Is religion selfish and self-serving?

Remove all ads!

It is not our belief in God that creates, but God's belief in us.

Edit: If chevalier has not just dispelled any further doubt one here has, then I do not know what shall. Faith is more than a house of bricks or stone.

 

A few notes before I jump in here:


1)I am an agnostic-atheist(Huxlian agnostic & weak atheist, philosophically). The two positions are not mutually exclusive by any stretch. Agnosticism is properly qualified by either atheistic or theistic leanings(though theistic agnostics are comparitively rare).
Agnosticism was coined by Thomas Huxley and was defined by him as the conviction that the question of whether God exists or not is irrelevant because even if he DID somehow exist, we could not know of him without, in essence, becoming "God-like" ourselves or he becoming "human-like"(what's that old book called...?Flatland I think? excellent analogous tale of 2d entities meeting 3D entities and such...online so do a search for it).

Bottom line: God's existence could have no more impact than his non-existence.

2)Atheism means "without gods", NOT "without religion". There are millions of religious atheists(re:buddhists, taoists, humanists, etc.) though I personally do not happen to be one. I am not apt to make a blanket generalisation about whether all religion is inherently selfish/self serving or more so than other affiliations & activities. I WILL say, however that religion is unecessary at best and it's contribution can only, in my eyes be a net negative one to civilisation. There is no positive that can be had with religion which cannot be had without religion and there are powerful motivators and incentives for atrocious behavior.

Now having said that I would like to reply to the following:

ANYONE'S interpretation of ANY scripture is flawed to SOMEONE else. There is no way to objectively interpret such things and come up with the "correct" take. Of course your own take will seem correct to YOU because it jives with your POV/worldview. A progressive christian interprets the bible to say that God is a pro-choice pacifist who abhors the death penalty. A right wing fundementalist interprets that book as God's warning to all "sinning, homosexual/liberal/feminists about what sort of damnation they can expect to suffer after they die(I won't even get into all of the question-begging this view entails).

How do you reconcile this with your earlier statement that God "cares about us... a LOT!". How can he be "all loving" when he does not know or experience love? What did an "all-loving" God do before there was anything to love? How can he be all-loving and still be just(or even "all just"?)?
Like it or not God would HAVE to be constrained by logic, otherwise you have no defense for the "Can God crerate a rock so heavy...?" question that Nietzche posed. modern theologians get around the paradox of an omnipotent god creating a rock so heavy that he cannot lift it by stating(rightly I think) that a definitive quality of a "rock" is that it IS "liftable" so God cannot create an "unliftable rock" anymore than he can create a square-shaped triangle.

Furthermore, humans are rational/logical creatures(though we don't always act so). To say that we can know or have a relationship with something that is NOT constrained by logic is about as nonsensical as you can get.

So? Is this not an undesireable state to be in? Does God not enfore such on those he is displeased with as a punishment/deterent?

Which brings me to a good point. Is what is "good", good and God simply recognises it as such or is "good" whatever God decrees as being so? In other words could God tell you that child-molestatiuon is good and convince you to become a molestor? If not then good simply is and God is not required for it to be so.

Morality is subjective I am afraid and like the meanings of words, it changes with context and application.

Brings me to another question: Why does God allegedly grant us these fantastic minds whose primary(only?) means of understanding is through our physical senses and reasoning ability and then get bent out of shape when we use those "gifts" to conclude that his own existence is not likely?
If I were a theist, I would think that Einstein, Asimov, Gould, Randi, Sagan etc. were some of God's greatest achievements, brilliant as these men were and I would have a hard time imagining a God who would Go "Aha! Look at these men I have created! They are so bright, inquisitive and well-thinking that they will change the course of human history with their thoughts and actions!
Hey...waitaminute. They're ignoring me! THAT ONE JUST SAID HE WAS AN ATHEIST!!! *Growl* I am SO gonna let you burn for a few thousand years..."

Then God is "all good", correct? There is no "evil" about him right? ANd he is onipresent also correct? If so then explain what went down in the garden. In fact explain how evil can exist at all unless God himself desires for it to exist because it serves a purpose and if it does serve a purpoise then it cannot be evil then can it?

Ever read the riddle of Epicurus?

Speaking of religious mythologies which predate christianity by hundreds if not thousands of years and yet bear strinking similarities...

The problem with the symbological defense of the Bible is the same as the problemn of reading Nostradameus. Our pattern-seeking belief mechanisms insure that nothing we read is incorrect as we can always blame our interpretation for any inconsistencies.
Another problem with selective interpretation is that you invariably end up exposing a dozen more inconsistencies by your "reinterpretation" of certain words and phrases.

That sounds like a cop-out to me. IS not this enlightenment very important to us all? Can I decide not to warn someone who is about to step in front of a speeding bus because I was not meant to divulge that information to them?

Not by MY morals.

So adversity is a good and necessary thing then? Apparently God cannot teach us what we need to know without throwing adversity at us, correct? What is "evil" if not great adversity?

Then atheists cannot be held accountable for not hearing/recieving the information that made God's existence and concern apparent to us.

You are welcome to your own interpretations but recognise that they are simply that...YOUR interpretations. Unless you are claiming to have the mind of God or that you and he play Bridge on Saturdays or somesuch....

Tell that to the third world children who starve to death while missonaries hand them Bibles or the child who is shaken to death by his father or the woman who is hit by stray bullet during a bank robbery and bleeds to death.

 

Knowledge is not creational. Something exists or not independently from any knowledge. If it exists and can act, it can have impact. If it doesn't exist, it can't act and therefore has no impact. QED

You're not condemned until you condemn yourself, ie reject God's love and mercy, e.g. believe you're beyond salvation. In a way, thus, humans condemn themselves to hell and not God. Flames are a figure and it's a mediaeval picture.

If God is perfect and God is good, God is good perfectly and will not decree evil to be good. If God is creator, He's created good. If God is creator, perfect and has created good, only He is fully good (as Jesus says, BTW). Ergo: only God is fully good and will not decree evil good, but keep goood good. Basing on omniscience we can also add He by definitions knows good from evil better than we.

Someone had to write down the Bible. Isn't it amazing that God didn't appear in a column of fire and say "it was like this and that, you believe this and that and do this and that", but used humans for the purpose, leaving free will to all to decide if they accept the message or not?

Christianity, or at least the major branches, teaches that those who didn't receive the message cannot and will not be held responsible for not accepting the message, in a degree proportional to their ignorance.

Well, objection here. God is active after creation and faith is a motivation for people to act too, so it's not like religions make people leave the world be as it is, without changes. Maybe some religions, but not the majority. Definitely not Christianity. Humility, hope and trust in God are a different thing.

 

Agreed. You misunderstand my point however(or rather Huxley's point). Modern theists tend to invoke a God who is NOT bound or constrained by the physical laws of THIS universe. An "extradimensional" deity, not unlike a sentient pyramid who lives in a 3D universe amongst cubes, spheres and the like. These 3D entities exist unbeknownst to the triangles, squares and circles of the 2 dimensional universe. The instant one of these 2D entities becomes aware of and able to comprehend the third dimension, the third dimension becomes KNOWN and knowable and they can no longer be constrained by 2 dimensions.
So it is with gods. The minute we are able to wrap our minds around an omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenevolent supreme being, we cease to be constrained by those things(logic, etc.) which the gods are not constrained by.

