|
Author
|
Topic: The Psychology Behind the Belief in Heaven and Hell
|
DevilsAdvocate
Member (Idle past 3131 days) Posts: 1548 Joined: 06-05-2008
|
|
Message 77 of 410 (531821)
10-20-2009 5:31 AM
|
Reply to: Message 75 by iano
10-20-2009 4:37 AM
|
|
Re: Justification By Circular Definition?
Iano writes: Not necessarily. For example: God's stated reason for issuing commands was to ensure that sin would increase. Yet God doesn't will/want people to sin. So God is stacking the deck against us. He creates us premeditatively knowing that we are doom to hell and then further eggs us on. Why does this not make me feel all warm and fuzzy all over.
Iano writes: In other words, God knew that issuing a command would stimulate mans natural rebelliousness into deeper/more sin. Pride simply hates being commanded what to do afterall (I think we can all agree ). I think there is good and bad pride. Good pride i.e. pride in one’s country and in one’s own abilities, etc. can help spur you on to do further good works. Bad pride just like any other virtue you over-indulge in turns into a vice. Do you really think that people who do wrong in the first place are even going to look to God’s commands for guidance? To me this makes no sense at all. Why spur the people who are actually trying to meet God’s approval to do badly? Furthermore, what a hypocrite the Biblical God is for demanding people to worship him. This is the ultimate apex of pride. It is called vanity. How do you expect people not to be prideful when you demand people worship you. That is the most vain and prideful act I can think of.
Iano writes: If I commanded you to scale a 100ft wall unaided .. or else face drastic consequences, it clearly couldn't be because I actually wanted you to scale a 100ft wall unaided. Or necessarily that I wanted drastic consequences to befall you. Wow, so God put all this in place just so he can send everyone to hell. I can’t think of a more evil and despicable plan. Even the worst human atrocities doesn’t touch this one.
Iano writes: God issues impossible-to-keep commands to help us come to the conclusion that we can't keep God's commands. The problem isn't that there's anything inappropriate with Gods commands, the problem is we're sinners - and that's why we can't keep them. God want's to convince us that we are sinners.
Let’s take this analogy a little further. Let us say God is a parent and we are the children (the Bible uses this analogy a lot). You tell your child to climb a 100 foot wall unaided or face dire consequences, which of course he cannot do. Your child of course not having any other recourse is going to try to climb the wall. However as he does so you say, I didn’t expect you to try to climb the wall by yourself. I just wanted you to realize that you couldn’t climb the wall and that you need me to help you. And then if they didn’t believe you, worship or praise you for being so mean to them you shoot them in the head with a gun. Not much difference, except that shooting them in the head would be considered lenient to sending them to hell for eternity. Ok, have to run to work, will address the rest of your post later.
One of the saddest lessons of history is this: If we've been bamboozled long enough, we tend to reject any evidence of the bamboozle. We're no longer interested in finding out the truth. The bamboozle has captured us. It is simply too painful to acknowledge -- even to ourselves -- that we've been so credulous. - Carl Sagan, The Fine Art of Baloney Detection "You can't convince a believer of anything; for their belief is not based on evidence, it's based on a deep seated need to believe." - Carl Sagan "It is far better to grasp the Universe as it really is than to persist in delusion, however satisfying and reassuring." - Carl Sagan, The Demon-Haunted World
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 75 by iano, posted 10-20-2009 4:37 AM | | iano has replied |
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 78 by iano, posted 10-20-2009 5:57 AM | | DevilsAdvocate has not replied |
|
DevilsAdvocate
Member (Idle past 3131 days) Posts: 1548 Joined: 06-05-2008
|
Re: Justification By Circular Definition?
EMA writes: This is actually just the opposite of what I said and donsrtrated. Things can be God material without being Gods conscience. I am not sure what this means. What is "God material"?
EMA writes: freewill in a mechanism of human exisistence and is by itself both God material and separate from his essential existence. Again I don't understand what this means. Existance and non-existance by the very definition of these terms are mutually exclusive and absolute. Either something exists or it does not. Something cannot partially exist or partially not exist.
There is no game where freewill is involved. Free-will requires totally seperate and independent thought and a complete freedom to choose that outweighs any form of deterministic causation. That is, free will hinges on the individual being able to make decisions that are not unduly influenced by outside causes. For example, since a child and mentally disabled individual do not have the experience and the cognitive ability to rationally make decisions there is leeway given into judging their behavior i.e. you do not send a child to jail for what would be considered criminal behavior depending on the age of the child. The questions that need to be asked therefore are "do human's truly exhibit free will" and "does a person's unbelief in God deserve damnation to a permenant status in hell"?
there is no pre-programmed anything, these are your unwarrented conclusions without dealing directly with my arguments. You have simply set my position aside without considering its validity,
No, I am just trying to figure out your reasoning of God's attributes/character and his relation with human beings. You keep saying God is everything and I am stating that if that is so than logically this would mean that humans and their thoughts are God as well. And if this were so, then free-will would just be an illusion because we would merely be extentions of God's existence. However, if humans are imitations of God but not actually part of God's existence so to speak than I can see where you can argue that free-will would exist. Maybe I am wrong but I think most Christians would agree with the latter argument. Please clarify.
EMA writes: there is no evil except that which proceeds from a mind that possess free will, that is a thought process. Ok, does God have free-will? If so than by the above definition he is capable of doing evil as well. And for humans than, evil as well as free-will are dependent on whether humans exist independently of God or not.
