Silly Religion

[RCSaunders]

Well, then, would we would have to say that Atheism is an "invalid hypothesis"?

Absolutely, when it is an ideology, as though the denial of something were a kind of assertion (which I think would apply to the evangelical type of Atheist). Many people who are called atheists, however, just reject both hypotheses, that there is or is not a God, as invalid.

That seems harder to do, unless they can show that the concept "God" is rationally incoherent --

No, that's not the point. If anything is hypothesized as the explanation of something, and there is no way to test it to prove it is not true, if it is not true, it is an invalid hypothesis. Otherwise, just anything could be hypothesized and would have to accepted as a valid hypothesis solely on the grounds one could not prove it was not true.

... not merely to show that the concept does not refer to a real entity, of course, because we already know they can't do that -- but that to speak of a Supreme Being or First Cause is rationally impossible.

Unless the existence of God has been unquestionably establish, it is not possible to know if the concept refers to a real entity or not. That's the whole question.

...and, a, "First Cause," is rationally impossible. Either, "everything must have a cause," is true, or, "everything does not have to have a cause," is true. They cannot both be true. If everything must have a cause there cannot be a first cause. If there is a first cause, everything does not have to have a cause, contra-hypothesis--the universe does not have to have a cause.

Look again, RC. The whole passage does not say one's knowledge automatically "leads one to obey the moral law." ...

This is exactly the kind of discussion that opened my eyes to the truth. If there is a law and one does what the law says, to any honest person, that is obeying the law. The verse plainly says that gentiles, "do by nature things required by the law." Your explanation is an example of what I call spurious interpretation: "of course that's what it says, but it's not what it means."

Note that it says "when the Gentile..." Not "Because all Gentiles." It's speaking only of those particular cases in which a Gentile behaves himself in a more lawful, upright way than a Jewish person may, as he may in some cases. It's not at all saying "All Gentiles always obey the law," or anything like that.

You are explaining what is wrong with what I never said. My only point was that Paul claims some people sometimes, "do by nature things required by the law," and in others that nothing good comes from one's nature (or the flesh). That's it.

My other question about Hell is related to the interpretation question. That question was: "Do you believe in a literal eternal damnation as described in the New Testament?

This is your answer:

Well, in the first place, we need to get our head clear of any idea of the Catholic "Hells" portrayed in so many old paintings and still in children's books. Dante's spiral or the dancing demons are found nowhere at all in the Bible. They're a pure fiction. Hell is spoken of in Scripture as a place of separation...it's what one gets when one has freely chosen not to stand in any relationship to God, and God has, reluctantly but necessarily, honoured your free will to be free of Him.

Unfortunately for people who make that choice, God is revealed in the Bible as "the giver of all good gifts," and as "the father of light," and the blesser of creation. Every good thing we have is actually derived from God. So someone who, in their free will, chooses not to know God is not merely demanding the right to disassociate himself from God forever, but also is demanding the consequence of being without all that God offers and means.

Now, that's Hell. And that's why God does not want anyone to choose it. But free will means that some will. That's the cost of freedom, because a freedom that is not allowed to choose badly is also not free to choose rightly. It's not free to choose at all, actually.

So that is your literal understanding of what hell is as taught in the Bible. Somehow it doesn't seem quite the same as these verses describe it.

Matthew 3:12 His winnowing fork is in his hand, and he will clear his threshing floor, gathering his wheat into the barn and burning up the chaff with unquenchable fire.

Matthew 5:22 But I tell you that anyone who is angry with a brother or sister will be subject to judgment. Again, anyone who says to a brother or sister, ‘Raca,’ is answerable to the court. And anyone who says, ‘You fool!’ will be in danger of the fire of hell.

Matthew 8:12 But the subjects of the kingdom will be thrown outside, into the darkness, where there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth.

Matthew 13:42 And the angels will throw them into the fiery furnace, where there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth.

Matthew 5:29&30 If your right eye causes you to stumble, gouge it out and throw it away. It is better for you to lose one part of your body than for your whole body to be thrown into hell. And if your right hand causes you to stumble, cut it off and throw it away. It is better for you to lose one part of your body than for your whole body to go into hell.

