Philosophy Discussion Forums

The "lord" doesn't exist, it is just cause and effect. Action and reaction, change and new, energy.

(Sorry I'm late in replying...I was kind of distracted the last couple of days)

Whitedragon wrote: There is useful info in all scriptures; you just have to know how to look for it. You cannot see the forest through the trees. It seems you are also implying that the people from those times just wrote down anything they fancied and that they did not put any thought behind it. It may very well be that they were more intelligent than we were; their languages were more complicated and almost the largest part of the written texts are set in grimoire style. They also have a good measure of Kabbalistic properties.

As I said before, in a proper philosophical debate you can't just point to a book (or something else) and say 'the answers are in there' as your counter argument to anything I or anyone else posts. How would you feel if I said well the answer to your argument is likely in one of the fortune cookies I have or if it isn't there it is likely one of the words of wisdom that comes with bazooka bubble gum? You may disagree, but you wouldn't be able to say anything because you have no idea what any of them might say.

Whitedragon wrote: Perhaps some people are just not willing to work through the allegory to find the message in the texts. Are we truly going to discriminate against a collection of texts based on its abstract style of writing? Moreover, who are we to say what truth is; perhaps it is as simple as, the book does not tell us to kill one another, but tells us to live a good life, could that be a sign? There is no other religion where a deity sacrifices so much for his people as the Abrahamic one. Others never seem to reach a point of such a level of selflessness.

For all you know all the wisdom in those religious text could be found in fortune cookies, bubble gum wrappers/cartoons, or just people looking for 'truth' by themselves. I don't hold it against you that you haven't read everything that I have on comparative religions, philosophy, etc. but I don't hold that against you if you would at least try to understand what I'm saying and wouldn't expect me to guess at what the bible say or have to guess as to what your argument really is.

As you are wrong about 'God' because an all powerful 'God' can never sacrifice anything and still be all powerful; if what you have after a 'sacrifice' is the same as before you made the 'sacrifice' then there never was a real 'sacrifice' to begin with. I'm sure there are plenty of Christians that can try to explain it away, but each one of these argument is just BS. Only a mortal human being or some other sentient being that can lose something can sacrifice to a cause. Perhaps what you really mean is that no other religion expects it's people to sacrifice so much for it and that I think I could agree with since at the core Christianity is about having it's 'true believers' sacrifice everything they hold dear to a incredibly demanding 'God'; as well as to sacrifice it all without hesitation or stopping to ask why .

Whitedragon wrote: You are looking for truth, Pilot asked the same thing to the Son and we all know what his answer was. In other words since we are having these conversations and are not really getting anywhere, it seems we should seek a higher power for our questions.

No, not everyone reading your post watched the same TV programs that you have seen so it would help if you elaborate on exactly what the conversation was. And just so you know I have already done the whole 'enlightenment'/'touched by God' thing so telling me that won't work since my experience in those things has told me that Christianity and your arguments in general are completely wrong.

I hate to break it to you but people that are either 'touched by God' or 'enlightened' often disagree on what higher powers want from us; and often their arguments are as biased as the rest of ours and based on the same desires as before they went through the process. I don't have the time to look up the exact fallacy it is to expect 'higher powers' to provide the correct answer, but I very sure that it is at least one if not several fallacies. As I said before at least when you writing/arguing on philosophical forums, try to stick with logic/reason instead of religious dogma. Other theists I've talked to can do it to some degree, so I don't think I'm expecting that much from you.

-- Updated December 27th, 2016, 5:21 pm to add the following --

Dclements wrote:

Whitedragon wrote:dclements said,


(Nested quote removed.)


It is not uncommon to set a prominent historical figure in a model of older narratives

But your missing my point if Jesus and the bible are a fabrication (along with every other piece of doctrine concerning 'God') what is the 'truth' behind such teachings if at best you have to go through a lot of BS/dogma before there is any chance of even finding a nugget of useful info. Many people have more or less have given up on mainstream religion(partly because of reasons I just stated), but haven't given trying to find there own way which I have heard referred to something along the lines of being 'spiritual' but not 'religious'. While to no surprise both some atheist and some theist have problems with it at least some atheist are happy that such beliefs are personal and not directly tied to any particular church, and theist are just happy that they at least try to continue to find their way.

