Author Topic: How do you get to heaven split from EP129  (Read 81663 times)

gelee

  • Lochage
  • *****
  • Posts: 521
  • It's a missile, boy.
Reply #75 on: January 17, 2008, 10:57:28 PM
Quote
A) How can an atheist be angry at God? Isn't that like me being angry at the tooth fairy?

Not to butt in, but I feel compelled to comment on this particular item.  Atheists are often accused of not actually being atheists, but rather being in a state of rebellion against God.  Sort of "You mean old God!  How could you break my XBox like that?  I'll show show you!  I just won't believe in you any more, so there!"
So yes, it would be like getting angry at the tooth fairy.



eytanz

  • Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 6109
Reply #76 on: January 17, 2008, 11:18:41 PM
Quote
A) How can an atheist be angry at God? Isn't that like me being angry at the tooth fairy?

Not to butt in, but I feel compelled to comment on this particular item.  Atheists are often accused of not actually being atheists, but rather being in a state of rebellion against God.  Sort of "You mean old God!  How could you break my XBox like that?  I'll show show you!  I just won't believe in you any more, so there!"
So yes, it would be like getting angry at the tooth fairy.

I'm confused as to whether you are attacking atheists here, or making a rather confusing comment about them.



Czhorat

  • Peltast
  • ***
  • Posts: 135
Reply #77 on: January 17, 2008, 11:36:24 PM
I suppose I should have answered this one:

Wow... this is getting hard to keep up with.  A couple of points I'd like to address while I have time:

1) I pronounce "Czhorat" with a sort of throat clearing noise followed by "O'Rat"... sort of a Klingon-cum-Irish sort of name.

I say "kuh-ZHOR-at", but some have said "se-ZOR-at" or even something sounding sorta like "Joe-rat". Steve Eley says "SEE - ZOR - at" as if the first letter is an initial.

The Word of Nash is the word of Nash and it is Nash's word.


gelee

  • Lochage
  • *****
  • Posts: 521
  • It's a missile, boy.
Reply #78 on: January 17, 2008, 11:47:50 PM
Quote
A) How can an atheist be angry at God? Isn't that like me being angry at the tooth fairy?

Not to butt in, but I feel compelled to comment on this particular item.  Atheists are often accused of not actually being atheists, but rather being in a state of rebellion against God.  Sort of "You mean old God!  How could you break my XBox like that?  I'll show show you!  I just won't believe in you any more, so there!"
So yes, it would be like getting angry at the tooth fairy.

I'm confused as to whether you are attacking atheists here, or making a rather confusing comment about them.
Didn't mean to be confusing.  I was actually trying to answer your question A.
I was just agreeing with your assertion that an atheist can not be angry at god, and attempting to explain that they are often accused of being so.  I've caught that one myself a few times, from freinds and family.  People think that I DO believe in God, but that I'm just being an ass and trying to make some kind of point, or maybe rebelling against "The Establishment," whatever they feel that may be.  I am sometimes accused of being bitter about something, and that I'm blaming God and rejecting him out of anger.
So yes, I agree that an atheist being angry at god is like being angry at the tooth fairy.



eytanz

  • Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 6109
Reply #79 on: January 18, 2008, 12:11:23 AM
Didn't mean to be confusing.  I was actually trying to answer your question A.
I was just agreeing with your assertion that an atheist can not be angry at god, and attempting to explain that they are often accused of being so.  I've caught that one myself a few times, from freinds and family.  People think that I DO believe in God, but that I'm just being an ass and trying to make some kind of point, or maybe rebelling against "The Establishment," whatever they feel that may be.  I am sometimes accused of being bitter about something, and that I'm blaming God and rejecting him out of anger.
So yes, I agree that an atheist being angry at god is like being angry at the tooth fairy.

Ok, thanks for clarifying. I wasn't clear if you were saying the above or whether you yourself were expressing that view. I know some people think that - but I was (and still am) a bit confused by TAD's statement, as I'm not sure if he's kidding or serious, though I suspect the former.



Tango Alpha Delta

  • Hipparch
  • ******
  • Posts: 1778
    • Tad's Happy Funtime
Reply #80 on: January 18, 2008, 12:34:52 AM
Didn't mean to be confusing.  I was actually trying to answer your question A.
I was just agreeing with your assertion that an atheist can not be angry at god, and attempting to explain that they are often accused of being so.  I've caught that one myself a few times, from freinds and family.  People think that I DO believe in God, but that I'm just being an ass and trying to make some kind of point, or maybe rebelling against "The Establishment," whatever they feel that may be.  I am sometimes accused of being bitter about something, and that I'm blaming God and rejecting him out of anger.
So yes, I agree that an atheist being angry at god is like being angry at the tooth fairy.

Ok, thanks for clarifying. I wasn't clear if you were saying the above or whether you yourself were expressing that view. I know some people think that - but I was (and still am) a bit confused by TAD's statement, as I'm not sure if he's kidding or serious, though I suspect the former.


Yes, I was attempting "tongue-in-cheek", but trying to convey something more like what gelee said.  I was actually trying to convey a bit of what eytanz said, as well... but I suspect now that I am only being trying.  :(

Ok, NOW I'll bow out... unless we get snowed in this weekend.


This Wiki Won't Wrangle Itself!

I finally published my book - Tad's Happy Funtime is on Amazon!


Mr. Tweedy

  • Lochage
  • *****
  • Posts: 497
  • I am a sloth.
    • Free Mode
Reply #81 on: January 18, 2008, 05:58:09 AM
Ok, NOW I'll bow out... unless we get snowed in this weekend.

Aw.  I was hoping to hear more about Vikings vs. Mormons.

The Mormons would have firearms, which puts them at an obvious advantage, but dead Vikings, as I understand it, are resurrected at the end of each day's battle, so the Mormon ammo would run out fast.  Could go either way.

Busy today.  Catch up... sometime.

Hear my very very short story on The Drabblecast!


gelee

  • Lochage
  • *****
  • Posts: 521
  • It's a missile, boy.
Reply #82 on: January 18, 2008, 11:24:49 PM
Didn't mean to be confusing.  I was actually trying to answer your question A.
I was just agreeing with your assertion that an atheist can not be angry at god, and attempting to explain that they are often accused of being so.  I've caught that one myself a few times, from freinds and family.  People think that I DO believe in God, but that I'm just being an ass and trying to make some kind of point, or maybe rebelling against "The Establishment," whatever they feel that may be.  I am sometimes accused of being bitter about something, and that I'm blaming God and rejecting him out of anger.
So yes, I agree that an atheist being angry at god is like being angry at the tooth fairy.

Ok, thanks for clarifying. I wasn't clear if you were saying the above or whether you yourself were expressing that view. I know some people think that - but I was (and still am) a bit confused by TAD's statement, as I'm not sure if he's kidding or serious, though I suspect the former.

My pleasure.  This is a debate that I gave up a long time ago, but I think a measure of understanding would help all parties concerned.
The term "atheist" is every bit as loaded as "christian," and almost as complicated.  The way I had to explain this to my wife was that there were more than one kind of non-theistic stand point:
Theist: I have an elephant in my garage.
Hard Atheist: Based on the information I have, you do not have an elephant in your garage.
Soft Atheist: Based on the information I have, I do not believe that you have an elephant in your garage.
Agnostic: I do not know if you have elephant in your garage or not.  Each is equally likely, based on the information I have.

