I'm an atheist, and perhaps one of the strongest reasons is natural evil and bad design. They kinda are related to each other but let me explain what I mean. I'm mostly going to focus on humans.
Natural evil just means terrible things happening to people which are outside of people's control. For example, by pure chance if your chromosomes happen to not fuse properly in meiosis, you could be born mentally retarded with down syndrome. Also, by pure chance, you could be born with any number of possible terrible birth defects. How does the theist explain why an innocent baby is born with a genetic disorder where he/she lives only a year in pain before dying? Also, why are there ebola zaire virus particles that exist ONLY to infect humans and monkeys, cause their internal organs to liquify, bleed out all orfices, then die within a week?
This question is very different from the question "why is there evil?" when evil means evil people or evil actions caused by people. This is nature, outside of man's control, causing suffering.
Also, how do the theists explain such terrible "design" for humans? Many people need glasses because our eyesight is bad, many people have wisdom teeth that offer no benefit and are detrimental (I had mine removed years ago), before invention of new birth techniques giving birth often killed both the mother and child, old people get alzheimer's, ect.
And I'm not so sure I buy the reason "all this is because of the fall of Adam and Eve". You can see detrimental mutations in other species besides humans, and mutations are actually required for evolution to proceed (I'm assuming you all accept evolution as true).
Good point on the virus, why would god create us as his prize creations then create things that could destroy us? That also includes animals that attack us, bears etc. Why would God not punish an animal for taking the life of a human? Wipe out that specific animal species etc.?
Father Asmo, he can tell you why there be evil and bad design.
Satan.
oO(...Or was it Santa..?)
In any case, lemme have an amen! :P
Quote from: Asmodean on January 01, 2012, 03:55:53 AM
Father Asmo, he can tell you why there be evil and bad design.
Satan.
oO(...Or was it Santa..?)
In any case, lemme have an amen! :P
Amen! You just can't trust anyone who dresses all in red.
Here's how I would answer it:
God is a dick.
Pic:
(https://www.happyatheistforum.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fdoctore.blog.is%2Fusers%2Fb4%2Fdoctore%2Fimg%2Fgod-is-a-dick-images205.jpg&hash=aed85fed480b3ccc381d038e057859cedc919d5e)
Parasites that are specific to humans (and other species-specific parasites) are the best examples, IMO. You can mention how accumulated evolution can produce a complex organism that isn't perfect, hear some rather silly strawman jokes about the subject and wonder if some people were aware that perhaps it's better to keep one's mouth shut than open it and look rather dense. ::) Nothing gained there.
Seems like human cell-specific viruses though were designed for us. Viruses need cells to reproduce, so there's no way around that. And that's a fact.
So, theists, any serious answer?
Our planet has created us, tigers, albatross and turtles. I think these are great things, the planet as it is with all the pain and suffering is how such things were created.
I can imagine other ways of doing things, nutrition may be drawn in with air, sexual reproduction isn't used, population is painlessly constrained. Our characteristics of empathy, community and drive to know are born of our difficult ancestry. Omnipotent god should be able to just plonk our hard won characteristics into a brand new life form, I can't make excuses for this guy. I could forgive/thank a less than omnipotent god for who the tooth and claw, pain and suffering way of creation is the only/best way. I do think life is better than no life, Earth is better than Mars.
Is it really "natural evil" though? Personally I don't see viruses as natural evil, they are a form of life that exists by consuming energy and multiplying, they do this by infecting different forms of life such as plants and animals, the more effective they are the deadlier they are to the host. If we take humanity through metaphor we can be comparable to a virus (in fact all life can), as all life follows the same basic fundamentals - to consume energy and multiply - the more effective life is at this principle the bigger the impact they have to other forms of life. Maybe the question should be why would life be created by a god that in its most fundamental aspect be a disadvantage to other forms of life? and if the universe was created for humanity then why are there more successful forms of life?
I think that your reason for seeking atheistic answers to the fundamental question of why is admirable. The ideas proposed are valid but I think they could use a little help regarding the definitions of the terms used. And I think a deeper understanding will help to clarify some things. Evil by definition requires there to be some sort of moral code in place to be violated. Nature does not run on morality just survival and chance. If an animal kills another animal that is not evil, but survival. And, if an animal by chance falls off a cliff in pursuit of prey or fleeing a predator that is chance. Unlucky, unfortunate, call it what you will but there is violation of any code of morals in order for evil to be implied. Evil can only be applied to humans, when they act in violation to moral codes that they have established. Beating your wife today could be considered evil. But 200 years ago that was called keeping your family in line. So evil is a purely subjective term and is only effective when comparing and contrasting it to acceptable forms of behavior established by a critical majority within a certain culture and society. So in short form, evil is a construct of humanity and therefore evil by definition does not exist in nature and nature acting in accordance with the laws of natural selection can never be evil. Bad design on the other had exists but I think using a term like design is not entirely correct. Design implies that forethought was involved in creating a solution to an existing problem. Evolution does not work like that. If it appears as though something was designed for a specific purpose it is only in hindsight that this solution emerged. Take for example beaks and nuts. If you saw a bird with a particularly large beak breaking open relatively large nuts one might assume that the tree produces large nuts therefore the birds needed to have a large beak in order to eat the nuts. A designer would look at this problem and say... simple enough, in subsequent generations beaks will be larger and hence the nuts will be eaten. The truth is actually very far from that. the truth probably reads something like this. Birds with average sized beaks ate nuts form trees with average sized nuts. As the population of birds with average sized beaks grew most if not all of the average sized nuts were eaten. Only nuts from trees that occasionally produced oversized nuts would not be eaten therefore the genes for large nuts propagated within the tree gene pool until a majority of the trees produced nuts that were too large for the average sized beaks. In this case now the birds with average sized beaks would be undernourished have fewer children and average sized beaks would be replaced in the gene pool by genes for larger beaks. This took place very slowly over thousands of generation until at long last you have a bird with a large beak that appears to have been designed for the larger nuts of the tree. Nither nuts nor beaks were designed they emerged as a result of mutual pressures exerted on one another.
I'm not sure if either of my responses were necessarily helpful to you. It sounds as though you may want help in defending a position in an argument where things like...why would god design a skull that is too small for wisdom teeth...or how does a compassionate god give innocent (another entirely subjective term) children diseases or defects. Well keep in mind as an atheist you may be engaging in discussions with individuals that by no stretch of the imagination believe in ghosts and magic. I think having a clear and precise position on the idea natural emergence rather than creative design and the semantics of evil will be helpful but only up to the point where magic and ghosts come into play in which case all bets are off.
The very fact that we have evolved as creatures with a moral sense is due to the suffering that is built into this life from natural processes. The stress of natural forces that seem to operate against us has caused us to develop the very concepts of right and wrong, good and evil. God, IMHO, set the initial conditions of creation (natural laws) that he knew would eventually result in us. Perhaps this is the only way in which creatures like us can develop. His intent was not to create perfect beings who do not suffer, as such beings would have no discussions as we are having about good and evil. His purpose was to create mortal beings who struggle with issues, to prepare us for the next phase of existence, which in the New Testament is referred to as the Kingdom of God. In that phase, "every tear will be wiped away," and the injustices of this life rectified. This cannot be proven, of course, and remains in the realm of faith. Some believers have had experiences in life which give them a foretaste of this realm, but cannot claim knowledge of it. It is a matter of faith and personal experience, IMHO.
Adam and Eve is a metaphor about this struggle, of losing one's innocence and grappling with the problem of good and evil. Christianity provides one scenario in which that struggle comes to a conclusion, and people are given an option of participating in the kingdom of God or being excluded, not in eternal torment, but in cessation of existence.
It's funny you mention you say "Bad Design," it's been plaguing my mind for a while now. Ever since I read The Magicians, where a character confronts an Aslan-type of character and calls him out on the nature of the world, "Next time you build a world, why don't you try doing less of a half-ass job?"
What trips me out is that we can easily use our imagination and try and imagine how we might have constructed things differently. Makes the world look like a rough-draft. It kind of feels to me like if God made us in his image, and he is hypothetically more like us than we are lead to believe, then it is easy to see that, yeah, the universe was made by a moron who didn't know what he was doing because he was doing it the first time. There were teething troubles. He continued to pretend that the obvious problems were part of the plan. It's like he's insecure. Like he can see how we're learning from how stupidly it is as a designed work, and he's more afraid of several thousands of years spent building up his name, so he doesn't want to let go of the illusion that he's perfect. If it was true, I think I would actually like and respect him better if he came clean and was honest about it. It really rubs me raw when it looks like he's always blaming us for his failure. It's almost as if the best reason for learning forgiveness in this life is for the great surprise: the test beyond the end of life is if we are actually able to forgive him for his failings. Now I'm just saying crazy stuff.
There are two possibilities that I think are likely, that the universe developed on it's own it quite an extaordinary manner beyond what we could reasonably expect, or that it was designed by a guy who was doing it the first time and isn't receptive to constructive criticism. While I'm not allowed to reject constructive criticism, and I'm sure He'd be the first in line to say that I should learn better. Yeah, he's got to be a hypocrite and a jerk. A complete knee-biter. This is why I tell him to fix it or fuck off, every day.
Quote from: Tristan Jay on January 04, 2012, 08:28:03 PM
It's funny you mention you say "Bad Design," it's been plaguing my mind for a while now. Ever since I read The Magicians, where a character confronts an Aslan-type of character and calls him out on the nature of the world, "Next time you build a world, why don't you try doing less of a half-ass job?"
What trips me out is that we can easily use our imagination and try and imagine how we might have constructed things differently. Makes the world look like a rough-draft. It kind of feels to me like if God made us in his image, and he is hypothetically more like us than we are lead to believe, then it is easy to see that, yeah, the universe was made by a moron who didn't know what he was doing because he was doing it the first time. There were teething troubles. He continued to pretend that the obvious problems were part of the plan. It's like he's insecure. Like he can see how we're learning from how stupidly it is as a designed work, and he's more afraid of several thousands of years spent building up his name, so he doesn't want to let go of the illusion that he's perfect. If it was true, I think I would actually like and respect him better if he came clean and was honest about it. It really rubs me raw when it looks like he's always blaming us for his failure. It's almost as if the best reason for learning forgiveness in this life is for the great surprise: the test beyond the end of life is if we are actually able to forgive him for his failings. Now I'm just saying crazy stuff.
There are two possibilities that I think are likely, that the universe developed on it's own it quite an extaordinary manner beyond what we could reasonably expect, or that it was designed by a guy who was doing it the first time and isn't receptive to constructive criticism. While I'm not allowed to reject constructive criticism, and I'm sure He'd be the first in line to say that I should learn better. Yeah, he's got to be a hypocrite and a jerk. A complete knee-biter. This is why I tell him to fix it or fuck off, every day.
On our 'made in His image' point...what exactly would you consider a design flaw that this crazy hypocrite jerk fucked up? It must be a doosie.
Quote from: AnimatedDirt on January 04, 2012, 08:46:12 PM
Quote from: Tristan Jay on January 04, 2012, 08:28:03 PM
It's funny you mention you say "Bad Design," it's been plaguing my mind for a while now. Ever since I read The Magicians, where a character confronts an Aslan-type of character and calls him out on the nature of the world, "Next time you build a world, why don't you try doing less of a half-ass job?"
What trips me out is that we can easily use our imagination and try and imagine how we might have constructed things differently. Makes the world look like a rough-draft. It kind of feels to me like if God made us in his image, and he is hypothetically more like us than we are lead to believe, then it is easy to see that, yeah, the universe was made by a moron who didn't know what he was doing because he was doing it the first time. There were teething troubles. He continued to pretend that the obvious problems were part of the plan. It's like he's insecure. Like he can see how we're learning from how stupidly it is as a designed work, and he's more afraid of several thousands of years spent building up his name, so he doesn't want to let go of the illusion that he's perfect. If it was true, I think I would actually like and respect him better if he came clean and was honest about it. It really rubs me raw when it looks like he's always blaming us for his failure. It's almost as if the best reason for learning forgiveness in this life is for the great surprise: the test beyond the end of life is if we are actually able to forgive him for his failings. Now I'm just saying crazy stuff.
There are two possibilities that I think are likely, that the universe developed on it's own it quite an extaordinary manner beyond what we could reasonably expect, or that it was designed by a guy who was doing it the first time and isn't receptive to constructive criticism. While I'm not allowed to reject constructive criticism, and I'm sure He'd be the first in line to say that I should learn better. Yeah, he's got to be a hypocrite and a jerk. A complete knee-biter. This is why I tell him to fix it or fuck off, every day.
On our 'made in His image' point...what exactly would you consider a design flaw that this crazy hypocrite jerk fucked up? It must be a doosie.
Inside-out retina would be a good start. Particularly as molluscs all have it the right way round so they don't have a blind spot.
Quote from: Tank on January 04, 2012, 09:20:05 PM
Inside-out retina would be a good start. Particularly as molluscs all have it the right way round so they don't have a blind spot.
Does not the neck serve the purpose reducing the blind spot? We don't live in a "3d" world of water. It's not our "home". If evolution has weeded out the good and the bad, it suggests that reducing blind spots are traits associated with those that are hunted rather than the hunter or top of the food chain. I'm not certain on this so I could be wrong...it just seems to me.
Have you ever wondered what it would be like to have 360 degree vision? What kind of body would that make for. What would our heads look like that IMPROVE upon the evolved condition we are at now?
Quote from: AnimatedDirt on January 04, 2012, 08:46:12 PMOn our 'made in His image' point...what exactly would you consider a design flaw that this crazy hypocrite jerk fucked up? It must be a doosie.
There is no one thing that makes it a doosie, really. It's all the little things that pile up. It wasn't just the straw that broke the camel's back, it was all the other stupid stuff, too. I'll put some stuff forward, but I'm sure other people here can throw out a few things as well. I'll come back to this, it just takes a lot of time and energy to organize my thoughts. I'll leave you with that to start with, my brain's functional capacity is unacceptable. If only I could be more reasonable. If I had better resources and could participate more effectively in this world, and try to be productive? My best response to a familiar, infuriating! exchange:
Q: Why doesn't God, with is infinite capacity, help us out more? Why doesn't he end this suffering, that injustice, ect.
Response Q: Why don't I do it, then?
A: Because, I'm having difficulty enough helping myself to survive! What resources do I drain from others trying to do that? Therefore, why doesn't he fix me when I ask, so that I can do the job that he won't bother with? Why doesn't he empower me with the strength and knowledge?
He can't complain that I hate him. He designed me this way. I don't want to be this way. He could so easily change it. Yet he does not. I feel sympathy for the Pharaoh, whose heart he hardened. Did the Pharaoh choose to be this way, for the benefit of God's example? What would he think, if he knew God hardened his heart? In light of the promise that we are supposed to have free will? I am not clay, I am a living being, and I don't like being manipulated. I don't want him to mold me, I don't even want to be an attractive looking vessel, I just want to function and survive and be left alone. I want peace and quiet. I want my brain to be quieted from the storm of thoughts I can't ignore and leaves me too exhausted to do basic functional stuff.
And if he doesn't bother to help me? Then it's all been my own effort, and he deserves no credit. And I'm essentially fighting a bad design upstream against the will of a jerk who wants me this way. A bad design, and a bad designer.
This is just the start of what's
wrong. It's not the only thing by far. There's plenty of other, less personal stuff. Like I said, I'll come back to discuss it more.
Please understand, though, that I don't feel hostility toward people who are religious. I am glad that you take comfort in your spiritual beliefs, and hope your spiritual path is a rewarding one for you.
Quote from: AnimatedDirt on January 04, 2012, 09:31:05 PM
Quote from: Tank on January 04, 2012, 09:20:05 PM
Inside-out retina would be a good start. Particularly as molluscs all have it the right way round so they don't have a blind spot.
Does not the neck serve the purpose reducing the blind spot? We don't live in a "3d" world of water. It's not our "home". If evolution has weeded out the good and the bad, it suggests that reducing blind spots are traits associated with those that are hunted rather than the hunter or top of the food chain. I'm not certain on this so I could be wrong...it just seems to me.
