Happy Atheist Forum

Pretext
1. Because the nature of this argument concerns supposedly contradictory elements of the Bible in relation to itself and morality as we conceive it, I will be assuming the Bible is true. I am not using circular reason because I do not intend to prove the validity of the Bible in this argument. Instead I wish merely to prove that the Bible is not NOT true in this circumstance (applicable double negative).
2. I use C.S. Lewis a lot because he was an atheist turned Christian with a gift for words and I'm currently reading two of his books, so the information is still fresh in my mind.
3. The basis of this discussion is concerning what the Bible argues for in terms of genocide, murder and the like. For this reason I will attempt to establish a cohesive structure of passages and verses that put contrary verses in light and work towards a conception of morality that we are more inclined to agree with.

I would like to put up a few quotes on the subject, if that is okay:

Immediately Relevant
"To ask that God's love should be content with us as we are is to ask that God should cease to be God: because He is what He is, His love must, in the nature of things, be impeded and repelled by certain stains in our present character, and because He already loves us He must labour to make us loveable... What we would here and now call our 'happiness' is not the end God chiefly has in view: but when we are such as He can love without impediment, we shall in fact be happy."
- C.S. Lewis "The Problem of Pain"

"If God is wiser than we His judgment must differ from ours on many things, and not least on good and evil. What seems to us good may therefore not be good in His eyes, and what seems to us evil may not be evil."
- C.S. Lewis "The Problem of Pain"

"My argument against God was that the universe seemed so cruel and unjust. But how had I got this idea of just and unjust? A man does not call a line crooked unless he has some idea of a straight line. What was I comparing this universe with when I called it unjust?"
- C.S. Lewis "Mere Christianity"

Relevant Later
"The problem of reconciling human suffering with the existence of a God who loves, is only insoluble as long as we attach a trivial meaning to the word 'love,' and look on things as if man were the center of them. Man is not the center. God does not exist for the sake of man. Man does not exist for his own sake."
- C.S. Lewis "The Problem of Pain"


Body

What the question will hinge on is this: How can a God who is all loving
1. Commit the "barbaric" acts of the Old Testament.
2. Condone slavery
3. Be related to the forgiving God of the New Testament.
4. Establish a system of morality that disagrees with things some of us may believe are right like homosexuality.
5. (Addition) Not appear to love/value men and women equally.

I will begin with the first one and work my way through it but if you want me to add more to the list of things I must answer I would be more than happy to do so.

I have another to add.  There are many places in the bible which either imply or directly state that women should take a subservient role to men.  So, it would be good to address why a loving god does not appear to love/value men and women equally.

Quote from: "laetusatheos"I have another to add.  There are many places in the bible which either imply or directly state that women should take a subservient role to men.  So, it would be good to address why a loving god does not appear to love/value men and women equally.

Because while kind, loving and understanding, his omniness is not a feminist. Those are, as we all well know, of the devil  :beer:

That's an excellent one, I'll edit it to include that...That being said is there one you guys want me to defend firs?

I think that 4 would be a good start since you will likely have to discuss it in order to approach 1,2,3,and 5

Well, that question is either going to have a really simple solution or it is going to tie into the discussion going on in the Philosophy section.

Titan,

I don't think you can consider your God's love in isolation ... from my young Christian years the biblical god is supposed to be all loving (perfect love), all knowing and all powerful and I think the contradiction between your god's supposedly perfect love lies in it's inability to love us perfectly when it has such power and prescience.

Kyu

A valid point Kyu, did you read the quotes I posted? If you still disagree I will try to weave an answer to your question into the topic as a whole.

According to the church God's love is unconditional. True love values mercy over justice. Therefore God cannot be a just God and a loving God. I do not desire anyobody to suffer hell. I know that if I were almighty I would do anything I could to insure that no one would go to hell. Certainly not if they were my children. That being said how can a mere humans love exceed that of an unconditional loving, supernatural being's?

Quote"If God is wiser than we His judgment must differ from ours on many things, and not least on good and evil. What seems to us good may therefore not be good in His eyes, and what seems to us evil may not be evil."

Doesn't this statement completely contradict his crux in The Case for a Creator where he claims that because we have the knowledge of right and wrong (the conscience) a higher power wishes for us to know what right and wrong is? Lewis just shot himself in the foot with that one.

Quote"My argument against God was that the universe seemed so cruel and unjust. But how had I got this idea of just and unjust? A man does not call a line crooked unless he has some idea of a straight line. What was I comparing this universe with when I called it unjust?"

It is because of this I argue that C.S. Lewis was never actually an atheist. He was raised a theist so God was connected with his conscience. In his early life he rebelled because of a feeling such as this rather than an actual well thought out conclusion based on intellect for why there is no God. He claimed to be an atheist because he wished there was no God, not because he knew there was not one.

Quote from: "Titan"A valid point Kyu, did you read the quotes I posted? If you still disagree I will try to weave an answer to your question into the topic as a whole.

LOL ... I would disagree with virtually anything Lewis has to say on the subject of his god.

Kyu

QuoteAccording to the church God's love is unconditional. True love values mercy over justice. Therefore God cannot be a just God and a loving God. I do not desire anyobody to suffer hell. I know that if I were almighty I would do anything I could to insure that no one would go to hell. Certainly not if they were my children. That being said how can a mere humans love exceed that of an unconditional loving, supernatural being's?

