Why is disbelief a sin?

[Hitetlen]

doomhammer:

The only question here is that you are blind, or maybe worst, you don’t want to see. All your reason and knowledge are deceiving you.

Do they now? How can you assert that? What do you know about my knowledge?

doomhammer:

Don’t trust yourself.

Whom should I trust? You? Why should I do that?

doomhammer:

In man dwells sin, falseness, inconstancy. You made your choice: to be your own little god, despising the True God. Then you ask: “Why is disbelief a sin?”. Look at yourself and you are going to find the answer: pride, superbia, vanity, laziness, are all mortal sins that deserve hell. This thread and the closed one on “free will” are like trying to explain a blind guy the beauty of colors. “Colors don’t exist, I don’t see them”. That is why the Christ healed the blind. This is why the Christ remained silence before Pilate. Because “God resists the proud but gives grace to the humble” (James 4, 6).
Tell us the truth, what do you pretend? To believe because God can be measured with human tools? To believe because God can be demonstrated as Pythagoras Theorem? You don’t believe because you made your choice: to be your own little god, a little god who is nothing more than dust.

Why do you waste time on talking to a “dust”?

Maybe you are confused about my motives. I like to conduct respectful conversations with people of differing minds, but I certainly do not care to be preached to, either by you or anyone else.

I am only interested in secular reasoning. Biblical quotes I don’t care about. And there is no secular reason why a simple lack of belief, over which one has no control should be considered “sinful”.

Can you force yourself to believe in an absurdity, like the Easter Bunny? I bet you cannot. So do you assert that I should be able to force myself to believe in the absurdity called the “Christian God”?

 

[thistle]

Hitetlen:

Do they now? How can you assert that? What do you know about my knowledge?

Whom should I trust? You? Why should I do that?

Why do you waste time on talking to a “dust”?

Maybe you are confused about my motives. I like to conduct respectful conversations with people of differing minds, but I certainly do not care to be preached to, either by you or anyone else.

I am only interested in secular reasoning. Biblical quotes I don’t care about. And there is no secular reason why a simple lack of belief, over which one has no control should be considered “sinful”.

Can you force yourself to believe in an absurdity, like the Easter Bunny? I bet you cannot. **So do you assert that I should be able to force myself to believe in the absurdity called the “Christian God”?/**font]

So are you contending that everyone who believes in God is stupid, including the world leaders, scientists, teachers, intellectuals etc etc??

 

[john_doran]

Hitetlen:

Possible, and all we need to do now is wait until an explanatory theory comes along, which can be tested and provisionally kept or discarded based upon the test.

sort of like how you don’t actually believe in the untested cosmological theories that you trot out as reason to believe that there is no god?

there are ways to make reasonable judgments as between formally and experimentally equivalent scientific theories, you know.

 

[doomhammer]

Hitetlen:

What do you know about my knowledge? Whom should I trust? You? Why should I do that? I am only interested in secular reasoning. Biblical quotes I don’t care about. And there is no secular reason why a simple lack of belief, over which one has no control should be considered “sinful”.
over which one has no control should be considered “sinful”

“What do you know about my knowledge?”
Well, according to your posts here, the closed one, and also the thread “pro life argument” where you consider abortion as a surgery to eliminate a parasite or a bad tumor, it is possible to conclude your great ignorance on these matters. And you want to remain in that ignorance pointing out that all we say is “nonsense” and “opinions”.
To try to equal the “Easter Bunny” and the “Christian God” is another proof of your pride and ignorance (you know, pride and ignorance are always together). Would be useless to list all the fundamental contributions the believers in that “Christian God” did, do and will do to mankind.

“Whom should I trust? You? Why should I do that?”
Where I have said that you should trust me? Trust God, or at least seek Him honestly. Don’t trust yourself; don’t trust in any human being, because there is deceit.

“there is no secular reason why a simple lack of belief, over which one has no control should be considered “sinful””.
If God is Creator and man is a creature, and man does not worship the Creator it is not a “simple lack of belief”. It is a fundamental deviation from your reason to exist.

“over which one has no control”
So, should you trust yourself or not? What kind of “control” do you have? Where is your “control”? 2+2=4?

 

[Hitetlen]

thistle:

So are you contending that everyone who believes in God is stupid, including the world leaders, scientists, teachers, intellectuals etc etc??

