A
atheist1
Guest
I’ve been at death’s door and still found no reason to believe in god.
- Status
C
Charlemagne_II
Guest
I’ve been at death’s door and still found no reason to believe in god
Maybe that’s why you didn’t die. You are being given another chance? God is good and truly wants you or you wouldn’t be racking up frequent flier miles at CAF.
Maybe that’s why you didn’t die. You are being given another chance? God is good and truly wants you or you wouldn’t be racking up frequent flier miles at CAF.
G
greylorn
Guest
I can’t tell if you are deliberately ignoring the point and obfuscating it with irrelevant issues, or simply so involved with side issues and the first and second derivatives of “understanding” that you cannot see the point of post #78 and subsequent comments. Whatever, I’ll try to clarify.
First, forget about Spinoza’s God, or Einstein’s God, or Max the bartender’s God. Let’s deal with the Catholic God (Pascal’s God) since He was the topic of Pascal’s argument. Also forget about the nature of belief. People are going to believe in something because its part of their programming. Any clever politician or articulate minister, and anyone else who glibly promises something for nothing, or at least for cheap, will always find followers.
Pascal’s argument is that because getting to heaven is easy (read, cheap) and only requires belief, everyone should believe in God. This presupposes a God Who is looking for bargain hunters to sit at His Right side in honor and share an eternity of happiness (all provided by God, without ongoing effort on the part of the recipient).
I propose simply that the real Creator of the Universe has more interesting things to do than provide happiness to entities who are, and please read this carefully, infinitely less intelligent than Him. Let’s call this entity “greylorn’s God” and think about what properties such a Creator might have, and what His purposes might be. To begin with, He just might be looking, not for believers who reiterate the teachings they were programmed with as children, but for those with enough curiosity to look at the reality of the physical universe and nature of man and find the courage to declare, if only for themselves, to refuse belief in conventional teachings.
Put simply, what if God is looking for individuals with the intelligence to devise their best ideas about existence, purpose, morality, and God Himself, plus the commitment to own those ideas and live by them?
Nah— explaining this was a waste of time. But maybe someone else will get it.
C
Charlemagne_II
Guest
Pascal’s argument is that because getting to heaven is easy (read, cheap) and only requires belief, everyone should believe in God. This presupposes a God Who is looking for bargain hunters to sit at His Right side in honor and share an eternity of happiness (all provided by God, without ongoing effort on the part of the recipient).*
This signifies such a vast ignorance of Pascal’s thought, not to mention the teaching of of the Catholic Church, that one barely can began to rebut without throwing the whole of the Catechism and the* Pensees* at your head.
Not up to that today.
This signifies such a vast ignorance of Pascal’s thought, not to mention the teaching of of the Catholic Church, that one barely can began to rebut without throwing the whole of the Catechism and the* Pensees* at your head.
Not up to that today.
G
greylorn
Guest
You have commendable faith in the beliefs of fellow atheists. Perhaps all of you have been questioning the wrong Bible, the one written by men.
If there is a God, there is a Bible which even you will agree that He, She, It, or They has written.
Instead of inadvertently poking your nose through arcane doorways, how about doing some deliberate personal research into the nature of reality? I invite you to arrange to look through an ordinary 16" telescope at Andromeda, or a globular cluster within our own galaxy. Do this with your own eyes, never mind that the digitized Hubble photographs provide superior resolution. There is something inexpressible that happens when galaxy light is directly entering your very own retina.
Then get some time in a biology lab and watch amoeba cells divide with your own eyes under the lenses of a 1000x microscope.
Finally, give Michael Behe’s “Darwin’s Black Box,” an honest and objective reading.
Don’t expect to find the Catholic God at the backside of any instrumentation lenses, or in Behe’s book, which does not mention God. Do expect to find a universe too awesome to be explained by mindless mechanisms and randomly occurring events.
Throughout the process, open your mind to a possibility that you might not have considered: That you and all other atheists have been disbelieving in the wrong God.
