doodad

Easy guy, I'm not the bigoted theist you may think I am. I have American atheist friends who haunt this place and I come at their invitation.
You seem to forget that theists are not monolithic in their views any more than atheists are.

Let me first address your question of what am I doing on this site. I believe in tolerance and moderation, and it may surprise you to learn that I'm sometimes not treated any better than an atheist is on some of the fundie sites. In fact, those people rise to the challenge of converting the atheist, or bringing him back into the fold, but what can they do for a dumbshit Methodist that just doesn't swallow their hook line and sinker? In coming here I hope to bring a voice of sanity and moderation to discussions that aren't constructive to the atheist community as well as to the theist community. If someone says something that simply is not true, and if that person seems to be sincere and not facetious, I think it's important to nip the lie in the bud.
Now, let's touch on a few comments you have made in your scathing attack, which I think is unwarranted.

Some satisfy emotional needs by learning and more learning. How true, but what works for you may not work for me, or I may prefer another type of salve for my emotions. In my case, the practice of religion is a matter of preference, and it serves my rather cursory need to know why I'm here, for example, and it supplies me with some standards of behavior. So you get your salve from a different bottle? Whoopee do!

Some may not be interested in science for their
philosophical and spiritual answers, so they look to religion for their answers. It bores you? Guess what, I've got other interests and have other things to occupy my mind that pondering scientific theory, so science really doesn't do much for me. Poetry, what's that, and who gives a shit? America is a much younger culture than Scotland, so that may be a clue as to why poetry is not a big deal here in the states.

I have the impression that you think the practice of religion is inherently dysfunctional because much of it is irrational. Do you really believe that?

There's a lot of happy productive theists in this world that are very capable of taking care of themselves. They happen to have spiritual needs in addition to their mortal needs, and to me my spiritual needs are not all consuming of my attention or life. Therefore, in spite of the fact that my beliefs may be techinically irrational, which I am well aware of, I am very able to live in society and am very much able to provide for my own needs. In other words, I am far from being a basket case, so get off this irrational shit. It's academic, and I live in the real world, so I find your diatribe a bit boring.

Am I spinning my wheels? Are you? Perhaps bucking the tide or shouting in the wind would have been betters choices of terms. If you want to sell something on your POV, then alienating them with insulting and abusive tirades won't get you to where you want to go. In view of the current world tension, and in view of the fact that religious zealots apparently brought down the WTC, I think that my efforts to promote understanding and tolerance of other points of view are very appropriate.

Christian sites do tend to be very intolerant, and I have personally experienced that. It seems a super intellect, an atheist, could do better than that. However, you point is well taken, and I think it's pretty hypocritical of fundies to be so narrow minded.

The 2000 election was a national disgrace to my way of thinking, and I wish there had been a better choice of candidates. This religious right crap is going over like Liberace in a men's room, IMO, and it stinks. America is a melting pot and even though I can see value in religious principles, it needs to stay at home.

[ December 04, 2002: Message edited by: doodad ]</p>

doodad

Had you noticed the parallel in your concept that Hell is total separation from God to that of some of the Jews who believe that being totally separated from God means floating around in space without a spiritual home?

xeren

I'm sorry, the unknown purpose defense isn't going to save you here. If my logic regarding my initial posting is correct and i think it is(tell me if it's not), then you can't say that god is ALSO right, and because god is superior, he is MORE right than me. All the UPD does is get us to: god created me just to send me to hell "for some unknown purpose".

Doesn't make me disbelieve in god any less.

