Support NeoGAF

[AngularSaxophone]

Some say this is the God of the Old Testament to which I disagree because God doesn’t change. My question though is that if God sent His son here to bore the sins of the world unto death, then how can you still see God as hateful? I’m asking this because I had a realization the other day.

So it’s said Christ died for our sins and most get that in a way but it actually goes pretty deep. I realized that every time I sin, even today or in the future, Christ took on that pain when he was here. It’s almost as if if I’m doing something shitty, I may as well be right there whipping and spitting on Christ. I felt truly awful when I realized that. But the fact that he’d send his own son here to go through life as a man and die as he did, doesn’t that do away with the whole “hateful, vengeful” God trope?

The way I see it is at a point where people moved further and further from God, people started to think of Him as some invisible sky man so He sent His son here to be among us in the flesh as a reminder of what his true nature is. Christ didn’t hate anyone. He got angry at things that were being done but he never hated anybody.

 

[Link1110]

I thought part of the flood story was God realizing he went too far and giving the rainbow as a sign he wouldn't do that again. So God did change a little there.

 

[AngularSaxophone]

I don’t think he ever thought he went too far. Especially if the world is to be consumed by fire in the end. God hates death. He was saddened by the flood not happy about it.

 

[theclaw135]

You can't cherry pick. The literal belief in a singular all-powerful being that created all, means they created the capacity and will to kill others.

 

[Catphish]

Religion is so awesome it deserves its own subforum. Just like politics.

 

[Papa]

Your god didn’t kill anyone because he doesn’t exist. People killed people in his name because they thought they were morally justified.

 

[AngularSaxophone]

You can't cherry pick. The literal belief in a singular all-powerful being that created all, means they created the capacity and will to kill others.

I don’t think God ever killed anyone. He allowed some to be given to death I think.

 

[DeafTourette]

I don’t think God ever killed anyone. He allowed some to be given to death I think.

He destroyed Sodom and Gomorrah ...

The reason so many died is because they were opposed to his chosen people... And they were chosen because they (largely) kept the covenant with Jah and were doing his will. He protected his people ... Even the great flood was protecting his people (Noah and his family whom were righteous) by starting over because all others were given to sin (willfully)

 

[Pumpkin Seeds]

put on your Boston accent and respond "yah but them was some wicked deaths"

 

[Mohonky]

I don’t think God ever killed anyone. He allowed some to be given to death I think.

Interesting way to turn that around

 

[Shifty]

I don’t think God ever killed anyone. He allowed some to be given to death I think.

Is the difference between these two things really so significant if god is supposedly responsible for all life and death in the first place?

 

[Omega Supreme Holopsicon]

vicarious redemption is not ethical.


in any case Jesus is said to be god himself too, so it is self-flagellation.

I personally don't agree with the idea that offending god's sensibilities demands human sacrifice of ultimate purity for forgiveness. A True God need not take offense with the actions of some random evolved primates, actions that are determined by the hand of fate, because free will can only be seen through deterministic eyes.

The only true miracle that could ever be is true randomness, and there is no such thing.

 

[AngularSaxophone]

I don’t think Christ was God. He’s the Son of God. He was God in that he did the will of his Father and was also made God by God for coming here just as a king would give the throne to his son. Scripture says he was made heir of all things.

 

[Rentahamster]

I thought part of the flood story was God realizing he went too far and giving the rainbow as a sign he wouldn't do that again. So God did change a little there.

How in the universe does an omnicient omnipotent being make a mistake and realize he fucked up?

 

[Thurible]

I personally don't agree with the idea that offending god's sensibilities demands human sacrifice of ultimate purity for forgiveness. A True God need not take offense with the actions of some random evolved primates, actions that are determined by the hand of fate, because free will can only be seen through deterministic eyes

Isn't faith for the benefit of the believer, not God? God is infinite and omniscient, he indeed requires nothing to sustain Himself. I think you are thinking too small. It is my understanding that the sacrifice of Christ is generally understood to not be some sort of an appeasement, but rather a way for man to connect with their Creator. The gates of heaven were open with His death, and the sacrifice paid for the sins of mankind. If a finite being sins against an Infinite Being, wouldn't the transgression itself become infinite and therefore become,impossible to mitigate unless said transgressed Infinite Being relieves the finite being of it's crime? Certainly He never HAD to die, but it shows humility that the Creator would lower Himself to such a weak position and suffer for creatures that deserve no such love.

Why do you make the assumption that everything is random? Your wording suggests you think humans are nothing special but it is my understanding that there is nothing like us. No creature has a rational mind like a human does, or can you prove otherwise? Also, isn't being an intelligent, self aware being in the cosmos a pretty spectacular thing in of itself? Do you also no believe in free will? Am I not the author of my own actions regardless of circumstance?

The only true miracle that could ever be is true randomness, and there is no such thing

Isn't order a sign of a Creator? Why would randomness then be a miracle? Everything has a cause and effect and exists within a certain time and place. Laws define physical (and spiritual reality, but I feel as if you may not agree with this assertion) that bound every object in the universe. Randomness would not be a sign of God. If there are no physical and chemical forces controlling things then there is only flux. Things would not abide by logic and there would only be chaos.

 

[LegendOfKage]

Religion is so awesome it deserves its own subforum. Just like politics.

That, or just consider politics "the ideological debate forum." Either way, better there than here.

