Don't religions have a history of transforming and throwing away nonsense beliefs? Think the Catholic Church, pre-Reformation. You, today, look at those people and think tehy held irrational beliefs, and many were insincere about them (e.g. Indulgences). Don't we in the West think Islam should do this and become more moderate by throwing away their irrational beliefs that make women second-class citizens or valorize death-dealing martyrs, etc?
The chance of that is less than 1%. People like him are almost always statist.
The answer is free will. What type of just God would force you to worship him?
“Dollars are an interesting case. Probably one of the most powerful subliminal supports for the belief in the reality of dollars comes from the undoubted existence of dollar bills and coins, legal tender you can see and weigh and manipulate and carry around. Bitcoin, in contrast, seems much more illusory to most folks, but if they reflect on it, they will discover that the palpable, foldable dollar bills that are physical objects are ontological crutches of sorts, to be thrown away once you’ve learned how to walk, leaving in place only the mutual expectations and habits that can in principle support bitcoin as well as dollars. Well into the twentieth century there were heated political debates on the necessity of maintaining such crutches—the gold standard and silver certificates, and the like—but tomorrow’s children may grow up with only credit cards to hold and manipulate and be none the worse off for it. Dollars are real; they just aren’t what you may think they are.”
I don’t actually. I think we know far less about our history (or the reality of the individual might be a better way to say it) than we tell ourselves. We read a few history books and fit the story in our heads, like we understand it, but the older I get the less I know.
I’m a Christian, so it’s not surprising Muslims hold those beliefs. They worship a false God.
But do you believe all Muslims idiots?
No, just misled. Starting from the assumption there is a God, it would mean there is a Devil. The Bible warns of the ways of the Devil.
“residual irrationalism” Sounds like a euphemism for faith, @CO. Hoosier … a fine example of obfuscation. Isn’t it a religion’s faith that promotes hope. By hiding it in dismissive terms, “faith” becomes minimized and not considered as a font of benefit for the religious, beyond the moral guidance (perhaps most famously the Ten Commandments) provided by major religions. What canon volume provides moral guidance, for an Aetheist, BTW. Legal laws aren’t always considered to be “moral”.
Yes, “Free Will” seems a poor explanation for these … then again, being preordained is an even worse thought, as everything bad (like Hitler and Stalin) was fated to happen, in “God’s Design”.
Human beings don’t need a “canon volume” to act morally.
Well indulgences were a central tenent in Luther’s Reformation. Luther held that scripture required one’s faith alone as the key requirement to get to heaven. And one didn’t need to buy insurance to go to heaven (sooner).
It’s a rhetorical question about where would moral guidance come from, without religion.
Isn't he just touting Deism as practiced by many of our Founders like TJ?This article lists some of the high points (not even close to enough, in my mind) of Dan Dennett’s thought.
10 Brilliant Insights from Daniel Dennett
A glimpse of a mind jammed to the rafters with ideas.nautil.us
On religion:
Religion doesn’t need to be abolished—merely fixed
Does religion “poison everything,” as my dear, late friend Hitch [Christopher Hitchens] insisted on saying? Only in a very attenuated sense, I think. Many things are quite harmless in moderation and poisonous only in quantity. I understand why Hitch emphasized this view; as a foreign correspondent he had much first-hand, dangerous experience with the worst features of religion, while I know of all that only at second hand—often from his reportage. I, in contrast, have known people whose lives would be desolate and friendless if it weren’t for the non-judgemental welcome they have received in one religious organization or another. I regret the residual irrationalism valorized by almost all religion, but I don’t see the state playing the succoring, comforting role well, so until we find secular successor organizations to take up that humane task, I am not in favor of ushering churches off the scene. I would rather assist in transforming these organizations into forms that are not caught in the trap of irrational—and necessarily insincere—allegiance to patent nonsense.
well I have to go walk the dog on our dawn patrol exercise. And after seeing the post about the size of @mcmurtry66 's crank, I need to also throw up..
The same type that would have my buddies 4 year old die of cancer?
The kind that says you will burn in hell and with eternal damnation if you don't believe in his son Jesus Christ
Hitchens was respectful but spared no punches. Dawkins vitriol increased as he was predictably torn to shreds on the personal level from all levels and all religions. Hitchens and Dawkins had the unenviable task of being amongst the first atheists (or anti-theists) who were part of the social media world. Which is to say, their message was instantly received by billions.
That unfortunately goes both ways.
I think that is right. And that is the problem.
You have free will to choose Christ. Not free will from awful things happening to you. If God intervened every time someone did something bad, there wouldn’t be free will.
God isn’t condemning you to hell. You’re rejecting God and choosing a world without him. Hell is that world.
The only way to escape believing in “nonsense” is to be an atheist? I don’t buy it. Our minds are better than that.
Not to diminish your point, but I think whole idea of God is much bigger than this.
Whoever believes in the Son has eternal life; whoever does not obey the Son shall not see life, but the wrath of God remains on him. John 3:36
Your issue is with Satan. Take it up with him. Maybe he will tidy up the place if you ask nicely 😉
I think the question is whether there is a physical hell. I don’t think so. But I do believe people can create their own living hell on earth by not having hope that faith provides.
The post before you made a play for defending the irrational (fair argument, even if surprising coming from you) and now you’re saying our minds are better than believing in the irrational?
