God.

[Kilroy_x]

Re: God.

No, I have a penchant for pointing out when someone sets up a strawman by just idly referencing someone in a context beyond the scope in which the reference was occuring.

In Mein Kampf, Hitler gives an argument for why Jews are responsible for most of the evils of the world. If you are going to argue against this argument, don't do it outside the text or you're committing a straw man.

Saying "Argument x applies in context y" doesn't mean anything if context y is just as retarded as argument x, which often enough happens to be the case by necessity. Thus I should hope you would see why your continual doing of this pisses me the hell off.

[devonin]

Re: God.

Using something as evidence for or against, in an argument that is well outside the bounds of the kind of argument the thing was intended to be evidence for or against tends to have the natural effect of making it not stand up very well.

In Mein Kampf, Hitler gives an argument for why Jews are responsible for most of the evils of the world. If you are going to argue against this argument, don't do it outside the text or you're committing a straw man.

Funny how you strawman me to try to make a point about the perils of strawman.

I didn't say you were only allowed to object to Pascal from inside Pascal. I said that Pascal was starting from very specific premises when framing his wager, and so if your problem is with the premises, you need simply prove that the premises are incorrect (which you made a strong argument for, and I agree with you) and then simply don't bother addressing the argument at all, because, having disproved the premises as true, the entire thing falls apart.

My whole issue was with the fact that the previous poster said that the prospect of the larger theological stage in which the world operates made Pascals "guarenteed outcome" not guarenteed, when premise 1 of Pascal's wager is "Assume that iff there is a God, it is the christian god"

The question the original poster was addressing had no room for Pascal at all, because Pascal's wager doesn't allow for itself to be considered in the larger theological stage. I was correcting what appeared to be a misunderstanding of the scope of Pascal's wager, and therefore using it in a context where it was not appropriate to prove another point (Thus, my claim of straw man)

As so often seems to be the case Kilroy, I make a minor statement that is intended merely to clear up one single use of something in a thread, and instead of seeing where and why and how I was framing what I said, you leap directly to some larger context issue that has nothing to do with what I was saying, and we get drawn into this (albiet enjoyable and fascinating) discussion about some wholly unconnected problem to the problem at hand.

My entire issue that sparked this back-and-forth was basically "You used Pascal to prove your point, in a situation where I don't feel using Pascal made any sense" That's all...nothing more. I wasn't trying to declaim disagreeing with anything by pointing to larger issues, I wasn't trying to claim that Pascal's wager was the God's own truth, I was just pointing out that it is only really meaningful to consider Pascal's wager from a christian perspective, because (As you went to great lengths to point out) in a larger perspective, his entire point doesn't work.

All kinds of arguments and experiments are conducted starting from premises that are in some cases even provably false. (I've taken part in physics experiments that assumed a frictionless universe, that assumed gravitational constants other than the one which is presumed to exist) They set up beforehand the context in which they are claiming to work, and so only -want- to be judged within the context in which they are claiming to work. If I hatch a clever scheme to abuse the welfare system in Canada, pointing out that the welfare system doesn't work that way in the United States does an excellent job of proving why you couldn't use my scheme in the United States, but does no job at all in proving why I couldn't use my scheme in Canada.

[Kilroy_x]

Re: God.

Using something as evidence for or against, in an argument that is well outside the bounds of the kind of argument the thing was intended to be evidence for or against tends to have the natural effect of making it not stand up very well.

Right. New information can show the invalidity of old sets of reasoning. Why would you restrict the introduction of new information? Because it's "out of context"? That's nonsense. It will continue to be nonsense whether you have the brains to realize it or not.

Funny how you strawman me to try to make a point about the perils of strawman.

How is the statement a strawman? You have said, and not just on this occasion "within a given set of assumptions which comprise a context, an argument applies. Introducing new and contradictory assumptions from an external source is a straw man because it creates new contexts which allow for new deductions. If something can't be shown false without introducing new context, it can't be shown false without committing a strawman."

That's effectively what you've said. Yo which my reply was "here is a given context, including all necessary foundational assumptions. You can argue against it, just do not introduce any extra or contradictory assumptions from an external source."

I didn't say you were only allowed to object to Pascal from inside Pascal. I said that Pascal was starting from very specific premises when framing his wager, and so if your problem is with the premises, you need simply prove that the premises are incorrect (which you made a strong argument for, and I agree with you) and then simply don't bother addressing the argument at all, because, having disproved the premises as true, the entire thing falls apart.

