RE: Reverse Pascals Wager
August 24, 2010 at 9:42 am
(This post was last modified: August 24, 2010 at 9:44 am by DeistPaladin.)
[This post is addressed to Godschild]
I'm beating a dead horse here but I can't resist trying to reason.
OK, so you do believe in an absolute standard of morality. Absolute means absolute, that it applies to everyone. You then say that it can't be used to evaluate the morality of your god. So which is it? You can't proclaim an absolute standard of morality and then say it doesn't apply to certain beings or even one being. That's two standards of morality that Yahweh establishes "one for me and different for thee".
Special pleading is where you demand a different set of standards for your favorite beliefs. Really, the whole concept of "faith" is inherently based on special pleading. My volcano god example is a made-up hypothetical religion (you got me there, I don't really believe that) to illustrate that point. You called the act of sacrifice "barbaric" (I agree) even though the sacrifice was willing. Essentially, all I need to do is repackage your own beliefs by changing "Jesus" to one of any other god and suddenly what was sacred becomes abhorrent.
You draw the distinction based purely on your faith, that Jesus' sacrifice was different because his blood sacrifice really was demanded as the means of salvation for all of us (a sentiment my hypothetical volcano worshipers would say about their own beliefs). I hope at the very least you can understand the perspective of one who doesn't share your faith, that the blood sacrifice depicted in the Gospels, on graphic display in Mel Gibson's flick, was cruel and barbaric (assuming it actually happened).
At the very least, I hope you or others reading this are able to ask the question "why is blood sacrifice necessary?"
In a wide variety of ancient religions all over the world, there was this apparent concept that the gods like blood being spilled on their altars. The Old Testament is full not just of examples but elaborate descriptions of prescribed rituals. Yahweh delighted in blood on the altar no less than Zeus. Somehow this covers for mortal sins. No one ever seemed to ask "why?" and even today no Christians do. Isn't it time?
Try to imagine the gruesome images of Jesus on the cross. Why is this helping anything? How does this cover for things I've done wrong? What kind of god delights in this?
Compare to the secular approach to dealing with what I might call "sin", by which I mean acts of dishonesty or violating the rights of others. You stop rationalizing it, you realize it was wrong, you apologize to those you've wronged and seek to make amends. Blood sacrifices do no more good than prayers. It's called taking personal responsibility rather than thinking that your ancient beliefs absolve you.
And as for the morality of the salvation scheme, you can dance around all you like but at the end of the day, you think that the most important question that determines our fate in the hands of your god is what our beliefs about Jesus were. However you may dress it up with fancy theological rhetoric, it boils down to eternal torture for thought crimes. This is something we would never accept from any world leader or any god you don't believe in. Special pleading once again.
But what I frankly find barking mad, even over everything else I've mentioned, is the openly contradictory and curiously compulsive nature of your god. God, you believe, can't forgive without this elaborate sacrifice ritual on the cross, and even then only when you believe certain things about that sacrifice. God "wants" to save us all but "can't" unless we believe in that sacrifice. I can forgive without killing a son. Why "can't" God? Why is the all-powerful compelled to go through the elaborate and gruesome ritual of the cross? I use the term "God" instead of "Yahweh" in this paragraph to underscore just how ridiculous it all is.
Do you seriously think God has some obsessive-compulsive disorder or does some stronger force compel such rituals for the simple act of forgiving?
You begin to understand, I hope, why deism finds Islamo-Christianity to be insulting to God. As Richard Dawkins said, religions wants "a little god, a petty god". Islamo-Christians want a god we can order about with prayers and who is so insecure that we can make him angry. They want a god who created billions of galaxies and yet needs our love and validation. He's an all-powerful yet deeply insecure being who's psychotic behavior is a cry for help. A god who needs a hug (and perhaps a bit of tough love)?
I'm beating a dead horse here but I can't resist trying to reason.
