Is God Great? [Archive] - Virtual Teen Forums

HDDH

April 16th, 2012, 11:48 AM

Whether you believe in Him or not, God has been an influence on so many people throughout history that we may as well view Him as real, even if he isn't.

So, my question is, in light of history, Is the idea of God great? Has the past justified the idea of God surviving?

My answer is no. Religion as a whole has been the initiator of so much violence and the responsible agent in so many atrocities (the usual rota applies; 9/11, the crusades, the gassing of the Kurds by Sadam Hussein, et c.) that it's existence is not just amoral but immoral.

God, if he existed in any sense, would have to be our creator. Furthermore, He'd have to have maintained our existence and continues to watch over us. This is disturbing to me, we are watched night and day, our private thoughts are shared with a being who I have no wish to share it with and everything I do is under scrutiny. How totalitarian and terrifying, that your own person is not your own person, that you belong to someone. I don't want to be a slave. As the late, great Christopher Hitchens put it, God Is Not Great.

BFG9001

April 16th, 2012, 10:08 PM

Nope.avi.

Abrahamic God is a giant asshole.

Rage of the Menace

April 16th, 2012, 11:48 PM

@BFG9001, You completely disregarded his point. In the LIGHT OF HISTORY.

Yes, God, whether real or not has shaped history. Not God himself, but the Religious Politics behind it that changed the worlds advance, most prominently in the medieval ages.

Contrary to popular belief the Dark Ages aren't called so because of the sudden increase in Christian Population, but the lack of records left of that time period. The 'Barbarians' that invaded Latin Rome were not primitive, but they weren't as advanced either as most of our sources from that time come from Monks and other religious agents.

Religion can be blamed for approximately 7% of all wars that have been records, which is around 80. Not attributing to a single God, but to ALL religions in written history.

The Crusades were began as a retaliation to the slaughter of a group of pilgrims my Syrian Muslims. Pope Urban IV (i think) use God as a rallying cry for Catholics in Europe. Following pleas for help from the Byzantines, they waged the First and most successful Crusade. Wait, do you see any God there other than a moral booster? That's exactly what it what, Religious politics, please don't use that argument again.

9/11 was not only religious, but political. The Hadith is what they follow, which is a book based on Mohammed sayings, not officially recognised as part of the Quran, hence it was also based on the political ideology of Mohammed.

The Kurds are not only religiously different, but culturally.

You keep getting Religious Politics with Religion. Please, educate yourself before ranting.

You don't belong to God, you're his creation, not his slave. If we were slaves then he would make you follow him forcefully, which clearly isn't the case.

Totalitarian? Do you even know the defenition?

I'm a Totalitarian, Radical Centrist, Ultra Nationalist, does that make me a bad person or are most of these words taboo? Indeed they are.

God, whether real or not, is Great.

deadpie

April 17th, 2012, 08:43 PM

You don't belong to God, you're his creation

My mother and father created me. It's called fucking.

God says eternal damnation or follow him. If God is real there's no person with common sense that's going to not follow his way no matter how sick they think that ideology of torture is. Let me remind you that Hell is not a punishment. In order for something to be a punishment you have to learn from what you did wrong. If your pain never ends you cannot learn the so called lesson. You just keep fucking suffering. That's sadistic and sick.

When it comes down to who God is and his actions in the Bible he is a psychopath. Not just in the Old Testament. People also seem to forget the part in Revelations where Jesus is sitting on clouds throwing picks into people's chests. That is not love. You may say in some screwed up way, "Well, God is beyond our knowledge of understanding, comprehension, and works in mysterious ways." All three of those are contradictions.

If you can't understand the God that you're praying to why the hell would you even pray to him in the first place? Would you worship someone who speaks in a different languages? Even better - someone that not only speaks in a different language you will never be able to interpretate, but you can't hear, see, or have any proof of his existence. All you have is this faith for him and a bunch of paper. That's just stupid.

It's the same with comprehension. If someone doesn't understand what they're talking about on any level and they never will they should just not focus on the subject. Same with God. If you can't comprehend his actions or put absolute reasoning to it, then that's narrow minded and you aren't thinking for yourself. It means your God might kill you behind his back or force you to kill your son on the top of a mountain. Who knows! He does tons of weird things. Even kills people with snakes.

Why does a God need to work in mysterious ways when it would be more understanding to work in ways our minds can understand? We will never be able to think like him, so he should be able to explain things in a reasonable way to human intellect. This reasoning is mainly for excuses anyways. Excuses is also denial. It's when people somewhat realizes some of the things God does or might do right now is/are ridiculous, pointless, disgusting and inane.

God kills just around 25 million of his own creations in the Bible. That is not great unless you are sick minded.

Sporadica

April 18th, 2012, 12:13 AM

I don't think he's good at all.

Because he is all knowing, which means he should be able to see natural disasters, but he is also all powerful, so that means if he sees a tsunami coming to kill hundreds of thousands of people he should be able to stop it right? and if it's out of his power it means he's not all powerful but if it is in his power it means he's a prick and chose to let the tsunami come

Rage of the Menace

April 18th, 2012, 12:38 AM

My mother and father created me. It's called fucking.

God says eternal damnation or follow him. If God is real there's no person with common sense that's going to not follow his way no matter how sick they think that ideology of torture is. Let me remind you that Hell is not a punishment. In order for something to be a punishment you have to learn from what you did wrong. If your pain never ends you cannot learn the so called lesson. You just keep fucking suffering. That's sadistic and sick.

