The Future of Religion

Great Debates
61

[QUOTE=Belrix]
I have a unique “spark” in me. A spark that is greater than my genes & blood. I have the ability to choose my destiny - there is not shining path, no pre-programmed future awaiting me - either programmed by God or programmed by causal mechanics.
[/quote]
And there’s not only no evidence for that, there’s no evidence that it’s possible.

[QUOTE=Belrix]
I call that spark “my soul”. It’s most likely my Judeo-Christian heritage that I name it this. Still, this spark, this soul, is a thing of spirit, not atoms, quarks, or molecules. If there’s a spiritual world, and my soul’s existence implies that there is, then it’d be neglectful if I ignored it.
[/quote]
Except again, there’s no evidence for souls OR a spiritual world OR that those things are even possible.

[QUOTE=Belrix]
I belief in a benevolent God that wants the best for me - a God that, like a father to a son, like me to my son, wants the best for me but is willing to let me fall down and scrape my knee in order to learn & develop.

This Father will guide me with advice & counsel - through his writings and through prayer on how I should make decisions but I make the choice to follow or deny that advice.

I don’t understand the full nature of God but I believe he’s there.

We’ll just have to disagree about this.
[/quote]
Until you decide to come after me with an axe or a gun because the delusion you call God tells you to. Or harm me or others in less dramatic ways in the service of your self indulgent delusion.

[QUOTE=Belrix]
I wish you well and I’m going to bow out of this thread because I think I’m just repeating myself and, as I said, I really don’t have the theology to argue at more than the layman’s level.
[/quote]
Oh, I doubt that you wish me or anyone else well in any meaningful sense. Not a believer in souls, and not with such a “suffering is good for you” attitude.

[QUOTE=Belrix]
Concerning bears & traps. It’s just an analogy - it could be that his foot is stuck in a hole. Ignore the trap and go with the meaning related to differing levels of perception versus good & evil.
[/quote]
Then he dug the hole or caused it to be dug. The “meaning” is that we are supposed to draw a false analogy between a God and a human, in order to excuse God’s incompetence or neglect or malice.

[QUOTE=Belrix]
I believe that you can’t prove, other than by a perceive lack of evidence, that God doesn’t exist and I can’t prove, other than by inference, that he does. It’s a constant, never ending, battle.
[/QUOTE]
It is your responsibility to prove God exists ( start by proving that he’s possible as well ), not mine to disprove your empty assertions.

And yes, it’s a never ending battle; religion by it’s nature is eternally at war with all that is good, or sane, or real. It will never stop using it’s human puppets to try to twist or destroy all that exists. As I said, to get back to the OP, if religion remains a strong force in human affairs it will either destroy civilization or kill us all. Why not, when it’s only God and souls that matter ? Religion is madness, and madness is ultimately disastrous as something to base the decisions of society upon.

62

[QUOTE=Belrix]
Sure he could.

Did he? No. Why? Tough answer - perhaps because our pains help guide us. Perhaps because strength is built through adversity. Perhaps it’s because we, the privileged, should be going into flood areas and helping rather than manna parachuting in from above.

[/quote]

Yeah. The babies he drowned are sure stronger for it. Kind of hard for anyone to go there the moment it happened.

If there is a god, no one is arguing he can beat up whoever he wants to. People who consider God to be mean and sadistic have no problems with omnibenevolence. I don’t recall the Greek and Norse gods claiming benevolence. Power, yes.

But the “why” question is at the crux of it, and shows the difference between faith and logic. When you see natural disasters, what is the better explanation: a universe with a benevolent god who, for unknown reasons, has built a world which randomly kills and maims his children, or a universe with no god, with planets exhibiting natural and mindless processes which happen despite the infestation of life on them. The latter seems much simpler to me. Plus, you don’t have to ask what those killed did wrong. They were unlucky. Period.

All these analogies fail because you are not omnipotent. One assumes that you minimize the bear’s suffering. You open the trap as best you can, you don’t try to release him by yanking his paw out of the closed one hard. And you don’t minimize his suffering by shooting him in the head.

