Religion, what's the point?

Mutter Merkel said:
Checkmate, Christians. There's no Cartesian theatre in which experience is presented for decisions to be made.

Gesundheit.

Let me be frank, the problem is that you try far too hard to make intellectual points in areas you simply don't have any real knowledge, and as a result you come across as pseudo-intellectual. The first clue somebody is a pseudo-intellectual is that they make comments like the one I put in bold here. It's just an awful sentence, much like the terrible structure of the one I ridiculed before. You're trying too hard to be clever. If you want to know what part of me I think will make it to heaven, just ask.
Click to expand...
Insulting people's intelligence doesn't really work when you believe in a talking snake.
 
Mutter Merkel said:
Checkmate, Christians. There's no Cartesian theatre in which experience is presented for decisions to be made.

Gesundheit.

Let me be frank, the problem is that you try far too hard to make intellectual points in areas you simply don't have any real knowledge, and as a result you come across as pseudo-intellectual. The first clue somebody is a pseudo-intellectual is that they make comments like the one I put in bold here. It's just an awful sentence, much like the terrible structure of the one I ridiculed before. You're trying too hard to be clever. If you want to know what part of me I think will make it to heaven, just ask.
Click to expand...
Oh dear. You don't like my sentence structure. Boo hoo.

I reckon I know more about the Philosophy of Mind and Religion than you do tbh.

So what part of you gets to heaven then?
 
The reason I wanted to leave the thread is because discussions between believers and non-believers always end up in circular clusterfecks.

You're not going to like what I say, obviously, so there's just no point in even bothering.

I think most religions are pretty daft, but Islam, to me, stands out as the most insidious.
 
Feedingseagulls said:
Oh dear. You don't like my sentence structure. Boo hoo.

I reckon I know more about the Philosophy of Mind and Religion than you do tbh.

So what part of you gets to heaven then?
Click to expand...

I reckon you do know something about the philosophy of mind; I try to spend my time nurturing my own, though.

The part you don't believe in. (I didn't say it was a very good question.)

Silva said:
Insulting people's intelligence doesn't really work when you believe in a talking snake.
Click to expand...

Wait, you sly dog, was that an insult?
 
The gospel according to J Heller. The best book I've ever read.
  • "And don't tell me God works in mysterious ways," Yossarian continued. … "There's nothing mysterious about it, He's not working at all. He's playing. Or else He's forgotten all about us. That's the kind of God you people talk about, a country bumpkin, a clumsy, bungling, brainless, conceited, uncouth hayseed. Good God, how much reverence can you have for a Supreme Being who finds it necessary to include such phenomena as phlegm and tooth decay in His divine system of Creation? What in the world was running through that warped, evil, scatological mind of His when He robbed old people of the power to control their bowel movements? Why in the world did He ever create pain?" P.179
  • "[T]he God I don't believe in is a good God, a just God, a merciful God. He's not the mean and stupid God you make him out to be."Lieutenant Scheisskopf's wife P.180
 
Mutter Merkel said:
I reckon you do know something about the philosophy of mind; I try to spend my time nurturing my own, though.

The part you don't believe in. (I didn't say it was a very good question.)



Wait, you sly dog, was that an insult?
Click to expand...
And what part is that? How does it interact with the rest of you? What happens when your physical body breaks up?

Do you know what a theodicy is? And the variant you were espousing?
 
And from one of the best-written articles I've ever read

This spurious show of open-mindedness recalls Hans Küng, the Swiss theologian who uses a comparable technique when defending Christianity against secular critics. The similarity is not surprising, considering that our dietary and religious habits are both acquired in early childhood, which makes them hard to break no matter what we learn in later life. The Pollan-Küng Technique goes like this: One debates the other side in a rational manner until pushed into a corner. Then one simply drops the argument and slips away, pretending that one has not fallen short of reason but instead transcended it. The irreconcilability of one’s belief with reason is then held up as a great mystery, the humble readiness to live with which puts one above lesser minds and their cheap certainties.
Click to expand...
http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2007/09/hard-to-swallow/306123/
 
TooBias said:
The reason I wanted to leave the thread is because discussions between believers and non-believers always end up in circular clusterfecks.

You're not going to like what I say, obviously, so there's just no point in even bothering.

