The Religion/Spirituality Thread

[SoulMonster]

7 minutes ago, Len Cnut said:

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?

Well, I suppose if we suspend all reason and accept that a god truly is omnipotent, he could somehow do that. Then we have a good god who, for mysterious reasons, have created a world where people are doomed to suffer pain and discomfort, but which had to be created this way, again for mysterious reasons, but where god would be able to travel back in time and somehow cancel the pain we felt so it never happened. 

This leaves me with:

1. God is imply evil.

2. God is indifferent to our pain.

3. God is good as described above.

 

[Len Cnut]

Quote

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.

You could argue in return that he didn't have to, he doesn't have to do anything but he did, as you say, for mysterious reasoning...but you're assuming from this that his mysterious reasoning is something to do with an inability. 

Quote

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. 

Biological in the way we feel shit but goodness/evil, these are like...concepts right?  Eternal bliss, to me, sounds like hell.  It sounds a dulling of a shitload of other senses in favour of accentuating one.  So you feel the same way, all the time, forever.  To which I guess a counter-argument could be if eternal bliss is hell as a concept then what the fuck is good is it going to be in paradise?  To which you could again counter back that in paradise you're on a different plain of existence and adjusted to recieve that  shit.

[action]

12 minutes ago, SoulMonster said:

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.

again, you talk about pain as something bad, but it isn't that simple. Some people like pain. There's even people chopping off their own legs and arms.

Also, what point is there to establish that god is good or bad? 

What are you going to say to god, when you're faced with him?

What difference does it make, when you can succeed in your quest and make one person or more lose their belief? 

When in the end, god has his way, from A to Z?

If god is bad, than that's the score. Bad then becomes "good", because god says so. Not a million of people talking unisono could ever change his mind. I'm not approving, nor disapproving. I'm undergoing it all, because what else can I do? Your struggles and rebellion are clownesque compared to the omnipotence of god. It's bowing, or breaking. That acounts for you too, soulmonster. One day, you'll be faced to him.

11 minutes ago, SoulMonster said:

 

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.  

life is not a buffet.

a good god would this, a good god would that...

A good god would grant me a BMW 5 series with leather seats, because that's what I want.

the argument is inherently flawed.

[Len Cnut]

3 minutes ago, SoulMonster said:

Well, I suppose if we suspend all reason and accept that a god truly is omnipotent, he could somehow do that. Then we have a good god who, for mysterious reasons, have created a world where people are doomed to suffer pain and discomfort, but which had to be created this way, again for mysterious reasons, but where god would be able to travel back in time and somehow cancel the pain we felt so it never happened. 

This leaves me with:

1. God is imply evil.

2. God is indifferent to our pain.

3. God is good as described above.

 

Congratulations Soulie, you're taking baby steps towards God

[action]

To some people porn is bad, to others it's bliss

ultimately, porn is nothing more than showing naked bodies. How can this possibly be wrong?

That's like saying, it's wrong to own a book with pictures of flowers.

Beauty is good, beauty is a celebration of god.

Or is it wrong that we, who are created by god, who are spectators in this world he created, would appreciate the scenery?

what a load of bollox.

People who want to demonize porn are just evil, and directly attacking god's creation

[SoulMonster]

1 hour ago, Len Cnut said:

Biological in the way we feel shit but goodness/evil, these are like...concepts right?  Eternal bliss, to me, sounds like hell.

I wasn't talking about the more philosophical concepts of good or bad but actual physical joy and pain. These have biochemical explanations and it is entirely possible that a brain could be designed in such a way that it didn't become desensitized to trasmitters of joy and hence remained in a constant state of bliss...and you would enjoy that, because you wouldn't be desensitized, it would be perpetual great. Just imagine the greatest feeling of orgasm that never ended, with no creeping feelings of boredom. Just a new baseline of state of mind, one where you are always happy.

[SoulMonster]

1 hour ago, action said:

again, you talk about pain as something bad, but it isn't that simple. Some people like pain. There's even people chopping off their own legs and arms.

What? What has masochists to do with anything? Is pointing to the fact that a small minority of people enjoy pain your argument against the fact that this world that has in your opinion been created by a god, allows small children to die after horrendous pain? Arer you really going to insinuate that they enjoy it?

1 hour ago, action said:

Also, what point is there to establish that god is good or bad? 

It doesn't matter to me, because as you might have picked up upon, I know he doesn't exist. But since there are lots of people who believe they believe in a good god, and might think twice about whether a god existed if it turned out he is likely not good, then it should matter to them.

1 hour ago, action said:

What are you going to say to god, when you're faced with him?

I hope I would still have the courage to call him out for not using his omnipotent abilities to create a better life on earth for all.

1 hour ago, action said:

What difference does it make, when you can succeed in your quest and make one person or more lose their belief? 

Why do you think I have a quest to turn people away from god?  I like discussing it, and I definitely think we would be better off without theism, but that's about it. 

1 hour ago, action said:

If god is bad, than that's the score. Bad then becomes "good", because god says so. Not a million of people talking unisono could ever change his mind. I'm not approving, nor disapproving. I'm undergoing it all, because what else can I do? Your struggles and rebellion are clownesque compared to the omnipotence of god. It's bowing, or breaking. That acounts for you too, soulmonster. One day, you'll be faced to him.

