slavery

[Charlie V]

Fair enough i guess it does, but i'd like a further explanation of the role that these people asign to god if they don't think he judges them. Why believe in god at all?

Are you asking out of intellectual curiosity, or are you trying to challenge their beliefs?

If the former, I could list hundreds of reasons, and I think it would be an interesting discussion for someone who is respecfully interested in learning about the beliefs of others. I, personally, am facinated by the great diversity in beliefs, and in the reasons for those beliefs.

I think one of the largest reasons is the profoundity of life -- just how amazing every aspect of life is. That is one reasons of many countless reasons.. and I'd still like to know the answer to "if the former" or "if the latter" before I tackle the question any further.

If the latter -- why would you care, if you're only out to judge them? Do you honestly think that the only reason one would believe in God is as a judge? Are you trying to take away the free will of others to believe what they want?

I'm going to offer one more reason, and if you feel the latter, that you want to challenge, and not the former, that you respect religion and are intellectually curious about it, then this "one more reason," I offer with strenuous enthusiasm: No reason at all. Do we really need a reason for everything? I like chocolate, I like catsup on my hot dogs, and I like Christ's teachings. What's my reason? Because that's what I like. My reason is that I don't have a reason. Is there a problem with not having a reason? What is the need to go around demanding reasons for something that you personally do not understand?

Charlie

 

[exploring]

Counterquestion: Why do you feel that a judging god is a particularly good (or even the only valid one, to tell from the way you put it) reason to believe in the existence of a god?

To say god doesn't judge is to say god doesn't relate to humans. If god isn't going to change our lives, then all he is is a less simple than necessary explanation for the world: not believing in him won't make any difference to our life or afterlife.

 

[Charlie V]

So for now can we assume that we are fundamentally free?

Do you mean, for the sake of argument?

Sure, we could assume that hypothetically, for the sake of argument. But for the record, we're not.

Okay, I've pointed out that we are absolutely not fundamentally free. Feel free to discuss hypotheticals under the pretended notion that we are free.

Charlie

 

[quatona]

To say god doesn't judge is to say god doesn't relate to humans.

Actually, I don´t even see how that follows.

If god isn't going to change our lives, then all he is is a less simple than necessary explanation for the world:

I´m not sure I understand. Primarily, I don´t seem to understand why the fact that believing in the existence of something none-judgemental can not have an influence on our lives.

not believing in him won't make any difference to our life or afterlife.

Whatever we believe won´t make a difference to our afterlife anyways. The afterlife (or non-afterlife) isn´t changed by our beliefs.
If I understand you correctly, you mean to say: If god is not judging us, we will all have the same afterlife, and threatening us with eternal punishment will be impossible. I agree with that.
You also seem to assume that the property of having an ethical corrective impact on us is the only thinkeable influence that god belief can have on a person. I don´t think that this is an accurate assumption.

 

[exploring]

Are you asking out of intellectual curiosity, or are you trying to challenge their beliefs?

If the former, I could list hundreds of reasons, and I think it would be an interesting discussion for someone who is respecfully interested in learning about the beliefs of others. I, personally, am facinated by the great diversity in beliefs, and in the reasons for those beliefs.

I think one of the largest reasons is the profoundity of life -- just how amazing every aspect of life is. That is one reasons of many countless reasons.. and I'd still like to know the answer to "if the former" or "if the latter" before I tackle the question any further.

If the latter -- why would you care, if you're only out to judge them? Do you honestly think that the only reason one would believe in God is as a judge? Are you trying to take away the free will of others to believe what they want?

I'm going to offer one more reason, and if you feel the latter, that you want to challenge, and not the former, that you respect religion and are intellectually curious about it, then this "one more reason," I offer with strenuous enthusiasm: No reason at all. Do we really need a reason for everything? I like chocolate, I like catsup on my hot dogs, and I like Christ's teachings. What's my reason? Because that's what I like. My reason is that I don't have a reason. Is there a problem with not having a reason? What is the need to go around demanding reasons for something that you personally do not understand?

