Happy Atheist Forum

So many people on here in different threads have said believing in God is stupid and nonfactual. My question to you is how is not believing in a God factual? You can't prove that God didn't exist can you? I'm not saying I can prove that he does exist. Practice what you preach atheists. Goodbye.

admin edit: changed title

Quote from: "ChristianWarrior"So many people on here in different threads have said believing in God is stupid and nonfactual. My question to you is how is not believing in a God factual? You can't prove that God didn't exist can you? I'm not saying I can prove that he does exist. Practice what you preach atheists. Goodbye.

Everyone who didn't see this coming, raise your hands.  Hmmmm.....no hands.

You are the one making the affirmative claim, the burden of proof is on you.

I find it ironic that you just got done saying you weren't here to convert anyone or preach and then you post something like this in such a snippet tone.  Practice what you preach is right...

First of all, most if not everyone who responded to your previous thread said they had no reason to believe in a god; so they don't.  I don't believe that little green me visit earth either but that doesn't mean I have any way to prove it...lack of evidence is reason enough to lack belief in something.

Second, what god are you referring to?  Certain types of gods are really stupid sounding when you simply them....you know, like god sacrificing himself to himself in order to overturn a rule he created.

Third, while it may be possible to prove some negatives you have to know what kind of evidence the thing in question would leave behind if it were actually occurring.  In the case of a generic god (like a deist god) it would leave behind no evidence so it is impossible to prove that a deist god doesn't exist.  

Finally, to propose that god must be true because it can't be proven false is faulty logic http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_ignorance (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_ignorance)

In short...absence of evidence may not be evidence of absence but it's a hell of a good reason to not believe something is real.

Why don’t I believe in God? No, no no, why do YOU believe in God? Surely the burden of proof is on the believer. You started all this. If I came up to you and said, “Why don’t you believe I can fly?” You’d say, “Why would I?” I’d reply, “Because it’s a matter of faith.” If I then said, “Prove I can’t fly. Prove I can’t fly see, see, you can’t prove it can you?” You’d probably either walk away, call security or throw me out of the window and shout, ‘’Fâ€"ing fly then you lunatic.”

-- Ricky Gervais (http://blogs.wsj.com/speakeasy/2010/12/19/a-holiday-message-from-ricky-gervais-why-im-an-atheist/?mod=e2fb)

Which god..?

I don't think I can prove Quetzalcoatl does not exist, but I can prove (mostly logically and philosophically) that the god of the Bible, as described in it, does not.

I'm not going to do that though, for two reasons. One: I don't have to. I carry no burden of proof here. Two: It has been done so many times before that I am... Bored of it.

Quote from: "ChristianWarrior"So many people on here in different threads have said believing in God is stupid and nonfactual. My question to you is how is not believing in a God factual? You can't prove that God didn't exist can you? I'm not saying I can prove that he does exist. Practice what you preach atheists. Goodbye.

:verysad:

Quote from: "Tank"

Quote from: "ChristianWarrior"So many people on here in different threads have said believing in God is stupid and nonfactual. My question to you is how is not believing in a God factual? You can't prove that God didn't exist can you? I'm not saying I can prove that he does exist. Practice what you preach atheists. Goodbye.

:verysad:

With that user name, you shouldn't.    I'm pretty sure most of us knew where this was heading from the very start.  

Quote from: "Velma"

Quote from: "Tank"

Quote from: "ChristianWarrior"So many people on here in different threads have said believing in God is stupid and nonfactual. My question to you is how is not believing in a God factual? You can't prove that God didn't exist can you? I'm not saying I can prove that he does exist. Practice what you preach atheists. Goodbye.

:verysad:

With that user name, you shouldn't.    I'm pretty sure most of us knew where this was heading from the very start.   :sigh:

Have to admit, that would be nice.

Look at it this way. A (not very bright perhaps) Christian takes a look in an atheist forum to either a) peek at the hell-bound heathens, b) try to convert them or c) explore his own existing doubts a bit further.

If its c) maybe he is on the way to seeing a bit of sense!

Quote from: "ChristianWarrior"So many people on here in different threads have said believing in God is stupid and nonfactual. My question to you is how is not believing in a God factual? You can't prove that God didn't exist can you? I'm not saying I can prove that he does exist. Practice what you preach atheists. Goodbye.

Since I'm currently in the mood for facepalms:
(https://www.happyatheistforum.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.roflcorner.com%2Fwp-content%2Fgallery%2Ffacepalm%2FDoubleFacePalm.jpg&hash=95a8e399d51d3cb56c87fc0fdd8be653ec09b769)


Also just noticed that CW lasted less than a day here. Wow. Now that is not living up to a screen name. I knew lots of CWs when I was in the church. Yep, I did. Lotsa Prayer Warriors, too. Man, they could clench their hands together and speak gibberish like nobody's business!

Quote from: "ChristianWarrior"So many people on here in different threads have said believing in God is stupid and nonfactual. My question to you is how is not believing in a God factual? You can't prove that God didn't exist can you? I'm not saying I can prove that he does exist. Practice what you preach atheists. Goodbye.

If you want other people to believe what you believe, you need to give good reason and justification. You said in your own post that you can not do this.

Their is no evidence for any gods, so Atheism is quite accurate.

I do not have anything to practice because I do not preach.

What a surprise. A bunch of people attacking someone who has a different opinion. I've been looking into some threads, and I can firmly say that some people are saying that believing in any afterlife or god is ridiculous and nonfactual. However, none of you can prove that god doesn't exist and there isn't an afterlife, can you? Each and everyone of you in here have found a way to wriggle around the question or not directly answer me.  I can't prove that God exists. I don't pretend that I can or believing in God and God's powers is at all factual. Believing in God is purely being faithful and nothing more. However, some of you on here are acting like not believing in a God is factual when it's the same exact concept as believing in God. It's all being faithful, so I would appreciate you people not acting like it's fact. Or you can continue to bath in your own ignorance.

Quote from: "Whitney"I find it ironic that you just got done saying you weren't here to convert anyone or preach and then you post something like this in such a snippet tone.  Practice what you preach is right...

First of all, most if not everyone who responded to your previous thread said they had no reason to believe in a god; so they don't.  I don't believe that little green me visit earth either but that doesn't mean I have any way to prove it...lack of evidence is reason enough to lack belief in something.

Second, what god are you referring to?  Certain types of gods are really stupid sounding when you simply them....you know, like god sacrificing himself to himself in order to overturn a rule he created.

Third, while it may be possible to prove some negatives you have to know what kind of evidence the thing in question would leave behind if it were actually occurring.  In the case of a generic god (like a deist god) it would leave behind no evidence so it is impossible to prove that a deist god doesn't exist.  

Finally, to propose that god must be true because it can't be proven false is faulty logic http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_ignorance (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_ignorance)

In short...absence of evidence may not be evidence of absence but it's a hell of a good reason to not believe something is real.

I'm not trying to convert anyone Whitney, I'm just asking a question.I get why you don't want to believe in a god (There's nothing wrong with being faithful to your own religion or rather being faithful to not believing in a religion), but why do SOME of you on here treat not believing in God as fact and not faith?

I'm confused    didn't you just say goodbye?

Quote from: "Tank"I'm confused    didn't you just say goodbye?

Only for a little while I was leaving. I had to go do stuff, but now I'm back. That was just meant to show that I wasn't going to be on for a while.

Quote from: "ChristianWarrior"What a surprise. A bunch of people attacking someone who has a different opinion. I've been looking into some threads, and I can firmly say that some people are saying that believing in any afterlife or god is ridiculous and nonfactual. However, none of you can prove that god doesn't exist and there isn't an afterlife, can you? Each and everyone of you in here have found a way to wriggle around the question or not directly answer me.  I can't prove that God exists. I don't pretend that I can or believing in God and God's powers is at all factual. Believing in God is purely being faithful and nothing more. However, some of you on here are acting like not believing in a God is factual when it's the same exact concept as believing in God. It's all being faithful, so I would appreciate you people not acting like it's fact. Or you can continue to bath in your own ignorance.

Huh? That's interesting. We thought you left. See, the whole post in which you got all huffy and then said, "Goodbye" at the end was sort of misleading. I took that to mean you had enough of the atheists and were going away.

So, are you staying or not? If staying, press one. [spoiler:66628ums]1. Welcome![/spoiler:66628ums]
If leaving, press two. [spoiler:66628ums]2. Don't let the door hit you in the ass on the way out.[/spoiler:66628ums]

Now, all snide comments aside. Do you want to ACTUALLY learn what atheists think, or not? If you do want to learn something, as you have written, then chill out, stop acting persecuted, and ask some serious questions, and expect to be challenged.

And don't start out by telling someone they have to prove a negative (look it up on if you're not familiar with the concept).

So now, time to fish or cut bait. Stop whining, and get serious, CW.

Quote from: "ChristianWarrior"

Quote from: "Tank"I'm confused    didn't you just say goodbye?

Only for a little while I was leaving. I had to go do stuff, but now I'm back. That was just meant to show that I wasn't going to be on for a while.

You're not behaving like you're particularly 'forum savvy', not a criticism just an observation. May I offer some suggestions that might make your time here a little more comfortable?

Quote from: "McQ"

Quote from: "ChristianWarrior"What a surprise. A bunch of people attacking someone who has a different opinion. I've been looking into some threads, and I can firmly say that some people are saying that believing in any afterlife or god is ridiculous and nonfactual. However, none of you can prove that god doesn't exist and there isn't an afterlife, can you? Each and everyone of you in here have found a way to wriggle around the question or not directly answer me.  I can't prove that God exists. I don't pretend that I can or believing in God and God's powers is at all factual. Believing in God is purely being faithful and nothing more. However, some of you on here are acting like not believing in a God is factual when it's the same exact concept as believing in God. It's all being faithful, so I would appreciate you people not acting like it's fact. Or you can continue to bath in your own ignorance.

Huh? That's interesting. We thought you left. See, the whole post in which you got all huffy and then said, "Goodbye" at the end was sort of misleading. I took that to mean you had enough of the atheists and were going away.

So, are you staying or not? If staying, press one. [spoiler:1cdh1iph]1. Welcome![/spoiler:1cdh1iph]
If leaving, press two. [spoiler:1cdh1iph]2. Don't let the door hit you in the ass on the way out.[/spoiler:1cdh1iph]

Now, all snide comments aside. Do you want to ACTUALLY learn what atheists think, or not? If you do want to learn something, as you have written, then chill out, stop acting persecuted, and ask some serious questions, and expect to be challenged.

And don't start out by telling someone they have to prove a negative (look it up on if you're not familiar with the concept).

So now, time to fish or cut bait. Stop whining, and get serious, CW.

Of course I want to learn about your beliefs. Why else would I go on an Atheist forum when I'm a Christian? And I have asked questions. My whole point with this thread is to prove that not believing a god is NOT factual. It's faith, so I'd appreciate people acting accordingly. I'm fine if you are an Atheist, as long as you're a good person, however I'm not fine with people treating faith as fact.

Quote from: "Tank"

Quote from: "ChristianWarrior"

Quote from: "Tank"I'm confused    didn't you just say goodbye?

Only for a little while I was leaving. I had to go do stuff, but now I'm back. That was just meant to show that I wasn't going to be on for a while.

You're not behaving like you're particularly 'forum savvy', not a criticism just an observation. May I offer some suggestions that might make your time here a little more comfortable?

As long as they're polite, then yes, go right ahead.

What I don't understand is why you don't believe in a fun god, you say that you believe because of Faith. Why not have faith in something more interesting, and less fire and brimstone?

If I was going to put my faith in a god that I've never met, and that there's little to no real evidence for then I'd pick someone like Superman, Thor, and/or the Flying Spaghetti Monster.

Give me one reason why your god is better, or more reasonable than these other than the fact that someone other than yourself made that decision for you.

Also I should mention that I'm pretty sure that atheists don't have faith that gods don't exist, they just don't believe that they do. It's not the same.

Do you have faith that Cthulhu doesn't exist?

Quote from: "ChristianWarrior"What a surprise. A bunch of people attacking someone who has a different opinion. I've been looking into some threads, and I can firmly say that some people are saying that believing in any afterlife or god is ridiculous and nonfactual. However, none of you can prove that god doesn't exist and there isn't an afterlife, can you? Each and everyone of you in here have found a way to wriggle around the question or not directly answer me.  I can't prove that God exists. I don't pretend that I can or believing in God and God's powers is at all factual. Believing in God is purely being faithful and nothing more. However, some of you on here are acting like not believing in a God is factual when it's the same exact concept as believing in God. It's all being faithful, so I would appreciate you people not acting like it's fact. Or you can continue to bath in your own ignorance.

I raised these issues in my post, I am very ready to have a a polite discussion about this, by all means have a stab at debating the content of my post.

On a forum is quite easy to see disagreement as attacking, I would rather we worked past this and tackled each others points.

If you are genuinely interested in doing so, that is.

Quote from: "ChristianWarrior"I'm not fine with people treating faith as fact.

I have no faith, and I have serious doubts regarding what can be called "fact."

Any problems with that?

Quote from: "ChristianWarrior"I'm not trying to convert anyone Whitney, I'm just asking a question.I get why you don't want to believe in a god (There's nothing wrong with being faithful to your own religion or rather being faithful to not believing in a religion), but why do SOME of you on here treat not believing in God as fact and not faith?

I don't think your tone is indicative of someone who is just asking a question...and why in the world would you say goodbye afterward using such a snotty tone as if you intend not to come back?  Or are you saying you didn't intend for your tone to come across that way (note that it still is).

No, you don't "get it".  I have no reason to not want to believe in a generic god (although there are some god concepts that I'm very glad are too contradictory to be plausible).

It doesn't take faith to not believe in something...I don't know what you think the word faith means but I like to use the dictionary:

Quoteâ€"noun
1.confidence or trust in a person or thing: faith in another's ability.
2.belief that is not based on proof: He had faith that the hypothesis would be substantiated by fact.
3.belief in god or in the doctrines or teachings of religion: the firm faith of the Pilgrims.
4.belief in anything, as a code of ethics, standards of merit, etc.: to be of the same faith with someone concerning honesty.
5.a system of religious belief: the Christian faith; the Jewish faith.
6.the obligation of loyalty or fidelity to a person, promise, engagement, etc.: Failure to appear would be breaking faith.
7.the observance of this obligation; fidelity to one's promise, oath, allegiance, etc.: He was the only one who proved his faith during our recent troubles.
8.Christian Theology . the trust in God and in His promises as made through Christ and the Scriptures by which humans are justified or saved.

Now, which of the above fits what you mean when you say faith?  Now think about that...how does it apply to someone who doesn't have a belief in something.  Could you apply it to someone that doesn't believe in gnomes?

2.belief that is not based on proof: He had faith that the hypothesis would be substantiated by fact.

All of you Atheists on here have faith that there is no God. Can you prove it? No. Can I prove there is a God? No. We have faith. Faith in different things, but non the less faith.

That's my definition of faith Whitney. My tone wasn't meant to be snotty. Perhaps you just took it that way because I'm a Christian. Sorry if you took it as snotty

Quote2.belief that is not based on proof

Not believing in garden gnomes or believing that Superman is real isn't faith. That's just stupid because it CAN be proven that Superman is fictional and garden gnomes are real. I assume you mean the plastic gnomes. To the man who said why not believe in something more fun, why don't you believe in something more fun? Because you think Atheism is perfect for you, I believe Christianity is perfect for me. That's why I believe in it.

Quote from: "Tank"

Quote from: "ChristianWarrior"

Quote from: "Tank"I'm confused    didn't you just say goodbye?

Only for a little while I was leaving. I had to go do stuff, but now I'm back. That was just meant to show that I wasn't going to be on for a while.

You're not behaving like you're particularly 'forum savvy', not a criticism just an observation. May I offer some suggestions that might make your time here a little more comfortable?

Quote from: "ChristianWarrior"As long as they're polite, then yes, go right ahead.

1) Stick with one thread. You're going to get a lot of feedback and giving effective replies to multiple posts in multiple threads will be unnecessarily difficult because this is no a sprint, it's potentially a marathon so pacing yourself would be good.

2) Tell has about yourself, not your beliefs, you. Many people like you come to atheist forums for various reasons and they do what you have done, lead with their faith. I frankly they don't get taken seriously. Trust is what is required if friendship is to develop, disclosure is one of the cornerstones of trust. Tell us about yourself, whatever you feel comfortable with.

3) I don't see you as your ideas, most people here are of a similar frame of mind. What you hold dear, we don't, so things you hold as a given we will rip apart and expect you to have answers. If you don't have answers you're rather on a hiding to nothing.

And as McQ pointed out do your very best to chill out and not take things personally. That's difficult.

Good luck.

Quote from: "ChristianWarrior"2.belief that is not based on proof: He had faith that the hypothesis would be substantiated by fact.

All of you Atheists on here have faith that there is no God. Can you prove it? No. Can I prove there is a God? No. We have faith. Faith in different things, but non the less faith.

That's my definition of faith Whitney. My tone wasn't meant to be snotty. Perhaps you just took it that way because I'm a Christian. Sorry if you took it as snotty

Quote2.belief that is not based on proof

Not believing in garden gnomes or believing that Superman is real isn't faith. That's just stupid because it CAN be proven that Superman is fictional and garden gnomes are real. I assume you mean the plastic gnomes. To the man who said why not believe in something more fun, why don't you believe in something more fun? Because you think Atheism is perfect for you, I believe Christianity is perfect for me. That's why I believe in it.

I do not have "faith" that their is not a God (what even makes you think there is just one?), no evidence for any God/Gods exist - so by that I take the stance that none do.

I can not disprove any Gods exists nor can I disprove there is a flying teapot around the sun, but is that enough reason to believe in the flying teapot? Of course not. If you take the position that it is justifiable to believe in everything that can not be disproved, why stop at god?

That is the problem, your faith works for you, it does not work for reality. Start from reality instead of wishful thinking.

I hope this is helping in clearing things up about Atheists for you.  

Quote from: "ChristianWarrior"I'm not trying to convert anyone Whitney, I'm just asking a question.I get why you don't want to believe in a god (There's nothing wrong with being faithful to your own religion or rather being faithful to not believing in a religion), but why do SOME of you on here treat not believing in God as fact and not faith?

I treat is as neither fact or faith, as I'm sure most atheists do. Because the lack of faith is not, by definition, faith. The lack of water is not water. The lack of a belief in a god is not a belief.

Please refer to my post where I quoted Ricky Gervais, I'd provide my own example (yet again), it's just this misconception of what the word atheist means and that atheists believe certain things is kind of old.

Quote from: "ChristianWarrior"2.belief that is not based on proof: He had faith that the hypothesis would be substantiated by fact.

All of you Atheists on here have faith that there is no God. Can you prove it? No. Can I prove there is a God? No. We have faith. Faith in different things, but non the less faith.

That's my definition of faith Whitney. My tone wasn't meant to be snotty. Perhaps you just took it that way because I'm a Christian. Sorry if you took it as snotty

Quote2.belief that is not based on proof

Not believing in garden gnomes or believing that Superman is real isn't faith. That's just stupid because it CAN be proven that Superman is fictional and garden gnomes are real. I assume you mean the plastic gnomes. To the man who said why not believe in something more fun, why don't you believe in something more fun? Because you think Atheism is perfect for you, I believe Christianity is perfect for me. That's why I believe in it.

There are a lot of very strong arguments about this issue - rational ones, where logic and rationality really do win the day, however let me suggest a slightly different approach.

I don't believe in a god because I have no reason to, ok? Prove to me I am wrong in my belief.

Quote from: "Baggy"

Quote from: "ChristianWarrior"2.belief that is not based on proof: He had faith that the hypothesis would be substantiated by fact.

All of you Atheists on here have faith that there is no God. Can you prove it? No. Can I prove there is a God? No. We have faith. Faith in different things, but non the less faith.

That's my definition of faith Whitney. My tone wasn't meant to be snotty. Perhaps you just took it that way because I'm a Christian. Sorry if you took it as snotty

Quote2.belief that is not based on proof

Not believing in garden gnomes or believing that Superman is real isn't faith. That's just stupid because it CAN be proven that Superman is fictional and garden gnomes are real. I assume you mean the plastic gnomes. To the man who said why not believe in something more fun, why don't you believe in something more fun? Because you think Atheism is perfect for you, I believe Christianity is perfect for me. That's why I believe in it.

There are a lot of very strong arguments about this issue - rational ones, where logic and rationality really do win the day, however let me suggest a slightly different approach.

I don't believe in a god because I have no reason to, ok? Prove to me I am wrong in my belief.

Which is perfectly fine. You're entitled to not believing in a god(s). My point is that it isn't ok to act and say that that's fact though. Which only applies to some people on this board, not all.

Quote from: "ChristianWarrior"I don't pretend that I can or believing in God and God's powers is at all factual. Believing in God is purely being faithful and nothing more. However, some of you on here are acting like not believing in a God is factual when it's the same exact concept as believing in God. It's all being faithful, so I would appreciate you people not acting like it's fact. Or you can continue to bath in your own ignorance.

ChristianWarrior, I think it would be great if there was a god or gods. That provided me with unconditional love and help guide me in this life and provided me with eternal happiness in the after life or even reincarnation. There are many, many theories of gods out there, some which have become more popular today and some which are less popular today. Reading and hearing about some of the ideologies of some of the faiths out there I have major concerns with regards to the "love" that is being taught and encouraged by these faiths. I have read that the Orthodoxy won't let its followers marry non Christians. That they want a childless pregnant woman in medical difficulties to die rather than terminate a life threatening pregnancy, I hear the non tolerance that many faiths have towards other faiths or non faiths, I hear the non tolerance faiths have towards people based on gender, sexual preferences, I hear faith leaders advise people in high risk countries not to use protection when having sex.
This is certainly not aligned to my tolerant, loving and peacefull values.
Unless someone can prove to me that a certain god exists and that there are negative consequences of not adhering to the faith rules, I will stick to my own well thought out and tolerant values.

Quote from: "ChristianWarrior"Not believing in garden gnomes or believing that Superman is real isn't faith. That's just stupid because it CAN be proven that Superman is fictional and garden gnomes are real. I assume you mean the plastic gnomes. To the man who said why not believe in something more fun, why don't you believe in something more fun? Because you think Atheism is perfect for you, I believe Christianity is perfect for me. That's why I believe in it.

Prove that Superman isn't real. Prove that nowhere in this possibly infinite universe exists or existed a person by the name of Kal El (Or Kal L, or Clark Kent, or just Superman) who has is the last son of a planet called Krypton and has a myriad of super powers which he uses to fight crime in garishly coloured tights.

Whoever said that I was an atheist? If I had to quantify my belief I'd say I was more or less a three on the dawkins scale... A weak theist.

I'm assuming you overlooked my Eclectic Pagan worldview, and just assumed I was an atheist due to my being on an atheist forum.

Quote from: "ChristianWarrior"Which is perfectly fine. You're entitled to not believing in a god(s). My point is that it isn't ok to act and say that that's fact though. Which only applies to some people on this board, not all.

Then it would help that you not address all atheists when you really only want to address strong atheists.  You read the link I posted to the theists area of the board "what is an atheist"...right?

Good grief, ChristianWarrior, you've just figured it out for yourself, but you don't see it.

The fact that you say "I can't prove that God exists." means that it's stupid to believe in it.

Quote from: "dloubet"Good grief, ChristianWarrior, you've just figured it out for yourself, but you don't see it.

The fact that you say "I can't prove that God exists." means that it's stupid to believe in it.

Meh, I can´t even prove that I exist.

BTW, Byronazriel: Pwnage.

Quote from: "ChristianWarrior"Which is perfectly fine. You're entitled to not believing in a god(s). My point is that it isn't ok to act and say that that's fact though. Which only applies to some people on this board, not all.

Not many I fancy. Even Dawkins takes the position of 'there is almost certainly no god' and a lot of atheists view themselves in terms of what sort of percentage their view is - I would say I am a 98% atheist for example. I don't actually 'know' of course and probably never will unless, to my astonishment something spectacular, totally irrational and illogical happens when I stop breathing and die.

Of course once we get past that issue there is the knotty issue of whose god is the correct version. The Roman pantheon? No of course not. Allah? Hm...maybe? Yahweh? The vengeful god of the old testament? The god who is all love..

And then there's the dogma. How many angels actually *can* sit on the top of a pin?

It really isn't sensible or in the least likely that there are gods.

Quote from: "Byronazriel"Prove that Superman isn't real. Prove that nowhere in this possibly infinite universe exists or existed a person by the name of Kal El (Or Kal L, or Clark Kent, or just Superman) who has is the last son of a planet called Krypton and has a myriad of super powers which he uses to fight crime in garishly coloured tights.

The universe would be so much cooler if Superman was real.

I could actually participate in a Superman church.  No one would believe Superman was real.  We would just wish that he was, and then, in our personal lives, we would do our best to manifest the Superman ideal, using our non-super powers for the good of humanity.  A perfectly workable religion could be built out of this.  Faith in nothing.  Hope in the Superman way.

ChristianWarrior, the existence of God can neither be proved nor disproved 100%.  As an atheist, I recognize that there is a chance that God exists.  The odds for that depend on the working definition of "God".  The chance that Christianity has it right - that Jesus is the son of God, born of the Virgin Mary, died for our sins, and ascended into heaven - is theoretically possible, but so incredibly unlikely, in my opinion, that I disregard the possibility.  The chance that there is a personal god - an intelligent entity who is aware of each of us and intervenes on Earth and/or offers eternal life - is somewhat more likely - but still extremely unlikely.  The odds that there is an intelligent entity that created the universe but does not intervene in our lives - the Deist god - is much more likely but in my view still not very - and besides, if a Deist god does exist, it wouldn't matter whether we believed or not, anyway.

The odds that a religious person believes in his or her God because he was born into the faith by accident of his parents' homeland and his parents' religion, and that he or she believes in God mostly because that's what he or she was taught and because the belief is comforting - those odds are extremely high.

Quote from: "Inevitable Droid"I could actually participate in a Superman church.  No one would believe Superman was real.  We would just wish that he was, and then, in our personal lives, we would do our best to manifest the Superman ideal, using our non-super powers for the good of humanity.  A perfectly workable religion could be built out of this.  Faith in nothing.  Hope in the Superman way.

Belief in Superman could lead to a decline in aircraft maintenance.
Belief in Superman could lead to self-consciousness in people fearing ex-ray vision perverts.
Belief in Superman could make human achievement seem less significant.
Belief in Superman could lead to an unsightly increase in the use of lycra suits.

Would I get to wear a cape if I went to Superman church?

I assume you'd have to be a clergyman to wear the cape, otherwise it'd cheapen it.

To the other points: Superman would be dissapointed in people if they thought that way, except for the tights thing. Then he'd recommend working out.

Quote from: "Byronazriel"I assume you'd have to be a clergyman to wear the cape, otherwise it'd cheapen it.

To the other points: Superman would be dissapointed in people if they thought that way, except for the tights thing. Then he'd recommend working out.

But Byron, aren't we always destined to disappoint our gods?
(Says the pudding with a wistful faraway look in his eyes.)

It's his fault though, the the bastard should have made us right in the first place.

Hey ChristianWarrior, does the god you're asking us to disprove provide any testable claims?

Is it the god that says its followers can drink any poison without ill effect?
Or is it the one that says followers can move mountains through prayer alone?
Or maybe the one that says it will give whatever two or more followers ask for?
Or the one that says it freed the Hebrew slaves from Egyptian bondage?
Or the one that says the freed slaves wandered the desert for 40 years?
Or the one that says the dead rose from their graves and walked around when its son was killed?
Or the one that says it caused a worldwide flood?

These things, and more, are all testable. Which god do you want disproven first?

Re: the Christian guy. I was once a Christian, I'm not about to bash you or your beliefs, I understand they're something you hold dear. But consider this...

-Existence is defined as energy and matter in the scientific community
-Humans say that god exists
-But they have yet to prove his possession of energy or matter
-So scientifically, he doesn't exist.
 You could technically say, that his way are "higher" than ours, and that he lives in an alternate dimension or something. But until we see it proven, why should anyone believe it? If his way is higher than ours, than we are all truly agnostic, and aren't capable of knowing god, therefore a-religious.

Quote from: "blindshock19"Re: the Christian guy. I was once a Christian, I'm not about to bash you or your beliefs, I understand they're something you hold dear. But consider this...

-Existence is defined as energy and matter in the scientific community
-Humans say that god exists
-But they have yet to prove his possession of energy or matter
-So scientifically, he doesn't exist.
 You could technically say, that his way are "higher" than ours, and that he lives in an alternate dimension or something. But until we see it proven, why should anyone believe it? If his way is higher than ours, than we are all truly agnostic, and aren't capable of knowing god, therefore a-religious.

Welcome to the forum, Blindshock. Our friend the Christianwarrior is not around anymore. Thanks for taking time to try and reach out to him.

In my opinion, everybody who's answered this thread, with the exception of the odd theist, is an agnostic, not an atheist.  You have all put forward the argument that the existence of God cannot be proved and for that reason they don't believe in him.  This is a classic agnostic position.  An atheist, in my opinion, is someone who believes there isn't a god of any kind.  The Dawkins categorisations and the strong/weak atheist definitions are just ways of deconstructing atheism, not clarifying it.

What passes for rationality depends totally on a mind state that is impossible for human beings to achieve - that mind state being objectivity.  The model of objective testing of hypotheses is useful in the science lab, but cannot be applied to human experiences which science cannot test.  The existence of God is one of them.  As human beings we are subjective.  We can only know things from the basis of our own individual experience.  Christians think that there is a God - something greater than each of us which has greater knowledge, wisdom and awareness than any one of us.  In this sense, Christians hold objectivity dear, since they subordinate their subjectivity to a greater objective being who has an independent existence outside of themselves.  Rationalist agnostics also hold objectivity dear, applying the scientific method to all kinds of things which cannot be tested in controlled conditions.  They also hold that there is an objective truth - a point of view that can only be envisaged outside of themselves.  

In these respects, Christians and Agnostic Rationalists ('Atheists', as they sometimes like to call themselves) are very alike - they both submit to an external objectivity.  It is not surprising that they go at each other hammer and tongs, because they are both trying to secure control of the same limited territory.  True atheists, on the other hand, people who take responsibility for examining all the consequences of the position that God does not exist, take no part in the 'proof' argument.  It is redundant, since all proof depends on the ability to take an objective viewpoint, which we can only model, we cannot actually do.  

Therefore the biggest question for an atheist - one who believes there is no god - is what would you do if you were presented with a valid proof of the existence of God?  The answer is that it would make no difference to a true atheist.  Yes, we might spend a bit of time plotting to overthrow this upstart God in irritation at his vexatious existence, but that wouldn't be our primary reaction.  Our primary reaction would be indifference, since the existence of God can't make any difference to our subjective experience.

The existence or non-existence of God is therefore irrelevant to our human experience.

Quote from: "Existentialist"In my opinion, everybody who's answered this thread, with the exception of the odd theist, is an agnostic, not an atheist.  You have all put forward the argument that the existence of God cannot be proved and for that reason they don't believe in him.  This is a classic agnostic position.  An atheist, in my opinion, is someone who believes there isn't a god of any kind.  The Dawkins categorisations and the strong/weak atheist definitions are just ways of deconstructing atheism, not clarifying it.

Theism has to do with belief, gnosticism has to do with knowledge. There's gnostic athiests, agnostic theists, and vice verse.

QuoteTherefore the biggest question for an atheist - one who believes there is no god - is what would you do if you were presented with a valid proof of the existence of God?  The answer is that it would make no difference to a true atheist.  Yes, we might spend a bit of time plotting to overthrow this upstart God in irritation at his vexatious existence, but that wouldn't be our primary reaction.  Our primary reaction would be indifference, since the existence of God can't make any difference to our subjective experience.

The existence or non-existence of God is therefore irrelevant to our human experience.

What you're describing is apatheism, but really it sounds more like flat earth atheism mixed with a bit of no true scotsman.

Quote from: "Byronazriel"Theism has to do with belief

Not really.  Theism is to do with God.  Belief and disbelief are subsets of that, not the other way around.

Quotegnosticism has to do with knowledge.

Well not really.  I never link to Wikipedia on principle but I think the Gnostic Archive (http://www.gnosis.org/gnintro) webpage sums up gnosticism.  There are major pitfalls in simply dropping the prefix 'a' from agnosticism and thinking we have come up with its logical opposite, which is why I never use the word.  Gnosticism is a religious movement.  In that sense a 'gnostic atheist' is a very misleading description.  Furthermore, while I take the stance that there is no God, I do not presume to know it.  I realise this will probably make me agnostic about my gnosticism in your eyes, I just don't see why I have to accept a word like gnostic which obviously means something profoundly religious to a lot of people.

QuoteWhat you're describing is apatheism

No, what you're describing is apatheism.  What I'm describing is atheism - the denial of the existence of god.

Quotereally it sounds more like flat earth atheism mixed with a bit of no true scotsman

Now, you've lost me.  Everyone knows the earth is round, they have done since ancient times.  And there's no need to bring Scotland into this.  Even I won't stoop that low!

I've never heard theism described or defined without belief. Theism is the belief in at least one god, it's as simple as that.

Quote from: "Existentialist"The answer is that it would make no difference to a true atheist.

Looks a lot like the fallacious argument in question.

If a god was proven to exist, and you were still an atheist. That makes you a flat earth atheist. In other words in denial despite irrefutable evidence.

(https://www.happyatheistforum.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fstatic.tvtropes.org%2Fpmwiki%2Fpub%2Fimages%2Fexist.jpg&hash=b8bcbdc28ff95dab38c9c4a5fc3b7af3c3bc6f1b)

Unless you're actually arguing more towards Nay Theism. http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/NayTheist

So you understand my point about gnosticism being a religion, then?  If we're going to go down the ruthless logic route, we both need to do it.

Quote from: "Existentialist"True atheists, on the other hand, people who take responsibility for examining all the consequences of the position that God does not exist, take no part in the 'proof' argument.  It is redundant, since all proof depends on the ability to take an objective viewpoint, which we can only model, we cannot actually do.

So then why do you believe there's no God?  Oh, and first, how do you define God?  Also, you self-identify as Existentialist.  How do you relate that to your atheism?

QuoteTherefore the biggest question for an atheist - one who believes there is no god - is what would you do if you were presented with a valid proof of the existence of God?

In my opinion what you ought to do is instantly become a theist.  That's what I would do.  

QuoteThe answer is that it would make no difference to a true atheist.  Yes, we might spend a bit of time plotting to overthrow this upstart God in irritation at his vexatious existence, but that wouldn't be our primary reaction.  Our primary reaction would be indifference, since the existence of God can't make any difference to our subjective experience.

Why not?  This harkens back to your definition of God.

QuoteThe existence or non-existence of God is therefore irrelevant to our human experience.

If the Abrahamist God existed it would be enormously relevant.  Insanely malevolent, and frighteningly relevant.

What's the point in being stubbornly faithful to being a "true atheist"?

It's been a bit surprising. I've stated a number of times here that I can disprove the Abrahamic God but haven't gotten so much as a funny look.

Quote from: "Sophus"It's been a bit surprising. I've stated a number of times here that I can disprove the Abrahamic God but haven't gotten so much as a funny look.

Now you've gotten one!
 

(https://www.happyatheistforum.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fhaha.nu%2Ffiles%2Fuploads%2F2009%2Fthe-smiling-crested-auklet%2Ffunnybird.jpg&hash=d8fd1b6392d641ec23ee85355921e3e9c96869a3)

Quote from: "Inevitable Droid"If the Abrahamist God existed it would be enormously relevant.  Insanely malevolent, and frighteningly relevant.

Given that it could decide on a whim to kill a group of people simply to prove its existence or even it could decide to wipe out all but a chosen few and to start again. We could take two approaches.
1. Bow down to it, worship it and unquestionly obey its rules.
2. Work out a way to kill or disable it as a threat.

Quote from: "Stevil"Given that it could decide on a whim to kill a group of people simply to prove its existence or even it could decide to wipe out all but a chosen few and to start again. We could take two approaches.
1. Bow down to it, worship it and unquestionly obey its rules.
2. Work out a way to kill or disable it as a threat.

And since the damn thing can read your mind, you couldn't even pretend to be obeying while secretly planning a coup.

The good news is, if the Abrahamic God exists, then Satan probably does too.  Hopefully he's recruiting.

Quote from: "Stevil"Given that it could decide on a whim to kill a group of people simply to prove its existence or even it could decide to wipe out all but a chosen few and to start again. We could take two approaches.
1. Bow down to it, worship it and unquestionly obey its rules.
2. Work out a way to kill or disable it as a threat.

Exactly.  And in the case of Approach #2,  what we label ourselves in the process is really quite an unimportant detail.

Quote from: "Whitney"What's the point in being stubbornly faithful to being a "true atheist"?

I use these terms (like atheist) relatively loosely, it's what a person means by them that matters, not the word itself.  The world of demanding that people accept the definitions of agnostic atheist, apatheist, gnostic atheist and all the rest brings a process of forcing people into a logical process that kills off free thought.  Free thought depends on people being able to define their own concepts, if necessary using existing words, not to accept a framework of linguistic logic of someone else's invention.  So I'm not stubbornly 'faithful' to being a true atheist (how loaded a question did you think you could get away with?) - but in the context of when I said that, my point was entirely relevant and you know exactly what I meant, i.e. a person who believes there is no god.  And incidentally I would go even further in defining my atheism - the introduction of the concept of 'belief' actually confuses it a lot - and if you accept an atheist as being someone who denies the existence of god, which is a commonly-used definition, we can dispense with the concept of belief altogether.  

This is important because if we're not careful an atheist agenda very quickly becomes a solely rationalist agenda - one which only believes what there is evidence to believe and applies the scientific method to everything in their life, not just to scientific processes in the laboratory.  The problem is that this kind of rationalism is oppressive.  Far from being a recent invention it is the basis of enlightenment rationalism - which brought many advantages but developed alongside and in many ways in a complementary way to both capitalism and modern religion, albeit with some notable exceptions during the compromise-seeking phase of the enlightenment, for example Galileo's excommunication.  To fail to see the risks associated with inheriting this kind of rationalism is to place ourselves in a vulnerable position to the authoritarianism of capitalism and the ruling elite, who are well versed in using rationalism as a propaganda weapon.  The symbolic consequence of it is the atheist who in the afterlife, on discovering a convincing proof of the existence of god, immediately loses all independent thought and sinks to his knees worshipping Him.  I'd go for the Molotov cocktail approach, personally.  

Quote from: "Inevitable Droid"So then why do you believe there's no God? Oh, and first, how do you define God? Also, you self-identify as Existentialist. How do you relate that to your atheism?

God is an old bloke with a long beard who sits on a cloud.  Metaphorically, anyway.  Why I believe there is no God is a really irrelevant question.  To be an atheist you only need to disbelieve (or deny, in my case).  Asking why is really off-topic.  I know it isn't off-topic really but you get my drift.  There is nothing about being an atheist that imposes any obligation whatsoever to justify one's belief.  As it happens, the reason I take the stance that there is no God is probably to do with the same reasons all you agnostics disbelieve in Him - ie, you can't see any evidence or proof.  But that's only part of the story.  It seems to me that the way God is used to bolster authoritarianism means that his original invention was probably for political reasons, basically to keep people down.  That's enough for me to make the leap.  My existentialist credentials are probably not rooted so much in the writings of the great existentialists such as Sartre but more in a view that anything that is outside our human experience as individuals cannot be comprehended by us.  Things like death, for example, simply don't exist for us... and as for God, well, he's well and truly stuffed.  

Interestingly, though, when I read some of the works of Jean-Paul Sartre, such as Existentialism is a Humanism (http://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/sartre/works/exist/sartre.htm), I infer that his position also was that God doesn't exist and he came to this conclusion early in life.  He didn't seem to have any problem with the debate about whether he believed god didn't exist or whether he simply didn't believe in God.  Nowadays this debate seems to evoke the strongest emotions.  I think the reason why what I call agnosticism, and what some others call (bizarrely to me) agnostic atheism is the decline of the Left and a general shift to the right across the whole of capitalist civilisation.  I can elaborate on this for anyone who would like me to.

Quote from: "Inevitable Droid"And since the damn thing can read your mind, you couldn't even pretend to be obeying while secretly planning a coup.

The good news is, if the Abrahamic God exists, then Satan probably does too.  Hopefully he's recruiting.

Leaving aside the fact that the Devil seems to have become the good guy in this scenario, it seems to me the question is not so much whether God exists, it's more at what point do you lose your individuality if he does?  Those who sink to their knees and worship lose it instantly, those who put up some resistance go through a more painful and dare I say punishing process.  Are we talking about the existence of God, or the loss of self?

Quote from: "Existentialist"In my opinion, everybody who's answered this thread, with the exception of the odd theist, is an agnostic, not an atheist.

Most of us are both. The terms aren't mutually exclusive.

Quote from: "Inevitable Droid"The good news is, if the Abrahamic God exists, then Satan probably does too.  Hopefully he's recruiting.

I have a feeling they are different sides of the same coin. God is Satan, Satan is God. We need to look to our own resources in order to irradicate this beast

Quote from: "Existentialist"Free thought depends on people being able to define their own concepts,

Free thought is not making up whatever you want...

QuoteFreethought is a philosophical viewpoint that holds that opinions should be formed on the basis of science, logic, and reason, and should not be influenced by authority, tradition, or any dogma.[1] The cognitive application of freethought is known as freethinking, and practitioners of freethought are known as freethinkers.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freethought (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freethought)

If you want to just make up meaning for words you probably shouldn't expect anyone to understand what the hell you are trying to say...most of us use the common definitions and are confused by those who misuse words.

Quotehow loaded a question did you think you could get away with?

Don't know what you mean here...my question wasn't loaded and there isn't anything to get away with.

Quotebut in the context of when I said that, my point was entirely relevant and you know exactly what I meant, i.e. a person who believes there is no god.  

You at the very least implied that a "true atheist" would reject god despite proof.  So, no, I didn't know what you meant and still don't because you don't like to use words properly.

Quoteand if you accept an atheist as being someone who denies the existence of god, which is a commonly-used definition, we can dispense with the concept of belief altogether.  

It's also common use to mean someone who doesn't believe in god (ie one who is not a theist); which is different from deny.

QuoteThis is important because if we're not careful an atheist agenda very quickly becomes a solely rationalist agenda - one which only believes what there is evidence to believe and applies the scientific method to everything in their life, not just to scientific processes in the laboratory

.  

huh?  There is no atheist agenda...

QuoteThe problem is that this kind of rationalism is oppressive.  Far from being a recent invention it is the basis of enlightenment rationalism - which brought many advantages but developed alongside and in many ways in a complementary way to both capitalism and modern religion, albeit with some notable exceptions during the compromise-seeking phase of the enlightenment, for example Galileo's excommunication.  To fail to see the risks associated with inheriting this kind of rationalism is to place ourselves in a vulnerable position to the authoritarianism of capitalism and the ruling elite, who are well versed in using rationalism as a propaganda weapon.  

So you are saying we should discover truth without evidence or reason?  We do that how exactly?  That doesn't sound like a good idea...what does science and enlightenment thought have to do with capitalism?  I'm not seeing where the dots are being connected.

QuoteThe symbolic consequence of it is the atheist who in the afterlife, on discovering a convincing proof of the existence of god, immediately loses all independent thought and sinks to his knees worshipping Him.

There is no logical reason for why someone who only accepts evidence based truth would suddenly start to worship a god they found out to be real.  They could still decide there is no need to worship it, decide they hate it etc.  And who's to say that if a god were real that it would have a gender let alone be male...are you stuck only on worrying about if the Judeo-Christian god exists?

Quote from: "Existentialist"The world of demanding that people accept the definitions of agnostic atheist, apatheist, gnostic atheist and all the rest brings a process of forcing people into a logical process that kills off free thought.  Free thought depends on people being able to define their own concepts, if necessary using existing words, not to accept a framework of linguistic logic of someone else's invention.

Three comments:
1. If I use a word without offering a definition, I have to expect people to interpret the word as it's commonly used.
2. If I offer a specific definition so people know how I'm using the word, this is generally effective and efficient.
3. In some contexts, some words are such a part of the framework that offering idiosyncratic definitions will tend to hinder rather than facilitate communication.  In the context of this message board, atheist is such a word, as is agnostic and also apatheist.  

QuoteAnd incidentally I would go even further in defining my atheism - the introduction of the concept of 'belief' actually confuses it a lot - and if you accept an atheist as being someone who denies the existence of god, which is a commonly-used definition, we can dispense with the concept of belief altogether.

Why do you deny God?  

QuoteThis is important because if we're not careful an atheist agenda very quickly becomes a solely rationalist agenda - one which only believes what there is evidence to believe and applies the scientific method to everything in their life, not just to scientific processes in the laboratory.

In my case atheism is in fact the direct result of only believing what there is evidence for, and applying the scientific method to everything in life.

QuoteThe problem is that this kind of rationalism is oppressive.

I don't find it so.  More on this below.

QuoteFar from being a recent invention it is the basis of enlightenment rationalism - which brought many advantages but developed alongside and in many ways in a complementary way to both capitalism and modern religion, albeit with some notable exceptions during the compromise-seeking phase of the enlightenment, for example Galileo's excommunication.  To fail to see the risks associated with inheriting this kind of rationalism is to place ourselves in a vulnerable position to the authoritarianism of capitalism and the ruling elite, who are well versed in using rationalism as a propaganda weapon.

How does rationalism become a propaganda weapon?  I tend to view emotionalism as the province of propaganda.  Rationalism is aligned with skepticism, which is tbe bane of all propagandists.

QuoteThe symbolic consequence of it is the atheist who in the afterlife, on discovering a convincing proof of the existence of god, immediately loses all independent thought and sinks to his knees worshipping Him.  I'd go for the Molotov cocktail approach, personally.

Depends on what sort of God we're talking about.
 

QuoteGod is an old bloke with a long beard who sits on a cloud.  Metaphorically, anyway.

I have to ask again how you define God.  I can't interpret your various comments without that definition established.

QuoteThere is nothing about being an atheist that imposes any obligation whatsoever to justify one's belief.

Why do you say that?  I would have said that all beliefs must be justified.

I'll stop here as I would only end up repeating questions I've already asked.

Thanks for your reply Whitney.  It's rather snappy and not a little angry in tone.  I hope I can defuse this a little.

Quote from: "Whitney"

Quote from: "Existentialist"Free thought depends on people being able to define their own concepts,

Free thought is not making up whatever you want...

QuoteFreethought is a philosophical viewpoint that holds that opinions should be formed on the basis of science, logic, and reason, and should not be influenced by authority, tradition, or any dogma.[1] The cognitive application of freethought is known as freethinking, and practitioners of freethought are known as freethinkers.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freethought (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freethought)

I think you're talking about freethought, which appears to be something very specific.  I'm talking about free thought, note the space between 'free' and 'thought', which indicates that the free thinker is free to think anything he or she wants.   Therefore I don't see any reason to refer to your Wikipedia link, I can't learn anything about free thought from it really.  Besides which, can anybody really learn anything about atheism from Wikipedia?  The editing process leads to a lowest-common-denominator kind of explanation for everything which allows for little or no dissent.  It really is not a very good source, I tend not to use it myself.

It is however useful to have a forum like this one, which respects everyone's right to think what they want and to express and share those thoughts with others.  I agree it can be frustrating when others do not agree with one's terms or one's definitions, but I support people's freedom to express such disagreement.  Do you?

QuoteIf you want to just make up meaning for words you probably shouldn't expect anyone to understand what the hell you are trying to say...most of us use the common definitions and are confused by those who misuse words.

Now, there's really no need to bring hell into this.  That really is a rather theistic mode of drama and I would suggest rather inappropriate for at atheist forum.  I know I've done it myself but I always admit it openly and am rather tongue in cheek about it.  Your use of the expression makes you sound angry in a theistic fire-and-brimstone sort of way, which rather negates the point you're trying to make.  As it happens you seem to be saying that words must only be used according to what the majority of people think they mean.  This sounds to me a bit like the Wikipedia fallacy I alluded to earlier.  I'm interested in what people think, not what they're forced to say by externally-defined ideas.

Quote from: "Existentialist"how loaded a question did you think you could get away with?

Quote from: "Whitney"Don't know what you mean here...my question wasn't loaded and there isn't anything to get away with.

In that case, thanks for the opportunity to explain myself.  I found your question quite loaded, mainly because it contained an accusation of stubbornness against me, which wasn't warranted.  I had only used the expression "true atheist" the once, so yes, I do think it was somewhat loaded, but you can be defensive about that if you want, I'm all for freedom of speech!

Quote from: "Existentialist"but in the context of when I said that, my point was entirely relevant and you know exactly what I meant, i.e. a person who believes there is no god.

Quote from: "Whitney"You at the very least implied that a "true atheist" would reject god despite proof.  So, no, I didn't know what you meant and still don't because you don't like to use words properly.  

On the contrary, I like to use words as a tool for expressing my underlying concepts.  This is what I think is the right way of to "use words properly".  As Richard Dawkins has said many times, words are our servants, not our masters.  If you are having trouble understanding the underlying concepts I am trying to express then by all means ask me to elaborate further, I am always open to debate as a way of expressing my real meaning.  But I'm not bound by your or anyone else's definitions.  I recognise that this conflict seems to come up rather regularly in atheist circles, and I can only assume it is another symptom of the rationalist adherence to the concept of objectively-stated truth, in this case the 'usual definition' of words or some such supposedly objective position.  In reality there is no objectivity, though we do often submit to the method of modelling an illusion of objectivity as a way of establishing scientific data.  This method is less relevant to philosophical questions.

The underlying concept of atheism I alluded to did indeed reject god despite proof.  Whether you meant it or not, you yourself excluded the component of belief from your sentence above.  I tend to think atheism is about the complete rejection of God, certainly the denial of His existence - even if a valid proof of his existence is presented.  What you need to do is to show me how and why the rejection of the belief in god is an essential criterion for describing someone as an atheist.  I don't see that.  I think the act of denial of his existence is enough.  Questions of proof are not atheist questions - they are something else: questions of rationality, questions of science, but not questions about the rejection of God.

Quote from: "Existentialist"and if you accept an atheist as being someone who denies the existence of god, which is a commonly-used definition, we can dispense with the concept of belief altogether.  

Quote from: "Whitney"It's also common use to mean someone who doesn't believe in god (ie one who is not a theist); which is different from deny.

I agree also that it's common to mean someone who doesn't believe in god, but that doesn't mean it's wrong to describe someone who denies the existence of God as an 'atheist'.  Indeed, it is quite legitimate for such a person to reject the idea that people who merely 'don't believe' in God are atheists.  If a person's atheism is something personal to them, the individual, then in their thoughts they must be free to define atheism in their own way.  If you don't want such people to share their thoughts publicly I suppose you have the power to stop them.  That would be a shame, if you really were a believer in free thought.  If you believe that people aren't allowed to make up whatever they want though, you might decide to become more censorious, but that in turn depends on how much trust you have in the human being as an individual.  I hope you make the right choice.

Quote from: "Existentialist"This is important because if we're not careful an atheist agenda very quickly becomes a solely rationalist agenda - one which only believes what there is evidence to believe and applies the scientific method to everything in their life, not just to scientific processes in the laboratory

Quote from: "Whitney"huh?  There is no atheist agenda...

True, but that wasn't the point I was making.  Would it help if I rephrased this to say 'This is important, because if we're not careful, being an atheist very quickly means being just a rationalist - a person who only believes what there is evidence to believe and applies the scientific method to everything in their life, not just to scientific processes in the laboratory'.  Or would that elicit another "huh?", from which I detect quite a lot of attitude coming from your version of atheism - attitude directed at other atheists, no less!

Quote from: "Existentialist"The problem is that this kind of rationalism is oppressive.  Far from being a recent invention it is the basis of enlightenment rationalism - which brought many advantages but developed alongside and in many ways in a complementary way to both capitalism and modern religion, albeit with some notable exceptions during the compromise-seeking phase of the enlightenment, for example Galileo's excommunication.  To fail to see the risks associated with inheriting this kind of rationalism is to place ourselves in a vulnerable position to the authoritarianism of capitalism and the ruling elite, who are well versed in using rationalism as a propaganda weapon.

Quote from: "Whitney"So you are saying we should discover truth without evidence or reason?  We do that how exactly?  That doesn't sound like a good idea...what does science and enlightenment thought have to do with capitalism?  I'm not seeing where the dots are being connected.

Nope I'm not saying that.  Firstly I would say there's no such thing as truth - not objective truth anyway.  Objective truth itself is just a modelled version of truth that we invent based on our subjective experience.  Subjective truth I'm a little warmer to.  I respect an individuals right to express their version of the truth, and while I'm willing to listen to people who say they have no evidence or reason for their truth, usually I find that they do actually have evidence and a reasoning process of some kind.  Often their reasoning is very broadly based, and sometimes it seems plainly wrong, but the thing is my criticism of enlightenment rationalism is that it tends to be based on too narrow a base of reasoning.  In other ways, it is too irrational.  That's the problem I see with concepts like "agnostic atheism".  Their rational base is far too narrow to be taken seriously.

I'm amazed (but not entirely surprised) that a seasoned atheist can ask a question like "What does science and (E)nlightenment thought have to do with capitalism?"  If you're not used to joining these dots, I wouldn't expect you to get it on a first reading necessarily.  But essentially I see the Enlightenment, Science and Capitalism as being close philosophical companions from the 15th/16th Century onwards - admittedly sometimes in conflict, but more often in a complementary, symbiotic relationship with each other.  In Science and Capitalism, the arguments and proofs that are put forward for given courses of action tend to be similarly narrowly constrained: scientifically for quite good reasons, but economically for fairly bad ones in terms of the welfare of ordinary people.  I'm happy to elaborate on this further but it may take another thread.

Quote from: "Existentialist"The symbolic consequence of it is the atheist who in the afterlife, on discovering a convincing proof of the existence of god, immediately loses all independent thought and sinks to his knees worshipping Him.

Quote from: "Whitney"There is no logical reason for why someone who only accepts evidence based truth would suddenly start to worship a god they found out to be real.  They could still decide there is no need to worship it, decide they hate it etc.  And who's to say that if a god were real that it would have a gender let alone be male...are you stuck only on worrying about if the Judeo-Christian god exists?

I agree there's no wholly logical reason why someone would do this. I was just giving one example of the symbolic consequence of the over-dependence on evidence and too narrow a base of reasoning.  Another might be that the former atheist, on discovering that God really exists, might simply join the revolution to oust him.  Which would you do?

Finally, I do not mean to be sexist, but if you can come up with a better shorthand for a personal pronoun for God than "He" I'd be interested.  I'm out to get my ideas across in as few keystrokes as possible, and when comparing "He" with "He, She or It" I'm afraid I tend to resort to the most traditional method, much to my own shame.   I have also tended to capitalise He simply because it makes it easier to break the sentence up and not keep repeating the word 'God' (or 'god', or 'gods', etc etc).  I square all this with my conscience by telling myself I put a lot more effort in arguing against the patriarchal concept of God than half the people who purport to be atheists do, with their off-topic arguments about objective proof and the supremacy of the scientific method!  So no, I'm not stuck only on worrying about the Judeo-Christian god exists, my arguments apply to any god, whether or not you're on speaking terms with him or her.

Quote from: "Inevitable Droid"1. If I use a word without offering a definition, I have to expect people to interpret the word as it's commonly used.

It's just as well then that I offered the definition of an atheist fairly early on then - 'someone who denies the existence of God'.  It looks like I've contributed to this thread in keeping with your first point!

Quote from: "Inevitable Droid"2. If I offer a specific definition so people know how I'm using the word, this is generally effective and efficient.

It's just as well then that I offered the definition of an atheist fairly early on then - 'someone who denies the existence of God'.  It looks like I've contributed to this thread in keeping with your second point!

Quote from: "Inevitable Droid"3. In some contexts, some words are such a part of the framework that offering idiosyncratic definitions will tend to hinder rather than facilitate communication.  In the context of this message board, atheist is such a word, as is agnostic and also apatheist.  

I predict I'm not going to be able to keep to this one I think.  Please define "some", "the framework", and "idiosyncratic".

I must apologise I don't have time to respond to your other points, apart from,

Quote from: "Existentialist"There is nothing about being an atheist that imposes any obligation whatsoever to justify one's belief.

Quote from: "Inevitable Droid"Why do you say that?  I would have said that all beliefs must be justified.

Why 'must' all beliefs be justified?  If someone with a learning disability said they were an atheist but was unable to explain why, would you pack them off to church with all the others?  If someone had a brain stem injury and said they were an atheist, but couldn't move the pencil in their toes quickly enough over the keyboard to explain why, would you wheel them off to church in their gurney immediately?  If someone with normal bodily functions and faculties were to say they were an atheist, but couldn't find the words to properly explain why, would you believe them?  If not, in the latter case, why are you discriminating against able-bodied people?  People can describe themselves how they want: Buddhist, Existentialist, Christian, Muslim, Atheist.  I wouldn't demand that their beliefs 'must' be justified.  Anyone who thinks that such a demand is at the core of being an Atheist is misappropriating atheism.  Atheism does not demand reason.  Even though, as it happens, I think my atheism is more reasonable than most!

I've no objection to anyone setting up a Happy Rationalists' Forum.  Leave Atheist Forums to atheists!

Quote from: "Existentialist"I think you're talking about freethought, which appears to be something very specific.  I'm talking about free thought, note the space between 'free' and 'thought', which indicates that the free thinker is free to think anything he or she wants.

I don't think there is such a thing as complete free thought. Our thoughts are tainted by many things. Notice how there is a generation gap between the thinking of people from different generations. The world is evolving with regards to thought processes, people from the past did not think like we do today.

Quote from: "Existentialist"As it happens you seem to be saying that words must only be used according to what the majority of people think they mean.  This sounds to me a bit like the Wikipedia fallacy I alluded to earlier.  I'm interested in what people think, not what they're forced to say by externally-defined ideas.

Without a common understanding of the language and principles in effect during a dialogue it is near on impossible to understand each other. It would be wise if you know you are differing from the commonly known definition to then state what your definition is otherwise there will be much confusion and ultimately the debate will end up focusing on the definition of the word (if this misunderstanding of definition comes to light at all) but by then the main point is lost, the debaters are emotional and simply want to stop debating.

Quote from: "Existentialist"a person who believes there is no god.

An atheist is a person who lacks a belief in a god. This does not mean they believe there is no god.


You also use the terms "reject" and "deny" with regards to god/s. Personally I would expect this to come from a theist whose starting point is that their god exists and to not accept that would be a rejection or denial. From my atheist stand point the starting point is that there is no god/s and hence no rejection or denial is necessary. I have simply put the theories into the large pile of "to be confirmed".

Denying that gods exist, when they can be/have been proven to exist, is called flat earth atheism. Aheism is the lack of belief in gods. All flat earth atheists are atheists, but not all atheists are of the flat earth variety. Simple as that.

"Agnosticism is the view that the truth of claims relating to god or gods are unknown or unknowable, and non-agnosticim is the opposite position. Namely that they can be, or are known." - Wikipedia.

"Nay Theists are niether atheists or agnostic, they are well aware of the existence of the Gods (or God), and freely admit it; they just refuse to worship them, or to "believe" in them in any strong Spiritual sense beyond merely acknowledging the fact of their existence." -TvTropes.

Quote from: "Stevil"I don't think there is such a thing as complete free thought. Our thoughts are tainted by many things. Notice how there is a generation gap between the thinking of people from different generations. The world is evolving with regards to thought processes, people from the past did not think like we do today.

I don't know what people thought generations ago.  I don't have a telephone line to the 10th century, or any other era, unfortunately.  I don't know if they thought like we did today or not.  Thoughts can only exist in the minds of living people.  Dead people don't have thoughts to convey.  By all means speculate about what they thought - but accept that these are your thoughts, not theirs.  

By free thought I mean a person has the freedom to think without direct interference from anyone else.  I'm a strong advocate of that - are you?

Quote from: "Stevil"Without a common understanding of the language and principles in effect during a dialogue it is near on impossible to understand each other.

I agree, if two participants to a conversation don't find a common understanding, they won't understand each other.  

Quote from: "Stevil"It would be wise if you know you are differing from the commonly known definition to then state what your definition is otherwise there will be much confusion and ultimately the debate will end up focusing on the definition of the word (if this misunderstanding of definition comes to light at all) but by then the main point is lost, the debaters are emotional and simply want to stop debating.

I think I have been very helpful in stating my definition.  An atheist is someone who denies the existence of God.  I suspect the emotion you speak of is coming from something else.

Quote from: "Stevil"An atheist is a person who lacks a belief in a god. This does not mean they believe there is no god.

I accept that is your definition.  My definition is that an atheist is someone who denies the existence of God.  I agree this difference between us creates a tension which will lead to an argument - I'll have my arguments, you'll have yours.  That doesn't mean one of us is objectively wrong.

Quote from: "Stevil"You also use the terms "reject" and "deny" with regards to god/s. Personally I would expect this to come from a theist whose starting point is that their god exists and to not accept that would be a rejection or denial. From my atheist stand point the starting point is that there is no god/s and hence no rejection or denial is necessary. I have simply put the theories into the large pile of "to be confirmed".

Well there's quite an internal contradiction going on in there but I'm not sure if it was fully intentional.  Your starting point that there is no god sounds exactly like mine - the denial of a proposition.  If your starting point is that there is no god, what do you do when you're asked if there is a god?   I suspect you've got a bit mixed up in your wording.

Quote from: "Existentialist"I don't know what people thought generations ago.  I don't have a telephone line to the 10th century, or any other era, unfortunately.  I don't know if they thought like we did today or not.  Thoughts can only exist in the minds of living people.  Dead people don't have thoughts to convey.  By all means speculate about what they thought - but accept that these are your thoughts, not theirs.  

By free thought I mean a person has the freedom to think without direct interference from anyone else.  I'm a strong advocate of that - are you?

Have you ever talked to your parents or people of your parents or olders age? Have you ever watched tv programs or documentaries created before your time?

Quote from: "Existentialist"

Quote from: "Stevil"An atheist is a person who lacks a belief in a god. This does not mean they believe there is no god.

I accept that is your definition.  My definition is that an atheist is someone who denies the existence of God.  I agree this difference between us creates a tension which will lead to an argument - I'll have my arguments, you'll have yours.  That doesn't mean one of us is objectively wrong.

Actually I got this definition from Wiki. I simply recite it. I am not entirely sure how to interprete the "denies the existence of God" phrase.

Quote from: "Existentialist"

Quote from: "Stevil"You also use the terms "reject" and "deny" with regards to god/s. Personally I would expect this to come from a theist whose starting point is that their god exists and to not accept that would be a rejection or denial. From my atheist stand point the starting point is that there is no god/s and hence no rejection or denial is necessary. I have simply put the theories into the large pile of "to be confirmed".

Well there's quite an internal contradiction going on in there but I'm not sure if it was fully intentional.  Your starting point that there is no god sounds exactly like mine - the denial of a proposition.  If your starting point is that there is no god, what do you do when you're asked if there is a god?   I suspect you've got a bit mixed up in your wording.

Not really, I started with the view that there is no god/s, I have subsequently seen some theories that there are god/s. If asked I would say there are many theories for (which conflict each other) and there is a theory against. My personal stance is that I doubt very much that there is god/s and even if there was a god I wouldn't know which god theory is correct or even if any of the current theories are correct, maybe the correct one hasn't been written yet. But really there isn't anything conclusive yet, still waiting for some proof. Not holding my breath though.

Quote from: "Existentialist"

Quote from: "Stevil"I don't think there is such a thing as complete free thought. Our thoughts are tainted by many things. Notice how there is a generation gap between the thinking of people from different generations. The world is evolving with regards to thought processes, people from the past did not think like we do today.

I don't know what people thought generations ago.  I don't have a telephone line to the 10th century, or any other era, unfortunately.  I don't know if they thought like we did today or not.  Thoughts can only exist in the minds of living people.  Dead people don't have thoughts to convey.  By all means speculate about what they thought - but accept that these are your thoughts, not theirs.  

By free thought I mean a person has the freedom to think without direct interference from anyone else.  I'm a strong advocate of that - are you?

Quote from: "Stevil"Without a common understanding of the language and principles in effect during a dialogue it is near on impossible to understand each other.

I agree, if two participants to a conversation don't find a common understanding, they won't understand each other.  

Quote from: "Stevil"It would be wise if you know you are differing from the commonly known definition to then state what your definition is otherwise there will be much confusion and ultimately the debate will end up focusing on the definition of the word (if this misunderstanding of definition comes to light at all) but by then the main point is lost, the debaters are emotional and simply want to stop debating.

I think I have been very helpful in stating my definition.  An atheist is someone who denies the existence of God.  I suspect the emotion you speak of is coming from something else.

Quote from: "Stevil"An atheist is a person who lacks a belief in a god. This does not mean they believe there is no god.

I accept that is your definition.  My definition is that an atheist is someone who denies the existence of God.  I agree this difference between us creates a tension which will lead to an argument - I'll have my arguments, you'll have yours.  That doesn't mean one of us is objectively wrong.

Quote from: "Stevil"You also use the terms "reject" and "deny" with regards to god/s. Personally I would expect this to come from a theist whose starting point is that their god exists and to not accept that would be a rejection or denial. From my atheist stand point the starting point is that there is no god/s and hence no rejection or denial is necessary. I have simply put the theories into the large pile of "to be confirmed".

Well there's quite an internal contradiction going on in there but I'm not sure if it was fully intentional.  Your starting point that there is no god sounds exactly like mine - the denial of a proposition.  If your starting point is that there is no god, what do you do when you're asked if there is a god?   I suspect you've got a bit mixed up in your wording.

