The most hideous thing about religion

[Abdul Alhazred]

The most hideous thing about religion isn't the doings of murderous fanatics, though such are undeniably hideous.

There are plenty of non-religious murderous fanatics also as the last century's history has amply proven.

Murderous fanaticism is hideous, religious or not.

In the next century, we shall see.

Be that as it may, what is most hideous about religion is what it does to ordinary otherwise decent folks.

I ate breakfast in the local diner today.

I left a tip on the the table, and paid the bill up front. That's how it works around here.

The owner rang up my bill, I handed him a ten, he gave me one dollar too much as change.

I pointed this out to him and gave him back the dollar. He asked me was I a Christian, I said no.

He observed that it was a pity that so decent a man was going to Hell. Actually he said more, but that's the gist.

He's not a bad guy at all, so I will keep going there.

What to do? You see what I mean about what religion does to decent folks?

[Riddick]

it would really suck for you if the guy was right.

[Hexxenhammer]

You should have taken the dollar back since he expects so little of a heathen.

[Hexxenhammer]

Originally posted by Riddick
it would really suck for you if the guy was right. So being a good person isn't enough in your book? Gotta believe in the sky-daddy? The athiest who gives their lives to charity burns and the jerk who believes goes to heaven? What utter bull-plop.

[Abdul Alhazred]

Originally posted by Riddick
it would really suck for you if the guy was right.

It would more than "suck", it would mean that the universe is in the hands of a cosmic sociopath.

I am not offended by the notion that the universe was willed into existence, though I do not believe it.

Loving Father and Dirty Bastard, that I have a problem with.

[Riddick]

i'm not the one making the decision, which i think we all agree is the right thing.

that's the responsibility of God, so anything goes.

[Abdul Alhazred]

Originally posted by Hexxenhammer
You should have taken the dollar back since he expects so little of a heathen.

What's right is right. Never mind the conceit of religious fools.

[UserGoogol]

Originally posted by Riddick
it would really suck for you if the guy was right.

Well yeah, and it would really suck for you if it turned out that there was a God who punished all but atheists.

[Yahweh]

Originally posted by UserGoogol
Well yeah, and it would really suck for you if it turned out that there was a God who punished all but atheists.
You say that as if you dont pray to Charle Darwin everynight...

(You do pray to our god, Darwin, dont you?)

[Yahweh]

Originally posted by Abdul Alhazred
The most hideous thing about religion isn't the doings of murderous fanatics, though such are undeniably hideous.

There are plenty of non-religious murderous fanatics also as the last century's history has amply proven.

Murderous fanaticism is hideous, religious or not.

In the next century, we shall see.

Be that as it may, what is most hideous about religion is what it does to ordinary otherwise decent folks.

I ate breakfast in the local diner today.

I left a tip on the the table, and paid the bill up front. That's how it works around here.

The owner rang up my bill, I handed him a ten, he gave me one dollar too much as change.

I pointed this out to him and gave him back the dollar. He asked me was I a Christian, I said no.

He observed that it was a pity that so decent a man was going to Hell. Actually he said more, but that's the gist.

He's not a bad guy at all, so I will keep going there.

What to do? You see what I mean about what religion does to decent folks?
That is rather disapointing, however I will say good on you, Abdul. Regardless of god's existence, I say that you have been good enough to accept this perfectly fine life without expecting any god to give you another.

Dont worry, when you die, you'll get to meet all nice JREF folks in Hell. We plan to have a nice barbeque, perhaps catch a few good movies in the Richard Dawkins Amphitheatre. Fishing for Darwin Fish is the perfect way to spend a few hours of free time, or perhaps you and Mrs. Alhazred would like to take a cruise on the Lake of Fire (it illuminates the sky beautifully at night).

God is all-loving, and its very difficult to accept that he would send people to hell when he fools them with this universe which is utterly indistinguishable from a completely Materialistic universe. Besides, Hell isnt nearly as bad as you'd think.

[Riddick]

ah, that's sweet, lots of quips and giggles.

i would suggest you get the following sentence blocked so you can paste it quickly:
Oh my God, I just s**t my pants!

[Abdul Alhazred]

Love your new avatar. Your habitual one was a bit over the top if you don't mind my saying so, arrogance-wise. Much better to stick with the eyes over the glasses. I really like that.

It's an indication of intelligence that I with my dorky eyes over my dorky glasses cannot manage, but I certainly admire yours.

As for your specific comment:

God is all-loving. No question this must be true.

Now tell me about the holocaust. Or to be precise, the various holocausts.

You must accept all the horror of existence in the universe when you take on the name Yahweh.

Thought you were being cute calling yourself Yahweh? You are taking responsibility for everything.

Are you sure you're up to it?

[Yahweh]

Originally posted by Abdul Alhazred
Love your new avatar. Your habitual one was a bit over the top if you don't mind my saying so, arrogance-wise. Much better to stick with the eyes over the glasses. I really like that.

It's an indication of intelligence that I with my dorky eyes over my dorky glasses cannot manage, but I certainly admire yours.
Thanks :)

I like the pentagram, but I put away for a while. I decided to do an impression of TamiO's avatar, and I think it looks nice.

As for your specific comment:

God is all-loving. No question this must be true.

Now tell me about the holocaust. Or to be precise, the various holocausts.

You must accept all the horror of existence in the universe when you take on the name Yahweh.

Thought you were being cute?
Oh, no worrys, Abdul. I am godless. Hypothetically, if I accepted the existence of God, I could not accept that he would be all-loving for the reasons you pointed out above.

[Abdul Alhazred]

Originally posted by Yahweh

Oh, no worrys, Abdul. I am godless. Hypothetically, if I accepted the existence of God, I could not accept that he would be all-loving for the reasons you pointed out above.

Godless? Abd means slave. Abdul means slave of Allah. Presumably slave of Yahweh, but I'm nobody's slave.

Godless is best.

I'll leave the Alhazred part as an exercise.

Loving Father implies Dirty Bastard.

Sick with no-god, he is your friend. :D

[El Greco]

The amazing thing for me is to discover that church today is so f**king miserably failed that many Christians believe it's not enough to be a good and honest person to get saved, you are also obliged to be a Christian.

[shemp]

He's not a bad guy at all, so I will keep going there.

I think anyone who tells their customers that they are going to hell is, by definition, a bad guy. You should have told him that he was going to be eaten by Cthulhu.

Isn't there some other restaurant in the inky abyss you can patronize?

[Abdul Alhazred]

Originally posted by El Greco
The amazing thing for me is to discover that church today is so f**king miserably failed that many Christians believe it's not enough to be a good and honest person to get saved, you are also obliged to be a Christian.

It goes with the territory, and it's not the church today that's the problem, except in so far as what they do today is a problem. Ever heard of original sin?

Being a good and honest person? That's salvation by works, not salvation by faith.

You are born deserving Hell and He holds you over the fire as it might be a some loathesome insect.

Millions of people believe in a religion that's much creepier than me with my "Inky Abyss" schtick. They really believe it and they are not doing schtick.

See this: The Good, the Bad, and the Fundy (http://www.chick.com/reading/tracts/0037/0037_01.asp)

http://www.chick.com/tractimages56572/0037/0037_22.gif

Eternal vigilance is the price of liberty!

[Abdul Alhazred]

Originally posted by shemp


I think anyone who tells their customers that they are going to hell is, by definition, a bad guy. You should have told him that he was going to be eaten by Cthulhu.

Isn't there some other restaurant in the inky abyss you can patronize?

Just as the owner of the diner decently treats me as a fellow man even though he thinks I'm headed for Hell, I can decently treat him as a fellow man even though I think he's a fool.

By the way, have you seen THIS (http://www.findagrave.com/cgi-bin/fg.cgi?page=gr&GRid=6130700&pt=Shemp%20Howard):




http://www.findagrave.com/photos/101e/332/514_1007052434.jpg

http://www.findagrave.com/photos/101e/332/514_1007052341.jpg

[Keziah Mason]

Godless? Abd means slave. Abdul means slave of Allah. Presumably slave of Yahweh, but I'm nobody's slave.


Well, we all know how you're going to end up - messily devoured by an invisible monster in broad daylight in front of a horrified crowd ;)

I've often thought that the most hideous thing about religion is that people actually believe it.

[Zero]

The other most hideous thing about religion is the music!!;) (besides a few examples of religious-inspired classical music)

[Abdul Alhazred]

Originally posted by Keziah Mason


Well, we all know how you're going to end up - messily devoured by an invisible monster in broad daylight in front of a horrified crowd ;)

I've often thought that the most hideous thing about religion is that people actually believe it.

I won't dignify your first comment. It would be beneath me as the Mad Arab. Furthermore, it would prevent me from doing my schtick properly to dignify it. :p

As for your second comment, I wholeheartedly agree, though I hadn't quite thought of it that way.

[Abdul Alhazred]

Originally posted by Zero
The other most hideous thing about religion is the music!!;) (besides a few examples of religious-inspired classical music)

Religious music is generally OK, with the exception of that played on a metal guitar.

"Christian rock" makes me cringe.

There is no Jewish, Hindu, Muslim, or Zoroastrian rock, though there may be rockers of those persuasions.

All religion is senseless, but usually it has some dignity. The exception is when religion attempts to be "cool".

[The idea]

Originally posted by Abdul Alhazred
I ate breakfast in the local diner today.

I left a tip on the the table, and paid the bill up front. That's how it works around here.

The owner rang up my bill, I handed him a ten, he gave me one dollar too much as change.

I pointed this out to him and gave him back the dollar. He asked me was I a Christian, I said no.

He observed that it was a pity that so decent a man was going to Hell.
Where's his sense of solidarity? For thousands of years, restaurant owners in hell been exposed to extreme heat and rude, dishonest customers. Then there is a ray of hope. They can look forward to getting one customer who won't take advantage of them when they give too much change. How does the owner of your local diner feel about that? To him, it is regrettable!

[Christian]

There is a very consistent and observable reason why "good people" will go to hell and "bad" to heaven.

Materialist/Atheists (MA) hold the delusion of free will. The materialist evidence shows otherwise.

The only way free will makes sense is if there is a God.

[kevinsbikes]

I manage a bicycle store, so I develop very close relationships with my customers. I encounter the "you are destined for hell" speech all the time.
Just when you think a customer has figured you out... with all my "Atheist" comments and jokes... I tell the customer that I am an Atheist and they reply with a multitude of things... my favorite is: "Oh no!... you can't be! You are so nice... You know if you don't find Jesus you will go to hell and you don't want to go to hell do you?" It is right about this time I want to stab the customer in the eye socket with a hot soldering iron and laugh, laugh, laugh. BUT, instead I simply tell them that it isn't possible for me to go to hell since I don't believe in it. :D
Have a great day, my fellow hellgoers.

[shemp]

Originally posted by Abdul Alhazred


Just as the owner of the diner decently treats me as a fellow man even though he thinks I'm headed for Hell, I can decently treat him as a fellow man even though I think he's a fool.

By the way, have you seen THIS (http://www.findagrave.com/cgi-bin/fg.cgi?page=gr&GRid=6130700&pt=Shemp%20Howard):




http://www.findagrave.com/photos/101e/332/514_1007052434.jpg

http://www.findagrave.com/photos/101e/332/514_1007052341.jpg

Seen it? I'm INSIDE it!

[Ruby]

Originally posted by Abdul Alhazred
I ate breakfast in the local diner today.
I left a tip on the the table, and paid the bill up front. That's how it works around here.
The owner rang up my bill, I handed him a ten, he gave me one dollar too much as change.
I pointed this out to him and gave him back the dollar. He asked me was I a Christian, I said no.
He observed that it was a pity that so decent a man was going to Hell. Actually he said more, but that's the gist.
He's not a bad guy at all, so I will keep going there.
What to do? You see what I mean about what religion does to decent folks?

