Would the World be Better off Without Religion?

@InfraBlue,

God's 'amightiness' or power was never questioned; it doen't seem to make sense that anyone's free will could override it.

I'm not clear on the remainder of your post. All humans continue to have free will.

1 Reply

@neologist,

neologist wrote:

Perhaps you could audition for a role in God's advisory group

There is nothing to audition for. There isn't a god. It is purely built upon the human necessity to balance the uncertainty of existence. People demand justice and death itself is not enough so they invoke the existence of some deity who will bring balance and justice. Just look at the terminology, the judge. It is clear that this desire for balance is desperate that people will kid themselves and make stuff up just so they can feel better about their existence.

Even if I am wrong, and what you believe is true. Where god decides who get's eternal existence and the rest get put to death, I would be fine with accepting death. I wouldn't want to exist for ever. Nothing could appeal to me for eternity. You can only do so many things, so many times, before existence would become so mundane and boring that you would beg for non-existence.

It is the challenge in life, the struggle and the finitude of it that makes life have value and appeal. Sure people don't like to fail but if everything was just handed to you and everything you did was perfect without the need for practice and you could do everything as good as everyone else, life would be boring.

2 Replies

@Krumple,

Its quite easy to argue against the personal Abrahamic God, but not so easy to argue against an order in the structure, in information, that is not material. The unity in that order, the logos in the world, can itself be put forward in some sort of theistic naturalistic frame that brings a distinct idea of what sort of God people unconsciously long for although in an Antropomorphised and simplified way...Einstein's God or Spinoza's God are an example of what sort of example is not so easy to dismiss...unfortunately people never really comment on more sophisticated versions of theism because they don't need to. Most theists make it easy for them to stick with dismissing the easy problem of theism. Intellectual personal honesty makes the problem not so palatable to dismissal if one goes about thinking God in non classical ways.

2 Replies

@Fil Albuquerque,

Very well said, Fil.

I think that is one of the reasons many atheist prefer to argue only with theists...and want very much to shut others out of their discussions.

0 Replies

@Fil Albuquerque,

Fil Albuquerque wrote:

Its quite easy to argue against the personal Abrahamic God, but not so easy to argue against an order in the structure, in information, that is not material. The unity in that order, the logos in the world, can itself be put forward in some sort of theistic naturalistic frame that brings a distinct idea of what sort of God people unconsciously long for although in an Antropomorphised and simplified way...Einstein's God or Spinoza's God are an example of what sort of example is not so easy to dismiss...unfortunately people never really comment on more sophisticated versions of theism because they don't need to. Most theists make it easy for them to stick with dismissing the easy problem of theism. Intellectual personal honesty makes the problem not so palatable to dismissal if one goes about thinking God in non classical ways.

Although I'll agree that there is a difference between a theist version of their god and a deist who says they believe but have no idea what their god's traits are or if it even is concerned about anything. I know many claim Einstein was a deist but obviously he had preconceived notions of what or how his god would behave. He didn't like random chance occurrences in nature. This means he was more of a theist than honest deist. Regardless deist or theist I still think there is a motivation to invoke the idea of a god existing that is based on the uncertainty of existence in some degree.

1 Reply

@Krumple,

Krumple wrote:

Even if I am wrong, and what you believe is true. Where god decides who get's eternal existence and the rest get put to death, I would be fine with accepting death. I wouldn't want to exist for ever. Nothing could appeal to me for eternity. You can only do so many things, so many times, before existence would become so mundane and boring that you would beg for non-existence.

You might. I'd check out a few things first, After backpacking over the entire earth and learning the customs of all I met, (not to mention their local menus and libations) I'd continue my interest in technology. There is a universe full of possibilities. Then, after I had done all, I might decide to check out.

Nah. I'd check on my great great great great grandkids first to see how they're doing.

0 Replies

@Krumple,

I agree with Einstein. I hate randomness because it doesn't make sense. Random is just a word for we don't know. Think about it man...What can random possibly mean ? Where is the effective cause ? Random is like believing in Disney land...no sane person can ever believe randomness is true...a lot of scientists now rather speak about what is called pseudo randomness which is the same to admit they use randomness loosely...scrutinize the concept philosophically and pretty quickly you see it is nonsense.

