D.H. Cross

I'd like to hear counter-arguments to my reasons.

I don't believe in a personal God because:

1. Immortality of the soul is impossible. Most Christains believe that the personality & memory of an individual will go to heaven after death. Yet, what happens when the personality is changed by brain damage or disease? Is the soul "changed", or are we faced to alter our view of soul? One can say that the *true* personality lurks in the background of one who is brain damaged, like a prisoner, or perhaps there is some kind of metaphysical backup of the Self, like a DVD-RAM somewhere deep inside, but I doubtit. If the personality---the soul---can die before the body is dead, then who is it that makes it to heaven?

2. The teachings of the bible must be taken on faith. So what gives it more authority than any other religious text? It was built by comittee, its books arranged by vote in the 3rd century. Faith truly does seem to be best described as a belief without evidence.

3. What kind of a God would allow for such suffering? Why is it that whenever somebody is saved from a burning house by a fireman, but the rest of the family burns, that it is a "miracle"? Why would God save one and allow millions to die horrible deaths? It makes more sense that HE/SHE/IT does not have its hands in mortal affairs at all, but sits back and watches the show. Or, even better, it does not exist. Nature is unkind as often as it is good to us. The Hindu and nature-based Pagan myths make better sense of Gaia than the concept of God.

4. Evolution lacks foresight. Bad design is evident. God would not make such mistakes, even for creatures living in a fallen world. CHeck out E.O. Wilson, Richard Dawkins, etc. Their arguments are quite probable. Much more probable than the reality of God anyway.

5. Why would god punish people born into the world who had nothing to do with Original Sin? And how can this punishment be based on events that never occured in history? And if we are to interpret those events as metaphor, it does not remove the weird concept of sexually transmitted guilt. It is absurd. What kind of a silly despot is that?

Jesus Tap-Dancin' Christ

Consider the soul to be the thing that makes us truly alive, not some piece of animated flesh. Then, when you look at instead of as memory, etc., it becomes more possible. Or, since God is supposedly all-powerful, he can just do whatever the hell He wants when deciding what the soul is and what exactly gets rewarded/punished eternally. Not the greatest counter argument...but it's the bst I can do off the top of my head.

Faith is the entire point of religion. If you lack it because of competeting claims, good for you. Religion is to be determined solely by what you believe, and why you believe it. If you need hard evidence, then most religions will fall short. If you don't, just let what your mind tells you, then that is what is right for you.

An non-interventionist seems more likely and more consistent with what actually goes on. If life was perfect everywhere, there really wouldn't be a point to, well, anything, would there?
I agree wholly with this one. We are not created at all.
I don't believe in that shit either. Being a good person should count a hell of a lot more than believing in a certain set of tales.


I won't try to convince anyone of God or of not God--they must do what is right for them.

Jayhawker Soule

Do you believe in an impersonal God?

You seem to be saying: I don't believe in YHWH because He's not nice and does somewhat sloppy work. That's a little like saying that you don't believe in your tree because it litters your yard and provides spotty shade.

Do you have any reason whatsoever to posit the supernatural?

DarkBronzePlant

Except that DHC can see, touch, smell, hear, and taste (yuck) his tree. And no one has seriously ascribed the essential attributes of non-littering and all-shading to his tree.

[ July 22, 2002: Message edited by: DarkBronzePlant ]</p>

Blu

D.H. Cross -


First, I think it would be a good idea to try to think beyond spiritual/religious doctrine when defining God, the soul etc.


Think of the Soul as energy. Einstein for instance wrote that energy can't die it can only change shape, travel, etc. So if the Soul is energy then it can't just cease from being. The personality is not the soul. The personality is related to your mind or your brain. The brain dies (it is physical). The personality then would not exist beyond physical life.

On Earth, death exists because what dies is physical. So beyond the earth and beyond human experience death would not exist. God, the Soul, all things spiritual do not have any physical characteristics. So God does not allow Death. Death is a natural occurance of the physical and there is a purpose to death. Imagine a world (physical) without death. Death is a necessary physical eliment in a physical world. Without it, how would there be renewel?

Human beings create suffering. But even suffering serves a purpose. It all depends on your perceptions of the world and of existence.

Physical evolution is perfect. It all depends on how you see it.

Ideas of sin and Divine punishment are religious concepts. There is no such thing as sin and God does not have any human characteristics or inclinations. So God does not punish people. People punish themselves by making negative choices. But these choices lead to important lessons which then serves a purpose. Any perception that God has any human characteristics or inclinations is limiting.

Some people however need to think of the spiritual in human terms associating God with a Father or Mother or thinking of God as being an all powerful entity. No one had scratched the surface of deciphering the mystery of what "God" truly is. Look beyond religious concepts.

It seems like a lot of arguments about the spiritual are based on religious doctrine particularly, Christian doctrine.

Let's all go a little deeper please.

Jayhawker Soule

Acknowledged, but I'm not sure of its relevance.
This, however, is clearly relevant - thanks. But, taking your point into consideration, the result is (at best) an argument against a very specific deity. Grant victory to such an argument and you're still left with the God-of-the-Gaps and, most likely, one more New Age semi-Christian who is "open to the possibilities" of something more transcendental and less primitive than YHWH.

[edited to add: if you doubt this, read our friend Blu above]

[ July 22, 2002: Message edited by: ReasonableDoubt ]</p>

DarkBronzePlant

ReasonableDoubt,

The see/touch/smell/hear/taste bit was just to point out that, yes, it would be absurd to "not believe" in something like your own tree, but that abusrdity stems primarily from the fact that a tree is right there to behold and examine, whereis the same cannot be said of any god.

Your point is well-taken about the attributes only being ascribed to a particular god; namely the Christian one. And in re-reading D.H. Cross' original post, DHC is addressing any personal god, so it's a relevant point.

Shadowy Man

Blu posted:
If you want to use the word "energy" and have it actually mean something, then you have to worry about what energy really is. Yes, Einstein proposed a mass-energy equivalence theory, but that doesn't negate the other theories about energy. Which particular set of energy states would you ascribe to the "soul"? Is it potential, or kinetic?

If you want the "soul" to be something spiritual that exists beyond the natural realm, then don't use the word "energy". Otherwise you are just practicing pseudo-science.

Hondo

Jesus Christ

You state:

Exactly my thoughts on heaven, what is the point. In addition, if heaven is perfect, then the omni everything, all loving IT, could have skipped the horsdoeuvres and taken the whole affair straight to the main course.

Hondo

Jamie_L

I don't see why people find it so hard to conceive of a place where life is perfect and it has meaning. This attitude seems more like "sour grapes": "Well, even if heaven was real, it would suck."

Surely an omnipotent being could eliminate all our pain and suffering AND make us feel happy and fulfilled. But I agree with the notion that if there really was such an omnipotent being, he could skip all this physical existence B.S. and go straight to the heaven stuff. The only reason for an omnipotent being to have us go through all these trials and tribulations would be because he enjoys watching us suffer.

Jamie