Does God have Respect for Life

[PsychoticEpisode]

Or does He have to? Can you be a creator and still have respect for life even if it didn't turn out the way you planned or is a lack of respect needed in order to make adjustments?

This is a question I asked a bishop once at a church rally when I was a mere lad. He told me that God respected human life. Animals and plants were life without consciousness and therefore not in need of respect. Of course I asked him about how god could be respectful of human life and still find it necessary to destroy us now and then. His response was to look at me strange and walk away.

So really I'm in a quandary, on one hand god respects only human life and on the other hand he doesn't respect any life. The latter may be a prerogative only a creator would be entitled to.

[Nasor]

The whole idea of "respecting" something that you created entirely on your own and are wholly responsible for strikes me as pretty odd.

[S.A.M.]

Which life? Bacteria? Maggots?

[PsychoticEpisode]

The whole idea of "respecting" something that you created entirely on your own and are wholly responsible for strikes me as pretty odd.

Couldn't agree more. Kind of puts us humans down a few notches from where we think we are in relationship with the Big Guy. So can God create life He'd respect?

As an outside observer I would have to contend that God does not have any respect for life. If He did then he would bugger off and leave us alone. Oh wait, maybe he's already done that.

[PsychoticEpisode]

Which life? Bacteria? Maggots?

Whatever you think qualifies.

[CutsieMarie89]

I guess in might in the same way you would have respect for a picture you painted. If it was a really good picture and you were really proud of it then you would have a great amount of respect for it. Meaning you leave on the floor where it might get stepped on, you wouldn't throw it or use it as a coaster for your coffee. If you painted a picture that turned out terrible and looking at it just reminds you of your own failure you might have considerably less respect for that painting, you might throw it away or burn it. But thats if God considers humans to be artwork and that theory would also include everything in the universe that God thinks he did a good job creating.

[shedevilx]

hi,

[BlueMoose]

...This is a question I asked a bishop once at a church rally when I was a mere lad. He told me that God respected human life. Animals and plants were life without consciousness and therefore not in need of respect...

-After that comment everything he said is pretty much irrelevant,
its like satanist talking, making excuse to rape the planet for pleasure of men.

[lightgigantic]

Or does He have to? Can you be a creator and still have respect for life even if it didn't turn out the way you planned or is a lack of respect needed in order to make adjustments?
why isn't life turning out correctly?

This is a question I asked a bishop once at a church rally when I was a mere lad. He told me that God respected human life. Animals and plants were life without consciousness and therefore not in need of respect.
this is a bogus argument from the bishop

Of course I asked him about how god could be respectful of human life and still find it necessary to destroy us now and then. His response was to look at me strange and walk away.

So really I'm in a quandary, on one hand god respects only human life and on the other hand he doesn't respect any life. The latter may be a prerogative only a creator would be entitled to.
Human life is simply the opportunity to understand god. Other forms of life are simply about sleeping, eating, mating and defending (although its indicative of modern culture to also bring human life to such a level ...)

[inzomnia]

Respect? You are kidding. God is an arrogant being, but after all he is God.

[lightgigantic]

I guess it depends how you sit with the balance of power - for instance you wouldn't expect a group of criminals to describe a legal system that prosecutes them as respectful ...

[inzomnia]

Not really. If you see from the 'horizontal' point of view (in relation among human), I see
God is fair, either we are criminal or not. He clearly states right from wrong. The right way
is hard, the wrong way is easy. If we don't respect the law, that is choosing the wrong way,
we just should prepare for the consequences.

But if you see from 'vertical' point of view (in relation between God and us), God is not fair.
God has no respect. He dictates us. He enacts law without involving us in composing it.
He uses fear to control us, etc.

[JDawg]

Which God are we talking about? The one of the Torah, Bible, and Koran? Then the answer is no.

God has proven in those texts that life is on this Earth for one purpose: To worship him. If you don't fall in line, you can and will be killed, your wife and daughter put into slavery, and your livestock either scattered or slaughtered.

That God is jealous and insecure, as is evident by his followers, such as the lovely and charismatic fellow going by the name of "lightgigantic" who posted in this thread, and I quote:

Human life is simply the opportunity to understand god.

See? Our lives are meant for servitude.

[lightgigantic]

so how do you propose that a criminal be treated fairly?

[inzomnia]

Which God are we talking about? The one of the Torah, Bible, and Koran? Then the answer is no.

Is this a question for me? If so, I was talking about the one in the Quran, which
I think is actually the same with the one in the Torah and Bible.


God has proven in those texts that life is on this Earth for one purpose: To worship him. If you don't fall in line, you can and will be killed, your wife and daughter put into slavery, and your livestock either scattered or slaughtered.


The first sentence is true. Where do you get the rest from?




See? Our lives are meant for servitude.

True. Or to be exact, to worship Him. By means of worship is to live life in the
way following what He states as right, and avoiding what He states as wrong.
That is to simply follow what is written in the texts.


so how do you propose that a criminal be treated fairly?

Is that a question for me, too? :confused: If so, just as what is written in the text (Quran).
I think it is a cruel rule, but in my understanding it is the best. For example, according
to Quran, you should cut the thief's hand. It is very barbaric, but I guess it will make
any thief thinks 1000 times before he steals. :shrug:

[lightgigantic]

Inzomnia
“
Originally Posted by lightgigantic
so how do you propose that a criminal be treated fairly?
”
Is that a question for me, too? If so, just as what is written in the text (Quran).
I think it is a cruel rule, but in my understanding is the best. For example, according
to Quran, you should cut the thief's hand. It is very barbaric, but I guess it will make
any thief thinks 1000 times before he steals.
I'm not sure I follow your thread ....

so in other words you wouldn't expect a criminal to have recourse for democratic input in regards to fairness?

[lightgigantic]

Which God are we talking about? The one of the Torah, Bible, and Koran? Then the answer is no.

God has proven in those texts that life is on this Earth for one purpose: To worship him. If you don't fall in line, you can and will be killed, your wife and daughter put into slavery, and your livestock either scattered or slaughtered.
that and a whole lot more are just regular daily goings on in the material world :o
just read the newspaper


That God is jealous and insecure, as is evident by his followers, such as the lovely and charismatic fellow going by the name of "lightgigantic" who posted in this thread, and I quote:



See? Our lives are meant for servitude.
lol
just try and propose an argument for a way of life that doesn't involve servitude

[inzomnia]

Inzomnia
I'm not sure I follow your thread ....

so in other words you wouldn't expect a criminal to have recourse for democratic input in regards to fairness?

No. I don't believe in democracy, it makes everything catastrophic. :D Islam is actually
also flexible (PLEASE don't think I am preaching, though); when somebody steals
because they are very hungry, there are excuses (I have to recheck it, though).
I have no pity though for corrupter, bank robbers, those who manipulate others, etc.
They should all have hand cutting.

[JDawg]

Is this a question for me? If so, I was talking about the one in the Quran, which
I think is actually the same with the one in the Torah and Bible.

Yes, I know they are the same god. That is why I said "Torah, Bible, and Koran".

The first sentence is true. Where do you get the rest from?

The Torah, Bible, and Koran.

True. Or to be exact, to worship Him. By means of worship is to live life in the
way following what He states as right, and avoiding what He states as wrong.
That is to simply follow what is written in the texts.


Which is to live in a dictatorship with no hopes of a foreign presence coming in and ousting the supreme commander. But it's worse than that, because your choice on Earth have eternal consequences. So no, there is no respect for human life.

that and a whole lot more are just regular daily goings on in the material world
just read the newspaper

That wasn't the question, so don't twist my meaning. The question was "Does God Respect Life" and I gave the answer and reasons.

lol
just try and propose an argument for a way of life that doesn't involve servitude

We're not talking about theoretical servitude to the almighty dollar, we're talking about a servitude to God, where if you do not do his bidding, you are sent to hell for eternity.

[inzomnia]

Which is to live in a dictatorship with no hopes of a foreign presence coming in and ousting the supreme commander. But it's worse than that, because your choice on Earth have eternal consequences. So no, there is no respect for human life.



What makes you think human life deserves respect? Or do you think human life
deserves respect (from God)? If yes, why? :confused:.

[JDawg]

What makes you think human life deserves respect? Or do you think human life
deserves respect (from God)? If yes, why?

I don't think there is a god, so I guess the question is disqualified. But I'll answer the first part anyway: Yes, human life deserves respect. The strong must protect the weak, because society demands it. And because of that altruism, we show just how amazing a creature we are. We are the first species on this planet than can curb natural selection by actual preventing those otherwise unable to survive to do exactly that, and that archetype alone would demand respect from any god.

But since you are obviously a theist, let me ask you this: Why wouldn't we deserve respect?

[inzomnia]

I don't think there is a god, so I guess the question is disqualified. But I'll answer the first part anyway: Yes, human life deserves respect. The strong must protect the weak, because society demands it. And because of that altruism, we show just how amazing a creature we are. We are the first species on this planet than can curb natural selection by actual preventing those otherwise unable to survive to do exactly that, and that archetype alone would demand respect from any god.

But since you are obviously a theist, let me ask you this: Why wouldn't we deserve respect?


"Why wouldn't we deserve respect?". :confused: Well, as you actually mentioned, we
are amazing creature. So who deserve respect? The amazing creature or the
creator of the amazing creature? :shrug: I don't think He needs (respect) though,
so there is no need to respect Him.

[JDawg]

. So who deserve respect? The amazing creature or the
creator of the amazing creature?

Well, if you want to believe the recycled paganism that is the Judeo-Christian belief system (Or perhaps the recycled Christianity that is Islam), then we deserve the respect, because we were given free will.

I don't think He needs (respect) though,
so there is no need to respect Him.

That's not what "He" says.

[inzomnia]

then we deserve the respect, because we were given free will.

We deserve respect because we were given free will? :confused: That doesn't seem correlate to me.


That's not what "He" says.

True. That was what I say. Not Him.

[PsychoticEpisode]

why isn't life turning out correctly?

Correctly?:shrug: Your first mistake is thinking someone is grading you. I thought, wrongly it seems, that you were beyond thinking like the masses.

this is a bogus argument from the bishop

Aw, he was just giving a kid the brush-off. There were people in more need of his words of wisdom than I, like the wealthy who were also in attendance.

