2 hours ago, Trurl said:

No, I am saying that God deserves praise.

I re-read our previous exchange and it seems to me that you said God demanding to be praised was in the Old Testament, but we've somehow learnt to interpret praising in a different light. Here:

On 8/17/2025 at 12:55 AM, Trurl said:

[...] (Yes I know what the Old Testament says.) But obviously in today’s society it doesn’t seem praise is demanded. [...]

To me, that's very much "growing out of it". "It" = "belief in a personal god".

Don't get me wrong. I think that's good!

2 hours ago, iNow said:

Because praise is a concept that exists whether it’s voluntary or involuntary, authentic or insincere. It’s still praise when offered regardless of how or why.

No

Tell me, did you “choose” to stop believing in Santa Claus, or did it just sort of happen naturally when you became wise enough to see it for the nonsensical ruse it is?

Something like this is exactly what I meant.

13 hours ago, Trurl said:

Wouldn’t we be doomed without a personal God

The conjecture of a personal God includes man being given free will. So why couldn't we also be doomed WITH a personal God, if we insist on being belligerent apes with nukes and/or being eco-destroyers swarming over the planet like a swarm of locusts? I don't see how the existence or nonexistence of a God changes the potential for doom, unless the God happens to be big on intervention in self-destructive behavior. I'd say any number of situations in history and right now (Gaza, for example) suggest that any hypothetical God is not big on intervention.

1 hour ago, TheVat said:

The conjecture of a personal God includes man being given free will. So why couldn't we also be doomed WITH a personal God, if we insist on being belligerent apes with nukes and/or being eco-destroyers swarming over the planet like a swarm of locusts? I don't see how the existence or nonexistence of a God changes the potential for doom, unless the God happens to be big on intervention in self-destructive behavior. I'd say any number of situations in history and right now (Gaza, for example) suggest that any hypothetical God is not big on intervention.

This thread has been interesting and I also learned a little about some members also.

God giving us free will is assuming we did not have it before, I am with Hitchens on this, "Of course we have free will, we had no choice."

Secondly, the Christian idea (which I was taught as a Catholic born in the UK) that god gives us free will BUT that also means we have only really two choices. Believe in me, the Abrahamic god and my son the saviour of mankind Jesus of Nazareth and have eternal life, OR burn in hell for ever. This is not a definition of free will. In the normal universe we call this blackmail, open the safe now and you live, or I shoot you.

Third point, at no point has god ever intervened in our history, people rejecting god, unjust wars, needless deaths, a chaotic world.

God not intervening was step two on my path to rejecting god, Jesus and all that came with it.

43 minutes ago, pinball1970 said:

This thread has been interesting and I also learned a little about some members also.

God giving us free will is assuming we did not have it before, I am with Hitchens on this, "Of course we have free will, we had no choice."

Secondly, the Christian idea (which I was taught as a Catholic born in the UK) that god gives us free will BUT that also means we have only really two choices. Believe in me, the Abrahamic god and my son the saviour of mankind Jesus of Nazareth and have eternal life, OR burn in hell for ever. This is not a definition of free will. In the normal universe we call this blackmail, open the safe now and you live, or I shoot you.

I recall someone arguing that freewill is how <deity in question> can justify sending you to hell or other bad things to you. It was your choice.

You can’t force someone to believe, because then it’s not belief (so I agree with Hitchens on that) but it’s not blackmail IMO because if you don’t believe you don’t think you’re going to hell

43 minutes ago, pinball1970 said:

Third point, at no point has god ever intervened in our history, people rejecting god, unjust wars, needless deaths, a chaotic world.

If I can play God’s advocate for a moment: I think the counterargument is that this does not follow, since maybe it could have been even worse. It falls under the “God works in mysterious ways/part of God’s plan“ umbrella which can’t be falsified

2 hours ago, swansont said:

it’s not blackmail IMO because if you don’t believe you don’t think you’re going to hell

What if you are a believer but then you decide there might be a better way? It is not up for debate though is it?

We were not invited to that meeting where the creator decided his creation would fail twice (on a large scale) BUT would offer a get out clause, believe in me or hell fire.

39 minutes ago, pinball1970 said:

What if you are a believer but then you decide there might be a better way? It is not up for debate though is it?

We were not invited to that meeting where the creator decided his creation would fail twice (on a large scale) BUT would offer a get out clause, believe in me or hell fire.

