When one is exposed to an act that supposedly showcases self-sacrifice and love that seeks nothing in return, it’s easy to get lost in the melodrama and forget the nuances of the entire situation. Who wouldn’t be moved at the thought of someone you don’t know willingly suffering through hours of flagellation and a brutal crucifixion? Who wouldn’t be humbled when someone regarded as superior voluntarily gives up the position to just be up to the mercy of crazed men?
Millions. Yes, those were rhetorical questions, but once you really take a step back from this overly romanticized lie fabricated by people from two thousand years ago, it would be clear that the logic that they used was clearly flawed if not terribly lacking. The idea of having a nobleman choosing to take of his fancy garb along with his status to be subject to the worst that man could dish out is touching to say the least, but one factor is different here. That nobleman is a mere human. He did not choose to be put into that situation and sacrificing himself for the supposed greater good were decisions that he made based on the limited variables that he could control.
Let’s try it this way then.
Imagine yourself as the architect of the universe. You control the realm of possibility. Nothing will exist if you do not will it. Nothing will happen if you do not place it as something that is possible. Your power is so immense that the existence of concepts also rely on your approval. To further illustrate, you could’ve chosen to have not made the scrumptious and fleshy mature plant ovaries that we now arbitrarily call as fruits to be common place. One word (or thought) would have stricken it off the realm of possibility. No one will miss it because it never existed – similar to how a person in 1800s never had a yearning for a world ran and dominated by the world wide web.
Things like love, joy, happiness and euphoria exist because you made them exist. Concepts such as famine, death, plague and decay also persist because you chose to make them part of the list of things that could happen. Words are but words. We can arbitrarily call any phenomenon, physical entity or abstract concept with any term, but regardless of what name it goes by with, the characteristics and the essence of what it stands for remains the same. That is the rationale behind creation – everything about it was by you.
This includes the concept of sin. The ability to sin was an unnecessary addition to creation and an intelligent architect would’ve simply edited it out of the final design. Sure, sin does make life more exciting for what it’s worth but is the threat of eternal damnation – yet another concept constructed by the supposedly perfect creator — worth the risk? Doesn’t it reek of a pathologic sadistic tendency? If you were the creator, wouldn’t you have just removed the possibility of sin, pain, greed and everything that is wrong in today’s world so that your creation would just flourish for your greater glory? Wouldn’t a smart designer do that? Again, if you’re going to argue on the basis of boredom or restrictions, don’t bother. Just like Pocahontas who didn’t get to use a cellular phone to stay in touch with Atahualpa, people won’t miss it one bit if it never existed in their realm of possibilities.
What is the purpose of sin then?
Sin was added by the supposedly intelligent creator so that he could come back one and save the day. It’s like a playwright casting himself in his dream play and making sure that all the lights will be on him. He made sure that every concept was in line so that he could bask in the glory of being number one. It’s an egoistic entity wanting credit for hanging the very nemesis of man over his head.
The whole story speaks of a creator who only created the universe so that in the end, people would realize how great he is even if a lot of the entities and concepts he created were either vindictive, self-serving or simply unnecessary.
I personally feel that it’s alright to believe in your god if you think you have to (and need to). But why believe in a fabricated story by a few deranged men from two thousand years ago and claim that it is the truth?
Reactions:
Fritz - Reflective: To Affirm What I Hold DearestÂÂ
Bookmark at:
StumbleUpon | Digg | Del.icio.us | Dzone | Newsvine | Spurl | Simpy | Furl | Reddit | Yahoo! MyWeb
Viewed 7591 times by 2372 viewers
2 billion christians can't be wrong, eh? It doesn't mean that they're smart. That just means they could manipulate the minds of millions of people into thinking what they believe – similar to con artists, hoaxers and swindlers.
And don't go making strawmen in here. The last thing I'll do is defend the idea of organized religions – Scientology or otherwise.
I'm not invoking argumentum ad populum. I'm just saying that the fact that they started a religion that resulted into 2 billion or so believers long after they're gone implies a smarts of some sort. And yes, hoaxers, con artists, and swindlers are pretty smart too despite the unethical application of their intelligence.
