|
Author
|
Topic: God is cruel
|
Dan Carroll
Inactive Member
|
Re: Not to worry
That is possible, but they have the choice not to. How does one choose to believe in something? Or to not believe in it?
"We had survived to turn on the History Channel And ask our esteemed panel, Why are we alive? And here's how they replied: You're what happens when two substances collide And by all accounts you really should have died." -Andrew Bird
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 8 by mike the wiz, posted 04-03-2006 10:29 AM | | mike the wiz has replied |
|
Dan Carroll
Inactive Member
|
|
Message 38 of 301 (300642)
04-03-2006 2:59 PM
|
Reply to: Message 37 by Faith
04-03-2006 2:54 PM
|
|
People call God cruel with a strong sense of indignation, but in order to justify such a judgment they need an objective ground for morality, and the only objective ground possible is God. No we don't. Humankind has developed its own moral code, which works to the benefit of society. (For instance, we all have an easier time when we can agree that killing people is bad.) Is it objective? No. Is it ingrained in both society and our minds, and extraordinarily useful? Sure. Regardless... this topic assumes that God exists, doesn't it? I think we can all generally agree that the Christian God would consider torturing billions of people for all eternity for no discernable reason to be cruel. And since we're assuming he exists, what's the problem?
"We had survived to turn on the History Channel And ask our esteemed panel, Why are we alive? And here's how they replied: You're what happens when two substances collide And by all accounts you really should have died." -Andrew Bird
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 37 by Faith, posted 04-03-2006 2:54 PM | | Faith has not replied |
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 40 by robinrohan, posted 04-03-2006 3:04 PM | | Dan Carroll has replied |
|
Dan Carroll
Inactive Member
|
But if it's not objective, it's useless as a proof of anything. But if we're arguing that God is cruel, we're first assuming he exists. So what's your problem? Very simply... if God exists, then he is, by his objective standards, cruel. If he doesn't, then the subject of his morality is pretty much moot, whether or not objective morality exists.
It's just a personal preference we have. In the same way that not shoving feces-covered knives through our throats is a personal preference, I suppose.
"We had survived to turn on the History Channel And ask our esteemed panel, Why are we alive? And here's how they replied: You're what happens when two substances collide And by all accounts you really should have died." -Andrew Bird
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 40 by robinrohan, posted 04-03-2006 3:04 PM | | robinrohan has replied |
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 43 by robinrohan, posted 04-03-2006 3:13 PM | | Dan Carroll has replied |
|
Dan Carroll
Inactive Member
|
What he's really saying Always a fun game to play. I think you're really saying, "Dan is so cool!" Thanks!
if God existed he would be cruel (so He doesn't exist). But if our morality is subjective, then we can't make objective moral judgments. Yeah, I read this the first dozen or so times you posted it. Again... in discussing the subject of God's cruelty, we assume God exists. Then, we put him up to his own standards, and find that he is cruel. In other words, belief in God is plagued by an inconsistency. So another possibility is that God doesn't exist. Not because of morality, but because by its own standards, the belief is found to be inconsistent.
"We had survived to turn on the History Channel And ask our esteemed panel, Why are we alive? And here's how they replied: You're what happens when two substances collide And by all accounts you really should have died." -Andrew Bird
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 43 by robinrohan, posted 04-03-2006 3:13 PM | | robinrohan has not replied |
|
Dan Carroll
Inactive Member
|
Re: Not to worry
Easy to answer for me because I got depressed a year or so ago and didn't even pray to God for about two months. Then after refuting him in my own mind, I CHOSE to believe again even though I had no reason to. Cool. Now choose to believe in magic rectum monkeys. They live in your bum, and grant wishes. Seriously. Without any reason to do so, choose to believe, honestly and with all your heart, that they are real. If you say you can, I call total freakin' shenanigans.
In other words Dan, just admitt that you think It's like saying I also think you're really saying, "Dan is cool!" And I thank you.
" God, I shot that guy but it was you who pulled the trigger because you made a few galaxies a couple of billion years back, do you remember ? " Not believing in God is the same as shooting a guy? Interesting.
