Author Topic: How do you get to heaven split from EP129  (Read 81658 times)

Czhorat

  • Peltast
  • ***
  • Posts: 135
Reply #25 on: January 13, 2008, 03:36:43 PM
If you don't need a group to feel safe, more power to you.  I can tell you it can be awkward to think of things to say when someone sneezes, and it makes for some uncomfortable dinners with your religious family members,...
... to say nothing of what to exclaim when you're having an orgasm  ;D

Names are OK, so long as you remember to use the name of the right lover.

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 #26 on: January 13, 2008, 03:41:45 PM
If you don't need a group to feel safe, more power to you.  I can tell you it can be awkward to think of things to say when someone sneezes, and it makes for some uncomfortable dinners with your religious family members,...
... to say nothing of what to exclaim when you're having an orgasm  ;D
[/quote]

I don't recommend (unless you are trying to guarantee no repeat visits):
* By the beard of Odin!!
* Kali, Kali, Kali!!  (either they get the reference, or they want to know just WTF "Callie" is!)
* Oh, Buddha!!

Do recommend:
* Sweet Goddess!

This Wiki Won't Wrangle Itself!

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


eytanz

  • Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 6109
Reply #27 on: January 13, 2008, 03:44:29 PM
When it comes down to it religious faith is, almost by definition, things one believes without proof.
No "almost" about it.  Belief in the absence of evidence is the very definition of faith.

We had this discussion already, where it was pointed out that whether or not that is true depends a lot on what you mean when you say "evidence". If you mean "Belief in the absence of objective facts that can be pointed out to other people is the very definition of faith" I agree with you, but if you mean "Belief in the absence of cause to believe" I think that's a mistaken view of faith.

Quote
If you don't need a group to feel safe, more power to you.  I can tell you it can be awkward to think of things to say when someone sneezes, and it makes for some uncomfortable dinners with your religious family members,...
... to say nothing of what to exclaim when you're having an orgasm  ;D

Heh :)

That said, I've never had trouble thinking of what to tell people when they sneeze - I'm perfectly content to say "God bless you" (though normally I'd just say "bless you"), precisely because that string of words is pretty meaningless to me. It always surprised me that people who believe in that sort of thing would be able to say that, since doesn't that count as using God's name in vain?
« Last Edit: January 13, 2008, 03:46:44 PM by eytanz »



eytanz

  • Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 6109
Reply #28 on: January 13, 2008, 03:45:40 PM
Names are OK, so long as you remember to use the name of the right lover.

What if you are an atheist having sex with someone named Jesus? That might get awkwardly ambiguous.



Czhorat

  • Peltast
  • ***
  • Posts: 135
Reply #29 on: January 13, 2008, 03:48:48 PM
Names are OK, so long as you remember to use the name of the right lover.

What if you are an atheist having sex with someone named Jesus? That might get awkwardly ambiguous.

That's why I avoid having sex with people named Jesus. Well, that and that my wife would most likely not understand.

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


Czhorat

  • Peltast
  • ***
  • Posts: 135
Reply #30 on: January 13, 2008, 03:52:44 PM
When it comes down to it religious faith is, almost by definition, things one believes without proof.
No "almost" about it.  Belief in the absence of evidence is the very definition of faith.

We had this discussion already, where it was pointed out that whether or not that is true depends a lot on what you mean when you say "evidence". If you mean "Belief in the absence of objective facts that can be pointed out to other people is the very definition of faith" I agree with you, but if you mean "Belief in the absence of cause to believe" I think that's a mistaken view of faith.

Most likely true, but I'm not sure what the cause to believe is in most cases. I know it probably comes across as argumentative, but this is a legitimate gap in understanding. Why, for instance, does Mr. Tweedy believe the Bible while rejecting the teachings of the Catholic church, the Koran, or the Buddha? Why does a Muslim accept the Koran but reject the book of Mormon? And, more to the point, what makes you so sure that you're right and everyone else is wrong?

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


eytanz

  • Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 6109
Reply #31 on: January 13, 2008, 04:19:07 PM
Most likely true, but I'm not sure what the cause to believe is in most cases. I know it probably comes across as argumentative, but this is a legitimate gap in understanding. Why, for instance, does Mr. Tweedy believe the Bible while rejecting the teachings of the Catholic church, the Koran, or the Buddha? Why does a Muslim accept the Koran but reject the book of Mormon? And, more to the point, what makes you so sure that you're right and everyone else is wrong?

