Total Posts:109|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Choice or Threat

DanneJeRusse
Posts: 12,641
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/6/2016 2:48:54 PM
Posted: 2 months ago
Choice:

the act of choosing : the act of picking or deciding between two or more possibilities

the opportunity or power to choose between two or more possibilities : the opportunity or power to make a decision

a range of things that can be chosen

Threat:

a statement saying you will be harmed if you do not do what someone wants you to do

someone or something that could cause trouble, harm, etc.

the possibility that something bad or harmful could happen

Based on the definitions above, do the Abrahamic religions offer a choice or do they make a threat of worshiping God and going to hell?
Marrying a 6 year old and waiting until she reaches puberty and maturity before having consensual sex is better than walking up to
a stranger in a bar and proceeding to have relations with no valid proof of the intent of the person. Muhammad wins. ~ Fatihah
If they don't want to be killed then they have to subdue to the Islamic laws. - Uncung
Without God, you are lower than sh!t. ~ SpiritandTruth
Chaosism
Posts: 2,673
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/6/2016 2:59:19 PM
Posted: 2 months ago
At 10/6/2016 2:48:54 PM, DanneJeRusse wrote:
Choice:

the act of choosing : the act of picking or deciding between two or more possibilities

the opportunity or power to choose between two or more possibilities : the opportunity or power to make a decision

a range of things that can be chosen

Threat:

a statement saying you will be harmed if you do not do what someone wants you to do

someone or something that could cause trouble, harm, etc.

the possibility that something bad or harmful could happen

Based on the definitions above, do the Abrahamic religions offer a choice or do they make a threat of worshiping God and going to hell?

It's not a threat, it's a warning. A warning issued by a God that truly loves you. :) </da>
DanneJeRusse
Posts: 12,641
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/6/2016 3:13:41 PM
Posted: 2 months ago
At 10/6/2016 2:59:19 PM, Chaosism wrote:
At 10/6/2016 2:48:54 PM, DanneJeRusse wrote:
Choice:

the act of choosing : the act of picking or deciding between two or more possibilities

the opportunity or power to choose between two or more possibilities : the opportunity or power to make a decision

a range of things that can be chosen

Threat:

a statement saying you will be harmed if you do not do what someone wants you to do

someone or something that could cause trouble, harm, etc.

the possibility that something bad or harmful could happen

Based on the definitions above, do the Abrahamic religions offer a choice or do they make a threat of worshiping God and going to hell?

It's not a threat, it's a warning. A warning issued by a God that truly loves you. :) </da>

Thanks, I'll offer up that definition, as well.

Warning:

something (such as an action or a statement) that tells someone about possible danger or trouble

a statement that tells a person that bad or wrong behavior will be punished if it happens again
Marrying a 6 year old and waiting until she reaches puberty and maturity before having consensual sex is better than walking up to
a stranger in a bar and proceeding to have relations with no valid proof of the intent of the person. Muhammad wins. ~ Fatihah
If they don't want to be killed then they have to subdue to the Islamic laws. - Uncung
Without God, you are lower than sh!t. ~ SpiritandTruth
FaustianJustice
Posts: 6,238
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/6/2016 3:20:49 PM
Posted: 2 months ago
At 10/6/2016 3:13:41 PM, DanneJeRusse wrote:
At 10/6/2016 2:59:19 PM, Chaosism wrote:
At 10/6/2016 2:48:54 PM, DanneJeRusse wrote:
Choice:

the act of choosing : the act of picking or deciding between two or more possibilities

the opportunity or power to choose between two or more possibilities : the opportunity or power to make a decision

a range of things that can be chosen

Threat:

a statement saying you will be harmed if you do not do what someone wants you to do

someone or something that could cause trouble, harm, etc.

the possibility that something bad or harmful could happen

Based on the definitions above, do the Abrahamic religions offer a choice or do they make a threat of worshiping God and going to hell?

It's not a threat, it's a warning. A warning issued by a God that truly loves you. :) </da>

Thanks, I'll offer up that definition, as well.

Warning:

something (such as an action or a statement) that tells someone about possible danger or trouble

a statement that tells a person that bad or wrong behavior will be punished if it happens again

The escape hatch is that religion is offering a warning, much akin to some one whom is about to blindly drive off a cliff.

Signs were posted, people stopped along the way to inform you the bridge was out, etc, but the atheist "chose" to drive over the edge.

Sure, this ignores the objectivity of the cliff or its peril, but intellectual honest wasn't really going to be present to begin with.
Here we have an advocate for Islamic arranged marriages demonstrating that children can consent to sex.
http://www.debate.org...
DanneJeRusse
Posts: 12,641
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/6/2016 3:25:03 PM
Posted: 2 months ago
At 10/6/2016 3:20:49 PM, FaustianJustice wrote:
At 10/6/2016 3:13:41 PM, DanneJeRusse wrote:
At 10/6/2016 2:59:19 PM, Chaosism wrote:
At 10/6/2016 2:48:54 PM, DanneJeRusse wrote:
Choice:

the act of choosing : the act of picking or deciding between two or more possibilities

the opportunity or power to choose between two or more possibilities : the opportunity or power to make a decision

a range of things that can be chosen

Threat:

a statement saying you will be harmed if you do not do what someone wants you to do

someone or something that could cause trouble, harm, etc.

the possibility that something bad or harmful could happen

Based on the definitions above, do the Abrahamic religions offer a choice or do they make a threat of worshiping God and going to hell?

It's not a threat, it's a warning. A warning issued by a God that truly loves you. :) </da>

Thanks, I'll offer up that definition, as well.

Warning:

something (such as an action or a statement) that tells someone about possible danger or trouble

a statement that tells a person that bad or wrong behavior will be punished if it happens again


The escape hatch is that religion is offering a warning, much akin to some one whom is about to blindly drive off a cliff.

Signs were posted, people stopped along the way to inform you the bridge was out, etc, but the atheist "chose" to drive over the edge.

Sure, this ignores the objectivity of the cliff or its peril, but intellectual honest wasn't really going to be present to begin with.

Good answer, and considering the lack of intellectual honesty, perhaps the atheist prefers to drive off the cliff so as not to have to live their life as one of the intellectually dishonest.
Marrying a 6 year old and waiting until she reaches puberty and maturity before having consensual sex is better than walking up to
a stranger in a bar and proceeding to have relations with no valid proof of the intent of the person. Muhammad wins. ~ Fatihah
If they don't want to be killed then they have to subdue to the Islamic laws. - Uncung
Without God, you are lower than sh!t. ~ SpiritandTruth
Chaosism
Posts: 2,673
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/6/2016 3:25:46 PM
Posted: 2 months ago
At 10/6/2016 3:20:49 PM, FaustianJustice wrote:
At 10/6/2016 3:13:41 PM, DanneJeRusse wrote:
At 10/6/2016 2:59:19 PM, Chaosism wrote:
At 10/6/2016 2:48:54 PM, DanneJeRusse wrote:
Choice:

the act of choosing : the act of picking or deciding between two or more possibilities

the opportunity or power to choose between two or more possibilities : the opportunity or power to make a decision

a range of things that can be chosen

Threat:

a statement saying you will be harmed if you do not do what someone wants you to do

someone or something that could cause trouble, harm, etc.

the possibility that something bad or harmful could happen

Based on the definitions above, do the Abrahamic religions offer a choice or do they make a threat of worshiping God and going to hell?

It's not a threat, it's a warning. A warning issued by a God that truly loves you. :) </da>

Thanks, I'll offer up that definition, as well.

Warning:

something (such as an action or a statement) that tells someone about possible danger or trouble

a statement that tells a person that bad or wrong behavior will be punished if it happens again


The escape hatch is that religion is offering a warning, much akin to some one whom is about to blindly drive off a cliff.

Signs were posted, people stopped along the way to inform you the bridge was out, etc, but the atheist "chose" to drive over the edge.

Sure, this ignores the objectivity of the cliff or its peril, but intellectual honest wasn't really going to be present to begin with.