"We had survived to turn on the History Channel And ask our esteemed panel, Why are we alive? And here's how they replied: You're what happens when two substances collide And by all accounts you really should have died." -Andrew Bird
|
Dan Carroll
Inactive Member
|
|
|
Message 86 of 301 (300820)
04-04-2006 9:38 AM
|
Reply to: Message 81 by riVeRraT
04-04-2006 8:29 AM
|
|
Re: They were told
In the day, not on the day. Yeah, it depends on what your definition of "in" is.
"We had survived to turn on the History Channel And ask our esteemed panel, Why are we alive? And here's how they replied: You're what happens when two substances collide And by all accounts you really should have died." -Andrew Bird
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 81 by riVeRraT, posted 04-04-2006 8:29 AM | | riVeRraT has not replied |
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 88 by Brian, posted 04-04-2006 9:52 AM | | Dan Carroll has not replied |
|
Dan Carroll
Inactive Member
|
Re: Not to worry
I didn't mean that if there's no reason to believe in anything then do. I asked how you could choose to believe in something. You then said that even though you had no reason to believe in something, you chose to do so. I am now asking you to choose to believe in something else, with no reason to do so.
Obviously there is no comparison between Jesus Christ the saviour, and a butt monkey. Obviously. The butt monkey is much funnier. I notice you're having a great deal of difficulty choosing to believe in the idea, because you find it ridiculous. Interesting.
"We had survived to turn on the History Channel And ask our esteemed panel, Why are we alive? And here's how they replied: You're what happens when two substances collide And by all accounts you really should have died." -Andrew Bird
|
Dan Carroll
Inactive Member
|
Re: Not to worry
In this case, my words don't mean what you think they do, therefore the facts about what I typed, are useless. In the future I will be sure to not read what you type, but instead make up new meanings for your posts, and answer them instead. So yes, thank you, I would love a slice of cake.
I CHOSE to believe in Christ. So yes, you can choose to believe in something. I guess this is a weighing of concepts. Good. Now choose to stop doing so, and believe in something else.
You now ask me to believe in butt monkeys. I would have to choose not to I suppose, as they are known as Dan-musings. Okay. Choose to believe in the Raelian faith. Or in a flat Earth. Or any number of ideas that, because of your knowledge and life experience, you find ridiculous. Hell, take your pick.
"We had survived to turn on the History Channel And ask our esteemed panel, Why are we alive? And here's how they replied: You're what happens when two substances collide And by all accounts you really should have died." -Andrew Bird
|
Dan Carroll
Inactive Member
|
Re: Not to worry
Why? I have no reason to. To show me how easy it is.
I'm convinced that only Christ could be the real deal because of what he taught. Oh. So the teachings of Christ had an effect on you, and led you to your belief. You didn't just sit down and choose to believe something.
If belief wasn't down to my will/choice, then surely I could then wake up with monkey butt belief. If belief was your choice, you could easily believe it right now.
"We had survived to turn on the History Channel And ask our esteemed panel, Why are we alive? And here's how they replied: You're what happens when two substances collide And by all accounts you really should have died." -Andrew Bird
|
Dan Carroll
Inactive Member
|
Re: Not to worry
I think that was obvious from his initial statement. Then he should come out and say it.
I think being a smart-ass is funny, but when you go that far out of your way to do it, it can be annoying. Yeah, it's pretty fun.
Unless it’s a difficult decision. Okay then, he should, with some difficulty, be able to believe in the butt monkeys, with all his heart. For that matter, so should you. Give it a whirl!
Lets say someone believes in god, for whatever reason (no choice necessary). So they research the various religions of the world and find one that they find the most truthful and most applicable to their life. Then they choose to believe in that religion. Why is it so hard for you to accept belief as a choice? Because in this scenario, they didn't choose the religion. They found that they considered it truthful by virtue of what the religion was. Believing it what you think is true isn't a choice.
"We had survived to turn on the History Channel And ask our esteemed panel, Why are we alive? And here's how they replied: You're what happens when two substances collide And by all accounts you really should have died." -Andrew Bird
|
Dan Carroll
Inactive Member
|
Re: Not to worry
Does not being able to choose to believe in butt monkeys mean that there isn't anything that I can choose to believe in? Yep. If you can't choose what doesn't come automatically, then there is no choice. You just believe what you believe. Imagine for a second that I put two cupcakes on a table. I proceed to pour concrete all over one of them, and let it dry. I then tell you, "choose one." You're not choosing the concrete-free cupcake; it's the only option.
