Understanding Atheist philosophy .

Jimenezj
Theist
Posts: 344
Joined: 2011-12-16
User is offlineOffline
Understanding Atheist philosophy .

Does the atheist believe in Good and Evil?
I was talking to my friend, a Female Atheist, that did not
Believe in good or evil. When I asked her to
Explain, she did not know how to.

appeal to ignorance is an argument for or against a proposition on the basis of a lack of evidence against or for it. If there is positive evidence for the conclusion, then of course we have other reasons for accepting it, but a lack of evidence by itself is no evidence for a no God. 


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

Jimenezj wrote:

God's commandment was like saying ,Don't drink poison or you will die, part of freedom of choice.  It was his advice. But they choose to drink the poison. So they suffer the consequence . In reality, they have freedom. The same with heaven and hell.hell is poison. But many will prefer the poison.which is fine, it's their choice.

Why would people prefer poison?


EXC
atheist
EXC's picture
Posts: 4108
Joined: 2008-01-17
User is offlineOffline
Jimenezj wrote:EXC said. He

Jimenezj wrote:
EXC said. He told Adam and Eve they would die if they ate the fruit, hardly giving them freedom.  Why not mention them? God's commandment was like saying ,Don't drink poison or you will die, part of freedom of choice.  It was his advice. But they choose to drink the poison. So they suffer the consequence . In reality, they have freedom. The same with heaven and hell.hell is poison. But many will prefer the poison.which is fine, it's their choice.

In Saudi Arabia, the law is if you speak out against the Islamic religion or claim to be an atheist, you will be put to death. So here in west we say in SA people don't have freedom of religion or freedom of speech because the government won't let them choose their religion.

But what you're saying is that we've got it all wrong. They have actually do have freedom of religion and speech in SA. It's just if you choose to be an outspoken atheist, you are really choosing death. Thanks for clarifying that.

Taxation is the price we pay for failing to build a civilized society. The higher the tax level, the greater the failure. A centrally planned totalitarian state represents a complete defeat for the civilized world, while a totally voluntary society represents its ultimate success. --Mark Skousen


Jimenezj
Theist
Posts: 344
Joined: 2011-12-16
User is offlineOffline
Philosophicus

Philosophicus
You said.
Why would people prefer poison?
Suicide.
Another way of explaining this is for example;
A father tells his child, do not cross the street,
Without an adult. One day, the child is playing ball
on the front yard. The ball rolls across the street.
The child decides not to follow his fathers
Commandment. The result , the child gets
Hit by a car. Happens all the time.

I believe that God commandments are for
Our benefit.

appeal to ignorance is an argument for or against a proposition on the basis of a lack of evidence against or for it. If there is positive evidence for the conclusion, then of course we have other reasons for accepting it, but a lack of evidence by itself is no evidence for a no God. 


ProzacDeathWish
atheist
ProzacDeathWish's picture
Posts: 4147
Joined: 2007-12-02
User is offlineOffline
Jimenezj wrote:Philosophicus

Jimenezj wrote:
Philosophicus You said. Why would people prefer poison? Suicide. Another way of explaining this is for example; A father tells his child, do not cross the street, Without an adult. One day, the child is playing ball on the front yard. The ball rolls across the street. The child decides not to follow his fathers Commandment. The result , the child gets Hit by a car. Happens all the time. I believe that God commandments are for Our benefit.

 

   Following rules to avoid negative consequences ?   Even the most evil among us understand that principle and use it to good effect.  

The late Colombian drug lord, Pablo Escobar, used to punish his business associates who disobeyed his "commandments" by suspending them upside down and then setting them on fire as punishment for their disobedience.  

         Pablo, a vicious drug lord, was actually emulating God's methods without realizing it.  


EXC
atheist
EXC's picture
Posts: 4108
Joined: 2008-01-17
User is offlineOffline
Jimenezj wrote:Philosophicus

Jimenezj wrote:
Philosophicus You said. Why would people prefer poison? Suicide. Another way of explaining this is for example; A father tells his child, do not cross the street, Without an adult. One day, the child is playing ball on the front yard. The ball rolls across the street. The child decides not to follow his fathers Commandment. The result , the child gets Hit by a car. Happens all the time. I believe that God commandments are for Our benefit.

Except your heavenly father is watching us all the time, yet he lets us still cross into traffic. In the real world he would be arrested for child endangerment for allowing the child to cross when he could stop it anytime. So do you want God arrested? What prision could hold him?

So I'll ask again, God is either not all powerful, a sadist or does not exist. Which is it?

 

 

 

Taxation is the price we pay for failing to build a civilized society. The higher the tax level, the greater the failure. A centrally planned totalitarian state represents a complete defeat for the civilized world, while a totally voluntary society represents its ultimate success. --Mark Skousen


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

Jimenezj wrote:
Philosophicus You said. Why would people prefer poison?

Suicide. Another way of explaining this is for example; A father tells his child, do not cross the street, Without an adult. One day, the child is playing ball on the front yard. The ball rolls across the street. The child decides not to follow his fathers Commandment. The result , the child gets Hit by a car. Happens all the time. I believe that God commandments are for Our benefit.

In your example the child wasn't committing suicide, he was unaware of the consequences.  He would not have wanted to feel the terror of seeing a car speeding toward him, or the pain of getting hit, or the sound of concerned citizens screaming and crying.  Why would the child want to get hit by a car?  This is a different way of asking the exact same question I asked you before:  why would people prefer poison?

And your situation is a good example of when to suspend someone's free will.  The father -- anyone -- with the power, knowledge, and love, should intervene.  The appropriate response is not "Well, I don't want to violate the child's free will.  After all, it's more important than being happy and comfortable.  He's got to learn responsibility!"  There are times when people should be left to suffer the consequences of their decisions, but this is not one of them.


