Questions on the Flood for TWD39 (or any theist)

GodsUseForAMosquito
Moderator
GodsUseForAMosquito's picture
Posts: 404
Joined: 2008-08-27
User is offlineOffline
Questions on the Flood for TWD39 (or any theist)

This thread is mainly for TWD39, though other people who believe the flood, Noah and so on really happened are welcome to chime in. It is an extension of the other thread discussing language and the tower of Babel, which started some questions about Noah's flood.

If you believe that the Flood happened as the Bible states, then you must have rational answers to the following questions:

 

 

1 Were babies also killed in the flood? Were they deemed sinful, or just collateral damage? What about the unborn? (in case you think people are born with sin..) Is God an innocent baby killer?

2 If the flood covered the whole earth, where did the water come from, and where did it go afterwards?

3 If the flood was caused by rain for 40 days and nights, and rain covered the earth, then it would need to rain 112 million cubic kilometers each day. The water vapour that’s needed to be suspended in the air to achieve this would render the air unbreathable - people would have drowned by breathing this air. How did Noah and his family survive this?

4 How did the animals get to the arc? If Noah gathered them, how did he get around the world so quickly? If the animals came of their own accord, how did the giant tortoises get there in time? How did animals that can’t swim cross seas to get there?

5 How did Noah feed the animals? Some animals have very specific diets (pandas eat only bamboo, koalas eat only eucalyptus, for example) so how did Noah get these foods, which don’t grow in Mesopotamia?

6 How did Noah keep meat fresh for the hungry carnivores?

7 How did the freshwater fish survive? Did the arc carry fresh water? How were these fish collected and stored?

8 The flood would have killed all plant life. What would the ‘saved’ herbivores eat? What about those that feed only on adult trees that take a long time to grow?

9 What about the carnivores? They must have had to eat the herbivores – they were on the arc for over a year, so any corpses would be completely rotten, as well as being buried under sediment.

10 Where would the animals find fresh water to sustain themselves?

11 How did the plants survive being underwater for more than a year? Some might have seeds that survive, but vast numbers of plant species would have become extinct. How come the are still here today?

12 When the flood ended, only 6 people survived that would go on to breed. The bible indicates that the tower of Babel happened 100 years after the flood. How were there enough people to build the tower, which must have been massive?

13 How did the Native Americans, and Australian Aboriginals get to their continents (Which don’t have land bridges with Asia) after the flood?

14 How did God ‘create’ the rainbow as part of the promise he’d never flood the whole world again? If there was refracted sunlight and rain ever before the flood, there must have been rainbows.

15 Why did god change his mind about how many of each type of animal had to be taken into the arc? Genesis 6 says take 2 of each, Genesis 7 says take up to 7.

16 Lastly, why did god go to all the trouble?

 

 

 


Coraotw
Posts: 2
Joined: 2012-02-16
User is offlineOffline
~

Content deleted, as it was spam. I'm leaving the post however, because if anyone replied to it directly, deleting this post would also delete those replies.

~Vastet


caposkia
Theist
Posts: 2701
Joined: 2007-05-15
User is offlineOffline
Atheistextremist

Atheistextremist wrote:

 

 

This is a good thread in my opinion, given it is focused on one of the pivot points of christianity, judaism and islam - the assertion of the existence of genetic evil.

The arguments you make assume that there is a god, there is a god humans can know, a god that can communicate with humans. 

Your posts seem to suggest you believe this god has a different standard of love, empathy, mercy and forgiveness than humans have. 

But how is it possible for us to understand such things from our perspective? We can only comprehend these qualities in an anthropomorphic way. 

And how is it possible we be exhorted to love our brother, to turn our cheeks, when god's own behaviour reflects something much darker? The monotheistic god concept is not forgiving - jesus is a blood sacrifice remember. 

Now, I believe words like good and evil are words that label human judgments, not material facts. And on the basis of your personal judgments Cap, and the judgments of the author of Torah, we are asked to accept the rulings of a cult's narrative as facts.

Human judgment depends on context and mental bias and the personal analogies of our own experiences. And it's intuitive. Judgment can't be weighed, measured or tested. 

How can a judgment phrase like 'humans are evil' actually be known to be true by humans in a way that does not constitute mere face value acceptance of a religion's bald assertion?

God does have a different level of love than we have and it is widely accepted that we can never fully understand this love.   We accept that it is greater than we can imagine.

Gods behavior was reflected through Jesus.  If you're going to compare other choices God made, we'd have to discuss them individually and talk about what we know and moreso what we don't know.

Jesus is a blood sacrifice due to the Law.  That was the way to forgiveness.  God didn't have to send His son to die for us... He could have gone the way of Noah's time and said forget you all.

concerning your last question:  just look at people, look at yourself.  Consider all the choices you made in life... can you honestly say you're all good?  

Consider this.  Is a murderer evil?  What if that murderer for most of their life had donated large amounts of money to great causes like Breast Cancer research and shelters  maybe they also served at minimum 20 hours a week at a homeless shelter... Because they murdered in cold blood, we typically would still consider them evil regardless of what they've done in life otherwise.  

Granted I'm sure... I hope you haven't killed anyone, but consider other things that you've done that people would consider evil.  How many times did it happen.. how many different circumstances?  


caposkia
Theist
Posts: 2701
Joined: 2007-05-15
User is offlineOffline
Atheistextremist wrote:This

Atheistextremist wrote:

This statement assumes its first premise. What is a god? How does it interact with the material world to create life? How can you know how much 'god' knows about his 'creation'? If you have no objective proofs of these truth statements then they are hypotheses with no data. You say "God did it". Show us that this is true using a proof that does not involve only a convolution of language. 

A god is anyone who is of higher power than  you.

How it interacts is through His followers and sometimes His creation.

How do we know how much God knows?  God is said to be omnipotent and omniscient.. beyond that, how much does any creator know of his/her creation?  usually almost everything... how much more would God have to know to know literally everything???  Not much really..  the only difference is God created much much more than any single creator and also much more complicated.

I say God did it... What did the parents do besides have sex to create the child?  Yes carry it to term... but all that work in between... Nature right?  God has put a system in place to work on its own.  But what gave it the self recognition and id, ego and superego?  Nature again?  Where does nature stop and God start?  To a non-believer, it's all happenstance... hard for me to believe to be honest.  To a believer.  Nature creates the child, God creates the person.  

Atheistextremist wrote:

What we can say in the case of humans is that sperm and egg contribute half the DNA to a germ cell and from that single cell a human grows. Life makes itself. No, I don't understand how at the genetic level, but that's how it seems to be. We can say that life creates ecosystems. We can even say that human bodies are symbiotic ecosystems and we might argue that genomes too, are symbiotic ecosystems. 

We can't say certainly what life is, but what we can say is that a mother grows her baby with chocolate, oatmeal and fruit salad. A child is made of the stuff of our planet. There's nothing supernatural in the recipe of life. 

even the Bible says From dust you came and to dust you shall return.. no argument here.

Atheistextremist wrote:

I've lost 3 children in utero and that experience argues the universe does not care - not in the way we want it to. It has no agency, no plan, no intent. Older women and men accrue genetic mutations and we lose our babies because their broken genomes are not viable in an environment that's fiercely competitive from the instant of conception. The idea young women keep their babies and older ones lose their's as the result of god's plan has no basis in the data. 

All life seems to be part of an entropic system powered by a solar host. This does not mean that in the absence of eager acceptance of supernatural assertion, losing children has no meaning for non-believing humans. Like everything else, loss of little ones has what meaning we give it. It is the shape of the pain I give it.  

...and that's just it... it has no meaning to non-believers because there's little meaning to life except a lucky mix of chemicals that happen to be in the right atmosphere at the right moment in history.  Likewise i'm sure we could denote that babies are the same way and just happen to be a lucky happening where the sperm finds the egg before the womans body can destory it and then more luck happens when the cells split and grow and even more lucky when they grow correctly so that we have a child we have defined as "normal".  

One could argue that the universe does not care, but then again, what can you get out of that experience?  How has it changed you?


caposkia
Theist
Posts: 2701
Joined: 2007-05-15
User is offlineOffline
Atheistextremist wrote:A

Atheistextremist wrote:

A promise is a mutual agreement between 2 human beings. We know nothing about a god or whether or not it might mirror complex human social behaviours despite apparently living alone on a 'golden throne'. 

To break a human promise god would not have had to make an intentionally misleading statement. God could simply have made a new agreement. 

