Revelation

Louis_Cypher
BloggerSuperfan
Louis_Cypher's picture
Posts: 529
Joined: 2008-03-22
User is offlineOffline
Revelation

All religions can be reduced in essence to revelation, that is to say, one person communing with ‘god’ or his agents to gain knowledge. A religion may be based on a singular revelation, or on a series of revelations from a string of ‘prophets’. Revelation is then passed down as oral tradition, which becomes written tradition, or, as in more ‘modern’ situations, passed directly to written tradition.

 


My question would be, is revelation a valid source of knowledge?

What differentiates revelation from imagination or delusion? LC >;-}>

 

Christianity: A disgusting middle eastern blood cult, based in human sacrifice, with sacraments of cannibalism and vampirism, whose highest icon is of a near naked man hanging in torment from a device of torture.


Lion IRC
Theist
Lion IRC's picture
Posts: 158
Joined: 2011-03-16
User is offlineOffline
Louis_Cypher wrote:...All I

Louis_Cypher wrote:

...All I have to do is get someone, anyone to show any real evidence that...
...After that, I have to be shown that...

Interestingly, you dont "have" to be shown anything. The burden of proof is on who ever wants proof.

The Christian theist, to use that religion as an example, doesnt bear a burden to meet the atheist's standard of proof.

The Great Commission to spread the Gospel is pretty much a case of...

* do your best

* if that's not good enough for empiricist scientism folks it's not your fault. God wont blame you.

* you cant make people listen if they dont want to

* some people have an ulterior motive for designing their "prove God" science experiments with an artificially high standard of proof.  

 

And the fact that scientific, rational minds can and DO hold theistic views - sometimes after converting from long-held atheism, means that the God Conclusion isnt a matter devoid of reason/rationale/evidence/logic.  


Philosophicus
Philosophicus's picture
Posts: 362
Joined: 2009-12-16
User is offlineOffline
...

(Lion IRC said to Brian37):

Quote:

 

Your opinion that certain evidence is unpersuasive does not translate into ..."no evidence whatsoever". If anything, the assertion that there is no evidence and never has been any evidence for theism amounts to an extraordinary claim in itself. 

 

 

So where's the evidence for God?


Lion IRC
Theist
Lion IRC's picture
Posts: 158
Joined: 2011-03-16
User is offlineOffline
Brian37 wrote:Look in the

Brian37 wrote:

Look in the mirror yourself before you go around throwing false accusations about me, and Dawkins and Hitchens or any other atheist you've never personally met.

Show me the false accusation I have made about Dawkins.

Then show me the false accusation I have made about Hitchens.

And then show me the false accusation I have made about Brian37.

 

Here's how you do it.

Lion IRC wrote..."Dawkins is a blah blah blah"

 

Brian37 offers Lion IRC proof to the contrary..."XYZ proves you are wrong about Dawkins"

 

Can you do that? Or do you have a preference for just asserting "stuff"? 

 

While you're at it, show me the "threats" you allege I made against Brian37

*waiting patiently*

 

 


Lion IRC
Theist
Lion IRC's picture
Posts: 158
Joined: 2011-03-16
User is offlineOffline
Lion IRC wrote:Atheism is

Lion IRC wrote:

Atheism is attended by...disbelief in God, rejection of God, hatred of God, mockery of God, putting God to the proof...etc etc. 

 

FurryCatHerder wrote:

Atheism is no such thing...

 

OK

Now I get it.  Nuff said.


Lion IRC
Theist
Lion IRC's picture
Posts: 158
Joined: 2011-03-16
User is offlineOffline
Louis_Cypher wrote:My

Louis_Cypher wrote:

My question would be, is revelation a valid source of knowledge?

 

Lion IRC : Hey Louis, Come over here, I want to show you something you've never seen before.

Louis_Cypher : WOW, thats interesting. Thanks Lion IRC. You learn something new every day.

Lion IRC : I know. I was amazed when it was first shown to me.

Louis_Cypher : No one is gonna believe me when I tell 'em what I saw.

 

Isn't revelation just another form of sharing information?

 

The information itself might be true or false. It might be important or trivial. It might be interpreted correctly or misunderstood. The source of the information might be terrestrial or extra-terrestrial. The source might be dubious or trustworthy. It might be corroborated by others and shared or it might be kept in confidence.

 

But why would it be invalid simply by virtue of the fact that the information/knowledge was unsolicited by the recipient?  Surely, revelation (information/knowledge) offered freely is at least as valid as information which has to be "beaten out of" the suspect.

 

 


Louis_Cypher
BloggerSuperfan
Louis_Cypher's picture
Posts: 529
Joined: 2008-03-22
User is offlineOffline
I didn't say bad I said 'piss poor'

Lion IRC wrote:

Louis_Cypher wrote:

My question would be, is revelation a valid source of knowledge?

 

Lion IRC : Hey Louis, Come over here, I want to show you something you've never seen before.

Louis_Cypher : WOW, thats interesting. Thanks Lion IRC. You learn something new every day.

Lion IRC : I know. I was amazed when it was first shown to me.

Louis_Cypher : No one is gonna believe me when I tell 'em what I saw.

 

Isn't revelation just another form of sharing information?

 

The information itself might be true or false. It might be important or trivial. It might be interpreted correctly or misunderstood. The source of the information might be terrestrial or extra-terrestrial. The source might be dubious or trustworthy. It might be corroborated by others and shared or it might be kept in confidence.

 

But why would it be invalid simply by virtue of the fact that the information/knowledge was unsolicited by the recipient?  Surely, revelation (information/knowledge) offered freely is at least as valid as information which has to be "beaten out of" the suspect.

 

 

Nothing you alluded to in this waste of my time has a damned thing to do with revelation, you can't show someone your 'vision' (halucenation, delusion, imagination et al.)

I've seen a guy on the corner in piss stained pants who has seen visions of his dead uncle Fred, and is convinced that martians are beaming thoughts into his head.

Prove that his visions are in any way less valid than Daniels or Johns...

Let's be clear, and I think you know damned well what I mean by revelation, you just wish to appear far more clever than you are.

Revelation is supposed to be 'supernatural' in origin, or else it IS simply imagination.

LC >;-}>

 

Christianity: A disgusting middle eastern blood cult, based in human sacrifice, with sacraments of cannibalism and vampirism, whose highest icon is of a near naked man hanging in torment from a device of torture.


Lion IRC
Theist
Lion IRC's picture
Posts: 158
Joined: 2011-03-16
User is offlineOffline
Here's the kicker.

When someone sees a miracle, has a road to Damascus, voice of God, burning bush, zen-like satori moment, sees a ghost, or whatever, and they actually do find themselves having experienced an event which meets their own skeptical threshold of "undeniability", the irony is that nobody will believe them.

 

According to the former atheists OWN standard of empirical, material proof, their epiphany, however real, will be dismissed like those of every other "Saul of Tarsus" as an epileptic fit, wishful thinking, delusion, psychosis... or just something which science will hopefully one day work out had nothing to do with God. 


Louis_Cypher
BloggerSuperfan
Louis_Cypher's picture
Posts: 529
Joined: 2008-03-22
User is offlineOffline
Wrong again.


Quote:
Interestingly, you dont "have" to be shown anything. The burden of proof is on who ever wants proof.

In what fucking universe?

Quote:
The Christian theist, to use that religion as an example, doesnt bear a burden to meet the atheist's standard of proof.

But you don't meet ANY standard of proof.

Quote:
, snip pointless bullshit >


Quote:
* some people have an ulterior motive for designing their "prove God" science experiments with an artificially high standard of proof.

Artificially high, meaning 'not pulled from your ass.'

Quote:
And the fact that scientific, rational minds can and DO hold theistic views - sometimes after converting from long-held atheism, means that the God Conclusion isnt a matter devoid of reason/rationale/evidence/logic.

The fact that otherwise rational people can compartmentalize and hold utterly insane views on some subjects, like believing in invisible, intangible and magical beings, doesn't make the beliefs themselves rational. Ever see "A Beautiful Mind"???

 

LC >;-}>


 

Christianity: A disgusting middle eastern blood cult, based in human sacrifice, with sacraments of cannibalism and vampirism, whose highest icon is of a near naked man hanging in torment from a device of torture.


Lion IRC
Theist
Lion IRC's picture
Posts: 158
Joined: 2011-03-16
User is offlineOffline
Louis_Cypher wrote:Lion IRC

Louis_Cypher wrote:

Lion IRC wrote:

Louis_Cypher wrote:

My question would be, is revelation a valid source of knowledge?

 

Lion IRC : Hey Louis, Come over here, I want to show you something you've never seen before.

Louis_Cypher : WOW, thats interesting. Thanks Lion IRC. You learn something new every day.

Lion IRC : I know. I was amazed when it was first shown to me.

Louis_Cypher : No one is gonna believe me when I tell 'em what I saw.

 

Isn't revelation just another form of sharing information?

 

The information itself might be true or false. It might be important or trivial. It might be interpreted correctly or misunderstood. The source of the information might be terrestrial or extra-terrestrial. The source might be dubious or trustworthy. It might be corroborated by others and shared or it might be kept in confidence.

 

But why would it be invalid simply by virtue of the fact that the information/knowledge was unsolicited by the recipient?  Surely, revelation (information/knowledge) offered freely is at least as valid as information which has to be "beaten out of" the suspect.

 

 

Nothing you alluded to in this waste of my time has a damned thing to do with revelation, you can't show someone your 'vision' (halucenation, delusion, imagination et al.)

Feel free to ignore stuff you think is a waste of your precious time.

