Forum Poll (2/21/09): God Omnipotency

One more argument before we take this to MSN:

The problem of evil.

If you are not already familiar with it: If God is omnibenevolent and omnipotent and not bound by logic, then why not create all humans with free will in a way that we would always choose to be selfless and good?

It seems paradoxical for an uncountable group of people with FREE WILL to all be given an uncountable number of choices between door number 1 and door number 2, but all of them are forced to choose door number 1 every time. But if God is all good and all powerful and unbound by logic, why didn't He create our universe in such a way that everyone chooses door number 1 every time?

Basically you have to give up one of the following premises to accept pure illogical omnipotence.
-God is all good. God is omnibenevolent
-Evil exists in the world.

Ever read Elliot Sober? If not, I'm pretty much going to type out an excerpt of his discussion on the argument of evil.

"....These considerations lead to a third version of the Argument from Evil:
(1) If God were to exist, then that being would be all-PKG (Powerful, Knowing & Good)
(2) If an all-PKG being existed, then there would be no more evil than the minimum required for soul-building and as a consequence of human freedom.
(3) The quantity of evil found in human History exceeds the minimum required for soul-building and as a consequence of human freedom.
________________________________________________________________________
Hence, There is no God

A Criticism of the Argument

How might this last argument be criticized? If there is a God and if premises(1) and (3) are trye, what grounds can there be fro rejecting premiss (2)? The project of theodicy has to produce a reason for thinking that (2) is false. The more modest project of defense merely has to show that we don't have a good reason to think (2) is true. Whereas soul-building and free will were just presented in the context of theodicy, I'll now shift gears and formulate a reply to this last argument that has the character of a defense.

Premiss (2) attempts to specify an upper bound on the amount of evil that an all-PKG God would allow to exist. But why think that we mere humans have the ability to figure this out? After all, God, if he exists, is vastly more intelligent than we are. It therefore is entirely possible that his plan for the world contains elements that we cannot understand or even imagine. Perhaps God allowed evils into the world because those additional evils are required to obtain some greater good of which we are unaware.

We need to be careful in how we formulate this criticism of the Argument from Evil. I am not asserting that premiss (2) is false. I am giving a reason for thinking that we don't know (2) is true.
All of the versions of the Argument from Evil have surveyed attempt to circumscribe exactly how much evil there should be if an all-PKG being existed. To do this requires that we know a lot about what an all-PKG being would do. To the degree that we lack knowledge of what God's plan would be if he existed, we also lack the sort of knowledge that is needed for these arguments for atheism to succeed."

Anyway - pretty much what I was saying earlier. Every conversation always leads to one side (or both) not knowing the answer....It comes down to belief. Like Dragon said, we all have a predisposition towards a certain side biologically. Some of are more prone to God then others in the same way we're more prone to choosing political views. Everything we do is dictated by physical responses in the brain and that chemistry. Mine just happens to say, ya that's good enough inductive reasoning for me to believe in God, while others are more skeptical in nature and say "That's not enough reasoning" even though they'll believe in lesser things with even less reasoning. It's just biological predispositions...

Hmm, it does seem that the "God gene" is a much more widely believed hypothesis than the "God organ", but it's also been around alot longer. This is pretty new.


But in either case, it's basically the same thing. Most people have feelings of a higher power of some sort that releases different endorphins or w/e. It's different in every person, but it's almost always a good feeling they get when thinking about a certain thing.

If God is all powerful beyond logic, there's no need for soul building, he can create you without souls and at the same time create you with souls that are fully built.

If God is all powerful beyond logic, there's NO consequence to human freedom.

That was my point. Hopefully your wall of text didnt address that, but your first few lines missed it by miles.

The argument you quoted that Sober discussed is a true argument if you accept all premises. Most western belief systems hold the first premise as true. The second premise follows from the definitions of omnipotent and omnibenevolent. If the third premise is true, then the conclusion that God does not exist must be reached.

Basically if premise #1 is true without exception for logical conceivability, then the "minimum" in #2 is zero. And if you accept that ANY evil exists then #3 becomes true and you must reach the conclusion that God does not exist. Therefore to continue your belief in God without being invalid you must either give up your belief of either God's power to enact paradoxical events, God's omnibenevolence, or that evil exists.

That is the best way I can explain it, if God can do things that are paradoxical, then absolutely no evil is actually necessary.

evil is not an entity no more then good is. Evil/Good are concepts, made by human minds.

