Best argument for justness of hell?
Brian Holtz
http://www.rationalchristianity.net/hell.html, which says:
> Eternal punishment = infinite punishment?
> [..] infinity is really an abstraction, not something that
> can actually be experienced. In the afterlife, people will
> never reach a point where they can be said to have lived
> for eternity
In-finite means "without end". The suffering
in hell is without end, and thus temporally infinite.
> [..] We say that as [time] goes to infinity, so does [amount
> suffered]. This holds whether s is large (the rate of suffering
> of a person in hell) or small (the rate of suffering of a
> person on earth).
What people care about is not the total amount of suffering
experienced in the past, which of course will sum toward
infinity for any immortal being that can ever experience
the slightest and most infrequent suffering.
What people care about is a) the amount of new suffering per
marginal period of time, and b) how many of those periods
they are sentenced to endure.
> Yet we would hardly say that living for an eternity on
> earth is the same as spending an eternity in hell
Indeed, if the amount of new pleasure per marginal period
of time exceeds the amount of new suffering (as it does
for most people on earth), then extending the 'sentence'
is a reward and not a punishment.
> the wrongs we've committed aren't just against other people,
> but against a holy and perfect God. The nature of the object
> against which the sin is committed, as well as the nature
> of the sin itself, must be taken into account when
> determining the degree of heinousness. [..]
> God isn't physically or materially injured by our sin [..]
A basic principle of justice is that where there is no injury
or risk of injury, there are no grounds for punishment.
Humans can only suffer finite injury. If God cannot suffer
any injury whatsoever, then there are no grounds for
infinite punishment.
> Thus God is [..] punishing the inherent wrongness of their
> actions
Yes, and not all wrong human actions are equally wrong,
which is what is implied by giving them all equally
infinite punishment. Furthermore, no wrong human action
is infinitely wrong.
> which include rebelling against God and rejecting
> his perfect standards of right and wrong
Non-perfection is simply not the same thing as infinite
imperfection. This is just a simple confusion of the
two concepts of negation and infinity. The Christian
argument is essentially this:
God is perfectly good. Even a single evil act in a lifetime
of sinlessness makes one fall infinitely short of God's
standard of perfect goodness, and thus constitutes grounds
for eternal punishment.
An equally invalid argument can be made the other way:
Satan is perfectly evil. Even a single good act in a lifetime
of evil makes one fall infinitely short of Satan's
standard of perfect evil, and thus constitutes grounds
for eternal reward.
> we have to choose to accept God's grace [..]. If we
> refuse to do this, how can we be allowed to live in the
> direct presence of God?
If a terrorist sets up an unjust outcome for you but then
offers you a way out, that doesn't change the fact that
he's a terrorist.
> "That servant who knows his master's will and does
> not get ready or does not do what his master wants will
> be beaten with many blows. But the one who does not know
> and does things deserving punishment will be beaten with
> few blows." (Luke 12:47-48). God [..] punishes people
> according to their degree of guilt.
This is an clear and outright contradiction of the argument
that any sin against a perfect God is an infinite sin.
--
br...@holtz.org
http://humanknowledge.net
India
--India
Personal AAM FAQ: http://www.rationalchristianity.net/offsite/aam_faq.html
Official AAM FAQ: http://www.infidels.org/news/atheism/intro.html
JeffMo
>My response to Brian is at www.rationalchristianity.net/debates/holtz_hell1.html
Your response is highly confused. In the first paragraph of yours,
you completely miss Brian's point that the Christian God's alleged
_overall_ punishment is infinite, and instead, argue that a sinner's
stay in Hell only yields finite punishment _on any given day_.
Later, in the same article, you make the following statement, which is
apparently intended to be a reference back to that paragraph:
"To be fair, I should attempt to answer why it is that people are
punished eternally, albeit not infinitely."
This is logically incoherent on its face, and demonstrates the
amazingly depths to which you have sunk, in an attempt to rescue
Christian doctrine from its inherently illogical position. In case
you really cannot see why this is incoherent (and I will gladly note
that I've found much of your writing to evidence a person who exhibits
a pretty fair dose of intellectual integrity, even when that person is
a bit confused on the issues, so I believe that you are trying to be
honest and straightforward), please consider the sum below:
1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 ...
If someone asserts that the sum is infinite, does it make any sense at
all to try to rebut this by saying, "Well, any given term is finite"?
And yet, that is just what you have done in your opening paragraph of
rebuttal:
"[...] they experience some finite amount of suffering at the present
moment, which includes neither the previous moment nor the next
moment. On day N their suffering is the same as it was on day 1."
You ignore the obvious fact that the _total_ punishment meted out for
any given offense is not restricted to "suffering at the present
moment." Do you really think that 40 years in prison is the same
amount of suffering as an overnight sleep/stupor in the drunk tank, so
long as the exact same rules are applied to prisoners in both
situations, other than the release date?
Similarly, are you _really_ expecting us to buy the argument that
"God" giving out infinite....well, shit....*eternal* punishment is
somehow justified simply because "He" only punishes the sinner a
finite amount on any given day? This is absurd!
Even if we were to accept this argument, it would make no substantive
difference for the conclusion. The main problem with "Hell" doctrine
is not avoided by playing games regarding the infinity of the
punishment; it still remains that any human transgression is finite,
and thus, justice demands a _fitting_ punishment. If there is zero
possibility that the punishment for a finite transgression will ever
terminate, then that punishment is not fitting and just, _period_.
Even life sentences mandated by humans terminate, if only by death.
JeffMo
"You can't have freedom OF religion, unless you also have freedom FROM the next guy's religion." -- JeffMo
Gurnemanz
"Brian Holtz" <br...@holtz.org> wrote...
> Humans can only suffer finite injury. If God cannot suffer
> any injury whatsoever, then there are no grounds for
> infinite punishment.
>
In fact there are several theological lines of argument open to
the theist here. One position holds that you are quite correct-
no wrongs that we do in life can warrant infinite punishment.
However this doesn't mean that those in hell might not
be justly punished for eternity nevertheless: if a criminal commits
a crime he may be sentenced to 5 years in prison.
Whilst in prison, however, he commits new crimes,
and for these crimes he receives further
sentencing. The result is that while none of
the crimes he commits warrants a life sentence, the cumulative
sentence for crimes before prison and in prison is
never exhausted. Likewise one might argue that
those who are judged and sentenced to hell might receive
a finite sentence, but their continued sinful behaviour
in hell means that they aquire further punishments
which are never exhausted.
jh
JeffMo
>"Brian Holtz" <br...@holtz.org> wrote...
>
>> Humans can only suffer finite injury. If God cannot suffer
>> any injury whatsoever, then there are no grounds for
>> infinite punishment.
>>
>In fact there are several theological lines of argument open to
>the theist here. One position holds that you are quite correct-
>no wrongs that we do in life can warrant infinite punishment.
>However this doesn't mean that those in hell might not
>be justly punished for eternity nevertheless: if a criminal commits
>a crime he may be sentenced to 5 years in prison.
>Whilst in prison, however, he commits new crimes,
>and for these crimes he receives further
>sentencing. The result is that while none of
>the crimes he commits warrants a life sentence, the cumulative
>sentence for crimes before prison and in prison is
>never exhausted.
This is clearly false. All human-given sentences end no later than
the time of death for the convicted criminal. Your position of "is
never exhausted" is untenable, without even having to point out that
you are presupposing a continuous and sufficient chain of crimes,
which is NOT the standard for consignment to "Hell" in most mainstream
Christian theologies.
Thus, we have dispensed with that line of argument, as presented, in
multiple ways. I think it's clear that while this line of argument is
open to the theist (like many other lines of argument, including a
large number of illogical ones), Brian's conclusion that there are no
grounds for infinite punishment stands.
> Likewise one might argue that
>those who are judged and sentenced to hell might receive
>a finite sentence, but their continued sinful behaviour
>in hell means that they aquire further punishments
>which are never exhausted.
One might argue that, surely. However, the mere fact that someone
might argue in such a way does not magically turn the argument into a
logical one. See above.
John Secker
<j...@nospamma.humph65.fsworld.co.uk> writes
>In fact there are several theological lines of argument open to
>the theist here. One position holds that you are quite correct-
>no wrongs that we do in life can warrant infinite punishment.
>However this doesn't mean that those in hell might not
>be justly punished for eternity nevertheless: if a criminal commits
>a crime he may be sentenced to 5 years in prison.
>Whilst in prison, however, he commits new crimes,
>and for these crimes he receives further
>sentencing. The result is that while none of
>the crimes he commits warrants a life sentence, the cumulative
>sentence for crimes before prison and in prison is
>never exhausted. Likewise one might argue that
>those who are judged and sentenced to hell might receive
>a finite sentence, but their continued sinful behaviour
>in hell means that they aquire further punishments
>which are never exhausted.
>
those who sin in their lifetimes are sentenced to an eternity in Hell.
The sentence is for the finite sins of their life, not for some putative
further series of transgressions.
--
John Secker
Gurnemanz
"John Secker" <jo...@secker.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
news:BNjYQ2B2...@secker.demon.co.uk...
>
> One might claim that, if this was the situation. But we are told that
> those who sin in their lifetimes are sentenced to an eternity in Hell.
> The sentence is for the finite sins of their life, not for some putative
> further series of transgressions.
>
[ there are other lines of argument btw].
Perhaps you are ( another) ex-fundy-atheist,
and are unfamiliar with such theologies?
jh
Gurnemanz
"JeffMo" wrote:
> "Gurnemanz" <j...@nospamma.humph65.fsworld.co.uk> wrote:
> >"Brian Holtz" <br...@holtz.org> wrote...
> >
> >> Humans can only suffer finite injury. If God cannot suffer
> >> any injury whatsoever, then there are no grounds for
> >> infinite punishment.
> >>
> >In fact there are several theological lines of argument open to
> >the theist here. One position holds that you are quite correct-
> >no wrongs that we do in life can warrant infinite punishment.
> >However this doesn't mean that those in hell might not
> >be justly punished for eternity nevertheless: if a criminal commits
> >a crime he may be sentenced to 5 years in prison.
> >Whilst in prison, however, he commits new crimes,
> >and for these crimes he receives further
> >sentencing. The result is that while none of
> >the crimes he commits warrants a life sentence, the cumulative
> >sentence for crimes before prison and in prison is
> >never exhausted.
>
> This is clearly false.
>
What exactly is 'clearly false'?
> All human-given sentences end no later than
> the time of death for the convicted criminal. Your position of "is
> never exhausted" is untenable,
>
Never exhausted during his lifetme.
> without even having to point out that
> you are presupposing a continuous and sufficient chain of crimes,
> which is NOT the standard for consignment to "Hell" in most mainstream
> Christian theologies.
>
I agree that it is not a standard theology. So what?
> Thus, we have dispensed with that line of argument, as presented, in
> multiple ways. I think it's clear that while this line of argument is
> open to the theist (like many other lines of argument, including a
> large number of illogical ones), Brian's conclusion that there are no
> grounds for infinite punishment stands.
>
I don't see that. You have provided no rebuttal of my argument
at all: I have explained clearly to you how there could
be an infinite chain of sentences in hell. Of course one might
take a simpler view ( again not orthodox) as some
theologians have done,and say that sentences in hell
are simply finite.
> > Likewise one might argue that
> >those who are judged and sentenced to hell might receive
> >a finite sentence, but their continued sinful behaviour
> >in hell means that they aquire further punishments
> >which are never exhausted.
>
> One might argue that, surely. However, the mere fact that someone
> might argue in such a way does not magically turn the argument into a
> logical one.
>
Indeed, but the argument above violates no law of logic.
>
>See above.
>
I have, and I find no rebuttal of the argument.
jh
Arjan
"Gurnemanz" <j...@nospamma.humph65.fsworld.co.uk> wrote in message
news:a46lc5$4ml$3...@newsg1.svr.pol.co.uk...
>
> "Brian Holtz" <br...@holtz.org> wrote...
>
> > Humans can only suffer finite injury. If God cannot suffer
> > any injury whatsoever, then there are no grounds for
> > infinite punishment.
> >
> In fact there are several theological lines of argument open to
> the theist here. One position holds that you are quite correct-
> no wrongs that we do in life can warrant infinite punishment.
> However this doesn't mean that those in hell might not
> be justly punished for eternity nevertheless: if a criminal commits
> a crime he may be sentenced to 5 years in prison.
> Whilst in prison, however, he commits new crimes,
Bad prison management. In human prison we just put the isolation.
Hell is continuous torture. There are few crimes one can
commit while being tortured and none of them justify
extended torture.
> and for these crimes he receives further
> sentencing. The result is that while none of
> the crimes he commits warrants a life sentence, the cumulative
> sentence for crimes before prison and in prison is
> never exhausted. Likewise one might argue that
> those who are judged and sentenced to hell might receive
> a finite sentence,
> but their continued sinful behaviour
> in hell means that they aquire further punishments
> which are never exhausted.
That is not how people would react after a few thousand
years of torture. Most of them would do everything
god asked them to do. They would be really good
christians.
Most of them are pretty decent people who never
heard that much about christianity anyway.
>
> jh
There is a problem with justifying hell. Any try will
corrupt your own morals I think.
Arjan
India
I responded to Brian on my web site and not here because either I
would have to answer the 80 other people who would post in response,
or I would have to be rude and ignore everyone except Brian. Anyone
who wishes to comment on my response may do so via email (replace
spamtrap with india).
--India
====
John Secker
<j...@nospamma.humph65.fsworld.co.uk> writes
ground. The question was how the infinite sentences passed for finite
crimes in orthodox Christian theology could be defended. We said they
couldn't, and you came out with some waffle about infinitely repeated
sentences adding up to eternity. Now you admit that this is "not an
orthodox theology". So it seems to me that you are in fact conceding the
initial point - infinite sentences for finite crimes, a feature of
orthodox Christianity, are indefensible. Is this correct? Whether or not
you wish to propound your own, unorthodox theology, is a separate issue.
Do you concede that orthodox Christian theology, on this point, is
indefensible.
--
John Secker
MaryC
"Gurnemanz" wrote>
> In fact there are several theological lines of argument open to
> the theist here. One position holds that you are quite correct-
> no wrongs that we do in life can warrant infinite punishment.
> However this doesn't mean that those in hell might not
> be justly punished for eternity nevertheless: if a criminal commits
> a crime he may be sentenced to 5 years in prison.
> Whilst in prison, however, he commits new crimes,
> and for these crimes he receives further
> sentencing. The result is that while none of
> the crimes he commits warrants a life sentence, the cumulative
> sentence for crimes before prison and in prison is
> never exhausted. Likewise one might argue that
> those who are judged and sentenced to hell might receive
> a finite sentence, but their continued sinful behaviour
> in hell means that they aquire further punishments
> which are never exhausted.
Q. Who made you?
A. God made me.
Q. Why did God make you?
A. God made me to know Him, to love Him, and to serve
Him in this world, and to be happy with Him for ever in heaven.
Or, conversely, to be an eternal criminal in everlasting torment
if I fail to jump on the holy bandwagon.
Really they should have included the whole answer from the start.