2 Replies

@Fil Albuquerque,

“My position concerning God is that of an agnostic. I am convinced that a vivid consciousness of the primary importance of moral principles for the betterment and ennoblement of life does not need the idea of a law-giver, especially a law-giver who works on the basis of reward and punishment.”

Albert Einstein in a letter to M. Berkowitz, October 25, 1950; Einstein Archive 59-215; from Alice Calaprice, ed., The Expanded Quotable Einstein, Princeton, New Jersey: Princeton University Press, 2000, p. 216.

1 Reply

@Frank Apisa,

Yes Einstein's "God" was not an agent...roughly Einstein was a pantheist. He simply believed the world has pure order and is beautiful. He need nothing else to describe his "God"...

0 Replies

@neologist,

neo wrote:

God's 'amightiness' or power was never questioned; it doen't seem to make sense that anyone's free will could override it.

One thing is power, another thing is almightiness. Is your god almighty? If he isn't almighty then it's possible that anyone's free will could override it. If he is almighty then by definition omniscience is a part of his almightiness, and omniscience would negate humans' free will. You say it doesn't. Previously you've said that your god chooses not to know. Now your hedging on that explanation. How does your dogma explain the dilemma?

neo wrote:

I'm not clear on the remainder of your post.

Sorry, I didn't notice that the BBCode needed editing before it was too late.

InfraBlue wrote:

neo wrote:
The outcome of the 'wager' as you choose to describe it, was foretold, however, at Genesis 3:15, after the fact.

To be clear, the wager I'm referring to is the wager you talk about between God and Satan in which Satan challenges God over which humans will follow one or the other.

Genesis 3:15, "And I will put enmity between you and the woman, and between your offspring[a] and hers; he will crush your head, and you will strike his heel,” isn't a foretelling; it's an assertion of what God is going to do. Unless you're conflating "foretelling" with assertions of future actions.

neo wrote:
Do you use the term 'wager' as if there are some agreed upon terms, perhaps including some outcome favorable to Satan?

According to your dogma, the terms were the humans who would follow either Satan or God during Satans tenure as "God of the world." In a wager the outcome is favorable to the house. I could use "challange" if the word "wager" is problematic for you.

1 Reply

@Fil Albuquerque,

Fil Albuquerque wrote:

I agree with Einstein. I hate randomness because it doesn't make sense. Random is just a word for we don't know. Think about it man...What can random possibly mean ? Where is the effective cause ? Random is like believing in Disney land...no sane person can ever believe randomness is true...a lot of scientists now rather speak about what is called pseudo randomness which is the same to admit they use randomness loosely...scrutinize the concept philosophically and pretty quickly you see it is nonsense.

Well funny thing is, it might not even be random. So Einstein's objection could just be a mistaken view. But to play devils advocate for a minute. Randomness can be just a matter of perspective. Even random number generators are not true randomness. However if you stack them together you get closer to true randomness.

I have used this analogy before but what if you write a program that randomly selects two single digit numbers from 1 to 9 (pseudo-randomness) and then randomly pick either addition or subtraction (also pseudo-randomness) but complete the equation and you get closer to true randomness. Because the two numbers selected are chosen with a pseudo random process but the result of the algorithm becomes random. The more you stack this process the closer to true randomness you get. Also if you can combine more possible data sets the closer you get to true randomness.

With this concept in mind, it might be the case where nature is stacking pseudo randomness many times giving the impression of true randomness. It just means we are not aware of the small details that are happening.

Just my hypothesis anyways. But I agree with you, randomness is the monkey wrench in trying to understand reality.

1 Reply

@Krumple,

We agree in full. Randomness is dismissed complexity.

1 Reply

@Fil Albuquerque,

Would genuine randomness entail absolute spontaneity, an uncaused cause?

