Religion and Ethics Forum
Religion and Ethics Discussion => Theism and Atheism => Topic started by: Walt Zingmatilder on August 23, 2024, 08:16:36 AM
-
Unsubtle piece of shitstirring, Timely political protest?, piece of passive aggression or atheist comedians "feeling a bit funny"?
https://youtu.be/-8wvKL8jDa4?si=fD6IzDpvLGWFStqk
-
Yawn.
-
Blatant abuse of authority in the service of Christian Nationalism, nine years ago, punished by the courts. I'm curious as to what your point is, here, this one seems to be pretty much by the book?
O.
-
Blatant abuse of authority in the service of Christian Nationalism, nine years ago, punished by the courts. I'm curious as to what your point is, here, this one seems to be pretty much by the book?
O.
Yes,surprisingly, I can enjoy such a one who now represents a Christian Nationalism getting owned partly through his lack of wit.
On the other hand, what is the problem with a nativity scene at Christmas?What does it particularly have to do with Christian nationalism? If those who put up the removed cultural display were making a point about religious display in a public place they could have used legal means to do so without parodying a familiar cultural image.
It seems to me that parodying someone’s culture is to attack that whole culture while advancing the notion that your own is superior.
Imo It’s not a million miles away from the antitheist painting”Jesus paints his nails”. In the end though.It seemed passive aggressive and an exercise of the horses laugh fallacy.
So if you wanted to get the governor. You could have got him without the display.
Anything beyond that is mocking parody.
-
Yes,surprisingly, I can enjoy such a one who now represents a Christian Nationalism getting owned partly through his lack of wit.
On the other hand, what is the problem with a nativity scene at Christmas?What does it particularly have to do with Christian nationalism? If those who put up the removed cultural display were making a point about religious display in a public place they could have used legal means to do so without parodying a familiar cultural image.
It seems to me that parodying someone’s culture is to attack that whole culture while advancing the notion that your own is superior.
Imo It’s not a million miles away from the antitheist painting”Jesus paints his nails”. In the end though.It seemed passive aggressive and an exercise of the horses laugh fallacy.
So if you wanted to get the governor. You could have got him without the display.
Anything beyond that is mocking parody.
How could they have got him by legal means other than this? It's only because he was provoked that this happened.
-
How could they have got him by legal means other than this? It's only because he was provoked that this happened.
Eh?
-
Eh?
You said 'they could have used legal means to do so without parodying a familiar cultural image' - how?
-
You said 'they could have used legal means to do so without parodying a familiar cultural image' - how?
By placing a non parodying cultural image of your own.
Eg a double helix with an atheist sign. Or If you have an issue with the governor, parody the governor.
-
By placing a non parodying cultural image of your own.
Eg a double helix with an atheist sign. Or If you have an issue with the governor, parody the governor.
And would he have reacted the same way?
-
And would he have reacted the same way?
Yes, I think so.
The governor was ruled against fairly and squarely but when Metha says "What's mocking about this?", he insults intelligences.
-
Yes, I think so.
The governor was ruled against fairly and squarely but when Metha says "What's mocking about this?", he insults intelligences.
That he was ruled against says nothing about him reacting by pursuing it so that a ruling was necessary.
As to whether it's mocking or not, who cares. You seem to want to reduce the freedom of expression just as much ad the governor but where he resorts to law, you want people to self censor because you don't want mocked.
-
That he was ruled against says nothing about him reacting by pursuing it so that a ruling was necessary.
As to whether it's mocking or not, who cares. You seem to want to reduce the freedom of expression just as much ad the governor but where he resorts to law, you want people to self censor because you don't want mocked.
Mock away. Mehta obviously felt the need to deny it was mockery. Let's not pretend it's all that virtuous though or that it isn't horses laugh fallacy.
-
Mock away. Mehta obviously felt the need to deny it was mockery. Let's not pretend it's all that virtuous though or that it isn't horses laugh fallacy.
And again so what if it is mocking? I have no idea what you think is fallacious in this context. I doubt your suggestion would have lead the governor to react quite so obviously against the constitution in his attempt to impose a blasphemy position, and I don't see why you raising mocking and suggesting it shouldn't happen is any more than a difference of degree from his position.
-
The 1st amendment allows Americans (and visitors) to mock whoever they want. It's protected by law. People can choose to be offended or not. Governors have no place trying to restrict their 1st amendment rights.
Just for context, I'm a UK citizen and still think mocking is totally acceptible as long as it doesn't insight violence.
-
On the other hand, what is the problem with a nativity scene at Christmas?
Nobody had any issues with a nativity scene at Christmas. The legal case is nothing to do with a nativity, it's to do with a secular alternative put up in addition to a nativity scene, and the response to it.
What does it particularly have to do with Christian nationalism?
You mean the bit where a Christian Nationalist in authority elected to personally intervene in a sanctioned display to eject the non-Christian display he didn't personally like, but to retain the Christian display that he did? You need the Christian Nationalism implications of that explaining?
If those who put up the removed cultural display were making a point about religious display in a public place they could have used legal means to do so without parodying a familiar cultural image.
They did use legal means, that's why they won the case. Parody is, get this, entirely legal in the US (and many other places), even when it's religion that's being parodied. It's almost like free speech, or the government not favouring one religious viewpoint over another or something.
It seems to me that parodying someone’s culture is to attack that whole culture while advancing the notion that your own is superior.
Feeling targetted, much. It probably felt to them that having overt support for Christian symbology whilst being deprived their right to celebrate how they choose was an attack on their culture, from someone depicting that theirs ws superior. Putting your display alongside someone else's is claiming equal ground, not suppressing them.
As for the parody element, what's being parodied do you think? Christianity, or the performative weaponisation of it by the US religious right?
Imo It’s not a million miles away from the antitheist painting”Jesus paints his nails”.
Who had 'antitheism' on their Vlad bingo? Come on, someone must be there by now...
In the end though.It seemed passive aggressive and an exercise of the horses laugh fallacy.
So you really didn't understand the point, then. Here's a hint - it's not mocking the Nativity, or the profundity of the season for the devout.
So if you wanted to get the governor. You could have got him without the display.
But they didn't want to 'get the governor'. They wanted to be allowed the same freedoms as anyone else, to live in a country where -as per its foundational document - they are equals. But they suspected they would not be treated as such, and gave the Governor enough rope to hang himself. They didn't get the governor, they got the governor to get himself.
Anything beyond that is mocking parody.
It must be so terrible to be (checks notes) subject to a humorous display. Where's the proper mockery, like being told you're equal but being denied bodily autonomy, or marriage rights, or having your local area gerrymandered to disenfranchise your vote...
Suck it up, buttercup.
O.
-
It must be so terrible to be (checks notes) subject to a humorous display. Where's the proper mockery, like being told you're equal but being denied bodily autonomy, or marriage rights, or having your local area gerrymandered to disenfranchise your vote...
Suck it up, buttercup.
O.
This
-
The 1st amendment allows Americans (and visitors) to mock whoever they want. It's protected by law. People can choose to be offended or not. Governors have no place trying to restrict their 1st amendment rights.
Just for context, I'm a UK citizen and still think mocking is totally acceptible as long as it doesn't insight violence.
I know all that. But just because you are mocking doesn't preclude you being an anti religious bigot or a non religious shitstirrer and as for it being terrifically funny.....
-
I know all that. But just because you are mocking doesn't preclude you being an anti religious bigot or a non religious shitstirrer and as for it being terrifically funny.....
Nor does it mean you are a bigot, or a shitstirrer, or not funny.
-
I know all that. But just because you are mocking doesn't preclude you being an anti religious bigot or a non religious shitstirrer and as for it being terrifically funny.....
Thinking you are being mocked or believing that they are being anti religeous etc is a choice.
-
Is this whole thread an attempt by Vlad to pretend Christians are still being persecuted in the Western World?
It seems to me that, if the governor hadn’t objected to the atheist display, nobody would ever have heard of it. It’s not like the Christian nativity isn’t stitched together from stolen Jewish literature.
-
Is this whole thread an attempt by Vlad to pretend Christians are still being persecuted in the Western World?
It seems to me that, if the governor hadn’t objected to the atheist display, nobody would ever have heard of it. It’s not like the Christian nativity isn’t stitched together from stolen Jewish literature.
I don't think it's that. Vlad thinks the governor was wrong, but he doesn't seem to like the 'mockery' because that's naughty or something.
-
Also reported by that guy...
https://youtu.be/88VsSRVSKDQ?si=-5DQsLTaxWV-ZIMM
😂
-
Also reported by that guy...
https://youtu.be/88VsSRVSKDQ?si=-5DQsLTaxWV-ZIMM
😂
As I have said before, mock away.
I think the difference between the case of the secular nativity and Satan is, why dedicate your efforts to a figure who is the personification of evil? IMO chucking that in the face of Christians comes at best from a very puerile and angry place in the psyche.
Yes Christians are mocked but I would say that the proper concern of Christians should not be that they are mocked but that the mockers are spiritually endangered particularly going nuclear with Satanism.
As for the principle about not caring whether people are mocked, I'm pretty sure I could test that idea to destruction as far as this forum is concerned, in a matter of seconds.
-
As I have said before, mock away.
Permission not requested, but thanks anyway.
I think the difference between the case of the secular nativity and Satan is, why dedicate your efforts to a figure who is the personification of evil?
That's just pro-Yahweh propoganda. Satan is a figure supporting independence, free-thought and individualism. That Christianity depicts that as evil says more about Christianity than it does about Satan.
IMO chucking that in the face of Christians comes at best from a very puerile and angry place in the psyche.
And reserving special places in the public sphere for one cult of one denomination of religin isn't 'chucking it in the face' of everyone else?
Yes Christians are mocked but I would say that the proper concern of Christians should not be that they are mocked but that the mockers are spiritually endangered particularly going nuclear with Satanism.
Excellent. I heartily agree. Then maybe they can keep their beaks out of sexuality, drug policy, reproductive rights and the rest of the practicalities of life that they bring their superstitious nonsense into, right?
O.
As for the principle about not caring whether people are mocked, I'm pretty sure I could test that idea to destruction as far as this forum is concerned, in a matter of seconds.
[/quote]
-
That's just pro-Yahweh propoganda. Satan is a figure supporting independence, free-thought and individualism. That Christianity depicts that as evil says more about Christianity than it does about Satan.
With all due respect (none), that's probably the most egregious piece of you know what polishing to have appeared on this forum.
I fear for your spiritual welfare.
-
With all due respect (none), that's probably the most egregious piece of you know what polishing to have appeared on this forum.
I fear for your spiritual welfare.
The serpent in the Garden of Eden was instrumental in giving Adam and Even knowledge of good and evil and helping them to escape eternal slavery in God's garden. Christians (and Jews tbf) have spun that as evil. But only Christians identify the serpent as Satan.
-
As for the principle about not caring whether people are mocked, I'm pretty sure I could test that idea to destruction as far as this forum is concerned, in a matter of seconds.
Open mike, on you go!
-
Open mike, on you go!
He's feeling s bit funny...
-
The serpent in the Garden of Eden was instrumental in giving Adam and Even knowledge of good and evil and helping them to escape eternal slavery in God's garden.
Sounds like some kind of cosmic Brexit argument Christians (and Jews tbf) have spun that as evil. But only Christians identify the serpent as Satan.
But the point of reading the bible is to get to the intended meaning and that is that Satan is the enemy of God and man. I don't know therefore from whence you derive yourSatan as liberator thesis is from.
I have heard the argument that the eating of the fruit somehow enhanced intelligence leading to technological advance but that ignores the moral element of the story or equates technological development with good.
-
Sounds like some kind of cosmic Brexit argument
Then you need to get your hearing tested.
But the point of reading the bible is to get to the intended meaning and that is that Satan is the enemy of God and man.
Intended by Christians but not by the writers of the OT stories in which Satan features (The Fall is not one of them).
I don't know therefore from whence you derive yourSatan as liberator thesis is from.
I don't have a "satan as liberator" thesis. Where on Earth did you get that idea from?
And just to be completely clear, because I know comprehension is hard for you, I said "the serpent in the Garden of Eden was instrumental..."
I have emphasised one particular word, and you'll notice it is not "Satan". Satan is not the Serpent. The idea that he is is just Christian wankery.
-
Then you need to get your hearing tested.Intended by Christians but not by the writers of the OT stories in which Satan features (The Fall is not one of them).I don't have a "satan as liberator" thesis. Where on Earth did you get that idea from?
And just to be completely clear, because I know comprehension is hard for you, I said "the serpent in the Garden of Eden was instrumental..."
I have emphasised one particular word, and you'll notice it is not "Satan". Satan is not the Serpent. The idea that he is is just Christian wankery.
The Bible is the word of man but it is also the word of God so God's intent is also important.
I thought you were trying to sugar your obvious "sympathy for the devil here but aren't so sure now but any confusion or ambiguity about Satan's character here , is yours.
-
The Bible is the word of man but it is also the word of God so God's intent is also important.
The Christian god is a fiction, so it's not his word.
I thought you were trying to sugar your obvious "sympathy for the devil here but aren't so sure now but any confusion or ambiguity about Satan's character here , is yours.
No. It's yours and all modern Christians. The Christian version of Satan is not supported by what the Bible says. And if the Bible is God's intent, then you need to take the plain reading, unless you believe God is some sort of tosser who likes to conceal important information.
-
With all due respect (none), that's probably the most egregious piece of you know what polishing to have appeared on this forum.
How many people does Satan kill in scripture? Torture? How many genocides does he call for? How many Pharoahs' hearts does he harden? How many times does he demonstrable lie? How many times does he, quite correctly, ascribe traits like jealousy to himself.
Why is he the villain, again?
I fear for your spiritual welfare.
Of all the possible things in heaven and Earth to fear, I put 'spiritual welfare' on the same shelf as 'being tricked by a Leprechaun', but thanks for the concern nonetheless. I'll take it in the 'spirit' it was meant...
O.
-
The Christian god is a fiction, so it's not his word.
Positive assertion. You know what you have to do.
No. It's yours and all modern Christians. The Christian version of Satan is not supported by what the Bible says. And if the Bible is God's intent, then you need to take the plain reading, unless you believe God is some sort of tosser who likes to conceal important information.
Modern Christianity has a greater number of adherents who don’t believe in Satan as an entity or personification and those who believe like the type of atheistic satanist you allude to that he is a metaphor or symbolic.
In terms of plain reading and plain meaning aren’t you actually talking biblical literalism here?
We know it often isn’t useful eliminating the possible use of story, metaphor or symbolism otherwise we end up with caricature.
Not sure about plain reading without study, discussion and consultation. We bring our biases to things after all. What for instance qualifies as a plain reading of say special relativity. In other words it’s possible to read something and still not get the meaning.
Rather than the important information in the bible being hidden I would say it’s resented...rather than hidden
-
How many people does Satan kill in scripture? Torture? How many genocides does he call for? How many Pharoahs' hearts does he harden? How many times does he demonstrable lie? How many times does he, quite correctly, ascribe traits like jealousy to himself.
We know that evil is associated with several deaths and we know Satan is present leading up to the crucifixion.
Why is he the villain, again?
I don’t think Satan is portrayed in the bible as God's arch nemesis but the preternatural enemy of man
Of all the possible things in heaven and Earth to fear, I put 'spiritual welfare' on the same shelf as 'being tricked by a Leprechaun',
That I’m afraid is down to a categorical error on your part.
O.
[/quote]
-
We know that evil is associated with several deaths and we know Satan is present leading up to the crucifixion.
Is this evil associated with the deaths of:
- Everyone on Earth except Noah, Mrs Noah, Ham, Spam, Jaffa-cake and their wives?
- The occupants of Sodom and Gomorrah?
- Onan?
- The firstborn children in Egypt who didn't have the right picture hung up in the hall?
- Aaron's son for "the wrong kind of fire"?
- That guy picking sticks up on a Saturday?
- The couple of thousand people who complained about the killings?
- The citizens of Jericho?
The list goes on. Deaths attributable to Satan - 10. Job's three daughters and seven sons... and who sent him to do it?
'We' don't know anything of the sort about evil. Evil is a word we put against activities that we see as antithetical to the underlying social mores with which we were raised (much as how I'm railing against these deaths portrayed in the Bible) - evil is not an independent force, or some manifestation that 'infects' people, it's a characterisation of people's choices and actions. That's why Satan needs to be redeemed, because the entire point of Satan - or, at least, the serpent, which is typically considered to be Satan - is that Satan gives the power to humanity, he makes humanity responsible for their own choices in a garden where God tries to keep them ignorant/innocent and under control.
I don’t think Satan is portrayed in the bible as God's arch nemesis but the preternatural enemy of man
Well it would be pointless to try to come up with a Nemesis for an all-powerful, all-knowing deity, look at the trouble they have coming up with Superman villains. He is portrayed as the enemy of mankind, yes, but the point is that this characterisation doesn't really stand up to scrutiny very well. Satan sets humanity free of its shackles, if you choose to look at it from his point of view, having thrown off his own constraints before.
That I’m afraid is down to a categorical error on your part.
Given the absolute lack of any validating evidence for either of them, how can there be categorical errors in the absence of categories?
O.
-
Is this evil associated with the deaths of:
- Everyone on Earth except Noah, Mrs Noah, Ham, Spam, Jaffa-cake and their wives?
- The occupants of Sodom and Gomorrah?
- Onan?
- The firstborn children in Egypt who didn't have the right picture hung up in the hall?
- Aaron's son for "the wrong kind of fire"?
- That guy picking sticks up on a Saturday?
- The couple of thousand people who complained about the killings?
- The citizens of Jericho?
Flagrant whataboutery... I think you’ll find also that everybody NOT mentioned in these categories died. The question then reduces to why death? Of course the Bible makes it clear that death is not the end but spiritual state is important.The list goes on. Deaths attributable to Satan - 10. Job's three daughters and seven sons... and who sent him to do it?
I don’t think we can draw any picture that Satan is God’s faithful servant awaiting his Generals orders here. It is the spiritual damage and temptations which are destructive.
Secondly, your interpretation puts Satan in the same category as the supposedly genocidal Israelite armies of the OT and yet you are positive towards Satan giving him almost Cosmic importance as a liberator vis
'We' don't know anything of the sort about evil. Evil is a word we put against activities that we see as antithetical to the underlying social mores with which we were raised (much as how I'm railing against these deaths portrayed in the Bible) - evil is not an independent force, or some manifestation that 'infects' people, it's a characterisation of people's choices and actions. That's why Satan needs to be redeemed, because the entire point of Satan - or, at least, the serpent, which is typically considered to be Satan - is that Satan gives the power to humanity, he makes humanity responsible for their own choices in a garden where God tries to keep them ignorant/innocent and under control.
Here you are prepared to exonerate the murderer Satan for supposedly some great service... wasn’t it God who laid out the choice. Isn’t it God who makes people responsible for their choices? According to you God can’t grant free will but Satan does?????
-
Flagrant whataboutery...
Pointing out God's body-count against Satan's is 'whataboutery'? I hope you don't called for Jury Service!
I think you’ll find also that everybody NOT mentioned in these categories died.
Right... murder and genocide are fine, because everyone dies anyway. Good to know that Satan is the embodiment of evil, because one could get confused reading that.
The question then reduces to why death? Of course the Bible makes it clear that death is not the end but spiritual state is important.
No, it doesn't 'make it clear', it claims it on the basis of 'don't ask questions, this is holy, and if you mess with holy we kill you, because god loves you'.
I don’t think we can draw any picture that Satan is God’s faithful servant awaiting his Generals orders here.
Not by the end, no, it's a story of rebellion against tyrannical authoritarianism, but that rebellion is a third act thing. You need to build up to it, the hero has to fall before he can pick himself up.
It is the spiritual damage and temptations which are destructive.
And that's different from the Leprechaun's gold how, exactly?
Secondly, your interpretation puts Satan in the same category as the supposedly genocidal Israelite armies of the OT and yet you are positive towards Satan giving him almost Cosmic importance as a liberator visHere you are prepared to exonerate the murderer Satan for supposedly some great service... wasn’t it God who laid out the choice. Isn’t it God who makes people responsible for their choices? According to you God can’t grant free will but Satan does?????
Do I get to avoid that question by dropping the 'whataboutery' horseshit bomb? God is supposed to be good, following his orders is supposed to be good. Satan grows, Satan changes, and realises that following these rules is not 'good' or even 'evil', it's abrogating responsibility for decisions on good and evil to someone else (God, in this case) and being part and parcel of their decisions with no agency. Satan frees himself, and then frees us.
O.
-
Positive assertion. You know what you have to do.
The concept of a god that makes a rule that "the wages of sin are death" and makes it impossible to forgive people without transforming himself into a human and exploiting a loophole in his own rule to die but then come alive again is an incoherent concept.
Modern Christianity has a greater number of adherents who don’t believe in Satan as an entity or personification and those who believe like the type of atheistic satanist you allude to that he is a metaphor or symbolic.
Do you count yourself in that group? If so, why are we even having this argument?
In terms of plain reading and plain meaning aren’t you actually talking biblical literalism here?
A plain reading just means the meaning is what the words on the page convey. It doesn't mean the story has to be true.
Not sure about plain reading without study, discussion and consultation. We bring our biases to things after all. What for instance qualifies as a plain reading of say special relativity. In other words it’s possible to read something and still not get the meaning.
It should be possible to understand "God's word" without needing study and discussion and consultation. What you are saying here is that, if the Bible is God's word, he is shit at communication.
-
The concept of a god that makes a rule that "the wages of sin are death" and makes it impossible to forgive people without transforming himself into a human and exploiting a loophole in his own rule to die but then come alive again is an incoherent concept.
Again, another positive assertion. I look forward to your justification. As well as forgiveness, this has imo to be a universe which works on consequences and of course there is God’s interest in justice and restitution. Your idea that sin has no lasting consequences on the sinner and your idea that you can just say, you are forgiven imo bypasses the notion of justice since what you propose is indistinguishable from turning a blind eye Do you count yourself in that group?
Not exactly, nor do I consider Satan to be God’s nemesis. I believe there are manifestations of antitheism andI antichristianity That go beyond what might be termed normal and beyond standard ego interest and that can only be couched in a personal agent. I can sympathise with those who might view evil and the devil as a kind of spiritual force or metaphor but praising it, calling it a positive thing is a different thing altogether. It should be possible to understand "God's word" without needing study and discussion and consultation. What you are saying here is that, if the Bible is God's word, he is shit at communication.
The essential thing, our need for forgiveness and God’s forgiving are perfectly clear... and resented. But that doesn’t mean it doesn’t need God, discussion, study and external knowledge and internal attitude to approach other parts.
-
Again, another positive assertion. I look forward to your justification. As well as forgiveness, this has imo to be a universe which works on consequences and of course there is God’s interest in justice and restitution. Your idea that sin has no lasting consequences on the sinner and your idea that you can just say, you are forgiven imo bypasses the notion of justice since what you propose is indistinguishable from turning a blind eye
I can't see that anybody has suggested what comes after the "Your idea..." in your post, so it appears that the Vlad strawman factory is back up to full production.