Charlie

I suppose I'll answer the former: i don't want to judge anyone, and i respect your right not to enslave yourself to reasons. I don't really have any bone to pick with these people who don't see god as their judge, since they aren't using god as an excuse for their actions.

On the other hand, don't you see a similarity between saying "god doesn't relate to me any more" and "god is dead"? Would these theists that you know agree with the latter statement?

 

[quatona]

Even if we aren't free, all of us act as if we were: not accepting something is an act of freedom. To me, the fact that I can choose to believe that I am free shows that I am simply by being able to make that choice. We can choose to view the world objectively or subjectively. Objectively, looking at the rat from the outside, it doesn't seem like there is freedom, but from the rat's subjective point of view, there is.

Now in the first post I said that I was adopting a subjective point of view with regards to believing in god, as opposed to an objective "does god exist" point of view. So for now can we assume that we are fundamentally free?

I am willing to assume that for everyday purposes. However, when it comes to philosophical considerations about the condition humaine I am not willing to assume that, because, to me, everything necessitates me to think that this is wrong.

 

[Charlie V]

To say god doesn't judge is to say god doesn't relate to humans.

Nonsense. To say God doesn't judge is to say God doesn't judge. To say God doesn't relate to humans is to say that God doesn't relate to humans.

God can relate, without judging.

If god isn't going to change our lives,

Great. Now we've got a third thing.

1. Judging.
2. Relating.
3. Changing our lives.

Three seperate, distinct and different things.

Since you don't seem to understand that, I'll illustrate, even though this illustration has nothing to do with my view of God, so don't try to literalize this as actually being about God, it's about the difference between "relating," "judging" and "changing our lives."

My brothers and I go to a competition. My parents go with us (relating.) I say, "Do you think I'm better than my brother?" My parents say "I love you both the same, even though you're different." (Not judging.) When it's over, my parents say, "Guess what? I just bought us a new house!" (Changing my life.)

then all he is is a less simple than necessary explanation for the world:

"All he is.." Really, now?

Let me tell you, although that may apply to the example in my previous post (the example of the profoundity of life) from my perspective, the "explanation of the world" is the least of my thoughts.

EDIT: To expand on this, honestly, from my experience as well as my reading and reflection, if I had to answer "all he is," without once mentioning judging, and without once mentioning the necessary explanation for the world, and if I had 90 years to focus on only that one task, and all the tools needed to write down "all he is," and all the knowledge at my fingertips, I think I'd not scratch the surface of the vastness of that concept.

To simplify the concept into judging, or into, an explanation for the world, is astoundingly oversimplifying.

I'm going to try to create an analogy for what you seem to be saying.

You: "You can't believe in the universe without believing the universe judges you."
Me: "I don't think the universe judges me."
You: "Without that, the universe is just a bunch of rocks going in circles."
Me: Jupiter! Saturn's rings! Comets and black holes! I cannot begin to list everything the universe is!

not believing in him won't make any difference to our life or afterlife.

Oh great. Another concept.

Judging is not the same as relating.
Relating is not the same as changing our lives.
And changing our lives isn't the same as the belief changing our lives.

And the afterlife is another concept altogether -- one which not all theists even believe in.

A belief can change your life. Forget theism. In fact, let's even put morality aside, although morality certainly has an important role in the discussion.

There's a box. I believe it contains something I want, so I open it. I believe it contains something that will hurt me, so I don't open it. All of this occurs -- without me believing that someone is judging me.

See. How simple. It's possible to believe something, and that belief to effect me, without that belief involving someone judging me.

What I've been trying to tell you, by the way, is not only with respect to my own beliefs, but with the great variety of beliefs out there. Huge and vast variety.

I don't mean this as an insult, but you seem to have a very narrow idea of what theism is all about. My experience has told me that there's a vastness that I can't possibly describe. The reasons people believe are virtually without limit. The ways in which one may relate without judging is virtually without limit. The ways one may change lives without judging (perhaps even without relating -- I'm open to many ideas) is without limit. The way a belief may change our lives, without judging or relating or without the object of the belief changing our lives, is virtually without limit.