When it comes down to who God is and his actions in the Bible he is a psychopath. Not just in the Old Testament. People also seem to forget the part in Revelations where Jesus is sitting on clouds throwing picks into people's chests. That is not love. You may say in some screwed up way, "Well, God is beyond our knowledge of understanding, comprehension, and works in mysterious ways." All three of those are contradictions.

If you can't understand the God that you're praying to why the hell would you even pray to him in the first place? Would you worship someone who speaks in a different languages? Even better - someone that not only speaks in a different language you will never be able to interpretate, but you can't hear, see, or have any proof of his existence. All you have is this faith for him and a bunch of paper. That's just stupid.

It's the same with comprehension. If someone doesn't understand what they're talking about on any level and they never will they should just not focus on the subject. Same with God. If you can't comprehend his actions or put absolute reasoning to it, then that's narrow minded and you aren't thinking for yourself. It means your God might kill you behind his back or force you to kill your son on the top of a mountain. Who knows! He does tons of weird things. Even kills people with snakes.

Why does a God need to work in mysterious ways when it would be more understanding to work in ways our minds can understand? We will never be able to think like him, so he should be able to explain things in a reasonable way to human intellect. This reasoning is mainly for excuses anyways. Excuses is also denial. It's when people somewhat realizes some of the things God does or might do right now is/are ridiculous, pointless, disgusting and inane.

God kills just around 25 million of his own creations in the Bible. That is not great unless you are sick minded.

I follow the 10 commandments and the 4 gospels, bringing up the bible with me is like fighting a scarecrow, don't. So i will politely tell you, i'm not interested in you disproving something highly metaphorical.

Stalin was an atheist, he killed 40 million of his own people.

Mao Zedong was an atheist, he killed 50 million of his own people.

Don't bring your emotions into this, i'm not asking you for your fucking feelings, give me a logical answer, not some opinionated fueled rant on why your life sux and you deserve much more. Prove to me God isn't great, don't just go on about how he's evil.

GREAT IMPLIES GREATNESS, NOT GOOD.

ARGUMENT 2, MORAL ARGUMENTS FOR THE PROOF OF GOD:

ONTOLOGICAL ARGUMENTS: STATEMENT 2.

I conceive of a being than which no greater can be conceived. If a being than which no greater can be conceived does not exist, then I can conceive of a being greater than a being than which no greater can be conceived—namely, a being than which no greater can be conceived that exists. I cannot conceive of a being greater than a being than which no greater can be conceived. Hence, a being than which no greater can be conceived exists.

Now, your turn, don't just ramble next time, give me proof he isn't great.

Also Dead Pie the Libertarian, can you please tell me how the fuck greatness is associated with Good and Evil?

Please do not double post, the edit button exists for a reason. ~TheMatrix

Genghis Khan

April 18th, 2012, 08:18 AM

Stalin was an atheist, he killed 40 million of his own people.

Mao Zedong was an atheist, he killed 50 million of his own people.

The minute a theist brings up Stalin, Hitler or Mao Zedong's example of atheist violence is the minute the debate is over.

Nothing that Stalin, Hitler (even though he actually was a Roman Catholic) or Mao did was in the name of atheism. Stalin killed in the name of power, his motivation was not atheism, Hitler massacred the Jews in the name of racism/fascism and not in the name of religion. I dare you to find me one single piece of evidence that shows they were motivated by atheism.

9/11 attacks, crusades, Muhammad's conquest and the Kaafir resistance was all religiously motivated.

In a similar case, I'm not going to say that the Central Asian Mughals who came to the subcontinent and massacred Ibrahim Lodhi's Pashtun army was in the name of Islam. Sure, the Mughal emperor Babur was a Muslim, but Islam was not his motivation, it was the desire for power and wealth in the heart of the rich subcontinent that drove him to doing it. I'm quite sure there aren't texts of him claiming that he's doing it for Muhammad, Allah, the caliphate or Islam in general.

Rage of the Menace

April 18th, 2012, 08:39 AM

The minute a theist brings up Stalin, Hitler or Mao Zedong's example of atheist violence is the minute the debate is over.

Nothing that Stalin, Hitler (even though he actually was a Roman Catholic) or Mao did was in the name of atheism. Stalin killed in the name of power, his motivation was not atheism, Hitler massacred the Jews in the name of racism/fascism and not in the name of religion. I dare you to find me one single piece of evidence that shows they were motivated by atheism.

9/11 attacks, crusades, Muhammad's conquest and the Kaafir resistance was all religiously motivated.

In a similar case, I'm not going to say that the Central Asian Mughals who came to the subcontinent and massacred Ibrahim Lodhi's Pashtun army was in the name of Islam. Sure, the Mughal emperor Babur was a Muslim, but Islam was not his motivation, it was the desire for power and wealth in the heart of the rich subcontinent that drove him to doing it. I'm quite sure there aren't texts of him claiming that he's doing it for Muhammad, Allah, the caliphate or Islam in general.

Indeed. Religiously motivated but not CAUSED BY RELIGION, it was a purely political move by the catholic church (the crusades). And my replies weren't meant to be taken seriously, they were meant to show Deadpie that putting up deathtolls of political BUT motivated by religion, and if you have studied History in great detail, you'd see most great rulers need something as a motivator. And more than often it's religion.