True, but how it falls apart is a matter of critical importance. You have chosen to rule out explaining how the wager falls apart because you deem it non-contextual, which is nonsensical.

My whole issue was with the fact that the previous poster said that the prospect of the larger theological stage in which the world operates made Pascals "guarenteed outcome" not guarenteed, when premise 1 of Pascal's wager is "Assume that iff there is a God, it is the christian god"

That assumption isn't flatly stated, it is assumed. It's one of those hidden assumptions that you might come across in logical argument fairly often.

The question the original poster was addressing had no room for Pascal at all, because Pascal's wager doesn't allow for itself to be considered in the larger theological stage. I was correcting what appeared to be a misunderstanding of the scope of Pascal's wager, and therefore using it in a context where it was not appropriate to prove another point (Thus, my claim of straw man)

Oh, ok.

In the context of mid 20th century German antisemitism, the Jew is responsible for the social and moral degradation of society. The intellectual climate of the time focused around very specific types of thought, including politicized concepts of evolution and the notions of certain philosophers.

Now, given that the claims made in this particular antisemitic tradition are made from within a very specific section of intellectual tradition and thus have limited scope, analyzing the validity of the statement from other ways of intellectual thought is noncontextual. Therefore you can't do it.

As so often seems to be the case Kilroy, I make a minor statement that is intended merely to clear up one single use of something in a thread, and instead of seeing where and why and how I was framing what I said, you leap directly to some larger context issue that has nothing to do with what I was saying, and we get drawn into this (albiet enjoyable and fascinating) discussion about some wholly unconnected problem to the problem at hand.

Well, while I'm sure you see some benefit in understanding how thought processes work even when they are blatantly unsound, I don't particularly see the benefit in using "context" as a barrier to wall in antique and deservedly endangered ideas from the continued march of progress.

My entire issue that sparked this back-and-forth was basically "You used Pascal to prove your point, in a situation where I don't feel using Pascal made any sense" That's all...nothing more. I wasn't trying to declaim disagreeing with anything by pointing to larger issues, I wasn't trying to claim that Pascal's wager was the God's own truth, I was just pointing out that it is only really meaningful to consider Pascal's wager from a christian perspective, because (As you went to great lengths to point out) in a larger perspective, his entire point doesn't work.

In this case, we can assume that the Christian perspective is therefore a meaningless perspective. At least as it applies to Pascal, although by necessity in every other case where you would take an unsound idea and make for its defense "context".

All kinds of arguments and experiments are conducted starting from premises that are in some cases even provably false. (I've taken part in physics experiments that assumed a frictionless universe, that assumed gravitational constants other than the one which is presumed to exist) They set up beforehand the context in which they are claiming to work, and so only -want- to be judged within the context in which they are claiming to work. If I hatch a clever scheme to abuse the welfare system in Canada, pointing out that the welfare system doesn't work that way in the United States does an excellent job of proving why you couldn't use my scheme in the United States, but does no job at all in proving why I couldn't use my scheme in Canada.

The problem is that by arguing this way, you're assuming pascals wager was made as a thought experiment and not seriously, in which case you're being noncontextual. Aside from this though, the problem of God is one which applies uniformly to the entire world, and from Pascal's original or modified wager the externality of the pattern is factored into the wager. You aren't betting whether you can abuse the welfare system or not while being aware that it wouldn't work in canada, you're starting with the knowledge that your plan would work in -set of circumstances such that they are canada- and then assuming you can only either be in the US or Canada and making your wager on that basis.

Oh, but here's another contextualization, whether you like it or not. There are plenty of martial arts techniques which only work in the Dojo. Much of Shotokan Karate is designed with the goal of being able to counter other practitioners of Shotokan Karate. However, in terms of actual fights other arts have both more efficient counters and more efficiency on the whole. So while you can technically say "this is a valid move when taken within the context of Shotokan karate", you're GOING TO F U C K I NG DIE if you fight outside the Dojo.

And while you might say "So? It's still sound strategy in the context of the art", you're effectively saying that within the context of an UNSOUND art, UNSOUND STRATEGY WORKS. How about that? There's equivalency there. The functionality of a given system, of thought or of combat or whatever, includes its errors as part of the functionality. So of course you wouldn't understand them as errors except in comparison to a system that doesn't have them. And since you've ruled out such comparison, calling it a strawman, you're effectively given yourself the gift of looking at any singular system through rose colored glasses and going "I can see the sense in that".

