Did God deliberately plan for me to become an atheist ?

ProzacDeathWish
atheist
ProzacDeathWish's picture
Posts: 4127
Joined: 2007-12-02
User is offlineOffline
Did God deliberately plan for me to become an atheist ?

My former Christian belief system viewed God as a sort of Divine Police Officer who never allowed anything into the life of a believer ( referring to myself ) except by his divine will.  There are no accidents; all circumstances, whether pleasant or unpleasant, were permitted by God. 

My question to theists is this:  Why would God allow me to encounter skeptic resources, atheist web-sites, books, etc when he knew that doing so would destroy my faith ?   If he is truly the engineer of circumstances why did he allow me as a Christian to discover arguments that completely decimated my belief in him ?

If it was a test, was it really worth the the destruction of my faith and the loss of my "eternal soul" ...especially since he supposedly already knew the outcome in advance ?


Loc
Superfan
Loc's picture
Posts: 1130
Joined: 2007-11-06
User is offlineOffline
I've often wanted to ask

I've often wanted to ask christians the same thing. "God me me atheist,who are you to question him?' You'll get some nonsense about free will.

What's up with all god's testing anyway? You hear about it constantly. You'd think having people that believe in him would be enough.But no, he has to test their faith.See if he can make them break. You know how many christians I've seen go through hard financial times or personal loss and just say,'It's just a test from god.' One more thing that doesn't fit the 'all loving' bill. Isn't it enough to torture sinners after death, he likes making people miserable here too?

Psalm 14:1 "the fool hath said in his heart there is a God"-From a 1763 misprinted edition of the bible

dudeofthemoment wrote:
This is getting redudnant. My patience with the unteachable[atheists] is limited.

Argument from Sadism: Theist presents argument in a wall of text with no punctuation and wrong spelling. Atheist cannot read and is forced to concede.


totus_tuus
Theist
totus_tuus's picture
Posts: 516
Joined: 2007-04-23
User is offlineOffline
Loc wrote:I've often wanted

Loc wrote:
I've often wanted to ask christians the same thing. "God me me atheist,who are you to question him?' You'll get some nonsense about free will.

But if free will is nonsense, if our thoughts and beliefs are simply the sum of electrochemical reactions in the brain as a result of previous experiences, then I am just as inevitably bound to be a theist.  If there is no free will, if we are truly incapable of making choices, then punishing crime is futile since that person wasn't responsible for his actions, but was instead the innocent victim of a series electro-chemical reactions over which he had no control.  Remove free will from man and you inevitably remove responsibility.  You'v achieved the ultimate predestination, far beyond anything Calvin could ever possibly imagine.

Now there's some true nonsense. 

"With its enduring appeal to the search for truth, philosophy has the great responsibility of forming thought and culture; and now it must strive resolutely to recover its original vocation." Pope John Paul II


MattShizzle
Posts: 7966
Joined: 2006-03-31
User is offlineOffline
It seems "Free Will" is the

It seems "Free Will" is the stock answer for Christians to any problems of this sort. I think Robert Ingersoll put it well "If my brain and the Bible are both the work of the same infinite god, who's fault is it that they do not agree?"

Matt Shizzle has been banned from the Rational Response Squad website. This event shall provide an atmosphere more conducive to social growth. - Majority of the mod team


ProzacDeathWish
atheist
ProzacDeathWish's picture
Posts: 4127
Joined: 2007-12-02
User is offlineOffline
totus_tuus wrote:Loc

totus_tuus wrote:

Loc wrote:
I've often wanted to ask christians the same thing. "God me me atheist,who are you to question him?' You'll get some nonsense about free will.

But if free will is nonsense, if our thoughts and beliefs are simply the sum of electrochemical reactions in the brain as a result of previous experiences, then I am just as inevitably bound to be a theist.  If there is no free will, if we are truly incapable of making choices, then punishing crime is futile since that person wasn't responsible for his actions, but was instead the innocent victim of a series electro-chemical reactions over which he had no control.  Remove free will from man and you inevitably remove responsibility.  You'v achieved the ultimate predestination, far beyond anything Calvin could ever possibly imagine.

Now there's some true nonsense. 

Yes, but my question dealt with the choices that God makes.  As a Christian I assumed that God knew my limitations and weaknesses and would preserve me from more than my faith could bear.  I was raised to view God as my provider and protector, not someone who would lead me into a theological minefield just to see if I would survive or not.

Patrick is an edgy edgelord.


Loc
Superfan
Loc's picture
Posts: 1130
Joined: 2007-11-06
User is offlineOffline
ProzacDeathWish wrote:.  As

ProzacDeathWish wrote:

.  As a Christian I assumed that God knew my limitations and weaknesses and would preserve me from more than my faith could bear.  I was raised to view God as my provider and protector, not someone who would lead me into a theological minefield just to see if I would survive or not.

[God] will not let you be tempted beyond what you can bear. But when you are tempted, he will also provide a way out so that you can stand up under it." (1 Corinthians 10:13)

Apparently god will tempt you,but not so that you break. So he's testing your faith but he knows you wont break becaue he will stop before then..so what's the point of the testing!!

Psalm 14:1 "the fool hath said in his heart there is a God"-From a 1763 misprinted edition of the bible

dudeofthemoment wrote:
This is getting redudnant. My patience with the unteachable[atheists] is limited.

Argument from Sadism: Theist presents argument in a wall of text with no punctuation and wrong spelling. Atheist cannot read and is forced to concede.


Loc
Superfan
Loc's picture
Posts: 1130
Joined: 2007-11-06
User is offlineOffline
totus_tuus wrote:Loc

totus_tuus wrote:

Loc wrote:
I've often wanted to ask christians the same thing. "God me me atheist,who are you to question him?' You'll get some nonsense about free will.

But if free will is nonsense, if our thoughts and beliefs are simply the sum of electrochemical reactions in the brain as a result of previous experiences, then I am just as inevitably bound to be a theist.  If there is no free will, if we are truly incapable of making choices, then punishing crime is futile since that person wasn't responsible for his actions, but was instead the innocent victim of a series electro-chemical reactions over which he had no control.  Remove free will from man and you inevitably remove responsibility.  You'v achieved the ultimate predestination, far beyond anything Calvin could ever possibly imagine.

Now there's some true nonsense. 

I'm not implying free will doesn't exist, just free will as prescribed by god.As has been debated several times on this board,a all knowing god and free will just don't mix.

Psalm 14:1 "the fool hath said in his heart there is a God"-From a 1763 misprinted edition of the bible

dudeofthemoment wrote:
This is getting redudnant. My patience with the unteachable[atheists] is limited.

Argument from Sadism: Theist presents argument in a wall of text with no punctuation and wrong spelling. Atheist cannot read and is forced to concede.


ProzacDeathWish
atheist
ProzacDeathWish's picture
Posts: 4127
Joined: 2007-12-02
User is offlineOffline
Loc wrote: [God] will not

Loc wrote:

 

[God] will not let you be tempted beyond what you can bear. But when you are tempted, he will also provide a way out so that you can stand up under it." (1 Corinthians 10:13)

Apparently god will tempt you,but not so that you break. So he's testing your faith but he knows you wont break becaue he will stop before then..so what's the point of the testing!!

 

Yes, I was thinking of that very verse as I typed my previous post.  What is the purpose of any test if the outcome is already known

The issue of free will for God is an altogether different proposition than it is for mankind.  Our free will amounts to the freedom to grope around in the dark, never knowing what the outcome may be, but God is not encumbered by such disadvantages....so again, why would God allow me to fall into a situation that he knew would be fatal to my relationship with him ?

Patrick is an edgy edgelord.