"Gods Books" as jay j put it are man made, they came from human minds as well.

Assuming there is a god and he is omnipotent then why would he leave for us a book? or better then that why would he go to different cultures dressed in a costume as someone else under a different name and give them different books then what they gave you?

The foundations of god and religion are tools of society to instill us with moral codes throughout our childhood and into our adulthood. Without that early human history would have been even bloodier then it was with the crusades and witch hunts.

Quote :

3) The quantity of evil found in human History exceeds the minimum required for soul-building and as a consequence of human freedom.

Is this a video game to god?

"Soul Hunt 2009"

The thing is Rhys, one of the primary tenets of Christianity is that all humankind are sinners, and are evil in that sense. They would have to choose one of the following to abandon to stay valid:

Paradoxical component of omnipotence (logically impossible powers)
Omnibenevolence (all-good)
The existence of evil

Abandoning the paradoxical component seems to be the least game-breaking for Christianity.

@ Dragon: God-gene and God "Organ" as you've described are different things. The God gene is a gene that comes through genetic variation. Some people are just more trusting in an unknown and accepting than others. People are very genetically influenced. People have predispositions before they're even born, the moment they're conceived as having a liberal bias or a conservative bias - and then that is molded by their environment. In the same way, people have a predisposition towards belief in a higher being. People just named that gene "The God Gene". If you believe in genetics, then it's hard to dispute this really. Through genetic variation you get diversity which leads to the chances of a species surviving longer and such. Theres benefits of both sides, believing in God easily allows you to generally be a happier (Ignorant or otherwise) than not (as well as other things that was an example). While on the other hand, being skeptical of things allows you to be more right often.

The "God organ" I believe is just a part in the brain. It's the part in the brain that lights up when being scanned when people are either meditating, praying or hallucinating. It too has benefits and downsides. Being able to trigger that part of the brain at will (Through praying or what have you) would be very beneficial as it would be able to relieve stress at will, however it might also as a consequence distort reality. I'm pretty sure it's a recent find and not that much research has actually been done on it. Maybe I'll look into it with my Neuroscience major ! Probably not though.

@ Pyth: 1 & 3 are true. 1 a priori, and 3 a posteriori. We criticize 2. We say that evil does not have to be 0. You as a human being, don't know that. And it's pretty much as simple as that. If he was all knowing, he would know the best way to do so. If he was all powerful he could implement that way. You however, are not all knowing. You don't know that 0 is the best amount of evil. That's all it says. Your second premise doesn't follow....just because it's neither a priori or a posteriori. It's not testable, nor can you deduce it from logic. Your argument is valid, however it's not sound as we have no reason to accept premise 2. We don't know what the minimum is, nor do we know that 0 should be the minimum amount of evil. Which led me to bringing in the whole gene stuff

@Rhys: You're doing something that leads to a biased opinion. You're not actually assuming God exists. You have the end goal in mind that you're right. Actually take a moment. Take a deep breath. Forget everything you know. And pretend God exists. Entertain the thought. Take a moment now....get the picture in your head. There's a being that is all knowing. Got it? All powerful now. Got that? And all good. Hmm, now again assume that he wants to be known, however does not directly interfere with our world. Now tell me - is it really so absurd that they aren't man made tools? I can't speak for every religion, as well say Christianity (Nothing against it) but the bible for example was a bunch of guys taking writings about a guy 400 years after he died and selecting which ones were good and which ones would do well....

Regardless - I'd like to talk about this on MSN as it's, I feel easier to discuss back and forth in real time then it is to read something for a while, then write something for a while.

Edit: On another note, logically speaking all arguments for atheism fail because you can't disprove a universal negative. All arguments for theism fail because of a lack of knowledge. A lack of knowledge is something we all have....and it's up to us to decide what we believe in. Realistically agnostics are the most rational - however they're not right. Logically speaking, atheism can't ever be right until you can know everything about the world, in which case you become an all-knowing being which is ironic . So just from that the safe bet is believing in God >.>....

There are multiple flaws with the omnipotency argument.

If God was to create a rock so heavy he could not lift it, he would therefore make himself un-omnipotent. Though, if he was not omnipotent, he could not do any of those things in the first place, therefore defeating the purpose (similar to "this statement is false, true or false" thing).

Also, because an omnipotent being would have created logic itself, it would not be subject to its own creation; it could defy its own logic, alter logic, or erase logic altogether.

