Dustin Kesselberg's Beliefs - His Very Own Thread [Archive]

SezMe

10th June 2007, 10:55 PM

mijopaalmc and others - please post elsewhere.

This thread is for Dustin. I want him posting in a mode that maximizes the number of assertions he makes and minimizes the number of questions that he asks.
Up yours, Complexity. If Dustin posts some horsepockey, I'm going to challenge him. I don't care if that doesn't comport with your intentions for this thread or not.

Plus, theoretically, after he maximizes his assertions, when are we allowed to weigh in with our responses? Only in another thread? Then why the hell does this thread exist? Your whole premise in the OP of this thread sucks.

Dustin Kesselberg

10th June 2007, 11:10 PM

Complexity is simply angry the dictionary doesn't agree with him on his narrow and simplistic definitions of words such as "Proof" or "Evidence". He can't admit that words have different meanings in different contexts and that the word "Proof" doesn't always have to be in the context of logic or mathematics but simply can be synonymous with "evidence" in many cases and vise versa.

PixyMisa

11th June 2007, 02:21 AM

I believe in the Holy bible.
Do you mean that you believe the statements therein, or do you just believe that there's a book of that name?

PixyMisa

11th June 2007, 02:22 AM

Piscivore

11th June 2007, 02:31 AM

Dustin, since your religious epiphany, do you still hold an admiration for at least some of the ideas of National Socialism, and do you still believe in "might makes right", as you seemed to at one time?

Do you still feel that an essential goal of one's life is to maximise one's physical strength?

Dustin Kesselberg

11th June 2007, 02:41 AM

I've never admired national socialism.

I don't believe might makes right.

I believe exercise is important for anyone.

But this is a thread about my religious beliefs, Nothing else.

Dustin Kesselberg

11th June 2007, 02:52 AM

Do you mean that you believe the statements therein, or do you just believe that there's a book of that name?

I believe the Bible is inspired by the word of God, Yahweh, God of Abraham and Moses. I don't believe it's literal or to be taken literally, simply metaphorically and I believe most instances of errors or contradictions arise from mistranslations into English.

Dustin Kesselberg

11th June 2007, 02:54 AM

No, he's irritated because you change from specific to general definitions at a whim, so no-one can ever be sure what you are talking about.

This is incorrect. I'm very clear on the definitions of words I use, I quote the dictionary and explain my context throughly. Given the context of the previous discussion I was using "Proof" in the form synonymous with evidence. He clearly objected and denied any such definition even though I provided clear links to the thesaurus showing that they meant the same thing in such a context. He believes "Proof" has only one definition and can mean only one thing in any context, which is false.

l0rca

11th June 2007, 02:55 AM

I recently converted to Christianity due to a religious epiphany which revealed how wrong I truly was about my world views. I am specifically an evangelical Christian

What were you before Christian? And would you define Evangelical Christian in what qualifies in relation to you?

Dustin Kesselberg

11th June 2007, 02:57 AM

What were you before Christian? And would you define Evangelical Christian in what qualifies in relation to you?

I was a 'Strong Atheist' basically in relation to the God of Abraham. I denied any concept of such a God. Though my denial was based on faulty logic and emotion (as I suspect any atheists is), I accepted that I was a sinner and I asked for forgiveness from Jesus Christ. When I asked for forgiveness I actually meant it and it was not an act, at that moment I suddenly had a revelation and at that moment everything became clear to me, I was without doubt and felt invigorated through the grace of Jesus Christ.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evangelicalism

noblecaboose

11th June 2007, 02:59 AM

This is Dustin Kesselberg's very own thread.

He is invited to use it to state his beliefs.

He has started several threads without actually saying anything intelligible, especially nothing regarding what he believes in. He loves to ask questions, though.

I encourage everyone else to refrain from posting here so that we can get pure Dustin without any distractions.

Please start another thread (if you must) to discuss things that Dustin posts here.

Dustin, here's your chance. You have an audience.

What do you believe in?

I've never admired national socialism.

I don't believe might makes right.

I believe exercise is important for anyone.

But this is a thread about my religious beliefs, Nothing else.

I realize this thread is for you to express your beliefs, and so you could argue that it is up to you how you define what beliefs you wish to talk about, but where in the OP does it specify that it is exclusively about your religious beliefs? I don't see it. As far as I can see, it just says "beliefs" without any reference to your religion.

Dustin Kesselberg

11th June 2007, 03:03 AM

I realize this thread is for you to express your beliefs, and so you could argue that it is up to you how you define what beliefs you wish to talk about, but where in the OP does it specify that it is exckusively about your religious beliefs? I don't see it. As far as I can see, it just says "beliefs" without any reference to your religion.

exclusively*

I believe in democracy and equality of all races. I'm opposed to dictatorships, racism and totalitarianism of any kind. Though I do believe the government should pay money to various churches to further Christianity.

PixyMisa

11th June 2007, 03:05 AM

I believe the Bible is inspired by the word of God, Yahweh, God of Abraham and Moses.
Okay...

I don't believe it's literal or to be taken literally, simply metaphorically
Right.

and I believe most instances of errors or contradictions arise from mistranslations into English.
"Most"? Certainly, there are numerous such errors, but there are two complete Genesis stories, just for one example, so saying "most" of the errors arose from mistranslations into English (when there are numerous English translations, many of them more accurate (if less elegant) than the KJV) is pushing things a bit.

We know the thing was edited together, and in the case of the New Testament we have detailed historical records of how it was done (and we have, for example, the Gospel of Judas, which somehow didn't make it in...)

So, what we know is:

Men wrote it.
Men edited it.
Men translated it.
Many candidate books were left out, for one reason or another.

The role of God in all of this is not apparent.

PixyMisa

11th June 2007, 03:08 AM

This is incorrect. I'm very clear on the definitions of words I use, I quote the dictionary and explain my context throughly.
Yes. That's part of the problem.

That is completely inadequate.

Given the context of the previous discussion I was using "Proof" in the form synonymous with evidence. No you weren't. You kept changing your mind.