Have you ever wondered what it would be like to have 360 degree vision? What kind of body would that make for. What would our heads look like that IMPROVE upon the evolved condition we are at now?
Binocular vision and good slimeware overcome the issue of the blindspot. However the inverted retina in mammals is substandard compared to that of 'correct' construction of the octopus world.
See also The Laryngeal Nerve of the Giraffe is Proof of Natural Selection (http://scienceblogs.com/grrlscientist/2010/06/the_laryngeal_nerve_of_the_gir.php)
Testicals that don't need to hang out in the airstream to keep cool to produce sperm would be a good idea. Fish don't have this problem.
The ability to synthasize vitamin C would be useful. But of course that 'designer' fucked up there with a broken gene that we all have but can't use.
The curved spine botched together to get our front limbs off the ground combined with the fact that it contains the main communications bundle of the body inside it.
Naked mole rats don't get cancer. I suppose that makes up for being f***ing ugly. But then they live in the dark so that's alright.
Mortality would be another small design flaw,
The human is the only member of the great apes without a penis bone. I mean WTF! Thanks God!
Quote from: Tank on January 04, 2012, 09:53:49 PM
Testicals that don't need to hang out in the airstream to keep cool to produce sperm would be a good idea. Fish don't have this problem.
We don't live in the ocean where it is hardly the temperature that testicles cease to produce sperm...isn't that the reason they need cooling? I'm not certain.
Quote from: TankThe ability to synthasize vitamin C would be useful. But of course that 'designer' fucked up there with a broken gene that we all have but can't use.
Apparently that particular "broken" gene is not detrimental to the species. Isn't vitamin C pretty abundant in what humans eat? Wouldn't it be therefore natural to have adapted to this abundance? If it were reversed, one might think the argument would be; Why make a gene that produces vitamin C when vitamin C is so plentiful...did God not know vitamin C was plentiful and therefore didn't realize this making a redundant body function?
Quote from: TankThe curved spine botched together to get our front limbs off the ground combined with the fact that it contains the main communications bundle of the body inside it.
Botched together? Where would you place the main communications bundle if not surrounded by bone? Let's think about the design of buildings and their placement of communications cables...has man not learned something better as of yet where better to run the lines?
Quote from: TankNaked mole rats don't get cancer. I suppose that makes up for being f***ing ugly. But then they live in the dark so that's alright.
Naked mole rats...I would take cancer as a human over being a naked mole rat. Maybe you would choose to be a naked mole rat instead?
Quote from: TankMortality would be another small design flaw,
Wait...isn't there another thread here on HAF where the discussion is about living forever...?? It seems to me that the bulk of the like-minded as rational as rational can be, seem to not want this.
Quote from: TankThe human is the only member of the great apes without a penis bone. I mean WTF! Thanks God!
So you're saying a bone within your pecker is a better design? A perpetual boner is what you want? You've seen the ape penis right?
Don't be mean to.naked mole rats. I find them adorable.
And I wouldn't wish cancer on anyone. My grandfather is literally being eaten away by stomach cancer... It's a terrible sight.
Quote from: Sweetdeath on January 05, 2012, 06:53:24 PM
Don't be mean to.naked mole rats. I find them adorable.
And I wouldn't wish cancer on anyone. My grandfather is literally being eaten away by stomach cancer... It's a terrible sight.
In saying I'd rather be a human with cancer than a naked mole rat with no cancer is being mean? Was that aimed at me? I'm not sure. I don't wish cancer on anyone either. I've had (and have) my fair share of cancer within my family and friends. It is a terrible sight.
Quote from: AnimatedDirt on January 05, 2012, 07:02:50 PM
Quote from: Sweetdeath on January 05, 2012, 06:53:24 PM
Don't be mean to.naked mole rats. I find them adorable.
And I wouldn't wish cancer on anyone. My grandfather is literally being eaten away by stomach cancer... It's a terrible sight.
In saying I'd rather be a human with cancer than a naked mole rat with no cancer is being mean? Was that aimed at me? I'm not sure. I don't wish cancer on anyone either. I've had (and have) my fair share of cancer within my family and friends. It is a terrible sight.
Wasn't aimed at you. Calm down Ansty mc firepants. XP
How about afflictions that resulted from humans evolving to walk on four legs, then all of a sudden starting to walk upright. Things like hemorrhoids and scoliosis? That sounds like pretty poor design.
Ok... Animated. Listen to yourself. No person on earth should disagree with the mole rat example. Tank was not asking you to choose the better species. He was suggesting that a better design for humans would include those specific traits.
Quote from: Genericguy on January 15, 2012, 10:24:17 AM
Ok... Animated. Listen to yourself. No person on earth should disagree with the mole rat example. Tank was not asking you to choose the better species. He was suggesting that a better design for humans would include those specific traits.
When a person says that there is flaw in a certain design, then that person should have a solution for the design flaw otherwise there is no REAL flaw if there isn't a better design available. The fact that the design works speaks for itself. My point is simply to say "No person on earth should disagree with the mole rat example." says nothing. It's like making the claim;
Rock caves don't have termite problems. to somehow discredit the manner in which we build homes today. Sure, make every home out of rock and you eliminate the termite problem. Yet to the mind of the educated TODAY, wood is still used...
Quote from: AnimatedDirt on January 17, 2012, 04:44:35 PM
When a person says that there is flaw in a certain design, then that person should have a solution for the design flaw otherwise there is no REAL flaw if there isn't a better design available.
Your god is omnipotent. He can do ANYTHING, including giving us a gene (like the mole rats have) that prevents cancer.
Human + cancer = bad.
Human - cancer = good.
It's not that difficult.
Quote from: Genericguy on January 17, 2012, 06:12:13 PM
Your god is omnipotent. He can do ANYTHING, including giving us a gene (like the mole rats have) that prevents cancer.
Human + cancer = bad.
Human - cancer = good.
It's not that difficult.
And you know it's that simple through...?
Are you saying god is not omnipotent?
You know you can say "mysterious ways" at any time. :)
Quote from: Genericguy on January 17, 2012, 06:23:57 PM
Are you saying god is not omnipotent?
You know you can say "mysterious ways" at any time. :)
Wait...are you putting words in my mouth now? Are you not more intelligent than I to assertain what exactly I'm asking, but instead jump to a conclusion on what you believe my answer to be for the reason rat moles may or may not be resistant to cancer?
I need to know if you think your god is omnipotent in order to answer your question.
Quote from: Genericguy on January 17, 2012, 06:32:14 PM
I need to know if you think your god is omnipotent in order to answer your question.
The real question is on what ground do
you base that god's omnipotence is the simple answer as in simply adding a gene?
Do you know that gene? Do you know how to add genes to our DNA? Do you know what is involved in doing so? Do you know that the gene is simply there and not a result of something else?
The simple answer is your god could have created us with the ability to reject cancer. A better design would be us without cancer. If you can't admit that then I don't know what else we can say.
Quote from: Genericguy on January 17, 2012, 06:46:07 PM
The simple answer is your god could have created us with the ability to reject cancer. A better design would be us without cancer. If you can't admit that then I don't know what else we can say.
So you're saying that if god created us, he did so without the ability to reject cancer? And you're making this argument on what basis of knowledge? You know exactly how this god created us or you know that we don't have it in us to reject cancer? Or is it some other knowledge you have, higher than this god?
You have yet to produce a better design...
Quote from: Genericguy on January 17, 2012, 06:46:07 PM
The simple answer is your god could have created us with the ability to reject cancer. A better design would be us without cancer. If you can't admit that then I don't know what else we can say.
There are a lot of theists who basically view life as a test; so having bad things in life is part of that test. If the purpose of design is to test people then these bad things would be part of the desired design intent. I'm not saying this is correct thinking...there are lots of moral issues to consider about the nature of a god who would test its creation in that kind of manner.
Some theists also think that all bad things are the devil's work...which is theologically unsound if they want to remain monotheistic as it basically means they believe in two gods...an evil one and a good one who are in competition with each other.
Anyway...point is that good (quality) and bad (incompetent) design depend on the purpose of that design.
A common thread to all religions is that they all have some method of avoiding suffering..I think that is because religions evolved to give purpose to what can be a very harsh existence for some. And this is the reason why religious people can explain (some better than others of course) evil in the world as we define things that cause suffering as evil.
Quote from: Whitney on January 17, 2012, 07:15:11 PM
Some theists also think that all bad things are the devil's work...which is theologically unsound if they want to remain monotheistic as it basically means they believe in two gods...an evil one and a good one who are in competition with each other.
While I may agree more than I disagree with your post, I disagree more with the above. The simple fact is that if light exists, then so does darkness...and not necessarily as a "creation" or separate "god", if you will, existing.
Here are the possibilities that i see. Feel free to add more.
1. God is omnipotent and could have created us with the natural ability to reject cancer, but didn't. - mysterious ways.
2. God is omnipotent and couldn't create us with the natural ability to reject cancer. - omnipotence is null.
3. God is not omnipotent and couldn't create us with the natural ability to reject cancer. - god is null.
4. God is not omnipotent but could have created us with the natural ability to reject cancer, but didn't. god is null.
Quote from: Genericguy on January 17, 2012, 07:24:34 PM
Here are the possibilities that i see. Feel free to add more.
1. God is omnipotent and could have created us with the natural ability to reject cancer, but didn't. - mysterious ways.
2. God is omnipotent and couldn't create us with the natural ability to reject cancer. - omnipotence is null.
3. God is not omnipotent and couldn't create us with the natural ability to reject cancer. - god is null.
4. God is not omnipotent but could have created us with the natural ability to reject cancer, but didn't. god is null.
These are all that you see?
How do
you know any of these true? (again you go assuming an answer...twice now.)
Please provide other options. I'm really trying to understand what you believe and why.
Quote from: Genericguy on January 17, 2012, 07:31:23 PM
Please provide other options. I'm really trying to understand what you believe and why.
Actually you're not. You've provided the answer you believe I give for this twice already.
Let's stick to what you perceive as 'true'.
Again...how do YOU know the above assertions are/is true?
Quote from: AnimatedDirt on January 17, 2012, 07:28:42 PM
How do you know any of these true? (again you go assuming an answer...twice now.)
I don't think any of them are true. If your unwilling to provide your own perspective, I'm forced to imagine it myself. Please provide your own. As I said "feel free to add more."
Edit: please understand my tone of type is intended to be calm. I understand emotion can be confusing with out a voice.
Quote from: Genericguy on January 17, 2012, 07:41:54 PM
I don't think any of them are true. If your unwilling to provide your own perspective, I'm forced to imagine it myself. Please provide your own. As I said "feel free to add more."
Edit: please understand my tone of type is intended to be calm. I understand emotion can be confusing with out a voice.
Kind of like you imagined my answer(s) to be, "God works in mysterious ways." as the end-all answer? Please note, I'm also "speaking" in calm tones, but when one assumes another's position, it is difficult to imagine the discussion is a discussion and not simply a ploy to chalk up another point on the Atheism side...
If you do not think any of those points to be true, what is your point in saying or agreeing that the design is "flawed"? Have you a better design?
Better design = humans incapable of getting cancer. Unless humans getting cancer serves god's purpose, in which case, see my thoughts on a "loving god".
Quote from: Ali on January 17, 2012, 08:13:30 PM
Better design = humans incapable of getting cancer. Unless humans getting cancer serves god's purpose, in which case, see my thoughts on a "loving god".
That is not a design. It's a thought. That is only, "Rocks are better for home building because they don't promote termite infestation..." And yet...the homes go built predominantly with wood.
Show me a design better than what we have/are now. Implement your design...
Quote from: AnimatedDirt on January 17, 2012, 08:16:19 PM
Quote from: Ali on January 17, 2012, 08:13:30 PM
Better design = humans incapable of getting cancer. Unless humans getting cancer serves god's purpose, in which case, see my thoughts on a "loving god".
That is not a design. It's a thought. That is only, "Rocks are better for home building because they don't promote termite infestation..." And yet...the homes go built predominantly with wood.
Show me a design better than what we have/are now. Implement your design...
Human genes + cancer resistant gene = better design.
Quote from: Ali on January 17, 2012, 08:17:46 PM
Human genes + cancer resistant gene = better design.
LOL...yes another great thought.
Quote from: AnimatedDirt on January 17, 2012, 08:19:36 PM
Quote from: Ali on January 17, 2012, 08:17:46 PM
Human genes + cancer resistant gene = better design.
LOL...yes another great thought.
Okay snark. So you disagree that us having the cancer resistant gene would be a better design?
Quote from: Ali on January 17, 2012, 08:28:19 PM
Okay snark. So you disagree that us having the cancer resistant gene would be a better design?
Who said we don't have the genes for cancer resistance?
Quote from: AnimatedDirt on January 17, 2012, 08:33:35 PM
Quote from: Ali on January 17, 2012, 08:28:19 PM
Okay snark. So you disagree that us having the cancer resistant gene would be a better design?
Who said we don't have the genes for cancer resistance?
Well, if we do then they must be faulty in plenty of us, because accordng to the WHO cancer is the leading cause of death worldwide.
http://www.who.int/mediacentre/factsheets/fs297/en/
C'mon, if god could give mole rats much better cancer protection, why not us too?
Quote from: Ali on January 17, 2012, 08:36:42 PM
C'mon, if god could give mole rats much better cancer protection, why not us too?
I'm not trying to dispute that cancer is a leading cause of death...or THE leading cause.
Again...how do
YOU know this god didn't give us better cancer protection? And again...does every person die of cancer?
As an interesting side note, with all this talks of naked mole rats, I thought I was on a few different message boards (sports related) on which I go by the handle "nakedmolerat".
As for the poor design sidetrack that this thread has taken, I've always thought that a poor design in the human body is using the same hole for eating/drinking and breathing. Usually everything works as it should, but for some reason every now and then it doesn't and I just know I am going to suffocate to death on that sip of water.
Also, tendinitis. That is bad design. And it hurts like a bastard too.
Quote from: AnimatedDirt on January 17, 2012, 08:54:11 PM
Quote from: Ali on January 17, 2012, 08:36:42 PM
C'mon, if god could give mole rats much better cancer protection, why not us too?
I'm not trying to dispute that cancer is a leading cause of death...or THE leading cause.
Again...how do YOU know this god didn't give us better cancer protection? And again...does every person die of cancer?
...........I feel like you're being a little obtuse here.
Mole rats never die of cancer. Like literally never. You can't even give a mole rat cancer, even if you try really really hard. http://www.slate.com/articles/health_and_science/the_mouse_trap/2011/11/naked_mole_rats_can_they_help_us_cure_cancer_.html
On the other hand, 13% of people who died in 2009 died of cancer. I don't see how you can argue that we don't know that mole rats have better cancer protection than we do. And the question is - if god designed mole rats to be cancer free, why wouldn't/couldn't he design people the same way?
Quote from: hismikeness on January 17, 2012, 08:57:49 PM
As an interesting side note, with all this talks of naked mole rats, I thought I was on a few different message boards (sports related) on which I go by the handle "nakedmolerat".
As for the poor design sidetrack that this thread has taken, I've always thought that a poor design in the human body is using the same hole for eating/drinking and breathing. Usually everything works as it should, but for some reason every now and then it doesn't and I just know I am going to suffocate to death on that sip of water.
Also, tendinitis. That is bad design. And it hurts like a bastard too.
Again...where is your solution? Where is your design that we may see how and where the breathing hole is being both aesthetic and functional...don't forget to show your work...rerouting nerves and muscles and how you plan on changing the genetic code to make such a change exactly to your design.
Quote from: Ali on January 17, 2012, 09:01:23 PM
...........I feel like you're being a little obtuse here.
Not trying to be obtuse. Asking relevant questions.
Quote from: AliMole rats never die of cancer. Like literally never. You can't even give a mole rat cancer, even if you try really really hard. http://www.slate.com/articles/health_and_science/the_mouse_trap/2011/11/naked_mole_rats_can_they_help_us_cure_cancer_.html
That's not in dispute. No need to give proof of something we are not in disagreement with.
