When Does Religion Become Just Silly?

[abaddon]

Originally Posted by Thor 2

I think that abaddon did a good job in answering the following so will just confine myself to responding to the sillier bits.

Thanks, but I am no authority. Well, perhaps I have at least some authority as we shall see in the next section.

Originally Posted by Thor 2

Well I think I answered the question of why not a caring god with my comment about it not interfering when all kinds of nasty stuff is happening. A bolt of lightening or two zapping child molesting priests would be a good start.

And that is a moral problem for the god botherers. Is there a man or woman among us who would not prevent a child being raped? I would give my life to stop such a thing. Pretty sure Thor would. Pretty sure many members here would. But god would not. He could, but he refuses to do so. He just watches and tells the perpetrator that he will merely watch as it happens and punish the perp at some later time.

Perhaps god is a perverted voyeur. It seems so. Were either of my children so assaulted, I could not stand by. But bible god could and apparently does. Thus I have higher morals than bible god.

Any bible basher care to explain?

Originally Posted by Thor 2

This is a bit of a jumble but here goes.

It is a jumble.

Originally Posted by Thor 2

The Abrahamic god of the OT did lots of intervening but grew tired of it it seems.

Exactly how did you determine that god got "bored"? Seems more likely that it doesn't exist in the first place.

Originally Posted by Thor 2

He did chat directly with some people using props like burning bushes and such also.

Nope.

Originally Posted by Thor 2

He stopped doing this also,

Yep.

Originally Posted by Thor 2

(some who hear voices in their heads my dispute this), good while ago.

Those are called delusions.

Originally Posted by Thor 2

If the god you are referring to is this one then the "blindingly obvious" is now but not then?

Simples. The blindingly obvious god is the one that whichever protagonist happens to believe in.

Amusingly, on another forum, there are two muslims arguing. That is how religion works.

Originally Posted by Thor 2

It's obvious our minds work somewhat differently.

Ha. Thank you captain obvious.

Originally Posted by Thor 2

I don't look for a purpose for every phenomena I come across. This would be nonsensical for me given I think all phenomena just happened and wasn't made by a god. If you start off with the assumption that God did it it's reasonable to look for a purpose. So asking what purpose the god of Abraham had in creating man is a reasonable question. Any answer?

Your optimism is admirable.

Originally Posted by Thor 2

So we were made in Gods image but not a perfect copy?

That is a problem for the abrahamic religions. According to the bible, god is of human form, showed his butt to the imaginary moses, cheated at wrestling and so forth. This leaves the believers in a quandary. And they cannot work it out.

Originally Posted by Thor 2

I suppose the many failings of the human physical body would not look good on God so there would be one exception.

Why should there be an exception? Because...

Originally Posted by Thor 2

I have heard it said we are made spiritually in His image but I have some difficulty with this notion.

Of course you do because the bible claims the opposite.

Originally Posted by Thor 2

Our spiritual replication was flawed in the decision making process perhaps? You know by eating the apple - mainly Eve's fault of course.

What a bitch, I suppose. Blame her, why not?

Originally Posted by Thor 2

But their crimes will be forgiven if they just believe in Jesus! Wow yes, just like that! Mind you if your geographical location has stopped you from learning about Jesus, or your God given spiritual mind cannot accept this truth, you're stuffed.

Well, as an atheist, I can do whatever I like. But if I have a deathbed conversion, I go straight to heaven, no questions asked no matter what I might have done in the past.

Justice simply does not exist in christianity.

[Giordano]

Originally Posted by Gord_in_Toronto

Silly God really can't get much right. After creating the Universe and looking on His work and "seeing it was very good" has to start over by drowning every living thing (almost) shortly thereafter.

And you think he would have foreseen that, wouldn't you? Being omniscient and all. He even missed out at the very beginning when Adam and Eve ate the fruit of knowledge. Why did he even bother to tell them not to when he knew they would? To quote Bugs Bunny - "What a maroon!"

[Giordano]

BTW: if I was a believer I would honor Eve with the highest reward I could! Eating of the fruit of knowledge was the event that made humans who we are and presumably different from other animals. Plus the willingness to defy authority unwilling to provide a rationale for their commands. Secondary credit to the snake of course.

[Thor 2]

Originally Posted by The Great Zaganza

Both Scientology and Mormonism are supremely silly, yet very successful in their own way.

Originally Posted by Darat

The only reason we don't view the abrahamic religions as equally silly as all the other religions is simply familiarity.