Saying that if you were almighty you would do something is rather irrational since, if you were indeed omniscient along with the plethora of powers you would not necessarily believe in the same things you do now. I don't believe your last statement is true in any sense of it, from an empirical standpoint and from a religious standpoint.

QuoteDoesn't this statement completely contradict his crux in The Case for a Creator where he claims that because we have the knowledge of right and wrong (the conscience) a higher power wishes for us to know what right and wrong is? Lewis just shot himself in the foot with that one.

Not quite. You see, what C.S. Lewis is arguing is that for God, his perspective is complete. Mankind's perspective is limited and therefore, from a limited perspective, we are bound to get things wrong on a variety of issues. However, in Case for a Creator the argument will be tying in with the mere recognition of truth as evidence for a God. Do you see the difference? One is the complete version of the other, which is simply superficial in comparison.

QuoteIt is because of this I argue that C.S. Lewis was never actually an atheist. He was raised a theist so God was connected with his conscience. In his early life he rebelled because of a feeling such as this rather than an actual well thought out conclusion based on intellect for why there is no God. He claimed to be an atheist because he wished there was no God, not because he knew there was not one.

Obviously, as an atheist you would have to have evidence to COUNTER the evidence that he was at one time an atheist. I'm sure you of all people wouldn't make such a claim without proper support.

QuoteLOL ... I would disagree with virtually anything Lewis has to say on the subject of his god.

Obviously...he BELIEVES in God. I'm sure the same thing is true for me. Did you read the quote I was talking about?

Quote from: "Titan"Obviously...he BELIEVES in God. I'm sure the same thing is true for me. Did you read the quote I was talking about?

The ones you posted yes, any in the url no ... as a matter of personal policy I don't DO theist url's, I've been disappointed every single time I have done so. .

Kyu

Yeah, I was talking about the one in the post. It should have addressed the objection you brought up.

Quote from: "Titan"Yeah, I was talking about the one in the post. It should have addressed the objection you brought up.

What that I disagree with Lewis?

Kyu

No, that this quote: "To ask that God's love should be content with us as we are is to ask that God should cease to be God: because He is what He is, His love must, in the nature of things, be impeded and repelled by certain stains in our present character, and because He already loves us He must labour to make us loveable... What we would here and now call our 'happiness' is not the end God chiefly has in view: but when we are such as He can love without impediment, we shall in fact be happy" answers your first point.

Quote from: "Titan"No, that this quote: "To ask that God's love should be content with us as we are is to ask that God should cease to be God: because He is what He is, His love must, in the nature of things, be impeded and repelled by certain stains in our present character, and because He already loves us He must labour to make us loveable... What we would here and now call our 'happiness' is not the end God chiefly has in view: but when we are such as He can love without impediment, we shall in fact be happy" answers your first point.

I disagree with that argument as I've already said.

Kyu

I know, but what aspect of that? Which point is he wrong on?

Quote from: "Titan"I know, but what aspect of that? Which point is he wrong on?

Quite apart from the fact that he is arguing for something for which there is bugger all evidence in the first place I do not accept that a loving, all powerful, prescient god would allow misery, disease, death, pain ... you know all those inconvenient little things that don't quite fit with such a being  :)

QuoteQuite apart from the fact that he is arguing for something for which there is bugger all evidence in the first place I do not accept that a loving, all powerful, prescient god would allow misery, disease, death, pain ... you know all those inconvenient little things that don't quite fit with such a being

I disagree with the first statement and would like to debate it. But secondly that isn't the point you addressed. You said: "the biblical god is supposed to be all loving (perfect love), all knowing and all powerful and I think the contradiction between your god's supposedly perfect love lies in it's inability to love us perfectly when it has such power and prescience." Which is what the quote addresses.

QuoteYou know just because you think Lewis is the best thing since the ark doesn't mean that I have to agree.

I never said you did, I was trying to point out that if you actually disagree you should point out where the quote is wrong. Now which part of the quote do you disagree with?

Quote from: "Titan"I disagree with the first statement and would like to debate it.

About there being bugger all evidence for your god? Go for it but bear in mind I mean validatable evidence.

Quote from: "Titan"But secondly that isn't the point you addressed. You said: "the biblical god is supposed to be all loving (perfect love), all knowing and all powerful and I think the contradiction between your god's supposedly perfect love lies in it's inability to love us perfectly when it has such power and prescience." Which is what the quote addresses.

And I've already told you (or at least heavily implied) I don't think his answer actually answers the point, I think it's a glib avoidance.

Quote from: "Titan"I never said you did, I was trying to point out that if you actually disagree you should point out where the quote is wrong. Now which part of the quote do you disagree with?

I disagree with the entire quote, the answer as a whole.

Kyu

QuoteAbout there being bugger all evidence for your god? Go for it but bear in mind I mean validatable evidence.

Validatable? As in?

QuoteI disagree with the entire quote, the answer as a whole.

Why?

I'd say the problem with the quote is that it implies that, in a nut shell, bad things don't happen to good people.  But they seem to happen equally to everyone.  If you apply it, instead, to the human race at large, it loses any meaning at all, because duh we'll all be in peace and prosperity when we've fixed all mankind's problems.  Heck, we'd see a drastic decrease in wars if we all just followed the same ideology, even if it was the "wrong" one.