Quote from: AliOn the other hand, 13% of people who died in 2009 died of cancer.
Looking at this logically, this means that only 13% of people are prone to cancer and that 87% are immune.
Quote from: AliI don't see how you can argue that we don't know that mole rats have better cancer protection than we do. And the question is - if god designed mole rats to be cancer free, why wouldn't/couldn't he design people the same way?
Who is arguing that mole rats have better cancer protection than we do? On what knowledge to you base the assertion that "god designed mole rats to be cancer-free?" Who made this claim? Once more I will ask, how do you know that this fictitional god DIDN'T design people to be cancer-free?
I don't know the best way to fix the eating/breathing hole problem... whales and dolphins figured it out! Or they were designed that way I guess, which begs the question why humans weren't if both were designed by the same god.
I'm not pretending to be a designer of species. I'm merely pointing out that the design is not optimal. Whether designed by a being or through natural selection, it isn't optimal. Breathing and eating through the same opening has, I'm sure, led to many a person's demise. As for whales, only George Costanza has ever killed a whale by plugging its blowhole.
I don't know how to build helicopters, but if I saw one with light posts instead of propellers, I would know it was a bad design. But I am not the creator of said helicopter. Nor did I claim to be.
Quote from: AnimatedDirt on January 17, 2012, 09:09:42 PM
Quote from: AliOn the other hand, 13% of people who died in 2009 died of cancer.
Looking at this logically, this means that only 13% of people are prone to cancer and that 87% are immune.
No. That 13% is only the number of people who died in 2008. I'm sure that there were countless more who had cancer and survived or who had cancer and died later. Point being, "not dying" is not the same as "immune."
Quote from: AnimatedDirt on January 17, 2012, 09:09:42 PM
Quote from: AliI don't see how you can argue that we don't know that mole rats have better cancer protection than we do. And the question is - if god designed mole rats to be cancer free, why wouldn't/couldn't he design people the same way?
Who is arguing that mole rats have better cancer protection than we do? On what knowledge to you base the assertion that "god designed mole rats to be cancer-free?" Who made this claim? Once more I will ask, how do you know that this fictitional god DIDN'T design people to be cancer-free?
Well, obviously I don't believe that god designed mole rats to be cancer free, since I don't believe in god. But assuming that you do believe in god, and do believe that animals were designed by god, then one could surmise that god designed mole rats, and thus is responsible for their inability to get cancer.
And anyway, I thougvht the argument was "If our design is so imperfect, could you do better?" And to answer that, yes, if I were designing things, I would give all animals the inability to get cancer. Obviously it's possible, since, again, you can't even GIVE a mole rat cancer, no matter how much ick you smear on it.
Quote from: hismikeness on January 17, 2012, 09:13:00 PM
I don't know the best way to fix the eating/breathing hole problem... whales and dolphins figured it out! Or they were designed that way I guess, which begs the question why humans weren't if both were designed by the same god.
We humans do not make our home submerged IN water do we? I guess the "design" would be different there.
Quote from: hismikenessI'm not pretending to be a designer of species. I'm merely pointing out that the design is not optimal.
If you're not a designer, what qualifications do you have to make the assertion that the existing design is not good?
Quote from: hismikenessWhether designed by a being or through natural selection, it isn't optimal. Breathing and eating through the same opening has, I'm sure, led to many a person's demise. As for whales, only George Costanza has ever killed a whale by plugging its blowhole.
Again...so what is optimal? Not even a simple sketch? I guess all you can do is make a funny at the end hoping it will detract from the point that you really made no point.
Quote from: hismikenessI don't know how to build helicopters, but if I saw one with light posts instead of propellers, I would know it was a bad design. But I am not the creator of said helicopter. Nor did I claim to be.
Another non-point. There is no existing helicopter that utilizes lightpoles as blades to gain flight. You can certainly make a funny pic of one, but it doesn't exist. So to equate humans and helicopters with lightpoles as blades is not really adding to the discussion at all because these so-called "helicopters" do not exist.
I think Whitney's post was helpful in keeping this stuff in perspective. If we're going on the assumption that some of the design is part of his lovely desire to test us in life, then sure, challenges with "faults" in the design of the world test us. Maybe this goes deeper to a level of disagreement between God and the humans he created. If we look at it in terms of the degree of suffering, maybe that's more what we're contending here.
The example of cancer is a great one, so I'll play with that a little. I'll go out on a limb and say that cancer is needlessly cruel as a test of us, for starters. So from my perspective, I would say, "I don't think you need to test us to such a level of pain and cruelty. It would be more considerate and loving to test us, but not that far." I would also say that God has no perspective on what is intolerable for humans, because he hasn't tested himself. It might be easy for him to say, "Well, no, you don't have the perspective I have, cancer needs to be that cruel." To which I would think, "Intolerable, spirit destroying levels of cruelty are acceptable to a God who wants us to consider a loving, caring God." I would challenge Him that he doesn't have proper perspective on what this does to humans.
In order for me to conclude that God had a genuine perspective on how we humans feel about it, I would ask that he live through another human life time, without access to His knowledge and perspective, and experience the full indignity and horror of cancer, with only Himself and the family he set Himself up in to rely on; no superpowers, no knowledge that he has superpowers, and I would also ask that he pick a family that is moderate/average in its ability to provide help and support so He's not stacking the deck for himself. Then I would ask Him (while still cut off from access to His powers and knowledge) to answer if he thought this level of cruelty was necessary for the purpose of a spiritual test. That's probably the only way we might know if cancer is a reasonably painful test, from a loving God.
Despite His answer to my question within a specific set of living conditions, I would still say that he would need to answer to if the majority of humans weighed in and gave him a thumbs up or down on cancer. I don't care that He considers himself the Head Honcho of the universe, He would be facing a direct evaluation from humans about the quality of the design, and an evaluation of his judgement as the designer that it's good.
I'm aware that God doesn't consider this whole setup a democracy. And we're not really gonna know if enough humans will give a thumbs down for cancer as part of the design.
My personal opinion: I call foul. Cancer+Humans=Bad. I am willing to bet a fair amount of people would say, "Yeah, the universe might seem a bit better in it's design philosophy without cancer. I mean, what do we need it for? What do You need it for?"
If we get into this as just the start, and think, "Why stop with cancer" we might get into very particular design aspects; taking stuff out, moderating other stuff so that it's less painful. As a criterion for what an acceptable level of pain and suffering is, so we don't take all the challenge out of life, I'll suggest the "A person is not tested beyond what he is capable of handling" as a gauge, a cutoff point for pain and suffering levels. Because I would question that contention as an operational criterion in the world as it is set up right now.
Quote from: Ali on January 17, 2012, 09:22:10 PM
No. That 13% is only the number of people who died in 2008. I'm sure that there were countless more who had cancer and survived or who had cancer and died later. Point being, "not dying" is not the same as "immune."
If only 13% died of cancer, then that is the number. Everyone dies...but not of cancer.
Quote from: AliWell, obviously I don't believe that god designed mole rats to be cancer free, since I don't believe in god.
Yet you will argue that "god" designed humans, he made a mistake and put the cancer repelling gene in mole rats and not in humans?
Quote from: AliBut assuming that you do believe in god, and do believe that animals were designed by god, then one could surmise that god designed mole rats, and thus is responsible for their inability to get cancer.
Or...that both contain the ability to be cancer-free...but one is simply less likely than the other. Again...not every person dies of cancer.
Quote from: AliAnd anyway, I thougvht the argument was "If our design is so imperfect, could you do better?" And to answer that, yes, if I were designing things, I would give all animals the inability to get cancer. Obviously it's possible, since, again, you can't even GIVE a mole rat cancer, no matter how much ick you smear on it.
You believe if you were in this god's position that having the ability you would and this god didn't? How do YOU KNOW this fictitional god didn't?
Quote from: Tristan Jay on January 17, 2012, 09:33:37 PM
I think Whitney's post was helpful in keeping this stuff in perspective. If we're going on the assumption that some of the design is part of his lovely desire to test us in life, then sure, challenges with "faults" in the design of the world test us. Maybe this goes deeper to a level of disagreement between God and the humans he created. If we look at it in terms of the degree of suffering, maybe that's more what we're contending here.
The example of cancer is a great one, so I'll play with that a little. I'll go out on a limb and say that cancer is needlessly cruel as a test of us, for starters. So from my perspective, I would say, "I don't think you need to test us to such a level of pain and cruelty. It would be more considerate and loving to test us, but not that far." I would also say that God has no perspective on what is intolerable for humans, because he hasn't tested himself. It might be easy for him to say, "Well, no, you don't have the perspective I have, cancer needs to be that cruel." To which I would think, "Intolerable, spirit destroying levels of cruelty are acceptable to a God who wants us to consider a loving, caring God." I would challenge Him that he doesn't have proper perspective on what this does to humans.
In order for me to conclude that God had a genuine perspective on how we humans feel about it, I would ask that he live through another human life time, without access to His knowledge and perspective, and experience the full indignity and horror of cancer, with only Himself and the family he set Himself up in to rely on; no superpowers, no knowledge that he has superpowers, and I would also ask that he pick a family that is moderate/average in its ability to provide help and support so He's not stacking the deck for himself. Then I would ask Him (while still cut off from access to His powers and knowledge) to answer if he thought this level of cruelty was necessary for the purpose of a spiritual test. That's probably the only way we might know if cancer is a reasonably painful test, from a loving God.
Despite His answer to my question within a specific set of living conditions, I would still say that he would need to answer to if the majority of humans weighed in and gave him a thumbs up or down on cancer. I don't care that He considers himself the Head Honcho of the universe, He would be facing a direct evaluation from humans about the quality of the design, and an evaluation of his judgement as the designer that it's good.
I'm aware that God doesn't consider this whole setup a democracy. And we're not really gonna know if enough humans will give a thumbs down for cancer as part of the design.
My personal opinion: I call foul. Cancer+Humans=Bad. I am willing to bet a fair amount of people would say, "Yeah, the universe might seem a bit better in it's design philosophy without cancer. I mean, what do we need it for? What do You need it for?"
If we get into this as just the start, and think, "Why stop with cancer" we might get into very particular design aspects; taking stuff out, moderating other stuff so that it's less painful. As a criterion for what an acceptable level of pain and suffering is, so we don't take all the challenge out of life, I'll suggest the "A person is not tested beyond what he is capable of handling" as a gauge, a cutoff point for pain and suffering levels. Because I would question that contention as an operational criterion in the world as it is set up right now.
I like what you've done here, but I would question the criteria of "not more than the person cis capable of handling." What does this mean, exactly? Because the truth is that most of us handle everythihg that is thrown at us until it literally kills us. What I mean by "handle" is that we endure, we don't kill ourselves, we bear up. That doesn't mean that it's not unreasnably cruel though.
Quote from: AnimatedDirt on January 17, 2012, 09:27:30 PM
Quote from: hismikeness on January 17, 2012, 09:13:00 PM
I don't know the best way to fix the eating/breathing hole problem... whales and dolphins figured it out! Or they were designed that way I guess, which begs the question why humans weren't if both were designed by the same god.
We humans do not make our home submerged IN water do we? I guess the "design" would be different there.
Very true. I guess enough of our species haven't choked to death to warrant a change in the design either.
Quote from: AnimatedDirt on January 17, 2012, 09:27:30 PM
Quote from: hismikenessI'm not pretending to be a designer of species. I'm merely pointing out that the design is not optimal.
If you're not a designer, what qualifications do you have to make the assertion that the existing design is not good?
I just observe.
Quote from: AnimatedDirt on January 17, 2012, 09:27:30 PM
Quote from: hismikenessWhether designed by a being or through natural selection, it isn't optimal. Breathing and eating through the same opening has, I'm sure, led to many a person's demise. As for whales, only George Costanza has ever killed a whale by plugging its blowhole.
Again...so what is optimal?
I'm not a designer, so... But, a separate hole for breathing and eating would be a start, regardless of if we live submerged in water or not.
Quote from: AnimatedDirt on January 17, 2012, 09:27:30 PM
Quote from: hismikenessI don't know how to build helicopters, but if I saw one with light posts instead of propellers, I would know it was a bad design. But I am not the creator of said helicopter. Nor did I claim to be.
Another non-point. There is no existing helicopter that utilizes lightpoles as blades to gain flight. You can certainly make a funny pic of one, but it doesn't exist. So to equate humans and helicopters with lightpoles as blades is not really adding to the discussion at all because these so-called "helicopters" do not exist.
What does a lightposted helicopter existing or not-exsting have to do with anything? Not to keep harping on my "non-point", but it
really wasn't about the lightpoles and the helicopter. It was about recognizing a poor design (from an admitted and pointed-out "non-designer") without, perhaps, knowing a better way to optimize the design.
And I don't sketch.
But thanks for recognizing my funny. Hopefully this comment doesn't distract you from the drivel above.
Quote from: AnimatedDirt on January 17, 2012, 09:36:18 PM
Quote from: Ali on January 17, 2012, 09:22:10 PM
No. That 13% is only the number of people who died in 2008. I'm sure that there were countless more who had cancer and survived or who had cancer and died later. Point being, "not dying" is not the same as "immune."
If only 13% died of cancer, then that is the number. Everyone dies...but not of cancer.
Not dying of cancer doesn't mean you're immune. Lots of people survive cancer. That number only speaks to the percentage of dead people who died of cancer.
Quote from: AnimatedDirt on January 17, 2012, 09:36:18 PM
Quote from: AliWell, obviously I don't believe that god designed mole rats to be cancer free, since I don't believe in god.
Yet you will argue that "god" designed humans, he made a mistake and put the cancer repelling gene in mole rats and not in humans?
Well, I will argue for the sake of debate, sure. If you are going to claim that god's design is perfect, then I have to first accept your premise that it was god's design before I can debate whether or not it was perfect. If I start arguing from the premise of "there is no god" then there is nothing to argue about the design because there is no design. So for the sake of debate, I will play along that god designed it.
Quote from: AnimatedDirt on January 17, 2012, 09:36:18 PM
Quote from: AliBut assuming that you do believe in god, and do believe that animals were designed by god, then one could surmise that god designed mole rats, and thus is responsible for their inability to get cancer.
Or...that both contain the ability to be cancer-free...but one is simply less likely than the other. Again...not every person dies of cancer.
You've said this alot, and I still don't get what you mean. It's obvious that mole rats are immune to cancer. It's obvious that humans are not. How can you argue that both have the ability to be cancer free, when humans get cancer all of the time?
Quote from: AnimatedDirt on January 17, 2012, 09:36:18 PM
Quote from: AliAnd anyway, I thougvht the argument was "If our design is so imperfect, could you do better?" And to answer that, yes, if I were designing things, I would give all animals the inability to get cancer. Obviously it's possible, since, again, you can't even GIVE a mole rat cancer, no matter how much ick you smear on it.
You believe if you were in this god's position that having the ability you would and this god didn't? How do YOU KNOW this fictitional god didn't?
Well, again, for the sake of adebate, I am starting from the presmise that god desgned humans. Not that I believe it, but because that's the only way to debate this topic coherently. So, assuming that god desgned humans, how do I know that he didn't give them the gene that prevents cancer? Because humans get cancer.
Quote from: hismikeness on January 17, 2012, 09:50:16 PM
I just observe.
Your observation is of no value. Once again it's much like "observing" that rocks make better building materials because termites don't chew wood yet we continue to make homes from wood. Why? And what was the point of your observation if it does not come with a better solution using rocks?
Quote from: hismikenessI'm not a designer, so... But, a separate hole for breathing and eating would be a start, regardless of if we live submerged in water or not.
Why? And how? And who is complaining of the manner in which we eat and breathe? No sketch? Ok...then just say where the breathing hole might be found to be "better" and we can pursue that as we go.
Quote from: hismikenessWhat does a lightposted helicopter existing or not-exsting have to do with anything?
What? It's simple. *You are complaining about our mouths, breathing, eating...whatever your point is. The point is that IT IS FUNCTIONAL AND AESTHETICALLY PLEASING. What is your point in bringing up something that neither exists nor is functional and as for aesthetically pleasing...much like the "Was it a Titleist" ending...simply a funny.
