: "I think it's important to let everyone know that I believe on a completely emotional basis that all people in this world who don't agree with me are wrong, and I make this incredibly broad, obtuse generalization (in which I assume I have god-like powers and know squat about the principles that everyone in the world lives by) based entirely on nothing scientific or provable using rudimentary logic."

To be more specific, when you say "I think it's important to to demonstrate that..." that's the part that really means "I think it's important to let everyone know that I believe..." because you aren't demonstrating anything, you are just going to let us know your opinion.

When you say later in your post "My hope is that..." and "My job is simply to defend..." that means that what you are saying is "...on a completely emotional basis..." because you really want these things to happen or be true, but there is no other justification.

Then, when you say "...that all non-theistic worldviews are fundamentally irrational..." what you're really saying is "...that all people in this world who don't agree with me are wrong..."

Finally, when you say "...and that no one really lives by that principle" what you are really saying is "...and I make this incredibly broad, obtuse generalization..." because that's exactly what it is, your statement has no more quality than something moronic like "all people from the north are jerks." As well as you are asserting that you are aware of how EVERYONE who is a non-theist thinks - that's the "(in which I assume I have god-like powers and know squat about the principles that everyone in the world lives by)" part. And finally, your opinion is based on YOUR individual beliefs in YOUR particular implementation of a god, which is "based entirely on nothing scientific or provable using rudimentary logic."

There's nothing above that refers to Sklansky, I have no idea where that came from.

And for the record, I think your first statement in this thread is somewhat accurate (only "somewhat" because in that statement you assert the existence of a "true God") - as a nontheist, while I do not subscribe to the concept of a god, I agree that I take the final authority and responsiblity for myself, my life, and all of my actions and their consequences. So props to you for that.

But the statement you followed that with is asinine. How could you possibly have the slightlest clue as to what my, or anyone else's, worldview is and what principles I live by? Even if you did, how could you possibly be qualified to assess their rationality? How rational are yours? What about the worldview and principles (which could be very similar to yours) of god-fearing christian people who really like to molest children? What about the worldview and principles of a suicide bomber, killing in the name of his god?

[NotReady]

[ QUOTE ]

As well as you are asserting that you are aware of how EVERYONE who is a non-theist thinks


[/ QUOTE ]

So please, stop yammering emotionally and show me rationally where I'm wrong and you're right. Go ahead, justify logic, science and morality. Do it. You will no doubt win a prize as the first in history cause no one else has ever done so on an irrational basis. Let's hear it.

[ QUOTE ]

There's nothing above that refers to Sklansky, I have no idea where that came from.


[/ QUOTE ]

You should read the whole thread before regurgitating nothing but nonsense. He said "Stipulated" to my first post, and he's agreed before that what I say is logical.

[ QUOTE ]

But the statement you followed that with is asinine. How could you possibly have the slightlest clue as to what my, or anyone else's, worldview is


[/ QUOTE ]

Every conceivable world view has been published, at least since Plato. If you have an original one which has never before graced the eyes of mankind, hack away.

[fishsauce]

[ QUOTE ]

So please, stop yammering emotionally and show me rationally where I'm wrong and you're right.


[/ QUOTE ] Dude, you obviously haven't read anything I have written. And you're the one who is running on emotion here, not me.

[ QUOTE ]

Go ahead, justify logic, science and morality. Do it. You will no doubt win a prize as the first in history cause no one else has ever done so on an irrational basis. Let's hear it.

[/ QUOTE ]
You miss the point completely. The point is: everyone has to do these things - make these justifications, come to their own conclusions about what they believe and feel is true - for THEMSELVES. Everyone needs to see their own proof, and it's absurd to think that your proof or beliefs are right for everyone, almost as ridiculous as you claiming to know what I think.



[ QUOTE ]

You should read the whole thread before regurgitating nothing but nonsense.


[/ QUOTE ]
Which is pretty funny, because all I've done is just repeat what you have said. And of course point out the problems with it.

[NotReady]

[ QUOTE ]

The point is: everyone has to do these things - make these justifications, come to their own conclusions about what they believe and feel is true - for THEMSELVES.


[/ QUOTE ]

It's true that everyone has to decide for themselves. What people have confused at least since Kant is that whatever they decide for themselves is true - and this is what I meant when I agreed with the OP that if one rejects God he puts himself in the place of God, as the Bible states it in Genesis, "knowing good and evil".