(I thought it was salient enough. Sorry you didnt. *sniff*)

 


ProzacDeathWish
atheist
ProzacDeathWish's picture
Posts: 3628
Joined: 2007-12-02
User is offlineOffline
Lion IRC

Lion IRC wrote:

Interestingly, you dont "have" to be shown anything. The burden of proof is on who ever wants proof.

 

 

                                                      I was a Bible believing Christian from the age of 15 until my early 40's.   I've been on both sides of this "proof" issue.

 

Lion IRC wrote:
  * some people have an ulterior motive for designing their "prove God" science experiments with an artificially high standard of proof.

 

                                                             My "artificially high" standard of proof is sometimes called reality.

 

Lion IRC wrote:
And the fact that scientific, rational minds can and DO hold theistic views - sometimes after converting from long-held atheism, means that the God Conclusion isnt a matter devoid of reason/rationale/evidence/logic.  

 

                                                       Many scientific, rational minds belong to those who practice Islam.   Do you accept their "theistic views" ?

I'm a right wing atheist because I enjoy being hated by everyone.

"When a man loves cats, I am his friend and comrade, without further introduction." Mark Twain.


A_Nony_Mouse
A_Nony_Mouse's picture
Posts: 2880
Joined: 2008-04-23
User is offlineOffline
.

Louis_Cypher wrote:
All religions can be reduced in essence to revelation, that is to say, one person communing with ‘god’ or his agents to gain knowledge. A religion may be based on a singular revelation, or on a series of revelations from a string of ‘prophets’. Revelation is then passed down as oral tradition, which becomes written tradition, or, as in more ‘modern’ situations, passed directly to written tradition.


My question would be, is revelation a valid source of knowledge?

What differentiates revelation from imagination or delusion? LC >;-}>

If I reveal to you that you owe me $100 is it true?

I am not sure when the idea of "revelation" was invented but I have not found it prior to the 5th c. AD. It does exist in the Koran. There is a healthy difference between "trances" where all manner of things are disclosed (revealed) that go far beyond the immediate circumstance and the Septuagint and New Testament recitations.

The former lays out the terms of a contract with Moses and then diktats to the Israelites. The latter is a matter of teachings whose real meanings were only understood by the apostles after the death of the teacher. They centered on the imminent end of the world. These do not pretend to be more than they are.

To be equivalent to a Koranic revelation we have to look to the imitators of Mohamed who learned things in similar/imitative trances. Those were revelations. Mohamed invented a good scam. Others trying the same thing is to be expected. The man don't get no respect in the west. After all, he did invent monotheism. Although not in the same category as inventing Xenu it was widely immitated in the "us too" mode.

Jews stole the land. The owners want it back. That is all anyone needs to know about Israel. That is all there is to know about Israel.

www.ussliberty.org

www.giwersworld.org/made-in-alexandria/index.html

www.giwersworld.org/00_files/zion-hit-points.phtml


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 13593
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
Ktulu wrote:Lion IRC wrote:I

Ktulu wrote:

Lion IRC wrote:

I got the whole armour of God.

Nothing threatens me.

God Armour

200 hit points

quality 19/20

-20 to reason

+5 to blind faith

-50 to IQ

 

Sub Zero loses,  Credulity!

 

"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under BrianJames Rational Poet also on twitter under Brianrrs37


FurryCatHerder
Theist
FurryCatHerder's picture
Posts: 1253
Joined: 2007-06-02
User is offlineOffline
Lion IRC wrote:Brian37

Lion IRC wrote:

Brian37 wrote:

Quote:
Atheism is attended by...disbelief in God, rejection of God, hatred of God, mockery of God, putting God to the proof...etc etc.

You say that like it is a bad thing.

Yep. I get that you dont. I was asking FurryCatHerder to consider what the Torah instructs.

Brian37 wrote:
Now lets break this down piece by piece.

1. "Disbelief", no no no no....." lack of belief" is much more accurate.

>snip< semantics/whatever.

Brian37 wrote:
4. "putting God to the proof", I think what you meant was "putting god to the test".

I wrote exactly what I meant. FurryCatHerder has Genesis, Isaiah, Psalms. She wont have trouble finding the verses.

The prohibition against putting G-d to the test has nothing to do with demanding proof that G-d does, or doesn't, exist, but rather with compelling G-d to act.  It is putting =us= in charge of G-d.

What Deut 6:16 says is that we are not to test G-d the way we tested G-d in Massah -- G-d had just brought us out of slavery in Egypt, showed us miraculous signs and wonders, and we =still= insisted G-d provide proof by providing us with water in the desert.

The proof text that the Christian bible in Luke references is Psalm 91:11 --

Psa 91:11   For he shall give his angels charge over thee, to keep thee in all thy ways.

What Jesus responds with is the verse in Deuteronomy --

Deu 6:16 Ye shall not tempt the LORD your God, as ye tempted [him] in Massah.

The experience at Massah starts at Exodus 17:1 --

Exd 17:1 And all the congregation of the children of Israel journeyed from the wilderness of Sin,after their journeys, according to the commandment of the LORD, and pitched in Rephidim: and [there was] no water for the people to drink.
Exd 17:2   Wherefore the people did chide with Moses, and said, Give us water that we may drink. And Moses said unto them, Why chide ye with me? wherefore do ye tempt the LORD?

So, what's going on BEFORE that verse?  Is it really fair to say "Hey, could use some water down here?"

If you back up a chapter, you find this one --

Exd 16:3   And the children of Israel said unto them, Would to God we had died by the hand of the LORD in the land of Egypt, when we sat by the flesh pots, [and] when we did eat bread to the full; for ye have brought us forth into this wilderness, to kill this whole assembly with hunger.
Exd 16:4 Then said the LORD unto Moses, Behold, I will rain bread from heaven for you; and the people shall go out and gather a certain rate every day, that I may prove them, whether they will walk in my law, or no.

There are the Ten Plagues, getting Pharaoh to finally agree to let us go, the parting of the Reed Sea and drowning Pharaoh's army, G-d giving us manna every day, and =now= they want water, too?

There's a pattern here and sooner or later the pattern has to be broken, because it goes over and over and over like this -- either we get to tell G-d what we want, when and where, or G-d does.

Exd 14:30 Thus the LORD saved Israel that day out of the hand of the Egyptians; and Israel saw the Egyptians dead upon the sea shore.
Exd 14:31   And Israel saw that great work which the LORD did upon the Egyptians: and the people feared the LORD, and believed the LORD, and his servant Moses.

Now, there are Atheists here who say "If god exists, why is there this bad thing?", and they ignore everything positive about the Universe -- they expect the Laws of Nature to work the way =they= want.  They expect Gravity to be turned on and off, so that if they fall from the top of  some building, they don't get killed.  But if they jump really, really hard, they don't fly off into space.  They are upset that their puppy died when they were 4 or 5, but not upset that they aren't up to their necks in all the puppies ever born, forever and ever.  For those Atheists, their problem isn't that G-d created an entire Universe, but that they aren't the ones making the rules.  They'd believe in G-d, but only if G-d works the way =they= want.

If you look at the pagan religions that surrounded us, and that many of us participated in before, during and after the Exodus, and that many people participated in even until now, those religions put the people in charge of the gods -- bring the god and/or gods something and then the god and/or gods are supposed to do tricks.  Need an abundant harvest?  Go pour some wine on top of a rock that was shaped into the form of their god that's placed out in the middle of the field or under a tree.  Or better yet, go find some child or a virgin and have yourself a human sacrifice -- that'll get the harvest going, that's for sure. 

I don't know if you've been in on a thread when I mentioned this, but when I was a Charismatic Christian, I belonged to a church that did the whole "If you can name it, you can claim it" thing.  Every Sunday morning people would come up and say what it was they wanted Jesus to do for them.  This one young couple (they were mostly all young couples ...) kept wanting a refrigerator.  I'm 14 years old, I had a job, I was putting money in the money box every Sunday, and this couple still doesn't have a refrigerator.  Somewhere along the line I realize -- all the church had to do was pass the plate and this couple really would have had a refrigerator.  If the answer is that simple, why are people insisting Jesus give them a fridge from heaven?

"Obviously I'm convinced of the existence of G-d. I'm equally convinced that Atheists who've led good lives will be in Olam HaBa going "How the heck did I wind up in this place?!?" while Christians who've treated people like dirt will be in some other place asking the exact same question."


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 13593
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
Quote:T he prohibition


Quote:
T he prohibition against putting G-d to the test has nothing to do with demanding proof that G-d does, or doesn't, exist, but rather with compelling G-d to act.  It is putting =us= in charge of G-d.

Right God doesn't have to explain himself to anyone. Neither did Kim Jong ill.

And unlike God or Kim Jong Ill, WE in western countries ARE in charge of our leaders When they do something we don't like we have the opportunity to vote them out of office. You cant do that with God or Kim Jong Ill.

So you admit a prohibition to "testing God" Right, Sounds like nothing but might makes right.

Lets revue, God cant be tested or kicked out of office, humn, sounds like a dictator to me.

 

 

 

"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under BrianJames Rational Poet also on twitter under Brianrrs37


FurryCatHerder
Theist
FurryCatHerder's picture
Posts: 1253
Joined: 2007-06-02
User is offlineOffline
Lion IRC wrote:When someone

Lion IRC wrote:

When someone sees a miracle, has a road to Damascus, voice of God, burning bush, zen-like satori moment, sees a ghost, or whatever, and they actually do find themselves having experienced an event which meets their own skeptical threshold of "undeniability", the irony is that nobody will believe them.

Depends.

I don't believe that certain events surrounding the death of my grandfather or father was "proof of G-d's existence", thought I have to admit that both were pretty cool events.

