[deleted]
[deleted]
I’m just not interested. If I lived my life so horribly that I wont be welcomed into the Kingdom of Heaven, fine. I’ll burn for eternity or whatever. Sounds like I’ll be with my people anyway.
share
MovieChat Forums > Jesus Christ Discussion > [deleted]
As an atheist, I couldn't care less. Why? Because I have reached my maximum limit of not caring what an imaginary Grandfather-in-the-Sky may think.
shareThis is Pascal's Wager. An argument that every atheist or agnostic encounters sooner or later. "God can't be proved. But if God exists, the believer gains everything (heaven) and the unbeliever loses everything (hell). If God doesn't exist, the believer loses nothing and the unbeliever gains nothing. There is therefore everything to gain and nothing to lose by believing in God."
There are three problems with it.
1) (This one breaks down into 2 parts itself) A) it is an argument for belief, based on irrational fear, and B) it tells you nothing at all about which religion is right. There is an unnumbered throng of religions out there. Which one is right? Why choose Yahweh? Why not Ahura Mazda? Ouranos? Zeus? With this kind of reasoning we should simply pick the religion with the worst hell.
2) It is not true the believer loses nothing. Religion demands time, energy and money, draining valuable human resources from the improvement of this world.
3) It assumes belief is an act of will, that you can make yourself believe. You can't. I don't choose to disbelieve in God. I disbelieve in God for the same reason I disbelieve in elves: my rational mind won't accept the arguments I've seen advanced for his existence, and I see lots of evidence to point me toward the non-existence of one. Try a thought experiment to see what I mean. Could you, even if you truly believed your life (or afterlife) were on the line, make yourself believe in, say, Santa Claus? This is a silly example, but it should illustrate the point. No, you couldn't. You simply know too much about the world to accept a fat man flying all over the world in a single night, in a sleigh pulled by airborne reindeer, carrying in one bag, enough toys for all the world's (Christian) chidren. Your rational mind would never accept it as true, no matter what you consciously told yourself. A lot of agnostics/atheiests (myself among them) are in that boat with relation to God.
[deleted]
Being convinced with the help of new evidence is still not an active choice.
You simply expanded your knowledge that led you to a different conclusion.
I also think no one is completely free of bias. You will have a "gut feeling" that will weigh in to a certain extent, you may like the idea of something and want to lean in one direction or the other. You don't necessarily have control over these feelings or what you "like".
But I think theists are more affected by these factors. You want life after death, ultimate justice etc because it seems to balance right and wrong.
[deleted]
They may not be active choices, but you are still responsible for your actions.
Acting is a choice.
[deleted]
You are blamed for the action, not the belief.
share[deleted]
You don't have to act on your belief. Your belief doesn't make you do anything, it may make want you to do something, but you make the choice.
You are not a creature just acting on instinct, or a robot following instructions,
you have the ability for higher thinking.
You may hate abortion but if you shoot one of the doctors, you'll be punished.
You may be a pedophile but the moment you touch a kid you've fucked up.
Thinking or believing something isn't a crime, acting on them can be.
I feel you're just rephrasing the same idea, and I'm just repeating myself..
[deleted]
You contradicted your own argument. You refuse to believe in elves based on arguments and evidence that "point you toward their non-existence". So if there is strong evidence that elves exist, could your mind be changed? If it can be changed, then belief is an act of will and choice.
People change their minds and beliefs based on perceived evidence all the time.
This is simply wrong. Finding evidence convincing is not a choice. Accepting evidence -- being intellectually honest, in other words -- will quite often lead you to conclusions you would rather not believe, but you must if you are honest and rational. It's not the same thing as telling yourself something which your rational mind, deep down, simply knows to be false.
1) It isn´t Pascal´s wager. I said if Christianity is right. I didn´t say if religion is right, now pick which religion.
