[vladtaltos]

you're supposed to 'believe' to benefit from the best case scenario dude :) just rationalizing about it is not supposed to be enough...

and additionally, fasting was around before it was introduced in islam; check it's versions in judaism, christianity... actually, it was also around before that. people used to fast during equinoxes for a very long time for all sorts of different ceremonies...

[halflings]

Well, Islam does recognize the other prophets and their religions (so that includes Judaism and Christianity). And I don't agree with the fact that "it was around even before that", as people didn't fast regularly and in the same fashion as jews/christians/muslims do.

And IMHO, belief doesn't have to be totally separate from reasoning. We're human beings, our beliefs are definitely influenced by what our reason (among other stimuli) dictates us.

I started my comment by saying that this is one way to see religions, a way that I sometime present to curious non-religious friends. There's also a more philosophical (and comprehensive) way to see them that I can discuss with people that are just more "into that". And of course, as a religious person, I do believe in God but that doesn't mean that it needs to be a blind belief without any reasoning.

[arjn]

Correct , there are many other religious groups that fast - Hindus, Jains, Christians etc. I've found that fasting practices among Coptic Christians is more intense/severe than any other religion I have seen (so far at least)

[axotty]

If God exists, I doubt he cares if we beleive in him or not. I like to beleive he would not be that insecure.

[anglican1549]

Why does insecurity come into play? Couldn't there be other reasons for God being adamant about what a person believes (i.e., worships)? What if man's nature really is best nurtured by and finds its completion in (his telos) the Being called God?

If your kids insist on eating cotton candy (which works against their health) amid a veritable feast (that is delightful and nutritious), wouldn't your ire be justified?

[axotty]

Disclaimer: This is my personal belief, it seems it seems to offended some passionate dissenters. I understand, I've been there before too.

God is often depicted as moody and chronically concerned with what we think of him. I think that's a ridiculous projection of our own human insecurities.

If a creator like God existed, he would be billions of orders of magnitude more intelligent than us. Why would he care if we were skeptical? Humans are arrogant and we project our own humanness onto everything. I doubt God, if he existed, would stop loving me even if I hated him. He would be above all that, in my view.

If there is a creator or God, I personally believe he doesn't care if we believe in him. He's too intelligent and mature for that to ever matter to him

Side note edit: It has always been interesting to me that moderate agnosticism is always the most drowned out religious view. I would be better off as a militant atheist or familiar, friendly theist if I cared about internet points.

[halflings]

I looked hard and can't find the exact verse, but there's a specific verse in the Quran that basically says the same thing:

If all of humanity gathered to believe, it wouldn't add Him anything. And if all of humanity gathered to disbelieve, it wouldn't remove anything from Him.

People still have this latent idea of God as an old bearded guy (or any variation of that myth) "interacting" with the world (via spells and miracles).

[hueving]

Then why do people think killing people that depict the prophet will do something?

[kr4]

Consider God as not a being but the infinite consciousness that pervades every particle/subparticle. Considering God as a finite (great) being who sits somewhere high in the space and runs the show on Earth is limiting the supreme being.

Upanishads states that God exists in each one of us as the pure consciousness that experiences the three states – waking, dreaming and sleeping. The mind with ego (I-ness) is the veil that has made us blind to experience this consciousness (experiencing consciousness by consciousness is possible as stated by wise men but describing that experience in words isn't possible because words are objects of mind and consciousness is beyond mind.)

[anglican1549]

"God is often depicted as moody and overly worried about what we think of him."

Moodiness? I can give you human examples of this trait; but what specifically do you have in mind about God that portrays Him as such? This way I know we are communicating about the same thing.

"Overly worried" - I know of no text in all of the Bible that portrays God as anxious about anything. Maybe you mean to say "chronically concerned with" what people think?

The categories of love and hate as you are discussing seem to require a little work. Whenever we see God's unchanging love discussed, at least Scripturally, to what does it refer? And if God chose not to love, would that make Him less than divine somehow?