Charlie

 

[Charlie V]

don't you see a similarity between saying "god doesn't relate to me any more" and "god is dead"?

As I'm sure you'll see from my last post -- nobody's said "God doesn't relate to me any more."

"Relating" is not "judging."

Charlie

 

[exploring]

Actually, I don´t even see how that follows.

I´m not sure I understand. Primarily, I don´t seem to understand why the fact that believing in the existence of something none-judgemental can not have an influence on our lives.

Whatever we believe won´t make a difference to our afterlife anyways. The afterlife (or non-afterlife) isn´t changed by our beliefs.
If I understand you correctly, you mean to say: If god is not judging us, we will all have the same afterlife, and threatening us with eternal punishment will be impossible. I agree with that.
You also seem to assume that the property of having an ethical corrective impact on us is the only thinkeable influence that god belief can have on a person. I don´t think that this is an accurate assumption.

Assuming that god is morally perfect, then any change he makes to our life or afterlife must be the "right" one: he cannot make a morally wrong decision
there are two possibilities
1. God changes our lives > god changes our lives according to what is right> god is judging us
this is what I mean by judging
2. God doesn't change our lives > whether what we do is right or wrong according to god does not influence how he changes our lives > god isn't judging us
I guess I have made the assumption that every action has a moral value, but i would say that is fair.

 

[Charlie V]

Assuming that god is morally perfect,

Which not all theists believe, so this only applies to the thiests who believe that..

then any change he makes to our life or afterlife must be the "right" one: he cannot make a morally wrong decision
there are two possibilities
1. God changes our lives > god changes our lives according to what is right> god is judging us
this is what I mean by judging

I explored this in my last post.

"Changing our lives" is not equal to "judging us."

(Note: None of my analogies are necessarily to be literally interpretted as being about God. They are about the difference between "change our lives" and "judge us.")

If I walk up to you for no particular reason and give you the keys to a car and say, "It's yours," I'm not judging you, but I'm giving you a car, thus changing your life.

Here's another one.

I'm a singer, and I sing a beautiful song. You are an artist. You are so inspired by my song, you paint a painting that's the most beautiful painting you've ever done. I haven't judged you -- in this one I don't even know you. But by singing my song, I've changed your life and inspired your best artistic work.

I have no idea where you've created the tie between "changing your life" and "judging."

Charlie

 

[exploring]

I am willing to assume that for everyday purposes. However, when it comes to philosophical considerations about the condition humaine I am not willing to assume that, because, to me, everything necessitates me to think that this is wrong.

In that case the only question for you is "does god exist" not "should I believe in god"

 

[Charlie V]

Actually, I think the biggest problem with everything you've been saying boils down to this:

there are two possibilities

Exploring.. my friend, there are infinite possibilities.

Charlie

 

[quatona]

Assuming that god is morally perfect, then any change he makes to our life or afterlife must be the "right" one: he cannot make a morally wrong decision

Well, let´s not forget that this is a very particular god concept not held by everyone.

there are two possibilities
1. God changes our lives > god changes our lives according to what is right> god is judging us
this is what I mean by judging
2. God doesn't change our lives > whether what we do is right or wrong according to god does not influence how he changes our lives > god isn't judging us

Wait a minute - you seem to be argumentating in regards to two different questions alternatively: "What difference would the existence of a god make?" and "What difference would god belief make?"
We would have to sort out what the topic is first, else I find myself confused.
If saying "belief in a non-judgemental god could well change someone´s life" I am not talking about a purposeful or intentional interference of this hypothetical god. I am talking about what impact the belief in this god could have on this person, even if he believed this god to be non-judgemental.

I guess I have made the assumption that every action has a moral value, but i would say that is fair.

In my observation you have introduced several other premises along with it which those people who believe in a non-judgemental god wouldn´t agree with, in the first place.
So it seems, you are not adressing their god concepts and what value they have for them , but are argumenting from a god concept they do not hold, and particular impacts that are not relevant for them and which they don´t even expect from the gods of their concepts.

 

[quatona]

In that case the only question for you is "does god exist" not "should I believe in god"

I don´t see how that follows. Please explain.
How about I am hardwired to ask myself the question "should I believe in god" (just to pick one possibility)?

