If you can't believe.....

[SkepticX]

and the issue at hand is.....if you can't believe.....what are you doing here?

If you can't believe..... | Page 10 | ReligiousForums.com

 

[Thief]

Personally I find the psychology of belief fascinating, and the fallout has tremendous impact on humanity (and a great deal more of the biosphere). I can even imagine that progress in the way we perceive and deal with our beliefs and the religious aspects of our nature could be a huge step in human social development. This is why I find the fact that most believers in the West are re-defining "faith" to mean more or less the opposite of its traditional biblical meaning (or so it seems at least) so encouraging. So aside from the just my fascination with the psychology, I'm also very interested in encouraging that shift.

ah...so you are leaning to a mindset of ...'faith'....?

 

[SkepticX]

ah...so you are leaning to a mindset of ...'faith'....?

No, quite the contrary. I advocate for critical thinking/skepticism. I jettisoned my religious beliefs back in the early-mid '90s.

 

[InChrist]

Nope. I'm saying that the creator is responsible for his creation. The creation is not responsible for how the creator created it.


Does it was important relieve anyone of responsibility for whatever they did (or created) because it was important?

Do you recognize the notion the God necessarily has limited omnipotence? Because those last two sentences require that to be the case. It's not a problem--it's good if you do--but whether or not it's recognized and accepted is important regarding the openness to equitably applying sound reasoning.

Of course the Creator is responsible for His creation and that is the reason why, if you understand the scriptures, everything He does is done out of love and for the eternal benefit of His creation. If God had programmed a human being to rebel and disobey His direct instructions , resulting in chaos then He would be responsible. But since instead humans were not pre-programmed and were created with the ability to choose how to behave the responsibility is theirs and they are accountable for such behavior to their Creator.
I don't recognize that God has limited omnipotence, nor am I sure what you may mean when you say "limited omnipotence".

 

[psychoslice]

No, quite the contrary. I advocate for critical thinking/skepticism. I jettisoned my religious beliefs back in the early-mid '90s.

Yes I agree, its called intelligence.

 

[SkepticX]

If God had programmed a human being to rebel and disobey His direct instructions , resulting in chaos then He would be responsible. But since instead humans were not pre-programmed and were created with the ability to choose how to behave the responsibility is theirs and they are accountable for such behavior to their Creator.

So you're suggesting God isn't fully responsible for what he's created. The standard traditional model is that God is fully responsible (gets credit) for the good, and we're fully responsible for all of the bad. It's a very popular show of humility in conservative religious circles to say precisely that in response to praise; Praise God for the good. I'm only responsible for the mistakes, the errors, the bad.

If you argue God didn't program us to be the way we are then you're left to explain who the Co-Creator is. Programming some randomness and volition into the creation doesn't somehow exonerate the creator for the result. We recognize this when we talk about AI, but somehow believers tend to forget how that works suddenly when it threatens the concept of God in which they've invested. Then reasoning (the way reality works in their perceptions and thinking) has to accommodate.

And there's the crux of it. Are given beliefs derived from reality or imposed upon it? Rather, are they derived as best one can from carefully observing the way reality works, or are they imposed upon reality as pure perception, because it would obviously be on the more futile side to try and impose beliefs upon reality as if it's somehow obliged to indulge.

This is why a common element in apostates is that we really bought the religious truth ethic--the idea that we believe what we believe because it's true, not because it's the doctrine/dogma we're somehow responsible to believe when we identify as [insert religion here]. When you buy that ethic rather using it for instant faux credibility, what's real and true outranks religious dogma, and that tends to dramatically increase the risk of apostasy. This also requires taking responsibility for what one believes, which is where the ethic is usually cut off (generally with the blessing of one's religious leadership). We're supossed to believe that we believe what we believe because it's true and not because it's our religious doctrine, but we're also supposed to defer to our religious doctrine regarding what's real and true (faith), and that's a big no-go, as we said in the Army. Those are contradictory ideas. You have to choose which to favor in any application--accept responsibility or defer to faith (which isn't really expunging you of your responsibility anyway--it's pure sleight of mind).

So I can't believe because I took the religious truth ethic I was raised with seriously. Sometimes I call it taking honesty seriously, because you can't truly be honest by deferring the responsibility for the product that alleged honesty while still claiming a strong degree of certainty. When people defer to faith they have to ignore that last part, but when you take honesty seriously you can't.

I don't recognize that God has limited omnipotence, nor am I sure what you may mean when you say "limited omnipotence".

Granted this is a problem with the concept itself, but if you say God can't anything, you're accepting that his omnipotence is limited.