I'll be blunt here -- your definition of atheist sucks, does not define the majority of people the normal definition of atheist does, and does not help the conversation move on.

Title of GOD is a Title of opinion. Thus no god exists or ever existed regardless entities that may or may not exist.

...What?  

Quote from: "Byronazriel"...What?  

ditto

jackel, can you elaborate?

I think he means that since the title of God is an opinion, no god has ever existed except in the minds of man.

Quote from: "Stevil"Have you ever talked to your parents or people of your parents or olders age? Have you ever watched tv programs or documentaries created before your time?  

Thank you for narrowing down your delineations of the past a bit.  Anyone I have spoken with who was alive at the time counts for me as having thoughts that I can interpret much more easily in a personal, dynamic, warm, emotional relationship than people who have died and whom I have never met.  If I read a book or watch a documentary about what people were thinking say before my birth, in 1920, then I can only really use my current living experience to interpret their thoughts, so for all I know I might have got it badly wrong when I surmise what they were thinking.

Quote from: "Stevil"I started with the view that there is no god/s, I have subsequently seen some theories that there are god/s. If asked I would say there are many theories for (which conflict each other) and there is a theory against. My personal stance is that I doubt very much that there is god/s and even if there was a god I wouldn't know which god theory is correct or even if any of the current theories are correct, maybe the correct one hasn't been written yet. But really there isn't anything conclusive yet, still waiting for some proof. Not holding my breath though.

That's fine - I accept that's your view.  I disagree though, because I take the position that there is no God, I'm not hanging around for proof.

Quote from: "LegendarySandwich"I think he means that since the title of God is an opinion, no god has ever existed except in the minds of man.

Almost. What it means is that such beliefs and titles are merely just that, and they are solely reliant on only those who give such titles, or believe in such things. Opinions only have worth to that which has the opinion. Hence, what are GOD's without something to grant them such a title? Under this logic GODS are inherently undefined to the extent that anything can be considered a GOD should the title be given. This includes you, the dirt you walk on, myself, birds, existence itself, or anything in or of existence. So either all things are GODS, or there are no such things as GODS!
 :P

Quote from: "Existentialist"That's fine - I accept that's your view.  I disagree though, because I take the position that there is no God, I'm not hanging around for proof.

Existentialist - I have just looked up your position on Wikipedia and going by that your label would be Positive atheism or Strong atheism or hard atheism.
"Positive atheism is a term popularly used to describe the form of atheism that maintains that 'There is at least one god' is a false statement"
"Strong atheism and hard atheism are alternates for the term positive atheism"

People on this forum would likely agree with these labels for you.

I went back to ready your original post within this thread and I can see why the majority (if not all) of the readers got confused. You are probably right given your own definition of all the terms and words you have used. But if you continue to hold onto your own definitions you will most likely find everyone (in face to face chats or on other forums) are likely to be as confused as everyone has been here. I think noone has said it better than what Inevitable Droid said "In some contexts, some words are such a part of the framework that offering idiosyncratic definitions will tend to hinder rather than facilitate communication. In the context of this message board, atheist is such a word, as is agnostic and also apatheist".

Quote from: "TheJackel"Almost. What it means is that such beliefs and titles are merely just that, and they are solely reliant on only those who give such titles, or believe in such things. Opinions only have worth to that which has the opinion. Hence, what are GOD's without something to grant them such a title? Under this logic GODS are inherently undefined to the extent that anything can be considered a GOD should the title be given. This includes you, the dirt you walk on, myself, birds, existence itself, or anything in or of existence. So either all things are GODS, or there are no such things as Gods.

Things are still things regardless of what we call them. An inch is still an inch, even if it's called three and a half jumbnops. It's the same distince.

Even if I change my name, I am still the same person I was then.

Also, why is athesim necessarily a better position than panthesim?

QuoteThings are still things regardless of what we call them. An inch is still an inch, even if it's called three and a half jumbnops. It's the same distince.

Even if I change my name, I am still the same person I was then.

Also, why is athesim necessarily a better position than panthesim?

Things are Things is correct, and that is why it's so irrelevant.. And the term GOD is vague and literally undefined, and even under definition anything can fit within that definition. Creator? Well I can create a space ship from lego's too! Creators are irrelevant because no creator could create that which they themselves require to exist, and that includes existence itself. All things are slave to the rules of existence and no creator could ever actually create those rules. The plausibility of higher entities than the human race was never the argument.. Gods are what I am expecting someone to prove, especially when it's so vaguely undefinable and open to opinions. It's a moving goal post, literally!  My arguments show creationism to be false, and GODs to be subject of pure opinion and nothing more. Minds can't literally create reality, and any mind that has the power to manipulate reality is nothing more than another entity. Hence, ants, birds, people can all manipulate reality. And there is no entity that is not bound to the rules of existence. Entities can not create the rules, they can only use and manipulate them in a strict and limited fashion because they are equally bound to them. Technically there is no difference between a man building cities and cultivations of man made life forms than some entity in another universe building a star system (as an example). Power and ability is subjective and irrelevant. All powers, entities, objects, or things higher than point zero (ground state)are irrelevant to existence as a whole because they are merely products of existence and reliant on complexities greater than ground state. Thus the goal post can be moved via opinion, expectations, and requirements to any level one could desire when it comes to calling something a "GOD".. Gods are thus logical fallacies.

 Even power and divinity are worthless without the lowest levels of either or. In fact, the most powerful and valuable thing in and of existence is the ground state. This is the very base to all existence at the lowest level possible in complexity, power, and divinity. A GOD is not a GOD if it can not solve infinite regress or represent a universal set of all sets. In fact the only thing that can do that is the substance of existence itself.

The problem is GODS is that the goal post is infinitely movable in any direction on the scale of divinity, power, or level to any person, place, object, or thing.

Gods don't have to create things, unless they're specifically creator gods, and they don't necessarily have to be all powerful. The tem god is vaguely defined, but that in and of itself is not an argument against their likeliness.

Also, most creator gods don't create existance. They create our universe, or even just the Earth itself. Most gods are just responsible for a particular thing, Aphrodite goddess of love for example, or important/powerful in some way. Raven, the trickster for example.

Here's a link to a story depicting creation that in no way states that reality or existence was being created: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Raven_in_mythology#Raven_creates_the_world

Quote from: "Stevil"Existentialist - I have just looked up your position on Wikipedia and going by that your label would be Positive atheism or Strong atheism or hard atheism.
"Positive atheism is a term popularly used to describe the form of atheism that maintains that 'There is at least one god' is a false statement"
"Strong atheism and hard atheism are alternates for the term positive atheism"

People on this forum would likely agree with these labels for you.

I went back to ready your original post within this thread and I can see why the majority (if not all) of the readers got confused. You are probably right given your own definition of all the terms and words you have used. But if you continue to hold onto your own definitions you will most likely find everyone (in face to face chats or on other forums) are likely to be as confused as everyone has been here. I think noone has said it better than what Inevitable Droid said "In some contexts, some words are such a part of the framework that offering idiosyncratic definitions will tend to hinder rather than facilitate communication. In the context of this message board, atheist is such a word, as is agnostic and also apatheist".

Thanks for your post Stevil.  I do not like being labelled at the best of times, but being labelled by Wikipedia is pretty ignominious.  If I am going to be labelled, I will choose the label myself, thanks very much.  In my view, the correct label for someone who denies the existence of God is "atheist".

If you are saying that the only legitimate label that anyone can use is one that has been chosen for them by people on this forum, I think you undermine a fundamental principle of self-determination.

On the subject of people getting confused, I think that insisting on the use of long lists of different adjectives like strong, weak, positive, agnostic atheist, apatheist, pantheist, does more to confuse people than anything else.  By all means use them but it is not polite to insist that someone else must adopt any of these terms.  There is nothing inaccurate about me calling myself an atheist.  I would be grateful if others would respect that.  I suspect that people have not, infact, been getting 'confused' at all.  Rather, they disagree with my idea that a person who denies the existence of God is an atheist, and are misrepresenting their resulting anger and then blaming me for their supposed confusion, as you have done.  People are of course free to disagree with me and to express anger appropriately, but I simply do not buy the argument that they are getting 'confused'.  People seem to be clear enough in their heads to try to insist that I take on all kinds of adjectival qualifications to my description of myself as an atheist, so it does not make sense that the same people are confused.  I think they are trying by whatever means possible to force me into a pigeonhole that makes them feel more comfortable.  Sorry, I don't fit.

On the subject of Wikipedia, I have been quoted Wikipedia about 20 times in this thread and it feels like a battering ram.  Of course people are free to quote it, but I do not rate Wikipedia as a reliable source, and I find people tend to quote even this unreliable source selectively to support their point and hold back quotes that contradict it.  I do not quote Wikipedia on principle.  Its editorial process favours consensus over intellectual reasoning.  I find it a deathly source, I am not alone in deeming it unreliable - others have concurred, not least the US Court of Appeals (http://www.rmlegal.com/Immigration-Blog/2010/November/Court-of-Appeals-states-Wikipedia-is-not-reliabl.aspx).  I do use it for private research and for pointers to reliable sources, but I would advise against quoting Wikipedia directly and always prefer to quote a real source when that is necessary.

Even given my view, I think people will find that there is nothing in Wikipedia that denies my view that a person who denies the existence of God is an atheist.  If I am wrong, anyone here is free to provide the evidence - though be careful, a Wikipedia quote chosen selectively is worse than no quote at all.

Existentialist...why do you think everyone is mad at you?  Maybe if you weren't so quick to get offended by everyone you wouldn't think they are mad?

No one is saying an atheist is not someone who denies god...almost all of us are saying an atheist can also be someone who simply doesn't believe in god and your definition is overly narrow.

Also, don't you think it's a bit odd to complain about others labeling you when you already told the whole board that most of the atheists here are actually agnostics (which most, again, would agree with if you didn't mean they were not also atheists).

There is also no reason to get upset over someone using wiki to refer to the common definition of a word...after all, you even state it is a collection of common understandings.

Thanks for your reply Whitney.  I think we both need to put some effort into defining exactly what we mean here and not misrepresenting the other party, don't you?  For a start I didn't actually use the word 'mad', which carries a number of connotations which I have no intention of alluding to, because I could legitimately be accused of insulting people, which I am sure you will pick me up on.  Insulting people is something I have never, ever done in the short time I have been on this message board - if I am mistaken in saying this then please could you PM me or otherwise evidence my transgression as I would like the opportunity to apologise unreservedly to anyone who may have been offended by me.  

What I said was that people appeared to be misrepresenting their anger as confusion, but you are right perhaps anger is overly strong even though it is an accurate description of the emotion I think has been in play when people say things like "your definition of atheist sucks (http://www.happyatheistforum.com/viewtopic.php?f=5&t=6459&start=60#p96081)".  I think I would rephrase it and say they are misrepresenting their 'irritation' as confusion.  

I don't see that I'm getting offended by 'everyone', but I do feel irritated myself by some people who, I think it cannot be denied, try to get me to stop using my own definitions and use their definitions instead.  The last posting from Stevil is a good example of that, saying that only confusion will result if I 'continue to hold on to' my definitions, others have said similar things.  This is not to say that I can force, coerce or otherwise require people not to try to get me to use their preferred labels, I'm guilty of trying to get others to use my preferred definitions sometimes.  In reality, we all do to some degree - I think that's in the nature of comparing different views of the world.  I am not immune to feeling irritated, and it would be unreasonable of me to expect that others will not be irritated either.  The important thing is to recognise that the feelings evoked in exchanges of views are not personal - we are all nice people, we just have different opinions about some big issues.

I think there is always a legitimate debate to be had about the relative meanings of the terms agnostic and atheist.  My view is that these words are mutually exclusive, and while I accept that the majority of people active in atheist internet forums are very insistent that they are not mutually exclusive, I think the majority of people in the world at large, who are not experts, and who do not edit any Wikipedia pages, would concur with my view that it's not really possible to be an atheist and an agnostic at the same time.  Descriptions like 'agnostic atheist' would confuse most people, I think.  That is not to say I have any right to stop people using such descriptions, just as nobody has any right to stop me commenting on them when they do.

I accept that you think my definition of the word 'atheist' is too narrow (someone who denies the existence of god).  However it is not a definition that I have made up randomly, it is a legitimate definition in its own right and as such it remains legitimate for this definition not to include people who simply don't believe in god.  There's nothing wrong with me saying that, though of course you and others are free to disagree with the definition I am using.  If people try to suggest I shouldn't use it then obviously that will cause problems.  My understanding was that this is an atheist forum and the definition I am using conforms perfectly to that description.

I agree that Wikipedia is a collection of common understandings.  However, common understandings are not necessarily correct understandings, the view of the majority is not always right, there is a widespread view in philosophical circles that Wikipedia is not a reliable source for material, and people do often quote Wikipedia selectively to support their view.  I do not think that this collection of observations constitutes my being 'upset' at people quoting Wikipedia, however I reserve the right to express my views about Wikipedia when people do quote it or selectively quote it as a source.

It is clear to me that you and I fundamentally disagree about the nature and definition of atheism.  This should be an opportunity for an exciting and challenging set of debates, and you can rest assured that I will remain polite and civil in my contributions.  Obviously if you misrepresent what I've said or put emotional words into my mouth like "mad", "offended" and "upset" then this will obviously run the risk of upping the emotional tension in the forum.  I think it is reasonable for me to make direct reference to this emotional tension as I do not believe in ignoring elephants in the room such as heightened feelings, however I will try to do my best to diffuse these feelings constructively and I am sure Whitney you will want to do the same.

Finally, you may rest assured that because work resumes next week I will probably not have the time to devote myself so fulsomely to Happy Atheist Forum.  May I apologise in advance if some of my posts in future do not contain the same care and attention that I have devoted to them this week.

Happy New Year.

Quote from: "Byronazriel"Gods don't have to create things, unless they're specifically creator gods, and they don't necessarily have to be all powerful. The tem god is vaguely defined, but that in and of itself is not an argument against their likeliness.

Again, creation was simply an example used. I think you are not quite grasping the obvious key point of: "vaguely defined". This is exactly why either all things are GODS or there are no GODS at all. I can call myself GOD because of X,Y, and Z. It doesn't matter if a GOD can create, doesn't create, or even do anything for that matter.. It's simply a total complete and absolute opinion to which is irrelevant regardless if anything exists that could be called a God. It's 100 percent a logical fallacy slave to require your opinion, or even it's own opinion. And even then it's entirely irrelevant.

QuoteAlso, most creator gods don't create existance. They create our universe, or even just the Earth itself. Most gods are just responsible for a particular thing, Aphrodite goddess of love for example, or important/powerful in some way. Raven, the trickster for example.

Again this would be irrelevant and no different in concept than man creating cities, synthetic life, or even the possibility of new universes under particle collisions as already discussed above. Birds build nests, ant plant forests, as material physicality makes it possible to exist and create. So the whole point is that it is not defined what-so-ever, and is totally and completely reliant on opinion. Basically it's your choice and opinion if you want to worship X thing for X reason. I may as well worship water and call it the sustain-er of my life since I am 75% water molecules, or I could worship empty space since all humans are 99.7% empty space.

So unless someone here can specifically define GOD without being subject to opinion, it's a worthless concept.

Quote from: "Existentialist"What I said was that people appeared to be misrepresenting their anger as confusion, but you are right perhaps anger is overly strong even though it is an accurate description of the emotion I think has been in play when people say things like "your definition of atheist sucks (http://www.happyatheistforum.com/viewtopic.php?f=5&t=6459&start=60#p96081)".  I think I would rephrase it and say they are misrepresenting their 'irritation' as confusion.

It sucks because we already have a common definition of atheism that works and is understood by the majority of people. Sorry, but trying to reinvent the definitions of words is, in my opinion, just stupid, unless it's in dire need of changing (which "atheism" isn't). You can argue about "self-determination", "free though", blah blah blah all you want, but what it ultimately comes down to is understanding. If you want to define atheism as "the denial of God", go ahead, but I view it as useless to do so.

Happy new years, by the way.

Thanks for your reply Legendary Sandwich.  Obviously my stance continues to cause considerable irritation and annoyance to you.  I'm sorry about that.  However I'm not changing my stance I'm afraid, it is an entirely legitimate stance.  

I think there is more than one definition of atheism that works and is understood by the majority of people.  If you ask the majority of people the question, "What do you call someone who believes there is no god?" I feel sure that the majority of people would say, "An atheist".  If you ask the majority of people, "What do you call someone who doesn't believe in god?" I feel sure that the majority of people would say, "An atheist."  Therefore we have two established definitions of atheism which both mean something different, but which both work and are understood by the majority of people.  I have not at any point 'reinvented' the definitions of words - please supply your evidence that I have done so if you think this is the case.  

The definition that atheism is the denial of the existence of gods is a standard definition that has been around for a long, long time.  Please feel free to check this and let me know you findings.

It seems to me that it is entirely appropriate for someone who denies the existence of God to deny God completely in every respect.  This is a logical consequence of the type of atheism I represent, though obviously not a definition of it.  I hope this is useful, at least.

Quote from: "Existentialist"Thanks for your reply Legendary Sandwich.  Obviously my stance continues to cause considerable irritation and annoyance to you.  I'm sorry about that.  However I'm not changing my stance I'm afraid, it is an entirely legitimate stance.

Not really, no. It's just the way I talk.

QuoteI think there is more than one definition of atheism that works and is understood by the majority of people.  If you ask the majority of people the question, "What do you call someone who believes there is no god?" I feel sure that the majority of people would say, "An atheist".  If you ask the majority of people, "What do you call someone who doesn't believe in god?" I feel sure that the majority of people would say, "An atheist."  Therefore we have two established definitions of atheism which both mean something different, but which both work and are understood by the majority of people.  I have not at any point 'reinvented' the definitions of words - please supply your evidence that I have done so if you think this is the case.  

The definition that atheism is the denial of the existence of gods is a standard definition that has been around for a long, long time.  Please feel free to check this and let me know you findings.

It seems to me that it is entirely appropriate for someone who denies the existence of God to deny God completely in every respect.  This is a logical consequence of the type of atheism I represent, though obviously not a definition of it.  I hope this is useful, at least.

You're right. I withdraw my objections.

I prefer the definition "someone who doesn't believe in any gods", as this can apply to both weak and strong atheists and applies personally to me, but your definition works too, I suppose.

Quote from: "Existentialist"There is nothing inaccurate about me calling myself an atheist.  I would be grateful if others would respect that.  
...
Even given my view, I think people will find that there is nothing in Wikipedia that denies my view that a person who denies the existence of God is an atheist.  If I am wrong, anyone here is free to provide the evidence - though be careful, a Wikipedia quote chosen selectively is worse than no quote at all.

I have no problem with you calling yourself an atheist.
The issue is that I am an atheist as well, but not by your definition. I also feel that theists can and do sometimes get the wrong impression that an atheist is a person who believes that there is no god. In some way this could be seen as similar to your definition.
The problem I have with that is that the vast majority of atheists (and for that matter the vast majority of participants on this site) do not fit your atheist definition. Our stance is not based on a belief system, we base our stance on empirical evidence. This is an important distinction to me and for you to blur those lines and simply call me agnostic and not an atheist is somewhat insulting. I am both agnostic and an atheist, in so far as atheist goes I am a weak atheist as I do not implore a belief system. I like to back up my stances with proof which for me is important.

Your definition adds confusion and misleads people as with regards to the stance of the vast majority of atheists.

Quote from: "TheJackel"

Quote from: "Byronazriel"Gods don't have to create things, unless they're specifically creator gods, and they don't necessarily have to be all powerful. The tem god is vaguely defined, but that in and of itself is not an argument against their likeliness.

Again, creation was simply an example used. I think you are not quite grasping the obvious key point of: "vaguely defined". This is exactly why either all things are GODS or there are no GODS at all. I can call myself GOD because of X,Y, and Z. It doesn't matter if a GOD can create, doesn't create, or even do anything for that matter.. It's simply a total complete and absolute opinion to which is irrelevant regardless if anything exists that could be called a God. It's 100 percent a logical fallacy slave to require your opinion, or even it's own opinion. And even then it's entirely irrelevant.

The god title can be given to anything, this is both a linguistic and philisophical standpoint. What it is not, however, is an argument against gods existing. (I am using the term "gods" to refer to beings that are fundamentaly powerful, a representation of a force or idea, and immortal. Such as Thor, Zeus, Gaia, Ra, and Quatzequatel.) Just because you can call anythign a god, doesn't make them all gods. Though I wouldn't throw out that idea completey either.

Quote from: "Byronazriel"Also, most creator gods don't create existance. They create our universe, or even just the Earth itself. Most gods are just responsible for a particular thing, Aphrodite goddess of love for example, or important/powerful in some way. Raven, the trickster for example.

Quote from: "TheJackel"Again this would be irrelevant and no different in concept than man creating cities, synthetic life, or even the possibility of new universes under particle collisions as already discussed above. Birds build nests, ant plant forests, as material physicality makes it possible to exist and create. So the whole point is that it is not defined what-so-ever, and is totally and completely reliant on opinion. Basically it's your choice and opinion if you want to worship X thing for X reason. I may as well worship water and call it the sustain-er of my life since I am 75% water molecules, or I could worship empty space since all humans are 99.7% empty space.

So unless someone here can specifically define GOD without being subject to opinion, it's a worthless concept.

You're perfectly able to worship whatever you want, and call it a god. I don't disagree with that, I do however question why that makes it worthless. People do worship water and space! So what? Why would that make it worhtless, and how could that possibly mean that gods (The kind I discribed earlier) cannot exist?

QuoteThe god title can be given to anything, this is both a linguistic and philisophical standpoint. What it is not, however, is an argument against gods existing. (I am using the term "gods" to refer to beings that are fundamentaly powerful, a representation of a force or idea, and immortal. Such as Thor, Zeus, Gaia, Ra, and Quatzequatel.) Just because you can call anythign a god, doesn't make them all gods. Though I wouldn't throw out that idea completey either.

Incorrect.. Again I think you miss the point entirely and why it indeed is an argument against gods existing. You also do not seem to understand, or at least not paying attention to the fundamentals of the meaning power under this argument. Humans are fundamentally more powerful than lets say a single ant to which can easily be squashed and killed. Power is irrelevant.. Man can nuke and destroy entire civilizations, or grow new ones from it's ashes. For that we can call ourselves GODS under your argument. Ants can plant entire forests that creates ecosystems for other living things, and that we could call them GODS under your argument. And that is why I say you are incorrect, I can call anything a GOD and make it as such, or I can say there is no such things as GODS under the same fundamental conceptual reasons and have it be 100% correct.

So when you attempt to define GOD, you are only placing opinionated expectations on what you would consider to be a GOD regardless of what entity, object, thing, or being you try to attach it to. Otherwise it is nothing more than just another existing thing like everything else is. So indeed there are no such things as GODS because I wouldn't care what entity exists, what it could or could not do, or how much supposed power it might have. All that crap is irrelevant, and thus so is the concept of GODS.

QuoteYou're perfectly able to worship whatever you want, and call it a god. I don't disagree with that, I do however question why that makes it worthless. People do worship water and space! So what? Why would that make it worhtless, and how could that possibly mean that gods (The kind I discribed earlier) cannot exist?

Actually it is a completely worthless concept.. GOD's are inherently concepts of power, and anything with power is powerless without what gives them power. And everything that exists contains power on some level or another to which makes the argument irrelevant and moot as a logical fallacy. The only worth an opinion has is the worth it has to only that which has the opinion, otherwise it's essentially worthless.  You may believe GOD's exist under opinion, but it has absolutely no value what-so-ever in my own perspective. I don't need to prove to you that GOD's don't exist because they simply do not exist under my standards and expectations. It is simply by nature and virtue not an applicable concept since it's definition is boundless or inherently undefined. There is a reason why the title and concept of GOD is vague and only a concept of opinion, and a title of opinion. The existence of any entity, object, person, place, or thing is irrelevant to this argument. Everything that exists can in fact be worshiped and regarded as GOD!. And the ultimate power is existence itself, the rules of existence, and the substance of existence from which everything is bound to, slave to, and in need of in order to exist. There is no power greater than the lowest power possible!.

Examples:

Consciousness and awareness can not function or exist without information. A 100 story buildings can not exist without the 99 other floors below it. Ground state is more powerful than any supposed thing that relies on it in order to exist just because it is the very base to all that exists. No person, place, or thing of any sort or kind could exist without material physicality derived from the substance of existence itself.  That is the ultimate power, and I still don't apply the concept of GOD because under those guidelines, all things are GODS or there are no GODS at all.


So here is my argument..

Someone worships all things of existence as GODS..Where does your concept of GOD go at that point? What actual relevance is left? It's no different at that point than calling all things as things of existence. It becomes moot. And it's still irrelevant because another persons can have a difference of opinion and consider nothing in existence is applicable to being a GOD because they realize the irrelevance of the concept. Hence why I can say with 100 percent absolution that there is no such things as gods. So the concept is a logical fallacy..

Quote from: "Existentialist"Obviously if you misrepresent what I've said or put emotional words into my mouth like "mad", "offended" and "upset" then this will obviously run the risk of upping the emotional tension in the forum.  I think it is reasonable for me to make direct reference to this emotional tension as I do not believe in ignoring elephants in the room such as heightened feelings, however I will try to do my best to diffuse these feelings constructively and I am sure Whitney you will want to do the same.

Mad means angry/upset...as in "don't get mad" or "why are you mad at me".  You act defensive every single time someone disagrees with you which leads me to think disagreement offends and upsets you...perhaps you don't see your posts this way but your tone makes you come across in that manner.

I find it hypocritical that you would complain about the usage of words after having asked everyone to not tell you how to use words.

I've been running this forum for over 4 years now and HAF gets tons of compliments on how civil it is compared to other forums...I'll ask you to not tell me how to construct my posts.

Quote from: "Whitney"

Quote from: "Existentialist"Obviously if you misrepresent what I've said or put emotional words into my mouth like "mad", "offended" and "upset" then this will obviously run the risk of upping the emotional tension in the forum.  I think it is reasonable for me to make direct reference to this emotional tension as I do not believe in ignoring elephants in the room such as heightened feelings, however I will try to do my best to diffuse these feelings constructively and I am sure Whitney you will want to do the same.

Mad means angry/upset...as in "don't get mad" or "why are you mad at me".  You act defensive every single time someone disagrees with you which leads me to think disagreement offends and upsets you...perhaps you don't see your posts this way but your tone makes you come across in that manner.

I find it hypocritical that you would complain about the usage of words after having asked everyone to not tell you how to use words.

I've been running this forum for over 4 years now and HAF gets tons of compliments on how civil it is compared to other forums...I'll ask you to not tell me how to construct my posts.

I have to agree with Whitney because this forum is far more civilized than most. Rarely do I see personal attacks or someone devaluing someone as a person here in regards to their beliefs, or regardless of subject, argument, or discussion. We all might have disagreements but none of those should be taken on an emotional level or offensively, but rather be regarded as simply a difference of view. As long as we all act like adults and give each other respect, we can always get passed the differences without attacking each other verbally or physically. Emotions however will run high, and some will become defensive, but I am glad to see civil behavior on this forum. And that is why I like this site more than others..

Cheers

Quote from: "Whitney"Mad means angry/upset...as in "don't get mad" or "why are you mad at me".  You act defensive every single time someone disagrees with you which leads me to think disagreement offends and upsets you...perhaps you don't see your posts this way but your tone makes you come across in that manner.

I find it hypocritical that you would complain about the usage of words after having asked everyone to not tell you how to use words.

I've been running this forum for over 4 years now and HAF gets tons of compliments on how civil it is compared to other forums...I'll ask you to not tell me how to construct my posts.

Thank you for your reply once again.  I have not 'complained' about the usage of words, please could you cite examples - it really is an extremely vague allegation as it stands and I have gone to some lengths to affirm everyone's freedom to use words of their choosing.  I may have commented and expressed my opinion on how people describe my views, ideas and contributions, but I would not characterise this as having 'complained'.  

I do not act defensive "every single time" someone disagrees with me.  Please substantiate that observation if you wish to persist with it.  I don't concur with it though.

Your comments about my 'tone' are of course impossible for me to answer: 'tone' is a very personal thing to each individual and one person's friendly post can be read as an impolite post depending on the reader's disposition.  I have gone to great lengths to explain my stance as neutrally as possible, but in all these matters I do have a stance.  As you have second guessed from my responses that you conclude I have an underlying motivation that any 'disagreement offends and upsets' me, would I be overstepping mark to read into your reaction some ulterior motive to do with your negativity towards my minority opinion in this forum on the subject of atheism, and what it means?  

I do take offence, and am upset, at being accused of being 'hypocritical'.  That to me looks like rather inflammatory language.  I reserve the right to defend myself from any such accusations, I am sure you will support this right.

'Mad' also means insane, which is why I did not, and do not, use the word.  I think there may be geographical differences between us in the general acceptability of this word, but in my own circles it would be extremely insulting for me to use it about another person to describe them as angry, which is why I don't use the word.  Using that word to mean 'angry' is becoming rather archaic locally, probably due to the onward march of political correctness, but generally I think it's right that people should be careful about using it.  If such considerations are not relevant in your own circles in respect of the word 'mad' then I apologise for the misunderstanding, but that is why I don't use the word 'mad' as a shorthand for 'angry'.  

How people express themselves is a matter of negotiation in any conversation, but in all my posts I have been civil and polite.  I agree that HAF has a track record of being a particularly civil forum.  I have not told you how to construct your posts, but obviously if you describe me and how I have expressed myself negatively as you have done on several occasions now, in a way that is not backed up by evidence and examples, I feel totally within my rights to reply.

Quote from: "TheJackel"I have to agree with Whitney because this forum is far more civilized than most. Rarely do I see personal attacks or someone devaluing someone as a person here in regards to their beliefs, or regardless of subject, argument, or discussion. We all might have disagreements but none of those should be taken on an emotional level or offensively, but rather be regarded as simply a difference of view. As long as we all act like adults and give each other respect, we can always get passed the differences without attacking each other verbally or physically. Emotions however will run high, and some will become defensive, but I am glad to see civil behavior on this forum. And that is why I like this site more than others..

I wholeheartedly agree with your sentiment, TheJackel.  I think this is an unusually civilized forum and it is my intention to keep it that way as is the case I am sure with everybody else I have exchanged messages with so far.  I would deserve to be strongly criticised and even have moderation applied to my account if at any time I became insulting or disrespectful of others.   I have not done so and will not do so.  I am sure that any disagreement can be dealt with in an adult way as you say.

Quote from: "Stevil"I have no problem with you calling yourself an atheist.  The issue is that I am an atheist as well, but not by your definition. I also feel that theists can and do sometimes get the wrong impression that an atheist is a person who believes that there is no god. In some way this could be seen as similar to your definition.
The problem I have with that is that the vast majority of atheists (and for that matter the vast majority of participants on this site) do not fit your atheist definition. Our stance is not based on a belief system, we base our stance on empirical evidence. This is an important distinction to me and for you to blur those lines and simply call me agnostic and not an atheist is somewhat insulting. I am both agnostic and an atheist, in so far as atheist goes I am a weak atheist as I do not implore a belief system. I like to back up my stances with proof which for me is important.

Your definition adds confusion and misleads people as with regards to the stance of the vast majority of atheists.

Thanks Stevil for your reply.  Thanks also for saying you have no problem with me calling myself an atheist.  It's certainly not my intention to insult anyone but I cannot help my thoughts, that if someone is describing themselves as an agnostic atheist, they are an agnostic - their stance on the existence of God is undecided, pending further evidence.  I would welcome your putting me right on this - it is a well-worn path I understand, but I can't guarantee that at the end of it I will have changed what I think.

I am a little bit sceptical about your statement that the vast majority of atheists do not fit the same definition of atheist that I use.  Without an international survey of everybody in the world I do not think this is a statement that can be substantiated.  I think it likely that a lot of people have a settled view that there isn't a god.  I would suggest such people are atheists, even if they haven't adopted that term themselves.  I realise there is a tension between the right of people self-define on the one hand, yet on the other hand as an observer needing to categorise people according to a systematic set of consistent descriptions.  I don't think there's an easy answer to this dilemma, and I openly admit I've adopted both positions at different times even in this thread, such is my own inconsistency.  The thing is, though, how would a survey work?  Would it be right to open a question by saying, do you consider yourself to be an atheist?  Or would it be better to start with non-labelled questions like, do you believe there is no god?  Then, do you believe there is a god?  It's only when such a process has been completed that anybody can say with any certainty how the vast majority of atheists in the population should be categorised.  

I agree that the majority of atheists on this website probably do not take the view that there is no god, as I do.  It probably is the case that when people adopt the term atheist about themselves and then join a website of atheists, they are overwhelmingly not of the type who 'deny the existence of god'.  The reason for this is the importance of empirical evidence to those people.  

The problem I have with empirical evidence is that it raises the issue of the objective interpretation of empirical evidence, and I believe we cannot be objective beings because we are subjective beings.  Objectivity is a model that is extremely useful in science and some other situations, indeed I would insist on it if for example someone were testing the safety of my car.  But to my mind - and I completely admit my thoughts are incomplete on this which is why I post in forums like this one - for a subjective being like a human to submit to an objective model on something like the existence of God is a distortion of their subjective reality.  There is no greater authority than the individual human being in deciding anything, not even a valid, repeatable objective proof can be a greater authority than the individual.  In that respect, I see the theist and the 'agnostic atheist' as being very similar in that both may have reached their conclusions as a result of submission to something external to themselves - either an imaginary god, or a body of evidence.

Of course it is always possible that a theist may have decided for themselves that God exists, having made no reference to any evidence or any supposed evidence and no apparent calling from any god or being told what to think by someone else.  Some theists do cite evidence as their reasons for belief.  My criticism of them would be the same as of the agnostic atheist - that they have submitted to a source of authority outside of themselves.  I realise that your criticism of them would be that they have drawn incorrect conclusions from the evidence they have considered.

I realise there is plenty that can be disagreed with in what I have said, I do not offer this as a conclusive, definitive statement of my atheist or existentialist position, but I did just want to give you a flavour of my thinking at the moment.  My stance on atheism is a subjectivity-objectivity based stance, not an empiricist one.  

Thanks for listening!

Quote from: "TheJackel"Incorrect.. Again I think you miss the point entirely and why it indeed is an argument against gods existing. You also do not seem to understand, or at least not paying attention to the fundamentals of the meaning power under this argument. Humans are fundamentally more powerful than lets say a single ant to which can easily be squashed and killed. Power is irrelevant.. Man can nuke and destroy entire civilizations, or grow new ones from it's ashes. For that we can call ourselves GODS under your argument. Ants can plant entire forests that creates ecosystems for other living things, and that we could call them GODS under your argument. And that is why I say you are incorrect, I can call anything a GOD and make it as such, or I can say there is no such things as GODS under the same fundamental conceptual reasons and have it be 100% correct.

And you're not paying attention to the fact that power is just the first on a list of things that define a god. Gods are also representations of ideas or forces, and they are also immortal. At least by my defintion.

QuoteSo when you attempt to define GOD, you are only placing opinionated expectations on what you would consider to be a GOD regardless of what entity, object, thing, or being you try to attach it to. Otherwise it is nothing more than just another existing thing like everything else is. So indeed there are no such things as GODS because I wouldn't care what entity exists, what it could or could not do, or how much supposed power it might have. All that crap is irrelevant, and thus so is the concept of GODS.

So gods, in the sense that I defined earlier, can exist... you just don't care.

QuoteActually it is a completely worthless concept.. GOD's are inherently concepts of power, and anything with power is powerless without what gives them power. And everything that exists contains power on some level or another to which makes the argument irrelevant and moot as a logical fallacy. The only worth an opinion has is the worth it has to only that which has the opinion, otherwise it's essentially worthless.  You may believe GOD's exist under opinion, but it has absolutely no value what-so-ever in my own perspective. I don't need to prove to you that GOD's don't exist because they simply do not exist under my standards and expectations. It is simply by nature and virtue not an applicable concept since it's definition is boundless or inherently undefined. There is a reason why the title and concept of GOD is vague and only a concept of opinion, and a title of opinion. The existence of any entity, object, person, place, or thing is irrelevant to this argument. Everything that exists can in fact be worshiped and regarded as GOD!. And the ultimate power is existence itself, the rules of existence, and the substance of existence from which everything is bound to, slave to, and in need of in order to exist. There is no power greater than the lowest power possible!.

You can tell a karate master that their so called "power" is meaningless because they coulnd't gain it without training, but don't expect it to help much in a fight against them.[/b]

QuoteExamples:

Consciousness and awareness can not function or exist without information. A 100 story buildings can not exist without the 99 other floors below it. Ground state is more powerful than any supposed thing that relies on it in order to exist just because it is the very base to all that exists. No person, place, or thing of any sort or kind could exist without material physicality derived from the substance of existence itself.  That is the ultimate power, and I still don't apply the concept of GOD because under those guidelines, all things are GODS or there are no GODS at all.

So the 100th floor is not higher than the floors benoeath it? Just because somethign requires other things to come into being doesn't make it worthless, or weak.

QuoteSo here is my argument..

Someone worships all things of existence as GODS..Where does your concept of GOD go at that point? What actual relevance is left? It's no different at that point than calling all things as things of existence. It becomes moot. And it's still irrelevant because another persons can have a difference of opinion and consider nothing in existence is applicable to being a GOD because they realize the irrelevance of the concept. Hence why I can say with 100 percent absolution that there is no such things as gods. So the concept is a logical fallacy..

If everythign is god, then you worship and vernerate everything! Also just because people have different opinions about somethign doesn't make it non-existant. Tell me why the fact that people worship fish and trees makes Thor not exist.

Quote from: "LegendarySandwich"

Quote from: "Existentialist"... I think there is more than one definition of atheism that works and is understood by the majority of people.  If you ask the majority of people the question, "What do you call someone who believes there is no god?" I feel sure that the majority of people would say, "An atheist".  If you ask the majority of people, "What do you call someone who doesn't believe in god?" I feel sure that the majority of people would say, "An atheist."  Therefore we have two established definitions of atheism which both mean something different, but which both work and are understood by the majority of people.  I have not at any point 'reinvented' the definitions of words - please supply your evidence that I have done so if you think this is the case.  

The definition that atheism is the denial of the existence of gods is a standard definition that has been around for a long, long time.  Please feel free to check this and let me know you findings.

It seems to me that it is entirely appropriate for someone who denies the existence of God to deny God completely in every respect.  This is a logical consequence of the type of atheism I represent, though obviously not a definition of it.  I hope this is useful, at least.

You're right. I withdraw my objections.

I prefer the definition "someone who doesn't believe in any gods", as this can apply to both weak and strong atheists and applies personally to me, but your definition works too, I suppose.

Thanks for that.  It's good to be acknowledged, thanks for your response.

This is a pretty cool thread.  We got the "what is atheism?" thing going good and strong, and "what is/isn't a god" running along side it. Double-barreled fun! :D

If an agreement on definitions cannot be reached by two (or more) interlocutors, then  dialog will be difficult and cumbersome, but not impossible.  If those involved in the conversation each have a different definition, then for many of the instances where the word arises, each will have to say whether they're using it under this definition or that definition. Workable, but tiresome.  Needless to say, there have been many discussions here about the definition of "atheist," and I don't think that I've ever seen it settled.  I consider it a perennial divertissement, but nothing more.  I do enjoy reading good posts on that subject however, and there have been several by both sides in this thread.  I'm looking mainly at you, Existentialist, though I can't say that I particularly agree with your position. Especially in your latest, where it seems that you're giving opinion precedence over objective evidence.:yay:

QuoteIf something which exists (the sun, for instance) is believed by one or many to be a god, is it a god which exists?  It would seem that it is, according to this formulation:

Yes and no in the most literal context. That means it is both 100 percent a GOD and 100 percent not a GOD because it's relative to opinion. Those who think it's not a GOD will simply see no relevance in the conceptual idea by others as being one. This can be said for any object, thing, or entity that exists.

QuoteWhat follows seems to be an expression of opinion, rather than a logical progression, however:

That was by intention. Logical progression can not seem to easily progress in matters of concepts that are purely subjective, and opinionated. That is as far as it can go, and also why it's indeed a moot concept to begin with :)

Logical progression depends on your opinion. So if you believe X (lets say proven to exist entity, object, or thing) as a GOD for whatever reason, that only holds value within your own opinion. It however hold zero value with someone else who doesn't. It's both relevant and irrelevant based on opinion. Theists like to weigh relevance in regards to how many people they think believe it, but regardless of that it's still 100 percent irrelevant to those who don't. It's at best a war of opinion, and that is why I see it as complete irrelevance or moot.


So no, either all things are GODS, or no GODS exist. That is the logical outcome I have come to see.  :P

Quote from: "Existentialist"I cannot help my thoughts, that if someone is describing themselves as an agnostic atheist, they are an agnostic - their stance on the existence of God is undecided, pending further evidence.

LOL, What you call an agnostic I would call a weak atheist. To me an agnostic is
"a person who holds that the existence of the ultimate cause, as god, and the essential nature of things are unknown and unknowable, or that human knowledge is limited to experience."
NOTE: I have taken this from dictionary.com as you seem to not like wikipedia
The key is lack of knowledge rather than lack of making a decision. I feel a person with lack of knowledge can make a decision regardless hence an agnostic could also be a theist, a strong atheist or a weak atheist.
But we can agree to disagree with regards to the definition of labels.

BTW - "Words are slippery things, and language is inexact. Beware of assuming that you can work out someone's philosophical point of view simply from the fact that she calls herself an atheist or an agnostic. For example, many people use agnosticism to mean what is referred to here as "weak atheism," and use the word "atheism" only when referring to "strong atheism."" - this from infidels.org contains a sidenote that many people do use your definition although the article standardises on the definition that I use.

Quote from: "Existentialist"I am a little bit sceptical about your statement that the vast majority of atheists do not fit the same definition of atheist that I use.  

" The terms weak and strong are relatively recent, while the terms negative and positive atheism are of older origin, having been used (in slightly different ways) in the philosophical literature[36] and in Catholic apologetics[38] since at least 1813.[39][40] Under this demarcation of atheism, most agnostics qualify as negative atheists." - from wikipedia
"Under this demarcation of atheism, most agnostics qualify as weak atheists" - bookrags.com
I am yet to see an article that suggests it is the other way around. However, there may not have been a big enough and objective enough survey carried out to conclusively back up my statement. regardless of whether it is the vast majority, the majority or the minority I feel it is significant enough especially for the site that you posted your statement within to cause much confusion.

Quote from: "Existentialist"In that respect, I see the theist and the 'agnostic atheist' as being very similar in that both may have reached their conclusions as a result of submission to something external to themselves - either an imaginary god, or a body of evidence.

I feel that an imaginary god would be internal to one's self hence I would put both a theist and a strong atheist as very similar in that they hold onto beliefs with regards to the existence of god/s.

Quote from: "Existentialist"I realise there is plenty that can be disagreed with in what I have said

Most of our disagreements are with regards to definition of words. I respect that you have a belief that there are no god/s just as I respect that a theist has a belief that there are god/s. This is not the position I hold for myself but I respect others beliefs.

Life exist in more places than just one and we are just one specie in an ocean of billions of galaxies. As no one has seen a god, no one can prove its existence. Faith is not prove of god existence. In any case you can't prove something that does not exist and logic will say that in order to prove whatever it has to exist. For example, scientists are trying to find dark matter or something that is causing something to behave in a certain way. The point is, that first there must be something presenting itself even when not being observed and its having some causes or effects upon  something else. Therefore god does not exist cause there is nothing that we can point to that will give us a starting point, that is something that god is causing to behave in some way or other. In more simpler turns, the number zero exist cause of the number one and so on for all other numbers. It is pointless to tried to prove something that does not exist in the definitions given by believers.

Let's see, to prove God exists.... Well first you'd need a definition.

Here's a really basic one: A God that is all powerful is a being that possesses the unlimited ability to influence, create, manipulate, and/or destroy any physical matter/energy or physical force.

And here's why that God doesn't exist:

Can an all powerful God create an object that even it cannot move?

If it can create the object: Then it is not all powerful because it cannot move the object.

If it cannot the object: Then it is not all powerful because it cannot create the object.

Therefore an all powerful God cannot exist because it is a logical paradox.

That pretty much throws a monkey wrench into many of the popular contemporary monotheistic deities. Of course I'm always open to evidence of such. I don't 100% assert that God(s) cannot exist, but the logical impossibility of some and the lack of evidence for the rest makes it a reasonable assumption in my view.

P.S. Sorry if I derailed the thread.

Quote from: "Event_Horizon"Therefore the concept of a God with infinite power cannot exist because it is a logical paradox.

Which is what most Christians view God as. So, I can safely say with reasonable certainty that the traditional Abrahamic god cannot exist.

Quote from: "LegendarySandwich"Which is what most Christians view God as. So, I can safely say with reasonable certainty that the traditional Abrahamic god cannot exist.

I apologize for mishandling my etiquette.

But now to the issues ha
How is it, that an infinitely powerful being can't exist?  What reasonable certainty?  I know you will point to the law of non-contradiction, but I would like you to go into the specifics of the philosophical tangibilities as to what premises you arrived at your conclusion

Quote from: "defendor"

Quote from: "LegendarySandwich"Which is what most Christians view God as. So, I can safely say with reasonable certainty that the traditional Abrahamic god cannot exist.

I apologize for mishandling my etiquette.

But now to the issues ha
How is it, that an infinitely powerful being can't exist?  What reasonable certainty?  I know you will point to the law of non-contradiction, but I would like you to go into the specifics of the philosophical tangibilities as to what premises you arrived at your conclusion

Let me ask you something, Defendor. If I asked you if an invisible unicorn exists, what would you say?

Quote from: "LegendarySandwich"Let me ask you something, Defendor. If I asked you if an invisible unicorn exists, what would you say?

For simplicity sake, I would generally say no, they do not exist

Quote from: "defendor"

Quote from: "LegendarySandwich"Let me ask you something, Defendor. If I asked you if an invisible unicorn exists, what would you say?

For simplicity sake, I would generally say no, they do not exist

There you go. I didn't even have to add a logical contradiction or two to my invisible unicorn, which would make it more accurate of an analogy.

QuoteThere you go. I didn't even have to add a logical contradiction or two to my invisible unicorn, which would make it more accurate of an analogy.

I'm still curious, is that the premise for why a "god" doesn't exist?

Quote from: "defendor"I'm still curious, is that the premise for why a "god" doesn't exist?

I didn't say that all god concepts can't and don't exist. I'm just saying that the Abrahamic one (A.K.A. The god of the Muslims, Christians, and Jews) doesn't exist. If you can understand why I say an invisible unicorn that has logical contradictions doesn't exist, then certainly you should be able to see why I say that God doesn't exist.

Quote from: "LegendarySandwich"I didn't say that all god concepts can't and don't exist. I'm just saying that the Abrahamic one (A.K.A. The god of the Muslims, Christians, and Jews) doesn't exist. If you can understand why I say an invisible unicorn that has logical contradictions doesn't exist, then certainly you should be able to see why I say that God doesn't exist.

Honestly, I can't ha maybe it is because I am "blinded" by faith.  I'm not trying to say anything by this but I really can't understand the relationship between an obvious faux pas, and a seemingly universal idealogy

Quote from: "defendor"Honestly, I can't ha maybe it is because I am "blinded" by faith.  I'm not trying to say anything by this but I really can't understand the relationship between an obvious faux pas, and a seemingly universal idealogy

Would anything be different if the majority of the Earth's inhabitants believed in this invisible, contradictory unicorn?

Quote from: "LegendarySandwich"Would anything be different if the majority of the Earth's inhabitants believed in this invisible, contradictory unicorn?

Absolutely. ha

You mentioned contradiction, what about the presence of God is contradicting?

Quote from: "defendor"Absolutely. ha

You mentioned contradiction, what about the presence of God is contradicting?

I refer you to this (http://happyatheistforum.com/viewtopic.php?f=5&t=6459&start=90#p102234) post, which shows one out of the couple generic logical contradictions.

Quote from: "LegendarySandwich"I refer you to this (http://happyatheistforum.com/viewtopic.php?f=5&t=6459&start=90#p102234) post, which shows one out of the couple generic logical contradictions.

Ha the old rock paradox (does it really matter).  I don't think Jesus (who is god) could've bench pressed a boulder which was created by the triune God.  Unless its the Jesus who looks like this http://blog.truelightchristianstore.com ... f-all-time (http://blog.truelightchristianstore.com/most-popular-christian-t-shirt-of-all-time)

but what if god being immaterial in nature not only is the force or energy making the rock or keeping the rock together, but also by which He is the capacity the rock is able to move?  So when this question is asked, it is assuming the statement in nature is a contradiction and the God is superimposed into it without really understanding the supreme nature of God

but other than a silly paradox, (which is assuming that the God in his very nature as a supreme being is in fact physical in the sense we know) is that the only contradiction?

Quote from: "defendor"

Quote from: "LegendarySandwich"I refer you to this (http://happyatheistforum.com/viewtopic.php?f=5&t=6459&start=90#p102234) post, which shows one out of the couple generic logical contradictions.

Ha the old rock paradox (does it really matter).

Yes. You can't just ignore logical contradictions like this as if they don't matter.

...Well, actually...

Quotebut what if god being immaterial in nature not only is the force or energy making the rock or keeping the rock together, but also by which He is the capacity the rock is able to move?  So when this question is asked, it is assuming the statement in nature is a contradiction and the God is superimposed into it without really understanding the supreme nature of God

But what if the invisible unicorn, being immaterial in nature, not only is the force or energy making the rock or keeping the rock together, but also by which It is the capacity the rock is able to move? So when this question is asked, it is assuming the statement in nature is a contradiction and the unicorn is superimposed into it without really understanding the supreme nature of Unicorns.

Quotebut other than a silly paradox, (which is assuming that the God in his very nature as a supreme being is in fact physical in the sense we know) is that the only contradiction?

No. There are also problems in omniscience (can he change the course of events he has predicted, and how can free will exist?), the existence of evil.

QuoteYes. You can't just ignore logical contradictions like this as if they don't matter.

...Well, actually...

may be logical but universally irrelevant.  

QuoteBut what if the invisible unicorn, being immaterial in nature, not only is the force or energy making the rock or keeping the rock together, but also by which It is the capacity the rock is able to move? So when this question is asked, it is assuming the statement in nature is a contradiction and the unicorn is superimposed into it without really understanding the supreme nature of Unicorns.

I want to point out a few premises on which this argument is made.  You are using unicorns instead of God to incite some logistic understanding that unicorns are in fact ridiculous (this can easily be assumed).  Also, I mean a unicorn needs to be shaped like a horse with a horn and maybe some pixie dust, all of which are material,  if this unicorn is immaterial in nature, would he still be a unicorn?

If you told this to a child he may revel in the idea of a unicorn God.  

But for all seriousness, we don't live in a world where unicorns are given any credence of existence, not even for merely scientific facts, but philosophical questions,  such as

QuoteNo. There are also problems in omniscience (can he change the course of events he has predicted, and how can free will exist?), the existence of evil.

ha now we're getting somewhere.  Many theologians and various philosophers have used this phrase that "this is not the best world but the best way TO the best world."

This question is commonly referred to as the paradigm of God's will. If God is sovereign and all powerful how can there be evil in the world.  The dichotomous representation of: the predestiny versus the free will, the common Grace of god (what he allows) versus his sovereign power

SO lets take a biblical understanding of who god is (for the bible is the ultimate source on this "imaginary" Christian god right?), and I'm not gonna quote scripture but its in the book Romans maybe like chapter 9 around verses 21-23 or somethin, I'm not sure, if you don't have a bible, I've heard of websites like biblegateway.com or somethin.... whatever

but God is outside of time.  Time began with the onset of creation.  Before creation there was simply eternity.  (now if you can understand this you win a prize).

So as God sees the flow of time (a flow as perceived by us) in one instant.  He is not in the past or in the future but it is all Present, for he is outside of time.  So with this understanding, God is working now, 5,000 years ago and tomorrow all in the same essence of being (which is outside of time).  He does not simply look down the corridor of time and predict but is outside of time showing his magnitudes.  but still, why evil?

But God gave humans free will, and he also designed the world to work a certain way he designed.  Which is for his Glory, now this sounds egotistical to us, but what more than to show is nature and presence of a HOLY god than to create love, beauty, and most of all, Life.  God saw all things as good.  And so with this free will we are able to live to the full measure of goodness that God has designed this existence to be or contort or manipulate what God has done/said to our will (sin).  Could God have stopped sin? yes, Did he allow it? yes WHY? to bring his Son into the world (as shown from Genesis 3 on) to show the magnitudes of his grace and patience and exuberance as a being fully endowed in love and companionship, to a people so tragically and universally unworthy.  This shows Gods infinite grace and power(eternal life) and also infinite justice (eternal death) and all corresponds to God's Glory-his nature as divine and Holy and lovely.  

So whether we were living in the Garden of Eden, fully delighting in his creation in the purest sense, or we wait and groan in waiting for his glory that has yet to be revealed, God's glory is shown and his sovereignty is shown.  Yes, his sovereignty is shown how he can save sinners, instantly worthy of death to eternal life by sending his Son to take on man and win by submitting to death on a cross!

Check out Mars Hill Church in Seattle, pastor Mark Driscoll, he knows a lot more than I do.

Now how can I talk about God without seeming preachy? I don't think there is a way, you asked a question about evil I gave you a theological answer that answers this question while fully addressing the nature of which the question was asked, with questions of sovereignty and permissible evil.  Does it point to christ? yes, but how can answering a question about a theistic God not point to some standard of truth. blame me for preaching but please tell me how can I write this without seeming as preaching and I will do it!

Quote from: "defendor"may be logical but universally irrelevant.

Are you trying to say that logic is irrelevant right here?

Quote from: "defendor"I want to point out a few premises on which this argument is made.  You are using unicorns instead of God to incite some logistic understanding that unicorns are in fact ridiculous (this can easily be assumed).  Also, I mean a unicorn needs to be shaped like a horse with a horn and maybe some pixie dust, all of which are material,  if this unicorn is immaterial in nature, would he still be a unicorn?

So, being material or immaterial is all the difference here?

First off, what relevance does that have?

Second, Jesus took a physical form, and he was God (the confusing trinity).

Third, how can something not be material and still be in this universe? For an entity to interact with us, wouldn't he have to be in the universe, or be material of some kind?

QuoteBut for all seriousness, we don't live in a world where unicorns are given any credence of existence, not even for merely scientific facts, but philosophical questions,  such as

So?

QuoteBut God gave humans free will, and he also designed the world to work a certain way he designed.  Which is for his Glory, now this sounds egotistical to us, but what more than to show is nature and presence of a HOLY god than to create love, beauty, and most of all, Life.  God saw all things as good.  And so with this free will we are able to live to the full measure of goodness that God has designed this existence to be or contort or manipulate what God has done/said to our will (sin).  Could God have stopped sin? yes, Did he allow it? yes WHY? to bring his Son into the world (as shown from Genesis 3 on) to show the magnitudes of his grace and patience and exuberance as a being fully endowed in love and companionship, to a people so tragically and universally unworthy.  This shows Gods infinite grace and power(eternal life) and also infinite justice (eternal death) and all corresponds to God's Glory-his nature as divine and Holy and lovely.  

So whether we were living in the Garden of Eden, fully delighting in his creation in the purest sense, or we wait and groan in waiting for his glory that has yet to be revealed, God's glory is shown and his sovereignty is shown.  Yes, his sovereignty is shown how he can save sinners, instantly worthy of death to eternal life by sending his Son to take on man and win by submitting to death on a cross!

Check out Mars Hill Church in Seattle, pastor Mark Driscoll, he knows a lot more than I do.

This is what I like to call "bullshit rationalization". You're just saying a lot of churchy, theological words in hopes that you can explain away the problem of evil with them. I'm not buying it.

The rock parodox is BS if you ask me.

There are two approaches to this.
A) Either Omnipotent means one can do anything, even that which is deemed logically impossible
or
B) Omnipotent means one can do anything that is logically possible.

Christians who go for option B, need to disregard certain parts of the Bible as it does present logically impossible ideas of Yhwh.
People who go for option A, well, good on you. I doubt you will ever lose an argument.

[youtube:3pa8rwhk]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QecUUnLNSiY[/youtube:3pa8rwhk]

Quote from: "Stevil"The rock parodox is BS if you ask me.

There are two approaches to this.
A) Either Omnipotent means one can do anything, even that which is deemed logically impossible
or
B) Omnipotent means one can do anything that is logically possible.

Christians who go for option B, need to disregard certain parts of the Bible as it does present logically impossible ideas of Yhwh.
People who go for option A, well, good on you. I doubt you will ever lose an argument.

In what sense do you mean it's bullshit?

BS because some people take it too literally. A person that goes by logic and reason takes it as infallible proof that God does not exist.
e.g. "Omnipotent means one can do anything, even that which is deemed logically impossible, however the logically impossible is impossible therefore God is either not omnipotent or doesn't exist"

However as I have stated the answer is either A or B as above in my previous post.

A strong argument that works (for me at least) is one that TheJackel has presented on this forum in a different way to how I am presenting it below.
God (or anything that exists) cannot be made of nothing (same goes for the human soul).
Everything in existence is made up of some form of energy/matter.
If God/human soul is not made of energy/matter then God/human soul is not in existence.
If God is either made of energy/matter or not made of energy/matter then God cannot be the cause of energy/matter.

Also if God and/or the human soul were made up of energy/matter then they would be detectable by science and would be bound to the laws of physics just like everything else in existence. (So would heaven and hell).

By my understanding Space is reality. Reality is a three dimentional construct that is also affected by time. If something does not exist within Space then it does not exist within reality.

That which does not exist and is not within reality is purely conceptual.

Forget paradoxes (as pointed out with a and b, there are ways to get around it), how about things that are complete nonsense?

What about a god who had to sacrifice himself to himself in order to save you from himself?

[youtube:1aldbmwa]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QZ8hefESt7c[/youtube:1aldbmwa]

Loophole: As long as God doesn't create a rock so big he can't lift it, he remains omnipotent; he just has to be really careful about what he creates, or he will go poof!

Quote from: "Whitney"Forget paradoxes (as pointed out with a and b, there are ways to get around it), how about things that are complete nonsense?

What about a god who had to sacrifice himself to himself in order to save you from himself?

[youtube:1y15izyc]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QZ8hefESt7c[/youtube:1y15izyc]

There are ways to get around paradoxes/contradictions, but they're bullshit rationalizations. Sadly, absurdities aren't proof that God doesn't exist.  

I don't feel like quoting on this post

You are going to have to lose the image of God that he is simply an old man in the clouds (He is not Zeus) and that heaven is a place where we play on harps and sing hymns all day.  

The question you asked about the rock paradox, is logically irrelevant. You are asking questions about eternity and infinite capabilities by the most finite example.
But I will answer this question "Can God create a rock he can't move?"  Yes he can, then he can move it, so No, but we're assuming that Jesus is the Rock right?

As to the question of evil, you asked, I gave an answer. If it works for me, why are you so hostile to my subjective view of reality?

God gave us free will because there is no such thing as Love without free will.  Love without free will is rape and God is not some divine rapist.  So with free will to do good that god designed, is also to warp good.  So I have a question of evil for you (it's essentially one in the same but I'll live little room for confusion)  

What basis do you claim there is evil?  how do you differentiate the difference between Good and Evil?  By what measuring stick is Good and Evil constructed?


This is in response to the misinterpretations of the nature of God-

I'll make this claim, God is just and unjust.  He is not in-just.  God would be completely just by killing me, for my crimes are eternally worthy of death.  But his Grace is not just. It is not injustice either. It is unwarranted. I do not deserve his Grace.  I deserve his justice.  But he excuses his justice through the sacrifice of His Grace(Jesus).  God doesn't save me from himself, he saves me from myself.  A murderer is deserving of death, this is justice.  But if someone were to take his punishment of death so that the murderer could change his ways (repent), he would live in light of this sacrifice and turn from his ways.  He would receive un-justice, not injustice.  This is Grace.

Quote from: "defendor"word salad

We get it, you toss out logic as relevant to the discussion so you can never lose an argument. Yawn.

You know, I used the exact same argument you just did when I was ten, and I knew then it was the stupidest thing I'd ever said, but it got me out of being further quizzed by my dad on the subject of [strike:3vocxge9]my ability to lie to myself[/strike:3vocxge9] faith.

Quote from: "ChristianWarrior"So many people on here in different threads have said believing in God is stupid and nonfactual. My question to you is how is not believing in a God factual? You can't prove that God didn't exist can you? I'm not saying I can prove that he does exist. Practice what you preach atheists. Goodbye.

I can prove I have no faith.  Why do you feel the need to poke around in my business?

After all, even if you're right, this is between me and god.  Butt the hell out.  I'll ask when I want advice.  Probably not you, judging from your posting style.

Quote from: "defendor"The question you asked about the rock paradox, is logically irrelevant. You are asking questions about eternity and infinite capabilities by the most finite example.

It helps break down complex ideas into simpler ones that are easier to grasp. Analogies are also helpful for this. Yes it's a simplification, but it does the job it's required to do.

QuoteBut I will answer this question "Can God create a rock he can't move?"  Yes he can, then he can move it, so No, but we're assuming that Jesus is the Rock right?

If God cannot create an immovable object, then he is not all powerful. If he can create an immovable object, then he is not all powerful because he cannot move it. Both scenarios cannot be correct at the same time. That particular definition is therefore logically impossible. So going back to the question of this entire thread, not only can you completely disprove a definition of God, but there is also no evidence for such a God.

QuoteGod gave us free will because there is no such thing as Love without free will.  Love without free will is rape and God is not some divine rapist.

Free will is also impossible with an all knowing God. If God can see into the future, and cannot be wrong (because he is infallible) then you cannot prove God wrong by making an action he didn't see. Because God can see the action before you do it, and he can't be wrong, the action WILL take place. You cannot chose another path/action/decision, meaning you have no free will. Once again the theist is met with another logical impossibility. Either God is all knowing, and we follow his vision like puppets on strings because we cannot prove him wrong, or God is not all knowing and we have the free will to choose for ourselves.

Quote from: "defendor"Love without free will is rape and God is not some divine rapist.

The character Mary from the Bible would disagree with this statement.

Quote from: "Stevil"

Quote from: "defendor"Love without free will is rape and God is not some divine rapist.

The character Mary from the Bible would disagree with this statement.

(https://www.happyatheistforum.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Ffarm3.static.flickr.com%2F2539%2F4220593382_1bedb2e19c.jpg&hash=d399d2d67a12e3e8dfc5a2759d4f6c20b95aa93c)

Quote from: "Stevil"

Quote from: "defendor"Love without free will is rape and God is not some divine rapist.

The character Mary from the Bible would disagree with this statement.

Lol. I was going to make that joke, but you beat me to it. ;D

There still seems to be a question of the all-knowing aspect of God seeing into the future, I feel that I adequately gave position for this understanding earlier but I will gladly reiterate.

God is outside of time, He does not "see into the Future", he is the future.  Everything is seen as present to him.  We as humans cannot understand this due to us living inside the confines of time. There is Free will in the present, for God is also in the present.  So in every sequence of time we live in the present time with God.  SO to say that when God 'sees to the future' is a complete fallacy to the nature of God, for he is in the future as presently as he is present in the present time.  

Logical fallacy of the rock paradox.  There is no logical dissertation of this. The fundamental premise of this question is completely ridiculous.  There is no logical way you can ascribe credence to this question as revealing the nature or character of God in the fullness.   You have found a gross oversimplification and made a hasty claim to it (Is this what we call straw man arguments....?)This is like saying that since God is all-powerful He can be not all-powerful. Obviously, this is absurd. An all-powerful being cannot fail. Therefore, God can create a rock of tremendous size, but, since He is all-powerful, He will always be able to lift it. The ability to fail is not a part of omnipotence.

But, there are a few things the Bible claims he cannot do, for instance: Sin

Quote from: "defendor"There still seems to be a question of the all-knowing aspect of God seeing into the future, I feel that I adequately gave position for this understanding earlier but I will gladly reiterate.

God is outside of time, He does not "see into the Future", he is the future.  Everything is seen as present to him.  We as humans cannot understand this due to us living inside the confines of time. There is Free will in the present, for God is also in the present.  So in every sequence of time we live in the present time with God.  SO to say that when God 'sees to the future' is a complete fallacy to the nature of God, for he is in the future as presently as he is present in the present time.

This doesn't solve your problem of god knowing what's going to happen, so effectively you've already done it and can't do anything else.

Quote from: "defendor"Logical fallacy of the rock paradox.  There is no logical dissertation of this. The fundamental premise of this question is completely ridiculous.  There is no logical way you can ascribe credence to this question as revealing the nature or character of God in the fullness.   You have found a gross oversimplification and made a hasty claim to it (Is this what we call straw man arguments....?)This is like saying that since God is all-powerful He can be not all-powerful. Obviously, this is absurd. An all-powerful being cannot fail. Therefore, God can create a rock of tremendous size, but, since He is all-powerful, He will always be able to lift it. The ability to fail is not a part of omnipotence.

Then he failed to make a rock so big he can't lift it if he lifted it. The paradox is that whether god can lift it or not, he fails.

Quote from: "defendor"But, there are a few things the Bible claims he cannot do, for instance: Sin

But he did do things that he said were sins.

God knows what we're going to do for it is present in the future.  He sees what we do in the future as present.  SO in the past (according to the future, its present) he knows beforehand in relation to our perception of time, not his, so this is the paradigm of God's perception of the universe, being outside of time, versus our perception of reality inside of time.  Also, just as God knows what you're gonna do, doesn't mean he made you do it.