But that does not answer my point. You merely added some more dressing to the display. Do humans then have the authority to condemn themselves to Hell? Am I to presume they do not have such authority to promote themselves to heaven then?
Seems a bit wonky to create a species(whom you knew 99,999,999,999,999 years ago would do as they would and intentionally make them ill-equipped to discern the "right" course of action or make good decisions and further to watch as they throw themselves into the bowels of Hell in their ignorance!?

That's nice and all but let me repeat the question: Is good, good independently of the fact that God recognises it's goodness for what it is or is God the sole and final arbiter of what is good? When he set about creating, did he say "I will create humans because they are good!" or did he create humans and say "Hey!Their pretty good! Wow, I amaze myself!"
What I am getting at here is the deliemma that exists for theistic moral objectivists. Either good is good independently of God or good is anything that God says is good. In the latter case theists have to explain how they would react if God said to themn in an unmistakeable way "Hey, you guys are doing great with the abortion clinic bombings and all but you are totally screwed up about this infanticide thing! I HATE kids!! Didn't any of you read the book?!? Dash their heads upon rocks for crying out loud!!"
Either you would rebel against god's wishes because you recognise that your own subjective morals do not jive with his or you would agree to support infanticide.

How could any of us(including God) have free will? He KNOWS ALL, correct? He knew long bgefore we even existed that we would do as we do. We could not nchoose to do othyerwise without thwarting his omniscience!
Sorry but I don't buy it. I have no memory of existing prior to 1969 and certainly do not recall being given a choice as to whether I believed God existed(how can one "choose" disbelief?) What kind of moron would choose such a thing anyway? Mike Tyson is a lot less powerful than an omnipotent god and I wouldn't even fart on the same street he was walking, let alone try to get on his bad side!

How does one measure my ignorance? If I did not accept the message from Jim and Tammy Faye(a rational thing to do even by most theists' standards) am I going to hell?
What some fail to realise is that an atheist has no more choice in whether he accepts a theistic claim as rational or believeable than we have a choice in whether Santa Claus sounds like a plausible idea! I cannot make myself believe in God. If he exists and wants me he should know where to find me(and if he absolutely cannot make it himself he should at least have the decency to send someone smarter than these yahoos who show up at my door every saturday.

The above was not mine BTW.

 

RuneQuester, most of the questions you have asked I have allready answered, but I shall do so again.

Completely incorrect. As chevalier has allready said, and as you provided an excellent example of, if you walk in front of a bus, not knowing it was there, or if someone had told you and you chose to ignore them, it shall have the same effect as if you knew it was there, and chose to walk in front anyway.

Your knowledge of a thing affects your own actions, not the impact upon you by the actions of something else. When talking about God you are not talking about an ation, but the fundamental nature and composition of the universe, so it in simple terms, effects everything, irrespective of your own opinion.

Also wrong. They have gods, many gods, and they also have God.

Yes, but this does not mean that one cannot be certain of a thing. This is faith, it is also trust. It is also as I said, impulses of the spirit. The fact that so many say the same thing, and the fact that those who say such things are so more enlightend than ourselves, and because they have abilities which far outstrip our own, and as I myslef am aware of the moral code and respect for truth, and wish for wellbeing and compassion that becomes an intrinsic part of you by this path, then I do not doubt those who have reached its end, or at least, the next stop on the journey. It also explains things which nothing else will, so even if I didn't have such trust, I would have nothing better to rely upon.

I didn't say that, but I do agree with it. God is everything, abosulte be-ness that knows itself not. God becomes the universe and those who reside within it, but still exists on an eternal plane. Love is the nature of god, it is in part the essense of our being. An experiential form of higher reality.

You are still thinking of God as a mortal man. God doesn't do anything to us, we do it ourselves. God is just because no-one is wronged.

You cannot comprehend the infinite, but you can sense it. Occultism throughout history has revolved about this. Besides, anyone can love. If you trult wish to know more, the path is open to you, as it is to everyone.

Desire has nothing to do with it, as I allready said. NO, again, God does not enforce anything upon anyone, nor is God pleased or displeased. We choose all this for ourselves, I don't know why I am repeating myself so much here. It is the nature of those planes between us on the physical, and us on the spiritual. Because the ones which we shall encounter in this stage are comprised of thought, emotion, and vitalistic life, our own aspect of this are as much real as the world around us.

Spoken of as eternal for time is different here than our own. Thus, any length of time is an eternity.

We exist on all planes, it is only our awareness which shifts.

Again, flawed logic here. God neither recognises what is good nor tells us what is good. God is good, good is what we use to describe what is in accordance with spirit, of which we are comprised. God and good are inseperable, we are as much a part of god as the rest of the universe, on this plane, and all others.

So Morality is not subjective, just as truth is not subjective. Our interpretations of truth may be subjective, but what is is, and is true. You may not be able to comprhend the entire truth in all of its entire description, or may not know it, or may misinterpet it, but it is still there. Our morality is our sense of what is in alignment with this truth. Just as we may tell a lie, we may live agains morals, just as we may be misled about the truth, we may mislead ourselves on morality.

What is evil, exactly the same as a lie, exists in the sole ability of not existing.

We are not limited to our physical senses. It is only the primary while we have them, and while we exist on the plane which they percieve.

As we have allready said, God doesn't get bent out of shape about anything.

Einstein and Asimov were not atheist. I do not belive Randi was, and I do not know about the others.

In any case, as has been said, "Christianity, or at least the major branches, teaches that those who didn't receive the message cannot and will not be held responsible for not accepting the message, in a degree proportional to their ignorance." I can say the same of every other religion I know of as well. Even those which we now refer to as mythology.

In any case, as has been said, there is no punishment, and it is your own will and your own mind which creates it.

You are still thinking of God as a mortal man. To me, this is the nonsensical thing.

Nope it cannot (I am so glad you said that), this is why evil, in terms of God, does not exist. Everything serves a purpose.

In terms of humanity however, as we exist on a temporal and material plane, then our ations are right or wrong in terms of wheteher we act in accordance to the spirit, or not. Our actions still lead to good outcomes, but here and now their immediate effects do not. This is in fact, the very purpose you spoke of, acting in accordance with that spirit. If we couldn't not act in accordance with it, then we would not be doing it through our own choice and free-will, and we would not be learning anything about it, thus that purpose is void. This doesn't make it right, only menas that it is right for it to not be right.

Now, the Garden of Eden. One becoming two, male and female (active and passive, or spirit and matter), the birth of intelligence and will, choice, apperception, awareness that you yourself exist, knowledge of good and evil, that is, the ability to make a distinction, that we are aware of the impulses of spirt, and it is also here that evil itself takes any meaning, it is caused that we may think about thinking, the cycle comes around and from matter intelligence is born, as matter was born from intelligence before it, that is, we are able to reach beyond our physical bodies to gain knowledge of something that is greater.

We are offered this, and we accept, perhaps not realising what hardships and suffering shall we experience. Thus, once more, we don our clothes, the material forms we now possess, and leave the world of perfection, that of spirit, to the other, descending upon the physical plane.

