God is an Impossibility

Serendipper,

I haven’t seen him post for a while here, or on the OPC. Maybe he’s taking a break or busy. I think he’ll be back sooner or later.

Faith is prioritized in certain Christian talk. It is a buzzword that, from their perspective has high value, shows a kind of moral goodness. Fine. They are responsible, when they get in dialogue with atheists, for emphasizing this. Atheists for buying into the false dichotomy and framing the debate repeatedly that way, as if it fit Christians, let alone theists in general. If one listens to Christians in other contexts, especially people who have reinvigorated their religions, they talk about the presence of Jesus, the feeling of Jesus in their hearts, visions, the feeling of the Holy Spirit, a sense of grace, connections to God, hearing phrases, messages, connection in prayer and more. IOW empirical reasons for thinking they are experiencing a deity. Beyond that they also speak in functional terms: when I gave over my soul to Jesus, X happened. Often related to despair, drug addiction, life changing events, sometimes on internal changes, some including changes in the material world. When I pray, I later experience X. These types of experiences also vary wildly and they are also empirical, related to control. This is not even getting near phenomena like being taken over by the Holy Spirit or other more profound types of, often physically overwhelming experiences.
Of course atheists have their explanations for these experiences – and the implicit argument that these experiences they have never had should not be convincing, are categorized correctly by the atheists, and would not convince the atheists, despite the atheists not having had these experiences.
My point in all this that even though theists tend to wander towards the value of faith as the foundation, in fact in other contexts they tend to focus on, even when specifically explaining why they believe or why they believe so strongly, empirical phenomena.
This only get stronger when dealing with Christian mystics, including figures like Jesus, who have prolonged complicated empirical processes.
And in dialogue with priests and pastors, most of them will, especially in one on one situations, encourage long term disciplined approaches to an empirical connection to the divine via prayer, contemplation, ritual attendance, along with moral cleansing, etc. which is designed to make it easier to experience the divine. They do not say, simply, have more faith. The indicate that there are processes requiring intention and, really skill.
If we move out of Christianity eastward we get religions like Hinduisms, where the practices are absolutely empirical, faith is not focused on, and these practices are openly considered skills, often requiring lifetimes of practice – reincarnation itself, being something that is not simply taken on faith, but is remembered by practitioners.
Move into indigenous/shamanic religions and there is no clear separation between the divine and the mundane and all beliefs have empirical bases.
Again, of course, we know how atheists view these experiences. Implicitly and explicitly atheists tend to indicate that they base their beliefs on science (usually) and some other beliefs based on logical reasoning. But this is mythical. Just like everyone else, they must, given that they are fallible beings IN SITU, base beliefs on intuition/faith. They wake up and think their memory of what is true and how they reached their conclusions about, say women and men, or politics, or their own epistemological processes or their memories (of learning, deciding) are correct. In the process of deciding what is true intuition plays a huge role. We are not arguments on paper. We are creatures immersed in reality constructing. This does not mean I take a postmodern view of beliefs, that we cannot tell between them. I do think beliefs can be categorized in terms of levels of justification, but no one has claims to purity, all are working with various a priori, AND experience plays a huge role as does the intuitional ability of the experiencers. That is it all logic and empirical research for some is just BS. Scientists managed to not believe animals had emotions and cognition up into the 70s, for example.
I’ve given Prism, elsewhere, scientific research giving other reasons than he does for why theists believe. This does not change is certainty despite not having any research at all.
But a more important issue is the implicit mis-framing of the issue.
It is as if the theist chooses to be theist based on fear than false reasoning.
When in fact most theists are theists from childhood and reasoning and choice come later, if they do.
The real question for most theists is whether to stop believing in God when faced with atheists. Here again to say it is simply faith and bad reasoning, or unwillingness to face fears is confused.
For most theists it seems to be working, their complex set of behaviors and ideas- the social portions of religion, the relations with the religious leaders, their practices and beliefs. What they need to be shown is that it is not working or there is confirmation bias and so on. I am not saying that belief in God should be the default, that the onus is on atheists, but in practical terms for the theist, this is the case. They have been immersed for a long time. They experience it as working. Of course, they need to be shifted off this, by their own curiosity or dissatisfaction or by arguments from atheists, so it is a default for them and to say it is based on fear is confused, though, sure fear could certainly be in there somewhere and all of us are threatened when our paradigms are challenged well enough to make it seem possible we will have to give them up or modify them fundamentally.

what other site?