But if we are going to assume god has human qualities and gets miffed about being ignored then clearly god decided that rather than re-frame a position that was not working he decided to become a mass murderer instead. 

Personally, I believe the flood story is ludicrous. Consider the sole proof - the narrative of Torah - a veritable assertion tommy-gun. 

“And God saw that the wickedness of man was great in the earth, and that every imagination of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually.” (Genesis 6:5)

God saw that every imagination of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually. That judgement is untrue of any person who has ever lived.

Please prove this bald assertion of Torah to be true using material proofs. And please explain how it was the jewish priest who wrote this hateful verse knew the 'mind of god'.   

How do you make a new agreement without nullifying an old agreement thus going back on your word?

Prove that an assertion that the thoughts of someone's heart was evil  continually?  How do you prove the thoughts of anyone who is no longer alive?  I'm not sure how you would expect anyone to provide this proof true or not.  

Prove to me your great great grandfather's thoughts were pure or not.  I don't think you can

 

 


caposkia
Theist
Posts: 2701
Joined: 2007-05-15
User is offlineOffline
Jabberwocky wrote:caposkia

Jabberwocky wrote:

caposkia wrote:

Who said hell was a place?  

The New Testament.

I think a furnace of fire is a "place" by definition. (Matthew 13:41-42).

Everlasting fire is not a place per se, rather it's a condition of a place, but it nonetheless also has to occur in...you guessed it, a place! (Matthew 18:8-9).

Outer darkness, as described in Matthew 22:13, would also most likely be a place. If not, it would fall into the same category as above; a condition of a place. 

Luke 16:22-24 definitely describes a place where "the rich man" went. 

 

So unless you are a Christian who does not believe what the bible says (which would be quite contradictory, as the Christian claim IS the bible), then it's your own book which says that hell is a place. I think you were just trying to dodge the question by redefining things, or putting them into the realm of the unknown, or abstract. Common apologist tactic in order to deflect attention away from problems. 

alright, lemme reword my question... who said hell was a physical place and not a state of being.  You can "go" into a state of being and "come" from a state of being without changing location.  e.g. sleeping and awake.  

I love how you resort to deflection whenever you can.. .why not assume I'm actually trying to stay on track here.. ya know.. maybe for a moment.

Jabberwocky wrote:

caposkia wrote:

 to not have a place called Hell for those who choose to break the law is to suggest we shouldn't have jail for those who break the law here.  

No, it's nothing like that at all. Hell is a place of permanent torture.

except that in Revelation those who are in hell are brought out for judgement..

Jabberwocky wrote:

If there is an eternal afterlife (or an infinite number of finite lives), then that means infinite crimes do not exist. Someone who is murdered will go on to the next life, whatever it may be. However, the Christian hell is typically seen as being eternal. Infinite punishment for finite crimes is a hideous proposition, no matter which way you look at it. It's especially sinister if infinite punishment is administered to those whose only sin was non-belief. In North Korea, you can be jailed for speaking out against Kim Jong Un. In North America, we find that concept abhorrent. Do you agree? If so, why is it not abhorrent for god to do the same?

God does not run a democracy.  People are not sent to hell for speaking out against God alone, but it's why they might be speaking out against Him.  If one does, then they don't agree with God's laws and ways.  which most of our laws are in agreement with.  

Jabberwocky wrote:

Also, are you a "hellfire and brimestone" believer... er... non-believer? 

The bible is incoherent. That is not my problem. It's yours. Your problem, as well, is that you did not answer my question. Is it possible for hell to exist without god's permission? 

no and you didn't answer my question.  

Jabberwocky wrote:

And a bonus:

caposkia wrote:

That would not be the right way to look at it.   The assult isn't in the plans from what we understand... rather God will use the assult and turn it into something good... namely the child the might come of it.  If a child is conceived, we figure there's a plan for them in this world no matter how minor.  

Read what you wrote here. Keep reading it. Keep on reading this until you are utterly disgusted by what you've typed here, and apologize for it. Because feeling anything milder than complete disgust while reading that, means that you have a lot of work to do before you can start to speak about morality.

"From what we understand"? Is it possible that you're wrong within the confines of Christianity? Maybe god DID plan the assault. What, does he sit there and go "hmm....this rapist's sperm would do well mixed in here...yeah, you know what? Let's put this through!". I sincerely hope not!

The most disgusting part of this paragraph is that you refuse to talk about the victim. It's more important to you for this woman to give birth, than to heal from one of the most horrific things that can happen to a person.

We tend to be unable to shake certain connections as humans. One example would be the swastika. It is a symbol far older than Hitler's reign and the Nazi party. However, whenever we see one, even if in a peaceful context (it is still used by many eastern religions as a symbol of auspiciousness) our minds immediately go to the Nazis, and world war two. Imagine how intense that is for someone who was there during that war. 

The reason I say that is, no matter what happens in the life of a rape victim who had a child from the crime, the child WILL be a constant reminder of the most horrific time of the woman's life, no matter what else happens. Do you honestly think that it's OK for this woman to go through ALL this, for god's (perhaps minor) plan for a child? The Christian right's inability to empathize whatsoever with a woman who has gone through this frightens me. The only time they ever mention it IS when someone calls them on it. 

Amazing... I read it many times... the only conclusion i can come to is:  do you think it's wrong to turn something bad into something good?  I do believe you'll think this is avoiding the point, but just answer the question.

Consider regardless if a child is produced from a rape or not, the victim is stuck with the experience for life.  

I know people who don't look at their children as a reminder of the bad, rather a prospect of the amazing experience it is to be a parent of a child that loves you unconditionally.  

In conclusion, your case is built on sand..

 


caposkia
Theist
Posts: 2701
Joined: 2007-05-15
User is offlineOffline
blacklight915 wrote:caposkia

blacklight915 wrote:

caposkia wrote:

Consider the outcomes.  How does this suggest I'm not open to sound argument or evidence?

It makes me think your primary concern is avoiding Hell, not searching for the truth.

that would be mistaken.  My primary concern is truth... I already know i'm avoiding hell.  

1.  if it doesn't exist.. I'm not going there.

2.  if it does exist, I'm not going there because I have accepted Christ into my heart.

blacklight915 wrote:

It's false because I don't lose everything if I'm wrong: I keep my honesty, my rational thinking, and what little courage I possess--all things I'd have to give up in order to believe in, and worship, your God. To clarify, I'm not claiming you definitely had to give up these things in order to believe as you do.

Just to clarify, you do not have to give up honesty, rational thinking to believe in and worship my God.  It's rational thinking that has led me to where I am today in my walk  with God.  Also, understanding what you go through daily from what you have disclosed to me at this point... you have a lot of courage..  don't sell yourself short..  You are stronger than you think

consider eternity.  Everything you have at this point has an end.  It will eventually cease to exist... if you're wrong, you lose everything... if you're right, eventually you still lose everything.  if I'm right, you will always keep your honesty, rational thinking and amazing courage.  


caposkia
Theist
Posts: 2701
Joined: 2007-05-15
User is offlineOffline
RobbyPants wrote: That's

RobbyPants wrote:

 That's because he's a bad father. He sets some rules, largely disappears while letting the kids do whatever for quite some time (thinking he's not serious), then he jumps in with the most extreme punishment he's ever doled out, even punishing those who haven't done anything wrong. I've seen people do this in real life, and they are never regarded as good parents.

If God wanted the outcome of repentance and turning to him, then he needs to put in the effort of a good parent, and not just disapear and hope everything works out.

yea, it's called sending them to college.  Point and case, we're mature enough to make mature and wise decisions, but we don't always do it.. more often than not we make poor decisions... then non-believers confront believers and try to say "see what your God did"  Can anyone take responsibility?

RobbyPants wrote:

 

caposkia wrote:
That would not be the right way to look at it.   The assult isn't in the plans from what we understand... rather God will use the assult and turn it into something good... namely the child the might come of it.  If a child is conceived, we figure there's a plan for them in this world no matter how minor.  
If nothing but Good Things come out of our actions, then why do we care about what choices we make?

I don't believe that was what I said there.  We make bad choices, but we also make good choices... with the bad choices, God still uses them for Good.  if not to learn from them, then to build on them so that future generations dont' make teh same mistake.


