Is religion guilty of moving the goalposts?

[MMasz]

"Hey, Omar...you're just another Hindu/Jew/Christian/Wiccan/polytheist."

When everyone would understand that every other religion is just as valid as the one they follow, the world would be a lot more peaceful. To paraphrase 'All religions lead to God'.

How can you say that when it appears that you understand different religions have different and often contradictory conceptions of who God is?

[Immanuel Can]

How can you say that when it appears that you understand different religions have different and often contradictory conceptions of who God is?

Another good question, MMasz. I'm with you.

The various 'gods' speak differently, reveal themselves as characteristically different from one another, claim different forms of revelation, are associated with different prophets, have different wills and values, issue different edicts or ethics, describe different purposes, and promise different destinies. Some describe as evil what others describe as good. Some are said to hate what others love. It takes an extraordinary sort of mental gymnastics (or rather, deliberate lack of focus) to manage to perceive them as "all the same."

For a thinking person, the normal interpretation of such variance would be, "Someone really doesn't know what he/she is talking about." But when the referent is "god," a lot of people simply mentally collapse and resort to visceral, uncritical relativism. For instance, a lot of modern secular liberals manage to conflate all the 'gods' into one amorphous, characterless lump, the "universal god": big, benign, featureless and flaccid -- requiring nothing, a threat to no one, promising nothing, and equally a help to no one.

Suffice to say, this bizarre construct bears very little resemblance to anything a real religion regards as a god. It's actually pretty insulting to all the traditions, regardless of their particular 'god' view. I am constantly amazed by how this passes for "tolerance" or "openness."

[aiddon]

They have Tesco where you're from?

Not where I'm from *now*, but in that fabulous place from which both my ancestors and you hail.

There's a reason why your ancestors emigrated from this "fabulous" place...never stops bloody raining, for starters.

All religions say, "No." They all suppose that there could be a plan or purpose of good intent, designed by a Creator or creators, despite the apparent inequalities we see today. (Well, Gnosticism is an interesting contrast: it says the "creator" was bad, but his ultimate creator was "good") In any case, Atheism says "There is inequality; therefore, there's no God."

Is that a sufficient argument? Or are the religions whistling in the dark? What do you think?

Is inequality a sufficient argument? I think so - but the problem of evil is perhaps the trump card for most thinking atheists.

You used an interesting phrase - a creator with noble intent. Perhaps you didn't mean it the way I understood it - a kind of "suck it and see" on god's part to see how humanity will pan out. This leads me to draw a major conclusion: that god was banking on us with our free will to do the right thing from day one, and is very disappointed that we couldn't - therefore undermining his apparent omnipotence. Surely god has more than intentions up his divine metaphorical sleeves, no? Enmeshed within Christianity is the notion that as a personal god, he has a plan for you and me, for all of us. Has a plan been watered down to an intention, with the rest supposed to come from our free will? if not, is his plan for some people to be bad and some to be good, some to be born into the "wrong tradition" so that they have to figure out a way of extricating themselves from that tradition towards the righteous path? If this is what you are arguing, then surely god made a complete dog's dinner of it, because 1. his bestowal of free will on humanity was severely misguided as it created the likes of me (atheist), Hitler (evil), paedophile priests (very bad PR) and 2. out of the 7 billion people he has placed on this earth, why are the majority of them not Christian, and why has he designed it such that the most populous nations on earth are actually Hindu or Islamic?

In terms of omnipotence, this is fairly underwhelming.

[MMasz]

[quote="aiddon”]
Is inequality a sufficient argument? I think so - but the problem of evil is perhaps the trump card for most thinking atheists.

