LDS

[Pup]

I got these assumptions and beliefs from witnesses that I trust who also gave me "experiments" I could perform that worked, which increased my trust in them. There are no witnesses to abiogenesis so I don't have faith in that theory.

Each religion has similar "witnesses" and "experiments" to show that it's the one true religion. To choose a religion, one needs to reject some witnesses while believing others, and assume that some experiments are valid, while others are just illusions or hoaxes. The religions which have withstood the test of time are very adept at offering explanations and harnessing natural human feelings to seem like evidence.

What I'm asking, though, is why I should assume there's a reason, instead of no reason, that people exist?

We know life exists, but it may have come about without any sentient being behind it or any motivation. Our bias to seek causes, motivation and patterns (bred into us because those who did that were most apt to survive) makes us want to think there's a reason, but take away that bias, and I don't see why the existence of a reason or a sentient controller should be the default assumption, without evidence.

 

[Pup]

Believing that abiogenesis happened on earth millions of years ago does require faith. It's a belief in something you can't see - and that nobody we know of saw. Until we invent a time machine to go back and watch what happened, it will always be faith (meaning belief in something un observable).

What you're missing is that it's a different kind of "belief" and a different kind of "faith."

There's a common mindset among religious people that skeptics are just like believers, except they believe in different things.

Yet there's a fundamental difference.

If a believer keeps his "faith" in the face of contradictory evidence, he's praised. If a skeptic keeps his "faith" in the face of contradictory evidence, he's ridiculed. In one case, faith is more important than evidence. In the other, just the opposite.

 

[Pup]

I don't have faith, I just don't find the idea of being "evolved hydrogen" so objectionable that I have to make up reasons why it isn't true. Indeed I find it rather marvellous.

That sums it up. Religions always seem to me like solutions looking for problems--problems I don't have.

If the idea of being "evolved hydrogen" is so upsetting to someone that they need to make up stories to convince themselves it's not true, religion would certainly fill their need. It's just not a need that I have.

And if it turns out there is a sentient creature controlling the world, well, I'm okay with that too, just to head off the usual come-back that atheists are all angry at God or afraid of God, and that's the only reason they don't believe.

 

[halleyscomet]

It would be the people responsible for the land mine or the starvation that would learn and be punished for their actions, not that the victim deserves it. That was a bit disingenuous of you to twist my words and suggest that is what I was trying to convey.

In which case the life of the starving child is meaningless, as the child exists only to serve as a potential opportunity for growth in the people who placed the landmines that killed his parents and maimed him.

The child suffers a short, brutal life over which he has no control or recourse because other people are evil. How does that child's suffering fit into your image of god?

 

[abaddon]

Good points. At what point should God have intervened in this child's life? Should He have prevented the mother and father from having children they couldn't feed? Should he have prevented their possibly corrupt government from making corrupt decisions? Should he have prevented you from withholding your money and service toward this child? Should he take away all of our responsibility by making food appear nearby thereby turning the rest of us into even more selfish people? What would you have Him do that would cause the most good for the most people?

Before the child died. But he didn't care.

Make the father and mother infertile? He could have done that. But he doesn't care.

Stop a corrupt government? Sure, he could. But he doesn't care.

Prevent you donating? People do, but your donation is not targeted. Your god doesn't care.

Should he provide food? Yep. I would if I had the power to do so. But your god just doesn't care.

What would I have him do? Save the child.

 

[RandFan]

I believe our eternal progression is more important than our temporary trials. I personally have been through difficult trials and have progressed in patience, empathy, and in many other ways. And now that my trials are over, I can say that the temporary trial was worth the progress I made and I get to keep that progress forever. I also believe that God's purpose is to help all of us achieve the maximum amount of eternal progression that we can while we're here. I've experienced consequences for my choices here that have taught me a lot and if those consequences had been "mercifully" taken away, I'd end up not progressing in the long run in exchange for some temporary relief. Someone starving is the result of political corruption, selfishness, etc. If I hit my thumb with a hammer and God makes it not hurt, what have I learned? And if I hurt someone else or let them starve, what justification does God have to give consequences for my choices if He feeds that person for me or causes the hurt of that person to cease instantly? If you don't like tornados or earthquakes, don't live where they happen. If you are too poor or enslaved to move elsewhere, why is that? Is it the result of a tyrannical government or poor choices made by people or their parents or grandparents? My father had cancer and luckily it is in remission because of choices made by people studying cancer treatments - and going through that difficult trial has changed him for the better in lasting ways. I watched a documentary about a woman who had no legs and she is a much better person than I am in so many ways simply because she has had the trial of having no legs and she has and amazing attitude toward life. A lot of lasting good can come out of trials and consequences of poor choices just like good can come from good choices. When this life is over, I believe we'll look back and be thankful for the experiences we had here - bad and good - and how those experiences - bad and good - changed us for the better and at that point, the trials will be over and gone but the progression will have remained. So I believe that God sees and values the more lasting effects than the immediate trials we bear and in that sense, He's doing what's best for us in the long run by letting us be exposed to the consequences of our choices and the choices of others and even things that are outside of our control.

