Support NeoGAF

[Shanadeus]

This probably should be a girl age thread. I will not create one of those, however. There's this girl. Very rad. Etc. However, she's very religious. Catholic (or Christian? whichever one is more "meh" on the Pope). Goes to church weekly, etc. I am not religious at all. Kinda a deal breaker for me. But I like her a lot. Vice versa. I don't know wtf to do. SO uh, GAF go?

You'll be surprised how little religion really matter in your everyday life, if she is okay with you not being religious - then go for it. Even if she tries to "save" you you should still be able to maintain an alright relationship.

If you date and she goes to church, you could always prepare a surprise for her while she's there and woo her over even more.

 

[KingGondo]

I thought this would be of interested to some here: earlier this month the book Christianity: The First Three Thousand Years was released. I haven't yet read it, though I intend to at some point. It goes over the foundations of Christianity and how the different creeds of all of the separate sects have evolved over the millennia.

NYT Review here.

Looks interesting. I might pick it up when the Kindle edition comes down in price ($24 for a non-physical copy? lol.)

 

[soul creator]

I suppose I was trying to show the fallibility of conjecture. For argument's sake, lets say there is a scenario where the greek god Zeus has two children to save. He saves one and lets the other die. It's his choice, right. You are arguing that because Zeus let one die,*or in perhaps your words*, he killed a child, he is therefore evil. But to some people it does not necessarily follow. The opposition bench would argue that everybody has to die. Life and death are in Zeus's hands. Both should be dead. Zeus chose to save one.

Of course, if he could save both, but didn't, then that would call into question the idea that he always has everyone's best interests at heart. If a doctor/police officer/fireman is known to be fully capable of saving two lives, but decides to save only one and lets the other die, there would probably be some type of investigation into what happened. Them saying "well, everyone has to die, so that's why I didn't save the other" would hardly be a good answer, yet somehow we accept this when "god" says it.

The typical response would be, "well, he's god though, he's bigger than us, so he has that right". But that sounds suspiciously like "it's not breaking the law if it's the president doing it". Which we usually frown upon in the real world, so I'm not sure why people willingly accept that in the divine world.

Now if God/Zeus try really hard sometimes, but just can't quite get things done as they would like to, then that could be possible as well. But I think it's somewhat safe to say that most people's gods are not the "he tries hard, but he fucks up sometimes" type of god.

As mentioned, none of this is necessarily evidence against any god existing. It's more just wondering why even if some god exists, why exactly do we worship it so much? At best, he's got his own plan that we'd never be able to figure out, that might possibly help us in the end, but our worship has no influence on it. At worst, he's actively opposed to helping us :lol

And thus it doesn't neccesarily follow that Zeus is good or evil.

But it could indicate that Zeus can be unreliable, and also not "perfectly" good (which is a claim made by a lot of people).

And I just realized all of my comments are just another variation of the 3 omni's argument. Meh.

Further, if both deaths are almost certain, he is merciful.

I do agree though, where you say that working out the mind of a god is purely conjecture.
My own view is this.
*I think* there are a hundred billion trillon ways of us being hurt, getting hurt, or dying.

True.

What should god do, wrap us in cotton wool? Logically, a world without suffering wouldn't really be like this world anyway;

Well, a lot of people say that's effectively what god does in heaven, and apparently that's a big reason for why people believe. So apparently people do want to be wrapped in cotton wool. Of course, that's assuming that "preventing harm and suffering when possible" is a primary goal. It is for a doctor, but not for some gods I guess.

As you said, there's no logical reason that god has to be good and capable of doing anything it wants. That just happens to be a pretty popular definition.

I mean gravity or bacteria can't exist in that world. In fact, it would be an incredibly leniant god to create such a world. Heaven for the Christians, I suppose.
What I don't understand is, if one man takes a knife to another, how is that a god's fault?

As you kind of implied, I assume people wouldn't get stabbed in heaven, so it's not like god is opposed to that kind of world. And if one is of the belief that god specifically created us, then sure, anything that happens is a result of what god specifically wanted to happen. Microsoft writes an operating system, so they take responsibility for bugs that are in it.

So if god is capable of creating a world with no suffering (heaven, supposedly) but doesn't (earth), then what possible motivation is there for this? I could see a ton of possibilities, but none of them seem to lead to "god is good, all the time!" (a popular phrase among numerous believers)

But once again, there's no law saying god has to be loving and compassionate, and this is not meant as some 100% proof of there being no god. Actually, one could argue most descriptions of gods throughout human history have been far from loving and compassionate :lol

Say if Zeus existed, how is that his fault? should Zeus be at your beck and call?

Doctors and Police officers are supposed to be at our beck and call. Why can't the ultimate doctor and police officer be? :/

If a volcanoe erupts, and people die, are they not suppose to die?

Sure, why not. If god doesn't want suffering and death, there doesn't have to be. At least, according to a lot of people's definition of god. So if there is suffering and death, that means he wants it that way. Maybe he has some grand and awesome reason for it, sure. But that doesn't change the fact that suffering and death exists "on his watch".

and even if you are alive and were thankful to zeus who saved you; the logic above says that your not allowed to be thankful, because he blew up the volcanoe and killed all your friends. <<< I don't follow this kind of logic. I say be thankful, if you believe in what you believe.

Well, if he had the full ability to save my friends, but didn't, then I would probably be thankful but have a ton of questions why he decided to let everyone else die. Just like if some fireman saved me from a burning house, and decided to ignore everyone else in it, even though he could've easily saved them. If he just said "it was their time to die, I have a plan for them" I would hardly find that satisfying.

Of course, if Zeus tried really hard to save everyone, but was only able to save me, then I'd thank him for the help. But that wouldn't make me want to worship Zeus.

I guess my whole post is more about the psychological aspects of "worship", rather than a strict argument against gods existing.