It is barking mad for a God to make it impossible for people not to 'sin', then condemn them for doing so, and then uses a bizarre and equally unjust loophole so it can make itself human, get itself tortured to death, doesn't stay dead, but nevertheless somehow this twisted sadomasochistic nonsense makes it possible for people to be forgiven for being how God had made them, without any consequences for them, but only if they believe all this insane nonsense.
That people insist on trying to justify this insanity is testament to how faith can destroy reasoning, and even a sense of justice.
The essential thing, our need for forgiveness and God’s forgiving are perfectly clear... and resented.
But this isn't true either. When I first read the bible all the way through, I was struck not by this message, or any other, for that matter, but by how disjointed, incoherent, and contradictory it was. And no, that wasn't what I expected. I was young and naive enough to expect to see the clear Christian message.
-
Right... murder and genocide are fine, because everyone dies anyway.
I’m merely pointing out that in your scheme of things, God murders everyone...So it is really down to you to explain why you seem to be specially pleading certain instances.
Not by the end, no, it's a story of rebellion against tyrannical authoritarianism,
No it isn’t...or to put it another way, you need to explain where the tyranny is and why devotion, adherence, admiration and worship of Satan is not tyrannical.
O.
[/quote]
-
I can't see that anybody has suggested what comes after the "Your idea..." in your post, so it appears that the Vlad strawman factory is back up to full production.
But then you haven’t had the conversations Jeremy and I have had
It is barking mad for a God to make it impossible for people not to 'sin',
So you admit that people do sin?then condemn them for doing so,
That’s only half true though since God forgives also. The Bible gives two instances when people didn’t sin or were bound by it’s consequences namely the first humans and the life of Jesus Christ. Christ pays the price of your sin and takes the consequences of it restoring the open way to God which is ours to take or refuse.
-
But then you haven’t had the conversations Jeremy and I have had
I looked through this conversation, and didn't find the suggestion. Can point me to it, if I missed it?
So you admit that people do sin?
It's not a word I would use, hence the scare quotes. People clearly do things that are morally wrong, but, according to the bible, so does God.
That’s only half true though since God forgives also.
I dealt with the insanity of how your brutal, cruel, unjust, and twisted God goes about forgiving people, and it doesn't negate the fact that we are "created sick and commanded to be well".
Christ pays the price of your sin and takes the consequences of it restoring the open way to God which is ours to take or refuse.
And since when has a senseless substitute human pseudo-sacrifice (hed didn't stay dead) been remotely just or fair, let alone for simply forgiving us for being the way God made us in the first place?
You worship a monster.
-
It's not a word I would use, hence the scare quotes. People clearly do things that are morally wrong, but, according to the bible, so does God.
Interesting that you find these words scary.
I dealt with the insanity of how your brutal, cruel, unjust, and twisted God goes about forgiving people, and it doesn't negate the fact that we are "created sick and commanded to be well".
Unjust means either the penalties are too high or too low or that no actual wrong is committed.
You’ve already agreed that people do do wrong so there is no question of innocence.
Not imposing a penalty is therefore unjust so you are left with the necessity for a penalty.
Either the wrongdoer pays or the costs are absorbed by whoever has been wronged and justice demands those costs are paid in full otherwise injustice remains. I think such injustice is part of any alternative to Jesus self sacrifice you could offer
And since when has a senseless substitute human pseudo-sacrifice (hed didn't stay dead) been remotely just or fair, let alone for simply forgiving us for being the way God made us in the first place?
As has been demonstrate justice comes when the costs of wrong doing are satisfied. The sense of that is demonstrated. Anything else is indistinguishable from turning a blind eye to wrong doing.
-
Interesting that you find these words scary.
(https://i.imgur.com/POlXATR.jpeg) Look it up: scare quotes (https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/scare-quotes).
Unjust means either the penalties are too high or too low or that no actual wrong is committed.
You’ve already agreed that people do do wrong so there is no question of innocence.
Not imposing a penalty is therefore unjust so you are left with the necessity for a penalty.
The actual injustice here is that we are being held to a standard that it is impossible for us to live up to. If we are all 'sinners', then that's a design flaw or the standard for 'sin' has been set too high for humans to live up to.
As has been demonstrate justice comes when the costs of wrong doing are satisfied. The sense of that is demonstrated.
There is zero sense, and zero justice in God turning itself into a human, getting itself tortured to death, then only saying dead for three days, off back up to heaven, and then, as if by magic, we can be forgiven, but only if we believe this absurd nonsense.
It is totally fucking insane!
-
Again, another positive assertion.
Agreed and true.
I look forward to your justification.
It's utterly bonkers.
How can you posit a god that makes a rule that any sin needs too be paid for with death and yet is relaxed enough to say that it could be one death to cover all the sins but the one death is a cheat and that's somehow good enough?
It's obvious nonsense on its face and you would just laugh at it were it to come from any religion but your own.
As well as forgiveness, this has imo to be a universe which works on consequences and of course there is God’s interest in justice and restitution.
He has no interest in justice and restitution. Otherwise you wouldn't be able to get away with your sins just by turning to Christ.
Your idea that sin has no lasting consequences on the sinner
No. That's a Christian idea.
It doesn't make any sense whatever and so is obviously made up.
-
I’m merely pointing out that in your scheme of things, God murders everyone...So it is really down to you to explain why you seem to be specially pleading certain instances.
People dying at the end of their life - even if that lifespan is determined by natural laws instituted by God, is not the same as actively being massacred as a child. If I have to explain that, we're really going to struggle with getting a coherent sense of morality from you.
No it isn’t...or to put it another way, you need to explain where the tyranny is and why devotion, adherence, admiration and worship of Satan is not tyrannical.
The tyranny is in the 'love me or suffer for eternity' bit. The tyranny is in the 'you weren't born in the right tribe, so your infant death is not just acceptable but required'. The tyranny is in the arbitrary nature of the 'moral' precepts and proscriptions - slavery is acceptable, murder is wrong (until God decides arbitrarily that it's not murder, just killing, then it's fine), but homosexuality, bad haircuts and certain agricultural choices are unforgivable breaches of protocol, and let's not even get started on the seafood (prior to the Roman Empire, of course, when suddenly paella's absolutely fucking peachy - but still none of the same-sex friends stuff).
Why is devotion, admiration and worship of Satan not tyrannical - but it's not a requirement. Satan is demanding it for survival, it's not mandated that you should suffer if you don't. The tyrant bit of the tyranny is missing. Satan offers choice, freedom. God offers a tarnished golden shackle.
O.
O.
[/quote]
-
(https://i.imgur.com/POlXATR.jpeg) Look it up: scare quotes (https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/scare-quotes).
So someone else is telling you these are scary
The actual injustice here is that we are being held to a standard that it is impossible for us to live up to. If we are all 'sinners', then that's a design flaw or the standard for 'sin' has been set too high for humans to live up to.
Humans aren’t designed to break faith and trust with God They chose to do it themselves. The result constitutes Sin as in alienation from God. Specific sins or wrong doings are the symptoms of that choice. The job of Christ is to counteract that disseminated alienation from God so that people can and do live lives unalienated from God.
There is zero sense, and zero justice in God turning itself into a human, getting itself tortured to death, then only saying dead for three days, off back up to heaven, and then, as if by magic, we can be forgiven, but only if we believe this absurd nonsense.
That’s just plain nonsense Stranger. The Christian belief is that all will be ressurected. That we will all just be temporarily dead before being raised to judgment. Having no penalty for wrong doing or insufficient penalty or consequence constitutes zero justice.
-
Humans aren’t designed to break faith and trust with God They chose to do it themselves.
Either the tendency was inherited from Adam, if you follow that line of thinking (in which case it's possibly Adam and Eve's fault, but we've just inherited it, you don't blame or punish people for their inherited traits). Or we were designed with this tendency - but if we're all sinners, the eight billion of us alive at the moment and the hundred or so billion that came before us, save one special case, then that's not 'choice', that's a deliberate design choice or a cataclysmic design flaw.
The result constitutes Sin as in alienation from God.
According to whom? That's your take, there's plenty of Christians out there who are ready to explain that the wages of sin are eternal damnation, lakes of fire and an overseer with a pointy stick.
Specific sins or wrong doings are the symptoms of that choice.
Like being gay? Like eating shellfish? Like having poly-blend shirts? Like not honouring abusive parents? But not slave-owning. Not rape. Not killing, if God wants that person dead. Why are we worrying about arbitrary rules like sin when the whole 'knowledge of good and evil' thing is that we have a sense of morality?
The job of Christ is to counteract that disseminated alienation from God so that people can and do live lives unalienated from God.
Why? Why is blood sacrifice necessary? Why is Jesus death temporary inconvenience on the cross necessary? How does Jesus dying somehow make me less culpable? In what way is this not a magic spell? If Jesus' has done this already, why do I need to give a shit now, my 'sins' have already been forgiven, I can have all the square haircuts I want.
That’s just plain nonsense Stranger. The Christian belief is that all will be ressurected.
What's nonsense is the idea that there is 'A' Christian belief. There are Christians who believe that we'll all be resurrected, Christians that believe some will and some won't, some that believer there will be 4000 or so saved and the rest get a really long barbecue.
That we will all just be temporarily dead before being raised to judgment. Having no penalty for wrong doing or insufficient penalty or consequence constitutes zero justice.
Having no choice on participation constitutes zero justice. Being condemned by nature constitutes no justice. Having arbitrary rules with no consistent relationship to morality constitutes no justice. Having no say in the lawmaking process constitutes zero justice. We've already been judged, we're all already sinners, we're saved not by deeds or words but by the grace of God, right? That's 'THE' Christian belief.
O.
-
So someone else is telling you these are scary
Not for the first time, I wonder if English is your first language.
Humans aren’t designed to break faith and trust with God They chose to do it themselves.
I did no such thing. I've never seen any reason to think there is a God to break faith with. If you're referring to 'original sin', then that is just the same as designing subsequent generations to be 'sinners'. No moral difference.
Specific sins or wrong doings are the symptoms of that choice.
The choice that I, and countless others, never made.
The job of Christ is to counteract that disseminated alienation from God so that people can and do live lives unalienated from God.
Except that it doesn't even work, does it? Despite the moral obscenity of substitute blood sacrifice and the pretend death of Jesus, Christians don't magically stop being human and never 'sin' again.
Having no penalty for wrong doing or insufficient penalty or consequence constitutes zero justice.
But there are no consequences in your fairytale. Not if we believe that the nonsense sadomasochistic antics of your monster God have actually made a difference. It appears that the only people who face consequences are those of us who aren't absurdly overcredulous.
-
How can you posit a god that makes a rule that any sin needs too be paid for with death and yet is relaxed enough to say that it could be one death to cover all the sins but the one death is a cheat and that's somehow good enough?
I’m not sure relationships follow the type of arithmetic you seem to be employing. If a mother has three children for instance, in your scheme of things. Each child only has a third of it’s mother’s love. Such application of maths is preposterous. She may love them all equally or love none of them. Your formulas are therefore not safe IMV.
Since Jesus states that there is no greater love than self sacrifice I don’t think we can possibly divvy up that love using simple maths. Similarly since sin is dimensionless can we safely assert that a person can only take on One other persons sin?
Each sin is a breach of trust and alienation from God whether it’s one sin or several.
-
I did no such thing. I've never seen any reason to think there is a God to break faith with. If you're referring to 'original sin', then that is just the same as designing subsequent generations to be 'sinners'. No moral difference.
But you’ve already acknowledged that humans do moral wrong, that human innocence is not a thing.
Now, If you believe that some will get away with it and that you can get away with it doesn’t that favour a moral approach where not getting caught is paramount since that moral landscape is the most real to you? What on earth is it that keeps you believing in justice. What is your benchmark?
The choice that I, and countless others, never made.
That could be fence squatting, God dodging or antitheism. Celebrity atheist Alex zo’connor is fond of mentioning the legions who wouldn’t follow God even if they knew he existed.
As an agnostic you don’t have the luxury of the impossibility of God.....If you are agnostic.
-
But you’ve already acknowledged that humans do moral wrong, that human innocence is not a thing.
Humans are not perfect. The moral problem is that your God expects perfection from its imperfect creation. Whether that's due to 'original sin' or not, doesn't matter, it's still stupid, cruel, and unjust.
Now, If you believe that some will get away with it and that you can get away with it doesn’t that favour a moral approach where not getting caught is paramount since that moral landscape is the most real to you? What on earth is it that keeps you believing in justice. What is your benchmark?
What are you going on about now? According to your fairytale, all we have to do to get away with anything, is believe in your insane immoral, unjust God, and it's absurd substitute blood pseudo-sacrifice.
Piss easy if you're world-class at suspending disbelief, not so easy if you value morality and logic.
That could be fence squatting, God dodging or antitheism.
Now you've just taken what I said out of its context to go off into one of your favourite fantasies.
Celebrity atheist Alex zo’connor is fond of mentioning the legions who wouldn’t follow God even if they knew he existed.
Given how bloodthirsty and immoral it would be if all this was true, I'd be one of them, for this version of God.
As an agnostic you don’t have the luxury of the impossibility of God.....If you are agnostic.
Some versions of God are impossible simply because they are self-contradictory. You describe your God as good and just, and yet you believe the "Jesus died for our sins" bollocks. Those claims contradict each other.
-
Humans aren’t designed to break faith and trust with God They chose to do it themselves.
Yes they are. If God designed them and they chose to break faith and trust in him, he must have designed that feature - unless you are saying he screwed the design up.
-
Your formulas are therefore not safe IMV.
They are not my formulas, they are your formulas. It's your religion that says the wages of sin are death and it's your religion that says one temporary death is enough to make that alright.
Don't blame me for the fuckwittery in your beliefs.
-
Humans are not perfect.
I agree, but others don’t. Indeed they would perhaps reject the idea of perfection. And what do we mean by ‘Not perfect’. Do we mean “Not perfect, but for what we are, we’re OK or to put it another way we’re not perfect but so what. Or does not being perfect make us seek perfection. Since moral perfection does not reside in us it must reside somewhere...or no where. And since this is morality we are talking about it must be couched in a personal entity. The moral problem is that your God expects perfection from its imperfect creation.
But that isn’t the Christian account. The Christian account is mankind is created as perfectly and morally acceptable to God and the creation rather than being described as imperfect is described as being good by God.Whether that's due to 'original sin' or not, doesn't matter, it's still stupid, cruel, and unjust.
Given that in Christianity Mankind is created morally perfect enough for God and the universe is good, you seem to be pushing your view and then blaming the Christian God for it.
The Christian account is thus
The universe is created as “Good”
Man created morally perfect enough for God
Man turns back on God
Man commits sins as a symptom of the previous.
-
Humans are not perfect. The moral problem is that your God expects perfection from its imperfect creation. Whether that's due to 'original sin' or not, doesn't matter, it's still stupid, cruel, and unjust.
It seems to me perfectly reasonable to lay our predicament on previous generations and for those generations to do the same. But we cannot blame them entirely since you have agreed we are not morally perfect. We can say that somehow then, they are responsible for the pressures that tempt us into wrong doing
-
Yes they are. If God designed them and they chose to break faith and trust in him, he must have designed that feature - unless you are saying he screwed the design up.
I am saying they could have chosen not to, since if you can choose to do something you can choose not to do it.
That's pretty straightforward.
-
I agree, but others don’t. Indeed they would perhaps reject the idea of perfection. And what do we mean by ‘Not perfect’. Do we mean “Not perfect, but for what we are, we’re OK or to put it another way we’re not perfect but so what. Or does not being perfect make us seek perfection. Since moral perfection does not reside in us it must reside somewhere...or no where. And since this is morality we are talking about it must be couched in a personal entity.But that isn’t the Christian account. The Christian account is mankind is created as perfectly and morally acceptable to God and the creation rather than being described as imperfect is described as being good by God. Given that in Christianity Mankind is created morally perfect enough for God and the universe is good, you seem to be pushing your view and then blaming the Christian God for it.
The Christian account is thus
The universe is created as “Good”
Man created morally perfect enough for God
Man turns back on God
Man commits sins as a symptom of the previous.
Perfect enough? Surely you are either perfect or not.
-
Either the tendency was inherited from Adam, if you follow that line of thinking (in which case it's possibly Adam and Eve's fault, but we've just inherited it, you don't blame or punish people for their inherited traits). Or we were designed with this tendency - but if we're all sinners, the eight billion of us alive at the moment and the hundred or so billion that came before us, save one special case, then that's not 'choice', that's a deliberate design choice or a cataclysmic design flaw.
We inherit our morality and moral landscape though. I think you’ll find that committing the sin that our forebears did also does not completely exonerate us from committing it
According to whom? That's your take, there's plenty of Christians out there who are ready to explain that the wages of sin are eternal damnation, lakes of fire and an overseer with a pointy stick.
But they wouldn’t say you are fated to go to hell by something inherited. You can choose to face God thanks to what Jesus has done.Like being gay? Like eating shellfish? Like having poly-blend shirts? Like not honouring abusive parents? But not slave-owning. Not rape. Not killing, if God wants that person dead. Why are we worrying about arbitrary rules like sin when the whole 'knowledge of good and evil' thing is that we have a sense of morality?
But you would say that you have turned against homophobia and slave owning.Are homophobia and slave owning inherited? If not where does that leave your other thesis that we can’t be blamed because we inherit the tendency. Here you are both blaming and rejecting the notion of inheritance. Confused or what?
-
Perfect enough? Surely you are either perfect or not.
I think you’ll find I said perfect enough for God.
And you cannot get more perfect than that.
-
I think you’ll find I said perfect enough for God.
And you cannot get more perfect than that.
'more perfect' is meaningless. As Maeght said, it would seem a thing is either perfect or it's not. If it is perfect it cannot act in an imperfect way. You think 'man' was both perfect, and behaved in an imperfect way. Your thinking is logically contradictory.
-
I think you’ll find I said perfect enough for God.
And you cannot get more perfect than that.
There is no such thing as perfect enough is my point. You are either perfect or not.
-
'more perfect' is meaningless. As Maeght said, it would seem a thing is either perfect or it's not. If it is perfect it cannot act in an imperfect way. You think 'man' was both perfect, and behaved in an imperfect way. Your thinking is logically contradictory.
OK let me clarify. Humans were created morally perfect
-
OK let me clarify. Humans were created morally perfect
But you think they acted morally imperfectly, so that's still a logical contradiction.
-
Given that in Christianity Mankind is created morally perfect enough for God and the universe is good, you seem to be pushing your view and then blaming the Christian God for it.
Because, if all this wasn't just a sick fairytale, it would be the Christian God's fault/choice.
The Christian account is thus
The universe is created as “Good”
Man created morally perfect enough for God
Man turns back on God
Man commits sins as a symptom of the previous.
Which is an account of the morally indefensible 'original sin' crap. One couple (or whatever you think they represent) committed 'sin' (without, apparently, even having the knowledge of good and evil), and now everybody else has to pay the price.
It was God's choice to do that. Your God is vindictive, evil and unjust.
-
But you think they acted morally imperfectly, so that's still a logical contradiction.
I said they chose to act morally imperfectly.
-
I said they chose to act morally imperfectly.
Which is a contradiction for a morally perfect being.
-
I said they chose to act morally imperfectly.
But in #64 you said "Humans were created morally perfect" - so are you saying that a moral perfect human can still choose to act immorally? If so, that seems like a strange and contradictory position you are advancing.
No wonder some of us think that Christianity is utterly bonkers.
-
OK let me clarify. Humans were created morally perfect
And yet our news is full of humans being morally imperfect. It's hard to see this as anything but a screw up by God, if he created us and if his expectation is we would not do anything to upset him.
-
Which is a contradiction for a morally perfect being.
And this is my point. Christians are claiming that humans are created by God morally perfect in spite of the evidence that tells us we are not morally perfect. And we haven't even got on to God's ridiculous plan for rescuing us from a situation that he, not only created, but should have foreseen.
Anybody who thinks this self contradictory mess is real is deluded.
-
Because, if all this wasn't just a sick fairytale, it would be the Christian God's fault/choice.
Which is an account of the morally indefensible 'original sin' crap. One couple (or whatever you think they represent) committed 'sin' (without, apparently, even having the knowledge of good and evil), and now everybody else has to pay the price.
It was God's choice to do that. Your God is vindictive, evil and unjust.
Everyone inherits there moral environment going right back to the earliest moral humans.
We find though that door that Adam shut. The door to communion with God is still open. Thanks to Jesus. That some people don’t take it and yet others do is not evidence that it is Adam’s sin that causes rejection of God or that we will be judged only on Adam’s sin.
We know there is then an environment of alienation from God and moral imperfection. Could there be genetic or memetic inheritance too who knows
-
And this is my point. Christians are claiming that humans are created by God morally perfect in spite of the evidence that tells us we are not morally perfect. And we haven't even got on to God's ridiculous plan for rescuing us from a situation that he, not only created, but should have foreseen.
Anybody who thinks this self contradictory mess is real is deluded.
And, of course, some of those beings will become 'morally perfect' in heaven
-
But in #64 you said "Humans were created morally perfect" - so are you saying that a moral perfect human can still choose to act immorally? If so, that seems like a strange and contradictory position you are advancing.
No wonder some of us think that Christianity is utterly bonkers.
You can be morally perfect. That is how you begin/ were created/are. But you can also choose to remain in that state or choose to leave / lose that state.
That’s straightforward.
-
You can be morally perfect. That is how you begin/ were created/are. But you can also choose to remain in that state or choose to leave / lose that state.
That’s straightforward.
Nope - you are arguing that a morally perfect human can subsequently choose to act immorally, which would undermine their alleged moral perfection.
-
Everyone inherits there moral environment going right back to the earliest moral humans.
We find though that door that Adam shut. The door to communion with God is still open. Thanks to Jesus. That some people don’t take it and yet others do is not evidence that it is Adam’s sin that causes rejection of God or that we will be judged only on Adam’s sin.
We know there is then an environment of alienation from God and moral imperfection. Could there be genetic or memetic inheritance too who knows
Don't understand a word of that!
-
Everyone inherits there moral environment going right back to the earliest moral humans.
We find though that door that Adam shut.
Adam didn't shut it. God shut it.
Adam made the mistake. God then chose to punish him, blame all of us for what Adam did and set up this crazy scheme that ostensibly allows us to escape our punishment. Why doesn't he just forgive us, if that's what he wants?
-
You can be morally perfect. That is how you begin/ were created/are. But you can also choose to remain in that state or choose to leave / lose that state.
That’s straightforward.
You need to tell us what your definition of perfect is. Judging by your usage of the word in this context, your definition likes the same as the definition of "imperfect".
-
You need to tell us what your definition of perfect is. Judging by your usage of the word in this context, your definition likes the same as the definition of "imperfect".