Theia
Theia's picture
Posts: 207
Joined: 2008-04-13
User is offlineOffline
Loc wrote:What's up with all

Loc wrote:

What's up with all god's testing anyway? You hear about it constantly. You'd think having people that believe in him would be enough.But no, he has to test their faith.See if he can make them break.

Makes about as much sense as a woman testing her husband's faithfulness by inviting 3 hot young women over to sit naked with her husband and an open liquor cabinet while she leaves the house for a few hours every night. Then when he cheats the wife can say, "Ah ha! I knew you didn't really love me!"

If God wants to test faith that way he's either really dumb or he's an ass hole.

"The Bible looks like it started out as a game of Mad Libs" - Bill Maher


Theia
Theia's picture
Posts: 207
Joined: 2008-04-13
User is offlineOffline
ProzacDeathWish wrote:The

ProzacDeathWish wrote:

The issue of free will for God is an altogether different proposition than it is for mankind.  Our free will amounts to the freedom to grope around in the dark, never knowing what the outcome may be, but God is not encumbered by such disadvantages....so again, why would God allow me to fall into a situation that he knew would be fatal to my relationship with him ?

It wasn't God. Don't forget Satan ... the Devil made you do it!

I always wondered about this Satan thing. If God is so powerful, and supposedly so loving and protective of us, why would he let Satan have any influence on us at all?

"The Bible looks like it started out as a game of Mad Libs" - Bill Maher


Kevin R Brown
Superfan
Kevin R Brown's picture
Posts: 3142
Joined: 2007-06-24
User is offlineOffline
Theia wrote:ProzacDeathWish

Theia wrote:

ProzacDeathWish wrote:

The issue of free will for God is an altogether different proposition than it is for mankind.  Our free will amounts to the freedom to grope around in the dark, never knowing what the outcome may be, but God is not encumbered by such disadvantages....so again, why would God allow me to fall into a situation that he knew would be fatal to my relationship with him ?

It wasn't God. Don't forget Satan ... the Devil made you do it!

I always wondered about this Satan thing. If God is so powerful, and supposedly so loving and protective of us, why would he let Satan have any influence on us at all?

...Because Satan has robots?

 

Winged beings that live in cloudy care bear land are no match for robots.

Quote:
"Natasha has just come up to the window from the courtyard and opened it wider so that the air may enter more freely into my room. I can see the bright green strip of grass beneath the wall, and the clear blue sky above the wall, and sunlight everywhere. Life is beautiful. Let the future generations cleanse it of all evil, oppression and violence, and enjoy it to the full."

- Leon Trotsky, Last Will & Testament
February 27, 1940


BMcD
Posts: 777
Joined: 2006-12-20
User is offlineOffline
Loc wrote:ProzacDeathWish

Loc wrote:

ProzacDeathWish wrote:

.  As a Christian I assumed that God knew my limitations and weaknesses and would preserve me from more than my faith could bear.  I was raised to view God as my provider and protector, not someone who would lead me into a theological minefield just to see if I would survive or not.

[God] will not let you be tempted beyond what you can bear. But when you are tempted, he will also provide a way out so that you can stand up under it." (1 Corinthians 10:13)

Apparently god will tempt you,but not so that you break. So he's testing your faith but he knows you wont break becaue he will stop before then..so what's the point of the testing!!

Actually, the 1 Corinthians quote doesn't guarantee you won't break, only that God will provide you the means to avoid it. Whether you choose to avail yourself of it is still up to you.

That said, the 'free will' twist that we've seen here, with the theist saying 'ah, but if I'm just a sum of electrochemical processes, then I can't help but be a theist!' is a dodge.

"Free Will" is irrelevant. It doesn't matter if I have any choice whether or not to make the choices I make, because I don't know it in advance. So regardless of whether I have the capacity to choose differently doesn't matter, because when the moment comes, I still think I'm making the choice. So. Is the Atheist possibly ignoring God? Yup. Is the Theist possibly just living in denial and refusing to admit that they really, deep down, know better? You betcha!

All we can know is what feels like the truth to us. If you believe you cannot be swayed, you will ignore evidence to the contrary. If you, instead, embrace that ultimately, you cannot know the truth with the finite experiences you have in this life, you remain free to live your life according to the world view that you feel is more likely to be true... and free of the constraints that claiming to know places upon your options.

You have no way to prove, beyond 'It feels right' whether or not anything is real, God included, except yourself. Embrace that, and let every day be a wellspring of possibilities and wonder.

"You've got to remember that these are just simple farmers. These are people of the land. The common clay of the new West. You know... morons." - The Waco Kid


BMcD
Posts: 777
Joined: 2006-12-20
User is offlineOffline
Theia wrote:Loc wrote:What's

Theia wrote:

Loc wrote:

What's up with all god's testing anyway? You hear about it constantly. You'd think having people that believe in him would be enough.But no, he has to test their faith.See if he can make them break.

Makes about as much sense as a woman testing her husband's faithfulness by inviting 3 hot young women over to sit naked with her husband and an open liquor cabinet while she leaves the house for a few hours every night. Then when he cheats the wife can say, "Ah ha! I knew you didn't really love me!"

If God wants to test faith that way he's either really dumb or he's an ass hole.

If there is a supreme being that created the entire physical universe, including the earth, and Man, and crafted human nature to be as it is, with all the resulting idiocy and interpersonal cruelty we see... then I posit to you that not only does nothing prevent Him from being an asshole... but the theory of God = Asshole squares pretty well with observable data.

"You've got to remember that these are just simple farmers. These are people of the land. The common clay of the new West. You know... morons." - The Waco Kid


I AM GOD AS YOU
Superfan
Posts: 4793
Joined: 2007-09-29
User is offlineOffline
"Condemned to be free"

"Condemned to be free" Sartre .... (((((( damn it!  I want my sky daddy

Life is a piss off ..... just ain't fair , hey but there is love , yin yang ..... (btw, we is god)

http://atheism.about.com/b/2006/09/20/existentialism-abandonment-condemned-to-be-free.htm

 


Cali_Athiest2
Cali_Athiest2's picture
Posts: 440
Joined: 2008-02-07
User is offlineOffline
Loc wrote:ProzacDeathWish

Loc wrote:

ProzacDeathWish wrote:

.  As a Christian I assumed that God knew my limitations and weaknesses and would preserve me from more than my faith could bear.  I was raised to view God as my provider and protector, not someone who would lead me into a theological minefield just to see if I would survive or not.

[God] will not let you be tempted beyond what you can bear. But when you are tempted, he will also provide a way out so that you can stand up under it." (1 Corinthians 10:13)

Apparently god will tempt you,but not so that you break. So he's testing your faith but he knows you wont break becaue he will stop before then..so what's the point of the testing!!

This has been regurgitated many times, but why would an all-knowing being need to test anyone? The idea that such an entity could exist and still need to test human beings to see what they would do in a particuliar situation is just ridiculous. Didn't god send angels down to sodom and gemorrah to test the inhabitants to see if they were worthy to live? Well, we all know how that turned out now don't we? God did what it was going to do anyways.

"Always seek out the truth, but avoid at all costs those that claim to have found it" ANONYMOUS


The Doomed Soul
atheist
The Doomed Soul's picture
Posts: 2148
Joined: 2007-08-31
User is offlineOffline
Loc wrote:Apparently god

Loc wrote:

Apparently god will tempt you,but not so that you break. So he's testing your faith but he knows you wont break becaue he will stop before then..so what's the point of the testing!!

Cali_Athiest2 wrote:

This has been regurgitated many times, but why would an all-knowing being need to test anyone? The idea that such an entity could exist and still need to test human beings to see what they would do in a particuliar situation is just ridiculous. Didn't god send angels down to sodom and gemorrah to test the inhabitants to see if they were worthy to live? Well, we all know how that turned out now don't we? God did what it was going to do anyways.