Good questions all. And all but the last one questions I can't answer since my own beliefs include a rejection of all those teachings. As for the last question - I'm not. I believe what feels right to me. As long as other people believe what they feel is right (as opposed to people who make themselves believe something that does not come naturally to them), I have no reason to believe that they are wrong. If we don't agree, I have no explanation of that, but I also don't particularly care. It's not my problem what other people believe (as long as they don't try to impose it on me), nor do I care about being right or wrong in any sort of absolute objective sense. I care about being true to myself.

Of course, that doesn't mean I don't have issues with specific faiths and their philosophies. I have major issues with Christianity, for example, even though I occasionally try to defend it here from what I consider spurious criticism. But I can't say with any sort of certainty that I am more right than any Christian on these issues.



Thaurismunths

  • High Priest of TCoRN
  • Hipparch
  • ******
  • Posts: 1421
  • Praise N-sh, for it is right and good!
Reply #32 on: January 13, 2008, 04:52:13 PM
I don't mean to put down anyones views, or support any particular religion, faith, or creed, but why are you all doing this?
The fine points differ, but this is the same argument that's happened on this forum a half dozen times already. It never goes well and it never ends. It's amazingly frustrating for me to see another religion discussion firing up again. What is it you're getting out if it?

I know, I know; If I don't like it, I don't have to read it. What harm is it doing me? None.
But what good is it doing the forums? Aren't their whole forums dedicated to this kind of discussion?

How do you fight a bully that can un-make history?


eytanz

  • Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 6109
Reply #33 on: January 13, 2008, 05:09:42 PM
I think the answer to why we keep on doing this is simple, actually. It's because these questions are important questions in our culture, and they arise again and again - sometimes directly and sometime indirectly - from the actual stories. And note that while a lot of the same people (including myself) keep getting involved in these issues, there are a lot of relatively new people to the forums, who have not previously participated in these threads, who not only got involved but, in this particular thread, are really the ones who started the discussion. What that means is that it's a topic that a lot of people want to keep debating.

As for myself, I'm fine with not discussing them, but if there is a discussion, I will participate, at least as long as the discussion hasn't devolved into personal attacks. Which this one hasn't, and hopefully won't.



Tango Alpha Delta

  • Hipparch
  • ******
  • Posts: 1778
    • Tad's Happy Funtime
Reply #34 on: January 13, 2008, 05:12:47 PM
I don't mean to put down anyones views, or support any particular religion, faith, or creed, but why are you all doing this?
The fine points differ, but this is the same argument that's happened on this forum a half dozen times already. It never goes well and it never ends. It's amazingly frustrating for me to see another religion discussion firing up again. What is it you're getting out if it?

I know, I know; If I don't like it, I don't have to read it. What harm is it doing me? None.
But what good is it doing the forums? Aren't their whole forums dedicated to this kind of discussion?

Good question; I asked it after spending twenty minutes writing a treatise on the difference between "proof" and "evidence" for this thread...

But the answer to your question (at least my answer) is that we judge the things people say based on what we know about them.  Or think we know.  This comes up a lot because our chosen passion touches on a lot of these questions anyway.  The place where science and the unknown join is turbulent and muddy... and it's a heck of a lot of fun to charge in and splash.

The attraction for me is that, like eytanz, I have rejected organized religion; not many people can take a pragmatic view of this, so I don't have a "group" to identify with.  Since I don't have a church to go to and talk about this stuff, I tend to get drawn in wherever I see the discussion taking place.

Not only that (and I mean no disrespect to any of you, but this is always in the back of my mind) religion IS a kind of science fiction.  There is world building, suspension of disbelief, and an interplay of character types wrestling with problems of varying depth; all the elements of good speculative fiction.  The fact that there are people who believe it is real complicates things (try explaining to a REAL Trekkie that there are no transporters), but to me, it's all good clean fun.

This Wiki Won't Wrangle Itself!

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


DDog

  • Matross
  • ****
  • Posts: 187
    • Twitter
Reply #35 on: January 13, 2008, 05:56:35 PM
Every Unitarian Universalist I have met has described hirself as a "recovering" something, be it Catholic, Baptist, whatever.  (But they are a lot of fun to spend time with.)
Something my very existence can refute! ;) UU born and raised, if you count chatting around each other on a web forum as meeting. (Also I must compliment you on your use of "hirself.")