It might be semantic hair-splitting, but it's an important difference.  I'm of the "soft" sort.  I'm the cuddly atheist!



eytanz

  • Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 6109
Reply #83 on: January 19, 2008, 12:34:19 AM
My pleasure.  This is a debate that I gave up a long time ago, but I think a measure of understanding would help all parties concerned.
The term "atheist" is every bit as loaded as "christian," and almost as complicated.  The way I had to explain this to my wife was that there were more than one kind of non-theistic stand point:
Theist: I have an elephant in my garage.
Hard Atheist: Based on the information I have, you do not have an elephant in your garage.
Soft Atheist: Based on the information I have, I do not believe that you have an elephant in your garage.
Agnostic: I do not know if you have elephant in your garage or not.  Each is equally likely, based on the information I have.

It might be semantic hair-splitting, but it's an important difference.  I'm of the "soft" sort.  I'm the cuddly atheist!

I don't quite think that's right, really. I have a few issues with it:

1. First, most theists (myself included), are such because of the information they have. Maybe it's faulty information, or faulty deduction, but that could be said of the atheists as well. It's not fair to remove that clause specifically from the theists.

2. Why are you splitting the atheists into "soft" and "hard" but not the theists? I have nowhere to put myself in your classification.

3. Elephants in garages are not a good enough analogy, since it's pretty easy to check if there really is one or not. If you and I were arguing about whether there was an elephant in my garage, I would resolve the argument by showing you my garage.

4. I know a lot of people who call themselves agnostic who don't believe the options are equally likely, just that they are both possible.

I would offer the following version:

Hard Theist: Based on the information I have, There is an elephant on Mars.
Soft Theist, Based on the information I have, I believe there is an elephant on Mars.
Hard Atheist: Based on the information I have, there is no elephant on Mars.
Soft Atheist: Based on the information I have, I do not believe that there is an elephant on Mars.
Agnostic: I do not know if there is an elephant ion Mars. I don't have enough information.

On this classification, I'm a soft theist.
« Last Edit: January 19, 2008, 12:43:43 AM by eytanz »



stePH

  • Actually has enough cowbell.
  • Hipparch
  • ******
  • Posts: 3906
  • Cool story, bro!
    • Thetatr0n on SoundCloud
Reply #84 on: January 19, 2008, 02:12:12 AM
Ok, NOW I'll bow out... unless we get snowed in this weekend.

Aw.  I was hoping to hear more about Vikings vs. Mormons.

The Mormons would have firearms, which puts them at an obvious advantage, but dead Vikings, as I understand it, are resurrected at the end of each day's battle, so the Mormon ammo would run out fast.  Could go either way.
Unless the Mormons happen to know the cheat code for "Infinite Ammo".  ;)

"Nerdcore is like playing Halo while getting a blow-job from Hello Kitty."
-- some guy interviewed in Nerdcore Rising


Mr. Tweedy

  • Lochage
  • *****
  • Posts: 497
  • I am a sloth.
    • Free Mode
Reply #85 on: January 21, 2008, 10:16:08 PM
Quote from: Russell Nash
I asked once and don't think you answered - do you think those following a different faith are as "right" or as likely to be "right" as you are?
…I'd be pretty stupid to devote my life to something that I was only 8% sure was right, wouldn't I? …

So your parents weren't the same religion as you?  If they were, you started with a bias towards believing in Christianity.  Unless you have gone through the religious education provided by each of the other religions, how can you say you really understand what they believe.  Therefore I would say you have devoted your life to the religion you just happen to have been born into and choose to believe it is right. 

My point was that you choose to devote your life to one religion without shopping around.  You went with what you were given, because it's what you were given.  It's not a non-sequitor.  It was calling you out.  Just like I did with your showing appreciation comment, and just like I did when you claimed there was so much evidence against evolution. 

I don't care if you believe something, because it's what your family has always believed.  Just don't imply you believe it, because you have researched all of modern religion and have made an educated choice.

I never said that I had thoroughly studied every religion or that I had done a comparative analysis.  (Although your comments would seem to imply that you have.)  I also never said that I was perfect at appreciating everybody.  I said I am convinced Christianity is true, which I am.  I said that appreciation is good and has great benefits benefits, which is true.  I did not claim that I am personally perfect in either knowledge or character.  You have nothing to call me out on.


If God deliberately creates a world with the potential for evil, then isn't it His fault if evil occurs?  Isn't that like an engineer making bridge with a built-in potential for collapse?  I do have an answer to that question, but it isn't a strait up "yes" or "no".  Rather than try to explain it in a big messy paragraph, I ask to pose you a question that I think is a way-point on the way to the answer:

I don't think the engineer analogy is very good. As far as I understand Christianity, God wasn't just involved in the creation of the world. God still influences the world. He just chooses to do it in a subtle way. He is both omnipresent and omnipotent. Why does he wait until people are dead for them to feel the consequences of their actions, rather than address those right away?

By "address those right away" do you mean damn sinners immediately instead of waiting for them to die?  There wouldn't be any people on Earth, in that case, since everyone has sinned.  Damning everyone on the spot would be perfectly just and within God's prerogative, but it would result in an unpopulated Earth and Heaven, which is not what God wants.  The reasons He refrains are mercy and love: He wants people to come to Him and He likes having people around.  He loves people and sees their beauty and potential, and so He chooses to let the world continue rather than summarily smite it.

Sure, you can say that he's giving people a chance to refore, but it's not as simple as that, since he lets them affect other people. [...]

I think my response to Czhorat will address that.

As Windup pointed out, Christianity argues that we have but a limited time to determine the status of our eternal soul. Why is this time not granted equally?

Why?  Well, the world is generally broken, but beyond that I don't know.  I suspect it's ontological: Things just don't work like that.  Beyond that vague speculation I have no answer.

Can one solve all of the world's problems without abrogating free will? No. But could God have done better? In no particular order, here are a few things I would change.

1) The human reproductive system. It's figuratively and, as any female past the age of puberty will tell you, literally a mess. Monthly flows of hormones make it difficult for some women to control their moods. It's too hard for some people to get pregnant and too easy for others. At the very least it would be nice to have a simple "on/off" switch to avoid getting pregnant by accident and then turn ones fertility on when it's child conceiving time. 

2) Disease. This is an easy one. There's no reason for a just god to have created a world in which so many people are, through no fault of their own, painfully and terminally ill.

I see your points here.  The world seems to have a degree of inbuilt suffering, unrelated to any human actions.  My answers to this will probably not satisfy you, but I have two:

First, I would argue that physical suffering is not generally what makes people miserable.  We all know (or know of) people who have gone through horrible suffering and come out happy on the other side.  And we certainly all know people who have never so much as stubbed their toe who are miserable and makers of misery for others.  People are miserable when they see their lives as meaningless.  People who see purpose can be happy through suffering and even because of suffering.  I really don't think physical pain is of itself very important, all things considered.  (This is more a philosophical tangent than I want to get off on.  Ironically, that sounds pretty Buddhist.)

