News:

Departing the Vacuousness

Main Menu

Will there be more or less?

Started by toink33, November 04, 2006, 06:39:56 AM

Previous topic - Next topic

toink33

"Believe or you will be in hell for all eternity."

Without this type of statement will there be more or less God followers?

In my case, it is some similar statement that was used to recruit me.
But when I was alone, I asked myself. why?
What have I done to deserve such punishment?
What if I was born in a Muslim nation?
How just is that?
If I am to believe in God, there has to be a better reason.
I never found one.

When I was a young boy the statement scares me, but not anymore.

Court

#1
Quote from: "toink33""Believe or you will be in hell for all eternity."

Without this type of statement will there be more or less God followers?

Probably less. Many people buy into the Pascal's wager sort of argument, from fear, and without it, Christian myths lose their edge.

Quote from: "toink33"What if I was born in a Muslim nation?
How just is that?

This was literally my first theological dilemma, when I was about ten years old. We were learning about missionaries or some such in Sunday school and I asked the teacher what about our religion would make natives convert. I mean, what is so much better about our religion that they would abandon centuries of their own religious traditions? It simply doesn't seem fair, because if a missionary from some other religion came and preached to a typical American Christian, the Christian wouldn't even consider converting. So why should we expect the victims of Christian proselytizing to convert to Christianity? It simply doesn't make sense.
This question was reintroduced to me my senior year of high school when we read The Poisonwood Bible by Barbara Kingsolver (such a good book, btw, I highly recommend it), and I still haven't heard a good explanation from anyone. I've heard from make-shit-up-as-you-go Christians that these people won't go to hell, but they're clearly contradicting their own Bible when they say that, so I can't accept that explanation.
[size=92]
I should have been a pair of ragged claws
Scuttling across the floors of silent seas
[/size]
[size=92]
try having a little faith = stop using your brain for a while -- ziffel[/size]

liketolearn

#2
i don't think that most christians would force that statement onto a nonchristian.

and as far as what is better about christianity, it is the only religion where one does not have to work one's way in to heaven. it does have that going for it.

McQ

#3
Quote from: "liketolearn"i don't think that most christians would force that statement onto a nonchristian.

and as far as what is better about christianity, it is the only religion where one does not have to work one's way in to heaven. it does have that going for it.

you've obviously never been around Catholics.  :)
Elvis didn't do no drugs!
--Penn Jillette

Whitney

#4
Personally, I would find it more believeable if the hell aspect wasn't included...yet, that same idea is what I think keeps many in the belief through fear (worked on me for a while).  Basically, if there wasn't a fear of hell people would have less reason to try and force themselves to believe and there would be fewer followers.

Whitney

#5
liketolearn; what's wrong with the idea of working your way into heaven?  I'd much rather be judged on if I was good or bad than if I believed something without seeing.

liketolearn

#6
when i see human nature, i see more bad than good. because of that, i don't think it would be possible for people to work their way into heaven. they wouldn't be good enough, deserving enough, for that kind of place. it seems like many religions are driven by guilt and trying to attain what cannot be attained. i would rather have it given to me because 'god loves me' than have to work for it and not be assured of anything, i think. i try to be a 'good person' but i'm not anywhere near perfect, so i guess that's what i'm basing my thoughts on.

Whitney

#7
Quote from: "liketolearn"when i see human nature, i see more bad than good. because of that, i don't think it would be possible for people to work their way into heaven. they wouldn't be good enough, deserving enough, for that kind of place. it seems like many religions are driven by guilt and trying to attain what cannot be attained. i would rather have it given to me because 'god loves me' than have to work for it and not be assured of anything, i think. i try to be a 'good person' but i'm not anywhere near perfect, so i guess that's what i'm basing my thoughts on.

I see it the opposite way, I think most people are generally good but it's the bad ones that we see more of since they make the news.

User192021

#8
Quote from: "laetusatheos"
Quote from: "liketolearn"when i see human nature, i see more bad than good. because of that, i don't think it would be possible for people to work their way into heaven. they wouldn't be good enough, deserving enough, for that kind of place. it seems like many religions are driven by guilt and trying to attain what cannot be attained. i would rather have it given to me because 'god loves me' than have to work for it and not be assured of anything, i think. i try to be a 'good person' but i'm not anywhere near perfect, so i guess that's what i'm basing my thoughts on.

I see it the opposite way, I think most people are generally good but it's the bad ones that we see more of since they make the news.

I agree totally.  I think people overlook how much good there is in the world and focus on the bad.  When someone holds a door for you, do you tell everybody later that day how nice it was of that person to hold the door?  No.  What if you hold a door for someone and they don't say "thanks"?  I hear lots of people complain about that.  We complain about bad stuff because it's more fun that praising how good human nature really is.

