Why faith is evil

[Meow Mix]

Here's something to add to this thread, if it hasn't been added before:

Faith can lead some people to believe that murdering family members if commanded by God for something so petty as apostasy and suggesting or talking about a different religion is "good" and "just."

I don't see the correlation between faith and morality, particularly when it can lead people to believing that petty demonic tyrants are "just" Gods.

 

[Gloone]

Here's something to add to this thread, if it hasn't been added before:

Faith can lead some people to believe that murdering family members if commanded by God for something so petty as apostasy and suggesting or talking about a different religion is "good" and "just."

I don't see the correlation between faith and morality, particularly when it can lead people to believing that petty demonic tyrants are "just" Gods.

Because you have a vague understanding of religion, faith and what to or what not to believe in.

 

[waitasec]

Because you have a vague understanding of religion, faith and what to or what not to believe in.

if you lack faith in yourself faith in anything else is evil...

 

[Meow Mix]

Because you have a vague understanding of religion, faith and what to or what not to believe in.

Is it vague to say that murdering family members for apostasy is wrong and unjust?

 

[outhouse]

Is it vague to say that murdering family members for apostasy is wrong and unjust?

in my opinion remember some christians pick and choose what they want to believe, they ignore countless passages and dismiss them as storys, and in the same thought literally back other passages.

your point is great, but only a small small percetage of gods evil wrath

I suspect thats why they teach priest to avoid certain content in the bible when teaching

 

[Gloone]

if you lack faith in yourself faith in anything else is evil...

if you lack faith in yourself ....... faith in anything else is EVIL or DEAD?
I know what you are saying... I just find it funny that atheist think they are the only ones that question religion / faith yada yada ya
It just seems they do it for all the wrong reasons.

 

[Copernicus]

A ‘logical impossibility’? Bah Humbug!...Both you and I as mere mortals have powers and capacities that we “relinquish”- Def-"set aside/put aside or desist from"...that we choose not to use particular powers and capacities does not render us impotent or powerless. In like manner God does not “cancel any of his omnipotence” by granting us freedom of “thought, choice and action “...such a conclusion appears to be based on a misreading/misunderstanding of the word 'relinquish' and from there illogical and irrational conclusion is drawn.

You are mixing up causation and control. While driving, if you see a person walk in front of your car, but you choose not to apply the brakes, you can be charged with homicide. Your defense cannot be that your car and not you caused the death, because you were doing nothing directly to cause it to hit the victim. You were just letting the car do what you knew it would do. From God's perspective, we are all automatons, because we cannot do other than what he knows we will do. You yourself have admitted as much, although you refuse to carry that admission to its logical conclusion. God retains control of everything, because he can always choose not to let things happen.

Ultimately, omnipotence and omniscience are impossible properties for any being to have,....
I look forward to you establishing reasoned argument for this bold and unsupported assertion.

It is well-known that omnipotence and omniscience are incompatible. If you know the future with absolute certainty, then you have no power to change it. If you have power to change it, you cannot know it with absolute certainty. Believers are so anxious to attribute perfection to their imaginary superbeing that they do not look for such incompatibilities, lest the contradictions endanger their faith.

Anthropomorphization at its worst. You attribute human “drives” and “motives” to God and assume God would be immobile without such human drives/motivations. At the most basic level and taking the most well known descriptor of the indescribable God....’God is love’...Creation and action may flow directly from that state of being without “gaining, loosing, learning, achieving, or thinking’.

It is not I, but the believers, who impose "anthropomorphization at its worst" on their God. We have both already seen that in Pegg's posts, in which God is a fully comprehensible, albeit logically impossible, personal being. Even you felt inclined to challenge her thinking, and you are sympathetic to her conclusions. And we see that anthropomorphization everywhere in the Bible--next to claims of ineffability. The faithful are nothing if not inconsistent on God's nature, and ineffability only shows up when they get to close to God's contradictory qualities. The words you use to describe God have logical properties and entailments. If you claim that God makes any decision, you have embedded his behavior in a causal chain that involves changing states of mind over time. Either that, or your descriptions of God's nature are utterly meaningless, as would then become your faith.