Jimenezj
Theist
Posts: 344
Joined: 2011-12-16
User is offlineOffline
EXC

You said.
Except your heavenly father is watching us all the time, yet he lets us still cross into traffic. In the real world he would be arrested for child endangerment for allowing the child to cross when he could stop it anytime. So do you want God arrested? What prision could hold him?

So I'll ask again, God is either not all powerful, a sadist or does not exist. Which is it?

Biblicly speaking. If a life dies, God can resurrect (as in Christ). But a human does not have the capability to resurrect on his own. God can create and delete anything he wishes. that is why , the child dying is not a big deal as it would be to a human .

John the Baptist gave a similar example in Mathew 3:9

New Living Translation (©2007)
Don't just say to each other, 'We're safe, for we are descendants of Abraham.' That means nothing, for I tell you, God can create children of Abraham from these very stones.

Therefore your question is not applicable, biblically speaking.
If God were a human , than yes he would be guilty of child endangerment under the law. But God is not a human and is not under the laws of humanity.

appeal to ignorance is an argument for or against a proposition on the basis of a lack of evidence against or for it. If there is positive evidence for the conclusion, then of course we have other reasons for accepting it, but a lack of evidence by itself is no evidence for a no God. 


Jimenezj
Theist
Posts: 344
Joined: 2011-12-16
User is offlineOffline
You said. In your example

You said.
In your example the child wasn't committing suicide, he was unaware of the consequences. 

I gave you two examples of why someone might disobey God commandment.

1. Is personnel suicide in general .Which happen all the time.
2. Is disobeying the father's commandment the child is hit by a car. The child is aware that it is dangerous to cross the street. I forgot to add the warning of death by the father to the child. But even with a warning of death, children will disobey. It happens all the time.

appeal to ignorance is an argument for or against a proposition on the basis of a lack of evidence against or for it. If there is positive evidence for the conclusion, then of course we have other reasons for accepting it, but a lack of evidence by itself is no evidence for a no God. 


ProzacDeathWish
atheist
ProzacDeathWish's picture
Posts: 4147
Joined: 2007-12-02
User is offlineOffline
Jimenezj wrote:l  I forgot

Jimenezj wrote:
l  I forgot to add the warning of death by the father to the child. But even with a warning of death, children will disobey. 

                                                   

 

                                                                                 Free will is a dangerous thing       ....isn't it Jimenezj ?


Jimenezj
Theist
Posts: 344
Joined: 2011-12-16
User is offlineOffline
Prozacdeathwish

Prozacdeathwish
Said                                                                                 Free will is a dangerous thing       ....isn't it Jimenezj ?

Freewill is a freedom and freedom is good. 

The opposite of freedom is slavery or no freedom which is evil.

Therefore freewill is not dangerous.  

appeal to ignorance is an argument for or against a proposition on the basis of a lack of evidence against or for it. If there is positive evidence for the conclusion, then of course we have other reasons for accepting it, but a lack of evidence by itself is no evidence for a no God. 


ProzacDeathWish
atheist
ProzacDeathWish's picture
Posts: 4147
Joined: 2007-12-02
User is offlineOffline
Jimenezj

Jimenezj wrote:
Prozacdeathwish Said                                                                                 Free will is a dangerous thing       ....isn't it Jimenezj ? Freewill is a freedom and freedom is good.  The opposite of freedom is slavery or no freedom which is evil. Therefore freewill is not dangerous.  

 

    Sin and all it's painful consequences ( Hell, death, separation from God ) sprang from the freedom to choose.   Free will is inherently dangerous.


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

Jimenezj wrote:

If God were a human , than yes he would be guilty of child endangerment under the law. But God is not a human and is not under the laws of humanity. 

So it's not evil if God does it.  That isn't morality.  You might as well say, "It's not evil if Hitler does it," or "It's not evil if the leader does it."  Jimenezj, I hope you can tell the difference between good and evil, because so far all you have is, "It's okay if the leader says so." 

I don't like that.  Morality should be about enhancing well-being and lowering suffering, and debating the differences.  What else could we care about?  It doesn't appear your God has a moral compass.  You can claim He's all-knowing, but you'd have to explain His omniscience.  A universe from eternal laws of physics is more parsimonious, and we have evidence for the universe and the laws of physics -- but no deities.


EXC
atheist
EXC's picture
Posts: 4108
Joined: 2008-01-17
User is offlineOffline
Jimenezj wrote:Biblicly

Jimenezj wrote:

Biblicly speaking. If a life dies, God can resurrect (as in Christ).

It's not death then, so if you're honest, use another word. Say that "Christ went into suspended animation for 3 days for my sins". Why do Christian lie and say he "died" all the time? Why say "he died but he lives" if you want to appeal to sane people?

Jimenezj wrote:

But a human does not have the capability to resurrect on his own. God can create and delete anything he wishes. that is why , the child dying is not a big deal as it would be to a human.

So God must be a sadist then to not end suffering. He just lets people go on suffering and then says "just kidding, they're not really dead".

Jimenezj wrote:

If God were a human , than yes he would be guilty of child endangerment under the law.

But I should still "love" him anyways.

Jimenezj wrote:

But God is not a human and is not under the laws of humanity.

How convenient for him. So God is a hypocrite? Or is it just that real Christian morality is just 'might makes right'?

