Interlocutors should agree with you as to be genuine? — dimosthenis9
But why to defend God especially since I don't believe in any God?
I don't doubt that many massive killings occurred in the "name" of religions. But that's what people did as to excuse their evil behavior and achieve their personal goals (greed etc).
All I'm saying is that God and religions offer a "moral" base which is still necessary to societies. Despite all the bad things happened from people who use them for evil,still the good things that brought to human societies overcome the bad ones.
And without any God-ish moral system things would might be worse. I m not even sure about it. Just saying my opinion.
It is as simple as that. Just many atheists turn into bulls when they hear anything about "God and religions" and accuse them for every human harm that show up throughout history. I have met many of them in my real life so their stubbornness doesn't surprise me. It's the new trend to be Atheist nowadays and just make fun and accuse others who believe. — dimosthenis9
https://www.bethinking.org/bible/old-testament-mass-killings
And you support that these aren't interpretations? It gives all kind of alternative explanations and you present them as facts of urging to kill others. Ok. — dimosthenis9
Well, the question is about you unless you're nothing! Nevertheless, anekantavada - different strokes for different folks. — TheMadFool
Well my point is that I (and no person in history, probably) have never seen an example of nothing before and I doubt that nothing ever existed - since it would need to exist to 'be' nothing, hence not nothing but something- hey, this sounds like one of your capers... For me the argument is this... something. The end. :joke: — Tom Storm
There's another principle in Buddhist philosophy, that of 'prapanca', meaning 'conceptual proliferation'. It is literally 'becoming entangled in thought.' — Wayfarer
It seems like you are taking the piss. — Tom Storm
I suggest you embrace a religion as soon as you can since you are already mounting a standard apologist's argument and style. — Tom Storm
You accused me of not being genuine interlocutor and I m the one who takes the piss also? — dimosthenis9
That's not gonna happen. — dimosthenis9
No - I'm saying that you may not be genuine because you appear to be taking the piss — Tom Storm
You can help avoid this disaster by restoring belief in God through, for instance, getting on a philosophy forum and posing dilemmas about the decline in the belief in God and how this is an alarming phenomenon. Or something similar. — Tom Storm
I don't agree. The problem is not lack of evidence. The problem is belief in the face of the evidence.
It is belief that the wine is blood, that the bread is flesh. It is belief that god would have you sacrifice your eldest son. It is belief that women cannot drive, that guns bring peace, that homosexuality is unnatural.
It's the basic dishonesty of religion that renders it culpable. — Banno
Well no if you believe in rebirth you have already a reason to "act good". But most people who believe in rebirth don't they follow some kind of religion already? Don't know, just asking.
And well then, we would have to convince more people start believing on rebirth. But without any God for that, wouldn't that be difficult to happen? — dimosthenis9
There are two ways you can defend God:
1. Prove that the genocide recorded in the Bible didn't occur at all. Finish the opponent before fae even starts :chin:
2. Prove that the mass murder was justified in the sense good.
I'd like to see which you pick and how might you furnish the relevant proof. — TheMadFool
So what you suggest is [...] — dimosthenis9
My only long guess is Logic. That vast majority of people worldwide reach to a high average intellectual level, as to think Logically and realize that acting "good" when you live in a society is firstly for your own benefit!
But first I doubt that vast majority of people will ever come to that level and second even if they do, thinking Logically maybe isn't enough at the end at all for convincing someone to be "good". — dimosthenis9
Since 180proof got it and agreed on what you said. Can you explain that "wtf" to me also?
What I wrote comes to contradiction with the link that provides "possible explanations" for why the genocide occurred?
At which point of my previous posts I denied the massive killings that happened in the name of God?? I just say that they were cause of interpretations that people used for their evil. And not cause Christianity, for example, refers to "kill others". — dimosthenis9
All I'm saying is that God and religions offer a "moral" base which is still necessary to societies ... Just many atheists turn into bulls when they hear anything about "God and religions" and accuse them for every human harm that show up throughout history. I have met many of them in my real life so their stubbornness doesn't surprise me. It's the new trend to be Atheist nowadays and just make fun and accuse others who believe. — dimosthenis9
You want to explain the genocide as chronicled in the Bible in a way that's coherent with our understanding of God and what morality is. Why else would you want to explain it?
If so, only two choices for you:
1. Show that the mass murders didn't actually occur. Hanover probably thinks its a metaphor.
2. Show that offing people en masse is good.
What's your move? — TheMadFool
Oh no no, my apologies then that I didn't get the deep meaning of your "wtf" argument! Now I do, and seems perfectly appropriate to use it now in what are you saying. You give me 2 choices for an issue that I don't doubt! — dimosthenis9
I explain AGAIN that for me God and religions offer people a moral base as to act "good".Is it the best moral base? For sure no!
Of course throughout history mass murders happened in the name of God. I don't question that. But that is cause human interpretation of religions as to act evil! — dimosthenis9
My wondering is what is the alternative?? What could replace that and in what way we could convince people to act good then? And I don't even say that I m right on that! Just my personal thoughts on that issue which bothers me. I was really careful with the wording of my questions. — dimosthenis9
Miracles are only ever relative, and have been far overblown: the recent apologetists have misled the public on this point among others. — Fine Doubter
Long answer: There's a dilemma for Christians which is that either the Bible is a metaphor or it's literal. If it's a metaphor, miracles are impotent. If it's literal, explain how genocide is good. — TheMadFool
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.