[devonin]

Re: God.

Right. New information can show the invalidity of old sets of reasoning. Why would you restrict the introduction of new information? Because it's "out of context"? That's nonsense. It will continue to be nonsense whether you have the brains to realize it or not.

Nowhere did I say that one should restrict the introduction of new information. What I -said- was "In the argument inside which you are referencing Pascal, the very basic premises of your argument contain within them an explicit dismissal of Pascal, because your premises are not the same as his premises, and so referencing him -anyway- is a worthless contribution to your point, because your point requires from the outset, that he be mistaken and phrasing a faulty argument.

As you seem to keep misunderstanding, my issue wasn't with the way Pascal's Wager was necessarily described, my issue was that in being used for this particular arguement, one of two things needed to be happening: 1) The person posting was under a misapprehension of what the Wager was referring to or b) They're just no good at picking evidence to support their claim. And I chose to assume it was the one that gave them the most credit.

How is the statement a strawman? You have said, and not just on this occasion "within a given set of assumptions which comprise a context, an argument applies. Introducing new and contradictory assumptions from an external source is a straw man because it creates new contexts which allow for new deductions. If something can't be shown false without introducing new context, it can't be shown false without committing a strawman."

I'm with you up to the last part. It is just as much of a straw man to present an argument as trying to be much stronger than it is, as it is to present one as being much weaker than it is. If Pascal is -only- working from an assumption that there is no god at all, or the christian god, you should only ever be considering whether what he says makes any sense if you are also working from that standpoint.

The fact that there is a much larger theological stage in which to be asking Pascal's question makes Pascal's question invalid, not wrong. And being invalid (as it is based on false premises when taken in the larger theological stage) holding up a patently invalid argument to try and make your point is bad logic. I can hold up a thousand equally invalid points, can make them up as I go, if that somehow proves my point correct (which of course it doesn't)

True, but how it falls apart is a matter of critical importance. You have chosen to rule out explaining how the wager falls apart because you deem it non-contextual, which is nonsensical.

No...I said that within the context of the question -Pascal- was asking, it actually makes perfect sense, and within the context of the question the original poster was addressing, it's completely invalid to present as proof -or- disproof.

In the context of mid 20th century German antisemitism, the Jew is responsible for the social and moral degradation of society. The intellectual climate of the time focused around very specific types of thought, including politicized concepts of evolution and the notions of certain philosophers.

Now, given that the claims made in this particular antisemitic tradition are made from within a very specific section of intellectual tradition and thus have limited scope, analyzing the validity of the statement from other ways of intellectual thought is noncontextual. Therefore you can't do it.

Hitler's stated views and those of many who shared in his ideology, were very far-reaching. They presented their "evidence" of the evils of the Jewish people, and their responsibility for the ills of the world in a global and universal light. So since a discussion of racism, or anti-semitism, or eugenics etc etc, is dealing with the same scope as their arguments, you're perfectly allowed to use what they tried to argue, to attack their evidence using outside evidence of your own all you like.

If Hitler had written Mein Kampf about how just his Jewish neighbour was responsible for all of the evil in the world, and nobody else...using what he said in Mein Kampf as evidence that all Jewish people were responsible for the evils of the world would be closer in line to what I'm getting at.

In this case, we can assume that the Christian perspective is therefore a meaningless perspective. At least as it applies to Pascal, although by necessity in every other case where you would take an unsound idea and make for its defense "context".

I'm not defending Pascal's wager as true because of "context." I'm saying "In situations where the context renders his entire point completely invalid, referencing him at all is just bad debate, and you oughtn't do it."

Aside from this though, the problem of God is one which applies uniformly to the entire world, and from Pascal's original or modified wager the externality of the pattern is factored into the wager.

I don't see how "There is a 50/50 chance that a) the Christian God exists or b) No God exists at all" is factoring in external anything. His foundational principle is that there can only be those two states possible.

Oh, but here's another contextualization, whether you like it or not. There are plenty of martial arts techniques which only work in the Dojo. Much of Shotokan Karate is designed with the goal of being able to counter other practitioners of Shotokan Karate. However, in terms of actual fights other arts have both more efficient counters and more efficiency on the whole. So while you can technically say "this is a valid move when taken within the context of Shotokan karate", you're GOING TO F U C K I NG DIE if you fight outside the Dojo.