Quote from: Tango Alpha Delta
I can tell you it can be awkward to think of things to say when someone sneezes
Gesundheit.

Quote from: Tango Alpha Delta
* Kali, Kali, Kali!!  (either they get the reference, or they want to know just WTF "Callie" is!)
Ouch. You might soon find tornado, flood, and fire on your house to boot. She's more inclined toward giving you exactly what you asked for than your average god.

Ask a Tranny Podcast
"Watching someone bootstrap themselves into sentience is the most science fiction thing you can do." -wintermute


Mr. Tweedy

  • Lochage
  • *****
  • Posts: 497
  • I am a sloth.
    • Free Mode
Reply #36 on: January 13, 2008, 09:28:01 PM
No, you're not wrong, and that precisely illustrates my point about loving God.  The most moral person in the world can go to Hell, because going to Heaven or Hell is not a matter of how moral one is (which addresses what TAD was saying).  Anyone can follow rules: God isn't please by simply following a set of rules, as illustrated by the numerous times in the prophets (ex: Isaiah 1) when God declares that the Jews' observance of the religious ceremonies and festivals–which God ordained–are disgusting to Him unless they are motivated by love for God and accompanied by love for neighbors.

I've always thought this seemed to indicate a God with a very fragile sense of self-worth. The most important standard for someone to live by is to love and worship him? That's part of my problem with the morality of the monotheistic faiths; it seems very self-serving on God's part.

If God were (like Philip Pullman's Authority) just some really big guy, then you'd be spot on.  But if God is the ultimate cause of the Universe and inventor of all the good things in it, then it's a very different story.  In that case, not only is God completely justified in expecting love and worship, it is also the only rational thing for His creations to do.  Loving and worshiping God is not a matter of massaging His ego so He'll like you and do you favors, it's a matter of appreciating, respecting, integrating with and ultimately enjoying Reality.  Conversely, failure to love and worship God constitutes the ultimate rejection of Reality.

Does God's status as ultimate Reality make God self-serving?  I don't know; maybe.  I don't think it's a relevant question.  If God is, then that is an ontological fact to be dealt with, a fact which has nothing to do with God's sense of self-worth.  The situation is what it is.

The idea that God is self-serving also strikes me as odd because loving and worshipping God is the surest route to fulfillment and happiness that I have personally witnessed or experienced.  If my worship makes God feel good, that's great; if I can return to God some of the benefit He's given me, I am eager to do so.

My bigger question, and one that we might not be able to answer here, is why one should think that one religion is "right" and the others are wrong? Why accept Jesus and not Mohammed? Why not Islam or Buddhism? When it comes down to it religious faith is, almost by definition, things one believes without proof.

Well, I've got lots of reasons.  Convergent lines of evidence, you might say.  I'm not going to enumerate them here for the simple reason that doing so would start its own debate as to their validity.

As to the general question: One must believe something, mustn't one?  As humans, we don't really have to option of having no beliefs in the same way that worms and toads do.  The universe does not permit contradictions: Two things cannot both be true if they oppose each other.  If a person is intellectually honest, they are forced to make an exclusive choice at some point.  You can't have both Jesus and Mohammed.  (This does not, of course remove from other the ability to make their own exclusive choices.)

Hear my very very short story on The Drabblecast!


DDog

  • Matross
  • ****
  • Posts: 187
    • Twitter
Reply #37 on: January 13, 2008, 10:48:16 PM
As to the general question: One must believe something, mustn't one?  As humans, we don't really have to option of having no beliefs in the same way that worms and toads do.  The universe does not permit contradictions: Two things cannot both be true if they oppose each other.  If a person is intellectually honest, they are forced to make an exclusive choice at some point.  You can't have both Jesus and Mohammed.  (This does not, of course remove from other the ability to make their own exclusive choices.)
Do you mean, you can't be both Christian and Muslim? I believe the Qur'an mentions Jesus and many other prophets held in esteem by Judaism and Christianity. In the case of Christianity and Islam, you're probably right, since their terms of membership tend to be mutually exclusive. There are, however, nonexclusive religions and systems of faith that don't necessarily subscribe to the XOR brand of logic.

I also have a question for you about Pascal's Wager--does the motive matter? Do you "lose points" or whatever for loving Adonai out of the selfish desire to stay out of Hell, or just in case he really is the one calling the shots, instead of out of genuinely "appreciating, respecting, integrating with and ultimately enjoying Reality"?