EAM writes: It is real in the sense that it proceeds from a physical verifiable mechanism, the mind, they are not real because they have no actual subtance, no reality, but can be observed, demonstrated, examined and evaluated, and are therefore independent of even Gods exsistence, because they have no actual reality in and of themselves. What do you consider as 'substance'? If you are going to throw ambiguous terms like 'substance', 'thoughts', 'real', 'not real', etc you really need to define what you are talking about. By substance do you mean 'matter' as in tangible components of matter/energy that occupy the dimensions of spacetime the answer i.e. atoms, molecules, etc. If so than no, thoughts are not matter or energy they are the product of matter/energy interacting just as other behaviors such as spoken words, etc are the physical acts/behaviors resulting from matter/energy interacting. Can you really observe and detect a thought? It depends on how you define a thought. You can detect the biochemical reactions in the brain while one is thinking but I am not sure if you can actually "observe" a thought. It really depends on how you are defining a "thought". Like the term 'beauty', the term 'thought' is an abstract product that results from biochemical processes aka "thinking" in the brain. I suspect we may be saying the same thing just using different wording but I am not sure.
EMA writes: Because he is all that there is in reality or existence, it would follow logically that any decisions or deteminations from him would be the ultimate source of knowledge or morality. If that is the case than we have no method of judging good or bad apart from God and therefore have to rely 100% on faith that God is good with no way to back this up or question if what God. God could commit the worse attrocities and we would have no choice but to call it good. Furthermore, if one reads the Bible in its entirity you see a entity which has done exactly that (commiting, commanding and condoning attrocities such as slavery, ethnicide, torture, etc).
There is no other source outside of God to base a decision. Than this negates free-will. If we cannot make decisions without God than how can their be free-will. Free-will requires the ability to make independent choices by that individual.
While you may not like this conclusion, it conclusion is inexcapable. It matters not what I like or do not like. It matters what makes sense logically and scientifically and what doesn't. It probably is impossible to keep my personal opinions and preferences out of my ramblings but I try to stick to rational thinking and discussion as much as possible and as long as people point out my weaknesses and flaws politely I have no problem being polite back.
EMA writes: Me writes: And what is God's image, morally speaking. That is the question. How do you define God morally? By logical absolutness. This is contrived gibberish to me. What does "logical absoluteness" mean? Edited by DevilsAdvocate, : No reason given. Edited by DevilsAdvocate, : No reason given.
One of the saddest lessons of history is this: If we've been bamboozled long enough, we tend to reject any evidence of the bamboozle. We're no longer interested in finding out the truth. The bamboozle has captured us. It is simply too painful to acknowledge -- even to ourselves -- that we've been so credulous. - Carl Sagan, The Fine Art of Baloney Detection "You can't convince a believer of anything; for their belief is not based on evidence, it's based on a deep seated need to believe." - Carl Sagan "It is far better to grasp the Universe as it really is than to persist in delusion, however satisfying and reassuring." - Carl Sagan, The Demon-Haunted World
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 81 by Dawn Bertot, posted 10-20-2009 10:38 AM | | Dawn Bertot has replied |
|
DevilsAdvocate
Member (Idle past 3131 days) Posts: 1548 Joined: 06-05-2008
|
Re: Justification By Circular Definition?
EAM writes: Assuming he exists, his Spirit make-up, whatever that maybe, eternal in character Ok I will buy that for the sake of this argument.
EAM writes: This is ofcurse the unique nature of pure thought, love, hate, anger. All of these proceed from a though process, yet have nearly no reality, that is no substance. Think about it (no pun intended), you are formulating ideas in your head as we speak, but the thoughts have no real existence as we know existence, a truely amazing process. thought nearly has the property of bring and not being at the same time I think we are talking in circles here. If you are saying that thoughts are the direct product of the biochemical process of cognitive thinking in our brain than I agree with you. Without the physiological process of brain activity there are no thoughts. Therefore thoughts are an abstact concept resulting from a physical process which do not exist if you are referring to existence as occupying a niche of spacetime in which we live. In other words you do not see randomn ‘thoughts’ just floating around out there. Therefore using this definition of existence, no, individual thoughts do not exist however the brain exists. Anywho let’s get back to topic.
EAM writes: Unduly influences are irrelevant to the fact that every choice is made on some evidence outside of ones person or character. This idea that pressure makes a choice not a choice is nonsense at best. a person has as much choice not to exercise a choice at to exercise it, this latest attempt to make unduly influences as an excuse to excuse the ide of choice are simply silly. How so? If a mentally ill or handicapped person is unduly influenced by other factors (psychological and/or physiological), do these influences not have a role into whether someone really has free reign over their own emotions, thoughts, and decisions? The answer of course is yes both physical and psychological factors have a role into whether someone truly has "free-will". Otherwise there would be even more mentally ill people in prison than there already are and their would be no mental wards in hospitals. The same is true with children. Depending on their age we do no judge children with the same criteria that we judge culpable adults. Children, especially little children, do not have the life-experience or mental capacity to have complete freedom to make correct or wise decisions. They are still learning how to make correct decisions to the extent that they become fully responsible adults. Even grown and cognizant adults, though they have the freedom and responsibility to make correct decisions, may experience time in their life where unduly influences may overwhelm their capacity to make rational choices. It is situational dependent on whether they are held culpable by other human beings for these decisions depending on internal and external influences. In fact this is exactly what a court of law is trying to determine (there guilt and the extent to which they had the ability to make rational decisions between morally acceptable and unacceptable behavior) besides the evidence for or against the case. For example, someone who goes out drinking and than in their drunken stouper decides to drive home in car is held culpable because they had the freedom to choose the morally acceptable decision of not driving, not driving, finding another ride, etc before they made the decision to take that first drink even though the alcohol now overwhelms there decision making process in their brain. However, if someone who is under excruciating physical and psychological anguish, pain, etc i.e. a POW, someone being tortured, etc to the point that there decision making process in their brain is unduly influenced or outright overridden than a court of law will take that into consideration when they determine whether someone violates the law. One cannot just say unduly influences are irrelevant to every situation because that is patently not true as shown in our own judicial system. I will have to answer the rest of your post later. Thanks again for the discussion.
