My Objection to Religion

[5stringJeff]

Oh but they do indeed have a great deal to do with truth of a religion's claims. Those who act as if they can violate their faith's tenets with impunity have no faith. Those who commit attrocities in the name of their faith, have no faith. Those who allow these miscreants to violate the tenets of their faith, have no faith.

Whether those people have faith or don't have faith in their particular religion still has no bearing on the truth of the religion. To use an analogy, I can believe and behave as though the US Constitution didn't exist; however, my behavior and belief would not invalidate the existence and legal authority of the Constitution.

If God is infinite, all-encompassing, omnisicent and omnipotent, does it not then stand to reason that there are an infinite number of paths to God?

If God is omnipotent (as you gave in your argument), then God is able to communicate His desires to His creation. And if God has communicated his desires to be A, but not B or C, we cannot then say that B or C is valid, because God has stated as much. Therefore, no, your argument does not stand to reason.

 

[Nienna]

But the people do change. They grow into the path they have chosen. If, and when, it becomes insufficient to their needs they find a path which meets those needs. And any path which is unchaging and inflexible will usually lead you to a wall or over a cliff.

See, the people are still the Masters, and the path is the Servant. People exist to SERVE, not TO BE SERVED. If there is a GOD, or even gods, why would He create something to be His own master? No, God created children to exalt and glorify Himself. In His generosity and LOVE, He gives us the CHOICE whether or not we want to surrender to Him, but it makes no sense for a creator to create beings to rule over Himself.

 

[glockmail]

And if it is not on a human scale, it is beyond human perception. Thus, any conclusions about it are little more than speculation.

Your premise is flawed. The majority of Americans perceive God just fine.

 

[90K]

Your premise is flawed. The majority of Americans perceive God just fine.

I don't know about this one, I'm gonna have to disagree with that. The majority of Americans perceive God as what? A convenience, a name that sounds good to follow when others do, or a name that makes people disgruntle? Maybe I’m missing something so I’ll await your reply

 

[glockmail]

I don't know about this one, I'm gonna have to disagree with that. The majority of Americans perceive God as what? A convenience, a name that sounds good to follow when others do, or a name that makes people disgruntle? Maybe I’m missing something so I’ll await your reply

The majority of Americans are religious, therefore they have some type of perception of God. All of your examples, although not desireable, qualify.

 

[90K]

The majority of Americans are religious, therefore they have some type of perception of God. All of your examples, although not desireable, qualify.

Ok that is cool, since that is such a wide variety I gotcha:teeth:

 

[Bullypulpit]

Whether those people have faith or don't have faith in their particular religion still has no bearing on the truth of the religion. To use an analogy, I can believe and behave as though the US Constitution didn't exist; however, my behavior and belief would not invalidate the existence and legal authority of the Constitution.

Bad analogy. The Constitution is based upon principles observed and deliniated in this world, i.e. objective principles. Faith is based upon wholly subjective principles which cannot be observed independently and verifiably by others. Nice try though.

If God is omnipotent (as you gave in your argument), then God is able to communicate His desires to His creation. And if God has communicated his desires to be A, but not B or C, we cannot then say that B or C is valid, because God has stated as much. Therefore, no, your argument does not stand to reason.

Who has he communicated these desires to and by what means? My argument still stands.

 

[Bullypulpit]

Your premise is flawed. The majority of Americans perceive God just fine.

They percieve what others have told them about God. Have they had any direct, objective perception? It is not my premise which is flawed.

 

[Bullypulpit]

See, the people are still the Masters, and the path is the Servant. People exist to SERVE, not TO BE SERVED. If there is a GOD, or even gods, why would He create something to be His own master? No, God created children to exalt and glorify Himself. In His generosity and LOVE, He gives us the CHOICE whether or not we want to surrender to Him, but it makes no sense for a creator to create beings to rule over Himself.

We serve best by serving each other.

 

[glockmail]

They percieve what others have told them about God. Have they had any direct, objective perception? It is not my premise which is flawed.

Of course many have. The canonization process for saints is about as documented and objective as possible. And that's just one example.

 

[Bullypulpit]

Of course many have. The canonization process for saints is about as documented and objective as possible. And that's just one example.

Sorry, it's based on anecdotal evidence. What physical evidence is offered is the product of human artifice. Can't build a case on such evidence anymore than you can a castle of bricks and mortar upon a cloud. It does not constitute empirical, quantifiable evidence of anything beyond the existence of an extraordinary human being.

 

[glockmail]

Sorry, it's based on anecdotal evidence. What physical evidence is offered is the product of human artifice. Can't build a case on such evidence anymore than you can a castle of bricks and mortar upon a cloud. It does not constitute empirical, quantifiable evidence of anything beyond the existence of an extraordinary human being.

So you require physical evidence of the metaphysical?

No its not ancedotal evidence. Testimony of separate individuals with no relation is perfectly acceptable, in fact very desireable, in a court of law.

 

[MissileMan]

So you require physical evidence of the metaphysical?

No its not ancedotal evidence. Testimony of separate individuals with no relation is perfectly acceptable, in fact very desireable, in a court of law.