Hmm, perhaps because they are the same, as both came from an identical source. Ever compared the ethical instructions of Lord Gautama and the Master Jesus?

I know you could not have compared the esoteric instructions because they were just that, esoteric.

Or the ones who tell you what those patterns are may actually know what they are talking about. Why do you think we recognise patterns so well? The fact remains that this can be taught by one who has experienced this directly, so knows what it means better than one who wants it to mean nothing, thus they see no meaning, no pattern.

The fact is, it can be experienced, either directly or via the material that was originally wriiten. A relatively easy thing, compared to some, and if you do not know I'm not going to tell you. You can find out for yourself though, and I suggest you attempt it before you assume that every person who speaks of such a thing is a liar.

Friend, I allready said why it is not done, in the original post.

But you are missing the point. You cannot force enlightenment upon someone, any more than you can force them to belive or listen to you in the first place.

But you miss the point again. If they will die, they will die. These men of wisdom know this.

Just think about this for a second, as these who you decry sepnd their entire lives doing so.

What if you warning the man about the bus distracts him, and is the very thing which causes him to be hit by it?

What if you warn him, and he isn't hit, so the next time someone tells him about the usm he doesn't listen? Only this time its a steam-roller. He would of got only hurt beofre, now he dies.

What if you warn him, and he isn't listening, or doesn't understand, so instead of walking he runs ahead and causes a twelve car pile-up, injuring many others even if he didn't cause their death? Maybe he even did this just to spite you.

You see. Not as simple as you so quickly presumed, and this is just a simple thing.

Adversity is good and necessary, suffering is not, neither is doing a thing to deliberately cause adversity.

One may do a wrong thing, deliberately, or for their own benefit and the detriment of another, and this is immoral. You learning from it is good, but the fact that it was done is wrong in itself, you could have learnt through something else.

We teach ourselves. This is obviously necessary, just look at how much you will not listen to what another says- you must learn these things yourself.

God does not hold us by the hand, we are as much a part of God as God is a part of us.

Of course, we have allready said this. No-one is punished, especially not for ignorance. But you are still responsible for your own actions.

These are not simply my own interpretations, they are my experince as well, and those of many many others. But I will be the first to say that the majority does not necessitate the truth.

We all have the mind of God available to us, if we shall look for it. But do not think all conciousness or intelligence work the same as your own.

I do.

Every-thing is choice, suffering is no diferent. Circumstances may be terrible for some, but the way we react to it is our choice.

I am sorry, a misinterpretation. This is what I was talking about. I meant you cannot force a thing, people must get there themselves. You may help them, should help them, but you cannot do it for them, they must do it themselves. This does not negate compassion and chairity, for they are required by love.

What I originally said also refers to the rest of the world. More often than not our interference is what causes problems in the first place.

Absolutely correct, excpet for the original statement.

The Ancient theists thought the exact same way we do. It is the modern perception that the physical is all that exists which has changed. In truth, all has subsatnce, but not as we would term it. Our existence is the decption. A 2D shaodw of a 3D world, using your own allegory (or rather Huxley's )

Of course we have the authority! It is only us who do!

We also have perfect capabilities to discern right and wrong, we simply do not realise it.

Again, no-one is condemned, and Hell does not have bowels. An eternity is a period of time where time has no meaning, and it is no more suffering there than it is in life, we shall learn from our last life, and form a new one, we shall live again, suffer again, and re-form again. We decide our own suffering, we choose what it is we do, and how we respond to it. Do not blame others for your own actions. You have allready decided your fate, and you shall do so again.

Now I have allready answered this, God and good are not independant, so there is no question on the matter. They are the same.

I shall elaborate this towards your theory: God does not say anything, nor would any god in a manner you have described, for those whom we hear are now ourselves. Call them angels if you wish but they are not limited to such, and there are so many more, such a heirarchy of existence that you are not aware of. I any case, such death is not in accordance to Spirit, so say those who know such things, so no-one would recieve such an ideal through communication with any higher being. This is not how any of it works. At all. Your scenario is impossible.

God is not "one of us" we are but an aspect of God. "In Him we live and move and have our being."

To know something is not to choose it. To choose something, does not prevent one from knowing you shall do so. Simply because our actions are known, that it was know we would act in a certain way, does not mean we have the choice to do so.

You predict that the sun shall rise. You did not cause it to rise.

Friend, you sound like you have listened to some questionable spokesmen, and bought what was said without contemplating it yourself.

God does not know our actions like one would remember their past, or even like one would prophesize the future. To something infinite, absolute, all things merely are, and are not, for to be alone would be finite.

Divine beings are from God as much as anything else is from Them. As we the Sons of the Earth do not know our enitre self, as it is with the Sons of the Fire.

Simply because you do not remember does not nullify its existence. You have forgotten, again, by your own choice.

You are, again, not sent to Hell, it is of your own creating. As was everything prior, and everything proceeding, your own choice. We may be ignorant, and there may be circumstances that dictate the course of our actions and our beliefs, but always is their choice, and again, no-one would be in Hell due to ignorance. What is ignorance? It is nothing-ness. Thus one who is good yet ignorant is within those other things which define him. It may be peace, it may be joy, it may be confusion or fear as our knowledge is completed.

This has been explained, and yet you continue to cling to your misinterpretations. Even in the commonly held misperception of Hell as a cavern of lava and flames -propogated as chevalier said in Mediaeval times- there is nothing to say you are damned for ignorance. If a beleif is offered to you by one who is themselves ignorant, how would you be any different whether you accepet or refuse? It is the way in which you live your life which is of importance - to defy that which is good with the sole intent of self-fulfilment or for spite itself is another matter, as that has been caused by the way in which you live in accordance to that which you yourself know to be right. It is a worse thing to do to than doing wrong in itself, for you are full aware of your mis-deeds, and the consequences they have upon others. This, as all of our deeds, takes its toll upon us. Now, and when our actions are recounted. You have created this debt, and it is you yourself you opts to pay it.

By this I do not mean "Hell". I mean that the toll taken upon you is reflected within you, as you absolve reflections of yourself these shall be realised. Hell is your own mind, your own reaction to what it is that you have done. I do not even know if it could be termed unpleasant, for our current way of experiencing and interpretation of events is not the one we shall always hold.


Friend, I have tried to explain all this to you, in matters of thogeny, but your argument seems to spring from some fear of damnation, some misperception of faith, and resent towards those you deem responsible.

All I can suggest is to ask yourself why you hold this view? If you do not think you are living in the manner you think is best, you must ask yourself why. Any conclusion upon the way in which we should live our lives can be reached, if you are resentful of the philosophy within religious beliefs, but it is you who shall be able to deem which is correct. Live the life necessary to yourself, and any doubts shall eventually be cleared. If you truly thought it did not matter, why hold opinions which are so strong?

 

Nope!I checked. There are many posts I would like to reply to though but time constraints and all...


quote:
--------------------------------------------------

You have misunderstodd me. The above quote of mine that you have taken out of context was merely an explanation of Huxlian Agnosticism which can be even better summed up as "The question of whether God exists is insoluable".
Your bus analogy is false as it has nothing to do with the agnsotic position. If the bus in question were a "spirit bus" or some such thing that could not be percieved, measured, or known by humans then your analogy would hold water(presuming you were still able to offer an analogy in which a "spirit bus" ran over someone or some such).