I kind of wonder how you and Ormond feel about such people that think/believe along the lines of being 'spiritual' but not 'religious' since even if I don't really agree with such mentality, I'm pliable enough to say that my beliefs could sort of fit in such a category. It may not be the most elegant 'middle of the way' between theism and atheism, but I think it may be better always being unable to solve one's differences.

I noticed that in your posts neither you nor Ormond said anything in regard to these 'spiritual' but not 'religious' people. As I already said, I don't exactly agree with it but I've put enough energy into finding my own way to sort of agree with some of it. At least I see it as sort of a 'middle way' between religious beliefs and some beliefs that are more atheistic in nature.

-- Updated December 27th, 2016, 5:39 pm to add the following --

Ormond wrote:

Fooloso4 wrote:I agree. And this is one reason why knowledge is double edged. There is something gained and something lost.

Yes, it's a holistic phenomena. Thought is both the best and worst thing to ever happen to humans. Thought gives us enormous powers, and the price tag is our psychic separation from reality.

Thought gives us life, and thought gives us death. Thought has given us modern civilization and benefits that exceed the wildest dreams of our ancestors. And as part of that process, thought has given us the ability to erase all these gains in just a few minutes. Thought has made us smart enough to be able to create nuclear weapons, and insane enough to actually do it.

The most rational response to this human condition would be to become experts at managing the double edged sword presented by thought. Philosophy represents one side of such a process, but only half of what is required. Just as we should sharpen the blade of rational thought via philosophy, we need also to learn where the off button of the thought machine is.

Everything has a price so it shouldn't be too much of a surprise that conscientiousness has as much of a cost as it does. However I think I agree with that more effort should be put into understanding the human condition and dealing with it. I don't know if you know about the four noble truths of Buddhism but it goes something along the lines that there is dukkha/suffering, this dukkha/suffering is caused mostly by our desires/clingingness to material things or how we like things the way they are, and in order to deal with this we have to learn to 'let go' to these material things or our expectations of things that make us happy to not be around forever.

4 Noble truths
http://www.buddhanet.net/e-learning/buddhism/bs-s02.htm
https://www.google.com/search?q=four+no ... sm&oq=four

With my chronic pain I've kind of come to learn that I have no choice but to learn how to go with the flow, or to allow for the stress of not getting what I want to wear me out with the pain that it causes. Although just going with the flow can create it's own problems.

Ormond wrote: Meditation involves patiently tearing the concept castles down.

What's great about this is you can just say anything and the eager disciples will seize on your wise words.

Contradicting yourself counts as a virtue.

It disgusts me.

Dclements wrote: It is possible that Christianity at one time really cared about helping the poor and better mankind, but since it is easier to get money from rich people who want to be 'saved'; it was likely a given that trying to save the poor would have to be put on the back burner when money became the main priority for the church. Maybe if the church actually tried harder to help people maybe things might not be the way they are, but since the church has only so much and priest are as human/hedonistic as the rest of us are, expecting them to really do anything may be too much. Even if the point of the church is to 'save' people both in this world and the 'next'.

To governments, corporations and religions, the numbers they reduce us to are compared quarter by quarter, financial year by financial year. We are just resources and numbers to them, of very low import.

Religions, like all other institutions, are in it for themselves and have little interest in individual humans unless they pose a threat. The recent royal commission here into institutional abuse showed how church office bearers routinely put the institution of the church ahead of the interests of its abused children. Even today Cardinal George Pell remains secure in his senior Vatican job, despite admitting to turning away a boy who complained to him about being molested. Institutions are powerful so its main champions tend to be granted amnesty in situations where equivalent individuals would be prosecuted.

An interesting thought is to consider the grip on Pell's mind for him to be so inhuman as to turn away a molested boy asking him for help. That decision to turn the boy away was truly inhuman - institutional, not human. Pell was acting as its human vessel, protecting the institution at all costs, thinking it to be "bigger than any individual", seemingly including abused innocents.