Thank you for contributing to my greater point Genghis, also, it was more of a, SO WHAT!? sort of reply with those specific two arguments.

One last thing, do you think God is Great? Real or not?

Genghis Khan

April 18th, 2012, 09:11 AM

Indeed. Religiously motivated but not CAUSED BY RELIGION

I conceive that religious motivation for doing evil is the fault of the person/people doing it and religion itself.

One last thing, do you think God is Great? Real or not?

The concept of God is a useful gateway to some kind of macro/greater spiritualism. Amongst a need for spiritual connection and purposeful living it was also a gateway to some kind of response to questions we couldn't answer, regardless of the invalidity of the response.

When actively assessing and analysing history, I have no problem with the points I've mentioned above but because the concept of God and higher powers led to religion and religious outlook, this went from personal conviction to societal conviction. When society became sensitive to beliefs in gods or goddesses there were disputes, disagreements and debates that usually led to wars. I don't approve of wars in general but wars over something that may well not exist just undermines the validity and rationality of going into war in the first place.

Although I'm an atheist, I understand the cultural significance of religion in society but because it has been such a substantial influence for warfare, especially over something so trivial as a personal belief, I also feel it's quite unnecessary and especially in the now (since we're presently equipped with scientific observation). So I would say God, whether real or unreal, is not so great, but certainly plays an interesting role in history.

embers

April 18th, 2012, 01:35 PM

ARGUMENT 2, MORAL ARGUMENTS FOR THE PROOF OF GOD:

ONTOLOGICAL ARGUMENTS: STATEMENT 2.

I conceive of a being than which no greater can be conceived. If a being than which no greater can be conceived does not exist, then I can conceive of a being greater than a being than which no greater can be conceived—namely, a being than which no greater can be conceived that exists. I cannot conceive of a being greater than a being than which no greater can be conceived. Hence, a being than which no greater can be conceived exists.

ONTOLOGICAL ARGUMENT (I)
(1) I define God to be X.
(2) Since I can conceive of X, X must exist.
(3) Therefore, God exists.

ONTOLOGICAL ARGUMENT (II)
(1) I can conceive of a perfect God.
(2) One of the qualities of perfection is existence.
(3) Therefore, God exists.

() (http://www.godlessgeeks.com/LINKS/GodProof.htm)

Lol. Ontological argument doesn't get you anywhere past your imagination, bro.

deadpie

April 18th, 2012, 02:19 PM

I follow the 10 commandments and the 4 gospels, bringing up the bible with me is like fighting a scarecrow, don't. So i will politely tell you, i'm not interested in you disproving something highly metaphorical.

How the hell are you going to argue religion if you can't even talk about the Bible itself?

Stalin was an atheist, he killed 40 million of his own people. Mao Zedong was an atheist, he killed 50 million of his own people.

That isn't a fucking point. They were not motivated by atheism. They killed atheists too. They were motivated through communism and people died because of it's failure. What a stupid point that goes absolutely nowhere.

Prove to me God isn't great, don't just go on about how he's evil.

That's the point of the thread. He's either good or evil in my opinion. If he's just in the middle then I don't see him to be any more special than us. In fact, he's not any more special than us because we as humans can now play God with science now.

GREAT IMPLIES GREATNESS, NOT GOOD.

God is big, large, above, but he is not distinguished. He's not outstanding or eminent. I guess you can say he's somewhat great, but definitely not good.

ARGUMENT 2, MORAL ARGUMENTS FOR THE PROOF OF GOD:

ONTOLOGICAL ARGUMENTS: STATEMENT 2.

I conceive of a being than which no greater can be conceived. If a being than which no greater can be conceived does not exist, then I can conceive of a being greater than a being than which no greater can be conceived

First issue here is that neither have evidence or proof, so there would be no point in conceiving a different one because they're both equally useless.

namely, a being than which no greater can be conceived that exists.

Except there is no proof for the being you just thought of to be real. I just thought up of being that's just as beyond as any other God anyone else has conceived. That means he must be real. hurrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr

I cannot conceive of a being greater than a being than which no greater can be conceived.

I just did. In fact, this God is bigger. It's a chair. The chair is great (and good). There's billions of chairs created, it can hold me, I trust it because I conceived its creation, built it with my own hands, this chair is much stronger than me, this chair can kill me if someone bashed it against my head strong enough, this chair is large, but not just large - chairs can come in all shapes and sizes. Chairs are important and have been important for thousands of years now. The chair is accepted and approved in our society. Chairs have saved lives.

Hence, a being than which no greater can be conceived exists.

That is not proof. Also, Embers post. Go to it.

Also Dead Pie the Libertarian

I'm not a fucking libertarian. I burn Ayn Rand books for fun. What a foolish thing of you to say of me.

PerpetualImperfexion

April 18th, 2012, 04:24 PM

I follow the 10 commandments and the 4 gospels, bringing up the bible with me is like fighting a scarecrow, don't. So i will politely tell you, i'm not interested in you disproving something highly metaphorical.

Stalin was an atheist, he killed 40 million of his own people.

Mao Zedong was an atheist, he killed 50 million of his own people.

Did you just compare God to two communists... That seems like a bad argument.

GREAT IMPLIES GREATNESS, NOT GOOD.