If you believe but think there’s a better way, do you really believe? If yes, then this is the free will thing; you decided to not follow the rules

1 hour ago, swansont said:

If you believe but think there’s a better way, do you really believe?

Adam did yes?

Or at the very least ancient writers thought man might have made a different choice, given our inherent curiousity.

But still believed in god

Interpretation now though and not my area, just what scripture says.

13 hours ago, pinball1970 said:

Adam did yes?

Or at the very least ancient writers thought man might have made a different choice, given our inherent curiousity.

But still believed in god

Interpretation now though and not my area, just what scripture says.

The truth can be ugly, whatever you have faith in; sometimes it's easier to believe what you're told by everyone you trust.

10 minutes ago, dimreepr said:

The truth can be ugly, whatever you have faith in; sometimes it's easier to believe what you're told by everyone you trust.

I lost my faith a long time ago.

Great thing about putting your trust in someone or something is you can test if was warranted or not.

1 hour ago, pinball1970 said:

I lost my faith a long time ago.

Great thing about putting your trust in someone or something is you can test if was warranted or not.

The other side of that coin is, not everyone is capable of understanding why or who we should or shouldn't trust?

I don't have a PhD, do you?

The great thing about putting your trust in someone is, you have faith in them without question; I just question that authority bc I want to see the ugly, before I decide...

1 hour ago, dimreepr said:

The other side of that coin is, not everyone is capable of understanding why or who we should or shouldn't trust?

Depends on what the subject is, if it is science, then you seek a reputable publication.

1 hour ago, dimreepr said:

I don't have a PhD, do you?

No, UG only.

1 hour ago, dimreepr said:

The great thing about putting your trust in someone is, you have faith in them without question

That is very situation dependant and for me very very rarely without question.

18 hours ago, pinball1970 said:

Depends on what the subject is, if it is science, then you seek a reputable publication.

No, UG only.

That is very situation dependant and for me very very rarely without question.

My point is, not everyone is capable of thinking beyond their teachers and if they're relatively content with their place in society, then they're quite happy to believe the truth of what they've been taught. Even in science, we're almost forced to believe in the teachers simply bc we aren't capable of judging a PhD paper, well 99% of us aren't and we're quite happy to so for similar reasons.

Not every PhD is capable of teaching their ideas to those below their level of understanding.

On 8/18/2025 at 1:35 AM, joigus said:

I re-read our previous exchange and it seems to me that you said God demanding to be praised was in the Old Testament, but we've somehow learnt to interpret praising in a different light. Here:

God of the Old Testament blows up cities and floods the world. In the New Testament Jesus shows up and shows how to live.

At everyone’s post on free will and God not intervening. I wonder this too. I will leave you with a simple thought trying to convey the logic I approach it with.

In the original Super Mario brothers you get 3 lives for eight levels. But soon you discover if you jump on the turtle multiple times you get 99 lives. Soon you find a warp zone and you go to the last level and beat the game in ten minutes. The game is never the same.

In religion they would say blessings along with trials. But the fact that you could die make you life that much meaningful? I think it makes it more important.

Suffering is different. I don’t think anyone can explain it. If you figure it out let me know.

and you still test the results

18 hours ago, dimreepr said:

Even in science, we're almost forced to believe in the teachers simply bc we aren't capable of judging a PhD paper, well 99% of us aren't and we're quite happy to so for similar reasons.

Yes and we trust our Drs today even though we did not go to medical school. Also our TV, PC, cell phone, boiler, car, fridge and satellite dish, microscope, electronic scales and spectrophotometer even though we don't know how they work fundamentally and could not build one from scratch.

Why? They work, science works, we do not need to blindly accept it because we test it every day.

18 hours ago, dimreepr said:

Not every PhD is capable of teaching their ideas to those below their level of understanding.

Not every PhD is striving to be a teacher so why would that matter?

18 hours ago, dimreepr said:

Even in science, we're almost forced to believe in the teachers simply bc we aren't capable of judging a PhD paper,

We are not supposed to, it's like saying not everyone can drive an F1 car.

Not everyone on the planet is walking round in daze because they do not understand the mathematics of QT or GR.

18 hours ago, dimreepr said:

judging a PhD paper,

You never read abstracts? Or the discussion or conclusions? You understand zero?

Edited August 21Aug 21 by pinball1970
Grammar

2 hours ago, Trurl said:

God of the Old Testament blows up cities and floods the world. In the New Testament Jesus shows up and shows how to live.

