Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Jack the Bodiless · 10-08-2002, 07:10 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by ManM:
K,
We have a different view of morality in this case. A good doctor does not allow depressed people to kill themselves, but rather he tries to heal them, even against all odds. Likewise I would expect a good God to eternally strive against the sickness and not simply destroy the entire person on account of that sickness.

And, if omnipotent, he would inevitably succeed.

Therefore, your answer to "Why would god send me to hell?" is "he would not".

This is a departure from conventional Christian theology.

ManM · 10-08-2002, 07:26 AM

Jack the Bodiless,
If God is omnipotent (in the sense that you are using the term), sickness should not exist. Sickness does exist, and so God is either not omnipotent or cruel.

I do not believe God is omnipotent in the scholastic sense. Instead I believe God is so powerful that he renounced his own power with the creation of free beings. We are the rock God created too heavy for Himself to lift. We are free from His "omnipotence".

And yes, it is certainly a departure from the scholastic theology which we all recognize as problematic.

Mageth · 10-08-2002, 07:29 AM

Van posted:

Mageth,

I mean no offense whatsoever, and I do not know a thing about your parents, but your post begs the question:

Is it at all likely that your parents were "Christian" in name only? Is it possible that they gave assent to Jesus of Nazareth but did not really believe in him?

No. And your comments are insulting, in spite of your "meaning no offense."

Well, I will tell you, many people are superficial Christians. Jesus said it himself:

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Matthew 7:16 -- Do people pick grapes from thornbushes, or figs from thistles? 17Likewise every good tree bears good fruit, but a bad tree bears bad fruit. 18A good tree cannot bear bad fruit, and a bad tree cannot bear good fruit. 19Every tree that does not bear good fruit is cut down and thrown into the fire. 20Thus, by their fruit you will recognize them.
21"Not everyone who says to me, 'Lord, Lord,' will enter the kingdom of heaven

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Judging by your actions on this and other threads (including the accusation that my parents are not "true christians"), I suspect Jesus may have been referring to you. Your accusing my parents, of which you know nothing, of not being "true christians" is a good example of "bearing bad fruit", IMO.

K · 10-08-2002, 07:31 AM

ManM:

A doctor tries to heal because there is the hope of healing. I've heard very few people profess that Hell is a place you can leave.

Are you trying to say that damnation to Hell for all eternity isn't really damnation to Hell for all eternity?

Are you saying God doesn't have the ability to rescue the people He loves from Hell?

Or that He does have the ability, but chooses not to? How could you possibly compare such a being to a good doctor?

If God knows all, then He isn't working against all odds. He knows that a particular individual will spend an eternity of torment in Hell. That means there isn't the slightest possibility that it wouldn't happen. Therefore, God is just choosing to allow that individual to suffer forever. God would be far more compassionate if He ended that person's existence. Or being omniscient, He could have realized that creating that individual in the first place would only result in an eternity of suffering.

Mageth · 10-08-2002, 08:05 AM

Van:

Also, you have not yet explained WHY it is that "why" questions are unnecessary. You simply repeat this apparently unsubstantiated claim.

Well, that exchange was on Friday and I was gone for the weekend, so thought I'd let a sleeping dog lie, as the thread had gone on for several pages after that. Here is your original "why" stuff:

why does gold exist at all? Why do we have spices to make our food more interesting? Why do we see in color? Why are there colors to see? Why do some things, such as flowers, have especially intricate and unique shapes?

Here was my reply (emphasis added):

Why, in all these cases, in the sense you mean anyway, is a totally pointless question. Again, you confuse function with purpose.

I did not say, as you imply, that all "why" questions are unnecessary. It is, of course, meaningful to ask "why" in some cases. However, asking "why" implying there is some intent or "designer" behind the phenomenon is pointless for your exemplary questions.

As an example, for gold, one might ask "where does gold come from?", but asking "why is there gold?" seeking some intentional purpose for the existence of gold is pointless. The same generally applies to your other "why" questions above. When you get to questions about life (such as the flower shape "why"), one may pose questions about function - as in "What function(s) do the intricate shapes of flowers serve?" One may also ask "How did these intricate shapes evolve?" These are functional, not "purposeful" as in intentional, questions.

I'd be interested in hearing your answers to your own "why" questions above.

Here's an example of a why question:

One man betrays his friend. He is not forthcoming with an explanation. Unable to conclusive arrive at the answer, his friend crys out to him "Why did you do such a thing?"

Surely you won't tell me that "Why" isn't justified in this case. Perhaps, then you could provide a general explanation.