No, when I speak of "God", i could be talking about any number of things from Gaius Ceaser to Eric Clapton depending on context. Here I am speaking of a supernatural entity which possesses the contradictory qualities of omnipotence, omniscience adn omnibenevolence.

Buddhism and taoism are considered atheistic religions as most of their followers/members do not worship any Gods and gods are not a central fixture or component. Humanism is exclusively atheistic.
Before offering corrections to someone, make sure you have your facts straight.

Yes but it does mean that you cannot determine an objective meaning of something which is subjective in nature. Can you define "virtue"? Can you define "beauty"? Can you tell me if Angelina Jolie is beautiful and if so then why are there some who say she is not?

Scriptures are like beauty. Racist, hate-mongering christians and progressive, peace-loving christians read from the same Bible.

I am happy for you that you have faith that your interpretations are correct and you have all the answers to these questions.
I do not have faith in anything and never touch the stuff. I also am content to say "I don't know" when I do not know but I am also not reluctant to say something is improbable when I deem it such.

I have no idea what that was all about. I caught the bald assertion about someone being more enlightened but the rest went right by me.

Sorry...I know this will sound like I am picking on you guy but that paragraph there is what I refer to as a "spiritual beyondification post". Some years ago over at Belief.net a guy came to the Atheism debate boards and spouted a long rambling post about "spiritual beyondification trancending the oneness of being". He never bothered to define or explain any of the terms, phrases or nonsensical ideas he spouted. Sort of a spiritual Jordi LeForge(from Star Trek:TNG. Ever see one of those episodes where he says something like "We will never be able to warp out of here if we can't realign the dialactic thrust monitor and clean the sublation from the ion drives!" Sounds really scientific and important but it is gibberish).

I am not thinking of God in any such way. I am a mortal human and as such I understand things through reason and logic. If something cannot be explained according to logic and reason then I am incapablke of understanding it(as are all humans I suspect).

Continued later as I have to run for a bit.

 

You assume that God, or that bus, has no influence upon youir life because you assume that spirit has no meaning or substance, or even effect. Based upon this I know where you are coming from, but I still think you are wrong, as explained in the next part of my response which you have quoted. Here again, you misdirect the point, an underhanded technique yet one that has failed.

But, ignoring how something which describes the fundamental nature of the universe has an impact upon your life, You talk of God as possessing the qualities of omnipotence, omniscience, and omnibenevolence.

Besides the fact that you deem god a personal entity, a misperception by atheists -one would think when a theist tells them it is not so they would listen, but nevermind- These qualities, are not contradictory.

Omnscience as I have described is the act of being everywhere and everywhen, or else how could one have certain knowledge? One that is absolute, that is, everything and everywhen (and yet also nothing and no-when but you seem to abhor the dichotomies that exist when talking of infinitude), one that is these things must be omnipotent, as it is absolute, there is nothing that is not with its domain. Everything which ever is and every power that ever is must spring from this absolute, as there is nothting else.

Omnibenevolence. I do not see why this is contradictory, If love is merely what we use to describe what we experience as spirt and the nature of God, then God is all-loving. If God is all-loving, and is the entirey of existence, then how could God not be All-caring? This is one of the prime factors of Love? Unless you say God hates Himself, in which case you are applying a finite concept to the infinte. You can do it if you want, I'm just saying that it is not what is God, or what is true.

But I guess you an invent whatever ideas you like.

Now, I object to this, I do have my facts, and I will assure you have more more expertise about this.I may be wrong, but given what you yourself have said, I doubt it.

I know Buddhists personally, the belive in much they same God as the one I have descibed to you. The same applies with Taoists.

Both also belive in a heriachy of beings you would call gods that are evident in everything about us, and also in those we do not yet know of.

It is also a shared belief by both those groups, and humanists if I am not mistaken, that every man himself has the potential for god-hood.

Which brings me to your next point. You may say that beauty is subjective in nature, but scripture is not. It describes an absolute truth which is above any of our own perceptions.

It may be misinterpreted certainly, but it is not subjective, only our own interpretations are.

But our own interpretations are always subjective, because they are our interpretations. Thus, one must at one point on any matter take a thing as proof enough to satisfy his own threshold of acceptanec. Everything after that, is faith, or trust.

Talk to Grey Magistrate about this, he started a thread on it a while back.

It also does not mean that our subjective interpretations cannot be exactly the same as that objective truth. Of course they can. Otherwise you must state that everyone, everwherer, is always and without doubt irrevocably wrong about everything. In which case, you are also.

By the gods, man. You just said you deem something improbable. Is that not an action of faith, that you belive for it to be wrong? In any case, as I stated, at one point we must all take the things we belive on faith, even, as I also said beofre, the very criteria upon which we base the proof that convinces us.

Yes, I am starting to realise that.

OK, I'll explain it, only because I do want you to understand what I am saying, if for respect for the truth and compassion for you yourself if nothing else.

The path to enlightenment (or wisdom and knowledge) brings occult power, because you are becoming more knowledgeable about the functioning of this world, and more attuned to the spirit which comprises it.

It also brings many other things, primary of which, is love, as an experience of that spirit, and morality, as an extention of that love.

Truth is included in morality, but is so much more, because it is what is. What is not true, as I said, exists only in that it does not.

As Emanuel Kant says; "Of all things, Truth is paramount." As is said by Helena Petrovsky Blavatsky; "There is no religion higher than Truth".

What a religion does, is try to allow us to reach this truth.

The other statement was in reference that there are things I know exist, as much as one can know anything, that are not explained by, for instsnce, the scientific method, or any such empirical or materialist theory, yet are by this. Thus, based upon their existence, I am left with only one criteria of options which can be true.

I shall explain the next statement some more as well.

They are terms that are hard to translate into english, but this is the best I can do to descibe. Be-ness is the word Sat in sanskript.

Something which is absolute cannot have finite attributes attributed to it. Apperception is one of these, as is being.

What exists, including an apperceptive Divine All-Powerful Being, must decend from this absolute, as there is nothing else. However, what is Absolute must always exists, thus it exists on an eternal plane, and the first differentiation (one thing dividing itself into different potentialities or substances or states of being) is caused. We are all a part of God, and yet God continues to exist independant of ourselves.

We, on this material plane, experience Spirit as love, it is the truth of existence. It is what is.

"But perhaps the most mysterious thing he ever said about it was this. I was questioning him on the subject.. and had incautiously said, 'Of course, I realize it's all rather too vague for you to put into words,' when he took me up rather sharply by saying, 'On the contrary, it is words that are vague. The reason why the thing can't be expressed is that it's too definite for language.'"

If you think what I said was vague, you should read the source material.*

If Oxen had a God, it would look like an ox.

And yet we are able to comprehend through other means, you just refuse their existense. None of this which has anything to do with whether we are wronged, by the way. You have been misdirecting almst constantly here, but I have answered your statements beacsue I only think it fair to do so.

*I am not going to give you the source material, as you will simply not understand it. This is not an insult, it is fact, I had no understanding either the first time it was read, before the commentaries upon it.

