If you are/were a conservative Christian, how do/did you cope with the concept of eternal damnation?

[Juma]

You assert that as if you had a choice.

How is that consistent with your belief that choices do not exist?



If freewill is an illusion then so is reasoning.

You can't remain reasonably consistent asserting such a belief.

You assert there are no choices but then your next sentence you assert ....................

It's something that a person realizes or they don't.

... ...which is an absolute choice. There is no realization/conclusion to realize/reason because there is really no choice. Your molecular movement caused that illusion. That's cognitive dissonance and no other choice. And if you object then you're contradicting your own reasoning....I mean your contradicting your own illusion because to object would mean you have another choice which you would defend. Ontology digresses to subjective illusion and the laws of logic no longer apply.

The older I become, the more I feel as if my behavior and my beliefs have been influenced by my genetics, and the environment that has influenced me.

Again to be consistent with your belief you only have the illusion that you reasoned that. There really wasn’t any choice or reason for you to be different.

You have no foundation to reason any further. You just told me you don’t have the freewill to reach a reasonable conclusion, because a conclusion infers a free choice of possible givens. All that you assert is not reasoned. It is just the way your molecules moved. Well…..Happy movements to you.

I was going to end it there, but I freely chose to pause (24 hrs) and reason your position further. From my perspective what you just said there is so unreasonable how could anyone even believe it? So I looked at your examples hoping to discover your reasoning/illusion from their support…….

So, for example, if I had not attended a fundamentalist Christian college for one semester and had I not been exposed to the things that I was at that college, I might not have been influenced to dig deeper into various religions. Had I not been heavily indoctrinated into such a harsh version of Christianity, I might have felt comfortable in a more liberal, tolerant version of Christianity. I married a Baha'i when I was 20. There were many things about that religion that attracted me, but in the end, my mind wouldn't allow me to believe the things that the faith claimed were true no matter how hard I tried, so I continued on the road as an agnostic. I searched, read, prayed for answers during my twenties, but no answers ever came. The more I thought and read, the more obvious it became to me that there are no supernatural creatures out there. If I had been a different person, influenced by other things, I might not be an atheist. One of my sisters remains a Christian. The other sister is no longer a Christian, but she continues to hold onto many beliefs which I would consider superstitions. Her beliefs are mostly harmless and she never tries to convince anyone else to accept them. So, we were all influenced by different things that lead us to different conclusions. We had no choice. We simply followed the paths that were open to us. We may feel as if we had choices but the reality is that we simply were influenced by many factors that brought us to a conclusion.

Imo, my Christian sister always had a terrible time with guilt. She has suffered from anxiety and depression for most of her life. She was emotionally and to a lesser extent, physically abused by my Christian father as well. To this day, she suffers from a great deal of guilt. Perhaps that's why she was never able to break away from what we had been told as children. I don't know if that helps explain my position.

First on a personal note, I’m sorry that your chain of events was on the harsher side of life and sincerely hope there are better days ahead for you.

I reason that your whole lamented chain of “What-if’s” as normal reflections over the "could-have-beens". Reflecting upon the past is completely normal and sometimes fun to do. But you offered that list of reflections to support your assertion that freewill is an illusion. I still don’t see the connection, but here is my shot at it in the form of a question........

Are you reasoning (or whatever you call it) that since the past can’t be changed, then we can now forward conclude that all freewill is illusion?

I can't help it if I think too much. I can't help it if I question things that don't make sense to me. That's what I mean when I say that we have no choice in what we believe. It either makes sense to us, or it causes cognitive dissonance.

We all should question things that don't make sense to us. That is a positive virtue. It is actually our epistemic duty. Where would science be today if that did not happen?

But I completely fail to see how freely choosing to be inquisitive ultimately infers that choice, freewill and reasoning don't exist. You have provided no reasoning (or whatever you call it) to make such an unreasonable leap. In my world of reasoning your reasoning/illusion is a perfect example of a non-sequitur and thus erroneous by the laws of logic.

In my world if something does not make sense to me I either reject it or tentatively store it on another self not called knowledge. That is not cognitive dissonance. That is proper epistemology.

A perfect example of cognitive dissonance would be how you are FREELY CHOOSING to REASON the non-existence of freewill, choice and reason.

Again, thanks for the discussion.

Thank you for your response as well. It has been helpful to me.

I realize it's unlikely that we will agree on much or that we will completely understand each other's position.

Again "realize" infers that you had another choice/s and you freely choose this belief, which is inconsistent with your belief.

To me, the only important thing is how we live our lives, not what we believe.

But what we believe directly influences how we live our lives.

And, some people tell me that they can't be good without god. If that't true, then maybe it's good that religion exists.

That assertion reflects a misinterpretation of the Moral Argument. But we can freely choose not to go there for now.

What you feel as a choice has been made is just that you realize what your mind has calculated.
A choice is simply s behaviour that is so simple and obvious that you notices it.