Ask a Tranny Podcast
"Watching someone bootstrap themselves into sentience is the most science fiction thing you can do." -wintermute


Tango Alpha Delta

  • Hipparch
  • ******
  • Posts: 1778
    • Tad's Happy Funtime
Reply #38 on: January 14, 2008, 12:54:37 AM

One must believe something, mustn't one?  As humans, we don't really have to option of having no beliefs in the same way that worms and toads do.  The universe does not permit contradictions: Two things cannot both be true if they oppose each other.  If a person is intellectually honest, they are forced to make an exclusive choice at some point.  You can't have both Jesus and Mohammed.

1) I don't lack beliefs "in the same way that worms and toads do;" I reject what I see as flawed human understanding of the way things are.  I noticed that the world did not end when I renounced my childhood faith, so I ran with it.

2) The universe is not fully understood; it just might permit all kinds of contradictions that we don't grasp yet.  In my own worldview, the universe IS "God" - and vice versa - and has little or nothing to do with the belief systems that humans come up with to explain its nature.  There is a lot of room for explanations, and yours just might be the right one in the end... but God hasn't said anything to me about it.  (Sending messages through humans doesn't strike me as a reliable medium for communication.)

3) If a person is intellectually honest, they can recognize the possibility that both Jesus and Mohammed existed, both said the things they are credited with saying, and both have been horribly, horribly misunderstood by 1500+ centuries worth of followers.

Do you mean, you can't be both Christian and Muslim? I believe the Qur'an mentions Jesus and many other prophets held in esteem by Judaism and Christianity. In the case of Christianity and Islam, you're probably right, since their terms of membership tend to be mutually exclusive. There are, however, nonexclusive religions and systems of faith that don't necessarily subscribe to the XOR brand of logic.

I believe in Boolean Faith; and yea, my scriptures are filled with wild-cards.  I can't tell whether or not there is a God, but I can tell you what's wrong with your faith; therefore, I am di-agnostic.

This Wiki Won't Wrangle Itself!

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


Thaurismunths

  • High Priest of TCoRN
  • Hipparch
  • ******
  • Posts: 1421
  • Praise N-sh, for it is right and good!
Reply #39 on: January 14, 2008, 04:29:20 AM
I'm just done with all the god threads on this forum. Every time one falls asleep another one gets fired up. They're just isotopes of the god/no god argument, a discussion that has no end. This isn't a comparative religions board and I think that allowing these kinds of arguments to be so prevalent (what is this, the 8th? 9th?) is hurting the forums.
I truly understand the allure of a debate where you can't be wrong and there isn't one better than over the existence and nature of Allah. It's quite seductive to be be in a argument where you are steadfast in your opinion, sure in your convictions, and know that your opponent can never prove you wrong. It's also immature and pointless. No matter how relevant to the human condition it may be, I don't think that a SF Forum is the appropriate place for it to happen.
I stopped posting for a while because I couldn't stand seeing these topics come up and try to "open peoples eyes". But I came back because I love the EP stories, and truly enjoy the depth and breadth of individuals who post here. Although there will always be friction between people with different views, why is it so often about religion here? Am I ignorant of how often these debates go on in other forums?
This time around I've been trying to watch what I say because I don't want to be the next spark in the next pointless ID debate, or be the object of intense scrutiny for my personal decisions but I still want to be a part of the forums. Discussion is great, I'm a pretty open person, but how many threads have been spun off from Episode Comments in to Gallmaufry? How many were religiously based? A disproportionate number I'd bet. Though I've yet to see a show of hands, I know Shwankie avoids the forums for the same reasons and I'm sure there are others.
Is there a solution to this?
Am I the only person who sees this as a bad thing?

How do you fight a bully that can un-make history?


Czhorat

  • Peltast
  • ***
  • Posts: 135
Reply #40 on: January 14, 2008, 06:00:16 AM

If God were (like Philip Pullman's Authority) just some really big guy, then you'd be spot on.  But if God is the ultimate cause of the Universe and inventor of all the good things in it, then it's a very different story.  In that case, not only is God completely justified in expecting love and worship, it is also the only rational thing for His creations to do.  Loving and worshiping God is not a matter of massaging His ego so He'll like you and do you favors, it's a matter of appreciating, respecting, integrating with and ultimately enjoying Reality.  Conversely, failure to love and worship God constitutes the ultimate rejection of Reality.