Second, the Bible is quite explicit in saying that most (if not all) of this suffering has come about due to sin in the world.  When God made nature, it was much nicer.  Exactly how sin messes up nature is not stated.  I have theories, but that's all they are.

3) The ambiguity of the message. I'm sorry, but writing a book is NOT the best way to spread your message, especially if the shelves are crowded with similar books containing different messages. Make press releases clearing up issues regarding homosexuality, masturbation, slavery, etc. If people are to commit atrocities, then let them not be in my name.
Again, I'd say the message is not really very ambiguous.  Check this out:

Russell Nash says that everyone should worship Yahweh!

Now, is Russell obligated to come and refute that?  Or has he already spoken clearly enough on the topic that readers should know that's not something Russell Nash would say?  If people read that and believe it, whose fault is that?  His?  Mine for writing it?  The reader for believing it?

As for the idea of God controlling the publishing industry to suppress all competing messages:

4) Redistribution of wealth and power. Take property, money, and land away from the rich and give it to the poor. Do this every generation or two. What about free will, you ask? This could enhance free will. As things stand countless millions of people live hand-to-mouth, barely able to scrape together the bare necessities of life while others live in unconscionable luxury.To take away a bit of the freedom of the super-rich to pass on their riches to their children could greatly enhance the freedom of many others to live lives free of abject poverty.

There are two big problems here, and they are this:  1.) If God comes along and messes with everybody's stuff every so often, then Russell no longer has the prerogative of telling Him to fuck off.  This would totally rob anyone of the option of not believing in God, which leads into 2.)  This would make most human action meaningless.  I don't have to work for myself: God will come along and fill up my my coffer on schedule.  I don't have to love my neighbor: God will take care of that.  I don't have to think about what I believe or why: The answer is literally in front of my face where I couldn't deny it if I wanted to.

God wants people to choose to be good and do right.  He wants partners and friends.  Taking so much out of our hands would rob us of choice and make out deeds and thoughts insignificant.  For our deeds to be meaningful, they have to be 1.) freely chosen and 2.) effective.

There's more, but you should get the idea. What I don't understand is what makes you such a panglossian figure who seems to truly believe that this is the best of all possible worlds. Do you lack the imagination to see anything better, or is it because the possibility of a better world would contradict your faith?

I think I've said several times that this world is screwed up.  The world we see around us now is broken on several levels, decayed, degraded from what it was made to be.  I am far from panglossian.  I am not arguing that the world is all good.  I am arguing that the world makes sense.

Czhorat and Russell, you both mentioned that God does not acknowledge your existence.  (What a jerk!)  To that, I can only say that I don't relate to your experience.  As silly as it probably sounds to you, I say that I have something of a relationship with God.  There is dialog.  I'm not a prophet: I don't get revelations or visions, but I do claim there is a subtle but very noticeable communication between myself and God.  Occasionally (very rarely) this has amounted to explicit instructions, which I have followed to good results.  I have never heard words.  I actually struggled for a long time because my experience of God was so much less dramatic than some of the stories I'd heard from other people, but I'm cool with it now.

Impossible to evaluate without knowing more. Are you open to the possibility that you are mistaken or deluded?

Sure.  Do you watch "Stranger Things?"  In the pilot episode, a priest makes the horrifying discovery that invisible "prayer leaches" are floating above churches and literally eating the prayers that naive worshippers think are directing toward God.  If you could show me something like that, I'd certainly have to reconsider the source of my impressions.  But aside from prayer leaches, I'm not sure what sort of proof there could be of my delusion.

Are you open to the possibility that I'm not deluded?

Do you see how the bookshelves full of competing books at the very least make it difficult to decide which message is the "true" one?

Absolutely.  It bugs me and I really wish people would quit writing them already.  But if people weren't free to write crap, where would that mean for their free agency?

And why would a just god put some people at a disadvantage just because of where they happen to be born? Any reason, or is he just capricious? Alternatively, you could accept all religions as man-made which would account for local difference. Which solution makes more sense to you?

I think it's more telling if you flip that question around and ask why all religions are so similar.  There's a lot of truth in many religions.  For instance, they've all got this idea of personal corruption that everyone needs to have expunged.  Moral codes the world over have a lot of similarity (no one likes a traitor, for instance).  Why would that be?  Maybe because there's some underlying truth that they're all reaching toward and succeeding to unequal degrees?  Sounds like a reasonable explanation to me.

As for people being at a disadvantage: I don't know.  I personally find some of the ways God does things pretty weird and, yes, unfair.  But if this is really GOD we're talking about, then I would expect to not understand everything.  And I don't.

Quote from: Czhorat
I asked once and don't think you answered - do you think those following a different faith are as "right" or as likely to be "right" as you are?

Well, no.  I mean, I'd be pretty stupid to devote my life to something that I was only 8% sure was right, wouldn't I?  Why would you bother with something that you think is only somewhat likely to be true?

Christianity says I will go to heaven.   :)  Islam says I'm going to hell.  :'(  Atheism says I will go nowhere.   :-\  Buddhism says I will be reincarnated.   ???  Can I believe that it is equally likely that I will go to heaven, hell, nowhere and be reincarnated?  Is that even possible?

I believe that I will go nowhere, but that reincarnation, heaven, and hell have pretty much equal possibilities. It IS possible to not know and think any alternative is equally likely. WHY do you think your answer is more likely? Is it, as Russel suggested, that it's what you were brought up with? If so, can you at least acknowledge that your indoctrination is as big a part of your belief than any rational reason?

I don't understand how you can entertain those four beliefs all at once.  How does that work out in you mind?

I say that I was never indoctrinated.  My beliefs as an adult are very close to what I was taught as a child, but that is because I've spent my whole life aggressively questioning what I'm taught and my parent's teaching has held up under my scrutiny.  For their part, they always encouraged me to ask any question, and I did.  Same goes for all of the preachers I have had.  I don't think that qualifies as indoctrination.  And I have many friends (and a spouse) who were brought up far from the Christian faith and only came to Christianity as adults.

Wow, that was really long...  I was going to write some kind of concluding statement, but now I forgot what it was.

Oh yeah: Is God responsible for evil on Earth?  Yes and no.

No: It is God's will that no one should ever do evil and everyone who does is disobeying Him.  Yes: God created the world with the potential for evil and full knowledge that that potential would be realized.  He knew all this shit would happen and He lets it happen.

The explanation for this seeming paradox is simply this: Without choice, life is meaningless.   God thinks that having beings who can choose to love, to appreciate, to respect, to create, to enjoy, to build, etc. is worth the cost.  Life is so beautiful that it's worth the incredibly steep price, not only of all the shit in the world, but also of the death of Christ Himself.

If y'all don't feel like replying to something that ridiculously long, I won't take offense.  It was cathartic for me, anyway.  I like to write stuff.
« Last Edit: January 21, 2008, 10:19:09 PM by Mr. Tweedy »

Hear my very very short story on The Drabblecast!


eytanz

  • Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 6109
Reply #86 on: January 21, 2008, 11:09:19 PM
Quote from: Czhorat


I believe that I will go nowhere, but that reincarnation, heaven, and hell have pretty much equal possibilities. It IS possible to not know and think any alternative is equally likely. WHY do you think your answer is more likely? Is it, as Russel suggested, that it's what you were brought up with? If so, can you at least acknowledge that your indoctrination is as big a part of your belief than any rational reason?