 

[remez]

What you feel as a choice has been made is just that you realize what your mind has calculated.

Yes, but that is still reasoning not feeling. When I "realize" and "calculate" that my mind has reached a conclusion I call that reason. "Realize" and "calculate" infers a reasoned approach to conclude.

Why are you freely trying to reason away reason by calling it a feeling?

When you freely read my post and freely chose to respond, you didn't feel I was in error you freely reasoned I was in error and you further freely reasoned that your reasoning needed to be presented to reasonably counter mine reasoning?

Now feel this.......You will forever be defeating yourself when you present reasons that reasons don't exist. But if you "feel" you must then by all means continue to prove my reasoning.

A choice is simply s behaviour that is so simple and obvious that you notices it.

Did you freely reason that or was it a molecular feeling?

 

[southernhybrid]

Thanks for your response remez, but it's obvious that you really don't understand what I'm trying to explain to you regarding freewill, so I'll drop it. It's obvious to me, but it's not obvious to most people that our choices are determined by the things that influence us, regardless if they are genetically based or environmentally based. It's not something that I usually give that much thought to, but as I said before, the more I understand about the workings of our brains, the more obvious it becomes to me, that we don't have freewill.

And, I don't pretend to be an expert when it comes to neurology. My interest in the subject increased as I cared for people with Alzheimer's Disease for many years, along with some folks that suffered from other forms of mental illnesses, which are actually all diseases of the brain. I watched people go through the stages of the disease and saw their ability to think gradually fade away into nothingness. I've seen photos of MRIs of people with advanced AD. There's not much left of the physical brain as they approach the end stage, so they no longer have the capacity to think at all. The mind is merely a function of the physical brain, and the brain is influenced by the things that impact it.


Anyway, I won't waste my time or yours in trying to explain this very complex subject, since apparently I'm not doing a good job of explaining it well enough for you to understand. It's not something that I obsess over or even think of all the time. As I said earlier, we all have the illusion of freewill and that probably enables us to function without being too distracted. What we believe is never a choice, although it may seem like we choose what to believe. I've given you several examples and yet you don't seem to understand. I realize this is a difficult concept to fully understand, so I don't blame you. In any event, it's always a positive to be able to discuss things with others without becoming angry. I don't get angry often because I inherited that type of personality from my mother.

 

[abaddon]

I wouldn't know the answer to free will. It's pretty clear as southernhybrid has argued that many seeming choices are just seeming choices.

If there's an answer, I'm guessing probably it's an attenuated free will.

But it doesn't matter. Even if there were conclusive evidence that we're entirely determined, we'd go on feeling and talking like there are choices regardless if we believe otherwise. The assumption is built into our timeworn language. Looking at how we talk cannot determine what's true. Language is an old social convention; its structure is not a match with reality.

remez points at sentence structures and says "See, you talk as if you have a choice!" Yes, and duh. Humans also talk as if we're each a unitary self that directs each of our actions. So you'd think if I talked that way, then I must believe it. But I don't believe it because it doesn't match experience ... Yet I'm constrained by the social convention of language to talk "as if". If I altered language in an attempt to better fit my perceptions of how reality is, it'd become pretty convoluted. So, for communicating, I follow the ancient convention.

And back to the topic: Free will doesn't solve the problem of a good god that created hell. The picture drawn was of a person who wants a loving relationship but doesn't want to impose his will. So he digs a pit for those who freely elect to remain outside his love... He does that to honor free will. Nevermind that he DUG A FUCKING PIT for the persons, whose love he wanted but didn't get, to fall into. That's psychopathic, and free will doesn't make the problem go away.

 

[Lion IRC]

abaddon is right.

Free will - which does at the bare minimum exist ontologically, at least for some of us - still doesn't satisfactorily answer the God-hater's atheist's objection that Love^TM = total happiness all around, everybody wins, rainbows and butterflies, we all get to do whatever we want, to whoever we want, whenever we want, without anyone getting hurt, forever and ever amen.

Hell isnt fair. Hell makes me feel sad. Nasty God. Why, why, why? Why can't God just force us all to artificially feel like we have free will and force us to feel as if we are happy, and force us to enjoy everything that's done to us?

 

[James Brown]

Are those really the only two options? Eternal torture in Hell, or artificial giddiness?

If so, I'm not impressed with whatever genius came up with that system.

 

[Lion IRC]

...of course, God might not be inclined to bend over backwards to keep everyone happy and conform to abaddon's idea of what a 'loving' God ought to do.

 

[remez]

Thanks for your response remez, but it's obvious that you really don't understand what I'm trying to explain to you regarding freewill, so I'll drop it. It's obvious to me, but it's not obvious to most people that our choices are determined by the things that influence us, regardless if they are genetically based or environmentally based. It's not something that I usually give that much thought to, but as I said before, the more I understand about the workings of our brains, the more obvious it becomes to me, that we don't have freewill.