MommaSquid

#9
Quote from: "user192021"What if you hold a door for someone and they don't say "thanks"? I hear lots of people complain about that.

Attitude adjustment in 5...4...3...2...1

I have been guilty of that one.   :oops:

Thanks for making me think about that in a new way.

donkeyhoty

#10
Quote from: "User192021"What if you hold a door for someone and they don't say "thanks"?
You either hit them with the door or trip them.
"Feminism encourages women to leave their husbands, kill their children, practice witchcraft, destroy capitalism and become lesbians."  - Pat Robertson

Scrybe

#11
Quote from: "Court"I've heard from make-shit-up-as-you-go Christians that these people won't go to hell, but they're clearly contradicting their own Bible when they say that, so I can't accept that explanation.

I'm probably someone you would consider a "Make-shit-up-as-you-go Christian".  But… isn't everybody making up shit as they go?  No one can even prove they exist.  None of us can prove our viewpoint is correct.  There are far too many questionable leaps, assumptions, value judgments, etc.

Anyway, the thing I wanted to point out is your assumption that "our" Bible is the authority in every Christian's life.  That is one view, held by many Christians.  But another, equally valid view is that "the" Bible is a collection of writings by many who were inspired by God.  People we respect, and find it reasonable to take their advice.  So I'd encourage you to re-evaluate your definition of a Christian who does not view the Bible as THE WORD OF GOD, as being a Make-shit-up-as-you-go Christian.

Another point I could bring up is that the word translated in most Bibles as 'eternal' is better translated as age-lasting.  You are all correct that an eternal torment for not being a Christian is not at all in line with a loving, merciful God.
"Man's mind, once stretched by a new idea, never regains its original dimensions." ~ Oliver Wendell Holmes

SteveS

#12
Hello Scrybe, I've got a question about what you've written here.  You say that

Quote from: "Scrybe"another, equally valid view is that "the" Bible is a collection of writings by many who were inspired by God.
but you've pointed out,

Quote from: "Scrybe"None of us can prove our viewpoint is correct. There are far too many questionable leaps, assumptions, value judgments, etc.
So, how do we know that your above viewpoint is valid?

It seems to me we have to draw a "reasonable" line in the sand somewhere in order to have a meaningful discussion.

So many people have claimed to be "inspired by God".  How do we know that anybody was, especially when most of us freely admit to believing that many who made the claim were lying?  And if it's an internal judgment call, then we're right back to arguing competing viewpoints.  So it seems to me that we have to use some sort of "external rubric" for judging these claims, and at the very least subject them to some sort of probability.

On another note, I too agree with the following:

Quote from: "Scrybe"You are all correct that an eternal torment for not being a Christian is not at all in line with a loving, merciful God.
It has always seemed to me that people don't want their god(s) to be entirely merciful.  They want him/her/them/it to punish evil people.  So it seems odd that they insist on describing their god(s) with such adjectives as "merciful" and "benevolent".

Scrybe

#13
Quote from: "SteveS"
Quote from: "Scrybe"None of us can prove our viewpoint is correct. There are far too many questionable leaps, assumptions, value judgments, etc.
So, how do we know that your above viewpoint is valid?

Well of course you can't.  Fortunately it's not my job to convince you!  :lol:


Quote from: "SteveS"It seems to me we have to draw a "reasonable" line in the sand somewhere in order to have a meaningful discussion.

This is true.  But I find it helpful to remind myself and others of our intellectual and philosophical limitations.  When we are both mindful that we are both guessing about everything it helps to keep us humble, humorous, and easy-going.  Without of the pretense of "I'M RIGHT AND YOU'RE WRONG!" we can have a much more enjoyable discussion.  Now we can progress to the stage of "I think I'm right because…"

Quote from: "SteveS"So many people have claimed to be "inspired by God".  How do we know that anybody was, especially when most of us freely admit to believing that many who made the claim were lying?

With the framework laid sufficiently, I can say with 100% certainty that we don't know if anyone was "inspired by God".   :lol:

I believe that there is revelation, but the reason why will require a little preface…
I'm sure this is a drastically underdeveloped idea, (one of the reasons I'm here is to better develop, or demolish some underdeveloped ideas.) but it seems to me that the primary difference between atheists and theists is how we approach ultimate questions.  That these questions exist is a psychologically inescapable fact.  How we explain their origin and answer them is the great dividing line.  It seems to me â€"and I could be totally wrong about this- that atheists decide that the questions are invalid, or ultimately meaningless.  Whereas the theist sees them as pertinent and requiring investigation.  That is the whole business of religion, right?  So the root issue seems to be the discerning of an epistemological telos.  In other words: Are these questions meaningful and worth investigating?  Since this divergence of thought occurs so close to the root of the way a person interprets reality it is very challenging to hold an organized discussion together with people who see this differently.  That is why I think debates about how valid "the" Bible is, or whether I.D. should be taught in schools are pointless wastes of time.  They are putting the horse a couple miles before the cart.  

