intellgence....you either have it or you don't

[keith99]

Yes, that could have been done better, but does that poison the entire video for you?

Nope, it was the general straw man and characture of arguments made by the other side.

I don't like it when Fundies do it and I don't like it when anti-fundies do it.

 

[TheImmortalJellyfish]

Preposterous, present me a God and see what I do, otherwise you are just making an assumption here.

Of course it's an assumption. But I don't think it's a completely preposterous one. That would also be an assumption...you're saying that upon seeing the Christian God, you would suddenly renounce your atheism (or whatever it is) and bow down, agreeing to follow Him? How would you be sure it's God and not some "trick of science"?

 

[Archaeopteryx]

Really? That would completely obliterate every claim against God's existence? If you could look at God right now, would you bow down and ask forgiveness?

It depends. You are assuming that God is the Christian God and that he would demand something of that sort. Perhaps he wouldn't, in which case, why would that be necessary? My first instinct wouldn't be to beg forgiveness, but to ask him questions about how the world was created, why he created it, and why he decided not to reveal himself up until that point.

 

[variant]

Of course it's an assumption. But I don't think it's a completely preposterous one. That would also be an assumption...you're saying that upon seeing the Christian God, you would suddenly renounce your atheism (or whatever it is) and bow down, agreeing to follow Him? How would you be sure it's God and not some "trick of science"?

God is surly capable of demonstration if I'm feeling doubtful.

My signature is in Italian it says "religion must let God speak for himself".

 

[TheImmortalJellyfish]

It depends. You are assuming that God is the Christian God and that he would demand something of that sort. Perhaps he wouldn't, in which case, why would that be necessary? My first instinct wouldn't be to beg forgiveness, but to ask him questions about how the world was created, why he created it, and why he decided not to reveal himself up until that point.

But you see that you're right in the first case: God doesn't demand anything. So why is it necessary to actually "see" to believe? I'm totally not trying to be antagonistic, here...it's just something I've been wondering. It may be appropriate for a new topic...

 

[TheImmortalJellyfish]

God is surly capable of demonstration if I'm feeling doubtful.

My signature is in Italian it says "religion must let God speak for himself".

I knew that, actually...I looked it up awhile ago

And - for the most part - I agree with the motto.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

But you see that you're right in the first case: God doesn't demand anything. [So why is it necessary to actually "see" to believe?I'm totally not trying to be antagonistic, here...it's just something I've been wondering. It may be appropriate for a new topic...

Are you asking why is it necessary to withhold belief in something until there is reason sufficient to warrant belief? Because one can believe anything without good reason. Many religious claims purport to be of ultimate significance to human beings. For something that is apparently so important, why would you want to believe without good reason?

 

[TheImmortalJellyfish]

Are you asking why is it necessary to withhold belief in something until there is reason sufficient to warrant belief? Because one can believe anything without good reason. Many religious claims purport to be of ultimate significance to human beings. For something that is apparently so important, why would you want to believe without good reason?

Okay, so let's say that God's act of showing himself to you is sufficient proof of His existence. Suppose you don't like a thing He has to say? I mean, you believe He exists now, and He has indeed identified Himself as the Christian God. But you still have a free will...suppose you don't like His viewpoints on anything?

 

[Archaeopteryx]

Okay, so let's say that God's act of showing himself to you is sufficient proof of His existence. Suppose you don't like a thing He has to say? I mean, you believe He exists now, and He has indeed identified Himself as the Christian God. But you still have a free will...suppose you don't like His viewpoints on anything?

Again, it depends. If this God is going to threaten me with eternal torture for not agreeing with him, then I'm being coerced into agreeing with his views. If he threatens to send me to hellfire if I withhold worship, then I can only worship him out of fear, not love or the desire for communion with the divine. I wouldn't know what to do in such a situation, to be honest, because the honourable route becomes the road to hell.

The same question might be posed to you as well. People of religious faith often assume unquestioningly that the God they will encounter in the afterlife will meet certain expectations. Suppose you encounter a God drastically different from what you expect; a God so diametrically opposed to everything you expected God to be that you are horrified at the prospect of having to worship and glorify this being for eternity. What would your response be? Wouldn't worshipping such a being become a hell of its own?

 

[TheImmortalJellyfish]

Again, it depends. If this God is going to threaten me with eternal torture for not agreeing with him, then I'm being coerced into agreeing with his views. If he threatens to send me to hellfire if I withhold worship, then I can only worship him out of fear, not love or the desire for communion with the divine. I wouldn't know what to do in such a situation, to be honest, because the honourable route becomes the road to hell.

