Direct Evidence Of Moral Behavior From Evolution
My working hypothesis is that Game Theory and simple rules derived from self-interest are sufficient to generate self-organized behavior that is labeled as "Morality". Here's more evidence to back that up.
Evolution Guides Cooperative Turn-taking, Game Theory-based Computer Simulations Show, ScienceDaily.com
Evolution Guides Cooperative Turn-taking, Game Theory-based Computer Simulations Show, ScienceDaily.com
"We published indirect evidence for this in 2004; we have now shown it directly and found a simple explanation for it. Our findings confirm that cooperation does not always require benevolence or deliberate planning. This form of cooperation, at least, is guided by an ‘invisible hand’, as happens so often in Darwin’s theory of natural selection.”
181 comments:
Tomorrow, I'll set up the ionian spririt discussion, if I have that capability. It will be my first time doing something other than commenting over there.
Riiiight. So the theory that unthinking matter spontaneously decided to cause an effect and spur on a snowball effect of change also spontaneously decides to become moral from a state absent morality.
Riddle me this: We're walking in the woods and we hear a big bang. You ask me, "What was that noise?" And I say, "Nothing. Nothing caused that noise." What would you say in response?
Blue would you please do us all a favor and read a little on the subject of evolution so you can at least get some understanding. Reading anti-evolution literature by creationists, IDists, and others do not count. Let me recommend three books, one is even written by an evangelical:
Coming to Peace With Science: Bridging the Worlds Between Faith and Biology by Darrell Falk
Why Evolution is True by Jerry Coyne
Evolution: What the Fossils Say and Why It Matters by Donald Prothero
After doing some reading and thinking I doubt that you will spouting out a lot of this silliness.
Radio Lab did a wonderful show on this subject
http://www.wnyc.org/shows/radiolab/episodes/2006/04/28
fascinating stuff
Blue,
your question seems to imply you have a corner on the market of consciousness and thought.
Should this been the case, then perhaps you'll grace us with an explanation of exactly how these things work in detail? Surely, such insight would open great avenues of understanding a wide range of questions in neuro-biology, among a number of other fields.
For example, how does one's non-material soul interact with our material brains without creating additional energy? Why does the gradient of moral behavior we observe correspond to neurological complexity? Why do some great apes recognize themselves in a mirror while others do not?
Of course, this is merely the tip of the iceberg, as there are many other questions which directly effect the quality of living of billions of people on our planet, from addictions, to mental illnesses to Alzheimer's disease.
For example, if we will remember our children's names after we physical die, then why would a neurological disease cause us to forget them while we're alive?
Care to share with us?
Yes, DenCol, and you know this because you have objectively (at least as best as possible) read the literature and evaluated the evidence. Of course I used to spat out the same lines that I learned from reading creationist literature and websites.
I'll be sure to inform the 99% of the world's scientists that they have no idea of what they are talking about. Hey took DenCol knows what constitutes science, he's spent his life researching it and can demonstrate that evolution is pseudoscience.
Dencol,
If you are correct, then you imply that there has been a great conspiracy within all science for the last 150 years.
Think about that for second, and then answer how this could possibly be correct given the degree to which all the sciences have progressed over the last 150 years. If the science was this far off, there is no way that we would expect to make the sort of progress that we have. And this applies to all the sciences not just biology, as in this case it isn't just biology, it is also physics, chemistry, and geology that all corroborate various parts of biological evolution.
The conspiracy becomes too vast and too untenable, making your assertion worthy of nothing more than ridicule.
Hi, Anthony!
Favors. You imply in your first sentence that I haven't done any research on this. But how do you know that? Do you possess infinite knowledge about people you've never met before? Then you suggest that the only literature that counts is the kind that favors evolution. Isn't that biased? Hmm...I'm sensing a double standard at work here.
As for your last sentence: Here we go again w/the old "If Christians only thought about these things, then they'd see reason." You atheists need to come up with some better arguments. I mean some that actually hold water, opposite of the old trite, pre-chewed ones. But this illustrates again your bias. By the way, who are you to impose your beliefs on me and say that I am wrong? If you trully were a student of the relativistic school of thought, then shouldn't you be abiding by the "whatever works for the individual" mantra and quit arguing about these things?
"If you trully were a student of the relativistic school of thought,"
You seem to be the only one claiming this, why is that? Since Anthony is bucking the double-secret relativistic code I'll have a talk with him so he behaves more to your presuppostion. OKay?
Hey John did you go on vacation and leave the door open to the asylum? I've noticed an unusual uptick is loonyness around here lately. :)
Blue,
Augustine said some contradictory things in his time, but he was right about one thing. Non-Christians do possess commonsense about how the world works, and Christians who repeatedly say things that contradict that commonsense appear as nothing but fools to us.
There is not a single objection that has been uttered by creationist supporters that has not been adequately refuted by evidence. You can blather and blubber on and on about that, but your flailing about to the contrary will be ignored until you provide something that has not been presented before and fully refuted.
Your scatter-shot attempts to question our integrity and your even sillier accusations of bias and relativism only show how poorly thought out your objections actually are, and how poorly you understand why we have taken the positions that we have on such issues.
Grow up little boy, the world is bigger and larger than any of us can imagine, and your provincial thinking only shows an utter lack of awareness of the true majesty of the universe we live in.
DenCol,
You didn't answer my question. I didn't say that evolution was science because scientists said so. I didn't even imply it. I asked you how could we expect science to have progressed the way it has if scientists'
judgment about evolution were wrong. Answer the question, and don't try to change the subject.
Please do not be so silly as to think that you can change the subject and move the goal posts so easily. I'm holding your feet to the fire. Answer the question, or withdraw your blabbering.
What the heck is an "evolution based INVISIBLE HAND"...I'll tell you what it is it's COMIC RELIEF!
Next time I pay the light company i'll tell them to take this INVISIBLE money from my INVISIBLE hand and see how far that gets me...it's science right so I should be good...LOL!!!
Here's another totally funny part from the article,
"Turn-taking is initiated only after a species has evolved at least two genetically different types that behave differently in initial, uncoordinated interactions with others. Then as soon as a pair coordinates by chance, they instinctively begin to play ‘tit for tat’. This locks them into mutually beneficial coordinated turn-taking indefinitely."
All the while they are genetically the same they don't take turns eveybody does the same thing. I guess everyone is selfish, then BY CHANCE they change and get locked into the change...'Come on Lee where do you guys get these absurdities? Do you honestly believe this garbage?
"Please do not be so gullible to believe that we are related to gorillas and chimps. That is laughable nonsense."
Oh great blue zeus are you serious. Ok I'll play along this once.
Most mammals can produce vitamin C. Guinea Pigs and Primates can't. In primates there are a sequence of 4 steps to making V-C each of these steps is a product of a different gene. primates and guinea pigs still have active genes for the first three steps, but the last step which requires the GLO enzyme, doesn't take place. In Primates this "pseudogene" is the same but in guinea pigs it is a different pseudogene meaning it's a different mutation. Since humans are also primates this is evidence that all primates share a common ancestor. As this mutation has been passed down from ancestor to ancestor. Only evolution explains this fact not some wacky creation myth.
"My working hypothesis is that Game Theory and simple rules derived from self-interest are sufficient to generate self-organized behavior that is labeled as "Morality"."
Let's assume, for the sake of argument, that you're correct. What substantive conclusion concerning the nature of morality (which is what I take you to be getting at) follows? It seems to me as if you're dangerously close to abutting on the genetic fallacy here, but I'll have to see where you go with it first.
Dear Bluemongoose and DenCol:
*YAWN*
That is all.
"related to"
not only are we related to chimps and apes, we are related to frogs and cats and ameoba. genetic sequencing blasted the 98% related thing out of the water when it showed we are . . . 99% related to chimps. i% difference in DNA. we share a smaller percentage with cats and other mammals, an even smaller percentate with reptiles and a much smaller percentage with less compicated animal life forms. interesting that fossil based construction of the family tree got most things right based on fossil similarities and differences, tho DNA sequencing tells a much more detailed and accurate story of evolution. all life is related. how about that?
DenCol and Blue,
I feel sorry for both of you.
DenCol;
Wrong again, sheesh your not doing so well.
The ABO polymorphism exists in many primate species other than just humans and in all anthropoid primates (Diamond, 1997). Blood groups of primates have been studied since 1911 when Dungern and Hirszfeld found an A antigen on chimpanzee red cells (Socha et al., 1984). According to Socha et al., (1984), early studies indicated "striking similarities" between the A-B-O antigens of man and those of anthropoid apes. It was not until the 1960's that research methods improved enough to learn that many similarities existed between human and non-human primates as well as some subtle differences. In their 1984 study, Socha et al. stated that the two groups were "intimately serologically related."
Dennis Collis is banned for being an idiot. I guess I'll have to delete his comments as I get to them since he doesn't take no for an answer. Please don't feed the troll.
Steven wrote: If you are correct, then you imply that there has been a great conspiracy within all science for the last 150 years…If the science was this far off, there is no way that we would expect to make the sort of progress that we have…The conspiracy becomes too vast and too untenable, making your assertion worthy of nothing more than ridicule.
Here is what’s missing in your argument: Your statement “a great conspiracy within all science” is not only misleading, it is fallacious because you used the word “all”. The percentage of scientists whose achievements were/are attributed to “Darwinian theory” is much closer to zero than it is to 100. Often, the greatest strides in scientific advancement are made by men who go against the consensus, not those who conform to status quo ideas. Blood-letting was embraced by the majority of the scientific community for many years as was the belief that heavier objects fall faster. Trusting in the “majority” can lead people astray. Just look at the recent Bernie Madoff $50B Ponzi scheme. Those who were duped thought that the “huge number of investors” was a sure sign of safeness. WRONG!
Steven wrote: There is not a single objection that has been uttered by creationist supporters that has not been adequately refuted by evidence.
Try this one:
Near Lompoc, California, the workers of the Dicalite Division of Grefco Corp. uncovered an eighty-foot baleen whale fossil buried in a diatomaceous earth quarry. [1] If the whale was buried horizontally, then we need at least 6-8 feet of diatomaceous soil to cover it in a short period of time before the bones had a chance to disperse. How can you explain using a uniformitarian/evolutionist model how this whale was buried? The global flood easily accounts for huge quantities of sedimentation and rapid burial.
[1] “Workers Find Whales in Diatomaceous Earth Quarry”, Chemical & Engineering News, 11 Oct. 1976, p. 40
Alan Clarke,
Had you bothered to just do a quick Google search of: "Workers Find Whales in Diatomaceous Earth Quarry" you would have saved yourself the following embarrassment.
http://talkorigins.org/faqs/polystrate/whale.html
The Highlights -
"Had anybody taken the time and trouble to check the facts, they would have found that the story by Russel (1976) took some liberty with the facts and lacked very important information. First, the skeleton was not found in a vertical position, but was lying at an angle 50 to 40 degrees from horizontal. Finally, although at this angle, the whale skeleton lay parallel to the bedding of strata which at one time was the sea floor on which the dead whale fell after its death. These facts were confirmed by inquiring with the people at the Los Angeles Museum of Natural History who excavated the whale."
And...
"The strata containing the whale consists of diatomites that accumulated within deep bays and basins that lay along the Pacific coastline during Miocene times. As a result of folding and tectonics associated with the formation of the Transverse Ranges, the strata containing the enclosed skeleton has been tilted into a less-than vertical position. These sediments lack any sedimentary structures that would indicate catastrophic deposition. Rather, the strata exhibit laminations indicative of slow accumulation on an anoxic bay bottom. Within the adjacent strata, several hardgrounds occurs. A hardground is a distinctive cemented layer of sedimentary rock that forms when the lack of sediments being deposited over a very long period of time on the sea bottom allows the surface sediments to become cemented (Isaac 1981, Garrison and Foellmi 1988). In fact, identical sediments are currently accumulating without the involvement of a Noachian-like flood within parts of the Gulf of California (Curray et al. 1992; Schrader et al. 1982)."
"Furthermore, a partially buried, articulated whale skeleton slowly being covered by sedimentation in the deep ocean off the coast of California was observed by oceanographers diving in submersibles. It is an excellent modern analogue of how this particular whale fossil was created without the need of a Noachian Flood (Allison et al. 1990; Smith et al. 1989)."
Mr. Clarke, please don't try to sell your snake oil here.
Peace.
- Scott
alan clarke
Near Lompoc, California, the workers of the Dicalite Division of Grefco Corp. uncovered an eighty-foot baleen whale fossil buried in a diatomaceous earth quarry. [1] If the whale was buried horizontally, then we need at least 6-8 feet of diatomaceous soil to cover it in a short period of time before the bones had a chance to disperse. How can you explain using a uniformitarian/evolutionist model how this whale was buried? The global flood easily accounts for huge quantities of sedimentation and rapid burial.
[1] “Workers Find Whales in Diatomaceous Earth Quarry”, Chemical & Engineering News, 11 Oct. 1976, p. 40
Alan clarke was over at Pharyngula two months ago stinking up the joint and vomiting up his particular creationist bullshit.
PZ banned him:
"I'm slamming the door shut on yet another thread that will not die, which was in turn the progeny of another enduring thread — as you might guess, this one was fueled by a thickheaded creationist's refusal to acknowledge the evidence. Alan Clarke, if you start regurgitating creationist BS here again, I will shut you down. Otherwise, if necessary, converse here."
Now he is over here wasting everyone's time spewing the same exact rancid bullshit.
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2009/05/i_have_no_idea_what_this_threa_1.php
He has nothing to offer but silly superstitions and morbid ignorance -- he is in good company with dencol; they're both idiots.
--S.
Alan: Blood-letting was embraced by the majority of the scientific community for many years as was the belief that heavier objects fall faster. Trusting in the “majority” can lead people astray.
Yes, Alan, and it was science, do you hear me SCIENCE! that corrected those views, and not creationism or the Bible.
Alan: Near Lompoc, California, the workers of the Dicalite Division of Grefco Corp. uncovered an eighty-foot baleen whale fossil buried in a diatomaceous earth quarry. [1] If the whale was buried horizontally, then we need at least 6-8 feet of diatomaceous soil to cover it in a short period of time before the bones had a chance to disperse. How can you explain using a uniformitarian/evolutionist model how this whale was buried? The global flood easily accounts for huge quantities of sedimentation and rapid burial.
No Alan, you are not going to get away with this shoddy kind of thing to defend creationism and "flood geology." This whale urban legend has been thoroughly debunked here and here. Even some creationists are not as enthusiastic about the fossil as Alan is.
Alan,
1. All you've just done is make my point for me. If evolution was wrong, why isn't it the case that some enterprising scientist would have stepped up and presented evidence beyond a shadow of doubt that evolution is wrong?
2. You've just proven the one most important universal fact about all creationist fools such as yourself. You're a liar for Jesus.
At this point, I think there's little reason to treat you with any respect after trying to pull that whopper. You're nothing but an ignorant and pathetic loser who can't think his way out of a paper bag. Your faith is so weak and based on such flimsy stuff that you have to grab at straws and twist the truth to mount one of the most pathetic attempts at a defence of faith that I've ever seen. You're dishonest, disingenuous, and you don't argue in good faith. You're not interested in the truth, you're only interested in pretending to know that you're right. The truth is not a thing that you would know if it hit you in the face, and if it did hit you in the face, you would ignore it if it didn't fit your own little small minded preconceptions. You are a pathetic excuse for a human being.
My apologies, John, if that was too harsh. I just don't take very kindly to yahoos spreading lies. Ignorance, I can handle, lying, and Alan knows he's lying, is unacceptable.
Your statement “a great conspiracy within all science” is not only misleading, it is fallacious because you used the word “all”.
Science as a whole is based on the scientific method, which is designed to account for and reduce the amount of bias that can invalidate results. Should this method be faulty, then it's unclear why we would expect us to make the kind of progress we've made so far.
The percentage of scientists whose achievements were/are attributed to “Darwinian theory” is much closer to zero than it is to 100.
Alan, I must ask: are you really this desperate that you would intentionally present this kind of misinformation, or are you merely parroting what you've been feed?
Yes, when Darwin proposed his theory evolution, he did not know the means by which live evolved. However, the overarching theory was correct and the discovery of DNA strengthened the theory, instead of disproving it.
Furthermore, here's a link to one of many examples of how evolution impacts our lives on a daily basis.
HIV's not-so-ancient history.
Often, the greatest strides in scientific advancement are made by men who go against the consensus, not those who conform to status quo ideas.
Like, oh say, Darwin himself?
Alan wrote: Try this one:
Really, where did you dig this up?
A whale of a Tale
This indicates either dishonest intent to post what is clearly misinformation or a willingness to spew propaganda without attempting to verify it's validity.
Either way, I wouldn't expect much in the way of serious interaction in the future, by myself or anyone else.
wow, i just checked back and I am so behind. I'll have to catch up before I make a "real" comment.
But here's my first thoughts.
bluemongoose and dencol
you are disregarding a large part of human knowledge and you have not shown why you feel you are justified in doing so.
thats a big burden to bear. Just saying that "it hasn't been proven to my satisfaction" is not enough. The rest of the world is "leaving you behind", ironically.
Anthony wrote: Yes, Alan, and it was science, do you hear me SCIENCE! that corrected those views, and not creationism or the Bible.
The words "creationism" and "Bible" appear nowhere except on YOUR post. Maybe someone on another thread got you infuriated.
Anthony wrote: This whale urban legend has been thoroughly debunked...
Anthony, the links you provided have nothing to do with my argument. Evidently you hastily posted as you did in your first answer before reading. I said nowhere that the whale was buried vertically. I gave you the extreme benefit of the doubt and stated that the whale was covered minimally in a horizontal position which would require you to account for at least 6-8 feet of diatomaceous soil to cover it.
One link you provided states, “Furthermore, a partially buried, articulated whale skeleton slowly being covered by sedimentation in the deep ocean off the coast of California…”
“Slowly being covered” puts you right back at square one because this in no way proves that it WILL BE COVERED. Secondly, your reference stated “sedimentation” rather than rarer and more specific “diatomaceous soil” which you must account for. Thirdly, your reference stated “in the deep ocean” which is more likely for sedimentation to occur vs. the LESS LIKELY phenomenon of a burial at a higher altitude as in my baleen whale reference.
Let me give you a tip Anthony: You would fare better if you would simply think for yourself instead of Googling someone else’s non-befitting argument. My challenge still stands.
Hi Harvey,
"'Come on Lee where do you guys get these absurdities? Do you honestly believe this garbage?"
I believe it is more likely to be correct since it is a competing hypothesis with Christianity, Judaism, Hinduism, Buddhism, and every other explanation out there, but the difference is that this evidence is supported in more than one area, and game theory and tit-for-tat has been demonstrated in other fields and domains and makes predictions that do better than chance in being correct.
so it is my working hypothesis for the moment.
Before you want me to take any religion seriously, you need to show why it is more likely to reflect real world states than any other. Scientific method efficienty and effectivly demonstrates that it reflects real world states.
Jeff said..."Dear Bluemongoose and DenCol:
*YAWN*
That is all."
Very well put Jeff.
------------------------
Note to District Supt. Harvey Burnett....Ive posted a reply to your last post on the thread "Is Atheism Rationally Coercive?"
https://www.blogger.com/comment.g?blogID=21219785&postID=6706526302494669301
Anthony, I responded to your rebuttal but evidently John Loftus is "withholding" my post. I am loosing confidence in the integrity of this blog real fast in lieu of John's tendency to ban people that he disagrees with (Dennis Collis). What's more, John's stipulates that "comments that are disrespectful" ... "will not be published", but refers to Dennis Collis as "an idiot". I have always avoided ad hominem attacks because I believe they reveal weakness. They are used when a person has no science or logical argument with which to stand.
DenCol, and others, if you are banned you are banned because you don't add any value to the dialogue.
DenCol, I deleted you from this thread not john. Please give credit where credit is due.
I won't have time to do ionian spirit today.
I found out yesterday that a good friend of a friend was induced into a coma because a misdiagnosed brain bleed had compromised him to such a degree that the only medical option was to shut down his faculties in the hope that they might salvage his life.
If the Christian theology stands then this innocent man of 35 years old and a father of a beautiful baby boy less than 1 year old will die because God, for some reason, demands it or, he will die because some guy 6,000 years ago ate a piece of fruit in a garden and therefore we must suffer the sting of sin in death. Christ's propitiation could ensure that this vital young man gets into Heaven but, I doubt that will make his wife or child less lonely.
If she asked me why this happened and I were to choose the Christian response then I could provide the two answers above and be theologically true.
If I chose the way of science then I could honestly say, "I don't know but, life is random and chaotic. We don't know what we have, it just is." I would still provide compassion and my shared grief but, would not pretend to have an answer that either presents a capricious god inviting suffering to bring attention to his power or, a mind-set that demands the victim of random suffering be culpable for it due to the original sin of mankind.
I'd like the "true believers" on this site (Edson, Bluemongoose, Eric, Rob R. Districk Supt. Harvey) to help me out and provide an explanation for the grief the young wife of this man needs to face. Please use your Christian world-view and offer a palatable argument that considers her suffering.
I will ignore all defensive diatribes (yes that's meant for you Blue) which seek to avoid the task through dissembling via the argument towards "relativism".
If your worldview is true then God is a prick who likes young fathers to die or, is an impotent asshole who harbors infinite resentment towards his creation so that an "original sin" invites capricious pain. I don't see any other answers from a Christian worldview.
Thanks.
Alan Clarke, your comment was posted. When in moderation mode it may take some time. People get banned here for not adding to the dialogue and yes, some people are idiots. YOU are on the borderline to being banned yourself. You must realize that you're talking to people who disagree with you. So you must think better than you do. You cannot keep making the same points without actually interacting with what others say. If the shoe were on the other foot you'd be thinking to yourself that it's like a child who covers his ears and says "I know I'm right because I know I'm right." This is not a place for children, okay?
You come here as an answer man. We question your answers. You don't like people who have all of the answers in any other venue do you? Neither do we. Try applying the golden rule here.
Alan,
Just exactly how do you know that the whale was buried at a "higher altitude?" The evidence points to the exact opposite. The type of soil the whale was buried in is known to be deposited at depth. This coupled with what we know of Earth's geology fully accounts for what we see.
If you've dug yourself into hole, the best way to get out is to stop digging, and yet you keep doing so. All you're doing is showing how dishonest you are. It's highly ironic that you're the one questioning the integrity of this blog, when it's clearly evident that you are the one arguing in bad faith.
Finally, Alan, no one is making any ad hominem arguments. In Dennis' case, John was perfectly justified in calling him an idiot. His game is different than yours, but it leads to the same inanity.
In your case, we're refuting your arguments with evidence, and *then* we're ridiculing you for being dishonest. We're not trying to disprove your arguments by attacking your character. However, now that you have shown your character to be questionable, we now have clear evidence that we should disregard your ramblings. That's what arguing dishonestly will get you. And that's not an ad hominem, that's drawing the conclusion that you're a liar based on clear evidence.
Harvey,
I have a serious question for you.
