# Reasons for belief and disbelief in God **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [January 28, 2006, 7:02am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/reasons-for-belief-and-disbelief-in-god/341964 "2006-01-28T07:02:59Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 12
**Author:** ![cosmosdan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/a6a055/32.png) [@cosmosdan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/cosmosdan)\ **Post date:** [February 1, 2006, 9:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/reasons-for-belief-and-disbelief-in-god/341964/221 "2006-02-01T21:48:14Z")
> [@Voyager](#): > > First of all, I’m sure it is not your point, and I actually worried that you would take my words somehow as an attack on you, which was not the case. You’re my favorite theist around here. 🙂 And I agree that we have or should have absolute personal authority over our own choices for our destiny. Salvation is just one part of this. Since none of us know what is best for our future spiritual life, if there is one, we should all have the absolute right to make our own moral choices on this, whether it involves nothing at all, or going to the desert, or going to Church each Sunday. Suffering, self-imposed, is included in this. Thomas More had a perfect right to wear his hair shirt. I agree 100%. We can share ideas and we can react to the actions of those around us but I hope we learn to have reverence for our own freedom to choose {reverence includes facing the consequences} and that of others as well. The “right” path has to be the one we choose as individuals based on our own sense of what is “true” > [@](#): > > The problem is when another person decides that he knows the answer, and for the long term good of you or me feels free to impose suffering upon us - or forced conversion, or any type of coercion. This person feels that we’ll thank him in the long run, but even if he is correct about the future, he is still morally wrong. Exactly. One of the important things to realize is that we truly do not know what is best for someone else. That doesn’t mean we don’t try to help or take a stand. That’s interaction and part of the process. It just means recognizing someone elses path may be far different from our own but just as valid. > [@](#): > > If he can prove his contention about a future life, we could have a debate on the moral justification of this, but faith don’t cut it. Absolute confidence in his view of a future life gives him, he thinks, absolute moral authority to force us to improve our chances in it. And of course we can’t prove that so we have no authority to try and impose moral or religious views on anyone else except as society and a system of laws demand. > [@](#): > > You have some opinions about spiritual life, and they give you absolute authority to live your life around them. They don’t give you any authority to make me live my life around them, and vice versa, of course. Correct. Moreover, I feel whatever the differences in our beliefs we can still honor what we have in common. If I strive to be kind because of my spiritual belief and you try to be kind because of a philosphical belief, we can still honor and respect the kindness we experience in each other rather than become contentious over the foundational belief that led to kindness. If I meet an incredibly honorable loving person why would I critisize that path that led them there? I wouldn’t. I would celebrate their virtues. > [@](#): > > If they have mental capacity to make the decision, they should be given the right to make it. That’s why I am in favor of assisted suicide, given the proper checks and balances. Yes that, but more than that. Because we have admited we cannot know what is best for someone else or force our path upon them where do we draw the line between relieving suffering and interfering with the consequences of their own choices? Would you say welfare, which was intended to help the less fortunate, has in some ways created a cycle of less fortunate? People who feel it is their right as citizens to be supported? Ever seen parents who don’t have the will to kick out their 30 year old child who lives in the basement? Finding that line isn’t easy. ---
**Author:** ![Voyager](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/voyager/32/133_2.png) [@Voyager](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Voyager)\ **Post date:** [February 1, 2006, 10:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/reasons-for-belief-and-disbelief-in-god/341964/222 "2006-02-01T22:43:41Z")
We’re in 100% agreement with the first part! > [@cosmosdan](#): > > Yes that, but more than that. Because we have admited we cannot know what is best for someone else or force our path upon them where do we draw the line between relieving suffering and interfering with the consequences of their own choices? Would you say welfare, which was intended to help the less fortunate, has in some ways created a cycle of less fortunate? People who feel it is their right as citizens to be supported? Ever seen parents who don’t have the will to kick out their 30 year old child who lives in the basement? > Finding that line isn’t easy. For welfare, studies (which I can look up) show that most welfare recipients drop in and out of it. I’ve never said that no suffering is required - just no unnecessary suffering. We, as fallible humans, may not hit this correctly. God, to get back to the main thread, can. But we need to provide alternatives for people in all cases. For welfare, we must provide jobs or training, so that those who want to get off welfare can. (And decent education, and a living wage so that those who are employed full time don’t need public assistance anyhow.) In days before welfare people starved. The Clinton adjustments worked well, but it is telling how the welfare rolls dropped when unemployment did. There are surely lazy bums around, but they are not in the majority. This is not to say that the welfare system is anywhere near optimal, of course. For a child, we need to provide an education, and to be a role model, and not be saps for 29 years to be cruel at year 30. (My kids are gone so I can be obnoxious on this subject.) My daughter’s old boyfriends parents not only support their stupid other kid (not quite 30) but his girlfriend too - or did until they had a fire and he’s stuck living in her house. ---
**Author:** ![mswas](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/e99b99/32.png) [@mswas](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/mswas)\ **Post date:** [February 1, 2006, 11:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/reasons-for-belief-and-disbelief-in-god/341964/223 "2006-02-01T23:48:01Z")
> [@SentientMeat](#): > > Utilitarianism is indeed my preferred moral framework and I’m glad you think it’s logically consistent, but it has very little to do with this thread. Oh but I disagree I think it has everything to do with this thread and your dismissal of God as an useful framework by which to understand the cosmos, even though clearly billions have found it useful for that very purpose. > [@](#): > > Of course. I didn’t deny this in my answer to the question “What happens after this life”, which I will now further clarify.We are the temporal arrangement of those atoms, specifically the unique collection of memories encoded into our neural computer. Just like a hard-drive which is copied completely into another hard drive (instantly, whereas ours is a _gradual_ process), those memories survive the replacement of the atoms whose arrangement encodes them. Even then, there may well be some atoms which remain in our brains for our entire lifetime since neurons are so long-lived as cells go. Fair enough, I agree with that estimation, but I don’t agree with limiting to that estimation. > [@](#): > > It is no longer a caterpillar, but a pupa. So yes, I suppose the caterpillar does ‘die’ in a way, but note that I will not waste time playing Write-Your-Own-Dictionary here. I am not playing WYOD, generally what I am trying to get across is that people like yourself and many others on this board eliminate whole sets of semantic interpretation from their lexicon thus diminishing the ability for people with different semantic frameworks to communicate effectively with you, and you assume that the output of their thoughts is the same as the output from eating simply because they have a very different semantic framework from your own, and this is what irritates people like Trust and myself so much. I am far from playing WYOD, I am discussing nuance for which the language you choose to use is not adequate. > [@](#): > > I don’t ignore them, I answer them as best I can. If you don’t like those answers or consider them evasive or non sequiturs, so be it. Fair enough. I generally do like your answers because there is a very clean crisp and precise understanding of what you are saying, and I can feel the understanding saturate my