Alternatively, one could see that there is good and bad within reality and that, if there were an original maker of the world, we owe thanks for the good things and are in turn owed a big explanation for that bad things. Not recognizing the existence of a maker without proof is not a rejection of reality; just of one possible explanation thereof. Not loving the creator is no more a rejection of reality than not loving ones parents is a rejection of ones own existence.

Quote
Well, I've got lots of reasons.  Convergent lines of evidence, you might say.  I'm not going to enumerate them here for the simple reason that doing so would start its own debate as to their validity.

As to the general question: One must believe something, mustn't one?  As humans, we don't really have to option of having no beliefs in the same way that worms and toads do.  The universe does not permit contradictions: Two things cannot both be true if they oppose each other.  If a person is intellectually honest, they are forced to make an exclusive choice at some point.  You can't have both Jesus and Mohammed.  (This does not, of course remove from other the ability to make their own exclusive choices.)

How convenient. You do realize that saying "I have reasons but I'll not share them with you" is essentially the same as saying that you have no reasons at all. Tango Alpha Delta said it very well - to reject religion is not to lower oneself to the level of a worm or a toad. You've not answered why you find it necessary to believe in a holy book at all, much less the choice of one particular holy book. If you choose not to answer I'll respect that. If you think there is a legitimate reason to consider the bible to be the ultimate truth, then please share it. The only reason I opened this can of worms in the first place is that I grow tired of seeing people state their religious beliefs as if they are facts. The fact that someone so intellectually backward that he publicly stated that he does not believe in evolution actually won a Presidential primary makes me a bit touchy on the topic.

Am I the only person who sees this as a bad thing?

Most likely not. I'll admit that I started this one. The particular story we were discussing was religiously based so this one, unlike the discussion of "Me and My Shadow" for example, was almost appropriate to the story. I am offended and annoyed by people who state religious beliefs as if they are facts. I feel that it is demeaning to people who believe differently or not at all. I most likely should let it slide in the future to avoid going back over the same path again and again.

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


eytanz

  • Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 6109
Reply #41 on: January 14, 2008, 07:03:19 AM
I believe in Boolean Faith; and yea, my scriptures are filled with wild-cards.  I can't tell whether or not there is a God, but I can tell you what's wrong with your faith; therefore, I am di-agnostic.

Bravo :)



Simon

  • Peltast
  • ***
  • Posts: 117
Reply #42 on: January 14, 2008, 10:40:35 AM
I'm just done with all the god threads on this forum. Every time one falls asleep another one gets fired up. They're just isotopes of the god/no god argument, a discussion that has no end. This isn't a comparative religions board and I think that allowing these kinds of arguments to be so prevalent (what is this, the 8th? 9th?) is hurting the forums.
I truly understand the allure of a debate where you can't be wrong and there isn't one better than over the existence and nature of Allah. It's quite seductive to be be in a argument where you are steadfast in your opinion, sure in your convictions, and know that your opponent can never prove you wrong. It's also immature and pointless. No matter how relevant to the human condition it may be, I don't think that a SF Forum is the appropriate place for it to happen.
I stopped posting for a while because I couldn't stand seeing these topics come up and try to "open peoples eyes". But I came back because I love the EP stories, and truly enjoy the depth and breadth of individuals who post here. Although there will always be friction between people with different views, why is it so often about religion here? Am I ignorant of how often these debates go on in other forums?
This time around I've been trying to watch what I say because I don't want to be the next spark in the next pointless ID debate, or be the object of intense scrutiny for my personal decisions but I still want to be a part of the forums. Discussion is great, I'm a pretty open person, but how many threads have been spun off from Episode Comments in to Gallmaufry? How many were religiously based? A disproportionate number I'd bet. Though I've yet to see a show of hands, I know Shwankie avoids the forums for the same reasons and I'm sure there are others.
Is there a solution to this?
Am I the only person who sees this as a bad thing?

I would like to say seconded to everything written above... Many of youl know me and my opinions, so I don't really feel the need to bang my head against this wall.  I would be a lot happier if all this god stuff went away.

I'm also a bit baffled that there is the idea that this is a science fiction type discussion.. I've always thought that SF tends to reject any view of an interventionist superior being (too much of science is based on observation of the present, where the divine hand isn't visible, as key to the past).  So banging on about any of these intensely human faiths always strike me as bizarre.