And, I don't pretend to be an expert when it comes to neurology. My interest in the subject increased as I cared for people with Alzheimer's Disease for many years, along with some folks that suffered from other forms of mental illnesses, which are actually all diseases of the brain. I watched people go through the stages of the disease and saw their ability to think gradually fade away into nothingness. I've seen photos of MRIs of people with advanced AD. There's not much left of the physical brain as they approach the end stage, so they no longer have the capacity to think at all. The mind is merely a function of the physical brain, and the brain is influenced by the things that impact it.


Anyway, I won't waste my time or yours in trying to explain this very complex subject, since apparently I'm not doing a good job of explaining it well enough for you to understand. It's not something that I obsess over or even think of all the time. As I said earlier, we all have the illusion of freewill and that probably enables us to function without being too distracted. What we believe is never a choice, although it may seem like we choose what to believe. I've given you several examples and yet you don't seem to understand. I realize this is a difficult concept to fully understand, so I don't blame you. In any event, it's always a positive to be able to discuss things with others without becoming angry. I don't get angry often because I inherited that type of personality from my mother.

parsed here...........

Thanks for your response remez, but it's obvious that you really don't understand what I'm trying to explain to you regarding freewill,

What a cop out. I knew this was going to happen. You are going to cop out and not defend your position while desperately pleading to dismiss upon my ignorance. That's as weak as a dumb Christian simply claiming "God-did-it and you'll never understand therefore I'm right.” My how the tables have turned.

It is you that can't explain or defend your position. I've done my part. You make empty assertions and run any from the questions that I addressed with your fallacious logic. I suspect you don't even understand it yourself and by blind faith you cling to it because you need it to be true. You’re sounding more and more like those people in Georgia that you were disparaging earlier.

so I'll drop it.

But you didn't CHOOSE to do that at all. You freely CHOSE to continue............

It's obvious to me, but it's not obvious to most people.....

That is usually the first clue that you are deluded. Also note you are freely choosing to appeal to reason which is inconsistent with your beliefs.

that our choices are determined by the things that influence us, regardless if they are genetically based or environmentally based.

As I told you. I agree with that. What is in question is HOW you get from those observations to the conclusion that freewill, choice and reason are an illusion. Your conclusion is a non-sequitur. You have yet to provide any illusion to support the how.

It's not something that I usually give that much thought to, but as I said before, the more I understand about the workings of our brains, the more obvious it becomes to me, that we don't have freewill.

Perhaps you should have given some more thought before you assumed your position and used it against me. BTW You just admitted to a blind faith.
It's a blind faith unless you can explain it. You have the brain experience thus you should be able to address it. I'm already anticipating conflation errors regarding correlation, causation and identity. You would never let a Christian get anyway with the kind of illusion you are asserting.

And, I don't pretend to be an expert when it comes to neurology.

Neither do I, but that does not relieve you from your burden of proof. It's a blind faith you are asserting. It's a "nature of the gaps" fallacy. And may I remind you that twice above you said it was obvious so you should be able to explain it. Your examples do not do that.

My interest in the subject increased as I cared for people with Alzheimer's Disease for many years, along with some folks that suffered from other forms of mental illnesses, which are actually all diseases of the brain. I watched people go through the stages of the disease and saw their ability to think gradually fade away into nothingness. I've seen photos of MRIs of people with advanced AD. There's not much left of the physical brain as they approach the end stage, so they no longer have the capacity to think at all.

Yes...... but why should we conclude...................

The mind is merely a function of the physical brain,

That is an assumption in need of some evidence and explanation or else you are just fallaciously begging the question.

and the brain is influenced by the things that impact it.

Agreed, but influence does not create identity. You are freely choosing to reason that this influence proves that freewill, choice and reason do not exist. How? How? How? Your examples do not address the how.

Anyway, I won't waste my time or yours in trying to explain this very complex s ubject, since apparently I'm not doing a good job of explaining it well enough for you to understand. It's not something that I obsess over or even think of all the time.

Another disingenuous dismissal and bad assumption. I'm familiar the common supports offered for your position and I'm also prepared to counter those supports and defend mine. It's not my burden to explain your position. You're the one simply asserting your position without reason. Example.................

As I said earlier, we all have the illusion of freewill and that probably enables us to function without being too distracted. What we believe is never a choice, although it may seem like we choose what to believe.

I do not concede to your authority on this matter. Provide a proper defense for that position. The burden is yours.

You started this thread with an assertion that there was a cognitive dissonance within the Christian worldview regarding an all loving God and eternal punishment. I took up your challenge to show you where your perception was in error. You simply dismissed my contentions with the assertion that I was twisting words. All based on your wild assumption that freewill is illusion. Support your theory or concede that my explanation dismisses your cognitive dissonance regrading Christianity.

I've given you several examples and yet you don't seem to understand.

And I addressed those examples. You have yet to properly respond. It is you that does not understand that those examples don't support your conclusion. Simply repeating your error does not make it true.

I realize this is a difficult concept to fully understand, so I don't blame you.