The answer to both is...

 

God is a Sadist

What Would Kharn Do?


Louis_Cypher
BloggerSuperfan
Louis_Cypher's picture
Posts: 535
Joined: 2008-03-22
User is offlineOffline
I've always wondered...

Theia wrote:
I always wondered about this Satan thing. If God is so powerful, and supposedly so loving and protective of us, why would he let Satan have any influence on us at all?

I want to know, if Satan [sic] Lucifer was the brightest of the angels... why is he to slavishly follow the path predicted by the bible? Surely, he's read the book. It seems to me that if he truely wants to win, all he need do is 'nothing' at all...

LC >;-}>

 

Christianity: A disgusting middle eastern blood cult, based in human sacrifice, with sacraments of cannibalism and vampirism, whose highest icon is of a near naked man hanging in torment from a device of torture.


totus_tuus
Theist
totus_tuus's picture
Posts: 516
Joined: 2007-04-23
User is offlineOffline
BMcD wrote:"Free Will" is

BMcD wrote:
"Free Will" is irrelevant. It doesn't matter if I have any choice whether or not to make the choices I make, because I don't know it in advance. So regardless of whether I have the capacity to choose differently doesn't matter, because when the moment comes, I still think I'm making the choice.

And with this the death of the concepts of duty, obligation and responsibility.  Well done.

Quote:
All we can know is what feels like the truth to us. If you believe you cannot be swayed, you will ignore evidence to the contrary. If you, instead, embrace that ultimately, you cannot know the truth with the finite experiences you have in this life, you remain free to live your life according to the world view that you feel is more likely to be true... and free of the constraints that claiming to know places upon your options.

Not so. Living your life free of constraint is not freedom, it is license.  License leads inevitably to the violation of the rights and dignity of others.  True freedom is the ability to use a given thing in accordance with its nature, that is in accordance with the truth of the object.  Take, as an example, my car.  The manufacturer assures me that the nature of  my car requires that I use gasoline for fuel.  I believe that my car will run on vinegar and fill my tank accordingly, "freeing" myself from the constraints placed on my by the automaker.  Regardless of what I believe, the truth is my car will not run on vinegar, by denying the truth of the nature of my car, I have lost the freedom to use my car for its intended purpose.

"With its enduring appeal to the search for truth, philosophy has the great responsibility of forming thought and culture; and now it must strive resolutely to recover its original vocation." Pope John Paul II


I AM GOD AS YOU
Superfan
Posts: 4793
Joined: 2007-09-29
User is offlineOffline
Do I need a "purpose" to

Do I need a "purpose" to just want to be ? A purpose of being ? How bout , I am just what I AM?   No grand plan.  Oh but the NOW and the needless suffering we do .... Is that the plan? Why? Silly plan I'd say ...... 

Divine ???  Let's make religion simple and just say LOVE is our law. Break this law of love and we all suffer .... I don't ask "why" or what's the "purpose"?  It just is.  I do  ask HOW this is so   ....         

 


I AM GOD AS YOU
Superfan
Posts: 4793
Joined: 2007-09-29
User is offlineOffline
Go Louis. Bells are ringing

Go Louis. Bells are ringing in my head.  A philosophy of "do nothing". Where is that folder, damn it ? Well I do remember it had an interesting pacifist leaning ....

Anyway, as I went looking, I came across that Pascal dude, the "Religious Wager" guy, we atheists like to laugh at. Then I realized we are all fucking nuts ! The moral of this story in three words is, "We are God". ( and Jesus/Buddha said so ! )   Then that theist dogma inventor devil lied. Why? The answer is a long one. More than 14 billions yrs old in it's coming from that recent little tiny BIG BANG transition  ..... What is big, what is small, when all is ONE ? !           

.... confused Pascal - http://radicalacademy.com/adiphiloessay143.htm


HisWillness
atheistRational VIP!
HisWillness's picture
Posts: 4100
Joined: 2008-02-21
User is offlineOffline
 Sigh. Obviously I'm His

 Sigh. Obviously I'm His Divine Will, so I'll fill you in:

I talked to God about this, and He says it was all part of his plan for you to become an atheist. I believe His Holy Words were, "Prozac? Yeah, he's supposed to be an atheist. Why do you ask?"

I was a little intimidated about asking the follow-up question, but he answered anyway. (Sometimes He's a swell guy.)

"It's because otherwise, what do you have? You have a bunch of sheep. You have sheep who just want to read one book and tell everyone they've got Me figured out. How can I let that stand? So I made atheists. C'mon, who would you rather hang out with, these crazy characters, or a bunch of people who think they can 'speak in tongues' and who believe anything someone's saying as long as he's at the front of a room? That's just embarassing."

Saint Will: no gyration without funkstification.
fabulae! nil satis firmi video quam ob rem accipere hunc mi expediat metum. - Terence


shikko
Posts: 448
Joined: 2007-05-23
User is offlineOffline
HisWillness wrote:"It's

HisWillness wrote:

"It's because otherwise, what do you have? You have a bunch of sheep. You have sheep who just want to read one book and tell everyone they've got Me figured out. How can I let that stand? So I made atheists. C'mon, who would you rather hang out with, these crazy characters, or a bunch of people who think they can 'speak in tongues' and who believe anything someone's saying as long as he's at the front of a room? That's just embarassing."

Well, that clears up some things, HisMetatron-ness.   Did you ask about the nachos?  What's the Word on Proper Nachos?

--
maybe if this sig is witty, someone will love me.


Theia
Theia's picture
Posts: 207
Joined: 2008-04-13
User is offlineOffline
totus_tuus wrote:True

totus_tuus wrote:

True freedom is the ability to use a given thing in accordance with its nature, that is in accordance with the truth of the object. 

And religious blind faith does an excellent job of taking that ability away.

"The Bible looks like it started out as a game of Mad Libs" - Bill Maher


BMcD
Posts: 777
Joined: 2006-12-20
User is offlineOffline
totus_tuus wrote:BMcD

totus_tuus wrote:

BMcD wrote:
"Free Will" is irrelevant. It doesn't matter if I have any choice whether or not to make the choices I make, because I don't know it in advance. So regardless of whether I have the capacity to choose differently doesn't matter, because when the moment comes, I still think I'm making the choice.

And with this the death of the concepts of duty, obligation and responsibility.  Well done.

No, not at all. Look, if there is free will, then such concepts are, quite obviously, of unparralleled importance in our decision-making process. If there is no free will, if all we are is an aggregate of stimulus-response of unrivaled complexity, then those concepts as we understand them become part of the aggregate stimuli. Regardless, if we don't know in advance what our decisions will be, then the importance of understanding, and committing to, concepts such as these cannot be overstated. My point is: regardless of whether we do or do not have 'free will', we still think we're making decisions of our own accord, and so must make our decisions under that rationale. Someone who makes decisions thinking 'I have no free will' isn't going to actually make very many at all, he's just going to go with the flow and be swept along.

Frankly, I don't see where you even got your conclusion from my earlier statement. When the moment comes, I still think I'm making the choice. Thus, I must at least attempt to make the best decision I can.

Quote:

Quote:
All we can know is what feels like the truth to us. If you believe you cannot be swayed, you will ignore evidence to the contrary. If you, instead, embrace that ultimately, you cannot know the truth with the finite experiences you have in this life, you remain free to live your life according to the world view that you feel is more likely to be true... and free of the constraints that claiming to know places upon your options.

Not so. Living your life free of constraint is not freedom, it is license.  License leads inevitably to the violation of the rights and dignity of others.  True freedom is the ability to use a given thing in accordance with its nature, that is in accordance with the truth of the object.  Take, as an example, my car.  The manufacturer assures me that the nature of  my car requires that I use gasoline for fuel.  I believe that my car will run on vinegar and fill my tank accordingly, "freeing" myself from the constraints placed on my by the automaker.  Regardless of what I believe, the truth is my car will not run on vinegar, by denying the truth of the nature of my car, I have lost the freedom to use my car for its intended purpose.