Matthew 10:28 Do not be afraid of those who kill the body but cannot kill the soul. Rather, be afraid of the One who can destroy both soul and body in hell.

Revelation 20:10 And the devil, who deceived them, was thrown into the lake of burning sulfur, where the beast and the false prophet had been thrown. They will be tormented day and night for ever and ever.

Revelation 14:9-11 A third angel followed them and said in a loud voice: “If anyone worships the beast and its image and receives its mark on their forehead or on their hand, they, too, will drink the wine of God’s fury, which has been poured full strength into the cup of his wrath. They will be tormented with burning sulfur in the presence of the holy angels and of the Lamb. And the smoke of their torment will rise for ever and ever. There will be no rest day or night for those who worship the beast and its image, or for anyone who receives the mark of its name.

II Peter 2:3-6 Their condemnation has long been hanging over them, and their destruction has not been sleeping. For if God did not spare angels when they sinned, but sent them to hell, putting them in chains of darkness to be held for judgment; if he did not spare the ancient world when he brought the flood on its ungodly people, but protected Noah, a preacher of righteousness, and seven others; if he condemned the cities of Sodom and Gomorrah by burning them to ashes, and made them an example of what is going to happen to the ungodly.

Jude 1:7 Even as Sodom and Gomorrha, and the cities about them in like manner, giving themselves over to fornication, and going after strange flesh, are set forth for an example, suffering the vengeance of eternal fire.

The rest of my question was, "Do you believe the majority of mankind is destined for that damnation? Do you believe before God created the world that destiny was already known?" ... that most of them would suffer eternal torment?" I added, "No matter how you attempt to justify it, you'll be claiming God does exactly what Romans 3:8 rejects, [let us do evil that good may come].

I think not: and I think you can see that from the above passages.

No good God would arrange the suffering of others, if arranging were all there was to it. Granted.

But that's not what God does. He doesn't "arrange" for us to end up in any state. We do.

I didn't say anything about God arranging anything. It really doesn't matter what the mechanics of the thing are, whether it's from human choice or something else. If the majority of human beings suffering for eternity, whether literal physical suffering or some kind of psychological torment, and I could prevent it, just by not doing something, but I do it anyway, I'm responsible for their suffering. If God does it, he's responsible for their suffering.[/quote]

The "mercy" part is this: that God has done literally everything He could do to make the right choice available to us, short of shutting down our freedom and "arranging" everything so we had no choice in the matter. But as I say, if you're going to have any choice at all -- volition, freedom, identity, options, an independent will, any of that -- you're going to have to be allowed to make a wretched choice if you are committed to doing it. Anything less, and God is not honouring your will, or recognizing you as an individual.

And there it is, the very argument I said you would have to make. God creates millions of human beings he knows will be tormented for ever [the evil done] so they can have their wills honored and be recognized as individuals [the good that comes from it]. You really think having one's will honored and being recognize as an individual is a just exchange for eternal torment? Sorry, I don't.

I know you cannot possibly agree with what I've just written, but you may find the question one that is at least interesting, although I'm sure, distasteful to you. I wish I could have made the point in a less distasteful way, but honesty doesn't always lend it self pleasantness.

So I wish much pleasure in other areas, as always!

[Immanuel Can]

Absolutely, when it is an ideology, as though the denial of something were a kind of assertion (which I think would apply to the evangelical type of Atheist). Many people who are called atheists, however, just reject both hypotheses, that there is or is not a God, as invalid.

That seems harder to do, unless they can show that the concept "God" is rationally incoherent --

No, that's not the point.

I would say it is, RC. The Atheist certainly has very little to offer. He has no rational entitlement to say he knows there's no God. He has no sufficient test to warrant his confident disbelief. Yet that is what he wants to offer...and indeed, to recommend to others.

So his only recourse would be to say that the concept is somehow analytically impossible...but that's also clearly not going to work. Atheism's firing blanks on every chamber, it seems to me.

However...let us proceed.

If anything is hypothesized as the explanation of something, and there is no way to test it to prove it is not true, if it is not true, it is an invalid hypothesis.