I think most religions are pretty daft, but Islam, to me, stands out as the most insidious.
Click to expand...

The site you quoted is notorious for being anti-islam. Your facts just like your opinion is heavily biased. I wonder how you sleep at night knowing that there are billions of people who want you dead according to their religion.
 
MJJ said:
The site you quoted is notorious for being anti-islam. Your facts just like your opinion is heavily biased. I wonder how you sleep at night knowing that there are billions of people who want you dead according to their religion.
Click to expand...

That site has legitimate references.

My opinion isn't biased, it's based on what I've read - it's actually an objective POV. I didn't wake up one day and think, "I hate Islam, I'm going to read a load of negative shit about it." Curiosity led me to the doorstep of Islamic history, and these are my conclusions. I don't claim to be scholarly on the subject, but I feel I've read enough to have formulated a fairly reasoned opinion.

Let me put the onus on you for a second: Was Muhammad not an enslaver? Was he not a murderer (or at least ordered killings)? Was he not a rapist?

I'm not saying billions of people want me to die because the vast majority of them follow the 'nice' interpretation of the Koran.
 
MJJ said:
The site you quoted is notorious for being anti-islam. Your facts just like your opinion is heavily biased. I wonder how you sleep at night knowing that there are billions of people who want you dead according to their religion.
Click to expand...
Pot calling the kettle black??
 
TooBias said:
I've just replied to you.
Click to expand...
You're going to use Wiki Islam as the basis of your argument? :lol: That website is a notorious hate website, and doesn't have a modicum of objectivity.

That website has more fabrications and lies than actual real information.

Let me take you through a few of them:
Asma bint Marwan - there is no reliable Hadith that supports this or Abu Afak. I don't know if you know this, but the way to convey information was via Hadith, and each Hadith has to be...certified / authenticated for it be proved to be reliable and truthful. None of these hadith fulfil that criteria. I've just checked them myself.

I cba to go through each name one by one, but I've asked you for your facts and you've given me a website that has none. So again, you said your opinion is backed by fact, can you provide me with them? And don't just give me some website that you googled a second ago.

If you can't you should say your opinion isn't backed by fact.

I mean, seriously - Abu Sufyan? You know he actually became Muslim later in his life and and the Caliph of Islam did his funeral prayer? The website doesn't even get its facts straight.
 
Nik70 said:
Pot calling the kettle black??
Click to expand...

I have a vested interest in the subject but that doesnt make me bias. And am not insinuating that all western are pigs who deserve to die ( the equivalent of saying that all muslims believe the same crap as ISIS as thats islam).

TooBias said:
That site has legitimate references.

My opinion isn't biased, it's based on what I've read - it's actually an objective POV. I didn't wake up one day and think, "I hate Islam, I'm going to read a load of negative shit about it." Curiosity led me to the doorstep of Islamic history, and these are my conclusions. I don't claim to be scholarly on the subject, but I feel I've read enough to have formulated a fairly reasoned opinion.

Let me put the onus on you for a second: Was Muhammad not an enslaver? Was he not a murderer (or at least ordered killings)? Was he not a rapist?

I'm not saying billions of people want me to die because the vast majority of them follow the 'nice' interpretation of the Koran.
Click to expand...

:lol: And in your curiosity you never thought for a second, hold on a minute why not start with reading the Quran instead of sites like wiki islam. Do you go on rawk if you want to learn about the history of manchester united?

He was a military commander as well as a Prophet. What did you expect him to do? Order his army to tickle the enemy to death? Try reading about his conduct after the war or in peace times as well. Or does wikiislam have nothing on that? :lol:
 
Feedingseagulls said:
And what part is that? How does it interact with the rest of you? What happens when your physical body breaks up?

Do you know what a theodicy is? And the variant you were espousing?
Click to expand...

I believe man consists of body, soul and spirit, and that we mirror the triune God. The spirit and soul are very close to one another, but they are in fact distinct biblically. When I die, I have the confidence of knowing that I go to be with God, who is not part of the material world, and that my existence will be found in Christ, but I cannot tell you what that will look like, feel like or give any other sensory information that requires a body. The Bible does also promise a new heaven and earth and a resurrection body, but I will not inherit that until God resurrects it from the earth on the last day.
 
Feedingseagulls said:
God cannot be coherently both beneficent and omnipotent. All theodicies fall.
Click to expand...