But why start with the premise that Christianity is right, and not some other reason? Be honest: the only reason you ask this question is because you were raised a Christian, or at least raised among Christians. If you had been raised in, say Morocco or Syria or Turkey, you'd be starting off asking why we don't accept that Allah is the one true God. And if you'd been born in India, you'd likely be starting with Hinduism as your basis.
2) You assume every human is improving this world. Criminals, homeless people are not improving this world. There are people that literally have nothing to lose. This notion is laughable.
I assume nothing. This is a complete non sequitur. share
[deleted]
2) It's not a non-sequitur, not every human resource is valuable for the improvement of the world. There's a bunch of other false assumptions you made but that probably comes down to your cynical misconception of what religion is.
It most certainly is a non sequitur. Of course not every human resource is valuable for the improvement of the world. And when I say that "Religion demands time, energy and money, draining valuable human resources from the improvement of this world," that in no way implies that all people are good and all people would devote their time to the improvement of this world in the absence of religion. It merely points out that much of the time people spend in religious devotions could often more productively be employed in other pursuits of more practical benefit in the here and now. Of course not all of them are equally good, or equally religious, nor would they be equally inclined to focus their energy on other matters. None of this is stated or even implied. Those are assumptions you are making that are not supported by anything I said. Non sequitur.
3) This is a non-sequitur. I asked a hypothetical question, you incorrectly inferred I was referring to Pascal's wager which is a probability dilemma about religion.
It is not a non-sequitur at all, and I am most certainly not incorrect in spotting your OP as a variation of Pascal's Wager. It asks the very same question: "don't you think you might be better off if you went ahead and believed?" It just asks it in slightly different wording. share
[deleted]
What this means is that God is unjust. Sorry, but that's the inescapable conclusion. It's why the Calvinists believed in predestination. Most Christian denominations reject that doctrine and believe in free will, and understandably so: predestination makes God into a monster who created thinking, feeling beings capable of suffering, and then arbitrarily consigned the greater part of them to be tortured in fire for all eternity. But Calvinists came up with the doctrine of predestination because they followed the logic of what it would mean for God to be omniscient and omnipotent, and that inevitably leads to predestination. All Christian denominations assert that God is all-knowing, which means he sees the future. That future is inevitable. That means my every action, every word, even every thought, is already predestined. After all, if God set everything into motion, all of human history up to and around my birth, determining my physical mind and environment and all the many influences that will come to bear on me, then my ‘choice’, my ‘free will’ is set by factors outside my control. My mind and surroundings are supposedly part of the divine plan, so the divine plan must be for me to disbelieve, and end up going to hell. I can’t escape this destiny, and God becomes responsible.
share[deleted]
Which doctrine do most Christians reject? Predestination is different to foreknowledge.
No it isn't. This is what is know as "a distinction without a difference." In other words, hairsplitting. Sophistry. Theists usually try to justify it by saying something like: "You have free will. You can always choose A instead of B. God would just know every possible choice you could make.” That dog won't hunt, as they say. Being omniscient, God knows which choice I will make. He knows it in advance, which means it’s predestined.
Predestination implies that your decisions don´t matter. If your decisions were pointless, then your free will would be pointless. Your free will isn´t pointless because you can freely choose to believe in God. If you believe that your beliefs come from somewhere else as you mentioned previously, you don´t really believe in free will.
I never said any such thing. As a matter of fact, I do believe in free will. I am merely pointing out the logical inevitability of predestination if you postulate a supreme being who is omniscient, and can foresee the future. And as I said, most Christian denominations reject predestination because it inevitably makes God into an unspeakable monster who creates thinking, feeling, suffering beings, and then arbitrarily condemns most of them to eternal torture in fire for circumstances entirely beyond their control. Understandably, most Christians balk at the idea as it defies any concept of justice (and God is supposed to be just), but I'm afraid the conclusion necessarily flows from the quality of omniscience. If the future can be foreseen in such a fashion, it is not fluid, it is fixed. But given I don't believe such a being exists, I have not painted myself into that logical corner. share
[deleted]
The analogy doesn't work. Sitting on the mountain, watching it unfold, there is an element of uncertainty. I could give the warning, but I have no way of knowing whether it would be heeded or not. God would know. I can't see the future. God can. I say again: God doesn't just know what can happen, he knows what will happen.