Automort
>Q. Why did God make you?
>A. God made me to know Him, to love Him, and to serve
> Him in this world, and to be happy with Him for ever in heaven.
What an egotistical bastard!
Brian Holtz
> > What people care about is not the total amount of suffering
> > experienced in the past, which of course will sum toward
> > infinity for any immortal being that can ever experience
> > the slightest and most infrequent suffering.
> > What people care about is a) the amount of new suffering
> > per marginal period of time, and b) how many of those
> > periods they are sentenced to endure.
>
> What we're concerned with is the amount of suffering
> someone experiences in hell
That's true but vague, and doesn't contradict my point.
> on day N in hell, a person is not still experiencing the
> suffering from days 1 to N-1, only the suffering of the
> present day. True, they have nothing to look forward to
> except more suffering, which itself adds some finite
> amount to their current suffering
This argument is even weaker than the argument that the total
suffering of even happy immortals is infinite. It doesn't
matter that the amount of new suffering per marginal period
of time is finite. As I said, what matters is that there is
no end to these periods that can be characterized as
suffering.
> > A basic principle of justice is that where there is no
> > injury or risk of injury, there are no grounds for
> > punishment. Humans can only suffer finite injury.
> > If God cannot suffer any injury whatsoever, then there
> > are no grounds for infinite punishment
>
> [..] it's not necessary that a sin directly injure God for it
> to be wrong. [..]
I didn't say it was necessary.
> may not be able to say we're injuring God, but we're injuring
> ourselves with any sin
And we can only suffer finite injury.
> Any sin boils down to an act of rebellion against God. [..]
> they're less likely to follow God's standard in future and
> therefore more likely to do wrong
This is not an argument that such a rebellion is infinitely wrong.
> Even a single evil act in an otherwise virtuous life is a
> rebellion against God, and is therefore deserving of punishment
But not *infinite* punishment -- which is what we're debating.
> I should attempt to answer why it is that people are punished
> eternally, albeit not infinitely.
Yes you should. :-) And note: eternal punishment is indeed
infinite punishment, even by your own argument that it sums
toward an infinite amount. More importantly, eternal punishment
is unending, i.e. not finite, i.e. in-finite, i.e. infinite.
> People are given the opportunity to repent and receive
> forgiveness. If they don't, that indicates they still aren't
> willing to follow God - in effect, they're still sinning,
> still rejecting God. In a way, the sin doesn't end, so
> neither can the punishment.
Traditional Christianity does *not* believe people are
"given the opportunity to repent" in Hell. If one can
"repent" to get out of Hell, you can bet Hell is empty.
--
br...@holtz.org
http://humanknowledge.net
Glenn
Well, I'm not an ex-fundy atheist and am familiar with a few of the
more typical Christian sects (Catholic, Baptist, Methodist, and a
few others) and your theological explanation never came up once. The
two most common lines I've heard is: eternal punishment or
purgatory.
Regards,
Glenn
Martin
Actually, I think he has the (or a) proper theologic answer. Consider
religious ideas such as Jews are the only 'real' humans (stated in
Jewish Scripture), or animals have no soul, or savage people have no
soul, and basically the whole anthropocentric view (coinciding a long
time with the geocentric view) of a religion like Christianity (they
are all somewhat outdated, but they still say a lot about the
religion). Christianity, interestingly, is a religion that calls for
extreme humbleness and at the same time for extreme egotism (although
it's easily explainable in that rather the individual is called to
humility, and rather mankind is called to egotism).
Automort
>Actually, I think he has the (or a) proper theologic answer.
All the more reason it's nonsense.
David Wynne-Griffiths
Surely it must have dawned on even the most challenged of our
correspondents that heaven and hell are just an age old myth designed to
effect social and political control over the gullible?
--
~~~~~~~~~~~
David W-G
~~~~~~~~~~~
India
www.rationalchristianity.net/debates/holtz_hell2.html. Again, I will
not be responding to newsgroup posts on this (except Brian's of
course).
Arjan
"David Wynne-Griffiths" <dav...@zetnet.co.uk> wrote in message
news:200202242...@zetnet.co.uk...
> Are there really sentient beings who actually believe such nonsense?
> Surely it must have dawned on even the most challenged of our
> correspondents that heaven and hell are just an age old myth designed to
> effect social and political control over the gullible?
You would hope so. Sadly enough this does not seem to be the case.
There are too many people still believing in heaven and hell.
Strangely enough there are a lot of christians who seem to
believe in heaven but not in hell. So religious thinking
can be stronger than rational thinking but wisfull thinking
can be the strongest off all.
> --
> ~~~~~~~~~~~
> David W-G
> ~~~~~~~~~~~
>
Arjan
JeffMo
>My response to Brian is at www.rationalchristianity.net/debates/holtz_hell1.html
Your response is highly confused. In the first paragraph of yours,
you completely miss Brian's point that the Christian God's alleged
_overall_ punishment is infinite, and instead, argue that a sinner's
stay in Hell only yields finite punishment _on any given day_.
Later, in the same article, you make the following statement, which is
apparently intended to be a reference back to that paragraph:
"To be fair, I should attempt to answer why it is that people are
punished eternally, albeit not infinitely."
This is logically incoherent on its face, and demonstrates the
JeffMo
Paul Filseth
> Consider religious ideas such as Jews are the only 'real' humans
> (stated in Jewish Scripture)
How charming! Do you know where it says that?
--
Paul Filseth Beware of bugs in the above code; I have only
To email, delete the x. proved it correct, not tried it. - Donald Knuth
Brian Mason
>>I should attempt to answer why it is that people are punished
>> eternally, albeit not infinitely.
to which Brian responded:
>Yes you should. :-) And note: eternal punishment is indeed
>infinite punishment, even by your own argument that it sums
>toward an infinite amount. More importantly, eternal punishment
>is unending, i.e. not finite, i.e. in-finite, i.e. infinite.
>
and now I'd like to throw in a parable to try to convince you that
eternal punishment does not NEED to be infinite punishment as is
commonly believed (and as is stated above).
To do this, I want to imagine a different sort of universe than the
one we've got now. There are creatures who live forever and a
lollipop god who looks after them in the following way: Every day at
dawn, she provides two lollipops to each of them. These creatures
will not die if they do not receive their lollipops, but they do like
them quite a bit. But these creatures do share a peculiar human
trait: they all discount future consumption, which means that they
place a lower value on consuming a unit tomorrow than they do on
consuming a unit today. In the case of these creatures, just because
the numbers work out nicely, we will assume that each creature would
gladly exchange their rights to both of tomorrow's lollipops for just
a single lollipop today.
The lollipop god also metes out punishment, and prides herself on
being fair about it. The method of punishment she prefers is to
withhold lollipops, as the creatures understand it so clearly. The
question that is now before her is how should she punish a creature
who eats up his two lollipops and then snitches and gobbles up one of
his neighbour's lollipops.
Well, the punishment must fit the crime. So, since we already know
that these creatures are indifferent between one lollipop today and
two lollipops tomorrow, one appropriate punishment would be to simply
hold back the (two) lollipops she was intending to pass out tomorrow.
Or, alternatively, she could hold back just one tomorrow, and one the
next day, and one the next day, etcetera and etcetera forever, since
the VALUE of the loss of one lollipop for every day thereafter is
exactly equal to the VALUE of losing two lollipops.
The interesting thing is, if we have characterized these creatures
correctly, the thief won't care which punishment is meted out, and the
rest of the creatures will all agree that each punishment is fair. In
this case, then, a one-time penalty of two lollipops taken away
tomorrow (the present value of which equals one lollipop today) equals
an eternal penalty of one lollipop taken away tomorrow and the next
day and so on.
This parable has been designed to show that eternal punishment does
not necessarily mean inifinite punishment. To get this result
requires that we discount the future, but that is not too strong an
assumption (even though this example uses a much higher discount rate
than we typically see in humans). Economists have long observed that
this is true in humans, and have for an equally long time wondered why
we appear to be made so. I will have to take my tongue out of my
cheek long enough to say this, but perhaps the reason we do discount
the future is precisely because God made us that way so that he could
have a hell that supplied punishment that was both eternal AND fair.
Seriously, though, I do hope this parable does convince you that the
proposition that hell is impossible because a just god could not
impose an infinitely long sentence for any finite crime simply does
not hold water. So long as the just god understands the human
predilection for discounting the future, it is logically possible that
she could design an infinitely long sentence that would be "fair
punishment" for any finite crime.
Brian
Buridan
"David Wynne-Griffiths" wrote:
> Are there really sentient beings who actually believe such nonsense?
> Surely it must have dawned on even the most challenged of our
> correspondents that heaven and hell are just an age old myth designed to
> effect social and political control over the gullible?
>
so often in the past; he seems to suppose that because his
feelings 'tell' him something, that is sufficient reason for it
to be accepted by all.
jh
Biomes/Mark
You have expressed exactly the feelings that atheists have for theists.
Florian
> [snip enjoyable story of lollipop land]
>
> This parable has been designed to show that eternal punishment does
> not necessarily mean inifinite punishment. To get this result
> requires that we discount the future, but that is not too strong an
> assumption (even though this example uses a much higher discount rate
> than we typically see in humans). Economists have long observed that
> this is true in humans, and have for an equally long time wondered why
> we appear to be made so.
Well, it's only sensible. The future is always uncertain -- it might
rain, there might be a frost, you might get mauled by a large predator
later in the afternoon. The discount rates we use to value future
gains are based on the perceived risks, which in strategic decisions
include our own mortality.
However, in any trade of sin today for eternal punishment starting
tomorrow, the "intuitive" discount rates we use for everyday
valuations would not be valid.
I'm not sure what you would use for the karmic equivalent of the
risk-free interest rate, but I think that with any remotely "just and
fair" system, even the perpetuity for murder would have be on the
order of an eternal runny nose, or possibly a small demon following
you wherever you go and trying to to bite your ankles.
--
odoratusque est Dominus odorem suavitatis
John Secker
<j...@nospamma.humph65.fsworld.co.uk> writes
arguments. As with people whose feeling tell them that the background
evidence is in favour of some things, and not others.
--
John Secker
John Secker
writes
<snip lollipops>
>. So long as the just god understands the human
>predilection for discounting the future, it is logically possible that
>she could design an infinitely long sentence that would be "fair
>punishment" for any finite crime.
>
>Brian
>
Very cunning, but I am not convinced that it is valid. The value
of the punishment of withdrawal of one lollipop per day forever is
perceived - now - as equal to the loss of two lollipops today. However
when tomorrow comes, the creature will experience the full,
non-discounted pain of the loss of a lollipop. And again the next day,
and the next. After 100 days the creature will have felt 100 times the
pain of loss of one lollipop, after 1000 days 1000 times the pain, and
so on. Meanwhile a creature deprived of two bars on a single day will
suffer twice as much, for that one day, and then not at all in the
future.
In effect your god is tricking her creatures. It may well be that they
discount the future like humans, especially like children. That does not
mean that they are right. The creature may not appreciate what that loss
will mean each day into the future, but that does not mean that the loss
is not real, when the time arrives. The god cannot justify her meting
out of an infinite punishment by saying that the creature, in its
ignorance, did not realise what the future really held. The god knows
that the creature will suffer infinite regret, over time, and so the god
knows that the punishments are not remotely equal.
--
John Secker
Brian Mason
>This is too contrived an analogy, because though people do place a lower
>value on consuming a unit tomorrow than they do on consuming one today,
>there's no reason to believe that people value things in such a way that
>the infinite series adds up to a finite sum. For instance, if they valued
>a lollipop tomorrow as 1/2 of today, a lollipop the next day as 1/3, etc.,
>the series 1/2 + 1/3 + 1/4... would still add up to be infinite.
>
>The fact that people think of eternal punishment as unfair in the first
>place should indicate that your model of their preferences is poor.
>--
I agree with you that the lollipop story does not match reality, but
it's not supposed to. All I wanted to do was to demonstrate that it
is POSSIBLE for an eternal punishment to be fair. It seemed to me
that it was commonly held by participants of this forum that any
punishment that was eternal must thereby be unfair, and I was trying
to show that wasn't true. To do that, I took the easiest numbers I
could find.
The lollipop story does not depend on the particular (admittedly
severe) discount rate that I have chosen, though. For instance, it is
not difficult to use the discount rate implied in your sequence of 1,
1/2, 1/3, 1/4, etc. and still find a just eternal punishment. In
fact, all our just god needs to do in this case is to take one
lollipop away on the day following the crime (day 1), one away the
next day (day 2), one away on day 4, day 8, day 16, etc. for ever.
Yours,
Brian
Brian Mason
>Well, it's only sensible. The future is always uncertain -- it might
>rain, there might be a frost, you might get mauled by a large predator
>later in the afternoon. The discount rates we use to value future
>gains are based on the perceived risks, which in strategic decisions
>include our own mortality.
>
>However, in any trade of sin today for eternal punishment starting
>tomorrow, the "intuitive" discount rates we use for everyday
>valuations would not be valid.
>
>I'm not sure what you would use for the karmic equivalent of the
>risk-free interest rate, but I think that with any remotely "just and
>fair" system, even the perpetuity for murder would have be on the
>order of an eternal runny nose, or possibly a small demon following
>you wherever you go and trying to to bite your ankles.
>--
I think you are probably right to say that we discount future
consumption at least partly in reaction to uncertainty over our own
future. And if you are also right to think that a lot of uncertainty
goes away when one takes up residence in hell, then it would be
reasonable to expect a lower discount rate for its citizens than we
experience here. (I like the picture you present of a small demon
following you around and trying to bite your ankles.)
Let me play devil's advocate for a paragraph. :)
If the picture you paint is the one that seems fair to us and if we
are convinced that hell was created by a fair and just god, then why
is it that our picture of hell remains a pit of everlasting torment
rather than a sortuv shabby coffee shop where service takes forever
and the coffee's not that good when it finally arrives? It is a
mistake to take as our vision of hell the one that was burned into the
minds of many of us as children (and for those who are wondering what
sort of hell that is, I would recommend Joyce's Portrait of an Artist
as a Young Man). That is almost certainly a sadistic construct of
people trying to maintain power over others (or at least some type of
social discipline), and cannot be representative of the hell created
by a just god.
I have heard it said that the chief punishment of hell is not the
eternal fire, but rather the eternal and utter estrangement from God.
(Indeed, this from the Catholic Encyclopedia's article on hell
[http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/07207a.htm]: "The pain of loss is
the very core of eternal punishment. If the damned beheld God face to
face, hell itself, notwithstanding its fire, would be a kind of
heaven." If this is true, even though it be forever, I think that the
shabby coffee shop picture is a little closer than the brimstone and
fire picture. After all, it is not difficult to find people on earth
today who are pretty estranged from god, and who, at least on
occasion, manage to enjoy themselves despite their condition.
In summation, I take your point that the damned experience a lower
discount rate than we do. This, however, does not lead me to stop
considering that a just god and an eternal hell are incompatible, but
rather that, despite what the bible and the Catholic Church says, if
there really is a hell, then so long as its creator is just, maybe
it's not as bad as it's made out to be.
