by serotonin_wraith 40 Replies latest watchtower beliefs
The atheists that I know want to exist in reality, as free as possible from delusion, no matter how comforting.
Then, how do you determine what is right and wrong? How would you know if your notions were delusional or not? And, if I could prove to you that they were delusional, would you want it any other way?
Burn,
God makes the best out of a bad situation?
While I don't think we have 'free will' as earlier posts say, I'll imagine for a moment that we do. God allows the slaughter of millions in wars and millions of children to get raped, and only after it happens does he make a long term plan to make it good. It must be that way if free will is involved.
I don't mean he rewards all innocent victims in the afterlife, how is that good compared to stopping the killing or raping in the first place and giving people their reward after they live a full and happy life on Earth? I mean he makes a new plan after the suffering which shows it was better for those people to have suffered.
Yet you want to prevent the ultimate good? Isn't that what you're doing when you try to prevent these evils today? Stopping something better coming about because of them?
Perry,
If most people didn't believe in a god, I probably wouldn't be talking about any of this. I'm not saying God exists, I'm assuming he does in this thread for the questions that raises. If there were no more believers, I'd sit back and feel relief that humanity managed to get past their superstitious beliefs intact instead of destroying themselves over them. It's touch and go at the moment. Until then, some humans already out of this dark tunnel of non thinking or wishful thinking are calling back and saying 'Get a move on! We've managed to rid the world of most of these mythologies about different gods ( www.godchecker.com ), only a few more to go!"
Atheists want different things. Most don't care about religion, and many will even say it's useful for those who want to believe. There's no belief that ties every atheist together. If you felt I was rude, you can't say 'That serotonin_wraith from JWD shows that atheists are rude for knocking religion!' All you could say is 'Serotonin_wraith shows that he is rude for knocking religion.' I don't represent all atheists, just as you don't represent all people who don't believe in other gods.
Then, how do you determine what is right and wrong? How would you know if your notions were delusional or not? And, if I could prove to you that they were delusional, would you want it any other way?
I've gone into the first question before. You can see my thoughts here-
http://www.jehovahs-witness.com/12/144503/1.ashx
I hope I'm not delusional. I try to base my beliefs on good reasons. If you could show me I was delusional, of course I'd listen. I'm interested in what's true, not what makes me feel better. So far though, every reason I've heard for believing in a god is a bad reason. It's more likely there is no creator who cares for humans personally.
Seratonin,
You open a thread with the title God's Plan to attack it. You state:
Atheists are speaking out against religion.
This implies that atheists have a superior source of the knowledge of what is right and wrong. This is easily testable. I read through some of the 4 pages that you directed me to and got tired of doing so.
Can't you just briefly explain how you personally know right from wrong? Surely you must have a clear notion of such for being such an outspoken critic of religion.
I'll even go first. Here's how I know: Jesus tells me what is right and wrong. How is that different than your determination process?
You open a thread with the title God's Plan to attack it.
I was defending 'God's plan'. If he exists, God's plan is for atheists to be more outspoken now. Stop going against God's plan.
This implies that atheists have a superior source of the knowledge of what is right and wrong
In most cases, we all agree what's right and wrong. We may differ on points such as homosexuality. That doesn't go against my morality, which I define as this: Causing the least amount of suffering, while keeping in mind our survival as a species at a particular moment in time. Seeing as homosexuality hurts no one, holding in feelings of love can lead to suffering, and there are plenty of straight people to keep humanity going (with homosexual couples taking care of children who have no parents if they choose, which helps us), I see nothing wrong with homosexuality. You may consider it wrong because your book says it is.
Jesus says some wonderful things. Unfortunately for you, he wasn't the first to do so, and much of the rest of the Bible has rules which are disgusting. Without Jesus' words, would you feel justified in punishing women who don't scream loudly enough during rape or would you stone disobedient children? I hope not, and I hope it wouldn't be just because Jesus' words stopped you.
I'll think about your answer. I gotta go run an errand....be back in a few hours.
Burn ,your pictures crack me up!
my morality, which I define as this: Causing the least amount of suffering, while keeping in mind our survival as a species at a particular moment in time.
Serotonin,
This is the foundation of your atheist morality? It is virtually meaningless it is so vague. And you think this is superior to the Ten Commandments? Where does a person start with this? So your guiding moral principle is to not cause suffering unless your species' survival is threatened?
How do you determine if your species is threatened? Is it from scientists like Dawkins that determine this for you by fighting for the supression of certain thoughts and words like design? Surely he feels that words like "designer" threatens our species in the long run. But how does he know this? Where does he get this knowledge?
Is it the politicians that tell you that their political rivals threaten our species? How would you know if they had faulty knowledge or not. There is no shortage of liars in the world. Likewise, where do they go to get the knowledge of whether or not our species is threatened? How can we be sure that the ones guiding the politicians just don't want to increase their own power by taking it away from others? How could you know if their species wide survival threat was real or not. ie. Al Gore - Global Warming
Notwithstanding the above emergency scenarios where the survival of the species is at stake; how would you determine if you were causing suffering to others? Illegal drug dealers view themselves as providing pleasure to their customers. Their customers equally view the drugs they push into their veins as a source of pleasure. No suffering there as far as they are concerned.
What about just walking by someone in need and letting them die when you could help? I mean there is no species wide crisis here. And, you certainly would not be "causing" suffering. I guess it would not be your problem eh?
I could go on.... but you get my point. There must be something else that motivates the atheist mind. Atheists are an interesting lot.
Because he relinquishes control. Not that he us unable to control.
Someone who relinquishes (=give up, put aside, let go, release) control cannot possibly still have control, or still have a finger on things turning evil into ultimate good. If He relinquishes events to its random outcome (not "deterministic" like you so eloquently put it) then He cannot still be in charge, can He?
His omnipotence is then merely a potential, lost once He allows TRUE FREE WILL. So is there genuine free will or is there "free will" with a divinely mandated quota? The latter is false advertising but allows for God to be in charge and accountable at all times and for all things.
Human events? Or natural causes? Earthquakes and tsunamis are not evil.
The occurence of great suffering in the face of an apathetic God (you claim it is "an offence" to Him, I say He should do something or stand accused. Is He not Omnipotent?) is EVIL, be it suffering as a result of human agency or "natural" disasters.
A utilitarian God, who needs to execute some grand plan, at the cost of human misery, is EVIL... or is non-existant.
INQ
But if we CAN "humble" our less sapient selves to tolerate/understand/excuse God's Utilitarian ways, then we must be in the optimum position to understand the desperate men who kill masses to make a political statement for an ultimate "good", would that be correct?
INQ
What is the foundation of atheist morality, Perry?
The same foundation that spurred women to reach out for gender equality: humanist values.
An awareness of what works and what sucks. If we stuck to the literalism of your Holy Scriptures, women would still be in a bonnet and pinafore, making babies to render their due.