I'm asking these questions (not attacking! I value your response!) because whenever we go into the "my personal belief is..." it seems prudent to examine whether such beliefs have rational warrant, or are they simply another way of wishing the world worked that way?

"Humans are arrogant and we project our own humanness onto everything" -- that is utterly true. Thank you for acknowledging it. But could it be you are projecting your own preferences of what God would be like if He existed? How do you escape this human flaw while the rest of us can't or won't?

By the way, if God turns out to be real and He is preeminently concerned with what you think about Him, what grounds would have to object to His preoccupation with making you see how ultimate and satisfying He is?

[axotty]

> Moodiness? I can give you human examples of this trait; but what specifically do you have in mind about God that portrays Him as such? This way I know we are communicating about the same thing.

God throws a few temper tantrums in the Old Testament. Either way the Christian God is not the God I might believe in. I sometimes believe in a creator who, for the purposes of familiarity, I call God.

> "Overly worried" - I know of no text in all of the Bible that portrays God as anxious about anything. Maybe you mean to say "chronically concerned with" what people think?

Yeah, that is what I meant. I will change that, thanks.

> The categories of love and hate as you are discussing seem to require a little work. Whenever we see God's unchanging love discussed, at least Scripturally, to what does it refer? And if God chose not to love, would that make Him less than divine somehow?

I don't personally believe the scriptures are anything but contradictory pseudo-history combined with fiction, so I cannot answer your question.

> "Humans are arrogant and we project our own humanness onto everything" -- that is utterly true. Thank you for acknowledging it. But could it be you are projecting your own preferences of what God would be like if He existed? How do you escape this human flaw while the rest of us can't or won't?

Of course, I am. I can only maybe accept that there was a creator. Everything else is just pure speculation. I'd like to think that this creator is unfathomable to mankind. That being said, I often doubt that this creator exists at all.

> By the way, if God turns out to be real and He is preeminently concerned with what you think about Him, what grounds would have to object to His preoccupation with making you see how ultimate and satisfying He is?

Well if he was right in front of me I would obviously admit I was wrong. If he cares as much as you say I'm sure he'd be pretty upset at me. At that point he would either have to understand where I was coming from, or send me to hell.

Either way, I'm willing to take that risk.

[anglican1549]

"God throws a few temper tantrums in the Old Testament."

Clearly there are descriptions of God's kindled wrath that is admittedly frightful and overwhelming. Do these eruptions of anger and fury and wrath somehow militate against a standard above or outside God Himself? What's the origin of this standard? How does it (or can it?) apply to Him? Objections, it seems, are either rooted in taste ("I prefer this because of something about my personal predilections.") or in an understanding of the world as it is or ought to be ("Reason clearly shows that...")

"Either way the Christian God is not the God I might believe in." You very well might not believe in such a God. But what psychology is at work here? I can't read your mind, but if you indeed resist such a notion of a God who can erupt in wrath or even treasure up wrath against anyone who rejects Him, would this rejection be a product of mere taste? Should things of ultimate importance be considered on something as (I would consider) fickle as taste?

My point of bringing up the idea of God's love in the context of the Bible wasn't meant to say you accepted the text as true or inspired, only that if we are objecting to the historical Christian concept of God, we should at least try to deal with the source of its self-understanding since the defects of Christianity stems either from its faithfulness to its sources or its deviation from its sources.

"I can only maybe accept that there was a creator." -- Happy to hear you are not out and out closed out to the idea of a Creator. "Everything else is just pure speculation," which is an interesting claim in itself, but it seems to be an implicit admission that the hard work of metaphysics is an indispensable part of our dialogue. Your rejection of Christian scripture may be warranted, but I'd be curious as to how you concluded it is a "contradictory pseudo-history combined with fiction." Is this based on your own reading? You don't owe me an explanation, but so much seems to hang on this point. Even if it were demonstrably not a hodge-podge mess of history, fiction, poetry, and teaching, would that even sway your seeming pre-commitment to the words you wrote: "Either way the Christian God is not the God I might believe in?"

"Well if he was right in front of me I would obviously admit I was wrong." -- that seems to be the a realistic response. Scripture certainly paints that picture.