The tradition of Augustine, Aquinas etc holds that evil is a privation, that is a lack of good. It has no metaphysical worth in itself, like darkness is not a thing but an absence of light.

There is still an argument to be made that God cannot be both omnibenevolent and omnipotent given the quantity of goodness as compared to lack-of-goodness, and of course you may attempt to argue that evil is not a privation.

But if evil is a privation, then the argument is around how much goodness one would expect to find in a created world, which is what theodicies do. They fail in so far as they do not convince you that there is sufficient goodness in the world to cohere with the existence of a theistic God, but this is a value judgement, not a logical rejoinder to theism
 
Last edited:
Akshay said:
Tbf none of the religious books I've read do so. The Bible has its share of violence, and so does the Mahabharat. They are representative of the times they were written and collated in, not of some ideal utopia.
Click to expand...
Mahabharat is not a religious book or THE religious book of Hindus. It is a narrative of a war and events related. Bhagavad Gita (which was narrated during Kurukshetra war of Mahabharat) can be said to be a religious book in similar mold but even that is not THE religious book like Quran or Bible. The way Hindu religion evolved, it can't have one religious book anyway. The vedas and upanishads are also very key religious scriptures in Hinduism.

This is not related to the point whether Hindu religious scriptures have violence or not, just an info so as to not make wrong comparisons. Otherwise also, unrelated to violence part, Abrahamic religions(Christianity, Islam, Judaism) and Dharmic religions (Hinduism and its offshoots like Buddhism, Jainism, Sikhism etc) can't be compared. Totally different ways. I am not a religious person so I am not interested to go deep into it but I assume material must be available on web for how the concepts differ in these two branches of religions for those interested.
 
Raoul said:
Let me be the first to say.....welcome back Herman.
Click to expand...
:lol:

Mutter Merkel said:
You just demonstrate you have no idea what you're talking about. If you wish to support the atheist cause, as a former atheist myself, stop posting, because those with any knowledge whatsoever of early Church history and with an appetite to learn will read what you've posted here and they will mock you and assume atheists in general to be as ignorant as you are.
Click to expand...
RAWK has imaginary manc friends, redcafe have imaginary former atheists.
 
Untied said:
The tradition of Augustine, Aquinas etc holds that evil is a privation, that is a lack of good. It has not metaphysical worth in itself, like darkness is not a thing but an absence of good.

There is still an argument to be made that God cannot be both omnibenevolent and omnipotent given the quantity of goodness as compared to lack-of-goodness, and of course you may attempt to argue that evil is not a privation.

But if evil is a privation, then the argument is around how much goodness one would expect to find in a created world, which is what theodicies do. They fail in so far as they do not convince you that there is sufficient goodness in the world to cohere with the existence of a theistic God, but this is a value judgement, not a logical rejoinder to theism
Click to expand...

Feedingseagulls, just like other psuedo-philosophers, isn't interested in which way or another Christians reconcile what they believe to be problems with their worldview (evil is not a problem for my worldview. Not only is it consistent with it, it is actually further confirmation of it). The game is to create deductive arguments on premises which all lead to a conclusion that God is evil. You can always dispute or alter their garbage premises. It's in the premises that they set the game up. In studying the different formulations of the argument, I've come to realise they've wasted a lot of my time with this predictable game of "spot the dodgy premise".
 
Mutter Merkel said:
Feedingseagulls, just like other psuedo-philosophers, isn't interested in which way or another Christians reconcile what they believe to be problems with their worldview (evil is not a problem for my worldview. Not only is it consistent with it, it is actually further confirmation of it). The game is to create deductive arguments on premises which all lead to a conclusion that God is evil. You can always dispute or alter their garbage premises. It's in the premises that they set the game up. In studying the different formulations of the argument, I've come to realise they've wasted a lot of my time with this predictable game of "spot the dodgy premise".
Click to expand...
When discussing the problem of evil from a non-theist perspective, the goal is not to show God is evil. Also, what is generally addressed is suffering rather than evil (though it can easily be said that it is an evil thing to make sentient beings suffer).

The idea is that if God were really beneficent as well as omnipotent, as Theists believe, she has no reason to include such suffering in the world he creates.

This would apply unless God is restricted (or restricts herself) to a particular balance between happiness and suffering. So she would be either not omnipotent, or not really beneficent.
 