The difference between, say, Judaism and Christianity or Islam is the nature of the "revelation".  In Christianity you have claims that not only aren't at all borne out by history (where is the record in Roman history of Jesus existing, being executed, all the dead Jews buried around Jerusalem coming back to life, the earthquake that supposedly happened, the parting of the Temple veil, etc.), but when compared from one source to the next, can't even agree with each other?  Let's look at the timeline of the crucifixion and resurrection --

Roman soldiers arrest Jesus sometime late in the evening Thursday, he's passed around between the priests and/or Sanhedrin in the Temple (impossible) then over to Herod and/or Pilate, then there's a show trial Friday morning, a nice bit of torture, and he's finally crucified Friday sometime between noon and 3pm.  Sometime around 4 or 5pm (keep in mind -- crucifixion is a =multiple= day form of execution, and it's still Friday ...) he says some things that aren't consistently attested to, and by 5pm people are asking for his body so he can be buried by 6pm when the sun is going to set because Jews don't bury people on the Sabbath, even to this very day.

The sun goes down around 6pm (it's the vernal equinox on account of it being near Passover) and everyone goes home and has a good cry over their unleavened bread.  The next day, which =started= at 6pm Saturday evening, Mary, Mary and Mary go to the tomb, and his dead body isn't there.  Twenty four or 25 hours earlier -- dead body.  The next day, no dead body.

A bunch of people who can't count and don't know when Jewish days begin and end then claim -- "He was in the ground for THREE DAYS and THREE NIGHTS!  It's a miracle, just like Jonah!"

Except ... he wasn't.

How's that for a "revelation"?

Then you've got the Islamic version -- man goes in cave, has vision, tells vision to some friends, friends write the vision down.  This keeps happening, over and over and over again until there are 114 "chapters" worth of visions.

Man runs around with a growing bunch of friends and tells people "Here's my vision -- believe it, or we kill you."  Some people accept the vision and don't get killed, others don't accept the vision and do get killed.  This sets up a pattern, which we still get to experience today.

But what of that vision?

In Sura Al-Qamar (that's chapter 54, for anyone who doesn't read Arabic or hasn't read the Qur'an), from the first verse, it claims that the moon was split in two, and that this miracle was used to prove to the surrounding tribes that The Prophet was the messenger of Allah.  Anyone else have a record of the moon being split in half?  Does the =moon= have a record of the moon being split in half?  No?  Didn't think so.

This doesn't keep Muslims from pointing at cracks on the moon and claiming that the moon was split in half.  They apparently haven't looked at the rift valley a couple of countries over, the one that runs up between Israel and Saudi Arabia (for example ...) and claim that the earth was split in two.

Quote:
According to the former atheists OWN standard of empirical, material proof, their epiphany, however real, will be dismissed like those of every other "Saul of Tarsus" as an epileptic fit, wishful thinking, delusion, psychosis... or just something which science will hopefully one day work out had nothing to do with God.

Ah, Saul.

The problem with Saul is that private visions =never= trump the Torah.  For that matter, neither do public visions, or even loud voices from Heaven.  It can't be added to, it can't be subtracted from --

Deu 4:2   Ye shall not add unto the word which I command you, neither shall ye diminish [ought] from it, that ye may keep the commandments of the LORD your God which I command you.

Saul is stuck between a rock and a hard place, not that most Christians even have a clue that the verse is in there.  They've heard this one --

Mat 5:18   For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled.

 

but the excuse is, "Jesus fulfilled the law!"

Were you paying attention when I laid out the timeline for the crucifiction and resurrection?  Yes?  No?

Not so much on fulfilling the Law.

"Obviously I'm convinced of the existence of G-d. I'm equally convinced that Atheists who've led good lives will be in Olam HaBa going "How the heck did I wind up in this place?!?" while Christians who've treated people like dirt will be in some other place asking the exact same question."


VanLandingham
VanLandingham's picture
Posts: 16
Joined: 2011-12-06
User is offlineOffline
Divine revelation is chaos.

 

What differentiates The Book of Mormon, The Pearl of Great Price and Doctrine and Covenants from the bible as divine revelation?  They contain prophecies including the future restoration of the gospel to the gentiles, and events of the last days. These books were revealed to J. Smith and witnessed as true by B. Young and a string of other prophets. They are fundamental text of 12,500,000 believers and have generated a vibrant society.

 

How does the  pope, LDS prophet, the various Christian ministers, Joseph Kony of the Lord's Resistance Army and Warren Jeffs (FLDS), all putting out completely contradictory messages, differ in their claim to divine revelation? They all have devoted followers who are convinced they speak for god.

 

Who gets to decide what is divine revelation? Every Christian I know is biased by their own denomination.

 

The evangelical theologian Carl Ferdinand Howard Henry listed certain criteria for divine revelation in his book “God, Revelation and Authority”:

·         Godʼs revelation is rational communication conveyed in intelligible ideas and meaningful words, that is, in conceptual-verbal form.

·         The Holy Spirit superintends the communication of divine revelation by illuminating and interpreting the scripturally given Word of God.

 

It is impossible to look at Christian divine revelation from all the contradictory sources and the complex sacred text interpreted in a thousand different ways as rational communication or is coordinated by an all powerful god. An outsider cannot  know who and what is the real divine revelation.

 


blacklight915
blacklight915's picture
Posts: 544
Joined: 2011-12-23
User is offlineOffline
FurryCatHerder wrote:Now,

FurryCatHerder wrote:

Now, there are Atheists here who say "If god exists, why is there this bad thing?", and they ignore everything positive about the Universe -- they expect the Laws of Nature to work the way =they= want.  They expect Gravity to be turned on and off, so that if they fall from the top of  some building, they don't get killed.  But if they jump really, really hard, they don't fly off into space.  They are upset that their puppy died when they were 4 or 5, but not upset that they aren't up to their necks in all the puppies ever born, forever and ever.  For those Atheists, their problem isn't that G-d created an entire Universe, but that they aren't the ones making the rules.  They'd believe in G-d, but only if G-d works the way =they= want.

As long as you don't claim your God to be both omnipotent and omnibenevolent, I won't claim that the bad things in this world are evidence against its existence. The "Problem of Evil", as it is called, is only an issue if you claim your God to be both all-powerful and all-loving. As long as you don't make this claim, the Problem of Evil won't be relevant to your God.

The reason many atheists say this is most Christians, Jews, and Muslims do make that claim.

The reason I don't think any God(s) exist outside of people's minds is I have seen very little evidence to suggest that they do. If you're willing to share, I would love to hear your reasons for believing in God.

Oh, I've been wondering: why do you spell God with a dash in middle?

 


FurryCatHerder
Theist
FurryCatHerder's picture
Posts: 1253
Joined: 2007-06-02
User is offlineOffline
blacklight915

blacklight915 wrote:

FurryCatHerder wrote:

Now, there are Atheists here who say "If god exists, why is there this bad thing?", and they ignore everything positive about the Universe -- they expect the Laws of Nature to work the way =they= want.  They expect Gravity to be turned on and off, so that if they fall from the top of  some building, they don't get killed.  But if they jump really, really hard, they don't fly off into space.  They are upset that their puppy died when they were 4 or 5, but not upset that they aren't up to their necks in all the puppies ever born, forever and ever.  For those Atheists, their problem isn't that G-d created an entire Universe, but that they aren't the ones making the rules.  They'd believe in G-d, but only if G-d works the way =they= want.

As long as you don't claim your God to be both omnipotent and omnibenevolent, I won't claim that the bad things in this world are evidence against its existence. The "Problem of Evil", as it is called, is only an issue if you claim your God to be both all-powerful and all-loving. As long as you don't make this claim, the Problem of Evil won't be relevant to your God.

The "Problem of Evil" is a Christian problem.  If G-d created the entire Universe, and everything in the entire Universe, G-d created whatever it is that you call "Evil".

Judaism isn't polytheistic -- there is no "good god" on one hand, and a "bad god" on the other.  Christians claim that G-d only created "good" things, while "evil" is from Satan.  Satan becomes this minor deity in the pantheon of Christianity.  You have Father, Son, some spirit-based entity ("Ruach Ha'Kodesh" -- "Holy Spirit" was taken from Genesis 1:2, where it was "Ruach Elokim", but they don't have a "Arm of G-d" or "Hand of G-d" deity -- not sure why they have a "Spirit of G-d" deity), Satan (the "bad god" deity) and if you're Catholic, the Mother in the person of Mary.

There are several kinds of evil -- the first is what several here complain about: Why did my puppy die / brother get cancer / mother get run over by a bus?  Stuff happens because stuff happens -- imagine a world in which all the puppies ever given to little boys or girls never die.  We'd have puppies up to our neck.  The next kind of evil is "mean people" -- some guy robs your house / steals your car / breaks your toy truck on purpose.  Now, imagine a world in which that is impossible.  A world in which we don't have free-will.  A world in which you can't even think for yourself because you might think the wrong thought or do the wrong thing.  Not all that keen on that scenario either.

Did G-d create evil?  No, G-d gave us free-will and choices -- how we handle a situation is up to us, and how the people around us help us through hard times up to them.

blacklight915 wrote:
The reason many atheists say this is most Christians, Jews, and Muslims do make that claim.

Almost =all= Christians do, many Muslims do, but no Jews should claim that G-d is "good" and Satan is "evil", and so on as those other two religions do.

We have free-will, we get to choose --

Gen 2:17   But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die.

That's what these types of choices, of free-will, are -- choosing between "good" and "evil".  Eve chose to eat of that tree and discovered what free-will is all about -- you make your choice, you take your chances.

blacklight915 wrote:
The reason I don't think any God(s) exist outside of people's minds is I have seen very little evidence to suggest that they do. If you're willing to share, I would love to hear your reasons for believing in God.