I do concede that it is surprising, to say the least, that you keep freely choosing to dismiss this issue upon my ignorance, when yours is so prevalently on display. If you were correct then your assertion reasons like this ... "I illusion this is an illusion to illusion, I illusion you no illusion."
Wait before you object……… just illusion about it for a while.

In any event, it's always a positive to be able to discuss things with others without becoming angry.

I concur.

 

[remez]

I wouldn't know the answer to free will. It's pretty clear as southernhybrid has argued that many seeming choices are just seeming choices.

If there's an answer, I'm guessing probably it's an attenuated free will.

But it doesn't matter. Even if there were conclusive evidence that we're entirely determined, we'd go on feeling and talking like there are choices regardless if we believe otherwise. The assumption is built into our timeworn language. Looking at how we talk cannot determine what's true. Language is an old social convention; its structure is not a match with reality.

remez points at sentence structures and says "See, you talk as if you have a choice!" Yes, and duh. Humans also talk as if we're each a unitary self that directs each of our actions. So you'd think if I talked that way, then I must believe it. But I don't believe it because it doesn't match experience ... Yet I'm constrained by the social convention of language to talk "as if". If I altered language in an attempt to better fit my perceptions of how reality is, it'd become pretty convoluted. So, for communicating, I follow the ancient convention.

And back to the topic: Free will doesn't solve the problem of a good god that created hell. The picture drawn was of a person who wants a loving relationship but doesn't want to impose his will. So he digs a pit for those who freely elect to remain outside his love... He does that to honor free will. Nevermind that he DUG A FUCKING PIT for the persons, whose love he wanted but didn't get, to fall into. That's psychopathic, and free will doesn't make the problem go away.

parsed here

I wouldn't know the answer to free will. It's pretty clear as southernhybrid has argued that many seeming choices are just seeming choices.

No she has only asserted that and attempted to support it with examples that don’t lead to the conclusion she asserts. Ultimately she is just begging the question.

If there's an answer, I'm guessing probably it's an attenuated free will.

What do you mean by that?

But it doesn't matter. Even if there were conclusive evidence that we're entirely determined, we'd go on feeling and talking like there are choices regardless if we believe otherwise.

I disagree. It would be completely unreasonable to believe anything that went against conclusive evidence.

The assumption is built into our timeworn language. Looking at how we talk cannot determine what's true.

I’m not concerned with language. I’m concerned with reason. Language does not determine what is true. Proper reasoning does. Language is a tool we use to communicate with each other, it is not reasoning itself. For instance we use phenomenological language like sunrise and sunset. But observation and reason determine the truth that the sun does not orbit the earth. Reason governs language not the other way around. So if you are going to assert (by language) that reasoning is an illusion then I must use language to express my reasons for objecting to that assertion.

Language is an old social convention; its structure is not a match with reality.

Language is changed and/or governed by reasoning. It happens all the time. We are discussing how our reasoning matches reality.

remez points at sentence structures and says "See, you talk as if you have a choice!" Yes, and duh.

That is a major misperception. I’m not disputing the language. I’m disputing the reasoning. I’m using language to not only make my case but to expose the absurdity of my opponents reasoning, not her language.

Humans also talk as if we're each a unitary self that directs each of our actions. So you'd think if I talked that way, then I must believe it. But I don't believe it because it doesn't match experience.

That is the convoluted illusion on the table, but……………

Yet I'm constrained by the social convention of language to talk "as if".

No. That is just a poor excuse.

If I altered language in an attempt to better fit my perceptions of how reality is, it'd become pretty convoluted.

Cop out. It’s your convoluted reasoning that is in your way not the language. Reason governs language. New reasons and discovered truths about reality have changed language throughout history. You seem to be asserting that since you can’t articulate your brilliant illusion into language that the rest of us dummies can understand then we dummies just have to accept your illusion as true. It sounds like you are playing god in a god-did-it philosophy and its true only because you believe it to be so. Good luck with that.

And back to the topic: Free will doesn't solve the problem of a good god that created hell. The picture drawn was of a person who wants a loving relationship but doesn't want to impose his will. So he digs a pit for those who freely elect to remain outside his love... He does that to honor free will. Nevermind that he DUG A FUCKING PIT for the persons, whose love he wanted but didn't get, to fall into. That's psychopathic, and free will doesn't make the problem go away.

No that was not the picture I drew. That was your vulgar description depicting your misperception of what I drew. Hell is not a pit a person vengefully dug. Hell is a place where he is not. Hell is place where is love and grace is not. Thus it is a place described as horrible. If you choose to go to a place where you don’t have to be with him then why is God to blame? Why should God force you to be with him?

So where is the problem that needs to go away?

 

[Lion IRC]

If there's an answer, I'm guessing probably it's an attenuated free will.

What do you mean by that?