>odoratusque est Dominus odorem suavitatis
>
What does this mean?
Yours,
Brian
David Wynne-Griffiths
from John Secker <jo...@secker.demon.co.uk> contains these words:
> >> Are there really sentient beings who actually believe such nonsense?
> >> Surely it must have dawned on even the most challenged of our
> >> correspondents that heaven and hell are just an age old myth designed to
> >> effect social and political control over the gullible?
> >>
> >He here propounds more of the 'conviction atheism' that he has presented
> >so often in the past; he seems to suppose that because his
> >feelings 'tell' him something, that is sufficient reason for it
> >to be accepted by all.
> >
> He is, of course, wrong. As are theists when they put forward the same
> arguments. As with people whose feeling tell them that the background
> evidence is in favour of some things, and not others.
Is it not obvious that Heaven and Hell are just human constructs? They
existed in mythologies much older than the Abrahamic religions which no
one would now claim to be other than human constructs. eg the
mythologies of Ancient Egypt and Greece. Is it not obvious that the
Abrahamic religions just adopted the myths?
Despite what the Old Testament suggests Judaism did not come from any
divine revelation but from the adoption of ideas common in surrounding
tribes and civilizations. There was no other way as the god itself is
just a human construct.
"The conception of a messenger of God that underlies biblical prophecy
was Amorite (West Semitic) and found in the tablets at Mari.
Mesopotamian religious and cultural conceptions are reflected in
biblical cosmogony, primeval history (including the Flood story in Gen.
6:9-8:22), and law collections. The Canaanite component of Israelite
culture consisted of the Hebrew language and a rich literary
heritage--whose Ugaritic form (which flourished in the northern Syrian
city of Ugarit from the mid-15th century to about 1200 BCE) illuminates
the Bible's poetry, style, mythological allusions, and religiocultic
terms. Egypt provides many analogues for Hebrew hymnody and wisdom
literature. All the cultures among which the patriarchs lived had cosmic
gods who fashioned the world and preserved its order, including justice;
all had a developed ethic expressed in law and moral admonitions; and
all had sophisticated religious rites and myths.
Though plainer when compared with some of the learned literary creations
of Mesopotamia, Canaan, and Egypt, the earliest biblical writings are so
imbued with contemporary ancient Middle Eastern elements that the
once-held assumption that Israelite religion began on a primitive level
must be rejected. Late-born amid high civilizations, the Israelite
religion had from the start that admixture of high and low features
characteristic of all the known religions of the area. Implanted on the
land bridge between Africa and Asia, it was exposed to crosscurrents of
foreign thought throughout its history." EB 2001
Christianity continued the practice of borrowing from other
civilizations and cultures. Large bits of Judaism were married to ideas
from Greek mythology such as men born of gods. Most of the essential
themes had been reworked many times over. Mithra and Kristna,for
instance, have biographies very similar to that of Jesus and there are
about 30 such saviours.
Theists always seem to believe that their particular religion is
uniquely true and that all others are false. The reality is that all
religions are man made and equally bogus. However, it is wonderful to
see what crazy beliefs can be established in the minds of the gullible
with childhood indoctrination being the most effective method.
Paul Filseth
> Strangely enough there are a lot of christians who seem to
> believe in heaven but not in hell. So religious thinking
> can be the strongest of all.
That's not really that strange -- it's a natural way for religion
to evolve once the Reformation authorized people to make up their own
minds about points of doctrine. If you accept the premise that there's
a triple-omni God, it's rational to suppose there's a heaven but not a
hell -- giving people eternal bliss after they die is good and torturing
them is evil.
Buridan
"John Secker" wrote:
> >"David Wynne-Griffiths" wrote:
> >> Are there really sentient beings who actually believe such nonsense?
> >> Surely it must have dawned on even the most challenged of our
> >> correspondents that heaven and hell are just an age old myth designed
to
> >> effect social and political control over the gullible?
> >>
> >He here propounds more of the 'conviction atheism' that he has presented
> >so often in the past; he seems to suppose that because his
> >feelings 'tell' him something, that is sufficient reason for it
> >to be accepted by all.
> >
> He is, of course, wrong.
>
Agreed.
>As are theists when they put forward the same
> arguments. As with people whose feeling tell them that the background
> evidence is in favour of some things, and not others.
>
Agreed! Thats two agreements in one post!
jh.
Florian
> It is a mistake to take as our vision of hell the one that was burned
> into the minds of many of us as children (and for those who are
> wondering what sort of hell that is, I would recommend Joyce's Portrait
> of an Artist as a Young Man). That is almost certainly a sadistic
> construct of people trying to maintain power over others (or at least
> some type of social discipline), and cannot be representative of the
> hell created by a just god.
I agree that the concept of a Hell where the souls of dead people are
reincarnated to be eternally tortured in a lake of fire is absurd.
> I have heard it said that the chief punishment of hell is not the
> eternal fire, but rather the eternal and utter estrangement from God.
For a non-Christian, this punishment would be about on par with having
accidentally destroyed a winning lottery ticket. The loss of God's love
in and of itself would not mean anything to someone who's never had it in
the first place. The non-Christian damned would no doubt be jealous of
all singing and dancing and laughing the lucky Mormons get to do in
Heaven, but he wouldn't miss God's withheld love one bit. I'll grant you
that a Christian damned soul might indeed feel like an abandoned child.
> In summation, I take your point that the damned experience a lower
> discount rate than we do. This, however, does not lead me to stop
> considering that a just god and an eternal hell are incompatible, but
> rather that, despite what the bible and the Catholic Church says, if
> there really is a hell, then so long as its creator is just, maybe it's
> not as bad as it's made out to be.
Actually, now that I've thought more about this, I think the whole concept
of discounting is inapplicable. I don't think there is any possible
alternative investment, any karmic risk-free interest rate, that you could
use to discount the value of a future punishment. For someone whose fate
is certain and unchangeable for all eternity, a punch in the nose now is
just as bad as a punch in the nose a thousand years in the future, and
*any* punishment infinitely repeated adds up to infinite punishment.
My assumption is that damned souls do not change as living people change.
That is, while a toddler is not the same person as the teenager ten years
later, and that teenager is not the same person as the adult in twenty
more years, I'm assuming that the damned soul today is exactly the same
person that damned soul will be a thousand years from now. If this were
not so, what would be the point in a) continuing to punish it, and b)
denying it the chance to repent and embrace God? (Actually, I think it
would also be pointless to punish a soul that is incapable of change,
which is why eternal punishment doesn't make sense to me either way.)
> >odoratusque est Dominus odorem suavitatis
>
> What does this mean?
"The Lord smelled the sweet smell." It's from Genesis 8:21, where God
takes in the delicious aroma of the burning carcasses of animals that poor
ol' Noah had painstakingly saved from the Flood, cared for over a year,
and then casually sacrificed the instant there was enough dry land to
build a bonfire on.
--
Buridan
"David Wynne-Griffiths" wrote:
> Theists always seem to believe that their particular religion is
> uniquely true and that all others are false. The reality is that all
> religions are man made and equally bogus. However, it is wonderful to
> see what crazy beliefs can be established in the minds of the gullible
> with childhood indoctrination being the most effective method.
>
He 'knows' that theistic beliefs are 'crazy', since his
feelings tell him that they are so. That he can produce
not a shred of an an argument in support of his belief
bothers him not at all. But perhaps I am wrong-
perhaps he can. I challenge him directly to furnish
compelling or even plausible arguments and
other evidence in support of
his claim that "The reality is that all religions are man made
and equally bogus".
jh
MaryC
> > Strangely enough there are a lot of christians who seem to
> > believe in heaven but not in hell. So religious thinking
> > can be stronger than rational thinking but wishful thinking
> > can be the strongest of all.
>
> That's not really that strange -- it's a natural way for religion
> to evolve once the Reformation authorized people to make up their own
> minds about points of doctrine. If you accept the premise that there's
> a triple-omni God, it's rational to suppose there's a heaven but not a
> hell -- giving people eternal bliss after they die is good and torturing
> them is evil.
responsible and effective parenting has evolved along parallel lines
with the God concept. God has grown much more understanding
and patient with his "children" as we have learned more about child
development. Hell has fallen out of favor to about the same degree
as the use of the belt by angry fathers on erring children -- and
among pretty much the same socioeconomic groups.
It seems pretty obvious to me that people model God directly
on their parents.
John Secker
<j...@nospamma.humph65.fsworld.co.uk> writes
>
>"John Secker" wrote:
>>As are theists when they put forward the same
>> arguments. As with people whose feeling tell them that the background
>> evidence is in favour of some things, and not others.
>>
>Agreed! Thats two agreements in one post!
>
--
John Secker
John Secker
writes
>I agree with you that the lollipop story does not match reality, but
>it's not supposed to. All I wanted to do was to demonstrate that it
>is POSSIBLE for an eternal punishment to be fair. It seemed to me
>that it was commonly held by participants of this forum that any
>punishment that was eternal must thereby be unfair, and I was trying
>to show that wasn't true. To do that, I took the easiest numbers I
>could find.
>
>The lollipop story does not depend on the particular (admittedly
>severe) discount rate that I have chosen, though. For instance, it is
>not difficult to use the discount rate implied in your sequence of 1,
>1/2, 1/3, 1/4, etc. and still find a just eternal punishment. In
>fact, all our just god needs to do in this case is to take one
>lollipop away on the day following the crime (day 1), one away the
>next day (day 2), one away on day 4, day 8, day 16, etc. for ever.
>
problem. Rather it is your assumption that if a being feels, at some
moment in time, that two punishments are of equal "value", then that
means that this is indeed the case. Suppose I offer a child one beating
today, or two beatings tomorrow. It is quite possible that a child,
discounting the future, will choose the latter. It is pretty certain
that tomorrow, faced with the pain of double punishment, they will then
regret their choice. All this means is that children are not very good
at envisaging consequences; you have effectively tricked the child into
accepting double punishment - this is not "fair" in any sense of the
term that I recognise.
We discount the future for many reasons. Some are rational - if we put
something off, then it may not happen for some unforeseen reason. More
often it is emotional - probably built into our minds from the time when
life was even more uncertain than it is now. However in the hypothetical
case you describe there is no uncertainty about the future. A day's
torture a week in the future will, with 100% certainty, result in
exactly as much torment as the same day's torture today. So a creature
which discounts the future punishment is in error, and if it accepts an
option from its god which results in an infinite amount of torment, then
that does not make it a "fair" punishment.
--
John Secker
Brian Mason
wrote:
>Actually, now that I've thought more about this, I think the whole concept
>of discounting is inapplicable. I don't think there is any possible
>alternative investment, any karmic risk-free interest rate, that you could
>use to discount the value of a future punishment. For someone whose fate
>is certain and unchangeable for all eternity, a punch in the nose now is
>just as bad as a punch in the nose a thousand years in the future, and
>*any* punishment infinitely repeated adds up to infinite punishment.
>
Q1: Is discounting only applicable in worlds with uncertainty?
A1: Don't know. We observe some people who always save the best bite
til the last, and others who make that their first bite, even when
they have no doubt they'll be eating everything. Maybe you're right.
I tend to try to save the best for last, so I'd probably try to get my
nose punch in early.
Q2: Is hell a place where there is no uncertainty?
A2: The western view of heaven seems to alternate between two views
of heaven. The first is a paradise, where one might walk in beautiful
gardens and talk with interesting people, etc. The second is one
where the saved are basically just praising god eternally (but that's
beautiful or fulfilling or just feels right or something). It seems
to me the first view allows for changes to occur, while the second one
does not.
I think what I might be proposing here is a hellish analogue to the
paradisal view of heaven - the shabby coffee shop where people may
need to be on the lookout for their personal ankle-nipping devils that
you have already mentioned - and not the pits of fire and eternal
agony, etc. that we see in most classical descriptions of hell. It is
a banishment from the pleasures of heaven, but there is no reason for
it to be particularly nasty.
>My assumption is that damned souls do not change as living people change.
>That is, while a toddler is not the same person as the teenager ten years
>later, and that teenager is not the same person as the adult in twenty
>more years, I'm assuming that the damned soul today is exactly the same
>person that damned soul will be a thousand years from now.
I think that's the standard view. It's all rot, of course, so how do
we choose between the two?
>If this were
>not so, what would be the point in a) continuing to punish it, and b)
>denying it the chance to repent and embrace God? (Actually, I think it
>would also be pointless to punish a soul that is incapable of change,
>which is why eternal punishment doesn't make sense to me either way.)
I think the standard response is to mention that punishment fills two
roles, and hell is not there to educate the sinner or modify his
future behavior.
>
>> >odoratusque est Dominus odorem suavitatis
>>
>> What does this mean?
>
>"The Lord smelled the sweet smell." It's from Genesis 8:21, where God
>takes in the delicious aroma of the burning carcasses of animals that poor
>ol' Noah had painstakingly saved from the Flood, cared for over a year,
>and then casually sacrificed the instant there was enough dry land to
>build a bonfire on.
The guy's a barbeque aficionado?
David Wynne-Griffiths
from "Buridan" <j...@nospamma.humph65.fsworld.co.uk> contains these words:
> He 'knows' that theistic beliefs are 'crazy', since his
> feelings tell him that they are so. That he can produce
> not a shred of an an argument in support of his belief
> bothers him not at all. But perhaps I am wrong-
> perhaps he can. I challenge him directly to furnish
> compelling or even plausible arguments and
> other evidence in support of
> his claim that "The reality is that all religions are man made
> and equally bogus".
Can Jimbo produce any credible evidence to show us that there has ever
been a religion that was not man made? or a god which existed outside
the imagination of those who believed in it?
David Wynne-Griffiths
from "Buridan" <j...@nospamma.humph65.fsworld.co.uk> contains these words:
> He 'knows' that theistic beliefs are 'crazy', since his
> feelings tell him that they are so. That he can produce
> not a shred of an an argument in support of his belief
> bothers him not at all. But perhaps I am wrong-
> perhaps he can. I challenge him directly to furnish
> compelling or even plausible arguments and
> other evidence in support of
> his claim that "The reality is that all religions are man made
> and equally bogus".
Jimbo has frequently asserted it is not possible to prove or disprove
the existence of his god and I agree.
More importantly can Jimbo provide to us any credible evidence that
there has ever been a god which was not a human invention? Can he
produce any compelling or even plausible arguments to support his belief
that his god exists outside his imagination? Does it not follow that if
all gods and religions are just human inventions that they are equally
bogus?
Automort
>Jimbo has frequently asserted it is not possible to prove or disprove
>the existence of his god and I agree.
Correct. Thor and Odin were not proven to not exist. People took on a different
and better understanding (though in this case Classical and Christian beliefs)
that made them unconvincing. Such will happen with God.
>Does it not follow that if
>all gods and religions are just human inventions that they are equally
>bogus?
Yes, it does.
Paul Filseth
> Well, the punishment must fit the crime. So, since we already know
> that these creatures are indifferent between one lollipop today and
> two lollipops tomorrow, one appropriate punishment would be to simply
> hold back the (two) lollipops she was intending to pass out tomorrow.