63

[QUOTE=Der Trihs]
Oh, I doubt that you wish me or anyone else well in any meaningful sense. Not a believer in souls, and not with such a “suffering is good for you” attitude.
[/QUOTE]
You can’t predict the motivations of me and yet you want me to predict the motivations of a being infinitely more vast than myself.

This is why there’s no arguing with you. There’s no argument, no proof, that you’d buy. You’re as unreasonable as those that hate Muslims, Jews, or blacks with, shall we say, religious certainty.

Your faith is yourself.

64

[QUOTE=Belrix]
You can’t predict the motivations of me and yet you want me to predict the motivations of a being infinitely more vast than myself.
[/quote]
You are the one who claims to know that he exists and is benevolent. You already ARE predicting his motives.

[QUOTE=Belrix]
This is why there’s no arguing with you. There’s no argument, no proof, that you’d buy.
[/quote]
Since you don’t HAVE any proof, or any evidence that your beliefs are even possible, much less true your claim is moot. I never have been given any evidence, and I never will be because your beliefs are too silly to be true.

[QUOTE=Belrix]
You’re as unreasonable as those that hate Muslims, Jews, or blacks with, shall we say, religious certainty.
[/quote]
Garbage. All the evidence is on my side. Is all the evidence on the side of the people who hate “Muslims, Jews, or blacks” ? I say religion is wrong; when it makes claims that can actually be checked, it has turned out to BE wrong.

Has every test made of black people shown them to be of inferior intelligence ? Is every single Muslim a member of Al Qaeda ? DO the Jews run the world ? No, no, and no.

A false analogy.

[QUOTE=Belrix]
Your faith is yourself.
[/QUOTE]
A silly statement; I know I exist, that’s not faith.

65

[QUOTE=Belrix]
I’d argue that it’s not God causing tidal waves, earthquakes & such.
[/QUOTE]
So, not omniscient, then. Because if he was, he’d have seen the consequences when he made the universe.
[QUOTE=Belrix]
The functioning of the earth, the rotation of the planets, etc. are not evil or good - they just are. People are moral beings, planets are not.
[/QUOTE]
Don’t get hung up on the “evil” part and assume it’s a statement on the morality of the cause - it isn’t, it’s a statement on the morality of the effects (if they could be prevented by , say, an omnimax god.). A hurricane out in the mid-Atlantic is not NE, unless it happens to take out a trawler fleet. Hurricane Katrina, on the other hand? Natural Evil -* if *you believe god had the power to prevent it.

66

[QUOTE=Belrix]

I believe that you can’t prove, other than by a perceive lack of evidence, that God doesn’t exist
[/QUOTE]

You can “believe” it all you want, but you’d still be wrong - I have already given you links to a process that does just that, for a given set of attributes for god. Argue against the inconsistency argument (it can be and has been done), but don’t refuse to acknowledge that it was shown to you.

67

[QUOTE=Belrix]

Did he? No. Why? Tough answer - perhaps because our pains help guide us. Perhaps because strength is built through adversity. Perhaps it’s because we, the privileged, should be going into flood areas and helping rather than manna parachuting in from above.

[/QUOTE]

Yet those “writings” of “his” that you claim guide you, say he did exactly the opposite for the Israelites in the desert. Why did they get “manna parachuting in from above” and the Burmese have to get aid packages (or not, as it turns out)? Could it be god is capricious?

68

So did you? The responsibility appears to be yours, not your supreme being’s.

So, did you?

-Joe

69

You know what would be cool? If someone started a thread to discuss “The Future of Religion”.

70

[QUOTE=Voyager]
Yeah. The babies he drowned are sure stronger for it. Kind of hard for anyone to go there the moment it happened.

If there is a god, no one is arguing he can beat up whoever he wants to. People who consider God to be mean and sadistic have no problems with omnibenevolence. I don’t recall the Greek and Norse gods claiming benevolence. Power, yes.