LOL Good one remez! I see what you did there.
What does abaddon mean by that? What's the intent? Where is abaddon coming from? Who is abaddon anyway?

http://www.patheos.com/blogs/secularoutpost/2013/02/21/craigs-argument-from-intentionality/

 

[southernhybrid]

Come on remez. That was no cop out. I just felt as if you and I were speaking two different languages and I saw no point in continuing. But, let's suppose for a minute that we do have total free will, that still doesn't change the fact that the god you think is real, is actually a cruel monster. None of the Christians were able to give a reasonable explanation as to why the good loving all powerful god allows the very creatures that he created to suffer eternally for the simply "sin" of not believing he has saved them. Sorry, but free will or not, that's the only way I can see it. The only way I can possibly conceive of how anyone could accept the premises in the Christian Bible is to assume that they were influenced by things beyond their control.

To be fair, I spent some time rereading parts of the Bible this week that I haven't read in years. I was sickened by the things I read. I don't even understand how I was able to accept any of these things as truth when I was a child. There is no way I could ever see that book as anything more than a book of various myths written in the ancient world, primitive attempts to explain the world.

Anyway, I digress. The original point of my OP was to try to understand how any Christian can accept the immorality of their god, especially when it comes to the concept of eternal damnation. I give you credit for trying. You don't think what I said made much sense, well I'm afraid that pretty much sums up my reaction to your explanation. Again, I don't mean this as a judgment of you as a person. And, I hope you don't judge atheists because we are unable to see things the same way that you do.

 

[southernhybrid]

abaddon is right.

Free will - which does at the bare minimum exist ontologically, at least for some of us - still doesn't satisfactorily answer the God-hater's atheist's objection that Love^TM = total happiness all around, everybody wins, rainbows and butterflies, we all get to do whatever we want, to whoever we want, whenever we want, without anyone getting hurt, forever and ever amen.

Hell isnt fair. Hell makes me feel sad. Nasty God. Why, why, why? Why can't God just force us all to artificially feel like we have free will and force us to feel as if we are happy, and force us to enjoy everything that's done to us?

Let's get one thing straight. Atheists don't hate your god. We simply see absolutely no evidence for your god's existence, outside of your mind. An old book of mythology is no more evidence for your god than old Greek mythology is evidence for the old Greek gods. Mythology has always played a large role in human society. Maybe we will never move beyond that concept. I don't know. My only wish is that religions will become more progressive and less divisive. This is very difficult to accomplish when religious people literally believe in the concept of hell or eternal punishment.

When we atheists discuss the concept of god, we are only talking about the entity that others seem to think is real. We are only criticizing a particular version of god because so many people actually believe that their version of god actually exists, and a lot of believers try to push their beliefs on the rest of us. So, if you want to be honest and civil, stop with the snarky "god haters" remarks. If any of us actually hate your concept of god, it's only because your beliefs have had such a negative impact on the rest of us. They have been used to make moral judgments on people that don't share your beliefs. I personally have always found the concept of a literal hell to be the most divisive and hateful belief in Christian theology. I wanted to try and understand how others could consider that their concept of god is a just and loving one, while still acting like a vengeful, angry, unjust one.

 

[remez]

Come on remez. That was no cop out. I just felt as if you and I were speaking two different languages and I saw no point in continuing.

Yes but you clearly placed the blame on my lack of understanding. That needed a defense considering your earlier judgement on Christians. Seriously what would you thought of me (a Christian) if I simply defended my position by dismissing you with “Well it’s clear that you don’t understand it, so there is no use trying to explain it to you.”? No doubt you would have thought it was a cop out.

Several more points of conflict arose from our conversation. This is a simple list in no order to reflect upon. You of course may respond to any or all, but I only offer it as a reflection.

Different Languages. I know you did not mean that literally, but it seemed that your dismissal was based upon the literal. Initiated by your challenge, we are directly discussing the differences of our worldviews. Of course that would involve some conflict. I felt all was proceeding well until I challenged you to defend your reasoning that freewill does not exist. I have dealt with this faulty reasoning before. I knew you would run into trouble trying to defend such a self-defeating assumption. You did try and did not succeed, but then you tried dismiss the issue on my lack of understanding. The discomfort you experienced was not that our languages were different it was that your reasoning was self-defeating. So at that point to dismiss the issue in that fashion could not go unaddressed. Also keep in mind the context of the roles we were playing. You criticized Christians for not being reasonable. Thus I had a duty to present the case that this Christian was reasonably not going to let you off the hook for trying to defend reasoning that was overtly self-defeating. Your criticism of weak minded Christians was a judgement I was motivated to disprove throughout our discussion.

Another point. Earlier you inferred that it did not matter what a person believed, what really mattered was how a person lived. I had the duty to then point out that you missed an obvious causation. What a person believes directly influences the way they interact with the world, the way they live their lives. For example you criticized Christians for not providing you with the answers you sought. Possibly some of those Christians did not believe that it was important enough to defend their worldview. It required too much mental lifting. Unfortunately, I know too many who are like that. It does not mean their worldview is incorrect, it only means that they were negligent in their duty to reasonably defend their worldview. I on the other hand, like many others believe that it is very important. It is a belief that directly influences how I live and interact with persons like you.