The reasons I believe in G-d are personal, and my proof of G-d's existence is the entire Universe.  I've had personal experiences which contribute to and reinforce my beliefs, but they aren't =why= I believe in G-d.

blacklight915 wrote:
Oh, I've been wondering: why do you spell God with a dash in middle?

It's a sign of respect.  Like not calling your parents by their first names.  It's also one of the Ten Commandments -- not using G-d's name in vain.

Look at how Muslims are with "Allah".  They run around shouting "Allahu Akbar!" and kill innocent people.  It's pretty hard to claim G-d told you to do something if you're not supposed to run around shouting G-d's name all the time.  It sort of makes it clear that G-d isn't the one telling you to do whatever it is you're doing.

"Obviously I'm convinced of the existence of G-d. I'm equally convinced that Atheists who've led good lives will be in Olam HaBa going "How the heck did I wind up in this place?!?" while Christians who've treated people like dirt will be in some other place asking the exact same question."


FurryCatHerder
Theist
FurryCatHerder's picture
Posts: 1253
Joined: 2007-06-02
User is offlineOffline
VanLandingham wrote:What

VanLandingham wrote:
What differentiates The Book of Mormon, The Pearl of Great Price and Doctrine and Covenants from the bible as divine revelation?  They contain prophecies including the future restoration of the gospel to the gentiles, and events of the last days. These books were revealed to J. Smith and witnessed as true by B. Young and a string of other prophets. They are fundamental text of 12,500,000 believers and have generated a vibrant society.

The Torah, which LDS claims is somehow the basis of their religion, makes it very plain what is or isn't "revelation" or "prophecy".

1). It cannot contradict the Torah.  Period.

2). It must be specific enough that it can be tested for accuracy.

LDS doctrine fails the first test -- the LDS Church re-invented all of both Christian and Jewish theology, and Christian theology is a re-invention of Jewish theology.  They sneak around the "polytheism" claim by either saying that Christianity is also polytheistic, so what's the problem, or they don't actually worship the man-gods that they all aspire to become.

The LDS revelations fail the second test as well -- the LDS Church makes claims which are both prophetic, and historic, and except for prophetic claims that aren't significant enough to matter, fails.  The LDS Church has been back-pedaling for years now that genetic genealogy has proven their Native American origin claims to be false.

"Obviously I'm convinced of the existence of G-d. I'm equally convinced that Atheists who've led good lives will be in Olam HaBa going "How the heck did I wind up in this place?!?" while Christians who've treated people like dirt will be in some other place asking the exact same question."


Lee2216
Theist
Lee2216's picture
Posts: 328
Joined: 2010-11-23
User is offlineOffline
Louis_Cypher wrote:What

Louis_Cypher wrote:
What differentiates revelation from imagination or delusion.

What kind of revelation? General or special? 

 

For since the creation of the world God’s invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that people are without excuse. Romans 1:20


luca
atheist
Posts: 400
Joined: 2011-02-21
User is offlineOffline
d-g

FurryCatHerder wrote:
It's a sign of respect.  Like not calling your parents by their first names.
So you don't call you parents by their first names...? Puzzled 
FurryCatHerder wrote:
The validity of a "revelation" is determined by its agreement with observed reality
It's funny because you say it like if you are not joking Laughing out loud 
Kapkao wrote:
Not a valid means to gather opinions?
You call that a poke? Osama bin laden!

 


Philosophicus
Philosophicus's picture
Posts: 362
Joined: 2009-12-16
User is offlineOffline
...

FurryCatHerder wrote:

blacklight915 wrote:

FurryCatHerder wrote:

Now, there are Atheists here who say "If god exists, why is there this bad thing?", and they ignore everything positive about the Universe -- they expect the Laws of Nature to work the way =they= want.  They expect Gravity to be turned on and off, so that if they fall from the top of  some building, they don't get killed.  But if they jump really, really hard, they don't fly off into space.  They are upset that their puppy died when they were 4 or 5, but not upset that they aren't up to their necks in all the puppies ever born, forever and ever.  For those Atheists, their problem isn't that G-d created an entire Universe, but that they aren't the ones making the rules.  They'd believe in G-d, but only if G-d works the way =they= want.

As long as you don't claim your God to be both omnipotent and omnibenevolent, I won't claim that the bad things in this world are evidence against its existence. The "Problem of Evil", as it is called, is only an issue if you claim your God to be both all-powerful and all-loving. As long as you don't make this claim, the Problem of Evil won't be relevant to your God.

The "Problem of Evil" is a Christian problem.  If G-d created the entire Universe, and everything in the entire Universe, G-d created whatever it is that you call "Evil".

Judaism isn't polytheistic -- there is no "good god" on one hand, and a "bad god" on the other.  Christians claim that G-d only created "good" things, while "evil" is from Satan.  Satan becomes this minor deity in the pantheon of Christianity.  You have Father, Son, some spirit-based entity ("Ruach Ha'Kodesh" -- "Holy Spirit" was taken from Genesis 1:2, where it was "Ruach Elokim", but they don't have a "Arm of G-d" or "Hand of G-d" deity -- not sure why they have a "Spirit of G-d" deity), Satan (the "bad god" deity) and if you're Catholic, the Mother in the person of Mary.

There are several kinds of evil -- the first is what several here complain about: Why did my puppy die / brother get cancer / mother get run over by a bus?  Stuff happens because stuff happens -- imagine a world in which all the puppies ever given to little boys or girls never die.  We'd have puppies up to our neck.  The next kind of evil is "mean people" -- some guy robs your house / steals your car / breaks your toy truck on purpose.  Now, imagine a world in which that is impossible.  A world in which we don't have free-will.  A world in which you can't even think for yourself because you might think the wrong thought or do the wrong thing.  Not all that keen on that scenario either.

Did G-d create evil?  No, G-d gave us free-will and choices -- how we handle a situation is up to us, and how the people around us help us through hard times up to them.

blacklight915 wrote:
The reason many atheists say this is most Christians, Jews, and Muslims do make that claim.

Almost =all= Christians do, many Muslims do, but no Jews should claim that G-d is "good" and Satan is "evil", and so on as those other two religions do.

We have free-will, we get to choose --

Gen 2:17   But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die.

That's what these types of choices, of free-will, are -- choosing between "good" and "evil".  Eve chose to eat of that tree and discovered what free-will is all about -- you make your choice, you take your chances.

 

 

FurryCatHerder, why did Eve choose to eat from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil?


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 13593
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
Lee2216 wrote:Louis_Cypher

Lee2216 wrote:

Louis_Cypher wrote:
What differentiates revelation from imagination or delusion.

What kind of revelation? General or special? 

 

WE DON'T CARE, please stop trying to move the goal posts.

HOW, not who, not what pet god, not what book.

HOW when you get a thought into your head, HOW do you translate that thought that will transcend any personal whims or holy book quotes that can result in others seeing what you see?

Everyone quotes their respective books. Everyone claims their god is real. SO THE FUCK WHAT.

If there is a way to filter out bias, it has to be OUTSIDE your own head and outside your favorite holy book. Same goes for people of other religions with other pet god claims.

Anyone can buy a claim ON ANY SUBJECT, not just religion. That does not require scrutiny or testing. That merely requires swallowing it.

AGAIN HOW HOW HOW HOW HOW HOW HOW HOW HOW

You have a thought in your head. You translate that thought into communication. WHO THE FUCK CARES.

Anyone can communicate a claim ON ANY SUBJECT.

Where the proof is found is WHEN in the process of that communication the testing and independent review becomes clear to all.

Otherwise we can all make up shit and claim it.

 

"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under BrianJames Rational Poet also on twitter under Brianrrs37


Lee2216
Theist
Lee2216's picture
Posts: 328
Joined: 2010-11-23
User is offlineOffline
Brian37 wrote:HOW, not who,

Brian37 wrote:
HOW, not who, not what pet god, not what book

General revelation is the disclosure of God in nature, in providential history, and in the moral law within the heart, whereby all persons at all times and places gain a rudimentary understanding of the Creator and his moral demands. Special revelation is revealed in scripture thru the holy spirit. On the other hand, imagination is the ability of forming mental images, sensations and concepts, in a moment when they are not perceived through sight, hearing or other senses. A delusion is a false belief held with absolute conviction despite superior evidence which is atheism in a nut shell. So, God is clearly revealed to us through our senses rather than our imagination or delusion.

For since the creation of the world God’s invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that people are without excuse. Romans 1:20


FurryCatHerder
Theist
FurryCatHerder's picture
Posts: 1253
Joined: 2007-06-02
User is offlineOffline
Philosophicus

Philosophicus wrote:

FurryCatHerder wrote:

We have free-will, we get to choose --

Gen 2:17   But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die.

That's what these types of choices, of free-will, are -- choosing between "good" and "evil".  Eve chose to eat of that tree and discovered what free-will is all about -- you make your choice, you take your chances.

FurryCatHerder, why did Eve choose to eat from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil?

Because we aren't robots.  Sooner or later someone had to do something they weren't "supposed" to do.  As my rabbi put it, "It moves the story along."

And it wasn't a "magical" tree -- just a tree.  Just a tree that wasn't "supposed" to be eaten from.  The existence of "free will" implies the ability to make the "wrong" decision.  No great showdown between G-d and Satan.  Just ... free-will being exercised.

"Obviously I'm convinced of the existence of G-d. I'm equally convinced that Atheists who've led good lives will be in Olam HaBa going "How the heck did I wind up in this place?!?" while Christians who've treated people like dirt will be in some other place asking the exact same question."


Philosophicus
Philosophicus's picture
Posts: 362
Joined: 2009-12-16
User is offlineOffline
...