body, which I happen to think with. The brain is merely the routing system that connects sensory perception, and is just one part of a whole conscious matrix that I call my ‘self’. > [@](#): > > If I decribe the physical mechanism and thereby yield observable consequences with which to _test_ the hypotheses, I have a [scientific explanation](http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/scientific-explanation/) for those “metaphysical” entities. Again, call them and their “inherent nature” whatever you like. Fair enough. > [@](#): > > And as I’ve said before, it is light with a wavelength of between 630-760 nm, which excites photosensitive cells in the retina causing an action potential to propagate a signal via the optic nerve, chiasm and tract and the lateral geniculate nucleus to the visual cortex whose activity in “cross-filing” the signal with the linguistic label comprising the sound ‘r-e-d’ (or shapes ‘r’ ‘e’ and ‘d’) **is** our perception of red. > > The outputs of your vocal tract **label** the property of comprising wavelengths 630-760 nm just like files in your home computer might be labelled “red”. > Yes, like I said: in our _memories_, which are labelled by linguistic tags. > > A unique set of memories. Say that the unique set of memories leaves an imprint upon time-space, sort of like ripples in a pond so to speak. Is that not the self? If those unique sets of memories continue to influence the further Genesis of the species is not that unique set of memories then still ‘alive’? > [@](#): > > Access to those memories despite our brain cells having undergone irreversible necrosis such that the organ can no longer function.[ > > By asking dead bodies how they’re feeling, and examining claimed instances of consciousness during brain inactivity and finding that they are extremely flimsy in terms of scientific evidence. When a Caterpillar comes out of it’s Pupa and leaves the shell of the cocoon behind as a butterfly, is it still the same “self”? If the necrotic cells of the discarded cocoon would not interact with you would you determine that the creature was dead? > [@](#): > > I’ve heard of “thinking with your dick”, but that strikes me merely as a metaphor. > The photons incident on my retina having been emitted by an obeject do not make the object _part of me_, any more than sunbathing makes me a class II stellar object. No one is saying that a dick is a brain so your comparison doesn’t follow. What I am saying is that thought involves the entire being and not just the brain, so if your genitalia are part of the motivating factor for a certain action, then you are in essence “Thinking with your dick”, as they are both part of a whole system, and were you to lose your dick, your experience here on Earth would be quite different, and you would probably think very different thoughts than you would think if you still had your dick. > [@](#): > > Eating food isn’t thinking, although for some the outputs are similar. > Where are the signals from those organs _being sent_? If I chop off the receiving organ at the neck, can the body still be said to be “conscious”? Again, note that I’ve no interest in playing WYOD with you. I’ll set out my position, you say what you like about it. The brain alone is equally useless without any sensory apparatus as the sensory apparatus is without the brain. You would not survive without a heart or lungs either. > [@](#): > > I’ll say “because your feet are permanently in communication with the memory-apparatus, while the ground isn’t.” Heck, why do we even use language to arbitrarily distinguish one thing from another _at all_? Without such distinctions, “you” are not even distinct from “me”, and so I’m currently _talking to myself_. It sure feels like it sometimes. Ok, so the self is that which is constantly in communication with the memory-apparatus. However, the person is part of a the whole system that is the Earth, and so the Earth is in constant contact with the sensory apparatus, it’s merely a matter of the way the matter is ordered to determine the hierarchy of that connection. Maybe it feels like you are talking to yourself, but that’s part of the essence of what God is, we are all one, we are all part of the same system. We are part of a superset self, from our bodies to our nations to our world, to our solar system to our galaxy and on and on. As I said I find your perception of the situation to be logically consistent, I just feel like you are eliminating a whole range of sets by your rigid adherence to a particular semantic interpretation. Rigidly adhering to meanings of words while useful in maintaining a common language by which to communicate, also can limit the ability to communicate when there becomes a conflict in the way that people interpret the words. Unfortunately the only way we have found to expedite the function is for a conflict to arise and one particular cultural meme to win out over the other rather than both sides coming to understand the other’s side without crushing their own semantic interpretation of it. This is how words can become an impediment to understanding even though they are so vital to communication. Erek ---
**Author:** ![Wesley\_Clark](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/wesley_clark/32/20581_2.png) [@Wesley\_Clark](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Wesley_Clark)\ **Post date:** [February 2, 2006, 12:01am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/reasons-for-belief-and-disbelief-in-god/341964/224 "2006-02-02T00:01:49Z")
The problem with suffering is that as we understand more and more about neurology we will find ways to eliminate or greatly reduce emotional suffering. We will not only work to eliminate the negative events that create suffering (disease, torture, mental illness, etc), we will also find ways to contain and control emotional pain so even an event that should cause suffering does not. Two hundred years ago surgery was rare in part because of the pain it caused, now we have anaesthesia. Right now its been found that beta blockers can cut down on the rates of PTSD, we have tons of drugs for depression and anxiety, etc. 300 years ago physical pain was a taken for granted part of life. Now it is reasonably rare in the developed world, at least compared to what it was like hundreds of years ago. The arguments of God and suffering really don’t make sense to me as it is only a matter of time before we understand enough about suffering and the mind to fight it off. What of god then? If this is all part of gods plan then we aren’t going to go along with it, and good for us. ---
**Author:** ![Trust](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/b38774/32.png) [@Trust](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Trust)\ **Post date:** [February 2, 2006, 1:59am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/reasons-for-belief-and-disbelief-in-god/341964/225 "2006-02-02T01:59:45Z")
> [@Diogenes the Cynic](#): > > Any “purpose” that God can accomplish by allowing evil to exist he can also accomplish _without_ allowing evil to exist. It is logically impossible for an omnipotent God to require _any_ mechanism to accomplish his purposes. All he has to do is blink… He could blink. Noone is saying that he could not. What we are saying is that he cannot blink and still give us free will and the ability to learn what he values as bad and good. Otherwise we have no possible way of discerning what is good and bad. > [@Diogenes the Cynic](#): > > Alos, you’re still really missing the boat on the Free Will argument. Free will is impossible. Choices are either caused by something inherent (which means they’re not free) or they are random. . If you do not understand the mechanism for something, does that necessarily mean that it is impossible? I will argue with you on this point as long as you see fit. > [@Diogenes the Cynic](#): > > It is logically impossible for an omnipotent God to require anything in order to save people… Noone is saying that it is required. If you take into account free will and being just to His people, then that is what He chose. > [@Diogenes the Cynic](#): > > What’s unjust about this? Why do people have to be punished? Does all punishment have to be equal and eternal? Is it just to give a pickpocet the same punishment as Pol Pot?. For God to be just to His people. > [@Diogenes the Cynic](#): > > How is it UNjust to let everybody into Heaven? Who is hurt by that?. You are assuming that all people do not go to heaven. > [@Diogenes the Cynic](#): > > Why does God create bad people if he doesn’t have to?. Because he chooses to value every human being. What kind of a question is this. Do you think I am God? Do you think he is just gonna make a cutoff line? > [@Diogenes the Cynic](#): > > I don’t see why this would be a bad thing. What’s unjust about everybody dying? Why is that a bad thing?. Nothing is unjust about it. It goes against the premise that God cares about his people. > [@Diogenes