 

[Omega Supreme Holopsicon]

His death, and the sacrifice paid for the sins of mankind

animals rape, torture, deceive and kill each other. There is no such thing as sin. The idea of sin is basically the idea of offense against god. But an omniscient god knows about nature, and the very very likely reality of the blocktime universe where all moments and events are eternal eternally reoccurring and inevitable.

If a finite being sins against an Infinite Being, wouldn't the transgression itself become infinite and therefore become,impossible to mitigate unless said transgressed Infinite Being relieves the finite being of it's crime?

I'm eternal but I don't take offense with just about anything, so don't see why someone whose beyond physical boundaries would do so.

Would you truly take offense if a sims character misbehaved? how about the characters in a future gta? Let them have their fun.

Randomness would not be a sign of God. If there are no physical and chemical forces controlling things then there is only flux. Things would not abide by logic and there would only be chaos.

A true random discontinuity would indeed be as if magic. It would be an uncaused cause, an event without any possible mechanism or explanation, it defies logic.

Something akin to that can probably happen by an entity outside these dimensions altering all points of history and arriving simultaneously at all of them changing all points of history towards an alternate course. That could make seemingly contradicted prophecies retroactively true.

 

[bitbydeath]

My question though is that if God sent His son here to bore the sins of the world unto death, then how can you still see God as hateful?

That whole concept was undone when he came back from the dead though. Otherwise he would have stayed dead.

 

[Razorback]

Imagine you are God, you decide what is a sin or not, you make the rules. You create creatures capable of breaking the rules. They break the rules all the time, that's the way you made them (oops). For some reason, the way to absolve their sins is to torture your son. What kind of logic is that? How does inflicting pain on one creature solve anything? You are God so logic means nothing, that's the way it is because that's how you want it to be.

I'm convinced in your mind, everything I just said is nonsense, the fact that you think the story of Jesus' sacrifice makes god look benevolent just shows how religion has corrupted your sense of ethics.

 

[JordanN]

The story of him killing all the firstborn egyptian children is utterly psychopathic.

To justify his killings seems no different than worshiping a communist dictator.

"Half our population is starving, but at least I built you guys a new swimming pool!"

 

[Omega Supreme Holopsicon]

The story of him killing all the firstborn egyptian children is utterly psychopathic.

To justify his killings seems no different than worshiping a communist dictator.

"Half our population is starving, but at least I built you guys a new swimming pool!"

particularly the part when I think it says he hardened pharaoh's heart so he wouldn't let the hebrews go and he could go on with the massacre.

But the LORD hardened Pharaoh's heart and he would not listen to Moses and Aaron, just as the LORD had said to Moses.
exodus 9 : 12

 

[Thurible]

animals rape, torture, deceive and kill each other. There is no such thing as sin. The idea of sin is basically the idea of offense against god. But an omniscient god knows about nature, and the very very likely reality of the blocktime universe where all moments and events are eternal eternally reoccurring and inevitable.

Animals do things that are in their nature. With the fall, every living thing in the universe has changed from it's original perfected state. Also, an animal cannot sin, sin requires an act of will and rational thought, an animal has none of these. They rely only on instinct and cannot choose what is right or what is wrong.

I'm eternal but I don't take offense with just about anything, so don't see why someone whose beyond physical boundaries would do so.

Would you truly take offense if a sims character misbehaved? how about the characters in a future gta? Let them have their fun.

You aren't eternal or infinite, do you really think you are beyond human limitations? Again, offending God is a problem for the sinner, not God. He is always willing to forgive. Sin is about rejecting God's will and therefore taking you further away from Him and your perfected state.

People are not videogame characters. God actually loves and cares for His creations. He wouldn't just let them be and have them do all sorts of evil and go "this is fine". If you had a child running around with scissors would you just go like "Eh"? They would hurt themselves and a warning and reprimand is necessary.

true random discontinuity would indeed be as if magic. It would be an uncaused cause, an event without any possible mechanism or explanation, it defies logic.

Something akin to that can probably happen by an entity outside these dimensions altering all points of history and arriving simultaneously at all of them changing all points of history towards an alternate course. That could make seemingly contradicted prophecies retroactively true.

Logic and order make sense for a Creator existing as things are ALWAYS follow a set of laws. An uncaused cause wouldn't make any sense as it defies these set laws. Even the supernatural doesn't defy the order of things, it just goes beyond human understanding.

I am curious as to what your thoughts on incorrupt bodies, eucharistic miracles, and the like are.

particularly the part when I think it says he hardened pharaoh's heart so he wouldn't let the hebrews go and he could go on with the massacre.

Why do you think God hardens the Pharaoh's heart in the story? It is a strange detail. Perhaps God was making things more difficult for the hebrews, giving them further reason to follow His commands and trust Moses (Note: I am not sure if I really believe that the story of the exodus from Egypt really happened, as there is very little historical evidence to support the story).

 

[highrider]

I don’t believe that biblical stories and teachings are any more real than other mythology. These were essential in early society for law enforcement. You needed a celestial big brother to keep people in line, or at least discourage theft, adulterous behavior etc. A toothless, pacifist god wasn’t going to do that. It also had to be at least loosely based on reality and real people.

Ideally it instilled community and purpose. I think that’s the main purpose of religion for most practitioners today. Not a bad thing, and atheism can leave a real void in people. I think humans are hardwired to think this way.

 

[InterMusketeer]

God could have just made a cool reality where people don't have to suffer. But he didn't. He prefered to put his creations through some fucked up experiment. What an asshole.