Human life is simply the opportunity to understand god. Other forms of life are simply about sleeping, eating, mating and defending (although its indicative of modern culture to also bring human life to such a level ...)
I understand He has no respect for life. How am I doing so far?

[lightgigantic]

Correctly?:shrug: Your first mistake is thinking someone is grading you. I thought, wrongly it seems, that you were beyond thinking like the masses.
actually I am just reiterating your argument / seeking a clarification

"Can you be a creator and still have respect for life even if it didn't turn out the way you planned or is a lack of respect needed in order to make adjustments?"

:shrug:




Aw, he was just giving a kid the brush-off. There were people in more need of his words of wisdom than I, like the wealthy who were also in attendance.
generally if a person advocates a scriptural conclusion (like the one offered by the bishop) there should also be a scriptural reference - otherwise it becomes difficult to distinguish between fundamentals to a teaching and -well- sciforums


I understand He has no respect for life. How am I doing so far?
I'm not sure how that relates to my comment

[JDawg]

We deserve respect because we were given free will? That doesn't seem correlate to me.

No, the point was that if you believe in the Abrahamic God, then you believe he gave us free will. And despite the fact that we have free will, we still show kindness and generosity and all that good stuff.

[PsychoticEpisode]

LG....Let's assume for a moment He exists....If it was god's idea to create humans then he can do whatever he wants to them, seeing how he owns the patent. We can show respect for his creations but there is no need for god to return the favor. If you create it then you may have to destroy it or tweak it. Morally unethical to destroy or make adjustments to something you respect.

As for religious authorities, I have little respect. Oh, they may emit an aura of righteousness and holiness but I cannot take them seriously. I don't know why but I think its because I find religion a total human construct that no God worth His salt would ever approve. Tolerate maybe.

It is my understanding of god that there is nothng I can possibly know about him/her/it. Nothing. God is or isn't. Makes no difference if you philosophize, speculate, or form a religion because none of it means anything. If God depends on faith then you have to have faith in all other attributes which essentially makes them pure conjecture. I'm happy to leave it at that, yes or no. There is nothing anyone can write, lecture or meditate about God for he is merely a construct with no concrete foundation to build upon.

[lightgigantic]

LG....Let's assume for a moment He exists....If it was god's idea to create humans then he can do whatever he wants to them, seeing how he owns the patent. We can show respect for his creations but there is no need for god to return the favor. If you create it then you may have to destroy it or tweak it. Morally unethical to destroy or make adjustments to something you respect.
agreed
that is why the constitutional position of the living entity is eternal
(IOW its only under the influence of material energy - or temporal existence - that the living entity appears to go through stages of birth and annihilation)
God has given us eternal life and he doesn't tamper with that or revoke it.

As for religious authorities, I have little respect.
lol
mild understatement, don't you think


Oh, they may emit an aura of righteousness and holiness but I cannot take them seriously. I don't know why but I think its because I find religion a total human construct that no God worth His salt would ever approve. Tolerate maybe.
my point was that even religious authorities have an authority they must submit to

It is my understanding of god that there is nothng I can possibly know about him/her/it.
what on earth makes you say that?

Nothing. God is or isn't. Makes no difference if you philosophize, speculate, or form a religion because none of it means anything. If God depends on faith then you have to have faith in all other attributes which essentially makes them pure conjecture. I'm happy to leave it at that, yes or no. There is nothing anyone can write, lecture or meditate about God for he is merely a construct with no concrete foundation to build upon.
I think we have gone over it before how faith is inherent to all claims of knowledge, at least in the beginning.
And I think we have gone over before how religious testimony that cannot go further than faith becomes difficult to distinguish from sentimentalism

[PsychoticEpisode]

what on earth makes you say that?

God never was, if he exists then he's not here by choice, doesn't care, or god is dead..

Personally I cannot make the jump to believing. Not that I haven't been tempted in my lifetime to do so but everytime I think someone says something profoundly convincing my brain goes into instant analysis and has to this point always concluded god does not exist. There is nothing I can possibly know about god because he is in absentia.

When I tried meditation years ago I found that because my mind had been previously contaminated by suggestion, it was pointless to use it as a tool for enlightenment. What meditation taught me though, was that if I were to find God then I had to be inventive. Your level of inventiveness is what determines the strength of your faith or belief. You convince yourself IOW, and is somewhat egotistical I might add. No construct of mine or of somebody else's is going to push me over to the believer side.

So it appears if I want a God to respect me then I need to find one that does.

[lightgigantic]

God never was, if he exists then he's not here by choice, doesn't care, or god is dead..
once again, I have to ask what makes you say that ...


Personally I cannot make the jump to believing. Not that I haven't been tempted in my lifetime to do so but everytime I think someone says something profoundly convincing my brain goes into instant analysis and has to this point always concluded god does not exist. There is nothing I can possibly know about god because he is in absentia.

When I tried meditation years ago I found that because my mind had been previously contaminated by suggestion, it was pointless to use it as a tool for enlightenment. What meditation taught me though, was that if I were to find God then I had to be inventive. Your level of inventiveness is what determines the strength of your faith or belief. You convince yourself IOW, and is somewhat egotistical I might add. No construct of mine or of somebody else's is going to push me over to the believer side.
basically for every knowable object or thing or state there is a process that goes with it - for instance (as an absurd example) if I was incredibly sincere about finding information about Karl Marx in Antartica, I would draw up a big fat zero, despite my sincerity.
Admittedly its precisely this issue of practice that tends to get neglected even in so-called professional circles of theistic progress.

So it appears if I want a God to respect me then I need to find one that does.
what is it exactly about yourself that you require god to respect?
and in what ways doesn't god respect it?

[lightgigantic]

“
Jdawg


that and a whole lot more are just regular daily goings on in the material world
just read the newspaper ”
That wasn't the question, so don't twist my meaning. The question was "Does God Respect Life" and I gave the answer and reasons.
Not sure what your point is.
I mean how much of the violence in the world (guaged from your average newspaper) is related to inherently religious issues and how much to inherent economic/political issues?

lol
just try and propose an argument for a way of life that doesn't involve servitude ”
We're not talking about theoretical servitude to the almighty dollar, we're talking about a servitude to God, where if you do not do his bidding, you are sent to hell for eternity.
We’re talking about eternal hell?
Well for a start the notion of being sent to hell for eternity is not a uniform theistic conclusion (even hell is temporary so the soul is only capable of having an eternal experience with god in his kingdom, aka vaishnavism) … and the very fact that you cannot argue a way of life that doesn’t involve ideas of servitude indicates that it is our constant (or eternal) companion …. So I guess the only question that remains is which things are more praiseworthy to serve than others. At the very least it’s not clear why indicating an issue of service is an indication of fault, since it’s the very medium from which we draw all forms of loving exchanges and meaning and even just good old pragmatic subsistence .

[PsychoticEpisode]

once again, I have to ask what makes you say that ...

Religion is like science fiction to me. Most religions speak of a god. Therefore god is like science fiction to me.

Because god is oft mentioned I cannot in fairness to myself, dwell on his existence. All I can do is select yes or no as to god's existence and leave it at that. I need god to give me a reason to believe in him and I don't want to hear it from a human being.

I have asked myself that if I were to have never heard of god would I eventually mention or conjure him? Would I have enough of a reason to think I'm not alone, with respect to a supernatural being? If I was to eventually think of a god then the next step is to have the courage of my conviction. Personally I do not regard thoughts or ideas as proof and thus I would see god as something I've concocted.

[lightgigantic]

Religion is like science fiction to me. Most religions speak of a god. Therefore god is like science fiction to me.

Because god is oft mentioned I cannot in fairness to myself, dwell on his existence. All I can do is select yes or no as to god's existence and leave it at that. I need god to give me a reason to believe in him and I don't want to hear it from a human being.

I have asked myself that if I were to have never heard of god would I eventually mention or conjure him? Would I have enough of a reason to think I'm not alone, with respect to a supernatural being? If I was to eventually think of a god then the next step is to have the courage of my conviction. Personally I do not regard thoughts or ideas as proof and thus I would see god as something I've concocted.
when you say something like god is dead or doesn't exist you are making a claim about reality.
For instance at a certain time and place discussion of electrons would also seem like an issue of science fiction.
This says more about the time and the place than the substance of the claim.
Similarly, to talk of how god doesn't strike one seems to take the same path

[PsychoticEpisode]

when you say something like god is dead or doesn't exist you are making a claim about reality.

God is an idea, a reality I have no problem with. Do I wish to live by it? No. I'm not the one claiming god is a reality. My suggestion that he never was or is dead is meant for those who keep the idea alive. I, we, all of us have but 1 choice to make. Problem is that there are only 2 options. I made my choice and I see nothing wrong with it. Once the choice was made I am bound to make the suggestion of God being absent. Why is inconsequential. It kind of goes with saying He ain't.

You know, I have never heard of god outside of a religious reference and no one to my knowledge has ever been given that kind of opportunity. Why does God need religious attachment?

[lightgigantic]

God is an idea, a reality I have no problem with. Do I wish to live by it? No. I'm not the one claiming god is a reality.
but you are claiming something about the reality of god

My suggestion that he never was or is dead is meant for those who keep the idea alive. I, we, all of us have but 1 choice to make. Problem is that there are only 2 options. I made my choice and I see nothing wrong with it. Once the choice was made I am bound to make the suggestion of God being absent. Why is inconsequential. It kind of goes with saying He ain't.
unlike theistic claims, you have no positive basis for your claim of reality - hence its an absolute negative ... which has grave philosophical implications

You know, I have never heard of god outside of a religious reference and no one to my knowledge has ever been given that kind of opportunity. Why does God need religious attachment?[/QUOTE]
I've never heard of electrons being discussed out of science either

[PsychoticEpisode]

but you are claiming something about the reality of god

An idea about God is something about his reality? An idea of no god...same thing?

unlike theistic claims, you have no positive basis for your claim of reality - hence its an absolute negative ... which has grave philosophical implications

Never said I did. I'm not claiming anything...to claim it then I have to prove it, then I have to argue it. I choose not to believe, not based on any evidence, but because the human element cannot be removed from any actual claim if I were to make one. I merely choose not to believe in God. Definitely something might change my mind some day but only after careful analysis.