the Cynic](#): > > See, now this is insane. How does killing an innocent person punish bad people? What does God get out of a sacrifice? What can God do with a human sacrifice that he can’t do _without_ a human sacrifice?. It doesnt punish bad people. It takes away the punishment. > [@Diogenes the Cynic](#): > > It’s not a question of being “allowed” to, it’s a question of _necesity_. It is logically impossible for a human sacrifice to be _necessary_ in order for an omnipotent God to be able to forgive people. Moreover, the crucifixion is manifestly unjust not only for the victim but also because it (somehow) allows evil people to get off the hook with no punishment… It is necessary provided you believe all the other premises I believe in. > [@Diogenes the Cynic](#): > > Cite?. A cite that noone has ever been perfect besides Christ? …Thats gonna be easy to find…You really got me. I cant prove that there has ever been someone that has been perfect. What a mind blowing concept. > [@Diogenes the Cynic](#): > > Does good and evil mean something different to God than to humans? Are you saying that Hitler might really be “good” by God’s definition?. I am saying that we cannot decipher what is good and bad like God can. We do not know all of the variables. > [@Diogenes the Cynic](#): > > Do people know right from wrong o don’t they? If they do, then they can recognize evil when they see it, if not then free will is (even more of) a joke… How so? > [@Diogenes the Cynic](#): > > A mechanism for what? I don’t know what you’re getting at here. The existence of ANY inherent mechanism behind human choices makes free will logically impossible. . No. The lack of a mechanism means that we do not know one way or the other. It could be, it might not be. > [@Diogenes the Cynic](#): > > Anyone can make up a story. That’s neither here nor there. The problem is that your God has not bothered to give anybody any way to know that this story is TRUE… Do you usually bring this many opinions into conversations? > [@Diogenes the Cynic](#): > > Um…no, dude. That’s not evidence. If we were talking about Quetzalcoatl would that be evidence that the Qutzalcoatl myth was true?. You see, we have writings of how Jesus lived his life. That is evidence. If a person witnesses a crime and gives a statement of the crime, is that evidence? Your opinion on the matter is irrelevant. > [@Diogenes the Cynic](#): > > This is just silly. I can make up any myth I want containing “concepts” and “expectations.” That’s completely meaningless. Your religion is one among thousands and all of them have the exact same amount of evidence. In what way is it possible to know that your own myth is the true one without a purely random guess (and even then, you don’t know, you just happened to make a correct random guess). . You really like giving opinions. If you used logic, you would realize your opinion means nothing in evaluating logical arguments. The logic is what matters. Not the plausability. > [@Diogenes the Cynic](#): > > This is just silly. It’s already been pointed out to you that _ad populum_ arguments are fallacious. When it comes to religious culture, the vast majority of people never bother to critically examine their own religious beliefs and even the ones that do simply choose to find ways to avoid or rationalize uncomfortable questions. Logical method has very little to do with religious assumptions… If you actual read what I had to say, then you would realize that I was saying that the odds very small that it is as easy as saying A does not imply B. Whether you continue to take what I say in the way you want to take it is your baggage. > [@Diogenes the Cynic](#): > > No, it isn’t the same. The problems I’ve pointed out with Christian doctrine are not about incompatibility with physical evidence (although those problems exist as well) but about logically conflicting _premises_. . You do not know how a logical argument works my friend. Why is it that SentientMeat understands that I will always be able to have a valid argument. Yet you try so hard to disprove the unproveable? Don’t you see the irony in that. Here is some logic for you to try: Is it logically possible to prove the unprovable? I am completely confident that you are incapable of admitting that you are wrong. You do have one thing in common with the religious extremists. Your way is the only way. You try so hard to get away from that type of thinking. Yet you are the one giving it. > [@Diogenes the Cynic](#): > > It is logically impossible for ANYTHING to be “necessary” for an omnipotent God. Noone is disagreeing with this statement. Nothing is necessary. It is optional and that option has been chosen. Hence the reason we are talking right now. ---
**Author:** ![aurelian](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/f4b2a3/32.png) [@aurelian](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/aurelian)\ **Post date:** [February 2, 2006, 2:30am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/reasons-for-belief-and-disbelief-in-god/341964/226 "2006-02-02T02:30:06Z")
> [@Trust](#): > > You see, we have writings of how Jesus lived his life. That is evidence. If a person witnesses a crime and gives a statement of the crime, is that evidence? Your opinion on the matter is irrelevant. Wow, all you need is to have something written down, that’s preferably old? All hail Quetzalcoatl! What’s that quote… “I contend we are both atheists, I just believe in one fewer god than you do. When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods, you will understand why I dismiss yours.” (Stephen F Roberts) ---
**Author:** ![crowmanyclouds](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/crowmanyclouds/32/19884_2.png) [@crowmanyclouds](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/crowmanyclouds)\ **Post date:** [February 2, 2006, 2:31am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/reasons-for-belief-and-disbelief-in-god/341964/227 "2006-02-02T02:31:54Z")
> [@cosmosdan](#): > > …There are many parallels in what Buddha taught and what Jesus taught… Agreed, but the teachings of Jesus are not the religion. Buddhists worship Satan and are going to hell if they don’t accept Jesus as their Lord and Savior™ (that’s Christian teaching too). ---
**Author:** ![Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e99b99/32.png) [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Diogenes_the_Cynic)\ **Post date:** [February 2, 2006, 4:32am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/reasons-for-belief-and-disbelief-in-god/341964/228 "2006-02-02T04:32:16Z")
> [@Trust](#): > > He could blink. Noone is saying that he could not. What we are saying is that he cannot blink and still give us free will and the ability to learn what he values as bad and good. Otherwise we have no possible way of discerning what is good and bad. Sure he can. He’s omnipotent. He can do anything he wants. If he can’t accomplish his goals without evil then he’s not omnipotent. If he can but chooses not to, he’s not good. It’s quite simple to grasp, this “Problem of Evil,” an no one has ever solved it. If you imagine that you have it figured out then you don’t understand it. > [@](#): > > If you do not understand the mechanism for something, does that necessarily mean that it is impossible? I will argue with you on this point as long as you see fit. The mechanism doesn’t have to be understood. The fact that any innate mechanism exists _at all_ renders free will incoherent. I really do think you’re having quite a bit of trouble understanding this. I’ll try again. In order to choose evil, one must already BE evil. In order to choose good, one must already BE good. Choices are EFFECTS, not causes. Are you following? Something has to CAUSE the choice? Whatever causes the choice is either innate (we’re born with it) or somehow implanted after birth (the old “nature or nurture” conundrum). If the former is true (if we’re born good or evil) then our choices are just a manifestation of how we were born. There is nothing “free” about them, and there is neither any personal virtue or any personal culpability in making them. In effect, we are programmed. If the “cause” is implanted or “programmed” after birth, then the same problems apply. We have no choice about how we are nurtured (“programmed”) after birth, so any choices which result from that programming are not freely made and we still can’t be morally credited or blamed for them. Are you still with me on this? Do you understand it now? Can you explain to me how it is logically possible to make a moral choice without a preceding cause? Please don’t just say it’s a “mechanism.” That’ is not a logical solution to the problem. > [@](#): > > Noone is saying that it is required. If you take into account free will and being just to His people, then that is what He chose. Free will is impossible. you still haven’t explained how it’s unjust simply to forgive everybody and you still don’t get it that an