[ QUOTE ]

Everyone needs to see their own proof, and it's absurd to think that your proof or beliefs are right for everyone, almost as ridiculous as you claiming to know what I think.


[/ QUOTE ]

But I'm not asking anyone to belive what I do just because I believe it - I'm saying that what I present is truth and can be rationally justified. If God says something that applies to all mankind then it is right for everyone, not because I say it, but because He does. And I don't claim to know what you think, you're much too sensitive. I claim there are really only two ways that anyone CAN think about ultimate matters, usually expressed as design vs. chance or personal vs. impersonal. If you're a non-theist, which you've admitted, then you think in terms of chance and/or the impersonal. There's no alternative. I'm not claiming to read your mind.

[Piers]

[ QUOTE ]
When you don't believe in God.......... U believe you are God.."

[/ QUOTE ]

Being a God is a passive activity; the worshipers do all the work.

I am confident all my fleas consider me to be a god /images/graemlins/crazy.gif

[CancerMan]

[ QUOTE ]
If God says something that applies to all mankind then it is right for everyone, not because I say it, but because He does.

[/ QUOTE ]

Can you explain to me why you do or don't believe Joseph Smith? http://lds.org/ The founder of the Church of latter day saints.

[NotReady]

I looked at the site briefly and found much of it unobjectionable as far as it goes. Much could have been written by any orthodox Christian. A few things are clearly suspect however, such as the pre-existence of the soul.

I've also done some very superficial research on LDS and I think the site you gave doesn't even begin to tell the whole story of Mormonism. I don't want to go into detail here but I think very little of what I saw concerning Mormon doctrine is even close to Scriptural. I'm not sure what actually IS Morman doctrine at times because it does seem to change frequently.

I'm not that familiar with this subject though I did examine it for a while many years ago and became convinced that it isn't based on Scripture. It seems to be something of a hybrid, not unlike Islam, and has some similarities to that religion with respect to its claims to new revelation.

If you are a Mormon I'm not trying to offend you but I feel I should speak truth about this sort of thing. All Christian denominations have made errors in their past, but there is a qualitative difference between the errors of Mormonism and those of Catholicism or Lutheranism, for instance. There is much material on the net which I would urge you to examine. Some of it is obviously done from bad motives and no doubt some misrepresentation occurs. However, many of the problems with Mormonism can be documented and there are clearly major contradictions with the Bible, much as you find in Islam.

I don't wish to trivialize the sincerity of individual Mormons. One's fundamental beliefs are the most basic part of one's soul and generate emotional attachments that I fully understand. I do believe Mormonism is wrong about certain key issues and I think anyone sincerely after the truth will find their way.

[David Sklansky]

don't wish to trivialize the sincerity of individual Mormons. One's fundamental beliefs are the most basic part of one's soul and generate emotional attachments that I fully understand

What percentage of the pious clean living ones will go to heaven? You don't have to be exact.

[NotReady]

[ QUOTE ]

What percentage of the pious clean living ones will go to heaven? You don't have to be exact.


[/ QUOTE ]

The exact same number who
"Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ and" they "shall be saved".

[David Sklansky]

"The exact same number who
"Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ and" they "shall be saved"."

Do they also have to believe that those who don't believe will not be saved?

[BluffTHIS!]

NotReady, I know you don't like responding to me, but I have a semantics question. Why do fundamentalists prefer to say "believe on" rather than "believe in"? And regarding the Mormons, if they are super pious and wear one of those masonic inspired undergarments with astronomical sign cutouts, does that help their chances of being saved?

[NotReady]

[ QUOTE ]

Do they also have to believe that those who don't believe will not be saved?


[/ QUOTE ]

Why would they?

[NotReady]

NASV
31They said, "Believe in the Lord Jesus, and you will be saved, you and your household."

KJV
31So they said, "Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and you will be saved, you and your household."

What sayeth the Vulgate?

[ QUOTE ]

And regarding the Mormons, if they are super pious and wear one of those masonic inspired undergarments with astronomical sign cutouts, does that help their chances of being saved?


[/ QUOTE ]

You can't write anything without including an insult, can you?