He clearly objected and denied any such definition even though I provided clear links to the thesaurus showing that they meant the same thing in such a context. He believes "Proof" has only one definition and can mean only one thing in any context, which is false.No. You kept changing your use of the word proof. That's the rest problem.

l0rca

11th June 2007, 03:08 AM

I was a 'Strong Atheist' basically in relation to the God of Abraham. I denied any concept of such a God. Though my denial was based on faulty logic and emotion (as I suspect any atheists is),

You must have come to realize that the logic and emotion that lead you to atheism was faulty. What was your reasoning that there was no god, and how have you realized that reasoning false?

Also, while I have a good idea of what you mean by faulty logic, I'm not sure what 'faulty emotion' is. Further, if you're implying that there is 'proper emotion,' how might that significantly change one's mind, especially in regards to being rigorously logical (I assume that what you are now, if not faulty logical, is rigorously logical in your ideas about god, which from my perspective would require one to abandon a sense of emotion to decide on whether a god exists).

I accepted that I was a sinner and I asked for forgiveness from Jesus Christ. When I asked for forgiveness I actually meant it and it was not an act, at that moment I suddenly had a revelation and at that moment everything became clear to me, I was without doubt and felt invigorated through the grace of Jesus Christ.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evangelicalism

Nice anecdote, but what I'm interested in more is your reasoning, not your spiritual feelings, and I'm especially not interested in how your spiritual feelings might be directing your reasoning -- indeed I hope that's not the case.

The reason I asked for a definition of Evangelism is because, from my understanding, and implication in that wiki article, Evangelists are commonly illogical, and hardly have a reputation for intelligent apologetics, let alone a strong grasp of atheist argument. You don't seem like one of those, so I had the feeling that you ally yourself with Evangelical Christianity with at least some reservations in its connotation.

Dustin Kesselberg

11th June 2007, 03:09 AM

Yes. That's the problem.

That is completely inadequate.

I'm vague yet clear?

No you weren't. You kept changing your mind.

Where did I do that?

No. You kept changing your use of the word proof. That's the problem.

Tell me where I changed my use of the word. Post the exact post and section of the post to show me where I did such a thing.

Dustin Kesselberg

11th June 2007, 03:11 AM

You must have come to realize that the logic and emotion that lead you to atheism was faulty. What was your reasoning that there was no god, and how have you realized that reasoning false?

http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=84447

Also, while I have a good idea of what you mean by faulty logic, I'm not sure what 'faulty emotion' is. Further, if you're implying that there is 'proper emotion,' how might that significantly change one's mind, especially in regards to being rigorously logical (I assume that what you are now, if not fautly logical, is rigorously logical in your ideas about god).

I didn't mean to say "faulty emotion". Simply faulty logic, and emotion.

The reason I asked for a definition of Evangelism is because, from my understanding, and implication in that wiki article, Evangelists are commonly illogical, and hardly have a reputation for intelligent apologetics, let alone a strong grasp of atheist argument. You don't seem like one of those, so I had the feeling that you ally yourself with Evangelical Christianity with at least some reservations in its connotation.

Not sure exactly what you mean.

PixyMisa

11th June 2007, 03:11 AM

I'm vague yet clear?
Dictionary definitions are insufficient.

Where did I do that?
Every time you claimed that evidence did not suffice as proof.

If you say proof is the same thing as evidence, you can't turn around and change your mind.

Dustin Kesselberg

11th June 2007, 03:12 AM

Dictionary definitions are insufficient.

How? That's absurd.

Every time you claimed that evidence did not suffice as proof.

Be more specific and provide quotes.

If you say proof is the same thing as evidence, you can't turn around and change your mind.

When did I do such a thing?

l0rca

11th June 2007, 03:18 AM

http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=84447

Sorry if you think it's rude, but I'm looking for something much more brief. Basically, I'd like you to write out what your logic was that god didn't exist, and, with what I guess would be obvious, point out what was illogical about your previous reasoning. I don't particularly care what your argument for god is; just what your argument against god was.

athon

11th June 2007, 03:20 AM

Dustin rarely changes his usage of a word. He just has his own dictionary which differs to that of the rest of the world. He'll use a term which everybody assumes means one thing, and then he'll claim he is using it in some other context.

Dustin also has a habit of posting some claim, offering some article or abstract which indirectly and loosely relates to the claim (but offers nothing by way of evidence), then points at it for the rest of the thread as if he's offered irrefutable proof of what he's said.

Seriously, this toy is amusing to watch as he pretends to be intellectual, but you'll rapidly tire of his evasions and silliness as it gets a little repetitive after a few pages.

So, show us what you've got on this topic, Dustin ol' son. Floor's all yours.

Athon

PixyMisa

11th June 2007, 03:23 AM

How? That's absurd.
Why is it absurd?

A dictionary defines words in terms of other words.

Logic, mathematics and science can produce conclusive results because words specific to those areas aren't defined in terms of other words.

What is one second?

Check a dictionary, and you will find that a second is
1/60 of a minute; the basic unit of time adopted under the Systeme International d'Unites

Ask a physicist, and he will tell you that a second is
defined as the duration of 9,192,631,770 periods of the radiation corresponding to the transition between the two hyperfine levels of the ground state of the caesium-133 atom at zero kelvins
That's something you can measure, without ever knowing what any other unit of time might be. It's an operational definition. It tells you what a second does.

Dustin, when you were discussing pragmatism, you provided two completely distinct definitions, and claimed you were using one when you were using the other.

Nobody can ever be sure what you're talking about, because as far as we can tell, you don't know yourself.

Dustin Kesselberg

11th June 2007, 03:23 AM

Sorry if you think it's rude, but I'm looking for something much more brief. Basically, I'd like you to write out what your logic was that god didn't exist, and, with what I guess would be obvious, point out what was illogical about your previous reasoning. I don't particularly care at the moment what your argument for god is; just what your argument against god was.

My argument against God was that there was simply no evidence supporting the existence of a God and no valid reason to believe in the existence of a God. I had seen many arguments for the existence of a God and saw how many of them were faulty and concluded that I had 'seen all arguments for a god'. That the belief in God was historically known and could be explained through psychology, geography, economics, etc.

The flaws in such reasoning are multiple and include the fact that I was wrong about there not being evidence for a God or reason to believe in the existence of a God. I had not seen all of the theistic arguments. Etc.