Jabberwocky
atheist
Posts: 411
Joined: 2012-04-21
User is offlineOffline
caposkia wrote:alright,

caposkia wrote:

alright, lemme reword my question... who said hell was a physical place and not a state of being.  You can "go" into a state of being and "come" from a state of being without changing location.  e.g. sleeping and awake.  

Once again, the bible says so. I cited the verses. You can be sleeping. You can travel into a furnace of fire. However, you can't just go into "a state of a furnace of fire". Just like if you were driving on the highway and asked your passenger "which exit is 'seizure'?" It doesn't really make sense, does it? 

caposkia wrote:

I love how you resort to deflection whenever you can.. .why not assume I'm actually trying to stay on track here.. ya know.. maybe for a moment.

Because you are (as outlined above).

caposkia wrote:

except that in Revelation those who are in hell are brought out for judgement..

One verse says everlasting, another may say people are brought out for judgement (too lazy to read revelation right now...). So ONCE AGAIN, the bible is incoherent. That's not my problem, it's yours.

caposkia wrote:

God does not run a democracy.  People are not sent to hell for speaking out against God alone, but it's why they might be speaking out against Him.  If one does, then they don't agree with God's laws and ways.  which most of our laws are in agreement with.  

God does not run a democracy that's correct. If the Christian god were real, it would be a dictatorship that he runs. A cruel one too. Then the rest of that paragraph is vague. But you seem to imply that speaking out against god will not guarantee hell. Sounds good. Let's all just forget the god thing then and be good to each other. Isn't that just much better??

caposkia wrote:

no and you didn't answer my question.  

I do not believe hell exists. As I listed above, the bible seems to suggest that fire and brimstone are involved. Then (as I mentioned earlier in this very post) it seems to suggest something else. Why is it not consistent?

caposkia wrote:

Amazing... I read it many times... the only conclusion i can come to is:  do you think it's wrong to turn something bad into something good?  I do believe you'll think this is avoiding the point, but just answer the question.

Consider regardless if a child is produced from a rape or not, the victim is stuck with the experience for life.  

I know people who don't look at their children as a reminder of the bad, rather a prospect of the amazing experience it is to be a parent of a child that loves you unconditionally.  

In conclusion, your case is built on sand..

No it's not wrong to turn something bad into something good. I just happen to think that conception during rape is something that were god to ask every woman who gets raped if they wanted to have a child from it, 100% of them would say no. 

Making the best of a devastating situation + rape is mentally scarring for life anyway, so what's an extra 18 year burden gonna do that you can't handle + you apparently know people who have gone through this and are fine with it = I'm wrong. No. Once again, your desire to come off like you're right about this, and Christianity's general baby-mill view of women, means your posts are missing even the slightest bit of compassion for rape victims. This is scary, and this sort of mentality needs to die already. 

 

Theists - If your god is omnipotent, remember the following: He (or she) has the cure for cancer, but won't tell us what it is.


RobbyPants
atheist
RobbyPants's picture
Posts: 148
Joined: 2011-11-30
User is offlineOffline
caposkia wrote:RobbyPants



caposkia wrote:


RobbyPants wrote:


 That's because he's a bad father. He sets some rules, largely disappears while letting the kids do whatever for quite some time (thinking he's not serious), then he jumps in with the most extreme punishment he's ever doled out, even punishing those who haven't done anything wrong. I've seen people do this in real life, and they are never regarded as good parents.

If God wanted the outcome of repentance and turning to him, then he needs to put in the effort of a good parent, and not just disapear and hope everything works out.



yea, it's called sending them to college.  Point and case, we're mature enough to make mature and wise decisions, but we don't always do it.. more often than not we make poor decisions... then non-believers confront believers and try to say "see what your God did"  Can anyone take responsibility?


You've lost the context of the discussion. This all started with me complaining about God killing children, and you saying they deserved it because of their parent's mistakes. So, to finish your college analogy: the parent sends their kid to college, their kid starts making bad decisions and having children of their own, and the parent kills them both because of the kid's bad decisions. There's no "learning from your mistakes" or "giving them slack on their leash" here; it's all murders on top of more murders.

 

caposkia wrote:


RobbyPants wrote:


caposkia wrote:
That would not be the right way to look at it.   The assult isn't in the plans from what we understand... rather God will use the assult and turn it into something good... namely the child the might come of it.  If a child is conceived, we figure there's a plan for them in this world no matter how minor. 
If nothing but Good Things come out of our actions, then why do we care about what choices we make?



I don't believe that was what I said there.  We make bad choices, but we also make good choices... with the bad choices, God still uses them for Good.  if not to learn from them, then to build on them so that future generations dont' make teh same mistake.



Functionally, that's exactly what you said, and you just said it again. If the end result is God making it good, then why does it matter? If he's going to turn everything into some good purpose anyway, why all this worry about free will, and why punish them with hell for not swearing the proper oath of fealty?

 


Jabberwocky
atheist
Posts: 411
Joined: 2012-04-21
User is offlineOffline
RobbyPants wrote:caposkia

RobbyPants wrote:



caposkia wrote:





I don't believe that was what I said there.  We make bad choices, but we also make good choices... with the bad choices, God still uses them for Good.  if not to learn from them, then to build on them so that future generations dont' make teh same mistake.



Functionally, that's exactly what you said, and you just said it again. If the end result is God making it good, then why does it matter? If he's going to turn everything into some good purpose anyway, why all this worry about free will, and why punish them with hell for not swearing the proper oath of fealty?

 

 

 

Yyyyup. In your world, why should a child, who was the product of rape, think that rape is wrong? 

Whereas in the real world, such a person could perhaps separate their life and existence from the violent way it happened. The second you posit that a supervising supernatural force is in some way responsible, you posit that this supernatural entity is concerned with deciding whether or not a child should result here rather than, oh I don't know, PREVENTING THE ASSAULT!! In another thread you mentioned that some people don't talk to you anymore. Here is one reason why. You trivialize things like sexual assault, and attempt to frame the children that result as more important than the mental well-being of the rape victim. Until you fix your moral compass, and have it not see belief in Jesus as more important than caring for a rape victim, your morality is inferior ro mine. 

Theists - If your god is omnipotent, remember the following: He (or she) has the cure for cancer, but won't tell us what it is.


RobbyPants
atheist
RobbyPants's picture
Posts: 148
Joined: 2011-11-30
User is offlineOffline
Jabberwocky wrote: Yyyyup.

Jabberwocky wrote:
 

Yyyyup. In your world, why should a child, who was the product of rape, think that rape is wrong? 

Whereas in the real world, such a person could perhaps separate their life and existence from the violent way it happened. The second you posit that a supervising supernatural force is in some way responsible, you posit that this supernatural entity is concerned with deciding whether or not a child should result here rather than, oh I don't know, PREVENTING THE ASSAULT!! In another thread you mentioned that some people don't talk to you anymore. Here is one reason why. You trivialize things like sexual assault, and attempt to frame the children that result as more important than the mental well-being of the rape victim. Until you fix your moral compass, and have it not see belief in Jesus as more important than caring for a rape victim, your morality is inferior ro mine. 

You were responding to Caposkia, and not me, right? You had me quoted in the outer part of the quote block, and it took me a bit to figure it out.


Jabberwocky
atheist
Posts: 411
Joined: 2012-04-21
User is offlineOffline
RobbyPants wrote:Jabberwocky

RobbyPants wrote:

Jabberwocky wrote:
 

Yyyyup. In your world, why should a child, who was the product of rape, think that rape is wrong? 

Whereas in the real world, such a person could perhaps separate their life and existence from the violent way it happened. The second you posit that a supervising supernatural force is in some way responsible, you posit that this supernatural entity is concerned with deciding whether or not a child should result here rather than, oh I don't know, PREVENTING THE ASSAULT!! In another thread you mentioned that some people don't talk to you anymore. Here is one reason why. You trivialize things like sexual assault, and attempt to frame the children that result as more important than the mental well-being of the rape victim. Until you fix your moral compass, and have it not see belief in Jesus as more important than caring for a rape victim, your morality is inferior ro mine. 

You were responding to Caposkia, and not me, right? You had me quoted in the outer part of the quote block, and it took me a bit to figure it out.

 

Yep. I just wanted to add something similar to what you said, and you simply put it better, and more concisely than I would have. Just the first "yyyyyup" was directed at you. I apologize for the misunderstanding. 