But the “why” question is at the crux of it, and shows the difference between faith and logic. When you see natural disasters, what is the better explanation: a universe with a benevolent god who, for unknown reasons, has built a world which randomly kills and maims his children, or a universe with no god, with planets exhibiting natural and mindless processes which happen despite the infestation of life on them. The latter seems much simpler to me. Plus, you don’t have to ask what those killed did wrong. They were unlucky. Period.
[/QUOTE]

If you don’t mind I’d like to address this again. We’ve both seen dozens of these arguments and I keep thinking they don’t really make sense, and yet those who make them keep talking about logic and reason. I think part of the argument seems to be an emotional rather than logical response.
We’ve addressed choice and the evil that people do to each other but the issue of natural evil remains. If God exists with certain qualities then that existence and those supposed qualities is logically contrary to the natural suffering we observe? Is that the nut of it?

1 If we assume God exists and is eternal , do we also assume that we are eternal {or at least spiritual} beings as well who temporarily inhabit these physical bodies? If our primary reality is spiritual then physical death is not the issue and does not address the implied logical contradiction. Is that reasonable?

btw, that’s the same reason I can’t see JCs death as a sacrifice.

So it is the physical suffering that occurs before actual death that seems to be the contradiction. Correct? Can we agree that a certain minimal suffering does indeed serve to teach us? I tell my child the stove is hot but the experience of touching the stove teaches him more than my words did. If we agree that some suffering does seem useful in teaching then it appears to be the degree of suffering we observe that contradicts those qualities of God. From our human perspective we could understand a certain amount of suffering but at some point it becomes overwhelming and abhorrent so for some, it seems to logically contradict a loving benevolent being. Is that it?

Personally I see this argument as an emotional response rather than a logical one. How do we logically use our human perspective to judge the qualities we are describing? How do we judge years of suffering against eternity?
If we can see and accept that some minimal suffering can indeed teach us and move us in a better direction ,then how is it that we presume that we can draw a line and say, any suffering beyond this level means God can’t really exist? I get it on an emotional level but I can’t see it as a conclusion of logic.

71

As people become more literate and educated I see religion gradually becoming more tolerant of other religions and non belief. I see contradictions between science and religion fading. I’m talking many generations in the future. The willingness to challenge beliefs and/or to not allow religion to be an acceptable excuse for bad behavior that we see rising in society today will be a key ingredient in that shift, as well as information and education made easier by modern technology.

As each generation passes and more people let go their attachment to tradition and dogma in that tribal attitude what becomes the norm will gradually shift. In societies where cultures and religions mix we see that process beginning.

It occurs to me that some people seem to have such a need for a specific structure with parameters they can understand that they cling to dogma and associate it with God’s will and some ultimate truth. I think as society matures we will see that although we need some agreed upon structure we also need to be open to other possibilities and remain flexible. Being more open doesn’t have to lead to chaos.

72

[QUOTE=MrDibble]
You can “believe” it all you want, but you’d still be wrong - I have already given you links to a process that does just that, for a given set of attributes for god. Argue against the inconsistency argument (it can be and has been done), but don’t refuse to acknowledge that it was shown to you.
[/QUOTE]

And you believe in that process, right?

73

[QUOTE=cosmosdan]
So it is the physical suffering that occurs before actual death that seems to be the contradiction. Correct? Can we agree that a certain minimal suffering does indeed serve to teach us? I tell my child the stove is hot but the experience of touching the stove teaches him more than my words did. If we agree that some suffering does seem useful in teaching then it appears to be the degree of suffering we observe that contradicts those qualities of God. From our human perspective we could understand a certain amount of suffering but at some point it becomes overwhelming and abhorrent so for some, it seems to logically contradict a loving benevolent being. Is that it?

Personally I see this argument as an emotional response rather than a logical one. How do we logically use our human perspective to judge the qualities we are describing? How do we judge years of suffering against eternity?
If we can see and accept that some minimal suffering can indeed teach us and move us in a better direction ,then how is it that we presume that we can draw a line and say, any suffering beyond this level means God can’t really exist? I get it on an emotional level but I can’t see it as a conclusion of logic.
[/QUOTE]
Because you are trying to excuse god. What “lesson” could justify you torturing your child until it goes insane ? You talk as if no one ever really suffered.