It makes God sound like the author of "invent a problem and sell the solution".
FaustianJustice
Posts: 6,238
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/6/2016 3:28:15 PM
Posted: 2 months ago
At 10/6/2016 3:25:46 PM, Chaosism wrote:
At 10/6/2016 3:20:49 PM, FaustianJustice wrote:
At 10/6/2016 3:13:41 PM, DanneJeRusse wrote:
At 10/6/2016 2:59:19 PM, Chaosism wrote:
At 10/6/2016 2:48:54 PM, DanneJeRusse wrote:
Choice:

the act of choosing : the act of picking or deciding between two or more possibilities

the opportunity or power to choose between two or more possibilities : the opportunity or power to make a decision

a range of things that can be chosen

Threat:

a statement saying you will be harmed if you do not do what someone wants you to do

someone or something that could cause trouble, harm, etc.

the possibility that something bad or harmful could happen

Based on the definitions above, do the Abrahamic religions offer a choice or do they make a threat of worshiping God and going to hell?

It's not a threat, it's a warning. A warning issued by a God that truly loves you. :) </da>

Thanks, I'll offer up that definition, as well.

Warning:

something (such as an action or a statement) that tells someone about possible danger or trouble

a statement that tells a person that bad or wrong behavior will be punished if it happens again


The escape hatch is that religion is offering a warning, much akin to some one whom is about to blindly drive off a cliff.

Signs were posted, people stopped along the way to inform you the bridge was out, etc, but the atheist "chose" to drive over the edge.

Sure, this ignores the objectivity of the cliff or its peril, but intellectual honest wasn't really going to be present to begin with.

It makes God sound like the author of "invent a problem and sell the solution".

Well, if God is described as omniscient, then yes, He would know the consequences of His actions of creation, of which one must ponder the Devil, as his actions too would be known well in advance of them being done. That, or he was created to misbehave.
Here we have an advocate for Islamic arranged marriages demonstrating that children can consent to sex.
http://www.debate.org...
Chaosism
Posts: 2,673
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/6/2016 3:33:08 PM
Posted: 2 months ago
At 10/6/2016 3:28:15 PM, FaustianJustice wrote:
At 10/6/2016 3:25:46 PM, Chaosism wrote:
At 10/6/2016 3:20:49 PM, FaustianJustice wrote:
At 10/6/2016 3:13:41 PM, DanneJeRusse wrote:
At 10/6/2016 2:59:19 PM, Chaosism wrote:
At 10/6/2016 2:48:54 PM, DanneJeRusse wrote:
Choice:

the act of choosing : the act of picking or deciding between two or more possibilities

the opportunity or power to choose between two or more possibilities : the opportunity or power to make a decision

a range of things that can be chosen

Threat:

a statement saying you will be harmed if you do not do what someone wants you to do

someone or something that could cause trouble, harm, etc.

the possibility that something bad or harmful could happen

Based on the definitions above, do the Abrahamic religions offer a choice or do they make a threat of worshiping God and going to hell?

It's not a threat, it's a warning. A warning issued by a God that truly loves you. :) </da>

Thanks, I'll offer up that definition, as well.

Warning:

something (such as an action or a statement) that tells someone about possible danger or trouble

a statement that tells a person that bad or wrong behavior will be punished if it happens again


The escape hatch is that religion is offering a warning, much akin to some one whom is about to blindly drive off a cliff.

Signs were posted, people stopped along the way to inform you the bridge was out, etc, but the atheist "chose" to drive over the edge.

Sure, this ignores the objectivity of the cliff or its peril, but intellectual honest wasn't really going to be present to begin with.

It makes God sound like the author of "invent a problem and sell the solution".


Well, if God is described as omniscient, then yes, He would know the consequences of His actions of creation, of which one must ponder the Devil, as his actions too would be known well in advance of them being done. That, or he was created to misbehave.

I have to pull a "Bronto", here...

https://www.youtube.com...
PureX
Posts: 1,528
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/6/2016 3:55:01 PM
Posted: 2 months ago
We can not only choose to accept or reject a proposed option, but we can also choose what options to accept or reject. So these "Abrahamic religions" cannot narrow your choices any more or less than any other philosophical or ideological option can. Because we can change the proposition, if we so choose.

You are the one deciding that these "Abrahamic religions" are proposing a non-option to you as if it were the only option (believe or die). So you can deny them that authority if you want to. You can redefine the proposal and it's options. Invent your own God, and your own religion, based on your own threats or lack thereof. Once you take the authorship of religious ideology back from these authoritarians, they've got nothing to hold over you, or anyone else.

I don't allow them to define God or religion for me. And so their threats are both useless and pointless to me.
DanneJeRusse
Posts: 12,641
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/6/2016 4:14:05 PM
Posted: 2 months ago
At 10/6/2016 3:28:15 PM, FaustianJustice wrote:
At 10/6/2016 3:25:46 PM, Chaosism wrote:
At 10/6/2016 3:20:49 PM, FaustianJustice wrote:
At 10/6/2016 3:13:41 PM, DanneJeRusse wrote:
At 10/6/2016 2:59:19 PM, Chaosism wrote:
At 10/6/2016 2:48:54 PM, DanneJeRusse wrote:
Choice:

the act of choosing : the act of picking or deciding between two or more possibilities

the opportunity or power to choose between two or more possibilities : the opportunity or power to make a decision

a range of things that can be chosen

Threat:

a statement saying you will be harmed if you do not do what someone wants you to do

someone or something that could cause trouble, harm, etc.

the possibility that something bad or harmful could happen

Based on the definitions above, do the Abrahamic religions offer a choice or do they make a threat of worshiping God and going to hell?

It's not a threat, it's a warning. A warning issued by a God that truly loves you. :) </da>

Thanks, I'll offer up that definition, as well.

Warning:

something (such as an action or a statement) that tells someone about possible danger or trouble

a statement that tells a person that bad or wrong behavior will be punished if it happens again


The escape hatch is that religion is offering a warning, much akin to some one whom is about to blindly drive off a cliff.

Signs were posted, people stopped along the way to inform you the bridge was out, etc, but the atheist "chose" to drive over the edge.

Sure, this ignores the objectivity of the cliff or its peril, but intellectual honest wasn't really going to be present to begin with.

It makes God sound like the author of "invent a problem and sell the solution".


Well, if God is described as omniscient, then yes, He would know the consequences of His actions of creation, of which one must ponder the Devil, as his actions too would be known well in advance of them being done. That, or he was created to misbehave.

Omniscient:

- having complete or unlimited knowledge, awareness, or understanding; perceiving all things.


I often understood that an omniscient being would not be able to know future events, other than the capacity to predict what might happen based on evidence. I would think an omniscient being would only have know everything about the past and present as there is no knowledge, awareness or understanding of future events.
Marrying a 6 year old and waiting until she reaches puberty and maturity before having consensual sex is better than walking up to
a stranger in a bar and proceeding to have relations with no valid proof of the intent of the person. Muhammad wins. ~ Fatihah
If they don't want to be killed then they have to subdue to the Islamic laws. - Uncung
Without God, you are lower than sh!t. ~ SpiritandTruth
Chaosism
Posts: 2,673
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/6/2016 4:22:11 PM
Posted: 2 months ago
At 10/6/2016 3:55:01 PM, PureX wrote:
We can not only choose to accept or reject a proposed option, but we can also choose what options to accept or reject. So these "Abrahamic religions" cannot narrow your choices any more or less than any other philosophical or ideological option can. Because we can change the proposition, if we so choose.

You are the one deciding that these "Abrahamic religions" are proposing a non-option to you as if it were the only option (believe or die). So you can deny them that authority if you want to.

John 14:6 - Jesus answered, "I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through Me.

I think this verse makes it pretty clear that this stark divide exists.

You can redefine the proposal and it's options. Invent your own God, and your own religion, based on your own threats or lack thereof. Once you take the authorship of religious ideology back from these authoritarians, they've got nothing to hold over you, or anyone else.