Karpel Tunnel,

Excellent post. I can’t find any points that I disagree with.

Something changed. He went from diligently replying as if he were on a mission to not even logging on.

Onlinephilosophyclub.com It’s a forum like this one, though after 3-4 days of posting I still haven’t found the end to the “moderator approval” requirement for my posts. I posted about it in “feedback”, but my feedback wasn’t approved, so I’m not too fond of the censorship and perpetual presumption of guilt. There is a bit more activity there, but mostly because it’s all mods. The mods here never talk; the mods there never stop. OPC just isn’t for me.

Serendipper,

Perhaps you’re right. Maybe something has changed as he was very active.

I randomly disappear too, but not in the middle of a debate.

After interacting with you more, I’m beginning to believe you are the author.

I had a project to attend to then.
Anyone want to continue the debate.

I believe theists need to understand the fact that the idea of God emerged onto human consciousness due to some existential psychological dilemma and for most it is because of low tolerance for CO2.
viewtopic.php?f=5&t=194667

Since the idea of God emerged due to existential psychological factors, then resolving these existential issues would wean theists off the idea of God.
The resulting positive consequences are the elimination of all evil and violence influenced by evil laden commands within SOME theistics text.
In addition, people will have less involuntary inherent sensitivity to psychologically-based existential threats.

Non-theists were likely killed throughout history which genetically selected for the obedient breed we are.

Also, poverty itself favors neurological “deformities” predisposing one to fear and hate. It requires an abundance of nutrition to grow and power the cerebral cortex.

Yeah people who didn’t value consensus over their own discernment weren’t given much opportunity to procreate. That’s how “consensus is always right”.

If you want to kill someone and get away with it the best way to do it is through consensus.

“Prove” by shuffling existing language into clever formlies that the discoverer is Wrong.
And then take his papers to light that died fire he, in his unconsensus like arrogance showed you how to light before.

Theists clung to a god for comfort and security arising from a terrible and desperate existential crisis.
The majority [not all] view non-theists as non-conformists, i.e. the “them” as in ‘us versus them’ and thus a serious threat to their beliefs.
Since theists have the majority power and SOME will kill non-theists to eliminate their deemed threat.
Note, because of the same insecurities, some theists are also killing other theists with different beliefs.

The serious problem is theists are killing non-theists and other theists merely based on some psychological insecurities and in certain cases compelled by commands from their God which is illusory and an impossibility.

The could be some justifications if any killing is done in self-defense under a very serious threat. But with SOME theists, they kill because their God [illusory and impossible] permit them to do so merely if the religion is threatened [often perceived threats].

Consensus does drive groups of people to act but that does not mean their acts are always ‘right’ morally.

It is fortunate all human beings has an inherent potential faculty of morality and conscience. These two faculties are active in many people in various degrees thus consensus do not always lead to ‘wrong’ or ‘evil’ acts.

