• You are currently viewing our forum as a guest, which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our free community, you will have access to additional post topics, communicate privately with other members (PM), view blogs, respond to polls, upload content, and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free, so please join our community today! Just click here to register. You should turn your Ad Blocker off for this site or certain features may not work properly. If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact us by clicking here.

is God sadistic??? Or is it just me?

targobelle

~*taaa raaa raaa boom*~
Joined
Apr 23, 2007
Messages
2,584
MBTI Type
enfp
I think for myself it would be safe to say that I believe in God or a God, to experience what I have in my life and then deny his existence would be pure stupidity on my part. There was a time when I was younger where I just believed I just knew what I knew and I accepted it at face value. I suppose maybe i wasn't suppose to do that. Maybe I am to question it all.

Now though I just look at it all and I don't know why I bought into it all without questions...... so many questions and some many unanswered thoughts. Not just my own thoughts and questions, but the worlds. The world question Christianity more than any other religion on this earth, maybe because it lacks balance. I mean some things you hear and you can laugh because of the absurdity of it all, yet others, like the bible can make perfect sense in one breath and then in the other it's warped and twisted.

God is full of mercy and grace the bible says, but you who believe must observe and keep the 10 commandments or else you are condemned. Where is my forgiveness for having a lapse of judgment a lack of understanding. Does that apply to me? Am I better to know nothing and not believe than to know something and believe but question it and make errors?

I have to realize that the bible was written by man, and taught by man, there will be errors and uncertainty, for man regardless of their relationship with God is at fault, and in imperfect and will therefore make many errors. We are taught that God will redeem this. But really how do I know that to be true and how do I trust that as truth.

Abraham was promised a son who would have many descendants he was promised this son with Sarah. Yet it didn't happen in his time line so he essentially prostituted his maid and had a son with her. Later a son with Sarah was born. None of Abrahams promises were devoid he suffered no consequences for his actions..... yet we are told that adultery is a sin, fine... I just find it to be contradictory. I have sinned and suffered the wrath and consequences for my sin, why me and not Abraham, why not Sarah either, she didn't believe, she laughed.

Randomness to pick and chose who gets punished who gets trials who must suffer. Where is the rhyme where is the reason to this????

and honestly why can't I just shut up and believe it anymore?
 

Ms. M

New member
Joined
Sep 15, 2007
Messages
80
MBTI Type
INTJ
But the things/people that you have seen/felt/directly spoken to have given you the awareness that these things/people actually exist, therefore you can put faith in that... Why do people insist on believing in something they've never seen and have no good reason to believe in? Other than the fact that we are unable to explain our petty existence but we feel compelled to in order to make sense of our lives.

This is why I have a hard time relating to "S" individuals (which is a personal limitation and not meant to imply that it's a problem with you personally.) I used concrete examples because I know that "S" (such as yourself and the poster I was replying to) can have difficulty accepting information that is not directly related to your five senses. There are less concrete examples of situations I feel were divinely inspired, but would be difficult for a "S" to accept. For example, a friend of mine, who is a nurse, having an overwhelming need to stop at a particular grocery store - that she never goes to - to pick something up (when the grocery store she usually goes to is just a half mile further down the road), and helping a fellow shopper by recognizing he was having a heart attack.
 
G

GirlAmerica

Guest
For myself, what I can contrive in my minuscule brain is this:
A. A god/supreme being exists but he's a sadistic asshole that enjoys "games."
B. There is no God

I would have to ask the following.

1. have you read/studied the Bible?
2. do you understand how a divine entity could exist for reason/purpose/meaning beyond your own personal experience in this world?

I provided a link to a place where teaching, not preaching happens. You can freely explore there without all the emotional overload etc. I pick up in you someone much like someone else I know. You are very intelligent, and even show some impressive emotional intelligence for someone your age (do not take that wrong!). However, my need for such information (such as God) can only stimulate emotion if I understand it logically. I do not buy into HOCUS-POCUS. You also have a very intelligent Mrs. M (who I have seen in other posts and I much enjoy her point of view). She is saying some very true things. Sensing types get so hung up on the things before them that they can concretely lean on. This (God and spirituality) takes moving into and developing another side of yourself. Making you well rounded. Something that took me far longer to understand the benefits of working toward.
 

swordpath

New member
Joined
Oct 24, 2007
Messages
10,547
MBTI Type
ISTx
Enneagram
5w6
I would have to ask the following.

1. have you read/studied the Bible?
2. do you understand how a divine entity could exist for reason/purpose/meaning beyond your own personal experience in this world?

I provided a link to a place where teaching, not preaching happens. You can freely explore there without all the emotional overload etc. I pick up in you someone much like someone else I know. You are very intelligent, and even show some impressive emotional intelligence for someone your age (do not take that wrong!). However, my need for such information (such as God) can only stimulate emotion if I understand it logically. I do not buy into HOCUS-POCUS. You also have a very intelligent Mrs. M (who I have seen in other posts and I much enjoy her point of view). She is saying some very true things. Sensing types get so hung up on the things before them that they can concretely lean on. This (God and spirituality) takes moving into and developing another side of yourself. Making you well rounded. Something that took me far longer to understand the benefits of working toward.
1. I never seriously studied the bible but I grew up in the church and in a house of faith (I say faith as opposed to "a religious house" because my family are good and genuine people with their beliefs, not just legalistic and customary or whatever). I went to church every Sunday. Was involved in a youth group. I hit high school and that's when I really began to question and doubt. I fell away from Christianity/religion all together. Devastated my family really... I wish I could be the happy Christian guy, content in his faith. I really wish I was ignorant or able to put blinders on all the things that I see as major issues but that Christians refuse to acknowledge as anything more than "part of God's plan." I don't know why things have worked out the way they have with me and why I have to suffer from a lack of faith... Sorry, I'm kind of trailing off. So basically, I can't recite bible verses or get into any deep discussions regarding the scriptures but I understand the gist/message just fine. Really, I don't think it makes much of a difference if I'm familiar with the bible or have never cracked the book. My questions aren't answered to satisfaction I do know that much...