Taxation is the price we pay for failing to build a civilized society. The higher the tax level, the greater the failure. A centrally planned totalitarian state represents a complete defeat for the civilized world, while a totally voluntary society represents its ultimate success. --Mark Skousen


digitalbeachbum
atheistRational VIP!
digitalbeachbum's picture
Posts: 4895
Joined: 2007-10-15
User is offlineOffline
Jimenezj wrote:You said. God

Jimenezj wrote:
You said. God is all powerful. He could just write it in a book and then convince us that the book is true. If God can only show us what evil is by having us experience the pain of being a victim, then he is not all powerful. Your bible contraticts itself. Logically speaking, let's say that an engineer (God) , all by himself has developed the first computer and the first computer program and they work good. The engineer knows all the ins and outs of the computer and the program. Now lets say you come in the picture. You believe that you have a better program for the computer, yet you know nothing about computer engineering. Is this logical? Of course not. The Natural state of a human being is rebellion, evident since childhood. Society tells us not to smoke,not to drink, not to do drugs because it can kill us. They show us movies and books. We study it, and yet we still do it. Personal choice.  We all believe that God should have done this and that,That it would be better if this was this way or that way,  to include myself.  But in reality, it is not logical. 

 

1) Logically speaking, learn how to use the "quote" tool.

2) Logically speaking, you speak of a god as if it existed beyond your mind.

3) Logically speaking,  if a person who is not an engineer sees a car and says, "wait a minute, how am I supposed to steer the car with out a steering device?" This is an example of common sense or rational thinking. You don't need to be an engineer to know a car needs a steering wheel.

4) Logically speaking, why is it that every one who believes in a "god" seem to think their god is more real than any other god? After all, long before the god of abraham there were other gods, of other religions, which are still being practiced today.

5) Logically speaking, there is no "natural state" for humans. We are a vast and diverse species which some are rebellious and others are not.

6) Logically speaking, we all don't believe in god, especially your god.

 


Jimenezj
Theist
Posts: 344
Joined: 2011-12-16
User is offlineOffline
Prozacdeathwish                              

Prozacdeathwish,                              
Do you prefer to live without freedom?

appeal to ignorance is an argument for or against a proposition on the basis of a lack of evidence against or for it. If there is positive evidence for the conclusion, then of course we have other reasons for accepting it, but a lack of evidence by itself is no evidence for a no God. 


Jimenezj
Theist
Posts: 344
Joined: 2011-12-16
User is offlineOffline
Philosophicus

You said.
I don't like that.  Morality should be about enhancing well-being and lowering suffering, and debating the differences.

Do you believe in moral principles?

appeal to ignorance is an argument for or against a proposition on the basis of a lack of evidence against or for it. If there is positive evidence for the conclusion, then of course we have other reasons for accepting it, but a lack of evidence by itself is no evidence for a no God. 


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

 

Jimenezj wrote:
You said. I don't like that.  Morality should be about enhancing well-being and lowering suffering, and debating the differences. Do you believe in moral principles?

I just gave you three moral principles:  enhance well-being, lower suffering, and debate the differences.  Those weren't descriptions of behavior, those were prescriptions for behavior.  Think about it and tell me why else would anybody ultimately do anything.  Maybe you would still worship Jesus if you believed that the reward was eternal torture; that could prove me wrong.

Imagine if the reward for worshipping Jesus was hell, and the punishment for not worshipping Jesus was an eternal utopia in heaven.  An eternal utopia.  So this means you can't say that an atheist would be miserable in heaven under this scenario; I'm talking about the atheist being granted an eternity of happiness, which excludes by definition boredom and misery and disgust, etc.  Maybe some Christians would still follow Jesus.  I would have to revise my conception in that case.

Obviously people are thinking beings and behaviorism doesn't explain everything, but we're still motivated by rewards and avoiding pain.  People will endure the pain of lifting weights to get the pleasure of strong muscles and a good physique, or endure the pain of running two miles to get the pleasure of health and fitness.

I mentioned the part about debating the differences because people have vastly different ways of being happy.  It's better for most of us if we debate our differences as opposed to starting off with murder, which would whittle our resources down quickly.  Of course, war is a must.  We have to have a strong defense.  But debates and negotiation are also musts.

   


Jimenezj
Theist
Posts: 344
Joined: 2011-12-16
User is offlineOffline
Philosophicus

Philosophicus said.
I just gave you three moral principles:  enhance well-being, lower suffering, and debate the differences.

That is good that we both have something in common.I also believe in moral principles. At least we both agree on this one.

appeal to ignorance is an argument for or against a proposition on the basis of a lack of evidence against or for it. If there is positive evidence for the conclusion, then of course we have other reasons for accepting it, but a lack of evidence by itself is no evidence for a no God. 


ProzacDeathWish
atheist
ProzacDeathWish's picture
Posts: 4147
Joined: 2007-12-02
User is offlineOffline
Jimenezj

Jimenezj wrote:
Prozacdeathwish, Do you prefer to live without freedom?

                    

                                                                         Freedom ? Life for me is already a prison.   More importantly I'm curious Jimenezj.  After you die

                                                                     and go to Heaven do you believe that you will retain your free will ?


Jimenezj
Theist
Posts: 344
Joined: 2011-12-16
User is offlineOffline
Prozacdeathwish

You did not give me a strait answer for my question. Do you prefer To live without freedom?From your answer, It would seem logical that a prisoner would want freedom.

appeal to ignorance is an argument for or against a proposition on the basis of a lack of evidence against or for it. If there is positive evidence for the conclusion, then of course we have other reasons for accepting it, but a lack of evidence by itself is no evidence for a no God. 


devilsadvoc8
devilsadvoc8's picture
Posts: 19
Joined: 2008-04-05
User is offlineOffline
Good and evil do not

Good and evil do not exist.  They are simply constructs of the definer's worldview.  While a majority of people may agree that killing one's child or rape or genocide are "evil" and feeding someone who is hungry or giving someone shelter is good, the different degrees of gray in the middle are subject to each individual's opinion.  Aborting a 6 week old fetus has many different and strong viewpoints.