I've never heard of electrons being discussed out of science either

Nice try. Even religion can't ignore science. Life would be much simpler if God, should he exist, had said 'figure out how I did it'

[lightgigantic]

An idea about God is something about his reality? An idea of no god...same thing?
sure there is a point where god is simply an idea
there is however a stage beyond that
(iow theistic claims have recourse to practice and furthermore conclusion, unlike atheistic claims which have no capacity to go past theory)



Never said I did. I'm not claiming anything...

to claim it then I have to prove it, then I have to argue it. I choose not to believe, not based on any evidence, but because the human element cannot be removed from any actual claim if I were to make one. I merely choose not to believe in God. Definitely something might change my mind some day but only after careful analysis.
fair enough



Nice try. Even religion can't ignore science.
and maths can't ignore sociology either

Life would be much simpler if God, should he exist, had said 'figure out how I did it'
why would he want to say something like that?
IOW, given the inherent limitations of empiricism (ie our material senses), why would that make things easier?
:confused:

[JDawg]

Not sure what your point is.
I mean how much of the violence in the world (guaged from your average newspaper) is related to inherently religious issues and how much to inherent economic/political issues?

Violence? There is an entire region of this world that is falling apart because of their religion. The Middle East is always at war with itself, or with someone else, because of their faith. Right now, violence for any other reason can't hold a candle to violence in the name of God.

We’re talking about eternal hell?
Well for a start the notion of being sent to hell for eternity is not a uniform theistic conclusion (even hell is temporary so the soul is only capable of having an eternal experience with god in his kingdom, aka vaishnavism) … and the very fact that you cannot argue a way of life that doesn’t involve ideas of servitude indicates that it is our constant (or eternal) companion …. So I guess the only question that remains is which things are more praiseworthy to serve than others. At the very least it’s not clear why indicating an issue of service is an indication of fault, since it’s the very medium from which we draw all forms of loving exchanges and meaning and even just good old pragmatic subsistence .

Dude, there is no servitude in this life. I could invent something today, sell it tomorrow, and never work another day in my life. Religious worship, on the other hand, is a profiteering racket at best, and a form of political control at worst. Oh no, wait, it's a tool for mass murder at worst, nevermind.

Servitude is the basis for nothing good. That's why we rail against it every time it is put upon us. That is why slavery is just so inherently wrong to us.

Not everyone is a sheep like you, Light. Seriously. Some of us can find love and happiness without having to fall to our knees and give some invisible lord the credit for our good work.

[lightgigantic]

Jdawg

Originally Posted by lightgigantic
Not sure what your point is.
I mean how much of the violence in the world (guaged from your average newspaper) is related to inherently religious issues and how much to inherent economic/political issues?
”
Violence? There is an entire region of this world that is falling apart because of their religion. The Middle East is always at war with itself, or with someone else, because of their faith. Right now, violence for any other reason can't hold a candle to violence in the name of God.
kind of strange the way they always call upon political and economic advisers (as opposed to religious ones) to explain or deal with the situation


“
We’re talking about eternal hell?
Well for a start the notion of being sent to hell for eternity is not a uniform theistic conclusion (even hell is temporary so the soul is only capable of having an eternal experience with god in his kingdom, aka vaishnavism) … and the very fact that you cannot argue a way of life that doesn’t involve ideas of servitude indicates that it is our constant (or eternal) companion …. So I guess the only question that remains is which things are more praiseworthy to serve than others. At the very least it’s not clear why indicating an issue of service is an indication of fault, since it’s the very medium from which we draw all forms of loving exchanges and meaning and even just good old pragmatic subsistence .
”
Dude, there is no servitude in this life. I could invent something today, sell it tomorrow, and never work another day in my life.
and then complain about how lonely it is to be rich I guess ... unless of course you lowered your standards to adopt issues of servitude that finds its expression in all sorts of familial dealings ...

Religious worship, on the other hand, is a profiteering racket at best, and a form of political control at worst. Oh no, wait, it's a tool for mass murder at worst, nevermind.
anyway if you want to judge a genre by its worst stereotype I'm sure you will never get anywhere (especially coming from a person who just advocated selling some sort of thing to live a life of non-commitment as perfectional)

Servitude is the basis for nothing good.
at this point your mother and father would probably describe you as ungrateful
:o

That's why we rail against it every time it is put upon us. That is why slavery is just so inherently wrong to us.
or alternatively, that is the result of dovetailing one's inherent serving nature to things or objects not worthy of it

Not everyone is a sheep like you, Light. lol

Seriously. Some of us can find love and happiness without having to fall to our knees and give some invisible lord the credit for our good work.
well if you think you can find love and happiness, even the mundane variety, without approaching issues of servitude I think you still have a lot to learn in life

[PsychoticEpisode]

sure there is a point where god is simply an idea

Agreed.

there is however a stage beyond that

Yes. God becomes a real invention.

(iow theistic claims have recourse to practice and furthermore conclusion, unlike atheistic claims which have no capacity to go past theory)


Classic sales pitch..... Personally as an atheist I have nothing to sell. Theists keep telling me I do but I don't know what it is. Is the theist pitch is always aimed at an atheist? As I've said numerous times, we have 2 choices, pick one and leave it at that simply because we know squat about any real god. We know plenty about the invented god(s) to fill several libraries. If you feel you're duty bound to change my call then all I can say is you're doing a great job trying to sell it.

I'm sure you've done more practicing and concluding than most. If you think you've figured out something no one else has then I guess congratulations are in order, I think. Sorry but I find it odd that people are passionate over a choice.

I have this new thread topic....What came first? The idea of a god or the one of no god? Did people walk around saying 'there is no god, there is no god' until somebody finally stated the opposite? Wouldn't it be ironic if it were atheists that started the whole god business?

why would he want to say something like that?

Come on now, any theist would say He already has, just have to understand.

**Back to topic: Remember we agreed a creator cannot respect his creation because he/she/it may have to destroy it. Can the same be said if god is a creation of the human mind? Does the human mind possess the wherewithal to destroy god?

[JDawg]

Light,

kind of strange the way they always call upon political and economic advisers (as opposed to religious ones) to explain or deal with the situation

I'm sorry, I don't know what you mean by that.

anyway if you want to judge a genre by its worst stereotype I'm sure you will never get anywhere (especially coming from a person who just advocated selling some sort of thing to live a life of non-commitment as perfectional)

Stereotype? Please. And who said being rich is a life of non-commitment? What would you rather have? Go to church and worship all day every day? Or prevent myself from indulging in life's pleasures because some god that someone else worships doesn't trust me enough to be responsible? Please. Your god preaches abstinence, I practice moderation.

at this point your mother and father would probably describe you as ungrateful

You're really stretching the definition of servitude here, pal. My parents raised me and taught me how to be a good, productive person. I don't need a god to hold my hand the rest of the way. I don't need nor want to be magically absolved of my crimes by sitting in a box and confessing to a priest. To worship is not only to take any burden of blame off yourself, but it is also to surrender any credit you might deserve for the good, and I'm not willing to do that. If I do well, it because I did well, not because some imaginary god gave me the strength.

or alternatively, that is the result of dovetailing one's inherent serving nature to things or objects not worthy of it

Nobody is a slave because they want to be. People make slaves of others because it is beneficial to them (the masters). Want cheap labor? Enslave a people. It has nothing to do with a natural want or desire to be a slave.

well if you think you can find love and happiness, even the mundane variety, without approaching issues of servitude I think you still have a lot to learn in life

I honestly have no idea how many damn ventures in life you've managed to cram under your exceptionally broad definition, but I'll say this: I'd rather serve my family, serve my wife and children, serve my parents, and my friends, than serve some invisible god that was invented a few thousand years ago by a people who honestly had no idea what made the ground shake or the rain fall.

[lightgigantic]

Psychotic episode

Originally Posted by lightgigantic
sure there is a point where god is simply an idea
”
Agreed.

“
there is however a stage beyond that
”
Yes. God becomes a real invention.
iow you disagree

“
(iow theistic claims have recourse to practice and furthermore conclusion, unlike atheistic claims which have no capacity to go past theory)
”
Classic sales pitch..... Personally as an atheist I have nothing to sell.
you have the idea that anyone who says god is not just an idea is wrong

Theists keep telling me I do but I don't know what it is. Is the theist pitch is always aimed at an atheist?
not really
Its kind of like a proposal that if you want to know you have to fall in line with certain requirements - kind of like the "sales pitch" of physics/chemistry is that you have to have a strong foundation of maths, theoretical knowledge of compounds etc

As I've said numerous times, we have 2 choices, pick one and leave it at that simply because we know squat about any real god.
essentially its an issues of education
at a certain point even a famous physicist knew nothing about physics

We know plenty about the invented god(s) to fill several libraries. If you feel you're duty bound to change my call then all I can say is you're doing a great job trying to sell it.
it's not so much that I feel duty bound to change your value system.
At this point we are simply having a discussion.
You feel god remains solely and wholly an idea by extrapolating your experience to all accounts on the subject.
I feel that unless you fulfill general standards of knowledge (like issues of qualification etc) your feelings on the matter are not so greatly authoritative to deeply dye the discipline.
For instance if I don't fulfill certain requirements of physics, of what value are my postulations on electrons?

My question to you is simply "If you don't fulfill the requirements (or perhaps even know what the requirements are) for spiritual life, on what basis to you assert that your opinion of the subject is authoritative?"

I mean why don't you just leave it at "this is what it is like for me" rather than "this is what it is like for everyone"
?

I'm sure you've done more practicing and concluding than most. If you think you've figured out something no one else has then I guess congratulations are in order, I think. Sorry but I find it odd that people are passionate over a choice.
what on earth makes you think I have figured out something no one else has?
I remember one significant saintly person who responded to a question "what makes you special?"
he simply replied "I never made anything up"
to say the least, passionate innovation is not a pre-requisite .....


