The Religion/Spirituality Thread

[action]

1 minute ago, Len Cnut said:

You can answer the free will notion until you answer the larger looming question of 'why bother making us/the universe in the first place?', work that one out and then yous can see this discussion through properly. 

the same reason why you have pets: to have some company.

We're here, aren't we? God must take notion of us somehow. If he got bored of us, he'd wiped us out long ago. But we aren't, so obviously we're doing something right.

But like you chose your pet according to your liking, so does god choose his. He could prefer good people or bad people (who's to say), but ultimately that's his decision.

 

[SoulMonster]

2 minutes ago, Len Cnut said:

You can answer the free will notion until you answer the larger looming question of 'why bother making us/the universe in the first place?', work that one out and then yous can see this discussion through properly. 

No, I think there is a distinct difference between the choice to create a world with humans and the choice to create humans with an occasional urge to hurt others.  The former could be entirely benevolent and lead to god spreading his joy and happiness to mankind, the latter is at best a symptom of an indifferent god, and at worst an evil god.

[action]

2 minutes ago, SoulMonster said:

A good god would have created us without a desire to do evil, just like we don't have a desire to cram our ears with crisps.

You are basically saying that your god decided to create us with a propensity for evil because he finds that more interesting. Which describes a horrendous god. An evil god.

but there are many people who do not have a desire to do evil. 

what about, god didn't interefere in our character?

He can only remedy evil, after it manifests itself. God takes care of this evil in the proper ways, by denying them access to the afterlife.

Hitler ultimately got what he deserved, didn't he?

[SoulMonster]

4 minutes ago, action said:

I have no clue what his biding is.

I hope he's good though, and I strive to do good, just in case he turns out that way. I have a choice to do good or bad, and I chose the first option. Guess I will be massively screwed if he turns out bad!

Since he has created child leukemia he obviously isn't good. So I guess you have to face reality here and realize you are worshipping an evil deity.

[SoulMonster]

Just now, action said:

but there are many people who do not have a desire to do evil. 

what about, god didn't interefere in our character?

He can only remedy evil, after it manifests itself. God takes care of this evil in the proper ways, by denying them access to the afterlife.

Hitler ultimately got what he deserved, didn't he?

It seems to me your are just winging this discussion, changing your position continuously. Have you actually thought about any of this before?

Now you are saying that your god, for mysterious reasons, couldn't have created us good, but can only "remedy evil" (whatever you mean with that). Earlier you suggested he created us this way because without it we wouldn't have had "free will". And you also claimed he wanted some of us to be evil as tests of morality. Or so he could watch us in some kind of gladiator match where the winners would be granted access to heaven. Maybe you should take a break and make up your mind?

And no, I don't think Hitler got what he deserved at all. I can't see how he could have accounted for the deaths of millions of people, including 6 million jews, by simply killing himself. That's not a fair trade-off at all. There was no way Hitler could have got what he deserved. 

[action]

6 minutes ago, SoulMonster said:

Since he has created child leukemia he obviously isn't good. So I guess you have to face reality here and realize you are worshipping an evil deity.

this is a flawed argument.

Why is leukemia bad? it's a natural phenomen (cancer), that needs to sustain itself like a plant using photosynthesis, or humans eating meat. Again, your argument is anthropocentric.

To leukemia, WE are the bad guys since we are using evil things like chemotherapy to destroy it.

If you and me were leukemia cells, we would be having a conversation about why did god create chemotherapy.

It's all a matter of perspective.

Is a brown bear bad because he eats salmon?

Is a salmon bad because he eats plankton?

Besides, God created us, the biggest cancer on earth, far worse than any horrible disease

You can not keep using notions like "good" or "bad" in relation to natural processes. They are not good or bad. We are labeling those that way. It's anthropocentrism.

Edited May 27, 2020 by action

[Len Cnut]

8 minutes ago, action said:

the same reason why you have pets: to have some company.

We're here, aren't we? God must take notion of us somehow. If he got bored of us, he'd wiped us out long ago. But we aren't, so obviously we're doing something right.

But like you chose your pet according to your liking, so does god choose his. He could prefer good people or bad people (who's to say), but ultimately that's his decision.