So with that long-winded preamble, I'll attempt answer your straightforward and very legitimate question.  How do we know anyone was "inspired by God"?  I'll use the preceding arguments to justify changing the question â€" if you don't mind â€" to "Why do you think anyone has been inspired by God?"  The answer is that I have made a judgment call concerning the ultimate questions, and consider them legitimate, meaningful and worthy of inquiry.  The immediate problem you run into at that point is the epistemological dilemma that you can not trust anything or anyone, including yourself, to be completely accurate about anything.  I realize I've gone a few steps past our divergent paths, but you'll need to follow me for a bit if you want to understand my answer.

So far I've gone from step 1: declare the ultimate questions worthy of investigation, to step 2: realize I can't use normal methods of information gathering to answer these questions.  Now step 3 is, as far as I know, the only option available: revelation.  Being finite beings with fallible senses, the only way we could possibly find answers to these questions is to have them fed to us be an infinite, infallible being or beings.  That is the only kind of information source that could actually know the answers.  (unless you disagree with step 2.  â€¦ But I'm assuming you disagree with step 1, so I guess it doesn't matter. :)  )  

The next part of the question is: Why believe any particular revelation over any other one?  (enter F.S.M.)  Well, to put it simply, I work with what I have.  I have reasoning skills.  I have access to an amazing array of historical, philosophical, and religious literature.  I have five senses that, with a relative amount of certainty, I can claim to be working well.  I live in a culture that is diverse and relatively sophisticated.  These are all tools that help me investigate the most likely source of revelation.            

Quote from: "SteveS"And if it's an internal judgment call, then we're right back to arguing competing viewpoints.

Well that is just inescapable!  


Quote from: "SteveS"So it seems to me that we have to use some sort of "external rubric" for judging these claims, and at the very least subject them to some sort of probability.

Yes, I agree.  With the understanding that the "external rubric" is as fallible as our viewpoints are limited by time, space, and intellectual frailties.  After all, any rubric we have is a construct based on our interpretations of reality, and every person has a different lens through which they see.  That being said, I assume we are on the same page when it comes to certain fundamentals of logic such as the law of non-contradiction.  But I think our differences will be axiomatic rather than epistemological.    

Quote from: "SteveS"It has always seemed to me that people don't want their god(s) to be entirely merciful.  They want him/her/them/it to punish evil people.

Yeah… Sadly, that seems to be the human condition.  If there is an all-powerful being it is natural to project your interpretation of justice on it.  I think that is why as our society discards it's gods we find new things to project our revenge fantasies onto: movies, games, government institutions.  We recognize the inherent injustice in the world and would like to think everyone get's their just deserts.  (Usually seeing themselves as meriting only glory!  :lol:   )

I know atheists see this psychological need as a reason to believe the whole story is simply man-made.  But I would argue that need fulfillment is not a consistent explanation for a host of things.  We don't have food because we need it.  We need food and there happens to be food.  We need air and there happens to be air.  Food and air do not exist as a projection of our desires.  

 
Quote from: "SteveS"So it seems odd that they insist on describing their god(s) with such adjectives as "merciful" and "benevolent".

Indeed.  I prefer consistency.
"Man's mind, once stretched by a new idea, never regains its original dimensions." ~ Oliver Wendell Holmes

SteveS

#14
Thanks, Scrybe, for your thoughtful reply.  I'm been reading over it and pondering it for a while.  I'd like to add/answer a few things, and explore some of this a little further (it's a good conversation, IMHO).

I actually think we may disagree on epistemological grounds.  I'm just not wired the right way to be a "hard core" philosopher that distrusts everything to such a large extent.  Usually, this is because I have a problem with things that are "possible" but that don't give me any good reason for consideration.  Argh, I'm having trouble explaining this.  Actually, here's an example, take this statement

Quote from: "Scrybe"No one can even prove they exist.
I may be misinterpreting this, but I think that if you asked me to prove that you exist, I believe that I could reasonably do so.  I could have many people see you visually, and hear you talk.  I could put a scale under you and measure your weight.  I could shine a light in your direction, and note that a shadow is produced behind you.  I could bounce sonar waves off of you from multiple different angles and notice that they all return from the same location.  I could attempt to pass my hand through your person and feel that it stops.  Perhaps I could smell you.  I could aim a FLIR camera at you and note that it registers heat at your (alleged) location.  I'm sure you get the idea, but I could do all sorts of things like this, and I'd be left with a convergence of independent data that all suggest there is a person standing where you are.  I would certainly accept this as very reasonable proof that you exist.  Now, maybe we're all plugged into the matrix and you're one of the "agents", and therefore don't really exist like I think you do, as a flesh and blood organism standing somewhere.  Possible?  Of course.  But what reason would I have for this suspicion?  Just because I thought it up?