Well I do agree with you to a large extent Darat, but there are some issues with the origins of of Scientology and Mormonism, that speak loudly about the apparent gullibility of the followers.

The founder of Scientology apparently just extending his science fiction mythology, and Joseph Smith coming from a background of story telling and fraud as I understand it.

[Thor 2]

Originally Posted by Giordano

BTW: if I was a believer I would honor Eve with the highest reward I could! Eating of the fruit of knowledge was the event that made humans who we are and presumably different from other animals. Plus the willingness to defy authority unwilling to provide a rationale for their commands. Secondary credit to the snake of course.

Praise be to the snake who became legless for his trouble.

[psionl0]

Originally Posted by P.J. Denyer

Unless the tree was there specifically as a test. Of course, since Adam & Eve were supposedly immortal at this point what you have is a test where the only end condition is failure, with punishment for that failure. So kinda sadistic.

Typical. The logical question is "can you have free will if there is no opportunity to exercise it"?

But who cares about logic when you can judge God instead?

[ynot]

Originally Posted by psionl0

Typical. The logical question is "can you have free will if there is no opportunity to exercise it"?

But who cares about logic when you can judge God instead?

You really think that's logic!!!???.

The logical question is "Can you exercise free will to choose between good and bad if there is no knowledge of good and bad with which to exercise it"?

But who cares about logic when you can judge Atheists instead?

That Atheists can't judge what they don't think exists is yet another logical point that seems to elude you.

[psionl0]

Originally Posted by ynot

The logical question is "Can you exercise free will to choose between good or bad if there is no knowledge of good or bad with which to exercise it"?

They weren't vegetables. They still had the ability to make a choice. They were given the warning that if they ate the fruit then they would "surely die". They didn't have to know that it was good or evil to reject that warning to exercise a choice.

Originally Posted by ynot

That we can't judge what we don't think exists is yet another logical point for you.

Yet you judge away anyhow.

[ynot]

Originally Posted by psionl0

They weren't vegetables. They still had the ability to make a choice. They were given the warning that if they ate the fruit then they would "surely die". They didn't have to know that it was good or evil to reject that warning to exercise a choice.

And that warning in the fairy story was a lie. It wasn't merely "surely die", it was "in the day that you eat of it you shall surely die".

So a totally uniformed, uneducated, blind, innocent decision for a purely "because I said so" order that deserved eternal punishment for them and all subsequent humans as well! What a silly fairy story.

Given A and E were made immortal in the fairy story, would they have even understand what "die" meant?

Originally Posted by psionl0

Yet you judge away anyhow.

Sure, but we judge the god beliefs and stories, not gods we don't think exists. Bet you have trouble seeing the difference there.

[smartcooky]

Become silly?

[psionl0]

Originally Posted by ynot

And that warning in the fairy story was a lie. It wasn't merely "surely die", it was "in the day that you eat of it you shall surely die".

Whatever.

Originally Posted by ynot

So a totally uniformed, uneducated, innocent decision that deserved eternal punishment for them and all subsequent humans as well!

And now you are back to eschewing the logical question in favour of judgement.

Originally Posted by ynot

Given A and E were made immortal in the fairy story, would they have even understand what "die" meant?

Not if they were vegetables or babies crapping in their nappies.

Originally Posted by ynot

Sure, but we judge the god beliefs and stories, not gods we don't think exists. Bet you have trouble seeing the difference there.

I have heaps of trouble "seeing the difference there". It sounds like a "I didn't say Simon Says" type defence.

[ynot]

Originally Posted by psionl0

Whatever.


And now you are back to eschewing the logical question in favour of judgement.


Not if they were vegetables or babies crapping in their nappies.


I have heaps of trouble "seeing the difference there". It sounds like a "I didn't say Simon Says" type defence.

As you say "whatever"

Instead of attempting to reverse engineer your silly fantasy god out of an arbitrarily selected collection of two thousand plus year old mythical, superstitious writings, why don't you provide some credible direct evidence that your fantasy god actually exists, or perhaps even some good reason how it could or might exist?

[psionl0]

Originally Posted by ynot

As you say "whatever"

Instead of attempting to reverse engineer your silly fantasy god out of an arbitrarily selected collection of two thousand plus year old mythical, superstitious writings, why don't you provide some credible direct evidence that your fantasy god actually exists, or perhaps even some good reason how it could or might exist?

Because I am not "attempting to reverse engineer your silly fantasy god out of an arbitrarily selected collection of two thousand plus year old mythical, superstitious writings" nor am I concerning myself whether such a god exists nor (if he does) whether he actually set up a scenario as described in Genesis 2.

