Is this god you've "found" all powerful, Gordon?
--- A Question for ALL Atheistic ex-Dubs----
by gordon d 145 Replies latest jw friends
-
-
gordon d
Sorry Vomit... didn't mean to throw you off.
It was a quote from Benjamin Franklin ( I believe from Poor Richard's Almanac):
"In this world nothing is certain but death and taxes."
-
gordon d
Is this god you've "found" all powerful, Gordon? Yes
-
SixofNine
And is it a "he", a "she", or an "it"?
-
daniel-p
Some people want and/or need to believe in a god or gods, and others don't. That's it. No great mystery as to why some choose to worship an all-powerful being and others do not. There is no need for those who do believe to feel threatened by those who don't, and vice-versa. My disbelief is not "hopelessness." In my opinion, only when you are completely aware of your mortality can you trully love life. At least that's true for me. It may not be true for you.
-
gordon d
And is it a "he", a "she", or an "it"? I think that the Almighty God manifest traits that humans would call masculine or paternal I think that God in the form of Jesus manifests traits that would be considered af feminine or maternal This according to the Bem (BSRI) scale of human gender traits
-
smellsgood
"Is there anything beautiful in all of the universe that appears without some time, heat, pressure, discomfort, or explosive transformation?"
Ice Cream! -
Scully
My comment was intended to impress humility on those who felt it necessary to squelch the dreams of anyone else who has not found "their" happiness I think that those people are bullies.... wether they use their position to tell lies and be controling (Most, perhaps ALL Religions) or if they say that others are fools for tryng to find something that they could not. It's still coercion and it welcomes debate on this forum.
So what you are saying that the searching person's happiness requires them to find "god", and atheists offering their perspective as a viable alternative are "bullies" and are employing "coercion", while believers offering their perspective as a viable alternative are not "bullies" and not employing "coercion"? C'mon, gordon, whatever happened to the concept of allowing people to make fully informed decisions based on their examination of many different alternatives? Why do you refer to discussions that promote atheism or humanism as a viable belief system as something that would "squelch the dreams of anyone else who has not found 'their' happiness"? Why is becoming a believer in "god" necessary for happiness? What if atheism / humanism is the thing that would bring them peace and happiness? Doesn't the shoe, then, go on the foot of the believers who keep trying to promote belief as the only way to happiness as a 'dream squelcher'?
By the way, I'd like you to answer at least one of the questions that I've posed to you so far. Ignoring them is, well, ignorant, especially considering that I've attempted to respectfully and honestly address your questions from my perspective.
-
Terry
Gordon, you are describing Pascal's Wager here.
If you seek god and believe and there is no god you have nothing to lose.
But, if you seek god and believe and he exists then you have everlasting life.
Flawed logic, however.
Epilogue:
In the seventeenth century the French mathematician and theologian, Blaise Pascal (1623- 1663) put forward a wager in his Pensees (Thoughts):
The Rejection of Pascal's WagerIf there is a God, He is infinitely incomprehensible, since, having, neither parts nor limits, He has no affinity to us. We are then incapable of knowing either what He is or if He is ... you must wager. It is not optional. You are embarked. Which will you choose then? Let us weigh the gain and the loss in wagering that God is. Let us estimate these two chances. If you gain, you gain all; if you lose, you lose nothing. Wager then without hesitation that he is.[1] Pascal's wager sounds deceptively simple. Many a religious person finds such a call attractive: one only needs to believe without considering the evidence and one would immediately be in a better position than that of the non-believer. After all, they say, if I believe and then it turns out to be true I get to enjoy heavenly bliss; but if my belief turns out to be false, and there is no God, then when I die, I lose nothing. An atheist, the religious person may continue, if he turns out to be wrong will suffer an eternity of torment. If the atheist turns out to be right then it is only equal to the believer's "worst case." Obviously then, the believer will say, you must wager on the side of belief.
But Pascal's argument is seriously flawed. The religious environment that Pascal lived in was simple. Belief and disbelief only boiled down to two choices: Roman Catholicism and atheism. With a finite choice, his argument would be sound. But on Pascal's own premise that God is infinitely incomprehensible, then in theory, there would be an infinite number of possible theologies about God, all of which are equally probable.
First, let us look at the more obvious possibilities we know of today - possibilities that were either unknown to, or ignored by, Pascal. In the Calvinistic theological doctrine of predestination, it makes no difference what one chooses to believe since, in the final analysis, who actually gets rewarded is an arbitrary choice of God. Furthermore we know of many more gods of many different religions, all of which have different schemes of rewards and punishments. Given that there are more than 2,500 gods known to man [2], and given Pascal's own assumptions that one cannot comprehend God (or gods), then it follows that, even the best case scenario (i.e. that God exists and that one of the known Gods and theologies happen to be the correct one) the chances of making a successful choice is less than one in 2,500.
Second, Pascal's negative theology does not exclude the possibility that the true God and true theology is not one that is currently known to the world. For instance it is possible to think of a God who rewards, say, only those who purposely step on sidewalk cracks. This sounds absurd, but given the premise that we cannot understand God, this possible theology cannot be dismissed. In such a case, the choice of what God to believe would be irrelevant as one would be rewarded on a premise totally distinct from what one actually believes. Furthermore as many atheist philosophers have pointed out, it is also possible to conceive of a deity who rewards intellectual honesty, a God who rewards atheists with eternal bliss simply because they dared to follow where the evidence leads - that given the available evidence, no God exists! Finally we should also note that given Pascal's premise, it is possible to conceive of a God who is evil and who punishes the good and rewards the evil. [3]
Thus Pascal's call for us not to consider the evidence but to simply believe on prudential grounds fails. As the atheist philosopher, J.L. Mackie wrote:
Once the full range of such possibilities is taken into account, Pascal's argument from comparative expectations falls to the ground. The cultivation of non-rational belief is not even practically reasonable. [4] This website then, is a call for the rejection of Pascal's wager. A call for all of us to use our reason to decide whether the central claims of Christianity are true or false. It is also a reminder that our choices have a moral dimension that cannot be ignored.