I don’t think I introduced the word perfect to bear on the idea of morality on this thread but in case I’m wrong and in any case moral perfection is that which is morally acceptable to God.
How are you defining ‘Perfection’?
-
Adam didn't shut it. God shut it.
Adam made the mistake. God then chose to punish him, blame all of us for what Adam did and set up this crazy scheme that ostensibly allows us to escape our punishment. Why doesn't he just forgive us, if that's what he wants?
Your definition of forgiveness here is indistinguishable from turning a blind eye. How then is justice served in your scheme of things?
-
Don't understand a word of that!
The argument distilled imo is that we are all doomed because of Adam’s rejection of God. My argument and the bible’s is that is only half the story.
We do inherit the consequences of Adam’s sin but we are not all doomed and All those living can be saved.
-
The argument distilled imo is that we are all doomed because of Adam’s rejection of God. My argument and the bible’s is that is only half the story.
We do inherit the consequences of Adam’s sin but we are not all doomed and All those living can be saved.
Did Adam exist?
-
Nope - you are arguing that a morally perfect human can subsequently choose to act immorally, which would undermine their alleged moral perfection.
Unless they chose to change their moral state they maintain their present state.
That’s straightforward.
Example. You are not a murderer if you do not entertain the thought or act on it.
-
Did Adam exist?
Do You mean was there a first complete human capable of breaking his relationship with God or did several such beings appear simultaneously?
-
Everyone inherits there moral environment going right back to the earliest moral humans.
We find though that door that Adam shut. The door to communion with God is still open. Thanks to Jesus. That some people don’t take it and yet others do is not evidence that it is Adam’s sin that causes rejection of God or that we will be judged only on Adam’s sin.
And it was your God that decided that we would inherit a 'sinful' nature because of what Adam and Eve did. That is unjust, petty, and vindictive. The absurdity of Jesus's substitute pretend blood sacrifice, has already been covered and is also unjust, a morally repugnant. And people who accept all the insane nonsense do not go back to a state of perfection and stop 'sinning', so it doesn't even work as advertised.
-
The argument distilled imo is that we are all doomed because of Adam’s rejection of God. My argument and the bible’s is that is only half the story.
We do inherit the consequences of Adam’s sin but we are not all doomed and All those living can be saved.
Nice story to explain the human condition.
-
Do You mean was there a first complete human capable of breaking his relationship with God or did several such beings appear simultaneously?
Dunno, it's your story. You're talking about someone called Adam doing something. What do you mean by 'Adam'?
-
Unless they chose to change their moral state they maintain their present state.
That’s straightforward.
Example. You are not a murderer if you do not entertain the thought or act on it.
But if a human is created to be mortally 'perfect' and then elects later to change their moral state to 'imperfection' does that not imply that they were never 'perfect' in the first place?
-
But if a human is created to be mortally 'perfect' and then elects later to change their moral state to 'imperfection' does that not imply that they were never 'perfect' in the first place?
No, why should it?
If they chose to do it then it wasn't an imperative. Secondly they were not, initially and for a time, alienated from God meaning they were morally perfect.
-
Your definition of forgiveness here is indistinguishable from turning a blind eye. How then is justice served in your scheme of things?
How is justice served in your scheme of things in which, if you turn to Christ, you evade God's justice?.
-
Unless they chose to change their moral state they maintain their present state.
That’s straightforward.
Example. You are not a murderer if you do not entertain the thought or act on it.
A morally perfect being wouldn't murder somebody. If humans are morally perfect, how come so many of them commit murders?
-
No, why should it?
If they chose to do it then it wasn't an imperative. Secondly they were not, initially and for a time, alienated from God meaning they were morally perfect.
And then acted morally imperfectly which means they weren't ever morally perfect.
-
How is justice served in your scheme of things in which, if you turn to Christ, you evade God's justice?.
You didn't answer my question Jeremy. How is justice served by just turning a blind eye to something?
In Jesus the cost of the transgression is born by Jesus. You or I cannot settle the costs and consequence so Jesus settles the account, Putting himself up sacrificially as a human. His life for yours and taking the costs on himself as God.
Sin you see spoils and ruins the self and destroys the divine image. Christ takes these consequences on himself by exchanging his life for the sinner's thus restoring the person to what they were meant to be.
-
And then acted morally imperfectly which means they weren't ever morally perfect.
No, They were acceptable to God, we're in a relationship with God, loved God and then...then...decided on another course, another state. I'm sorry you are wrong.
-
A morally perfect being wouldn't murder somebody. If humans are morally perfect, how come so many of them commit murders?
They would not be a murderer until they murdered someone.
You also have the problem of the existence of non murderers.
-
They would not be a murderer until they murdered someone.
You also have the problem of the existence of non murderers.
Since most of us are non-murderers why is our existence a problem?
-
Since most of us are non-murderers why is our existence a problem?
Beg pardon?
-
No, They were acceptable to God, we're in a relationship with God, loved God and then...then...decided on another course, another state. I'm sorry you are wrong.
but if they are perfect, they remain perfect, that's what perfection is. You have no grasp of the logic of your claims.
-
No, why should it?
If they chose to do it then it wasn't an imperative. Secondly they were not, initially and for a time, alienated from God meaning they were morally perfect.
That makes no sense whatsoever - surely though in order to move from a state of being 'perfect' to a state of being "alienated from God" (is this 'imperfection'?) they make a choice which is immoral, which is surely an indication that they were never 'perfect' in the first place.
-
In Jesus the cost of the transgression is born by Jesus. You or I cannot settle the costs and consequence so Jesus settles the account, Putting himself up sacrificially as a human. His life for yours and taking the costs on himself as God.
This is just insane. God makes us all 'sinners', then decides that all sin deserves death, then makes up a 'get out' clause that involves it cosplaying a human for a while, getting itself killed, and then coming back from the dead. Then, as if by magic, we can be forgiven for being the way God made us, but only if we believe in this madness.
Christ takes these consequences on himself by exchanging his life for the sinner's thus restoring the person to what they were meant to be.
Except that it doesn't work. Christians don't become morally perfect and stop 'sinning', do they?
It's all carpet-chewing mad and itdoesn't even work.
-
Beg pardon?
You said in #96 that "You also have the problem of the existence of non murderers." I'm just wondering, as a non-murderer, why my existence is a problem.
-
This is just insane. God makes us all 'sinners',
How does God do that then? I've heard of the devil made me do it defence but a God made me do it defence?]All sin, in Christianity is down to the "Divorce from God" which is the choice of the sinner and spiritual death is the consequence.
Except that it doesn't work. Christians don't become morally perfect and stop 'sinning', do they?
God has work to do when a sinner comes to him yes.
It's all carpet-chewing mad and itdoesn't even work.
Measuring the effects of Christian conversion on individuals isn't , I would have thought of interest in secular countries. Best look then at the social differences between ocommunities in the early church and periods of revival.
The difference between Christians and other roman communities at the time of the early church was marked. As was the sobriety that accompanied the revivals of Westley, Whitfield and Methodists through to the salvationists of Booth.
Please let's be clear. Your description of how man becomes alienated from God is probably more related to a deterministic
and materialistic view of the universe and is substantively different from the Christian view.
-
You said in #96 that "You also have the problem of the existence of non murderers." I'm just wondering, as a non-murderer, why my existence is a problem.
Sorry, Still not getting why your existence should be a problem.
-
Sorry, Still not getting why your existence should be a problem.
It was you wot said it was (in #96) - not me.
-
How does God do that then? I've heard of the devil made me do it defence but a God made me do it defence?]All sin, in Christianity is down to the "Divorce from God" which is the choice of the sinner and spiritual death is the consequence.
You answered your own question. I didn't make a choice to 'divorce' God. You seem to think it's down to whatever or whoever Adam and Eve represent. Regardless, as I keep saying, if God is holding people to a standard that nobody meets, that is inherently unjust.
God has work to do when a sinner comes to him yes.
But clearly the whole insane and unjust human cosplaying and pretend substitute blood sacrifice of Jesus doesn't undo what Adam and Eve did, does it?
There really is no way to spin this utter nonsense that will make it make the slightest bit of sense. The sad thing is that it seems to be so culturally ingrained that many people seem totally unable to take a step back from it and look at what is actually being sold to them and how utterly absurd it is and how far it is from anything remotely resembling basic justice and fairness, let alone love.
-
It was you wot said it was (in #96) - not me.
It was in response to Jeremy who seemed to be saying that we are born murderers or non murderers.
My point is you are not a murderer until and only if you murder and, in the Sane that is a choice.
The existence of non murderers is a problem for any argument that suggests murder is determined from the start.
And from that it creates a problem for those who say that people were created by God as sinful.
-
???
You answered your own question. I didn't make a choice to 'divorce' God.
I’m forced to ask then what steps are you taking/have taken to be ‘Engaged’with/to God? You seem to think it's down to whatever or whoever Adam and Eve represent.
They represent our earliest fully human ancestors. The people initially responsible for our moral environment as we will be responsible for the moral environment of our descendants. Regardless, as I keep saying, if God is holding people to a standard that nobody meets, that is inherently unjust.
No, the Christian account is that they did meet it and were in unbroken perfect loving fellowship with God and this relationship is now open through Jesus taking the spiritual consequences of sin on himself to all who will avail themselves of it. What IS inherently unjust is the absence of justice suggested by wanting a blind eye turned to wrongdoing as found in “just say we’re forgiven” or “We are morally imperfect but deserving enough for justice to be waived.
But clearly the whole insane and unjust human cosplaying and pretend substitute blood sacrifice of Jesus doesn't undo what Adam and Eve did, does it?
People have been “taking a bullet” for others from time immemorial. You think that insane?
-
I’m forced to ask then what steps are you taking/have taken to be ‘Engaged’with/to God?
I see no reason to think that there is a God, and the batshit Christian story certainly does nothing to suggest anything more than crazy fantasies.
They represent our earliest fully human ancestors. The people initially responsible for our moral environment as we will be responsible for the moral environment of our descendants.
Laughable.
The story is that they (without, apparently, having the knowledge of good and evil) did something God didn't like, so it had a total hissy fit and issued all sorts of petty, nasty, vindictive curses, and left subsequent generations no clue that it actually exists at all and unable to live up to its standards.
You really can't get away with characterising that as the humans being responsible for the 'moral environment'.
No, the Christian account is that they did meet it and were in unbroken perfect loving fellowship with God and this relationship is now open through Jesus taking the spiritual consequences of sin on himself to all who will avail themselves of it.
Just repeating this total bollocks over and over, does not address the insanity of it all that I outlined. The Christian message is that we are being held to a standard nobody can meet and we have to believe in the vindictive, petty, unjust monster God to be forgiven for being how it made us. And it doesn't even work in restoring the "unbroken perfect loving fellowship with God". Christians don't become sinless, nor do they even have clear communication with their God (if they did, there wouldn't be all the disagreements and different denominations, sects, and cults).
People have been “taking a bullet” for others from time immemorial. You think that insane?
This is nothing like a selfless act of sacrifice for somebody else, it's making unjust, insane rules, with an absurd 'get out' clause that involved no real sacrifice at all; what's about 30 years of being human, and three days of being dead, to an eternal God?
-
You didn't answer my question Jeremy. How is justice served by just turning a blind eye to something?
It isn't. But it is what your god does.
In Jesus the cost of the transgression is born by Jesus.
Except it isn't. For one thing, he only died once and that is supposed to pay for everything. For another thing, he didn't stay dead.
It's like there are five of us in a restaurant and the bill is £100. I give the waiter a £20 note and say "that's for all of us". The waiter is not going to be impressed.
But not only that, while he isn't looking, I steal the money back out of the till.
You or I cannot settle the costs and consequence so Jesus settles the account, Putting himself up sacrificially as a human. His life for yours and taking the costs on himself as God.
Sin you see spoils and ruins the self and destroys the divine image. Christ takes these consequences on himself by exchanging his life for the sinner's thus restoring the person to what they were meant to be.
As we have discussed though: he clearly didn't.
-
I’m forced to ask then what steps are you taking/have taken to be ‘Engaged’with/to God?
I've never really understood this idea (or the idea of this thread initially). How can you engage with something you don't believe in?
-
You said in #96 that "You also have the problem of the existence of non murderers." I'm just wondering, as a non-murderer, why my existence is a problem.
Actually, Gordon, he's claiming your existence is a problem for me. I do assure you though, he is wrong: I have no problem with your existence or any other non murderer. I have no idea why Vlad thinks I have any kind of problem with the existence of non murderers.
-
Actually, Gordon, he's claiming your existence is a problem for me. I do assure you though, he is wrong: I have no problem with your existence or any other non murderer. I have no idea why Vlad thinks I have any kind of problem with the existence of non murderers.
Whew - that's a relief, Jeremy, I'm rather fond of existing :)
-
It was in response to Jeremy who seemed to be saying that we are born murderers or non murderers.
My point is you are not a murderer until and only if you murder and, in the Sane that is a choice.
The existence of non murderers is a problem for any argument that suggests murder is determined from the start.
And from that it creates a problem for those who say that people were created by God as sinful.
No. You are the one claiming that we are created morally perfect. I'm just pointing out that a person doing something immoral clearly shows they are not morally perfect.
-
I see no reason to think that there is a God, and the batshit Christian story certainly does nothing to suggest anything more than crazy fantasies.
Laughable.
The story is that they (without, apparently, having the knowledge of good and evil) did something God didn't like, so it had a total hissy fit and issued all sorts of petty, nasty, vindictive curses, and left subsequent generations no clue that it actually exists at all and unable to live up to its standards.
You really can't get away with characterising that as the humans being responsible for the 'moral environment'.
Just repeating this total bollocks over and over, does not address the insanity of it all that I outlined. The Christian message is that we are being held to a standard nobody can meet and we have to believe in the vindictive, petty, unjust monster God to be forgiven for being how it made us. And it doesn't even work in restoring the "unbroken perfect loving fellowship with God". Christians don't become sinless, nor do they even have clear communication with their God (if they did, there wouldn't be all the disagreements and different denominations, sects, and cults).
This is nothing like a selfless act of sacrifice for somebody else, it's making unjust, insane rules, with an absurd 'get out' clause that involved no real sacrifice at all; what's about 30 years of being human, and three days of being dead, to an eternal God?
I get you disagree with the Christian account but I wonder why you have a view of justice that actually seems to eliminate justice itself.
You say God's standards are unobtainable but the standard required is turning to Christ rather than meeting a moral standard.
As by the by as it is you offer no moral standard that would be just. Again Justice is not served if it is reduced or eliminated
Wrong doing like everything else in a consequential universe has consequences. Jesus takes those consequences on himself.
Finally, the Christian account is that we are all resurrected so Jesus is not special or inhuman in that respect.
-
Whew - that's a relief, Jeremy, I'm rather fond of existing :)
I'm also a non murderer and I certainly have no problem with my own existence unlike what Vlad claims.
-
No. You are the one claiming that we are created morally perfect. I'm just pointing out that a person doing something immoral clearly shows they are not morally perfect.
And I'm pointing out that you are not immoral until you choose to do something immoral.
Legally speaking you are innocent. The critical point is the attitude to God . Facing or turned from.
So mankind comes into being enjoys a sinless loving trusting fearless unbroken relationship with God and subsequently and on their own volition individually and communally turns from it.
-
And I'm pointing out that you are not immoral until you choose to do something immoral.
But your claim is that we were created morally perfect. Somebody who chooses to commit an immoral act is clearly not morally perfect.
Your claim is false.
-
I get you disagree with the Christian account but I wonder why you have a view of justice that actually seems to eliminate justice itself.
Pointing out the utter absurdity of what your God seems to think is just, is not putting forward a version of justice, so you seem to be just making shit up again.
You say God's standards are unobtainable but the standard required is turning to Christ rather than meeting a moral standard.
And you think accepting a batshit nonsensical story means that all our wrongdoing can be wiped away, is justice, do you?
As by the by as it is you offer no moral standard that would be just.
I haven't offered one. I'm not a God, or even a lawyer, trying to design a system of justice, but if somebody ran a country like the Christian monster God is supposed to be running the world, it would be a pariah state. Not what you do, but who you suck up to.
Again Justice is not served if it is reduced or eliminated
Wrong doing like everything else in a consequential universe has consequences.
Except when people believe in the nasty vindictive God of yours, then they get off scot-free. ::)
Jesus takes those consequences on himself.
Finally, the Christian account is that we are all resurrected so Jesus is not special or inhuman in that respect.
What's the difference between what happened to Jesus after his resurrection and happens to somebody who doesn't accept this nonsense? If he was treated differently, then he didn't take the consequences.
-
I'm also a non murderer and I certainly have no problem with my own existence unlike what Vlad claims.
But Will you be a murderer in future?
If you are then in your own scheme of things and your logic you will have been a murderer all along.
Or will you be a non murderer who became a murderer?
-
But Will you be a murderer in future?
I could murder a cup of tea
-
We inherit our morality and moral landscape though.
And we can then, once it's ours, change it. We can't, apparently, decide our way out of 'Original Sin'. We can't collectively throw out old mores and come up with new ones and expect that to count for anything sin-wise.
I think you’ll find that committing the sin that our forebears did also does not completely exonerate us from committing it
'Committing'? I wear a shirt, suddenly I have to go to hell because I didn't check if the fabric clashes with my underpants. God forbid I tumble-dry something that's dry-clean only. Eternal damnation for crimes against laundry!
But they wouldn’t say you are fated to go to hell by something inherited.
Who wouldn't? Tell me which bit of this chain isn't advocated by at least some (and I'd say a fair section) of the world's Christians:
1 - we are all born sinful, because of the sins of Adam and Eve
2 - if you don't accept Jesus as your Lord and saviour you're not forgiven those sins.
Seems like I've just been fated to go to hell because of something I inherited.
You can choose to face God thanks to what Jesus has done.
Half the point here, though, is that I'm being expected to face God because of what someone else did. It's nothing to do with me, I'm not at fault here. The other half, the actual 'sins' are an arbitrary sack of half-baked tribal in-group identifiers, life-lessons wrapped up as divine edicts (robbing them of their moral underpinnings) and just outright bigotry. Who does God have to face for this shit-show? If Jesus is such a paragon of moral justification why doesn't he have some questions about this - on our behalf, you know, as his role seems to be that of our advocate. To himself.
But you would say that you have turned against homophobia and slave owning.
I haven't turned against them, that implies I started within the fold, but I do stand against them, yes.
Are homophobia and slave owning inherited?
Are you suggesting that they're sins? Oh, wait, now, they're advocated for in the Bible.
If not where does that leave your other thesis that we can’t be blamed because we inherit the tendency.
Disobedience to arbitrary edicts is part of human nature - whether you think that came from Adam and Eve or is an intrinsic part of the humanity that God wants, either way it's not our fault that we're human, we don't have any other choice. Why is that subject to punishment unless we ask forgiveness from the designer of humanity that made us human?
Here you are both blaming and rejecting the notion of inheritance. Confused or what?
Not at all. I reject the notion BECAUSE it's despicable - it's inconsistend with the idea of an omnibenevolent deity, it's intrinsically immoral.
O.
-
And we can then, once it's ours, change it.
For better and worse We can't, apparently, decide our way out of 'Original Sin'.
What about judgment for our own actions? We can't collectively throw out old mores and come up with new ones and expect that to count for anything sin-wise.
Beg pardon?
'Committing'? I wear a shirt, suddenly I have to go to hell because I didn't check if the fabric clashes with my underpants. God forbid I tumble-dry something that's dry-clean only. Eternal damnation for crimes against laundry!
All our actions and attitudes come under judgment though there is apparently only one unforgivable sin
Who wouldn't? Tell me which bit of this chain isn't advocated by at least some (and I'd say a fair section) of the world's Christians:
1 - we are all born sinful, because of the sins of Adam and Eve
2 - if you don't accept Jesus as your Lord and saviour you're not forgiven those sins.
Seems like I've just been fated to go to hell because of something I inherited.
Again, what about your own sins? The one’s Adam and Eve couldn’t possibly be accountable for.
Secondly, what makes you think you are special enough to be sent to hell when others are not?
Half the point here, though, is that I'm being expected to face God because of what someone else did. It's nothing to do with me, I'm not at fault here.
That is not the Christian view. You are judged on your own actions since Adam and Eve cannot possibly have committed or chosen to have committed them. Your sins and misdemeanours are not entirely their responsibility The other half, the actual 'sins' are an arbitrary sack of half-baked tribal in-group identifiers, life-lessons wrapped up as divine edicts (robbing them of their moral underpinnings) and just outright bigotry.
Biblically, Gentile believers aren’t required to follow OBSERVANT Jewish practiceWho does God have to face for this shit-show? If Jesus is such a paragon of moral justification why doesn't he have some questions about this - on our behalf, you know, as his role seems to be that of our advocate. To himself.
Legally, if you act in a certain way you cannot point to others doing it to establish your innocence though. The same applies to neglecting to do what we should
Disobedience to arbitrary edicts is part of human nature [ whether you think that came from Adam and Eve or is an intrinsic part of the humanity that God wants, either way it's not our fault that we're human, we don't have any other choice. Why is that subject to punishment unless we ask forgiveness from the designer of humanity that made us human?
Again disobedience only appears after obedience. We didn’t start disobedient. Now, to some obedience has a bad connotation. That is why the bible talks of man walking with God in unbroken and intimate relationship... That is what God sought to restore while satisfying justice and negating the consequences of sin. And it is that which is rebelled against.
-
For better and worse.
Historically, generally it seems for the better, although there have been highs and lows.
What about judgment for our own actions?
Is it Christian doctrine that we get to decide if we're saved from original sin? That's new to me.
Beg pardon?
Morality has progressed since the times of the Roman occupation of Israel, but that is irrelevant to the notion of 'sin' which is intrinsic, and to the particular 'sinful' activities which have been immutable edicts since the codification of the New Testaments, all before 1000AD.
All our actions and attitudes come under judgment though there is apparently only one unforgivable sin Again, what about your own sins.
Putting Calvinism aside, where it's not a 'judgment' at all, it's a whim (we can't 'earn' our way into heaven)... I'm guilty, regardless, just by virtue of being born, but that's OK because someone else didn't die really, so that's accounted for. Then I might be judged against my compliance to one or more lists of apparently arbitrary rules, some of which make sense some of which are absolute nonsense, which describe things so abominable that they warrant eternity in hell, except for the ones which suddenly became perfectly fine around the turn of the first millenium. But gay stuff's still a no-no, rape is a grey area, slavery's fine along as you abide by the fine-print. Who the hell has the audacity to espouse that and then claim they're in a place to judge me?
The one’s Adam and Eve couldn’t possibly be accountable for.
I'm condemned, and Jesus needs to die for a weekend, because of Adam and Eve - original sin. Or, if that's an allegory, because of human nature. Which I was born with, and didn't get to choose. That's entirely separate from any of my actions, which may or may not be relevant depending on which flavour of Christianity you take your crisps in.