The curious thing is how tenaciously many believers are about insisting the God of their understanding (of their relationship) is omnipotent while at the same time recognizing the self-contradictions inherent in the concept of omnipotence.

 

[InChrist]

[/QUOTE]

So you're suggesting God isn't fully responsible for what he's created. The standard traditional model is that God is fully responsible (gets credit) for the good, and we're fully responsible for all of the bad. It's a very popular show of humility in conservative religious circles to say precisely that in response to praise; Praise God for the good. I'm only responsible for the mistakes, the errors, the bad.

If you argue God didn't program us to be the way we are then you're left to explain who the Co-Creator is. Programming some randomness and volition into the creation doesn't somehow exonerate the creator for the result. We recognize this when we talk about AI, but somehow believers tend to forget how that works suddenly when it threatens the concept of God in which they've invested. Then reasoning (the way reality works in their perceptions and thinking) has to accommodate.

I am saying that God has given an ability to human beings which allows them to make decisions and choose behaviors which they are then responsible for. From what you are saying it appears you must believe that if your neighbor breaks into your home and steals your possessions then that neighbor is guiltless and should not be held accountable because God is to blame. But it just doesn't work that way, society, the law, the courts, and even you would consider your neighbor responsible.

And there's the crux of it. Are given beliefs derived from reality or imposed upon it? Rather, are they derived as best one can from carefully observing the way reality works, or are they imposed upon reality as pure perception, because it would obviously be on the more futile side to try and impose beliefs upon reality as if it's somehow obliged to indulge

.

Actually, I think reality supports the idea that God is not responsible for my sin or your sin. Pretty much everyone in any culture "knows" it is wrong to steal from or murder their neighbor and when a person commits such action it is obvious the individual is responsible, not God. Along with that the scriptures verify that God's law is written on the human conscience so that one knows when they are guilty.

This is why a common element in apostates is that we really bought the religious truth ethic--the idea that we believe what we believe because it's true, not because it's the doctrine/dogma we're somehow responsible to believe when we identify as [insert religion here]. When you buy that ethic rather using it for instant faux credibility, what's real and true outranks religious dogma, and that tends to dramatically increase the risk of apostasy. This also requires taking responsibility for what one believes, which is where the ethic is usually cut off (generally with the blessing of one's religious leadership). We're supossed to believe that we believe what we believe because it's true and not because it's our religious doctrine, but we're also supposed to defer to our religious doctrine regarding what's real and true (faith), and that's a big no-go, as we said in the Army. Those are contradictory ideas. You have to choose which to favor in any application--accept responsibility or defer to faith (which isn't really expunging you of your responsibility anyway--it's pure sleight of mind).

So I can't believe because I took the religious truth ethic I was raised with seriously. Sometimes I call it taking honesty seriously, because you can't truly be honest by deferring the responsibility for the product that alleged honesty while still claiming a strong degree of certainty. When people defer to faith they have to ignore that last part, but when you take honesty seriously you can't.

I don't really think the view you are expressing makes any sense and seems to be a cop out in an attempt to turn things around by laying all the responsibility upon God for one's personal actions. For one thing, if there is a Creator God, ONE God (as the biblical scriptures reveal and I believe) then no creation (however well designed) can ever be perfect as He is apart from Him because there is only ONE God and all other beings are less, as the scriptures say...for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God (Romans 3:23) Sin is not the result of a faulty design. It is the reality if the situation because there is only ONE perfect God and all others creatures fall short of His perfection. Nevertheless, God has provided a way for humans to choose to be perfected having victory over sin through relationship and the power of Jesus Christ. Of course, if your view is correct that God is responsible for sin then He certainly when to a lot of trouble and wasted a lot of time with coming to earth, going to the cross to die for the sins of the world and save us. Throughout the scriptures, though, it is clear that humans are responsible and guilty for their own sin, therefore in need of a Savior.

Granted this is a problem with the concept itself, but if you say God can't anything, you're accepting that his omnipotence is limited.

The curious thing is how tenaciously many believers are about insisting the God of their understanding (of their relationship) is omnipotent while at the same time recognizing the self-contradictions inherent in the concept of omnipotence.

I don't agree, the fact that God may not be able to do certain things is not a limitation on His omnipotence, it is simply reality. God cannot create another God. God cannot do things which are Self-contradicting and go against His own nature and character.

 

[SkepticX]

I am saying that God has given an ability to human beings which allows them to make decisions and choose behaviors which they are then responsible for.

Yup ... we've established that through multiple iterations of the same idea. I've pointed out several times now why the fact that's the creator's choice means it's the creators responsibility, just as if we were to create AIs with volition.

