parkdalian

To Unum:

Assuming God exists, here is my reasoning:

1. God knows precisely why I disbelieve. (The glitch or bias in my reasoning)

2. God could perfectly and convincingly argue through a human intermediary to overcome the bias in my reasoning.

3 God could reveal himself directly in such a way as to provide me with undeniable proof.

4 I am not responsible for the pre-existing bias in my reasoning (and I'm certainly unaware of the extent of it)

5 If Hell exists, I may go to or deserve Hell if I am either inherently evil or I have become evil.

6 If I am inherently evil, I was born that way. I didn't plan on being born.

7 If I have become evil, God knows precisely how I've become evil.

8 I don't know precisely how I became "evil" (if non-belief in God can be called evil).

9 Free will does not exist in the ultimate sense because all human behavior neither escapes God's foreknowledge nor is beyond his analysis. There are in fact, known internal causes for certain thoughts and behavior, that are beyond conscious control and we can't exclude the possibility of futher unknown physical causes of choice. Since we can never account for all of the internal physical causes or the extent of those internal causes of thoughts and behavior, it gives the illusion of a mysterious free will.

10 Free will defined as "freedom from reasonably apparent external coercion AND an awareness of reasonable, possible consequences of choice or behavior" along with an acceptance of responsiblility, exists usefully in human terms as a matter of pragmatism. (as opposed to #9) This "free will" does not address internal coercion, such as obscure physical/chemical abnormalities in the brain, individual experience or other numerous pre-existing psychological biases.

What I'm trying to say in point form here is what I expressed in my original post in this thread although I didn't want to get in a free will debate.

Free will and responsibility exist in a limited sense. We implement those terms because they are practical ways of dealing with criminal or bad behavior and is useful, given our limited ability to moderate our collective behavior. We accept responsibility not because we are ultimately responsible, but because there is no other known system available to promote individual behavior conducive to the common good.

God has no such limitation and as a supreme being with both ultimate awareness of consequences and absolute power and causation, must bear the ultimate responsibility.

If I go to Hell for non-belief, God must know the precise reason why and at what point in time I became biased and he was in a position to rectify it. I was not aware at the time I became biased and have no idea how far such supposed bias may be influencing my thinking as I type this. Even in human, practical terms, I refuse to accept responsibility for something which I am mistaken about or lack the knowledge of the consequences. Obviously, there's no reason for me to believe in Hell if I don't believe in God in the first place!

Because of both the human lack of physical and perceptual awareness of Hell, and God's greater responsibility/options for the state of the universe, you can't equate a human justice system to a divine one. Call the natural universe God if you wish, but where is the independent evidence of Hell?

One more thing to add--I find the whole Hell scenario a blatant cheap shot. It seems quite easy for some theologians and religious leaders, from a position of their own self-perceived spiritual safety, to entertain such horrific thoughts about the ultimate fate of dead atheists.

Unum

If that is the case, maybe we should scratch out the words ecstatic, thrilled, jazzed, pumped, glad, joyful, delighted, tickled, merry, jovial, pleased, exhilarated, jocund, jolly and some others as these are all superfluous, as they can all be expressed as happy. Although, maybe we should scratch out happy and label them all under merry. Even better, maybe we should scratch out merry and label them under delighted. Heck, I suppose we could scratch them all and make up a new word 'psom' (as in positive states of mind) and use that instead. I am very psom at the results of this. Do you see how all of these words that I mentioned above express slightly different takes on the same state of mind? Which ones are superfluous and which ones are not? Are you in any position to make the call as to what words are needed and what words are not?

The universe does exhibit signs of anthropocentric qualities. Do people get jealous? Are these people that get jealous part of the universe? As a whole I do not think the universe exhibits any sort of emotional characteristics, however in parts it most certainly does. This same thing can be used to explain how the universe talks to us. The voice in our head is a part of the universe, it is as if the universe is talking to us when we are thinking. Not to mention, that people that we meet are also part of the universe, so again the universe is talking to us through them. People that write books are part of the universe and inspired by the universe. Reading books can be thought of as the universe (or part of the universe) talking to us. As you can see, in many ways, the universe is anthropocentric (at least in regards to humans).

How do you consider this cruel? If I mess up, I expect to pay (I don't mean in a monetary way either) for messing up. If I didn't have to pay something for messing up, what would stop me from messing up over and over again? This principle is called learning by trial and error. We can learn from our successes as well as learn from our failures. Tell me a better way to learn. If the evidence in front of me is conclusive, yet I choose to deny it, should I not be held responsible for this choice? Do you really think that people should be rewarded for making bad choices? Is it heartless to expect people to be responsible for their actions?

Peace,

Unum

Ronin

Synonym ~ one of two or more words or expressions of the same language that have the same or nearly the same meaning in some or all senses.

When you ascribe anthropocentric theistic qualities, such as the ludicrous tales of the Abrahamic religions, to that which empirically does not hold to those descriptions then it makes the word “God” no longer a synonym for the universe.

Limited human emotions such as rage, vanity, jealousy, wrath, narcissism, etc. are not attributes of the vast universe, no matter your desires or your religious mindset.

Using the word “God” empty of these limited qualities found in religion to describe the universe makes its use, directly, superfluous.