If God knows what will inevitably happen, the future is fixed. Predestined.
So, yes, in this case, it would be God's fault -- especially since (unlike me on that hypothetical mountaintop) he's not a passive observer. He created the whole universe and all the rules by which it runs. And again, this is why most Christian denominations reject predestination: they do not want to face up to what it implies about God. God is supposed to loving, compassionate, merciful. But why would a compassionate being create such a system. Why would he create sentient beings, and then randomly preselect most of them to damnation and eternal torment. Why would a compassionate, merciful, and loving creator, knowing that my mind, my upbringing, my education etc. will inevitably lead me to reject him, allow me to be born, when he knows I will end up in hell for eternity? Wouldn’t it be kinder and more compassionate never to allow me to be born at all if my ultimate fate is to be so horrible?
[deleted]
Well then, all I can say is, like most Christians, you are attempting to square the circle. Logically, it simply doesn't work, and your entire post amounts to an attempt to explain how a shape can be both a square and a circle at the same time. It can't. If God knows the outcome in advance, it's predestined. Period. Free will doesn't enter into it because the future is fixed and not fluid. Yes, ultimately God does make you watch porn, commit adultery or do drugs, because not only did he create the universe, you, every person, every thing, every influence around you, every aspect of your brain chemistry, literally everything down to the last particle of matter, he also didn't create it in such a way that he could set it in motion, and everything unfolded on its own (which would give you free will, but would preclude his omniscience); instead he set it up in a deterministic way such that he knows every outcome in advance.
In other words, he's not a "hands-off" creator, like the God of the deists, who imagined a supreme being that created the universe, and then left it to run on its own according to rules he established at the beginning. The Christian God is instead one who is imagined to intervene, and to control and be aware of everything down the tiniest, tiniest detail. Yes, under such a scheme, God would make you watch porn, commit adultery, or do drugs, because he straight up pre-programmed you to make every choice you will ever make. And then he'll punish you for acting as you were made to act.
Nope. Sorry, you can't have it both ways. Omniscience precludes a fluid future, which in turn precludes free will. And every argument you advance is sophistry in an attempt to rationalize logically inconsisent and mutually exclusive conditions.
[deleted]
No, actually, I don't have to accept anything. That's why I'm an agnostic. I am pointing out the logical inconsistencies in your set of beliefs. And those logical inconsistencies are a major reason why I don't -- why I can't accept them. (This isn't the only reason, mind you, there are actually very, very many, but neither time nor space permit me to list them all.) Suffice to say, I was raised in an evangelical Christian household, and all most close family were churchgoing, pious, true-believing Christians. I started having doubts in high school, and read the Bible, read Christian literature, and so much more, and it didn't help. The arguments I was getting to support the faith were simply not logically sound. I took refuge for a while in Deism (which had been popular among the founding fathers, and it seemed to make more sense, since it dispensed with all the contradictions and inconsistencies of the Bible, but still left me with the comfortable belief that there was a creator behind everything). But the more I learned about science, the less need their seemed to be to postulate a creator behind everything. By the time I was in graduate school, I had abandoned even Deism.
It was a struggle, losing the faith I'd been reared in, and I tried hard to find good reasons to dismiss my doubts -- but the more I read, the more it had the opposite effect. And I doubt there's a single argument you could advance that I have not already encountered (and found unconvincing) many, many times already.
I think we've gone round on this enough by now. You're not going to convince me, and I'm not going to convince you, so we'll have to agree to disagree.
[deleted]
I mean you have to accept defensive arguments from the Bible if you are going to use it to criticize his morality.
No, actually I don't.