The other problem is that it has the nasty habit of making God non-omnipotent.  I, personally, can directly go and help out and hang out with people who are incredibly sinful, while committing no sins myself.  Same goes for the character of Jesus.  He could even heal them.  But drop that into omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresent God's lap, and our character problems are what is impeding him from giving us any help at all . . .

Quote from: "Titan"

QuoteAbout there being bugger all evidence for your god? Go for it but bear in mind I mean validatable evidence.

Validatable? As in?

Validatable! Verifiable!Confirmable!

Quote from: "Titan"

QuoteI disagree with the entire quote, the answer as a whole.

Why?

Because it simply equates to God is ineffable ... it's a bullsh*t argument, it means nothing, it achieves nothing, it simply means you (I) can't understand the actions of god.

Kyu

QuoteValidatable! Verifiable!Confirmable!

I mean, what evidence type? As in a big booming voice that says "Kyu, seriously man, I AM GOD!" Or something else?

QuoteBecause it simply equates to God is ineffable ... it's a bullsh*t argument, it means nothing, it achieves nothing, it simply means you (I) can't understand the actions of god.

I don't think it is equating God's morals as being ineffable as much as beyond our knowledge. Meaning that we could argue for his purpose in language if we were granted the knowledge of what it is. But you surely don't believe this. When a child comes up to their parents and says "Mom, dad, can I play on the street?" and the parents say no, the child may not know why but the knowledge is there. The parents simply understand more, understand the dangers more, than the child does from it's limited knowledge base. I remember many things my parents said I couldn't do that I was pissed and confused about but now I understand completely.

QuoteI'd say the problem with the quote is that it implies that, in a nut shell, bad things don't happen to good people. But they seem to happen equally to everyone. If you apply it, instead, to the human race at large, it loses any meaning at all, because duh we'll all be in peace and prosperity when we've fixed all mankind's problems. Heck, we'd see a drastic decrease in wars if we all just followed the same ideology, even if it was the "wrong" one.

I disagree, the quote is talking about how we can't always understand God's will from our perspective. That our perspective on pain, pleasure, life and death isn't necessarily his perspective. For instance, many people feel that God letting a little child die is cruel and unjust. But if God is the author of life (from a Christian perspective) then life ultimately belongs to him, it is his to give and take away. Furthermore, (from a Christian perspective, again) God would be taking that child to be with him. Christians believe that Heaven > Earth. There are people who quantify death and God's justification as having four different attributes. Two that apply to evil people and two that apply to good people. If you want I could try my best to explain them.

QuoteThe other problem is that it has the nasty habit of making God non-omnipotent. I, personally, can directly go and help out and hang out with people who are incredibly sinful, while committing no sins myself. Same goes for the character of Jesus. He could even heal them. But drop that into omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresent God's lap, and our character problems are what is impeding him from giving us any help at all . . .

I'm sorry, I read this twice, I think I'm too tired to understand it...could you explain it in idiot terms for me...I'm just not the sharpest tool in the shed.

QuoteTo ask that God's love should be content with us as we are is to ask that God should cease to be God: because He is what He is, His love must, in the nature of things, be impeded and repelled by certain stains in our present character, and because He already loves us He must labour to make us loveable... What we would here and now call our 'happiness' is not the end God chiefly has in view: but when we are such as He can love without impediment, we shall in fact be happy" answers your first point.

I meant this in particular, maybe I grabbed the wrong quote.  Either that, or I'm misunderstanding it.
And from that quote, is made to seem that we can't be happy because God is repelled by our character, sinfulness, whatever.  But it strikes me odd that an omnipotent being should be repelled by anything.  As I said, I can hang out with sinners and even help them out without sinning or being defiled by their presence, and even Jesus supposedly walked among and performed miracles for vast numbers of sinners.  But if we ask all-powerful God to do something for us in prayer, he suddenly can't because we have character flaws.  I don't buy it.  It looks like a justification for why God doesn't help out, being more put off by sin than he is concerned with the overall sorry state of his creation.  It looks like a justification for why God never answers prayers (based on the statistical evidence, and the fact that all 'answered' prayers had a naturalistic, completely possible outcome (A person getting over the flu, or getting through cancer, but never, ever regrowing a limb).

Also, it occurs to me now that God can't have created sin, since he is so repulsed by it.  He can't have established for himself what is right and wrong, it was a pre existing system.  It seems to supercede God, because he is perfect and there are pre-existing rules of what that entails.  Either that, or God created sin, right and wrong, morality, and then decided what he wasn't going to tolerate, but then he'd be free to change that any time and he should get on it.  I mean, imagine how much good could be done if God could help us out!  Hope that makes sense, it's giving me a headache trying to voice this the way I understand it.

(Also, I'd like to note that having to explain your way out of these situations is why theology is a total mind****.  I prefer science, all I need are the facts.  Not rationalization of one particular interpretation of one particular piece of the Bible.  Or having to philosophically work out all the ramifications of a supreme being.  And after all that, you still have no concrete details, just a rationalization, one of many.  But you're into Christianity and science, so I guess at the very least you get a good mental workout.)