Quote from: hismikenessNot to keep harping on my "non-point", but it really wasn't about the lightpoles and the helicopter. It was about recognizing a poor design (from an admitted and pointed-out "non-designer") without, perhaps, knowing a better way to optimize the design.
Again...the "poor" design is being used functionally all over the world by every single human...and most animals.
Quote from: hismikenessAnd I don't sketch.
But thanks for recognizing my funny. Hopefully this comment doesn't distract you from the drivel above.
What distracts is the non-existence of a "better" design.
Quote from: Ali on January 17, 2012, 09:42:45 PMI like what you've done here, but I would question the criteria of "not more than the person cis capable of handling." What does this mean, exactly? Because the truth is that most of us handle everythihg that is thrown at us until it literally kills us. What I mean by "handle" is that we endure, we don't kill ourselves, we bear up. That doesn't mean that it's not unreasnably cruel though.
My initial impulse to refine this concept is the quote, "What does not kill you makes you stronger." It's useful as a starting point, and what helps is that it's not accurate. If suffering does have the effect of toughening up a person, making them stronger in spirit, mind and body, then perhaps that might be considered an acceptable level of pain and suffering to endure. Not everyone gets stronger from their suffer, so that pain I would reject as "more than the person could handle."
And speaking from a very personal perspective, I would say that some suicides count against God. Too much suffering, beyond what the person can handle. I can only speak for myself, but I'm pretty sure that some people who have committed suicide felt what I felt, just at a more unbearable level. Given what I've felt, I
have to give them the benefit of the doubt; their despair was so great, they could not handle it. I consider that an indictment against God's design as good, or "good enough".
Quote from: Ali on January 17, 2012, 09:50:55 PM
Not dying of cancer doesn't mean you're immune. Lots of people survive cancer. That number only speaks to the percentage of dead people who died of cancer.
Certainly. But the "fact" is 87% didn't die of cancer.
Quote from: AliWell, I will argue for the sake of debate, sure. If you are going to claim that god's design is perfect, then I have to first accept your premise that it was god's design before I can debate whether or not it was perfect.
I've not argued that the existing "design" of the human is perfect. I would say, however, that the original design WAS/is perfect.
Quote from: AliIf I start arguing from the premise of "there is no god" then there is nothing to argue about the design because there is no design. So for the sake of debate, I will play along that god designed it.
Fine. I'm not going to surprise the, "Ahhhh-HAAA!" on you to argue from this premise. :)
Quote from: AliYou've said this alot, and I still don't get what you mean. It's obvious that mole rats are immune to cancer.
The ones tested. And they don't live as long as humans, although they do live quite a long time for rodents.
Quote from: AliIt's obvious that humans are not.
They're not? Not that I do think so, but the numbers given say that cancer only killed 13%.
Quote from: AliHow can you argue that both have the ability to be cancer free, when humans get cancer all of the time?
I don't think that's quite my argument. I haven't made an argument yet of that sort, I don't think. What I have argued is how do YOU know this ficticious god DIDN'T make humans "immune" to cancer? And further how do YOU know we don't have the correct genes to be cancer-free?
Quote from: AliWell, again, for the sake of adebate, I am starting from the presmise that god desgned humans. Not that I believe it, but because that's the only way to debate this topic coherently. So, assuming that god desgned humans, how do I know that he didn't give them the gene that prevents cancer? Because humans get cancer.
Wait...only 13% do. So how do YOU KNOW the rest don't? In other words, you're making a statement of fact without KNOWING empirically that humans don't have the genes necessary to be cancer-free.
Arguing small points of percentage and splitting of hairs doesn't advance this discourse. The fact of the matter is that we can imagine the world without cancer. And we can imagine that a being with infinite powers can take it away. And we're examine the possibility that this is evidence that God could have done better, could have designed and implemented things better. That should be enough for us to understand, to move forward beyond small points that are just going to make our heads spin, and distract us.
Just saying. :(
Quote from: Tristan Jay on January 17, 2012, 10:38:29 PM
Arguing small points of percentage and splitting of hairs doesn't advance this discourse.
Splitting hairs...that's funny.
Quote from: Tristan JayThe fact of the matter is that we can imagine the world without cancer. And we can imagine that a being with infinite powers can take it away.
We agree.
Quote from: Tristan JayAnd we're examine the possibility that this is evidence that God could have done better, could have designed and implemented things better.
On what empirical knowledge do you base this claim? Are you some sort of god that CAN do better? How do you know? Are you privy to all the variables?
Quote from: Tristan JayThat should be enough for us to understand, to move forward beyond small points that are just going to make our heads spin, and distract us.
Just saying. :(
So the points are small when the one making "small claims" cannot prove these...so better move on? Oh I wish the Christian was afforded these same thoughts on his beliefs...funny how this works here.
Yeah. I don't seem to be making myself clear on several points, and I don't know what else I can do to make myself more clear (other than typing in all caps) so I think I'll just agree with Tristan Jay (love your name by the way, my son's name is Tristan) and go watch Chopped. :)
Quote from: Ali on January 17, 2012, 10:46:40 PM
Yeah. I don't seem to be making myself clear on several points, and I don't know what else I can do to make myself more clear (other than typing in all caps) so I think I'll just agree with Tristan Jay (love your name by the way, my son's name is Tristan) and go watch Chopped. :)
Yes. What is not clear is how you know this god didn't make humans immune to cancer and so "blame" him. It's quite simple.
Quote from: AnimatedDirt on January 17, 2012, 10:49:47 PM
Quote from: Ali on January 17, 2012, 10:46:40 PM
Yeah. I don't seem to be making myself clear on several points, and I don't know what else I can do to make myself more clear (other than typing in all caps) so I think I'll just agree with Tristan Jay (love your name by the way, my son's name is Tristan) and go watch Chopped. :)
Yes. What is not clear is how you know this god didn't make humans immune to cancer and so "blame" him. It's quite simple.
Yes Ali, humans are quite clearly immune from cancer, please explain yourself! >:(
Quote from: AnimatedDirt on January 17, 2012, 10:49:47 PM
Quote from: Ali on January 17, 2012, 10:46:40 PM
Yeah. I don't seem to be making myself clear on several points, and I don't know what else I can do to make myself more clear (other than typing in all caps) so I think I'll just agree with Tristan Jay (love your name by the way, my son's name is Tristan) and go watch Chopped. :)
Yes. What is not clear is how you know this god didn't make humans immune to cancer and so "blame" him. It's quite simple.
OK MISTER. ALL CAPS TIME.
Just kidding. I know that god didn't make humans immune to cancer because humans get cancer. It really is that simple. I get that not
all humans get cancer, but if even 1% do, I would call that empirical proof that humans as a species are not immune to cancer. Since you don't seem to be willing to accept this as proof that humans are not immune to cancer, I don't know what else to say. EXCEPT AAAAAHHHHH ALL CAPS AAAAAAAAAAH ;D
Quote from: AnimatedDirt on January 17, 2012, 10:06:45 PM
What distracts is the non-existence of a "better" design.
As Ali has stated, in order to even have this discussion, we need to assume we were created by a god. The vast majority of theists believe in a afterlife, free of pain, suffering, and ... cancer (if you played by the rules that is). A better design lies within religion itself. You could argue that we are not "human" when we go to the afterlife, but that would still make for a better design. If we are spirits when we go there, then I suggest that a spirit design would be better than a physical one that is susceptible to cancer. You might ask me to sketch out some blueprints of the mechanical working of a spirit, but I'd suggest the same for a god in the first place.
Quote from: Ali on January 17, 2012, 10:55:53 PM
OK MISTER. ALL CAPS TIME.
Just kidding. I know that god didn't make humans immune to cancer because humans get cancer. It really is that simple. I get that not all humans get cancer, but if even 1% do, I would call that empirical proof that humans as a species are not immune to cancer. Since you don't seem to be willing to accept this as proof that humans are not immune to cancer, I don't know what else to say. EXCEPT AAAAAHHHHH ALL CAPS AAAAAAAAAAH ;D
I appreciate you trying with me, Ali. It simply does not add up. If only 13% have died of cancer (or even 1%) that does not presume empirically that ALL humans are susceptible to cancer and die of it. I can't imagine having to repeat myself again and at the danger of angering you, but what empirical proof do you have that humans are not immune to cancer?
Question:
What are the known causes of cancer? One is smoking. Does EVERY person that smokes die of a cancer? Does every person that partakes of known causes of cancer die of cancer?
If you know humans do not have the genes necessary to ward off cancer as the mole rat does, how is it you know this? Are you a geneticist and have seen the genes from the mole rat and that of every human being - whose genetical make up seems to be different in at least more than 50% of humans when it comes to the specific disease of cancer as all humans do not die of cancer?
I find it so difficult to claim, "The design is flawed" when the ones making that claim have no clue of the design nor can this "flawed" design even be reporduced apart from THE design. In other words, one must be able to recreate the design to even say, "ok, this is flawed... because this can go here, this is better there...all these cables shouldn't be routed though the spine...and here's how it is better...There...a perfect design."
Quote from: Genericguy on January 17, 2012, 11:00:15 PM
As Ali has stated, in order to even have this discussion, we need to assume we were created by a god. The vast majority of theists believe in a afterlife, free of pain, suffering, and ... cancer (if you played by the rules that is).
This goes to show how much you don't know about Christianity.
Quote from: GenericguyA better design lies within religion itself. You could argue that we are not "human" when we go to the afterlife, but that would still make for a better design. If we are spirits when we go there, then I suggest that a spirit design would be better than a physical one that is susceptible to cancer. You might ask me to sketch out some blueprints of the mechanical working of a spirit, but I'd suggest the same for a god in the first place.
More evidence of the above - that you may have minimal understanding when speaking of this aspect of Christianity.
Logic says if it was perfect at the beginning, it will likely be returned to that perfection in the end.
Quote from: AnimatedDirt on January 17, 2012, 11:19:32 PM
Quote from: Ali on January 17, 2012, 10:55:53 PM
OK MISTER. ALL CAPS TIME.
Just kidding. I know that god didn't make humans immune to cancer because humans get cancer. It really is that simple. I get that not all humans get cancer, but if even 1% do, I would call that empirical proof that humans as a species are not immune to cancer. Since you don't seem to be willing to accept this as proof that humans are not immune to cancer, I don't know what else to say. EXCEPT AAAAAHHHHH ALL CAPS AAAAAAAAAAH ;D
I appreciate you trying with me, Ali. It simply does not add up. If only 13% have died of cancer (or even 1%) that does not presume empirically that ALL humans are susceptible to cancer and die of it. I can't imagine having to repeat myself again and at the danger of angering you, but what empirical proof do you have that humans are not immune to cancer?
Are you asking me how I know any individual human being may not be immune to cancer? If that's what you mean, then you're right, there is no way of knowing (with our current technology) if any one human being will or will not get cancer. Certainly, we know that different people have different propensities and resistances to all sorts of maladies. I appear to be fairly resistant to poison ivy, as I have been repeatedly exposed to it and never gotten it. But you would hardly argue that humans as a SPECIES are immune to poison ivy, just because I don't seen to get it, and the same goes for cancer.
Individuals may be more or less likely to get cancer, but as a
species, humans certainly are not immune. As evidenced by the fact that some humans get cancer. See, no anger. :)
Quote from: Ali on January 17, 2012, 11:35:09 PM
Are you asking me how I know any individual human being may not be immune to cancer? If that's what you mean, then you're right, there is no way of knowing (with our current technology) if any one human being will or will not get cancer. Certainly, we know that different people have different propensities and resistances to all sorts of maladies. I appear to be fairly resistant to poison ivy, as I have been repeatedly exposed to it and never gotten it. But you would hardly argue that humans as a SPECIES are immune to poison ivy, just because I don't seen to get it, and the same goes for cancer. Individuals may be more or less likely to get cancer, but as a species, humans certainly are not immune. As evidenced by the fact that some humans get cancer. See, no anger. :)
I can accept that for sure. The species of humans is not immune to cancer as 13% have died of cancer.
Now how is that proof that the design is flawed? Do you have proof that those 13% are the norm? Do you know empirically that those 13% had the "perfect" genome as designed? Arguing from the premise that god exists, of course which clearly you don't believe.
Quote from: AnimatedDirt on January 17, 2012, 11:40:12 PM
Quote from: Ali on January 17, 2012, 11:35:09 PM
Are you asking me how I know any individual human being may not be immune to cancer? If that's what you mean, then you're right, there is no way of knowing (with our current technology) if any one human being will or will not get cancer. Certainly, we know that different people have different propensities and resistances to all sorts of maladies. I appear to be fairly resistant to poison ivy, as I have been repeatedly exposed to it and never gotten it. But you would hardly argue that humans as a SPECIES are immune to poison ivy, just because I don't seen to get it, and the same goes for cancer. Individuals may be more or less likely to get cancer, but as a species, humans certainly are not immune. As evidenced by the fact that some humans get cancer. See, no anger. :)
I can accept that for sure. The species of humans is not immune to cancer as 13% have died of cancer.
Now how is that proof that the design is flawed? Do you have proof that those 13% are the norm? Do you know empirically that those 13% had the "perfect" genome as designed? Arguing from the premise that god exists, of course.
Well, there are a couple of different arguments here.
1. How is that proof that the design is flawed - Well, that's a harder question to answer, because as someone else pointed out, it depends on the "point" of the design. If the point of the design is something other than a long and healthy life for the animal in question (in this case, humans) then it's not proof of anything. But if we are going by the qualification of simply removing obstacles for health from a species, then it seems obvious that no cancer is better than cancer.
2. Those 13% aren't "the norm", but I will say that humans in general seem very susceptible to cancer, and again, if the point of the design is a long and healthy life, cancer is incompatible with that design. Per the American Cancer Society, the lifetime risk of developing cancer for males is 44.85% and 38.08% for females (in the US) so not the majority of people, but also not an unheard of risk.
3. I don't know how to argue if those people who get cancer have the perfect genome as designed - do you think that god designed imperfect people?
Quote from: Ali on January 17, 2012, 11:49:54 PM
Quote from: AnimatedDirt on January 17, 2012, 11:40:12 PM
Quote from: Ali on January 17, 2012, 11:35:09 PM
Are you asking me how I know any individual human being may not be immune to cancer? If that's what you mean, then you're right, there is no way of knowing (with our current technology) if any one human being will or will not get cancer. Certainly, we know that different people have different propensities and resistances to all sorts of maladies. I appear to be fairly resistant to poison ivy, as I have been repeatedly exposed to it and never gotten it. But you would hardly argue that humans as a SPECIES are immune to poison ivy, just because I don't seen to get it, and the same goes for cancer. Individuals may be more or less likely to get cancer, but as a species, humans certainly are not immune. As evidenced by the fact that some humans get cancer. See, no anger. :)
I can accept that for sure. The species of humans is not immune to cancer as 13% have died of cancer.
Now how is that proof that the design is flawed? Do you have proof that those 13% are the norm? Do you know empirically that those 13% had the "perfect" genome as designed? Arguing from the premise that god exists, of course.
Well, there are a couple of different arguments here.
1. How is that proof that the design is flawed - Well, that's a harder question to answer, because as someone else pointed out, it depends on the "point" of the design. If the point of the design is something other than a long and healthy life for the animal in question (in this case, humans) then it's not proof of anything. But if we are going by the qualification of simply removing obstacles for health from a species, then it seems obvious that no cancer is better than cancer.
2. Those 13% aren't "the norm", but I will say that humans in general seem very susceptible to cancer, and again, if the point of the design is a long and healthy life, cancer is incompatible with that design. Per the American Cancer Society, the lifetime risk of developing cancer for males is 44.85% and 38.08% for females (in the US) so not the majority of people, but also not an unheard of risk.
3. I don't know how to argue if those people who get cancer have the perfect genome as designed - do you think that god designed imperfect people?
I will have to post my reply to this on the morrow...