List of apologies made by Pope John Paul II

The legal process on the Italian scientist and philosopher Galileo Galilei, himself a devout Catholic, around 1633 (31 October 1992).[7]
Catholics’ involvement with the African slave trade (9 August 1993).[3][4][5][6]
The Church’s role in burnings at the stake and the religious wars that followed the Protestant Reformation (May 1995, in the Czech Republic).[3][4][5][6]
The injustices committed against women, the violation of women’s rights and for the historical denigration of women (29 May 1995, in a “letter to women”).[2][3][4][5][6]
The inactivity and silence of many Catholics during the Holocaust (16 March 1998).[3][4][5][8][9]
For the execution of Jan Hus in 1415 (18 December 1999 in Prague). When John Paul II visited Prague in 1990s, he requested experts in this matter "to define with greater clarity the position held by Jan Hus among the Church’s reformers, and acknowledged that “independently of the theological convictions he defended, Hus cannot be denied integrity in his personal life and commitment to the nation’s moral education.” It was another step in building a bridge between Catholics and Protestants.[3][4][5][6]
For the sins of Catholics throughout the ages for violating “the rights of ethnic groups and peoples, and [for showing] contempt for their cultures and religious traditions”. (12 March 2000, during a public Mass of Pardons).[3][4][5][6]
For the actions of the Crusader attack on Constantinople in 1204. To the Patriarch of Constantinople he said “Some memories are especially painful, and some events of the distant past have left deep wounds in the minds and hearts of people to this day. I am thinking of the disastrous sack of the imperial city of Constantinople, which was for so long the bastion of Christianity in the East. It is tragic that the assailants, who had set out to secure free access for Christians to the Holy Land, turned against their own brothers in the faith. The fact that they were Latin Christians fills Catholics with deep regret. How can we fail to see here the mysterium iniquitatis at work in the human heart?”.[3][4][5][6]

Matthew 10 King James Version (KJV)
34 Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I came not to send peace, but a sword.
35 For I am come to set a man at variance against his father, and the daughter against her mother, and the daughter in law against her mother in law.
36 And a man’s foes shall be they of his own household.
37 He that loveth father or mother more than me is not worthy of me: and he that loveth son or daughter more than me is not worthy of me.
38 And he that taketh not his cross, and followeth after me, is not worthy of me.

Matthew 23 King James Version (KJV)
13 But woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye shut up the kingdom of heaven against men: for ye neither go in yourselves, neither suffer ye them that are entering to go in.
14 Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye devour widows’ houses, and for a pretence make long prayer: therefore ye shall receive the greater damnation.
15 Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye compass sea and land to make one proselyte, and when he is made, ye make him twofold more the child of hell than yourselves.
16 Woe unto you, ye blind guides, which say, Whosoever shall swear by the temple, it is nothing; but whosoever shall swear by the gold of the temple, he is a debtor!
23 Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye pay tithe of mint and anise and cummin, and have omitted the weightier matters of the law, judgment, mercy, and faith: these ought ye to have done, and not to leave the other undone.
25 Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye make clean the outside of the cup and of the platter, but within they are full of extortion and excess.
27 Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye are like unto whited sepulchres, which indeed appear beautiful outward, but are within full of dead men’s bones, and of all uncleanness.
29 Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! because ye build the tombs of the prophets, and garnish the sepulchres of the righteous,
33 Ye serpents, ye generation of vipers, how can ye escape the damnation of hell?

Who was the first to throw jews into ovens? ^^^

Religious views of Adolf Hitler
Mein Kampf (1925-1926)