 

[Mgoblue201]

I suppose I was trying to show the fallibility of conjecture. For argument's sake, lets say there is a scenario where the greek god Zeus has two children to save. He saves one and lets the other die. It's his choice, right. You are arguing that because Zeus let one die,*or in perhaps your words*, he killed a child, he is therefore evil. But to some people it does not necessarily follow. The opposition bench would argue that everybody has to die. Life and death are in Zeus's hands. Both should be dead. Zeus chose to save one.
And thus it doesn't neccesarily follow that Zeus is good or evil. Further, if both deaths are almost certain, he is merciful.
I do agree though, where you say that working out the mind of a god is purely conjecture.
My own view is this.
*I think* there are a hundred billion trillon ways of us being hurt, getting hurt, or dying. What should god do, wrap us in cotton wool? Logically, a world without suffering wouldn't really be like this world anyway; I mean gravity or bacteria can't exist in that world. In fact, it would be an incredibly leniant god to create such a world. Heaven for the Christians, I suppose.
What I don't understand is, if one man takes a knife to another, how is that a god's fault? Say if Zeus existed, how is that his fault? should Zeus be at your beck and call?
If a volcanoe erupts, and people die, are they not suppose to die? and even if you are alive and were thankful to zeus who saved you; the logic above says that your not allowed to be thankful, because he blew up the volcanoe and killed all your friends. <<< I don't follow this kind of logic. I say be thankful, if you believe in what you believe.

This is another reason why I feel an all knowing, all powerful god cannot exist side by side with a religion that demands belief. In your knife example, suppose that the man does not believe in god and dies right there. But suppose that the man survives and later converts. Does god have an obligation to act to save him? When you run into a group of circumstances in which one eventually believes and another group of circumstances in which one does not believe, and god could technically act to work toward one outcome, since he knows what will happen, then you run into a conundrum. If god does nothing, then he is leaving it up to capricious circumstances, and I would argue that our beliefs are absolutely situational. But if god acts, then the outcome is essentially rigged. Either way, god has a tough time demanding belief. Your arguments might work if we are literally talking about Zeus here, a being as capricious as humans. But most theists don't believe in that sort of god anymore.

That's a valid point. But although "belief" is tied to certain truths, these truths (i.e. the age of Earth) are not the basis for that faith people have in a supreme deity. Similarly no specific truth (in the context that which science can tackle, such as history or that Adam and Eve were the first humanoids) is the reason which draws people to a faith. I guess it comes to down whether God is this supreme creator or whether or not he is the one who did it all in 6 days. The creation story on it's own creates heated debates and discussions within theological circles and this is why some have no issue in redefining certain specifics in that story. Ultimately that is something limited to a question of doctrine, not universal faith in the unseen.

But shouldn't the Bible be held up as something that made specific claims that can either be affirmed or contradicted? To redefine something, I think, is relative because it depends upon circumstance. That just makes god out to be a postmodern writer or philosopher which is great if you expect experimentation but not so great if you expect eternal truths. Even the claim that such facts "are not the basis for the faith that people have in a supreme diety" is a relative concept that many people do not share, so what can any of it possibly offer besides feel good religion? One must eschew one element of this logic:

A god exists
He wrote a bestselling book that contains a literal six day creation story
That story is contradicted by the evidence

I say, why not start at the top? Why not eschew god (or the Christian conception of god) entirely? It gets by every conceivable contradiction immediately.

 

[Ashes]

@ soul: I see. It appears that the argument isn't about the case of a god; you basically want a superhero? and if god isn't a superhero, all the time, every time, he is fallible.
In this scenario, the laws of nature are not to work so as to allow suffering to cease. Only that would allow a worship-able god. Yes?
1. We don't live in that universe. For better or for worse. Purely for the mathematics involved, I don't see how it would be intelligent to not have an objective god but a subjective one. Personally, I think that if God does intervene in our lives it has to be minimal. The butterfly effect alone, boggles my mind.
2. How would free will work?
3. If you were a writer of fate, logically how would you write people's death?
A way that works in this universe.

 

[soul creator]

@ soul: I see. It appears that the argument isn't about the case of a god; you basically want a superhero? and if god isn't a superhero, all the time, every time, he is fallible.

Well, yeah. There are plenty of believers that do in fact see god as the ultimate superhero. If a being is claimed to love all human beings, doesn't want them to suffer (I think it's safe to say that people who love others don't actually want them to suffer) has the ability to create universes, is watching over us, and can essentially do whatever it wants, at any time, then yeah, I would kind of expect a lot out of it.

Now sure, there are believers that say "god has a plan, we don't always know it, but he does things his way. He's not gonna swoop down and save us all the time. So yeah, even if these kids got stabbed to death, I have to assume that he had a good reason for not intervening, and this reason benefits us in the long run"

And I suppose I'm just curious as to why people think this way?

In this scenario, the laws of nature are not to work so as to allow suffering to cease. Only that would allow a worship-able god. Yes?

If one believes that the "laws of nature" are created by this god, then any suffering involved is only there because god wants it that way. We don't excuse Microsoft for bad code, so why would we excuse our "ultimate programmer"

Of course, if you don't believe that god has the ability to set things up how he wants, or you don't believe god is actually concerned with human beings, then none of this applies. But a lot of people do believe in a god that can create anything he wants, and also supposedly loves us. So yes, one would expect, at minimum, crazy Superman level saving of lives.

1. We don't live in that universe. For better or for worse. Purely for the mathematics involved, I don't see how it would be intelligent to not have an objective god but a subjective one. Personally, I think that if God does intervene in our lives it has to be minimal. The butterfly effect alone, boggles my mind.

But if you believe that a god created the entirety of the universe, and if one believes in a god that can telepathically communicate with human beings (like the guy in the article I posted), then you already believe god intervened in this world in pretty substantial ways.