I am not a Christian and you are yet to logically establish/demonstrate the “impossible Platonic ideal of God as a perfect being”

If you want make all those quacking noises, do not act surprised when people mistake you for a duck.

Methinks you have taken “relinquish” to mean or imply the abandonment or loss of power. While the word relinquish can indeed mean-“ retire from; give up or abandon” there is no >permanence< inherent or suggested. What is "retired" from can be re engaged in, what is "abandoned" can be picked up again what is "given up" can be taken up again- especially in all instances by an 'omnipotent' being...
Thus the definition and common usage of to relinquish is- “set aside/put aside or desist from”. It does not mean or imply permanent loss of power or capacity.
And on that hinge your argument thus far falters and fails.
To set aside a power, to relinquish it, does not in any way shape or form necessitate loss or cancelation of power and/or omnipotence. Omnipotence does not mean being obliged to use a power/capacity nor that power/capacity cannot be set aside.

We agree on this line of reasoning up to a point. You are actually equivocating on the expression "relinquish power". In one sense, it is to give up responsible control such that the responsibility is ceded to another agency. At that point, the other agency is blameworthy for its subsequent actions, not the ceding authority. In the other sense, it is merely to intentionally refuse to intervene without relinquishing control. It is only in the latter sense that God "relinquishes power". He stands aside and lets the spring-loaded door slam shut. Then he claims that he had nothing to do with the door ending up in a state of being closed.

Then again, you cannot say anything about God without thinking of him as a time-limited being....
Um.....I just did-
“God is not subject to the progression of linear time...how could He >not know< who is going to reject the offer...and still be God?”

You do know that the expression "is going to" carries tense and refers to a temporal sequence of events, do you not? Q.E.D.

Bear in mind that "say anything" implies the use of language, and the sentences of language contain tense-bearing verbs. You cannot say anything about God without thinking of him as a time-limited being. That is why the dust kicked up by your attempts to defend bad reasoning is called "cognitive dissonance". Your arguments are full of dontradictions and conceptual incompatibilities.

Why “must they”?
And...."decisions"?...are not "decisions" undertaken at the end of a thought process? What would an All Knowing Omnipotent being have to "think" or "decide"?

That is precisely the point, wombat. Omniscience is impossible. First of all, it assumes that knowledge itself is finite and quantifiable, and that assumption is quite gratuitous. The Bible is full of decisions and conclusions that God comes to. Yet is also calls God an "All Knowing Omnipotent being" from time to time. You have set yourself the task of carrying God's baggage. Don't complain that it is too heavy. You can set it down any time you want.

Moreover, he has to know his own future in order to know ours, since he controls our future......
Um....I don’t know what critter your talking about... but by historical definition God is Alpha to Omega- the Beginning that has no Beginning the End that has no End....ie Eternal.

Yes, well the "historical definition" contains a lot of incompatibilities with historical descriptions of God's behavior. I think that I have been consistent in pointing that out to you. Just because the Bible says that God is omniscient, that doesn't absolve the authors and editors from the consequences of describing his changing states of mind. The discussion here is not just what scripture says about God, but whether scripture says consistent and coherent things about God.

There is no “future” for God to know. To say “Gods own future” is a contradiction in terms. One might just as well speak of the corners of a circle.

Omigosh! You are accusing me of saying contradictory things? I'm the one pointing out the contradictions. You are the one defending them (up to a point). You find it convenient to describe God as making decisions and having wants, needs, motives, and goals, but you then turn around, point to the "alpha-omega" assertion, and declare your reasoning to be free of contradiction.

In the end I must conclude a conversion to a kind of atheism...If the god being described (by you) is a god that thinks things through to make a "decision", is bound by time and has a "future" and is not omnipotent through setting asside/ relinquishing power/capacity... then I also do not believe in such a limited SuperSanta.