I will admit my heart fell when I saw yet another god/no god thread on this place...  Ah well.
« Last Edit: January 14, 2008, 11:13:46 AM by Simon »



eytanz

  • Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 6109
Reply #43 on: January 14, 2008, 11:15:01 AM
I'm also a bit baffled that there is the idea that this is a science fiction type discussion.. I've always thought that SF tends to reject any view of an interventionist superior being (too much of science is based on observation of the present, where the divine hand isn't visible, as key to the past).  So banging on about any of these intensely human faiths always strike me as bizarre.

But if SF does that, it's taking an opinion, isn't it? And the point isn't "SF = religious literature", but "SF often plays with themes of religion", even if it does so by rejecting them.

And besides, this discussion didn't stem out of a general SF talk - it arose out of the thread for EP129, which is a story explicitly about the notions of afterlife, judgement, and the place of religion in a man's life. So even if it were true that most SF was religion free, the SF that shows up in Escape Pod isn't always.

That said, I think this meta-discussion of the threads and their place in the forums is a far bigger danger than the actual threads. It serves no purpose other than pit forumites against each other as they argue about what sort of threads they want here. So, while I'm happy to discuss the place of religion in SF (which perhaps is a more interesting discussion than the place of religion in the lives of forum members), I'm not going to discuss the implications of that on the place of religion on these forums, or indeed any sort of discussion about whether these threads are good or bad, anymore.



Russell Nash

  • Guest
Reply #44 on: January 14, 2008, 11:46:56 AM
If anyone has anything to say about this thread not belonging here, just send me a PM.  I split it off as soon as I saw it would have a life of it's own.  I checked and the last straight out religion thread died back in October.  I don't think one of these threads evey few months is all that bad. 

If you're sick and tired of them, go start your own amusing non-religious thread.  I will be far more likely to post there than here.  That's probably why I try to start so many silly threads myself.

If we do get another religious thread in the near future, I'll probably just merge it into this one and rename it "Warning: Religious Discussion Thread".



stePH

  • Actually has enough cowbell.
  • Hipparch
  • ******
  • Posts: 3906
  • Cool story, bro!
    • Thetatr0n on SoundCloud
Reply #45 on: January 14, 2008, 01:57:40 PM
I'm just done with all the god threads on this forum.
Don't read or post to them, is my suggestion.

"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 #46 on: January 14, 2008, 02:38:37 PM
If God were (like Philip Pullman's Authority) just some really big guy, then you'd be spot on.  But if God is the ultimate cause of the Universe and inventor of all the good things in it, then it's a very different story.  In that case, not only is God completely justified in expecting love and worship, it is also the only rational thing for His creations to do.  Loving and worshiping God is not a matter of massaging His ego so He'll like you and do you favors, it's a matter of appreciating, respecting, integrating with and ultimately enjoying Reality.  Conversely, failure to love and worship God constitutes the ultimate rejection of Reality.

Alternatively, one could see that there is good and bad within reality and that, if there were an original maker of the world, we owe thanks for the good things and are in turn owed a big explanation for that bad things. Not recognizing the existence of a maker without proof is not a rejection of reality; just of one possible explanation thereof. Not loving the creator is no more a rejection of reality than not loving ones parents is a rejection of ones own existence.

Okay, you've got to realize the difference of perspective here.  You aren't a Christian, so of course the idea that rejecting God is rejecting reality is absurd to you.  We have different idea of what the Universe looks like.  Take my statements in the context of "if God is, then..."  If God is, then rejecting God is rejecting reality.

How convenient. You do realize that saying "I have reasons but I'll not share them with you" is essentially the same as saying that you have no reasons at all.

Yeah, that does sound like a cop-out doesn't it?  Bad on me.  I'd would be glad to share my reasons, but time and tangents are the concern.  For instance, if I told you that I think biology points the existence of God, you'd say "Posh!  Biology points to blind evolution!" and that would be it's own (probably ugly) tangent.  If I told you that I think God has directly communicated with me on at least two occasions, you'd want to psychoanalyze me and figure out the "rational explanation" for my experience.  If I told I find Christianity to be eminently logical, we'd have to hash out logic.  If I we were going to spend the next three hours nursing drinks, that would be just fine (even fun), but I don't think it would work well here and now.