And even if one believes that god only "minimally" intervenes, why does it always seem to be in the silliest ways? To go back to that story, god decides to intervene with some random guy to find a lost girl, but intervening to keep the girl from being lost in the first place never occurs to god?

2. How would free will work?

If one believes in a heaven where nothing bad can ever happen, then it would work like that. And of course, we could still have "free will"...it would just never cause any suffering. I could grab a knife and it turns to ice cream every time I try to stab someone. If god wants it that way, then it could work that way. It's silly, but remember we're discussing a god that can make things work however he wants them to. If, instead, stabbing someone with a knife causes immense amounts of pain and suffering, then things only work that way because god wants them to be that way. Maybe he has some special ultimate reason for making things that way? I dunno. But it obviously doesn't work in my favor, so what reason would there be for me to worship this being? He obviously doesn't have my anti-stab interests at heart.

And as always, if you don't believe in a god that can make things work however he wants them to, then none of this applies. A lot of people do though.

3. If you were a writer of fate, logically how would you write people's death?
A way that works in this universe.

I'm not quite sure I follow. I don't know how different I could "write people's death", it'll always be sad and involves suffering (if only for other family members) in some way, if we're talking about this universe. Beyond having everyone die peacefully in their sleep or something during old age.

(of course, if this is meant as a "put yourself in god's shoes" thought experiment, this ignores that god can change "how the universe works", if it wanted to)

 

[Ashes]

differences aside, by the by, that was a very decent response.

 

[kobashi100]

good video from Hizb ut-Tahrir on why muslims should not take any part in democratic elections.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wD2eH_YvVnY&feature=player_embedded

 

[Shanadeus]

@ soul: I see. It appears that the argument isn't about the case of a god; you basically want a superhero? and if god isn't a superhero, all the time, every time, he is fallible.
In this scenario, the laws of nature are not to work so as to allow suffering to cease. Only that would allow a worship-able god. Yes?
1. We don't live in that universe. For better or for worse. Purely for the mathematics involved, I don't see how it would be intelligent to not have an objective god but a subjective one. Personally, I think that if God does intervene in our lives it has to be minimal. The butterfly effect alone, boggles my mind.
2. How would free will work?
3. If you were a writer of fate, logically how would you write people's death?
A way that works in this universe.

It's honestly not inconceivable that God could by working withing the laws of the universe just set up the starting conditions so that every, single choice and action made by humanity billions of years later and a couple of years into our development - simply will lead to "good" things.

He has if he exist set up everything as it is today by deciding what the starting conditions of this Universe is as well as individually creating every soul, every entity using free will, in existence.

If God is omnipotent, omniscient and all-benevolent - then his clockwork could have ticked on just like now but with less suffering. And as long as there is some suffering, that means God has decided against creating a universe with less suffering.

Because unless he has limited his omniscience, then he has directly decided all the actions and events from the beginning of the universe until its end - every atom and molecule moving in accordance of his will as he has set them up as cogs in the great beautiful clock that is his creation.

 

[Shanadeus]

good video from Hizb ut-Tahrir on why muslims should not take any part in democratic elections.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wD2eH_YvVnY&feature=player_embedded

So I did not quite get the message of that video.
If Muslims can't vote in the countries they live in, how are they supposed to make the surrounding society Islamic so that they can vote?

 

[I_D]

Right, so I was walking across my campus, back to my dorm, and a monk gave me a copy of the Bhagavad Gita. Just, you know, out of the blue.

Has anyone here read it, and wants to tell me about it?

I had to read sections of it for a college class.
I like comparing which values various faiths hold in high regard, so I found it cool. I can see how others would find it boring though.

 

[kobashi100]

So I did not quite get the message of that video.
If Muslims can't vote in the countries they live in, how are they supposed to make the surrounding society Islamic so that they can vote?

Hizb message is do not vote and instead work for the caliphate in the muslim world. Instead of voting in western countries the muslims should promote the islamic values but still engage and contribute to the society around them.

 

[Shanadeus]

Hizb message is do not vote and instead work for the caliphate in the muslim world. Instead of voting in western countries the muslims should promote the islamic values but still engage and contribute to the society around them.

That sounds like it could end up just hurting the Muslims living in the west, in countries where they should vote in order to battle the more extreme right wing parties - or risk losing the ability to promote their very own values. I don't accept the argument that all parties are just plain bad, the democrats in the US is a definitive improvement over the republicans and if choosing the "lesser of two evils" lead to fewer wars and less suffering - then go for it. But I do get the theological argument derived from the Qu'ran , and cannot argue against as I lack the necessary knowledge of the book and religion.

Still, it sounds like a pretty self-defeating attitude and if I was a conspiracy theorist I'd say that people with anti-islamic views have constructed this video in an effort to stop Muslims from voting through less right-wing parties.

 

[kobashi100]

Is there any christians on here who don't eat pork. I use to work with some christians from nigeria who didnt drink alcohol or eat pork but have never met any other christians who stay away from swine meat. I know pork is forbidden in the bible and have always been amazed how most christians just ignore the dietry laws that are in the bible.

 

[JGS]

Is there any christians on here who don't eat pork. I use to work with some christians from nigeria who didnt drink alcohol or eat pork but have never met any other christians who stay away from swine meat. I know pork is forbidden in the bible and have always been amazed how most christians just ignore the dietry laws that are in the bible.

Christians can eat as much bacon and shrimp as they want. Neither are banned for Christians.

I do know some Christians who decided to follow the dietary laws from the Old Testament but that a voluntary choice.

 

[Sibylus]

Is there any christians on here who don't eat pork. I use to work with some christians from nigeria who didnt drink alcohol or eat pork but have never met any other christians who stay away from swine meat. I know pork is forbidden in the bible and have always been amazed how most christians just ignore the dietry laws that are in the bible.

