My God is not telling me to do so. I know that’s not what my religion is about. Of course, Christianity and Islam have the two worst track records of any religions that I know of, so since I’m a Christian, I don’t have a lot of room to talk (although I’ve never killed anyone OR been part of a Crusade and don’t plan on it).
The bottom line is that holy books are open to interpretation. Unfortunately. I have a feeling that we all actually worship the same God, but each “individual” god’s messages have been heavily diluted and misinterpreted/understood over the course of the last ~2,000 years. Again: unfortunately. I don’t believe that Allah is a hateful or spiteful god. I think people who kill in the name of their god are completely missing the point. And thankfully, a majority of the world recognizes that. The problem is the small minority who think their god wants them to kill. I find it hard to believe that a god would create a world that can support 7 billion people and then ask a few million people to eradicate the other 6.8 billion. Idk.
Okay, I get what you’re saying. That’s true. But I’m also not here to try to appeal to you or get you to believe in God, I’m discussing my beliefs. Like I’ve said earlier in this thread, it’s “faith.” It isn’t science. Not even close to being in the same realm. If someone makes a scientific claim with no proof, it’s laughable. Nobody takes that person seriously, so I understand why you don’t take me seriously. No worries
How do you interpret what God did to Sodom and Gomorrah? What the Israelites did after the exodus from Egypt? According to the Bible they wiped out whole peoples.
How do you interpret what Muhammad did? He killed people or had people killed. He approved of slavery. These are not interpretations.
I think this is a pretty good approach, and if all religious people believed this I think a lot of issues related to religion wouldn’t be a problem anymore. The problem is it’s hard to square with the majority of religious texts and how they describe god, along with how you should behave as a believer.
Well, there are many scientists who believe there is a multiverse, yet there is not a shred, not a sliver of evidence for it. Many scientists believe in Dark Energy, but there is no evidence for it. So I take it these people are also laughable? By your definition, they should be because they believe in things that have no evidence to back them up.
So, the moral argument for God’s existence is an assumption? I am pretty sure Kant would slap you upside the head. He was that kind of guy. An angry little hobbit with a limp. A terrible writer with some brilliant philosophical observations.
But he didn’t just believe in God, he made an argument for the existence of God, which if you take objective moral values to be a fact, is irrefutable.
If they go beyond saying they believe it to saying that it is a fact. How many religious people say that what they believe is the truth vs those who say they believe it but they don’t know if it’s true?
Then you don’t know Kant. He made an argument for the existence of God but did not prove god existed, and stated that not only could he not prove god existed, but no one could. So his argument leads to the assumption god exists.
Many. I don’t know who you hang around with, but my experience is that most have doubts from time to time. But their personal experiences catalyze their faith.
And if a scientist says his belief, or faith, is as good as fact, then he is laughable. Does that then not hold true for the religious who say the same thing?
“Probably the most influential versions of the moral argument for belief in God can be traced to Kant (1788 [1956]), who famously argued that the theoretical arguments for God’s existence were unsuccessful, but presented a rational argument for belief in God as a “postulate of practical reason.” Kant held that a rational, moral being must necessarily will “the highest good,” which consists of a world in which people are both morally good and happy, and in which moral virtue is the condition for happiness”