Well, we are in violent agreement on our shared sense of "atheism". Yet it seems that you actually cannot give up the Holy Ghost on this one.

But none of the attributes you describe match up with the eternal omnipotent Abrahamaic God...so I'm only a little bit atheistic

Actually, the Abrahamic God is quite clearly given the very attributes in the Bible that you share my atheistic opinions about. You may wish to deny that, but that doesn't get you a free pass. In the end, you want to wear the same invisible clothes that believers wear. You just don't like to have your nakedness pointed out.

 

[Meow Mix]

EVIL ... DEAD

Klaatu... verata... n..necktie? Nectar. Nickle. Noodle?

 

[Gloone]

Klaatu... verata... n..necktie? Nectar. Nickle. Noodle?

You reign dubious.
Take this monkey with you to the top of mount keekee and inform the gods it is time for supper.

 

[Meow Mix]

You reign dubious.
Take this monkey with you to the top of mount keekee and inform the gods it is time for supper.

It's from the cult hit movie Evil Dead, Evil Dead 2 and [Evil Dead 3] Army of Darkness.

 

[Gloone]

It's from the cult hit movie Evil Dead, Evil Dead 2 and [Evil Dead 3] Army of Darkness.

Its fine i will take the monkey there myself.

 

[Wombat]

First up….I understand that you hold God to be a fictional character, that’s cool, but even fictional characters are identified by their history of attributes and characteristics. ie There is no point discussing how Spiderman turns huge and green when he gets angry or how Batman is overcome by cryptonite…yet in relation to God (even as a hypothetical character) this is exactly what you do. Attributing to God the restraints of time, decision making and human drives and motives.

Worse still, having created this new fictional character, you seek to falsely attribute your production to me-

“You find it convenient to describe God as making decisions and having wants, needs, motives, and goals, but you then turn around, point to the "alpha-omega" assertion,…”.

Question/invitation/challenge to Substantiate- 1/
Can you show me the point/passage in which I “describe God as making decisions and having wants, needs, motives, and goals” ?

I am quite prepared to discuss false projections around the characteristics of God but not if I have to simultaneously counter false projections of what I have said.

Question/invitation/challenge to Substantiate- 2/
[/quote]

“From God's perspective, we are all automatons, because we cannot do other than what he knows we will do. You yourself have admitted as much…”.

Can you show me the point/passage in which I say, suggest or infer “From God's perspective, we are all automatons” ?

Response to your other points is already drafted...but I honestly cannot see the point of further discussion if you insist on falsifying what I have said...So, you are invited to retract, or ,resolve the above with substantiation.

 

[waitasec]

if you lack faith in yourself ....... faith in anything else is EVIL or DEAD?
I know what you are saying... I just find it funny that atheist think they are the only ones that question religion / faith yada yada ya
It just seems they do it for all the wrong reasons.

gloone,
i wasn't implying that.
given the context of this particular thread, you said you knew what i meant. please don't take this personally, that was not my intention.
btw, what are the wrong reasons? i'm curious to know...

 

[Gloone]

gloone,
i wasn't implying that.
given the context of this particular thread, you said you knew what i meant. please don't take this personally, that was not my intention.
btw, what are the wrong reasons? i'm curious to know...

Well sometimes I have to remember I live in a place that isn&#8217;t archaic before reading some of these posts and the one made by Auto. This paragraph is so generalized and vague (like I already responded to someone because they seem to be in the same boat as Dawkins) by his wording of faith he could be talking about anything, anyone or any religion. Atheist and everyone else included they are never an exception. They are still advocating their rights to believe in something even if it is against. So Dawkins deliberately decides to pick out priests and say they preach to have blasphemers killed. For one I have never been to a church like that where the preacher tells everyone on Sunday to go out and killed the first blasphemer they see. I have been to quite a few churches before I quite going, so I can tell you right now this guy is talking through his teeth. Maybe he could be a little more accurate with what he finds fault with instead of generalizing. It would also be nice if he took a closer look at history before writing phony articles just because he is an atheist.