No, "Why" is justified in this case. In law it's called "motive." But this "why" question is categorically different than asking "why is there gold?" as you previously asked. Nice attempt at misdirection.

I should also note that you claim to have "discovered enough information", and yet you have completely rejected an entire category of inquiry. Again, I am speaking of "why" questions.[

I only "rejected" such intentional "why" questions a couple of years ago. I'm 47. I reckon 45 years or thereabouts of searching, questioning, and getting no satisfactory answers is enough time to figure out an "entire category of inquiry" is a deadend.

Finally, Mageth, please do not rely upon me to "provide the evidence". The evidence is there. You, however, won't admit the possibility that you are dismissing or overlooking it.

As I said, 45 years of examining the "overwhelming" evidence led me to atheism. Go figure.

And if you're privy to "overwhelming evidence" that could save millions, including myself, from hell and are not willing to share it, what does that say about you? Read your own bible.

Van, I spent the first 45 years of my life as a Christian. Don't tell me I offhandedly "dismissed or overlooked" anything. My "deconversion" has been an extremely painful process; virtually all of my family (including my wife) are devout xians. My atheism is a major issue to my family and thus my life. As I said before, life would be much easier if I was still a believer. Intellectual honesty can be a bitch sometimes.

In fact, you insist that your search is complete.

Still looking,

Vanderzyden

Where did I "insist" that my search was complete? Was it here:

I might be persuaded to change my mind if Van or any other believer would actually present that oft-mentioned but never provided "overwhelming evidence."

[ October 08, 2002: Message edited by: Mageth ]

[ October 08, 2002: Message edited by: Mageth ]

MrDarwin · 10-08-2002, 09:26 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by ManM:
K,
We have a different view of morality in this case. A good doctor does not allow depressed people to kill themselves, but rather he tries to heal them, even against all odds. Likewise I would expect a good God to eternally strive against the sickness and not simply destroy the entire person on account of that sickness.

Yet according to most Christians, the good Dr. God allows many of his patients to suffer for all eternity. So you are suggesting that damnation is not eternal?

Vanderzyden · 10-08-2002, 11:58 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Mageth:
Judging by your actions on this and other threads (including the accusation that my parents are not "true christians"), I suspect Jesus may have been referring to you. Your accusing my parents, of which you know nothing, of not being "true christians" is a good example of "bearing bad fruit", IMO.

Ah, I see that we have touched bottom.

You know, Mageth, it's interesting. Your previous posts are full of disrespect. Now, when I take pains to be respectful in asking a simple, straight-forward question, you refuse to answer and insist that I am rude. Quite puzzling, to say the least.

You should know that I checked this over with my wife. By all accounts, she is the sweetest person I know, and she finds the question most reasonable.

I indicated that I don't know your parents, yet you say that I accuse them. Furthermore, I ask the question knowing positively of several examples where people have been heavily influenced by those who claim to follow Christ, but apparently do not. Also, you indicate that you agree this is possible when you insinuate that I may not be a follower of Christ.

Your reply indicates that you are being defensive, in one way or another. Is it that you really think I'm insulting your parents, or are you simply unsure if your own beliefs are fully justifiable? You see, Mageth, if you really thought this was all a bunch of hogwash, we should not be able to detect this defensive posture. If you were really sure that Jesus is no one you should be concerned with, then you wouldn't care if your parents followed him or not. If you had critically researched the truth claims of the Bible for yourself and found them all lacking, then you wouldn't react emotionally as you just did.

So, will you answer the question or not:

Is it possible that your parents, or those who had influence over you, were following Christ during your childhood?

Alternatively, is it possible that a "devout Christian" is no follower of Jesus at all, but merely just another religious person?

Please let me know if I should clarify this question further.

Vanderzyden

[ October 08, 2002: Message edited by: Vanderzyden ]

Vanderzyden · 10-08-2002, 12:10 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Mageth:
My atheism is a major issue to my family and thus my life. As I said before, life would be much easier if I was still a believer. Intellectual honesty can be a bitch sometimes.

While I can't sympathize with you directly, I can say that I know what rejection is, Mageth. It is dissappointing when I learn that you have suffered at the hands of your family. They have no right in condemning you for your beliefs. They are no more valuable than you. And yes, I commend you for refusing to "conform" to something in which you cannot believe.

Now, let's see if I can't get you to answer my urgent question:

Quote:

Originally posted by Mageth:
However, asking "why" implying there is some intent or "designer" behind the phenomenon is pointless for your exemplary questions.

You continue to dodge the question. Allow me to restate it:

Why is it that WHY questions are pointless as we consider the apparent anthropic characteristics of our world?

