The More We Evolve, the Less We Need God

[Charles]

From a philosophical standpoint, we can't know anything with 100% certainty.

Are you 100% certain about that?

If you are, you contradicted yourself. And if you are not, your statement cannot be witheld. Which one do you chose?

[mossrose]

Because the bible tells him so! Problem is the bible is interpreted differently by other Christians who accept homosexuality. And there is no way such conflicts can be resolved when different Christians hold absolute beliefs which are mutually exclusive

http://www.pewforum.org/religious-la...d-be-accepted/

And of course, the "Christians" who agree with your worldview are the right ones in your eyes.



I like that quote and I can see using it often here.

[Tassman]

And of course, the "Christians" who agree with your worldview are the right ones in your eyes.

Without doubt the same can be said of you.

I like that quote and I can see using it often here.

The bible is demonstrably open to interpretation, so it rather depends on what interpretation is deemed to be the correct one doesn't it.

[lilpixieofterror]

Of course there are gaps. It may be there will always BE gaps. "God of the gaps" is when people replace an "I don't know" with "god did it." As we learn more, the pattern becomes fairly clear. Gaps previously filled by "god did it" are replaced with "oh, so THAT's how it works." Looking back over history, we consistently see "god did it" replaced with a scientific explanation; we never see the reverse. So, as people learn more, we learn that putting "god did it" in the gap is an unnecessary step. We can merely say "we don't know" until such time as we do know, whenever and if ever that time comes.

[lilpixieofterror]

If the idea of god is still pertinent to understanding our cosmos.



Exactly.



And if god does not exist, as I believe, then our expanding ability to explain the universe and understand our place in it will diminish the general need for a belief in god. There will always be those who cling to it, of course, but most of humanity will likely move on, which appears to be what we are seeing. In the Major developed countries, "Nones" are the fastest growing segment of our society. Some of those are, of course, people who do not claim association with any formal religious grouping/theology. Many (most?) are people like me, who have rejected the suggestion that a supreme being actually exists.

[lilpixieofterror]

MM, there is little/no doubt in my mind that the root of Christian beliefs is "god says so." Most religions are based on an authoritarian model. I wish I had a dollar for every time I've been told, on this site, that a thing is or is not right/wrong because "it's in the bible" or "god wills it" or "it is the nature of god." God sits at the center, and god "anoints" specific individuals who have authority to teach/preach/enforce the beliefs - moral and otherwise. But I think people are looking for meatier explanations. That simply does not satisfy.

It's why, as a parent, I always had an explanation for the things I asked my children to do, and took the time to explain it. Sometimes I had to ask them to wait (if there was danger), but I always followed up with "why." I wanted them to learn to ask questions, and to reject answers that were rooted in "because I say so." I suspect most young people are likewise growing up less and less satisfied with a dictatorial model for faith.

[Tassman]

That is false Tass, "Christians" who don't believe that homosexuality is sin are rejecting Scripture. If you follow the text there is no conflict:

Leviticus! Really??? Always a useful book to support your prejudices, but you are surely aware that there are a lot of proscriptions in that book which nobody follows, because they are primitive and barbaric and downright stupid...or do you never "wear clothing woven of two kinds of material"?

And you've got Paul, but where's the bit where Jesus condemns homosexuality in the same forthright manner he condemns divorce? Oh, that's right, he doesn't!

You are illustrating my point that there is no way moral conflicts can be resolved when different Christians hold absolute beliefs which are mutually exclusive. In fact a significant majority of Christians support homosexual rights according to Pew Research. You can judge these people if you wish. I have no reason to doubt their sincerity as Christians and the way they interpret the bible re homosexuality.

[seer]

Leviticus! Really??? Always a useful book to support your prejudices, but you are surely aware that there are a lot of proscriptions in that book which nobody follows, because they are primitive and barbaric and downright stupid...or do you never "wear clothing woven of two kinds of material"?

And you've got Paul, but where's the bit where Jesus condemns homosexuality in the same forthright manner he condemns divorce? Oh, that's right, he doesn't!

Tass, the Bible both Old and New Testament calls homosexual behavior sin. Now, we were speaking of Christians and what they believe. So like I said, if a Christian says that homosexuality is not sin he have will have to reject Scripture. BTW Christ said nothing about rape or child molesting either - so?

You are illustrating my point that there is no way moral conflicts can be resolved when different Christians hold absolute beliefs which are mutually exclusive. In fact a significant majority of Christians support homosexual rights according to Pew Research. You can judge these people if you wish. I have no reason to doubt their sincerity as Christians and the way they interpret the bible re homosexuality.

And you are making my point, they are not interpreting the Bible, they are rejecting what it says.

[Mountain Man]

OK - so let's test this position of yours. Why is homosexuality morally wrong?

Before I answer your question, try answering mine: Why is it morally wrong to drive faster than the posted speed limit?

This is not a question about consequences, so saying "because it could endanger others" is not an acceptable answer. Suppose for the sake of argument that you are an expert driver, that you're the only person on a stretch of road for miles, and you have sufficient visibility to see any obstacle imaginable long before it poses any kind of problem. Why, even in that scenario, is speeding morally wrong?

[Mountain Man]

No response, MM?

Give me a break, carpe. I've been busy.

[Zymologist]

Actually, no...the Bible might mention something about fewer believers in the end times, though.

[Mountain Man]

And of course, the "Christians" who agree with your worldview are the right ones in your eyes.





I like that quote and I can see using it often here.

I also like the quote that says something like, Man does not reject God's existence because of a lack of evidence but because of the implications that would follow if he does exist.

[Mountain Man]

I consider Peter's sermon in Acts 2 to be the quintessential Christian sermon, and at no point does he appeal to "Because God said so." On the contrary, he appealed to traditional lines of evidence and used scripture to give them context.

Acts 2: "Men of Israel, hear these words: Jesus of Nazareth, a man attested to you by God with mighty works and wonders and signs that God did through him in your midst, as you yourselves know [...] This Jesus God raised up, and of that we all are witnesses. Being therefore exalted at the right hand of God, and having received from the Father the promise of the Holy Spirit, he has poured out this that you yourselves are seeing and hearing."

[seer]

Actually, no...the Bible might mention something about fewer believers in the end times, though.

Everything that can be shaken, will....

[seer]

I also like the quote that says something like, Man does not reject God's existence because of a lack of evidence but because of the implications that would follow if he does exist.

No gods, no masters...