Another point. Philosophy. That is where the mental lifting is done. Reasoning is guided by the laws of reasoning. It amazes me how many contentions that are raised against Christianity are self-defeating and/or straw man misperceptions of Christianity. If you look back you will see that most of our contentions dropped down from contentions about Christianity to the level of epistemology. Observe our discussion regarding freewill. If you are going the make the error to deny freewill to negate my reply to your cognitive dissonance, then by the laws of reason you need to defend that. That is what is called burden of proof. You attempted to do so by providing examples. But examples may support what you believe but they don’t replace reasoning. Thus I reasonably challenged you to provide how those examples inferred your conclusion. Thus I informed you that until you provided the actual reasoning your conclusion was a non-sequitur. The only way to get from your examples to your conclusion was to beg the question. Note I pointed all of that out in our discussion. I gave and still give you the opportunity to make your case but until you do so your reasoning is full of fallacy and your beliefs are based on blind faith. I made my case, you have not met your burden of proof. I actually could have made your argument better than you did. But in the end it still would fail the laws of reason. Again most of that rested upon philosophy and not Christianity. So hopefully I stand as an example that not all Christians are thoughtless of their worldview.

Another point. You were continually in conflict with yourself. On one hand you were continually asserting that your position on freewill was obvious, but repeatedly down played your knowledge of that conclusion. Thus I continually made point of it. Your reasoning understandably should not be in conflict. Since you believe it so fervently and yet can explain or defend it then you likely guilty of what you guilt of Christians, a blind faith. It stood out as a bold hypocrisy. As you can reason, that would be an issue sensitive to me. I hear it all the time here.

Another point. Perception and perspective. Your indefensible self-defeating position on the non-existence of freewill, choice and reasoning creates an error of perception from your own perspective. It manifests itself when you make comments of misperception like “I can’t reason why god would send someone to eternal punishment.” You can’t reason it because on a blind faith you freely choose the illusion that freewill, choice and reason do not exist. Think about the juxtaposition of your reasoning (no freewill, no choice and no reasoning) and your misperception (God is unjust because of the choice of hell). You’re asserting that freewill and choice don’t exist but you’re mad at God because of his freewill choice. You are once again in conflict with yourself.

Examine each position.
……..If freewill, choice and reason don’t exist then why are you disparaging Christianity because you don’t agree with its freewill, choice and reasonable justice? They don’t exist so what are you upset about?
……..Now if freewill, choice and reason do exist then your misperception of “I can’t reason why god would send someone to eternal punishment for simply not believing in him.” is caused by your own contrary illusion about freewill, choice and reason. You see your statement “I can’t reason why god would send someone to eternal punishment for simply not believing in him.” misperceives “sent” and “punishment” as actions of God and simplifies the meaning of “believe” to simple recognition. As I explained before God does not send, you freely choose. As I told you earlier it is not based on simply recognizing God, it is based on if you love God and want to be with him. God is not there punishing you. The description of punishment is a forecast of what it will be like because of the absence of God’s grace (which I also explained to you earlier). Again punishment is a description you are choosing to misperceive as an action on God’s part. You’re assigning two actions (sent and punishment) to God that are yours alone. Hell is simply where you can choose to go if you want. Seriously address this question. Why should God force you to be with him against your will?

Another point. Perception and perspective. Your assertion that Christianity has no evidence boarders on the absurd. That is an assertion in need of explanation and defense. You can rightfully assert that you rejected all evidence and reason offered for Christianity. Additionally your rejection would in no way infer that there is no evidence and reason for Christianity. The acceptance or rejection of evidence and reason is profoundly important. I suspect that your over reaching judgement begins with an erroneous epistemology followed trail of bad reasoning. But coming from someone who believes without reason that freewill, choice and reason don’t exist, why should I be at all surprised you would actually believe your senseless assertion. So at this point I reject your absurd judgement.

And finally…..this one goes back to being continually in conflict with yourself….

The only way I can possibly conceive of how anyone could accept the premises in the Christian Bible is to assume that they were influenced by things beyond their control.

Very interesting conflict you have there. Do you see it?

You just spent several posts asserting that was precisely the assumption you actually believe. Yet here you present it as a negative way to live your life.

And, I hope you don't judge atheists because we are unable to see things the same way that you do.

I don’t judge the atheist, but I will address reasoning I judge to be faulty. But look back at the all harsh judgements you threw at Christians. To quote them all would probably double the length of this post. So for that reason I freely choose not to quote them here.

Thanks again for the discussion.

 

[remez]

If there's an answer, I'm guessing probably it's an attenuated free will.

What do you mean by that?

LOL Good one remez! I see what you did there.
What does abaddon mean by that? What's the intent? Where is abaddon coming from?

THANKS
But will he get it?

 

[abaddon]

"The fall, Irenaeus would say, attenuated free will, although it did not obliterate it." (From here).