I don't allow them to define God or religion for me. And so their threats are both useless and pointless to me.

All together, the content of your response here seems to me like a total disregard for reality. Why should one "choose" to accept or reject propositions; shouldn't that depend on what can be shown or demonstrated to be or not to be the case in reality? Why does "invent your own God" have any merit? I think that's a potentially dangerous departure from reality. Any invented "God" would add a unjustified feeling of authority to one's own ideals.
PureX
Posts: 1,528
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/6/2016 6:26:35 PM
Posted: 2 months ago
At 10/6/2016 4:22:11 PM, Chaosism wrote:
At 10/6/2016 3:55:01 PM, PureX wrote:
We can not only choose to accept or reject a proposed option, but we can also choose what options to accept or reject. So these "Abrahamic religions" cannot narrow your choices any more or less than any other philosophical or ideological option can. Because we can change the proposition, if we so choose.

You are the one deciding that these "Abrahamic religions" are proposing a non-option to you as if it were the only option (believe or die). So you can deny them that authority if you want to.

John 14:6 - Jesus answered, "I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through Me.

I think this verse makes it pretty clear that this stark divide exists.

You can redefine the proposal and it's options. Invent your own God, and your own religion, based on your own threats or lack thereof. Once you take the authorship of religious ideology back from these authoritarians, they've got nothing to hold over you, or anyone else.

I don't allow them to define God or religion for me. And so their threats are both useless and pointless to me.

All together, the content of your response here seems to me like a total disregard for reality. Why should one "choose" to accept or reject propositions; shouldn't that depend on what can be shown or demonstrated to be or not to be the case in reality? Why does "invent your own God" have any merit? I think that's a potentially dangerous departure from reality. Any invented "God" would add a unjustified feeling of authority to one's own ideals.

The reality of God is conceptual. Therefor you can pose your concept of God to me, but I can choose to create my own, instead, as an alternative proposal. And there is no evidence that either of us can muster that would logically and definitively determine who's concept is the more "real". Both are real concepts. Both are real to us. And I see no reason that we should have to agree on a single concept. Or that we should even want to.

If your concept includes threats, they really only threaten you, and whomever accepts you concept of God. They have no effect on me if my concept of God does not include such threats.

This is what I mean by not giving other people "authorship" of our conception of God. By refusing to grant them this, they have no authority behind their threats. And this is as true for atheists as for theists. Too many atheists have allowed these threat-based theists to define "God" for them. Instead of honestly considering the god-concept for themselves. And the many other possibilities they could have explored.
DanneJeRusse
Posts: 12,641
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/6/2016 6:40:24 PM
Posted: 2 months ago
At 10/6/2016 6:26:35 PM, PureX wrote:
At 10/6/2016 4:22:11 PM, Chaosism wrote:
At 10/6/2016 3:55:01 PM, PureX wrote:
We can not only choose to accept or reject a proposed option, but we can also choose what options to accept or reject. So these "Abrahamic religions" cannot narrow your choices any more or less than any other philosophical or ideological option can. Because we can change the proposition, if we so choose.

You are the one deciding that these "Abrahamic religions" are proposing a non-option to you as if it were the only option (believe or die). So you can deny them that authority if you want to.

John 14:6 - Jesus answered, "I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through Me.

I think this verse makes it pretty clear that this stark divide exists.

You can redefine the proposal and it's options. Invent your own God, and your own religion, based on your own threats or lack thereof. Once you take the authorship of religious ideology back from these authoritarians, they've got nothing to hold over you, or anyone else.

I don't allow them to define God or religion for me. And so their threats are both useless and pointless to me.

All together, the content of your response here seems to me like a total disregard for reality. Why should one "choose" to accept or reject propositions; shouldn't that depend on what can be shown or demonstrated to be or not to be the case in reality? Why does "invent your own God" have any merit? I think that's a potentially dangerous departure from reality. Any invented "God" would add a unjustified feeling of authority to one's own ideals.

The reality of God is conceptual. Therefor you can pose your concept of God to me, but I can choose to create my own, instead, as an alternative proposal. And there is no evidence that either of us can muster that would logically and definitively determine who's concept is the more "real". Both are real concepts. Both are real to us. And I see no reason that we should have to agree on a single concept. Or that we should even want to.

If your concept includes threats, they really only threaten you, and whomever accepts you concept of God. They have no effect on me if my concept of God does not include such threats.

This is what I mean by not giving other people "authorship" of our conception of God. By refusing to grant them this, they have no authority behind their threats. And this is as true for atheists as for theists. Too many atheists have allowed these threat-based theists to define "God" for them. Instead of honestly considering the god-concept for themselves. And the many other possibilities they could have explored.

With the ultimately sound, reasonable and logical alternative to have no gods, no authority, no choices, no threats, no conflict. This is the one and only honest consideration.
Marrying a 6 year old and waiting until she reaches puberty and maturity before having consensual sex is better than walking up to
a stranger in a bar and proceeding to have relations with no valid proof of the intent of the person. Muhammad wins. ~ Fatihah
If they don't want to be killed then they have to subdue to the Islamic laws. - Uncung
Without God, you are lower than sh!t. ~ SpiritandTruth
Chaosism
Posts: 2,673
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/6/2016 7:07:02 PM
Posted: 2 months ago
At 10/6/2016 6:26:35 PM, PureX wrote:
At 10/6/2016 4:22:11 PM, Chaosism wrote:
At 10/6/2016 3:55:01 PM, PureX wrote:
We can not only choose to accept or reject a proposed option, but we can also choose what options to accept or reject. So these "Abrahamic religions" cannot narrow your choices any more or less than any other philosophical or ideological option can. Because we can change the proposition, if we so choose.

You are the one deciding that these "Abrahamic religions" are proposing a non-option to you as if it were the only option (believe or die). So you can deny them that authority if you want to.

John 14:6 - Jesus answered, "I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through Me.

I think this verse makes it pretty clear that this stark divide exists.

You can redefine the proposal and it's options. Invent your own God, and your own religion, based on your own threats or lack thereof. Once you take the authorship of religious ideology back from these authoritarians, they've got nothing to hold over you, or anyone else.

I don't allow them to define God or religion for me. And so their threats are both useless and pointless to me.

All together, the content of your response here seems to me like a total disregard for reality. Why should one "choose" to accept or reject propositions; shouldn't that depend on what can be shown or demonstrated to be or not to be the case in reality? Why does "invent your own God" have any merit? I think that's a potentially dangerous departure from reality. Any invented "God" would add a unjustified feeling of authority to one's own ideals.

The reality of God is conceptual. Therefor you can pose your concept of God to me, but I can choose to create my own, instead, as an alternative proposal. And there is no evidence that either of us can muster that would logically and definitively determine who's concept is the more "real". Both are real concepts. Both are real to us. And I see no reason that we should have to agree on a single concept. Or that we should even want to.

If your concept includes threats, they really only threaten you, and whomever accepts you concept of God. They have no effect on me if my concept of God does not include such threats.

This is what I mean by not giving other people "authorship" of our conception of God. By refusing to grant them this, they have no authority behind their threats. And this is as true for atheists as for theists. Too many atheists have allowed these threat-based theists to define "God" for them. Instead of honestly considering the god-concept for themselves. And the many other possibilities they could have explored.

I do understand what you're saying, but I don't think you understood the point of my response. Why should anyone embrace their own knowingly made-up version of god without any regard for the actual truth of the matter? If I were to formulate a notion of god that protects me from being harmed by fire, as an exaggerated example, then that would very potentially be harmful in reality. What appears real to me (i.e. subjective) does affect the objective truths of the world. Fire will harm me regardless of what I believe.