QuoteAnd from that quote, is made to seem that we can't be happy because God is repelled by our character, sinfulness, whatever.

Not our character, simply sin.

QuoteBut it strikes me odd that an omnipotent being should be repelled by anything.

It seems odd only in that you are attempting to apply "all-powerful" to "all-accepting."

QuoteAs I said, I can hang out with sinners and even help them out without sinning or being defiled by their presence, and even Jesus supposedly walked among and performed miracles for vast numbers of sinners.

The question isn't: can God in some facet be near us when we are sinful, isn't the question. The question is: can a perfect God be CONTENT with us if we are sinners.

QuoteBut if we ask all-powerful God to do something for us in prayer, he suddenly can't because we have character flaws.I don't buy it. It looks like a justification for why God doesn't help out, being more put off by sin than he is concerned with the overall sorry state of his creation. It looks like a justification for why God never answers prayers (based on the statistical evidence, and the fact that all 'answered' prayers had a naturalistic, completely possible outcome (A person getting over the flu, or getting through cancer, but never, ever regrowing a limb).

Actually, prayer isn't that simple from a Christian perspective. If you are good God isn't going to automatically grant your every whim. But this is a digression from the topic at hand. Also, the quote isn't in regard to that, it has more to do with God accepting us into heaven if we are sinful. As I said, prayer is a whole different issue.

QuoteAlso, it occurs to me now that God can't have created sin, since he is so repulsed by it. He can't have established for himself what is right and wrong, it was a pre existing system.

Consider this analogy, I hand you a pen and a piece of perfectly white paper and say: "You can color on anything except the paper." But you color on the paper anyway and the paper becomes splotched and messy. Now, did I create the blackness on the paper? Notice that the pen itself is not bad in this analogy.

QuoteIt seems to supercede God, because he is perfect and there are pre-existing rules of what that entails. Either that, or God created sin, right and wrong, morality, and then decided what he wasn't going to tolerate, but then he'd be free to change that any time and he should get on it. I mean, imagine how much good could be done if God could help us out! Hope that makes sense, it's giving me a headache trying to voice this the way I understand it.

Socrates would ask a similar question, I believe in Euthyphro or the Republic Book I, does piety supersede the deity or does the deity dictate what is pious? In either case can God sin? If Christianity is to believed then the question actually becomes irrelevant since God is believed to be all good but we try to answer it regardless.  Since God dictates what has value and what doesn't, or what has more significance, then by definition he is creating a moral system of right an wrong. Something isn't wrong unless an object or person or thing in the midst has value and that value is being corrupted. Since ultimately all things look for their value in the creator his will ultimately dictates right and wrong in all circumstances. Therefore, God cannot be wrong from a complete perspective because ultimately a sin is a crime against God (defying the value he places on things). So unless God can defy himself, he can't sin. But again, this is irrelevant in light of an omniscient, genial God.

Quote(Also, I'd like to note that having to explain your way out of these situations is why theology is a total mind****. I prefer science, all I need are the facts.

Doesn't science, by its very nature, explain things. Also, the fact that there are questions doesn't invalidate a theory, a theory is invalidated only if there aren't answers.

QuoteNot rationalization of one particular interpretation of one particular piece of the Bible. Or having to philosophically work out all the ramifications of a supreme being. And after all that, you still have no concrete details, just a rationalization, one of many.

I think the philosophical ramifications of a supreme being (and whether one exists or not) would have to be the ultimate question of existence. What is the meaning of life? (Other than 42) The question is answered when we figure out what our value is. If we are finite in a universe devoid of a God then we ultimately don't have value and therefore there is no meaning to life. If we are subject to the wills of a God who is demanding of us, then our lives are lives of complete obedience and penitence. If God is a God of grace...well...some other time.

QuoteAnd after all that, you still have no concrete details, just a rationalization, one of many. But you're into Christianity and science, so I guess at the very least you get a good mental workout.)

My brain's the bastard child of Philosophy and science and therefore isn't much good for either one  

Hey, the quote said "stains in our present character," so I was just painting with a large brush to make sure you wouldn't reply "that isn't what it meant."  So much for that idea.  

All powerful doesn't necessitate all accepting, no.  It does mean, though, that if he is a totally genial god, with perfect empathy and unlimited love, that he should be able to get over that lack of acceptance.  But I suppose there's a pre-existing problem with perfect justice and perfect compassion.

Should God's ability to be content with someone dictate his compassion towards them?  I always thought the two could function independently, personally, and that's how I held it when I was a Christian.

As to prayer not being part of the topic at hand, apologies, I just blew in to the second page of the thread.  I have no foundation here, I'll bow out.  Though I'd like you to list all the stipulations regarding prayer sometime, see to all of them, and then ask God to fix up the world a bit.  I don't know why you should need to ask, either, but nothing is getting done at the moment . . .

As to the analogy of the pen:  *head asplodes*
But if I think I understand it: you could not present the piece of paper and still present the pen.  That would be the sensible thing to do if you didn't want any marks on any paper.  In layman's, free will can still exist without the ability to sin.  You can still mark all over the walls, however you choose, just not on the non-existent paper.  A God that willfully creates a situation where [strike:y32i1gdz]we can[/strike:y32i1gdz] he knows we will get screwed isn't doing too great of a job.  I like asking fundies if they ever considered why omniscient God stuck the tree of knowledge where Adam and Eve could get to it.  Personally, I like to leave the Drain-o and Windex and anti-freeze where small children can get and drink them.  Yeah.