God ostensibly freed the Israelites. He couldn't save the lives of children dying of starvation, disease, etc.?

 

[Jon.]

Believing that abiogenesis happened on earth millions of years ago does require faith.

I don't have faith that abiogenesis occurred millions of years ago, because abiogenesis isn't a thing that I could have faith in. It's just a term that means that there wasn't life, and then something happened and there was. I think you'll agree that there is plenty of evidence that that is true. The term "abiogenesis" doesn't say anything about how that happened, or when, or how long it took, or how many times it happened - questions I don't pretend to be able to answer. There's nothing really to have faith in.

There are a number of ideas in the scientific community about how abiogenesis might have happened (I won't use the word "theory" to describe them because that might confuse things!) and maybe eventually one of them will come to be accepted. At that point, I might have a kind of faith in that idea - but it would be a provisional faith, subject to correction if and when a better idea comes along. And if no idea is widely accepted, I'm okay with that too. Unlike many theists, I don't feel the need to be able to provide a definite answer to that question.

 

[Foster Zygote]

Believing that abiogenesis happened on earth millions of years ago does require faith. It's a belief in something you can't see - and that nobody we know of saw. Until we invent a time machine to go back and watch what happened, it will always be faith (meaning belief in something un observable).

Faith is belief without evidence. Abiogenesis is an hypothesis based on evidence.

 

[Foster Zygote]

I believe in God and Christ because there are witnesses to them...

There are "witnesses" to every other religion too.

 

[Foster Zygote]

Good points. At what point should God have intervened in this child's life? Should He have prevented the mother and father from having children they couldn't feed? Should he have prevented their possibly corrupt government from making corrupt decisions? Should he have prevented you from withholding your money and service toward this child? Should he take away all of our responsibility by making food appear nearby thereby turning the rest of us into even more selfish people? What would you have Him do that would cause the most good for the most people?

How about anything?

 

[joolz]

You progressed from your suffering because you survived your suffering. How is that starving child supposed to progress when he succumbs to his lack of food, lack of water, and lack of medical care? He can't progress. He is dead. He suffered every day of his short life, and then he died. You believe your god could have saved him, but he chose not to, so the rest of us could progress. Your god is a monster.

You clearly aren't getting this. That poor child must die in agony in order to punish the people who left him/her starving. So the sad wee thing is just dying in agony as a weapon to punish people who don't even know s/he exists. People who are probably living the high life on money that should have been spent on food for the wee mite, god won't feed the child otherwise the 'baddies' won't be punished. . Rcronk explains it here:

<snip> And if I hurt someone else or let them starve, what justification does God have to give consequences for my choices if He feeds that person for me or causes the hurt of that person to cease instantly?

I guess the poor lamb should have moved house and not lived in an area where there was starvation...

If you don't like tornados or earthquakes, don't live where they happen.

But the kid could blame his/her parents instead of course, they should have moved to Australia of Europe, but again it's the fault of others that they didn't, the others who are receiving punishment?? Not.

If you are too poor or enslaved to move elsewhere, why is that? Is it the result of a tyrannical government or poor choices made by people or their parents or grandparents?

There is NO justification for that child's suffering. Unless god is a sadist, of course, or doesn't exist except in the imagination of people who need someone/thing to blame for everything.

My father had cancer and luckily it is in remission because of choices made by people studying cancer treatments - and going through that difficult trial has changed him for the better in lasting ways.