Even if the word "attenuated" confused anyone it was still clear in context I meant there's some degree of free will.

Do our pair of Dunning-Kruger exhibits get it now?

 

[Juma]

Yes but you clearly placed the blame on my lack of understanding. That needed a defense considering your earlier judgement on Christians. Seriously what would you thought of me (a Christian) if I simply defended my position by dismissing you with “Well it’s clear that you don’t understand it, so there is no use trying to explain it to you.”? No doubt you would have thought it was a cop out.

Several more points of conflict arose from our conversation. This is a simple list in no order to reflect upon. You of course may respond to any or all, but I only offer it as a reflection.

Different Languages. I know you did not mean that literally, but it seemed that your dismissal was based upon the literal. Initiated by your challenge, we are directly discussing the differences of our worldviews. Of course that would involve some conflict. I felt all was proceeding well until I challenged you to defend your reasoning that freewill does not exist. I have dealt with this faulty reasoning before. I knew you would run into trouble trying to defend such a self-defeating assumption. You did try and did not succeed, but then you tried dismiss the issue on my lack of understanding. The discomfort you experienced was not that our languages were different it was that your reasoning was self-defeating. So at that point to dismiss the issue in that fashion could not go unaddressed. Also keep in mind the context of the roles we were playing. You criticized Christians for not being reasonable. Thus I had a duty to present the case that this Christian was reasonably not going to let you off the hook for trying to defend reasoning that was overtly self-defeating. Your criticism of weak minded Christians was a judgement I was motivated to disprove throughout our discussion.

Another point. Earlier you inferred that it did not matter what a person believed, what really mattered was how a person lived. I had the duty to then point out that you missed an obvious causation. What a person believes directly influences the way they interact with the world, the way they live their lives. For example you criticized Christians for not providing you with the answers you sought. Possibly some of those Christians did not believe that it was important enough to defend their worldview. It required too much mental lifting. Unfortunately, I know too many who are like that. It does not mean their worldview is incorrect, it only means that they were negligent in their duty to reasonably defend their worldview. I on the other hand, like many others believe that it is very important. It is a belief that directly influences how I live and interact with persons like you.

Another point. Philosophy. That is where the mental lifting is done. Reasoning is guided by the laws of reasoning. It amazes me how many contentions that are raised against Christianity are self-defeating and/or straw man misperceptions of Christianity. If you look back you will see that most of our contentions dropped down from contentions about Christianity to the level of epistemology. Observe our discussion regarding freewill. If you are going the make the error to deny freewill to negate my reply to your cognitive dissonance, then by the laws of reason you need to defend that. That is what is called burden of proof. You attempted to do so by providing examples. But examples may support what you believe but they don’t replace reasoning. Thus I reasonably challenged you to provide how those examples inferred your conclusion. Thus I informed you that until you provided the actual reasoning your conclusion was a non-sequitur. The only way to get from your examples to your conclusion was to beg the question. Note I pointed all of that out in our discussion. I gave and still give you the opportunity to make your case but until you do so your reasoning is full of fallacy and your beliefs are based on blind faith. I made my case, you have not met your burden of proof. I actually could have made your argument better than you did. But in the end it still would fail the laws of reason. Again most of that rested upon philosophy and not Christianity. So hopefully I stand as an example that not all Christians are thoughtless of their worldview.

Another point. You were continually in conflict with yourself. On one hand you were continually asserting that your position on freewill was obvious, but repeatedly down played your knowledge of that conclusion. Thus I continually made point of it. Your reasoning understandably should not be in conflict. Since you believe it so fervently and yet can explain or defend it then you likely guilty of what you guilt of Christians, a blind faith. It stood out as a bold hypocrisy. As you can reason, that would be an issue sensitive to me. I hear it all the time here.

Another point. Perception and perspective. Your indefensible self-defeating position on the non-existence of freewill, choice and reasoning creates an error of perception from your own perspective. It manifests itself when you make comments of misperception like “I can’t reason why god would send someone to eternal punishment.” You can’t reason it because on a blind faith you freely choose the illusion that freewill, choice and reason do not exist. Think about the juxtaposition of your reasoning (no freewill, no choice and no reasoning) and your misperception (God is unjust because of the choice of hell). You’re asserting that freewill and choice don’t exist but you’re mad at God because of his freewill choice. You are once again in conflict with yourself.

Examine each position.
……..If freewill, choice and reason don’t exist then why are you disparaging Christianity because you don’t agree with its freewill, choice and reasonable justice? They don’t exist so what are you upset about?
……..Now if freewill, choice and reason do exist then your misperception of “I can’t reason why god would send someone to eternal punishment for simply not believing in him.” is caused by your own contrary illusion about freewill, choice and reason. You see your statement “I can’t reason why god would send someone to eternal punishment for simply not believing in him.” misperceives “sent” and “punishment” as actions of God and simplifies the meaning of “believe” to simple recognition. As I explained before God does not send, you freely choose. As I told you earlier it is not based on simply recognizing God, it is based on if you love God and want to be with him. God is not there punishing you. The description of punishment is a forecast of what it will be like because of the absence of God’s grace (which I also explained to you earlier). Again punishment is a description you are choosing to misperceive as an action on God’s part. You’re assigning two actions (sent and punishment) to God that are yours alone. Hell is simply where you can choose to go if you want. Seriously address this question. Why should God force you to be with him against your will?

