48
   

Would the World be Better off Without Religion?

Forums: Religion, Spirituality And Religion, Philosophy, Lack Of Religion, Lack Of Belief
Email this Topic • Print this Page
 
 
Krumple
 
  1  
Reply Mon 29 Jun, 2015 03:39 am
@InfraBlue,
InfraBlue wrote:
According to neo's dogma, God chooses not to know whether each one of us will follow him or our own devices. God is indulging the devil in a wager, of sorts, in regard to our choice.


Okay sure, but you can't make a well informed choice without having the proper data. I am not convinced because the data is flawed and inconsistent. Many of the stories in the bible are simply not plausible in my opinion. Other aspects make me question the validity of the statements. With this, it makes me lean more towards people making stuff up rather than actual valid reasons to suggest a god exists. So if anything the data points towards it being wrong and false rather than right and true.
0 Replies
 
Frank Apisa
 
  1  
Reply Mon 29 Jun, 2015 03:56 am
Many of the stories from the Bible are deeply flawed...and a reasonable guess is that the Bible is a self-serving history of the ancient Hebrews interspersed with a rather fanciful creation mythology.

It is part of a belief system embraced by many theists.

Atheism is, for the most part, a similar belief system...except that it makes the guess that there are no gods.

There MAY be no gods...there may be at least one god. There are no logical or scientific reasons to suppose gods are necessary to explain anything...or that gods are an impossibility.
Ionus
 
  1  
Reply Mon 29 Jun, 2015 07:58 am
@Frank Apisa,
Quote:
a rather fanciful creation mythology
Most of it and the stories in Genesis were stolen from Mesopotamian cultures of an earlier era .

Quote:
Atheism is, for the most part, a similar belief system...except that it makes the guess that there are no gods.
They clearly dont like being labelled "believers", so they have gone into avoidance mode . If we could see them, they would have their fingers in their ears saying its not true, its not true .
0 Replies
 
neologist
 
  0  
Reply Mon 29 Jun, 2015 08:10 am
@Frank Apisa,
Frank Apisa wrote:
THEY DID NOT KNOW THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN GOOD AND EVIL...BETWEEN RIGHT AND WRONG.

THAT KNOWLEDGE WAS WITHHELD FROM THEM.

THEY COULD NOT MUTINY.

WHEN ARE YOU FINALLY GOING TO GET THAT?

Yes, this time I WAS shouting.
Ahh.
It was the tree of knowledge of good and bad.
A difference, probably.
And do you suppose that, by eating, they were better off?
neologist
 
  1  
Reply Mon 29 Jun, 2015 08:13 am
@Krumple,
Krumple wrote:
But like I have pointed out before. If god is all knowing, he would have known they would ignore his request even before he created them. The consequence of this is that he created them destined for banishment. So which is it? God is either not all knowing or he is. But if he is all knowing then his motive for carrying this out seems rather harsh.

This is why I don't buy the whole argument that our life is a test. God wouldn't need to test humans if he was all knowing, he would have already known the result of each person before they even existed therefore their life is just a delay before the sentence is handed down.
So.
You don't like the idea of free will?
OK. I get it.
0 Replies
 
neologist
 
  1  
Reply Mon 29 Jun, 2015 08:17 am
@InfraBlue,
InfraBlue wrote:
According to neo's dogma, God chooses not to know whether each one of us will follow him or our own devices. God is indulging the devil in a wager, of sorts, in regard to our choice.
Close,
But, if a wager, it's a sucker's bet for the rebels.
InfraBlue
 
  1  
Reply Mon 29 Jun, 2015 10:52 am
@neologist,
So, how would you describe it, if not as a wager?
Frank Apisa
 
  1  
Reply Mon 29 Jun, 2015 11:06 am
@neologist,
Quote:
Ahh.
It was the tree of knowledge of good and bad.
A difference, probably.
And do you suppose that, by eating, they were better off?


It doesn't matter if they were "better off" or not, Neo.

My comment has to do with you insisting they did something bad!

They did not know there was a difference between good and bad...so there was no reason to punish them for doing either.

You keep returning to Adam and Eve's "sin"...but there was no sin.

