Questioning Religion & the Religious

Adagio said:

Gee, I don't know.:roll: Maybe it was this: "I'm also concerned with the whole "immortality of the soul thing" ...remember?
Yes. I think you are frightend. Especially with regards to examining the basis of your belief. It's hard to let go of irrational beliefs. They're very comforting.



I don't have to any more than I have to have a personal relationship with Edmund Burke or Aristotle or Jefferson to know how they think and what they value. I've read their works. Nobody writes about one thing and believes the opposite.



Uh huh. I don't know where you were in Iraq in Desert Storm since we weren't in Iraq then. Unless you were in SF. We were in Kuwait. We didn't invade Iraq until 03, and my son was part of that invasion. You aren't alone in dealing with personal issues. I've had my share, including the death of a child back in 88. That has a sobering effect on you. It can wake you up to reality. **** happens. And I find it more to my liking to be centered in the real world then a fantasy.

As for being only interested in truth, that's a fact. But you misunderstand my ideas about "proof". We can't prove anything. But we can disprove things. It's the difference with inductive reasoning and deductive. One leads from the specific to the general. The other from the general to the specific. With deductive reasoning, if the premises are true the conclusion MUST be infallibly true. I never set out to prove any theory or idea. I always look for what might disprove the idea. Those that hold up to criticism, we keep and accept for the time being. Those that fall, we can discard and get closer to the truth. Religion and God are not things that can be proven or disproven. They're metaphysical in nature, and I don't bother with them other than to get into debates with True Believers.

Click to expand...

Please, spare me the lesson on philosophy and rationalism. I've stated my positions and you can accept them or not. If converting me is your ultimate goal, you're not doing a very good- job as my faith is still as strong as ever. And btw, I was a combat and para-rescue medic attached to the 82nd............and we WERE in Iraq and Saudi Arabia. I never set a foot in Kuwait. Not that I owe you any explanation anyway. :shrug:

FluffyNinja said:

Please, spare me the lesson on philosophy and rationalism. I've stated my positions and you can accept them or not. If converting me is your ultimate goal, you're not doing a very good- job as my faith is still as strong as ever. And btw, I was a combat and para-rescue medic attached to the 82nd............and we WERE in Iraq and Saudi Arabia. I never set a foot in Kuwait. Not that I owe you any explanation anyway. :shrug:

Click to expand...

I have no intention of converting you to anything, so don't flatter yourself. I'm not an evangelist for my ideas. My son was in the 82nd during the invasion of Iraq. In fact, he did three tours. Now, he's SF. I have no doubt that you would have been in Saudi at that time. Iraq...not so much. You don't owe me an explanation, you volunteered it. I question what you offered. But your comments on Byck were nonsense. There is nothing fanatical about a skeptic. Being a skeptic means that he even questions his own decisions. Even his decision to be skeptical. Truth matters to some of us.

FluffyNinja said:

Please, spare me the lesson on philosophy and rationalism.

Click to expand...

Here is a rational argument for you to consider.

First, do you believe in free will?

1.) If you do believe in free will, that would mean you MUST accept that God does not have knowledge of what you will do before you do it. Which would dismiss the notion that he is omniscient, which would greatly impact his godliness.

2.) If you believe everything happens for reason and is preordained by god, this would mean he is omniscient, restoring his godly status. However, this viewpoint would remove free will, and you would only be left with the ILLUSION of free will, as you are not free to choose to do anything, because you were already going to do it.

Your thoughts?

Knowledge=power said:

Here is a rational argument for you to consider.

First, do you believe in free will?

1.) If you do believe in free will, that would mean you MUST accept that God does not have knowledge of what you will do before you do it. Which would dismiss the notion that he is omniscient, which would greatly impact his godliness.

2.) If you believe everything happens for reason and is preordained by god, this would mean he is omniscient, restoring his godly status. However, this viewpoint would remove free will, and you would only be left with the ILLUSION of free will, as you are not free to choose to do anything, because you were already going to do it.

Your thoughts?

Click to expand...

I have another: The name “divine command theory” can be used to refer to any one of a family of related ethical theories. What these theories have in common is that they take God’s will to be the foundation of ethics. According to divine command theory, things are morally good or bad, or morally obligatory, permissible, or prohibited, solely because of God’s will or commands. So...

“Are morally good acts willed by God because they are morally good, or are they morally good because they are willed by God?”

If divine command theory is true then either (i) morally good acts are willed by God because they are morally good, or (ii) morally good acts are morally good because they are willed by God.