I have to point out while I'm here:

Christian beliefs concerning conceiving children:

Want children, get children: God is good

Don't want children, don't get children: God is good

Want children, don't get children: It's a punishment. You are barren. Artificial insemination is evil! Only god knows what's best!! (at least the Catholic view goes that way)

Don't want children, get children: You have been blessed by the lord to receive this child, and any action that may prevent children from happening, or a conceived child from going to term is a mortal evil! Because I decide who should have children!!!

Theists - If your god is omnipotent, remember the following: He (or she) has the cure for cancer, but won't tell us what it is.


RobbyPants
atheist
RobbyPants's picture
Posts: 148
Joined: 2011-11-30
User is offlineOffline
Jabberwocky wrote:Yep. I

Jabberwocky wrote:

Yep. I just wanted to add something similar to what you said, and you simply put it better, and more concisely than I would have. Just the first "yyyyyup" was directed at you. I apologize for the misunderstanding. 

That's cool. Thanks.

 

Jabberwocky wrote:
I have to point out while I'm here:

Christian beliefs concerning conceiving children:

Want children, get children: God is good

Don't want children, don't get children: God is good

Want children, don't get children: It's a punishment. You are barren. Artificial insemination is evil! Only god knows what's best!! (at least the Catholic view goes that way)

Don't want children, get children: You have been blessed by the lord to receive this child, and any action that may prevent children from happening, or a conceived child from going to term is a mortal evil! Because I decide who should have children!!!

Yeah, that's a weird Cartesian grid they work out.


caposkia
Theist
Posts: 2701
Joined: 2007-05-15
User is offlineOffline
Jabberwocky wrote:Once

Jabberwocky wrote:

Once again, the bible says so. I cited the verses. You can be sleeping. You can travel into a furnace of fire. However, you can't just go into "a state of a furnace of fire". Just like if you were driving on the highway and asked your passenger "which exit is 'seizure'?" It doesn't really make sense, does it? 

I saw the verses you cited.  I don't remember them suggesting travel was required.. if so, how long did it take to get there?  How far away is it?  Where is it?  

If you're going to get technical on the English, keep in mind the bible was not written in English and cannot be translated verbatum in English.   

Jabberwocky wrote:

caposkia wrote:

I love how you resort to deflection whenever you can.. .why not assume I'm actually trying to stay on track here.. ya know.. maybe for a moment.

Because you are (as outlined above).

fail, try again

Jabberwocky wrote:

One verse says everlasting, another may say people are brought out for judgement (too lazy to read revelation right now...). So ONCE AGAIN, the bible is incoherent. That's not my problem, it's yours.

It's your problem if you're hearing congruency from me and then interpreting incongruency when you read it yourself... either prove that my interpretation is wrong, or stop trying to change the meaning

Jabberwocky wrote:

God does not run a democracy that's correct. If the Christian god were real, it would be a dictatorship that he runs. A cruel one too. Then the rest of that paragraph is vague. But you seem to imply that speaking out against god will not guarantee hell. Sounds good. Let's all just forget the god thing then and be good to each other. Isn't that just much better??

Sure, except that taking God out of the picture has proven the opposite result in humanity.  

Jabberwocky wrote:

I do not believe hell exists. As I listed above, the bible seems to suggest that fire and brimstone are involved. Then (as I mentioned earlier in this very post) it seems to suggest something else. Why is it not consistent?

You're only reading it like a book.  You're not studying it.  If you studied scripture, you'd find that hell as a state of existence after death is only referenced to in Matthew and Revelation once.  Other Hell translations were in reference to the field of sacrifices which "burned day and night".  There was always smoke coming up from it.  In other words, it was a place on Earth that people could go and see.  Look it up in the Greek

Jabberwocky wrote:

No it's not wrong to turn something bad into something good. I just happen to think that conception during rape is something that were god to ask every woman who gets raped if they wanted to have a child from it, 100% of them would say no. 

yet would 100% of them after they've had the child and it's grown up a bit still say they still don't want it?

Jabberwocky wrote:

Making the best of a devastating situation + rape is mentally scarring for life anyway, so what's an extra 18 year burden gonna do that you can't handle + you apparently know people who have gone through this and are fine with it = I'm wrong. No. Once again, your desire to come off like you're right about this, and Christianity's general baby-mill view of women, means your posts are missing even the slightest bit of compassion for rape victims. This is scary, and this sort of mentality needs to die already. 

 

So you're suggesting I don't know anyone who has gone through it and ends up loving the child that they bore?  

I also love your Christian Baby-mill view of women.  That's a very interesting take on the whole thing.  As if God depends on rapists to make babies.  

Why not look at it as a reward for enduring through the torture of being raped against your will and the will of God?  Why does the child have to be at fault for what someone else did?


caposkia
Theist
Posts: 2701
Joined: 2007-05-15
User is offlineOffline
RobbyPants wrote:You've lost

RobbyPants wrote:


You've lost the context of the discussion. This all started with me complaining about God killing children, and you saying they deserved it because of their parent's mistakes. So, to finish your college analogy: the parent sends their kid to college, their kid starts making bad decisions and having children of their own, and the parent kills them both because of the kid's bad decisions. There's no "learning from your mistakes" or "giving them slack on their leash" here; it's all murders on top of more murders.

nice try, but it's more like this if you want to use the college analogy.  Parent sends kid off to college.. they start a family, may have made good or bad choices in life, but the child's parents messed with someone who threatened to kill their whole family if they didn't correct the problem they caused... they refused and so the child and their children were hunted down and killed... not their fault, but their parents.  

RobbyPants wrote:
 

Functionally, that's exactly what you said, and you just said it again. If the end result is God making it good, then why does it matter? If he's going to turn everything into some good purpose anyway, why all this worry about free will, and why punish them with hell for not swearing the proper oath of fealty?

God may turn things into good, but does that suddenly make it ok to go and rape someone knowing that God will make something good out of it?  Per what you said it seems that's what you're suggesting.

 

 


blacklight915
atheist
blacklight915's picture
Posts: 544
Joined: 2011-12-23
User is offlineOffline
caposkia wrote:Sure, except

caposkia wrote:

Sure, except that taking God out of the picture has proven the opposite result in humanity.

Evidence, please. You've made assertions similar to the above in the past, and the evidence you gave did not support them.

 

EDIT:

caposkia wrote:

the child's parents messed with someone who threatened to kill their whole family if they didn't correct the problem they caused... they refused and so the child and their children were hunted down and killed... not their fault, but their parents

No, the killer is the one at fault. God did not have to drown nearly every living thing on the planet, but He chose to anyway.

 

caposkia wrote:

you do not have to give up honesty, rational thinking to believe in and worship my God

Yes, I do. God and the spiritual realm would need to be testable scientifically for me to, honestly and rationally, think they're real. Virtually everything I believe about morality would have to be proven false for me to, honestly and rationally, worship a being that allows eternal suffering.

 

caposkia wrote:

if I'm right, you will always keep your honesty, rational thinking and courage

While suffering forever in Hell, yes. If you're right, then there are many people in Hell because of a lack of evidence for your God. If He didn't think them important enough to save, why would He think me?

 


Beyond Saving
atheist
Beyond Saving's picture
Posts: 5448
Joined: 2007-10-12
User is offlineOffline
caposkia wrote:RobbyPants

caposkia wrote:

RobbyPants wrote:


You've lost the context of the discussion. This all started with me complaining about God killing children, and you saying they deserved it because of their parent's mistakes. So, to finish your college analogy: the parent sends their kid to college, their kid starts making bad decisions and having children of their own, and the parent kills them both because of the kid's bad decisions. There's no "learning from your mistakes" or "giving them slack on their leash" here; it's all murders on top of more murders.

nice try, but it's more like this if you want to use the college analogy.  Parent sends kid off to college.. they start a family, may have made good or bad choices in life, but the child's parents messed with someone who threatened to kill their whole family if they didn't correct the problem they caused... they refused and so the child and their children were hunted down and killed... not their fault, but their parents.  

Actually, that is a really good analogy. So you are on the jury in this murder trial, do you find the killer guilty or not guilty? Even if the parents did something really terrible to the killer, I would say that the killer is guilty and whatever role the parents played in causing the situation, the actual killer is more at fault than the parents.

What would you call the killer that the parents messed with? I would call that person a psychopathic murderer and fully support removing someone that dangerous from society. Wouldn't you? 