I think it was very noble of you to make the decision to keep going this this diner. It will show him that you are not afraid of his belief that you are going to Hell. Had you known this man for awhile...been on speaking terms...before he made his comment about you going to Hell?

It would just a be bit presumptious of a stranger or someone you had never talked to much to inform you of your destiny with Hell. I remember, as a Christian, that most of my friends, and myself, were of the belief that such statements were never to be said unless you were in a close friendship with someone and they had actually asked a leading question for you to give the "Hell" answer.

Naturally, the approach of making friends and waiting for them to ask questions before you witness is not the approach that most Christians take. There are some who can't wait to tell an unbeliever they are headed to Hell. They seem to drool with excitement about it. There are those who really don't want to see anyone in Hell, and do not take delight in the idea, but believe in it very much and feel that they must be very verbal about it to unbelievers to keep them from ending up there. Then there are those who are sort of brainwashed into believing they must spend every waking moment witnessing...even door to door. There's also those who don't want to see anyone in Hell, but are too afraid to witness to anyone, due to shyness, fear of rejection, or anxiety. They beat themselves all the time and think they have failed God and might be headed to Hell themselves.

Anyhow, I digress.

I wonder if the diner owner will keep trying to reach you now. If he really likes you, he will be even more worried for your soul.

As for the tip thing, some Christians are terrible tippers. There was a big restaurant here that was a favorite for Christians to attend after Church. It was filled to the brim on Sunday's with church goers of every denomination. A group from the church I was in at the time used to go too. One day, during my singles class at church, our teacher told us that one of the waitresses at this restaurant, had confided in him that they got their worst tips on Sunday afternoon from the church crowd than any other day of the week. He asked us to please make sure we tipped properly.

There was also an incident where a small group of us (singles)went out to eat. My husband was in this group. We were just friend at the times. At the end of the meal, one of the singles, a big gruff, intense sort of guy who was a leader in our singles, put down a card on the table advertising our church. He said that was an ample tip. My husband, who is not gruff, more of an engineering geek, but also very stocky, got very angry and chewed out this other guy for leaving a card as tip and said how we were all going to leave proper tips. I thought the big guy would cream him. He just looked at him with his mouth open, and then went ahead and put some money on the table. My husband tallied everything up and made sure that a proper percentage was there for a tip. He put most of that money in himself. I think that was the beginning of my friendship with him turning to love.

My husband has always been a big tipper. I am too. We were that way as Christians, and have remained that way now as non-Christians!
:D

I am wondering if the diner owner has had experience with non-Christians leaving bad tips and Christians leaving good tips or he is just asuming that anyone who is not a Christian is immoral and unkind and greedy. That's the usual type misconceptions that come with not being Christian....especially if you claim to be an atheist....then they think you must be really mean.

Anyhow, good for you for continuing to go. I would not have gone back. I'm still raw and angry.............recovering from Christian crap. :(

[Abdul Alhazred]

Originally posted by Christian

The only way free will makes sense is if there is a God.

It seems to me that this statement doesn't even make enough sense to argue with. Why not?

[Zero]

Originally posted by Christian
There is a very consistent and observable reason why "good people" will go to hell and "bad" to heaven.

Materialist/Atheists (MA) hold the delusion of free will. The materialist evidence shows otherwise.

The only way free will makes sense is if there is a God. That makes no sense at all. This is the true horror of religion: you have to believe in things that make a rational person's head ache with the level of absurdity.

[Abdul Alhazred]

Originally posted by Ruby


I think it was very noble of you to make the decision to keep going this this diner. It will show him that you are not afraid of his belief that you are going to Hell. Had you known this man for awhile...been on speaking terms...before he made his comment about you going to Hell?


Yes for many years. He's mentioned his faith before, but he's certainly not an in-your-face type.

The rest of your comments (snipped) are very good. Thank you.

[Bottle or the Gun]

Originally posted by Zero
The other most hideous thing about religion is the music!!;) (besides a few examples of religious-inspired classical music)

Michelle Tumes track 'Feel' is on my personal list, because I like the sound.

[Iacchus]

How about a hideous thread like this? ;)

[Bottle or the Gun]

You should have reminded him that Jesus would have been a jew and a Rabbi. They hate that.

[KonTiki]

Originally posted by Christian

Materialist/Atheists (MA) hold the delusion of free will. The materialist evidence shows otherwise.

I am astounded to hear that you have solved the mystery of how the human brain functions in its entirety, enough to be able to prove that it cannot work in an entirely materialistic manner. Please let us all know when you publish...

[mummymonkey]

Originally posted by Zero
The other most hideous thing about religion is the music!!;) (besides a few examples of religious-inspired classical music)
The late Nusrat Fateh Ali Khan made some sublime religious music.
btw Abdul Alhazred, I never met an Arab (even a mad poet) named Abdul. It's only half a name and means follower/slave/servant of. (Abdullah/Abdallah means servant of Allah). Your name means The Follower of The Hazred. It would be more correctly written Abdulhazred or Abd-Al-Hazred; as the second 'the' is redundant.

[Abdul Alhazred]

Originally posted by kevinsbikes
I manage a bicycle store, so I develop very close relationships with my customers.

I'll bite. Why does selling bicycles lead to close relationships more than selling for example auto parts?

I mention auto parts to relate it to my own experience.

I'm not doubting your word, but you've got me wondering about the dynamic of selling bicycles.

[Abdul Alhazred]

Originally posted by Bottle or the Gun
You should have reminded him that Jesus would have been a jew and a Rabbi. They hate that.

I don't think that would bother him at all. He's no bigot, just a believer.

That's my original point. What's hideous about religion isn't the fanatics, bigots, crazies and what have you. Those types will exist regardless of religion.

It's what religious belief does to ordinary decent people.

[Chanileslie]

This is annoying to say the least, but when people tell me I am going to hell, I usually give a response of: "Yeah? Cool!! I hear the best parties are going on in hell, and I was promised the position of Organizer of Hell's Orgies. Anyway, I am supposed to bring the marshmallows." It shuts them up.

[espritch]

There is a very consistent and observable reason why "good people" will go to hell and "bad" to heaven.

Materialist/Atheists (MA) hold the delusion of free will. The materialist evidence shows otherwise.

The only way free will makes sense is if there is a God.

I don't follow your logic here. A perfect God has no free will. Perfection would imply one perfect course of action. Humans can only be said to have a choice between right and wronge because we are imperfect. If we were perfect, we would always do the right thing. It follows that if God is perfect, he has no free will. If God has no free will, how does his existence explain free will?

Or are you claiming that God is imperfect? If so, how can he justified sending us to hell for our imperfection? Especially since he created us this way?

Good people being condemned to hell makes sense only if God is imperfect and evil. If he is those things, why would anyone worship him?

[Bottle or the Gun]

Originally posted by Abdul Alhazred
That's my original point. What's hideous about religion isn't the fanatics, bigots, crazies and what have you. Those types will exist regardless of religion.

It's what religious belief does to ordinary decent people.

Ok. Have you ever been around when a wave of religious fervor occurs in a workplace? I've seen it happen at a few places I've worked over the years. Very disturbing. The worst was when I was in the military. All of a sudden people were holding prayer-meetings before, after work and during breaks. The day to day work and even career paths were compromised because a believer suddenly had to involve and impress the mission with the nonsense. That was when I first became familiar with the concept of being hellbound even if you were a good person. All of a sudden our religious beliefs were unofficially factored into our performance evaluations also. The scary part of it is when you have the weak-willed followers and yes-people who go along with it because they are afraid of what will happen to their jobs if they disagree. In the military, it was resolved when a sudden flood of people complained, requested job transfers and to have new supervisors. In civilian life everyone in HR is afraid of getting sued, so they hold tolerance & harrassment seminars when people complain.

[Abdul Alhazred]

Originally posted by mummymonkey

The late Nusrat Fateh Ali Khan made some sublime religious music.
btw Abdul Alhazred, I never met an Arab (even a mad poet) named Abdul. It's only half a name and means follower/slave/servant of. (Abdullah/Abdallah means servant of Allah). Your name means The Follower of The Hazred. It would be more correctly written Abdulhazred or Abd-Al-Hazred; as the second 'the' is redundant.

Being Abdul Alhazred is a schtick I take from the works of HP Lovecraft.

Take your nitpicks to HP. But he's dead.

[kevinsbikes]

Originally posted by Abdul Alhazred


I'll bite. Why does selling bicycles lead to close relationships more than selling for example auto parts?

I mention auto parts to relate it to my own experience.

I'm not doubting your word, but you've got me wondering about the dynamic of selling bicycles.

When selling auto parts, you are selling a product of function. for example: I have brand "a" car... what model carburator do I need?. In the auto parts industry, you cross reference manufacturers data to fulfill the defect/upgrade of the car.
When selling bicycles...mostly mid to upper end, you have to learn so much about the customer prior to selling them a product. Like the auto industry, you still have to meet the needs of compatibility... In addition to knowing the manufacturer's gobbledegook of information, you also have to know the intended usage of the product, the rider weight, their bone structure fitting, their flexibility, their price range, and their perception and emphasis of need (how they want to spend their money... wheels, frame, parts, etc.). Selling bikes is selling to passion, selling auto parts is selling for replacement/upkeep/upgrade/repair. The art of restoring cars is a talent and passion... selling the parts is fullfilling a need.

[Riddick]

Originally posted by kevinsbikes
I manage a bicycle store, so I develop very close relationships with my customers. I encounter the "you are destined for hell" speech all the time.
Just when you think a customer has figured you out... with all my "Atheist" comments and jokes... I tell the customer that I am an Atheist and they reply with a multitude of things... my favorite is: "Oh no!... you can't be! You are so nice... You know if you don't find Jesus you will go to hell and you don't want to go to hell do you?" It is right about this time I want to stab the customer in the eye socket with a hot soldering iron and laugh, laugh, laugh. BUT, instead I simply tell them that it isn't possible for me to go to hell since I don't believe in it. :D
Have a great day, my fellow hellgoers.
you don't believe in hell, therefore it doesn't exist.

ahh, you have it all so conveniently figured out. i can almost see einstein jumping out of his grave so he can hear your words of wisdom.

[Johnny Pneumatic]

Riddick he was joking. I guess humor goes over the heads of 7th Day Addicts.

[RabbiSatan]

Originally posted by Riddick

you don't believe in hell, therefore it doesn't exist.


And believing in the idea suddenly makes it exist?

[Hexxenhammer]

Originally posted by RabbiSatan


And believing in the idea suddenly makes it exist? Didn't you know? This is why I'm starting a church of Thor. Should be easy with all the Norweigans here in Minnesota. We're all going to wear the sign of the hammer. Since we are worshiping him, he will exist again and we Latter Day Vikings will be free to rape and pillage x-ians again! And we'll be guaranteed a place in Valhalla!

[espritch]

Didn't you know? This is why I'm starting a church of Thor. Should be easy with all the Norweigans here in Minnesota. We're all going to wear the sign of the hammer. Since we are worshiping him, he will exist again and we Latter Day Vikings will be free to rape and pillage x-ians again! And we'll be guaranteed a place in Valhalla!

Oh! Pillaging x-ians and going to Valhalla sounds good! Can I join? I'm not actually of Norweigan descent but my first name is Eric which, as I understand it, is a good Viking name.

Ummm...I wouldn't actually have to move to Minnesota, would I? That would be a deal breaker.

Also, I tend to projectile vomit in small boats so I hope there won't be any required pilgrimages to Norway via long ship.

Come to think of it, I guess I probably wouldn't make a very good Latter Day Viking. Oh well. I guess I'll just have to start my own religion.