At everyone’s post on free will and God not intervening. I wonder this too. I will leave you with a simple thought trying to convey the logic I approach it with.

In the original Super Mario brothers you get 3 lives for eight levels. But soon you discover if you jump on the turtle multiple times you get 99 lives. Soon you find a warp zone and you go to the last level and beat the game in ten minutes. The game is never the same.

In religion they would say blessings along with trials. But the fact that you could die make you life that much meaningful? I think it makes it more important.

Suffering is different. I don’t think anyone can explain it. If you figure it out let me know.

I see you're taking a detour...

Nothing you said addresses my observation that religion, as any other intelectual construct, is a projection from people's minds, and therefore the way we interpret religion evolves with our collective human experience.

Now you point out the way we face life depends on expectations. Sure it does.

What's your point? Suffering justifies irrational belief?

6 hours ago, pinball1970 said:

Yes and we trust our Drs today even though we did not go to medical school. Also our TV, PC, cell phone, boiler, car, fridge and satellite dish, microscope, electronic scales and spectrophotometer even though we don't know how they work fundamentally and could not build one from scratch.

Why? They work, science works, we do not need to blindly accept it because we test it every day.

It's not about the validity of the information, or it's testability, it's about the trust we put in the "truth" of the culture we grew up in.

6 hours ago, pinball1970 said:

Not every PhD is striving to be a teacher so why would that matter?

It doesn't, I'm just trying to emphasise that everyone has different capabilities; science, for instance, isn't very good at tackling emotional issue's, or finding a metric that measures contentment.

6 hours ago, pinball1970 said:

We are not supposed to, it's like saying not everyone can drive an F1 car.

Not everyone on the planet is walking round in daze because they do not understand the mathematics of QT or GR.

But you seem to be suggesting that everyone can be a scientist, if they follow the "truth"...

6 hours ago, pinball1970 said:

You never read abstracts?

Would it matter? It's not a short-cut to understanding...

14 hours ago, joigus said:

What's your point? Suffering justifies irrational belief?

No. I am saying I don’t know why we suffer. Even Jesus suffered when he was crucified. I don’t think there is any human explanation for this.

14 hours ago, joigus said:

Nothing you said addresses my observation that religion, as any other intelectual construct, is a projection from people's minds, and therefore the way we interpret religion evolves with our collective human experience.

But isn’t everything we experience and learn based on an intellectual construct influenced by a collective human experiences?

History is written but how often is history inaccurate? Also we don’t live very long. Einstein’s equations live on but his mind didn’t. I mean he published works but how his mind worked and brilliant ideas he had he didn’t publish is lost.

I guess we could forget the gods but that is true of any of our information.

But to me it sounds that you are saying religion is imagined and science is real. I’m not really trying to change your mind I am just debating you.

I’m not going to debate which one is correct. But even if religion was “imaginary” it still would be as real as science because religion is influencing people and they use it in their decision making.

16 hours ago, dimreepr said:

It's not about the validity of the information, or it's testability, it's about the trust we put in the "truth" of the culture we grew up in.

You said teachers.

16 hours ago, dimreepr said:

But you seem to be suggesting that everyone can be a scientist

No but everyone can learn some facts or what the scientific method is.

16 hours ago, dimreepr said:

Would it matter? It's not a short-cut to understanding...

You keep saying these truisms. Abstracts are meant to tell you what the study is about, a summary.

No one is suggesting a 12 year old can understand GR or know what the issues are with Lambda CDM and early Galaxy formation. They can however understand that we sent a telescope into space to look for them, that it found some, they are early, that they formed 280,000 million years after the BB.

16 hours ago, dimreepr said:

understanding

I don't think that is worthless for a kid, a kid doing GCSEs (16) a kid doing A levels (18) or second year University student doing Astrophysics or a 58 year old tech who handles spectral data.

7 hours ago, Trurl said:

History is written but how often is history inaccurate?

Historians are held to higher standards of accuracy than religious leaders. Reconstructions of the past must match documented facts and salient results from archeology.

7 hours ago, Trurl said:

But to me it sounds that you are saying religion is imagined and science is real.

Let's see:

22 hours ago, joigus said:

Nothing you said addresses my observation that religion, as any other intelectual construct, is a projection from people's minds, and therefore the way we interpret religion evolves with our collective human experience.

