A problem with some religous views

[chezlaw]

Following on from Rejecting God and the discussion with NotReady, this is why I believe some religous views must be mistaken.

consider the statement:

"we are all guilty of sins, those who believe can get redemption and those who don't believe have no chance of redemption and will be punished"

The religons I have a problem with claim that this statement (or something similar) is true.

My moral sense tells me that a god who enforces this view is morally repugnant.

So either I am being deceived by my feelings of right and wrong, god isn't good, or that religous view is mistaken.


There's more but it all relies on this simple argument. Any flaw in the logic?


chez

[ QUOTE ]

consider the statement:

"we are all guilty of sins, those who believe can get redemption and those who don't believe have no chance of redemption and will be punished"

[/ QUOTE ]

Humans are obviously fallible and far from omnipotent. The evidence for God is hardly clear cut, especially given certain people's exposure to all its details. Why would a God punish a creature which he himself created for not believing in what he himself is not revealing to the creature?

Might as well burn cats because they can't understand algebra.

[chezlaw]

Thanks for the response but I'm really hoping that anyone who thinks there is a flaw in my argument will point it out (whether they agree with the conclusion or not).

Also, happy for people to agree the argument is valid.

chez

[Aytumious]

[ QUOTE ]


Might as well burn cats because they can't understand algebra.

[/ QUOTE ]

Now I know what I am doing this Friday. Thanks!!

[David Sklansky]

The argument is fine but not particularly helpful. Almost everybody already knows that Not Ready is wrong about this stuff, including the vast majority of highly religious people and deep down, including Not Ready himself. There are bigger fish to fry.

[chezlaw]

[ QUOTE ]
The argument is fine but not particularly helpful. Almost everybody already knows that Not Ready is wrong about this stuff, including the vast majority of highly religious people and deep down, including Not Ready himself. There are bigger fish to fry.

[/ QUOTE ]


Agreed, bigger fish to fry but have you noticed you ain't frying any of them [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]

Got to start from where we agree not where we differ if we are to get anywhere. So I'm looking for concensus on something simple, then we try to build on it.


chez

[Jeff V]

[ QUOTE ]
those who don't believe have no chance of redemption and will be punished"

[/ QUOTE ]

Change don't to refuse to.

I could be wrong but I get the feeling that you think God just wants to punish people and send them to hell for all eternity.

I'm being sincere here when I say-I can't fathom how if you truly understood God, His nature, and His wishes for us that you would question His morals, character etc.

[chezlaw]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
those who don't believe have no chance of redemption and will be punished"

[/ QUOTE ]

Change don't to refuse to.




[/ QUOTE ]

No, you can't change the statement. If you're saying that you're religon doesn't believe the statement is true then the argument doesn't neccessarily apply to your views. We can deal with it later [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]

So is the argument valid?

chez

[chezlaw]

[ QUOTE ]
I could be wrong but I get the feeling that you think God just wants to punish people and send them to hell for all eternity.

[/ QUOTE ]

Honestly, you are wrong about this.

chez

[Jeff V]

[ QUOTE ]
(or something similar)

[/ QUOTE ]

If I can't change "don't" to "refuse to" then I would say yes the argument is valid, because it takes any choice we have in the matter out of the equation. BTW just because an argument is valid doesn't mean we have to agree [img]/images/graemlins/grin.gif[/img]. (How's that for leaving myself some "outs"?)

Jeff