2.I hear what you're saying. The thing is that for someone like myself that simply can't be content with the lack of absolute clarity that the bible fails to deliver, I am damned to hell. I can't help that I don't have faith. All the wishful thinking in the world won't make God real to me. Thus, I can not profess that Jesus Christ is my savior, which means I get to spend an eternity in hell. I get to be punished for that. If that isn't a sadistic game... Where the fate of my soul rests on my decision when I don't even feel I have the ability to make a choice for myself. I see what I see, I witness what I witness and that that I can not see, feel or touch I have no reason to force myself to believe it's there. :puppy_dog_eyes:
 

SolitaryWalker

Tenured roisterer
Joined
Apr 23, 2007
Messages
3,504
MBTI Type
INTP
Enneagram
5w6
Instinctual Variant
so/sx
So I have been lost to say the least. Lost in life at the moment, there was a time when I thought that I knew where I was going and what the path before me held. A time when my faith was strong and my belief cemented. But over the course of the last year I have had some questions and some doubts and there is so much that I don't understand that I feel I should understand.

I mean is God sadistic? I'm serious.


I look at various quotes in the Bible.

You did not chose me I have chosen you

I will not give you more than you can handle

I knew you before you were born, planned you and i know your life.

(adlibed I know)


As I apply these to my life I feel betrayed by God. Seriously hurt and bitter and I don't trust him. Because while I have the right to choose and I chose, I chose wrong and I failed and um God knew it too yet he still allowed for me to fail. And apparently his reasoning in this is to bring us closer to him.

Wait back um I think in my mind, you want me closer to you so you set me up for failure and you know what I am gonna do and it's not working. This baffles me, he is supposedly my heavenly father who loves me more than anything and more than I love my children, but I wouldn't set them up to fail just so they would need me more.

Do I set a candy bar on the coffee table and tell them not to eat it and then condemn them when they eat it, No I don't set them up to fail.

To me this theory isn't simple it's sadistic

Am I missing something here? Apparently my life was to set me up to need God more and it's done the opposite b/c I don't trust him at all..... yet he knew this and still he allowed it......

I think you ought to stop looking for a face to smile down at you from the sky and put the matter in your own hands. The only true path to happiness.
 

The_Liquid_Laser

Glowy Goopy Goodness
Joined
Jul 11, 2007
Messages
3,376
MBTI Type
ENTP
That's not what I meant.

What I mean is that if christianity is true then God created humanity for a purpose. He then reveals this purpose through the bible and God's communication should be so blatantly obvious and indisputable that there should be only a single monolithic church. But that's not the case. What we see is endlessly dividing denominations each with their own twist on things. God should be able to communicate well enough that there should be no room for disagreement about what he wants.

There was a time when there was a single monolithic church. I believe it lasted that way for about 1000 years or so. Things really were not good in those days, which is why they are referred to as "The Dark Ages". Either you did things their way or you were excommunicated. Possibly you would be burned at the stake as a heretic. I could go on and on about how bad the world is when there is a single monolithic church, because as the saying goes, "power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely".

So the alternative to this is absolute freedom. With all this freedom comes confusion. We don't have all the answers spoon fed to us like we would during the Dark Ages. But I say it's much more preferable to the alternative.

Consider this: if a single monolithic church leads to such tyranny, then wouldn't God be wise to allow us to choose for ourselves? Isn't it wiser to let people split themselves apart based on minor differences rather than be united into a single cohesive power? Perhaps being right isn't really the most important part of religion anyway? After all if you look closely you can actually find a lot of similarities between Christians if you want to. For example, I haven't met a Christian yet that disagreed with the two greatest commandments. Perhaps there are other benefits to being separate other than the satisfaction that your group is right and their group is wrong? :)
 
G

GirlAmerica

Guest
Where the fate of my soul rests on my decision when I don't even feel I have the ability to make a choice for myself. I see what I see, I witness what I witness and that that I can not see, feel or touch I have no reason to force myself to believe it's there.

And that is where I believe your intelligence comes into play...
your mind is already working to comprehend/consider such an idea, and I think you have something inside of you wondering why you would limit yourself not going beyond your senses.
There are many things about you that are not tangible, though they exist.
It requires getting past the limitations of your 5 senses.
 