"as any other intellectual construct" implies science as well. Drop the strawman.

It's only that science is held to higher standards of accuracy: Predictions must match experimental results.

Religious leaders, in fact, aren't held to any standards of accuracy at all. No checking for facts in religion.

57 minutes ago, joigus said:

It's only that science is held to higher standards of accuracy: Predictions must match experimental results.

Religious leaders, in fact, aren't held to any standards of accuracy at all. No checking for facts in religion.

+1

When science finally unveils the "truth", I think we'll see a big sign in the sky saying "Level 2". 😇

5 hours ago, pinball1970 said:

You said teachers.

Every culture in history have teachers, how else do we indoctrinate the children with the ability to survive our culture??

5 hours ago, pinball1970 said:

No but everyone can learn some facts or what the scientific method is.

Not everyone can be bothered to try, a working class culture often scoffs at the idea of academia bc it has no value when working down mines, the idea of a god protecting them is quite attractive... 😉

5 hours ago, pinball1970 said:

You keep saying these truisms. Abstracts are meant to tell you what the study is about, a summary.

No one is suggesting a 12 year old can understand GR or know what the issues are with Lambda CDM and early Galaxy formation. They can however understand that we sent a telescope into space to look for them, that it found some, they are early, that they formed 280,000 million years after the BB.

This sounds a lot like a middle class cultural attitude.

5 hours ago, pinball1970 said:

I don't think that is worthless for a kid, a kid doing GCSEs (16) a kid doing A levels (18) or second year University student doing Astrophysics or a 58 year old tech who handles spectral data.

Not everyone can understand, how else do we fill the factories???

2 hours ago, dimreepr said:

Every culture in history have teachers, how else do we indoctrinate the children with the ability to survive our culture??

Why indoctrination? Is teaching science, something they can test by simply using a cell phone indoctrination?

2 hours ago, dimreepr said:

This sounds a lot like a middle class cultural attitude.

That's not my background.

2 hours ago, dimreepr said:

Not everyone can understand, how else do we fill the factories???

As a factory worker I would still like to visit the Dr and know what is going on with me. Perhaps I would like to look at a Hubble JWST side by side before I start my minimum wage shift? Dumb as I am.

12 hours ago, Trurl said:

No. I am saying I don’t know why we suffer. Even Jesus suffered when he was crucified. I

Not the same in every book

On 8/20/2025 at 11:43 PM, Trurl said:

Suffering is different. I don’t think anyone can explain it.

What, precisely, needs explaining? Does it have to do with the philosophy behind it, or the science?

22 hours ago, pinball1970 said:

Why indoctrination? Is teaching science, something they can test by simply using a cell phone indoctrination?

Bc that's often the word used as a derogatory term when applied to religion, but we're all indoctrinated into our own particular society.

What metric would you use to test an emotional decision?

22 hours ago, pinball1970 said:

That's not my background.

How is that relevant?

22 hours ago, pinball1970 said:

As a factory worker I would still like to visit the Dr and know what is going on with me. Perhaps I would like to look at a Hubble JWST side by side before I start my minimum wage shift? Dumb as I am.

Why would you think a factory worker is dumb?

You seem determined to miss the point; not everyone thinks like you and who are you to dictate what people should think.

An ubermenche/superman is an ordinary human being, that understands the best way to survive our current culteral termoil, and be content with it and they also have the ability to teach that message to the majority of their society; not everyone has that particular ability as history can attest...

Edited August 23Aug 23 by dimreepr

6 hours ago, dimreepr said:

Bc that's often the word used as a derogatory term when applied to religion, but we're all indoctrinated into our own particular society.

What metric would you use to test an emotional decision?

No it's nothing whatsoever to do with religion and it is zero to do with emotions. I have already told you three times now that one can test these things.

Why are you determined to not follow an argument?

7 hours ago, dimreepr said:

How is that relevant?

You raised this not me. Again, why are you determined to not follow a discussion, argument, train of thought?

7 hours ago, dimreepr said:

You seem determined to miss the point; not everyone thinks like you and who are you to dictate what people should think.

No,you seem incapable of scrolling back to what you wrote. You said a lot of obvious silly stuff like people cannot read science papers, did you forget?

You also said not everyone can be a scientist which no one on the thread implied, you forget that too?

STOP putting stupid ideas on my lips and try and follow a thread.

Edited August 23Aug 23 by pinball1970
Tense