This site makes extensive use of JavaScript.
Please enable JavaScript in your browser.
Live
PTR
10.2.7
PTR
10.2.6
Beta
A question about Religions
Post Reply
Return to board index
Post by
TheMediator
what's your problem with Muslim charity?
I'm not saying that it is bad
I am merely saying that charity is required, and that (again, I know it isn't the accurate term for it) the Muslim Church benefits from those acts of charity as new converts may join after receiving donations, similar to how the Christian Church promotes missionary work to draw in more people to Christianity.
Post by
ASHelmy
what's your problem with Muslim charity?
I'm not saying that it is bad
I am merely saying that charity is required, and that (again, I know it isn't the accurate term for it) the Muslim Church benefits from those acts of charity as new converts may join after receiving donations, similar to how the Christian Church promotes missionary work to draw in more people to Christianity.
Ok, so even if it does benefit from that (unlikely), what's wrong with that? It is not like we do that to lure people into the religion :D.
Post by
TheMediator
what's wrong with that?
What's wrong with an organization issuing a threat against people (damnation) in order to make itself stronger? Either A) They're lying to people or B) Genuinely threatening people, in either case, they're using questionable methods to increase their own strength, even if the amount of that gain may be minuscule.
If we're taking a Kantian view of this - we would say that is not the duty of someone to lie to others, or to threaten others, therefore it is wrong that they are doing this. Personally I don't subscribe to Kantian ethics, although a number of people who argue ethics on this forum do, so I figure it is worth putting that out there.
Post by
Skyfire
To me, a life where the only thing I can believe in is solid evidence does not seem like a happy one. Sure, it will probably make me evade many a stupid mistake, but it will also rob life of some of it's beauty. I mean, do I really need proof that people are good before I trust them, or should I trust people until proven wrong? I generally try to do the latter, and I do not regret it much ( I only sometimes regret that those people turned out bad, but not that I initially trusted them). I mean, a life spent in constant pursuit of proof can lead to a miserable existence of doubt and uncertainty.
One can do these things without a god to turn to... I find myself every day looking to life
itself
as a means to existence, and see no need to believe in a god imbued in such life. You're assuming that we're all going to go the way of Nietzsche. =) Mediator saying that he requires logic and reason to reach a result does not exactly mean that he cannot trust without 100% certainty; it's a basic probability assessment. We're fairly certain that the ideal gases follow the ideal gas law (well, the Van der Waals equation at least, for most real fluids) and that this is correct in most cases. Should I risk not using the equation to reach an answer to a given problem?...
As to that second point, the answer I have is that God does nothing to prove
or disprove
his existence, since that would rob us of our free will to believe or not believe in him.
No, that wouldn't rob us of our free will to believe in him, that would simply make those who denied his existence then idiots. I could still deny his existence in the face of evidence to the contrary, but then I'd be akin to a Holocaust denier. Free will still exists in this instance.
Why does God punish? Simply because some people deserve punishment. Do you honestly think that someone who murders children does not deserve to burn in hell? I think they do.
Why must we leave it to him? Because he is all good, all knowing? How can I trust that he is? Because we assign those qualities to him? How do
we
know whether when we assign the qualities "all good" and "all knowing" that what we perceive to be these two things is wrong, by his definition?
We as society must decide "all good" and "all knowing" then (using the free will that this god has supposedly granted us). But then, isn't it true that if we have come together to decide on these things, that we then presume to deny him his choice to judge?
We were given free will, so we
should
use it to determine how we should live our lives. It is imperative that we act, knowing nothing of what lies beyond death, as if we are the ones judging.
It seems also that you conflate morality with religion. I would suggest you do not do so, for it is possible that one can exist without the other.
As to why god even created evil (or, if we agree on Hyper's points, allowed it to exist), I honestly do not know. Some question are just to hard for humans (or maybe for average humans) to answer.
Why are they too hard?... What questions are these? Do not extend your inability to answer them to the rest of humanity, for that way lies a fallacy.
But I don't know, why would God create us if not to test us? Why would God make a pointless existence? Why not put us straight in Heaven? But if he did do that, when even create us in the first place? To me, that fact that he created us implies that we have some purpose, and perhaps that is in us choosing to be good or evil. And the whole free will thing is a big debate. But I do believe that it is possible for us to have free will.
