Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Politics & Current Events' started by vampiregenocide, Feb 9, 2011.
I have a strong belief with the Dalai Lama, and Tibetan Buddhism. Not really a follower, because I believe the truth path to One's serenity is through many paths of experience. We all are different, but hopefully we can respect each other. This thread can be a great example of toleration. Many cheers!
One of my main problems with Judaism, Christianity and Islam is the fact that God created all. God is omnipotent.
This also includes all the sins like Rape, Murder, Genocide, Greed, Pedophilia etc. God created all. Which kind of "good and loving" entity would create things like that? How can you love all your children, but allow one of the older child (a priest) rape one of the innocent young one, even a boy. Not just that, if that older dude confesses, he just forgives him. But what about the victims? What about their pain and suffering? God seems not to care about it.
Yes, God created all the bad things as the good things, and just watches the very bad things happen, especially to the innocent ones, and doesn't care.
God created the whole universe for the humans, including viruses, black death, toxic metals.
God seem not to care that his "servants" just throw an atom bomb on an Island full of children and women. Napalm on "commies" who are godless anyway.
God seem not to care send his word to the "rest of the world" in any form in history. He is obsessed with the middle east. But sending his word to India and China would have a bigger effect actually, since they where much more crowded and well established.
But again, god's ways are not comprehend-able by us mere humans. So we just accept all these self contradicting immoral acts as "divine" or get insulted with having just 10 IQ buy his followers if we ever try to understand it. Obviously, reading the whole thing intensively and understanding every sentence is not a wanted thing by god himself.
It's like ready made, packed food. It tastes good and make you full. Why to check the ingredients and get confused?
Drakk does magic? Wtf?
Yeah! Drakk is a Satanist, he has a thread on the board about how he came about it. It's an interesting read!
This is the most 'polite' religious debate I've ever seen lol...
Best books I've read on the topic...
"The Looming Tower - Al Qaeda and the Road to 9/11" - Wright
"The God Delusion" - Dawkin
"God is Not Great" - Hitchens
"Darwin's Dangerous Idea", "Consciousness Explained", and pretty much anything by Daniel Dennett (one of my professors!)
"Ma'alim fi al-Tariq (AKA Milestones)" - Qutb
"Power, Faith, and Fantasy: America in the Middle East: 1776 to the Present" - Oren
No religious booklist would be complete without the "Bible", "Torah", and "Qur'an" - all written by men... many, many men... and changed through translation and rewritten in response to zeitgeist (e.g. King James version)
BTW... finally saw "Book of Eli"... similar to "The Looming Tower" it shows how men can manipulate (or desire to manipulate) other men to extreme acts of violence while invoking god, religion, and faith.
You're making the assumption that all personal beliefs are benign. People's beliefs inform their actions. And people's actions affect others.
Also, why is there anything wrong with debating beliefs? It's the pitting of multiple ideas against one another, (potentially) showing the strengths and weaknesses of each. It's how good ideas grow and bad ones die.
So, I think a better question would be: Why NOT debate beliefs? Pitting your ideas against someone else's is intellectually healthy.
I follow learning. As a young child, traditional Baptist upbringing made sense. The older I got, the deeper into college, the more educational TV, the more reading I did the more that changed. I hate when people ask me what I believe because they always want to hear Catholic, Baptist, Methodist, etc. Truth is, I learn something new every day that changes what I believe
wait, what? was it not you that said "...everything which exists within the universe or can interact with it must be within its logic constructs, and will/should leave evidence of its interaction behind" Did I misunderstand you? These two statements seem to completely contradict each other.
This is the entire basis of my argument, and again the fundamental schism in our paradigms. You think that God's 'morality' should be able to be understood, when I do not. Is that an accurate assessment?
True, and this is why I do not profess to "know" very much about God. I don't. One thing that I do "know" is that it's impossible for us to "know" much about the finer details of His mind works.
Ok, ok... here's what I keep trying to point out. Yes, we have the tools of logic, reason, emotion, rationalism and whatnot. But (again) the entire basis of my argument is that if indeed this being exists, and He is infinite, then our tools- which are obviously not infinite, would not be able to measure Him accurately. Is that so hard to accept? I suppose is not accurate to say he doesn't get His morals from anywhere (I know I made this statement earlier), as it is to say we do not (and can not) understand that facet of His character. If you disagree with that, then disagree with it and move on.
Well, the definition of the god we are debating about is "nothing exists except by Him, and without Him nothing exists". Also, by definition the god of the bible has no beginning or end, He just always was, is, and will be (I do not want to argue about this, it is not a contradiction unless you draw absolutes to make it so). Based on these two definitions, God could not draw morals from and outside source since He is the source, so to speak. Yes, that means his ethics and morals would exist as he does, without a beginning or end. No, that explanation doesn't allow the problem to fit within a logic construct. Of course, I could be wrong in my assessment of God's morals- I'm merely postulating to attempt to answer your problem.
I am not familiar with Mornon doctrine, and that I am aware of I have not heard of the "Adam God" theory. I do find it odd, though, that you're trying to use a subjective philosophical approach to find an objective truth. I believe you could spend your energy better refuting God using more objective methods. A philosophical question begets a philosophical answer. If you're looking for an objective truth about where the god of the bible got his morals and ethics, you'll be left speculating. It sounds like your saying that because God had to make up His mind as to what He would do, He's not all-knowing. If that's an accurate assessment, it's faulty at best.
If humans are indeed His creations, and He indeed does hold sovereign dominion over His creation, then it would be permissible. 'Morality' would have nothing to do with it.
