ITT: We Discuss our Religious Backgrounds/Ideas

[Morm]

that is a staggering amount of information to know. I just can't get past how it's literally something he does not know meaning the literal definition doesn't work. That's usually called goalpost moving.

Surely if he knows me as well as I'm told he knows what choice I am most likely going to make. Combine that with the admission that he knows all the possible outcomes and it looks like the smallest leap ever to just say he knows what I am going to do.

 

[lati0s]

I'll quit being a baby sorry.

But as for omniscience he does know things in the future just not which one of the things in the future it is since we have free will to choose.

That is not omniscience, it could perhaps be called semi omniscience

I would also argue that it is impossible to know the entirety of someones character and situation and not know what choice they will make, what else could possibly be influencing that choice

 

[Brain]

The God of the Bible gives you the exact same opportunity as anyone else.

Indeed, that's why I was born in Canada and not in Rwanda! That's why I was not born with Down's syndrome! That's why I was born in a country where Christianity is commonplace, so that I could have access to the word of God! That's why I was born in a setting favorable enough that I could afford the luxury of actually helping anyone!

I am so glad that God gives everyone the exact same opportunity. Imagine if life was some sort of lottery where some people were born to work in sweatshops in 40°C weather, all their hopes pathetically clinging to a heretic religion until their death at age 50 in the pile of shit they call home, whereas others popped in lavish Christian homes and lived their whole life feeling blessed and lucky to have food on their table every day, do the things they like, and be able to give so much help to people in need. Oh! What a sick joke that would be!

God loves us so much, I am shedding tears of joy and gratitude.

 

[Chubbs]

Morm, you are my hero. I shall now construct a religion based on your ultimate God-bashing manliness. We shall be called Mormons.

In all seriousness, religion is absolute bull. It is fairly ridiculous how Christians are constantly goalpost-moving to make their religion seem like it might work, for example, to appeal to people in different countries, they changed the race of Jesus depending on where they were; despite he was almost definitely black(ish) he came from around Israel, and they are blackish. Another piece of shit is how some hardcore racist Christians say that after the apocralypse(Terry Pratchett ftw) only white people will be saved, despite the fact that God, like his 'son', is black. The reasoning for this can range from "White people are the true race" to "Black people are (BAN ME PLEASE)", Despite blacks coming first and most black people not being gay. Oh, and give me proof of your 'God', please.

I'm an Atheist by the way.

 

[Morm]

I am not bashing God, merely pointing out logical fallacies within it's construct.

 

[Chubbs]

Did you not comprehend the joke that was in the first paragraph? >.>

 

[mattj]

what has he done for you, matt?

Way too much to list here. I have hope and peace. I have a loving family and a stable life. I personally feel that each of these blessings came from God. And trust me, so much more. There isn't room for a lifetime of experience here.

I'll quit being a baby sorry.

But as for omniscience he does know things in the future just not which one of the things in the future it is since we have free will to choose.

Morm. I see what you're getting at. But SOD, I've never seen any place in the Bible that says that the God of the Bible is anything less than Omniscient. Rather it clearly states that he knows even our choices (Psalms 139: 1-4, etc...) I don't see any problems at all with him being omniscient either.

I like to quote posts out of context in failed attempts to cleverly denounce them

Had you read the next few sentences, according to the Bible it does not matter where you are born, or where you are currently at, if you want to know God, he will make arrangements. Again, Acts 8:26-40, etc... If you don't believe this, props to you, but this is what the Bible teaches.

 

[Morm]

none of that can be attributed to anything but him, I suppose? Coincidence exists.

Either he knows everything and our future choices and there can be no true free will (which means I was made specifically to go to hell) or he doesn't know everything and there is true free will. Pretty bipolar choice as far as I'm concerned and from the looks of it the bible is saying that he knows EVERYTHING.

 

[mattj]

Oh it could be chance, but I choose to attribute it to him. You wanna attribute your life experiences to chance? Cool for you.