I don't understand how you can entertain those four beliefs all at once.  How does that work out in you mind?

He doesn't. He entertains the belief that they are all possible. That's a single belief.

If you toss a (fair) die, I believe that it might come up 1, or 2, or 3, or 4, or 5, or 6, and that each of these has an equal possibility. That's not six beliefs, it's one.

Furthermore, it's possible to have contingent beliefs. I can believe that if you and I play a dice game you will use fair dice, but I can also believe that if I am incorrect in my initial belief, then I will lose. The second belief is contingent on the first one being wrong, but there is no problem with holding them both at once.

My belief is that there is no afterlife, and that death is simply an ending. I also believe that if I am wrong about that, then quite a few versions of the afterlife are equally likely. I've had different people, of different Christian denominations, tell me that I'll go to hell (because I'm not a Christian), purgatory (because I'm a sinner but not too bad and that I've accepted Jesus even though I don't know it), and heaven (because I'm nice). I've been brought up Jewish, and have been told that there is no afterlife but that I will be ressurected at the end of days. And those are just the options I've had serious conversations about. As far as I know I might be headed for Valhalla because I served in the military. I have no way or interest of judging between these and others, since I reject all of them. But if it happens that I'm wrong, I don't have any reason to believe any of these is more likely than the other.



Czhorat

  • Peltast
  • ***
  • Posts: 135
Reply #87 on: January 22, 2008, 11:10:05 AM
Quote from: Mr Tweedy
Can one solve all of the world's problems without abrogating free will? No. But could God have done better? In no particular order, here are a few things I would change.

1) The human reproductive system. It's figuratively and, as any female past the age of puberty will tell you, literally a mess. Monthly flows of hormones make it difficult for some women to control their moods. It's too hard for some people to get pregnant and too easy for others. At the very least it would be nice to have a simple "on/off" switch to avoid getting pregnant by accident and then turn ones fertility on when it's child conceiving time. 

2) Disease. This is an easy one. There's no reason for a just god to have created a world in which so many people are, through no fault of their own, painfully and terminally ill.

I see your points here.  The world seems to have a degree of inbuilt suffering, unrelated to any human actions.  My answers to this will probably not satisfy you, but I have two:

First, I would argue that physical suffering is not generally what makes people miserable.  We all know (or know of) people who have gone through horrible suffering and come out happy on the other side.  And we certainly all know people who have never so much as stubbed their toe who are miserable and makers of misery for others.  People are miserable when they see their lives as meaningless.  People who see purpose can be happy through suffering and even because of suffering.  I really don't think physical pain is of itself very important, all things considered.  (This is more a philosophical tangent than I want to get off on.  Ironically, that sounds pretty Buddhist.)

Second, the Bible is quite explicit in saying that most (if not all) of this suffering has come about due to sin in the world.  When God made nature, it was much nicer.  Exactly how sin messes up nature is not stated.  I have theories, but that's all they are.

Physical suffering can be very important, and the issues of disease, etc that I brought up can not be dismissed as "mere" physical suffering. First of all, for most people serious disease makes their lives worse not better. Second, there's the issue of those left behind. Children orphaned by parents taken too early by disease. Parents who have to bury children. Are you saying this is just?

As far as your second point is concerned, why should I or even you believe it? If the Bible is God's word, is it possible that he shaded the truth a bit to make himself look better?

Quote from: Mr Tweedy
3) The ambiguity of the message. I'm sorry, but writing a book is NOT the best way to spread your message, especially if the shelves are crowded with similar books containing different messages. Make press releases clearing up issues regarding homosexuality, masturbation, slavery, etc. If people are to commit atrocities, then let them not be in my name.
Again, I'd say the message is not really very ambiguous.  Check this out:

Russell Nash says that everyone should worship Yahweh!

Now, is Russell obligated to come and refute that?  Or has he already spoken clearly enough on the topic that readers should know that's not something Russell Nash would say?  If people read that and believe it, whose fault is that?  His?  Mine for writing it?  The reader for believing it?

All of the above. If I tried to kill you over someone's misstatement of Russell's position he'd probably say something. If I and a few thousand of my fellow Russellites started a war that he really didn't want in his name then he'd have, in my opinion, a moral obligation to say that it was very nice of us to think of him but that this wasn't really quite what he wanted.


(re: redistribution of wealth)
Quote
There are two big problems here, and they are this:  1.) If God comes along and messes with everybody's stuff every so often, then Russell no longer has the prerogative of telling Him to fuck off.  This would totally rob anyone of the option of not believing in God, which leads into 2.)  This would make most human action meaningless.  I don't have to work for myself: God will come along and fill up my my coffer on schedule.  I don't have to love my neighbor: God will take care of that.  I don't have to think about what I believe or why: The answer is literally in front of my face where I couldn't deny it if I wanted to.

God wants people to choose to be good and do right.  He wants partners and friends.  Taking so much out of our hands would rob us of choice and make out deeds and thoughts insignificant.  For our deeds to be meaningful, they have to be 1.) freely chosen and 2.) effective.

You sound like a free market capitalist purist who sees any government assistance as creating a cycle of dependency in which nobody will work. I'm not saying that all goods and wealth should be completely redistributed equally. Just that giving some people free will de-facto abrogates the free will of others. Why would God stand by, for instance, when countless thousands of Africans were kidnapped from their homes and sold as slaves here in America, sometimes with God's own words used as justification? You say that God doesn't want to take away the free will of the slave-traders, but I ask what about the free will of the slaves? That seems to be forgotten or ignored.


Quote
I think I've said several times that this world is screwed up.  The world we see around us now is broken on several levels, decayed, degraded from what it was made to be.  I am far from panglossian.  I am not arguing that the world is all good.  I am arguing that the world makes sense.

Would it make equal sense if  you applied the teaching of Islam or Hinduism or no religion at all? If not, why not?

Quote
Czhorat and Russell, you both mentioned that God does not acknowledge your existence.  (What a jerk!)  To that, I can only say that I don't relate to your experience.  As silly as it probably sounds to you, I say that I have something of a relationship with God.  There is dialog.  I'm not a prophet: I don't get revelations or visions, but I do claim there is a subtle but very noticeable communication between myself and God.  Occasionally (very rarely) this has amounted to explicit instructions, which I have followed to good results.  I have never heard words.  I actually struggled for a long time because my experience of God was so much less dramatic than some of the stories I'd heard from other people, but I'm cool with it now.

Impossible to evaluate without knowing more. Are you open to the possibility that you are mistaken or deluded?

Sure.  Do you watch "Stranger Things?"  In the pilot episode, a priest makes the horrifying discovery that invisible "prayer leaches" are floating above churches and literally eating the prayers that naive worshippers think are directing toward God.  If you could show me something like that, I'd certainly have to reconsider the source of my impressions.  But aside from prayer leaches, I'm not sure what sort of proof there could be of my delusion.

