Flip Side of the Coin

[_KevinSim]

One of the more negative consequences of a religion promoting belief in a non-existent God. Not everyone is able to get their body to produce an internal experience they can interpret as God talking to them.

Themis, I'm not sure I agree with you. I think it depends on the way one asks God a question, more than on the type of person that one is.

[_KevinSim]

How dare anyone say that those experiences are to make you stronger or for your good!

Well, Nietzche dared. I don't really know how he dared, but he certainly did dare. Just Me, you didn't answer my question. How does one tell whether an experience's net effect is harm or whether it might actually be for a person's long range good?

[_KevinSim]

Does this deity have any commitment to telling the truth to people who trust him, and ask for his guidance on important matters concerning their eternal destiny, I wonder?

If not, he is ... well, not very nice, shall we say?

Tell the truth to people who trust him in what language?

Chap, there is a time when I would have agreed with you. When I was significantly more naïve than I am now, I would have clamored that of course God would tell those people the truth. Now, I'm not so sure.

Think Star Wars for a moment. If Obi-wan tells you that Darth Vader killed your father, and you later find out independently that Vader is your father, do you conclude that Obi-wan is not nice, and never talk to him again? Or do you give Obi-wan a chance to explain himself? Do you try to get to a point where you can see that in a sense Vader did in fact kill your father?

English is a funny language. All natural languages are funny languages. Something being either true or false is well defined in mathematical formal languages that are rigidly defined, like Number Theory, for example. Every statement in Number Theory is either true or false; there is no room for grey. Not so in natural languages; there is a lot of room for grey. And more than once I see a statement attributed to God that people swoop in on, declaring that the statement is false and therefore the person uttering it cannot be God. I'm not convinced. I think the fact that a language is not rigorously defined is no reason to keep God from using it to make a point.

[_Chap]

How dare anyone say that those experiences are to make you stronger or for your good!

Well, Nietzche dared. I don't really know how he dared, but he certainly did dare.

You know, to a rational person someone's mere opinion unsupported by any kind of reasoning or evidence, has just about the same persuasive worth as a pitcher of warm spit, even if it is 'daring'. Even if the someone has a name like Neitzche.

Just Me, you didn't answer my question. How does one tell whether an experience's net effect is harm or whether it might actually be for a person's long range good?

I think Justme might be well advised, before answering, to check with you what you are willing to count as being for a person's 'long range good'. What factors do you count towards that? Do you include. perhaps:

Increasing their span of healthy and active life?
Increasing their opportunities to interact positively with others in both work and recreation, and to enjoy family life?
Increasing the quality of their living environment in aesthetic, safety and health terms?
Increasing their level of education and intelligence?
Increasing their opportunities for artistic expression and creativity?

If you say yes to those, there are at least some of those where it might be possibly to agree in advance on how they might be assessed. The problem is going to be if you start adding in criteria like:

Helping them to fufill the will of Heavenly Father.
Helping them to achieve their Exaltation
Helping them create something of eternal worth.

Once you start doing that the problem is that poor old Justme has no independent means of knowing whether he has hit your target or not. You end up with the right to move the goalposts so that you always get to win. No sensible person will play with you on those rules.

[_just me]

How dare anyone say that those experiences are to make you stronger or for your good!

Well, Nietzche dared. I don't really know how he dared, but he certainly did dare. Just Me, you didn't answer my question. How does one tell whether an experience's net effect is harm or whether it might actually be for a person's long range good?

First you show me how being tortured and gang raped can have a net positive effect on a persons life.

You are the one that brought it up.

Also, what Chap said.

[_Chap]

Does this deity have any commitment to telling the truth to people who trust him, and ask for his guidance on important matters concerning their eternal destiny, I wonder?

If not, he is ... well, not very nice, shall we say?

Tell the truth to people who trust him in what language?

Chap, there is a time when I would have agreed with you. When I was significantly more naïve than I am now, I would have clamored that of course God would tell those people the truth. Now, I'm not so sure.

<Snip Star Wars stuff>... And more than once I see a statement attributed to God that people swoop in on, declaring that the statement is false and therefore the person uttering it cannot be God. I'm not convinced. I think the fact that a language is not rigorously defined is no reason to keep God from using it to make a point.

Look, if you want to believe in an ineffable and completely unknowable deity, be my guest. Anything that floats your boat. So long as, having made that commitment, you stop affirming any propositions about him, her, it or them.

But don't go defending a religion that teaches Moroni's Promise in its scriptures, its public utterances and its missionary programs, and then tell me that any verbal statement made by its deity could in fact mean exactly the opposite of what any honest and sincere human being making that statement would be understood to mean, and then tell us that we don't get to say there is some cheating going on here.

Not if you don't want people to laugh, or worse.

[_just me]

Tell me if I'm wrong, but don't the scriptures say that if God lies he ceases to be god?

That has been my experience. *poof*

[_KevinSim]

Actually, I changed my mind about what I was going to say.

Your comment above is one reason I think religion is so dangerous.

Religion is dangerous. It's like fire; it can be used for great good, and it can be used just as intensely, for great evil, to cause great harm. So do we shun fire at all costs out of fear someone might get burnt? Or do we just exercise great care when making use of it?

[_just me]

Actually, I changed my mind about what I was going to say.

Your comment above is one reason I think religion is so dangerous.

Religion is dangerous. It's like fire; it can be used for great good, and it can be used just as intensely, for great evil, to cause great harm. So do we shun fire at all costs out of fear someone might get burnt? Or do we just exercise great care when making use of it?

You use it to absolve yourself of any feelings of duty or responsibility towards the rest of humanity.

[_Cylon]

Think Star Wars for a moment. If Obi-wan tells you that Darth Vader killed your father, and you later find out independently that Vader is your father, do you conclude that Obi-wan is not nice, and never talk to him again? Or do you give Obi-wan a chance to explain himself? Do you try to get to a point where you can see that in a sense Vader did in fact kill your father?

Slight aside. Obi-wan was full of crap right there. Luke was right that Obi-wan lied. He was lying for a reason, and may have been justified in the lie, but it was still a lie. That stuff about "a certain point of view" was just hand-waving.