One of the saddest lessons of history is this: If we've been bamboozled long enough, we tend to reject any evidence of the bamboozle. We're no longer interested in finding out the truth. The bamboozle has captured us. It is simply too painful to acknowledge -- even to ourselves -- that we've been so credulous. - Carl Sagan, The Fine Art of Baloney Detection "You can't convince a believer of anything; for their belief is not based on evidence, it's based on a deep seated need to believe." - Carl Sagan "It is far better to grasp the Universe as it really is than to persist in delusion, however satisfying and reassuring." - Carl Sagan, The Demon-Haunted World
|
DevilsAdvocate
Member (Idle past 3131 days) Posts: 1548 Joined: 06-05-2008
|
Clarification of Thread Topic
EAM writes: i would point as well that making no decision in a situation where outside stimuli is present is also making a decision. The question is not whether there is outside stimulus or not. There is ALWAYS outside stimulus unless you live in a vacuum (and then you would be dead). The question is to what extent does the outside (and inside if you are talking about the human body including the brain itself) stimulus overrides one's ability to rationally make a decision.
EAM writes: In other words, freewill can exist and is real whether a decision is made or not. The very definition of free-will requires an ability to make a decision.
Merriam-Webster Dictionary writes: free will: freedom of humans to make choices that are not determined by prior causes or by divine intervention Free-will is predicated on the ability to make decisions/choices. However you are right in that an actual decision does not have to be made just that the ability to choose is there. Just want to make sure that is clear.
EAM writes: Again, when dealing with absolute rule in the form of omniscience, IF YOU BELIEVE IN IT, leaves you no logical alternatives. This is your interpretation of what the Bible says. If you are specifying that if one believes in the God of the Bible than one has to believe in moral absolutes, than that is a statement of faith and belief not of logical necessity. It depends on your interpretation of the Bible. Some religious people push for more moral relativism than others.
EAM writes: One has no other means on which to base a decision, other than to IGNORE the force of that logic and ignore the principles set out by omniscience. This is based on your belief. Note I am not saying you are wrong just that there is no logical necessity for this to be true except within your own worldview. In other words you can argue it either way. You are making a logical case for moral absolutism in regards to your religious faith however there are others of your faith that believe that moral absolutism is not a requirement. And yes you can say they are really not Christians but again this is based on your belief not logical necessity. I am not saying one way or the other, the whole purpose of my thread here is to discuss how Christians can advocate for the existence of heaven and hell yet at the same time advocate that the God of the Bible is a god of love and peace. To me the creation of hell seems contradictory to the Christian message of love. These to me seem to be morally incompatible concepts. I am just asking Christians how they can logically and rationally explain this. Whether or not God really exists is immaterial to this debate because that is not where I am trying to focus this discussion. My goal for the thread is to focus on the justification of hell from a Christian perspective using the tools of logic and deduction.
EAM writes: Indirectly atleast, it seems you have chosen that path. Not indirectly. Directly I have chosen the path to not believe in the God of the Bible for a variety of reasons which are off-topic from the current discussion. If you would like to discuss this in another thread or personal emails I would be happy to.
EAM writes: If heaven and hell are a problem for you from a LOGICAL standpoint, Actually it is not heaven and hell but the religious believer’s acceptance of the concepts of heaven and hell in relation to the concept of a "good" god that troubles me.
EAM writes: be happy with your decision and move forward, like Carl Sagan I am happy with my decision and am moving forward. I just like to discuss many different subjects and one of these is the psychology behind religious belief. BTW, Carl Sagan is one of my heroes. If you go to my youtube account you can see this.
EAM writes: If nothing else here you seem to be remotley OBJECTIVE, which is a very good trait and I dont mean to indirectly imply others arent Thanks. I know I am not always objective and am an errant human but I try to be objective whenever possible and try not to let emotions overrule the rational part of my brain. DA Edited by DevilsAdvocate, : No reason given. Edited by DevilsAdvocate, : Add message subtitle
One of the saddest lessons of history is this: If we've been bamboozled long enough, we tend to reject any evidence of the bamboozle. We're no longer interested in finding out the truth. The bamboozle has captured us. It is simply too painful to acknowledge -- even to ourselves -- that we've been so credulous. - Carl Sagan, The Fine Art of Baloney Detection "You can't convince a believer of anything; for their belief is not based on evidence, it's based on a deep seated need to believe." - Carl Sagan "It is far better to grasp the Universe as it really is than to persist in delusion, however satisfying and reassuring." - Carl Sagan, The Demon-Haunted World
|
DevilsAdvocate
Member (Idle past 3131 days) Posts: 1548 Joined: 06-05-2008
|
|
|
Message 115 of 410 (532381)
10-23-2009 5:35 AM
|
Reply to: Message 114 by iano
10-23-2009 4:54 AM
|
|
Reason is the greatest enemy that faith has!