> Or, alternatively, she could hold back just one tomorrow, and one the
> next day, and one the next day, etcetera and etcetera forever, since
> the VALUE of the loss of one lollipop for every day thereafter is
> exactly equal to the VALUE of losing two lollipops.
>
> The interesting thing is, if we have characterized these creatures
> correctly, the thief won't care which punishment is meted out, and
> the rest of the creatures will all agree that each punishment is
> fair.
Hardly likely. Since creatures are indifferent between a lollipop
today and two tomorrow, taking away two tomorrow isn't a punishment at
all. It's letting the thief keep what he stole and merely making him
pay fair-market-value for it. Punishment is supposed to make crime a
losing proposition. The rest of the creatures will probably notice.
> Seriously, though, I do hope this parable does convince you that the
> proposition that hell is impossible because a just god could not
> impose an infinitely long sentence for any finite crime simply does
> not hold water. So long as the just god understands the human
> predilection for discounting the future, it is logically possible
> that she could design an infinitely long sentence that would be "fair
> punishment" for any finite crime.
Since when do we decide what's a fair punishment on the basis of
the wrongdoer's preferences? High discount rates are characteristic
of children. It's entirely possible that a human child who didn't
come home when she said she would and got grounded for it would be
indifferent between being forbidden to go the Ricky Martin concert
with her friends and being killed. That doesn't make killing her a
fair punishment.
Brian Holtz
"India" <spam...@rationalchristianity.net> wrote
> If you want to argue against the notion that sinners deserve
> an infinite amount of punishment because their sins are
> infinitely wrong, you'll have to find another Christian to
> argue with.
I want to argue against the notion that any sinner deserves
an unending period of suffering or torment. If you don't
defend that notion, then we're done.
> > > People are given the opportunity to repent and receive
> > > forgiveness. If they don't, that indicates they still aren't
> > > willing to follow God - in effect, they're still sinning,
> > > still rejecting God. In a way, the sin doesn't end, so
> > > neither can the punishment.
> >
> > Traditional Christianity does not believe people are
> > "given the opportunity to repent" in Hell.
>
> True. What I meant was, people are given the opportunity to
> repent on Earth.
That's irrelevant. If I'm in Hell and I stop rejecting God,
my sin has ended but my punishment never will.
> That attitude is itself a sin, and as long as they have
> that attitude they'll continue to merit punishment.
But when the attitude ceases, the punishment doesn't (and
never will). That's unjust and evil.
> > If one can "repent" to get out of Hell, you can bet Hell is empty.
>
> one can't just "repent" to avoid punishment -
> one has to truly repent
You assume without argument that it's harder to "truly repent"
in Hell than on Earth. Given Hell's much-discussed "separation
from God", it seems obvious it would be easier to "truly repent"
in Hell than on Earth.
> There may be people willing to say anything to get out of hell,
> but they won't be people who would mean what they say and truly
> accept God.
If there are people for whom it is not within the power of their
free will to "truly accept God", then the free-will defense is
gone and God was evil to create them knowing that they had no
choice but to suffer eternal damnation. If on the other hand
it *is* within their power to "truly accept God", you can again
bet Hell is empty.
> I take it your argument is essentially this: unending punishment
> is unjust because it's infinite while a person's sins are finite.
Modulo possible misinterpretation of infinite/finite, that's right.
> Is sin finite in duration?
Yes, except of course for ongoing sin. No act is impossible
to repent for, and no ongoing choice is impossible to change
(for someone with free will).
> If people reject God during their lives on Earth, then continue
> to have a conscious existence in the afterlife, it's a good bet
> they will be continuing to reject God in the afterlife.
It's a better bet that after their first 30 seconds in Hell,
with its allegedly horrific "separation from God", they will
cease rejecting God. However, the punishments of Hell are
guaranteed never to end. That's unjust and evil.
> experiencing a moderate amount of suffering in hell would
> not ever be as bad as experiencing intense agony in hell.
True, but no Earthly sin deserves an unending sentence that
can be characterized as torment, torture, inflicted suffering,
or net punishment.
> The real question is, must punishment be of finite duration
> in order to be just?
Good question. I would say no, if for example my "punishment"
were that I enjoy eternal paradise except that once a day
I stub my toe. But an experience that on net constitutes
punishment or inflicted suffering can never be just if it
is irrevocably unending.
> Since people in hell don't repent, but continue to reject
> God, it makes sense that their punishment would continue
> while their crime continued.
You blatantly beg the question by assuming that people in Hell
don't repent.
It's becoming clear that you don't have the stomach to defend
an irrevocable unending period of net punishment or inflicted
suffering for a repentant person. That's not surprising; I've
yet to interact with anyone who does. The most they
defend is a Hell whose punishment consists of separation
from their unjust deity and the company of other sinners
and infidels. Unless the social dynamics are rigged to be
much different from Earth, that's not a fate to be feared
very much.
What I would fear most of all would be eternal torment by an
entity who were able to remove my awareness of my consequent
moral superiority to him. Such an entity would be better described
as a demon than a deity.
Indeed, if Satan/Lucifer actually succeeded in vanquishing
El/Yahweh, what course of action could be more nefarious than
to pose as God? Would he not then demand exclusive worship
and extravagant sacrifices (of animals or even one's son),
as does El/Yahweh? Would he not promote or
demand dietary taboos, repressive sexual codes,
human mutilation, monarchy, subjugation of women, slavery,
human sacrifice [Lev 27:29, Jud 11:30-39], and mass murder?
Would he not want to be the wolf in lamb's clothing, appearing
as Jesus to affirm the Old Testament [Mt 5:18] and promise
sinners not a thousand years' torture, nor a million or a
billion, but an *eternity* of torture by fire [Mt 18:8]?
Would he not want to trick people into thinking they
deserve the unending torture he has prepared for them?
What scheme of his could be more cruel? Tell me; I really
want to know.
--
br...@holtz.org
http://humanknowledge.net
Buridan
"David Wynne-Griffiths" wrote :
> Jimbo has frequently asserted it is not possible to prove or disprove
> the existence of his god and I agree.
>
So you admit that "The reality is that all religions are man made and
equally bogus" is not a statement that you can provide
any compelling evidence for. What then is your basis for
believing it to be true?
> More importantly can Jimbo provide to us any credible evidence that
> there has ever been a god which was not a human invention
>
You are the one that made the claim ( above), so you have the burden of
proof.
jh
Brian Holtz
> >eternal punishment is indeed
> >infinite punishment, even by [India's] own argument that it sums
> >toward an infinite amount. More importantly, eternal punishment
> >is unending, i.e. not finite, i.e. in-finite, i.e. infinite.
>
> eternal punishment does not NEED to be infinite punishment as is
> commonly believed (and as is stated above).
I state no such thing. (India does, but I don't endorse her
reasoning.) By "infinite" you obviously mean
magnitude, whereas I quite explicitly mean temporality.
> the proposition that hell is impossible because a just god could not
> impose an infinitely long sentence for any finite crime simply does
> not hold water.
That's not my proposition. As I told India today, my proposition is
that an irrevocable unending period of net punishment or inflicted
suffering for a repentant person can never be a just sentence
for any human sin.
And as I told India in January:
if the amount of new pleasure per marginal period
of time exceeds the amount of new suffering (as it does
for most people on earth), then extending the 'sentence'
is a reward and not a punishment.
> it is logically possible that she could design an infinitely
> long sentence that would be "fair punishment" for any finite crime.
To wit, my example for India of eternal paradise marred only
by a daily toe-stubbing. If that's the "punishment", sign me up.
Elsewhere in this thread you write
> why is it that our picture of hell remains a pit of everlasting
> torment rather than a sortuv shabby coffee shop where service
> takes forever [..]?
One reason is Mt 18:8-9: "It is better for you to enter life
maimed or crippled than to have two hands or two feet and be
thrown into eternal fire. [..] It is better for you to enter
life with one eye than to have two eyes and be thrown into
the fire of hell."
> That is almost certainly a sadistic construct of
> people trying to maintain power over others
Perhaps, but it's also a fair reading of the texts that
Christians say are the word of God.
> from the Catholic Encyclopedia's article on hell
> [http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/07207a.htm]: "The pain of
> loss is the very core of eternal punishment. If the damned
> beheld God face to face, hell itself, notwithstanding its fire,
> would be a kind of heaven." If this is true, even though
> it be forever, I think that the shabby coffee shop picture
> is a little closer than the brimstone and fire picture.
Your conclusion is contradicted by the very words you quote:
"notwithstanding its fire". The article explicitly says:
The Holy Bible is quite explicit in teaching the eternity
of the pains of hell. [..] The fire of hell is repeatedly
called eternal and unquenchable.
No coffee shop I've ever seen is anything like this, but then
again, I'm not a coffee drinker...
--
br...@holtz.org
http://humanknowledge.net
Tony Griffin
> Q1: Is discounting only applicable in worlds with uncertainty?
> A1: Don't know. We observe some people who always save the best bite
> til the last, and others who make that their first bite, even when
> they have no doubt they'll be eating everything. Maybe you're right.
> I tend to try to save the best for last, so I'd probably try to get my
> nose punch in early.
I've noticed that the older I get, the more I tend to eat the best bite first
(metaphorically speaking) and even to leave the less tasty stuff altogether.
This is definitely a direct result of my knowledge that my future life span is
getting shorter. Young people consider themselves to be immortal of course, and
I used to have a lot more patience for deferring rewards.
> I think what I might be proposing here is a hellish analogue to the
> paradisal view of heaven - the shabby coffee shop where people may
> need to be on the lookout for their personal ankle-nipping devils that
> you have already mentioned - and not the pits of fire and eternal
> agony, etc. that we see in most classical descriptions of hell. It is
> a banishment from the pleasures of heaven, but there is no reason for
> it to be particularly nasty.
That sounds very much like life here and now - pretty much bearable, but with a
certain amount of suffering. I'm wondering if anything that we can get used to
and make the best of can be described as hell.
>
> >My assumption is that damned souls do not change as living people change.
> >That is, while a toddler is not the same person as the teenager ten years
> >later, and that teenager is not the same person as the adult in twenty
> >more years, I'm assuming that the damned soul today is exactly the same
> >person that damned soul will be a thousand years from now.
>
> I think that's the standard view. It's all rot, of course, so how do
> we choose between the two?
Is it (rot) though? Assuming the unending torture and pain model, any human
would quite shortly go insane and then (probably) catatonic. This kind of
punishment is therefore self-limiting. I would guess that an unchanging state of
mind (and body, if applicable) would be necessary.
A more sadistic alternative would be alternating unpredictable periods of
torture and relief, perhaps with false hope offered from time to time. Mind you,
given eternity, even this would eventually lead to some kind of total
withdrawal, so I'm still plumping for the unchanging model. :)
I think the nastiest idea would be to periodically restore the soul to the
instant of committal. It could then experience the dispair of realization of
damnation, followed by the initial agony, without any chance to "get used to
it".
(Nice god, this, eh?)
Tony
Eric Boyd
"Brian Holtz" <br...@holtz.org> wrote in message
news:00e301c1c9f4$80e85ec0$0200...@smateo1.sfba.home.com...
>
>> Indeed, if Satan/Lucifer actually succeeded in vanquishing
> El/Yahweh, what course of action could be more nefarious than
> to pose as God? Would he not then demand exclusive worship
> and extravagant sacrifices (of animals or even one's son),
> as does El/Yahweh? Would he not promote or
> demand dietary taboos, repressive sexual codes,
> human mutilation, monarchy, subjugation of women, slavery,
> human sacrifice [Lev 27:29, Jud 11:30-39], and mass murder?
> Would he not want to be the wolf in lamb's clothing, appearing
> as Jesus to affirm the Old Testament [Mt 5:18] and promise
> sinners not a thousand years' torture, nor a million or a
> billion, but an *eternity* of torture by fire [Mt 18:8]?
> Would he not want to trick people into thinking they
> deserve the unending torture he has prepared for them?
> What scheme of his could be more cruel? Tell me; I really
> want to know.
>
Have you been reading Phillip Pullman's "His Dark Materials" series? This
sounds similar to his take on the monotheistic religions. In these books
there really is a God, but he's not what you think. There are some good guys
too, the rebel angels and a few people who are playing a role in bringing
down the Authority. It pleases me that the kids are reading this sort of
thing and that one of the books, The Amber Spyglass, won the Whitbread
award.
I'm suprised that the fundies aren't more up in arms about these books. They
are grim, serious, and utterly hostile to Christianity.
-E
Arjan
"Automort" <auto...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20020312035556...@mb-ft.aol.com...
> From: David Wynne-Griffiths dav...@zetnet.co.uk
>
> >Jimbo has frequently asserted it is not possible to prove or disprove
> >the existence of his god and I agree.
>
> Correct. Thor and Odin were not proven to not exist. People took on a
different
> and better understanding (though in this case Classical and Christian
beliefs)
> that made them unconvincing. Such will happen with God.
You are still too used to christianity. There is no reason to believe
that christianity is a better understanding (of reality) than Odin or Thor.
The rise of christianity is understandable in terms of power politics.
It made sense for kings to become christian to improve their
relationship with first the roman empire and later the christian states
that claimed their legitimacy from the roman past.
For the kings christianity was a great tool to increase their power
over the population and they used much force to convert their
people. As a number of pagan inspired insurrections showed
people were not that convinced by christian arguments.
But they were convinced by the sword and payed their
taxes. And a few generations later they started crusades
themselves.
As modern hinduism shows christianity is in no way superior
to any other theism. It is just more intolerant which helped
spreading it. It is no accident that its global competitor, islam,
is also warlike and intolerant.
> >Does it not follow that if
> >all gods and religions are just human inventions that they are equally
> >bogus?
>
> Yes, it does.
You can compare religions using Dawkins meme theory and try to
find out what religions are better in spreading themselves and why.
You will find that logic and understanding are not the most important
things.
Arjan
Florian
> I think the nastiest idea would be to periodically restore the soul
> to the instant of committal. It could then experience the dispair of
> realization of damnation, followed by the initial agony, without any
> chance to "get used to it".
Now this idea opens up quite an interesting can of metaphysical worms.
If it's actually possible in principle (and therefore in practice for
our omnipotent deity) to dump and restore souls, what does that do to
our valuation of punishment, the value of souls, and and our concept
of identity?
If a deity did what you suggest, would it lose the punishment value of
the torture experienced by any previous instances of the soul? Would
this be the divine equivalent of someone saving a Nintendo game just
before killing the final boss, and then reloading it over and over
again? And wouldn't this also reduce the value of a soul to that of a
(admittedly sentient) video game?
And if the deity wanted to save some time, what would keep him from
deciding to torture a million instances of your soul simultaneously?
And would that be better or worse than torturing one copy of you for a
million times longer?
Who would *you* even be, and why should *it* be punished for something
an old flesh-based instance of it did fifty trillion years ago?
--
quadam autem die cum venissent filii Dei ut adsisterent coram Domino
adfuit inter eos etiam Satan
MaryC
"David Wynne-Griffiths" wrote.
> Jimbo has frequently asserted it is not possible to prove or disprove
> the existence of his god and I agree.