It scares me to think that people are capable of willingly choosing to believe that some proposition is true, rather than having to rely on some form of evidence. I, for one, am incapable of willfully believing that I'm on Mars right now, for example. I think it's dangerous to advocate for unsupported beliefs and notions of god because they distort one's perceptions of reality. All beliefs should be dependent on some form of evidential support.
PureX
Posts: 1,528
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/6/2016 7:43:28 PM
Posted: 2 months ago
At 10/6/2016 7:07:02 PM, Chaosism wrote:
At 10/6/2016 6:26:35 PM, PureX wrote:
At 10/6/2016 4:22:11 PM, Chaosism wrote:
At 10/6/2016 3:55:01 PM, PureX wrote:
We can not only choose to accept or reject a proposed option, but we can also choose what options to accept or reject. So these "Abrahamic religions" cannot narrow your choices any more or less than any other philosophical or ideological option can. Because we can change the proposition, if we so choose.

You are the one deciding that these "Abrahamic religions" are proposing a non-option to you as if it were the only option (believe or die). So you can deny them that authority if you want to.

John 14:6 - Jesus answered, "I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through Me.

I think this verse makes it pretty clear that this stark divide exists.

You can redefine the proposal and it's options. Invent your own God, and your own religion, based on your own threats or lack thereof. Once you take the authorship of religious ideology back from these authoritarians, they've got nothing to hold over you, or anyone else.

I don't allow them to define God or religion for me. And so their threats are both useless and pointless to me.

All together, the content of your response here seems to me like a total disregard for reality. Why should one "choose" to accept or reject propositions; shouldn't that depend on what can be shown or demonstrated to be or not to be the case in reality? Why does "invent your own God" have any merit? I think that's a potentially dangerous departure from reality. Any invented "God" would add a unjustified feeling of authority to one's own ideals.

The reality of God is conceptual. Therefor you can pose your concept of God to me, but I can choose to create my own, instead, as an alternative proposal. And there is no evidence that either of us can muster that would logically and definitively determine who's concept is the more "real". Both are real concepts. Both are real to us. And I see no reason that we should have to agree on a single concept. Or that we should even want to.

If your concept includes threats, they really only threaten you, and whomever accepts you concept of God. They have no effect on me if my concept of God does not include such threats.

This is what I mean by not giving other people "authorship" of our conception of God. By refusing to grant them this, they have no authority behind their threats. And this is as true for atheists as for theists. Too many atheists have allowed these threat-based theists to define "God" for them. Instead of honestly considering the god-concept for themselves. And the many other possibilities they could have explored.

I do understand what you're saying, but I don't think you understood the point of my response. Why should anyone embrace their own knowingly made-up version of god without any regard for the actual truth of the matter? If I were to formulate a notion of god that protects me from being harmed by fire, as an exaggerated example, then that would very potentially be harmful in reality. What appears real to me (i.e. subjective) does affect the objective truths of the world. Fire will harm me regardless of what I believe.

I agree that we must keep our god-concepts 'realistic'. But even before that happens, I think we need to understand and accept that ALL god-concepts are "made up" by us. Reading about the god-concept of some ancient Hebrews and then pretending it's the "real one" is no less make-believe than any other god-concept from anyone or anywhere else. Once we understand and accept this, then we will realize that we are all free to invent our own god-concepts and to change them as we wish. And once we understand and accept this, we will realize that we can hold more than one concept at a time, and use whichever provides the most positive and effective result at any given time, relative to the circumstances.

Because our god-concepts are not God. They are only how we are choosing to conceptualize God. We don't know what God is, or if God even exists. And we have no way of finding this out. So the alternative is to invent the God that we want to exist, and that makes sense to us, and that believing in gives us the best positive effect in our lives.

It scares me to think that people are capable of willingly choosing to believe that some proposition is true, rather than having to rely on some form of evidence.

Why should this scare you? Ultimately all truth from our limited human perspective is the result of our choosing to believe it whatever that choice based on. And whatever that choice is based on, we can and are very often still wrong.

I, for one, am incapable of willfully believing that I'm on Mars right now, for example. I think it's dangerous to advocate for unsupported beliefs and notions of god because they distort one's perceptions of reality. All beliefs should be dependent on some form of evidential support.

Distorting our perception of reality is often exactly what we need. Because our perceptions of reality are notoriously prone to error.

Also, "God" is not an object that can be objectively tested and objectively verified. "God" is a concept based on subjective experiences, like love, and beauty, and justice, and grace. And these kinds of experiential truths depend on imagination, and faith, and choice, to exist; not so much on objective evidence.

Much of what is most important to us in life is subjective phenomena, like these. Pretending that they don't exist, or aren't "real" will make for a very empty and meaningless life experience.

I feel sad for all these child-atheists who think the only truth is objective truth and that the only means by which we may find the truth is through scientific inquiry. They are setting themselves up for a very weak and pointless life experience. Devoid of art and philosophy and mysticism and wonder.
DanneJeRusse
Posts: 12,641
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/6/2016 8:36:40 PM
Posted: 2 months ago
At 10/6/2016 7:43:28 PM, PureX wrote:
At 10/6/2016 7:07:02 PM, Chaosism wrote:
At 10/6/2016 6:26:35 PM, PureX wrote:
At 10/6/2016 4:22:11 PM, Chaosism wrote:
At 10/6/2016 3:55:01 PM, PureX wrote:
We can not only choose to accept or reject a proposed option, but we can also choose what options to accept or reject. So these "Abrahamic religions" cannot narrow your choices any more or less than any other philosophical or ideological option can. Because we can change the proposition, if we so choose.

You are the one deciding that these "Abrahamic religions" are proposing a non-option to you as if it were the only option (believe or die). So you can deny them that authority if you want to.

John 14:6 - Jesus answered, "I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through Me.

I think this verse makes it pretty clear that this stark divide exists.

You can redefine the proposal and it's options. Invent your own God, and your own religion, based on your own threats or lack thereof. Once you take the authorship of religious ideology back from these authoritarians, they've got nothing to hold over you, or anyone else.

I don't allow them to define God or religion for me. And so their threats are both useless and pointless to me.

All together, the content of your response here seems to me like a total disregard for reality. Why should one "choose" to accept or reject propositions; shouldn't that depend on what can be shown or demonstrated to be or not to be the case in reality? Why does "invent your own God" have any merit? I think that's a potentially dangerous departure from reality. Any invented "God" would add a unjustified feeling of authority to one's own ideals.

The reality of God is conceptual. Therefor you can pose your concept of God to me, but I can choose to create my own, instead, as an alternative proposal. And there is no evidence that either of us can muster that would logically and definitively determine who's concept is the more "real". Both are real concepts. Both are real to us. And I see no reason that we should have to agree on a single concept. Or that we should even want to.

If your concept includes threats, they really only threaten you, and whomever accepts you concept of God. They have no effect on me if my concept of God does not include such threats.

This is what I mean by not giving other people "authorship" of our conception of God. By refusing to grant them this, they have no authority behind their threats. And this is as true for atheists as for theists. Too many atheists have allowed these threat-based theists to define "God" for them. Instead of honestly considering the god-concept for themselves. And the many other possibilities they could have explored.

I do understand what you're saying, but I don't think you understood the point of my response. Why should anyone embrace their own knowingly made-up version of god without any regard for the actual truth of the matter? If I were to formulate a notion of god that protects me from being harmed by fire, as an exaggerated example, then that would very potentially be harmful in reality. What appears real to me (i.e. subjective) does affect the objective truths of the world. Fire will harm me regardless of what I believe.

I agree that we must keep our god-concepts 'realistic'. But even before that happens, I think we need to understand and accept that ALL god-concepts are "made up" by us. Reading about the god-concept of some ancient Hebrews and then pretending it's the "real one" is no less make-believe than any other god-concept from anyone or anywhere else. Once we understand and accept this, then we will realize that we are all free to invent our own god-concepts and to change them as we wish. And once we understand and accept this, we will realize that we can hold more than one concept at a time, and use whichever provides the most positive and effective result at any given time, relative to the circumstances.

Because our god-concepts are not God. They are only how we are choosing to conceptualize God. We don't know what God is, or if God even exists. And we have no way of finding this out. So the alternative is to invent the God that we want to exist, and that makes sense to us, and that believing in gives us the best positive effect in our lives.