[David Sklansky]

Oh good. I was a little confused about that. So this means that BluffTHIS and Pair the Board probably AREN'T going to hell. I was a little worried. This in spite of the fact that BluffTHIS posts regarding you, show more contempt toward you than mine do, and Pair The Board likens you to a child molestor (and he isn't firmly anti abortion. And he believes in Santa Claus ) Guess you are more tolerant than I thought.

Still no hope for Bossjj though huh?

[NotReady]

[ QUOTE ]

Still no hope for Bossjj though huh?


[/ QUOTE ]

Hope springs eternal.

Can I have a cookie now?

Bedtime.

[BluffTHIS!]

The vulgate says "Crede in Domino Iesu et salvus eris tu et domus tua". And the latin "in" can be properly translated both "in" and "on" in english as well as some other prepositional phrases, though "in" is the more frequent. However, the original KJV is not a fantastic translation, because more emphasis was put on being poetically beautiful than on being faithful to the original text, and because some things were simply made up. The doxology at the end of the Lord's prayer (for thine in the kingdom . . ) being an example. I would look up the koine but it makes my head hurt.

And I did not mean to be insulting at all regarding the Mormon question. I was merely being facetious and pointing out one of the many ridiculous aspects of their beliefs.

[CancerMan]

This isn't an attempt to blow your mind or make you go nuts, I've just wondered this. Why would God an all perfect being creating a World with a snake, an evil creature in it. If he was all perfect and all knowing he had to know the future was going to be that Adam and Eve would have sinned and would have needed to be cast from the Garden. How come he couldn't have had them avoid that and live in everlasting bliss? I mean, he could have easily created them, or put into them an innate knowledge to simply "Say no to Snakes?" Is it that God wanted the human race to truely suffer an existance rather than be his perfect children in Heaven? Is it that, that would have been boring for him? Boring for him to have perfect people with perfect lives in a perfect existance? Also, couldn't he have seen all the divisions in the church occurring or the faults that are common in having humans convert his words into language? Couldn't it have been something more absolute and less debatable, like a holy mountain with the scripture readily apparent on it? I don't understand why God has man as the middle man, who are easily corruptable and misunderstood. Well, I'm sure I'm get torn to pieces on this post due to grammar, babbling so on so forth, but thanks to those who seriously answer this.



Please let's not consult the bible for facts. The fact that you would not be offended by the mormon faith, namely it's founder Joseph Smith is appauling to me. Any, I recommend you look at Matthew 18:8 Wherefore if thy hand or thy foot offend thee, cut them off, and cast them from thee: it is better for thee to enter into life halt or maimed, rather than having two hands or two feet to be cast into everlasting fire.
18:9 And if thine eye offend thee, pluck it out, and cast it from thee: it is better for thee to enter into life with one eye, rather than having two eyes to be cast into hell fire.

If you've ever used your hands or eyes for sinful purposes, please cut them off now. Matthew told you to! It's much better than going to hell.

[bossJJ]

[ QUOTE ]
...A few things are clearly suspect however, such as the pre-existence of the soul.

...I don't want to go into detail here but I think very little of what I saw concerning Mormon doctrine is even close to Scriptural.

...I'm not that familiar with this subject though I did examine it for a while many years ago and became convinced that it isn't based on Scripture. It seems to be something of a hybrid, not unlike Islam, and has some similarities to that religion with respect to its claims to new revelation.

However, many of the problems with Mormonism can be documented and there are clearly major contradictions with the Bible, much as you find in Islam.

[/ QUOTE ]

Christianity did the exact same thing that you accuse Mormons and Muslims of doing: All three founded a new religion based on alleged new revelation from God that contradicted the Hebrew bible. Christians just did it earlier than the other two. If Christians can do it, why not Muslims and Mormons also? As I said in another thread:

"According to Christian theology, God supposedly gave a "new testament" that completely contradicts everything He had said in the "old testament."

"For example, according to the Hebrew bible, sincere repentence alone atones for sins committed; God is one, He is not a man, and we are to worship Him alone; God is "near to all those who call upon Him" and no mediator is necessary; We Jews are to observe Torah law forever and to go to our own sages for questions of interpretation; We must not follow anybody like Jesus or the gt authors who tell us not to follow Torah Law; The messiah will usher in an age of world peace and universal knowledge of God - He won't atone for our sins because that's just not his role, as God forgives us our sins when we repent. Jesus' alleged death couldn't atone for sin."