[Abdul Alhazred]

Originally posted by kevinsbikes

Selling bikes is selling to passion ...


Amazing. Thank you. Of course some folks have a passion for cars, but that doesn't define the business.

[Yahweh]

Originally posted by Christian
There is a very consistent and observable reason why "good people" will go to hell and "bad" to heaven.

Materialist/Atheists (MA) hold the delusion of free will. The materialist evidence shows otherwise.

The only way free will makes sense is if there is a God.
Actually, I would think most Materialist/Atheists (which are not synonomous terms in my opinion) would tend to reason like this:
Freewill is a word which means "ability to choose at ones own disgression". Being animals which are capable of that process, we do in fact possess freewill.

To the extent of the Freewill, it seems like most MAs I know are compatibilists.


If you take the time to think about the characteristics of God, some of them are mutually incompatible with either human-freewill or god possessing freewill. Defining God as omniscient tends to nullify the concept of freewill, however carefully defining finite properties of God does allow it.

[Ruby]

Originally posted by Abdul Alhazred


I don't think that would bother him at all. He's no bigot, just a believer.

That's my original point. What's hideous about religion isn't the fanatics, bigots, crazies and what have you. Those types will exist regardless of religion.

It's what religious belief does to ordinary decent people.

I was a decent person who got turned into a legalistic fanatic Christian.....but because I was decent deep down, I could not continue going on that way...it was killing me. I was very depressed. So, I became much less fanatical and legalistic......but it was still to hard on me, so, eventually, I became a liberal Christian. It got to where I could not accept the concept of Hell anymore. It was too cruel beyond words. In the end, I was so decent, I stopped being a Christian altogether!

:D

[Ruby]

Originally posted by Chanileslie
This is annoying to say the least, but when people tell me I am going to hell, I usually give a response of: "Yeah? Cool!! I hear the best parties are going on in hell, and I was promised the position of Organizer of Hell's Orgies. Anyway, I am supposed to bring the marshmallows." It shuts them up.

:clap: I like that!!!:D

[LFTKBS]

Nicely put, Ruby.

[Abdul Alhazred]

Originally posted by Ruby


I was a decent person who got turned into a legalistic fanatic Christian.....but because I was decent deep down, I could not continue going on that way...it was killing me. I was very depressed. So, I became much less fanatical and legalistic......but it was still to hard on me, so, eventually, I became a liberal Christian.:D

I keep finding it astounding that people with ideological backgrounds other than my own do become sensible.

I will have to discipline myself, and stop being astounded so much.

Back! Back! Slap! Back! Slap! Slap! Slap!

I feel much better now.

[Martin]

Originally posted by mummymonkey
btw Abdul Alhazred, I never met an Arab (even a mad poet) named Abdul. It's only half a name and means follower/slave/servant of. (Abdullah/Abdallah means servant of Allah). Your name means The Follower of The Hazred. It would be more correctly written Abdulhazred or Abd-Al-Hazred; as the second 'the' is redundantI heard it suggested once that the name is not Arabic but Yemenite - which would make sense, given that Abdul's hometown was in Yemen. A quick Google threw up the claim that in Yemenite, the name translates as "one-who-sees-what-should-not-be-seen".

Of course, that could be utter gibberish, for all I know :D

[Keziah Mason]

I heard it suggested once that the name is not Arabic but Yemenite - which would make sense, given that Abdul's hometown was in Yemen.

It should also be remembered that most of what we know about Alhazred's life comes from Ebn Khallikan in the 12th century, several hundred years after Alhazred was seized and...., uh, um, well, let's just say after he quit writing in Damascus and long before he showed up here. But perhaps Khallikan didn't quite get all the spelling correct, eh?

Here's a strange and a bit surreal experience I had with a believer. As a bit of background, I collect fishy items. Plush fish, glass fish, ceramic fish, etc, it's just something I like to collect - I guess I just like slimy cold-blooded creatures who have brains the size of a pea. Anyway, I had was working with this woman and we were becoming friends. I had a small collection of fishy things on my desk and I often wore fish print shirts.

You can probably see what's coming.

One day she exclaimed in a loud voice that she knew we would be good friend's because I was a Christian too!

WTF?

I was not, and still not, outspoken about my atheism in real life. The only, very tenuous, thing I can think of, though, to link me with Christianity is the whole "Jesus-fish" thing and my little piscine decorations. Weird - maybe fish worship gets one out of Hell?

Well, I've always said, if I have to pick a church, it will be the Esoteric Order of Dagon :p

[BigShoeStu]

Originally posted by Hexxenhammer
And we'll be guaranteed a place in Valhalla!
What was the name of that one movie with Tim Robbins that played a Viking? Their was Leif the Lucky and one old man that was a Berzerker and his wanna-be Berzerker son? THAT was a FUNNY movie. Please enlighten me.

[Martin]

Google says 'Erik the Viking'.

[Abdul Alhazred]

Originally posted by Keziah Mason
Well, I've always said, if I have to pick a church, it will be the Esoteric Order of Dagon :p

Of all the gods mentioned in the Bible, Dagon is my favorite.

But no. There is no God nor god! Not even a sweetie-pie like Dagon. :p

[Atlas]

Originally posted by Hexxenhammer
Didn't you know? This is why I'm starting a church of Thor. Should be easy with all the Norweigans here in Minnesota. We're all going to wear the sign of the hammer. Since we are worshiping him, he will exist again and we Latter Day Vikings will be free to rape and pillage x-ians again! And we'll be guaranteed a place in Valhalla!

At Last, the end of our long diaspora. I have worshiped loney and sad every Sunday during football season. Now we will have a church where if we pray, pray, pray, really, really, really hard Thor must grant us a superbowl.

Oh then the packer women and all the packer towns will be laid to ruin.

Question: Will we even need to ask if they are Christian?

[Christian]

The only way free will makes sense is if there is a God.

Abdul Alhazred wrote:
It seems to me that this statement doesn't even make enough sense to argue with. Why not?

Yes, I can understand it doesn't make sense to you. But, at least you ask why.?


To understand the abover, first we have understand why it is that a MA must conclude there is no free will.

Once, we conclude that materialism denies free will, then we can look at the scenario of why deist view logically permits free will.

And understand, I'm not saying which model is correct. I'm only pointing out the logical conclusions of each model.

Zero wrote:
That makes no sense at all. This is the true horror of religion: you have to believe in things that make a rational person's head ache with the level of absurdity.

The problem is your prejudice in this specific topic and with specific individuals. IMHO, if you are a true rational, skeptic thinker, you should allow a little more information before coming to such a sweeping conclusion. Of course, unless you have completely closed your mind the possiblity of new conclusions and distinctions regarding this subject. But then, that would nullify a skeptic perspective.


KonTiki wrote:
I am astounded to hear that you have solved the mystery of how the human brain functions in its entirety, enough to be able to prove that it cannot work in an entirely materialistic manner. Please let us all know when you publish...

Solved the mystery? Please read my post carefully one more time. My only claim is that so far the evidence from a materialistic standpoints shows (points to) determinism. Very different from saying it proves it (which you seem to imply I said)

Yah wrote:
Actually, I would think most Materialist/Atheists (which are not synonomous terms in my opinion) would tend to reason like this:
Freewill is a word which means "ability to choose at ones own disgression". Being animals which are capable of that process, we do in fact possess freewill.

You are correct, they are not synonomous terms. I use the term MA to specify those atheists who believe in materialism only. It is with this model that I make observations.

I wont say that the model is incorrect. I will comment about the logical conclusions that a MA must come to in order to be logically consistent.

Many MAs define free will as "freedom from coersion". It is my conclusion that there is no evidence of free will in a materialistic model. On the contrary, all evidence points to determinism.

To the extent of the Freewill, it seems like most MAs I know are compatibilists.

Just so that we are on the same page here, can you give me your definition of compatibilism?

If you take the time to think about the characteristics of God, some of them are mutually incompatible with either human-freewill or god possessing freewill. Defining God as omniscient tends to nullify the concept of freewill, however carefully defining finite properties of God does allow it.

I don't think this is the case. Omniscience does not nullify the Christian concept of free will. It nullify all other religions that are based on the "if you are good you will go to heaven, if you are bad you go to hell" camp. This is why it is totally logical that good pleople will go to hell and bad to heaven, in the Christian model.

I will explain why later (I don't like long paragraphs or post with too many ideas)

[Zero]

*Yawn*

Christian makes a blanket statement, without any logical support:"The only way free will makes sense is if there is a God." Obvioously, anyone with a lick of sense knows that this is an unfounded statement, with little bearing on the actual opinions of materialists or atheists. When we all say something, how does Christian respond? More assertions, no logical backing. Wow.

[Christian]

Zero:

Don't dismiss me so fast. If you do, then you might run the risk of looking less than rational.

As I said, I don't like writing long posts because later I have to keep repeating myself because in long posts, ideas are missed.

You don't have to come along.

And you petulance doesn't help in showing your objectivity. But, I always point out that thinking oneself mentally superior is not a good habit.

[Zero]

Originally posted by Christian
Zero:

Don't dismiss me so fast. If you do, then you might run the risk of looking less than rational.

As I said, I don't like writing long posts because later I have to keep repeating myself because in long posts, ideas are missed.

You don't have to come along.

And you petulance doesn't help in showing your objectivity. But, I always point out that thinking oneself mentally superior is not a good habit. Well, can we skip the foreplay, and get to the part where you actually back up what you posted about free will?

[Abdul Alhazred]

Originally posted by Martin
I heard it suggested once that the name is not Arabic but Yemenite - which would make sense, given that Abdul's hometown was in Yemen. A quick Google threw up the claim that in Yemenite, the name translates as "one-who-sees-what-should-not-be-seen".


I take the name of a fictional character invented in 1932. Lighten up people.

[kevinsbikes]

Originally posted by Abdul Alhazred


Amazing. Thank you. Of course some folks have a passion for cars, but that doesn't define the business.

Yes Abdul, I agree... people can be passionate about cars. Restorations, performance, ownership... I am passionate about the 1963/4 Studebaker Avanti, but buying parts is still a process of getting the correct part to keep the car authentic.

[Christian]

Zero wrote:
Well, can we skip the foreplay, and get to the part where you actually back up what you posted about free will?

My assertion is that a MA cannot conclude there is free will. The model does not allow it.

MA have only two models to choose from in relation to history and future events. Either future events are deterministic or they are random.

In both instances, free will is rendered false.

The only attempt so far for MA to salvage free will is throught the concept of compatibilism.


The problem with compatibilism is that it assumes determinism is true. And here another road block, physics is going the opposite direction, where the universe is not deterministic but, probabilistic (random).

[KonTiki]

Solved the mystery? Please read my post carefully one more time. My only claim is that so far the evidence from a materialistic standpoints shows (points to) determinism. Very different from saying it proves it (which you seem to imply I said)
Christian,

I understood your meaning quite clearly. The problem is that you do not seem to be aware science has had evidence that the universe is not deterministic for about a century now. Perhaps quantum randomness plays a part in how our brains function or perhaps it does not, but the point is nobody understands enough about the brain to make the claim that you made.

[Christian]

KonTiki wrote:
Christian,

I understood your meaning quite clearly. The problem is that you do not seem to be aware science has had evidence that the universe is not deterministic for about a century now.

I am well aware of the implications of QM. (on a side note, QM does not categorically nullify determinism. The physic's holy grail can still be found)

As I said, randomness is an even bigger problem for the people who believe in free will. Remember, free will assumes determism is true, not randomness. Randomness nullifies free will. I hope you can see that.

[Christian]

KonTiki wrote:
Perhaps quantum randomness plays a part in how our brains function or perhaps it does not, but the point is nobody understands enough about the brain to make the claim that you made.