omnipotent God never needs a _method_ to accomplish his will. If he requires a method- ANY method, then he’s not omnipotent. If he voluntarily chooses a method which causes or allows suffering, then he’s not good because he can just as easily choose a method which does NOT cause or allow suffering, or he could skip the method altogether and go straight to the end zone. > [@](#): > > > [@Diogenes the Cynic](#): > > > > What’s unjust about this? Why do people have to be punished? Does all punishment have to be equal and eternal? Is it just to give a pickpocet the same punishment as Pol Pot?. > > For God to be just to His people. This is so terse as to border on a _non-sequitur_. I’m guessing you’re simply answering the question “why do people have to be punished?” I think your answer is a little circular so let me ask it a different way: Why does justice require punishment? I’d also like an answer to the question of whether all people deserve the SAME punishment. Does a pickpocket deserve the same punishment as Pol Pot, yes or no? > [@](#): > > > [@Diogenes the Cynic](#): > > > > How is it UNjust to let everybody into Heaven? Who is hurt by that?. > > You are assuming that all people do not go to heaven. I’m not assuming anything, I was responding to your own assertion that God could not let everybody “live” and still be just. I’m asking why not? > [@](#): > > > [@Diogenes the Cynic](#): > > > > Why does God create bad people if he doesn’t have to?. > > Because he chooses to value every human being. What kind of a question is this. Do you think I am God? Do you think he is just gonna make a cutoff line? How does it devalue human beings to refrain from creating evil ones? What do you mean by a “cutoff line?” It sounds to me like you have some conception of human beings preexisting their own creation - like you see a bunch of uncreated humans in waiting and that it would be unfair to the evil ones to keep them sitting on the bench. If you think about this for a second, you’ll see how silly it is. If God doesn’t create them then they never existed. If they never existed then there is nothing to value or devalue. Even if you think that souls preexist their bodies, God still had to create the souls and was still free not to. Are you starting to understand this? God can’t be unfair to people he never created. > [@](#): > > > [@Diogenes the Cynic](#): > > > > I don’t see why this would be a bad thing. What’s unjust about everybody dying? Why is that a bad thing?. > > Nothing is unjust about it. It goes against the premise that God cares about his people. How so? > [@](#): > > > [@Diogenes the Cynic](#): > > > > See, now this is insane. How does killing an innocent person punish bad people? What does God get out of a sacrifice? What can God do with a human sacrifice that he can’t do without a human sacrifice?. > > It doesnt punish bad people. It takes away the punishment. That’s exeactly my point. You say on the one hand that bad people need to be punished and then on the other hand that the murder of a 1st century Jewish wisdom teacher “Takes that punishment away.” How? If God can take away the need for punishment after a human sacrifice, why can’t he do it WITHOUT a human sacrifice? How did the death of Jesus make it ok for Jefferey Dahmer to kill and eat people without any punishment? > [@](#): > > > [@Diogenes the Cynic](#): > > > > It’s not a question of being “allowed” to, it’s a question of necesity. It is logically impossible for a human sacrifice to be necessary in order for an omnipotent God to be able to forgive people. Moreover, the crucifixion is manifestly unjust not only for the victim but also because it (somehow) allows evil people to get off the hook with no punishment… > > It is necessary provided you believe all the other premises I believe in. The assertion that God would ever require a human sacrifice is logically INCOMPATIBLE with your other premises. > [@](#): > > A cite that noone has ever been perfect besides Christ? …Thats gonna be easy to find…You really got me. I cant prove that there has ever been someone that has been perfect. What a mind blowing concept. What I asked for was a cite for your assertion that all people _cause suffering_, not that all people are “perfect.” I don’t even know what the adjective “perfect” is supposed to mean with regards to human beings, but I definitely would take issue with any proposition that people are inherently evil or that all of them cause suffering. My children don’t. My wife doesn’t. > [@](#): > > I am saying that we cannot decipher what is good and bad like God can. We do not know all of the variables. Interesting. The Bible says that people DO know right from wrong. Is the Bible lying? If humans can’t tell right from wrong then how can they be held responsible for their choices? > [@](#): > > > [@Diogenes the Cynic](#): > > > > Anyone can make up a story. That’s neither here nor there. The problem is that your God has not bothered to give anybody any way to know that this story is TRUE… > > Do you usually bring this many opinions into conversations? The above is not an opinion but a factual observation. If you wish to dispute my assertion that we have no way to know that Christianity is true, please point out the evidence and shut me up. > [@](#): > > You see, we have writings of how Jesus lived his life. we have writings of how Quetzalcoatl lived his life. We have writings of how Krishna and Buddha and Mohammed lived their lives. So what? > [@](#): > > That is evidence. No it isn’t. > [@](#): > > If a person witnesses a crime and gives a statement of the crime, is that evidence? Your opinion on the matter is irrelevant. 1.There is no eyewitness testimony of Jesus 2. Eyewitness testimony is notoriously unreliable. > [@](#): > > > [@Diogenes the Cynic](#): > > > > This is just silly. I can make up any myth I want containing “concepts” and “expectations.” That’s completely meaningless. Your religion is one among thousands and all of them have the exact same amount of evidence. In what way is it possible to know that your own myth is the true one without a purely random guess (and even then, you don’t know, you just happened to make a correct random guess). > > You really like giving opinions. If you used logic, you would realize your opinion means nothing in evaluating logical arguments. The logic is what matters. Not the plausability. [Sigh]…Nothing in my above statement is an opinion. All I dd was ask you a question? Can you answer it? ---
**Author:** ![Der\_Trihs](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/der_trihs/32/233_2.png) [@Der\_Trihs](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Der_Trihs)\ **Post date:** [February 2, 2006, 9:15am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/reasons-for-belief-and-disbelief-in-god/341964/229 "2006-02-02T09:15:20Z")
> [@cosmosdan](#): > > WAKE UP! It’s about perspective. Yes YES! I keep assuming because it is a hypothetical discussion in which evidence is not a requirement. At least take a stab at staying relevent. Ahem. “_Reasons_ for belief and disbelief in God.” Yes, evidence _is_ relevant. > [@cosmosdan](#): > > [hypothetical](http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/hypothetical) It’s a good thing someone else thought of the inquisition thing for you. Sure came in handy for your inevitable religion bashing. I’m asking you to back off the borderline personal insults. You can ridicule my arguement if you like but I find that a feeble excuse for a reasoned arguement. The Inquisition thought of it first; the idea that an infinite afterlife make the present life unimportant is an old and evil idea. It wasn’t an idle comparison. Your statement wasn’t a hypothetical, it was a false analogy. > [@cosmosdan](#): > > Do you deny that much of mankind’s suffering is a result of man’s own choice? I asked you if there was any more you or I or almost anyone could do to relieve some of the suffering? Answer the question. Of course, and it’s irrelevant. If you cut off my skin and hand me some morphine, I can allevate my pain; that doesn’t make it any less your fault. If the universe was made by a god, _everything_ wrong about it is his fault. ---