LIND

New member
Joined
Jun 12, 2007
Messages
48
MBTI Type
ENTP
Given the fact that by posing the question "is God sadistic?" it's already being assumed that GOd in fact does exist, and does in fact manifest "itself" in Nature, I would like to pose an additional question, namely:
" if we accept God's existence, why does it feel that we are trapped in an experiment as soon as we think about "ITS" will, an experiment in which we are observed, watched, and some of us tested to utmost limits (e.g.see Soren Kierkegaard's life...)?"
The obvious answer to that question is that God does not perform experiments on the human kind since IT already knows the human's reaction, IT already sees in the future (next moment).
If we are not in an experiment, yet God is aware of us existing on this planet, why does It all of a sudden interrupt everything that IT was doing throughout eternity and focus on us? Can IT even step out of an Infinite Nature and walk into a Finite one? But wait...that would imply that the HOLY/Perfection becomes imperfect muddling ITS nature with human dirt, sin, wretched state.....well here's is where the theologian would jump and attack by saying "out of love for the humans"...
Yet I am still not sure why the anthropomorphism is necessary, meaning why do we attach humanlike qualities to God (such as It loves, It feels, etc) when these qualities have the force of moving the "Unmover". You hear people say "the Passion" well a passion means a force outside of you moving you to act....but wouldn't that imply that God gave us godlike status in which we have the ability to move GOD !!!
Here is where the theologian would jump in and say "He created us in his own Image, therefore these emotions have their origin in God, surely it is not the matter in which we resemble Him but the qualities which have a much more infinite aspect" yet if God feels, that means that at one point It feels happy, at another sad, and so on. Though if we agree to this, we automatically eliminate GOD's infinite nature because we have a concatenations of emotions going on at different points in time. The theologian would insist that God is outside time, yet if God experiences everything at once, that means that there is no order no clarity, but IT is everything at once -sad, happy, hurt, remorse, love- just a mix of everything....a lack of reason.
SO now I ask 'can we even conceive of the notion that God is sadistic?"
 

CzeCze

RETIRED
Joined
Sep 11, 2007
Messages
8,975
MBTI Type
GONE
I think I've argued my position quite well, but everyone keeps coming back with this homemade-cafeteria-style-build-your-own-religion form of chistianity where you can believe whatever you want and God will accept your conclusions. That sounds to me like a human created religion that is in no way divinely inspired. I find this nebulous form of liberal christianity to be impossible to debate with.

So in other words you can't prove we're wrong? :devil:

Actually, if you ask someone to answer the question specifically for them and not on behalf of a collective or anyone else, you'll find you can have a much livelier discussion. Or even better, a deeper one.

I don't quite proscribe to 'new left Christianity' or consider myself Christian per sae...I consider myself spiritual but with a few years of church going as a child to give me reference and way points and in the larger context of being steeped in a secular Christian country -- which is anyone raised in America.

Honestly, I found your description funny and apt -- I know what you're talking about.

So don't abandon the thread! I want to hear other POVs, especially skeptics.
 

sassafrassquatch

New member
Joined
Jul 20, 2007
Messages
961
Now that I've had a few days to cool down I'm going to work on a Rebuttal of Great and Terrible Rebutting. In the mean time here's something for the faithful to chew on, a story by Uncle Carl...

The Dragon In My Garage - By Carl Sagan

The late Carl Sagan wrote a nice comparison between a belief in god and any other supernatural entity which is unprovable.

"A fire-breathing dragon lives in my garage"

Suppose (I'm following a group therapy approach by the psychologist Richard Franklin) I seriously make such an assertion to you. Surely you'd want to check it out, see for yourself. There have been innumerable stories of dragons over the centuries, but no real evidence. What an opportunity!

"Show me," you say. I lead you to my garage. You look inside and see a ladder, empty paint cans, an old tricycle--but no dragon.

"Where's the dragon?" you ask.

"Oh, she's right here," I reply, waving vaguely. "I neglected to mention that she's an invisible dragon."

You propose spreading flour on the floor of the garage to capture the dragon's footprints.

"Good idea," I say, "but this dragon floats in the air."

Then you'll use an infrared sensor to detect the invisible fire.

"Good idea, but the invisible fire is also heatless."

You'll spray-paint the dragon and make her visible.

"Good idea, but she's an incorporeal dragon and the paint won't stick."

And so on. I counter every physical test you propose with a special explanation of why it won't work.

Now, what's the difference between an invisible, incorporeal, floating dragon who spits heatless fire and no dragon at all? If there's no way to disprove my contention, no conceivable experiment that would count against it, what does it mean to say that my dragon exists? Your inability to invalidate my hypothesis is not at all the same thing as proving it true. Claims that cannot be tested, assertions immune to disproof are veridically worthless, whatever value they may have in inspiring us or in exciting our sense of wonder. What I'm asking you to do comes down to believing, in the absence of evidence, on my say-so.

The only thing you've really learned from my insistence that there's a dragon in my garage is that something funny is going on inside my head. You'd wonder, if no physical tests apply, what convinced me. The possibility that it was a dream or a hallucination would certainly enter your mind. But then, why am I taking it so seriously? Maybe I need help. At the least, maybe I've seriously underestimated human fallibility.

Imagine that, despite none of the tests being successful, you wish to be scrupulously open-minded. So you don't outright reject the notion that there's a fire-breathing dragon in my garage. You merely put it on hold. Present evidence is strongly against it, but if a new body of data emerge you're prepared to examine it and see if it convinces you. Surely it's unfair of me to be offended at not being believed; or to criticize you for being stodgy and unimaginative-- merely because you rendered the Scottish verdict of "not proved."

Imagine that things had gone otherwise. The dragon is invisible, all right, but footprints are being made in the flour as you watch. Your infrared detector reads off-scale. The spray paint reveals a jagged crest bobbing in the air before you. No matter how skeptical you might have been about the existence of dragons--to say nothing about invisible ones--you must now acknowledge that there's something here, and that in a preliminary way it's consistent with an invisible, fire-breathing dragon.

Now another scenario: Suppose it's not just me. Suppose that several people of your acquaintance, including people who you're pretty sure don't know each other, all tell you that they have dragons in their garages--but in every case the evidence is maddeningly elusive. All of us admit we're disturbed at being gripped by so odd a conviction so ill-supported by the physical evidence. None of us is a lunatic. We speculate about what it would mean if invisible dragons were really hiding out in garages all over the world, with us humans just catching on. I'd rather it not be true, I tell you. But maybe all those ancient European and Chinese myths about dragons weren't myths at all.