And the relevance to whether something supercedes God is that one would find that something predated God, God is bound by rules he didn't define, and that universe isn't entirely defined by God.  Some folks would take issue with that, and I have no doubt such a view would complicate theology, even for reasons that aren't obvious to me (I'm no philosopher).

Yes, science by its very nature tries to explain things.  Its explanations are always falsifiable, though.  It keeps things grounded in reality,in this regard, by preventing a non-falsifiable answer being given in support of these theories.  I don't see any conflict with what I said previously . . .

QuoteI think the philosophical ramifications of a supreme being (and whether one exists or not) would have to be the ultimate question of existence. What is the meaning of life? (Other than 42) The question is answered when we figure out what our value is. If we are finite in a universe devoid of a God then we ultimately don't have value and therefore there is no meaning to life.

What?  Why does anything need a meaning?  It's just a desire we humans have.  To be preordained to fill a purpose.  To be assigned value greater than we can give ourselves, and for some reason pretending that it doesn't matter how much we value ourselves and each other.  But I ask you what God established your value from.  If he derived it from a mechanism outside himself, then you can do the same.  If he defined it in a completely arbitrary fashion, then you are quite possibly more qualified to define it.  We make our own purpose, though; it isn't implicit, and it isn't required for existence.  A lot of folks don't grasp that, they refuse to give value to their own life, and they need someone else's approval to believe they have any value at all.  They still end up giving their life its meaning by finding God and believing the Bible, but they will claim God gave it to them because anything human is too little for them.  They desire more, and by that fact alone there should be more . . . I dunno, it just makes more sense to count on myself and my friends and family for value.  I can count on them for it.  I can't count on God.

Hope this helps, but yeah, I just jumped in mid-thread, so I'll probably let myself out now.

Quote from: "Titan"I mean, what evidence type? As in a big booming voice that says "Kyu, seriously man, I AM GOD!" Or something else?

I don't know, it would have to be properly evaluated which of course is a problem because your god has never made itself available for such evaluation ... and how would I know? As Clarke says, "Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic"

Quote from: "Titan"I don't think it is equating God's morals as being ineffable as much as beyond our knowledge. Meaning that we could argue for his purpose in language if we were granted the knowledge of what it is. But you surely don't believe this. When a child comes up to their parents and says "Mom, dad, can I play on the street?" and the parents say no, the child may not know why but the knowledge is there. The parents simply understand more, understand the dangers more, than the child does from it's limited knowledge base. I remember many things my parents said I couldn't do that I was pissed and confused about but now I understand completely.

Isn't that the every essence of ineffability? From Miriam-Webster, "incapable of being expressed in words", from Encarta, "indescribable: unable to be expressed in words" ... in essence beyond our ability to understand?

Quote from: "Titan"I disagree, the quote is talking about how we can't always understand God's will from our perspective. That our perspective on pain, pleasure, life and death isn't necessarily his perspective. For instance, many people feel that God letting a little child die is cruel and unjust. But if God is the author of life (from a Christian perspective) then life ultimately belongs to him, it is his to give and take away. Furthermore, (from a Christian perspective, again) God would be taking that child to be with him. Christians believe that Heaven > Earth. There are people who quantify death and God's justification as having four different attributes. Two that apply to evil people and two that apply to good people. If you want I could try my best to explain them.

So ineffable then?

Kyu

Quote from: "Titan"Not our character, simply sin.

And sin is not being a believer pretty much yeah?

Quote from: "Titan"It seems odd only in that you are attempting to apply "all-powerful" to "all-accepting."

Where's it say that in your bible?

Quote from: "Titan"The question isn't: can God in some facet be near us when we are sinful, isn't the question. The question is: can a perfect God be CONTENT with us if we are sinners.

Apparently not since he's sending the lot of us evil f***s to hell.

Quote from: "Titan"Actually, prayer isn't that simple from a Christian perspective. If you are good God isn't going to automatically grant your every whim. But this is a digression from the topic at hand. Also, the quote isn't in regard to that, it has more to do with God accepting us into heaven if we are sinful. As I said, prayer is a whole different issue.

Actually from an ex-Catholic POV it is actually very simple ... you pray, you're good, you get rewarded, you don't you get slapped

I dropped out of the rest as it got way to philosophical for me and I'm a bit of a philosophy hater.

Kyu

Kyu, we need to shorten some of our long discussions, this is getting out of hand  ;)

Quote from: "Titan"Kyu, we need to shorten some of our long discussions, this is getting out of hand  ;)

[/quote]

I'm no philosopher ... comments I have made about it must persuade you I am extremely cynical about modern day philosophy.

Kyu

Quote

Quote

QuoteAnd sin is not being a believer pretty much yeah?

No, not believing is a sin. The act, not the person.

Slight re-orientation but more or less what I said.

As long as you recognize that it is the act, not the person, it's a choice.

Quote

Quote

QuoteWhere's it say that in your bible?

It doesn't, that's my point.

I don't even want to start in on how confusing having a theist mind must be.