I have this new thread topic....What came first? The idea of a god or the one of no god? Did people walk around saying 'there is no god, there is no god' until somebody finally stated the opposite? Wouldn't it be ironic if it were atheists that started the whole god business?
its just another tentative argument (iow one that has a flexible foundation and is simply an opportunity to express one's values)

for instance you could just as easily ponder the issue of how atheism is an antithesis of theism.

It won't amount to much (except perhaps in the eyes of those who hold similar values)

“
why would he want to say something like that?
”
Come on now, any theist would say He already has, just have to understand.
perhaps it might be an initial catalyst for theistic discipline but there are very clear indications that one does not come to successfully understand god by figuring out how he does things (in the vedas that is sometimes technically called "jnana" - distinct from karma (working for a comfortable material position) and most certainly bhakti (loving devotion to god untainted by desire for personal aggrandizement)

mad 22.17 “Devotional service to (God) is the chief function of the living entity. There are different methods for the liberation of the conditioned soul—karma, jnana, yoga and bhakti—but all are dependent on bhakti.
etc etc

**Back to topic: Remember we agreed a creator cannot respect his creation because he/she/it may have to destroy it.
I don't think we came to any conclusion why god would need to destroy it.
what exactly is going wrong with it?

Can the same be said if god is a creation of the human mind? Does the human mind possess the wherewithal to destroy god?
the idea of god can be destroyed - certainly - much like you could destroy the idea of electrons - you can even destroy history like that too

eg

http://vitanuova.loyalty.org/images/1933-05-10.jpeg

[lightgigantic]

JDawg

“
kind of strange the way they always call upon political and economic advisers (as opposed to religious ones) to explain or deal with the situation
”
I'm sorry, I don't know what you mean by that.
if you placed one jelly bean for every article written to elaborate on current issues in the middle east from a writer with economic/political credentials in one jar and placed one jelly bean in another jar for those written by persons with theistic credentials, which jar would be bigger?

“
anyway if you want to judge a genre by its worst stereotype I'm sure you will never get anywhere (especially coming from a person who just advocated selling some sort of thing to live a life of non-commitment as perfectional)
”
Stereotype? Please. And who said being rich is a life of non-commitment?
you gave it to challenge that one could maintain a life that doesn't approach issues of service

What would you rather have? Go to church and worship all day every day? Or prevent myself from indulging in life's pleasures because some god that someone else worships doesn't trust me enough to be responsible? Please. Your god preaches abstinence, I practice moderation.
not sure how this topic came up ... but anyway just to map out a some what broad topic the living entity ultimately has no constitutional relationship with matter, either in terms of material attachment or detachment. The essence of life is all about service (and the problem of material life is that one adopts a service attitude towards matter .... hence all material designations of being the "material enjoyer" or "material renouncer" are illusory since the very foundation of such designations is temporary - ie the corporeal body and associated mind/senses)

as for responsibility, actual social law and order is a byproduct of dharma (although perhaps somewhat estranged by secular/capitalistic values), so if the law of a country doesn't trust you enough to keep its laws off your body, there's a good chance that god is also working under a similar premise
:D

“
at this point your mother and father would probably describe you as ungrateful
”
You're really stretching the definition of servitude here, pal. My parents raised me and taught me how to be a good, productive person. I don't need a god to hold my hand the rest of the way. I don't need nor want to be magically absolved of my crimes by sitting in a box and confessing to a priest. To worship is not only to take any burden of blame off yourself, but it is also to surrender any credit you might deserve for the good, and I'm not willing to do that. If I do well, it because I did well, not because some imaginary god gave me the strength.
maybe the point is getting lost here
you originally advocated something like "just see how mean and nasty god is - there are implicit issues of service in religion and god - I am sure glad I am not religious so avoid the service"

my response is that ALL walks of life have service at their foundation, even the godless variety, so its not clear what you think you are avoiding.

“
or alternatively, that is the result of dovetailing one's inherent serving nature to things or objects not worthy of it
”
Nobody is a slave because they want to be. People make slaves of others because it is beneficial to them (the masters). Want cheap labor? Enslave a people. It has nothing to do with a natural want or desire to be a slave.
the very label "slave" indicates that there are certain issues between the server and the served that are being neglected.
For instance would you describe your mother or father as your slave?
To say that all walks of life demand service means that unless we fulfill it we cannot exist.
That is why even filthy rich people who would never run out of money even if they went insane and started buying anything at least have a cat or dog to render service to

“
well if you think you can find love and happiness, even the mundane variety, without approaching issues of servitude I think you still have a lot to learn in life
”
I honestly have no idea how many damn ventures in life you've managed to cram under your exceptionally broad definition, but I'll say this: I'd rather serve my family, serve my wife and children, serve my parents, and my friends, than serve some invisible god that was invented a few thousand years ago by a people who honestly had no idea what made the ground shake or the rain fall.
so with or without god, service remains
I guess you just made my point

[EmptyForceOfChi]

Believe in god and heaven with all your focus and mind, have true faith in what is not known to your eyes and you will be happier. It can help you with many of lifes struggles, or imagine an eternity of anything you desire, if you can find a way to do that it would be better for your energy and quality of life.


Try to do it and see if you can, its hard to make leaps of faith I can do it for short amounts of time.


peace.

[PsychoticEpisode]

I feel that unless you fulfill general standards of knowledge (like issues of qualification etc) your feelings on the matter are not so greatly authoritative to deeply dye the discipline.
For instance if I don't fulfill certain requirements of physics, of what value are my postulations on electrons?

My question to you is simply "If you don't fulfill the requirements (or perhaps even know what the requirements are) for spiritual life, on what basis to you assert that your opinion of the subject is authoritative?"

Well I have worried about your qualifications. I'm not sure if you are what you say you are and I have intimated that several times before. Then I tell myself it's an anonymous forum and everybody's qualified.

How are you qualified to speak knowledgeably about spirituality? Education? Did you read it in a book? Through meditation? Drugs? Dreams? Contact? Experiences? Eyewitnesses? Divine revelation? Feeling it? Hard evidence?

[Adstar]

Or does He have to? Can you be a creator and still have respect for life even if it didn't turn out the way you planned or is a lack of respect needed in order to make adjustments?

This is a question I asked a bishop once at a church rally when I was a mere lad. He told me that God respected human life. Animals and plants were life without consciousness and therefore not in need of respect. Of course I asked him about how god could be respectful of human life and still find it necessary to destroy us now and then. His response was to look at me strange and walk away.

So really I'm in a quandary, on one hand god respects only human life and on the other hand he doesn't respect any life. The latter may be a prerogative only a creator would be entitled to.

When God created the universe He said it was good. But once it became contaminated or twisted if you like He no longer saw it as good. God does not respect what is not good.


All Praise The Ancient Of Days


All Praise The Ancient Of Days

[PsychoticEpisode]

When God created the universe He said it was good. But once it became contaminated or twisted if you like He no longer saw it as good. God does not respect what is not good.

All I can say to that Adstar is that God either erred in His analysis or forgot about the contaminants He also created.

[JDawg]

if you placed one jelly bean for every article written to elaborate on current issues in the middle east from a writer with economic/political credentials in one jar and placed one jelly bean in another jar for those written by persons with theistic credentials, which jar would be bigger?

What are "theistic credentials", exactly? Anyway, the consequences of the conflicts over there have economic and political consequences, not religious ones.

you gave it to challenge that one could maintain a life that doesn't approach issues of service

Yes, mindless service of the the invisible that goes against all reason and rationality. To do stupid things like giving up one of your favorite things for Lent, or not eating meat on Fridays, or fasting from sun up to sun down every day for a month. Or confessing your "sins". If service is a part of life, I'd rather be in service of something that matters, like my family, or my career. You know, something that can actually have an influence on my life.

as for responsibility, actual social law and order is a byproduct of dharma (although perhaps somewhat estranged by secular/capitalistic values), so if the law of a country doesn't trust you enough to keep its laws off your body, there's a good chance that god is also working under a similar premise

Law and order are a natural byproduct of human society. Don't attribute it to anything other than instinct. It is not the result of a religious philosophy.

maybe the point is getting lost here
you originally advocated something like "just see how mean and nasty god is - there are implicit issues of service in religion and god - I am sure glad I am not religious so avoid the service"

my response is that ALL walks of life have service at their foundation, even the godless variety, so its not clear what you think you are avoiding.

I think you're stretching the definition, but regardless, I already made my point for why if you do have to be a servant in your life, why you shouldn't be one to some invisible god that has never existed.

the very label "slave" indicates that there are certain issues between the server and the served that are being neglected.
For instance would you describe your mother or father as your slave?
To say that all walks of life demand service means that unless we fulfill it we cannot exist.
That is why even filthy rich people who would never run out of money even if they went insane and started buying anything at least have a cat or dog to render service to

:rolleyes:

so with or without god, service remains
I guess you just made my point

Hardly. Serving my family does not require me to stop eating the foods I love ritualistically, or to feel the burden of guilt because I may have done wrong in the eyes of some invisible god.

[PsychoticEpisode]

What are "theistic credentials", exactly?

Sort of a common theme in this thread. JD, love the way you cut to the chase.

A lot is being said by resident theists about credentials & qualifications being required for meaningful religious debate. That should eliminate about 99% of all theists from thoughtful discussion. :D The jury is still out on whether the 1% who claim to have the right stuff really do possess some kind of knowledge essential to the theistic movement. How is it that anyone is more qualified than another to speak expertly on something no one knows any truths about.

Do educated theologians and philosophers feel they are above the masses? At least here is evidence of how a religious leader is born. Think of yourself closer to god and holier than thou. This attitude is definitely a requirement if you want to lead someone down your path. The lack of respect issue is not just between a god and his creations. Qualified religious leaders seem to mimic their god. The mere mention of credentials and qualifications smacks of elitism and preferentialism.

The common retort is that not all of us are qualified to be physicists, engineers, etc. I ask the qualified to stay within this universe. To venture out is asking for trouble because you might as well talk about nothing.

[lightgigantic]

Psychoticepisode

Originally Posted by lightgigantic
I feel that unless you fulfill general standards of knowledge (like issues of qualification etc) your feelings on the matter are not so greatly authoritative to deeply dye the discipline.
For instance if I don't fulfill certain requirements of physics, of what value are my postulations on electrons?