If you wish, send me a Private Message, and I will write some of the commentaires and various other texts that are more intelligible, and less symbolic.

Until then, I have answered your questions, (or whatever it is you wish to call such statements) so I am going to do this:



None of this has had much to do with religions being selfish or not, or your original suppositions or my response to that statement as pertains to the topic itself. While I do not mind discussing such things, some might object. If you wish to re-direct this towards that area I shall be happy to continue. I assume that you intend to do so throughout the rest of what I have written, so no matter. It can be adressed then.

But at least we are no longer arguing about one being condemned to Hell. I am glad that that at least that has been cleared up.

 

Then how do you know that what you are sensing is "the infinite"? I am assuming here that what you are saying is analogous to smelling *something* but not being able to say what the scent is. The problem of course is that if you cannot say what it is you are smelling/sensing then you cannot say it is "the infinite"/God/a skunk/whatever.

Okay, I am going to stop you right there because that is about the 20th time you have disrespected or insulted me or insinuated that everyone else here is somehow beneath you intellectually or has difficulty understanding your "message" within about two or three replies you have made to me. Fact is, I do this at about a half dozen plus message boards about 40 hours+ a week and yes, I have heard, listened to, considered, understood, refuted and dismissed it all before. I think maybe you presume yourself to be of much greater intellectual mettle than is the case. Thus far you have commited ad hominems, presupposition, bald assertions, strawman misconstructions, bait and switch arguments and a dozen other logical fallacies. No one worth his salt, versed in debate would be so sloppy.

www.datanation.com/fallacies

There is a good source to get you up to speed on what the fallacies are and why they are a no-no.
Study, learn and return.

Unqualified assertioon.

Please clarify. Pretend I am an intellectually disfunctional dolt who has to be talked to like a child rather than a vedic spiritual guru.

More bald assertions. What planes? How does our awareness shift?

1) You are criticisng MY logic?!? That is rich.

2)According to your above then, good is simply good independent of God's wishes. How do you determine that God is good then? If you are not God(if you are claiming to be God then disregard this whole thing cause we have a whole 'nother thread to discuss) you must rely on your own mortal abilities to determine what good is, correct?

Are humans all good then? Or are we also "evil" to some extent or the other? Would not this "collective God" you propose then be evil, ignorant, savage, nice, loving, spiteful etc. since he is us and we are him?
Seems you are pulling a bait and switch here defining "God" as just another word for "life" or "the universe".

Truth(depending on context)...no, but morality? Most definately. Gravity is objective. It operates on matter, pulling us and other masses toward earth regardless of whether we know it exists or accept it or care. Gravity does not pull harder on mean people or lighter on solopsists or any such thing. If morality were objective then what was right and wrong would be just as apparent as gravity and we would be forced to obey the objective law of morality, only circumventing it in brief spurts with the aid of technology.
Is it morally wrong to kill another human? What if that other human were about to slaughter 100 children? What if he were truly commanded by God to do such? WHat if YOU were commanded by God to kill him? What if it is an enemy soldier and you are a military man? What if you are a pacifist?

See? Different situations, different mitigating circumstances, times and POVs change what is moral and what is not.

You are saying "our" as if everyone is in agreement and have elected you as our representative. Ask a militant muslim what is in alignment with truth. Ask a southern baptist or a pentacostal. Ask a secular humanist or a fideist.
There is no "our" when it comes to morality beyond what small groups of individuals will agree upon.

And since the only thing we have to go on is what our human minds tell us sounds right, we have no objective way of determining, for example that muslim terrorists are wrong or that Peace Corps volunteers are right. To ME the nazis were wrong in WWII. According to MY morality, killing 40 million people, including six million jews(just for being jews no less) is wrong. I feel this way because I have been taught certain things, am reasonably educated, do not percieve any great injustice against the Germans that would warrant such a response from them, and I empathise with other humans.
Had I been born into a family of nazi's during that time and been taught that jews were trying to exterminate my people and take over the world, I would surely have a different moral outlook.

??? Are you positing the "evil as the absence of good" argument? I just want to be sure before I critique or accept it.

As far as we know( notice I said "know", not "believe" or "hope" or "have faith that") this is the only life we get and our physical senses are the only means of obtaining information which we process with our brains.

As far as we know, God does not even exist. Assigning attributes, benevolent or otherwise to hikm is a cart before the horse type excercise.

ROTFLMAO!! You do not know about ANY of them! I could provide you with a deluge of quotes from Einstein that show otherwise(do a google search for "It was a lie you read about my religious convictions, a lie which has been systematically repeated..." + Einstein to get you started). Asimov was about the most vocal atheist of the bunch!If you think I am critical of theism...*smiles*
James Randi is also one of the most visible and vocal atheist skeptics around! He is the one offering one million dollars to anyone who can demonstrate supernatural/paranormal gifts under controlled conditions. He is a former stage magician who regularly debunks the likes of John Edward and Sylvia Browne by showing how their tricks can be replicated(with much better accuracy even) using stage prestidigitation and cold reading techniques.

Wrong. Another handy thing about scripture and subjective re-interpretations is that we can always go back with our biased lens and tendency for pattern recognition adn find whatever we want to about religious beliefs. The ancient Hebrews and Babylonians believed the earth was a flat disk that rested on pillars and was covered by a firmament. This belief was in accordance with the wisdom and science of the time(despite the fact that Erastothenes and others had correctly deduced otherwise as early as 220 B.C.).
But rather than just admit that ancient people had some ideas that turned out wonky and the Bible is not a reliable scientific source, people try and reinterpret and redefine words until "circular" becomes "spherical" and "pillars" becomes the earth's axis.

Oh I don't beleive there is. I was addressing those who DO feel there are heavenly rewards and hellish torments waiting in the alleged afterlife. In any case, if God sits back and allows people to suffer eternally for being ill-equipped to see "the truth" then he is a despot just as if he had cast them into na lake of fire.

No I am not. It is not up to ME to define YOUR claim(s). I simply aknowledge points made and/or refute faulty reasoning/logic.

Sorry but, again your argument is full of holes. If God can be KNOWN/understood by US then he IS a part of OUR reality and is either subject to logical constraints(if no other constraints) OR such constraints do not exist OR such constraints exist only for mortals but that still makes God unknowable in the same way a square-shaped triangle is unknowable or the concept of moving towards something and getting further away from it is not understandable to us.

Imagine a 3 dimensional sphere traveling through it's universe and passing through the two dimensional universe where squares, triangles and circles live. A lone square notices the sphere passing through but to him it appears as only a circle which first gets bigger and bigger, then smaller and smaller until finally vanishing(you have to visualise the flat plane of 2D space being intersected by a 3D sphere).
The square would go on thinking he saw a circle which changed sizes rapidly and vanished becuase he is constrained to 2 dimensions and cannot concieve of more dimensions. If "sphere" came back and grabbed square and took him to "3D land" where cubes and triangles and spheres live, square would become a "cube" himself in accordance with the physical laws of 3D land. At this point he could never again be confined to 2 dimensions becuase he did not exist as such any longer. He could try and visit his old buddies in 2D land but they would only percieve him as a square, not as a cube and his prattle about 3 dimensions would be gibberish.