Does this mean god favours us by giving us cancer? I'm genuinely glad your dad is in remission, it's a horrid thing to suffer, but what about my aunt who was a wonderful and kind soul who didn't get remission, there are people studying her types of cancer too, but maybe they didn't pray enough as they studied as she died. If god helped your dad then he must have killed my aunt.

I watched a documentary about a woman who had no legs and she is a much better person than I am in so many ways simply because she has had the trial of having no legs and she has and amazing attitude toward life. A lot of lasting good can come out of trials and consequences of poor choices just like good can come from good choices.

People with disabilities are happier because of them? Is that why we suffer so much discrimination in society? Hmm I guess that's just god favouring us again by making us suffer.

I have an illness that has been a trial and I actually think it has enriched my life in a weird way, but god didn't give it to me, it was pot luck, genetics and a childhood event. No god, just coincidence.

When this life is over, I believe we'll look back and be thankful for the experiences we had here - bad and good - and how those experiences - bad and good - changed us for the better and at that point, the trials will be over and gone but the progression will have remained.

When this life is over I'll be dead and not able to look at anything. You've made a huge assumption here that trial always change us for the better. I guess you have to convince yourself of that as you are religious, but it is just not true. People kill themselves because their trials are too much, and why wait for a time that may never happen? Isn't it sad to postpone counting your experiences until you are dead? I count my good luck on a daily basis when I look at how amazing nature is and think if the potential of humankind, all without a god to blame.

 

[joolz]

I believe that He does interact when we ask Him to if it's in our best eternal interest. <snip>

This is where i find it hard to get into the mind of religious people, and I am interested to understand so I discussed it with a priest at a Richard Wiseman debate last year.

My sis believes in her own brand of an afterlife and I am atheist. I said that (god forbid* ) if we both got cancer and were cured, he would say her cure was because of god. OTOH my cure could only be despite god. I asked the priest how he can attribute two opposite explanations to exactly the same event. I didn't get a proper answer, he just said 'maybe your sister prayed for you' which, frankly, made me feel like I needed a long shower

How can you say one cure is 'god' and the other isn't? Your god treats us all in such a similar way that it's almost as if he doesn't care, or isn't there.

Weird.

* just an expression!

 

[tsig]

I believe our eternal progression is more important than our temporary trials. I personally have been through difficult trials and have progressed in patience, empathy, and in many other ways. And now that my trials are over, I can say that the temporary trial was worth the progress I made and I get to keep that progress forever. I also believe that God's purpose is to help all of us achieve the maximum amount of eternal progression that we can while we're here. I've experienced consequences for my choices here that have taught me a lot and if those consequences had been "mercifully" taken away, I'd end up not progressing in the long run in exchange for some temporary relief. Someone starving is the result of political corruption, selfishness, etc. If I hit my thumb with a hammer and God makes it not hurt, what have I learned? And if I hurt someone else or let them starve, what justification does God have to give consequences for my choices if He feeds that person for me or causes the hurt of that person to cease instantly? If you don't like tornados or earthquakes, don't live where they happen. If you are too poor or enslaved to move elsewhere, why is that? Is it the result of a tyrannical government or poor choices made by people or their parents or grandparents? My father had cancer and luckily it is in remission because of choices made by people studying cancer treatments - and going through that difficult trial has changed him for the better in lasting ways. I watched a documentary about a woman who had no legs and she is a much better person than I am in so many ways simply because she has had the trial of having no legs and she has and amazing attitude toward life. A lot of lasting good can come out of trials and consequences of poor choices just like good can come from good choices. When this life is over, I believe we'll look back and be thankful for the experiences we had here - bad and good - and how those experiences - bad and good - changed us for the better and at that point, the trials will be over and gone but the progression will have remained. So I believe that God sees and values the more lasting effects than the immediate trials we bear and in that sense, He's doing what's best for us in the long run by letting us be exposed to the consequences of our choices and the choices of others and even things that are outside of our control.

so the Good Samaritan should have let the guy lay in the ditch because he was learning a life lesson?

 

[tsig]

I got these assumptions and beliefs from witnesses that I trust who also gave me "experiments" I could perform that worked, which increased my trust in them. There are no witnesses to abiogenesis so I don't have faith in that theory.

So unless someone witnesses it it didn't happen?

