There is no hope if a God rewards and punishes based on belief in itself (worship, quote)
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I am not sure, Hell is a later belief based on various Jewish and Hellenist ideas. Even in the NT there are different ideas about what happens to people after they die.
The promise of heaven and a nice story helped Christianity to spread. Punishment is not a threat to people who do not believe.
Yeah...but punishment can be a threat to people who are agnostic about their beliefs. Pascal's Wager is pretty widely respected. Most people, I'm thinking, will not feel certain about their beliefs.
L-word the personalities that people have and predict how they respond to the events around them. It becomes quickly clear that the belief itself has little to do with it.
If listing the personalities results in learning that belief has nothing to do with it, what are you trying to say, particularly in a thread discussing whether reward and punishment are based on belief in God itself?
The definition of "sin" apparently, is failing to adhere to divine law. I'm concerned about ethics...which is not necessarily tied to "divine law." I'm concerned about whether Gods are best described as good or bad or somewhere in between, because if they're bad (which we can tell through examining their codes of ethics and what they punish and reward, I don't think we can trust them).
I have not described God in a childlike manner. I have described certain versions of God accurately, as I see it, and I've explained why. There is no way I know of for me to describe my opinions more maturely. If you disagree with my views...I'd appreciate you explaining why. That's why I made this thread. If you disagree...please elaborate on your reasoning, as opposed to blowing off my views and calling them childlike. I've pretty elaborately explained them.
I am judging the moral code of a supposedly existing creator of existence...and that's a healthy thing to do. That's a very useful endeavor. You seem to think I'm venting in anger for no reason...and you couldn't be more wrong.
The problem I see, is members of society believing in a being who is best described as a cruel being benevolent in their eyes. Ideally those people's views would be challenged in order to correct some flaws in their reasoning process that will, likely, harm society somewhere down the line.
I'm not angry at some hypothetical God. I'm a more practical person than that. I'm concerned about the long term results of people who appear to have such poor skill at understanding ethics that they don't see a God who punishes based on a lack of belief in it as cruel having voting power and thinking about considerably more complex issues like cloning and various government types we might or might not want to support and all sorts of abstract concepts in general.
If I see an extremely flawed reasoning process that seems like it'll be destructive, I'd like that gone...not because I'm angry at God, but because I'm concerned about the long term fate of society.
You have pretty accurately described what appears to be the motivating rationale for Arq, et al. and their anti-God and anti-religion crusade. I find little to disagree with in that rationale but I see more merit in correcting the insidious and socially dangerous beliefs ABOUT God to be a more reasonable goal than the eradication of belief in God, per se. Certain religions are relatively harmless societally, especially if their more dangerous and disruptive beliefs are neutralized and kept out of government and law. Of course, by way of full disclosure, that is primarily because I firmly believe in God based on personal experiences and a fully developed supporting rationale from science.
Yeah...but punishment can be a threat to people who are agnostic about their beliefs. Pascal's Wager is pretty widely respected. Most people, I'm thinking, will not feel certain about their beliefs.
Most people are taking a punt, because they cannot prove beyond reasonable doubt.
But on the OP, the majority of Christians here are of the "faith alone" variety.
This is usually based on a couple of scriptural verses, including a very old "filthy rags" reference from the OT.
I don't necessarily agree with those views, as there are plenty of quotes to the contrary.
But people are very fixed in their ways and views, so they aren't going to change in a hurry.
By that stage Judgement Day will be upon all of us.
You have pretty accurately described what appears to be the motivating rationale for Arq, et al. and their anti-God and anti-religion crusade. I find little to disagree with in that rationale but I see more merit in correcting the insidious and socially dangerous beliefs ABOUT God to be a more reasonable goal than the eradication of belief in God, per se. Certain religions are relatively harmless societally, especially if their more dangerous and disruptive beliefs are neutralized and kept out of government and law. Of course, by way of full disclosure, that is primarily because I firmly believe in God based on personal experiences and a fully developed supporting rationale from science.
My opinions change by the hour. I'm constantly bouncing back and forth regarding my views regarding the worth of religion to society. Right now, I'm not trying to discourage anyone from believing in God. I'm not arguing the pros and cons of religion in general.
I'm rather just arguing that there are certain versions of God that are untrustworthy, due to their natures, and therefore we should ignore their supposed commands, because we have no reason to trust them anyway, because they don't appear to care about ethics at all.
I see that position as a counter to Pascal's Wager.
I don't know how harmful or helpful to society most religions are. Right now, in this thread, it's more the lack of a sensible code of ethics that I'm concerned about than belief in a God.