Lee2216 wrote:

General revelation is the disclosure of God in nature, in providential history, and in the moral law within the heart, whereby all persons at all times and places gain a rudimentary understanding of the Creator and his moral demands. Special revelation is revealed in scripture thru the holy spirit. On the other hand, imagination is the ability of forming mental images, sensations and concepts, in a moment when they are not perceived through sight, hearing or other senses. A delusion is a false belief held with absolute conviction despite superior evidence which is atheism in a nut shell. So, God is clearly revealed to us through our senses rather than our imagination or delusion.

 

Let's start with special revelation.  How do you know that the holy spirit spoke to the people in The Bible?  Maybe they lied or were hallucinating, or were wrong; or the whole story or part of it was made up.  It could have been intended as social commentary for their time, like Nostradamus. 

 

 

 


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 13593
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
Quote:General revelation is

Quote:
General revelation is the disclosure of God in nature,

Thank you Thomas Jefferson.

I don't know why I am wasting my time typing the following but here goes.

That ambiguous claptrap explains nothing. You, like Furry, Like Muslims still have a specific god claim you ultimately want to lead others too.

What you falsely attribute to "revelation is the disclosure of God in nature" is merely the placebo of mistaking "WOW" that is neat, to "it must be magic".

You are conflating human's natural "sense of awe" as being the product of a fictional god. Now, Jefferson did more than you. He rejected the superstition and magical claims of the bible, but like you, also tried to cop out to the "God of nature". i would have if I could have debated him, called BS on this same back peddle you use now.

However, unlike you, if I could say to Jefferson "Bullshit, Jeff, that is merely you saying "that's pretty so therefor something thinking did it". He would be concerned, not with my delivery, or blasphemy, but my reasoning.

Nature is nature and not just the pretty stuff. Cancer, ecoli, tsunami's, black holes ect ect ect. None of the good or bad need to be explained by comic book super heros vs super villains.

 

 

"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under BrianJames Rational Poet also on twitter under Brianrrs37


FurryCatHerder
Theist
FurryCatHerder's picture
Posts: 1253
Joined: 2007-06-02
User is offlineOffline
luca wrote:FurryCatHerder

luca wrote:

FurryCatHerder wrote:
It's a sign of respect.  Like not calling your parents by their first names.
So you don't call you parents by their first names...? Puzzled
 Well, they are both dead so I don't call them by anything much anymore, but no, I didn't call them by their first names.  My son got into the habit and I'm not convinced it did him any good. 
luca wrote:
FurryCatHerder wrote:
The validity of a "revelation" is determined by its agreement with observed reality
It's funny because you say it like if you are not joking :D
 Why would I be joking?

If you look at what "Jewish revelation" looks like and compare it to ancient pagan beliefs, we don't say that the Earth rides through the cosmos on the back of a turtle or elephant or whatever.  We don't claim that the sun is pulled across the sky by someone on a chariot.  We also don't get the =order= of the development of the cosmos or life on Earth wrong -- the Earth wasn't created first as the "center of the Universe", with Man being created before the beasts.  The Universe starts out as this "light" thing and progresses through a series of changes with Man entering the picture last.  "Out of Africa" isn't all that far removed from people who believe that the Garden of Eden was where modern day Jerusalem is located -- that Jerusalem really is the "Bellybutton Of The World".

There are some here who'll insist (right about .... NOW!) that this is just "rationalization", but for that ordering to have been gotten "right" 3,500 years ago -- this isn't "wrong", it's just "simple", and the language of a bunch of goat and sheep herders is NOT 21st century high energy Physics and evolutionary Biology.  These are a Bronze Age people, but those Bronze Age people at least knew that the stars in the Heavens came before they did, and that the "beasts of the field" came before them.

Now, there are people who think "mayim" means "water", like a lake, river or stream, but "mayim" is the root of "shamayim" which is "heavens".  And this is where people who don't understand the original language really start to fall all over themselves -- English is NOT Hebrew.  When Hebrew was brought into the modern world and stopped just being  a sacred language, we had to go out and get ourselves some more words -- some we picked up from English and other European languages, but the closest language to Hebrew with words to spare was Arabic.  That's how limited the language was, even as recently as 100 years ago.

Compare this to Christianity, and particularly the modern know-nothing branch that posts stupid images decrying Evolution -- Evolution isn't a threat to me because the Torah is NOT a Science manual.  For Science, I look to Science.  But even =not= being a Science manual, at least I know that before there was Man, there were other animals, and that doesn't disagree with Evolution.  I'm not stuck explaining how Homo Sapien is supposedly a more ancient species than Felis Catus, all praise be unto the great and wonderful Cat.  I don't have to claim that fossils were put there by The Devil to tempt me into disbelieving G-d.  I'm not stuck explaining, as Christians tried to suppress what Scientists found a few hundred years back, that the Sun really =does= orbit the Earth.  I don't have to strain orbital mechanics by pointing out that both orbit a common barycenter, so the Sun, in fact, actually orbits the center of mass of the Earth-Sun system, which is complicated by the masses of all the other planets.

"Obviously I'm convinced of the existence of G-d. I'm equally convinced that Atheists who've led good lives will be in Olam HaBa going "How the heck did I wind up in this place?!?" while Christians who've treated people like dirt will be in some other place asking the exact same question."


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 13593
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
Furry, please. All this

Furry, please. All this amounts to is "I am not like the others"

When you claim "my books say and science says" that is nothing but retrofitting.

Otherwise Gene Roddenberry invented the modern cell phone.

Did a woman pop out of a mans rib? Nope. Were Jews slaves to Egyptians, NOPE. Dp animals become zombies in pairs so one family can survive the fact that their puppet master failed to set up his utopia? And then because of his own failure allows an act of genocide?

Hebrews did NOT invent modern science any more than Egyptians invented geometry because of their ability of building.

Protest all you want Furry, you worshiping the Hebrew fictional god is as arbitrary as being a Saints fan. Modern NFL football did not pop out of thin air. It was a spin off of rugby. Your religion was no different. And none of that unscientific claptrap is any more credibly than when a Muslim or Christian attempts it.

 

"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under BrianJames Rational Poet also on twitter under Brianrrs37


Lee2216
Theist
Lee2216's picture
Posts: 328
Joined: 2010-11-23
User is offlineOffline
Philosophicus wrote:Lee2216

Philosophicus wrote:

Lee2216 wrote:

General revelation is the disclosure of God in nature, in providential history, and in the moral law within the heart, whereby all persons at all times and places gain a rudimentary understanding of the Creator and his moral demands. Special revelation is revealed in scripture thru the holy spirit. On the other hand, imagination is the ability of forming mental images, sensations and concepts, in a moment when they are not perceived through sight, hearing or other senses. A delusion is a false belief held with absolute conviction despite superior evidence which is atheism in a nut shell. So, God is clearly revealed to us through our senses rather than our imagination or delusion.

 

Let's start with special revelation.  How do you know that the holy spirit spoke to the people in The Bible?  Maybe they lied or were hallucinating, or were wrong; or the whole story or part of it was made up.  It could have been intended as social commentary for their time, like Nostradamus. 

God said to Moses, “I AM WHO I AM. This is what you are to say to the Israelites: ‘I AM has sent me to you.’” God also said to Moses, “Say to the Israelites, ‘The LORD, the God of your fathers—the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac and the God of Jacob—has sent me to you.’ Exodus 3:14-15

 

 

For since the creation of the world God’s invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that people are without excuse. Romans 1:20


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 13593
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
FurryCatHerder

FurryCatHerder wrote:

Philosophicus wrote:

FurryCatHerder wrote:

We have free-will, we get to choose --

Gen 2:17   But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die.

That's what these types of choices, of free-will, are -- choosing between "good" and "evil".  Eve chose to eat of that tree and discovered what free-will is all about -- you make your choice, you take your chances.

FurryCatHerder, why did Eve choose to eat from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil?

Because we aren't robots.  Sooner or later someone had to do something they weren't "supposed" to do.  As my rabbi put it, "It moves the story along."

And it wasn't a "magical" tree -- just a tree.  Just a tree that wasn't "supposed" to be eaten from.  The existence of "free will" implies the ability to make the "wrong" decision.  No great showdown between G-d and Satan.  Just ... free-will being exercised.

No, there was no tree that was put there by a god. There is merely you trying to dodge the trap your literary character you falsely believe to fact set up.

BULLSHIT! In the story AND IT IS JUST A STORY, the bet happens between God and his minion. The lab rats have no clue they have been set up.

Strip all the books of Abraham down to the core motif and you have the shallow motif of a comic book.

"Good vs evil"

STRICTLY as a fictional story IT SUCKS, morally.

You have yet to explain how Adam and Eve prior to the bet between God and Lucifer, had any say into the rules and the game they had no say in setting up. Tell me how Adam and Eve took place in the set up of the bet they knew nothing about.

Free will in a sucker bet is as as moral as steeling a lolly pop from a baby.

It would make more sense if Adam and Eve were involved in setting up the parameters prior. But that is not how the story goes. So it merely amounts to a bully taking advantage of the weak.

You worship a mafia boss, a dictator. Adam and Eve were not involved in the decision making in the set up prior to the alleged story. They were mere props, pawns all to glorify a dictator god.

 

 

"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under BrianJames Rational Poet also on twitter under Brianrrs37


Louis_Cypher
BloggerSuperfan
Louis_Cypher's picture
Posts: 529
Joined: 2008-03-22
User is offlineOffline
Bovine Excrement in layers...

Lee2216 wrote:

Brian37 wrote:
HOW, not who, not what pet god, not what book

Quote:
General revelation is the disclosure of God in nature, in providential history, and in the moral law within the heart, whereby all persons at all times and places gain a rudimentary understanding of the Creator and his moral demands.

I see nature in nature, not a supernatural being. There are no 'moral demands', there is no objective morality. This has been shown to you dozens of times on these threads. The fact that you choose to ignore reality is not my problem.