> More importantly can Jimbo provide to us any credible evidence that
> there has ever been a god which was not a human invention? Can he
> produce any compelling or even plausible arguments to support his belief
> that his god exists outside his imagination? Does it not follow that if
> all gods and religions are just human inventions that they are equally
> bogus?
For myself, the proof that all religions are just human inventions
can be found in their concepts of God. God is always a super-sized
human being. He may be super-mean or super-sweet. She may
be super-sexy or super-maternal. Usually He/She is an ideal or
fearsome parent figure. The ancients added zest with various
sibling-figures who were the patrons of important attributes or
activities. The center of the pantheon, from the Old Testament
to the Greeks to Christianity to New Age Harmonics is just a
big person imagined without the limits of a physical being. Isn't
it suggestive that descriptions of God consist of human attributes
with the proviso that in God they're infinite? When we describe
an infinitely "powerful" being, an "omniscient" being, a God who
*is* love, we're fantasizing our own abilities exponentially increased.
You may well ask, how else can we describe the universe? That's
my point. We can't describe it any other way than in human terms,
and that's why the religions of the world describe it that way.
Because they were invented by humans. They don't expand our
knowledge of the universe one atom beyond our own knowledge.
Automort
>You are still too used to christianity. There is no reason to believe
>that christianity is a better understanding (of reality) than Odin or Thor.
It enabled science to develope to the level it has. Even the Classical
religions didn't do that, though they did enable it to get off to a good start.
Christianity is morally superior. I find people partaking of a symbolic
cannibal feast and sacrifice a bit better than oak groves filled with the
hanged corpses of human and animal sacrifices.
David Wynne-Griffiths
from "Buridan" <j...@nospamma.humph65.fsworld.co.uk> contains these words:
> So you admit that "The reality is that all religions are man made and
> equally bogus" is not a statement that you can provide
> any compelling evidence for. What then is your basis for
> believing it to be true?
We agree that one cannot prove or disprove imaginary entities such as
gods to the criminal law standard of beyond reasonable doubt. However,
using the civil law standard of the balance of probabilities it is easy
to dismiss them as human inventions and thus utterly bogus.
Where childhood indoctrination has been effective it is difficult for
the victims to reject the notion of god which was planted so firmly in
their minds. However, for those of us who have recovered from childhood
indoctrination it is very difficult to believe the fairy stories. Some
people are very gullible and lap up all the ritual and dogma, while
others want to be told what to do and so like the discipline that
belonging to a religion imposes on them. To the rest of us it is just a
collection of folk memories, fairy stories, superstition and nonsense.
My reasons for reaching the conclusion that all gods and religions are
human constructs are inter alia:
(1) The certain knowledge that the gods in the mythologies of earlier
civilisations were human constructs. (2) The pattern that was clearly
established by such civilisations of the serial invention of gods and
religions by man.
(3) The myriad sects and cults which have grown up round the main
current religions many of which are so blatantly absurd that they must
have been invented by man. eg the Mormons. These confirm that man is
still inventing religions.
(4) That no one has ever been able to produce any credible empirical
evidence for the existence of any god.
(5) That no one has ever been able to prove that there has ever been a
god or religion which was not a human construct.
(6) The curious lack of originality in the gods man has invented and
the way each religion draws so heavily on aspects of past religions.
(7) In earlier times gods were the explanation of the unknown and
people like Jimbo still cling to this aspect. In the last few hundred
years scientific knowledge has dramatically reduced the scope of the
deity to the point where it is difficult to see it has any useful
function left to perform.
(8) The Christian religion depends on the resurrection of Jesus but no
one can produce even a whisker of credible evidence to show that it
happened or to deny the more probable resuscitation.
(9) To permit afterlife it is necessary to have a soul and places like
heaven and hell for the soul to progress to. No one can produce any
credible evidence that there is such a thing as a soul or that there are
places such as heaven or hell. As these are all concepts common to
earlier religions it is probable that they were just adopted.
Given more time I could produce a far longer list but the above will
suffice to explain why I think all gods and all religions are just human
inventions.
> > More importantly can Jimbo provide to us any credible evidence that
> > there has ever been a god which was not a human invention
> >
> You are the one that made the claim ( above), so you have the burden of
> proof.
You are the theist trying to either convince us or reassure yourself and
you know you can produce no credible evidence that will satisfy us that
your god exists outside your imagination. While we give not a fart
whether or not you choose to continue to wallow in your absurd beliefs,
we are very grateful to you for the entertainment you provide and for
the immense amount of time you devote to us.
Jim Rogers
> "David Wynne-Griffiths" wrote :
> > Jimbo has frequently asserted it is not possible to prove or
> > disprove the existence of his god and I agree.
> So you admit that "The reality is that all religions are man made
> and equally bogus" is not a statement that you can provide
> any compelling evidence for. What then is your basis for
> believing it to be true?
Your above agreement that existence proofs of god are not possible IS
the clear basis for the assertion that religions are man-made and
bogus, because religions are not based on any rational grounds (let
alone _provable_ grounds).
> > More importantly can Jimbo provide to us any credible evidence
> > that there has ever been a god which was not a human invention
> You are the one that made the claim ( above), so you have the
> burden of proof.
In other words, "no." It would save time for you to simply say it.
Jim
John Secker
>
>Have you been reading Phillip Pullman's "His Dark Materials" series? This
>sounds similar to his take on the monotheistic religions. In these books
>there really is a God, but he's not what you think. There are some good guys
>too, the rebel angels and a few people who are playing a role in bringing
>down the Authority. It pleases me that the kids are reading this sort of
>thing and that one of the books, The Amber Spyglass, won the Whitbread
>award.
>
the prize. It seemed to me that there was enough material in there for
at least two books, but that he got bored and just chucked it all in;
quite a contrast to the previous two books which were sharply plotted
and written. God gets killed off quite casually in a couple of sentences
and is never referred to again.
>I'm suprised that the fundies aren't more up in arms about these books. They
>are grim, serious, and utterly hostile to Christianity.
>
huge wave of publicity, so the usual suspects lurch out of their caves
to get it off the library shelves. Pullman is far more likely to create
atheists, because he makes people think really hard about religion.
However most fundies seem to read nothing but the bible, so if it
doesn't appear on the evening news, they don't know about it.
--
John Secker
Brian Mason
<jo...@secker.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>Brian, I don't think it is the details of your mathematics that is the
>problem. Rather it is your assumption that if a being feels, at some
>moment in time, that two punishments are of equal "value", then that
>means that this is indeed the case. Suppose I offer a child one beating
>today, or two beatings tomorrow. It is quite possible that a child,
>discounting the future, will choose the latter. It is pretty certain
>that tomorrow, faced with the pain of double punishment, they will then
>regret their choice. All this means is that children are not very good
>at envisaging consequences; you have effectively tricked the child into
>accepting double punishment - this is not "fair" in any sense of the
>term that I recognise.
You are right that a retributional system of justice cannot possibly
be justified if the participants are unable to understand the
consequences of their actions. As far as my example goes, I certainly
imagined that all lollipoppers were well aware of their own
preferences as well as the (exact same) preferences of others, and if
that was not clear, let me make it a stipulation. No trickery
allowed. If what you are saying is that infinite punishment is beyond
anybody's understanding, I disagree.
>We discount the future for many reasons. Some are rational - if we put
>something off, then it may not happen for some unforeseen reason. More
>often it is emotional - probably built into our minds from the time when
>life was even more uncertain than it is now. However in the hypothetical
>case you describe there is no uncertainty about the future. A day's
>torture a week in the future will, with 100% certainty, result in
>exactly as much torment as the same day's torture today. So a creature
>which discounts the future punishment is in error, and if it accepts an
>option from its god which results in an infinite amount of torment, then
>that does not make it a "fair" punishment.
>--
Even when economists model under certainty, they include a positive
intertemporal discount rate. There are lots of examples of this in
elementary textbooks. For instance, on page 87 of Robert Barro's
textbook "Macroeconomics", there is a discussion of maximizing
household utility over an infiinite horizion that begins with equation
4.7 as follows: U = u(c1, l1) + u(c2, l2)/(1+r) + u(c3,l3)/(1+r)^2 +
u(c3, l3)/(1+r)^2 + ... , where ci and li are consumption and leisure
in period i, U is total utility, u is the one-period utility function,
and r (it's actually rho in the equation, but I can't type that in
here) is what Barro calls the "utility rate of time preference".
I have not come across a good justification for why such discount
rates are in such equations (or if I have, I've forgotten it). For
instance, all Barro says to justify its inclusion in his equation is
"Usually, economists assume that people prefer to get their utils
earlier rather than later." (p.70), which doesn't help much, I admit.
It may be included, as you suggest, because it's an uncertain world
out there, and certainty models may just slap it in there on an ad hoc
basis to capture people's reactions to this uncertainty. (One reason
that I'm a little skeptical of this explanation is that the net effect
of including this rho in such models is to push consumption from the
future to the present, while if it were a reflection of what
uncertainty does to people, the net effect should be to move
consumption from the certain present to the uncertain future.)
Or, it may be a device to capture the idea that for most people, there
really is an externality, if you will, to consuming now rather than
later that cannot be captured by separable utility functions. That
is, eating well now may positively affect you tomorrow. If
economists, for practical reasons, separate a multi-period utility
function into separate one-period utility functions whose arguments
are only of that same period, then this will be missed.
So even though certain torture next week will feel just as bad as
torture does today, it would not be an error to choose to go for the
torture next week. After all, if you do choose torture next week,
you'll at least have six days where you won't be trying to recover
from a torturous experience. OTOH, it wouldn't be an error to choose
to go for the torture today. At least that way, you wouldn't be
dreading an upcoming torturous experience. People react differently.
(It's almost sounding like "discounting the future" could be an
evolved trait. You know how it goes: If some people dread death
(about as certain as it gets) so badly that they can't stand it and
kill themselves, and if such a thing is hereditary, then there would
be fewer and fewer of those people around, and more and more people
who would exhibit the trait of discounting the future.)
It may be that people who discount a certain future are doing so in
error, as you suggest, or it may be that there's more going on than a
simple model can be expected to capture. I don't know.
Arjan
> From: "Arjan" ar...@morgaine.demon.nl
>
> >You are still too used to christianity. There is no reason to believe
> >that christianity is a better understanding (of reality) than Odin or
Thor.
>
> It enabled science to develope to the level it has. Even the Classical
Really? it started the middle ages. Only later when people rediscovered
the classics progress could start again.
I think we would have had our progress without christianity as well
but it is hard to tell.
> religions didn't do that, though they did enable it to get off to a good
start.
In China it got even a better start without christianity.
I think what really ended classical progress was the
empire. In china the chinese empire when its policy changed
and in europe the roman empire. Absolute rule of one person
with a lot of subjects can bring a lot of problems.
(Guns, Germs, and Steel: The Fates of Human Societies -- by Jared Diamond;
Paperback)
> Christianity is morally superior. I find people partaking of a symbolic
> cannibal feast and sacrifice a bit better than oak groves filled with the
The christians didn't have human sacrifice because the jews and the greeks
got rid of that some time earlier so their combination of greek
and jewish thought didn't have it either. According to one jewish historian
it was a backwards turn in the direction of human sacrifice.
(The Mythmaker : Paul and the Invention of Christianity by Maccoby, Hyam )
If anything christianity introduced more killings than the pagan religions
it replaced by killing people who were not ready to convert,
forcing taxes they were not used to pay and introducing
absolute monarchy. And later by hunting heretics.
I don't read of oak grooves filled with human sacrifices
in the icelandic sagas and they would certainly have mentioned them.
I think human sacrifice would have disappeared anyway
> hanged corpses of human and animal sacrifices.
Animal sacrifices were actually a way of sharing food with your
subjects. If a king sacrificed a hundred heads of cattle you could
be sure everybody got a decent meal for a change. It was good
for his popularity but bad for his finances. Christianity was cheaper.
(Cows, Pigs, Wars & Witches : The Riddles of Culture -- Marvin Harris;
Paperback
Cannibals and Kings : The Origins of Cultures -- Marvin Harris; Paperback )
It seems like there were economic reasons for christianity. But hindus
became vegetarian for similar reasons.
Arjan
Brian Mason
>> The interesting thing is, if we have characterized these creatures
>> correctly, the thief won't care which punishment is meted out, and
>> the rest of the creatures will all agree that each punishment is
>> fair.
>
> Hardly likely. Since creatures are indifferent between a lollipop
>today and two tomorrow, taking away two tomorrow isn't a punishment at
>all. It's letting the thief keep what he stole and merely making him
>pay fair-market-value for it. Punishment is supposed to make crime a
>losing proposition. The rest of the creatures will probably notice.
>
You are right that the punishment brings the thief back to the same
state he was in before the crime. He is no worse off as a result of
his punishment. On the other hand, he's no better off, either. In
this lollipop world of retributive justice, my definition of fair is
the minimum that makes sure the crime is not profitable. If you'd
like, we can have our just and merciful god turn into a slightly
vengeful god and take a single lick off each of the thieves remaining
lollipops.
>> Seriously, though, I do hope this parable does convince you that the
>> proposition that hell is impossible because a just god could not
>> impose an infinitely long sentence for any finite crime simply does
>> not hold water. So long as the just god understands the human
>> predilection for discounting the future, it is logically possible
>> that she could design an infinitely long sentence that would be "fair
>> punishment" for any finite crime.
>
> Since when do we decide what's a fair punishment on the basis of
>the wrongdoer's preferences? High discount rates are characteristic
>of children. It's entirely possible that a human child who didn't
>come home when she said she would and got grounded for it would be
>indifferent between being forbidden to go the Ricky Martin concert
>with her friends and being killed. That doesn't make killing her a
>fair punishment.
In my example, I avoid this discussion (which is interesting, but
beside my only point - that infinite punishment need not be infinitely
cruel) by giving everybody the same preferences.
Still, if push came to shove, I think I would argue that it had better
be the wrongdoer's preferences that are under consideration. How
else? Applying a standard penalty (perhaps what would deter the
"average" guy from committing the crime) may be done in practice, but
that's only because there's no way to really know what makes each
individual tick.
But what then of your Ricky Martin fan? The short answer is that I
would hope she is not punished retributively not because she has a
high discount rate, but because she's young and malleable and doing so
misses an opportunity to educate. Of course, we do see retributive
punishment of children all time. Suzy comes home late one night, and
the parents don't let her go to the Ricky Martin show. How does that
punishment fit the crime in any way except that it is hoped that it is
high enough to deter her in the future?
etriagen
"David Wynne-Griffiths" wrote:
jh
"David Wynne-Griffiths" wrote:
jh
This is my first post, being introduced to newsgroups only a short time
ago. And in finding this group, and following this thread, I just wanted to
respond. I also apologize if I am interrupting this conversation.
The substance of religion, that is the physical materials that make up
religion, ARE all man made. All the texts were written by man, translated
by man, and eventually mass produced and distributed by man. The songs in
the hymnals were written by man. Churches and places of worship are built
by carpenters/masons, which are men (and women too). Even those real nice
looking choir robes are made by man. All the things that are evident in
religion are MEN or are made by MAN. There are no artifacts of proven
"divine" and "unearthly" origin.