And about your commit, I didn't take it personally. I was just trying to figure out what you trying to say by it.

 

[Copernicus]

First up….I understand that you hold God to be a fictional character, that’s cool, but even fictional characters are identified by their history of attributes and characteristics. ie There is no point discussing how Spiderman turns huge and green when he gets angry or how Batman is overcome by cryptonite…yet in relation to God (even as a hypothetical character) this is exactly what you do. Attributing to God the restraints of time, decision making and human drives and motives.

That's just not true. The Bible describes God in that way, and so do a great many religious doctrines that treat the Bible as an authority. I am not trying to tell you what kind of "fictional character" you have invented, but I have tried to tell you where I thought your description sounded inconsistent, vague, or contradictory.

Worse still, having created this new fictional character, you seek to falsely attribute your production to me-

That is not true. We have talked about a very common anthropomorphic depiction of God, and you have denied that that is your depiction. Yet you continue to represent your version as the "Abrahamic" version, do you not? That's the one in the Bible, correct? You tried to correct what you saw as Pegg's misunderstanding of that God's powers, and you seem to be siding with her on a number of other issues. Hence, there is bound to be some confusion between your idea of God and hers.

Question/invitation/challenge to Substantiate- 1/
Can you show me the point/passage in which I “describe God as making decisions and having wants, needs, motives, and goals” ?

I spent considerable time in my last post describing why I got that impression. I pointed out that your language is peppered with time-referential descriptions of God's behavior. I gave concrete examples of the wording that gave me that impression. To ask me to tell you "where" you gave that impression now strikes me as ludicrous, since that is what I have been doing all along.

Do you or do you not consider God an agency that causes things to happen in our time frame? Do you or do you not think that God makes decisions and acts on those decisions? Do you or do you not think that God refrains from intervening in our fates? All of these things have to do with sequences of events that God involves himself in. To turn around and say that he operates outside of time is confusing, to say the least.

I am quite prepared to discuss false projections around the characteristics of God but not if I have to simultaneously counter false projections of what I have said.

Sorry, but we all suffer from being misunderstood. I no less than you. If you feel that I am distorting what you say, then please help me to understand. I think that we are both being honest with each other about what we think the other believes.

Can you show me the point/passage in which I say, suggest or infer “From God's perspective, we are all automatons” ?

The word "automaton" was my word, but I got that impression first when you agreed with me that God has absolute knowledge of our future. Let me clarify my point. We do not see ourselves as automatons, because we do not know with absolte certainty how we will behave. From God's perspective, we can appear no different from robots. We cannot choose to do other than what he knows we will do. I thought that you got that point and supported it. You may not like my wording, but I think that the inference is quite clear. God has a different perspective on our behavior than we do.

 

[McBell]

First up….I understand that you hold God to be a fictional character, that’s cool, but even fictional characters are identified by their history of attributes and characteristics. ie There is no point discussing how Spiderman turns huge and green when he gets angry or how Batman is overcome by cryptonite…yet in relation to God (even as a hypothetical character) this is exactly what you do. Attributing to God the restraints of time, decision making and human drives and motives.

Um...
How exactly is your removing the restraints any different?

 

[McBell]

Because you have a vague understanding of religion, faith and what to or what not to believe in.

Bold assumption.
Do you have anything at all to back this claim up or are you merely protecting your own little box?

 

[Wombat]

I am not trying to tell you what kind of "fictional character" you have invented,.

No?
““You find it convenient to describe God as making decisions and having wants, needs, motives, and goals,” Copernicus.

That's you creating a fiction.

"Worse still, having created this new fictional character, you seek to falsely attribute your production to me"- Wombat

That is not true..

Yes, it is. Here it is again. Cutting and ignoring it does not make it vanish-
““You find it convenient to describe God as making decisions and having wants, needs, motives, and goals,” Copernicus.

I never "described" God in those terms. You did. I argued against your description.
It would be "convenient" for you if you could impose your "description" upon me...but it would remain completely false.