You used an interesting phrase - a creator with noble intent. Perhaps you didn't mean it the way I understood it - a kind of "suck it and see" on god's part to see how humanity will pan out. This leads me to draw a major conclusion: that god was banking on us with our free will to do the right thing from day one, and is very disappointed that we couldn't - therefore undermining his apparent omnipotence. Surely god has more than intentions up his divine metaphorical sleeves, no? Enmeshed within Christianity is the notion that as a personal god, he has a plan for you and me, for all of us. Has a plan been watered down to an intention, with the rest supposed to come from our free will? if not, is his plan for some people to be bad and some to be good, some to be born into the "wrong tradition" so that they have to figure out a way of extricating themselves from that tradition towards the righteous path? If this is what you are arguing, then surely god made a complete dog's dinner of it, because 1. his bestowal of free will on humanity was severely misguided as it created the likes of me (atheist), Hitler (evil), paedophile priests (very bad PR) and 2. out of the 7 billion people he has placed on this earth, why are the majority of them not Christian, and why has he designed it such that the most populous nations on earth are actually Hindu or Islamic?

In terms of omnipotence, this is fairly underwhelming.[/quote]

The alleged “problem of evil” a trump card? Maybe for the atheist, since they cannot define evil in anything other than a subjective or otherwise relativistic manner.

The remainder of your post is the trite atheistic construct of what they think God, Christianity, etc., should be like (read straw-man) then criticize their view and think they’ve won the argument.

[aiddon]

The remainder of your post is the trite atheistic construct of what they think God, Christianity, etc., should be like (read straw-man) then criticize their view and think they’ve won the argument.

I don't claim to have won the argument...I just expect you address the questions I have raised. You partly addressed the evil question...how about the rest?

[Harry Baird]

#1 The books aren't old, they are current and ongoing.

I was referring to the bible and koran, but regardless of the age, books are full of testimony rather than evidence, pictures notwithstanding.

Oh, well, there are *far* more modern books detailing NDEs and other spiritual experiences than the Bible and the Koran.

#2 The evidence is more than "taking the word of a random stranger on the internet"; it includes such "troublesome" details as:
#2.1 Doctors affirming that patients' healings are miraculous i.e. beyond the bounds of what medical science can explain.

Doctors are not qualified qua doctors to affirm miracles; all they can say without fear of contradiction is that the patient recovered and they don't know the exact mechanism. For most Doctors this would be true most of the time. Every doctor is aware that the same drug won't cure everybody, nor will the same poison kill everybody. Not many competent doctors put the differences down to divine intervention.

I don't think you're being fair. Competent doctors know the limits of medical science, and are qualified to assess whether or not a particular "cure" is within those limits. A competent doctor might say, "This drug might or might not cure you", but a competent doctor will also be able to say, "*No* drug will cure you, you are too far gone, and if *anything* cures you, it is a miracle". This scenario has occurred in the case of several (many?) NDEs.

the difference is that there are no objective phenomenon associated with spiritual or paranormal claims, that are not someone's interpretation of their personal experience.

I'm not sure how you could say that when I offered two examples of objective phenomena in my previous post, which you even quoted and said you believed (to be clear, I'm referring to my numbered points 2.2, 2.2.1 and 2.2.2).

It is a fact, for instance that some rocks contain fossils. It is also a fact that some people claim to have bizarre experiences.

It is *also* a fact that some people's doctors affirm that their healings (whilst they were experiencing an NDE, or just afterwards) were miraculous, and that those people can report details that confirm that they could hear and see things distant from their physical bodies.

Looking at fossils and listening to stories are fundamentally different.

Not when the stories come with objective evidence of the type I've listed above.

[Immanuel Can]

You used an interesting phrase - a creator with noble intent. Perhaps you didn't mean it the way I understood it - a kind of "suck it and see" on god's part to see how humanity will pan out.

You're quite right: that's not what I meant. I was just giving all the various traditions credit for some idea that 'god' as they conceive him to be, should be regarded as a positive force of some kind...I wasn't speaking of my own view, but of theirs.

This leads me to draw a major conclusion: that god was banking on us with our free will to do the right thing from day one, and is very disappointed that we couldn't - therefore undermining his apparent omnipotence.