The following quote is from the book jacket of Jeff Sharlet's 2008 book, "The Family":
The Family is about the other half of American fundamentalist power—not its angry masses, but its sophisticated elites. Sharlet follows the story back to Abraham Vereide, an immigrant preacher who in 1935 organized a small group of businessmen sympathetic to European fascism, fusing the Far Right with his own polite but authoritarian faith. From that core, Vereide built an international network of fundamentalists who spoke the language of establishment power, a “family” that thrives to this day. In public, they host prayer breakfasts; in private they preach a gospel of “biblical capitalism,” military might, and American empire. Citing Hitler, Lenin, and Mao, the Family's leader declares, "We work with power where we can, build new power where we can't."
Often in discussions about morality here at DC, you like to claim that the likes of Hitler, Lenin, and Mao serve as evidence that atheists are bad. Yet, this book chronicles Fundamentalist Christians revering those same people.
Harvey, it is strange indeed that Hitler, Lenin, and Mao can serve as your Christian Fundamentalism's reliable examples of atheist immorality while they also serve as support and justification for other Christian Fundamentalists.
I'd be interested in what you think about it.
Russ
harvey
Next time I pay the light company i'll tell them to take this INVISIBLE money from my INVISIBLE hand and see how far that gets me...it's science right so I should be good...LOL!!!
Is that like using INVISIBLE telepathic waves to tell an INVISIBLE deity you believe in them so you can go to the INVISIBLE paradise -- in the sky -- instead of the INVISIBLE inferno in the ground...LOL?
--S.
Anthony, I responded to your rebuttal but evidently John Loftus is "withholding" my post. I am loosing confidence in the integrity of this blog real fast in lieu of John's tendency to ban people that he disagrees with (Dennis Collis).
Well, you know where the proverbial door is -- don't let it hit you in the ass on the way out.
Back to one of your infantile creationist playgrounds where you can vomit up ALL your creationist lunacy, where the brain-dead will gladly lap up your delusional BS -- where they won't point their fingers and laugh at you like we do here at DC and at Pharyngula.
dencol
There is no inferno. Hell is a false translation and a false teaching.
So is heaven and telepathically transferring your thoughts to an invisible deity.
BTW -- what is it about being banned that doesn't penetrate your dense delusional mind?
--S.
Steven wrote: Just exactly how do you know that the whale was buried at a "higher altitude?"
The deduction was simple. The baleen whale I cited was located by workers of Dicalite Corporation in the “company's diatomaceous earth quarries in Lompoc, Calif.” You can see the quarry for yourself using Google Earth (34°36’03.59”N; 120°26’35.95W) which reveals an average elevation of 700 feet. The rebutting reference that Anthony provided cited a whale located “in the deep ocean off the coast of California”. For your argument to remain viable, you’ll need call upon a miracle that will lower the land mass, fill it in with water and diatomaceous earth, then raise it back up to avoid admission of a “Flood”. Click here to view one such contortionist exercise.
Dicalite quarry photos: photo 1, photo 2
"BTW -- what is it about being banned that doesn't penetrate your dense delusional mind?
"
Maybe hes been born again?! *snork*
So Alan, I guess you've never heard of the geological term known as uplift? Which is almost always accompanied by tilted layering exactly as described in the original sources of this discovery. I don't need a miracle, I just need plate tectonics. That explains this just fine.
Once again, you are arguing in bad faith, and ignoring the sources that have been presented to you. And then you wonder why people start calling you and people like you, idiots. When the shoe fits....
Just FYI:
Alan Clarke was banned from Pharyngula for the following reason
"A persistent and bizarrely ignorant creationist who fanned some of the longest running threads ever; all he had as evidence for his claims was the Bible, which is stupid enough, but what finally crossed the line was his decision to evade discussion of the science by reminiscing about his fondness for prepubescent girls. Creationists should thank me, since most wouldn't want this horrible little man representing them, anyway."
PZ is reffering to this comment:
"Are prayers sometimes answered with miracles? I had my heart set on a young girl who was 14 years my junior. I never said anything to her because of the age difference and thought I should at least wait until she was 18. I prayerfully waited for 8 years only to be let down when a young man got her pregnant then married her later. At that stage I was about 33 years old"
Steve/Anthony/Scott:
You see, the problem is that Alan Clarke does not actually read, or believe in, anything that does not fit with his YEC ideology.
The talkorigins page that was linked to and cited from either directly describes or references descriptions of the geology of the Monterey Formation that the whale skeleton was found in. Careful and honest reading reveals this explanation, but Alan Clarke is not careful in his reading, and is utterly dishonest. His claim about avoiding ad hominem attacks is a flat-out lie.
Amusingly enough, Alan posted the exact same paragraph about the whale to the Pharyngula thread mentioned, and it was pointed out to him, by one of our resident geologists, that Flood -- or rather, "Flud" -- geology does not explain the geology of the Monterey Formation in its entirety, and so of course flood geology fails as science.
There was also a more subtle category error, in that the paragraph was posted in support of flood geology being responsible for limestone -- and of course, limestone and diatomaceous earth are not synonymous.
It was also pointed out that "diatomaceous soil" was the wrong term to use for what the whale was found in -- geologists distinguish between soils and sediments, and of course, the diatomaceous earth was sediment, not soil.
Alan Clarke has no use for science that does not confirm YEC, so of course, he ignored this, and has copy-pasted the exact same terminological mistake again.
Amusingly, his lack of interest in terminological correctness got him in trouble early on, when he wrote of the "voracity" of the bible. When he finally realized his error, he degraded himself by writing about "verasses" and posting a link to a picture of sagging buttocks. The only thing he likes as much as YEC ideology is perversion.
I foresee that he will be banned shortly. He is incapable of learning or of modifying his behavior, and his determination to promote YEC ideology (and display his perversity) will continue to result in threads being hijacked by him until that banning occurs.
It should be noted that PZ did not ban Clarke for being a perversely dishonest creationist, but for something from one of Clarke's other set of obsessions -- as noted above.
In case anyone is curious, Alan has already tried to play the Miocene-whale-in-California-as-evidence-for-the-flud card. He has had questions posed to him regarding that particular specimen.
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2009/05/i_have_no_idea_what_this_threa_1.php#comment-1650387
Regarding those questions: so far...silence.
Or shorter--what Owl wrote...
John,
Here's Oliver Sacks using the word "idiot" in the same way you used did.
http://bigthink.com/oliversacks/oliver-sacks-on-humans-and-myth-making
Ick. Couldn't they have said something other than "invisible hand"? Then again, the fact that turn-taking and cooperation happen with heartless, mindless programs should be enough evidence to show that some invisible hand, proper (e.g. deity), need not be required for an "invisible hand" to work.
Steven wrote: I don't need a miracle, I just need plate tectonics.
Besides being plagued with numerous problems [1 , 2 ]associated with plate tectonics, you are getting ahead of yourself. You still haven’t explained the improbable process of accumulating 6-8 feet of diatomaceous earth in order to completely bury a baleen whale. Using slow and long-age processes doesn’t cut it because such processes create visible delineations between each build-up like growth rings in a tree. From a previous photo I provided of the quarry where the whale was buried, you can see about a 100 foot depth of diatomaceous earth exposed with no interruptions of coal, granite, sandstone, or any other contaminate. If millions of years were required for these depositions to take place, then why is the deposition so uniform with no river cutting, mud sliding, forest-growing, or any other expected interruption? The same is true for the White Cliffs of Dover, England and the opposite side of the English Channel at the cliffs of Normandy, France.
You need to re-evaluate the length of time required for the White cliffs of Dover to form and their age. The cliff face continues to erode at an average rate of 1 cm/year. Sometimes several meters will fall off at once (most recent in 2001). At this rate, more than the entire lengthwise distance of England would be eroded in 70 million years (435 miles). The question for uniformitarianists is, “Why is there any cliff face at all yet remaining?”
East of California is the Salt Flats of Utah covering a rough 4000 square mile area which is an obvious relic of an ancient sea. Further west lies the 600,000 square mile Morrison Formation which is a graveyard for dinosaur bones and CLAMS! In the U.S. Midwest where I live, exists immense limestone quarries one of which produces the famous “Bedford Limestone”. Upon close scrutiny one can see this limestone contains fossilized sea creatures. Was the entire United States covered by water? Simple Google searches uncovers numerous sea shell fossils in the Appalachian Mountains: “A simple but profound clue to the moving past of Virginia's mountains is in the fossilized seashell embedded in rock at a high mountain pass near the West Virginia line. How did it get there?” Click here to view links on seashells in the Himalayas. The only way one could possibly avoid a global Flood would be to lower and raise different portions of the Earth at different times to avoid being covered up at once. The only incentive for attempting such a feat would be to avoid the philosophical defeat of admitting the Biblical account. When the U.S. Midwest was under water, was the East Coast elevated? When the West Coast was under water was the Midwest elevated?
Alan Clarke:
"When I was 44 years old and content with my single status, I saw my wife-to-be who was 16. Been married for 9 years, 3 kids, and loving every minute."
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2009/06/bride_of_the_thread_that_will.php#comment-1712915
Yeah, I bet you are... you low-life creep scumbag.
John, ban this wack job... NOW.
Alan,
you need to explain how you are justified in disregarding a large segment of accumulated human knowledge or shut up.
you are relying on special pleading which is fallacious.
Are you an expert in these matters? If not then which experts are you citing? Are your experts regarded by a majority of other experts in the field as "experts"? If not then you should shut up.
and please, oh please, oh please, oh please, oh please, accuse me of an appeal to authority.
and yes, I think you should be banned too for being quarrelsome and evasive of the large base of established human knowledge and employing the rhetorical devices of mis-information and special pleading as a means to persuade.
Alan Clark wrote:"You still haven’t explained the improbable process of accumulating 6-8 feet of diatomaceous earth in order to completely bury a baleen whale. Using slow and long-age processes doesn’t cut it because such processes create visible delineations between each build-up like growth rings in a tree. From a previous photo I provided of the quarry where the whale was buried, you can see about a 100 foot depth of diatomaceous earth exposed with no interruptions of coal, granite, sandstone, or any other contaminate."
In typical Alan fashion, the photograph that he posted doesn't show this at all. It's taken from a vantage point that's much too far away from the actual outcrop (i.e., the exposure of bedrock in question, in this case the quarry wall) to show whether or not there are "interruptions" in that particular thickness of rock. Because of this, the text of his that I quoted above refutes nothing.
Alan and I have already been over this, here:
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2009/02/science_of_watchmen.php#comment-1489778
here:
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2009/02/science_of_watchmen.php#comment-1491754
And very importantly, here:
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2009/02/science_of_watchmen.php#comment-1493991
All of these comments were made long before Alan started talking about the Monterey Formation and its fossils, but the discussion of bedding planes within the Salem directly impacts his "arguments" in this thread. Despite spending hundreds of hours trying to get him to...learn, he apparently still doesn't understand that it's the fine-scale details in rocks that tell you what the hell is going on in terms of depositional history.
EVERY bedding plane surface in an exposure of sedimentary rock represents an interruption in sedimentation, be it a few minutes or a few years. They are all interruptions. You need to be close enough to the rocks to actually determine if there are bedding planes there or not. Standing a few hundred feet back and looking at an exposure is a complete waste of time, as is pointing to a photograph taken from that distance.
I've been trying to get Alan to understand this since March...
Alan Clarke wrote: "If millions of years were required for these depositions to take place, then why is the deposition so uniform with no river cutting, mud sliding, forest-growing, or any other expected interruption?"
Alan, WHO is making the assertion that the Monterey Formation took "millions of years" to be deposited? Who is asserting this? Show me the paper.
The geological community does not think that all sedimentary bodies require millions of years to form. We simply do not hold that position. Period. How fast a particular bed within a formation* was laid down is the whole game here. And unless you can show some evidence that is specific to the Monterey Formation itself, then you're just talking out of your ass. You're making an unsubstantiated broad brush assertion here that I strongly suspect cannot be supported.
We've been over this general concept already, Alan--several times. In particular here:
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2009/02/science_of_watchmen.php#comment-1498954
Why are you still saying stuff like this? That discussion was months ago.
How fast something was deposited depends on the particular sedimentary body you're talking about--it depends on the type of rock. You cannot use the statement "all rocks took millions of years to form" against us. You're tilting at windmills again.
*A mappable unit of rock--the "currency" of geological maps, so to speak. In terms of organizing and classifying the bedrock that makes up the world, a formation is kind of like a species.
Alan Clarke, you're banned. Before coming back why not read a couple of books on the issue of evolution, the ones Anthony suggested earlier?
If you refuse to read them then how about reading one by a evangelical Christian titled, Evolutionary Creation: A Christian Approach to Evolution ?
Again, you're banned. Stay away.
Alan Clarke wrote: "The only way one could possibly avoid a global Flood would be to lower and raise different portions of the Earth at different times to avoid being covered up at once."
Welcome to the concept of tectonics...
Alan Clarke also wrote: "The only incentive for attempting such a feat would be to avoid the philosophical defeat of admitting the Biblical account."
Really? There's no possible way that we could just be following the evidence, and not be thinking about the Bible at all? Nahhh, you're right, of course. That would be much too simple of an explanation.
Alan Clarke additionally wrote: "When the U.S. Midwest was under water, was the East Coast elevated?"
Which time, Alan? Which time?
http://facweb.bhc.edu/academics/science/harwoodr/Geol102/Study/images/CratonicSequences2.gif
The green "blocks" in this diagram each represent a major marine transgression (e.g., the Sauk Sea; the Zuni Sea) across the North American continent, as determined by the rocks that we see. Which one are you referring to in your above question...?
Owlmirror wrote:
It should be noted that PZ did not ban Clarke for being a perversely dishonest creationist, but for something from one of Clarke's other set of obsessions -- as noted above.
Feynmaniac wrote:
"A persistent and bizarrely ignorant creationist who fanned some of the longest running threads ever; all he had as evidence for his claims was the Bible, which is stupid enough, but what finally crossed the line was his decision to evade discussion of the science by reminiscing about his fondness for prepubescent girls. Creationists should thank me, since most wouldn't want this horrible little man representing them, anyway."
RogerS:
-Hats off to both of you, and I do thank you Feynmaniac, for alerting us all to this new criteria for evaluating information coming from certain individuals.
We should unite and call for investigations to the character and thought life of many scientists, authors and those evaluating peer reviewed research.
Alan, in addition to reading some material on evolution try reading up a little on geology as well.
I would highly recommend Davis A. Young's The Biblical Flood: A Case Study of the Church's Response to Extrabiblical Evidence. In it he shows why Christians of the 18th and 19th century began rejecting the noahic flood as an historical world wide event due to mounting evidence that they themselves discovered. This is when various accomodationist theories originated such as the local-flood view.
Young has also recently released The Bible, Rocks and Time: Geological Evidence for the Age of the Earth that I would challenge you to read.
RogerS: -Hats off to both of you, and I do thank you Feynmaniac, for alerting us all to this new criteria for evaluating information coming from certain individuals.
We should unite and call for investigations to the character and thought life of many scientists, authors and those evaluating peer reviewed research.
Your sarcasm is unjustified. First of all Alan refuses to listen and learn, he already has his mind made up. Now, I'm sure you'll counter that I already have mine made up as well. No, not really, I'm open to the evidence, Alan is not. For Alan the evidence MUST fit into the biblical record and that record is one of a universal flood, a view that geologists gave up centuries ago due to contrary evidence.
Secondly, Alan made his thought life public, which makes it open to scrutiny.
Continuing to stress the geological facts over the YEC nonsense: In addition to the fact that the photo of the quarry AlanC provided was unacceptably distant from the actual outcrop, I did a quick search and found some pictures from the US Geological Survey which has 4 or 5 photographs of the very nicely laminated outcrops of diatomite from the Lompoc quarry. These laminations demonstrate the obvious falseness of the very idea that these sediments were laid down by a "global flood". Indeed, all geology demonstrates the obvious falseness of a "global flood".
I strongly suspect that Alan C found these same photos, and deliberately skipped over them so as to find a photo that supported his lies by not providing enough detail.
But regardless. YEC fails, yet again, to account for all of the facts, and uses false authority to contend that actual geological science is not what it actually is.
Oh, and RogerS:
The only criteria that scientists are evaluated by are their truthfulness and accuracy in their science -- and I assure you, when scientists fail in this regard, they are condemned for it.
Alan Clarke, like you, is condemned as a scientific incompetent and a liar; a bearer of false witness with regards to his own scientific knowledge, and the scientific knowledge of those that he chooses to rely on.
The fact that he is also a demonstrated pervert (and a self-confessed drug abuser who has lurid murder fantasies) is just additional evidence of the poor quality of his character and may also signify dangerous mental instability. In addition to his scientific untrustworthiness, he is more generally unworthy of trust.
"The only criteria that scientists are evaluated by are their truthfulness and accuracy in their science"
Then why is PZ Myers claiming that Francis Collins, a man who accomplished more as a scientist before he became the head of the Human Genome Project than PZ ever will, doesn't understand the fundamental principles of science? It has nothing to do with his science, but with the philosophical interpretation of science Collins advocates. You can of course criticize him here, but not on scientific grounds if "the *only* criteria that scientists are evaluated by are their truthfulness and accuracy *in their science*." With respect to Collins's science, well, res ipsa loquitur. Hence, according to your own standards, the regular condemnations of Collins on Pharyngula *with respect to his abilities as a scientist* are utterly without justification.
Eric,
while I appreciate the fact that your are responding to another comment rather than the article, what PZ Meyers thinks about Francis Collins is irrelevant on many fronts, and it doesn't appear that you being charitable in the commenters choice of words. It seems you are again expecting impossible precision and using it as a tool to nit-pick an otherwise coherent comment.
Lee, Owlmirror is a regular on PZ's blog. I was questioning the consistency with which the principle he was advocating is applied. To question one's consistency in the application of fundamental principles is the antithesis, it seems to me, of nitpicking.
Lee, I did post a response relevant to the topic of the thread the other day (8:51 PM, July 10, 2009). :)
it seems to you.
Anthony wrote:
Secondly, Alan made his thought life public, which makes it open to scrutiny.
RogerS:
Excellent point Anthony. You can become part of the scientific examination team focused on all public information available on the "target" individual. Early grade school art can also be helpful for determining mental soundness and can be a basis for discrediting said target. To round out the moral evaluation team of Owlmirror and Feynmaniac, someone with political punch and seniority like Ted Kennedy would also be a good addition. Just one last qualification, all those on the panel must themselves undergo a more rigorous scrutiny and begin with full disclosure of any behavior, communication, or thoughts throughout their life that may disqualify them from the team.
-Looking forward to your full disclosure, especially anything you have said openly or wrote.
RogerS,
"Hats off to both of you, and I do thank you Feynmaniac, for alerting us all to this new criteria for evaluating information coming from certain individuals."
The only reason I mentioned Alan's perversions was because sconnor erroneously implied he was banned due to spouting creationist nonsense. Alan was banned for writing about his fantasies of prepubescent girls.
Now a person being a pedophile doesn't make their science wrong. I've read Alan's (and your) science for months and it's wrong for other reasons. At best, it was less parsimonious and explained less than the current theories. At worse, it contradicted not only the geological evidence but at times itself.
RogerS: -Looking forward to your full disclosure, especially anything you have said openly or wrote.
Roger, I usually consider myself a very patient person and am willing to discuss things with people who are trying to be reasonable and rational. But you sir, have not only shown yourself to be irrational like Alan, you have also shown yourself to be an idiot. When you can at least think reasonable and rationally let me know but until then, I leave you to your religious delusions.
Oh, for pity's sake.
RogerS, welcome to the Internet.
Anything you say can and will be used against you — especially if you repeatedly mud-sling quote-mines just like Alan Clarke does all the time, contemptible and despicable hypocrite that he is.
«"That's what I love about the internet: The bag never contains the cat."» — Alan Clarke, June 16, 2009 10:13 PM
Do I really need to repeat in full the applicable aphorisms that refer to stones, glass houses, petards, and so on?
Hi, Chuck!
I'm so sorry to hear about what happened to your friend. It's awful and completely unfair. If you don't mind, I will be continually praying for him and his family.
First, we need to go over that it's completely within God's capacity to give your friend total healing. But sometimes that doesn't comfort us when we are faced with the what if factor: What if God chooses not to heal him. Remember, He was able to create the entire world merely by speaking it into existence. So if He's capable of that massive feat, then it is nothing for Him to rearrange and repair the cells and tissues within your friend's body.
So why are we still suffering from an event that took place 6,000 years ago that we had nothing to do with? Look at it this way, Chuck: Yes, we are not judged by what another does; but sometimes we can be affected by their actions. Take a baby born HIV positive to a mother who was addicted to intravenous drug use. Clearly not the baby's fault, but she is affected by her mother's choices. This is how we find the dynamics surrounding the "sin condition". Certainly the parameters are different than the ones around the "sin committed" issue. The "sin condition" is like a disease or biological trait that each one of us has inherited from Adam & Eve, and it was serious enough that it warranted the sacrifice of Jesus. We'll get into the why at another time.
Answers for the Mrs. Which option do you think would help stop the hurt? When you ask a doctor for a diagnosis of a mystery condition, which would you rather have: something definitive or an "I don't know"?
Capricious god. Again, you assume the God of the Bible invites suffering on His kids. I suggest to you that God is grieving right along with Mrs. He can actually empathize with her b/c He knows what it's like to have someone that you love with all your might die unfairly. The caveat is, God had the ability to stop the brutal death of His beloved son Jesus. At any time He could have sent legions of angels down to earth to smite Jesus' abusers and murderers. But He didn't because He couldn't bear to spend eternity without you, Chuck. You were worth it. So was your friend, his wife and their baby.
I will not give you "defensive diatrbes", only compassion. As I write my letter to you, I am overcome with emotion and must frequently stop writing because I have become a mess of tears and snot. My brother was recently in a similar situation. He also has a wife and has a 1-yr-old. My family and I were so concerned we would lose him at one point. We had the same thoughts running through our minds that you did: What will his wife do w/out him, how will she deal with the loneliness, will that baby ever know how wonderful his daddy was?
But we had my brother annointed, and God has healed him -- starkly in contrast to all the doctors' grim reports and statistics.
bluemongoose
First, we need to go over that it's completely within God's capacity to give your friend total healing. But sometimes that doesn't comfort us when we are faced with the what if factor: What if God chooses not to heal him. Remember, He was able to create the entire world merely by speaking it into existence. So if He's capable of that massive feat, then it is nothing for Him to rearrange and repair the cells and tissues within your friend's body.
Besides rationalizations, assumptions and conjecture -- can you offer us objective evidence for your assertions?
So why are we still suffering from an event that took place 6,000 years ago that we had nothing to do with? Look at it this way, Chuck: Yes, we are not judged by what another does; but sometimes we can be affected by their actions. Take a baby born HIV positive to a mother who was addicted to intravenous drug use. Clearly not the baby's fault, but she is affected by her mother's choices. This is how we find the dynamics surrounding the "sin condition".
False analogy. The woman is a fallible person, who knew the repercussions of her choices if she were to get pregnant.
Must supply an analogy that takes into account an all-knowing, all-loving, infallible, deity who didn't take the correct precautions as to protect his earthly children, by allowing a naive couple -- without a moral compass - to know what they were doing was right or wrong or knowing that by their actions they would unleash "sin" into the world causing vile, unimaginable suffering that would effect ALL of god's earthly children.
Certainly the parameters are different than the ones around the "sin committed" issue. The "sin condition" is like a disease or biological trait that each one of us has inherited from Adam & Eve...
Please supply objective evidence that the Adam and Eve story is anything but an absurd myth which includes talking snakes, magic and a god who is not omniscient?