C
Charlemagne_II
Guest
“Endeavour then to convince yourself, not by increase of proofs of God, but by the abatement of your passions. You would like to attain faith, and do not know the way; you would like to cure yourself of unbelief, and ask the remedy for it. Learn of those who have been bound like you, and who now stake all their possessions. These are people who know the way which you would follow, and who are cured of an ill of which you would be cured. Follow the way by which they began; by acting as if they believed, bless yourself with holy water, have Masses said, and so on; by a simple and natural process this will make you believe, and will dull you—will quiet your proudly critical intellect…
Now, what harm will befall you in taking this side? You will be faithful, honest, humble, grateful, generous, a sincere friend, truthful. Certainly you will not have those poisonous pleasures, glory and luxury; but will you not have others? I will tell you that you will thereby gain in this life, and that, at each step you take on this road, you will see so great certainty of gain, so much nothingness in what you risk, that you will at last recognize that you have wagered for something certain and infinite, for which you have given nothing." (Pensees)
It is clear from this that a mere statement of belief is just the first step in a long and arduous road to salvation. Faith without works is dead. And faith without works is a sign that you have fooled yourself into the notion that you have faith.
”
Now, what harm will befall you in taking this side? You will be faithful, honest, humble, grateful, generous, a sincere friend, truthful. Certainly you will not have those poisonous pleasures, glory and luxury; but will you not have others? I will tell you that you will thereby gain in this life, and that, at each step you take on this road, you will see so great certainty of gain, so much nothingness in what you risk, that you will at last recognize that you have wagered for something certain and infinite, for which you have given nothing." (Pensees)
It is clear from this that a mere statement of belief is just the first step in a long and arduous road to salvation. Faith without works is dead. And faith without works is a sign that you have fooled yourself into the notion that you have faith.
”
G
greylorn
Guest
I’m accustomed to folks making up all kinds of nonsense and attributing it to Einstein, so read your quotes warily. You’ve not only done accurate research, but have captured the deeper sense of his beliefs, non-beliefs, and understanding. Nice work and an excellent contribution to this conversation.
C
Charlemagne_II
Guest
Many quotes from Einstein have been enlisted above to judge harshly against religion.
Here is one:
“I cannot imagine a God who rewards and punishes the objects of his creation, whose
purposes are modeled after our own – a God, in short, who is but a reflection of human
frailty. Neither can I believe that the individual survives the death of his body, although feeble souls harbor such thoughts through fear or ridiculous egotisms.” ~Albert Einstein, obituary in New York Times, 19 April 1955
Unfortunately, Einstein never bothers to explain why “a God who rewards and punishes” has to be a reflection of human frailty.
But here is another quote:
“Since I do not foresee that atomic energy is to be a great boon for a long time, I have to say that for the present it is a menace. Perhaps it is well that it should be. It may intimidate the human race into bringing order into its international affairs, which without the pressure of fear, it would not do.”
The second quote seems to work against the first, and seems to play into Pascal’s Wager. That is to say, fear of loss, criticized by many atheists as not a good reason to seek gain, now is turned by Einstein on its head. Maybe we should fear the loss of God, maybe we should be intimidated after all to bring order into our personal affairs.
Here is one:
“I cannot imagine a God who rewards and punishes the objects of his creation, whose
purposes are modeled after our own – a God, in short, who is but a reflection of human
frailty. Neither can I believe that the individual survives the death of his body, although feeble souls harbor such thoughts through fear or ridiculous egotisms.” ~Albert Einstein, obituary in New York Times, 19 April 1955
Unfortunately, Einstein never bothers to explain why “a God who rewards and punishes” has to be a reflection of human frailty.
But here is another quote:
“Since I do not foresee that atomic energy is to be a great boon for a long time, I have to say that for the present it is a menace. Perhaps it is well that it should be. It may intimidate the human race into bringing order into its international affairs, which without the pressure of fear, it would not do.”
The second quote seems to work against the first, and seems to play into Pascal’s Wager. That is to say, fear of loss, criticized by many atheists as not a good reason to seek gain, now is turned by Einstein on its head. Maybe we should fear the loss of God, maybe we should be intimidated after all to bring order into our personal affairs.
C
Charlemagne_II
Guest
Likewise, Einstein was not above using a little intimidation of his own against the Germans. See his first letter to FDR
hypertextbook.com/eworld/einstein.shtml#first
And lest anyone confuse Einstein’s genius with his lack of wisdom, why didn’t he see down the road the awful consequence we suffer today of a nuclear arsenal more than sufficient to make the biblical prophecy of Armageddon come true?