Dustin Kesselberg

11th June 2007, 03:25 AM

noblecaboose

11th June 2007, 03:25 AM

exclusively*

I believe in democracy and equality of all races. I'm opposed to dictatorships, racism and totalitarianism of any kind. Though I do believe the government should pay money to various churches to further Christianity.

Thank you. I noticed that and fixed it right away.

Which government do you mean? "The government" is vague.

What do you mean by "various churches" which ones? Baptist? Catholic? Episcopalian? or just "Evangelical" churches? Do Mormons count? And why not Jewish temples or Muslim mosques? They worship the same "God of Abraham" as you do, do they get a piece of the pie?

What do you mean by furthering christianity? By funding the building of schools? Missions? More churches?

PixyMisa

11th June 2007, 03:27 AM

So what was this reason?

We want to know, because it apparently convinced you, but nothing you have said has swayed anyone in the slightest.

Dustin Kesselberg

11th June 2007, 03:30 AM

Why is it absurd?

A dictionary defines words in terms of other words.

Logic, mathematics and science can produce conclusive results because words specific to those areas aren't defined in terms of other words.

What is one second?

Check a dictionary, and you will find that a second is

ALL words in any language are defined in terms of other words. I challenge you to provide me one definition of any word that doesn't define it in terms of other words.

[/size]Ask a physicist, and he will tell you that a second is

That's something you can measure, without ever knowing what any other unit of time might be. It's an operational definition. It tells you what a second does.

No. This is an explanation of how the "second" is measured. It's still 1/60th of a second. Moreover, that also uses terms that must also be defined.

Dustin, when you were discussing pragmatism, you provided two completely distinct definitions, and claimed you were using one when you were using the other.

No I didn't. Both of my definitions agreed. One was simply shorter than the other.

Dustin Kesselberg

11th June 2007, 03:34 AM

Which government do you mean? "The government" is vague.

The government. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Government)

The people who collect your taxes and distribute them for numerous purposes.

What do you mean by "various churches" which ones? Baptist? Catholic? Episcopalian? or just "Evangelical" churches? Do Mormons count? And why not Jewish temples or Muslim mosques? They worship the same "God of Abraham" as you do, do they get a piece of the pie?

Baptists, Evangelicals and that's it. Any protestant church. I'm not so sure about catholics though. Definitely not Muslims or Mormons. Not Jewish either unless they emphasize the importance of Jesus as lord and savior.

What do you mean by furthering christianity? By funding the building of schools? Missions? More churches?

All of the above. Teaching the doctrines of the bible. Helping people who are vulnerable and then converting them.

Dustin Kesselberg

11th June 2007, 03:35 AM

So what was this reason?

We want to know, because it apparently convinced you, but nothing you have said has swayed anyone in the slightest.

I already said I wasn't going to defend theism in this thread.

PixyMisa

11th June 2007, 03:35 AM

ALL words in any language are defined in terms of other words. I challenge you to provide me one definition of any word that doesn't define it in terms of other words.
Already done.

No. This is an explanation of how the "second" is measured.
Nope. You're not measuring a second at all. You measure one transition, then multiply it out, and that's what we call a second.

Moreover, that also uses terms that must also be defined.
It does, but you will find that the definitions all end up as a combination of measurements and numbers, whereas none of yours ever do.

No I didn't. Both of my definitions agreed. One was simply shorter than the other.
Yes, I know you believe that. It is completely untrue.

PixyMisa

11th June 2007, 03:40 AM

The government. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Government)

The people who collect your taxes and distribute them for numerous purposes.

Baptists, Evangelicals and that's it. Any protestant church. I'm not so sure about catholics though. Definitely not Muslims or Mormons. Not Jewish either unless they emphasize the importance of Jesus as lord and savior.
I see a teeny tiny First Amendment problem here. Anyone else?

All of the above. Teaching the doctrines of the bible. Helping people who are vulnerable and then converting them.
Ah.

Helping people who are vulnerable and then converting them.
Abducting innocents and brainwashing them into your cult. Charming.

Dustin Kesselberg

11th June 2007, 03:41 AM

Already done.

No you haven't.

Nope. You're not measuring a second at all. You measure one transition, then multiply it out, and that's what we call a second.

No measuring a second at all? But we need to measure something needed to get a second? :rolleyes:

It does, but you will find that the definitions all end up as a combination of measurements and numbers, whereas none of yours ever do.

Perhaps because I'm not using mathematical terms...

Yes, I know you believe that. It is completely untrue.

Elaborate.

Dustin Kesselberg

11th June 2007, 03:43 AM

I see a teeny tiny First Amendment problem here. Anyone else?

Only if you live in the United States. BTW, I don't believe in a static constitution. I believe it should evolve and change.

Abducting innocents and brainwashing them into your cult. Charming.

Abducting? Are soup kitchens "abducting" people? Is inviting them to a voluntary bible lesson after they eat "brainwashing" them?

noblecaboose

11th June 2007, 03:46 AM

The government. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Government)

The people who collect your taxes and distribute them for numerous purposes.

Which government? As in, what country's government? Or do you mean all governments?

Baptists, Evangelicals and that's it. Any protestant church. I'm not so sure about catholics though. Definitely not Muslims or Mormons. Not Jewish either unless they emphasize the importance of Jesus as lord and savior.
Episcopalians are protestants, as are other branches of Christianity who do are not evangelical and who do support church/state separation.
Also, I could be mistaken, but I don't think Jews accept Jesus as the Messiah. Well, except Jews for Jesus.:rolleyes:

All of the above. Teaching the doctrines of the bible. Helping people who are vulnerable and then converting them.Okay, so do you mean the doctrines of the OT or the NT?
Also, why do you think it is up to your government to support the spread of a particular religion? Isn't christianity strong enough to stand on its own without having to pick off the sick and vulnerable members of the herd?

PixyMisa

11th June 2007, 03:47 AM

Only if you live in the United States.
I see other problems if you live in, say, Italy, or Iran, or India, or Ireland.

BTW, I don't believe in a static constitution. I believe it should evolve and change.Yeah, starting with the First Amendment.

Abducting? Are soup kitchens "abducting" people?Maybe. Okay, I'll be fair: No.