What you're basically saying is that our personal fantasies offer us better lives, which makes no sense at all.

It scares me to think that people are capable of willingly choosing to believe that some proposition is true, rather than having to rely on some form of evidence.

Why should this scare you? Ultimately all truth from our limited human perspective is the result of our choosing to believe it whatever that choice based on. And whatever that choice is based on, we can and are very often still wrong.

But, being wrong is good for us, according to you.

I, for one, am incapable of willfully believing that I'm on Mars right now, for example. I think it's dangerous to advocate for unsupported beliefs and notions of god because they distort one's perceptions of reality. All beliefs should be dependent on some form of evidential support.

Distorting our perception of reality is often exactly what we need. Because our perceptions of reality are notoriously prone to error.

You just contradicted yourself.

Also, "God" is not an object that can be objectively tested and objectively verified. "God" is a concept based on subjective experiences, like love, and beauty, and justice, and grace. And these kinds of experiential truths depend on imagination, and faith, and choice, to exist; not so much on objective evidence.

None of that has anything to do gods whatsoever.

Much of what is most important to us in life is subjective phenomena, like these. Pretending that they don't exist, or aren't "real" will make for a very empty and meaningless life experience.

That is absurd, its the other way round.

I feel sad for all these child-atheists who think the only truth is objective truth and that the only means by which we may find the truth is through scientific inquiry. They are setting themselves up for a very weak and pointless life experience. Devoid of art and philosophy and mysticism and wonder.

That is utterly ridiculous and has zero validity in reality.
Marrying a 6 year old and waiting until she reaches puberty and maturity before having consensual sex is better than walking up to
a stranger in a bar and proceeding to have relations with no valid proof of the intent of the person. Muhammad wins. ~ Fatihah
If they don't want to be killed then they have to subdue to the Islamic laws. - Uncung
Without God, you are lower than sh!t. ~ SpiritandTruth
Chaosism
Posts: 2,673
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/7/2016 2:31:42 PM
Posted: 2 months ago
At 10/6/2016 7:43:28 PM, PureX wrote:
At 10/6/2016 7:07:02 PM, Chaosism wrote:
At 10/6/2016 6:26:35 PM, PureX wrote:
The reality of God is conceptual. Therefor you can pose your concept of God to me, but I can choose to create my own, instead, as an alternative proposal. And there is no evidence that either of us can muster that would logically and definitively determine who's concept is the more "real". Both are real concepts. Both are real to us. And I see no reason that we should have to agree on a single concept. Or that we should even want to.

If your concept includes threats, they really only threaten you, and whomever accepts you concept of God. They have no effect on me if my concept of God does not include such threats.

This is what I mean by not giving other people "authorship" of our conception of God. By refusing to grant them this, they have no authority behind their threats. And this is as true for atheists as for theists. Too many atheists have allowed these threat-based theists to define "God" for them. Instead of honestly considering the god-concept for themselves. And the many other possibilities they could have explored.

I do understand what you're saying, but I don't think you understood the point of my response. Why should anyone embrace their own knowingly made-up version of god without any regard for the actual truth of the matter? If I were to formulate a notion of god that protects me from being harmed by fire, as an exaggerated example, then that would very potentially be harmful in reality. What appears real to me (i.e. subjective) does affect the objective truths of the world. Fire will harm me regardless of what I believe.

I agree that we must keep our god-concepts 'realistic'. But even before that happens, I think we need to understand and accept that ALL god-concepts are "made up" by us. Reading about the god-concept of some ancient Hebrews and then pretending it's the "real one" is no less make-believe than any other god-concept from anyone or anywhere else...

I very much agree with you, so far.

...Once we understand and accept this, then we will realize that we are all free to invent our own god-concepts and to change them as we wish. And once we understand and accept this, we will realize that we can hold more than one concept at a time, and use whichever provides the most positive and effective result at any given time, relative to the circumstances.

This sharp left turn here is where we depart from each other. I do not think we should be inventing imaginary friends and believe that they're real. And if you don't believe that they actually exist, then you don't believe they're real, so you should never treat them as such. Freedom of imagination is one thing, but this willing departure from reality is potentially hazardous to oneself and others.

Because our god-concepts are not God. They are only how we are choosing to conceptualize God. We don't know what God is, or if God even exists. And we have no way of finding this out. So the alternative is to invent the God that we want to exist, and that makes sense to us, and that believing in gives us the best positive effect in our lives.

That's a poor alternative and it's dangerous. To say, "I don't know the answer nor do I know how to find out, so I'm just going to make up an answer" is hideous. We can't just treat what we want as reality; that's incredibly regressive and we need to combat that.

It scares me to think that people are capable of willingly choosing to believe that some proposition is true, rather than having to rely on some form of evidence.

Why should this scare you? Ultimately all truth from our limited human perspective is the result of our choosing to believe it whatever that choice based on. And whatever that choice is based on, we can and are very often still wrong.

This is completely non-equivalent. What you are advocating is based on ZERO evidence (knowingly!) whereas everything else we believe is based on SOME level of evidence, even if that evidence is just mistakenly perceived to be so. You sound like you're essentially arguing, "since we stand the chance of being wrong, we might as well embrace it and just be wrong intentionally."

I, for one, am incapable of willfully believing that I'm on Mars right now, for example. I think it's dangerous to advocate for unsupported beliefs and notions of god because they distort one's perceptions of reality. All beliefs should be dependent on some form of evidential support.

Distorting our perception of reality is often exactly what we need. Because our perceptions of reality are notoriously prone to error.

I can't see any meaning in these statements; if our perceptions are prone to being wrong, we need to make them more wrong? I'm sure this isn't what you mean, so please clarify.

Also, "God" is not an object that can be objectively tested and objectively verified. "God" is a concept based on subjective experiences, like love, and beauty, and justice, and grace. And these kinds of experiential truths depend on imagination, and faith, and choice, to exist; not so much on objective evidence.

This is strongly contrary to commonplace religious belief, who purport a god's objective existence. And love, beauty, and justice are based on real experiences and even objective evidence. Love, for example, can be identified neurologically. Even if it couldn't, these don't compare to a willingly concocted notion of a god.

Much of what is most important to us in life is subjective phenomena, like these. Pretending that they don't exist, or aren't "real" will make for a very empty and meaningless life experience.

I feel sad for all these child-atheists who think the only truth is objective truth and that the only means by which we may find the truth is through scientific inquiry. They are setting themselves up for a very weak and pointless life experience. Devoid of art and philosophy and mysticism and wonder.

So, if I don't feel important in life, I should pretend that I'm important and believe that? If I find life to be mundane, why don't I just believe that magic and dragons exist? I still see this as a potentially dangerous disregard for reality. And I believe that you're assessment is faulty. I'm a moral/ethical and existential nihilist so I don't believe that morality objective exists or that life actually has any objective meaning. However, I don't deny that the subjective values of myself and others are meaningful to us, and likely no one would. However, none of this is equivalent to advocating for just making up stuff you like and believing it.
PureX
Posts: 1,528
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/7/2016 3:56:53 PM
Posted: 2 months ago
At 10/7/2016 2:31:42 PM, Chaosism wrote:
At 10/6/2016 7:43:28 PM, PureX wrote:
I agree that we must keep our god-concepts 'realistic'. But even before that happens, I think we need to understand and accept that ALL god-concepts are "made up" by us. Reading about the god-concept of some ancient Hebrews and then pretending it's the "real one" is no less make-believe than any other god-concept from anyone or anywhere else...

I very much agree with you, so far.

...Once we understand and accept this, then we will realize that we are all free to invent our own god-concepts and to change them as we wish. And once we understand and accept this, we will realize that we can hold more than one concept at a time, and use whichever provides the most positive and effective result at any given time, relative to the circumstances.