How does the God of the Bible knowing everything that will happen rule out free will? Could you explain?

 

[Brain]

Had you read the next few sentences, according to the Bible it does not matter where you are born, or where you are currently at, if you want to know God, he will make arrangements. Again, Acts 8:26-40, etc... If you don't believe this, props to you, but this is what the Bible teaches.

Yeah, yeah, sure, that's what the Bible says. Now, what reality says is that the proportion of people who "know God" is suspiciously correlated with upbringing, culture and geographical position.

If you were brought up by Christian parents, then you are much more likely to want to know the Christian God than if you were not. That is not "equal opportunity", but a clear skew that gives an advantage to some people (those born in Christian homes) and a disadvantage to others (those born elsewhere). This is not rocket science.

The theory according to which God gives equal opportunity to everyone to reach him yields a clear prediction: that Christians will be distributed evenly all over the world and independently of their upbringing. This prediction is utterly falsified by evidence.

On the other hand, if all religions are equally valid, then I guess this is less of a problem.

Edit:

How does the God of the Bible knowing everything that will happen rule out free will? Could you explain?

Under most interpretations of the terms, omniscience and free will rule each other out. Knowledge implies determination: you cannot know what is not determined. Free will implies non-determination: your actions are not determined until you act. Thus you can have one or the other, or neither, but not both.

 

[mattj]

I don't think you have a clear understanding of modern Christian demographics. You assume that the largest factor in determining whether or not a child will stay a Christian into their adulthood is wether or not their parents are Christians. I am an active Christian. My entire family is not. In the decently large church I go to, this is the common story. Beyond that, I keep in touch with hundreds, possibly thousands of friends all across the country who are active in my denomination too. When looking at most of the members who have had children, the majority of their children do not attend church anymore. And the majority who are active, don't have family that is active. I don't know where you're getting this idea from.

Christianity, at least my brand, is a personal experience and choice. It's not something your parents teach you.

This is my reality. I don't really know what you're talking about.

 

[Brain]

I don't think you have a clear understanding of how statistics work. I am talking about a skew, here. What I am saying is that the percentage of Christian-born people who remain Christians is higher than the percentage of, say, Muslim-born people who convert to Christianity. I don't care that a mere 10% of people born in Christian families might remain devout Christians. My point is that the percentage of people born in Muslim, Hindu, Buddhist, atheist families who become devout Christians is bound to be much lower than that. What this means is that being born in a Christian family is an advantage. It's a better opportunity. That some people might take advantage of lower opportunities is irrelevant to the fact that upbringing is a factor.

If you converted to Christianity from a non-believing family, good for you. You belong to the small percentage of people who do. But you are completely missing my point, which is, one, that your non-religious siblings might have become Christians had your dad subscribed to that religion, and two, that if your step mother had been Hindu, you might have converted to that religion instead.

 

[mattj]

If you converted to Christianity from a non-believing family, good for you. You belong to the small percentage of people who do.

Bro. That's just it. I am not the minority, at least not in my denomination. The majority of active members in my denomination come from families that are not Christian. I don't know if it's different in other denominations or religions. But you seem to be making up straw-man arguments. The percentage of Christian born people who remain Christian is not higher than the the percentage of non Christian born people who become Christian. Not even close. At least not in my denomination. Do you have some experience with Christianity? Where are you getting this idea from?

 

[Morm]

The theory according to which God gives equal opportunity to everyone to reach him yields a clear prediction: that Christians will be distributed evenly all over the world and independently of their upbringing. This prediction is utterly falsified by evidence.

Matt I think you should reread this and reconsider your claim of him making a straw man.

Under most interpretations of the terms, omniscience and free will rule each other out. Knowledge implies determination: you cannot know what is not determined. Free will implies non-determination: your actions are not determined until you act. Thus you can have one or the other, or neither, but not both.

Well put. I don't see how anyone could possibly disagree with this without completely ignoring logic.

