If I knew that actual factual magic existed I would have no choice to believe in magic. Ethics can not be brought up to disapprove something that is otherwise proven. If Jesus is 3 in 1, son of God, Omni-Everything, etc but all of the sudden I don’t agree with the dogma, it wouldn’t make a damn lick of difference to the reality of things. On a very minor note, I can’t see how an “OMNI-everything” xtian type of god’s ethical demands would somehow be trumped compard to my mortal ethical demands.
More importantly, I do not see how someone can’t believe in the existence of a deity due to ethical reasons. To me ethics would not even enter my thought process as why to or not to believe in a god, it seems an odd way to go about things. I believe in the existence of communism even though it violates my ethics.
Is that the dude who comes up with the most inane psychological and untested “theories” (a word I have seen him use incorrectly a few times,he fancies himself a philosopher he ought to have some of the lingo down), has an obvious agenda, and promises to show people “the way” by revealing how happy you can be by his philosophy?
I was just joking, mate. As far as I can tell Scientology is not so much a religion. It’s more like a grinding pyramid scheme. Once you’re “in” they’ll ask for tons of donations from you (read: extortion) and get you to volunteer (read: work for free).
All the belief stuff they hype in their recruitment is just a facade for convincing people that their personalities are the problem in their lives and only the organization can help them. The more you contribute the more they’ll encourage you (read: coerce you) to isolate yourself from your family, friends and society.
In short, it represents the very worst characteristics of government and organized religion. Totally anti-liberty.
If a guy has been consistently wrong in the past (accepting this to avoid unnecesary debates), it still doesn’t mean that he will keep being wrong in the future. “How not to achieve freedom” is quite to the point (although “how to achieve freedom” never came out).
BTW (and leaving any debate aside), despite me asking the question in a rude and provoking manner, the question was sincere, as If it is who I think it is I have only recently become aquainted with him. Is that the bald, Australian (?) guy who does the youtube podcasts?
No, I doubt that the deity does the stuff that the “holy books” say it does, due to ethics. Your example doesn’t apply because the arguments I accept do not involve anything more than a very powerful non-evil first cause. I can easily believe that my friend exists without believing that he is a murderer.
Ok, now I see what you mean. I think it is possible, though, to believe that the traits commonly ascribed to God conflict with a certain description of God for ethical reasons - for instance, that God is good could be thought to conflict with his commanding genocide, and so one could, on that basis, fail to believe in the specific Biblical God. But many people base their theology on the Bible, so if the Biblical account fails, that may push them into being atheists.
Ok. I’m asking this from ignorance - is this an aspect of the ideas in the books, or an aspect of the behavior of the church, or both? I was never “in”, just read some enhanced coloring books about how “anti-social” people should be rounded up into camps, stated my disagreement, and left when I was sent to ethics. (This is what I meant by not being impressed.)
The statement I was responding to said something to the effect of “if you know beyond a doubt that God exists, etc. then I could not make an ethical objection.” How would you like me to respond to such a statement (if I disagree with it) other than by assuming the same premise and then challenging the conclusion?
At the same time, by the way, I do presuppose God’s existence in some form - in an Aristotelian sense mostly, but I doubt the “supremely and infinitely good part”(this is also a matter of words) and reject the part about issuing commands, other than in a Baconian sense.