This sharp left turn here is where we depart from each other. I do not think we should be inventing imaginary friends and believe that they're real. And if you don't believe that they actually exist, then you don't believe they're real, so you should never treat them as such. Freedom of imagination is one thing, but this willing departure from reality is potentially hazardous to oneself and others.

The human intellect is not one-dimensional. We are very capable of grasping more than one idea at a time, even when they conflict. For example, we are quite capable of understanding that we have no proof for the existence of god X even as we hope that god X exists, and while we choose to live in accordance with that hope. And the conceptual nature of god X can likewise be both multiplex and contradictory. Such that the god X we conjure up in our minds in this moment can be tailored to the specific situation we choose to apply it to.

So yes, we can characterize God as our 'invisible friend' simply because we find that doing so helps us in a given situation, all the while knowing that we are choosing to do so, and that in fact we don't even know that God exists. Just as we don't know that God does NOT exist. Or that God is NOT exactly as we are choosing to characterize 'Him' at this moment.

We humans use our imaginations to fill in what we don't know to be so, all the time. It's why we developed imagination in the first place. And we use it to great advantage because it enables us to see what does not exist and in many instances, show us how to make it exist.

That's a poor alternative and it's dangerous. To say, "I don't know the answer nor do I know how to find out, so I'm just going to make up an answer" is hideous. We can't just treat what we want as reality; that's incredibly regressive and we need to combat that.

We humans do it all the time. It's one of our greatest assets. It's what allows us to envision the possibilities within existence. Without this vision, we would never have progressed as a species. At least not to the degree that we have.

What you are advocating is based on ZERO evidence (knowingly!) whereas everything else we believe is based on SOME level of evidence, even if that evidence is just mistakenly perceived to be so. You sound like you're essentially arguing, "since we stand the chance of being wrong, we might as well embrace it and just be wrong intentionally."

There is no such thing as "zero evidence". Just as there is no such thing as "absolute proof". We humans don't possess the ability to assertion either of these states.

And in the case of the god concept, there is very little evidence either way. And certainly no proof. So people who choose to believe in God are not "wrong" by any standard we know of. They're probably not right, either, but so what? The question that matters is, is their belief in God improving their experience of existence, or impairing it?

Distorting our perception of reality is often exactly what we need. Because our perceptions of reality are notoriously prone to error.

I can't see any meaning in these statements; if our perceptions are prone to being wrong, we need to make them more wrong? I'm sure this isn't what you mean, so please clarify.

You keep assuming "wrongness" where you can't prove it. You seem to think it's the truth of God that matters, when in reality we can't know the truth of God. So that what really matters is the functionality of the idea. And of our chosen belief in the idea.

Also, "God" is not an object that can be objectively tested and objectively verified. "God" is a concept based on subjective experiences, like love, and beauty, and justice, and grace. And these kinds of experiential truths depend on imagination, and faith, and choice, to exist; not so much on objective evidence.

This is strongly contrary to commonplace religious belief, who purport a god's objective existence. And love, beauty, and justice are based on real experiences and even objective evidence. Love, for example, can be identified neurologically. Even if it couldn't, these don't compare to a willingly concocted notion of a god.

The objective existence of God has never been purported by religion except on the lowest intellectual levels and by the most authoritarian charlatans. Most theists understand quite clearly that God is not an object that can ever be validated or invalidated via objective evidence. They understand perfectly well that God is a conceptual paradigm through which the theist understands his experience of being.

Much of what is most important to us in life is subjective phenomena, like these. Pretending that they don't exist, or aren't "real" will make for a very empty and meaningless life experience.

I feel sad for all these child-atheists who think the only truth is objective truth and that the only means by which we may find the truth is through scientific inquiry. They are setting themselves up for a very weak and pointless life experience. Devoid of art and philosophy and mysticism and wonder.

So, if I don't feel important in life, I should pretend that I'm important and believe that? If I find life to be mundane, why don't I just believe that magic and dragons exist? I still see this as a potentially dangerous disregard for reality.

That's because you keep insisting that what theists choose to believe is "wrong". Or untrue. Like "magic, and dragons". When in reality what most theists are choosing to believe in cannot be proven wrong, or untrue. I understand that SOME OF THEM choose to believe in absurdities like magic and demons. But they are least educated and most superstitious among billions of theists around the world. Why do you insist of using them as your model for all theists, if not because of your own bias?

And I believe that you're assessment is faulty. I'm a moral/ethical and existential nihilist so I don't believe that morality objective exists or that life actually has any objective meaning. However, I don't deny that the subjective values of myself and others are meaningful to us, and likely no one would. However, none of this is equivalent to advocating for just making up stuff you like and believing it.

You are just making stuff up all the time. Because you are human. We humans have no choice but to make stuff up because we are not equipped to ascertain anything in it's fulness, or with certainty. We live in a world of ever-changing possibilities and probabilities, and very little certainty, if any at all.

I think you need to accept just how profoundly ignorant we humans are before you'll be able to understand and recognize the real value our our imaginations. The very first step in the scientific process is to identify and face our ignorance, and then imagine what might be the going on in it's stead.
Chaosism
Posts: 2,673
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/7/2016 4:51:11 PM
Posted: 2 months ago
At 10/7/2016 3:56:53 PM, PureX wrote:
At 10/7/2016 2:31:42 PM, Chaosism wrote:
The human intellect is not one-dimensional. We are very capable of grasping more than one idea at a time, even when they conflict. For example, we are quite capable of understanding that we have no proof for the existence of god X even as we hope that god X exists, and while we choose to live in accordance with that hope. And the conceptual nature of god X can likewise be both multiplex and contradictory. Such that the god X we conjure up in our minds in this moment can be tailored to the specific situation we choose to apply it to.

So yes, we can characterize God as our 'invisible friend' simply because we find that doing so helps us in a given situation, all the while knowing that we are choosing to do so, and that in fact we don't even know that God exists. Just as we don't know that God does NOT exist. Or that God is NOT exactly as we are choosing to characterize 'Him' at this moment.

Recognizing that there's no proof of God but hoping for God are not contradictory at all. There are atheists (like Sagan, I believe) who'd actually like there to be a creator god. I also disagree with treating such a "God" as a real solution, as that detracts from seeking actual solutions. Consider this an example: http://www.telegraph.co.uk... - If the pilot didn't believe prayer was a valid action, then he wouldn't have done it. Misguided beliefs can be directly harmful!

We humans use our imaginations to fill in what we don't know to be so, all the time. It's why we developed imagination in the first place. And we use it to great advantage because it enables us to see what does not exist and in many instances, show us how to make it exist.

Right, but imagined solutions shouldn't be believed simply because. They need to be demonstrated to be solutions. This is patently dangerous; imagine this line of thinking from a pharmaceutical company and a new drug!

That's a poor alternative and it's dangerous. To say, "I don't know the answer nor do I know how to find out, so I'm just going to make up an answer" is hideous. We can't just treat what we want as reality; that's incredibly regressive and we need to combat that.

We humans do it all the time. It's one of our greatest assets. It's what allows us to envision the possibilities within existence. Without this vision, we would never have progressed as a species. At least not to the degree that we have.

Right, but we've advanced beyond just simply taking our imagined solutions as true. That's why I called this regressive.

There is no such thing as "zero evidence". Just as there is no such thing as "absolute proof". We humans don't possess the ability to assertion either of these states.

I disagree. My mind can form a composite concept of a 17-arm, purple-furred, giant cyclops that consists on magic mushrooms to survive based on abstractions from evidenced concepts (e.g. arms, fur, purple), but there is still ZERO evidence that such a thing exists. And just in case this is the matter: possibility =/= evidence.

And in the case of the god concept, there is very little evidence either way. And certainly no proof. So people who choose to believe in God are not "wrong" by any standard we know of. They're probably not right, either, but so what? The question that matters is, is their belief in God improving their experience of existence, or impairing it?