You'll notice I did not say 'free from all constraints'. I said 'free of the constraints that claiming to know places upon your options'. And that is the freedom to search for the truth of reality in accordance with its nature, without automatically rejecting possibilities simply because we don't like them. Your example is horribly, horribly flawed. You haven't 'freed' yourself by believing something, you've shackled yourself to that belief. I would say, rather, that 'cars need gasoline' as a limiting belief is also flawed; some cars run in diesel. Some run on cooking oil. Some out there run on electricity and solar power. Now, if you're willing to reject your belief, and seek to find out the true nature of your car, go for it. My advice to you, though, would be to do so in ways that you can demonstrate won't impair your ability to continue the search for automotive understanding later. Simply pouring canola oil into the gas tank and hoping strikes me as no different than say... deciding to venerate Odin, and immediately going out and getting yourself killed attacking a cop. Maybe you'll get to Valhalla. Maybe you won't. But you've ceded your ability to explore further.

"You've got to remember that these are just simple farmers. These are people of the land. The common clay of the new West. You know... morons." - The Waco Kid


HisWillness
atheistRational VIP!
HisWillness's picture
Posts: 4100
Joined: 2008-02-21
User is offlineOffline
shikko wrote:Well, that

shikko wrote:

Well, that clears up some things, HisMetatron-ness.   Did you ask about the nachos?  What's the Word on Proper Nachos?

Is it too late to change my name to Metatron? Dammit, now I need a name change!

Anyway, I thought the Holy Documents were clear on the Nachos. Proper Nachos must be uniformly covered, in layers, of plenty of non-processed cheese, grated. Certain locations in Southern California have already created Perfect Nachos, Nachos which, in His Almighty's Sight, are worthy of His Holy Consumption. The Holy Pilgrimage to discover such Divine Nachos is fraught with peril.

Saint Will: no gyration without funkstification.
fabulae! nil satis firmi video quam ob rem accipere hunc mi expediat metum. - Terence


totus_tuus
Theist
totus_tuus's picture
Posts: 516
Joined: 2007-04-23
User is offlineOffline
BMcD wrote:No, not at all.

BMcD wrote:
No, not at all. Look, if there is free will, then such concepts are, quite obviously, of unparralleled importance in our decision-making process. If there is no free will, if all we are is an aggregate of stimulus-response of unrivaled complexity, then those concepts as we understand them become part of the aggregate stimuli. Regardless, if we don't know in advance what our decisions will be, then the importance of understanding, and committing to, concepts such as these cannot be overstated. My point is: regardless of whether we do or do not have 'free will', we still think we're making decisions of our own accord, and so must make our decisions under that rationale. Someone who makes decisions thinking 'I have no free will' isn't going to actually make very many at all, he's just going to go with the flow and be swept along.

Frankly, I don't see where you even got your conclusion from my earlier statement. When the moment comes, I still think I'm making the choice. Thus, I must at least attempt to make the best decision I can.

To recap, then; you believe that we think we're making a free choice and I believe we are actually making a free choice.  Do I have that right?

Quote:
You'll notice I did not say 'free from all constraints'. I said 'free of the constraints that claiming to know places upon your options'. And that is the freedom to search for the truth of reality in accordance with its nature, without automatically rejecting possibilities simply because we don't like them.

And what of the constraints you do observe?  If they don't originate from "knowing", where do they originate?  If we are incapable of knowing, doesn't truth lose its relevance?  If truth is irrelevant, then the search for it would amount to nothing more than mental masturbation; it becomes an unproductive exercise. 

Quote:
You haven't 'freed' yourself by believing something, you've shackled yourself to that belief. I would say, rather, that 'cars need gasoline' as a limiting belief is also flawed; some cars run in diesel. Some run on cooking oil. Some out there run on electricity and solar power.

Which is why I limited my example to a specific automobile, ie my 1995 Cadillac DeVille with its internal combustion engine.  It's not my belief which limits my options with that car, it is the nature of the car itself.  That's the truth of the nature of my automobile.

Quote:
My advice to you, though, would be to do so in ways that you can demonstrate won't impair your ability to continue the search for automotive understanding later.

Why should I continue to search for the truth of the nature of the car when it's already been revealed to me if I only read the owner's manual supplied by the manufacturer?

Quote:
Simply pouring canola oil into the gas tank and hoping strikes me as no different than say... deciding to venerate Odin, and immediately going out and getting yourself killed attacking a cop. Maybe you'll get to Valhalla. Maybe you won't. But you've ceded your ability to explore further.

I agree completely.  In both cases I have seriously misinterpreted the true nature of the objects of my actions.

"With its enduring appeal to the search for truth, philosophy has the great responsibility of forming thought and culture; and now it must strive resolutely to recover its original vocation." Pope John Paul II


Sickboy
Posts: 5
Joined: 2007-01-25
User is offlineOffline
You are not bound by

You are not bound by determinism in the way you think, we can still manipulate you, we live in a constantly unfolding calculation of physics and mathematics but we still communicate with the same understanding of ourselves as 'free' the way we did 2 minutes ago. What strikes me as odd is how people - when faced with determinism - suddenly goes "oh OK! SO NOTHING MATTERS!??!!?" or perhaps the more common "Oh, so... nobody's responsible?", well, we are responsible in the same way we've always been responsible bar the philosophical implications.

The philosophy behind democracy is to handle the majority of the people's interest so that most of us are satisfied, sometimes this means putting away people with (most notably) conflicting behaviors, I don't see how this should change anything dramatically except perhaps more tolerance in some cases (less dogmatism).


BMcD
Posts: 777
Joined: 2006-12-20
User is offlineOffline
totus_tuus wrote:BMcD

totus_tuus wrote:

BMcD wrote:
No, not at all. Look, if there is free will, then such concepts are, quite obviously, of unparralleled importance in our decision-making process. If there is no free will, if all we are is an aggregate of stimulus-response of unrivaled complexity, then those concepts as we understand them become part of the aggregate stimuli. Regardless, if we don't know in advance what our decisions will be, then the importance of understanding, and committing to, concepts such as these cannot be overstated. My point is: regardless of whether we do or do not have 'free will', we still think we're making decisions of our own accord, and so must make our decisions under that rationale. Someone who makes decisions thinking 'I have no free will' isn't going to actually make very many at all, he's just going to go with the flow and be swept along.

Frankly, I don't see where you even got your conclusion from my earlier statement. When the moment comes, I still think I'm making the choice. Thus, I must at least attempt to make the best decision I can.

To recap, then; you believe that we think we're making a free choice and I believe we are actually making a free choice.  Do I have that right?

I would say that we cannot demonstrate we are not making a free choice, and so must proceed from the position that we are, else we reliquish our autonomy and become passive, become helpless infants once more.

Quote:

Quote:
You'll notice I did not say 'free from all constraints'. I said 'free of the constraints that claiming to know places upon your options'. And that is the freedom to search for the truth of reality in accordance with its nature, without automatically rejecting possibilities simply because we don't like them.

And what of the constraints you do observe?  If they don't originate from "knowing", where do they originate?  If we are incapable of knowing, doesn't truth lose its relevance?  If truth is irrelevant, then the search for it would amount to nothing more than mental masturbation; it becomes an unproductive exercise.