And while you might say "So? It's still sound strategy in the context of the art", you're effectively saying that within the context of an UNSOUND art, UNSOUND STRATEGY WORKS. How about that? There's equivalency there. The functionality of a given system, of thought or of combat or whatever, includes its errors as part of the functionality. So of course you wouldn't understand them as errors except in comparison to a system that doesn't have them. And since you've ruled out such comparison, calling it a strawman, you're effectively given yourself the gift of looking at any singular system through rose colored glasses and going "I can see the sense in that".

Hopefully the above responses cleared up what I was getting at enough for you to see that this example has basically nothing to do with the point I was making.

Shotokan as a self-defense martial art is assuming a few basic things: Most namely, that you will be within physical striking range of your attacker in order to use any of the techniques you've been taught.

As such, an situation that goes "I have a rifle, and I'm going to start shooting people from across the square. Looks like Mr Shotokan wasted all his time learning martial arts, because he's going to get shot from 50 feet away" and concluding therefore that Shotokan Karate specifically is a completely useless martial art is just a very bad argument in which to reference any specific martial art. Because when they all start from the foundational principle that you will be in a physical fight with someone, any situation in which there is the explicit statement that you will not be in physical contact with your attacker renders -any- discussion of martial arts in that situation completely invalid.

In the face of a trained rifleman from 100 feet away, -any- martial art that doesn't explicity carry the ability to dodge accurately fired bullets is equally useless. Using the fact that bullets work from far away to say that martial arts are -completely- invalid makes no sense, because you are forcing them into a context that they make no pretensions about applying to. Thus, by presenting the argument as far -more- universal than it ever tried to be, in order to prove it wrong, is a strawman.

[Kilroy_x]

Re: God.

Nowhere did I say that one should restrict the introduction of new information. What I -said- was "In the argument inside which you are referencing Pascal, the very basic premises of your argument contain within them an explicit dismissal of Pascal, because your premises are not the same as his premises, and so referencing him -anyway- is a worthless contribution to your point, because your point requires from the outset, that he be mistaken and phrasing a faulty argument.

This wasn't what you said. Maybe it was what you meant. Despite this, yet again you have offered a nonsensical statement. People cite arguments all the time in order to show their faults. It would be impossible to argue if you weren't allowed to do this because " the very basic premises of your argument contain within them an explicit dismissal of.. [thing x or y]"

I'm with you up to the last part. It is just as much of a straw man to present an argument as trying to be much stronger than it is, as it is to present one as being much weaker than it is. If Pascal is -only- working from an assumption that there is no god at all, or the christian god, you should only ever be considering whether what he says makes any sense if you are also working from that standpoint.

what

The fact that there is a much larger theological stage in which to be asking Pascal's question makes Pascal's question invalid, not wrong. And being invalid (as it is based on false premises when taken in the larger theological stage) holding up a patently invalid argument to try and make your point is bad logic. I can hold up a thousand equally invalid points, can make them up as I go, if that somehow proves my point correct (which of course it doesn't)

There is of course the reductio ad absurdum, and other similar methods of argument. The invalidity of an argument of course makes a person wrong. It might not make their conclusion wrong, but it means there's no way the method they used to come to that conclusion could be correct. However, citing invalid arguments can be useful when A: you're trying to disprove them B: you're using them to introduce a concept or a way of thinking.

No...I said that within the context of the question -Pascal- was asking, it actually makes perfect sense, and within the context of the question the original poster was addressing, it's completely invalid to present as proof -or- disproof.

No, it isn't.

Hitler's stated views and those of many who shared in his ideology, were very far-reaching. They presented their "evidence" of the evils of the Jewish people, and their responsibility for the ills of the world in a global and universal light. So since a discussion of racism, or anti-semitism, or eugenics etc etc, is dealing with the same scope as their arguments, you're perfectly allowed to use what they tried to argue, to attack their evidence using outside evidence of your own all you like.

How are the implications of God anything less than universal? Actually, here's yet another problem with your continual nonsense. As soon as you show non-universality for certain modes of refutation, you no longer have the universal requisite for the refutation.

If Hitler had written Mein Kampf about how just his Jewish neighbour was responsible for all of the evil in the world, and nobody else...using what he said in Mein Kampf as evidence that all Jewish people were responsible for the evils of the world would be closer in line to what I'm getting at.