 

[Chubbs]

Well put. I don't see how anyone could possibly disagree with this without completely ignoring logic.

That is, sadly, what most Christians/Religious people do when you confront their beliefs.

 

[Brain]

Bro. That's just it. I am not the minority, at least not in my denomination. The majority of active members in my denomination come from families that are not Christian. I don't know if it's different in other denominations or religions. But you seem to be making up straw-man arguments. The percentage of Christian born people who remain Christian is not higher than the the percentage of non Christian born people who become Christian. Not even close. At least not in my denomination. Do you have some experience with Christianity? Where are you getting this idea from?

Oh, stop it with anecdotal evidence. I know quite a lot of atheists, and I am not aware that any of them converted to Christianity. The few Christians I know come from Christian families, though some of them have since de-converted. And you know what this means? Absolutely nothing, because it is anecdotal evidence. There are many factors that will make Christianity more or less likely to happen at any location. It is the global picture you have to look at.

My point is an obvious one, and it's not difficult to gather statistical evidence for it. Take Japan, for instance. Japan grants religious freedom, and any Japanese who wants to study the Bible is free to do so. Yet, less than 1% of Japanese are Christians. You would think that if God gave "equal opportunity" to belief, that the figure would be higher than that. But of course, it isn't. The Japanese are content with their own beliefs and traditions, and they stick with them. If "wanting to know God" creates a link between you and the Christian God, then either the Japanese don't want to know God, or they are finding something else.

Belief in God, in western Europe, is plummeting. Only one out of five Swede believing that some God exists; half believes in some sort of "spirit or life force", whatever that means, and the rest are atheists. Does that mean the Swedes are dangerous heathens, hell spawn bent on the destruction of Christianity, since they don't use their "equal opportunity" to seek God? Why is it, in your opinion, that almost nobody in some country wants to know God, yet the majority in another country wants to? Is it a flaw in their character, or is it a simple function of the environment they grew up in?

What about Iran, where a whopping 98% of the population is Muslim? How many of them even consider converting? What about India, where 80% of the population are Hindu, 13% are Muslims and a mere 3% are Christian?

Oh, and these are all places where Christianity is known. But consider America before Europeans arrived. The vast majority of North and South-American tribes were animist or polytheist, which is as far removed from Christianity as you can get. If these people sought God, I am not sure you'd be comfortable with what they found.

Edit: okay let's look at a picture

If, as you claim, everybody is given the exact same opportunity to know God, that this God is the Christian God, and under the assumption that people don't choose where they are born, then logically, someone who became a Christian here should also have become a Christian had they been born elsewhere. So, if I may ask, why is there grey on this map.

Well put. I don't see how anyone could possibly disagree with this without completely ignoring logic.

One could define free will in such a way that it is compatible with determinism. However, in doing so, one would be engaging in a semantic argument and not a logical one. My take on free will is that if random actions are not free, and actions that can be deterministically computed from previous states are not free either, then free will is incoherent and cannot exist.

 

[sonickid01]

If, as you claim, everybody is given the exact same opportunity to know God, that this God is the Christian God, and under the assumption that people don't choose where they are born, then logically, someone who became a Christian here should also have become a Christian had they been born elsewhere. So, if I may ask, why is there grey on this map.

As compelling as you are in nearly all your posts and even though I guess I'm on your side in general, I'm having a hard time following this logic to be honest. It seems like you're countering your own point in acknowledging that Christianity has had an effect on many of those places in that the resources for conversion are in fact there, but that people are simply "turning away from God" or "are heathens and blasphemers" or whatever.

 

[Brain]

As compelling as you are in nearly all your posts and even though I guess I'm on your side in general, I'm having a hard time following this logic to be honest. It seems like you're countering your own point in acknowledging that Christianity has had an effect on many of those places in that the resources for conversion are in fact there, but that people are simply "turning away from God" or "are heathens and blasphemers" or whatever.

