Design your own hell

[molly bloom]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi


That was not the point of that argument. I just wanted to show you how your statement of intelligence was based on mere opinion, and not substance.

Of course you did, darling. And when fez calls me a 'moron' it's his equivalent of 'extra special person'.

[Ben Kenobi]

Well, I'm glad you are such a confident person not to let a little dig rankle you.

[molly bloom]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi
Well, I'm glad you are such a confident person not to let a little dig rankle you.

It's because I'm so full of the milk of humanist kindness, and because I know that your god made you do it.

See- it was predestined for you to be a bit snippy.

And that I think, ends my role in this thread.

[MrFun]

Originally posted by molly bloom


Oh, of course, you're right- the Balkans, Rwanda, Burundi, Northern Ireland- they're all arguments about the price of beer, or toffee apples.

I take responsibility for my own actions- the religionistas have this convenient get out clause of 'god made me do it' or 'it says I can do it in my 2000 year old book.'

As long as any religionista kills someone else in the name of a supernatural being, then my point about killing for Christ, or Allah, or Kali is relevant- besides which, the examples I gave from Christianity's history (god is love, right- except when you're killing Jews, or Muslims, or pagans) could easily be substituted by examples from Islam (Allah the merciful, the compassionate), or India's history, or virtually any religion- even the precursors of the Mennonites had a few big bloodbaths of their own in Germany, before they cleaned up their act.

And hence, my operative words, "vast majority" -- but yes, it is tragic that in some parts of the world, there are people who twist religion for their own selfish, inhuman purposes.

It's not religion itself that has been the problem -- its psychotic leaders who use religion in their dangerous rhetoric that's the problem.


Oh, and Molly -- I do like you on here, so I did not mean to be spiteful towards you.

[Urban Ranger]

Originally posted by Elok
E.G. religious individuals in the past have done bad things, so religion is bad. Much as chainsaws have been used to kill people, and are therefore bad.

Bad analogy. Judeo-Christianity was taken as authoritative in the past made it easy to slay, murder, oppress or to commit genocide. Even today the outdated moral code in Judeo-Christianity is still used to oppose or support a large number of positions.

Originally posted by Elok
While we're at it, something much like "secular humanism" fueled the Reign of Terror in post-revolutionary France.

Care to elaborate?

Originally posted by Elok
Otherwise the argument is just using perversions of the idea of religion as a sort of pre-existing strawman.

Oh yes, the "No True Scotsman" fallacy. Well done.

[Urban Ranger]

Originally posted by Elok
C.S. Lewis is an apologist. Aquinas is "heavier stuff," yes, but when I made that suggestion I was under the impression that Molly could be convinced by reason, and wanted something light and easy to understand, as in Mere Christianity. Anything more mystical than that, I figured she'd mock first and ask questions later. Moot point now.

You don't think Dualism is mythical, or at least idealistic?

At any rate, most modern theologicans (e.g. Plantinga, Swinburne etc) do not rely on mythology.

Originally posted by Elok
The thing is, how would you go about factoring in the possible actions of God when trying to determine his existence, skywalker?

I don't think making a trickster god argument is going to hold water. Why would a god want to hide from us?

Oh, of course, we don't know. It's all ineffable.

Originally posted by Elok
You can't really judge what a "reasonable person" would do, because the average person is not omniscient, omnipresent, and extratemporal.

A person does not act randomly. It is not difficult to guess what a person's reaction to certain event is.

[Boris Godunov]

Originally posted by Elok
Does it matter? Besides, if you're gonna go calling yourself Molly, you should expect to be treated like a woman.

Why do you treat women differently than men?

[Elok]

I don't really treat them differently, but I'm going to refer to someone named "Molly" as "she." It just makes sense to me.

God isn't hiding from us-we don't know he's "hiding" at all. He could be operating the universe in a certain way that appears to us to be hiding, but is merely the most efficient way of doing things for one reason or another. And you can predict the actions of a person, provided you know that person and all the things they are acting in response to, which with a god could never be the case. Any argument about what a God would do or wouldn't do is meaningless.

My point is that the oppression committed in the name of God is always a perversion of the ideals of Christianity, and presumptively of Islam in the case of all those fatwas. They result from selective obedience, ignoring "let he who is without sin cast the first stone," "judge not, lest ye be judged," "seventy times seven," "inasmuch as ye did it not to the least of these my brethren," etc. You can hold up any strong ideal as a false source of legitimacy, if you aren't picky about following it.

As to the reign of terror, what would you call Robespierre's philosophy if not "secular humanism"?

[Boris Godunov]

Secular humanism as a philosophy was not conceived of until 1933. Robespierre's defense of the terror is certainly a conflict with the doctrine.

Any secularism != Secular Humanism.

It's funny that in your above defense of Christianity, you assert that people who commited atrocities were actually going against what their faith should be. Should not Robespierre be given the same position, as Voltaire, from whom much of the secular philosophy of the 18th century derived, would undoubtedly have found the Terror abhorrent?