Secondly, what makes you think you are special enough to be sent to hell when others are not?
Fucked if I know, ask the Christians (and others) who are of the opinion that I should go to hell for: having IVF children; not believing in the Baby Cheesus; working on a Saturday; working on a Sunday; still having an entire penis; eating shellfish; advocating for equal rights for women, gay people... I'm not saying I'm going to hell, I don't even like Spain. It's other people claiming I'm going to hell.
That is not the Christian view.
There is no 'THE' Christian view. There are hundreds, perhaps thousands of Christian views. And that's before you get into the more diverse variants of the ruleset of Prequelists and the Sequelists.
You are judged on your own actions since Adam and Eve cannot possibly have committed or chosen to have committed them.
Tell that to the Catholics and the Calvinists, and get two different arguments as to why you're wrong.
Your sins and misdemeanours are not entirely their responsibility
They're entirely not their responsibility. But they're also, in a large part, absolutely not something someone should be judged for.
Again disobedience only appears after obedience. We didn’t start disobedient.
And we're back to why Satan's the real hero of the story.
Now, to some obedience has a bad connotation.
Blind obedience is problematic. Obedience to arbitrary rules rather than agreed principles is problematic. You know, like religion.
That is why the bible talks of man walking with God in unbroken and intimate relationship...
When he drowned them all? Or when he killed off all their firstborn? Or when he sent down pillars of fire to destroy their towns? Or when he set his fan-club on them to kill all the men and male children, and take the girls and women as sex-chattel. So that I could be judged for 'sins' like eating prawns. Are prawn cocktails crisps sinful if they only taste 'like' prawns and not actually 'of' prawns?
That is what God sought to restore while satisfying justice and negating the consequences of sin. And it is that which is rebelled against.
I'm sorry, if you can get to the end of this and you still think that 'justice' and 'sin' are somehow related concepts then I'm obviously not getting through. I'm not 'rebelling against god', I'm not falling for the bullshit of the churches.
O.
-
Pointing out the utter absurdity of what your God seems to think is just, is not putting forward a version of justice, so you seem to be just making shit up again.
I’m sorry I’m not getting your saying that God’s expectations are too severe and when you are asked how severe they should be you answer “I don’t know”
And you think accepting a batshit nonsensical story means that all our wrongdoing can be wiped away, is justice, do you?
I am saying that wrong doing creates consequences which justice requires recompense. These costs in law are often settled by parties on behalf of others so nothing batshit nonsensical about that.
Reduction of costs to a level where there is not sufficient recompense is undue leniency and justice isn’t served...and it’s This you are advocating imo
-
I’m sorry I’m not getting your saying that God’s expectations are too severe...
I didn't say too severe, I said insane and nonsensical. We believe a batshit story and we get off scot-free, and, well, what do you think happens if we don't? I don't think you've said yet.
Certainly if it's eternal torment, as some Christians say, then it would be totally disproportionate to anything anybody could do in one lifetime.
...and when you are asked how severe they should be you answer “I don’t know”
Again, what are you expecting me to say? A one size fits all punishment for any imperfection ("the wages of sin is death") is clearly nuts. You'd have to tailor it to humans as they are and have proportionate responses, not petty vindictive curses, like the God character in the buy-bull is given to.
I am saying that wrong doing creates consequences which justice requires recompense.
But, apparently, just believing a mad, brutal, sadomasochistic, pretend substitute human sacrifice is good enough to get anybody off scot-free.
These costs in law are often settled by parties on behalf of others so nothing batshit nonsensical about that.
In minor cases, and usually when somebody thinks the penality isn't deserved or the law has been misapplied. The craziness is in the extreme, bloodthirsty, vindictive nature of the punishment and the fact that the price wasn't really paid at all. As I said, 30 years cosplaying a human and 3 days of death, would be nothing to an eternal God.
Reduction of costs to a level where there is not sufficient recompense is undue leniency and justice isn’t served...
And believing the crazy shit means you get just that, according to your beliefs. No price is ever paid (the triviality of 30 years and 3 days to a God being effectively nothing, even if the substitute blood sacrifice wasn't insane enough already).
-
Historically, generally it seems for the better, although there have been highs and lows.
Ah, the myth of man’s forward March and the confusion of can and should. I’m not sure we can have confidence in your view given climate denial, climate emerita, nuclear capability etc.
Is it Christian doctrine that we get to decide if we're saved from original sin? That's new to me.
Only Christ can save us from any sin. It’s certainly not Christianity that you are judged solely on original sin.Morality has progressed since the times of the Roman occupation of Israel, but that is irrelevant to the notion of 'sin' which is intrinsic, and to the particular 'sinful' activities which have been immutable edicts since the codification of the New Testaments, all before 1000AD.
Apart from the question of whether there’s the fallacy of modernity her can a morality that is constantly shifting it’s definition of right and wrong, good or bad, ought or ought not be rightly called a morality?
Putting Calvinism aside,
Oh please do where it's not a 'judgment' at all, it's a whim (we can't 'earn' our way into heaven)
That’s not solely Calvinist since where do we star and finish?.. I'm guilty, regardless, just by virtue of being born,
The implication is that the fall has done all humanity harm but how that is transmitted, I don’t think is clear. Certainly we inherit the moral environment but that's OK because someone else didn't die really, so that's accounted for. Then I might be judged against my compliance to one or more lists of apparently arbitrary rules, some of which make sense some of which are absolute nonsense, which describe things so abominable that they warrant eternity in hell, except for the ones which suddenly became perfectly fine around the turn of the first millenium. But gay stuff's still a no-no, rape is a grey area, slavery's fine along as you abide by the fine-print. Who the hell has the audacity to espouse that and then claim they're in a place to judge me?
We inhabit a consequential universe I’m afraid many, many consequences don’t manifest themselves according to how we feel about stuff.
Try doing what you like and I think judgment in the form of consequence is not far behind
I'm condemned, and Jesus needs to die for a weekend, because of Adam and Eve - original sin. Or, if that's an allegory, because of human nature. Which I was born with, and didn't get to choose. That's entirely separate from any of my actions, which may or may not be relevant depending on which flavour of Christianity you take your crisps in.
You keep loading it on to Adam and Eve. What about the consequences of your own actions
I prescribe a read of
Romans chapter 5 with attention to verse 12 on contrasting Adam with Jesus.
-
Ah, the myth of man’s forward March and the confusion of can and should.
You don't think the modern world is morally better than, say, the era of the Roman occupation of Israel?
I’m not sure we can have confidence in your view given climate denial, climate emerita, nuclear capability etc.
An increasingly small minority of people deny science, therefore we should all cleave to bronze-age superstition instead?
Only Christ can save us from any sin.
Only Christ is threatening us because of sin, though, so...
It’s certainly not Christianity that you are judged solely on original sin.
Well it sure as hell isn't anyone else's theology.
Apart from the question of whether there’s the fallacy of modernity her can a morality that is constantly shifting it’s definition of right and wrong, good or bad, ought or ought not be rightly called a morality?
If it can't, what's your take on the rewrite of morally acceptable behaviour between the Old and New Testaments? Morality has always been subjective; even in Christianity, it's subject to God's whim, there's no rationale behind it. At least in human endeavours there are attempts to ground morality, assessments of value and intent.
That’s not solely Calvinist since where do we star and finish?
It may not be solely Calvinist, but I have better things to do than exhaustively track the idiosyncrasies of each cult of each sect of each branch of a mythology.
The implication is that the fall has done all humanity harm but how that is transmitted, I don’t think is clear.
The mechanism isn't relevant - the problem is the notion that responsibility for it is passed on at all. Vicarious moral liability is an abhorrent concept to start with.
Certainly we inherit the moral environment.
An environment where the rules aren't based on morality at all, but compliance with divine edict.
We inhabit a consequential universe I’m afraid many, many consequences don’t manifest themselves according to how we feel about stuff.
Yep. And then we discuss the implications of that and come up with principles which are collectively agreed to a greater or lesser degree, and specific implementations of those principles. Welcome to morality, you've just graduated out of religion playschool where the rules are laid out for you because you're too young to think for yourself.
Try doing what you like and I think judgment in the form of consequence is not far behind
Instead I should try doing what someone says God arbitrarily decided I should do, even to the detriment of friends and family?
You keep loading it on to Adam and Eve.
No, I don't. Christians keep loading it onto Adam and Eve, I'm just pointing out how mind-numbingly stupid that is.
What about the consequences of your own actions
I deal with them every day, it's called living. What doesn't wash is the idea that there's an eternal punishment after I've finished living because I got the wrong haircut.
I prescribe a read of Romans chapter 5 with attention to verse 12 on contrasting Adam with Jesus.
Lots of stuff about Jesus 'dying', which is contradicted a few pages later when it turns out 'surprise' not dead after all. And as for me putting it all on Adam... "Therefore, just as sin entered the world through one man, and death through sin" Romans 5, seeing as it seems to mean something to you.
"To be sure, sin was in the world before the law was given, but sin is not charged against anyone’s account where there is no law." - so it's not about the morals, it's about the law. It's about compliance, obedience - there is no discussion of whether the laws are just, or right, or have any sort of moral acceptability, there are just rules to be obeyed.
"Consequently, just as one trespass resulted in condemnation for all people, so also one righteous act resulted in justification and life for all people." Collective punishment isn't justified with children. Collective punishment with adults is a tool of oppression. Eternal collective punishment for temporal acts is an immorality of infinite proportions.
Read it. Don't see that it changes anything.
O.
-
You don't think the modern world is morally better than, say, the era of the Roman occupation of Israel?
...
Was the Holocaust better or worse? Are you suggesting objective morality?
-
Was the Holocaust better or worse? Are you suggesting objective morality?
The holocaust was worse. The world in which the holocaust happened, the world that followed as the realities of the holocaust were communicated - I'd say that's better. Would you disagree?
And no, I'm not suggesting an objective morality - at no point have I come anywhere close to suggesting an objective morality.
O.
-
The holocaust was worse. The world in which the holocaust happened, the world that followed as the realities of the holocaust were communicated - I'd say that's better. Would you disagree?
And no, I'm not suggesting an objective morality - at no point have I come anywhere close to suggesting an objective morality.
O.
I think saying something is worse here is a claim to objectivity. It's just your opinion. You also seem to be suggesting there was no 'progression' until after the holocaust from Roman times. To be honest your argument seems just confused emotion on this point.
-
I didn't say too severe,
I’m sorry but didn’t you say God’s laws were impossible to obey? I said insane and nonsensical. We believe a batshit story and we get off scot-free, and, well, what do you think happens if we don't? I don't think you've said yet.
Sorry I think you said God’s laws are impossible to obey so the penalty or consequences should be reduced.
Certainly if it's eternal torment, as some Christians say, then it would be totally disproportionate to anything anybody could do in one lifetime.
So you are saying the penalties are too severe.
You make a good point though and I find myself pondering what sin would have an eternal consequence?
Firstly there is sin committed throughout eternity. Secondly, the rejection of God throughout eternity, thirdly the final rejection of God’s forgiveness. The consequence here would be more the inability to receive forgiveness.Again, what are you expecting me to say? A one size fits all punishment for any imperfection ("the wages of sin is death") is clearly nuts. You'd have to tailor it to humans as they are and have proportionate responses, not petty vindictive curses, like the God character in the buy-bull is given to.
But, apparently, just believing a mad, brutal, sadomasochistic, pretend substitute human sacrifice is good enough to get anybody off scot-free.
OK what in law anywhere in the world is the maximum consequence for murder?
The answer is of course life imprisonment or death. A life for a life.
But is even death recompense for the crime?I would say no on the grounds that it does not bring the victim back. So even paying the ultimate penalty does not compensate.
We cannot possibly know where to begin or end restitution IMV.
The Christian belief is that Christ can make it on our behalf.
-
I think saying something is worse here is a claim to objectivity.
On which basis there is no morality, there's just rules and whether you personally feel nice about them?
It's just your opinion.
No, it's not just mine, it's shared by a significant portion of the planet. And, more importantly, it's a conclusion that follows on from underlying principles of how people ought to behave to improve the world for our collective benefit.
You also seem to be suggesting there was no 'progression' until after the holocaust from Roman times.
No, I don't. You might be inferring that, but that's on you not on me.
To be honest your argument seems just confused emotion on this point.
Oh well. At worst, then, its still better than the religious offering that it's countering, so...
O.
-
On which basis there is no morality, there's just rules and whether you personally feel nice about them?
No, it's not just mine, it's shared by a significant portion of the planet. And, more importantly, it's a conclusion that follows on from underlying principles of how people ought to behave to improve the world for our collective benefit.
No, I don't. You might be inferring that, but that's on you not on me.
Oh well. At worst, then, its still better than the religious offering that it's countering, so...
O.
So you aren't suggesting objective morality but an ad populum morality, which means that what happened in Roman times is precisely as 'moral' as what happens now.
A claim that your argument is no worse than one you think is shite is a novel if unimpressive one.
-
But Will you be a murderer in future?
Probably not. But I frequently break the rules that your god deems the apotheosis of morality. Only yesterday I ate bacon. Jesus Christ! Now I'm taking his name in vain. Clearly I'm not morally perfect.
If you are then in your own scheme of things and your logic you will have been a murderer all along.
Or will you be a non murderer who became a murderer?
A morally perfect being would never choose to be a murderer.
-
Probably not. But I frequently break the rules that your god deems the apotheosis of morality. Only yesterday I ate bacon. Jesus Christ! Now I'm taking his name in vain. Clearly I'm not morally perfect.
A morally perfect being would never choose to be a murderer.
A morally perfect being is without sin but not necessarily without the choice of good and evil.
The bible talks of righteousness and holiness. Prior to the fall mankind was naturally righteous sinless after the fall faith counts as righteousness.
-
Probably not. But I frequently break the rules that your god deems the apotheosis of morality. Only yesterday I ate bacon.[Jesus Christ! Now I'm taking his name in vain. Clearly I'm not morally perfect.
A morally perfect being would never choose to be a murderer.
-
Probably not. But I frequently break the rules that your god deems the apotheosis of morality. Only yesterday I ate bacon.Yes, you’ve always struck me as the sort of man that could do justice to some rashers of Danish. I hope you cooked it properly.
-
A morally perfect being is without sin but not necessarily without the choice of good and evil.
The bible talks of righteousness and holiness. Prior to the fall mankind was naturally righteous sinless after the fall faith counts as righteousness.
Making the choice to commit evil means the being is not morally perfect.
-
Sorry I think you said God’s laws are impossible to obey so the penalty or consequences should be reduced.
I think you're running away from the craziness of your fairytale. You haven't said what you think the penalty for us would be, only the batshit nonsense about Jesus's non-sacrifice.
So you are saying the penalties are too severe.
If you think eternal torment in hell is the penality for any imperfection, then of course. Anybody should be able to see that. Even a mass murderer would have suffered enough in some finite time, especially if the victims are all resurrected as you claim, and that's even supposing that retribution and punishment was the entire point.
Firstly there is sin committed throughout eternity.
How would you do that?
Secondly, the rejection of God throughout eternity, thirdly the final rejection of God’s forgiveness. The consequence here would be more the inability to receive forgiveness.
Why would anybody need forgiveness for being how God made them? It's God (if a God like you describe exists) that should be asking for forgiveness from us.
OK what in law anywhere in the world is the maximum consequence for murder?
The answer is of course life imprisonment or death. A life for a life.
But is even death recompense for the crime?I would say no on the grounds that it does not bring the victim back.
But it's you who claimed that God killing people is all just fine because they all get resurrected. You can't have it both ways.
The Christian belief is that Christ can make it on our behalf.
With the silly, infinitesimal (to an eternal God) 30 years of cosplay, and 3 days of death. Yeah, right.
-
Making the choice to commit evil means the being is not morally perfect.
It’s the choice of evil that renders them imperfect. Having the choice does not.
Someone who doesn’t murder is not a murderer.
-
It’s the choice of evil that renders them imperfect. Having the choice does not.
Someone who doesn’t murder is not a murderer.
No one is arguing any differently. You have suggested 'man' was a morally perfect being and that 'man' made a morally imperfect choice. This is logically contradictory.
-
Making the choice to commit evil means the being is not morally perfect.
Having the choice does not make one evil. Making the choice does.
If you have not committed evil you are innocent.
-
No one is arguing any differently. You have suggested 'man' was a morally perfect being and that 'man' made a morally imperfect choice. This is logically contradictory.
No it isn’t. If you have committed no evil then you are innocent and your moral record is perfect
That is straightforward.
-
Having the choice does not make one evil. Making the choice does.
If you have not committed evil you are innocent.
Repeating yourself as if you are not reading posts isn't useful. No one is suggesting that having the choice makes to commit evil makes one evil. So please stop with that strawman.
Making the choice to commit evil means that the being that does that is not morally perfect.
You are saying 'man' was morally perfect, and yet made a choice to commit evil. That is where your logical contradiction lies.
-
No it isn’t. If you have committed no evil then you are innocent and your moral record is perfect
That is straightforward.
Your moral record might be perfect but that doesn't make you a morally perfect being if you then go on to commit evil. Again a morally perfect being would not commit evil and yet you say 'man' was morally perfect, and 'man' committed evil. Those 2 positions are logically contradictory.
-
Your moral record might be perfect but that doesn't make you a morally perfect being if you then go on to commit evil. Again a morally perfect being would not commit evil and yet you say 'man' was morally perfect, and 'man' committed evil. Those 2 positions are logically contradictory.
The point is mankind is created without sin and is sinless until mankind commits sin.
If you wish to say mankind was created with sin then you have to make your case probably by pointing out what the sin was. It seems to me then that it is perfectly justifiable to say that mankind was created morally perfect.
I can see from a deterministic view actions are predetermined...but this isn’t physics.
-
The point is mankind is created without sin and is sinless until mankind commits sin.
If you wish to say mankind was created with sin then you have to make your case probably by pointing out what the sin was. It seems to me then that it is perfectly justifiable to say that mankind was created morally perfect.
I can see from a deterministic view actions are predetermined...but this isn’t physics.
That's not your claim though, and you've added another strawman. Your claim is that 'man' was a morally perfect being.
I'm not claiming 'man' was created with or without sin, as I'm not claiming 'man' was created. This is all about your claim that a morally perfect being choose to commit evil - which is logically contradictory.
Fuck knows what determinism and physics have to do with this which is a simple thing of you making 2 logically contradictory claims.
-
No it isn’t. If you have committed no evil then you are innocent and your moral record is perfect
That is straightforward.
Now you are moving the goal posts. You claimed God made us morally perfect but now you are just claiming he made us with a perfect record, which is trivially true since we are all born with no record at all (ignoring the original sin nonsense).
We are still left with God creating us and then punishing us for behaving as he designed.
-
That's not your claim though,
That is my claim, since I made it. and you've added another strawman. Your claim is that 'man' was a morally perfect being.
Yes...man was perfectly moral and a being.
Fuck knows what determinism and physics have to do with this which is a simple thing of you making 2 logically contradictory claims.
Because determinism would predetermine the committing of evil making the determinant evil itself. You are suggesting that to be evil you have to be evil.
My definition of evil is to be against God. Man is initially for God.
-
Now you are moving the goal posts. You claimed God made us morally perfect but now you are just claiming he made us with a perfect record, which is trivially true since we are all born with no record at all (ignoring the original sin nonsense).
We are still left with God creating us and then punishing us for behaving as he designed.
We cannot ignore the responsibility our forebears have for our moral environment.
Again this half truth that we are all going to hell because we are being punished for being created evil.
-
We cannot ignore the responsibility our forebears have for our moral environment.
But we had no control over what our forebears did. So why blame us for it?
Again this half truth that we are all going to hell because we are being punished for being created evil.
Got it: you are saying that Christianity deals in half truths. Tell me again why I should believe any of it?
-
That is my claim, since I made it. Yes...man was perfectly moral and a being. Because determinism would predetermine the committing of evil making the determinant evil itself. You are suggesting that to be evil you have to be evil.
My definition of evil is to be against God. Man is initially for God.
I'm not defining evil. I'm using your definition. You said 'man' was a perfect moral being, and that 'man' choose to act in what you see as an evil manner. These 2 claims are logically contradictory.
-
That makes no sense whatsoever - surely though in order to move from a state of being 'perfect' to a state of being "alienated from God" (is this 'imperfection'?) they make a choice which is immoral, which is surely an indication that they were never 'perfect' in the first place.
Not sure that argument works for A&E, but it's certainly a good argument against the fall of the angels: if Satan and his fellow fallen angels once enjoyed direct, unmediated sight of God, and were sinless and capable of remaining so, how did they come to sin in the first place?
-
I'm not defining evil. I'm using your definition. You said 'man' was a perfect moral being, and that 'man' choose to act in what you see as an evil manner. These 2 claims are logically contradictory.
Having a choice to do evil does not make you evil so making the choice makes you evil. You are not evil until you make the choice.
If you have, are compelled, fated, determined designed to make that choice. It isn’t a choice,
-
Having a choice to do evil does not make you evil so making the choice makes you evil. You are not evil until you make the choice.
Not only has no one said that having a choice to do evil makes one evil but you've tried that strawman before and I pointed out that no one is saying that. Repeating it makes you look like a liar.
A morally perfect being would not choose to commit evil. You have said that 'man' was a morally perfect being that chose to commit evil. The 2 positions you take there are logically contradictory.
ETA
I see you added the following after I replied
If you have, are compelled, fated, determined designed to make that choice. It isn’t a choice,
I agree, so what?
-
Not sure that argument works for A&E, but it's certainly a good argument against the fall of the angels: if Satan and his fellow fallen angels once enjoyed direct, unmediated sight of God, and were sinless and capable of remaining so, how did they come to sin in the first place?
Why doesn't it work for A&E? How would a morally perfect being, which Vlad claims 'man' was chose to commit evil?
-
Not only has no one said that having a choice to do evil makes one evil but you've tried that strawman before and I pointed out that no one is saying that. Repeating it makes you look like a liar.
A morally perfect being would not choose to commit evil. You have said that 'man' was a morally perfect being that chose to commit evil. The 2 positions you take there are logically contradictory.
If it cannot choose evil then there is no choice. The statement a morally perfect cannot choose evil is therefore what’s nonsense.
-
If it cannot choose evil then there is no choice. The statement a morally perfect cannot choose evil is therefore what’s nonsense.
A morally perfect being won't choose evil. It's in the definition. A choice could be made to commit evil but in making it the bring shows itself not to be morally perfect.
-
A morally perfect being won't choose evil. It's in the definition. A choice could beaded but in making it the bring shows itself not to be morally perfect.
But that isn’t my definition of being morally perfect which is without sin. But not prejudicing the choice of remaining without sin or sinning.
Your definition is an eternally perfect moral being.
-
Having a choice to do evil does not make you evil so making the choice makes you evil. You are not evil until you make the choice.