Didn’t he say, in retrospect, he should have been a locksmith or a plumber?
Now there’s human frailty!
hypertextbook.com/eworld/einstein.shtml#first
And lest anyone confuse Einstein’s genius with his lack of wisdom, why didn’t he see down the road the awful consequence we suffer today of a nuclear arsenal more than sufficient to make the biblical prophecy of Armageddon come true?
Didn’t he say, in retrospect, he should have been a locksmith or a plumber?
Now there’s human frailty!
G
greylorn
Guest
Perhaps he did not anticipate that people who could not clearly understand his meaning would be quoting him as if they did. Here is a clarifying example for you. If you watch the news you may recall the NFL quarterback, Michael Vick, who lost his job, blew his career, and went to jail for beating, maiming, and killing underperforming dogs. Vick punished his dogs. He served as an example of human frailty.
We have a word which describes putting someone like Vick behind bars for a few years, or spanking an obnoxious offspring. It is called punishment. There is another word which describes the process of deliberately inflicting ongoing pain on a person or animal. The word is torture. It is outlawed in civilized countries, despite its potential value in protecting citizens of those countries from future harm.
Some human beings enjoy inflicting pain on others, and when given the opportunity will keep their victims alive as long as possible to prolong their agony. We do not hold these humans in high regard or esteem. Our vindictive torturers are often individuals of moderate intelligence compensating for some personal negative experiences, but there are cases where intelligent individuals have taken up the practice, thinking that their mental superiority gave them the right to hurt and kill. Nations and religions have vested themselves with “moral authority” and done the same.
We have words to describe all classes of beings who torture the helpless. The kindest in my memory came from a cat loving ex-ladyfriend who said, “Oh, its okay— he’s just playing with his food.” None of the other descriptive terms for torturers included the terms, “loving,” or “merciful.”
Perhaps in the concept of a merciful, loving God who submits underperforming souls to an eternity of pain, Einstein saw a contradiction. Or the obvious contradiction may have bitten him in the nose, explaining why it became slightly larger as he aged. (The nose, not the contradiction.) Perhaps he recognized that the promised pain of damnation fell into a different category than mere “punishment,” and refused to believe in a God who would treat His creations vindictively. Me too.
I find the teachings of Christ, for example, to set a standard for behavior that would apply equally to humans with IQ’s of a hundred or space aliens with IQ’s of a million. I cannot accept the idea that as intelligence approaches infinity, Christ’s teachings change to, 'Turn the other cheek or rot in hell for eternity."
What trust I have left for the Creator of the Universe is that my punishment for under-performance will be that He ignores me, or recycles me. Should my performance be as abominable in His eyes as it is in the minds of some religious folks who might delight in roasting another heretic, I’ll trust that God will simply snuff my miserable soul out of existence.
I do not anticipate that He would do so as an act of mercy. More as an act of annoyance, pretty much the way I treat mosquitoes who I manage to catch in the act of biting me.
NOTE: No affront to the Catholic Church’s beliefs about the nature and character of God is intended. A conversation about likely and unlikely attributes which humans have applied to God is welcome. If any of my statements are found to be false, I will retract them, since I have no respect for individuals who believe in nonsense, especially when one of them is me. I happen to believe in a Creator. Mine is a practical belief derived from the laws of physics and logic to the best of my ability, and my testament is the universe God Created.
A
atheist1
Guest
Maybe but the more I read on this forum the more convinced I am that god doesn’t exist.
J
Jean_Anthony
Guest
The topic is straying from the OP. Please take side/tangent discussions to new or existing threads. Thank you, everyone.
C
Charlemagne_II
Guest
Maybe but the more I read on this forum the more convinced I am that god doesn’t exist.
Digging in your heels?
Digging in your heels?
E
Ender
Guest
If Pascal believed as you say then he had at best a tenuous understanding of Christianity. Credit him with the intelligence to which his mathematical and scientific accomplishments testify.
You rightly assume that such a god would not be an improvement over the pagan gods but you wrongly imply that such a god is also the one which Christians worship.
If man is infinitely less intelligent than his creator then why would he (greylorn’s God) be impressed with man’s intellectual curiosity? Why would man’s puny intellect be his most significant quality?