So asking "Can God create a rock so heavy that even he cannot lift it?" is just as much nonsense as asking "Can God draw a square circle?" The logical contradiction here being God's simultaneous ability and disability in lifting the rock (the statement "God can lift this rock" must have a truth value of either true or false, it cannot possess both). Therefore the question (and therefore the perceived paradox) is meaningless. Nonsense does not suddenly acquire sense and meaning with the addition of the two words, "God can" before it.

What does God do that's labelled as sin?

Quote from: "defendor"God knows ...

Please explain how you know what your god knows?

Quote from: "defendor"But, there are a few things the Bible claims he cannot do, for instance: Sin

It seems that Sin only applies to Christians.
I cannot Sin and neither can the mythical Yhwh.

However I have never raped a woman, nor have I killed a bunch of Egyptians, nor have I drowned almost the entire population of the world, nor have I asked a father to kill his son, nor have I tricked my children into eating an apple then punished them severly for it, nor have I ...

Why do I feel a whole lot more loving, more compasionate, more forgiving, more tolerant than the almighty "himself"

Quote from: "LegendarySandwich"

Quote from: "Stevil"

Quote from: "defendor"Love without free will is rape and God is not some divine rapist.

The character Mary from the Bible would disagree with this statement.

Lol. I was going to make that joke, but you beat me to it. ;D

Take a number and stand in line, that was the first thing I thought when I read that little piece of ... nonsense.

Quote from: "defendor"God knows what we're going to do for it is present in the future.  He sees what we do in the future as present.  SO in the past (according to the future, its present) he knows beforehand in relation to our perception of time, not his, so this is the paradigm of God's perception of the universe, being outside of time, versus our perception of reality inside of time.  Also, just as God knows what you're gonna do, doesn't mean he made you do it.

It doesn't matter how you try to explain it, the concept is the same: What I'm going to do, god already knows.

If god created everything, including all my circumstances while knowing exactly what I'll do in those circumstances... he did make me do those things.

Quote from: "defendor"So asking "Can God create a rock so heavy that even he cannot lift it?" is just as much nonsense as asking "Can God draw a square circle?" The logical contradiction here being God's simultaneous ability and disability in lifting the rock (the statement "God can lift this rock" must have a truth value of either true or false, it cannot possess both). Therefore the question (and therefore the perceived paradox) is meaningless. Nonsense does not suddenly acquire sense and meaning with the addition of the two words, "God can" before it.

I agree, nonsense does not acquire sense and meaning with the addition of the concept of a god or gods.

Quote from: "defendor"What does God do that's labelled as sin?

"Thou shalt not kill/murder" is a good one that the god in the bible ignored on many occasions.

1. I believe that truth as a category exists
2. I believe it is possible in a majority of claims to verify this truth by philosophical and historical accuracies
3. There are existential realities from which I cannot run, not just philosophical ones

How does God know?  As continually revealed throughout scriptures.  

If the bible made assertions that were either historically false or philosophically false or existentially disagreeable, then it could not be an accredited source.

As you take the 66 books of the Bible, disclosed over centuries (1500 years) you can observe the prophetic schema, all the way down to the person of Christ.

Even taking a look at such secular historians agree on the person and historical accuracy of Christ, such as:
Cornelius tacitus
Pliny the Younger
Lucian of samasota
Flavius Josephus
 
The thing about the manuscripts that support the scriptures is that it is greater than any other ancient text. Over 5,000 manuscripts that make the bible fairly transparent. So the question is not whether it's a reliable source, but whether or not you believe it. Which is a very reasonable doubt. It takes the Holy Spirit to believe it, thats in Ephesians 3:4-5. Do i believe the word of God is inerrant? Yes, but I am not inerrant. Do I believe the bible is infallible? yes, but I am fallible.  Islam holds true that the Koran is the precise word for word revelation from God to Mohammed and nothing must be changed for it is written perfection. But really, who's to say one word isn't so much better than another. what i mean by inerrant is the fullness of revelation by God to man through the written word. I think there is some discrepancy of the bible that is open to interpretation, but it is the inerrancy of God in revealing the nature and character of Jesus Christ throughout the entire schema. From Genesis 3 on, the story is laid out for Jesus.

The old testament, is premised on laying out a story of a real God, in real time, with real obstinate people. There is a great emphasis on dates, events, and historical accounts. But the story is not in the words, but in the revelation of the true God into each person.

For Example, the Book of Daniel was written in 500 B.C. and there is a prophecy of a nation that is marching "many nations" under foot.  Also the empire will be led by strident, strong man from the west.  Then the kingdom will be drastically cut off and split into 4 kingdoms.  These 4 kingdoms will become 2 and these 2 will become 1. (Daniel 11)

In 300 B.C. alexander the great marched many nations under foot, was drastically cut off at the time of his death so early in life.  His Kingdom was given to his 4 generals, these 4 combined into Ptolemaic and Seleucid empires, and of these empires the Roman Empire emerges.

So as you read this, you immediately see the supernatural.  As you make claims to what lays within the Bible are false and what not, you might need an accurate understanding of the Bible.

We as humans, are fractured beings.  We have become numb to our own affliction and blind to our own blindness.  The world in which we live will testify to the nature of man.  For society is only a culmination of men, right?  So in world with disobedience, God has revealed himself to one nation, and to this nation he has revealed his full character of justice and mercy.  In an obstinate people, he pleads repentance.  For every disingenuous act, he delivers from evil.  But he said, in the fullness of time, there will be a deliverer of everyone, not just this people.  So to rid the world of the shadow of the law and sin, he sent his Son Jesus to die on a cross.

You made mention that you don't sin, have you ever broken any rules, all the way from a child?  Have you ever disobeyed your own conscience?  SO if god made you disobey, you might think that he may make you become a believer, for god desires that all men come to know him..? But since you don't know the future, how do you really know?

I believe I posed the question of moral standards, and differentiating between Good and Evil, could someone please answer this?

About the rock paradox, the question is nonsense, but by simply adding God to it does not make it a respectable question.

The Hebrew word was murder.  But if someone is hanged for murder, is it murder?  I think this ties back into the standard of morality and differentiating between good and evil.  This is also why Jesus was sent to the cross, so that the fullness of the law might be met, so we can be free from the law of sin and death.

Man, if only I had enough hours in day to go through every point about how wrong you are.

Quote from: "defendor"How does God know?  As continually revealed throughout scriptures.  

Whose to say that the scriptures are the word of Yhwh and that Yhwh is god?
The scriptures tell us this, but can we really trust them?


Whose to say that the scriptures weren't ill conceived by the devil, putting the thoughts and ideas into the human authors heads. Whose to say that Jesus wasn't the anti-christ, spreading confusion and slander to cause conflict amongst the people. The opposing scriptures, the Qur'an and others may also be of the devil. The result has been endless conflict, war and intolerance.

Maybe it is only the Atheists that are really in God's grace. With the true ability to excert free will, not simply following the rules and message of the corrupt and evil scriptures. With the true ability to be selfless not simply doing "good" for the goal of getting into heaven. Only atheists can be in tune with the objective morals of the universe. Knowing that it is bad to be intolerant and to judge others, only atheists have the true ability to treat others as equals rather than follow scriptures that treat women as less than man.
Maybe only Atheists are carrying out the true god's plan and will.
The other's have been deceived and are following what they have been told, contrary to what they would otherwise have felt and known to be the right path, the objective truth and morals that one would be aligned with had one not read or believed the evil scriptures.

Please tell me how my theory is incorrect.

Quote from: "defendor"1. I believe that truth as a category exists
2. I believe it is possible in a majority of claims to verify this truth by philosophical and historical accuracies
3. There are existential realities from which I cannot run, not just philosophical ones

How does God know?  As continually revealed throughout scriptures.  

If the bible made assertions that were either historically false or philosophically false or existentially disagreeable, then it could not be an accredited source.

Did you just say that the Bible is not an accredited source here...?

QuoteAs you take the 66 books of the Bible, disclosed over centuries (1500 years) you can observe the prophetic schema, all the way down to the person of Christ.

Even taking a look at such secular historians agree on the person and historical accuracy of Christ, such as:
Cornelius tacitus
Pliny the Younger
Lucian of samasota
Flavius Josephus

Quote from: "NoBeliefs.com"Virtually all other claims of Jesus come from sources outside of Christian writings. Devastating to the claims of Christians, however, comes from the fact that all of these accounts come from authors who lived after the alleged life of Jesus. Since they did not live during the time of the hypothetical Jesus, none of their accounts serve as eyewitness evidence.

Josephus Flavius, the Jewish historian, lived as the earliest non-Christian who mentions a Jesus. Although many scholars think that Josephus' short accounts of Jesus (in Antiquities) came from interpolations perpetrated by a later Church father (most likely, Eusebius), Josephus' birth in 37 C.E. (well after the alleged crucifixion of Jesus), puts him out of range of an eyewitness account. Moreover, he wrote Antiquities in 93 C.E., after the first gospels got written! Therefore, even if his accounts about Jesus came from his hand, his information could only serve as hearsay.

Pliny the Younger (born: 62 C.E.) His letter about the Christians only shows that he got his information from Christian believers themselves. Regardless, his birth date puts him out of range as an eyewitness account.

Tacitus, the Roman historian's birth year at 64 C.E., puts him well after the alleged life of Jesus. He gives a brief mention of a "Christus" in his Annals (Book XV, Sec. 44), which he wrote around 109 C.E. He gives no source for his material. Although many have disputed the authenticity of Tacitus' mention of Jesus, the very fact that his birth happened after the alleged Jesus and wrote the Annals during the formation of Christianity, shows that his writing can only provide us with hearsay accounts.

Suetonius, a Roman historian, born in 69 C.E., mentions a "Chrestus," a common name. Apologists assume that "Chrestus" means "Christ" (a disputable claim). But even if Seutonius had meant "Christ," it still says nothing about an earthly Jesus. Just like all the others, Suetonius' birth occurred well after the purported Jesus. Again, only hearsay.

Talmud: Amazingly some Christians use brief portions of the Talmud, (a collection of Jewish civil a religious law, including commentaries on the Torah), as evidence for Jesus. They claim that Yeshu in the Talmud refers to Jesus. However, this Yeshu, according to scholars depicts a disciple of Jehoshua Ben-Perachia at least a century before the alleged Christian Jesus or it may refer to Yeshu ben Pandera, a teacher of the 2nd centuy CE. Regardless of how one interprets this, the Palestinian Talmud didn't come into existence until the 3rd and 5th century C.E., and the Babylonian Talmud between the 3rd and 6th century C.E., at least two centuries after the alleged crucifixion. At best it can only serve as a controversial Christian or Jewish legend; it cannot possibly serve as evidence for a historical Jesus.

Christian apologists mostly use the above sources for their "evidence" of Jesus because they believe they represent the best outside sources. All other sources (Christian and non-Christian) come from even less reliable sources, some of which include: Mara Bar-Serapion (circa 73 C.E.), Ignatius (50 - 98? C.E.), Polycarp (69 - 155 C.E.), Clement of Rome (? - circa 160 C.E.), Justin Martyr (100 - 165 C.E.), Lucian (circa 125 - 180 C.E.), Tertullian (160 - ? C.E.), Clement of Alexandria (? - 215 C.E.), Origen (185 - 232 C.E.), Hippolytus (? - 236 C.E.), and Cyprian (? - 254 C.E.). As you can see, all these people lived well after the alleged death of Jesus. Not one of them provides an eyewitness account, all of them simply spout hearsay.

As you can see, apologist Christians embarrass themselves when they unwittingly or deceptively violate the rules of historiography by using after-the-event writings as evidence for the event itself. Not one of these writers gives a source or backs up his claims with evidential material about Jesus. Although we can provide numerous reasons why the Christian and non-Christian sources prove spurious, and argue endlessly about them, we can cut to the chase by simply determining the dates of the documents and the birth dates of the authors. It doesn't matter what these people wrote about Jesus, an author who writes after the alleged happening and gives no detectable sources for his material can only give example of hearsay. All of these anachronistic writings about Jesus could easily have come from the beliefs and stories from Christian believers themselves. And as we know from myth, superstition, and faith, beliefs do not require facts or evidence for their propagation and circulation. Thus we have only beliefs about Jesus' existence, and nothing more.

Link. (http://www.nobeliefs.com/exist.htm)
 

QuoteThe thing about the manuscripts that support the scriptures is that it is greater than any other ancient text. Over 5,000 manuscripts that make the bible fairly transparent. So the question is not whether it's a reliable source, but whether or not you believe it. Which is a very reasonable doubt. It takes the Holy Spirit to believe it, thats in Ephesians 3:4-5.

You mean, it takes blind faith? I see.

QuoteDo i believe the word of God is inerrant? Yes, but I am not inerrant. Do I believe the bible is infallible? yes, but I am fallible.  Islam holds true that the Koran is the precise word for word revelation from God to Mohammed and nothing must be changed for it is written perfection. But really, who's to say one word isn't so much better than another. what i mean by inerrant is the fullness of revelation by God to man through the written word. I think there is some discrepancy of the bible that is open to interpretation, but it is the inerrancy of God in revealing the nature and character of Jesus Christ throughout the entire schema. From Genesis 3 on, the story is laid out for Jesus.

The old testament, is premised on laying out a story of a real God, in real time, with real obstinate people. There is a great emphasis on dates, events, and historical accounts. But the story is not in the words, but in the revelation of the true God into each person.

For Example, the Book of Daniel was written in 500 B.C. and there is a prophecy of a nation that is marching "many nations" under foot.  Also the empire will be led by strident, strong man from the west.  Then the kingdom will be drastically cut off and split into 4 kingdoms.  These 4 kingdoms will become 2 and these 2 will become 1. (Daniel 11)

In 300 B.C. alexander the great marched many nations under foot, was drastically cut off at the time of his death so early in life.  His Kingdom was given to his 4 generals, these 4 combined into Ptolemaic and Seleucid empires, and of these empires the Roman Empire emerges.

So as you read this, you immediately see the supernatural.  As you make claims to what lays within the Bible are false and what not, you might need an accurate understanding of the Bible.

We as humans, are fractured beings.  We have become numb to our own affliction and blind to our own blindness.  The world in which we live will testify to the nature of man.  For society is only a culmination of men, right?  So in world with disobedience, God has revealed himself to one nation, and to this nation he has revealed his full character of justice and mercy.  In an obstinate people, he pleads repentance.  For every disingenuous act, he delivers from evil.  But he said, in the fullness of time, there will be a deliverer of everyone, not just this people.  So to rid the world of the shadow of the law and sin, he sent his Son Jesus to die on a cross.

Yawn.

QuoteYou made mention that you don't sin, have you ever broken any rules, all the way from a child?

Yes.

Have you ever disobeyed your own conscience?[/quote]
Yes.

QuoteSO if god made you disobey, you might think that he may make you become a believer, for god desires that all men come to know him..? But since you don't know the future, how do you really know?

What?

QuoteI believe I posed the question of moral standards, and differentiating between Good and Evil, could someone please answer this?

The Ten Commandments.

QuoteAbout the rock paradox, the question is nonsense,

No, it's not. It points out that omnipotence is ridiculous and an logically impossible trait to have.

QuoteThe Hebrew word was murder.  But if someone is hanged for murder, is it murder?

Yes.

QuoteI think this ties back into the standard of morality and differentiating between good and evil.  This is also why Jesus was sent to the cross, so that the fullness of the law might be met, so we can be free from the law of sin and death.

I think you should watch the "Conversation with Yahweh" video I linked previously.

QuoteWhose to say that the scriptures are the word of Yhwh and that Yhwh is god?
The scriptures tell us this, but can we really trust them?

Well, I think this more aligns with the Ephesians verse.  But I will quote St. Augustine "I believe to understand"

QuoteWhose to say that the scriptures weren't ill conceived by the devil, putting the thoughts and ideas into the human authors heads. Whose to say that Jesus wasn't the anti-christ, spreading confusion and slander to cause conflict amongst the people. The opposing scriptures, the Qur'an and others may also be of the devil. The result has been endless conflict, war and intolerance.

I think when you take a look at the prophecies dating back through the original author of the Pentateuch, all the way through Isaiah and up through Malachi. You begin to see the prophetic passages that lead up to the revelation of a Messiah.  The gospels of Matthew and John, definitely appeal to the notion of the story of Jesus as the revealed Messiah and uses many scriptures quoted to discern this aspect.  Mark is more illustrated to the gentiles, and Luke is a very defined historical account.  So as we see in Matthew and John, the revelation of the Messiah. So throughout the flow of the narration there is a build up and a climax of the revelation of Jesus.  So the question you are posing is that if Jesus is not just the fulfillment of the scriptures but revelation of God in the flesh, as he indicates.  When you begin to look at the transparency of scriptures, then begin to look at the person of Jesus, the famous trilemma is introduced: He's either
1. Insane 2. A liar or 3. Telling the truth

There are many illustrations that scripture also testifies to scripture.  2 peter 3:15-16 makes reference to Paul's writings, also Paul writes 'all scripture is God-breathed'.  So I think that solely looking at the Bible by itself, it makes solid claims to Truth, and that this Truth is the only way.  So when we understand the claims the Bible (and Jesus) makes about itself, you can't simply pass it off into another lump of 'religiosity.'  For instance, Islam doesn't necessarily need Mohammed to have the same revelation of Allah.  Buddhism is a philosophy that didn't require Buddha.  Mormonism essentially didn't need Joseph Smith, for this falls into the same pattern as Islam. Hinduism is a very broad pantheistic view that has no set quality.  Even others such as Sikhism or Taoism or Confucianism are subjective moralistic deisms that simply abide by a certain interpretation.  But without the man of Christ, Christianity has no grounding as a philosophy.  The philosophy of Christianity is based on the man of Jesus.   So I believe there is a very stark contrast between other religions and Christianity from pure philosophical perspective.  To say Christianity is the true revelation of God, requires work of the Holy Spirit.  So you can say that Christianity is set apart and that it may be wrong, but to honestly say that Christianity is the sole philosophy that reveals the true nature of God (assuming there is a God) requires the Holy Spirit.  This is believing.

QuoteMaybe it is only the Atheists that are really in God's grace. With the true ability to excert free will, not simply following the rules and message of the corrupt and evil scriptures. With the true ability to be selfless not simply doing "good" for the goal of getting into heaven. Only atheists can be in tune with the objective morals of the universe. Knowing that it is bad to be intolerant and to judge others, only atheists have the true ability to treat others as equals rather than follow scriptures that treat women as less than man.
Maybe only Atheists are carrying out the true god's plan and will.
The other's have been deceived and are following what they have been told, contrary to what they would otherwise have felt and known to be the right path, the objective truth and morals that one would be aligned with had one not read or believed the evil scriptures.

Please tell me how my theory is incorrect.

Well, atheists don't believe in a God, so I'm not sure how atheism would qualify itself as being the only philosophy that is in God's grace.

But taking a look at the Humanist philosophy, which most atheists are today, has no qualifications for deciphering the existential dilemmas such as origin, morality, destiny, and purpose.  I think maybe evolution could answer a few but the question of Purpose is distinctly left out.  But again Humanism credits value to Humans, which I believe is God's permissible grace (that we are all created in the image of God) But it recognizes this worth without stating where this worth comes from.  If it is simply a product of chance and chaos, then there is no value that can be placed on any of them, for they are simply a random collocation of atoms.  Each of which is essentially nothing.  So the question is changed from how/what to Why?

So when you take the practicality of atheism, it is a stark contrast from its philosophy.  So as someone sees through his own relative scope of reality, and decides to change it, he is acting under the field of atheism, such as Hitler.  I'm not saying you're Hitler, but this idea also brings up a few questions, on what measuring stick do you define good and evil?  and how are you able to differentiate between good and evil?  What is evil?

Quote from: "defendor"So when you take the practicality of atheism, it is a stark contrast from its philosophy.  So as someone sees through his own relative scope of reality, and decides to change it, he is acting under the field of atheism, such as Hitler.  I'm not saying you're Hitler, but this idea also brings up a few questions, on what measuring stick do you define good and evil?  and how are you able to differentiate between good and evil?  What is evil?

  If you want anyone to take you seriously don't even bring up Hitler (who was not an atheist...he was a christian and might have became pagan towards the end of his life)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Godwin%27s_law (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Godwin%27s_law)

Quote"As an online discussion grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving Nazis or Hitler approaches 1."

He sure wasn't a Christian.  If there is anything of substance to debate its that he gave a copy of the writings of Frederick Nietzsche (who's an atheist) to Joseph Stalin.

But I never even was insinuating Hitler was an atheist.  I was merely pointing out from an atheistic philosophy, on what moral standard could you disagree with Hitler's morals (or lack thereof)?

Quote from: "Stevil"BS because some people take it too literally. A person that goes by logic and reason takes it as infallible proof that God does not exist.
e.g. "Omnipotent means one can do anything, even that which is deemed logically impossible, however the logically impossible is impossible therefore God is either not omnipotent or doesn't exist"

However as I have stated the answer is either A or B as above in my previous post.

A strong argument that works (for me at least) is one that TheJackel has presented on this forum in a different way to how I am presenting it below.
God (or anything that exists) cannot be made of nothing (same goes for the human soul).
Everything in existence is made up of some form of energy/matter.
If God/human soul is not made of energy/matter then God/human soul is not in existence.
If God is either made of energy/matter or not made of energy/matter then God cannot be the cause of energy/matter.

Also if God and/or the human soul were made up of energy/matter then they would be detectable by science and would be bound to the laws of physics just like everything else in existence. (So would heaven and hell).

By my understanding Space is reality. Reality is a three dimentional construct that is also affected by time. If something does not exist within Space then it does not exist within reality.

That which does not exist and is not within reality is purely conceptual.

I think this is a good rationalization.  But I have a question, what is energy?

Quote from: "defendor"But I never even was insinuating Hitler was an atheist.  I was merely pointing out from an atheistic philosophy, on what moral standard could you disagree with Hitler's morals (or lack thereof)?

My own.

Quote from: "defendor"He sure wasn't a Christian.  If there is anything of substance to debate its that he gave a copy of the writings of Frederick Nietzsche (who's an atheist) to Joseph Stalin.

And I'm well aware of who Nietzsche was.  I gave my mom a copy of the Pilgrims Progress because I thought she'd like it.  So, I disagree but am not going to discuss this further here.

Quote from: "defendor"But I never even was insinuating Hitler was an atheist.  I was merely pointing out from an atheistic philosophy, on what moral standard could you disagree with Hitler's morals (or lack thereof)?

What's wrong with using how an action affects people as a basis for understanding morality...moral understanding, after all, evolved due to how it helped us live together as tribes.

btw, how does ethics have anything to do with the OP?

So you disagree with him personally, that doesn't make his presence inherently evil.  He affected a lot of people that have no affect on you now.

Wouldn't he be just as right as you are in your subjectivity (assuming HItler himself is living an autonomous, subjective reality)?

Quote from: "defendor"So you disagree with him personally, that doesn't make his presence inherently evil.  He affected a lot of people that have no affect on you now.

Wouldn't he be just as right as you are in your subjectivity (assuming HItler himself is living an autonomous, subjective reality)?

I never said that morals are subjective...I said they are based on how it affects other people and that it's a matter of our evolutionary history.  Just because some aspects of life are subjective doesn't mean everything is subjective...I still don't think you understand the difference between subjective and objective.

Quote from: "defendor"So you disagree with him personally, that doesn't make his presence inherently evil.[strike:2px6bg7a]He affected a lot of people that have no affect on you now.[/strike:2px6bg7a]

Wouldn't he be just as right as you are in your subjectivity [strike:2px6bg7a](assuming HItler himself is living an autonomous, subjective reality)?[/strike:2px6bg7a]

Yes.

On the historical accuracy question, the Bible makes many claims to seeing Jesus from firsthand accounts, but isn't all History from firsthand accounts?
How do you know anything in history has happened if the only source you can trust is yourself?

So when we see historians that write about something after the fact, how does that disqualify the sources.  Isn't that what news channels do? (Scribe of events after the fact, using people from firsthand accounts)
As these historians were regarded, they would used people or writings from that time to deduce conclusions of historical accuracy


On the question of morality, what objective moral standard do you find instituted?

Quote from: "defendor"On the historical accuracy question, the Bible makes many claims to seeing Jesus from firsthand accounts, but isn't all History from firsthand accounts?
How do you know anything in history has happened if the only source you can trust is yourself?

When numerous first hand accounts from various historians and contemporaries match then that gives us a good idea of history.  There are numerous places in Roman history which we are not sure of due to conflicting or unclear written accounts.  Archeological evidence also plays a big role.  Not to mention there is a big difference between taking accounts of a person and claiming that person was the messiah and performed miracles.  Jesus may have existed but a biased source (such as a collection of the works of a handful of people who want others to be Christians) is not a good way to prove it; and especially not a good way to prove that he performed miracles.

QuoteSo when we see historians that write about something after the fact, how does that disqualify the sources.  Isn't that what news channels do? (Scribe of events after the fact, using people from firsthand accounts)

I don't know of any historians or journalists who wait decades to write down the details of an event from memory then claim for their account to be objectively verifiable.

QuoteAs these historians were regarded, they would used people or writings from that time to deduce conclusions of historical accuracy

yes, but they also consider the possibility of bias in their sources.

QuoteOn the question of morality, what objective moral standard do you find instituted?

I'm pretty sure murder (not to be confused with killing) is universally considered bad...but this is neither here nor there since I merely explained where the standard of morality sits; not that all cultures agree on what harms and doesn't harm people

Quote from: "defendor"On the question of morality, what objective moral standard do you find instituted?

None.

Well I think when it comes to the person of Christ, there again lays the problem.  The only 'historical' account of firsthand interaction is the Bible, as I have tried to make some semblance of a case for it comparatively, but really it comes down to believing, that really what it says it is, is in fact true.

As someone may believe that I am wrong and similarly, I may agree that you are the one who is wrong.  So when we begin to ask such questions of God or simply existential realities, we claim to a source of truth as our fundamental "guide" if you will, that dictates our realities.

So as I have stated I do believe in fundamental truth, this fundamental truth can be proved right, and there are existential questions from which I cannot run.

Therefore, there are a few claims of truth that have been made from an atheistic philosophy
1. There is no absolute truth (assuming this is absolutely true)
2.That the only source of truth is from the being in which it defines (we establish our own reality both good and bad)-So when a person is killed did he establish his reality to get killed?

I think these are a few holes in these philosophies, but there are a few things about my faith that I don't understand. But one thing I do, I do not claim to know the intricacies of my life and in which it is defined such as: who am I? what brings me here? why this life?
I do not reach to myself or logic for these answers for I have admitted that if I am a fallible being (have the capability to be wrong) then why would I listen to myself if I don't know that my thoughts are absolutely correct.  I have never had the audacity to claim my perception of reality as truth for I realize that my truth is simply no truth at all.

I think most people look outside themselves for truth, such as science, as if an impersonable, unrelatable force will answer their questions or even care about them.  
(some theorists posit that our perception of God is based on our fathers, so people who claim science as 'god' might have these same characteristics as their father, idk just a theory)

Or maybe its an excuse to stand defiantly and answer our own questions out of pride or sheer retaliation of the life we want to leave (i.e. Christianity)

But as for me, I have understood that as a fallible being, I cannot simply dive into myself to find anything infallible such as absolute truth.  So I reach to seek the only claims of truth of infallibility.  Of which Christianity is the foremost (any good scientist will say, "as of right now, this is what we think we know....")  

So when we seek answers, are we truly seeking answers or simply seeking to exalt ourselves?  

As for me, I choose hope, something no formula can explain.  I choose to deny myself, when every instinct in my being is completely contradictory.  I choose something completely unnatural to the natural world, and that is love and hope of Jesus Christ.  This is my prayer for those who read this.  In your studies of existentialism, that you are not simply seeking to exalt yourself, but to try and work out whatever questions you need to work out.   I pray you find that truth, not the truth for you, but the Truth.

Quote from: "defendor"I pray you find that truth, not the truth for you, but the Truth.

Prayer won't do shit, but a well-reasoned argument might.

I'll give you a well-reasoned argument that prayer will in fact do something haha

according to my understanding of salvation, that only God can save
1. Believing requires God
2. I am not God
3. Prayer speaks to God
4. God answers prayer
5. God will answer my prayer to make you believe :bananacolor:

Quote from: "defendor"Therefore, there are a few claims of truth that have been made from an atheistic philosophy
1. There is no absolute truth (assuming this is absolutely true)

This is not an atheist claim...most atheists understand truth as being absolute but some think it's unattainable

Quote2.That the only source of truth is from the being in which it defines (we establish our own reality both good and bad)-So when a person is killed did he establish his reality to get killed?

This is not an atheist claim either.  I'm not even sure how you got the idea that you think atheists don't think reality is objective.

QuoteI think most people look outside themselves for truth, such as science, as if an impersonable, unrelatable force will answer their questions or even care about them.  

I would think that an objective method for understanding the world around us (such as science) would be a pretty good place to start when wanting to know what is true....why do you have a problem with science?  It's has a track record for being reliable and most theists also think science is a source of truth.

QuoteOr maybe its an excuse to stand defiantly and answer our own questions out of pride or sheer retaliation of the life we want to leave (i.e. Christianity)

this doesn't even make sense

QuoteBut as for me, I have understood that as a fallible being, I cannot simply dive into myself to find anything infallible such as absolute truth.  So I reach to seek the only claims of truth of infallibility.  Of which Christianity is the foremost (any good scientist will say, "as of right now, this is what we think we know....")  

if your fallible self fallibly decided christianity is infallible isn't your decision of what is infallible actually fallible? (yes)

QuoteSo when we seek answers, are we truly seeking answers or simply seeking to exalt ourselves?  

I actually care about answers....you seem to care about making those answers fit your existing religious construct

QuoteAs for me, I choose hope, something no formula can explain.  I choose to deny myself, when every instinct in my being is completely contradictory.  I choose something completely unnatural to the natural world, and that is love and hope of Jesus Christ.  This is my prayer for those who read this.  In your studies of existentialism, that you are not simply seeking to exalt yourself, but to try and work out whatever questions you need to work out.   I pray you find that truth, not the truth for you, but the Truth.

are you incapable of posting without throwing preaching in there.  So you irrationally decided to be a Christian and claim it to be the Truth for no reason...that's your prerogative; I think it's lazy thinking.

Quote from: "defendor"I'll give you a well-reasoned argument that prayer will in fact do something haha

according to my understanding of salvation, that only God can save
1. Believing requires God
2. I am not God
3. Prayer speaks to God
4. God answers prayer
5. God will answer my prayer to make you believe :bananacolor:

There is no reason in the above 'argument'.

Quote from: "defendor"4. God answers prayer

God doesn't seem to answer prayer prayed by amputees.

I would make a fallible decision, but as we read about Jesus, it is only those who the Father enables that are able to believe.

So when I look it at, I couldn't make the decision, I didn't make the decision, God revealed himself to me.

"I believe to understand"

God's logic is eternal, so in an eternal and infinite understanding, what is 40 years without a leg?  God is more worried about your heart(soul) than he is about your body.

Quote from: "defendor"I would make a fallible decision, but as we read about Jesus, it is only those who the Father enables that are able to believe.

So when I look it at, I couldn't make the decision, I didn't make the decision, God revealed himself to me.

"I believe to understand"

God's logic is eternal, so in an eternal and infinite understanding, what is 40 years without a leg?  God is more worried about your heart(soul) than he is about your body.

If you preach again I'm going to ban you permanently....it's not hard to not preach and at this point I don't even think you are trying to not do it; and that's very disrespectful.

I apologize

Quote from: "Whitney"If you preach again I'm going to ban you permanently....it's not hard to not preach and at this point I don't even think you are trying to not do it; and that's very disrespectful.

I agree with Whitney here. I can understand it being hard for Christians to try and not to preach -- but you don't even seem to be trying not to anymore.

Quote from: "defendor"God's logic is eternal, so in an eternal and infinite understanding, what is 40 years without a leg?  God is more worried about your heart(soul) than he is about your body.

That conveniently ignores the problem.

Sometimes God says no

Quote from: "defendor"Sometimes God says no

And in the case of amputees, always.

Gee, God answers prayer as if it's almost like...random chance :O

Why does whether or not amputees are healed have any affect on you?

Quote from: "defendor"Why does whether or not amputees are healed have any affect on you?

It doesn't, but it should have an affect on you.

How so?

Quote from: "defendor"How so?

If I was you, I'd be questioning my faith right now.

Defendor, I want you to do something for me. Please read this site (http://whywontgodhealamputees.com/), with as open a mind as you can muster.

If I asked God to do many things, and he did every single one of them, who would serve who?
The God I believe in, I serve, he does not serve me.  He is the God, I am the creation.  

Do I think God could heal amputees? Yes,
Do I think good could come out of it? probably,
Will god show his glory regardless? Yes

 "He can.. He will.. and even if He doesn't.."

But the question I have for you, you say you differentiate the basis of good and evil for yourself.  That you alone can decipher what good and evil is for yourself.  There is no standard for good or evil, only yourself.  So if this is the case, why would you use an argument that has no solid claims of moral boundaries. It may seem unfair, to you, but who are you to claim what is fair or unfair for another person?

Quote from: "defendor"If I asked God to do many things, and he did every single one of them, who would serve who?
The God I believe in, I serve, he does not serve me.  He is the God, I am the creation.  

Do I think God could heal amputees? Yes,
Do I think good could come out of it? probably,
Will god show his glory regardless? Yes

 "He can.. He will.. and even if He doesn't.."

But the question I have for you, you say you differentiate the basis of good and evil for yourself.  That you alone can decipher what good and evil is for yourself.  There is no standard for good or evil, only yourself.  So if this is the case, why would you use an argument that has no solid claims of moral boundaries. It may seem unfair, to you, but who are you to claim what is fair or unfair for another person?

Once again, I ask you to read the site. The objection you raise, along with many more, are addressed there.

I use logic, reason, empathy, all those good things to build a moral standard for myself -- however, I have to recognize that those things can only go so far, and somewhere down the line you have to resort to mere opinion.

For the most part, I don't push my morals onto other people. Live and let live, right? But I do feel that some actions are not acceptable, and should have repercussions.

its more challenging

I read it, and have seen that site before.  It has a misunderstanding of God.  God is not some "genie in a bottle" that grants you a wish.
The bible verses are taken out of context.  Ask in Jesus' name is not merely tacking the name of Jesus behind every wish and seeing everything pop up accordingly. It is to ask in the will of Jesus.  Are people actually healed? Yes, have I seen it? Yes, Do you believe me? No

But the question of believing is not whether or not God can perform a trick.  Can God regenerate a leg? absolutely, He created the universe.  It's if you would believe in him, whether or not he healed an amputee leg.

If God is omnipotent and outside of time, Why would 40 years with a leg mean more than eternity in Hell?

God has a providential plan and it is not to make everyone healthy, wealthy, and wise. (Joel Osteen)

God is after something other than our personal "well-being." He is more concerned with our Holiness rather than our Happiness.  This is illustrated by the quote of Jesus "If your hand causes you to stumble, cut it off. It is better for you to enter life maimed than with two hands to go into hell, where the fire never goes out.

I've posted on the ideas of Justice and non-justice in accordance with God.

What does God's business have anything to do with you anyways?  
This question was asked to Jesus by the Pharisees, Some people had died and their blood was mixed with the blood of animals (very unclean and degrading)  and they asked, Why did this happen? Jesus responded "Truly truly I say to you, likewise you shall perish unless you repent."

Its a broken world we're living in, God is here to collect souls.  He's not done reconciling the world.

Its kinda funny, you denounce God on moral issues, but claim that there is no set of moral standards.  If God lived by your standards, he would be no God worth submitting to.

...

sorry i didn't read the whole topic yet

Quote from: "defendor"I read it, and have seen that site before.  It has a misunderstanding of God.  God is not some "genie in a bottle" that grants you a wish.

Quote from: "Site"In a similar vein, many believers will say, "God always answers prayers, but sometimes his answer is 'no.' If your prayer does not fit with God's will, then God will say 'no' to you." This feels odd because God's answer to every amputee is always "no" when it comes to regenerating lost limbs. Jesus says, "If you ask anything in my name, I will do it." He does not say, "If you ask anything in my name, I will do it, unless you are praying about an amputated limb, in which case I will always reject your prayer." Jesus also says, "Nothing will be impossible to you," and regenerating a limb should therefore be possible. The fact that God refuses to answer every prayer to regenerate a lost limb seems strange, doesn't it?

QuoteThe bible verses are taken out of context.

How so?

QuoteAsk in Jesus' name is not merely tacking the name of Jesus behind every wish and seeing everything pop up accordingly. It is to ask in the will of Jesus.

So, what's the point of prayer if God was already going to do it? Doesn't that nullify the point? Also, that's not what the verses say. They are plain and clear in their message.

QuoteAre people actually healed? Yes, have I seen it? Yes, Do you believe me? No

Of course people get healed, but not because of some magical being.

QuoteBut the question of believing is not whether or not God can perform a trick.  Can God regenerate a leg? absolutely, He created the universe.  It's if you would believe in him, whether or not he healed an amputee leg.

If God is omnipotent and outside of time, Why would 40 years with a leg mean more than eternity in Hell?

You're just side-stepping the issue.

QuoteGod has a providential plan and it is not to make everyone healthy, wealthy, and wise. (Joel Osteen)

Quote from: "Site"Rationalization #1

Here is an explanation that you might have heard or used before:

    The reason God cures thousands of cancers, infections, etc. each day but never intervenes with amputees is because it is not God's will to do that. It is not part of God's plan.

This explanation seems a little odd. Amputees really do seem to be getting the short end of God's plan if this is the case. If God answers prayers as promised in the Bible, and if God is performing all of the medical miracles that we read about in inspirational literature, then God should also be restoring amputated limbs. Why would God help cancer victims (e.g. Marilyn Hickey's mother) and people bitten by rabid bats (e.g. Jeanna Giese), but discriminate against amputees like this? (See Understanding God's Plan for an in-depth look at how "God's Plan" works).

Keep in mind what Jesus promised:

    If you believe, you will receive whatever you ask for in prayer. [Matthew 21:21]

    If you ask anything in my name, I will do it. [John 14:14]

    Ask, and it will be given you. [Matthew 7:7]

    Nothing will be impossible to you. [Matthew 17:20]

    Believe that you have received it, and it will be yours. [Mark 11:24]

There is no indication from Jesus that amputees will be ignored when they pray for medical help. The fact is, all five of these statements are completely false in the case of amputees.

The five quotes in the previous paragraph are all simple, straightforward statements. Doesn't "nothing will be impossible for you" mean "nothing will be impossible for you"? Jesus is God, and as an all-knowing being God knows how humans interpret sentences. If Jesus did not mean "nothing will be impossible for you," it seems like Jesus would have said something else. He also would not repeat that sentiment so many times. And Jesus is supposedly answering millions of prayers each day, so prayer-answering seems to be his intent (See this short video for a more in-depth discussion).

Also, God's plan sucks then.

QuoteGod is after something other than our personal "well-being." He is more concerned with our Holiness rather than our Happiness.  This is illustrated by the quote of Jesus "If your hand causes you to stumble, cut it off. It is better for you to enter life maimed than with two hands to go into hell, where the fire never goes out.

So, giving amputees' legs back will somehow make them go to Hell?

QuoteI've posted on the ideas of Justice and non-justice in accordance with God.

God's idea of justice sucks.

QuoteWhat does God's business have anything to do with you anyways?

What does it have to do with you? Why don't you just stop posting now, since God's plan is none of your business?

QuoteThis question was asked to Jesus by the Pharisees, Some people had died and their blood was mixed with the blood of animals (very unclean and degrading)  and they asked, Why did this happen? Jesus responded "Truly truly I say to you, likewise you shall perish unless you repent."

Uhh...relevance?

QuoteIts a broken world we're living in, God is here to collect souls.  He's not done reconciling the world.

And to do that, he can't heal any amputees. Interesting.

Also, once again, God sucks.

QuoteIts kinda funny, you denounce God on moral issues, but claim that there is no set of moral standards.

God is evil both according to the conscience I was born with (which God supposedly gave me) and my own morals, and the morals he himself sets in the Bible, such as the Ten Commandments.

QuoteIf God lived by your standards, he would be no God worth submitting to.

If God lived by my moral standards, he would be a far, far better god than the one described in your holy book.

:brick:  

Quote from: "defendor"I think this is a good rationalization.  But I have a question, what is energy?

Energy is everything.

Energy is heat, momentum, light, force and matter.

Going by Einstein’s formula E=MC2, there is a direct relation between matter and energy. It makes sense to me that matter is simply just energy in a particular state.
In actual fact almost everything both energy and matter.
Light for example displays both the properties of a waveform (energy) and a particle (matter).
When the Sun performs fusion in combines atoms together to create atoms lower down on the periodic table e.g. Hydrogen atoms are combined to create Helium atoms. When this process happens energy is also given off, radiated out, hence the Sun is hot. The opposite of this is a nuclear bomb, this is fission where atoms are split e.g. Uranium into Barium. When this happens energy is also given off. This is also likely to occur with atomic decay (a natural occurrence). The energy that is given off comes from the atoms and hence were once considered as matter.

I guess that the same thing happens within Black Holes, atoms are broken down and hence are capable of collecting within a point of singularity.

My guess is that the Big Bang occurred from the explosion of an incredibly large black hole which either gradually reached its critical limit or achieved this via multiple black holes colliding. The forces within the Black hole became strong enough to breakdown all the particles within it and hence the pure energy was able to travel faster than the speed of light (remember light contains particles), a requirement for energy to be able to escape the grip of a black hole. (This is speculative on my behalf). This hyper expansion period was brief but very fast, the momentum of the escaping energy was enough for this energy to escape the clutches of the black hole forever. So by my current thinking, the energy contained within our Universe, existed within space for billions of billions of years before our Universe exploded from this Black hole. I do not agree with the concept that a quantum fluctuation created all this energy at the same time (in an instant), however I guess that it is possible.

Once the pure energy got a certain distance from the black hole and it cooled down enough (since it dissipates the energy is spread by distance creating the effect of cooling) the energy was then able to form particles again (this is a very natural state and requires extreme conditions for this not to occur). Once particles formed then the speed reduced to the speed of light limitation. From there particles became atoms somehow e.g. Hydrogen. When gravity pulled enough together they formed Stars which created all the atoms of the periodic table. Stars eventually explode releasing the atoms/matter into space which form planets, comets, dust, gas etc. Other stars form and pull in the matter objects which fall into orbit around the stars. Some stars turn into black holes and collect energy/matter.

Each Galaxy has a black hole at its center. These draw the solar systems together which rotate around the black hole. Every Galaxy within our Universe are traveling away from each other, and for some reason the rate is accelerating. Our Universe will eventually dissipate into virtual nothingness.

Space is infinite, there are likely many, many universes out there (although this will probably never be proven, there are probably an infinite amount of universes). Universes are constantly being created and exploding into nothingness, along the way billions of galaxies, solar systems, stars and planets are formed, likely billions of life forms as well. It is a never ending process. Universes may or may not cluster together much in the way a Galaxy forms, this could be termed as a Multiverse. (I doubt we will ever know)

Everything within Space is simply energy in different forms. Energy contains all the properties and forces required for all this to happen. Life is inevitable given these properties of energy. I do not know what the ultimate level of natural complexity will be before the Universe dissipates, it could be reasonable for people to think the ultimate is intelligent life but our thinking is limited by what we think we know. It is likely there are different sized Universes out there, with varying ages and varying life spans. We will likely never know if our Universe is comparatively small, average or large.

Anyway, with this type of thinking, I find it an absurd suggestion that there is just one Universe and that it was created by an all knowing god, who watches over it and in particular the human species on a small planet called earth on the outer part of the Milky Way galaxy which is one of billions of galaxies in our own universe.

Please don’t ask me for proof of what I have just stated. It is simply an idea that I have in my head. As Science evolves and my understanding of science evolves I adapt my idea. It is quite likely that people with more knowledge of science could trash some of my ideas and even present more likely ideas.

But my point which I do think is true is that everything is energy in some form. Except concepts which are simply conceptual ideas rather than substance.

Quote from: "Stevil"But my point which I do think is true is that everything is energy in some form. Except concepts which are simply conceptual ideas rather than substance.

Concepts and ideas are, at their most basic form, just chemicals in somebody's brain, and chemicals are energy too, right?

I don't understand why some Christians don't get the point behind the WWGHA argument.  It's not about if god hates amputees, or why god won't heal them...it's about why won't god perform miracles that couldn't have just happened naturally by chance.  Every single verifiable miracle is something that could have happened if a god existed or not...like cancer going into regression or uncle phil surviving his heart attack despite being having risk factor of 95% odds of death.  Praying for people doesn't even statistically increase their chances of getting well, some studies have even shown it to be the opposite of helpful (http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/20 ... 133554.htm (http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2006/04/060403133554.htm)).

I was a member of wwgha since basically from when it started; but it got tiring having to baby step explain the above to people who just couldn't get it or who were delusional/gullible enough to think some random person claiming an amputee got healed meant it actually happened.

Quote from: "Whitney"I don't understand why some Christians don't get the point behind the WWGHA argument.  It's not about if god hates amputees, or why god won't heal them...it's about why won't god perform miracles that couldn't have just happened naturally by chance.  Every single verifiable miracle is something that could have happened if a god existed or not...like cancer going into regression or uncle phil surviving his heart attack despite being having risk factor of 95% odds of death.  Praying for people doesn't even statistically increase their chances of getting well, some studies have even shown it to be the opposite of helpful (http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/20 ... 133554.htm (http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2006/04/060403133554.htm)).

I was a member of wwgha since basically from when it started; but it got tiring having to baby step explain the above to people who just couldn't get it or who were delusional/gullible enough to think some random person claiming an amputee got healed meant it actually happened.

Yep. From what I've seen so far, the "WWGHA" argument is one of the most effective against the Judeo-Christian god, at least in my eyes. I can't think of anyway around it that doesn't make God evil or resorts to bullshit rationalization.

Quote from: "LegendarySandwich"

Quote from: "Stevil"But my point which I do think is true is that everything is energy in some form. Except concepts which are simply conceptual ideas rather than substance.

Concepts and ideas are, at their most basic form, just chemicals in somebody's brain, and chemicals are energy too, right?

Yes, the thought is chemicals and neuron matter within the brain but the subject of the thought is a conceptual idea. E.g. if you are thinking about a horse, then there are chemicals and neurons in the brain that make up that thought however the particular horse that you are thinking about is simply a conceptual idea, it doesn't actually exists on an alternative plane of existence due to your thoughts.

Quote from: "Stevil"Yes, the thought is chemicals and neuron matter within the brain but the subject of the thought is a conceptual idea. E.g. if you are thinking about a horse, then there are chemicals and neurons in the brain that make up that thought however the particular horse that you are thinking about is simply a conceptual idea, it doesn't actually exists on an alternative plane of existence due to your thoughts.

Maybe in an abstract sort of sense, but in a literal sense, everything is matter. The horse exists in chemicals in my brain.

 ;)

Quote from: "JoeBobSmith"

Quote from: "Stevil"the particular horse that you are thinking about is simply a conceptual idea, it doesn't actually exists on an alternative plane of existence due to your thoughts.

YOU CAN PROVE THIS?

Damn, I forgot to put my usual disclaimer.

Wouldn't it be cool though, if we could simply think something into existence and then control its movements simply by thought.

Quote from: "LegendarySandwich"

Quote from: "Stevil"Yes, the thought is chemicals and neuron matter within the brain but the subject of the thought is a conceptual idea. E.g. if you are thinking about a horse, then there are chemicals and neurons in the brain that make up that thought however the particular horse that you are thinking about is simply a conceptual idea, it doesn't actually exists on an alternative plane of existence due to your thoughts.

Maybe in an abstract sort of sense, but in a literal sense, everything is matter. The horse exists in chemicals in my brain.

So you are saying that you literally have horses existing in chemicals in your brain? Ouch

 :)

Quote from: "Stevil"So you are saying that you literally have horses existing in chemicals in your brain? Ouch

Thoughts of horses existing in chemicals in my brain, yes. The thought of the horse exists as chemicals.

Quote from: "defendor"So I think that solely looking at the Bible by itself, it makes solid claims to Truth, and that this Truth is the only way.
So when we understand the claims the Bible (and Jesus) makes about itself, you can't simply pass it off into another lump of 'religiosity.'

I don't understand this logic. You are saying the book is the truth because the book says that it is the truth.

Quote from: "defendor"

QuoteMaybe it is only the Atheists that are really in God's grace. With the true ability to excert free will, not simply following the rules and message of the corrupt and evil scriptures. With the true ability to be selfless not simply doing "good" for the goal of getting into heaven. Only atheists can be in tune with the objective morals of the universe. Knowing that it is bad to be intolerant and to judge others, only atheists have the true ability to treat others as equals rather than follow scriptures that treat women as less than man.
Maybe only Atheists are carrying out the true god's plan and will.
The other's have been deceived and are following what they have been told, contrary to what they would otherwise have felt and known to be the right path, the objective truth and morals that one would be aligned with had one not read or believed the evil scriptures.

Please tell me how my theory is incorrect.

Well, atheists don't believe in a God, so I'm not sure how atheism would qualify itself as being the only philosophy that is in God's grace.

Atheists don't believe in gods.
Atheists don't qualify themselves to be in god's grace.
But that is beside the point. Atheists live true to themselves as they do not follow scriptures which may suggest actions, morals and beliefs which are contrary. Only Atheists can truly support a universal morality if such a one exists. Not being tainted by scriptures, Atheists can look inward, into their hearts, heads and souls (if such a thing exists). Theists tend to ignore the inward self and instead follow the scriptures, but I am saying that maybe these scriptures are not divine, maybe they are a deception. Maybe the real god/s wants people to tap into themselves to find the truth. If that is the desire of the god/s then Atheists are indeed in tune to god's grace.

The prerequisite of belief is simply something that is mentioned within the scriptures (which I am suggesting cannot be trusted). In fact is would be hard for me to understand a god that would punish people simply for not knowing that the gods exist, especially given that there is no proof on offer. The belief prerequisite is simply to get people on board with all the other stuff in the scriptures (which also cannot be trusted).
Also a key item is that only Atheists can be selfless as there is no hope of going to heaven for one's good deeds. Theists cannot be selfless, and I am told that selflessness is important in Christianity.

Quote from: "defendor"So when you take the practicality of atheism, it is a stark contrast from its philosophy.  

There is no atheism philosophy

Quote from: "defendor"how are you able to differentiate between good and evil?  What is evil?

There is no such thing as good and evil. The problem with this stance is that it paints the world in Black and White. It marks individuals as good or evil.
People are capable of being both good and bad, and frequently do both be it intentional or not.
There is a saying "the road to ruin is full of good intention"

In summary I am posturing that the scriptures are possibly the word of the cunning and deceptive Devil rather than god. It cannot be known what is the true source. If you believe in an absolute truth and an objective morality then you should be able to tap into that without the need to revert to scripture.

Stevil- I do appreciate your response, and appreciate taking the time to expound on that for me, thank you.  But when I read, I feel you gave a great description of what energy can do, but I don't feel the essence of energy was fully adequate.  You gave me great examples  of energy (what it can be) and its mathematical equivalent, and some intricate details on what energy can do, but never really gave the full idea of what energy is?  So what I'm asking for is the ontological argument for energy..?

Legendary sandwich- to answer your questions of the verses.  How can you say its clear description of what happens in prayer when you look at one verse plucked out of the schema of the gospel narrative?  To understand one verse cannot simply take one verse out of its entire contextual argument and make it mean whatever it is you want it to mean. This is where we get cultists and the prosperity Gospel.  

The reason I pointed to those other points was to essentially say, "Christ is not solely about performing miracles, He's about saving souls, everything is less important than this."  And without this understanding or belief in place, it all seems like foolishness. Christ performs miracles throughout scripture to indicate a spiritual truth.  He will make a claim with a physically rooted metaphor then expound on this demonstrating his power as the savior to illustrate his spiritual truth.  For example (not preaching) when Jesus said "I am the Living Bread, whoever comes to me shall not hunger" he is not saying if we eat some of his body that we will never need to eat again.  He is saying that he is the true sustenance of life (spiritual).  So to demonstrate this that he can feed spiritually, he fed physically, he fed the 5,000 with bread and fish.

God's plan/justice/perspective is from an infinite scale, so saying you know best, even simply philosophically, means that you have a grasp on eternity, which I will guess you probably don't.  I merely do my best to live in obedience, for there are a many great things I don't understand (the admission of ignorance is the onset of wisdom).  Take the universe for example, its astronomically bigger than us, and no scientist will claim to know how big it truly is, they only claim what we've seen, which is negligible to the actual size but the current agreement is 6,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 galaxies just like our own milky way, with astronomical distances in between. Thats  6 sextillion, its different with the 0's on it.  So in contrast, we make ourselves the own governor of our reality, beginning to believe what distorted physical senses we have as solid truth and claiming the basis of our knowing to our own, individual realm, when in fervent reality, there's a whole lot more bigger than us and we can't possibly know what else.  You "say" are searching for the truth, shouldn't you start with something that makes claims to universal in-errancy and infallibility?

But back to point, the question I'm merely asking is 'Why should God heal amputees?'

Stevil, I honestly appreciate your responses, and I quote your arguments not in attempts to belittle or simply debunk, but to help understand the step by step intuitive methods by which these claims are made.

QuoteI don't understand this logic. You are saying the book is the truth because the book says that it is the truth.

To an extent, the bible makes various claims to testify to itself.   I also want to mention that in the New Testament, there are many other relations to other scripture and even citations (scripture testifies to scripture).  2 Peter 3: 15-16 clearly testifies to Paul's writings at the time.  All but 2 Old Testament books (Ruth and song of Solomon, I believe) are quoted in the New Testament. So when you have a circular agreement, there has to be some intertwining of truth as it exists in perceptive reality to make it agree.  But the bible makes many claims to truth, and so for the bible to be discredited on all accounts, it has to be discredited on one account, i.e. Wikipedia.

I used this argument on this thread, and Idk if you have had a chance to read it, and I will gladly repost it and open it up for scrutiny

The thing about the manuscripts that support the scriptures is that it is greater than any other ancient text. Over 5,000 manuscripts that make the bible fairly transparent. So the question is not whether it's a reliable source, but whether or not you believe it. Which is a very reasonable doubt. It takes the Holy Spirit to believe it, thats in Ephesians 3:4-5. Do i believe the word of God is inerrant? Yes, but I am not inerrant. Do I believe the bible is infallible? yes, but I am fallible. Islam holds true that the Koran is the precise word for word revelation from God to Mohammed and nothing must be changed for it is written perfection. But really, who's to say one word isn't so much better than another. what i mean by inerrant is the fullness of revelation by God to man through the written word. I think there is some discrepancy of the bible that is open to interpretation, but it is the inerrancy of God in revealing the nature and character of Jesus Christ throughout the entire schema. From Genesis 3 on, the story is laid out for Jesus.

The old testament, is premised on laying out a story of a real God, in real time, with real obstinate people. There is a great emphasis on dates, events, and historical accounts. But the story is not in the words, but in the revelation of the true God into each person.

For Example, the Book of Daniel was written in 500 B.C. and there is a prophecy of a nation that is marching "many nations" under foot. Also the empire will be led by strident, strong man from the west. Then the kingdom will be drastically cut off and split into 4 kingdoms. These 4 kingdoms will become 2 and these 2 will become 1. (Daniel 11)

In 300 B.C. alexander the great marched many nations under foot, was drastically cut off at the time of his death so early in life. His Kingdom was given to his 4 generals, these 4 combined into Ptolemaic and Seleucid empires, and of these empires the Roman Empire emerges.

So as you read this, you immediately see the supernatural. As we make claims to what lays within the Bible are false and what not, we need an accurate understanding of the Bible.

QuoteThe prerequisite of belief is simply something that is mentioned within the scriptures (which I am suggesting cannot be trusted). In fact is would be hard for me to understand a god that would punish people simply for not knowing that the gods exist, especially given that there is no proof on offer. The belief prerequisite is simply to get people on board with all the other stuff in the scriptures (which also cannot be trusted).
Also a key item is that only Atheists can be selfless as there is no hope of going to heaven for one's good deeds. Theists cannot be selfless, and I am told that selflessness is important in Christianity.

I think the first part of this question, is in a reasonable claim, and I feel that I have made references to that above.  

But to know if God exists or not, is the question.  In mathematics, we find parameters of absolutes to discover end and relative behavior, to get a particular idea of a given function, etc.  So lets make a simple assumption, lets propose God really does exist.  That everything in this universe is completely of his intertwining and doing (just for arguments sake).  God has left enough of his creation, to point to something higher.  Who is naive enough to gaze upon the infinite scale of the universe and say we are IT, the grand pinnacle of everything?

The condemnation factor is also a very real concern and question.  God alone judges the heart.  I have a friend who's dad is a pastor and go on mission trips.  One of the main missionaries has said, that in every untouched culture they meet in the amazon, there is a sect of people that "seek God" and absorb the gospel with Great truth and joy.  In one tribe in particular in the Amazon, there were also prophecies of for 5-6 centuries, that a donkey would lead them out of the village into a canyon where a man with blue eyes would have the words of God printed on banana reeds.  One day, a donkey walked into the middle of the village, walked for 2 days into a cavern, where a missionary with blue eyes had been trapped, who had a bible printed on banana reeds.  God is in the process of revealing himself to everyone, it is all around us.  We're just in a culture so convoluted with beliefs that it is not apparent to us who live in suburbia america. To show this, 50% of the world has not made a call on a cell phone.  If you have 2 tv's and/or a car, you live in the top 2% of the world.  You obviously have a computer.

QuoteThere is no atheism philosophy

Then what are you trying to defend?

QuoteThere is no such thing as good and evil. The problem with this stance is that it paints the world in Black and White. It marks individuals as good or evil.
People are capable of being both good and bad, and frequently do both be it intentional or not.
There is a saying "the road to ruin is full of good intention"

I agree, "the road to hell is paved with good intentions".  But you also made a mention to good in that very same statement.  So the question of evil yet arises.  If all morals are essentially no morals at all, and we are the one's who mark good and evil, why did so many Jews mark the holocaust as evil?

QuoteIn summary I am posturing that the scriptures are possibly the word of the cunning and deceptive Devil rather than god. It cannot be known what is the true source. If you believe in an absolute truth and an objective morality then you should be able to tap into that without the need to revert to scripture.

I'll refer to Christian perspective to help shed light on the situation.  Since we are indwellings of the Holy Spirit, you could almost make a case for how we don't need the written word of God, we have a bit of God with us at all times (which is true)... but I did say almost.  If you are simply gonna make a case that the goodness of God dwells within you (which it may) and all you need to do is reflect on that, I'd completely disagree with you for not even scriptural reasons but philosophical 1. you have the Bible, it is a gift from God, you don't live in poverty in Africa and can't read, you're on a blog, you can find the bible online and 2. You have the exact parameters detailed by historical events, eye witnesses, and Holy Spirit inspired accounts already.  Why try and rewrite scriptures?

So for you, I think to help answer this, I would like to propose a few questions. I would appreciate that you answer as honestly as possible, and there is a point to this and I'm not trying to embarrass you.  Have you ever, done something that disobeys your conscience? Have you ever gotten something wrong?  Do you know everything there is to know?

Quote from: "defendor"Stevil- I do appreciate your response, and appreciate taking the time to expound on that for me, thank you.  But when I read, I feel you gave a great description of what energy can do, but I don't feel the essence of energy was fully adequate.  You gave me great examples  of energy (what it can be) and its mathematical equivalent, and some intricate details on what energy can do, but never really gave the full idea of what energy is?  So what I'm asking for is the ontological argument for energy..?

I'm not sure what you mean by ontological argument for energy. I've done a search for "ontological argument" but got this http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ontological_argument and this http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/ontological-arguments/ which seems to be a religious concept.
Ontology however according to this http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ontology means the philosophical study of the nature of being, existence or reality as such.

With this in mind I have already given you my philosophical take on what is meant by reality, basically the Space construct (3 dimensional coordinate system) as well as the concept of time. Any system that exists within reality can be pin pointed by knowing the Space coordinates and time coordinates. Of course the difficulty comes in defining where 0,0,0 space coordinate is and where time coordinate 0 is. But on a relational perspective, if we suggest that 0,0,0 is the point of singularity of which all matter and energy within our universe is currently travelling away from and if we suggest that time 0 is the point in time when the big band occured, well, given this and the related coordinate of a system (e.g. earth, me, a particular atom, a beam of sunshine, god) we would know exactly where that system is. This is reality, if the item does not have these coordinates then it does not exist within reality.

My philisophical take on existence is that something having these reality coordinates also has substance. This is more difficult to assess. If I stick my finger out and it hits something then obviously it has hit a substance. But on the way to hitting the hard substance I am also pushing it through a substance i.e. the air. the air is made up of atoms and compounds, Hydrogen, Nitrogen, CO2, H2O, O3 etc, these atoms have substance and take up a finite volume of Space. However given enough force e.g. gravity, electro magnetic etc we can compress these atoms into very small volume, the atom is made up of smaller particles e.g. quarks but most of the volume is "empty" space. I am posturing that even quarks can be degraded into pure energy and hence can be compressed into a point of singularity, occupying the same coordinates as other pure energy. so here we have substance that doesn't necessarily reserve a piece of Space and can infact share that Space with other substance. So how do we know that there is substance there? Substance also exerts force on its surroundings e.g. gravity. Light has gravity. I am not sure whether pure energy has gravity. If it did then it might be difficult for it to escape a black hole, and hence we would have an issue with the feasibility for the big bang. Possibly gravity is a result of what energy does when it is in a particle state, We just don't know.

Now this obviously leads us towards the question of what is pure energy? Again a difficult question that we know very little about. Doing a search for it, I find this http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy#Forms_of_energy, a search for matter finds http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Matter.
The important part here is "In physics and chemistry, matter exhibits both wave-like and particle-like properties, the so-called waveâ€"particle duality"
Here is a discussion with regards to Matter being Energy http://www.physicsforums.com/archive/index.php/t-254886.html and the ability to transform one into the other.

It is hard to know exactly what energy is, but without energy we do not have substance or force, we do not have movement, we do not have heat, we do not have form, we do not have change. Without any of these things, we do not have atoms as atoms are systems comprising of all of the above.
If your god is not made up of energy then your god simply does not exist, it cannot have form, it cannot move, it cannot think, it cannot perform actions, it cannot change its environment let alone itself. I hope this answers your question.

Quote from: "defendor"You "say" are searching for the truth, shouldn't you start with something that makes claims to universal in-errancy and infallibility?
'

That could be one approach, to take an already written theory and explore it to suss out if it is real. The problem Atheists have with the various god theories is that they offer no proofs, only conjecture, philosophies and the requirement to believe without expectation of proof.

Another approach would be to look at ones own environment. To poke it, to prode it, to kick the tires (so to speak), to come up with testable theories and to actually perform the tests, to see if these theories stand up to new tests, new discoveries, etc.

It's a personal choice. But I think a great philosophy is for people to let others chose their own path, not to try and evangalise others. Just be tolerant.

Quote from: "defendor"Stevil, I honestly appreciate your responses, and I quote your arguments not in attempts to belittle or simply debunk, but to help understand the step by step intuitive methods by which these claims are made.

I am very happy for you to debunk my ideas, the best ideas hold up to scrutiny, the ones that don't need to be rethought. How can we know unless they are scruitinised?

Quote from: "defendor"

QuoteThere is no atheism philosophy

Then what are you trying to defend?

I hope I am not coming across as defensive, I am simply putting forth my thoughts.

Quote from: "defendor"But you also made a mention to good in that very same statement.  So the question of evil yet arises.  If all morals are essentially no morals at all, and we are the one's who mark good and evil, why did so many Jews mark the holocaust as evil?

Unfortunately the English language didn't provide me with a better alternative for the word "good" I was not using it in the sense of Good vs Evil, more like a positive event, beneficial maybe. The holocost was terrible and irrational, from the sense of the existence of human kind and treating others how you yourself would like to be treated this was an entirely bad event. Just because Atheists don't subscribe to Good Vs Evil or Sin or Christian Morals it doesn't mean that we lack a sense of how to behave nicely.

Quote from: "defendor"So for you, I think to help answer this, I would like to propose a few questions. I would appreciate that you answer as honestly as possible, and there is a point to this and I'm not trying to embarrass you.  Have you ever, done something that disobeys your conscience? Have you ever gotten something wrong?  Do you know everything there is to know?

I have done things that I am not proud of. I am not always nice. I have emotions and can get frustrated or mad, although I am very rarely mad. I appologise to people who I have wronged, but never seek forgiveness from a mythical god or for redemption for my sins. This is similar to how I treat my daughter, when she is naughty, she goes to naughty corner, we talk about the issue, give each other a hug and kiss and move forward. Tolerance and acceptance that people make mistakes is the answer. We don't need the concept of god to resolve our issues.

Stevil- I would again like to thank you for your very intellectual, rational, and civil response.  I understand that you truly do search and also, without being pompous or aggressive, and this demeanor is very illuminating.  