Question/invitation/challenge to Substantiate- 1/
Can you show me the point/passage in which I “describe God as making decisions and having wants, needs, motives, and goals” ? Wombat

I spent considerable time in my last post describing why I got that impression..

Whoa up. What you present is not an “impression”...you asserted I had >”described”< “God as making decisions and having wants, needs, motives, and goals,” The very >attributes< YOU had presented and I argued against.

Then you try to palm >your< pov off on me an now you seek to excuse your misrepresentation as stemming from “impression”???!!!

Good Lord Copernicus, give me, language and reason a break. You want to argue the toss about the potential meanings of “relinquish” and call my common usage/definition “equivocating” and >then< try to pretend that what I have supposedly “described” was just an (unsourced/ unexplained) “impression”???
>NOTHING< I said could lead to such an impression. EVERYTHING you attribute to me was yours- God as making decisions and having wants, needs, motives, and goals,” and refuted by me.

I pointed out that your language is peppered with time-referential descriptions of God's behavior..

You claimed/identified >ONE< and it turns out to be >your< misreading of what was said >even though< it opened with a >rejection< of “time-referential descriptions of God” in the context of denying/rejecting saying/thinking “anything about God without thinking of him as a time-limited being”-
.................................................................
Then again, you cannot say anything about God without thinking of him as a time-limited being....[Copernicus]


Um.....I just did-[Wombat]
“God is not subject to the progression of linear time...how could He >not know< who is going to reject the offer...and still be God?”

“You do know that the expression "is going to" carries tense and refers to a temporal sequence of events, do you not? Q.E.D.” Copernicus.
.......................................
Please... for the luva language and logic- “how could He >not know< who is going to reject the offer...and still be God"? I.E. If He did “>not know< who is going to reject the offer” He would not be God BECAUSE He is constrained by time related factors like “who is going to”.

I gave concrete examples of the wording that gave me that impression. To ask me to tell you "where" you gave that impression now strikes me as ludicrous, since that is what I have been doing all along. .

The “wording that gave [you] that impression”= “who is going to” ARE ONLY APPLICABLE TO US/HUMANS..... >Not God<


“God is not subject to the progression of linear time” Q.E.D time related factors like “who is going to” do not apply to God. That was,is and remains the point-
Your assertion that I have “described” God as time bound falls to an “impression”, the “impression” is said to be based on “language peppered with time-referential descriptions of God” which falls to a >single< example of you misreading what was actually said.
How many times do I have to clearly and explicitly repeat “God is not subject to the progression of linear time” before you cease projecting your pov onto me and claiming it is something I "described"?
Let me remind you-“The words you use to describe God have logical properties and entailments...” Copernicus
And the word “describe” itself has “logical properties and entailments” and at no point did I “describe” suggest, infer or imply- God was subject to the progression of linear time or God as making decisions and having wants, needs, motives, and goals.

"Can you show me the point/passage in which I say, suggest or infer “From God's perspective, we are all automatons” ? Wombat

The word "automaton" was my word,.

Well that’s a first. A concession to the demonstrable reality of the visible thread record.
"automaton" was your word...your description...Guess what Copernicus?...So was “God as making decisions and having wants, needs, motives, and goals,”....>yours<...>all yours<....nothing to do with me other than I rejected those “descriptions”.
Likewise-
“we are all automatons,....You yourself have admitted as much…”
Yours, all yours....I "admitted" to no such thing.
I will however admit this...I like the dialogue, I enjoy the exchange, you are clearly intelligent and articulate and I clearly have a bug up my butt regarding misrepresentation of pov.
Play hard ball on the points/issues and I would love to play along, launch victory dance ad hom along the way and I will enjoy it, insult me and I will think you are displaying affection ... but attribute to me things I have not said and/or argued against and all you get is dummy spit.

Sorry, but we all suffer from being misunderstood. I no less than you.