Also, what is admirable about rejecting what one is taught? Is something wrong simply because it is handed down from one generation to the next? Whether a teaching is conventional or original certainly has nothing to do with whether it is true. It is admirable to reject what is false but nothing can reasonably be proclaimed false simply because it is conventional.
One could suppose many things but it seems more reasonable to assume that God would want people to believe what is true rather than what, however brilliant and original, is wrong. Also, if you wish to claim credit for having the faith to live according to your own lights then be willing to credit others for the same behavior.
Ender
M
MindOverMatter
Guest
E
Ender
Guest
Thank you. The discussion has been fun. I don’t agree with what Greylorn writes but I enjoy how he writes it.
Ender
C
Charlemagne_II
Guest
greylorn
*I propose simply that the real Creator of the Universe has more interesting things to do than provide happiness to entities who are, and please read this carefully, infinitely less intelligent than Him. *
Well, I’m glad most parents don’t think like that toward their children. And since we think of god as a Father, why would we expect his love and desire for our happiness, as we would desire the happiness of our own children?
*Let’s call this entity “greylorn’s God” and think about what properties such a Creator might have, and what His purposes might be. To begin with, He just might be looking, not for believers who reiterate the teachings they were programmed with as children, but for those with enough curiosity to look at the reality of the physical universe and nature of man and find the courage to declare, if only for themselves, to refuse belief in conventional teachings. *
greylorn’s God would only be interested in raising rebellious intellectuals? No thanks, greylorn. Been there, done that, but never again. Ditto for Pascal, a great mathematician and inventor who saw a good deal more in God (and in himself) than pure and proud intellect.
*I propose simply that the real Creator of the Universe has more interesting things to do than provide happiness to entities who are, and please read this carefully, infinitely less intelligent than Him. *
Well, I’m glad most parents don’t think like that toward their children. And since we think of god as a Father, why would we expect his love and desire for our happiness, as we would desire the happiness of our own children?
*Let’s call this entity “greylorn’s God” and think about what properties such a Creator might have, and what His purposes might be. To begin with, He just might be looking, not for believers who reiterate the teachings they were programmed with as children, but for those with enough curiosity to look at the reality of the physical universe and nature of man and find the courage to declare, if only for themselves, to refuse belief in conventional teachings. *
greylorn’s God would only be interested in raising rebellious intellectuals? No thanks, greylorn. Been there, done that, but never again. Ditto for Pascal, a great mathematician and inventor who saw a good deal more in God (and in himself) than pure and proud intellect.
G
greylorn
Guest
Ender, and Charley 2;
I apologize, I am, as they say in California, soooo embarrassed.
Instead of taping a bright red target to my butt and bending over downside of a firing range, I made this absurd statement at which both of you took good aim and laid out with the equivalent of 00 rock salt.
greylorn:
greylorn who should have reviewed his post next morning before submitting.:
I’ll have to deal with other aspects of these posts later. Day job calls.
Thank you both for paying attention and calling a bad pitch.
I apologize, I am, as they say in California, soooo embarrassed.
Instead of taping a bright red target to my butt and bending over downside of a firing range, I made this absurd statement at which both of you took good aim and laid out with the equivalent of 00 rock salt.
This was a stupidly constructed statement. Best defense is that I did it late at night after a few glasses of 88% water. Here’s what I intended to say…
greylorn who should have reviewed his post next morning before submitting.:
I apologize to you who have responded to an absurd comment, but hey, it wasn’t the first time and may not be the last time you’ll do so. Would you kindly rearrange your replies in the context of a correct statement of my opinion?
I’ll have to deal with other aspects of these posts later. Day job calls.
Thank you both for paying attention and calling a bad pitch.
G
greylorn
Guest
I don’t agree with Ender all that much either, but when he offered me ten bucks a pop to serve up straight lines, I couldn’t refuse.
Seriously…
I reiterate and redirect the comment. I appreciate the occasional opportunity to argue with someone who is much wiser than me in the ways of interpersonal communication, and who will eventually appreciate the value of clear and simple logic applied to subjects once the sole province of faith.
In the meantime, he is teaching me the art of keeping it fun.
M
MindOverMatter
Guest
Thank God that true Love doesn’t have such arrogant egotistical prejudices. If God judged us by our intellect, we would have no chance!
Metaphysically speaking; if we allow your God to exist, our existence would be impossible.
- Status