[ December 04, 2002: Message edited by: xeren ]</p>

ax

I am not a xian or any other diety believer but, from what I studied as hell and heaven, hell is person1 looking out for person1 all the time. Heaven is person1 looking out for person2 all of the time. But also it's kindness etc for everyone 100% of the time.Which I don't think we can appreciate there. More specifically, how can we ever appreciate kindness when everyone is kind because they can't help it? And where is the virtue in a good deed when it is impossible to act any other way?
You can say the same thing about courage, hope, compassion and any other quality we possess. Heaven will strip these from us and make our every act utterly worthless. How can we be courageous when there is no danger? Why should we hope when everything is assured? How can we display compassion if no one can suffer? And why should we even try? It's like playing a game where everybody wins, every time. The game becomes absolutely meaningless. And to make things worse, there's the matter of eternity. Not only will we have no reason to act virtuously in heaven, we will have forever to do it. Imagine a football game with an infinite number of downs. If it doesn't matter how far you get on each play, then how good can the play be? How motivated will the players be to try?
Along with the death of virtue will be the death of art. Art is about contrasts. A painting must have its lights and darks. A song must have its highs and lows, its major as well as its minor chords. And artists must draw from the full experience of life, with all its triumphs and sorrows. The most poignant works of art are often those that find beauty in the midst of sorrow.
Yet in heaven, where everything is always perfect, beauty becomes meaningless. There are no emotions other than happy ones. There is no dark, so we stop noticing the light. Nothing can move us. Nothing is poignant. The only thing to sing or write about is how happy we are. It's like an overexposed photograph where everything gets washed out. Probably after a few years of this, and definitely after a few million, all we will be able to do is lift our voices and utter a collective "blah."

ax

*kills thread*

Wackyboy

Well, I'm not trying to make you disbelieve in God any less, I'm just telling you my position on the whole matter.

The way I see it, God gave you free will to accept Him or not. He did not create you to not accept Him, that's entirely your call. So from the Arminian perspective (A Calvinist would disagree with me) you have chosen of your own free will to not be in relationship with God in the afterlife.

Now in regards to the afterlife, it might or might not happen... good luck.

-Kevin

spishack

Why do you automatically disregard this defense? If you could understand everything about God would you want to worship Him? I wouldn't.

The logic to your statement, " God created me just to send me to hell" is correct logically (meaning there are no contradictions) but I don't believe the statement is a true or fair statement. God created you for His glory first and foremost. (oh no here come the sadistic glory hungry God arguments) What is failed to be understood is that if you go to hell His justice will be manifested, if you go to heaven His mercy will be manifested. Either way God will get the glory. So you will either serve God as a tool or as a son, but either way you will serve God. The chose is yours.


Just a question. How can you disbelieve in something less than you already do and also what does UPD mean?

Philosoft

So you find it preferrable to worship a creator that can have demonstrably different values than its creations? I think you are manifesting the "anything God does is good" defense, as well.

<strong> Predictably enough, I utterly do not understand how this can describe anything other than a "sadistic glory hungry God." I suspect we are judging an 'unknown purpose' again? This is a being worthy of worship? The one that doesn't even think it important enough to endow its creations with the ability to discern its motivations for its own eternal judgements?

<strong> Unknown Purpose Defense.

xeren

I don't think you guys quite understand what i'm saying here.

Let's take a person that we can all agree is roasting in hell right now, if in fact their is a hell. How about Bertrand Russell, who cetainly did not accept jesus as his Savior?

Yes, Russell used his free will and came to the decision that god did not exist.

But when god created our dear friend Bertrand, he could easily look into Russell's future and know whether Russell was going to accept Jebus as his loving lord and savior or not. And God saw that Russell was not going to accept Jesus, and knowing this, he created Russell anyways. He created Bertrand Russell knowing that he would be sent to hell.

Bad. Bad God.

-xeren

Kenny

Hey Tercel,

I don’t want to start an argument with you here over whether or not Calvinism is correct, but I believe that your friends may have given you an overly simplistic presentation of Calvinism. On Calvinistic theology, it is true that God has decreed in advance who will receive salvation and who will not, and that this decree is independent of any forseen faith or merit on the part of any given person. I would say that affirming such a view makes one a Calvinist and that denying such a view makes one not a Calvinist. Beyond that, however, Calvinism is pretty diverse and many Calvinists have fairly sophisticated and nuanced views regarding how God’s will relates to the damnation of the non-elect. See John Piper’s article,<a href="http://www.desiringgod.org/library/topics/doctrines_grace/2wills.html" target="_blank">Are There Two Wills in God</a>, for example.

Of course, if God has decreed in advance to elect some persons to salvation, but not all whom He knew would come into existence, then there is a sense in which God has willed that some persons be damned. But, this might be a will of concession (even with a degree of reluctance) to some greater good rather than an active wish to see some persons damned. Actually, even many non-Calvinist theologies, which maintain a strong view of God’s omniscience, would have to concede this is so. As Piper points out, however, the Calvinist might still consistently maintain that there are other senses in which God does not desire the damnation of anyone. I personally hold a view very similar to the one Piper describes.

God Bless,
Kenny

[ December 06, 2002: Message edited by: Kenny ]</p>