 

[AngularSaxophone]

That whole concept was undone when he came back from the dead though. Otherwise he would have stayed dead.

His flesh died. He didn’t come back in the flesh. Every account of him appearing after his death wasn’t a normal fleshly encounter at all. He had to “eat” something because the disciples were freaked out by his appearance. It’s written that flesh doesn’t inherit the kingdom.

The story of him killing all the firstborn egyptian children is utterly psychopathic.

To justify his killings seems no different than worshiping a communist dictator.

"Half our population is starving, but at least I built you guys a new swimming pool!"

What? God didn’t kill all of the first born children. He actually made the killings stop. I still don’t believe God kills anyone. He’s the God of the living. There is a god of the dead, If you’re handed over to death, and death takes your life, who’s the killer? God didn’t invent death. He didn’t even kill Lucifer. He cast him out. If he hasn’t even killed the absolute worst spirit in scripture as of yet then why would he kill anyone else? When he allows someone to be given over to death, to me that means that person is no longer doing the will of God anyway and it’s probably determined he never will therefore his own will leads him to be handed to death. Not Gods will.

 

[-hal-]

Assuming that there is a god, an infinite being, how could one hope to understand his/her/its nature and actions?

Pontificating is pointless.

 

[SKM1]

Literal interpretation of religion is stupid. When you understand that it's all about archetypes, it becomes an incredible source of wisdom and self understanding.

Questions such as "if God is omnipotent then why blah blah" are so stupid because they are constructed in order to demonstrate the absurdity of religion, but such absurdity derives from a child-like interpretation of it.

Such interpretations are needed, however, because suspension of disbelief allows not-so-bright people to streamline the teachings in a heuristic manner.

 

[Omega Supreme Holopsicon]

Animals do things that are in their nature. With the fall, every living thing in the universe has changed from it's original perfected state. Also, an animal cannot sin, sin requires an act of will and rational thought, an animal has none of these. They rely only on instinct and cannot choose what is right or what is wrong.

And so do we, our general intelligence and ability to tell right from wrong is but a limited transitory morality to function as a social species. True morality if there is any will likely be quite alien to modern humans.

As for breaking moral rules, the costs are taken into account, and it is made as a decision whose benefits outweight the cost perhaps in error, but all part of deterministic logic decision taking algorithms in the brain.

You aren't eternal or infinite, do you really think you are beyond human limitations? Again, offending God is a problem for the sinner, not God. He is always willing to forgive. Sin is about rejecting God's will and therefore taking you further away from Him and your perfected state.

People are not videogame characters. God actually loves and cares for His creations. He wouldn't just let them be and have them do all sorts of evil and go "this is fine". If you had a child running around with scissors would you just go like "Eh"? They would hurt themselves and a warning and reprimand is necessary

When you take a terminator 2 blu ray or dvd, do you think terminator ceases to be if you destroy the blu ray or dvd, even every blu ray an dvd on earth or the universe? No, it doesn't cease to exist the story is a transcendental eternal pattern part of the eternal living body of truth, it can never be created or destroyed only enacted. The patterns of activity in my brain are a but a physical instantiation of a platonic eternal living idea or thought.

Why do you think God hardens the Pharaoh's heart in the story? It is a strange detail. Perhaps God was making things more difficult for the hebrews, giving them further reason to follow His commands and trust Moses (Note: I am not sure if I really believe that the story of the exodus from Egypt really happened, as there is very little historical evidence to support the story).

It probably didn't happen, but the story itself goes pharaoh's will was modified so that god could send the plagues including the angel of death to kill the first born

What? God didn’t kill all of the first born children. He actually made the killings stop. I still don’t believe God kills anyone. He’s the God of the living. There is a god of the dead, If you’re handed over to death, and death takes your life, who’s the killer? God didn’t invent death. He didn’t even kill Lucifer. He cast him out. If he hasn’t even killed the absolute worst spirit in scripture as of yet then why would he kill anyone else? When he allows someone to be given over to death, to me that means that person is no longer doing the will of God anyway and it’s probably determined he never will therefore his own will leads him to be handed to death. Not Gods will.

The idea that satan or lucifer is evil I've heard is an invention of the christians. The closest thing functions as a prosecutor working for god in jewish belief if i recall correctly. There exists nothing counter or beyond the domain and control of god.

 

[strange headache]

Man, for such a supposed infinite and omniscient being, god certainly did a lot of silly mistakes when he created the world. If he were really such a swell and omnipotent dude why would he create...

• such a deficient human being?
• an unstable solar system?
• a universe that will suffer heat death?
• thousands upon thousands of species doomed to go extinct?
• a myriad of different pathogens that can kill you in the most gruesome ways?
• an unstable sun that will burn out?
• irrational universal constants?
• almost infinite swathes of empty space?
• billions of dead and/or uninhabitable planets?
• such huge distances, isolating mankind from other alien civilizations?
• planet Earth with rapidly and frequently changing climate and living conditions?
• man as a sexual being if intercourse is so frowned upon by his followers (mitosis would have been fine)?
• create a galaxy that is on collision course with another?
• create women only to be viewed as lesser?
• create homosexual people only to be shunned by religion?
• ...

While you are busy racking your precious brain cycles over some biblical figures who are largely insignificant in the greater scheme of things, scientists are unveiling how broken the fundamental rules of reality really are:

• Why couldn't god square the circle?
• Why did he make quantum physics basically random and unpredictable?
• Why couldn't he create a stable universe?
• What have the dinosaurs ever done to him?
• Why can't he just frikkin' show himself and set the record straight?
• Why have there been numerous cases of him intervening in the past, but suddenly stopped when humans discovered scientific inquiry?
• Why did he rely on random and ineffective evolution rather than create things perfectly?