I don’t think I said that, you are jumping to unwarranted conclusions. But, let’s see where the “argument from numbers” leads to. Here is the argument:

“Since millions and millions of honest people believe in God’s existence, it is reasonable to accept their testimony.”

Now let’s twist it a little:

“Since millions and millions of honest children believe in Santa Claus’s existence, it is reasonable to accept their testimony.”

Furthermore, the children can bring much more valid points to support their assertion: they can bring physical evidence (the toys they received), they can honestly say that they personally spoke to Santa, touched him and sat in his lap, and Santa spoke to them personally. Whatever they asked for they received.

So is it reasonable to accept the children’s testimony and believe in Santa’s existence?

Do you call these children “stupid” because they believe? I don’t. I know they are honest in their beliefs, but they are simply mistaken.

To sum it up: the so-called “argument from numbers” is invalid, and useless.

 

[john_doran]

To sum it up: the so-called “argument from numbers” is invalid, and useless.

but if i do a quadratic equation 5 times, and get the same answer each time, doesn’t that make my belief in the answer more warranted than if i had only done it once? what if i checked it ten times? 50?

 

[thistle]

Hitetlen:

I don’t think I said that, you are jumping to unwarranted conclusions. But, let’s see where the “argument from numbers” leads to. Here is the argument:

“Since millions and millions of honest people believe in God’s existence, it is reasonable to accept their testimony.”

Now let’s twist it a little:

“Since millions and millions of honest children believe in Santa Claus’s existence, it is reasonable to accept their testimony.”

Furthermore, the children can bring much more valid points to support their assertion: they can bring physical evidence (the toys they received), they can honestly say that they personally spoke to Santa, touched him and sat in his lap, and Santa spoke to them personally. Whatever they asked for they received.

So is it reasonable to accept the children’s testimony and believe in Santa’s existence?

Do you call these children “stupid” because they believe? I don’t. I know they are honest in their beliefs, but they are simply mistaken.

To sum it up: the so-called “argument from numbers” is invalid, and useless.

So scientists, intellectuals, world leaders, normal folks like the posters are all mistaken but you The Prince of Arrogance are correct and not mistaken. Why don’t you grow up. You pride is making you blind.

 

[Hitetlen]

john doran:

but if i do a quadratic equation 5 times, and get the same answer each time, doesn’t that make my belief in the answer more warranted than if i had only done it once? what if i checked it ten times? 50?

Only if you solved it correctly in the first place. If you made the same mistake every time, then the answer is no. Simply arguing that many people having the same opinion makes it more justified or believable is the fallacy of “argumentum ad numerum”, and it is incorrect just like the Santa Claus example clearly shows.

You should also consider that many MORE people do NOT believe in the God of Christianity, so even if the argument from numbers WERE correct (and it is not!), it would not support your position.

 

[Hitetlen]

thistle:

So scientists, intellectuals, world leaders, normal folks like the posters are all mistaken but you The Prince of Arrogance are correct and not mistaken. Why don’t you grow up. You pride is making you blind.

I am hardly alone. As I said to john doran (the lower case usage is not a sign of disrespect), since many more people do not believe in the God of Christianity, your position is that of a minority, and even by your standards it fails.

 

[Hitetlen]

“What do you know about my knowledge?”
Well, according to your posts here, the closed one, and also the thread “pro life argument” where you consider abortion as a surgery to eliminate a parasite or a bad tumor, it is possible to conclude your great ignorance on these matters. And you want to remain in that ignorance pointing out that all we say is “nonsense” and “opinions”.

I am wondering if you simply do not pay attention to what I actually post, or deliberately and maliciously misrepresent my position? I am willing to give you a benefit of doubt, so I will clarify, one more (and final) time.

I did not say that abortion is like a surgery which eliminates a tumor (and challenge you to prove your assertion by a direct quote). I just said that IF the apologists define human beings AS having human DNA, THEN there would be no difference between a fetus and a tumor. I did this to show how unreasonable their position is. But if you wish to argue any further, please do it in the correct thread, and do not try to derail this one. Deal?

doomhammer:

To try to equal the “Easter Bunny” and the “Christian God” is another proof of your pride and ignorance (you know, pride and ignorance are always together).

