A case for religion, and against AA.

[soulcougher73]

"God has given you free will and a way to save your soul." sounds a lot better than, "God has given you free will, but if you don't think in this one certain way you'll burn forever in eternal torment."

The whole free will argument doesn't add up to me. It isn't free will if there are consequences for using it, is it?

I wasnt agree with Jedi even though i can see it may have seemed that way. I agree if their are supposed divine consequences on us, its not true free will.

 

[SlowSpyder]

I wasnt agree with Jedi even though i can see it may have seemed that way. I agree if their are supposed divine consequences on us, its not true free will.

I know, usually my sarcasm meter works... usually. You and I are on the same page.

 

[JEDIYoda]

I wasnt agree with Jedi even though i can see it may have seemed that way. I agree if their are supposed divine consequences on us, its not true free will.

That's complete BS!! There are consequences for every decision that you freely make or that you freely decide not to make.....

You actually think free will includes no consequences??/ that's laughable...

 

[jackstar7]

That's complete BS!! There are consequences for every decision that you freely make or that you freely decide not to make.....

You actually think free will includes no consequences??/ that's laughable...

You missed an important adjective.

 

[sandorski]

That's complete BS!! There are consequences for every decision that you freely make or that you freely decide not to make.....

You actually think free will includes no consequences??/ that's laughable...

That's not what he said.

 

[JEDIYoda]

That's not what he said.

It isn't free will if there are consequences for using it, is it?

that is what he said....if there are consequences it is not free will......

 

[sandorski]

It isn't free will if there are consequences for using it, is it?

that is what he said....if there are consequences it is not free will......

No, it is not what he said. Jackstar pointed you in the right direction.

Perhaps this can help you see what the problem is here:

A mother puts Oreos, Fig Newtons, Chocolate Chip, and Ginger Snap cookies on a table

She then tells her 5 year old son, "Have any cookie you want, but if you don't pick Fig Newtons, I'll send you to the orphanage!"

 

[disappoint]

No, it is not what he said. Jackstar pointed you in the right direction.

Perhaps this can help you see what the problem is here:

A mother puts Oreos, Fig Newtons, Chocolate Chip, and Ginger Snap cookies on a table

She then tells her 5 year old son, "Have any cookie you want, but if you don't pick Fig Newtons, I'll send you to the orphanage!"

$10 will get you $20 the response will be: "It's the 5 year old son's fault if he ends up in the orphanage!"

 

[JEDIYoda]

She then tells her 5 year old son, "Have any cookie you want, but if you don't pick Fig Newtons, I'll send you to the orphanage!"

That child still has the ability and free will to choose to go to the orphanage....correct? Divine or otherwise...it`s still free will....or the right to choose...

 

[Retro Rob]

No, it is not what he said. Jackstar pointed you in the right direction.

Perhaps this can help you see what the problem is here:

A mother puts Oreos, Fig Newtons, Chocolate Chip, and Ginger Snap cookies on a table

She then tells her 5 year old son, "Have any cookie you want, but if you don't pick Fig Newtons, I'll send you to the orphanage!"

But you still have the choice of NOT picking fig netwons, that's the point. No, she's not making him choose fig newtons, just showing the consequences of not choosing them. I don't know what point you were getting at.

Our legal system works almost indentically. You have laws (don't drive over 30 mph), but you're free to choose whether or not you will abide by them, but not without consequences (citations, fines, etc). Nothing wrong with that.

That's esentially how the "free will" example works.

 

[sandorski]

$10 will get you $20 the response will be: "It's the 5 year old son's fault if he ends up in the orphanage!"

I should have Accepted. :|

 

[Retro Rob]

I should have Accepted. :|

I liked how he used a 5 year old instead of an adult in that example, as a 5-year old cannot fully comprehend the consequences of his/her actions, so it looks infintely worse sending a 5 year-old to an orphanage than a full grown man to "hell" for choosing the wrong religion.

Some non-believers use asinine analogies to make a bad point.

 

[sandorski]

I liked how he used a 5 year old instead of an adult in that example, as a 5-year old cannot fully comprehend the consequences of his/her actions, so it looks infintely worse sending a 5 year-old to an orphanage than a full grown man to "hell" for choosing the wrong religion.

Some non-believers use asinine analogies to make a bad point.

mmk

 

[SlowSpyder]

I liked how he used a 5 year old instead of an adult in that example, as a 5-year old cannot fully comprehend the consequences of his/her actions, so it looks infintely worse sending a 5 year-old to an orphanage than a full grown man to "hell" for choosing the wrong religion.

Some non-believers use asinine analogies to make a bad point.

Today 21,000 children will die. Many of them non-christian. Are they burning in hell if they have not accepted jesus?

Again, what the christians are explaining here really isn't free will. It's North Korea. You and Jedi have glossed over so many points made in the last page or so.

 

[Retro Rob]

Today 21,000 children will die. Many of them non-christian. Are they burning in hell if they have not accepted jesus?

Again, what the christians are explaining here really isn't free will. It's North Korea. You and Jedi have glossed over so many points made in the last page or so.

LOL -- I don't believe in Hell.

Look at the Hebrew word "Sheol" and the Greek word "Hades" and you'd see why.