What you're getting at is based on a dramatic misunderstanding of many things. There's a difference between supposed universality of conclusion and supposed universality of premises. Pascal assumed his premises were a complete representation of reality, so did Hitler. Showing non-universality of premises, or falsity of premises, or any other number of things is a legitimate method of arguing against a perspective. Saying "you can't argue that way while citing the perspective because that way of arguing rejects the perspective" is about as thoroughly retarded as anything could possibly get!

I'm not defending Pascal's wager as true because of "context." I'm saying "In situations where the context renders his entire point completely invalid, referencing him at all is just bad debate, and you oughtn't do it."

Well then, it seems you've ruled out about 90% of possible methods of debate.

I don't see how "There is a 50/50 chance that a) the Christian God exists or b) No God exists at all" is factoring in external anything. His foundational principle is that there can only be those two states possible.

It factors in "either I'm in Canada or the US" as the assumptions and the basis of the wager. Since your example of non-universality was to point out the existence of a separate set of circumstances (the US) where the rule didn't apply that means the non-applicability of the desired outcome in some situation is already accounted for in the wager. It is accounted for better in the modified wager. The modified wager doesn't make the mistake of assuming only "either canada or US" nor "either Canada or ~Canada". Of course, you think the modified wager is inapplicable because it rejects or otherwise modifies the foundational assumptions of the original wager...

...

...

Shotokan as a self-defense martial art is assuming a few basic things: Most namely, that you will be within physical striking range of your attacker in order to use any of the techniques you've been taught.

Right.

As such, an situation that goes "I have a rifle, and I'm going to start shooting people from across the square. Looks like Mr Shotokan wasted all his time learning martial arts, because he's going to get shot from 50 feet away" and concluding therefore that Shotokan Karate specifically is a completely useless martial art is just a very bad argument in which to reference any specific martial art. Because when they all start from the foundational principle that you will be in a physical fight with someone, any situation in which there is the explicit statement that you will not be in physical contact with your attacker renders -any- discussion of martial arts in that situation completely invalid.

No, no it doesn't. It requires a modification of total strategy including the adoption of new techniques, not a complete rejection of existing strategy.

In the face of a trained rifleman from 100 feet away, -any- martial art that doesn't explicity carry the ability to dodge accurately fired bullets is equally useless. Using the fact that bullets work from far away to say that martial arts are -completely- invalid makes no sense, because you are forcing them into a context that they make no pretensions about applying to. Thus, by presenting the argument as far -more- universal than it ever tried to be, in order to prove it wrong, is a strawman.

The argument made no pretensions about applying to further data because the argument was constructed when such data was unavailable, or worse, it was constructed with awareness of existing contradictions. Either way, you're STILL SAYING THAT ARGUING AGAINST VIRTUALLY ANYTHING IN ANY WAY IS A STRAWMAN BY VIRTUE OF THIS POSITION.

Apparently you're completely incapable of realizing the complete absurdity of your position. This is truly the most depressing set of events I've experienced in a long while.

The heavy modification of pascal's wager is not a statement of complete invalidity, it is a way of validating the original method of deduction by removing its errors. It is saying "pascal's original wager is invalid because of new data x, y, z, however pascal's wager was originally designed to serve function P. Pascal's wager can be made to serve function P by adapting to the new data x, y, z".

If you can't understand that, then I don't know what to do with you.

[devonin]

Re: God.

I describe my position, and you -tell- me "Actually, what you really mean is -this-" and go on to state something that does not actually reflect what I meant at all.

As I continue to keep trying to explain what I mean, and you keep jumping to the same conclusions about what I -really- mean that aren't correct, I find myself wondering whether the fault lies with me for not explaining myself well, or with you for being so dead-set on proving wrong a statement of mine that I never even made, that you aren't seeing what I'm saying.

Let me try this -again-

The person took a random and idle shot in passing at Pascal's Wager while talking about something that I felt had nothing to do with Pascal's Wager. I said "That's really not anything to do with Pascal's Wager"

That's it. That's all. I felt they mentioned apples during a discussion of oranges, and said so. That's all. I really don't see how this needed or wanted to devolve into some grandiose claims of my absurdity and intellectual bankruptcy when it comes to knowledge of debate and how to do it.

[Kilroy_x]

Re: God.

I describe my position, and you -tell- me "Actually, what you really mean is -this-" and go on to state something that does not actually reflect what I meant at all.