As far as I am concerned, there is no difference. Both are unsupported human concepts. I am asking for reasonable proof, but none is forthcoming, only funny little attempts like “argumentum ad numerum”.

doomhammer:

Would be useless to list all the fundamental contributions the believers in that “Christian God” did, do and will do to mankind.

I never denied the contribution of believers, and you cannot prove that I did. But their contributions have absolutely no bearing on the possible correctness of their position.

“Whom should I trust? You? Why should I do that?”
Where I have said that you should trust me? Trust God, or at least seek Him honestly. Don’t trust yourself; don’t trust in any human being, because there is deceit.

How could I trust God if do not believe that he exists? You (and others) kept on saying that I should trust OTHER peoples’ opinion, and now you say that I should not trust other humans, because they are deceitful. Which one of your two contradictory positions should I follow?

“there is no secular reason why a simple lack of belief, over which one has no control should be considered “sinful””.
If God is Creator and man is a creature, and man does not worship the Creator it is not a “simple lack of belief”. It is a fundamental deviation from your reason to exist.

The word “IF” as you used is of paramount importance. However, even IF God would be a Creator, since he never bothered to tell me, I am under no obligation to “worship” him. To go one step further, even if he DID reveal himself to me, all I would do is acknowledge his existence, and give him some hard time about the misery he caused and personally responsible for.

 

[Redbandito]

Hitetlen:

I did not make any assumptions as of yet. I simply asked that the question: "Does the universe require a creator? be substantiated.

You’re are a self-proclaimed atheist on this thread. You have made an assumption. That’s the point I’m making. In order to be an atheist, one is required to make an assumption that they cannot prove.

Hitetlen:

No, it is not. There are observations that matter-antimatter pairs of particles pop out of nowhere. So even the first assumption is false. Therefore the rest is incorrect as well.

You’re going to have substantiate your claim. What evidence do you have for this. Has it been replicated in studies? Please provide a link.

 

[Hitetlen]

Redbandito:

You’re are a self-proclaimed atheist on this thread. You have made an assumption. That’s the point I’m making. In order to be an atheist, one is required to make an assumption that they cannot prove.

Huh? What the heck does that mean?

Redbandito:

You’re going to have substantiate your claim. What evidence do you have for this. Has it been replicated in studies? Please provide a link.

Just type in “matter-antimatter spontaneous appearance” into Google, and you will get many pages of reference.

 

[Redbandito]

Hitetlen:

Huh? What the heck does that mean?

Go back to my original post and approach it from the perspective distinguishing between theists and atheists. My point was that we both must make an assumption at some point in our reasoning process. I asked you to identify your’s.

Hitetlen:

Just type in “matter-antimatter spontaneous appearance” into Google, and you will get many pages of reference.

Thanks!

 

[Redbandito]

Redbandito:

No, it is not. There are observations that matter-antimatter pairs of particles pop out of nowhere. So even the first assumption is false. Therefore the rest is incorrect as well..

From the cursory read I just gave a couple of those websites, anti-matter DID NOT just “pop out of nowhere”. “Ordinary energy” was required for this to occur. I did not say matter had to come from matter. I said something cannot come from nothing. There is a difference. We see that even in your example that a form of energy is required to turn anti-matter into matter. Please explain what you mean more thoroughly, so I can understand.

 

[john_doran]

Hitetlen:

Only if you solved it correctly in the first place. If you made the same mistake every time, then the answer is no.

sure, but the question is whether or not my belief is more reasonable given my painstaking verification of the math.

Hitetlen:

Simply arguing that many people having the same opinion makes it more justified or believable is the fallacy of “argumentum ad numerum”, and it is incorrect just like the Santa Claus example clearly shows.

the only thing that your example demonstrates is that the context of (reasonable) belief-formation needs to be more finely described than simply in terms of “people”: age, intelligence, expertise, nature of the belief, nature of the faculties required to make accurate judgments concerning such beliefs, amount of ancillary evidence, and so on - these are all the kinds of details which, when considered, can make the numbers game probative.

to be sure - number by itself is never (or rarely) dispositive, but it certainly can (and often does) play a useful role in the formation of warranted beliefs.