ARGUMENT 2, MORAL ARGUMENTS FOR THE PROOF OF GOD:

ONTOLOGICAL ARGUMENTS: STATEMENT 2.

I conceive of a being than which no greater can be conceived. If a being than which no greater can be conceived does not exist, then I can conceive of a being greater than a being than which no greater can be conceived—namely, a being than which no greater can be conceived that exists. I cannot conceive of a being greater than a being than which no greater can be conceived. Hence, a being than which no greater can be conceived exists.

I suppose if you think about it he is pretty "great" when you mean powerful. On the other hand he is a complete asshole and therefore I would rather endure an eternity of pain than be around such a condescending being.

Rage of the Menace

April 18th, 2012, 10:38 PM

ONTOLOGICAL ARGUMENT (I)
(1) I define God to be X.
(2) Since I can conceive of X, X must exist.
(3) Therefore, God exists.

ONTOLOGICAL ARGUMENT (II)
(1) I can conceive of a perfect God.
(2) One of the qualities of perfection is existence.
(3) Therefore, God exists.

() (http://www.godlessgeeks.com/LINKS/GodProof.htm)

Lol. Ontological argument doesn't get you anywhere past your imagination, bro.

Nein, they are from the Stanford website, not some retardos.
http://plato.stanford.edu/ great website.

Argue religion without opposing the bible? We're talking about GOD HERE, NOT RELIGION. God implies in a SUPREME DIVINE BEING, which is NOT a religion. God has single handedly changed human history, from the Romans, the Muslim conquering, the Catholic Church the Spanish Conquests... they all changed history, and you can't see that.

Provide me with evidence he is not great, not a highly subjective opinion. In fact, i took the stance of an agnostic throughout this debate, excluding the statement that i believe in the 10 commandments and 4 gospels, otherwise I was hardly acting like a christian, yet some of you still managed to wrangle Christianity into this.

And this is unbelievably original. Good on ya guys, defending a point only because it even hints at a divine being, i cannot see a more arrogant perspective.

I applaud you all.

Also @ Deadpie

I cannot stress the point, the BELIEF IN A GOD, CHANGED HISTORY. Holy mother of God, it's as if you read half my statement and assume the rest.

and @ Silent Rebel

It was a, 'so what?' sort of thing, i said that before, none of you read what i say.

finally @ everyone

The ontological argument doesn't imply he exists, I just found it relevant to the subject, keep contradicting that argument, i got plenty more if you REALLY feel like it.

That chair argument, that's insulting. It's ridiculing my belief. Degrading yourself that lowly, adorable.

"God is big, large, above, but he is not distinguished. He's not outstanding or eminent. I guess you can say he's somewhat great, but definitely not good"-DeadPie.

That's it. Thank you for admitting it.

sammy1996

April 19th, 2012, 09:50 AM

wyatt

April 19th, 2012, 10:10 AM

I'm atheist, I believe in god's omnipotency in the way that he can be used as an efficient tool to control people.

embers

April 19th, 2012, 10:56 AM

Nein, they are from the Stanford website, not some retardos.
http://plato.stanford.edu/ great website.

I think you missed my point there. The website I took that from highlights the general stupidity of the ontological argument (and the hundreds of other God arguments).

Argue religion without opposing the bible? We're talking about GOD HERE, NOT RELIGION. God implies in a SUPREME DIVINE BEING, which is NOT a religion. God has single handedly changed human history, from the Romans, the Muslim conquering, the Catholic Church the Spanish Conquests... they all changed history, and you can't see that.

Provide me with evidence he is not great, not a highly subjective opinion. In fact, i took the stance of an agnostic throughout this debate, excluding the statement that i believe in the 10 commandments and 4 gospels, otherwise I was hardly acting like a christian, yet some of you still managed to wrangle Christianity into this.

It's funny you should say that, seeing as you put down all anti-greatness arguments by saying they are religiously motivated and not a result of God, yet your entire argument is based on 'religion not god':

Yes, God, whether real or not has shaped history. Not God himself, but the Religious Politics behind it that changed the worlds advance, most prominently in the medieval ages.

Why are religion's societal hindrances, then, not a valid argument?

Amaryllis

April 19th, 2012, 11:10 AM

Nein, they are from the Stanford website, not some retardos.
http://plato.stanford.edu/ great website.

Argue religion without opposing the bible? We're talking about GOD HERE, NOT RELIGION. God implies in a SUPREME DIVINE BEING, which is NOT a religion. God has single handedly changed human history, from the Romans, the Muslim conquering, the Catholic Church the Spanish Conquests... they all changed history, and you can't see that.

Provide me with evidence he is not great, not a highly subjective opinion. In fact, i took the stance of an agnostic throughout this debate, excluding the statement that i believe in the 10 commandments and 4 gospels, otherwise I was hardly acting like a christian, yet some of you still managed to wrangle Christianity into this.

And this is unbelievably original. Good on ya guys, defending a point only because it even hints at a divine being, i cannot see a more arrogant perspective.

I applaud you all.

Also @ Deadpie

I cannot stress the point, the BELIEF IN A GOD, CHANGED HISTORY. Holy mother of God, it's as if you read half my statement and assume the rest.

and @ Silent Rebel

It was a, 'so what?' sort of thing, i said that before, none of you read what i say.

finally @ everyone

The ontological argument doesn't imply he exists, I just found it relevant to the subject, keep contradicting that argument, i got plenty more if you REALLY feel like it.