I don't need to know anything about the brain to conclude what I have. All I need is the assumption that materialism is true. If in fact, materialism is true, there is no free will.

[The idea]

Originally posted by Christian
All I need is the assumption that materialism is true. If in fact, materialism is true, there is no free will.
If materialism is true then....

What's the first step? How are you going to get from that assumption to the conclusion that there is no free will?

[Yahweh]

Originally posted by Christian
Yah wrote:
Actually, I would think most Materialist/Atheists (which are not synonomous terms in my opinion) would tend to reason like this:
Freewill is a word which means "ability to choose at ones own disgression". Being animals which are capable of that process, we do in fact possess freewill.

You are correct, they are not synonomous terms. I use the term MA to specify those atheists who believe in materialism only. It is with this model that I make observations.

I wont say that the model is incorrect. I will comment about the logical conclusions that a MA must come to in order to be logically consistent.

Many MAs define free will as "freedom from coersion". It is my conclusion that there is no evidence of free will in a materialistic model. On the contrary, all evidence points to determinism.
I'll note that "freedom from coersion", that is a very Hobbes-like interpretation of Freewill.

I would disagree with Hobbes on his "coersion nullifies free-will" ideology, I think that is extending the definition of Free-will past its boundaries.

Hobbes' Coersion principle involved defining free-will as including some aspect of free-action. Hobbes would argue that some instances such as rape nullify free-will because it coerces the victim into partaking in an activity which they clearly will not the be a part of. However, that is a restriction of free-action, not of free-will. (It is equally unsound to argue that humans have no free-will because they cannot leap over buildings in a single bound... that is a restriction of free-action, not of free-will.)

To the extent of the Freewill, it seems like most MAs I know are compatibilists.

Just so that we are on the same page here, can you give me your definition of compatibilism?
A good summary can be found at Wikipedia - Compatibilism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Compatibilism):
Compatibilism, also known as "soft determinism" and most famously championed by Hume, is a theory which holds that free will and determinism are compatible. According to Hume, free will should not be understood as an absolute ability to have chosen differently under exactly the same inner and outer circumstances. Rather, it is a hypothetical ability to have chosen differently if one had been differently psychologically disposed by some different beliefs or desires. Alternately, Hume maintains that free acts are not uncaused (or mysteriously self-caused as Kant would have it) but caused in the right way, i.e., by our choices as determined by our our beliefs and desires, by our characters. While a decision making process exists in Hume's determinism, this process is governed by the so-called causal chain of events. For example, a person may make the decision to support Wikipedia, but that decision is determined by the conditions that existed prior to the decision being made.
That sounds like a reasonable position to me.

If you take the time to think about the characteristics of God, some of them are mutually incompatible with either human-freewill or god possessing freewill. Defining God as omniscient tends to nullify the concept of freewill, however carefully defining finite properties of God does allow it.

I don't think this is the case. Omniscience does not nullify the Christian concept of free will. It nullify all other religions that are based on the "if you are good you will go to heaven, if you are bad you go to hell" camp. This is why it is totally logical that good pleople will go to hell and bad to heaven, in the Christian model.

I will explain why later (I don't like long paragraphs or post with too many ideas)
I recommend starting a new thread to outline how the Christian Concept of God permits Freewill.

[KonTiki]

Originally posted by Christian I am well aware of the implications of QM. (on a side note, QM does not categorically nullify determinism. The physic's holy grail can still be found)

As I said, randomness is an even bigger problem for the people who believe in free will. Remember, free will assumes determism is true, not randomness. Randomness nullifies free will. I hope you can see that.
How droll. You presume that we have either determinism or randomness, when in fact we have both operating at different levels. At the level where both come into play we may find something looser than pure determinism without being completely random.

Now, if you are here to actually learn something instead of simply trolling, I would suggest that you look up the concept of Stochastic Resonance for an example of how adding randomness to a system can actually increase its order.

[Christian]

The Idea wrote:
If materialism is true then....

What's the first step? How are you going to get from that assumption to the conclusion that there is no free will?

If materialism is true, the universe is either deterministic or random.

If determinism is true, by definition humans can't choose outcomes. Outcomes are determined. (compatibilism later)

If randomness is true, by definition humans can't choose outcomes. Outcomes are random

Now, compatibilism assumes determinism is true and say, yes determinism is true and humans determine (at least some of) their outcomes.

But, if this is true, it goes against all currect evidence that the universe is probabilistic.

Yah wrote:
Freewill is a word which means "ability to choose at ones own disgression". Being animals which are capable of that process, we do in fact possess freewill.

So we will stick with this definition of free will.

I recommend starting a new thread to outline how the Christian Concept of God permits Freewill.

Ok, I will. Thanks.

It is good you brought up the definition of compatibilism because it shows why compatibilism assumes determinism to be true.

KonTiki wrote:
How droll. You presume that we have either determinism or randomness, when in fact we have both operating at different levels. At the level where both come into play we may find something looser than pure determinism without being completely random.

Putting the adhoms aside. Ok, let's see where you stand?

If I toss a coin, is the outcome deterministic or random?

Now, if you are here to actually learn something instead of simply trolling, I would suggest that you look up the concept of Stochastic Resonance for an example of how adding randomness to a system can actually increase its order.

This is the first time anyone has acussed me of trolling, interesting.

Who ever said randomness cannot increase order?

That is an entirely different issue.

If you want to claim determinism and randomness in physics are not mutually exclusive, you are welcome to do so. (and actually, I would love to here the arguments. From the Christian perspective it only helps the cause or case I make. The third option of the universe being a combination of deterministic or random does not weaken the position that free will is not possible for a MA)

[Yahweh]

Originally posted by Christian

Yah wrote:
Freewill is a word which means "ability to choose at ones own disgression". Being animals which are capable of that process, we do in fact possess freewill.

So we will stick with this definition of free will.

I recommend starting a new thread to outline how the Christian Concept of God permits Freewill.

Ok, I will. Thanks.

It is good you brought up the definition of compatibilism because it shows why compatibilism assumes determinism to be true.
Thank you kindly :)

[The idea]

Originally posted by Christian
If materialism is true, the universe is either deterministic or random.
I don't follow. I don't see how the assumption of materialism is used and I don't see why "deterministic" and "random" are the only two options.

[Christian]

Yah wrote:
Thank you kindly

You' re the man.

The Idea wrote:
I don't follow. I don't see how the assumption of materialism is used and I don't see why "deterministic" and "random" are the only two options.

Ok, materialism holds that matter and only matter exists and nothing else. So, the universe is only compossed of matter (please, when I say matter, I include energy, and all the forces that come with matter e.g. gravity)

Once we accept this, then we arrive at the mechanistic part of materialism. Matter behaves some way.

How does it behave? This is the realm of physics. (I know you know all this, but with my explanation, you will know where I'm coming from)

One way to go is with determinism. In a strict interpretation of causation it holds that every state of affairs is determined by the situation preceding it and constitutes a link in an unalterable chain of events. In physics, the universe is conceived as a self-perpetuating mechanism driven by an endless sequence of cause and effect.

From this perspective, it follows logically that knowing the laws of physics and the speed and position of every particle in the universe, one would be able to predict its entire future.

The other position (QM) is that the universe is indeterminate. QM postulate that there is no way of knowing both the position and momentum of a particle with perfect accuracy (Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle).

Basically, either the universe is determinate or it is not.

For free will to be exist, there must be determination. If not, then free will becomes un-falsifiable. How do you prove you have free will if you can’t assert that you where responsible for the effect. (cause and effect).

For a MA, when something becomes un-falsifiable, then it must be dropped as knowledge, information, valid concept, etc.

If the universe is indeterminate, then, how do you show you the effect was caused by your determination. By definition, it was not.

[The idea]

Originally posted by Christian
One way to go is with determinism. In a strict interpretation of causation it holds that every state of affairs is determined by the situation preceding it [...]
How do you know that, for every state of affairs at a moment in time, there is an immediately preceding state of affairs? Maybe there is no shortest interval of time. Maybe there was a state of affairs 1/2 a second ago, 1/4 of a second ago, 1/8 of a second ago, etc. without limit.

Originally posted by Christian
From this perspective, it follows logically that knowing the laws of physics and the speed and position of every particle in the universe, one would be able to predict its entire future. [...]
How do you know that you can solve the equations that describe the laws? If you can't solve the equations, then how can you find out what the laws predict?

How do you know that the laws of physics can be described using a finite amount of information? For example, maybe there are infrequent and often insignificant exceptions to an oversimplified version of the laws. Maybe to know the real laws we would have to make an infinite number of observations.

Originally posted by Christian
For free will to be exist, there must be determination. If not, then free will becomes un-falsifiable. How do you prove you have free will if you can’t assert that you were responsible for the effect. (cause and effect).
[...]
Saying that you have free will and that you can prove that you have free will are two different things. If you start with merely the assumption that you have free will, then you are not entitled to assume that you can prove that you have free will.

[KonTiki]

If I toss a coin, is the outcome deterministic or random?
Very good. You've cut to the heart of the matter. May I ask what your opinion on this question is? Your argument seems to apply as much to your position as it does to mine.

My response is that it is both (or perhaps neither). It is largely deterministic with some random elements. It is possible to calculate a good approximation of the result, but you would need to know more information than it is possible to obtain to determine the result exactly.

Who ever said randomness cannot increase order?
I am suggesting this as a counterexample to your dichotomy. I assert that random processes organized under certain rules can create emergent properties. Your argument would not apply in this semi-deterministic regime.

[Christian]

The Idea wrote:
How do you know that, for every state of affairs at a moment in time, there is an immediately preceding state of affairs?

Because it is an observable phenomenon. Yesterday, it was saturday, today it is Sunday. I used to be 30, now I'm 37.

Maybe there is no shortest interval of time. Maybe there was a state of affairs 1/2 a second ago, 1/4 of a second ago, 1/8 of a second ago, etc. without limit.

The point is not the interval, the point is that there was a prior state. The interval is irrelevant. What is relevant is that in determinism the former causes the latter.

How do you know that you can solve the equations that describe the laws?

Because we do have Newtonian physics.

If you can't solve the equations, then how can you find out what the laws predict?

Obviously. But, there are many equations that solve for physical phenomena.

How do you know that the laws of physics can be described using a finite amount of information?

A physics course.

For example, maybe there are infrequent and often insignificant exceptions to an oversimplified version of the laws. Maybe to know the real laws we would have to make an infinite number of observations.

Well, QM states that even if you could make infinite number of observation, you still could not get an accurate prediction.

Saying that you have free will and that you can prove that you have free will are two different things.

Of course not. But if you claim you have free will, you must be able to show why (the evidence that leads you to this conclusion)

If you start with merely the assumption that you have free will, then you are not entitled to assume that you can prove that you have free will.

I agree.

[Ratman_tf]

Originally posted by Ruby


I was a decent person who got turned into a legalistic fanatic Christian.....but because I was decent deep down, I could not continue going on that way...it was killing me. I was very depressed. So, I became much less fanatical and legalistic......but it was still to hard on me, so, eventually, I became a liberal Christian. It got to where I could not accept the concept of Hell anymore. It was too cruel beyond words. In the end, I was so decent, I stopped being a Christian altogether!

:D

YOINK!

[Christian]

KonTiki wrote:
Very good. You've cut to the heart of the matter. May I ask what your opinion on this question is? Your argument seems to apply as much to your position as it does to mine.

My take on this is as follows. The universe seems deterministic but all current evidencs points to random. (It is my belief that a unified theory of everything will be eventually found and that QM will find the hidden variables needed to become predictable. Thus far, this is not the case, all points to randomness and most believe this will not change, that that is the nature of the beast)

Having said that, then the outcome of the flip of the coin is always random. (with current evidence)

My response is that it is both (or perhaps neither).