"Gehenna" was a garbage-dump outside of Jerusalem where dead bodies and other garbage went.

Many think Jesus was referring to Hell when in actuality, he was referring to permanent death.

I don't think there is a Hell, but I am sure others will beg to differ.

 

[Retro Rob]

mmk

Equivocating the choice a 5 year old makes with that of a normal adult is intellectually dishonest.

 

[dphantom]

Today 21,000 children will die. Many of them non-christian. Are they burning in hell if they have not accepted jesus?

Again, what the christians are explaining here really isn't free will. It's North Korea. You and Jedi have glossed over so many points made in the last page or so.

God is the only one who decides who goes to Heaven or not. Jesus accepted non-Christians into Heaven (because there were no Christians at that time). The Old testament portions of the Bible have people going to Heaven.

 

[sandorski]

Equivocating the choice a 5 year old makes with that of a normal adult is intellectually dishonest.

no

 

[SlowSpyder]

He did. Leave it to us imperfect creatures to mess up His Word.

I have two dogs. I speak to them in perfectly understandable English all the time with limited results. Is the issue that they, as inferior beings, are the problem and unable to understand my perfectly understandable word? Or is the problem me because I know they have such limitations yet I communicate poorly with them?

Where I'm going with this is that Rob doesn't believe in hell. Many christians do. Many sects of christians are very much at odds with each other. And that isn't even taking into consideration the hundreds of other religions and of course nonbelievers.

LOL -- I don't believe in Hell.

Look at the Hebrew word "Sheol" and the Greek word "Hades" and you'd see why.

"Gehenna" was a garbage-dump outside of Jerusalem where dead bodies and other garbage went.

Many think Jesus was referring to Hell when in actuality, he was referring to permanent death.

I don't think there is a Hell, but I am sure others will beg to differ.

Equivocating the choice a 5 year old makes with that of a normal adult is intellectually dishonest.

Suggesting that geologists haven't looked for a great flood is intellectually dishonest. Using a five year old in an analogy is, well, an analogy.

God is the only one who decides who goes to Heaven or not. Jesus accepted non-Christians into Heaven (because there were no Christians at that time). The Old testament portions of the Bible have people going to Heaven.

http://www.openbible.info/topics/getting_into_heaven

It seems pretty clear the way to heaven in christianity.

 

[Retro Rob]

Where I'm going with this is that Rob doesn't believe in hell. Many christians do. Many sects of christians are very much at odds with each other. And that isn't even taking into consideration the hundreds of other religions and of course nonbelievers.

Many atheists are at odds with each other over what an atheist is, or even if non-believers need a term, and of course, believers. That's not taking into consideration the thousands of agnostics.

Suggesting that geologists haven't looked for a great flood is intellectually dishonest.

Firstly, I said they haven't look for it in "modern" times. Try re-reading, and reading again.

Secondly what does this have to do with what you quoted me as saying?

 

[PowerEngineer]

I liked how he used a 5 year old instead of an adult in that example, as a 5-year old cannot fully comprehend the consequences of his/her actions, so it looks infintely worse sending a 5 year-old to an orphanage than a full grown man to "hell" for choosing the wrong religion.

Some non-believers use asinine analogies to make a bad point.

I suppose the level of asininity you assign to the analogy depends on how you think the difference between god and man compares to the difference between a parent and a young child. If you'd agree that the former is much larger than the latter, then why isn't it reasonable to expect god to exhibit at least a parent's level of care by shielding man from making mistakes that have dire consequences? If your answer uses "free will", then given its risks how are we benefited by having it?

Many atheists are at odds with each other over what an atheist is, or even if non-believers need a term, and of course, believers. That's not taking into consideration the thousands of agnostics.

Logically it's a requirement that believers should all adhere to a shared set of core beliefs; believers need to be coherent and consistent because it's a group thing. The only thing that is required to be a non-believer is to not believe the believers' beliefs; it's an individual thing.

 

[jackstar7]

Firstly, I said they haven't look for it in "modern" times. Try re-reading, and reading again.

Since this is your assertion, can you find the last time this was looked into?


This is the first thing I found: http://science.howstuffworks.com/nature/climate-weather/storms/great-flood1.htm which suggests modern study.

 

[Retro Rob]

Since this is your assertion, can you find the last time this was looked into?


This is the first thing I found: http://science.howstuffworks.com/nature/climate-weather/storms/great-flood1.htm which suggests modern study.

Thanks, I wasn't aware of this one. I do apologize and will retract my assertion.

 

[JEDIYoda]

$10 will get you $20 the response will be: "It's the 5 year old son's fault if he ends up in the orphanage!"

That's the way most atheist respond when in a corner...with asinine BS!!

oh.....boohoo look a 5 year old in an example......again the 5 year old still has the ability to choose as he please...

but let me contend the example is a very poor example because not all 5 year olds have the ability to discern or understand what they are told....now substitute a 14 year old or even an adult....

 

[JEDIYoda]

Logically it's a requirement that believers should all adhere to a shared set of core beliefs; believers need to be coherent and consistent because it's a group thing. The only thing that is required to be a non-believer is to not believe the believers' beliefs; it's an individual thing.

That is also a crock......