You assume we were created with the purpose of being tested, but that's not what life is. Life cannot be defined by simply knowing hardship and persevering through it. We know love, don't we? How is that a hardship? Sure, maybe the things we go through to attain that knowledge are hard, but love itself is not. Take any other of another emotion, and examine it in such a way. For example, fear is not a hardship; I can choose to shy away or face it head on, and if it is not a threatening fear, there really are two options rather than the 1 that may first present itself.
Post by
TheMediator
Mediator saying that he requires logic and reason to reach a result does not exactly mean that he cannot trust without 100% certainty; it's a basic probability assessment.
Right, we can never know for sure, so we have to have some level of trust, the only thing I am saying is that one should provide the same level of trust to all things initially. Doesn't seem fair or right to me to trust in a god without evidence, yet require a high level of evidence to justify putting trust in theories like evolution, the Big Bang, etc. etc.
I could still deny his existence in the face of evidence to the contrary, but then I'd be akin to a Holocaust denier.
Indeed. Personally I don't get why Holocaust deniers get so much flak and yet some people believe its personally acceptable to take that same stance when supporting a god.
It seems also that you conflate morality with religion. I would suggest you do not do so, for it is possible that one can exist without the other.
I would say that those who decide things based on their religion are not themselves making moral decisions at all - they're making rational decisions. Do what I believe the guy with big stick says, or he'll hit me with it. To truly act morally is to decide what is right or wrong for the purpose of acting rightly, not to avoid punishment.
Post by
Skyfire
I would say that those who decide things based on their religion are not themselves making moral decisions at all - they're making rational decisions. Do what I believe the guy with big stick says, or he'll hit me with it.
True, but they're rational-izing (deliberate dash) on an unstable (possibly false) premise: That there exists a God to stick them with.
To truly act morally is to decide what is right or wrong for the purpose of acting rightly, not to avoid punishment.
Yes, but you generalize here incorrectly; it is a fallacy to assume that every God-fearing/loving person acts (with moral intentions) out of his fear/love for God.
Post by
113229
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
Skyfire
Blessed are those who have not seen but believe.
This ^
Ignorance is bliss?
Wut?
Post by
TheMediator
Yes, but you generalize here incorrectly; it is a fallacy to assume that every God-fearing/loving person acts (with moral intentions) out of his fear/love for God.
You're right, I guess I worded my original statement poorly. I meant to say that those who do act out of fear/love for their God are not making moral decisions.
Post by
ASHelmy
what's wrong with that?
What's wrong with an organization issuing a threat against people (damnation) in order to make itself stronger? Either A) They're lying to people or B) Genuinely threatening people, in either case, they're using questionable methods to increase their own strength, even if the amount of that gain may be minuscule.
If we're taking a Kantian view of this - we would say that is not the duty of someone to lie to others, or to threaten others, therefore it is wrong that they are doing this. Personally I don't subscribe to Kantian ethics, although a number of people who argue ethics on this forum do, so I figure it is worth putting that out there.
But that is under the assumption that said origination is evil or greedy. We say we do it to help others, why would you not believe us? If you could prove that we are doing it for our own ends, then maybe you can prove we're evil. But to make an assumption that we are evil and then say that we give charity to further our aim does not seem correct to me.
One can do these things without a god to turn to... I find myself every day looking to life itself as a means to existence, and see no need to believe in a god imbued in such life. You're assuming that we're all going to go the way of Nietzsche. =) Mediator saying that he requires logic and reason to reach a result does not exactly mean that he cannot trust without 100% certainty; it's a basic probability assessment. We're fairly certain that the ideal gases follow the ideal gas law (well, the Van der Waals equation at least, for most real fluids) and that this is correct in most cases. Should I risk not using the equation to reach an answer to a given problem?...
Oh, I wasn't trying to prove that doing these things requires you to believe in God, I was just trying to point out the folly (At least I that's what I think) in using the scientific method in our everyday life. And who is Nietzsche? How is he relevant to our discussion?
No, that wouldn't rob us of our free will to believe in him, that would simply make those who denied his existence then idiots. I could still deny his existence in the face of evidence to the contrary, but then I'd be akin to a Holocaust denier. Free will still exists in this instance.
Just because someone thinks that something is not true does not mean it is not (I am sure you already know this, but whatever). If there was physical proof that God is real, anyone with the least amount of common sense would do what he says, and that, in a way, does rob of us of our free will. It's exactly what I am trying to say, lack of proof should not always be a reason not to believe in something. On the other hand, presence of proof forces you to believe in something. (Another way of saying that would be that since a large group of people would be forced to believe in God if there was proof, and since no one is forced to not believe in God due to absence of proof, proof would rob us of free will).
