The Official God FAQ

[Lonestar]

I actually like the Heinlein quote:

The most preposterous notion that H. sapiens has ever dreamed up is that the Lord God of Creation, Shaper and Ruler of all the Universes, wants the saccharine adoration of His creatures, can be swayed by their prayers, and becomes petulant if He does not receive this flattery. Yet this absurd fantasy, without a shred of evidence to bolster it, pays all the expenses of the oldest, largest, and least productive industry in all history.

The second most preposterous notion is that copulation is inherently sinful.

[Zanarkand]

What you are saying is that before the bible god had no interest in the world and relgious scriptures before that was pure human imagination. Ok, an argument could be that humans was becoming so bad that they needed guidance, so jesus was created, but isn't that a bit patetic move considering what was going on on this planet ? Planting him in israel wasn't exactly optimal - somewhere in the east would have been way more effective.

No, I'm not saying God didn't have any interest in the world before the Bible was writter. God paid very close attention to the human race long before Jesus came. Take a look in the Old Testament, and you can read about all the stuff that God did and all the people He guided. And yes, God saw that the human race was so polluted with sin that He sent Jesus, so everyone could be forgiven for their sins.
But why should Jesus have been placed somewhere east of Israel? Israel is a pretty eastern country. Besides, Jesus sent His diciples all over the world.

And btw, Jesus wasn't created by God, He is a part of God.

[Elok]

Originally posted by Kuciwalker
As I tried to say earlier, the flaw in your argument is that you assume that "self-interest" is a logical imperative. To make that true, you have to define self-interest so widely that it would include altruism.

? I'm afraid I don't follow you here.

Lonestar, you have read actual Heinlein novels, right? Of the "big three" sci-fi masters, only Asimov wrote actual science fiction. Clarke wrote insane religious/philosophical polemics disguised as science fiction, and Heinlein wrote insane political polemics disguised as science fiction. Neither one is really in a position to criticize others' "preposterous notions" IMO.

[Cort Haus]

Originally posted by Elok
From that assumption, I maintain it follows that there is no especial reason to do things that are of no advantage of any kind to you.

I already have given evolutionary reasons and examples for altruism above. The philosphical 'reasoned-social' argument is in addition to this.

Against this, you offer something "inspiring." Nice. But with no actual justification, I cannot see this as more than sentiment, or your moral judgments as more weighty than my Dad's fondness for orchids or my Mom's love of chocolate. It counts considerably less (in terms of strict logic) than a hedonist's love of his food, hoochies and booze, since he actually gains some tangible benefit from those.

But there are tangible benefits to a value-system which does not always and automatically put oneself first every time. I have first argued this from an evolutionary perspective, and have then also mentioned the notion of "dignity and respect for fellow-men", which I suggest, arises from the development of human civilisation and the ability to rationalise ethical principles.

Ignoring the first argument and mocking the second without actually dealing with it may be convenient, but I don't find it very convincing.

I predict you are now feeling very superior to me for your refusal to examine your own ideas, with either contempt and hatred or a sort of condescending pity foremost in your thoughts.

Predict away, but you are wrong. Contempt, hatred, pity and superiority are all rather hyperbolic when all I really feel is a sense of disagreement.

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by Agathon
Prove it.

You're making a completely ridiculous assumption that is contradicted by the evidence. Consider how people will sacrifice their own lives for causes they believe in, for their friends, or for the welfare of their children. People will often commit to projects that they will never see realized due to their own mortality. It's implausible to see this as some form of mental illness and attempts to reduce such motives to egoistic ones turn out to be implausible.

These can all be explained away by "selfish" motives. What is, however, fascinating, is that people will drop everything and risk everything to save someone they don't even know, like jumping in to the water to save someone from drowning or being eaten by a shark or rushing to pull a child from a car's path.

[Traianvs]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara


These can all be explained away by "selfish" motives. What is, however, fascinating, is that people will drop everything and risk everything to save someone they don't even know, like jumping in to the water to save someone from drowning or being eaten by a shark or rushing to pull a child from a car's path.

The glory afterwards will be all the greater

[Elok]

Balls, I lost track of which argument was yours, CH, and I can't seem to find it in the tangle of arguments. Even the post you just quoted doesn't seem to appear. I do apologize for the snotty tone I took in it, though. Dunno what was up with me when I posted it, but you were being polite.

So, are you in Whaleboy's "emotive" camp? That morals are decided by the heart rather than the head or what-have-you? That's what it sounds like when you talk about the inspiration of human dignity. Actually I'm not sure I believe humans have much dignity. We're pretty ridiculous creatures much of the time, and it's in our best moments that we seem least human. And we never appear more ridiculous than when we talk about our dignity. At least, I know I don't.

[RGBVideo]

I, for one, am surely going to change my views on religion based on arguments exchanged on an Internet forum

[BeBMan]

Originally posted by Elok
Actually I'm not sure I believe humans have much dignity. We're pretty ridiculous creatures much of the time, and it's in our best moments that we seem least human.

How do we look then, like trees?

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Elok
I do apologize for the snotty tone I took in it, though. Dunno what was up with me when I posted it, but you were being polite.

Yeah, that's not like you at all.

[Cort Haus]

So, are you in Whaleboy's "emotive" camp? That morals are decided by the heart rather than the head or what-have-you? That's what it sounds like when you talk about the inspiration of human dignity.

tbh, I didn't really understand Whaleboy's posts. They're a bit too filosofy-speak for my humble comprehension. The only thing the heart does that I know about is to pump blood around the body. All thinking and emoting is done in the head, including processing relating to value-systems.

If dignity is an awkward work then ignore it and think of the other word I used, which was respect. Not the respect accorded someone who is pointing a gun at you, but the other sort, that relates to consideration, understanding, equality, decency and fair play.

[Elok]

I wasn't seriously suggesting the heart as the seat of emotion, I was speaking metaphorically. Actually I'm not too sure what Whaleboy's talking about either. I was hoping you did so you could explain more clearly.

I still think invoking "respect" is circular, but then this argument is turning circular too, so should we just drop it or what?

[Cort Haus]

ok

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by Elok
? I'm afraid I don't follow you here.

Assuming we restrict the word "self-interest" to mean something like "personal material benefit", then it's not really justified to assume that self-interest is a sound logical imperative. If we don't restrict the word, and let it just mean "whatever you're interested in", then it's trivial to prove that any altruistic act is "self-interested".

[Seedle]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara


The line is uttered twice in the movie, once by the warden. "What we have here is . . . failure to communicate."

At the end of the movie,

Spoiler:

just before Luke is murdered

, Luke says, "What we have here is . . . a failure to communicate."

Fixed. And yes, I know this is off topic, but ruining stories is a pet peeve of mine.