Can you please supply objective evidence that a "sin condition" has any reference in reality?
--S.
~continued~
The caveat is, God had the ability to stop the brutal death of His beloved son Jesus. At any time He could have sent legions of angels down to earth to smite Jesus' abusers and murderers. But He didn't because He couldn't bear to spend eternity without you, Chuck. You were worth it. So was your friend, his wife and their baby.
And yet your all-loving god-concept could "bear to spend eternity" without any of his earthly children who have the gall to perpetrate the most sadistic and heinous sin (massive sarcasm) of not believing in your god-concept -- sentencing those "worthy" children of god to eternal punishment in the flames of hell.
Is your cosmic father-in-the-sky so petty and insecure that his poor, precious, little feelings will be hurt if we don't choose him and believe in him -- so much so that he won't let you reside in the bliss of heaven and instead be damned to hell, to be tortured with flames for an eternity?
I will not give you "defensive diatrbes", only compassion. As I write my letter to you, I am overcome with emotion and must frequently stop writing because I have become a mess of tears and snot. My brother was recently in a similar situation. He also has a wife and has a 1-yr-old. My family and I were so concerned we would lose him at one point. We had the same thoughts running through our minds that you did: What will his wife do w/out him, how will she deal with the loneliness, will that baby ever know how wonderful his daddy was?
But we had my brother annointed, and God has healed him -- starkly in contrast to all the doctors' grim reports and statistics.
Any objective evidence that your god-concept had anything to do with his healing?
Or are you simply attributing the healing to a higher power?
Which is like a person with a headache who drinks some water from a cool spring and then miraculously fifteen minutes later her headache is gone and she attributes the miraculous healing to the "miraculous fountain" forgoing other rational explanations like spontaneous remission, or medical interventions (taking aspirin a half an hour before).
--S.
Hi, SConnor:
I can always count on you to have phenomenal questions. They are very important. Let's get started.
Objective evidence. Where else would we go for info. about Yahweh of the Bible but the Bible? Seeing several moves ahead, I can tell you will use the "That's just circular reasoning" argument. But, again, would I look in a cook book for telephone numbers? No, I'd open my phone book. Same thing here.
Was Eve fallible bfore the fall? Knowing the repercussions. What if the Bible said her eyes were opened after she ate of the fruit?
Correct precautions. What you're asking for here is for God to have never given choices to A&E. But how could He say He won't mess w/our free will if He gives us no choices? What if He did warn them about repercussions for disobeying? "You shall surely die." If you've never seen something or been privy to it before, how can you fully comprehend it and its affect on you?
Why do you asusme God is not omniscient? Do you believe any of A&E's story happened w/o His foreknowledge? Are you saying you would have preferred God to have never given us choices?
Objective. Again, where else would we go for these answers? Sin condition. Scriptures specify that all humans have sin. If this wasn't true then why make such a big deal over it? Why use such a messy thing like a crucifixion to right the problem? And you wouldn't need to one who calls Himself the Alpha and Omega to cover the multitude of sins from the beginning of time to the end of it.
Eternity. S.Connor, you're missing the best part. Don't leave out the 2nd half of this illustration. He made a way out. But He won't force you to take it. Free will and all that.
Yes, His feelings can be hurt. He doesn't want any of His kids to be in pain, let alone go to an awful place where they will be tormented for eternity. Ask any parent who sits next to their cancerous child while she lies in bed receiving chemo, and the parent will tell you they'd gladly take the place of their baby. The only difference between God and the human parents in this scenario is that He did take the place of His children.
Objective evidence. Again, where else would we go for info... His word says He delights in healing us, and we only have to ask and trust that: 1) He is who He says He is; and 2)He can do what He says He will do.
But once again, we come to the free will issue. He won't force us to ask and believe. So it comes down to this ultimately: Do you believe God is a liar?
«"Where else would we go for info. about Yahweh of the Bible but the Bible? "»
How about getting YHVH himself to explain; to speak for himself? Why do you need a book if the principle character of the book is still alive and supposedly able to talk?
«"Was Eve fallible bfore the fall? Knowing the repercussions. What if the Bible said her eyes were opened after she ate of the fruit?"»
Which undermines your point, since if her eyes were "opened" after eating the fruit, they were "closed" beforehand.
«"What if He did warn them about repercussions for disobeying? "You shall surely die.""»
You left off the part that made the "warning" false: "In that day, you shall surely die". They did not die that day, nor for many days to come.
An honest warning would have been that He, God, would curse them and all of their children, and the land, with suffering and toil.
«"If you've never seen something or been privy to it before, how can you fully comprehend it and its affect on you?"»
Which undermines your point again: the choice was not a truly informed choice.
«"Why do you asusme God is not omniscient? Do you believe any of A&E's story happened w/o His foreknowledge?"»
If God knew what would happen, then he is responsible for all that happened.
The only way that he can be absolved of responsibility is if he did not actually know, for certain, and furthermore, had no choice but to curse Adam and Eve.
Does God have no free will?
«"Are you saying you would have preferred God to have never given us choices?"»
Why do the "choices" include permanent suffering and damnation for the arbitrary action of disobedience?
«"Yes, His feelings can be hurt."»
Really? So much so that he would curse all of humanity and the earth?
That's pretty petty of him.
And it also argues against omniscience: If he knew they would make the wrong choice, why would his feelings be hurt? They were doing exactly what he knew they would do, so it was his fault anyway.
«"He doesn't want any of His kids to be in pain, let alone go to an awful place where they will be tormented for eternity."»
If he doesn't want it, he doesn't have to have it. Or are you arguing that he isn't omnipotent?
«"The only difference between God and the human parents in this scenario is that He did take the place of His children."»
You might have a point if Christians did not suffer and die like all humans do. However, this is not the case.
«"Do you believe God is a liar?"»
If God exists as defined in the bible, then he is definitely a liar.
Since I am pretty sure that he does not exist as defined in the bible, I think it more likely that religion convinces people to lie to themselves about who God is and what God wants.
Bluemongoose said,
"At any time He could have sent legions of angels down to earth to smite Jesus' abusers and murderers. But He didn't because He couldn't bear to spend eternity without you, Chuck. You were worth it. So was your friend, his wife and their baby."
Are you saying that God knew that he wouldn't be able to bear being without us, but still had a "need" to create us? Or had no choice in creating us? And is it that before he created us, he was doing just fine?
bluemongoose
Objective evidence. Where else would we go for info. about Yahweh of the Bible but the Bible? Seeing several moves ahead, I can tell you will use the "That's just circular reasoning" argument. But, again, would I look in a cook book for telephone numbers? No, I'd open my phone book. Same thing here.
Curious, you acknowledge it is circular reasoning but you have no argument against it.
Furthermore, using your strained logic -- the qur'an is a source of info that is objective as well. What about all of the world's religious holy books?
Not only can you not argue against your use of circular reasoning, you also can not substantiate that the bible is indeed god's word as opposed to superstitious stories written by fallible sand-dwelling men. And most importantly you can not substantiate with objective evidence that your particular interpretation of scripture is credible, either.
Was Eve fallible bfore the fall? Knowing the repercussions. What if the Bible said her eyes were opened after she ate of the fruit?
The bible does say that her eyes were opened after she ate of the fruit -- but please show me in the contexts of the A&E myth where god ever explains -- without equivocation -- that if they did not listen to him, ALL of humanity was to pay with (a sin-condition) causing vile unthinkable suffering?
Additionally explain to me how a couple (A&E) who did not have the knowledge of good and bad could possibly know that what they were doing was good or bad?
Just because god said, "don't do it" is not a credible excuse because they did not posses the knowledge of bad or good.
It would be like a parent (god) telling a five year old (A&E) to stay away from the pool (tree of knowledge). "If you go near the pool you will surely die" But because the toddler does not have the knowledge of bad or good he decides to check out the pool, while the mother is off somewhere not paying attention or taking the proper precautions to keep the child from going into the pool.
The child drowns, but when the mother gets back she decides that everyone must pay for the innocent child's mistake and she decides to cause mass suffering by poisoning people with hideous diseases, arson murder mayhem.
Correct precautions. What you're asking for here is for God to have never given choices to A&E.
Oh you mean like when he learned from his mistake and then posted a guard in front of the tree of life? I guess god won't let them make that choice huh?
Wow -- if only god had thought of that earlier he would have saved billions of his earthly children from egregious suffering that has left so much misery in its wake.
Also why does god continue to create earthly souls, sending them to a place where he know they will suffer in repulsive ways?
But how could He say He won't mess w/our free will if He gives us no choices? What if He did warn them about repercussions for disobeying? "You shall surely die." If you've never seen something or been privy to it before, how can you fully comprehend it and its affect on you?
Exactly -- how could A&E make an educated decision without knowing bad from good and without knowing or understanding the severe repercussions of heinous, unimaginable suffering for all of humanity?
Why do you asusme God is not omniscient?
The context of the A&E story. He asks what they (A&E) have been doing. He doesn't know enough to put a guard to protect the tree of knowledge.
~continued~
Do you believe any of A&E's story happened w/o His foreknowledge? Are you saying you would have preferred God to have never given us choices?
It's nothing but a myth -- talking snakes and all.
But god being god should be able to achieve ALL his goals while allowing free will without the pain and anguish of unimaginable suffering but sadly this is not the case. Hmm could it be that bible god does not exist?
Objective. Again, where else would we go for these answers? Sin condition. Scriptures specify that all humans have sin. If this wasn't true then why make such a big deal over it? Why use such a messy thing like a crucifixion to right the problem? And you wouldn't need to one who calls Himself the Alpha and Omega to cover the multitude of sins from the beginning of time to the end of it.
Hmmmm? let's see? perhaps primitive superstitious men simply constructed an elaborate god-concept where you would have to offer blood sacrifices from goats to magically make sins go away........then as time went by another story was constructed about a god/man named jesus who once an for all eradicated sin by sacrificing himself.
But it is your job to supply OBJECTIVE evidence that Jesus is the supernatural, resurrected, metaphysical son of god, as opposed to embellished, fabricated, oral stories, eventually, written over time by biased, superstitious authors -- nothing but a piece of fiction, based on a possible, fallible, human, prophet or an amalgamation of several people and several earlier legends and myths --god luck with that.
Eternity. S.Connor, you're missing the best part. Don't leave out the 2nd half of this illustration. He made a way out. But He won't force you to take it. Free will and all that.
It's not free will --it's an ultimatum.
"Either you believe in me or you will be tortured for an eternity -- suffering in the flames of hell."
~continued~
Yes, His feelings can be hurt. He doesn't want any of His kids to be in pain, let alone go to an awful place where they will be tormented for eternity. Ask any parent who sits next to their cancerous child while she lies in bed receiving chemo, and the parent will tell you they'd gladly take the place of their baby. The only difference between God and the human parents in this scenario is that He did take the place of His children.
Yeah -- well, you are talking about a parent who watched his ten year old son suffer egregiously for months only to die from a massive heart attack related to leukemia.
But your analogy is not based in reality.
Show objective evidence that jesus' torturous sacrifice worked it's magic and by simply telepathically letting god know you accept and believe in him you will be saved.
The Christian’s Delusion Of Salvation
God -- who so loved the WORLD -- initiated a plan, of restoration, by sending his son, to be tortured, crucified and sacrificed, to save humanity. Sinful, humanity -- who couldn't possibly save themselves -- in the end, must accept and believe in Jesus, so they can be saved and yet, the other 70% of the world -- at this moment in time -- are other religions, the non-religious, or unbelievers, who are not bible-believing Christians. Didn't God consider his other earthly children, when he put his feeble, plan into action? Looks like Jesus' torturous, sacrifice was futile. God's inept, plan is incapable of saving everyone and hinges on the very ones who couldn't save themselves, in the first place. God’s plan for salvation is tragically flawed, wholly inadequate and morbidly negligent. The number of lost souls, throughout history, is monumentally, mind-blowing. Christianity is nothing but an illusion, which gorges itself, on gullibility and ignorance.
Objective evidence. Again, where else would we go for info... His word says He delights in healing us, and we only have to ask and trust that: 1) He is who He says He is; and 2)He can do what He says He will do.
Curious we asked god to heal my son, but he still suffered horribly for months, only to die. I await your deluded rationalizations................
But once again, we come to the free will issue. He won't force us to ask and believe. So it comes down to this ultimately: Do you believe God is a liar?
I do not believe in the bible-god.
The notion that faith in Christ is to be rewarded by an eternity of bliss, while a dependence upon reason, observation, and experience merits everlasting pain, is too absurd for refutation, and can be believed only by that unhappy mixture of insanity and ignorance called 'faith.' -- Robert G. Ingersoll.
--S.
bluemongoose
Before I forget -- I had a few more observations............
Bluemongoose asserts, Again, you assume the God of the Bible invites suffering on His kids.
According to your supposed book of objective evidence -- god created everything, including suffering and evil.
How do your reconcile these attributes from scripture with the god-concept you piecemealed together to form your idiosyncratic definition of this god-character?
Isa 45:7 I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I the LORD do all these things.
The Hebrew word for evil is [r or Ra' meaning:
adj
bad, evil
bad, disagreeable, malignant
bad, unpleasant, evil (giving pain, unhappiness, misery)
evil, displeasing
bad (of its kind - land, water, etc)
bad (of value)
worse than, worst (comparison)
sad, unhappy
evil (hurtful)
bad, unkind (vicious in disposition)
bad, evil, wicked (ethically)
in general, of persons, of thoughts
deeds, actions n m
evil, distress, misery, injury, calamity
evil, distress, adversity
evil, injury, wrong
evil (ethical) n f
evil, misery, distress, injury
evil, misery, distress
evil, injury, wrong
evil (ethical)
Additionally, in Ecclesiastes 7:14 the Hebrew word for adversity is also [r or Ra'
Ec 7:14 In the day of prosperity be joyful, but in the day of adversity consider: God also hath set the one over against the other, to the end that man should find nothing after him.
Which in plain English means:
When times are good be happy but when times are bad think what it means. God made both to keep us from knowing what will happen next.
And in 2kings and Proverbs the Hebrew word for evil is [r or Ra'
2Ki 6:33 And while he yet talked with them, behold, the messenger came down unto him: and he said, Behold, this evil is of the LORD; what should I wait for the LORD any longer?
He also creates the wicked (the sinners)
Pr 16:4 The LORD hath made all things for himself: yea, even the wicked for the day of evil.
The Hebrew word for wicked is [xr and means:
wicked, criminal
guilty one, one guilty of crime (subst)
wicked (hostile to God)
wicked, guilty of sin (against God or man)
The bible view is clear, your supposed all-loving, moral, god creates, misery, calamity, adversity, suffering, evil and the wicked people who cause evil.
~continued~
Furthermore, using the bible as a supposed objective source for information -- doesn't this quote, below, from scripture, suggest that god "invites suffering on His kids"?
1Sam 15:3 The Lord says, Go and attack the Amalekites! Destroy them and all their possessions. Don't have any pity. Kill their men, women, children, and even their babies.
Many deluded christians have to do mighty back-flips and mental gymnastics in order to condone and salvage their sky-father's vile, sadistic actions by offering bloated rationalizations like the Amalekite children were being sacrificed to false gods, and children living with evil people would be better of dead, blah, blah, blah.
So, lets get this straight, an all-loving, god created these children and babies, knowing they would be abused and suffer egregiously, with evil people (which god created according to scripture), some of them being burned alive, in heinous sacrificial offerings, but still chose to put these innocent children and babies in these vile, unimaginable situations anyway?
And god's only solution to the problem was to rescind his commandment of thou shall not kill, thereby ordering in a barbaric army of men, to destroy everyone, including, pregnant women and innocent children and babies, showing them no pity, using the primitive weapons of the day -- cutting throats, chopping off heads, plunging swords into bellies, bludgeoning and eviscerating, causing some to suffer for hours or days as they slowly died?
Now these same psychotic christians will assert that god gave them life, so he can take it -- BUT why did he have to cause them to SUFFER in egregious unthinkable ways first?
Why would an all-loving, god create and send these children into these horrific situations, in the first place?
And why would a god -- who could simply wish the universe into existence -- not just simply wave his hand and make these children disappear into his awaiting arms, forgoing all the immense pain and mass suffering?
Also concerning your interpretation of salvation: Explain the logic behind a god who preaches, "Bear with each other and forgive whatever grievances you may have against one another." Colossians 3:13 ~and~ "Forgive not seven times but forgive seventy times seven." -- Matthew 18:21-22 with a god who will torture you for an eternity simply because someone didn't believe in him?
--S.
bluemongoose
More thoughts on this analogy: Ask any parent who sits next to their cancerous child while she lies in bed receiving chemo, and the parent will tell you they'd gladly take the place of their baby. The only difference between God and the human parents in this scenario is that He did take the place of His children.
For the sake of argument (and to make the analogy more accurate) let's say I (god) could have taken the place of my son (humanity) who was suffering as his blood was poisoning him (sin) and again for argument sake (and to make the analogy even more accurate) my son rejected my offer, for whatever reason -- should I -- like your god-concept -- torture my son for the rest of his life for making that free will decision?
--S.
Blue,
Thanks for your willingness to respond. I am aware of the arguments you present because I have identified myself as an evangelical until my recent crisis of faith. I find your arguments to be pretty consistent with the current American Evangelical mind-set. As such, I can't rationalize them any longer.
The world-view you present is confusing to me. I may be just stupid but find it hard to see the compassion, omnipotence and omniscience coinciding in one being who initites and supports the actions you describe. He might be compassionate but not omnipotent or omniscient or, omnipotent and omniscient but not compassionate. It's hard to subscribe to a god defined by all those characteristics who also allows the type of indiscriminate suffering while defining himself as a victim of my sin. I'm sorry, it is just too implausible for me.
sconnor, I am humbled by your honesty and passion. You summed up in your responses to Blue all the counter arguments I'd have made to her theology.
I believe that blue believes what she believes but fail to see how that world-view can lead to love or compassion.
The young man I mentioned died Saturday and, although I only knew him in passing, I am very dear friends with the person who introduced us.
When I was a believer I thought the sadness I felt in the midst of others suffering was a sign of my regeneration in Christ but, now that I reject that belief yet still feel compassion I can accept that my compassion is innate to my humanity.
We suffer, all of us, and I no longer find myth to be a ready exemption to this truth.
The beliefs that Blue professes seem to be have utility in narcotizing one from the anger injustice demands but, do not point to a higher justice.
sconnor, thanks again for sharing your story. It exemplifies how inadequate the faith systems of this world are in truly providing compassion that takes into reality the incomprehensibility of suffering.
Peace to you.
Blue, I hope you still find peace inside your belief. I don't share that peace.
Owlmirror:
Get ready, buddy, this will take a while to read through.
Wonderful questions! So why does Yahweh use the Bible as a means of communication? Mind you, it's not His only way of communication, but we'll get to that shortly. You see, having events recorded ro written down is an easy way to reference past occurences and can serve to remind us of those events, much like we use history books to record the past of our nation and world. The problem is that we don't see individuals fighting the secular history books with quite the same fierceness as they do the validity of the Bible. But here is the one-two punch atheists like to use when dealing with this subject:
They like to say, "Why doesn't God speak?" But when theists reply, "He does, through the Bible", the atheists are quick to respond with "The Bible is man-made and false. Give us examples of Him verbally speaking." But when we do, the cry of the atheist is "You are lying now" or "You had too much cough syrup or forgot to take your meds", basically implying hallucinations on the part of the theists.
However, if we break it down, what the problem really is is this: relativism. Atheists want the answers to be rooted in relativism b/c if morals, knowledge, boundaries, etc., are subjective, then they have an easy way out if they don't like the answers for their questions. The atheist is free to accept or decline any notion based on the "whatever works for the individual as long as they keep it to themselves" formula. But if there are absolutes that apply to everyone, then there is no escape hatch.
Eyes opened and closed. Except you leave out the fact that the moral authority told her not to do something. Before disobeying, Eve did not have to concern herself with issues regarding the effects of sin. So why bother yourself with something that doesn't apply to you?
Honest warnings. God was talking about spiritually dying, not physically dying.
Informed choices. Again, why should she be concerned w/something that didn't apply to her in her innocence? Small children generally don't concern themselves w/politics b/c in their innocence, they can't fully comprehend the subject. So why waste a toddler's time (and your time) trying to explain to them the dynamics of our political system?
Responsibility. Let's say you set down parameters for you son about talking on his cell phone. And for expediency sake, we'll only talk about one of those parameters: you tell him not to talk on it while driving. But being a teenager, you know there's a very good chance he will disobey you. So in the event that he causes a car accident b/c of cell phone usage while driving, does that make you responsible even though you forewarned him? You could have never given him the phone in the first place, but you did and you gave him every opportunity to make the right choice. Do you see the point I'm trying to make here, the double standard at work?
Choices. Is Joe Schmoe a bad parent for punishing his daughter when she doesn't do her chores? Certainly not. We expect good parents to lay down parameters for their offspring. So why do we think God, the ultimate parent, would be any different? Even when we don't have the whole picture, we think we have the authority to cast judgment on the actions of the Infinite. You also imply that God sends people to "damnation". But what if we are responsible for where we spend eternity? It's easier to pass the buck in this arena, because you absolve yourself of the responsibility for your own actions. You also imply that God provides no alternative or way out of damnation. You see, it becomes a perspective issue now; and it all depends on what angle we look at this from.
Pettiness. You're assigning a human characteristic to God. Yes, humans sometimes quickly react harshly and unfairly when their feelings are hurt. But this is not how God operates.
Continuing on, Owlmirror:
Omniscience. You are drawing connecting lines where there is no interconnectedness. Just b/c God knows a person will act a certain way does not give Him the right to trample on their free will. You also imply that He set up no other alternatives for A&E when, in fact, He did. He gave them a whole garden to eat from.
Want does not equal necessity. You know this. It has nothing to do with omnipotence.
Suffering & death. Here we get into another discussion about physical death vs. spiritual death. Yes, all Christians experience suffering and death in this existence; but b/c of Christ's gift, we can have the option not to go through that second death or eternal death.
God as defined in the Bible. See, you made my prior point (about the one-two punch) for me.
Pretty sure. You imply you are not completely sure b/c of your use of the words, "pretty sure" and "I think". So what if you're wrong?
Howdy, Andre!
Loving us enough to give us a way out of the eternal spiritual death is an issue separate and apart form the implication that He needed to create us or had not choice in it. He neither needs us nor is dependent upon us, as He is complete relationally within the Trinity (Father, Son and Holy Spirit).
I have not read aything that would say why God decided to create us -- or create in general. Now, that doesn't mean there is no answer, it just means I cannot provide it to you.
Blue,
What you say using your theology to console me and sconoor in the face of the suffering I described and sconnor's suffering?
How would you minister to us?
Thanks.
Blue,
I'm sincere. I'd like to hear how your worldview provides comfort in the face of incomprehensible sadness. The kind of loss sconnor describes and what I shared.
Thanks. Still waiting.
I'm still waiting for blue to address all my comments -- thoroughly.
--S.
SConnor:
Let me start out by saying you have my condolences. I cannot begin to fully understand the depths of your sorrow. But I will promise not to minimize what you went through.