Things from here-on are replies to the above things because I have not read the second page yet, soo here I go *begins reading the epic discussion*

okay, things directed at posts above:
-Omnipotence is not bound by logic.
-By saying "why doesn't god make us all good" one is being fairly ignorant. It is like getting angry at your dad for taking your old phone, when he's taking it in for a new iPhone. Yes, you would be angry, but would realize that he was doing good, not bad. Look for the purpose.

If He was all-good then He would choose to minimize the amount of evil in a world He created. As an all-good being would be infinitely pained by the suffering of others. If an all-good being did not require a certain amount of evil in the world and could create a world in which humans were free but always chose to do good, and soul building could be accomplished without any evil, then the all-good being would create such a world, and avoid putting others through evil experiences.

The only way you seem to criticize #2 is to say that we don't know the minimum. There must be a minimum. #3 is not a posterion, because we DON'T KNOW THE MINIMUM. WE CANNOT SAY THAT #3 IS TRUE BECAUSE OF THE LACK OF KNOWLEDGE YOU SEEM TO THINK INVALIDATES PREMISE #2.

Heres the argument for premise #2, hopefully you accept all the premises.
1. If God is all-good then He would desire to minimize the suffering of His creations.
2. If God is all-knowing then He would know about all the suffering of His creations.
3. If God is all-powerful then He would be able to minimize the suffering of His creations.
4. God desires to allow His creations to have freedom of will.
5. God desires to allow His creations' souls to grow and change with experience.
6. Freedom of will and soul building requires the allowance of a certain amount of evil in the world.
Therefore: #2

Of course if you add paradoxical situations to God's all-powerful-ness, then you get this premise
7. If God can do things that are paradoxical, then He can create a world in which there is absolutely no evil, yet still be able to have free will and soul building occur.
Therefore: If an all-PKG being existed, then there would be no evil.

I really can't say this any other way. I'm done.

The thing with number 7 goes back to my 3rd post on the second page. Can....just because God can do something paradoxal does not mean he does. Like you said earlier yourself, as a premise of a description of God, it's usually that he is logical. He CAN defy logic, but chooses not to. There are laws that follow rules in the universe. Using that, and having the premise God IS logical, but CAN defy it....then your argument doesn't follow.

With #7, God can do things that are paradoxal....and God wants (2), but that doesn't mean he does. Which goes back to the point of my last post. We don't know what the minimal bounds of evil are to allow a logical, free-willed, soul-building etc. world. If you accept that God is logical, while at the same time all-good then you accept that there should be evil.

Then there's the point that I can try to argue (but I won't) that there IS no evil in the world.

I guess I should have added the premise

8. If an all-powerful being wants to do something, the all-powerful being does that thing. (Because there is nothing to stop them and no consequences, an all-powerful being would never want anything that would cause pain or suffering to others anyway.)

As I said before, its perfectly fine for you to deny evil, paradoxical omnipotence, or an omnibenevolent God. You just have to deny at least one of them for you to be valid in your belief of the existence of God.

And I say he wants to create this universe.

I say that since he's all powerful he does. Since he's all knowing he's created this world with the minimum amount of evil in it while allowing Soul-building, free-choice etc. He's all good which is what led him to create this universe with minimal amount of evil possible while allowing the other things he wanted. He's logical so he created the world with laws, that remain unparadoxal even though he COULD have done otherwise. He doesn't not because he doesn't want to - but because then it would go against his other wishes of remaining logical.

I don't understand why I have to accept that he either lacks (paradoxical) omnipotence, omnibenevolence or deny that evil exists. Could you rephrase or make it more clear why an all-PKG God that is logical would create another sort of universe/world other than the current one?

He could have made it logical and illogical at the same time, I don't think you fully understand the pandora's box you open when you allow for Him to do things that are paradoxical. I've already explained why you have to give up one of those beliefs multiple times. If He can do things that are paradoxical, and the required evil for what He wants is some number X, then he can accomplish the things He wants with 0 evil. Because it doesn't matter anymore, no rules apply. And he can make it make it all make sense like that too, because it doesn't matter anymore.

I really really don't know how much clearer I can be on this.

Why can it be logical and illogical at the same time? Because he's allowed to engage in paradoxical activities? That doesn't mean that's what he did though....Which is again why I keep saying that's our lack of knowledge....You say he can do whatever he wants and DOES do whatever he wants. However you, nor I know how the universe works fully with all it's intricacies. Just because you or I think that it can be done, doesn't mean it can while fulfilling all of his wishes.