Are you open to the possibility that I'm not deluded?
I was thinking more about the ideas coming from your own brain than by replacing one unprovable supernatural entity with another. In any event, one person's subjective impression of something experienced only within their own mind in no way convinces me.

Quote
Do you see how the bookshelves full of competing books at the very least make it difficult to decide which message is the "true" one?

Absolutely.  It bugs me and I really wish people would quit writing them already.  But if people weren't free to write crap, where would that mean for their free agency?
Good. Now let's take the next step. Imagine you're a devout Russellite. Would you view your Bible the same way you would now view the Book of Russell? Getting back to the very start of this dialog, I'll re-ask this question: What reason is there for someone born and raised in a different faith to choose one form of religion over any other? If there's no good reason, then didn't God do a poor job of getting his message across, and isn't he being unfair in having acceptance of that message as a precondition for getting into heaven?


Quote
And why would a just god put some people at a disadvantage just because of where they happen to be born? Any reason, or is he just capricious? Alternatively, you could accept all religions as man-made which would account for local difference. Which solution makes more sense to you?

I think it's more telling if you flip that question around and ask why all religions are so similar.  There's a lot of truth in many religions.  For instance, they've all got this idea of personal corruption that everyone needs to have expunged.  Moral codes the world over have a lot of similarity (no one likes a traitor, for instance).  Why would that be?  Maybe because there's some underlying truth that they're all reaching toward and succeeding to unequal degrees?  Sounds like a reasonable explanation to me.

There's been lots of recent study on the underlying biology behind morality. Some of the reasons that certain forms of morality are constant could be evolutionary in nature. Moral codes against traitors and in favor of fairness, for example, even seem to be shared by non-human primates. I'd consider this one reason for similarities between religions. Another is that holy books tend to be written by those in power. They'd pick and choose stories designed to keep people in line, so to speak. Let's flip the question back. What about the differences? If, for instance, belief in Jesus is THE most important thing in Christianity, then why is it found ONLY in Christianity?


I asked once and don't think you answered - do you think those following a different faith are as "right" or as likely to be "right" as you are?

Well, no.  I mean, I'd be pretty stupid to devote my life to something that I was only 8% sure was right, wouldn't I?  Why would you bother with something that you think is only somewhat likely to be true?

Again, with all the differing possibilities, why?

I'll leave with another question to answer your point that for God to prove his existence would take away our potential for choice. How do you explain the stories in the Bible? Especially early on, God was constantly revealing himself and telling people what to do. Did he have less respect for people back then? Change his management style? Or is it just possible to believe that these stories are not to be taken literally and may or may not be even true?


Moderator:  Fixed quoting errors
« Last Edit: January 22, 2008, 11:56:42 AM by Russell Nash »

The Word of Nash is the word of Nash and it is Nash's word.


Russell Nash

  • Guest
Reply #88 on: January 22, 2008, 11:57:38 AM
Quote from: Mr Tweedy
3) The ambiguity of the message. I'm sorry, but writing a book is NOT the best way to spread your message, especially if the shelves are crowded with similar books containing different messages. Make press releases clearing up issues regarding homosexuality, masturbation, slavery, etc. If people are to commit atrocities, then let them not be in my name.
Again, I'd say the message is not really very ambiguous.  Check this out:

Russell Nash says that everyone should worship Yahweh!

Now, is Russell obligated to come and refute that?  Or has he already spoken clearly enough on the topic that readers should know that's not something Russell Nash would say?  If people read that and believe it, whose fault is that?  His?  Mine for writing it?  The reader for believing it?

All of the above. If I tried to kill you over someone's misstatement of Russell's position he'd probably say something. If I and a few thousand of my fellow Russellites started a war that he really didn't want in his name then he'd have, in my opinion, a moral obligation to say that it was very nice of us to think of him but that this wasn't really quite what he wanted.
Ah, but you forget I'm a narcissistic megalomaniac, and I just want everyone screaming my name and directing their devotion to me.  I don't care why.



Chodon

  • Lochage
  • *****
  • Posts: 519
  • Molon Labe
Reply #89 on: January 22, 2008, 01:20:05 PM
One question I've always had is if Monotheists (Jews, Christians, Muslims) believe their immortal soul is in peril for sin why don't they fully dedicate their life to their religion by becoming a rabbi, priest, or immam?  I mean, it's your immortal soul!  What could be more important?  Your job?  Your family?  Come on!

I'm not saying I believe one side or the other, just curious what others think about this.

Those who would sacrifice liberty for safety deserve neither.


eytanz

  • Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 6109
Reply #90 on: January 22, 2008, 01:55:22 PM
One question I've always had is if Monotheists (Jews, Christians, Muslims) believe their immortal soul is in peril for sin why don't they fully dedicate their life to their religion by becoming a rabbi, priest, or immam?  I mean, it's your immortal soul!  What could be more important?  Your job?  Your family?  Come on!

I'm not saying I believe one side or the other, just curious what others think about this.

Jews don't believe their immortal soul is in peril. That's a Christian notion.

As for whether it's best to be a rabbi or not - well, first of all, only few people can be rabbis at any one time because a rabbi is sort of like the village elder - it's not really a job you can start out at until you've done something else for a while and gotten wisdom and experience. But among the ultra-orthodox branches of Judaism there are certainly those who believe that all men should devote all their time to study and prayer. That makes them more equivalent to monks than to priests, even though they are not celibate (since being married and having children is also a religious obligation). But that's a relatively recent development, and not accepted by many less extreme branches of the faith. In general, it's considered superior to lead a succesful religious life and a succesful secular life in parallel - if you can contribute to your community *and* be devout, God will judge you more favorably than if you do one to the exclusion of the other.



Mr. Tweedy

  • Lochage
  • *****
  • Posts: 497
  • I am a sloth.
    • Free Mode
Reply #91 on: January 22, 2008, 11:00:03 PM
Czhorat, it seems to me that most of your comments at this point are not so much logical objections as statements of disapproval.  God should have done it this way.  God is inefficient.  God is unfair.  God has the wrong priorities.  Well, if you just don't like God and the way He does things, well, sorry, but I have nothing to say to that.  I like God a lot, myself.  I hope you will too someday.

There were a couple of things that were real objections:

As far as your second point is concerned, why should I or even you believe it? If the Bible is God's word, is it possible that he shaded the truth a bit to make himself look better?

Well... lots of reasons, most of which you would probably think are bunk.  Shaded the truth?  Well, if God shaded the truth He probably would have made Himself seem nicer and cuddlier.  As it is, He promises His followers suffering and comes off as pretty scary a lot of the time, and a lot of it's confusing, and there's the whole part where He dies...  I don't think it's a puff piece.

Just that giving some people free will de-facto abrogates the free will of others. Why would God stand by, for instance, when countless thousands of Africans were kidnapped from their homes and sold as slaves here in America, sometimes with God's own words used as justification? You say that God doesn't want to take away the free will of the slave-traders, but I ask what about the free will of the slaves? That seems to be forgotten or ignored.

Essentially, you're complaining that actions have consequences which effect other people.  You seem to be advocating some kind of system where nothing any of us does effects anyone else, which sounds, to me, worse than the current situation.  The world would not be dynamic.