Sounds neat and all but what does it have to do with what I was talking about? I realise these are your personal BELIEFS and they are important to YOU but I am not here to try and rob you of your personal beliefs, nor am I interested in signing up for your newletter. I am critiquing a specific theistic view maybe but that's about it.

More probably that christianity "borrowed" from other mythologies, just as many fantasy authors "borrow" from Tolkien and Moorcock. Now you can read TLotR as well as Sword of Shannara and conclude that maybe there exists a parallel earth where elves and dwarves wield swords and sorcery against ominous evil...

OR

you can conclude that it is more likely that Tolkien was inspired by folklore/mythology and Terry Brooks was inspired by Tolkien.

I will assume the latter is more probable.

I can compare them just as you or anyone else does and like everyone else I could come to my own interpretations which support whatever claim I am putting forth.

[/b]

You misunderstand. Pattern recognition is a term employed in behavioral science/psychology and anthropology. It is a quirk that allows us to find evidence to support our presuppositions even where no such evidence exists. The only real guard we have against being led astray by our own belief mechanisms is skepticism/critical thinking. Our pattern seeking nature enables conspiracy theorists to conclude that JFK could not have been killed by LHO(acting alone) even though all evidence points to the Warren Commision's findings as absolutely correct. It enables UFOLogists to find "irrefutable evidence that aliens are making crop circles in wheat fields even while college students stand behind them with videotapes of how THEY made the crop circles themselves using boards, rope and math.
And yes, it enable theists to see evidence of God in everything around them. To an objective rationalist, humans acting charitably is only evidence that humans have such capacity for benevolence. To a certain type of spiritualist it is evidence that an invisible deity is pushing our buttons.

That is the second time you have accused me of calling people liars. I am going to request that you either show where I have done so or cease the accusation(apology would be nice also).

[/b]

Agreed but that doesn't change anything and my point stands: IF God(or whoever) does not deliver "the message" in such a way that I cannot say with some degree of certainty that it is likely to be true and I therefore do not assent to it(as I did not assent to David Koresh's claims or Jim Jones') then I cannot be held accountable by a just God for doing so. Especially since I can no more "choose" what I believe any more than I can choose my skin color.

 

To me it begins to seem a logical fight more than discussion. Eh. But I have something to say too.

The problem is we can't grasp that omnipotence, omniscience, omnibenevolence etc. Or otherdimensions, uberdimensions, nondimensionality or whatever else pops up. Well, we are limited, no matter what cunning dogs of formal logic we are.

Well, that was already said. If they do and God doesn't invalidate their decision, they seem to have authority. Therefore humans would have authority to condemn themselves. Authority may not be the most fortunate term here, but they surely have the power to decide. Salvation also depends on decision. This doesn't mean you're saved because you say so (nor condemned because you say so), but you can't be saved against your will. Accept God's grace, answer the call - all depends on your agreeing or not, nothing is enforced. As to why nothing is enforced, I can copy full inference from another thread of today's

They choose the destination and meet the prerequisites. It's only more difficult to get to heaven than to get to hell

As Genesis says, God created humans and only after He created them, He said they were good. As to whether God is the final arbiter of Good, the answer is yes, in so far as arbitration is relevant.

But my wonderful scheme:

If God is perfect and God is good, God is good perfectly and will not decree evil to be good. If God is creator, He's created good. If God is creator, perfect and has created good, only He is fully good (as Jesus says, BTW). Ergo: only God is fully good and will not decree evil good, but keep goood good. Basing on omniscience we can also add He by definitions knows good from evil better than we.

Shows that there's no possibility of a problem to occur in practice. As Bible says, however, people may be tested and made to prove their trust that God knows better what's good or evil and that God wants only good, no evil - e.g. Abraham's sacrifice of Isaac.

Again, the bit about Abraham's sacrifice would be a good read. I'm sorry, but I can't give you a link at the moment. An indexed online Bible will probably do.

Please, cool down or you'll boil your logic

That God knows beforehand of our decisions doesn't mean we don't make them. You have probably wedded omniscience with determinism. That's not right. God doesn't have to suppose or infer anything, He just knows. So no matter what decision we make, that decision has already been known by God (notice this nice theological use of present perfect inherited from the Greek perfect tense ). From this you may infer that the image of the decision has existed in God's mind before the decision took place and thereby the image preceded the decision itself. Why not? After all, omniscience is supernatural. Actually, God tends to remind proud mortals, such as Kings of Israel, that it had been known long beforehand what they would do

So much as I don't like to say that, you're totally missing the point. Not like I blame you, of course. You always have the choice. You can always start to believe in God. You say you can't because of rational reasons? Well, they're reasons. Reasons for rejecting the existence of God, whereby making your choice. Theologically speaking, it's believed that everyone is given a sufficient chance at least once.

You also seem to have confused belief with acknowledging truth. When you have sufficient proof, you don't have to believe. So it's nothing to do with faith or believing if you start to believe in non-existence of a god you know for fact to exist. It's like the infamous Forgotten Realms atheist paradox, hehe.

And yes, one can choose disbelief. Disbelief is not your initial state. You don't believe that something doesn't exist - you only don't believe that something exists. Atheism is no less a faith than theism. You have no proof that God doesn't exist, therefore you believe He doesn't exist, despite lack of proof to your thesis. Technically, you're a man of great faith this way, hehe. Only agnosticism is not a faith, since it doesn't believe in anything that has not proven, ergo: it just doesn't believe and doesn't rely on belief. That's an initial state: non-knowledge of existence and not knowledge of non-existence. Those are two entirely different things.

Still a choice, technically. However, circumstances may limit the freedom of such a choice. However, no one is held responsible by God if there's no guilt, so we may conclude that the degree of accountability is reduced proportionally. However, an atheist is not like an agnostic. An atheist believes there's no god, which is a matter of faith, while an agnostic doesn't make claims to any knowledge, considering any proof either way insufficient.

You never know the hour when the lord cometh etc etc. As I said above, everyone gets his sufficient opportunity. You don't have to believe what I'm saying, of course, so don't tell me I'm presenting it to you as a fact.

I know. But I'm not only argueing with you

You haven't proven them to be contradictory. According to my own logic, I don't really regard that statement as a claim to having logical proof, but anyway: I express my objection here.

Peace, brother. Peace. Peace and humility. Even my logic is not spotless

You are again missing the point and confusing belief with claims to logical factuality.

We believe in God, so we assign attributes to Him. We neither make you believe in God nor agree with the attributes. You are free to have your own view as much as we are, but you are no more entitled to force it on us as we on you. Look, I don't roam around the forum throwing Thomas Aquinas at people and shouting that there necessarily has to be a higher being and a creator, and good and just at that.

Stop: it is impossible to define someone's claim. You can only define the term "your claim" itself and only as "claim made by you". Sorry for picking on semantics, though.

As for the latter part, it's only what you consider faulty. It's not like I would require you to say the "I consider" part, but it's the same as with believers speaking about their beliefs as though about facts.

Of course you aren't. But he's no more obligated to assent to your contrary claims so long as none of you have proof. You don't have sufficient proof to accept his claims as logical truth, fine. But neither does he have sufficient proof to accept your claims as to the falsehood of his thesis. You are no more able to prove nonexistence of God than he is to prove the existence.