Sorry, it can't be both. (unless you can provide your evidence for the claim. It definitely can't be any other choice. Either you can predict the outcome or you cannot.

It is largely deterministic with some random elements. It is possible to calculate a good approximation of the result, but you would need to know more information than it is possible to obtain to determine the result exactly.


You can't have it both ways. If you say that with enough information, it is possible to predict the outcome, then you are, in essence following the deterministic model (the lack of sufficient information currently is irrelevant, all that it is needed is to assume that you can eventually get it. And here the fundamental difference in determinism and QM)

QM holds that you can NEVER know all the information to accurately predict the outcome. This is a monumental thing in physics. (Einstein could not accept this). Yet, as of today, most learned in the field subscribe to this assumption.

I am suggesting this as a counterexample to your dichotomy. I assert that random processes organized under certain rules can create emergent properties. Your argument would not apply in this semi-deterministic regime.

The problem is that you have show why/how determinism and indeterminism are not mutually exclusive.

[Zero]

Can we get back to the topic, which is why religion sucks so badly?

[Keziah Mason]

Kind of like Abdul's original example - just check out the threads about that American Airlines pilot who asked all Christians to raise their hands and to discuss religion with people sitting next to them.

That is just so horribly wrong.

[Bottle or the Gun]

[i]He's not a bad guy at all, so I will keep going there.
What to do? You see what I mean about what religion does to decent folks? [/B]

Speaking of which....That was in a restaurant, on a plane I' d have been in 'pucker-factor 12'.

Pilot Proselytizes (sfgate.com/article.cgi?file=/news/archive/2004/02/07/state2118EST0136.DTL )

[Blue Monk]

The most dangerous aspect of religion, to me, is the fact that it makes people believe that their position on any given issue is infallible.

There is little hope of resolving any conflict with those who refuse to even consider that they could be wrong.

It doesn’t matter how succinctly you point out that even among believers there is very little universal consensus on the exact interpretation of any aspect of any religion, if they believe God sanctions their position, they are right and you are wrong and no amount of evidence to the contrary will have any effect.

[ceo_esq]

Originally posted by Blue Monk
The most dangerous aspect of religion, to me, is the fact that it makes people believe that their position on any given issue is infallible.As though people needed any encourangement along these lines even without religion.

[Ruby]

Originally posted by Abdul Alhazred


I keep finding it astounding that people with ideological backgrounds other than my own do become sensible.

I will have to discipline myself, and stop being astounded so much.

Back! Back! Slap! Back! Slap! Slap! Slap!

I feel much better now.

Oh my goodness, don't beat yourself up. Well, I guess I'm too late...but don't do it again!:)

[Ruby]

Originally posted by LFTKBS
Nicely put, Ruby.

Thank you!! Goodness, I usually say things that are so moronic. It's nice to know I can say something half way, should I say, decent! :D

[Ruby]

Originally posted by Ratman_tf


YOINK!

Wow!! That's the ultimate compliment!!!

THNX:D

[Checkmite]

Originally posted by Abdul Alhazred
He observed that it was a pity that so decent a man was going to Hell. Actually he said more, but that's the gist.


I would've just said "I know...damn shame, really."

I can think of other answers but they would lead to protracted theological arguments that, while I wouldn't mind them, would be rude since there were probably people waiting behind you to pay.

Some answers others here have thought of seem obnoxious or spiteful. But if he sees one "decent" guy going to Hell, and then another "decent" guy...and then many more "decent" guys all doomed to Hell, he just might begin to question his concept of Divine Justice(TM)...and who knows where that could lead? It's one of the things that helped bring our fellow forumite Sparklecat (http://www.skepticreport.com/mystics/transfiguration.htm) to her senses.

If all you can think of is some smartass answer, I suppose there's nothing stopping you from giving it, and convincing yon believer not to worry, because you perhaps deserve to go there anyway...

By the way, Abdul, you now officially qualify for membership in The Hellbounds Club (http://www.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&threadid=34892). :D

[Christian]

Zero wrote:
Can we get back to the topic, which is why religion sucks so badly?

Ok, if you remember, I got into this thread to explain why it was perfectly logical for good people to go to hell and bad people to go to heaven.

If randomness or determinism is true, it is no ones fault that they be bad or good, this has been determined.

So, how does God decide who goes where? It is not based on what clearly is human responsibility. No, it is based on free will.

As I said, Free will is only possible in a scenario where God is.

How do I exercise my free will if determinism is true?
It is exercised using my thoughts which effects are not constrained by the physical world. If I choose God, I go to heaven. If I choose not to choose God, I don't.

[Checkmite]

Originally posted by Christian

Ok, if you remember, I got into this thread to explain why it was perfectly logical for good people to go to hell and bad people to go to heaven.

If randomness or determinism is true, it is no ones fault that they be bad or good, this has been determined.

Determinism - the notion that if the value of every conceivable variable in your life could be known ahead of time you could predict your own future - holds some water; but like most philosophy has no real-life application, because every variable couldn't possibly be known anyway. You choose (for example) to go to work or not today - whether the choice you made could've been predicted or not doesn't matter, you still have to make the choice. It could be argued that it's not a genuine choice, but just feels like one; however, determinist philosophy predicts that point, so it doesn't dent the theory.

Originally posted by Christian
So, how does God decide who goes where? It is not based on what clearly is human responsibility. No, it is based on free will.

As I said, Free will is only possible in a scenario where God is.

How do I exercise my free will if determinism is true?
It is exercised using my thoughts which effects are not constrained by the physical world. If I choose God, I go to heaven. If I choose not to choose God, I don't.

Is it really that simple of a choice? Your thoughts aren't constrained by the physical world, but they are influenced by it. Supposing every ounce of your personal experience convinces you that there is no God. From what do you justify a belief in God?

[Luke T.]

Originally posted by Bottle or the Gun


Ok. Have you ever been around when a wave of religious fervor occurs in a workplace? I've seen it happen at a few places I've worked over the years. Very disturbing. The worst was when I was in the military. All of a sudden people were holding prayer-meetings before, after work and during breaks. The day to day work and even career paths were compromised because a believer suddenly had to involve and impress the mission with the nonsense. That was when I first became familiar with the concept of being hellbound even if you were a good person. All of a sudden our religious beliefs were unofficially factored into our performance evaluations also. The scary part of it is when you have the weak-willed followers and yes-people who go along with it because they are afraid of what will happen to their jobs if they disagree. In the military, it was resolved when a sudden flood of people complained, requested job transfers and to have new supervisors. In civilian life everyone in HR is afraid of getting sued, so they hold tolerance & harrassment seminars when people complain.

Let me tell you how bad it is where I work.

The company I work for is owned by an evangelistic Christian, and out of 50 or so employees, probably 40 are also very Christian. They come in before work and have little prayer meetings. They talk about Jesus all the time. And they are all so freaking happy all the time. And after 20 years in the military, I have quite a lexicon of four-letter words in my vocabulary, and I am afraid to use it! Why, this is the cleanest spoken office you ever saw!!! And they bring their kids here all the time. Even their dogs! The dogs and kids wander from office to office and everybody is so nice to them. Unbelievable!

But it gets worse. A few months ago, one of the employee’s wife was in an auto accident and will probably have to spend the rest of her life in a wheelchair. You probably think, “Wow! What a cruel God they have!” Not as cruel as our boss, though. He allowed the employee to take the last few months since the accident off so he can be with his wife and help her through the trials and tribulations of rehab. And you know what? He is paying the guy full time wages! For doing nothing! That BASTARD!!!!

And if that isn’t bad enough, some of the people here burn up their hard-earned vacations traveling to Africa, including the boss and his wife. And they do evil things like build bridges and schools and dig wells so the little black babies can have a better life. And they spend their own money doing it, along with contributions from other Christians.

This kind of evil must be stopped.

[Christian]

Joshua Korosi wrote:
Determinism - the notion that if the value of every conceivable variable in your life could be known ahead of time you could predict your own future - holds some water; but like most philosophy has no real-life application, because every variable couldn't possibly be known anyway.

I believe the contrary. I believe that, even though, science is leaning toward randomness, we behave like life is deterministic.

Most of us live under that assumption. We try to predict the future based on a deterministic model.

Let me give some examples.

We say, son, get an education, go to college. We say this because we believe that people who go to college have a better chance of productive life. (the ones who do).

Another example. We try to give our children the best possible environment, because we believe their future depends on not being screwed up in the formative years (we even call them the formative years)

You choose (for example) to go to work or not today - whether the choice you made could've been predicted or not doesn't matter, you still have to make the choice. It could be argued that it's not a genuine choice, but just feels like one; however, determinist philosophy predicts that point, so it doesn't dent the theory.

Yes, and remember that many, many people don't have the choice of going or not going to work.


Is it really that simple of a choice?

Yes.

Your thoughts aren't constrained by the physical world, but they are influenced by it. Supposing every ounce of your personal experience convinces you that there is no God. From what do you justify a belief in God?

No, I would not. The Bible teaches that there will a be a day of judgement, where all of us will be judged.

This is the time where anyone will demonstrate that they never the choice. If that is true, they go to heaven.

Now, if it demostrated (God will have all of the evidence, every thought we had, every action, everything) that you choose not to accept him, then that has a consequence as well.

[Bottle or the Gun]

Originally posted by Luke T.


Let me tell you how bad it is where I work.


Nothing wrong with being good to your employees. But let me ask you. Would you want the same types carrying guns and guarding nuclear weapons? Watching your back when it hits the fan? Before responding to an intrusion alarm on a missile silo, hold a prayer-meeting? Get on a C-5 with them and head to Iraq?

[Checkmite]

Originally posted by Christian
Your thoughts aren't constrained by the physical world, but they are influenced by it. Supposing every ounce of your personal experience convinces you that there is no God. From what do you justify a belief in God?

No, I would not. The Bible teaches that there will a be a day of judgement, where all of us will be judged.

This is the time where anyone will demonstrate that they never the choice. If that is true, they go to heaven.

Now, if it demostrated (God will have all of the evidence, every thought we had, every action, everything) that you choose not to accept him, then that has a consequence as well.

I'm a bit confused, as I do not think you've answered the question (or I'm not parsing your answer).

Allow me to pose the question a different way.

It is often said on this board that the definition of "faith" is "Believe without evidence". I do not agree with that definition, as I consider "belief without evidence" to be assumption. Rather, I define faith as "Belief based on arbitrarily considered evidence". Take the young-earth Creationist for example. He has faith that the Genesis account of creation is the correct one, because he has decided that the Bible as evidence all by itself carries more weight than any number of objective independent studies which indicate the opposite. On the other side, there are a great deal of people who, though unfamiliar with the particulars of things like evolution, can fairly be said to have "faith" that evolution is true because they decide that the scientific account is accurate without truly understanding the concepts behind it.

So faith is ultimately based on some kind of evidence. Now, on what evidence is your belief in God based?

[Christian]

Joshua Korosi wrote:
So faith is ultimately based on some kind of evidence. Now, on what evidence is your belief in God based?

I'm sorry, the first time you asked was clear enough, I was just on a different track and didn't read correctly.

Why do I believe in God? I'll use an analogy.


Suppose for many years I've been a stock investor. Suppose I have studied as well as the above average investor all of the strategies and workings of the that investment world. And I get average results, just like everybody else. I'm content, happy.


Then, one day, I find a book on stock investing that goes against most of what I have learned the be correct investing. It defies the science of stock investment.

But, what the heck, I decide to give it a try. A begin to use the strategies in the book and the result are amazing. My returns are way above average, I get incredible results.

I don't know why this is, I can't explain why. It goes against all I have learned to be correct investment. It just happens this way.