Is inviting them to a voluntary bible lesson after they eat "brainwashing" them?Yes.

Dustin Kesselberg

11th June 2007, 03:52 AM

Which government? As in, what country's government? Or do you mean all governments?

All of them for their respective countries.

Episcopalians are protestants, as are other branches of Christianity who do are not evangelical and who do support church/state separation.
Also, I could be mistaken, but I don't think Jews accept Jesus as the Messiah. Well, except Jews for Jesus.:rolleyes:

Well Episcopalians would be OK then.

Okay, so do you mean the doctrines of the OT or the NT?

NT.

Also, why do you think it is up to your government to support the spread of a particular religion? Isn't christianity strong enough to stand on its own without having to pick off the sick and vulnerable members of the herd?

No. Isn't that obvious?

Dustin Kesselberg

11th June 2007, 03:53 AM

Yeah, starting with the First Amendment.

Indeed.

Maybe. Okay, I'll be fair: No.

Good.

Yes.

Well if educating people voluntarily about the word of our lord is "brainwashing" then brainwash away.

noblecaboose

11th June 2007, 03:57 AM

No. Isn't that obvious?
Then let me rephrase, why do you believe christianity isn't strong enough to stand on its own merits without pushing it down people's throats?

Dustin Kesselberg

11th June 2007, 04:00 AM

Then let me rephrase, why do you believe christianity isn't strong enough to stand on its own merits without pushing it down people's throats?

Personally, I blame Myspace and MTV.

PixyMisa

11th June 2007, 04:01 AM

Indeed.
Just wanted to know where you stand.

Well if educating people voluntarily about the word of our lord is "brainwashing" then brainwash away.
What lord is that? Where is your evidence that any of what you are saying is actually true?

In a science class, you perform experiments right there to test the claims made in the textbook.

In a mathematics class, you are working in a self-contained but well-defined logical construct, but you are shown many testable cases of how it works in the real world.

History, real history, ties back to historical documents and physical evidence. When the documentary evidence conflicts with the physical, or with a larger body of documents, it is rejected.

That's education.

That's not what you are doing.

PixyMisa

11th June 2007, 04:02 AM

Personally, I blame Myspace and MTV.
And the previous 2000 years?

Dustin Kesselberg

11th June 2007, 04:10 AM

And the previous 2000 years?

What about then? Christianity wasn't declining then.

Solus

11th June 2007, 04:17 AM

What about then? Christianity wasn't declining then.

No, back then around 650 C.E. Islam was a rising religion as well. ;)

PixyMisa

11th June 2007, 04:49 AM

No measuring a second at all?
No.

But we need to measure something needed to get a second? :rolleyes:
What? The definition of the second involves measurement and mathematics. That's true of any rigorous definition of term relating to the real world.

Perhaps because I'm not using mathematical terms...
THEN YOU CAN'T CONSTRUCT A PROOF.

Elaborate.
Already done.

PixyMisa

11th June 2007, 04:52 AM

What about then? Christianity wasn't declining then.
So, why in that time was Christianity not strong enough to stand on its own merits without pushing it down people's throats?

Or if it was strong enough, why did it do so anyway?

And why, since the Enlightenment when this behaviour was at last curtailed, has Christianity been in decline (with intermittent and regional periods of revival, but in decline overall)?

Dustin Kesselberg

11th June 2007, 04:54 AM

What? The definition of the second involves measurement and mathematics. That's true of any rigorous definition of term relating to the real world.

You said no measurement was needed. But now "The definition of the second involves measurement and mathematics."?

THEN YOU CAN'T CONSTRUCT A PROOF.

evidence sufficient to establish a thing as true, or to produce belief in its truth.
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/Proof

By definition I can.

Already done.

Where? Please be specific. Stop dancing around every request for evidence.

Dustin Kesselberg

11th June 2007, 04:56 AM

So, why in that time was Christianity not strong enough to stand on its own merits without pushing it down people's throats?

Or if it was strong enough, why did it do so anyway?

And why, since the Enlightenment when this behaviour was at last curtailed, has Christianity been in decline (with intermittent and regional periods of revival, but in decline overall)?

Let me ask you: What is worse? Getting religion taught to you so you can convert or burning in hell for all eternity?

Though choice, huh?

PixyMisa

11th June 2007, 05:00 AM

Let me ask you: What is worse? Getting religion taught to you so you can convert or burning in hell for all eternity?

Though choice, huh?
Not a choice at all.

If your God would leave people to burn in hell for all eternity simply because they had never heard of it, then it deserves nothing but contempt.

PixyMisa

11th June 2007, 05:05 AM

You said no measurement was needed.
No. I said nothing of the sort.
But now "The definition of the second involves measurement and mathematics."?Yes.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/Proof

By definition I can.Nope. You lose.

Where? Please be specific. Stop dancing around every request for evidence.I explained it to you many times, and provided numerous excerpts from related Wiki articles. (Albeit largely for my own amusement.)

You apparently missed all of this, even though you replied extensively to those posts.

Once more:

Pragmatism, as per the common dictionary definition, addresses the topic of utility.

The philosophical school of pragmatism, as per the Wiki article you linked to, is a collection of arguments about epistemology.

Why, exactly, do you think those are the same thing?

Dustin Kesselberg

11th June 2007, 05:09 AM

I explained it to you many times, and provided numerous excepts from related Wiki articles. You apparently missed all of this, even though you replied extensively to those posts.

Once more:

Pragmatism, as per the common dictionary definition, addresses the topic of utility.

The philosophical school of pragmatism, as per the Wiki article you linked to, is a collection of arguments about epistemology.

Why, exactly, do you think those are the same thing?

Most of the thinkers who describe themselves as pragmatists consider practical consequences or real effects to be vital components of both meaning and truth.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pragmatism

1.character or conduct that emphasizes practicality. 2.a philosophical movement or system having various forms, but generally stressing practical consequences as constituting the essential criterion in determining meaning, truth, or value.
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/Pragmatism

PixyMisa

11th June 2007, 05:18 AM

So what you're saying, I'm led to assume, is that you think they are the same thing because they both use the word "practical"?