If someone believes in a God who sends people to hell for nonbelief, I want people to perceive that God as malevolent to the point of being untrustworthy, because that's, I think, the clearest view of reality.
So, if someone believes in a God who punishes people for nonbelief, I won't discourage that in itself here...so long as that person believes their God is malevolent and untrustworthy, or they explain why that is not the case.
I see the belief in a malevolent, untrustworthy, omnipotent deity as being healthier for society than a belief that this deity is benevolent...because the person who believes such a deity is trustworthy and benevolent has something seriously wrong with their thought process that involves a misunderstanding of ethics, or problems with empathy, or at least a willingness to teach others toxic messages.
Now, if a person believes in one of those "halfway decent" gods I mentioned and reveres that God...I don't think they need to have any flaws regarding their sense of ethics to do that. I'm therefore far less concerned about those variants of beliefs.
__________________________________________________ _______________________________
Regarding your view that we'd be better off discouraging dangerous beliefs about God than pushing against God-belief in itself...I have no idea whether you're right or not.
I will say that I think that logical discussion in general is a good thing. That alone, I think, is a reason to bring up arguments about whether or not a God exists, or whether or not a God is evil. That gets people thinking, and I think anything that discourages that type of thinking is probably a bad thing, on average.
__________________________________________________ _______________________________
According to some of the more pantheistic definitions...I may be a God-believer, in that I'll often look up at the moon while going on walks, and personify nature, and talk to it in my head, and that sort of thing...and that, I think, is just something humans naturally do, and there will come a point at which any skewed views of reality that result from that type of personification are going to skew reality less than other behaviors we totally ignore, such as someone caring more about their dog than starving African children. That, in a sense, is the result of a skewed view of reality, I'd argue...and having those sorts of skewed views of reality, I'd argue, are an innate part of being human. The world would crush us without them.
So, I can definitely imagine variants of religions that are not worth worrying about.
However, one thing to consider is that...if I can convince people to not believe in God at all, they don't have to do years of research into their religions. With that in mind, I'm doubting god-belief in any form is a huge amount more beneficial to society than atheism, and I'm confident that atheism is a huge amount more beneficial to society than some of the more extreme forms of fundamentalism...and therefore I'll sometimes argue that I think God's existence would be best described as impossible (although I'll go into what I mean by "God" and "impossible" because both those words tend to change with the context.)
I think I've got some very good arguments (on other threads than this one) about why an intelligent ruler of the universe almost certainly doesn't exist, and if people can be convinced through that rather than through years of research into specific religions, that seems to be the best way to go to me.
My opinions change by the hour. I'm constantly bouncing back and forth regarding my views regarding the worth of religion to society. Right now, I'm not trying to discourage anyone from believing in God. I'm not arguing the pros and cons of religion in general.
I'm rather just arguing that there are certain versions of God that are untrustworthy, due to their natures, and therefore we should ignore their supposed commands, because we have no reason to trust them anyway, because they don't appear to care about ethics at all.
I see that position as a counter to Pascal's Wager.
I don't know how harmful or helpful to society most religions are. Right now, in this thread, it's more the lack of a sensible code of ethics that I'm concerned about than belief in a God.
If someone believes in a God who sends people to hell for nonbelief, I want people to perceive that God as malevolent to the point of being untrustworthy, because that's, I think, the clearest view of reality.
So, if someone believes in a God who punishes people for nonbelief, I won't discourage that in itself here...so long as that person believes their God is malevolent and untrustworthy, or they explain why that is not the case.
I see the belief in a malevolent, untrustworthy, omnipotent deity as being healthier for society than a belief that this deity is benevolent...because the person who believes such a deity is trustworthy and benevolent has something seriously wrong with their thought process that involves a misunderstanding of ethics, or problems with empathy, or at least a willingness to teach others toxic messages.
Now, if a person believes in one of those "halfway decent" gods I mentioned and reveres that God...I don't think they need to have any flaws regarding their sense of ethics to do that. I'm therefore far less concerned about those variants of beliefs.
__________________________________________________ _______________________________
Regarding your view that we'd be better off discouraging dangerous beliefs about God than pushing against God-belief in itself...I have no idea whether you're right or not.
I will say that I think that logical discussion in general is a good thing. That alone, I think, is a reason to bring up arguments about whether or not a God exists, or whether or not a God is evil. That gets people thinking, and I think anything that discourages that type of thinking is probably a bad thing, on average.
