Why Is My God Wrong? (1 Viewer)

[tecoyah]

This question is primarily for the Christian Sects, as they seem to be the most Adamant about this heaven and hell, lost soul belief. What is it that makes one version of God more acceptable than another...to the point that one is judged unworthy of a cush afterlife?
I am seriously confused by this, as even when I was Christian, I never saw the point of it.

 

[kal-el]

This question is primarily for the Christian Sects, as they seem to be the most Adamant about this heaven and hell, lost soul belief. What is it that makes one version of God more acceptable than another...to the point that one is judged unworthy of a cush afterlife?
I am seriously confused by this, as even when I was Christian, I never saw the point of it.

And you will never get a straight-forward answer from Christians. Alls they will do is use all these verbal gymnastics, and dance around the subject without even answering it.

 

[ngdawg]

This question is primarily for the Christian Sects, as they seem to be the most Adamant about this heaven and hell, lost soul belief. What is it that makes one version of God more acceptable than another...to the point that one is judged unworthy of a cush afterlife?
I am seriously confused by this, as even when I was Christian, I never saw the point of it.

And as Kal-El said, and as evidenced by the lack of response, no one wil give a straight-forward answer. If it hadn't been noticed before, I've been point/counterpointing someone who truly feels they 'know' God and Jesus, has said this more than once. Why does one person 'know' and make the assumption no one else does? They don't ask if anyone else does-just assumes they don't.
I liken the arrogance to the analogy of telling someone their wife is ugly. How dare one say that! At least she can cook while the rest of you can starve....
What boggles my mind is their leaning on their personal interpretations of a book that has more assumptions and tall tales than anything else written, calling themselve complete believers yet going against the most basic guidelines set forth. In the name of God, they judge, they insult, they lie, they deny and they jump to unfounded conclusions faster than a flea on a hound. It's individual and it's all-encompassing of groups of people.
One outlandish fundamentalist group in the midwest protests at fallen soldiers' funerals, declaring God hates these boys for 'defending homos'. WTF? Robertson calls himself a 'man of God, yet calls for national leaders' deaths. Jesse Jackson calls himself a man of God, yet gets caught coveting his assistant. And these men will claim that God has spoken to them as strongly as my current adversary does. Is it the same God? If it is, he sure can't make up his mind about things.
If there IS a heaven, I know I won't be there, but neither will any of them. And if by chance they do get a free ride, I'm taking a different bus by choice.

 

[CaliNORML]

The seeking of transition, a place of permanance in an impermanent world.

The rules manipulated to obtain this neverending moment in time vary as to peoples political gain adgenda. We must hate homosexuals, pagans, and so forth. Then it is a game to get as many "points" as one can to earn the frequent wing miles in a place beyond, for ever and ever. Amen.

When the basic principals of "God" are misused it is obvious. "Do not kill." "Except for groups A, B, and C." A direct contridiction can almost always be found.

"Heaven" and the actions one must take to get there is the carrot in front the burro held by a power seeker. A Driver using a false promise. Making humans to act in ways when we really do not think about, or even want to do to another person, and in our inner being knows it is wrong. This leads me to actions like the Crusades and the horrible acts we see in history.

KMS

 

[Engimo]

“We are all atheists about most of the gods that humanity has ever believed in. Some of us just go one god further.”

I think there is something very telling in this quote. All religions have the same amount of evidence for them, but religious people have no problem with accepting their God and rejecting the multitude of other Gods that other people believe in - why?

 

[Mr. D]

Why is your God Wrong? Let me answer this way:

What's the difference between religion and superstition?

My illogical, silly, unbelievable belief explaining the creation the world around us that is based on no real facts, but solely on my faith in the words printed by some other men, is of course the true religion because it is right!

Your belief is superstition, because it's not my belief!

Are you confused? Me too! It must be what happens when people guide their lives based on faith rather than logic, thought and science. It's a choice!

 

[CaliNORML]

What's the difference between religion and superstition?