If you have, are compelled, fated, determined designed to make that choice. It isn’t a choice,
Let me explain why you're failing in simple terms.
On the one hand you claim God created us morally perfect. On the other hand you are claiming that humans aren't evil until they've done an evil thing.
Τhe properties "morally perfect" and "haven't done evil yet" are not the same thing.
-
But that isn’t my definition of being morally perfect which is without sin. But not prejudicing the choice of remaining without sin or sinning.
Your definition is an eternally perfect moral being.
Then your definition is essentially worthless. 'Las Jeremyp has already pointed it it's a truism. Perfection has an inbuilt definition of always perfect, of ot isn't always perfect, it's not perfect. I will leave you to your utterly confused wittering.
-
Then your definition is essentially worthless. 'Las Jeremyp has already pointed it it's a truism. Perfection has an inbuilt definition of always perfect, of ot isn't always perfect, it's not perfect. I will leave you to your utterly confused wittering.
Well, there’s a lot there for you to justify. Humans are not a kind of always thing. Your definition of morally perfect seems to be dependent on the concept of always rather then the concepts of moral or perfect.
Again if humans arrived morally imperfect, what was the moral imperfection that they arrived with?
-
I think you're running away from the craziness of your fairytale. You haven't said what you think the penalty for us would be, only the batshit nonsense about Jesus's non-sacrifice.
The penalty for rejection of God and the things of God is not having God or the things of God. Yes, a metaphor like “Lake of fire” has caught the popular imagination but there are other metaphors”Going to their own place” and “dying in their own sins” which IMO give more pause for thought.
Why would anybody need forgiveness for being how God made them? It's God (if a God like you describe exists) that should be asking for forgiveness from us.
Sin is a choice. If evil were programmed in by God then, how do you account for doing good? Any reprogramming is at the hands of our forebears and ourselves.
With the silly, infinitesimal (to an eternal God) 30 years of cosplay, and 3 days of death. Yeah, right.
Regarding cosplay, it’s actually 30 years of being human. As for 3 days being dead, For a dead person what’s the difference between 3 days and 3 billion years?........Exactly none. The complaint of he only got 3 days is ridiculous.IMO.
-
I've never really understood this idea (or the idea of this thread initially). How can you engage with something you don't believe in?
As an agnostic atheist you don’t know there isn’t a God.
To me that should impose an intellectual duty to accept and entertain the possibility of the existence of God and ponder what this ultimate thing is like.
Some stop at reasons for and against God but to me that is like stopping at reasons for dinner sets or reasons for kier Starmer. You never arrive at the thing itself so it remains a theory.
-
As an agnostic atheist you don’t know there isn’t a God.
To me that should impose an intellectual duty to accept and entertain the possibility of the existence of God and ponder what this ultimate thing is like.
Some stop at reasons for and against God but to me that is like stopping at reasons for dinner sets or reasons for kier Starmer. You never arrive at the thing itself so it remains a theory.
Engaging with the idea of God is fine, but that is different from engaging with God surely. You can't engage with something you don't believe in.
-
As an agnostic atheist you don’t know there isn’t a God.
To me that should impose an intellectual duty to accept and entertain the possibility of the existence of God and ponder what this ultimate thing is like.
Some stop at reasons for and against God but to me that is like stopping at reasons for dinner sets or reasons for kier Starmer. You never arrive at the thing itself so it remains a theory.
You do struggle, Vlad: agnosticism refers to an absence of verifiable and/or justifiable knowledge that would be a sufficient basis to support belief (theism).
You seem to think that an agnostic atheist is somehow, by default, open to the possibility of 'God' when, as an agnostic atheist myself, I consider that there are no grounds in the form of knowledge to take claims of 'God' seriously at all.
-
So you aren't suggesting objective morality but an ad populum morality, which means that what happened in Roman times is precisely as 'moral' as what happens now.
No, I'm not doing that, either, but don't let that stop you.
A claim that your argument is no worse than one you think is shite is a novel if unimpressive one.
I'm sure it is. Give it a bit, and I'm sure that Vlad will suggest it for you, so you can raise that very point.
O.
-
The penalty for rejection of God and the things of God is not having God or the things of God. Yes, a metaphor like “Lake of fire” has caught the popular imagination but there are other metaphors”Going to their own place” and “dying in their own sins” which IMO give more pause for thought.
Firstly, you're still not telling us, or simply don't know what the penalty is. What are these "things of God"? Secondly, you can't reject something you don't believe exists.
Sin is a choice. If evil were programmed in by God then, how do you account for doing good?
Quite apart from the impossibility of true free will, which renders the whole idea of 'judgement' nonsensical, nobody lives up to God's standard, so it can't be a choice. If there was a genuine choice, then at least some people would make it.
Any reprogramming is at the hands of our forebears and ourselves.
And it's the involvement of our forebears that is the problem and it is because of your God's design, so that is your God's fault. It's how it made us.
Regarding cosplay, it’s actually 30 years of being human.
Humans can't do miracles, or don't you believe in that part of the story?
As for 3 days being dead, For a dead person what’s the difference between 3 days and 3 billion years?........Exactly none.
What exactly do you think happens when you're dead? If it's nothingness, then there wasn't much point Jesus dying anyway, and you never did address my point of what happened after Jesus was resurrected versus what happens when a sinner is, because, if it wasn't the same, then Jesus didn't genuinely take the punishment for sin at all and it was all just play-acting.
And what about Luke 23:43, where Jesus, while on the cross, makes a date to see somebody in paradise 'today'? If we was in paradise, it makes it even more absurd to say that he paid the price for our sins.
-
As an agnostic atheist you don’t know there isn’t a God.
To me that should impose an intellectual duty to accept and entertain the possibility of the existence of God and ponder what this ultimate thing is like.
(https://i.imgur.com/POlXATR.jpeg) An agnostic atheist clearly can't see any reason to think a God exists at all, otherwise they wouldn't be atheist. So trying to decide what it's like would be a little on the impossible side. The agnostic part is simply because there are countless claims about different versions of God or gods, that are unfalsifiable.
-
As an agnostic atheist you don’t know there isn’t a God.
Agnostic theists don't know there is a God, but they believe there is. Should they spend time considering the possibility that God doesn't exist to ponder what the universe is actually like?
Agnosticism doesn't mean your belief is somehow less compelling to you, it means you're in the intellectual position that you don't believe it's possible to definitively prove that there is or isn't a god. In order to revisit the belief, you'd need to encounter an explanation or a description that was somehow profoundly different from what you've encountered before, because you've already found the other ideas wanting.
To me that should impose an intellectual duty to accept and entertain the possibility of the existence of God and ponder what this ultimate thing is like.
The reality is that we already have. We've been showered with notions of God, and Allah, and Yahweh, and the Hindu pantheon, and Norse and Greek and Viking and, depending on individual experiences, maybe Incan and Native American and Shinto and Egyptian and Sumerian and so on. We've entertained the possibility, and it doesn't make sense to some of us, it doesn't 'feel' right for others. The idea that we're somehow ignorant of the notion, that we've not come across these notions, even as we fill a board with arguments against the very notions you're trying to utilise, just smack of arrogance, ignorance and patronisation. Perhaps you should actually take a moment to think about what Atheism means, given the various demonstrations of it here and elsewhere, and realised that we're just as informed and rational and widely-read as you, but we've come to a different conclusion.
Some stop at reasons for and against God but to me that is like stopping at reasons for dinner sets or reasons for kier Starmer. You never arrive at the thing itself so it remains a theory.
Some stop at reasons for and against God. Some stop at reasons for and against Leprechauns. Some don't see those as different reasons...
O.
-
If evil were programmed in by God then, how do you account for doing good?
You are the only one in this thread claiming that God did any programming at all. I account for doing good by the fact that humans are evolved animals and our capacity for doing good or evil are evolved characteristics. In fact, the concepts of good and evil are human defined constructs, in my opinion.
I don't have a problem, it is you who has the problem.
Regarding cosplay, it’s actually 30 years of being human.
30 years of cosplay as a human. Got it.
As for 3 days being dead,
Yes that's ridiculous. Jesus was only dead (according to your Bible from Friday afternoon until the early hours of Sunday morning at the longest. That's not even two days.
For a dead person what’s the difference between 3 days and 3 billion years?........Exactly none. The complaint of he only got 3 days is ridiculous.IMO.
Properly dead people don't come alive again at all. The problem is not that Jesus was dead for two days, three days, a fortnight, or a billion years. The problem is that his "death" was temporary.
And, if there is no difference between three days and three billion years, neither is there a difference between a fraction of a second and three days. Well done, you've just trivialised Jesus' alleged sacrifice even further.
-
Vlad
Would it be morally 'imperfect' to think immoral thoughts, as a possible option, even if the option is not ever enacted?
You see I'm struggling to understand how a 'morally perfect' human could ever think immorally, such as to wish someone dead, since if they did even think that then surely they aren't 'morally perfect'. You seem to think that only actions are morally suspect and that dubious intentions or thoughts are compatible with moral perfection provided they aren't acted upon - and that seems silly as well as illogical.
You must be running out of corners to paint yourself into.
-
Vlad
Would it be morally 'imperfect' to think immoral thoughts, as a possible option, even if the option is not ever enacted?
You see I'm struggling to understand how a 'morally perfect' human could ever think immorally, such as to wish someone dead, since if they did even think that then surely they aren't 'morally perfect'. You seem to think that only actions are morally suspect and that dubious intentions or thoughts are compatible with moral perfection provided they aren't acted upon - and that seems silly as well as illogical.
You must be running out of corners to paint yourself into.
I think we have to accept that Vlad is using 'morally perfect' only in the sense of not having committed evil. A table is morally perfect.
-
Jesus was only dead (according to your Bible from Friday afternoon until the early hours of Sunday morning at the longest. That's not even two days.
It has been suggested that Jesus died on a Wednesday. The Bible doesn't say that he died on a Friday, just that the next day was the sabbath - which would normally be Saturday, but it seems that the first-century Jews had seven extra sabbaths a year, which did not necessarily fall on a Saturday.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High_Sabbaths
https://christianityfaq.com/what-day-was-jesus-christ-crucified-the-debate/
-
As an agnostic atheist you don’t know there isn’t a God.
To me that should impose an intellectual duty to accept and entertain the possibility of the existence of God and ponder what this ultimate thing is like.
Some stop at reasons for and against God but to me that is like stopping at reasons for dinner sets or reasons for kier Starmer. You never arrive at the thing itself so it remains a theory.
There's an infinite number of things that I don't know exist. Your god is just one of them. I'd be spending an eternirty entertaining the existance of all those infinite things or I could assume they don't exist.
-
It has been suggested that Jesus died on a Wednesday. The Bible doesn't say that he died on a Friday, just that the next day was the sabbath - which would normally be Saturday, but it seems that the first-century Jews had seven extra sabbaths a year, which did not necessarily fall on a Saturday.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High_Sabbaths
https://christianityfaq.com/what-day-was-jesus-christ-crucified-the-debate/
It's a bit more complicated than that. If we go by the time line of the Synoptics, Jesus was executed on a high Sabbath i.e. the first day of Passover. Unfortunately, there is a problem there in that there is no way the Sanhedrin would meet on a high Sabbath. Ignoring that point, if Jesus was executed on a High Sabbath and the next day was the normal Sabbath, we have the same time table as the traditional one we use at Easter, although all the stuff about getting his body off the cross before the start of the Sabbath makes no sense.
John's gospel has Jesus being executed before the high Sabbath, so it is possible that he was executed on a Thursday, the high Sabbath is Friday and then we have the normal Sabbath. In this case, it is still less than three days in the tomb.
Anyway, Vlad has stated that the length of time you remain dead is not important. It could be three days, three billion years or three nanoseconds - it's all the same. So what exactly was the sacrifice?
-
Engaging with the idea of God is fine, but that is different from engaging with God surely. You can't engage with something you don't believe in.
I wanted to get that very observation across, myself. I did say there is more to it than stopping at the theory of God or, as you say the idea of God. My point is that an agnostic atheist does not have any justification to leave the matter there. The agnostic does not know whether there is a God or not. They do not know whether theism is wrong and therefore they must entertain that their atheist position may be wrong. This is not a question of belief then, it is a question of intellect. The agnostic is duty bound to fully realise and explore the possibility of God...and then see what would happen to their beliefs.
Many people who state they are agnostic atheists act as though they are gnostic atheists IMV. They are practically convinced that there is no God, certainly enough to forgo an adequate intellectual investigation. Evidence of that is a pretty shallow knowledge of the philosophy behind theism and a commitment to atheist philosophies above their agnostic position which requires the possibility of God.
IMV then there are some whose comfort with atheism, atheistic philosophies isn’t serving their agnostic position.
-
I wanted to get that very observation across, myself. I did say there is more to it than stopping at the theory of God or, as you say the idea of God. My point is that an agnostic atheist does not have any justification to leave the matter there. The agnostic does not know whether there is a God or not. They do not know whether theism is wrong and therefore they must entertain that their atheist position may be wrong. This is not a question of belief then, it is a question of intellect. The agnostic is duty bound to fully realise and explore the possibility of God...and then see what would happen to their beliefs.
Many people who state they are agnostic atheists act as though they are gnostic atheists IMV. They are practically convinced that there is no God, certainly enough to forgo an adequate intellectual investigation. Evidence is a pretty shallow knowledge of the philosophy behind theism and a commitment to atheist philosophies above their agnostic position which requires the possibility of God.
IMV then there are some whose comfort with atheism, atheistic philosophies isn’t serving their agnostic position.
I'd say it is more the case that an agnostic atheist considers that since there is no reliable or valid evidence that has inter-subjective justification then the notion of 'God' can be simply dismissed as incoherent white-noise that need not be 'entertained' at all.
-
You do struggle, Vlad: agnosticism refers to an absence of verifiable and/or justifiable knowledge that would be a sufficient basis to support belief (theism).
You seem to think that an agnostic atheist is somehow, by default, open to the possibility of 'God' when, as an agnostic atheist myself, I consider that there are no grounds in the form of knowledge to take claims of 'God' seriously at all.
Well that’s one interpretation of agnosticism. Another definition is that agnosticism is not knowing whether God exists. So there are multiple interpretations.
Claiming not to know whether God exists looks to me the same argument as not knowing whether God exists....or not since a claim that I do not know whether God exists but I know he doesn’t is absurd. If an agnostic isn’t open to the possibility of God that effectively is their position I.e. an absurd one or they aren’t agnostic.
-
I wanted to get that very observation across, myself. I did say there is more to it than stopping at the theory of God or, as you say the idea of God. My point is that an agnostic atheist does not have any justification to leave the matter there. The agnostic does not know whether there is a God or not. They do not know whether theism is wrong and therefore they must entertain that their atheist position may be wrong. This is not a question of belief then, it is a question of intellect. The agnostic is duty bound to fully realise and explore the possibility of God...and then see what would happen to their beliefs.
Many people who state they are agnostic atheists act as though they are gnostic atheists IMV. They are practically convinced that there is no God, certainly enough to forgo an adequate intellectual investigation. Evidence of that is a pretty shallow knowledge of the philosophy behind theism and a commitment to atheist philosophies above their agnostic position which requires the possibility of God.
IMV then there are some whose comfort with atheism, atheistic philosophies isn’t serving their agnostic position.
My atheism may be wrong, I acknowledge that. However again, you can engage with the idea of God (using intellect) although I'm not sure there is any duty to do so, but you can't engage with God if you have no belief in God. That may just be semantics but I'm not sure it is - I think theists who say this mean more than engaging with the idea of God. When you say engaging with God what do you actually mean?
-
I'd say it is more the case that an agnostic atheist considers that since there is no reliable or valid evidence that has inter-subjective justification then the notion of 'God' can be simply dismissed as incoherent white-noise that need not be 'entertained' at all.
If you are not open to the possibility of God Gordon you are not agnostic.
If you are agnostic you have an intellectual duty IMO to explore that to the uttermost.
-
Well that’s one interpretation of agnosticism. Another definition is that agnosticism is not knowing whether God exists. So there are multiple interpretations.
No there isn't: agnosticism mean an absence of knowledge and no amount of waffling gets you to any other meaning.
Claiming not to know whether God exists looks to me the same argument as not knowing whether God exists....or not since a claim that I do not know whether God exists but I know he doesn’t is absurd.
Then, as ever, you get it wrong: an agnostic atheist isn't claiming 'God' doesn't exist - they are saying that in the absence of sound knowledge there is no basis to even consider the notion of 'God' as being a serious proposition.
If an agnostic isn’t open to the possibility of God that effectively is their position I.e. an absurd one or they aren’t agnostic.
Wrong again: an agnostic would be open to valid, reliable and justified knowledge of 'God' - but there ain't none, to date anyway. There are no fences that agnostic atheists are required to sit upon.
-
If you are not open to the possibility of God Gordon you are not agnostic.
If you are agnostic you have an intellectual duty IMO to explore that to the uttermost.
Nonsense on stilts - see my recent post.
I may though have an 'intellectual duty' to call out batshit-crazy theobollocks whenever I encounter some.
-
My atheism may be wrong, I acknowledge that. However again, you can engage with the idea of God (using intellect) although I'm not sure there is any duty to do so, but you can't engage with God if you have no belief in God. That may just be semantics but I'm not sure it is - I think theists who say this mean more than engaging with the idea of God. When you say engaging with God what do you actually mean?
I’m not convinced that the argument “ There may or may not be a God, but you know what? I can’t be asked” is a good look as the young people would say.
The possibility of God is also the possibility of encountering God. It opens the possibility of increased intellectual possibility IMV.
-
I’m not convinced that the argument “ There may or may not be a God, but you know what? I can’t be asked” is a good look as the young people would say.
Smashing - but then nobody is saying that (outwith your imagination).
The possibility of God is also the possibility of encountering God. It opens the possibility of increased intellectual possibility IMV.
Then you need to demonstrate this 'possibility' in meaningful terms first - but I suspect you're just fooling yourself ('intellectually speaking') and you seem surprised that others of us are less easily fooled.
-
If you are not open to the possibility of God Gordon you are not agnostic.
If you are agnostic you have an intellectual duty IMO to explore that to the uttermost.
Why?
-
Wrong again: an agnostic would be open to valid, reliable and justified knowledge of 'God' - but there ain't none, to date anyway. There are no fences that agnostic atheists are required to sit upon.
Should be Gordon, Should be.
-
I’m not convinced that the argument “ There may or may not be a God, but you know what? I can’t be asked” is a good look as the young people would say.
The possibility of God is also the possibility of encountering God. It opens the possibility of increased intellectual possibility IMV.
What do you mean by 'I can't be asked'? My position is that I have no belief in God and do not find the evidence presented for God to be convincing. As with anything there is a possibility I may be wrong on my conclusion. Other atheists may have other positions/arguments but that is fine since the only thing we definitely have in common i that we have no belief in God.
You have now mentioned encountering but not said what you mean by engaging with God.
-
Why?
As they say “Because the possibility is there”. Are you really asking “why intellectual pursuit”.
A close relative of mine who was no mean but unself recognised philosopher used to call contemplation of the ultimate and fundamental “Habby horses shite”...He was wrong of course.
-
As they say “Because the possibility is there”. Are you really asking “why intellectual pursuit”.
A close relative of mine who was no mean but unself recognised philosopher used to call contemplation of the ultimate and fundamental “Habby horses shite”...He was wrong of course.
The possibility of time travel is there. Should I pursue that to the uttermost? If I pursue god or time travel, or any number of other things that are possible to the uttermost then I won't be able to do that for any of the other things so your statement as so often has an inbuilt logical contradiction.
-
What do you mean by 'I can't be asked'? My position is that I have no belief in God and do not find the evidence presented for God to be convincing. As with anything there is a possibility I may be wrong on my conclusion. Other atheists may have other positions/arguments but that is fine since the only thing we definitely have in common i that we have no belief in God.
You have now mentioned encountering but not said what you mean by engaging with God.
If you encounter God your response to that is your engagement.
-
What do you mean by 'I can't be asked'? My position is that I have no belief in God and do not find the evidence presented for God to be convincing. As with anything there is a possibility I may be wrong on my conclusion. Other atheists may have other positions/arguments but that is fine since the only thing we definitely have in common i that we have no belief in God.
You have now mentioned encountering but not said what you mean by engaging with God.
I think he means 'I can't be arsed'
-
The possibility of time teavel is there. Should I pursue that to the uttermost? If I pursue god or time travel, or any number of other things that are possible to the uttermost then I won't be able to do that for any of the other things so your statement as so often has an inbuilt logical contradiction.
I would ask whether time travel is fundamental or ultimate in all domains of human experience. It obviously fails the test.
By uttermost I mean within your own intellectual capabilities.
I love the ins and outs of the science of time travel but there is no way I am going to solve it.
-
If you encounter God your response to that is your engagement.
So if you don't encounter God then you can't engage - which is essentially what I have been saying that you can't engage if you don't have a belief in God.
-
I think he means 'I can't be arsed'
Oh yes, of course.
-
So if you don't encounter God then you can't engage - which is essentially what I have been saying that you can't engage if you don't have a belief in God.
But if you are agnostic you never have any guarantee that you aren’t going to encounter God.
Your belief here seems to be that you can’t encounter God.
-
But if you are agnostic you never have any guarantee that you aren’t going to encounter God.
Your belief here seems to be that you can’t encounter God.
No it isn't. It is that I currently have no belief in God so cannot engage with God.
-
I would ask whether time travel is fundamental or ultimate in all domains of human experience. It obviously fails the test.
By uttermost I mean within your own intellectual capabilities.
I love the ins and outs of the science of time travel but there is no way I am going to solve it.
By stating that god is fundamental or ultimate in all domains of human experience, you're begging the question.
-
There's always the possibility that there is a god, but the evidence of its existence is zero. There may be a god that is hidden from us, but that's functionally equivalent to no god as far as I am concerned, so while I acknowledge the possibility of God, I come to the tentative conclusion that I may as well not believe in it and get on with my life.
However, I an 100% certain that the Christian god doesn't exist.
-
No it isn't. It is that I currently have no belief in God so cannot engage with God.
You seem to be saying then that an agnostic atheist must acknowledge the possibility of God and hence the possibility of encounter but that it is impossible for them to engage with God.
I hate to say it but that makes your belief indistinguishable to a priori God evasion
-
There's always the possibility that there is a god, but the evidence of its existence is zero. There may be a god that is hidden from us, but that's functionally equivalent to no god as far as I am concerned, so while I acknowledge the possibility of God, I come to the tentative conclusion that I may as well not believe in it and get on with my life.
But what is it then that guarantees that God remains Hidden?
-
But what is it then that guarantees that God remains Hidden?
Not existing in the first place would have that effect.
-
You seem to be saying then that an agnostic atheist must acknowledge the possibility of God and hence the possibility of encounter but that it is impossible for them to engage with God.