Quote from: AnimatedDirt on January 17, 2012, 11:40:12 PM
I can accept that for sure. The species of humans is not immune to cancer as 13% have died of cancer.
Now how is that proof that the design is flawed? Do you have proof that those 13% are the norm? Do you know empirically that those 13% had the "perfect" genome as designed? Arguing from the premise that god exists, of course which clearly you don't believe.
13% failure rate is extremely high, especially considering that people's lives are at stake.
It seems clear this is either a design, build or usability issue.
If it is a usability issue then I would attribute that to poor design via not taking appropriate care during the requirements gathering phase.
If the builder is not following the design, then I would like to know
1. Who is the builder?
2. Why is the builder not following the design?
Quote from: AnimatedDirt on January 17, 2012, 11:23:34 PM
Quote from: Genericguy on January 17, 2012, 11:00:15 PM
As Ali has stated, in order to even have this discussion, we need to assume we were created by a god. The vast majority of theists believe in a afterlife, free of pain, suffering, and ... cancer (if you played by the rules that is).
This goes to show how much you don't know about Christianity.
Quote from: GenericguyA better design lies within religion itself. You could argue that we are not "human" when we go to the afterlife, but that would still make for a better design. If we are spirits when we go there, then I suggest that a spirit design would be better than a physical one that is susceptible to cancer. You might ask me to sketch out some blueprints of the mechanical working of a spirit, but I'd suggest the same for a god in the first place.
More evidence of the above - that you may have minimal understanding when speaking of this aspect of Christianity. Logic says if it was perfect at the beginning, it will likely be returned to that perfection in the end.
So in heaven people feel pain?
Revelation 21:4 He will wipe away every tear from their eyes, and death shall be no more, neither shall there be mourning, nor crying, nor pain anymore, for the former things have passed away."
This has been pretty entertaining for such a pointless discussion. Sorry dirt, but for me personally, it's useless for me to jump into this because I don't believe in your god. I have no opinion on what he/she could have done better cause I don't have any good reason to believe it exists and created us in the first place.
I am, however, very glad to know that because I've never had cancer and died from it that I am immune and will never get it. I think I might go jump out of a plane without a parachute now because not everyone who ever had a parachute malfunction died from it so I'm immune!
I didn't get the avian or swine flu, so I must be immune to that too. Next time there's an epidemic... I'm heading towards the sickies to prove my immunity.
I was told I'm deathly allergic to penicillin, but that's a crock-o-shit because everyone in my family has used it before and they are ALL alive and kicking. Next time I get an infection... I'm using it cause not only am I clearly immune, but that shit will help too.
Hmmm... Since I'm immune to everything, I wonder why I'll still die? Probably cause I don't believe in this god joker and won't get granted the eternal life. Oh well.
I'm just wondering how variability factors into perfection. Does perfection allow for any variability?
Quote from: xSilverPhinx on January 18, 2012, 03:56:39 AM
I'm just wondering how variability factors into perfection. Does perfection allow for any variability?
Let me just state that my left pointer finger is slightly longer than my right pointer finger.
So there we have it, perfection does allow for variability ;D
Quote from: Stevil on January 18, 2012, 04:26:05 AM
Quote from: xSilverPhinx on January 18, 2012, 03:56:39 AM
I'm just wondering how variability factors into perfection. Does perfection allow for any variability?
Let me just state that my left pointer finger is slightly longer than my right pointer finger.
So there we have it, perfection does allow for variability ;D
I hope you're not suggesting that we make a 'Stevil' a unit of perfection? ;D ;) If so, then is 1 Stevil just as perfect as all 100 Stevils with variations among them?
Quote from: xSilverPhinx on January 18, 2012, 04:57:48 AM
I hope you're not suggesting that we make a 'Stevil' a unit of perfection? ;D ;) If so, then is 1 Stevil just as perfect as all 100 Stevils with variations among them?
Well,
evil is measured in Asmos. Guys like Hitler are about 500 to 700 µAsmos in terms of evil. A regular garden variety secretary is a few nanoAsmos. YHWH is at whopping 1/2Asmos and The Asmo is... An Asmo. ;D
Quote from: Asmodean on January 18, 2012, 05:47:31 AM
Quote from: xSilverPhinx on January 18, 2012, 04:57:48 AM
I hope you're not suggesting that we make a 'Stevil' a unit of perfection? ;D ;) If so, then is 1 Stevil just as perfect as all 100 Stevils with variations among them?
Well, evil is measured in Asmos. Guys like Hitler are about 500 to 700 µAsmos in terms of evil. A regular garden variety secretary is a few nanoAsmos. YHWH is at whopping 1/2Asmos and The Asmo is... An Asmo. ;D
Can you explain the Asmofear, the unit of measurement of Lackey subservience at sea level?
Is there much variance in a subterranean ubliet as compared to a high altitude volcanic lair?
I noticed that I haven't had another theist respond to what I posted...so maybe there is no response, because my words and ideas are Nuclear Fire, Baby! Yeah! :D
No, it's no good, I can't take myself seriously like this. How does the other guy manage it with such conviction? ???
All kidding aside, I would be interested in a different type of theist's assessment of my argument for evidence of imperfect design.
Quote from: The Magic Pudding on January 18, 2012, 07:14:17 AM
Can you explain the Asmofear, the unit of measurement of Lackey subservience at sea level?
Is there much variance in a subterranean ubliet as compared to a high altitude volcanic lair?
Yes. there is some variance, with the buried Lackeys being somewhat less subservient, as defined in the mathematical formula due to the Servitude Force being reversely proportional to gravity.
To determine subservience, you can define Asmofear as a function of the lackey l.
Af(l)=(a^h + 3a^2 *h(int)Adl)/(sqrt(-1)-L)
where a is the relative Asmodeanic mass of the lackey, h is the altitude, measured from the center of the Universe. The value being integrated with regard to l, is the Lackey's Asmos count function. Big L is the Lackey's life expectancy.
Quote from: Asmodean on January 18, 2012, 07:29:40 AM
Af(l)=(a^h + 3a^2 *h(int)Adl)/(sqrt(-1)-L)
Well thanks for clearing that up.
Quote from: xSilverPhinx on January 18, 2012, 04:57:48 AM
Quote from: Stevil on January 18, 2012, 04:26:05 AM
Quote from: xSilverPhinx on January 18, 2012, 03:56:39 AM
I'm just wondering how variability factors into perfection. Does perfection allow for any variability?
Let me just state that my left pointer finger is slightly longer than my right pointer finger.
So there we have it, perfection does allow for variability ;D
I hope you're not suggesting that we make a 'Stevil' a unit of perfection? ;D ;) If so, then is 1 Stevil just as perfect as all 100 Stevils with variations among them?
You would think that 2 Stevils is twice as good as 1, but that would imply that 1 Stevil is less than perfect.
But that's the thing. 1 Stevil is as good as it gets, you can't improve on that, you can't improve on perfection.
If I were a god (I'm not though, because gods are flawed) and I was on my own in Space, just sitting there not existing but at the same time not (not existing), I wouldn't have the need to create existence. Why bother, I'm already perfect, I have no needs. But then what is the point to it all, if noone is around to see how perfect I am, to admire me in my glory?
This reminds me of a song
There is no doubt about it
I'm one of kind, baby
I am le d'Artagnan de coeur
As you may see, candy
And I'm talking with my eyes
And I walk in different styles
I'm the genuine man!
Yes I am
I am a perfect gentleman
Yes I am
I am a perfect gentleman
Kneel down, inhale my odor
Come, kiss my hand, angel
Dare to explore my higher grounds
Strive to deserve me, ma cherie
And my winds surpass perfume
I'm charismatic at fool bloom,
I'm the genuine man
Yes I am
I am a perfect gentleman
Yes I am
I am a perfect gentleman
Yes I am, I am, yes I am
(perfect)
Oh, Lord, what can I do?
I can't resist my own reflection
How would possibly anyone?
Cause I am (perfect)
Yes I am (perfect)
Oh, Lord, I am (perfect)
Yes I am
I am a perfect gentleman
Yes I am
I am a perfect gentleman
Quote from: Ali on January 17, 2012, 11:49:54 PM
Well, there are a couple of different arguments here.
1. How is that proof that the design is flawed - Well, that's a harder question to answer, because as someone else pointed out, it depends on the "point" of the design.
And from the premise, do you know what that point is?
Quote from: AliIf the point of the design is something other than a long and healthy life for the animal in question (in this case, humans) then it's not proof of anything. But if we are going by the qualification of simply removing obstacles for health from a species, then it seems obvious that no cancer is better than cancer.
I guess the answer is a 'no'.
Quote from: Ali2. Those 13% aren't "the norm", but I will say that humans in general seem very susceptible to cancer, and again, if the point of the design is a long and healthy life, cancer is incompatible with that design. Per the American Cancer Society, the lifetime risk of developing cancer for males is 44.85% and 38.08% for females (in the US) so not the majority of people, but also not an unheard of risk.
There is a risk. I don't argue that. What I do ask, which goes back a bit, is how is it you know that the design does not have within it, the means to be immune to cancer. How do you know we do not carry the genetics necessary for this? The answer can't be because humans die of cancer because "only" 13% do from the statistics we know. This means that it could be that some are "immune" or something makes them less likely. I've mentioned smoking is a known cause of cancer, yet everyone who smokes does not die of cancer.
Quote from: Ali3. I don't know how to argue if those people who get cancer have the perfect genome as designed - do you think that god designed imperfect people?
The better question is, under our premise,: Is today's human an exact example of that perfect being or is today's human a flawed example of what once was perfect? If so, why or why not? ...under the premise.
Quote from: Genericguy on January 18, 2012, 01:26:17 AM
Quote from: AnimatedDirt on January 17, 2012, 11:23:34 PM
Quote from: Genericguy on January 17, 2012, 11:00:15 PM
As Ali has stated, in order to even have this discussion, we need to assume we were created by a god. The vast majority of theists believe in a afterlife, free of pain, suffering, and ... cancer (if you played by the rules that is).
This goes to show how much you don't know about Christianity.
Quote from: GenericguyA better design lies within religion itself. You could argue that we are not "human" when we go to the afterlife, but that would still make for a better design. If we are spirits when we go there, then I suggest that a spirit design would be better than a physical one that is susceptible to cancer. You might ask me to sketch out some blueprints of the mechanical working of a spirit, but I'd suggest the same for a god in the first place.
More evidence of the above - that you may have minimal understanding when speaking of this aspect of Christianity. Logic says if it was perfect at the beginning, it will likely be returned to that perfection in the end.
So in heaven people feel pain?
Revelation 21:4 He will wipe away every tear from their eyes, and death shall be no more, neither shall there be mourning, nor crying, nor pain anymore, for the former things have passed away."
You are completely off and simply have no understanding. You are correct though, there will be no more pain in the ficticious heaven according to the piece of fiction.
Quote from: AnimatedDirt on January 18, 2012, 05:42:17 PM
Quote from: Ali3. I don't know how to argue if those people who get cancer have the perfect genome as designed - do you think that god designed imperfect people?
The better question is, under our premise,: Is today's human an exact example of that perfect being or is today's human a flawed example of what once was perfect? If so, why or why not? ...under the premise.
LOL We're getting more and more out there, because there are so many different theories of what god is and what s/he/it does and doesn't do. I don't know how to tailor my argument specifically to you because I don't know specifically what you believe, and I can't tailor it specifically to me because I
don't believe.
Are you talking about something along the lines of Plato's Theory of Forms (basically god creates the...erg....idea or "form" of a perfect person, and then all real people are imperfect copies?) (I think that's right. Without aging myself, Philosophy 101 was a loooooong time ago.)
Quote from: Ali on January 18, 2012, 05:57:04 PM
LOL We're getting more and more out there, because there are so many different theories of what god is and what s/he/it does and doesn't do. I don't know how to tailor my argument specifically to you because I don't know specifically what you believe, and I can't tailor it specifically to me because I don't believe.
No kidding. I guess either the bible is fiction or just the book of revelation is according to AD. Not really sure though, since he wont tell me. Have fun with this topic, as I can't continue with someone that won't provide specific objections to my side of the argument. "you are completely off and have no understanding" without a retort is a pointless one sided conversation.
Quote from: Ali on January 18, 2012, 05:57:04 PM
LOL We're getting more and more out there, because there are so many different theories of what god is and what s/he/it does and doesn't do. I don't know how to tailor my argument specifically to you because I don't know specifically what you believe, and I can't tailor it specifically to me because I don't believe.
Are you talking about something along the lines of Plato's Theory of Forms (basically god creates the...erg....idea or "form" of a perfect person, and then all real people are imperfect copies?) (I think that's right. Without aging myself, Philosophy 101 was a loooooong time ago.)
I can agree that for you it's getting more and more "out there". I understand you don't believe, but the whole premise is that which falls under what Christians believe based on that piece of fiction known commonly as the bible.
Now, I'm not trying at all to convince you that it is true...hence the use of 'piece of fiction' to appease your mind. The reason I am doing so is to find out whether *you know the "truth" therein...meaning according to the piece of fiction. Some have a good knowledge of the stories of the piece of fiction, yet fail at knowing the interpretation(s) and granted there is more than one, but there is one or two that stand out as 'accepted' by the majority.
How does this relate to our flawed design chat? Here's why. The typical Atheist will argue that if God created humans perfect, why do humans get cancer, murder, why is there pain...and ultimately death...because an omnipotent God would know better, being omnipotent.
What the typical Atheist seems to miss is that today's human is NOT what God created. Pain is not a part of our world "because God works in mysterious ways...". It is present because of another reason which is not the point of this thread.
So then the design is flawed, but not to the extent that the EYE is flawed in how it works. At least it's not flawed in that no person is able to design something better and/or different that is functional in a human. Our eyes get worse. That's not a function of flawed design, but rather a function of age (as we know aging that culminates in death) which was not part of the original design.
So my belief is, I can't prove, but some scientists or dr's have alluded to that I've come across just on the mole rat issue as of recently, is that we may have the genetics that the mole rat does to repel cancer, but it is not "wired" correctly.
QuoteThe naked mole rat's kind of cancer prevention may prove relevant to humans because the same genes are involved, says Brown University cancer biologist John Sedivy. The rat's defenses "evolved separately but use the same nuts and bolts," he says. Sedivy writes in an accompanying commentary in PNAS that it may be possible to "tweak the entire network [of tumor-suppressing pathways] to develop new prevention strategies."
Taken from Naked Mole Rat Wins the War on Cancer (http://news.sciencemag.org/sciencenow/2009/10/26-02.html)
Quote from: Genericguy on January 18, 2012, 06:24:37 PM
No kidding. I guess either the bible is fiction or just the book of revelation is according to AD. Not really sure though, since he wont tell me. Have fun with this topic, as I can't continue with someone that won't provide specific objections to my side of the argument. "you are completely off and have no understanding" without a retort is a pointless one sided conversation.
It's "one-sided" because you assume to know the basics, yet don't know the basics.
Can I just say that the use of "piece of fiction" does not "appease" me, I actually find it a little condescending, like you can't even imagine an atheist that would debate without falling back on "namecalling". If I wanted to get nasty and start using terms like "piece of fiction" and "sky daddy" I would have by now.
QuoteWhat the typical Atheist seems to miss is that today's human is NOT what God created.
This is confusing. I thought that (most) Christians believe that God creates each person. "Before I formed you in the womb I knew you" and all that.
Quote from: Ali on January 18, 2012, 06:43:16 PM
Can I just say that the use of "piece of fiction" does not "appease" me, I actually find it a little condescending, like you can't even imagine an atheist that would debate without falling back on "namecalling". If I wanted to get nasty and start using terms like "piece of fiction" and "sky daddy" I would have by now.
If you rather me use 'bible', I can. It was with another person on this forum that seemed to not be able to deal with me using bible and rather I use 'piece of fiction' which I figured was the preference of most Atheists. I was not at all trying to be condescending. My apologies if that's how it was received.
Quote from: AliQuoteWhat the typical Atheist seems to miss is that today's human is NOT what God created.