The point is that people ought to be turning away, or towards God at the same rate everywhere. If, in location A, 50% of husbands beat their wives, and in location B, only 1% of them do, there are two possible conclusions: either people in location A are inherently bad people, or there is something going on at location A that increases the odds that husbands will beat their wives. If one believes that everybody has equal opportunity to be good, then the first option has to be the good one - but then you have to explain why inherently bad people are localized at all. Genetics? As far as faith goes, probably not: Europeans and Americans are rather close, for the difference in zeal they exhibit.

The argument, essentially, is that the exact same person, depending on where they are brought up, will end up falling under various faiths. The idea that we all have equal opportunity to know God suggests that Christianity should be in constant proportion all over the world. Given current evidence, there is either an inexplicable geographical distribution and migration pattern for heathens, or most Christians in Christian nations are not true Christians. They are just me-toos, and they are skewing the numbers.

Also, the "resources for conversion" are not always compelling. In many places, being a Christian will get you beat up, which means that you would have to have much greater resolve to be a Christian over there than here. This is not equal opportunity by any stretch.

 

[mattj]

Lol, here's a map. It's pretty and purple and gray. See these lines. In the purple area only Christians exist. In the Grey area only non Christians exist. If everybody had an equal chance to be a Christian, then it should be purple all over.

Yeah, I don't know where you ranodmlygoogled that map from but it's absolutely misleading. If you think that Christians don't exist in Iran, China, Sudan and other countries that have governments that repress any religion other than the state religion, you need to try reading more. And if you think that the USA is great fields full of Christians bowing before their god ;alskgja;lsdg oh my gawd ahahaha.

Here's the deal Brian. There are Christians in every country in the world. My denomination alone (just setting the hundreds of other denominations aside for a moment) has churches in every country in the world, including those countries that are greyed out. I have personally met 3 missionaries to Iran who operate series of "under the radar" churches in Iran.

Are there more churches percapita in the US? Duh. Are there numerous active churches in repressive countries? Absolutely. If a person born in a repressive country wants to know the God of the Bible can they? I believe so.

Firstly, because the Bible says so, and I believe it. Since you haven't taken the time to read that snippet of scripture I referenced earlier, it was talking about a man riding a carriage through what is now Ethiopia. He wanted to know about God, but he was from a culture that did not accept him, and was nowhere near the center of Christianity at that time. God spoke to a man named Phillip and sent him to the desert just to meet that man.

Secondly, because the missionaries that I have spoken to in person have relayed similar accounts. They meet people in these repressive countries who hunger for a relationship with the God of the Bible. They secretly meet with them, explain the Bible's plan of salvation, tutor them, and set them up with like minded people in their area.

It's a very simplistic mind that accepts a purple and gray map as anything of an accurate representation of reality.

But hey, if you want to surround yourself with pretty maps, and googledata and ignore real life testimony, you have free will, it's your choice. Have a nice afterlife. Or not, if that's your thing.

 

[Hipmonlee]

Yeah, I don't know where you ranodmlygoogled that map from

My guess is google.

Have a nice day.

 

[Brain]

@mattj

You are missing the point again, and again, and again, how am I supposed to explain it? You keep addressing a straw man.

If you are born in the USA and want to be a Christian, THE EFFORT IS MINIMAL. If you are born in a repressive country and want to be a Christian, THERE IS A BIG EFFORT TO MAKE. Therefore, THE OPPORTUNITY IS NOT EQUAL. How difficult is this to understand? What the fuck do you think "equal opportunity" means? Yes, there is the presence of opportunity everywhere, but equal opportunity means MORE than the mere presence of opportunity, it means that everybody has THE SAME ODDS. In America, you don't have to find a missionary. You don't have to hide. It is easier.

When you say "everybody has the exact same opportunities", it doesn't mean that everybody can know God. If that's what you meant, then you misspoke. What you should have said is: "everybody has an opportunity". By saying that these opportunities are "the exact same", you are saying that not only does everybody has an opportunity, but everybody has just as many opportunities, and that they are of equal quality.