Which is why you linked to a Wiki article you clearly hadn't read, and which had nothing whatsoever to do with the topic at hand, but contained the word you were interested in?

Thanks.

Morrigan

11th June 2007, 07:47 AM

Personally, I blame Myspace and MTV.

So Christianity is so weak that it starts falling apart with the introduction of a TV channel and a website?

Interesting.

Beerina

11th June 2007, 08:27 AM

Let me ask you: What is worse? Getting religion taught to you so you can convert or burning in hell for all eternity?

Though choice, huh?

Not really.

Is a god who throws people into Hell for not believing in Him deserving of worship?

Is a god who throws people into Hell for not believing in Jesus deserving of worship?

John Lennon once suggested, "Imagine there's no Heaven". I can easily conceive of a superior reality without the mountain god Yahweh, where we die and all go to a nice little paradise. No having to jump through hoops in this life.

Wouldn't that be better than the standard Christian concept?

noblecaboose

11th June 2007, 11:03 AM

Personally, I blame Myspace and MTV.
This does not answer my question. Elaborate please. Why do you think your philosphy is so weak that it can't compete with these modern fads? Why do you think it needs funding from the government? Give examples if you can.

Darth Rotor

11th June 2007, 11:17 AM

Nice anecdote, but what I'm interested in more is your reasoning, not your spiritual feelings,

That rather misses the point. I suspect you know this, and that you are attempting to confuse the subjective and the objective as somehow unable to coexist.

DR

Azure

11th June 2007, 11:19 AM

Up yours, Complexity. If Dustin posts some horsepockey, I'm going to challenge him. I don't care if that doesn't comport with your intentions for this thread or not.

Plus, theoretically, after he maximizes his assertions, when are we allowed to weigh in with our responses? Only in another thread? Then why the hell does this thread exist? Your whole premise in the OP of this thread sucks.

I agree.

I want to ask questions too.

Azure

11th June 2007, 11:21 AM

Do I believe "Proof" exists for the existence of God? By definition Proof means evidence sufficient to establish a thing as true, or to produce belief in its truth. In that case, Yes.

Ah, so we probably agree there.

We would also agree that there is no scientific evidence that God exists, right?

How about "Faith"? If faith is defined as belief in God or in the doctrines or teachings of religion or belief in anything, as a code of ethics, standards of merit, etc then it's very important.

Understandable.

Azure

11th June 2007, 11:25 AM

Though I do believe the government should pay money to various churches to further Christianity.

We disagree there.

Do you believe in total seperation of church and state...and if not, why?

If the government uses their money to further Christianity...aren't they being biased in their approach to religion?

I mean, why not give money to the Buddhists...or the Islamic churches?

Darth Rotor

11th June 2007, 11:45 AM

If the government uses their money to further Christianity...aren't they being biased in their approach to religion?
Yes. FWIW, and opening a small can of worms here as Devil's Advocate, the US Government is also biased against monarchical forms of government.
I mean, why not give money to the Buddhists...or the Islamic churches?
Do you really want an answer to that question?
Here is a short one:

The varied philosophical strands of thought that mixed and congealed into the American form of government grew, specifically, from a Western European cultural base that was informed, for about 1500 years, by Christian thought as a common point of reference. Islam and Bhuddism were and are not part of that baseline. It would be a cultural contradiction to fund Islamic and Bhuddist organs in a fundementally Western European cultural base. That doesn't make dumping American tax dollars into churches right, but it makes it more rational than funding a deliberate counter cultural influence with tax dollars. As it stands, the private sector approach to religious funding meets "the good enough" standard.

DR

D'rok

11th June 2007, 11:46 AM

I was a 'Strong Atheist' basically in relation to the God of Abraham. I denied any concept of such a God. Though my denial was based on faulty logic and emotion (as I suspect any atheists is), I accepted that I was a sinner and I asked for forgiveness from Jesus Christ. When I asked for forgiveness I actually meant it and it was not an act, at that moment I suddenly had a revelation and at that moment everything became clear to me, I was without doubt and felt invigorated through the grace of Jesus Christ.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evangelicalism

It's funny how rigid thinkers never change their style of thought, just the content. Dustin has found himself an unassailable certainty that is, for him, more emotionally satisfying than his previous unassailable certainty. The irony makes me chuckle.

Complexity

11th June 2007, 11:52 AM

I've gotten what I wanted from this thread - Dustin actually made some statements rather than just ask questions.

I doubt we'll get anything more coherent out of him.

Have fun getting him to chew on his foot.

Azure

11th June 2007, 11:59 AM

Skeptical Greg

11th June 2007, 12:29 PM

I accepted that I was a sinner and I asked for forgiveness from Jesus Christ. When I asked for forgiveness I actually meant it and it was not an act, at that moment I suddenly had a revelation and at that moment everything became clear to me, I was without doubt and felt invigorated through the grace of Jesus Christ.

Exactly how does Jesus forgive you for your sins ? Why is it necessary ?

Foster Zygote

11th June 2007, 12:41 PM

Baptists, Evangelicals and that's it. Any protestant church. I'm not so sure about catholics though. Definitely not Muslims or Mormons. Not Jewish either unless they emphasize the importance of Jesus as lord and savior.

So you favor the establishment of a state religion?

rikzilla

11th June 2007, 12:45 PM

Not a choice at all.

If your God would leave people to burn in hell for all eternity simply because they had never heard of it, then it deserves nothing but contempt.

Exactly right Pixy...but here's the way I like to say it:

Dustin, it's your religion, your belief, and your hell...you burn in it.

Personally I'm into Epicurean philosophy...your evil god simply has no power to frighten me.

-z

Foster Zygote

11th June 2007, 12:49 PM

Abducting? Are soup kitchens "abducting" people? Is inviting them to a voluntary bible lesson after they eat "brainwashing" them?

All of the above. Teaching the doctrines of the bible. Helping people who are vulnerable and then converting them.

So that's why the Catholics, Jews, Buddhist, Muslims, Hindus, Mormons etc. don't get any money from the government under your plan. You wouldn't want anyone who's hungry and vulnerable to go to a soup kitchen and be converted by the wrong religion, would you? Wouldn't it be best just to outlaw all those "wrong" faiths?