When I call someone evil, it is not because I am giving any credence to any force of good or evil but rather I am evaluating their actions through my own lens. 

If you think that good and evil exist, you are giving birth to some supernatural force which then throws the whole monotheism concept out the door. 

That which can be asserted without evidence, can be dismissed without evidence- Christopher Hitchins


ProzacDeathWish
atheist
ProzacDeathWish's picture
Posts: 4147
Joined: 2007-12-02
User is offlineOffline
Jimenezj wrote: You did not

Jimenezj wrote:
You did not give me a strait answer for my question. Do you prefer To live without freedom?From your answer, It would seem logical that a prisoner would want freedom.

 

       If you want me to answer "yes" or "no" then yes I prefer freedom

 

             Now, please answer my question regarding the use of free will in heaven.  Since you have defined "freedom" in terms of

                                      A.)  choosing to behave in accordance with God's will, or

                                      B.)  choosing to defy God's will

 

                             will you still retain this freedom to choose in Heaven ?

 


Jimenezj
Theist
Posts: 344
Joined: 2011-12-16
User is offlineOffline
Prozacdeathwish

There will be freewill in heaven .why ? Because that is how God created humanity in the beginning in the Garden of Eden. Read the bible to understand it better .The ultimate universal purpose in any subject translation or meaning in scripture is that God Loves and saves both the good and the evil human in Christ and only Christ . God reveals his Love, Grace and salvation to all humanity in Jesus Christ. Humanity can only understand God's Love by looking at Jesus. Humanity will always fail on you. Even your own family. Do not put your trust in humanity, because humanity will let you down. But God does not fail. He proved it with Jesus. Jesus last words on the cross was "it is finish". Words that mark completion and victory , even during death. Jesus did not fail. Why? Because God loves you.

appeal to ignorance is an argument for or against a proposition on the basis of a lack of evidence against or for it. If there is positive evidence for the conclusion, then of course we have other reasons for accepting it, but a lack of evidence by itself is no evidence for a no God. 


ProzacDeathWish
atheist
ProzacDeathWish's picture
Posts: 4147
Joined: 2007-12-02
User is offlineOffline
Jimenezj wrote:There will be

Jimenezj wrote:
There will be freewill in heaven .

 So free will in Heaven carries the same implications as it did on Earth, right ?   Freedom means being able to choose against God's will otherwise we're just "robots".   So logically one could choose to disobey God even in Heaven.  According to scripture it's happened before.  That's why a multitude of angels were forced to leave Heaven.  They made a choice.

 

Jimenezj wrote:
Because that is how God created humanity in the beginning in the Garden of Eden.

 

Right.  God created Adam and Eve with free will.   And they used their free will to disobey God.   Which is sin.  Which makes free will the active agent by which any spiritual being sins against their Creator.   No sin nature is needed.

 

Jimenezj wrote:
Read the bible to understand it better .

 

I've been diligently reading the Bible for decades.

 

 


BobSpence
High Level DonorRational VIP!ScientistWebsite Admin
BobSpence's picture
Posts: 5939
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
There is no evidence that

There is no evidence that there is a God, but if there is such a powerful creature, all the evidence is that it is either malevolent, or incompetent, or both. There is no way we could really know the ultimate motives or intent of such a being, so it cannot serve as a standard or good or evil.

There is zero evidence that Jesus, if he existed, had any detectable benefit to mankind.

The message of the Garden of Eden story is evil:

1. Obedience to arbitrary commands of an authority is 'good' - NO it depends on the content of the commands and the context. Hitler's deputies would on that basis be justified in getting free because they were "just following orders".

2. It is OK to punish the descendants of a person for that person's "sins" - that would justify just about every ongoing ethnic war.

And then you try to justify it by saying God doesn't have to follow the code he demands of us. Another evil principle - 'might makes right'.

In short, a very bad basis for a moral code.

It is the religious who have no proper basis for a moral code, not the atheist.

 

 

Favorite oxymorons: Gospel Truth, Rational Supernaturalist, Business Ethics, Christian Morality

"Theology is now little more than a branch of human ignorance. Indeed, it is ignorance with wings." - Sam Harris

The path to Truth lies via careful study of reality, not the dreams of our fallible minds - me

From the sublime to the ridiculous: Science -> Philosophy -> Theology


Jimenezj
Theist
Posts: 344
Joined: 2011-12-16
User is offlineOffline
Bob

You said.
so it cannot serve as a standard or good or evil.
What do you consider yourself, good or evil or in other words Positive or negative person ? Why?

You said.
The message of the Garden of Eden story is evil:
What bible do you read?

You said.
It is the religious who have no proper basis for a moral code, not the atheist.

I do not consider myself a religious person.
From what i read, you have a lot to say on what is Evil. What is your proper basis for moral code.

appeal to ignorance is an argument for or against a proposition on the basis of a lack of evidence against or for it. If there is positive evidence for the conclusion, then of course we have other reasons for accepting it, but a lack of evidence by itself is no evidence for a no God. 


Jimenezj
Theist
Posts: 344
Joined: 2011-12-16
User is offlineOffline
Bob

Bob said.
so it cannot serve as a standard or good or evil.
What do you consider yourself, good or evil ?

Bob said.
The message of the Garden of Eden story is evil:
What bible do you read?

Bob said.
It is the religious who have no proper basis for a moral code, not the atheist.