I realize that, and I realize that there are benefits to some beliefs despite their actual truth. However, one must also consider how harmful such beliefs can be, especially if permitted or even encouraged to exist unchecked and unchallenged. That's why we have the religious bigotry, hatred, and terror in the world, today. While such beliefs might benefit the holder, it can quite possibly harm everyone else in a very real way.

I can't see any meaning in these statements; if our perceptions are prone to being wrong, we need to make them more wrong? I'm sure this isn't what you mean, so please clarify.

You keep assuming "wrongness" where you can't prove it. You seem to think it's the truth of God that matters, when in reality we can't know the truth of God. So that what really matters is the functionality of the idea. And of our chosen belief in the idea.

Where did I assume wrongness? In the post in which the above was in reply to, I specifically referred to "unsupported beliefs", not "wrong beliefs". Above, you specifically referred to "error", which directly implies wrongness, so I still don't know what you intended. I am concern with the functionality of an idea, but I'm considering the very real, harmful consequences of what you're advocating.

This is strongly contrary to commonplace religious belief, who purport a god's objective existence. And love, beauty, and justice are based on real experiences and even objective evidence. Love, for example, can be identified neurologically. Even if it couldn't, these don't compare to a willingly concocted notion of a god.

The objective existence of God has never been purported by religion except on the lowest intellectual levels and by the most authoritarian charlatans. Most theists understand quite clearly that God is not an object that can ever be validated or invalidated via objective evidence. They understand perfectly well that God is a conceptual paradigm through which the theist understands his experience of being.

I've never even encountered (or even heard of) anyone who espouses this viewpoint before I saw you. Every single theist I know and have witnessed believes that the existence of God is actual, while usually acknowledging that they can't fully know or understand it. I'd be interested in seeing evidence for your assertion.

That's because you keep insisting that what theists choose to believe is "wrong". Or untrue. Like "magic, and dragons". When in reality what most theists are choosing to believe in cannot be proven wrong, or untrue. I understand that SOME OF THEM choose to believe in absurdities like magic and demons. But they are least educated and most superstitious among billions of theists around the world. Why do you insist of using them as your model for all theists, if not because of your own bias?

You neglect the most important aspect. My qualms are with those who insist that they are "right", and expect others to conform. I have no qualms with those who hold their beliefs to themselves and affect no one else.

You are just making stuff up all the time. Because you are human. We humans have no choice but to make stuff up because we are not equipped to ascertain anything in it's fulness, or with certainty. We live in a world of ever-changing possibilities and probabilities, and very little certainty, if any at all.

The fact that humans tend to rationalize is not the same as willingly and knowingly formulating proposition and believing that they're true. I find your views on this matter to be very distorted.

I think you need to accept just how profoundly ignorant we humans are before you'll be able to understand and recognize the real value our our imaginations. The very first step in the scientific process is to identify and face our ignorance, and then imagine what might be the going on in it's stead.

Believe me, I am quite familiar with that. It's actually the foundation for my position of strong atheism. And it's tragic that you'd stop with that last line, because the next step is NOT to just believe that which was imagined. Evidence is the crux of science.
graceofgod
Posts: 5,101
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/7/2016 5:30:04 PM
Posted: 2 months ago
At 10/6/2016 2:48:54 PM, DanneJeRusse wrote:
Choice:

the act of choosing : the act of picking or deciding between two or more possibilities

the opportunity or power to choose between two or more possibilities : the opportunity or power to make a decision

a range of things that can be chosen

Threat:

a statement saying you will be harmed if you do not do what someone wants you to do

someone or something that could cause trouble, harm, etc.

the possibility that something bad or harmful could happen

Based on the definitions above, do the Abrahamic religions offer a choice or do they make a threat of worshiping God and going to hell?

haha are you still frightened of the bogey man you claim does not exist...
DanneJeRusse
Posts: 12,641
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/7/2016 6:01:15 PM
Posted: 2 months ago
At 10/7/2016 5:30:04 PM, graceofgod wrote:
At 10/6/2016 2:48:54 PM, DanneJeRusse wrote:
Choice:

the act of choosing : the act of picking or deciding between two or more possibilities

the opportunity or power to choose between two or more possibilities : the opportunity or power to make a decision

a range of things that can be chosen

Threat:

a statement saying you will be harmed if you do not do what someone wants you to do

someone or something that could cause trouble, harm, etc.

the possibility that something bad or harmful could happen

Based on the definitions above, do the Abrahamic religions offer a choice or do they make a threat of worshiping God and going to hell?

haha are you still frightened of the bogey man you claim does not exist...

If you can't answer the question, then you're just trolling, again. Don't you have any gays to bash today?
Marrying a 6 year old and waiting until she reaches puberty and maturity before having consensual sex is better than walking up to
a stranger in a bar and proceeding to have relations with no valid proof of the intent of the person. Muhammad wins. ~ Fatihah
If they don't want to be killed then they have to subdue to the Islamic laws. - Uncung
Without God, you are lower than sh!t. ~ SpiritandTruth
PrizeBeatz1
Posts: 48
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/7/2016 6:07:25 PM
Posted: 2 months ago
At 10/6/2016 2:59:19 PM, Chaosism wrote:
At 10/6/2016 2:48:54 PM, DanneJeRusse wrote:
Choice:

the act of choosing : the act of picking or deciding between two or more possibilities

the opportunity or power to choose between two or more possibilities : the opportunity or power to make a decision

a range of things that can be chosen

Threat:

a statement saying you will be harmed if you do not do what someone wants you to do

someone or something that could cause trouble, harm, etc.

the possibility that something bad or harmful could happen

Based on the definitions above, do the Abrahamic religions offer a choice or do they make a threat of worshiping God and going to hell?

It's not a threat, it's a warning. A warning issued by a God that truly loves you. :) </da>

This idea of a warning sounds like the personality to me. It aims to place our attention and awareness in the future where it becomes suspended in time. God is right here and right now in this exact instant and nowhere else. This timelessness is what is alluded to by the Alpha Omega. It is the enemy that aims to obscure this timelessness and project our awareness either in the past or the future to an event that doesn't exist except in the mind. This is a huge barrier to experiencing the truth of God and it needs to stop.
dsjpk5
Posts: 3,010
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/7/2016 8:36:41 PM
Posted: 2 months ago
At 10/6/2016 2:48:54 PM, DanneJeRusse wrote:
Choice:

the act of choosing : the act of picking or deciding between two or more possibilities

the opportunity or power to choose between two or more possibilities : the opportunity or power to make a decision

a range of things that can be chosen

Threat:

a statement saying you will be harmed if you do not do what someone wants you to do

someone or something that could cause trouble, harm, etc.

the possibility that something bad or harmful could happen

Based on the definitions above, do the Abrahamic religions offer a choice or do they make a threat of worshiping God and going to hell?

Since we have free will, I would say choice.
If that was the only issue, then vote moderation could be avoided more often, since a vote in which the voter does explain sufficiently how at least one point a debater made swung their vote, would be considered sufficient. -Airmax
DanneJeRusse
Posts: 12,641
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/7/2016 8:44:38 PM
Posted: 2 months ago
At 10/7/2016 8:36:41 PM, dsjpk5 wrote:
At 10/6/2016 2:48:54 PM, DanneJeRusse wrote:
Choice:

the act of choosing : the act of picking or deciding between two or more possibilities

the opportunity or power to choose between two or more possibilities : the opportunity or power to make a decision

a range of things that can be chosen

Threat:

a statement saying you will be harmed if you do not do what someone wants you to do

someone or something that could cause trouble, harm, etc.

the possibility that something bad or harmful could happen

Based on the definitions above, do the Abrahamic religions offer a choice or do they make a threat of worshiping God and going to hell?


Since we have free will, I would say choice.