[Boris Godunov]

Originally posted by Elok
God isn't hiding from us-we don't know he's "hiding" at all. He could be operating the universe in a certain way that appears to us to be hiding, but is merely the most efficient way of doing things for one reason or another.

This is a problem for religion. If we have a universe that looks, for all intents and purposes, to be devoid of intelligent design and the acts of a conscious creator, what reason is there to believe one exists? We come up again to Occam's Razor. The "God in the Gaps" argument may be comforting to religious folk for purposes of maintaining faith, but it's hardly a convincing argument for choosing to believe in a personal deity, as it presupposes the answer one is trying to get at.

[Elok]

That's what I was getting at, Boris. There is no atheists' creed that says, "take anyone who you suspect of disloyalty, give them a show trial, and then hit them with the guillotine," so to judge the merits of atheism based on the Reign of Terror would be ridiculous. Much as it is ridiculous to judge Christianity based on the Spanish Inquisition or some such. Sorry if it sounded like a counteroffensive.

As to Occam's Razor, I addressed this earlier, in a way. Not sure what page, probably five. God can in fact be felt on a personal level, given sufficient effort or meditation; it is not in any way empirical in the sense accepted by science, but it is there, and you may find it if you try.

I realize it's a horrible loop, and probably sounds like a scam to you. To experience God, you must seek him out, which involves believing in him in the first place. I don't write the rules though. I guess what I'm saying is that you can't prove or disprove God scientifically, but it seems to me that there is truth in the world that cannot be ascertained scientifically.

[Ben Kenobi]

To experience God, you must seek him out, which involves believing in him in the first place.

Disagree.

God can only be reached, if he offers himself to men. Men cannot bring God down, only he can.

The key is not in believing God to experience him, for if this were so, how could anyone of us come to know him? But rather, it is by letting him into our hearts, and the recognition of his presence will allow us to get to know him, and to believe in him.

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by molly bloom
At least I've made it to Elok's ignore list, which means one less god-botherer to be bothered with.

I respect Elok FAR more than I respect you (given that you act like a moron). He is serious and rational, whereas you rant and rave. An atheist who isn't open to other modes of thought and who derides religious people as somehow inferior is no better than someone like Fred Phelps.

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by Urban Ranger
Bad analogy. Judeo-Christianity was taken as authoritative in the past made it easy to slay, murder, oppress or to commit genocide. Even today the outdated moral code in Judeo-Christianity is still used to oppose or support a large number of positions.

Evolution can be used to support Social Darwinism. That doesn't mean it's wrong or bad. Nietzsche was used to support the Nazis. That doesn't me he was wrong or bad. The problem is not in religion, or even in Christianity; the problem lies in those who are close-minded or seek to manipulate the populace. ANYTHING can be used to do that; religion has just been a favorite historically.

[Boris Godunov]

Originally posted by Elok
That's what I was getting at, Boris. There is no atheists' creed that says, "take anyone who you suspect of disloyalty, give them a show trial, and then hit them with the guillotine," so to judge the merits of atheism based on the Reign of Terror would be ridiculous. Much as it is ridiculous to judge Christianity based on the Spanish Inquisition or some such. Sorry if it sounded like a counteroffensive.

The thing is, it isn't that ridiculous. While I've no doubt a great deal of the atrocities carried out in the name of religion were actually cynical usage of religion to further power, so many examples appear to come from genuine religious fervor. For example, what other explanation can we have for Catholics slaughtering Native Americans after they had converted to make sure they went to heaven immediately? There is a big difference between using religion for political ends and committing horrors while acting under genuine belief.

As to Occam's Razor, I addressed this earlier, in a way. Not sure what page, probably five. God can in fact be felt on a personal level, given sufficient effort or meditation; it is not in any way empirical in the sense accepted by science, but it is there, and you may find it if you try.

I realize it's a horrible loop, and probably sounds like a scam to you. To experience God, you must seek him out, which involves believing in him in the first place. I don't write the rules though. I guess what I'm saying is that you can't prove or disprove God scientifically, but it seems to me that there is truth in the world that cannot be ascertained scientifically.

Yes, it's a loop. And this is so subjective as to be useless. What about all of the devout Christians who have lost their faith and subsequently become non-believers? Did they feel God on a personal level, and then stop? If so, how could they be allowed by God to do such? An answer akin to "well, they never really felt it in the first place" won't be accepted, because it's both arrogant and false.

People can convince themselves they feel anything on a personal level. After all, they convince themselves of ghosts, monsters under the bead and the like. When one presupposes a deity and wishes fervently for such an "experience," I'd say the likelihood of convincing one's self of such things is even greater. Considering people of every religious belief will swear to the end that they have experienced such a thing and know in their hearts their way is the "true" way, I have to remain extremely skeptical. One thing we know from psychology is the human mind is extremely susceptible to self-delusion of this kind.