Sounds like you have a lot to say about what is Evil.
What is your basis for moral code?

appeal to ignorance is an argument for or against a proposition on the basis of a lack of evidence against or for it. If there is positive evidence for the conclusion, then of course we have other reasons for accepting it, but a lack of evidence by itself is no evidence for a no God. 


ProzacDeathWish
atheist
ProzacDeathWish's picture
Posts: 4147
Joined: 2007-12-02
User is offlineOffline
Jimenezj wrote: You did not

Jimenezj wrote:
You did not give me a strait answer for my question. Do you prefer To live without freedom?From your answer, It would seem logical that a prisoner would want freedom.

 

      I gave you a straight answer in post #72.  Now I'm waiting for you to answer my question from post #74.  I'll refresh your memory: Does having free will in Heaven mean the same thing as having free will on Earth ?  That is, does having true freedom mean that you can choose to disobey God even in Heaven ?


BobSpence
High Level DonorRational VIP!ScientistWebsite Admin
BobSpence's picture
Posts: 5939
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
Jimenezj wrote:You said. so

Jimenezj wrote:
You said. so it cannot serve as a standard or good or evil. What do you consider yourself, good or evil or in other words Positive or negative person ? Why?

I aim to cooperate with and help people whenever practical, and try to restrain impulses to hurt others when their words or actions offend me to the point where I risk 'losing it'. As with others here, I have already explained why I do this, because I really appreciate the warm feelings I get when people express their gratitude for my assistance. That feedback is what helps convince me I am on the right path. The Golden Rule, in both forms, far more ancient than Christian doctrine, is the basic starting point for moral thinking

I just don't think of myself in terms of 'good or evil' quite in the way you seem to be thinking. It isn't an 'either/or' situation. I can see in retrospect that occasionally things I have done or said have caused some unhappiness to people who in no way 'deserved' it. Sometimes I do in fact 'lose my temper' at some particularly infuriating speech or action by someone else, or some group, and may do or say something I later regret. I am human.

I think I keep the balance comfortably on the positive side.

Quote:

You said. The message of the Garden of Eden story is evil: What bible do you read? You said. It is the religious who have no proper basis for a moral code, not the atheist. I do not consider myself a religious person. From what i read, you have a lot to say on what is Evil. What is your proper basis for moral code.

I explained why I think it is evil. Do you deny that Adam and Eve, and their descendants (us) were punished merely for disobedience? What is 'wrong' with seeking knowledge?

I have explained the basis for morality - it is based on whether actions add to the general psychological and physical well-being of a society, and what are destructive, leading to more distress, pain, and unhappiness.

Religion provides nothing but the imagined edicts of an imagined deity, with no way to distinguish what would be 'real' communications from a deity if it did exist. and what is just our own imagination, and no way to know the motives or intent of such a being, IOW, what makes God 'good'? 

Of course, the morality of religious dogma ultimately comes from the same instincts that mine does, but distorted by old taboos and superstitions and unfounded assumptions and beliefs.

Why can you not see this?

Favorite oxymorons: Gospel Truth, Rational Supernaturalist, Business Ethics, Christian Morality

"Theology is now little more than a branch of human ignorance. Indeed, it is ignorance with wings." - Sam Harris

The path to Truth lies via careful study of reality, not the dreams of our fallible minds - me

From the sublime to the ridiculous: Science -> Philosophy -> Theology


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

Jimenezj wrote:

[BobSpence] said. ["]The message of the Garden of Eden story is evil["]

What bible do you read?

 

[BobSpence] said. ["]It is the religious who have no proper basis for a moral code, not the atheist.["]

I do not consider myself a religious person. From what i read, you have a lot to say on what is Evil. What is your proper basis for moral code.

I want to focus on the part where you said you don't consider yourself a religious person.  That is such a marketing scheme; you're just changing the label and the contents in the jar are still supernatural.  You still believe in a deity, you believe you have a relationship with this deity, you believe other people should have a relationship with this deity, there are scriptures written around supposed experiences people have had with this deity and supposed commands from the deity.  Do you believe in angels and demons?  Those could count as minor deities, making you a polytheist. 

Christianity, or Jesusism as I like to call it (or Christism), is emphatically definitely a religion.  And a false one too.

You might have seen the YouTube video where that guy talked about how he hates religion, but loves Jesus.  Well, TheAmazingAtheist made a great rebuttal here: "I Hate Religion, And Jesus Too"  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yBo7Z_abiLE  He didn't cover all the points, like the ones about having an emotional transformation with Jesus instead of changing the outside with behavior modification, but he did well.

 


Jimenezj
Theist
Posts: 344
Joined: 2011-12-16
User is offlineOffline
Prozac

Freewill will always be freewill, weather in heaven or on earth. In the garden ,Adam and eve had freewill and evil was not in the garden. Evil arrived in the garden 
In the form of a snake called Satan. When evil came in the picture, the choice of evil was presented to Adam and eve. The outcome was rebellion. 

Evil is a cancer that multiples and destroys both in heaven and on earth, unless deleted.  

The difference between the past rebellion in heaven and the future new heaven is that evil existed in Satan in heaven in the past, which was the result of the 1/3 rebellion in heaven. The future new heaven will have no evil source. All evil will be deleted in the great white throne judgment. Why? Because evil has been proven to be destructive and brings forth death. The opposite of what God brings forth, which is Love and life shown, proven and completed by Jesus Christ. 

In the new heaven:
Freewill will exist, but without evil. Why? The choice of rebellion against God has Been proven to be the wrong choice as  you see the world today with wars, diseases , death and destruction.   