I was saying that being all-powerful doesn't mean the same thing as accepting everything. Please, if you are confused say you are confused don't insult me.

QuoteTheists are capable of objectivity? Well that's a new one on me.

You know, when you resort to ad hominem attacks it really makes me think that you are cornered and holding on by the fingernail of your own ignorance, not that you are above the debate.

Quote

Quote

QuoteActually from an ex-Catholic POV it is actually very simple ... you pray, you're good, you get rewarded, you don't you get slapped

I can prove to you that from a Biblical standpoint, they are wrong.

Go on then!

Unanswered prayers by devout people:
Matthew 26:36-46 (reason given in Hebrews 2:9;12:2-3; 13:12,13
Mark 10:34-45
2 Corinthians 12:7-10
Philippians 2:5-8

Quote from: "Titan"

Quote

QuoteNo, not believing is a sin. The act, not the person.

Slight re-orientation but more or less what I said.

As long as you recognize that it is the act, not the person, it's a choice.

Um no ... I don't believe in your god so I am not choosing anything. I cannot sin.

Quote from: "Titan"I don't even want to start in on how confusing having a theist mind must be.

I was saying that being all-powerful doesn't mean the same thing as accepting everything. Please, if you are confused say you are confused don't insult me.[/quote]

It was cynicism but fair enough, no guarantees but I will try.

Quote from: "Titan"

QuoteTheists are capable of objectivity? Well that's a new one on me.

You know, when you resort to ad hominem attacks it really makes me think that you are cornered and holding on by the fingernail of your own ignorance, not that you are above the debate.

Again it was cynicism and I will try to correct that but, for the record, I actually believe that theists are not able to argue religion objectively so in this case it was not an Ad Hominem attack.

Quote from: "Titan"

Quote

QuoteI can prove to you that from a Biblical standpoint, they are wrong.

Go on then!

Unanswered prayers by devout people:
Matthew 26:36-46 (reason given in Hebrews 2:9;12:2-3; 13:12,13
Mark 10:34-45
2 Corinthians 12:7-10
Philippians 2:5-8

Um ... can you post these supposed proofs rather than make me go look for them for you?

Kyu

Quote from: "Titan"

Quote from: "Titan"No, not believing is a sin. The act, not the person.

Quote from: "Kyuuketsuki"Slight re-orientation but more or less what I said.

Quote from: "Titan"As long as you recognize that it is the act, not the person, it's a choice.

Um no ... I don't believe in your god so I am not choosing anything. I cannot sin.

Quote from: "Titan"

QuoteI don't even want to start in on how confusing having a theist mind must be.

I was saying that being all-powerful doesn't mean the same thing as accepting everything. Please, if you are confused say you are confused don't insult me.

It was cynicism but fair enough, no guarantees but I will try.

Quote from: "Titan"

QuoteTheists are capable of objectivity? Well that's a new one on me.

You know, when you resort to ad hominem attacks it really makes me think that you are cornered and holding on by the fingernail of your own ignorance, not that you are above the debate.

Again it was cynicism and I will try to correct that but, for the record, I actually believe that theists are not able to argue religion objectively so in this case it was not an Ad Hominem attack.

Quote from: "Titan"

Quote

QuoteI can prove to you that from a Biblical standpoint, they are wrong.

Go on then!

Unanswered prayers by devout people:
Matthew 26:36-46 (reason given in Hebrews 2:9;12:2-3; 13:12,13
Mark 10:34-45
2 Corinthians 12:7-10
Philippians 2:5-8

Um ... can you post these supposed proofs rather than make me go look for them for you?

Kyu

QuoteUm no ... I don't believe in your god so I am not choosing anything. I cannot sin.

Incorrect... Again: "I don't believe that getting hit by a truck will hurt me. Therefore, I cannot be hurt by a truck." The reality isn't diminished by our disbelief. The truck is going to hit you regardless of what you believe and you would be subject to God's moral code despite what you believe.

QuoteAgain it was cynicism and I will try to correct that but, for the record, I actually believe that theists are not able to argue religion objectively so in this case it was not an Ad Hominem attack.

I could say that I believe atheists are unable to argue religion objectively either. The point doesn't help the debate it only insults the other person. I'm a theist therefore you are insinuating that I would be unable to argue objectively about the subject. This completely disregards all of the atheists and theists who have switched sides based on rational reasons.

QuoteUm ... can you post these supposed proofs rather than make me go look for them for you?

When I asked you to simply sort out the few names you felt were legitimate you told me that you wouldn't do my work for you. I give you a few verses and you can't even look them up... Fine, I want this debate to progress either way:

Jesus' prayer is not answered. Paul's prayer is not answered.

Quote from: "Titan"

QuoteUm no ... I don't believe in your god so I am not choosing anything. I cannot sin.

Incorrect... Again: "I don't believe that getting hit by a truck will hurt me. Therefore, I cannot be hurt by a truck." The reality isn't diminished by our disbelief. The truck is going to hit you regardless of what you believe and you would be subject to God's moral code despite what you believe.

A truck is a real tangible investigable object, it's big, hard, heavy, often fast and sometimes driven by maniacs ... your God is, well ... none of those (apart from the maniac arguably).