I would like to make a point and pose a few ideas about the ontological arguments.  The essence of ontological arguments does hold religious truth for the statement of "being." So then the offshoots of what really is in "being" and what came into being, how it came into being, etc.  Aristotle had a few dissertations on this.  So this concept is very philosophical.  In my studies of quantum theory as well as my brother's (who's major is drenched in such areas) I have found that science (in a very explanatory and mathematical sense) meets philosophy at the quantum level.  This is all tied to the quandary of energy.  It is very easily deduced that energy exists or else we couldn't explain many of the things that are objectively observable.  But has anyone held energy? We may have held things containing vasts amounts of energy but even as you suggested

Quote"It is hard to know exactly what energy is"

Of course we have many mathematical devices that lead us to the conclusion of the existence of energy, without ever really knowing what it is in being.  We know the ways it works, effects, and forms the surrounding space time continuum, but has yet to show itself in existence.  We know that energy cannot be created or destroyed, and simply changes states.  This is the similar construct with matter, but as you said and science indicates, matter and energy are simply interchangeable.  The essence of energy is not created nor destroyed, but simply in "being" and this being also indicated by E=mc^2, is outside of the constructs of time, (for the speed of light is the constraint of time).  SO with regards to all of this, I have a purely philosophical question for you. If I were to tell you that all the energy in the universe is just an explanation for the Holy Spirit, on what grounds could you disagree with me?


Now in consideration of your "Good vs Evil" construct.  I completely agree. But the questions I am merely posing and the questions I wanted to pose in regards to my ideas I will write in order.  

1.I didn't mean to propose you as defensive, your responses are very well responded to and very orderly conducted. But simply the point of argument you have made are in accordance with 'a' philosophy of atheism, so if there is essentially no philosophy of atheism, what is your point of the debate?

2.  Where in the natural order, have you developed, or humans in general (for observatory facts would agree with that statement) have developed a sense of unknowing compassion for humans in existence, as opposed to not simply a "step on a ladder" to help individuals strive and survive?

3.  This has to refer to the questions I posed about simply obeying a personal moral law

QuoteI have done things that I am not proud of. I am not always nice. I have emotions and can get frustrated or mad, although I am very rarely mad. I appologise to people who I have wronged

and also has to do with the statement

QuoteIf you believe in an absolute truth and an objective morality then you should be able to tap into that without the need to revert to scripture.

So you would agree you would have done something wrong.  And for this purpose I would like to define inerrant and infallible.  
Inerrant, is not being in or of error to truth.  We can be inerrant on a test, by scoring a perfect score.
Infallible, is not having the ability to make or create a fallacy or wrongdoing in the proposed order of a set objective truth.  You may score perfect on a test but the ability to miss a question was always there. You may do right, but the ability to do wrong was always there.

You may on occasion and possibly, even the majority of the time, be inerrant, but as your above quote indicates (I do appreciate the honesty, a virtue most Christians have yet to grasp) you have yet to spend a single 5 seconds of your life as infallible.  So, if by your own standards, you have done things that are not in accordance with your own individually set personal precedent, how is it that you can look to an inner source when the source of inner truth, in being, is fallible?

Quote from: "defendor"In my studies of quantum theory

I would like to know why you asked me twice what energy is? I spent a great deal of time writing up my responses, trying to gauge your level of understanding and to address my response accordingly, I am now feeling that a lot of my time could have been saved (and better spent e.g. reading to my two year old or helping my wife out with the 10 week old) had you taken an alternative approach, e.g. revealed your level of knowledge and simply got to the point in a more timely fashion.

Quote from: "defendor"We know that energy cannot be created or destroyed

By my understanding energy is being created all the time with regards to quntum fluctuations, and as I also understand it +ve energy and -ve energy cancel each other out. This still maintains status quo with regards to Conservation of Energy.

Quote from: "defendor"The essence of energy is not created nor destroyed, but simply in "being" and this being also indicated by E=mc^2, is outside of the constructs of time, (for the speed of light is the constraint of time).

This stance is not consistent with the Theory of General relativity. Given that speed of light is seen as constant within this theory and that percieved distance is relative to the motion of the observer and that speed of light = distance/time then time is also relative. Since time is relative to matter/energy then when ever you have matter/energy, you also have time. Hence energy cannot possibly be outside of the constructs of time.

I'm sorry I wasn't trying to waste your time.  I'm trying to understand the other side of the argument.

Quote from: "defendor"I'm sorry I wasn't trying to waste your time.  I'm trying to understand the other side of the argument.

OK, maybe I overreacted. It was a bit of a shock to me, and I felt at the time of reading it that you were using it as a way to teach me something.

Although I do like to be the student I do very much appreciate honest discourse, and did feel there would have been a better way to get to the point, e.g. I express my view and you express yours. But anyway, people have different styles of communication. I was just momentarily taken aback, I jumped to the wrong assumption about where your question was coming from.

Quote from: "defendor"So asking "Can God create a rock so heavy that even he cannot lift it?" is just as much nonsense as asking "Can God draw a square circle?" The logical contradiction here being God's simultaneous ability and disability in lifting the rock (the statement "God can lift this rock" must have a truth value of either true or false, it cannot possess both). Therefore the question (and therefore the perceived paradox) is meaningless. Nonsense does not suddenly acquire sense and meaning with the addition of the two words, "God can" before it.

What does God do that's labelled as sin?

Can he build a stack of bricks so heavy he can't lift it? I can, so if he can't, that's a power I possess that he doesn't, and no logical absurdity. Can he do something he didn't know he do? If he can, he isn't omniscient. If he can't, he isn't omnipotent. These two characteristics are mutually exclusive, and that's aside from the omnipotence paradox. Again, this is a power I possess, so that would be two powers I possess that this allegedly omnipotent entity cannot.

I can go on all day invoking powers I possess that an omnipotent deity cannot and still remain within the boundaries of logic. This isn't a statement about the bature of god, it's a direct response to the idiotic characteristics that have been made up for him by others in a fatuous and childish attempt to make him sound impressive. No doubt he did sound impressive to ignorant, semi-literate bronze-age nomads, but he sounds less than impressive to anybody with two functioning neurons.

You can't get out of the logically absurd attributes assigned to your celestial peeping-tom by simply asserting that the question is logically absurd. You have to address why it's absurd, in precisely the same way that I have demonstrated these characteristics attributed to your imaginary friend are logically absurd and mutually exclusive.

Quote from: "defendor"If I were to tell you that all the energy in the universe is just an explanation for the Holy Spirit, on what grounds could you disagree with me?

This is a rather unspecific statement. How is energy an explaination for the Holy Spirit? How is one to read this explaination? How does this explaination relate to the Christian god as described in the bible or does it explain a different god?
It seems to me that you have an interpretation of your understanding of energy and the universe and that interpretation would differ from my understanding of the universe (or in my case infinite space including a possible infinite number of universes). It seems that this explaination is likely subjective and doesn't explain a Holy Spirit for all observers with regards to their respective interpretations. As science discovers a better understanding of our environment our interpretations are more and more likely to align, however the way Christianity is defined with regards to emotive and conceptual ideologies it seems the convergence in interpretations will only ever be with regard to the material existence or as I term it, our reality. Science does not look to explain human ideologies or morals.

It seem awfully absurd to picture the holy spirit running through my electrical lines and making water boil.  There is no need to apply religious concepts to things like energy since we know the way energy behaves isn't magic; it has explanations.

Stevil- I have never meant to be antagonistic or twist anything back on you.  I don't think the written words do justice to voice influx.  But I genuinely do appreciate how you have responded and thank you for being understanding.

I think with the Holy Spirit and energy question was simply a way to grasp and correlate things scientists are willing to give to innate topics within the laws of Physics.  For example, God is essentially neither created nor destroyed, but the scientific community won't allow this to be a meaningful topic.  But science will say that matter and energy both can neither be created nor destroyed.  Also with the understanding of a Theistic God from a Christian world view, God is what is holding all things together and making them work.  This could be a valuable explanation of God and/or Energy.  But also, scientists don't know if energy could be conscious, I mean are you able to think by the workings of a bunch of chemicals, invoking chemical energy.

The word "omnipotent" is never used in the Bible, but has been inferred primarily by one of God's Hebrew titles, "Shadday," which is most often translated "almighty." However, the Bible never claims that God can do all things. In fact, the Bible makes a point that there are things that God cannot do. The Bible says that God cannot commit sin. God cannot lie. Therefore, biblical omnipotence does not mean that God can do all things. God cannot do anything that is contrary to His holy character. However, God can do anything that He determines to do. This is a true meaning of omnipotence - the ability to do anything that one sets out to do. The ability to fail is not a part of omnipotence.  

Asking questions that are simply rephrased Chuck Norris Jokes are absurd.

Quote from: "defendor"The word "omnipotent" is never used in the Bible, but has been inferred primarily by one of God's Hebrew titles, "Shadday," which is most often translated "almighty." However, the Bible never claims that God can do all things. In fact, the Bible makes a point that there are things that God cannot do. The Bible says that God cannot commit sin. God cannot lie. Therefore, biblical omnipotence does not mean that God can do all things. God cannot do anything that is contrary to His holy character. However, God can do anything that He determines to do. This is a true meaning of omnipotence - the ability to do anything that one sets out to do. The ability to fail is not a part of omnipotence.

So, is creating a rock so heavy that he can't lift it contrary to his Holy nature?

Cannot he not set out to create a rock so heavy that he can't lift it? Is that an impossibility for him?

Plus, there's still the problem of omniscience.

QuoteAsking questions that are simply rephrased Chuck Norris Jokes are absurd.

Postulating that the Judeo-Christian god exists is absurd.

Two can play the assertion game.

Quote from: "defendor"Asking questions that are simply rephrased Chuck Norris Jokes are absurd.

The could god lift a rock so big he couldn't lift it type questions (or jokes if you prefer) is where the chuck norris fan boys got the idea for their jokes.

But they aren't absurd; they are a humorous way to investigate the nature of this god concept.

If we are going to investigate the nature of the Judeo-Christian concept of a God, we need to address pertinent issues that deal with his being.  

This is a quote of C.S. Lewis that I've used before:

QuoteAsking "Can God create a rock so heavy that even he cannot lift it?" is just as much nonsense as asking "Can God draw a square circle?" The logical contradiction here being God's simultaneous ability and disability in lifting the rock (the statement "God can lift this rock" must have a truth value of either true or false, it cannot possess both). Therefore the question (and therefore the perceived paradox) is meaningless. Nonsense does not suddenly acquire sense and meaning with the addition of the two words, "God can" before it.

So the question itself is based on the premise of an illogical fallacy violating the law of non-contradiction.  This does not indicate his being violates the law of non-contradiction, but the question itself is in violation of the law of non-contradiction, assuming that the being of God can violate the law of non-contradiction.  God cannot be both all good and all evil at the same time.  God cannot both be all powerful and not all powerful at the same time. Violating the law of non-contradiction has no value in understanding the premise of God's omnipotence.  The question itself is a meaningless paradox with no value.  

In the past, the argument of the medieval ages was 'how many angels can stand on the end of a pin?'  If we are going to attack non-essentials that have no value as questions in understanding how or why God can exist, then you will get answers that have no value in understanding how or why God can exist.

He's got a point.  We do treat it as fact that god does not exist, and we can't prove he does.  I don't call it faith, but he's mostly right about that argument.  Where does he see our argument, though?  Does he hear us saying it in church?  How often does an atheist approach him in public with it?  I know I see his side of the argument daily.  I see it on tv when I'm watching sports, infomercials, or Fox News.  I see it on the street when churches are doing fundraisers like car washes.  I see it downtown when the local homeless guy has a sign that tells us to repent for the end is at hand.  I see it in the city in front of the missions with the "Jesus Saves" signs.  I don't stumble upon places or situations on a daily basis where I hear the other side of the argument, except for here.  Every time I see the argument in favor of a god, those who are spreading that word are doing so as if it is fact, and we're foolish for allowing our souls to go to hell.  The atheist side of the argument is largely in places like this; a forum set up specifically for us.

Quote from: "defendor"God cannot be both all good and all evil at the same time.

Um..the bible claims god created both good and evil; so how is the above not implied from what the bible says?

fester, I don't claim it's a fact that a god doesn't exist; we have quite a few agnostic atheists on this forum.  As for the Christian God, it definitely doesn't exist if defined through a literal understanding of the bible.

Quote from: "Whitney"

Quote from: "defendor"God cannot be both all good and all evil at the same time.

Um..the bible claims god created both good and evil; so how is the above not implied from what the bible says?

God is good.  God defines Good.  Knowing good, "creates" evil.

Quote from: "Isaiah 45:7   NIV"I am the LORD, and there is no other.
I form the light and create darkness,
I bring prosperity and create disaster;
I, the LORD, do all these things.

Has God literally created Evil as He (allegedly   ) created the sun, the moon, man...?  The claim is not that God created Evil, the claim is that because God is, Evil exists.  If there is no God, then Good ceases to exist and Evil with it.  Which goes back to the question of objective morality.  It is in this sense that God "created" Evil, not in the literal.

Quote from: "AnimatedDirt"If there is no God, then Good ceases to exist and Evil with it.  Which goes back to the question of objective morality.  It is in this sense that God "created" Evil, not in the literal.

As an atheist I do not subscribe to Good and Evil, these things are concepts postured by the various scriptures.
Are you saying that objective morality defines that which is Good and that which is Evil?
Are you saying that if we can prove that there is no objective morality standard then we have proved that there is no god?
Thus, Is your definition of god, the authoritative source of objective morality?
The assumption here is that it takes a god to author objective morality which precludes the possibility of a natural objective morality.

So, some questions with regards to exploring whether objective morality is viable:
What is the definition of a moral?
What is the definition of objective morality?
What is the definition of subjective morality?

Is it not possible for objective morality to come from a source other than a god?
Are all morals objective or is there some subjectivity in the mix as well?
If morals have a mixture of objectivity and subjectivity how can we identify which parts are objective and which parts are subjective?
Do morals only pertain to humans and not other animals?
How are humans made aware of the objective morals and how can we trust that this is the correct set of objective morals?
For objective morals to be deemed as objective does this mean that all humans would agree with them?
If all humans agree on a moral does that mean it is objective or is there another possibility e.g. common sense, survival of species, do unto others as you would like done unto you?
Which humans would be excluded from a consensus regarding the accuracy of a moral?
If we have a moral, how can we test it in such a way that we know it is both accurate and objective?

Would we agree that if we cannot prove that a moral is accurate and objective and if humans disagree as to the accuracy of the moral then that moral is subjective?
Would we agree that if we cannot find any objective morals then there is no objective morality and hence no authority or author of objective morality?
Would we agree that if we can find one subjective moral then there is no objective morality and hence no authority or author of objective morality?
Would we agree that if there is no authority or author of objective morality then there is no god?

Quote from: "AnimatedDirt"

Quote from: "Isaiah 45:7   NIV"I am the LORD, and there is no other.
I form the light and create darkness,
I bring prosperity and create disaster;
I, the LORD, do all these things.

Has God literally created Evil as He (allegedly   ) created the sun, the moon, man...?  The claim is not that God created Evil, the claim is that because God is, Evil exists.  If there is no God, then Good ceases to exist and Evil with it.  Which goes back to the question of objective morality.  It is in this sense that God "created" Evil, not in the literal.

I don't see how you get that from the context nor how it would logically follow.

Say I design a new cutting edge vehicle but in order to make it work it has to produce some horrible smog...am I not responsible for this by product?  So if god designs "good" and by good existing "evil" exists (as a byproduct) is he logically not creating both good and evil at the same time?

Stevil, Whitney presented a point that on the surface seems to be correct, when taken literally.  I clarified the point in context.  I'm not here to prove God exists.  I think it's been well established that even the Atheist cannot imagine how God HIMSELF could prove He exists should subject Himself to prove it to "your" satisfaction.  (see Will and Penhold debate)  The point is simply that IF God, then Evil exists because Good is defined.  IF God, then objective morality exists.

If Good is defined, Evil is created by default...opposite to good.

Quote from: "Whitney"I don't see how you get that from the context nor how it would logically follow.

If you know what good is, then the opposite exists by default.  If, then, God exists and God is good, then by default Evil exists.  It is not literally "created" as the opposite...it just is.

Quote from: "Whitney"Say I design a new cutting edge vehicle but in order to make it work it has to produce some horrible smog...am I not responsible for this by product?  So if god designs "good" and by good existing "evil" exists (as a byproduct) is he logically not creating both good and evil at the same time?

No.  This analogy doesn't fit the "God created evil" premise.  God did not create Good, nor did He create Evil.
God IS Good, thus evil is opposed to God.

Wait, if God is good, and God is all present, then how can evil be present? Hmmm.

Quote from: "Event_Horizon"Wait, if God is good, and God is all present, then how can evil be present? Hmmm.

There is a presence of God, clearly you missed that in your literary studies of the Bible...more so now in the person of Christ...as one part of God.

Just as a thought experiment:  

1.  The sun is a source of light.
2.  When the sun's light shines on an object, an area of darkness (a shadow) is formed by the lack of light in the shade of the object.

Question:  Did the sun, interacting with the object, create that shadow?  

If it did, then might we also be reasonably justified in saying that if a god is believed to be the source of good, then (where there is a lack of good [evil]) that the god, interacting with things in the world, created evil?

Quote from: "AnimatedDirt"Stevil, Whitney presented a point that on the surface seems to be correct, when taken literally.  I clarified the point in context.  I'm not here to prove God exists.  I think it's been well established that even the Atheist cannot imagine how God HIMSELF could prove He exists should subject Himself to prove it to "your" satisfaction.  (see Will and Penhold debate)  The point is simply that IF God, then Evil exists because Good is defined.  IF God, then objective morality exists.

If Good is defined, Evil is created by default...opposite to good.

And God defined good, so who's responsible for the existence of evil?

Quote from: "AnimatedDirt"No.  This analogy doesn't fit the "God created evil" premise.  God did not create Good, nor did He create Evil.
God IS Good, thus evil is opposed to God.

So, doing something good as, say, going to church is being God?

Quote from: "Whitney"Um..the bible claims god created both good and evil; so how is the above not implied from what the bible says?

This is Isaiah 45:7  It says "I form the light and create darkness, I bring prosperity and create disaster; I, the LORD, do all these things."

But the thing I would like to note is the poetry used in this section.  This is a literary device known as 'antithetical parallelism.' This is shown in stark contrasts to show God's sovereignity over everything.  In the Hebrew, the word used for disaster (or calamity or evil in other translations), is a word for evil, but natural evil, not moral evil.  So it is claiming that God is sovereign over natural disasters. The thesis of this entire idea of this compare/contrast schema is "I am the Lord God, there is no other."  So basically, this is expounding on the power and presence of God in everything.  

I think this moral question is a little off-shooted.

 If morals are subjective, then why is God wrong in his morals?  If "good" and "evil" have no objective or absolute meaning, then the argument that an "all good God can't exist if there is evil" is again undefined and meaningless, for there is no such thing as objective "good" and objective "evil" to claim meaning to this argument.  

So if morals are subjective, is not God just as 'right' as you are?  Therefore, you can't denounce God on moral questions if he is not violating any set principles.

Quote from: "defendor"If morals are subjective, then why is God wrong in his morals?  If "good" and "evil" have no objective or absolute meaning, then the argument that an "all good God can't exist if there is evil" is again undefined and meaningless, for there is no such thing as objective "good" and objective "evil" to claim meaning to this argument.  

So if morals are subjective, is not God just as 'right' as you are?  Therefore, you can't denounce God on moral questions if he is not violating any set principles.

Sigh.

I'm using your own moral standard to show that God is evil. Sin is bad, according to the Bible -- yet God created sin. Murdering is bad, according to the Bible -- yet God murdered countless thousands. Et al.

And even without using the Bible, God is evil to me, according to my subjective morals. That's good enough to me.

I answered the question of "God creating evil" in scripture.  The bible never says God has murdered, it says he has killed justly which I have also discussed the true definition of God's grace and God's justice.  

Do you think you have higher authority than God?

Quote from: "defendor"I answered the question of "God creating evil" in scripture.  The bible never says God has murdered, it says he has killed justly which I have also discussed the true definition of God's grace and God's justice.

And I think that is bullshit rationalization, also known as "BSR".

QuoteDo you think you have higher authority than God?

Yes.

Quote from: "Recusant"Just as a thought experiment:  

1.  The sun is a source of light.
2.  When the sun's light shines on an object, an area of darkness (a shadow) is formed by the lack of light in the shade of the object.

Question:  Did the sun, interacting with the object, create that shadow?  

The shadow (darkness) was always there. The sun simply began to throw light onto areas around the darkness, making the darkness reduce to the size of a shadow.

Quote from: "defendor"I answered the question of "God creating evil" in scripture.  The bible never says God has murdered, it says he has killed justly which I have also discussed the true definition of God's grace and God's justice.  

Do you think you have higher authority than God?

If we take the bible literally then it seems that the god of the bible killed a great many people, races, cultures etc. The great flood killed everyone except Noah and his wife. This is a much bigger attrocity than what Hitler did when trying to kill off all the Jewish people.
Only someone that believes god to be perfect and all loving can accept that god had good reason for killing almost everyone.
I'd also like to know if all the animals were seen to be evil and hence deserved being killed? If a human went around killing all the animals that they see, Society would lock that person up. It really does seem (from an outsider's point of view) that rules don't apply to the god of the bible. The worshippers just believe that god is always right and praise glory instead of question these actions.
This also seems contrary to the Christian stance of pro-life, anti abortion, anti euthanasia, anti death penalty.
I mean, surely there was a better way to educate the people and teach them to be more civil rather than to drown them all.
The Noah's ark story is extremely gory, macabre, and seems totally irrational to me.

Quote from: "Stevil"

Quote from: "Recusant"Just as a thought experiment:  

1.  The sun is a source of light.
2.  When the sun's light shines on an object, an area of darkness (a shadow) is formed by the lack of light in the shade of the object.

Question:  Did the sun, interacting with the object, create that shadow?  

The shadow (darkness) was always there. The sun simply began to throw light onto areas around the darkness, making the darkness reduce to the size of a shadow.

Ah, but light was always there too (http://www.newton.dep.anl.gov/askasci/phy05/phy05280.htm):

Quote...as long as the universe has had energy, it has had light in one form or another.

To be sure, Sol has only been shedding light for about 4.5 billion years, but I could easily have said "light from the stars (or light from the Milky Way, or whatever) shines on an object."  Anyway, this analogy is referring to the shadow (standing in for "evil"), which has a specific identity separate from any other darkness. This identity is created by the light from the sun.

My real question to you Stevil is this: Are you saying that this analogy is too flawed to work in this context, or are you saying that the natural condition of the universe is evil?

Quote from: "Recusant"My real question to you Stevil is this: Are you saying that this analogy is too flawed to work in this context, or are you saying that the natural condition of the universe is evil?

If the sun suddenly turned off, the earth would be pretty dark, with only very little light from the distant stars and less light from cosmic radiation. The moon of course would not shine. We would not see light reflecting off our earth, as it would be darkness, one very large shadow.
Dark is not the opposite of light. Dark is a neutral state, where as light is an excited, energetic state.
The concept of Good and Evil do not relate to light and dark. Good and Evil are concepts of religion IHMO and hence are only concptual. Evil is a simplistic label for actions or events that an observer may deem intentionally detremental, where as Good is a simplistic label for actions or events that an observer may deem intentionlly beneficial. However a neutral state could be an action or event that is neither Evil nor Good.
In this way We could say that an enjoyable beach picnic could come form the Good of the sun where-as a Sun burn could come from the Evil of the sun. Nightime could be seen as neutral for a beach dweller, Good for an astronomer, or Evil for a person with a sleep disorder.

Quote from: "Stevil"

Quote from: "Recusant"My real question to you Stevil is this: Are you saying that this analogy is too flawed to work in this context, or are you saying that the natural condition of the universe is evil?

If the sun suddenly turned off, the earth would be pretty dark, with only very little light from the distant stars and less light from cosmic radiation. The moon of course would not shine. We would not see light reflecting off our earth, as it would be darkness, one very large shadow.

I'm reminded of a word I learned recently; "sciolism."  A shadow is a specific thing which is created by the presence of light.  Generalized darkness, as described in the above quote, is not "one very large shadow."

Quote from: "Stevil"Dark is not the opposite of light. Dark is a neutral state, where as light is an excited, energetic state.

You're defining "dark" to suit your position.  Let's look at the dictionary:

QuoteFrom Merriam-Webster's Learner's Dictionary (http://www.learnersdictionary.com/search/dark):

dark
1 : having very little or no light â€"opposite light
2 : not light in color : of a color that is closer to black than white
3 of a color : having more black than white : not light â€"opposite light

It seems that according to the dictionary, dark actually is the opposite of light.

Quote from: "Stevil"The concept of Good and Evil do not relate to light and dark. Good and Evil are concepts of religion IHMO and hence are only concptual. Evil is a simplistic label for actions or events that an observer may deem intentionally detremental, where as Good is a simplistic label for actions or events that an observer may deem intentionlly beneficial.

Yes, "Good" and "Evil" are indeed simplistic labels.  That's why I think that "light" and "shadow" are useful in creating an analogy.  The analogy was intended to be clearly understood by somebody who uses the simplistic labels of "Good" and "Evil." Your attempt to persuade me that the analogy is not effective has so far failed.

Quote from: "Stevil"However a neutral state could be an action or event that is neither Evil nor Good.
In this way We could say that an enjoyable beach picnic could come form the Good of the sun where-as a Sun burn could come from the Evil of the sun. Nightime could be seen as neutral for a beach dweller, Good for an astronomer, or Evil for a person with a sleep disorder.

This doesn't even address the analogy, since the analogy doesn't contain anything about a "neutral state."  It specifically addresses the stark dichotomy between good and evil as propounded by followers of religion.  As well, the analogy doesn't contain "day" and "night," but rather "light" and "shadow."

As it happens, I think that evil is a useless concept, and good and bad only marginally less so. The former is emotion-laden to the point of no utility, while the latter two are entirely subjective. What is not subjective, though, and constitutes something that actually has an objective existence, is suffering. Since suffering does exist, and is very real and demonstrable, we have something that constitutes something we can measure this entity's characteristics against. Since this celestial peeping-tom is supposed to be omnipotent (lol) and omnibenevolent, suffering should not exist, because an omnipotent, omnibenevolent god cannot co-exist in a universe in which there's needless suffering.

Warning to apologists: If you actually erect the canard that Kalamity Kraig does here about suffering being good for people, you will incur my ire, because that's about as deeply immoral an assertion as can be erected, and only demonstrates just how toxic dogmatic belief in a magic man really is. Anybody who erects such an assertion should be made to suffer deeply, in my opinion, to see if they really think it's good for the sufferer.

Edit: Word substitution

Quote from: "Recusant"This doesn't even address the analogy, since the analogy doesn't contain anything about a "neutral state."  It specifically addresses the stark dichotomy between good and evil as propounded by followers of religion.  As well, the analogy doesn't contain "day" and "night," but rather "light" and "shadow."

What I am trying to say is that Good and Evil are closely related and come from the same source, but there is also neutral. I am sure not all things can be categorised as Good or Evil. The shadow to me is neutral. The Good and Evil of light are the respective and percieved actions of light for better or for worse. Not simply the lack of light.

Quote from: "Recusant"I'm reminded of a word I learned recently; "sciolism."  A shadow is a specific thing which is created by the presence of light.  Generalized darkness, as described in the above quote, is not "one very large shadow."

If you put a frame around a photo, does that photo become something new, something that has been created by the frame?
I don't see a difference regarding darkness, e.g. if you frame it with light then you have the concept of a shadow, but in reality the darkness was always there and does not need the light to become something different. It does not become a shadow. People would term it as a shadow but that is simply a concept. It remains what it was before it was framed by light. It remains as darkness.

Quote from: "Recusant"

Quote from: "Stevil"Dark is not the opposite of light. Dark is a neutral state, where as light is an excited, energetic state.

You're defining "dark" to suit your position.  Let's look at the dictionary:

QuoteFrom Merriam-Webster's Learner's Dictionary (http://www.learnersdictionary.com/search/dark):

dark
1 : having very little or no light â€"opposite light
2 : not light in color : of a color that is closer to black than white
3 of a color : having more black than white : not light â€"opposite light

It seems that according to the dictionary, dark actually is the opposite of light.

I would still disagree, light is a particle and energy duality, it is existence of energy. Darkness is the lack of this energy presence rather than negative energy, it is neutral rather than opposite. The dictionary definition you are referencing is using a conceptual viewpoint rather than reality.
If we are using it as an analogy of Good and Evil are you saying that Evil is simply a lack of good? Would you say that when I roll over in my sleep in the middle of the night that this action of mine is Evil simply because it lacks Good?

Quote from: "Recusant"This doesn't even address the analogy, since the analogy doesn't contain anything about a "neutral state."  It specifically addresses the stark dichotomy between good and evil as propounded by followers of religion.  As well, the analogy doesn't contain "day" and "night," but rather "light" and "shadow."

I feel that I am addressing your analogy by trying to point out that your shadow is neutral rather than the opposite, I cannot fathom how in your analogy that the shadow would relate to Evil given the point that light is representing Good. Your analogy is positing that all things are either Good or Evil and I think that is a dangerous stance. When president Bush said "You are either with us or against us" it sent huge shivers down my spine. A person in such power having such a polarised, dangerous and naiive stance.

Quote from: "Stevil"

Quote from: "Recusant"I'm reminded of a word I learned recently; "sciolism."  A shadow is a specific thing which is created by the presence of light.  Generalized darkness, as described in the above quote, is not "one very large shadow."

If you put a frame around a photo, does that photo become something new, something that has been created by the frame?
I don't see a difference regarding darkness, e.g. if you frame it with light then you have the concept of a shadow, but in reality the darkness was always there and does not need the light to become something different. It does not become a shadow. People would term it as a shadow but that is simply a concept. It remains what it was before it was framed by light. It remains as darkness.

1.  ;)   Framing a photo does not create anything but a framed photo.  Whereas casting light on an object creates a shadow.

You seem to have completely ignored the fact that the analogy that I proposed was intended to mirror the Christian dogma of how evil arises.  Evil, in the Christian view as I understand it, is the lack of goodness from their god.  Their god is the source of all good.  Thus anything cut off from their god is evil.  The point of the analogy is to show that if their view is correct, then it's very hard to escape the fact that just as the light from the sun interacts with objects to create a shadow, so does the good from their god  actually bring evil into existence.  If their conception of reality is correct, the world does not create evil on its own. Rather only by the existence of their "pure good" emanating from a single source can "evil" be said to exist.

Quote from: "Stevil"

Quote from: "Recusant"

Quote from: "Stevil"Dark is not the opposite of light. Dark is a neutral state, where as light is an excited, energetic state.

You're defining "dark" to suit your position.  Let's look at the dictionary:

QuoteFrom Merriam-Webster's Learner's Dictionary (http://www.learnersdictionary.com/search/dark):

dark
1 : having very little or no light â€"opposite light
2 : not light in color : of a color that is closer to black than white
3 of a color : having more black than white : not light â€"opposite light

It seems that according to the dictionary, dark actually is the opposite of light.

I would still disagree, light is a particle and energy duality, it is existence of energy. Darkness is the lack of this energy presence rather than negative energy, it is neutral rather than opposite. The dictionary definition you are referencing is using a conceptual viewpoint rather than reality.
If we are using it as an analogy of Good and Evil are you saying that Evil is simply a lack of good? Would you say that when I roll over in my sleep in the middle of the night that this action of mine is Evil simply because it lacks Good?

Once again you are confusing an analogy with physical reality.  This is the realm of concepts, not science.  Also, I am not saying that evil is the lack of good, I'm saying that's my understanding of Christian dogma.

Quote from: "Stevil"

Quote from: "Recusant"This doesn't even address the analogy, since the analogy doesn't contain anything about a "neutral state."  It specifically addresses the stark dichotomy between good and evil as propounded by followers of religion.  As well, the analogy doesn't contain "day" and "night," but rather "light" and "shadow."

I feel that I am addressing your analogy by trying to point out that your shadow is neutral rather than the opposite, I cannot fathom how in your analogy that the shadow would relate to Evil given the point that light is representing Good. Your analogy is positing that all things are either Good or Evil and I think that is a dangerous stance. When president Bush said "You are either with us or against us" it sent huge shivers down my spine. A person in such power having such a polarised, dangerous and naiive stance.

I believe I've clarified why you are missing the point in previous sections of this post, and won't repeat that clarification for this paragraph unless you think that there is something that I should address.

Are you two really arguing over an analogy?  

Quote from: "LegendarySandwich"

Quote from: "AnimatedDirt"No.  This analogy doesn't fit the "God created evil" premise.  God did not create Good, nor did He create Evil.
God IS Good, thus evil is opposed to God.

So, doing something good as, say, going to church is being God?

You totally miss the meaning, however I'm not surprised.

Doing good does not God make.  God embodies/is the definition of good.

Quote from: "AnimatedDirt"You totally miss the meaning, however I'm not surprised.

Doing good does not God make.  God embodies/is the definition of good.

So, what's the difference between good and God then?

Quote from: "LegendarySandwich"

Quote from: "AnimatedDirt"You totally miss the meaning, however I'm not surprised.

Doing good does not God make.  God embodies/is the definition of good.

So, what's the difference between good and God then?

Good is a concept, a definition, it is a part of what God is.  It is part of His nature.

Quote from: "AnimatedDirt"Good is a concept, a definition, it is a part of what God is.  It is part of His nature.

So, being/doing good is becoming closer/more like God, and doing/being evil is becoming farther away/less like God?

Quote from: "LegendarySandwich"

Quote from: "AnimatedDirt"Good is a concept, a definition, it is a part of what God is.  It is part of His nature.

So, being/doing good is becoming closer/more like God, and doing/being evil is becoming farther away/less like God?

In a simple sense, yes.  DOING good isn't necessarily a trait only of the Godly (meaning those that believe in God).  Good is a trait built into humanity IN THAT we were/are created in HIS image.  Image doesn't necessarily mean physical.

Many men, as evidenced by the Bible, did evil in God's eyes, yet some were called righteous by God.  Why?/How so?

One explanation is best summed up by a quote (I think it was) from Martin Luther.

"A Christian is always a sinner, always a penitent, always right with God."
 -- "Christian is always a sinner, always full of repentance and always justified by God."

One of those ways, but both say the same thing.

Quote from: "Recusant"You seem to have completely ignored the fact that the analogy that I proposed was intended to mirror the Christian dogma of how evil arises.  Evil, in the Christian view as I understand it, is the lack of goodness from their god.  Their god is the source of all good.  Thus anything cut off from their god is evil.  The point of the analogy is to show that if their view is correct, then it's very hard to escape the fact that just as the light from the sun interacts with objects to create a shadow, so does the good from their god  actually bring evil into existence.  If their conception of reality is correct, the world does not create evil on its own. Rather only by the existence of their "pure good" emanating from a single source can "evil" be said to exist.

Not ignoring, just struggling to understand religious concepts, I really find them hard to understand.
So, going by your explaination above it seems that I myself am one of the most evil things on the planet if the Christian god exists. If god is casting a frame of "light" around the world and since this light is not touching me in any way, then although I am not changed, not different, just simply framed I have become as evil as anything else could possibly be.

However there is hope for me. If the Christian god does not exist, then I am not in the least evil.

And it gets even better.
Regardless if the Christian god exists or not, I am actually quite a nice person, not a saint, but generally quite good (not Good but good)
So I am either Evil and nice/good, or not Evil and nice/good.
I think I can live with that.

It means that when Christians call Atheists evil then they are right, but it doesn't mean that they are saying we are bad people. Hmmmm, the concept of Good/Evil is very misleading for a non Christian who lacks an understanding of Christian ways, word, descriptions.

QuoteImage doesn't necessarily mean physical

Oh my. Now I don't think I will be able to understand this concept.

Quote from: "Stevil"

QuoteImage doesn't necessarily mean physical

Oh my. Now I don't think I will be able to understand this concept.

When a picture is taken of you with a cell phone or any image-taking device, is that image an exact representation of you?
I would think you would say, 'no'.  It is a two-dimensional likeness, but it is not an exact physical image of you.

Quote from: LegendarySandwichAre you two really arguing over an analogy?  :D

And while none of our honored Christian members have bothered to address that analogy, I think that Stevil and I have had a productive conversation.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Quote from: StevilNot ignoring, just struggling to understand religious concepts, I really find them hard to understand.

I don't blame you sir.  If you haven't been indoctrinated from a very early age in the fanciful and extravagant fabrications erected by centuries of Christian theologians, it must be difficult to accept that any sensible person takes them seriously.  Their fabulations confound even themselves sometimes.

Quote from: StevilSo, going by your explaination above it seems that I myself am one of the most evil things on the planet if the Christian god exists. If god is casting a frame of "light" around the world and since this light is not touching me in any way, then although I am not changed, not different, just simply framed I have become as evil as anything else could possibly be.

Well no, you yourself are not evil at all (in my understanding of Christian dogma).  Rather it's atheism which is evil.  The good which emanates from the Christian god "illuminates" you whether you acknowledge its existence or not.

Quote from: StevilHowever there is hope for me. If the Christian god does not exist, then I am not in the least evil.

And it gets even better.
Regardless if the Christian god exists or not, I am actually quite a nice person, not a saint, but generally quite good (not Good but good)
So I am either Evil and nice/good, or not Evil and nice/good.
I think I can live with that.

It means that when Christians call Atheists evil then they are right, but it doesn't mean that they are saying we are bad people. Hmmmm, the concept of Good/Evil is very misleading for a non Christian who lacks an understanding of Christian ways, word, descriptions.

Only the more simplistic variety of Christian believes that atheists are evil, I think.

Quote from: Stevil

QuoteImage doesn't necessarily mean physical

Oh my. Now I don't think I will be able to understand this concept.

I'm not sure that the above was addressed to me.  Analogies obviously are not physical things though, and aren't governed by physical realities.

Legendary Sandwich- simply calling B.S. without having grounds to disagree or making an argument, other than mere opinion, is a logical fallacy. You are swaying from a debatable argument for personal bias, without addressing the debate with facts or tangibility or logic.

Law of non-contradiction- There is no objective standard of good and evil

QuoteI think that evil is a useless concept

then you point to an objective stance of evil.

QuoteWhat is not subjective, though, and constitutes something that actually has an objective existence, is suffering. Since suffering does exist, and is very real and demonstrable.

Why is there suffering?  It depends, we have to first establish whether the moral grounds are objective or subjective.  

If they are subjective, then you can't ever know why, it's only different levels of moral neutrality as perceived by those who are undergoing whatever plagues them.  

If there is an objective moral reality, then you have a basis for an argument, and one you may not like.  I have posted on God's justice and grace earlier so God is just and unjust. He is not in-just. God would be completely just by killing me, for my crimes are eternally worthy of death. By trying to continually establish myself as God.  But his Grace is not just. It is not injustice either. It is unwarranted. I do not deserve his Grace. I deserve his justice. But he excuses his justice through the sacrifice of His Grace(Jesus). God doesn't save me from himself, he saves me from myself. A murderer is deserving of death, this is justice. But if someone were to take his punishment of death so that the murderer could change his ways (repent), he would live in light of this sacrifice and turn from his ways. He would receive un-justice, not injustice. This is Grace.  

Jesus was asked this same questions by the pharisees, the question in perspective you should ask is not 'why is there evil', but why aren't you at the extreme brunt of it?  Why aren't you suffering?

This is more geared towards Stevil- If there is no objective benchmark for what Good is (in this case God) then you cannot have an objective standard of morality, defining evil (absence of God).  It's like ships to a light house, if there is no immovable standard to direct and guide us, then everyone is going haywire without a sense of direction.  But it seems that everyone has a sense of direction (morality).  My beliefs state, that regardless of whether you acknowledge the light house exists or not (Good i.e. God), it is there and everyone has sense about it.  

About the whole the shadow debacle regardless of what depicts what and which comes first, darkness is merely the absence of light.  So without light, you would never really know what darkness or shadows were for there was never any differentiation.  But with light, there are various, objective degrees of the presence of light.

I noticed a topic on the sinfulness of man, this is called total depravity, we are sinful before birth.

Quote from: "defendor"But he excuses his justice through the sacrifice of His Grace(Jesus).

This wording doesn't sit well with me.  It seems to suggest that God simply then chose to not execute His justice.  Impossible.

God's justice/wrath is not acted out on me because He (God) placed His wrath and judged Christ in our stead.  In no way does God excuse His justice, but rather His justice was instead acted out on Christ, in whom if we believe/trust/have faith in Him, we are "dead" and the wage of sin is paid.

Quote from: "AnimatedDirt"This wording doesn't sit well with me.  It seems to suggest that God simply then chose to not execute His justice.  Impossible.

God's justice/wrath is not acted out on me because He (God) placed His wrath and judged Christ in our stead.  In no way does God excuse His justice, but rather His justice was instead acted out on Christ, in whom if we believe/trust/have faith in Him, we are "dead" and the wage of sin is paid.

Ya I completely agree, I think you were able to expound on it greater than I. He excuses his justice, *for the elect*, by the sacrifice of Christ, which absorbed the wrath of God.

I don't buy the whole Jesus as a sacrifice thing, it just makes no sense.

If God were all loving and forgiving, there would be no reason for a sacrifice at all. Jesus is just the middle man.

As far as what the Bible says, God was the one who messed up in the first place by making the tree accessible, or making the tree at all, and punishing humanity for it. God had ample opportunities to fix the mess he made many times along the way, but instead he decides to sacrifice himself to himself, then blackmail the human race for it. Humans aren't any better off after Jesus because instead of being sinful, we just owe Jesus.

Look beyond what it says, and look at what it means. The Bible says we diverse punishment for the crimes of our ancestors; that is not justice. Then we are to believe that our punishment can be carried out on an innocent bystander and absolve us of responsibility; that is also not justice. Then we are to devote ourselves to that bystander because of something we didn't do, for a redemption we didn't ask for; that is not justice. Not only that, but owe our creator devotion, and even though we have free will, we will be punished if we make the "wrong" choice. Well why give us free will in the first place, asshole? Save is a bunch of F'n trouble and turn us into zombies, we'd stop killing each other over religion. Speaking of that punishment, how is an infinite punishment justice if it's for a finite lifetime? Even if I kill a quadrillion people, an infinite punishment would be excessive. Any infinite punishment is excessive; that is not justice.

As far as good vs evil, did God make the morals, or were the morals already there and God just stated them? Classic ethical problem that theists have a hard time solving. There is no Good and Evil, only what works and what doesn't. Homosexuality didn't work for a primitive people, so they called it evil. In our society homosexuality works and is therefore not evil. Helping people works, so it's not evil. Killing people doesn't work so it's evil.

Quote from: "Recusant"

Quote from: "Stevil"So, going by your explaination above it seems that I myself am one of the most evil things on the planet if the Christian god exists. If god is casting a frame of "light" around the world and since this light is not touching me in any way, then although I am not changed, not different, just simply framed I have become as evil as anything else could possibly be.

Well no, you yourself are not evil at all (in my understanding of Christian dogma).  Rather it's atheism which is evil.  The good which emanates from the Christian god "illuminates" you whether you acknowledge its existence or not.

I think I understand now,

The light represents Good coming from the source of Good which is the Christian god (perhaps I should use "God" with a capital "G" to mean the Christian god, do they not agree that the name is YHWH?)
It seems that the darkness (or shadow) is not Evil and those in it are not Evil. That area simply represents the places that God's Good doesn't get to. The object ([strike:2jkrjbuy]Rock?[/strike:2jkrjbuy]rock?) obscuring the light (Good) is the thing that is Evil. So in the hypothetical world where God exists the rock would actually be the things that obscure God's Good.
So there are people who know of God's Good, these people are in the light, however some of them will choose not to accept God's Good, this does not mean that they are Evil.
There are people (inclusive of Atheists) who do not know of God's Good, these people are in the darkness (shadow), they too are not evil.
So it seems that people are neither Good nor Evil and neither are their actions. Good is simply the presence of God's Good.
No, that doesn't sound right.
Hmmmm.
Good is the light cast by God.
No, sorry, mixing up the analogy with the [strike:2jkrjbuy]Hypothetical[/strike:2jkrjbuy] hypothetical (sorry, going capitalisation crazy here).

Good is knowledge of God.
No, still doesn't seem right

Good is belief in God.

No.

Good is [strike:2jkrjbuy]having[/strike:2jkrjbuy] the Bible or Christians [strike:2jkrjbuy]at ones disposal[/strike:2jkrjbuy] who can enlighten with regards to [strike:2jkrjbuy]knowledge[/strike:2jkrjbuy] concepts regarding God. In someway that would include this Atheist website, I have certainly learned a lot about Christianity from here, so this site is Good.
Evil is the objects or people or concepts that result in people not having access to Good. e.g. the Chinese government a few years back when they banned religion, or people's desire to have proof or God's lack of proof on offer, or peoples belief in other gods, or peoples isolation from Christians and/or the bible and/or this website.

But it seems strange that one's actions can't be classified as Good or Evil. E.g. giving money to charity or snatching candy from a small child.

Quote from: "Recusant"

Quote from: "Stevil"

QuoteImage doesn't necessarily mean physical

Oh my. Now I don't think I will be able to understand this concept.

I'm not sure that the above was addressed to me.  Analogies obviously are not physical things though, and aren't governed by physical realities.

This was meant for AD, sorry my [strike:2jkrjbuy]bad[/strike:2jkrjbuy] [strike:2jkrjbuy]Evil[/strike:2jkrjbuy] mistake.

Quote from: "Event_Horizon"I don't buy the whole Jesus as a sacrifice thing, it just makes no sense.

If God were all loving and forgiving, there would be no reason for a sacrifice at all. Jesus is just the middle man.

God is Love and God is also Judge (among other aspects of His nature).  If so, then there MUST be legal action.  The wrath of God (the legal action, if you will) is the placement of Sin on Christ and subsequently, the death of Christ.  The Love of God is that He, Himself pays the price He, Himself as Judge must uphold.  His omni-Love is fulfilled and His omni-Judge is satisfied.  Case closed.  Now think in terms of a Class-Action Suit (I'm no expert on civil law, so I hope this analogy fits).  Judgment has been rendered, the question remains if you want to be part of the class-action.

I've received at least one letter of a class-action suit that apparently I might've gained in some respect.  To gain, I must add my name, provide some proof that I purchased an item, or paid for a service, was prescribed a certain medication, and I'd be added.  The letter alwasys states "not all are guaranteed to collect"...but in this cosmic class-action, ALL can be added and ALL that do, will be given the gift.

Quote from: "AnimatedDirt"

Quote from: "Event_Horizon"I don't buy the whole Jesus as a sacrifice thing, it just makes no sense.

If God were all loving and forgiving, there would be no reason for a sacrifice at all. Jesus is just the middle man.

God is Love and God is also Judge (among other aspects of His nature).  If so, then there MUST be legal action.  The wrath of God (the legal action, if you will) is the placement of Sin on Christ and subsequently, the death of Christ.  The Love of God is that He, Himself pays the price He, Himself as Judge must uphold.  His omni-Love is fulfilled and His omni-Judge is satisfied.  Case closed.  Now think in terms of a Class-Action Suit (I'm no expert on civil law, so I hope this analogy fits).  Judgment has been rendered, the question remains if you want to be part of the class-action.

I've received at least one letter of a class-action suit that apparently I might've gained in some respect.  To gain, I must add my name, provide some proof that I purchased an item, or paid for a service, was prescribed a certain medication, and I'd be added.  The letter alwasys states "not all are guaranteed to collect"...but in this cosmic class-action, ALL can be added and ALL that do, will be given the gift.

I understand this is your belief, the problem I have is simply that the letter doesn't exist or if it does exist, it looks like a scam. So it's like someone thinking that there really is a class-action lawsuit somewhere, and that thinking that it's real and wanting to be on a list for it results in them getting rewarded. Also, merely not thinking that the law suit is real, means that you get sentenced to a Turkish prison forever.

Quote from: "Davin"I understand this is your belief, the problem I have is simply that the letter doesn't exist or if it does exist, it looks like a scam.

The letter is presented to all in the form of the Bible, and in one nutshell, John 3:16.  There is plenty of reason to believe and plenty of reason to disbelieve.  Therein lies the beauty of freewill/free choice.  You are not overwhelmed with "proof" (well, you are in a sense) and so you make your own choice.  You cannot blame anyone but your own intelligence.  It is you making the decision and you alone.

Quote from: "Davin"So it's like someone thinking that there really is a class-action lawsuit somewhere, and that thinking that it's real and wanting to be on a list for it results in them getting rewarded.

So in your mind, we are deluded.  No problem.

Quote from: "Davin"Also, merely not thinking that the law suit is real, means that you get sentenced to a Turkish prison forever.

Quite right.  If you lack the will to be added, you don't get the reward.  You are 100% correct.  And I think most of Atheism, as I hear it, is happy with this, that being that even IF God exists as suggested in the Bible, and there is this plan of salvation, most of *you (general to Strong Atheism) don't want anything to do with it anyway.  Is this not correct?

Quote from: "AnimatedDirt"

Quote from: "Davin"I understand this is your belief, the problem I have is simply that the letter doesn't exist or if it does exist, it looks like a scam.

The letter is presented to all in the form of the Bible, and in one nutshell, John 3:16.  There is plenty of reason to believe and plenty of reason to disbelieve.  Therein lies the beauty of freewill/free choice.  You are not overwhelmed with "proof" (well, you are in a sense) and so you make your own choice.  You cannot blame anyone but your own intelligence.  It is you making the decision and you alone.

Aye, the bible looks very much like a scam. When asked what reason there is to even believe that bible is remotely correct, people cite their feelings, the bible and pretty much anything else that cannot be verified as to the honesty and truth of the claims, trying to ensure that the claims cannot be verified at that time or ever is a scam tactic. The bible essentially says that you must believe this and be rewarded or don't and suffer, this kind of threat is a tactic of scam artists. The bible calls those that don't believe fools, which is also a common scam tactic, after all, you don't want to be a fool do you? For these and other reasons, it looks like a scam. It might not be a scam, however I wouldn't risk a penny, let alone an alleged eternal soul on something with this kind of absence of evidence.

Quote from: "AnimatedDirt"

Quote from: "Davin"So it's like someone thinking that there really is a class-action lawsuit somewhere, and that thinking that it's real and wanting to be on a list for it results in them getting rewarded.

So in your mind, we are deluded.  No problem.

No, in my mind I have no idea if you're delusional. However if you think people should believe that this class action law suit exists, then you should provide more than just assurances and beliefs (the bible is included as assurances and beliefs of people who lived a long time ago).

Quote from: "AnimatedDirt"

Quote from: "Davin"Also, merely not thinking that the law suit is real, means that you get sentenced to a Turkish prison forever.

Quite right.  If you lack the will to be added, you don't get the reward.  You are 100% correct.  And I think most of Atheism, as I hear it, is happy with this, that being that even IF God exists as suggested in the Bible, and there is this plan of salvation, most of *you (general to Strong Atheism) don't want anything to do with it anyway.  Is this not correct?

It's not the lack of will to be added, it's the lack of evidence that the thing even exists. If someone came up to me and said, "hey, if you give me ten dollars I'll give you back a million in two weeks" it wouldn't be that I don't want a million dollars, it's just that I have no reason to risk even $10 on something with that has no evidence that it will work. In the same way, it's not that I don't have the will to believe in a god, it's that there is no rational reason to believe in a god. If I can't risk $10 on the chance that I could get $1,000,000 just on someone's assurances and professed beliefs, what makes you think I'm going to risk an alleged eternal soul just on someone's assurances and professed beliefs?

As for wanting the plan of salvation or not, it depends on what it is. I've heard lots of people with lots of different versions of heaven and hell. It doesn't matter which is my favourite version or which one I think is the most realistic, what matters is which one can be backed up by empirical evidence.

Quote from: "AnimatedDirt"Quite right.  If you lack the will to be added, you don't get the reward.  You are 100% correct.  And I think most of Atheism, as I hear it, is happy with this, that being that even IF God exists as suggested in the Bible, and there is this plan of salvation, most of *you (general to Strong Atheism) don't want anything to do with it anyway.  Is this not correct?

Speaking for myself, I find the whole idea of salvation pointless. There is nothing I need immediate saving from and so even if there was some master plan for salvation, I'd send the master planner to someone who actually seems to need and want it.

I have no desire for a life beyond life, but if we hypothesize for the moment that there is one, I honestly and absolutely don't care what it is or which side of the heavenly border I will land on. I'll be DEAD, so what will it matter?

Quote from: "Davin"As for wanting the plan of salvation or not, it depends on what it is. I've heard lots of people with lots of different versions of heaven and hell. It doesn't matter which is my favourite version or which one I think is the most realistic, what matters is which one can be backed up by empirical evidence.

For discussion purposes, let's just say (as I believe) that it is either eternal life or eternal death.  Let's leave out "heaven" and "hell" altogether.

Neither can be backed by empirical evidence.  Not even the current theory of the 'evolution' of life on this planet can be proven to the point you seem to require for the above.

Quote from: "Matthew 12:39,40   NIV"Then some of the Pharisees and teachers of the law said to him, "Teacher, we want to see a miraculous sign from you."
He answered, "A wicked and adulterous generation asks for a miraculous sign! But none will be given it except the sign of the prophet Jonah. For as Jonah was three days and three nights in the belly of a huge fish, so the Son of Man will be three days and three nights in the heart of the earth.

This "evidence" you seek or require to even "seek" is not evidence that can be given from a man or the intellect of a man.

Quote from: "Psalm 19:1-4   NIV"The heavens declare the glory of God;
    the skies proclaim the work of his hands.
Day after day they pour forth speech;
    night after night they display knowledge.
There is no speech or language
    where their voice is not heard.*
Their voice* goes out into all the earth,
    their words to the ends of the world.

It is these that attest to God and His existence, but even these (probability, fine tuning, beauty, symmetry) cannot reveal God to the satisfaction of Man.

Quote from: "Matthew 16:15-17   NIV""But what about you?" he asked. "Who do you say I am?"
Simon Peter answered, "You are the Christ, the Son of the living God."
Jesus replied, "Blessed are you, Simon son of Jonah, for this was not revealed to you by man, but by my Father in heaven.

Quote from: "AnimatedDirt"For discussion purposes, let's just say (as I believe) that it is either eternal life or eternal death.  Let's leave out "heaven" and "hell" altogether.

Neither can be backed by empirical evidence.  Not even the current theory of the 'evolution' of life on this planet can be proven to the point you seem to require for the above.

What are you talking about?

Quote

Quote from: "Matthew 12:39,40   NIV"Then some of the Pharisees and teachers of the law said to him, "Teacher, we want to see a miraculous sign from you."
He answered, "A wicked and adulterous generation asks for a miraculous sign! But none will be given it except the sign of the prophet Jonah. For as Jonah was three days and three nights in the belly of a huge fish, so the Son of Man will be three days and three nights in the heart of the earth.

This "evidence" you seek or require to even "seek" is not evidence that can be given from a man or the intellect of a man.

But it can be given from a centuries old book written by primitive peoples, huh?

Quote

Quote from: "Psalm 19:1-4   NIV"The heavens declare the glory of God;
    the skies proclaim the work of his hands.
Day after day they pour forth speech;
    night after night they display knowledge.
There is no speech or language
    where their voice is not heard.*
Their voice* goes out into all the earth,
    their words to the ends of the world.

It is these that attest to God and His existence, but even these (probability, fine tuning, beauty, symmetry) cannot reveal God to the satisfaction of Man.

Quote from: "Matthew 16:15-17   NIV""But what about you?" he asked. "Who do you say I am?"
Simon Peter answered, "You are the Christ, the Son of the living God."
Jesus replied, "Blessed are you, Simon son of Jonah, for this was not revealed to you by man, but by my Father in heaven.

So, you have a really old book, and common arguments for God that have been debunked many times? I don't see how these things could reveal God to the satisfaction of anyone.

Quote from: "AnimatedDirt"

Quote from: "Davin"As for wanting the plan of salvation or not, it depends on what it is. I've heard lots of people with lots of different versions of heaven and hell. It doesn't matter which is my favourite version or which one I think is the most realistic, what matters is which one can be backed up by empirical evidence.

For discussion purposes, let's just say (as I believe) that it is either eternal life or eternal death.  Let's leave out "heaven" and "hell" altogether.

Neither can be backed by empirical evidence.  Not even the current theory of the 'evolution' of life on this planet can be proven to the point you seem to require for the above.

Not true at all. Honestly, I'm a little irritated by this accusation and the frequency at which it is employed. Even if I didn't accept evolution, this point is moot. I'd accept a vast amount of varied evidence, just none that aren't empirical. Absolute knowledge is my goal, with the understanding that it's impossible. I accept things that have sufficient empirical evidence, not absolute surety. The difference between what I accept as true from what I don't is the amount of supporting evidence and predictive accuracy of the theory. Evolution has overwhelming amounts of both as does gravity, the god of the bible however, has neither.

Describing away the lack of evidence and predictive accuracy when it comes to god by saying that there cannot be any, is not something I can accept. Making something indeterminable from something that doesn't exist only makes the concept effectively useless and meaningless.

Despite telling you in my previous post that I don't accept assurances and beliefs, you go and cite the bible, which is just assurances and beliefs. I'm not sure what you were trying to accomplish with this.

Quote from: "AnimatedDirt"God is Love and God is also Judge (among other aspects of His nature).  If so, then there MUST be legal action.  The wrath of God (the legal action, if you will) is the placement of Sin on Christ and subsequently, the death of Christ.  The Love of God is that He, Himself pays the price He, Himself as Judge must uphold.  His omni-Love is fulfilled and His omni-Judge is satisfied.  Case closed.  Now think in terms of a Class-Action Suit (I'm no expert on civil law, so I hope this analogy fits).  Judgment has been rendered, the question remains if you want to be part of the class-action.

But in your scenario, Jesus isn't part of the court, nor part of the class action lawsuit. He is just the innocent hotdog vendor outside the court house. It would be as if the court (God), sentenced the people who lost in the case (humans) to pay the fine, but instead of giving them punishment, he brought in the hotdog vendor and forced him to pay the fine, THEN asked the people of in court to pay back the hotdog vendor for his forced payment. I'm sorry but that is not justice.

Quote from: "AnimatedDirt"I've received at least one letter of a class-action suit that apparently I might've gained in some respect.  To gain, I must add my name, provide some proof that I purchased an item, or paid for a service, was prescribed a certain medication, and I'd be added.  The letter alwasys states "not all are guaranteed to collect"...but in this cosmic class-action, ALL can be added and ALL that do, will be given the gift.

But your scenario doesn't punish someone for not joining the lawsuit, but the Bible specifically says you have to, or you'll be punished.

Think of it this way. I come to you and say that your grandfather robbed my grandfather, which ruined my family financially, so now you have to pay me everything you own. You would think I was crazy, right? But what if I then said that wait, you didn't have to, because I took the innocent postman walking by forced him to pay me everything he had. Then I proclaim that now of course you'll have to pay back the post man for him having been forced to pay me, or you'd be physically tortured. If that scenario seems quite messed up, then you partially understand why I see Christianity that way. The idea that we have our parent's sin (sin from Adam and Eve) so therefore we must be punished for it is ethical thinking out of the bronze age. No court would ever arrest someone for what their ancestors did centuries ago. Christianity goes several steps further and says that an innocent person was killed for your supposed sins, and that you need to thank said person or you'll be punished even worse! That is blackmail for a crime no one committed, and it is not justice.

I'd just like to point out that I differ from Davin in the sense that I'm not a strict empiricist -- I don't necessarily have to have empirical evidence of something for me to accept it.

Quote from: "Davin"Not true at all. Honestly, I'm a little irritated by this accusation and the frequency at which it is employed. Even if I didn't accept evolution, this point is moot. I'd accept a vast amount of varied evidence, just none that aren't empirical. Absolute knowledge is my goal, with the understanding that it's impossible. I accept things that have sufficient empirical evidence, not absolute surety. The difference between what I accept as true from what I don't is the amount of supporting evidence and predictive accuracy of the theory. Evolution has overwhelming amounts of both as does gravity, the god of the bible however, has neither.

Describing away the lack of evidence and predictive accuracy when it comes to god by saying that there cannot be any, is not something I can accept. Making something indeterminable from something that doesn't exist only makes the concept effectively useless and meaningless.

Despite telling you in my previous post that I don't accept assurances and beliefs, you go and cite the bible, which is just assurances and beliefs. I'm not sure what you were trying to accomplish with this.

Well...the Bible plus historical evidence that seems to be "unsound".  But then again, I don't promote "proof" (as required by you) for faith and trust.  We then are left with the knowledge of an old book that people would need/want MORE evidence.  None will be given.  Full Stop.  The evidence is there if one wishes to search it out.

Quote from: "AnimatedDirt"Well...the Bible plus historical evidence that seems to be "unsound".  But then again, I don't promote "proof" (as required by you) for faith and trust.  We then are left with the knowledge of an old book that people would need/want MORE evidence.  None will be given.  Full Stop.  The evidence is there if one wishes to search it out.

There is also evidence of U.F.O.'s and ghosts, if one wishes to search it out.

Quote from: "Event_Horizon"But in your scenario, Jesus isn't part of the court, nor part of the class action lawsuit. He is just the innocent hotdog vendor outside the court house. It would be as if the court (God), sentenced the people who lost in the case (humans) to pay the fine, but instead of giving them punishment, he brought in the hotdog vendor and forced him to pay the fine, THEN asked the people of in court to pay back the hotdog vendor for his forced payment. I'm sorry but that is not justice.

You have it so twisted, it's no wonder it sounds impossible to you.  The God of the OT is in fact, Jesus Christ.  Please, if you will, note John 1:1-18.  In no manner was Christ forced into anything.  What is this "payback" you speak of that the people have to payback to the "Hotdog Vendor"?

Quote from: "Event_Horizon"But your scenario doesn't punish someone for not joining the lawsuit, but the Bible specifically says you have to, or you'll be punished.

The "punishment" as in a class-action law suit is that the ones that could've joined in, do not reap the rewards of the law suit.  There is punishment.

Quote from: "Event_Horizon"Think of it this way. I come to you and say that your grandfather robbed my grandfather, which ruined my family financially, so now you have to pay me everything you own. You would think I was crazy, right? But what if I then said that wait, you didn't have to, because I took the innocent postman walking by forced him to pay me everything he had. Then I proclaim that now of course you'll have to pay back the post man for him having been forced to pay me, or you'd be physically tortured. If that scenario seems quite messed up, then you partially understand why I see Christianity that way.

Again...twisted.

Quote from: "Event_Horizon"The idea that we have our parent's sin (sin from Adam and Eve) so therefore we must be punished for it is ethical thinking out of the bronze age. No court would ever arrest someone for what their ancestors did centuries ago.

This shows exactly how you haven't the slightest idea of what you're talking about.  It's not that at all.  No one is being arrested.  It simply says that everyone is TAINTED with sin.  "If any of you be without sin, let him cast the first stone.".  Sin cannot be fully understood by a created being unless sin is acted upon.  Once acted upon, sin is now IN man and his offspring.  There is not one single soul/person that cannot be saved from sin.  Every human is eligible...from Adam and Eve to the last one born.  Every human is able to live out their life HERE as they see fit.  Free Will, Freedom of choice.  It's what we do with that choice that dictates our eternal destiny.  You aren't being arrested right now are you?

Quote from: "Event_Horizon"Christianity goes several steps further and says that an innocent person was killed for your supposed sins, and that you need to thank said person or you'll be punished even worse! That is blackmail for a crime no one committed, and it is not justice.

Thankfulness only comes after one understands what was done.  One needn't fully understand what was done, however, one must fully believe that what was done was free and nothing can be done to get it other than sheer whole-hearted belief and trust.

Quote from: "AnimatedDirt"You have it so twisted, it's no wonder it sounds impossible to you.  The God of the OT is in fact, Jesus Christ.  Please, if you will, note John 1:1-18.  In no manner was Christ forced into anything.  What is this "payback" you speak of that the people have to payback to the "Hotdog Vendor"?

Christians believe Jesus died for their sins, so they have to accept him as their savior or go to hell. That means that because the Christian's ancestors did something bad, then God had to come down as Jesus and sacrifice himself to himself to remove that sin, however humans have to pay tribute to the being which absolved them of their nonexistent sin or go to infinite torture. God decreed humans have sin, Jesus got rid of it, and now humans owe Jesus. Jesus is blackmailing humanity.

It isn't twisted if you look objectively at it. There are fundamental ethical falsehoods that Christianity accepts as tenets of its religion.

1: The punishment for actions taken against one's ancestors also applies to you, even if you weren't involved, even if you were born centuries later (See God cursing humanity, not just Adam and Eve).

- Of course this is false because anything your parents do is independent of what you do. If your parents lie and cheat, it doesn't mean that you're also a liar and a cheater. Your ethical actions are your own, and only apply to you. If your actions are good, then regardless of what your parents or ancestors did, you are a good person.

2: People are born deserving as punishment as a default (original sin).

- This is also false because to judge someone as "good" or "bad" is to judge them by their actions. A newborn takes no ethical or unethical actions, so it does not deserve punishment as a default. #1 also applies here as well.

3: People are born owing their life to creator their, which they did not choose to accept in the first place. (See commanded devotion to God).

- Essentially this forces someone into slavery. This is wrong because people cannot choose to be born, because they do not exist before they are born. They don't choose their race, sex, nationality, or socioeconomic status. To say that a human owes a God for their existence, means you have forced that human into debt without their choice or consent.

4: Unethical actions, such as murder and rape, are able to be washed clean by the punishment of an innocent bystander and not through the punishment of the perpetrator (See the sacrifice of Jesus).

- Obviously nobody would accept hurting someone else for the unethical actions of another. If a person really likes someone else, that person can take the other's punishment for them, but not the other's responsibility. The one who committed the action is still responsible for it, regardless of how many others are punished or how harshly.

