|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
 Posted - 06/12/2011 : 22:56:01 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by changingmyself
I have already posted the information but the mods are reformatting it so it is more readable. |
And other things got in my way for a while. The delay is my fault. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
 |
|
|
Dr. Mabuse
Septic Fiend
Sweden
9688 Posts |
Posted - 06/13/2011 : 08:06:27 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by KingDavid8
Originally posted by Dr. Mabuse
I don't get you. Just a few posts ago, you seemed perfectly fine with the idea of having your free will somewhat limited, for the glory of God when he imposes his will on us. How is preventing us to do purely evil things any different? There are plenty of other choices that we can still make out of our free will. |
Because that's a far more severe limitation. |
Yes, it's a stronger limitation, but it's not a difference in kind; it's just a little more limitation than you've already accepted. So where you draw the line of "too much limitation of free will" is arbitrary. I bet there are plenty of people who are prepared to become automatons-for-God, if they aren't already.
| Also, "good" and "evil" are contrasts, just like "up" and "down" are. If, hypothetically, God used whatever means to get rid of all of the evil in the world, then the contrast would be gone. |
Not necessarily. You'll still have neutral and just-a-tad-of-good to contrast massively-good. You'd be moving the window of acceptable behaviour in the good-vs-evil scale, moving it toward good.
| The world would be what we in this world see as exclusively good, but from within that world, there would seem to be neither good nor evil. Meaning there would be no evil, but also no good. |
That's your opinion. My interpretation is different, as I said above.
| In fact, I'm going to say something that you may find shocking, coming from a Christian. God is not good...except from the perspective of those who view Him as such, which obviously includes myself. I certainly see Him as one heck of a lot more "good" than I am (and for those of you who see Him as evil, that's also a matter of perspective - without good or evil, you wouldn't be able to make any such judgement). |
And I view God as a figment of your imagination, his existence as illogical as your ideas about what his characteristics are. We have already argued his possible omnipotence and omniscience and found the argument deeply flawed.
|
Dr. Mabuse - "When the going gets tough, the tough get Duct-tape..."
Dr. Mabuse whisper.mp3
"Equivocation is not just a job, for a creationist it's a way of life..." Dr. Mabuse
Support American Troops in Iraq:
Send them unarmed civilians for target practice..
Collateralmurder. |
|
|
|
Dr. Mabuse
Septic Fiend
Sweden
9688 Posts |
Posted - 06/13/2011 : 08:18:04 [Permalink]
|
Oh, and another thing...
When God told Adam and Eve in the Garden not to touch the fruit, they didn't have any concept of good or evil, right?
So how could God fault them for disobeying God's command, since they didn't have any concept of the evil of disobeying God?
|
Dr. Mabuse - "When the going gets tough, the tough get Duct-tape..."
Dr. Mabuse whisper.mp3
"Equivocation is not just a job, for a creationist it's a way of life..." Dr. Mabuse
Support American Troops in Iraq:
Send them unarmed civilians for target practice..
Collateralmurder. |
|
|
|
sailingsoul
SFN Addict
2830 Posts |
Posted - 06/13/2011 : 09:10:41 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Dr. Mabuse
Oh, and another thing...
When God told Adam and Eve in the Garden not to touch the fruit, they didn't have any concept of good or evil, right?
So how could God fault them for disobeying God's command, since they didn't have any concept of the evil of disobeying God?
|
Just another reminder just how moronic it is discussing religion. It can't escape references to the Bible, the greatest novel ever written. Possibly the first but definitely the most rewritten. What makes it great is how many people thinks it true and ignore all the crazy crap in it. SS |
There are only two types of religious people, the deceivers and the deceived. SS |
|
|
|
Dude
SFN Die Hard
USA
6891 Posts |
Posted - 06/13/2011 : 09:56:06 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by sailingsoul
Originally posted by Dr. Mabuse
Oh, and another thing...
When God told Adam and Eve in the Garden not to touch the fruit, they didn't have any concept of good or evil, right?
So how could God fault them for disobeying God's command, since they didn't have any concept of the evil of disobeying God?
|
Just another reminder just how moronic it is discussing religion. It can't escape references to the Bible, the greatest novel ever written. Possibly the first but definitely the most rewritten. What makes it great is how many people thinks it true and ignore all the crazy crap in it. SS
|
Yeah SS. If you handed a bible to a person who had never been exposed to any religion their reaction would be laughter at the thought anyone takes that piece of shit seriously. They certainly wouldn't end up buying into it.
|
Ignorance is preferable to error; and he is less remote from the truth who believes nothing, than he who believes what is wrong.