So, given that there is absolutely no validatable evidence for your god or the veracity of your religion's essential claims, I repeat, "I don't believe in your god so I am not choosing anything. I cannot sin"

Quote from: "Titan"

QuoteAgain it was cynicism and I will try to correct that but, for the record, I actually believe that theists are not able to argue religion objectively so in this case it was not an Ad Hominem attack.

I could say that I believe atheists are unable to argue religion objectively either. The point doesn't help the debate it only insults the other person. I'm a theist therefore you are insinuating that I would be unable to argue objectively about the subject. This completely disregards all of the atheists and theists who have switched sides based on rational reasons.

As I said, it was cynicism.

Quote from: "Titan"

QuoteUm ... can you post these supposed proofs rather than make me go look for them for you?

When I asked you to simply sort out the few names you felt were legitimate you told me that you wouldn't do my work for you. I give you a few verses and you can't even look them up... Fine, I want this debate to progress either way:

.

[/quote]

That was rather different, you were defending a point I made and asking me to go look up something that (you claim) would answer the point I had made. In this case you are making a claim and again asking me to go do something, to read or research something, for you when it is not my claim.

I am not in the business of shooting myself down and I will not do your research for you. Why should I?

Quote from: "Titan"Jesus' prayer is not answered. Paul's prayer is not answered

OK from a fictional perspective you've proved it ... big whoop. Next?

Kyu

QuoteA truck is a real tangible investigable object, it's big, hard, heavy, often fast and sometimes driven by maniacs ... your God is, well ... none of those (apart from the maniac arguably).

So, given that there is absolutely no validatable evidence for your god or the veracity of your religion's essential claims, I repeat, "I don't believe in your god so I am not choosing anything. I cannot sin"

The problem I presented was with your method of reasoning. Just because you deny something doesn't mean it doesn't exist. Besides, you are choosing something, you are choosing to center everything around yourself. Which is the ultimate sin.

QuoteAs I said, it was cynicism.

Please stop, it doesn't help the debate out at all...it just demonstrates an unwillingness to discuss on a purely rational level.

QuoteThat was rather different, you were defending a point I made and asking me to go look up something that (you claim) would answer the point I had made. In this case you are making a claim and again asking me to go do something, to read or research something, for you when it is not my claim.

I am not in the business of shooting myself down and I will not do your research for you. Why should I?

1. I just wanted you to pick the names for ME to look up.
2. You are admitting that doing the research would be detrimental to your point....interesting.
3. Your claim was that those authors should have mentioned Jesus...that was an offensive argument, you needed to provide support for your point.
4. The verses I offered were extremely short, they would have taken a couple of seconds at the most.

Quote

QuoteJesus' prayer is not answered. Paul's prayer is not answered

OK from a fictional perspective you've proved it ... big whoop. Next?

I disproved the idea that God says "yes" to all good people's prayers. If you don't want to listen to the opposition then don't enter into a debate.

Quote from: "Titan"The problem I presented was with your method of reasoning. Just because you deny something doesn't mean it doesn't exist. Besides, you are choosing something, you are choosing to center everything around yourself. Which is the ultimate sin.

And just because you claim something exists doesn't mean it dies either. Yes I am my own god

Quote from: "Titan"

QuoteAs I said, it was cynicism.

Please stop, it doesn't help the debate out at all...it just demonstrates an unwillingness to discuss on a purely rational level.

No guarantees but I will try.

Quote from: "Titan"

QuoteThat was rather different, you were defending a point I made and asking me to go look up something that (you claim) would answer the point I had made. In this case you are making a claim and again asking me to go do something, to read or research something, for you when it is not my claim.

I am not in the business of shooting myself down and I will not do your research for you. Why should I?

1. I just wanted you to pick the names for ME to look up.
2. You are admitting that doing the research would be detrimental to your point....interesting.
3. Your claim was that those authors should have mentioned Jesus...that was an offensive argument, you needed to provide support for your point.
4. The verses I offered were extremely short, they would have taken a couple of seconds at the most.

I'm sorry Titan but you are going to have to accept something here ... I write my own arguments. Generally if I paste something else in it is acknowledged, if I give a url it is as additional information ...it's the way I do things and I expect others to be able to do much the same. My claim that these authors was offensive ion what way? The fact is my remarks are utterly dependent on your claims (Christian claims) and therefore they are not "offensive" (is that the way you were using the word?) but defensive. If these were short excerpts then just post them.

Quote from: "Titan"I disproved the idea that God says "yes" to all good people's prayers. If you don't want to listen to the opposition then don't enter into a debate.

Bible? Circular reasoning?

Kyu

Quote from: "Kyuuketsuki"

Quote from: "Titan"The problem I presented was with your method of reasoning. Just because you deny something doesn't mean it doesn't exist. Besides, you are choosing something, you are choosing to center everything around yourself. Which is the ultimate sin.

And just because you claim something exists doesn't mean it dies either. Yes I am my own god

I didn't say that God was real because I claimed he existed. Please stop inserting red herrings.

Quote

Quote from: "Titan"

QuoteThat was rather different, you were defending a point I made and asking me to go look up something that (you claim) would answer the point I had made. In this case you are making a claim and again asking me to go do something, to read or research something, for you when it is not my claim.

I am not in the business of shooting myself down and I will not do your research for you. Why should I?