Once Humans said beware the full moon, now anyone who works in a bar or a cop on the street will say, "Thats true." Do not get me started on the E.R. on those nights.

"Love they neighbor," they say the world will be better. Science shows us kind acts do help our body, and those around us. It never said that they have to change in order to love them. "Love they neighbor: as long as he believes the same as you do, and if he does not, force him to. For his own good, of course." Not exactly the same.

Superstitions must have arisen from somewhere, does this make them less true? Near a volcano it is said that the wind will steal the breath from your young, only when you visit in certain spots. They are correct. Carbon Dioxide being heavier that Oxygen pools in small spots along the ground where it is released from the volcanic gases. Most adults are above the line, it mainly robs children of breath. Was that wrong to try to explain it by "the wind"?

Superstition? Science? Religion? All only what humans have witnessed, tried to preserve, and understand of our physical, and abstract worlds. Sometimes practiced or dismissed with too much zeal from every side for my personal taste.

KMS

 

[Mr. D]

Good post CaliNORMAL! Maybe the problem is our psychological need to find a supernatural/religious answer to everything we can't explain. Another option would be just to say, "I don't understand that!", or "I don't know!"

If you can accept that, you can live with morality without understanding everything in life. You don't really need the mythical stories to give you false comfort. :2wave:

 

[kal-el]

This is kinda off topic, but a Christian must love Satan, for Jesus says:

Matthew 5:44
But I tell you: Love your enemies, and pray for those who persecute you.

You wouldn't want to argue with Jesus, would you?:lol:

 

[teenonfire4him77]

This is kinda off topic, but a Christian must love Satan, for Jesus says:

Matthew 5:44
But I tell you: Love your enemies, and pray for those who persecute you.

You wouldn't want to argue with Jesus, would you?:lol:

That is very ignorant of you.
Love overcomes hate...even atheist can't argue with that.
Lets take this from a secular point of view.
If your kids comes to you upset because someone is picking on them, you would tell them to be overly nice to them back.
Now this can have 2 outcomes:
A- the bully leaves you alone because obviously what he is doing is not affecting you
B- the bully can realize and question why he is being so mean when the other person is so nice, and change his ways.

This is exactly the same concept. We are called to love EVERYONE, not just people who agree with you.
Now if the whole world was like this, do you think taht it would have as many problems...or any?

Or are you just so set on proving the bible wrong that you forget the morals and principals in them that reflect so called 'universal principles' that you see today?...they had to have come from somewhere.
Kids have to be raised to do what is right, they don't know its wrong untill someone tells them it is.

And you will never get a straight-forward answer from Christians. Alls they will do is use all these verbal gymnastics, and dance around the subject without even answering it.

I really wouldnt be the one calling out other people on that.
Hypocritical much?

 

[kal-el]

That is very ignorant of you.

How is that ignorant? Jesus says to love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you; and Satan is every Christians enemy, is he not? It seems whenever something in the bible goers against your deep-rooted beliefs, you dismiss it as "ignorant."

Love overcomes hate...even atheist can't argue with that.

No argument there.

Lets take this from a secular point of view.
If your kids comes to you upset because someone is picking on them, you would tell them to be overly nice to them back.
Now this can have 2 outcomes:
A- the bully leaves you alone because obviously what he is doing is not affecting you
B- the bully can realize and question why he is being so mean when the other person is so nice, and change his ways.

Don't forget C- the bully get's ticked off that this person is being so nice, hence beats the living **** out of him.:lol:

This is exactly the same concept. We are called to love EVERYONE, not just people who agree with you.

Yes, obviously youdo not agree with Satan, so Jesus says you should love him, and you said everyone.

Now if the whole world was like this, do you think taht it would have as many problems...or any?

Negative. But I don't think we could ever have a perfect, utopian society. There's always gonna be 1 bad apple to spoil it for everyone.

Or are you just so set on proving the bible wrong that you forget the morals and principals in them that reflect so called 'universal principles' that you see today?...they had to have come from somewhere.