I'm sure you are well aware of how I would respond to the why questions (although I know that I don't have all the answers).

But that is not my concern at the moment. I would like to know your justification for the claim that WHY questions are senseless when we consider the origin and suitability of the universe.

Vanderzyden

[ October 08, 2002: Message edited by: Vanderzyden ]

Vanderzyden · 10-08-2002, 12:28 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Jamie_L:
I have come to the conclusion that I have no reasonable/rational reason to believe the Christian God exists....

Again, why am I to be punished for making a decision based on inputs I did not create using mental faculties I did not create?

Jamie,

This appears to be a contradiction. First, you indicate that you have "concluded" that God doesn't exist. On the other hand, you inquire why God would punish you for reaching this conclusion. I wonder, are you setting yourself up to justify yourself before God on this basis? Will you say, with Bertrand Russell, "you did not give me enough evidence"?

Quote:

Originally posted by Jamie_L:
Now, your discussion of free agency and faults is interesting, and may make some sense in general terms, but it seems to fail when dealing with specific individuals. Going back to my above post, I do not feel that I used my free will to choose disbelieve God. In fact, right before fully accepting my atheism, I tried one last time to go back to Christianity. I read the NT and meditated on it. But in the end, I still did not believe.

How do you feel my personal free agency lead to this? Again, the outside information is not mine to control. My personality was mostly not mine to craft. My conclusions are the result of the two. Where did my free agency come into play?

Let's set aside "Christianity" for the moment. Instead, let us concentrate on three things primarily:

1. There is a Creator.
2. There is objective right and wrong.
3. You can make choices.

We cannot prove the first statement, but there is so much that may be considered as evidence. Have you considered it fully?

There is no proof for the second statement either, and yet all humans agree that it's right to torture babies, for example. Furthermore, when considered or committing various other "wrong" actions, most humans would admit a sense of guilt. Is this not objective morality?

The third statement is almost provable. You can, with the highest certainty, demonstrate to yourself that you make choices. Therefore, you are a free agent.

I agree that our status as humans is not ours to control. However, we can make choices. We can always choose to do what is good, or we may choose to do what is wrong. We may choose to earnestly seek the truth, or we may be relatively indifferent towards it. We may even be so bold as to insist that God should "dance and sing" in order that he may entertain us.

Vanderzyden

[ October 08, 2002: Message edited by: Vanderzyden ]

K · 10-08-2002, 12:29 PM

Vanderzyden:

I'll try show WHY why isn't an appropriate question. We don't believe in a creator of the universe. You don't believe in a creator of God (I don't think).

Asking us why the universe exists is the equivalent of asking you why God exists. The question makes no sense without a higher level designer.

10-08-2002, 08:05 AM	#405
Mageth Contributor Join Date: Jul 2001 Location: Deep in the heart of mother-lovin' Texas Posts: 29,689	Van: Also, you have not yet explained WHY it is that "why" questions are unnecessary. You simply repeat this apparently unsubstantiated claim. Well, that exchange was on Friday and I was gone for the weekend, so thought I'd let a sleeping dog lie, as the thread had gone on for several pages after that. Here is your original "why" stuff: why does gold exist at all? Why do we have spices to make our food more interesting? Why do we see in color? Why are there colors to see? Why do some things, such as flowers, have especially intricate and unique shapes? Here was my reply (emphasis added): *Why, in all these cases, in the sense you mean anyway,* is a totally pointless question. Again, you confuse function with purpose.** I did not say, as you imply, that all "why" questions are unnecessary. It is, of course, meaningful to ask "why" in some cases. However, asking "why" implying there is some intent or "designer" behind the phenomenon is pointless for your exemplary questions. As an example, for gold, one might ask "where does gold come from?", but asking "why is there gold?" seeking some intentional purpose for the existence of gold is pointless. The same generally applies to your other "why" questions above. When you get to questions about life (such as the flower shape "why"), one may pose questions about function - as in "What function(s) do the intricate shapes of flowers serve?" One may also ask "How did these intricate shapes evolve?" These are functional, not "purposeful" as in intentional, questions. I'd be interested in hearing your answers to your own "why" questions above. Here's an example of a why question: One man betrays his friend. He is not forthcoming with an explanation. Unable to conclusive arrive at the answer, his friend crys out to him "Why did you do such a thing?" Surely you won't tell me that "Why" isn't justified in this case. Perhaps, then you could provide a general explanation. No, "Why" is justified in this case. In law it's called "motive." But this "why" question is categorically different than asking "why is there gold?" as you previously asked. Nice attempt at misdirection. I should also note that you claim to have "discovered enough information", and yet you have completely rejected an entire category of inquiry. Again, I am speaking of "why" questions.[ I only "rejected" such intentional "why" questions a couple of years ago. I'm 47. I reckon 45 years or thereabouts of searching, questioning, and getting no satisfactory answers is enough time to figure out an "entire category of inquiry" is a deadend. Finally, Mageth, please do not rely upon me to "provide the evidence". The evidence is there. You, however, won't admit the possibility that you are dismissing or overlooking it. As I said, 45 years of examining the "overwhelming" evidence led me to atheism. Go figure. And if you're privy to "overwhelming evidence" that could save millions, including myself, from hell and are not willing to share it, what does that say about you? Read your own bible. Van, I spent the first 45 years of my life as a Christian. Don't tell me I offhandedly "dismissed or overlooked" anything. My "deconversion" has been an extremely painful process; virtually all of my family (including my wife) are devout xians. My atheism is a major issue to my family and thus my life. As I said before, life would be much easier if I was still a believer. Intellectual honesty can be a bitch sometimes. In fact, you insist that your search is complete. Still looking, Vanderzyden Where did I "insist" that my search was complete? Was it here: I might be persuaded to change my mind if Van or any other believer would actually present that oft-mentioned but never provided "overwhelming evidence." [ October 08, 2002: Message edited by: Mageth ] [ October 08, 2002: Message edited by: Mageth ]</p>

