I'm from Nebraska. And pretty much everyone i know is a Christian. Probably about nine out of ten believe what they do just because that's what they were told to believe. Pretty sad.

Before I jump in...

Christopher Hitchens vs. Al Sharpton: God Is Not Great

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eJecVWE4faw

Christopher Hitchens: God is Not Great @ Google
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sD0B-X9LJjs

Full Version: Hitchens and Rabbi Boteach Debate on God
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vnMYL8sF7bQ

I did start watching the first one, but am having a little trouble finding the motivation. 10 minutes would have been cool, but a whole hour is tough for my Pness to commit to watching all the way through.

I couldn't stop thinking "Al Sharpton? Seriously?" Have you read any... I dunno... "good" christian thinkers, or did you mean for us to focus more on Hitchens' arguments? If Al Sharpton is like the face of Christian thought to you, I should dig up the book my old theology teacher wrote (though I don't think it's published yet)... it might turn your understanding of christianity on its head.

I couldn't stop thinking "Al Sharpton? Seriously?" Have you read any... I dunno... "good" christian thinkers, or did you mean for us to focus more on Hitchens' arguments? If Al Sharpton is like the face of Christian thought to you, I should dig up the book my old theology teacher wrote (though I don't think it's published yet)... it might turn your understanding of christianity on its head.

Lol, it was just very funny watching Al Sharpton.

Rabbi Boteach is quite a bit more... refined in his debate.

Yes I have read many Christian philosophy books. I used to consider my self an expert on St. Augustine.

Posted By cryptonia on 30 Jul 2009 07:55 PM
I did start watching the first one, but am having a little trouble finding the motivation. 10 minutes would have been cool, but a whole hour is tough for my Pness to commit to watching all the way through.

I couldn't stop thinking "Al Sharpton? Seriously?" Have you read any... I dunno... "good" christian thinkers, or did you mean for us to focus more on Hitchens' arguments? If Al Sharpton is like the face of Christian thought to you, I should dig up the book my old theology teacher wrote (though I don't think it's published yet)... it might turn your understanding of christianity on its head.

What, you mean the book by the determinist who thinks that God forces us either to love him or hate him, regardless of our choosing, and that we are just meaningless puppets? I could just as easily recommend a book by an ex-friend of mine, but it would be misleading at the other extreme, making God seem powerless in our lives.

The cosmological argument could be stated as follows:

Every finite and contingent being has a cause.
Nothing finite and contingent can cause itself.
A causal chain cannot be of infinite length.
Therefore, a First Cause (or something that is not an effect) must exist.


A basic explanation of the cosmological argument could be stated as follows:

Consider some event in the Universe. No matter what event you choose, it will be the result of some cause, or, more likely, a very complex set of causes. Each of those causes is the result of some other set of causes, which are, in turn, the results of yet other causes. Thus, there is an enormous chain of events in the Universe, with the earlier events causing the latter. Either this chain has a beginning, or it does not.

But what caused the first cause?

One objection to the argument is that it leaves open the question of why the First Cause is unique in that it does not require a cause. Proponents argue that the First Cause is exempt from having a cause, while opponents argue that this is special pleading or otherwise untrue.[12] The problem with arguing for the First Cause's exemption is that it raises the question of why the First Cause is indeed exempt.[13] Proponents who follow William Lane Craig's statement of the argument counter that the atheists' objection is a straw-man argument, pointing out that the first premise does not state that everything needs a cause, only that an entity needs a cause if and only if it has a beginning; thus, since the First Cause (often God) doesn't have a beginning, it doesn't need a cause. Also, if the First Cause has a cause then it is not the First Cause (and begins the cycle of infinite regression again), that is to say exemption of the First Cause is inherent in the First Cause argument.

Secondly, the premise of causality has been arrived at via a posteriori (inductive) reasoning, which is dependent on experience. David Hume highlighted this problem of induction and showed that causal relations were not true a priori (deductively). However as to whether inductive or deductive reasoning is more valuable still remains a matter of debate, with the general conclusion being that neither is prominent[14]. Even though causality applies to the known world, it does not necessarily apply to the universe at large. In other words, it is unwise to draw conclusions from an extrapolation of causality beyond experience.[12] The rules of causality only make sense in the context of time, which obviously did not exist before the creation of the universe, thus it could be considered nonsensical to speak of pre-universal "causes", specifically a First Cause, when discussing the origins of the universe.