-- Thomas Jefferson
"god :: the last refuge of a man with no answers and no argument." - G. Carlin
Hope, n.
The handmaiden of desperation; the opiate of despair; the illegible signpost on the road to perdition. ~~ da filth |
|
|
|
|
changingmyself
Skeptic Friend
USA
122 Posts |
Posted - 06/13/2011 : 10:49:01 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Dude
Originally posted by sailingsoul
Originally posted by Dr. Mabuse
Oh, and another thing...
When God told Adam and Eve in the Garden not to touch the fruit, they didn't have any concept of good or evil, right?
So how could God fault them for disobeying God's command, since they didn't have any concept of the evil of disobeying God?
|
Just another reminder just how moronic it is discussing religion. It can't escape references to the Bible, the greatest novel ever written. Possibly the first but definitely the most rewritten. What makes it great is how many people thinks it true and ignore all the crazy crap in it. SS
|
Yeah SS. If you handed a bible to a person who had never been exposed to any religion their reaction would be laughter at the thought anyone takes that piece of shit seriously. They certainly wouldn't end up buying into it.
|
That is exactly what happened when the missionary Daniel Everett traveled to the Amazon in the book called "Don’t Sleep There are Snakes". The Pirahãs laughed at the stories in the bible. Needless to say, Daniel Everett is now an atheist. |
"The gospels are not eyewitness accounts"
-Allen D. Callahan, Associate Professor of New Testament, Harvard Divinity School
|
|
|
|
KingDavid8
Skeptic Friend
USA
212 Posts |
Posted - 06/13/2011 : 17:18:20 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Dave W.
Genesis 3:3, the passage you cited. God tells them not to even touch the fruit of the tree of knowledge of good and evil, or "surely you will die." It was a bald lie. |
Only if you interpret "surely you will die" in a way which makes it a lie. It could easily mean that they will turn from immortal to mortal, or that they will have a spiritual death in separation from God.
| Sure, and when I taught my kids not to touch a hot stove burner, I didn't show them what a hot burner would do to human skin. |
No, you don't need to show you child everything, but you do show them lots of things, and they learn to apply those lessons to things simply told. Adam and Eve never got that chance. God never showed them anything about obedience or disobedience. |
You are WAY over-thinking this parable. The author was making a point about the consequences of disobedience to God, so he wrote a story about people disobeying God and suffering the consequences. Now you want the author to add in God somehow visually displaying the consequences for disobedience, so that they would have a better understanding prior to their doing so. Can't you just take the parable for what it is?
| How do you suppose god could have taught them the benefits of obedience without them being able to know good from evil? |
This wasn't about God teaching Adam and Eve the benefits of obedience, but about the author teaching his audience about the benefits of obedience. You're treating this as something much more than a parable. Your arguments might be valid if you're discussing this with one of those Christians who believes this stuff to be historically true, but I'm not one of them. |
|
|
|
KingDavid8
Skeptic Friend
USA
212 Posts |
Posted - 06/13/2011 : 17:27:41 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Dave W.
Originally posted by KingDavid8
If, hypothetically, God used whatever means to get rid of all of the evil in the world, then the contrast would be gone. The world would be what we in this world see as exclusively good, but from within that world, there would seem to be neither good nor evil. Meaning there would be no evil, but also no good. |
No, there would be only good, we just wouldn't understand it as such. |
"Good" is a contrast. It wouldn't exist, just like "up" doesn't exist in a 2-dimensional plane where there is only length and width.
| Now to clarify, I'm NOT saying that God created free will (thus indirectly creating both good and evil) in order to make Himself look good. |
You got it backwards. God created evil before he created people. The tree of knowledge of good and evil was in the garden before god created Adam and Eve.[/quote]
Since neither of us take that story as historical, why are you treating it as such for the sake of our discussion?
[quote]He just wanted us, His creations, to have a choice. Until free will came to us, there was no such thing as good or evil.[/quote]That statement is falsified by a plain reading of Genesis.
[/quote]
Yeah, just like "Lord Voldemort doesn't exist" is falsified by a plain reading of the "Harry Potter" books. |
|
|
|
KingDavid8
Skeptic Friend
USA
212 Posts |
Posted - 06/13/2011 : 17:43:13 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Dave W.