Quote:
Special revelation is revealed in scripture thru the holy spirit.

Who wrote the scripture? Isn't it more accurate to say that 'scripture' is nothing more than the revelation (imagination) of specific individuals at specific times? There is a tendency to lend profundity to that which is old, gravitas to that which is temporally ambiguous. If it was spurious when it was first imagined or hallucinated, it's spurious today. Spooks, Holy or otherwise simply don't exist.

Quote:
On the other hand, imagination is the ability of forming mental images, sensations and concepts, in a moment when they are not perceived through sight, hearing or other senses.

Not a bad definition, don't let it go to your head because you follow it with this tripe...

Quote:
A delusion is a false belief held with absolute conviction despite superior evidence which is atheism in a nut shell.

Let's see... the one who believes in invisible, intangible sentient beings with magical powers says the ones that don't are delusional... what size tinfoil hat do you wear?

Quote:
So, God is clearly revealed to us through our senses rather than our imagination or delusion.

I sense the material, natural and rational world. I don't sense anything of supernature. Neither do you, but you like to pretend...

 

 

Christianity: A disgusting middle eastern blood cult, based in human sacrifice, with sacraments of cannibalism and vampirism, whose highest icon is of a near naked man hanging in torment from a device of torture.


Philosophicus
Philosophicus's picture
Posts: 362
Joined: 2009-12-16
User is offlineOffline
...

FurryCatHerder wrote:

Philosophicus wrote:

FurryCatHerder wrote:

We have free-will, we get to choose --

Gen 2:17   But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die.

That's what these types of choices, of free-will, are -- choosing between "good" and "evil".  Eve chose to eat of that tree and discovered what free-will is all about -- you make your choice, you take your chances.

FurryCatHerder, why did Eve choose to eat from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil?

Because we aren't robots.  Sooner or later someone had to do something they weren't "supposed" to do.  As my rabbi put it, "It moves the story along."

And it wasn't a "magical" tree -- just a tree.  Just a tree that wasn't "supposed" to be eaten from.  The existence of "free will" implies the ability to make the "wrong" decision.  No great showdown between G-d and Satan.  Just ... free-will being exercised.

 

When you say that Adam and Eve's sin moves the story along, it sounds like they didn't have free will, or at least not total free will.  It sounds like they were puppets that had to do what they did in order to fulfill God's plan, or "move the story along." 

I want to know exactly why they decided to eat the fruit.  With Eve it seems the serpent tempted her using trickery, and she was convinced.  If the serpent wasn't there she might not have eaten.  Since God created the serpent He's responsible for lowering Eve's free will, even though He didn't eliminate it.

 

 

 

 


Lee2216
Theist
Lee2216's picture
Posts: 328
Joined: 2010-11-23
User is offlineOffline
Louis_Cypher wrote:Let's

Louis_Cypher wrote:

Let's see... the one who believes in invisible, intangible sentient beings with magical powers says the ones that don't are delusional... what size tinfoil hat do you wear?

The one who believes the universe came from nothing is delusional and void of logic.

 

For since the creation of the world God’s invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that people are without excuse. Romans 1:20


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 13593
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
Quote:pretend? She's my

Quote:
pretend? She's my neighbor. I love her.

What the fuck does that have to do with her god existing vs yours?

My friends and family have a range of beliefs, but just because I like them does not make magic men real.

My mom is a neat freak and it has taken her far too long to stop being a neat freak. I have always loved her and she still spoils me rotten. But that does not make her Catholic god real any more than it makes your god real anymore than it makes a Jewish or Muslim God real.

You like Furry. So? I like her too. So?

Same crap, "I am not a bad person" which is NOT the argument the skeptic makes.

The argument we make is not one of labels, but one of evidence. I am sure outside this debate all three of us could have a party and have fun.

But that does not change the REALITY that people who make claims about gods and utopias, even in the form of political utipias, cause division and fuck up humanity.

I am not accusing you or anyone here of being bad. I am accusing you of having bad claims.

 

 

"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under BrianJames Rational Poet also on twitter under Brianrrs37


FurryCatHerder
Theist
FurryCatHerder's picture
Posts: 1253
Joined: 2007-06-02
User is offlineOffline
Lee2216 wrote:Louis_Cypher

Lee2216 wrote:

Louis_Cypher wrote:

Let's see... the one who believes in invisible, intangible sentient beings with magical powers says the ones that don't are delusional... what size tinfoil hat do you wear?

The one who believes the universe came from nothing is delusional and void of logic.

Yeah, because the Bible says that the Universe always existed.  See, says so right here --

Gen 1:1 In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.

 

Oh, wait.  It says that before there was a Universe, G-d had to get around to creating it.

I guess that means you're wrong.

"Obviously I'm convinced of the existence of G-d. I'm equally convinced that Atheists who've led good lives will be in Olam HaBa going "How the heck did I wind up in this place?!?" while Christians who've treated people like dirt will be in some other place asking the exact same question."


Watcher
atheist
Posts: 2326
Joined: 2007-07-10
User is offlineOffline
FurryCatHerder wrote:Compare

FurryCatHerder wrote:

Compare this to Christianity, and particularly the modern know-nothing branch that posts stupid images decrying Evolution -- Evolution isn't a threat to me because the Torah is NOT a Science manual.  For Science, I look to Science.  But even =not= being a Science manual, at least I know that before there was Man, there were other animals, and that doesn't disagree with Evolution.  I'm not stuck explaining how Homo Sapien is supposedly a more ancient species than Felis Catus, all praise be unto the great and wonderful Cat.

Argh.   Ok, total derail.  And this isn't focused just on you, Furry.   This just happens to be the most recent example of an honest mistake among several people when listing the latin names of species.

Ok, first, in the brief time I have started coming back here I have seen people call us sapient and sapien.  The species name is sapiens.

Second and last, in binomial nomenclature the first element, the genus name, is capitalized.   The second element, the species name, is not.

So it would be:

Homo sapiens & Felis catus

Sorry to be anal and most people probably don't even care.  But it doesn't reflect well on those doing it incorrectly.

Thanks.

"I am an atheist, thank God." -Oriana Fallaci


FurryCatHerder
Theist
FurryCatHerder's picture
Posts: 1253
Joined: 2007-06-02
User is offlineOffline
Philosophicus

Philosophicus wrote:

FurryCatHerder wrote:

Because we aren't robots.  Sooner or later someone had to do something they weren't "supposed" to do.  As my rabbi put it, "It moves the story along."

And it wasn't a "magical" tree -- just a tree.  Just a tree that wasn't "supposed" to be eaten from.  The existence of "free will" implies the ability to make the "wrong" decision.  No great showdown between G-d and Satan.  Just ... free-will being exercised.

When you say that Adam and Eve's sin moves the story along, it sounds like they didn't have free will, or at least not total free will.  It sounds like they were puppets that had to do what they did in order to fulfill God's plan, or "move the story along." 

I want to know exactly why they decided to eat the fruit.  With Eve it seems the serpent tempted her using trickery, and she was convinced.  If the serpent wasn't there she might not have eaten.  Since God created the serpent He's responsible for lowering Eve's free will, even though He didn't eliminate it.

Hmmm.  That's a pretty weird argument.  If Eve had never done anything she wasn't supposed to do, she'd have free will.  But by doing something she was told NOT to do, she doesn't.

I had this argument with an Orthodox Jew one Sabbath.  Does free will include the ability to choose to sin, or do we only have free will when we =actually= sin?  My argument is that thought without action isn't free will, otherwise our ability to CHOOSE to act doesn't exist.

So this gets back to the matter of whether or not we have "Free Will".  If we do, sooner or later someone actually CHOOSES to act contrary to "G-d's Will" and sins.  It is, quite simply, an inevitability not because we are =compelled= (which wouldn't be free will ...) but because having the ABILITY to choose means that sooner or later, we choose wrong.  Otherwise "Free Will" doesn't =actually= exist, it's just mental masturbation.

"Obviously I'm convinced of the existence of G-d. I'm equally convinced that Atheists who've led good lives will be in Olam HaBa going "How the heck did I wind up in this place?!?" while Christians who've treated people like dirt will be in some other place asking the exact same question."


FurryCatHerder
Theist
FurryCatHerder's picture
Posts: 1253
Joined: 2007-06-02
User is offlineOffline
Watcher wrote:Argh.   Ok,

Watcher wrote:

Argh.   Ok, total derail.  And this isn't focused just on you, Furry.   This just happens to be the most recent example of an honest mistake among several people when listing the latin names of species.

Not a problem -- I aim to please =and= bring humor.

I will note that you gave me a pass on the small bit of Cat Worship Eye-wink  Wise choice, that!

"Obviously I'm convinced of the existence of G-d. I'm equally convinced that Atheists who've led good lives will be in Olam HaBa going "How the heck did I wind up in this place?!?" while Christians who've treated people like dirt will be in some other place asking the exact same question."


jcgadfly
SuperfanBronze Member
Posts: 6789
Joined: 2006-07-18
User is offlineOffline
FurryCatHerder

FurryCatHerder wrote:

blacklight915 wrote:

FurryCatHerder wrote:

Now, there are Atheists here who say "If god exists, why is there this bad thing?", and they ignore everything positive about the Universe -- they expect the Laws of Nature to work the way =they= want.  They expect Gravity to be turned on and off, so that if they fall from the top of  some building, they don't get killed.  But if they jump really, really hard, they don't fly off into space.  They are upset that their puppy died when they were 4 or 5, but not upset that they aren't up to their necks in all the puppies ever born, forever and ever.  For those Atheists, their problem isn't that G-d created an entire Universe, but that they aren't the ones making the rules.  They'd believe in G-d, but only if G-d works the way =they= want.

