Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Hanslanda]

I probably shouldn't do this. But I can't resist myself. :/

Please don't hate me.

[Ship of Freaks]

"All the religions believe that God created the world and also mankind. But if you are created by someone, you are only a puppet, you don't have your own soul. And if you are created by somebody, he can uncreate you any moment. He neither asked you whether you wanted to be created, nor is he going to ask you: "Do you want to be uncreated?

God is the greatest dictator, if you accept the fiction that he created the world and also created mankind. If God is a reality, then man is a slave, a puppet. All the strings are in his hands, even your life. Then there is no question of any enlightenment. Then there is no question of there being any Gautam the Buddha, because there is no freedom at all. He pulls the strings, you dance; he pulls the strings, you cry; he pulls the strings, you start murders, suicide, war. You are just a puppet and he is the puppeteer.

Then there is no question of sin or virtue, no question of sinners and saints. Nothing is good and nothing is bad, because you are only a puppet. A puppet cannot be responsible for its actions. Responsibility belongs to someone who has the freedom to act.

Either God can exist or freedom, both cannot exist together.


That is the basic implication of Friedrich Nietzsche's statement: God is dead, therefore man is free.

No theologian, no founder of religions thought about this, that if you accept God as the creator, you are destroying the whole dignity of consciousness, of freedom, of love. You are taking all responsibility from man, and you are taking all his freedom away. You are reducing the whole of existence to just the whim of a strange fellow called God."

[lemon10]

I probably shouldn't do this. But I can't resist myself. :/

Please don't hate me.

Meh, many of the others are much better, this one for instance.
Posting that one is probably stupider then posting yours (since this one is probably more insulting).

[Frumple]

@Ship: ... who are you quoting? And... most of that's arguable. Has been argued, too. Are you trying to say anything particular or just throwing it out there?

Last bit is particularly annoying, though. To say no theologian, no founder of religions thought of that spiel -- the sheer ignorance of that statement. It's galling. Theology has been aware of that line of thought for millennium. Fairly sure it was one of the points directly responded to by... Aquinas, I think? Maybe Augustine. The later of the two, anyway. Pretty sure it was one of those, in this question/answer type dealio th'fellow did that's pretty well known. Something close enough in concept to fit, anyway, if my memory's not failing me. Which it might be, but still. Saying modern theologians aren't aware of the implications of Nietzsche is just... gah. Gah, I say.

[Ship of Freaks]

just throwing it out there

He (called Osho since you asked, just look it up) probably means something along the lines of "this would never occur to most of the sorts of theologians, etc., who want to believe in God." He's not exactly the type to thoroughly research what philosophers think they know, and what they don't. Perhaps he's just making the point that most people who believe in God couldn't accept this basic implication of their beliefs.

[10ebbor10]

You know, the same counts for science. If all things are based on a deterministic interaction of particles, then whatever you do has been predetermined by the boundary conditions of the universe. As such, free will doesn't exist, nor do other human defined things, like crime, blame, ... The only thing there's is an illusion of free will.

Also note that that's an argument  only against a literal interpretation of God, and a God that directly intervenes in human society.
It makes a good counterargument to "God acts in mysterious ways though"

[Grek]

Kajiyuu:
Nobody is saying that all unfalsifiable premises are wrong. That's completely missing the point of the scientific method requiring falsifiablity. In reality, you're looking at three different principles and mangling them all together into one and attacking that. Don't do that.

The principles are, in order:

1. Philosophical realism. Basically, the assumption that reality exists independant of all observers is unaltered by alterations of any observer's perceptions of the underlying reality. This is something that's agreed upon by basically everyone, except for the solipsists, who don't get a say on account of the fact they don't think the other debaters actually exist.
2. Inductive reasoning. Basically, the notion that you can predict future events by extrapolating from past events, or specific events from general rules. It's the "The sun will rise tomorrow because it's risen every other morning before that." sort of reasoning that, while technically invalid, is still used by basically everyone.
3. The principle of parsimony, which says that you have to justify every additional assumption you make with extra explanatory power in order to make up for the resulting loss of soundness in your theory that comes with every premise that you need to assume instead of deducing from first principles.

#3 is the one being used to argue against religion. #1 is indeed a premise, and #2 does indeed follow from #1 after a bit of ciphering, but that doesn't mean that you should be using #3 to be saying "#1 is invalid! Science is wrong!"