So, I begin to study the principles that govern the book, and as time passes, some of the conventional scientific investment experts corroborate a few of the principle in the book.

I begin to have confidence in the book, first because IT WORKS and second because the scientific community of stock investment is corroborating some principles in the book.

An idea pops into my head. If the book works, it must contain valid true principles, even if I can show how and why.

Hey, but many experts denounce the book, saying it is full of inconcistencies, abberations, and the like. They point out that the conventional rules of investment clearly demonstrate that the book is wrong.

Some material I'm able to refute, some not. Yet, because of the results, little by little, I develop great confidence that eventually the book will prevail as the best investment book ever.


Does this answer your question?


I believe in God because I find him real in my life. Yes, I might be deluding myself. If that is the case, I don't know it yet.

But, so far, from my studies, I am not convince the evidence presented is sufficient enough for me to conclude I'm deluding myself.

On the contrary, as time passes, I find the my position is much more consistent than the alternatives.

If you have read this thread, you will see that Free Will is one of such positions.

[Checkmite]

Well that answer is a bit more elaborate than I was hoping for, probably because of the (again) ambiguity of my question. And I think I do understand your answer this time; however, I was looking for something more direct.

I think it's fair to deduce that while your belief in God is justified by many factors in your life, the source of the particulars of your belief is the Bible. That's fine.

However, there is a difference between that part of the Bible which governs values and that part which deals with prophecy and the afterlife, and other parts as well. Thus I think a more proper analogy would be a book that is a compilation of several essays regarding different aspects of investing, written by different authors. Is this a fair analogy?

If so, then we have a dilemma. While you may consider the essays dealing with one particular aspect (like life and values) to be correct, can you assume that other essays from different authors (like those dealing with the afterlife or the nature of God) are correct because they were placed in the same book? You cannot judge their accuracy on their own merits, since you cannot test their predictions (without going to heaven). So how do you decide whether they are also correct?

Mind you, a few questionable or sketchy essays here or there do not in any way invalidate the other essays in the book.

[Luke T.]

Originally posted by Bottle or the Gun


Nothing wrong with being good to your employees. But let me ask you. Would you want the same types carrying guns and guarding nuclear weapons? Watching your back when it hits the fan? Before responding to an intrusion alarm on a missile silo, hold a prayer-meeting? Get on a C-5 with them and head to Iraq?

Why not? They already are, and always have been.

If the number of people who believe in God in America is somewhere in the high 90th percentile, who do you think has been doing these things all along?

[Gestahl]

Originally posted by Christian
Joshua Korosi wrote:
Determinism - the notion that if the value of every conceivable variable in your life could be known ahead of time you could predict your own future - holds some water; but like most philosophy has no real-life application, because every variable couldn't possibly be known anyway.

I believe the contrary. I believe that, even though, science is leaning toward randomness, we behave like life is deterministic.

Most of us live under that assumption. We try to predict the future based on a deterministic model.


Um... that is a very good assumption to make. If I touch the iron when the light is on, I feel pain, and it happens everytime... hmm... If you are to have free will, it does you no good if you cannot predict the effects of your action.


Let me give some examples.

We say, son, get an education, go to college. We say this because we believe that people who go to college have a better chance of productive life. (the ones who do).

Another example. We try to give our children the best possible environment, because we believe their future depends on not being screwed up in the formative years (we even call them the formative years).


Study after study shows that there is an extremely high *correlation* between the cause/effect relationship you describe. The truth is the situation is more complex.

We act like determinism is true because it is a useful model. If I kick you in the nuts, I know you will probably do something not nice. So I rule that out. People's environments and knowledge limit the choices they can make.

I consider free will to be an illusion, because I can predict with high accuracy what I will do tommorow. So can people who spends a lot of time with me. Free will sounds like a great ideal, but the reality is much more mundane.

[Abdul Alhazred]

I've started many threads here, but this is my first with a hundred followups. Yay, me! :p

[Abdul Alhazred]

Originally posted by Luke T.
If the number of people who believe in God in America is somewhere in the high 90th percentile, who do you think has been doing these things all along?

As has been pointed out before in these forums, that's not much of a statistic. The 90% or so who say they believe in God don't all believe in the same thing.

This is even true of people who think they are fervent members of the same religion.

And that doesn't even count weak agnostics who think it's nice to be agreeable.

A lot has to do with the social climate in the USA, rather than peoples' actual supernatural beliefs. In my estimation people here tend to be vaguely superstitious rather than having systematically thought out theologies. What this says about the USA is a different issue than religion.

Bringing it back to my story about my restaurateur acquaintance who I mentioned in the first post.

My point is that while any ideology religious or non-religious can create muderous fanatics, what is hideous about religion is what it does to the thinking of decent people who believe.

There aren't any decent murderous fanatics, and they're not all religious.

[Zero]

What I found interesting about America's churchgoing habits is that most Americans seem to overstate their religious beliefs. For instance if you ask how often people go to church, they give one number, to sound pious. If you ask them what they are doing on Sundays in a non-religious context, they'll tell you that they sleep in, stay at home and watch TV. I'm hunting down the study as we speak.:D

[Beleth]

Originally posted by Christian
If randomness or determinism is true, it is no ones fault that they be bad or good, this has been determined.

So, how does God decide who goes where? It is not based on what clearly is human responsibility. No, it is based on free will.

As I said, Free will is only possible in a scenario where God is.False dichotomy. Perhaps there is a third alternative, where neither God nor determinism is true, and we still have free will.

And anyway, an omnipotent, omniscient God precludes free will just as absolutely as determinism does. If God knows everything and can change anything, it is purely through His intervention (or lack thereof) that we do anything. We therefore have no free will.

[Christian]

Joshua wrote:
However, there is a difference between that part of the Bible which governs values and that part which deals with prophecy and the afterlife, and other parts as well. Thus I think a more proper analogy would be a book that is a compilation of several essays regarding different aspects of investing, written by different authors. Is this a fair analogy?

I believe there is only one author.

The thing is, I can't escape believing something that goes against all scientific evidence.

The Christian doctrine asks to be believe in something supernatural to go to heaven. This is the central thing.

Gestahl wrote:
Study after study shows that there is an extremely high *correlation* between the cause/effect relationship you describe. The truth is the situation is more complex.

We act like determinism is true because it is a useful model. If I kick you in the nuts, I know you will probably do something not nice. So I rule that out. People's environments and knowledge limit the choices they can make.

I consider free will to be an illusion, because I can predict with high accuracy what I will do tommorow. So can people who spends a lot of time with me. Free will sounds like a great ideal, but the reality is much more mundane.

Listen, I agree with what you say. A MA must come to the conclusion he/she has no free will. A Christian does not.

False dichotomy. Perhaps there is a third alternative, where neither God nor determinism is true, and we still have free will.

No, no. If you are a MA, there is no third alternative.

And anyway, an omnipotent, omniscient God precludes free will just as absolutely as determinism does.

No it does not. Omnipotence does not mean that God can do everything. (the concept has to be logically possible, e.g. omnipotence does not mean God can be and not be at the same time or create a rock He cannot carry). Same with omnicience, it does not mean God can know everything. For example, he cannot know the answer to a division by zero.

Christians believe our free will is not in the physical world, it is our thoughts that are free. The quality of thoughts being infinite and unbound does not allow God to know if we will choose Him or not. We are free because our thoughts are infinite.

[Beleth]

Originally posted by Christian
Beleth said:
False dichotomy. Perhaps there is a third alternative, where neither God nor determinism is true, and we still have free will.

No, no. If you are a MA, there is no third alternative.But that's not your argument. You said "Free will is only possible in a scenario where God is", and that is the statement which I am pointing out is a false dichotomy. You can have free will in a scenario with no God.

And anyway, an omnipotent, omniscient God precludes free will just as absolutely as determinism does.

No it does not. Omnipotence does not mean that God can do everything. (the concept has to be logically possible, e.g. omnipotence does not mean God can be and not be at the same time or create a rock He cannot carry). Same with omnicience, it does not mean God can know everything. For example, he cannot know the answer to a division by zero.You are preaching to the choir here. I know that there's a difference between "can do every possible thing" and "can do everything, even impossible things." Been arguing that for a year here now myself. But that distinction is not made in the Christian view of things.

Christians believe our free will is not in the physical world, it is our thoughts that are free. The quality of thoughts being infinite and unbound does not allow God to know if we will choose Him or not. We are free because our thoughts are infinite. The only way God could not know whether we will chose Him or not is if He does not know the future. Are you saying that knowing the future is an impossible thing, even for God?

[Beleth]

Originally posted by Christian
Then, one day, I find a book on stock investing that goes against most of what I have learned the be correct investing. It defies the science of stock investment.

I begin to have confidence in the book, first because IT WORKS and second because the scientific community of stock investment is corroborating some principles in the book.Continuing the analogy:

What do you conclude when you look at the other people who read and follow this unorthodox investment book, and see that many of them aren't benefitting as much from it as you are, and that in fact, on average, they are no better off than those investors who follow more traditional schools of investing?

What do you conclude when your unorthodox book says "This is the only way to invest; if you follow other plans, you will unquestionably fail" and then you see other people, following other investment strategies, who are doing just as well if not better at investing than you are?


The Bible contains a great philosophy of how to act in civilized society. Treat others as you would like to be treated; turn the other cheek; all that. Wonderful stuff. But then it gets this weird "Son of God" groove going to it that ends up overshadowing the great behavior paradigm that it presents.

[Beleth]

The most hideous thing 'bout religion
Is that religion's a hideous thing!
Its premise is made out of rubber!
Its conclusions are made out of strings!

It's bouncy, flouncy, flouncy, bouncy,
Dumb, dumb, dumb, dumb, dumb!
But the most hideous thing 'bout religion
Is there's not only one!

Yes There's...

not only one!





(My apologies. I re-read the subject line of this thread and suddenly this song got stuck in my head.)

[Checkmite]

Originally posted by Christian

I believe there is only one author.


I'm not so sure, because the Bible itself says different. For example, the first five books claim Moses as their author; a couple of books are supposed to have been written by Solomon, the Gospels allegedly have four different authors, and the Revelation was supposed to have been written by St. John. Biblical scholars identify several different writing styles. Are you aware of the particulars surrounding the compilation of the Bible?

[kevinsbikes]

Originally posted by Joshua Korosi


I'm not so sure, because the Bible itself says different. For example, the first five books claim Moses as their author; a couple of books are supposed to have been written by Solomon, the Gospels allegedly have four different authors, and the Revelation was supposed to have been written by St. John. Biblical scholars identify several different writing styles. Are you aware of the particulars surrounding the compilation of the Bible?

I don't think he was being literal, I believe that he was meaning that the authors were driven by a higher power (God), similar to the Muppets being operated by Jim Hensen... creator and destiny maker of the Muppets. :D

[Bottle or the Gun]

Originally posted by kevinsbikes


I don't think he was being literal, I believe that he was meaning that the authors were driven by a higher power (God), similar to the Muppets being operated by Jim Hensen... creator and destiny maker of the Muppets. :D

I worship Gonzo the Great. He always kills himself in explosions and comes back, and he doesn't need to wait three days either.

[sorgoth]

Originally posted by Abdul Alhazred


It would more than "suck", it would mean that the universe is in the hands of a cosmic sociopath.



I'm putting this in my sig. This line is brilliant.

[Abdul Alhazred]

Originally posted by sorgoth

I'm putting this in my sig. This line is brilliant.
<hr>
It would more than "suck", it would mean that the universe is in the hands of a cosmic sociopath. --Abdul Alhazred

Another milestone passed. 1000 posts, a 100 followup thread, and now I've made into someone's sig and someone I've admired at that. ;)

[kevinsbikes]

Originally posted by Bottle or the Gun


I worship Gonzo the Great. He always kills himself in explosions and comes back, and he doesn't need to wait three days either.