They originate from perception. However, we cannot ever truly verify the accuracy of our perceptions. We are trapped interacting with the universe we perceive, with no way to know the truth of that universe, because we have no way of knowing the truth of our own mind. The search for observable truth, however, does not become irrelevant, because in the end, it amounts to one of two things: either an understanding of the universe around us, or an understanding of the universe in our own mind. At the very least, striving to understand the surroundings we are forced to interact with provides a means to stave off madness. And in the end, who knows? What we think we know might actually be right. Eye-wink

Quote:

Quote:
You haven't 'freed' yourself by believing something, you've shackled yourself to that belief. I would say, rather, that 'cars need gasoline' as a limiting belief is also flawed; some cars run in diesel. Some run on cooking oil. Some out there run on electricity and solar power.

Which is why I limited my example to a specific automobile, ie my 1995 Cadillac DeVille with its internal combustion engine.  It's not my belief which limits my options with that car, it is the nature of the car itself.  That's the truth of the nature of my automobile.

Yes, but you see, that truth comes from your awareness of a thing that it is within the capacity of your species to create from raw materials, created to the specifications you're citing. It's a very different thing than the nature of reality or the existance of the divine.

Quote:
Quote:
My advice to you, though, would be to do so in ways that you can demonstrate won't impair your ability to continue the search for automotive understanding later.

Why should I continue to search for the truth of the nature of the car when it's already been revealed to me if I only read the owner's manual supplied by the manufacturer?

That only holds if you know you can trust the manual. If someone walks up to you and hands you a book labelled 'OWNAR'S MANUEL: UR CAR'... I'd trust The Bible a lot more if it told me that the earth was created over the course of an incomprehensible span of time through the slow accretion of rubble in a vast disk around the sun. It doesn't. So why should I believe the other things it says?

Quote:

Quote:
Simply pouring canola oil into the gas tank and hoping strikes me as no different than say... deciding to venerate Odin, and immediately going out and getting yourself killed attacking a cop. Maybe you'll get to Valhalla. Maybe you won't. But you've ceded your ability to explore further.

I agree completely.  In both cases I have seriously misinterpreted the true nature of the objects of my actions.

Indeed. And while you can demonstrate that gasoline dependence is accurate knowledge of the nature of your care, you cannot demonstrate the same about your choice of deity. So then it must be asked: why assume you know? why not continue to search?

"You've got to remember that these are just simple farmers. These are people of the land. The common clay of the new West. You know... morons." - The Waco Kid


ProzacDeathWish
atheist
ProzacDeathWish's picture
Posts: 4127
Joined: 2007-12-02
User is offlineOffline
These threads often deviate

These threads often deviate away from the specific aspects of the OP and that's a normal thing.   I often do the same thing myself on other threads ( shame ! ), but still my question was more narrowly focused than Free Will itself.

Perhaps it isn't so much an issue ( for me ) of free will as it is of God's supposedly benevolent motives.  Why would he lead me to a situation that he knew would destroy my faith and lead to me becoming an atheist ?   Isn't destroying my faith something that Satan would be more interested in ?

Patrick is an edgy edgelord.


Paisley
Theist
Paisley's picture
Posts: 1933
Joined: 2008-03-13
User is offlineOffline
ProzacDeathWish wrote:My

ProzacDeathWish wrote:

My former Christian belief system viewed God as a sort of Divine Police Officer who never allowed anything into the life of a believer ( referring to myself ) except by his divine will.  There are no accidents; all circumstances, whether pleasant or unpleasant, were permitted by God. 

My question to theists is this:  Why would God allow me to encounter skeptic resources, atheist web-sites, books, etc when he knew that doing so would destroy my faith ?   If he is truly the engineer of circumstances why did he allow me as a Christian to discover arguments that completely decimated my belief in him ?

If it was a test, was it really worth the the destruction of my faith and the loss of my "eternal soul" ...especially since he supposedly already knew the outcome in advance ?

Why does an atheist attempt to indict a non-existent God?

"Scientists animated by the purpose of proving they are purposeless constitute an interesting subject for study." - Alfred North Whitehead


The Doomed Soul
atheist
The Doomed Soul's picture
Posts: 2148
Joined: 2007-08-31
User is offlineOffline
Paisley wrote:Why does an

Paisley wrote:

Why does an atheist attempt to indict a non-existent God?

for the lulz?


Theia
Theia's picture
Posts: 207
Joined: 2008-04-13
User is offlineOffline
Paisley wrote:Why does an

Paisley wrote:

Why does an atheist attempt to indict a non-existent God?

Wouldn't be much of a discussion without having to pretend for a moment, would it? To get theists to attempt to explain the obvious contradictions regarding the workings of their supposed God then we have to ask questions as if there were a God. How else would we discuss it? Or am I not understanding your question?

"The Bible looks like it started out as a game of Mad Libs" - Bill Maher


ProzacDeathWish
atheist
ProzacDeathWish's picture
Posts: 4127
Joined: 2007-12-02
User is offlineOffline
Theia wrote:Paisley

Theia wrote:

Paisley wrote:

Why does an atheist attempt to indict a non-existent God?

To get theists to attempt to explain the obvious contradictions regarding the workings of their supposed God then we have to ask questions as if there were a God. How else would we discuss it?

 

The question in the OP was posed to theists and therefore logic dictates that in order for them to defend their position my questions must be predicated upon their beliefs. 

I do this in exactly the same way as some theists here who favor using similar methods in order to compel atheists to defend ( or "concede" ) their absurd, meaningless, materialistic positions, lurking god-belief, etcetera, etcetera.

See how that process works ?

Patrick is an edgy edgelord.


I AM GOD AS YOU
Superfan
Posts: 4793
Joined: 2007-09-29
User is offlineOffline
YUP, but when you are G O D

YUP, but when you are G O D , it's all just silly, said a buddha  ....  When the east  heard the message of jesus, who said I AM ONE with the father, I AM GOD,  many said, "hey that's cool, a Jew finally figured it out" ..... 


Eloise
TheistBronze Member
Eloise's picture
Posts: 1807
Joined: 2007-05-26
User is offlineOffline
ProzacDeathWish wrote:Did

ProzacDeathWish wrote:

Did God deliberately plan for me to become an atheist ?

I'd say "Yes." and it would be a reasonably valid reply, but it wouldn't provide you with any new information on the subject, so I won't, yet.

Instead I'd like to point out that vague objects underlie the asking of this question, and without clarifying those you can't expect answers with any less vagueness associated with them.

The first object is, of course, "gOD". But everyone picks on this one in every argument, it's done to death, besides, as you are an atheist the term is meaningless to you ultimately anyway. So I am not going to deal with that one right now.

There is another object in the question, equally as vague as that one.

"Me".

There is no answer to this question which does not presuppose what constitutes  you and assume that definition into the conclusion. Generally the assumption used involves some quasi-static rendering of a local object in a void, or in other words, a wrong one. Thus the conclusion must equally be wrong.

"Me" is at least a dynamic system, and it is properly considered as integrated into a larger framework of systems, whereupon the definition of 'me' is extended to fractional components inured within the larger framework, the larger framework is inured in even larger frameworks and etc ad infinitum, "me" continues to be defined at the other end of the universe.

Conversely, "me" is an innovative system likewise defined ultimately by extremities of a universe of possibilities. (sometimes this is referred to as free will but I prefer 'internal universe', myself because actual "freeness of will" involves more than this coordinate).

To this end any question of me "becoming", is non sequitur, "me" doesn't become, it has an index of refraction. Think of it as an internal universe angled against an external universe.  To which end the self we ordinarily sense is a correlation coordinate of the two input sets, and the embodiment with which we generally associate that self is simply one orientation of the boundary between them, a single focal setting.

That is to say, you are only an atheist to a certain angle of conjunction of two universes.

Did God plan that? Yes. Does it matter? No, unless we define God as the same certain angle of conjunction of two universes in which case, you are god, and therefore not an atheist at all, just confused.