As long as you don't claim your God to be both omnipotent and omnibenevolent, I won't claim that the bad things in this world are evidence against its existence. The "Problem of Evil", as it is called, is only an issue if you claim your God to be both all-powerful and all-loving. As long as you don't make this claim, the Problem of Evil won't be relevant to your God.

The "Problem of Evil" is a Christian problem.  If G-d created the entire Universe, and everything in the entire Universe, G-d created whatever it is that you call "Evil".

Judaism isn't polytheistic -- there is no "good god" on one hand, and a "bad god" on the other.  Christians claim that G-d only created "good" things, while "evil" is from Satan.  Satan becomes this minor deity in the pantheon of Christianity.  You have Father, Son, some spirit-based entity ("Ruach Ha'Kodesh" -- "Holy Spirit" was taken from Genesis 1:2, where it was "Ruach Elokim", but they don't have a "Arm of G-d" or "Hand of G-d" deity -- not sure why they have a "Spirit of G-d" deity), Satan (the "bad god" deity) and if you're Catholic, the Mother in the person of Mary.

There are several kinds of evil -- the first is what several here complain about: Why did my puppy die / brother get cancer / mother get run over by a bus?  Stuff happens because stuff happens -- imagine a world in which all the puppies ever given to little boys or girls never die.  We'd have puppies up to our neck.  The next kind of evil is "mean people" -- some guy robs your house / steals your car / breaks your toy truck on purpose.  Now, imagine a world in which that is impossible.  A world in which we don't have free-will.  A world in which you can't even think for yourself because you might think the wrong thought or do the wrong thing.  Not all that keen on that scenario either.

Did G-d create evil?  No, G-d gave us free-will and choices -- how we handle a situation is up to us, and how the people around us help us through hard times up to them.

blacklight915 wrote:
The reason many atheists say this is most Christians, Jews, and Muslims do make that claim.

Almost =all= Christians do, many Muslims do, but no Jews should claim that G-d is "good" and Satan is "evil", and so on as those other two religions do.

We have free-will, we get to choose --

Gen 2:17   But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die.

That's what these types of choices, of free-will, are -- choosing between "good" and "evil".  Eve chose to eat of that tree and discovered what free-will is all about -- you make your choice, you take your chances.

blacklight915 wrote:
The reason I don't think any God(s) exist outside of people's minds is I have seen very little evidence to suggest that they do. If you're willing to share, I would love to hear your reasons for believing in God.

The reasons I believe in G-d are personal, and my proof of G-d's existence is the entire Universe.  I've had personal experiences which contribute to and reinforce my beliefs, but they aren't =why= I believe in G-d.

blacklight915 wrote:
Oh, I've been wondering: why do you spell God with a dash in middle?

It's a sign of respect.  Like not calling your parents by their first names.  It's also one of the Ten Commandments -- not using G-d's name in vain.

Look at how Muslims are with "Allah".  They run around shouting "Allahu Akbar!" and kill innocent people.  It's pretty hard to claim G-d told you to do something if you're not supposed to run around shouting G-d's name all the time.  It sort of makes it clear that G-d isn't the one telling you to do whatever it is you're doing.

Not using God's name in vain? So you don't pray either?

"I do this real moron thing, and it's called thinking. And apparently I'm not a very good American because I like to form my own opinions."
— George Carlin


jcgadfly
SuperfanBronze Member
Posts: 6789
Joined: 2006-07-18
User is offlineOffline
FurryCatHerder

FurryCatHerder wrote:

Philosophicus wrote:

FurryCatHerder wrote:

Because we aren't robots.  Sooner or later someone had to do something they weren't "supposed" to do.  As my rabbi put it, "It moves the story along."

And it wasn't a "magical" tree -- just a tree.  Just a tree that wasn't "supposed" to be eaten from.  The existence of "free will" implies the ability to make the "wrong" decision.  No great showdown between G-d and Satan.  Just ... free-will being exercised.

When you say that Adam and Eve's sin moves the story along, it sounds like they didn't have free will, or at least not total free will.  It sounds like they were puppets that had to do what they did in order to fulfill God's plan, or "move the story along." 

I want to know exactly why they decided to eat the fruit.  With Eve it seems the serpent tempted her using trickery, and she was convinced.  If the serpent wasn't there she might not have eaten.  Since God created the serpent He's responsible for lowering Eve's free will, even though He didn't eliminate it.

Hmmm.  That's a pretty weird argument.  If Eve had never done anything she wasn't supposed to do, she'd have free will.  But by doing something she was told NOT to do, she doesn't.

I had this argument with an Orthodox Jew one Sabbath.  Does free will include the ability to choose to sin, or do we only have free will when we =actually= sin?  My argument is that thought without action isn't free will, otherwise our ability to CHOOSE to act doesn't exist.

So this gets back to the matter of whether or not we have "Free Will".  If we do, sooner or later someone actually CHOOSES to act contrary to "G-d's Will" and sins.  It is, quite simply, an inevitability not because we are =compelled= (which wouldn't be free will ...) but because having the ABILITY to choose means that sooner or later, we choose wrong.  Otherwise "Free Will" doesn't =actually= exist, it's just mental masturbation.

More like there was no free will in either case. Can't make a knowledgeable choice without knowledge. If they already had they knowledge of good and evil why test them with te tree?

"I do this real moron thing, and it's called thinking. And apparently I'm not a very good American because I like to form my own opinions."
— George Carlin


Philosophicus
Philosophicus's picture
Posts: 362
Joined: 2009-12-16
User is offlineOffline
...

FurryCatHerder wrote:

Philosophicus wrote:

FurryCatHerder wrote:

Because we aren't robots.  Sooner or later someone had to do something they weren't "supposed" to do.  As my rabbi put it, "It moves the story along."

And it wasn't a "magical" tree -- just a tree.  Just a tree that wasn't "supposed" to be eaten from.  The existence of "free will" implies the ability to make the "wrong" decision.  No great showdown between G-d and Satan.  Just ... free-will being exercised.

When you say that Adam and Eve's sin moves the story along, it sounds like they didn't have free will, or at least not total free will.  It sounds like they were puppets that had to do what they did in order to fulfill God's plan, or "move the story along." 

I want to know exactly why they decided to eat the fruit.  With Eve it seems the serpent tempted her using trickery, and she was convinced.  If the serpent wasn't there she might not have eaten.  Since God created the serpent He's responsible for lowering Eve's free will, even though He didn't eliminate it.

Hmmm.  That's a pretty weird argument.  If Eve had never done anything she wasn't supposed to do, she'd have free will.  But by doing something she was told NOT to do, she doesn't.

I had this argument with an Orthodox Jew one Sabbath.  Does free will include the ability to choose to sin, or do we only have free will when we =actually= sin?  My argument is that thought without action isn't free will, otherwise our ability to CHOOSE to act doesn't exist.

So this gets back to the matter of whether or not we have "Free Will".  If we do, sooner or later someone actually CHOOSES to act contrary to "G-d's Will" and sins.  It is, quite simply, an inevitability not because we are =compelled= (which wouldn't be free will ...) but because having the ABILITY to choose means that sooner or later, we choose wrong.  Otherwise "Free Will" doesn't =actually= exist, it's just mental masturbation.

 

I want to know why people choose wrong.  There are forces outside of us that we don't have control over, as well as forces within our brains (neither of which we chose).  Plus, we have very limited power.  As our power over ourselves and the environment increases, so does our free will.

 

Why should we be punished for things outside of our control?  If I were the most powerful man in the universe, having control over all life and forces of nature, I would be responsible for everything that happens. 

 

 

 


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 13593
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
Philosophicus

Philosophicus wrote:

FurryCatHerder wrote:

Philosophicus wrote:

FurryCatHerder wrote:

Because we aren't robots.  Sooner or later someone had to do something they weren't "supposed" to do.  As my rabbi put it, "It moves the story along."

And it wasn't a "magical" tree -- just a tree.  Just a tree that wasn't "supposed" to be eaten from.  The existence of "free will" implies the ability to make the "wrong" decision.  No great showdown between G-d and Satan.  Just ... free-will being exercised.

When you say that Adam and Eve's sin moves the story along, it sounds like they didn't have free will, or at least not total free will.  It sounds like they were puppets that had to do what they did in order to fulfill God's plan, or "move the story along." 

I want to know exactly why they decided to eat the fruit.  With Eve it seems the serpent tempted her using trickery, and she was convinced.  If the serpent wasn't there she might not have eaten.  Since God created the serpent He's responsible for lowering Eve's free will, even though He didn't eliminate it.

Hmmm.  That's a pretty weird argument.  If Eve had never done anything she wasn't supposed to do, she'd have free will.  But by doing something she was told NOT to do, she doesn't.

I had this argument with an Orthodox Jew one Sabbath.  Does free will include the ability to choose to sin, or do we only have free will when we =actually= sin?  My argument is that thought without action isn't free will, otherwise our ability to CHOOSE to act doesn't exist.

So this gets back to the matter of whether or not we have "Free Will".  If we do, sooner or later someone actually CHOOSES to act contrary to "G-d's Will" and sins.  It is, quite simply, an inevitability not because we are =compelled= (which wouldn't be free will ...) but because having the ABILITY to choose means that sooner or later, we choose wrong.  Otherwise "Free Will" doesn't =actually= exist, it's just mental masturbation.

 

I want to know why people choose wrong.  There are forces outside of us that we don't have control over, as well as forces within our brains (neither of which we chose).  Plus, we have very limited power.  As our power over ourselves and the environment increases, so does our free will.

 

Why should we be punished for things outside of our control?  If I were the most powerful man in the universe, having control over all life and forces of nature, I would be responsible for everything that happens. 

