Religion, what's the point?

[FresnoBob]

I don't understand the logic of a god that loves me so much he'd give me cancer in a heartbeat. The fact he loves AND hates to see us kill each other, rape each other etc, which apparently was made by him and he actively encourages it, makes me believe he's some kind of delusional sadist! How can such a deity exist? I just can't believe that an all loving all knowing God would take away 3 family members of mine in the space of 5 years.

I probably stated this in similar fashion somewhere prior on this thread, but why is there an assumption that if there is a God, he made this planet perfect? My understanding (probably not conventional feel-good Christianity) is that God left humans in charge of this world (therefore it is totally screwed up) while he handles the next life. If you want eternal life, peace, and tranquility, why do you think it occurs during the brief time you spend on Earth?

In theory (or theology), your family members who left this life in the space of 5 years are in a better place--do you begrudge them that, or are you just so selfish that you require everything to fit your personal needs?
I've lost both parents and a variety of other relatives but am not familiar with the concept that except for a lousy evil sadist God everyone would live forever in health and happiness on this particular chunk of rock.

 

[Silva]

Somewhat reminiscent of the idea that if you violate secular laws you will be punished by imprisonment.

The legal code can change, religious laws are still stuck in the pre common era.

I probably stated this in similar fashion somewhere prior on this thread, but why is there an assumption that if there is a God, he made this planet perfect? My understanding (probably not conventional feel-good Christianity) is that God left humans in charge of this world (therefore it is totally screwed up) while he handles the next life. If you want eternal life, peace, and tranquility, why do you think it occurs during the brief time you spend on Earth?

In theory (or theology), your family members who left this life in the space of 5 years are in a better place--do you begrudge them that, or are you just so selfish that you require everything to fit your personal needs?
I've lost both parents and a variety of other relatives but am not familiar with the concept that except for a lousy evil sadist God everyone would live forever in health and happiness on this particular chunk of rock.

It's not as an assumption, it's a criticism of the all powerful, all loving, ever present god we're presented with by some religions. Any god with those qualities wouldn't have created, say, parasites that cause children to suffer.

 

[The Mitcher]

I probably stated this in similar fashion somewhere prior on this thread, but why is there an assumption that if there is a God, he made this planet perfect? My understanding (probably not conventional feel-good Christianity) is that God left humans in charge of this world (therefore it is totally screwed up) while he handles the next life. If you want eternal life, peace, and tranquility, why do you think it occurs during the brief time you spend on Earth?

In theory (or theology), your family members who left this life in the space of 5 years are in a better place--do you begrudge them that, or are you just so selfish that you require everything to fit your personal needs?
I've lost both parents and a variety of other relatives but am not familiar with the concept that except for a lousy evil sadist God everyone would live forever in health and happiness on this particular chunk of rock.

I'm an atheist, partly because of that, but also because nothing has ever happened to me of a spiritual nature.

 

[rednev]

Somewhat reminiscent of the idea that if you violate secular laws you will be punished by imprisonment.

Secular laws don't demand that that you love them. Nor do they demand that you believe in the existence of something that does not present itself, with the threat of eternal torture as a stick.

You have no choice but to love your god, do you? Because you are commanded to. It's a totally meaningless love, because it's based on fear and brainwashing. If you want to make a comparison to earthly laws and politics, I think your 'love' for the your god is reminiscent of a North Korean's love for his Supreme Leader.

 

[FresnoBob]

Secular laws don't demand that that you love them. Nor do they demand that you believe in the existence of something that does not present itself, with the threat of eternal torture as a stick.

You have no choice but to love your god, do you? Because you are commanded to. It's a totally meaningless love, because it's based on fear and brainwashing. If you want to make a comparison to earthly laws and politics, I think your 'love' for the your god is reminiscent of a North Korean's love for his Supreme Leader.

You're making assumptions about me and possible religious beliefs. I was merely pointing out that we compel obedience to our secular laws through the threat of punishment. Those who don't believe in an afterlife would probably view the concept of life in prison without the possibility of parole as the equivalent of the eternal torture some religions and various poets discuss.

 

[FresnoBob]

It's not as an assumption, it's a criticism of the all powerful, all loving, ever present god we're presented with by some religions. Any god with those qualities wouldn't have created, say, parasites that cause children to suffer.