 

[Hitetlen]

Redbandito:

Go back to my original post and approach it from the perspective distinguishing between theists and atheists. My point was that we both must make an assumption at some point in our reasoning process. I asked you to identify your’s.

Well, I did, and I am still not sure what you want me to elaborate upon. Is it why I am an atheist? If so, I will be glad to answer. If it is something else, please let me know.

 

[Hitetlen]

Redbandito:

From the cursory read I just gave a couple of those websites, anti-matter DID NOT just “pop out of nowhere”. “Ordinary energy” was required for this to occur. I did not say matter had to come from matter. I said something cannot come from nothing. There is a difference. We see that even in your example that a form of energy is required to turn anti-matter into matter. Please explain what you mean more thoroughly, so I can understand.

If you mean that the universe came out of “nothing”, that is not true. It came from a singularity. And since the concept of “time” is not defined outside the context of the universe, it would make no sense to ask: “what was before the Big Bang?” Just like it makes no sense to ask: “what is outside the universe?”.

Furthermore, if you assert that God is “something” and not “nothing”, then you would still have to show how God came into existence - IF you assert that “something” cannot come out of “nothing”.

 

[Hitetlen]

john doran:

sure, but the question is whether or not my belief is more reasonable given my painstaking verification of the math.

Yes it would. But what of it? Just because something is reasonable, it does not mean that it is correct.
john doran:

the only thing that your example demonstrates is that the context of (reasonable) belief-formation needs to be more finely described than simply in terms of “people”: age, intelligence, expertise, nature of the belief, nature of the faculties required to make accurate judgments concerning such beliefs, amount of ancillary evidence, and so on - these are all the kinds of details which, when considered, can make the numbers game probative.

Well, many people attested that the Earth was flat, it was the center of the universe, that seizures come from demonic possessions, ad infinitum. These people were quite educated and intelligent according to their times. Their beliefs were also honest. Does that make their beliefs more “reasonable” to contemplate?
john doran:

to be sure - number by itself is never (or rarely) dispositive, but it certainly can (and often does) play a useful role in the formation of warranted beliefs.

At best as a working hypothesis. But the proof of the pudding is that it is edible. Many new-agers are upset that their beliefs are not taken seriously, that they are not even contemplated. They believe in UFO-s, little green men, alien abductions, etc. and cannot accept that their assertions do not merit even a cursory glance. Should we take them also seriously?

 

[john_doran]

Hitetlen:

If you mean that the universe came out of “nothing”, that is not true. It came from a singularity. And since the concept of “time” is not defined outside the context of the universe, it would make no sense to ask: “what was before the Big Bang?” Just like it makes no sense to ask: “what is outside the universe?”.

you’re right. but those questions aren’t the ones that theists seek to be answered.

i hope you can at least recognize that.

Hitetlen:

Furthermore, if you assert that God is “something” and not “nothing”, then you would still have to show how God came into existence - IF you assert that “something” cannot come out of “nothing”.

again, not true: god didn’t come out of anything. he exists necessarily.

the idea is that nothing can begin to exist from nothing.

 

[john_doran]

Hitetlen:

Yes it would. But what of it? Just because something is reasonable, it does not mean that it is correct.

sure. just like the fact that all we have are more or less reasonable beliefs in any scientific proposition, or the reliability of our senses, or the existence of other minds, or… doesn’t make any of those beliefs correct.

what’s your point?

Hitetlen:

Well, many people attested that the Earth was flat, it was the center of the universe, that seizures come from demonic possessions, ad infinitum. These people were quite educated and intelligent according to their times. Their beliefs were also honest. Does that make their beliefs more “reasonable” to contemplate?

at their time, in their place, for them, in short, in their epistemic context? absolutely.

Hitetlen:

At best as a working hypothesis. But the proof of the pudding is that it is edible. Many new-agers are upset that their beliefs are not taken seriously, that they are not even contemplated. They believe in UFO-s, little green men, alien abductions, etc. and cannot accept that their assertions do not merit even a cursory glance. Should we take them also seriously?

sure. the notion of space-travel - even faster-than-light travel - isn’t incoherent, and neither is the concept of intelligent life on other planets.

i think that dismissing (most) non-self-contradictory propositions out of hand is just another form of the same credulity you’re deploring - namely credulity in the idea of one’s own invincible insight.