So if God can lie, change His mind and contradict everything He told us in the Hebrew bible (as must have happened for Christianity to be true), then Islam or Mormonism may also be true religions from God. God may have decided that Christianity is not longer correct, and that is why He sent Mohammed and Joseph Smith.

BTW, in Judaism there is a belief in reincarnation and "pre-existence of the soul"; those beliefs do not contradict the Hebrew bible, unlike most of Christian theology.

[NotReady]

[ QUOTE ]

Why would God an all perfect being creating a World with a snake, an evil creature in it.


[/ QUOTE ]

Christians believe that the snake in Genesis is either a symbol for Satan or that Satan appeared as a snake. God didn't create Satan evil, but Satan rebelled against God.

As for why God allowed evil into the world, we have no perfect answer. It's difficult to see how God could create a being with free will but also guarantee that it won't sin.

[ QUOTE ]

Couldn't it have been something more absolute and less debatable, like a holy mountain with the scripture readily apparent on it? I don't understand why God has man as the middle man, who are easily corruptable and misunderstood.


[/ QUOTE ]

Remember Adam and Eve had direct communication with God and still questioned His Word and then rebelled against Him.

[ QUOTE ]

Please let's not consult the bible for facts.


[/ QUOTE ]

Since it's God's Word, of course I will consult it.

[ QUOTE ]

The fact that you would not be offended by the mormon faith, namely it's founder Joseph Smith is appauling to me.


[/ QUOTE ]

I said I didn't want to offend any individual Mormon. I certainly disagree with much of what official Mormonism says.

[ QUOTE ]

Wherefore if thy hand or thy foot offend thee, cut them off, and cast them from thee: it is better for thee to enter into life halt or maimed, rather than having two hands or two feet to be cast i nto everlasting fire.
18:9 And if thine eye offend thee! , pluck it out, and cast it from thee: it is better for thee to enter into life with one eye, rather than having two eyes to be cast into hell fire.

If you've ever used your hands or eyes for sinful purposes, please cut them off now. Matthew told you to! It's much better than going to hell.


[/ QUOTE ]

Jesus was giving strong warnings about sin and temptation. It is better to avoid what causes you to stumble than be cast into hell.

[BeerMoney]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I'm quite confident the person has more education and seen more of the world then you, as well as having better SAT scores! I know Sklansky would respect the last qualification.

[/ QUOTE ]

I guess we'll just have to take your word for it since you don't seem to be able to substantiate anything.

The original statement was still idiotic, BTW.

[/ QUOTE ]

Just out of curiousity, why do you feel the need to be so insulting? If you don't like the statement, say why..

I don't think the statement is idiotic at all.. I think there's definitely some truth in it.

FWIW, the person said it to me because I was saying I don't really believe in God, and I'm not really sure that person does either.

I also believe that no one really believes in god. They just tell themselves they do.

[bossJJ]

[ QUOTE ]
God didn't create Satan evil, but Satan rebelled against God.

[/ QUOTE ]

Isaiah 45:7 - "I form the light, and create darkness; I make peace, and create evil; I the Lord do all these things."

Who is Satan? (http://www.outreachjudaism.org/satan.html)

Original Sin (http://www.outreachjudaism.org/original.htm)

[NotReady]

[ QUOTE ]

Isaiah 45:7 - "I form the light, and create darkness; I make peace, and create evil; I the Lord do all these things."


[/ QUOTE ]

This is why I pretty much ignore you boss.

[ezratei]

[ QUOTE ]
I remember them because I bet on them. Your high school SAT scores don't matter. But what you could score on them NOW definitely does.

[/ QUOTE ]

David, as someone who has successfully applied logic to poker and other fields in many remarkable and unique ways, I find it hard to believe that you put so much stock in the SAT test.

Personally, I think it is pretty meaningless as an indication of a person's "intelligence", no matter how you define such a term.

At best it is a test of basic grammer and 3rd grade mathematics ...

[jason1990]

[ QUOTE ]
as a nontheist, while I do not subscribe to the concept of a god, I agree that I take the final authority and responsiblity for myself, my life, and all of my actions and their consequences.