It wouldn't matter, according to the above point.
Unfortunately, sometimes this is true. Drawing it as a sweeping generality, however, shows a clear blind bias and is a fallacy.
What? I dismiss the OT? No, I just don't view it in absolutes as it seems you do. If that assessment is inaccurate, then correct me. FWIW, I'm actually in the process of studying the OT further and seeking scholarly commentary on it.
I said it wasn't perfect, but it is analogous.
Whoa, what? God is trying to tell us what the source of His morals are? No, last I checked what he communicated was "My mind is not your mind" and "No one can know the mind of God".
I have to give you some credit, because we do have the tools you mentioned earlier. But the hummingbird has his own tools to comprehend the world around him, and look at the difference between his tools and ours. The hummingbird's tools are like a much less complex version of ours. That is analogous.
Yeah, to blindly write off contradictions and atrocities is foolish. I am merely trying to present the possibility that perhaps many of the things that appear to be contradictions could be found not to be upon further study and review- so drawing absolutes about them might not be the best way to approach them. Regarding atrocities, well, I sort of covered that so I won't add anything on that.
Yes, saying "God is beyond us" to blindly write off above contradictions or atrocities may be foolish, but it could also be a plausible answer to things we do not understand- provided that's not it and we are still striving to understand. Just because I believe I cannot know everything about God doesn't mean I don't have a drive to continue learning.
Surely you can see how condescending this appears. You believe you should use logic to understand god, right? You said "everything which exists within the universe or can interact with it must be within its logic constructs, and will/should leave evidence of its interaction behind." That's what I was referring to. Is that an incorrect assessment? I wasn't trying to equate your use of logic to my religion, if that's what you mean. I apologize if that's how it came across.
That does not seem like a red herring.
It's a little insulting to say I wrote it off, I really tried to answer that. Perhaps I didn't expound on it, or perhaps you bushed over my answer. Either way, you seem to be setting a precedent for giving credit only to answers you agree with.
Certain aspects, yes. But as per my argument, just not the particular aspects you're bringing up.
Oh? I would refer you back to my statement of me never claiming to "know" much about God.
Moral understanding? I personally don't believe we'll get there but I'd love to be proved wrong. Any understanding? I never said we can never achieve any, I said we could never achieve total understanding- big difference. If I did say we couldn't achieve any understaing, I misrepresented myself and it was an error.
Yes, you could help it. And so can I. We are obviously at am impasse, and it seems to me that this debate could very well end up in the swinging of the ban hammer. Not to mention we totally hijacked the thread. Can we call a cease-fire? I know I asked some questions but as far as the debate, can we refrain from taking it further?
You seem to be heavily reading argumentative books written by atheists that are arguing their own point of view without reading anything from the other side. Any critical thinker knows that's a no no.
I've read all of the literary books mentioned (I haven't read every verse in the Qur'an, nor every bit of Jewish History in the Torah). The God Delusion is a funny one. For a man of Science, Dawkins claims to know a lot about everything...
I'd also be interested to know how you read the Bible, Torah and Qur'an. Did you read them straight through, did you just read snippets. Did you read snippets and quotes in other books?
He created the possibility for the act and left the choice to perform the act up to free will.
Why do you say that? Why does God seem to not care? Because he doesn't intervene and gives humans free will to do good OR evil?
One of the many things that initially made me question this line of thinking and become a Christian was the fact that if, say, Christians are right and Jesus was God made man, he did experience incredible suffering when he became a man. Just a point of interest...
So you're saying because a God allows suffering he doesn't care?
I find that a Bizarre way of looking at it. I mean if followers of religion are belittling you then you need to tell them sod off. But of course there are some things that we won't comprehend. Dealing with Omnipotence, omniscience and omnipresence - which we as humans have not experienced - there are going to be things that appear to be logical fallacies. Free will vs Predestination being an example. When you are dealing with unlimited power and knowledge, then these two things aren't mutually exclusive. But while we can't understand the practicalities of it all, we can still understand the philosophical and moral questions it raises.
God indeed let people choose between good and evil. But why to create evil in the first place? Why put a fruit on the lovely tree but forbid to take it. This is indeed a way of torture the human soul.
Why let people suffer from acts of other people? Free will to destroy some other's life which is "precious" thing in religion does not make sense in the eye of the victim.
How does a Loving GOD allow children die from hunger, malaria and other stuff. How god let so many poor and religious people suffer, but let nonreligious to be wealthy and healthy?
These all are questioned by an atheist, who Read it all, page by page. Not just that, but all the "explanations" , descriptions written by "experts".
God itself is an Atrocity. It sends you to an inferno for killing, but he wipes out entire cultures with his wrath. He kills babies, let people suffer form other's "free will", let innocent suffer by his followers. God do not intervene in these things? No he doesn't. So why pray? If God let's his favorite creations made from his own image tortured, why not interfere? It is not free will to be raped. It is not free will to be molested. How God awaits kids to become caring, loving, functioning adults when he lets them suffer their whole lives?
Yes, we can't understand his will and his ways you say. So why believe in it ? Why follow a deity when his ways are not clear, his Morals are twisted? Of course we might cherry pick the good parts and leave the rest. That is exactly what most of the Jews and Christians do. But that is exactly what a good person does, with or without belief in anything. We do the things we see righteous, and don't do the things we see false. We don't look in a textbook how to react when people fall down suddenly on the pavement. If we are good, we help. If we are not, we don't. Bible or any other book do not play a role in this situation.