**Author:** ![SentientMeat](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/43a26b/32.png) [@SentientMeat](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SentientMeat)\ **Post date:** [February 2, 2006, 11:07am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/reasons-for-belief-and-disbelief-in-god/341964/230 "2006-02-02T11:07:35Z")
> [@mswas](#): > > Oh but I disagree I think it [utilitarianism] has everything to do with this thread Are you sure you understand the difference between [physicalism](http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/physicalism/), which this thread _is_ about, and [utilitarianism](http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/consequentialism/), which this thread is _not_ about? > [@](#): > > and your dismissal of God as an useful framework by which to understand the cosmos, even though clearly billions have found it useful for that very purpose. [Argument ad populum](http://www.infidels.org/news/atheism/logic.html#populum). > [@](#): > > Fair enough, I agree with that estimation, but I don’t agree with limiting to that estimation. Then you and I differ in the importance we attach to Ockham’s principle of parsimony. > [@](#): > > assume that the output of their thoughts is the same as the output from eating simply because they have a very different semantic framework from your own, and this is what irritates people like Trust and myself so much. If you use words in ways I simply _do not accept_, like God = existence, universe, consciousness or whatever, there is little more I can do than tell you so and leave it at that. I care little what you think of _my_ (largely standard) dictionary, so I’m puzzled as to why you get so irritated when others don’t think much of _your_ highly personal one. Tomato, tomahto and all that. > [@](#): > > I am far from playing WYOD, I am discussing nuance for which the language you choose to use is not adequate. Then go ahead and keep using your peculiar language of **mswas** -_ese_, but don’t be surprised if people keep telling you time and again that **it** is the very thing which inhibits effective communication. > [@](#): > > Say that the unique set of memories leaves an imprint upon time-space, sort of like ripples in a pond so to speak . The unique set of memories is encoded in the neural structure, itself housed in the human body. I assume that by “imprint upon time-space” you mean some _effect_ that a person has after their arrangement disintegrates (death), such as memories of that person in other people’s neural structures, or a posthumously published book. > [@](#): > > Is that not the self? If those unique sets of memories continue to influence the further Genesis of the species is not that unique set of memories then still ‘alive’? No, anymore than the footprint **is** the shoe. Those unique memories themselves are **no longer accessible**. The only accessible memories are of the _housing those memories resided in_. When I die, nobody will access **my** memories, only memories **of my housing** (whose actions were caused by those memories together with sensory inputs, innate cognitive modules, and perhaps some random element). > [@](#): > > When a Caterpillar comes out of it’s Pupa and leaves the shell of the cocoon behind as a butterfly, is it still the same “self”? The self changes continually: new memories are stored and others become lost. Insofar as caterpillars possess neural memory in order to have a ‘self’, the same would presumably apply (though on a far simpler level). Of course, what I think you’re _really_ asking is how we justify calling one thing a caterpillar and another thing a pupa, or a butterfly. And the answer is: because that is _what human language **is** _ - a means to arbitrate or distinguish entities. > [@](#): > > If the necrotic cells of the discarded cocoon would not interact with you would you determine that the creature was dead? If they had no interaction with them at all, I couldn’t determine _anything_ about them - that is what science is _about_. > [@](#): > > were you to lose your dick, your experience here on Earth would be quite different, and you would probably think very different thoughts than you would think if you still had your dick. When attached, the memory-apparatus permanently receives signals from it (flat “monitoring” signals, usually), and thus can be said to be “part of me”. When removed, no signals are sent and it isn’t. So what? > [@](#): > > The brain alone is equally useless without any sensory apparatus as the sensory apparatus is without the brain. You would not survive without a heart or lungs either. Actually, the brain has sensory apparatus _within_ it (ever had a headache?), and the processing in the retina leads most neuroanatomists to consider the retina to be part of the brain. So the brain might well be useless without sensory apparatus, but luckily it has plenty such apparatus built in. You heart/lungs point is a non sequitur: I wouldn’t survive in a vacuum, but Earth’s atmosphere is not part of me, either. The heart and lungs are part of me if, yet again, they are in permanent communication with the brain. > [@](#): > > and so the Earth is in constant contact with the sensory apparatus But it isn’t. Whenever I lie down, jump or board any vehicle I break my connection. In any case, lumping all sensory input together as “the Earth” does not change the fact that it is still sensory **input**. > [@](#): > > We are part of a superset self, from our bodies to our nations to our world, to our solar system to our galaxy and on and on. I repeat: Like, whatever. > [@](#): > > I just feel like you are eliminating a whole range of sets by your rigid adherence to a particular semantic interpretation. And I just feel that your questions and critiques have absolutely no substance and are mere picayune wordplay. Seriously, I know the weak points in my own argument and I’d be overjoyed if you were to find them and debate them. But you’re not even close, instead preferring to continually berate me for not accepting your bungee-jump stretches of perfectly plain language. > [@](#): > > Unfortunately the only way we have found to expedite the function is for a conflict to arise and one particular cultural meme to win out over the other And fora like these are where the battle joins. You try to spread your meme, I try to spread mine, and the winner is the meme which transfers to the most new hosts, _ie._ whoever is most **convincing**. **mswas** , I strongly suggest you _read some books_ on cognitive science and philosophy of the mind and come back when we can have a far more worthwhile conversation. “Consciousness explained” (Dennett) and “How the Mind Works” (Pinker) to start, then a must-read for you is “The Mind Does Not Work Like That” (Fodor), specifically abduction and modularity. I keep telling you that my position has all kinds of interesting gaps, but instead you prefer to continually bash your head against its strongest bulwarks. I would genuinely be _happy_ for you to find those gaps and have me on the ropes. This is just so _boring_. ---
**Author:** ![crowmanyclouds](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/crowmanyclouds/32/19884_2.png) [@crowmanyclouds](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/crowmanyclouds)\ **Post date:** [February 2, 2006, 1:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/reasons-for-belief-and-disbelief-in-god/341964/231 "2006-02-02T13:33:41Z")
> [@Trust](#): > > Your obvious distaste for God is not _necessarily_ invalid… On what grounds do you claim that I have an “obvious distaste for God”? (I’ll address God below.) > [@Trust](#): > > …However, you are attempting to understand things based on your limited knowledge… As are you. Is there any other way? > [@Trust](#): > > …Of coarse I have to make judgment calls on other religions. If I didn’t, then I would never be able to decide on what I believe… Then why say,[ > [@Trust](#): > > …I am not going to make judgment calls on other peoples religions… ]([http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=7047346&postcount=60](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=7047346&postcount=60)) call me 😕 > [@Trust](#): > > …When I say modern day religions I am referring to, Christianity, Buddhism, Islam, Hinduism and a few others. When I said modern day, I meant the common modern day religions. Not the I guess, “new age” religions or something close to that… So we’re not talking the age of any given religion, just whether said religion is being currently practiced? If so, it’s more than a few others,[ > [@](#): > > The Classical World Religions List > Baha’i > Buddhism > Christianity > Confucianism > Hinduism > Islam > Jainism > Judaism > Shinto > Sikhism > Taoism > Zoroastrianism ]([http://www.adherents.com/Religions\_By\_Adherents.html#Classical](http://www.adherents.com/Religions_By_Adherents.html#Classical)) Do all of the above meet your “common modern day religions” criteria? Just to emphasize,[ > [@](#): > > ``` > Major Religions of the World > > ``` > > Ranked by Number of Adherents > > 1. Christianity: 2.1 billion > 2. Islam: 1.3 billion > 3. Secular/Nonreligious/Agnostic/Atheist: 1.1 billion > 4. Hinduism: 900 million > 5. Chinese traditional religion: 394 million > 6. Buddhism: 376 million > 7. primal-indigenous: 300 million > 8. African Traditional & Diasporic: 100 million > 9. Sikhism: 23 million > 10. Juche: 19 million > 11. Spiritism: 15 million > 12. Judaism: 14 million > 13. Baha’i: 7 million > 14. Jainism: 4.2 million > 15. Shinto: 4 million > 16. Cao Dai: 4 million > 17. Zoroastrianism: 2.6 million > 18. Tenrikyo: 2 million > 19. Neo-Paganism: 1 million > 20. Unitarian-Universalism: 800 thousand > 21. Rastafarianism: 600 thousand > 22. Scientology: 