5: If someone does something to benefit another, even without that person's consent, they still owe the original person for the benevolent action (See commanded acceptance of Jesus).

- This is plainly false because it is akin to blackmail. Consider the situation if the mob forced a favor onto someone, then immediately asked for that person's servitude. I cannot do something nice for you without your consent, then force you to do something nice for me.

6: Infinite punishment is fair for a finite life (See Hell).

- Pretty self explanatory why it's wrong. An infinite punishment for one is excessive no matter the crime, since only an infinite crime can justify an infinite punishment, and mortals only exist in a finite lifetime. That, and an infinite punishment treats all unethical actions as the same. The person who steals 50$ is given the same punishment as a genocidal maniac who kills 13 billion people.

And yet Christians say their God and his laws are just. Judging from the content of Christianity itself, this is not so.

Quote from: "AnimatedDirt"Well...the Bible plus historical evidence that seems to be "unsound".

There is no historical evidence of the god, only of things mentioned in it. No evidence for the creation in the bible. No evidence for the world wide flood in the bible. No evidence for most of the things in the bible. There is reasonable evidence for places in the bible that existed at the same time the bible was written, however this kind of reasoning would lead to accepting Spiderman as real because New York exists simply because it depicts Spiderman swinging around New York.

Quote from: "AnimatedDirt"But then again, I don't promote "proof" (as required by you) for faith and trust.

Then you can equally accept subatomic robots that created everything a few weeks ago including light in transit from distant stars. Given the lack of evidence for both concepts, they have equal rational weight.

Quote from: "AnimatedDirt"We then are left with the knowledge of an old book that people would need/want MORE evidence.  None will be given.  Full Stop.

Then it's a useless concept because it's indiscernible from it not existing.

Quote from: "AnimatedDirt"The evidence is there if one wishes to search it out.

Is your assumption that I haven't searched it out? After years of searching and finding nothing, I'll just wait for people to support their claims like I do with everything else (except the things I come up with, which I will provide support for).

AD, I thnk quite a few of us are honestly baffled with how people can accept the concepts of the bible or the interprations taught by the churches representing the respective faiths based on the bible. I can see that quite a few of us have put a great deal of thought into these concepts but something is not clicking. We are seeing contradiction, we are seeing entrapment, punishment for who our parents and ancestors are, being castracised for simply being human, teachings that we are not worthy, that we must repent, that we owe our future to Jesus, lessons that we must obey the Christian god no matter how vile the act that we are being asked to do, lessons that we should be intolerant of others, and above all, an undying and relentless desire for world domination. It seems Christianity is viral and will never stop untill the last human is turned.
What we are not seeing is proof.
What we are not seeing is reason,
What we are not seeing is tolerance and love.

We are not even seeing a valid reason why Christianity is anymore valid than any of the thousands of other religions out there.
We are simply being told by Christians to have faith and believe. Not to think, not to look for proof. Any of the arguments you put forth for your god could equally apply to many of the other gods that are theorised.

Can I ask you a few personal questions?
Were you always a Christian?
Are your parents Christian?
What was it that turned you to believe that Christianity is without doubt the real truth. not the Truth, but the truth.
Have you put much consideration into other beliefs, e.g. why did you pick Christianity over Islam, over the Greek gods etc

I've changed my tactics from quoting constantly but I will, solely for coherence of argument.

Quote1: The punishment for actions taken against one's ancestors also applies to you, even if you weren't involved, even if you were born centuries later (See God cursing humanity, not just Adam and Eve).

- Of course this is false because anything your parents do is independent of what you do. If your parents lie and cheat, it doesn't mean that you're also a liar and a cheater. Your ethical actions are your own, and only apply to you. If your actions are good, then regardless of what your parents or ancestors did, you are a good person.

According to scripture, we are all sinful.  You have done things either you regret, or have disobeyed a set ethical standard (law) or your own conscience.  Assuming you have, then how does your own qualifications of good and bad apply if they haven't been obeyed flawlessly?

Quote2: People are born deserving as punishment as a default (original sin).

- This is also false because to judge someone as "good" or "bad" is to judge them by their actions. A newborn takes no ethical or unethical actions, so it does not deserve punishment as a default. #1 also applies here as well.

Define Good and Bad. How can someone's actions be qualified as either good or bad without a set moral standard?

Quote3: People are born owing their life to creator their, which they did not choose to accept in the first place. (See commanded devotion to God).

- Essentially this forces someone into slavery. This is wrong because people cannot choose to be born, because they do not exist before they are born. They don't choose their race, sex, nationality, or socioeconomic status. To say that a human owes a God for their existence, means you have forced that human into debt without their choice or consent.

Right, that's the creation/creator relationship, if a potter chooses to make a pot for flowers, what is it to the clay to question the potter? But as the Bible indicates, we owe nothing to God, for we can provide nothing of value to God.  This is because, it is his creation.

Quote4: Unethical actions, such as murder and rape, are able to be washed clean by the punishment of an innocent bystander and not through the punishment of the perpetrator (See the sacrifice of Jesus).

- Obviously nobody would accept hurting someone else for the unethical actions of another. If a person really likes someone else, that person can take the other's punishment for them, but not the other's responsibility. The one who committed the action is still responsible for it, regardless of how many others are punished or how harshly.

The real defiance is not against the person, it is against God.  For if someone did obey God, then he would not violate his neighbor.  So the unethical action has its source in the disobedience of God, so the only proper rectifying act would be from God, i.e. Jesus.

Quote5: If someone does something to benefit another, even without that person's consent, they still owe the original person for the benevolent action (See commanded acceptance of Jesus).

- This is plainly false because it is akin to blackmail. Consider the situation if the mob forced a favor onto someone, then immediately asked for that person's servitude. I cannot do something nice for you without your consent, then force you to do something nice for me.

I think there is a misunderstanding of the magnitude of the death and resurrection of Christ, but I don't understand what you mean by commanded acceptance of Jesus?

Quote6: Infinite punishment is fair for a finite life (See Hell).

- Pretty self explanatory why it's wrong. An infinite punishment for one is excessive no matter the crime, since only an infinite crime can justify an infinite punishment, and mortals only exist in a finite lifetime. That, and an infinite punishment treats all unethical actions as the same. The person who steals 50$ is given the same punishment as a genocidal maniac who kills 13 billion people.

Yes and no.  The punishment is not for stealing 50 bucks or killing a magnitude of people, the punishment is for denying God and in our very beings, living to defy God and establish ourselves as "God."  So if the crimes of our finite life are defying the magnitudes of an infinite God, then the punishment fits the crime.

For this next part, idk if that was to say there was evidence from history or the bible, so I'll try and give both.

QuoteThere is no historical evidence of the god, only of things mentioned in it.

"I am the Lord God there is no other" I think this whole argument is about whether or not God exists ha

QuoteNo evidence for the creation in the bible.

"God said, "let there be light" and there was light." The identity of information requires intelligence, our DNA has information, and even at the quantum level, all of the subatomic particles relay information, even if that information is + or -

QuoteNo evidence for the world wide flood in the bible. No evidence for most of the things in the bible.

"I am going to bring floodwaters on the earth to destroy all life under the heavens, every creature that has the breath of life in it. Everything on earth will perish." Every ancient culture has a depiction of a flood.  The reason why God killed every creature was because of Man's dominion over everything over the earth and the wickedness of that time.  So not only was man evil, but the fact man was ruling over the world in an evil and malicious way, that there needed to be a restart, if you will.

QuoteIs your assumption that I haven't searched it out? After years of searching and finding nothing, I'll just wait for people to support their claims like I do with everything else (except the things I come up with, which I will provide support for)

Check out R.C. Sproul and Ravi Zacharias

QuoteCan I ask you a few personal questions?

Nope, you can't ha jk  :headbang:

Quote from: "defendor"

QuoteWhat was it that turned you to believe that Christianity is without doubt the real truth. not the Truth, but the truth.

I have actually written a pretty lengthy note on facebook titled "Why do I believe?" I would be more than willing to share that with you.

Thanks for answering those questions of mine.
Yes, please, I would genuinely be interested to know, not to debunk you, but to understand what you personally found so compelling about the Christian scriptures. We have many Christians appear from time to time on this site and they all focus on the Points Of Difference with regards to Christianity and non belief. E.g. objective morality, purpose, after life, ID rather than randomness...
I also read a lot of preaching, quotes from the bible and statements such as "people should...". There are never proofs offered, but sometimes statements that we should believe and not look for proof (emotional pleas, basically).

I am starting to think that these people are too deep, to indoctorined into their beliefs to be able to relate to non believers.

I really do wonder why people become Christians or Muslims or ...

It does seem to me that generally the people that become theists are the people whose personalities are that way inclined and that these personalities would generally accept the faith that is more accessible at the time that they are ready for it.

I feel there is no compelling proof to be a theist or a strong atheist, hence it comes down to personal preference, hence personality types.
I think the atheist (science) root is more suited to personalities that are happy to accept an impersonal path, a path where energy has properties that cases substance to attract and form stars and planets. an impersonal path where primitive live develops to more complex organisms and humans are simple a development along this long path.
I think the theist root is more suited to personalities that are happy to accept a personal path, a path where the universe was created for them, where they are special and in the image of the creator and have a purpose for being. A path where eternal life is the only option as they would not be too special if their life was only momentary

Ya man no problem.  You answered my questions so I will gladly return the favor.  

The thing about the personality aptitudes and the beliefs that are associated with it I think hold much truth.  For example, regardless if God exists, someone may not feel the need to repent or be saved, thus no need for God.  Or someone may feel that if God exists, what is rational is what they can do FOR God to objectively earn salvation.

As for the note I wrote, i'll gladly send it to via message, it is pretty lengthy. Then if you would like to post it, I give you full reign to, but be warned, it has many punctuation and grammar errors and jumps around a lot, so I'll send it to you and we can talk over it personally.

Quote from: "defendor"According to scripture, we are all sinful.  You have done things either you regret, or have disobeyed a set ethical standard (law) or your own conscience.  Assuming you have, then how does your own qualifications of good and bad apply if they haven't been obeyed flawlessly?

Your scripture says you are sinful, and that's the exact problem I bring up. What is sin? Sin is the transgression from God's will (according to the dictionary), but what transgression has a baby preformed? You say we are all born with original sin, well right there is a problem because it assumes that the process of being born itself is against God's will. There is a much better form of ethics here in this world regarding human rights to which consequentialism applies after that. Obviously moral values from the Bible are false, since the Bible advocates things like rape and slavery. Unlike the Bible, my moral values change to accept better principles and reject older, non-functioning principles.

QuoteDefine Good and Bad. How can someone's actions be qualified as either good or bad without a set moral standard?

Quite easily if we provide the moral standard. The moral standard proposed by enlightenment thinkers has gone way beyond what the Bible ever said. If you think actions come down to simple good and bad, then that is incredibly simple and I would say juvenile. It's easy to read and regurgitate from a book, and it's hard to weigh actions and outcomes, but the latter is the correct methodology for examining and then applying ethics to a myriad of situations and changing cultural context.

QuoteIf a potter chooses to make a pot for flowers, what is it to the clay to question the potter?

Exactly, and that's why it's wrong. If the pot were somehow sentient, how could the pot give consent to be created or not? Imagine a situation when a child is born to a set of parents, and that set of parents thinks that because they gave birth to it, that the child must serve them for the rest of their remaining years, doing whatever they say, no matter what. Essentially the child is born as a slave to their parents and is not an independent person in their own right. To say that we owe God for our creation means that we are slaves to him, that we are not able to form our own societies for our own human growth. Slavery is not an ethical concept, and Christianity advocates for supernatural slavery on a species level.

QuoteThe real defiance is not against the person, it is against God.

That's even worse! By your thinking, if I steal from you, I'm actually stealing from God, and therefore I don't need to compensate you for your loss. I could take your car, repent in church, and keep the car because I redeemed myself in God's eyes. That is not justice.

QuoteFor if someone did obey God, then he would not violate his neighbor.

But God commands you to obliterate your neighbor if they don't agree with you. God commands killing in his name. He commands slavery and torture and rape. If someone were not to kill another who worked on the sabbath, that would be an unethical action because it goes against God. Killing is therefore not only necessary, but a moral ought.

QuoteI don't understand what you mean by commanded acceptance of Jesus?

The Bible says you must accept Jesus as your personal savior or go to unending torture. If you really examine it, Jesus allegedly absolved me of my sins before I was even born, to which I owe him for that sacrifice. The problem is that I never gave consent for that action, and the sin itself is debatable in the first place.

QuoteThe punishment is not for stealing 50 bucks or killing a magnitude of people, the punishment is for denying God and in our very beings, living to defy God and establish ourselves as "God."  So if the crimes of our finite life are defying the magnitudes of an infinite God, then the punishment fits the crime.

But that is not ethical in the least. Just because supposed proxy recipient of the crime is "infinite", whatever that means, doesn't require the punishment to be infinite. Even if I assume that I am performing a crime against God, a crime against said being doesn't make it an infinite crime, so an infinite punishment is not justified.  A misdemeanor and genocide are two different crimes, and therefore they should be dealt punishment in accordance to their crimes. That is moral thinking that logical, reasonable, and just. That is not what Christianity advocates for.

Event_Horizon, I love your posts. Good job debunking Christian "justice".

QuoteYour scripture says you are sinful, and that's the exact problem I bring up. What is sin? Sin is the transgression from God's will (according to the dictionary), but what transgression has a baby preformed? You say we are all born with original sin, well right there is a problem because it assumes that the process of being born itself is against God's will. There is a much better form of ethics here in this world regarding human rights to which consequentialism applies after that. Obviously moral values from the Bible are false, since the Bible advocates things like rape and slavery. Unlike the Bible, my moral values change to accept better principles and reject older, non-functioning principles.

The transgression is the ability to disobey God, that is what makes us unworthy. We can get to heaven for perfection, but even by your standards, I'm sure even you are not perfect.  So before even we commit one sin, we have the ability to, and the ability to sin, makes us sin, and then when we do commit our first sin, at the age of accountability, we are against God.  Committing the sin makes us unholy.

But you make a lot of mentions to what the bible advocates, so I would like to know where in the bible that the bible advocates things like rape?  

The slavery from a cultural standpoint, was a rich man taking in a servant and training him, and as his payment was to live and serve with the master.  Think of an indentured servant, it is not the American slave trade.  The process the bible were talking about, a person from a poor family would send a child to a rich man, and he would be trained and taught, it was a beneficiary.  Joseph was also a slave in Egypt and was second in command

QuoteQuite easily if we provide the moral standard. The moral standard proposed by enlightenment thinkers has gone way beyond what the Bible ever said. If you think actions come down to simple good and bad, then that is incredibly simple and I would say juvenile. It's easy to read and regurgitate from a book, and it's hard to weigh actions and outcomes, but the latter is the correct methodology for examining and then applying ethics to a myriad of situations and changing cultural context.

There are moral dilemmas, but if there is an objective moral standard that man has proposed, why are men still evil by its own standards?

QuoteExactly, and that's why it's wrong. If the pot were somehow sentient, how could the pot give consent to be created or not? Imagine a situation when a child is born to a set of parents, and that set of parents thinks that because they gave birth to it, that the child must serve them for the rest of their remaining years, doing whatever they say, no matter what. Essentially the child is born as a slave to their parents and is not an independent person in their own right. To say that we owe God for our creation means that we are slaves to him, that we are not able to form our own societies for our own human growth. Slavery is not an ethical concept, and Christianity advocates for supernatural slavery on a species level.

Thats the idea, it can't give consent to be created or not.  So why can you give consent to a creator?  On what authority could you talk back to a creator God?

QuoteThat's even worse! By your thinking, if I steal from you, I'm actually stealing from God, and therefore I don't need to compensate you for your loss. I could take your car, repent in church, and keep the car because I redeemed myself in God's eyes. That is not justice.

The issue of crime and evil, is of the heart.  You would owe the crime of disobedience to God.  You would justly owe the compensation, but the temporal nature of the theft is less in scope than the nature of the eternal disobedience.

QuoteBut God commands you to obliterate your neighbor if they don't agree with you. God commands killing in his name. He commands slavery and torture and rape. If someone were not to kill another who worked on the sabbath, that would be an unethical action because it goes against God. Killing is therefore not only necessary, but a moral ought.

Where does the bible say that God commands us to obliterate our neighbor if they don't agree with us?  Where does it command that we kill in the name of God?  Where does the Bible say that he commands slavery and torture and rape.

The punishment of working on the Sabbath in the mosaic laws were death.  If someone knows the punishment for disobeying law, why would they do it?  The simple fact they could not obey a simple rule of taking a Sabbath shows the infinite disobedience of their hearts.

QuoteThe Bible says you must accept Jesus as your personal savior or go to unending torture. If you really examine it, Jesus allegedly absolved me of my sins before I was even born, to which I owe him for that sacrifice. The problem is that I never gave consent for that action, and the sin itself is debatable in the first place.

Unending torment.  Torment is from within, torture is from external.  

You don't owe him for his sacrifice, that is not grace.  You can either accept the grace or not, that's the whole thing about Christianity is whether or not you want to accept it.  But you have to first realize that we need grace.  Doctors come for the sick, not the healthy.

QuoteBut that is not ethical in the least. Just because supposed proxy recipient of the crime is "infinite", whatever that means, doesn't require the punishment to be infinite. Even if I assume that I am performing a crime against God, a crime against said being doesn't make it an infinite crime, so an infinite punishment is not justified.  A misdemeanor and genocide are two different crimes, and therefore they should be dealt punishment in accordance to their crimes. That is moral thinking that logical, reasonable, and just. That is not what Christianity advocates for.

They are on earthly terms, but not as God sees it, and what we're talking about is how God sees it.  If God sees something as defying eternal laws, then the punishment fits the eternal laws.  On earth, we have finite laws, and the punishment fits the temporal action.  God has mandated eternal moral laws, we disobey, thus the punishment is just.  We have a grace that comes from God. But I would like to know as indicated earlier, what does Christianity advocate?

Finite wrongdoings do not justify infinite punishment...that's why the Christian God is unjust.  Nor is it good to stick some naive creatures in a garden with a dangerous tree and tell them not to eat of it; is like putting a toddler in a room with a loaded gun.  Going further, it's even more unjust and not good to punish the rest of creation for the actions of two people.  And if you get rid of the literal translation and just say humans have always been inherently sinful you have an even bigger problem as that would mean god created humans with an inherent desire to sin yet hates that they have such a capacity.  According to the story God already had plenty of angels he could boss around (who somehow managed to sprout free will at some point to disobey God) so why create humans with a free will then get upset that they use it...understanding original sin in this manner is nonsensical.  

The only way a Christian can come close to having a belief in a God who isn't a complete jerk is to believe that God created humans with free will so that they could choose to love him or not.  At death everyone gets a final chance to choose him.  Then, since God only wants to be surrounded by people that love him, those who love him get into heaven when they die.  Those who didn't choose God just cease to exist (no hellfire, as that would be a jerk move and something we would expect from a satanic god).  But, it does take a lot of mental gymnastics to find this kind of god in the words of the Bible...and I would argue that anyone who is concerned about truth would decide to seek it elsewhere rather than try to shoehorn an ethical God into the Bible.

The problem is not in the rules.  If we obeyed the rules there wouldn't even be a problem.  But since no one can there is a problem.  Just or unjust, the one who mandates the rules dictates the fall out.

So if your mom tells you, if you do this, and you will get spanked, and you end up doing what she asked you not to, and you get spanked, how is that not just?

Maybe the punishment is too severe for the crime, but if the action was clearly addressed and the punishment was clearly indicated for the action.  And you do exactly what was indicated and the punishment was clearly indicated, how can you say the problem lays with the one who made the rule?

Quote from: "defendor"The problem is not in the rules.  If we obeyed the rules there wouldn't even be a problem.  But since no one can there is a problem.  Just or unjust, the one who mandates the rules dictates the fall out.

So if your mom tells you, if you do this, and you will get spanked, and you end up doing what she asked you not to, and you get spanked, how is that not just?

Maybe the punishment is too severe for the crime, but if the action was clearly addressed and the punishment was clearly indicated for the action.  And you do exactly what was indicated and the punishment was clearly indicated, how can you say the problem lays with the one who made the rule?

The problem is always with the rules. To expect reasonable people to behave in a reasonable manner when faced with rules of any kind the rules have to be considered reasonable. Suppose you have a black skin and I tell you that you may only sit in seats at the back of a bus and you feel those rules are unjust and disobey them; does that give the rule maker the right to put you in prison? Of course it does not.

Quote from: "defendor"The problem is not in the rules.  If we obeyed the rules there wouldn't even be a problem.  But since no one can there is a problem.  Just or unjust, the one who mandates the rules dictates the fall out.

So if your mom tells you, if you do this, and you will get spanked, and you end up doing what she asked you not to, and you get spanked, how is that not just?

Maybe the punishment is too severe for the crime, but if the action was clearly addressed and the punishment was clearly indicated for the action.  And you do exactly what was indicated and the punishment was clearly indicated, how can you say the problem lays with the one who made the rule?

That kind of thinking sickens me.

Just because an authority figure made up a rule, expected you to follow it, and punished you for not following it does not make the rule or punishment just.

Quote from: "defendor"The problem is not in the rules.  If we obeyed the rules there wouldn't even be a problem.

That's what wife beaters say too...so, obviously, the problem can be with the rules and with the person who creates them.

QuoteJust or unjust, the one who mandates the rules dictates the fall out.

That's the point...God's rules and punishment for those rules is unjust.  Therefore God, if it existed, would be a jerk.

QuoteSo if your mom tells you, if you do this, and you will get spanked, and you end up doing what she asked you not to, and you get spanked, how is that not just?

Just because a woman gives birth to a child doesn't make her automatically justified for creating a rule then spanking the child for not following that rule.  Bad mothers may say if you don't stop crying I'm going to whoop you (seriously have heard that one before)..that rule is unjustified and beating the child for not complying is abusive as no child who is genuinely upset can just stop crying nor should they be expected to.

QuoteMaybe the punishment is too severe for the crime, but if the action was clearly addressed and the punishment was clearly indicated for the action.  And you do exactly what was indicated and the punishment was clearly indicated, how can you say the problem lays with the one who made the rule?

If a master indicates to his slaves that they can't run away yet they still do run away...is the master justified in beating them?  I would hope your answer is no...that the rule for them to not be free was never justified to begin with.

Might doesn't make right.

Quote from: "defendor"The transgression is the ability to disobey God, that is what makes us unworthy.

So it's not the action itself but the ability to make such an action? By your assertion free will is then a sin even if someone chooses an entirely holy lifestyle. Then again God gave us free will, so God is then imposing sin ON us. How is that just if God is rigging the game against us and assuming we will lose? Christianity then assumes guilt, and only rewards people who give up that guilt. That is not justice. Justice is proving someone is guilty on the assumption that they are innocent, and condemning someone based on their specific actions. I mean, as much as the system of law in the U.S. could use some TLC (I can only speak for myself), it seems like a FAR better system than Biblical law, in which you are condemned because you have the ability to do something. Basically you're condemned for murder because you just happened to be born with hands.

Rape in the Bible:

http://www.evilbible.com/Rape.htm (http://www.evilbible.com/Rape.htm)

http://skepticsannotatedbible.com/says_about/rape.html (http://skepticsannotatedbible.com/says_about/rape.html)

When you explain slavery in a cultural context, a lot of what you say isn't entirely correct. Salves in the Old Testament specifically were prisoners of war. These slaves did not benefit from being captured, since their relatives were usually killed and their homes destroyed. Slaves were never at the stature of an apprentice. Sometimes they were indentured servants, but even so it is not ethical. Biblical law allowed masters to beat their slaves, and gave rules as to how long one could keep a slave, and loopholes to keep a slave forever. I consider that barbarism. The European enlightenment has done so much more for contemporary ethics than anything the Bible has produced.

QuoteThere are moral dilemmas, but if there is an objective moral standard that man has proposed, why are men still evil by its own standards?

Yes there is an objective moral idea and we refer to it as human rights. That single principal shapes the vast majority of our ethical standards. That idea by far has benefited the world than anything the Bible has said.

QuoteSo why can you give consent to a creator?  On what authority could you talk back to a creator God?

I cannot give consent to my creator because I do not exist to give consent. If the creator creates me for the sole purpose of their pleasure then they are treating me as a slave and putting me into slavery (existence) without my consent. Slavery by all ethical reason is wrong, and that's my point. If God creates us without our consent to use us as he pleases then it is not just. A just God would create someone, and then allow them to live their lives without devotion or slavery. Only an unjust God would create an individual being to which its sole purpose is devotion.

QuoteThe issue of crime and evil, is of the heart.  You would owe the crime of disobedience to God.  You would justly owe the compensation, but the temporal nature of the theft is less in scope than the nature of the eternal disobedience.

You can never know what is in someone's heart or mind. You can only judge them by their actions. If Christianity says you are guilty based only on your existence and not your actions, then Christianity's ideas are not conducive to justice.

QuoteWhere does the bible say that God commands us to obliterate our neighbor if they don't agree with us?

http://www.evilbible.com/Murder.htm (http://www.evilbible.com/Murder.htm)

QuoteThe simple fact they could not obey a simple rule of taking a Sabbath shows the infinite disobedience of their hearts.

The logic doesn't follow. It could be that the law was so silly or impractical that people had no reason to abide by it. There's no evidence to suggest that the law was even followed. However that is beside the point. The idea that you must kill someone because they work on a holy day is not just.

QuoteYou can either accept the grace or not.

Easy: I don't accept. I don't need grace because I didn't do anything wrong when I was born. The wrong I do must be punished in this life with just punishment. Christianity is not just because as I said it assumes guilt, then coerces people to prove their innocence. It also punishes people who disagree with its premises. Christianity assumes that people are sick based entirely on an assumption that we are wicked people and need salvation. Humanity is not wicked. Humans are capable of wicked deeds, but the deeds alone are wicked, not the people.

QuoteThey are on earthly terms, but not as God sees it, and what we're talking about is how God sees it.

The Bible was written by men. Especially by men who had prejudices, emotions, and ethical codes that are so far removed from real ethics. Our moral codes are so much more beneficial to the human condition than anything the Bible has said. If you'll pardon me, there is nothing that I see within the book to make me think it isn't something out of the bronze age. Any ethical improvements we've made to life on Earth have been independent of and sometimes contrary to the Bible. To say that this set of rules and the being who carries them out with infinite punishment is therefore just is definitely not so.

Creating someone and demanding servitude for their own creation is not just.

Assuming people are guilty instead of innocent is not just.

Convicting someone of a crime based only on their ability to perform the crime is not just.

Forcing salvation on someone then coercing them to repay is not just.

Infinite punishment is not just. (A finite crime done on an infinite being is still a finite crime because the action itself is finite.)

Quote from: "LegendarySandwich"Event_Horizon, I love your posts. Good job debunking Christian "justice".

Thank you!  

I would like to address the question of the rules or rules in particular.  I have never addressed man's imposed rules, only God's.  Man is fallible and can impose unjust rules.  But God isn't.  What mandate has God given us that is unjust, or unfair?

As for the biblical evidence supposed, if the bible is essentially not true, why are you quoting it?  Why will you believe something in the bible or reference the bible as truth, when you won't believe or recognize anything else that the bible says about God or Jesus Christ as truth?

**This is regardless of the context and the misconstruing and understanding of the passages (most of which were purely historical accounts, not commissions from God, and also doesn't go into the parts where God judges Israel for heinous acts of disobedience)

I also think you are misunderstanding God's grace/justice.  If you finitely disobey an infinite God, your being defies the infinite.  SO your crime defies the weight of eternity.  Think of treason, if you do something such as join certain groups that defy your country's loyalty, in a country you have not even chose to be born in or live in, you will be tried unto death (life imprisonment) in most countries.  I hold the beliefs that we will all in some form or another exist for eternity.  If your being defies the infinite God, God leaves you to it, and will let you infinitely be in defiance of an infinite God (torment).

Quote from: "defendor"I would like to address the question of the rules or rules in particular.  I have never addressed man's imposed rules, only God's.  Man is fallible and can impose unjust rules.  But God isn't.  What mandate has God given us that is unjust, or unfair?

What you have been arguing here is that God is just because he is just. I don't accept that.

QuoteAs for the biblical evidence supposed, if the bible is essentially not true, why are you quoting it?  Why will you believe something in the bible or reference the bible as truth, when you won't believe or recognize anything else that the bible says about God or Jesus Christ as truth?

**This is regardless of the context and the misconstruing and understanding of the passages (most of which were purely historical accounts, not commissions from God, and also doesn't go into the parts where God judges Israel for heinous acts of disobedience)

Because that's how we can show the absurdities of Christianity?

QuoteI also think you are misunderstanding God's grace/justice.  If you finitely disobey an infinite God, your being defies the infinite.  SO your crime defies the weight of eternity.  Think of treason, if you do something such as join certain groups that defy your country's loyalty, in a country you have not even chose to be born in or live in, you will be tried unto death (life imprisonment) in most countries.  I hold the beliefs that we will all in some form or another exist for eternity.  If your being defies the infinite God, God leaves you to it, and will let you infinitely be in defiance of an infinite God (torment).

And I don't think that's fair or just.

Quote from: "defendor"What mandate has God given us that is unjust, or unfair?

This has already been addressed.

QuoteAs for the biblical evidence supposed, if the bible is essentially not true, why are you quoting it?  Why will you believe something in the bible or reference the bible as truth, when you won't believe or recognize anything else that the bible says about God or Jesus Christ as truth?

The discussion is about the Biblical god...so quoting the bible makes sense.  If we were discussing Sirens we'd quote from the Odyssey.  One does not have to consider a text to be true in order to reference it as part of a discussion...it's like being in a literature class.

QuoteIf you finitely disobey an infinite God, your being defies the infinite.  

So?  That doesn't change that a finite action shouldn't be met with infinate punishment....it's really is neither here nor there if the being being offended is eternal or not.

QuoteThink of treason, if you do something such as join certain groups that defy your country's loyalty, in a country you have not even chose to be born in or live in, you will be tried unto death (life imprisonment) in most countries.

^Just because some countries do this doesn't mean it is just.

QuoteIf your being defies the infinite God, God leaves you to it, and will let you infinitely be in defiance of an infinite God (torment).

Again, just because someone upsets an infinite being does not make it just for the being to impose infinite punishment....especially not infinite torment; does that not sound the least bit evil to you?  

Even if I knew this God were real I don't see why I'd want to worship such a vengeful being...damned if you do, damned if you don't.

Quote from: "defendor"I would like to address the question of the rules or rules in particular.  I have never addressed man's imposed rules, only God's.  Man is fallible and can impose unjust rules.  But God isn't.  What mandate has God given us that is unjust, or unfair?

And this is where your world view and supporting arguments crumble like a house built on sand. As god(s) do not exist there are no rules made by them. All holy books are simply codified societal values endorsed by the erroneous belief in cultural superstitions. So we are discussing man's imposed rules. No god required.

Quote from: "defendor"As for the biblical evidence supposed, if the bible is essentially not true, why are you quoting it?  Why will you believe something in the bible or reference the bible as truth, when you won't believe or recognize anything else that the bible says about God or Jesus Christ as truth?

**This is regardless of the context and the misconstruing and understanding of the passages (most of which were purely historical accounts, not commissions from God, and also doesn't go into the parts where God judges Israel for heinous acts of disobedience)

People here quote the bible to reveal its human origins, i.e. the wishful thinking of people who want to receive praise and recognition from an idealised Sky Daddy.

Quote from: "defendor"I also think you are misunderstanding God's grace/justice.  If you finitely disobey an infinite God, your being defies the infinite.  SO your crime defies the weight of eternity.  Think of treason, if you do something such as join certain groups that defy your country's loyalty, in a country you have not even chose to be born in or live in, you will be tried unto death (life imprisonment) in most countries.  I hold the beliefs that we will all in some form or another exist for eternity.  If your being defies the infinite God, God leaves you to it, and will let you infinitely be in defiance of an infinite God (torment).

But defender as you are not a Muslim you will go to hell. Mohamed was the last prophet and Jesus was just and ego on a stick who thought he was the son of god. You are a damned soul in the eyes of the fastest and greatest religion on Earth. I mean how can Christianity compete with the level of devotion that creates the glorious martyrs of 9/11? Christianity is a 'has been' religion. Fractured, divided and dying of greed and corruption. Now I say this simply to illustrate to you that you have no right to special pleading for your particular institutionalised superstition.

Though I'm certain at least 10 other people have said this already, here I go, anyway.

The burden of proof is on YOUR shoulders, my friend. An Atheist takes the default stance that God DOES NOT exist since there is zero evidence that he does. You come in making the affirmative claim that he does exist, and we are simply saying that we don't think he does because there is nothing to support him existing. It's the same thing as saying a Leprachaun lives in your closet. If you come here telling us to prove that he doesn't, that wouldn't make much sense, would it? We can't. But at the same time YOU are the one making the claim that said Leprachaun actually exists, therefore WE don't need to prove or disprove anything.

However, we can call bullshit when we hear claims of an all power, all seeing, all loving, yet eager to inflict eternal torture on anyone cosmic granddaddy existing.

Quote from: "ForTheLoveOfAll"Though I'm certain at least 10 other people have said this already, here I go, anyway.

The burden of proof is on YOUR shoulders, my friend. An Atheist takes the default stance that God DOES NOT exist since there is zero evidence that he does. You come in making the affirmative claim that he does exist, and we are simply saying that we don't think he does because there is nothing to support him existing. It's the same thing as saying a Leprachaun lives in your closet. If you come here telling us to prove that he doesn't, that wouldn't make much sense, would it? We can't. But at the same time YOU are the one making the claim that said Leprachaun actually exists, therefore WE don't need to prove or disprove anything.

However, we can call bullshit when we hear claims of an all power, all seeing, all loving, yet eager to inflict eternal torture on anyone cosmic granddaddy existing.

Who are you addressing, by the way? Not clear without quotes.

Quote from: "Event_Horizon"Christians believe Jesus died for their sins, so they have to accept him as their savior or go to hell.

Yes, Christians believe.  No, everyone does not "have to accept".  Most of Atheism says that if God exists, their choice would not be..to be...with this God.  Everyone has that choice.  If this God exists, then Hell (or better yet), non-existence is the result.

Quote from: "Event_Horizon"That means that because the Christian's ancestors did something bad, then God had to come down as Jesus and sacrifice himself to himself to remove that sin,

Bad?  Not necessarily "bad", but something against God.  One can make a "bad" choice in planting a tree in the summer, however it is not sinful to do so.  God did not "have to".  God did BECAUSE He is Love.

Quote from: "Event_Horizon"however humans have to pay tribute to the being which absolved them of their nonexistent sin or go to infinite torture.

Once again...what payment?  There is no payment.  NONE whatsoever.  You can pay tribute and still never be saved.  There's no payment.

Quote from: "Event_Horizon"God decreed humans have sin, Jesus got rid of it, and now humans owe Jesus. Jesus is blackmailing humanity.

God did not decree humans have sin.  Humans chose of their own freewill.  Unless one has the choice, then freewill doesn't exist and so true love does not exist either.  (true love for God)

Quote from: "Event_Horizon"It isn't twisted if you look objectively at it. There are fundamental ethical falsehoods that Christianity accepts as tenets of its religion.

Your total and complete misunderstanding and ignorance is the problem.  The fact is that you are not looking at it objectively or else you would see that freewill is not the cause of sin, PRIDE is the cause of sin.  Selfishness, the need to please self first.

Quote from: "Event_Horizon"1: The punishment for actions taken against one's ancestors also applies to you, even if you weren't involved, even if you were born centuries later (See God cursing humanity, not just Adam and Eve).

And likewise, the death of Christ is also my salvation and I need not die for my own sins.

QuoteFor if, by the trespass of the one man, death reigned through that one man, how much more will those who receive God's abundant provision of grace and of the gift of righteousness reign in life through the one man, Jesus Christ.  --Romans 5:17

Quote from: "Event_Horizon"- Of course this is false because anything your parents do is independent of what you do. If your parents lie and cheat, it doesn't mean that you're also a liar and a cheater. Your ethical actions are your own, and only apply to you. If your actions are good, then regardless of what your parents or ancestors did, you are a good person.

I agree...humanly speaking.  However there is not one person that can say they are without a "bad" deed...a deed against God's will.

Quote from: "Event_Horizon"2: People are born deserving as punishment as a default (original sin).

Yes...ALL people.

Quote from: "Event_Horizon"- This is also false because to judge someone as "good" or "bad" is to judge them by their actions. A newborn takes no ethical or unethical actions, so it does not deserve punishment as a default. #1 also applies here as well.

It was conceived in sin, it was conceieved by two sinful creatures, from the moment of birth the baby is only concerned for self.  Not unethical or without reason either.

Quote from: "Event_Horizon"3: People are born owing their life to creator their, which they did not choose to accept in the first place. (See commanded devotion to God).

You aren't...are you?  Not at all.  You have the choice to choose not to owe anything.  You didn't accept life, but you claim to, as a citizen of some government, have some stake in it that the government owes you something?  Protection...why?  Just for being born?  What's the difference?

Quote from: "Event_Horizon"- Essentially this forces someone into slavery.

You are wrong.  Choice remains and so everyone has the choice to believe and act accordingly or not to believe.

Quote from: "Event_Horizon"This is wrong because people cannot choose to be born, because they do not exist before they are born. They don't choose their race, sex, nationality, or socioeconomic status. To say that a human owes a God for their existence, means you have forced that human into debt without their choice or consent.

Nope...you're wrong again.  Freewill choice remains.  Life is given.  What one does with their life is COMPLETELY up to each person.
No slavery, debt unless one chooses to feel so.

Quote from: "Event_Horizon"4: Unethical actions, such as murder and rape, are able to be washed clean by the punishment of an innocent bystander and not through the punishment of the perpetrator (See the sacrifice of Jesus).

Where do you find this as true.  We are all subject to the law of the land.  One may find forgiveness for ANYTHING...even by our own civil law.  Murderers can be sentenced to life in prison.  Their payment back to society is their life in prison.  Once they die, their debt is paid in full!  Likewise one can be sentenced to death for a crime(s).  Once the death is carried out, THEIR debt is paid to society.  Why do you find any difference in God's law?  I think what you find "wrong" is that God is able to punish like a father to his child and still love and nurture the child...no matter what the child does.

Quote from: "Event_Horizon"- Obviously nobody would accept hurting someone else for the unethical actions of another. If a person really likes someone else, that person can take the other's punishment for them, but not the other's responsibility. The one who committed the action is still responsible for it, regardless of how many others are punished or how harshly.

No argument here...hence why the Bible tells us we are to submit to government authority.

Quote from: "Event_Horizon"5: If someone does something to benefit another, even without that person's consent, they still owe the original person for the benevolent action (See commanded acceptance of Jesus).

Is what you're saying here that our "good" actions are only a credit to the "good" in us...as in Christ?  I disagree.  We are good in the human context, but none are good in the Godly context.  But if God exists, then Good is a result of God and then not of our own invention that we should be patted on the back.

Quote from: "Event_Horizon"- This is plainly false because it is akin to blackmail. Consider the situation if the mob forced a favor onto someone, then immediately asked for that person's servitude. I cannot do something nice for you without your consent, then force you to do something nice for me.

Where are you seeing God chopping off anyone's thumbs so that they'll do His will?  We all have choice and choose.

Quote from: "Event_Horizon"6: Infinite punishment is fair for a finite life (See Hell).

Again you show your ignorance.  The punishment is death.  It's not perpetual punishment as in being spanked endlessly or burned bit by bit for eternity.  It is everlasting in consequence, not in action.  The second death is final.  No returning.  Eternal separation from the Life Giver = Eternal Death or non-existence.

Quote from: "Event_Horizon"- Pretty self explanatory why it's wrong. An infinite punishment for one is excessive no matter the crime, since only an infinite crime can justify an infinite punishment, and mortals only exist in a finite lifetime. That, and an infinite punishment treats all unethical actions as the same. The person who steals 50$ is given the same punishment as a genocidal maniac who kills 13 billion people.

Yes.  It's death for both.  What is more merciful when dealing out punishment for crime?  Is it a quick death or a slow agonizing death?

Quote from: "Event_Horizon"And yet Christians say their God and his laws are just. Judging from the content of Christianity itself, this is not so.

If there is a God and He is omni~, then His law is infinite.  God is Just in allowing those that don't want eternal life to have death.  What is so wrong.  If God created you without your consent and gave you life, allowed you to live and gave you a choice to live forever with Him, but you chose not to, then you get to live your free life as you see fit and then cease to exist.

Quote from: "Davin"

Quote from: "AnimatedDirt"But then again, I don't promote "proof" (as required by you) for faith and trust.

Then you can equally accept subatomic robots that created everything a few weeks ago including light in transit from distant stars. Given the lack of evidence for both concepts, they have equal rational weight.

Simply produce some books that speak of this subatomic robot(s) that were unearthed and found in the ruins of an ancient civilization, have been talked about since ancient times, at least some old books that speak of people dying for belief in this subatomic robot(s), and have millions of believers today who follow a book that encompasses these older books.  I may give it a thought.

Or you could simply point to the thread(s) on this Atheist forum where there is heated debate on whether this subatomic robot(s) exists and it is debated to the degree we debate this Abrahamic God.  Simply this would give me reason to give it serious thought.

Otherwise, Davin, you can keep your silly made-up god names, as your "proof" against mine, to yourself.  It really doesn't add to your argument.

Quote from: "Davin"Then it's a useless concept because it's indiscernible from it not existing.

You can find one at Borders, or Amazon dot com with ease.

Quote from: "Davin"Is your assumption that I haven't searched it out? After years of searching and finding nothing, I'll just wait for people to support their claims like I do with everything else (except the things I come up with, which I will provide support for).

By your ignorance on the facts therein?...YES!  Keep waiting.

Quote from: "AnimatedDirt"

Quote from: "Event_Horizon"That means that because the Christian's ancestors did something bad, then God had to come down as Jesus and sacrifice himself to himself to remove that sin,

Bad?  Not necessarily "bad", but something against God.  One can make a "bad" choice in planting a tree in the summer, however it is not sinful to do so.  God did not "have to".  God did BECAUSE He is Love.

Love is an emotion, it could be equivalent to having a positive emotional attachment to something or someone, lust could also be a subset of the love emotion.
Love affects the being that is experiencing the emotion and may cause it to think or act accordingly but of itself it is not an action or a consciousness that can perform actions.
 
Love isn't a person, or animal, or life being or intelligent being.
Love does not perform actions.
Love does not have life and hence does not die and certainly does not sacrifice itself or its children to itself under any circumstances.

As an emotion Love is only conceptual and exists only within the mind of the person experiencing it. In this way God could be deemed as similar to love, however this emotion did not create our universe, does not have governance over our universe and does not offer an eternal afterlife. But then again if you ask the billions of non Christians they would agree that these statements are also correct with regards to the Christian god.

Quote from: "McQ"

Quote from: "ForTheLoveOfAll"Though I'm certain at least 10 other people have said this already, here I go, anyway.

The burden of proof is on YOUR shoulders, my friend. An Atheist takes the default stance that God DOES NOT exist since there is zero evidence that he does. You come in making the affirmative claim that he does exist, and we are simply saying that we don't think he does because there is nothing to support him existing. It's the same thing as saying a Leprachaun lives in your closet. If you come here telling us to prove that he doesn't, that wouldn't make much sense, would it? We can't. But at the same time YOU are the one making the claim that said Leprachaun actually exists, therefore WE don't need to prove or disprove anything.

However, we can call bullshit when we hear claims of an all power, all seeing, all loving, yet eager to inflict eternal torture on anyone cosmic granddaddy existing.

Who are you addressing, by the way? Not clear without quotes.

To the author of the thread.

Quote from: "ForTheLoveOfAll"To the author of the thread.

FYI for you and anyone else that might attempt to communicate with the OP...their login stats:

QuoteJoined:
    Tue 21 Dec, 2010 9:24 pm
Last visited:
    Wed 22 Dec, 2010 4:33 pm

I don't think we'll be hearing from ChristianWarrior again.

Quote from: "Whitney"

Quote from: "ForTheLoveOfAll"To the author of the thread.

FYI for you and anyone else that might attempt to communicate with the OP...their login stats:

QuoteJoined:
    Tue 21 Dec, 2010 9:24 pm
Last visited:
    Wed 22 Dec, 2010 4:33 pm

I don't think we'll be hearing from ChristianWarrior again.

Oh, jolly good then.

Quote from: "Stevil"

Quote from: "AnimatedDirt"

Quote from: "Event_Horizon"That means that because the Christian's ancestors did something bad, then God had to come down as Jesus and sacrifice himself to himself to remove that sin,

Bad?  Not necessarily "bad", but something against God.  One can make a "bad" choice in planting a tree in the summer, however it is not sinful to do so.  God did not "have to".  God did BECAUSE He is Love.

Love is an emotion, it could be equivalent to having a positive emotional attachment to something or someone, lust could also be a subset of the love emotion.
Love affects the being that is experiencing the emotion and may cause it to think or act accordingly but of itself it is not an action or a consciousness that can perform actions.
 
Love isn't a person, or animal, or life being or intelligent being.
Love does not perform actions.
Love does not have life and hence does not die and certainly does not sacrifice itself or its children to itself under any circumstances.

As an emotion Love is only conceptual and exists only within the mind of the person experiencing it. In this way God could be deemed as similar to love, however this emotion did not create our universe, does not have governance over our universe and does not offer an eternal afterlife. But then again if you ask the billions of non Christians they would agree that these statements are also correct with regards to the Christian god.

Yes.  You are correct.  "God IS Love", is not to be taken literally.  Thanks for the clarification.

QuoteLove does not delight in evil but rejoices with the truth.  It always protects, always trusts, always hopes, always perseveres.

Quote from: "AnimatedDirt"
Yes.  You are correct.  "God IS Love", is not to be taken literally.  Thanks for the clarification.

QuoteLove does not delight in evil but rejoices with the truth.  It always protects, always trusts, always hopes, always perseveres.

so , how is a non Christian supposed to understand a statement like "God is Love"?
Are we supposed to think of it as gibberish and hence ignore?
Or is there a way to articulate this for non Christians?

Quote from: "AnimatedDirt"If there is a God and He is omni~, then His law is infinite.  God is Just in allowing those that don't want eternal life to have death.  What is so wrong.  If God created you without your consent and gave you life, allowed you to live and gave you a choice to live forever with Him, but you chose not to, then you get to live your free life as you see fit and then cease to exist.

Your god appears to be a less disagreeable character than most of them...

However, if it is the same god as all them preachy people believe in, where do they derive their need to convert me to that eternal life I do not want from? After all, god is pro choice, yes?

Quote from: "Asmodean"Your god appears to be a less disagreeable character than most of them...

However, if it is the same god as all them preachy people believe in, where do they derive their need to convert me to that eternal life I do not want from? After all, god is pro choice, yes?

You might notice I'm not in the least trying to convert you.  I cannot convert you.  No person can convert you.  I'm here simply to shed better light on misconceptions/misunderstandings of the debated and/or highly laughed at points in Christianity to the best of my ability.

God is pro choice.  Very nice way to think of it.

Quote from: "AnimatedDirt"I'm here simply to shed better light on misconceptions/misunderstandings of the debated and/or highly laughed at points in Christianity to the best of my ability.

Your approach to shedding light is by redefining English words and then using them in sentences that ordinarily don't make sense.
A good communicator will adjust their communications with regards to their audience. I don't think Christian cliches, phrases or verses are the best way to communicate on an atheist forum, certainly not with regards to explaining a stance or idea. These capitalised words may be better understood if a glossary is also provided otherwise I feel they would be best avoided.

Quote from: "AnimatedDirt"Yes, Christians believe.  No, everyone does not "have to accept".  Most of Atheism says that if God exists, their choice would not be..to be...with this God.  Everyone has that choice.  If this God exists, then Hell (or better yet), non-existence is the result.

It's important to understand the difference between a choice and a calculation. A choice is a decision between two somewhat equal things, or two things that each come with their own benefits and costs. A calculation is simply the decision to pick something that is obviously beneficial. The way you use the word "choice" takes away any kind of usable definition since by your standards, you technically choose to eat. Choosing whether or not to eat is not a choice, but a calculation, since you weigh the costs and benefits between eating and not eating. However choosing what to eat on the other hand is indeed a choice. As a calculation to eat means to satiate your hunger, receive energy and nutrients, and aside from a trip to the bathroom in your near future or the minute chance of poisoning, eating is almost entirely beneficial. To not eat means pains of hunger, decreased energy, increase chance of infection, etc. Obviously the costs of not eating far outweigh any possible benefits. That is a calculation, and not a choice.

What you propose in accepting God is not a choice, but a calculation, to pick eternal life with no costs, or eternal torment with no benefits. There is no "choice" because there are no costs and benefits to choose from. So when the Bible says we have the "choice" to accept God and be forever in his servitude, or receive unending unfathomable punishment for not entering into his tyranny, it is not a choice. Nobody chooses to reject God because they know Hell awaits them.

Now ask yourself, would a just God do that? Theists have given themselves an illusion of superiority here because they say their God is Love, so anything that God does is Love, or Just, or Good. That causes a problem because it covers up any ethical analysis of God's action. I can best think to describe it this way: The Blorjak is all good, all just, all loving, and any action it takes is all good, all just, and all loving. The Blorjak kills everyone it sees, so therefore killing everyone you see is all good, all just, and all loving.

Theists have gotten themselves in a position to justify every action of God, even if it is completely evil because they see God as good, and anything he does is good. They then differentiate between mankind's ethics, and the divine ethics as a excuse which prevents them from actually looking at God's actions. That is mighty convenient for them.The ethics we have on this Earth aren't perfect, but if you look at the good they've done since the European enlightenment, then the message is clear: biblical ethics are completely false, and the God who supposedly inspired them is not just. Now onto your specifics.

Quote from: "AnimatedDirt"Bad?  Not necessarily "bad", but something against God.  One can make a "bad" choice in planting a tree in the summer, however it is not sinful to do so.  God did not "have to".  God did BECAUSE He is Love.

He cursed mankind forever because he is love? You'll have to pardon my skepticism because that is some strong medicine to swallow.

Quote from: "AnimatedDirt"Once again...what payment?  There is no payment.  NONE whatsoever.  You can pay tribute and still never be saved.  There's no payment.

Christian dogma proclaims that if you don't thank Jesus for dying for you then you'll go to hell. You owe Jesus for what he did, even though you didn't ask him to do it, and even though you probably did nothing wrong in the first place. I can only see that kind of behavior done by the mafia. Which goes into my next point.

Quote from: "AnimatedDirt"God did not decree humans have sin.  Humans chose of their own freewill.  Unless one has the choice, then freewill doesn't exist and so true love does not exist either.  (true love for God)

You should check the discussion defendor and I had. Apparently sin only needs to be the ability to do something wrong, not actually doing something wrong. Since sin can only exist if we have free will, and God gave us free will, it means that God gave us sin. Think of it this way. I go to your house and burn it down. While it's burning, I race inside and save you. After I get you outside, I then demand you pay me ten thousand dollars for me getting me shirt dirty while I rescued you. If you think that's wrong, then I must direct your attention to Christianity.

God makes man with free will, knowing he will break orders for the get-go, then punishes Adam and Even and all their descendants for the rest of time. God removes that sin by rescuing mankind by the use of himself/Jesus, and then says if you don't accept Jesus as your savior, you will be sent to eternal punishment. Yeah, that sounds fair. All you need is an objective analysis to see God is running a scam, and everything is a set up.

Quote from: "AnimatedDirt"The fact is that you are not looking at it objectively or else you would see that freewill is not the cause of sin, PRIDE is the cause of sin.  Selfishness, the need to please self first.

What kind of pride does a baby have? But a baby is born with original sin, oh never mind, even Christians can't decide between themselves as to what sin actually is...

Quote from: "AnimatedDirt"I agree...humanly speaking.  However there is not one person that can say they are without a "bad" deed...a deed against God's will.

Have you ever considered the idea that maybe God's will as you think of it is completely arbitrary? I mean, if God is really a timeless being, then why are all the ethics of the Old Testament seemingly out of the bronze age from which it was written? Where is any kind of transcendent knowledge? Why doesn't the Bible say anything about human rights, the ethical principal that the western world has been successful from?

Quote from: "Event_Horizon"2: People are born deserving as punishment as a default (original sin).

Quote from: "AnimatedDirt"Yes...ALL people.

That's a pretty cynical view of humanity. I could never understand the doublethink of Christianity that proclaims that we are God's most treasured creation, and yet we all deserve punishment for the aspects that God designed us with.

Quote from: "AnimatedDirt"It was conceived in sin, it was conceieved by two sinful creatures, from the moment of birth the baby is only concerned for self.

Well now you're just getting into Christian philosophy here, and moving further away from God being unjust. If you want to believe that pride is wrong, and that self interest is wrong, then I can't stop you, but that is your opinion. However if you really had a problem with self interest and selfishness then why sir are you on the power grid?

Quote from: "AnimatedDirt"You aren't...are you?  Not at all.  You have the choice to choose not to owe anything.  You didn't accept life, but you claim to, as a citizen of some government, have some stake in it that the government owes you something?  Protection...why?  Just for being born?  What's the difference?

This has to do with choice vs calculation. If you walk into a car dealership and the salesmen says you have the option of buying the car or leaving the store and being cut in half by a guillotine then is that really a choice? As for the government side of things, that doesn't apply, since when you are born into a country you 1 are instantly allowed to participate in the process of government, and 2 you can opt out of living in that area without repercussions. God does not allow people to participate in the divine process, making the power go completely one way, and God does not allow you to opt out of the religion without punishment. As far as I can tell, the U.S. government is more just than God. And damn, I don't know how I feel about that statement. Scary...

Quote from: "AnimatedDirt"No slavery, debt unless one chooses to feel so.

Not so. God made you and demanded that you follow his laws otherwise you would be punished. God is the master, and you are the slave that must follow him or get whipped. Follow his orders well enough and you might just get to be a house servant. And I'll stop there with the slavery reference, since it would make me feel pretty uncomfortable to continue.

But in all honesty, if God were indeed just, then his commands would be just, and I don't see any justice in the Bible at all, New Testament or Old. The world we have now based on human rights and liberty functions much more peacefully than any other time in history, and the only thing that ruins that peace are people trying to carry out the will of their God. If God were indeed just, and kind, and loving, he wouldn't demand our servitude, because that servitude and devotion causes us to kill each other.

Quote from: "AnimatedDirt"Where do you find this as true[?]

In Christianity's premise that all you need to do is accept Jesus and you will be saved. It doesn't matter if how many people you've done wrong, or even if you've had worldly justice, because once you accept Jesus, you'll go to heaven, no matter what. Which reminds me of a funny story that I heard once. I can't find the original text but it went something like this:

Little Billy one wanted a bike. So he prayed and prayed for God to give him a bike, but no bike came. Then Billy realized that God doesn't work that way, so he stole a bike and asked God for forgiveness. The End.

If the only thing that keeps people from heaven is the arbitrary acceptance of a supposed messiah; that is not justice.

Quote from: "AnimatedDirt"I think what you find "wrong" is that God is able to punish like a father to his child and still love and nurture the child...no matter what the child does.

If the father were all loving, he wouldn't need to punish, or at least he wouldn't need to punish with eternal torment. If we were all powerful, then he could undo any wrong that had been done. God, if he is everything you say he is, wouldn't need to continue this farce. He could end it in a second, without notice, and give everyone eternal happiness. If free will was going to be such a problem, he should have seen it coming in the first place, and if he was as loving as people claim, he would have prevented this existence from being what it is.

Quote from: "AnimatedDirt"The Bible tells us we are to submit to government authority.

You mean any government authority? I heard of this thing called Sharia Law. I don't know if you've heard of it.

Quote from: "AnimatedDirt"Is what you're saying here that our "good" actions are only a credit to the "good" in us...as in Christ?

Nope, I'm saying that Jesus' actions end up blackmailing us. If I were to save you from a horrible accident, and then demanded that you give me all your money for it, saying if not I'll kill you anyways then is that a just action? I don't think so. The Bible essentially say this. Humans have original sin and deserve punishment for it. Jesus comes along and gets rid of that sin, but if you don't accept Jesus then you'll get that punishment anyways. If anyone were to do the same for you in real life, you'd know what it was in a second: a scam.

Quote from: "AnimatedDirt"Again you show your ignorance.  The punishment is death.  It's not perpetual punishment as in being spanked endlessly or burned bit by bit for eternity.  It is everlasting in consequence, not in action.  The second death is final.  No returning.  Eternal separation from the Life Giver = Eternal Death or non-existence.

Well it seems you disagree with other Christians on the concept of Hell. However this brings up an interesting question: how do you know any of that will happen? How do you know that the Bible will deliver when you actually die? How do you know there is a second death at all? I can only assume you'll say faith, but faith really doesn't do anything now does it? If someone has faith in winning the lottery, does that make it so? No, otherwise we'd see thousands of lottery winners. The point I'm trying to make is that you'll never get to receive your reward for being a Christian, because you'll be dead, and any assertion that we have regarding life after death is simply an assumption. You can never know you'll get it. But, that's kind of getting off topic.

Quote from: "AnimatedDirt"If there is a God and He is omni~, then His law is infinite.

Infinite is a word used by children to make them sound smart. If the word is used when describing an aspect of God, since the idea of God is not properly defined, then the word infinite means absolutely nothing. Infinite law has no concept, just as infinite power has no concept, and infinite good. It's like a child saying that their imaginary super hero's power is to  have all the powers. Any assertion like that lacks coherence, definition, and any kind of understanding. Nobody can really truly understand infinity. Though I can demonstrate it this way:

I believe in Schehena, and he is infinity +1. He beats your God, so I win.

See how childish that is?

Quote from: "Stevil"

Quote from: "AnimatedDirt"
Yes.  You are correct.  "God IS Love", is not to be taken literally.  Thanks for the clarification.

QuoteLove does not delight in evil but rejoices with the truth.  It always protects, always trusts, always hopes, always perseveres.

so , how is a non Christian supposed to understand a statement like "God is Love"?
Are we supposed to think of it as gibberish and hence ignore?
Or is there a way to articulate this for non Christians?

I should've placed the more complete quote.

QuoteLove is patient, love is kind. It does not envy, it does not boast, it is not proud.  It is not rude, it is not self-seeking, it is not easily angered, it keeps no record of wrongs.  Love does not delight in evil but rejoices with the truth.  It always protects, always trusts, always hopes, always perseveres.  Love never fails.  ~ 1 Corinthians 13:4-8

If God is love, and I believe He is, then He embodies all these characteristics of love.  There is no gibberish here.  All can understand love and know when love is genuine.

Quote from: "Stevil"Your approach to shedding light is by redefining English words and then using them in sentences that ordinarily don't make sense.  A good communicator will adjust their communications with regards to their audience. I don't think Christian cliches, phrases or verses are the best way to communicate on an atheist forum, certainly not with regards to explaining a stance or idea. These capitalised words may be better understood if a glossary is also provided otherwise I feel they would be best avoided.

Maybe you could be more specific.

Quote from: "AnimatedDirt"

QuoteLove is patient, love is kind. It does not envy, it does not boast, it is not proud.  It is not rude, it is not self-seeking, it is not easily angered, it keeps no record of wrongs.  Love does not delight in evil but rejoices with the truth.  It always protects, always trusts, always hopes, always perseveres.  Love never fails.  ~ 1 Corinthians 13:4-8

Gibberish
Really need to deciphere this garbage, it literally makes no sense at all.

When we deciphere then the respective interpretations end up different, they become personalised and hence have no true universal meaning.
Love is not patient, it is an emotion that a person has. The person in love can be patient, but the emotion cannot. In actuall fact two people in love can become quite impatient with regards to having sex with each other. It is a natural urge that religiouns try to suppress in people.

I love my daughters, and I am very proud of them.

The truth although desired is not always to be rejoiced. Sometimes the truth is horrible.

A person in love can put themselves into dangerous situations, they may persever with an abusive boyfreind/husband.

Love does fail. Have you read Romeo and Juliet?
What about when a church going Christian falls in love with someone of the same sex? The church would then tell them they are sinning. What about when a person falls in love with someone whom they cannot for some reason have a relationship with, e.g. that person has Aids or is about to die of cancer or is married to someone else or belongs to another religion and the respective organisations disapprove of the union?

Quote from: "AnimatedDirt"If God is love, and I believe He is, then He embodies all these characteristics of love.  There is no gibberish here.  All can understand love and know when love is genuine.

It is difficult to know when love is genuine. To distinguish love from lust if very difficult in a new relationship, and potentially difficult for a couple of young vigins that are holding out until marriage.
My definition of marriage does not in the least look like the definition you have posted and the Christian god is certainly not love. I would never say to my wife "I God you". Simply gibberish!

So, what I am thinking, that instead of "God is Love" you could phrase this in a more understandable way by saying "God loves me". Which makes much more sense.

In that way I can be happy for you, that you have found a mutually loving relationship albiet with something that you have never seen, heard, felt, smelt or tasted. You have never conversed with but you have read out this God in your favourite book and you have fallen in love with that God and the book tells you  that God loves you. And now you are compelled to tell the world that God loves you. Only you think it is more grown up to say "God is love" than to come right out with it and shout out "God loves me".

I think this sums it up

Grr...had a long post in reply to Event_Horizon.  Clicking "preview" glitched it all away...I'll have to do it again in a while.  Have some things to do first.  Sorry.

Quote from: "Stevil"I would never say to my wife "I God you". Simply gibberish!

Obviously.  This also shows your genuine interest in discussing these things.  It's not gibberish to say God is love.  Is it likely that if someone is found to embody beauty (among many others I seem to be partial to Katy Perry ATM) is it then likely that I will say to another person I find beautiful, "I think you're Katy Perry." ?
So then I would appreciate if you could simply quit with the rediculous notions/assertions that I know you're intelligent enough to understand/comprehend.  These are types of ad hominem attacks to discredit.

I might be incorrect here, but in Hinduism, god IS considered to be Love. In a both literal and non-literal sense. Love is the creative energy, the constructive force that is both god and the emotion we call love.

Love is defined by action, not an emotional whim.  So as God being in essence love, acts in a way that defines loving.  But love is NOT God, we do not worship love, only a God who embodies love.  So our definition of love precedes from the father, an objective truth (this is what we're debating, that God is objective, I come from this side just giving my argument)  

So if you don't have an objective standard for love, it is merely an emotional whim that has no foundation in truth, and so you can fall in and out of love, disobeying any commitment to a spouse or partner for there is no objectifying truth or action associated with love.  

Probably, most atheistic thinkers don't see this as such, but if you take your philosophy to its limit, then this is what you get. You cannot give me any other reason for a committing love except "it means something to me" which is really no reason at all, for you first have to 1. diagnose what gives you authority to claim meaning 2. why does it give such meaning to you?

Quote from: "AnimatedDirt"You might notice I'm not in the least trying to convert you.  I cannot convert you.

Wasn't pointing a finger. Yet there are people who seem to think it's ok to force their religion on others, so either those got it all wrong or you did. After all, you use the same scriptures for justification, yes?

QuoteI'm here simply to shed better light on misconceptions/misunderstandings of the debated and/or highly laughed at points in Christianity to the best of my ability.

Which is good. Again, just for clarification, you were not the target of finger pointing  

QuoteGod is pro choice.  Very nice way to think of it.

God can be imbued with whatever properties you want, really. But hypothetically, if there WAS a god, one god, who among the believers would turn out to be right about his nature, intentions and powers..? Can we even know that..?

QuoteGod can be imbued with whatever properties you want, really. But hypothetically, if there WAS a god, one god, who among the believers would turn out to be right about his nature, intentions and powers..? Can we even know that..?

He would have to reveal himself to us.

"Surely you have heard about the administration of God’s grace that was given to me for you,   that is, the mystery made known to me by revelation, as I have already written briefly.  In reading this, then, you will be able to understand my insight into the mystery of Christ, which was not made known to people in other generations as it has now been revealed by the Spirit to God’s holy apostles and prophets. This mystery is that through the gospel the Gentiles are heirs together with Israel, members together of one body, and sharers together in the promise in Christ Jesus." - Ephesians 3:2-6
 
This really isn't too much of exegetical study but i want to take a look at some things laid out here. There is a  mystery, and a revelation indicated by this verse.  The mystery, why or how can we have any hope for eternal life(god's grace in layman's terms, jesus).  So who reveals it? the Spirit, not spirit but Spirit, I hope you see the difference,( its the Holy Spirit). So why does it take the Spirit of God to know God? So to believe in God, he has to first reveal Himself to us..? Well, would you know me, if you never knew me? sounds preposterous but if I never talked to you, saw you, let you see me, proverbially poured any of myself into you, how could you say you knew me? you may have heard of me, which is not the same as knowing me, so how do we get the Holy Spirit to reveal to us? The bible says all who seeks finds, maybe thats the Spirit drawing you near, I have no idea, but asking God might be a good place to start

Quote from: "defendor"but asking God might be a good place to start

Except... One can ask a stranger about his intention when he stands at one's doorstep. One can not necessarilly ask someone one has only heard of the same. As such, god would have to reveal himself, at least in part, in order for proof to be had as to who, if any, among the believers is/are right, yes..?  

Quote from: "AnimatedDirt"Obviously.  This also shows your genuine interest in discussing these things.  It's not gibberish to say God is love.  Is it likely that if someone is found to embody beauty (among many others I seem to be partial to Katy Perry ATM) is it then likely that I will say to another person I find beautiful, "I think you're Katy Perry." ?