OK, so you do believe in an absolute standard of morality. Absolute means absolute, that it applies to everyone. You then say that it can't be used to evaluate the morality of your god. So which is it? You can't proclaim an absolute standard of morality and then say it doesn't apply to certain beings or even one being. That's two standards of morality that Yahweh establishes "one for me and different for thee".
Special pleading is where you demand a different set of standards for your favorite beliefs. Really, the whole concept of "faith" is inherently based on special pleading. My volcano god example is a made-up hypothetical religion (you got me there, I don't really believe that) to illustrate that point. You called the act of sacrifice "barbaric" (I agree) even though the sacrifice was willing. Essentially, all I need to do is repackage your own beliefs by changing "Jesus" to one of any other god and suddenly what was sacred becomes abhorrent.
You draw the distinction based purely on your faith, that Jesus' sacrifice was different because his blood sacrifice really was demanded as the means of salvation for all of us (a sentiment my hypothetical volcano worshipers would say about their own beliefs). I hope at the very least you can understand the perspective of one who doesn't share your faith, that the blood sacrifice depicted in the Gospels, on graphic display in Mel Gibson's flick, was cruel and barbaric (assuming it actually happened).
At the very least, I hope you or others reading this are able to ask the question "why is blood sacrifice necessary?"
In a wide variety of ancient religions all over the world, there was this apparent concept that the gods like blood being spilled on their altars. The Old Testament is full not just of examples but elaborate descriptions of prescribed rituals. Yahweh delighted in blood on the altar no less than Zeus. Somehow this covers for mortal sins. No one ever seemed to ask "why?" and even today no Christians do. Isn't it time?
Try to imagine the gruesome images of Jesus on the cross. Why is this helping anything? How does this cover for things I've done wrong? What kind of god delights in this?
Compare to the secular approach to dealing with what I might call "sin", by which I mean acts of dishonesty or violating the rights of others. You stop rationalizing it, you realize it was wrong, you apologize to those you've wronged and seek to make amends. Blood sacrifices do no more good than prayers. It's called taking personal responsibility rather than thinking that your ancient beliefs absolve you.
And as for the morality of the salvation scheme, you can dance around all you like but at the end of the day, you think that the most important question that determines our fate in the hands of your god is what our beliefs about Jesus were. However you may dress it up with fancy theological rhetoric, it boils down to eternal torture for thought crimes. This is something we would never accept from any world leader or any god you don't believe in. Special pleading once again.
But what I frankly find barking mad, even over everything else I've mentioned, is the openly contradictory and curiously compulsive nature of your god. God, you believe, can't forgive without this elaborate sacrifice ritual on the cross, and even then only when you believe certain things about that sacrifice. God "wants" to save us all but "can't" unless we believe in that sacrifice. I can forgive without killing a son. Why "can't" God? Why is the all-powerful compelled to go through the elaborate and gruesome ritual of the cross? I use the term "God" instead of "Yahweh" in this paragraph to underscore just how ridiculous it all is.
Do you seriously think God has some obsessive-compulsive disorder or does some stronger force compel such rituals for the simple act of forgiving?
You begin to understand, I hope, why deism finds Islamo-Christianity to be insulting to God. As Richard Dawkins said, religions wants "a little god, a petty god". Islamo-Christians want a god we can order about with prayers and who is so insecure that we can make him angry. They want a god who created billions of galaxies and yet needs our love and validation. He's an all-powerful yet deeply insecure being who's psychotic behavior is a cry for help. A god who needs a hug (and perhaps a bit of tough love)?
Atheist Forums Hall of Shame:
"The trinity can be equated to having your cake and eating it too."
... -Lucent, trying to defend the Trinity concept
"(Yahweh's) actions are good because (Yahweh) is the ultimate standard of goodness. That’s not begging the question"
... -Statler Waldorf, Christian apologist
"The trinity can be equated to having your cake and eating it too."
... -Lucent, trying to defend the Trinity concept
"(Yahweh's) actions are good because (Yahweh) is the ultimate standard of goodness. That’s not begging the question"
... -Statler Waldorf, Christian apologist