Gratifyingly, some dragon-size footprints in the flour are now reported. But they're never made when a skeptic is looking. An alternative explanation presents itself. On close examination it seems clear that the footprints could have been faked. Another dragon enthusiast shows up with a burnt finger and attributes it to a rare physical manifestation of the dragon's fiery breath. But again, other possibilities exist. We understand that there are other ways to burn fingers besides the breath of invisible dragons. Such "evidence"--no matter how important the dragon advocates consider it--is far from compelling. Once again, the only sensible approach is tentatively to reject the dragon hypothesis, to be open to future physical data, and to wonder what the cause might be that so many apparently sane and sober people share the same strange delusion.
 

sassafrassquatch

New member
Joined
Jul 20, 2007
Messages
961
Behold! The Rebuttal of Great and Terrible Rebutting! (sorta)

Would I be wrong in assuming that most of you consider Fred Phelps to be a bad Christian, to give Christians a bad name, to have misinterpreted the bible and to be an annoying asshat?

If so, how do you make that judgment? I have gotten the impression from this thread that everyone is entitled to their own interpretation of scripture, to find God in their own way and to basically discover their own truth.

Well, Fred seems to have found his truth and who are you to judge him for it?

Also, to the Christians: What about other religions? Are they just different ways of worshiping the same god? Which ones would you say are total rubbish?

Thricely, how are your beliefs distinguishable from that which is imaginary?
 

miss fortune

not to be trusted
Joined
Oct 4, 2007
Messages
20,589
Enneagram
827
Instinctual Variant
sp/so
I'd kick Fred Phelps' ass if I ever met him! :D

I actually think that where people go with what they beleive is their decision, and I think there's nothing wrong with me detesting Mr. Phelps since I beleive that fairness and niceness are important and he completely disregards those norms. I also think that other religions have a good point! Almost every single religion in the world has a tenent that is quite similar to the golden rule, and I've always thought that if a person is good, no matter what they call God, or if they even call what higher power that they beleive in anything at all, they'll not be dumped back on earth after they die! I was raised by a christian and an agnostic/buddhist, and then spent a summer living in a convent with nuns, so don't take my opinion to be applicable to everyone! :D
 

The_Liquid_Laser

Glowy Goopy Goodness
Joined
Jul 11, 2007
Messages
3,376
MBTI Type
ENTP
Now that I've had a few days to cool down I'm going to work on a Rebuttal of Great and Terrible Rebutting. In the mean time here's something for the faithful to chew on, a story by Uncle Carl...

Heh according to that story it seems like there is something wrong with Uncle Carl's senses. He can't see what nearly everyone else can see. If a large majority can sense something that a small minority cannot, then the simpler explanation is that the faulty senses belong to the minority. It is not reasonable to assume that the minority sees things correctly and the majority is experiencing a kind of mass delusion.

For example when most people view a green object on a red background then they see two distinct colors. A minority of people do not see a distinction between the two colors. The ones in the minority are referred to as colorblind, implying the faulty perception is with them and not the other way around.

This is not to imply that athiests are not able to perceive God. Rather I believe that most athiests choose not to try to perceive God. God is not as easy to perceive as simply looking at an object in front of your face. You have to actively look for God in order to perceive "Him". (i.e., "seek and you will find", and all that).

Which brings up another point about Uncle Carl's analogy that doesn't really reflect reality. His analogy suggests there is nothing burnt, no footprints, etc... to suggest there is an invisible dragon. A more accurate analogy would be if things actually did heat up in the garage, but the person couldn't prove that it was caused by a dragon. In reality there is a lot of evidence that suggests something remarkable is happening pertaining to religion/spirituality. Theists explain these things by saying they are caused by God. The explanation cannot be proved, but there is plenty of data suggesting something is happening that no reasonable athiest can deny.

Would I be wrong in assuming that most of you consider Fred Phelps to be a bad Christian, to give Christians a bad name, to have misinterpreted the bible and to be an annoying asshat?

I agree he's an asshat. I also am not 100% convinced that he is sincere. However I respect that he should be able to believe whatever he likes.
If so, how do you make that judgment? I have gotten the impression from this thread that everyone is entitled to their own interpretation of scripture, to find God in their own way and to basically discover their own truth.

I disagree with his interpretation, but I respect his freedom to believe what he likes. I don't hold that all beliefs are equally true, but I do hold that the freedom to pursue one's own religion is vitally important. The other side of the coin is that important social advances are often made by people with deep religious convictions (Dr. Martin Luther King for example.) Freedom of religion is similar to freedom of speech in that some people are going to misuse it, but you have to give it to everyone because there is no easy way to establish the crap from the stuff that society really needs. You have to give the freedom to everyone equally and know that some people are going to use the freedom wisely and others are going to misuse it.

(I'll have to stop my post here. If I have time later I may come back to answer your other questions.)
 
R

RDF

Guest
If a large majority can sense something that a small minority cannot, then the simpler explanation is that the faulty senses belong to the minority.

I think it's important to remember that Christians are not in the majority in the world. Even if you take Christians, Muslims, and Jews together as worshiping one god, I think the figures show that they are still in the minority worldwide. (Blame it on China and India.) So by your own argument, Christians are deluded.

I'm an atheist myself. I believe in God as much as I believe in the tooth fairy. Both might in fact exist, but I strongly doubt it.

Without anything solid to back it up, mere belief proves nothing. There are plenty of strange beliefs around the world (ghosts, angels, fairies, spirits of ancestors, the evil eye, etc). I'm sure there are villages in backwoods Ireland that still believe in leprechauns. It doesn't make leprechauns come alive in those places. All it proves is that humans have a tendency to believe in intangibles. (And it's worth reading up on psychology to learn about the roots of that tendency.)