Iano writes: And when it comes to Hell, it is your rejection of goodness that sees you sent to an environment were no good is. Yet it is implied in the Bible and preached by many Christian fundamentalists that hell is more than just the absence of God/good and it is not non-existance. Rather hell is taught/preached/implied to be a place of eternal torment. Here are some excerpts from various Christian sources including the Bible to help shed some light on this:
Matthew 25:41, 46 writes: Then he will say to those on his left, ‘Depart from me, you accursed, into the eternal fire that has been prepared for the devil and his angels! Then they will go away to eternal punishment, but the righteous to eternal life. Mark 9: 47-48 writes: It is better for you to enter the kingdom of God with one eye than to have two eyes and be thrown into hell, where " 'their worm does not die, and the fire is not quenched.' Everyone will be salted with fire. Luke 16:23-24 writes: In hell, where he was in torment, he looked up and saw Abraham far away, with Lazarus by his side. So he called to him, 'Father Abraham, have pity on me and send Lazarus to dip the tip of his finger in water and cool my tongue, because I am in agony in this fire.' John 3:46 writes: The one who believes in the Son has eternal life. The one who rejects the Son will not see life, but God’s wrath remains on him. Revelation 14:11 writes: And the smoke of their torment rises for ever and ever. There is no rest day or night for those who worship the beast and his image, or for anyone who receives the mark of his name. Revelations 20:15 writes: If anyone's name was not found written in the book of life, he was thrown into the lake of fire. Also
The Christian Doctrine of Hell and
The truth about hell Therefore to get back to the heart of my original OP, the question being asked is how do you square this with the Christian cornerstone teaching from the #1 source God/Jesus himself in which he states that God is good. In other words, How can a good god create, judge, and sentence people to hell. Why does god have to send non-believers to this god-forsaken place (yes I intended that pun) in which the worm-never dies and the fires and torment never cease? Why not non-existance or a place to rehabilitate one’s self i.e. purgatory. Why does God not spell it out that he exists? Why supposedly show up for 20-30 years out of tens of thousands of years of human history and not even show one iota of evidence that he really exists for over 2000 years since? Why make it a guessing game as to whether he exists or not and then send literally billions of people to excrutiating torment for eternity for guessing wrong? To me it does not make a lick of sense. To me it is all human contrived nonsense in order to psychologically (and sometimes physically) force people into their religious worldview. I am not trying to be mean, I am just trying to figure this thing out rationally. And who can argue with this?
Sorry, just had to throw some humor in such a serious topic  Edited by DevilsAdvocate, : No reason given. Edited by DevilsAdvocate, : No reason given.
One of the saddest lessons of history is this: If we've been bamboozled long enough, we tend to reject any evidence of the bamboozle. We're no longer interested in finding out the truth. The bamboozle has captured us. It is simply too painful to acknowledge -- even to ourselves -- that we've been so credulous. - Carl Sagan, The Fine Art of Baloney Detection "You can't convince a believer of anything; for their belief is not based on evidence, it's based on a deep seated need to believe." - Carl Sagan "It is far better to grasp the Universe as it really is than to persist in delusion, however satisfying and reassuring." - Carl Sagan, The Demon-Haunted World
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 114 by iano, posted 10-23-2009 4:54 AM | | iano has not replied |
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 121 by jaywill, posted 10-23-2009 2:45 PM | | DevilsAdvocate has replied |
|
DevilsAdvocate
Member (Idle past 3131 days) Posts: 1548 Joined: 06-05-2008
|
|
|
Message 122 of 410 (532501)
10-23-2009 5:17 PM
|
Reply to: Message 121 by jaywill
10-23-2009 2:45 PM
|
|
Re: Reason is the greatest enemy that faith has!
Jaywill writes: I think the sign is too general. God says "Come let us reason together." And the we read of "your most reasonable service" of allowing your mind to be renewed by the Spirit of Christ so that you may present yourself to serve Him. But these kinds of reasonings are not so funny. Ok, thats nice.
Jaywill writes: "The reason we accepted Darwinism even without proof, is because we didn't want God to interfere with our sexual mores." Julian Huxley on Mirv Griffin show You lifted three quotes from a book ("I Don't Have Enough Faith to Be an Atheist" itself derived from "Why I Believe" by Dr. James Kennedy) and act like it is true. Actually these are quote-mined lies. You are spreading lies. Here is a link that exposes this lie:
THE JULIAN HUXLEY LIE Jaywill writes:
Lee Strobel writing of his pre-Christian testimony "I mean if Darwinism is true- if there is no God and we all evolved from slimy green algae - then I can sleep with whomever I want." And we trust every religious person who says they were once atheists why? In fact every person on this planet who has ever lived was an atheist at one point in there lives. Why? Because babies do not believe in god. One has to be indoctrinated into belief in the God of the Bible otherwise why have Sunday School and Church when you could just instinctively learn about God.
Jaywill writes: "I was more happy to latch onto Darwinism as an excuse to jettison the idea of God so I could unabashedly pursue my own agenda in life without moral constraints." Anonymous -biology professor conversion with author Ron Carlson And Mike the preacher down the streat says God is freaking loser and a moron and we should burn our Bibles. See how much credibility this takes. Even if these are actually quotes what does this prove? That a few people made stupid remarks. Who cares if a few non-believers (and two 'supposed' atheist who converted to Christianity) give some off the wall remarks. Should I take some quotes from religious people out of context and try to make it show that they do not believe in God or the Bible? It really would not be that hard to do. Subjective ramblings from a few people does not an argument for God make. Edited by DevilsAdvocate, : No reason given.
One of the saddest lessons of history is this: If we've been bamboozled long enough, we tend to reject any evidence of the bamboozle. We're no longer interested in finding out the truth. The bamboozle has captured us. It is simply too painful to acknowledge -- even to ourselves -- that we've been so credulous. - Carl Sagan, The Fine Art of Baloney Detection "You can't convince a believer of anything; for their belief is not based on evidence, it's based on a deep seated need to believe." - Carl Sagan "It is far better to grasp the Universe as it really is than to persist in delusion, however satisfying and reassuring." - Carl Sagan, The Demon-Haunted World
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 121 by jaywill, posted 10-23-2009 2:45 PM | | jaywill has replied |
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 129 by jaywill, posted 10-24-2009 12:26 AM | | DevilsAdvocate has replied |
|
DevilsAdvocate
Member (Idle past 3131 days) Posts: 1548 Joined: 06-05-2008
|
|
|
Message 133 of 410 (532571)
10-24-2009 7:46 AM
|
Reply to: Message 129 by jaywill
10-24-2009 12:26 AM
|
|
Re: Reason is the greatest enemy that faith has!