One of the best audio I have ever heard come from 

Pastor Chuck Smith - Through The Bible C2000 Series

twft.com/?page=C2000

Online teaching materials and outlines book by book, includes mp3 archives.

It's on the Web.

appeal to ignorance is an argument for or against a proposition on the basis of a lack of evidence against or for it. If there is positive evidence for the conclusion, then of course we have other reasons for accepting it, but a lack of evidence by itself is no evidence for a no God. 


CliveStaples
CliveStaples's picture
Posts: 2
Joined: 2012-01-30
User is offlineOffline
BobSpence wrote:I aim to

BobSpence wrote:

I aim to cooperate with and help people whenever practical, and try to restrain impulses to hurt others when their words or actions offend me to the point where I risk 'losing it'. As with others here, I have already explained why I do this, because I really appreciate the warm feelings I get when people express their gratitude for my assistance. That feedback is what helps convince me I am on the right path. The Golden Rule, in both forms, far more ancient than Christian doctrine, is the basic starting point for moral thinking

I just don't think of myself in terms of 'good or evil' quite in the way you seem to be thinking. It isn't an 'either/or' situation. I can see in retrospect that occasionally things I have done or said have caused some unhappiness to people who in no way 'deserved' it. Sometimes I do in fact 'lose my temper' at some particularly infuriating speech or action by someone else, or some group, and may do or say something I later regret. I am human.

I think I keep the balance comfortably on the positive side.

 

But why use that standard?  Why not take the standard of goodness as being "I should treat people the opposite of how I would like to be treated"?  Why not cause as much unhappiness to as many people who in no way "deserve" it?  Suppose that someone took these to be the standards of behavior.  Would they be wrong to do so?

"It is not against reason that I should prefer the destruction of half the world to the pricking of my little finger."


Jimenezj
Theist
Posts: 344
Joined: 2011-12-16
User is offlineOffline
Bob

Bob said,
I explained why I think it is evil. Do you deny that Adam and Eve, and their descendants (us) were punished merely for disobedience? What is 'wrong' with seeking knowledge?

I cannot answer your question until you tell me what bible you are reading that Directs you to your conclusion. Different bibles have different interpretations. I have an idea of what your reading, but I prefer to give you a direct answer based on your interpretation.

For example:
From your questions, it seems to me that you follow Masonic philisophy and bible teachings. But I could be wrong without the proper bible translation.

appeal to ignorance is an argument for or against a proposition on the basis of a lack of evidence against or for it. If there is positive evidence for the conclusion, then of course we have other reasons for accepting it, but a lack of evidence by itself is no evidence for a no God. 


Jeffrick
High Level DonorRational VIP!SuperfanGold Member
Jeffrick's picture
Posts: 2446
Joined: 2008-03-25
User is offlineOffline
By the by.

Jimenezj wrote:
Freewill will always be freewill, weather in heaven or on earth. In the garden ,Adam and eve had freewill and evil was not in the garden. Evil arrived in the garden  In the form of a snake called Satan. When evil came in the picture, the choice of evil was presented to Adam and eve. The outcome was rebellion.  Evil is a cancer that multiples and destroys both in heaven and on earth, unless deleted.   The difference between the past rebellion in heaven and the future new heaven is that evil existed in Satan in heaven in the past, which was the result of the 1/3 rebellion in heaven. The future new heaven will have no evil source. All evil will be deleted in the great white throne judgment. Why? Because evil has been proven to be destructive and brings forth death. The opposite of what God brings forth, which is Love and life shown, proven and completed by Jesus Christ.  In the new heaven: Freewill will exist, but without evil. Why? The choice of rebellion against God has Been proven to be the wrong choice as  you see the world today with wars, diseases , death and destruction.    One of the best audio I have ever heard come from  Pastor Chuck Smith - Through The Bible C2000 Series twft.com/?page=C2000 Online teaching materials and outlines book by book, includes mp3 archives. It's on the Web.

 

 

                         The talking snake is called 'serpant'   satan is a word that means  'temptation/advocate' muslim claric's use it today in the same context.

 

 

                        When did heaven get revamped?  Or is it just that Rev.Smith has a newer version of the same old thingy.  Tell him to put it in line behind all the other updated versions of the same old fairy tale.

"Very funny Scotty; now beam down our clothes."

VEGETARIAN: Ancient Hindu word for "lousy hunter"

If man was formed from dirt, why is there still dirt?


Jimenezj
Theist
Posts: 344
Joined: 2011-12-16
User is offlineOffline
Clive

I have never heard of your type of golden rule.
I have heard of what bob said.

Bob said,
The Golden Rule, in both forms.....

Where did you get your golden rule philisophy?

From what I have studied, Jesus Christ Golden rule
is far superior than the older type. The older type is
considered a negative Golden rule. Jesus golden rule
is considered a positive type. What the world follows is
Thebnegative type found in eastern philosophy.

appeal to ignorance is an argument for or against a proposition on the basis of a lack of evidence against or for it. If there is positive evidence for the conclusion, then of course we have other reasons for accepting it, but a lack of evidence by itself is no evidence for a no God. 


ProzacDeathWish
atheist
ProzacDeathWish's picture
Posts: 4147
Joined: 2007-12-02
User is offlineOffline
Jimenezj wrote:Freewill will

Jimenezj wrote:
Freewill will always be freewill, weather in heaven or on earth.

 

    Except that according to you free will in Heaven means you can't choose to sin.  Did you miss that minor difference when comparing it to free will on Earth ?

 

 

 

 

Jimenezj wrote:
The difference between the past rebellion in heaven and the future new heaven is that evil existed in Satan.