I understand your point. I don't think you understand mine. God can do anything since he's capable of engaging in paradoxal activity (Omnipotence). What he does do is decided by his other qualities. He's omnibenevolent, or all good. This let's us assume he would want to minimize the level of evil in the world. He's logical and all knowing. This lets us assume he would take the course of action that would make sense and be the best to let that outcome occur. Now, you don't have the knowledge to know what that course of action is. You're saying he can make it either that we all have free-will but choose to do good all the time, or something similar - however you don't know if that's the best course of action to produce the least amount of evil. You can't really say this world we live in isn't that because you're not all knowing. However, I can't say this world is because I'm not all knowing. I say we lack the knowledge for this argument to work or fail. It's just incomplete.

But there is no requirement, there's no "best" course of action, if paradoxes are on the table He can make whatever He wants the "best", even if it isn't.

1. THERE ARE NO RULES OF LOGIC BECAUSE HE CAN DEFY LOGIC
2. THEREFORE HE CAN SATISFY THE MINIMUM REQUIREMENT OF EVIL FOR ALL THAT JAZZ THAT HE WANTS TO HAPPEN WITHOUT SATISFYING THE MINIMUM REQUIREMENT OF EVIL FOR ALL THAT JAZZ (definition of a paradox, true and untrue at the same time)
3. THEREFORE HE CAN GET ALL THE JAZZ WITH ZERO EVIL
4. GOD WOULD OPT FOR NO EVIL IF IT WAS POSSIBLE BECAUSE HES ALL GOOD
5. THEREFORE THERE SHOULD BE NO EVIL
6. THERE IS EVIL
THEREFORE PREMISE 1, 4, OR 6 MUST BE FALSE

The above argument isn't very formal, but as far as I'm concerned it follows. Decide for yourself.

Why did God create free will? Free will is the source of all evil.


He could have left earth as a rock hurtling through space... and then it would be... good? neutral? or something; but not evil.


If we did not have free will, there would be no evil.


So why? (this shouldn't be too hard of a question, even for atheists, if He does exist, then why?)

We're both repeating ourselves. Just rephrasing it. One of us isn't getting it...So I'm going to stop if this re-phrase doesn't work and assume it was me who doesn't get it.

I "Deny" 4. He would opt for the least amount of evil with the conditions of a) Free will and b) NOT using paradoxes (because he's logical). Just because he has the ABILITY does not mean he USES it because he has OTHER qualities or desires or what have you that OVERRIDE them. God wishing to have the least amount of evil that has a world with FREE WILL AND WITHOUT BREAKING LOGIC could POSSIBLY be this world. Look at your argument. "Can satisfy the minimum requirement" "Can defy logic" All these POSSIBILITIES but none of them are DEFINITE. Try to change your argument to DOES and it falls apart. There's no reason to believe any premise when you change CAN to DOES.

Do I have proof of this? None what so ever. This is what you call a POSSIBILITY. Do you have any proof? Same boat as me I'm pretty sure. Which AGAIN, leads me to we have a LACK OF KNOWLEDGE OF WHAT GOD WOULD OR WOULD NOT DO IN HIS POSITION OF ALL KNOWINGNESS BECAUSE WE AREN'T ALL KNOWING .

Also, you used a lot of caps lock without it having emphasis on anything. Sorry if this is frustrating you. I actually find this fun though sooo .

Just spent ~20 minutes reading this entire thread. very enjoyable read, good job guys. I think in the end it boils down to people believe waht they choose to believe. Both sides can pull out facts and ideas that support their own arguments. I'd like to believe in Hinduism, mostly for the reincarnation part. Deism also sounds feasible (god made the earth but doesnt meddle in human affairs). Its almost impossible, however, to convince someone, once they have latched onto something, that they are wrong when it comes to these philosophical concepts. things bigger than us deserve to be honored, not argued.

COPY PASTE FTW!

SO MANY RIDICULOUS CHRISTIAN POINTS OF VIEWS.

Ok, now, with that said.

Quote :

But in either case, it's basically the same thing. Most people have feelings of a higher power of some sort that releases different endorphins or w/e. It's different in every person, but it's almost always a good feeling they get when thinking about a certain thing.