Objectivity. Notice how it's not objective if info. about God comes from the Bible, but only if it comes strictly from human understanding. However, then we have the issue with relativism (what is one person's understanding may not necessarily be another's understanding). The 2nd problem w/the objectivity-only-comes-from-human-understanding argument is that it's not anchored in anything. So you could have "objectivity" with roots from anywhere and where nothing is solid or certain.
Again, I don't want to minimize your statements b/c they are all important points and your questions deserve answers; however, your posts are very long and my replies would be double in size and then yours would double -- ad infinitum. So we have to cut this down. But don't fret. We will get to all your questions as time goes on b/c these kinds of debates go in sort of a circular motion, meaning there are only so many topics to discuss in this arena, so we will eventually come back around.
Basically, here's the big issue you want answers for: Why does God get to pick and choose who lives and dies seemingly so randomly? It seems so unfair! Why does one person die yet another gets to live? But allow me to give you an illustration to help put all of this into perspective:
You as an individual get to make your own decisions all the time and you say that is morally correct; it is right for you to be free to make these decisions. So why then is it wrong when God makes decisions one way or another? Do you notice the double standard at work here?
It's odd that people would prefer to wink out into nothingness when they die as opposed to being allowed to get a brand new body free of disease, pain, fat, weariness and an eternity where there is no more suffering, dying, boredom, sickness, depression or any number of maladies that are so common to the human condition in this existence.
Blue,
You said,
"You as an individual get to make your own decisions all the time and you say that is morally correct,"
I know this is directed to sconnor and I don't know if he would agree with this but, I wouldn't. I believe that I have the right to take certain actions but would not say that all my decisions can be defined moral simply because I take them. I lapse into bad judgment, old patterns, or simply animial instinct that can compromise my morality. Decision right does not automatically imply morality.
You thne said,
"it is right for you to be free to make these decisions. So why then is it wrong when God makes decisions one way or another?"
I don't think those of us who are baffled by the incomprehensible suffering you would dismiss as "God's will" is not predicated on the right to make deicisions but the quality of the decision you claim virteous. Why is it moral for God choose to have a 10 year old child suffer intense pain and then die suddenly and painfully? He has every right to make that decision but, I have the right to see it as horrible, not virteous.
You then said,
"Do you notice the double standard at work here?"
This is the most confusing statement of all. You are using a double standard to assess the actions of your god as virteous when if another person practiced the arbitrary suffering he chooses then it would be seen as immoral. This is an assessment on the quality of his actions not the right to take them. Please prove to sconnor or me that the painful death instigated by your god of sconnor's son is somehow good. Deflecting to the mystery of god is an unsatisfactory answer for me.
You then said,
"It's odd that people would prefer to wink out into nothingness when they die as opposed to being allowed to get a brand new body free of disease, pain, fat, weariness and an eternity where there is no more suffering, dying, boredom, sickness, depression or any number of maladies that are so common to the human condition in this existence."
I can understand how this rationalization might comfort you but there is no evidence that the reality you propose exists. There are mythic promises but no guarantees. I doubt the wife of my friend who suddenly died will replace the comfort of his touch with the promise of eternity.
Your premise denies those suffering incomprehensible tragedy the anger that such an event allows. We just need imagine heaven and happy endings and therefore the unconscienable pain dictated by your god somehow gets transformed into virtue.
How?
Guys, I'm sorry to keep you waiting. Remember, just like you, I have a life outside of this blog. I really want to help answer your questions, and anytime I am delayed in responding, it's b/c something's going on away from the blog.
I'm going to give you an honest answer, Chuck and SConnor. You may not like it, but I cannot help that. I personally know Yahweh of the Bible. I can give you a laundry list of the times He has been active in my life, of when He has worked wonders around me and through me, of when He has protected me, guided me, and communicated with me first-hand. I say all that b/c I want you to understand that I know (not think, believe, or otherwise) what He is capable of. I do not function within the confines of relativism. Let me repeat that: I do not function within the confines of relativism. What I know, someone else is also free to know. And I know that even though we may not be able to immediately understand why Yahweh does all the things He does, we can be sure to trust His heart and that all things work for the good of those who love Him. I can be sure that Yahweh, my Abba Father in heaven, has great plans for me, plans to prosper me and not to harm me. How do I know? I trust Him, and I trust that He is truthful. He's has a 100% track record for being forthright in my life, and I can see that is so in others' lives in the present and in the past.
So I know He will be the same way in your life. He is not human, and, thus, does not have the same limitations that we do. He is very good at cleaning up the messes in our lives and He is ready, willing and able to heal your broken heart. And while He doesn't promise that we will escape this life unscathed, He does promise that He can make us whole again after any loss -- if only we will let Him. All because He really does love us.
There is no "magic potion" I can give you. I know you've both heard all this before. And at first glance it would seem trite, except for that small nudge that is going on within you at this moment. Now, you can choose to ignore it and tell me I'm full of it to save face in front of all the other bloggers here in an open forum; but you and I know what's going on within you. You would not be continually asking these questions if there was no struggle going on. And, yet, when you're alone tonight in your home with no one watching and God turns up the heat on the fire that rages in your mind, in which direction will you go?
bluemongoose
Yes, humans sometimes quickly react harshly and unfairly when their feelings are hurt. But this is not how God operates.
Have you read the bible -- completely?
According to your supposed objective reading of the bible god most assuredly reacted harshly and unfairly when A&E disobeyed him.
They ate fruit from a tree that was forbidden to them, without A&E knowing the full ramifications of their and our subsequent punishments and god goes ape shit.
Whatever you call it, "punishment" or "discipline" the consequences were neither compassionate, loving, fair, nor anything resembling constructive instruction from a parent here in the earthly realm. In fact god's action were more akin to an abusive, raging, father, who went nuts, punishing everything around him, including the snake and all snakes after that; he bestowed hatred between Adam and Eve and all their decedents, He multiplied the pain of birth, thus securing the plight for all women, and then, in a fit of misogyny and sexism, he further cursed Eve that, "although, I make you hate your husband and childbirth will be excruciating, you will lust for him and he will rule over you". And then, god, with all divine obtuseness, curses the ground, so that Adam and all males would suffer, with endless hard labor, just to eat.
And to add insult to injury this action supposedly let evil take a foothold of our planet causing subsequent generations to suffer in unimaginable vile ways, like innocent children suffering egregiously from incurable diseases, plagues, wars, natural disasters, excruciating full body burns, brain tumors, leukemia, rape, murder, genocide, infanticide, etc. etc. etc............
Your god-concept is sadistic and atrocious.
Is Joe Schmoe a bad parent for punishing his daughter when she doesn't do her chores?
YES -- if the punishment is severe abusive and goes morbidly beyond a minor infraction like your god-concept initiated.
You also imply that God sends people to "damnation". But what if we are responsible for where we spend eternity? It's easier to pass the buck in this arena, because you absolve yourself of the responsibility for your own actions. You also imply that God provides no alternative or way out of damnation. You see, it becomes a perspective issue now; and it all depends on what angle we look at this from.
Again, god sending an earthly soul to be tortured in the flames of hell for an eternity for the reprehensible mega-sin of disbelief (massive sarcasm) is far and away the most excessive, unjust punishment that could possibly be imagined, which in no way could ever be compared to ANYTHING a parent would do to their child.
So what if you're wrong?
Muslims believe the qur'an is the final revelation from god encompassing divine guidance and direction for mankind, where the only way you can obtain paradise is if you subscribe the teachings of the qur'an and believe in allah.
What if you are wrong?
Either way the what if your wrong argument is fallacious.
Go to this website and take care to thoroughly understand the fallacious nature of pascal's wager.
PASCAL'S WAGER
--S.
Blue,
Thanks.
I mean this as charitably as possible, when you say, "And at first glance it would seem trite," I have to let you know that this isn't my first glance at the ideas you propose.
I believe you believe the beleifs you share and I believe for some reason you have to believe them but, they don't comfort me.
The logic of your argument creates a deity that is cruel and abusive and, if I choose to accept that reality, then I choose to become dependent on a cruel and abusive deity.
I much prefer the reality we have thus far, we are a species in evolution with random frailties that harm us but, as a species, we don't need to choose to be alone in the midst of our sadness and suffering.
We can console each other by accepting in love the horrors of life and encouraging one another to live.
I do find your ideas trite. I also find them self-serving. Your experiences exempt you from the horror of life. You reduce life into a simplistic philosophy that can only console you.
bluemongoose
Objectivity. Notice how it's not objective if info. about God comes from the Bible, but only if it comes strictly from human understanding. However, then we have the issue with relativism (what is one person's understanding may not necessarily be another's understanding). The 2nd problem w/the objectivity-only-comes-from-human-understanding argument is that it's not anchored in anything. So you could have "objectivity" with roots from anywhere and where nothing is solid or certain.
You just made an argument for the objectivity of the qur'an -- therefore the qur'an and allah-character exist. Congratulations, good job!
Basically, here's the big issue you want answers for: Why does God get to pick and choose who lives and dies seemingly so randomly?
NO, NO, NO, NO!
My issues are very specific. I have made specific refutations to specific arguments. I do not want BS excuses like time constraints and long postings. I want you to address ALL my points specifically and thoroughly.
You do NOT have a right to generalize and tell me what I supposedly think the "big issue" is. Address ALL my comments specifically.
It's odd that people would prefer to wink out into nothingness when they die as opposed to being allowed to get a brand new body free of disease, pain, fat, weariness and an eternity where there is no more suffering, dying, boredom, sickness, depression or any number of maladies that are so common to the human condition in this existence.
It's odd to you but for me -- either way -- the pain would be non-existent.
--S.
bluemongoose
I personally know Yahweh of the Bible.
Personal testimony -- meaningless.
Jews make this claim but assign obvious different attributes.
Muslims claim to know allah personally too.
Using your stunted logic their god-concept is true also.
All these religions have people who make the same extraordinary claims of how god works through their life, too, which -- again -- renders your personal testimony obsolete. Additionally you have done nothing except fabricated an (un)reality, based on your idiosyncratic interpretation of scripture and by rationalizing occurrences with a divine presence without being able to substantiate your claim or acknowledge another reasonable explanation.
The absolute arrogance and insanity that is needed to believe in such nonsense -- "my god takes an interest in me, listens to me, answers my prayers, loves me, accepts me and will reward me for being a good little christian with the blissful pleasures of heaven, because I know what god is telling me in the bible, and I believe, while the rest of the world -- the ones who do not think the way I do -- are destined to be tortured in the flames of hell for an eternity."
Yes, blue wallows, in the bogus sense of superiority and arrogance, with the delusional knowledge god loves her and she'll be granted a one way ticket to paradise, because she understands god's message of salvation, while the rest of the non-christian world or christians who do not ascribe to her particular criteria for salvation are damned.
God already knew the majority of his earthly children would be destined to be tortured for all of eternity in the flames of hell.
Why create them in the first place? The only answer I can come up with is god is a sadistic torturer of souls. What other reason could there be?
There is no "magic potion" I can give you. I know you've both heard all this before. And at first glance it would seem trite, except for that small nudge that is going on within you at this moment. Now, you can choose to ignore it and tell me I'm full of it to save face in front of all the other bloggers here in an open forum; but you and I know what's going on within you. You would not be continually asking these questions if there was no struggle going on. And, yet, when you're alone tonight in your home with no one watching and God turns up the heat on the fire that rages in your mind, in which direction will you go?
Your deluded lunatic gibberish is meaningless to me. I am not down with the delusion.
Please spare us you BS proselytizing and address the specifics of our comments.
You are skating on thin ice. I suspect you are well on your way to being banned here if you continue proselytizing and ignoring the specifics of our arguments.
Now, kindly, address my arguments specifically.
--S.
Chuck O'Connor and blue
~Quick thought~
Chuck said, I do find your ideas trite. I also find them self-serving. Your experiences exempt you from the horror of life. You reduce life into a simplistic philosophy that can only console you.
This is true.
But, also, I have been to many grief support groups (two to three a month for the last three years) for parents who are grieving the death of their children.
I have encountered many christians (even the wrapped in the holy spirit, born again, know they'll see they're children in heaven, variety).
Yet they grieve just as hard. They are still coming to these support groups -- unconsolable. Although they admittedly exclaim they "know" they will see their child in heaven one day -- they still are overwhelmed with the variables and complexities of grief and the monumental sense of loss in the here and now. They suffer just as much as a person like myself who does not believe in a personal god or in religion in general.
--S.
sconnor wrote,
"They suffer just as much as a person like myself who does not believe in a personal god or in religion in general."
And I feel as much compassion for you now as I did when I believed the motivating force for this feeling was the in-dwelling of the Holy Spirit.
I no longer believe a Holy Spirit exists and frankly am of the mind-set that questions if Jesus ever did but, I can feel compassion for you and hope you find the courage to live.
How is that possible without Christ?
Because Christ is not essential to practice unconditional kindness or compassion.
Howdy to too Bluemongoose,
"Loving us enough to give us a way out of the eternal spiritual death is an issue separate and apart form the implication that He needed to create us or had not choice in it."
Are you now saying that God knew before he created us that we would need Jesus to be resurrected from the dead for us to spiritually live for eternity, and this is because he love us so much?
What I think is a separate issue is, God creating us in a state where we would need a savior, then tells us he's doing it because he loves us, and, loving us so much for the same state he created us in.
How does it make sense that it is true love, if it is God who created that reason to supposedly show his love?
I see you believe in the Adam & Eve story which is where you derive your point of view. But to illustrate my point, how do we go from it's their/our fault why there's sin, to, if you don't believe in Jesus you cannot have eternal life. The latter makes the former unnecessary, and vice versa. Is it that we need to believe, or we need to be save because we're sinners? Therefore, it cannot be that God loves us so much, he gave us a way out, while at the same time, we now only need to believe to be saved. So saying we have a way out as to creating us, knowing we would sin, becomes irrelevant.
Andre
You know while I was reading your post another dilemma spilled forth from the A&E myth.
Presumably, christians believe that by disobeying god, it is a sin -- correct?
Christians also exclaim sin entered the world after A&E partook of the fruit.
If there was no sin before A&E partook of the fruit, then how is god justified in punishing (severe punishment considering the minor infraction; not to mention letting evil take a foothold on humanity, with egregious, vile suffering that punishes ALL of humanity, that had nothing to do with the supposed fall) an innocent couple who were NOT sinful and did NOT know that what the were doing was bad or good, because they did not possess the knowledge, nor did they know the severity of the punishment which was subsequently handed down.
This is what blue gets when she uses myths to fabricate her unreal world-view -- silly christian, myths are for ignorant superstitious people, with limited intellectual resources, who tried explaining the world around them.
--S.
Exactly Sconnor, you're right.
I'm actually puzzled that people today still believe the story of A&E and that they existed as portrayed in the bible. This is very scary.
«"So why does Yahweh use the Bible as a means of communication? Mind you, it's not His only way of communication, but we'll get to that shortly. You see, having events recorded ro written down is an easy way to reference past occurences and can serve to remind us of those events, much like we use history books to record the past of our nation and world."»
The problem is that the validity of the Bible as a communication from a supposedly omniscient being is completely undermined and contradicted when the communication contains sequences that contradict themselves, and reality. If the Bible did not contradict itself, and reality, it would at least not be completely invalidated -- which was part of the point of the Revised Reality Edition posting -- you might have a point.
«"The problem is that we don't see individuals fighting the secular history books with quite the same fierceness as they do the validity of the Bible."»
Of course. It's understood that secular history books were written by fallible human beings. They don't contain prescriptions for behavior, or claim to have been written by omniscient beings. They can be corrected if errors are made.
Where's the errata pages for the bible?
«"They like to say, "Why doesn't God speak?" But when theists reply, "He does, through the Bible", the atheists are quick to respond with "The Bible is man-made and false. Give us examples of Him verbally speaking." But when we do, the cry of the atheist is "You are lying now" or "You had too much cough syrup or forgot to take your meds", basically implying hallucinations on the part of the theists."»
It sounds like you have argued with atheists a lot, but haven't really understood.
Yes, it's delusional to claim that God speaks to you if the supposed speaking cannot be verified in the real world. And verification could be something as simple as you telling me the random number I generated and stored on my hard disc.
But theists never have anything like that.
If God doesn't tell you any real-world fact that you don't already know, then you have no basis for claiming that God has any reality outside of your own head.
«"However, if we break it down, what the problem really is is this: relativism."»
That has nothing whatsoever to do with what you were just arguing. Are you capable of sticking to the point?
«"Atheists want the answers to be rooted in relativism "»
Actually, it is theists who want their answers rooted in relativism: One standard for God and religion; another standard for everything else.
«"But if there are absolutes that apply to everyone, then there is no escape hatch."»
That's right. There's no escape hatch for God, if God really existed and had to go along with the same absolutes that he applied to everyone else.
But theists claim special privileges for God. They let God use an "escape hatch" of special privilege, then claim that the escape hatch does not exist.
Sorry. Atheists see what you're doing. We're not going to let you off the hook. You're using a double standard; you're applying moral relativism.
«"Before disobeying, Eve did not have to concern herself with issues regarding the effects of sin."»
Before disobeying, Eve did not actually know the effects of sin, and had no way to know that God was a moral authority.
The one who knows is responsible. That was God. God is responsible.
~~continued~~
«"Honest warnings. God was talking about spiritually dying, not physically dying."»
How were Adam and Eve supposed to know that? No, it's not an honest warning if God speaks in a way that isn't obvious or clear.
«"Informed choices. Again, why should she be concerned w/something that didn't apply to her in her innocence? Small children generally don't concern themselves w/politics b/c in their innocence, they can't fully comprehend the subject. So why waste a toddler's time (and your time) trying to explain to them the dynamics of our political system?"»
You're not making much sense here. Are you saying that Adam and Eve were the equivalent of toddlers? And God didn't even try explain to them the full ramifications of the act of eating the fruit because they were like toddlers, yet then expected ignorant toddlers to behave like mature adults with full understanding and self control?
Is it sane to expect toddlers to behave like adults? Is cursing toddlers for misbehaving moral?
«"Responsibility. Let's say you set down parameters for you son about talking on his cell phone. And for expediency sake, we'll only talk about one of those parameters: you tell him not to talk on it while driving. But being a teenager, you know there's a very good chance he will disobey you. So in the event that he causes a car accident b/c of cell phone usage while driving, does that make you responsible even though you forewarned him? You could have never given him the phone in the first place, but you did and you gave him every opportunity to make the right choice. Do you see the point I'm trying to make here, the double standard at work?
"»
Yes, I see that you have a double-standard for God. In your analogy, I know there's a chance he'll disobey, but I don't know for certain. If I knew for certain that he'll use the phone while driving and have an accident, no matter what I told him, I wouldn't give him the phone. And if I did give him the phone while knowing for certain that he would cause an accident no matter what I told him, I would be responsible for the accident: knowledge confers responsibility.
Just like God's certain knowledge of Adam's and Eve's actions confers responsibility for their eating the fruit -- and God condemning them for it is evil and insane. Yes, they made the wrong choice, but God knew they would make the wrong choice.
«"Is Joe Schmoe a bad parent for punishing his daughter when she doesn't do her chores? Certainly not. We expect good parents to lay down parameters for their offspring. So why do we think God, the ultimate parent, would be any different?"»
I agree that a good parent has the responsibility to punish bad behavior, but punishment must be appropriate to the degree of bad behavior, and it has the purpose of giving the child the understanding that they must change their behavior.
A scolding for not doing chores is about right, but evicting a child permanently for not making their bed is excessive, evil, and insane.
Just as God was evil, excessive, and insane for cursing Adam and Eve for disobeying -- especially when the act did not actually affect God at all, did not affect anyone else besides themselves, it was their first offence, and God knew they would disobey before they did.
~~continued~~
«"You also imply that God sends people to "damnation". But what if we are responsible for where we spend eternity?"»
But we are not. Knowledge and power confer responsibility. We don't know what happens after we die. We can't change it, either, not having the power.
Since supposedly God has all knowledge and all power, all responsibility is with God.
«"It's easier to pass the buck in this arena, because you absolve yourself of the responsibility for your own actions. You also imply that God provides no alternative or way out of damnation."»
But he does not. If God exists, he knows that I have become a skeptic (and always knew that I would become a skeptic, even before I was born, let along before I became one), and insist on real-world evidence before simply believing what other people -- like yourself -- say about God. If this skepticism causes me to be damned, then no, God has not provided the alternative of real-world evidence that would allow me to avoid damnation.
«"Pettiness. You're assigning a human characteristic to God. Yes, humans sometimes quickly react harshly and unfairly when their feelings are hurt. But this is not how God operates."»
I would say that if God was real, and omnipotent, and omniscient, and omnibenevolent, then his feelings cannot be hurt by anything that weak, foolish humans do; especially given that he even knowingly created them weak and foolish. But you were the one claiming that God's feelings could be hurt; the only way this could happen for the powerful and knowing is if the powerful and knowing one was in fact petty.
It was by your own assertion that I concluded that God was petty. You can admit that you were wrong to make the assertion, but you can't change what it means to be powerful, knowing, and have your feelings hurt.
Unless you have a double-double-standard, of course....
«"Omniscience. You are drawing connecting lines where there is no interconnectedness. Just b/c God knows a person will act a certain way does not give Him the right to trample on their free will. You also imply that He set up no other alternatives for A&E when, in fact, He did. He gave them a whole garden to eat from."»
No. You can't have it both ways. Omniscience logically contradicts free will. Either God knew before even creating Adam and Eve exactly what they would do, including disobey him, or God is not omniscient.
Which one is it?
«"Want does not equal necessity. You know this. It has nothing to do with omnipotence"»
Want may not equal necessity, but omnipotence is indeed relevant. If God is omnipotent, then there is nothing that stops him from doing what he wants or getting what he wants -- except for will: good will or ill will; benevolence or malevolence.
If God is omnipotent, and salvation and damnation are part of God's power, then God controls exactly what happens after someone dies.
Again: knowledge and power confer responsibility. God knows; God has the power; therefore, God has the responsibility for damnation.
«"Suffering & death. Here we get into another discussion about physical death vs. spiritual death. Yes, all Christians experience suffering and death in this existence; but b/c of Christ's gift, we can have the option not to go through that second death or eternal death."»
How convenient that no Christian has ever demonstrated this absence of "second" death. If Christian ghosts or spirits regularly visited the living (and non-Christian ones never did), you might have a point. But there are no spirits at all that visit the living, and your point fails.
«"Pretty sure. You imply you are not completely sure b/c of your use of the words, "pretty sure" and "I think". So what if you're wrong?"»
Then God will torture me forever and ever for having strong standards of truth and morality. Oh, well. Sucks to be me, I guess.
bluemongoose
You know blue's statement is extraordinary and needs to be explored a little further:
She said, I personally know Yahweh of the Bible.
Now that is extraordinary -- got any objective evidence that substantiates this unreal claim?
She also gives her examples:
I can give you a laundry list of the times He has been active in my life, of when He has worked wonders around me and through me, of when He has protected me, guided me, and communicated with me first-hand. I say all that b/c I want you to understand that I know (not think, believe, or otherwise) what He is capable of.
I'm not going to use my kid gloves on this one. I'm going to tell blue exactly what I think.
Blue, I suspect you are a sick individual, who is wallowing in mass delusion.
You have simply fabricated an insanely and fantastic, massive delusion by idiosyncratically interpreting the superstitious, spurious words of scripture, and erroneously attributing emotions to your god-character. You are pretending to have a relationship with a fictional character out of a book that only exists in the confines of your limited imagination -- that's crazy.