The difference here is that you would say that Kate Perry is beautiful as opposed to Kate Perry is Beauty.
So in relation to your God is Love, maybe you could say God is loving, or God is all loving (if you must add the "all"). But to my understanding, saying that God is Love is very confusing and I genuinely did not understand hence the questions. I want to understand your perspective, and I feel some phrases that may be common place in Christian circles may be confusing to people outside of those circles, especially me. I feel that I am reasonably intelligent but I can be easily confused too, In such cases, if I want to understand then I ask questions, if I get frustrated I may but out a silly post like my last one, sorry for that, it merely reflected my inability to get my point across.

Quote from: "Stevil"The difference here is that you would say that Kate Perry is beautiful as opposed to Kate Perry is Beauty.
So in relation to your God is Love, maybe you could say God is loving, or God is all loving (if you must add the "all"). But to my understanding, saying that God is Love is very confusing and I genuinely did not understand hence the questions. I want to understand your perspective, and I feel some phrases that may be common place in Christian circles may be confusing to people outside of those circles, especially me. I feel that I am reasonably intelligent but I can be easily confused too, In such cases, if I want to understand then I ask questions, if I get frustrated I may but out a silly post like my last one, sorry for that, it merely reflected my inability to get my point across.

It shouldn't be confusing as in my example.  If I say Katy Perry is the epitomy of beauty, is the most beautiful...she can then be said to embody beauty.  Likewise with God and Love, but even more so.  God defines Love, God is patient, God is kind, God does not delight in evil, but rejoices in the truth...  God then, is love/embodies what love is.  To then twist this and say that this then allows one to instead of saying, "I love you", to say "I God you", is to completely miss and/or ignore the obvious truth behind the words.

To mention another example, I love cars, especially my favorite car (if I could afford it) is the Porsche GT3.  Now, I can say, "The Porsche GT3 is fast!"  Does this then make the statement, "The Speed of Light is Porsche GT3" correct?  This makes no sense whatsoever and is plain to see that it simply doesn't do "fast" justice in light of (heh) the Speed of Light.  The Porsche is certainly fast for a vehicle.  It embodies what we humans would term fast in a flat pavement-traversing vehicle.  The lines of the Porsche are purposely there to aid in the car moving through the air and the rear wing is there to keep the tires in contact with the surface.  It screams of speed, yet one cannot rightly call the Speed of Light, a Porsche GT3.  It's painfully obvious.

I think this explains the notion that God embodies love.  What about the "IS" part.  If God "IS" love, then it doesn't mean He IS an abstract emotion, but rather His nature is perfectly what love is.  To see God at work is to see love at work.

What about God "killing" many in the OT, how is this love?  God is not only love, like I assume you and I are not only human.  We are also either male or female, father or mother, brother or sister, boss or employee...  Do parents discipline their children?  Is it cruel to spank?  To a certain degree, we might think so today.  (I'm more old-school)  The point is punishment.  There are consequences to every action we do in life.  As a child if we disobey our parents, we may get a spanking or a time out, or get put on restriction, or our car keys taken...  These are learning tools a parent uses so that their child understands what it is to be responsible for one's actions.  Life has consequences.

A friend of my sister-in-law, just Sunday night, was angry with his gf, they had had an argument on the phone.  He hung up and was on his way to her home for who knows what reason.  He was traveling at a high rate of speed, and angry.  I think the paper said above he was driving 100mph or so, he lost control, went off the embankment...and died instantly.  Now, is life cruel?  Life is what it is.  Life cannot be cruel if life simply is.  It cannot be any other.  Likewise, God IS.  He cannot be what He is not.  He is love and so loves and wants His children/creation near Him.  However He is also Righteousness (So good, evil/sin cannot be with Him...see the acct. of Moses in the cleft of the rock).  He is Judge, and so MUST serve as a Righteous Judge and cannot simply excuse sin and sin in His created beings.  If the wages of sin is death, JUSTICE must be served or God is not God who embodies all these traits that make Him God.  God didn't just arbitrarily make death the result of sin...you all seem to think so...if sin cannot live in the presence of Righteousness, then sin dies in the presence of.  Can a flame "live" while it is doused in water?  It's just the properties of fire and water.  If, then, God, in the OT, sent His people to make war and annihilate another people, it was because these people apparently were/did evil and so were on the path to death.  If death is inevitable, what is the "cruelty" in removing life from them.  If the sentence is death, and God must Judge, what is wrong with that?

Why couldn't God simply, then, let the evildoers live out their lives?  I suppose He could've (and did in most cases) except that some were in the path of His will.

If God is so cruel and heartless, why is it that a person, as I've seen George Carlin do, simply say, "God I dare you to smite me now..." and live?  Why is it that His 10 Commands are not upheld to the point that every person, the moment they break one, isn't killed instantly?  God is cruel and kills innocent babies?  In your eyes, it might be cruel, but if innocense dies, can God not right that innocense in His time and so do as He claims able to do, resurrect that baby and give it life...life eternal?

**Now back to Event_Horizon's post...sigh**

Quote from: "Event_Horizon"It's important to understand the difference between a choice and a calculation. A choice is a decision between two somewhat equal things, or two things that each come with their own benefits and costs. A calculation is simply the decision to pick something that is obviously beneficial. The way you use the word "choice" takes away any kind of usable definition since by your standards, you technically choose to eat. Choosing whether or not to eat is not a choice, but a calculation, since you weigh the costs and benefits between eating and not eating. However choosing what to eat on the other hand is indeed a choice. As a calculation to eat means to satiate your hunger, receive energy and nutrients, and aside from a trip to the bathroom in your near future or the minute chance of poisoning, eating is almost entirely beneficial. To not eat means pains of hunger, decreased energy, increase chance of infection, etc. Obviously the costs of not eating far outweigh any possible benefits. That is a calculation, and not a choice.

The choice you have is whether to take the Bible as a true historical collection of books.  You have the choice to take the person of Jesus Christ mentioned in this collection, in the OT, as Messiah, and in the NT Jesus, the Christ.  Your choice is to disregard history and the findings of many archaeologists.  You actively take the side that these books are not authentic.  You have chosen your side on your own and with your own intellect.  You know the consequences of your choice despite whether you believe them to be true or not.  The choice to side against is freely made and duly noted.  No one, I assume, has twisted your arm, mind or threatened you or otherwise has forced you into this choice.  It is the best decision according to your intellect and made as a free entity.  Right?

God doesn't force you or me.  

Quote from: "Event_Horizon"What you propose in accepting God is not a choice, but a calculation, to pick eternal life with no costs, or eternal torment with no benefits. There is no "choice" because there are no costs and benefits to choose from. So when the Bible says we have the "choice" to accept God and be forever in his servitude, or receive unending unfathomable punishment for not entering into his tyranny, it is not a choice. Nobody chooses to reject God because they know Hell awaits them.

And yet if Hell does await you, you were not ignorant of the fact.  In other words, you chose to disbelieve.
Again, there is NO SERVITUDE.  We are not "servants" to be PAID for duty, but we are the children of and heirs according to His grace...the same grace given to His Son, Christ.  While we will not be made into "gods" as Christ is the Son of God, we will be treated as sons of God.  None will be "in servitude or slavery to" God because all have chosen to serve God.  Huge difference.

Quote from: "Event_Horizon"Now ask yourself, would a just God do that? Theists have given themselves an illusion of superiority here because they say their God is Love, so anything that God does is Love, or Just, or Good. That causes a problem because it covers up any ethical analysis of God's action. I can best think to describe it this way: The Blorjak is all good, all just, all loving, and any action it takes is all good, all just, and all loving. The Blorjak kills everyone it sees, so therefore killing everyone you see is all good, all just, and all loving.

Produce ancient texts alluding to a god named, Blorjak and millions of followers from ancient times through today.  I'll then give your rediculous assertion some thought.

Quote from: "Event_Horizon"Theists have gotten themselves in a position to justify every action of God, even if it is completely evil because they see God as good, and anything he does is good. They then differentiate between mankind's ethics, and the divine ethics as a excuse which prevents them from actually looking at God's actions. That is mighty convenient for them.The ethics we have on this Earth aren't perfect, but if you look at the good they've done since the European enlightenment, then the message is clear: biblical ethics are completely false, and the God who supposedly inspired them is not just.

This is a long point and as I mentioned I had already written it out and lost it.  Probably for the best since long posts aren't always read through.  Suffice to say the point is much like this:

Are you a parent?  If not then you may not FULLY understand this.  Parents love their children, would you agree?  Yet many, I'd almost suggest all, but we know that's not true, or the vast majority of parents use some sort of discipline to guide their child(ren).  Would you say spanking is cruel?  I don't necessarily.  I'd say some spankings are a good attn-getter and fully make the point to small children when they act out deserving of a spanking.  (I'm not talking about a beating of which I got many as a child).  However, even those beatings that I feel were excessive, did make the impact they were supposed to make.  I am probably a better person today as a direct result of those actions of discipline, including the beatings.  I don't condone that style, but I do condone spankings up to a certain age...I digress.  The point being...is such a parent cruel if the child does not see the possibilities of allowing certain actions?  Must the child FULLY understand the reason for a spanking to gain the knowledge that whatever the action done to warrant a spanking could bring the child harm?  Must the child FULLY understand it?  Is it right then, to spank a child that has a habit of ignoring their parent when called?  This could have quick, drastic, painful, and deadly ramifications if the child does not learn to heed the "STOP!" from the parent.  Think of a child that hasn't been taught to immediately stop when the parent says to and instead ignores and keeps walking haphazardly into traffic.  2 ton metal vehicle striking 60 lb child = Child dead or badly hurt.

Is it wrong then, if the JUDGE that must drop the gavel on such people and give them their choice of death over life be anything other than righteous judgment?  If God is Omni~, then He knows each person and their choices as they progress through life.

What about the "innocent".  Well, let's say God, by the smiting of these peoples has given a death sentence to innocent babies.  Is not this God, able to reanimate the dead, able to then reanimate this innocent child and give the gift of everlasting life?  Of what consequence was the taking of life on this earth, as we know it, with all of life's "cruelty", so bad if He is able to give something better?

Quote from: "Event_Horizon"

Quote from: "AnimatedDirt"Bad?  Not necessarily "bad", but something against God.  One can make a "bad" choice in planting a tree in the summer, however it is not sinful to do so.  God did not "have to".  God did BECAUSE He is Love.

Now onto your specifics.

He cursed mankind forever because he is love? You'll have to pardon my skepticism because that is some strong medicine to swallow.[/quote]
You said medicine?  Isn't medicine for the betterment of something/someone?
While God did utter the curse, the curse was not arbitrary but a direct consequence of going against God and "KNOWING" evil.  Like the analogy of a child, must the child KNOW AND FULLY UNDERTAND the meaning behind every rule a parent puts forth for their own good?

Quote from: "Event_Horizon"

Quote from: "AnimatedDirt"Once again...what payment?  There is no payment.  NONE whatsoever.  You can pay tribute and still never be saved.  There's no payment.

Christian dogma proclaims that if you don't thank Jesus for dying for you then you'll go to hell. You owe Jesus for what he did, even though you didn't ask him to do it, and even though you probably did nothing wrong in the first place. I can only see that kind of behavior done by the mafia. Which goes into my next point.

You can just as easily thank Jesus and in the next breath say, "...but no thank you."  You don't owe anyone anything unless you feel obligated to them for something they did for you.  Have you seen the movie, "As Good As It Gets" with Jack Nicholson and Helen Hunt?  If not, it's a great movie.  Anyway, the point in short is that Melvin likes Carol, but he's a jerk and is difficult.  He finds she is part of his daily regimen.  To keep her from quiting and thus losing his favorite waitress, he decides to pay for her son's medical expenses.  She has not been able to afford proper care for her son.  His act, forces her to overlook her dislike of him and see him for the person he is...generous to her need.  Not necessarily the same for God, but the point being that her gratitude is not forced, in fact it flows almost freely as he is a difficult man full of OCD traits that alienate him from most people.  She wasn't forced into "serving" him, but felt compelled for what he did for her and her son.  It was not "labor" to do so, but done out of joy.

There is no "servitude" as is in your context a slave wanting to get out.

Quote from: "Event_Horizon"

Quote from: "AnimatedDirt"God did not decree humans have sin.  Humans chose of their own freewill.  Unless one has the choice, then freewill doesn't exist and so true love does not exist either.  (true love for God)

You should check the discussion defendor and I had. Apparently sin only needs to be the ability to do something wrong, not actually doing something wrong. Since sin can only exist if we have free will, and God gave us free will, it means that God gave us sin. Think of it this way. I go to your house and burn it down. While it's burning, I race inside and save you. After I get you outside, I then demand you pay me ten thousand dollars for me getting me shirt dirty while I rescued you. If you think that's wrong, then I must direct your attention to Christianity.

God gave us eyes, did he also blind us to the beauty of this world?  He gave us/created light.  Did he put us in darkness?  God created Man perfect.  Without sin.  The Man was given the knowledge of evil, but wasn't given the KNOWLEDGE of evil.  Man, like a child, did not understand the full ramifiactions of sin.  Man understood death, but didn't understand total and eternal separation from God by the power of sin.

God did not "come to our house".  God created a perfect being.  God gave this being rules that just ARE, they weren't arbitrary or "made up".  As water douses fire or fire dries water, so evil kills.  It just, by nature IS that way.  God cannot change what He is.  If Good exists, then by default so does Evil.  To remove evil is to create robots that while on the surface seem to be free, really, without the choice to choose against God, are really not free and cannot then love out of their own choice.

Quote from: "Event_Horizon"God makes man with free will, knowing he will break orders for the get-go, then punishes Adam and Even and all their descendants for the rest of time. God removes that sin by rescuing mankind by the use of himself/Jesus, and then says if you don't accept Jesus as your savior, you will be sent to eternal punishment. Yeah, that sounds fair. All you need is an objective analysis to see God is running a scam, and everything is a set up.

There is no eternal punishment.  The punishment is for eternity.  DEATH.   You're supposedly some literary expert, yet you cannot tell the difference between something BEING punished for eternity and a punishment that is for eternity?  I find that hard to understand.  The punishment is death.  The punishment is not agonizing pain for eternity.  Once and for all, keep this out of the argument since it is not even remotely correct.

Quote from: "Event_Horizon"

Quote from: "AnimatedDirt"The fact is that you are not looking at it objectively or else you would see that freewill is not the cause of sin, PRIDE is the cause of sin.  Selfishness, the need to please self first.

What kind of pride does a baby have? But a baby is born with original sin, oh never mind, even Christians can't decide between themselves as to what sin actually is...

Every Christian knows what sin is.  Every Christian knows the root of all Evil.  Have two mortal humans ever given birth to one immortal child?  So then you should understand the reason no baby is really "innocent" of sin.

Quote from: "Event_Horizon"

Quote from: "AnimatedDirt"I agree...humanly speaking.  However there is not one person that can say they are without a "bad" deed...a deed against God's will.

Have you ever considered the idea that maybe God's will as you think of it is completely arbitrary? I mean, if God is really a timeless being, then why are all the ethics of the Old Testament seemingly out of the bronze age from which it was written? Where is any kind of transcendent knowledge? Why doesn't the Bible say anything about human rights, the ethical principal that the western world has been successful from?

Again, you are speaking from total and complete ignorance.  This above proves that you have not even read the Bible, but picked and chosen exerpts that substanciate your "intellectual" ideas and beliefs or disbeliefs.  There are many...almost too many to list, transcendent knowledge from these texts.  I will not attempt to list them.  Since you have read and studied the Bible and have full access to the web, they are even easier to find.

Quote from: "Event_Horizon"That's a pretty cynical view of humanity. I could never understand the doublethink of Christianity that proclaims that we are God's most treasured creation, and yet we all deserve punishment for the aspects that God designed us with.

In this current state, we are not as He created.  Notice Genesis and the words of God that make the difference.  See Genesis 3:22

Quote from: "Event_Horizon"

Quote from: "AnimatedDirt"It was conceived in sin, it was conceieved by two sinful creatures, from the moment of birth the baby is only concerned for self.

Well now you're just getting into Christian philosophy here, and moving further away from God being unjust. If you want to believe that pride is wrong, and that self interest is wrong, then I can't stop you, but that is your opinion. However if you really had a problem with self interest and selfishness then why sir are you on the power grid?

Are you suggesting that being on the power grid is sinful or of self-interest or prideful?  There's a good chance I'm ignorant to your point.  You may have to explain.

Quote from: "Event_Horizon"This has to do with choice vs calculation. If you walk into a car dealership and the salesmen says you have the option of buying the car or leaving the store and being cut in half by a guillotine then is that really a choice? As for the government side of things, that doesn't apply, since when you are born into a country you 1 are instantly allowed to participate in the process of government, and 2 you can opt out of living in that area without repercussions. God does not allow people to participate in the divine process, making the power go completely one way, and God does not allow you to opt out of the religion without punishment. As far as I can tell, the U.S. government is more just than God. And damn, I don't know how I feel about that statement. Scary...

You again mistake the analogy in that you make your subjects to understand what a car is and what "cut in half by a guillotine" means.
Adam and Eve both knew it was against God to do so...what they lacked was the knowledge of what doing so would mean.  Thus they simply disobeyed their "parent" and consequences that come to children, came.  In this context, though, the consequences were far deeper than simply feeling heat by playing with fire.  They were cast out of Eden because now they understood Evil...death...separation from God...the wages of sin.  However as we've discussed, God is Judge and MUST be righteous as that IS HIS NATURE that He cannot change as you cannot change being human and all the unchangeable traits that go with being human.

Quote from: "Event_Horizon"Not so. God made you and demanded that you follow his laws otherwise you would be punished. God is the master, and you are the slave that must follow him or get whipped. Follow his orders well enough and you might just get to be a house servant. And I'll stop there with the slavery reference, since it would make me feel pretty uncomfortable to continue.

Quite wrong.  You haven't and you're living...aren't you?  Follow well enough?  Again, you are so ignorant to what the Bible says and claims and so it is probably best you quite pulling false ideas such as "well/good enough" out as a weapon.  It's not even close and warrants no real response since your apparent claim on another thread (http://www.happyatheistforum.com/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=6706&start=15) of having studied the Bible, knowing the exact characterization of God in the OT vs NT, cannot be truthful if you make this elementary mistake.

**This is all I have time for ATM...maybe later, but more than likely tomorrow.    I don't have time to search for mistakes...  **

Quote from: "Asmodean"Except... One can ask a stranger about his intention when he stands at one's doorstep. One can not necessarilly ask someone one has only heard of the same. As such, god would have to reveal himself, at least in part, in order for proof to be had as to who, if any, among the believers is/are right, yes..?  

I don't understand what you're saying, I would love to answer, but I don't think I'm understanding what you're meaning by this

Quote from: "defendor"

Quote from: "Asmodean"Except... One can ask a stranger about his intention when he stands at one's doorstep. One can not necessarilly ask someone one has only heard of the same. As such, god would have to reveal himself, at least in part, in order for proof to be had as to who, if any, among the believers is/are right, yes..?  :P

I noticed you're from Norway ha, thats pretty sweet, I'm actually norwegian descent ha

I am also a big fan of Norwegian Black Metal

People, I'm trying really hard here to not change the subject. Because I always do that...

Oh boy, here we go.

Your first paragraph you state I have a choice to choose God or not. You're right in the context of the physical universe, since I have the choice, and have indeed chosen to reject the idea of God. That however is not what I'm arguing. Christian dogma says that we have the "choice" between unending pain, or unending life. As I said is not a choice. God doesn't force me to do anything I don't want because I don't believe in God, and for me he doesn't exist, while the person who does accept God is not allowed a choice, because in their world, the choices are between life and torture.

QuoteAnd yet if Hell does await you, you were not ignorant of the fact.  In other words, you chose to disbelieve.

I do choose to disbelieve. Now ask yourself, would I really take that path if I indeed knew that hell existed? I am essentially betting my entire afterlife here with extreme confidence against your assertions.

QuoteAgain, there is NO SERVITUDE.  We are not "servants" to be PAID for duty, but we are the children of and heirs according to His grace...

Yet only if you do what he says.

Quotethe same grace given to His Son, Christ.

But Jesus is God, so we was never given grace, God already had grace.

QuoteWhile we will not be made into "gods" as Christ is the Son of God, we will be treated as sons of God.  None will be "in servitude or slavery to" God because all have chosen to serve God.  Huge difference.

Did you ever choose to be a Christian, or did your parents and church teach it all to you? Have to ever been an atheist before? Well in a sense you were until they imposed God on you. I can probably safely assume that you never had a choice to accept or reject God. You were probably given God, and you simply chose to keep it. You did not make the choice yourself. If anyone has expressed their choice, it is the Christian who became the atheist, or the atheist who became the Christian. I have chosen my path, but I seriously doubt you have. If you'll pardon me, I don't wish to offend, but if you were anything like me when I believed then what you have is like battered women syndrome. You will justify everything bad in God's laws and in his followers because you know if you can just act right and not screw up that he'll finally let you into his grace.

QuoteProduce ancient texts alluding to a god named, Blorjak and millions of followers from ancient times through today.  I'll then give your rediculous assertion some thought.

Oh boy. Well first you miss the point entirely of what I was alluding to, and secondly to defend it with three logical fallacies: an appeal to tradition, an appeal to belief, and an appeal to popularity. All in one sentence no less.

QuoteWould you say spanking is cruel?

My opinion is yes.

QuoteI'd say some spankings are a good attn-getter and fully make the point to small children when they act out deserving of a spanking.

The primary problem with that logic is that you assume the mind of someone else. You assume that they "get it" through physical punishment, where as in actuality you cannot know that the message is received through pain.

QuoteThe point being...is such a parent cruel if the child does not see the possibilities of allowing certain actions?

Yes they are absolutely cruel. If a child does not understand the nature of what they did wrong, then they will not understand why they are being punished.

QuoteMust the child FULLY understand the reason for a spanking to gain the knowledge that whatever the action done to warrant a spanking could bring the child harm? Must the child FULLY understand it?

Yes. Absolutely. If the child does not understand what they did wrong, then you are essentially beating the child for no reason, no matter what they did. You would not do the same thing to an animal.

QuoteIs it right then, to spank a child that has a habit of ignoring their parent when called?

If the child again doesn't understand, then the spanking will do nothing but cause them unnecessary pain. We do not punish those who lack the intellectual capacity to understand right and wrong.

QuoteThis could have quick, drastic, painful, and deadly ramifications if the child does not learn to heed the "STOP!" from the parent.

Since I have a degree in psychology I can tell you that punishment is not a good way to learn. Reinforcement is multiple times more affective. Your analogy however falls apart in relation to God, because God can prevent anything bad that happens to his creatures. A child that wants to touch a hot stove can be spanked before getting to it, not understanding why they had pain inflicted on them but preventing more harmful injury. The parent could let the child touch the stove and feel for themselves the pain. Or the parent can move the child away from the stove,preventing injury. But God didn't do that. He allowed the child to touch the stove, and then spanked the child afterward as well, as if being burned wasn't enough. God had the power to remove the tree from the garden, or to prevent Adam and Eve from getting the fruit, or he could have simply intervened before they had the chance to eat it. Instead of stopping Adam and Eve as they were about to "touch the stove" he did something worse, let it happen, and then punished all of mankind forever.

QuoteWhat about the "innocent".  Well, let's say God, by the smiting of these peoples has given a death sentence to innocent babies.  Is not this God, able to reanimate the dead, able to then reanimate this innocent child and give the gift of everlasting life?  Of what consequence was the taking of life on this earth, as we know it, with all of life's "cruelty", so bad if He is able to give something better?

Um, dude, God is all powerful, he doesn't have to sacrifice anybody. Again this is like battered women syndrome, justifying all the bad in the world because you know he's really really good. If this is the work of an all good God then I'm not impressed in the least. There should be no evil in the world if God were indeed all powerful, all willing, and only capable of good. The evidence of evil in the world shows me that your God does not exist, for if he did, evil would not exist. Now I expect a paragraph and a half of your justification and overused arguments on the existence of evil, so save it. I've heard them all before, and they've been debunked before. God doesn't need to use evil because God can make whatever he wants without evil. Any reason you give is a shallow excuse for your beliefs to remain consistent.

QuoteWhile God did utter the curse, the curse was not arbitrary but a direct consequence of going against God and "KNOWING" evil.  Like the analogy of a child, must the child KNOW AND FULLY UNDERTAND the meaning behind every rule a parent puts forth for their own good?

YES!

QuoteYou don't owe anyone anything unless you feel obligated to them for something they did for you.

Not according to Christianity.

QuoteHis act, forces her to overlook her dislike of him and see him for the person he is...generous to her need.  Not necessarily the same for God, but the point being that her gratitude is not forced, in fact it flows almost freely as he is a difficult man full of OCD traits that alienate him from most people.  She wasn't forced into "serving" him, but felt compelled for what he did for her and her son.  It was not "labor" to do so, but done out of joy.

The analogy does not fit, because she isn't going to hell if she doesn't appreciate him. Maybe if Christians didn't say I was going to hell because I don't accept Jesus then maybe I would give you a little credit. You are leaving key pieces out of your dogma that slants your view in a positive light.

Again, according to the Bible, I am faced with the "choice" of thanking Jesus for his good deed, or going to eternal torment. That is not a choice!

QuoteGod gave us eyes, did he also blind us to the beauty of this world?

He did. Have you ever seen the cosmos in the ultraviolet?

QuoteThe Man was given the knowledge of evil, but wasn't given the KNOWLEDGE of evil.  Man, like a child, did not understand the full ramifiactions of sin.

And yet the "just" God punished those who didn't understand evil, good, knowledge and death. Not only that but God punished their children, and their children, and their children's children, and all their descendants for the rest of eternity. The "just" God made humans with free will, and decided to almost completely eradicate them from the planet, save a man and his family. God saw all of this coming, and yet he acted like a total blithering idiot when it happened.

QuoteGod did not "come to our house".  God created a perfect being.  God gave this being rules that just ARE, they weren't arbitrary or "made up".  As water douses fire or fire dries water, so evil kills.  It just, by nature IS that way.  God cannot change what He is.  If Good exists, then by default so does Evil.  To remove evil is to create robots that while on the surface seem to be free, really, without the choice to choose against God, are really not free and cannot then love out of their own choice.

Oh please, save it. If you ever wondered why atheists get frustrated and call religious people deluded, this is it. When theists are backed into a corner, they begin proselytizing, making up absurd analogies to try to explain away the big bad logic, and use infantile words like omni and infinite. I mean, the absurdity of the statement that water douses fire and fire dries water is completely ridiculous since water is just a molecule and fire is simple a chemical reaction. Dirt actually douses fire better, and water can even make fire stronger! And might I show the logical inconsistencies when you say that God cannot change what he is. I thought he was all powerful, now you say he doesn't have the power to change himself? What. Complete. Nonsense. Then you assert that God in his all loving wisdom decides to introduce evil in the world to give is the "choice" of love. That is sadistic.

QuoteThere is no eternal punishment.  The punishment is for eternity.  DEATH.   You're supposedly some literary expert, yet you cannot tell the difference between something BEING punished for eternity and a punishment that is for eternity?

I know the difference, and I know what you said, but your fellow Christians disagree with you. Others seem to think that there is torment and punishment, and you say different. So at least one of you is wrong. But let's take your case. If the "punishment" for not believing in God is non existence, then what kind of punishment is that? That's not very good punishment because nobody can learn their lesson or understand what they did wrong. Nobody can experience non existence because they don't exist! There is no punishment or torment which causes the punishment then becomes meaningless. So there you go, either way it's unjust.

QuoteEvery Christian knows what sin is.  Every Christian knows the root of all Evil.  Have two mortal humans ever given birth to one immortal child?  So then you should understand the reason no baby is really "innocent" of sin.

But aren't those humans also immortal? And isn't every child a gift from God? You don't need to argue against my point, because your own religion argues against yours.

QuoteThis above proves that you have not even read the Bible, but picked and chosen exerpts that substanciate your "intellectual" ideas and beliefs or disbeliefs.

Pot. Kettle. Black.

QuoteIn this current state, we are not as He created.  Notice Genesis and the words of God that make the difference.  See Genesis 3:22

God could have stopped the ride whenever he wanted to. But didn't. God lets this world exist because he wants it to exist. And if he doesn't like it, he has the ability to change it in any form and manner he chooses. We don't need evil to feel love because God can make us conscious of love all the time, and never tire from it. There is no reason to think that God couldn't make this world into heaven without the need for death and sickness and conflict. Obviously all the evil in the world doesn't bother him since he can erase it at once and replace it with something better.

So what's he waiting for? What's with the wait? I mean you could justify the actions of an invisible unknowable being till the end of time, but judging by how the universe works, and the claims of what God is by theists, it is obvious that their God simply does not exist.

QuoteAre you suggesting that being on the power grid is sinful or of self-interest or prideful?  There's a good chance I'm ignorant to your point.  You may have to explain.

Absolutely everything you do is in your own self interest, including breathing. Every animal on the face of the planet exists for its own self interest. If self interest were really the mark of evil, then this world is nothing but evil, and if God created this world, then he made it evil from the very beginning.

QuoteAdam and Eve both knew it was against God to do so...what they lacked was the knowledge of what doing so would mean. Thus they simply disobeyed their "parent" and consequences that come to children, came.

And their children, and their children, and their children, and their children, and their children, and their children. You see how this begins to look excessive? If God were indeed all loving and just he would only need to punish Adam and Eve, and not every innocent person down the line. Would you punish your grand children because at one time their mom or dad touched the kitchen stove? Nope.

QuoteHowever as we've discussed, God is Judge and MUST be righteous as that IS HIS NATURE

And that's what I meant by the Blorjak. You were told that God is just, and that everything he does is just, so you will find any kind of excuse or justification to keep God just. Just as the Blorjak is good even when it kills everything it sees, God is just even when he is unjust. If God kills billions of innocent people, you will justify their guilt. If God obliterates the planet, you will justify the destruction. If a baby is born with a horrible disease, you will justify that too. You're trying to defend a maniac by saying all the slaying and evil is really for the greater good.

QuoteAgain, you are so ignorant to what the Bible says and claims and so it is probably best you quite pulling false ideas such as "well/good enough" out as a weapon.

Quite the contrary. You only understand of what you've been told in the Bible. Whatever church or religious organization you grew up in has primed you to see what you want to see, to disregard the bad in the Bible as out of context, or metaphor, while keeping the good intact. God is just because you want him to be just, not because the actions he's done or the world he's made is just. So shocked are you and defendor on the nature of your servitude that you can't even see what they've done to you. The Bible says that God gave you an ultimatum to follow his commands or face punishment. That is slavery. God cursed mankind when they were merely infants, unaware of their action, and he cursed them for the rest of eternity. God destroyed the world once already because he didn't like his own creation and expressed regret for even making it. Jesus was sent as a human sacrifice to himself to wash away the sin that God caused in the first place. And another ultimatum was made: accept Jesus or face punishment. The popular vision of punishment is eternal torture, while your vision of punishment is simply not existing. The former is infinitely unjust, while the later is not punishment at all.

QuoteIt's not even close and warrants no real response since your apparent claim on another thread (http://www.happyatheistforum.com/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=6706&start=15) of having studied the Bible, knowing the exact characterization of God in the OT vs NT, cannot be truthful if you make this elementary mistake.

Still a little angry about that I see. But you see that was literature, this isn't. Big difference.

Quote from: "AnimatedDirt"Now, is life cruel?  Life is what it is.  Life cannot be cruel if life simply is.  It cannot be any other.  Likewise, God IS.

So then by your logic God can also be cruel. He is not only good but he is also evil, which means his actions are not good or evil, they just simply, are. This flies in the face of the idea that God is good when you say God is. To say he is not capable of evil also makes him not omnipotent, because you assert that he does not have the power to perform unjust acts.

QuoteHe is Judge, and so MUST serve as a Righteous Judge and cannot simply excuse sin and sin in His created beings.

But that sin was inflicted BY him in the first place. If sin is simply the ability to perform an immoral action, and free will grants that ability, and free will is granted by God, then God granted us that sin. He did it on purpose. It's all a set up. Everybody freak out!

QuoteCan a flame "live" while it is doused in water?

Actually it can. When metal gets heated high enough, you can cause a fire by spraying it with water since the heat of the metal separates the hydrogen and oxygen atoms in the water molecule, which are both highly flammable and explosive elements. You see, science makes the universe all that more interesting. So much for the shallow (excuse the pun) fire/water God analogies.

QuoteIf death is inevitable, what is the "cruelty" in removing life from them.  If the sentence is death, and God must Judge, what is wrong with that?

Because you make it so people cannot redeem themselves. If you will eventually die anyways, does that give anyone the right to kill you?

QuoteI suppose He could've (and did in most cases) except that some were in the path of His will.

*sigh* If God is all good, and all powerful, then he can fashion a plan that causes nobody to get killed. The easy answer to this problem is that God just doesn't exist. He doesn't.

QuoteIf God is so cruel and heartless, why is it that a person, as I've seen George Carlin do, simply say, "God I dare you to smite me now..." and live?

Because there is no God to smite him. The evidence is there, the logic follows... I can even run my own little experiment here. Wait a minute. Yep, I'm still around.

QuoteIn your eyes, it might be cruel, but if innocense dies, can God not right that innocense in His time and so do as He claims able to do, resurrect that baby and give it life...life eternal?

But you can only ASSUME that God gives life eternal. God doesn't need to give eternal life because he can stop it from happening in the first place.

Quote from: "AnimatedDirt"You don't seem too sure of yourself if in the above you say, "...have indeed chosen to reject the idea of God." and now you state, "...betting my entire afterlife here with extreme confidence..."  Isn't confidence enough?  It's much like the scene in "A Few Good Men" where Lt. Galloway(?) says, "Your honor, we strenuously object."  Comedic.  With your own fingers and out of your own mind you have made a choice between belief and disbelief, a choice of eternal death and eternal life.  Twice!  And you say there is no choice?

It may seem so, but the issue goes deeper. For me there is a choice, because God does not exist, and therefore any punishment is only a figment of imagination. That means the costs and benefits are largely relateable. That is not the issue. The issue is what the Christian dogma states. For someone to actually believes there is a heaven and a hell, then there is no choice, since as I said before, it is the choice of buying the car or taking the guillotine.

For Christians, God gives the so called "choice", in that you can obey him and serve him, and you will be rewarded, or you do not and you will be punished. To say that is indeed a choice is like saying you have the "choice" to eat, since technically you can. However I made the distinction between a choice and a calculation. The calculation is simply a formula that your brain follows, pointing to the "correct" answer. Any time you are given a "choice" and there is an obvious "correct" answer, then it really isn't a choice and is simply a calculation. To the Christian, accepting God and rejecting hell is not a choice, and is a calculation.

Maybe this example would be a better distinction. Years ago when I was in high school, we would learn about the world religions while I was in my history class. By that time I wasn't an atheist, I was more of an agnostic, though I didn't really use the term well enough. I defined myself as "someone who does not accept or reject the existence of God." While in that history class the religion of Buddhism really appealed to me. If I had decided to join that religion/philosophy at the time, it would have been a choice, because I could weigh the benefits of my agnosticism and the benefits of Buddhism. However change the scenario a bit. If I had remained Catholic, as I was when I was younger, accepting or rejecting God would not have been a choice, because heaven and hell were real possibilities in my mind. The benefits of heaven were infinite, and hell had none, so I if I had decided to stay, it would have been simply a calculation and not a choice. It was only when I realized that heaven and hell were not real places, and the benefits/costs were not real, could I then choose to go somewhere else.

QuoteI have the choice...I rejected the choice completely for quite some time.  I never claimed Atheism.  Worse, I hated God.

Indeed, I can tell you weren't an atheist. An atheist does not hate that which does not exist, if you'll pardon the double negative. So you were conflicted, that is natural, and you're right that everyone has a different religious experience. However only when you truly understand the alternatives can you make a choice.

QuoteWhat's more rediculous, pulling a god name out of a hat and making assertions of this god when there is zero proof, or standing on well documented proof of (at least) a belief in a God alluded to in some ancient texts?

It is ridiculous, but that was not my point. Go back and reread it.

QuoteIf so, I assume then you sat your child down and made them aware of every single instance that they were doing wrong and it was explained to them entirely to the point that when the talk ended, you knew, absolutely, that this 1 or 2 year old child understood you.  OR...heh...you may be the type of parent (if a parent at all) that says to your child who is acting up, "Little Timmy...Dear sweet little Timmy.  We don't hit other children, it's just not nice."

Your parenting is seriously out of date. Try the stages of moral development. It's not enough for them to know it's wrong, but WHY it's wrong. Spanking doesn't convey understanding. But that is going way beyond the point.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kohlberg's_stages_of_moral_development

QuoteInteresting.  So when a child does the deed a second time, we should explain it again...and again...and again...and again?  Not me.  I've almost raised two.

If they understood why it was wrong in the first place, they wouldn't do it again, and again, and again.

QuoteYou have history's argument against you and "psychology".

http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/appeal-to-tradition.html

QuoteWait...are you for spanking or not?  What's this about spanking a child before it gets to the stove?  I agree, just that your previous words don't.  Which is it?

Parents don't need to spank, and God doesn't need to either. God can do whatever he wants, and if he's all loving, then he has no capacity to do harm to the things he loves. He could make the stove disappear so the infant doesn't get burned, or he can make the stove instantly cold. God doesn't need to resort to punishment if he were what you say he is, and yet doublethink allows you to have it both ways.

QuoteWhat spanking?  God did allow the child to get burned, I don't argue that at all.  But what spanking?  They got burned...THAT IS THE CONSEQUENCE.  The "wages of sin is death".  God didn't spank them on top of this.  Where do you read/see a beating?

Adam and Eve "touching the stove" consisted of them eating of the fruit and becoming aware of good and evil. The spanking came when God cursed them. You seem to think "touching the stove" was God punishing them, but that's not the case. The man was cursed to work the fields and the woman was cursed with painful childbirth. Read your book.

QuoteMaybe I should drop using the Omni~ thing.  Obviously we both define omni~ differently.  You say, and I suppose the definition IS, the ability to do ANYTHING.  In that sense, God is not omni~.  Let's say God can do what He sets out to do.

The problem with a lot of these religious discussions is that a lot of the qualities of God are assumed and not defined. Since nobody here has defined God, I must go on the understanding of Christian doctrine.

QuoteI believe like you, God can end suffering.  The problem I see, is to end suffering is to end this world as we know it.  If God knows the end from the beginning, then there must be a reason we don't understand why suffering continues.  That's my explanation.  I acknowledge my ignorance on the things beyond my comprehension.

The way I see it, if the Bible claims that God set up the universe, and is incapable of evil, and loves us all more than anyone ever could, and could see everything in advance, then there is no excuse for the world we live in today. God has been the computer programmer from the beginning, and he could change everything in an instant, and make a world multitudes better, but yet he doesn't. For theists they conclude that they cannot explain it, or if they do they try to tackle the problem by providing justifications for an evil world. I see their assertions, and then I see the world, finally concluding that the God simply doesn't exist. The evidence of the world around me corroborates the hypothesis.

For example this world with good and evil is consistent if there was a good God and an evil God fighting each other in a cosmic battle, as Zoroastrianism says. Or it would be consistent if a God certainly wasn't good, and just made the universe and sat back and let it unfold. However when you have a God that is nothing but good and has the power to grant his own wishes, then the world would not have evil. If you can conceptualize a genie to magically make the world without evil, then God could conceptually do it too.

QuoteFair enough.  You've heard it all, but you reject it by choice.  So then to make sure "you've heard it all and has been debunked", please relay the argument for me.  Let's make sure you "KNOW" it.  I'll save it if you really do know it.

It's not my argument to relay. The theists have the burden of proof, and they provide the arguments as to how their all good and powerful God can exist with this universe. Their answers to the problem of evil have been debunked in the past. One of my favorites is the problem of good, in which every argument a theist makes for a good God can also be used for an evil God.

Turn the theists argument around, and their logic can be used for the problem of good in a universe created by an evil God.

[youtube:3bbx1pav]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CWvA6ir_NdM[/youtube:3bbx1pav]

QuoteReally.  Since you know, please also relay to me what I bring to the salvation table as "worthy" of saving?

That would simply take too much time, and I would not say it nearly as well as the wonderful Stephen Fry.

[youtube:3bbx1pav]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q715ty5hLt4[/youtube:3bbx1pav]

Quote"Hell" isn't left out of even this analogy, you simple dismiss it as inconsequential to the plot and thus the analogy.

You leave hell out of the analogy because it goes against your point. You either consciously or unconsciously left it out because you have a bias towards your doctrine. You cannot accept that God or Jesus is unjust, so you paint the picture in your mind of what you mean to say, which is not an objective analysis. Hell is relevant to the debate, since hell is the consequence for not accepting Jesus. It is saying that if you do not accept the nice thing that someone did for you that you would be punished.

QuoteMore ignorance.  Point to the place in scripture that God/Jesus requires a "thanks" from you.  Talk about assertions...

You must accept Jesus as your savior. What do you think it means?

QuoteWhat is your point.  Seeing in ultraviolet changes nothing.

It does. It debunks your assertion. You say God gave us eyes to see, and yet we are blind to the vast majority of the spectrum.

QuoteWhen a child is told not to touch fire because it's hot, you're saying they don't understand between hot and cold?  Silly.  All kids, by the time they have this curiosity have taken baths and have felt cold, warm, and hot water.  Hot is not an unknown.  It's simply not understood in connection to a flame or a stove.

*sigh* More inaccurate analogies. You know when a person really understands the workings of an idea when they can construct a good analogy. If a child doesn't understand what hot and cold means, then they won't know to touch something hot. Since Adam and Eve didn't know what death was, they didn't know not to eat the fruit. It was a vocabulary word that they had never heard before, and so didn't understand the consequences. So not only were they given that knowledge and mortality as a consequence, but God punished them by cursing them.

QuoteNot for the rest of eternity...but for a finite time.  A speck of time, really, in the scheme of the cosmos...right?

How does cosmic time make it any unjust? God punished the human race for thousands of years when the rest of humanity didn't do anything wrong.

QuoteFire and water at odds is bad analogy?

Yes, duh.

QuoteSince when is omi and infinite "infantile"?  Are you suggesting infants understand omni and infinity?

No, but it seems you don't have the desire to understand my points. Saying the word infinite and thinking it's some kind of stamp of insight is infantile, and childish, like a child saying they win with infinity plus one, or infinity times infinity. The human brain cannot grasp the concept of infinity, so when you use it, I know you can't really know what you're talking about.

QuoteYet we as a society seem to think the death penalty is the ultimate payment for crimes deserving such.  You then are not arguing against me, but against your fellow man.  If it's unjust, then I suppose torture is.  This is the logical conclusion of your point.

As a conservative I see the death penalty is government sanctioned murder. It is not justice. Torture too us unjust. God, a supposedly loving God, has done both.

QuoteHumans immortal?  Name one.  

AnimatedDirt: "Every Christian knows what sin is. Every Christian knows the root of all Evil. Have two mortal humans ever given birth to one immortal child? So then you should understand the reason no baby is really "innocent" of sin."

So what exactly did you mean there?

QuoteWhat do you make of your gift from the cosmos?

I'm not indebted to a creator or owe anyone my life, so I'll make the best life I can for myself.

QuoteYou fail to see that my faith...

Confirmation bias. Doesn't matter how many books you've read or how strong your faith is. It means you cannot look objectively at your religion because you're stuck inside it.

QuoteTo remove suffering is to say a free agent cannot choose good over evil and so must be MADE to choose good and so it is no longer a choice.  Please reread your words just above to see that even you acknowledge this.

Who is to say we need suffering in order to choose? That seems like something made up to explain suffering itself.

Also the Bible says we have free will, and that we don't have free will:

http://skepticsannotatedbible.com/contra/free.html (http://skepticsannotatedbible.com/contra/free.html)

QuoteInteresting.  Did every creature create ITSELF out of self-interest?  It couldn't.  If anything it was out of the self-interest for survival of the "parents" that brought the new creature.  The creature's self-interest began only at birth...and God suggests, from conception.  

If God doesn't like self-interest, then why did he make a world with nothing but self-interest?

QuoteSo let's say God did punish only Adam and Eve.  What then?  Give me the better solution and avenue to take.

Well first, God being omniscient and seeing it happen before the beginning of the universe, he could have put the tree on top of the highest mountain, or anywhere on Australia, or the Americas, or Antarctica, or even just made the tree smell like rancid meat. He could have encased the fruit in a nut, or had given it spines, or made the fruit unreachable or covered with insects. Any number of things he could have done to prevent it in the first place.

Then he could have stopped Adam and Eve as they were about to eat the fruit. Or he could have prevented the snake from talking, or put the snake on another continent. He could have destroyed the snake before it spoke.

If none of that worked, he could have simply forgiven Adam and Eve because they didn't know what death meant. Or at the very least, not cursed them for their actions. Or even if he did curse them, he could have cursed ONLY them.

Look at those solutions. Any one of them could have prevented it - all typed out in less that five minutes. And I'm not even God.

QuoteYou say, remove the tree as a temptation?  Ok.  But to "hide" evil is to be dishonest.  God IS.  If God IS, then evil exists no matter what He does.

Well then God is not all powerful, since he cannot get rid of evil.

So either God allows evil in the world, making him not all good, or God cannot remove evil, making him not all powerful. Logical paradox.

QuoteSo what is the best way to teach a child that fire burns and what that EXACTLY means?

If God can make man out of dirt and woman out of his rib, and the universe in six days, then he can give them the knowledge of death. This really isn't that hard...

QuoteDoes a bit of pain make the child wiser with a small burn, maybe a small scar?

Or understanding could prevent the pain in the first place.

QuoteGod kills?  It is only sin that brings death.  God may hasten the death (I'm not even sure I agree with this), but ultimately it is sin that kills, not God.

You're changing the use of the word kill arbitrarily. You disregard the meaning as we understand it, and how it's written in the Bible. If killing is as you say it is, then "thou shall not kill" is pretty useless. You can't use the word in opposite ways at the same time.

QuoteIt's silly to ignore the "bad".  You assert God as the originator of "bad", but ignore (at least the claim) that the "bad" is from another source.

Isaiah 45:7
I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I the LORD do all these things.

Seems evil comes from God. An all good God wouldn't create evil. So... yeah. You know at least polytheism had logically consistent Gods.

QuotePlease reread the reply above about the tiny blip that mankind is.

Your blip argument is called a red herring.

QuoteGod cursed?  Not at all.  Sin did.  Evil did.  Man chose all by himself to be cursed by evil and sin.

Genesis 3:16-19 Unto the woman he said, I will greatly multiply thy sorrow and thy conception; in sorrow thou shalt bring forth children; and thy desire shall be to thy husband, and he shall rule over thee. And unto Adam he said, Because thou hast hearkened unto the voice of thy wife, and hast eaten of the tree, of which I commanded thee, saying, Thou shalt not eat of it: cursed is the ground for thy sake; in sorrow shalt thou eat of it all the days of thy life; Thorns also and thistles shall it bring forth to thee; and thou shalt eat the herb of the field; In the sweat of thy face shalt thou eat bread, till thou return unto the ground; for out of it wast thou taken: for dust thou art, and unto dust shalt thou return.

God cursed mankind after they ate the fruit. The fruit made them realize they were naked, but it was God's curse that caused them to suffer. That curse was passed on to every following human. God did it. Read your story.

QuoteGod did not cause Adam and Eve to sin.  Evil did that.  Adam and Eve chose their path.  THEY doomed humanity after them...influenced by evil.  Evil is the root, humans simply watered it.

And evil was allowed by God in the first place. Then evil not only took over humans, but God multiplied their suffering with a curse. That makes him unjust.

QuoteWe are discussing the same thing except on the other thread you claim to be studied, yet here (as there) you exhibit no knowledge whatsoever.   You claim to "know" about literature, yet fail to realize that while one can discuss the apparent conundrums of excerpts in a certain piece of literature, it is the whole of the piece that brings light to those excerpts.

[/quote]

Oh please, not this again. You're wrong and you can't understand why.

I didn't read the whole thing, I apologize but I noticed these 2 points

QuoteAnd evil was allowed by God in the first place. Then evil not only took over humans, but God multiplied their suffering with a curse. That makes him unjust.

God said, if you do this, something will happen.  If you eat from this tree, you will surely die.  Cause and effect.  We can sit now and point back as to say "why didn't god let Adam and Eve eat that fruit? how stupid.  God must hate people who think for themselves."  No. They had an entire Garden to play in, they didn't need that one tree.  Let alone, the implications of defining Good and evil for themselves, and playing the role of God.  Not too uncommon today haha

But they completely disobeyed God's one rule.  They couldn't even obey one simple rule.  It wasn't even "don't climb in that tree", or "don't touch it", let alone "Don't get in a 50 yard radius cuz I planted mines".  It was don't eat of this one trees fruit.  God, according to his word, had every right to kill them then and there, for that was the punishment.  Disobeying an infinite God finitely is unworthy of finite life. But he didn't kill them, he let them live, Grace. They have punishment, but not unjustly. For it is non justice that they live, and slight justice they are cursed.  There is no injustice.

QuoteOh please, not this again. You're wrong and you can't understand why.

Why is he wrong?  If he is wrong, then he is not in accordance with a set standard of truth.  If there is no standard of truth, he could not be counted as wrong. Isn't he just seeing the world through his own perspective? I can understand disagreements, but this statement is making a claim to truth that has not been identified (for he cannot be wrong without violating a standard of truth)

At least as I am aware of.  I didn't read the entire passages, so I could be completely wrong  

I'm going to address this point for now...whew...I'm tired of reading and replying to our long posts.

Quote from: "Event_Horizon"Well first, God being omniscient and seeing it happen before the beginning of the universe, he could have put the tree on top of the highest mountain, or anywhere on Australia, or the Americas, or Antarctica, or even just made the tree smell like rancid meat. He could have encased the fruit in a nut, or had given it spines, or made the fruit unreachable or covered with insects. Any number of things he could have done to prevent it in the first place.

You are so right.  Consider for a moment, that to do so would be to lie.  Good and Evil are SIMPLE choices.  There is no difficulty in choosing Evil (I hope you're understanding that when I say Evil, I mean anything that is opposed to good...do unto others...it's better to give than receive...laying aside self and thinking instead of others) It's very simple to think of self first.  To then hide and make the tree difficult to reach is to lie and so suggest to a thinking mind, "What is God hiding from me?"  The stove exists in your house.  Hot scalding water is a sink away, cars are driving up and down the street outside your home...danger surrounds us.  Danger/Evil does not live on a mountain somewhere that is inaccesible.  Sometimes your own family brings danger and death.  So then Evil is not something that is hidden or made up.  Evil is a fact that God cannot remove IF IT IS FREEWILL and by it, true love that He desires. (He can't remove it at all if He defines/embodies Good)

Quote from: "Event_Horizon"Then he could have stopped Adam and Eve as they were about to eat the fruit. Or he could have prevented the snake from talking, or put the snake on another continent. He could have destroyed the snake before it spoke.

These are pretty amazing concepts considering the society I live in, the U.S. (I'm not sure where you live) seems to uphold freedom to eat as you please, freedom of speech, freedom to live where you wish, right to life and liberty, true justice...all these concepts of freedom that, to my knowledge having been around this forum a little bit now, from the Atheistic understanding of life, came as a result of natural understanding of the best manner in which a society thrives and that of personal rights.  Are you suggesting God stifle our human rights?  Are you suggesting He shut the mouth and kill that which speaks against Him?  Are you suggesting the government take these rights of our in order to "protect" us???  If God did as you suggest, you wouldn't be here...and that would be unfair and tyranical.  But somehow in your wisdom, this is your remedy and solution...Really???  

Quote from: "Event_Horizon"If none of that worked, he could have simply forgiven Adam and Eve because they didn't know what death meant. Or at the very least, not cursed them for their actions. Or even if he did curse them, he could have cursed ONLY them.

He did forgive them.  People are forgiven all the time.  The death penalty "forgives" a person for crimes that bring the death penalty.  The thing you seem to be against is JUSTICE.  If justice demands punishment, and I must assume you agree, then justice for going against God is you can't be with God.  If God is the only thing that brings life, then you must live without that ability.  (again, these are things that God is by nature...if you understand this being things that He cannot go against/change)

Again I'll tell you, God did not curse Adam and Eve.  They cursed themselves through sin.  God simply told them what the curse is...ultimately death.  The God didn't choose, "Oh lets see, uh...Yes!...The ground will bring forth thorns and be difficult to cultivate...and...OH!  Eve, I declare pain in childbirth..."  These are things that didn't exist APART from Evil, but do when Evil is allowed in.  Death and pain.  (I will say, the concept of death was known to Adam and Eve, because Evil did already exist prior to them being created.  That, and plants being fruitful...seasonal plants.  Death was understood, but not understood that it could happen to a human.  God simply put them in a place that was free from the effects of Evil.}

Quote from: "Event_Horizon"Look at those solutions. Any one of them could have prevented it - all typed out in less that five minutes. And I'm not even God.

...and because you don't understand the concept of freewill, truth, inability to lie, justice, love...you think that by removing what we term today as basic "unalienable rights" is to create a utopia where everyone cannot speak their mind, eat whatever they wish, or a land without true justice.  By these ideas, you would support the idea that a person can go around and murder whomever he/she wishes, and be forgiven...to do it again tomorrow and again the next day, and the next...

Yes, you certainly showed us your ability to think things through in 5 minutes much better than God.

QuoteTo then hide and make the tree difficult to reach is to lie and so suggest to a thinking mind, "What is God hiding from me?"

How is it lying at all? Adam and Eve did not need to choose to be good or evil, since they were born without sin, and yet had free will. An all good being made them, therefore Adam and Eve had no evil since they were directly made from God who could not have made them with evil. The idea of original sin comes from the tree itself, and God had no reason to put the tree within reaching distance. There is no lying in keeping the tree away, or having no tree at all because God intended for the tree never to be eaten. To allow the tree within reach means that God wanted to tempt mankind with it. That means that all God wanted was a test to see if humans would pick good or evil, and that is sadistic. In the mindset of a God that can only do good, there are infinite alternatives to what has been stated. You as a theist in your opinion see it as completely plausible, but if you had any kind of objective analysis you would see the absurdity. If you had never heard of the Bible and found it in a used book store, you'd know exactly what I'm talking about and you'd toss the book aside.

We are talking about an all powerful God, who desires a world of perfect harmony and goodness. Now this God has the power to make the world, and he does, and you're saying he built evil into the world as a default because he wanted us to choose between him and evil? First that is a logical impossibility, because a God that can do nothing but good can ONLY make a world without evil. The logical impossibility comes form attributing omnipotence to him. If God can only do good, then he does not have the power to do evil and thus not omnipotent. If God has the power to do both good and evil, then he is not all good. That is a logical paradox.

QuoteAre you suggesting God stifle our human rights?  Are you suggesting He shut the mouth and kill that which speaks against Him?  Are you suggesting the government take these rights of our in order to "protect" us???  If God did as you suggest, you wouldn't be here...and that would be unfair and tyranical.  But somehow in your wisdom, this is your remedy and solution...Really???  

A resounding yes: God stifles human rights. God does not value human rights because in the Bible he destroyed the rights of humans all throughout the Old Testament. God commands to kill the blasphemer and the nonbeliever.

Also, your response had little to do with my original point. God, being a tyrant already, could choose any manner of ways to prevent Adam and Eve from getting to the fruit. You instead focus on government... That is a red herring. My point is that God, being all good, with the power to grant his own wishes, could do whatever he wanted to make a perfect world, and yet he didn't. Why? One reason could be convoluted logic of the theist. The other much more simple, and the correct one, that involves no logical paradoxes, is that the God you describe does not exist.

Let's be scientific about it. Let's look at the facts of the observable and testable world and then draw conclusions. We see a world that contains certain qualities. We cannot attribute good and evil to these things until we know what good and evil is. Judging by the world itself we just see actions, but for the sake of argument let's just assume that we can attribute good and evil to these actions based subjectively by our own standards. We can indeed say that we see a world that contains good, evil, and neutral actions. Since we are trying to answer the question of God, we have to construct hypotheses in relation to God(s). So what kind of hypothesis can we draw from the evidence within the world itself? Well first is the null hypothesis (there is no God), which is consistent with the evidence. Seeing that there is both good and evil, there might be two Gods, one that is good and another that is evil, and they are responsible for good and evil. That is logically consistent with the evidence. Another is an all powerful God that is completely neutral, who is neither good nor evil, and permits both. That is also logically consistent with the evidence. From the evidence we can think of an all good God that doesn't have omnipotence. We can also think of an all evil God that has no omnipotence. We can think of a neutral God with no omnipotence. All of them are logically possible within our world.

The problem with your hypothesis of an all powerful God who is also all good, is that the evidence doesn't support it. A God with the characteristics of being all good and all powerful would simply make the world all good, however the world and therefore the evidence not only does not support this, but runs contrary to it. If I have to decide between reality or belief, I'll go with reality, because reality always wins.

QuoteThe death penalty "forgives" a person for crimes that bring the death penalty.

Not the case in the least. "Forgiveness" is an action of the victim, and the state is not the victim. Victims can be unforgiving when there is no death penalty, and victims can be forgiving when there is death penalty. Forgiveness and capital punishment are mutually exclusive. Not all justice demands punishment, but all justice demands compensation.

You say that the "punishment" is simply not being with God, and in that a sense that particular example is reasonable if God were not to punish them for not believing or telling his believers to punish the nonbelievers. If people accept God get to be with him, and people who don't accept God don't, then indeed it is a choice. However you differ from the majority of Christians and contemporary Christian doctrine which explains that people who don't accept God aren't just separated from him, but are tortured forever in Hell. As I said that is not a choice but a calculation. If I said be my best friend and come to my resort, or don't be my best friend and stay at home, then that would be a choice. However if I said be my friend and come to a resort, or don't be my friend and you'll be beaten senseless, that it not a choice.

Where our points to not match up is the effect of this rejection of God. By your personal theology, that rejection is nothing, but the contemporary viewpoint is that the rejection is eternal torture. How do you explain this discrepancy?

QuoteAgain I'll tell you, God did not curse Adam and Eve.  They cursed themselves through sin.  God simply told them what the curse is...ultimately death.

16: Unto the woman he said, I will greatly multiply thy sorrow and thy conception; in sorrow thou shalt bring forth children; and thy desire shall be to thy husband, and he shall rule over thee.

Your assertion is simply not correct.

QuoteThat, and plants being fruitful...seasonal plants.  Death was understood, but not understood that it could happen to a human.  God simply put them in a place that was free from the effects of Evil.

Your claim that Adam and Eve knew the meaning of Death is only an assumption. Please support your statement with evidence.

Quote...and because you don't understand the concept of freewill, truth, inability to lie, justice, love...

Talk about an ad hominem attack. I do know what free will and truth and justice and love is, and I get fucking pissed when someone says that atheists don't know what those things are.

Quote from: "defendor"God said, if you do this, something will happen.  If you eat from this tree, you will surely die.  Cause and effect.

If you examine what God said of the tree, and what the serpent said of the tree, then what God said afterwards, it is evidenced in the text that God was lying and the serpent was telling the truth. God said don't eat of the tree or they'd die on that day. The serpent said they would gain knowledge and be as Gods. After they ate the fruit, they did not die (showing that God lied), and God said that they had gained the knowledge like the Gods, showing that the serpent was right. God lied once to Adam and Eve, and the serpent told the truth twice.

My point is, is that God made the tree to be eaten, and he intended for Adam and Eve to eat it because he saw it happening before the universe had even been made. Had his real intention been NOT to curse humanity, and not to allow his creations to sin, then he wouldn't have done it.

QuoteThey couldn't even obey one simple rule.

A rule only has impact if it is understood. Adam and Even had never seen death, they didn't know what the concept was, because God said just as they had been created to not eat of the tree or they would die. Because they didn't know what the consequence was, they didn't understand the severity of the ruling.

What if I told you to NEVER of the pie of knowledge, because you do, you sill surely kerigas.

Obviously that command holds no weight because you do not know the definition of the word and therefore do not know the weight of the consequences

QuoteGod, according to his word, had every right to kill them then and there, for that was the punishment.  Disobeying an infinite God finitely is unworthy of finite life. But he didn't kill them, he let them live, Grace.

No, he didn't let them live. You and AnimatedDirt both think that God just let them out of the garden with no punishment, but God did punish them by making birth painful for women and man to till the soil. The curse was not the consequence of the fruit but God punishing them. Not only that but God extended that punishment to the unborn children. Now this is what I don't get. Many oppose abortion because a baby is innocent, and many of those people are religions (but not all), but those religious people seem to think that God is supposedly justified in cursing of millions/billions of babies throughout history just because they are the descendants of Adam and Eve?

QuoteWhy is he wrong?  If he is wrong, then he is not in accordance with a set standard of truth.

That goes back to a thread AnimatedDirt and I going for a while. His response to me here referred back to that other topic, during which had I informed him why he was mistaken on a specific point. When I said he was wrong I didn't mean for that to apply here to this discussion.

The truth thing, I am sorry for imposing, but am kinda glad, your thought brings up a few nice points.

I did say they lived due to grace but also, I did say that they were punished in the very next sentenced.

And the main thing i noticed was about what God actually said.  This is the mood of post modernism. In the same schema of text (the bible) that says the serpent said... the Bible also says that he is a liar.  So I want to make this clear, the Bible testifies to the initial sin of Adam and Eve and the deception of the serpent.

As for the death as punishment, thats a pretty interesting thought, but think of it like this: if you say to a person who has never been punched let alone in the face, "if you do something bad, I'm gonna punch you in the face." Do you think that they are able to understand what that means, or are they going to have be punched in the face to know that it is a bad thing?

As for the mood of post-modernism, if we are going to take the meanings out of words and define our own reality, we will be acting in the same mood that Adam and Eve were.  The serpent said, 'did God really say...? Did he really mean...?"  So it is a complete hashing of logistical reality, they obeyed what they wanted to, which was in direct defiance of objective truth and reality.  Think of it like this, upon eating of the Tree of "knowledge of Good and Evil" they were expected to define what Good is and what Evil is for themselves.  But they already knew what Good was, for God had declared all things Good. So as the narrative continues, Adam and Eve were conscious of their sin, and hid from God.  So they had understood what guilt had been laid bare.  They knew what the implications of their actions were.  The deception was in being able to define moral reality (tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil), but this did not make them equal with God for they were still under the jurisdiction of God.  

So even in the schema of the Gospel narrative, the initial sin is first and foremost disobeying God, but noticed how they were deceived.  The serpent took the power out of the words that God had provisioned, and gave that power to man.  So instead of God being the one who defines reality, it becomes ourselves.  This is what most Christians call, worshiping ourselves or idolatry or pride.  All of which exalt our beings over the being of the God of the universe.  But God says, I am the Lord God, there is no other, and his justice is destroying these false gods, and his grace is letting the people live.

Satan doesn't tempt you into doing something bad, he tempts you into doing what you want.  But not everything we want is bad, but it is mostly selfish, which excludes God.  Since we were created by God, for God, He has dominion over us.  Some he calls back to his presence, others he leaves bare.  Not a bit of injustice either way.

Quote from: "defendor"Satan doesn't tempt you into doing something bad, he tempts you into doing what you want.

It seems to me that God and Satan are one in the same, just seperate sides of the same coin.

The Adam and Eve fable is used to explain humans ability to make decisions, this fable required both God and Satan. Without Satan's influence God would have failed in its desire to gift humanity "free will".
Without the draw away from God as given by Satan, God would never be able to distinguish the good souls from the bad, God would never be able to reward the good with eternal afterlife in "heaven". With "life" being eternal, this period on earth from a Christian perspective would be pointless and would have no purpose. It seems that purpose and free will require both Satan and God.
Without the threat of eternal damnation, hell fire and torture in hell, many Christians would not be Christians, they would not turn to God as their saviour, instead they would go about their lives as Atheists with a value system that is likely more tolerant, more just, more compassionate and more loving than that offered by the strict Christian moral system.

I feel Christians focus too poorly on Satan, Satan is one of the most significant and key ingrediants in Christainity, without Satan God would be impotent. Christians really by rights should praise Satan as well. It seems that Satan is either God or is perfoming a selfless job that is crucial in God's plan. It is unfair that Satan is shown so much distain and hatred from God's worshippers. I wonder if they kiss and make up once they get to the afterlife?

I think the essence of your argument is the concept of a "necessary evil."  Or that the ends justify the means.  But when you say this, you have to assume that God created evil, something contradictory to his nature. So the allegation of this, is a paradox that not only can't be conceptualized but is not in accordance with any scripture. God created free will, but the necessity of Good allows the possibility of evil.  So as God created Good, and said everything was Good, Adam had the capability to turn away from this due to his capability of Free will. So as things were intended for Good, you can't say that he really meant for it to turn bad.  

I think it was C.S. Lewis who said this, not sure, but "our world is not the best world, but the best way to the best world."  In a sense, the allowing of evil is providential for God to proclaim his sovereignty but is not vital for exclaiming his Glory.  His glory was on the onset of Creation. But God does use things of evil to further his plan of Good.  See Joseph in Genesis "what you meant for evil, God meant for good"

But this also brings the thought, if God created evil, and you aren't turning to God, why aren't you experiencing a torrent of wrath and evil?

Quote from: "defendor"Satan doesn't tempt you into doing something bad, he tempts you into doing what you want.  But not everything we want is bad, but it is mostly selfish, which excludes God.  Since we were created by God, for God, He has dominion over us.  Some he calls back to his presence, others he leaves bare.  Not a bit of injustice either way.