Additionally, it is argued that Occam's razor can be used against the argument, showing how the argument fails using both the efficient and conserving types of causality.[15] However, the claim that the Cosmological Argument fails in using conserving types of causality is debatable; Occam says that it fails for these types of causality only if the universe had no beginning.[16]

I would rather be admired for good deeds as a person than colored by the brush of all the bad deeds associated with a group.

I was raised charismatic evangelical. I pretty much accepted it and was one of the more passionate christians and a strong motivator. The problem for me came from the realization that reaction was seen as religious. >.> Looking back, all my ENFP energy was just fuel for the fire of emotional excitement that was perceived to be a connection to the divine.

I read this great book: http://www.amazon.com/When-Christians-Happen-Good-People/dp/1578564905

Really made me look at church from a different perspective. There's this show called "Heavens Gates Hell's Flames" that they put on every year. It shows a bunch of different people dying and going to the gates of heaven...where they're either let in or dragged to hell by a very creepy-voiced devil as he taunts them and cackles. >.> The moral: You could DIE ANYTIME!!! REPENT!!

One of the quotes in that book really stuck with me: A relationship with God based on fear is like an abusive marriage.

I know this is all disconnected and random - I'm trying to convey alot of impressions at once.

Even though causality applies to the known world, it does not necessarily apply to the universe at large. In other words, it is unwise to draw conclusions from an extrapolation of causality beyond experience.[12] The rules of causality only make sense in the context of time, which obviously did not exist before the creation of the universe, thus it could be considered nonsensical to speak of pre-universal "causes", specifically a First Cause, when discussing the origins of the universe.

ok, that part makes good sense. However, I'm not entirely sold on the idea that a cause must temporally precede the event/object in order to make sense with the laws of causation. I guess... suppose that you were shooting a bullet at a target, and you're discussing the hole's existence. A temporally related cause of the hole is "I shot the bullet"--an event that preceded it. Equally valid, though, the reason for the hole's existence is because the bullet went through the wood. One wouldn't have happened without the other... but it's not like one temporally preceded the other.

I find that this holds (possible) parallels to Genesis 1 specifically, now that I think about it, because the pattern repeats, over and over and over again, "And God said []... and there was []." I'm quite excited to see how string theory pans out in the future (yes, I saw that thread... I didn't know how to respond to it, though), because little vibrating strings being the universe's fundamental "thing" would be quite an interesting twist of fate, to discover that God's continued speech is all that maintains existence. Similar to the bullet going through the wood "being" the whole--but not coming before it--it seems possible that God's speech "is" the cause, rather than relying on a non-existent "before" thing that we have to extrapolate out into.


alysaria: 100% agree. I actually heard quite an impressive biblically-centered argument in a sermon (I don't go to church, but listen to good ones online) that what we call hell is actually intended to be non-existence. Instead of an ongoing, persistent torture, eternal in duration, it's an annihilation or unmaking of the person, eternal in consequence. I've spent a good chunk of time studying Revelation, and it seems quite likely, to be honest. Complicating matters is that there are a bunch of separate words that get translated "hell" in English. It's an interpretive measure taken by the translators, since they assume that nobody knows that "Gehenna" was a literal place outside of cities where trash was burnt up completely, so they just translate it as "hell". Similarly, the only "persistent existence" version of hell is spoken of as "Tartarus", not "Gehenna", and only in reference to Satan and the other demons--it, too, got translated as hell. It's also questionable whether that is even meant to be a place of persistent torture, or just a place of restraint so that demons couldn't harass the world anymore (used in II Peter 2:4) Finally (though most recent translations have stopped making this mistake), "hades" is also used when talking of dead people, just like "sheol" in the Old Testament. Spoken to Greeks, "hades" obviously just refers to "death" or "the grave"--a physical death kind of thing. Usually it's only used from the earth's point of view... when a person dies, they go down to "Hades," and the only time it's ever linked with persistent existence (sometimes good, sometimes bad, as a sort of waiting room for Judgment Day) is when Jesus was speaking in parables--which are obviously not meant to be literal.