Originally posted by KingDavid8
Without good and evil, there is no moral contrast. With good and evil, there is moral contrast. I'd say that God wants there to be moral contrast. |
Why is "moral contrast" a good thing, and not evil? |
Because it goes hand-in-hand with any meaningful kind of free will. |
|
|
|
KingDavid8
Skeptic Friend
USA
212 Posts |
Posted - 06/13/2011 : 17:57:20 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by changingmyself
What I am saying is thatYOUR GODnever gave us freewill. It is YOUR BELIEF stemming fromYOUR RELIGIONthat he did. But there is absolutely NO PROOF OR EVIDENCE that your god created us or even existed, but there is proof that we evolved. |
I'm sorry, but trying to follow your logic is giving me a headache. So you're saying that God doesn't exist, yet He is able to take free will away from people? If we're assuming (for the sake of argument) that God is taking free will away from people, then we have to be assuming (for the sake of argument) that He exists. If we're assuming (for the sake of argument) that He exists, then we have to be assuming (for the sake of argument) that our free will ultimately came from Him.
If all of your argument just boils down to "well, God doesn't exist", then you're basically bowing out of the discussion.
| So do I think we have freewill? Yes. |
You said otherwise earlier. You said the fact that we can't sprout wings and fly is proof that we don't have free will, that free will is an illusion, that limited free will is not free will at all. So do you now agree that limited free will is still free will?
Because if so, God limiting certain people's free will at certain times wouldn't remove free will entirely from the human race.
|
|
|
|
KingDavid8
Skeptic Friend
USA
212 Posts |
Posted - 06/13/2011 : 18:05:00 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Dr. Mabuse
Oh, and another thing...
When God told Adam and Eve in the Garden not to touch the fruit, they didn't have any concept of good or evil, right?
So how could God fault them for disobeying God's command, since they didn't have any concept of the evil of disobeying God?
|
As I already explained, they understood obedience and disobedience, something that is much simpler than good and evil. |
|
|
|
changingmyself
Skeptic Friend
USA
122 Posts |
Posted - 06/13/2011 : 19:09:10 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by KingDavid8
Originally posted by changingmyself
What I am saying is thatYOUR GODnever gave us freewill. It is YOUR BELIEF stemming fromYOUR RELIGIONthat he did. But there is absolutely NO PROOF OR EVIDENCE that your god created us or even existed, but there is proof that we evolved. |
I'm sorry, but trying to follow your logic is giving me a headache. So you're saying that God doesn't exist, yet He is able to take free will away from people? If we're assuming (for the sake of argument) that God is taking free will away from people, then we have to be assuming (for the sake of argument) that He exists. If we're assuming (for the sake of argument) that He exists, then we have to be assuming (for the sake of argument) that our free will ultimately came from Him.
If all of your argument just boils down to "well, God doesn't exist", then you're basically bowing out of the discussion.
| So do I think we have freewill? Yes. |
You said otherwise earlier. You said the fact that we can't sprout wings and fly is proof that we don't have free will, that free will is an illusion, that limited free will is not free will at all. So do you now agree that limited free will is still free will?
Because if so, God limiting certain people's free will at certain times wouldn't remove free will entirely from the human race.
|
"Cognitive Dissonance is the feeling of uncomfortable tension which comes from holding two conflicting thoughts in the mind at the same time."
Yes kingdavid, it is obvious that common sense and logic would give you a headache because that is what cognitive dissonance does.
Do you notice a common theme here david? There are 5-10 people here telling you the same exact thing over and over and over and you just cannot seem to "get it". The problem is not with us. The problem is that you are in denial.
You are the one that said that you could not sprout wings and that was a limited freewill. I was using your example to show you what freewill was, it is sickening that now you are attempting to blame that on me. Everything that I have used as an example here was 'according to the bible' to explain to you that the bible does not even claim what you are claiming. Your ideology of freewill and omniscient is you adding what you want to believe about your god and this is why you show signs of cognitive dissonance because have shown you that not only did your god not give freewill, he took it away and when he did, he only did it to spread evil. There were never any signs of your god being omniscient at all.
This is not the first time I have seen a fundamentalist add their beliefs to what the bible says and it isn't the first time I have seen fundamentalists act as if they knew what the bible said; but proved that they didn't. You are a dime a dozen.
|
"The gospels are not eyewitness accounts"
-Allen D. Callahan, Associate Professor of New Testament, Harvard Divinity School
|
|
|
|
Dude
SFN Die Hard
USA
6891 Posts |
Posted - 06/13/2011 : 21:57:52 [Permalink]
|
kingdavid8 (a stupid pill today I'm guessing) said:
| If all of your argument just boils down to "well, God doesn't exist", then you're basically bowing out of the discussion. |
No, it is just a reminder that we are humoring you. This entire thread, from the mythy stupidity to your nonsense, is little more than people granting some things for the sake of an argument.