What I'm suggesting is that it is not a particularly compelling criticism as I think you are limiting this "all powerful, all loving, ever present God" to the here and now in very limited human trappings, human terms, human time frames. It's a relatively short time we spend on this mortal coil versus the eternity religions often discuss. An attempt to disprove or disapprove of God by pointing out what's wrong with this planet also doesn't go to the core of Christian belief that, at least (as I understand it), the "promise" or covenant was that after one's tour of duty in this life, great rewards would come in the next life. I never got the impression that this life was supposed to be perfect and pain free, since, if I recall Genesis correctly, even after the "fall of man," he was still left with dominion over Earth. That we
What I see in your critique is a limited human centered view of God, universe, and time, that fails to address the actual message of the Christian faith.

 

[FresnoBob]

Secular laws don't demand that that you love them. Nor do they demand that you believe in the existence of something that does not present itself, with the threat of eternal torture as a stick.

Red--
I've heard plenty of folks who claim to know that God is real--often through application of bizarre reasoning to mundane events, such as a couple who decided that God didn't want them to move because the for sale sign in front of their house fell down. I've never "seen" empirical proof of the existence of God and haven't found the various stories particularly compelling. Of course, I also get the speech that faith is belief in things not seen, but that really doesn't accomplish much either.

I also note the issue non-believers issue as you present it here; "the existence of something that does not present itself" that is, "I must be shown physical proof that there is a god." Sometimes I wonder if this as an intellectually dishonest argument.
I'd like to know what you or other proper skeptics would consider proof of the Almighty.
Would you need a physical introduction to a George Burns look-alike who could perform a few miracles? If not, how exactly do you propose that the believer prove the existence of God?
Rest assured I'm not going to try to prove anything, but let's give some of the others a chance to try.

 

[Silva]

What I'm suggesting is that it is not a particularly compelling criticism as I think you are limiting this "all powerful, all loving, ever present God" to the here and now in very limited human trappings, human terms, human time frames. It's a relatively short time we spend on this mortal coil versus the eternity religions often discuss. An attempt to disprove or disapprove of God by pointing out what's wrong with this planet also doesn't go to the core of Christian belief that, at least (as I understand it), the "promise" or covenant was that after one's tour of duty in this life, great rewards would come in the next life. I never got the impression that this life was supposed to be perfect and pain free, since, if I recall Genesis correctly, even after the "fall of man," he was still left with dominion over Earth. That we
What I see in your critique is a limited human centered view of God, universe, and time, that fails to address the actual message of the Christian faith.

It's not my personal critique, it was posed many lifetimes before mine by people far more intelligent than me. And I think the criticism holds, even if we were to take the feelings of humans out of this equation, existence is still incredibly dreary, take David Attenborough's reason for not believing in god - the suffering and torment that so many creatures suffer, some of whom know nothing but suffering and torment.

The question I personally ask is "why is your religion correct not the other ones" and unless someone answer that I don't see the point in believing any of it.

 

[peterstorey]

Why on earth (or in heaven) play this bizarre guessing/faith game? Show yourself and let all be saved.

 

[FresnoBob]

Why on earth (or in heaven) play this bizarre guessing/faith game? Show yourself and let all be saved.

Like goal line technology, it would apparently take the guess work out, lessen the interest, and bore the fans.

 

[FresnoBob]

I recommend every one consider the "Prayer of the Reverend C. Horner Redwine, from "The Sirens of Titan" by Kurt Vonnegut: (somewhat long, I always thought it worth the read since I first read the book around 42 years ago.

"Oh Lord Most High, Creator of the Cosmos, Spinner of Galaxies, Soul of Electromagnetic Waves, Inhaler and Exhaler of Inconceivable Volumes of Vacuum, Spitter of Fire and Rock, Trifler with Millennia--what could we do for Thee that Thou couldst not do for Thyself one octillion times better? Nothing. What could we do or say that could possibly interest Thee? Nothing.

Oh, Mankind, rejoice in the apathy of our Creator, for it makes us free and truthful and dignified at last.

No longer can a fool point to a ridiculous accident of good luck and say, 'Someone up there likes me.'
And no longer can a tyrant say, 'God wants this or that to happen, and anyone who doesn't help this or that to happen is against God.'

O Lord Most High, what a glorious weapon is the Apathy, for we have unsheathed it, have thrust and slashed mightily with it, and the claptrap that has so often enslaved us or driven us into the madhouse lies slain."