This was simply a question of logic.

[Steve]

Originally Posted by psionl0

They weren't vegetables. They still had the ability to make a choice. They were given the warning that if they ate the fruit then they would "surely die". They didn't have to know that it was good or evil to reject that warning to exercise a choice.


Yet you judge away anyhow.

It’s just a story. They did not exist.

[Lithrael]

It isn’t as though the story bothers to make clear exactly how much agency they are working with before the fall. It isn’t that sort of story. It wouldn’t be such a problem if there weren’t so many people who refuse to think of the story as a sloppy parable/metaphor that’s been unnecessarily glorified. Pity about the whole thing where they decided to pin the concept of original sin on it like it really happened.

[Pixel42]

Originally Posted by abaddon

Is there a man or woman among us who would not prevent a child being raped?

Is there a man or woman among us who would not prevent a child dying of cancer?

The fixation on explaining why people do bad things despite God completely ignores the fact that the majority of bad things that happen are not caused by people.

[Sideroxylon]

Originally Posted by rjh01

Must remember those that believe in God have major issues. They need a security blanket, so they use God as one. The rest does not matter.

Looks like a big claim. Is this based on psychological surveys? Personal experience? Or deduction from the idea that all god beliefs are security blankets and requiring such a security blanket is having major issues?

I am not convinced that even most atheists are without “issues” that arise from their mortality.

[psionl0]

Originally Posted by Steve

It’s just a story. They did not exist.

Not the point.

This is supposed to be an exercise in logic. Conditional logic doesn't require the premise to be true. It is about whether the conclusion necessarily follows IF we assume that the premise is true.

Unfortunately, from some of the responses I have gotten, it seems that if I don't shout my "lack of belief" from the roof tops then I am guilty of heresy.

[DuvalHMFIC]

All of this talk of logic has reminded me of Norm MacDonald's awesome "Professor of Logic" joke.

[Darat]

Originally Posted by psionl0

Not the point.



This is supposed to be an exercise in logic. Conditional logic doesn't require the premise to be true. It is about whether the conclusion necessarily follows IF we assume that the premise is true.



Unfortunately, from some of the responses I have gotten, it seems that if I don't shout my "lack of belief" from the roof tops then I am guilty of heresy.

You only have to have a passing familiarity with Christian theology to know that they have a huge unresolved problem with reconciling the descent of man/original sin with their other claims, they've been trying to solve the problem for over 2000 years (add in the Jewish roots of their beliefs and it is probably more like 3000 years), with some of the best minds humanity has ever produced tackling the problem and there is no simple "logical" answer.

[Darat]

Originally Posted by DuvalHMFIC

All of this talk of logic has reminded me of Norm MacDonald's awesome "Professor of Logic" joke.

Stop keeping an idiot in suspense and spill the beans!

[psionl0]

Originally Posted by Darat

You only have to have a passing familiarity with Christian theology to know that they have a huge unresolved problem with reconciling the descent of man/original sin with their other claims, they've been trying to solve the problem for over 2000 years (add in the Jewish roots of their beliefs and it is probably more like 3000 years), with some of the best minds humanity has ever produced tackling the problem and there is no simple "logical" answer.

You are trying to extend this to issues I am not discussing. If we can't even get past the question of whether untested free will is still free will then we will never be able to have a sensible discussion about other issues.

[3point14]

Sometime in the 18th Century

[DuvalHMFIC]

Originally Posted by Darat

Stop keeping an idiot in suspense and spill the beans!

https://youtu.be/Oseqh7SMIvo

[Gord_in_Toronto]

Originally Posted by psionl0

They weren't vegetables. They still had the ability to make a choice. They were given the warning that if they ate the fruit then they would "surely die". They didn't have to know that it was good or evil to reject that warning to exercise a choice.

And how were they to know that Satan was lying to them?

Two naive children up against the second smartest guy in the Universe?

[Darat]

Originally Posted by psionl0

You are trying to extend this to issues I am not discussing. If we can't even get past the question of whether untested free will is still free will then we will never be able to have a sensible discussion about other issues.

That is not extending the issue, it is a central issue for that faith one that despite your opinon that it is answered with simple logic has not been answered by that faith or others who have considered the implications of that central christian belief.

My comment was initially made as a counterpoint to demonstrate how one rather well known and extensive religion cannot square its own contradictory doctrine. I think it is rather a good example of how silly a religion can be.