 

If, if a white man puts his arm around me voluntarily, that's brotherhood. But if you - if you hold a gun on him and make him embrace me and pretend to be friendly or brotherly toward me, then that's not brotherhood, that's hypocrisy.- Malcolm X


danatemporary
danatemporary's picture
Posts: 1951
Joined: 2011-01-12
User is offlineOffline
DP (Double Post

DP (Double Post)


RobbyPants
atheist
RobbyPants's picture
Posts: 148
Joined: 2011-11-30
User is offlineOffline
caposkia wrote:RobbyPants

caposkia wrote:

RobbyPants wrote:


You've lost the context of the discussion. This all started with me complaining about God killing children, and you saying they deserved it because of their parent's mistakes. So, to finish your college analogy: the parent sends their kid to college, their kid starts making bad decisions and having children of their own, and the parent kills them both because of the kid's bad decisions. There's no "learning from your mistakes" or "giving them slack on their leash" here; it's all murders on top of more murders.

nice try, but it's more like this if you want to use the college analogy.  Parent sends kid off to college.. they start a family, may have made good or bad choices in life, but the child's parents messed with someone who threatened to kill their whole family if they didn't correct the problem they caused... they refused and so the child and their children were hunted down and killed... not their fault, but their parents.  

Nice try. Who caused the flood? God.

Done and done. You fail at analogies. 

 

caposkia wrote:
RobbyPants wrote:
 

Functionally, that's exactly what you said, and you just said it again. If the end result is God making it good, then why does it matter? If he's going to turn everything into some good purpose anyway, why all this worry about free will, and why punish them with hell for not swearing the proper oath of fealty?

God may turn things into good, but does that suddenly make it ok to go and rape someone knowing that God will make something good out of it?  Per what you said it seems that's what you're suggesting.

No, that's not what I'm saying, but that's because I reject the notion that there's something out there turning rapes in to "good" things on an unverifiable basis. 

Let me put it this way: if you believe God can make everything good, and the good ending he wants is going to happen regardless... why does he allow evil and suffering in the first place? There's no reason for it if he turns the bad into good. This is actually a really creepy theological narrative. Typically, theists tend to fall back on the whole "you need to know darkness to know light" or "best of all worlds" defenses. This one is just... weird.

 


RobbyPants
atheist
RobbyPants's picture
Posts: 148
Joined: 2011-11-30
User is offlineOffline
Beyond Saving

Beyond Saving wrote:

Actually, that is a really good analogy. So you are on the jury in this murder trial, do you find the killer guilty or not guilty? Even if the parents did something really terrible to the killer, I would say that the killer is guilty and whatever role the parents played in causing the situation, the actual killer is more at fault than the parents.

What would you call the killer that the parents messed with? I would call that person a psychopathic murderer and fully support removing someone that dangerous from society. Wouldn't you? 

You have to remember: in Caposkia's world, God is all powerful and all mighty when he's doing good things (or turning bad things into "good things"!) , but when it comes time to dole out punishments (including drowning babies!), suddenly he's an inanimate object; a force of nature that cannot be reasoned with.

He is literally talking about two different entities here and cannot keep his own narratives straight. It took me way too many posts into the conversation to figure this out, but it finally makes sense (well, as much as it can).


blacklight915
atheist
blacklight915's picture
Posts: 544
Joined: 2011-12-23
User is offlineOffline
RobbyPants wrote:God is all

RobbyPants wrote:

God is all powerful and all mighty when he's doing good things (or turning bad things into "good things"!) , but when it comes time to dole out punishments (including drowning babies!), suddenly he's an inanimate object; a force of nature that cannot be reasoned with.

 It all makes sense now! So many of the confusing and contradictory things Christians say about their God make sense when viewed in the above way. By "Christians", I mean most of the Christians with whom I've discussed God and religion. Thank you for the insight, RobbyPants! 

 


danatemporary
danatemporary's picture
Posts: 1951
Joined: 2011-01-12
User is offlineOffline
Sorry but No!! Not a clear view of how G-d is thought of

RE :: .. Not a clear view of how G-d is thought of,

blacklight915 wrote:

RobbyPants wrote:

God is all powerful and all mighty when he's doing good things (or turning bad things into "good things"!) , but when it comes time to dole out punishments (including drowning babies!), suddenly he's an inanimate object; a force of nature that cannot be reasoned with.

 It all makes sense now! So many of the confusing and contradictory things Christians say about their God make sense when viewed in the above way. By "Christians", I mean most of the Christians with whom I've discussed God and religion. Thank you for the insight, RobbyPants! 

 

danatemporary wrote:
Why do every once in a while I get this paranoid feeling I will end up paying for this someday ?!? I didn't write it, in the same book you have both sacrificial and priestly roles described, which strike some people as almost odd .. (I have many hats I can wear at any given moment) :¬

  I am a bit pressed for time, so I'm just going to let this one fly. I do partially disagree, I'm afraid. Nobody wants to get into a verse-a-thon with anyone here, Okay. To Modern christians their view of God is like it is  because  they  view of the divine as abba father, first and foremost, K? If you want to understand more you look to the roots of the faith that extend way BEFORE the time of Jacob. An informative book is the Book of Hebrews where it states : ..they went about in skins of sheep and goats, destitute, persecuted, tormented— 38 of whom the world was not worthy. They wandered in deserts and mountains, and in caves and holes in the ground ..  Endure trials for the sake of discipline. God is treating you as children; for what child is there whom a parent does not discipline? 8 If you do not have that discipline in which all children share, then you are illegitimate and not his children

  I am not the best person to delve into this because I have a tendency to remember other things from older religions and even religions well outside of the Ancient Near East. Complicating matters is the role of nature. It boils down to three things a. Satan  and the forces of evil (their bad things);  b. Faith (trust); and  c. the self-imposed limits God is forced to operate under (greyest of grey areas)  its' them self-imposed limits, christians rarely acknowledge to themselves, let alone to what they would consider hostile enemy territory. I know it is hard to view the board in terms like this, I remember the reaction of Brian37 when Jean described him as an 'enemy' and how shocked and taken taken a back he clearly was. Remember are taken from the perspective of major wings of christendom.

 A poor analogy, is the experience of going to a Pet shop or pound, oh hell I'm burning for this one (that's a joke, I joke sometimes). If you were forced or imposed with the limitation of stand some fifty feet away from the pets and were 'forced' to choose a pet from this incredible distance. You faced with a similar handicap when trying to figure out what is going on in the hearts and minds of your average christian.

 Remember this is not some private moment;  the great commission in NT portions like Matt 26, St Luke The Book of Acts of the Apostles. The modern christian reads these parts of the Bible and take up the 'call'. To preach the glad tidings of the Good News,  In the past God spoke to our ancestors through the prophets at many times and in various ways, but in these last days he has spoken to us by his Son, whom he appointed heir of all things, and through whom also he made the universe. Book of Hebrew starts off  with verse three: The Son is the radiance of God’s glory and the exact representation of his being, sustaining all things by his powerful word. After he had provided purification for sins, he sat down at the right hand of the Majesty in heaven. New Covenant (e.g. Old Testament giving way to a New Testament). Ex-Minister could do a far better job of explaining things than I ever could. The New New Covenant, if you will, is a biblical interpretation originally derived from, more alluded to, from a phrase in the Book of Jeremiah, I understand. Not to get into all that (phew). But, It is the reason why people have such a hard time in figuring out which parts of the Law are extant today for the believer and which were fulfilled and done away with by the fulfillment of the Law in, you guessed it: Christ. If you even run into this discussion on Theology or christian boards, it drags on for quite literally years of discussion (at this point not joking!!)!! Joseph (son of Jacob) is taken as a story of God's faithfulness, despite the incredible adversity (and many 'trials'). It why you find more than a few verses about encouragement is to be offered, without question, to the believer when the hard times come. The faith of a child is held up as a standard bearer or emblem of  Luke 18:17 - Verily I say unto you, Whosoever shall not receive the kingdom of God as a little child shall in no wise enter therein.  Matthew 18:3 - And said, Verily I say unto you, Except ye be converted, and become as little children, ye shall not enter into the kingdom of heaven.  Mark 10:13-16 - And they brought young children to him, that he should touch them: and [his] disciples rebuked those that brought [them].     Matthew 19:14 - But Jesus said, Suffer little children, and forbid them not, to come unto me: for of such is the kingdom of heaven. There are many more about having the trust of a child. Matthew 21:16 - And said unto him, Hearest thou what these say? And Jesus saith unto them, Yea; have ye never read, Out of the mouth of babes and sucklings thou hast perfected praise? I dont have kids but do have pets so you can disregard this at any moment, I'll understand!