Interesting. We were supposedly created by the god for the god, and it has dominion over us. Can you point out any way that such a state is not completely and utterly selfish on the part of the god? Apparently the god wanted to make us. Does this mean the god character was tempted by the Satan character to do it? Is the Satan character further tempting the god character to reward some of us and punish others according to its whim?

And by dominion, do you mean the god is the biggest bully on the block and thus can do whatever it wants with us?

Check out the Book of Job.

Quote from: "defendor"Check out the Book of Job.

You mean, the book where God let one of his most devout worshipers be tortured mercilessly because of a dare?

Quote from: "LegendarySandwich"

Quote from: "defendor"Check out the Book of Job.

You mean, the book where God let one of his most devout worshipers be tortured mercilessly because of a dare?

Don't forget the killing of his family.

Quote from: "defendor"I think the essence of your argument is the concept of a "necessary evil."  Or that the ends justify the means.  But when you say this, you have to assume that God created evil, something contradictory to his nature. So the allegation of this, is a paradox that not only can't be conceptualized but is not in accordance with any scripture.

What I am suggesting is to look at the Bible from the perspective of Satan.
If there were no Satan, how would this impact the stories e.g. the apple incident?
Satan's involvement seems too perfect, too coordinated with God's plan to introduce free will.
Where would free will be without Satan or Evil? What would be the point of this test on earth?
I would say that Satan as described with the bible is the most important character other than god and it seems that they are working together in unison towards a common goal, sorting the good people from the bad. They are so much in unison that I would say they are not only best buddies but that they are actually the same entity.

I actually think that if God and Satan exist then all the scriptures are likely inspired by Satan rather than god, hence the unison of God and Satan as depicted in the bible. People adhering to the moralities of the bible are actually acting against god's will and towards the deciept of Satan. All the scriptures (Christian, Hindu, Muslim etc) could all be Satan's work. Hence the conflict, the opposing beliefs, the intolerance, the unjust actions, the hardline moralities. Hence a god who is all loving, should be worshipped and praised and unquestioned and yet kills and deceives.

I would suggest that all theists are following Satan's decipt, going against their own nature and instead looking to scriptures for answers on how to behave. Atheists on the other hand are more in tune with objective morality, looking to reason, logic and their inner conscience to guide them. This way atheists treat people as their equals, accepting different beliefs, different cultures, different races, different sexes, different lifestyles with the utmost respect.

The requirement that one must believe is a requirement within the bible (which was inspired by Satan) and hence should not be taken as true. A truly loving, forging and just god simply does not require worshippers and does not require people to believe in it. This is a fallicy and substanciates my thoughts that if there were a god then the bible is a deceipt contrary to the will of that god.

Job is an interesting Book.  It is written in a Hebrew poetic prose, in conjunction with other books of poetry such as Ecclesiastes and Psalms.  The poetry is to show the inner struggle of a believer in dire circumstances of suffering in such an organic and human way that relates to those going through struggles.  I should mention, the bible says "glory in our sufferings, because we know that suffering produces perseverance;  perseverance, character; and character, hope." This is the hope we have in Christ "if indeed we share in his sufferings in order that we may also share in his glory. I consider that our present sufferings are not worth comparing with the glory that will be revealed in us."

What happened to Job may seem unjust, but what did Job do so good that God owed Job anything?  He was a righteous man and God's glory was to be revealed in Job, whether through trial or triumph.  This shows God's sovereignty, to be feared as Abraham and the Apostles who saw Jesus walk on the water. The bible says the apostles who saw Jesus walking on water were terrified.  So God is sovereign over everything, that nothing is in our life that God doesn't permit, for His Glory. I mean that sounds pretty egotistical, but when we see it from our perspective it normally does.  If deep down in our beings of the elect (those who are saved) want to be with Christ, but the only thing that stands in our way is us, why wouldn't God allow suffering so that we may "die to ourselves, and rise with Christ"?

Stevil- I always appreciate your honesty, and I don't mind having disagreements if we're honest about it

If Satan and God are at odds, then there has to be an objective and absolute standard of Morality for them to be at odds.  Whichever one you say is Good or Evil is up to you.

The bible makes many notions that Satan is the Evil one, the arch enemy, and tempted Jesus.  So throughout the gospel, Jesus(God) and Satan are at odds.

So if the bible is inspired by Satan, it would not depict him as the outcast.

As for other holy texts, the bible says that if any other man or angel comes preaching a gospel other than the one the apostles preached, let him be eternally condemned (demon).  So the other Holy Texts such as Islam or Mormonism, who were revealed by angels, could be Satanically inspired.  By the way, Mohammed was noted as being 'possessed', whatever that means...?? ha

If Satan were real, and he was truly evil, wouldn't you think he would want you to sympathize with him against God?

Quote from: "defendor"If Satan and God are at odds, then there has to be an objective and absolute standard of Morality for them to be at odds.  Whichever one you say is Good or Evil is up to you.

I am not advocating that Satan is the good one. It could be either or. I mean, Satan or YHWH are just names. The actual name of the good one as opposed to the bad one is beside the point. For arguments sake lets just say that God (YHWH) is the good one. The point is the description of God and the role each character plays out in the story. To non Christians the story seems dubious. The God character although we are told is perfect, appears to tell lies e.g. telling Adam and Eve that they will die if they eat the apple, kills a bunch of Egyptians (excuse me if I am wrong here, I haven't read it, just heared about it) just to prove that he/she exists and is more powerfull than their gods. Kills almost everyone (great flood) in order to start again. It just doesn't seem right.
Then we have the Devil (Satan) character that is the source of evil and turns people against God (the apple story) but then it seems that it was all God's plan, to give free will and let people choose their destiny. So here to me it seems that the two characters are working together towards a common goal.

If Satan had in inch of intelligence then he/she would not work towards God's plan but would work contrary. The best way would be to distribute misinformation. Make it believable but just misleading enough to cause disruption and conflict. To me this seems to be the effect of the respective scirptures. I am not saying that this is actually what happened. It just seems to me that no one actually knows. There is no evidence and nothing other than theories to suggest what is the truth here. I have heard people argue that the bible is the word of God, I have heard people argue that the bible is the word of people. I am now suggesting an alternative, maybe the bible is the deciption of Satan. It seems to me that we cannot know what the source is and hence the book cannot be trusted.

With regards to an "absolute standard of Morality" it has taken me much time, thought and discussion to try and work out what Christians mean when they say this. So far I think that they don't mean that everyone just knows what is right and wrong and this is obviously the case because people often disagree. So what do Christians mean by this? I am currently thinking that they mean the absolute standard of morality is that which is presented within the pages of the bible. That which they call absolute or objective is that which is the opinion of the God as described in the bible. Is this true? Is this what Christian's mean by absolute standard or Morality? or objective morality?

Quote from: "defendor"The bible makes many notions that Satan is the Evil one, the arch enemy, and tempted Jesus.  So throughout the gospel, Jesus(God) and Satan are at odds.

That's not how I see it. To me it seems that Satan is a crucial ingrediant in the bible story, a crucial factor in God's plan to bestow free will and choice for or away from God. If there is no away, then there is no choice, right?

Quote from: "defendor"So if the bible is inspired by Satan, it would not depict him as the outcast.

Its intent is not to make Satan the hero, as I said you could simply keep the original story and switch the names Satan and YHWH. Satan most likely does not care for worship or praise of humans. Its intent is to misinform God's followers, to turn them against Gods plan. Its intent is to harm God and ruin God's plan. Potentially to be disruptive for people on earth. I feel the various conflicting religions based on their scriptures are disruptive and are causing great conflict.

Quote from: "defendor"If Satan were real, and he was truly evil, wouldn't you think he would want you to sympathize with him against God?

As above, I don't think that would be the ultimate goal. If Satan were to keep his/her eyes on the goal and not be side tracked by selfish desires then the deception would be more likely to suceed.

Quote from: "defendor"Job is an interesting Book.  It is written in a Hebrew poetic prose, in conjunction with other books of poetry such as Ecclesiastes and Psalms.  The poetry is to show the inner struggle of a believer in dire circumstances of suffering in such an organic and human way that relates to those going through struggles.

Yeah, not really. It's a crappy story, and I don't think many people relate to Job.

QuoteI should mention, the bible says "glory in our sufferings, because we know that suffering produces perseverance;  perseverance, character; and character, hope." This is the hope we have in Christ "if indeed we share in his sufferings in order that we may also share in his glory. I consider that our present sufferings are not worth comparing with the glory that will be revealed in us."

Why is the suffering necessary for this? Also, Job's family and servants were killed during this dare -- it was part of Job's suffering.

QuoteWhat happened to Job may seem unjust, but what did Job do so good that God owed Job anything?

...Wow.

QuoteHe was a righteous man and God's glory was to be revealed in Job, whether through trial or triumph.

God's glory that lets his most devout followers be tortured mercilessly and his family and servants killed?

QuoteThis shows God's sovereignty, to be feared as Abraham and the Apostles who saw Jesus walk on the water. The bible says the apostles who saw Jesus walking on water were terrified.

And yet, we're also supposed to love him with all our hearts at the same time. Kind of mixed messages there.

QuoteSo God is sovereign over everything, that nothing is in our life that God doesn't permit, for His Glory. I mean that sounds pretty egotistical, but when we see it from our perspective it normally does. If deep down in our beings of the elect (those who are saved) want to be with Christ, but the only thing that stands in our way is us, why wouldn't God allow suffering so that we may "die to ourselves, and rise with Christ"?

Again, why is the suffering and death of his family necessary?

God is allowing Satan to work for a common goal, - "God's Glory"

God works all things in revealing his glory.  He allowed free will, and created everything as Good.  Adam and Eve didn't need to experience Bad to know what is Good.

Legendary Sandwich -You didn't answer my question

"what did Job do so Good that God owed Job?"  When God created Job, allowed him to prosper, and brought him everything he had. The lord gives and the lord takes away.

Suffering isn't necessary.  Its a broken world we live in and God uses it for his Greater purpose.  

I think both of these thoughts are essentially the same, I don't know how much this will be, but maybe it could shed some light

http://www.desiringgod.org/resource-lib ... lls-in-god (http://www.desiringgod.org/resource-library/articles/are-there-two-wills-in-god)

I guess what I am asking is - Why would I forgo my values and instead follow the values taught in the bible.
I trust myself in that my intent is to be a good person, I am not always good but I am trying, sometimes my actions are misguided but I learn lessons and end up a better person.

How can the bible make me an even better person?

I don't know the true intent behind the creation of the bible, was it to control people, was it a deception, was it God's word?

How can me thinking that homosexuals are sinners make me a better person than I am today? Why should I not simply follow my values that I have developed over the many years of my life? My values of respect, equality, non judgement, love and acceptance. Would I really be improving myself by thinking that women are here to support men, by thinking that Christians shouldn't marry non Christians, that children should not be taught sex education, that people shouldn't practice safe sex. How do these things make me a better person?

this makes sense

Quote from: "defendor"Suffering isn't necessary.  Its a broken world we live in and God uses it for his Greater purpose.  

Even IF this were true, I will still take Ivan Karamazov's stand. I will not accept.

Quote from: "Ivan Karamazov"It's not that I don't accept God, you must understand; it's the world created by Him I don't and cannot accept.

Quote from: "defendor"God is allowing Satan to work for a common goal, - "God's Glory"

God works all things in revealing his glory.

Without Satan, God's plan "glory" simply would not work. Satan is crucial towards God's glory.
Satan is much more important and essential than any of the angels, saints, or apostles. It would be quite an interesting debate to work out which character is more important Jesus or Satan.

If one believes in God and Satan then one could see the vital importance Satan offers in making God's plan an actuality. Satan should be praised for the tireless effort and hard work seemingly in a selfless fashion, whilst only being vilified by God's worshipers in return.

I would actually say that Christians ought to love Satan just as an all loving God no doubt would love Satan. The work Satan is providing is actually getting you closer to heaven as it helps to challenge you and provides you with ample opportunity to learn and to grow and to prove your worth to God.

If Satan stopped working, then God's plan would be ruined. There would be no free will, not tests, no good and evil, earth would be pointless for Christians.
I actually read into the bible that God and Satan are one in the same. If they are not then they are very, very close and both are working tirelessly towards the same goal, the salvation of your soul.

Of course I believe in neither, and have no vested interest in promoting Satan, but I do see the strange false dichotomy imposed by Christians on to the concepts of God and Satan. A catch-22 where Satan is vilified however essential in God's plan. Same thing goes for Judas who was crucial in God's plan for the resurrection which was extremely important and positive for Christians.
 
Of course this is all based on the stories of the bible, which I currently don't have a belief that this book can be trusted.

Quote from: "Stevil"

Quote from: "defendor"God is allowing Satan to work for a common goal, - "God's Glory"

God works all things in revealing his glory.

Without Satan, God's plan "glory" simply would not work. Satan is crucial towards God's glory.
Satan is much more important and essential than any of the angels, saints, or apostles. It would be quite an interesting debate to work out which character is more important Jesus or Satan.

If one believes in God and Satan then one could see the vital importance Satan offers in making God's plan an actuality. Satan should be praised for the tireless effort and hard work seemingly in a selfless fashion, whilst only being vilified by God's worshipers in return.

I would actually say that Christians ought to love Satan just as an all loving God no doubt would love Satan. The work Satan is providing is actually getting you closer to heaven as it helps to challenge you and provides you with ample opportunity to learn and to grow and to prove your worth to God.

If Satan stopped working, then God's plan would be ruined. There would be no free will, not tests, no good and evil, earth would be pointless for Christians.
I actually read into the bible that God and Satan are one in the same. If they are not then they are very, very close and both are working tirelessly towards the same goal, the salvation of your soul.

Of course I believe in neither, and have no vested interest in promoting Satan, but I do see the strange false dichotomy imposed by Christians on to the concepts of God and Satan. A catch-22 where Satan is vilified however essential in God's plan. Same thing goes for Judas who was crucial in God's plan for the resurrection which was extremely important and positive for Christians.
 
Of course this is all based on the stories of the bible, which I currently don't have a belief that this book can be trusted.

What I think would like to see is Satan repenting. That'd throw everyone for a loop.  

Quote from: "ForTheLoveOfAll"What I think would like to see is Satan repenting. That'd throw everyone for a loop.  

or the Trinity expanded with Satan being the new member to the fold.
Father, Son, Holy Spirit, and Accuser

Funny, looking up "Satan" on Wiki

Quote...an accuser appointed by God to test men's faith

Seems this was the original Hebrew idea of Satan but it got changed (bastardised) by Christianity and Islam.
The Hebrew idea seems much more logical to me, but the importance is so staggering I would be tempted to expand the Trinity.

Vote Stevil for Pope, and I will delivery you the Quadrinity!

Quote from: "Stevil"

Quote from: "ForTheLoveOfAll"What I think would like to see is Satan repenting. That'd throw everyone for a loop.  

or the Trinity expanded with Satan being the new member to the fold.
Father, Son, Holy Spirit, and Accuser

Funny, looking up "Satan" on Wiki

Quote...an accuser appointed by God to test men's faith

Seems this was the original Hebrew idea of Satan but it got changed (bastardised) by Christianity and Islam.
The Hebrew idea seems much more logical to me, but the importance is so staggering I would be tempted to expand the Trinity.

Vote Stevil for Pope, and I will delivery you the Quadrinity!

I just find it a cruel joke that we have to believe on "faith", or be tested, especially when something as ridiculous as eternal suffering of our souls is on the line.

Quote from: "ForTheLoveOfAll"I just find it a cruel joke that we have to believe on "faith", or be tested, especially when something as ridiculous as eternal suffering of our souls is on the line.

A non Christian would see this as the push (motive) for one to trust the bible and just go with it, it works especially well with children who start off with a trusting nature and desire to learn but only develop reasoning and doubt later on in their lives.

There are also a lot of people in the world with superstition fueled fear of the unknown, especially in countries that lack an offering of decent education.

Quote from: "Stevil"

Quote from: "ForTheLoveOfAll"I just find it a cruel joke that we have to believe on "faith", or be tested, especially when something as ridiculous as eternal suffering of our souls is on the line.

A non Christian would see this as the push (motive) for one to trust the bible and just go with it, it works especially well with children who start off with a trusting nature and desire to learn but only develop reasoning and doubt later on in their lives.

There are also a lot of people in the world with superstition fueled fear of the unknown, especially in countries that lack an offering of decent education.

For those who don't have the scientific knowledge we do, superstitious beliefs fill a natural human desire to "know" what this life, this reality, is all about. Two thousand or so years ago I'm sure this was one of the most valid understanding about the Universe available, but old habits die hard, eh?

And yes. Children see their parents as God, as perfect, and believe whatever they're told for the most part, at least untill they reach the "age of reason." Though certain beliefs, especially if the entire community around the family believes the same thing, will last well into adulthood, religious beliefs especially, though this is probably because of the fear of Hell that was instilled in them in their younger days more than anything else.

The reason we don't believe in Santa Claus anymore is because nobody ever said you'd go to Hell for not believing.

Quote from: "ForTheLoveOfAll"The reason we don't believe in Santa Claus anymore is because nobody ever said you'd go to Hell for not believing.

Then why do we have adult Buddhists? The reasons for continued religiosity are far more complex than simply the notion of Hell.

Salvation is not for Angels

Other religions try to compensate for the sin and suffering of this world.  Buddhism is a reclusion to an inner state of peace that is unaffected by the brokenness of the world around.  Hinduism says all is God, the good, and the bad.  So every religion deals with the question of evil.

Stevil- Why do we trust in the bible?  Because it is not about us.  We are dependent on an interactive God to build us up, not our own effort.  

If we are mostly good, why is there so much evil?

I also think you misinterpret Satan.  In the garden of Eden, Adam and Eve already had the choice to do bad or good.  But Satan is known as the "tempter".  The bible also says that we are dragged away by our own flesh and enticed by our own desires.  So the ability to do bad or good is already within us.  Satan and his minions only tempt us, but never push us in any direction.  But in our own desire, we already do bad.  We don't do the good that we want to do.  It may make us grow, but it doesn't make us better.  

I found this and think you might like it http://www.ligonier.org/learn/articles/cosmic-treason/ (http://www.ligonier.org/learn/articles/cosmic-treason/)

Wildfire_emissary- this isn't the best world, but the best way to the best world.

Quote from: "defendor"Stevil- Why do we trust in the bible?  Because it is not about us.  We are dependent on an interactive God to build us up, not our own effort.

I see a strong dependancy trait being taught to Christians. Dependancy on the Bible, dependancy on the Church and dependancy on your spiritual leaders/guides. It seems that you have willingly given up your right to be an individual, to be an adult and make your own value/moral based decisions. You no longer have faith in yourself, moral fortitude and self belief that you can be good. You are tagged as a sinful sinner, at war with your God who you so much want to love and be loved by.

Quote from: "defendor"I also think you misinterpret Satan.  In the garden of Eden, Adam and Eve already had the choice to do bad or good.  But Satan is known as the "tempter".  The bible also says that we are dragged away by our own flesh and enticed by our own desires.  So the ability to do bad or good is already within us.  Satan and his minions only tempt us, but never push us in any direction.  

I am no authority on Satan, so most likely misinterpret. If Satan is unnessesary then why does this character have such a large role in the bible? And why does it seem to reinforce god's plan rather than disrupt (given the assumption that Satan hates God)?
I feel Satan was introduced because otherwise people would assume that Evil comes from the perfect, all loving, Good God.
I feel there is credible reason to doubt the stories pertaining to Satan and Satan's actions within the bible. Ether the bible is a fabrication of man, or a decipt of Satan. I struggle with the concept that the bible is the honest and true word of God. I just don't feel that anyone can know this.

Quote from: "defendor"I found this and think you might like it http://www.ligonier.org/learn/articles/cosmic-treason/ (http://www.ligonier.org/learn/articles/cosmic-treason/)

Do you not find the message scary Defendor?
I read that the author is telling us that if we trangress "sin" then we are at war with God. It appears to me that the message is that we should just do as we are bloody well told and not to think about whether what we are told is right or wrong. If we want to be in God's Grace then just do as you are told.

So those that are willing to become Christians are willing to give up their right to think, their right to make decisions and instead follow a 2,000 year old book. they are willing to treat other people poorly in the hope that their actions bring them into God's grace. Is this not a selfish way to think? Doing things because it will get them into heaven?
I feel that I will continue to treat all people with respect. If God exists and I get to meet God one day then God can confront me about this if he/she chooses to. If God is not happy, then that is God's problem not mine. I will conduct myself in a way that I feel is appropriate, I will not compromise my values to make God happy.

well a few interesting points.  I think there is one main point in this.  The misunderstanding of the sovereignty of God.  From the understanding our Free Will within the realms of God's free will or his sovereignty.

I appreciate your admission of ignorance, I probably have no idea what I'm talking about either, I just pray the Holy Spirit reveals to you through some of this.

So to kinda help illustrate the ideas of Evil.  You are absolutely right.  I believe God ordained and allowed evil.  I do not think he created it, but he did not stop it and could have.  So this begs the question, WHY?  that seems so unjust and unfair.  But I would like to make a few mentions in this.  

God's foresight- God has ordained and created Good, and only things that exist come from Him and his power.  So he did allow evil.  Before I go on,

Good is not Evil and Evil is not Good.  There has to be a clear distinction.  You can't tell me what's evil and what's not evil, you can tell me what's evil and good in regards to yourself. I may agree with some of those notions, but in an atheistic worldview there is no external framework for anyone is to accept your notion of evil, or to accept your standard as the true measure of it. Dan Barker described morality in the following simple way : the minimization of harm.  Such as Barkers silly one, I mean what the heck is harm? I'm sure Hitler felt killing the Jews was a minimization of harm to German society. The problem of evil, that the atheist attempts to paint, that an all loving and all powerful god would not allow evil to exist in the world, is incoherent, because your positing an objective standard for what morality is to be, your positing your sense of morality to have an external authority which it doesn't have. In order for the problem of evil to be true it has to be objectively immoral, for an all powerful and all loving being to not allow evil to exist. How else would you refute, that it's moral for an all powerful and all loving  being to allow our world to exists at it is now, with it good and it's evil? The problem of evil only works, if you paint an objective standard for morality, and an objective standard for morality, requires a belief in an external authority to make it so.

How do we account for this moral law? The answer is that there must be a universal moral law Giver. It would be more than just odd if we had this universal moral law without someone to give it. In fact, if a universal moral law just arbitrarily existed on its own (which is unlikely, but we'll just assume it for the sake of argument), then it would seem there is no moral foundation for believing it. Sure, it exists, but that does not explain why it is the right standard to obey. The plain truth is that laws exist, because someone wrote them. What can we know about this universal moral law Giver? Just on the evidence of the moral law, I believe we can deduce (at least) three attributes of the moral law Giver. First, the moral law Giver must be the kind of being that gives moral commands. Otherwise, there would no moral law which we follow. Second, the moral law Giver must be interested in our behavior. Why give rules and laws if there is no interest in how we live? The law Giver must be concerned with how we're living, or else He wouldn't give us guidelines on how to behave. Third, the moral law Giver must be absolutely good. In order to set the absolute standard of what is right and wrong, this law Giver must be qualified to do so. The typical crisis at this point is called the "Euthyphro dilemma" (named after Plato's dialogue that first pointed this out). It seems that we are stuck saying either (a) whatever the moral law Giver wills is right, because He says so or (b) the moral law Giver commands what is right. The dilemma is that (a) suggests the moral law is just the arbitrary whims of the moral law Giver, hence He could have made anything (like rape or murder) morally right, and (b) suggests that there is something higher than the moral law Giver. However, there is a way to escape this dilemma, and that is by saying that the moral law emmanates from the eternal nature of the moral law Giver. In other words, the moral law Giver's inherent nature is good, so what flows from Him will be good.

Is the Moral Law "Herd Instinct?"

By "herd instinct," I mean something developed by our physical nature like evolution or survival of the fittest. This would mean that whatever the strongest impulse in us is we ought to follow it. The problem with this is that our our strongest impulse is not always the right thing to do. For example there are times when self-sacrifice is the right thing to do, yet it is not something that could be explained by herd instinct. Furthermore, this tries to get something more from something less. Morality is more than just our physical nature. It seems absurdly false that the sermon on the mount came from primordial ooze. You cannot get something like morality from something like nature, herd instinct, or evolution.

Is the Moral Law Just a Social Convention?

We often learn morality through social convention, but that does not prove that morality is reducible to social conventions. We learn things also like mathematics and logic through social institutions, but we know that math and logic are not reducible to society. It is strange that, on this view, we can accept groups of people as the source of morality, but not individuals. It is not clear why this distinction should be made. Of course, this would also lead to other problems like all societies being morally equal (hence Nazi society is as equally moral as Mother Theresa), and moral progress within a society would be impossible to measure. How could we say society improved, if the standard is set by society? This would also lead to the absurd conclusion that advocates of social change, like Martin Luther King Jr., are evil, since they oppose what is acceptable according to social convention. Clearly, morality cannot come from social convention.

Is the Moral Law My Will Itself?

Some suppose that the moral law is something we must impose upon ourself. Many believe Immanuel Kant proposed morality in this function. Yet, this too cannot fully account for the nature of morality. This would make the one being held responsible to the rules as the same person giving the rules. It seems rather pointless to have morality on one's own terms. Why even bother with morality at all? Even if one puts tough restrictions on oneself, one can change them as it becomes convenient. It is like a jailor who locks himself in a cell, but keeps the key. The appearance of being confined to his jail cell is illusive. He is not really bound to his cell because at any time he can unlock it and leave. Therefore, our own will cannot account for the moral law.

Could There Be No Moral Law?

Perhaps we have these moral intuitions, but they are all just our own fancy. In other words, there is no moral law. The problem with this view is that the moral law is not a mere description of human behavior but a prescription for human behavior. If the moral law were something we could just cast off and live without, this could be a plausible solution, but living without the moral law is simply impossible. Since we did not create it, we cannot just cast it off. Also, we cannot escape the moral law because it is impressed upon us. Ultimately this would lapse into moral relativism leaving all moral statements and actions meaningless, thus making Adolf Hitler and Mother Theresa equally good and evil. Such a view of morality is not only impossible to live in practice, but obviously wrong when comparing saints and villains (like Hitler and Mother Theresa).

So with this in mind, and referring to God's foresight, "what you meant for evil, God meant for Good."  God has a higher purpose than settling the quandaries of moral dilemmas.  Is it necessary to show God's power? NO, but is that the case we are dealing with now? yes.  So I reiterate, this is not the best world, but the best way to the best world.  God has a higher purpose, and farther and grander perspective, so he allows evil for Good.  This is an interesting thing.  Good sees the evil, and uses it for the greater good.  The greater good is his glory to be revealed.  I'm from the Dallas/fort worth area, and there is a baseball player named Josh Hamilton.  The dude is a beast and super religious guy.  He has been in and out of rehab 9 times.  Why did God allow this man to suffer through such distress.  So that Josh's story has nothing to do with his own might, but the might of God.  Check out the Christian website, "I am second."  This is the hope we have, that we don't have to save ourselves, we let God do the saving for us.  

But also, I mentioned a verse that we sin and we do the evil that we wanted to do in the first place.  Adam and Eve wanted to sin and disobey God, or else they wouldn't have done it.  We all do things in the moment we want, but later regret it.  But at one time, in one place, we wanted to do something that we innately knew was wrong.  We in our beings are at war with God, and this is how it is shown.  But how gracious is it that He made a way to reconcile this, through the shedding of blood from his own son.  This is where such intangible ideas such as Evil, Justice, Love and Forgiveness all meet in one place at one time.  We see the Evil it was on a spotless lamb, God's justice to eradicate sin, out of Love did he do this, for the forgiveness of our sins.  It is a horrible thought to hear how at odds we are with Christ, but until we hear the Good News of Christ.  Simply doing good, as if God will somehow be in debt to you, is not sufficient payment. If God is real and all this and all that, he would make a way to know him, and has made the way known.  "I am the Way, the Truth, the Life"- Jesus

First off, I must be open about my bias, I have no belief in Good or Evil, neither do I have a belief in objective morality.

Quote from: "defendor"How do we account for this moral law? The answer is that there must be a universal moral law Giver. It would be more than just odd if we had this universal moral law without someone to give it.

There are two dilemas with regards to objective morality.
1. Who or what is the authority?
2. How do the people know of the objective morals?

You, no doubt would say the answer to 1. is the Christian god. I would think this is an assumption, based on your faith.
I am unsure what you would say with regards to 2. If you say that God imprinted it into us, then we know that is wrong because people often disagree with regards to moralities. Christians often refer back to their scriptures rather than follow their own thoughts and feelings, so potentially you might say that the bible is how people would know. I would say for the billions of people that do not refer to the bible, there is no objective morality.

Quote from: "defendor"In other words, the moral law Giver's inherent nature is good, so what flows from Him will be good.

Here are a couple of assumptions made by Christians and Christians only (1 God is inherently good and hence only creates good objective morals, 2 the bible is the direct word of God). A non Christian does not think of the Christian god as inherently good and does not think of the bible as the word of God. A non Christian will make critical assessments of Christian morals and hence may or may not agree with them. I personaly would like to see Christians think more deeply about the morals presented in the bible. e.g. Is it truly good to think of homosexuals as sinners and homosexual sex as a sin? What is the outcome of this stance? Are there victims to a Christian having this stance? Are there victims if a Christian refuses to hold onto this stance?

Quote from: "defendor"The appearance of being confined to his jail cell is illusive. He is not really bound to his cell because at any time he can unlock it and leave. Therefore, our own will cannot account for the moral law.

This is misleading, if a person holds a value to be true and acts contrary to that value because of their desires it doesn't mean that the person doesn't recognise that they have compromised one of their values. I feel a big problem with religion is to paint the world as black and white. There are often times that values clash with each other or with our desires. People need to make choices, these are not always the right choices, people make mistakes, people go through different stages in their lives, grow and have their values and desires reassessed. Life is complex and dynamic and can't simply be painted black and white.

Quote from: "defendor"Since we did not create it, we cannot just cast it off. Also, we cannot escape the moral law because it is impressed upon us. Ultimately this would lapse into moral relativism leaving all moral statements and actions meaningless, thus making Adolf Hitler and Mother Theresa equally good and evil. Such a view of morality is not only impossible to live in practice, but obviously wrong when comparing saints and villains (like Hitler and Mother Theresa).

The problem with this is that Christians have simply rebranded values as morals and then claimed these as Christianities morals with the Christian god being the authority. There are many reasons for people to have values and this values system does not require a religion or authority. I feel society as a whole is constantly changing and refining its values. The society values of today are alot different to what they were in the 1960s. Each generation of people are greatly impacted by their culture, upbringing and society in general, our informative years are during an early stage of our lives and these thoughts/habbits are hard to break later in life, hence we often have a generational gap with regards to respective personal values of people. Society is evolving, beyond religion, beyond old ideas of predjudice and persecution. I feel that we are maturing with regards to our values and creating a much more equality based and tolerant society. We aren't perfect but we are improving. I do however feel that rigid traditions are holding us back, this includes religions. We need to use our heads and evolve, otherwise as a society we will never improve.

Quote from: "LegendarySandwich"

Quote from: "ForTheLoveOfAll"The reason we don't believe in Santa Claus anymore is because nobody ever said you'd go to Hell for not believing.

Then why do we have adult Buddhists? The reasons for continued religiosity are far more complex than simply the notion of Hell.

Buddhism is one of the few religions I hold respect for. There are secular Buddhists. Alan Watts is one of my favorite examples. There are alot of spiritual practicies that Atheists can benefit from. Things like meditation, for example. The search is not necessasarily for something spiritual, but for something still unknown.

Another reason could simply be because they've been brought up with it their entire lives, and old habits die hard?

Quote from: "Event_Horizon"

Quote...and because you don't understand the concept of freewill, truth, inability to lie, justice, love...

Talk about an ad hominem attack. I do know what free will and truth and justice and love is, and I get fucking pissed when someone says that atheists don't know what those things are.

Not an attack at all.  No reason to get f'ing pissed.  It's based on the fact that true freewill means one must be able to choose from ALL choices.  If Evil is hidden, then the giving of freewill is a lie.  That's what I mean when I say *you don't understand what freewill, truth, the inability to lie, justice and love mean.  All these are attributes of God's nature.  In other words, it's what God cannot change of himself.  Yes, He's not "all-powerful" as you define it.  Is it better to keep fire away from a child so that they cannot get burned?  Of course.  But then how does one keep the house warm for the child?  How does one cook for the child?  Are we not able to live in harmony with the fact that fire burns?  There are good uses for fire.  Likewise, there is at least one good use for Evil (that I can think of anyway) and that is that to know what Evil is, is to appreciate Good all the more.  It goes back to the analogy of a blind person who has lived in darkness all their life.  Try explaining white, or light, or colors to a person that has never seen anything.

Quote from: "AnimatedDirt"

Quote from: "Event_Horizon"

Quote...and because you don't understand the concept of freewill, truth, inability to lie, justice, love...

Talk about an ad hominem attack. I do know what free will and truth and justice and love is, and I get fucking pissed when someone says that atheists don't know what those things are.

Not an attack at all.  No reason to get f'ing pissed.  It's based on the fact that true freewill means one must be able to choose from ALL choices.  If Evil is hidden, then the giving of freewill is a lie.  That's what I mean when I say *you don't understand what freewill, truth, the inability to lie, justice and love mean.  All these are attributes of God's nature.  In other words, it's what God cannot change of himself.  Yes, He's not "all-powerful" as you define it.  Is it better to keep fire away from a child so that they cannot get burned?  Of course.  But then how does one keep the house warm for the child?  How does one cook for the child?  Are we not able to live in harmony with the fact that fire burns?  There are good uses for fire.  Likewise, there is at least one good use for Evil (that I can think of anyway) and that is that to know what Evil is, is to appreciate Good all the more.  It goes back to the analogy of a blind person who has lived in darkness all their life.  Try explaining white, or light, or colors to a person that has never seen anything.

I'll go ahead and admit I'm ignorant to most of the posts on this thread thus far, since I'm in lecture I can't really read all of it right now.
But how can free will exist with an omniscient God?

Quote from: "Tokage"But how can free will exist with an omniscient God?

Is this question really making a statement?
If given free will/choice, how is the knowledge what one will choose not free will?

Quote from: "AnimatedDirt"Is this question really making a statement?
If given free will/choice, how is the knowledge what one will choose not free will?

I have to say, I can't really see a problem with AD's logic here.

Quote from: "AnimatedDirt"

Quote from: "Tokage"But how can free will exist with an omniscient God?

Is this question really making a statement?
If given free will/choice, how is the knowledge what one will choose not free will?

Simple:
If you walk to a fork in your path and God already know's you will go left, how can you do anything but go left?
Can you go right? If so God isn't omniscient, if not then you are by definition without free will.
How are you anything but a character in a book that's already been written? Please explain to me how you can consider that free will.
If you're actions are already pre-determined, how can you have free will?

Quote from: "Tokage"

Quote from: "AnimatedDirt"

Quote from: "Tokage"But how can free will exist with an omniscient God?

Is this question really making a statement?
If given free will/choice, how is the knowledge what one will choose not free will?

Simple:
If you walk to a fork in your path and God already know's you will go left, how can you do anything but go left?
Can you go right? If so God isn't omniscient, if not then you are by definition without free will.
How are you anything but a character in a book that's already been written? Please explain to me how you can consider that free will.
If you're actions are already pre-determined, how can you have free will?

This is so silly.  So just because He knows your CHOICE removes the fact that you chose?
Pre-known does not equal pre-determined.

Simple:
If you walk to a fork in your path and God already know's you will go left, how can you do anything but go left?
Can you go right? If so God isn't omniscient, if not then you are by definition without free will.
How are you anything but a character in a book that's already been written? Please explain to me how you can consider that free will.
If you're actions are already pre-determined, how can you have free will?[/quote]
This is so silly.  So just because He knows your CHOICE removes the fact that you chose?
Pre-known does not equal pre-determined.[/quote]

Yes, and I just explained to you why, and you neglected to address the question, so I will try again, its very simple actually.

If this God knows whether you'll chose to go left or right before you make that decision, how can you make anything but that choice?
You are by definition without free will.
What you're saying is equivalent to someone saying: "Just because JK Rowling wrote the books, doesn't mean Harry Potter didn't have a choice what he wanted to do, pre-know does not equal pre-determined"

Please address my question and explain to me how you are able to have free will with this system.

You're right on one level: Pre-know is not necessarily pre-determined, that depends on whether or not the one who know's can be wrong. If they cannot, then they are essentially forcing the outcome to be what they already know, because we've established that they CAN NOT be wrong. Do you understand?
Unless you're saying you're God can be wrong?

(I messed up the formatting on the quoting a bit I think, I hope you're still able to understand it)

Quote from: "AnimatedDirt"This is so silly.  So just because He knows your CHOICE removes the fact that you chose?
Pre-known does not equal pre-determined.

If I know before I create something that it is going to have certain characteristics then by continuting to create that something I have pre-determined what it will be.

In order for choice to be protected while maintaining foreknowledge god would know all possible paths I might choose but wouldn't know the path I will walk on till I'm actually walking.

I have a paper about this somewhere from when I took philosophy of religion...though I doubt I'll be able to find it because I think it's in one of the many boxes of research materials/papers we have saved.

On the question of Free Will- I believe we have an aspect of Free Will, but not to be completely autonomous.  For instance, you didn't choose to be born, you didn't choose your family, you didn't choose where you were born, you didn't choose your intelligence, etc.  So we do have free will, but it is in the confines of a sovereign God.  God allows certain things and keeps certain things still.  This is the difference between Total Depravity and Utter Depravity.  For instance, Hitler was totally depraved, but we could make the case he could've been a whole lot worse.  So we do have free will, but it isn't an all inclusive will that makes us our definer of reality.  There is a uniform reality and we all exist as a part of it.  Idk God's providential plan or how it works for I live in the confines of time.  He lives on the outside, so the perspective is different.  But God's providence extends for us to be able to choose certain paths within a moral boundary of God's supreme will.


Stevil-
The authority of a Moral law has to be an external force that is ultimate good from which we can base our individual notions of Good off of. - God
The objective morals are written on every mans heart by God to regard things as good and things as evil.  For instance, why do you define good and evil? and How?

Is homosexuality a sin? Yes.  Why? it defies God's creative order and is unnatural to reproductive society.  I think bonobo chimps engage in homosexuality as well, but not in intercourse, as I am aware of.  But then you see a lack of moral law and the acceptance of such even with animals.  So God designed a way to exist, and this is in direct defiance of God's will.  Also, from every homosexual I have noticed, there has always been either a lack of a Father figure, or an abusive Father figure.  So again, unnatural.  I sympathize with those in such positions, I believe they can be saved, and some are saved, but are instructed to leave their life of sin.

If someone doesn't have objective values, they still paint their own world black and white, but have the ability to change it constantly without ever scratching any discourse of objective morality.

There is a difference between innate worth and societal norms.  There is an innate value placed on Humans, and culture is a completely different turkey.  So as our culture progresses, there have been many movements to accept the intrinsic value of every man, i.e. the civil rights movement of the 60's.  If there is no objective moral standard that gives equal rights to all humans, then they were simply defying the law and needed to be treated with justice, thus no injustice would be present.  But I'm sure you personally disagree, but on no standard can you exclaim truth without objectivity even with morality.  If there was no such thing as morality, then how could we ever know what it was or who was in violation of it?  So I refer back to my initial point, how and why do you define morals?

Quote from: "defendor"On the question of Free Will- I believe we have an aspect of Free Will, but not to be completely autonomous.  For instance, you didn't choose to be born, you didn't choose your family, you didn't choose where you were born, you didn't choose your intelligence, etc.

Actually we do get to choose our intelligence to an extent based on how hard you work, and your desire to gain knowledge.

 

Quote from: "defendor"So we do have free will, but it is in the confines of a sovereign God.  God allows certain things and keeps certain things still.  This is the difference between Total Depravity and Utter Depravity.  For instance, Hitler was totally depraved, but we could make the case he could've been a whole lot worse.  So we do have free will, but it isn't an all inclusive will that makes us our definer of reality.  There is a uniform reality and we all exist as a part of it.  Idk God's providential plan or how it works for I live in the confines of time.  He lives on the outside, so the perspective is different.  But God's providence extends for us to be able to choose certain paths within a moral boundary of God's supreme will.


Stevil-
The authority of a Moral law has to be an external force that is ultimate good from which we can base our individual notions of Good off of. - God
The objective morals are written on every mans heart by God to regard things as good and things as evil.  For instance, why do you define good and evil? and How?

Is homosexuality a sin? Yes.  Why? it defies God's creative order and is unnatural to reproductive society.  I think bonobo chimps engage in homosexuality as well, but not in intercourse, as I am aware of.  But then you see a lack of moral law and the acceptance of such even with animals.  So God designed a way to exist, and this is in direct defiance of God's will.  Also, from every homosexual I have noticed, there has always been either a lack of a Father figure, or an abusive Father figure.  So again, unnatural.  I sympathize with those in such positions, I believe they can be saved, and some are saved, but are instructed to leave their life of sin.

If someone doesn't have objective values, they still paint their own world black and white, but have the ability to change it constantly without ever scratching any discourse of objective morality.

There is a difference between innate worth and societal norms.  There is an innate value placed on Humans, and culture is a completely different turkey.  So as our culture progresses, there have been many movements to accept the intrinsic value of every man, i.e. the civil rights movement of the 60's.  If there is no objective moral standard that gives equal rights to all humans, then they were simply defying the law and needed to be treated with justice, thus no injustice would be present.  But I'm sure you personally disagree, but on no standard can you exclaim truth without objectivity even with morality.  If there was no such thing as morality, then how could we ever know what it was or who was in violation of it?  So I refer back to my initial point, how and why do you define morals?

How in the WORLD does any of this address the initial question of free will whitney and myself posed?  
You just spent 4 paragraphs dancing around the question and providing white noise, that amounts to absolutely nothing.

How can free will exist with an omniscient God??
If he know's what you're going to do before you do it, and can not be wrong, how can free will exist?

Quote from: "Whitney"If I know before I create something that it is going to have certain characteristics then by continuting to create that something I have pre-determined what it will be.

In a sense, I agree with you totally.  God knew that by creating a being with absolute free will, there would be danger.
Speaking as if we agree God exists:  God set out to create a free will agent, humanity.  He already had the example of Lucifer/Satan that already brought sin/pride into existence.  Prior to this (we assume as we have no other information) Evil did not exist, but only in concept of going against God.

If God set out to create a being that He could love and that being could love back by its own ability to choose to love, then there would be complications.  No doubt.  The point then stands to reason (if God is really God as defined) then it is impossible to create a being with full freewill knowledge without risk that this being will choose against God which is the choice for Evil.  Knowing this, God's plan to save His created was set before He created us.  The plan was relayed to Adam and Eve (implied in Genesis 3:21) and so instead of dooming all of humanity to the sins of Adam and Eve (which they were doomed as such), God's plan was banking (heh) on the fact that Man COULD choose God despite their sin.

Quote from: "Whitney"In order for choice to be protected while maintaining foreknowledge god would know all possible paths I might choose but wouldn't know the path I will walk on till I'm actually walking.

I disagree and again goes back to the point of simply knowing the specific choice from the possible choices does not remove the fact that the human (in this case) chose on its own.  It doesn't remove the fact that it chose.  God did not "hide" one to influence the choice for the other, as some have suggested God "should have done".  Both choices were set out.  In fact, the snake(Satan speaking through) made one choice more desireable by questioning God's exact words.

Quote from: "defendor"Is homosexuality a sin? Yes. Why? it defies God's creative order and is unnatural to reproductive society. I think bonobo chimps engage in homosexuality as well, but not in intercourse, as I am aware of. But then you see a lack of moral law and the acceptance of such even with animals. So God designed a way to exist, and this is in direct defiance of God's will. Also, from every homosexual I have noticed, there has always been either a lack of a Father figure, or an abusive Father figure. So again, unnatural. I sympathize with those in such positions, I believe they can be saved, and some are saved, but are instructed to leave their life of sin.

How would one know that a bonobo was engaging in homosexuality if they didn't engage in homosexual intercourse?  That just doesn't make any sense. Not only that, but it's just plain incorrect.  Below is a quote from a scientist who has studied bonobos.

QuoteFrom Why Bonobos Will Save the World (http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/your-inner-bonobo/201005/why-bonobos-will-save-the-world) by Vanessa Woods:

Bonobos have gay sex. For bonobos, sex is a mechanism to reduce tension. And you can't talk about two females rubbing clitorises together until they orgasm in documentaries, intelligent design classes, or to right wing demographics who believe homosexuality is unnatural.

Homosexuality is very common in the natural world:

QuoteFrom The Natural "Crime Against Nature" (http://www.bidstrup.com/sodomy.htm) by Scott Bidstrup:

Lest you are tempted to believe that all of this is highly unusual and well out of the ordinary, you're in for quite a surprise. Homosexual behavior is not only common, but even more common in other species than in humans. While numbers are hard to come by, there are a few that present some interesting patterns. In ostriches, male homosexuality is much more common than bisexuality, but among mule deer, bisexuality is more common than homosexuality. Among our closest living relatives, the bonobo chimpanzees, few if any are either exclusively heterosexual or homosexual. Indeed, all that have been observed are exclusively permanently bisexual.

You're just plain wrong.  Homosexuality is natural in people just as it is in other animals.  I've known plenty of homosexuals who grew up in "normal" families, so your anecdotal evidence that homosexuality has something to do with an absent or dysfunctional father figure is not pertinent.

Jesus said nothing at all pertaining to homosexuality.  In the New Testament, any passage pertaining to the subject was written by Paul, who never spoke with Jesus about homosexuality.  Paul was a Jew and was parroting ancient Jewish law regarding homosexuals, rather than conveying something Jesus said on the subject.

I did say, that I'm aware of

QuoteYou're just plain wrong. Homosexuality is natural in people just as it is in other animals. I've known plenty of homosexuals who grew up in "normal" families, so your anecdotal evidence that homosexuality has something to do with an absent or dysfunctional father figure is not pertinent.

Jesus said nothing at all pertaining to homosexuality. In the New Testament, any passage pertaining to the subject was written by Paul, who never spoke with Jesus about homosexuality. Paul was a Jew and was parroting ancient Jewish law regarding homosexuals, rather than conveying something Jesus said on the subject.

Its also in my nature to have sex with as many girls as possible, but I don't do it.  Some people prefer to eat people, that doesn't mean you have to.  Some people feel the need to murder, so are they wrong?  Do you do everything you "feel"?

QuoteHow in the WORLD does any of this address the initial question of free will whitney and myself posed?  
You just spent 4 paragraphs dancing around the question and providing white noise, that amounts to absolutely nothing.

How can free will exist with an omniscient God??
If he know's what you're going to do before you do it, and can not be wrong, how can free will exist?

Only the first paragraph was addressed to Free will.  Everything else was addressed to Stevil.  Hence the Stevil- before my text.  But, I'm not a full supporter of complete free will, for there are things you can't choose.  Read again, So we do have free will, but it is in the confines of a sovereign God. God allows certain things and keeps certain things still. This is the difference between Total Depravity and Utter Depravity. For instance, Hitler was totally depraved, but we could make the case he could've been a whole lot worse. So we do have free will, but it isn't an all inclusive will that makes us our definer of reality. There is a uniform reality and we all exist as a part of it. Idk God's providential plan or how it works for I live in the confines of time. He lives on the outside, so the perspective is different. But God's providence extends for us to be able to choose certain paths within a moral boundary of God's supreme will.  There is a limit to our Free will.  

I don't believe everything I have done or will do has been chosen for me before I do it regardless of me, but the foreknowledge doesn't discredit the choice itself.  How could it?

First of all, I'd like to say how I absolutely love how you ignore answering my example, because you simply have no answer for it. Why have you still neglected to do so? Nonetheless I want to address your response to whitney:

Quote from: "AnimatedDirt"In a sense, I agree with you totally.

O___O.....

 

Quote from: "AnimatedDirt"God knew that by creating a being with absolute free will, there would be danger.

..... :brick:

Quote from: "defendor"I did say, that I'm aware of

QuoteYou're just plain wrong. Homosexuality is natural in people just as it is in other animals. I've known plenty of homosexuals who grew up in "normal" families, so your anecdotal evidence that homosexuality has something to do with an absent or dysfunctional father figure is not pertinent.

Jesus said nothing at all pertaining to homosexuality. In the New Testament, any passage pertaining to the subject was written by Paul, who never spoke with Jesus about homosexuality. Paul was a Jew and was parroting ancient Jewish law regarding homosexuals, rather than conveying something Jesus said on the subject.

Its also in my nature to have sex with as many girls as possible, but I don't do it.  Some people prefer to eat people, that doesn't mean you have to.  Some people feel the need to murder, so are they wrong?  Do you do everything you "feel"?

So, gay people could live a lonely, miserable life without anyone they can truly love so they can live in accordance with the archaic morals of some book, or they could be themselves.

Quote from: "Tokage"First of all, I'd like to say how I absolutely love how you ignore answering my example, because you simply have no answer for it. Why have you still neglected to do so? Nonetheless I want to address your response to whitney:

I have addressed your question/post.  If Whitney's post addressed your question/point too, then I've not ignored you.

Quote from: "Tokage"Ok, AnimatedDirt, you're entire example is entirely irrelevant and useless until you get past what me and whitney have been asking, and I'll tell you why, again, for the third time, because you seem to be either ignoring what's being said or just don't want to address it directly. I'll yet again lay an example before you, but this time I'm going to add more detail for you:

Yet again I will say, there is nothing that does not go according to your God's plan, your God can not be wrong
** If you do not agree with the above statement, then say so, because otherwise, you're completely contradicting yourself, allow me to explain.

God's "plan" certainly didn't go according to "plan".  Proof?  Sin.  Full Stop.

Quote from: "Tokage"If you do agree with the above statement,

Notice, I don't agree.  You seem to have "plans" and "freewill" so twisted that up is down and right is left...and choice is no choice.

Quote from: "Tokage"then any atheist that has died as an atheist (and we can assume there have been hundreds of thousands) have died such according to your God's plan and ultimately are sent to hell by his will, Animated. Why?

Because again the "plan" is to save those who will be saved.  Otherwise, the rest have chosen to disbelieve.  Christ died for ALL so all can be, but not all will/want to be saved.  Some in fact, have no idea they need saving.  Some have the belief that they are in need of no such thing as salvation.  The PLAN is to save those that choose to be.

Quote from: "Tokage"If your God can not be wrong, and Atheists have died as such without accepting him, then your God has already forseen this before their very birth. Your God, by definition knew they would die as an Atheist from the moment they were born considering that he know's everything that will happen. Because of this, and because your God cannot be wrong, there is absolutely nothing that the said persons could have done other than die as Atheists, it would be impossible for them to even convert to Christianity because your God's plan already dictated that they die as an Atheist, or in other words are doomed to your blood thirsty God's hell from their birth.

Not at all.  You are wrong.  The choice remains whether you see it as a choice or not.  There is a fork (as you suggest) and there is a right and left path.  You have chosen whichever you deem appropriate.

Quote from: "Tokage"So to recap:

1.Your God has a plan (knows everything that will happen)

This is hardly a "plan".  Knowing everything that will happen is knowledge, not a plan.  This is simple elementary dictionary definitions so I'm not understanding why you would swap the definitions of words for other words.

Quote from: "Tokage"2.Your God cannot be wrong.

Define "wrong"  It seems I would agree with "God cannot be wrong", but in light of premise #1, I must ask.

Quote from: "Tokage"3.People have died as Atheists, which is unavoidable (see 1 and 2)

No where is there a plan for Atheists.  That it is unavoidable, is true.  The scriptures do not speak of a plan that saves all, but a plan that saves ALL that WILL be or in other words, the plan saves ALL that choose to be saved.

Quote from: "Tokage"4. Conclusion: Your God is ultimately responsible for everyone currently in hell, and has predetermined who is and isn't going to go to such a place before they have even been born (Again, see 1 and 2)

Your conclusion is based on false premises...and so it is flawed as pointed out above.

Quote from: "Tokage"If you would like to reconcile this, and prove that we do have a choice, then you will need to, for starters, explain how Atheists, and people of other religions have died as such, if you intend to hold premise 1 and 2 as correct.

Premise 1 (at least) is wrong...the rest fail if your conclusion is based on 1,2,3 being correct.

Quote from: "Tokage"Until then, you're assertion that we can choose to accept him is absolutely meaningless.

Again...you fail on #1.  It is then not meaningless.

Quote from: "Tokage"I will re-iterate to you again an earlier example. What you're now saying is equivalent to me saying "Well, Harry Potter had a choice to not be a wizard in the book, but he still became one anyway"

Again you fail.  The author of the book is directing the path of the CHARACTER.  God created a being with freewill to choose their path.  If the being chooses left or right remains the being's choice.  It matters not whether the creator of the freewill being knows the choice or not.  It bears no significance on the choice the being made for itself.

Quote from: "Tokage"? No he didn't, JK Rowling, dictates what happens because she is the author and has already written what will happen. The character Harry Potter can do nothing to change that, and as you flip through the pages can do absolutely nothing different than what the author has written on the next page.

Correct...the author wrote the whole thing from start to finish.  God didn't write the book, He created the being and the being defines it's own path.  God simply has knowledge of that path.  It wasn't dictated/predestined as one would author a book.

Quote from: "Tokage":brick:

All the animations in the world will not make your point for you.

Quote from: "defendor"Only the first paragraph was addressed to Free will.  Everything else was addressed to Stevil.  Hence the Stevil- before my text.

My appologies, I missed that.

 

Quote from: "defendor"But, I'm not a full supporter of complete free will, for there are things you can't choose.  Read again, So we do have free will, but it is in the confines of a sovereign Thor. Thor allows certain things and keeps certain things still. This is the difference between Total Depravity and Utter Depravity. For instance, Hitler was totally depraved, but we could make the case he could've been a whole lot worse. So we do have free will, but it isn't an all inclusive will that makes us our definer of reality. There is a uniform reality and we all exist as a part of it. Idk Thor's providential plan or how it works for I live in the confines of time. He lives on the outside, so the perspective is different. But Thor's providence extends for us to be able to choose certain paths within a moral boundary of Thor's supreme will.  There is a limit to our Free will.  

I don't believe everything I have done or will do has been chosen for me before I do it regardless of me, but the foreknowledge doesn't discredit the choice itself.  How could it?

First of all, see how I replaced every time you said "God" with "Thor" and how silly it makes it look? Does it make any sense to you when you look at that, if I were a believer in Thor and I had just written that paragraph to you?
Or does it just seem to be a blind set of assertions and white noise, back by absolutely nothing? You tell me.

Regardless though, you're still off track here. In your Hitler example for instance, how could Hitler have done anything but what he did? Was it not God's will for Hitler to do what he did during his lifetime? In other words, did God not foresee Hitler doing what he did? If so, how could Hitler have not done it? Wouldn't that make God wrong about what he foresaw? And God can't be wrong, correct?
This is what I keep trying to say to you and Animated, yet neither of you seem to want to, or be able to address it without going off on tangents that are irrelevant to the question. Entirely sidestepping whether or not people do something other than what God know's they will do?

As for your last sentence, I will re-iterate again, as I continue to have to do.
It is true, the foreknowledge of something by a human does not dictate what will actually happen for an important reason. Humans can be wrong. If I know you love chocolate cake more than strawberry, I can be pretty sure you'll choose it when given the choice. However, I can be wrong so my knowledge of what you will probably do does not confine you. There are an infinite amount of things that you could do besides choosing the chocolate cake, and even if you do choose it, it does not mean that I confined you to doing so, it only means that I had a knowledge of probability.

However, if the person who foresaw what you were going to do (Your God) can not be wrong about what he has seen, then you can not do anything but what he has seen.
This is the definition of a lack of free will.


Please reconcile the above statement if you would like to prove your God allows free will in any sense, because the connotations of not being able to do so include, as I mentioned earlier to Animated, but doubt I will get a response, God being ultimately responsible for absolutely everything, including the people in hell.

Wow, incredible. You've cut my response into so many pieces Animated, that I will simply have to respond to you in a clean post.

I'll do this in small responses, so we can get somewhere, so I don't have to continue dealing with assertions and contradictions on your part.


First of all let me get a simple question answered:
Post "fall of man", can your God be wrong about anything at all? Ie: If he knows already I will have a bagel for breakfast tomorrow morning, can I have eggs instead thus making him wrong?

You see, because the point I'm trying to help you understand is that foreknowledge does matter, if the one with the foreknowledge cannot be wrong. Do you get that?

So we'll take this one step at a time, starting with very simple questions.
So concerning my bagel example, is your answer yes or no? Can he be wrong about me eating a bagel, or can he not be wrong?

This is a yes or no question, you can do it.

Quote from: "AnimatedDirt"Pre-known does not equal pre-determined.

It does if you cannot prove God wrong. If God is always right and he sees the future, then you cannot change the future and therefore have no free will.

Also, if I can defy his plans, that means I can prove God wrong, and am therefore more powerful than him in that respect. If I cannot defy his plans then I have no free will.

If you state that evil is necessary for the greater good, then you are then limiting your God's power. You admit that God is not all powerful because God cannot do evil, then what powers does your God have? Why call him God? To say God does not have the power to remove evil from the world, and must have evil in order to make his plans complete, makes him a weak God. This is the logical paradox that all Christians accept. An all powerful, all good, all knowing God cannot exist. Only two of those parts in any combination can exist logically, and since you say God cannot do evil, or requires evil for his plans, it makes him not omnipotent.

Also, I saw the posts on Satan further back and I feel the need to disspell some myths.

#1 is Satan is not the Devil. If you look at the writings of Christian and Jewish biblical scholars as well as the character in the Bible, Satan is not evil, or a devil, or against God, but he is actually part of God's court, and in colloquial terms we would refer to him as God's prosecutor. Satan is referred to as The Satan, where as the word Satan is simply a title meaning adversary. The Satan is really "the adversary" or what we would call the antagonist. Imagine if thousands of years from now future humans based a religion on our literature and thought that every single villain was really one shape-shifting devil called "The Antagonist".

If we look at the Book of Job we see Satan sitting beside God in heaven, and saying that he can freely move between heaven and Earth. Satan challenges God on Job's devotion, and God freely gives Satan the fire of heaven to do as he wishes. Satan is given his power, and is allowed to do what he wants all within God's orders.

#2 Lucifer is not the Devil. If you read the entire passage, Lucifer is simply the title given to a king of Babylon nicknamed "the morning star" who fell from power in his kingdom. This is not Satan's fall from grace.

#3 The Devil is what Christians think The Satan to be, and characterize him to be some kind of angel turned demon who seeks to force man against God. This only really appears in the New Testament, and highly concentrated in Revelations, where the ancient Greek mythology seeps into the Christian scripture. The Devil is what people think of when they say Satan and Lucifer, but in regards to the Bible they are not the same thing.

The concept of the Devil is strange considering that any idiot knows they have no chance against a supposed all powerful creator of the universe, so his mere presence is logically absurd. The Devil's war against heaven would be like an ant against a nuclear submarine. It's simply another thing that just doesn't make sense in the Christian religion.

Quote from: "defendor"The authority of a Moral law has to be an external force that is ultimate good from which we can base our individual notions of Good off of. - God

I wonder what the definition of a Moral law is, I doubt we have a common definition. For me, I have a set of values, on how to behave, on how to treat others. I feel it is important to treat people kindly and with respect. To accept differences and be tolerant. It is quite simple really. With regards to this I feel the external forces have been my parents, my education, my culture, my peers, and also an aspect of my internal desire to be a good person, my ability to think things through, my ability to adapt. I do not see the necessity for an ultimate good from which good comes and from which Moral law is dictated.

Quote from: "defendor"The objective morals are written on every mans heart by God to regard things as good and things as evil.

This can't be right. I see homosexuality as loving and hence good, but you see it as evil. Was there a misprint on one of our hearts? Why do Christians sometimes forgoe their inner thoughts for the writings of the bible?

Quote from: "defendor"For instance, why do you define good and evil? and How?

Actually I don't really have a definition for Good and Evil, although I do understand that some actions are beneficial and some are detrimental.

Quote from: "defendor"Is homosexuality a sin? Yes.

How can love be a sin? Only if God sees love as an act of defiancy. I very much doubt that homosexuals get in an angry rage against God and then make love to each other in an act of defiancy to God. Actually I don't think it is about God at all. It's probably similar to when I make love with my wife. It's fun and enjoyable, the world and our troubles disappear as we enjoy a very intimate and personal activity together with each other and focussing only on each other. I'm not sure what God has to do with it and actually I'm not sure what anyone else other than me and my wife have to do with it, we certainly do not need anyone's approval and certainly don't expect anyone's disapproval. What we do in the privacy of our own home, mutually and respectfully is our own business.

Quote from: "defendor"Why? it defies God's creative order and is unnatural to reproductive society.

Are you advocating that all things people do must be natural to reproductive society?
When we talk about natural, well, who comes up with the definition?
Is an ice cream natural? I know we can't go and pick a fresh one off an ice cream tree.
Or are you advocating natural uses only for our body parts?
Are our feet only for walking or running? What if I want to kick a soccer ball, is that an unnatural use of my feet?
Or are you advocating natural uses only for our reproductive organs?
Did you know that there is a large percentage of women that don't get orgasms via penetration during sex. Do we say tough bikkies, or do we try other things, e.g. cunnilingus, or stimulation with the fingers? Is this unnatural? It certainly doesn't contribute towards reproduction.
What about couples that are infertile? Would it be immoral for them to have sex for pleasure?
As far as I am concerned, what people do behind closed doors, as long as it is consentual and noone is getting hurt, is their business, I personally have no right to bestow my opinions onto their lifestyle. We should see love as something special, something to be encouraged not vilified.
If Christianity is against this then it could be said that Christianity is against love.

Quote from: "defendor"If someone doesn't have objective values, they still paint their own world black and white

Painting the world black and white is very dangerous, this attitude creates intolerance and hate. Adhering to a view of Good and Evil is the ignition required for war. Only being open to discussion, being open to other viewpoints, being open to compromise will we be able to not only avoid conflict but to move forward towards common goals. The best way to defeat your enemy is to make them your friend.

Quote from: "defendor"So I refer back to my initial point, how and why do you define morals?

I don't define morals. I hold to a stance that I have no morals.
However on a similar vein, I have built up a set of personal values, they are my values and I don't force them on others, these values help me to act quickly in a mannor that I am comfortable and accepting of. they help me resolve inner conflict and make sometimes difficult decisions. However, often I am faced with situations that require deep thought, to rationalise and understand things fully before making a decision. Sometimes these moments make me realise that my personal values need to be reassessed.

Quote from: "Tokage"Wow, incredible. You've cut my response into so many pieces Animated, that I will simply have to respond to you in a clean post.

I'll do this in small responses, so we can get somewhere, so I don't have to continue dealing with assertions and contradictions on your part.

Maybe instead of making accusations, you should point these out.

Quote from: "Tokage"First of all let me get a simple question answered:
Post "fall of man", can your God be wrong about anything at all? Ie: If he knows already I will have a bagel for breakfast tomorrow morning, can I have eggs instead thus making him wrong?

If He is God, He cannot be wrong.
If He knows you will have a bagel or not DOES NOT REMOVE THE FACT THAT THE BAGEL WAS YOUR CHOICE!

Quote from: "Tokage"You see, because the point I'm trying to help you understand is that foreknowledge does matter, if the one with the foreknowledge cannot be wrong. Do you get that?

It doesn't as I just explained above in 11 words.

Quote from: "Tokage"So we'll take this one step at a time, starting with very simple questions.
So concerning my bagel example, is your answer yes or no? Can he be wrong about me eating a bagel, or can he not be wrong?
This is a yes or no question, you can do it.

You can stop with the condescending tone.
The answer is God cannot be wrong.  He is right in knowing what you will choose.  You are 100% free to choose what you want for breakfast.  The fact He knows, bears no weight on whether you have free choice or not.

Quote from: "AnimatedDirt"You can stop with the condescending tone.
The answer is God cannot be wrong.  He is right in knowing what you will choose.  You are 100% free to choose what you want for breakfast.  The fact He knows, bears no weight on whether you have free choice or not.

Maybe Tokage would be less condescending if you were less preachy.

Quote from: "Tank"

Quote from: "AnimatedDirt"You can stop with the condescending tone.
The answer is God cannot be wrong.  He is right in knowing what you will choose.  You are 100% free to choose what you want for breakfast.  The fact He knows, bears no weight on whether you have free choice or not.

Maybe Tokage would be less condescending if you were less preachy.

Preachy?  I'm answering his questions and points.  I have not preached.  Maybe it's the nature of the subject RELIGION on this forum, but a certain amount of what to you seems "preachy" is in order to maintain a discussion.

If you have a problem with me preaching, please use the REPORT button on the upper right corner.
Thanks for your input.

If there is no moral law, there is no evil.  If there is truly no evil, then you cannot disclaim God on moral boundaries.

But now one may wonder: why do you actually need a moral law giver if you have a moral law? The answer is because the questioner and the issue he or she questions always involve the essential value of a person. You can never talk of morality in abstraction. Persons are implicit to the question and the object of the question. In a nutshell, positing a moral law without a moral law giver would be equivalent to raising the question of evil without a questioner. So you cannot have a moral law unless the moral law itself is intrinsically woven into personhood, which means it demands an intrinsically worthy person if the moral law itself is valued. And that person can only be God.

So you value people enough to set a moral standard, but yet you can't claim why you value people as a whole.

Quote from: "AnimatedDirt"

Quote from: "Tank"

Quote from: "AnimatedDirt"You can stop with the condescending tone.
The answer is God cannot be wrong.  He is right in knowing what you will choose.  You are 100% free to choose what you want for breakfast.  The fact He knows, bears no weight on whether you have free choice or not.