I have nothing against believers. My wife is a Christian and a believer, and I don't see it as a problem. We just don't talk about it. We made a promise not to try to proselytize each other, so it's not an issue for us.
 
R

RDF

Guest
I think it's important to remember that Christians are not in the majority in the world. Even if you take Christians, Muslims, and Jews together as worshiping one god, I think the figures show that they are still in the minority worldwide. (Blame it on China and India.) So by your own argument, Christians are deluded.

Oops. I take it back. Christians and Muslims together make up 53 percent of the world's population: Major religious groups - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Still, I don't think the majority is large enough that one can conclude that the Abrahamic God automatically has to exist simply because 53 percent of the world's population believes in him.
 

sassafrassquatch

New member
Joined
Jul 20, 2007
Messages
961
Heh according to that story it seems like there is something wrong with Uncle Carl's senses. He can't see what nearly everyone else can see. If a large majority can sense something that a small minority cannot, then the simpler explanation is that the faulty senses belong to the minority. It is not reasonable to assume that the minority sees things correctly and the majority is experiencing a kind of mass delusion.

Facts are not determined by consensus, they are determined by evidence. Theists have yet to show any.

For example when most people view a green object on a red background then they see two distinct colors. A minority of people do not see a distinction between the two colors. The ones in the minority are referred to as colorblind, implying the faulty perception is with them and not the other way around.

So atheists are god-blind?

This is not to imply that atheists are not able to perceive God.

Now atheists are not god-blind? Make up your mind.

Rather I believe that most atheists choose not to try to perceive God.

Fail.

Perceive which god? There are a lot of gods to choose from. How do I know which one is real? Are they all real? Is it just one god pretending to be a bunch of gods? Is it the hands off god who poofed the universe into existence then left and doesn’t even know we’re here? Is he a control freak who will burn me in hell for eternity for wearing mixed fibers?

This is why Christianity and religion in general is rubbish. Theists can’t seem to find their asses with both hands when it comes to the question of what does God want from us?

Speaking of God’s will...

JAVO said:
How could he have recorded it infallibly? Any media would eventually become unreadable or deprecated. Also, keep in perspective the mindset and culture at the time. It was different than ours is now.

He’s the fucking Lord God ALMIGHTY isn’t he? He could poof a temple into existence, write his will in plates of gold in every language humans ever have or will speak then place his divine protection over the whole kit so it suffers nary a scratch for all eternity.

Better yet, why doesn’t he come down here in person and talk to us? Can he do that? Why does he have to make us jump through hoops?

God is not as easy to perceive as simply looking at an object in front of your face. You have to actively look for God in order to perceive "Him". (i.e., "seek and you will find", and all that).

Why does he have to be so fucking difficult? Why the mind games? If the little brat really cares what I think of him he can get his punk ass down here and talk to me like an adult. (You all can keep any smartass comments about my choice of language to yourselves. It makes me feel better.)

Which brings up another point about Uncle Carl's analogy that doesn't really reflect reality. His analogy suggests there is nothing burnt, no footprints, etc... to suggest there is an invisible dragon. A more accurate analogy would be if things actually did heat up in the garage, but the person couldn't prove that it was caused by a dragon. In reality there is a lot of evidence that suggests something remarkable is happening pertaining to religion/spirituality. Theists explain these things by saying they are caused by God. The explanation cannot be proved, but there is plenty of data suggesting something is happening that no reasonable atheists can deny.

Such as? Did he finally heal an amputee?

I agree he's an asshat. I also am not 100% convinced that he is sincere. However I respect that he should be able to believe whatever he likes.

I disagree with his interpretation, but I respect his freedom to believe what he likes. I don't hold that all beliefs are equally true, but I do hold that the freedom to pursue one's own religion is vitally important. The other side of the coin is that important social advances are often made by people with deep religious convictions (Dr. Martin Luther King for example.) Freedom of religion is similar to freedom of speech in that some people are going to misuse it, but you have to give it to everyone because there is no easy way to establish the crap from the stuff that society really needs. You have to give the freedom to everyone equally and know that some people are going to use the freedom wisely and others are going to misuse it.

(I'll have to stop my post here. If I have time later I may come back to answer your other questions.)

You seem to be convinced that God values peace and love over strict adherence to his laws. How do you know God isn’t sadistic? *waggles eyebrows suggestively*
 

The_Liquid_Laser

Glowy Goopy Goodness
Joined
Jul 11, 2007
Messages
3,376
MBTI Type
ENTP
I think it's important to remember that Christians are not in the majority in the world. Even if you take Christians, Muslims, and Jews together as worshiping one god, I think the figures show that they are still in the minority worldwide. (Blame it on China and India.) So by your own argument, Christians are deluded.

I believe that you've misinterpreted my post. The argument is not Christianity vs. athiesm, but theism vs. athiesm. Where in post 73 do I use the words Christian, Christianity, or Jesus? Rather I am responding to the points brought up by Carl Sagan in post 70. He is arguing atheism vs. theism. He seems to be arguing that theists have a problem with their perception. But since athiests are in such a vast minority compared to theists, it is much easier to argue that athiests have a problem with their perception.

I am not saying that there are no arguments in favor of athiesm. Rather I am saying these specific arguments presented by Carl Sagan are naive and hold no water. They actually argue more for theism than athiesm. In arguing in favor of athiesm Carl Sagan is doing a horrible job.

sassafrassquatch said:
Facts are not determined by consensus, they are determined by evidence. Theists have yet to show any.

Facts are determined by consensus. In order for something to be considered a fact the majority must consider it a fact. A person is considered colorblind if they do not perceive what the vast majority does. Colorblindness is a fact. We can objectively perform a test to determine whether or not any given person is colorblind.