Christians doing that might be viewed by others as being "legalistic", or perhaps even be seen acting as if Jesus hadn't come and "fulfilled" the law (which is the most-cited reason I've heard for no longer following most of the guidelines in Leviticus).

 

[soul creator]

Random question, since I've always been curious about the phrase: "I'm not an atheist, but I just don't believe in organized religion"

Where does one come up with a god that doesn't have its roots in "organized religion?"

Sure, I know that there are individual people who don't follow a religion, but believe in god. But historically speaking, aren't gods and religions linked pretty closely?

 

[JGS]

Random question, since I've always been curious about the phrase: "I'm not an atheist, but I just don't believe in organized religion"

Where does one come up with a god that doesn't have its roots in "organized religion?"

Sure, I know that there are individual people who don't follow a religion, but believe in god. But historically speaking, aren't gods and religions linked pretty closely?

IMO, I think people tend toward a belief in something with or without organized religion. Organized religion is started and accepted because of this, but organized religion is not needed for belief at all.

However, most people who identify themselves with believing in God would have to at least acknowledge that since Moses, God has had an organizational arrangement representing him.

People who don't believe in organized religion have a good reason to if they don't want to figure it out and they see all the wrong stuff a lot of religions do. However, that doesn't mean they're right.

 

[Ashes]

There are diests, monothiests, thiests who have dropped out of favour with religious dogma but retain their belief in god. From a logical front, it's perfectly logical that people might believe that religion is a cultural phenomenon, and god could exist without ever dropping a single sign or revelation. I don't see a contradiction if I'm honest.

 

[soul creator]

well it's not a logical contradiction, since anyone can believe in anything they want. I guess that's just one of those areas where I psychologically differ. Once I ruled out "organized religion" growing up, I briefly thought "those 100 definitions of god from organized religion are all probably wrong. But maybe there's a 101st that no one else has stumbled onto! So I can believe in that one without following a specific religion!"

My deism didn't last very long though, since the immediate follow up was "what makes my 101st definition of god so vastly different from the other 100 I've heard growing up? And is there any evidence of the 101st version of god beyond it just being a concept in my head". Once I asked myself that, atheism wasn't very far behind, lol.

That's kind of why I always start wondering about the concept of "belief" from a psychological standpoint. I didn't really have any special "urge" to believe in any god, so all of that was pretty straightforward. But I wonder if for some people, they just need to say "I believe in god", whether or not that definition of god is actually anything meaningful (like when people say god is love, or god is the universe, or god "set things in motion"). Is it partially due to the social stigma against atheism?

Hell, by those definitions, I'm a theist as well. I believe in the existence of the universe!

*shrug*

 

[Ashes]

Well, here's the thing. It's your life. It's up to you to interpret the universe as you see fit. Arming your self with knowledge I guess the is best way to do that. Faith is faith.
Do you look at the world and think its created? yes leads down one path no leads down another. Critical thinking aids one to make a more informed decision but I personally disagree when people say it offers one road or the other. Why take that power away from your self?
But I can tell that whilst some definitions are not exactly simple like Atheism - by your definition, I am pretty sure that you are at the very least not a thiest simply because you believe in a universe; iirc it has to be an actual diety. There are other definitions which you most likely already know about so I won't touch on them.
As regard the psychological things, my own understanding of it is that it's a big swing to go from set structure of thought to another. I have come to deplore the use of intellectual markers on these grounds.
There have been a few studies into religious folks and how they think, but I would like to see more studies into athiesm. In fact there is a major one looking into this as we speak, although I can't quite recall what the name of that study is.

 

[soul creator]

Well, here's the thing. It's your life. It's up to you to interpret the universe as you see fit.

That's kind of the thing...with religions and gods, a lot of times it seems like a case of "trying to have it both ways". Sure, when it comes to a personal philosophy to live life, then do whatever works for you, interpret as you see fit, so on and so forth. "Purpose" and things of that nature are completely subjective. But when it comes to making claims about the external world, which is what religions and gods almost always involve, "interpreting as you see fit" seems like a weird standard to apply. Especially since no one ever accepts that rationale when it comes to thousands of other things in life, yet with gods it's considered perfectly "reasonable".

"I think my purpose is to treat others how I would want to be treated" - great, wonderful, personal philosophy, we all gotta find our own way in life, do what works for you!

"My god would want me to treat others how I would want to be treated" - great, wonderful...wait, who is this god character you're talking about? How did you find all of this out? Something called god told you this? When did this happen?

It's as if god exists in the brain simultaneously as a "subjective concept" and "external being". To me, the latter statement raises all sorts of red flags and extra questions. But for a bunch of people, they can accept that just fine, lol

 

[Ashes]

isn't that hard to say in real world terms?
Do you remember a time when you didn't hear or know about a god figure?
Of course, now you are trying to establish a critical eye. But why must that critical eye suddenly take for granted that god does or does not exist? When did we establish that?

 

[LCGeek]

That's kind of the thing...with religions and gods, a lot of times it seems like a case of "trying to have it both ways". Sure, when it comes to a personal philosophy to live life, then do whatever works for you, interpret as you see fit, so on and so forth. "Purpose" and things of that nature are completely subjective. But when it comes to making claims about the external world, which is what religions and gods almost always involve, "interpreting as you see fit" seems like a weird standard to apply. Especially since no one ever accepts that rationale when it comes to thousands of other things in life, yet with gods it's considered perfectly "reasonable".

"I think my purpose is to treat others how I would want to be treated" - great, wonderful, personal philosophy, we all gotta find our own way in life, do what works for you!

"My god would want me to treat others how I would want to be treated" - great, wonderful...wait, who is this god character you're talking about? How did you find all of this out? Something called god told you this? When did this happen?