  Part of the conception of why the children out of the land of Egypt 'never' made it out of the desert wilderness, for an entire generation about  would be a lack of faith and constant squabbling , and moaning. There was a lot of remarks such as: Has Moses and his God brought us out of the bondage of Egypt, to die in this desert ?!? Where the hell or we supposed to get water for all of us !?! According to the story in the Bible, As a result of the bitch-fest, the bible records Moses was often angry with the children of Israel, it casts him in a poor light. And them in a further even worse light. This all ties in together about how to view G-d according to the stories found in the holy writ, no edit time so that should serve to remind you about a christian view of it ... got to run, hope you get the point ...


Jabberwocky
atheist
Posts: 411
Joined: 2012-04-21
User is offlineOffline
caposkia wrote:I saw the

caposkia wrote:

I saw the verses you cited.  I don't remember them suggesting travel was required.. if so, how long did it take to get there?  How far away is it?  Where is it?  

If you're going to get technical on the English, keep in mind the bible was not written in English and cannot be translated verbatum in English.   

Well it doesn't go into travel details, but it certainly is quite clear about the destination. I've just read two different translations of my cited verses in another language as well, and it implies exactly the same things, with the one exception that one of the two translations of Luke 16:23 remove a reference of a hell completely. I realize my other language isn't Greek, but it's Eastern European, and is likely closer to the original than English is. 

You're suggesting that the original ancient Greek contains something that can not be translated into English effectively at all? That is a terrible argument. Not understanding Greek, how are you to wrap your head around the concept if you don't speak a language that's mandatory to fully understand it? All you're doing here is attempt to muddy the waters of the meaning of the verses, because your suggestion that hell might not be a place is clearly incompatible with your book. If you don't understand what I'm saying here, and have a rebuttal that's similar to your previous ones on this point, then we have nothing further to discuss here. You're trying to introduce a vague, murky picture of hell, where your book is quite clear on it. I do welcome you to cite other bible verses that imply something different about hell though.

caposkia wrote:

fail, try again

I explained it above as concisely as I possible can. You're simply saying "no, the words that clearly state these things don't actually mean them". Don't just assert it, explain. You know Hebrew but not Greek. Research some, and show me what these badly translated words and concepts are. Until you do that, you are asserting the vague nature of hell as described in the verses I cited, when the verses seem quite specific. If your argument does not take the next step here by either showing where verses explain why the previous verses are vague, or by pointing me to a study explaining the difficulty in translating those concepts from Greek that could help explain them to me, then we have nothing further to discuss on these two points, because it's really going in circles at this point. 

caposkia wrote:

It's your problem if you're hearing congruency from me and then interpreting incongruency when you read it yourself... either prove that my interpretation is wrong, or stop trying to change the meaning

I'm not hearing congruency from you. I am hearing you give more weight to some verses (that suggest that hell-fire that is not everlasting), while I cited bible verses that do not agree with those ones. You have failed to tell me why they seem to contradict each-other. Until you do, a verse indicating everlasting fire, and another indicating a hell where people get removed at some point, are incoherent. You either have to tell me that the verses are incompatible, but show me why one is valid and the other isn't, or you have to explain to me how they ARE compatible. I don't think you're up to doing either though.

caposkia wrote:

Sure, except that taking God out of the picture has proven the opposite result in humanity.  

Provide me some statistics that show even a correlation between a reduction in religiosity and an increase in crime (especially violent crime). I don't think you will be able to find one. While largely irreligious nations with high crime rates do exist (such as Estonia), you can also find nations of low religiosity with low crime rates (such as most, or even all, Scandinavian countries), and countries with high religiosity and crime rates (Iraq, Saudi Arabia....oh, and the USA!). You have, once again, made an assertion. Now back it up, or I won't bother responding to this point.

caposkia wrote:

You're only reading it like a book.  You're not studying it.  If you studied scripture, you'd find that hell as a state of existence after death is only referenced to in Matthew and Revelation once.  Other Hell translations were in reference to the field of sacrifices which "burned day and night".  There was always smoke coming up from it.  In other words, it was a place on Earth that people could go and see.  Look it up in the Greek

So now you're admitting that it's a place? Which is it?? Just explain this up top while you're responding to my first post please, let's try to keep this concise.

caposkia wrote:

yet would 100% of them after they've had the child and it's grown up a bit still say they still don't want it?

No. However I know a lot of people that do have the ability to make the best of a bad situation. That does not make the situation itself any less horrific though. Also, while some people turn around on that point, others don't. Are you saying the ones that don't are terrible people who are flipping off god? Or would you actually display even a small amount of compassion for a rape victim and tell them that it's normal to feel this way?

caposkia wrote:

So you're suggesting I don't know anyone who has gone through it and ends up loving the child that they bore?  

I also love your Christian Baby-mill view of women.  That's a very interesting take on the whole thing.  As if God depends on rapists to make babies.  

Why not look at it as a reward for enduring through the torture of being raped against your will and the will of God?  Why does the child have to be at fault for what someone else did?

Once again, I AM NOT SUGGESTING that you don't know such people. However, providing a handful of examples does not paint a picture of the whole issue. You did suggest that god provides a gift to rape victims to conceive. If 100% of women turned around on it after having the child, then at least it would be plausible. But they don't. Some will see it as a a burden and a constant reminder of a horrific moment in their lives, no matter how many times you call it a gift. It is EXTRAORDINARILY unfortunate for the child as well. Even if they have the best mother, they may one day find out the circumstance that led to their existence. I would probably take a very long time to get over that if it were how I came to be. 

Now, while at the moment we are unable to prevent all rape (although anything any person can do to work towards that goal, they ALWAYS should), we can help reduce conception from rape. Emergency contraception, which prevents an egg from being released, should be available to all. Now when people say that our eternal supervising omniscient omni-benevolent, omnipotent father decided to shift some sperm around to possibly make a baby, and Christians attempt to introduce legislation that makes it difficult to obtain, or bans outright these little pills, that is when we are going to fight. Fuck those people, and fuck that mentality. I can't be polite about this. 

 

Theists - If your god is omnipotent, remember the following: He (or she) has the cure for cancer, but won't tell us what it is.


Atheistextremist
atheist
Atheistextremist's picture
Posts: 5133
Joined: 2009-09-17
User is offlineOffline
Hi Cap

caposkia wrote:

Atheistextremist wrote:

A promise is a mutual agreement between 2 human beings. We know nothing about a god or whether or not it might mirror complex human social behaviours despite apparently living alone on a 'golden throne'. 

To break a human promise god would not have had to make an intentionally misleading statement. God could simply have made a new agreement. 

But if we are going to assume god has human qualities and gets miffed about being ignored then clearly god decided that rather than re-frame a position that was not working he decided to become a mass murderer instead. 

Personally, I believe the flood story is ludicrous. Consider the sole proof - the narrative of Torah - a veritable assertion tommy-gun. 

“And God saw that the wickedness of man was great in the earth, and that every imagination of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually.” (Genesis 6:5)

God saw that every imagination of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually. That judgement is untrue of any person who has ever lived.

Please prove this bald assertion of Torah to be true using material proofs. And please explain how it was the jewish priest who wrote this hateful verse knew the 'mind of god'.   

How do you make a new agreement without nullifying an old agreement thus going back on your word?

Prove that an assertion that the thoughts of someone's heart was evil  continually?  How do you prove the thoughts of anyone who is no longer alive?  I'm not sure how you would expect anyone to provide this proof true or not.  

Prove to me your great great grandfather's thoughts were pure or not.  I don't think you can

 

 

First define 'pure'. Tell me how to measure it.  

 

 

"Experiments are the only means of knowledge at our disposal. The rest is poetry, imagination." Max Planck


caposkia
Theist
Posts: 2701
Joined: 2007-05-15
User is offlineOffline
blacklight915

blacklight915 wrote:

Evidence, please. You've made assertions similar to the above in the past, and the evidence you gave did not support them.

First, what assertions are you talking about that were unsupported... we should attack those first...

second, it's all over the place... Look up Huckabee's speech after the Newtown shooting for a good summary.  Do a google search and you're bound to find some information on connections like when God was pushed out of schools things got worse and out of communitites etc.  

blacklight915 wrote:

No, the killer is the one at fault. God did not have to drown nearly every living thing on the planet, but He chose to anyway.