Nope - when faced with an incoherent claim the issue of 'possibility' is redundant.
I hate to say it but that makes your belief indistinguishable to a priori God evasion
So we're back to your 'God-dodging' nonsense - 'evasion' is not required where there is nothing to evade.
-
My point is that an agnostic atheist does not have any justification to leave the matter there.
Of course they do. I have never been given any reason to take the idea seriously, so I don't. I have to remain intellectually agnostic simply because there are many versions of God that cannot be proved wrong.
Many people who state they are agnostic atheists act as though they are gnostic atheists IMV. They are practically convinced that there is no God, certainly enough to forgo an adequate intellectual investigation.
There doesn't appear to be anything to investigate. Theists, in my experience, only have blind faith. wishful thinking, and terrible 'arguments'.
Evidence of that is a pretty shallow knowledge of the philosophy behind theism...
Every time any theist has claimed to use philosophy, it turned out to be total bollocks, like the hour of my life I'll never get back listening to Edward Feser.
Regardless, if you have to delve into philosophy to find a reason to believe in a God then said God clearly isn't interested in delivering a message to humanity. It's not impossible that some sort of God might exist, but one that is at all interested in clearly communicating its existence and message to humans, goes against all the evidence. If it can't be bothered, then why should I?
-
You seem to be saying then that an agnostic atheist must acknowledge the possibility of God and hence the possibility of encounter but that it is impossible for them to engage with God.
I hate to say it but that makes your belief indistinguishable to a priori God evasion
Of course it doesn't. I acknowledge the possibility of God existing, in that I could be wrong, but have no belief in God so can't engage with something I don't believe in. Seems straightforward to me.
-
But if you are agnostic you never have any guarantee that you aren’t going to encounter God.
Your belief here seems to be that you can’t encounter God.
Nope.
-
Of course they do. I have never been given any reason to take the idea seriously, so I don't. I have to remain intellectually agnostic simply because there are many versions of God that cannot be proved wrong.
There doesn't appear to be anything to investigate. Theists, in my experience, only have blind faith. wishful thinking, and terrible 'arguments'.
Every time any theist has claimed to use philosophy, it turned out to be total bollocks, like the hour of my life I'll never get back listening to Edward Feser.
Regardless, if you have to delve into philosophy to find a reason to believe in a God then said God clearly isn't interested in delivering a message to humanity. It's not impossible that some sort of God might exist, but one that is at all interested in clearly communicating its existence and message to humans, goes against all the evidence. If it can't be bothered, then why should I?
intellectual endeavour doesn’t ask to be given reasons. It explores them. It seeks out sufficient reasons. Not seeks to disprove the principle.
-
Not existing in the first place would have that effect.
That depends on whether the thesis that God is hidden is correct.
-
Nope.
So you can encounter God but your belief forbids a response?
-
intellectual endeavour doesn’t ask to be given reasons. It explores them. It seeks out sufficient reasons. Not seeks to disprove the principle.
I see you totally ignored what I said. There is nothing (other than popularity, in some cases) that distinguishes the endless different, and contradictory, versions of 'God' that are believed in, from any other baseless superstition.
How much intellectual endeavour have you indulged in about vampires, ghosts, alien abductions, the Lock Ness monster, or the teapot orbiting Saturn?
How about a statistical investigation into the subsequence luck of people who walk under ladders, or on the cracks in the pavement?
-
intellectual endeavour doesn’t ask to be given reasons. It explores them. It seeks out sufficient reasons. Not seeks to disprove the principle.
I forgot to add that if a God with an important message for humanity exists, but hides its message amongst all the false religions and superstition, then that it further evidence that it is unjust.
-
That depends on whether the thesis that God is hidden is correct.
How could you ever tell though?
A claimed 'something' being hidden from view or that claimed 'something' not existing the the first place would result 'nothing to see here' in either case.
-
I see you totally ignored what I said. There is nothing (other than popularity, in some cases) that distinguishes the endless different, and contradictory, versions of 'God' that are believed in, from any other baseless superstition.
Hyberbole. There cannot be endless versions of God. You have totally ignored the God we are “looking for”. The ultimate and the fundamental. Any God which is part of a pantheon of gods can be ruled out since they are neither ultimate or fundamental. They are a red herring.
-
How could you ever tell though?
A claimed 'something' being hidden from view or that claimed 'something' not existing the the first place would result 'nothing to see here' in either case.
Are we to take the word$ “view” and “see” as literal? That if there were a God we would detect it empirically?
-
Are we to take the word$ “view” and “see” as literal? That if there were a God we would detect it empirically?
No idea, since I've no idea what this 'God' is: not my claim. If you can't detect it empirically then perhaps you'd care to outline a few 'God-apt' non-empirical detection methods.
-
But what is it then that guarantees that God remains Hidden?
As Gordon says, it could be non existence, but don't fret. As soon as God reveals itself to us, I'll become a believer. Before then, I will continue with my working assumption of nonexistence.
-
Hyberbole. There cannot be endless versions of God. You have totally ignored the God we are “looking for”. The ultimate and the fundamental. Any God which is part of a pantheon of gods can be ruled out since they are neither ultimate or fundamental. They are a red herring.
Begging the question, yet again.
-
No idea, since I've no idea what this 'God' is: not my claim. If you can't detect it empirically then perhaps you'd care to outline a few 'God-apt' non-empirical detection methods.
What a strange response. A yes or no answer would have sufficed. I don’t believe you don’t know whether your ruling criterion for existence is empirical evidence. Your response seems a little bit wolfhound and a little bit wahayy.
-
Begging the question, yet again.
Anyone?
-
What a strange response. A yes or no answer would have sufficed. I don’t believe you don’t know whether your ruling criterion for existence is empirical evidence. Your response seems a little bit wolfhound and a little bit wahayy.
Right - so you don't understand the point I was making and you have instead decided to evade with some nonsense.
I have no criteria for 'God' since it seems to me to be a meaningless term, and it isn't my claim anyway: but perhaps you could give us some hints on how to detect it (either empirically or non-empirically).
-
Anyone?
You are assuming your conclusion.
-
There cannot be endless versions of God.
There are endless versions of God that people believe in. I see no reason to think any of them actually exist, but there are unquestionably many versions of God that different people will tell you do exist.
You have totally ignored the God we are “looking for”. The ultimate and the fundamental.
Who's this "we"? I see no more point in looking for a God, than looking for fairies at the bottom of the garden.
Any God which is part of a pantheon of gods can be ruled out since they are neither ultimate or fundamental.
That doesn't mean they can't exist. By your own 'logic' you should be investigating the possibility.
-
As Gordon says, it could be non existence, but don't fret. As soon as God reveals itself to us, I'll become a believer. Before then, I will continue with my working assumption of nonexistence.
Well we’ve already had someone on who has suggested that God could exist and be encountered but there atheistic beliefs would prevent engaging with God. I’m not sure that is uncommon. You seem to be saying that those people who have encountered God are wrong. Have I got that right?Or are you saying it’s possible to have encountered God but you don’t believe them?
Secondly can you give your rationale for “your working assumption”.
-
There are endless versions of God that people believe in.
And Again I see no reason to think any of them actually exist,
If there are endless versions You cannot have seen them all.
Once again, My interest is in the Ultimate and fundemental, so intellectually I rule out that which is not fundamental and ultimate from being fundamental and ultimate.
-
You are assuming your conclusion.
How?
-
How?
That there is an 'ultimate and fundamental'. That this is the only one god. That gods cannot exist that are not 'ultimate and fundamental'. That those people who believe in such gods are wrong.
-
And Again If there are endless versions You cannot have seen them all.
Once again, My interest is in the Ultimate and fundemental, so intellectually I rule out that which is not fundamental and ultimate from being fundamental and ultimate.
Circular reasoning
-
You seem to be saying then that an agnostic atheist must acknowledge the possibility of God and hence the possibility of encounter but that it is impossible for them to engage with God.
I hate to say it but that makes your belief indistinguishable to a priori God evasion
Misse of "a priori".
I also think you're misunderstanding the word "agnostic". An agnostic is not just someone who does not personally know whether God exists or not, but someone who believes that God's existence is unknowable in principle. (Fun fact; the first person to call himself an agnostic (after TH Huxley, who coined the term) was Huxley's friend, Charles Darwin.)
And finally, you seem to be regarding God as an object in the universe, like the moon or a beetle or Nigel Farage. Whatever God is, God must surely be either less or much more than that; either nothing st all, or the ground and meaning of all existence.
-
And Again If there are endless versions You cannot have seen them all.
And.....?
Once again, My interest is in the Ultimate and fundemental, so intellectually I rule out that which is not fundamental and ultimate from being fundamental and ultimate.
And my interest is not in delving into unfalsifiable superstition.
You are applying blatant double standards. You can't falsify multiple gods, any more than I can falsify many of the vast number of versions of an "ultimate and fundamental" God, yet you want me to take your baseless idea seriously while you refuse to consider other, equally baseless, ideas.
-
That there is an 'ultimate and fundamental'. That this is the only one god. That gods cannot exist that are not 'ultimate and fundamental'. That those people who believe in such gods are wrong.
I think those things are argued else where on this forum. Meaght and I were discussing his notion that someone who does not believe in God cannot engage with God.
-
I think those things are argued else where on this forum. Meaght and I were discussing his notion that someone who does not believe in God cannot engage with God.
And you then assumed all of the above in your position which is exactly begging the question.
-
And my interest is not in delving into unfalsifiable superstition.
That doesn’t seem commensurate with your presence on a religion ethics message board
You are applying blatant double standards. You can't falsify multiple gods, any more than I can falsify many of the vast number of versions of an "ultimate and fundamental" God
If you can point me toward a pantheon run along purely democratic lines I’d be very interested in that but not as interested as I am in how all of this helps atheism.
-
And you then assumed all of the above in your position which is exactly begging the question.
No, I just suggested he turned his intellect to the possibility of them existing. He cannot start with my working assumptions but he is trying to argue that he cannot change from his to mine. He must address my assumptions surely other wise we are talking at cross purposes.
-
If you can point me toward a pantheon run along purely democratic lines I’d be very interested in that but not as interested as I am in how all of this helps atheism.
Atheism is simply an absence of theistic beliefs: so no 'help' is required thank you.
-
No, I just suggested he turned his intellect to the possibility of them existing. He cannot start with my working assumptions but he is trying to argue that he cannot change from his to mine. He must address my assumptions surely other wise we are talking at cross purposes.
No, you assume your conclusions as the starting point that he needs to accept in order to be acting in 'hood faith' for you. You also haven't addressed why it is your assumptions which are not consistent across theists that should be used. As ever you don't even appear to grasp the very basic logic of your position.
-
No, you assume your conclusions as the starting point that he needs to accept in order to be acting in 'hood faith' for you. You also haven't addressed why it is your assumptions which are not consistent across theists that should be used. As ever you don't even appear to grasp the very basic logic of your position.
He knows what God I believe in he chose his argument based on God. The word gods were never mentioned.
I do not start by saying what he should accept I said he should start by exploring aspects of God.
His assumption was that you can't engage with God if you don't believe in God.
-
No, you assume your conclusions as the starting point that he needs to accept in order to be acting in 'hood faith' for you. You also haven't addressed why it is your assumptions which are not consistent across theists that should be used. As ever you don't even appear to grasp the very basic logic of your position.
I start by thinking he isn’t going to accept anything! You need to explore intellectually to start with and as it is “My God” we are talking about there is no point me suggesting he starts at cup cakes and daisy chains. Do you red what people post?
-
If you can point me toward a pantheon run along purely democratic lines I’d be very interested in that...
What has democracy got to do with anything? I'm just pointed out your own inconsistency. Unless you think you can somehow falsify all possible versions of multiple gods, then you are being hypocritical to tell agnostic atheists that they should be carefully considering your version of God, while you just dismiss the gods.
...but not as interested as I am in how all of this helps atheism.
Why would you think it would, or that atheism needs any help? I'm just pointing out how inconsistent you are being.
-
What has democracy got to do with anything? I'm just pointed out your own inconsistency. Unless you think you can somehow falsify all possible versions of multiple gods, then you are being hypocritical to tell agnostic atheists that they should be carefully considering your version of God, while you just dismiss the gods.
Why would you think it would, or that atheism needs any help? I'm just pointing out how inconsistent you are being.
First of all when Meaght asked me about how a non believer could engage with God, God was singular. There was no mention of God’s or pantheons. I presume he was talking about a single God I.believe in.
Why is a democratic pantheon relevant? There is no high God in a pantheon Of that nature.
-
I start by thinking he isn’t going to accept anything! You need to explore intellectually to start with and as it is “My God” we are talking about there is no point me suggesting he starts at cup cakes and daisy chains. Do you read what people post?
-
First of all when Meaght asked me about how a non believer could engage with God, God was singular. There was no mention of God’s or pantheons. I presume he was talking about a single God I.believe in.
Why does that matter? You made a general statement about agnostic atheists:
As an agnostic atheist you don’t know there isn’t a God.
To me that should impose an intellectual duty to accept and entertain the possibility of the existence of God and ponder what this ultimate thing is like.
This raises the question of whether you are a strong atheist, with respect to polytheism, or an agnostic atheist? If the former, then on what basis can you be so sure, and if the latter, then you are being hypocritical.
Why is a democratic pantheon relevant? There is no high God in a pantheon Of that nature.
Stating the bleedin' obvious about what it means, is not telling me why you think it relevant.
-
No, I just suggested he turned his intellect to the possibility of them existing. He cannot start with my working assumptions but he is trying to argue that he cannot change from his to mine. He must address my assumptions surely other wise we are talking at cross purposes.
One of us is making this more complicated than it is ......
I have not said that I cannot change my mind, indeed I accepted I might be wrong in my atheism. What I am saying is that someone who at any moment does not have a belief in God cannot engage with God, they can engage with the idea of God and may change their position from being atheist to being theist and then they can engage with God - or feel they do rather.
It's Maeght rather than Meaght by the way.
-
Why does that matter? You made a general statement about agnostic atheists:
Apparently, I’m to.ask which definition of agnostic atheist you mean.
This raises the question of whether you are a strong atheist, with respect to polytheism, or an agnostic atheist? If the former, then on what basis can you be so sure, and if the latter, then you are being hypocritical.
I’m up for it....on another thread though. Hypocritical about what? I’m a monotheist. Whether gods with lower case g exist, I don’t know. It depends what you are talking about.I’m happy to discuss why I think the one less god argument is ‘suspect’
-
One of us is making this more complicated than it is ......
I have not said that I cannot change my mind, indeed I accepted I might be wrong in my atheism. What I am saying is that someone who at any moment does not have a belief in God cannot engage with God, they can engage with the idea of God and may change their position from being atheist to being theist and then they can engage with God - or feel they do rather.
It's Maeght rather than Meaght by the way.
Yes I think what you are saying is fair, clear and succinct and tallies with similar notions in Christianity.
-
Yes I think what you are saying is fair, clear and succinct and tallies with similar notions in Christianity.
Great. So this brings us to the question of 'God dodging'. Do you accept that in the scenario I have laid out, not engaging with God isn't dodging God, as you seem to suggest (often). Or have I misunderstood you on that?
-
Great. So this brings us to the question of 'God dodging'. Do you accept that in the scenario I have laid out, not engaging with God isn't dodging God, as you seem to suggest (often). Or have I misunderstood you on that?
The engagement with God is a response to the encounter with God some will commit and some not commit. Intellectual commitment is not christianity. God dodging is imv an observable thing. My own experience is of believing there was a god, encountering God trying to avoid God and eventually committing to Christ.
Remember. One's atheism isn't an inoculation against God's existence atheists think it is.
Further to an intellectual exploration of concepts such as ultimacy I would recommend people check there emotions, are there trigger words for you that come from the theist lexicon. Why do they trigger you.
-
The engagement with God is a response to the encounter with God some will commit and some not commit. Intellectual commitment is not christianity. God dodging is imv an observable thing. My own experience is of believing there was a god, encountering God trying to avoid God and eventually committing to Christ.
Remember. One's atheism isn't an inoculation against God's existence atheists think it is.
Further to an intellectual exploration of concepts such as ultimacy I would recommend people check there emotions, are there trigger words for you that come from the theist lexicon. Why do they trigger you.
But you accuse atheists of God dodging not people who have had an encounter with God and who believe in him.
What examples of me being triggered do you have or are you thinking of?
-
But you accuse atheists of God dodging not people who have had an encounter with God and who believe in him.
I have met people in the church who say they had encountered God and publicly still professed atheism.
What examples of me being triggered do you have or are you thinking of?
I confess to not knowing a great deal about your emotions. There are occasions where some will propose the craziest ideas on this board where it seems the criterion for proposal is not to involve the possibility of God in any way or shape.
-
I have met people in the church who say they had encountered God and publicly still professed atheism
But you accuse atheists on here of God dodging.
I confess to not knowing a great deal about your emotions. There are occasions where some will propose the craziest ideas on this board where it seems the criterion for proposal is not to involve the possibility of God in any way or shape.
I didn't ask about my emotions but about examples of me being triggered.
-
So why did you say 'Why do they trigger you.' ?
It’s general advice. IMO many atheists are subcritical of their own emotions and underlying motivations.
-
But you accuse atheists on here of God dodging.
I didn't ask about my emotions but about examples of me being triggered.
We could try word association.
-
It’s general advice. IMO many atheists are subcritical of their own emotions and underlying motivations.
And many aren't. Don't generalise.
-
We could try word association.
Go for it.
-
We could try word association.
Your qualifications in using and interpreting word association are?
-
Your qualifications in using and interpreting word association are?
He needs to do it himself.
-
He needs to do it himself.
So you have none, and he doesn't claim to have any expertise so you are just posting drivel.
-
So you have none, and he doesn't claim to have any expertise so you are just posting drivel.
You have turned a refusal to carry out a psychological test on the grounds of inherent inadequacies into lack of input. There are words that trigger some atheists but people need to examine themselves.
How for instance is their reaction to various words associated with the Christian lexicon?
They will have to be honest with themselves.
-
You have turned a refusal to carry out a psychological test on the grounds of inherent inadequacies into lack of input. There are words that trigger some atheists but people need to examine themselves.
How for instance is their reaction to various words associated with the Christian lexicon?
They will have to be honest with themselves.
Suggest some words. No refusal here.
-
Suggest some words. No refusal here.
I cannot constitute anything like a proper scientific test but checking your own emotions during religious discussion is for the individuals. St. Paul talks of “testing yourself” . Just a one of realing off a list and asking you for a response isn’t going to tell you much IMV. You have to observe yourself. With religious discussion. Do religious words stimulate you in a different way from other words? You know your own intellectual reaction but what about your spontaneous emotional reaction. The most obvious word is the word God, Jesus, sin, salvation etc. Remember you are testing and watching this yourself with no need to report to anyone else apart from yourself. Perhaps do the same for religious items.
-
I cannot constitute anything like a proper scientific test but checking your own emotions during religious discussion is for the individuals. St. Paul talks of “testing yourself” . Just a one of realing off a list and asking you for a response isn’t going to tell you much IMV. You have to observe yourself. With religious discussion. Do religious words stimulate you in a different way from other words? You know your own intellectual reaction but what about your spontaneous emotional reaction. The most obvious word is the word God, Jesus, sin, salvation etc. Remember you are testing and watching this yourself with no need to report to anyone else apart from yourself. Perhaps do the same for religious items.
Well now - whenever I encounter religion, or talk about it, the words that come to me are largely those describing various fallacies along with words such as 'superstition', 'nonsense', 'fantastical' and 'unbelievable'.
-
I cannot constitute anything like a proper scientific test but checking your own emotions during religious discussion is for the individuals. St. Paul talks of “testing yourself” . Just a one of realing off a list and asking you for a response isn’t going to tell you much IMV. You have to observe yourself. With religious discussion. Do religious words stimulate you in a different way from other words? You know your own intellectual reaction but what about your spontaneous emotional reaction. The most obvious word is the word God, Jesus, sin, salvation etc. Remember you are testing and watching this yourself with no need to report to anyone else apart from yourself. Perhaps do the same for religious items.
I wasn't asking for a proper scientific test, that was others. Religious words on their own don't have much of an emotional effect as often they don't mean anything to me. They may 'trigger' a 'here we go again' reaction. Religious arguments can cause frustration and annoyance at times because I find them poor or that they revert to religious talk which to me means nothing. I do find the typical 'thought for the day' style religious speak to be quite annoying but that i the same reaction as I get with 'arty talk' or 'poetic talk'. I heard an 'artist' talking on Radio 4 last week and found virtually everything she said to be arty nonsense and got a bit frustrated with her but also had a chuckle and recognised that to her it had meaning just not to me.
We probably all have some emotional responses to all words or topics since that is all part of how our brains work - stimuli triggers thoughts associated with the words based on previous experiences with that word or topic. What this is supposed to mean when it comes to specific religious words or topics I don't know.
What point are you trying to make with all this?
-
Well now - whenever I encounter religion, or talk about it, the words that come to me are largely those describing various fallacies along with words such as 'superstition', 'nonsense', 'fantastical' and 'unbelievable'.
I don't honestly know if or how much time you spend on self examination Gordon. My advice is to examine your emotional response, in short to probe why religious talk elicits your evident wrath.
Regarding Your intellectual response and intellectual fallacy defence.I think you mentioned once or twice that you contracted fallacy spotting and analysis out to others you thought more adapt at that than yourself.
You know my response. We have seen some amazing absurdities proposed on this forum as ways to avoid the God concept IMO.
-
I don't honestly know if or how much time you spend on self examination Gordon. My advice is to examine your emotional response, in short to probe why religious talk elicits your evident wrath.
Bearing in mind, Vlad, that I have incurable cancer (as you may recall from another thread), and dependent grandchildren, you can take it as read that I've done a fair bit of emotional introspection, and religion is no more relevant, reasonable or rational to me now than it was before I got sick
Regarding Your intellectual response and intellectual fallacy defence.I think you mentioned once or twice that you contracted fallacy spotting and analysis out to others you thought more adapt at that than yourself.
I never said any such thing.
You know my response. We have seen some amazing absurdities proposed on this forum as ways to avoid the God concept IMO.
Your problem is that you've caught something nasty (Christianity) and you can't quite understand that others of us are less susceptible to that particular malaise.
-
I wasn't asking for a proper scientific test, that was others. Religious words on their own don't have much of an emotional effect as often they don't mean anything to me.
You will understand though my desire to be sensitive and careful giving advice.They may 'trigger' a 'here we go again' reaction.
I think my experience closest to this was saying and thinking that “religion was being pushed down my throat”. This was prior to me becoming a Christian, Subsequently I admitted to myself that this hadn’t been the case. It was an attack to defend strategy. When I rocked up at my local church I was surprised to find people I knew were actually active Christians.Religious arguments can cause frustration and annoyance at times because I find them poor
In what way?or that they revert to religious talk which to me means nothing.