The same question might be posed to you as well. People of religious faith often assume unquestioningly that the God they will encounter in the afterlife will meet certain expectations. Suppose you encounter a God drastically different from what you expect; a God so diametrically opposed to everything you expected God to be that you are horrified at the prospect of having to worship and glorify this being for eternity. What would your response be? Wouldn't worshipping such a being become a hell of its own?

Forgive me if I'm wrong, but do you mean to imply that a God who's viewpoints you decide were disagreeable would also be considered "drastically different than what you expect"?

I guess what I'm trying to get at is that - if there were a God that you could see, what would then happen to your free-will? You would be forced either way.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

Forgive me if I'm wrong, but do you mean to imply that a God who's viewpoints you decide were disagreeable would also be considered "drastically different than what you expect"?

I guess what I'm trying to get at is that - if there were a God that you could see, what would then happen to your free-will? You would be forced either way.

I'm not sure what you're getting at. I don't have any particular expectations regarding a deity, because I do not believe in one. However, you do. You expect to encounter a particular God, with a particular nature, a particular personality, and particular intentions - as articulated in the doctrines you believe.

What I'm asking, in essence, is how you would respond if you were to encounter a God so diametrically opposed to most of those particulars. He still demands your worshipful obedience for eternity, and offers hell as an alternative to spending eternity with him. Horrified at the prospect of having to grovel at the feet of a being you despise for eternity, but fearful of the damnation he has in store for you if you refuse, what would you do?

 

[TheImmortalJellyfish]

I'm not sure what you're getting at. I don't have any particular expectations regarding a deity, because I do not believe in one. However, you do. You expect to encounter a particular God, with a particular nature, a particular personality, and particular intentions - as articulated in the doctrines you believe.

What I'm asking, in essence, is how you would respond if you were to encounter a God so diametrically opposed to most of those particulars. He still demands your worshipful obedience for eternity, and offers hell as an alternative to spending eternity with him. Horrified at the prospect of having to grovel at the feet of a being you despise for eternity, but fearful of the damnation he has in store for you if you refuse, what would you do?

I'd call him a liar and a false god. He would be directly opposed to the Bible which claims to be of God. And God is love, justice, and mercy.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

I'd call him a liar and a false god. He would be directly opposed to the Bible which claims to be of God. And God is love, justice, and mercy.

Yes, but the premise of the scenario is that he is the real God, and that your conception of God was false. Is is not possible that you could be wrong in your conception of God?

 

[TheImmortalJellyfish]

Yes, but the premise of the scenario is that he is the real God, and that your conception of God was false. Is is not possible that you could be wrong in your conception of God?

I'm not sure exactly how to answer, here...I'd say that my conception of God is based on the Bible - in which it is written "I am the one true God". So whatever it is I'm encountering in this scenario had better have very valid reasons why he's not what his book claims he is (love, etc...) yet can still claim to be the "one true God".

 

[variant]

I knew that, actually...I looked it up awhile ago

And - for the most part - I agree with the motto.

OK.

Then it is odd that you would assume I would not accept exactly that.

 

[variant]

Okay, so let's say that God's act of showing himself to you is sufficient proof of His existence. Suppose you don't like a thing He has to say? I mean, you believe He exists now, and He has indeed identified Himself as the Christian God. But you still have a free will...suppose you don't like His viewpoints on anything?

Liking or not liking the truth isn't a valid reason to deny it.

It goes both ways, as it might be better for me if there was a God, but that doesn't mean I believe in it.

 

[TheImmortalJellyfish]

OK.

Then it is odd that you would assume I would not accept exactly that.

Just out of curiosity, what exactly would constitute as "God speaking for Himself"?

 

[TheImmortalJellyfish]

I think my version of the statement would be more along the lines of "Religion should let the Bible speak for itself"

 

[variant]

Just out of curiosity, what exactly would constitute as "God speaking for Himself"?

I think my version of the statement would be more along the lines of "Religion should let the Bible speak for itself"

Either God basically showing up and speaking, or, leaving clear evidence for us to find of it's existence and wishes.

I consider the Bible to be a religious text, so I would consider it covered under "Religion".

 

[TheImmortalJellyfish]

Either God basically showing up and speaking, or, leaving clear evidence for us to find of it's existence and wishes.

I consider the Bible to be a religious text, so I would consider it covered under "Religion".

I think it's simply a matter of defining terms. "Theism" and "religion" are not necessarily interchangeable. The Bible (your "religious" text) certainly doesn't see it that way:

Why Christianity is NOT a Religion | Philippians1v21