Complexity

11th June 2007, 12:55 PM

Let me ask you: What is worse? Getting religion taught to you so you can convert or burning in hell for all eternity?

Worse: Getting religion taught to you so you can convert.

(false dichotomy, by the way)

rikzilla

11th June 2007, 12:58 PM

Not really.

Is a god who throws people into Hell for not believing in Him deserving of worship?

Is a god who throws people into Hell for not believing in Jesus deserving of worship?

John Lennon once suggested, "Imagine there's no Heaven". I can easily conceive of a superior reality without the mountain god Yahweh, where we die and all go to a nice little paradise. No having to jump through hoops in this life.

Wouldn't that be better than the standard Christian concept?

C'mon Beerina...

How are you going to control, coerce, and steal from the masses with a dogma like that? How could you delineate a "Holy Land" and how would you motivate "Holy Warriors" to go and chop heads in a "Holy War"???

It's no wonder that all Epicurus had was a garden full of educated and gentle friends. Still the "Christians" felt his teaching to be a dangerous heresy, and wiped out the Epicureans. "God forbid" that someone might find a philosophical religion of actual peace to be superior to one of torture and death, and the promise of torture after death...

-z

Foster Zygote

11th June 2007, 12:58 PM

Let me ask you: What is worse? Getting religion taught to you so you can convert or burning in hell for all eternity?

Though choice, huh?

Sure, if those were the only choices. But there are many alternatives. Reincarnation and extinction to name a couple more.

calebprime

11th June 2007, 01:10 PM

Let me ask you: What is worse? Getting religion taught to you so you can convert or burning in hell for all eternity?

Though choice, huh?

:jaw-dropp

Dustin keeps surprising me today.

Ok, master o' logic: Write me a summary of how we get to hell-fire in logical steps. I promise I won't respond by nitpicking and asking for definitions.

You can start from hell-fire and work backwards.

step 543: ouch! owww!
step 542: it's really getting hot in here.
step 541: can't I take off my shirt?
step 540: is this it? this place sucks!
step 539: Ok, mr. big-shot St. Peter, whatever!
step 538: wow, I'm dead, my brain is liquified, but I'm still thinking!
step 537: urrrghhh.
step 536: c'mon, lighten up!
step 535: really, we were just talking, put down that knife.
step 534: wait, I think I hear something.
step 533: oh, baby. baby. baby. yeah, baby.
step 532: would you like another beer?

Except can you do it with Logic?

PixyMisa

11th June 2007, 01:11 PM

Exactly right Pixy...but here's the way I like to say it:

Dustin, it's your religion, your belief, and your hell...you burn in it.
Indeed. :)

Bob Klase

11th June 2007, 01:44 PM

Not really.

Is a god who throws people into Hell for not believing in Him deserving of worship?

Is a god who throws people into Hell for not believing in Jesus deserving of worship?

Is a god who throws people into hell for all eternity (for any reason) a god deserving of worship? What is accomplished by eternity in hell with no possiblity of redemption? Revenge for not believing a fairy tale with no evidence? Revenge for a sin supposedly committed long before you were born? Or just sadistic pleasure and the torture of creatures that you created just because you can do it?

Even for a Hitler or a Stalin, wouldn't say one billion years in hell for each victim suffice as punishment? After 6 million billion years in hell, give him a chance to apologize or something.

Any god who runs the hell of xians is nothing but a sadistic, evil SOB.

Darth Rotor

11th June 2007, 03:12 PM

Is a god who throws people into hell for all eternity (for any reason) a god deserving of worship?
Sure, why not? I'd like to see Charles Manson so assigned, wouldn't you?
What is accomplished by eternity in hell with no possiblity of redemption?
Punishment, and in some cases, justice.
Revenge for not believing a fairy tale with no evidence? Revenge for a sin supposedly committed long before you were born? Or just sadistic pleasure and the torture of creatures that you created just because you can do it?
Were those rhetorical questions? ;)
Even for a Hitler or a Stalin, wouldn't say one billion years in hell for each victim suffice as punishment? After 6 million billion years in hell, give him a chance to apologize or something.
Naaaah. I don't see the point. However, if this same God decides to let them out after a week, or a couple of eons, who am I to say "You can't do that, Lord?"
Any god who runs the hell of xians is nothing but a sadistic, evil SOB.
In your opinion.

DR

H'ethetheth

11th June 2007, 04:13 PM

...and in some cases, justice. I would like to interject at this point that eternity is what scientists usually refer to as 'a very long time'.

Gregory

11th June 2007, 10:56 PM

Sure, why not? I'd like to see Charles Manson so assigned, wouldn't you?

I cannot speak for Bob Klase, but I sure as hell wouldn't.

Darth Rotor

11th June 2007, 11:20 PM

I would like to interject at this point that eternity is what scientists usually refer to as 'a very long time'.
Yes, I understand, which is why I worded it the way I did. Reaping what is sown, and all that, in some cases.

DR

Dustin Kesselberg

12th June 2007, 12:11 AM

So Christianity is so weak that it starts falling apart with the introduction of a TV channel and a website?

Interesting.

Kids today care more about Gang banging music videos and sites built with incoherent html. What can I say?

Not really.

Is a god who throws people into Hell for not believing in Him deserving of worship?

Deserving? That's not a question I ask.

John Lennon once suggested, "Imagine there's no Heaven". I can easily conceive of a superior reality without the mountain god Yahweh, where we die and all go to a nice little paradise. No having to jump through hoops in this life.

Wouldn't that be better than the standard Christian concept?

No.

This does not answer my question. Elaborate please. Why do you think your philosphy is so weak that it can't compete with these modern fads? Why do you think it needs funding from the government? Give examples if you can.

Because it's so esoteric and complex. It's hard to read the bible and understand it, most people don't even bother. Though it's easy to watch MTV or play with Myspace (I would assume, I do neither).

We disagree there.

Do you believe in total seperation of church and state...and if not, why?

If the government uses their money to further Christianity...aren't they being biased in their approach to religion?

I mean, why not give money to the Buddhists...or the Islamic churches?

