Rejecting God or rejecting religion?

by kojo 66 Replies latest jw friends

• 

  JamesThomas

  Anything and everything I have to say about it, is not it, is only confusing, and motivates more of the same questions.

  It's questions all the way down.

  j
• 

  poppers

  It's questions all the way down .

  Right. And that's why minds will never find it.
• 

  Inquisitor

  Perry,
  

  Suppose for a moment that you were God and you knew that the moment you created freedom and not pre-programming in highly intelligent creatures that great evil would eventually be acted upon. Would you still do it?.. We are all confronted with two possible views of reality as we have both touched on. Either we live in an evil universe where a Loving God is an oddity; or we live in a loving universe where the acting on the possibility of evil is at odds with the basis of things.

  We're supposing here that instead of the presence of Evil negating the possibility that God exists, we're going to ASSUME that Evil has to exist for the greater Good, and thus we allow that God exists. That alone is not going to convince me that God exists. What about scripture? What about theology? If He truly exists, what is His method of communication? I'm not going to confess that He exists because of an idle assumption. Nothing suggests that the former premise is wrong (i.e. that the inexplicable presence of Evil negates God's existence). The only reason we're going with your assumption is that you feel that the former premise is a very pessimistic worldview (in your opinion).

  You've no doubt read many testimonies of peoples' relationship with God, some very dramatic. There are millions of them, not just the ones on this thread. Because the basis of these peoples' universe is Love, they've placed themselves in a position through belief and trust (requirements for functioning relationships) to reciprocate that loving dynamic.

  I've also known people who's lives were deprived of divine intervention. I would recommend that you interview the gassed Jews or the drowned tsunami victims, but I suspect that it's a little too late. Also, how would you know that these testimonies aren't simply a placebo effect? How do you know that people aren't merely hiding what forsharry was bold enough to admit:
  I don't reject God persay...I simply pretend to believe in him in the same way he pretended to help me when I was in need.

  First you suggest we go on the assumption that Evil is a necessary pre-requisite for God and Good to exist. Now we need stake our belief in the Higher Being on an emotional high? An emotional disposition that may or may not be a self-induced experience?

  God has given answers to some of your questions but you don't like them because they are at odds with your view of the universe.

  What answers? Those you raised? Such as...

  I think volcanoes and tsunamis are on the "to do" list, right after God's family is fully revealed and evil and freedom are reconciled.

  It is not a stretch for me to imagine that he would simply back off after the Fall, having done so natural forces simply follow the laws of physics sometimes tragically.

  
  Answers that begin with "I think" or "I imagine" aren't very omniscient of the all-powerful God. Unless, I've made the mistake of quoting your views for God's. In which case, I've yet to hear of these purported Godly answers you speak of.

  Your view has evil as the basis of things and a Loving God as an oddity. How's that view working out for you?

  My view acknowledges that Evil exists alongside with the Good. God is merely non-existant, uninterested or hopelessly inefficent. So tipping the balance between Good and Evil depends on our efforts. This is my current view of things. Perhaps this may change with time. I may become a more "devout" atheist, or I may choose to adopt some religious habits and hope God will be my best friend. I don't recall saying that my worldview is based on evil alone. That was you putting words in my head. I'm surprised that you have to ask "how a worldview" is working out for me. Should our worldview be based upon our whim and fancy? And not upon facts? A worldview becomes our worldview because it is how we make sense of what we know. To defy it and create one that caters to our emotional needs is not a worldview. That is called self-delusion.

  Why don't you just believe God and he'll explain it all to you personally and you won't have to rely on peoples' testimonies to find out if he exists or not?

  
  Don't you worry. I'm not listening to testimonies to know where I stand. So you wager that I'll get my answers if I believe in God FIRST? That's funny, you believe in God. How come He hasn't passed it on to you so you can explain it to us satisfactorily? If He hasn't done it for you, what makes you think He'll answer my questions once I get sucked in (again)? INQ
• 

  LittleToe

  Inq:

  An emotional disposition that may or may not be a self-induced experience?

  Is everything in life merely a self-induced experience? Think carefully, now...
• 

  Inquisitor

  LT,

  I'm not going to make lengthy philosophical arguments with you. But to address your immediate question, I think that you would concede that a religious emotional high is instigated by a very strong desire to believe,despite reasonable doubt. Not everything in life is dominated by this same self-induced emotion. (1) I do not attempt to do a handstand despite being reasonably fit because I fear not doing it properly might result in my hurting myself. (2) A young lady from the country is unaware of her inherent beauty despite having so many guys in the city trying to impress her because she'd always thought city folks were better than people like her. So I don't see how you would call every experience in life self-induced to a similar magnitude of a religious high.

  INQ
• 

  LittleToe

  Inq:
  Thanks for your candor.

  So I don't see how you would call every experience in life self-induced to a similar magnitude of a religious high.

  And so it is in the world of religious experience. To state otherwise is to generalise to the point of the argument being meaningless.

  I quite accept that a number of so-called "religious experiences" are due to aroused emotional states, and some denominations major on trying to trigger these. I don't think it's fair to tar everything with the same brush, though, nor do you have evidence to that effect.

  Just trying to get real, here
• 

  Inquisitor

  "I quite accept that a number of so-called "religious experiences" are due to aroused emotional states, and some denominations major on trying to trigger these. I don't think it's fair to tar everything with the same brush, though, nor do you have evidence to that effect."
  
  
  Dear LT
  
  
  What you say is true. It was not my intention to insult every religious person on JWD. I was merely responding to a mockery of agnostics. If one is prepared to challenge people's lack of religious belief, one should be equally prepared to be put in the hot seat for one's religious passion.
  
  
  INQ