The slave traders did evil by (among other things) restricting the free choice of the slaves, but that does not mean the slaves had no choices to make.  There are always choices, even it's simply the choice of whether or not to be courteous to the next person on your chain.  Our actions can hinder and restrict the freedom of others, but not abrogate.  Specifically, the choice to love or hate is always available.

I was thinking more about the ideas coming from your own brain than by replacing one unprovable supernatural entity with another. In any event, one person's subjective impression of something experienced only within their own mind in no way convinces me.

Well, for that matter, your claim to never have had any experience of God doesn't convince me.  It's an impasse, I'm afraid.

I'll leave with another question to answer your point that for God to prove his existence would take away our potential for choice. How do you explain the stories in the Bible? Especially early on, God was constantly revealing himself and telling people what to do. Did he have less respect for people back then? Change his management style? Or is it just possible to believe that these stories are not to be taken literally and may or may not be even true?

Hmm...  That actually a good point.  I stand corrected.  For God to prove His existence in blinding, undeniable ways would not stop people from rejecting Him.  Lots of people in the Bible saw jaw-dropping miracles and still rejected.  The people of Israel walked through the parted Red Sea and were worshiping a metal cow a month later.

I think what that shows us is that blinding, undeniable proofs aren't what convince people to love God.

Hear my very very short story on The Drabblecast!


Czhorat

  • Peltast
  • ***
  • Posts: 135
Reply #92 on: January 22, 2008, 11:44:43 PM
Czhorat, it seems to me that most of your comments at this point are not so much logical objections as statements of disapproval.  God should have done it this way.  God is inefficient.  God is unfair.  God has the wrong priorities.  Well, if you just don't like God and the way He does things, well, sorry, but I have nothing to say to that.  I like God a lot, myself.  I hope you will too someday.

Like or dislike has nothing to do with it. God doesn't exist. I was just pointing out that the fantasy creature you claim to love and worship isn't as nice as you seem to think he is, even if I accepted his existence as true.

There were a couple of things that were real objections:

As far as your second point is concerned, why should I or even you believe it? If the Bible is God's word, is it possible that he shaded the truth a bit to make himself look better?

Well... lots of reasons, most of which you would probably think are bunk.  Shaded the truth?  Well, if God shaded the truth He probably would have made Himself seem nicer and cuddlier.  As it is, He promises His followers suffering and comes off as pretty scary a lot of the time, and a lot of it's confusing, and there's the whole part where He dies...  I don't think it's a puff piece.

Quote
Just that giving some people free will de-facto abrogates the free will of others. Why would God stand by, for instance, when countless thousands of Africans were kidnapped from their homes and sold as slaves here in America, sometimes with God's own words used as justification? You say that God doesn't want to take away the free will of the slave-traders, but I ask what about the free will of the slaves? That seems to be forgotten or ignored.

Essentially, you're complaining that actions have consequences which effect other people.  You seem to be advocating some kind of system where nothing any of us does effects anyone else, which sounds, to me, worse than the current situation.  The world would not be dynamic.

No, I'm not. I'm pointing out the inconsistency in your thinking. Free will is the most important thing to God, SO important that people are free to believe in him or disbelieve in him. Millions of people are born without the freedom to pursue anything of value in their lives because they're too busy starving to death, are enslaved by their fellow man, or are forced to live as second-class citizens because of some accident of birth.

Now, back to the point at hand.

Quote
Good. Now let's take the next step. Imagine you're a devout Russellite. Would you view your Bible the same way you would now view the Book of Russell? Getting back to the very start of this dialog, I'll re-ask this question: What reason is there for someone born and raised in a different faith to choose one form of religion over any other? If there's no good reason, then didn't God do a poor job of getting his message across, and isn't he being unfair in having acceptance of that message as a precondition for getting into heaven?

You never answered this. The closest you came was to my answer about different religions:

Quote
I think it's more telling if you flip that question around and ask why all religions are so similar.  There's a lot of truth in many religions.  For instance, they've all got this idea of personal corruption that everyone needs to have expunged.  Moral codes the world over have a lot of similarity (no one likes a traitor, for instance).  Why would that be?  Maybe because there's some underlying truth that they're all reaching toward and succeeding to unequal degrees?  Sounds like a reasonable explanation to me.

To which I answered:
Quote
There's been lots of recent study on the underlying biology behind morality. Some of the reasons that certain forms of morality are constant could be evolutionary in nature. Moral codes against traitors and in favor of fairness, for example, even seem to be shared by non-human primates. I'd consider this one reason for similarities between religions. Another is that holy books tend to be written by those in power. They'd pick and choose stories designed to keep people in line, so to speak. Let's flip the question back. What about the differences? If, for instance, belief in Jesus is THE most important thing in Christianity, then why is it found ONLY in Christianity?

I think it's pretty clear that morality, the existence of the world and of people in it, and anything else can be explained just fine without the need for a God. If you do imagine God then there's all kinds of hand-waving in which people like you have engage to try to reconcile books written centuries ago with what we now know in the modern world. If you have an answer to the central question, of why a just god would stack the deck so heavily against people not born to families already believing in him, I'd love to see it. If you have an answer to the question of why a rationale outsider should believe one faith over another, or even a rational reason YOU believe in it, I'm all ears. Other than that, you're talking in circles and, for the purpose of this conversation, I'm just about done with you.

The Word of Nash is the word of Nash and it is Nash's word.


Tango Alpha Delta

  • Hipparch
  • ******
  • Posts: 1778
    • Tad's Happy Funtime
Reply #93 on: January 23, 2008, 02:49:59 AM
How they got the longboats to the Great Salt Lake may remain ever a mystery, but there they sat, bristling with spears and plated with gaily painted shields.  The hoary hoard of sea-grimed warriors that disembarked and waded the last few yards to shore stayed close, guarded, wanting to preserve the moment of surprise until it was too late for their prey to rise to a defense.

But then, as one, a line of cheerful, clean-cut faces rose from their innocuous hiding places, materializing as if from no where.  Sporting blond crewcuts over smiling, apple pie cheeks; armed only with thick, blue books and protected only by narrow, black ties clipped to freshly starched white dress shirts, they were mounted on bicycles, but were not moving.

Fearless Odin Olafson strode forward, terrifying from the horned helm and spiked eye patch down to the menacing, barbed chain around the hem of his breech-clout.  He was met by Elder Joseph Brigham, with his firm handshake and his devout sincerity.  "What brings you to Utah, friend?" he greeted the hulking Norseman.

"You invaded our lands, bringing fairy tales and pyramid schemes to entrap our feeble minded and sentimental!!" roared the Viking chieftain.

"Well, my heck, where else would we send missionaries who speak Scandinavian tongues?" Elder Joe clucked, and shook his head with tolerant amusement.  "Besides... it's not a fairy tale.  I know it to be true because I believe it.  And faith itself is proof, especially if it's strong enough!"

"Circular logic!!  The tricks of Loki!!" cried the mighty son of Olaf, and he swung his battle axe above his head to signal the attack...

...but... where was the roar of his men?  Where was the brutal clank of metal on wood?  Where were the screams of agony from the hated enemy?