You have attributed certain occurrences in your life to a deity by over-rationalizing, which you -- in no way -- can substantiate with objective evidence.
It would be exactly like if an insane person claimed she had a relationship with another god-man -- Hercules. This person also makes her extraordinary claim, by obsessively, immersing herself in the writings about Hercules and convinces herself that the emotions of power and divine ecstasy she feels came directly from the POWER OF HERCULES, when in reality she just erroneously attributed feeling to a supposed higher power. In this illustration this person would be considered mentally ill, which is exactly the way I perceive a devout Christian who extols a "personal relationship" (personally knowing Yahweh of the Bible) with God/Jesus – a character out of a book.
~continued~
You are just another deluded christian in a long line of unbalanced christians I have conversed with. You truly believe (you convinced yourself you "know") that you have found the Holy Grail -- an invisible key to a shining paradise that only you and your particular christian brethren can perceive and unlock; an insane concept constructed from your own myopic idiosyncratic interpretation of scripture, that provides you with a bogus sense of superiority and an illusion of eternal security and comfort. You have an idiotic ultra-twisted, notion of reality, based on foolish superstitions, silly myths rationalized occurrences and willful ignorance, who has been brainwashed to the point of insanity.
You are asking us to believe in your preposterous claims, supported on flimsy subjective "proofs", spurious spiritualism, bloated rationalizations, personal testimony and the rantings of a lunatic, who can not substantiate an iota of what you are saying with objective evidence. You would have us take your word for it, much in the same way you obtain and process information -- the wholly unreliable method of FAITH.
The insane cult leader -- David Koresh -- of the Branch Davidians also made the extraordinary claim that he knew god, spoke to god and that god was working through his life.
How are his deranged claims any different then yours?
Why should we find his claims invalid, but believe your claims are valid?
I'll tell you what blue, if god exists, then god knows, exactly, where to find me -- he can tell me, exactly, and concisely, everything he needs me to know, himself -- this way, I can be absolutely certain, what god wants from me, and I don't have to rely on some fallible, deluded christian who quite possibly is in insane, that makes extraordinary, interpretive claims, she can't substantiate -- M-kay?
Now are you going to address my specific arguments and comments or will you simply ignore and give excuses why you can not address the major inconsistencies, contradictions and logical flaws in your assertions?
Waiting......................
--S.
Blue,
Here's the obituary of the friend of our family who passed this weekend of an unexpected aneurysm. His life modeled Christ more than any believer I know. He wasn't a believer so for his kindness and love to all makes him writhing in Hell.
Read this, http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/chi-hed-cytrynbaumjul15,0,3860954.story?obref=obinsite
Then tell me if your theology isn't offensive to those who practice kindness that doesn't reflect your beliefs.
Chuck:
Decision making. You misread what I wrote. I meant SConnor (and other atheists) believe the act of making his/her own decisions is correct or good. I didn't break it down into analyzing the merits of each or any choice specifically.
Incomprehensible suffering. Why do you assume this is God's will? What if the Bible said it wasn't and b/c it wasn't His will, He provided us with an ultimate solution?
Confusing statements. You still are operating under the assumption that bad things are God's will.
I will never argue that painful deaths are good, and neither does the Bible or God advocate for it.
Evidence. You mean evidence that will convince you personally, not evidence in general.
No guarantees. So you say. The issue whether or not there are guarantees is separate and apart from the issue of whether or not you personally accept them. Again, we come back to the personal perception issue.
"I doubt the wife of my friend..." Indicative that you're not sure.
Denying anger. I'm not denying anyone's right to be angry after loss on any level. Anger can be a good thing, within the proper context.
Unconscienable pain. Yes, unconscienable for us humans to endure alone, but with the help of a loving, empathetic God, we can heal, grow and eventually be ready to receive God's restoration after the fact.
Blue,
Read the facts in the obituary I posted and then weigh that against your presuppositional theology. This really good man who helped many people is now writhing in Hell. That would be the only honest response you could give to his grieving wife, family and son.
Don't you think there is something at least confusing about your ideas.
Thanks.
Your defensive arguments don't deny this fact.
Joe died after spending his life serving inner city kids and your belief system says he is a codemned soul due to his inability to be motivated by the mythic stories you find devotional.
I don't understand that and it is silly and stupid to me.
I know, Chuck. It does seem silly and stupid -- at the outset.
I read Joe's obit. I loved the part about the burping. "He was all about relationships, and that relationships drive every level of success in the work we're doing." And yet he held at arm's length the one relationship that mattered the most.
No one can deny that Joe was a good man, was a loving, kind and compassionate man. But in the end, our works are not what tip the scales as to where we spend our eternity. It is whether or not we make the choice to accept Jesus' gift.
So ultimately, Joe's life will serve as a cautionary tale, a guidepost in the context of this discussion. You can do all the good deeds in the world and be considered a good person by many, but deeds will never be enough to guarantee our names will be written in the Book of the Lamb.
«"It does seem silly and stupid -- at the outset."»
That's because it is indeed silly and stupid after careful analysis.
«"But in the end, our works are not what tip the scales as to where we spend our eternity. It is whether or not we make the choice to accept Jesus' gift."»
Oddly enough, the bible itself is not actually clear on the matter.
http://ebonmusings.org/atheism/faithalone.html
«"So ultimately, Joe's life will serve as a cautionary tale, a guidepost in the context of this discussion. "»
You're being very vague, here. I would rather avoid putting words in your mouth, so please explicate: What, exactly, does this mean?
Blue you said,
"And yet he held at arm's length the one relationship that mattered the most.
No one can deny that Joe was a good man, was a loving, kind and compassionate man. But in the end, our works are not what tip the scales as to where we spend our eternity. It is whether or not we make the choice to accept Jesus' gift.
So ultimately, Joe's life will serve as a cautionary tale, a guidepost in the context of this discussion. You can do all the good deeds in the world and be considered a good person by many, but deeds will never be enough to guarantee our names will be written in the Book of the Lamb."
Thanks for reading the obit.
Your response further convinces me that Christianity is superstition which allows certain people to feel superior without any burden of proof.
It is still trite and stupid and silly.
I also find your judgment of Joe insulting.
Thanks.
Owlmirror:
Very good article. It contains some very important discussion points.
The problem with the author's analysis is how he (she?) divided up the issues, as that is what envokes the confusion.
The acceptance of the gift of salvation is the key to determining where we will spend eternity. Works is an issue separate and apart from that. This really should be looked at through one progressive observation rather than in quick snapshots.
Once one is "saved", then there is the specific path he/she will follow -- not necessarily all at once, rather, it generally plays out over the course of one's lifetime. Next, the individual is baptized with the "Living Water". This phrase is obviously a metaphore. What's it mean? The Holy Spirit (see John 7:37-39). Real water in an actual, physical baptism is used as an outward display for the spiritual happenings going on within the individual that we cannot see.
At the end of this progression, works is located. The problem many people have here is they put works at the front of the line, thus giving more emphasis than it is actually due.
Predestination. This part in the author's essay illustrates an either/or scenario: Either we are completely autonomous (from God) and completely in control of everything, or everything is predetermined for us. To which I will answer: What if there was a 3rd option?
bluemongoose
Blue said, I meant SConnor (and other atheists)
Who said I was an atheist?
Making assumptions seems to be the way you process information -- very much like the way you constructed your god-fantasy.
Still waiting for you to address ALL the inconsistencies, contradictions and logical flaws in your assertions............
Waiting..................
and waiting...................
and waiting..............................
--S.
Chuck,
Take a look at what William Craig says here:
"The orthodox Christian need not hold that every sin merits hell or has hell as its consequence, rather hell is the final consequence (and even just punishment) for those who irrevocably refuse to seek and accept God's forgiveness of their sins. By refusing God's forgiveness, they freely separate themselves from God forever. The issue then is whether the necessity of making this fundamental decision is too much to ask of a human being." There's that free will thing again.
Next, (regarding what you've been going through personally) from the book, "Beyond Opinion": We don't experience disillusionment and disappointment at a human level only, but at a spiritual level with God Himself. And the way that this normally is expressed is along these lines: "Look, God, I have been a good person. I have gone to church. I have prayed. I have listened to hours of boring sermons. I have tried to be nice to people, and I've asked for a couple things, but where are you? I have upheld my side of the bargain, God. But you haven't upheld yours." If the criticism is phrased this way, it will always produce the wrong answer...The Latin motto, "do ut des (I give so that you may give) expresses what many people feel about sacrifice and the Christian faith. This conviction often proves to be an ongoing source of disappointment with God for many Christians who feel they have upheld their end of a spiritual bargain but God has failed to uphold His. There are interconnected elements in play here -- namely that obeying a system of divine law makes God indebted to us and that there are good people who do not deserve to experience certain events.
SConnor,
Perhaps now you see the merits of my argument that I cannot possibly answer all of your questions at one time. I am, again, but one individual. And I am fielding a multitude of questions coming from many people. Would you like to take the issues one by one?
Sidenote: Patience is a vitue.
bluemongoose
Incomprehensible suffering. Why do you assume this is God's will? What if the Bible said it wasn't and b/c it wasn't His will, He provided us with an ultimate solution?
This is what I mean.
I already submitted evidence form your so-called objective holy book (above) that it is god's will for the incomprehensible suffering in the world, which is contrary to your assertions.
You chose to ignore the evidence and persist with your fallacious argument.
Are you ignoring it on purpose so you can hold onto your feeble beliefs?
Now address the specifics of my arguments and comments, above.
--S.
Blue,
I reject your premise that Jesus Christ is anything more than a character in a book.
The Craig quote seals it for me. He actually is one of the reasons I am disenchanted with Christianity. It was suggested I investigate his work as a means to finding satisfaction in my faith. I looked and I didn't find satisfaction.
What I found was a comfortable American academic parsing an ancient text to intimate the value of life on imaginary grounds.
I am looking for a faith that works and with that I mean one that shows positive consequential value. The kind of value Joe brought to others. Your over-reliance on Heaven and Hell create imaginary consequences which afford you status you don't earn.
Case in point, speaking of Joe as an object lesson in immorality because he chose to value relationships with fatherless boys over that of a character in a book.
Do you not see how pretentious both Craig's and your ideas are when placed in the context of a real life?
Thanks again for the response and it is not my intent to be argumentative but instead to possibly, with charity, help you see the immoral implications your holy certainty can create.
bluemongoose
Perhaps now you see the merits of my argument that I cannot possibly answer all of your questions at one time. I am, again, but one individual. And I am fielding a multitude of questions coming from many people. Would you like to take the issues one by one?
Excuses, excuses, excuses. You have been jumping around giving answers to the comments that you want to address, while ignoring mine. You've been spending an inordinate amount of time at this site -- time is not an issue.
Sidenote: Patience is a vitue.
What's a vitue? (rhetorical)
Side note: Address the comments in the order they are received.
Which means you have to go back to my comments and address them.
Waiting......................
--S.
Blue,
You assume what I am going through is based on this premise, "Look, God, I have been a good person. I have gone to church. I have prayed. I have listened to hours of boring sermons. I have tried to be nice to people, and I've asked for a couple things, but where are you? I have upheld my side of the bargain, God. But you haven't upheld yours."
I have received everything I ever wanted out of life. I have a beautiful wife, a good job, I live in a nice city and have (had?) a church community that thought I was smart, kind and blessed.
What I could no longer stomach was associating myself with a group of people who aligned themselves against gay marriage, supported a president who invaded a sovreign nation on the advice of a, "higher father", or pretended Intelligent Design was an alternative scientific theory.
I find folks who hold the beliefs you hold both sincere in their belief and immature in their intellect. They fail to assess the world from an ambigious place and never invite doubt into their theology. They have all the answers. Even if the answer is to damn to hell the memory of a good man because that man fails to meet your moral standard of having a relationship with a character in a book.
The Christian life can be comforting and enjoyable but it lacks the courage to honestly look at itself and challenge its most sacred beliefs with evidence.
That is why my faith is leaving me and being replaced with doubt and a desire to build my life on evidence.
All right, SConnor, here we go.
Comment regarding the Qur'an. Can two opposties both exist at the same time? The description of the God of the Bible and Allah of the Qur'an show two completely different inidivudals. Can both be true at the same time? One of those must be wrong. Same w/the other world religions, those with scribed doctrine and without. One must compare, contrst and test claims by all the religions or major worldviews to know which one is correct.
Substantiating that the Bible is indeed God's [written] word. Can you substantiate that it isn't? In a court of law, the one bringing the charges has the burden of proving why they believe nefarious events have gone on.
Objectivity. You talk in circles. Why is it objectivity is only found out of human perceptions? What if I switched your statement around on you? And yet, I've given you evidence for my side. The issue of whether or not you liked it is separate and apart.
Eyes open. It was shown to them through the contrast of the condition of their lives before and after the fall (also through the actions of their children).
W/out equivocation. Or do you mean to your liking. Again, I can give you all the facts in the world. I can't make you like them.
The don't do it "excuse". So does this standard apply to your kids? Even though they may not fully understand a rule, they are still expected to abide by it.
Pool illustration. Except the mom in your scenario doesn't have authority to punish anyone else's kids but her own. You imply God wasn't paying attention or took proper precautions. Not the case, so it doesn't apply here. You also imply God wasn't paying attention or took proper precautions. You sure do like to make leaps and bounds to try to prove your points.
Correct precautions. You're implying that God made a mistake here. Are you saying it was wrong for Him to give us free will?
Exile from the garden was part of the punishment.
"If only..." You again imply the suffering is God's fault. But what if it was humanity's fault?
Continuing to create earthly souls. Are you saying you want God to stop people's free will in having children now? Forced sterilization? Wow! You're all about despotism. I'm glad you're not God.
Knowledge of bad from good. They still had to yeild to the authority even if they didn't totally comprehend it. You're blending lines on issues again. These are separate and apart.
«"The problem with the author's analysis is how he (she?) divided up the issues, as that is what envokes the confusion."»
The problem is that you are ignoring the crucial point that the bible contradicts itself.
«"The acceptance of the gift of salvation is the key to determining where we will spend eternity. Works is an issue separate and apart from that. "»
Says you. Different verses in the bible say otherwise. Other factions of Christianity think that those verses are more important.
«"Next, the individual is baptized with the "Living Water". This phrase is obviously a metaphore."»
Says you. Different verses in the bible say otherwise. Other factions of Christianity think that those verses are more important.
«"Real water in an actual, physical baptism is used as an outward display for the spiritual happenings going on within the individual that we cannot see."»
We can't see them because they are imaginary
«"At the end of this progression, works is located. The problem many people have here is they put works at the front of the line, thus giving more emphasis than it is actually due."»
Says you. Different verses in the bible say otherwise. Other factions of Christianity think that those verses are more important.
«"Predestination. This part in the author's essay illustrates an either/or scenario: Either we are completely autonomous (from God) and completely in control of everything, or everything is predetermined for us. To which I will answer: What if there was a 3rd option?"»
Sorry. Omniscience contradicts free will. Either God knows all, including whether or not we are damned, or God is not omniscient. Pick one.
--------
«"Take a look at what William Craig says here:"»
Never mind William Craig. Where is God? Let God speak for himself.
If God told everyone explicitly and directly that not believing in him would result in damnation, it would mean that God is evil and petty, but it would at least be an explicit rule that we could follow.
When human theologians pretend to speak for God, and make excuses for God, it just makes God look pathetic... and completely imaginary.
«"There are interconnected elements in play here -- namely that obeying a system of divine law makes God indebted to us and that there are good people who do not deserve to experience certain events."»
Acting in good faith means expecting a good faith act in return. It means holding God to the absolute standard that he supposedly holds us to.
God's failure to demonstrate good faith demonstrates an absence of good will.
All right, SConnor, here we go. Comment regarding the Qur'an. Can two......
Holy crap -- these supposed answers are wholly inadequate, lazy, lame, and still diverges from the major tenants of my arguments. See what happens when you simply ignore them and move on? Very sloppy indeed.
Your wishy-washy supposed answers do not in any way address the specifics of the questions and comments I have put forth.
You leave me no alternative but to number my questions and comments specifically so you can address the details of the arguments. You simply skirt the main issues and ALL the specifics regarding your lack of consistency, logic and ignoring whole chunks of my arguments -- this speaks volumes.
I'm going to be relentless in my endeavors so you won't do an end around pretending you have addressed ALL my salient and germane points.
I will be doing your work for you and collecting ALL my points so you can address them one by one without equivocation.
I hope to be done some time late tonight.
--S.
«"The description of the God of the Bible and Allah of the Qur'an show two completely different inidivudals."»
Oh, nonsense. You're just using a double standard. Heck, I bet you've never even read the Quran.
For that matter, the description of God in different parts of the bible show two (or more!) completely different individuals. But Christians insist on saying that it's all one God. Hypocrite.
Did you know that Arab Christians use the word "Allah" to refer to the Christian God? It's just an Arabic word, like "Dios" in Spanish, or "Gott" in German.
«"Can both be true at the same time? One of those must be wrong."»
Or both are wrong!
«"Same w/the other world religions, those with scribed doctrine and without. One must compare, contrst and test claims by all the religions or major worldviews to know which one is correct."»
How? What methods are to be used? Have you in fact done all of the tests for all of the world religions? If so, show all work.
«"Substantiating that the Bible is indeed God's [written] word. Can you substantiate that it isn't?"»
Sure. You claim that the bible comes from omniscient being. An omniscient being would not contradict itself and reality. The bible does contradict itself and reality. Therefore, it is not from an omniscient being. QED.
«"Why is it objectivity is only found out of human perceptions?"»
Because humans are capable of fooling themselves, and each other.
«"And yet, I've given you evidence for my side. The issue of whether or not you liked it is separate and apart."»
It's not a matter of liking it, it's the fact that your so-called "evidence" was nothing of the sort. You offer nothing but fallacious arguments.
«"Eyes open. It was shown to them through the contrast of the condition of their lives before and after the fall (also through the actions of their children)."»
That's ridiculous. They didn't know the condition of their lives after the fall until after the fall!
«"Again, I can give you all the facts in the world."»
You've offered no facts in the world at all. You have nothing.
«"The don't do it "excuse". So does this standard apply to your kids? Even though they may not fully understand a rule, they are still expected to abide by it."»
And if they disobey even in the slightest, you throw them out of the house and never let them back in, and never talk to them again; let them live or die in the street for all you care. Right?
«"You imply God wasn't paying attention or took proper precautions. Not the case, so it doesn't apply here."»
But it is the case. A mom would pull her kids away from the pool. All God had to do was speak up after the snake spoke.
God did not speak up. God either was not paying attention, or did not take proper precautions.
«"You're implying that God made a mistake here. Are you saying it was wrong for Him to give us free will?"»
Either God made a mistake in not giving a better explanation to Adam and Eve, or in not interrupting the snake when he was talking to Eve.
«"You again imply the suffering is God's fault. But what if it was humanity's fault?"»
It's not humanity's fault. Knowledge and power confer responsibility. Humans have limited knowledge and limited power. God has all knowledge and all power; therefore, God has the responsibility. It is indeed God's fault.
«"They still had to yeild to the authority even if they didn't totally comprehend it. You're blending lines on issues again."»
You're separating things which cannot be separated, and blending things that are necessarily separate.
bluemongoose
Here are the questions and comments I want you to address specifically. I elaborated on some points and added new questions to keep you honest.
You claim your holy book is objective.
I challenged your position that your holy book is objective by presenting another holy book (the qur'an) and asked why you consider your holy book objective and the qur'an not objective.
Saying one is right and one is wrong is not an answer.
1. Why is your holy book objective while the qur'an is not?
2. You claim your holy book is objective -- please explain how you know it is objective as opposed to subjective points a view from several differing authors, written by fallible, superstitious men who tried to explain the world around them -- using god's supposed voice -- as their own to give it credibility where there was none to begin with.
3. How do you know the stories are true as opposed to made up myths and legends?
4. The stories were first oral stories told over many years and were later written down -- how do you know these stories were not embellished to push certain agendas of the time?
5. Why is the bible supposedly god's word, while the final revelation from god in the form of the qur'an is not?
blue said, Substantiating that the Bible is indeed God's [written] word. Can you substantiate that it isn't? In a court of law, the one bringing the charges has the burden of proving why they believe nefarious events have gone on.
6. WRONG, WRONG WRONG. My unbelief is the default position to the one (you) making the extraordinary claim. The onus is upon you to verify your unusual claim with solid objective evidence.
If I make the extraordinary statement: an invisible flying dog is living in my garage and it grants me wishes -- the responsibilities lie with me to present evidence of this supposed entity. Can you comprehend how ridiculous it would be for me to claim an invisible flying dog lives in my garage and grants me wishes and I tell you that you can't prove the invisible, flying dog, that grants me wishes, doesn't exist? NOOOOO -- you would think me insane. Can you grasp this?
7. Please provide objective evidence the bible is god's word as opposed to fallible superstitious authors who used god's voice as their own to advance the many agendas in that particular time and culture?
8. You already admitted using circular reasoning but could not defend that reasoning. You do realize making this argument is fallacious: you know god exists and you know what he wants because the bible says so and then you illogically try and support that assertion by saying you know the bible is correct because it was inspired by god.
Basically you are using circular reasoning to say god is and does because god is and does -- you know this is not an argument -- right?
9. Muslims claim to know god by going to the qur'an -- how is this any different in the way you rationalize knowing god and what he wants from us?
10. You admitted ones interpretation of scripture is subjective -- Considering the 34,000 separate christian groups ALL with vast and varying beliefs about how one is saved; ALL claiming their interpretation comes from scripture -- why is your interpretation of scripture credible while other christian interpretations are not valid?
~continued~
11. God allegedly healing your brother:
a. Any objective evidence that your god-concept had anything to do with his healing?
b. Or are you simply attributing the healing to a higher power, without being able to substantiate said claim making a direct connection to god actually intervening -- in other words, aren't you just making an assumption that it was a higher power that healed your brother?
c. Which is like a person with a headache who drinks some water from a cool spring and then miraculously fifteen minutes later her headache is gone and she attributes the miraculous healing to the "miraculous fountain" forgoing other rational explanations like spontaneous remission, or medical interventions (taking aspirin a half an hour before).
Adam and Eve:
12. The bible does say that her eyes were opened after she ate of the fruit -- but please show me in the contexts of the A&E myth where god ever explains -- without equivocation -- that if they did not listen to him, ALL of humanity was to pay with (a sin-condition) causing vile unthinkable suffering?
13. Additionally explain to me how a couple (A&E) who did not have the knowledge of good and bad could possibly know that what they were doing was good or bad?
14. Just because god said, "don't do it" is not a credible excuse because they did not posses the knowledge of bad or good.
15. It would be like a parent (god) telling a five year old (A&E) to stay away from the pool (tree of knowledge). "If you go near the pool you will surely die" But because the toddler does not have the knowledge of bad or good he decides to check out the pool, while the mother is off somewhere not paying attention or taking the proper precautions to keep the child from going into the pool.