I wouldn't oppose giving money to Buddhism simply because it's not really a religion and as long as they don't divert their worship from Jesus It would not matter, however Islam? Would YOU want the govt funding Islam? C'mon. The U.S. govt is already in cahoots with various churches and has been since it's founding. Especially now under Bush.

It's funny how rigid thinkers never change their style of thought, just the content. Dustin has found himself an unassailable certainty that is, for him, more emotionally satisfying than his previous unassailable certainty. The irony makes me chuckle.

So you're criticizing strong atheism? You don't believe one is justified in denying God?

Exactly how does Jesus forgive you for your sins ? Why is it necessary ?

Apparently when God made the world he made it so that if humans ate from the tree of knowledge they would be poisoned with original sin for which blood could only forgive, thus due to our ignorance and incompetence Jesus had to come down and die for us so that he could forgive us.

So you favor the establishment of a state religion?

Only if it's protestant I do. I wouldn't want the state to sponsor Islam or Hinduism.

So that's why the Catholics, Jews, Buddhist, Muslims, Hindus, Mormons etc. don't get any money from the government under your plan. You wouldn't want anyone who's hungry and vulnerable to go to a soup kitchen and be converted by the wrong religion, would you? Wouldn't it be best just to outlaw all those "wrong" faiths?

Yes. Though I believe people are free to worship wrong religions if they want to. Don't you?

H'ethetheth

12th June 2007, 02:19 AM

Yes, I understand, which is why I worded it the way I did. Reaping what is sown, and all that, in some cases.

DRIf that is the case, I wonder what cases warrant eternal torture, in your opinion?

D'rok

12th June 2007, 02:19 AM

So you're criticizing strong atheism? You don't believe one is justified in denying God?

One is most certainly justified in denying god. However, allowing no possibility whatsoever that one could be wrong is not justified. I'm quite sure the latter applied to you (as it still does) - which is where the irony comes in.

ETA: Just noticed your new sig. I think we have a little window into your response to other posters on this forum - tools of satan all. Welcome to unreason.

ETA: And now it's gone. Interesting.

Foster Zygote

12th June 2007, 02:20 AM

The U.S. govt is already in cahoots with various churches and has been since it's founding.
Really? Define "in cahoots".

Especially now under Bush.
Yes, Bush has done quite a bit to erode the constitution.

Only if it's protestant I do. I wouldn't want the state to sponsor Islam or Hinduism.
So Catholics are bad eh? How is the establishment of a Protestant state religion even remotely fair?

Yes. Though I believe people are free to worship wrong religions if they want to. Don't you?
Yes, I do. That's why I strongly support the separation of the state from any religion. Whenever a state has declared an official religion the freedom of those not of that faith to worship or not worship as they please has been undermined.

Dustin Kesselberg

12th June 2007, 02:23 AM

Really? Define "in cahoots".

In Cahoots:Faith based initiative.

So Catholics are bad eh? How is the establishment of a Protestant state religion even remotely fair?

How isn't it?

Complexity

12th June 2007, 06:54 AM

Dustin - Having proven the existence of god and having brought light into the lives of all of us infidels, your mission here is complete.

Where are you going next?

Foster Zygote

12th June 2007, 07:12 AM

In Cahoots:Faith based initiative.
Really? Bush's faith based initiative goes all the way back to the founding of the United States of America?
The U.S. govt is already in cahoots with various churches and has been since it's founding.

How isn't it?
Imagine that a US theocracy is formed, but it's Catholic. Would you think that's fair to you? Or maybe you could spend some time in Iran and report your feelings about the fairness of Iranian theocracy to any non-Shi'ite living there.

Beerina

12th June 2007, 09:21 AM

Is a god who throws people into Hell for not believing in Him deserving of worship?
Deserving? That's not a question I ask.

I ask it. It should have an answer. Are the activities of the mountain god Yahweh, as described in his holy book The Bible the actions of a creature even deserving respect, to say nothing of worship?

If a human tortured even one person for one hour, to say nothing of most people for all eternity, for something like anal sex, we'd rightly consider that person evil.

John Lennon once suggested, "Imagine there's no Heaven". I can easily conceive of a superior reality without the mountain god Yahweh, where we die and all go to a nice little paradise. No having to jump through hoops in this life.

Wouldn't that be better than the standard Christian concept?

No.

You don't think reality would be better if people just died and went to a paradise? Or didn't die at all? Perhaps one where maximum pain wasn't so great, and people couldn't cut and slice and rape and torture each other?

A world where a God gives you a silly chance to believe in him without proof (which He holds as a high value for some silly reason), such that the vast majority of people fail at it and get tortured for all eternity isn't, in reality, one of the worst possible worlds?

PixyMisa

12th June 2007, 09:43 AM

A world where a God gives you a silly chance to believe in him without proof (which He holds as a high value for some silly reason), such that the vast majority of people fail at it and get tortured for all eternity isn't, in reality, one of the worst possible worlds?

(A)

P1. There is no reason to act without evidence.
P2. God provides no evidence of his existence.
C. There is no reason to believe in God.

(A')

P1. There is no reason to act without evidence.
P2. God provides no evidence of his punishments.
C. God's punishments can have no effect on the actions of man.

(B)

P1. Torture can be used as a punishment or to induce behavioural change.
P2. There is no reason to punish people for acting logically in the face of evidence you provided.
C. There is no reason for God to torture unbelievers as punishment.

(B')

P1. Torture can be used as a punishment or to induce behavioural change.
P2. If the torture is eternal, behaviour can never change.
C. There is no reason for God to torture unbelievers to change their behaviour.

(B'')

P1. Torture can be used as a punishment or to induce behavioural change.
P2. Neither punishment nor behavioural change can be reasons for God's torture of unbelievers.
C. God has no reasons for torturing unbelievers.

(C)

P1. Torture without reason is evil.
P2. God tortures unbelievers without reason.
C. God is evil.

(D)

P1. Infinite torture without reason is infinitely evil.
P2. God tortures unbelievers for all eternity.
C. God is infinitely evil.

(E)

P1. The only infinitely evil being is Satan.
P2. Dustin worships an infinitely evil being.
C. Dustin worships Satan.

Darth Rotor

12th June 2007, 10:02 AM

If that is the case, I wonder what cases warrant eternal torture, in your opinion?
Keep on wondering. Since I don't get to make such assignments, I deem this derail to be over.