 

[exploring]

Which not all theists believe, so this only applies to the thiests who believe that..



I explored this in my last post.

"Changing our lives" is not equal to "judging us."

(Note: None of my analogies are necessarily to be literally interpretted as being about God. They are about the difference between "change our lives" and "judge us.")

If I walk up to you for no particular reason and give you the keys to a car and say, "It's yours," I'm not judging you, but I'm giving you a car, thus changing your life.

Here's another one.

I'm a singer, and I sing a beautiful song. You are an artist. You are so inspired by my song, you paint a painting that's the most beautiful painting you've ever done. I haven't judged you -- in this one I don't even know you. But by singing my song, I've changed your life and inspired your best artistic work.

I have no idea where you've created the tie between "changing your life" and "judging."

Charlie

Ok, firslty relating and changing. If something did not change my life in any way, I would be unable to relate to it, not knowing that it. In your parent analogy, the parents would not have related to the children if they had been unable to change them. If you understand the word "relate" differently, then I chose the wrong word.

Second changing and judging. I don't mean to say that for the parents, changing and judging are the same, since they are neither omnipotent nor absolutely just ( if that is not how you see god i have no argument with you) . But if God is omnipotent and absolutely just, then when he changes our life it must be in the right way. If our actions have a moral value in his eyes, then our actions are being judged.

I have never encountered theism before, so i'm interseted to hear what you have to say about it.

 

[Charlie V]

Wait a minute - you seem to be argumentating in regards to two different questions alternatively: "What difference would the existence of a god make?" and "What difference would god belief make?"

I understand your confusion with him -- he seems to me, not just to be asking two questions, but to be going everywhere at once. And flipping back and forth.

Judging, changing your life, the belief changing your life, explainations of the world, everything.

Which is one of the reasons I posted that "there are infinite possibilities."

I think he may be asking the wrong questions.

It's not "Should I believe in God?"
It's not "Is there a God."

It's.. "What is God?"

The answers are endless, and I don't think he's going to find them on a message board.

Charlie

 

[exploring]

Well, let´s not forget that this is a very particular god concept not held by everyone.

Wait a minute - you seem to be argumentating in regards to two different questions alternatively: "What difference would the existence of a god make?" and "What difference would god belief make?"
We would have to sort out what the topic is first, else I find myself confused.
If saying "belief in a non-judgemental god could well change someone´s life" I am not talking about a purposeful or intentional interference of this hypothetical god. I am talking about what impact the belief in this god could have on this person, even if he believed this god to be non-judgemental.

In my observation you have introduced several other premises along with it which those people who believe in a non-judgemental god wouldn´t agree with, in the first place.
So it seems, you are not adressing their god concepts and what value they have for them , but are argumenting from a god concept they do not hold, and particular impacts that are not relevant for them and which they don´t even expect from the gods of their concepts.

Well, let´s not forget that this is a very particular god concept not held by everyone.

OK

you seem to be argumentating in regards to two different questions alternatively: "What difference would the existence of a god make?" and "What difference would god belief make?"

I'm arguing over whether believing in a judging god is the act of a slave. Meanwhile, to show that a non-judgemental, morally correct god is the same as a dead god, I am assuming the existence of such a god to show that a morally correct god cannot change our lives in any way that is not an act of judgement. If someone's god concpet does not include righteousness then i am not arguing with them

 

[Charlie V]

I have never encountered theism before, so i'm interseted to hear what you have to say about it.

Theism = "the belief in a God, any God, or gods."

Ok, firslty relating and changing. If something did not change my life in any way, I would be unable to relate to it, not knowing that it. In your parent analogy, the parents would not have related to the children if they had been unable to change them. If you understand the word "relate" differently, then I chose the wrong word.

Perhaps we're defining both "relate" and "change" differently.

I'm walking through the park, and I encounter a man. He starts a conversation, and tells me how depressed he is, because he's recently lost his job.

I tell him, "I can really relate to that. I lost my job a few years ago, but I eventually found work. Don't dispair."