I didn't say that. I said that if your meaning wasn't communicated, it was your own fault for a poor choice of words.

The person took a random and idle shot in passing at Pascal's Wager while talking about something that I felt had nothing to do with Pascal's Wager. I said "That's really not anything to do with Pascal's Wager"

It was something to do with Pascal's wager. It was an argument against Pascal's wager.

[Bamboozler]

Re: God.

The following below is NOT written by me. It is written by my cousin:

I've been doing some thinking and I believe I have finally figured out the huge mystery without using resources such as the Bible. There is in fact a God, and doesn't take intellect to figure that out just common sense. You may also look to scientific proof that proves he exist. Einstein clearly stated that the universe had 3 very real and important factors; Space, Time, and Matter. All three make up our universe. So let's take a closer look at Time. Time has been around since the birth of our universe and is the most important factor of our lives and existence. God created the universe and since the universe requires time as a factor it clearly means that God created Time when he created our universe. So that answers the big question of "well how was God created or has he been around forever?" God was never created and has been around longer that our mind can comprehend, since there was no Time before the universe, he never had an origin, he was always here as a celestial body with infinite wisdom and power. So that answers our question of his existence. So let's move on to "which God is he?" Well many religions have many gods but only a few such as Christianity, Judaism, and Islamic have the "one God." Now let's take this idea of the books of the two religions, there is "The Bible" for Christians there is the "Qur'an" for Muslims, and there is the "Torah" for the Jewish. They all refer to there being the "one God," Christianity refers our savior as Jesus Christ, the Muslims believe it's the prophet Muhammad, and to the Jews their "Messiah" has yet to arrive. This choice here is for you to make and your's to make alone. Also for those still having trouble with believing if God thinking, "Well it still doesn't make sense." Think of it like this, "we are all little birds in a big cage and the cage represents our mind. God will play as the bird keeper, and thus since we are birds in a cage "our mind" we can only travel so far, however God "the bird keeper" can open the cage "our mind" and set us free. I hope this has helped you out perhaps find a new way in life. Thanks for your time, and God Bless.

W/O reading other posts, sorry if I repeat anything already stated. This is not to offend anyone who is religious, and is simply my opinion and view.

Firstly, in my opinion and in being an atheist, this is my interpretation of God. Say for example, a child is in a dark room, and is afraid of what might be in his or her closet, simply because they can't see what's there. They will begin to speculate what might be in there, and eventually, come up with a hideously scary monster which may devour them, if it pleases.

Now, let's look at our society. We are humans, living in a vast, dark universe, and a lot of what's out there is still unknown to us. You know where I'm going with this... we begin to speculate what's out there, and in our case, what created us and controls us. Because there's no one to give us an answer, like a parent to the child, we assume there is a "God" which has created us, and lurks out in the vast universe. And as such, I believe God is simply a variable for what is unknown to us.

Now, back to your article... firstly I believe your cousin is very dense in stating that it's common knowledge that there is a God, as this is only one view on a highly controversial topic. This seems like a very arrogant statement to me, but despite this I'll continue reading...

What scientific proof is there that a God exists? I've never heard a single fact in that field which indeed gives proof of God's existence, and I would be intrigued to see some. It's really too bad your cousin gives no examples here what so ever from a high-ranked personal in the science field... another display of laking intelligence... I'll continue further in the article...

Time is a very complex mechanism, I personally know next to nothing about it, so I can't really pose much argument about it. However, stating that God has been around since the start of the universe is a very cliché thing for a religious person to say, and nothing special in my opinion... further along we go...

Yes, indeed there are many religions with reference to the same God. This however, does reflect the fact that we are also all humans. Now, in having this similarity, I will refer back to the child and the closet. Each of those religions is a different interpretation of the same monster in the closet. Does this mean there is ACTUALLY a monster in the closet? I think not... and finally...

All birds in a cage and God is the keeper... another highly over-used idea used by religious people when trying to describe our relationship with God. Who's to say we're in a cage. What if we're simply free birds. A scary thought, I guess, for someone who believes in god, to be out alone in a strange universe without a master. And what's this... a new outlook on life? HA! I find that rather humorous, when this is quite possibly the most generic religious article I've ever seen.

I'm sorry, but this article really just takes what anyone trying to persuade others to believe in their religion would say, and does it poorly. Once again, this is not a flame, and if you do have an argument against any I have presented please feel free to state them and we'll debate further. TY.