If god were an engineer, he'd be a very lousy one. How is it that us fallible humans are capable of discovering and understanding the faulty fabric of reality, time and space, but our almighty god couldn't? If he doesn't exist, then all these questions do not pose a problem, reality is what it is. But if he does exist, then all these questions reveal a god that I can only describe as hopelessly incompetent and awfully sadistic. A vengeful fool who cobbled the universe together in order to fulfill his sadistic need for pain, misery and suffering. A lazy creator who rests on his laurels either incapable or unwilling to fix his mistakes.

Why would the creator of all things even care about all the petty things that are considered a sin in his name by his devout followers? Why does he even care that people might worship other gods, is he really that insecure that he must absolutely be worshiped each an every moment of our lives? Why does he even care if people have sex for fun and screw each other in the rear? Like what's the deal with his obsession with other people's bedrooms? Religion certainly does paint the picture of a very petty, insecure and vengeful god obsessed with micromanaging people's lives.

Humans are basically evolved animals, we are neither special nor sacred. Any animal life-form, given enough time and the right evolutionary circumstances, could develop the same cognitive capacities as we did. Yes, we are capable of rational thought, but the reality is that we prefer to squander our time chasing tail and fulfilling our most basic corporal needs. The fact that religion has put mankind on a pedestal is the reason why we've grown accustomed to view ourselves as above nature, greedily taking what we want, when we want, how much we want without regard or concern for anything else but ourselves.

Nah, we are insignificant little a*sholes feeling mighty important on a little spec of dust spiraling through the vast vacuum of space giving ourselves to the delusion that everything around us has been created for our pleasure. If our planet were to explode tomorrow, the universe wouldn't even flinch. If god were real, that would be about the extent of his "love and care" for his creation. You should be glad that I don't believe in god's existence, otherwise I'd be his greatest critic and would have no other moral choice than to despise him even more.

If god is but an idea that exists in our heads, then why can't you at least try making it a good idea?

 

[#Phonepunk#]

the idea of "blaming" death and pain on God and saying, "Oh he's so good but why does this exists?" is entirely missing the point. God is the alpha and omega of everything, and if you took away his ability to kill, that would make him functionally less powerful than a human. it would make him less powerful than a kitty cat, who can easily kill a mouse. as time goes on i feel like these criticisms make less and less sense, the demand for a perfect God who can do no wrong is entirely a fiction, pretty much the dumbed down mainstream "God" worshipped by atheists. death is part of life, it is not that one thing is good and the other bad, you really have to get beyond such simplistic ideas to even start making a real spiritual journey.

it's mostly spoken by people that don't understand the context in which the Bible was written. during the NT martyr era, Romans were persecuting Christians, threatening them with torture, public execution, etc. thus much of the stories and bits are taken from a people written while they are being hunted down and killed. i guess the idea is maybe if they wrote books where God was nice and nobody ever died, then things would have turned out great? dunno, that seems as silly as fantasy as any.

often during the OT era, the Jews were enslaved, and these stories tell about God taking vengeance on the oppressors. it makes sense that an enslaved people would write firey statements about the end of the world. we have people write now doing the same thing to protest the current political climate, saying they are killing millions, bringing the end of the world, etc. call it hyperbole or not, it's an age-old tradition, and it probably made sense at a time when simple speaking out in public could get you tortured & publicly executed.

there is the erroneous idea that the Abrahamic God is this one cartoon version, that the Bible is meant to be read literally from the worst translations, etc. the truth, like many things, is far more complicated.

 

[SKM1]

Man, for such a supposed infinite and omniscient being, god certainly did a lot of silly mistakes when he created the world. If he were really such a swell and omnipotent dude why would he create...

• such a deficient human being? As opposed to?
• an unstable solar system? Everything system whatsoever in the universe will fall apart[1].
• a universe that will suffer heat death? See [1]
• thousands upon thousands of species doomed to go extinct? See [1]
• a myriad of different pathogens that can kill you in the most gruesome ways?
• an unstable sun that will burn out? See [1]
• irrational universal constants? Why is this bad? For me it is actually quite fascinating.
• almost infinite swathes of empty space?
• billions of dead and/or uninhabitable planets?
• such huge distances, isolating mankind from other alien civilizations?
• planet Earth with rapidly and frequently changing climate and living conditions?
• man as a sexual being if intercourse is so frowned upon by his followers (mitosis would have been fine)?
• create a galaxy that is on collision course with another?
• create women only to be viewed as lesser?
• create homosexual people only to be shunned by religion?
• ...

While you are busy racking your precious brain cycles over some biblical figures who are largely insignificant in the greater scheme of things, scientists are unveiling how broken the fundamental rules of reality really are:

• Why couldn't god square the circle? What does this mean?
• Why did he make quantum physics basically random and unpredictable? Why is this bad?
• Why couldn't he create a stable universe? Stability = Stagnation, ultimately
• What have the dinosaurs ever done to him?
• Why can't he just frikkin' show himself and set the record straight?
• Why have there been numerous cases of him intervening in the past, but suddenly stopped when humans discovered scientific inquiry?
• Why did he rely on random and ineffective evolution rather than create things perfectly? Evolution is ineffective in what sense? For me it is one of the most beautiful qualities of the universe.

