religious debate assessment

[Universal Mind]

I am posting here part of what I said in another post. To make sure I have made the point known to the Christians who have any desire whatsoever of getting nonbelievers to really broaden their understanding of the Christian view, here is some stuff to think about. I am about to get some distance from the religious debate. I think I have covered pretty much all I have to say, although I will probably repeat myself no telling how much in the future. As I have said before, I don't hate all Christians. I just think that Christianity has some very damaging aspects, and I think most Christians are insincere hypocrites who don't give a happy damn about acting the way Jesus said they should, nor do they care about deep analysis of the Christian view. This is what I said earlier... One thing I can say is that I put out an absolutely tremendous effort to understand the Christian God better, but what I understand better is that the people who claim to believe in him lack answers and lack a great deal more faith than they are willing to admit. I wish somebody would have just said that. People with strong faith would have responded to me with, "I understand your confusion over the idea of the Christian God (NOBODY who is a Christian in the usual sense even came close to saying that, despite the fact that they couldn't answer my questions or counter my arguments.), and I want to help you understand better. Please help me answer your questions as directly as I can." What I got was nothing close to that, even from a preacher. I am very close to just giving up. I will go the rest of my life remembering the time I gave the Christian God a very major second look, and I will remember what happened when I really tried to understand. _________________________________________________ I am going to post something I said in another thread also. Remember, my point all along has been that an infinitely powerful being would not be bound by any laws of reality, so if he is not indifferent to suffering, suffering would not exist. Suffering would not be necessary under an infinitely powerful creator. He would be able to create a universe without suffering WITHOUT THERE BEING ANY PROBLEMS WITH THE COMPLETE ABSENCE OF SUFFERING. AND THERE WOULD BE NOT HAVE TO BE PROBLEMS WITH THAT LACK OF PROBLEMS, ETC. HE COULD MAKE IT WHERE THERE AREN'T ANY. Therefore, with an infinitely powerful creator who is not indifferent to suffering, suffering would not have to exist and would not exist. I have yet to read a solid argument to the contrary. This is the last thread I will start in an attempt to get a resolution to this. I am giving thread starting on this topic one last shot. Earlier, I posted this assessment of the responses I have gotten so far... I'll tell you exactly how people can get me to believe them, and it has been done on many occasions. I have transformed my political views in a single instant, and I have transformed my religious views in a single instant. I am 33 now, and it hasn't happened in a while, but it is still possible in theory. The thing that worked in the past was SOLID LOGIC. If I believe that 2 + 2 = 5, what will convince me that 2 + 2 = 4 is an argument like, "1 + 1 = 2, and 1 + 1 plus 1 + 1 = 4, therefore 2 + 2 = 4. 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 is therefore 4 + 1, which is 5, and five is not 4." That type of response is what works on me. But in my quest for broadening my understanding of the notion of an omnipotent, omnibenevolent creator, these are the types of responses I have gotten... - "3 + 3 = 6" - "It says right here in this ancient book about burning bushes that talk and the sun suddenly "stopping" and the human race being founded on incest, "2 + 2 = 4" - "I accept your argument that 2 + 2 would not be have to be 4, but if it were not 4, then it would be 4." (That is the most common form of reasoning I have gotten in return, and it is the most self-contradicting of all of them.) - "I just have the superpower of being able to feel the presence of the fact that 2 + 2 = 4, but you don't. I'm just above you like that." - "I already answered your question." (when it wasn't answered) - "Not everything is known about the financial documents where the number 5 has been used." - "You are a giraffe." - "You are just going to believe what you want to believe." - "You are arrogant." - "Will you stop asking me the question?" - "Here are even more lines from the ancient book about burning bushes that talk..." Every single one of those represents an actual response I have gotten. Which of them actually clear up my issue? None of them! If somebody will hit my issue in direct format, maybe we can get somewhere. __________________________________________________ _____ Last call...

[Barbizzle]

People Just have a problem because the idea of a God does not fit into the scope of Logic. and without Logic there is chaos.

[Universal Mind]

Days since I started this thread: 3 Number of answers I have gotten from theists: 0 Well, there we have it. It's funny how the shrill preaching stops when the hard questions keep getting asked and not answered. All that loud, preachy confidence is really just a put on, isn't it? When people don't want to think about the views of the preachy ones, the preachy ones never shut up. But when people want to REALLY think about the views of the preachy ones, the preachy ones turn into mutes. That speaks volumes. Thank you for further showing me the hollowness of faith. I gave your views a major second look, and all you did was run away from me with your middle finger in the air. What a fucking joke.