Mutter Merkel said:
I believe man consists of body, soul and spirit, and that we mirror the triune God. The spirit and soul are very close to one another, but they are in fact distinct biblically. When I die, I have the confidence of knowing that I go to be with God, who is not part of the material world, and that my existence will be found in Christ, but I cannot tell you what that will look like, feel like or give any other sensory information that requires a body. The Bible does also promise a new heaven and earth and a resurrection body, but I will not inherit that until God resurrects it from the earth on the last day.
Click to expand...
So how does whatever bit of the soul/spirit that survives death interact with the rest of you? Why is so much that you do actually carried out by your subconscious? Why do we find no trace of soul or spirit in the physical world? Only consciousness as a brain-state?
 
Revan said:
RAWK has imaginary manc friends, redcafe have imaginary former atheists.
Click to expand...

It doesn't bother me if you believe me or not about that. I was an atheist; I just realised atheism is a truly awful, indefensible position and that its paragons are really just poor thinkers.

Feedingseagulls said:
When discussing the problem of evil from a non-theist perspective, the goal is not to show God is evil. Also, what is generally addressed is suffering rather than evil (though it can easily be said that it is an evil thing to make sentient beings suffer).

The idea is that if God were really beneficent as well as omnipotent, as Theists believe, she has no reason to include such suffering in the world he creates.

This would apply unless God is restricted (or restricts herself) to a particular balance between happiness and suffering. So she would be either not omnipotent, or not really beneficent.
Click to expand...

I am aware of what the argument tries to do. I was being lazy and left the evil or not omnipotent part out. As I said, I know the formulations of the argument. I've already given my answer to this question, anyway.

Amethyst said:
@Mutter Merkel I think before in this thread you said you used to be an atheist (please correct me if I'm wrong). What was it that convinced you God exists?
Click to expand...

Yes, I used to be an atheist. I stopped being an atheist when I realised the logical conclusion of metaphysical materialism was metaphysical nihilism, and I made a conscious choice that this was the single most damaging existential view one could hold, and entirely unnecessary given that there is no reason to believe the material is all there is, except that it exists. I believed in God when I could no longer account for the existence of life and the Universe from the same materialistic worldview, and I somehow knew that God was Jesus then, though not by reason. I now know Jesus to be God because of Biblical prophecy and consequent personal experience.
 
Mutter Merkel said:
It doesn't bother me if you believe me or not about that. I was an atheist; I just realised atheism is a truly awful, indefensible position and that its paragons are really just poor thinkers.



I am aware of what the argument tries to do. I was being lazy and left the evil or not omnipotent part out. As I said, I know the formulations of the argument. I've already given my answer to this question, anyway.



Yes, I used to be an atheist. I stopped being an atheist when I realised the logical conclusion of metaphysical materialism was metaphysical nihilism, and I made a conscious choice that this was the single most damaging existential view one could hold, and entirely unnecessary given that there is no reason to believe the material is all there is, except that it exists. I believed in God when I could no longer account for the existence of life and the Universe from the same materialistic worldview, and I somehow knew that God was Jesus then, though not by reason. I now know Jesus to be God because of Biblical prophecy and consequent personal experience.
Click to expand...
Holy fecking shit!

This thread will become fun again!

PS: Are you Jehowa Witness?
 
Untied said:
The tradition of Augustine, Aquinas etc holds that evil is a privation, that is a lack of good. It has no metaphysical worth in itself, like darkness is not a thing but an absence of light.

There is still an argument to be made that God cannot be both omnibenevolent and omnipotent given the quantity of goodness as compared to lack-of-goodness, and of course you may attempt to argue that evil is not a privation.

But if evil is a privation, then the argument is around how much goodness one would expect to find in a created world, which is what theodicies do. They fail in so far as they do not convince you that there is sufficient goodness in the world to cohere with the existence of a theistic God, but this is a value judgement, not a logical rejoinder to theism
Click to expand...
See above. Also, from Aquinas' own 4th proof we have:

Therefore there must also be something which is to all beings the cause of their being, goodness, and every other perfection; and this we call God.

Here he is discussing the cause which is the greatest perfection of all such properties, it is not unreasonable to suggest that such an entity exhibits greater goodness in providing greater goodness in thec world he creates. So there should be less suffering.
 