Cheers.

DR

D'rok

12th June 2007, 10:05 AM

I'm going to nitpick here. Several of your arguments were formally invalid. I've tried to fix them to make them valid while retaining their intent.

(A)

P1. There is no reason to believe without evidence.
P2. God provides no evidence of his existence.
C. There is no reason to believe in God.

(A')

P1. There is no reason to withhold action without evidence of punishments
P2. God provides no evidence of his punishments.
C. God's punishments can have no effect on the actions of man.

(B)

P1. Torture can be used only as a punishment or to induce behavioural change.
P2. There is no reason to punish people for acting logically when no evidence has been provided that certain behaviours are punishable.
P3. God has provided no evidence that certain behaviours are punishable
P4. If the torture is eternal, behaviour can never change.
C. There is no reason for God to torture people.

(C)

P1. Torture without reason is evil.
P2. God tortures unbelievers without reason.
C. God is evil.

(D)

P1. Infinite torture without reason is infinitely evil.
P2. God tortures unbelievers for all eternity.
C. God is infinitely evil.

(E)

P1. The only infinitely evil being is Satan.
P2. Dustin worships an infinitely evil being.
C. Dustin worships Satan.

PixyMisa

12th June 2007, 10:12 AM

I'm going to nitpick here. Several of your arguments were formally invalid.
Yeah, I knew that. (Particularly the "only" in the reasons for torture.) Just got tired of fiddling with it.

I've tried to fix them to make them valid while retaining their intent.No worries. :)

Though I think you've broken A' P1.

Make it There is no reason to change one's course of action except on the basis of evidence.

That should work.

rikzilla

12th June 2007, 10:18 AM

Wow Pix...you proved Dustin worships Satan!

Gee...all I did was prove the FSM could fly....

I am unworthy. :(

-z

D'rok

12th June 2007, 10:18 AM

Though I think you've broken A' P1.

Make it There is no reason to change one's course of action except on the basis of evidence.

That should work.

Good call.

PixyMisa

12th June 2007, 10:24 AM

Wow Pix...you proved Dustin worships Satan!

Gee...all I did was prove the FSM could fly....

I am unworthy. :(

Hey, no! The FSM is real, unlike Dustin, so your proof is far more valuable!

Morrigan

12th June 2007, 10:34 AM

:newlol

Azure

12th June 2007, 11:53 AM

I wouldn't oppose giving money to Buddhism simply because it's not really a religion and as long as they don't divert their worship from Jesus It would not matter, however Islam? Would YOU want the govt funding Islam? C'mon. The U.S. govt is already in cahoots with various churches and has been since it's founding. Especially now under Bush.

And the US government is WRONG about that.

They should be in cahoots with no one. The seperation of church and state is there for a reason.

Wowbagger

12th June 2007, 01:38 PM

Dustin,
Let me be the first (apparently) to say that I find nothing wrong with simply believing in God. I will not challenge your faith in Christ. And I say this, even though I have no faith in such things, myself.

However, I find your idea of pushing your religion onto other people disturbing, and I was wondering if you were aware of the consequences such thinking has lead to, historically.
By allowing the Government to endorse one set of religions, and not any others, you are inadvertently building that which you hate most: An authoritarian government.

I am sure you are not a murdering extremist, by any means (as far as I am aware of, at least). But, you should know that your attitude of ideology has been the one of the primary movers of most of the world's most horrible tragedies. The Crusades are the obvious example. But, not the only one.

9/11 was masterminded by religious people. The difference between them and you is only a matter of degrees. They are willing to kill. You (presumably) are not. You are satisfied with just cash getting funneled towards you, and not anyone else:
Baptists, Evangelicals and that's it. Any protestant church. I'm not so sure about catholics though. Definitely not Muslims or Mormons. Not Jewish either unless they emphasize the importance of Jesus as lord and savior.

I have an idea. Let me know what you think of it:

Let us punish people who commit crimes, and not punish people who do not commit any crimes.
Instead of favoring one philosophy over another, why shouldn't we set up a government that allows all humans, willing to live in mutual tolerance and peace with each other, to do so.
Instead of giving money to any religions, allow the government to maximize its budget for the infrastructure necessary to support the said peoples.

What flaws do you perceive in that strategy?

Personally, I blame Myspace and MTV. For what? How has MySpace and MTV caused irreparable harm to Christianity? Does it have to do with taste in clothing?

(Also, that means MySpace and MTV are stronger than God. You are not making a very good case for an omnipotent being. Not that I wish to argue this point much, though.)

Oh, and one more important thing: You are a bigot. (If you do not think so, please tell me how your insistence that a Government support one religion over all others is not bigotry. Thank you.)

noblecaboose

12th June 2007, 02:32 PM

Wow, who would have thought a thread like this would dissolve into unitelligible gobbledyguck so fast? :rolleyes:

LibraryLady

12th June 2007, 02:38 PM

Lewis Carroll, aka Charles Lutwidge Dodgson, was a devout Christian and ordained minister. He felt that God would not create flawed human beings and then punish them eternally for being flawed. It's one of the reasons I admire him.

TheAntiLuddite

12th June 2007, 03:05 PM

Because it's so esoteric and complex. It's hard to read the bible...
[snip]

Now that's funny. I've lost count of the number of times I've heard religious folk deeply intone that one of the divine hallmarks of the Bible is that its message is so simple even a child can understand it.

[...]

Oh, they meant the message of its hordes of apologetic, self-appointed interpreters.

[snip]
Apparently when God made the world he made it so that if humans ate from the tree of knowledge they would be poisoned with original sin for which blood could only forgive, thus due to our ignorance and incompetence Jesus had to come down and die for us so that he could forgive us.
[snip]

Here's where I'm just a wee bit smarter (or more moral) than an "omnipotent" deity. How about, and I know this is *heh*, just CRAZY...but how about, if the deity can't design a world where it later has to throw millions upon millions of sentients that it created into the Outer Darkness, it just doesn't create that world? Isn't that a level of mercy that a supposed omnibenevolent deity should display? Or is it simply omnivainglorious rather than omnibenevolent?