Theist badge qualifier : Gnostic/Philosophical Panentheist

www.mathematicianspictures.com


totus_tuus
Theist
totus_tuus's picture
Posts: 516
Joined: 2007-04-23
User is offlineOffline
BMcD wrote:I would say that

BMcD wrote:
I would say that we cannot demonstrate we are not making a free choice, and so must proceed from the position that we are, else we reliquish our autonomy and become passive, become helpless infants once more.

So, for all practical intents and purposes we're back to the point where one chooses theism or atheism out of free will, since the existence of free will is the assumption we must operate under.

Quote:
They originate from perception. However, we cannot ever truly verify the accuracy of our perceptions. We are trapped interacting with the universe we perceive, with no way to know the truth of that universe, because we have no way of knowing the truth of our own mind. The search for observable truth, however, does not become irrelevant, because in the end, it amounts to one of two things: either an understanding of the universe around us, or an understanding of the universe in our own mind. At the very least, striving to understand the surroundings we are forced to interact with provides a means to stave off madness. And in the end, who knows? What we think we know might actually be right. Eye-wink

Then isn't my point of view just as valid as yours?  As a matter of fact, living under such a system, can there be any beliefs which aren't valid?

Quote:
Yes, but you see, that truth comes from your awareness of a thing that it is within the capacity of your species to create from raw materials, created to the specifications you're citing. It's a very different thing than the nature of reality or the existance of the divine.

I don't think so.  I think that one can begin with acknowledging nothing other than one's own existence and still come up with a pretty convincing case for the existence of a deity.

Quote:
That only holds if you know you can trust the manual. If someone walks up to you and hands you a book labelled 'OWNAR'S MANUEL: UR CAR'... I'd trust The Bible a lot more if it told me that the earth was created over the course of an incomprehensible span of time through the slow accretion of rubble in a vast disk around the sun. It doesn't. So why should I believe the other things it says?

I didn't mean to take the discussion "biblical" with this comment.  While I believe the Bible is illustrative of much of objective truth, and contains many of those, it is certainly not the complete revelation of objective truth.  My contention is that a natural law exists which is the objective truth. 

Furthermore, I wholeheartedly believe that science has as much to say about the nature of reality as metaphysics does, but in my estimation a "sola ratia" approach to existence is just as flawed as the "sola fide" approach brought about by the Reformation (forgive my Latin here, I'm no Latinist).  Separating faith and reason degrades both.

As far as my views on the literal interpretation of Scriptures, suffice it to say that I am opposed to such an approach, but to delve much further into my beliefs about Scriptural veracity and interpretation would seriously degrade the track of this thread even further than we have.

Quote:
Indeed. And while you can demonstrate that gasoline dependence is accurate knowledge of the nature of your care, you cannot demonstrate the same about your choice of deity. So then it must be asked: why assume you know? why not continue to search?

Again, I think it can be reasonably done starting from the single simple point upon which we agree, that is, that the only thing of which we can be sure is our own existence.

 

"With its enduring appeal to the search for truth, philosophy has the great responsibility of forming thought and culture; and now it must strive resolutely to recover its original vocation." Pope John Paul II


totus_tuus
Theist
totus_tuus's picture
Posts: 516
Joined: 2007-04-23
User is offlineOffline
ProzacDeathWish

ProzacDeathWish wrote:
Perhaps it isn't so much an issue ( for me ) of free will as it is of God's supposedly benevolent motives.  Why would he lead me to a situation that he knew would destroy my faith and lead to me becoming an atheist ?   Isn't destroying my faith something that Satan would be more interested in ?

I don't think that the discussion between BMcD and myself is really derailing at all.  I think that it's important to establish whether your loss of faith was within or beyond your control.

"With its enduring appeal to the search for truth, philosophy has the great responsibility of forming thought and culture; and now it must strive resolutely to recover its original vocation." Pope John Paul II


I AM GOD AS YOU
Superfan
Posts: 4793
Joined: 2007-09-29
User is offlineOffline
Eloise, a buddha goddess, a

Eloise, a buddha goddess, a karma of a wise caring teacher, as was our late friend Alan Watts.  I wish ALL would know him. My old Alan folders are a bit unorganized, and I forget my favorites but can promise all of you, that spending a week with that Alan will enrich you. Lot's of him on the internet. Youtube vids, and podcasts too etc

     Be the wiser, hang out with atheist Alan Watts, the western blue jean hippie buddha messanger  ...... I will try to post some favorites later and an Alan thread would way cool.

Yeah, of course we are god. What else could we be? We are connected to the air, the ground, the sun, the stars, everything there is, was, and will ever be! .... thanks Eloise and Alan !   

 

 


ronin-dog
Scientist
ronin-dog's picture
Posts: 419
Joined: 2007-10-18
User is offlineOffline
Jesus loves you, but his dad

Jesus loves you, but his dad thinks you're a shit. (PS: Jesus is his dad)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-2bpc7LSRZc

He would rather you burn in hell forever than provide you with definitive proof of his existence. But he loves you...

 

Zen-atheist wielding Occam's katana.

Jesus said, "Suppose ye that I am come to give peace on earth? I tell you, Nay; but rather division." - Luke 12:51


I AM GOD AS YOU
Superfan
Posts: 4793
Joined: 2007-09-29
User is offlineOffline
Yes, ronin-dog, there is bad

Yes, ronin-dog, there is bad bad Jesus too , very very bad, and wrong, and stupid ! We could call him the Devil !  Then there is, a message of ONE , some attribute to another Jesus or buddha etc.   The only truth is, I am god as all is god. Abandon all superstition but keep the "AWE" , call it what ever you want, but don't make up domga lies ..... Go Science .... what am I  ? ....  

  Oh BTW , COOL VID, I will send to my Xain friends, thanks ....


Kevin R Brown
Superfan
Kevin R Brown's picture
Posts: 3142
Joined: 2007-06-24
User is offlineOffline
Eloise wrote:ProzacDeathWish

Eloise wrote:

ProzacDeathWish wrote:

Did God deliberately plan for me to become an atheist ?

I'd say "Yes." and it would be a reasonably valid reply, but it wouldn't provide you with any new information on the subject, so I won't, yet.

Instead I'd like to point out that vague objects underlie the asking of this question, and without clarifying those you can't expect answers with any less vagueness associated with them.

The first object is, of course, "gOD". But everyone picks on this one in every argument, it's done to death, besides, as you are an atheist the term is meaningless to you ultimately anyway. So I am not going to deal with that one right now.

There is another object in the question, equally as vague as that one.

"Me".

There is no answer to this question which does not presuppose what constitutes  you and assume that definition into the conclusion. Generally the assumption used involves some quasi-static rendering of a local object in a void, or in other words, a wrong one. Thus the conclusion must equally be wrong.

"Me" is at least a dynamic system, and it is properly considered as integrated into a larger framework of systems, whereupon the definition of 'me' is extended to fractional components inured within the larger framework, the larger framework is inured in even larger frameworks and etc ad infinitum, "me" continues to be defined at the other end of the universe.

Conversely, "me" is an innovative system likewise defined ultimately by extremities of a universe of possibilities. (sometimes this is referred to as free will but I prefer 'internal universe', myself because actual "freeness of will" involves more than this coordinate).

To this end any question of me "becoming", is non sequitur, "me" doesn't become, it has an index of refraction. Think of it as an internal universe angled against an external universe.  To which end the self we ordinarily sense is a correlation coordinate of the two input sets, and the embodiment with which we generally associate that self is simply one orientation of the boundary between them, a single focal setting.

That is to say, you are only an atheist to a certain angle of conjunction of two universes.

Did God plan that? Yes. Does it matter? No, unless we define God as the same certain angle of conjunction of two universes in which case, you are god, and therefore not an atheist at all, just confused.