                   

Then who tempted Satan to sin ?   Where did "evil" originate ?   According to Christian fairy tales Lucifer / Satan was created by God, do you think Satan was created by God with an evil nature ?

 

Jimenezj wrote:
In the new heaven: Freewill will exist, but without evil. Why? The choice of rebellion against God has Been proven to be the wrong choice as  you see the world today with wars, diseases , death and destruction.    .

 

               Are you really that stupid ?     If  in Heaven you do not retain the ability to also choose "wrongly" then you have no choices at all.   It's the same freedom of choice that the so called political "elections" that the communists in the Soviet Union used to hold  .....you can vote for whomever you like as long as it's a communist !!!  Ha, what free will they enjoyed !!!

 

                 


Jeffrick
High Level DonorRational VIP!SuperfanGold Member
Jeffrick's picture
Posts: 2446
Joined: 2008-03-25
User is offlineOffline
????????

Jimenezj wrote:
I have never heard of your type of golden rule. I have heard of what bob said. Bob said, The Golden Rule, in both forms..... Where did you get your golden rule philisophy? From what I have studied, Jesus Christ Golden rule is far superior than the older type. The older type is considered a negative Golden rule. Jesus golden rule is considered a positive type. What the world follows is Thebnegative type found in eastern philosophy. [/quomenete]

 

 

 

 

 

                      Jimenez which goldern rule are your citing.  Matt. 7:12 ? Which says 'react' to what ever others do  to you and do the same. Or do you cite the opposite in Luke 6:31 which says 'lead by example' what you want others to do to you, YOU must do so FIRST.   Luke has it right the same has eastern philosophies.  Mathew has it bass-ackwards.   Which one do you use?

"Very funny Scotty; now beam down our clothes."

VEGETARIAN: Ancient Hindu word for "lousy hunter"

If man was formed from dirt, why is there still dirt?


Jimenezj
Theist
Posts: 344
Joined: 2011-12-16
User is offlineOffline
Prozac

You yourself said that you prefer freedom.
The choice of evil Gives you enslavement .
The choice of evil is proven to be incorrect.
So why would you want evil to exist?
You are contradicting yourself by saying, that
You prefer freedom and enslavement .

I'm communist china Mao Zedong was proven
An evil leader like Hitler. Why would you prefer
To be governed by evil? The correct choice is
To delete evil. If you can't see this, then it's the
Blind leading the blind.

appeal to ignorance is an argument for or against a proposition on the basis of a lack of evidence against or for it. If there is positive evidence for the conclusion, then of course we have other reasons for accepting it, but a lack of evidence by itself is no evidence for a no God. 


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

Jimenezj, if you can't sin in heaven, that's a reduction in free will whether you want evil or not.  Free will means you have the ability to make choices; if you can't choose evil, even in heaven, that's a limitation on your ability to choose. 


ProzacDeathWish
atheist
ProzacDeathWish's picture
Posts: 4147
Joined: 2007-12-02
User is offlineOffline
Jimenezj wrote:You yourself

Jimenezj wrote:
You yourself said that you prefer freedom. The choice of evil Gives you enslavement . The choice of evil is proven to be incorrect. So why would you want evil to exist? You are contradicting yourself by saying, that You prefer freedom and enslavement . I'm communist china Mao Zedong was proven An evil leader like Hitler. Why would you prefer To be governed by evil? The correct choice is To delete evil. If you can't see this, then it's the Blind leading the blind.

 

                                               Your reply is so meandering and indirect I'm beginning to wonder if you are even lucid.  

 

                     

                                                                            Here's another serious question for you. 

                                                                                     if God can make it so that:

                                                                                    1.)  you can have free will and

                                                                                    2.)  still not choose to sin

                                                                                    3.)  ....then why didn't he do that to begin with 

                                                                                          and avoid all the suffering, Judgement, Hell ?

 

 

                                                 Do you not see how utterly stupid and indifferent you God must be to do things that way ?

 

 

 

 


Kapkao
atheistSuperfan
Kapkao's picture
Posts: 4121
Joined: 2010-01-12
User is offlineOffline
Vastet wrote:I'd wait until

Vastet wrote:
I'd wait until the psychiatric evaluation to specify, but in general I'd say the person was broken or handicapped. However, atheism itself has no philosophy. Every atheist has their own views. Some believe in good and evil, and some don't.

"Some" atheists are suitheists (and possibly suicistic like moi) Sticking out tongue

“A meritocratic society is one in which inequalities of wealth and social position solely reflect the unequal distribution of merit or skills amongst human beings, or are based upon factors beyond human control, for example luck or chance. Such a society is socially just because individuals are judged not by their gender, the colour of their skin or their religion, but according to their talents and willingness to work, or on what Martin Luther King called 'the content of their character'. By extension, social equality is unjust because it treats unequal individuals equally.” "Political Ideologies" by Andrew Heywood (2003)


Kapkao
atheistSuperfan
Kapkao's picture
Posts: 4121
Joined: 2010-01-12
User is offlineOffline
devilsadvoc8 wrote:Good and

devilsadvoc8 wrote:

Good and evil do not exist.  They are simply constructs of the definer's worldview.  While a majority of people may agree that killing one's child or rape or genocide are "evil" and feeding someone who is hungry or giving someone shelter is good, the different degrees of gray in the middle are subject to each individual's opinion.  Aborting a 6 week old fetus has many different and strong viewpoints.

When I call someone evil, it is not because I am giving any credence to any force of good or evil but rather I am evaluating their actions through my own lens. 

If you think that good and evil exist, you are giving birth to some supernatural force which then throws the whole monotheism concept out the door. 

I like this person. I say we encourage him to stay and post more often.