Morals? O, you mean the wife beating, slave owning, stone kids morals? Or are you talking about the cut of your right hand if it sins morals?:lol:

Kids have to be raised to do what is right, they don't know its wrong untill someone tells them it is.

Yup. They don't have a strong sense of denial. You're not born believing in a god, you're indoctrinated.

I really wouldnt be the one calling out other people on that.
Hypocritical much?

Do you even know what it is you are talking about? The question was Why is my God wrong? You're calling me hypocritical makes no sense.

 

[FluffyNinja]

It's all a gamble! My gamble is that there is a God and an afterlife and that I'm following the correct one! You atheists are gambling that there is no God or afterlife and that upon dying, we simply "wink-out."

Bottom line is I'll never be able to prove that a supreme being exists or that I've chosen the right one, and you'll never be able to prove otherwise. If; however, my gamble pays off and yours does not, God have mercy on you. This is like Russian roulette, you're gambling that it's not loaded and I'm not even picking up the gun!:lol:

 

[kal-el]

It's all a gamble! My gamble is that there is a God and an afterlife and that I'm following the correct one! You atheists are gambling that there is no God or afterlife and that upon dying, we simply "wink-out."

Bottom line is I'll never be able to prove that a supreme being exists or that I've chosen the right one, and you'll never be able to prove otherwise. If; however, my gamble pays off and yours does not, God have mercy on you. This is like Russian roulette, you're gambling that it's not loaded and I'm not even picking up the gun!:lol:

What if it turns out that there is a god, but not the Christian god. So, he would hate all Christians for worshipping the wrong god. Atheists don't worship any god, so we pretty much have a clean slate.

 

[ngdawg]

It's all a gamble! My gamble is that there is a God and an afterlife and that I'm following the correct one! You atheists are gambling that there is no God or afterlife and that upon dying, we simply "wink-out."

Bottom line is I'll never be able to prove that a supreme being exists or that I've chosen the right one, and you'll never be able to prove otherwise. If; however, my gamble pays off and yours does not, God have mercy on you. This is like Russian roulette, you're gambling that it's not loaded and I'm not even picking up the gun!:lol:

Sure you are...you're betting something wonderful is going to happen to you when the only proof of what happens is decay. You're holding the same gun. And the only reason you're betting on that is you don't want to face the finality of death and the fact that you are only a carbon-based life form just like that raccoon on the roadside. So you believe in a place where you will go and never be fully dead, knowing that logically, there's simply no indication of that happening.
Afterlife is just denial of logic. Living to think you're good enough to make it into an unknown paradise is futile. Why not live and treat others the way you wish to be treated and be known in the here and now as a person of honor instead of betting on a longshot?

 

[FluffyNinja]

What if it turns out that there is a god, but not the Christian god. So, he would hate all Christians for worshipping the wrong god. Atheists don't worship any god, so we pretty much have a clean slate.

If I'm wrong, my gambling days will be over!:lol:

 

[FluffyNinja]

Sure you are...you're betting something wonderful is going to happen to you when the only proof of what happens is decay. You're holding the same gun. And the only reason you're betting on that is you don't want to face the finality of death and the fact that you are only a carbon-based life form just like that raccoon on the roadside. So you believe in a place where you will go and never be fully dead, knowing that logically, there's simply no indication of that happening.
Afterlife is just denial of logic. Living to think you're good enough to make it into an unknown paradise is futile. Why not live and treat others the way you wish to be treated and be known in the here and now as a person of honor instead of betting on a longshot?

Sometimes logical thinking is sooo boring. Look at Mr. Spock.....he couldn't even get a girlfriend!:lol:

 

[Engimo]

It's all a gamble! My gamble is that there is a God and an afterlife and that I'm following the correct one! You atheists are gambling that there is no God or afterlife and that upon dying, we simply "wink-out."