Eloise, this is the equivalent of psuedo-scientific technobabble. Why is it that theists always do this? Resort to prententious mental gymnastics?

The first four paragraphs aren't even relevant information, and the rest after that go to great lengths to explain absolutely nothing. 'Me' is hardly a 'vague term' that needs an entire page worth of re-definition behind it - and 'me becoming' is certainly not non sequitor (and even if it was, this is dodging around the question, at best. How is it that Prozac is an atheist right now if that's not what God wanted?).

The 'angled universes' example is, frankly, a bad analogy. It does not but make the question look much more confusing than it actually is, adding an unnecessary layer of complexity. I don't even understand your answer. Yeah, apparently god wanted me to turn out this way and live in sin, but no, it doesn't matter? It doesn't matter that God is a nonsensical and contradictory being?

Quote:
"Natasha has just come up to the window from the courtyard and opened it wider so that the air may enter more freely into my room. I can see the bright green strip of grass beneath the wall, and the clear blue sky above the wall, and sunlight everywhere. Life is beautiful. Let the future generations cleanse it of all evil, oppression and violence, and enjoy it to the full."

- Leon Trotsky, Last Will & Testament
February 27, 1940


I AM GOD AS YOU
Superfan
Posts: 4793
Joined: 2007-09-29
User is offlineOffline
Frankly, I AM feeling

Frankly, I AM feeling disappointed (again)  "Vague" is what we are ! Why is it Eloise is poetry to my ears. Wait, I used my eyes .... ? 

Alan Watts knows , well I can't argue with him ..... 

Alan Watts, one of the greatest recent teachers ever, an atheist spiritualist some call him, whatever that means!?  Well I say a uniter and a healer. I bet all will benifit from knowing Alan. (bet ya bet ya) ..... I would say he is a QM co-inventer philosopher, ahead of his time, ahhh so buddha rising ! AWAKE!

Shit, that dude tried LSD and did a mushroom high too ! Timothy Leary put him up to it !  ..... He was drinker toker too, a bad boy for sure ! (((  I meant a good old boy,  ..... he hung out in the east like RRS DG .... humm does the east make west people smarter ???  Yes it can ....


Alan Watts: Man in Nature pt 1 - 8 min http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7G-WH-My640

Alan Watts The Middle Way p1-6 - 9 min http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yQ6NYI4k-v0&feature=related

ALAN WATTS MEANINGLESS LIFE 8 min http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m72iWC-0UpU&feature=related
notes: when does a baby begin, how big is the sun ! WAR? , no separate events ...


Alan Watts - Work as Play (part 1)  9 min  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0caqNCIUSZM&NR=1
Notes:  the problem with compultion, suffering is not virtue ....

Alan Watts Interviews Bertrand Russell; Trend of Philosophy 2 min http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FWMq8PD8BRw&feature=related

Watch all that, and get back to me in a moon minute you all.

I want to know everything .... Please help  

   ..... and hey Eloise , you is good for me  , thanks 

 


ProzacDeathWish
atheist
ProzacDeathWish's picture
Posts: 4127
Joined: 2007-12-02
User is offlineOffline
totus_tuus

totus_tuus wrote:

 

I don't think that the discussion between BMcD and myself is really derailing at all.  I think that it's important to establish whether your loss of faith was within or beyond your control.

 

Please, anyone is free to contribute whatever they want ( except Paisley the Troll ), even if it does derail it.  I am not the God of this thread ( pun intended )....the thread goes where it wills, so to speak.

Be that as it may, I indeed have some selfish motives for framing my argument within a narrower focus than simply free will as a concept.  I was taught that God was a personal God who jealously brooded over the souls of man and I therefore could not reconcile ( as a former theist ) why god would choose to behave in a certain way that would result in my walking away.

 

The capacity to choose ( free will ) is overly broad, my concern was in regard to God and why the choice was made on his part?  Perhaps the answer, if there is one, would actually be found within a doctrinal viewpoint, or a purely theological approach which emphasises God's motives above his divine attributes

The situation reminds me of a father who proffessess to love his young child and then takes that child ( ie, me ) and places him in a room with a loaded handgun when the father knows the child will pick it up and blow it's brains out ?  Would anyone consider that behaviour consistent with a loving father ?

 

At any rate, feel free to approach it from any angle that intrigues you....I will just crouch in the corner and watch what happens

Patrick is an edgy edgelord.


Paisley
Theist
Paisley's picture
Posts: 1933
Joined: 2008-03-13
User is offlineOffline
ProzacDeathWish wrote:Theia

ProzacDeathWish wrote:
Theia wrote:
Paisley wrote:

Why does an atheist attempt to indict a non-existent God?

To get theists to attempt to explain the obvious contradictions regarding the workings of their supposed God then we have to ask questions as if there were a God. How else would we discuss it?

The question in the OP was posed to theists and therefore logic dictates that in order for them to defend their position my questions must be predicated upon their beliefs.

Logic does not dictate that I must defend your conception of God.

ProzacDeathWish wrote:
I do this in exactly the same way as some theists here who favor using similar methods in order to compel atheists to defend ( or "concede" ) their absurd, meaningless, materialistic positions, lurking god-belief, etcetera, etcetera.

See how that process works?

ProzacDeathWish wrote:
There are no accidents; all circumstances, whether pleasant or unpleasant, were permitted by God.

In the deterministic worldview of atheistic materialism, there are no accidents either. Every circumstance and situation you encountered could not have been otherwise. See how that works? So this begs the question: "Why are you whining?" Answer: You want to blame God for your miserable, wretched life. Sorry to disappoint, but the atheist does not have this luxury.

"Scientists animated by the purpose of proving they are purposeless constitute an interesting subject for study." - Alfred North Whitehead


ProzacDeathWish
atheist
ProzacDeathWish's picture
Posts: 4127
Joined: 2007-12-02
User is offlineOffline
Kevin R Brown wrote:Eloise

Kevin R Brown wrote:

Eloise wrote:

ProzacDeathWish wrote:

Did God deliberately plan for me to become an atheist ?

I'd say "Yes." and it would be a reasonably valid reply, but it wouldn't provide you with any new information on the subject, so I won't, yet.

Instead I'd like to point out that vague objects underlie the asking of this question, and without clarifying those you can't expect answers with any less vagueness associated with them.

The first object is, of course, "gOD". But everyone picks on this one in every argument, it's done to death, besides, as you are an atheist the term is meaningless to you ultimately anyway. So I am not going to deal with that one right now.

There is another object in the question, equally as vague as that one.

"Me".

There is no answer to this question which does not presuppose what constitutes  you and assume that definition into the conclusion. Generally the assumption used involves some quasi-static rendering of a local object in a void, or in other words, a wrong one. Thus the conclusion must equally be wrong.

"Me" is at least a dynamic system, and it is properly considered as integrated into a larger framework of systems, whereupon the definition of 'me' is extended to fractional components inured within the larger framework, the larger framework is inured in even larger frameworks and etc ad infinitum, "me" continues to be defined at the other end of the universe.

Conversely, "me" is an innovative system likewise defined ultimately by extremities of a universe of possibilities. (sometimes this is referred to as free will but I prefer 'internal universe', myself because actual "freeness of will" involves more than this coordinate).

To this end any question of me "becoming", is non sequitur, "me" doesn't become, it has an index of refraction. Think of it as an internal universe angled against an external universe.  To which end the self we ordinarily sense is a correlation coordinate of the two input sets, and the embodiment with which we generally associate that self is simply one orientation of the boundary between them, a single focal setting.

That is to say, you are only an atheist to a certain angle of conjunction of two universes.

Did God plan that? Yes. Does it matter? No, unless we define God as the same certain angle of conjunction of two universes in which case, you are god, and therefore not an atheist at all, just confused.