God doesn't have to do anything good or bad, but He chooses to anyway.  Your point?  God is evil for making a choice you don't agree with.  Got it.

blacklight915 wrote:

 

caposkia wrote:

you do not have to give up honesty, rational thinking to believe in and worship my God

Yes, I do. God and the spiritual realm would need to be testable scientifically for me to, honestly and rationally, think they're real. Virtually everything I believe about morality would have to be proven false for me to, honestly and rationally, worship a being that allows eternal suffering.

From what you just described, it's hard for me to believe that it's only God allowing eternal suffering that is keeping you from believing.  A rational approach then woudl be to figure out the existence of God and understand that before you start judging the rationality of the consequence of sin.

...and no you don't... you might think you do, but scientific evidence is not limited to the physical, otherwise the thoughts and ideas of others don't exist because science cannot test them... it can only test a physical response to a physical stimuli. 

blacklight915 wrote:

While suffering forever in Hell, yes. If you're right, then there are many people in Hell because of a lack of evidence for your God. If He didn't think them important enough to save, why would He think me?

 

He thinks everyone's important enough to save, but people have to make a choice for themselves... also you don't go to hell because you didn't receive enough evidence of my God.  That's not how it works... you are responsible for what you know and you are judged according to the Law you follow and the works you do.  


caposkia
Theist
Posts: 2701
Joined: 2007-05-15
User is offlineOffline
Beyond Saving wrote:nice

Beyond Saving wrote:

nice try, but it's more like this if you want to use the college analogy.  Parent sends kid off to college.. they start a family, may have made good or bad choices in life, but the child's parents messed with someone who threatened to kill their whole family if they didn't correct the problem they caused... they refused and so the child and their children were hunted down and killed... not their fault, but their parents.  

Actually, that is a really good analogy. So you are on the jury in this murder trial, do you find the killer guilty or not guilty? Even if the parents did something really terrible to the killer, I would say that the killer is guilty and whatever role the parents played in causing the situation, the actual killer is more at fault than the parents.

What would you call the killer that the parents messed with? I would call that person a psychopathic murderer and fully support removing someone that dangerous from society. Wouldn't you? 

alright, let's put it in perspective then.  What you're suggesting is putting a judge on trial for sentencing someone to death for a crime worthy of death according to the Law... On that jury I would say that the judge did their job appropriately. 

Using this analogy, the parents then likely somehow involved their child in the process... regardless whether the child was taught that murder was wrong, the child, by command of their parents likely killed someone themselves (considering our Law in this instance) and would be worthy of a death sentence be it that they are in college and are of age.  


caposkia
Theist
Posts: 2701
Joined: 2007-05-15
User is offlineOffline
RobbyPants wrote:Nice try.

RobbyPants wrote:

Nice try. Who caused the flood? God.

Done and done. You fail at analogies. 

If "you fail at analogies" is your only defense on that then I guess my failed analogies are good enough.

Why did God cause the flood?  What was the alternative and outcome?  if you try to answer that, then you're lying to yourself... the correct answer is we don't know.  yes, we know God regretted making mankind because of sins, but why the flood?  why not other stuff?  Again we don't know.

 

RobbyPants wrote:
 
No, that's not what I'm saying, but that's because I reject the notion that there's something out there turning rapes in to "good" things on an unverifiable basis. 

Be it that there are people out there who claim that the child they bore from such situations was a good thing, it seems to be verifiable god or no god.  

RobbyPants wrote:

Let me put it this way: if you believe God can make everything good, and the good ending he wants is going to happen regardless... why does he allow evil and suffering in the first place? There's no reason for it if he turns the bad into good. This is actually a really creepy theological narrative. Typically, theists tend to fall back on the whole "you need to know darkness to know light" or "best of all worlds" defenses. This one is just... weird.

 

let me know if you have more knowledge than the rest of humanity on the subject.  


caposkia
Theist
Posts: 2701
Joined: 2007-05-15
User is offlineOffline
RobbyPants wrote:You have to

RobbyPants wrote:

You have to remember: in Caposkia's world, God is all powerful and all mighty when he's doing good things (or turning bad things into "good things"!) , but when it comes time to dole out punishments (including drowning babies!), suddenly he's an inanimate object; a force of nature that cannot be reasoned with.

He is literally talking about two different entities here and cannot keep his own narratives straight. It took me way too many posts into the conversation to figure this out, but it finally makes sense (well, as much as it can).

is that what I'm doing?  God is someone who turns bad into good... you seem to try to unjustify a judgement of a situation you have little if any knowlege about then try to turn it around and make it sound like I'm talking about 2 different things.  I'm talking about the same being.  The one who judges and the one who loves.  

Your take is that God drowns babies... what was happening to those babies before God drown them?  If God is so terrible for doing so, you must know what kind of life they had before hand.   Or is it that you're passing judgement on something you have no knowlege about.. you know, kind of like religious sects do.  


caposkia
Theist
Posts: 2701
Joined: 2007-05-15
User is offlineOffline
Jabberwocky wrote:Well it

Jabberwocky wrote:

Well it doesn't go into travel details, but it certainly is quite clear about the destination. I've just read two different translations of my cited verses in another language as well, and it implies exactly the same things, with the one exception that one of the two translations of Luke 16:23 remove a reference of a hell completely. I realize my other language isn't Greek, but it's Eastern European, and is likely closer to the original than English is. 

You're suggesting that the original ancient Greek contains something that can not be translated into English effectively at all? That is a terrible argument. Not understanding Greek, how are you to wrap your head around the concept if you don't speak a language that's mandatory to fully understand it? All you're doing here is attempt to muddy the waters of the meaning of the verses, because your suggestion that hell might not be a place is clearly incompatible with your book. If you don't understand what I'm saying here, and have a rebuttal that's similar to your previous ones on this point, then we have nothing further to discuss here. You're trying to introduce a vague, murky picture of hell, where your book is quite clear on it. I do welcome you to cite other bible verses that imply something different about hell though.

What you say; "how are you to wrap your head around the concept if you dont' speak a language that is mandatory to fully understand it" is a great question.  It's one that Jews are asking Christians all the time be it that they require their followers to learn Hebrew and most Christians don't know the first thing about it.  Jews would also agree that you can't undrstand the concept without knowing the language.

For the NT the concept is quite simple, sin is bad and there are bad things that happen to those who sin.  Jesus is a sacrifice that took our place for the bad consequences of sin and we all sin.  

If we want to analize scripture as deeply as we seem to be getting, then we need to know the language.  If you look at the greek, you'll find that most "hell" translations in the NT is actually a word in reference to the field of sacrifice, which can be compared to the eternal hell be it that it has a fire that never goes out, the smoke comes up from it day and night and the worm never dies because there's always new sacrifices being made there...  Did you ever wonder where the worm reference came from?  How could worms survive in hell?  

Point and case, am I muddying the conversation and trying to make it vague or am I trying to tell you the tools needed to be as picky as you're being. 

Jabberwocky wrote:

I'm not hearing congruency from you. I am hearing you give more weight to some verses (that suggest that hell-fire that is not everlasting), while I cited bible verses that do not agree with those ones. You have failed to tell me why they seem to contradict each-other. Until you do, a verse indicating everlasting fire, and another indicating a hell where people get removed at some point, are incoherent. You either have to tell me that the verses are incompatible, but show me why one is valid and the other isn't, or you have to explain to me how they ARE compatible. I don't think you're up to doing either though.

the greek explanation above would be a part of that... be it that 2 different things are being talked about.  Are you up for the conversation or are you content on assuming you have all the answers.

Jabberwocky wrote:

Provide me some statistics that show even a correlation between a reduction in religiosity and an increase in crime (especially violent crime). I don't think you will be able to find one. While largely irreligious nations with high crime rates do exist (such as Estonia), you can also find nations of low religiosity with low crime rates (such as most, or even all, Scandinavian countries), and countries with high religiosity and crime rates (Iraq, Saudi Arabia....oh, and the USA!). You have, once again, made an assertion. Now back it up, or I won't bother responding to this point.

if you do the research, you'll find that crime rates are higher in countries with more religous founding.  With that said, it makes sense that lower religious founding would be less crime.  What is satan aganist?  God, not good.  

Look at the correlation of taking prayer out of schools in this country and school shootings

look at the correlation of Nazi Germany and them taking out churches across the country

There are many other situations like these.