[/ QUOTE ]
For many people, I think this can be a very dangerous attitude to have, depending on how it is implemented. Many very bad things happen to people through no fault of their own. They may try to take responsibility for these terrible results by thinking that if they had acted more wisely or made better decisions, then they could have avoided those circumstances. This is not always true and can lead to despair or cause them to change behavior that was otherwise benefitting them.

On the flip side, many very good things happen to people through no fault of their own. They may try to take responsibility for them by thinking that these great results are due to their superior intellect and cunning. It can lead to hubris and reinforce behavior which will harm them in the long run.

I think many people fail to realize that they are not the final authority over what happens in their life. They can partially control their "winrate," but there is still variance.

[bossJJ]

[ QUOTE ]
This is why I pretty much ignore you boss.

[/ QUOTE ]

I realize that you ignore me because you are unable to refute any of my points with rational arguments. I'm just pointing out how Christian beliefs contradict what the Hebrew bible actually says. In the Hebrew bible, Satan isn't some evil god or demon that acts on his own against God. Those beliefs come from paganism, not the bible. We don't believe in two separate gods, one good and one evil. In the bible, there is only one true God who creates both good and evil.

[malorum]

[ QUOTE ]
Being a God is a passive activity

[/ QUOTE ]

/images/graemlins/mad.gif This is sooo not true.

As God you get to make things. ( Genesis 1:1 )

Drown things you made if they don't work out ( Genesis 7:21 )

And Burn things if they get really sordid ( Genesis 19:24 )

Pasive Smashive, Being God means doing stuff. Bible says so.

You gotto go do some more bible study Piers.

[fishsauce]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
as a nontheist, while I do not subscribe to the concept of a god, I agree that I take the final authority and responsiblity for myself, my life, and all of my actions and their consequences.

[/ QUOTE ]
For many people, I think this can be a very dangerous attitude to have, depending on how it is implemented. Many very bad things happen to people through no fault of their own. They may try to take responsibility for these terrible results by thinking that if they had acted more wisely or made better decisions, then they could have avoided those circumstances. This is not always true and can lead to despair or cause them to change behavior that was otherwise benefitting them.

On the flip side, many very good things happen to people through no fault of their own. They may try to take responsibility for them by thinking that these great results are due to their superior intellect and cunning. It can lead to hubris and reinforce behavior which will harm them in the long run.

I think many people fail to realize that they are not the final authority over what happens in their life. They can partially control their "winrate," but there is still variance.

[/ QUOTE ]


Good point. While I certainly cannot speak for anyone else who shares my sense of autonomy, I know that there is a big difference between the things I am responsible for occuring and the things that "happen" to me. I suspect that many nontheists have embedded in their philosophies a sense of the randomness of the universe and incorporate that into their way of dealing with unfortunate things as well as good things that happen. I'm not interested in debating its relative merit, but many theists certainly have a similar mechanism in the "will of god" or "god was on my side."

I think in general, the problem of taking too much responsibity for the good things that happen in one's life is more of a human psychological issue than a philosophical one. We've all seen studies where people who are not very good at something or not very intelligent tend to think the opposite.

[Piers]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Being a God is a passive activity

[/ QUOTE ]

/images/graemlins/mad.gif This is sooo not true.

As God you get to make things. ( Genesis 1:1 )

Drown things you made if they don't work out ( Genesis 7:21 )

And Burn things if they get really sordid ( Genesis 19:24 )

Pasive Smashive, Being God means doing stuff. Bible says so.

You gotto go do some more bible study Piers.

[/ QUOTE ]

Anyone who’s had carpentry lessens at school has made something.

Anyone who’s lit a match has burnt something.

Accidentally drowned a spider that had made a web above my bath last week /images/graemlins/frown.gif

Only gods have entities that worship them as a God.

I suspect most gods don't realise that they are gods, or are incapable of realising anything.

(Ok its possible that your definition of God does not match my definition of a god /images/graemlins/wink.gif)

[meow_meow]

[ QUOTE ]
This is a basically true statement. It doesn't mean each individual thinks he is an eternal, all-wise, all-powerful being. It means that if one rejects the true God, he takes over the position of final authority for himself, effectively performing the role of God for his own life. The only ultimate he recognizes is himself.

[/ QUOTE ]

Um...no.
That's my wife's job.

Seriously though, we aren't all satanists/anarchists just because we don't believe in the toothfairy and other stories.