Why must we leave it to him? Because he is all good, all knowing? How can I trust that he is? Because we assign those qualities to him? How do we know whether when we assign the qualities "all good" and "all knowing" that what we perceive to be these two things is wrong, by his definition?
We as society must decide "all good" and "all knowing" then (using the free will that this god has supposedly granted us). But then, isn't it true that if we have come together to decide on these things, that we then presume to deny him his choice to judge?
We were given free will, so we should use it to determine how we should live our lives. It is imperative that we act, knowing nothing of what lies beyond death, as if we are the ones judging.
It seems also that you conflate morality with religion. I would suggest you do not do so, for it is possible that one can exist without the other.
We leave it to him because he is all knowing and able to punish justly. I trust that he is because that's what the Qu'ran says, I kinda thought that me and Themediator had assumed that God (and all his traits) is real in that particular part of the discussion. God also defines what is Good and what is not. I never confuse morality with religion, in fact, I usually argue that since we do these deeds to go to heaven, than they are not really "good deeds".
Why are they too hard?... What questions are these? Do not extend your inability to answer them to the rest of humanity, for that way lies a fallacy.
I think that such questions as "Why did God create us?", "Why did God create evil?" and "What did God do before he created us? What will he do after we are all judged?" (again, under the assumption that God is real) are all unanswerable. They are too hard because our minds cannot understand everything, we can't answer everything. I did not do that, I actually said "perhaps the average human" implying that maybe it is just me who can't answer them because my intelligence maybe average.
You assume we were created with the purpose of being tested, but that's not what life is. Life cannot be defined by simply knowing hardship and persevering through it. We know love, don't we? How is that a hardship? Sure, maybe the things we go through to attain that knowledge are hard, but love itself is not. Take any other of another emotion, and examine it in such a way. For example, fear is not a hardship; I can choose to shy away or face it head on, and if it is not a threatening fear, there really are two options rather than the 1 that may first present itself.
Again, under the assumption that God is real and that there is heaven and hell, I can't fathom another reason why God would create us other than to be tested.
Post by
TheMediator
But that is under the assumption that said origination is evil or greedy
Not really, the purpose for lying or threatening is irrelevant under Kantian ethics (which is why I don't subscribe to that set of ethics).
If there was physical proof that God is real, anyone with the least amount of common sense would do what he says, and that, in way, does rob of us of our free will.
I'm not so sure about that. There seems to be plenty of evidence against the existence of the god in the old testament (and by extension the Christian and Islamic versions of God), and yet people continue to believe despite that. Also, even if there was hard evidence to support God's existence (there does not exist, as far as we know, anything that removes all doubt, so I'm substituting in place of "physical proof", "hard evidence") there would likely be some zealots that supported other religions on the same basis that people now support a god that they have no evidence of.
That "least amount of common sense" part is worded extremely poorly in the context of supporting a god... because people believe in god now despite evidence, so that is to say that they lack common sense.
Post by
ASHelmy
But that is under the assumption that said origination is evil or greedy
Not really, the purpose for lying or threatening is irrelevant under Kantian ethics (which is why I don't subscribe to that set of ethics).
If there was physical proof that God is real, anyone with the least amount of common sense would do what he says, and that, in way, does rob of us of our free will.
I'm not so sure about that. There seems to be plenty of evidence against the existence of the god in the old testament (and by extension the Christian and Islamic versions of God), and yet people continue to believe despite that. Also, even if there was hard evidence to support God's existence (there does not exist, as far as we know, anything that removes all doubt, so I'm substituting "physical proof" for "hard evidence") there would likely be some zealots that supported other religions on the same basis that people now support a god that they have no evidence of.
That "least amount of common sense" part is worded extremely poorly in the context of supporting a god... because people believe in god now despite evidence, so that is to say that they lack common sense.
Ok, I am asking for it now, but whatever. What evidence do you have against our god?
Post by
TheMediator
Ok, I am asking for it now, but whatever. What evidence do you have against our god?
I'll see if I can dig it up, but I read this book in my library about how the source of the ten plagues came from some bacteria that came from up the river. The bacteria first turned the water red, which killed the frogs in the river, since there weren't those frogs to control insect populations, there was a swarm of them, those insects carried diseases which might have caused the boils, eventually the number of insects grew so large that they could literally block out the light when they swarmed. Since those people didn't really understand how bacteria could have been the source of all that, they attributed it to a god. That didn't exactly spark the exodus though, the exodus is recorded in Egyptian records occurring at a later time, but these natural disasters were in fact recorded happening at one point - the theory then is that those who originally authored the old testament were aware of those natural disasters, and tied it to their exodus to simply to cause fear in other people - who would really want to fight against in an enemy that had a god on their side?