  

The God of Abraham is like Richard Nixon, "It's not illegal when the President does it"

The claimants of this "all powerful" God have no choice to back peddle away from the truth of the motif that he is as written as a fictional character, falsely to be believed as fact, is the final authority. It owes no one anything, and does what it wants, and we cannot remove it from power when we object.

As a mere false claim it is horrible. As a mere false claim people act on, falsely believing it to be fact,  to affect politics and education, it has real impact. If it were just a si fi convention, or comic book convention, that would be one thing. But the Abraham god/s are tyrants and can only be viewed as such, or watered down to a figurehead like the Queen of England. It still would not change that as written, cruel or kind, this figurehead is immovable and unchangeable.

It is a reflection of the tribal kingships of the polytheism and monotheism of the ancient past.

 

"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under BrianJames Rational Poet also on twitter under Brianrrs37


FurryCatHerder
Theist
FurryCatHerder's picture
Posts: 1253
Joined: 2007-06-02
User is offlineOffline
jcgadfly

jcgadfly wrote:

FurryCatHerder wrote:

It's a sign of respect.  Like not calling your parents by their first names.  It's also one of the Ten Commandments -- not using G-d's name in vain.

Not using God's name in vain? So you don't pray either?

That's a trick question.

Jewish prayer isn't "begging".  Like "Dear G-d, please send me a new refrigerator.  Oh, and fix my car while you're at it.  Amein."

It's more like acknowledging what G-d has created and thanking G-d for what G-d has already done.  It's not a vain prayer if G-d already did it, or will certainly do it again.  For example, there is a blessing over a glass of wine --

Quote:
Blessed art thou, our Lord, our G-d, King of the Universe, who creates the fruit of the vine.

That's it.  G-d created grapes and yeast and magically we get wine.  So we thank G-d for doing that.  We don't beg for another bottle, as it were.

"Obviously I'm convinced of the existence of G-d. I'm equally convinced that Atheists who've led good lives will be in Olam HaBa going "How the heck did I wind up in this place?!?" while Christians who've treated people like dirt will be in some other place asking the exact same question."


FurryCatHerder
Theist
FurryCatHerder's picture
Posts: 1253
Joined: 2007-06-02
User is offlineOffline
Philosophicus

Philosophicus wrote:

FurryCatHerder wrote:

Hmmm.  That's a pretty weird argument.  If Eve had never done anything she wasn't supposed to do, she'd have free will.  But by doing something she was told NOT to do, she doesn't.

I had this argument with an Orthodox Jew one Sabbath.  Does free will include the ability to choose to sin, or do we only have free will when we =actually= sin?  My argument is that thought without action isn't free will, otherwise our ability to CHOOSE to act doesn't exist.

So this gets back to the matter of whether or not we have "Free Will".  If we do, sooner or later someone actually CHOOSES to act contrary to "G-d's Will" and sins.  It is, quite simply, an inevitability not because we are =compelled= (which wouldn't be free will ...) but because having the ABILITY to choose means that sooner or later, we choose wrong.  Otherwise "Free Will" doesn't =actually= exist, it's just mental masturbation.

I want to know why people choose wrong.  There are forces outside of us that we don't have control over, as well as forces within our brains (neither of which we chose).  Plus, we have very limited power.  As our power over ourselves and the environment increases, so does our free will.

Why should we be punished for things outside of our control?  If I were the most powerful man in the universe, having control over all life and forces of nature, I would be responsible for everything that happens.

If you have that little control over your life, I'd suggest you either call a cop or learn how to exercise more control over your life.

I mean, I realize that your purpose is to attack concepts like "Free Will" so you can blame G-d for your choices, but seriously -- pick a better bogus argument.

But more to the point, G-d DOES NOT have "control" over what you do, that's what "Free Will" is about.  You have a choice -- be a robot, or be a mature adult and accept that when you do something, =you= did it.  Your dog did not eat your homework and that hottie you saw at work did not force you to have sex with her in the mailroom.

"Obviously I'm convinced of the existence of G-d. I'm equally convinced that Atheists who've led good lives will be in Olam HaBa going "How the heck did I wind up in this place?!?" while Christians who've treated people like dirt will be in some other place asking the exact same question."


FurryCatHerder
Theist
FurryCatHerder's picture
Posts: 1253
Joined: 2007-06-02
User is offlineOffline
jcgadfly wrote:More like

jcgadfly wrote:

More like there was no free will in either case. Can't make a knowledgeable choice without knowledge. If they already had they knowledge of good and evil why test them with te tree?

No free will in either case?  What, Eve was FORCED to eat the apple?  The serpent wrapped itself around the apple, then crammed it down her throat?  Is that how you see it going down?  A bazillion serpent babies invaded all of the Garden of Eden and threatened to bite her if she tried to eat something other than the apple?  How, for f*ck's sake, did she NOT have free will?

"Obviously I'm convinced of the existence of G-d. I'm equally convinced that Atheists who've led good lives will be in Olam HaBa going "How the heck did I wind up in this place?!?" while Christians who've treated people like dirt will be in some other place asking the exact same question."


Louis_Cypher
BloggerSuperfan
Louis_Cypher's picture
Posts: 529
Joined: 2008-03-22
User is offlineOffline
Nice try... but, you are the weakest link...

FurryCatHerder wrote:

Lee2216 wrote:

Louis_Cypher wrote:

Let's see... the one who believes in invisible, intangible sentient beings with magical powers says the ones that don't are delusional... what size tinfoil hat do you wear?

The one who believes the universe came from nothing is delusional and void of logic.

Yeah, because the Bible says that the Universe always existed.  See, says so right here --

Gen 1:1 In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.

 

Oh, wait.  It says that before there was a Universe, G-d had to get around to creating it.

I guess that means you're wrong.

Nah, I'm pretty sure I have a better grip on reality than a bronze age goat herding savage in the Sinai...
But, I'm not sure about you.
LC >:-}>

Christianity: A disgusting middle eastern blood cult, based in human sacrifice, with sacraments of cannibalism and vampirism, whose highest icon is of a near naked man hanging in torment from a device of torture.


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 13593
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
FurryCatHerder

FurryCatHerder wrote:

jcgadfly wrote:

FurryCatHerder wrote:

It's a sign of respect.  Like not calling your parents by their first names.  It's also one of the Ten Commandments -- not using G-d's name in vain.

Not using God's name in vain? So you don't pray either?

That's a trick question.

Jewish prayer isn't "begging".  Like "Dear G-d, please send me a new refrigerator.  Oh, and fix my car while you're at it.  Amein."

It's more like acknowledging what G-d has created and thanking G-d for what G-d has already done.  It's not a vain prayer if G-d already did it, or will certainly do it again.  For example, there is a blessing over a glass of wine --

Quote:
Blessed art thou, our Lord, our G-d, King of the Universe, who creates the fruit of the vine.

That's it.  G-d created grapes and yeast and magically we get wine.  So we thank G-d for doing that.  We don't beg for another bottle, as it were.

You still refuse to see the literary character written in you book of myth as fiction.

Here is the difference between civil plural reality and your fictional god..

You don't have to beg to ANY God just like you don't have to beg to your boss at work in reality. I don't have to beg to my boss for Lamborghinni, much less a raise.

The difference between your fictional god and my  real boss, is that I can leave him and he cant punish me. And if he breaks the law I can blow the whistle on him.

 

"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under BrianJames Rational Poet also on twitter under Brianrrs37


jcgadfly
SuperfanBronze Member
Posts: 6789
Joined: 2006-07-18
User is offlineOffline
FurryCatHerder

FurryCatHerder wrote:

jcgadfly wrote:

FurryCatHerder wrote:

It's a sign of respect.  Like not calling your parents by their first names.  It's also one of the Ten Commandments -- not using G-d's name in vain.

Not using God's name in vain? So you don't pray either?

That's a trick question.

Jewish prayer isn't "begging".  Like "Dear G-d, please send me a new refrigerator.  Oh, and fix my car while you're at it.  Amein."

It's more like acknowledging what G-d has created and thanking G-d for what G-d has already done.  It's not a vain prayer if G-d already did it, or will certainly do it again.  For example, there is a blessing over a glass of wine --

Quote:
Blessed art thou, our Lord, our G-d, King of the Universe, who creates the fruit of the vine.

That's it.  G-d created grapes and yeast and magically we get wine.  So we thank G-d for doing that.  We don't beg for another bottle, as it were.

Never mind the guys who planted, harvested, pressed, barreled and bottled the wine - it was all freaking' magic?

So you prayed to God for providing nothing - still meets the definition of taking God's name in vain.. 

"I do this real moron thing, and it's called thinking. And apparently I'm not a very good American because I like to form my own opinions."
— George Carlin


jcgadfly
SuperfanBronze Member
Posts: 6789
Joined: 2006-07-18
User is offlineOffline
FurryCatHerder

FurryCatHerder wrote:

jcgadfly wrote:

More like there was no free will in either case. Can't make a knowledgeable choice without knowledge. If they already had they knowledge of good and evil why test them with te tree?

No free will in either case?  What, Eve was FORCED to eat the apple?  The serpent wrapped itself around the apple, then crammed it down her throat?  Is that how you see it going down?  A bazillion serpent babies invaded all of the Garden of Eden and threatened to bite her if she tried to eat something other than the apple?  How, for f*ck's sake, did she NOT have free will?

Again, Adam and Eve were incapable of making a knowledgeable decision. Can you make a choice between good and evil without knowing what either are? Can you understand the threat of death if you never saw anything die?

 Do you have free will when you are being steered to an outcome desired by another?

I understand why you don't see this - you believe that God gave you free will because that's what he wants.

 

"I do this real moron thing, and it's called thinking. And apparently I'm not a very good American because I like to form my own opinions."
— George Carlin