I don't remember it either, but it would be ad numerum, ad numera or ad populum, Latin-grammar-wise. Ad numerum sounds like "so many people agree with me, so I'm right" while ad populum sounds like "the popular belief in society is that X, therefore X is true".

I realise you're not making a categoric statement here, but I think you underestimate the extent to which technical advancement and state of knowledge affects people's mindsets. So do current affairs, history and beliefs.

On a more personal note, you have great thanks from me for staying within the limits of civil discussion, sticking to arguments and not the persons of opponents and the like (it shows you're controlling your emotions). Perhaps you're surprised and perhaps you take that as granted, but if you check a few threads in AoDA, you'll know what I mean.

 

Waaagh! Start your own thread about God being real, 'all seeing', the 'right' type of belief or the 'right' type of 'god'.

What about religion being selfish? We've had arguments presented about how the selfishness I described could be really 'logical thinking' or a natural choice but chev said that this kind of thinking - believing in God and doing as He says only to avoid a nasty afterlife - will result in a punishment (sorry if I didn't quote you chev but this is the gist of what I understood from your comments).

However with this argument it is obvious that the person's belief was brought on by fear. Fear that was implanted in this person by God - not directly obviously but this person's understanding probably came from what he read in the Bible or what he has been told by people of the Christian church.

Now it must obviously be fear, I doubt anyone wants to suffer the torments of hell for eternity - let's not start debating eternity, it's a long time, it doesn't matter how long but people don't want to suffer unspeakable torments for a year, let alone longer than their lifetime. The very idea of this type of suffering obviously frightens all of us, if those of us who are athiests, agnostic or follow any type of religion must have some subconsious fear that you've got it wrong (even the wrong religion - the Christian god doesn't like people not worshipping him and punishes them apparanetly) and an unimaginable suffering will be presented to you even after you die.

Now let's be honest. We all fear this right? Sure you can say that you "know" your faith is correct and you will not suffer hell - or whatever version of the afterlife you seem to think will be the bad one (Manus I'm talking about your interpretation of hell here since you believe in something different that isn't called 'hell', stop nit-picking and getting in an uproar if I say something that 'you' don't believe in) when you die. You might be sure, or at least claim to be. But what about all those 'other' religions out there? What if the Jews are right? What of the Romans? Heck, the Mormons could be right! (no offence to any Mormons, this is just 'my' personal opinion, please don't get caught up - as long as you treat people the way they deserve to be treated I have no beef with you) Now all these people couldn't possibly be right... maybe only one is right? Maybe we're ALL wrong? But... maybe there isn't a hell? But maybe there is! This life is scary enough without having to worry about the afterlife!

See? Now that's the fear I'm talking about. Back to my origional point (you might want to scroll back up this post to see what it was).

Now even if we do follow God out of fear (and I remember a few readings involving us having to 'fear' God and be afraid of His awesomeness and mighty wrath etc. etc.) we still get punished because it wasn't true faith (or at least faith in the Christian god, I'm certain other faiths would act this way since they are all soo, soo similar). This very fear was delivered to us by the very religion we have chosen to 'believe' in (most probably indirectly). And its the path we have chosen to accept (based on limited information mind you, but once we have accepted something and believe in it is it our place to question it? If we do question it then it isn't the faith we are supposed to have, so we'll probably end up spedning our whole lives searching for this true faith and die before we find it). Yet we will 'still' be punished for it simply because we chose that parth out of unavoidable fear. Is this fair? What will happen to me when I die? I'm agnostic, I don't believe in anything, but I don't disbelieve in anything either. I'm what you could call True-Neutral when it comes to all religions (even athisisim). Will I be punished because I didn't take the 'correct' one in a million chance? Is salvation a lottery? Picture this:

Saint Peter: "Could all the people who choose Anglicisim please stand over here."

*shuffling of feet*

Saint Peter: "And could all the people who didn't choose Anglicisim please stand on the strangely trapdoor looking floor over there. Oh, and could all the Anglican lawyers, accountants and Pop Music agents please stand with them... thank you."

*Saint Peter flips a switch*

Absurd? Not possible? Well possible or not it 'is' scary and the fact that we don't know makes it even worse. I'm certain most of us have had this thought. So we've taken our chances, grabbed our metophorical devine lottery ticket, and held it tight, hoping - nay, praying - that were're right. Because if we're not, we gonn'a suffah! Sounds like people have no choice but to look out for their own skin here. Might not be considered 'selfish' per se but it's still a "me me me" concept.

 

I undertsand your point Abomination, and I agree to a limited extent with most of what you have said.

Any of this is possible, and within anyone there could be uncertainty and fear. We could all be wrong, and people could indeed be punished for not choosing the right faith.

chevalier and myself did mention that it is not a factor of the majority of christian faiths, or other assorted religions, that this is not the case according to those beliefs, and I also said that this was not to me a punishment or even actually something to fear itself, but as you say, we could be wrong.

So putting questions of any particular religion aside, as I think that you do not want to get tied down into debates of theology or cosmogeny, I shall interpret your hypothetical question as; If one were to fear that if he didn't live according to the right religion that he would be punished, would he be doing it for selfish means?'

Well, it depends. I am inclined to say yes, that man follows those accords only for his own merit. However, if his intentions are impure, as has been stated, they are less selfish to me than one who lives without morals, or according to some other belief which in itself is self-centred.

For it is not the beliefs -or rather the religions- themselves here which would be selfish, only the intended purpose of the person following it.

But, in my experience (and I'm going to include here the general disclaimer that I may be as wrong as anyone else) when one lives in such a manner for so long, he cannot help but lose such selfish ideals, because he begins to experience himslef those virtues, if you will, and it would be hard to act selfishly when one is filled with love and compassion.

However, it is still possible, but I still asssert it is then not the religion which is selfish, merely that particular individual.

In any case, one would only fear the religious 'consequences' of a belief he did not truly believe, or in other words believed only to a certain extent (whether that is the one he currently ascribes to or not). If one had absolute faith in his own religion, even this would not exist, or so I would assume.

But your point is valid.

 

One could say so. Rather than punishment, perhaps lack of the right attitude, barring from salvation or delaying it. It's not like this applies to simpleton naivete, it, at least in my view, requires some degree of wickedness and premeditation, as well as a visible degree of consciousness as to your choice. At any rate, it's going to harm you.

There are many people who believe like that, granted. It's possible that this taint is present in the majority of believers who don't really adscribe to that option. Well, just a distracting fear of hell. You can't do much if you fear all the time to do anything. Christianity is more focused on salvation than avoiding condemnation. Ultimately, it's love that counts.

Jesus said we will be judged by our actions. Grace is needed, but it's not like most Christians believe grace comes only through their own church. Catholic doctrine doesn't claim that, for instance. For example, Orthodox liturgy is valid, their ordinations, mass and eucharist. God works through Protestant churches as well, despite we also believe their priestly ordinations are invalid... which doesn't matter in many cases as they in most cases don't actually believe their clergy to be priests in the same sense as we believe ours to be. The oppositive doctrines tend to claim Hell was made for Catholics, but hey, I'm sure they don't all believe in that. There's an ancient saying "spiritus flat ubi vult" - "the spirit blows where it wants". No matter what, God isn't bound by any church edicts.