[NotReady]

[ QUOTE ]

Seriously though, we aren't all satanists/anarchists just because we don't believe in the toothfairy and other stories.


[/ QUOTE ]

I don't think everyone is a satanist but I do think all non-theists are anarchists in principle.

[maurile]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

Seriously though, we aren't all satanists/anarchists just because we don't believe in the toothfairy and other stories.


[/ QUOTE ]
I don't think everyone is a satanist but I do think all non-theists are anarchists in principle.

[/ QUOTE ]
No gods exist; therefore, we should do away with government.

There must be some steps missing in the middle there.

[NotReady]

[ QUOTE ]

There must be some steps missing in the middle there.


[/ QUOTE ]

I logically excluded the middle.

[meow_meow]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

Seriously though, we aren't all satanists/anarchists just because we don't believe in the toothfairy and other stories.


[/ QUOTE ]


I don't think everyone is a satanist but I do think all non-theists are anarchists in principle.

[/ QUOTE ]

How bizarre.
Personally, I believe in a higher authority. I try to follow most of the rules laid down by this higher power to the best of my abilities. I have respect for the power of said authority, and have no desire to free myself from my responsibilities where this authority is concerned.

I call it the state.

[NotReady]

[ QUOTE ]

Personally, I believe in a higher authority


[/ QUOTE ]

I believe in higher authorities other than God as well. Parent, boss, state. But if there is no ultimate authority, or stated more correctly if your highest authority isn't ultimate, then you are in principle an anarchist. Fortunately not everyone acts in full accordance with their principles.

[meow_meow]

obviously you and I have different conceptions about what constitutes an anarchist.

Yours seems to be "one who doesn't accept any ultimate authority". So I guess there's no arguing with you there...

[NotReady]

Look at definition 3 and the etymology. Of course, you were using the word with respect to earthly rule. I was being a bit unfair because I was using the word in a different sense than you.

However, I'm not being completely unfair, because if you reject ultimate authority (an (without or no) + archy (ruler) - anarchy in the ultimate sense), you have no real justification for any ruler or rule of law and which would logically but not practically lead to temporal anarchy.


[ QUOTE ]

NOUN: Inflected forms: pl. an·ar·chies
1. Absence of any form of political authority. 2. Political disorder and confusion. 3. Absence of any cohesive principle, such as a common standard or purpose.
ETYMOLOGY: New Latin anarchia, from Greek anarkhi, from anarkhos, without a ruler : an-, without; see a–1 + arkhos, ruler; see –arch.


[/ QUOTE ]

[West]

Isn't Buddhism, "non-theistic"?

[maurile]

[ QUOTE ]
Isn't Buddhism, "non-theistic"?

[/ QUOTE ]
There are different variations of Buddhism. Some have gods, some don't.

[West]

So regarding the non-theistic variations of Buddhism...couldn't we say that these Buddhists don't believe in a supreme being sort of god, but do believe in a power outside of themselves. In other words, there are more categories than just those who believe in a distinct supreme being authority and those who only recognize their own "authority".

[maurile]

[ QUOTE ]
In other words, there are more categories than just those who believe in a distinct supreme being authority and those who only recognize their own "authority".

[/ QUOTE ]
Of course. My post about Britney Spears earlier in this thread was not a joke.

1) [ QUOTE ]
couldn't we say that these Buddhists don't believe in a supreme being sort of god, but do believe in a power outside of themselves

[/ QUOTE ]

Not in my opinion. The fundamental way to judge whether or not a view is an accordance with the Buddhist doctrine, regardless of the tradition (well, in most cases) is the recognition (note I intentionally do not use believe here)of the three main "marks" or aspects of existence: dukkha, anatta and anicca (roughly translated: suffering, no-self and inpermanence).

To expand a little: "all life is suffering" (in the widest meaning of the word), "there is no such things that corresponds to a concept of enduring self" and "everything is subject to change".

2) [ QUOTE ]
In other words, there are more categories than just those who believe in a distinct supreme being authority and those who only recognize their own "authority".

[/ QUOTE ]

Indeed a consequence of 1) above, in the sense that deepening a Buddhist understanding, is the shedding of all beliefs to get to a point of no beliefs, where the question of authority, internal or external, does not even come into play.

Hope this clarifies things,

Kind regards

MidGe