|
|
|
Bill scott
SFN Addict
USA
2103 Posts |
 Posted - 12/20/2011 : 13:42:34 [Permalink]
|
| Originally posted by Dave W. |
| Some Christians have declared slavery evil based on the Bible, while other Christians have declared slavery good based on the Bible. |
Irrelevant as to whether the creator of the universe would have authority in that same universe
| What does the Christian God actually think about slavery? |
Whatever his conclusion is it would be absolute.
| Yet most of those who abhor honor killings worship the same god as those who engage in honor killings. |
Opinion.
| Why is this god allowing his followers to either (A) dismiss a good thing or (B) practice an evil thing? |
Irrelevant to the issue of the creator of all that exists having authority over all that exists.
| What does god really think about honor killings? Is he pro or con? |
Which ever way he decides his decision is absolute. |
"Lets get one thing clear, Bill. Science does make some assumptions." -perrodetokio-
"In the end as skeptics we must realize that there is no real knowledge, there is only what is most reasonable to believe." -Coelacanth-
The fact that humans do science is what causes errors in science. -Dave W.-
|
 |
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
Posted - 12/20/2011 : 14:03:01 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Bill scott
What I have been saying all along is that creator of the universe, whether it be the Christian God, any other god or the FSM, this creator of the universe is the only one who can declare what is good and evil in their created universe and it be absolute. |
But who cares? All you're saying is that the creator-god is the only one allowed to be a brutal dictator of morality. So what? We knew that already, it has no relevance to any argument I've made. It's just another wandering down a Bill scott-blazed rabbit trail.| As the creator of the universe who could ever challenge his authority to declare good from evil, you? |
Yes. Whether my challenge would be successful or not is a different question.| Any declaration of good and evil by his created beings would have to be considered relative, because it is. |
So what?| And that is what kills me the most. You sit here and speak as if you are going to declare that the creator of the universe is wrong and then declare that this is what is really good and evil all based on what Dave, the created being, has declared is good and evil. |
What "kills you the most" is really that I deny there are any creator-gods at all, and so won't swear fealty to the imaginary being that you do.| Dave, as the created being, is trying to tell the creator how he needs to run his creation. |
No, I'm not the one who thinks he can communicate with a creator-god. You're projecting your own delusion.| How foolish, silly and illogical. |
That's why I'm not doing it.| Logically and philosophically the creation would always be subject to the creator, whoever this creator may be, and not the other way around, Dave. |
But you haven't provided any evidence that your premises are true.| Your confused. Whether the creator can or ever will enforce or subject his declarations of good and evil on his creation is a completely different discussion then the discussion of "Are the creator of the universe deceleration's absolute?" It may be that the creator has simply not yet brought his creation into subject of his declarations. |
Meaningless guesswork.| But who's definition of evil are you using here, yours? Your definitions of good and evil are completely relative and so I am ignoring them. |
Go right ahead.| So you disagree that people can ignore the creator? That makes him more evil. |
And yet if the creator forced you into subject against your will you would be all up in arms over that calling him the evil task master and opponent of free will. |
That's exactly what "more evil" means, Bill. You said that people cannot ignore the creator. He is an evil taskmaster and opponent of free will.| See here is the problem, Dave wants to rule his own world and be subject to nothing where he alone can declare what is good and evil in his own eyes. |
"Want to?" No. Is.| The trouble is that if there is a creator of all that exists then Dave recognizes that his beliefs on good and evil would be trumped by the creators declarations of what is good and evil. |
Only when the creator-god shows up and explains things to me.| Since Dave does not want his own beliefs trumped he rationalizes in his mind that there is no creator. |
Bwahahahahaha!| He next dreams up silly little explanations of how all that exists could come from nothing. |
I don't believe that anything comes from nothing. Quit lying about me, Bill.| Once he has tricked his mind into believing that something can come from nothing he is then free to believe that that which is considered good and that which is evil is all in how Dave sees it. |
What a twisted imagination you have. In the real world, there is no evidence of any creator-god, and there is no evidence that any creator-god has delivered to us a moral code which is useful in every possible situation, so we are forced to decide right and wrong for ourselves.| But your argument is that you, as the creation, can trump the creator of all that exists when defining good and evil. |
And "trump" has no logical imperative, it is a subjective measure.| To say that your argument is flawed and lacks any logic is the understatement of 2011. |
Show me the logical argument that one thing can "trump" another.| Sorry, Dave, but the creation is always subject to the creator. |