I feel like that, Dragon, when I think about a perfect communist world or one of my Megalomaniac episodes triggers. (Thinking of myself leading that perfect communist society)

@Kuro: WTH IS YOUR PROBLEM!!!??? Free will is "Good", "Evil" is "Good", Differences are "Good".
The whole concept or "Good and Evil" is just ridiculous, it just means what most of society accepts, likes and dislikes.

Kuro wrote:

So why? (this shouldn't be too hard of a question, even for atheists, if He does exist, then why?)

God doesn't exist, point.

Religion is the "Opium of the people", as I said many times.
A way for rulers like Pharaohs to oppress the population, by making them think that everything is good and should obey their God-Ruler without questioning anything.
To stop them from pursuing the goal of the "New Men", a perfect (In my case, Communist.) Society.

@Dragon: That part of the brain that lights up doesn't react that way only to praying, and your previous argument that said something like "Atheists are inferior because they can't trigger that part of the brain to release endorphins (Aka: Getting pleasure.) at their own will".
That just proves my point of religion being the "Opium of the people".


@Rhys: Finally someone logical.

@Jay: Seriously, Jay, I thought you were smarter/stronger/better than that, I thought you were logical.

To sum up: Religion is a way for weak minds through history to remain "Happy" and "Fulfilled"; such a way given to them by tyrant rulers.

There's no logical reason to believe either that God exists or God doesn't exist. It is logically impossible for there to be a logical reason, so Rhys's atheism is not a display of logic and Jay's belief is not a display of a lack of logic.

Quit the QQ comrade.

You haven't made a point for atheism at all Bal. You haven't even read this topic. You can't call me illogical, because you're stereotyping a group of people (Religious) and then classifying all of them as something. That's on the same lines as racism. How's about me saying all communists are bastards? Or saying all atheists are assholes? Not very nice is it. But grouping people is generally not very nice, very accurate or a good thing to do.

How's about first off, reading this topic (Though you may have skimmed to this point) and then countering me instead of thinking you're right from the start .

I don't think you're very logical right now though you seem to claim it. I'm right now, thinking atheism is the new religion, which will become the new opiate of the masses, how's that sound? A means of doing what one wants without control or any means of regulation. Doesn't sound nice eh? Well neither does saying any religion is the opiates of the masses without any backing.

You've struck a nerve saying a bunch of stuff without a) Understanding what you're talking about and b) backing it up.

And to what Pyth said, if you read my earlier posts - I say that agnostic people are the most rational and logical - however out of atheism and religious people they're the ones who aren't right because they don't choose a side.

Jay.J wrote:

I don't think you're very logical right now though you seem to claim it. I'm right now, thinking atheism is the new religion, which will become the new opiate of the masses, how's that sound? A means of doing what one wants without control or any means of regulation. Doesn't sound nice eh? Well neither does saying any religion is the opiates of the masses without any backing.

That's Rofl worthy x2!

Jay.J wrote:

You haven't made a point for atheism at all Bal. You haven't even read this topic. You can't call me illogical, because you're stereotyping a group of people (Religious) and then classifying all of them as something. That's on the same lines as racism. How's about me saying all communists are bastards? Or saying all atheists are assholes? Not very nice is it. But grouping people is generally not very nice, very accurate or a good thing to do.

I read it all except the last parts involving the poll question. (Wich is a pointless question...)

@Yellow: Of course I am, there are 3 common reasons to be religious (Particulary Christian):
1_ You have been taught that God exist and blah blah blah and don't wanna change that illusion you cherish. (Seems to be Jay's case.)
2_ A mean to find "Redemption" and make up for all your mistakes and bad things for which you feel guilty.
3_ So you feel your life actually means something, with all the "Be good and go to heaven" thing. (These are so weak-minded.)

@Cyan: You choose your beliefs, you don't choose your race.
So your argument is invalid.

@Violet: Again with the "Good" thing.
Besides, it can be very accurate.

I'll quote Emile Burns. From www.marx.org Students section.

Emile Burns wrote:

For example, Cromwell is important not because of his own outlook and individual actions, but because he played an important part in the movement of a section of the English people against the old order. He and his movement broke down the barriers of feudalism, and opened the way for the widespread development of capitalism in Britain. What matters is not the record of his battles and his religious outlook and intrigues. But the study of Cromwell’s place in the development of British production and distribution, the understanding of why, at that period and in Britain, the struggle developed against the feudal monarchy; the study of the changes actually brought about in that period – these are important; they are the basis of a science of history. By using the knowledge derived from such a study (along with the study of other periods and of other peoples), it is possible to draw up general theories – laws of the development of society, which are just as real as the laws of chemistry or any other science. And once we know these laws we can make use of them, just as we can make use of any scientific law – we can not only foretell what is likely to happen, but can act in such a way as to make sure that it does happen; or, as in the case of fascism, to stop it happening.