Hence today I believe that I am acting in accordance with the will of the Almighty Creator: by defending myself against the Jew, I am fighting for the work of the Lord. (p. 65)
Political parties have nothing to do with religious problems, as long as these are not alien to the nation, undermining the morals and ethics of the race; just as religion cannot be amalgamated with the scheming of political parties. (p. 116)
This human world of ours would be inconceivable without the practical existence of a religious belief. (p. 152)
Even today I am not ashamed to say that, overpowered by stormy enthusiasm, I fell down on my knees and thanked Heaven from an overflowing heart for granting me the good fortune of being permitted to live at this time. A fight for freedom had begun mightier than the earth had ever seen; for once Destiny had begun its course, the conviction dawned on even the broad masses that this time not the fate of Serbia or Austria was involved, but whether the German nation was to be or not to be. (p. 161)
And the founder of Christianity made no secret indeed of his estimation of the Jewish people. When He found it necessary, He drove those enemies of the human race out of the Temple of God. (p. 174)
His [the Jewish person’s] life is only of this world, and his spirit is inwardly as alien to true Christianity as his nature two thousand years previous was to the great founder of the new doctrine. Of course, the latter made no secret of his attitude toward the Jewish people, and when necessary he even took to the whip to drive from the temple of the Lord this adversary of all humanity, who then as always saw in religion nothing but an instrument for his business existence. In retum, Christ was nailed to the cross, while our present-day party Christians debase themselves to begging for Jewish votes at elections and later try to arrange political swindles with atheistic Jewish parties — and this against their own nation. (p. 307)
Anyone who dares to lay hands on the highest image of the Lord commits sacrilege against the benevolent creator of this miracle and contributes to the expulsion from paradise. (p. 383)
It would be more in keeping with the intention of the noblest man in this world if our two Christian churches, instead of annoying Negroes with missions which they neither desire nor understand, would kindly, but in all seriousness, teach our European humanity that where parents are not healthy it is a deed pleasing to God to take pity on a poor little healthy orphan child and give him father and mother, than themselves to give birth to a sick child who will only bring unhappiness and suffering on himself and the rest of the world. (p. 403)
The folkish-minded man, in particular, has the sacred duty, each in his own denomination, of making people stop just talking superficially of God’s will, and actually fulfill God’s will, and not let God’s word be desecrated. For God’s will gave men their form, their essence and their abilities. Anyone who destroys His work is declaring war on the Lord’s creation, the divine will. (p. 562)
As far as this variety of ‘folkish’ warriors, are concerned, I can only wish the National Socialist movement and the German people with all my heart: “Lord, preserve us from such friends, and then we can easily deal with our enemies.” (p. 565)
Since Germany never defends herself, except by a few flaming protests on the part of our parliamentary elite, and the rest of the world has no reason for fighting in our defense, and as a matter of principle God does not make cowardly nations free… (p. 622)
For this, to be sure, from the child’s primer down to the last newspaper, every theater and every movie house, every advertising pillar and every billboard, must be pressed into the service of this one great mission, until the timorous prayer of our present parlor patriots: ‘Lord, make us free!’ is transformed in the brain of the smallest boy into the burning plea: ‘Almighty God, bless our arms when the time comes; be just as thou hast always been; judge now whether we be deserving of freedom; Lord, bless our battle!’ (pp. 632-633) is fun

All religion is arrogance.

Holier Than Thou
Before you judge me take a look at you
Can’t you find something better to do
Point the finger, slow to understand
Arrogance and ignorance go hand in hand

[youtube]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q1p3ucZzN0M[/youtube]

Those old dogs can still bite :character-beavisbutthead:

… well it doesn’t go quite as hard as hetfield and the boys, but it gets the job done:

[youtube]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y8TKiRo-W4U[/youtube]

if you find the modulating vocal effect in the studio version a little much, try one of the live versions:

[youtube]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EFk6L9cFFwU[/youtube]

I noted there are Christians who had committed killings and violence but these Christians did not kill as commanded or permitted by the Christian God nor Jesus.
Whatever elements of evil there are in the NT, they are overridden by the overriding PACIFIST MAXIM, i.e. love [even] your enemies, neighbors, etc.; give your right cheek, and the likes.

I bet those Christians [& Hitler if he is a Christian?] who had committed killings and violence and when upon death would have been reprimanded by Jesus on his court, with the following;

WTF!! I commanded you to love [even] your enemies, not kill them!
If they do not have any give justifications, they would have been sent to hell.

Christians are taking their own risks in killing non-Christians. If the killings by Christians are justified with good reasons, I believe they will not be severely punished.

On the other hand, for those Muslims who had committed terrible killings and violence on non-Muslims, they would be welcomed in Allah’s court with the following;

Allah: Yo!! give me five… for obeying my commands, you will be rewarded 10 folds and you will be sent to Paradise with eternal life and you shall have your 72 virgins.

God killed 2,821,364 documented people and 25 million estimated dwindlinginunbelief.blogspot.co … bible.html

Satan only killed 10.

Satanists are worshiping the lesser of two evils lol

Jesus didn’t kill or order anyone to be killed, but his Father was a blood-thristy maniacal sadist.

I’ve never seen a christian practice that.

Christians won’t kill nonbelievers, but they will kill evildoers (where evil is arbitrarily defined as anyone they don’t like: abortionists, terrorists, whatever). Capital punishment and even death for drug dealers are the Religious Right’s agenda. And the bible-thumpers are the gun-toters.