It appears that an organisation can reach a certain size where it becomes an entity unto itself. Its policies will increasingly reflect its own priority over any of its individuals, each of whom becomes increasingly replaceable.

I think that as a species, we're bipolar in our capacity to create both beauty and nightmares. If left unchecked and ungoverned, I think that we'd tend towards being more chaotic, selfish and brutal, were it not for democracy and policing. Religions like Christianity purport that if we behave altruistically we will be rewarded in an afterlife and so aim to create a governing system which should cause people to be moral agents, but since there's no evidence that this is actually the case, many people don't act accordingly or appropriately to our fellow human beings, or even follow our laws.

This is one of the things I think "God" has done wrong. Human beings have massive potential as a species, to grow, develop and perhaps one day inhabit a much larger area of the universe, but there's a good chance that we won't survive another hundred years, considering wars, overpopulation and limited resources. We are largely motivated by incentives, so I think that if there was proof of an all powerful God, that is empirical evidence - surely mankind would have progressed further, knowing that there's a higher power that we have to answer to in the eternal sense - that our actions directly effected the quality our eternity, but instead we only have faith to rely upon, with anything related to an afterlife being shrouded in mystery and superstition - all powerful God, effectively hiding...

Many theists will argue (as I have in the past) that we have free will so God is blameless, but as our creator God has an accountability for us, as he is responsible for how we function as beings, God (if he exists) is responsible for the human condition. We all respond to things and stimulus in certain ways, we make mistakes and we don't have all of the answers, these are facets of the human condition and having free will doesn't change them. If the program is flawed, do we hold the program or the programmer accountable? If the hardware is flawed do we blame the hardware or the designer?

Should beings as erratic and unsure as we are have free will (from a designer's perspective)? How can we reasonably claim that an omniscient being isn't at fault or accountable when his creation ends up destroying itself and it's home? If an intelligent species destroys itself and it's home, can it truly be called intelligent? We are certainly sentient, but intelligent, I think that is open to debate. I believe that God has done quite a lot wrong and that Dclements is correct and makes a vital point when he/she says: "if what you have after a 'sacrifice' is the same as before you made the 'sacrifice' then there never was a real 'sacrifice' to begin with." In the strictest sense, God did not sacrifice Jesus. He allowed him to suffer alot for brief time and then got him back "good as new." When you sacrifice something, you don't get it back. So whilst it can be said theologically that Jesus died for our sins as he was heroic, he did not sacrifice his life, because he that knew he would get it back. I think that there are many people who would do the same for what they believed in a similar circumstance.

Also, was God correct in killing all the first born Egyptians (as according to the Bible)? Couldn't he (being omniscient) find another way for the Jews to be freed other than genocide?

---

Greta:

You've hit the nail on the head regarding huge institutions. Having worked for one and practically been destroyed by them for reporting my distress, I can vouch that such institutions only act to protect the institution. Whether you're right or wrong doesn't matter, it's whether you're good for institution or not. People like the young boy you mention, by reporting their trouble/problems are only making the "dragon" more angry and are sure to be blown away in a firey breath (a quick breath as possible being the likely case) and then swept under the rug. Corruption has deep roots. Very good post.

Hello Whitedragon,

It seems you answered your own question in your post.

You say, "Looking at the story of Adam and Eve", the world is "broken" and the world is "doomed". Two stories deep into the bible and our world is already broken and doomed. Yet you question what the Lord has done wrong?

Perhaps instilling the fear of hell into people in order to make them believe in god, and consequently taking their focus off of this life and putting it on the afterlife.

Glad I could help,

GonzoG

Fanman wrote:Many theists will argue (as I have in the past) that we have free will so God is blameless, but as our creator God has an accountability for us, as he is responsible for how we function as beings, God (if he exists) is responsible for the human condition. We all respond to things and stimulus in certain ways, we make mistakes and we don't have all of the answers, these are facets of the human condition and having free will doesn't change them. If the program is flawed, do we hold the program or the programmer accountable? If the hardware is flawed do we blame the hardware or the designer?