[eXistenZ]

[b]I would suggest of not focusing just on the rational side of your quest. Asking whether God can do this or that and challenging the logical reasons of religion is only a part of the issue. Blaise Pascal talked about "esprit géométrique" and "esprit de finesse". The first one is about rationality, reason; the second one is about intuition, ilumination, emotions. Pascal got the faiht by using both sides. One will never be able to prove the existence of God just through reason, otherwise that God would be quite small, so small that our mind can contain it... eXistenZ

[kimpossible]

That's just silly. With logic and reasoning, I can prove the existance of a black-hole. Which is rather larger than the mind can contain.

[Howie]

It seems to me that questioning of faith is one reason so many churches have divided and new religions created. People need an answer for death. This is the only answer that provides them comfort and happiness. So they may question things within the Bible, bicker with one another but are scared shitless to pronounce no Faith at all. Why is it that some of us don't have the ability to believe? But the people who can are usually content at least.

[sephiroth clock]

I wouldn't try to group all the people that believe in god. There are so many views out there, some that are much logical than others.

[Universal Mind]

Originally posted by sephiroth clock I wouldn't try to group all the people that believe in god. There are so many views out there, some that are much logical than others. I don't have a problem with all people who believe in God. I have a problem with preachy know it alls who dodge my questions.

[eXistenZ]

Originally posted by kimpossible That's just silly. With logic and reasoning, I can prove the existance of a black-hole. Which is rather larger than the mind can contain. [b] Actually is not larger than your mind, if you can think about it. I referred to what our mind cannot even imagine. God might be one of this entities, thus we cannot rely just on rationality, that is only a part of the quest. eXistenZ

[R.Carter]

[quote] Why is it that some of us don't have the ability to believe? Who is it that you consider to be devoid of that ability ? Isn't believing in anything, or choosing not to believe, an act of free will ?

[bradybaker]

[quote]Why is it that some of us don't have the ability to believe? But the people who can are usually content at least. So in other words...belief is a crutch. No thanks, I can walk on my own two feet.

[willthepathfinder]

Universal Mind wrote I am going to post something I said in another thread also. Remember, my point all along has been that an infinitely powerful being would not be bound by any laws of reality, so if he is not indifferent to suffering, suffering would not exist. Suffering would not be necessary under an infinitely powerful creator. He would be able to create a universe without suffering WITHOUT THERE BEING ANY PROBLEMS WITH THE COMPLETE ABSENCE OF SUFFERING. AND THERE WOULD BE NOT HAVE TO BE PROBLEMS WITH THAT LACK OF PROBLEMS, ETC. HE COULD MAKE IT WHERE THERE AREN'T ANY. Therefore, with an infinitely powerful creator who is not indifferent to suffering, suffering would not have to exist and would not exist. I have yet to read a solid argument to the contrary.[/b] I have no use for dogmatic religion but, still believe in a creator. I've pondered the same thing myself and this is my reasoning. I think we were created to be companions with God. If I were an all powerful being I wouldn't want to face an eternity alone either. Now, what kind of companions would I create? Well, they would have to be self aware. If they couldn't comprehend me or even themselves they wouldn't make very good companions. They would have to be equals but, I can't just go and make a bunch of copies of myself. I'd just be surrounded by mirror images of myself, nothing new, nothing different. I would have to give them the power to be equals but, with the ability to shape themselvs into thier own personalities. Much better companions. Give them free will to choose for themselves, but choose what? An arena would have to be created for them to exercise choice, all choices. The universe. Now the plan is set. Equal unique companions that are allowed to develop on thier own, make thier own choices and become themselves. Unfortunatly with free will and and the ability to make any choice, the arena to do that in, and of course the concequences thereof, there will be suffering. Poor choices will be made and harsh realities to overcome in order to be presented the opportunities for choice, all choices. Just like children, you do your best to teach them and give them all the right opportunities but, they decide for themselves to agree or dissagree, learn or not to learn, fly or fall on thier face. You just have to hope for the best that they will come around and grow into beutiful unique individuals. You help them where you can and try not interfear to much with what is by right, their own lives.

[willthepathfinder]

I thought of a few other points that may be relevant to the disscussion. If by creating a controlled environment as an all powereful being, ie. removing pain and suffering, I have altered the eventual outcome of that environment. I have altered it to my design and choice. I would have removed, at least in part, the ability of my creations to exercise free will. By influencing the world that I have created in any way, nullifies the original desired outcome (companions that are equal, unique and themselves). I think that's the whole point. I don't think God wanted to zap a predesigned world with a preordained outcome into existence. What's the fun in that? I think he created the template, (cause, well, who else was going to do it), and left it to us with all the tools necessary to create ourselves. I imagine there's probably the question, "If I was created to be God's equal companion then why don't I have ultimate power too?" I think the answer is, we probably would destroy ourselves. Look at what we do without it. I think it works that we have to learn how first then do. Then the question would come again, "Well then, why dosn't God create a world where we can't destroy ourselves?" We wouldn't be equal and he would have then predesigned our outcome. No free will or at least, not complete free will.