Maybe Tokage would be less condescending if you were less preachy.

Preachy?  I'm answering his questions and points.  I have not preached.  Maybe it's the nature of the subject RELIGION on this forum, but a certain amount of what to you seems "preachy" is in order to maintain a discussion.

If you have a problem with me preaching, please use the REPORT button on the upper right corner.
Thanks for your input.

You're welcome.
Fine. I made it official and reported your post.

Quote from: "defendor"So you value people enough to set a moral standard, but yet you can't claim why you value people as a whole.

That's a mistaken assumption.
Empathy, survival instincts, society conditioning, teachings from parents, family ties,...

Quote from: "AnimatedDirt"The answer is God cannot be wrong.  He is right in knowing what you will choose.  You are 100% free to choose what you want for breakfast.  The fact He knows, bears no weight on whether you have free choice or not.

I disagree with this. If an entitiy has knowledge of a future action playing out in a certain fashion then that action can only play out that way. It's as if the "choice" has already been decided. The individual certainly feels that they made the choice and from the individual's perspective they did. However, they could only have made the choice the all-knowing entity already knew they would make.

Put more simply:
If god knows that tomorrow I'm going to eat cheerios for breakfast, then tomorrow I will eat cheerios for breakfast. God knows that I 'choose' to eat cheerios, so the only 'choice' I can make is to eat cheerios, therefore I'm truly not making my own choice.




I'm an atheist and I don't believe in 'free-will' for entirely different reasons than what has been described so far.

Quote from: "BadPoison"

Quote from: "AnimatedDirt"The answer is God cannot be wrong.  He is right in knowing what you will choose.  You are 100% free to choose what you want for breakfast.  The fact He knows, bears no weight on whether you have free choice or not.

I disagree with this. If an entitiy has knowledge of a future action playing out in a certain fashion then that action can only play out that way. It's as if the "choice" has already been decided. The individual certainly feels that they made the choice and from the individual's perspective they did. However, they could only have made the choice the all-knowing entity already knew they would make.

Put more simply:
If god knows that tomorrow I'm going to eat cheerios for breakfast, then tomorrow I will eat cheerios for breakfast. God knows that I 'choose' to eat cheerios, so the only 'choice' I can make is to eat cheerios, therefore I'm truly not making my own choice.

The FACT REMAINS...YOU made the choice of Cheerios on your own.  You could've chose Rasin Bran, a much better choice, but YOU chose Cheerios.  Regardless of the fact that God knows your choices does not remove the fact that YOU choose freely from many choices of cereal or breakfast items.

Your choice is not programmed into you, it is simply known.

I think this might help...

[youtube:2yuh2685]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9sWHd3b8Y68[/youtube:2yuh2685]

If I were a theist would go with his solution to the premise (item 1); that god knows all possible outcomes; thus biting the bullet and admitting god's knowledge is limited to past and possiblity.  I also disagree with the god outside of time idea as it is nonsensical...time is essentially movement a being outside of time wouldn't be able to act.

The only part I disagree with this guy on is that god not existing somehow solves the freewill dilemma...even a naturalist view of reality brings into question the existence of free will.

Quote from: "Posted Video"

• 1.  God knows, before we are born, everything we will do.  (Diving Foreknowledge)
• 2.  If God knows, before we are born, everything we will do, then it is never in our power to do otherwise.  (Premise)
• 3.  If it is never in our power to do otherwise, then there is no human freedom.  (Doctrine of Freewill)
• 4.  Therefore there is no human freedom.  (Conclusion)

First of all, I'm going to be repeating myself again.

The premise is easily denied as the entity with the power to choose of its own freewill is not limited in choice by the KNOWLEDGE of that choice from God.  One must prove this to be so.  Simply stating a premise doesn't make it true.  Premise 2 and 3 fail.

The conclusion is then wrong.

On the matter of a man being put into a room unconscience and wakes up to a party and decides to stay...is not much of a proof point in that God has not locked anyone anywhere.  Everyone is free to choose God, unchoose God, or simply say God doesn't exist (by default, choosing against God)

Quote from: "AnimatedDirt"

Quote from: "Posted Video"

• 1.  God knows, before we are born, everything we will do.  (Diving Foreknowledge)
• 2.  If God knows, before we are born, everything we will do, then it is never in our power to do otherwise.  (Premise)
• 3.  If it is never in our power to do otherwise, then there is no human freedom.  (Doctrine of Freewill)
• 4.  Therefore there is no human freedom.  (Conclusion)

First of all, I'm going to be repeating myself again.

The premise is easily denied as the entity with the power to choose of its own freewill is not limited in choice by the KNOWLEDGE of that choice from God.  One must prove this to be so.  Simply stating a premise doesn't make it true.  Premise 2 and 3 fail.

The conclusion is then wrong.

On the matter of a man being put into a room unconscience and wakes up to a party and decides to stay...is not much of a proof point in that God has not locked anyone anywhere.  Everyone is free to choose God, unchoose God, or simply say God doesn't exist (by default, choosing against God)

I think you are going to have to spell out how you are denying 1 and why 2 and 3 fail; because I don't get why you think they are wrong and they don't obviously fail as they are logical valid if 1 is true....my philosophy of religion professor didn't think they failed but suggested that we could look at 1 differently (that god doesn't know everything we will do before we are born).

Quote from: "Whitney"

Quote from: "AnimatedDirt"

Quote from: "Posted Video"

• 1.  God knows, before we are born, everything we will do.  (Diving Foreknowledge)
• 2.  If God knows, before we are born, everything we will do, then it is never in our power to do otherwise.  (Premise)
• 3.  If it is never in our power to do otherwise, then there is no human freedom.  (Doctrine of Freewill)
• 4.  Therefore there is no human freedom.  (Conclusion)

First of all, I'm going to be repeating myself again.

The premise is easily denied as the entity with the power to choose of its own freewill is not limited in choice by the KNOWLEDGE of that choice from God.  One must prove this to be so.  Simply stating a premise doesn't make it true.  Premise 2 and 3 fail.

The conclusion is then wrong.

On the matter of a man being put into a room unconscience and wakes up to a party and decides to stay...is not much of a proof point in that God has not locked anyone anywhere.  Everyone is free to choose God, unchoose God, or simply say God doesn't exist (by default, choosing against God)

I think you are going to have to spell out how you are denying 1 and why 2 and 3 fail; because I don't get why you think they are wrong and they don't obviously fail as they are logical valid if 1 is true....my philosophy of religion professor didn't think they failed but suggested that we could look at 1 differently (that god doesn't know everything we will do before we are born).

1.  Not denied - There is no need to deny or reword this.  It fits fine.

2. and 3. Denied on the point that (again) simply knowing the choice does not make choosing or freewill impossible.  It's just knowledge.  God is not dictating what your choices are, He simply happens to know, being God, what your choice is.  To choose otherwise is impossible since YOUR choice is YOUR choice.  It matters not how many times you change your mind, God knows ultimately how many times you'll change your mind and ultimately knows your last and final choice being chosen of full freewill.

4. Conclusion is based on wrong premise, Conclusion then is that freewill remains exactly that no matter who knows your choice before you choose.  It remains YOUR choice.

But if I am unable to choose otherwise it was never a choice...it doesn't matter that I don't want to do otherwise; it matters whether I have the freedom to.

Quote from: "Whitney"But if I am unable to choose otherwise it was never a choice...it doesn't matter that I don't want to do otherwise; it matters whether I have the freedom to.

You must prove, however, that your choice was really not your choice.  If YOU chose Cheerios over everything else, it remains YOUR choice.  It's not that you're "unable" to choose otherwise, it's that you didn't choose otherwise.  You could have, but you didn't.

Can the portions of this thread dealing with freewill be cut and put into its own thread discussing Freewill?

[/quote]
If He is God, He cannot be wrong.
If He knows you will have a bagel or not DOES NOT REMOVE THE FACT THAT THE BAGEL WAS YOUR CHOICE!
[/quote]

I rest my freaking case. Finally I get a straight answer.
You have just admitted that your God cannot be wrong about what he forsee's. If you are too primitive to figure out that this means that you can not do anything but what he see's, thus removing your free will, then I can't help you.

Quote from: "Tokage"I rest my freaking case. Finally I get a straight answer.
You have just admitted that your God cannot be wrong about what he forsee's. If you are too primitive to figure out that this means that you can not do anything but what he see's, thus removing your free will, then I can't help you.

It does nothing of the sort.  It simply means God knows our choice(s).  It doesn't mean God forces our choice(s).

Your freaking case, is based on a false premise.  If you can't see THAT...then I can't help you either.  It's quite a simple notion really.

BTW...that "straight answer" has been the basis of my point all along.

Quote from: "AnimatedDirt"

Quote from: "Tokage"I rest my freaking case. Finally I get a straight answer.
You have just admitted that your God cannot be wrong about what he forsee's. If you are too primitive to figure out that this means that you can not do anything but what he see's, thus removing your free will, then I can't help you.

It does nothing of the sort.  It simply means God knows our choice(s).  It doesn't mean God forces our choice(s).

Your freaking case, is based on a false premise.  If you can't see THAT...then I can't help you either.  It's quite simple.

Wow, this guy is really thick. I'm sorry about the condecending tone, but there's no other way to get through to you.

Let me try to help you out yet again, even though I've run the point into the ground but you're still missing it  

If God knows, what you will do, and he can't be wrong, you can not do anything but that.
If God knows, I will be hit by a car tomorrow, I can not do anything but be hit by a car tomorrow.
What is so difficult for you to understand? If God can not be wrong, we can not do anything but what he's seen.

You're making yourself look silly by continuing to miss the simple point where all trying to get across to you, Animated. You can not do anything but what God has already seen, thus you are restricted to what he has seen. How in the world can you make a choice, if you are only doing what God has seen? That's not a choice.

This kind of lack of critical thinking skills is really hard to understand. It's such a simple concept. You continue to miss the point that God cannot be wrong as you've already admitted, and with a system like that you can only do what has been foreseen, nothing else.
This is kind of funny though.

Quote from: "AnimatedDirt"

Quote from: "Whitney"But if I am unable to choose otherwise it was never a choice...it doesn't matter that I don't want to do otherwise; it matters whether I have the freedom to.

You must prove, however, that your choice was really not your choice.  If YOU chose Cheerios over everything else, it remains YOUR choice.  It's not that you're "unable" to choose otherwise, it's that you didn't choose otherwise.  You could have, but you didn't.

Yes...and I partially agree...but that can only be the case if God's Foreknowledge does not prevent my choice.  If God knows what I'm going to do before I do it I can't do otherwise when the time comes as it would make God a liar.  So where does free choice come into play when god knows what I will do before I do it?

Quote from: "AnimatedDirt"Can the portions of this thread dealing with freewill be cut and put into its own thread discussing Freewill?

Yes, I'll have to go figure out where and what to split.

Quote from: "Tokage"Wow, this guy is really thick. I'm sorry about the condecending tone, but there's no other way to get through to you.

I don't see how a change of tone is going to magically make someone change their mind...please refrain from comments like the above in the future.

Quote from: "Tokage"If God knows, what you will do, and he can't be wrong, you can not do anything but that.
If God knows, I will be hit by a car tomorrow, I can not do anything but be hit by a car tomorrow.
What is so difficult for you to understand? If God can not be wrong, we can not do anything but what he's seen.

His knowledge does not force your choice(s).  It simply makes your choice(s) known.

Quote from: "Tokage"You're making yourself look silly by continuing to miss the simple point where all trying to get across to you, Animated. You can not do anything but what God has already seen, thus you are restricted to what he has seen. How in the world can you make a choice, if you are only doing what God has seen? That's not a choice.

What God has seen is what I HAVE CHOSEN TO DO.  Simple.  It is my choice(s) that God sees.

Quote from: "Tokage"This kind of lack of critical thinking skills is really hard to understand. It's such a simple concept. You continue to miss the point that God cannot be wrong as you've already admitted, and with a system like that you can only do what has been foreseen, nothing else.
This is kind of funny though.

What's funny is that you can't see that simply knowing the choice doesn't force the choice.  His foreknowledge is not wrong, because He knows what you will choose.  It's more a lack of critical thinking on your part.

Prove the premise rather than simply stating it.  Prove that knowledge forces choice.

Quote from: "Whitney"So where does free choice come into play when god knows what I will do before I do it?

Free choice comes in that you have chosen.  God simply knows what you will choose.  He has not, by His knowledge, forced your choice.
If this be the point, then one must prove that knowledge forces choice.

Quote from: "defendor"If there is no moral law, there is no evil.  If there is truly no evil, then you cannot disclaim God on moral boundaries.

You sound like a broken record.

QuoteBut now one may wonder: why do you actually need a moral law giver if you have a moral law? The answer is because the questioner and the issue he or she questions always involve the essential value of a person. You can never talk of morality in abstraction. Persons are implicit to the question and the object of the question. In a nutshell, positing a moral law without a moral law giver would be equivalent to raising the question of evil without a questioner. So you cannot have a moral law unless the moral law itself is intrinsically woven into personhood, which means it demands an intrinsically worthy person if the moral law itself is valued. And that person can only be God.

What you have done here, like you have done many times before, is simply asserted some word salad concerning abstract concepts such as morality and free will and then claimed that without God, X could not be.

I have morals because I do. It's that simple.

QuoteSo you value people enough to set a moral standard, but yet you can't claim why you value people as a whole.

I value people as a whole because I do.

QuoteI have morals because I do. It's that simple.

I believe in God because I do. Why is that good enough for you but not good enough for people that believe in a God?

This doesn't answer why for either of us.  Why do you have morals?  

On the question of foreknowledge and free will- You say that foreknowledge discredits free will.  How?

I'm just going to jump in here, I hope no one minds...

Quote from: "defendor"

QuoteI have morals because I do. It's that simple.

I believe in God because I do. Why is that good enough for you but not good enough for people that believe in a God?

It may be good enough for him personally, and it may be good enough for a believer. I don't have a problem with that as long as it doesn't affect my life for the worse.

QuoteThis doesn't answer why for either of us.  Why do you have morals?  

Agreed, it doesn't answer anything as far as explaining one's stance on a subject, and as far as justifying a position to one's self it seems borish and lacking of forethought. I believe there should be solid, definable reasons why one believes in god, and also why one chooses to have morals. Having faith for faith's sake or being good for goodness sake sounds silly.

To me morality means behaving in a way that minimizes suffering and hardship on others. Ask me why that's important to me and why I'm not simply just concerned with my own wellbeing. The simple answer is that I believe being kind, courteous, and helpful to others promotes a better world to live in. It feels good to do good.

There's probably a biological reason the majority of people feel a sense of satisfaction and fulfillment when being altruistic. It's not hard to see why natural selection would take this trait and shape stronger cultures rewarding groups that help each other.It's easier for a group to pass on its genes to the next generation when the group works together. Groups that have individuals that feel some sort of pleasure or satisfaction in being altruistic are more likely to exhibit this behavior and survive, ect.

None of those possible biological reasons or social evolution matter so much today since we've evolved to a point where we are able to think intellectually and override any of our previous dispositions. We're now capable of reason and rational thought., Thankfully because of this other 'instincts' that may have served our species in the past can now be discarded. Our propensity to dehumanize outside groups, go to war because of our fear of what's different, is one of these things. Our species now has all the tools needed to move beyond this.

So why am I 'moral' today? It goes back to the desire to move our species forward. That making decisions that make life easier on others makes your own life easier. There is so much to be experienced in life, and each day is an opportunity. We're only here for such a fraction of the life of our universe, yet around every corner is another surprise. My life has been pretty great - the tragedy is knowing that for others it hasn't been. The small agonies and pain I've experienced is enough to know it's only humane to try to lesson the anguish of other's. All it takes is the realization that your fellow human's capacity to be happy is equal to your own, as is their capacity to suffer.

Quote from: "AnimatedDirt"

Quote from: "Whitney"So where does free choice come into play when god knows what I will do before I do it?

Free choice comes in that you have chosen.  God simply knows what you will choose.  He has not, by His knowledge, forced your choice.
If this be the point, then one must prove that knowledge forces choice.

This argument is quite amusing, because I know that each person involved can see both sides. But each of you has choosen your outcome and are going down a path which suits your outcome and simply ignoring the other side of the argument.

I liken this God knows everything before anything happens thing to Visualisation.

When I am underpressure, say , at a pool tournament, I often find myself using visualisation. I play my shots mentally several times before I take the shot for real. Visualising I can easily see the errors in my aim, I can see where the ball goes and how far off I am. If my will bends the ball into the right spot then also being the audience of my mental shot I can see that I have changed the laws of physics for my shot to go in. Thus i know that it is not a valid shot. I essentially know what is going to happen before it happens. However, having a level of intelligence and a will for a desired outcome, I adjust my shot, in a way that is beneficial and much more likely for me to win.

If I was perfect at this, like some suggest the Christian God is then I would know the outcome of everything at the point that I made any decision and action. e.g. the creation of the Universe and the creation of the laws of physics and the creation of life. At any of these key points where I (as God) intervened I could foresee all outcomes for all eternity and hence I would know perfectly well, exactly how to make my move. My move would be perfect and the result would be exactly as I knew it would be given the actions that I had taken. Although people are making choices, I know exactly what they will choose given the environment and situation that they are in. I could alter this by making different interventions at the point that I created the universe and in essence I am in control of the outcome although the person believes they have free will and are making a personal choice.

The game is fixed, the dices are loaded and the cards are stacked. I've made my move and for the next 14 billion years I know exactly how it will play out. It is a great thing that I am transient to time otherwise those 14 billion years would be incredibly boring.

This could be termed the illusion of free will. Although even without a god there is also the possibility of illusion of free will.

Quote from: "BadPoison"It may be good enough for him personally, and it may be good enough for a believer. I don't have a problem with that as long as it doesn't affect my life for the worse.

Yep.

QuoteAgreed, it doesn't answer anything as far as explaining one's stance on a subject, and as far as justifying a position to one's self it seems borish and lacking of forethought. I believe there should be solid, definable reasons why one believes in god, and also why one chooses to have morals. Having faith for faith's sake or being good for goodness sake sounds silly.

When it comes down to the fundamental level, sometimes the only reason to be good is for goodness sake. I could give a lot of justifications and explanations of my reasoning behind my own moral code, and I do, but, ultimately, the only real justification can be "I want to".

Really, what I'm trying to say here is that there needs to be major underlying assumptions that can only be justified with opinion beneath any and all morals.

QuoteTo me morality means behaving in a way that minimizes suffering and hardship on others. Ask me why that's important to me and why I'm not simply just concerned with my own wellbeing. The simple answer is that I believe being kind, courteous, and helpful to others promotes a better world to live in. It feels good to do good.

So, you do it because you want to -- which is what I'm saying.

QuoteThere's probably a biological reason the majority of people feel a sense of satisfaction and fulfillment when being altruistic. It's not hard to see why natural selection would take this trait and shape stronger cultures rewarding groups that help each other.It's easier for a group to pass on its genes to the next generation when the group works together. Groups that have individuals that feel some sort of pleasure or satisfaction in being altruistic are more likely to exhibit this behavior and survive, ect.

None of those possible biological reasons or social evolution matter so much today since we've evolved to a point where we are able to think intellectually and override any of our previous dispositions. We're now capable of reason and rational thought., Thankfully because of this other 'instincts' that may have served our species in the past can now be discarded. Our propensity to dehumanize outside groups, go to war because of our fear of what's different, is one of these things. Our species now has all the tools needed to move beyond this.

So why am I 'moral' today? It goes back to the desire to move our species forward. That making decisions that make life easier on others makes your own life easier. There is so much to be experienced in life, and each day is an opportunity. We're only here for such a fraction of the life of our universe, yet around every corner is another surprise. My life has been pretty great - the tragedy is knowing that for others it hasn't been. The small agonies and pain I've experienced is enough to know it's only humane to try to lesson the anguish of other's. All it takes is the realization that your fellow human's capacity to be happy is equal to your own, as is their capacity to suffer.

I agree.

Quote from: "defendor"

QuoteI have morals because I do. It's that simple.

I believe in God because I do. Why is that good enough for you but not good enough for people that believe in a God?

This doesn't answer why for either of us.  Why do you have morals?  

On the question of foreknowledge and free will- You say that foreknowledge discredits free will.  How?

Let me ask you, Defendor -- why do you believe in God?

Quote from: "Stevil"If I was perfect at this, like some suggest the Christian God is then I would know the outcome of everything at the point that I made any decision and action. e.g. the creation of the Universe and the creation of the laws of physics and the creation of life. At any of these key points where I (as God) intervened I could foresee all outcomes for all eternity and hence I would know perfectly well, exactly how to make my move. My move would be perfect and the result would be exactly as I knew it would be given the actions that I had taken. Although people are making choices, I know exactly what they will choose given the environment and situation that they are in. I could alter this by making different interventions at the point that I created the universe and in essence I am in control of the outcome although the person believes they have free will and are making a personal choice.

The game is fixed, the dices are loaded and the cards are stacked. I've made my move and for the next 14 billion years I know exactly how it will play out. It is a great thing that I am transient to time otherwise those 14 billion years would be incredibly boring.

This could be termed the illusion of free will. Although even without a god there is also the possibility of illusion of free will.

Quite the contrary, this in fact suggests more on the line that God foresees and yet allows.  Case in point, sin/evil.  If God was "fixing the game" using "loaded dice", we wouldn't be discussing freewill at all, but instead living in a pseudo-utopia where everything seems of our choice, but when we are not allowed FULL freewill, we are then nothing but robots programmed to run a certain course.  In fact, He knows our course before we take it...however it remains our chosen course.  Could we choose otherwise?  Yes.  The choices are there and we ponder them all.  Our choice is not forced.

So once again, the premise that God's foreknowledge removes absolute freewill must be proven before the conclusion is made that there is no human freedom/freewill.

It seems there are two arguments.
The first states that because god knows your action doesn't mean that you didn't make a choice. Your choice is ultimately yours to make and god's knowledge doesn't take it away from you. In this argument free-will is simply defined as your ability to choose. You make an action and choose; therefore you have free-will.


The second argument says:
If god knows what choice I will make then I will be destined to make that choice. Ultimately the choice I make will be the one known to the god that knows. This argument must define free-will as more than just the ability to make a choice.


Incidentally, it's my opinion there is no god and there is no free-will.


Let's get this thread back on topic. Who here can prove god doesn't exist?  

Quote from: "AnimatedDirt"but when we are not allowed FULL freewill, we are then nothing but robots programmed to run a certain course

I am not sure how anyone can believe in FULL freewill.
I feel it must come down to a definition of FULL.

For me FULL freewill would imply that a person is objectively able to make any decision and has no external bias.
However it is blatently obvious to me that everyone has bias. If you put a pair of chicken's feet in front of a european they will screw up their face, if you put them in front of a Chinese they will lick their lips and pick up a pair of chopsticks. Put a potatoe in front of a Chinese and likely they will push it aside and demand some rice.

My mother believes it is bad luck to put new shoes on a table, I have no such superstition. Hence I have choice whilst my mother does not.

I don't have a superstition that suicide leads to hell, yet Christians do, hence I can choose Euthanasia yet a Christian cannot.

I can choose to run where as a person without legs cannot. However I cannot choose to float on a cloud as my physicallity limits my choices.

The Christian scriptures and teachings reduce the amount of free will that Christians have. One could surmise that these scriptures are contrary to God's plan as these are contrary to FULL freewill which seems to be God's desire.

Many, many things preprogram us and hence constrain our abilities to make decisions. Culture, traditions, religion, upbringing, laws, peers, schooling, parents, physical limitations, superstitions, scientific understandings the list goes on.

How does the foreknowledge of Free will disqualify free will?

Bad Poison- Is the Moral Law "Herd Instinct?"

By "herd instinct," I mean something developed by our physical nature like evolution or survival of the fittest. This would mean that whatever the strongest impulse in us is we ought to follow it. The problem with this is that our our strongest impulse is not always the right thing to do. For example there are times when self-sacrifice is the right thing to do, yet it is not something that could be explained by herd instinct. Furthermore, this tries to get something more from something less. Morality is more than just our physical nature. It seems absurdly false that the sermon on the mount came from primordial ooze. You cannot get something like morality from something like nature, herd instinct, or evolution.

Is the Moral Law Just a Social Convention?

We often learn morality through social convention, but that does not prove that morality is reducible to social conventions. We learn things also like mathematics and logic through social institutions, but we know that math and logic are not reducible to society. It is strange that, on this view, we can accept groups of people as the source of morality, but not individuals. It is not clear why this distinction should be made. Of course, this would also lead to other problems like all societies being morally equal (hence Nazi society is as equally moral as Mother Theresa), and moral progress within a society would be impossible to measure. How could we say society improved, if the standard is set by society? This would also lead to the absurd conclusion that advocates of social change, like Martin Luther King Jr., are evil, since they oppose what is acceptable according to social convention. Clearly, morality cannot come from social convention.

Is the Moral Law My Will Itself?

Some suppose that the moral law is something we must impose upon ourself. Many believe Immanuel Kant proposed morality in this function. Yet, this too cannot fully account for the nature of morality. This would make the one being held responsible to the rules as the same person giving the rules. It seems rather pointless to have morality on one's own terms. Why even bother with morality at all? Even if one puts tough restrictions on oneself, one can change them as it becomes convenient. It is like a jailor who locks himself in a cell, but keeps the key. The appearance of being confined to his jail cell is illusive. He is not really bound to his cell because at any time he can unlock it and leave. Therefore, our own will cannot account for the moral law.

Could There Be No Moral Law?

Perhaps we have these moral intuitions, but they are all just our own fancy. In other words, there is no moral law. The problem with this view is that the moral law is not a mere description of human behavior but a prescription for human behavior. If the moral law were something we could just cast off and live without, this could be a plausible solution, but living without the moral law is simply impossible. Since we did not create it, we cannot just cast it off. Also, we cannot escape the moral law because it is impressed upon us. Ultimately this would lapse into moral relativism leaving all moral statements and actions meaningless, thus making Adolf Hitler and Mother Theresa equally good and evil. Such a view of morality is not only impossible to live in practice, but obviously wrong when comparing saints and villains (like Hitler and Mother Theresa).

Quote from: "Stevil"

Quote from: "AnimatedDirt"but when we are not allowed FULL freewill, we are then nothing but robots programmed to run a certain course

I am not sure how anyone can believe in FULL freewill.
I feel it must come down to a definition of FULL.

For me FULL freewill would imply that a person is objectively able to make any decision and has no external bias.
However it is blatently obvious to me that everyone has bias. If you put a pair of chicken's feet in front of a european they will screw up their face, if you put them in front of a Chinese they will lick their lips and pick up a pair of chopsticks. Put a potatoe in front of a Chinese and likely they will push it aside and demand some rice.

My mother believes it is bad luck to put new shoes on a table, I have no such superstition. Hence I have choice whilst my mother does not.

I don't have a superstition that suicide leads to hell, yet Christians do, hence I can choose Euthanasia yet a Christian cannot.

I can choose to run where as a person without legs cannot. However I cannot choose to float on a cloud as my physicallity limits my choices.

The simple fact remains.  Your mother CAN put shoes on a table.  The fact that she chooses not to does not remove the fact that she can.

Legs vs no legs.  You can run...and a person with no legs, given prosthetic legs CAN also run.

Floating on a cloud?  You are correct.  Our physical nature does not allow us to do "anything" we want.

I disagree with most Christianity...all suicide does not lead to "hell"...I digress.

Quote from: "Stevil"The Christian scriptures and teachings reduce the amount of free will that Christians have. One could surmise that these scriptures are contrary to God's plan as these are contrary to FULL freewill which seems to be God's desire.

All are free to do as they please.  All are free to choose Evil over Good.  The problem comes when the natural consequences of choosing Evil over Good are realized.  Leave your finger long enough over a flame and you will burn and experience pain.  It's a fact of fire.  Choosing Evil over Good doesn't come without all that comes with Evil.  We are warned of the "limitations" Evil brings and likewise the limitation believing God, but not kept from choosing and acting on our choices.

Quote from: "Stevil"Many, many things preprogram us and hence constrain our abilities to make decisions. Culture, traditions, religion, upbringing, laws, peers, schooling, parents, physical limitations, superstitions, scientific understandings the list goes on.

Yes, however none of these FORCE our choice.  Holding to a culture, tradition, religion, law...directs our choice, but we always retain the full ability to choose otherwise.

Quote from: "AnimatedDirt"If God was "fixing the game" using "loaded dice", we wouldn't be discussing freewill at all, but instead living in a pseudo-utopia where everything seems of our choice, but when we are not allowed FULL freewill, we are then nothing but robots programmed to run a certain course.

This is exactly the case that alot of people here are assuming it to be.
We are assuming that if a thing such as GOD knows the outcome then that thing will create the world in a way that acheives its desired outcome, hence GOD is playing all the cards, we are simply following a script. The big assumption here is that GOD wants some of us to make the right choices and wants some of us to make the wrong choices and is playing the cards accordingly.

My question is if God know how everything will play out ahead of time then why bother with our time on earth. Once God makes a soul, god already knows the choices that soul will make, God can instantly know if that sould is good or a reject and then throw the rejects out without having to wait for them to actually make the mistakes that god already knows they will make.

Another question, why does god make reject souls, seems that god is not perfect. Sorry to be the bringer of bad news.

Quote from: "AnimatedDirt"So once again, the premise that God's foreknowledge removes absolute freewill must be proven before the conclusion is made that there is no human freedom/freewill.

Ahhh, the burdon of proof, where does it lie? God forbid we need to prove that there is free will, Let's just assert such a stance and then state that the contrary "must be proven"

Quote from: "AnimatedDirt"The simple fact remains.  Your mother CAN put shoes on a table.  The fact that she chooses not to does not remove the fact that she can.

So we come down to definitions of can and can't.
My mother is simply incapable of making a decision of putting new shoes on a table. She cannot make this decision, her superstition excludes this decision, her decisiton is predestined.

How does the foreknowledge of Free Will, violate the principles of Free Will?  

To an extent, don't you foreknow the decisions you're going to make.  So if you have free will, and you know what you're going to do with that free will, doesn't that mean you don't have free will according to this logic?

Quote from: "AnimatedDirt"

Quote from: "Stevil"Many, many things preprogram us and hence constrain our abilities to make decisions. Culture, traditions, religion, upbringing, laws, peers, schooling, parents, physical limitations, superstitions, scientific understandings the list goes on.

Yes, however none of these FORCE our choice.  Holding to a culture, tradition, religion, law...directs our choice, but we always retain the full ability to choose otherwise.

No, a simple look at statistics pertaining to choices made will prove you wrong, people are making choices based on the situation they are in. Choices are not freely made, there is no FREE will. Essentially, we are predictible as if we were programmed robots.

Let's do a little test on free will shall we.

I am going to set you all a little task, it is uncomfortable, bordering on painful, you don't have to do it, but if you don't then I will consider you a wuss.

Take a small bowl of wet ice cubes and a towel. Place the towel on the table and place either hand palm down on the towel. Take an ice cube in the other hand and circle it around on the back of the hand on the towel. Continue until you can not stand the discomfort using multiple ice cubes if needed.

Answer one of the following questions:

1) If you didn't take the test why didn't you?
2) If you did take the test why did you?
3) If you did take the test why did you stop when you did?

Now that I have planted this idea in your mind what are you going to do?
Which element of your behaviour constitutes, or not, you exercising free will?

Quote from: "Stevil"This is exactly the case that alot of people here are assuming it to be.
We are assuming that if a thing such as GOD knows the outcome then that thing will create the world in a way that acheives its desired outcome,

His desired outcome is that He gain His created being's love by their own freewill choice.  That is His desired outcome.  The only way to get true love is to create a being that is capable of choosing.  The risk, then, is that some will choose not to.

Quote from: "Stevil"hence GOD is playing all the cards, we are simply following a script. The big assumption here is that GOD wants some of us to make the right choices and wants some of us to make the wrong choices and is playing the cards accordingly.

Not at all correct.  God died that ALL may choose Him.  The fact that He knows not all will choose does not take away the point that ALL CAN by their own choice.

Quote from: "Stevil"My question is if God know how everything will play out ahead of time then why bother with our time on earth. Once God makes a soul, god already knows the choices that soul will make, God can instantly know if that sould is good or a reject and then throw the rejects out without having to wait for them to actually make the mistakes that god already knows they will make.

And you would agree with this?  He created us (forgive me for making a point on an assumption by your reckoning) with the ability to choose and the ability to procreate.  You're saying it would be better to smite all newborns in the womb because they will not choose Him?  Seems a bit harsh and dictatorish, doesn't it?  How would this JUDGE, then, rightly show that they CHOSE against God?  Remember, God is Love...and JUDGE (among other traits)  He must be fair.  To smite the soul before it actually makes the choice is not fair.  Just because HE KNOWS their choice, doesn't mean He should act on it before it is seen to be so.

Quote from: "Stevil"Another question, why does god make reject souls, seems that god is not perfect. Sorry to be the bringer of bad news.

God doesn't create "reject" souls.  The first two were created perfect.  Without Sin/Evil.  They chose Evil and thus they and their offspring were tainted.  It is Evil that makes the perfect imperfect.

Quote from: "Stevil"

Quote from: "AnimatedDirt"So once again, the premise that God's foreknowledge removes absolute freewill must be proven before the conclusion is made that there is no human freedom/freewill.

Ahhh, the burdon of proof where does it lie? God forbid we need to proof that there is free will, Let's just assert such a stance and then state that the contrary "must be proven"

You don't need to prove there is freewill...the premise needs to be proven prior to the conclusion, else the conclusion is not proven.

The Premise is;

Quote from: "Posted Video"

• 1.  God knows, before we are born, everything we will do.  (Diving Foreknowledge)
• 2.  If God knows, before we are born, everything we will do, then it is never in our power to do otherwise.  (Premise)
• 3.  If it is never in our power to do otherwise, then there is no human freedom.  (Doctrine of Freewill)
• 4.  Therefore there is no human freedom.  (Conclusion)

Point number 2 must be proven for 3 to be true and 4 to stand.

Quote from: "AnimatedDirt"The simple fact remains.  Your mother CAN put shoes on a table.  The fact that she chooses not to does not remove the fact that she can.

Can she if god knew beforehand that she didn't?

Quote from: "Tank"Let's do a little test on free will shall we.

I am going to set you all a little task, it is uncomfortable, bordering on painful, you don't have to do it, but if you don't then I will consider you a wuss.

Take a small bowl of wet ice cubes and a towel. Place the towel on the table and place either hand palm down on the towel. Take an ice cube in the other hand and circle it around on the back of the hand on the towel. Continue until you can not stand the discomfort using multiple ice cubes if needed.

Answer one of the following questions:

1) If you didn't take the test why didn't you?
2) If you did take the test why did you?
3) If you did take the test why did you stop when you did?

Now that I have planted this idea in your mind what are you going to do?
Which element of your behaviour constitutes, or not, you exercising free will?

All of them require free will.  But also, I would have to think before hand what I am going to do, before I do it, do I not?  I couldn't take the test if I didn't want to, or I would take the test because I wanted to, or I would stop the test at a certain time because I wanted to (although this decision may have been influenced or compelling).  So I would have to make the decision before I acted out on it right?  So if I knew what I was going to do before I did it, then by the logic supposed,that the foreknowledge of Free Will disqualifies Free will, I don't have free will.

Duplicate post.

Quote from: "defendor"

Quote from: "Tank"Let's do a little test on free will shall we.

I am going to set you all a little task, it is uncomfortable, bordering on painful, you don't have to do it, but if you don't then I will consider you a wuss.

Take a small bowl of wet ice cubes and a towel. Place the towel on the table and place either hand palm down on the towel. Take an ice cube in the other hand and circle it around on the back of the hand on the towel. Continue until you can not stand the discomfort using multiple ice cubes if needed.

Answer one of the following questions:

1) If you didn't take the test why didn't you?
2) If you did take the test why did you?
3) If you did take the test why did you stop when you did?

Now that I have planted this idea in your mind what are you going to do?
Which element of your behaviour constitutes, or not, you exercising free will?

All of them require free will.  But also, I would have to think before hand what I am going to do, before I do it, do I not?  I couldn't take the test if I didn't want to, or I would take the test because I wanted to, or I would stop the test at a certain time because I wanted to (although this decision may have been influenced or compelling).  So I would have to make the decision before I acted out on it right?  So if I knew what I was going to do before I did it, then by the logic supposed,that the foreknowledge of Free Will disqualifies Free will, I don't have free will.

So are you going to take the test or not?

Probably not ha

Quote from: "defendor"Probably not ha

Perfectly acceptable. But now please answer question 1 and the two complimentary questions.

EDIT: Brought the post forward as we are on a new page.

Quote from: "Tank"Let's do a little test on free will shall we.

I am going to set you all a little task, it is uncomfortable, bordering on painful, you don't have to do it, but if you don't then I will consider you a wuss.

Take a small bowl of wet ice cubes and a towel. Place the towel on the table and place either hand palm down on the towel. Take an ice cube in the other hand and circle it around on the back of the hand on the towel. Continue until you can not stand the discomfort using multiple ice cubes if needed.

Answer one of the following questions:

1) If you didn't take the test why didn't you?
2) If you did take the test why did you?
3) If you did take the test why did you stop when you did?

Now that I have planted this idea in your mind what are you going to do?
Which element of your behaviour constitutes, or not, you exercising free will?

I imagined myself doing the test.  I thought that putting ice on my hand was unnecessary and decided against it because that was an option.

Quote from: "defendor"I imagined myself doing the test.  I thought that putting ice on my hand was unnecessary and decided against it because that was an option.

So you didn't do the test. Okay. Let's see what some other people say.

I'm not sure what you are getting at.

But...I didn't take the test because I hate the feel of ice on my skin (know this from experience with basically performing the test due to trying to ice sports injuries).

Quote from: "AnimatedDirt"The fact that He knows not all will choose does not take away the point that ALL CAN by their own choice.

I cannot choose to love the Christian god. I cannot choose to love something that I don't even think exists. Something that I have never met, never interacted with. Something that by your definition, chooses not to talk to me, chooses not to even let me know that it exists. How can I know your god enough to love it, when it doesn't even exist? Maybe during the last two thousand years it actually died. Maybe there isn't a god anymore. I can't fall in love with a corpse, one whose legacy is a very old book which preaches intolerance, injustice, death and war. Stories about this thing that murders people in mass (the great flood), rapes a woman (Mary), lies to my ancestors and punishes me for them falling for its cruel trap (Adam and Eve). There is nothing to love about the creature you call God. This book that tells me I am nothing more than a sinner, unworthy of the perfect god, who for some bizzare reason is in my image but without any kind of physicallity whatsoever and hence no need for physical attributes such as mouth, eyes, hair, nose, feet etc. A book that tells me I am evil and doomed for not believing in something that refuses to reveal itself to me.

Quote from: "Stevil"I cannot choose to love the Christian god. I cannot choose to love something that I don't even think exists. Something that I have never met, never interacted with. Something that by your definition, chooses not to talk to me, chooses not to even let me know that it exists. How can I know your god enough to love it, when it doesn't even exist? Maybe during the last two thousand years it actually died. Maybe there isn't a god anymore. I can't fall in love with a corpse, one whose legacy is a very old book which preaches intolerance, injustice, death and war. Stories about this thing that murders people in mass (the great flood), rapes a woman (Mary), lies to my ancestors and punishes me for them falling for its cruel trap (Adam and Eve). There is nothing to love about the creature you call God. This book that tells me I am nothing more than a sinner, unworthy of the perfect god, who for some bizzare reason is in my image but without any kind of physicallity whatsoever and hence no need for physical attributes such as mouth, eyes, hair, nose, feet etc. A book that tells me I am evil and doomed for not believing in something that refuses to reveal itself to me.

When you put it as succinctly as that, I wonder how any Christians can continue to believe in God?

I'm actually beginning to theorise that God believers are mentally ill, because they suffer from delusions that they really believe are true.

I can overlook the fact that they sound stupid everytime they open their mouths, as many people do.

Quote from: "Whitney"I'm not sure what you are getting at.

But...I didn't take the test because I hate the feel of ice on my skin (know this from experience with basically performing the test due to trying to ice sports injuries).

A good joke is revealed by the punch line, it sort of sneaks up on you and when you hear it all that has gone before is placed in context and makes sense. So stick with it for a couple of more responses.

Quote from: "Tank"Answer one of the following questions:

1) If you didn't take the test why didn't you?
2) If you did take the test why did you?
3) If you did take the test why did you stop when you did?

Now that I have planted this idea in your mind what are you going to do?
Which element of your behaviour constitutes, or not, you exercising free will?

OK, now I'm interested.
I went for option 1.
I didn't do it, because I didn't understand what the goal was and hence didn't gain enough buy-in to acheive a sufficient level of motivation to carry out the act. I could imagine that I would feel silly doing the act, my wife would think I am nuts doing something that people on the computer would never have known if I truly did it or not.
I doubt I would have learned anything from doing the act, yeah, ice is cold and gets wet when it melts. Pfft.
Time is also limited for me at the moment, dealing with a relatively new born.
So what's up with the ice, the towel, the hands? Where's the punch line? Its the week-end I need a good laugh, too much gloom on TV with the stories of the Christchurch earthquake.

Quote from: "AverageJoe"When you put it as succinctly as that, I wonder how any Christians can continue to believe in God?

I'm actually beginning to theorise that God believers are mentally ill, because they suffer from delusions that they really believe are true.

I can overlook the fact that they sound stupid everytime they open their mouths, as many people do.

And here we have a prime example of an arrogant, jerkish, naive atheist, who chooses to label himself a "extreme atheist", whatever that's supposed to mean.

Quote from: "LegendarySandwich"

Quote from: "AverageJoe"When you put it as succinctly as that, I wonder how any Christians can continue to believe in God?

I'm actually beginning to theorise that God believers are mentally ill, because they suffer from delusions that they really believe are true.

I can overlook the fact that they sound stupid everytime they open their mouths, as many people do.

And here we have a prime example of an arrogant, jerkish, naive atheist, who chooses to label himself a "extreme atheist", whatever that's supposed to mean.

Extreme atheist = 100% certainty of no God. No caveats, no "can't say for sure", no doubts. That's all it means, nothing more. Maybe I should re label myself so you don't get so worked up about it. Actually no, you can FRO.

Naive? You're going to have to spell that one out, there is no naivety in anything I say.

Thanks for pigeonholing me, I hope it satisfied you.

Quote from: "AverageJoe"Extreme atheist = 100% certainty of no God. No caveats, no "can't say for sure", no doubts. That's all it means, nothing more. Maybe I should re label myself so you don't get so worked up about it. Actually no, you can FRO.

Most people refer to that as strong atheism.

QuoteNaive? You're going to have to spell that one out, there is no naivety in anything I say.

That statement in itself is naive.

You're naivety comes from your "all religious people are dumb, stupid, deluded and crazy and I'm so much smarter" attitude.

Quote from: "LegendarySandwich"Most people refer to that as strong atheism.

So I call myself extreme atheist. You know it as strong atheism. I don't really see what difference it makes whether I call myself a strong or extreme atheist?

I'd always thought a strong atheist might still have the "but I can't say for certain there is no God" caveat despite having strong atheism. I reject that caveat, hence I called myself extreme.

If strong atheists also reject the notion that "I can't say for certain that there is no God" then I'd be a strong atheist not an extreme atheist, and I'll change my label, if you like.

QuoteNaive? You're going to have to spell that one out, there is no naivety in anything I say.

Look, I'm not naive. Maybe I don't have a way with words that some people have, but there you go

QuoteYou're naivety comes from your "all religious people are dumb, stupid, deluded and crazy and I'm so much smarter" attitude.

I never said I was smarter.

However, I find it hard to argue that religious people aren't stupid and deluded, they believe in fairies.

Some are even convinced they have spoken to the God fairy, others are convinced that he has shown himself to them. Somebody tell me how that is not a delusion? And how thinking it is delusion makes me naive?

Quote from: "Stevil"

Quote from: "AnimatedDirt"The fact that He knows not all will choose does not take away the point that ALL CAN by their own choice.

I cannot choose to love the Christian god. I cannot choose to love something that I don't even think exists. Something that I have never met, never interacted with. Something that by your definition, chooses not to talk to me, chooses not to even let me know that it exists. How can I know your god enough to love it, when it doesn't even exist? Maybe during the last two thousand years it actually died. Maybe there isn't a god anymore. I can't fall in love with a corpse, one whose legacy is a very old book which preaches intolerance, injustice, death and war. Stories about this thing that murders people in mass (the great flood), rapes a woman (Mary), lies to my ancestors and punishes me for them falling for its cruel trap (Adam and Eve). There is nothing to love about the creature you call God. This book that tells me I am nothing more than a sinner, unworthy of the perfect god, who for some bizzare reason is in my image but without any kind of physicallity whatsoever and hence no need for physical attributes such as mouth, eyes, hair, nose, feet etc. A book that tells me I am evil and doomed for not believing in something that refuses to reveal itself to me.

It's quite obvious you have not read the Bible as even a piece of literature.  You are quite right, however, the Bible is full of lots of things as you list.  The difference is not that it TEACHES to act as such, but that the presence of Evil in humanity is the cause.  It's not to teach these actions, but that no matter the sin, ANYONE can be reconciled.  This "thing that murders" is also the Thing that is able to bring back from death.  Judgment is brought down on people, some sooner than later.  Raped a woman?  Maybe you need to speak to some rape victims about their rape and the child they may have brought into this world as a result.  Then trickle back in to the pages to read about Mary and Joseph.  Cruel trap...again you miss the point of freewill.  It's the ability to choose from all options available.  If one is intentionally left out, then it's not freewill.

Since you brought it up the point, the answer will sound preachy.  Anyone not wanting to read "preachy" disregard the following couple of sentences.  It's not meant as such, but simply an answer to a point brought up.  I've intentionally kept it short in hopes that it wont be seen as going against the rules.  Moderators, please let me know.

We are all sinners and in fact SO worthy to God, He sent His Son to bear our sins for us and suffer death as a created being.  SO worthy He has not abandoned us to simply live and die, but has made a way possible to be reconciled back to the position of Adam and Eve prior to taking the fruit.

You and me are not Evil, but are infected with it.  Quite a difference.

Refuses to reveal itself?  As faint as the knock is, He's knocking.  It's up to us to remove whatever is drowning out the knock.  It simply goes back to the tired words, "Seek and you will find..."  Considering the points above, if you have read the Bible, it wasn't for the purpose of seeking, but for finding ammunition.

Quote from: "AverageJoe"When you put it as succinctly as that, I wonder how any Christians can continue to believe in God?

I'm actually beginning to theorise that God believers are mentally ill, because they suffer from delusions that they really believe are true.

I can overlook the fact that they sound stupid everytime they open their mouths, as many people do.

The points brought up by Stevil are points that have been brought up out of context and easily shown to be from a twisting interpretation.

Your theory that God believers are mentally ill and suffer from delusions...is appreciated.

I'm wondering how you have come to know the sound of "stupid"?...and also thank you for you kind words.

AnimatedDirt,

Just because we read the Bible from a different perspective and are able to pick out what's horrendous about it doesn't mean we're twisting it. Who is more likely to twist a text, the person who doesn't believe, or the believer who's spent their entire lives accepting everything that's said within that doctrine on faith? I think you should introspect a little and reconsider who is actually twisting what.

Quote from: "Event_Horizon"AnimatedDirt,

Just because we read the Bible from a different perspective and are able to pick out what's horrendous about it doesn't mean we're twisting it.

Point taken.  Twisting is harsh and would speak more to the person that is throwing points out without having asked of him/herself first, what may be the context of these words or actions or asked someone else that has studied the whole.  (The Bible, the context, the history, the culture...to better interpret the words and actions)

Quote from: "Event_Horizon"Who is more likely to twist a text, the person who doesn't believe, or the believer who's spent their entire lives accepting everything that's said within that doctrine on faith?

Twist...again I see as you pointed out is harsh.  The person that isn't studied in the Bible is the person that would most likely not understand.  So not necessarily twisting, but a misunderstanding.

Quote from: "Event_Horizon"I think you should introspect a little and reconsider who is actually twisting what.

I will.  But for the better understanding, one should put more weight on interpretation from someone that is more adept at interpreting from a certain piece of literature.  Agreed?

Why the emphasis on the word "literature" may I ask?

And on another point, if people can live enjoyable, fulfilling lives without god - and I know many that do - then why is there any need for god?

He's becoming more and more redundant, the way I see it - having said that, he is made up anyway.

Quote from: "AverageJoe"Why the emphasis on the word "literature" may I ask?

Do you see it as works written by (actually influenced by) God?  No, so you would simply see these books (in one book) as pieces of ancient literature.  If one was to set out to study them in depth, by studying history, culture...and understand them aside from the belief in God, I think even that person would understand and "know God" in a different light than those that simply set out to read and find inconsistencies.  One need not "KNOW" the God of these books to understand "God".

Quote from: "AverageJoe"And on another point, if people can live enjoyable, fulfilling lives without god - and I know many that do - then why is there any need for god?

I don't think there is debate on this.  Do you need God?  God is not needed unless you find these books that convey this God as more true than fiction.  If so, then one only needs God if he/she believes this God is their Creator and wishes to be back in the original position God created them to be in.

Quote from: "AverageJoe"He's becoming more and more redundant, the way I see it - having said that, he is made up anyway.

Is this opinion or fact?

A fact.

Quote from: "AnimatedDirt"I don't think there is debate on this.  Do you need God?  God is not needed unless you find these books that convey this God as more true than fiction.  If so, then one only needs God if he/she believes this God is their Creator and wishes to be back in the original position God created them to be in.

I hate to say this but I think you're going to be in for a big shock when you throw the 7.

Quote from: "AverageJoe"A fact.

I'm sure EVERYONE, Atheist and Christian alike, on this forum and in the world would be interested in your absolute proof...you would stand to make millions on this fact.  Please share.

Quote from: "AverageJoe"I hate to say this but I think you're going to be in for a big shock when you throw the 7.

Are you suggesting my belief is a gamble?

Quote from: "AnimatedDirt"The points brought up by Stevil are points that have been brought up out of context and easily shown to be from a twisting interpretation.

Let me provide the context.
I am an Agnostic Atheist. I am yet to see any proof for or against any of the 10,000+ god theories that there currently are. I lack a belief in the Christian god because this is a theory that has not been proven and there is no reason to hold this any more true than any of the other 10,000+ theories. Given this my stance falls to the natural position of accepting life and existence for what it is, understanding that there are much unknowns and that I am capabile of thinking for myself and deciding for myself what is wrong and right, that I am ulimately accountable for my actions and hence I have a great responsibility with regards to how I conduct myself and how I treat others.
I happen to live in a country which officially celebrates the Christian holidays of Christmas and Easter. At school when I was young there was a little bit of bible teaching. We also heard some bible stories near christmas time, I have also seen bible stories on TV and have heard some Christians talk about Bible stories.
I have held a bible and have read the first couple of pages. It starts off like a young children's book. "God said let there be light and there was light and it was good" then it gets nasty with the story of Adam and Eve and the garden of Eden. God sets up a trap for Adam, to acheive this God creates a woman, supposedly for Adam's entertainment (but it appears to me that this woman was meant to lead Adam astray), god creates a tempting fruit tree, puts it in the garden, points it out to Adam and says to Adam not to eat the fruit and then conveniently leaves the garden unattended. When God is gone, a talking snake conveniently appears and convices Eve to eat the fruit, Eve then convinces Adam, God conveniently returns and bestows punishment on Adam and Eve, and all women for all eternity. Quite frankly, in today's time this behaviour would be called entrappment, the perpetrator would be seen as the victim and would be let off, the trap setter would be punished.
At this point, I stopped reading the bible.

So still, to understand the context you must know that I tried not to have any preconcieved ideas of the Christian god, I judge people, creatures based on their actions rather than how they describe themselves or how others describe them. Hence I do not assume God to be perfect and all loving, instead I judge the actions of that creature and see what picture that paints for me. So that's it, my context

My twist? I have no intention to put spin or twist onto Christianity. I am being honest about how I feel about the Christian god as described in the Christian stories that I have heard or seen or read. People state that Hitler was evil, creating war and trying to kill all the Jews, succeding at killing millions of them. I'm sure Hitler would have told us that the Jew were bad and that what he was doing was good. We hear about the Christian god who killed almost all the people, animals and plants that existed on earth, likely much more people than Hitler killed. God predictably said that the people were bad and that God was doing good.

I now have an avid Christian telling me that I choose not to love the Christian god, so I explain that it is not a choice and that given my experiences and the stories of the bible I could not possibly love such a creature, nor do I have the desire to.

A question for you AD, do you have the desire to love Hitler? Do you think if you read his book, Mine Kampf that you might fall in love with this man?

Quote from: "Stevil"

Quote from: "AnimatedDirt"The points brought up by Stevil are points that have been brought up out of context and easily shown to be from a twisting interpretation.

Let me provide the context.
I am an Agnostic Atheist. I am yet to see any proof for or against any of the 10,000+ god theories that there currently are. I lack a belief in the Christian god because this is a theory that has not been proven and there is no reason to hold this any more true than any of the other 10,000+ theories. Given this my stance falls to the natural position of accepting life and existence for what it is, understanding that there are much unknowns and that I am capabile of thinking for myself and deciding for myself what is wrong and right, that I am ulimately accountable for my actions and hence I have a great responsibility with regards to how I conduct myself and how I treat others.
I happen to live in a country which officially celebrates the Christian holidays of Christmas and Easter. At school when I was young there was a little bit of bible teaching. We also heard some bible stories near christmas time, I have also seen bible stories on TV and have heard some Christians talk about Bible stories.
I have held a bible and have read the first couple of pages. It starts off like a young children's book. "God said let there be light and there was light and it was good" then it gets nasty with the story of Adam and Eve and the garden of Eden. God sets up a trap for Adam, to acheive this God creates a woman, supposedly for Adam's entertainment (but it appears to me that this woman was meant to lead Adam astray), god creates a tempting fruit tree, puts it in the garden, points it out to Adam and says to Adam not to eat the fruit and then conveniently leaves the garden unattended. When God is gone, a talking snake conveniently appears and convices Eve to eat the fruit, Eve then convinces Adam, God conveniently returns and bestows punishment on Adam and Eve, and all women for all eternity. Quite frankly, in today's time this behaviour would be called entrappment, the perpetrator would be seen as the victim and would be let off, the trap setter would be punished.
At this point, I stopped reading the bible.

Again...having stopped without reading and making any attempt to see the whole picture, your basis for judging the Christian God is based on a few sentences of a book.  In other words, false assertions.

Quote from: "Stevil"So still, to understand the context you must know that I tried not to have any preconcieved ideas of the Christian god, I judge people, creatures based on their actions rather than how they describe themselves or how others describe them. Hence I do not assume God to be perfect and all loving, instead I judge the actions of that creature and see what picture that paints for me. So that's it, my context

We see your bias and preconceived ideas in that you don't want to seek out the point of it all.  All very well and good.  I hold no ill will on you for this.  However, when you make assertions on something you don't even understand fully or have any idea on the whole, you can see why I say *you twist the words to mean what *you think they do without any knowledge of the whole.

Quote from: "Stevil"My twist? I have no intention to put spin or twist onto Christianity. I am being honest about how I feel about the Christian god as described in the Christian stories that I have heard or seen or read.

I believe you're being honest on your feelings...but then again as the Atheist claims, feelings can be deceptive.

Quote from: "Stevil"I now have an avid Christian telling me that I choose not to love the Christian god, so I explain that it is not a choice and that given my experiences and the stories of the bible I could not possibly love such a creature, nor do I have the desire to.

You have made a choice based on your experience...not much different from the claim of a Christian, now is it?  Either way, who's made the decision to believe as you do?

Quote from: "Stevil"A question for you AD, do you have the desire to love Hitler? Do you think if you read his book, Mine Kampf that you might fall in love with this man?

The answer is in the form of a question.  Does Hitler (and so his book) claim he wants my freewill love?  Does Hitler claim God-abilities?  Did Hitler ever in person or in his book ever claim he created the universe?  Is Hitler claimed to be alive and seen as a god by a good portion of the world?  Did Hitler claim to be God?  Does Hitler make any sacrifice of himself for the supposed betterment (? I hope this is a word) of the world?  If yes to any of these questions, then why does this man die like the coward that he is?

My answer in short, He didn't ask it of me, he made no claims of the like and he not worthy of any fame but fame through infamy.

Time to explain the experiment. Nobody chose to do it. That does not surprise me. I said if you didn't do the test I would consider you a 'wuss'. I could have written that if you had done the test I would be 'very impressed'. Given a sufficiently large group that terminology change would have significantly altered the group response. Thus at the human level 'free will' is an illusion. Your behaviour can be influenced by all kinds of things in the real world.

However each of you who read my post chose to either ignore it or responded and all those that responded chose not to carry out the test. If you have metaphysical 'free will' then you exercised it. If you do not have metaphysical 'free will' you don't know that and felt you had exercised it. You can not tell the difference.

So this brings us to philosophy. Somebody came up with the concept of metaphysical 'free will' and then attempted to justify it 'philosophically'. But you recall the chisel, a great tool, but useless if there is no material to work with. As there is no evidence for metaphysical 'free will' so the philosophy surrounding it is a meaningless example of intellectual masturbation.

*Post edited for clarity*

Quote from: "Tank"However each of you who read my post chose to either ignore it or responded and all those that responded chose not to carry out the test. If you have metaphysical 'free will' then you exercised it. If you do not have metaphysical 'free will' you don't know that and felt you had exercised it. You can not tell the difference.

Tank,
Would the above quote not apply to any sort of free-will? What do you mean by metaphysical free-will?

Quote from: "BadPoison"*Post edited for clarity*

Quote from: "Tank"However each of you who read my post chose to either ignore it or responded and all those that responded chose not to carry out the test. If you have metaphysical 'free will' then you exercised it. If you do not have metaphysical 'free will' you don't know that and felt you had exercised it. You can not tell the difference.

Tank,
Would the above quote not apply to any sort of free-will? What do you mean by metaphysical free-will?

Metaphysical 'free will' would that bestowed by a deity as opposed to one that is just what happens on a day-to-day basis. And you're right if 'free will' were some external force then the statement would be equally true.

Quote from: "Tank"Metaphysical 'free will' would that bestowed by a deity as opposed to one that is just what happens on a day-to-day basis. And you're right if 'free will' were some external force then the statement would be equally true.

What is the difference between metaphysical freewill and that which we choose daily?  I suggest there is no difference if God bestowed it on His creation.  We use both the metaphysical in whether we choose God and the "common" in what we choose for breakfast.  Both are freewill choices in action.  One simply has a "metaphysical" outcome.

Quote from: "AnimatedDirt"

Quote from: "Tank"Metaphysical 'free will' would that bestowed by a deity as opposed to one that is just what happens on a day-to-day basis. And you're right if 'free will' were some external force then the statement would be equally true.

What is the difference between metaphysical freewill and that which we choose daily?  I suggest there is no difference if God bestowed it on His creation.  We use both the metaphysical in whether we choose God and the "common" in what we choose for breakfast.  Both are freewill choices in action.  One simply has a "metaphysical" outcome.

One is a fantasy required by theists to explain evil in an attempt to support their institutionalised superstition. The other is an emergent property of human existance.

Quote from: "Tank"

Quote from: "AnimatedDirt"

Quote from: "Tank"Metaphysical 'free will' would that bestowed by a deity as opposed to one that is just what happens on a day-to-day basis. And you're right if 'free will' were some external force then the statement would be equally true.

What is the difference between metaphysical freewill and that which we choose daily?  I suggest there is no difference if God bestowed it on His creation.  We use both the metaphysical in whether we choose God and the "common" in what we choose for breakfast.  Both are freewill choices in action.  One simply has a "metaphysical" outcome.

One is a fantasy required by theists to explain evil in an attempt to support their institutionalised superstition. The other is an emergent property of human existance.

Interesting.  One one hand you say freewill exists.  On the other hand, and opposed to your own thinking, it doesn't because it supports an "institutionalized suprestition".

I understand how your logic works now.  It speaks volumes of your "experiment" that proves your logic.  Thanks Tank.

Quote from: "Tank"One is a fantasy required by theists to explain evil in an attempt to support their institutionalised superstition. The other is an emergent property of human existance.

Thanks, I see what you mean, however I would put forward that "free-will" isn't a defacto property of human existance. See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Determinism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Determinism)
 
That being said I don't want to derail the thread.

Quote from: "AnimatedDirt"Again...having stopped without reading and making any attempt to see the whole picture, your basis for judging the Christian God is based on a few sentences of a book.  In other words, false assertions.

I had read enough to realise that this book wasn't for me. It seemed more focused on a children audience and it seemed quite preachy, but preached of injustice and intolerance. It also asserted certain things to have happened that there is no proof of, no evidence and which is extremely contrary to what science has proven with regards to the origin of our universes expansion. Had the book been classified as fiction then I may have given it more of a go but even then I didn't feel that the good guys were going to win. I actually know that the godly being is not going to be brought to any kind of justice and is simply going to continue to wreck havoc and the message is that we are to accept this godly being and worship it.

Quote from: "AnimatedDirt"We see your bias and preconceived ideas in that you don't want to seek out the point of it all.  

And the point of the book is....?

Quote from: "AnimatedDirt"However, when you make assertions on something you don't even understand fully or have any idea on the whole, you can see why I say *you twist the words to mean what *you think they do without any knowledge of the whole.

Sorry, but it is not a twist. This is my understanding, I am not trying to mislead, simply asserting what my understanding is(although based on limited knowledge). Given the perception I have towards this book and Christianity, I have very limited motivation to read the book. I certainly would not read it with the intent to discredit it. That is not my want or desire and certainly would be a waste of my time.

Quote from: "AnimatedDirt"I believe you're being honest on your feelings...but then again as the Atheist claims, feelings can be deceptive.

Even theists assert that feelings can be deceptive. Achronus went to lenght to tell us that we should not trust our minds and should simply have faith in the book instead of thinking for ourselves.

Quote from: "AnimatedDirt"

Quote from: "Stevil"I now have an avid Christian telling me that I choose not to love the Christian god, so I explain that it is not a choice and that given my experiences and the stories of the bible I could not possibly love such a creature, nor do I have the desire to.

You have made a choice based on your experience...not much different from the claim of a Christian, now is it?  Either way, who's made the decision to believe as you do?

I have not made a choice, there was no choice on whether to love your god. Love is generally not something that one chooses, it is an emotion that happens subconsciously and generally towards people that one interacts with. Stalkers and fanatics being the exception.

Quote from: "AnimatedDirt"

Quote from: "Stevil"A question for you AD, do you have the desire to love Hitler? Do you think if you read his book, Mine Kampf that you might fall in love with this man?

The answer is in the form of a question.  Does Hitler (and so his book) claim he wants my freewill love?  Does Hitler claim God-abilities?  Did Hitler ever in person or in his book ever claim he created the universe?  Is Hitler claimed to be alive and seen as a god by a good portion of the world?  Did Hitler claim to be God?  Does Hitler make any sacrifice of himself for the supposed betterment (? I hope this is a word) of the world?  If yes to any of these questions, then why does this man die like the coward that he is?

My answer in short, He didn't ask it of me, he made no claims of the like and he not worthy of any fame but fame through infamy.

So my response to this, in short. If Hitler had claimed to have created the universe and had claimed to be god, would you then look at Hitler's acts of the holocaust in a different more positive light? This certainly gives me much more perspective with regards to how Christians can look positivly towards God's act of the great flood.

I just made my contribution to Wiki

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Omniscienc ... ce_Paradox (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Omniscience#The_Omniscience_Paradox)

Quote from: "TheJackel"I just made my contribution to Wiki

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Omniscienc ... ce_Paradox (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Omniscience#The_Omniscience_Paradox)

I'm pretty sure that violates the neutrality rule.

Quote from: "TheJackel"I just made my contribution to Wiki :pop:

Quote from: "AnimatedDirt"

Quote from: "Tank"

Quote from: "AnimatedDirt"What is the difference between metaphysical freewill and that which we choose daily?  I suggest there is no difference if God bestowed it on His creation.  We use both the metaphysical in whether we choose God and the "common" in what we choose for breakfast.  Both are freewill choices in action.  One simply has a "metaphysical" outcome.

One is a fantasy required by theists to explain evil in an attempt to support their institutionalised superstition. The other is an emergent property of human existance.

Interesting.  One one hand you say freewill exists.  On the other hand, and opposed to your own thinking, it doesn't because it supports an "institutionalized suprestition".

I understand how your logic works now.  It speaks volumes of your "experiment" that proves your logic.  Thanks Tank.

I don't know if you're being deliberately obtuse or what. But your response was totally predictable. Anything that disturbs your Faith based world view is instantly dismissed. You have no evidence that your particular superstition is real nor that it is any way more feasible/worthy than anybody else's superstition. If you can't tell the difference between a theological myth and what happens every day when sales people try to influence you then you will continually be duped when you suspend your sceptisism.

All supposed 'evidence' for the existance of a deity are based on speculation and wishful thinking. In my opinion Christianity is simply a popular form of wishful thinking as are Islam and Hinduism. There is no evidence for the existance of god that would stand up in a court of law, let alone to scientific scrutiny, thus there is no consequential ability for said 'god' to influence human behaviour in any way whatsoever.

There is evil in this world because a minority of people don't give a shit about other people, they are selfish sociopaths and psychopaths.

You're welcome to your beliefs. But here I am perfectly at liberty to explain why those beliefs are false.