In a court case, there is going to be physical evidence also. You won't see anyone convicted of anything just on the say so of witnesses.

 

[glockmail]

In a court case, there is going to be physical evidence also. You won't see anyone convicted of anything just on the say so of witnesses.

Incorrect. It happens all the time, since the Linberg case.

 

[MissileMan]

Incorrect. It happens all the time, since the Linberg case.

Site some cases where the only evidence was eye-witness testimony.

 

[glockmail]

Site some cases where the only evidence was eye-witness testimony.

Nice straw man.

Physical evidence: Second Law of Thermodynamics - Increased Entropy
The Second Law of Thermodynamics is commonly known as the Law of Increased Entropy. While quantity remains the same (First Law), the quality of matter/energy deteriorates gradually over time. How so? Usable energy is inevitably used for productivity, growth and repair. In the process, usable energy is converted into unusable energy. Thus, usable energy is irretrievably lost in the form of unusable energy.

"Entropy" is defined as a measure of unusable energy within a closed or isolated system (the universe for example). As usable energy decreases and unusable energy increases, "entropy" increases. Entropy is also a gauge of randomness or chaos within a closed system. As usable energy is irretrievably lost, disorganization, randomness and chaos increase.

Second Law of Thermodynamics - In the Beginning...
The implications of the Second Law of Thermodynamics are considerable. The universe is constantly losing usable energy and never gaining. We logically conclude the universe is not eternal. The universe had a finite beginning -- the moment at which it was at "zero entropy" (its most ordered possible state). Like a wind-up clock, the universe is winding down, as if at one point it was fully wound up and has been winding down ever since. The question is who wound up the clock?

The theological implications are obvious. NASA Astronomer Robert Jastrow commented on these implications when he said, "Theologians generally are delighted with the proof that the universe had a beginning, but astronomers are curiously upset. It turns out that the scientist behaves the way the rest of us do when our beliefs are in conflict with the evidence." (Robert Jastrow, God and the Astronomers, 1978, p. 16.)

Jastrow went on to say, "For the scientist who has lived by his faith in the power of reason, the story ends like a bad dream. He has scaled the mountains of ignorance; he is about to conquer the highest peak; as he pulls himself over the final rock, he is greeted by a band of theologians who have been sitting there for centuries." (God and the Astronomers, p. 116.) It seems the Cosmic Egg that was the birth of our universe logically requires a Cosmic Chicken...

http://www.allaboutscience.org/second-law-of-thermodynamics.htm

 

[MissileMan]

Nice straw man.

http://www.allaboutscience.org/second-law-of-thermodynamics.htm

Why did you abandon your court of law/eye-witness testimony argument? When I stated that more than eye-witness testimony is required to convict someone, you said I was wrong. I asked you to site a case where only eye-witness testimony was used to convict someone and you post about thermo-dynamics. Are you having trouble believing what you've written AGAIN?

 

[glockmail]

Why did you abandon your court of law/eye-witness testimony argument? When I stated that more than eye-witness testimony is required to convict someone, you said I was wrong. I asked you to site a case where only eye-witness testimony was used to convict someone and you post about thermo-dynamics. Are you having trouble believing what you've written AGAIN?

This started with Post 92. Since you have gotten entirely off track, I suggest that you start back there.

I also gave you an example of physical evidence if you care to dispute that.

 

[Bullypulpit]

So you require physical evidence of the metaphysical?

<blockquote>Main Entry: <b>meta·phys·i·cal</b>
Pronunciation: -'fi-zi-k&l
Function: adjective
<b>1</b> : of or relating to metaphysics
<b>2</b> a : of or relating to the transcendent or to a reality <b><i>beyond what is perceptible to the senses</i></b></blockquote>(<i>emphasis mine</i>)

Notice that the "metaphysical" refers to that which is "...beyond what is perceptible to the senses...". So, yes, I do require evidence which is readily available and open to the observation and verification by independent observers.

No its not ancedotal evidence. Testimony of separate individuals with no relation is perfectly acceptable, in fact very desireable, in a court of law.

Can you cite such testimony? Please be specific, and be aware that "eye-witness" testimony is of questionable reliability, as it depends greatly upon the skills and predispositions of the investigator as well as the mental state and predispositions of the witness. As we have repeatedly seen, if you go looking for evidence to prove a given point, you will find it...everywhere. For more information on this, go <a href=http://www.apa.org/monitor/jan00/pi4.html>HERE</a>.

 

[glockmail]

<blockquote>Main Entry: <b>meta·phys·i·cal</b>
Pronunciation: -'fi-zi-k&l
Function: adjective
<b>1</b> : of or relating to metaphysics
<b>2</b> a : of or relating to the transcendent or to a reality <b><i>beyond what is perceptible to the senses</i></b></blockquote>(<i>emphasis mine</i>)

Notice that the "metaphysical" refers to that which is "...beyond what is perceptible to the senses...". So, yes, I do require evidence which is readily available and open to the observation and verification by independent observers.



Can you cite such testimony? Please be specific, .....

1. The key words that you have ignored are "to the [five physical] senses".
2. From a generality?