Perceive which god? There are a lot of gods to choose from. How do I know which one is real? Are they all real? Is it just one god pretending to be a bunch of gods? Is it the hands off god who poofed the universe into existence then left and doesn’t even know we’re here? Is he a control freak who will burn me in hell for eternity for wearing mixed fibers?

This is why Christianity and religion in general is rubbish. Theists can’t seem to find their asses with both hands when it comes to the question of what does God want from us?

From history we know that the presence of a single monolithic religion leads to tyranny and oppression. The alternative to that is many different kinds of faiths. At this point we may simply have to agree that our opinions differ. I would rather have the freedom to seek out and choose my faith. I don't want everything spoon fed to me. Perhaps this is frustrating for you though. Would you prefer a tyrannical religious organization that could uniformly provide all of the answers or would you prefer today's alternative of a plethora of religions?

He’s the fucking Lord God ALMIGHTY isn’t he? He could poof a temple into existence, write his will in plates of gold in every language humans ever have or will speak then place his divine protection over the whole kit so it suffers nary a scratch for all eternity.

Better yet, why doesn’t he come down here in person and talk to us? Can he do that? Why does he have to make us jump through hoops?

Why does he have to be so fucking difficult? Why the mind games? If the little brat really cares what I think of him he can get his punk ass down here and talk to me like an adult. (You all can keep any smartass comments about my choice of language to yourselves. It makes me feel better.)

Perhaps the point of spirituality/religion is not to have all of the answers? If you want answers you could look at the places where the major world religions agree. There are actually quite a few places of agreement. Beyond that you have the choice to believe what you like.

You seem to be convinced that God values peace and love over strict adherence to his laws. How do you know God isn’t sadistic? *waggles eyebrows suggestively*

Here I am referring more toward the nature of religion rather than the nature of God. The issues are related, but they are not the same. We might disagree upon the nature of God, but we can come up with objective measures for what a healthy religion looks like.

Such as? Did he finally heal an amputee?

There are actually many reasons that people believe in some sort of divine being. All of these reasons are readily observable by any rational person. The problem is that none of these phenomena can be conclusively attributed to a divine being. Theists and athiests do not disagree on most of the phenomena. They simply disagree on the interpretation.

Would you like examples? Well lets start with the simple ones. One thing is that the majority of natural life is enjoyable. Food is delicious. Sex is pleasurable. Nature is beautiful. Surveys suggest that the greatest source of happiness comes from close relationships with family and friends. In other words life in general is enjoyable in it's default state. Do these things prove that God exists? Of course not, because there is no definite proof that God exists. On the other hand these are all valid reasons why God might exist.

There are many other reasons why people believe in some type of deity. Some state the existence of life. It's very hard to say how life got started without resorting to some sort of divine influence. That's not to say that there isn't another reasonable explanation. It simply hasn't been given. ;) For that matter their used to be a good argument against the existence of God which assumed that the universe is static. Since that time observation of bodies in space suggests that the universe is dynamic and has a central point of origin, i.e. the Big Bang. The theory that the universe has an origin doesn't prove God's existence, but it does lend weight to that explanation (and also takes away several arguments that athiests used to use).

For some people witnessing a child being born can be enough to convince them of God's existence. It can't be objectively argued that this is a miracle, but some believe it is. Often when a person converts to a religion there is a measurable change in behavior. This might not be a miracle, but that is what some believe.

I am simply scratching the surface for reasons why one might believe in a divine being. If I were to state all of the reasons I could think of this post would be about 100 times longer, and I still would miss a lot of explanations that others could come up with.

My point though is that there are a lot of undeniable facts that people look at to justify their belief in a diety. The questionable part is not whether or not these things occur. The questionable part is whether they can be attributed to God. That is why Carl Sagan's analogy is an exceptionally poor one. He holds that theists have no observable reason why they believe in a diety. This is not true in the slightest. His analogy would be more accurate if he said that there was intense heat in the garage, but he doesn't think that a dragon's fire causes it. Because there are observable reasons why people believe in a divine being, but the disagreement about what causes these phenomena is where the disagreement is.
 
R

RDF

Guest
I believe that you've misinterpreted my post. The argument is not Christianity vs. athiesm, but theism vs. athiesm. Where in post 73 do I use the words Christian, Christianity, or Jesus?

Well, you did say "God," which usually presumes monotheism and the Abrahamic God (which is why I lumped Christianity, Islam, and Judaism together). From post 73:

This is not to imply that athiests are not able to perceive God. Rather I believe that most athiests choose not to try to perceive God. God is not as easy to perceive as simply looking at an object in front of your face. You have to actively look for God in order to perceive "Him". (i.e., "seek and you will find", and all that).

IOW, Carl Sagan argued against theism in general, but you didn't defend theism. You only defended "God."

It would be impossible to defend all of theism in that argument. You can't argue that all the believers of all the different religions are seeing something genuine and real in that same garage if they all enter the garage together and claim to see very different things: one of them is seeing God, one of them is seeing leprechauns, one of them is seeing the thousand Hindu gods, one of them is seeing his departed great-grandfather, etc. They all have to see the same thing, or they're not seeing something that is really and honestly there.

You said that believers can see something real in there, and the atheist is just missing it because he's god-blind. So which would the atheist see if he opened his eyes properly: The departed great grandfather? The thousand Hindu gods? The Abrahamic God?

It sounds like you defended the Abrahamic God and not theism in general. If you're really serious that there's something real in there and not just a shadow in the corner that anyone can interpret any way they want, then I don't see how theism as a whole can be defended in that argument. (Barring a whole lot of sophistry, of course.)