If there's a way to prove it true, then it's not at all an invalid hypothesis, RC. In fact, verification, where it can be achieved, is the ultimate in proof. It shows that the hypothesis in question is not only valid, but true as well...sound in all respects.

Meanwhile, the falsifiability objection has relevance only in cases where verification cannot be had...and even then doesn't tell us a particular hypothesis is wrong, only that we aren't going to be able to make any definite decisions about it -- and it's only in that sense that we can call such a hypothesis "invalid"; not "wrong, " but merely "not functional for our scientific purposes. In fact, such a hypothesis may well be right.

Worse still for Atheism, verification can be had, in the matter of the existence of God. As we noted, one genuine creation, one genuine miracle, one genuine prayer answered, one genuine prophecy, one genuine revelation, one genuine incarnation...and Atheism's dead in the water.

So the God hypothesis is not only not in any way analytically problematic, it's got possibility of positive proof as well.

Atheism, on the other hand, is neither rational coherent nor capable of mustering proof.

... not merely to show that the concept does not refer to a real entity, of course, because we already know they can't do that -- but that to speak of a Supreme Being or First Cause is rationally impossible.

Unless the existence of God has been unquestionably establish, it is not possible to know if the concept refers to a real entity or not. That's the whole question.

We were talking about the alleged rationality of Atheism, RC. It's the Atheist who is claiming "certainty" that there is no God. But now, you are saying that "it is not possible to know." So in what sense do you also stand by your earlier claim that you were "certain" of what you now say is impossible for you to know?

...and, a, "First Cause," is rationally impossible. Either, "everything must have a cause," is true, or, "everything does not have to have a cause," is true. They cannot both be true. If everything must have a cause there cannot be a first cause. If there is a first cause, everything does not have to have a cause, contra-hypothesis--the universe does not have to have a cause.

A First Cause is not only not rationally impossible -- it's actually rationally impossible to have a causally-functioning universe without a First Cause. That's because an infinite regress of causes is utterly impossible...it would mean that the universe would never have got started in the first place, because no effect could take place until it's relevant cause had already taken place; and since every one of the infinite effects in the universe would be waiting on an infinite chain of causes, nothing would ever begin.

But here we are. Therefore, there's no escaping the need for some kind of First Cause.

My only point was that Paul claims some people sometimes, "do by nature things required by the law," and in others that nothing good comes from one's nature (or the flesh). That's it.

So far, so good, then.

My other question about Hell is related to the interpretation question. That question was: "Do you believe in a literal eternal damnation as described in the New Testament?

This is your answer:

So that is your literal understanding of what hell is as taught in the Bible. Somehow it doesn't seem quite the same as these verses describe it.

Matthew 3:12 His winnowing fork is in his hand, and he will clear his threshing floor, gathering his wheat into the barn and burning up the chaff with unquenchable fire.

Matthew 5:22 But I tell you that anyone who is angry with a brother or sister will be subject to judgment. Again, anyone who says to a brother or sister, ‘Raca,’ is answerable to the court. And anyone who says, ‘You fool!’ will be in danger of the fire of hell.

Matthew 8:12 But the subjects of the kingdom will be thrown outside, into the darkness, where there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth.

Matthew 13:42 And the angels will throw them into the fiery furnace, where there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth.

Matthew 5:29&30 If your right eye causes you to stumble, gouge it out and throw it away. It is better for you to lose one part of your body than for your whole body to be thrown into hell. And if your right hand causes you to stumble, cut it off and throw it away. It is better for you to lose one part of your body than for your whole body to go into hell.

Matthew 10:28 Do not be afraid of those who kill the body but cannot kill the soul. Rather, be afraid of the One who can destroy both soul and body in hell.

Revelation 20:10 And the devil, who deceived them, was thrown into the lake of burning sulfur, where the beast and the false prophet had been thrown. They will be tormented day and night for ever and ever.

Revelation 14:9-11 A third angel followed them and said in a loud voice: “If anyone worships the beast and its image and receives its mark on their forehead or on their hand, they, too, will drink the wine of God’s fury, which has been poured full strength into the cup of his wrath. They will be tormented with burning sulfur in the presence of the holy angels and of the Lamb. And the smoke of their torment will rise for ever and ever. There will be no rest day or night for those who worship the beast and its image, or for anyone who receives the mark of its name.