You mean to tell me that the Great Gonzo is superior to Miss Piggy... lest ye forget that a mere karate chop from the great pork chop can overpower the simple blue skinned freak that you refer to as Gonzo the Great. Ah Ha! :p ...Alexander, Catherine, Peter, and other lesser greats are long gone, yet there are always pigs around.

[kuroyume0161]

Originally posted by kevinsbikes


I don't think he was being literal, I believe that he was meaning that the authors were driven by a higher power (God), similar to the Muppets being operated by Jim Hensen... creator and destiny maker of the Muppets. :D

Yes, and Woooo Boy! did they have their ears filled with wax! 'Cause since my last readin' of the Bible, them there contradictions and missed-conceptions hasn't dis'peared yet. Yeeeep.

To bring back the "stock market book" analogy, it's more like a book for stock investing where in one section it tells you to sell your stocks when they're low and another when they're high and another just tells you to invest everything wholesale and never sell and ... well, you get the point.

Kuroyume

[Hamhawk714]

Originally posted by Abdul Alhazred


I don't think that would bother him at all. He's no bigot, just a believer.

That's my original point. What's hideous about religion isn't the fanatics, bigots, crazies and what have you. Those types will exist regardless of religion.

It's what religious belief does to ordinary decent people.


Why don't you tell him to check out the JREF?Certainly there are enough good arguements around here that pretty much make the Bible a work of fiction.

[Christian]

Beleth wrote:
But that's not your argument. You said "Free will is only possible in a scenario where God is", and that is the statement which I am pointing out is a false dichotomy. You can have free will in a scenario with no God.

I think you are correct to point this out. You can have a scenario where there is free will without a God, only and only if, there is an afterlife where the current laws of physics don't apply.

But, I was thinking from the MA perspective. They believe there is nothing but this material universe. In that case, there is no free will.

You are preaching to the choir here. I know that there's a difference between "can do every possible thing" and "can do everything, even impossible things." Been arguing that for a year here now myself. But that distinction is not made in the Christian view of things.

Ok, I make that distinction in the Christian view of things. ;)

The only way God could not know whether we will chose Him or not is if He does not know the future. Are you saying that knowing the future is an impossible thing, even for God?

Ok, let's clarify here (and you are correct, I misspoke). That God knows the future (what we chose) does not mean He directed that choice. The reason is that the choice we make has no impact on this universe. It is free and unbound from this universe.

What do you conclude when you look at the other people who read and follow this unorthodox investment book, and see that many of them aren't benefitting as much from it as you are, and that in fact, on average, they are no better off than those investors who follow more traditional schools of investing?

I would conclude they are not using the book correctlyl.

What do you conclude when your unorthodox book says "This is the only way to invest; if you follow other plans, you will unquestionably fail" and then you see other people, following other investment strategies, who are doing just as well if not better at investing than you are?

I would conclude that indeed (even thought they don't admit it) they are using the same principles in the book.

The Bible contains a great philosophy of how to act in civilized society. Treat others as you would like to be treated; turn the other cheek; all that. Wonderful stuff. But then it gets this weird "Son of God" groove going to it that ends up overshadowing the great behavior paradigm that it presents.

The thing is that that "detail" makes all worthwhile.

Joshua wrote:
The Bible contains a great philosophy of how to act in civilized society. Treat others as you would like to be treated; turn the other cheek; all that. Wonderful stuff. But then it gets this weird "Son of God" groove going to it that ends up overshadowing the great behavior paradigm that it presents.

kevinsbikes wrote:
I don't think he was being literal, I believe that he was meaning that the authors were driven by a higher power (God), similar to the Muppets being operated by Jim Hensen... creator and destiny maker of the Muppets.

Well, I wouldn't have put it that way. :D :D

[Checkmite]

Originally posted by Christian

Joshua wrote:
The Bible contains a great philosophy of how to act in civilized society. Treat others as you would like to be treated; turn the other cheek; all that. Wonderful stuff. But then it gets this weird "Son of God" groove going to it that ends up overshadowing the great behavior paradigm that it presents.


Hey wait...I didn't write that! :D

[kuroyume0161]

Originally posted by Christian
Beleth wrote:
[b]But that's not your argument. You said "Free will is only possible in a scenario where God is", and that is the statement which I am pointing out is a false dichotomy. You can have free will in a scenario with no God.

I think you are correct to point this out. You can have a scenario where there is free will without a God, only and only if, there is an afterlife where the current laws of physics don't apply.

But, I was thinking from the MA perspective. They believe there is nothing but this material universe. In that case, there is no free will.

Which part of MA precludes free will? Are you still under the false impression that Newtonian determinism is the prevalent understanding of universal processes held by science? What about Chaos THEORY, which basically destroys any notion of determinism, importantly, at the macroscopic level, not just sub-atomic like Quantum Theory? Not even mentioning Relativity Theory for causation.

If "electro-mechanical" systems are to some degree indeterminate, then this directly applies to the systems of cognition and sentience, which are governed by electro-mechanical systems themselves (brain, neurons, electro-chemical impulses, etc.).

Therefore, yes, there is a scenario where free will can exist and God not need enter the equation.

Still, even this indeterminancy cannot end the question of free will. We may believe that we have free will and still be in an Einsteinian time cone, i.e.: time as a dimension of the universe may really exist and the universe that we observe at any point in time is just a slice of the path in which time is travelling, per se. This would mean that to some external viewer of the universe, hypothetically speaking mind you, everything has already happened, all events in the universe have been predetermined. As insiders, we can't see it. My view, by the way, is that this is not the case, but I could be wrong (at least I can admit that). Note also that under this scenario, an external viewer (can you guess who that might be?) could not impart free will and still have this state exist. In other words, either the external and internal viewers are unaware of the future (free will is real) , the external viewer is aware of all time (free will is just an illusion to internal viewers), or both are aware (no free will whatsoever).

Kuroyume

[Luke T.]

Originally posted by Abdul Alhazred

My point is that while any ideology religious or non-religious can create muderous fanatics, what is hideous about religion is what it does to the thinking of decent people who believe.


My point was to Bottle or the Gun who implied it was a bad idea to have religious people manning our nuclear warhead silos. They are and have been for some time. And guess what? The world didn't end! They didn't send everybody to hell on a whim!

Shocking, isn't it?

[Christian]

Joshua wrote:
Hey wait...I didn't write that!

I'm so sorry, my apologies.


Correction on quote.

Beleth wrote:
The Bible contains a great philosophy of how to act in civilized society. Treat others as you would like to be treated; turn the other cheek; all that. Wonderful stuff. But then it gets this weird "Son of God" groove going to it that ends up overshadowing the great behavior paradigm that it presents.



kuroyume0161
Which part of MA precludes free will? Are you still under the false impression that Newtonian determinism is the prevalent understanding of universal processes held by science? What about Chaos THEORY, which basically destroys any notion of determinism, importantly, at the macroscopic level, not just sub-atomic like Quantum Theory? Not even mentioning Relativity Theory for causation.

Sometimes the problem with coming in late to a long thread is thar there are so many posts to read.

I have already covered this.

I have stated that MAs have only two choices either the universe is deterministic or it random (QM). In both cases, free will is nulified.

The only attempt to salvage free will is through the concept of compatibilism and it pressuposes determinism true. But, determinism destroys free will.


Why is free will nullified in QM? Because for free will to exists, causality must be deterministic. How else can you show you have free will?

[kuroyume0161]

Originally posted by Christian
Sometimes the problem with coming in late to a long thread is thar there are so many posts to read.

I have already covered this.

I have stated that MAs have only two choices either the universe is deterministic or it random (QM). In both cases, free will is nulified.

The only attempt to salvage free will is through the concept of compatibilism and it pressuposes determinism true. But, determinism destroys free will.


Why is free will nullified in QM? Because for free will to exists, causality must be deterministic. How else can you show you have free will?

I've read enough and still don't agree with you whatsoever. ;) What has QM to do with macroscopic causality? What happens at QM levels has no direct effect on what happens on larger scales, and none concerning causality. When you find evidence for cats moving backwards in time relative to our temporal progression or things popping in and out of existence above the atomic level, let me know.

Despite the connotation often associated with Chaos Theory that events are "random", this is a false analogy. Chaos actually resides between ordered determinism and total randomness. A system can be wholly deterministic, yet vary in chaotic ways (e.g.: planetary orbits are highly deterministic and can be predicted far into the past and future, but these same predictable orbits wobble and vary chaotically over long time periods). The universe is deterministic, random, and chaotic at many levels. This does not disallow free will or pure temporal determinism. So, basing your decision that some extrauniversal sentient being must exist on whether or not free will exists is unsupported. Ever since pure Newtonian determinism was shown to be nonexistent, there has been no evidence either way on the issue of free will.

On the other hand, an omniscient, omnipotent, omnipresent God externally viewing the universe cannot, by the definitions given for these words, give free will. It either knows the events that we take as future or does not have those qualities prescribed to it. If God is the universe and free will exists, then it is subject to the same rules: it cannot know the future at all.

So, sub-atomic particles have no free will. I'm glad we've answered that one.

Kuroyume

[Christian]

kuroyume0161 wrote:
I've read enough and still don't agree with you whatsoever.

Ok, and we are not even in agreement with the terms or conception either.

From the definitions, deterministic and random are mutually exclusive. From your response you obviously don't thing so.

So, let's get the definitions straight.

Posted by Joshua Korosi
Determinism - the notion that if the value of every conceivable variable in your life could be known ahead of time you could predict your own future

Posted by me:
...it holds that every state of affairs is determined by the situation preceding it and constitutes a link in an unalterable chain of events. In physics, the universe is conceived as a self-perpetuating mechanism driven by an endless sequence of cause and effect.

From this perspective, it follows logically that knowing the laws of physics and the speed and position of every particle in the universe, one would be able to predict its entire future.[/b]

[quote]from Dictionary.com
The philosophical doctrine that every state of affairs, including every human event, act, and decision is the inevitable consequence of antecedent states of affairs.

from Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy:
Determinism: The world is governed by (or is under the sway of) determinism if and only if, given a specified way things are at a time t, the way things go thereafter is fixed as a matter of natural law

Now, here is where the confusion arises. Probabilistic theories (like Chaos theory which tries to predict future events with available information [make the distinction between systems thatr seem random and those that are purely random]) do not preclude determinism. The main premise of determinism is that if all information was available we could predict with 100% certain the future outcome of any prior event

QM main difference with all other theories (including relativity) is that is is not a deterministic theory (it is purely probalilistic). The premise of QM is that there is no way to know ever all the information to predict with 100% a future outcome of any prior event

When you find evidence for cats moving backwards in time relative to our temporal progression or things popping in and out of existence above the atomic level, let me know.

This is like saying, when I find evidence of humans flying, let you know. You are missing the point.

What happens at the macrolevel obeys the rules not of Newtonian physics but QM, even thought we perceive differently.

On the other hand, an omniscient, omnipotent, omnipresent God externally viewing the universe cannot, by the definitions given for these words, give free will.

I don't see why not? Please give your definitions of omniscient, and omnipotence.

[kuroyume0161]

Originally posted by Christian
Ok, and we are not even in agreement with the terms or conception either.

From the definitions, deterministic and random are mutually exclusive. From your response you obviously don't thing so.