You say you reject free will because God is sovereign and all-knowing so why does he say he gave mankind free will?
You see, this is why I find it so futile arguing with theists. Uniformly i find they don't respond to my arguments; they respond to distortions or misrepresentations of my arguments. And I don't yet know whether it's an ideologically based willful obtuseness, or a simple reading comprehension problem.
You could not be more wrong if you tried. I don't reject free will. That's exactly the opposite of my actual thinking. I believe in free will. I believe in free will, because I believe the future is fluid. What I have been telling you (and seriously guy, this is what? The third or fourth time I've said this? I forget) is that free will, which requires a fluid future, is logically inconsistent with the sort of omniscient creator that you believe in, whether you are willing to acknowledge that inconsistency, that incompatibility or not.
I am pointing out to you the inconsistencies and logical impossibilities of your belief system, and you insist on regarding that as what I believe. You're clearly not understanding what I am telling you. Step outside your ideological box for a moment and try to think in different terms. share
[deleted]
I see no convincing evidence that a supreme being exists, but I am willing to admit (given how limited our knowledge of the universe is), that it is always possible one could exist. However, should there be such a being, I am pretty fairly convinced that he will, at most, bear only a passing resemblance to the Christian conception of God.
Yes, it's certainly possible that I am wrong, and the future is fixed, and their is no such thing as free will. Philosophers and theologians have been grappling with this question for centuries. Again, however, I see no evidence that such a being exists, and if some supreme being did create the universe, it's also possible that he bears almost no resemblance to the Christian concept of a deity, and is not omninscient.
As far as I am concerned, we might as well be arguing over what color dragon scales are. It's something that makes no practical difference to me as I live my life from day to day.
Atheists/Ags were out from the beginning since God knew ahead of time who would reach heaven and who would not. God had a negative test for Adam and Eve to not eat the fruit from the Tree of Knowledge. This time he has a positive test to believe in Lord Jesus as the Savior from Adam's sin. Basically, that's it but through Satan it has gotten complicated. He got Adam and Eve and now he has many due to what I think liberalism, atheism, and agnosticism. He's also contradicted God in everything he said in the Bible with his Antibible of Evolution. It cannot be a coincidence that everything God said is contradicted by evolution. There are usually no coincidences with bad things.
shareIslam seems like it is more divinely inspired than Christianity, I'd be more concerned about that religion being right.
shareNo. Very little of Christianity observes the teachings of Christ and in my experience the most pious are carrying the most guilt. Any religion that gives you a get out of jail free card for whispering in the dark is a bogus theology. That one thing is why Christianity became so popular, the idea that you could be "forgiven" for all the terrible things you've done just by asking god, is a powerfully alluring sales pitch. If you've wronged people then you must make it right or at least confess your guilt to those you wronged.
Also I'm agnostic and have no belief in things for which there is no evidence. You might as well ask me if I fear being judged by flying pink elephants from Jupiter.
[deleted]
I have seen no evidence of this supernatural conversion. No offense but you're doing the thing I've seen many times over where you are deciding who is or isn't a true Christian, generally by how similar they are to your denomination/sect/church, and that isn't up to you. I heard it over and over growing up ... the more different a religious group was to our own church the more they were lost, damned, or mislead. My wife is a non-practicing Catholic and so I know a lot of Catholics and it's terrible how ugly Protestants are toward them. Some of them are afraid to sign the cross when eating in public because of nutjobs that start preaching at them how they are going to hell.
share[deleted]
Sorry but again, it's the same old thing of deciding who is or isn't a proper Christian and making excuses for the absence of god in our lives. If god needs preachers to spread his message, all of them sniping over who is the most right, and politicians to make laws enforcing his will (according to many Christians) he's a weak and ineffectual god. If you heard someone from a different religion talking the way you are talking, you'd wouldn't believe them and would probably say they were "nut jobs" or part of a cult.
share[deleted]
1) But it's not up to you to decide someone is false because they believe differently than you, I've brought this up and you keep doing it but we will have to agree to disagree on that point.