The likelihood of this is about equal to the likelihood of me meeting a pink unicorn the next time I take a trip in the woods. I can live with the risk

1 hour ago, action said:

life is not a buffet.

a good god would this, a good god would that...

A good god would grant me a BMW 5 series with leather seats, because that's what I want.

the argument is inherently flawed.

Yes, a good god would grant you what you want, or at least remove all pain and replace it with just eternal joy and happiness. But clearly no such god exists.

[DieselDaisy]

You are asking the wrong question. Even the most fleeting look at the pages of history will tell you that there is a correlation between heightened religiosity and epidemics. Thus the Black Death of the Middle Ages was also the era of flagellation, Lollardy, (antisemitic) pogroms, etc., and it is no coincidence that plagues were prevalent during the Reformation/Wars of Religion of the 16th and 17th centuries either. 

[SoulMonster]

10 minutes ago, DieselDaisy said:

You are asking the wrong question. Even the most fleeting look at the pages of history will tell you that there is a correlation between heightened religiosity and epidemics. Thus the Black Death of the Middle Ages was also the era of flagellation, Lollardy, (antisemitic) pogroms, etc., and it is no coincidence that plagues were prevalent during the Reformation/Wars of Religion of the 16th and 17th centuries either. 

Because people back then believed in a god that would punish them with plagues if they had misbehaved. But most of today's monotheists, at least of the christian persuasion here in Norway, don't believe that god would punish them for their transgressions.

[Gibsonfender2323]

We wont find out if there is in after life till we kick the bucket this arguing trying to prove or disprove is bullshit. 

Unless somebody comes back from the dead to tell us we wont know.

Atheists are no better than the religous fundamentalists.

Just look at Dawkins

 

God is not supposed to grant you a BMW thats shit you earn your self. God is supposed to get you out of your darkest hour or save your life in a coma or shit not all that superficial shit.

 

It fucks off cause it wants  you to figure shit out for yourself.

Edited May 27, 2020 by Gibsonfender2323

[Gibsonfender2323]

2 hours ago, action said:

you just described child birth.

Oh, what is a little pain and suffering?

Guess he missed the whole part about the guy getting brutally executed and nailed to a piece of wood to save the human race part.

[DieselDaisy]

15 minutes ago, SoulMonster said:

Because people back then believed in a god that would punish them with plagues if they had misbehaved. But most of today's monotheists, at least of the christian persuasion here in Norway, don't believe that god would punish them for their transgressions.

It was a more superstitious age, certainly, but the existence of a central human thrust towards religious explanation is perhaps no different then from now. Irrespective, I am not sure why anyone would have this argument now: surely everybody is merely trying to endure/circumnavigate this crisis in their own manner which is most fitting for them - why even bring it up? 

Edited May 27, 2020 by DieselDaisy

[SoulMonster]

Scripture never says its the be all end all.

You literally are sounding like a die hard religious person but using "science" instead.

@Gibsonfender2323 I moved the discussion over here since it became more about religion than science. 

What scripture says is irrelevant to whether religious people use scripture as a method to gain understanding of the physical world. 

The difference between myself and a die-hard religious person is that their beliefs are fundamental in the sense that new evidence wouldn't shake them, whereas I am always open to reshape and expand upon my worldview in lieu of new evidence. That's science for you, it never claims to have the perfect understanding, just working model that are continuously being refined as new data comes in. So we might on the surface appear to be similar but beneath there is a fundamental difference. 

That being said, I don't like turning this into "this is how religious people are" and "this is like people of w rational worldview are". because in reality what we are describing are the extreme ends of the spectrum. In reality a religious person would be rational when it comes to almost everything in her life, while accept that the belief in gods is irrational, while atheists would tend to take a rational standpoint re: gods but might be irrational in many other aspects. We shouldn't let this discussion turn into caricatures and stereotypes, we are all humans with our strengths and weaknesses. Atheists just tend to go one little bit further when it comes to rejecting the unlikely, by also rejecting god's existence. 

2 minutes ago, Gibsonfender2323 said:

Guess he missed the whole part about the guy getting brutally executed and nailed to a piece of wood to save the human race part.

Which is of course also not a good god would do.

Btw, this is an interesting, and controversial, little bit of theology. What exactly do you mean when you claimed that killing off his son "save[d] the human race"? How were we saved and what practical implications did it have?

[SoulMonster]

1 minute ago, DieselDaisy said:

 Irrespective, I am not sure why anyone would have this argument now: surely everybody is merely trying to endure/circumnavigate this crisis in their own manner which is most fitting for them? 

I think that when evidence of god's capriciousness hits us, is exactly the time to pause and reconsider one's beliefs. Obviously not everyone agrees But hey, if they delay this epiphany to later, that's okay too.

[Gibsonfender2323]

16 minutes ago, SoulMonster said:

Which is of course also not a good god would do.