So, let's get the definitions straight.

quote: Posted by Joshua Korosi
Determinism - the notion that if the value of every conceivable variable in your life could be known ahead of time you could predict your own future


Yes, a notion, not a fact. As a matter of fact, it is a fact that even if you could know the values to some high degree, you still couldn't predict the future. Why? Chaos Theory rears its menacing head. As the "mantra" goes: sensitive dependence on initial conditions (=values). Unless you can get all pertinent values extended to an infinite number of decimal places (impossible), your predictions will always vary from what actually occurs to some degree (wildly or mildly). This is why weather prediction, with all of the new-fangled high-powered doppler radars and global weather satellites, still can't predict the weather with any certainty, and with virtually none after five days. This is not a limitation of technology and scientific understanding, but of using discreet values of complex systems to make predictions.

Now, here is where the confusion arises. Probabilistic theories (like Chaos theory which tries to predict future events with available information [make the distinction between systems thatr seem random and those that are purely random]) do not preclude determinism. The main premise of determinism is that if all information was available we could predict with 100% certain the future outcome of any prior event

Chaos Theory makes no predictions (as in a scientific experiment). Its basic tenet is that you can't make predictions under certain circumstances, or you can only make probabilistic predictions. Certainty decreases with time using the same initial values and replication is difficult to achieve with them.

And, yes, I agree, that is what determinism is. Universal determinism doesn't exist (ala Newtonian determinism). But there is still a question raised by Relativity theory, which treats time as a real dimension of the universe. There is no evidence either way (and it will be difficult to come by), but it does leave room for either a universe whose events happen (the universal time-line is constantly being built like driving down a road which is being finished just as you arrive) or where those events are (this is temporal determinism - just as all of space exists, all of time exists as well). This is different than Newtonian determinism, which implies that given enough information, future states could be calculated. Temporal determinism means that even though we cannot make any predictions on future states with any certainty we may still be traveling down a river of time with every future event ready and waiting.

QM main difference with all other theories (including relativity) is that is is not a deterministic theory (it is purely probalilistic). The premise of QM is that there is no way to know ever all the information to predict with 100% a future outcome of any prior event

At quantum levels!!! QM only applies to sub-atomic particles. Not atoms, not molecules, not people, mountains, planets, stars, or galactic clusters. Schroedinger's Cat is a metaphor, not a real possibility.

This is like saying, when I find evidence of humans flying, let you know. You are missing the point.

What happens at the macrolevel obeys the rules not of Newtonian physics but QM, even thought we perceive differently.

No, it does not. Above the sub-atomic particle level, energy and matter obey Relativity, Thermodynamics, EM Theory, Law of Gravity, and so forth.

On the other hand, an omniscient, omnipotent, omnipresent God externally viewing the universe cannot, by the definitions given for these words, give free will.

I don't see why not? Please give your definitions of omniscient, and omnipotence.

omni-
all : universal : universally : without restriction

omniscient - (lit. all knowing)
1 : having infinite awareness, understanding, and insight : knowing all things
2 : possessed of universal or complete knowledge

omnipresent -
present in all places at all times : UBIQUITOUS

Note that here we have to address the term, "all places at all times". Hmmmm. The most limiting way to define this and remain a valid definition is to say that this would be something that is everywhere in the universe at all times of the universe. If you limit God to only being in the present and past (so as not to have knowledge of the future - which contradicts 'omniscient', by the way), then it cannot be omnipresent (or omniscient for that matter).

Omnipotent doesn't really come into play. I just filled in the standard "Please give the noted qualities of said God" form.

A God that doesn't know the future isn't much of a God...

Kuroyume

[Christian]

Yes, a notion, not a fact. As a matter of fact, it is a fact that even if you could know the values to some high degree, you still couldn't predict the future. Why? Chaos Theory rears its menacing head.

Listen, I understand what you are saying. We are basically repeating ourselves. I said, either the universe is deterministic or it is not. You are arguing it is not deterministic (you say universally deterministic).

This is not a limitation of technology and scientific understanding, but of using discreet values of complex systems to make predictions.

This is QM stuff.

Its basic tenet is that you can't make predictions under certain circumstances, or you can only make probabilistic predictions.

So is this.

At quantum levels!!! QM only applies to sub-atomic particles. Not atoms, not molecules, not people, mountains, planets, stars, or galactic clusters. Schroedinger's Cat is a metaphor, not a real possibility.

You are right and wrong. Classical physics is a flawed theory because of QM. The reason why we still use it is because it is useful. QM is too complicated at the macro level. It is possible to bounce a ball a billions times and maybe on one of them it will go through the wall.

omni-
all : universal : universally : without restriction

omniscient - (lit. all knowing)
1 : having infinite awareness, understanding, and insight : knowing all things
2 : possessed of universal or complete knowledge

So, can an omnicient being know the answer to the division by 0?

omnipresent -
present in all places at all times : UBIQUITOUS

Note that here we have to address the term, "all places at all times". Hmmmm. The most limiting way to define this and remain a valid definition is to say that this would be something that is everywhere in the universe at all times of the universe. If you limit God to only being in the present and past (so as not to have knowledge of the future - which contradicts 'omniscient', by the way), then it cannot be omnipresent (or omniscient for that matter).

If he can be in all places, can he be in a non-existent place?

But, how does this preclude free will?

Determinism, semi-determinism-probalistic determinism-semirandomness, full randomness. (and how ever else you want to spice it and dice it, preclude free will)

[Beleth]

Originally posted by Christian
Beleth wrote:
The only way God could not know whether we will chose Him or not is if He does not know the future. Are you saying that knowing the future is an impossible thing, even for God?

Ok, let's clarify here (and you are correct, I misspoke). That God knows the future (what we chose) does not mean He directed that choice. The reason is that the choice we make has no impact on this universe. It is free and unbound from this universe.One of the things I have realized over my time in this forum is that the closer one approaches omnipotence, the thinner the line between "can not do something" and "will not do something" becomes. There is no difference between a near-omnipotent being not wanting to do something, and not being able to do something.

Let me put it another way. Is the statement "God can direct choices" an absurd statement along the lines of "God can do things He cannot do"? I think it is not. And if it is not, and it is false, then it is a valid limitation on God's omnipotence. I can imagine a God who can direct choices, and in a side-by-side comparison between a God who can and a God, like one you are espousing, who can't, the one who can will reasonably be judged to be "more omnipotent" than the one who can't.

A god who knows the future and does nothing to change it is not an omnipotent god. A god who does not know the future is not an omniscient god. I do not know which one the Creator is, but I know that He can not be both omnipotent and omniscient while any of His creations have free will.

What do you conclude when you look at the other people who read and follow this unorthodox investment book, and see that many of them aren't benefitting as much from it as you are, and that in fact, on average, they are no better off than those investors who follow more traditional schools of investing?

I would conclude they are not using the book correctlyl.This is a conclusion that can only be reached by begging the question.

What do you conclude when your unorthodox book says "This is the only way to invest; if you follow other plans, you will unquestionably fail" and then you see other people, following other investment strategies, who are doing just as well if not better at investing than you are?

I would conclude that indeed (even thought they don't admit it) they are using the same principles in the book.But this, according to your book, is guaranteed failure. According to the book, you can't just use the principles. You have to use the plan outlined in the book. And the other investors are not, and they are succeeding.

The thing is that that "detail" makes all worthwhile.Why? Why can't the philosophy stand on its own? Why is "Treat others the way you want to be treated yourself" any less of a complete philosophy than "Treat others the way you want to be treated yourself, and the guy who tells you this is the Son of God"?

[kuroyume0161]

Originally posted by Christian
Listen, I understand what you are saying. We are basically repeating ourselves. I said, either the universe is deterministic or it is not. You are arguing it is not deterministic (you say universally deterministic).

Well, I'm arguing that it's not deterministic in a Newtonian sense. It could be temporally deterministic, but the only way to verify that would be to create a "time machine". There is always the "multiverse" hypothesis which may cause problems even for conclusions based on that.

You are right and wrong. Classical physics is a flawed theory because of QM. The reason why we still use it is because it is useful. QM is too complicated at the macro level. It is possible to bounce a ball a billions times and maybe on one of them it will go through the wall.

I think this is a matter of interpretation of how QM "scales up" to cause the effects that we observe at the macroscopic level. In mine, QM-ical processes manifest themselves in ways that read as "classical". The probability of the ball going through the wall are much greater than 10^9:1, so great that it would most likely never happen even in the lifetime of the entire universe, even if done continuously throughout.

So, can an omnicient being know the answer to the division by 0?

Certainly! I know the answer: undefined. Now you're talking about the difference between knowing an impossible thing and the future, which are not comparable things. Relativity does not preclude that the future can be known (as in travelled to). Can an omniscient, omnipresent, omnipotent being give free will, not know the future of its own creation and still be designated as such? That's a question of semantics which seems to always lead to limiting the scope of "omni-whatever" to fit the bill.

If he can be in all places, can he be in a non-existent place?

Nope and that's my point. Unless one can show that there is a 'place' beyond the known universe, there is no point in discussing a deity that exists there.

If said deity is therefore limited to existence within the universe and cannot see the future, then it would need to be reclassified; maybe super-alien. It would not, however, be God as defined by Judeo-Christian-Islam.

Kuroyume

[Bottle or the Gun]

THE ASSOCIATED PRESS

February 13, 2004

Fort Lewis, Wash. - A National Guardsman was arrested yesterday and accused of trying to provide information to the al-Qaida terrorist network, the Army said.

Story Here (http://www.newsday.com/news/nationworld/nation/ny-usspy133668817feb13,0,3213687.story?coll=ny-nationalnews-headlines)

Here's another hideous thing about religion. Another soldier, sworn to duty, betrays his oath and allows his IQ to drop because he is a muslim? What is it about religion that over-rides right and wrong? I worry that the US is heading to outlaw some religions, if they have not tried already. When I joined the service, I claimed 'Atheist' but there was no catagory for that, so I had to choose 'Agnostic', as if I'd come to my senses and change my mind later. I was also counselled that I really should choose a religion. I guess if they think you don't have faith in a god, you are not trustworthy or something.

I don't understand why there is a chaplin/religious-corp in the armed services anyway, except as another aspect of control of the stupid.

But outlawing religion in the services won't do any good anyway. If there is no record of faith, then the military loses another bit of information on who to watch and the spies will just claim another faith anyway.

[Atlas]

Originally posted by Bottle or the Gun
When I joined the service, I claimed 'Atheist' but there was no catagory for that, so I had to choose 'Agnostic', as if I'd come to my senses and change my mind later. I was also counselled that I really should choose a religion. I guess if they think you don't have faith in a god, you are not trustworthy or something.

Here Son,
Take this dart and throw it at the board. Don't feel bad. We'll find you a religion. You'll be allright soon.
---

I suppose part of it is everybody knows, "There are no atheists in foxholes.' When your parts are blown to kingdom come it puts the military in a bind. What should they do with the parts?

Lets see, BottleortheGun - sounds Irish. Flip a coin, heads he'll be Catholic. Heads it is. Wake up Father Jokey.

[Bottle or the Gun]

Do you know why a soldier is issued two dogtags? One goes around the kneck and the other in your boot laces, in case you get blown to peices, the recovery squad in the field can make an attempt to sort the parts and put them together. And to make sure it doesn't fall off during shipping, one is placed upright bewteen the teeth and the jaws forced shut. It's amusing to see military movies with soldiers wearing 2 dogtags around their necks.

[Zero]

Originally posted by Bottle or the Gun
Do you know why a soldier is issued two dogtags? One goes around the kneck and the other in your boot laces, in case you get blown to peices, the recovery squad in the field can make an attempt to sort the parts and put them together. And to make sure it doesn't fall off during shipping, one is placed upright bewteen the teeth and the jaws forced shut. It's amusing to see military movies with soldiers wearing 2 dogtags around their necks. Maybe they have three of them?;) Or maybe four, because you would want to leave one in each pair of boots, but also have two around your neck, for when you are wearing your service uniform, or doing PT.