No Copernicus.You clearly appreciate precision in language/logic as do I. It was not mere "misunderstanding" of ambigious text...it was disingenuous misrepresentation without foundation, basless “impression” stemming from no existing “description”.

 

[Wombat]

Back to the issues?-

but I got that ["automaton" ] impression first when you agreed with me that God has absolute knowledge of our future. Let me clarify my point. We do not see ourselves as automatons, because we do not know with absolte certainty how we will behave. From God's perspective, we can appear no different from robots..

And having agreed that “God has absolute knowledge of our future” I clearly rejected your notion-“ he has to know his own future in order to know ours, since he controls our future”
I rejected the notion of “Gods future” I rejected the notion of “control” of ours. I still do and reject the notion that “From God's perspective, we can appear no different from robots”.
There is no logical overlap or connection between God >knowing< what humanity thinks/believes/choose to do and being Gods “robot/ automaton”.

We cannot choose to do other than what he knows we will do..

Emphasis, not shouting-
ONLY BECAUSE >WHATEVER< WE FREELY CHOOSE TO DO “HE KNOWS”...HIS KNOWING DOES NOT DETERMINE OUR CHOICE.

I thought that you got that point and supported it. .

“he has to know his own future in order to know ours, since he controls our future” Copernicus

“Um....I don’t know what critter your talking about...” Wombat

Nah....no “support” there.

Sorting out the misreading/misrepresentation comes at the expense of the issues at hand.

If there are any central/salient points from #667, #675 that have been missed please let me know.

Yet you continue to represent your version as the "Abrahamic" version, do you not? That's the one in the Bible, correct?.

That’s the one in Judaic, Christian, Islamic and Baha’i scripture and tradition and (for my money) it appears that the further you go back in time (and through translation) the less accurate the reading and interpretation.

Do you or do you not consider God an agency that causes things to happen in our time frame?.

Beyond God being the ‘First Cause’ and thus causer of all things? Beyond the interventions of the revelations listed above? An interventionist God who daily “causes things to happen”? Answers prayers for lost car keys etc? No, I personally have no evidence or experience of such intervention, but I do not preclude or deny the possibility of such intervention.

Do you or do you not think that God makes decisions and acts on those decisions?.

No. Not as we understand the >process< of “decision” making. God requires no gathering of information/data, no assessment or contemplation thereof, no conclusion/decision drawn from such process. I would reason and assume that for an All knowing Omnipotent being there would be no separation between knowing/willing...and literally no >time< in which any conceivable separation could occur. Even the word “acts” is a misnomer in relation to God...no ‘action’ is taken.

Do you or do you not think that God refrains from intervening in our fates?.

The revelation interventions are “intervening in our fates” and I do not deny or reject the possible interventions in individual lives...I simply have no experience/evidence of the latter.

All of these things have to do with sequences of events that God involves himself in..

ONLY and EXCLUSIVELY from >our< (time bound) perspective.
For the being that existed at the beginning of the universe (that IT began) and SIMULTANEOUSLY existed (yes, for us past tense) at the collapse of the universe and death of stars yet to come (yes, for us future tense) there is NO “sequences of events”...there is only ‘existence’.
There is no separation in time, no sequence of events, for an Eternal being. Every ‘moment’ that has ever been experienced by humanity was known to God prior to the creation of the universe.(And the notion of “prior” only relates to our perspective)

To “say that he operates outside of time is confusing, to say the least”.

Philosophy of space and time - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
I will be in the hills listening to Leonard Cohen sing Hallelujah... for the next couple of days.
Hope you are doing something equaly pleasant with your time.

 

[Wombat]

Um...
How exactly is your removing the restraints any different?

Treating (for the time being) 'God' as a 'character' in fiction... the character is depicted (In at least three Abrahamaic traditions) as beyond the restraints of time decision making and human drives and motives.

I am not "removing the restraints" from the character description...they were never there.

To impose such restraints is to create a new character with new attributes and characteristics.

People are welcome to do so...devise a character only effected by Bentonite...or Vegimite....but please don't pretend this new character reflects Superman