My question to you is simply "If you don't fulfill the requirements (or perhaps even know what the requirements are) for spiritual life, on what basis to you assert that your opinion of the subject is authoritative?"

”
Well I have worried about your qualifications. I'm not sure if you are what you say you are and I have intimated that several times before. Then I tell myself it's an anonymous forum and everybody's qualified.
so IOW you (already) have a conception of what it means to be qualified on theistic matters?
If you elaborate upon it then it can be analyzed

How are you qualified to speak knowledgeably about spirituality? Education?
education plays an element

Did you read it in a book?
books are a part of education

Through meditation
meditation is a broad kind of term, but I guess you can include it too

? Dreams?
dreams sometimes offer a clue into how one's desires are working

Contact?
contact with what?

Experiences? Eyewitnesses? Divine revelation? Feeling it? Hard evidence?
actually authority in spiritual life comes from three things - scripture, saintly persons in general and one's guru
the moment you can start to lodge a suggestion that falls in line with all three is the moment a person starts to speak with theistic authority

[lightgigantic]

Jdawg


if you placed one jelly bean for every article written to elaborate on current issues in the middle east from a writer with economic/political credentials in one jar and placed one jelly bean in another jar for those written by persons with theistic credentials, which jar would be bigger?
”
What are "theistic credentials", exactly?
the ability to speak about theistic issues with a decorum of authority and knowledge (much like political/economic credentials)

Anyway, the consequences of the conflicts over there have economic and political consequences, not religious ones.
hence politics is primary

“
you gave it to challenge that one could maintain a life that doesn't approach issues of service
”
Yes, mindless service of the the invisible that goes against all reason and rationality. To do stupid things like giving up one of your favorite things for Lent, or not eating meat on Fridays, or fasting from sun up to sun down every day for a month. Or confessing your "sins". If service is a part of life, I'd rather be in service of something that matters, like my family, or my career. You know, something that can actually have an influence on my life.
you are simply talking about where your attachments lie (namely in the body and things related to the body)
the reason that theistic disciplines have different prescriptions is because it is commonly understood that the body has a predictable course and conclusion

“
as for responsibility, actual social law and order is a byproduct of dharma (although perhaps somewhat estranged by secular/capitalistic values), so if the law of a country doesn't trust you enough to keep its laws off your body, there's a good chance that god is also working under a similar premise
”
Law and order are a natural byproduct of human society. Don't attribute it to anything other than instinct. It is not the result of a religious philosophy.
law and order is instinct?
:eek:

“
maybe the point is getting lost here
you originally advocated something like "just see how mean and nasty god is - there are implicit issues of service in religion and god - I am sure glad I am not religious so avoid the service"

my response is that ALL walks of life have service at their foundation, even the godless variety, so its not clear what you think you are avoiding.
”
I think you're stretching the definition, but regardless, I already made my point for why if you do have to be a servant in your life, why you shouldn't be one to some invisible god that has never existed.
actually god becomes knowable by service
you've got it back to front

BG 18.55 One can understand Me as I am, as the Supreme Personality of Godhead, only by devotional service. And when one is in full consciousness of Me by such devotion, he can enter into the kingdom of God.



“
so with or without god, service remains
I guess you just made my point
”
Hardly. Serving my family does not require me to stop eating the foods I love ritualistically, or to feel the burden of guilt because I may have done wrong in the eyes of some invisible god.
so you are neglecting one sort of ritual to favour another sort
in what clear way are you any different?

[lightgigantic]

Sort of a common theme in this thread. JD, love the way you cut to the chase.

A lot is being said by resident theists about credentials & qualifications being required for meaningful religious debate.
well would you think it reasonable to discuss higher mathematics if there was no consensus what 1+1 equals?

That should eliminate about 99% of all theists from thoughtful discussion. :D The jury is still out on whether the 1% who claim to have the right stuff really do possess some kind of knowledge essential to the theistic movement. How is it that anyone is more qualified than another to speak expertly on something no one knows any truths about.
how is that you know that no one knows the truth about it?
where did you learn that truth?
:p

Do educated theologians and philosophers feel they are above the masses? At least here is evidence of how a religious leader is born. Think of yourself closer to god and holier than thou. This attitude is definitely a requirement if you want to lead someone down your path. The lack of respect issue is not just between a god and his creations. Qualified religious leaders seem to mimic their god. The mere mention of credentials and qualifications smacks of elitism and preferentialism.
at the very least, I assume you are quite satisfied to have an elitist mechanic fix your car

The common retort is that not all of us are qualified to be physicists, engineers, etc. I ask the qualified to stay within this universe.
and what is your qualification to determine the length and breadth of the universe?

To venture out is asking for trouble because you might as well talk about nothing.
I guess it boils down to how much a person is prepared to learn

[JDawg]

the ability to speak about theistic issues with a decorum of authority and knowledge (much like political/economic credentials)

OK, but the media is dealing with the fallout of such events. Who better to discuss these things with?

hence politics is primary

Well, no. Religion is the cause, but the consequences are political. Just like rape is physical, but the more lasting effects are psychological.

you are simply talking about where your attachments lie (namely in the body and things related to the body)
the reason that theistic disciplines have different prescriptions is because it is commonly understood that the body has a predictable course and conclusion

What does that have to do at all with what I said?

law and order is instinct?

Absolutely. Even the most primitive of civilizations had (and have) a structure to them. And by definition, you'd call them "godless", even if that only meant they did not worship the "one god".

actually god becomes knowable by service
you've got it back to front

BG 18.55 One can understand Me as I am, as the Supreme Personality of Godhead, only by devotional service. And when one is in full consciousness of Me by such devotion, he can enter into the kingdom of God.


And you fell for that? You give visible devotion and service for an invisible reward? Wow. Sucker.

so you are neglecting one sort of ritual to favour another sort
in what clear way are you any different?

Because my rewards are real, and do not force me to suffer regardless of my actions. I don't have to get on my knees and thank some invisible being for my good works or my good fortune. I don't have to credit someone else for my achievements. I don't have to blame anything else for my bad deeds, either (Satan, anyone?), and I don't pretend that I can be absolved of all my wrongdoing by simply saying a prayer.

Also, I don't have to give any of my money to a church. That's pretty awesome, too.

[PsychoticEpisode]

Lg...believe it or not I enjoyed philosophy seminars at university more than any other. Some good looking women there too. My prof told me in private that all I had to keep doing to get an "A" was to continue badgering the rest of the pseudo-philosophers in the room. I told him I liked his philosophy, a once in a lifetime admission for me. I always liked the word pseudo, it sounds philosophic don't you think? Anyway, he let me mark my classmates essays, unbeknownst to them.

Some people in that room could quote philosophy texts verbatim from memory. Whenever I saw that on an essay I gave a barely passing grade for lack of originality and thought. Prof agreed. I have taken that attitude and kind of extrapolated it to fit the current qualified. There are no experts, only plagerizing frauds. That goes for anybody, no qualifications required.

[lightgigantic]

Lg...believe it or not I enjoyed philosophy seminars at university more than any other. Some good looking women there too. My prof told me in private that all I had to keep doing to get an "A" was to continue badgering the rest of the pseudo-philosophers in the room. I told him I liked his philosophy, a once in a lifetime admission for me. I always liked the word pseudo, it sounds philosophic don't you think? Anyway, he let me mark my classmates essays, unbeknownst to them.

Some people in that room could quote philosophy texts verbatim from memory. Whenever I saw that on an essay I gave a barely passing grade for lack of originality and thought. Prof agreed. I have taken that attitude and kind of extrapolated it to fit the current qualified. There are no experts, only plagerizing frauds. That goes for anybody, no qualifications required.

interesting anecdote
basically philosophy without a sense of the absolute amounts to nothing more than parlour games

[lightgigantic]

Jdawg
“
the ability to speak about theistic issues with a decorum of authority and knowledge (much like political/economic credentials)
”
OK, but the media is dealing with the fallout of such events. Who better to discuss these things with?
whats the matter?
they're incapable of discussing or reporting on the cause?


“
hence politics is primary
”
Well, no. Religion is the cause, but the consequences are political. Just like rape is physical, but the more lasting effects are psychological.

yet you see that the cause of rape gets more airplay ....
“
you are simply talking about where your attachments lie (namely in the body and things related to the body)
the reason that theistic disciplines have different prescriptions is because it is commonly understood that the body has a predictable course and conclusion
”
What does that have to do at all with what I said?
you talked of why things don't add up to your values, so I am just reminding you thats precisely because theism holds different values.



“
law and order is instinct?
”
Absolutely. Even the most primitive of civilizations had (and have) a structure to them. And by definition, you'd call them "godless", even if that only meant they did not worship the "one god".
if the origins of law and order are instinct, why do you have the instinct to be free from them?


“
actually god becomes knowable by service
you've got it back to front

BG 18.55 One can understand Me as I am, as the Supreme Personality of Godhead, only by devotional service. And when one is in full consciousness of Me by such devotion, he can enter into the kingdom of God.
”
And you fell for that? You give visible devotion and service for an invisible reward? Wow. Sucker.
so you sit on your laurels if you want to know someone?

“
so you are neglecting one sort of ritual to favour another sort
in what clear way are you any different?
”
Because my rewards are real, and do not force me to suffer regardless of my actions.
loss and gain in the material world is the language of suffering


I don't have to get on my knees and thank some invisible being for my good works or my good fortune.
I don't have to credit someone else for my achievements. I don't have to blame anything else for my bad deeds, either (Satan, anyone?), and I don't pretend that I can be absolved of all my wrongdoing by simply saying a prayer.
since material life clearly illustrates how no one is independent, it's not clear what ruse you are trying to pull

Also, I don't have to give any of my money to a church. That's pretty awesome, too.
as if money stays with you
:rolleyes:

[JDawg]

whats the matter?
they're incapable of discussing or reporting on the cause?


That's not at all the case. If you're trying to tell me you've never heard a religious authority speak on the causes of the strife in that region...

yet you see that the cause of rape gets more airplay ....

How so?

you talked of why things don't add up to your values, so I am just reminding you thats precisely because theism holds different values.

And that's fine. I don't have a problem with religion being a shield against life's hardest realities.

if the origins of law and order are instinct, why do you have the instinct to be free from them?