16. The child drowns, but when the mother gets back she decides that everyone must pay for the innocent child's mistake and she decides to cause mass suffering by poisoning people with hideous diseases, arson murder mayhem. I agree the mother does not have the right to punish other people by causing them to suffer. You know this is wrong on several levels, but why do you still condone god's atrocious actions -- he is the one who cursed humanity to SUFFER egregiously for something humanity did not do. You can't blame A&E's disobedience for causing evil to take a foothold of the world -- or do they have special powers? Bottom line god is the only one who could have created evil (which I will elaborate further down the post)
17. How do you reconcile the free will argument giving choices to A&E when god learned from his mistake and then took away A&E's choice and posted a guard in front of the tree of life? I guess god won't let them make that choice huh?
18. Wow -- if only god had only posted a guard in front of the tree of knowledge he would have saved billions of his earthly children from egregious suffering that has left so much misery in its wake -- correct?
19. How could A&E make an educated decision without knowing bad from good and without knowing or understanding the severe repercussions of heinous, unimaginable suffering for all of humanity?
20. Please supply objective evidence that the Adam and Eve story is anything but an absurd myth which includes talking snakes, magic and a god who is not omniscient (the god character doesn't know what A&E did nor did he have the foresight to protect the tree of knowledge like he eventually did with the tree of life)?
~continued~
21. Can you please supply objective evidence that a "sin condition" has any reference in reality -- rationalizations and quotes from the bible are inadmissible?
22. Please explain how you know jesus's torturous death magically altered the "sin condition" so that all you have to do is telepathically let jesus know you believe in him and you will be saved -- what physical objective evidence -- if any -- do you have for this unusual claim. (Again, the bible is inadmissible)
23 You claim god does not react harshly and unfairly. According to your supposed objective reading of the bible god most assuredly reacted harshly and unfairly when A&E disobeyed him.
24. They ate fruit from a tree that was forbidden to them, without A&E knowing the full ramifications of their and our subsequent punishments and god goes ape shit.
25. Whatever you call it, "punishment" or "discipline" the consequences were neither compassionate, loving, fair, nor anything resembling constructive instruction from a parent here in the earthly realm. In fact god's action were more akin to an abusive, raging, father, who went nuts, punishing everything around him, including the snake and all snakes after that; he bestowed hatred between Adam and Eve and all their decedents, He multiplied the pain of birth, thus securing the plight for all women, and then, in a fit of misogyny and sexism, he further cursed Eve that, "although, I make you hate your husband and childbirth will be excruciating, you will lust for him and he will rule over you". And then, god, with all divine obtuseness, curses the ground, so that Adam and all males would suffer, with endless hard labor, just to eat.
26. And to add insult to injury this action supposedly let evil take a foothold of our planet causing subsequent generations to suffer in unimaginable vile ways, like innocent children suffering egregiously from incurable diseases, plagues, wars, natural disasters, excruciating full body burns, brain tumors, leukemia, rape, murder, genocide, infanticide, etc. etc. etc............how is this not harsh and unfair?
27. Presumably, christians believe that by disobeying god, it is a sin -- correct?
28. Christians also exclaim sin entered the world after A&E partook of the fruit.
29. If there was no sin before A&E partook of the fruit, then how is god justified in punishing (severe punishment considering the minor infraction; not to mention letting evil take a foothold on humanity, with egregious, vile suffering that punishes ALL of humanity, that had nothing to do with the supposed fall) an innocent couple who were NOT sinful and did NOT know that what the were doing was bad or good, because they did not possess the knowledge, nor did they know the severity of the punishment which was subsequently handed down?
30. Considering the A&E story: How come god never makes it clear that by A&E disobeying him -- sin would enter the world, allowing evil to take a foothold on humanity causing indescribable, hideous suffering? There is no mention of sin in the context of the story. It wasn't until Paul's interpretation of the story did we ever find out that sin entered the world by A&E's disobedience. Why wouldn't god have made it perfectly clear in the context of the A&E story?
~continued~
31. Why would we consider Paul's interpretation valid? When god never made it clear to begin with?
32. Bluemongoose asserts, Again, you assume the God of the Bible invites suffering on His kids ~AND~ Incomprehensible suffering. Why do you assume this is God's will? ~AND~ You again imply the suffering is God's fault.
33. According to your supposed book of objective evidence -- god created everything, including suffering and evil. How do your reconcile these attributes from scripture with the god-concept you piece mealed together to form your idiosyncratic definition of this god-character?
Isa 45:7 I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I the LORD do all these things.
The Hebrew word for evil is [r or Ra' meaning:
adj
bad, evil
bad, disagreeable, malignant
bad, unpleasant, evil (giving pain, unhappiness, misery)
evil, displeasing
bad (of its kind - land, water, etc)
bad (of value)
worse than, worst (comparison)
sad, unhappy
evil (hurtful)
bad, unkind (vicious in disposition)
bad, evil, wicked (ethically)
in general, of persons, of thoughts
deeds, actions n m
evil, distress, misery, injury, calamity
evil, distress, adversity
evil, injury, wrong
evil (ethical) n f
evil, misery, distress, injury
evil, misery, distress
evil, injury, wrong
evil (ethical)
Additionally, in Ecclesiastes 7:14 the Hebrew word for adversity is also [r or Ra'
Ec 7:14 In the day of prosperity be joyful, but in the day of adversity consider: God also hath set the one over against the other, to the end that man should find nothing after him.
Which in plain English means:
When times are good be happy but when times are bad think what it means. God made both to keep us from knowing what will happen next.
And in 2kings and Proverbs the Hebrew word for evil is [r or Ra'
2Ki 6:33 And while he yet talked with them, behold, the messenger came down unto him: and he said, Behold, this evil is of the LORD; what should I wait for the LORD any longer?
He also creates the wicked (the sinners)
Pr 16:4 The LORD hath made all things for himself: yea, even the wicked for the day of evil.
The Hebrew word for wicked is [xr and means:
wicked, criminal
guilty one, one guilty of crime (subst)
wicked (hostile to God)
wicked, guilty of sin (against God or man)
34. The bible view is clear, your supposed all-loving, moral, god creates, misery, calamity, adversity, evil and the wicked people who cause evil; SUFFERING is god's fault -- how do you reconcile this with your god-definition, that it is supposedly not god's will to effectuate incomprehensible suffering?
~continued~
35. Furthermore, using the bible as a supposed objective source for information -- doesn't this quote, below, from scripture, suggest that god "invites suffering on His kids"?
1Sam 15:3 The Lord says, Go and attack the Amalekites! Destroy them and all their possessions. Don't have any pity. Kill their men, women, children, and even their babies.
Many deluded christians have to do mighty back-flips and mental gymnastics in order to condone and salvage their sky-father's vile, sadistic actions by offering bloated rationalizations like the Amalekite children were being sacrificed to false gods, and children living with evil people would be better of dead, blah, blah, blah.
36. So, lets get this straight, an all-loving, god created these children and babies, knowing they would be abused and suffer egregiously, with evil people (which god created according to scripture), some of them being burned alive, in heinous sacrificial offerings, but still chose to put these innocent children and babies in these vile, unimaginable situations anyway?
37. And god's only solution to the problem was to rescind his commandment of thou shall not kill, thereby ordering in a barbaric army of men, to destroy everyone, including, pregnant women and innocent children and babies, showing them no pity, using the primitive weapons of the day -- cutting throats, chopping off heads, plunging swords into bellies, bludgeoning and eviscerating, causing some to suffer for hours or days as they slowly died?
38. Now these same psychotic christians will assert that god gave them life, so he can take it -- BUT why did he have to cause them to SUFFER in egregious unthinkable ways first?
39. Why would an all-loving, god create and send these children into these horrific situations, in the first place?
40. And why would a god -- who could simply wish the universe into existence -- not just simply wave his hand and make these children disappear into his awaiting arms, forgoing all the immense pain and mass suffering?
~continued~
SALVATION
41. How come your all-loving god-concept could "bear to spend eternity" without any of his earthly children who have the gall to perpetrate the most sadistic and heinous sin (massive sarcasm) of NOT BELIEVING in your god-concept -- sentencing those "worthy" children of god to eternal punishment in the flames of hell?
42. Is your cosmic father-in-the-sky so petty and insecure that his poor, precious, little feelings will be hurt if we don't choose him and believe in him -- so much so that he won't let you reside in the bliss of heaven and instead be damned to hell, to be tortured with flames for an eternity?
43. How can you condone a deity that will torture you in the flames of hell for an eternity simply because you didn't believe in him or rejected the bible-god charcter as unsubstantiated nonsense?
44. [parent who sits next to their cancerous child analogy] For the sake of argument (and to make the analogy more accurate) let's say I (god) could have taken the place of my son (humanity) who was suffering as his blood was poisoning him (sin) and again for argument sake (and to make the analogy even more accurate) my son rejected my offer, for whatever reason -- should I -- like your god-concept -- torture my son for the rest of his life for making that free will decision?
45. Wouldn't it be cruel and unusual punishment for me to torture my son because he rejected my offer?
46. Why do you condone and justify god's actions that parallel my analogy (remember god's tortuous punishment is worse because it's for an eternity)?
47. According to blue's beliefs, If you do not believe in god and if you don't accept christ as your lord and savior you will be tortured in the flames of hell for an eternity. This will include the Jews of the Holocaust, who suffered through unspeakable terrors -- there virtual hell on earth -- where families were torn apart, brutally beaten, burned alive, experimented on, starved and worked to death, unimaginable vile, long-term mass, suffering. And what awaits them after they die? According to blue -- it's hell.
48 continued. This hellish existence is also awaiting the Buddhists from the atomic blasts -- their virtual hell on earth -- where if you weren't vaporized, you were burned beyond recognition, charred to the bone and in some cases flower patterns from the fabric of furniture was seared into the skin or you lived the rest of your life rotting away and suffering from radiation poisoning -- epic, horrific destruction and human suffering on a mass scale. According to blue's interpretation of scripture they now reside in hell.
48 continued. According to blue -- everyone who does not ascribe to her idiosyncratic, line of delusional thinking (her interpretation of the message of salvation is infallible -- blue HAS THE ONE AND ONLY TRUTH) and the christian doctrine that pollutes her mailable mind will be spending eternity in hell. The other 70% of the world -- all the other religions and non-believers -- who are not bible believing christians will posthumously reside in hell.
~continued~
48 continued. The reason these people will be tortured, for the rest of eternity, is because they were not born a bible believing christian like blue and they were not persuaded to believe in the preposterous notion that all you have to do to be saved is to telepathically tell jesus you accept him.
48 continued. In fact ALL the other christian groups in the world, who DO NOT believe the way you do; the ones who interpret scripture differently than you do, (which of course they will defend because they'll say its based on scripture) will be tortured in the flames of hell for an eternity
48 continued. The only people who are supposedly saved are the ones who think and believe exactly like blue, which means god's plan for salvation only saves a tiny minority of his earthly children.
48 continued. The number of supposed lost souls -- throughout history -- because fallible human beings are NOT bible-believing, born-again, wrapped in the holy spirit christians (like blue) is staggering.
48 continued. Presumably, god already knew the majority of his earthly children would be destined to be tortured for all of eternity in the flames of hell.
49. Why create them in the first place? The only answer I can come up with is god is a sadistic torturer of souls. What other reason could there be?
50. blue said, Continuing to create earthly souls. Are you saying you want God to stop people's free will in having children now? Forced sterilization? Wow! You're all about despotism. I'm glad you're not God.
Never made that argument -- I want to know why god continues to create souls knowing he is going to send them to this cesspool of a world where they will encounter incomprehensible morbid suffering -- how do you reconcile your god-concept with this? Notice how you diverge from the actual question and turn it into a strawman that doesn't address the specifics of my question. God being god could have an infinite amount of ways to stop creating earthly souls with out infringing on free will. Again, I want to know why god continues to create souls knowing he is going to send them to this cesspool of a world where they will encounter incomprehensible morbid SUFFERING -- how do you reconcile your god-concept with this?
~continued~
51. Explain the logic behind a god who preaches, "Bear with each other and forgive whatever grievances you may have against one another." Colossians 3:13 ~and~ "Forgive not seven times but forgive seventy times seven." -- Matthew 18:21-22 with a god who will torture you for an eternity simply because someone didn't believe in him?
Blue posits, I personally know Yahweh of the Bible. ~AND~ exclaims, I can give you a laundry list of the times He has been active in my life, of when He has worked wonders around me and through me, of when He has protected me, guided me, and communicated with me first-hand. I say all that b/c I want you to understand that I know (not think, believe, or otherwise) what He is capable of.
52. The insane cult leader -- David Koresh -- of the Branch Davidians also made the extraordinary claim that he knew god, spoke to god and that god was working through his life.
53. How are his deranged claims any different then yours?
54. Why should we find his claims invalid, but believe your claims are valid?
55. Also other religions (muslims, hindus, Jews) make the claim god works through them and they know god why are their claims unfounded while yours are steeped in the one and only truth?
56. You are asking us to believe in your preposterous claims, supported on flimsy subjective "proofs", spurious spiritualism, bloated rationalizations, personal testimony and the rantings of a lunatic, who can not substantiate an iota of what you are saying with objective evidence. You would have us take your word for it, that your interpretation of scripture is the one and only truth -- Why should we believe in a deluded fallible christian that makes extraordinary, interpretive claims, she can't substantiate?
--S.
To:sconner,
What's up with the encylopedia of questions? And at 4:30 in the morning? Are you on drugs? :-)
Sconnor,
Great list. I am going to use this towards my own edification.
I admire your intellectual courage.
Peace,
C
SConnor:
First of all, lighten up a little. It's one thing to take our discussions seriously, quite another to fly off the handle. You don't want to be seen as some kind of a zealot, do you? But this is debate. Remember, I am not your enemy.
Comments regarding the Qur'an. Again, I can give you all the answers in the world, but whether or not you like them is an issue that's separate and apart.
Skirting the issues. Or maybe you just don't understand what I'm doing here and how I position my arguments? If you're confused, just ask for clarification.
Ignoring. Again, your perception. Look, I've been engaging in these types of debates for a while now, and you can trust me when I tell you that there are only so many issues that can come up and that they have a tendency to be cyclical, meaning we eventually come back round to the same stuff.
Finally, don't stretch yourself late into the night and throughout the bulk of the weekends on these debates. You have a life outside of this blog and a family that loves and needs you. Don't neglect them over our discussions. I'll be frequenting this blog for a long time, and I don't have any deadlines as far as when I need to stop posting here.
Hello again, Owlmirror.
Yahweh vs. Allah. Main difference (for the sake of brevity): Yahweh is tritheistic; Allah is monotheistic. Yahweh consists of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit while Allah is a singular individual. So, yes, Yahweh's dynamic is three in one.
Yes, I nkow that some Arabic Christians refer to Yahweh as Allah. They would be mistaken. Humans are fallible and like you those individuals had not been taught the monotheistic vs. tritheistic dichotomy.
True at the same time or wrong altogether. This illustrates why we must do our homework. How? Pick up some literature and compare and contrast the merits of each religion/worldview/ideal, etc. so as not to seem brainwashed when we make our arguments. I have, in fact, studied the major world religions. Now, mind you, not all the schisms, as that may not be possible. Showing all my work. As we go through our debates individually, I will give references.
Substantiating. You didn't substantiate anything with your statement. You merely declared your personal perception. You say something is so, but where's your follow-up?
Humans following each other. Your statement here just proved my point. You inadvertently made my argument for me.
"Fallacious arguments: You still provide no proof that this declarative statement is anything but your personal perception.
Contrasting the condition of A&E's lives before and after the fall. Again, you just made my point for me. It was revealed to them after the fall.
"You have nothing." I give you answers rooted in the scribed doctrine you had questions about in the first place. The problem here is that you want these answers to be rooted in humans and human knowledge for their verification. But that just isn't so. Two different dynamics. You can't get blood from a turnip or Spanish words from a French dictionary, can you? Herein lies your dichotomy.
Disobedience. You impy that God never talked w/A&E or provided for them ever again after the fall. Why do you believe that is so?
Precautions. If He spoke up, then He would have been taking away their free will by taking away their opportunity to choose. Then you would have accused Him of only wanting humans to be the equivalent of automations.
Either/or sitation. What if the 3rd option is you just don't understand what was going on in this scenario?
Responsibility. A&E had the responsibility to stay away from one tree in the garden. They didn't need to be unlimited in their thinking if that was the only parameter they had to be concerned about. You just want to be free to chuck the idea that you're ultimately responsible for your actions and where you end up in eternity.
Separating? Really? Follow that up. Merely stating something doesn't make it so.
Blue you said:
"Finally, don't stretch yourself late into the night and throughout the bulk of the weekends on these debates. You have a life outside of this blog and a family that loves and needs you. Don't neglect them over our discussions. I'll be frequenting this blog for a long time, and I don't have any deadlines as far as when I need to stop posting here."
I'd be interested in seeing you answer the questions. It would go a long way in improving your credibility.
Unless you think you can't.
Chuck,
Are you related to sconner? Friend? Fan?
How about one question at a time and not 52 questions. That was way over the top. Talk about a diatribe! OMG!
«"Yahweh is tritheistic; Allah is monotheistic."»
Yahweh is tritheistic? I'm sorry, I was under the impression that you were some sort of Christian, not a polytheist.
Which cult do you actually follow, and can you explain how they get three gods from an exegesis of the bible?
«"Yes, I nkow that some Arabic Christians refer to Yahweh as Allah. They would be mistaken. Humans are fallible and like you those individuals had not been taught the monotheistic vs. tritheistic dichotomy."»
Or... maybe they are actually following one of the more common Christian traditions, and you are just wrong.
Really now, polytheism?
«"Pick up some literature and compare and contrast the merits of each religion/worldview/ideal, etc. so as not to seem brainwashed when we make our arguments. I have, in fact, studied the major world religions."»
You give no metric for how you -- or anyone -- could actually decide which one is actually true.
And to be honest, your knowledge of religion -- even your own -- certainly appears to be painfully superficial.
«"Substantiating. You didn't substantiate anything with your statement. You merely declared your personal perception. You say something is so, but where's your follow-up?"»
You mean, you want the specific contradictions of the bible with itself and reality? There are many. One contradiction with itself is that Genesis 1 has all of the animals created before man and woman; yet Genesis 2 has man created first, then all of the animals, then woman from man. One contradiction with reality is that the bible refers to insects with four legs. You probably don't realize this, but insects actually have six legs.
I could go on.
«"Fallacious arguments: You still provide no proof that this declarative statement is anything but your personal perception."»
I've been pointing out where your arguments fail; too bad you have trouble reading for comprehension. OK. Your fallacies have been specifically special pleading, and arguments from assertion, and probably others as well.
«"Contrasting the condition of A&E's lives before and after the fall. Again, you just made my point for me. It was revealed to them after the fall."»
Excuse me, are you brain-damaged? Are you a crazy person? Are you writing from inside an insane asylum?
How does only experiencing something at a later date, after a choice is made, fully inform someone before the choice is made?
Oh, and your argument is the insane fallacy of asserting that human knowledge works backwards.
«""You have nothing." I give you answers rooted in the scribed doctrine you had questions about in the first place."»
Which equal nothing.
«"The problem here is that you want these answers to be rooted in humans and human knowledge for their verification. But that just isn't so."»
If God were actually real, God could provide answers that human knowledge could verify. Since it isn't so, as you yourself assert, God must be something you just imagine.
«"Two different dynamics."»
Claiming that there are "two different dynamics", whatever that means, certainly looks like the fallacy of special pleading. You have nothing.
«"Disobedience. You impy that God never talked w/A&E or provided for them ever again after the fall. Why do you believe that is so?"»
Because I have read the Bible. He doesn't.
(continued...)
~~ continued ~~
«"Precautions. If He spoke up, then He would have been taking away their free will by taking away their opportunity to choose."»
Nonsense. This is the fallacy of utter absurdity; of non sequitur -- the logic does not follow. God talking does not take away free will; it gives them an informed choice.
If someone says "There's an open hole right in front of you with sharpened stakes smeared with poison at the bottom", does that take away your free will to step into the hole?
«"Either/or sitation. What if the 3rd option is you just don't understand what was going on in this scenario?"»
No. This isn't even an argument.
«"Responsibility. A&E had the responsibility to stay away from one tree in the garden."»
God gave them that responsibility, sure. But God knew they would fail, so God's knowledge makes him responsible too. Since God had more knowledge and more power than Adam and Eve, God is more responsible for their failure.
«"You just want to be free to chuck the idea that you're ultimately responsible for your actions and where you end up in eternity."»
I agree that I am responsible for my actions, because God most likely does not exist.
I am not going to end up anywhere in eternity. I'm going to stop being alive at some point, and eternally after that, I won't exist.
And as I said, if God by some perverse chance exists, then God is indeed responsible for where I end up after death. Knowledge and power confer responsibility. God has all knowledge; God has all power; God has all responsibility. And saying otherwise is the fallacy of special pleading.
«"Separating? Really? Follow that up. Merely stating something doesn't make it so."»
You commit the fallacy of special pleading with regards to God. That's separating God from any kind of absolute standard of logic, reason, or morality.
To: Owlmirror
H20 can be water, ice, or steam. Does that mean it is not MONO? Father, Son, and Holy Spitit is ONE God, not three. There is no polytheism in Christianity, and I think you know that. I think "tritheistic" may have been a poor choice of words, but Christians believe in ONE God who manifests as Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, just as H2O manifests as ice, water, and vapor. 3 forms, not 3 Gods.
«"Father, Son, and Holy Spitit is ONE God, not three."»
You don't need to tell me that. I've read the Nicene Creed.
«"I think "tritheistic" may have been a poor choice of words,"»
Only if "poor" means "absolutely and completely incorrect".
«"but Christians believe in ONE God who manifests as Father, Son, and Holy Spirit"»
Tell it to Bluemongoose.
Although... All that having been said, that whole three-in-one business doesn't make any sense at all, either.
But that's a different argument.
Owlmirror,
I agree that tritheistic is incorrect. Does water, ice, and vapor make sense all being H2O? If I could clone myself and that clone becomes my son, does that make sense? Are we limiting God by our own inabilities and mind limitations?
Owlmirror:
I clarified the tritheistic dynamic. Remember when I said three in one? He is one God, three persons. Recall St. Patrick's illustration with the shamrock. So I was not saying that Christians worship three gods. I'll continue on more with our discussion, but I have to go help SConnor.
Howdy, Sconnor!
Here we go.
As for question #1, you want me to compare and contrast two religious doctrines that you don't even believe in? Ultimately no matter how good my arguments are, you'll default to "Well, I don't believe in those books anyway, so you're wrong because I believe you're wrong."
But anyway, I'll give only a few for the sake of brevity. Here's my answers to 1: Definition of who God is (we can get into those dynamics later, as you only asked for a list), misrepresentation of events in history, Sura structures, basic concepts on how to treat individuals, cast system (yes, there is -- just look at how women are treated today in the Muslim culture).
2: You assume, again, that God cannot protect His holy Word. You believe humans can somehow "pull one over" on God, assuming He's not omnipresent. Thus, you assign human characteristics to Him.
3: Same answer as #2.
4: Same answer as 2 and 3.
5: Reference question 1. Again, see what I'm saying about the cyclical nature of the theist/atheist debates?
6: Wrong? Why, b/c you say so? Again, you sure do like to pass the buck on that responsibility thing. Flying dogs. You imply theism is the equivalent of belief in fairy tales. Again, this is all your perception. So ultimately, if we are operating within this framework, who are you to tell me in your relativistic world that I am wrong?