You mean to you? Is that in terms of comprehension or stimulation?I do find the typical 'thought for the day' style religious speak to be quite annoying
Why, do you find it condescending? Myself I find it a bit lightweight, twee and woolly often but that i the same reaction as I get with 'arty talk' or 'poetic talk'. I heard an 'artist' talking on Radio 4 last week and found virtually everything she said to be arty nonsense and got a bit frustrated with her but also had a chuckle and recognised that to her it had meaning just not to me.
I think though we’ve got to avoid archetypes since that is the way to bigotry and reverse snobbery. I was terrified of book club people but Mrs Vlad joined and I took her there and back even forcing myself into meetings as moral support. Needless to say I’ve got into it and made friends out of people I didn’t expect too
We probably all have some emotional responses to all words or topics since that is all part of how our brains work - stimuli triggers thoughts associated with the words based on previous experiences with that word or topic. What this is supposed to mean when it comes to specific religious words or topics I don't know.
What point are you trying to make with all this?
There’s a lot that goes on under the bonnet of consciousness M. Fellow armchair philosopher Richard Dawkins talked of consciousness raising by which he meant for example that as a species we didn’t know our discourse was sexist until it had it’s consciousness raised.
-
Well we’ve already had someone on who has suggested that God could exist and be encountered but there atheistic beliefs would prevent engaging with God.
"Atheist" is a descriptive word, not a prescriptive word.
I don't discount the possibility of a god because I am an atheist, I discount the possibility (probability really) of god because no god has left any evidence that they exist. That leads to me being described as an atheist. Atheism is not an ideology, it merely describes the lack of belief in gods no matter what the reason.
You seem to be saying that those people who have encountered God are wrong.
If anybody could ever satisfactorily demonstrate that they have encountered God, I would have to stop being an atheist. I believe those people who say they have are mistaken, mainly because their encounters are indistinguishable from delusions.
-
I don't honestly know if or how much time you spend on self examination Gordon. My advice is to examine your emotional response, in short to probe why religious talk elicits your evident wrath.
Regarding Your intellectual response and intellectual fallacy defence.I think you mentioned once or twice that you contracted fallacy spotting and analysis out to others you thought more adapt at that than yourself.
You know my response. We have seen some amazing absurdities proposed on this forum as ways to avoid the God concept IMO.
But for me (and maybe others) it is exactly the opposite.
I remember the period of time when I recognised that I was atheist. Prior to that I'd spent several years tying myself up in intellectual and logical knots trying to 'believe' that there was a god. But I knew all along (and this why I used the term recognised that I was atheist) that when I relied on my emotional response - turned off the logical attempt to fit a square peg into a round hole - that I just did not believe it. And quite frankly from my emotional 'heart' that I'd never believed.
The notion of god simply didn't make sense emotionally and logically when I looked at the world around me. Once I'd come to recognise that I didn't believe everything became clearer and more obvious to me - kind of like looking at the world directly rather than through a frosted glass window. But the flip-side was the responsibility - both personal and as humanity. No longer could I 'out-source' a moral standpoint to some ill-defined 'other' and sacred texts claimed to be his 'word'. And that is the point, about 35 years ago when I became interested in ethics - which I have pursued as an interest and professionally ever since.
So Vlad - just because when you turn off your logical and intellectual 'head' and rely on your emotional 'heart', it concludes 'god', don't assume that is the same for others. When I do this my emotional heart clearly concluded 'no god'.
-
You will understand though my desire to be sensitive and careful giving advice. I think my experience closest to this was saying and thinking that “religion was being pushed down my throat”. This was prior to me becoming a Christian, Subsequently I admitted to myself that this hadn’t been the case. It was an attack to defend strategy. When I rocked up at my local church I was surprised to find people I knew were active Christians. And yet here you are a member of a religion ethics boardIn what way? You mean to you? Is that in terms of comprehension or stimulation?Why, do you find it condescending? Myself I find it a bit lightweight, twee and woolly often I think though we’ve got to avoid archetypes since that is the way to bigotry and reverse snobbery. I was terrified of book club people but Mrs Vlad joined and I took her there and back even forcing myself into meetings as moral support. Needless to say I’ve got into it and made friends out of people I didn’t expect too There’s a lot that goes on under the bonnet of consciousness M. Fellow armchair philosopher Richard Dawkins talked of consciousness raising by which he meant for example that as a species we didn’t know our discourse was sexist until it had it’s consciousness raised.
The 'here we go again' point wasn't about religion being pushed down my through but about the same things being said by believers when ever the topic comes up. The poor arguments being made - 'look at the trees' , 'so the Bible tells me so', 'Jesus has changed my life' and so on. Every argument really - otherwise I'd be a believer.
Yes, I meant that religious speak means nothing to me. I first got involved here and the BBC site previously for two reasons - one to understand why people believe and to learn about that and secondly to put straight some misconceptions some theists seem to have about atheists. I don't hear anything convincing or new re the first part but still like to take part in the second. I don't post that much these days and didn't for some time but am interested to dip in now and again.
I didn't say Thought for the Day is condescending, I said I find it quite annoying and that is because it is full of arty/religious talk and furthers the poor arguments I hear elsewhere. Re religious speak meaning nothing to me it is to some extent comprehension I'm sure - I don't know what some of the phrases are meant to mean but I'm not sure the people saying them do always either. It doesn't connect with me any more than someone enthusing about cars or motor cycles or stamp collecting or anything else I have no association with.
-
I don't honestly know if or how much time you spend on self examination Gordon. My advice is to examine your emotional response, in short to probe why religious talk elicits your evident wrath.
Regarding Your intellectual response and intellectual fallacy defence.I think you mentioned once or twice that you contracted fallacy spotting and analysis out to others you thought more adapt at that than yourself.
You know my response. We have seen some amazing absurdities proposed on this forum as ways to avoid the God concept IMO.
Sanctimonious, self-satisfied cant.
-
"Atheist" is a descriptive word, not a prescriptive word.
I don't discount the possibility of a god because I am an atheist, I discount the possibility (probability really) of god because no god has left any evidence that they exist. That leads to me being described as an atheist. Atheism is not an ideology, it merely describes the lack of belief in gods no matter what the reason.
I’m not sure where to start with “The probability of God” thing. How do you propose to calculate it. Empirical evidence required? That makes one a philosophical empiricist doesn’t it and that is a circular argument. That way lies Scientism.
If anybody could ever satisfactorily demonstrate that they have encountered God, I would have to stop being an atheist. I believe those people who say they have are mistaken, mainly because their encounters are indistinguishable from delusions.
Can you give a comparable delusion? I think you are wrong though since you do not know God doesn’t exist you don’t know that people cannot encounter him.
Since I am not an empiricist I am open to arguments for an against God. Where as you are open only one.
-
Sanctimonious, self-satisfied cant.
I've never quite been able to throw off a suspicion that Vlad is an atheist WUM trying to make theists look bad through posturing. But +1 to your comment, not sure about the spelling.
-
Sanctimonious, self-satisfied cant.
Did you mean to say “cant”?
-
Did you mean to say “cant”?
Yes.
-
... not sure about the spelling.
;D
-
I've never quite been able to throw off a suspicion that Vlad is an atheist WUM trying to make theists look bad through posturing.
Wish fulfilment.
-
Wish fulfilment.
And, on cue, there's an illustration of why
-
I’m not sure where to start with “The probability of God” thing. How do you propose to calculate it. Empirical evidence required? That makes one a philosophical empiricist doesn’t it and that is a circular argument. That way lies Scientism.
Why would I want to? There's no evidence for any god.
Can you give a comparable delusion?
Why?
You claim you have encountered God. I think you are mistaken and your "encounter" is a product of your own mind. Why would I need to produce something comparable to that?
I think you are wrong though since you do not know God doesn’t exist you don’t know that people cannot encounter him.
I claimed your encounter is indistinguishable from delusion. That doesn't mean it is not real, only that you cannot demonstrate to anybody else that it is real. Why should I believe you when there are millions of other people claiming to have had encounters, but with different gods.
Since I am not an empiricist I am open to arguments for an against God. Where as you are open only one.
I can't parse that. Can you rewrite it in English please.
-
Why would I want to? There's no evidence for any god.
Why?
You claim you have encountered God. I think you are mistaken and your "encounter" is a product of your own mind. Why would I need to produce something comparable to that?I claimed your encounter is indistinguishable from delusion. That doesn't mean it is not real, only that you cannot demonstrate to anybody else that it is real. Why should I believe you when there are millions of other people claiming to have had encounters, but with different gods.
I can't parse that. Can you rewrite it in English please.
If someone says God probably doesn't exist they usually IME go quiet when you ask what the probability is and to show their working out.
If they say God is a delusion, what is a comparable delusion?
-
If they say God is a delusion, what is a comparable delusion?
An atheist would no doubt reply "ghosts, horoscopes, spiritualism, etc."
-
An atheist would no doubt reply "ghosts, horoscopes, spiritualism, etc."
Unless you've taken Dawkin's shilling, Steve, no atheist has stepped up to say so.
-
Unless you've taken Dawkin's shilling, Steve, no atheist has stepped up to say so.
I'll happily step up and say so: ghosts, spiritualism and horoscopes are on an par with 'God' - not a serious proposition as things stand.
-
I'll happily step up and say so: ghosts, spiritualism and horoscopes are on an par with 'God' - not a serious proposition as things stand.
But the definition of Delusion is a belief held against incontrovertible contrary evidence. What is the evidence against God.? Note, evidence against God.
-
But the definition of Delusion is a belief held against incontrovertible contrary evidence. What is the evidence against God.? Note, evidence against God.
Again, an atheist would say the existence of suffering and of bad design in nature
-
But the definition of Delusion is a belief held against incontrovertible contrary evidence. What is the evidence against God.? Note, evidence against God.
Nope - a delusion is a false or unjustified belief that is held despite contrary evidence or no supporting evidence.
As ever the philosophical burden of proof is yours alone.
-
Again, an atheist would say the existence of suffering and of bad design in nature
That only applies to certain claims about gods. In theory a 'god' could be a bit shite and a bit mean. Part of the problem that has been raised in this thread is the definition of god is all over the place. Vlad has been ruling out pantheons but previously has used the idea of simulation hypothesis to propose that multiple spotty teenagers in bedrooms could be 'gods.
-
Again, an atheist would say the existence of suffering and of bad design in nature
Those aren’t though actually atheistic arguments. They might point to a morally bad God and a bad designer but arguments for no God, I’m not sure.
And that’s the second point.Are these arguments or evidence that satisfy empirical evidence? I would say the latter.
Let us remind ourselves of the definition of Delusion. Delusion is a false belief in something which has incontrovertible evidence to the contrary. Which opens the question of falsification as well.
-
That only applies to certain claims about gods. In theory a 'god' could be a bit shite and a bit mean. Part of the problem that has been raised in this thread is the definition of god is all over the place. Vlad has been ruling out pantheons but previously has used the idea of simulation hypothesis to propose that multiple spotty teenagers in bedrooms could be 'gods.
I think, since it is ages since we covered this, my main observation is that once we accept a creator external to the universe how can we possibly say that creator is not the final, ultimate creator since there is nothing in our acceptance that guarantees a chain
The other thing of course is that the spotty teenage thing is horses laugh.
-
Those aren’t though actually atheistic arguments. They might point to a morally bad God and a bad designer but arguments for no God, I’m not sure.
And that’s the second point.Are these arguments or evidence that satisfy empirical evidence? I would say the latter.
Let us remind ourselves of the definition of Delusion. Delusion is a false belief in something which has incontrovertible evidence to the contrary. Which opens the question of falsification as well.
Don't be silly; nobody is required to falsify an incoherent claim. It is for the claimant, in this case you, to provide supporting evidence to incovertibly show why your claim of 'God' isn't delusional.
You should know this by now!
-
I think, since it is ages since we covered this, my main observation is that once we accept a creator external to the universe how can we possibly say that creator is not the final, ultimate creator since there is nothing in our acceptance that guarantees a chain
The other thing of course is that the spotty teenage thing is horses laugh.
No, it's about you using one idea of a god to back up your contradictory position by begging the question yet again. Your sloppy definitions and logical incohetence make your posting here a sad parody of logical argument which is why I can't shake the idea that you are an atheist wum, particularly given your obsession about Dawkins.
-
Don't be silly; nobody is required to falsify an incoherent claim. It is for the claimant, in this case you, to provide supporting evidence to incovertibly show why your claim of 'God' isn't delusional.
You should know this by now!
No to prove a delusion you have to provide incontrovertible evidence against. Against Gordon. The onus is on you this time
You look like a one trick pony.
Claiming incoherence is a positive assertion Gordon. You know what you have to do.
-
No, it's about you using one idea of a god to back up your contradictory position by begging the question yet again. Your sloppy definitions and logical incohetence make your posting here a sad parody of logical argument which is why I can't shake the idea that you are an atheist wum, particularly given your obsession about Dawkins.
Evidence ?
The chief contradiction though is accepting the idea of an external creator independent of the universe it creates....unless the proposer is called William Lane Craig.
-
No to prove a delusion you have to provide incontrovertible evidence against. Against Gordon. The onus is on you this time
You look like a one trick pony.
Claiming incoherence is a positive assertion Gordon. You know what you have to do.
That is sheer idiocy, Vlad, and I suspect you already know that. My comment about incoherence is a critique of your idiocy and not a claim.
-
Evidence ?
The chief contradiction though is accepting the idea of an external creator independent of the universe it creates....unless the proposer is called William Lane Craig.
Evidence of what?
And the possibility that there is acreator in terms of simulation hypothesis tells you nothing about the claim that there is a being that is a creator that isn't itself created. You, and Craig, attempt an Indian rope trick in logic claiming that things need to be created apart from the thing that doesn't. This is a basic logical contradiction.
-
That is sheer idiocy, Vlad, and I suspect you already know that. My comment about incoherence is a critique of your idiocy and not a claim.
If you think there is no onus on you as the person claiming delusion Gordon, you are deluded.
-
Evidence of what?
And the possibility that there is acreator in terms of simulation hypothesis tells you nothing about the claim that there is a being that is a creator that isn't itself created. You, and Craig, attempt an Indian rope trick in logic claiming that things need to be created apart from the thing that doesn't. This is a basic logical contradiction.
Yes, it is possible there may be a chain of creators which would be one in the eye for the single Godders. But how does there then being several gods help atheism?
By the creator being independent of it’s creation I mean independent for its own existence. Who knows what you were thinking about?
-
If you think there is no onus on you as the person claiming delusion Gordon, you are deluded.
Of course, Vlad - but then the key claim here is 'God', which is yours and not mine, and if you can't offer reasons to support it then I'd say 'delusion' was fair comment.
I seem to remember you and BHS often discussed leprechauns, which iirc you didn't take seriously (and neither did BHS). Presumably though you did take the trouble to falsify the leprechaun claim - or did you decide it was delusional nonsense (like 'God')?
-
Of course, Vlad - but then the key claim here is 'God', which is yours and not mine, and if you can't offer reasons to support it then I'd say 'delusion' was fair comment.
I seem to remember you and BHS often discussed leprechauns, which iirc you didn't take seriously (and neither did BHS). Presumably though you did take the trouble to falsify the leprechaun claim - or did you decide it was delusional nonsense (like 'God')?
Key claim?
Gordon has a magic get out of jail free card folks. It doesn't work like that. Positive assertions need justification.
Let's look at the definition of Delusion again. (I shall capitalise those affecting your ONUs.
A delusion is a false BELIEF which has INCONTRAVERTABLE EVIDENCE which is contrary.
Your onus to provide is plain.
KEY CLAIM INDEED.
-
Key claim?
Gordon has a magic get out of jail free card folks. It doesn't work like that. Positive assertions need justification.
Let's look at the definition of Delusion again. (I shall capitalise those affecting your ONUs.
A delusion is a false BELIEF which has INCONTRAVERTABLE EVIDENCE which is contrary.
Your onus to provide is plain.
KEY CLAIM INDEED.
There is incontrovertible evidence that people who have been dead for around three days stay dead: ask any undertaker. So there is incontrovertible evidence that the core claim in Christianity is bollocks. To believe otherwise would therefore be a false belief, but since you do believe otherwise then the burden of proof is yours.
Now stop being silly, and learn the difference between a claim and a critique of a claim.
-
Positive assertions need justification.
Exactly - and the positive assertion here is that God exists. The onus is thus on you to demonstrate that God's existence is at least more likely than not.
-
Yes, it is possible there may be a chain of creators which would be one in the eye for the single Godders. But how does there then being several gods help atheism?
By the creator being independent of it’s creation I mean independent for its own existence. Who knows what you were thinking about?
So when you said god had to be the ultimate you're now saying it doesn't. Again your sloppy definition means that means that you end up contradicting yourself. A d circular definitions don't help you out of your approach that things need creators apart from what doesn't.
-
Exactly - and the positive assertion here is that God exists. The onus is thus on you to demonstrate that God's existence is at least more likely than not.
No, Steven you are neglecting the word belief. The definition of delusion demands incontravertable evidence to the contrary.
The statement of Delusion assumes then that there is incontravertable contrary evidence. That God doesn’t exist so come on lads and produce it.
-
So when you said god had to be the ultimate you're now saying it doesn't. Again your sloppy definition means that means that you end up contradicting yourself. A d circular definitions don't help you out of your approach that things need creators apart from what doesn't.
No, God is the ultimate. If there is a chain of contingency then it ends with the ultimate. Ockham and all that. Contingent things need creators not ALL things. I thought we’d been through all this.
-
No, God is the ultimate. If there is a chain of contingency then it ends with the ultimate. Ockham and all that. Contingent things need creators not ALL things. I thought we’d been through all this.
Yes, but you then moved on to the idea that any simulation hypothesis posits a de facto god contradicting that definition. Your sloppy approach makes discussion worthless because you appear to have no idea of tge impact of the different positions you take.
-
No, Steven you are neglecting the word belief. The definition of delusion demands incontravertable evidence to the contrary.
The statement of Delusion assumes then that there is incontravertable contrary evidence. That God doesn’t exist so come on lads and produce it.
It seems your stupidity knows no bounds: nobody here on the atheist side of the fence is attempting to show that 'God' doesn't exist, especially since 'God' is an incoherent claim and, as such, there is nothing of substance to engage with in the first place.
I did, however, suggest that the core notion in Christianity - that Jesus was dead for around three days but didn't stay dead - has incontrovertible contrary evidence in that there are no known substantiated cases of this (ask any undertaker) - therefore it is reasonable to conclude that the 'Jesus was dead for a while and then wasn't' claim is most likely a false belief.
If you want to claim otherwise then on you go: 'God' is your claim after all.
-
It seems your stupidity knows no bounds: nobody here on the atheist side of the fence is attempting to show that 'God' doesn't exist, especially since 'God' is an incoherent claim and, as such, there is nothing of substance to engage with in the first place.
I did, however, suggest that the core notion in Christianity - that Jesus was dead for around three days but didn't stay dead - has incontrovertible contrary evidence in that there are no known substantiated cases of this (ask any undertaker) - therefore it is reasonable to conclude that the 'Jesus was dead for a while and then wasn't' claim is most likely a false belief.
If you want to claim otherwise then on you go: 'God' is your claim after all.
If belief in God is a delusion Gordon there should be incontravertable evidence to the contrary.
That’s the definition. If you can’t provide it, get someone who can.
-
It seems your stupidity knows no bounds: nobody here on the atheist side of the fence is attempting to show that 'God' doesn't exist, especially since 'God' is an incoherent claim and, as such, there is nothing of substance to engage with in the first place.
I did, however, suggest that the core notion in Christianity - that Jesus was dead for around three days but didn't stay dead - has incontrovertible contrary evidence in that there are no known substantiated cases of this (ask any undertaker) - therefore it is reasonable to conclude that the 'Jesus was dead for a while and then wasn't' claim is most likely a false belief.
If you want to claim otherwise then on you go: 'God' is your claim after all.
You’ve just put up arguments Gordon. Where’s the evidence that God does not exist. Do we have all the funeral records from Palestine in 33 AD? Or videos.?
-
If belief in God is a delusion Gordon there should be incontravertable evidence to the contrary.
That’s the definition. If you can’t provide it, get someone who can.
Really - I'd have thought there being no evidence in the first place would be enough: but now you straying into the dear old NPF (it's been a while), and some of us aren't stupid enough to indulge the folly of that approach.
'God' is your incoherent claim, as are the fantastical claims of Christianity where there is incontrovertible contrary evidence which indicates that, for example, Jesus not staying dead is a false belief. The 'God' claim is yours to defend and not mine to rebutt beyond pointing out the incoherent idiocy you are indulging in.
-
You’ve just put up arguments Gordon. Where’s the evidence that God does not exist. Do we have all the funeral records from Palestine in 33 AD? Or videos.?
No I haven't - I've just pointed out that your claims are incoherent and contradicted by evidence (people who have been dead for a few days don't recover). Since I think that 'God' is meaningless nonsense I just reject it out of hand as a parcel of superstitions and fallacies that are best dismissed: if you want to substantiate it on you go.
The alleged death and resurrection of Jesus is your problem, since you believe it, and not mine. I think you are holding a false belief because there is contrary incontrovertible evidence.
-
Really - I'd have thought there being no evidence in the first place would be enough: but now you straying into the dear old NPF (it's been a while), and some of us aren't stupid enough to indulge the folly of that approach.
'God' is your incoherent claim, as are the fantastical claims of Christianity where there is incontrovertible contrary evidence which indicates that, for example, Jesus not staying dead is a false belief. The 'God' claim is yours to defend and not mine to rebutt beyond pointing out the incoherent idiocy you are indulging in.
No Gordon the definition of delusion is a BELIEF
Which is FALSE and has INCONTRAVERTABLE evidence to the CONTRARY. A belief Gordon so no NPF.
So we need from you the incontravertable evidence.
-
No Gordon the definition of delusion is a BELIEF
Which is FALSE and has INCONTRAVERTABLE evidence to the CONTRARY. A belief Gordon so no NPF.
So we need from you the incontravertable evidence.
I've already done that regarding the delusional resurrection claim you hold, which evidence confirms is likely a false belief, and if you don't accept that then you'll be sinking into special pleading (or worse).
'God', and all the Christian nonsense that hangs of it, is your claim and your problem. You are exactly inviting me to indulge in the NPF - I'm not that stupid, though you clearly are for thinking I might.
-
I've already done that regarding the delusional resurrection claim you hold, which evidence confirms is likely a false belief, and if you don't accept that then you'll be sinking into special pleading (or worse).
'God', and all the Christian nonsense that hangs of it, is your claim and your problem. You are exactly inviting me to indulge in the NPF - I'm not that stupid, though you clearly are for thinking I might.
Still waiting for the incontrovertible evidence that belief in God is a delusion.
Regarding the resurrection. No incontrovertible evidence. Can you just recap what it is concerning resurrection that you think is false belief thank you.