It's as if god exists in the brain simultaneously as a "subjective concept" and "external being". To me, the latter statement raises all sorts of red flags and extra questions. But for a bunch of people, they can accept that just fine, lol

Technically god is a nesting doll within a nesting doll if you apply that thinking it's both not either or.

 

[Neoriceisgood]

So what's the best religion out there?

 

[archnemesis]

So what's the best religion out there?

Jediism looks pretty cool.

I Believe in The Living Force of Creation;
I am a Jedi, an instrument of peace;
Where there is hatred I shall bring love;
Where there is injury, pardon;
Where there is doubt, faith;
Where there is despair, hope;
Where there is darkness, light;
And where there is sadness, joy.

I am a Jedi.
I shall never seek so much to be consoled as to console;
To be understood as to understand;
To be loved as to love;
For it is in giving that we receive;
In pardoning that we are pardoned;
And in dying that we are born to eternal life.

 

[JGS]

Jediism looks pretty cool.

Bu..bu...but Midi-chlorians disproved this grand delusion.

You don't choose Jediism, it chooses you. It is a religion based on failure and condemnation unless you are chosen by the little creature living inside you.

 

[soul creator]

isn't that hard to say in real world terms?

?

Do you remember a time when you didn't hear or know about a god figure?

nope, I've been exposed to it for the vast majority of my life, as far as I know.

Of course, now you are trying to establish a critical eye. But why must that critical eye suddenly take for granted that god does or does not exist? When did we establish that?

I'm not sure I follow. "Take for granted" that god does or does not exist? Aren't those kind of the only two possibilities?

Maybe this is a better question to ask on my part: When someone says "I believe in god" or "god told me X", what should come to mind?

Generally speaking, communication depends on people having relatively clear definitions of what we're talking about. So if someone says "I have a car", it's reasonable to assume that some sort of rectangular thing on top of 4 wheels is involved. So that's the mental picture that comes to mind, and people can have a coherent conversation about cars.

But I tend to notice that god becomes 100 different things depending on who one talks to, and often, god can morph between those different definitions even when discussing it with the same person. So god becomes kind of this catch all term that doesn't mean much on its own, but represents everything to everyone. The weird part to me is that people see this as a good thing, when it seems like it actually makes things way more confusing.

And if god is in fact supposed to be this open ended thing that means anything to anyone, isn't that kind of indirectly admitting that yes, god only "exists" as a concept in our head, and doesn't actually describe anything "real"?

 

[soul creator]

in other news, two JW women stopped by my apartment this morning and gave me a pamphlet. One of them was really cute. Maybe I can peel her away for a bit. I hear conservative religious women can really let loose in bed! /girl age

Spoiler

I'm joking. She was cute though

 

[Ashes]

Basically all three points of mine were linked to your post.

"My god would want me to treat others how I would want to be treated" - great, wonderful...wait, who is this god character you're talking about? How did you find all of this out? Something called god told you this? When did this happen?

The question you asked is kind of an unreal question. You can't remember a time where you didn't know about a 'thing' called god, so why say 'wait a minute... who is this god character?'. You know the basic tenants of god. So you can't honestly ask that question in real world terms because you know the god that particular person is talking about.

I suppose, even if it is a fictional character, you still know that 'character'.

You can only ask *that* question when you are looking at something critically or as I said: with a critical eye. Which is fine. Critical thinking is fine.

I'll make the second line of reasoning clearer here as well. I merely stressed that from this position, you asked a leading question here. You implied that god doesn't exist per say.
To me, this is not a neutral position. This is subjective. Subtle but a definitive line of reasoning.
What If I argued that God just existed per say? So:
"My god would want me to treat others how I would want to be treated" - great, wonderful..." ah okay. Makes sense. God is great etc.

Why must that critical eye suddenly take for granted that god does or does not exist? When did we establish that?

Am I more clear now?

 

[Shanadeus]

So I thought this could be better discussed in this thread:


Incorrect stuff

• Humans created from a single man. 4: 1
  
• Homosexual acts are condemned as unnatural. (Will ye commit abomination such as no creature ever did before you?) But, in fact, such acts are common in many other species. 7:80-81
  
• Crucifixion is a Roman punishment, unknown in Egypt at the time this story supposedly occurred. 7:124
  
• "And thy Lord inspired the bee, saying ... eat of all fruits."
  Allah told bees to eat from all fruits, but decided to eat nectar and pollen instead. 16:68-68
  
• All things We have created by pairs."
  This is not true. Many bacteria, protists, fungi, and plants reproduce asexually. 51:49
  
• "He is created from a gushing fluid that issued from between the loins and ribs."
  Semen, according to the Quran, is formed not in the testicles, but somewhere "between the loins and ribs." 86:5-7
  
• "He is created from a gushing fluid."
  Humans are not created from semen, but from fertilized eggs. 86:6

A list of absurdities:

• "And He taught Adam all the names."
  Allah taught Adam all the names of the plants and animals, which must have taken a while since there are 1.7 million species that are known today, with probably another 10 million or so that are yet to be discovered. And this only includes those that are alive today. If extinct species are included (~99%), then Allah must have taught Adam a billion or so names. 2:31
  
• Allah turned the Sabbath-breaking Jews into apes. 2:65-66
  
• Christians and Jews must believe what Allah has revealed to Muhammad or Allah will disfigure their faces or turn them into apes, as he did the Sabbath-breakers. (See 2:65-66) 4:47
  
• Only religious people help orphans or those in need. 107:1-3
  
• The Christian Trinity is the Father, Mother, and Son. 5:116
  
• Allah warns believers not to ask to many questions. (Honest answers will cause them to lose their faith.) 5:101
  
• If the Quran was not from Allah its critics would find some mistakes in it.
  (The Quran filled with mistakes. It is a silly, error-filled book. But even if the Quran didn't contain a single error, it would not prove that it was from Allah.) 4:82

Sexy stuff in the Quran

• Don't have sex with menstruating women. 2:222
  When it is in reality healthy and recommended by most doctors as it can relieve menstruation cramps and pains.
  