__________________________________________________ _______________________________
According to some of the more pantheistic definitions...I may be a God-believer, in that I'll often look up at the moon while going on walks, and personify nature, and talk to it in my head, and that sort of thing...and that, I think, is just something humans naturally do, and there will come a point at which any skewed views of reality that result from that type of personification are going to skew reality less than other behaviors we totally ignore, such as someone caring more about their dog than starving African children. That, in a sense, is the result of a skewed view of reality, I'd argue...and having those sorts of skewed views of reality, I'd argue, are an innate part of being human. The world would crush us without them.
So, I can definitely imagine variants of religions that are not worth worrying about.
However, one thing to consider is that...if I can convince people to not believe in God at all, they don't have to do years of research into their religions. With that in mind, I'm doubting god-belief in any form is a huge amount more beneficial to society than atheism, and I'm confident that atheism is a huge amount more beneficial to society than some of the more extreme forms of fundamentalism...and therefore I'll sometimes argue that I think God's existence would be best described as impossible (although I'll go into what I mean by "God" and "impossible" because both those words tend to change with the context.)
I think I've got some very good arguments (on other threads than this one) about why an intelligent ruler of the universe almost certainly doesn't exist, and if people can be convinced through that rather than through years of research into specific religions, that seems to be the best way to go to me.
you touched on a few points.
lets look at one: "atheist society is better than a fundy theist one."
Yes ... absolutely.
Does that show that obscure-ism is even remotely rational when talking what people believe in?
Is a society based on obscure-ism sound like its a good thing?
Is a society based on deny everything better than freedom to talk about all beliefs?
If one does not believe any God even exists...why would they trouble their thoughts about any sort of mindset, attitude, and actions?
Nonexistent Gods do not think, assess, or do anything.
One would have to 1st, establish that they consider it a given that such a God as they are critiquing exists...otherwise it's just a indirect way to interrogate some Believers about, and bash them for, having the views they hold.
Which is obvious this intends to do.
Some Believers will be of the view that you are wrong not to accept and embrace their God...and that if the edicts determine that you should be forever punished for outright rejection, then, so be it.
Don't like that? Oh, well...better learn to cope...cuz billions hold that view.
lets look at one: "atheist society is better than a fundy theist one."
Yes ... absolutely.
Does that show that obscure-ism is even remotely rational when talking what people believe in?
Is a society based on obscure-ism sound like its a good thing?
Is a society based on deny everything better than freedom to talk about all beliefs?
I'm not sure what obscure-ism is. I think I get what you mean by the deny-everything-ism. With the deny-everything ism you're presumably talking about the Youtube channels in which people used to behave in manners like posting 'F Yoooouuuuu!!!! Jesus is a lie!" because someone sang a Christmas carol on video or something harmless like that.
Or maybe I'm wrong.
I could be wrong about the deny-everything ism too though.
I'm not sure what obscure-ism is. I think I get what you mean by the deny-everything-ism. With the deny-everything ism you're presumably talking about the Youtube channels in which people used to behave in manners like posting 'F Yoooouuuuu!!!! Jesus is a lie!" because someone sang a Christmas carol on video or something harmless like that.
Or maybe I'm wrong.
I could be wrong about the deny-everything ism too though.
yes, you could be. The problem with some atheist is that they can cloak a rotten core of revenge in liberation and fool many people. We won't know its too late until its to late. The trick is to see the red flag and be honest with our selves. Like you are. Heck, you are way more insightful than me.
I deny Jesus also. but I do not shy away from god claims that merit because I worried about fundy theist. They are separate conversation. In fact, I am not even a chump that says I don't have to defend a disbelief. I tell them what I use as evidence to make a positive claim that there is no bible god. we all know there is no 100% so I say it with the same certainty they say there is one.
You broke down the beliefs beautifully. I am here to talk about all beliefs and the merits for the beliefs. fighting religion is secondary for me in this forum.
If one does not believe any God even exists...why would they trouble their thoughts about any sort of mindset, attitude, and actions?
Nonexistent Gods do not think, assess, or do anything.
One would have to 1st, establish that they consider it a given that such a God as they are critiquing exists...otherwise it's just a indirect way to interrogate some Believers about, and bash them for, having the views they hold.
Which is obvious this intends to do.
Some Believers will be of the view that you are wrong not to accept and embrace their God...and that if the edicts determine that you should be forever punished for outright rejection, then, so be it.
Don't like that? Oh, well...better learn to cope...cuz billions hold that view.
yup ...
there would be no need to say things like "pantheism is meaningless and gets us nowhere." and jumping up and down shouting .... you have no proof ... let alone refusing to talk about it based on that personal opinion.
there would be no reason to say anything but "You have valid points I just don't agree with you calling it god"
if it was just about evidence, logic, and reason in a religion and spirituality forum, that is.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