You thinking its true is the reason you choose to believe it. If it isn't a choice then what is it? The belief to which you are led. Or, arguably, forced. Can you envision any situation in which you would say, "Hm... religion A and religion B are mutually exclusive. If one is true, the other is false. I think religion A is true, but I'll go ahead and believe in religion B!" If not, then it's the same as the cupcakes. If there's no option, there's no choice. This message has been edited by [Dan's Clever Alias], 04-05-2006 04:51 PM
"We had survived to turn on the History Channel And ask our esteemed panel, Why are we alive? And here's how they replied: You're what happens when two substances collide And by all accounts you really should have died." -Andrew Bird
|
Dan Carroll
Inactive Member
|
Re: Dan versus wiz - stuff of EvC legend
In the end I always annoy him more with my irrefutable brilliance. Yeah, he's half-right.
Because, as Brain and Dan both know, if it is down to them then it is their responsibility if they are right about going to hell for being atheist. It's always so fun when you tell me what I'm really thinking. I don't believe in God, Mikey. So it's irrelevant to me whether or not he cares if I'm an atheist. You might as well ask how much I care whether or not the aforementioned butt monkeys blame me for my belief. Doesn't change that belief isn't something you choose; it's something to which you're led.
"We had survived to turn on the History Channel And ask our esteemed panel, Why are we alive? And here's how they replied: You're what happens when two substances collide And by all accounts you really should have died." -Andrew Bird
|
Dan Carroll
Inactive Member
|
Re: Dan versus wiz - stuff of EvC legend
It's worldviews that shape reality for us. Ultimately, with have minds to choose do we not? Yeah, we can always choose our actions, which our influenced by our automatic beliefs.
So how do we get worldviews? By thinking along certain lines we get them. But at no time are we forced to restrict ourselves to a certain viewpoint, IMHO. Cool. Choose to believe the ideas of David Icke. After all... at no time are you forced to restrict yourself to a worldview that tells you "the man's a nutcase."
"We had survived to turn on the History Channel And ask our esteemed panel, Why are we alive? And here's how they replied: You're what happens when two substances collide And by all accounts you really should have died." -Andrew Bird
|
Dan Carroll
Inactive Member
|
Re: Not to worry
What if both religions were equally plausible, couldn't you just pick one and believe in that? If they were both sounded true, wouldn't you be led to believe them both? Unless they were mutually exclusive, in which I would think it would result in more of a crisis of faith than a nonchalant decision. In either case, is faith a game of eeny-meeny-miney-mo?
But, when it comes to god, I have to say that I do choose to believe in him. There is no evidence either way and no automatic belief either way, I access the situation and conclude that I do believe in god. That conclusion is a choice, its up to me whether or not I believe. Wouldn't your assessment just be an analysis of what's already in your mind? Introspection is good, but it's not the same as conscious direction. Most importantly, though... now you've concluded that you do believe in God. Great. Assuming no new information or experiences come along and change your point of view, could you choose to do otherwise? Could you say, "I've come to the conclusion that God is there, but I'm gonna go ahead and not believe in him?"
"We had survived to turn on the History Channel And ask our esteemed panel, Why are we alive? And here's how they replied: You're what happens when two substances collide And by all accounts you really should have died." -Andrew Bird
|
Dan Carroll
Inactive Member
|
Re: Not to worry
That or I could choose one over the other, especially if they were mutually exclusive. So what would your choice be based on, if both are perfectly equal in your mind?
Some things don't provide you with an automatic belief or disbelief, you have to ponder and decide on what you think, especially things that are not objectively defined. All you've done is rephrase the question... how does one decide on what they think?
What are you saying here? That the pondering you describe above is a process of looking at what's in your mind, and understanding what it says about your beliefs... which is not the same as deciding what you want to be in your mind, and forcing it to be the case.
Its not like a light switch that you can just turn on or off. Still though, it comes as a choice. These statements kinda contradict each other. Even if it's a difficult light switch to flip, it's still yes or no. Belief involves the knowledge that something is true. (Whether the person's belief is correct or not is beside the point.) If you know something is true, then it might as well be like deciding to believe that you can, in fact, jump ten feet high, despite your knowledge that you can't.
"We had survived to turn on the History Channel And ask our esteemed panel, Why are we alive? And here's how they replied: You're what happens when two substances collide And by all accounts you really should have died." -Andrew Bird
|
™ Version 4.2