It's like going to University. If you don't have a penny, then you will need to work hard to get there. If you have a lot of money, then you won't need to work nearly as much. Therefore, even though in both cases you have an opportunity, the opportunities are not equal. In one situation, you have an advantage, very much like an American has an advantage over an Iranian to the extent that they can freely practice their Christian faith.

Nowhere throughout the previous posts have I even bothered to deny that everybody on this planet now had an opportunity to be a Christian. I was explaining the fact that the opportunities are not equal. Out of anything you have said, nothing addresses this. You keep pounding the same straw man over and over again.

Let me put it in another way that might be easier to understand: in Iran, the only Christians you will get will be those who wanted to know God. In America, you'll get a large bunch of followers who are Christians because it's easy or because it's convenient. These Americans thus end up following the right religion by mere convenience, without being especially aware of it. My point is that people in Christian zones can follow the right religion out of mere apathy, whereas others do not have this luxury. And I'm not talking about people who are Christian but don't care. I am talking about people who might be very devout Christians, but who are devout merely because they need to be devout - if they were born in Iran, they would be devout Muslims, and if they were born in Soviet Russia, they would be devout Communists.

So the question then becomes: what happens to Christians who don't actually know God, but follow the religion because they felt it was the natural thing to do? How do you actually identify them? Can they even identify themselves? What if they feel a connection to God, but that they are imagining it, just like people from other religions might imagine that they feel a connection to their own God?

 

[mattj]

In America, you'll get a large bunch of followers who are Christians because it's easy or because it's convenient. These Americans thus end up following the right religion by mere convenience, without being especially aware of it. My point is that people in Christian zones can follow the right religion out of mere apathy, whereas others do not have this luxury. And I'm not talking about people who are Christian but don't care. I am talking about people who might be very devout Christians, but who are devout merely because they need to be devout - if they were born in Iran, they would be devout Muslims, and if they were born in Soviet Russia, they would be devout Communists.

And this is where you are missing the point. I'm not talking about Joe Schmoe who shows up on Sundays and Easters because his family was Catholic, so he is too. I'm talking about Christians, who make a conscious decision to follow Christ to the point that it shapes their lives. Yes, there are tons of churches in the US and it's easy for people to show up and sit in a pew if they want to. That. Doesn't. Make. Them. Bible. Believing. Christians. There's this one dude Jay that goes to our church that isn't a Christian, he just likes our music.

If you want to make the point that it's easier for a person born in the US to warm a pew, sure, I agree. If you want to say that it's harder for a person in a repressive country to warm a pew, sure, I agree. If you want to make the point that a person born in a restrictive country has less of an opportunity to become a Bible believing Christian, than a person born in the US I don't accept it. The Bible says it ain't so, and as a Christian I believe it. People I have talked to face to face who have experience in said restrictive countries say it ain't so, and I believe them. You, on the other side of your computer googling facts can believe whatever you want to.

I for one value firsthand experience and testimony over computer software.

 

[auramaster]

I think I'll join the debate; if anyone else has a religious background they would like to share, please feel free to do so, despite the debate going on.

I had this long post typed up, but then mattj said everything I was going to say :(

@Chubbs, the "Christians" you talked with that show such obvious racism do not reflect the views of most Christians. In fact, the Bible says that "There is neither Jew nor Gentile (Meaning any non-Jew), there is neither slave nor free, there is neither male nor female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus (Galatians 3:28, NKJV)". Racism is NOT from the Bible. As for Jesus usually being white, that is unusual, maybe because midieval Roman Catholics (Also didn't follow the Bible very well) made all the famous stain-glass windows, paintings, etc.? It could also be so white people would be more comfortable with Him (Remember, racism was VERY common not that long ago), or because white typically represents purity. I don't know for sure, but those ideas are my best guesses.

Under most interpretations of the terms, omniscience and free will rule each other out. Knowledge implies determination: you cannot know what is not determined. Free will implies non-determination: your actions are not determined until you act. Thus you can have one or the other, or neither, but not both.