[Thor 2]

Originally Posted by psionl0

Not the point.

This is supposed to be an exercise in logic. Conditional logic doesn't require the premise to be true. It is about whether the conclusion necessarily follows IF we assume that the premise is true.

Unfortunately, from some of the responses I have gotten, it seems that if I don't shout my "lack of belief" from the roof tops then I am guilty of heresy.

What an extraordinary claim. Can you give us examples thereof?

Originally Posted by Darat

You only have to have a passing familiarity with Christian theology to know that they have a huge unresolved problem with reconciling the descent of man/original sin with their other claims, they've been trying to solve the problem for over 2000 years (add in the Jewish roots of their beliefs and it is probably more like 3000 years), with some of the best minds humanity has ever produced tackling the problem and there is no simple "logical" answer.

The problem becomes magnified when you have acknowledgement of the truth of evolution by the religious (albeit with reluctance), and try to lever in the original sin idea non the less. We must have original sin because the whole idea of Jesus dying on the cross to cleanse us (an extraordinarily silly idea on its own), falls over without it.

If you google Catholic Answers and ask questions about this you get the most extraordinary babble and evasiveness.

[smartcooky]

Originally Posted by psionl0

This is supposed to be an exercise in logic. Conditional logic doesn't require the premise to be true. It is about whether the conclusion necessarily follows IF we assume that the premise is true.

Err, what?

Originally Posted by psionl0

Indeed!

[psionl0]

Originally Posted by Darat

That is not extending the issue, it is a central issue for that faith one that despite your opinon that it is answered with simple logic has not been answered by that faith or others who have considered the implications of that central christian belief.

My comment was initially made as a counterpoint to demonstrate how one rather well known and extensive religion cannot square its own contradictory doctrine. I think it is rather a good example of how silly a religion can be.

Originally Posted by Darat

You only have to have a passing familiarity with Christian theology to know that they have a huge unresolved problem with reconciling the descent of man/original sin with their other claims, . . .

Nothing to see here folks. The subject hasn't been changed.

[psionl0]

Originally Posted by smartcooky

Err, what?

Logical people know what I am saying.

[Lithrael]

There was a discussion a while back where I suggested that the ability to make completely uninformed choices is a meaningless version of free will. IE if someone is given the blind choice of opening one of several doors to leave a room by, it would be shockingly unfair to blame or credit them for whatever one they picked.

[The Greater Fool]

Originally Posted by Gord_in_Toronto

And how were they to know that Satan was lying to them?

Two naive children up against the second smartest guy in the Universe?

In point of fact Satan did not lie to them.

Satan said that if they ate of the fruit they would become like god knowing good and bad. They ate of the fruit and gained the knowledge promised. Some short time later they learned to be cautious consuming certain hallucinogenic mushrooms.

[JoeMorgue]

Satan wasn't even there. The serpent in the Garden of Eden is never identified as Satan in the Bible. It wasn't until theological fan-fiction became all the rage in the late Middle Ages, early Modern Era that a bunch of random, disparate characters in the Bible all got lumped together to create a Moriarty for God's Holmes.

Satan, the Devil, Lucifer (who isn't even a character but a vague allegorical bit of symbolism), and the being that's going to go all medieval on our asses in Revelation along with various words in ancient languages that roughly translate to "advisory," the serpent in the Garden of Eden... these all either don't exist or are obviously different people in the Bible. There's far more Dante, Milton, Faust, and Blake dressed up in a lot of co-opted Pagan imagery in the modern idea of Satan then anything in the Bible.

Only the being that conspires with God to screw with Job and the being that tempts Jesus in the desert really present as a coherent character, and then he doesn't really come across as God's all powerful arch-nemesis but a snarky underling God has put in charge of internal affairs and quality control.

Everything else reads like what it was, taking a bunch of one off villains and retconning them into an over-arching Big Bad.

[Shepherd]

The serpent, Devil, dragon and Satan were all lumped together in the book of Revelation:

Quote:

Revelation 12:9 King James Version (KJV)

9 And the great dragon was cast out, that old serpent, called the Devil, and Satan, which deceiveth the whole world: he was cast out into the earth, and his angels were cast out with him.

https://www.biblegateway.com/passage...A9&version=KJV

[Darat]

Originally Posted by psionl0

Nothing to see here folks. The subject hasn't been changed.

The subject is the silliness of religion, one example of that is the issue 3 major religions have with the “problem of evil”. You seemed to think that was solved by quick and simple logic, indeed if that was the case and the 3 major religions had missed your simple solution for hundreds of years it would be a very good example of religions’ silliness.