Jay.J wrote:

How's about first off, reading this topic (Though you may have skimmed to this point) and then countering me instead of thinking you're right from the start .

But I am right...

Jay.J wrote:

I don't think you're very logical right now though you seem to claim it. I'm right now, thinking atheism is the new religion, which will become the new opiate of the masses, how's that sound? A means of doing what one wants without control or any means of regulation. Doesn't sound nice eh? Well neither does saying any religion is the opiates of the masses without any backing.

You've struck a nerve saying a bunch of stuff without a) Understanding what you're talking about and b) backing it up.

And to what Pyth said, if you read my earlier posts - I say that agnostic people are the most rational and logical - however out of atheism and religious people they're the ones who aren't right because they don't choose a side.

I actually used to think along the exact same lines that Bal did a few years ago. I mean about the belief about Christianity being a crutch and such. So I'll try to filter through some of the crazy.

1. Change is a hard thing for anyone to deal with. I would imagine that Atheists would have a difficult time coming to grips with the idea that there is an all powerful God out there. You cannot say that *only* Christians have an "illusion" dictating their conscious choices because, in all reality, EVERYONE has that illusory layer to some extent or another. Also, quit trying to baselessly attack Jay. You have no proof beyond your own prejudice to back up anything you say. I don't detect any sense of Jay being afraid to change or give up his beliefs on the basis of fear. Often times, however, people project their own emotions on to others... maybe do some reflexive work.

2. Did you know that the most written about topic throughout the history of books is redemption? And getting a second chance... this topic is an incredibly powerful force simply because of how humanity is structured and how our psyche is structured. We've all made mistakes and people tend to be overly harsh judgmental assholes so it makes sense to reach out to a concept that is more powerful than any human will ever be in order to KNOW that we are forgiven. I.e. an excerpt from a spoken word piece of mine, "Have you never so deeply desired that day that you thought you might die if it did not come to pass?... A day where all the blame of our past drops away. A day where we no longer have to hide from our emotions, or rather hide our emotions from others. A day where we KNOW, NOT BELIEVE, but KNOW that we ARE forgiven and that we can forgive others..." They are important concepts: forgiveness and redemption.

3. Several people that I know don't do good so that they can go to heaven. They do good because it feels good. I'd argue that people NEED this mentality in a society in order for it to succeed and have principals such as communism promotes. Also, I don't think that people are capable of planning that far into the future. I know that I do good because I think it's the right thing to do... not because I should or will get a reward for it. Also, as you pointed out before "good" is not an absolute value. Good is determined by society to some extent, but I think there's a slightly deeper level to it. I'd call that level God. You can't define it, but it's there and it works based on feeling rather than thinking.

I don't know if you've been shunned by Christians or something, but it feels like you have some issues within your own psyche that you need to get over. I don't think you need to be Christian or believe, but at least admit that humans are not all bad. The idea that humans are not all bad, in addition to the ideas of redemption and forgiveness, are ideas that all add a wonderful degree of temperance to human hearts. These ideas mainly come from religion.

AquaAscension wrote:

1. Change is a hard thing for anyone to deal with. I would imagine that Atheists would have a difficult time coming to grips with the idea that there is an all powerful God out there. You cannot say that *only* Christians have an "illusion" dictating their conscious choices because, in all reality, EVERYONE has that illusory layer to some extent or another. Also, quit trying to baselessly attack Jay. You have no proof beyond your own prejudice to back up anything you say. I don't detect any sense of Jay being afraid to change or give up his beliefs on the basis of fear. Often times, however, people project their own emotions on to others... maybe do some reflexive work.

I don't know if you've been shunned by Christians or something, but it feels like you have some issues within your own psyche that you need to get over. I don't think you need to be Christian or believe, but at least admit that humans are not all bad. The idea that humans are not all bad, in addition to the ideas of redemption and forgiveness, are ideas that all add a wonderful degree of temperance to human hearts. These ideas mainly come from religion.