When are you finally going to get that?
neologist
 
  1  
Reply Mon 29 Jun, 2015 11:07 am
@InfraBlue,
InfraBlue wrote:
So, how would you describe it, if not as a wager?
Satan made the accusation as part of his rebellion. It included several explicit and implied allegations about God:
God lied
Man would be better off setting his own standards of good and bad
Humans would serve God only out of selfishness. - Job 2:4

Certainly, Jehovah could have zapped all the rebels right then and there; but would that have settled the issues? God's power was not challenged, only his standards and the integrity of his creation. Satan insisted on much more as Jesus related:
Quote:
“Simon, Simon, look! Satan has demanded to have all of you to sift you as wheat" (Luke 22:31)
Job passed his test, as did Jesus.
A time limit has been set for the remainder of mankind.
neologist
 
  1  
Reply Mon 29 Jun, 2015 11:16 am
@Frank Apisa,
Frank Apisa wrote:
My comment has to do with you insisting they did something bad!

They did not know there was a difference between good and bad...so there was no reason to punish them for doing either. . .
What part of "If you do that, you will die" do you think they did not understand? Had God lied to them before? Do you suppose they thought death might be "good"?
Frank Apisa
 
  1  
Reply Mon 29 Jun, 2015 11:25 am
@neologist,
neologist wrote:

Frank Apisa wrote:
My comment has to do with you insisting they did something bad!

They did not know there was a difference between good and bad...so there was no reason to punish them for doing either. . .
What part of "If you do that, you will die" do you think they did not understand? Had God lied to them before? Do you suppose they thought death might be "good"?


Why not?

THEY DID NOT KNOW THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN GOOD AND BAD!

That knowledge was purposefully withheld from them.

You are playing a game, NEo...because that is the only avenue open to you. Your devotion to the JW's...who make this "they disobeyed" nonsense the fulcrum of its "belief system."

In a sense, the god told them "you can turn left or you can turn right"...and when they make a choice, saying, "I wanted you to turn the other way, so I am going to punish you more severely than anyone has ever been punished...and I am going to punish all the rest of humankind also."

Reject it, Neo. It is a myth that would have to improve to reach the level of stupid.
neologist
 
  1  
Reply Mon 29 Jun, 2015 11:39 am
@Frank Apisa,
Yeah, yeah, Frank. . . .
We know.
The God who gave you your sense of fairness had no sense of fairness to give.
Makes you unique, Frank . . .
Take another mulligan.
InfraBlue
 
  1  
Reply Mon 29 Jun, 2015 01:05 pm
@neologist,
neologist wrote:
Certainly, Jehovah could have zapped all the rebels right then and there; but would that have settled the issues?

Why wouldn't that have settled the issue?

neologist wrote:
God's power was not challenged, only his standards and the integrity of his creation.

So, he decides to shut off his omniscience in order to indulge an inferior being.

The story comes across as a trivial game.
Frank Apisa
 
  -1  
Reply Mon 29 Jun, 2015 01:07 pm
@neologist,
ACCORDING TO THE STORY...

...THEY DID NOT KNOW THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN GOOD AND BAD.

The knowledge was withheld from them by the god.

That is the point of the story...until whoever wrote it screwed it up even more than it was screwed up initially.
neologist
 
  1  
Reply Mon 29 Jun, 2015 01:50 pm
@InfraBlue,
neologist wrote:
Certainly, Jehovah could have zapped all the rebels right then and there; but would that have settled the issues?
You wrote:
Why wouldn't that have settled the issue?
Well, you would never have been born, for one thing. And angels, supposedly being smart, may have wondered
If Satan was correct.
neologist wrote:
God's power was not challenged, only his standards and the integrity of his creation.
You wrote:
So, he decides to shut off his omniscience in order to indulge an inferior being
Free will existed before Eden as well as after
You wrote:
The story comes across as a trivial game.
Trivial?
If a game, then dangerous if you refuse to learn the rules.
Frank Apisa
 
  1  
Reply Mon 29 Jun, 2015 01:57 pm
@neologist,
Quote:
If a game, then dangerous if you refuse to learn the rules.


They did try to learn the rules, Neo.

They ate the fruit that gave them the rules...the fruit that made them like gods knowing right from wrong/good from evil.

How'd that go with the god?
0 Replies
 
neologist
 
  0  
Reply Mon 29 Jun, 2015 02:02 pm
@Frank Apisa,
Frank Apisa wrote:
ACCORDING TO THE STORY...

...THEY DID NOT KNOW THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN GOOD AND BAD.