Jaywill writes: Thanks for the link. I do not want to misquote or attribute a quote to the wrong person. You've succeeded in suspicioning me about it. Not a problem. Notice I did not say you were lying just that you were spreading a lie. I was pretty sure you were not doing this intentionally. This happens all to often. I will agree that non-religious as well as religious people are guilty of spreading internet rumors and mine-quotes but its almost seems endemic in the Creationist/ID community to the point that some people doing it knowing that they are false, which to me removes all credibility for anything else they state. That is why I always try to investigate the actual sources to determine what is correct or not however I am sure that I have even unknowingly spread false internet rumors at one time or another. It is easy to do when you pull stuff off of the internet.
Jaywill writes: I don't think I wrote that we should trust every religious person who says t hey were once atheists. Are you claiming that we should trust none of them ? I think both extremes would be unwise. No. I agree. But realistically, usually the people who claim to have been hard-core atheists and now are "born-again" Christians were just people who really didn't give a flip whether God exists or not (which probably describes close to 30-40% of the population of the US and even more in Europe) as opposed to atheists who actually have definitive reasons for not believing in God and can logically and rationally back up their worldview.
Jaywill writes: Me writes: In fact every person on this planet who has ever lived was an atheist at one point in there lives. You don't know that. It depends on how you define atheist. The word atheist in Greek (atheos) means "without gods". If you define an atheist using the original greek definition as someone that does not believe in a supernatural deity than yes everyone at one point (a baby/toddler/young child) did not believe in God and therefore technically was an atheist. However, the word atheist has been more narrowed down through to imply someone who actively does not believe in supernatural entities called God or gods because of logical and emperical evidence that they believe supports their worldview. If this is the term than no babies, toddlers, children were neither theists or atheists but they are non-believers since do not have the rational to believe in anything except that substinance, love, and security come (or should come) from their parents/caretakers. So I guess it really depends on how you are defining the word "atheist".
Jaywill writes: Besides it seems like an argument from popularity. I don't think I was using this to prove that the non-existance of God is true, just that people are not born believing in God. Or would you disagree?
Jaywill writes: But neither did they believe in the non-existence of God. Come now. See above. Either way, just because someone says they were an active atheist in their past means nothing, I see it as just a ploy some born-again Christians sometimes use to try to convince their audience that they should be credible in saying bad things about being an atheist. The same thing can be done with someone (i.e. myself) about being a Christian and then becoming a deist, agnostic or atheist. Either way there one has to have implicit trust that what one is saying is true. Personal testimonies are known to be biased and hold little weight as empirical evidence for or against the existence of God. Notice, I am not saying it is wrong to give your personal testimony both for or against Christianity; just that it should not be used to determine the validity for or against the existence of God.
Jaywill writes: That is ridiculous. 1.) Indoctrination does not necessarily mean that the doctrine is not true. Or true. But what it does show is that people do not implicity know all the doctrine incorporated in the Bible. It has to be taught to them or they have to learn it through reading the Bible on their own. BTW I never said that indoctrination means that the doctrine is not true only that it puts into suspicion whether the belief in the existence of God is inherent behavior in humans. Based on evidence I believe this not to be so.
Jaywill writes: 2.) Not all believers in God were brought up in Sunday School. Of course not. My point was why have Sunday School at all if the nature of God and the ethical code of the Bible are inherent to human beings.
Jaywill writes: 3.) Seventh Day Adventist don't have Sunday School because their day for such spiritual gatherings is Saturday. Yes I know that. Neither do many Churches of Christ. You missed my point. See my above comment.
Jaywill writes: 4.) Some people became skeptical about God in Sunday School and did not becomes believers until after they got out of that environment. Ie, left organized religious instruction and latter became believers in God in an independent way. Few people become Christians this way. Even so, nearly all do so from some type of exposure to the Christian faith i.e. early experience from childhood, reading a Bible, watching a preacher on TV/street corner/etc, personal witness, etc, etc.
Jaywill writes: Jokes about trite religious signs on a lawn don't do a whole lot to address the issue either. Touche. It was an attempt at levity to lighten up an otherwise serious topic. I guess it failed  Edited by DevilsAdvocate, : No reason given.
One of the saddest lessons of history is this: If we've been bamboozled long enough, we tend to reject any evidence of the bamboozle. We're no longer interested in finding out the truth. The bamboozle has captured us. It is simply too painful to acknowledge -- even to ourselves -- that we've been so credulous. - Carl Sagan, The Fine Art of Baloney Detection "You can't convince a believer of anything; for their belief is not based on evidence, it's based on a deep seated need to believe." - Carl Sagan "It is far better to grasp the Universe as it really is than to persist in delusion, however satisfying and reassuring." - Carl Sagan, The Demon-Haunted World
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 129 by jaywill, posted 10-24-2009 12:26 AM | | jaywill has not replied |
|
DevilsAdvocate
Member (Idle past 3131 days) Posts: 1548 Joined: 06-05-2008
|
Re: Justification By Circular Definition?
EMA, I think you and Oni are talking past each other. Without sensory input of some type there really would be no cognitive thinking process because there would be nothing really to think about and thereby no thoughts. And without the brain and the biochemical processes of thinking, sensory inputs such as "hearing" would be impossible. Therefore, hearing is a part of the thinking process as well as visual, taste, smell and tactile input. Saying that hearing and thinking are two different processes is ludicrous. They are part of the same biochemical processes. It is like saying that one can operate a computer using a microphone without the CPU being present. As far as hearing thoughts in your head; where else are you going to "hear" thoughts and other sounds. Again hearing and thinking are not always seperate, distince processes rather they are processes which utilize overlapping regions of the brain itself. Therefore hearing and thinking sometimes overlap. In one's brain one can distinguish between internal thoughts and external auditory input because the brain is able to determine where the sensory input is coming from i.e. the eyes, the cochlea in the ear, etc. However, the two are not always 100% distinguishable and sometimes the brain has trouble distinguishing between the two especially when chemical imbalances in the brain are involved i.e. schizophrenia, etc. and psychodelic drugs are taken. This is my understanding of how things work based on my limited education (I did take a college psychology class once upon a time). Hope this helps. Edited by DevilsAdvocate, : No reason given.
