THE SHOWDOWN: Does God exist?

[Innoc]

Originally Posted by ekiM

Huh? My point is that there are many, many equally valid interpretations of Christianity. Disagree? Then I guess you're right that there's no point in discussing with you.

PS I don't know which "the examples" I'm supposed to be reading.

The examples are the exact same you brought up. They aren't discussed that often and are pretty easy to search for. Once you read them we might have more to discuss on this.

[ekiM]

Are you claiming that Christian scripture can only be interpreted one way?

[Innoc]

Please stick to your two examples. Read the passages that pertain to what you brought up and tell me if you see them as being ambiguous.

[fishBurger]

Oh anything can be interpreted any number of ways.

not all interpretations are right, though.

[ekiM]

Originally Posted by Innoc

Please stick to your two examples. Read the passages that pertain to what you brought up and tell me if you see them as being ambiguous.

If you're not going to answer my question then I'm not going to discuss anything with you. Are you claiming that Christian scripture can only be interpreted one way?

[Innoc]

Stick to your examples ekiM. Read the passages and tell me if they're ambiguous. You chose them so let's see it through to the end. Are you being deliberately evasive in not answering?

[skuLL]

Originally Posted by fishBurger

Oh anything can be interpreted any number of ways.

not all interpretations are right, though.

No interpretation is all true though.

[tu!]

christianity is a joke. buddhism seems way more legit.

[YomMamasHouse]

Are you being deliberately evasive in not answering?

You mean like the way you are by not answering his simple Yes or No question?

EDIT and Tu! buddhism is non theistic so it is not in the same category as Christianity.

[Scuzzy]

Originally Posted by FrenchToast

I'm saying that your brain has to conform to the laws placed around it. Not like... legal laws, like the laws of physics and so forth. If your brain conforms to those laws, then there's only one thing for it to do.

Let me see if I can dig up the writing that first made me believe this...

EDIT: http://www.ft.com/cms/s/81bc32e4-d5e...b5df10621.html

That's not it, but it's taling about the same thing.

You're the only one to bring this up FrenchToast, and I'm glad you did. If indeed there is one and only one path for each electron in the universe, and that free will is a complete impossibility, that means that the entire universe is essecially one huge computer program. Who wrote that program?

Also, if there is one and only one route for us to take in each decision, that would rule out Good and Evil, because we are only doing what we're programmed to do. It's the classic "I didn't have a choice, the universe made me do it." defense.

[Scuzzy]

Originally Posted by BinaryLife

Seriously though, there is no physicle or "scientific" proof that God exists.

I can agree to this. I also think you and I can agree that evolution is also a theory, because it has not been proven either. Correct?

[Scuzzy]

I can see that this thread has gone far into some areas that I wanted to avoid. I think I've made my point on good and evil not being part of nature itself, and therefor in an atheist world no act is wrong. An act may not be liked by a bunch of people, or the person that it's being done too, but that doesn't make it "wrong", it just makes it not liked.

I'm not going to jump into the other debates about religion, because that wasn't really my purpose. I was trying to explain my point of view as best I could based on the questions posed. I think we have pretty much agreed on those issues.

Thanks for the discussion,
Scuzzy

[Hired-Gun]

Does God exist?
Not in my mind....

[Circuitous]

Originally Posted by Scuzzy

I think I've made my point on good and evil not being part of nature itself, and therefor in an atheist world no act is wrong. An act may not be liked by a bunch of people, or the person that it's being done too, but that doesn't make it "wrong", it just makes it not liked.

Dude... what...

[Innoc]

Originally Posted by YomMamasHouse

You mean like the way you are by not answering his simple Yes or No question?

EDIT and Tu! buddhism is non theistic so it is not in the same category as Christianity.

No. You're implying hypocracy where none exists. We never finished the two points he raised and to expect to dilute the conversation into the broader macro question without finishing these two points is unreasonable.

[skuLL]

Originally Posted by Scuzzy

I can see that this thread has gone far into some areas that I wanted to avoid. I think I've made my point on good and evil not being part of nature itself, and therefor in an atheist world no act is wrong. An act may not be liked by a bunch of people, or the person that it's being done too, but that doesn't make it "wrong", it just makes it not liked.

I can't fucking believe you just said that, I mean, what the fuck?

[YomMamasHouse]

No. You're implying hypocracy where none exists. We never finished the two points he raised and to expect to dilute the conversation into the broader macro question without finishing these two points is unreasonable.

Fine, I will ask. Do you think Christian scripture can only be interpreted one way?

[Sidd]

Originally Posted by Innoc

Now what you use contraception to allow you to do may fall outside of the moral framework but it doesn't make the act of contraception, itself, immoral.

Thats your interpretation of scripture.
According to the Roman Catholic church, the use of contraception is immoral. period.

Originally Posted by ekiM

It's breathtakingly disingenuous to suggest that there is only one reasonable interpretation of Christian scripture.

True for so many reasons. I mean, most demoninations don't even share the same scripture, let alone the same interpretation.

[accrede]

I also think you and I can agree that evolution is also a theory, because it has not been proven either. Correct?

It pains me to say this, because creationists will take it the wrong way, but ALL of science is just a collection of theories that have not been proved, BUT they can, and some have been, disproved. Science is refined by falsifiability.

I presume the framework Innoc refers to is the 10 commandments ekiM.

Two things:

First - Christians interpret things differently, you've answered this Innoc (in a way, not as completely as you think though).

Second - There are contradictions within the bible itself, so it HAS to be open to interpretation and the moral framework cannot be absolute (at least on some issues).

[EDIT]

I think I've made my point on good and evil not being part of nature itself, and therefor in an atheist world no act is wrong. An act may not be liked by a bunch of people, or the person that it's being done too, but that doesn't make it "wrong", it just makes it not liked.

I agree that ideas of right and wrong are a social constructions, although my personal view is that this applies to both theists and atheists. I do think though, that atheism seems to be closely linked to "evolutionism"/ survival of the fittest in this thread. This is a pretty narrow view of atheism. An atheist believes that there is no god, that does not preclude a belief in right or wrong or any other irrational but non-superstitious belief.

[Innoc]

Originally Posted by YomMamasHouse

Fine, I will ask. Do you think Christian scripture can only be interpreted one way?

I'm not answering until the focus on the two points ekiM brought up are addressed.

accrede, yes the basic moral framework is the 10 commandments but there is more that is fleshed out within the Bible. The specific points that ekiM brought up are specifically addressed within the Bible and what I was driving at is that what is stated about those two issues cannot be interpreted any other way. What you can do, however, is try to rationalize why you shouldn't follow them. It does not change the fact that your actions are in violation of that moral code. Am I under any illusion that I've fleshed any of this out thoroughly? Of course not. These posts have been hurried pecked out in between doing stuff with my son and around the house. It's Saturday...I hope you pasty faced trolls got your lazy butts out and did something useful!

As far as the Catholic Church goes I see quite a few things they do that I cannot see where they are supported by scripture. It's not a matter subject to interpretation...it's flat out not supported....period.

If you believe there are contradictions that throw either the baseline or expanded moral code into doubt or make it subject to interpretation then, by all means, throw it out there. ekiM still hasn't shown where the scripture is ambiguous on his two issues.