That sounds like a cop-out too.  Crap.   :(

Tango Alpha Delta said it very well - to reject religion is not to lower oneself to the level of a worm or a toad.

NO NO NO!!  I didn't say that rejecting religion makes you a toad!  Nothing of the sort!  I said that toads and worms have no beliefs.  Humans are not like toads because humans must believe something.  Complete non-belief isn't an option for us.  Rejecting God does not make you a toad: Toads can't reject God.  Only people can.

You've not answered why you find it necessary to believe in a holy book at all, much less the choice of one particular holy book. If you choose not to answer I'll respect that. If you think there is a legitimate reason to consider the bible to be the ultimate truth, then please share it.

Argh!  I'm at work.  I have work to do.  Curse work!

As concise as possible: If God exists and if God wants to tell people about Himself, then a Book is really the only viable option for doing that.  Any other method you can think of has prohibitive drawbacks.  Personal revelation?  Anybody could lie about their revelation and there'd be no way to tell who was telling the truth.  Revelation to everybody?  Negates free will.  If God said to everyone "Here I am, in the room!  It's me, God!  See!" then the option to disbelieve would not be viable.  We'd be back to being toads.  Endless succession of prophets?  Works to an extent, but a prophet can only speak to so many people, and you've got to watch out for false ones.  A Book that anyone can read for themselves is pretty much a necessity if God wants to communicate with people at large.

Why the Bible?  Again, the cop-out "lots of reasons."  But I will admit that it is not primarily objective, verifiable evidence that convinces me on this front.

Alas, now I must earn some salary.

But I'm not calling anybody a toad!  Please don't misunderstand that!

Hear my very very short story on The Drabblecast!


Russell Nash

  • Guest
Reply #47 on: January 14, 2008, 02:43:53 PM
I'm just done with all the god threads on this forum.
Don't read or post to them, is my suggestion.

OK, I'll try again.  There is no need to comment in the threads about the viability of threads and whether or not this is the right place for them.  This is also not the place to comment on the comments that were already here.  We are making a place here for this topic and the rest of the forums for every other topic.  If you have anything else to say on either side of this issue, say it to me in a PM. 

Both sides are right.  This isn't a topic for the whole forums.  If you don't like this topic, don't come here.  Done.

Now you can go back to arguing over superstitions.



Darwinist

  • Hipparch
  • ******
  • Posts: 701
Reply #48 on: January 14, 2008, 04:01:57 PM

As concise as possible: If God exists and if God wants to tell people about Himself, then a Book is really the only viable option for doing that.  Any other method you can think of has prohibitive drawbacks.  Personal revelation?  Anybody could lie about their revelation and there'd be no way to tell who was telling the truth.  Revelation to everybody?  Negates free will.  If God said to everyone "Here I am, in the room!  It's me, God!  See!" then the option to disbelieve would not be viable.  We'd be back to being toads.  Endless succession of prophets?  Works to an extent, but a prophet can only speak to so many people, and you've got to watch out for false ones.  A Book that anyone can read for themselves is pretty much a necessity if God wants to communicate with people at large.


Wouldn't it be more effective to perform some crazy visual miracle like writing his name on the moon or something?  That would do it for me.  A personal revealation of some sort would be great, but like you said, that only works for one person.  I was never sure about the Bible, there were some books left out of it and interpretations/ translations of it have been debated.   

I get a kick out of people who have weeping statues or see Mother Teresa in a sticky bun or on a dirty bank window.  Some people are just grasping for straws.   I can appreciate people that keep their faith personal and not try to make bombastic claims about their rosaries turning to gold or NFL quarterbacks (Kitna) claiming that God healed their concussion at halftime.  Pretty much everyone in my family has a strong belief in Christianity.  Maybe something will happen to me to get me back on board.   

For me, it is far better to grasp the Universe as it really is than to persist in delusion, however satisfying and reassuring.    -  Carl Sagan


Mr. Tweedy

  • Lochage
  • *****
  • Posts: 497
  • I am a sloth.
    • Free Mode
Reply #49 on: January 14, 2008, 07:10:13 PM
On the surface of the moon, in huge letters legible to anyone with a pair of binoculars, the words "Yo, it's me, God.  This here is my autograph," suddenly appear.  What an interesting idea.  How would people react to that?  And how would people seeing the letters 1000 years after the event perceive the inscription?

Sounds like a story to me.....

Hear my very very short story on The Drabblecast!