Show me the logical argument that proves the existence of a creator.| But it is nothing but your silly little opinion that you have even concluded anything. |
And because you are subject to the same criticism, so what?| Why? I see no logical connection between "created the universe" and "has authority to declare what's good and evil." Provide a logical argument with the former as a premise and the latter as conclusion. |
Better yet, why don't you provide a logical argument of why the creation would not be subject to his creator in a created universe? |
That's only "better" in the sense that you, Bill, are trying to wiggle out of having to defend your statements. You can't prove that the creation is necessarily subject to the creator, and so you take the coward's way out by trying to challenge me to prove the opposite.| To say, for no other reason than it is your belief, that the creator of the universe would have no authority in a universe that he created is completely illogical and without premise. |
Wow. All I need to do is imagine a creator-god that creates and then leaves, never to return, and I've satisfied your attempt at shifting the burden of proof.| Why not? Since when does "creator of the universe" imply "ultimate authority on everything?" |
The better question to ask is, when has it not? |
No, that's the coward's question.| What if the creator is a dick? |
More faulty logic on your part. Your personal opinion of the creator, which is relative, has no bearing on if his creation would be subject to him as the creator. |
No, the question was about challenging the creator. Why couldn't I do so?| Based on your logic I could conclude that President Obama had less or no authority as president simply because I think that he is a dick. |
People do exactly that, all the time. I don't see why you think that authorities cannot be challenged just because they're authorities.| Obviously my opinion on Obama has no effect on his ultimate authority as president just as your opinion on the creator has no effect on his ultimate authority as the creator. |
But you said I couldn't challenge the creator's authority. I can do so whether he is the ultimate authority or not.| My son is ten years old already. Where do I go to challenge this hypothetical god's authority? Is there a form I need to fill out? |
As I just said, when you can make to exist that which did not exist before then you are heading in the right direction. |
I did so already. My son didn't exist 11 years ago. I made him exist.| Until then you are fool to even consider that as the creation you will challenge the authority of the creator. Not only that but your folly is void of any logic. |
You are confusing a logical argument with an assertion of principle.| Switching the burden of proof now, are you? |
No |
Yes, and you did so twice more in your response.| You're the one claiming that god has such authority. Prove it. |
What makes you believe that a creator would not have authority over his creation? |
Okay, you've attempted to shift the burden of proof three times now.| It's illogical to think that way. |
Yet you can't provide any logical argument as to why, you just keep on asserting (without evidence or argument) that it has to be that way. It's not self-evident, Bill.| But I've already shown that the Christian God's morality is not absolute. |
You have done no such thing. You gave us your opinion and nothing more. |
And yet you refuse to show how that opinion (logical conclusion, actually) is wrong. You just keep on pointing out that it's an opinion, which we all knew already. Boring, Bill. Very boring.| Oh horse feathers. My recommendation that we use a generic god as creator who would be subject over his creation was just an attempt to keep you from going off on your wild tangents. However that did not even stop you. I should have figured. |
Wild tangents? You're the one who refuses to answer the questions put to you on page one of this thread, Bill. You're just projecting, again. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
Posted - 12/20/2011 : 14:40:01 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Bill scott
Irrelevant as to whether the creator of the universe would have authority in that same universe |
If his followers don't follow him correctly, then he has no authority.| What does the Christian God actually think about slavery? |
Whatever his conclusion is it would be absolute. |
Chicken.| Yet most of those who abhor honor killings worship the same god as those who engage in honor killings. |
Opinion. |
Statistical and theological fact.| Why is this god allowing his followers to either (A) dismiss a good thing or (B) practice an evil thing? |
Irrelevant to the issue of the creator of all that exists having authority over all that exists. |
Again, if his followers don't follow him correctly, then he has no authority.| What does god really think about honor killings? Is he pro or con? |
Which ever way he decides his decision is absolute. |
Chicken. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
chefcrsh
Skeptic Friend
Hong Kong
380 Posts |
|
|
Hawks
SFN Regular
Canada
1383 Posts |
Posted - 12/21/2011 : 18:55:03 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Bill scott
Whatever his conclusion is it would be absolute. |
Perhaps god thinks it's good to let babies die of AIDS, perhaps he doesn't. Let's for arguments sake say that god declares it good that millions die from starvation every year. Does this mean that it is an absolute truth that starvation is good? Well, no. For example, what if god was created by another god that has it's own moral standards and that this god thinks that starvation is evil?