I understand your statement about our limitations --- it's just that after a certain level I have trouble finding meaning in them.  What test could I perform that would either prove or disprove, or even suggest a probability, that we are or are not in the matrix?  It seems to me none.  So why should I worry about it?

Anyway, I'm not going to re-quote your middle paragraphs (from your preface down to steps 1, 2, and 3), but please consider this next piece of my message in reference to these (which I enjoyed reading, BTW).

I might be dealing with another misunderstanding (on my part).  If what you presume I find meaningless is the extent to which we can trust our knowledge, then I guess you're correct, and I find too much distrust to be meaningless.  If, on the other hand, what you mean by "ultimate questions being worthy of investigation" is more a purpose of existence thing, then I would disagree (although I'm not sure all atheists would, I guess I really don't know).  What I'm getting at here is that if there is a purpose to our existence, I would very much like to know, and would like to know what it is.  It's just that I view our current human understanding to be completely unable to even began to answer this question.

So, it's very possible, depending on my understanding of this, that I agree completely with your step 1.  Step 2 I'm not so sure about.  I guess I don't see why we would need to use alternate techniques to discern these questions?  I mean, if some supernatural deities exist, they have to interact with our physical existence to affect it, right?  So why couldn't our scientific examination of our existence be able to "find" them?  In one of my Carl Sagan books (I think his Gifford lectures), he says basically that as little as we know about the universe, he believes we know even less about god.  I guess this fits my thinking fairly well.  In fact, I'd go so far as to say I don't think we have any knowledge of any gods.  Personally, I very strongly suspect everything that we have that claims to be "divinely inspired" is really just fiction written by people.  Eh, I guess I sort of disagreed with both steps 2 and 3 in this blurb  :wink:  

Oh, one quick thing,

Quote from: "Scrybe"I'll use the preceding arguments to justify changing the question – if you don't mind – to "Why do you think anyone has been inspired by God?"
No objection whatsoever.  This is, of course, what I'm really asking.

About the "external rubric" thing, you point out that everyone has a different lens through which they interpret reality.  I guess that's what I was hoping to avoid, using  the common parts of our different lenses, if you will.  Measure things using elements that we can all agree are reasonably valid.  For example, we would never suggest someone stand on a train track and watch an approaching locomotive without fear, since it's possible that our eyes are deceiving us, so the train might not be real.  On the other hand, if you and I are in the same room, and I claim to have seen a ghost that you did not see, but I never see it again and neither does anyone else, then we might suspect that in this case my eyes did, perhaps, deceive me.  Or, ghosts are real and it's just unlucky, there's no way a single eyewitness to a single transient event can possibly convince anyone, because in this case there's just too much room for error to be reasonably compelling.

Please pardon my example laced blue-collar philosophy, I'm an engineer by living, and I can actually feel my lack of eloquence attempting to discuss philosophical topics.

Phew, just two more things I wanted to hit,

Quote from: "Scrybe"We recognize the inherent injustice in the world and would like to think everyone get's their just deserts. (Usually seeing themselves as meriting only glory!  :Laughing:  )
This reminds me of those wonderful statistics where like, what, 80% of people think they are "above average" drivers.  Haha.

Quote from: "Scrybe"But I would argue that need fulfillment is not a consistent explanation for a host of things. We don't have food because we need it. We need food and there happens to be food. We need air and there happens to be air. Food and air do not exist as a projection of our desires.
I, of course, would argue that we need food and air as a result of our physical nature, which we arrived at through evolution.  The fact that we can breath the air that exists on our planet, and eat the other stuff on our planet as food, is a direct consequence of our evolutionary process modifying us for survival in accordance with our environment.  Desire is a consequence.

I think I would agree with most atheists that need fulfillment can affect what people do and do not accept as evidence for things, and that the high desirability of surviving your own death and living eternally in unmatched bliss tends to make people less than objective when accepting religious stories as fact.  Primarily, I would say we feel that way because the actual evidence for truth in these tails (edited, oops, I meant "tales", haha) is very weak, and yet such a large number of people accept them.