Well put. I don't see how anyone could possibly disagree with this without completely ignoring logic.

I can :) God has omniscience, man has free will. Any problems with that?

Also, for Brain, Morm, and any other Athiests/Agnostics reading this, if there was physical evidence that proved the Bible, Qur'an, etc. was true, even if you didn't understand all of the theology, would you agree that it's true? mattj, Cartoons!, and any other religious believers reading this, if there was physical evidence that the Bible, Qur'an, etc. was wrong and that no god could possibly exist, would you change your beliefs? If the answer is no to either of those questions, what's the point of a debate? It won't change anything.

 

[Obsessed]

I can :) God has omniscience, man has free will. Any problems with that?

Also, for Brain, Morm, and any other Athiests/Agnostics reading this, if there was physical evidence that proved the Bible, Qur'an, etc. was true, even if you didn't understand all of the theology, would you agree that it's true? mattj, Cartoons!, and any other religious believers reading this, if there was physical evidence that the Bible, Qur'an, etc. was wrong and that no god could possibly exist, would you change your beliefs? If the answer is no to either of those questions, what's the point of a debate? It won't change anything.

Well I just cannot comprehend it. Dunno why. I can see what SOD was saying (infinite paths exist for the future, god knows all of them, he doesn't know which path you will take), but I think that is stretching the definition of omniscience.

If you think that god knows which actions you will take then I don't get how you think free will can exist. IMO if god knows exactly what actions I will take my actions must have somehow been predetermined. They were destined to happen.

I'm not saying the two can't exist together, I am just unable to comprehend how and like Morm I need help understanding.

Also if there were significant evidence in favor of a deity I would alter my beliefs. However I require rather strong evidence for extraordinary claims. Something like "The Bible mentions some form of destruction happening in a Christian land in the future. That must be the Bible predicting 9/11!!!!" is not going to convince me. If the rapture as described by the Bible were to occur on May 21 2011 (recently predicted date) I'd likely convert. Of course I'd still admit the possibility of some trickster god that was trying to pose as the judeochristian god.

edit: Might as well post my religious background.

I grew up in a rather non-religious family. In 2nd grade my parents enrolled me in a Jewish Day School. Having not been indoctrinated since birth I honestly thought of the Bible as a huge book of fairy tales that people learned moral lessons from. It did not hit me until much later that a great number of people actually believed it to be a work of non-fiction.

I believed in a non-interventionist god till about age 15, and then finally moved on to agnostic atheism.

 

[sonickid01]

Also, for Brain, Morm, and any other Athiests/Agnostics reading this, if there was physical evidence that proved the Bible, Qur'an, etc. was true, even if you didn't understand all of the theology, would you agree that it's true? mattj, Cartoons!, and any other religious believers reading this, if there was physical evidence that the Bible, Qur'an, etc. was wrong and that no god could possibly exist, would you change your beliefs? If the answer is no to either of those questions, what's the point of a debate? It won't change anything.

The way you're phrasing the question, it seems like you're implying that we're already quite dead-set on our convictions. We are not. I cannot speak for everyone but I think I can say this on behalf of most of the nonreligious and nontheistic people here if not everywhere: produce the evidence and we'll consider it. We'll hold it up to the same scrutiny as other scientific claims and see if it can be objectively verified and tested to accuracy and confirmed by independent sources by different experimental procedures. Otherwise your claims of deities hold no more ground as established truth than M-Theory or Supersymmetry, and we will not tout any of these kinds of claims as reasonably certain without proper justification. In fact Supersymmetry and M-theory are deeply rooted in complex mathematics and the calculations have all been double- and triple-checked many times over despite being nothing more than theory at this point, and so even they have stronger hold than any claims of god(s) thus far in history.

Also yeah, this is kind of an all-purpose religion thread so it's not strictly limited to debate or anything, the initial purpose of the thread in the OP still applies <_<