 

[Ubik]

That's one of my favourite books. I don't get how it fits into the argument, though.

 

[FresnoBob]

That's one of my favourite books. I don't get how it fits into the argument, though.

People asking about how, if God is so wonderful, there is pain and suffering in the world. Vonnegut seems to suggest an apathetic creator, who figures humans were given sufficient intelligence and resources to handle this life, without waiting for miracles or claiming that some of us understand and are implementing God's (non existent) will for this world at the expense of any other idea. Having survived the firebombing of Dresden as a prisoner of war, Vonnegut certainly had a perception of man's inhumanity to others. My father's army unit found one of the concentration camps in WWII, so he, too had a view of the evils man can do in the name of some higher ideology.

I interpret the writing to mean we run ourselves in this life, and have no control over what God intends in the next. It makes as much sense as any other theological argument I've heard.

 

[Don't Kill Bill]

People asking about how, if God is so wonderful, there is pain and suffering in the world. Vonnegut seems to suggest an apathetic creator, who figures humans were given sufficient intelligence and resources to handle this life, without waiting for miracles or claiming that some of us understand and are implementing God's (non existent) will for this world at the expense of any other idea. Having survived the firebombing of Dresden as a prisoner of war, Vonnegut certainly had a perception of man's inhumanity to others. My father's army unit found one of the concentration camps in WWII, so he, too had a view of the evils man can do in the name of some higher ideology.

I interpret the writing to mean we run ourselves in this life, and have no control over what God intends in the next. It makes as much sense as any other theological argument I've heard.

If this type of god exists then praying to him would be pretty stupid though wouldn't it? So too behaving in any particular manner, believing in an afterlife which you don't earn through devotion kills the whole point of most religions and if god is so ambivalent why would he change his mind after we die, why not just not give a shit about us for eternity as a well?

As an atheist I wouldn't argue with people who thought god was like you are supposing god to be and it would leave the believer and non believer in exactly the same position, on our own.

 

[gasmanc]

Religion ...pffft prove it.

 

[FresnoBob]

If this type of god exists then praying to him would be pretty stupid though wouldn't it? So too behaving in any particular manner, believing in an afterlife which you don't earn through devotion kills the whole point of most religions and if god is so ambivalent why would he change his mind after we die, why not just not give a shit about us for eternity as a well?

As an atheist I wouldn't argue with people who thought god was like you are supposing god to be and it would leave the believer and non believer in exactly the same position, on our own.

Note: this is just one theory of how a god might be. I think it arises from the realization that the universe has matter and energy, neither of which, apparently, materialize out of no where. This would imply (as I read Vonnegut and consider possible myself) that there was/is some power we cannot understand that actually created matter, energy, time, and space. Of course, this doesn't necessarily mean that said power insists we not eat pork, give 10% of our income to a self-designated religious leader, dress our women in potato sacks from head to foot, or, for that matter, pitch a 15 year old virgin into a volcano during the summer solstice.
None of us have the slightest idea what the truth is. I leave that to the individual to decide. As an atheist, you probably shouldn't argue with the "true believers" of a loving god either, since neither of you would be arguing from a position of knowledge or fact.

 

[FresnoBob]

Religion ...pffft prove it.

Religion is easy to prove. The existence of the almighty entity the religious purport to worship is a more difficult proposition. What would you accept as "proof," aside from Sunderland avoiding relegation this year?

 

[Ubik]

People asking about how, if God is so wonderful, there is pain and suffering in the world. Vonnegut seems to suggest an apathetic creator, who figures humans were given sufficient intelligence and resources to handle this life, without waiting for miracles or claiming that some of us understand and are implementing God's (non existent) will for this world at the expense of any other idea. Having survived the firebombing of Dresden as a prisoner of war, Vonnegut certainly had a perception of man's inhumanity to others. My father's army unit found one of the concentration camps in WWII, so he, too had a view of the evils man can do in the name of some higher ideology.

I interpret the writing to mean we run ourselves in this life, and have no control over what God intends in the next. It makes as much sense as any other theological argument I've heard.

That's him satirising the idea of god though (he was no believer after all), that we're so self-important to believe that something with the power to create a universe would give so much as a toss about us. Plus, it's a deist view of a god essentially as a first-cause and nothing more, rather than a theistic idea that it would be interfering and have moral values it wants us to uphold.