Who has the instinct to be free from law and order?

so you sit on your laurels if you want to know someone?

No. But getting to know someone doesn't involve going to church, giving money to a church, saying prayers, feeling guilty about something you have no control over, or worshiping some invisible deity. You can't compare religious worship to social existence. They are two different animals.

loss and gain in the material world is the language of suffering

Uh huh. But you have to face those regardless. Why add onto it another level of suffering?

since material life clearly illustrates how no one is independent, it's not clear what ruse you are trying to pull

I'm not trying to pull any ruse. I'm simply saying that God is not required for you to live a full life, a happy life, or a good life. On the other hand, I believe that worshiping God adds a whole bunch of grief to your life that wouldn't be there without worship.

And the notion of God really is silly. If you know you have to do all the things in life that are difficult, suffer the losses and enjoy the gains, why would you then add another layer on top of that? Why would you burden yourself with things like sin, for example? Why add more grief than necessary?

as if money stays with you

Sure it does. Never heard of a savings account? And again, if I must spend money, I'd rather spend it on things that I care about. And when you get right down to it, if I don't like the way the taxes are, I can cast a vote for a candidate that would change that tax system. I at least have a voice in the matter. Where is my voice in the church's scam? Oh, that's right...I don't have one.

[Lori_7]

Or does He have to? Can you be a creator and still have respect for life even if it didn't turn out the way you planned or is a lack of respect needed in order to make adjustments?

This is a question I asked a bishop once at a church rally when I was a mere lad. He told me that God respected human life. Animals and plants were life without consciousness and therefore not in need of respect. Of course I asked him about how god could be respectful of human life and still find it necessary to destroy us now and then. His response was to look at me strange and walk away.

So really I'm in a quandary, on one hand god respects only human life and on the other hand he doesn't respect any life. The latter may be a prerogative only a creator would be entitled to.

god respects life enough to perfect it according to his law so that it might be eternal, and free from sickness, suffering, and death, allowing for our free will.

[JDawg]

god respects life enough to perfect it according to his law so that it might be eternal, and free from sickness, suffering, and death, allowing for our free will.

If that were true, there would be no sickness, suffering, or death.

[Enmos]

god respects life enough to perfect it according to his law so that it might be eternal, and free from sickness, suffering, and death, allowing for our free will.

Life isn't perfect. And it isn't eternal either.

[Lori_7]

Life isn't perfect. And it isn't eternal either.

not yet, duh. when it's perfect, then it will be eternal. we're still working on the free will part. it won't be eternal until we're redeemed (perfected), then reborn into the kingdom (if i understand it correctly).

[Enmos]

not yet, duh. when it's perfect, then it will be eternal. we're still working on the free will part. it won't be eternal until we're redeemed (perfected), then reborn into the kingdom (if i understand it correctly).

It will never be perfect. Evolution works on the principle of imperfection, so to speak.

[Yorda]

Life isn't perfect. And it isn't eternal either.

why wouldn't life be eternal? even from your materialist perspective, surely there will always be life somewhere in the universe, because energy can't be created or destroyed.

[Enmos]

why wouldn't life be eternal? even from your materialist perspective, surely there will always be life somewhere in the universe, because energy can't be created or destroyed.

There are lots of things that have energy and that are not alive.. I don't see your point.

[Lori_7]

It will never be perfect. Evolution works on the principle of imperfection, so to speak.

so it will stop when we're perfected. sin is like a birth defect. it's genetic. it was perpetrated during the fall of man and will be removed with redemption.

[Enmos]

so it will stop when we're perfected. sin is like a birth defect. it's genetic. it was perpetrated during the fall of man and will be removed with redemption.

Huh.. ? That's illogical.
If it will never be perfect, it will never be perfect.
You can't say it will never be perfect until it is :bugeye:

[JDawg]

Great. Now we've got people spitting dogma they can't even comprehend.

[Lori_7]

Huh.. ? That's illogical.
If it will never be perfect, it will never be perfect.
You can't say it will never be perfect until it is :bugeye:

it's not illogical. you're just saying that because it's an unusual perspective. after all, if evolution works to eliminate imperfection, then what is it working for? see...it IS logical. doh!

[PsychoticEpisode]

god respects life enough to perfect it according to his law so that it might be eternal, and free from sickness, suffering, and death, allowing for our free will.

Are you saying God intentionally created life to be imperfect, unintentionally created imperfect life or an imperfect god created life?

[Enmos]

it's not illogical.
It is.

you're just saying that because it's an unusual perspective.
No. It's an illogical perspective.

after all, if evolution works to eliminate imperfection, then what is it working for?
Evolution doesn't work towards anything.
But without imperfection there's no evolution.

see...it IS logical. doh!
No, it isn't. Trust me.

[lightgigantic]

jdawg
“
whats the matter?
they're incapable of discussing or reporting on the cause?
”
That's not at all the case. If you're trying to tell me you've never heard a religious authority speak on the causes of the strife in that region...
regarding the middle east, at least the political/economical jelly bean jar is considerably larger

“
yet you see that the cause of rape gets more airplay ....
”
How so?
given the choice of either raping someone or getting raped, what do you think is the quickest way to get your name out there?

“
you talked of why things don't add up to your values, so I am just reminding you thats precisely because theism holds different values.
”
And that's fine. I don't have a problem with religion being a shield against life's hardest realities.
according to your values, no doubt ....

“
if the origins of law and order are instinct, why do you have the instinct to be free from them?
”
Who has the instinct to be free from law and order?
it was your angle that there is something fishy about a god that can't trust us without bringing in laws

“
so you sit on your laurels if you want to know someone?
”
No. But getting to know someone doesn't involve going to church, giving money to a church, saying prayers, feeling guilty about something you have no control over, or worshiping some invisible deity. You can't compare religious worship to social existence. They are two different animals.
and lo and behold knowing a particular person commonly involves going to particular locations, meditating on how to express one's desires to them, being assailed by issues of guilt/rejoicement over unavoidable issues of reciprocation/obligation etc ...

“
loss and gain in the material world is the language of suffering
”
Uh huh. But you have to face those regardless. Why add onto it another level of suffering?

and your statement about real rewards and avoiding suffering wasn't such an attempt?

since material life clearly illustrates how no one is independent, it's not clear what ruse you are trying to pull
”
I'm not trying to pull any ruse. I'm simply saying that God is not required for you to live a full life, a happy life, or a good life. On the other hand, I believe that worshiping God adds a whole bunch of grief to your life that wouldn't be there without worship.
.... and that folks, are your values speaking

And the notion of God really is silly. If you know you have to do all the things in life that are difficult, suffer the losses and enjoy the gains, why would you then add another layer on top of that?
arguable one could ponder how a life that entails issues of unavoidable attachment to transient things at 100% being quite silly

Why would you burden yourself with things like sin, for example? Why add more grief than necessary?
even a fool can make progress if they can recognize a mistake

The common standard of happiness is to simply go with what is immediately pleasurable. A higher standard is to encounter some sort of difficulty or austerity. Generally it takes some sort of outside pressure to establish that higher cause. At the very least, I assume that you are quite thankful that you were burdened with a study workload for 10-18 years in your early life, even though you could have thought of a thousand better things to do than go to school in your youth.

“
as if money stays with you
”
Sure it does. Never heard of a savings account?
I assume that you are also familiar with the costs of living too ....

And again, if I must spend money, I'd rather spend it on things that I care about.
sure
money is simply an expression of desire (at least whatever is left after the cost of living), which again brings us back to values

And when you get right down to it, if I don't like the way the taxes are, I can cast a vote for a candidate that would change that tax system. I at least have a voice in the matter. Where is my voice in the church's scam? Oh, that's right...I don't have one.
even if you were voted in as president you still couldn't implement anything to avoid people paying some sort of tax, so there are a few practical limitations that surround the power of your voice ...

[lightgigantic]

Are you saying God intentionally created life to be imperfect, unintentionally created imperfect life or an imperfect god created life?
free will entails the possibility of imperfection ..... unless of course you are number one in the universe.
That is why there are clear distinctions between god and the living entity, even though both share some qualitative similarities.

[JDawg]

regarding the middle east, at least the political/economical jelly bean jar is considerably larger

Yes, because the political and economical fallout from the event matters more. It's real, we can feel it. Not that such a thing has ever been a requirement for anything you believe to be real, but still...

given the choice of either raping someone or getting raped, what do you think is the quickest way to get your name out there?

Get your name out there? What the hell are we talking about? My point was that the consequences of rape are most often primarily psychological as opposed to physical, which is the means.

according to your values, no doubt ....

What do you know of my values? Oh, wait, is this some more of that religious arrogance? Don't pretend for one second that you hold the moral high ground. The fact that you pick and chose your morals out of your book means that you get your moral compass from the same place I do--evolution.

it was your angle that there is something fishy about a god that can't trust us without bringing in laws

That doesn't answer my question, which was "Who has instinct to break away from law and order?".

and lo and behold knowing a particular person commonly involves going to particular locations, meditating on how to express one's desires to them, being assailed by issues of guilt/rejoicement over unavoidable issues of reciprocation/obligation etc ...

But those things are far more natural, far more rewarding, and don't demand anything of you. I never said society didn't have its own rituals, I simply said that they were for real causes, and you'd have to go through them regardless of if you had faith or not. So again, why put yourself through an entirely similar, far more demanding, and far less rewarding system on top of the real one?

and your statement about real rewards and avoiding suffering wasn't such an attempt?

No. But I'm finding it hard to converse with a person who can't answer in more than one sentence. If you really felt you had the right position on this, you'd defend your stance more fully, and counter mine more effectively.

.... and that folks, are your values speaking

That doesn't even deserve a response. You don't qualify it in any way whatsoever, so why should I qualify the response?

arguable one could ponder how a life that entails issues of unavoidable attachment to transient things at 100% being quite silly

But do you argue that? See, it's hard to defend my position when I'm not entirely clear who I'm defending it against. Perhaps you should say "[b]I[/i] argue that a life that entails..." But you don't, because you're not the slightest bit interested in having a real discussion about this. You would rather (and perhaps it's all your capable of) take pot-shots at my stance without any substance, and not really put your own stance on the line.