First: I was raised in a christian country, christian family, christian society, etc.
Second: Humans are not "Good", they are what they are, and can't be judged for it, as it's the result of history, the situations they had to live, which is what defines them.
Third: It's not "Fear", Aqua, religion makes him happy, gives him a feeling of certainty, etc., so even tough he doesn't have any kind of "Proof", he still believes, which is why religion is more likely to be found in a poor, unhappy society. (I'm not really talking about Jay here, but about most religious persons, ans this MAY be Jay's case.)
Fourth: Ideas that stop the people from fighting for their freedom and progress.

Quote :

That's Rofl worthy x2!

Right instead of actually replying you just make a comment that has no relevance to anything.

Quote :

I read it all except the last parts involving the poll question. (Wich is a pointless question...)

Then you never got anything out of it. You never addressed anything that was discussed and just said you agree with some people and you think that a whole way of thinking is stupid.

Quote :

@Yellow: Of course I am, there are 3 common reasons to be religious (Particulary Christian):
1_ You have been taught that God exist and blah blah blah and don't wanna change that illusion you cherish. (Seems to be Jay's case.)
2_ A mean to find "Redemption" and make up for all your mistakes and bad things for which you feel guilty.
3_ So you feel your life actually means something, with all the "Be good and go to heaven" thing. (These are so weak-minded.)

Must not be a very good reader. I've said, not just in this topic, but in several other places that I'm not Christian for starters. Also I think the reasons you've listed are out of your ass. Source of that statement, or are you just talking out of your ass/talking from experience? Which is very biased if it is considering you admit to have living in such a uniform environment.

Quote :

@Cyan: You choose your beliefs, you don't choose your race.
So your argument is invalid.

You're not very good at grasping the actual POINT are you? It's about taking a group - no matter what it is, whether it's political , religious, race, ethnicity, sex ANYTHING and then grouping and categorizing them. Doesn't matter if you choose it or not. It's some form of ism, which I don't think it actually has a word for it. It's on the SAME LINES as racism, sexism, classism etc. It's grouping a people and then generalizing something about them.

Quote :

@Violet: Again with the "Good" thing.
Besides, it can be very accurate.

Doesn't matter. It leads to conflicts. And it can be accurate for stupid reasons. Like saying "All black people are stupid" wasn't off 100 years ago - not because black people are stupid but because they were raised with no education, in poverty etc. In the same way, your reason for generalizing a group might be a side effect and not the actual consequence of that thing. In this case, religious people aren't "logical" because they believe in something that can't be known....but that's stupid because atheists don't know either. They're being even more illogical. Like I've said, like 3 times now - agnostics are the most rational but they're not right. At least on the next level down it's logical psychologically to choose belief in God. However, I would argue it makes sense separate of the psychological reasons to believe in God.

Quote :

But I am right... Razz

Again, makes you look stupid. Instead of addressing a point you just make a stupid comment. You can't say you're right, and that cocky attitude does not help your position at all.

Quote :

First: I was raised in a christian country, christian family, christian society, etc.

Again, you miss the point. It would be hard for you to switch back. To change back. To think that you were wrong for all this time.

Quote :

Second: Humans are not "Good", they are what they are, and can't be judged for it, as it's the result of history, the situations they had to live, which is what defines them.

No. You're getting into ethics now, however let's leave it at things are innately good or bad they just might be good or bad in reference to other things.

Quote :

Third: It's not "Fear", Aqua, religion makes him happy, gives him a feeling of certainty, etc., so even tough he doesn't have any kind of "Proof", he still believes, which is why religion is more likely to be found in a poor, unhappy society. (I'm not really talking about Jay here, but about most religious persons, ans this MAY be Jay's case.)

You know nothing about me. And it really doesn't matter in the situation. You don't know why I believe, and again it doesn't matter why I believe. Talk about the issue, the actual reasons to believe or disbelieve. Back up your position instead of bashing others. I'm not saying if your point is true or not but it's a stupid one to make. I could very well be unhappy as every mistake I make makes me feel that much more guilty. I'm obviously uncertain as I know I can't prove or disprove God so how does a feeling of certainty have anything to do with it?

Quote :

Fourth: Ideas that stop the people from fighting for their freedom and progress.

WOW. This was just an ignorant comment. Back it up. Don't you learn anything in school? Don't just state your position. Give reasons for why you have that opinion or belief. Seriously, you wouldn't even pass if this was graded, you give very little evidence of anything you say. The only thing you gave was a quote by someone which I felt had little relevance to the actual topic at hand.

@Aqua: Thank you for being smart, for lack of a better word.