This is confusing. I thought that (most) Christians believe that God creates each person. "Before I formed you in the womb I knew you" and all that.
The manner in which we are formed is of God, according to the bible, that he made us and pro-creation is part of His creation. However, we are no longer direct products of God's creative work, so to speak, but rather are His work plus that which taints his work. So when a person is born with disease, the disease is not of God's direct working, but that which works against God.
So when an Atheist points and says, "Look what your god has created. A deformed baby...yay. He is so great and loving and omnipotent..." It is only evident that this person really has no clue in what they speak if they really have studied the bible. Otherwise they are just spouting off heresay and ad hominem attacks...which this forum doesn't like. The typical Atheist will not go and really study the bible to find out even why this may be or the explanation of it. Like I've mentioned. It's not unlike someone to go and really study a book of fiction. Take Star Wars or Lord of the Rings. Some people get really into it knowing its fiction and have all the knowledge of why this event happened or that event happened... I gave a website that is an example of this: Thain's Book - Guide to Tolkien's Middle-earth (http://www.tuckborough.net/) where there is a lot of depth given about this ficticious story so that there might be more understanding to those that seek the understanding.
AD... You're wrong, and this is why you are wrong. That's how it works. Not just you are wrong. Providing you can't answer why I am wrong (for the third time) I will assume I am correct. Thanks.
Quote from: AnimatedDirt on January 18, 2012, 07:02:41 PM
Quote from: Ali on January 18, 2012, 06:43:16 PM
Can I just say that the use of "piece of fiction" does not "appease" me, I actually find it a little condescending, like you can't even imagine an atheist that would debate without falling back on "namecalling". If I wanted to get nasty and start using terms like "piece of fiction" and "sky daddy" I would have by now.
If you rather me use 'bible', I can. It was with another person on this forum that seemed to not be able to deal with me using bible and rather I use 'piece of fiction' which I figured was the preference of most Atheists. I was not at all trying to be condescending. My apologies if that's how it was received.
I prefer "Bible" and better yet "Christian Bible", as there are many holy books and it helps to know which one you are referencing.
Quote from: AnimatedDirt on January 18, 2012, 07:02:41 PM
Quote from: AliQuoteWhat the typical Atheist seems to miss is that today's human is NOT what God created.
This is confusing. I thought that (most) Christians believe that God creates each person. "Before I formed you in the womb I knew you" and all that.
The manner in which we are formed is of God, according to the bible, that he made us and pro-creation is part of His creation. However, we are no longer direct products of God's creative work, so to speak, but rather are His work plus that which taints his work. So when a person is born with disease, the disease is not of God's direct working, but that which works against God.
So when an Atheist points and says, "Look what your god has created. A deformed baby...yay. He is so great and loving and omnipotent..." It is only evident that this person really has no clue in what they speak if they really have studied the bible. Otherwise they are just spouting off heresay and ad hominem attacks...which this forum doesn't like. The typical Atheist will not go and really study the bible to find out even why this may be or the explanation of it. Like I've mentioned. It's not unlike someone to go and really study a book of fiction. Take Star Wars or Lord of the Rings. Some people get really into it knowing its fiction and have all the knowledge of why this event happened or that event happened... I gave a website that is an example of this: Thain's Book - Guide to Tolkien's Middle-earth (http://www.tuckborough.net/) where there is a lot of depth given about this ficticious story so that there might be more understanding to those that seek the understanding.
I think that here again, we fall back on the problem that there ar eso many different interpretations of what/who God is, and what s/he/it does. I was raised Christian, church every Sunday, baptized at age 10, et cetera, and I have always heard that God personally designs each person. I'm not saying that you're wrong in your interpretation, it just illustrates how many interpretations there are, and how it is not just the probblem of "Atheists" being unwilling to learn."
Quote from: Genericguy on January 18, 2012, 07:10:39 PM
AD... You're wrong, and this is why you are wrong. That's how it works. Not just you are wrong. Providing you can't answer why I am wrong (for the third time) I will assume I am correct. Thanks.
Until you can prove to me that your initial post that I questioned is 100% correct, then you're simply saying, "I'm right and you're wrong..." Good luck with that approach.
Quote from: Ali on January 18, 2012, 07:13:40 PM
I prefer "Bible" and better yet "Christian Bible", as there are many holy books and it helps to know which one you are referencing.
If it's easier, unless I say different, when I mention bible, you can assume rightly that I mean the Christian Bible. :)
Quote from: AliI think that here again, we fall back on the problem that there ar eso many different interpretations of what/who God is, and what s/he/it does. I was raised Christian, church every Sunday, baptized at age 10, et cetera, and I have always heard that God personally designs each person. I'm not saying that you're wrong in your interpretation, it just illustrates how many interpretations there are, and how it is not just the probblem of "Atheists" being unwilling to learn."
It would really interest me to find that you were taught that EXACTLY as it sounds (the bold above). Specifically, that no past pastor of yours would add a caveat to that statement.
If this is true, then God is a liar. If this is God's design for *you, then why change that design later? If there is a better design, wouldn't it stand to reason that God would make you perfect if he was in fact creating each person? The fact is, according to the bible, is that God can work through imperfection. He made "you"...the "you" that is inside each person...not the physical manifestation seen today. That will change when the real "you"...the inside "you" and the perfect bodily manifestation of "you" is united, if you will. It's not that you will look different, but if you had a physical abnormality in this life, the life he offers, you will be whole. If you had a disease, you will be free of all disease...
Quote from: Ali on January 18, 2012, 07:13:40 PMQuote from: AnimatedDirt on January 18, 2012, 07:02:41 PMSo when an Atheist points and says, "Look what your god has created. A deformed baby...yay. He is so great and loving and omnipotent..." It is only evident that this person really has no clue in what they speak if they really have studied the bible. Otherwise they are just spouting off heresay and ad hominem attacks...which this forum doesn't like. The typical Atheist will not go and really study the bible to find out even why this may be or the explanation of it. Like I've mentioned. It's not unlike someone to go and really study a book of fiction. Take Star Wars or Lord of the Rings. Some people get really into it knowing its fiction and have all the knowledge of why this event happened or that event happened... I gave a website that is an example of this: Thain's Book - Guide to Tolkien's Middle-earth (http://www.tuckborough.net/) where there is a lot of depth given about this ficticious story so that there might be more understanding to those that seek the understanding.
I think that here again, we fall back on the problem that there ar eso many different interpretations of what/who God is, and what s/he/it does. I was raised Christian, church every Sunday, baptized at age 10, et cetera, and I have always heard that God personally designs each person. I'm not saying that you're wrong in your interpretation, it just illustrates how many interpretations there are, and how it is not just the probblem of "Atheists" being unwilling to learn."
Don't forget that AD is essentially saying that his version of god did not know what was going to happen to humans after it created them. Also there's the perfection begatting imperfectly problem, if everything about an organism is perfect, from whence cometh imperfection? If Adam and Eve were perfect, then why did they not have perfect children... if they had perfect children, then why didn't those kids have perfect children?
I've heard the incest argument, but then that would mean that god designed imperfection into the species by only creating two people which would necessarily result in inbreading. Which by the design of the god would produce imperfections making humanity imperfect by design.
Quote from: Davin on January 18, 2012, 07:51:17 PM
Don't forget that AD is essentially saying that his version of god did not know what was going to happen to humans after it created them.
Really? You know this to be true how? Heresay.
Quote from: DavinAlso there's the perfection begatting imperfectly problem, if everything about an organism is perfect, from whence cometh imperfection? If Adam and Eve were perfect, then why did they not have perfect children... if they had perfect children, then why didn't those kids have perfect children?
The answer, according to the bible, is that sin entered...and thus they began to die...literally as we do from the moment of birth we are dying.
Quote from: DavinI've heard the incest argument, but then that would mean that god designed imperfection into the species by only creating two people which would necessarily result in inbreading. Which by the design of the god would produce imperfections making humanity imperfect by design.
Where inbreeding problems comes in is when the problems of imperfection comes in...the dying part. If they were perfect beings, then their offspring was close to perfection, but not as close...and so on. I'm don't have proof, but I'm sure incest was not the long-term plan. I dont know what is. We are not specifically told.
Quote from: Asmodean on January 18, 2012, 05:47:31 AM
Quote from: xSilverPhinx on January 18, 2012, 04:57:48 AM
I hope you're not suggesting that we make a 'Stevil' a unit of perfection? ;D ;) If so, then is 1 Stevil just as perfect as all 100 Stevils with variations among them?
Well, evil is measured in Asmos. Guys like Hitler are about 500 to 700 µAsmos in terms of evil. A regular garden variety secretary is a few nanoAsmos. YHWH is at whopping 1/2Asmos and The Asmo is... An Asmo. ;D
Could definitely work. The evil Asmo as a measurement against all of evil can be compared. ;D
Quote from: Stevil on January 18, 2012, 08:37:47 AM
You would think that 2 Stevils is twice as good as 1, but that would imply that 1 Stevil is less than perfect.
But that's the thing. 1 Stevil is as good as it gets, you can't improve on that, you can't improve on perfection.
This! :D
So, assuming people were perfect-er ::) before the Fall of Man...wait...what is perfection anyways? ???
Quote from: AnimatedDirt on January 18, 2012, 08:02:04 PM
Quote from: Davin on January 18, 2012, 07:51:17 PM
Don't forget that AD is essentially saying that his version of god did not know what was going to happen to humans after it created them.
Really? You know this to be true how? Heresay.
It's the consequences of what you're saying: humans werre perfect but aren't any more, so either god designed them to be imperfect, or the god didn't know what the result would be.
Quote from: AnimatedDirtQuote from: DavinAlso there's the perfection begatting imperfectly problem, if everything about an organism is perfect, from whence cometh imperfection? If Adam and Eve were perfect, then why did they not have perfect children... if they had perfect children, then why didn't those kids have perfect children?
The answer, according to the bible, is that sin entered...and thus they began to die...literally as we do from the moment of birth we are dying.
Against the plan/design of this god?
Quote from: AnimatedDirtQuote from: DavinI've heard the incest argument, but then that would mean that god designed imperfection into the species by only creating two people which would necessarily result in inbreading. Which by the design of the god would produce imperfections making humanity imperfect by design.
Where inbreeding problems comes in is when the problems of imperfection comes in...the dying part. If they were perfect beings, then their offspring was close to perfection, but not as close...and so on. I'm don't have proof, but I'm sure incest was not the long-term plan. I dont know what is. We are not specifically told.
Well if the god is all knowing and designed everything, then the current imperfection must be the result.
Also: if you admit that we are not perfect anymore, then how can you even try to say:
Quote from: AnimatedDirt on January 13, 2012, 11:35:41 PM
Quote from: Ali on January 13, 2012, 11:33:48 PM
Quote from: Guardian85 on January 13, 2012, 11:26:08 PM
The blood vessels in the eye are in front of the optic nerve. That's like designing a camera with all the wiring in front of the lens. Very bad design!
Well, and I think I recall from my anatomy class that the optic nerve is crossed so that when the images come in to the brain, they are upside down, and then our brain has to flip them right side up. Or something like that. That's also a silly design.
Yet they work perfectly.
Which is it, are humans imperfect or working perfectly? The law of non-contradiction does not allow both to be true.
Quote from: Davin on January 18, 2012, 08:13:52 PM
It's the consequences of what you're saying: humans werre perfect but aren't any more, so either god designed them to be imperfect, or the god didn't know what the result would be.
Consequences as you see them...or as the bible states them to be. How are we going to approach this...being in the Religion secion of this forum? Are we going to go on what you perceive as the "truth" of the bible or on what the "truth" is according to the bible? Let's decide now, that way we can either continue or leave it at the fact that you've drawn your own conclusions on the bible, yet now really knowing what the bible teaches OR at worst, that the Christian has it wrong on what the bible teaches.
Quote from: DavinWell if the god is all knowing and designed everything, then the current imperfection must be the result.
Is this an opinion based on your knowledge of the bible or based on your own perception of what the bible says of God and his plan/design? If the former, present the proof that this god designed this all for the purpose of it to become imperfect.
Quote from: DavinAlso: if you admit that we are not perfect anymore, then how can you even try to say:
Does the design on the eye not work? What are you saying is imperfect about it...and how do you know what the design was for?
Quote from: AnimatedDirt on January 18, 2012, 07:32:31 PM
Quote from: Ali on January 18, 2012, 07:13:40 PM
I prefer "Bible" and better yet "Christian Bible", as there are many holy books and it helps to know which one you are referencing.
If it's easier, unless I say different, when I mention bible, you can assume rightly that I mean the Christian Bible. :)
Quote from: AliI think that here again, we fall back on the problem that there ar eso many different interpretations of what/who God is, and what s/he/it does. I was raised Christian, church every Sunday, baptized at age 10, et cetera, and I have always heard that God personally designs each person. I'm not saying that you're wrong in your interpretation, it just illustrates how many interpretations there are, and how it is not just the probblem of "Atheists" being unwilling to learn."
It would really interest me to find that you were taught that EXACTLY as it sounds (the bold above). Specifically, that no past pastor of yours would add a caveat to that statement.
If this is true, then God is a liar. If this is God's design for *you, then why change that design later? If there is a better design, wouldn't it stand to reason that God would make you perfect if he was in fact creating each person? The fact is, according to the bible, is that God can work through imperfection. He made "you"...the "you" that is inside each person...not the physical manifestation seen today. That will change when the real "you"...the inside "you" and the perfect bodily manifestation of "you" is united, if you will. It's not that you will look different, but if you had a physical abnormality in this life, the life he offers, you will be whole. If you had a disease, you will be free of all disease...
Don't shoot the messenger AD, I'm just telling you what I was taught. There are tons of bible passages that talk about God forming people in the womb - is it so strange that some Christians interpret this to mean that god created each person (physically and spiritually)?
I don't get what you mean about "changing the design later." Like aging?
Anyway, I think you and I have probbaly taken this subject about as far as we can. At this point we're arguing interpretation of a book that I don't take on authority, so I guess I'll just let my point stand that there are differing interpretations of the bible.
Quote from: AnimatedDirt on January 18, 2012, 08:22:43 PM
Quote from: Davin on January 18, 2012, 08:13:52 PM
It's the consequences of what you're saying: humans werre perfect but aren't any more, so either god designed them to be imperfect, or the god didn't know what the result would be.
Consequences as you see them...or as the bible states them to be. How are we going to approach this...being in the Religion secion of this forum? Are we going to go on what you perceive as the "truth" of the bible or on what the "truth" is according to the bible? Let's decide now, that way we can either continue or leave it at the fact that you've drawn your own conclusions on the bible, yet now really knowing what the bible teaches OR at worst, that the Christian has it wrong on what the bible teaches.
No matter which way you choose, just someone saying so doesn't cut it in the face of the person saying something that contradicts what they previously said. Unless you're going to argue for a reality where there is no law of non-contradiction. Which is it: Law of non-contradiction or not? I'm only intrested in talking about a reality with the law of non-contradiction, because any other kind is useless and boring to talk about.
Quote from: AnimatedDirtQuote from: DavinWell if the god is all knowing and designed everything, then the current imperfection must be the result.
Is this an opinion based on your knowledge of the bible or based on your own perception of what the bible says of God and his plan/design? If the former, present the proof that this god designed this all for the purpose of it to become imperfect.
Does it matter where my interpreation comes from? I don't think it does because I'm discussing the things you said. You're proposing a god that knows everything and designed everything, so in this context, how the world is, is how it was intended to be.
Quote from: AnimatedDirtQuote from: DavinAlso: if you admit that we are not perfect anymore, then how can you even try to say:
Does the design on the eye not work? What are you saying is imperfect about it...and how do you know what the design was for?
I didn't say that the eye doesn't work. "Which is it, are humans imperfect or working perfectly?" Please answer the question, because you've stated both, but both cannot be true. I'm asking you to answer the question because I don't know which way you think things are. Since both cannot be true, in order to have a useful discussion, I need to know which way you want to take it.