But to the point of the apparently anonymous opinion posited in your statement, one could argue that such a life is silly. But they'd also have to accept that it's necessary for society to function. What is life without interaction and attachment? Yes, the attachments can be painful, especially when they are broken, but try not having them. How would you find the finer things in life, like love? Like the amazing feeling of having respect for someone or being respected by another?


The common standard of happiness is to simply go with what is immediately pleasurable. A higher standard is to encounter some sort of difficulty or austerity. Generally it takes some sort of outside pressure to establish that higher cause. At the very least, I assume that you are quite thankful that you were burdened with a study workload for 10-18 years in your early life, even though you could have thought of a thousand better things to do than go to school in your youth.

I don't believe the first sentence of this paragraph is true in even the slightest sense. All you have to do is ask a drug addict, or a former drug addict, what getting by on the immediate pleasures does for one's happiness. No, I believe it has been clearly demonstrated that true happiness comes not from the "now" but from the greater body of achievements.

As for the rest of the paragraph, there is no way to compare a childhood and young adult-hood of study that prepares you for the rest of you life, to that of religious worship. There simply is no comparison. Again, the rewards for the study in school is available to you here. The rewards promised for your servitude to God can only be redeemed at death.

I assume that you are also familiar with the costs of living too ....

Yes. All the more reason you shouldn't throw your money at a church. And for the churches to demand that you do pay them, especially in these hard times is, dare I say, sinful.

sure
money is simply an expression of desire (at least whatever is left after the cost of living), which again brings us back to values

No no no. You can't tell us we need to ignore the primarily practical applications of money so we can view the minority of which that goes to our hobbies and egos in a certain negative light.

even if you were voted in as president you still couldn't implement anything to avoid people paying some sort of tax, so there are a few practical limitations that surround the power of your voice ...

A "practical limitation" to the power of my voice is better than having no voice at all.

[Randwolf]

Does God have Respect for Life

No.

[lightgigantic]

jdawg
“
regarding the middle east, at least the political/economical jelly bean jar is considerably larger
”
Yes, because the political and economical fallout from the event matters more. It's real, we can feel it. Not that such a thing has ever been a requirement for anything you believe to be real, but still...

“
given the choice of either raping someone or getting raped, what do you think is the quickest way to get your name out there?
”
Get your name out there? What the hell are we talking about? My point was that the consequences of rape are most often primarily psychological as opposed to physical, which is the means.
my point is that if something is the actual cause it is plainly obvious when you examine how it is dealt with


“
according to your values, no doubt ....
”
What do you know of my values?
what you tell me about them (no, I am not a mind reader)

Oh, wait, is this some more of that religious arrogance? Don't pretend for one second that you hold the moral high ground. The fact that you pick and chose your morals out of your book means that you get your moral compass from the same place I do--evolution.
by "values" I simply mean ...

Beliefs of a person or social group in which they have an emotional investment (either for or against something)

“
it was your angle that there is something fishy about a god that can't trust us without bringing in laws
”
That doesn't answer my question, which was "Who has instinct to break away from law and order?".
I thought I did
"you" (based on your argument)

“
and lo and behold knowing a particular person commonly involves going to particular locations, meditating on how to express one's desires to them, being assailed by issues of guilt/rejoicement over unavoidable issues of reciprocation/obligation etc ...
”
But those things are far more natural, far more rewarding, and don't demand anything of you.
the reason you don't notice that they are demanding is because you like them .. which again gets back to issues of values

I never said society didn't have its own rituals, I simply said that they were for real causes, and you'd have to go through them regardless of if you had faith or not. So again, why put yourself through an entirely similar, far more demanding, and far less rewarding system on top of the real one?
religion simply offers a broader scope for those rituals
Just like marriage offers a broader scope for relationship than merely being someone's offspring, sibling or friend.

“
and your statement about real rewards and avoiding suffering wasn't such an attempt?
”
No. But I'm finding it hard to converse with a person who can't answer in more than one sentence. If you really felt you had the right position on this, you'd defend your stance more fully, and counter mine more effectively.
well you just changed stance

First you say life is real because you don't have problems
Now you say life is real because you do

Do you want to go for a third variation?


“
.... and that folks, are your values speaking
”
That doesn't even deserve a response. You don't qualify it in any way whatsoever, so why should I qualify the response?
I am simply indicating how your argument is completely value based.
You are starting with your values and working backwards to determine what is or isn't valid in the universe.
Whether the universe is also in agreement requires a different sort of argument


“
arguable one could ponder how a life that entails issues of unavoidable attachment to transient things at 100% being quite silly
”
But do you argue that? See, it's hard to defend my position when I'm not entirely clear who I'm defending it against. Perhaps you should say "[b]I[/i] argue that a life that entails..." But you don't, because you're not the slightest bit interested in having a real discussion about this. You would rather (and perhaps it's all your capable of) take pot-shots at my stance without any substance, and not really put your own stance on the line.
value based arguments don't warrant a serious shake down
basically they boil down to "its not true because I think its silly"

If you want a substantial philosophical discussion you have to step outside of tentative arguments

If not, why get agitated when I lodge a tentative refutation to your tentative argument?


But to the point of the apparently anonymous opinion posited in your statement, one could argue that such a life is silly. But they'd also have to accept that it's necessary for society to function. What is life without interaction and attachment? Yes, the attachments can be painful, especially when they are broken, but try not having them. How would you find the finer things in life, like love? Like the amazing feeling of having respect for someone or being respected by another?
so why are they mutually exclusive?
I mean the whole introductory assertion of spiritual life is that you cannot avoid attachment and interaction - rather that there is a better option than hedging one's bets in the material world


“
The common standard of happiness is to simply go with what is immediately pleasurable. A higher standard is to encounter some sort of difficulty or austerity. Generally it takes some sort of outside pressure to establish that higher cause. At the very least, I assume that you are quite thankful that you were burdened with a study workload for 10-18 years in your early life, even though you could have thought of a thousand better things to do than go to school in your youth.
”
I don't believe the first sentence of this paragraph is true in even the slightest sense. All you have to do is ask a drug addict, or a former drug addict, what getting by on the immediate pleasures does for one's happiness. No, I believe it has been clearly demonstrated that true happiness comes not from the "now" but from the greater body of achievements.
sure
but since people's common standards of happiness are also their common standards of misery, you start to see a pattern evolving

As for the rest of the paragraph, there is no way to compare a childhood and young adult-hood of study that prepares you for the rest of you life, to that of religious worship. There simply is no comparison. Again, the rewards for the study in school is available to you here. The rewards promised for your servitude to God can only be redeemed at death.
actually no
at least I have a different experience
the results are plainly available even in this life


“
I assume that you are also familiar with the costs of living too ....
”
Yes. All the more reason you shouldn't throw your money at a church. And for the churches to demand that you do pay them, especially in these hard times is, dare I say, sinful.
capitalism basically asserts that highest substance is capital ...

“
sure
money is simply an expression of desire (at least whatever is left after the cost of living), which again brings us back to values
”
No no no. You can't tell us we need to ignore the primarily practical applications of money so we can view the minority of which that goes to our hobbies and egos in a certain negative light.
well desire is where all the dynamics of life happens so it certainly needs to be brought under inspection (or at least introspection) regularly

“
even if you were voted in as president you still couldn't implement anything to avoid people paying some sort of tax, so there are a few practical limitations that surround the power of your voice ...
”
A "practical limitation" to the power of my voice is better than having no voice at all.
but practically there is no difference
:shrug:

[JDawg]

I thought I did
"you" (based on your argument)

I seek to break away from law and order? In what way? There is no way I gave you them impression that I'm even remotely interested in anarchy.

the reason you don't notice that they are demanding is because you like them .. which again gets back to issues of values

No, I understand what is required of me. But I operate in the real world, I don't have the need to be coddled in the supernatural. I don't need that comfort. I'm not willing to ignore reason. My brain works, I can't just shut it off, which is required of you if you are to be a believer.

religion simply offers a broader scope for those rituals


No, it just offers you more rituals, and less reward.

Just like marriage offers a broader scope for relationship than merely being someone's offspring, sibling or friend.

...? You can marry your offspring or sibling if you want a broader scope for the relationship?

First you say life is real because you don't have problems
Now you say life is real because you do

Do you want to go for a third variation?

Can you even read? I never said that there are no problems in life. The entire time I have said that there is a difference between the problems and struggles in your life, and the bullshit guilt and ritual that a life of service to God entails. I'll say it again, and this time call your mommy in to read it out loud for you, seeing as you're having trouble:

Real life is real. The pleasure and pain of this life is real. When I suffer something here, I feel the effects here.

God isn't real. The rewards offered by the church are fake. The rituals are real and are far worse than any ritual you have to endure in your daily life. You believe in a myth, and you suffer for it.

but practically there is no difference

Not even close.

But have fun giving your money to the church while you feel guilty because you got a boner for the chick on TV. I'll be over here not thinking about how the best time of my life doesn't come until I'm dead.

[lightgigantic]

Jdawg
“
I thought I did
"you" (based on your argument)
”
I seek to break away from law and order? In what way? There is no way I gave you them impression that I'm even remotely interested in anarchy.
I was focusing on your

“
What would you rather have? Go to church and worship all day every day? Or prevent myself from indulging in life's pleasures because some god that someone else worships doesn't trust me enough to be responsible? Please. Your god preaches abstinence, I practice moderation.

my point is that even mundane society doesn't trust you to be responsible, so arguing that you're beyond law and order in relation to something higher than that (or arguing that a god that involves issues of law and order is somehow less valid) doesn't really hold.