I've always been critical of religions followed by masses for no logical reason and which has bred corruption and oppression. Where some people claim to have interpretative prerogative.

It has happened a couple of times that I've been called islamophobic. Apparently it is rational to be critical of religion as long as it is not Islam. Not embracing Islam is obviously an irrational fear.
 
Mutter Merkel said:
It doesn't bother me if you believe me or not about that. I was an atheist; I just realised atheism is a truly awful, indefensible position and that its paragons are really just poor thinkers.



I am aware of what the argument tries to do. I was being lazy and left the evil or not omnipotent part out. As I said, I know the formulations of the argument. I've already given my answer to this question, anyway.



Yes, I used to be an atheist. I stopped being an atheist when I realised the logical conclusion of metaphysical materialism was metaphysical nihilism, and I made a conscious choice that this was the single most damaging existential view one could hold, and entirely unnecessary given that there is no reason to believe the material is all there is, except that it exists. I believed in God when I could no longer account for the existence of life and the Universe from the same materialistic worldview, and I somehow knew that God was Jesus then, though not by reason. I now know Jesus to be God because of Biblical prophecy and consequent personal experience.
Click to expand...
So you have had some positive psychological events resulting from your beliefs? Good for you. Doesn't actually mean any of it is objectively true though.

The universe doesn't have reasons, it just is, in flux, with its own causes.
 
Revan said:
PS: Are you Jehowa Witness?
Click to expand...

No. Are you?

Feedingseagulls said:
So how does whatever bit of the soul/spirit that survives death interact with the rest of you? Why is so much that you do actually carried out by your subconscious? Why do we find no trace of soul or spirit in the physical world? Only consciousness as a brain-state?
Click to expand...

Oh right, you expect me to know more than any human being to ever walk the earth. I understand you now. No, I don't know what is obviously a mystery, and neither do you.
 
Feedingseagulls said:
So you have had some positive psychological events resulting from your beliefs? Good for you. Doesn't actually mean any of it is objectively true though.

The universe doesn't have reasons, it just is, in flux, with its own causes.
Click to expand...

Why don't you just accept my "flux" then and stop trying to convince me to "flux" otherwise?
 
Just to be clear. Are you saying that the following is your response to the problem of evil and represents your position on the subject?
Mutter Merkel said:
I can answer your question in another way. If God were to put a stop to evil actions, what do you think that would entail? By God's standards, we're all guilty many many times over for various sins, so the only thing God could do would be to judge and punish every single person accordingly right now. And it's kind of arbitrary, because you could say, why didn't you just judge everybody 100 years ago? or why didn't you just judge Hitler, and Stalin and so on. From a Christian perspective, the fact you and I are alive right now, is because God has the grace not to pull the plug on creation. The acts of violence you see in the world are the tip of the iceberg of human wickedness. Imagine what a murderer's heart looks like to God. In fact, God says we're all murderers, because we've all hated somebody with the fantasy or intention of harm towards them. In God's eyes, who is pure, that is murder of the heart.

God's standard of what constitutes evil is just much much purer than our own, but his mercy is also much greater than ours; it's greater than we can imagine. The fact God allows for these violent acts is the same reason he allows you and me to exist. Mercy. Suffering is an extension of the same grace that saw Christ suffer and die on the cross. In fact, suffering is God's wisdom. Suffering says that God loves the world so much he will endure it even though it grieves him so bitterly. But the Bible does clearly state that there is a day coming when God will judge man, and that day belongs to the Lord.
Click to expand...
 
Mutter Merkel said:
No. Are you?



Oh right, you expect me to know more than any human being to ever walk the earth. I understand you now. No, I don't know what is obviously a mystery, and neither do you.
Click to expand...
It would be a mystery, but given that soul and spirit don't exist I don't havec anything to solve. Your mental processes are neural processes, your consciousness is a distinctive pattern of brain waves in the neural cortex. Occam's razor applies.
 
Feedingseagulls said:
It would be a mystery, but given that soul and spirit don't exist I don't havec anything to solve. Your mental processes are neural processes, your consciousness is a distinctive pattern of brain waves in the neural cortex. Occam's razor applies.
Click to expand...

That's not how Ockham's razor works. You do love your buzzwords, don't you?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.