Did I change him? May be, may be not. Did he change me? May be, may be not. Let's go with the latter on both. He didn't change me, I didn't change him? Did I relate to him? Sure!

Second changing and judging. I don't mean to say that for the parents, changing and judging are the same, since they are neither omnipotent nor absolutely just ( if that is not how you see god i have no argument with you)

That last part ("no argument with you") leads me to believe, in that earlier post when I asked if you're challenging others beliefs or if you're intellectually curious, that you are, in fact, challenging others beliefs.

As for "argument with you," I've been trying to play the field for all theists, all believers in god-concepts. I'm not just talking for myself, but as a respecter of the vast variety of different ideas. If your argument is against the Buddhists -- then as a believer that it's okay to believe, my argument is with the Buddhists, even though I'm not Buddhist.

Not all people believe in an omnipotent and absolutely just God. However, to offer you a paradigm on a God which is all of the following: 1. Absolutely just, 2. All-powerful, 3. Not judging, may I suggest a book?

"The Inescapable Love of God," by Thomas Talbott. Thomas Talbott is a universalist (a believer of universal salvation, the idea that God loves all mankind and will bring everyone to heaven) who most certainly believes in an absolutely just and all-powerful God who does not judge.

But if God is omnipotent and absolutely just, then when he changes our life it must be in the right way.

Okay. Do you have a problem with changes that are beneficial to you?

If our actions have a moral value in his eyes,

Okay, this is yet another seperate and distinct "if" from everything you've said.

There's one school of thought that says that our actions do not have any particular moral value. That the world is an illusion -- a place where we play the good guys and the bad guys, where we children of the universe pretend to be nurses and doctors and fire fighters and drug addicts and bank robbers. And what we do really makes little difference -- what we percieve as reality isn't. And God doesn't care whether we play the cowboys or the indians in the game that we play.

So there's another school of thought we can weed out of this confusion. Okay, let's assume our actions have moral value.

then our actions are being judged.

Depends on what you mean by "judged." This time, for my analogy, I'm actually going to dive into religion.

Jesus, according to Christian tradition, died on the cross and said, "Forgive them Father, for they know not what they do."

This implies to me, non-judgement.

Let me give you an analogy.

Your toddler goes and pushes another toddler into a fire. The second toddler is burned horribly.

Did the action have moral value? Sure, it had very negative moral consequences. Should you judge your toddler? Well, you might. Some parents might scream at the toddler, spank the toddler. But if you are a good parent, you know that the toddler is a toddler, and did not know what he or she was doing.

So do you judge? Do you necessarily say, "Bad, bad two year old!" To a child who cannot even speak more than a few words let alone understand what he's done? Not necessarily, even though the action was a negative one.

Charlie

 

[exploring]

I understand your confusion with him -- he seems to me, not just to be asking two questions, but to be going everywhere at once. And flipping back and forth.

Judging, changing your life, the belief changing your life, explainations of the world, everything.

Which is one of the reasons I posted that "there are infinite possibilities."

I think he may be asking the wrong questions.

It's not "Should I believe in God?"
It's not "Is there a God."

It's.. "What is God?"

The answers are endless, and I don't think he's going to find them on a message board.

Charlie

What's the point of asking a questiton with endless answers that you're not going to find? If your interest is in the question "what is god", then this thread, which started "should I believe in god" clearly isn't the place for you. I have now clearly shown my position in the three sentences above, so it should be easy to resolve your confusion.

 

[Charlie V]

I am assuming the existence of such a god to show that a morally correct god cannot change our lives in any way that is not an act of judgement.

I'll give a simple one, just for the sake of argument, to dispell this notion.

Let's assume, for the sake of argument, that God made the flowers in front of my house bloom. Just to make my day a little happier.

He changed my life. Did he judge me? Are you actually saying that he judged me because he frowned upon my unhappiness and was angry at me for my lack of beautiful flowers blooming in front of my house? Do you know how absurd that sounds, to call the benevolent actions of a loving God, judgement?

I'm assuming, of course, only that there's a God and God made my flowers bloom.

Charlie