"If he cares as much as you say I'm sure he'd be pretty upset at me. At that point he would either have to understand where I was coming from, or send me to hell." -- An infinitely wise God would clearly understand your own mind on this. The ultimate question is whether hell is ever justified even in the case of those who claim a degree of ignorance? That's another discussion, but I am glad you are thinking about it at least hypothetically.

"Either way, I'm willing to take that risk." -- Blaise Pascal would love to discuss with you what constitutes a rational risk on this count. Risk-taking is a good thing, wouldn't you agree, if it is eminently grounded in reason?

Thank you so much for this exchange. I don't have all the answers, but like you I am happy to hang my hat on anything that has the ring of truth. I am openly a traditional, classical Christian, but I'm always willing to dialogue and calibrate my beliefs in the light of the Truth, the Good, and the Beautiful.

[shawndumas]

for the sake of argument let's assume there is a God. and let's say He was better than all the things He created. better than that awesome sunset that you saw that took your breath away; better than that favorite meal you love -- you know the one. love is giving the object of your love the best... the best you've got. what if God giving Himself was Love defined?

just for argument's sake...

[anglican1549]

It certainly is reasonable to look for an archetype for what we consider transcendent acts and qualities. Even the most ardent atheist generally is moved by acts of mercy, heroics, sacrifice, and unmerited love.

His chosen framework cannot properly and consistently account for these things, perhaps the best he can do is proffer a narrative about bio-chemical impulses and evolutionary advantage -- but the transcendent "feel" at the end of the day seems no more than an illusion of nature.

[hueving]

That's a bad assumption to start with because there is no evidence of such a thing. "just for the sake of argument, let's assume there are invisible horses everywhere. (followed by explanation of how these horses are responsible for love)"

[anglican1549]

Your epistemology and categories are already flawed, as if there's an analogy between a thing (like a horse) and the Ground of Being (classically called "God"). God in classical theism is not a "thing" among things. If you think classical theism posits deity the same way people posit horses, of course you'll want "evidence" that is empirical.

So wouldn't it be helpful, for the sake of the thought experiment proposed by shawndumas, to at least see where his reasoning leads? The premise ("There is a God") might not be true, but an a priori exclusion of such a being seems no more based on logic than the counter claim. What is helpful, I think, is if by looking through those lenses we see if God gives the world more explanatory power than by not looking through those lenses.

[hueving]

>God in classical theism is not a "thing" among things.

Neither is an invisible horse. These all fall under the category of things that there is no physical evidence for.

>So wouldn't it be helpful, for the sake of the thought experiment proposed by shawndumas, to at least see where his reasoning leads?

No, because his entire premise is based on the existence of something that follows no logic or physical laws. Something that violates the laws of logic cannot be reasoned about.

[anglican1549]

But an invisible horse is referencing a thing simply without the accidents of visibility, but a finite thing nevertheless.

You're still trapped in a category Christians (or any traditional Theists) don't believe about God. We're asserting X, you're attacking Y.

[shawndumas]

a valid argument is valid apart from the truth of its premises [1]. I am perfectly happy to agree that an argument's construction is formally valid and still deny it's conclusion.

all sound arguments are valid but not all valid arguments are sound.

so I ask; in what way is my argument invalid?

-----

[1]: http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Validity#Validity_and_soundne...

[hueving]

>so I ask; in what way is my argument invalid?

I never said it was. I said it had a bad assumption, which makes the whole thing entirely pointless and self-serving.

Entering a debate where you make your arguments using the form "Assume I am right about the thing we are debating. Now here are all of the logical conclusions of that." is completely worthless because nobody cares about the logical conclusions when the argument is about the part you are taking under assumption.

[shawndumas]

The original post was, "If God exists, I doubt he cares if we believe in him or not. I like to believe he would not be that insecure."

My response was addressing the part about insecurity. You are objecting to the original poster's thought experiment -- "If God exists" -- which I was allowing for the sake of argument.

So you are objecting to my continuation: Is this what you are intending to do?