Quote from: Ali on January 18, 2012, 08:30:39 PM
Don't shoot the messenger AD, I'm just telling you what I was taught. There are tons of bible passages that talk about God forming people in the womb - is it so strange that some Christians interpret this to mean that god created each person (physically and spiritually)?
Again...in context of the whole, one cannot conclude that makes someone e.g. without a leg on purpose. However that even without that leg, that person can become that which God intended. Which should answer Davin's question.
Quote from: AliI don't get what you mean about "changing the design later." Like aging?
You were a Christian...taught all things Christian? At what age did you leave? Surely this is THE most basic of teachings. Heaven...the "we will be changed, in the twinkling of an eye..." part? And not necessarily changing the design, but making *you as the design intended you be physically. The design is basically right, but flawed in that it now dies...and all that goes with death or leads to death.
Quote from: AliAnyway, I think you and I have probbaly taken this subject about as far as we can. At this point we're arguing interpretation of a book that I don't take on authority, so I guess I'll just let my point stand that there are differing interpretations of the bible.
As you wish.
Okay, okay, so god made us all intendedly in his/her image?
I saw a grup of down syndrome children on the metro this afternoon. I'm sure they are very thankful to need constant care the rest of their lives.
Why do some babies come out with mental or physical disabilities?
Quote from: AnimatedDirt on January 18, 2012, 09:02:40 PM
Quote from: Ali on January 18, 2012, 08:30:39 PM
Don't shoot the messenger AD, I'm just telling you what I was taught. There are tons of bible passages that talk about God forming people in the womb - is it so strange that some Christians interpret this to mean that god created each person (physically and spiritually)?
Again...in context of the whole, one cannot conclude that makes someone e.g. without a leg on purpose. However that even without that leg, that person can become that which God intended. Which should answer Davin's question.
Quote from: AliI don't get what you mean about "changing the design later." Like aging?
You were a Christian...taught all things Christian? At what age did you leave? Surely this is THE most basic of teachings. Heaven...the "we will be changed, in the twinkling of an eye..." part? And not necessarily changing the design, but making *you as the design intended you be physically. The design is basically right, but flawed in that it now dies...and all that goes with death or leads to death.
Quote from: AliAnyway, I think you and I have probbaly taken this subject about as far as we can. At this point we're arguing interpretation of a book that I don't take on authority, so I guess I'll just let my point stand that there are differing interpretations of the bible.
As you wish.
I left when I was about 16 or so.
Yes, I know about the Christian teaching of Heaven (although I'm sure that I don't know ALL Christian teachings, any more so than most people do.) I just didn't get what you were referencing when oyou mentioned god changing the design. Okay, now I really am done. LOL
Quote from: Sweetdeath on January 18, 2012, 09:07:58 PM
Okay, okay, so god made us all intendedly in his/her image?
I saw a grup of down syndrome children on the metro this afternoon. I'm sure they are very thankful to need constant care the rest of their lives.
Why do some babies come out with mental or physical disabilities?
I fear that if you haven't caught on to the answer to that querie by now, it is pointless to try again. But I will try again.
In a nutshell:
- God created humans in his likeness...perfect. (for the design purpose...our eyes were not intended to see millions of miles into space nor view micro-organisms by themselves.)
- Sin/Evil/whatever exists and entered. (long before humans...but that goes way into theology)
- God made perfect beings with the ability of full choice (whatever is logically a choice...not to choose to fly or jump over the moon...etc)
- To have the choice, they must be presented with the choices. Good and Evil, if you will, or that which is against God.
- They chose "evil" and therefore sinned. Sin brings death and they began to die the moment they sinned.
Therefore, as a result of sin, this perfect human has resulted in what you see today in that sin has changed and mutated that which was intended to live forever to something that can't live forever and is not immune to the things sin brings about...disease, sickness, physical, mental, emotional...
So then the child you promote as in "God's image" is in the sense that God knows the child, but it isn't as God had intended in a world without sin. The inner child is of God's image, the outer physical manifestation is not. That which is not perfect, is a direct result of that which is against God's intention.
Quote from: AnimatedDirt on January 18, 2012, 09:32:57 PM
- To have the choice, they must be presented with the choices. Good and Evil, if you will, or that which is against God.
I must point out that as a amoralist atheist I do not believe in Good, Evil or God. I am incapable of knowing what is against God.
I am incapable of making any choices with respect to Good, Evil, God or against God.
I am therefore incapable of sin, which also means that
I am without sin.
Quote from: Stevil on January 18, 2012, 09:50:28 PM
Quote from: AnimatedDirt on January 18, 2012, 09:32:57 PM
- To have the choice, they must be presented with the choices. Good and Evil, if you will, or that which is against God.
I must point out that as a amoralist atheist I do not believe in Good, Evil or God. I am incapable of knowing what is against God.
I am incapable of making any choices with respect to Good, Evil, God or against God.
I am therefore incapable of sin, which also means that I am without sin.
*Hands Stevil a stone* You first. :D
Quote from: Stevil on January 18, 2012, 09:50:28 PM
Quote from: AnimatedDirt on January 18, 2012, 09:32:57 PM
- To have the choice, they must be presented with the choices. Good and Evil, if you will, or that which is against God.
I must point out that as a amoralist atheist I do not believe in Good, Evil or God. I am incapable of knowing what is against God.
I am incapable of making any choices with respect to Good, Evil, God or against God.
I am therefore incapable of sin, which also means that I am without sin.
I guess that's something you'll be able to debate God if confronted with him at your death...or whenever than happens should he exist.
Quote from: AnimatedDirt on January 18, 2012, 10:01:28 PM
Quote from: Stevil on January 18, 2012, 09:50:28 PM
Quote from: AnimatedDirt on January 18, 2012, 09:32:57 PM
- To have the choice, they must be presented with the choices. Good and Evil, if you will, or that which is against God.
I must point out that as a amoralist atheist I do not believe in Good, Evil or God. I am incapable of knowing what is against God.
I am incapable of making any choices with respect to Good, Evil, God or against God.
I am therefore incapable of sin, which also means that I am without sin.
I guess that's something you'll be able to debate God if confronted with him at your death...or whenever than happens should he exist.
I would have no desire or reason to explain myself to your god. On the contrary, if your god exists, there is much explaining to be done from its side, but then again, would I care what it has to say about anything?
If it talks in riddles, like the bible, then I would find it to be unintelligible nonsense.
So a parent(s) sinning is the result of a down syndrome child?
Okay, I guess that explains everything.
No need to put genes or biology to the test.
Just your god being a dick and taking it out on innocent children.
Quote from: Sweetdeath on January 18, 2012, 10:35:32 PM
So a parent(s) sinning is the result of a down syndrome child?
Okay, I guess that explains everything.
No need to put genes or biology to the test.
Just your god being a dick and taking it out on innocent children.
See...wasted time. My answer used simply to ridicule. No sense of true desire to know.
Quote from: AnimatedDirt on January 18, 2012, 10:47:08 PM
See...wasted time. My answer used simply to ridicule. No sense of true desire to know.
I understand your frustration AD, but you must understand also that not many atheists would consider that any knowledge can be gained from reading the bible, or studying the various interpretations of the bible. As far as we are concerned the bible does not contain knowledge, only fictional stories, that for us seem incredibly nonsensical.
If you don't address the issues that an atheist has with regards to the bible how can you expect an atheist to see any of the knowledge that you speak of.
The book is so alienating, so grutesque, so illogical, so contradictory (with regards to itself and scientific knowledge).
When you attempted to explain it to me, and I attempted to listen, for the most part all I could hear was you asking me to suspend critical thought and reason, and instead simply believe what I am being told. Rather than get hung up on the inconsistencies to simply accept that science is incomplete and that science may eventually improve to become consistent with the book. This is not the methodology for gaining knowledge as expected by an atheist.
Quote from: Stevil on January 18, 2012, 11:16:48 PM
Quote from: AnimatedDirt on January 18, 2012, 10:47:08 PM
See...wasted time. My answer used simply to ridicule. No sense of true desire to know.
I understand your frustration AD, but you must understand also that not many atheists would consider that any knowledge can be gained from reading the bible, or studying the various interpretations of the bible. As far as we are concerned the bible does not contain knowledge, only fictional stories, that for us seem incredibly nonsensical.
I really don't think you understand the frustration. Say one has a passion for The Lord of the Rings and someone else is simply making fun of the movie because it is fiction and says things that are not true of the story. What if they continually say Gandalf was green or poke fun at the "design" of Hobbit feet...? I don't know if there is a reason given for Hobbit feet to be the way they are, but what if there was a reason given? To be shown to be wrong about the story, one must accept to take the story by what the story and/or the whole of the theme is. Otherwise all the person doing that is making fun of it is spouting things that are untrue of the story and coming to conclusions about those that have passion for that story that are false.
I probably did not convey that thought well...*sigh*.
Quote from: StevilIf you don't address the issues that an atheist has with regards to the bible how can you expect an atheist to see any of the knowledge that you speak of.
The book is so alienating, so grutesque, so illogical, so contradictory (with regards to itself and scientific knowledge).
The issues the typical Atheist has is normally superficial and not the point of why the story(ies) are there. The typical Atheist refuses to delve deep into the story on the whole to see why or why not AND THEN pass judgment with regard to the players therein. At least get the point(s) right. Then criticize them within their correct context.
Quote from: StevilWhen you attempted to explain it to me, and I attempted to listen, for the most part all I could hear was you asking me to suspend critical thought and reason, and instead simply believe what I am being told. Rather than get hung up on the inconsistencies to simply accept that science is incomplete and that science may eventually improve to become consistent with the book. This is not the methodology for gaining knowledge as expected by an atheist.
I didn't expect you to suspend critical thought, but rather don't jump to conclusions without understanding the whole of it. Once that kind of understanding is gained, THEN feel free to pass judgment as you see fit. I, nor any Christian, would find fault in you for that.
I am actually trying to be sincere. I guess it isn't coming off well. I apologize.
Quote from: AnimatedDirt on January 18, 2012, 11:47:39 PM
I really don't think you understand the frustration. Say one has a passion for The Lord of the Rings and someone else is simply making fun of the movie because it is fiction and says things that are not true of the story. What if they continually say Gandalf was green or poke fun at the "design" of Hobbit feet...? I don't know if there is a reason given for Hobbit feet to be the way they are, but what if there was a reason given? To be shown to be wrong about the story, one must accept to take the story by what the story and/or the whole of the theme is. Otherwise all the person doing that is making fun of it is spouting things that are untrue of the story and coming to conclusions about those that have passion for that story that are false.
I probably did not convey that thought well...*sigh*.
The thing is, from the atheist's point of view, we are continually bombarded by theists, who tell us that we are going to hell, that we must repent, that we will be judged by their god (this, you personally did to me today). Some also put their Christian morals into law and hence impact my life, and people around me.
I have not been bombarded by Lord of the rings fanatics that tell me I must believe in Gandalf, that there are elves in the woods and they have pointy ears. No-one suggests that Gollumn died for me and that I should accept his death as repentance for my sins.
Quote from: AnimatedDirt on January 18, 2012, 11:47:39 PM
The issues the typical Atheist has is normally superficial.
I wouldn't classify the god killing almost everyone including the animals and plants as being superficial. Or setting bears onto small children, or killing first born Egyptians, or the beloved character Moses telling his men to rape women, or the god suggesting Abraham sacrifice his son.
These are not superficial. If a person was found guilty in a human court of doing these things they would either go to prison for a very long time or they would get the death penalty. You must put this into context with reality AD. Atheists live in the real world, not this fictional world you talk of.
Quote from: AnimatedDirt on January 18, 2012, 11:47:39 PM
I didn't expect you to suspend critical thought, but rather don't jump to conclusions without understanding the whole of it. Once that kind of understanding is gained, THEN feel free to pass judgment as you see fit. I, nor any Christian, would find fault in you for that.
I think the only way I could get an understanding that you would be happy with is for me to read the bible, go to church every Sunday, go to Bible study, go on Christian holiday camps, give up the requirement for proof, accept 100% faith and proclaim myself to be a Christian.
It is too late for that, I am a grown adult, I have a habit of questioning things and asking for proof. I never simply do as I am told. I will never treat gay people as if they are sinners, I will never tell a dying person that they must not commit euthanasia, I will never tell an expecting mother that she must not have an abortion. I am adamantly opposed to Christian morals and any morals for that matter. People ought to think for themselves.
Quote from: AnimatedDirt on January 18, 2012, 11:47:39 PM
The issues the typical Atheist has is normally superficial and not the point of why the story(ies) are there. The typical Atheist refuses to delve deep into the story on the whole to see why or why not AND THEN pass judgment with regard to the players therein. At least get the point(s) right. Then criticize them within their correct context.
To be fair, the typical Christian is also guilty of this. Many Christians interpret parts of the Bible literally that clearly don't represent historical events (Garden of Eden, Flood, Exodus etc). From an atheist's point of view, as someone who doesn't believe things like virgin births, miracles and resurrections happen in real life, we could arguably extend that to cover all Christians.
Plus as far as looking at the Bible in its correct context, I've met very very few Christians who have ever read Plato, or know much about ancient Near Eastern religion, or Hellenistic or Roman philosophy or religion. These are the contexts in which the Bible was created and should be looked at.
Quote from: Stevil on January 19, 2012, 02:09:42 AM
The thing is, from the atheist's point of view, we are continually bombarded by theists, who tell us that we are going to hell, that we must repent, that we will be judged by their god (this, you personally did to me today).
If you're talking about this post (http://www.happyatheistforum.com/forum/index.php?topic=9041.msg147470#msg147470), It was hardly me saying you were going to hell...and further more, in context of your words I was replying to, it is relevant. You opened the door, so to speak, for that answer. I also qualified my reply by making sure to add, "...if confronted...if he exists." In no way was that me "bombarding" you. We are in the Religion section and you are here at your own freewill, yes? Am I forcing you into this conversation? I hope not.
Quote from: StevilSome also put their Christian morals into law and hence impact my life, and people around me.
I think you'd agree that some "Christian" morals are good. Which would you suggest we remove? All?
Quote from: StevilI have not been bombarded by Lord of the rings fanatics that tell me I must believe in Gandalf, that there are elves in the woods and they have pointy ears. No-one suggests that Gollumn died for me and that I should accept his death as repentance for my sins.
Now you know this is not the point. To simply suggest this is to detract from the real point and poke more fun at those who hold Christian beliefs. The point being that there are people that put effort into knowing a story inside and out regardless if it is a fictional story.
Quote from: StevilI wouldn't classify the god killing almost everyone including the animals and plants as being superficial. Or setting bears onto small children, or killing first born Egyptians, or the beloved character Moses telling his men to rape women, or the god suggesting Abraham sacrifice his son.
These are not superficial. If a person was found guilty in a human court of doing these things they would either go to prison for a very long time or they would get the death penalty. You must put this into context with reality AD. Atheists live in the real world, not this fictional world you talk of.
It is superficial in that you cannot even state why it might be so according to the whole story. THAT's why it's superficial knowledge.
Quote from: StevilI think the only way I could get an understanding that you would be happy with is for me to read the bible, go to church every Sunday, go to Bible study, go on Christian holiday camps, give up the requirement for proof, accept 100% faith and proclaim myself to be a Christian.
Now you're being rediculous. If I was able to find a website with all kinds of info on the deep things, back stories, in-depth analysis of Lord of the Rings...I'm sure there are similar websites for things related to Christianity.
Quote from: StevilIt is too late for that, I am a grown adult, I have a habit of questioning things and asking for proof. I never simply do as I am told. I will never treat gay people as if they are sinners, I will never tell a dying person that they must not commit euthanasia, I will never tell an expecting mother that she must not have an abortion. I am adamantly opposed to Christian morals and any morals for that matter. People ought to think for themselves.
I suppose you're assuming/accusing me of that which you don't do...because certainaly every Christian is opposite to your highly educated thinking. Thanks for that.