[Howie]

Originally posted by R.Carter+--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(R.Carter)</div> Who is it that you consider to be devoid of that ability ? Isn't believing in anything, or choosing not to believe, an act of free will ?[/b] Belief is not an act of free will! I can't make myself believe in God. Choosing not to believe, yes, your own action, but that is not pertinent to belief. <!--QuoteBegin-BradyBaker So in other words...belief is a crutch. No thanks, I can walk on my own two feet. From my vantage point as of now, yes. I believe it to be. A very good word in fact to describe it. However, I don't think this "crutch", whether it be for you or me is a bad thing for society. Do you? It is not barbaric as religion had seemed to be in the old days or in some other third world countries today. Most seem to promote philanthropy and loveat least. So we may have a blind and ignorant society, but loving non the less.

[R.Carter]

[quote] Belief is not an act of free will ! I can't make myself believe in God. Oh Boy. If belief is not an act of free will than what is it ? Believing in God isn't mandatory. At least not after your 18th birthday. Family doctrine falls aside at that point. Your beliefs are your choice. What you decide to accept or deny is inarguably an exercise of your free will. Please answer this question directly : If you believe in God, and that belief isn't a product of you exercising your free will, than how did your belief come to exist ? Please don't say something like " It's always been what I believe " or " It's what I was taught " because those reasons also require you to choose or accept them; which is also free will. The only time belief is not free will is when you've got a gun to your head. Then it's pretending in the interest of self preservation.

[Howie]

Originally posted by R.Carter Oh Boy. If belief is not an act of free will than what is it ? Believing in God isn't mandatory. At least not after your 18th birthday. Family doctrine falls aside at that point. Your beliefs are your choice. What you decide to accept or deny is inarguably an exercise of your free will. Please answer this question directly : If you believe in God, and that belief isn't a product of you exercising your free will, than how did your belief come to exist ? Please don't say something like \" It's always been what I believe \" or \" It's what I was taught \" because those reasons also require you to choose or accept them; which is also free will. The only time belief is not free will is when you've got a gun to your head. Then it's pretending in the interest of self preservation. OK R. Carter. If I could take the high road and believe in the almighty I would. For the sake of peace of mind. I cannot. Where is my free will? Belief is something you feel. Devised mostly from someone else's teachings. It's illusory! And yes I am going to say It's what I was taught !!!! Because it was. And being an infant raised in a family that believes is Buddhism and they grow up to believe the same. Was that their free will or their parent?. That same person would as likely believed in Christianity as a result of the same teaching practices. I call it brainwashing. Is brainwashing free will?

[R.Carter]

[quote] I call it brainwashing. Is brainwashing free will? No. Brainwashing is indeed just that. I am the only non-religious member of my whole brainwashed family.Consequently I've made my own decisions based on the "facts " presented to me and decided it's bullshit. By exercising my free will I've sloughed off the years of mental training that I think most athiests and believers alike have had to endure. That same individual free will is what keeps believers believing. They accept it as truth. They choose to keep the faith, so to speak. To say that growing up under the influence of religion precludes an individuals abilitiy to denounce that religion at a later date would be to infer that they are not strong enough of mind to asses their faith in adulthood and make an intelligent choice to proceed as they were taught or choose an alternate direction.

[Howie]

Originally posted by R.Carter To say that growing up under the influence of religion precludes an individuals abilitiy to denounce that religion at a later date would be to infer that they are not strong enough of mind to asses their faith in adulthood and make an intelligent choice to proceed as they were taught or choose an alternate direction. Yes. That is what I say. You hit it right on the head. You had the free choice to reconsider your choices. If one never chooses an alternate, unbiased path it would be considered not really "their" choice , would it? Because something of this nature is spread out over a long coarse of time many cannot perceive it as what is traditionally called free choice. I think otherwise.

[R.Carter]

I can see your point as valid under those conditions. I'll split the difference with you. The free will exists yet goes unexercised for reasons of upbringing. Some poeple never even realize they have a choice.

[Howie]

Originally posted by R.Carter I can see your point as valid under those conditions. I'll split the difference with you. The free will exists yet goes unexercised for reasons of upbringing. Some poeple never even realize they have a choice. Deal It is rather sad isn't it? I suppose brainwashing may be too forthcoming. Maybe, heavily influenced?

[InTheMoment]

Originally posted by R.Carter The free will exists yet goes unexercised for reasons of upbringing. Some poeple never even realize they have a choice. I think that is one of the root causes of the mass acceptance of religion as fact. Children are impressionable for a reason. Relying on the words and actions of their parents has a huge impact on survivability. Lying to your children (whether about God, Santa, or why Mommy and Daddy "wrestle" on the weekends) shapes their minds to accept those lies as potential truths.