“
the reason you don't notice that they are demanding is because you like them .. which again gets back to issues of values
”
No, I understand what is required of me. But I operate in the real world, I don't have the need to be coddled in the supernatural.
instead you are coddled by other things, which ironically are not real (in the sense that they are temporary)

I don't need that comfort. I'm not willing to ignore reason. My brain works, I can't just shut it off, which is required of you if you are to be a believer.
all you are not willing to ignore are your values .... and where ever there are values there are issues of belief, etc
Unless you want to argue that you are some super rational guy that doesn't even put a christmas tree up for the kids and simply talks to your partner about your plans for the future in terms of neurons and evolution

“
religion simply offers a broader scope for those rituals
”
No, it just offers you more rituals, and less reward.
or alternatively, rewards that your values don't encompass you to accept

“
Just like marriage offers a broader scope for relationship than merely being someone's offspring, sibling or friend.
”
...? You can marry your offspring or sibling if you want a broader scope for the relationship?
no less than you can palm off serving one's family and society as an equal or greater occupation than serving god

“
First you say life is real because you don't have problems
Now you say life is real because you do

Do you want to go for a third variation?
”
Can you even read? I never said that there are no problems in life.
you said

Because my rewards are real, and do not force me to suffer regardless of my actions.

:shrug:
care to explain in what way your rewards don't entail issues of suffering?



The entire time I have said that there is a difference between the problems and struggles in your life, and the bullshit guilt and ritual that a life of service to God entails.
in what clear way?
I mean surely you are experienced enough to grasp all the BS, guilt and ritual that mundane life already encompasses

I'll say it again, and this time call your mommy in to read it out loud for you, seeing as you're having trouble:

Real life is real.
so it begs the question "what is real"?
(let me guess, your values right?)

The pleasure and pain of this life is real. When I suffer something here, I feel the effects here.
so the next question is whether your experiences and anticipations (aka values) of dualities is sufficient to delineate the length and breadth of the universe.
For instance a drug addict may anticipate that getting of drugs is painful. A reformed addict may anticipate it as pleasurable.
Which one is real? (or more real?)

God isn't real.
and how do you know this?

The rewards offered by the church are fake.
and how do you know this?
(now is a good opportunity for you to show us how you don't ignore rationality)

The rituals are real and are far worse than any ritual you have to endure in your daily life.
actually I would argue its the opposite
rituals (if you want to call them that) are far worse in mundane life are far worse

You believe in a myth, and you suffer for it.
try and establish how you are beyond issues of myth
/grabs popcorn

“
but practically there is no difference
”
Not even close.
you are free to provide input to a system where you don't have to pay taxes, but even if you were voted president you couldn't install a system where you wouldn't?
Is this rational?

But have fun giving your money to the church while you feel guilty because you got a boner for the chick on TV.
ok just don't let your wife clue on to it and you will be fine
:D

I'll be over here not thinking about how the best time of my life doesn't come until I'm dead.
have a great time watching TV

[dixonmassey]

Omniscient God, if any, who've created this "dog eat dog" world, engulfed in suffering and death, got to be a maniac. There are no other options. Oh, I've forgot that omniscient things blamed Eve (and us) for everything. It's like designers blaming a building for its fall.

If Christian God exists, he's a monster. Poor us. What for? I've "been" nothing, emptyness for zillions of years. I didn't ask to bring me to life just to be blamed for everything I had nothing to do with.

[lightgigantic]

Omniscient God, if any, who've created this "dog eat dog" world, engulfed in suffering and death, got to be a maniac.
unless issues of death are not the final issue for living entities endowed with eternality

There are no other options.
I just gave one
If you examine theistic philosophy you can find heaps more

Oh, I've forgot that omniscient things blamed Eve (and us) for everything. It's like designers blaming a building for its fall.
or alternatively its like if one's heart is set on falling, we have just the right place where you can feel like home (well almost anyway).
If however you want to accept that this is the best of all possible worlds, then I agree, you run into problems.

If Christian God exists, he's a monster. Poor us. What for? I've "been" nothing, emptyness for zillions of years. I didn't ask to bring me to life just to be blamed for everything I had nothing to do with.
if humans can ultimately be beyond designations of social partitioning, I think it's reasonable to suggest that god can too

[PsychoticEpisode]

free will entails the possibility of imperfection ..... unless of course you are number one in the universe.
That is why there are clear distinctions between god and the living entity, even though both share some qualitative similarities.

Then I have exercised my free will by not opting for one of two choices. Having two options, one of which is to choose to believe in god, must mean that if god is to exist then there is no way anyone can ever know if he does. Also there is no way anyone can be faulted for their choice. It is the ultimate free will package and yet we cannot know if god ordained it.

What does that mean? It means religion and all its trappings are total fiction. To study religion and base conclusions on it is a leson in futility. Unfortunately religious philosophers fall under that umbrella. I understand if one believes in something that might be, then it would be normal behavior to try and figure it out.

This is what I meant when I said it would have been much easier if god had said to try and figure out how he did it. No difference between philosophy and science in that regard. Science is doing a better job because it has something to work with and is yielding results. What has philosophizing over a god no one truly knows exists ever produced that's totally tangible and deals with our present reality?

[lightgigantic]

Psychotic episode

Originally Posted by lightgigantic
free will entails the possibility of imperfection ..... unless of course you are number one in the universe.
That is why there are clear distinctions between god and the living entity, even though both share some qualitative similarities.
”
Then I have exercised my free will by not opting for one of two choices. Having two options, one of which is to choose to believe in god, must mean that if god is to exist then there is no way anyone can ever know if he does.
why do you say that?
(actually the free will is not to believe, but the free will to accept a state of being that reflects that choice - IOW material existence is the result of a choice)

Also there is no way anyone can be faulted for their choice. It is the ultimate free will package and yet we cannot know if god ordained it.
I'm not sure I follow
Free will means a person is not responsible for their decisions?
this statement has numerous problems - a good intro to them might be why do you suppose this doesn't hold up in court?

What does that mean? It means religion and all its trappings are total fiction. To study religion and base conclusions on it is a leson in futility.
first of all establish how atheism is not fiction


Unfortunately religious philosophers fall under that umbrella. I understand if one believes in something that might be, then it would be normal behavior to try and figure it out.
actually this is a good argument against atheism, since the basis is one of complete assumption

This is what I meant when I said it would have been much easier if god had said to try and figure out how he did it. No difference between philosophy and science in that regard. Science is doing a better job because it has something to work with and is yielding results. What has philosophizing over a god no one truly knows exists ever produced that's totally tangible and deals with our present reality?
you don't think that the changes the successful performance of religious discipline yield results?
I mean can you think of any advancements in the field of science that has helped people control their senses, become nicer people, give up wasting their life in pursuits of lust/wrath/envy etc etc
Actually i would argue that the advancements of science are completely superficial since all it does is simply refine animal propensities of eating, sleeping, mating and defending.
And if you add industrialism to that equation, you actually have an argument for doing it worse than the animals .....
:o

[PsychoticEpisode]

LG...Frankly I don't believe in free will either. People make decisions each day based on aforehand information. To me its a silly thing to talk about, freewill that is. Free will has been beaten to death. I prefer to let it remain that way.

The ultimate free will package I referred to earlier was the right to choose a god or not. Obviously there are certain things anyone could consider an abuse of free will. As for debating it, I just can't get fired up to have another go at it. Such a waste of time.

My philosophy:D remains the same. Pick a god or don't pick a god, be satisfied with your decision and leave it at that. Life is too short to waste any more time on decisions that are unprovable. If you want to philosophize it ad nauseum then be my guest. I can't and never will think any different. Perhaps being endowed with consciousness is a flaw in our makeup or it is a part of a collective consciousness permeating the universe. Whatever it may be is secondary to my living life in the only reality I know.

[R.A.J.J.]

Or does He have to? Can you be a creator and still have respect for life even if it didn't turn out the way you planned





That implies you understand what he planned from the start, you aren't a mind reader much less someone who reads the minds of omnipotent entities.

Your question is pretty much baseless, it only works with a very naive assumption.


As far as respect is concerned, he probably respects the values, struggles and tragedies of the play he has created, as it's the most beautiful one ever written.

(If the spatio-temporal realm is all there is, it's also the only one ever created.)



Of course I asked him about how god could be respectful of human life and still find it necessary to destroy us now and then.



What is apparent to our humble species is not necessarily the full circumstances surrounding something.

You may have been doomed from the start and the APPARENT consequential actions which have lead to the destruction of many people, may have been mere theatrics.

Granted it's at the expense of lives, but then again you had the fortunate circumstance of living to begin with, so is death really that horrible; or have we simply conditioned ourselves to believe that?

I notice the lower case "G's" in God, it's nice to know you're attacking back at the religious right in a form of rebellion, but it's sad you would do so all the while following an equally dogmatic counter culture, which is built on tired rhetoric, failed philosophies, pseudo intellectual drivel and an absolute lack of objectivity.





But meh... the core of Western society is nothing more than "Yes men" and secretaries, why would I expect any different...

[lightgigantic]

LG...Frankly I don't believe in free will either. People make decisions each day based on aforehand information. To me its a silly thing to talk about, freewill that is. Free will has been beaten to death. I prefer to let it remain that way.

The ultimate free will package I referred to earlier was the right to choose a god or not. Obviously there are certain things anyone could consider an abuse of free will. As for debating it, I just can't get fired up to have another go at it. Such a waste of time.
I've always wondered why a person who doesn't believe in free will would be bothered to argue anything

My philosophy:D remains the same. Pick a god or don't pick a god, be satisfied with your decision and leave it at that. Life is too short to waste any more time on decisions that are unprovable. If you want to philosophize it ad nauseum then be my guest. I can't and never will think any different. Perhaps being endowed with consciousness is a flaw in our makeup or it is a part of a collective consciousness permeating the universe. Whatever it may be is secondary to my living life in the only reality I know.
the root catalyst for philosophical inquiry is dissatisfaction.

[R.A.J.J.]

I've always wondered why a person who doesn't believe in free will would be bothered to argue anything


Because that self important organ within their skull commands it.
There is no free will, all things are dictated by a series of material events.

Individuality/self consciousness being one of those things.

[lightgigantic]

Because that self important organ within their skull commands it.
There is no free will, all things are dictated by a series of material events.

Individuality/self consciousness being one of those things.
so having known this, what does one hope to change by arguing for it?

[R.A.J.J.]

so having known this, what does one hope to change by arguing for it?

"One" being myself? Oh, I hope whatever the material components that give rise to the immaterial entity better known as me order me to hope.

Why do you ask? (I ask out of their commanding me to ask)
:D
\/\/\/\/

[lightgigantic]

"One" being myself? Oh, I hope whatever the material components that give rise to the immaterial entity better known as me order