According to 2017 Pew Research Center data analyzed for CT, white evangelicals are more likely than members of other faith groups or the average citizen to own a gun; 41 percent do, compared to 30 percent of Americans overall. christianitytoday.com/news/ … oting.html

The only active God that sanctions the killing of non-believers within the slightest threats is that of Allah -the god is Islam. This is supported by many verses in the Quran.

Jesus Christ = Christianity.
Note by the time God was associated with Jesus, God had become a pacifist.

As I understand the evil and violent elements in the OT are merely descriptive, i.e. not prescriptions till eternity.

All said as above, it is impossible for God to exist as real.

The majority of Christians practice love and many do it blindly to the extreme, i.e. not wisely.

In this case, these Christians are not that blind but being rationally in response to the circumstances they are in.
Christianity do not advocate killing but if Christians ever kill they are taking their own risk of being slammed by Jesus. I believe they are taking the risk in that Jesus and God will forgive them if they have to kill in self-defense.

If the above stats is true, I don’t read of ordinary Christians killing non-believers at the slightest offence against them.
Have you heard of Christians killing others for drawing cartoons of and insulting Jesus?

True, but I could make an argument for Christianity causing almost all of our modern wars.

People’s idea of what Christianity should be = Christianity.

Christians know less about their own bible than atheists. They just get their ideas from loud-mouthed arrogant people who claim to know.

Peruse this video and witness the casting off of reason and rationale in favor of faith:

[youtube]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7GfUUF9YI3Y[/youtube]

No one preachers fire and brimstone like Schambach.

If you believe hard enough, then it’s true. That’s pretty much the idea of Christianity.

But “believing things” into reality is practicing to become a psychotic (hallucinations). It’s like training a muscle: the brain practices thinking crazy and the condition feeds on itself as the brain becomes better and better at it.

So all that “Holier than thou”, “I’m better than you” mentality is flexing the amygdala while leaving the insula to atrophy.

True but the people didn’t.

Depends what you mean by god.

In self-defense, in defense of country, even if the country is doing something immoral.

No but celebrity atheists get so many death threats that they need security detail.

It is not logical for Christianity per se to have caused all of our modern wars.
The authorized constitution of Christianity is the New Testament.
The NT do not provide sanction for Christians to go to war against non-Christians.
Instead the NT has an overriding pacifist maxim to ‘to love [even] your enemies’ which contradict with killing them.

You may argued, for example, the USA with a majority of Christians has been making wars all over the World.
But the USA is ruled by it own Constitution, not the NT.
The US Constitution is represented by the people of the USA which comprised of all religions and beliefs.
It would be false to accuse Christianity of making war because the US created many modern wars.

One must separate the ideology and beliefs from the acts of the believers.
One can only accuse the religion itself if its main holy texts command believers to go to war on non-believers.
Christianity, i.e. Jesus and God never commanded Christians to go to war with non-believers.

Note my point above.
One must separate the ideology and beliefs from the acts of the believers.
Many Christian priests committed acts of pedophilla and other scams on their innocent followers, that has nothing to do with Christianity per se but rather is their own evil human nature.

In this case it is the ultimate God which has to be the ontological God, i.e. a god than which no greater can exists.

The point here is the Maxim within Christianity is ‘Thou Shall Not Kill’ period! no ifs nor buts.
Thus the default is Christians will not dare to kill unless they have no choice then hope for mercy from God in that they have VERY GOOD justifications to kill.

Note the contrast, in the Quran, Muslims are sanctioned and exhorted to kill upon the slightest threat to the religions. This is why Muslims will kill those who had drawn cartoons of Muhammad because that is threat to Islam as perceived.

No but celebrity atheists get so many death threats that they need security detail.
[/quote]
As I had stated, there are Christians who are by themselves evil and violent, but their evil nature has nothing to do with nor are condoned by Christianity itself.

Note again,
you must differentiate and separate the individual believer’s inherent nature from the essence of Christianity the ideology.
The worst evil person on Earth can become a Christian easily and at anytime. If in the next moment he starts to kill others or commit evil and violent acts, it has nothing to do with Christianity per se.