If the universe is a living system then it may not have yet achieved its "mature form". Our current destructive circumstances could be predictable for all we know, just as growth into an adolescent from childhood has predictable elements.

As far as I can tell it is the emotion of hope that drives belief in God - hope for a better future, both individually in the afterlife and collectively in physical reality. Belief strikes me as needy - clung to desperately lest one's happiness be lost. It's no coincidence that many believers have undergone hardships as criminals, addicts or prostitutes, seemingly finding the firm rules laid down by religion a life-saving replacement for prior inadequate parental guidance, with the congregation replacing their distant or departed family.

Yet no matter how much we'd like some things to be true, logically we can't know, as we agree. That's where faith comes in. One believes. Wanting God to be true so badly that not even for a moment can it be countenanced to be a myth. Without belief, for some it's as though their world would collapse without it, that existence would be unbearable.

This desperation is not attractive to me. I would not like to cling to any doctrine with so many known dodgy aspects, entrusting it with my mental health. It's easier to just admit the obvious - that we simply don't know. Still, there is arguably no entirely satisfactory replacement for the kind of comfort that belief in God or heaven can bring to those suffering from loss. Yet how much belief is internalised to allow for comfort and much is just display behaviour or wishful thinking? One can fake belief - but it's when we are under duress that we find out how much faith we have or not.

Greta:

If the universe is a living system then it may not have yet achieved its "mature form". Our current destructive circumstances could be predictable for all we know, just as growth into an adolescent from childhood has predictable elements.

Agreed. The destructive element of humanity that we witness could be an evolutionary step towards something better (or more mature as you say), likened to growing pains. I certainly hope that humanity evolves into a more peace guided entity, only I don't think I'll be around to witness it . I think its a case hoping that the “good” nature of humanity prevails over the “bad.”

As far as I can tell it is the emotion of hope that drives belief in God - hope for a better future, both individually in the afterlife and collectively in physical reality. Belief strikes me as needy - clung to desperately lest one's happiness be lost. It's no coincidence that many believers have undergone hardships as criminals, addicts or prostitutes, seemingly finding the firm rules laid down by religion a life-saving replacement for prior inadequate parental guidance, with the congregation replacing their distant or departed family.

In my experience you're not wrong here. When I was a theist the thought of letting go of my faith brought about feelings of dread, dread that there was nothing more to life than the physical aspect, but eventually I let go of it because it just didn't seem like a purported reality I could believe in any more. Thinking critically really does dispel many (if not all) of the Biblical myths. I can see why belief would strike you as needy, as it offers a crutch to believers in times of unhappiness or despair and an extra aspect to life, which seems inviting and wonderful, but most importantly (I think), it offers hope to the existential fear of no longer existing and also offers “deeper meaning” to life. As you say, people who have experienced hardship often find there way to belief, which does seem to help them in reforming their lives for the better, but along with the help it provides, it also requires belief in the extraordinary, and belief in things which contradict life as we know it, such as a man surviving in the belly of a whale for 3 days.

Yet no matter how much we'd like some things to be true, logically we can't know, as we agree. That's where faith comes in. One believes. Wanting God to be true so badly that not even for a moment can it be countenanced to be a myth. Without belief, for some it's as though their world would collapse without it, that existence would be unbearable.

I pretty much agree with you here, and note your insight in saying some and not all.

This desperation is not attractive to me. I would not like to cling to any doctrine with so many known dodgy aspects, entrusting it with my mental health. It's easier to just admit the obvious - that we simply don't know. Still, there is arguably no entirely satisfactory replacement for the kind of comfort that belief in God or heaven can bring to those suffering from loss. Yet how much belief is internalised to allow for comfort and much is just display behaviour or wishful thinking? One can fake belief - but it's when we are under duress that we find out how much faith we have or not.

I think that comfort and wishful thinking are key elements of belief in God. Without evidence that God is real, no matter how certain a believer is of God's existence – they can't eliminate the possibility that belief could be being held in something that is not real. I don't know if God or an intelligent creative force exists, but until there's evidence either way (which there may never be) I think that being certain of the existence of God can only be achieved through faith; not logic.