I appreciate the reference though, love that book!

 

[DOTA]

I have quite a few alerts from this thread, since I was last posting (been consumed with other matters). Some don't really require a response, some may well. I haven't the will to do so, though, at this moment.

Anyway, I shall say I thought this a good point.

Furthermore, why should the religious pray (and they most often pray for selfish reasons) as there is already a divine plan in place (see George Carlin below). That's pure arrogance on behalf of humans.

 

[Don't Kill Bill]

Note: this is just one theory of how a god might be. I think it arises from the realization that the universe has matter and energy, neither of which, apparently, materialize out of no where. This would imply (as I read Vonnegut and consider possible myself) that there was/is some power we cannot understand that actually created matter, energy, time, and space. Of course, this doesn't necessarily mean that said power insists we not eat pork, give 10% of our income to a self-designated religious leader, dress our women in potato sacks from head to foot, or, for that matter, pitch a 15 year old virgin into a volcano during the summer solstice.
None of us have the slightest idea what the truth is. I leave that to the individual to decide. As an atheist, you probably shouldn't argue with the "true believers" of a loving god either, since neither of you would be arguing from a position of knowledge or fact.

I can understand why people use this argument but a can never understand why they don’t follow the logic to completion. If your fundamental starting point to believing in a creator is that energy/ matter don’t just materialize then god can’t exist as a creator of all things because where did the energy/matter, from which god is made, come from? It is far more likely that the universe is a natural phenomenon which we are as yet unable to completely explain. In the same way that god didn’t create the sun because we now know a huge amount about how the sun came into being and the fusion processes which drive it. The universe may have been brought into being by fundamental physics and the energy could have come from an underlying source, vacuum energy, winding energy, Higgs field, etc.

I think you are mistaken here because you are assuming symmetry in both arguments. Claiming something exists without evidence isn't the same as claiming something doesn't exist because there is no evidence for it. In life we differentiate this way on most issues, even say about the future where there can be no certainty of outcome, we still decide on our actions by reason based on fact. Where we don't do this is where we are weak in that decision making.

 

[Saliph]

Can't wait for this

 

[nimic]

Deary me.

Josh Wheaton (Shane Harper), a freshman college student, enrolls in a philosophy class taught by an infamous and dictatorial professor. Dr. Radisson (Kevin Sorbo) demands that all of his students must sign a declaration that "God is dead" in order to get a passing grade. Josh refuses. But, he needs to take this class to meet his academic requirements.

 

[Saliph]

The film has 3 credited writers

 

[gasmanc]

Religion is easy to prove. The existence of the almighty entity the religious purport to worship is a more difficult proposition. What would you accept as "proof," aside from Sunderland avoiding relegation this year?

Proof hmmm well if you find one of our plethora of deities you could ask him to part some sea for me, then I will be in, if Sunderland avoid relegation it merely proves the deity is a black cat.

 

[Nanderson]

Anyone want to help me respond to a theist? I literally don't know where to start, the stuff he's saying is pretty ridiculous.

Here's what he said, feel free to reply and I'll basically forward it on as I couldn't be bothered responding myself:

Ultimately, you have to believe in something infinite. Whether you believe thats the Universe (which has been scientifically disproved) or anything beyond it, something MUST be infinite. Otherwise, you're stuck believing that something came from nothing, which is a logical impossibility. Once you accept the premise that infinity exists in the Universe, then its not logically inconsistent or even improbable to believe in a God who has no beginning and no end. Your only two options are that a) Existence is infinite, or b) Existence has a beginning and end. If you believe b), then you’re accepting a logical impossibility, that something came into being from nothing by itself. Its impossible. You have to believe a) otherwise you’re irrational.

Well it’s a matter of probabilities. You can either believe that a) The universe got to become the way it is without any influence, or b) it had help. If you were to study the natural phenomena that occurred in our universe for it to become the way it is, you would come to see how extraordinarily unlikely of an outcome it would be. It would be akin to if someone found a computer chip lying on a rock in the desert and coming to the conclusion that the chip got there from a combination of the wind chiseling away at the rock, a meteor hitting it at the perfect angles, and the sun baking it into perfect shape. As opposed to the far more simple solution that some intellect had left it there. Occham’s razor, right?