[Darat]

Originally Posted by JoeMorgue

Satan wasn't even there. The serpent in the Garden of Eden is never identified as Satan in the Bible. It wasn't until theological fan-fiction became all the rage in the late Middle Ages, early Modern Era that a bunch of random, disparate characters in the Bible all got lumped together to create a Moriarty for God's Holmes.

Satan, the Devil, Lucifer (who isn't even a character but a vague allegorical bit of symbolism), and the being that's going to go all medieval on our asses in Revelation along with various words in ancient languages that roughly translate to "advisory," the serpent in the Garden of Eden... these all either don't exist or are obviously different people in the Bible. There's far more Dante, Milton, Faust, and Blake dressed up in a lot of co-opted Pagan imagery in the modern idea of Satan then anything in the Bible.

Only the being that conspires with God to screw with Job and the being that tempts Jesus in the desert really present as a coherent character, and then he doesn't really come across as God's all powerful arch-nemesis but a snarky underling God has put in charge of internal affairs and quality control.

Everything else reads like what it was, taking a bunch of one off villains and retconning them into an over-arching Big Bad.

The devil as we “know” today was indeed a creation of the Christian church in the “dark ages” and is not biblical in origins. It was created because the church couldn’t provide an answer to why if their god was all powerful, all knowing and even sacrificed himself for everyone’s sins there was still evil in the world. Now obviously with a bit of further thought you soon realise it doesn’t provide an actual answer to the problem of evil, but it worked as a handy bit of sticky plaster.

[JoeMorgue]

Yeah the whole idea that God somehow has a vastly less powerful less powerful arch nemesis is rather absurd.

Satan as a concept is just trying to solve the Problem of Evil by putting a face on it which doesn't make any kind of sense. Either God cannot stop Satan or doesn't, same that as evil.

[ahhell]

Originally Posted by Darat

The only reason we don't view the abrahamic religions as equally silly as all the other religions is simply familiarity.

This, in many respects they are more silly on account of claiming an all powerful god. It is profoundly silly to look at the world and say, "God is can do anything and loves us deeply but stuck us in this ****, oh and if you don't believe for the at most 100ish years you live on earth, well then you're going to suffer for eternity."

Originally Posted by Loss Leader

Of course, even to engage in this discussion one must first dismiss as trivial the social aspects of religion, the labor-forming effects of collaboration, and all the other evolutionary advantages it brought the species.

This, its essentially the consequentialist argument for religion, sure it may be all wrong but believing will offer you and your society advantages now.

Originally Posted by sackett

One way out of the Christian conundrum is the notion of a finite god, that is, a god who can't do everything. Maybe even a god who could use our help!

Of course, the idea isn't supported by scripture, which seems to go for making god bigger and even more infinite* all the time. So it would surely be rejected by all abrahamic believers, not just christians.

There are versions of this in the old testament. Its pretty clear that prior to the the babylonian exile, the god of the old testament was a very finite god who presided over a few tribes in a small coastal area of the levant, where he was really just one of many such gods. Its only later that he became the one and only all powerful being.

Quote:

And yet, the religions of auld lang syne appear to have featured nothing but finite deities, specialized gods who obviously couldn't all, or any of them, be infinite in power. And people were content with that, and muddled along happily (or not) in crowded polytheism, while exercising considerable tolerance toward other's choice of cult.

Yep, this much less silly really. Sure, its pretty silly to think the king of the gods routinely disguised himself as an animal or the rain in order to rape mortal women who his wife would later torment out of jealously but it still makes more sense than the all powerful all loving god of the Christians who's so petty he'll torture you for eternity for not loving him enough.

[psionl0]

Originally Posted by Darat

The subject is the silliness of religion, one example of that is the issue 3 major religions have with the “problem of evil”. You seemed to think that was solved by quick and simple logic, indeed if that was the case and the 3 major religions had missed your simple solution for hundreds of years it would be a very good example of religions’ silliness.

Now you are just strawmanning me.

My only point was whether the Garden of Eden story illustrates the theory in the Logical Problem of Evil. It would take a massive overimagination to say that I was positing that as the solution to all of the religious silliness.

[Dave Rogers]

Originally Posted by psionl0

This is supposed to be an exercise in logic.

What is? The thread? It seems to me that the question in the OP relates not to the question of whether religion is logically consistent, which your discussion of the problem of evil relates to, but to that of whether the actual content of religion is something a reasonable person would accept.

Dave