"Xenu–now there’s a more irrational theology if I ever saw one]"
Yes, as opposed to virgin births, which doesn't deserve as much ridicule.
You should ask for a DNA test, you never know if that archangel was the one who got Mary pregnant.
So what if God is sadistic and egoistic?
Yeah, maybe Christianity has been successful because its creators were very smart. But there's also the possibility that its followers were simply very gullible, right? >:)
Let's not forget how the dead rose back to life! GASP!
*high five*
Whatever you say Prince.
Hmmm… come to think of it, virgin pregnancies are really fantastical now that nash pointed it out. But I still think the Xenu story is more irrational.
Joyfulchicken, yep, religious faith, by its very nature, implies a certain amount of gullibility on the believer's part, but it's a gullibility that I'm willing to take part in. And I don't think that makes me less of a person just as I don't think atheists are any less also for not believing in a higher being.
And yes, con artists and swindlers that take opportunity of people's religious convictions [like the one in the movie Leap of Faith] are street-smart: it's easier to fool people through religion than to fool people through other means, excepting possibly, through people's greed (which is why the Nigerian scam is a booming business).
I'm pretty sure the last part got a little messed up. That or Dawkins was high when he said that. lol
Sige nga please. How is the Xenu story any more irrational??? God sent his Angel to this woman and to those prophets before her, how is that any more rational than believing in an Xenu the alien?
Nash, I don't think this post's comments is the best place to discuss comparative religion because it's getting far off the topic. Let's just leave it at that, ok?
I'm actually saying all religions have irrational belief systems. Besides, you brought it up.
I actually don't think it's off-topic.
sin by theist definition is "the transgression of the law (of God)". since atheists do not submit to the existence of a god, there shouldn't be any lawlessness and therefore sin isn't necessary.
sin didn't come into existence just to make things hard for theists. saying it as you have put it, sin isn't "an unnecessary addition to creation and an intelligent architect would’ve simply edited it out of the final design." it HAS a purpose and primarily, it is there so man should remember that he is weak and submit himself to his God. in this light, again, since atheists do not believe in a god, sin, therefore isn't necessary, more so, submission to an "almighty"
in conclusion, there isn't really a point of argument between theists and atheists, UNLESS, the other gave in to the idea of getting through the wall in to the other's beliefs.
But the purpose is self-serving. The design didn't need to have an allowance for "human weakness". There was no need to put tests, tortures, pain, suffering etc. You're arguing based on what we see now.
what we're talking about is that the design could have been much better without the unnecessary and sadistic additions that your god supposedly put. The story and reality as we know it now are contradictory and it's clear that people who fabricated the religion weren't paying attention to the details.
Based on your assessment, it's mere tyranny. I don't see the whole merciful crap in there.
i'd like to know your definition of god.
Irrelevant.
benj = biased.
oh btw, the statement of yours i quoted, "…an intelligent architect would’ve simply edited it out of the final design." – we share the same thought. only, we don't reconcile on which the final design is. so there, still no point of argument. we'll just be talking in circles and still don't meet somewhere.
and oh yea. when you put "PEx God" as your title in your PEx username, you don't mean you are irrelevant, do you? i suppose it means something else.
god = your self-contradicting, nonsensical fairy tale
PEX GOD – Guardian of Decency. You didn't know?
i didn't. the dots weren't visible but like God, alas… they're there!
Nash, I brought it up as an offhand example, as a parenthetical to a parenthetical. I think that the context makes the Xenu mention hardly a point worth starting a tangential discussion on the believability of Christianity vs.
Scientology on this post's comments. And I'm not disputing that religions have irrational belief systems; I think your point is that since they are irrational anyway, why bother saying one belief system is more irrational than the other, right? Let's just say that we simply have a difference of
opinion on your point, ok?
Do you long for a sinless world, then?
Umm… No?
mitch, benj doesn't dig the concept of sin.
the supposed "perfect world" is described in what Christians acknowledge as the Holy City— the New Jerusalem. thing is, it is just a fairy tale for atheists.
You're taking it out of context.