• Have sex with your women whenever, however, and as often as you like. 2:223
  
• "Pure companions, and contentment from Allah"
  Virgins await those who enter paradise. 3:15
  
• "All married women (are forbidden unto you) save those (captives) whom your right hands possess."
  You can't have sex with married women, unless they are slaves obtained in war (with whom you may rape or do whatever you like). 4:24

[sarcasm]Let's make fun of the Qu'ran yay [/sarcasm]

So what happens when you as a muslim come upon a verse that sounds wrong?
Do you consider the notion that the verse, and book, might actually be wrong or do you start off with the mindset that it hasn't been properly interpreted/science hasn't reached the same conclusions yet.

 

[GhaleonQ]

The author Rebecca Goldenstein http://www.amazon.com/dp/0307378187/?tag=neogaf0e-20 (that's a fiction book) is coming to debate with my religion class on Tuesday! Has anyone read that?

Shanadeus, I was going to say that it sounded a lot like the Skeptics' Annotated Bible (which every Christian thinks is stupid and written by ill-informed people), and, lo! I'd be interested in what someone well-read in Islam has to say, though. They also seem much better chosen than the Bible version.

 

[Shanadeus]

The author Rebecca Goldenstein http://www.amazon.com/dp/0307378187/?tag=neogaf0e-20 (that's a fiction book) is coming to debate with my religion class on Tuesday! Has anyone read that?

Shanadeus, I was going to say that it sounded a lot like the Skeptics' Annotated Bible (which every Christian thinks is stupid and written by ill-informed people), and, lo! I'd be interested in what someone well-read in Islam has to say, though. They also seem much better chosen than the Bible version.

Oh many of the points are very contrived and feel like they interpreted into a bad way, but there are plenty of verses that just sound plain wrong no matter how you interpret it.

All things We have created by pairs."
This is not true. Many bacteria, protists, fungi, and plants reproduce asexually. 51:49

For example, the above could be defended by saying that God didn't create bacterias and such. Or that they're not really "creatures" or life in the eyes of God.

Homosexual acts are condemned as unnatural. (Will ye commit abomination such as no creature ever did before you?) But, in fact, such acts are common in many other species. 7:80-81

But this is hard to defend when so many creatures has done homosexual acts in nature.

"He is created from a gushing fluid that issued from between the loins and ribs."
Semen, according to the Quran, is formed not in the testicles, but somewhere "between the loins and ribs." 86:5-7

And this is just bad biology, no matter how I twist and turn it I cannot honestly say that this is a accurate description of the source of sperm.

 

[Atramental]

Here's the next part to Evid3nc3s's deconversion video series.
3.0 Atheism: A New Way of Seeing God

 

[GhaleonQ]

Oh many of the points are very contrived and feel like they interpreted into a bad way, but there are plenty of verses that just sound plain wrong no matter how you interpret it.

Agreed. Cheers on finding some pointed ones.

 

[Mgoblue201]

Basically all three points of mine were linked to your post.

"My god would want me to treat others how I would want to be treated" - great, wonderful...wait, who is this god character you're talking about? How did you find all of this out? Something called god told you this? When did this happen?

The question you asked is kind of an unreal question. You can't remember a time where you didn't know about a 'thing' called god, so why say 'wait a minute... who is this god character?'. You know the basic tenants of god. So you can't honestly ask that question in real world terms because you know the god that particular person is talking about.

I suppose, even if it is a fictional character, you still know that 'character'.

You can only ask *that* question when you are looking at something critically or as I said: with a critical eye. Which is fine. Critical thinking is fine.

I'll make the second line of reasoning clearer here as well. I merely stressed that from this position, you asked a leading question here. You implied that god doesn't exist per say.
To me, this is not a neutral position. This is subjective. Subtle but a definitive line of reasoning.
What If I argued that God just existed per say? So:
"My god would want me to treat others how I would want to be treated" - great, wonderful..." ah okay. Makes sense. God is great etc.

Why must that critical eye suddenly take for granted that god does or does not exist? When did we establish that?

Am I more clear now?

I think soul creator is saying that we really don't know these tenets. God is just a concept that cannot be separated from the neurons of our brains. He is nothing more than how he is defined in our minds. If god makes someone feel a certain way, then that is nothing more than the texture of a surface sensation. It's like saying that the image of an apple conjures up certain sensations within us based upon our own personality and experiences of apples. That might sound like total sophistry, but it's not. If one claims that god is beaming some message directly into his head, then I'll say that the message has become so impossibly enmeshed with that person's own experiences that he is just interpreting what he thinks god is saying, and there is no objective, outside way to check that interpretation. Thus, religion simply becomes filtered through that view.

So the entire concept of god becomes hopelessly useless. The image of god I have is not completely the same as the image of god that you have. There's no uniformity. You could put two people in the same room and ask, "What is god's will?" about a certain subject. They will come up with two different answers. They are just interpreting what they think god wants.

 

[Dreams-Visions]

any Fred Hammond fans in here?

 

[Pctx]

This is an open questions to all denominations:

Why do bad things happen to good people?

Case in point...

My grandfather who was 86, great follower of God his entire life. Married 64 yrs and a great man... Trips down the stairs, hits his head and bleeds out.

Why? The only reason that I can come up with is that God's time is God's time. I don't have to like it or love it or hate it.. But Ill never understand how God chooses.

In the end, evil exists in us all and terrible things happen all the time. The good from it is how we carry people on in our memories.