In the end, no human knows such absolute truths, so why pretend that it has bearing on anything what-so-ever? All we can do is use our own definitions of good and evil. And I suspect that most non-psychopathic people would think that an omnipotent and omniscient god who prioritizes sports performance over terrible suffering is a shit-bag.
|
METHINKS IT IS LIKE A WEASEL
It's a small, off-duty czechoslovakian traffic warden! |
|
|
|
sailingsoul
SFN Addict
2830 Posts |
Posted - 12/21/2011 : 19:59:23 [Permalink]
|
It's apparent that defending a delusion is only possible and successful in the mind/s of the deluded.
|
There are only two types of religious people, the deceivers and the deceived. SS |
|
|
|
kytheskeptic
New Member
USA
25 Posts |
Posted - 12/22/2011 : 04:05:48 [Permalink]
|
Seems like Bill is trying to make excuses for god, saying everything he does is "Good".
Bill, please read my last post and give an honest answer... What can god do that would be deemed "Evil" and not "Good"?
Because when you're talking about god's morality of good and evil, it sounds like god's amoral.
|
|
|
|
Valiant Dancer
Forum Goalie
USA
4826 Posts |
Posted - 12/22/2011 : 07:01:28 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by kytheskeptic
Seems like Bill is trying to make excuses for god, saying everything he does is "Good".
Bill, please read my last post and give an honest answer... What can god do that would be deemed "Evil" and not "Good"?
Because when you're talking about god's morality of good and evil, it sounds like god's amoral.
|
I'd point out the story of Elijah in the Bible, but this one is for Bill.
Bill, it's the story where God sends a bear to kill children who call Elijah "baldy". |
Cthulhu/Asmodeus when you're tired of voting for the lesser of two evils
Brother Cutlass of Reasoned Discussion |
|
|
|
sailingsoul
SFN Addict
2830 Posts |
Posted - 12/22/2011 : 10:55:01 [Permalink]
|
These conversations never go anywhere. Never have, never will. Theist have a problem saying "I don't know" because if they were to be honest to themselves, lets not even think about being honest to anyone else, they wouldn't be able to ignore that what they believe in is flawed. To acknowledge even privately would expose "the man behind the curtain", that religion is a con game. That Religion is based on made up crap, relentlessly instilled into their children. Which leaves them crippled adults when it come to seeing the elephant in the room. Oh! they can see everyone elses religiously created bullshit elephant but theirs is different, theirs is real! It's everyone else that is missing the salvation express. It's the believers who are on the right train to heaven.
No theist can explain why their made up version of God is no different than believing in Jupiter, Loki, Chrishna, outside of their own heads.
Don't understand something? Make up an answer and say it's true based on faith, your infallible. When pushed into a corner, break out word semantics. Whatever one does, don't stop the carnival and never ever admit "you know really know". Like I said, these conversations never go anywhere. Because they come from "nowhere".
I would have no problem if people like bill would admit this about the OP picture. "Yeah that picture is fucked up, I don't know why God allows this to occur" but they can't. That picture for me exposes the lie that there is a God. An omnipotent, all knowing, ever present, loving God. That God's existence is a lie and the picture is proof. |
There are only two types of religious people, the deceivers and the deceived. SS |
| Edited by - sailingsoul on 12/22/2011 10:56:37 |
|
|
 |
|
|
|
The Lord works in mysterious ways....