-
Still waiting for the incontrovertible evidence that belief in God is a delusion.
Regarding the resurrection. No incontrovertible evidence. Can you just recap what it is concerning resurrection that you think is false belief thank you.
I refer the honourable gentleman to my various previous answers regarding the incoherent 'God' claim and the delusional beliefs (i.e. dead people not staying dead) that flow from that: all you need is already there, Vlad.
-
Let us remind ourselves of the definition of Delusion. Delusion is a false belief in something which has incontrovertible evidence to the contrary. Which opens the question of falsification as well.
Let us remind ourselves that that is only one of a couple of definitions of "delusion" and Vlad is being deeply dishonest in choosing that particular one.
My computer has that definition but also "false belief or perception". So my challenge to Vlad could just as easily be "Can you demonstrate that your encounter with God was real and not a false belief". Of course he can't and, since the god he believes in is an incoherent concept, (as discussed at length already) I am entitled to dismiss his assertion of an encounter with God as complete bollocks.
-
Furthermore, I don't claim that Vlad's encounter with his god is a false belief: I claim that it is indistinguishable from a false belief.
It might be true, but he has no way to show that it is true. How do I know that? Because if he had a way to show that his belief in his encounter with God was true, he would have done it already.
-
Let us remind ourselves that that is only one of a couple of definitions of "delusion" and Vlad is being deeply dishonest in choosing that particular one.
My computer has that definition but also "false belief or perception". So my challenge to Vlad could just as easily be "Can you demonstrate that your encounter with God was real and not a false belief". Of course he can't and, since the god he believes in is an incoherent concept, (as discussed at length already) I am entitled to dismiss his assertion of an encounter with God as complete bollocks.
So there is more than one definition and your favourite one that gives no definition of false is the correct one, eh?
-
So there is more than one definition and your favourite one that gives no definition of false is the correct one, eh?
Stop giving us that bullshit.
Demonstrate that we can distinguish your claim from falsehood or shut the fuck up.
-
Again, an atheist would say the existence of suffering and of bad design in nature
Some might.
-
So there is more than one definition and your favourite one that gives no definition of false is the correct one, eh?
For crying out loud: you can't falsify incoherent nonsense. All you can do is point out that it is incoherent nonsense. The notion that my 'salvation' is in the hands of an alleged preacher who lived and died (but didn't stay dead) in antiquity seems to me, without sound supporting evidence, to be incoherent nonsense.
It is for the likes of you, Vlad, to explain why it isn't incoherent nonsense without relying on related incoherent nonsense.
-
Have to agree with Walt about 'delusion'.
-
Have to agree with Walt about 'delusion'.
As is often the case with Vlad he's conflating matters - that a delusion is a false belief is fine but that this belief must require contrary incontrovertible evidence is the conflation, since a false belief for which there is no relevant supporting evidence at all that can be rebutted may well be delusional.
Vlad's invitation is to provide contrary incontrovertible evidence to the claim of 'God' which is, of course, no more than incoherent white noise for which there is no credible supporting evidence in the first place. Can there ever be contrary incontrovertible evidence to meaningless incoherent waffle - I think not, and I suspect Vlad well knows that.
-
As is often the case with Vlad he's conflating matters - that a delusion is a false belief is fine but that this belief must require contrary incontrovertible evidence is the conflation, since a false belief for which there is no relevant supporting evidence at all that can be rebutted may well be delusional.
Vlad's invitation is to provide contrary incontrovertible evidence to the claim of 'God' which is, of course, no more than incoherent white noise for which there is no credible supporting evidence in the first place. Can there ever be contrary incontrovertible evidence to meaningless incoherent waffle - I think not, and I suspect Vlad well knows that.
As I see it. He doesn't need to provide incontrovertible evidence for the existence of God. To be deluded you need to have a belief that goes against incontrovertible evidence to the contrary. There isn't incontrovertible evidence that God doesn't exist so a belief in God isn't delusional. Where is that wrong?
-
As I see it. He doesn't need to provide incontrovertible evidence for the existence of God. To be deluded you need to have a belief that goes against incontrovertible evidence to the contrary. There isn't incontrovertible evidence that God doesn't exist so a belief in God isn't delusional. Where is that wrong?
I would say he does, if he expects the rest of us to believe it.
But if his beliefs are fantastical, incoherent and are unsupported by any credible evidence at all, then there is no need to negate his claim of 'God' by citing contrary incontrovertible evidence - since there can be none in response to such an incoherent and nonsensical claim, which can therefore just be viewed as an example of unjustified false belief - hence a delusion.
It may be that the term 'delusion' isn't often used in relation to the claims of Christianity but I'd say that anyone who seriously entertains a belief that a 2/3 dead person didn't stay dead is holding an unjustified false belief that can be dismissed as being delusional.
-
I would say he does, if he expects the rest of us to believe it.
But if his beliefs are fantastical, incoherent and are unsupported by any credible evidence at all, then there is no need to negate his claim of 'God' by citing contrary incontrovertible evidence - since there can be none in response to such an incoherent and nonsensical claim, which can therefore just be viewed as an example of unjustified false belief - hence a delusion.
It may be that the term 'delusion' isn't often used in relation to the claims of Christianity but I'd say that anyone who seriously entertains a belief that a 2/3 dead person didn't stay dead is holding an unjustified false belief that can be dismissed as being delusional.
Is there incontrovertible evidence that God doesn't exist?
-
Is there incontrovertible evidence that God doesn't exist?
Since 'God' is a meaningless/incoherent term then I've no idea - it isn't a serious proposition.
Vlad is inviting us to commit the negative proof fallacy: he should know better by now.
-
Since 'God' is a meaningless/incoherent term then I've no idea - it isn't a serious proposition.
Vlad is inviting us to commit the negative proof fallacy: he should know better by now.
I don't think he is in this case, he is arguing against the use of the word deluded.
-
I don't think he is in this case, he is arguing against the use of the word deluded.
In #289 he said "No to prove a delusion you have to provide incontrovertible evidence against.", which is not the case. A delusion can be an unjustified false belief which, by dint of being incoherent, doesn't require rebuttal and can simply be dismissed.
That he doesn't like the term is his problem - and even though I haven't used it much myself, until today, I'd say it is relevant when someone claims that 2/3 day dead person didn't stay dead.
-
In #289 he said "No to prove a delusion you have to provide incontrovertible evidence against.", which is not the case. A delusion can be an unjustified false belief which, by dint of being incoherent, doesn't require rebuttal and can simply be dismissed.
That he doesn't like the term is his problem - and even though I haven't used it much myself, until today, I'd say it is relevant when someone claims that 2/3 day dead person didn't stay dead.
He is going by the definition of 'a false belief or judgment about external reality, held despite incontrovertible evidence to the contrary, occurring especially in mental conditions' - hence his post #289.
I don't get the thing about people normally staying dead. That normally people do but Jesus didn't because he was divine is surely the point.
-
I don't get the thing about people normally staying dead. That normally people do but Jesus didn't because he was divine is surely the point.
It's the point of the story, but as justifications for belief go, it's fairly circular. You have to accept the divinity of Jesus to allow for the idea that Jesus might have been able to do what no-one else in history has been demonstrated to do, which is being cited to justify the idea of divinity in the first place.
O.
-
It's the point of the story, but as justifications for belief go, it's fairly circular. You have to accept the divinity of Jesus to allow for the idea that Jesus might have been able to do what no-one else in history has been demonstrated to do, which is being cited to justify the idea of divinity in the first place.
O.
You have to accept the accounts in the Bible surely. Plus the church traditions (e.g. about the apostles willingly becoming martyrs). I've heard plenty of theists say that the 'fact' of the resurrection shows Jesus was divine.
-
He is going by the definition of 'a false belief or judgment about external reality, held despite incontrovertible evidence to the contrary, occurring especially in mental conditions' - hence his post #289.
I don't get the thing about people normally staying dead. That normally people do but Jesus didn't because he was divine is surely the point.
I'd say that the notion of 'God' qualifies as "a false belief or judgment about external reality" but that the nature of this particular claim is such that there can never be incontrovertible evidence to the contrary since the claim itself is incoherent - and that to request such evidence, as Vlad has, is an invitation to commit the NPF.
Jesus being dead and then not is an example of a specific claim that is contrary to external reality and I'd say that anyone who accepts that claim sees it as a special case and that, therefore, they are indulging in special pleading: but for me it is a clear unjustified false belief for which there is no credible supporting evidence.
While 'delusion' may not be often applied to religious convictions it is, in my view, not totally inappropriate when it is applied to unjustified false beliefs.
-
I'd say that the notion of 'God' qualifies as "a false belief or judgment about external reality" but that the nature of this particular claim is such that there can never be incontrovertible evidence to the contrary since the claim itself is incoherent - and that to request such evidence, as Vlad has, is an invitation to commit the NPF.
Jesus being dead and then not is an example of a specific claim that is contrary to external reality and I'd say that anyone who accepts that claim sees it as a special case and that, therefore, they are indulging in special pleading: but for me it is a clear unjustified false belief for which there is no credible supporting evidence.
While 'delusion' may not be often applied to religious convictions it is, in my view, not totally inappropriate when it is applied to unjustified false beliefs.
They would say, surely, that because Jesus was divine you can't compare his reality with that of non-divine humans. The reality for a divine human could be that they can come back from the dead, so not special pleading to say Jesus did.
Not atheist though of course. Maybe Walt/Vlad will comment.
-
They would say, surely, that because Jesus was divine you can't compare his reality with that of non-divine humans. The reality for a divine human could be that they can come back from the dead, so not special pleading to say Jesus did.
I'd say it was fallacious special pleading - Jesus is divine, but nobody else ever was/is.
-
I'd say it was fallacious special pleading - Jesus is divine, but nobody else ever was/is.
Christians believe he was unique don't they? So the reality for him isn't the same as the reality for others.
An interesting discussion on Christian beliefs between atheists :)
-
Christians believe he was unique don't they? So the reality for him isn't the same as the reality for others.
An interesting discussion on Christian beliefs between atheists :)
Indeed - and I'm off to bed now. Goodnight Maeght.
-
Indeed - and I'm off to bed now. Goodnight Maeght.
Me too. Goodnight Gordon.
-
You have to accept the accounts in the Bible surely.
Why? We have nothing concrete, we have nothing evidentiary from the time, we have a few sparse sources that suggest Christianity was becoming a thing in the early years after the alleged events, and then we get the books of the New Testament accumulated, edited, re-written and selectively translated over the next few centuries. That the Jesus myth is likely based on a real person seems likely, but far from guaranteed, but to accept the claims of magic would require much more robust evidence than that.
Plus the church traditions (e.g. about the apostles willingly becoming martyrs).
People believe it profoundly, yes. People profoundly believe other, contradictory, religious teachings - they can't all be right, but they can very much all be wrong.
I've heard plenty of theists say that the 'fact' of the resurrection shows Jesus was divine.
That they think it's a fact doesn't make it a fact. I don't accept that the Theory of Evolution is a fact, it's just an incredibly robustly supported but technically refutable explanation for the phenomena that we see. If I don't accept that as a fact, I'm sure as hell not going to go with the resurrection myth on the strength of one extremely unreliable bed-time story.
O.
[/quote]
-
Why? We have nothing concrete, we have nothing evidentiary from the time, we have a few sparse sources that suggest Christianity was becoming a thing in the early years after the alleged events, and then we get the books of the New Testament accumulated, edited, re-written and selectively translated over the next few centuries. That the Jesus myth is likely based on a real person seems likely, but far from guaranteed, but to accept the claims of magic would require much more robust evidence than that.
People believe it profoundly, yes. People profoundly believe other, contradictory, religious teachings - they can't all be right, but they can very much all be wrong.
That they think it's a fact doesn't make it a fact. I don't accept that the Theory of Evolution is a fact, it's just an incredibly robustly supported but technically refutable explanation for the phenomena that we see. If I don't accept that as a fact, I'm sure as hell not going to go with the resurrection myth on the strength of one extremely unreliable bed-time story.
O.
But delusion is not about proof. It’s about belief for which there is incontravertable evidence to the contrary. In the context of history then you have to provide an alternative account that is also incontravertable.
-
But delusion is not about proof. It’s about belief for which there is incontravertable evidence to the contrary. In the context of history then you have to provide an alternative account that is also incontravertable.
That is non-sense on stilts - if you don't believe something there is no requirement to provide an alternative explanation. If you do believe something then the onus is on the believer to justify their belief.
Delusion is believing something where there is incontrovertible evidence that it is false, or non believing something where there is incontrovertible evidence that it is true.
But that isn't the territory we are on here, as the agnostic element of agnostic atheist (as I'd describe myself) relates the the notion that we do not have incontrovertible evidence that god exists and it is also pretty well impossible to prove that something doesn't exist and therefore we do not have incontrovertible evidence that god does not exists. In terms of knowledge we are in uncertain territory.
But the atheist (or theist) part is about belief - in the absence of incontrovertible evidence to the contrary it is not delusional to believe that something does not exist. But there is a further point, which is whether there is any credible evidence, that falls short of incontrovertible evidence, but evidence non-the-less. To my mind there is no credible evidence for the existence of god (albeit there is no incontrovertible evidence that god does not exist), which leads me to belief that god does not exist based on that lack of evidence. I could be wrong, of course, but I'm completely comfortable in my conclusion on the basis of belief (or rather lack of belief).
Where I struggle is with those who, despite a lack of evidence, still believe in god. While that doesn't get to incontrovertible evidence that god does not exist, to believe something where there is no credible evidence to support that belief seems close to delusional. And also inconsistent double standards as those who believe in a specific god (e.g. christian god) despite the lack of evidence also reject other gods (where the evidence is just as lacking) and other phenomena (flying spaghetti monster, orbiting teapots, leprechauns) where there is similarly no credible evidence for their existence.
-
That is non-sense on stilts.
Delusion is believing something where there is incontrovertible evidence that it is false,
That’s what I just said! or non believing something where there is incontrovertible evidence that it is true.
But that isn't the territory we are on here
Where have you been? as the agnostic element of agnostic atheist (as I'd describe myself) relates the the notion that we do not have incontrovertible evidence that god exists and it is also pretty well impossible to prove that something doesn't exist and therefore we do not have incontrovertible evidence that god does not exists. In terms of knowledge we are in uncertain territory.
But the atheist (or theist) part is about belief - in the absence of incontrovertible evidence to the contrary it is not delusional to believe that something does not exist.
Never said it was But there is a further point, which is whether there is any credible evidence, that falls short of incontrovertible evidence, but evidence non-the-less.
what then is the evidence that God does not exist To my mind there is no credible evidence for the existence of god (albeit there is no incontrovertible evidence that god does not exist), which leads me to belief that god does not exist based on that lack of evidence. I could be wrong, of course, but I'm completely comfortable in my conclusion on the basis of belief (or rather lack of belief).
Where I struggle is with those who, despite a lack of evidence, still believe in god. While that doesn't get to incontrovertible evidence that god does not exist, to believe something where there is no credible evidence to support that belief seems close to delusional. And also inconsistent double standards as those who believe in a specific god (e.g. christian god) despite the lack of evidence also reject other gods (where the evidence is just as lacking) and other phenomena (flying spaghetti monster, orbiting teapots, leprechauns) where there is similarly no credible evidence for their existence.
Flying Spaghetti Monster has an author and is a horses laugh, fallacy, ditto orbiting tea pots and Leprechauns. They are merely contingent entities anyway.
-
what then is the evidence that God does not exist.
None is necessary. Burden of proof again.
-
None is necessary. Burden of proof again.
It is for a claim of delusion apparently. If you can’t get that I can’t help you.
But if you do it might bring you to thinking that belief in God is not a delusion after all.
-
But delusion is not about proof. It’s about belief for which there is incontravertable evidence to the contrary.
That's one definition, yes. It can also be an understanding or experience in defiance of the evidence. If it's wrong it's a delusion, whether I can prove/disprove it or not. I can only prove that it's a delusion if I can prove that the belief is wrong, yes, but I can believe that it's a delusion without having that proof.
In the context of history then you have to provide an alternative account that is also incontravertable.
They made it up. We have thousands of other religious myths that, presumably, most of Christendom think were made up. Why should we think this one is any different?
O.
-
That's one definition, yes. It can also be an understanding or experience in defiance of the evidence. If it's wrong it's a delusion, whether I can prove/disprove it or not. I can only prove that it's a delusion if I can prove that the belief is wrong, yes, but I can believe that it's a delusion without having that proof.
They made it up. We have thousands of other religious myths that, presumably, most of Christendom think were made up. Why should we think this one is any different?
O.
Diverse myths seem though to have the same source. Gilgamesh and the flood.
A certain type of person dismisses myths per se. Tribalism might stop some arbitrarily from enjoying other myths. Being an expert in myths was instrumental in Lewis path to theism. There is no evidence he burned his books after conversion. Lewis’s autobiography shows they helped him to categorise various religious narratives and identify what he called reportage. His academic studies prevented him from writing them off as one kind of load of old cobblers. Your approach smacks of philistinism.
-
It is for a claim of delusion apparently. If you can’t get that I can’t help you.
But if you do it might bring you to thinking that belief in God is not a delusion after all.
I don't think that belief in God is a delusion - I just get pissed off by your repeated failure to understand the basic and very simple principle of burden of proof. A claim that belief in God is a delusion is just another way of saying "there is no God", and, as a negative statement, is the default position unless you can provide reasonable grounds for belief.. (btw, "belief in God" is a hopelessly vague phrase).
-
That’s what I just said!
Nice quote mining Vlad.
From your reply, when you quote me:
'That is non-sense on stilts.
Delusion is believing something where there is incontrovertible evidence that it is false,'
Why did you remove the key further element - this is what I said (my emphasis on the bit you removed when replying):
'That is non-sense on stilts - if you don't believe something there is no requirement to provide an alternative explanation. If you do believe something then the onus is on the believer to justify their belief.
Delusion is believing something where there is incontrovertible evidence that it is false,'.
Why did you ignore my bit about onus, which is what related to my 'non-sense on stilts' comment.
-
Flying Spaghetti Monster has an author and is a horses laugh, fallacy, ditto orbiting tea pots and Leprechauns. They are merely contingent entities anyway.
Again - nice selective quoting.
Firstly from my standpoint there is very little difference between these things and god - all appear to me to lack any credible evidence for their existence and are therefore entities conjured up by humans for one purpose or another.
But secondly I also mentioned other gods (which you presumably don't believe in). So the claim of double standards remains - there is no more evidence for the christian god than for any other gods. So why do you believe in one (despite the lack of credible evidence) yet do not believe in the existence of other gods (which also lack credible evidence).
-
Diverse myths seem though to have the same source. Gilgamesh and the flood.
So one person made it up and subsequent people copied/borrowed/stole/repurposed it - I'm not sure that makes it any more likely that it's true. We have Christmas when we do because early Christians tried to overwrite the pre-existing mid-winter festivals; it doesn't make it true that Jesus was suddenly born in December, though.
A certain type of person dismisses myths per se.
I'm sure they do. Another certain type of person thinks their preferred myth is somehow qualitatively different to all the other myths.
Tribalism might stop some arbitrarily from enjoying other myths.
It might, yes. Stepping outside of that and seeing them all as cultural tropes helps with that, I find.
Being an expert in myths was instrumental in Lewis path to theism. There is no evidence he burned his books after conversion.
I don't know his history well enough to know, but I suspect he thought The Epic of Gilgamesh and The Book of Acts belonged in different sections of the library, though.
Lewis’s autobiography shows they helped him to categorise various religious narratives and identify what he called reportage. His academic studies prevented him from writing them off as one kind of load of old cobblers.
And yet innumerable other scholars categorise them similarly as archetypal stories, as cultural tropes and tribal markers. They've traced the development of the Christian god from an early tribal war-god amongst a pantheon through the Jewish development of Yahweh as a monotheistic deity, and onto the Christian mixed message of a monotheism with multiple other divine entities and a whole host of special pleading.
Your approach smacks of philistinism.
Oh, no, I've been called a name by Vlad. Well I've definitely lost that argument then... Your ad hominem smacks of someone without an argument to make, who just realised he'd resorted to an attempted argument from authority that rested on C S Lewis, but keep slinging those out, they're some of your best work.
O.
-
Again - nice selective quoting.
Firstly from my standpoint there is very little difference between these things and god - all appear to me to lack any credible evidence for their existence
And of course physical evidence is important for a physicalist and are therefore entities conjured up by humans for one purpose or another.[/quote]
I disbelieve in fairies, Leprechauns and Teapots because they should be observable and aren't. But secondly I also mentioned other gods (which you presumably don't believe in). So the claim of double standards remains - there is no more evidence for the christian god than for any other gods. So why do you believe in one (despite the lack of credible evidence) yet do not believe in the existence of other gods (which also lack credible evidence).
As far as I can recall you've never asked me about other gods.
-
As far as I can recall you've never asked me about other gods.
Wrong - did you actually bother to read my post:
'And also inconsistent double standards as those who believe in a specific god (e.g. christian god) despite the lack of evidence also reject other gods (where the evidence is just as lacking) and other phenomena (flying spaghetti monster, orbiting teapots, leprechauns) where there is similarly no credible evidence for their existence.'
You even quoted this in your reply (338), so struggling to see how you could have missed it.
-
Why? We have nothing concrete, we have nothing evidentiary from the time, we have a few sparse sources that suggest Christianity was becoming a thing in the early years after the alleged events, and then we get the books of the New Testament accumulated, edited, re-written and selectively translated over the next few centuries. That the Jesus myth is likely based on a real person seems likely, but far from guaranteed, but to accept the claims of magic would require much more robust evidence than that.
People believe it profoundly, yes. People profoundly believe other, contradictory, religious teachings - they can't all be right, but they can very much all be wrong.
That they think it's a fact doesn't make it a fact. I don't accept that the Theory of Evolution is a fact, it's just an incredibly robustly supported but technically refutable explanation for the phenomena that we see. If I don't accept that as a fact, I'm sure as hell not going to go with the resurrection myth on the strength of one extremely unreliable bed-time story.
O.
All this was in response to you comment that 'You have to accept the divinity of Jesus to allow for the idea that Jesus might have been able to do what no-one else in history has been demonstrated to do, which is being cited to justify the idea of divinity in the first place.' I disagreeing with that - not saying you actually have to accept the Bible etc but rather that for someone to believe that Jesus is divine they have to accept the Bible etc
-
Wrong - did you actually bother to read my post:
'And also inconsistent double standards as those who believe in a specific god (e.g. christian god) despite the lack of evidence also reject other gods (where the evidence is just as lacking) and other phenomena (flying spaghetti monster, orbiting teapots, leprechauns) where there is similarly no credible evidence for their existence.'
You even quoted this in your reply (338), so struggling to see how you could have missed it.
This seems predicated on the idea that only things empirically known should be contemplated.
If I have encountered God then a religion where God cannot be encountered is not a better fit.