Eloise, this is the equivalent of psuedo-scientific technobabble. Why is it that theists always do this? Resort to prententious mental gymnastics?

The first four paragraphs aren't even relevant information, and the rest after that go to great lengths to explain absolutely nothing. 'Me' is hardly a 'vague term' that needs an entire page worth of re-definition behind it - and 'me becoming' is certainly not non sequitor (and even if it was, this is dodging around the question, at best. How is it that Prozac is an atheist right now if that's not what God wanted?).

The 'angled universes' example is, frankly, a bad analogy. It does not but make the question look much more confusing than it actually is, adding an unnecessary layer of complexity. I don't even understand your answer. Yeah, apparently god wanted me to turn out this way and live in sin, but no, it doesn't matter? It doesn't matter that God is a nonsensical and contradictory being?

Yes, Eloise does have an extremely analytical mind and her very high IQ ( as you also seem to possess ) sometimes puts her observations out there.  It's almost as if she has too much knowledge .  

At any rate, she is one of the few theists on this forum that I actually like so I am simply pleased that she would even choose to comment. 

Patrick is an edgy edgelord.


The Doomed Soul
atheist
The Doomed Soul's picture
Posts: 2148
Joined: 2007-08-31
User is offlineOffline
Paisley wrote:In the

Paisley wrote:

In the deterministic worldview of atheistic materialism, there are no accidents either. Every circumstance and situation you encountered could not have been otherwise. See how that works? So this begs the question: "Why are you whining?" Answer: You want to blame God for your miserable, wretched life. Sorry to disappoint, but the atheist does not have this luxury.

Paisley, review your answer to discover why the whining is acceptable ;-p

What Would Kharn Do?


ProzacDeathWish
atheist
ProzacDeathWish's picture
Posts: 4127
Joined: 2007-12-02
User is offlineOffline
Paisley, you are so dead to

Paisley, you are so dead to me..... I dont even bother reading your posts anymore.

 

 

( besides, your profound insights are like dog shit that I can't scrape off my shoe. )

 

Patrick is an edgy edgelord.


Loc
Superfan
Loc's picture
Posts: 1130
Joined: 2007-11-06
User is offlineOffline
Paisley wrote: In the

Paisley wrote:

 

In the deterministic worldview of atheistic materialism, there are no accidents either. Every circumstance and situation you encountered could not have been otherwise. See how that works? So this begs the question: "Why are you whining?"

Even if this is so,the primary difference is atheism does not claim to give you this freedom,where as christianity very much does.

Paisley wrote:

Answer: You want to blame God for your miserable, wretched life. Sorry to disappoint, but the atheist does not have this luxury.

Sorry to disappoint,but my life is neither miserable nor wretched.

Psalm 14:1 "the fool hath said in his heart there is a God"-From a 1763 misprinted edition of the bible

dudeofthemoment wrote:
This is getting redudnant. My patience with the unteachable[atheists] is limited.

Argument from Sadism: Theist presents argument in a wall of text with no punctuation and wrong spelling. Atheist cannot read and is forced to concede.


ProzacDeathWish
atheist
ProzacDeathWish's picture
Posts: 4127
Joined: 2007-12-02
User is offlineOffline
Loc wrote:Paisley wrote: In

Loc wrote:

Paisley wrote:

 

In the deterministic worldview of atheistic materialism, there are no accidents either. Every circumstance and situation you encountered could not have been otherwise. See how that works? So this begs the question: "Why are you whining?"

Even if this is so,the primary difference is atheism does not claim to give you this freedom,where as christianity very much does.

Paisley wrote:

Answer: You want to blame God for your miserable, wretched life. Sorry to disappoint, but the atheist does not have this luxury.

Sorry to disappoint,but my life is neither miserable nor wretched.

 

Loc, just ignore Paisley.  He just can't let go of his bitterness toward atheists so he must yet again take up the battle against our materialist, meaningless, absurd, lurking god-belief, pointless existence, blah blah blah.....

Patrick is an edgy edgelord.


Eloise
TheistBronze Member
Eloise's picture
Posts: 1807
Joined: 2007-05-26
User is offlineOffline
Kevin R Brown wrote:Eloise

Kevin R Brown wrote:

Eloise wrote:

ProzacDeathWish wrote:

Did God deliberately plan for me to become an atheist ?

*snipped* see above

 

Eloise, this is the equivalent of psuedo-scientific technobabble. Why is it that theists always do this? Resort to prententious mental gymnastics?

I'm not resorting, this is a direct statement- there is no way to answer that question without presupposing a definition of self and inserting that definition into the conclusion. Usually the being implied in answers to this question, and questions like them, is undeniably inaccurate. It's that simple.

Kevin wrote:

The first four paragraphs aren't even relevant information, and the rest after that go to great lengths to explain absolutely nothing. 'Me' is hardly a 'vague term' that needs an entire page worth of re-definition behind it -

No, it's taken for granted that it is not vague, but it is vague, and it does need redefinition. I stand by that.

 

Kevin wrote:

and 'me becoming' is certainly not non sequitor (and even if it was, this is dodging around the question, at best. How is it that Prozac is an atheist right now if that's not what God wanted?).

I didn't dodge the question by stating that becoming was non sequitur, I still addressed the question of being as an atheist and whether such exists as an asshole 'god' that would make people what he doesn't want them to be in order to punish them. I addressed this point fairly so I don't believe I dodged at all.

 

Kevin wrote:

The 'angled universes' example is, frankly, a bad analogy. It does not but make the question look much more confusing than it actually is, adding an unnecessary layer of complexity.

I beg to differ that the layer is unnecessary. And this, by the way, has nothing to do with God or religion and nothing to do with fitting 'god' into a worldview, we can drop this platform and I will still say it, what is taken for granted to be true about self in most philosophical presuppositions is deeply flawed.

 

Kevin wrote:

I don't even understand your answer. Yeah, apparently god wanted me to turn out this way and live in sin, but no, it doesn't matter? It doesn't matter that God is a nonsensical and contradictory being?

It doesn't matter that you're an atheist to some arbitrary standard, unless it's gods standard, and if it is God's standard then you are god. I don't even need to redefine self to make that claim, I can just give a logical argument as to the parsing of god's standard. But I am more philosophically concerned about flawed concept of self than about defending god, so I stand by my tack there, we can do better than to cling to false pretences of what we are.

Theist badge qualifier : Gnostic/Philosophical Panentheist

www.mathematicianspictures.com


Eloise
TheistBronze Member
Eloise's picture
Posts: 1807
Joined: 2007-05-26
User is offlineOffline
I AM GOD AS YOU

I AM GOD AS YOU wrote:

Frankly, I AM feeling disappointed (again)  "Vague" is what we are ! Why is it Eloise is poetry to my ears. Wait, I used my eyes .... ? 

Alan Watts knows , well I can't argue with him ..... 

<edit>

Watch all that, and get back to me in a moon minute you all.

I want to know everything .... Please help  

   ..... and hey Eloise , you is good for me  , thanks 

 

 

Hi IAM Smiling

Nice vids, I don't think I had heard of Alan Watts before, but he's definitely interesting.

I mostly dispute and disagree with Daniel Dennett (author of "Consciousness Explained&quotEye-wink but on this subject I find myself in rare wholehearted agreement with him. The Cartesian man in a theatre concept of self is little more than a "useful fiction" providing a "narrative centre of gravity" for the consciousness.

What is implied by the calling of this narrative centre a "self' is fiction, but it is useful  simply as an abstract placemark orienting the background dependence of statistical decisions (see Deutsch); otherwise random and chaotic "computations" or measurements.

Theist badge qualifier : Gnostic/Philosophical Panentheist

www.mathematicianspictures.com