Bottom line is I'll never be able to prove that a supreme being exists or that I've chosen the right one, and you'll never be able to prove otherwise. If; however, my gamble pays off and yours does not, God have mercy on you. This is like Russian roulette, you're gambling that it's not loaded and I'm not even picking up the gun!:lol:

This is just a terrible variant of Pascal's Wager.

 

[FluffyNinja]

This is just a terrible variant of Pascal's Wager.

Ol' Blaise Pascal expressed it a bit more mathematically than did I. You know, most authors who have "tested" the validity of Pascal's Wager concluded that when taking only the two variables into consideration (1. Wagering For God and 2. Wagering against God) his assertion is valid - that one MUST wager FOR the existence of God - it's the only "winning" outcome. Some authors, after introducing other outside variables and applying them to the matrix, later concluded that his assertion may be invalid. However; they were forced to ADD other circumstances to his variables.

 

[Engimo]

Ol' Blaise Pascal expressed it a bit more mathematically than did I. You know, most authors who have "tested" the validity of Pascal's Wager concluded that when taking only the two variables into consideration (1. Wagering For God and 2. Wagering against God) his assertion is valid - that one MUST wager FOR the existence of God - it's the only "winning" outcome. Some authors, after introducing other outside variables and applying them to the matrix, later concluded that his assertion may be invalid. However; they were forced to ADD other circumstances to his variables.

That's entirely untrue. Not only does Pascal's Wager contain an inherent false dilemma, it is theologically unsound and totally ignores the fact that there is a cost in a belief in God while on Earth. Believing and worshipping God is not a zero-cost action.

Also, Pascal's Wager is damned cynical, saying that you're better off "taking your chances" with religion because you might get something out of it. Is that a good reason to believe in something?

 

[FluffyNinja]

Also, Pascal's Wager is damned cynical, saying that you're better off "taking your chances" with religion because you might get something out of it. Is that a good reason to believe in something?

The statement above has NOTHING to do with Pascal's statistical outcomes.

A number of authors who have been otherwise critical of the Wager have explicitly conceded that the Wager is valid — e.g. Mackie 1982, Rescher 1985, Mougin and Sober 1994, and most emphatically, Hacking 1972. That is, these authors agree with Pascal that wagering for God really is rationally mandated by Pascal's decision matrix in tandem with positive probability for God's existence, and the decision theoretic account of rational action.

I think we ALL have a cynical side.

 

[CaliNORML]

Love overcomes hate.............. This is the sticky area most religions use as a battle cry, "Love", some religions can literally love a culture to death.

I have come to the belief in life that the opposite of love is not hate, I have come to the belief that the opposite of both love and hate is indifference.

It is in the decision of where that indifference should end when other human suffering is occuring that makes society say we have to do something about this that conflicts arise. The US hesitated to fight WW1 and tried to remain indifferent as long a possible, today we bomb cities to make clones of our own government. The US war policy has gone from hesitant to premptive, all in under a decade.

Zen form of Buddahism is a spin of this, where your actions do nothing for the good, or to stop the evil of the world, one only sees it for what it is and choses not to participate in either effort, good or evil.

It seems that when humans point out a difference in another group or human, they soon are brutalized. When humans do not see differences within another human or group, all live well and in peace. It is in how we see the difference that society follows.

Albert Einstien uttered my favorite quote about this human quandry, when not to be indifferent with this quote:

"The world is a dangerous place, not because of those who do evil, but because of those who look on and do nothing."

KMS

 

[Engimo]

The statement above has NOTHING to do with Pascal's statistical outcomes.

A number of authors who have been otherwise critical of the Wager have explicitly conceded that the Wager is valid — e.g. Mackie 1982, Rescher 1985, Mougin and Sober 1994, and most emphatically, Hacking 1972. That is, these authors agree with Pascal that wagering for God really is rationally mandated by Pascal's decision matrix in tandem with positive probability for God's existence, and the decision theoretic account of rational action.

I think we ALL have a cynical side.