He looked to the right, and saw Nils Erikson admiring a bright Huffy as his erstwhile opponent tried on his helm.  He looked to the left and spied Henrik Arvidsen on his knees in tearful prayer with two of the young, fresh elders.  He bellowed at his men, demanding to know what they were doing.  Jan Svenson tugged at his shoulder plate, and said,  "They are really very nice, and have promised each of us our own Valhalla to repopulate as we see fit, if we only give up our violent ways, learn hygiene, and give up caffiene."

Broken, Odin turned back to Elder Joe, who seemed to be genuinely not gloating.  He sighed, and let his axe fall to the sand.

"You know," said Elder Joe, pulling out a magazine titled Consolidated Products, "With the nutritional imbalances you've suffered at sea, you might benefit from some of our tea tree oil products..."

Odin wept.

This Wiki Won't Wrangle Itself!

I finally published my book - Tad's Happy Funtime is on Amazon!


Mr. Tweedy

  • Lochage
  • *****
  • Posts: 497
  • I am a sloth.
    • Free Mode
Reply #94 on: January 23, 2008, 05:33:28 AM
TAD, that was hilarious!  I had to stifle because the women of my house are sleeping, but I would most certainly have given a hearty Viking-like laugh otherwise.  Bravo!  Now I'll take a sip of my caffeinated beverage...

--------------------------

If you have an answer to the question of why a rationale outsider should believe one faith over another, or even a rational reason YOU believe in it, I'm all ears. Other than that, you're talking in circles and, for the purpose of this conversation, I'm just about done with you.
My sentiments also, minus the anger.  I'll answer your questions (most likely not to your satisfaction) and knock off because it's clear that you aren't going to find my reasoning acceptable.

Like or dislike has nothing to do with it. God doesn't exist. I was just pointing out that the fantasy creature you claim to love and worship isn't as nice as you seem to think he is, even if I accepted his existence as true.

Nice?  Whoever said God was nice?  God is big and scary and dangerous.  He's also merciful, loving and just, but that doesn't cancel out the scary and dangerous.  This is the guy who sent the plagues on Egypt.  This is the guy who told the Israelites to massacre whole cities.  This is the guy who invented sharks and scorpions.  I would never describe God as "nice."  I would actually think that calling Him "nice" would be something of an insult.

Millions of people are born without the freedom to pursue anything of value in their lives because they're too busy starving to death, are enslaved by their fellow man, or are forced to live as second-class citizens because of some accident of birth.

My response to that statement is that I find it disturbingly cynical and condescending.  Who are you to declare what is valuable in someone else's life?  Do you mean to say that being hungry, poor, or enslaved makes one's life meaningless?  I disagree with vehemence.  This is not to say that I'm okay with or don't care about people being any of those things (far from it), but the physical circumstances of one's life are not what determine it's value or its happiness.  A life of poverty is no less worth living than a life of luxury.

Good. Now let's take the next step. Imagine you're a devout Russellite. Would you view your Bible the same way you would now view the Book of Russell? Getting back to the very start of this dialog, I'll re-ask this question: What reason is there for someone born and raised in a different faith to choose one form of religion over any other? If there's no good reason, then didn't God do a poor job of getting his message across, and isn't he being unfair in having acceptance of that message as a precondition for getting into heaven?

If God is indeed a "fantasy creature," then you're right, there is no reason.  If all religion is crap, then there is no reason at all to pick one piece of crap over another.  I have no answer that you will accept as valid because my answer hinges on the belief that my religion is true, which you emphatically deny.

That said, my unacceptable answer about someone who grow up a Russellite is this:

If I were a devout Russellite who was really serious about my faith, then I would delve into it and discover that not all parts of it were equal.  Parts would make sense and be borne out by experience and parts would be revealed as foolish.  I would wonder why this discrepancy.

I would search for answers.  At this point, if I sincerely want to know the truth, then I think the Holy Spirit (which you deny exists) would give guidance.  If I happened to live near Christians, I would encounter them and they could explain what's what and I would find that here, indeed, is my answer that fills in the gaps of Russellism.  If I did not live near Christians, then I think God would lead toward truth in other ways.  Although I would never arrive at a religion that looked like Western Christianity, I think it's entirely possible that I would arrive at the crucial understandings.

If I really don't care about truth but am only interested in pursuing my selfish interests (whatever they might be) then Russellism will suit me just fine and I will never find the gaps.  If I do not seek the truth, I have no chance of finding it.

I think it's pretty clear that morality, the existence of the world and of people in it, and anything else can be explained just fine without the need for a God.
I disagree, but again you would say that my evidence is not valid.  If you're really interested in the question, then I'd challenge you to read the book "The Edge of Evolution" by Michael Behe.  I'm about half way through it, but what I've read so far has been very educational.  Of course it's all pseudo-science and religious dogma in disguise, but a lot of times reading someone's tripe helps you better understand the truth.

(Yes, Russell Nash, I'm aware that you think I'm a monstrous idiot for taking anything Behe has to say seriously.  Duly noted.  No need to make a post saying it.)

As a final point, you have as much as said that you think I'm delusional, that I believe in things that don't exist and imagine a dialog with a person who isn't there.  Once you've crossed that line and declared that a person is less than sane, there really isn't anything more he can say to you, is there?  At this point, anything I say is suspect simply because I said it, in which case there isn't much point in my saying it.
« Last Edit: January 23, 2008, 05:40:15 AM by Mr. Tweedy »

Hear my very very short story on The Drabblecast!


Mr. Tweedy

  • Lochage
  • *****
  • Posts: 497
  • I am a sloth.
    • Free Mode
Reply #95 on: January 23, 2008, 06:03:50 AM
Quote from: Czhorat


I believe that I will go nowhere, but that reincarnation, heaven, and hell have pretty much equal possibilities. It IS possible to not know and think any alternative is equally likely. WHY do you think your answer is more likely? Is it, as Russel suggested, that it's what you were brought up with? If so, can you at least acknowledge that your indoctrination is as big a part of your belief than any rational reason?

I don't understand how you can entertain those four beliefs all at once.  How does that work out in you mind?

He doesn't. He entertains the belief that they are all possible. That's a single belief.

If you toss a (fair) die, I believe that it might come up 1, or 2, or 3, or 4, or 5, or 6, and that each of these has an equal possibility. That's not six beliefs, it's one.

Furthermore, it's possible to have contingent beliefs. I can believe that if you and I play a dice game you will use fair dice, but I can also believe that if I am incorrect in my initial belief, then I will lose. The second belief is contingent on the first one being wrong, but there is no problem with holding them both at once.

My belief is that there is no afterlife, and that death is simply an ending. I also believe that if I am wrong about that, then quite a few versions of the afterlife are equally likely. I've had different people, of different Christian denominations, tell me that I'll go to hell (because I'm not a Christian), purgatory (because I'm a sinner but not too bad and that I've accepted Jesus even though I don't know it), and heaven (because I'm nice). I've been brought up Jewish, and have been told that there is no afterlife but that I will be ressurected at the end of days. And those are just the options I've had serious conversations about. As far as I know I might be headed for Valhalla because I served in the military. I have no way or interest of judging between these and others, since I reject all of them. But if it happens that I'm wrong, I don't have any reason to believe any of these is more likely than the other.