There really is no actual argument because you can't provide the first shred of evidence to suggest your deity is real. That is the point where you fail, so anything else you say based on the idea your deity is real is resting on an unproven (i.e. false) premise. Thanks for playing though.
We've spent the last 10ish pages just trying to explain to you an accepted fact in philosophy, that omnipotence can't be reconciled with logic, or free will, and you have spent the last 10ish pages unwittingly being a stalking horse. It is virtually impossible to convince people like you that you are wrong (because you choose to remain ignorant), so the reason anyone bothers is for the benefit of those who read but don't contribute.
|
Ignorance is preferable to error; and he is less remote from the truth who believes nothing, than he who believes what is wrong.
-- Thomas Jefferson
"god :: the last refuge of a man with no answers and no argument." - G. Carlin
Hope, n.
The handmaiden of desperation; the opiate of despair; the illegible signpost on the road to perdition. ~~ da filth |
|
|
|
|
Dude
SFN Die Hard
USA
6891 Posts |
Posted - 06/13/2011 : 22:02:22 [Permalink]
|
kingdavid8 (can't even guess at this point..) said:
Because it goes hand-in-hand with any meaningful kind of free will.
|
That you fail to comprehend how this (the part of the conversation leading you to that reply) not only undermines your argument about free will, but totally destroys it, speaks only to your incredible state of denial.
Changingmyself has it right when she says you have some serious cog-dissonance going on there.
|
Ignorance is preferable to error; and he is less remote from the truth who believes nothing, than he who believes what is wrong.
-- Thomas Jefferson
"god :: the last refuge of a man with no answers and no argument." - G. Carlin
Hope, n.
The handmaiden of desperation; the opiate of despair; the illegible signpost on the road to perdition. ~~ da filth |
|
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
Posted - 06/13/2011 : 23:06:47 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by KingDavid8
Only if you interpret "surely you will die" in a way which makes it a lie. It could easily mean that they will turn from immortal to mortal, or that they will have a spiritual death in separation from God. |
And if you interpret "die" to mean "will get ice cream," then everyone's a winner! What's the point of language if it's so malleable in your mind, KD?| You are WAY over-thinking this parable. The author was making a point about the consequences of disobedience to God, so he wrote a story about people disobeying God and suffering the consequences. Now you want the author to add in God somehow visually displaying the consequences for disobedience, so that they would have a better understanding prior to their doing so. Can't you just take the parable for what it is? |
No, because what it is is idiotic, as I've already explained. It could have offered the sort of moral lesson you want it to, if it were written differently. But it wasn't.| This wasn't about God teaching Adam and Eve the benefits of obedience, but about the author teaching his audience about the benefits of obedience. You're treating this as something much more than a parable. Your arguments might be valid if you're discussing this with one of those Christians who believes this stuff to be historically true, but I'm not one of them. |
The author failed to make his point by making the story ridiculous. You're trying to save it by telling me to stop paying attention to what's ridiculous about it, but that method would work equally well for the tooth fairy, too.
Also:| "Good" is a contrast. It wouldn't exist, just like "up" doesn't exist in a 2-dimensional plane where there is only length and width. |
More word games. You're trying to claim that good behavior cannot exist without the concept of goodness. I'm saying that the concepts are irrelevant if evil doesn't exist.| Since neither of us take that story as historical, why are you treating it as such for the sake of our discussion? |
Because those details are what make the story pathetically ludicrous.| Yeah, just like "Lord Voldemort doesn't exist" is falsified by a plain reading of the "Harry Potter" books. |
Hey, I have no problem with treating the whole of the Bible as fiction, in which case this discussion simply ends because we'd all agree that your god is fictional. If you can provide an objective method by which we can all distinguish factual bits of the Bible from fictional parts, I'm sure we'd all be very appreciative.| Why is "moral contrast" a good thing, and not evil? |
Because it goes hand-in-hand with any meaningful kind of free will. |
You'll have to show me how that works, in step-by-step fashion. We're not the ones who are arguing in favor of free will, either, so if lacking "moral contrast" means no free will, I'm fine with that - if god could have created a universe in which there was no evil and we didn't have free will, I see no downside in that. Since I don't think we have free will anyway, it would simply mean evil would be absent, and so it would mean that a lot of suffering wouldn't have happened.
So it seems you'll have to explain why free will is an intrinsically "good" thing, too.| As I already explained, they understood obedience and disobedience, something that is much simpler than good and evil. |
Just for clarity, you didn't "explain" anything about that, you simply asserted it to be true, without any reference to any research about canine cognition (the example you chose). |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
 |
|
|
|
The Mythicist position