If god were an engineer, he'd be a very lousy one. How is it that us fallible humans are capable of discovering and understanding the faulty fabric of reality, time and space, but our almighty god couldn't? If he doesn't exist, then all these questions do not pose a problem, reality is what it is. But if he does exist, then all these questions reveal a god that I can only describe as hopelessly incompetent and awfully sadistic. A vengeful fool who cobbled the universe together in order to fulfill his sadistic need for pain, misery and suffering. A lazy creator who rests on his laurels either incapable or unwilling to fix his mistakes.

Why would the creator of all things even care about all the petty things that are considered a sin in his name by his devout followers? Why does he even care that people might worship other gods, is he really that insecure that he must absolutely be worshiped each an every moment of our lives? Why does he even care if people have sex for fun and screw each other in the rear? Like what's the deal with his obsession with other people's bedrooms? Religion certainly does paint the picture of a very petty, insecure and vengeful god obsessed with micromanaging people's lives.

Humans are basically evolved animals, we are neither special nor sacred. Any animal life-form, given enough time and the right evolutionary circumstances, could develop the same cognitive capacities as we did. Yes, we are capable of rational thought, but the reality is that we prefer to squander our time chasing tail and fulfilling our most basic corporal needs. The fact that religion has put mankind on a pedestal is the reason why we've grown accustomed to view ourselves as above nature, greedily taking what we want, when we want, how much we want without regard or concern for anything else but ourselves.

Nah, we are insignificant little a*sholes feeling mighty important on a little spec of dust spiraling through the vast vacuum of space giving ourselves to the delusion that everything around us has been created for our pleasure. If our planet were to explode tomorrow, the universe wouldn't even flinch. If god were real, that would be about the extent of his "love and care" for his creation. You should be glad that I don't believe in god's existence, otherwise I'd be his greatest critic and would have no other moral choice than to despise him even more.

If god is but an idea that exists in our heads, then why can't you at least try making it a good idea?

I don't have anything against your opinion but you are making a value judgement on things which are inherently devoid of value. Science is not to be used to judge value. Everything else is your subjective opinion.

I tend to see the imperfections of this world as miraculous, since they give it meaning, and not in a superficial sense. When you think about it, the world works in such an incredibly elegant way that you just wonder how it all fits together. We are incredibly lucky to be witness to this creation. And I say creation in the same sense in which a plant grows, creating itself. Self-sustained creation. Admittedly my views align more with eastern philosophies.

Life is full of suffering. That much is true. But it is also full of beauty and mystery. It makes me sad when science is misused to disenchant the world. Like saying "we are insignificant little creatures" just because our planet is small in comparison with the universe. That proposition makes no sense whatsoever because it implies that larger length scales are more significant than smaller ones.

I've given this topic much, much thought (from the POV of a physicist and a meaning seeking invididual), but I've not written much about it so I don't know if I'm communicating clearly.

 

[strange headache]

I don't have anything against your opinion but you are making a value judgement on things which are inherently devoid of value. Science is not to be used to judge value. Everything else is your subjective opinion.

I'm not making a value statement, I'm merely describing things as they are. It's merely a refutation of the argument from design, as these problems only arise if you think that the world has been created. I have no problem with reality being as it is because I don't believe that it was created.

Like saying "we are insignificant little creatures" just because our planet is small in comparison with the universe. That proposition makes no sense whatsoever because it implies that larger length scales are more significant than smaller ones.

You are misrepresenting what I said, I never made the assumption that small things are less significant. I merely contrasted the overly important religious self-image of man to the realities of scale in order to demonstrate the fact that religions are vastly overemphasizing mankind's position in the greater scheme of things.

Of course there is much wonder to found in the scale of things, but none of them are concurrent with how monotheistic religions describe creation. Carl Sagan probably said it best:



I certainly don't need religion to preserve my sense of wonder, science provides plenty of that.

 

[SKM1]

I'm not making a value statement, I'm merely describing things as they are. It's merely a refutation of the argument from design, as these problems only arise if you think that the world has been created. I have no problem with reality being as it is because I don't believe that it was created.



You are misrepresenting what I said, I never made the assumption that small things are less significant. I merely contrasted the overly important religious self-image of man to the realities of scale in order to demonstrate the fact that religions are vastly overemphasizing mankind's position in the greater scheme of things.

Of course there is much wonder to found in the scale of things, but none of them are concurrent with how monotheistic religions describe creation. Carl Sagan probably said it best:



I certainly don't need religion to preserve my sense of wonder, science provides plenty of that.

Science in itself does not provide experiences, it provides facts and nothing more. What we create around science is what gives it meaning. For example, one guiding principle in theoretical physics is that fundamental equations should be elegant (this doesn't always hold, obviously). Elegance is not a scientific concept. So that in that sense, science is subject to something that transcends it.

In fact, we usually think of theories in a hierarchical form, where at the top rest the most fundamental equations, governing everything below. These equations or laws are very simple, elegant, yet extremely powerful. It is no coincidence that some physicists tend to refer to the potential discovery of theory of everything as "reading the mind of god". This way of looking at the world is deeply ingrained in us.

The way in which we navigate science is fundamentally religious, there's no other way around it. Faith plays a big role and sometimes it becomes dogmatic. One example that comes to mind is the case of Boltzmann, whose ideas where so ridiculed by his peers that he was driven to commit suicide, only to become later some of the most important insights into the nature of the world.