7: Recall my argument about how you want objectivity to be rooted in humans and their understanding. Also, see question 2.
That's all I can do for you right now. Just be patient. We'll hammer it all out eventually.
richard2
What's up with the encylopedia of questions? And at 4:30 in the morning? Are you on drugs? :-)
Why the hurtful unsubstantiated accusations?
I do not drink or do drugs.
What does my work schedule or the way I spend my time have anything to do with the relevancy of the questions and comments I pose?
--S.
bluemongoose
First of all, lighten up a little. It's one thing to take our discussions seriously, quite another to fly off the handle. You don't want to be seen as some kind of a zealot, do you? But this is debate. Remember, I am not your enemy.
I will not lighten up. You are confusing zealousness with being thorough and detailed. Furthermore this has nothing to do with the questions at hand. Please remain focused and only deal with the questions and comments I posed.
Do you have the wherewithal to refrain from extraneous claptrap that does nothing to advance your position?
I'm mean -- really -- this is just a waste of time and has nothing to do with the relevancy of my questions and comments. Please zero in on the mechanism in your brain that can recognize when you are going off course. Please focus and try real hard to not diverge with extraneous observations and comments -- thank you.
Finally, don't stretch yourself late into the night and throughout the bulk of the weekends on these debates. You have a life outside of this blog and a family that loves and needs you. Don't neglect them over our discussions. I'll be frequenting this blog for a long time, and I don't have any deadlines as far as when I need to stop posting here.
Again the way I use my time has nothing to do with the relevancy of the questions and comments I have posed, nor do you have a right in assuming I am neglecting my family -- that was a hurtful low-blow that has nothing to do with anything.
Skirting the issues.
You regularly do an end around -- not addressing the specifics of the question.
Additionally, you routinely generalize my position (and others) or get it wrong all together and answer the paraphrased question you supplied. This is why I am asking you to confront your beliefs with numbered questions so you won't veer of the path.
Ignoring
You ignored large chunks of my questions and comments. The whole "it's not god's will to cause incomprehensible suffering thing" is a huge example.
Please take the time to address ALL my questions and comments.
--S.
Very quickly again, Owlmirror:
I really have to trim the fat in the Q&A sessions, otherwise we'd never get done. Again, just b/c I don't answer some of your questions doesn't mean they aren't really good questions or that there is no answer for them. I can only highlight a few right now.
You requested a metric formula for weighing worldviews. Here it is:
Every worldview must answer these three questions (think of boats in the water): 1) Why am I out here to begin with (purpose); 2) How do I keep from bumping up against other boats (worldviews); and 3) How do I stay afloat?
God did not abandone A&E. See Genesis 4:1 Eve specifically says the Lord helped her bring forth Cain. Further on in Chapter 4, we see God frequently communicating with Cain, and then Eve references her relationship with God when she speaks of Seth. At the end of 4, we see that men began to call on the name of the Lord, evidencing cont'd relationship. Why do I conclude that? B/c of God gave us the name Yahweh to use when referencing Him b/c He doesn't want us to know Him in some far off conceptual way. We can get into what the name Yahweh means later and why giving someone your personal name shows a sign that you want to be familiar with them.
Supporting tritheism, See Gen. 1:26, and notice how God says, "Let us make man in our image". Also see Gen. 2:22.
«"Does water, ice, and vapor make sense all being H2O?"»
Yes.
«"If I could clone myself and that clone becomes my son, does that make sense?"»
Depending on what you mean by clone, probably yes.
«"Are we limiting God by our own inabilities and mind limitations?"»
If God is completely incomprehensible to humans, then it's up to God to try and make the effort to explain who he is and what he wants from us -- not fallible humans like you, or Paul of Tarsus, even.
«"I clarified the tritheistic dynamic."»
You have only clarified that you don't know how to communicate.
«"Remember when I said three in one? He is one God, three persons. Recall St. Patrick's illustration with the shamrock. So I was not saying that Christians worship three gods."»
Yes, you were. What do you think "tritheism" means? It means "worship of three gods".
If there is one god, then your objection to Islam fails. If there are three gods, you deny one of the basic tenets of foundational Christianity. That doesn't mean you can't be a Christian heretic, but figure out what it is you mean, and stick with that.
----------
«"Again, just b/c I don't answer some of your questions doesn't mean they aren't really good questions or that there is no answer for them."»
It does mean that you've failed to address them, though. I'm afraid I'll have to count them as failures for the Christian worldview. Or at least, for the Christian worldview that you have, which seems to be a really unusual one.
«"You requested a metric formula for weighing worldviews. Here it is:
Every worldview must answer these three questions (think of boats in the water): 1) Why am I out here to begin with (purpose); 2) How do I keep from bumping up against other boats (worldviews); and 3) How do I stay afloat?"»
First of all, I note that you offer no way to determine whether the answers to the questions are in fact true.
Secondly, I note that your rather strained analogy does not make a whole lot of sense. What exactly does "bumping up" mean, and why is it relevant? What do you even mean by "stay afloat"?
Finally, I note that your worldview does not seem to answer the first question in a meaningful way. You do not explain what your purpose is.
Really, you are just terrible at communicating.
«"Eve specifically says the Lord helped her bring forth Cain."»
That's not quite what she says. The sentence is grammatically garbled in the original Hebrew. The word "help" does not actually appear.
«"we see God frequently communicating with Cain"»
Cain is not Adam or Eve. God confronts the murderer and then lets him run free.
And where did Cain's wife come from? Did he have sex with his mother?
«"Eve references her relationship with God when she speaks of Seth."»
No, she doesn't. She says he comes from God, but since all things come from God, that isn't particularly special, or indicative of a relationship.
«"At the end of 4, we see that men began to call on the name of the Lord, evidencing cont'd relationship"»
No, it doesn't. Calling out does not mean that the call is answered. Especially since God drowned every single one of them like rats only a little later on.
«"Supporting tritheism, See Gen. 1:26, and notice how God says, "Let us make man in our image". Also see Gen. 2:22."»
I agree that that is a remnant of the ancient polytheism of the ancient Hebrews who came up with the original stories, but every interpretation since the bible was redacted about 700BCE or so has been monotheistic, not polytheistic.
Really, which Christian heresy do you subscribe to? Are you a Gnostic? Some sort of Mormon? Something else?
bluemongoose
As for question #1, you want me to compare and contrast two religious doctrines that you don't even believe in? Ultimately no matter how good my arguments are, you'll default to "Well, I don't believe in those books anyway, so you're wrong because I believe you're wrong."
A. No, no, no -- it doesn't matter if I don't believe in them anyway. You made the claim your holy book is true and objective -- I want you to substantiate your claim with objective evidence and explain why your holy book is true and objective while the qur'an is not -- do....you.....under......stand?
1: Definition of who God is (we can get into those dynamics later, as you only asked for a list), misrepresentation of events in history, Sura structures, basic concepts on how to treat individuals, cast system (yes, there is -- just look at how women are treated today in the Muslim culture).
B. Whoa -- right out of the gate -- you are way off course. This is your answer for why you consider your holy book objective, while the qur'an is not? Do I really have to point out to you how women are treated as cattle in the bible? Do I really have to give you examples of how christian men throughout history have treated their wives or children because of what they read in the bible? Do I really have to point out how the bible tells us how to treat individuals like beating slaves, whipping children with a stick, stoning children who are rebellious and on and on and on..........
C. Really -- tell the truth have you read the bible completely, cover to cover? Don't bear false witness, jesssssssussss is watching.
2: You assume, again, that God cannot protect His holy Word. You believe humans can somehow "pull one over" on God, assuming He's not omnipresent. Thus, you assign human characteristics to Him.
D. Maybe god can or can't protect his word, but that has nothing to do with you providing objective evince that it is wholly objective opposed to fallible people writing it. For the sake of argument -- god could exist and be omnipresent, omniscient and omnipotent and still had NOTHING to do with the bible.
E. I am waiting for you to offer credible objective evidence that your holy book is objective and was guided by a supreme being as opposed to fallible authors who used god's supposed authority as their own -- can you do that?
3: Same answer as #2.
F. Again you assume god had something to do with the creation of the bible. I want to know how you know it was created by divine hand opposed to fallible people explaining the world around them by constructing myths and legends, by supplying objective evidence.
~continued~
4: Same answer as 2 and 3.
G. So far you are assuming god exists and had his divine hand in the creation of the bible, but have not supplied objective proof that shows it was inspired by god as opposed to fallible men embellishing and making up stories to push agendas. You argument is nothing but conjecture.
5: Reference question 1. Again, see what I'm saying about the cyclical nature of the theist/atheist debates?
Know what I notice, is you are not addressing the question at all!
Now answer the question specifically:
H. Why is the bible supposedly god's word, while the final revelation from god in the form of the qur'an is not?
Do I have to treat you like a eight year old. My daughter knows how to answer questions. You actually use the question in your answer. For example if you were to actually answer the question you might start it of like this: The bible is the word of god because................
~AND~ Which means the qur'an is not the final revelation of god because..................
Can you please answer the questions specifically without evading?
6: Wrong? Why, b/c you say so? Again, you sure do like to pass the buck on that responsibility thing. Flying dogs. You imply theism is the equivalent of belief in fairy tales. Again, this is all your perception. So ultimately, if we are operating within this framework, who are you to tell me in your relativistic world that I am wrong?
I. Are you kidding me? You are the one making the extraordinary claim. ANYONE can make extraordinary claims but until they can prove their extraordinary claim with objective evidence the extraordinary claim can be dismissed as unsubstantiated nonsense. Although my example deals with fairytale imagery it still makes the point that the person who makes the extraordinary claim has the responsibility to substantiate said claim.
J. If you don't like the flying dog example how about a real life example?
K. Scientolgiost believe that aliens called "theatans" have possessed our bodies and they have the only remedy to exercises these aliens.
L. Do you believe this is true? why not? Is it your obligation to disprove their unusual claims or will you automatically take the skeptical default position and not believe them until they supply objective evidence for their unmitigated nonsense?
7: Recall my argument about how you want objectivity to be rooted in humans and their understanding. Also, see question 2.
M. You have failed miserably in supplying objective evidence that shows that your god had anything to do with the creation of the bible as opposed to fallible men writing about the world around them who used god's supposed authority as their own to lend credibility to the agendas they were pushing at the time.
N. Your only recourse is to offer up conjecture. Your whole argument is god is powerful so it was he who inspired the bible and he helped fallible men to write his messages. But how do you know this besides pulling it out of your butt? -- it's nothing but conjecture.
O. Now can you prove with objective evidence that god actually protects his word as opposed to superstitious writings authored by fallible men or will conjecture and assumption be the rule of your argument?
P. Don't move on to the next set of questions until you actually address the specifics of these questions without diverging with mass conjecture.
--S.
bluemongoose
~Afterthought~
Additionally, you are assuming allah didn't protect his word when the qur'an was being written.
Why is this argument not valid, while your argument that god is powerful and he protected his word is valid?
Can you see your argument is completely baseless?
--S.
Richard2,
I am not related to sconner.
I am a fan.
I appreciate his honesty and the intellectual courage he has shown in describing the process he has sought to reconcile the death of his son.
He has shown himself to be intelligent, humble and real.
I like him.
bluemongoose
~more thoughts~
Your refutation for the first set of questions is ALL circular reasoning -- which is fallacious.
How do you know the bible is true? Because god is powerful and he would protect what was written about him. How do you know this? because the bible says so.
Face it blue -- all you got is circular reasoning and conjecture.
Bottom line is you don't really have any knowledge of god that isn't rationalized conjecture and circular reasoning.
You must do better.
--S.
SConnor:
Continuing on. (I'm trying to keep some continuity in your framework here. You can answer my answers, but I won't be able to respond to those.)
8: Just like using human reasoning and human knowledge is not a way to verify human reasoning and human knowledge?
9: I'm not arguing that the Qur'an isn't the best way to understand the dynamics of the Muslim god Allah.
10: This proves my illustration. I was merely showing that b/c of the "34,000 Christian groups" and multitudes of individual interpretations that human perception can't be the system of weights and measures we use to determine validity. Your err in that you believe I used my perception to verify truthfulness.
11: Here we go again w/your objectivity implications. We've already been over this.
12: You make too many leaps here. When He warned them, He didn't need to tell them that it would affect all generations to come. He told them what they would understand at that moment when they two were all of humanity. Remember, they hadn't even had their children yet at that time.
13: They didn't have to fully comprehend it. All they needed to know right then and there was that God said not to do it.
14: So, by this line of thinking, you would give your kids the green light to disobey you b/c they do not fully possess the knowedge of good and bad too; right? Hmm...Some adults still use this as an excuse for their reasoning in bad actions.
Owlmirror:
Clarification. I'll slow it down even more for ya. Tritheism does not equal polytheism. It's referencing the trinity dynamic within Yahweh.
I know what I mean; I can't help that you don't understand it.
Failing to address. Or it means you're impatient and like to throw temper tantrums to distract attention when your arguments go belly up?
Failures. Why are they failures? B/c you say so? That's just your interpretation. When you call my statements unusual, you make my arguments for me with regard to your misunderstanding. But now you're starting to become forthright.
Truth. That's the dynamic within option 3. Truth = validity. If something is valid, then it stays afloat (or relevant).
Strained analogy. That's your skewed perception b/c you didn't understand it, as evidenced by your statement about truth and follow-up questions about the formula.
"Bumping up." When two worldviews collide or when they disagree. Reference my arguments about whether or not 2 opposing views can both be true at the same time.
Purpose. Are you inquiring about ultimate purpose or my purpose at this blog?
I'm terrible at communicating, or you're terrible at comprehending?
Grammatically garbled. Then how can you be sure I'm not right? Check out the NIV.
Communication w/Cain. But we then have to ask why wouldn't God still be talking w/A&E if He was conversating w/Cain? Aren't all humans equal in their humanity, no worse than any other?
Cain's wife was his sister. We don't see laws against incest until later on in the Bible. Eve already had a husband, Adam.
So if God had cut A&E off, don't you think the typical human would be a little embittered by having a relationship so important completely severed by just one infraction? The way Eve speaks of God suggests no bitterness. Since the Bible has no shame in its game regarding its showing people for who they really are, wouldn't it have also noted malice on the part of Eve towards God if this was the case?
"That isn't particularly special." Evidence you don't know how much God values relationships.
Calling out the Lord's name. Why do you give someone your personal name? To invite camaraderie. If God didn't want this, then He would not have given out His personal name.
Redactions. Not so says the comparison of the Dead Sea Scrolls to current Bibles.
My religious affiliation isn't important at the moment, but we'll get there.
«"Tritheism does not equal polytheism."»
Sure it does.
"Tri" means "three".
"Poly" means "many; more than one".
Three is more than one.
Tritheism is polytheism.
«"It's referencing the trinity dynamic within Yahweh."»
The "trinity dynamic" is not called "tritheism" by any mainstream sect of Christianity.
«"I know what I mean; I can't help that you don't understand it."»
You don't know the meaning of the words you use, so you cannot possibly communicate so that I -- or anyone -- can understand.
«"Failing to address. Or it means you're impatient and like to throw temper tantrums to distract attention when your arguments go belly up?"»
Since you cannot communicate coherently, of course you are failing to address anything coherently. Don't blame your failures on me.
«"Failures. Why are they failures? B/c you say so?"»
No, because they violate logic. Don't blame your failures on me.
«"Truth. That's the dynamic within option 3. Truth = validity. If something is valid, then it stays afloat (or relevant)."»
OK. So in other words, since your arguments are not logically valid, your worldview is therefore sunk and irrelevant.
«"Strained analogy. That's your skewed perception b/c you didn't understand it,"»
No, I didn't understand it because you can't communicate clearly.
«""Bumping up." When two worldviews collide or when they disagree."»
So your worldview is sunk because it collides with logic and reality. OK
«"Purpose. Are you inquiring about ultimate purpose or my purpose at this blog?"»
You claimed that a worldview had to explain your purpose. Can't you understand your own words?
«"I'm terrible at communicating, or you're terrible at comprehending?"»
You're terrible at communicating and you're also terrible at comprehending, as evidenced by your failure to understand a reference to your own words.
«"Grammatically garbled. Then how can you be sure I'm not right? Check out the NIV."»
You're wrong because the phrase does not include the word "help" at all. Why would I check out the NIV when I can read the Hebrew?
«"Communication w/Cain"»
Why did God wait to talk to Cain until after Cain commited murder?
«"So if God had cut A&E off, don't you think the typical human would be a little embittered by having a relationship so important completely severed by just one infraction? The way Eve speaks of God suggests no bitterness."»
That depends on your interpretation of what she says. I can see a bitterness in saying that she "purchased" a man from God -- exile and the pain of childbirth that she was cursed with were what she paid; the child was what she received.
«"Evidence you don't know how much God values relationships."»
Evidence that you think God values relationships, when you have no evidence in your favor at all.
«"Calling out the Lord's name. Why do you give someone your personal name? To invite camaraderie. If God didn't want this, then He would not have given out His personal name."»
LOL. I give out my name so people know what to call me.
What were people supposed to call out, if they did not know God's name? "Hey, you! Big guy! The humanity-curser in the sky!"
Not that it matters, anyway. God drowned them all regardless of what they called out.
«"Redactions. Not so says the comparison of the Dead Sea Scrolls to current Bibles."»
What are you talking about? The Dead Sea Scrolls are from long after 700BCE.
«"My religious affiliation isn't important at the moment, but we'll get there."»
Fine, be evasive. I suppose what it is isn't as important as the fact that it is a failure as a worldview.
bluemongoose
Continuing on. (I'm trying to keep some continuity in your framework here. You can answer my answers, but I won't be able to respond to those.)
Why the hell not? There is absolutely NOTHING keeping you from responding to my my rebuttals.
You never answered the first set of questions -- why move on to the next set?
Your supposed answers were fallacious.
Maybe you should brush up on your reasoning skills and learn exactly what logical fallacies are?
Regardless -- why do you think you should move on when the first set of questions weren't adequately (no strike that) were NOT even addressed at all?
As of now ALL you are doing is trying to plow through the questions, while giving little thought to them and as a result ALL you have been able to offer are lazy, fallacious refutations. You then feebly give the excuse you are trying to keep "continuity to the frame work". I call BS on that.
You need to defend your position before you move on. In reality you have not addressed the first set of questions. Quit stalling.
--S.
Owlmirror
«"My religious affiliation isn't important at the moment, but we'll get there."»
Fine, be evasive. I suppose what it is isn't as important as the fact that it is a failure as a worldview.
Puzzling? -- I can only speculate that she is embarrassed.
Why not be forthright with your beliefs?
--S.
bluemongoose
Answering questions for the sake of getting something down is not an acceptable defense. You're offering up lame responses just so you can say you "answered" them.
If you are serious and you want to continue please address the rebuttals from your first set of "answers".
--S.
bluemongoose
8: Just like using human reasoning and human knowledge is not a way to verify human reasoning and human knowledge?
A. I'm getting the distinct impression you're are woefully undereducated. Circular reasoning is human reasoning -- BAD human reasoning and you are employing it.
B. Do you even comprehend the concept of circular reasoning?
C. Furthermore, I am not verifying human reasoning and human knowledge with human reasoning and human knowledge. I am asking you to verify your extraordinary claims that you know what god's will is and how you know it. So far ALL you have delivered is circular reasoning and conjecture.
D. This is why you shouldn't continue littering this site with your supposed "answers" because you have NOT demonstrated the credibility of your supposed knowledge of god. Any of your supposed "answers" that have subsequently followed have no reference in reality and have zero credibility.
9: I'm not arguing that the Qur'an isn't the best way to understand the dynamics of the Muslim god Allah.
E. Once again you evade the specifics of the question. Your inability (outright refusal) to answer the question directly is telling.
F. I know you aren't arguing that. You vomit up this strawman because you can't address the question posed.
G. I asked: how is this any different in the way you rationalize knowing god and what he wants from us?
H. You never addressed how this is different then the way you rationalize god and what he wants from us. Answer the question.
10: This proves my illustration. I was merely showing that b/c of the "34,000 Christian groups" and multitudes of individual interpretations that human perception can't be the system of weights and measures we use to determine validity.
I. Then how in the hell do you know what is valid?
Your err in that you believe I used my perception to verify truthfulness.
J. Oh -- who's perception are you using? god's?
K. What's more, you once again evade the question.
L. I asked: why is your interpretation of scripture credible while other christian interpretations are not valid? You never gave a direct answer.
M. Why all the ambiguity?
Are you positing that you have been bestowed SUPER perception and you have the power to claim the one and only truth?
N. Are you suggesting that your interpretation is infallible?
O. Are you suggesting you use the bible, like all the christians claim?
~continued~
11: Here we go again w/your objectivity implications. We've already been over this.
P. No I'm all over this. You lame responses are steeped in conjecture and circular reasoning, which I suspect you don't comprehend. And true to form, you do not address the specifics of the question. Did you graduate from an accredited university? This is why you shouldn't have moved on just to respond for the sake of responding -- it's pathetic.
12: You make too many leaps here. When He warned them, He didn't need to tell them that it would affect all generations to come.
Q. Agreed -- god never explained the actual ultra-sadistic punishments that he subsequently bestowed on them and humanity. If god were more CLEAR on the repercussions and the ultimate disaster of egregious suffering manifesting itself on humanity -- I would have to conclude -- the innocent couple could have made a more educated decision, but at the time they didn't know that what they were doing was bad, nor as you readily admit -- they didn't know their disobedience was bad enough to incur such vile, unjust wrath.
He told them what they would understand at that moment when they two were all of humanity.
R. Ummmm? That last sentence doesn't make sense. Please clarify.
13: They didn't have to fully comprehend it. All they needed to know right then and there was that God said not to do it.
S. So you agree they didn't know that what they were doing was good or bad -- correct?
14: So, by this line of thinking, you would give your kids the green light to disobey you b/c they do not fully possess the knowedge of good and bad too; right?
T. Absolutely not, but, I -- as an adult -- should recognize when the child is incapable of understanding the repercussions of their actions. And I as a father -- unlike your father in the sky -- would do everything to protect them from harm or harming others. I know that as a father -- unlike your negligent god-concept -- that my child might not understand and just simply telling them not to do something won't necessarily deter them. Nor would I go ape-shit, like your abusive god-character and punish them with excessive horrible pain. Nor would I (or be capable of) inflicting egregious suffering on ALL mankind because my child disobeyed me. This is why your god-character -- in the context of the A&E story -- is a bumbling incompetent, a sick sadistic bastard who is responsible for the hideous suffering in the world.
U. Obviously you did not read number 15 yet.
V. Again I implore you to acknowledge that your defense is ultimately steeped in morbid conjecture and circular reasoning. I'm trying to thrust you to confront this dereliction of reasoning before you continue on. ALL your arguments hinge on this which subsequently renders all your other arguments obsolete -- utterly meaningless.
W. Now you have to address two sets of rebuttals and the first set of questions. You're digging a pit.
X. Go back to the first set of questions.
--S.
Howdy, Sconnor! I trust your weekend was very fulfilling.
Now, on to the debate.