The principle of parsimony requires only that you justify each additional unfalsifiable premise. It doesn't mean that you can't have any, it just means that they have to be worth it. And philosophical realism is worth it, since you have to accept that, at least provisionally, in order to talk about reality at all.

[lemon10]

You know, the same counts for science. If all things are based on a deterministic interaction of particles, then whatever you do has been predetermined by the boundary conditions of the universe. As such, free will doesn't exist, nor do other human defined things, like crime, blame, ... The only thing there's is an illusion of free will.

Also note that that's an argument  only against a literal interpretation of God, and a God that directly intervenes in human society.
It makes a good counterargument to "God acts in mysterious ways though"

I have to disagree. Assuming that god is a truly omniscient being, then when he created the universe, he already knew exactly what would happen at every step in it. When he created the universe, he already knew Adam and Eve would eat the apple. He already knew how it would happen. Hell, he even knew how exactly he would interact with the world and that he would flood it 4000 (I might be wrong on that date) years later, and he knew how exactly the world would be today.

That said, the bible says there is an omniscient god, but if you read it, then they clearly put limits on his knowledge (eg. when they hide in the garden of eden he is kind of looking around for Adam and Eve, he changes his mind (which an omniscient being wouldn't do)). So the only real conclusions are (assuming he is real and such), A) he is either omniscient and lying through his teeth numerous times in the bible and massively manipulating people or B) He says he is omniscient, but is kind of lying and bragging about himself (which is a much nicer possibility then A).

[Meansdarling]

I probably shouldn't do this. But I can't resist myself. :/

Please don't hate me.

Meh, many of the others are much better, this one for instance.
Posting that one is probably stupider then posting yours (since this one is probably more insulting).

Man!, That's a good one. I had to send that to my brother, he'll love it.

OT: I'm happy for people who have faith and better lives because of it. I don't have faith in a deity. I'm a bit envious of the "belonging to a group feeling" that comes with church and fellow believers, but I find church itself to be fairly repellant. I'm picky.

[MonkeyHead]

Isnt this where free will as a sort of test comes in? This semms to be a feature of many religions - you have to use your free will to demonstrate faith to make it worthwhile in the eyes of a God... omnipotent beings seem insecure.

[Sheb]

I actually kinda feel like Meansdarling. I wish I could have the certainty and sense of purpose that comes with believing, but it simply don't make sense.

[Hiiri]

@Sheb & Meansdarling: I don't think you are thinking this through. Do you really want to be a part of people, who will turn their back on you as soon as you think/act different than they do? Does this sound like a meaningful relationship?

There are a lot of hobbies one can pick up for the group feeling/sense of purpose.

Also, how does "having faith" (belief without evidence) improve life quality?

[Sheb]

I don't care about the community, but it's really a driving force. My great-uncle was a missionary in the Conga, every 3 or 4 years he would come back, ridden with untold number of tropical disease, get patched up for a few weeks and then head back to the brush where he was managing I don't know how many schools. He continued until well over 70, when his hierarchy had to order him not to go back because he was so frail. (He's still alive and well and is now writing handbooks for teachers and community leader).

I really wish I had that kind of drive (Don't really mind for the tropical disease though.  ).

As for quality of life, studies consistently shows that religious people are happier, healthier and live longer. Knowing/thinking that someone got your back and is watching out for you must be a great stress reliever.

[lemon10]

Isnt this where free will as a sort of test comes in? This semms to be a feature of many religions - you have to use your free will to demonstrate faith to make it worthwhile in the eyes of a God... omnipotent beings seem insecure.

the doctrine that the conduct of human beings expresses personal choice and is not simply determined by physical or divine forces.

As you can see, assuming a omniscient god, then he knows what you will do, and there is no such thing as free will.
Of course, most Christians don't actually believe god is omniscient (since they don't think he knows exactly what you will do), which is the only way free will could work.
EDIT: Amusing macromeme comic (which for once in this thread isn't really pro Aethism).

[Hiiri]

I really wish I had that kind of drive (Don't really mind for the tropical disease though.  ).

Guess what, religious people waste their lives sitting on their asses watching football all day just like the rest of us.
It doesn't require a belief in supernatural to have that drive. Science can give it to you just as well.

As for quality of life, studies consistently shows that religious people are happier, healthier and live longer. Knowing/thinking that someone got your back and is watching out for you must be a great stress reliever.

Yes, I've heard of this. Somewhat skeptical. Sounds like a study: "Increased ice cream sales cause more shark attacks" or "Homosexuality linked to higher death rates in central Africa."