II Peter 2:3-6 Their condemnation has long been hanging over them, and their destruction has not been sleeping. For if God did not spare angels when they sinned, but sent them to hell, putting them in chains of darkness to be held for judgment; if he did not spare the ancient world when he brought the flood on its ungodly people, but protected Noah, a preacher of righteousness, and seven others; if he condemned the cities of Sodom and Gomorrah by burning them to ashes, and made them an example of what is going to happen to the ungodly.

Jude 1:7 Even as Sodom and Gomorrha, and the cities about them in like manner, giving themselves over to fornication, and going after strange flesh, are set forth for an example, suffering the vengeance of eternal fire.

What part of this seems "not quite the same"? Did I suggest that Hell was nice? Did I suggest that it involved soul extinction? Did I, in fact, say anything about it's particular conditions at all, except that it is a product of separation from God?

But if you paid close attention to my description, you might well catch something worse than any of the particulars above. It's a place where one is severed from connection with "the Giver of ALL Good Gifts." If happiness is a good gift of God, then there's none of that in Hell. If friends are a good gift of God, then there are none of those there. If good food is a good gift of God, then there's none of that there...and so on.

Still think I undersold the case?

I didn't say anything about God arranging anything. It really doesn't matter what the mechanics of the thing are, whether it's from human choice or something else.

Oh, most certainly it does. Whether one has one's destiny by free choice or by compulsion is a completely different matter. It places the blame for the outcome at quite a different location.

If the majority of human beings suffering for eternity, whether literal physical suffering or some kind of psychological torment, and I could prevent it, just by not doing something, but I do it anyway, I'm responsible for their suffering. If God does it, he's responsible for their suffering.

John Locke, in his discussion of human free will (the same passage he uses to ground human rights, actually) asks if it would be right to "have men forced to Heaven". That is, should God make people who do not want to have anything to do with Him, accept relationship with Him anyway?

Locke understood that to do that would surely be within the power of a Supreme Being. But what would not be possible, even for the Supreme Being (not because He's "not strong enough," but because it's rationally contradictory, and thus analytically impossible, and even God does not do logically contradictory things) is to make free beings who have no choice but to love Him.

For to be "free" means, analytically, to have the option to do or not to do, to be or not to be. It means you have the option to make the right choice, and also the wrong one. And if your freedom is real, it means that if you do make the wrong or wretched choice, that choice is still empowered.

Is choice important? A lot of people think so. People have even died for it...or even died so others could have it. But to God, it's even more important, because it is the only condition under which independent beings can freely choose to enter into a relationship with Him.

If God desires beings that freely choose relationship with Him, then analytically, it is impossible that being should have no other choice BUT to love Him. So it is inevitable that some free beings are going to make a bad choice. God can do everything short of removing the free will of such people; but removing their free will, He cannot do without destroying what "free" means...and what genuine relationship entails.

You have volitional freedom -- particularly in the matter of whether you will or will not love God. What you cannot have is freedom without consequences. If you choose to be without the Source of all goodness, don't be terribly surprised if what you're left with is not very much.

You really think having one's will honored and being recognize as an individual is a just exchange for eternal torment?

You miss the point. There IS no relationship without free will. Moreover, there isn't even a genuine YOU, if you can do nothing but what you're programmed to do. And there is no such thing as love.

Is a universe with the possibility of genuine love and relationship in it better than a universe of automatons? I think that's quite plausible.

I know you cannot possibly agree with what I've just written, but you may find the question one that is at least interesting, although I'm sure, distasteful to you. I wish I could have made the point in a less distasteful way, but honesty doesn't always lend it self pleasantness.

I don't mind if you bowl overhand, RC. That's what we're here for.

It's all good. You can always say what you think.

[Sculptor]

Atheism is not a claim. It's an absence of a claim.

Nope. It's a claim alright. If it claims nothing, then it's agnosticism, not Atheism.

That's the stupidest thing I've read in ages.
" If it claims nothing,!.. QED It is not a claim.
Idiot!