Another point. Perception and perspective. Your assertion that Christianity has no evidence boarders on the absurd. That is an assertion in need of explanation and defense. You can rightfully assert that you rejected all evidence and reason offered for Christianity. Additionally your rejection would in no way infer that there is no evidence and reason for Christianity. The acceptance or rejection of evidence and reason is profoundly important. I suspect that your over reaching judgement begins with an erroneous epistemology followed trail of bad reasoning. But coming from someone who believes without reason that freewill, choice and reason don’t exist, why should I be at all surprised you would actually believe your senseless assertion. So at this point I reject your absurd judgement.

And finally…..this one goes back to being continually in conflict with yourself….

Very interesting conflict you have there. Do you see it?

You just spent several posts asserting that was precisely the assumption you actually believe. Yet here you present it as a negative way to live your life.

And, I hope you don't judge atheists because we are unable to see things the same way that you do.

I don’t judge the atheist, but I will address reasoning I judge to be faulty. But look back at the all harsh judgements you threw at Christians. To quote them all would probably double the length of this post. So for that reason I freely choose not to quote them here.

Thanks again for the discussion.

Ponder this: nobody has ever observed libertarian free will. (That you think that you have LFW will is not an observation of LFW, just a belief).

 

[remez]

Even if the word "attenuated" confused anyone it was still clear in context I meant there's some degree of free will.

Great, you believe it. But this is where the confusion came in................

remez points at sentence structures and says "See, you talk as if you have a choice!" Yes, and duh. Humans also talk as if we're each a unitary self that directs each of our actions. So you'd think if I talked that way, then I must believe it. But I don't believe it because it doesn't match experience ...

….. you then seemed to assert that you didn’t believe it. Hence the question.

All set now.

Except for this deserved conclusion………..

Do our pair of Dunning-Kruger exhibits get it now?

Now we do. Perhaps if you quit contradicting yourself and keep up it would go faster.

 

[remez]

Ponder this: nobody has ever observed libertarian free will. (That you think that you have LFW will is not an observation of LFW, just a belief).

Your stated BELIEF about this is conflicted at several different levels.

Ponder this. I can play the same game. Your assertion is just a belief, which you seem to infer nullifies its own existence. Nice going.

Also ponder this: Should I grant you that my position was just a belief. That alone does not render it non-existent. Reason would have to determine that. Which leads to this……(That you think that you have LFW will is not an observation of LFW, just a belief) is an inaccurate belief of my position. You are equivocating. It should be….. That I reason that I have LFW is not an observation of LFW, it’s a reason based on observation. Thus it is not just simply a belief without evidence as you infer through your equivocations.

Further.

Why should we accept your belief that observation is the solitary criterion for determining existence?

What observable evidence do you have for your belief?

Further.

“nobody has observed LFW.” Well does love exist? Have you observed it?

Ponder this before you answer:

If you say love exists and then attempt to provide observations, you would really be only providing reasons based upon your observations, to which I could easily take the same path for LFW. And you at the same time, would also be nullifying your belief that only observation determines existence. That’s the problem with materialist belief.

If you say love does not exist then you step well beyond reason, and I’ll freely choose to let you go.

with love,
remez

 

[abaddon]

Great, you believe it.

Must I either believe it or not believe it? I had my reasons for saying there's a partial free will was a guess.

That you have a hard time with how I think and write doesn't necessarily mean I'm self-contradictory; though you will need to think so. I think it's that I don't fit the holes in the pegboard in your head.

But this is where the confusion came in................

remez points at sentence structures and says "See, you talk as if you have a choice!" Yes, and duh. Humans also talk as if we're each a unitary self that directs each of our actions. So you'd think if I talked that way, then I must believe it. But I don't believe it because it doesn't match experience ...

….. you then seemed to assert that you didn’t believe it.

What I said that I don't believe, is that how I talk must necessarily match what I believe. I know it's an atypical stance but that's what you get if you choose to read my posts. I'm anti-substantialist and don't see language as representational. Language is more useful if we keep it simple, but increasingly less useful when it's increasingly abstracted from phenomenal experience. And then especially silly when a person flies off into otherworldly realms of confabulation. This is why I've never had a "meeting of minds" with platonist or catholic christian posters I've talked with. Because of course my views can't go over well with metaphysicians that need words to be just so to build (or "reason") their castles in the air.

 

[remez]

Language is more useful if we keep it simple, but increasingly less useful when it's increasingly abstracted from phenomenal experience.