Yes, if what you were saying were true, that would be a logical conclusion. However, I am unaware of any tradition whose 'god' banks. Maybe the god of the roulette wheel?

Surely god has more than intentions up his divine metaphorical sleeves, no?

Of course.

Enmeshed within Christianity is the notion that as a personal god, he has a plan for you and me, for all of us. Has a plan been watered down to an intention, with the rest supposed to come from our free will?

I think you've confused "plan" for Determinism. An Utracalvinist might agree with you. I would not.

if not, is his plan for some people to be bad and some to be good, some to be born into the "wrong tradition" so that they have to figure out a way of extricating themselves from that tradition towards the righteous path?

I wouldn't think so. The Biblical view, at least, is that *all* mankind is far from God; that's the problem. Romans 1 states, though, that every person in every tradition has enough light to realize that fact and to recognize that they need to seek God. So everybody has the same needs, and soteriologically and morally speaking, the same starting point as well. But it could also be true that there are cultures in which this fact is better understood than in others. Yet apparently God is not dependent on culture to achieve the purpose of enlightening people as to their real situation, and he Has enlightened people in all kinds of places.

Very democratic, that.

If this is what you are arguing, then surely god made a complete dog's dinner of it,

Good thing, then, that it wasn't what I was arguing.

P.S. -- Don't knock the wet weather in the Isles, old man...not until you've seen the weather I've seen.

[MMasz]

The remainder of your post is the trite atheistic construct of what they think God, Christianity, etc., should be like (read straw-man) then criticize their view and think they’ve won the argument.

I don't claim to have won the argument...I just expect you address the questions I have raised. You partly addressed the evil question...how about the rest?

OK. What you wrote with my comments in blue.

You used an interesting phrase - a creator with noble intent. Perhaps you didn't mean it the way I understood it - a kind of "suck it and see" on god's part to see how humanity will pan out. This leads me to draw a major conclusion: that god was banking on us with our free will to do the right thing from day one, and is very disappointed that we couldn't - therefore undermining his apparent omnipotence.

This is conjecture on your part. You have to show me in the Bible where "god was banking on us with our free will to do the right thing from day one, and is very disappointed that we couldn’t”?

Surely god has more than intentions up his divine metaphorical sleeves, no? Enmeshed within Christianity is the notion that as a personal god, he has a plan for you and me, for all of us. Has a plan been watered down to an intention, with the rest supposed to come from our free will?

Here, your use of free will is unclear. While we have freedom to make choices, but our choices will be usually be dictated by our will.

if not, is his plan for some people to be bad and some to be good, some to be born into the "wrong tradition" so that they have to figure out a way of extricating themselves from that tradition towards the righteous path?

Well, here you also make statements that are not Biblically correct. We’re all born sinners. Simply being “good” is not a method of pleasing God according to the Bible. Yes, many are born into the “wrong tradition”, but what concern is that of yours? Worry about yourself. Let God deal with the rest of society. Here again, you are trying to ascribe attributes you might like, but may not be applicable toward God. Don’t attempt the Epicurean problem of evil as support. This syllogism has been dealt with long ago.

If this is what you are arguing, then surely god made a complete dog's dinner of it, because 1. his bestowal of free will on humanity was severely misguided as it created the likes of me (atheist), Hitler (evil), paedophile priests (very bad PR) and 2. out of the 7 billion people he has placed on this earth, why are the majority of them not Christian, and why has he designed it such that the most populous nations on earth are actually Hindu or Islamic?

This passage actually supports the Biblical teaching about the fallen nature of man even those who are saved. There’s plenty of Biblical passages to support this. Man chooses to sin. These same types of issues are replete in Scripture- worship of idols, murder, evil kings. All part of His plan, e.e.g, the story of Joseph in Genesis.

So how does this supposedly make his omnipotence underwhelming? Because it does not comport what YOU would do if you were God?

[thedoc]

When everyone would understand that every other religion is just as valid as the one they follow, the world would be a lot more peaceful. To paraphrase 'All religions lead to God'.