Btw, this is an interesting, and controversial, little bit of theology. What exactly do you mean when you claimed that killing off his son "save[d] the human race"? How were we saved and what practical implications did it have?

you are missing the entire point of the story.

Its selfless sacrifice.

Jesus is gods "son".  He is WILLINGLY giving up his life  to save the human race. He could have saved himself at any point during the crucifixion and the priests actually dared him to. But he choose not to.

That's the point of the whole story selfless sacrafice.

18 minutes ago, SoulMonster said:

The difference between myself and a die-hard religious person is that their beliefs are fundamental in the sense that new evidence wouldn't shake them, whereas I am always open to reshape and expand upon my worldview in lieu of new evidence. That's science for you, it never claims to have the perfect understanding, just working model that are continuously being refined as new data comes in. So we might on the surface appear to be similar but beneath there is a fundamental difference

Literally Richard Dawkins and Hawking have said that science is the end all end all. You also have said that.

The whole point of religion is not evidence its faith. Faith in yourself, faith in some higher power that science can not and will never explain. It's supposed to explain the shit science can not

[SoulMonster]

1 minute ago, Gibsonfender2323 said:

you are missing the entire point of the story.

Its selfless sacrifice.

Jesus is gods "son".  He is WILLINGLY giving up his life  to save the human race. He could have saved himself at any point during the crucifixion and the priests actually dared him to. But he choose not to.

Sure, but exactly how is the human race saved? Saved from what? And how does that sacrifice means that someone is saved?

[Gibsonfender2323]

3 minutes ago, SoulMonster said:

Sure, but exactly how is the human race saved? Saved from what? And how does that sacrifice means that someone is saved?

Its literally said that the souls of humans are saved from eternal dammniation.

 

Just read the thing instead of making general assumptions.

Through out the Bible God is constantly challenging people on their belief and fear. Abraham and Issac for one story, Adam and Eve  

Edited May 27, 2020 by Gibsonfender2323

[SoulMonster]

6 minutes ago, Gibsonfender2323 said:

Its literally said that the souls of humans are saved from eternal dammniation.

And what does that mean? That after Jesu' death people wouldn't go to hell? Or that before his death everybody went to hell?

[Gibsonfender2323]

7 minutes ago, SoulMonster said:

And what does that mean? That after Jesu' death people wouldn't go to hell? Or that before his death everybody went to hell?

Second one.

Its literally correcting the mistake of Adam and Eve

[Dazey]

9 minutes ago, Gibsonfender2323 said:

Second one.

Its literally correcting the mistake of Adam and Eve

What? Eating a fucking apple?  Well I'm glad we've all had to go through untold millennia of misery because some dippy tart went scrumping.  

[SoulMonster]

41 minutes ago, Gibsonfender2323 said:

Second one.

Its literally correcting the mistake of Adam and Eve

Why did it take thousands of years before god corrected that mistake? Why should millions of humans who did nothing wrong go to hell because of something a distant ancestor did? And what was so magical about the year 33AD (or whenever it was), that god decided that now it's time to lift the curse? And wouldn't it feel kind of unfair that people dying just before Jesus death would go to hell while those dying right after would not? A father could be sent to hell for what some of his ancestors did millennia ago while his son, for mysterious reasons, would be guilt-free and could go to heaven?

[Dazey]

22 minutes ago, SoulMonster said:

Why did it take thousands of years before god corrected that mistake? Why should millions of humans who did nothing wrong go to hell because of something a distant ancestor did? And what was so magical about the year 33AD (or whenever it was), that god decided that now it's time to lift the curse? And wouldn't it feel kind of unfair that people dying just before Jesus death would go to hell while those dying right after would not? A father could be sent to hell for what some of his ancestors did millennia ago while his son, for mysterious reasons, would be guilt-free and could go to heaven?

It's almost as if they were making it up as they went along. 

[action]

soulmonster is just satan trying to take us away from our belief

[SoulMonster]

12 minutes ago, action said:

soulmonster is just satan trying to take us away from our belief

Nah, I would be happy if people just thought things through a bit more. Too many are religious almost by default after having been brought up into a faith. 

[action]

1 minute ago, SoulMonster said:

Nah, I would be happy if people just thought things through a bit more. Too many are religious almost by default after having been brought up into a faith. 

I was always the biggest sceptic in these things. I found it all so utterly stupid. priests and ceremonies and sitting still in church, all that drivel. I hated religion with a passion at school. And to a certain extent, I still do. The church, the teachings, the ceremonies... it all means nothing to me. For one exception: the church, as a building, I find a great place to ponder about these things. When I step into a church, I feel the history and the connection with above. I can feel it at home too, in prayer, but going to church is like going to a rock concerts, when it comes to religion (without the ceremony, that is).

Whenever I pass a church, I'm going inside to light a candle for my loved ones. I find it relaxing, comforting, and just a nice habit of mine. I don't harm anyone.

People like you, who ignorantly mock all and everything that relates to church, I find quite a nuisance. You argue things nicely, as we speak, but all too often you're making a freak show out of it. you have no respect, whatsoever. but I won't go as far as certain other people on here, to leave this place just because of that. If I did that, there wouldn't be many places left I'd want to be.