We have seen in this website that the Christian claim of a special status of the Bible is untenable. We have also seen that many important details about Jesus' life given in the gospels are either false or historically suspect. And we will examine Christian Theology as it is and show that it is a confused irrational system. The balance of evidence, far from being inconclusive, shows that the major teachings and claims of Christianity are false. These parts show that one of the main assumptions of Pascal's wager, that we cannot know the truth or falsity or religious claims and are thus forced to make a wager, is false.
As we have mentioned above, there is a moral dimension to Pascal's wager. We have seen in this website that Christianity, in all its forms - Roman Catholicism, Eastern Orthodox, Protestantism and the Fringe Churches - has inflicted tremendous harm on civilization. When one makes a wager to believe, then one becomes morally responsible for the propagation of suffering that Christianity have been bringing and will continue to bring upon the world.
The Roman Catholic Church continues its horrible track record of bringing misery to its followers and to non-Catholics. It's illogical stance on contraception leads to millions of unwanted pregnancies and, indirectly, to many thousands maternal and infant deaths. It also means that poor third world countries with Catholic majorities, such as the Philippines and Brazil, continue to be burdened by overpopulation, poverty, hunger and disease. It is widely recognized that the opposition of the Catholic Church to the use of condoms in the fight against HIV/AIDS is at least partially responsible for the high rate of new infections in Africa and elsewhere. Its irrational position on this has led to the pronouncement that if a husband infected with HIV/AIDS wants a normal conjugal relationship with his wife, he should do so without a condom. Life takes a back seat to theological nonsense. The moribund structure of the Church also allows for the horrendously high number of sex abuse committed by its clergy on innocent young Catholics. The recently departed pope, John Paul II bears a huge responsibility for this continuing infliction of suffering on humankind.
The Fundamentalist Protestant churches inflict their own brand of horror on the world. With scientific creationism and intelligent design creationism, they are trying to bring science, and the world, back into the dark ages where faith and ignorance reign supreme. The fundamental irrationalism of this branch of Christianity has meant that many of the flock have been fleeced by TV evangelists, some of whose have sexual escapades comparable to the infamous Pope Alexander VI. This irrationalism breeds belief in the efficacy of faith healing to the detriment, and death, of many. Needless to say, fundamentalism breeds intolerance.
The fundamentalists have joined forces with the Catholic Church in their absolutist opposition to abortion, leading the current fundamentalist leaning U.S. government to withhold funds from organizations that aid poor women in third world countries. It has been estimated that almost 5,000 women needlessly die each year due to this misnamed "culture of life" policy.
This moral responsibility for all these also partially falls on the so-called liberal Christians. While this group of Christians may do little harm directly, they provide the raw material (in "lukewarm" believers who are already positively disposed towards Christianity) from which fundamentalism builds itself. Furthermore by putting a "respectable" veneer on religious discourse, they prevent a much needed and long overdue logical, philosophical and scientific demolition of religious claims - since to even attempt to question religion per se is considered politically incorrect. As Sam Harris rightly noted in his book The End of Faith:
Religious moderates are, in a large part, responsible for the religious conflict in our world, because their beliefs provide the context in which scriptural literalism and religious violence can never be adequately opposed.[5] It is time for liberal Christians to think through their belief system, whether applying words which lose all sense of their normal meaning just to keep some semblance of the religious life, is really worth the harm they indirectly help inflict on the world.
Furthermore amidst all this proven negative effects of Christianity, it is hard to see if there is much good that comes out of it. Some believers have tried to argue that Christians lead healthier lives than non-Christians, but the studies cited have been shown to be seriously flawed. Furthermore it is debatable whether Christianity actually makes a person moral. History seems to tell us otherwise. Many of the popes throughout history had been morally deficient human beings; so too were many of the church fathers, Protestant reformers and some modern evangelical preachers. For they preached intolerance and hate and sometimes actively encouraged the torture and murders of innocent people. Indeed recent sociological studies have shown that there is a negative correlation between religiosity and morality.
The world today, perhaps more than ever, is in need of our undivided, moral and rational, attention. The problems of the world, both natural and man-made are many: famine, floods, the greenhouse effect, the ozone hole and the irreversible extinction of countless species of plants and animals. The only chance the world has is for humankind to understand that this world is all we have, there is no other, no afterlife. Only we can solve the world's problems. The solutions for the problems of the world and for life in general are not to be found in Christianity. Christianity, in fact, is part of the problem.
On both intellectual and moral grounds the only course for a person to take is the rejection of Pascal's wager.
-
undercover
The easter egg story sounds like an illustration straight out of a WT publication, because it's flawed just like most WT illustrations.
God is not an egg that can be found hiding in tall grass waiting to be picked up and carried around.
In the illustration one kid gives up because he can't find an egg. Another kid almost gives up, but sees others kids with eggs and tries again. The problem with the illustration is that the "egg" is a solid, real object, able to be seen, touched and picked up. God, or the idea of God or the belief in God is not.
Another issue with an illustration that likens God to an egg (and most Christians would have a hard time with) is that there is more than one easter egg. Is there more than one God to be found?
The illustration does convey the level of logic that most God believers would have us use in trying to search for a higher being. 'Because we believe, you should believe.'
Just because I see people worshipping an unseen entity does not give me proof of his existance, nor does it encourage me to keep looking.