2) What scripture? There are a number of them and they do not all jive. And some of that scripture was cribbed from earlier mythologies, a good bit from the Babylonians.
And even though I am an agnostic, some would call me agnostic atheist but whatever, I do believe in the teachings of Christ. I believe he was a real person. I don't believe he was a divinity, the son of a god, a prophet, and I don't believe in the supernatural. Whether they are the real teachings of Christ I can't say but I believe Christ, or Christus, was a hippy dippy liberal religious leader of his time that developed a cult following. I also believe that Paul resurrected the memory and myth of the man and built a church around it that surged in popularity because it was a lot simpler than many of the polytheistic religions.
"they do not all jive"
It's "Jibe", Mac.
[deleted]
Regardless of their personal conviction no person is able to provide irrefutable evidence of the existence of a deity or provide irrefutable evidence that there is no deity (they do not know 100 percent for certain one way or the other).
Religion is responsible for divisiveness and separation of humanity more than any other cause or ideal. Religion is a form of cult that people created for different reasons including to be forgiven and redeemed for their continuous behaviors that causes them shame and guilt (a temporary justification and euphoric feel good ideology).
Religion was also created from our oldest and greatest fear (death). Every religion believes that theirs is the right one and all others are false and therefore condemned to eternal damnation.
Religion is not required to believe in any imaginary deity, nor is it required to live a life of honesty, generosity, and morality. Religion nor belief in any imaginary deity are required to be forgiving and redeemed.
If there is judgement in any afterlife then it will be based on our actions and not on personal beliefs of the imaginary or belonging to any particular religion, similar to how we are judged in the present life.
I have four different theories and one of them is that the supreme being is fifty percent good and fifty percent evil which may explain the permissive cruelty and suffering inflicted by humanity and by nature especially to millions of innocent children that suffer an agonizing slow and painful death. Therefore, why would any rational, logical, and reasonable person would want to praise, worship, and pray to this type of supreme being. This is the theory that validates the logic that the supreme being is "all powerful" but not "all good". (Able but not Willing).
My second theory is that this supreme being is "all good" but "not all powerful" since it was not able to prevent people and nature from inflicting suffering, however, this theory disqualifies that deity as an all powerful supreme being since one of the qualifications and descriptions for any "deity" is "omnipotence (unlimited power)", and therefore, if this deity is not "omnipotent" then it is not a god. (Willing but not Able).
My third theory is that perhaps at some point in time there was an "omnipotent" and "all good" supreme being but at one point has ceased to be proactive for any given reason.
My fourth theory is that there is no supreme being or deity except a form of creator(s) including an advance intelligent race of being(s) or a special "particle" responsible for the creation of all matter in the universe including space, time, energy, force, and gravity.
[deleted]
Sure it does, for example, it would be a simple task for an omnipotent deity to intervene and/or prevent his faithful followers from sexually molesting children. Even in scriptures old testament(God) and new testament(Jesus) described how he intervened several times (conveniently) according to eyewitness perspectives.
What about innocent children that are suddenly inflicted with viruses and diseases like cancer, multiple sclerosis, cerebral palsy, Huntington's disease, etc. According to some in scriptures and present age he intervenes once in a while (conveniently) to miraculously heal. What were those children's consequences to deserve such a slow and agonizing suffering until their death?, what evil did those children commit? (free will has nothing to do with any of that). "Free will" is just another simple-minded explanation and excuse from scriptures to justify the permissive cruelty and suffering by nature and humanity. No, it does not make him evil, it makes him "half" evil (50/50).
[deleted]
I would not call anyone who sexually molests children, a "faithful follower" of Jesus Christ. No matter what they call themselves. It would be a simple task to intervene, but as I said before, intervening every time a crime is committed means, no free will.