I know you can say "Well, man did not make the tree that was cut down to
make the lumber that built the church", or "Man did not make the plants
that were turned into cloth and then were sewn into choir robes".
That is true, and that is evident.
But there IS no proof, no evidence based on fact, that you can say any
supreme being made these. You can only provide sincere, emotive insistence
to your claims. The only claim that I make is that you can not provide me
with proof. This is my agnostic front.
All religions are equal as to the fact that there is no evidence to support
their claims. Therefore no religion can be proven as to its authenticity.
And if it can not be proven to be authentic, it can not be proven to be
genuine. So they are all equally "bogus" in that none can be proven to be
genuine.
soliloquy72
Tony Griffin
>
> Tony Griffin <tgri...@pipeline.com> writes:
>
> > I think the nastiest idea would be to periodically restore the soul
> > to the instant of committal. It could then experience the dispair of
> > realization of damnation, followed by the initial agony, without any
> > chance to "get used to it".
>
> Now this idea opens up quite an interesting can of metaphysical worms.
> If it's actually possible in principle (and therefore in practice for
> our omnipotent deity) to dump and restore souls, what does that do to
> our valuation of punishment, the value of souls, and and our concept
> of identity?
Good question. We could see it as an alteration to a future state that was
identical to a past state instead of a dump/restore I suppose. Yes, I know that
seems to be a difference that makes no difference, but we do tolerate changes to
the self on an on-going basis in our normal life experience without claiming
that a new person has emerged.
>
> If a deity did what you suggest, would it lose the punishment value of
> the torture experienced by any previous instances of the soul? Would
> this be the divine equivalent of someone saving a Nintendo game just
> before killing the final boss, and then reloading it over and over
> again? And wouldn't this also reduce the value of a soul to that of a
> (admittedly sentient) video game?
Perhaps. But what is our value anyway if we are just creations of an omnipotent
being that could have made us different at a whim? Abiogenesis coupled with
Darwinian evolution at least lets us be the best "survivors" or whatever.
>
> And if the deity wanted to save some time, what would keep him from
> deciding to torture a million instances of your soul simultaneously?
> And would that be better or worse than torturing one copy of you for a
> million times longer?
Heh, heh. About the same, I would guess, as its all infinity anyway. :)
>
> Who would *you* even be, and why should *it* be punished for something
> an old flesh-based instance of it did fifty trillion years ago?
Right. But that applies just as much to someone that's gone totally out of his
mind from billions of years of torture. Or even punishing someone who committed
a crime while his mind was "altered" by drugs, but who has since turned his life
around, is sober and arguably no longer the same person that did the deed? We
don't seem to have a problem with that.
This questions of "what am I?" is interesting though, even without the infernal
context. I once read a sci-fi story where they had matter transmitters as in
Star Trek. In this case, one's body was totally analysed, destroyed, and the
pattern transmitted to the destination where it was recreated as an exact
replica. The story described a man whose wife was killed some six months after
she had used this method to visit the Moon. Yes, you've guessed it, they
"resent" her and presented him with the result - his wife as she was six months
ago. The question was, of course, could she in any way be considered the same
person? I forget how it ended.
We don't have to posit such an odd circumstance to ask the question: What makes
me the same person (in terms of identity) as I was 10 years ago, when just
about all my cells have been replaced? I once spent some time thinking about
this and the only thing I could come up with was continuity. In other words,
everything about me has changed, but whatever it is that I call "me" was there
all along. :) It feels a bit weak however. What about someone that wakes up
after years in a coma? Maybe the whole concept of identity is flawed?
Tony
Buridan
"David Wynne-Griffiths" wrote:
Before commenting I ought to say that it is to be welcomed
that he has at last managed to present some sort of
arguments in support of his views. Alas, as we shall see,
these rapidly come unstuck.
> My reasons for reaching the conclusion that all gods and religions are
> human constructs are inter alia:
> (1) The certain knowledge that the gods in the mythologies of earlier
> civilisations were human constructs.
>
Plainly invalid- it doesn't follow from:
'Gods in the mythologies of earlier civilisations were human constructs.'
that 'All gods and religions are human constructs'
>(2) The pattern that was clearly
> established by such civilisations of the serial invention of gods and
> religions by man.
>
Same comment.
> (3) The myriad sects and cults which have grown up round the main
> current religions many of which are so blatantly absurd that they must
> have been invented by man. eg the Mormons. These confirm that man is
> still inventing religions.
>
Fallacious argument from incredulity.
> (4) That no one has ever been able to produce any credible empirical
> evidence for the existence of any god.
>
Implicit argument from ignorance.
> (5) That no one has ever been able to prove that there has ever been a
> god or religion which was not a human construct.
As above.
> (6) The curious lack of originality in the gods man has invented and
> the way each religion draws so heavily on aspects of past religions.
>
Implicitly fallacious again: x is not original :. x does not exist.
> (7) In earlier times gods were the explanation of the unknown and
> people like Jimbo still cling to this aspect. In the last few hundred
> years scientific knowledge has dramatically reduced the scope of the
> deity to the point where it is difficult to see it has any useful
> function left to perform.
>
Implicitly fallacious argument: x is not useful :. x does not exist.
> (8) The Christian religion depends on the resurrection of Jesus but no
> one can produce even a whisker of credible evidence to show that it
> happened or to deny the more probable resuscitation.
>
False assertion re evidence- there is controversial evidence in the
NT which is the subject of much debate. And a literal understanding
of the resurrection is not a requirement of Christianity.
> (9) To permit afterlife it is necessary to have a soul and places like
> heaven and hell for the soul to progress to. No one can produce any
> credible evidence that there is such a thing as a soul or that there are
> places such as heaven or hell.
>
Another argument from ignorance- and I argue that one can
provide strong reasons to believe that there is a soul.
> As these are all concepts common to
> earlier religions it is probable that they were just adopted.
> Given more time I could produce a far longer list but the above will
> suffice to explain why I think all gods and all religions are just human
> inventions.
>
I'm afraid not- all you have produced is a string of fallacies.
jh
Buridan
"MaryC" wrote:
> For myself, the proof that all religions are just human inventions
> can be found in their concepts of God. God is always a super-sized
> human being. He may be super-mean or super-sweet.
This is an atheist proof?
jh
Automort
>I challenge him directly to furnish
>compelling or even plausible arguments and
>other evidence in support of
>his claim that "The reality is that all religions are man made
>and equally bogus".
Why didn't God just see to it that everybody worshipped Him and performed the
correct rituals from the begining. Why didn't he just appear and set them
straight when they deviated -- everywhere? China, Australia, Hawaii, Peru, etc.
And if Christianity is true, why are the death rates on Easter Sunday the same
as any other Sunday? Why is the weather exactly as one would expect on that
day, the result of the conditions on previous days?
Automort
>I think we would have had our progress without christianity as well
>but it is hard to tell.
Perhaps if Julian "the Apostate" had succeeded? The Romans had so much invested
in slavery that labor saving machinery, which they could make and did make in
some cases, might have shaken the economy. The Celts had reaping machines and
water powered mills and the like, so perhaps technology would have flourished
whatever the religion.
You are right, though, powerful centralized government is what destroys
progress, or at least its effective application. There may be huge scale
applications in emergencies, but besides that the application is usually in
spying on honest people and taxing them into apathy.
The Germans, including the Angles and Saxons, had groves full of sacrifices. of
course the Romans may have just said that to justify attacking them, but that
makes them look Christian before Christians were like that (powerful). I doubt
that people who staged bloody spectacles were horrified by such.
Oh, well, the bull in bullfights is used to feed people, so that makes it OK.
Fused
proof. Most atheists have their convictions firmly based on science.
One of the basics in science is: we can't proove a thing. We can only
think of the best possible description of reality and verify the
correctness of the description. Not a million verifications make a
proof, while one counter-example makes a disproof.
A wonder science has got so far, not?
Incidentally, though this is not a proof, 'MaryC's statement is quite
valid reasoning: the similarities in the god-concept between world
religions seem to show a particularly 'human' influence on of them.
They are never green blobs of goo, ants or robins. These similarities
can be explained pretty well by hypothesizing that they might be human
fiction; a statement that can be backed up by examinations of human
imagination, the common goals religions have (and what would be needed
in the religion to achieve them), etc.
Arjan
"Buridan" <j...@nospamma.humph65.fsworld.co.uk> wrote in message
news:a708a9$thm$2...@news8.svr.pol.co.uk...
It is maybe not valid but it is sound.
Better than all those valid arguments that are not sound.
Far better than the ontological argument.
But there is more in this argument than MaryC mentioned.
There was a Greek (I forgot his name, maybe somebody
else knows) who said that if lions (maybe apes, whatever)
could talk to us and tell us about their god(s) their gods would
have the shape of lions (apes whatever).
It is also closely connected to several arguments derived from
history. First we know that at least most gods were invented
by humans (unless we accept that the devil created them)
and we know a lot of the history of these god ideas. Including
your god and there is no reason to think your god is different.
Secondly we don't have to look at evolution to get a view
of history that doesn't agree with the bible, archeology is
enough.
I am an atheist because I was born one and was never really
brought into contact with religion until I went to university.
Before that everything I read about religion was in history
books were I think it belongs. But the reason I stayed atheist
is not that I was impressed by some proofs or lack of them
but because study of reality (history and science mainly)
told me that christian view of reality did not agree
with reality even after all adaptations in the past.
And because the original view was supposed to be
unchangeable and was even more removed from reality.
The view of god as superman confirms this though
in itself it is maybe not enough.
> jh
>
>
Arjan
>
Automort
It's certainly a theist proof, since they claim God is greater and nicer than
we are. It proves nothing when a theist cites it, but it implies much wne an
atheist does.
MaryC
> "MaryC" wrote:
> > For myself, the proof that all religions are just human inventions
> > can be found in their concepts of God. God is always a super-sized
> > human being. He may be super-mean or super-sweet.
"Buridan" wrote
> This is an atheist proof?
Of course it's not a rigorous proof. It's somewhat along
the lines of my believing that if I let go of an apple, it
will fall to the surface below, because that's what I've
always seen happen. I have no reason to disbelieve the
word of astronauts, that when they're a distance from
the earth, this phenomenon changes, and that there is
a relationship between the distance and the acceleration
of the fall. Scientists have made many predictions, and
designed equipment that works in space based on the
"laws" of gravity. We can't be sure that these "laws" will
always and everywhere in the universe work the same
way. If we ever get to the point where we can check
out every corner of the universe, we'll either confirm
or elaborate on them.
But can you give me an example of a religion where
God is not given human attributes? There are philosophical
concepts of God which amount to little more than
"it's a mysterious thing behind everything," but such
concepts don't inspire the devotion that leads to
a religion. Anyway, what moral or ritual activity can you
derive from such a concept?
David Wynne-Griffiths
> that 'All gods and religions are human constructs'
The situation is that we have 18,000+ gods which everyone agrees were
human inventions and one god which those who believe in it claim to be
genuine. However, those who claim their god to be genuine can produce
no credible evidence that it exists outside their imagination.
> Same comment.
Most of us can see that there is a pattern of god invention going back
at least 100,000 years with at most one god that anyone would claim to
be genuine. That establishes without doubt that man has been a serial
inventor of gods with at least 18,000 various gods to his credit.
Religions are of necessity always man made.
> Fallacious argument from incredulity.
It is a reasonable assumption based on the known and observed fact that
there are myriads of sects and religions which can only have been
invented by man.
> Implicit argument from ignorance.
Where is the credible empirical evidence on which Jimbo relies to prove
the existence of his God? Can he produce any or am I correct in
assuming that he is unable to do so?
> As above.
Can Jimbo produce the credible evidence to prove to us that there has
ever been a religion or a god which was not a human construct?
> Implicitly fallacious again: x is not original :. x does not exist.
Actually nothing more than a very reasonable conclusion reached from
simple observation of the facts.
> False assertion re evidence- there is controversial evidence in the
> NT which is the subject of much debate. And a literal understanding
> of the resurrection is not a requirement of Christianity.
There is no credible evidence in the NT or elsewhere just some
conflicting accounts which actually make much more sense if Jesus had
been resuscitated rather than resurrected. Jimbo can, of course,
produce not even a whisker of credible evidence to show that
ressurection is even possible never mind showing that it happened to
Jesus.
> Another argument from ignorance- and I argue that one can
> provide strong reasons to believe that there is a soul.
Can Jimbo produce any credible evidence that either souls, heaven or
hell actually exist?
They suffice for me and many many other atheists. Jimbo seems to have
difficulty understanding that we do not believe in gods because no one,
including Jimbo, has ever been able to produce any credible evidence to
persuade us that they exist.
Jesse Nowells
On Thu, 21 Mar 2002, MaryC wrote:
> > > For myself, the proof that all religions are just human inventions
> > > can be found in their concepts of God.
> "Buridan" wrote
> > This is an atheist proof?
> Of course it's not a rigorous proof.
Where is the logical necessity for god? Whether god exists or not is
contingent. If one can't demonstrate any necessity for god then where is
the necessity for believing in god? Can that be demonstrated? If not,
there is no necessity for people to believe in god. Instead of flaying at
the branches, go for the root.
Arjan
> From: "Arjan" ar...@morgaine.demon.nl
>
> >I think we would have had our progress without christianity as well
> >but it is hard to tell.
>
> Perhaps if Julian "the Apostate" had succeeded? The Romans had so much
invested
> in slavery that labor saving machinery, which they could make and did make
in
> some cases, might have shaken the economy.
Slavery was still there in the early middle ages and disappeared from Europe
because of changed economic conditions. Not because of christianity.
But romans didn't need to produce anything. They always could send an
army to grab it and take everything else as well. The pro roman sentiment
in the NT is one of the reasons to distrust it.
> The Celts had reaping machines and
> water powered mills and the like, so perhaps technology would have
> flourished whatever the religion.
Maybe if the roman empire was not created the gauls would have been
brought into classic civilization in a more constructive way and slavery
would be less important. But slavery and the war economy had a lot to
do with each other.
> You are right, though, powerful centralized government is what destroys
> progress, or at least its effective application.
I tend to include power hungry cults. Some religions want to have more
controll over their followers than others and christianity has traditionaly
a lot of controll over its subjects. Classic paganism tends to have less
controll over its subjects which is better for progress.
> There may be huge scale
> applications in emergencies, but besides that the application is usually
> in
> spying on honest people and taxing them into apathy.
Untill the whole stuff breaks down and the barbarians arrive.
Most of the time they just take over though.
> The Germans, including the Angles and Saxons, had groves full of
sacrifices. of
> course the Romans may have just said that to justify attacking them, but
that
More like war propaganda. You must spread atrocity tales
about your enemies. That doesn't mean it is not true though.
But christians were eating babies in their church every week.
At least if you listen to their enemies.
> makes them look Christian before Christians were like that (powerful).
> I doubt that people who staged bloody spectacles were horrified by such.
Maybe they were. That is called double standards and quite common.