[Lacewing]

Atheism is not a claim. It's an absence of a claim.

Nope. It's a claim alright. If it claims nothing, then it's agnosticism, not Atheism.

That's the stupidest thing I've read in ages.
" If it claims nothing,!.. QED It is not a claim.
Idiot!

Evidently in IC's universe, everything must be associated with a god somehow, even if other people hold no such belief.

It's fascinating: If his theism must be identified as a "belief", then everything else must be identified as a "belief"... even if there's no belief... else his belief doesn't rise above the realm of a specific fantasy and holds no power over anything. So he endeavors to establish and define everything according to his realm of belief despite all to the contrary.

[Immanuel Can]

" If it claims nothing,!.. QED It is not a claim."

Agnosticism isn't? The only claim agnosticism makes is not to knowledge, but to ignorance, which is its cognate and synonym.

But Atheism is a claim. If it's not, then nobody needs to believe what Atheists say, because they make no claim.

[Lacewing]

Atheism is a claim. If it's not, then nobody needs to believe what Atheists say, because they make no claim.

Atheism is a label. There's nothing to believe.

[Immanuel Can]

Atheism is a claim. If it's not, then nobody needs to believe what Atheists say, because they make no claim.

Atheism is a label. There's nothing to believe.

So...you have no problem with an Atheist who happens to worship Zeus, Osiris and Thor...because as an Atheist, he does not claim anything anyway.

[Lacewing]

Atheism is a claim. If it's not, then nobody needs to believe what Atheists say, because they make no claim.

Atheism is a label. There's nothing to believe.

So...you have no problem with an Atheist who happens to worship Zeus, Osiris and Thor...because as an Atheist, he does not claim anything anyway.

Why would I have a problem if someone calls themselves an atheist or a theist? What matters is what they say, think, believe, do, etc. Those labels/words (atheist and theist) are superficial, and do not determine anything specific. People are much more diverse and dynamic than you seem to acknowledge/consider (which I don't think is a truthful position for you to use for making claims).

[henry quirk]

The theist sez 'there is a god'. Is this a claim?

The atheist sez 'there is no god'. Is this a claim?

[Lacewing]

The theist sez 'there is a god'. Is this a claim?

The atheist sez 'there is no god'. Is this a claim?

Some atheists say "what god"? Is that a claim?

[Immanuel Can]

Why would I have a problem if someone calls themselves an atheist or a theist? What matters is what they say, think, believe, do, etc. Those labels/words (atheist and theist) are superficial, and do not determine anything specific.

Oh. So you don't think being an Atheist is better or worse than being a Theist, then. It doesn't actually matter, you would say.

It makes me wonder why you bothered to say anything at all. Because now, according to you, nothing was at stake.

[Immanuel Can]

Some atheists say "what god"? Is that a claim?

If they are open to even the possible existence of any gods or God, then they're obviously not Atheists.

[Lacewing]

Why would I have a problem if someone calls themselves an atheist or a theist? What matters is what they say, think, believe, do, etc. Those labels/words (atheist and theist) are superficial, and do not determine anything specific.

Oh. So you don't think being an Atheist is better or worse than being a Theist, then. It doesn't actually matter, you would say.

Correct -- doesn't matter how a person identifies themselves -- that does not say who they are.

It makes me wonder why you bothered to say anything at all. Because now, according to you, nothing was at stake.

Why does there have to be anything at stake? You claim that such labels establish/determine all kinds of things about people, and I claim they don't.

[henry quirk]

The theist sez 'there is a god'. Is this a claim?

The atheist sez 'there is no god'. Is this a claim?

Some atheists say "what god"? Is that a claim?

No, it's a question.

Back to this (adjusted slightly)...

A theist sez 'there is a god'. Is this a claim?

An atheist sez 'there is no god'. Is this a claim?

[Lacewing]

Some atheists say "what god"? Is that a claim?

If they are open to even the possible existence of any gods or God, then they're obviously not Atheists.

And you conclude this because they say "what god" in response to a bunch of people insisting there's a god? It's like responding to a person who points into the air and exclaims fervently that there's something specific there.