How can you say that when it appears that you understand different religions have different and often contradictory conceptions of who God is?

Yes different religions have different understandings and conceptions of God, but I didn't say that 'all religions are God', they all lead to God, and will need to shed the corruption and misconceptions that man has accumulated and tacked on along the way. To use the paraphrased line, some religions will climb a mountain, another will pass through the forest, another will cross a river, but all will need to shed its excess baggage along the way.

[aiddon]

This passage actually supports the Biblical teaching about the fallen nature of man even those who are saved. There’s plenty of Biblical passages to support this. Man chooses to sin. These same types of issues are replete in Scripture- worship of idols, murder, evil kings. All part of His plan, e.e.g, the story of Joseph in Genesis.

So how does this supposedly make his omnipotence underwhelming? Because it does not comport what YOU would do if you were God?

This has nothing to do with what I would do as God? Where did you get that notion from? I am merely pointing out inconsistencies with the notion of god's plan as outlined by you. Yes, man chooses to sin - I argue that this is because of random variation in genes and that the universe is ultimately meaningless and apathetic to us. You argue that it is because god has designed it so as some intricate game in which we will all eventually find our way back to him. Why? What is the meaning of this? You have no choice to put it down to mystery because you cannot possibly know. Atheists don't have this problem, because there is no mystery to be solved.

Don’t attempt the Epicurean problem of evil as support. This syllogism has been dealt with long ago.

Could you please enlighten me as to how it has been dealt with?

[MMasz]

This has nothing to do with what I would do as God? Where did you get that notion from? I am merely pointing out inconsistencies with the notion of god's plan as outlined by you. Yes, man chooses to sin - I argue that this is because of random variation in genes and that the universe is ultimately meaningless and apathetic to us. You argue that it is because god has designed it so as some intricate game in which we will all eventually find our way back to him. Why? What is the meaning of this? You have no choice to put it down to mystery because you cannot possibly know. Atheists don't have this problem, because there is no mystery to be solved.

Don’t attempt the Epicurean problem of evil as support. This syllogism has been dealt with long ago.

Could you please enlighten me as to how it has been dealt with?

Why do I have to know the meaning of it? It simply is what it is and I'm comfortable with that.

The Epicurean syllogism has been dealt with this way- by adding one additional premise, "God has a purpose for the evil that exists", the conclusion of the syllogism would have to be changed. For a temporal example, the story of Joseph- Gen 50:20, "As for you, you meant evil against me, but God meant it for good, to bring it about that many people should be kept alive, as they are today."

God is. We don't invent him or his attributes nor are we privy to all He has planned.

[MMasz]

When everyone would understand that every other religion is just as valid as the one they follow, the world would be a lot more peaceful. To paraphrase 'All religions lead to God'.

How can you say that when it appears that you understand different religions have different and often contradictory conceptions of who God is?

Yes different religions have different understandings and conceptions of God, but I didn't say that 'all religions are God', they all lead to God, and will need to shed the corruption and misconceptions that man has accumulated and tacked on along the way. To use the paraphrased line, some religions will climb a mountain, another will pass through the forest, another will cross a river, but all will need to shed its excess baggage along the way.

I now understand. You wrote, "religions have different understandings and conceptions of God". True, but you stated, "every other religion is just as valid as the one they follow." so my comment was directed at the idea that all religions are "valid" when they often contradict each other violating the law of contradiction.

[bobevenson]

Religions are guilty of moving the goalposts because they are all scams, but the Church of Ouzo is a universal constant.

[aiddon]

Religions are guilty of moving the goalposts because they are all scams, but the Church of Ouzo is a universal constant.

Could someone please get this guy banned from this forum?

[thedoc]

Religions are guilty of moving the goalposts because they are all scams, but the Church of Ouzo is a universal constant.

Could someone please get this guy banned from this forum?

He's pretty much harmless, though annoying. Realistically go to your 'user control panel' list him as a 'foe' and you won't see his posts anymore.