I can’t take these new-age atheists seriously. They love to pose religion and science as diametric opposites, sit back, and weigh their respective contributions to humanity while depicting the best science has offered against the most heinous things done in the name of religion just to say “Science, yay!” and “Religion, boo!” Its so shallow and sad. I also find that many of these new-age Atheists tend to have an racist animus that feeds Western notions of intellectual arrogance and orientalism. You can see how much destruction these ideologies have caused over the centuries, all the way back to the colonization of Africa by European countries up until all of the wars in the Middle East waged by the U.S. up until today.

If anyone has the patience to pick this apart, fire ahead. I don't really want him to get the last word as what he's saying is clearly wrong, but I don't care enough to refute him point by point.

 

[Ubik]

I especially liked the part about having "an racist animus" (sic!).

Honestly, all that deserves is: "" If people read it and think it's in any way a good argument, they're beyond hope already.

 

[MrMarcello]

Atheism is responsible for the colonization of Africa and wars in the Middle East?

 

[DOTA]

Can't wait for this

Spoiler

It sounds like something Andrew Schlafly would come up with.

 

[MrMarcello]

Christ, it's already taking over the god squad on FB. They're liking and commenting on that shit film.

 

[MrMarcello]

Don't understand why he's on Beck's spooky, conspiracy show, but Penn Jillette does a good job of discussing atheism, agnosticism, and deism to the audience (starts around 21:00). He also talks about a few other things as well. Ignore Beck's typical rant with his chalkboard in the opening monologue. He makes plenty of mistakes and twists. Beck is an utter moron and quite a tool. His reasoning for being against gay marriage as another liberal/progressive attempt to control is outright wrong. He loves to toss in progressive, communist, socialism as much as possible. No wonder Beckites lap it up.

Btw, see if you notice the common factor of Beck's audience.

 

[Saliph]

I like Penn, but he's a bit of a libertarian nutter.

 

[peterstorey]

Anyone want to help me respond to a theist? I literally don't know where to start, the stuff he's saying is pretty ridiculous.

Here's what he said, feel free to reply and I'll basically forward it on as I couldn't be bothered responding myself:



If anyone has the patience to pick this apart, fire ahead. I don't really want him to get the last word as what he's saying is clearly wrong, but I don't care enough to refute him point by point.

Use Occam's razor - 'entities should not be multiplied needlessly' - neatly and ironically stuffing him.

 

[Mihajlovic]

Anyone want to help me respond to a theist? I literally don't know where to start, the stuff he's saying is pretty ridiculous.

Here's what he said, feel free to reply and I'll basically forward it on as I couldn't be bothered responding myself:



If anyone has the patience to pick this apart, fire ahead. I don't really want him to get the last word as what he's saying is clearly wrong, but I don't care enough to refute him point by point.

So, you "couldn't be bothered" and you "don't care enough" but you want others to argue for you because you really cannot think for yourself?

 

[Mihajlovic]

Movie recommendation.

 

[Nanderson]

So, you "couldn't be bothered" and you "don't care enough" but you want others to argue for you because you really cannot think for yourself?

You were going so well until you said "cannot think for yourself." Your using "but" incorrectly, considering what follows is as expected given the start of the sentence, as opposed to a conflicting ending. I couldn't be arsed typing out a proper response to the person in question as I feel it'd be wasted on them.

 

[Mihajlovic]

You were going so well until you said "cannot think for yourself." Your using "but" incorrectly, considering what follows is as expected given the start of the sentence, as opposed to a conflicting ending. I couldn't be arsed typing out a proper response to the person in question as I feel it'd be wasted on them.

Why do you feel it would be wasted? Why not try convince your friend of the beauty, freedom and quality of a life without God? Unless, of course, you believe it wouldn't make sense in the long run anyway as we're all just going to die and the entire universe is going to collapse, eventually.

 

[MrMarcello]

 

[Saliph]

Sam Harris on Joe Rogan's podcast.

 

[JustAFan]

Anyone want to help me respond to a theist? I literally don't know where to start, the stuff he's saying is pretty ridiculous.

Here's what he said, feel free to reply and I'll basically forward it on as I couldn't be bothered responding myself:



If anyone has the patience to pick this apart, fire ahead. I don't really want him to get the last word as what he's saying is clearly wrong, but I don't care enough to refute him point by point.

Don't respond to him at all, let him believe what he wants and you just go ahead and live your life as you see fit. Problem solved.

 

[peterstorey]

Nah. He wants to save him.