One of the saddest lessons of history is this: If we've been bamboozled long enough, we tend to reject any evidence of the bamboozle. We're no longer interested in finding out the truth. The bamboozle has captured us. It is simply too painful to acknowledge -- even to ourselves -- that we've been so credulous. - Carl Sagan, The Fine Art of Baloney Detection "You can't convince a believer of anything; for their belief is not based on evidence, it's based on a deep seated need to believe." - Carl Sagan "It is far better to grasp the Universe as it really is than to persist in delusion, however satisfying and reassuring." - Carl Sagan, The Demon-Haunted World
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 137 by Dawn Bertot, posted 10-24-2009 12:53 PM | | Dawn Bertot has not replied |
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 140 by onifre, posted 10-24-2009 2:56 PM | | DevilsAdvocate has replied |
|
DevilsAdvocate
Member (Idle past 3131 days) Posts: 1548 Joined: 06-05-2008
|
|
|
Message 141 of 410 (532608)
10-24-2009 5:02 PM
|
Reply to: Message 140 by onifre
10-24-2009 2:56 PM
|
|
Re: Justification By Circular Definition?
Hey Onifre, Good talking to you again.
Oni writes: But my argument is not about "thinking" or any other process. This debate between EMA and I is about "thoughts" and what they represent in reality. It really makes no sense if we can't even define what being "real" means. But thoughts are just the abstract products of the process of thinking. In other word "thoughts" are a human contrived concept to describe the chunks of information produced by the biochemical process of thinking using our brains.
Onifre writes: He is ignoring the scientifc definition of what a thought is (reaction to stimuli) and replaced it with a nonsensical explanation about a "no substance, abstract thing," as if that explained anything at all. Agreed. That is why definitions of these words need to be agreed upon, otherwise argueing for or against "are thougts real" is silly.
Onifre writes: r central nervous system processes the information communicated to it by neurons in response to stimuli, and we have words that represent this processed information. So we don't "hear" our thoughts, we try to represent our outside world with words in our brains, and we recognize the words. "Hearing" itself is part of the "interpretation of senses" process conducted by the brain. Without the brain, there is no "hearing". I think the riddle "If a tree falls in a forest and no one is around to hear it, does it make a sound?" is apropos here. It is the brain in which "hearing" takes place not our ears. The cochlea of our ears just recieve sounds and convert them into an electrochemical format that our brains can analyze aka "hear". Our brains though can distinguish between our internal cognitive "thinking" and the act of hearing in most cases, as I discussed before. Either way, "hearing" sounds and thinking are processes of the brain. Thoughts are just snippets of information created by the act of thinking. Therefore to ask if thoughts are real is like asking if information is real. Edited by DevilsAdvocate, : No reason given. Edited by DevilsAdvocate, : No reason given.
One of the saddest lessons of history is this: If we've been bamboozled long enough, we tend to reject any evidence of the bamboozle. We're no longer interested in finding out the truth. The bamboozle has captured us. It is simply too painful to acknowledge -- even to ourselves -- that we've been so credulous. - Carl Sagan, The Fine Art of Baloney Detection "You can't convince a believer of anything; for their belief is not based on evidence, it's based on a deep seated need to believe." - Carl Sagan "It is far better to grasp the Universe as it really is than to persist in delusion, however satisfying and reassuring." - Carl Sagan, The Demon-Haunted World
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 140 by onifre, posted 10-24-2009 2:56 PM | | onifre has replied |
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 161 by onifre, posted 10-26-2009 4:04 PM | | DevilsAdvocate has replied |
|
DevilsAdvocate
Member (Idle past 3131 days) Posts: 1548 Joined: 06-05-2008
|
|
|
Message 148 of 410 (532643)
10-25-2009 8:22 AM
|
Reply to: Message 147 by Peg
10-25-2009 7:56 AM
|
|
Re: Christian Myth
Peg, I know you are a Jehovah's Witness and do not believe in hell but
Disclaimer writes: In a minute I am going to defend the Christian's worldview that heaven is real. That does not mean I believe it to be real, just that mainstream Christians have a legitimate reason to believe in hell as legitimate location where people judged by God to be tormented; if they solely using the Bible as a source for their religious belief. how do you square this with these scriptures:
Matthew 13:41,50 writes: The Son of Man will send his angels, and they will gather from his kingdom everything that causes sin as well as all lawbreakers and throw them into the fiery furnace, where there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth. Matthew 23:33 writes: You snakes, you offspring of vipers! How will you escape being condemned to hell? Matthew 25:41, 46 writes: Then he will say to those on his left, ‘Depart from me, you accursed, into the eternal fire that has been prepared for the devil and his angels! Then they will go away to eternal punishment, but the righteous to eternal life. Mark 9: 47-48 writes: It is better for you to enter the kingdom of God with one eye than to have two eyes and be thrown into hell, where " 'their worm does not die, and the fire is not quenched.' Everyone will be salted with fire. Luke 16:22-26 writes: And it came to pass, that the beggar died, and was carried by the angels into Abraham's bosom: the rich man also died, and was buried; In hell, where he was in torment, he looked up and saw Abraham far away, with Lazarus by his side. So he called to him, 'Father Abraham, have pity on me and send Lazarus to dip the tip of his finger in water and cool my tongue, because I am in agony in this fire.' But Abraham said, Son, remember that thou in thy lifetime receivedst thy good things, and likewise Lazarus evil things: but now he is comforted, and thou art tormented. And beside all this, between us and you there is a great gulf fixed: so that they which would pass from hence to you cannot; neither can they pass to us, that would come from thence. John 3:46 writes: The one who believes in the Son has eternal life. The one who rejects the Son will not see life, but God’s wrath remains on him. John 13:36 writes: The one who believes in the Son has eternal life. The one who rejects the Son will not see life, but God’s wrath remains on him. Hebrews 9:27 writes: And just as people are appointed to die once, and then to face judgment II peter 2:4 writes: For if God spared not the angels that sinned, but cast them down to hell, and delivered them into chains of darkness, to be reserved unto judgment; Revelation 14:10-11 writes: That person will also drink of the wine of God’s anger that has been mixed undiluted in the cup of his wrath, and he will be tortured with fire and sulfur in front of the holy angels and in front of the Lamb. And the smoke of their torment rises for ever and ever. There is no rest day or night for those who worship the beast and his image, or for anyone who receives the mark of his name. Revelations 20:11-15 writes: Then I saw a large white throne and the one who was seated on it; the earth and the heaven fled from his presence, and no place was found for them. And I saw the dead, the great and the small, standing before the throne. Then books were opened, and another book was opened — the book of life. So the dead were judged by what was written in the books, according to their deeds. The sea gave up the dead that were in it, and Death and Hades gave up the dead that were in them, and each one was judged according to his deeds. Then Death and Hades were thrown into the lake of fire. This is the second death — the lake of fire. If anyone's name was not found written in the book of life, he was thrown into the lake of fire. Revelations 21:8 writes: But to the cowards, unbelievers, detestable persons, murderers, the sexually immoral, and those who practice magic spells, idol worshipers, and all those who lie, their place will be in the lake that burns with fire and sulfur. That is the second death. If you disbelieve in hell as a JW it is not based on the Bible of the mainline Christians but on your own JW dogma.