[Universal Mind]

Originally posted by willthepathfinder Universal Mind wrote I am going to post something I said in another thread also. Remember, my point all along has been that an infinitely powerful being would not be bound by any laws of reality, so if he is not indifferent to suffering, suffering would not exist. Suffering would not be necessary under an infinitely powerful creator. He would be able to create a universe without suffering WITHOUT THERE BEING ANY PROBLEMS WITH THE COMPLETE ABSENCE OF SUFFERING. AND THERE WOULD BE NOT HAVE TO BE PROBLEMS WITH THAT LACK OF PROBLEMS, ETC. HE COULD MAKE IT WHERE THERE AREN'T ANY. Therefore, with an infinitely powerful creator who is not indifferent to suffering, suffering would not have to exist and would not exist. I have yet to read a solid argument to the contrary. I have no use for dogmatic religion but, still believe in a creator. I've pondered the same thing myself and this is my reasoning. I think we were created to be companions with God. If I were an all powerful being I wouldn't want to face an eternity alone either. Now, what kind of companions would I create? Well, they would have to be self aware. If they couldn't comprehend me or even themselves they wouldn't make very good companions. They would have to be equals but, I can't just go and make a bunch of copies of myself. I'd just be surrounded by mirror images of myself, nothing new, nothing different. I would have to give them the power to be equals but, with the ability to shape themselvs into thier own personalities. Much better companions. Give them free will to choose for themselves, but choose what? An arena would have to be created for them to exercise choice, all choices. The universe. Now the plan is set. Equal unique companions that are allowed to develop on thier own, make thier own choices and become themselves. Unfortunatly with free will and and the ability to make any choice, the arena to do that in, and of course the concequences thereof, there will be suffering. Poor choices will be made and harsh realities to overcome in order to be presented the opportunities for choice, all choices. Just like children, you do your best to teach them and give them all the right opportunities but, they decide for themselves to agree or dissagree, learn or not to learn, fly or fall on thier face. You just have to hope for the best that they will come around and grow into beutiful unique individuals. You help them where you can and try not interfear to much with what is by right, their own lives.[/b] An infinitely powerful being would be able to zap out all of those problems and create great situations that involve absolutely no suffering without there being a problem. You are talking as though an infinitely powerful being would have to work within certain laws of reality. By definition, he would not. He could zap out his loneliness without creating companions, create companions that don't have to have free will to meet his desires, create free will that does not require the potential for suffering, make 2 + 2 = 5, turn the principles of up and down in to cows and walking relations among non-material objects, turn blue into a number, and even do all kinds of things that have nothing to do with reality as we know it. He would be able to achieve any outcome without ANY problems. If he can't, then he is not infinitely powerful.

[eXistenZ]

Originally posted by Universal Mind An infinitely powerful being would be able to zap out all of those problems and create great situations that involve absolutely no suffering without there being a problem. You are talking as though an infinitely powerful being would have to work within certain laws of reality. By definition, he would not. He could zap out his loneliness without creating companions, create companions that don't have to have free will to meet his desires, create free will that does not require the potential for suffering, make 2 + 2 = 5, turn the principles of up and down in to cows and walking relations among non-material objects, turn blue into a number, and even do all kinds of things that have nothing to do with reality as we know it. He would be able to achieve any outcome without ANY problems. If he can't, then he is not infinitely powerful. [b]Sure, he can and probably he's already doing it. Physics easily accepts the notion of parallel universes; theology may do it as well. So the notion that "God created his own companions and he did not create his own companions" holds perfectly. If we are not fine with this statement (in fact it sounds kind of weird) it's because we are constraining under the rule of language and logic an entity or a concept that is beyond language and logic. eXistenZ

[Awaken4e1]

I think that there is a perfect example for the reason for pain, and sufferings, in this natural world, and that is reflected in the animal kingdom, and the survival of the fittest, and that only the strong shall overcome all the tests, and trials. Thus God shall have only those whom are the strongest in the spirit to rule and reign with Him in His throne. For anything lest would shame Him, and God don’t play that! The Rev.

[Howie]

Originally posted by Awaken4e1 I think that there is a perfect example for the reason for pain, and sufferings, in this natural world, and that is reflected in the animal kingdom, and the survival of the fittest, and that only the strong shall overcome all the tests, and trials. Thus God shall have only those whom are the strongest in the spirit to rule and reign with Him in He throne. For anything lest would shame Him, and God don’t play that! The Rev. Isn't said that all men are created equal? Then you could argue that men are physically superior, for the most part. I think there are a lot of holes in that theory Rev