So with all these words, the idea of using hell to "scare people to belief" is an extreme abuse of the things that Jesus and the apostles said. Instead, it seems quite simple. People unstained by sin live, because sin necessarily results in death (the same way that eating poison does), while people who have sinned will be annihilated because of it. Of course, you don't have to look far to see that everyone has sinned, and the claim is that everyone will eventually be destroyed by their own sin--except that Jesus offered to carry out that consequence of sin, and substitute his destruction for your own, so that you can live despite your choices--true Freedom. By rising from the grave, he demonstrated his ability to conquer death, that all may live instead. That's all that the core of christianity is (although it gets quite deep, and I'm still busy with the remarkable nuances of it), and I'm (apparently, like you) repulsed when people try to do things like your church does. It's almost like they're collecting people for their group, rather than offering them an escape route like they're supposed to be doing.

This is why it's pretty rare that I find churches that I like. *vomits* :p

I think the inconsistency between the imagined "eternal, infinite, torment as brutal revenge for finite, limited sin" concept and accurate belief that "God is love" can turn people away from religion. They can't believe that God is always kind and just, yet also simultaneously believe that he is sometimes capable of sadistic unfairness, so they just give up and assume that religion is altogether irrational.

It would be as though I said "Johnny is a perfect example of a good child," but also said "Johnny skins baby bunnies alive with rusty nails," and expected people to reconcile the two.

--The only way both can be true is if torturing small animals did not disqualify a person for being seen as perfectly good. This would be a dangerous belief, and would appeal to the people who say "It is loving and merciful for God to send even the least offensive sinners to hell so they can suffer forever in flames."

--It would be easier just to deny the validity of the entire premise by saying that "Johnny is not a good child," or that "Johnny does not exist," and that option is the one that appeals to the atheists and those who believe in God's existence without having faith in his goodness.

--In this case, however, recognizing that the penalty for sin is spiritual death, not infinite torture, is like invalidating the "Johnny skins baby bunnies alive with rusty nails" part while keeping the "Johnny is a perfect example of a good child."

I consider myself agnostic with atheistic tendencies.

I'm definitely spiritually inclined, but not in a ritualistic way. I consider myself religious, but dislike the connotations people tend to associate with that label.

A good, all-powerful god wouldn't cause an Asian Tsunami, so God is either cruel, weak or non-existent.

That's the NJ point of view, lol

alysaria, was the second half of that last post of mine helpful at all to you? I thought you or your family (or whoever it was who believed that stuff) might've found it useful. Plus, if I made a rally shitty argument for that belief being biblical, I'd really like to know it. Religious and philosophical beliefs reach too far into the rest of your worldview to adopt wrong ones and allow them to stand.

I think I'm not at all. I don't go to church, because I think that it's better to be a good person. I've seen lots of people going to church and when they leave they are the meanest people in the world. I pray a lot but I don't really think going to church will fix the faith or some other things.

Oh! I almost forget that usually people bother me because I don't go to church. They tell me that I don't love God and I'm and atheist. But I don't really think that way, because I know I have faith right inside of me. And I do love God and Jesus.

A good, all-powerful god wouldn't cause an Asian Tsunami, so God is either cruel, weak or non-existent.

thoke,

Bertrand Russell's essays on religion which I believe you will enjoy are

"An Outline of Intellectual Rubbish"

http://www.solstice.us/russell/intellectual_rubbish.html

"Why I am not a Christian."

http://users.drew.edu/~jlenz/whynot.html

Thanks, I'll at least read the first one. I've got the book 'Why I am not a Christian', but I've never finished it. I was a bit disappointed with it. I agree with the conclusions, but the arguments seemed a bit lacking.

Richard Dawkins book is excellent

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_God_Delusion

Posted By sbalbom on 06 Aug 2009 06:58 AM
Richard Dawkins book is excellent

Absolutely.

Have you been to butterfliesandwheels.com? The 'Notes and Comments' section is a brilliant daily blog about secularism and related issues. The woman who writes it is very pasisonate, but also extremely sensible.