You could argue that I'm conflating a general conception of religion with it's usage as a reference to organized religions such as Christianity, Judaism, etc... However, that distinction is not that clear to me, and it seems that this debate will never be resolved.

What I cannot endorse is the literal interpretation of religious stories. In the same way, I don't endorse scientism at all. Science (the scientific method) plays no part in our actual experience of reality. It's nothing more than a tool.

EDIT: Another thing that comes to mind is the domination of string theory as the potential TOE. String theorists should have "I WANT TO BELIEVE" posters in their offices. TBH I like the theory because it is incredibly beautiful, but it has not yielded any testable results so far and there are other less mainstream alternatives out there.

 

[AgentP]

OP you are trying to rationalize something irrational. It's like trying to discuss the logistics of how Santa delivers presents to billions of kids in one day. What is the point? It is religion and thus belief based.

Religious people will always go through mental gymnastics, they are trying to convince themselves as much as anyone else.

 

[Saturnman]

it's mostly spoken by people that don't understand the context in which the Bible was written. during the NT martyr era, Romans were persecuting Christians, threatening them with torture, public execution, etc. thus much of the stories and bits are taken from a people written while they are being hunted down and killed. i guess the idea is maybe if they wrote books where God was nice and nobody ever died, then things would have turned out great? dunno, that seems as silly as fantasy as any.

often during the OT era, the Jews were enslaved, and these stories tell about God taking vengeance on the oppressors. it makes sense that an enslaved people would write firey statements about the end of the world. we have people write now doing the same thing to protest the current political climate, saying they are killing millions, bringing the end of the world, etc. call it hyperbole or not, it's an age-old tradition, and it probably made sense at a time when simple speaking out in public could get you tortured & publicly executed.

The context makes sense from a human standpoint. The desperation and the pettiness are understandable and relatable

But it makes no sense from a book presenting itself as the word of an all powerful being.

 

[Antoon]

I never got why many atheists repeat the same thing for so long "But how come there's sufferring like hunger and cancer around the world when God is supposed to be good?". What makes anyone think that our perception of good has to fall in line with the universal perception of good? What makes you think that the hunger/pain/cancer cannot be good in the grander scheme? I think there is a place for all those things in our world, so I don't think God has to be so simple as just being all 'good' for us humans.

 

[Airola]

Sax, once you finally get to understand the concept of Trinity you'll appreciate it even more.

 

[strange headache]

I never got why many atheists repeat the same thing for so long "But how come there's sufferring like hunger and cancer around the world when God is supposed to be good?".

You are aware that the theodicy problem has not been invented by atheists, yes?

as time goes on i feel like these criticisms make less and less sense, the demand for a perfect God who can do no wrong is entirely a fiction, pretty much the dumbed down mainstream "God" worshipped by atheists.

Divine infallibility is literally a dogma of the Catholic Church. Atheists have nothing to do with this.

The way in which we navigate science is fundamentally religious, there's no other way around it. Faith plays a big role and sometimes it becomes dogmatic. One example that comes to mind is the case of Boltzmann, whose ideas where so ridiculed by his peers that he was driven to commit suicide, only to become later some of the most important insights into the nature of the world.

You are talking mysticism and metaphysics, I am talking institutionalized religion. I don't deny that scientists can become dogmatic in their views (Einstein did for example when he argued against quantum physics), but science itself is not dogmatic as any theory that tried to immunize itself is rejected. It's different with religion, so conflating both notions seems rather far fetched.

 

[Antoon]

You are aware that the theodicy problem has not been invented by atheists, yes?

And where exactly did I claim it was invented by atheists? It is the most common argument I hear from atheists irl.

 

[#Phonepunk#]

particularly the part when I think it says he hardened pharaoh's heart so he wouldn't let the hebrews go and he could go on with the massacre.

you have missed the point of this passage. all things are done through God's will alone. good and bad. nowhere does he ever say he only does good. we can fuck up, so can He. the first thing he fucks up is the garden of eden, later he is drowining the world a second time. God is a huge fuck up in the OT. that's cos life is fucked up.

indeed, good or ill, he controls everything. he even controls the powers of the pagan gods, this is seen in the showdown between Moses & Pharaoh's magicians. Moses is worshipping the true God, the source of all power. he controls everything. of course he would harden the Pharaoh's heart. again, he controls everything. he's God. that's sort of the definition. there's nothing outside of him. this is the point of all of this, that Moses is in tune with the TRUE God, the source behind everything, even the Egyptian magicians, which were well known to Hebrew scholars & a large influence on the OT.

it is of utmost importance how Moses doesn't say HE is causing the plauges or parting the waters or whatver, he is merely revealing the works of God. he's a prophet. i would almost say he has foresight and that he is merely warning his enslavers of the coming vengeance. often in martyr narratives, the same demands would take place, a ruler would demand sacrifice to the state idols, and when they refused, they were killed. that's what happened IRL. if anything the OT is not as gruesome as the historical reality was.

at any rate, God controlling the pharaoh's heart is a nod to the fairly simple, basic hierarchy: with God at the very top controlling everything. underneath, the angels, with humans beneath them, then animals, plants, demons at the very bottom, possibly eternally cut off from God's light. when medieval demonologists & sorcerers conjured familiar spirits, it was essential to have a pure faith in God, to be like Moses, claim God's authority. thus all the magical symbols were holy names of God, the LARP imitation of prophets like Moses, all of it was tuned almost like an RPG Holy Buff. the only way to have a demon perform a magical action was to dominate is spiritually, which works because humans are naturally higher in the spiritual hierarchy.

of course that last paragraph is mostly medieval occult esoterica, not in any OT texts. if you're main interesting is bashing people politically, you probably can ignore it & any traditional or cultural significance it may have brought to the table.