0 Replies

@InfraBlue,

neo wrote:

God's 'amightiness' or power was never questioned; it doen't seem to make sense that anyone's free will could override it.

InfraBlue wrote:

One thing is power, another thing is almightiness. Is your god almighty? If he isn't almighty then it's possible that anyone's free will could override it. If he is almighty then by definition omniscience is a part of his almightiness, and omniscience would negate humans' free will. You say it doesn't. Previously you've said that your god chooses not to know. Now your hedging on that explanation. How does your dogma explain the dilemma?

The dilemma is in your inclusion of the word 'omniscience', a word generally used to imply foreknowledge by necessity. Since God is under no necessity, the definition you claim is inappropriate.

Does it trouble you that our current world situation seems to permit unrestrained free will?

1 Reply

Without religion, we would be in a much worse state of being.

WILD WILD WEST.

0 Replies

@neologist,

neo wrote:

The dilemma is in your inclusion of the word 'omniscience', a word generally used to imply foreknowledge by necessity. Since God is under no necessity, the definition you claim is inappropriate.

So, how do you deal with the paradox that results from God's almightiness, which is how your religion describes God, and his lack of omniscience?

neo wrote:

Does it trouble you that our current world situation seems to permit unrestrained free will?

I don't think that "the current world situation seems to permit unrestrained free will."

2 Replies

@InfraBlue,

YOU DISLIKED my comment. AH HA. you've got to be brain dead.

WILD WILD WEST = Atheist world.

UNRESTRAINED free will = atheism. political corruptness, social inequality, neglectful relationships, arrogance, lying in sciences, doushbaggery, womanizing, rape etc..

AS far as Omnipotent. It is Arrogant not Ignorant to contribute negative effects to our world by Glorifying womanizing, or corruptness etc through atheistic perspectives. So God is not obligated to do more than what he has Already done by providing Guidance.
It is factually, scientific evidence that God's Guidance is Good every time someone sins, contributing to God right to commend himself and also Condemn those arrogant enough to support, promote and advocate the views and perspectives which enable Wicked behaviour: pro-atheism, or pro-adultery, pro-homosexuality, pro-social injustice etc..
for those things promote the abandonment, disrespect, neglect, abuse, mistreatment and inequality of all people being oppressed.

SO you demonstrate clear moronism by asking such a stupid question or suggesting that Apparent sin = paradox. It is arrogant not ignorant to be sinful. SO smarten the fawk up PLEASE. Apparent sin being scientificic evidence of it's own negative effects makes Sinners condemnable, and so those who deny the Word of God, the Light of the Word, Wisdom itself, are subject to unforgivable condemnation because they deserve it = they are retards.

1 Reply

@GorDie,

I am sorry to say but you don't have the vaguest clue on what a true picture of an actual God would look like.
By the way you would hate it to the bone.

God is not a person.
Not an agent.
Not a mind.
It doesn't have will.
It can't expand move grow shrink or change its nature.
There is nothing beyond completion. It doesn't move !

Also stick it in your head you DON'T DIVIDE REALITY in TWO !

There is no Creator and Creation dualism, there is REALITY !
Its timeless, perfect, done, and complete !

Omnipotent because all that is possible is in it.
Omniscient because it is a computation. (not because it thinks like you and me)
Omnipresent because time is an illusion !

A true picture of your "God" is more then you can chew...

1 Reply

@Fil Albuquerque,

Here let me help you with high stakes theology:

Omnipotent because all that is possible is in it. The father !
Omnipresent because time is an illusion ! The Son always with "us" !
Omniscient because it is a computation. (not because it thinks like you and me)
The Holly Ghost describing logos, the apparent process of reality unfolding within time perspective !

0 Replies

@argome321,

argome321 wrote:

Would the World be Better off Without Religion?

I think this is like asking if the world would be better off without Racism. And I think the answer is obviously, yes. Religion inevitably becomes a way to start being "racist" about a person's beliefs instead of their skin color. In that way Religion is like Racism for the Soul.

1 Reply

Would the World be Better off Without Religion?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know