 

[RandFan]

I believe that He does interact when we ask Him to if it's in our best eternal interest. I've also observed what I believe to be Him allowing me to work through my train wrecks caused by my bad choices or the bad choices of others but it seems to me that He also helps me work through it in the best way possible. As for bad things like earthquakes happening because He set things up this way - I Him credit for that kind of stuff and how we react to it would be our responsibility - moving away from there, helping people out, etc.

The statistics don't work. Poor Christians would appear to get far less help than rich Christians. And BTW, you don't think parents of children that die of leukemia don't on average pray. I have news for you. Atheist children are as statistically likely to be cured of cancer as theist children. There's not a hint of evidence any supernatural events happen because of prayer. Also, you don't think living is in the child's best interest?

It's the Santa Claus problem. Does Santa love the rich children and hate the poor who get nothing or is Santa an explanation for wishful thinking in the face of reality and fate?

 

[Nay_Sayer]

Perhaps God doesn't feed the hungry because He commanded us to do it. I believe He doesn't do for us what we can and should learn to do for ourselves (i.e. feed the hungry, etc.). I believe He wants us to learn and progress toward selflessness. Is that an acceptable alternative to the false dichotomy presented here?

Could be because he doesn't exist.

 

[bruto]

I think you completely missed the point of my post as well.

I was hoping to have a logical conversation here but it seems at least two of you are frothing at the mouth with God anger to the point that you can't see straight. Please re-read my post and reply with logic as if you're trying to understand a different point of view.

So let us for a moment imagine that this is true: God wants very much that we feed the starving, and it's important that we do it not him. I certainly agree that we ought to do it. So, why, if this is his will, is it apparently more important to him to remain hidden and dubious? Apologists throw in the need for free will, that God cannot be proven or faith would die, and then turn around and pretend to be scientists when it's convenient. On the one hand, the miracles and prodigies of history are, we're told, supposed to be concrete, real evidence of God, and yet when we question them, apologists say concrete, real evidence of God is counter to his requirement of faith.

So, let's say that God wants us to feed the hungry. What is this god going to do to see that it happens, and what is so much more important that he can't do it effectively?

There's always an excuse for why God behaves in ways that make no sense, always an inverse double-bind for when faith fails: pray for your child to be well and praise God for taking him into his bosom when he dies. Sometimes the answer to a prayer is "no" and the way you find that out is when there's no answer at all. Didn't get what you prayed for? It's not in the interests of God, or your faith isn't strong enough. How do you know? Because the prayer didn't work. How can you predict? You can't of course. All the inefficiencies and stupidities and failings of every god are explained post facto.

Many Christians catch the moral message and feed the hungry, to be sure. Some do not. Many atheists share the moral position and feed the hungry and some do not. Is an atheist who feeds the hungry a better Christian than a bible-believer who does not?

 

[rcronk]

Thanks all for your replies. I'll summarize what I'm hearing from you all:

1. rcronk thinks God exists and is omnipotent and merciful and kind.

2. Horrible stuff happens.

3. If we were omnipotent and kind, we'd stop the horrible stuff from happening - and we're not even close to being perfect.

4. Since God doesn't stop it from happening, He's either a disgusting monster or He doesn't exist.

5. rcronk claims that God doesn't intervene because our eternal progression is more important that our temporary comfort - that our eternal progression is in fact the whole point of our time here on earth. (And rcronk thinks all children and those in need should be taken care of by us.)

6. Yeah... but if we were omnipotent and kind, we'd stop the horrible stuff from happening - and we're not even close to being perfect.

I think we both understand each other's positions and we'll have to agree to disagree for now since the arguments are starting to repeat, but I do thank each one of you for making me think through my beliefs today and I've gotten more insight into them because of you.

 

[Empress]

rcronk: got to say. You're a trouper to come here and defend your god against what is essentially enemy territory, seeing as how the majority of us are agnostic and/or atheist. You've engaged in actual dialogue, presented your views, and not taken offense that many of us simply don't like your god. While I don't admire your god, I do admire you.

 

[rcronk]

rcronk: got to say. You're a trouper to come here and defend your god against what is essentially enemy territory, seeing as how the majority of us are agnostic and/or atheist. You've engaged in actual dialogue, presented your views, and not taken offense that many of us simply don't like your god. While I don't admire your god, I do admire you.

Thanks. I appreciate all of you doing the same with me as well. I look forward to future discussions too. Take care.