That chair argument, that's insulting. It's ridiculing my belief. Degrading yourself that lowly, adorable.

"God is big, large, above, but he is not distinguished. He's not outstanding or eminent. I guess you can say he's somewhat great, but definitely not good"-DeadPie.

That's it. Thank you for admitting it.
You must be new. I suggest you reevaluate and reconstruct your farcical discernment and ludicrous reason before attempting to engage in a debate with the likes of embers and deadpie.

As embers said, you claim this debate speaks not of religion but of how the belief in God has changed human history, but all your "evidence" is built upon religious war, conquest and dispute. We are not "contradicting" your statements, my dear. You are.

You ask for us to provide you with evidence, but you, however, have not provided us with evidence. You speak of art, your God is not art.

Human history is as said, human history. It is not God's history of humanity, but the history of humans. The past is the consequence of the choices and actions made by humans, set in the scene of circumstance. God did not put his arm between the two sides and vanquish the other with his face.

The belief in God is not what swayed the whole of human history. At most, it is religion - though even that has not and will not sway all of humanity. Were it to be "God," the likely outcome would be unity. After all, it is "God" that everyone trusts, not Judaism, Islam, Buddhism, Christianity and the like.

The God you speak of does not exist as he is not as almighty and great as what your fragile mind has led you to believe.

Unless, of course, your definition of "God" were "malevolent, ruthless and sadistic asshole." Assuming his existence is apparent, which it is not. He is not great because he is a cupcake floating on Saturn's ring. Now, before you develop a supposedly witty reply such as "a cupcake in space seems pretty damn great to me," think first of the allusion.

Perhaps accusations of "arrogance" and "ignorance" cloud your mind, but let me assure you I am neither an atheist nor one of stark bias.

The evidence of religious conquest in human history speaks not of God but religion. The evidence of human history speaks not of God but of humanity. Your evidence points not to reason but towards false dichotomy.

FojeJC

April 19th, 2012, 12:00 PM

God is an asshole.
Who the hell do you think we take after?

Jean Poutine

April 19th, 2012, 12:11 PM

Yes, God, whether real or not has shaped history. Not God himself, but the Religious Politics behind it that changed the worlds advance, most prominently in the medieval ages.

Is it really "religious politics" when from the bottom of one's heart, you really believe that "Deus le vult"? You confuse the perception we can have of the Catholic Church's little excursions today and what they meant before to those involved, when people really did believe in what an old "virgin" decreed.

In other words, the distinction is meaningless.

Religion can be blamed for approximately 7% of all wars that have been records, which is around 80. Not attributing to a single God, but to ALL religions in written history.

You must be shitting me.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_wars

There are many more wars than that and religion (or God, any God) played much less of a role in them than your little percentage would imply.

The Crusades were began as a retaliation to the slaughter of a group of pilgrims my Syrian Muslims. Pope Urban IV (i think) use God as a rallying cry for Catholics in Europe. Following pleas for help from the Byzantines, they waged the First and most successful Crusade. Wait, do you see any God there other than a moral booster? That's exactly what it what, Religious politics, please don't use that argument again.

Was it, or was it not? It doesn't matter what you think. Usually it's preferable, when studying history and the whys and hows of historical events to throw oneself back in context.

In context, God was much more than a morale booster, it was part and parcel of the whole fucking reason disillusioned peasants went to sack towns and rape Muslim butthole (literally), thinking they'd win their Heaven that way because the Pope said so. And the Pope is infallible.

In that context, is the concept of God great/powerful? Not really. It isn't really too hard to convince a bunch of disillusioned, superstitious and very very hungry peasants to go kill in anybody's name. Remember Rwanda. It doesn't take God, as any commissar would tell you, just a gun shooting at kinsmen taking a single step behind. It's not hard to manipulate people. If humans can do it, I don't think it matters that God can too.

In essence, this is also meaningless.

9/11 was not only religious, but political. The Hadith is what they follow, which is a book based on Mohammed sayings, not officially recognised as part of the Quran, hence it was also based on the political ideology of Mohammed.

Kinda like saying that if I waged war against Tajikistan citing the Gospel of Judas, I wouldn't be waging a religious war because mainstream Christianity rejects gnostic gospels.

Again, it doesn't matter what you think. If the ones who did 9/11 honestly believed it was a religious imperative, then it was done for religious reasons, in the name of God.

Is God great/powerful? No, still isn't. Same reasons as above.

I'm a Totalitarian, Radical Centrist, Ultra Nationalist, does that make me a bad person or are most of these words taboo? Indeed they are.

No, but it does make you sound like a fool throwing around a bunch of flashy words. Just sayin'.

I conceive of a being than which no greater can be conceived. If a being than which no greater can be conceived does not exist, then I can conceive of a being greater than a being than which no greater can be conceived—namely, a being than which no greater can be conceived that exists. I cannot conceive of a being greater than a being than which no greater can be conceived. Hence, a being than which no greater can be conceived exists.

Now, your turn, don't just ramble next time, give me proof he isn't great.

Man, I hope you don't plan to be a lawyer. You assert something, you prove it. It's not up to others to disprove your assertion.

No, you can't say the above is proof. Maybe circlejerking. I'd go for that.

deadpie

April 19th, 2012, 12:23 PM

Nein, they are from the Stanford website, not some retardos.
http://plato.stanford.edu/ great website.