The knowledge was withheld from them by the god.

That is the point of the story...
Hmm.
They had already been declared 'good' (Genesis 1:31). If they had not eaten, they would always have been good. So the tree must have had some meaning you have yet to see.

You really are smart enough to see that, Frank. Just waiting for it to connect.
Frank Apisa
 
  0  
Reply Mon 29 Jun, 2015 02:23 pm
@neologist,
The story...obviously written by a not especially sharp human, rather than a god...TELLS US THAT THEY DID NOT KNOW THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN GOOD AND BAD.

Why have you blinded yourself to this?

The story and the tree do have meaning, Neo.

The story and the tree were parts of humans attempting to explain the human predicament...and making the god they assumed existed be without fault.

The story is asinine...a joke as a moral tale.

It stresses that the couple DID NOT KNOW RIGHT FROM WRONG...GOOD FROM EVIL.

IT STRESSES THAT.

And it stresses that the god did not want the couple to obtain that knowledge.

That is the point of forbidding them to gain it by eating of the fruit.

There was no need for the tree to be there...or for the prohibition. There was no need for the tempter. The only thing that was needed was an excuse for the god to put humans into the position they were in...to justify what humans were going through and make it the human's fault...not the god's.

It is a hugely defective story...that just happens to be one of the important building blocks of your religion.

Kick it out...and the entire structure falls.

So you cannot kick it out...you must defend it and rationalize it at all costs.'

Let it sink in.

It will eventually. The move to bring your proselytizing to the Internet...to this forum...was a rash one...one you should have avoided.

The seed has already been planted...and IT WILL GERMINATE. This pathetic story will finally show itself to you to be the joke it is...and the building block will be kicked aside.

I hope the day come soon when you can look back on what is happening...and be thankful for it.
neologist
 
  1  
Reply Mon 29 Jun, 2015 02:37 pm
@Frank Apisa,
Frank Apisa wrote:
There was no need for the tree to be there...or for the prohibition. . . .
It was there for them to demonstrate their free will acceptance of God's standards.

You'll get it, Frank. You have free will. I know you'll use it.

In the meantime, take another mulligan. I'll bet the course is baking.
Out here, everybody squawks when the mercury hits 80. Buncha sissies, I tellya.
InfraBlue
 
  1  
Reply Mon 29 Jun, 2015 02:50 pm
@neologist,
neo wrote:

neologist wrote:
Certainly, Jehovah could have zapped all the rebels right then and there; but would that have settled the issues?
You wrote:
Why wouldn't that have settled the issue?
Well, you would never have been born, for one thing. And angels, supposedly being smart, may have wondered if Satan was correct.

In regard to an omnipotent entity, so what?

neo wrote:
neologist wrote:
God's power was not challenged, only his standards and the integrity of his creation.
You wrote:
So, he decides to shut off his omniscience in order to indulge an inferior being
Free will existed before Eden as well as after

That doesn't address your take that God limits himself to indulge an inferior being.
neo wrote:
You wrote:
The story comes across as a trivial game.
Trivial?

Yeah, a trivial game vis-à-vis an omnipotent being.
neo wrote:
If a game, then dangerous if you refuse to learn the rules.

Rules? According to you I have free will. Given free will, there are no rules.
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

What if no religions are correct, but there still is a God? - Question by neologist
We are all like little children who often say: "Mom, Dad, leave me alone, I want to be on my own". - Question by Leaffan
How can we be sure that all religions are wrong? - Discussion by reasoning logic
Beyond tribalism; How well does your religious label serve you? - Discussion by MattDavis
Is religion responsible for the opposition to peace in the Israel-Palestine conflict? - Question by maxdancona
Concern for Religious Freedom or Preaching Political Messages? - Discussion by wandeljw
Why People Seek Solace In Gods. - Question by mark noble
Catholic remarried couples should abstain from sex - Question by Tes yeux noirs
How can a good God allow suffering - Question by SawyerMentink
Religion and Fear - Discussion by TomTomBinks
A question for athiests - Question by onevoice
 
  1. Forums
  2. » Would the World be Better off Without Religion?
  3. » Page 21
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.09 seconds on 12/23/2024 at 06:23:32
▲ ▼