The matrix is nonsense. It's 4x4, when it should really be infinityxinfinity. There are an infinite number of potential Gods that could exist, all equally as likely to exist as the Christian God. Your odds of getting the right one by picking the Christian God are exactly the same as your odds of getting the right one by being an atheist. After all, provided that all Gods are created equal, there are an infinite number of potential Gods that would reward atheism and punish Christianity.

1:infinity vs 1:infinity is not a very compelling argument.

 

[MrFungus420]

That is very ignorant of you.
Love overcomes hate...even atheist can't argue with that.
Lets take this from a secular point of view.
If your kids comes to you upset because someone is picking on them, you would tell them to be overly nice to them back.
Now this can have 2 outcomes:
A- the bully leaves you alone because obviously what he is doing is not affecting you
B- the bully can realize and question why he is being so mean when the other person is so nice, and change his ways.

You forgot the most likely outcome:
C- The bully beats up on them even more because they are an easy target.

 

[FluffyNinja]

The matrix is nonsense. It's 4x4, when it should really be infinityxinfinity. There are an infinite number of potential Gods that could exist, all equally as likely to exist as the Christian God. Your odds of getting the right one by picking the Christian God are exactly the same as your odds of getting the right one by being an atheist. After all, provided that all Gods are created equal, there are an infinite number of potential Gods that would reward atheism and punish Christianity.

1:infinity vs 1:infinity is not a very compelling argument.

But Pascal wasn't talking about all of the other possible Gods now was he?
This is an "all things being equal " approach. You, like many who have attempted to invalidate the Pascal matrix must introduce extraneous variables in order to do so.

Let me see if I can put this simply, so that even a Physics Major from New York could comprehend it:

There are two possible variables: A = The Christian God does Exist
or
B = The Christian God does not Exist
with me so far? okay, phase two.........

There are TWO possible choices producing FOUR possible outcomes:
Choice#1 = Believe in the Christian God
Choice#2 = Don't believe in the Christian God (by the way, if you believe in any of the other infinite # of GOds you mention, you fall into the Choice#2 category - wasn't that simple:lol: )

The FOUR possible outcomes may simply be rated GOOD (nothing bad happens to you after death) or BAD (meaning you burn eternally in Hell upon dying)

Here are the FOUR outcomes:

Outcome 1 = You believe in God and God actually exists. (Outcome = GOOD)
Outcome 2 = You believe in God and God doesn't exist. (Outcome = GOOD)
Outcome 3 = You don't believe in God and God doesn't exist.
(Outcome = GOOD)
Outcome 4 = You don't believe in God and turns out, he does exist.
(Outcome = BAD)

Simply put, the only way to produce a BAD outcome is to "NOT BELIEVE IN GOD!"
It's funny when a poor, dumb redneck from Mississippi must simplify an already simple mathematical probability concept for a Physics Major from the Culturally Superior state of New York.

We're all a part of Life's Divine Comedy............and the irony is boundless!:lol:

 

[MrFungus420]

Ol' Blaise Pascal expressed it a bit more mathematically than did I. You know, most authors who have "tested" the validity of Pascal's Wager concluded that when taking only the two variables into consideration (1. Wagering For God and 2. Wagering against God) his assertion is valid - that one MUST wager FOR the existence of God - it's the only "winning" outcome. Some authors, after introducing other outside variables and applying them to the matrix, later concluded that his assertion may be invalid. However; they were forced to ADD other circumstances to his variables.

The problem is that it is not as cut and dried as just "wagering for God" and "wagering against God". There are multiple religions with different gods. Let's just look at the "Big 3", Islam, Christianity and Judaism.

If Islam is right, then wagering in favour of Christianity or Judaism, or against God are losing propositions. If Christianity is right, then wagering in favour of Islam or Judaism, or against God are losing propositions. If Judaism is right, then wagering in favour of Islam or Christianity, or against God are losing propositions.

Now, if we start adding in the dozens (if not hundreds) of other religions into the mix, the probablity of "wagering" on the correct god becomes vanishingly small.

The only way that Pascal's Wager works is is with the assumption that there is only a choice between a single religion and no religion.