SIN didn't have to exist if there was good design in the beginning. That's the point. Realm of possibilities, people!
nothing can be better a design than chunking in the concept of free will. the genesis myth (btw, we believers don't buy it as a literal story telling) has it all fashioned at the start–this good design, if you call it: one is free to follow, and one is free to transgress. but what's the point of transgressing if there are no consequences why attend classes when you can cut them? realm of posibilities, indeed!
i myself have long thought along your reasoning. but what's the point of having free will when you can't exercise it? i reap what i sow. cause and effect how scientific.
Where was it that I read (or heard?) that in pre-colonial Philippines women took as many partners as they wanted. Monogamy and marriage were alien ideas. It was alright for her to bear a litter of kids because children were brought up communally by the village.
Lust, is a sin in Christianity because it renders precarious monogamy and the institution of marriage.
of course i'm not taking it out of context. its the point of discussion— to tackle things that connect to one another. anyway, your point is well-taken. a supposed creator almighty could have made a perfect world in the first place and not allowed imperfections to come into the world.
one more thing that will irk you: free will. its a BIG factor to the outcome of todays world.
PS. there is a good design since the very beginning. sadly, its not the current earth we live in. of course it's my personal belief benj. i'm not asking you to buy it.
LOL. So it seems, intelligent design does not mean infallible/perfect, eh?
However, sin is supposed to be a consequence of the decision of the designer to impart free will to its creation. The irony is, considering the creation was made in his "image and likeness", free will and all, and free will allows man to sin, then it appears that god may be as sinful as us after all. It clearly explains all his temper tantrums in the old testament.
nope, it's not my pride but coming from nothingness seems an even more impossible idea than coming from a Creator. and yes, you will counter this by asking where the Creator came from and i will have no answer.
ayoko nang mabuhay kung ganun lang naman pala.
i thought atheists are supposed to be pluralists since they are not committed or bound to a single belief. they are more free to pursue and assume different mindsets, free from biases and all. i guess narrow-mindedness exists even among staunch free spirits.
I wonder which rule book you got that from.
Freethinkers are biased towards reason – and if one entity in the plurality violates common sense, there is no point in treating it like a sacred cow.
[...] The Grand Plan to Affirm One’s Ego [...]
What is the atheist's idea of good and evil?
This is an honest question, sorry. I really have no idea what it's all about. In 1 sentence, what is an atheist?
Good and evil are exaggerated concepts that are glorified terms for right and wrong. If the only basis for your decision for what is right or wrong is the idea of "culpability" in the final judgment, then you're not really factoring in the intrinsic value of the act. The idea of choosing between what's right and wrong doesn't lie in the teachings of religion – it is based on common sense. If an act causes harm to another, it is obviously, wrong.
A more secular approach of course makes the gray area and the concept of "right" a bit broader. Some atheists (and some religious people) may find any of these things "right" – divorce, abortion, stem cell research, same-sex marriage etc — and obviously, the judgment was made on the power of personal analysis of a given concept (not just basing it on what a church or a book said).
An atheist is someone who doesn't believe in the existence of a divine being – most commonly referred to as a god. The reasons are varied through out the atheist population. The term "atheist" is a general term so expect quite a lot of differences between people who claim to be atheist.
I see, thanks! I've always wondered.
So it isn't true that atheists only don't believe in Catholicism's God but also to all the gods of all known religions like Buddhism, Islam etc.?
Oh also, if atheists don't believe in the existence of a divine being (or a religious entity), do they believe that science is the ground zero of everything that exist?
I'm really just curious, this discussion is making me think hard.
Atheism isn't a mere rebuttal of religions – it's a concept that denies the existence of a god (whether in a religious context or not). It's not just about saying that brahman, allah, zeus and amiterasu don't exist – any god (whether known to man or not) does not exist.
Re: Science, not all. Atheists are obviously free thinkers. You can't generalize. I would guess though that most would believe that science can explain lots of things in the universe – and even if science has limits, it is not an excuse to use religion as the source of the explanation.
If I might add, there is no concept of "God" in Buddhism. There are "gods" but not "God" as in the creator/highfather/etc.