The people slaughtered were after all only barbarians.
> Oh, well, the bull in bullfights is used to feed people, so that makes it
OK.
There is a fascination with human sacrifice that makes it far more
interesting for horror and propaganda stories than most other killings.
The same roman general who burned, killed and sold the remains to die in
slavery in mines, plantations and gladiator games was really shocked if
a few of his own men were butchered for some strange god. Double
standards are nothing new in this world.
But the magic/religion aspect plays a role. In the US the execute
criminals but would it make a difference if they were not executed
but sacrificed on the altar of some god? Most human sacrifices were
people they wanted to get rid of anyway. Christians would just have
killed them. It reflected the lack of respect for human life in those
times.
It is known that some Germanic tribes if they were not that sure about
the outcome of an important battle promised all captives to their
war god but this practice seemed to have disappeared later.
The Saxons didn't do it and it would have made a perfect horror story
for the Francs to tell. We have horror stories about what the christian
Francs did and these told by their own historians.
Killing your captives was nothing new in warfare but the Romans
were probably shocked by the destruction of human capital.
Arjan
Paul Filseth
> As modern hinduism shows christianity is in no way superior
> to any other theism. It is just more intolerant which helped
> spreading it. It is no accident that its global competitor, islam,
> is also warlike and intolerant.
On what basis do you compare Christianity unfavorably to Hinduism?
Have you seen the news coming out of India lately?
--
Paul Filseth Beware of bugs in the above code; I have only
To email, delete the x. proved it correct, not tried it. - Donald Knuth
sesamoid96
>
> I am an atheist because I was born one and was never
> really
> ...study of reality (history and science mainly)
> told me
>
This is why the need for a transcended category.
(I.e., most so-called "atheists" are living anti-theism).
Try "Sapiency".
>
> > jh
Knows that the word "law" must be removed
from sci/maths/logics.
Aimless Gesture
Automort
>Slavery was still there in the early middle ages and disappeared from Europe
>because of changed economic conditions. Not because of christianity.
Where did I say it did?
>Maybe if the roman empire was not created the gauls would have been
>brought into classic civilization in a more constructive way
Interesting, the actions of an ambitious individual (Caesar) with a slight
technological or organizational advantage could make such a change -- simply to
further his personal ambition to be dictator.
>More like war propaganda.
I don't doubt the stories of human and animal sacrifiices in oak groves.
Remains of hanged, strangled, stabbed persons are found in bogs, crammed down
shafts, etc. It doesn't affect my life except to show how people have done
things, including for nonsense reasons.
MaryC
>> MaryC wrote:
> > > > For myself, the proof that all religions are just human inventions
> > > > can be found in their concepts of God.
"Jesse Nowells" wrote
> Where is the logical necessity for god? Whether god exists or not is
> contingent. If one can't demonstrate any necessity for god then where is
> the necessity for believing in god? Can that be demonstrated? If not,
> there is no necessity for people to believe in god. Instead of flaying at
> the branches, go for the root.
Well, I wasn't really addressing the existence/non-existence of
a Deity with this "proof." I was just thinking that it's pretty clear
that religions were invented by humans. That's not quite the same
thing. But I understand what you're saying. Why bother with each
manifestation rather than going for the idea behind all of them?
It seems to be impossible for most people indoctrinated by any
religion to abandon the feeling that the universe requires an
explanation, and that, in the absence of evidence, any dream will do.<g>
But most Christians, Jews, Muslims and Hindus today can see
the problems with deities like Set, Thor, Zeus, Ahura-Mazda etc.
I think it is sometimes possible to get them to apply their critical
thinking to the currently popular concepts. From there you can
make generalizations about the nature of religious belief, and
perhaps get back to the root question -- where's the evidence
for ANY deity?
Dan
From: "Arjan" ar...@morgaine.demon.nl
>Date: 3/21/02 11:43 PM Eastern Standard Time
>Message-id: <u9j9826...@corp.supernews.com>
>because of changed economic conditions. Not because of christianity.
Agreed. Christianity didn't even try to stop slavery. OK, they said outright
slavery was bad but indentured servitude was perfectly acceptable.
Dan
aa #1617
Arjan
> From: "Arjan" ar...@morgaine.demon.nl
>
> >Slavery was still there in the early middle ages and disappeared from
Europe
> >because of changed economic conditions. Not because of christianity.
>
> Where did I say it did?
Nowhere, just some added thought about the influence of christianity
on our civilization.
Arjan
"Paul Filseth" <pg...@lsil.com> wrote in message
news:200203210933...@lsil.com...
> "Arjan" <ar...@morgaine.demon.nl> wrote:
> > As modern hinduism shows christianity is in no way superior
> > to any other theism. It is just more intolerant which helped
> > spreading it. It is no accident that its global competitor, islam,
> > is also warlike and intolerant.
>
> On what basis do you compare Christianity unfavorably to Hinduism?
> Have you seen the news coming out of India lately?
Hinduism didn't send armies all over the world to conquer it.
It lacks a sense of world domination which is also the difference
between judaism and christianity/islam. This can lead to
more tolerance than possible in christianity. That doesn't
mean it has to. It also lead to burning your widow on the pyre.
But you will not see a hindu blowing up New York.
It is just too far away for them.
There is a tradition of non violence there but that is not the
whole story.
On the other side there is the caste system probably grown
out of the oppression by the aryan warriors of the original
population (still stronger in the south). A more negative
interpretation is that the lower castes turn to a new religion
and that the ruling classes try to maintain their dominance.
To keep their possessions if you want. Maybe they just have
not enough energy to conquer the rest of the world.
Another interpretation is that hinduism is just not one religion
or that nationalism actually is a western import. It looks a lot
like the nationalism in the Balkans and the same age old nearly
forgotten wrongs are digged up again. And again it creates
a sense of belonging where people crave for. And paranoia
seeing threads everywhere.
> --
> Paul Filseth Beware of bugs in the above code; I have only
> To email, delete the x. proved it correct, not tried it. - Donald Knuth
Arjan
Arjan
>
> "David Wynne-Griffiths" wrote:
>
> Before commenting I ought to say that it is to be welcomed
> that he has at last managed to present some sort of
> arguments in support of his views. Alas, as we shall see,
> these rapidly come unstuck.
> > My reasons for reaching the conclusion that all gods and religions are
> > human constructs are inter alia:
> > (1) The certain knowledge that the gods in the mythologies of earlier
> > civilisations were human constructs.
> >
> Plainly invalid- it doesn't follow from:
> 'Gods in the mythologies of earlier civilisations were human constructs.'
> that 'All gods and religions are human constructs'
Even if the later god(s) share stories and rituals and properties?
Even if in the bible itself the god idea seems to evolve between earlier
and later books?
Even if you combine it with complete lack of evidence for the contrary?
If it happens everywhere and never happens differently why should
it be different here?
But David Wynne-Griffiths is not giving you the scientific proof
(unless you include history) but he is building a case. He is telling
you that all we know about history points in the direction
of a god created by humans in stead of humans created by god.
so you have to come with very good reasons to make him believe
otherwise.
> >(2) The pattern that was clearly
> > established by such civilisations of the serial invention of gods and
> > religions by man.
> >
> Same comment.
It places a very heavy burden of proof on the theist
to show that they have something else and unique.
> > (3) The myriad sects and cults which have grown up round the main
> > current religions many of which are so blatantly absurd that they must
> > have been invented by man. eg the Mormons. These confirm that man is
> > still inventing religions.
> >
> Fallacious argument from incredulity.
Obviously meant to discredit the witness. Quite successfull though.
The most credible theist argument has always been the argument
from authority (My father, the prophet, the holy book) so an argument
to discredit this authority is to be expected.
> > (4) That no one has ever been able to produce any credible empirical
> > evidence for the existence of any god.
> >
> Implicit argument from ignorance.
But people tried very hard to find such evidence.
> > (5) That no one has ever been able to prove that there has ever been a
> > god or religion which was not a human construct.
>
> As above.
But it is proven that a lot of them are human constructs.
So why not all of them?
Again the burden of evidence becomes heavier and heavier.
> > (6) The curious lack of originality in the gods man has invented and
> > the way each religion draws so heavily on aspects of past religions.
> >
> Implicitly fallacious again: x is not original :. x does not exist.
Knowing how human fantasy and myth making works it just makes
it more plausible that god was invented and adapted by humans.
> > (7) In earlier times gods were the explanation of the unknown and
> > people like Jimbo still cling to this aspect. In the last few hundred
> > years scientific knowledge has dramatically reduced the scope of the
> > deity to the point where it is difficult to see it has any useful
> > function left to perform.
> >
> Implicitly fallacious argument: x is not useful :. x does not exist.
It is more like a prophesy. The god idea had certain functions and
these functions are taken over by science so he expects less
religion in future. I think he is too optimistic.
The most important function of religion is not to explain things
but to strengthen social cohesion with ritual and myth.
This is a very old thing in human evolution and for this to
function any lie will do as long as it is promoted as a group
thing.
> > (8) The Christian religion depends on the resurrection of Jesus but no
> > one can produce even a whisker of credible evidence to show that it
> > happened or to deny the more probable resuscitation.
> >
> False assertion re evidence- there is controversial evidence in the
> NT which is the subject of much debate. And a literal understanding
> of the resurrection is not a requirement of Christianity.
It was in the past so why isn't it now anymore?
And is the fact that these fundamental things are so easily lost
not evidence against god?
A really godly revelation would be unchangeable and true.
> > (9) To permit afterlife it is necessary to have a soul and places like
> > heaven and hell for the soul to progress to. No one can produce any
> > credible evidence that there is such a thing as a soul or that there are
> > places such as heaven or hell.
> >
> Another argument from ignorance- and I argue that one can
> provide strong reasons to believe that there is a soul.
I think there is strong evidence against a soul seperate from
the body (read for example D. Dennet Consciousness explained)
> > As these are all concepts common to
> > earlier religions it is probable that they were just adopted.
> > Given more time I could produce a far longer list but the above will
> > suffice to explain why I think all gods and all religions are just human
> > inventions.
> >
> I'm afraid not- all you have produced is a string of fallacies.
They give a very strong suggestion. Enough to place a very heavy
burden of prove on the theist.
> jh
Arjan
Buridan
"Jesse Nowells" wrote:
> Where is the logical necessity for god?
>
I don't think that one can show that God
is necessary.
> Whether god exists or not is
> contingent. If one can't demonstrate any necessity for god then where is
> the necessity for believing in god? Can that be demonstrated? If not,
> there is no necessity for people to believe in god.
>
Plainly fallacious. From x is not necessary, it does not
follow that it is not necessary to believe in x . For example
tables do not exist necessarily,but from that it
does not follow that it is not necessary to believe that
they exist [I am not inferring that it is necessary to believe
that they exist either]
jh
jh
Buridan
"etriagen" wrote:
> The substance of religion, that is the physical materials that make up
> religion, ARE all man made.
>
Quite plainly 'religion' does not consist of physical materials.
Religious objects, buildings etc. do , but not 'religion'
itself.
>All the texts were written by man, translated
> by man, and eventually mass produced and distributed by man. The songs in
> the hymnals were written by man. Churches and places of worship are built
> by carpenters/masons, which are men (and women too). Even those real nice
> looking choir robes are made by man. All the things that are evident in
> religion are MEN or are made by MAN. There are no artifacts of proven
> "divine" and "unearthly" origin.
>
Two points here: firstly religious texts, buildings are not themselves
'religion'.
Second, religions do not generally claim that artefacts like churches etc
are not made by man.
[..]
> All religions are equal as to the fact that there is no evidence to
>support their claims.
>
No that is false. Christianity has a considerable body of evidence
which it puts forward in support of its claims- however whether
this is reliable evidence is a matter of controversy.
> Therefore no religion can be proven as to its authenticity.
>
That does not follow; for example one might be able to present
a successful phislophical argument which shows that
God exists.
> And if it can not be proven to be authentic, it can not be proven to be
> genuine. So they are all equally "bogus" in that none can be proven to be
> genuine.
>
You commit a fallacy here; yours is an argument from ignorance-
there is no evidence for x therefore x is false.
jh
Buridan
"Arjan" wrote
> It [ Mary C's argument] is maybe not valid but it is sound.[..]
>
ROTFL. A sound argument is a valid argument with
true premises. An argument cannot be sound,
and invalid!
jh
Paul Filseth
> Christianity is morally superior. I find people partaking of a
> symbolic cannibal feast and sacrifice a bit better than oak groves
> filled with the hanged corpses of human and animal sacrifices.
Since when can you compare their morality based on just one
behavior? Did the Druids start religious wars and inquisitions?
Paul Filseth
> > > ...the rest of the creatures will all agree that each punishment
> > > is fair.
> >
> > Hardly likely. ... Punishment is supposed to make crime a losing
> > proposition. The rest of the creatures will probably notice.
>
> In this lollipop world of retributive justice, my definition of fair
> is the minimum that makes sure the crime is not profitable. If you'd
> like, we can have our just and merciful god turn into a slightly
> vengeful god and take a single lick off each of the thieves remaining
> lollipops.
Is that a vengeful god or simply a deterring god? What if half
the creatures see a gratuitous lick as vengeance and are shocked that
their god would indulge such an outrageous emotional impulse, while
the other half see it as deterrence and feel one lick is completely
inadequate in a world where creatures are so short-sighted as to have
a 50%/day discount rate, since such fools* can hardly be counted on
to take the (stipulated) certainty of getting caught by their god as
seriously as rationality would dictate? They'll disagree about what's
fair in spite of identical preference orderings. Unanimous agreement
isn't what determines fairness.
(* Yes, they know it's stupid to equate one lollipop today with two
tomorrow, but they can't help themselves. It's an addiction.)
> > Since when do we decide what's a fair punishment on the basis of
> > the wrongdoer's preferences? ... It's entirely possible that a
> > human child who didn't come home when she said she would and got
> > grounded for it would be indifferent between being forbidden to go
> > the Ricky Martin concert with her friends and being killed. That
> > doesn't make killing her a fair punishment.
>
> In my example, I avoid this discussion (which is interesting, but
> beside my only point - that infinite punishment need not be
> infinitely cruel) by giving everybody the same preferences.
I'm skipping that discussion (since IMHO John Secker refuted it)
and looking at one of the other premises implicit in your model.
> Still, if push came to shove, I think I would argue that it had
> better be the wrongdoer's preferences that are under consideration.
> How else?
We could punish based on the punisher's preferences instead of
the punishee's. We could punish based on what we think it would be
rational for the wrongdoer to prefer. We could punish based not on
his current preferences but on what we think his preferences will be
in the future. We could do what we in fact do, and punish based on
an algorithm we evolve by observing it in action and tweaking it
when we don't like the results. "The life of the law has not been
logic: it has been experience". - Oliver Wendell Holmes
> Applying a standard penalty (perhaps what would deter the
> "average" guy from committing the crime) may be done in practice, but
> that's only because there's no way to really know what makes each
> individual tick.
That's not actually why we apply standard penalties. Even if we
could find out what makes each individual tick, we'd see tailoring
their punishments to that as unfair. People have to be able to know
the penalty up front. It's why the Constitution bans ex post facto
laws.