1. I just wanted you to pick the names for ME to look up.
2. You are admitting that doing the research would be detrimental to your point....interesting.
3. Your claim was that those authors should have mentioned Jesus...that was an offensive argument, you needed to provide support for your point.
4. The verses I offered were extremely short, they would have taken a couple of seconds at the most.

I'm sorry Titan but you are going to have to accept something here ... I write my own arguments. Generally if I paste something else in it is acknowledged, if I give a url it is as additional information ...it's the way I do things and I expect others to be able to do much the same. My claim that these authors was offensive ion what way? The fact is my remarks are utterly dependent on your claims (Christian claims) and therefore they are not "offensive" (is that the way you were using the word?) but defensive. If these were short excerpts then just post them.

I meant offensive as in "defensive vs. offensive."
But I am going to throw out the quote in that case because from the little I did look into it simply was not valid.

Quote

Quote from: "Titan"I disproved the idea that God says "yes" to all good people's prayers. If you don't want to listen to the opposition then don't enter into a debate.

Bible? Circular reasoning?

No because I'm not proving the Bible. I'm saying that God doesn't have to answer all good people's prayers for the Bible to be true. I was disproving the contradiction, not proving that the Bible or God was true.

Quote from: "Titan"

QuoteAnd just because you claim something exists doesn't mean it does either. Yes I am my own god

I didn't say that God was real because I claimed he existed. Please stop inserting red herrings.

You said, "Just because you deny something doesn't mean it doesn't exist." ... THAT was what I was responding to so no, not a red herring!

Quote from: "Titan"

QuoteI'm sorry Titan but you are going to have to accept something here ... I write my own arguments. Generally if I paste something else in it is acknowledged, if I give a url it is as additional information ...it's the way I do things and I expect others to be able to do much the same. My claim that these authors was offensive ion what way? The fact is my remarks are utterly dependent on your claims (Christian claims) and therefore they are not "offensive" (is that the way you were using the word?) but defensive. If these were short excerpts then just post them.

I meant offensive as in "defensive vs. offensive."
But I am going to throw out the quote in that case because from the little I did look into it simply was not valid.

Whatever you want but don't expect me to accept you've dealt with it. As far as I'm concerned it's still valid until such point as you POST a reasoned and valid argument against it.

Quote from: "Titan"

Quote

QuoteI disproved the idea that God says "yes" to all good people's prayers. If you don't want to listen to the opposition then don't enter into a debate.

Bible? Circular reasoning?

No because I'm not proving the Bible. I'm saying that God doesn't have to answer all good people's prayers for the Bible to be true. I was disproving the contradiction, not proving that the Bible or God was true.

And like I say, "Bible? Circular reasoning?" IOW I don't accept anything based purely on your bible which I consider, in board terms, to be a work of fiction set against a known historical background and culture.

Kyu

Quote from: "Kyuuketsuki"

Quote from: "Titan"

QuoteAnd just because you claim something exists doesn't mean it does either. Yes I am my own god :brick:  Again, I'm not PROVING THE BIBLE! Which is why this is not circular reasoning. Like I have explained previously: I was just showing you that the Bible was not NOT true in that instance. I didn't prove the Bible to be true, only that it was not self-contradictory. We have gone over this before. Please think carefully about what I have said because the argument is internal (like the Alphabet Argument), it only concerns things in the Bible. You were saying that the Bible is not true because God does not answer all the prayers of good people, I was showing you that the Bible never makes such a claim so your argument is not only false but a strawman argument.

Let's go through this again:

QuoteKyuuketsuki:
Um no ... I don't believe in your god so I am not choosing anything. I cannot sin. So, given that there is absolutely no validatable evidence for your god or the veracity of your religion's essential claims, I repeat, "I don't believe in your god so I am not choosing anything. I cannot sin"

Titan:
The problem I presented was with your method of reasoning. Just because you deny something doesn't mean it doesn't exist. Besides, you are choosing something, you are choosing to center everything around yourself. Which is the ultimate sin.

b]Kyuuketsuki:[/b]
And just because you claim something exists doesn't mean it does either. Yes I am my own god :brick:  Again, I'm not PROVING THE BIBLE! Which is why this is not circular reasoning. Like I have explained previously: I was just showing you that the Bible was not NOT true in that instance. I didn't prove the Bible to be true, only that it was not self-contradictory. We have gone over this before. Please think carefully about what I have said because the argument is internal (like the Alphabet Argument), it only concerns things in the Bible. You were saying that the Bible is not true because God does not answer all the prayers of good people, I was showing you that the Bible never makes such a claim so your argument is not only false but a strawman argument.

Not not true? You mean like true?

The bible IS self-contradictory.

The alphabet argument? The one that was demonstrated to you as being inherently flawed?

Actually the bible does make such a claim:

"Believe me when I say that I am in the Father and the Father is in me; or at least believe on the evidence of the miracles themselves. I tell you the truth, anyone who has faith in me will do what I have been doing. He will do even greater things than these, because I am going to the Father. And I will do whatever you ask in my name, so that the Son may bring glory to the Father. You may ask me for anything in my name, and I will do it." John 14: 11-14

so   right back at you!!!!

Oh I know you'll have some whacky answer but it  will be fun watching you squirm your way out of it.

Kyu