Quote from: AnimatedDirt on January 19, 2012, 04:43:40 PM
If you're talking about this post (http://www.happyatheistforum.com/forum/index.php?topic=9041.msg147470#msg147470), It was hardly me saying you were going to hell...and further more, in context of your words I was replying to, it is relevant. You opened the door, so to speak, for that answer. I also qualified my reply by making sure to add, "...if confronted...if he exists." In no way was that me "bombarding" you. We are in the Religion section and you are here at your own freewill, yes? Am I forcing you into this conversation? I hope not.
Yes I did open the door and you gladly took it by stating something that was already obvious.
Unfortunatly rather than clarify your statement that I used to logically conclude that I am without sin, you instead invoked Pascal's Wager, which had nothing to do with what we were discussing. Pascal's Wager is a dishonest tool used to convince the weak minded to accept Christianity without proof.
However what I am saying is that I would be less likely to pick holes in the book if Christians didn't make out that this fictional book applies to me.
...and you have done this on many occasions even when you put an "if" disclaimer at the front of what you say.
Quote from: AnimatedDirt on January 19, 2012, 04:43:40 PM
I think you'd agree that some "Christian" morals are good. Which would you suggest we remove? All?
No morals are ever good, I am currently of the opinion that holding onto a moral code leads to suspended critical thought, oppression of people and conflict within society. If it were possible for me to remove the morality words and concepts from the English language then I would gladly do so. I despise any teachings of morals. I would far rather people be taught how to apply critical thinking, how to foresee the consequences to their own actions, how to understand social behaviour and why normal people in society sometimes become violent in response to certain actions.
Quote from: AnimatedDirt on January 19, 2012, 04:43:40 PM
Now you know this is not the point. To simply suggest this is to detract from the real point and poke more fun at those who hold Christian beliefs. The point being that there are people that put effort into knowing a story inside and out regardless if it is a fictional story.
The point that you obviously didn't get is that I would be determined to poke holes and belittle Lord of the Rings if people were to suggest it were the truth and that I will be judged for not believing and not being a Tolkienite.
Quote from: AnimatedDirt on January 19, 2012, 04:43:40 PM
It is superficial in that you cannot even state why it might be so according to the whole story. THAT's why it's superficial knowledge.
I am not interested in excuses, if anyone commits mass murder or kills little children merely for verbally teasing an adult then this person/thing needs to face serious consequences. I do not accept that the fictional YHWH character is all loving and perfect, this is a baseless assertion.
Quote from: AnimatedDirt on January 19, 2012, 04:43:40 PM
Now you're being rediculous. If I was able to find a website with all kinds of info on the deep things, back stories, in-depth analysis of Lord of the Rings...I'm sure there are similar websites for things related to Christianity.
The problem is that there is no evidence or proof at all substantiating the anecdotal stories of the bible.
As I have said before, if people try to make out that it is true and tell me it applies to me then I will find holes in it and ridicule it, otherwise I would simply ignore it.
Quote from: AnimatedDirt on January 19, 2012, 04:43:40 PM
Quote from: StevilIt is too late for that, I am a grown adult, I have a habit of questioning things and asking for proof. I never simply do as I am told. I will never treat gay people as if they are sinners, I will never tell a dying person that they must not commit euthanasia, I will never tell an expecting mother that she must not have an abortion. I am adamantly opposed to Christian morals and any morals for that matter. People ought to think for themselves.
I suppose you're assuming/accusing me of that which you don't do...because certainaly every Christian is opposite to your highly educated thinking. Thanks for that.
Interesting response especially because I never stated anything with regards to education, or even my relative intelligence for that matter.
One of the biggest aspects of Christianity is convincing people to adhere to Christian morality. It is commonly accepted that Christians are against gay sex, euthanasia and abortion. It is common that Christian groups attempt to influence law on these matters. I am not referring to you but Christianity in general.
AD, I don't even know why you care what I think about your Bible and belief.
How does this impact you? From your perspective I clearly don't understand the bible nor am I offering any valid arguments.
I am not even interested in reading the book.
I am not telling you that you ought not to believe. I am not criticising you in your beliefs, I am merely criticising my perception of Christianity in defense of Christian influence on law and Christian evangelism in society.
Quote from: Stevil on January 19, 2012, 06:35:21 PM
Yes I did open the door and you gladly took it by stating something that was already obvious.
Unfortunatly rather than clarify your statement that I used to logically conclude that I am without sin, you instead invoked Pascal's Wager, which had nothing to do with what we were discussing. Pascal's Wager is a dishonest tool used to convince the weak minded to accept Christianity without proof.
The logically, I didn't "invoke" Pascal's Wager here as I have already mentioned I'm not trying to convince you of anything other than you really have no basis, but superficial knowledge, to poke holes.
Quote from: StevilHowever what I am saying is that I would be less likely to pick holes in the book if Christians didn't make out that this fictional book applies to me.
...and you have done this on many occasions even when you put an "if" disclaimer at the front of what you say.
If you know it doesn't, why does it bother you so much? Better yet, why do you continue to do something that brings so much tension on yourself...discussing Christian beliefs? You believe what you do apparently because you claim to have a higher understanding, better critical thinking...and yet you allow this notion of "it applies to me" bother you?
Quote from: StevilNo morals are ever good, I am currently of the opinion that holding onto a moral code leads to suspended critical thought, oppression of people and conflict within society. If it were possible for me to remove the morality words and concepts from the English language then I would gladly do so. I despise any teachings of morals. I would far rather people be taught how to apply critical thinking, how to foresee the consequences to their own actions, how to understand social behaviour and why normal people in society sometimes become violent in response to certain actions.
Ok. Just don't get upset when someone elses "morals" conflict with yours.
Quote from: StevilThe point that you obviously didn't get is that I would be determined to poke holes and belittle Lord of the Rings if people were to suggest it were the truth and that I will be judged for not believing and not being a Tolkienite.
Yet we find ourselves in this old debate still...wonder.
Quote from: StevilI am not interested in excuses, if anyone commits mass murder or kills little children merely for verbally teasing an adult then this person/thing needs to face serious consequences. I do not accept that the fictional YHWH character is all loving and perfect, this is a baseless assertion.
Excuses to you...but then we've established that your knowledge of the bible is just superficial.
Quote from: StevilThe problem is that there is no evidence or proof at all substantiating the anecdotal stories of the bible.
As I have said before, if people try to make out that it is true and tell me it applies to me then I will find holes in it and ridicule it, otherwise I would simply ignore it.
Am I trying to prove the bible to you here? Seems like either you're ignoring what I'm saying or simply jumping to conclusions.
Quote from: StevilIt is too late for that, I am a grown adult, I have a habit of questioning things and asking for proof. I never simply do as I am told. I will never treat gay people as if they are sinners, I will never tell a dying person that they must not commit euthanasia, I will never tell an expecting mother that she must not have an abortion. I am adamantly opposed to Christian morals and any morals for that matter. People ought to think for themselves.
QuoteI suppose you're assuming/accusing me of that which you don't do...because certainaly every Christian is opposite to your highly educated thinking. Thanks for that.
Interesting response especially because I never stated anything with regards to education, or even my relative intelligence for that matter.
I beg to differ according to your words.
Quote from: StevilOne of the biggest aspects of Christianity is convincing people to adhere to Christian morality.
Now THAT is proof of superficial knowledge and simply a lie. That is not even one of the biggest aspects. This shows your misunderstanding of BASIC Christian ideals.
Quote from: StevilIt is commonly accepted that Christians are against gay sex, euthanasia and abortion. It is common that Christian groups attempt to influence law on these matters. I am not referring to you but Christianity in general.
This is about as close to real knowledge about Christianity that you have. I wouldn't disagree with this statement, however I would disagree with the Christians that promote these as a dogmatic stance.
Quote from: AnimatedDirt on January 19, 2012, 04:43:40 PM
Quote from: StevilSome also put their Christian morals into law and hence impact my life, and people around me.
I think you'd agree that some "Christian" morals are good. Which would you suggest we remove? All?
Yes, there are
some moral teachings in the god-damn bible that are good, but those are usually the moral codes that any other belief system or philosophy also encompass. Things like "don't kill indiscriminately" and "don't steal other peoples stuff".
So are those scelect moral points good because they are in the bible, or did the
human authors of the biblical texts add them because they were good?
This still does not excuse the bibles condoning of slavery, rape, genocide, and subjugation of women.
Quote from: Guardian85 on January 19, 2012, 08:25:37 PM
Yes, there are some moral teachings in the god-damn bible that are good, but those are usually the moral codes that any other belief system or philosophy also encompass. Things like "don't kill indiscriminately" and "don't steal other peoples stuff".
So are those scelect moral points good because they are in the bible, or did the human authors of the biblical texts add them because they were good?
Either way, they are good, no?
Quote from: Guradian85This still does not excuse the bibles condoning of slavery, rape, genocide, and subjugation of women.
Now seriously. Let's logically think about this a moment. Let's use our critical thinking...well, not me because apparently I can't think critically. Bring it to the logical conclusion(s). If it is as you claim it is, how would the followers of this book LOGICALLY act socially with regard to these you cite?
I think pretty much every moral teaching is, in addition to being subjective in its value, situational.
It is because the peddlers of biblical teachings cherry-pick the nice parts for the sermon, and most people just assume that the bible is the way it is being sold to them. Quite often when I speak with christians about this, they will vehemently deny that there are rules in the bible that says "stone disobedient children" or that Moses commanded 3000 of his followers put to the sword. Or that Joshua burnt Jericho to the ground. Or that Jeptha burned his daughter as an offering.
People act socially because we are evolved social creatures. The instinct to co-exist socially is an evolved trait. That is where the foundation of human morals comes from. That is why you are able to pick the parts of the bible you like, while trying to justify your belief in the bible despite that it is also full of very, very, very immoral stories.
Quote from: Guardian85 on January 19, 2012, 08:46:22 PM
It is because the peddlers of biblical teachings cherry-pick the nice parts for the sermon, and most people just assume that the bible is the way it is being sold to them. Quite often when I speak with christians about this, they will vehemently deny that there are rules in the bible that says "stone disobedient children" or that Moses commanded 3000 of his followers put to the sword. Or that Joshua burnt Jericho to the ground. Or that Jeptha burned his daughter as an offering.
People act socially because we are evolved social creatures. The instinct to co-exist socially is an evolved trait. That is where the foundation of human morals comes from. That is why you are able to pick the parts of the bible you like, while trying to justify your belief in the bible despite that it is also full of very, very, very immoral stories.
So anything written with any "immoral stories" can, using your logic here, be placed as equals with the bible? Is this logical?
It is very logical if you treat the bible as equally fictitious as other storybooks, whish is one of the preqisites for being a non-believer.
Unless you are willing to use special reasoning to give the bible a free pass from objective truth value, it has no more status then any other work of fiction.
Quote from: Guardian85 on January 19, 2012, 09:44:55 PM
It is very logical if you treat the bible as equally fictitious as other storybooks, whish is one of the preqisites for being a non-believer.
Unless you are willing to use special reasoning to give the bible a free pass from objective truth value, it has no more status then any other work of fiction.
So lessons cannot be learned from stories if they contain anything immoral...
Quote from: AnimatedDirt on January 19, 2012, 11:23:36 PM
Quote from: Guardian85 on January 19, 2012, 09:44:55 PM
It is very logical if you treat the bible as equally fictitious as other storybooks, whish is one of the preqisites for being a non-believer.
Unless you are willing to use special reasoning to give the bible a free pass from objective truth value, it has no more status then any other work of fiction.
So lessons cannot be learned from stories if they contain anything immoral...
Nah... In general, lessons can only be learned well from experience.
Quote from: Asmodean on January 19, 2012, 11:26:20 PM
Nah... In general, lessons can only be learned well from experience.
Which does not invalidate that lessons can be learned from stories.
Quote from: AnimatedDirt on January 19, 2012, 11:23:36 PM
Quote from: Guardian85 on January 19, 2012, 09:44:55 PM
It is very logical if you treat the bible as equally fictitious as other storybooks, whish is one of the preqisites for being a non-believer.
Unless you are willing to use special reasoning to give the bible a free pass from objective truth value, it has no more status then any other work of fiction.
So lessons cannot be learned from stories if they contain anything immoral...
No they can, one just can't claim to draw all of his morals from a book that he cherry picks stories from. If you do that, then obviously you are relying on knowledge (morals) you picked up elsewhere, so clearly they didn't all come from the bible.
I guess you can say there are good morals one can draw from the bible, but I'd say just about any book you pick up has some good moral lessons so again, the bible is not 'morally special' over all, or most, other books at all.
Quote from: Heisenberg on January 19, 2012, 11:44:20 PM
Quote from: AnimatedDirt on January 19, 2012, 11:23:36 PM
Quote from: Guardian85 on January 19, 2012, 09:44:55 PM
It is very logical if you treat the bible as equally fictitious as other storybooks, whish is one of the preqisites for being a non-believer.
Unless you are willing to use special reasoning to give the bible a free pass from objective truth value, it has no more status then any other work of fiction.
So lessons cannot be learned from stories if they contain anything immoral...
No they can, one just can't claim to draw all of his morals from a book that he cherry picks stories from. If you do that, then obviously you are relying on knowledge (morals) you picked up elsewhere, so clearly they didn't all come from the bible.
Cherry pick? I'm not sure I understand. I will say, though, that some "stories" might be in there simply for the historical facts (or facts as a believer would believe, I don't assume you take them as historical facts...but in context) and not necessarily to promote a certain style of life above or below another.
Quote from: HeisenbergI guess you can say there are good morals one can draw from the bible, but I'd say just about any book you pick up has some good moral lessons so again, the bible is not 'morally special' over all, or most, other books at all.
No, I wouldn't argue this point.
Quote from: AnimatedDirt on January 19, 2012, 11:49:50 PM
Quote from: HeisenbergI guess you can say there are good morals one can draw from the bible, but I'd say just about any book you pick up has some good moral lessons so again, the bible is not 'morally special' over all, or most, other books at all.
No, I wouldn't argue this point.
And you blanket dismiss this argument because?
Quote from: AnimatedDirt on January 19, 2012, 11:29:56 PM
Quote from: Asmodean on January 19, 2012, 11:26:20 PM
Nah... In general, lessons can only be learned well from experience.
Which does not invalidate that lessons can be learned from stories.
Reading about the loss of a loved one in a story is one thing. Losing one in real life is another.
I believe real lessons come from real life and personal experiences.
Quote from: AnimatedDirt on January 19, 2012, 11:29:56 PM
Quote from: Asmodean on January 19, 2012, 11:26:20 PM
Nah... In general, lessons can only be learned well from experience.
Which does not invalidate that lessons can be learned from stories.
I think lessons can be learned from stories.
There's all those truly great social injustice stories I grew up with.
I didn't learn empathy for a rape victim from a real person, it was from stories.
I've never lived under a totalitarian regime but stories have taught me the danger of them.
The example of those who battle adversity and succeed is worthwhile, aspiration can be noble.
Stories are an experience for me, often more influential than mundane day to day experience.
Quote from: The Magic Pudding on January 20, 2012, 02:17:37 AM
Quote from: AnimatedDirt on January 19, 2012, 11:29:56 PM
Quote from: Asmodean on January 19, 2012, 11:26:20 PM
Nah... In general, lessons can only be learned well from experience.
Which does not invalidate that lessons can be learned from stories.
I think lessons can be learned from stories.
There's all those truly great social injustice stories I grew up with.
I didn't learn empathy for a rape victim from a real person, it was from stories.
I've never lived under a totalitarian regime but stories have taught me the danger of them.
The example of those who battle adversity and succeed is worthwhile, aspiration can be noble.
Stories are an experience for me, often more influential than mundane day to day experience.
They have limitations, you can never really know until you are in that situation but they can help one's imagination.
In my opinion the best stories don't tell you what to think, they merely bring up scenarios for you to think about, also the really good ones show you how conflicting both sides of the story can be, ones where you empathise with both sides and understand how conflict arises between two sides who genuinely and passionately are following what they believe to be right.
Stories where it is clear that one side is good and one side is bad do not invoke a willingness to understand your adversary and to compromise or to cohabitate peacefully. Good and bad leads to war!