 

[strange headache]

And where exactly did I claim it was invented by atheists? It is the most common argument I hear from atheists irl.

It's a problem that's central to Christianity, so why don't you criticize the believers and theologians who have been talking about it for hundreds of years now? Your are blaming atheists for "repeating a problem" that has not only been invented but also perpetuated by religious people themselves.

 

[Antoon]

It's a problem that's central to Christianity, so why don't you criticize the believers and theologians who have been talking about it for hundreds of years now? Your are blaming atheists for "repeating a problem" that has not only been invented but also perpetuated by religious people themselves.

Because I can criticize whatever I want? Just because the topic is also in Christianity, does not mean atheists don't use it for a starter argument. Are you going to show me statistics which side talks about this topic more?

 

[*Nightwing]

The judeo-christian theology is based on free will. God never directly controls anyone, always just influence, and asked humanity for its blind faith in belief of what it doesn't understand or cannot comprehend. So just the same as we don't credit God for all our hard work and sacrifice in achieving positive things we do for ourselves on the daily, it's illogical to blame God for all the negatives of humanity. To awnser the question proposed in the OP: God is not authoritarian (albeit famously jealous as stated in the old testament) and allows us the free will to be evil ourselves should we choose it, so the premise of the question is flawed from the start, and don't blame God for us people being shitty.

 

[SKM1]

You are talking mysticism and metaphysics, I am talking institutionalized religion. I don't deny that scientists can become dogmatic in their views (Einstein did for example when he argued against quantum physics), but science itself is not dogmatic as any theory that tried to immunize itself is rejected. It's different with religion, so conflating both notions seems rather far fetched.

Yes, science and religion are not comparable as such. But the ways in which we deal with them is very similar. For instance when scientists talk about atoms to laymen, they still use this picture

However we know that this picture is not correct. This is a simplified image that conveys partial information about the atom. I could argue that preachers* do the same with religion, more so because their audience spans the whole spectrum of intellectual capacity. So it stands to reason that one should not take what they say literally. It's a waste of time to argue concepts such as theodicy in the same way it's a waste of time to ask why electrons don't collapse into the nucleus of the atom. But people will argue, and some even argue the logistics of flight on a flat Earth.

Belief in these partial images (God is good, etc...) might be an evolutionary adaptation that allows a huge segment of the population to incorporate certain behaviors which are good, without really understanding them. This seems to me more of an ethical problem than a problem of facts. Driving this discussion around what is doesn't seem particularly useful to me.

*I'm not comparing preachers to scientists. Presumably preachers actually believe what they are saying.

 

[SKM1]

Anyways, I don't want to derail the thread. I personally believe that the question is stupid.

 

[strange headache]

Because I can criticize whatever I want?

Sure, but the fact that your criticism is rather one-sided makes it seem rather pointless. You're blaming atheists for discussing something that has been posited by believers in the first place. I've already given you proof, if you had bothered following the link that I provided to you. It's coined as the theodicy and there's plenty of theological literature on that particular problem.

 

[Airola]

particularly the part when I think it says he hardened pharaoh's heart so he wouldn't let the hebrews go and he could go on with the massacre.

I think there are at least two ways to look at it.

One is that in general when God allows something terrible to happen (for example Job's story), what people can learn from it from retelling the story might be waaaay more positive than what negative things it might've caused. Also, if one believes God is omniscient (no matter how they might define omniscience) it could be argued God knows letting it happen causes more good things in future than not letting it happen. It might stop some certain more devastating events from happening both in the way of actual causal effect (because certain people died, something can't ever happen) and from people just learning because they know the story (people would understand some deep issues and in that way would be more likely to go for good choices rather than bad).

Second is that hardening the heart might mean that this is done to show where Pharaoh's true heart is. To show what Pharaoh, and maybe even most if not all people, are capable of when they are left on their own devices. It's not as if he just starts to do previously impossible things because of hardened heart, but it's kinda more like when some people start to act differently when they get drunk. It's not as if the actions made when being drunk are 100% alien to them, but those things lie somewhere very deep in their psyche. They still do whatever they do on their own. It's not as if they are told to do it.

A combination of those two things would not be an impossible thing to happen when talking about God and that certainly make more sense than just saying that God is an asshole because he supposedly makes someone do bad things.

Literal interpretation of religion is stupid. When you understand that it's all about archetypes, it becomes an incredible source of wisdom and self understanding.

Questions such as "if God is omnipotent then why blah blah" are so stupid because they are constructed in order to demonstrate the absurdity of religion, but such absurdity derives from a child-like interpretation of it.

Such interpretations are needed, however, because suspension of disbelief allows not-so-bright people to streamline the teachings in a heuristic manner.

Yes, I think the books in the Bible are very clever in that often they are understandable to both the people who are interested in deeper thoughts and meanings and art, and to the people who are not interested or not capable of thinking that way. "Jesus died for your sins" can be looked at the most simple way possible and at the same time that sentence holds an amazing amount of deeper meaning.

 

[bitbydeath]

His flesh died. He didn’t come back in the flesh. Every account of him appearing after his death wasn’t a normal fleshly encounter at all. He had to “eat” something because the disciples were freaked out by his appearance. It’s written that flesh doesn’t inherit the kingdom.