Sorry, but having free will and being threatened with Hell are two different things.
Marrying a 6 year old and waiting until she reaches puberty and maturity before having consensual sex is better than walking up to
a stranger in a bar and proceeding to have relations with no valid proof of the intent of the person. Muhammad wins. ~ Fatihah
If they don't want to be killed then they have to subdue to the Islamic laws. - Uncung
Without God, you are lower than sh!t. ~ SpiritandTruth
graceofgod
Posts: 5,101
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/7/2016 8:53:51 PM
Posted: 2 months ago
At 10/7/2016 6:01:15 PM, DanneJeRusse wrote:
At 10/7/2016 5:30:04 PM, graceofgod wrote:
At 10/6/2016 2:48:54 PM, DanneJeRusse wrote:
Choice:

the act of choosing : the act of picking or deciding between two or more possibilities

the opportunity or power to choose between two or more possibilities : the opportunity or power to make a decision

a range of things that can be chosen

Threat:

a statement saying you will be harmed if you do not do what someone wants you to do

someone or something that could cause trouble, harm, etc.

the possibility that something bad or harmful could happen

Based on the definitions above, do the Abrahamic religions offer a choice or do they make a threat of worshiping God and going to hell?

haha are you still frightened of the bogey man you claim does not exist...

If you can't answer the question, then you're just trolling, again. Don't you have any gays to bash today?

i did answer the question..lol

how doe the God of the bible threaten you?? i mean you in particular...??
DanneJeRusse
Posts: 12,641
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/7/2016 9:01:02 PM
Posted: 2 months ago
At 10/7/2016 8:53:51 PM, graceofgod wrote:
At 10/7/2016 6:01:15 PM, DanneJeRusse wrote:
At 10/7/2016 5:30:04 PM, graceofgod wrote:
At 10/6/2016 2:48:54 PM, DanneJeRusse wrote:
Choice:

the act of choosing : the act of picking or deciding between two or more possibilities

the opportunity or power to choose between two or more possibilities : the opportunity or power to make a decision

a range of things that can be chosen

Threat:

a statement saying you will be harmed if you do not do what someone wants you to do

someone or something that could cause trouble, harm, etc.

the possibility that something bad or harmful could happen

Based on the definitions above, do the Abrahamic religions offer a choice or do they make a threat of worshiping God and going to hell?

haha are you still frightened of the bogey man you claim does not exist...

If you can't answer the question, then you're just trolling, again. Don't you have any gays to bash today?

i did answer the question..lol

Like a troll would.

how doe the God of the bible threaten you?? i mean you in particular...??

So, you're saying you don't know your own religions threats on people?
Marrying a 6 year old and waiting until she reaches puberty and maturity before having consensual sex is better than walking up to
a stranger in a bar and proceeding to have relations with no valid proof of the intent of the person. Muhammad wins. ~ Fatihah
If they don't want to be killed then they have to subdue to the Islamic laws. - Uncung
Without God, you are lower than sh!t. ~ SpiritandTruth
Hiu
Posts: 1,015
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/7/2016 9:01:45 PM
Posted: 2 months ago
At 10/6/2016 3:20:49 PM, FaustianJustice wrote:
At 10/6/2016 3:13:41 PM, DanneJeRusse wrote:
At 10/6/2016 2:59:19 PM, Chaosism wrote:
At 10/6/2016 2:48:54 PM, DanneJeRusse wrote:
Choice:

the act of choosing : the act of picking or deciding between two or more possibilities

the opportunity or power to choose between two or more possibilities : the opportunity or power to make a decision

a range of things that can be chosen

Threat:

a statement saying you will be harmed if you do not do what someone wants you to do

someone or something that could cause trouble, harm, etc.

the possibility that something bad or harmful could happen

Based on the definitions above, do the Abrahamic religions offer a choice or do they make a threat of worshiping God and going to hell?

It's not a threat, it's a warning. A warning issued by a God that truly loves you. :) </da>

Thanks, I'll offer up that definition, as well.

Warning:

something (such as an action or a statement) that tells someone about possible danger or trouble

a statement that tells a person that bad or wrong behavior will be punished if it happens again


The escape hatch is that religion is offering a warning, much akin to some one whom is about to blindly drive off a cliff.

Signs were posted, people stopped along the way to inform you the bridge was out, etc, but the atheist "chose" to drive over the edge.

Sure, this ignores the objectivity of the cliff or its peril, but intellectual honest wasn't really going to be present to begin with.

Using this analogy with so many schisms within the Abrahamic faiths, I would envision various people redirecting me to a different route only to be on the same path I was before. What is truth when there are so many variations of it?
graceofgod
Posts: 5,101
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/7/2016 9:27:42 PM
Posted: 2 months ago
At 10/7/2016 9:01:02 PM, DanneJeRusse wrote:
At 10/7/2016 8:53:51 PM, graceofgod wrote:
At 10/7/2016 6:01:15 PM, DanneJeRusse wrote:
At 10/7/2016 5:30:04 PM, graceofgod wrote:
At 10/6/2016 2:48:54 PM, DanneJeRusse wrote:
Choice:

the act of choosing : the act of picking or deciding between two or more possibilities

the opportunity or power to choose between two or more possibilities : the opportunity or power to make a decision

a range of things that can be chosen

Threat:

a statement saying you will be harmed if you do not do what someone wants you to do

someone or something that could cause trouble, harm, etc.

the possibility that something bad or harmful could happen

Based on the definitions above, do the Abrahamic religions offer a choice or do they make a threat of worshiping God and going to hell?

haha are you still frightened of the bogey man you claim does not exist...

If you can't answer the question, then you're just trolling, again. Don't you have any gays to bash today?

i did answer the question..lol

Like a troll would.

how doe the God of the bible threaten you?? i mean you in particular...??

So, you're saying you don't know your own religions threats on people?

lol no, I asked you how does the God of the bible threaten you??
dsjpk5
Posts: 3,010
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/7/2016 10:25:37 PM
Posted: 2 months ago
At 10/7/2016 8:44:38 PM, DanneJeRusse wrote:
At 10/7/2016 8:36:41 PM, dsjpk5 wrote:
At 10/6/2016 2:48:54 PM, DanneJeRusse wrote:
Choice:

the act of choosing : the act of picking or deciding between two or more possibilities

the opportunity or power to choose between two or more possibilities : the opportunity or power to make a decision

a range of things that can be chosen

Threat:

a statement saying you will be harmed if you do not do what someone wants you to do

someone or something that could cause trouble, harm, etc.

the possibility that something bad or harmful could happen

Based on the definitions above, do the Abrahamic religions offer a choice or do they make a threat of worshiping God and going to hell?


Since we have free will, I would say choice.

Sorry, but having free will and being threatened with Hell are two different things.

But we have a choice of where we spend eternity. How about we say both?
If that was the only issue, then vote moderation could be avoided more often, since a vote in which the voter does explain sufficiently how at least one point a debater made swung their vote, would be considered sufficient. -Airmax
FaustianJustice
Posts: 6,238
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/8/2016 7:30:28 AM
Posted: 2 months ago
At 10/7/2016 8:53:51 PM, graceofgod wrote:
At 10/7/2016 6:01:15 PM, DanneJeRusse wrote:
At 10/7/2016 5:30:04 PM, graceofgod wrote:
At 10/6/2016 2:48:54 PM, DanneJeRusse wrote:
Choice:

the act of choosing : the act of picking or deciding between two or more possibilities

the opportunity or power to choose between two or more possibilities : the opportunity or power to make a decision

a range of things that can be chosen

Threat:

a statement saying you will be harmed if you do not do what someone wants you to do

someone or something that could cause trouble, harm, etc.

the possibility that something bad or harmful could happen

Based on the definitions above, do the Abrahamic religions offer a choice or do they make a threat of worshiping God and going to hell?

haha are you still frightened of the bogey man you claim does not exist...

If you can't answer the question, then you're just trolling, again. Don't you have any gays to bash today?

i did answer the question..lol

No, you didn't, "lol". Its assumed for the sake of argument God exists, asking why some one would be frightened of the existent thing for sake of argument in no way answers the question as to whether or not the 'choice' presented by the existent thing is a threat or not.
Here we have an advocate for Islamic arranged marriages demonstrating that children can consent to sex.
http://www.debate.org...