I like the elegance of your die analogy, but I don't think it fits.  A die is a single entity, of which 1-6 are characteristics.  To say you believe in an equal chance of 1-6 is simply to say that you believe in the die.

Unlike 1-6, our four afterlife options are not parts of a single whole.  They are disparate ideas from different sources that have no real relationship with each other.  Now, there could be a religion somewhere which teaches that people go at random to one of those four fates and you could believe in that, but that isn't the same as believing in all four in their current disparate state.

It is also not the same to say "I believe in all four" and to say "I don't know."  The former means that you believe that all four options are viable and have a 25% chance of actually occurring.  The later expresses no opinion about the four.

Hear my very very short story on The Drabblecast!


Czhorat

  • Peltast
  • ***
  • Posts: 135
Reply #96 on: January 23, 2008, 10:28:29 AM
I disagree, but again you would say that my evidence is not valid.  If you're really interested in the question, then I'd challenge you to read the book "The Edge of Evolution" by Michael Behe.  I'm about half way through it, but what I've read so far has been very educational.  Of course it's all pseudo-science and religious dogma in disguise, but a lot of times reading someone's tripe helps you better understand the truth.

Would Behe be an "expert" in the field? Because if so, I've heard that the opinions of experts aren't worth anything.

Unless they agree with Mr Tweedy.

The Word of Nash is the word of Nash and it is Nash's word.


Russell Nash

  • Guest
Reply #97 on: January 23, 2008, 11:59:57 AM
I'll leave with another question to answer your point that for God to prove his existence would take away our potential for choice. How do you explain the stories in the Bible? Especially early on, God was constantly revealing himself and telling people what to do. Did he have less respect for people back then? Change his management style? Or is it just possible to believe that these stories are not to be taken literally and may or may not be even true?

Hmm...  That actually a good point.  I stand corrected.  For God to prove His existence in blinding, undeniable ways would not stop people from rejecting Him.  Lots of people in the Bible saw jaw-dropping miracles and still rejected.  The people of Israel walked through the parted Red Sea and were worshiping a metal cow a month later.

I think what that shows us is that blinding, undeniable proofs aren't what convince people to love God.

Mr Tweedy, you either don't know the story (which Iseriously doubt) or you are misrepresnting it.

The people Moses was leading were up to this point polytheastic.  They didn't not believe in Yahweh.  They believed in a whole host of different gods.  Moses didn't tell them how long they were going to be staying in that area, so they started to settle.  This included farming.  The golden cow was the representation of the local god of fertility.  Eventhough smutty Christians love to say that fertility gods are just for sex (spiritual Viagra so to say), they are primarily for farming, praying for the fertility of the land.  The idea being that the people will be able to multiply if there is enough food.  It was only after this that Moses informed them that their new god was jealous and demanded theo-monogamy.

But then again if you look at the history of the region you see that every god was parting waters for everyone back then.  It was a common metaphor.  Whenever someone made a great change in their life for the better, it was said that his god parted the waters for him so that he could walk to the other side.  So instead of saying, "through god's help I was able to kick cocaine", they'd say, "Yahweh parted the waters for me and I was able to walk to the other side of the river where I don't need cocaine."

And The Church of Russell Nash can part the waters for you too.  Just send your prayer in an envelope with $100 bill to cover s/h costs to:

TCoRN
1313 Mockingbird lane
10101 Berlin
Germany



Russell Nash

  • Guest
Reply #98 on: January 23, 2008, 12:11:03 PM
Quote from: Czhorat


I believe that I will go nowhere, but that reincarnation, heaven, and hell have pretty much equal possibilities. It IS possible to not know and think any alternative is equally likely. WHY do you think your answer is more likely? Is it, as Russel suggested, that it's what you were brought up with? If so, can you at least acknowledge that your indoctrination is as big a part of your belief than any rational reason?

I don't understand how you can entertain those four beliefs all at once.  How does that work out in you mind?

He doesn't. He entertains the belief that they are all possible. That's a single belief.

If you toss a (fair) die, I believe that it might come up 1, or 2, or 3, or 4, or 5, or 6, and that each of these has an equal possibility. That's not six beliefs, it's one.

Furthermore, it's possible to have contingent beliefs. I can believe that if you and I play a dice game you will use fair dice, but I can also believe that if I am incorrect in my initial belief, then I will lose. The second belief is contingent on the first one being wrong, but there is no problem with holding them both at once.

My belief is that there is no afterlife, and that death is simply an ending. I also believe that if I am wrong about that, then quite a few versions of the afterlife are equally likely. I've had different people, of different Christian denominations, tell me that I'll go to hell (because I'm not a Christian), purgatory (because I'm a sinner but not too bad and that I've accepted Jesus even though I don't know it), and heaven (because I'm nice). I've been brought up Jewish, and have been told that there is no afterlife but that I will be ressurected at the end of days. And those are just the options I've had serious conversations about. As far as I know I might be headed for Valhalla because I served in the military. I have no way or interest of judging between these and others, since I reject all of them. But if it happens that I'm wrong, I don't have any reason to believe any of these is more likely than the other.

I like the elegance of your die analogy, but I don't think it fits.  A die is a single entity, of which 1-6 are characteristics.  To say you believe in an equal chance of 1-6 is simply to say that you believe in the die.

Unlike 1-6, our four afterlife options are not parts of a single whole.  They are disparate ideas from different sources that have no real relationship with each other.  Now, there could be a religion somewhere which teaches that people go at random to one of those four fates and you could believe in that, but that isn't the same as believing in all four in their current disparate state.

It is also not the same to say "I believe in all four" and to say "I don't know."  The former means that you believe that all four options are viable and have a 25% chance of actually occurring.  The later expresses no opinion about the four.

You're misreading the analogy.  Let me add one little thing to eytanz's example.  I do not believe you have a die in your hand, but if you do and you roll it, it will come up 1-6.  It is exactly the same as saying, I do not believe in anything after death, but if there turns out to be something, it could be any of these things modern religions mention.  There is no reason to pick 1-6 if I don't think you have a die in your hand.  There is no reason to pick a favorite existence for after death, since I don't think any of them is going to happen.



Mr. Tweedy

  • Lochage
  • *****
  • Posts: 497
  • I am a sloth.
    • Free Mode
Reply #99 on: January 23, 2008, 02:14:31 PM
I disagree, but again you would say that my evidence is not valid.  If you're really interested in the question, then I'd challenge you to read the book "The Edge of Evolution" by Michael Behe.  I'm about half way through it, but what I've read so far has been very educational.  Of course it's all pseudo-science and religious dogma in disguise, but a lot of times reading someone's tripe helps you better understand the truth.

Would Behe be an "expert" in the field? Because if so, I've heard that the opinions of experts aren't worth anything.

Unless they agree with Mr Tweedy.

The opinions of experts are worthwhile if they hold up to critical analysis, i.e. if they make sense.  They should not be taken on faith simply because the speaker bears the title "expert."  I am inviting you to analyze Behe and come to your own conclusion about the validity of his ideas.  You can decide for yourself whether or not he is worthy of any particular title.

Hear my very very short story on The Drabblecast!