Post by
ASHelmy
Ok, I am asking for it now, but whatever. What evidence do you have against our god?
I'll see if I can dig it up, but I read this book in my library about how the source of the ten plagues came from some bacteria that came from up the river. The bacteria first turned the water red, which killed the frogs in the river, since there weren't those frogs to control insect populations, there was a swarm of them, those insects carried diseases which might have caused the boils, eventually the number of insects grew so large that they could literally block out the light when they swarmed. Since those people didn't really understand how bacteria could have been the source of all that, they attributed it to a god. That didn't exactly spark the exodus though, the exodus is recorded in Egyptian records occurring at a later time, but these natural disasters were in fact recorded happening at one point - the theory then is that those who originally authored the old testament were aware of those natural disasters, and tied it to their exodus to simply to cause fear in other people - who would really want to fight against in an enemy that had a god on their side?
Ah, but how can you know that it wasn't God who ordered those bacteria to do those things? And how does this entirely disprove God?
Post by
TheMediator
And how does this entirely disprove God?
It doesn't, it just provides evidence against it. The Old testament doesn't say that he sent bacteria down the river and that resulted in plagues. So that raises the question that either A) He did indeed send bacteria down the river and he just didn't say so, or B) That it was a natural phenomenon. It doesn't prove one or the other, it just raises your doubt about conclusion A.
When you throw a rock, it could either stay in motion due to physical laws that suggest that things in motion stay in motion, or it could be that once you throw the rock tiny aliens drag it towards its target. By observing a lack of tiny aliens coupled with a rational explanation of the mechanics of how motion works, one has evidence to support that there are not tiny aliens. They could be there, cloaked, but what reason do you have to trust that? You have evidence supporting that things in motion stay in motion, just like in the original case, you have reason to believe that bacteria caused the plagues. Again, tiny aliens could cause things in motion to stay in motion, but what reason do you believe to trust that?
Post by
ASHelmy
And how does this entirely disprove God?
It doesn't, it just provides evidence against it. The Old testament doesn't say that he sent bacteria down the river and that resulted in plagues. So that raises the question that either A) He did indeed send bacteria down the river and he just didn't say so, or B) That it was a natural phenomenon. It doesn't prove one or the other, it just raises your doubt about conclusion A.
When you throw a rock, it could either stay in motion due to physical laws that suggest that things in motion stay in motion, or it could be that once you throw the rock tiny aliens drag it towards its target. By observing a lack of tiny aliens coupled with a rational explanation of the mechanics of how motion works, one has evidence to support that there are not tiny aliens. They could be there, cloaked, but what reason do you have to trust that? You have evidence supporting that things in motion stay in motion, just like in the original case, you have reason to believe that bacteria caused the plagues. Again, tiny aliens could cause things in motion to stay in motion, but what reason do you believe to trust that?
How would he say that he sent bacteria? How would he explain that to people who lived thousands of years ago? The prophets would have been thought mad. Perhaps if it was all happening now, god would have explained it better. And why can't I say that it's God who keeps the laws of physics constant? We have no idea why they do not change, we just say "they just don't and never will", so I can say that it is God that's keeping that rock flying. I can't prove it, but neither can you disprove it.
Post by
159390
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
ASHelmy
Eluneril, in the first scenario, I think the man would go to heaven. The second one, I am not sure, but I would hope he does.
Post by
Hyperspacerebel
Blessed are those who have not seen but believe.
This ^
Ignorance is bliss?
Wut?
Basic sentence understanding fail?
Wut?
Post by
Hyperspacerebel
I've got a question for the religious folk. (And I'm asking this purely out of interest, I'm not trying to prove a point or anything)
If, hypothetically, a man is brought up somewhere in the wild and no-one has told him anything about science or god or any other beliefs, and he spends his entire life not even thinking about how the universe started, but he's kind to every other living being and never raises a hand to anyone, will he go to heaven?
Furthermore, if a man is told about god, and he actively believes that god doesn't exist, but he too is kind to every living being and never raises a hand to anyone, will he go to heaven?
Sorry if this has already been asked :)
"There is only one Lawgiver and Judge, the one who is able to save and destroy."
Post Reply
You are not logged in. Please
log in
to post a reply or
register
if you don't already have an account.