They believe to be faithful followers for one or two reasons: 1. their sin is forgiven so they continue to molest (70x7) 'and/or' 2. they don't believe in any 'god/deity'. Intervention every time is not required, just the times that he can prevent his devout followers from 'molesting/abusing' children.
Children suffering from diseases is a consequence of us being a fallen creation, a result of sin. Does it seem unfair? Maybe, but suffering is also used by God to build character. And if one day you believe in God, you can take comfort in knowing that all "children" that die will have eternal life.
What sin and consequence are children guilty of when they are healthy one day and then suddenly they are inflicted with a 'virus/disease' like cancer so that they can suffer a slow agonizing and painful death that may last for months or years?. What does character have to do with innocent children? That is unjustifiable and inexcusable suffering on the innocent children that are not guilty of any sin.
Unfortunately, I too was indoctrinated and brainwashed for many years believing in the biggest fantasy created my humanity because of their oldest and greatest fear(s). But even if by some infinitesimal possibility there is a deity, I would never justify 'it' by the 'suffering/cruelty' inflicted on children in order to prove something, or build character, etc. All that matters is the physical here and now. The bottom line is that none of the above has anything to do with any 'fantasy/superstitious' beliefs, they are simply for two basic reasons only: 1. The actions of people and 2. Nature.
share
[deleted]
Sin is sin regardless of the type, size, or severity, which means that every converted person that continues to sin, whether it is the same sin or a different sin are all false converts regardless of their 'convictions'. I have met many converts and not a single one was without sin after their self-proclaimed conversion including the most spiritual and wisest of them. Yes, they can certainly be 'atheists/nonbelievers' and pretend to be christians; this has been the case for hundreds of years with millions of converts all over the world; they are called hypocrites.
Genuine repentance can be achieved without superstition or believing in any 'myth/fantasy'. As a matter of fact, people can be forgiving, generous, kind, and be redeemable without believing in any deity.
Generational sin does not justify or excuse any benevolent deity to take millions of innocent healthy children and inflict cancer on them. This is what many would expect from something dark and evil like what the bible refers to as 'satan/devil'; which is no different than what the god of the bible allows, permits, and empowers directly or by proxy and allowing the devil to commit such cruel, unjustifiable, and inexcusable atrocities on innocent children.
The scriptures references several instances where the god of the old testament and the messiah of the new testament conveniently intervened at certain times, places, and for certain chosen people because if was all part of his grand universal master plan, so the other millions of cancer suffering children that pray to him to ease their pain and suffering are not worthy of his grand plan.
Belief in the superstitious is temporary and fleeting like everything else as I have witness this countless times through the years. This most dangerous and destructive 'viral disease' usually tends to temporarily infect those which are overwhelmed with shame, guilt, confusion of something they do not understand or can't explain, or an event in their life that has caused them physical, emotional, or mental 'stress/trauma'.
There is a reason God´s laws and morality exist. They are also to protect us
god's law were created by humans; the same humans that created their worldly laws as there is no 'universal/scientific' baseline for those laws or morality since they are all subjective and differ between cultures, religions, and geographical territories including historically. What actually protects us are things like common sense, respect for ourselves and others, wisdom to know that there would be consequences for our actions whether they are good or bad, etc.
We as a fallen creation suffer the consequences of our own disobedience and then get mad at God because of current the state of the world.
So some deity created us and placed a condition on us as a test of obedience and then condemned the entire human race because we failed his test. I know that in all scriptures in all different religions this is actually a metaphorical allegory, however, does it not make you 'think/consider' about what kind of creator would play such 'childish/selfish' games with his creation?
Its not surprising then, that our gradual moral degeneracy has also coincided with the degeneration of our society.
Absolutely!, but what has made all that much more severe in every sense is the most dangerous and destructive viral-disease called superstition along with all its sub-categories like religions, paganism, cults, etc; which are responsible for more suffering and death than any other cause in human history. share
Why would I be concerned?
share