 

[jay]

What is the basis of the question "why"? Why assume there is a meaningful reason behind anything in the first place?

It seems apparent to me that all of this starts off as wishful thinking.

 

[jaxword]

"Why do bad things happen to good people?"

I'd rather hear people justify the opposite of that.

"Why do GOOD things happen to BAD people?"

Bad people get ahead all the time. If you are willing to screw over people and take their resources, you'll be more successful in every way. Basically, the more selfish you are, the more money you have. You can buy anything you want, including respect, love, pleasure. You can promote your political and religious beliefs more than a poor person could. You can subvert those who disagree by sheer economic might. You'd have to be heavily in denial not to realize that this is how the world works.

Some of the most terribly selfish people I know are very religious and justify it in a myriad of ways.

So. Why would God REWARD selfish, cruel behavior?

 

[Maleficence]

"Why do bad things happen to good people?"

I'd rather hear people justify the opposite of that.

"Why do GOOD things happen to BAD people?"

Bad people get ahead all the time. If you are willing to screw over people and take their resources, you'll be more successful in every way. Basically, the more selfish you are, the more money you have. You can buy anything you want, including respect, love, pleasure. You can promote your political and religious beliefs more than a poor person could. You can subvert those who disagree by sheer economic might. You'd have to be heavily in denial not to realize that this is how the world works.

Some of the most terribly selfish people I know are very religious and justify it in a myriad of ways.

So. Why would God REWARD selfish, cruel behavior?

Because the big fall when they get to hell is gonna hurt even worse.

I don't believe god has such a close hand in controlling things as people like to think.

 

[jaxword]

Because the big fall when they get to hell is gonna hurt even worse.

I don't believe god has such a close hand in controlling things as people like to think.

What do you base that on?

 

[Maleficence]

It's a personal belief influenced by everything I've seen really.

 

[Ashes]

People argue about the science of the Quran to a whole nother level, just google the constant arguments where one group is absolutely certain in a diametrically opposite way to the other. If your absolutely convinced one way or another then that is you I would say.

I'm more interested in the stuff like woman and gender in Islam. As of late I'm finding that Leila Ahmed has some interesting views.

 

[Shanadeus]

People argue about the science of the Quran to a whole nother level, just google the constant arguments where one group is absolutely certain in a diametrically opposite way to the other. If your absolutely convinced one way or another then that is you I would say.

I'm more interested in the stuff like woman and gender in Islam. As of late I'm finding that Leila Ahmed has some interesting views.

I honestly doubt they can explain away plenty of the verses I linked to earlier (the ones I don't believe can be refuted are in bold, if anyone can counter them then go ahead):

So I thought this could be better discussed in this thread:


Incorrect stuff

• Humans created from a single man. 4: 1
  
  [*]Homosexual acts are condemned as unnatural. (Will ye commit abomination such as no creature ever did before you?) But, in fact, such acts are common in many other species. 7:80-81
  
• Crucifixion is a Roman punishment, unknown in Egypt at the time this story supposedly occurred. 7:124
  
  [*] "And thy Lord inspired the bee, saying ... eat of all fruits."
  Allah told bees to eat from all fruits, but decided to eat nectar and pollen instead. 16:68-68
  
  [*]All things We have created by pairs."
  This is not true. Many bacteria, protists, fungi, and plants reproduce asexually. 51:49
  
  [*]"He is created from a gushing fluid that issued from between the loins and ribs."
  Semen, according to the Quran, is formed not in the testicles, but somewhere "between the loins and ribs." 86:5-7
  
  [*]"He is created from a gushing fluid."
  Humans are not created from semen, but from fertilized eggs. 86:6

A list of absurdities:

• "And He taught Adam all the names."
  Allah taught Adam all the names of the plants and animals, which must have taken a while since there are 1.7 million species that are known today, with probably another 10 million or so that are yet to be discovered. And this only includes those that are alive today. If extinct species are included (~99%), then Allah must have taught Adam a billion or so names. 2:31
  
• Allah turned the Sabbath-breaking Jews into apes. 2:65-66
  
  [*]Christians and Jews must believe what Allah has revealed to Muhammad or Allah will disfigure their faces or turn them into apes, as he did the Sabbath-breakers. (See 2:65-66) 4:47
  
  [*]Only religious people help orphans or those in need. 107:1-3
  
• The Christian Trinity is the Father, Mother, and Son. 5:116
  
• Allah warns believers not to ask to many questions. (Honest answers will cause them to lose their faith.) 5:101
  
  [*]If the Quran was not from Allah its critics would find some mistakes in it.
  (The Quran filled with mistakes. It is a silly, error-filled book. But even if the Quran didn't contain a single error, it would not prove that it was from Allah.) 4:82
  Relevant as long as you find a single mistake, irrelevant otherwise

Sexy stuff in the Quran

• Don't have sex with menstruating women. 2:222
  When it is in reality healthy and recommended by most doctors as it can relieve menstruation cramps and pains.
  
• Have sex with your women whenever, however, and as often as you like. 2:223
  
• "Pure companions, and contentment from Allah"
  Virgins await those who enter paradise. 3:15
  
• "All married women (are forbidden unto you) save those (captives) whom your right hands possess."
  You can't have sex with married women, unless they are slaves obtained in war (with whom you may rape or do whatever you like). 4:24

 

[Ashes]

Relevant as long as you find a single mistake, irrelevant otherwise.

Okay, why are they stressing this? I'm at work, mentally fatigued, it's past midnight here and I'm feeling a bit sleepy to boot. Maybe if it were a grammatically complete sentence, I'd be able to make out what it is they expected me to agree with. Honestly asking for clarification, nothing more.

 

[Shanadeus]

Relevant as long as you find a single mistake, irrelevant otherwise.