He no longer died for anyones sins because he undid it all, flesh or not does not play into it.

 

[Airola]

Man, for such a supposed infinite and omniscient being, god certainly did a lot of silly mistakes when he created the world. If he were really such a swell and omnipotent dude why would he create...

• such a deficient human being?
• an unstable solar system?
• a universe that will suffer heat death?
• thousands upon thousands of species doomed to go extinct?
• a myriad of different pathogens that can kill you in the most gruesome ways?
• an unstable sun that will burn out?
• irrational universal constants?
• almost infinite swathes of empty space?
• billions of dead and/or uninhabitable planets?
• such huge distances, isolating mankind from other alien civilizations?
• planet Earth with rapidly and frequently changing climate and living conditions?
• man as a sexual being if intercourse is so frowned upon by his followers (mitosis would have been fine)?
• create a galaxy that is on collision course with another?
• create women only to be viewed as lesser?
• create homosexual people only to be shunned by religion?
• ...

Deficient human being?
So you are disappointed that we are not supermen. You would rather blame God for our "faults" than, for example, use them to grow as persons?

Unstable solar system? Universe that will suffer heat death? Unstable sun? Empty space? Dead planets?
First of all, you don't know how much of that "unstableness" actually is something that doesn't have any reason or meaning to anything. Considering that God is not bound to the universe, and our souls aren't either, what's so inherently bad or wrong in having an universe that ends up being ultimately destroyed? You also don't know how much of that "empty space" and "dead" planets is just something that has no meaning to anything instead of being a part of something like an unbelievable huge mechanical clock that not only allows us to physically interact with our physical computers to talk with each other but also might contain things that allow our possible souls and possible God be connected.

Extinction of species?
Should every single species be alive for us to wonder? What if some animals were needed for some certain things in some certain time for something certain to happen at later times? What if it's ultimately better to have certain animals be alive at a certain time but not in another time? What if it's better for some certain species that the other species aren't around here any longer? Why is extinction a bad thing, especially in a reality where God exists? It seems as if you are wondering about the non-existing species being unnecessary only because they aren't alive now when you are. It seems as if you think their existence back in the day was completely unnecessary. Why do you think like that?

Homosexuals?
You are choosing this particular group of people because controversial political reasons. Plus, you calling their existence as "only to be shunned" in the context of God and religion is a strawman. There are plenty of people who have been shunned by both religion and God since the very beginning. We all have something that does not please God at all. Religion shuns adulterers too, yet a huge amount of people have almost overbearingly strong libido and the will to see others as sexual objects. Why God created them if they are "only to be shunned by religion."

Women as lesser?
You might want to say that now from today's world's perspective. That doesn't mean they actually were lesser back then, especially from God's cosmic point of view. Women and children at least weren't lesser in the sense that it was men who were chosen to go and die for whatever cause they had. Men were the ones who were more or less forced to kill and to be killed in war. Of course there are exceptions but if some people were spared in a war and pillage it was more likely women and children than men. Men were expendable. And when women were spared, men usually had to marry them. And again, from today's world's perspective you might see that as a bad thing because we in general don't really value marriage as much as people used to back then. Essentially marriage protected the married people more than it was harm for them.

While you are busy racking your precious brain cycles over some biblical figures who are largely insignificant in the greater scheme of things, scientists are unveiling how broken the fundamental rules of reality really are:

Insignificance is honestly actual insignificance from your own personal perspective that says more about you than it says about anyone who might've created us.

If god were real, that would be about the extent of his "love and care" for his creation. You should be glad that I don't believe in god's existence, otherwise I'd be his greatest critic and would have no other moral choice than to despise him even more.

I believe this is actually one of the reasons God doesn't come in front of you and say "hi, I'm God."

He knows your current stance towards him. Maybe he also knows that if you get enough time to think, you might eventually change your views toward him.
If he would show up right now, there would be and unbelievable huge amount of previous atheists who would only get harder against God because now they would have a concrete object to throw their accusations towards. For someone to get to appreciate God it has to come from the heart first and foremost. If your heart is already dissing God, you will be dissing God when you meet him too. He's not going to force you to join him. You would be against him probably for good then. If there ever is a chance that you, and so many other atheists, would end up loving him, it most probably can't happen in a way that lets you meet him with what your heart feels about him at this very moment. That would probably only be the end of your possibilities to ever join him and the last moment that makes you willingly be departed from him forever.

Atheists often say why doesn't God just show himself and prove he exists. When pressed, the same people would say they would hate him nevertheless if he showed up. Some of the more edgier atheists I've even heard say they'd try to kill God. So what's the point? Unless, of course, they can be given more time to think it through and let their hearts become more accepting of him, if there ever would even be a chance for it.

 

[Omega Supreme Holopsicon]

If god is but an idea that exists in our heads, then why can't you at least try making it a good idea?

Better yet if all minds are but algorithmic mathematical structures, why not just give flesh to the idea? Physical manifestation of the divine ideal?
To be honest a perfect multibody lifeform able to withstand any possible relation or interaction surpasses traditional human limits.

. Science (the scientific method) plays no part in our actual experience of reality. It's nothing more than a tool.

Science. Through technology can break the limitations of the flesh and allow us to taste absolute freedom with unlimited security and time.

The judeo-christian theology is based on free will

Some forms believe there are those predestined for salvation and those predestined for hell, and nothing can change their fate. Have heard rumors Islam has similar views.