Peg writes: If even 'death' goes into the lake of fire, how can it be a literal place??? It cannot be a literal place for death is innanimate. What is the point of putting something innanimate into hell? Death and hell cannot literally be burned. But they can, and will, be done away with, or destroyed. I have no clue, maybe they were metaphors/figurative language to symbolize that death would not exist for those going to heaven/hell. You will have to take that up with the main branch Christians. To me it is all human contrived and so it makes not a lick of difference. The whole point is that I can not understand how Christians who believe in hell (which would not be you), can justify that God would be a good God for sending billions of people to be tortured in hell for eternity. I guess for JW's, Catholics (since they believe in purgetory) and select other Christian sects they can rationalize this by playing down hell. However for fundamentalists and mainline Christians this is still an issue. Edited by DevilsAdvocate, : No reason given.
One of the saddest lessons of history is this: If we've been bamboozled long enough, we tend to reject any evidence of the bamboozle. We're no longer interested in finding out the truth. The bamboozle has captured us. It is simply too painful to acknowledge -- even to ourselves -- that we've been so credulous. - Carl Sagan, The Fine Art of Baloney Detection "You can't convince a believer of anything; for their belief is not based on evidence, it's based on a deep seated need to believe." - Carl Sagan "It is far better to grasp the Universe as it really is than to persist in delusion, however satisfying and reassuring." - Carl Sagan, The Demon-Haunted World
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 147 by Peg, posted 10-25-2009 7:56 AM | | Peg has replied |
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 150 by Peg, posted 10-25-2009 9:05 AM | | DevilsAdvocate has not replied |
|
DevilsAdvocate
Member (Idle past 3131 days) Posts: 1548 Joined: 06-05-2008
|
|
|
Message 149 of 410 (532644)
10-25-2009 8:26 AM
|
Reply to: Message 147 by Peg
10-25-2009 7:56 AM
|
|
Re: Christian Myth
Peg writes: the fact is that Hell is a myth invented by Christians who were influenced by Plato. the idea of Hell didnt begin until the middle of the 2nd century by christian teachers who were trained in greek philosophy. The myth of hell came about because they were teaching another myth...that of the immortal soul. That myth created the question of where souls go to when they died and hell was used to explain where bad people went, while heaven was used to explain where good people went. the truth is that hell is not a real place of fiery torment...its the grave and nothing more. I can buy into this theory Peg. However, it flies into the face of a large segment of Christiandom and the Bible they believe in.
One of the saddest lessons of history is this: If we've been bamboozled long enough, we tend to reject any evidence of the bamboozle. We're no longer interested in finding out the truth. The bamboozle has captured us. It is simply too painful to acknowledge -- even to ourselves -- that we've been so credulous. - Carl Sagan, The Fine Art of Baloney Detection "You can't convince a believer of anything; for their belief is not based on evidence, it's based on a deep seated need to believe." - Carl Sagan "It is far better to grasp the Universe as it really is than to persist in delusion, however satisfying and reassuring." - Carl Sagan, The Demon-Haunted World
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 147 by Peg, posted 10-25-2009 7:56 AM | | Peg has replied |
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 151 by Peg, posted 10-25-2009 9:07 AM | | DevilsAdvocate has not replied | | | Message 152 by Izanagi, posted 10-25-2009 9:11 AM | | DevilsAdvocate has replied |
|
DevilsAdvocate
Member (Idle past 3131 days) Posts: 1548 Joined: 06-05-2008
|
|
|
Message 154 of 410 (532733)
10-26-2009 5:18 AM
|
Reply to: Message 152 by Izanagi
10-25-2009 9:11 AM
|
|
Re: Christian Myth
Izanagi writes: This trend may have something to do with the increasingly diverse US population. As more and more Christians become neighbors with decent non-Christian people, it becomes clear to Christians that hell, or some sort of eternal punishment for non-believers seems counter-intuitive with a benevolent God. So all we need to do is do a bit more diversifying in the more homogeneous areas of the country and belief in hell may become a belief for a minority of Christians. I totally agree. I think fundamental Christianity is already starting to water down some of their long held practices however many still "cling to their guns and bibles" in a desperate attempt to save their cultural norms and religious beliefs. In some ways I think it has more to do with culture than it does strictly religion.