He also holds the name of one of my favorite teenage philosophical movies in his title, but that is completely irrelevant. He has use to me.

muahehehehe [/phonyvillainouslaughter] [/mephistopheles]

 

“A meritocratic society is one in which inequalities of wealth and social position solely reflect the unequal distribution of merit or skills amongst human beings, or are based upon factors beyond human control, for example luck or chance. Such a society is socially just because individuals are judged not by their gender, the colour of their skin or their religion, but according to their talents and willingness to work, or on what Martin Luther King called 'the content of their character'. By extension, social equality is unjust because it treats unequal individuals equally.” "Political Ideologies" by Andrew Heywood (2003)


Jimenezj
Theist
Posts: 344
Joined: 2011-12-16
User is offlineOffline
Prozac

You did not answer my questions on thread #88.


Jimenezj
Theist
Posts: 344
Joined: 2011-12-16
User is offlineOffline
Jeff

What bible are you reading?


ProzacDeathWish
atheist
ProzacDeathWish's picture
Posts: 4147
Joined: 2007-12-02
User is offlineOffline
Jimenezj wrote:You did not

Jimenezj wrote:
You did not answer my questions on thread #88.

 

                                                  Then go back and answer my question from post # 86.   Geez !  Do I have to take you by the hand ? !!!


ProzacDeathWish
atheist
ProzacDeathWish's picture
Posts: 4147
Joined: 2007-12-02
User is offlineOffline
Jimenezj wrote:You yourself

Jimenezj wrote:
You yourself said that you prefer freedom.

 

What freedom is for me you would never understand.

 

Jimenezj wrote:
The choice of evil Gives you enslavement .

 

Slavery ? You say it like it's a bad thing.  I mean Christians want to be slaves.  Like all slaves on Earth, Christian do possess a will but they must always submit their will to the whims of their "Master" or be punished for disobedience.  Just like a slave, no difference.

 

Jimenezj wrote:
So why would you want evil to exist?

 

Ask God why he would want evil to exist.  Evil could have never come into existence if he hadn't made evil possible to begin with.  God is the one who pulls the strings.

 

Jimenezj wrote:
You are contradicting yourself by saying, that You prefer freedom and enslavement .

 

You are the one who prefers to live as a slave.  You worship your "Master" and your idea of Heaven is a place where your "Master" only allows you the free will to choose from options that he agrees with.  That is not freedom.

 

Jimenezj wrote:
Why would you prefer To be governed by evil? 

 

I was going to ask you the same thing.


Jimenezj
Theist
Posts: 344
Joined: 2011-12-16
User is offlineOffline
Prozac

You did not give me a direct answer to my questions. It is a simple question. 1. Do you want to be governed by evi? 2. Why would you want evil to exist? I answer these questions as , No, I do not want to be governed by evil. I do nor want evil to exist . You see, it is not that hard of a question.

You said . Slavery ? You say it like it's a bad thing.I mean Christians want to be slaves.Like all slaves on Earth, Christian do possess a will but they must always submit their will to the whims of their Master or be punished for disobedience.Just like a slave, no difference.

I understand why you do not know the difference between forced slavery and Christian slavery. It's because you do not know your scripture. In the bible, the word slave in the Greek is translated bond servant. That is why in the new testament Paul and the other Apostles would write that they are bond servants of Christ. A bond servant was something that was common in Israel during that time.
1.Bond servant or bond slave is someone who is willing to be a slave for
life To his good master. Because the Master loves the servant . This is a good thing and positive .
2. A regular slave is a Slave that is forced by a Master to do his will, this
is a bad thing , evil or negative .this promotes hatred and anger.

Therefore a big difrence .

appeal to ignorance is an argument for or against a proposition on the basis of a lack of evidence against or for it. If there is positive evidence for the conclusion, then of course we have other reasons for accepting it, but a lack of evidence by itself is no evidence for a no God. 


Jeffrick
High Level DonorRational VIP!SuperfanGold Member
Jeffrick's picture
Posts: 2446
Joined: 2008-03-25
User is offlineOffline
Jimenez.

Jimenezj wrote:
What bible are you reading?

 

 

 

                                      The King James Version, aka the KJV. Although considering the life style of James Stuart it should be called the 'Queen Jimmy variation'. Which bible do you use?

"Very funny Scotty; now beam down our clothes."

VEGETARIAN: Ancient Hindu word for "lousy hunter"

If man was formed from dirt, why is there still dirt?


ProzacDeathWish
atheist
ProzacDeathWish's picture
Posts: 4147
Joined: 2007-12-02
User is offlineOffline
Jimenezj wrote:You did not

Jimenezj wrote:

You did not give me a direct answer to my questions.

 

 And you have repeatedly ignored almost all of my questions to you.    

 

                   Here is a question that you have ignored , .......WHERE DID EVIL ORIGINATE ?   

 

   And please stop accusing me of ignoring your questions if you are going to do the same thing.

 

 


Kapkao
atheistSuperfan
Kapkao's picture
Posts: 4121
Joined: 2010-01-12
User is offlineOffline
Someone should liek... write

Someone should liek... write a book (or a tome?!) on "Why I hate people". Are you, perhaps, up for the task PDW?

“A meritocratic society is one in which inequalities of wealth and social position solely reflect the unequal distribution of merit or skills amongst human beings, or are based upon factors beyond human control, for example luck or chance. Such a society is socially just because individuals are judged not by their gender, the colour of their skin or their religion, but according to their talents and willingness to work, or on what Martin Luther King called 'the content of their character'. By extension, social equality is unjust because it treats unequal individuals equally.” "Political Ideologies" by Andrew Heywood (2003)