I think you missed the point of the website you were linked. Lol you fail.

Argue religion without opposing the bible? We're talking about GOD HERE, NOT RELIGION.

A higher power plays along in mostly all religions.

God implies in a SUPREME DIVINE BEING, which is NOT a religion. God has single handedly changed human history, from the Romans, the Muslim conquering, the Catholic Church the Spanish Conquests... they all changed history, and you can't see that.

You make more inferences than you think I do. You really need to stop doing that because it's literally the dumbest thing I've ever seen on this site to date. I know that religion has played a huge part in our construction and deconstruction. Not God, but his teachings and the scriptures.

Provide me with evidence he is not great, not a highly subjective opinion.

38eCoIUdkXUf7fQ-5TUSAY

The idea of God and Religion was great, but to this day, not great. As we as humans discover more people will continue as they do to stop following things that have no hard fucking evidence. This is happening. Atheism is growing very fast. We as humans can build our own species and genetically manipulate various things. We are God now. We are great. We're better without the religious God now - we simply don't need him. Well, some people need that faith to clamp onto of course, but like I said the need is decreasing. Because God was once great and isn't anymore that means he's overall not great, because if you're great you should be able to be stable.

In fact, i took the stance of an agnostic throughout this debate, excluding the statement that i believe in the 10 commandments and 4 gospels, otherwise I was hardly acting like a christian, yet some of you still managed to wrangle Christianity into this.

HMMMM. I WONDER WHY SOMEONE WOULD CONNECT THE CHRISTIAN GOD WITH CHRISTIANITY IN A DEBATE ABOUT GOD. HMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMM MMMM.

I cannot stress the point, the BELIEF IN A GOD, CHANGED HISTORY. Holy mother of God, it's as if you read half my statement and assume the rest.

Says the guy who called me a fucking libertarian.

The ontological argument doesn't imply he exists, I just found it relevant to the subject, keep contradicting that argument, i got plenty more if you REALLY feel like it.

The website Sachal links debunks every argument by making the argument sound fucking stupid.

That chair argument, that's insulting. It's ridiculing my belief. Degrading yourself that lowly, adorable.

The chair argument is great. Ha, see what I did there? Also, that's insulting yet eternal hellfire isn't insulting? Give me a break of that kit kat bar.

"God is big, large, above, but he is not distinguished. He's not outstanding or eminent. I guess you can say he's somewhat great, but definitely not good"-DeadPie.

That's it. Thank you for admitting it.

I said somewhat great. Good job not reading what I said. If you're somewhat great you're not great. And in my earlier argument I said he was great at one time but isn't anymore because he's useless to us. That means God over all is NOT great. You should of also noticed outstanding and eminent are both connected to the word distinguished, which means that God doesn't fully connect to the several definition from the dictionary.

Rage of the Menace

April 19th, 2012, 12:43 PM

It's politics to those that control you. And that's basically what religion has done. Provided a tool to control people efficiently and easily, helping the few 'guide' the many.

I am not defending religion, I'm implying that a divine being, whether real or not, has impacted the world through religion. that's what i'm trying to say, 'trying'.

I got that percentage from the Encyclopedia of Wars by Charles Phillip. Not wikipedia bro, nice one.

Makes me sound like a fool, how on earth is Nationalist flashy? It's simple political jargon.

Also, it seems to me your views on the Biblical God are very heavy handed and would be insulting to many people. Calling the people who believe in him sadistic is not very nice either.

At Amaryllis, I'd like to be spoken to as an equal thank you very much. Have i demoted you? Nein. Debate with Deadpie? The minute we started he started ranting about how if you believe in God you're this and that. That's not debating, that's an intelligent way of namecalling. Please, fragile mind? Pshhhh. You're getting ahead of yourself there.

I went into this proclaiming my opinion which was responded to with a very insulting reply by Deadpie. Whether true or not, it's rude to go straight into something like that. Solid Zeal /10

Greatness implies that you're large in size.

In the Bible, God is described as great... So wouldn't that mean he is, whether fiction or non? Think of it like this, if an author describes a character in a specific manner, that's the way he's meant to be perceived, so wouldn't that mean he is great even in a fictional sense?

Throwing friendly arguments here.

I think you missed the point of the website you were linked. Lol you fail.

A higher power plays along in mostly all religions.

You make more inferences than you think I do. You really need to stop doing that because it's literally the dumbest thing I've ever seen on this site to date. I know that religion has played a huge part in our construction and deconstruction. Not God, but his teachings and the scriptures.

38eCoIUdkXUf7fQ-5TUSAY

The idea of God and Religion was great, but to this day, not great. As we as humans discover more people will continue as they do to stop following things that have no hard fucking evidence. This is happening. Atheism is growing very fast. We as humans can build our own species and genetically manipulate various things. We are God now. We are great. We're better without the religious God now - we simply don't need him. Well, some people need that faith to clamp onto of course, but like I said the need is decreasing. Because God was once great and isn't anymore that means he's overall not great, because if you're great you should be able to be stable.

HMMMM. I WONDER WHY SOMEONE WOULD CONNECT THE CHRISTIAN GOD WITH CHRISTIANITY IN A DEBATE ABOUT GOD. HMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMM MMMM.

Says the guy who called me a fucking libertarian.

The website Sachal links debunks every argument by making the argument sound fucking stupid.