500 thousand ]([http://www.adherents.com/Religions\_By\_Adherents.html](http://www.adherents.com/Religions_By_Adherents.html)) “I do not know enough about other religions, but from what I have seen they do not seem that different from Christianity.” “All of the modern day religions are similar to Christianity.” That’s quite a leap of faith ya got there. > [@Trust](#): > > …Non-modern day religions that worshipped false idols are for example, the religions that worshipped the sun gods and the moon gods etc. According to our present knowledge, this is not a very likely (to say the least) possibility. There is a reason when you look up at the sky, there is nothing to worship falsely imo… You do understand that most (if not all) solar/lunar religions do not actually worship the sun/moon, but see them as physical manifestations of god, and not god itself? I don’t think you really addressed my question though, “Why is it obvious that non-modern day religions worship false idols?” Given your apparent definition, Non-modern day religion = not currently practiced, was the [Assyro-Babylonian religion](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mesopotamian_religion) a “real” religion, or did they worship obvious false idols? > [@Trust](#): > > All of the modern day religions are similar to Christianity. Buddhism seems very similar to Christianity. When you look at the specifics, they start to differ widely. If I ignore the specifics my cat and my car are very similar. The Devil is in the details! Now about “God”. This thread’s OP is a bit disingenuous, it’s not about god, it’s about God™(ya know Jesus’s Dad). This confusion is clear in the first few posts, #4 **aurelian** “…Do you really believe that these are representative reasons for why people choose to believe in a god?..”,"…In terms of Christianity…" #8 **Wesley Clark** “there are endless definitions of God and so many attributes that it is impossible to know what is true or not. Who is to say that the Judeo Christian creator god is anymore or less real than the Greek Apollo Gods or the Hindu Gods?”. And since you ( **Trust** ) accuse **glee** of “trying to bring down my character”,“discrimination”, and “group{ing} all “believers” into one category” for simply asking “Your entire Church used to believe the Earth was the centre of the Universe. Do you agree they were all wrong? There is a thriving Christian belief that the World is 6000 years old. Do you agree?”. IMHO it seems clear that we’re not even talking about God™ we’re talking about **Trust** ’s version of God™. It’s my experience that “believers” take great offense when you dismiss their beliefs, but it pales compared to my offense, when they dismiss the beliefs of others. “…When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods, you will understand why I dismiss yours.” [Stephen F Roberts](http://freelink.wildlink.com/quote_history.htm) ---
**Author:** ![cosmosdan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/a6a055/32.png) [@cosmosdan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/cosmosdan)\ **Post date:** [February 2, 2006, 1:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/reasons-for-belief-and-disbelief-in-god/341964/232 "2006-02-02T13:45:08Z")
> [@Der Trihs](#): > > Ahem. “_Reasons_ for belief and disbelief in God.” Yes, evidence _is_ relevant. Nice try but still wrong. I was responding to an arguement that \*\*Voyager \*\* put forth that was clearly hypothetical and you know it. I had already dealt with my belief because of subjective evidence and acknowledged that it was useless in regard to convincing others in a post directly to you. You were responding to my hypothetical arguement not the original post. You made a mistake. My experience with you is that you won’t admit it until you’ve wasted numerous posts trying to dodge the issue. Why don’t you surprise me. > [@](#): > > The Inquisition thought of it first; the idea that an infinite afterlife make the present life unimportant is an old and evil idea. It wasn’t an idle comparison. > > Your statement wasn’t a hypothetical, it was a false analogy. Here at least is an actual arguement instead of just venom. I\* never\* said that an infinite afterlife makes this life unimportent.\*\* Voyager\*\* already asked that {rather than assume it} and I answered quite clearly. My point was that if we are timeless spiritual beings the perspective on suffering changes. It is completely possible to revere each life as precious and still see suffering in a different light. It was an analogy that was part of the same hypothetical arguement. What _exactly_ made it a false analogy? > [@](#): > > Of course, and it’s irrelevant. If you cut off my skin and hand me some morphine, I can allevate my pain; that doesn’t make it any less your fault. If the universe was made by a god, _everything_ wrong about it is his fault. As simplistic as this is, if you add that popular belief puts God still in charge of the universe he created, I see it as a valid arguement. Again, better than just venom and insults. If you give someone a precious gift and allow them some time to see what they will do with it , whose fault is it when they screw up? For the record, I don’t hold the traditional view that God created the universe and is reigning over it. I sometimes use the language to participate in a discussion. I know you are very capable of a rational arguement but when revert you expressing your disdain for belief in general and organized religion in particular in hateful language I have no interest in communicating with you. I realize you have ne reason to care about that but you insist on coming into spiritual and religious oriented threads. Why waste your time and everybody elses simply regurgitating the same old useless spite, when you are capable of more reasoned communication? ---
**Author:** ![cosmosdan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/a6a055/32.png) [@cosmosdan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/cosmosdan)\ **Post date:** [February 2, 2006, 2:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/reasons-for-belief-and-disbelief-in-god/341964/233 "2006-02-02T14:01:14Z")
> [@crowmanyclouds](#): > > Agreed, but the teachings of Jesus are not the religion. > Buddhists worship Satan and are going to hell if they don’t accept Jesus as their Lord and Savior™ (that’s Christian teaching too). You are quite right that Christianity and the teachings of Jesus are different although they would never admit it. Still, one of the books I linked to displays the words of Jesus from the NT on one page and Buddhist scripture on the other. It’s really surprising how similar the teachings of these two men living 600 years apart are. In fighting ignorance we can’t let “nothing alike” stand unchallenged. ---
**Author:** ![cosmosdan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/a6a055/32.png) [@cosmosdan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/cosmosdan)\ **Post date:** [February 2, 2006, 2:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/reasons-for-belief-and-disbelief-in-god/341964/234 "2006-02-02T14:10:01Z")
> [@Wesley Clark](#): > > The problem with suffering is that as we understand more and more about neurology we will find ways to eliminate or greatly reduce emotional suffering. We will not only work to eliminate the negative events that create suffering (disease, torture, mental illness, etc), we will also find ways to contain and control emotional pain so even an event that should cause suffering does not. Two hundred years ago surgery was rare in part because of the pain it caused, now we have anaesthesia. Right now its been found that beta blockers can cut down on the rates of PTSD, we have tons of drugs for depression and anxiety, etc. 300 years ago physical pain was a taken for granted part of life. Now it is reasonably rare in the developed world, at least compared to what it was like hundreds of years ago. > > The arguments of God and suffering really don’t make sense to me as it is only a matter of time before we understand enough about suffering and the mind to fight it off. What of god then? If this is all part of gods plan then we aren’t going to go along with it, and good for us. You’ve mentioned this before. It’s a good thought but we don’t know how it will all turn out. As we conquer certain diseases and longevity increases new diseases come to the fore. Will that be an endless cycle? We can deal with the symptoms of mental illness with drugs but is that a cure? Will our technological advances create as many problems as they solve? We don’t know. ---