Tsk, tsk. You must calm down. So who died and made you ruler over our debates? I am not your slave and you certainly are not my massa. You don't rule me. Back off. I will answer your questions in a format that is easy for readers to digest: in small increments, not 52 questions at a time. You can throw all the temper tantrums you want, but know this: Each time you cuss and fly off the handle, you are willingly giving me credibility. You give fuel to the angry atheist fire, and reaffirm why I'm glad I'm not an atheist. But by all means, if you really want to, continue on in your tirades. It makes my side look fabulous when you're frothing at the mouth!
15) Also implicit in your statement here is that there are levels of sin, showing how wrapped up in "karma" you really are. But all sin warrants ultimate punishment. Look at it this way: This factor really puts God's gift of wiping our slate clean into perspective and shows how important it really is.
16) You assume Yahweh is not holy, sinless, righteous or the Creator, therefore assuming He has no authority to cast judgment. Again, you assume our suffering is God's fault, not humanity's. Shirking responsibility -- that's some habit you got there. "You can't blame A&E..." Why do you say that? How do you know that for sure with your finite perception? I have scribed records to show this was the case. What do you have, your nay sayers' human opinions? Whether you choose to believe what I bring to the table or not is another story. That seems to be a line you like to blend frequently. "God is the only one who could have created evil." Again, that conveniently absolves you from responsibility for where you spend eternity, doesn't it?
17) God took them out of the garden; He didn't take away their free will. Issues are separate and apart. You are, once again, blending subject lines.
18) Guard posting. Since this was the only restriction God had placed on A&E at the time, then if there was a guard blocking the path to the tree of knowledge, then that would have de facto been taking away their free will to make the choice on their own.
19) All they needed to know at the time was that God said, "Don't do it." It didn't need to be broken down further. Do your children require extensive knowledge of all the repercussions of disobeying you before you expect them to obey you? No, they don't. If by some reason you disagree, then I expect that you've never said, "Because I said so" to your kids before and never let it go when your parents said it to you. Finally, as a parent, you serve as a buffer for your children to protect their innocence. God also was trying to protect A&E's innocence.
20) Objective evidence. We've been over this before. You define objectivity subjectively.
21) Same thing. You're so wrapped up in arguing from the "everything must be verified only through human knowledge and rationalization" that you can't argue from any other angle. You are shackled to it. Let me ask you this: Is science the only way in which we verify the truthfulness of something? If so, then do we use science to verify the truth of the arts, music, love?
22) Because of who Jesus was: the ultimate sacrificce, the Alpha and the Omega laying down His life so that all sin form the beginning to the end of time can be erased. Telepathy. If God is not human and His ways are higher than ours, why do you believe He is limited to our typical human forms of communication?
The Bible is inadmissible. So we are stuck using only reference that the Almighty SConnor deems are appropriate, right? Wow! You do fancy yourself God's replacement.
«"But all sin warrants ultimate punishment."»
Why? Is God so unjust? Is God simply cruel? Or is God so harsh because he is simply insane?
«"Look at it this way: This factor really puts God's gift of wiping our slate clean into perspective and shows how important it really is."»
Not really. Not unless you buy into God being unjust, cruel, and/or insane.
«"Again, you assume our suffering is God's fault, not humanity's."»
But it is ultimately God's fault -- a conclusion, not an assumption. One assumption is that knowledge and power confer responsibility. Another assumption is that God has the ultimate knowledge and the ultimate power. The conclusion is that God has the ultimate responsibility.
But you can't reject the conclusion unless you reject one of the assumptions. You can't reject the first one without also absolving Adam and Eve. And you can't reject the second without making God somewhat weak, and somewhat ignorant.
«""You can't blame A&E..." Why do you say that? How do you know that for sure with your finite perception?"»
I do know, even with my finite perception, that knowledge and power confer responsibility. So someone who has more knowledge than I do, and more power than I do -- someone like God, say -- has more responsibility than I do.
God has all responsibility.
«""God is the only one who could have created evil." Again, that conveniently absolves you from responsibility for where you spend eternity, doesn't it?"»
But God is not only responsible for creating evil, God is also responsible for where I spend eternity.
«"God took them out of the garden; He didn't take away their free will."»
They never had free will. Omniscience contradicts free will. Either God does not know everything, or Adam and Eve had no real choice over their actions.
«"All they needed to know at the time was that God said, "Don't do it." It didn't need to be broken down further."»
That passive verb "need" undermines your point. God deliberately withheld information. Adam and Eve had less knowledge, and were therefore less responsible.
«"Do your children require extensive knowledge of all the repercussions of disobeying you before you expect them to obey you?"»
Do you give your children arbitrary commands, and kick them out into the street permanently if they disobey?
«"Finally, as a parent, you serve as a buffer for your children to protect their innocence. God also was trying to protect A&E's innocence."»
If they were innocent, then it follows that God is guilty.
It also makes no sense to say that God was "trying" to do anything. An omniscient and omnipotent being does not "try", because "try" implies uncertainty as to the outcome. God knew what would happen. God was responsible. God was guilty.
«"Is science the only way in which we verify the truthfulness of something?"»
We can verify statements that are not empirically verifiable by examining their adherence to logic, and looking at the very least for lack of contradiction. Your statements about God are fallacious and contradictory. Therefore, the God that you describe is definitely false.
«"Because of who Jesus was: the ultimate sacrificce, the Alpha and the Omega laying down His life"»
He didn't "lay down his life", because according to Trinitarian theology, Jesus came back to life, and knew beforehand that he would come back to life and go to heaven.
«"so that all sin form the beginning to the end of time can be erased."»
If God is truly omnipotent, then God could have "erased" sin immediately after it occurred. So if Trinitarian theology is true, God is not omnipotent, or God is lazy, or God is insane.
Howdy, Sconnor!
Continuing on...
23) I know, it seems unfair. But what if this is just a reflection of how serious sin really is even, though its weight has been watered down in human minds over time?
24) Soap box comment from you. I've previously answered it.
25) This is all your perspective. Teenagers don't think their parents are being fair when imposing a curfew.
26) Illustrates how serious sin is, doesn't it?
27) Yep. Sin is anything that separates us from Yahweh.
28) Out of that one event.
29) Again, this shows how seroius sin is versus our watered down perception of it over time. This illustrates why karma is ineffective.
30) We're told right in Genesis what the ramifications were. See how your human perception skews truth?
Owlmirror:
Geeze, you must have very little respect for what you believe. Why? If what you claim to believe is as noble as you say it is, then why are you reduced to such an ignoble way of defending it?
So, if what you believe is as noble as you claim it to be, why don't you use a method that is in keeping with that noble belief so that you are trying to persuade people, not just yell and scream at them? If I yell and scream at you, shout obscenities, call names in an effort to try to win you to my side and shake my fist at you, would you be pursuaded?
All I'm saying to you is, you may have a different belief than somebody out there. Why don't you find a method that regains the dignity of what you believe so that we can intelligently interact?
«"Why? If what you claim to believe is as noble as you say it is, then why are you reduced to such an ignoble way of defending it?"»
You've really gotten lost and confused, haven't you? Your worldview has struck logic and reason and is sunk and irrelevant, so you are reduced to whining -- about what, I am not exactly certain. Too bad.
You have nothing.
«"If I yell and scream at you, shout obscenities, call names in an effort to try to win you to my side and shake my fist at you, would you be pursuaded?"»
Of course not. But I have not yelled or screamed at you, nor shouted any obscenities, or called you any names. I certainly have not shaken my fist at you.
Perhaps you are persuaded by my arguments, but you have no idea how to cope with logic and reason? Perhaps logic and reason hurts your mind and makes you feel bad, and you think that since you feel bad, I must have insulted you?
How sad for you, to be so confused.
«"Why don't you find a method that regains the dignity of what you believe so that we can intelligently interact?"»
It certainly looks like you have lost all dignity, and are not capable of intelligent interaction. Oh, well.
Shall we simply agree that you are wrong, and have no idea how to cope with your now irrelevant worldview?
bluemongoose
Tsk, tsk. You must calm down.
Spare us your condescending blatherskite.
So who died and made you ruler over our debates? I am not your slave and you certainly are not my massa. You don't rule me. Back off. I will answer your questions in a format that is easy for readers to digest: in small increments, not 52 questions at a time.
I know your head is lodged firmly in your arse making it difficult for you to understand the most basic of requests but -- just to be clear -- I completely acknowledge that I am not the ruler of the roost. I was NOT requesting you to answer all 52 questions at a time, like you posit -- I was requesting you to return to the first set of questions because you just responded for the sake of responding without really addressing the questions.
Again, you must provide objective evidence that your holy book is god's word and that it conveys his will, without using circular reasoning and stunted rationalizations. So far you have failed miserably in this task and ALL your subsequent "answers" are rendered untenable.
Additionally, you acknowledged that you were trying to keep to the framework I initiated. You said: (I'm trying to keep some continuity in your framework here.)
Obviously, this was just a rationalized ploy, on your part, so as NOT to go back and ACTUALLY address the first set of questions, while you lazily plowed on. If it is my framework and you want to abide by my framework then go back and address my concerns from the first set of questions.
You can throw all the temper tantrums you want, but know this: Each time you cuss and fly off the handle, you are willingly giving me credibility. You give fuel to the angry atheist fire, and reaffirm why I'm glad I'm not an atheist. But by all means, if you really want to, continue on in your tirades. It makes my side look fabulous when you're frothing at the mouth!
Even, IF every atheist, unbeliever and skeptic in the world was a fucking belligerent -- frothing-at-the-mouth -- mother-F-er, it still does NOT make your imaginary god-character or your delusional claims anymore credible. More bullshit diverging tactics and extraneous claptrap -- on your part -- that does NOTHING to further your lame arguments.
You should also know -- I am NOT an atheist. I have a belief in an afterlife and maintain there could be some sort of ultimate reality but unlike you I do not psychotically profess it to be truth, nor do I wallow in massive delusional -- using god's supposed voice as my own -- making unsubstantiated, interpretive claims about god's will and character.
Furthermore (considering your virgin ears) my use of profanity is just another spice in my stew. What's more, even if I laced my questions, arguments and and rebuttals with a tapestry of vulgarities, using profane verbiage every other word -- it would not abolish the relevancy of my arguments. If you don't like it -- F-off. You know where the proverbial door is; don't let it hit you in the arse on the way out.
Now, on to the debate.
Hardly. I have asked questions and you have given feeble responses, evading the specifics of said questions, that does NOTHING to answer them and then you flounder about regurgitating more assumptions about my character that has zero to do with the relevancy of my questions and counter-arguments. You got NOTHING but an imaginary god constructed out of ignorance, and wishful thinking, that only resides in the confines of your delusional mind.
--S.
bluemongoose
15) Also implicit in your statement here is that there are levels of sin, showing how wrapped up in "karma" you really are. But all sin warrants ultimate punishment. Look at it this way: This factor really puts God's gift of wiping our slate clean into perspective and shows how important it really is.
A. Again you completely diverge from the argument at hand and you show you are thoroughly incapable of addressing the specifics and logic in the analogy, that relates directly to the A&E story. You have NOT defended -- in the least -- how a couple who did not posses the knowledge of bad and good could be responsible for their actions, especially with regard to my germane analogy.
16) You assume Yahweh is not holy, sinless, righteous or the Creator, therefore assuming He has no authority to cast judgment.
B. I'm not assuming anything. You are the one who constructed this god-character based solely on assumption and your idiosyncratic interpretations of scripture, which you have failed to verify as god's character, god's will or god's word.
Again, you assume our suffering is God's fault, not humanity's.
C. Not assuming anything. I contend we do not have any credible knowledge of god's will or character. I contend I do not posses ANY credible information about god and YOU don't either.
Shirking responsibility -- that's some habit you got there. "You can't blame A&E..." Why do you say that?
D. Because I am specifically analyzing the context of the A&E story. Contextually, they were innocent, fallible human beings who did NOT possess the knowledge of good and bad. If they did NOT possess the the knowledge of good and bad -- how the hell could they possibly know what they were doing was good or bad and how could they possibly know that by their actions they were to unleash evil upon humanity? How could they possibly know that evil -- they -- supposedly unleashed was bad? I am specifically attacking the logical inconsistencies in the context of the A&E story, which you are incapable of defending. Not once have you tackled the illogical inconsistencies in the context of the A&E story.
How do you know that for sure with your finite perception?
E. Hahahahahahahahaha, ha, ha, ha. Using your asinine logic ALL arguments are rendered obsolete (including yours) because we only have a finite perception.
F. Ironically I agree -- we do only have a finite perception. This is one reason why your truth claims about god's character and god's will are NOT credible.
G. If there is a god then IT should be far above us at least in equaling the magnitude of the universe. If there is a god IT would have to be something that we can't even begin to imagine.
H. And NO one (including the "truthsayer" blue) has any credible knowledge of god's supposed attributes. This is why I find your ridiculous interpretive claims about god's character and god's will so patently asinine.
I. There very well could be some sort of ultimate reality (a god for lack of a better word) but this ultimate reality has not revealed himself to us and I have yet to see any objective evidence of this god's existence. In any case, if such a being existed -- THE CREATOR OF THE INFINITE UNIVERSE -- I would contend our understanding or definition or claims of it's will would be wholly inferior. That is why religion and christianity in particular come up so short. Their definition; there construct of god mirrors humanity with all it's faults.
I have scribed records to show this was the case.
J. Curious?, I have scribed records from the qur'an and stories recorded by scribes that depict another god/man, Hercules -- therefore they're ALL true too. Again, do yourself a favor and take care to comprehend fallacious arguments.
~continued~
What do you have, your nay sayers' human opinions? Whether you choose to believe what I bring to the table or not is another story. That seems to be a line you like to blend frequently. "God is the only one who could have created evil." Again, that conveniently absolves you from responsibility for where you spend eternity, doesn't it?
K. I'm not making the assertion god is the one who created evil. Remember -- I don't believe in your delusional god-construct. Do try and comprehend this vital distinction.
For clarification:
[According to your holy book, which contradicts your assertions]Bottom line god is the only one who could have created evil (which I will elaborate further down the post)
Do....you.....understand?
L. Where you are getting confused is: I'm pointing out the logical inconsistencies in your holy book. Your holy book contradicts your assertion that it was NOT god's fault that there is evil in the world, both in the context of the A&E story as well as other bible verses.
m. Again your argument is circular. You contend to know god's character and will because it is in the bible -- the bible is true because it is god's word (that's circular reasoning). I contend I do NOT know shit about god and neither do you.
~continued~
17) God took them out of the garden; He didn't take away their free will. Issues are separate and apart. You are, once again, blending subject lines.
N. Your argument was god gave them free will so he couldn't place a guard in front of the tree of knowledge. My argument attacks the illogical incosisticy in your argument: If god can't usurp free will by placing a guard in front of the tree of knowledge then why can he usurp free will by placing a guard in front of the tree of life?
o. You can NOT defend your position because I have established that god does indeed usurp free will by placing a guard in front of the tree of life.
18) Guard posting. Since this was the only restriction God had placed on A&E at the time, then if there was a guard blocking the path to the tree of knowledge, then that would have de facto been taking away their free will to make the choice on their own.
p. Just like god did subsequently for the tree of life. You can't have it both ways. Either god grants free will or he doesn't -- which is it?
19) All they needed to know at the time was that God said, "Don't do it." It didn't need to be broken down further. Do your children require extensive knowledge of all the repercussions of disobeying you before you expect them to obey you?
Q. Well actually, It would be a good idea for my children to be educated as to why their actions would be harmful. Again, you move on without addressing the specifics of my analogies in questions:15 and 16. I regularly (as in one example) let my daughter watch a show called Intervention. There she can see the devastating effects of drug addiction on the mind, body and on the family. Will it stop her from doing drugs? I can't say, but at least it armed her with enough information that would allow her to make an educated decision -- unlike your abusive, neglectful god-concept from the context of the A&E story.
No, they don't. If by some reason you disagree, then I expect that you've never said, "Because I said so" to your
R. Actually I am having a difficult time recollecting a time I used the lazy parent excuse of "I told you so". In any case if I did employ that tactic it would not have been used for something that would have put their life at risk let alone bring egregious suffering to ALL mankind. I would try to arm them with enough information so they could make educated decisions so as to not harm themselves or others (unlike your incompetent god-concept) and if my children were incapable of understanding the information that could help them make an educated decision then I -- as a responsible adult -- would protect them from harm as much as a fallible parent could (unlike your inept god-concept).
~continued~
20) Objective evidence. We've been over this before. You define objectivity subjectively.
S. Right! So you can NOT supply objective evidence that the Adam and Eve story is anything but an absurd myth which includes talking snakes, magic and a god who is not omniscient (the god character doesn't know what A&E did nor did he have the foresight to protect the tree of knowledge like he eventually did with the tree of life)?
21) Same thing. You're so wrapped up in arguing from the "everything must be verified only through human knowledge and rationalization" that you can't argue from any other angle. You are shackled to it. Let me ask you this: Is science the only way in which we verify the truthfulness of something? If so, then do we use science to verify the truth of the arts, music, love?
T. More bloated rationalizations, because you can NOT verify your extraordinary interpretive claims about god's will and his character.
U. Again your line of rationalized and fallacious arguing can also be used to prove Allah's will and character.
V. If science can't be used to verify the truth of the arts, music or love then -- why of course -- Allah's character and will is true. Can you comprehend how ridiculous and fallacious your arguments are?
W. It is abundantly apparent you can NOT offer ANY objective evidence fro a sin condition having any reference in reality aside from spurious interpretive claims you acquire from scripture that can NOT be objectively verified as god's word out side your circular reasoning and constant diverging rationalizations (science, love, music, arts).
~continued~
22) Because of who Jesus was: the ultimate sacrifice, the Alpha and the Omega laying down His life so that all sin form the beginning to the end of time can be erased. Telepathy. If God is not human and His ways are higher than ours, why do you believe He is limited to our typical human forms of communication?
X. I'm asking for objective evidence. Again you failed in this regard. In fact you fail in even comprehending how you are using circular reasoning to defend your absurd beliefs. Blue's asinine reasoning: I know jesus laid down his life because it is in the bible; the bible is true because it's god's/jesus' word. You got nothing but convoluted bullsh*t.
Y. Furthermore this god-concept that you constructed could -- very well -- obtain mind transmissions telepathically. I'm not arguing that. For the sake of argument -- yes, yes -- almighty god (the imaginary god you constructed) CAN receive telepathic transmissions from our human minds. But what I want from you is objective evidence for such an occurrence as opposed to you simply granting god that particular attribute -- can you do that?
The Bible is inadmissible. So we are stuck using only reference that the Almighty SConnor deems are appropriate, right? Wow! You do fancy yourself God's replacement.
Z. Yes -- the bible is inadmissible because ALL you can do is steep yourself in circular reasoning, while using it. Can you give me any real-life objective evidence for ANY of your delusional claims that shows ANY reference in reality?
Za. Also, just to be clear, I know I am a fallible human being, but unlike you I acknowledge I do not have any credible knowledge of god's character or god's will, which you -- while using god's supposed voice as your own, acquired from your interpretation of scripture -- claim as the almighty truth.
Believe those who are seeking the truth. Doubt those who find it. -- Andre Gide
--S.
bluemongoose
23) I know, it seems unfair. But what if this is just a reflection of how serious sin really is even, though its weight has been watered down in human minds over time?
You see, the way this works is: you make a claim that god doesn't react harshly or unfairly. I demonstrate -- using the contexts of the A&E story -- that your assessment is wrong, by showing you how harsh and unfair god was. Not only did he curse A&E but he also cursed ALL of humanity. Now you must show me how god was not being harsh and unfair to punish ALL of humanity for what an ignorant (un-sinful) couple perpetrated (without the knowledge of good and bad). Good luck with that.
24) Soap box comment from you. I've previously answered it.
You haven't answered shit. You have not demonstrated -- in the contexts of the A&E story -- where god explained the ramifications he subsequently handed down.
25) This is all your perspective. Teenagers don't think their parents are being fair when imposing a curfew.
False analogy. What a lazy, most pitiful argument.
Teenagers and the rest of humanity would think the parents were not being fair if they caused their children to egregiously suffer, by physically abusing them (like your god-concept did to A&E) for a minor infraction like breaking curfew or eating the forbidden fruit. Let alone letting evil take a foothold of humanity where all of god's earthly children can egregiously suffer.
26) Illustrates how serious sin is, doesn't it?
Uh -- no it doesn't. Nor does your response address the specifics of the question.
How do you justify your god-concept, who curses his earthly children with egregious suffering, unimaginable vile suffering, like innocent children suffering egregiously from incurable diseases, plagues, wars, natural disasters, excruciating full body burns, brain tumors, leukemia, rape, murder, genocide, infanticide, etc. etc. etc because A&E disobeyed him? This absolutely illustrates how serious human maladies are -- but ANSWER the question -- how is this not harsh and unfair?
~continued~
27) Yep. Sin is anything that separates us from Yahweh.
28) Out of that one event.
29) Again, this shows how seroius sin is versus our watered down perception of it over time. This illustrates why karma is ineffective.
You circumvented the specifics of the question again.
I'm not arguing if sin is serious or not; nor am I arguing about karma -- that's your BS strawman.
I want to know (from the context of the A&E story) how god is justified at delivering a
severe punishment for what was a minor (not sinful) infraction; not to mention letting evil take a foothold on humanity, with egregious, vile suffering that punishes ALL of humanity, when A&E were NOT SINFUL and did not possess the knowledge that what they were doing was good or bad? Can you answer this or will you continue to diverge?
30) We're told right in Genesis what the ramifications were. See how your human perception skews truth?
Show me, in the context of the A&E story, where god tells A&E ALL the ramifications would be if they disobeyed, including punishing the snake and all snakes after that; bestowing hatred between Adam and Eve and all their decedents, multiplying the pain of birth, thus securing the plight for all women, and then, cursing Eve that, "although, I make you hate your husband and childbirth will be excruciating, you will lust for him and he will rule over you". And cursing the ground, so that Adam and all males would suffer, with endless hard labor, just to eat. Go on; show me where god described these ramifications before A&E disobeyed.
Waiting......................
Additionally, show me where god, before A&E disobeyed, told them the ramifications of their disobediance would allow evil take a foothold of our planet causing subsequent generations to suffer in unthinkable, vile ways.
Waiting..............
This is getting increasingly tiresome.
I've invited you to confront the lack of logic and inconsistencies in your responses but it is abundantly clear you are not taking this seriously. All you have done is haphazardly replied with trite responses just to save face or you wallow in circular reasoning. And you inevitably ignore the specifics of my arguments by incessantly diverging to protect your insane beliefs.
To everyone here at DC -- this is why religion flourishes. Either you're a complacent christian where you don't question the religion or it is when a christian abandons ALL critical thinking skills and the voice of reason, where they willingly, choose to ignore and bury logic, steeping themselves in ignorance, so they can believe, in the unreal.
With blue it is the latter. I just do not know if she is subconsciously being ignorant to evade the specifics of the questions or if she is doing it on purpose. In either case using circular reasoning, bloated rationalization and/or dripping trite responses for the sake of responding is not an honest exploration for ones truth claims.
Man, once surrendering his reason, has no remaining guard against absurdities the most monstrous, and like a ship without rudder, is the spot of every wind. With such persons, gullibility, which they call faith, takes the helm from the hand of reason and the mind becomes a wreck.
-- Thomas Jefferson
--S.
sconnor,
nice quote to the end the volley!
I'm glad you're here.
Lee
Thanks -- glad to be of service.
--S.
Post a Comment