 

Do you not think you're assigning human attributes to God here?  I think we're supposed to take for granted that we cannot and will not understand Gods eternal plan, at least not in this life.  You misunderstand the notion of true omnipotence if you think God is prey to such things like needing or wanting company.  In fact, he doesn't need or want at all, he's supposed to be beyond such concepts, he's not some lonely old Incel called Trevor that lives in a bedsit somewhere outside Tunbridge Wells  

[action]

3 minutes ago, SoulMonster said:

Now you are saying that your god, for mysterious reasons, couldn't have created us good, but can only "remedy evil" (whatever you mean with that).

he could have created us good. Like you can draw a painting of a good person. But is that interesting to god?

It's like having a man-sized doll in your house as company that you dressed yourself, but it's lifeless and has no will of it's own.

What would god prefer in your opinion? An afterlife of lifeless dolls, or an afterlife of entities with an opinion, but who have passed the test of being good?

1 minute ago, Len Cnut said:

Do you not think you're assigning human attributes to God here?  I think we're supposed to take for granted that we cannot and will not understand Gods eternal plan, at least not in this life.  You misunderstand the notion of true omnipotence if you think God is prey to such things like needing or wanting company.  In fact, he doesn't need or want at all, he's supposed to be beyond such concepts, he's not some lonely old Incel called Trevor that lives in a bedsit somewhere outside Tunbridge Wells  

I think god is a true romantic. Isn't that proven by everything you see when you look outside?

there are clues of his persona, everywhere.

[action]

3 minutes ago, Len Cnut said:

Do you not think you're assigning human attributes to God here?  

they say, god created us to his imagery. 

[Len Cnut]

18 minutes ago, SoulMonster said:

No, I think there is a distinct difference between the choice to create a world with humans and the choice to create humans with an occasional urge to hurt others.  The former could be entirely benevolent and lead to god spreading his joy and happiness to mankind, the latter is at best a symptom of an indifferent god, and at worst an evil god.

I dunno, do you not think that the answer question 'why give humans free will?' is not sort of linked to 'why make humans at all?', if you have the answer to the latter you will have a better shout at explaining the former.  You can't really satisfactorily address any of it without knowing why we were made at all.  All the possible guesses that we can apply, human guesses that are prey to human methods of thinking/reasoning i.e. we're a vanity project or we're company for him, all the options apart from 'we cannot explain because we cannot comprehend the will of God' are insufficient as possible answers, they have holes in em.  Its why the God thing is such an airtight hustle, you can't fuck with that.  Like my man up there was saying even the image of God we're presented with, the big man in the sky with a beard, thats just a personification, in the same way when we describe God we can't escape from the limitations of our own earthly definitions, concepts like need...or want...or even maybe will.  Perhaps God exists on a higher plain than even will.  Is there a higher plain than will?  Come on, Soulie, help me out here   Well yes, omnipotence I suppose.  Even omnipotence is prey to the limits of earthly methods of thought 'all seeing, all knowing', seeing and knowing are like...earthly attributes. 

Quote

 

I think god is a true romantic. Isn't that proven by everything you see when you look outside?

there are clues of his persona, everywhere.

 

What, like Duran Duran?  

EDIT: sorry, thats New Romantic isn't it?

Edited May 27, 2020 by Len Cnut

[SoulMonster]

4 minutes ago, action said:

this is a flawed argument.

Why is leukemia bad? it's a natural phenomen (cancer), that needs to sustain itself like a plant using photosynthesis, or humans eating meat. Again, your argument is anthropocentric.

To leukemia, WE are the bad guys since we are using evil things like chemotherapy to destroy it.

If you and me were leukemia cells, we would be having a conversation about why did god create chemotherapy.

It's all a matter of perspective.

Yes, of course it is perspective and that perspective is from the standpoint of belief in a god that is supposedly good to humans  And from that perspective a leukemia-creating god cannot be considered "good".

 

[SoulMonster]

7 minutes ago, action said:

he could have created us good. Like you can draw a painting of a good person. But is that interesting to god?

It's like having a man-sized doll in your house as company that you dressed yourself, but it's lifeless and has no will of it's own.

Not wanting to do evil doesn't mean that we would have any less "will of [our] own" than the fact that we don't want to cram of ears with crisps does. Did you understand that? He could easily compensate from reducing our willingness to do evil by increasing our willingness to dance, smell flowers and kiss. The amount of "will" would be constant. We would just be less evil. Do you get it this time?