**Author:** ![cosmosdan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/a6a055/32.png) [@cosmosdan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/cosmosdan)\ **Post date:** [February 2, 2006, 2:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/reasons-for-belief-and-disbelief-in-god/341964/235 "2006-02-02T14:47:47Z")
> [@Voyager](#): > > We’re in 100% agreement with the first part! > For welfare, studies (which I can look up) show that most welfare recipients drop in and out of it. > > I’ve never said that no suffering is required - just no unnecessary suffering. We, as fallible humans, may not hit this correctly. God, to get back to the main thread, can. But we need to provide alternatives for people in all cases. For welfare, we must provide jobs or training, so that those who want to get off welfare can. (And decent education, and a living wage so that those who are employed full time don’t need public assistance anyhow.) In days before welfare people starved. The Clinton adjustments worked well, but it is telling how the welfare rolls dropped when unemployment did. There are surely lazy bums around, but they are not in the majority. This is not to say that the welfare system is anywhere near optimal, of course. I guess welfare wasn’t a good example. 20 some odd years ago my wife and I spent a few months in housing assistance so I don’t really know any recent statistics. My experince has been that if we “help” too much to relieve suffering then we don’t help. Too many people just get lazy and irresponsible. We don’t know where the lines are drawn between helping and enabling but of course we should continue to try and find that balance by helping. For myself the faith aprt is trusting life to bring me what I need to grow. Even the hard and painful parts. Each struggle and painful experience has helped me to learn something about life and myself. I guess because of that and my tendency to believe I extend that trust out to the world as a whole. Most suffering I see as our own choices, but the parts that aren’t, such as natural disasters, I have to trust to something more aware than I. Although it obviously hurts, we know hurting can sometimes help. I trust that God, the Universe, or just life in general knows the balance. > [@](#): > > For a child, we need to provide an education, and to be a role model, and not be saps for 29 years to be cruel at year 30. (My kids are gone so I can be obnoxious on this subject.) My daughter’s old boyfriends parents not only support their stupid other kid (not quite 30) but his girlfriend too - or did until they had a fire and he’s stuck living in her house. My ex mother inlaw is a very sweet woman who is very much the enabler. She has helped and hurt her kids through her helping for decades. It is a hard balance to strike sometimes. I’ve gone through it myself with one of my adult children. ---
**Author:** ![Wesley\_Clark](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/wesley_clark/32/20581_2.png) [@Wesley\_Clark](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Wesley_Clark)\ **Post date:** [February 2, 2006, 4:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/reasons-for-belief-and-disbelief-in-god/341964/236 "2006-02-02T16:34:12Z")
> [@cosmosdan](#): > > You’ve mentioned this before. It’s a good thought but we don’t know how it will all turn out. As we conquer certain diseases and longevity increases new diseases come to the fore. Will that be an endless cycle? We can deal with the symptoms of mental illness with drugs but is that a cure? Will our technological advances create as many problems as they solve? We don’t know. It may be. But as we become more technologically proficient the diseases will be fewer, easier to treat and easier to prevent. Overall I doubt technological advances will create more problems than they solve. The problem with the idea of suffering or Gods purpose for us is that life as we know it in the 21st century is totally artificial compared to how we were created. Humans evolved in groups of small tribes that were hunter/gatherers for tens of thousands of years, so did our ancestors over hundreds of thousands of years. Civilization with farming, domestication and a divistion of labor is only about 6000 years old, barely a blip on the timeline as far back as humans and our ancestors go. And life throughout most of civilization was totally different than life today. It was filled with childhood deaths, disease, famine, slavery and war. Alot of people in the world today don’t really have these problems anymore, at least nothing like they used to. ---
**Author:** ![Der\_Trihs](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/der_trihs/32/233_2.png) [@Der\_Trihs](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Der_Trihs)\ **Post date:** [February 2, 2006, 4:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/reasons-for-belief-and-disbelief-in-god/341964/237 "2006-02-02T16:47:48Z")
> [@cosmosdan](#): > > I\* never\* said that an infinite afterlife makes this life unimportent.\*\* Voyager\*\* already asked that {rather than assume it} and I answered quite clearly. My point was that if we are timeless spiritual beings the perspective on suffering changes. Yeah, it changes to “no big deal”, at least for you. You _do_ constantly claim this life is trivial, in this thread and others. It seems to be the central tenet of your religion. _That_ is the “perspective change”. > [@cosmosdan](#): > > It is completely possible to revere each life as precious and still see suffering in a different light. Not if the different light is that “this life is just an eyeblick; the suffering in this life doesn’t matter.” > [@cosmosdan](#): > > It was an analogy that was part of the same hypothetical arguement. What _exactly_ made it a false analogy? You compared real suffering to imaginary suffering, in an attempt to say real suffering doesn’t matter, in that “different perspective” of yours. > [@cosmosdan](#): > > As simplistic as this is, if you add that popular belief puts God still in charge of the universe he created, I see it as a valid arguement. It’s simplistic becaue it’s a simple situation. If God created the universe, and is omnipotent, then all it’s flaws are his fault, _and_ it’s his fault nothing is/can be done about it by us. After all, it’s his fault we’re so flawed and limited; if we do something bad or stupid, it’s because of his shoddy workmanship. > [@cosmosdan](#): > > If you give someone a precious gift and allow them some time to see what they will do with it , whose fault is it when they screw up? The fault of the person who forced the “gift” on them, forced them to use it, gave them no users manual, and gave him a lobotomy so he couldn’t figure it out on his own. Besides, being human in this world is hardly a “precous gift”; for most people throughout history, it’s been nothing but misery and degradation. Or worse. ---
**Author:** ![Trust](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/b38774/32.png) [@Trust](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Trust)\ **Post date:** [February 2, 2006, 4:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/reasons-for-belief-and-disbelief-in-god/341964/238 "2006-02-02T16:52:31Z")
> [@Diogenes the Cynic](#): > > Sure he can. He’s omnipotent. He can do anything he wants. If he can’t accomplish his goals without evil then he’s not omnipotent. If he can but chooses not to, he’s not good. It’s quite simple to grasp, this “Problem of Evil,” an no one has ever solved it. If you imagine that you have it figured out then you don’t understand it. This is not a problem. God can choose to do as he pleases. There is no possible way if you take into account all of the premises. > [@Diogenes the Cynic](#): > > The mechanism doesn’t have to be understood. The fact that any innate mechanism exists _at all_ renders free will incoherent. I really do think you’re having quite a bit of trouble understanding this. I’ll try again. In order to choose evil, one must already BE evil. In order to choose good, one must already BE good. Choices are EFFECTS, not causes. Are you following? Something has to CAUSE the choice? Whatever causes the choice is either innate (we’re born with it) or somehow implanted after birth (the old “nature or nurture” conundrum). If the former is true (if we’re born good or evil) then our choices are just a manifestation of how we were born. There is nothing “free” about them, and there is neither any personal virtue or any personal culpability in making them. In effect, we are programmed.? Incorrect logic. This is mere opinion. You are under the assumption that choices are effects. Simply because you cannot imagine how choices can be made that are not effects, does prove that they are false. > [@Diogenes the Cynic](#): > > If the “cause” is implanted or “programmed” after birth, then the same problems apply. We have no choice about how we are nurtured (“programmed”) after birth, so any choices which result from that programming are not freely made and we still can’t be morally credited or blamed for them.? We are not programs under my set of beliefs. If this is your belief that is fine. I do not attempt to tell you that your set of beliefs are impossible because they could very well be. > [@Diogenes the Cynic](#): > > Are you still with me on this? Do you understand it now? Can