The chair argument is great. Ha, see what I did there? Also, that's insulting yet eternal hellfire isn't insulting? Give me a break of that kit kat bar.

I said somewhat great. Good job not reading what I said. If you're somewhat great you're not great. And in my earlier argument I said he was great at one time but isn't anymore because he's useless to us. That means God over all is NOT great. You should of also noticed outstanding and eminent are both connected to the word distinguished, which means that God doesn't fully connect to the several definition from the dictionary.

Eternal hellfire? Wtf are you on about? I called you a libertarian for calling me a sadist :)

I'm not a militant, you're going to hell because you're not christian, christian.

I believe everyone goes to heaven, whether they believe in him or not :S

The subject is, God is Great not, IS THE CHRISTIAN GOD GREAT. Thanks sherlock.

posts merged. don't double post, use the edit button. -embers

Jean Poutine

April 19th, 2012, 01:18 PM

I got that percentage from the Encyclopedia of Wars by Charles Phillip. Not wikipedia bro, nice one.

Except that there are still more "recorded" wars than 80, making the whole statistic useless.

It doesn't matter where the number comes from, if it's useless then it's useless.

Here's another thing Wikipedia has for you : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appeal_to_authority

Makes me sound like a fool, how on earth is Nationalist flashy? It's simple political jargon.

It does make you seem like a fool. If you can't figure out why, you're beyond help. It has to do with overly reactionary bullshit that brings more problems than it solves.

In the Bible, God is described as great... So wouldn't that mean he is, whether fiction or non? Think of it like this, if an author describes a character in a specific manner, that's the way he's meant to be perceived, so wouldn't that mean he is great even in a fictional sense?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unreliable_narrator

Man, don't you love that Wikipedia. To piss you off, that's all I'm ever gonna cite.

The subject is, God is Great not, IS THE CHRISTIAN GOD GREAT.

I think it's a reasonable assumption to advance the proposal that when one talks about God in the singular with a capital G and cites examples from Abrahamic religions exclusively, it means we might be talking about the Abrahamic God.

Genghis Khan

April 19th, 2012, 01:22 PM

In the Bible, God is described as great... So wouldn't that mean he is, whether fiction or non? Think of it like this, if an author describes a character in a specific manner, that's the way he's meant to be perceived, so wouldn't that mean he is great even in a fictional sense?

No author can label a character that I don't like great and reshape my opinion of him/her just because he has labelled said character as great. It's up to people to critically analyse or ignore critical analysis and come up with their own judgements about the character.

--

And if we're taking the things he's done or the general sort of... atmosphere or radiation that the Bible emits when we read it and assess the stories about God and we're supposed to take every one of things in a positive sense. Then yes, the intention of the book is essentially

God is great no matter which way you want to look at it

In other words

When he:

Flooded the earth
Destroyed cities of Sodom and Gomorrah
Killed first born Egyptians
Ordered Israelites to invade Canaan and mercilessly eradicate the inhabitants
Committed a genocide on the Amalekites and the Midianites

it wasn't a symbol of his evil but rather his power. Which ultimately means he's great in that sense.

Similarly if you take the good things he's done you can obviously make a case for him being great.

So what you're really doing is asserting that no matter what he does, he's great because that was the author's intention. Well then where the fuck does our opinion come into this, moreover, does this topic even matter? Probably not because no matter how well structured our contribution it'll never change this supposed reality which is the intention of the author.

PerpetualImperfexion

April 19th, 2012, 03:06 PM

Briefly; The idea of god is great in the sense it has greatly affected human history but god as a person i personally cant say is great because quite frankly the idea that a supreme being is sat up in the sky watching us all and creating things etc is just ridiculous.
Back to the point the idea of god is powerful more than he is great as great will often imply good, which he certainly isn't.#

Also just as a comment, Rage Of The Menace you say you're talking about God, not religion and you also say about the difference between religious politics. both of these are so blurred as without religion neither of these would exist which is far as i'm concerned are two of the main reasons why people don't like god, not because of what "he" himself has done but because of what the idea of him has made people do. while god cant be held responsible for peoples actions it is a fair reason to dislike god as without god these wars which are because of religious politics wouldn't have happened as there wouldn't be any religions to divide against.

I cringe every time someone brings up the "religion is the reason for most wars" thing. It really isn't. On the other hand, because of religion certain things that are in no way morally wrong are challenged because of the way they might effect a religious person.

I understand was Rage was trying to say now. Even if a god doesn't exist, the way people have reacted do to certain beliefs has in fact shaped history. In some ways it has made the world better, but in other ways worse.

Amaryllis

April 19th, 2012, 03:36 PM

It's politics to those that control you. And that's basically what religion has done. Provided a tool to control people efficiently and easily, helping the few 'guide' the many.
I am controlled by my 5ft tall stature - I cannot reach very far without a chair. I am ontrolled by my eating disorder, trauma, depression and perfectionism - on my bad days. We are controlled by our need to eat and breathe. We are controlled by our parents, the government, our teachers.

Religion is one of the tools, it is merely a side effect of our human desire to be united, our need for greed. We are driven by fear and laziness. A gun to a man's head will control him much easier than a 3 hour preaching session two times a week.

I am not defending religion, I'm implying that a divine being, whether real or not, has impacted the world through religion. that's what i'm trying to say, 'trying'.
Scarlett Johansson has impacted the world. Flowers have impacted the world. Dolphins have impacted the world. I have, you have. Hitler has impacted the world. Cosmetic surgery has impacted the world. The development of drugs and medication has impacted the world. Money has impacted the world. Waxing strips have impacted the world.