If they are willed by God because they are morally good, then they are independent of God. So moral facts exist independent of God. If morally good acts are willed by God because they are morally good, then it seems that they must be morally good prior to God’s willing them, otherwise God would not will them. If morally good acts are morally good prior to God’s willing them, though, then they must be morally good independent of God’s willing them. For if morally good acts are morally good prior to God’s willing them then God’s willing them is not a necessary condition for their being morally good. Rather, it is possible at least for acts to be morally good without their being willed by God.

But if the divine command theorist holds that what is morally good depends on what God wills or commands, then this raises a question: How does God decide what to command? What factors inform his decision? if morality depends on God’s decision what to command, then God’s decision what to command cannot be informed by morality. If morally good acts are morally good because they are commanded by God, then they must be commanded by God before they are morally good. It must be that God makes his decision what to command in a moral vacuum. For if there were any moral facts before God decided what to command, and those facts influenced God’s decision, then those facts would be independent of God’s commands. Those facts can‘t be independent of God’s commands, though, if the divine command theorist is correct in saying that all moral facts depend upon God. God decides what to command, then, in a moral vacuum. His decision is morally arbitrary.

This means that whatever decision God makes is, morally speaking, just as good as any other. God had no moral reason to prefer fidelity to adultery, or generosity to selfishness; he could have commanded anything, and, from a moral perspective, any set of commands would have been just as good as any other. That he chose the commands that he did was a mere whim. If there are no moral facts before God decides what to command, it seems, then God’s commands can be neither informed nor sanctioned by morality. God’s will, the standard of moral goodness, will itself be morally arbitrary. Conformity with this standard, should therefore also be morally arbitrary. Divine command theory, though, holds precisely the opposite. :sinking:

I have questioned religion my whole life...even when I was "saved" and Baptized.

I have come to reject it wholly as thought control. I believe it was created by man to control the weaker minds. It gives people peace and I accept that. If it makes you a better person than all is well and good.

I think the predominant question that I had was....How could a man who was never religious, gave to charity, and lived a humble life went to hell while a mass murderer simply said a prayer and went to heaven? It ate at me and someone told me it isn't about the good deeds you do but whether or not you believe....which then led me to believe religion is a tool of thought control.

You must believe in this or you go to this horrible place! I don't buy it and I don't like the concept of it. I live this life for what it is and as full as I can make it...I do not worry about some presumptuous eternal afterlife.

Wake said:

What could be said to dissuade you from believing?

Click to expand...

For many, religion is the basis of their morals and perception of reality. For people that religious, there is little one can do to dissillusion them other than perhaps plant a seed of doubt.

Indeed said:

For many, religion is the basis of their morals and perception of reality. For people that religious, there is little one can do to dissillusion them other than perhaps plant a seed of doubt.

Click to expand...

My grandmother is this way, and she is happy believing, and is not harming anyone. I would never try to dissuade her, regardless of what I personally believe.

Knowledge=power said:

My grandmother is this way, and she is happy believing, and is not harming anyone. I would never try to dissuade her, regardless of what I personally believe.

Click to expand...

Then don't. I'm not saying one should, but how one could. My Aunt, on the other hand, is heavily religious and uses it as an excuse to make a witch of herself towards folks who even believe in a different branch of the same religion.

I'm not THAT kind of Athiest. I wouldn't want to separate religion from those whom it helps or even those who simply don't need to be separated from it.

Indeed said:

Then don't. I'm not saying one should, but how one could. My Aunt, on the other hand, is heavily religious and uses it as an excuse to make a witch of herself towards folks who even believe in a different branch of the same religion.

I'm not THAT kind of Athiest. I wouldn't want to separate religion from those whom it helps or even those who simply don't need to be separated from it.

Click to expand...

I wasn't disagreeing with you. I think you are right that in some cases, people who brandish it as a sort of psychological or political weapon should be challenged.

Knowledge=power said:

I wasn't disagreeing with you. I think you are right that in some cases, people who brandish it as a sort of psychological or political weapon should be challenged.

Click to expand...

Oh, ok. I though you were mildly offended by my post.

Indeed said:

Oh, ok. I though you were mildly offended by my post.

Click to expand...

lol nope. I agree completely. The westboro baptist church is a prime example of a group which needs to be challenged.

Knowledge=power said:

Here is a rational argument for you to consider.

First, do you believe in free will?

1.) If you do believe in free will, that would mean you MUST accept that God does not have knowledge of what you will do before you do it. Which would dismiss the notion that he is omniscient, which would greatly impact his godliness.

2.) If you believe everything happens for reason and is preordained by god, this would mean he is omniscient, restoring his godly status. However, this viewpoint would remove free will, and you would only be left with the ILLUSION of free will, as you are not free to choose to do anything, because you were already going to do it.

Your thoughts?

Click to expand...