It seems as though believing that God has done nothing wrong depends upon belief status also. Those who believe in God will defend everything its done (as I did in the past), while those who don't believe can see where its gone/done wrong. Religion indoctrinates so much so, that it causes believers to justify the actions of God, that they would otherwise condemn if people/a person did the same.

Fanman wrote:When I was a theist the thought of letting go of my faith brought about feelings of dread, dread that there was nothing more to life than the physical aspect, but eventually I let go of it because it just didn't seem like a purported reality I could believe in any more.

A common theist refrain is that they could not live without the meaning that their belief brings, generally as a rebuttal against "meaningless" secularism. As you personally know, relinquishing belief does not mean relinquishing meaning or hope. It just means entertaining more options as possibilities than the ideas of middle eastern people in the Iron Age. For all we know, afterlives may be real but an interventionist God is not. Or it could be the other way around. Or perhaps a completely different situation we cannot understand.

Fanman wrote:... most importantly (I think), it offers hope to the existential fear of no longer existing and also offers “deeper meaning” to life.

Yes, there is the complaint that if we all just die and disappear then life seems meaningless, unless we are just collateral damage that occurs in the universe's immature form. Others, more focused on the present moment, would suggest that life innately has meaning by virtue of its challenges and connections.

Yet no matter how much we'd like some things to be true, logically we can't know, as we agree. That's where faith comes in. One believes. Wanting God to be true so badly that not even for a moment can it be countenanced to be a myth. Without belief, for some it's as though their world would collapse without it, that existence would be unbearable.

I pretty much agree with you here, and note your insight in saying some and not all.

Fanman wrote:Those who believe in God will defend everything its done (as I did in the past), while those who don't believe can see where its gone/done wrong. Religion indoctrinates so much so, that it causes believers to justify the actions of God, that they would otherwise condemn if people/a person did the same.

Yes. Nature has been in the process of civilising somewhat - from utterly blind predatory organisms to more considered, choosy and aware predation. While it's often not reliable to just any work in progress, life on Earth, including humans and their culture, remains largely savage and unforgiving. There is clearly room for ethical development in all societies and, if there is a god, then it would be more aware than Earthly ethicists of those shortfalls. An existent deity would not judge its little creatures with limited free will for the world's ills but would have compassion for their role of "collateral damage" en route to possibly a more ethical distant future.

Greta:

A common theist refrain is that they could not live without the meaning that their belief brings, generally as a rebuttal against "meaningless" secularism. As you personally know, relinquishing belief does not mean relinquishing meaning or hope. It just means entertaining more options as possibilities than the ideas of middle eastern people in the Iron Age. For all we know, afterlives may be real but an interventionist God is not. Or it could be the other way around. Or perhaps a completely different situation we cannot understand.

Yes. In giving up my beliefs, I found that doing so didn't mean that life didn't have meaning. It is, I think, a part of the indoctrination to believe that a life without believing in God is a life without meaning. Indeed, I've found so much meaning in life that it difficult to know where to start expounding. I think that there could be an afterlife, on an experiential level I think there's more to life than strictly what can be measured physically, but to immediately equate such things with God, I think limits the scope of what actually could be. I no longer believe in an interventionist God, but I believe that there's a lot more “weirdness” to life than we currently know, and that perhaps some sensitive people, are more prone to experiencing that weirdness, I don't know. I find it difficult to accept that everyone who's claimed to experience something of a “spiritual nature” is delusional, which is one of the reasons why I currently reject hard-line materialism. I trust science, but it can't explain some of the phenomena I've experienced except to say that its a delusion or illusion. Whilst I accept that is completely possible, the mind does wonder if that's entirely the case.

Yes, there is the complaint that if we all just die and disappear then life seems meaningless, unless we are just collateral damage that occurs in the universe's immature form. Others, more focused on the present moment, would suggest that life innately has meaning by virtue of its challenges and connections.