[Len Cnut]

6 minutes ago, action said:

they say, god created us to his imagery. 

Is that not wildly open to interpretation though?  Does that necessarily mean that he says eyes nose and fingers etc.  Could it not possibly mean that we are a sort of formative version of him?  In the same way a single cell organism is, broadly speaking, an elementary version of higher life forms?

[action]

1 minute ago, SoulMonster said:

Yes, of course it is perspective and that perspective is from the standpoint of belief in a god that is supposedly good to humans  And from that perspective a leukemia-creating god cannot be considered "good".

 

I'm sure the leukemia cell-community has another opinion about that

the inherent flaw in the scientific method is anthropocentrism. 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anthropocentrism

anthropocentrism is a cause for global warming, for which you are such an activist

[SoulMonster]

4 minutes ago, Len Cnut said:

I dunno, do you not think that the answer question 'why give humans free will?' is not sort of linked to 'why make humans at all?', if you have the answer to the latter you will have a better shout at explaining the former. 

Maybe. But my point remains that if god was good, for whatever reason he created us, he wouldn't have created us with a desire to do evil, nor would he have put us in a world with natural disasters and terrible diseases. I just don't see any scenario where it would be required of him to create such a terrible world for us, regardless of why he wanted to create us in the first place, if he indeed was good. 

Unless of course he isn't omnipotent and wasn't able to create a good world with no pain and suffering. Then this semi-competent deity might have decided that it was better to create us and put us into such a world than to not create us at all, because I believe a majority of humans will be happy about living, despite the warts and all of existence.

[action]

4 minutes ago, SoulMonster said:

Not wanting to do evil doesn't mean that we would have any less "will of [our] own" than the fact that we don't want to cram of ears with crisps does. Did you understand that? He could easily compensate from reducing our willingness to do evil by increasing our willingness to dance, smell flowers and kiss. The amount of "will" would be constant. We would just be less evil. Do you get it this time?

earth is not the center of the universe

it is not the paradigm you can use to evaluate god.

Wait till you see the afterlife, then you can see the full scope of the morality of god.

[SoulMonster]

2 minutes ago, action said:

I'm sure the leukemia cell-community has another opinion about that

Except that leukemia cells are non-sentient and have neither any opinions or any gods.

[SoulMonster]

Just now, action said:

earth is not the center of the universe

it is not the paradigm you can use to evaluate god.

Wait till you see the afterlife, then you can see the full scope of the morality of god.

Even if there was an afterlife (and there isn't), and I found myself in some heaven (and I wouldn't), there is nothing there that could possible nullify any pain I might have suffered in the beforelife. I mean, god might have tried to make up for any pain and suffering by making things really pleasant for my in the afterlife, but the fact would still be that I went through that pain and suffering at some point for no good reason - which points to an indifferent god who doesn't really care about us, or a directly evil god who wanted us to go through sorrows. 

[action]

Just now, SoulMonster said:

Except that leukemia cells are non-sentient and have neither any opinions or any gods.

it was a stupid analogy.

many other beings are sentient. Chickens, are as intelligent as 2 year old children.

You don't need to have a concept of god, in order to act good or bad. Knowing of the existence of god, is not necessary for what god is aiming for: a community of good people in the afterlife.

That certain living beings believe in god, others dont, doesn't mean god doesnt care about them.

Humans do believe in god, yes. But again, you're making the logical fallacy known as anthropocentrism again. belief in god doesnt matter.

Hitler believed in god too. He repeatedly referred to "the creater" in "mein kampf". That in itself has no repercussions on his chances to be allowed in the afterlife. I'm sure, a dog has more chance to be allowed in the afterlife, than Hitler

1 minute ago, SoulMonster said:

Even if there was an afterlife (and there isn't), and I found myself in some heaven (and I wouldn't), there is nothing there that could possible nullify any pain I might have suffered in the beforelife. I mean, god might have tried to make up for any pain and suffering by making things really pleasant for my in the afterlife, but the fact would still be that I went through that pain and suffering at some point for no good reason - which points to an indifferent god who doesn't really care about us, or a directly evil god who wanted us to go through sorrows. 

you just described child birth.

