Come Join My Church

[Seppuku]

I was sitting down and thinking and I came to realise something - a possibility.

All of these religious people say have faith and that God's existence is obvious and that we must not be decieved otherwise and some of the things in the world are a test of faith.

However...I can't see this to be so - I think it's much more likely that if there is an entity out there who is the father of mankind, he wouldn't want us to blindly believe in him or even come to the conclusion that he exists based on a book. He'd want us to use the brains he gave us for reason, right? To think for ourselves and I say if this God exists, then not those who believe go to heaven, but those who use reason, those who question and are honest about themselves and belief. This is where God will reveal himself to us.

I say he placed the Bible, Torah and Qu'ran as deciet, so that men would jump onto this and show themselves blind for believing in anything they're told and so that the true skeptics, the true thinkers and people who'd question the world around them would also reveal themselves. These are people who would find answers that make sense to them and come to understand the way the world works. So this creator purposely intended for 3 books to be written in order to decieve people from reason. He wants his children to ask questions and to learn, rather than just believe, thus Islam, Christianity and Judaism are just a test.

So then would God be omniscient, omnipotent and omnibenevolent? No. Because that is what religion says, it was meant as a deciet and of course 'reason' would realise those properties could not exist with 'evil' in the world.

So then folks, quit all false religion and come to reason and come to understand WE must question in order to please this deity - otherwise we all could suffer the consequence of blind faith.



Why am I making this post might you ask? For a start it's just a parody (not meant to mock) of religious arguments and well, could you not agree that it's possible that I'm right? If people believe things to be a test of faith, then could faith not be a test of reason? If this God exists, then could he not place deciet in order to reveal those who use reason about faith. Could he not have designed a universe without him so people would come to the conclusion that he doesn't exist in order for them to show themselve as thinkers, those who look at the world, ask questions and try to understand it. Are these not the sort of people he would wish in his kingdom. If so, then scientists and other people who use reason above faith are in his approval right? Of course I am talking hypothetically, because it'd assume an argument from design, which I don't believe. But what if I AM right? Then has he played religious people as fools?

Could any religious person prove me wrong? That faith gets me closer to God and not reason.

[Strawman]

I'm really surprised there are no replies to this topic, and I couldn't find any similar (I was going to post the same idea so I did a search). So even though it is old I will revive it as it is worthy of discussion.

If God created us, bestowed us with free-will and intelligence, why would he then command us to abandon these faculties and worship him with unquestioning servitude? Is this not a test of our free-will? Is this not the greatest trial that God could ever give to man: to defy His own word? Isn't scepticism the essence of free-will?

In which test is the affirmative result a positive display of moral character? The test of free-will, in which we are tempted by eternal bliss to abandon our faculties or else suffer eternal torment; or the test of faith, in which we are promised eternal bliss lest we question the word of god, with the same forfeit? The first, tests our bravery and conviction to defy a dictator we cannot possibly overthrow. The second, tests our capacity for ignorance and servility.

Now let's apply a question to both tests: why doesn't God make his presence known? If God were to do so he would nullify both tests.

In the faith test, the reason must be that God wants to see how little evidence is necessary for us to succumb to blind faith: the conclusion being that the less evidence required, the more worthy the believer. In this case why did God reveal himself at all? If it was to introduce specific guidelines, why not introduce those guidelines in our DNA or some other inconspicuous manner which would not diminish the most worthy faith (that which is supported by the least evidence). This test becomes a paradox: you must believe with as little evidence as possible, yet you must accept certain evidence as gospel.

In the free-will test God's ambiguity follows a more logical reasoning. God provides us with questions we are incapable of answering: is there an after-life, how was the universe created, does God exist? If these questions were answerable then our scientific endeavours would eventually debunk the test itself. As it is, we must have "faith" in ourselves; we must have the conviction that truth is found only through logic and reasoning, supported by evidence; we must be brave enough to stand by our scientific principles even when faced with the knowledge that science may have its limits. We can never answer the final questions -- we can never be certain -- and this is why our quest for knowledge, our insatiable desire to understand, is a virtue.

[jeremy0]

One thing I tried to note to Christianity is that in my opinion Jesus intended to show people how horrible they were being:
1.  Jesus said 'demons are drunk off the blood of the righteous'.
2.  Jesus declares himself righteous and no other
3.  Jesus has you perform a ritual in his name drinking his blood and eating his body

According to that logic, Jesus was saying that even his followers he thought of as demons.  Many other references in the bible - 666 is the number of man and satan, Jesus commonly referred to some people, even Judas, as Satan, etc...

So, was Jesus actually intending to wake people up to be better people by this *shriek* 'shocker'?
I would agree with the post - if God were God, the thinkers would be in a better position than the others..

[Seppuku]

Almost 4 years for a reply, that's got to be a new record. 

[joebbowers]

I don't consider any "Wait a minute guys... what if God really is real?" type of questions to be worth consideration, unless they offer new evidence of some kind. I'd bet that's why nobody else replied to this either.

[Seppuku]

It was more or less a challenge for Christians, who often hold 'faith' above reason because they've deduced that with good faith that they gain God's approval and that there's things out there put in place to 'test' their faith, for example, the existence of dinosaurs. I just tried using similar logic to turn it on its head, where God challenges our reason with faith, because I reckon it is possible to interpret their religious texts that way. As Strawman said test the bravery and conviction to defy a dictator we cannot possibly over throw. Also highlighted is God granting us free will, what greater test to free will is an evil dictator capable of causing you eternal torture ordering you to do disgusting and horrific things? And the clues are there too, not only has he given us free will, but he's provided us with a choice of religions and a lot of biblical contradictions for us to reason that maybe, it's all a load of hooha.

As far as I can see it, the argument is no more valid than many of the arguments for 'faith' we've seen and if Pascal's Wager were to have its way, we'd have to believe in my answer, "just in case".

[Strawman]

I don't consider any "Wait a minute guys... what if God really is real?" type of questions to be worth consideration, unless they offer new evidence of some kind. I'd bet that's why nobody else replied to this either.

You can't debate theology without considering God's existence.

[joebbowers]

You can't debate theology without considering God's hypothetical existence.

Fixed that for you. Occasionally you may have to ask questions that consider the hypothetical existence of God, but you don't have to believe in God or even believe in the possibility of God's existence to debate theology.

Having said that, the very first thread I wrote on this forum was titled "religious debate is pointless, the best cure is prevention". I still stand by that position. I do not debate theology, I educate. Occasionally this education takes a form that resembles debate, but theists can not debate in any meaningful sense. A debate is two sided. Theists have nothing but flawed logic and disproven theories, with zero evidence behind any of it.

[Strawman]

That is a valid point Joe but I get tired of having to defend science (especially as I'm not a scientist so to do it properly I have to do research to back up my argument, which then annoys me because they could just as easily have found the same information. Lazy theists!) I like to attack sometimes and I think its best to start in their court. I also think it's fun to imagine what a God would be like and how strange the God of the bible is.

I have only ever raised doubts in one person's beliefs and that was quite a weird conversation. All it took was me to point out the logical fallacies which were pretty obvious (I think it was about screams from hell coming out of volcanoes or something nutty like that) and she then said "I never really thought about it, maybe there are other things that aren't true." It's quite amazing how people who normally are sceptical can shut off their brains when a preacher is talking.