Again, just another example of how religion promotes utter ruthlessness.

74

[QUOTE=cosmosdan]
If you don’t mind I’d like to address this again. We’ve both seen dozens of these arguments and I keep thinking they don’t really make sense, and yet those who make them keep talking about logic and reason. I think part of the argument seems to be an emotional rather than logical response.
We’ve addressed choice and the evil that people do to each other but the issue of natural evil remains. If God exists with certain qualities then that existence and those supposed qualities is logically contrary to the natural suffering we observe? Is that the nut of it?

1 If we assume God exists and is eternal , do we also assume that we are eternal {or at least spiritual} beings as well who temporarily inhabit these physical bodies? If our primary reality is spiritual then physical death is not the issue and does not address the implied logical contradiction. Is that reasonable?

[/quote]

The only logical contradiction I see is between omnibenevolence and natural evil. The other two omnis have to be thrown in to avoid excusing God from not being able to improve things. I think the argument is only emotional in the sense that it is the emotions of the victims which we are considering.

As for eternity - I don’t think it excuses anything. First, the temporary nature of pain does not make our inflicting it okay. That is the Bush Administration torture argument - if it doesn’t kill the detainee, it is not really torture. I’m pretty sure you’re with me on the immorality of that position. The second thing is that I don’t see any religion saying that a person gets eternal life because of this kind of suffering. If you’ll live forever no matter whether you die peacefully in bed or drown, why consider drowning acceptable? Christians have a further problem, in that at least some of the victims are not saved, and might have been had they lived longer. So, not only does God allow them to die painfully, he allows them to be sentenced to hell for eternity.

I agree that suffering can teach us - but only if that suffering is the result of something we did, like touch the hot stove. If a safe falls on me and leaves me paralyzed, I’m at a loss to know what I’ve learned from the experience. People do say that they learn from adversity, and no doubt they do, but I wonder how many wouldn’t have undone the thing that put them in the wheelchair.

Finally, to consider god omnibenevolent you have to claim that each and every bit of suffering from natural evil is required, and that the world would be a worse place somehow if even one of those drowned children survived. I think that’s a tall order.

75

[QUOTE=FriarTed]
You know what would be cool? If someone started a thread to discuss “The Future of Religion”.
[/QUOTE]

“It’s tough to make predictions, especially about the future.” - Yogi Berra

76

[QUOTE=Voyager]
“It’s tough to make predictions, especially about the future.” - Yogi Berra
[/QUOTE]

Yeah, but “we are all interested in the future, because that is where we will spend the rest of our lives.”- Criswell

77

[QUOTE=Der Trihs]
It is your responsibility to prove God exists ( start by proving that he’s possible as well ), not mine to disprove your empty assertions.
[/QUOTE]

That’s not what this thread is about.

78

[QUOTE=cosmosdan]
And you believe in that process, right?
[/QUOTE]

Know, not believe. I have evidence, you see.

Yes, yes, at heart, even using an evidence-based system rather than any other is a matter of “belief”, if you must so torture the word, but once that framework is accepted, nothing that takes place within it can be said to be a matter of “belief”.

As to the OP: I would hope, and I think it will be the case, as long as currents of fundamentalism are overcome, that eventually the world would settle into a pattern like parts of Europe, where religion is relegated to just a quaint folkway, not the lifestance that some others take it for. A cultural relic, a thin skin painted over a much more permanent underlying substrate of Humanism. Kind of like the Tea Ceremony or something, you know.

79

[QUOTE=Lord Ashtar]
That’s not what this thread is about.
[/QUOTE]
That’s what his/her posts were about however.

80

[QUOTE=Q.E.D.]
I’d have thought it would have happened already, but apparently ignorance is more tenacious than one might imagine.
[/QUOTE]

Yes, if you thought it might happen, ignorance is quite more tenacious than one might think.