I beg your pardon, Saint Peter was a good Catholic! Even a Pope, and a Saint at that!

 

You see, chevalier is safe.

Anyway, if you are agnostic, that is, not an outright atheist, could you not merely live in a moral way and offer a prayer to the various religions upon your deathbed?

I'm sure God would not blame you for that, if that is what you fear, as chev has said, we are judged only by our actions, not ignorance.

Now, now my good man, this is no time for making enemies. - Voltaire (1694-1778) on his deathbed in response to a priest asking that he renounce Satan.

Allthough I wouldn't suggest going that far

 

Voltaire was a priest himself early in his life IIRC

As in "to whomever is up there"? At least it shows some humility. At least you accept there might be some spirituality, beyond physicality, and that there possibly is a creator. And if there is one, you're ready to embrace him. At least a good start. Surely better than following dogmas to the letter without thinking, and making bargains with God

Generally yes, but it counts that you had all those Christians around and didn't listen to them Well, joking here, but it's not like opposing the idea counts as ignorance. Or that accepting a possibility is the same as faith. After all, blessed are those who hadn't seen but believed. However, the general idea seems all right to me and it seems to be in accordance with most Christian doctrines.

 

Sorry Abomination about the apparent threadjack. Wasn't my intention at all. I was just responding to some things which were already off-topic but I will start a new thread to answer Chev' and Manus' latest.

 

Just a point of clarification - and it has been said elsewhere recently. Agnosticism is not a degree of atheism. Atheism pertains to belief while agnosticism pertains to knowledge. A weak atheist might also be a strong agnostic. Or, a weak agnostic might also be a strong atheist. Or, a devout Christian might be a strong agnostic. (Kant for example) Or, a devout Muslim might be a weak agnostic.

Here, I'll do a quick search:

http://www.religioustolerance.org/atheist4.htm

Because of the confusion that has sprung up due to the way many in the public use the term, you'll see some philosophers now use weak/strong atheism. Weak atheism is like the above definition - the lack of belief, one way or the other, in a god. Strong atheism is a belief - the belief there is no god. Likewise, agnosticism is something a number of philosophers are now breaking down into a weak/strong dichotomy as well. Weak agnostics think there is no knowledge regarding the existence of god. Strong agnostics go a step further and say that there can be no knowledge of the existence or non-existence of god - knowledge isn't possible on that subject.

So, atheism - what do you believe.
Agnosticism - what knowledge is possible.

 

Will have to dig out my books on Voltaire when I am done unpacking/moving but I do think I remember something to the effect of him working in some official manner within the church in his teens. Later of course he became the most vocal critic of theism and religion there had ever been.

Again, some here are harboring a misconception about what agnsoticism and atheism are but I will deal with that in a more appropriate thread.
You will find that the answers to these sorts of questions shift as arguements and criticism of theistic doctrines become more widespread. Years ago it was the norm for christians to say that as long as you accept christ before you die, you are saved. When rationalists began offering the scenario in which an atheist(or even a maltheist) lives his entire life as such and then offers to convert on his deathbed(perhaps suffering Anthony Burgess' vestigial fear of Hell), theists began revising their answers, much like how when the first person asked "Why not just kill yourself if heaven is so much better?" the doctrine against suicide arose.
All of this of course, puts the atheist(agnostic or otherwise) in a bind, theologically. It is assumed that God would know what was "in our hearts" so to speak so lieing and saying we believe would do no good. And we cannot "choose" what we believe or do not believe. Such is quite beyond our control, just as a professional magician is not likely to believe in psychics because they are already familiar will all the tricks these guys use. Even if psychics were real, they would have a difficult time accepting this based on the sorts of demonstrations Edward and Sylvia Browne give us.
For the rationalist/skeptic/critical thinker we will have to see something which directly and unmistakeably infers a god. The evidence must pass the test of Occam's razor and if God requires us to assent on LESS evidence, we are simply screwed.
I am not sure this makes religion selfish, per se but it is a conondrum.

Now see this is the kind of thing that turns discussions into slugfests. If some theist were to say "Maybe God doesn't exist" and I were to come along and say "At least you show SOME potential for reason and moral character by accepting the possibility that God does not exist" there would be Hell to pay(pardon the pun)!

Atheism is not arrogant. We do not lack humilty in the slightest and nearly every atheist I have ever met aknowledges the POSSIBILITY that a creator exists. WHere we disagree is on the LIKELIHOOD. After all, it is POSSIBLE that Wile E. Coyote is a real coyote with the ability to order rocket skates through A.C.M.E. and fall off cliffs adn slink away, accordian-like.
The likelihood, however, I think is so low that I do not lose sleep over the matter.

/rant

 

Bravo Laches. I wanted to post pretty much the same but I did not want to appear inconsiderate.

 

Hehe, but on the question on whether religion is selfish, then yes, that is what should be done. It would be less selfish to hand over your money, or to act in the service of humanity, than to keep your money, or to refuse to act, due to a simple lack of trust.

I also say; Of course it is a choice what you believe in.

It is also simply faith, or trust or belief if you like, that determines what you constitute as proof, or evidence, and how much of it you necessitate. No-one has more of a vested interest in prooving these things (or disproving them) to you than yourself. But all, or at least more than you, benefit if you live in a way that is moral, assuming the religions are correct. Thus it is the requirement of proof that is selfish

It is not any thing which constitutes what we shall believe -excluding the ever-present yet debatable will- expcept two things; Our own experience, and the dogma (which I am taking as the emotive attatchment, and not merely the doctrine of belief) which dictates how we react to, and interpret or accept, the experiences of others.

Edit: Laches, I too shall say well said. For I was not trying to paint agnostics as atheists, merely that an agnostic who did not believe in God would not find it as preposterous to do so.

But your clarification is appreciated, nonetheless.

[ January 18, 2004, 18:20: Message edited by: Manus ]

 

Some potential for belief is a morally neutral term even if in a given context possession thereof is rendered as a positive quality. Such expressions as potential for reason and moral character, or counterparts of such expressions were not used. I pardon the pun on the grounds of misunderstanding - as I clearly stated lack of belief didn't earn you Hell. Theologically speaking, you must at some point believe and believe prior to salvation, granted. But it's also believed that everyone gets his sufficient chance. Technically, this may mean God appears to each dying man at the hour of his passing. There's no claim as to final, official explanation of this in my religion.

Granted, doesn't have to be. But that potential for belief may signify humility doesn't mean that lack of such potential necessarily involves arrogance. Possibility of arrogance showing through atheism is an entirely different story. Generally arrogance in belief is when you think you have all answers and I suppose we all agree here.

Clarification, please.

When someone stops me on the street and tells what I should believe in... well, you get the idea.

Serious religions don't really think you'll convert just because someone says "hey, bro, I have news! X is the ultimate power". Information, however, is generally freely available to public, there's always someone who will talk to you and offer explanations... as well as a heated debate should you like

The basic assumption made here is that if God is perfectly just, you cannot be liable before God through no fault of your own. When there's no guilt, there's no fault. Therefore, it takes some effort to pave yourself a way to hell. It's not like hell is default destination.