From what you are saying it appears you must believe that if your neighbor breaks into your home and steals your possessions then that neighbor is guiltless and should not be held accountable because God is to blame. But it just doesn't work that way, society, the law, the courts, and even you would consider your neighbor responsible.

How societies work is an entirely different matter, and I'd argue the conclusion you offer is the result of treating loosely associated issues as if they were causally and significantly entwined (perhaps as well as refusing to release an unwarranted belief when it's shown to be so).

Actually, I think reality supports the idea that God is not responsible for my sin or your sin.

I agree.

Pretty much everyone in any culture "knows" it is wrong to steal from or murder their neighbor and when a person commits such action it is obvious the individual is responsible, not God.

More or less the same as any member of a social species "knows" how to behave as a cooperative member of the herd, the flock, the school, etc. Exactly.

Along with that the scriptures verify that God's law is written on the human conscience so that one knows when they are guilty.

That's one way to put it anyway, if you need to add a god to the picture in order to accommodate your worldview.

I don't really think the view you are expressing makes any sense and seems to be a cop out in an attempt to turn things around by laying all the responsibility upon God for one's personal actions.

I'm criticizing your view though, and imposing consistency where traditional religious dogma fails to. So you're getting he point, sort of, but you're not really seeing the implications. My view doesn't place the blame on God, because I don't buy the idea that such a beastie exists, and you can't blame something that doesn't exist for anything.

I don't agree, the fact that God may not be able to do certain things is not a limitation on His omnipotence, it is simply reality. God cannot create another God. God cannot do things which are Self-contradicting and go against His own nature and character.

The definition of omnipotent is all powerful, period. Limitations to power = not omnipotent. That's reality. Saying God's limits don't mean he's not omnipotent is the equivalent of saying the fact that God has limits don't mean he has any limits. As I pointed out, it's a problem with the term--it's inherently self-contradictory, so nothing can really be omnipotent. Don't blame God for that. It's our poorly defined word and our irrational god concept ... and our strangely narcissistic sense that we can somehow impose our personal sentiments upon reality, as if it's obliged to appease us. We're very strange creatures what way.

 

[Thief]

No, quite the contrary. I advocate for critical thinking/skepticism. I jettisoned my religious beliefs back in the early-mid '90s.

and I am not religious.
I simply dropped the dogmatic approach and took up that critical thinking you just mentioned.
(before the 90's)

 

[McBell]

and I am not religious.
I simply dropped the dogmatic approach and took up that critical thinking you just mentioned.
(before the 90's)

[GALLERY=media, 5187][/GALLERY]

 

[Thief]

you would think by now.....better retort would be the norm.....

 

[McBell]

you would think by now.....better retort would be the norm.....

You think by now, you would have a better presentation of your blatant denial.

 

[Thief]

You think by now, you would have a better presentation of your blatant denial.

Flipping the tail side up and calling it heads is a lie.

Trolling again?

 

[McBell]

Flipping the tail side up and calling it heads is a lie.

Then you should stop doing it, right?

Que the denial....

Trolling again?

It is comical how you jump to calling me a troll when you have painted yourself into a corner.
Do you think your sad attempt at name calling actually distracts people from seeing the paint brush in your hand?

 

[JustWondering]

I am saying that God has given an ability to human beings which allows them to make decisions and choose behaviors which they are then responsible for. From what you are saying it appears you must believe that if your neighbor breaks into your home and steals your possessions then that neighbor is guiltless and should not be held accountable because God is to blame. But it just doesn't work that way, society, the law, the courts, and even you would consider your neighbor responsible.

When a person is hungry they seek out food and eat. When a person is thirsty they drink. When a child is hurt or frightened they cry. When someone is the victim of injustice they are angry. If we were created then we have obviously been programmed to react certain ways to stimuli, Correct? Modern science has PROVEN that our decisions are calculated subconsciously before we are conscious of making a decision. We are living computers and similar to the silicon computers we've created our decisions are limited and determined by the hardware (brain) and software (education, experiences, and environment) we are given. This is a proven fact. So if something created us and set us loose on the world how does this creator not SHARE blame for the bad decisions and actions of its creation? You try to make the way humans (or any creature with a nervous system) come to a decision about things sound like some mystical process that's detached from reality, but its not. The logic behind your argument is utterly absurd. Its like saying god made a square peg to go into a round hole and after it doesn't fit, god not only blames the peg for not fitting but sends it to hell to be tortured for all eternity.

 

[Thief]

Then you should stop doing it, right?

Que the denial....


It is comical how you jump to calling me a troll when you have painted yourself into a corner.
Do you think your sad attempt at name calling actually distracts people from seeing the paint brush in your hand?

and you think your redirect is not obvious?