Okay, why are they stressing this? I'm at work, mentally fatigued, it's past midnight here and I'm feeling a bit sleepy to boot. Maybe if it were a grammatically complete sentence, I'd be able to make out what it is they expected me to agree with. Honestly asking for clarification, nothing more.

Oh that was just my comment, should have made that clear.
That bolded verse is relevant if you find a single inaccurate text in the Qu'ran, as they postulate that the book is from book because you won't be able to find a single mistake in it, and it's an irrelevant text because the book being accurate doesn't necessarily mean it came from God.
So the verse is relevant as long as you find a single mistake, but it's irrelevant otherwise.

I have above each section linked to the page where I got these supposed mistakes from anyway, so you can check them out there along with the verses in question if you want to.

 

[Ashes]

gah... sleep is... I can barely understand your text above... I am confused on another level as well. I''l try to conclude with the reasons behind my confusion.

google search brought up this:

Sahih International
Then do they not reflect upon the Qur'an? If it had been from [any] other than Allah , they would have found within it much contradiction.
Tafsir al-Jalalayn
What, do they not ponder, do they [not] contemplate, the Qur&#8217;&#257;n?, and the marvellous truths contained in it. If it had been from other than God surely they would have found therein much inconsistency, [much] contradiction in meaning and irregularity in arrangement.

----
It seems to be arguing:
Don't they not realize that if the text A is or was not from Diety A, they would have found lots of contradictions in it.
...
Before the debate about the contradictions/errors start, that statement above by it self, seems legit to me.

After that you say:

and it's an irrelevant text because the book being inaccurate doesn't necessarily mean it came from God.

You mean't 'accurate' I suppose.

I took this to mean, in your opinion: Even if Text A from Diety A is 100 percent accurate then it doesn't necessarily mean it came from a god.
(let me know if I've stated your opinion clearly)

Which I suppose is arguably correct in one instance. Though, If theoratically Text B from Diety B, had the general theory of relativity explained mathematically/ Darwin's theory of evolution and Gravity was also exemplified unabigiously and written five thousand years ago then it would cause me to start wondering why the text isn't wrong. Either a time traveller wrote it or a diety or something.

Anyways apart from all this, there may be a fallacy in your line of reasoning like so. The qoute itself is correct. If a man wrote it would be riddled with contradictions. Is that not your fundamental argument in all this? aren't you saying: Look at all these errors and contradictions, of course it's written by a man. How can it not be written by a man?
As such, I am a little confused.

 

[Shanadeus]

gah... sleep is... I can barely understand your text above... I am confused on another level as well. I''l try to conclude with the reasons behind my confusion.

google search brought up this:

Sahih International
Then do they not reflect upon the Qur'an? If it had been from [any] other than Allah , they would have found within it much contradiction.
Tafsir al-Jalalayn
What, do they not ponder, do they [not] contemplate, the Qur’&#257;n?, and the marvellous truths contained in it. If it had been from other than God surely they would have found therein much inconsistency, [much] contradiction in meaning and irregularity in arrangement.

----
It seems to be arguing:
Don't they not realize that if the text A is or was not from Diety A, they would have found lots of contradictions in it.
...
Before the debate about the contradictions/errors start, that statement above by it self, seems legit to me.

After that you say:

and it's an irrelevant text because the book being inaccurate doesn't necessarily mean it came from God.

You mean't 'accurate' I suppose.

I took this to mean, in your opinion: Even if Text A from Diety A is 100 percent accurate then it doesn't necessarily mean it came from a god.
(let me know if I've stated your opinion clearly)

Which I suppose is arguably correct in one instance. Though, If theoratically Text B from Diety B, had the general theory of relativity explained mathematically/ Darwin's theory of evolution and Gravity was also exemplified unabigiously and written five thousand years ago then it would cause me to start wondering why the text isn't wrong. Either a time traveller wrote it or a diety or something.

Anyways apart from all this, there may be a fallacy in your line of reasoning like so. The qoute itself is correct. If a man wrote it would be riddled with contradictions. Is that not your fundamental argument in all this? aren't you saying: Look at all these errors and contradictions, of course it's written by a man. How can it not be written by a man?
As such, I am a little confused.

I shouldn't be posting when I'm tired as well, have miswritten in several places and fuddled up my argument. My argument was that whether you find inaccuracies or not, the verse in question will still be incorrect.

Will they not then ponder on the Qur'an ? If it had been from other than Allah they would have found therein much incongruity.

If there is incongruity found in the Qu'ran, the whole argument for it being infallible falls apart.

If there is no incongruity found, it still doesn't mean the text was from Allah (it might have come from a time-traveler as you suggested)

Now we know that there is most likely plenty of incongruity to be found in the Qu'ran, with the verses I bolded being the main contenders, but I took in my post into account what would happen even if we found no incongruity - it still would not be a proof of the Qu'ran being from God.

A time traveler would be a much better explanation as there have been ideas suggesting it might be feasible traveling through time, which In my opinion cannot be said for the existence of an omnipotent, omniscient and all-benevolent creator of all things.

 

[Ashes]

''Then do they not reflect upon the Qur'an? If it had been from [any] other than Allah , they would have found within it much contradiction''

It appears to me, that I think it's imparting a wise assumption. An assumption that you agree with, surely.

"If there is no incongruity found, it still doesn't mean the text was from God"

I still think that there is fallacy in reasoning here. You are tackling a different issue here. Your sentence is more or less:

"If there is no incongruity found, it still doesn't prove or disprove the existence of god difinitively."

The text was not arguing this. It was merely stating that had it been written by man, it would be riddled by mistakes.

Separately to the above, you have listed the alleged contradictions, errors, arguments against the quran/bible which is commendable. A quick google search shows 100's of refutations existing on the internet. Good or bad? I don't know. So whoever is bothered to look into that can go do that. And I've just realised that said person is probably going to do that anyway.