Just my opinion, of course. Oh well, I'll drop out.

I'm usually not into pushing my views on others. I mainly just wanted to point out that this argument isn't only about the Christian God vs. atheism, with atheists playing the role of a tiny minority of grumpy oddballs who somehow stubbornly refuse to see the truth right in front of their face. Instead, as a believer you have to account for *all* the other weird religions and superstitions out there in the world too--it's an important point that atheism denies them *all* (as long as they can't come up with hard proof, anyway), and from our point of view Christianity is one more superstition that's no better or worse than the rest. So are *all* religions and superstitions true? Or will you have to take the even more difficult stance that somehow everyone in the world is fabricating their religion except for you and your particular co-believers in your particular faith. That's a difficult argument to make because if you assume that everyone else in the world is fabricating their religion, then why can't the same be assumed of you, given that you have no more proof than them.

It's the garage again: Are you defending just your "God" or are you defending all of theism? Carl Sagan was very clear about not believing any of the manifestations of theism. But it sounds like you didn't make your own stance nearly as clear: Is your "God" the only one that's real, or are all the crazy gods and beliefs throughout the world equally true?
 

sassafrassquatch

New member
Joined
Jul 20, 2007
Messages
961
I believe that you've misinterpreted my post. The argument is not Christianity vs. athiesm, but theism vs. athiesm. Where in post 73 do I use the words Christian, Christianity, or Jesus? Rather I am responding to the points brought up by Carl Sagan in post 70. He is arguing atheism vs. theism. He seems to be arguing that theists have a problem with their perception. But since athiests are in such a vast minority compared to theists, it is much easier to argue that athiests have a problem with their perception.

I am not saying that there are no arguments in favor of athiesm. Rather I am saying these specific arguments presented by Carl Sagan are naive and hold no water. They actually argue more for theism than athiesm. In arguing in favor of athiesm Carl Sagan is doing a horrible job.



Facts are determined by consensus. In order for something to be considered a fact the majority must consider it a fact. A person is considered colorblind if they do not perceive what the vast majority does. Colorblindness is a fact. We can objectively perform a test to determine whether or not any given person is colorblind.

First you say it’s the majority’s word against the minority’s, then you say the majority can prove the minority is colorblind with a test and provide evidence. You keep contradicting yourself. Where is the test for god-blindness?

From history we know that the presence of a single monolithic religion leads to tyranny and oppression. The alternative to that is many different kinds of faiths. At this point we may simply have to agree that our opinions differ. I would rather have the freedom to seek out and choose my faith. I don't want everything spoon fed to me. Perhaps this is frustrating for you though. Would you prefer a tyrannical religious organization that could uniformly provide all of the answers or would you prefer today's alternative of a plethora of religions?

Of course a monolithic religion is going to be tyrannical and oppressive. It’s a bunch of guys in funny hats forcing everyone to submit to a religion they pulled out of their asses. Which is not even remotely what I was talking about. I said for God to come down and reveal his will to humanity in person. No one could argue with that.

Also, I would prefer no religions, they’re all myths. I’d like everyone to live with their eyes open rather than stick their heads in the sand.

Perhaps the point of spirituality/religion is not to have all of the answers? If you want answers you could look at the places where the major world religions agree. There are actually quite a few places of agreement. Beyond that you have the choice to believe what you like.

So they agree. How do I know they’re right? I still don’t understand why the god-thing can’t just come right out and tell us what’s up.

Here I am referring more toward the nature of religion rather than the nature of God. The issues are related, but they are not the same. We might disagree upon the nature of God, but we can come up with objective measures for what a healthy religion looks like.



There are actually many reasons that people believe in some sort of divine being. All of these reasons are readily observable by any rational person. The problem is that none of these phenomena can be conclusively attributed to a divine being. Theists and athiests do not disagree on most of the phenomena. They simply disagree on the interpretation.

Would you like examples? Well lets start with the simple ones. One thing is that the majority of natural life is enjoyable. Food is delicious. Sex is pleasurable. Nature is beautiful. Surveys suggest that the greatest source of happiness comes from close relationships with family and friends. In other words life in general is enjoyable in it's default state. Do these things prove that God exists? Of course not, because there is no definite proof that God exists. On the other hand these are all valid reasons why God might exist.

People have warm fuzzy feelings, therefore God exists? Rubbish. If good feelings count towards God’s existence then all human suffering neutralizes them and we end up back and zero.

There are many other reasons why people believe in some type of deity. Some state the existence of life. It's very hard to say how life got started without resorting to some sort of divine influence.

“Magic man done it” is never a valid explanation for anything. Why does the sun move? Apollo must be pulling it across the sky in his chariot. Not quite.

That's not to say that there isn't another reasonable explanation. It simply hasn't been given. ;) For that matter their used to be a good argument against the existence of God which assumed that the universe is static. Since that time observation of bodies in space suggests that the universe is dynamic and has a central point of origin, i.e. the Big Bang. The theory that the universe has an origin doesn't prove God's existence, but it does lend weight to that explanation (and also takes away several arguments that athiests used to use).

God really is quite useful for filling those gaps, isn’t he?

For some people witnessing a child being born can be enough to convince them of God's existence. It can't be objectively argued that this is a miracle, but some believe it is. Often when a person converts to a religion there is a measurable change in behavior. This might not be a miracle, but that is what some believe.

I am simply scratching the surface for reasons why one might believe in a divine being. If I were to state all of the reasons I could think of this post would be about 100 times longer, and I still would miss a lot of explanations that others could come up with.