I think that life has a lot of meaning. The human condition is so complex and profound, our connection to the universe and other animals inspires awe and wonder, there's so much to discover. If we just live and disappear, it doesn't mean that life is without meaning, in my opinion that's not the yardstick to measure meaning by. The journey is as important as the destination IMO. Even if our ultimate end is oblivion – we experienced something unique and wonderful (if highly challenging). I would love to be alive in a million years, just to see how humanity has developed, and of course... experience our technological and philosophical advancements. I suspect that we will eventually achieve interstellar travel. Perhaps even meet other sentient life in the universe.

Yes. Nature has been in the process of civilising somewhat - from utterly blind predatory organisms to more considered, choosy and aware predation. While it's often not reliable to just any work in progress, life on Earth, including humans and their culture, remains largely savage and unforgiving. There is clearly room for ethical development in all societies and, if there is a god, then it would be more aware than Earthly ethicists of those shortfalls. An existent deity would not judge its little creatures with limited free will for the world's ills but would have compassion for their role of "collateral damage" en route to possibly a more ethical distant future.

Agreed. We've become more civilised, which is an achievement when considering our humble and savage beginnings. I sometimes worry when I think that an omniscient, omnibenevolent being, would judge a species it created who can't see the whole picture and condemn them to an eternity of suffering if they act immorally. To me it seems like asking someone to review a book after only seeing the front cover. I think that we know enough to be held accountable for our actions, but if we knew for sure that hell and heaven were possibilities wouldn't we do things differently or at least be informed? That the punishment should be suffering forever, I question the rightness of. Why should the quality of our eternity hinge upon us having faith and not knowledge, does that sound like omniscient wisdom? Should we be served lettuce for breakfast and say its bacon? Should we then be punished if we say it's lettuce because for all the world it appears to be?

It is clear that atheists here do not reject God, but an image of a being alongside other beings. They fear appearing as weak, insecure and irrational, so they project those feelings onto believers to convince themselves that they are not being foolish. This kind of projection and stereotyping would be laughable if wasn't so sad.

Knowing God shatters the boundary between inside and outside. Therefore, to affirm God's existence is as atheistic as to deny it. Skeptics can express doubt by reducing God to an idea and make their accusations about this kind of “knowingness,” but so what?

-- Updated December 28th, 2016, 12:36 pm to add the following --

One must come to reject the idea of God before they can know God. Those who claim to have past affiliations with beliefs are on the right track in that sense, but in another they are like a fish looking for the water in which it swims. Seeing only their own beliefs, they identify with them and call it the water in which they swim.

-- Updated December 28th, 2016, 12:49 pm to add the following --

This brings to mind words from the classic, The Cloud of Unknowing: "By love may He be gotten and holden, but by thought never."

Dclements wrote: It is possible that Christianity at one time really cared about helping the poor and better mankind...

Catholic Charities is the second leading provider of social services to the needy in the United States, topped only by the federal government. Don't take my word for it though, look it up.

That said, there's always room for improvement in any enterprise. I live in the American south where one sees a multi-million dollar fancy church building on every fourth corner. I have to admit, I experience each of these churches as a being a giant billboard proclaiming, "Sorry, We Were Just Kidding About Being Christians".

The thing is, Christianity is far too big a phenomena to be described with any simplistic label.

Fanman wrote: Religions like Christianity purport that if we behave altruistically we will be rewarded in an afterlife...

That's true, but only part of the story. Christianity has not prospered for 2,000 years all over the world because of pie in the sky promises that no one has ever been able to verify. What fuels Christianity and keeps it going is that love works in a person's daily life, here and now.

But of course philosophy forums have no interest in such subjects...

Dark Matter wrote:Knowing God shatters the boundary between inside and outside. Therefore, to affirm God's existence is as atheistic as to deny it.

Dark Matter wrote:One must come to reject the idea of God before they can know God. Those who claim to have past affiliations with beliefs are on the right track in that sense, but in another they are like a fish looking for the water in which it swims.

Interesting. Please continue.

Fanman wrote:Thinking critically really does dispel many (if not all) of the Biblical myths.

Ok, cool, good, but why stop there? Why not continue and use critical thinking to dispel the atheist myths too? If you like this dispelling of myths business, why not keep going? Why settle for just one?