> But what then of your Ricky Martin fan?
Actually, she doesn't like Ricky Martin. She only wants to go
because all her friends are going and missing the concert will reduce
her status in their clique. :-)
> The short answer is that I would hope she is not punished
> retributively not because she has a high discount rate, but because
> she's young and malleable and doing so misses an opportunity to
> educate. Of course, we do see retributive punishment of children
> all time. Suzy comes home late one night, and the parents don't let
> her go to the Ricky Martin show. How does that punishment fit the
> crime in any way except that it is hoped that it is high enough to
> deter her in the future?
It fits the crime because it was presumably hanging out with her
cliquish friends that led Suzy to commit her crime in the first place.
And it hopefully serves to educate her about the importance of showing
a little independence from them.
In any event, the punishment was grounding, which is how Suzy's
parents typically punish such infractions. Missing the concert is an
incidental result. If you get stopped for speeding, sit around for
twenty minutes while the cop calls in your plates and writes up a
citation, and as a result you miss your flight, miss a job interview,
and somebody else gets the job, that doesn't make it unfair for the
cop to give you a ticket. Suzy needs to learn to take responsibility
for the consequences of her own choices.
David Wynne-Griffiths
from "Arjan" <ar...@morgaine.demon.nl> contains these words:
> > Plainly invalid- it doesn't follow from:
> > 'Gods in the mythologies of earlier civilisations were human constructs.'
> > that 'All gods and religions are human constructs'
> Even if the later god(s) share stories and rituals and properties?
> Even if in the bible itself the god idea seems to evolve between earlier
> and later books?
> Even if you combine it with complete lack of evidence for the contrary?
> If it happens everywhere and never happens differently why should
> it be different here?
I suppose to one, who desperately wants to hold to the belief in god
planted in his mind during childhood, it is important to ignore the
cogent and obvious evidence that all religions are man made and that man
has always made his gods in his own image rather than the other way
about. After all there are even some people so dim that they actually
believe that the whole bible is litterally true.
There are many people who want to go with the herd and be told what to
do and such people have always been the easy meat for those promoting
religions. Such gullible people probably actually believe in the carrot
and stick of heaven and hell and some of them have given vast sums to
the grasping clergy to ensure entry to the first rather than the second.
What a wonderful con because the poor dozy sods never find out that
they have been had!
India
added to my original article at
www.rationalchristianity.net/hell.html. This includes rebuttals to
the main points (as I understood them, anyway) of Brian's post.
"Brian Holtz" <br...@holtz.org> wrote:
> You assume without argument that it's harder to "truly repent"
> in Hell than on Earth. Given Hell's much-discussed "separation
> from God", it seems obvious it would be easier to "truly repent"
> in Hell than on Earth.
It seems obvious to me that it's the reverse. Repenting involves
realizing that one has done wrong. Being distanced from God, who in
Christianity is understood to be a perfect moral teacher, would make
that realization harder, not easier.
> It's becoming clear that you don't have the stomach to defend
> an irrevocable unending period of net punishment or inflicted
> suffering for a repentant person. That's not surprising; I've
> yet to interact with anyone who does.
Well, it is a hard thing to defend, because no normal person wants
people to go to hell. But that doesn't necessarily mean it's unjust.
> The most they
> defend is a Hell whose punishment consists of separation
> from their unjust deity and the company of other sinners
> and infidels. Unless the social dynamics are rigged to be
> much different from Earth, that's not a fate to be feared
> very much.
If you go to hell, you'll either be in isolation, or you'll be
spending eternity with your buddy Mr. Filseth. ;-P (Sorry, couldn't
resist.)
> What I would fear most of all would be eternal torment by an
> entity who were able to remove my awareness of my consequent
> moral superiority to him. Such an entity would be better described
> as a demon than a deity.
Is it not within the realm of possibility that your awareness of your
moral superiority could be removed by your realization that it's not
true?
> Indeed, if Satan/Lucifer actually succeeded in vanquishing
> El/Yahweh, what course of action could be more nefarious than
> to pose as God? ...
> What scheme of his could be more cruel? Tell me; I really
> want to know.
He could tell people that their only hope of avoiding hell was to do
all sorts of awful, torturous things, and then throw everyone into
hell anyway. He certainly wouldn't suffer himself in order to save
people from deserved punishment - that would be an act of love.
--India
====
Personal AAM FAQ: http://www.rationalchristianity.net/offsite/aam_faq.html
Official AAM FAQ: http://www.infidels.org/news/atheism/intro.html
Eric Dew
>
>"Jesse Nowells" wrote:
>
>> Where is the logical necessity for god?
>>
>is necessary.
>
>> contingent. If one can't demonstrate any necessity for god then where is
>> the necessity for believing in god? Can that be demonstrated? If not,
>> there is no necessity for people to believe in god.
>>
>follow that it is not necessary to believe in x . For example
>tables do not exist necessarily,but from that it
>does not follow that it is not necessary to believe that
>they exist [I am not inferring that it is necessary to believe
>that they exist either]
>jh
>
that tables exists for them to exist. The requirement that I have
to believe in their existence is not, er, required. Things can
exist (or not) regardless of my belief.
Let's take a better example, since tables are sometimes quite
necessary. Flimgnabs do not necessarily exist (heck, I haven't
even defined it). Is there any reason to believe that they exist?
Of course, now that I just introduced flimgnabs -- albeit by just
offering the name without a definition -- you might want to
start believing in its existence, but why? Why burden your mind
with the beliefs of infinitely many created-on-the-spot names
representing things that may or may not exist? The parsimonious
thing to do is excise those beliefs out of one's mind, if just
to keep things simple. I'd lump god in the same category as
flimgnabs (as you current envision them). I don't have a definition
for flimgnab, in the same way that I don't have a definition for
god. Feel free to provide a definition for god.
EDEW
Eric Dew
at the evidence and make a conclusion that the butler did it. However,
it's actually Colonel Mustard in the kitchen with the candelabra.
So, you made a sound argument for prosecuting the butler, but, alas
it is invalid.
The argument is sound in that it seems like a good argument, using
the facts (evidence) given, and reasonable assumptions.
EDEW
MaryC
> ROTFL. A sound argument is a valid argument with
> true premises. An argument cannot be sound,
> and invalid!
my question?
Automort
>Date: 3/26/02 4:36 PM Central
> Did the Druids start religious wars and inquisitions?
>--
We don't actually know, but they probably used sorcery (poisons, ostracism)
against people who pissed them off or had the latter sacrificed.
They did have an organization that cut across the various Celtic nations.
David Wynne-Griffiths
from "MaryC" <combs-b...@worldnet.att.net> contains these words:
> Soundful or soundless <g> do you have a response to
> my question?
> "But can you give me an example of a religion where
> God is not given human attributes? There are philosophical
> concepts of God which amount to little more than
> 'it's a mysterious thing behind everything,' but such
> concepts don't inspire the devotion that leads to
> a religion. Anyway, what moral or ritual activity can you
> derive from such a concept?"
The anthropomorphisation of gods is almost universal and certainly
applies to the gods of the major religions. Except to those unwilling
to see the obvious it is the clearest possible evidence that man invents
his gods in his image rather than the other way about. Combine that
with the fact that there is no credible evidence for the existence of
any god and the entirely fictional nature of gods becomes clear to all
those who want to see.
Buridan
"Eric Dew" wrote:
> >ROTFL. A sound argument is a valid argument with
> >true premises. An argument cannot be sound,
> >and invalid!
> >
> Bzzt. Wrong. Suppose you're a detective at a crime scene. You look
> at the evidence and make a conclusion that the butler did it. However,
> it's actually Colonel Mustard in the kitchen with the candelabra.
> So, you made a sound argument for prosecuting the butler, but, alas
> it is invalid.
>
This is a ridiculous reply: a 'deduction' in the above context
( a 'deduction' being made after 'looking at evidence') does
not mean the same as a deductive inference as in logic.
Rather than waste any more time with this, I will simply refer
you to any introductory text onlogic where the ( correct)
distinction between soundness and validity that I make above
will be found.
Jim Humphreys
JeffMo
>As a result of dialogue with Brian and JeffMo, I have significantly
>added to my original article at
>www.rationalchristianity.net/hell.html. This includes rebuttals to
>the main points (as I understood them, anyway) of Brian's post.
>
>"Brian Holtz" <br...@holtz.org> wrote:
>> You assume without argument that it's harder to "truly repent"
>> in Hell than on Earth. Given Hell's much-discussed "separation
>> from God", it seems obvious it would be easier to "truly repent"
>> in Hell than on Earth.
>
>It seems obvious to me that it's the reverse. Repenting involves
>realizing that one has done wrong. Being distanced from God, who in
>Christianity is understood to be a perfect moral teacher, would make
>that realization harder, not easier.
Wouldn't that lead to the conclusion that "God's" apparent shyness in
recent years means that he is intentionally making it harder for
modern people to realize their wrong actions, as compared with ancient
peoples to whom he (allegedly) appeared much more frequently?
And yet, this is in direct contradiction to the observed fact that
people today have greatly improved moral viewpoints, compared to
Biblical times. Of course, your assumption that "God" is a perfect
moral teacher is also in direct contradiction to the actions ascribed
to "God" in the Bible, so I think your premises are flawed in multiple
respects.
JeffMo
"You can't have freedom OF religion, unless you also have freedom FROM the next guy's religion." -- JeffMo
JeffMo
>
>Well, it is a hard thing to defend, because no normal person wants
>people to go to hell. But that doesn't necessarily mean it's unjust.
Your gut tells you that it is, or at least it looks that way to us. I
think that's what Brian was trying to get across to you.
>If you go to hell, you'll either be in isolation, or you'll be
>spending eternity with your buddy Mr. Filseth. ;-P (Sorry, couldn't
>resist.)
I judge Mr. Filseth to be of both higher moral character and greater
intelligence than the Biblical God, so I'd prefer spending eternity
with him (not "Him.") (Sorry, couldn't resist.)
>Is it not within the realm of possibility that your awareness of your
>moral superiority could be removed by your realization that it's not
>true?
Judging from what I've read of Brian's writing, I think it is OBVIOUS
that his awareness of his moral superiority could be removed by his
realization that it's not true. Furthermore, the fact that it hasn't
happened yet, coupled with my observation that he is very good at
processing information and eager to engage in debate with those of
differing viewpoints, yields a relative degree of certainty that Brian
is, in fact, morally superior to the Biblical God.
>He could tell people that their only hope of avoiding hell was to do
>all sorts of awful, torturous things, and then throw everyone into
>hell anyway. He certainly wouldn't suffer himself in order to save
>people from deserved punishment - that would be an act of love.
ROFL! Use your imagination!
Maybe he HAS told people to do all sorts of awful, torturous things
and he HASN'T suffered himself in order to save people from deserved
punishment. Maybe he promulgated theism to confuse people about how
they should act, to get them to hate and kill each other, and to make
them feel guilty for who they are, and he brainwashed a Middle East
patsy to die on the cross in alleged fulfillment of some prophecy that
was just deception to begin with.
That is, the real world is compatible with Brian's supposition, so
long as we are allowed to wildly throw out assumptions about deities,
demons, deceivers, and other supernatural/invisible/powerful whatsits.
JeffMo
>
>Bzzt. Wrong. Suppose you're a detective at a crime scene. You look
>at the evidence and make a conclusion that the butler did it. However,
>it's actually Colonel Mustard in the kitchen with the candelabra.
>So, you made a sound argument for prosecuting the butler, but, alas
>it is invalid.
>
>The argument is sound in that it seems like a good argument, using
>the facts (evidence) given, and reasonable assumptions.
I believe that jh is referring to the logical concept of deductively
sound arguments, solely. By the usual definitions employed in formal
logic, the set of all sound arguments is a proper subset of all valid
arguments. (That is, soundness implies validity, within this scope.)
While jh makes all kinds of logical mistakes in his posts, it's clear
that he has been exposed to education in formal logic, and he's simply
adhering to the normal definitions here.
John Secker
<spam...@rationalchristianity.net> writes
>> It's becoming clear that you don't have the stomach to defend
>> an irrevocable unending period of net punishment or inflicted
>> suffering for a repentant person. That's not surprising; I've
>> yet to interact with anyone who does.
>
>Well, it is a hard thing to defend, because no normal person wants
>people to go to hell. But that doesn't necessarily mean it's unjust.
>
Nobody is prepared to defend infinite punishment for finite sins. Nobody
can show how this can reasonable be just. But you are still prepared to
accept that it IS just. And why? Because you are starting from the
immovable assumption that God exists, and is good. If you take this
line, and many do, then why bother discussing anything? It doesn't
matter what evidence is produced, what arguments are marshalled. In the
end you simply say "We don't know why, it is not given to us to
understand, but there must be a reason, because God is good".
--
John Secker
Buridan
"JeffMo" wrote in message
> And yet, this is in direct contradiction to the observed fact that
> people today have greatly improved moral viewpoints, compared to
> Biblical times.
>
How does on 'observe' moral viewpoints, and what is the basis
for claiming that they have 'improved' since Biblical times?
jh
James J. Lippard
> Bzzt. Wrong. Suppose you're a detective at a crime scene. You look
> at the evidence and make a conclusion that the butler did it. However,
> it's actually Colonel Mustard in the kitchen with the candelabra.
> So, you made a sound argument for prosecuting the butler, but, alas
> it is invalid.
>
> The argument is sound in that it seems like a good argument, using
> the facts (evidence) given, and reasonable assumptions.
No.
A valid argument is one where the conclusion follows as a logical consequences
of the premises. A sound argument is a valid argument with true premises (and
thus, a true conclusion).
--
Jim Lippard lippard...@discord.org http://www.discord.org/
GPG Key ID: 0xF8D42CFE
Eric Dew
>spam...@rationalchristianity.net (India) wrote:
>>
>>Well, it is a hard thing to defend, because no normal person wants
>>people to go to hell. But that doesn't necessarily mean it's unjust.
>
>think that's what Brian was trying to get across to you.
>
>>spending eternity with your buddy Mr. Filseth. ;-P (Sorry, couldn't
>>resist.)
>
>intelligence than the Biblical God, so I'd prefer spending eternity
>with him (not "Him.") (Sorry, couldn't resist.)
>
Heaven for climate, hell for society.
- Mark Twain.
EDEW
Jesse Nowells
On Tue, 26 Mar 2002, Buridan wrote:
> > Whether god exists or not is
> > contingent. If one can't demonstrate any necessity for god then where is
> > the necessity for believing in god? Can that be demonstrated? If not,
> > there is no necessity for people to believe in god.
> Plainly fallacious. From x is not necessary, it does not
> follow that it is not necessary to believe in x .
I didn't say that it would follow if x is not necessary that therefore
there is no necessity to believe in x. I asked whether or not it can be
*demonstrated* that there is a necessity to believe in x. Obviously, if I
thought that if x is not necessary, then therefore x is not necessary to
believe, I wouldn't be asking for a "proof" for a necessity to believe in
x, which in itself has nothing necessarily to do with whether or not x
exists or not.