My point though is that there are a lot of undeniable facts that people look at to justify their belief in a diety. The questionable part is not whether or not these things occur. The questionable part is whether they can be attributed to God. That is why Carl Sagan's analogy is an exceptionally poor one. He holds that theists have no observable reason why they believe in a diety. This is not true in the slightest. His analogy would be more accurate if he said that there was intense heat in the garage, but he doesn't think that a dragon's fire causes it. Because there are observable reasons why people believe in a divine being, but the disagreement about what causes these phenomena is where the disagreement is.

More like “Thinking about dragons makes me feel good, therefore the IGD exists” or “I saw a pretty sunset, therefore the IGD exists.”
 

The_Liquid_Laser

Glowy Goopy Goodness
Joined
Jul 11, 2007
Messages
3,376
MBTI Type
ENTP
Well, you did say "God," which usually presumes monotheism and the Abrahamic God (which is why I lumped Christianity, Islam, and Judaism together). From post 73:

Fair enough. I meant to be referring to a divine being in general and not just the Abrahamic God. I should have been more rigorous in my terminology. :blush: However I was referring to the Carl Sagan analogy which is discussing athiesm vs. theism.

IOW, Carl Sagan argued against theism in general, but you didn't defend theism. You only defended "God."

It would be impossible to defend all of theism in that argument. You can't argue that all the believers of all the different religions are seeing something genuine and real in that same garage if they all enter the garage together and claim to see very different things: one of them is seeing God, one of them is seeing leprechauns, one of them is seeing the thousand Hindu gods, one of them is seeing his departed great-grandfather, etc. They all have to see the same thing, or they're not seeing something that is really and honestly there.

Actually this is what Carl Sagan argues. (Or more accurately they see the same thing but in their own garage instead of one fixed garage.) This is another reason why the analogy is not a good one. My point was never to bad mouth athiesm, but to show how poor the Carl Sagan analogy is. According to his argument athiests refuse to believe what the vast majority believes and all theists are unified in their beliefs. You can say that this is an invalid argument and you are right. You are basically agreeing with me, when I say that Carl Sagan's analogy sucks.

You said that believers can see something real in there, and the atheist is just missing it because he's god-blind. So which would the atheist see if he opened his eyes properly: The departed great grandfather? The thousand Hindu gods? The Abrahamic God?

It sounds like you defended the Abrahamic God and not theism in general. If you're really serious that there's something real in there and not just a shadow in the corner that anyone can interpret any way they want, then I don't see how theism as a whole can be defended in that argument. (Barring a whole lot of sophistry, of course.)

I think you are putting much more into my comments than was ever intended. All of my comments are intended to be viewed within the context of the Carl Sagan analogy. Why should I be discussing "The departed great grandfather? The thousand Hindu gods? The Abrahamic God," when the analogy is always referring to a dragon.

Just my opinion, of course. Oh well, I'll drop out.

I'm usually not into pushing my views on others. I mainly just wanted to point out that this argument isn't only about the Christian God vs. atheism, with atheists playing the role of a tiny minority of grumpy oddballs who somehow stubbornly refuse to see the truth right in front of their face. Instead, as a believer you have to account for *all* the other weird religions and superstitions out there in the world too--it's an important point that atheism denies them *all* (as long as they can't come up with hard proof, anyway), and from our point of view Christianity is one more superstition that's no better or worse than the rest. So are *all* religions and superstitions true? Or will you have to take the even more difficult stance that somehow everyone in the world is fabricating their religion except for you and your particular co-believers in your particular faith. That's a difficult argument to make because if you assume that everyone else in the world is fabricating their religion, then why can't the same be assumed of you, given that you have no more proof than them.

It's the garage again: Are you defending just your "God" or are you defending all of theism? Carl Sagan was very clear about not believing any of the manifestations of theism. But it sounds like you didn't make your own stance nearly as clear: Is your "God" the only one that's real, or are all the crazy gods and beliefs throughout the world equally true?

I don't think I can answer this because you've changed the analogy to the point that it no longer has coherant meaning, and it wasn't even my analogy to begin with. The Carl Sagan analogy does put theism vs. athiesm "with atheists playing the role of a tiny minority of grumpy oddballs who somehow stubbornly refuse to see the truth right in front of their face."

sassafrassquatch said:
First you say it’s the majority’s word against the minority’s, then you say the majority can prove the minority is colorblind with a test and provide evidence. You keep contradicting yourself. Where is the test for god-blindness?

This paragraph does not make any sense. Could you point out the contradiction more clearly? Also where did I mention a test for god-blindness?

Of course a monolithic religion is going to be tyrannical and oppressive. It’s a bunch of guys in funny hats forcing everyone to submit to a religion they pulled out of their asses. Which is not even remotely what I was talking about. I said for God to come down and reveal his will to humanity in person. No one could argue with that.

Also, I would prefer no religions, they’re all myths. I’d like everyone to live with their eyes open rather than stick their heads in the sand.

Well some religions do hold that God came down and revealed his will to humanity in person. :) That still does not create uniformity, nor should it. Also the tried having no religion in the Eastern European countries during the Cold War and from what I understand most Eastern Europeans are glad that era is over as well.

So they agree. How do I know they’re right? I still don’t understand why the god-thing can’t just come right out and tell us what’s up.

People have warm fuzzy feelings, therefore God exists? Rubbish. If good feelings count towards God’s existence then all human suffering neutralizes them and we end up back and zero.

God really is quite useful for filling those gaps, isn’t he?

More like “Thinking about dragons makes me feel good, therefore the IGD exists” or “I saw a pretty sunset, therefore the IGD exists.”

Heh, you are affirming what I've already said. The evidence is there, but the interpretation is widely disagreed upon.
 
Top