[koreanese69]

Re: God.

ehhh, not any particular religion. I prefer not to let religions interfere with my life.. and yes, I use the term "interfere" because that's what they do for me.

[Master_of_the_Faster]

Re: God.

"All birds in a cage and God is the keeper"

Does this quote not bring out the idea that we are not simply people with life, liberty, or property but servants to a god where "All birds in a cage and God is the keeper"? Why does this quote sound anywhere near right to anyone? Sure, some god may be greater than us, but if any god is to a human what a parent is to us, we shouldn't be full blown servants to our parents or god(s) (if they exist). If a god really was like a parent, wouldn't he/she allow us to have the freedom to release us from such a "cage"? Any god who wants to keep us in such a "cage" is denying rights unless the "cage" is for what I define as a bad person (limiting life, liberty, or property without a justifiable cause).

[cathergirlhaley]

Re: God.

he doesnt want to be a parent or keep us in a cage. I think that he is allowing us to figure things out for our selves.We do have freedom its really not like he chooses for us.we all choose for our selves.we can choose to either be a good person in his eyes or do what we want even if it is going against what it is he wants.I dont think he would limit what a "bad" person would do either.you really choose your own path.stuff happens and its not really His fault.I think that He helps you along the way through life but desnt guide it step by step or by every tiny detail of your life but He is still there.

[Tails99]

Re: God.

he doesnt want to be a parent or keep us in a cage.

That's good, because if any parent let their kids run amok killing, raping, stealing, and not protecting them and letting them die, their parentage would be terminated soooooo quick.

[Bamboozler]

Re: God.

he doesnt want to be a parent or keep us in a cage. I think that he is allowing us to figure things out for our selves.We do have freedom its really not like he chooses for us.we all choose for our selves.we can choose to either be a good person in his eyes or do what we want even if it is going against what it is he wants.I dont think he would limit what a "bad" person would do either.you really choose your own path.stuff happens and its not really His fault.I think that He helps you along the way through life but desnt guide it step by step or by every tiny detail of your life but He is still there.

You seem to posses an awful lot of knowledge regarding what God does and doesn't want to do. Why, if you knew that much about what was on my mind, you'd be rich! So what you're saying is, your mind is SO powerful, you can actually SENSE what God, a being much more immense than a simple human is planning, helping us along the way and all that? Right.

And I suppose God is helping out all those poor starving people in the streets as they go, right? Get one of them to give you their opinion, and see how much God has done for them. It's not like they were bad children, or did anything wrong in the eyes of God to deserve a fate like this, they were born into it. And what's your reasoning for that? Is God selective with who gets to live a good life, and who takes all the crap? I thought we were all supposed to be equal in his eyes. Right... Right.

[rules_the_school]

Re: God.

That's good, because if any parent let their kids run amok killing, raping, stealing, and not protecting them and letting them die, their parentage would be terminated soooooo quick.

lol So true.

Without reading other post I'm going to say/type what's on my mind. God may or have may not have existed. I don't think we can really trust most of the stuff in the bible (Old testement) because, it's (Supposedly) over 2000 years old, was manipulated by the church, and we don't know who translated it. But then again, how was matter created in the first place? Who put it all in our universe so that we could evolve? Oh and i think Bamboozler was right about evry religion pointing at the same "Monster" because they do have the same feature... kinda..

[IceSide]

Re: God.

I do not believe there to be a god in any context. The apostles were simple mortal men as any other man. They followed the teachings of Jesus well, but when they chose to wrote a book, what kept them from lying? I mean, Man is man, man is capable of anything.

Another possible reason it doesn't exist as a recent news article had caught my interest. Recent discoveries yielded a temple of a god, I cannot recall where or who, but it was a known god of some religion. They'd found various things you'd see, offerings and the like. They also found drugs of some sort. It made me think that, if the drugs existed and could impair judgement, were the people of the past deluded into a god because of a psychadelic experience? Take LSD, I believe it can make you see holes in the floor, if not LSD, some drug does. Now if this possible drug can make you see holes, can it not make you also see "spirits".

I'm simply very skeptical of religion because it cannot co-exist with current religion. Take the muslim faith, they want everyone to be muslim, IE destroy the infidels or christians or whatever it is. Did he want it to occur violently like they do it? Simply doesn't stand true to the nature. I never heard of Allah blessing AK-47's, have you?