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

10-08-2002, 07:26 AM	#402
ManM Veteran Member Join Date: May 2001 Location: NW Florida, USA Posts: 1,279	Jack the Bodiless, If God is omnipotent (in the sense that you are using the term), sickness should not exist. Sickness does exist, and so God is either not omnipotent or cruel. I do not believe God is omnipotent in the scholastic sense. Instead I believe God is so powerful that he renounced his own power with the creation of free beings. We are the rock God created too heavy for Himself to lift. We are free from His "omnipotence". And yes, it is certainly a departure from the scholastic theology which we all recognize as problematic.

10-08-2002, 07:29 AM	#403
Mageth Contributor Join Date: Jul 2001 Location: Deep in the heart of mother-lovin' Texas Posts: 29,689	Van posted: Mageth, I mean no offense whatsoever, and I do not know a thing about your parents, but your post begs the question: Is it at all likely that your parents were "Christian" in name only? Is it possible that they gave assent to Jesus of Nazareth but did not really believe in him? No. And your comments are insulting, in spite of your "meaning no offense." Well, I will tell you, many people are superficial Christians. Jesus said it himself: quote: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Matthew 7:16 -- Do people pick grapes from thornbushes, or figs from thistles? 17Likewise every good tree bears good fruit, but a bad tree bears bad fruit. 18A good tree cannot bear bad fruit, and a bad tree cannot bear good fruit. 19Every tree that does not bear good fruit is cut down and thrown into the fire. 20Thus, by their fruit you will recognize them. 21"Not everyone who says to me, 'Lord, Lord,' will enter the kingdom of heaven -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Judging by your actions on this and other threads (including the accusation that my parents are not "true christians"), I suspect Jesus may have been referring to you. Your accusing my parents, of which you know nothing, of not being "true christians" is a good example of "bearing bad fruit", IMO.

10-08-2002, 07:31 AM	#404
K Veteran Member Join Date: Aug 2002 Location: Chicago Posts: 1,485	ManM: A doctor tries to heal because there is the hope of healing. I've heard very few people profess that Hell is a place you can leave. Are you trying to say that damnation to Hell for all eternity isn't really damnation to Hell for all eternity? Are you saying God doesn't have the ability to rescue the people He loves from Hell? Or that He does have the ability, but chooses not to? How could you possibly compare such a being to a good doctor? If God knows all, then He isn't working against all odds. He knows that a particular individual will spend an eternity of torment in Hell. That means there isn't the slightest possibility that it wouldn't happen. Therefore, God is just choosing to allow that individual to suffer forever. God would be far more compassionate if He ended that person's existence. Or being omniscient, He could have realized that creating that individual in the first place would only result in an eternity of suffering.

10-08-2002, 12:29 PM	#410
K Veteran Member Join Date: Aug 2002 Location: Chicago Posts: 1,485	Vanderzyden: I'll try show WHY why isn't an appropriate question. We don't believe in a creator of the universe. You don't believe in a creator of God (I don't think). Asking us why the universe exists is the equivalent of asking you why God exists. The question makes no sense without a higher level designer.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.