Leo
Technically speaking, I think buddhists are also atheists by definition due to this lack of belief in a 'god'.
thereis no nothing to begin with. in fact, the more relevant kungian question toponder is: why is there something instead of nothing?
if they weren't very smart, this rligious meme wouldn't last for ages. unfortunately, the purveyor of the concept 'meme' couldn't sustain selling his delusional book for more than 6 months on top of the book chart, because he just couldn't understand how memes work.
Benji,
In this post, to clarify, you are arguing that the existence of the Bible God is improbably given the existence of sin. Right?
Benji, God is a logical rational and moral being. When the Bible says that we were 'created in His image and likeness' it simply meant that we, unlike animals, had the ability to perceive these transcendental concepts.
There are some things God cannot do; He cannot create a circle that is a square; Likewise, such a thing is 'logically impossible' (God is a logical being, remember?).
So to answer your argument about the improbability of the Bible God given the 'Evil' in the world:
1. Firstly, God wants to create a HOLY and MORAL people
2. Morality is DEPENDENT on free-will
– There is a reason why we don't call a tree morally good for providing fruit to its owner – its not as if it could withhold its own production of fruit. Generosity is moral act, and as such is dependent on free-will.
3. God *logically* cannot accomplish #1 without giving us 'free-will'
4. Evil in this world is not evidence of an error on God's part, but evidence that He has successfully created a FREE-WILL agent.
If you would like to debate me, or have something you want to ask, I'm more than willing to answer or clarify anything.
Re my last post. My apologies, I typed it too fast and made mistakes on the first paragraph.
'improbably' should have been 'improbable'.
I guess the problem is that human intelligence is just so many levels below divine intelligence that human intelligence cannot comprehend divine intelligence.
If God does not exist then the world should have been the best it can be as far as the notion of 'best' for us humans is concerned. For the best of all wisdom has already been with the human race ever since the beginning of rationality. And that there has no other greater wisdom than that of what the human mind can ponder. I say there is God for the world is the best but through our human rationality alone, we can't understand how it has been the best. And that only that Divine Wisdom can truly reveal the truths which could prove the world being the best it can be.
[...] From http://www.atheista.net/2008/03/21/the-grand-plan-to-affirm-ones-ego/: At 2008.03.22 08:14, Pablo Banila [...]
Hi Benj,
One of the things I hear a lot about "freethinkers" is that they prefer logic to sentimentalism. I don't like sentimentalism, which is judging things by how you feel about them instead of how they really are. But when I see actual works by freethinkers, I see that they actually are quite sentimentalists. For example, you rest your whole case on God being "egotistic" and "self-serving". Because having a big "ego" is an unattractive trait in humans, you somehow equated that word with the feeling of wrongness, such that simply thinking of that word becoming associated by Person X would make you dislike Person X. You fail to even attempt to analyze why we find egoism undesirable in the first place, and whether that reason could actually apply to God.
I hope you don't mind if I, the bumbling pie-in-the-sky-believing fool, try to do your job of logical analysis for you. We find egoism undesirable in a human because (1) human beings are quite obviously highly-limited and imperfect organisms and it would therefore be foolish for them to think too highly of themselves, and because (2) the self-interest of a single human being does not necessarily coincide with the needs of all men.
Now we have to ask: would the above objections against egoism apply to the Christian God (if he existed)? (1) The Christian God is the immortal creator of the universe, and so by definition would be less limited than the universe and therefore would have the unique privilege of deserving a large ego. Also, (2) the self-interest of the Christian God obviously coincides with our highest interests because he is the source of our very existence and our ultimate happiness.
Ergo, there is absolutely nothing wrong with God (if he existed) thinking highly of himself; it is what is expected of him given what he is. There is no moral obligation to complain of God's ego because his interests are the same as our ultimate interests. Your objections against God are therefore sentimental rubbish disguised as rational thought, but then that's really how most freethinkers roll when it comes to theological discussions. Hey, you do get what you pay for, after all!
I hope you don't mind if I ask…
Have you read the Bible?