Though you attempt valiantly to weave and dodge around your perspective of the attributes of your brand of “God”, it has become clear that you favor the Abrahamic deity complete with these limited human failings according to the tales.

Anthropocentric ~ considering human beings as the most significant entity of the universe.

You’re kidding right?



We must all be responsible for our actions, Unum, on that we can agree, but you have disingenuously changed gears.

If you recall, you have been asserting that mere non-belief in something lacking in evidence is justification for punishment...eternal punishment at that.

You have single-handedly shown how your brand of deity is not benevolent, but allegedly acts out of a limited jealous rage over something as benign as non-belief.

Followers of your cult and the conflicting cults of other, equally senseless, theologies will continue to cause pain, suffering and catastrophe under the pretext that since they have ‘belief’ they will be rewarded and not punished.

You have simply confirmed this with your bland acquisence that this is acceptable to you.

Jamie_L

Xeren,

The notion that people don't see evidence they don't want to see is not fallacious in general. Some people certainly do behave this way. However, the root of thechort's argument boils down to saying ALL atheists have this problem. That's much different than saying "sometimes people only see what they want to see." It's not enough to say "It's like a person thinking they are attractive when they aren't." It would instead be like saying "everyone who thinks they are attractive really aren't." The fact that the first condition exists does not in any way support the notion that the second condition holds.

You might be interested in reading articles about Arguements from Divine Hiddenness and Nonbelief. Although your discussion assmumes the existence of God, there are many aspects in this argument against the Christian God that tie into this discussion.

Jamie

Keith Russell

parkdalian:

Very well said!

Keith.

Stephen T-B

Going back miles, Unum wrote, in relation to the ignored middle-manager (god): “If a lack of recognition does lead to the employee acting in a detrimental way to the company, then that employee should expect a demotion or cut in pay. “
Asserting that not believing in a god leads people to act in a detrimental way “to the company” (and by “company” you meant, I think, human society) is highly contentious, and can be countered by the well-supported assertion that belief in gods has led hordes of people to act in extremely detrimental ways.

Later he wrote: “The more difficult tasks that people willingly take on in life, the more reward they receive if and when they accomplish it.” So Mozart, who did the easiest thing (for him) that he could do, i.e. compose, will have received very little reward?
The teaching that merit is only to be found in doing the things we find difficult to do is destructive: it makes us feel guilty about doing the things we are good at and enjoy, and encourages us to do the things we are not good at and don’t enjoy. The result? Well, we have seen it time and again in Christian communities where it has caused lives to be scarred by frustration, stress, anger, unhappiness and guilt.

Still later he wrote: “I've described the universe and some of its fundamental truths and these fundamental truths also fit the description of God. Most of you posting on this thread have said "that can't be it", but none of you have said why it can't be it. That's what I'd like to know.”

It is absurd to ascribe god-like truths (all-power, all-knowledge) to the universe: you might as well say that the house I live is a living, sapient entitiy because it contains living, sapient beings.
If your god created the universe, then your god is not of the universe but extra to it; to say that god and the universe are the same thing is nonsense. If you make a Plasticine model it might reflect your genius, but it doesn’t contain your DNA.

I’m sorry: these were digressions I couldn’t resist.
The god Unum and thechort believe in hides behind trees. Both think they know what it looks like but because neither has actually seen it, their ideas are slightly different, being based on a selection each has made from all that he has read and been told in order to fit a preconceived “ideal.”
This qualifies them for Heaven and everlasting life.
I don’t know why.

rdalin

I'm an atheist primarily because I'm firmly convinced that there's no evidence whatsoever for any gods. From my standpoint, you're the one who wants to believe and refuses to admit that the so-called available evidence is meaningless.

I'll take my chances on the punishment.

Regards,

Richard

Clutch

Unum is a gorgeous example of my point. He insists the evidence is so clear that the cognitive shortcoming of not believing that a god exists, amounts to a moral failing -- indeed, the worst moral failing imaginable, deserving of the worst conceivable punishment.

I mean, I could see being genuinely disgusted, maybe even repulsed, by someone so deliberately obtuse as to steadfastly deny that 2+2=4. But I wouldn't think that warranted consigning them to eternal damnation. Nor even killing mercifully after a day or two of torture, nor a severe but non-fatal beating. Heck, even a single punch in the face seems a bit excessive, to my way of thinking.

Know what? I think someone who steadfastly denied that 2+2=4 would deserve... a good hard noogie, right on the head. Maybe there's room for some disagreement here; maybe some folks would opt for the punch in the face, while others would settle for a really dirty look and some tsk-ing. But that's how I see it. Noogie-ville.

Now, that's for 2+2=4: an utterly obvious and logically necessary truth. But a proposition the disbelief of which would warrant eternal damnation? Not the punch, not the beating, not the day of torture and quick bullet to the back the neck -- the whole eternal damnation she-bang? That's gotta be fabulously more obvious than 2+2=4. I mean, that's gotta be some eye-poppingly clear evidence!



... Er -- what was that evidence, again?

Selsaral

Great point Clutch. :notworthy You made a beauty on page 2 also that I was really hoping would get replied to by Unum, but it never happened.

Clutch

Thanks, Selsaral. I think it's just an expansion on the same point. And I only said it because you beat me to my usual reductio: The Christian reasoning applies with equal probity -- viz, none -- to all manner of "primitive myths".