Oh, what is a little pain and suffering?

only the sun shines for free

[SoulMonster]

Just now, action said:

it was a stupid analogy.

many other beings are sentient. Chickens, are as intelligent as 2 year old children.

So your argument now is that when we refer to god being good, we mean towards chicken and not humans? Of course that isn't correct. When we talk about god being good we mean towards us humans. You might worship a god that cares primarily about chickens and not humans, but again, that wasn't what I wad obviously talking about. May I aske why you would both worship a chicken deity and why you would consider him good to humans considering the fact that chickens aren't exactly the rulers of the planet?

[Len Cnut]

9 minutes ago, SoulMonster said:

Maybe. But my point remains that if god was good, for whatever reason he created us, he wouldn't have created us with a desire to do evil, nor would he have put us in a world with natural disasters and terrible diseases. I just don't see any scenario where it would be required of him to create such a terrible world for us, regardless of why he wanted to create us in the first place, if he indeed was good. 

Unless of course he isn't omnipotent and wasn't able to create a good world with no pain and suffering. Then this semi-competent deity might have decided that it was better to create us and put us into such a world than to not create us at all, because I believe a majority of humans will be happy about living, despite the warts and all of existence.

Perhaps its that you're not omnipotent and thats why YOU (or me for that matter) 'can't see why scenario where it would be required of him' to create a fucked up world.  Or a world with fucked up shit in it.  Good and evil are sort of interdependent, aren't they?  There has to be evil to give goodness a value.  If we were created at flatline goodness then goodness would cease to remain to be a concept surely, if there just was no evil full stop.  That sort of goodness, is a kind of evil in itself, because without the ability to choose we're mindless, we cease to really be living in the proper sense of the world, its a kind of hell.  But again, this is just one possible argument from me, a non-omnipotent being trying to understand a scheme grander than my reasoning capabilities.  There are those who argue that individual acts of bad or evil are all part of the interconnecting kinetic chain of happenings all related to each other where often incidental happenstances lead to a great good, or an earth-shattering awful circumstance leads to lots of other minor incidental goods (apply endless variations here at your own liberty) all forming a rich inconcievable tapestry leading the ultimate crescendo of...whatever the denouement of Gods great plan is. 

Edited May 27, 2020 by Len Cnut

[SoulMonster]

5 minutes ago, action said:

That certain living beings believe in god, others dont, doesn't mean god doesnt care about them.

Well, looking at the amount of suffering and pain spread out pretty evenly across the biosphere, I think we can conclude that if a god exists he doesn't care much for any living thing.

If he really cared about them, he wouldn't have created a world full of pain and suffering, or he simply weren't able to create a better world. So he is either indifferent/evil or incompetent. Or both, of course.

[Len Cnut]

Quote

Even if there was an afterlife (and there isn't), and I found myself in some heaven (and I wouldn't), there is nothing there that could possible nullify any pain I might have suffered in the beforelife.

Why is it that your hypothesis can suspend your disbelief regarding an afterlife and heaven but it can't in regards to the idea of God being able to nullify pains you may have felt in your early incarnation?

 

[SoulMonster]

8 minutes ago, action said:

you just described child birth.

The reason why humans go through so much pain while giving birth is of course evolutionary. We have large heads because large brains is an evolutionary adaption. So is walked on our hind legs. Unfortunately, we evolved from animals with smaller heads who walked on all fours, so their pelvises were larger. To allow upright walking our pelvises had to become smaller which causes terrible pain when the large-headed baby has to go through the birth canal.

A good god would of course have created us with either a smaller yet similarly efficient brain, or with larger pelvises that still allowed for walking.  

[SoulMonster]

8 minutes ago, Len Cnut said:

Perhaps its that you're not omnipotent and thats why YOU (or me for that matter) 'can't see why scenario where it would be required of him' to create a fucked up world.

If he is omnipotent then he wouldn't have to create a world with pain. If he had to create it this way, for mysterious reasons, he wouldn't be omnipotent.

And I disagree with the notion that there has to be evil to give goodness a value. From a biological perspective it is entirely conceiveable that you could have creatures that didn't get desensitized to neurotransmitters that signal comfort and joy. Basically you would live in enternal bliss.