Name me one thing that hasn't. In your opinion, everything is great. In that case, I wholeheartedly agree.

At Amaryllis, I'd like to be spoken to as an equal thank you very much. Have i demoted you? Nein. Debate with Deadpie? The minute we started he started ranting about how if you believe in God you're this and that. That's not debating, that's an intelligent way of namecalling. Please, fragile mind? Pshhhh. You're getting ahead of yourself there.

I went into this proclaiming my opinion which was responded to with a very insulting reply by Deadpie. Whether true or not, it's rude to go straight into something like that. Solid Zeal /10

Greatness implies that you're large in size.

In the Bible, God is described as great... So wouldn't that mean he is, whether fiction or non? Think of it like this, if an author describes a character in a specific manner, that's the way he's meant to be perceived, so wouldn't that mean he is great even in a fictional sense?

That's adorable.

So if a book described Cancer as a pleasurable, enthralling and desirable, it is. If a person claims "Rape is minor" and in turn, rapes another, due to his or her belief in rape - then rape is, indeed, of little significance.

You are indeed very cute in your arguments. You attempt to redefine the motion to favour the affirmative. However, this would be a gratuitous and monotonous debate were we to debate using your present definitions. No matter, we may entertain definitions.

You say greatness is measured by size - God has no size. He is not a palpable being, he is fictional. He has no meaning. "God" is a word constructed by 3 letters. Letters humans have put an image, a belief, a book and/or an emotion to. He is not great because "God" does not exist. God is inconsistent and my "God" is a cat and your "God" is a dog.

As he exists within works of fiction, he is not a "God" but different things/people/entities that share the same 3 letters. A homonym, if you will. Example: Hit. She is a hit. I hit my wife.

There are several "Gods," the majority of which not being called "God." Claiming "God is great" is claiming "Anna is great."

I find President Snow from the Hunger Games great, but my friend does not. It is a work of fiction. He is described as having immense power, yet, he dies in the end. So is he great, or is he not?

I believe everyone goes to heaven, whether they believe in him or not :S

The subject is, God is Great not, IS THE CHRISTIAN GOD GREAT. Thanks sherlock.

posts merged. don't double post, use the edit button. -embers

Some consider Spirit as energy, it is what we and the world are made of. Buddha is perceived to be a divine being in some forms of Buddhism, while he is not in others. The Goddess in Wicca birthed the world, the God is merely her son. My ancestor, 郭子儀, was immortalised as a Chinese deity after his death.

You speak not of the Christian God, but there are few other "Gods." Some, in other religions and cultures, care considered divine beings - which can apply to your arguments. However, some are not considered "higher powers" or "divine deities." You view God from your own eyes, subjectively and with conviction.

I was born Buddhist, then I ventured into Christianity, Catholicism and Anglicanism, later on an atheist, then a Wiccan, Druid, Pagan and Taoist. I live in a Muslim country that is also heavily populated by Hindus. I am all and none but many of those previously mentioned do not revolve around God.

You speak of Heaven, many others - not including Atheists - do not have a Heaven. Do you see Heaven?

Weeping_Angel

April 19th, 2012, 11:30 PM

For arguments sake, let's say that god is real. I know people say god was great because he heals sick people, but what "god" doesn't realize, is that there are thousands of people dying every day from starvation, children are getting raped and kidnapped, but gods too busy fixing a certain persons eyesight, or some other shit to notice the millions of people dying a day. He can't end world hunger, so he isn't great especially considering that he is the great one.

double r

April 20th, 2012, 12:11 AM

As an Russian Jew, whom family was murdered by Stalin and Hitler, being shunned upon and having difficulties in the mother land. I can saw from family history. God is not great, but sometimes comes in the right time and sometimes nice.

Mirage

April 20th, 2012, 12:41 AM

I don't really know what to think as I am atheist. But I guess it's bad because as you said religion causes so many problems.

Bones

April 21st, 2012, 04:44 AM

I don't really know what to think as I am atheist. But I guess it's bad because as you said religion causes so many problems.

To be honest I don't think it's religion which causes all these problems. Religion at the basic level is a good influence in my opinion. Tell me how many of the ten commandments, other than not being able to worship anyone other than god, is actually a bad influence on the people who live by them? Don't murder, don't steal, don't commit adultery, they all sound good to me. In my opinions, it's more the churches wanting power, and people's misinterpretations that have caused all the trouble. I believe this to be true of most religions.

TBJohnston

April 21st, 2012, 08:09 AM

To be honest I don't think it's religion which causes all these problems. Religion at the basic level is a good influence in my opinion. Tell me how many of the ten commandments, other than not being able to worship anyone other than god, is actually a bad influence on the people who live by them? Don't murder, don't steal, don't commit adultery, they all sound good to me. In my opinions, it's more the churches wanting power, and people's misinterpretations that have caused all the trouble. I believe this to be true of most religions.

While I do agree that religion on the common level isn't overly harmful, I thought I should mention that things like 'don't murder, don't steal and don't commit adultery' and most of the other commandments were already established understandings by law, government and pretty much human nature long before the commandments were ever mentioned. But I guess it doesn't really matter who the credit goes to, it's all good! ;)