you explain to me how it is logically possible to make a moral choice without a preceding cause? Please don’t just say it’s a “mechanism.” That’ is not a logical solution to the problem.? Once again. I do not need to show you how anything is done to prove that it has a possibility of being proven true in regards to faith. > [@Diogenes the Cynic](#): > > Free will is impossible. you still haven’t explained how it’s unjust simply to forgive everybody and you still don’t get it that an omnipotent God never needs a _method_ to accomplish his will. If he requires a method- ANY method, then he’s not omnipotent.? No. Free will is possible. For you to claim that something is impossible just because you do not know of a way for it to be is incorrect logic. Once again, God does not have to do any method. He chooses to. Notice the difference. > [@Diogenes the Cynic](#): > > If he voluntarily chooses a method which causes or allows suffering, then he’s not good because he can just as easily choose a method which does NOT cause or allow suffering, or he could skip the method altogether and go straight to the end zone.? Not with all of the other premises my friend. > [@Diogenes the Cynic](#): > > This is so terse as to border on a _non-sequitur_. I’m guessing you’re simply answering the question “why do people have to be punished?” I think your answer is a little circular so let me ask it a different way: Why does justice require punishment?? God chooses to be just to his people. It is impossible to prove or disprove assumptions that require faith. > [@Diogenes the Cynic](#): > > I’d also like an answer to the question of whether all people deserve the SAME punishment. Does a pickpocket deserve the same punishment as Pol Pot, yes or no?? I am not God. Why are you asking me? > [@Diogenes the Cynic](#): > > I’m not assuming anything, I was responding to your own assertion that God could not let everybody “live” and still be just. I’m asking why not? ? Because of the premise that God is just to his people. This would be a contradiction. He make justice anyway he chooses. He choose Christ. > [@Diogenes the Cynic](#): > > How does it devalue human beings to refrain from creating evil ones? What do you mean by a “cutoff line?”? You are proposing that God only create “good” people. Not only do we not know for 100% certainty what is good in God’s eyes, this would also mean that we probably would not have been born. I can’t speak for you but I love my life. > [@Diogenes the Cynic](#): > > It sounds to me like you have some conception of human beings preexisting their own creation - like you see a bunch of uncreated humans in waiting and that it would be unfair to the evil ones to keep them sitting on the bench. If you think about this for a second, you’ll see how silly it is. If God doesn’t create them then they never existed. If they never existed then there is nothing to value or devalue. Even if you think that souls preexist their bodies, God still had to create the souls and was still free not to. Are you starting to understand this? God can’t be unfair to people he never created.? So let me get this straight. You _assumed_ that this is my perception? You act like if I dont have all the answers to every question then my viewpoint is wrong. This is a fallacy. > [@Diogenes the Cynic](#): > > That’s exeactly my point. You say on the one hand that bad people need to be punished and then on the other hand that the murder of a 1st century Jewish wisdom teacher “Takes that punishment away.” How? If God can take away the need for punishment after a human sacrifice, why can’t he do it WITHOUT a human sacrifice? How did the death of Jesus make it ok for Jefferey Dahmer to kill and eat people without any punishment?? I never said he couldnt do it without a human sacrifice. I never said it made it okay for Jefferey Dahmer. You’re quite funny my friend. You rely on emotion in logical arguments more than you do on the actual logic. > [@Diogenes the Cynic](#): > > The assertion that God would ever require a human sacrifice is logically INCOMPATIBLE with your other premises. ? What are these premises? > [@Diogenes the Cynic](#): > > What I asked for was a cite for your assertion that all people _cause suffering_, not that all people are “perfect.” I don’t even know what the adjective “perfect” is supposed to mean with regards to human beings, but I definitely would take issue with any proposition that people are inherently evil or that all of them cause suffering. My children don’t. My wife doesn’t.? It is common sense. Everyone in their lifetime is going to cause some sort of suffering. Its the nature of choices. You are still using incorrect logic in assuming that everything needs proof to be true in regards to faith. If this was a scientific discussion you would be completely fine. But you cannot disprove (or prove) the premises in a discussion on faith. > [@Diogenes the Cynic](#): > > Interesting. The Bible says that people DO know right from wrong. Is the Bible lying?? You act like we compare to God. Sure we can decipher what is right and wrong when we are being genuine with ourselves and actually look at both viewpoints. That is not what we were talking about. We were talking about how God uses right and wrong. Not right and wrong in our little lives. I will answer your other questions when I return. I have been answering all of your questions that get us nowhere so I am going to ask you questions that can show you where you are using faulty logic. ---
**Author:** ![Voyager](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/voyager/32/133_2.png) [@Voyager](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Voyager)\ **Post date:** [February 2, 2006, 5:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/reasons-for-belief-and-disbelief-in-god/341964/239 "2006-02-02T17:27:59Z")
> [@cosmosdan](#): > > I guess welfare wasn’t a good example. 20 some odd years ago my wife and I spent a few months in housing assistance so I don’t really know any recent statistics. My experince has been that if we “help” too much to relieve suffering then we don’t help. We agree again. The proper balance is hard for us imperfect humans to find. ---
**Author:** ![Voyager](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/voyager/32/133_2.png) [@Voyager](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Voyager)\ **Post date:** [February 2, 2006, 5:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/reasons-for-belief-and-disbelief-in-god/341964/240 "2006-02-02T17:38:53Z")
> [@Trust](#): > > Actually it’s not. You just assumed that you know what punishment fits the crime. Only God knows this my friend. You are basing everything on human terms. Therefore, my premise that God is just, is not contradicted. No, you are using circular reasoning. Don’t you see that the only reason you are giving for god being just is that god is just? The equal punishments, you are saying, are just because they must be because they are made by god who is just. Do you have any reason at all to consider these punishments just besides this? > [@](#): > > Why do I have to give a reason why God wants something to do with His creation? Sure, God _could_ have sacrificed all the lambs in the world instead of bringing Christ. That brings up big problems such as if sacrificing lambs would even come close to punishment for what we have done and also how sacrificing a lamb doesn’t just cause more suffering in the world until something else works it out. Either way, simply because God **could** have choosen to do something, does not mean that He **has** to have chosen that way. > **Do you disagree with this?** Because there is nothing to disagree with. I’m afraid your logic is lacking. You just accused me of being illogical. Show me where I am being illogical. Once again, noone cares what you think about this. All I simply want to know is where the logic is wrong. The reason you should give an argument is to avoid just asserting your position. Maybe that is what your preacher does, but we have a slightly higher level of discourse around here. Why doesn’t sacrificing lambs come close to the level of sacrificing one person - who wasn’t really sacrificed, any more than a kid “shot” while playing cops and robbers is really dead. God specifically made one lamb equivalent to a person - you need to show why this was not true anymore. I’m not saying God had to do anything - just that he could. You are the one claiming that Jesus had to be sacrificed, so the burden of proof is on you to give a rational argument for this besides just asserting it. And circular reasoning, as I said before, is illogical. If you don’ t get that (and you’ve never addressed it, just repeated your illogic) you don’t know anything about logic. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/reasons-for-belief-and-disbelief-in-god/341964.md?page=11) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/reasons-for-belief-and-disbelief-in-god/341964.md?page=13)