One of the saddest lessons of history is this: If we've been bamboozled long enough, we tend to reject any evidence of the bamboozle. We're no longer interested in finding out the truth. The bamboozle has captured us. It is simply too painful to acknowledge -- even to ourselves -- that we've been so credulous. - Carl Sagan, The Fine Art of Baloney Detection "You can't convince a believer of anything; for their belief is not based on evidence, it's based on a deep seated need to believe." - Carl Sagan "It is far better to grasp the Universe as it really is than to persist in delusion, however satisfying and reassuring." - Carl Sagan, The Demon-Haunted World
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 152 by Izanagi, posted 10-25-2009 9:11 AM | | Izanagi has not replied |
|
DevilsAdvocate
Member (Idle past 3131 days) Posts: 1548 Joined: 06-05-2008
|
|
|
Message 162 of 410 (532826)
10-26-2009 5:11 PM
|
Reply to: Message 161 by onifre
10-26-2009 4:04 PM
|
|
Re: Justification By Circular Definition?
Oni, I see where the point of contention is here. I think EMA is advocating the philosophical concept of dualism (even if he does not realize it) in which the non-physical mind is a seperate and distinguishable entity from the matter of the body and the brain. Whereas you and I advocate that dualism does not exist and rather advocate the default position of materialism (what is physical is what exists i.e. there is no seperate spiritual/non-physical realm). Logic dictates that the burdern of proof lies in the one claiming something exists not with the one claiming something does not exist. In this case it is up to him to show that the distinct non-physical/immaterial mind exists seperate from the physical body. Hope this helps. DA Edited by DevilsAdvocate, : No reason given.
One of the saddest lessons of history is this: If we've been bamboozled long enough, we tend to reject any evidence of the bamboozle. We're no longer interested in finding out the truth. The bamboozle has captured us. It is simply too painful to acknowledge -- even to ourselves -- that we've been so credulous. - Carl Sagan, The Fine Art of Baloney Detection "You can't convince a believer of anything; for their belief is not based on evidence, it's based on a deep seated need to believe." - Carl Sagan "It is far better to grasp the Universe as it really is than to persist in delusion, however satisfying and reassuring." - Carl Sagan, The Demon-Haunted World
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 161 by onifre, posted 10-26-2009 4:04 PM | | onifre has replied |
|
DevilsAdvocate
Member (Idle past 3131 days) Posts: 1548 Joined: 06-05-2008
|
Re: Justification By Circular Definition?
EMA writes: Holy Moly, put that in English for me Albert E, so I canunderstand it, very impressive EMA, Not a problem. Let me break this down. Dualism is the idea that there is more to our mind than just our physical brain. That is a non-physical reality exists outside of the physical realm we interact with everyday. Some call it the spiritual realm in which our mind/spirit/souls exists and functions. As a result the mind/soul/spirit is much more than just the physical entity of the brain and can continue to exist after the physical body and brain die. Materialism however states that the brain and body is all that exists and there is no seperate entity called the mind that exists on another dimension of reality outside of the physical brain. Thinking is the by-product of a functioning/cognitive brain, nothing more. Once the brain dies, all the cognitive functions of that brain (including thinking) cease to exist as well. Hope this makes sense. Edited by DevilsAdvocate, : No reason given.
One of the saddest lessons of history is this: If we've been bamboozled long enough, we tend to reject any evidence of the bamboozle. We're no longer interested in finding out the truth. The bamboozle has captured us. It is simply too painful to acknowledge -- even to ourselves -- that we've been so credulous. - Carl Sagan, The Fine Art of Baloney Detection "You can't convince a believer of anything; for their belief is not based on evidence, it's based on a deep seated need to believe." - Carl Sagan "It is far better to grasp the Universe as it really is than to persist in delusion, however satisfying and reassuring." - Carl Sagan, The Demon-Haunted World
|
DevilsAdvocate
Member (Idle past 3131 days) Posts: 1548 Joined: 06-05-2008
|
|
|
Message 171 of 410 (532939)
10-27-2009 12:04 PM
|
Reply to: Message 166 by iano
10-27-2009 8:46 AM
|
|
Re: Phat chance at redemption
Iano writes: To destroy a person utterly would be an admission-of-sorts that to create a free-willed being was an error of judgement. Better that God is vindicated in his creating those beings and one way for him to be vindicated is to let each being exist subject to the conditions promised for it as a consequence of it's expression of own will. And how demented and sadistic your god is for predeterminately creating billions of living beings who he knew would spend eternity in agonizing torment in hell. Your god is so ridiculously inconsistent in his ethical standards it is to the point of absurdity. One minute he elimates the entire human race off the face of the planet (minus a half dozen people), the next he is ordering mass infanticide and ethnicide, the next he is all lovey dovey and forgiving in the Gospels, and at the end he throws the majority of humanity into a burning lake of fire for eternity with no chance of redemption. Wow, I can't see how that is morally inconsistent.  This would be like telling your son not to beat up other kids and if he disobeyed you, you would kill him. Than you go and murder your next door neighbors kid for trespassing on your yard. You than reiterate to your son not to hurt other kids. He then stops believing anything you say and becomes rebellious. You then kill your son and say it is justified because you told him that you would kill him for disobeying you. Now go try defending the above in a court of law and tell me how far you get. Edited by DevilsAdvocate, : No reason given.
One of the saddest lessons of history is this: If we've been bamboozled long enough, we tend to reject any evidence of the bamboozle. We're no longer interested in finding out the truth. The bamboozle has captured us. It is simply too painful to acknowledge -- even to ourselves -- that we've been so credulous. - Carl Sagan, The Fine Art of Baloney Detection "You can't convince a believer of anything; for their belief is not based on evidence, it's based on a deep seated need to believe." - Carl Sagan "It is far better to grasp the Universe as it really is than to persist in delusion, however satisfying and reassuring." - Carl Sagan, The Demon-Haunted World
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 166 by iano, posted 10-27-2009 8:46 AM | | iano has replied |
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 182 by iano, posted 10-28-2009 3:02 PM | | DevilsAdvocate has replied |
|
™ Version 4.2