Jabberwocky wrote:

caposkia wrote:

You're only reading it like a book.  You're not studying it.  If you studied scripture, you'd find that hell as a state of existence after death is only referenced to in Matthew and Revelation once.  Other Hell translations were in reference to the field of sacrifices which "burned day and night".  There was always smoke coming up from it.  In other words, it was a place on Earth that people could go and see.  Look it up in the Greek

So now you're admitting that it's a place? Which is it?? Just explain this up top while you're responding to my first post please, let's try to keep this concise.

um... reread what I wrote... carefully... you'll see 2 different things are being talked about... the field of sacrifices is a physical place on Earth during that time that people went to make sacrifices to their gods.    it's not hell where people go when they die.

Jabberwocky wrote:

No. However I know a lot of people that do have the ability to make the best of a bad situation. That does not make the situation itself any less horrific though. Also, while some people turn around on that point, others don't. Are you saying the ones that don't are terrible people who are flipping off god? Or would you actually display even a small amount of compassion for a rape victim and tell them that it's normal to feel this way?

it's normal to feel that way, but to help themselves, they do need to see that a child they bore is a good thing that came out of a terrible situation.  If they want to connect it to their rapist, they will, if they don't want to, they won't and if they need help getting there, they can get it.

Jabberwocky wrote:

Once again, I AM NOT SUGGESTING that you don't know such people. However, providing a handful of examples does not paint a picture of the whole issue. You did suggest that god provides a gift to rape victims to conceive. If 100% of women turned around on it after having the child, then at least it would be plausible. But they don't. Some will see it as a a burden and a constant reminder of a horrific moment in their lives, no matter how many times you call it a gift. It is EXTRAORDINARILY unfortunate for the child as well. Even if they have the best mother, they may one day find out the circumstance that led to their existence. I would probably take a very long time to get over that if it were how I came to be. 

Now, while at the moment we are unable to prevent all rape (although anything any person can do to work towards that goal, they ALWAYS should), we can help reduce conception from rape. Emergency contraception, which prevents an egg from being released, should be available to all. Now when people say that our eternal supervising omniscient omni-benevolent, omnipotent father decided to shift some sperm around to possibly make a baby, and Christians attempt to introduce legislation that makes it difficult to obtain, or bans outright these little pills, that is when we are going to fight. Fuck those people, and fuck that mentality. I can't be polite about this. 

 

a handful of examples is usually sufficient to suggest that the opposite cannot be true and that those who do see it as a burden might be missing something.  Lack of understanding in a situation can lead us to terrible conclusions when all we'd need to do is see all possibilities.  


danatemporary
danatemporary's picture
Posts: 1951
Joined: 2011-01-12
User is offlineOffline
2013 - Back in May Nu #98

Nu 98

 2013 - 11:17pm mid-May #98 (a Reminder)

  YOU NEED TO GO BACK TO two posts,

 ...you blew past last night and this afternoon !!  Please  go back and stop by the other Thread at your soon earliest convenience.

  ¬ D a n a

 


Jabberwocky
atheist
Posts: 411
Joined: 2012-04-21
User is offlineOffline
caposkia wrote:yes, we know

caposkia wrote:

yes, we know God regretted making mankind because of sins

If you can utter this and not realize how absurd it is, then you are, at least for the moment, futile to even discuss with. Is god all-powerful and all knowing? If he is, he would know how to change things when he originally created them in a way to prevent sin from every occurring.

I can't even build a fire and tell you how long it will burn for. However, if I was all knowing (but not all powerful), I would be able to build a fire, then tell you exactly how long it will burn for. Then, if you add all-powerful to my list of attributes, I would be able to build a fire to burn exactly for as long as I want it to burn. 

So what does this mean? It means that after god created everything, he would have already known the outcome of absolutely everything that was ever to happen. So why wait for it to simply get so out of control that he ends up having to drown nearly the entire world? I guess in your world we just can't know this. We can't know why god chose mass slaughter to fix the world's problems. You figure an omnipotent being could come up with something better!

However, you know who couldn't come up with something better? Bronze age goat-herders. Everything makes more sense when you see the bible that way. You don't have to answer with "I don't know. It's mysterious. It's god's nature!". You can just answer honestly, and see genocide as genocide. You can see that it's just a story written by people who were living in a primitive society, and were still far from discovering a just system of morals. 

Theists - If your god is omnipotent, remember the following: He (or she) has the cure for cancer, but won't tell us what it is.


blacklight915
atheist
blacklight915's picture
Posts: 544
Joined: 2011-12-23
User is offlineOffline
caposkia wrote:what

caposkia wrote:

what assertions are you talking about that were unsupported

In a different thread, you made the claim that some people in North Korea are motivated by their atheism to persecute and kill Christians.

 

caposkia wrote:

God is evil for making a choice you don't agree with.  Got it.

You're being an ass again. God didn't have to cause massive amounts of suffering, but He chose to anyway. That is why I think He is evil.

 

caposkia wrote:

it's hard for me to believe that it's only God allowing eternal suffering that is keeping you from believing

Lack of evidence is what keeps me from believing. However, even if I did believe, my morals (as they are now) would keep me from worshiping.

 

caposkia wrote:

but scientific evidence is not limited to the physical

Where did I say it was?

 

caposkia wrote:

you are judged according to the Law you follow and the works you do

And anything less than perfection makes me worthy of eternal suffering.

 

EDIT:

caposkia wrote:

What is satan aganist?  God, not good.

Which means taking God away doesn't always have a net negative effect. Also, if Satan doesn't oppose good, why is he considered evil?

 


Beyond Saving
atheist
Beyond Saving's picture
Posts: 5448
Joined: 2007-10-12
User is offlineOffline
caposkia wrote:alright,

caposkia wrote:

alright, let's put it in perspective then.  What you're suggesting is putting a judge on trial for sentencing someone to death for a crime worthy of death according to the Law... On that jury I would say that the judge did their job appropriately. 

Using this analogy, the parents then likely somehow involved their child in the process... regardless whether the child was taught that murder was wrong, the child, by command of their parents likely killed someone themselves (considering our Law in this instance) and would be worthy of a death sentence be it that they are in college and are of age.  

What crime did the children commit? You said they deserved to die because of what their parents did. Exactly which crime did the children commit that made them deserve to die? We are talking about infants here that were drowned in a flood. I wasn't aware that infants were capable of committing crimes, let alone crimes that deserve the death penalty.  

If, if a white man puts his arm around me voluntarily, that's brotherhood. But if you - if you hold a gun on him and make him embrace me and pretend to be friendly or brotherly toward me, then that's not brotherhood, that's hypocrisy.- Malcolm X


caposkia
Theist
Posts: 2701
Joined: 2007-05-15
User is offlineOffline
Atheistextremist

Atheistextremist wrote:

caposkia wrote:

Atheistextremist wrote:

A promise is a mutual agreement between 2 human beings. We know nothing about a god or whether or not it might mirror complex human social behaviours despite apparently living alone on a 'golden throne'. 

To break a human promise god would not have had to make an intentionally misleading statement. God could simply have made a new agreement. 

But if we are going to assume god has human qualities and gets miffed about being ignored then clearly god decided that rather than re-frame a position that was not working he decided to become a mass murderer instead. 

Personally, I believe the flood story is ludicrous. Consider the sole proof - the narrative of Torah - a veritable assertion tommy-gun. 

“And God saw that the wickedness of man was great in the earth, and that every imagination of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually.” (Genesis 6:5)

God saw that every imagination of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually. That judgement is untrue of any person who has ever lived.

Please prove this bald assertion of Torah to be true using material proofs. And please explain how it was the jewish priest who wrote this hateful verse knew the 'mind of god'.   

How do you make a new agreement without nullifying an old agreement thus going back on your word?

Prove that an assertion that the thoughts of someone's heart was evil  continually?  How do you prove the thoughts of anyone who is no longer alive?  I'm not sure how you would expect anyone to provide this proof true or not.  

Prove to me your great great grandfather's thoughts were pure or not.  I don't think you can

 

 

First define 'pure'. Tell me how to measure it.  

 

 

Def. pasted below.  to measure it you'd need to know what the control is, in the case of thoughts, it would have to be true to the Laws and plans of God and of the land without waver to the degree of the definition.  when you figure out how to measure that, you let me know because that would answer both our questions

pure

  adjective, pur·er, pur·est.1.free from anything of a different, inferior, or contaminating kind;

 


danatemporary
danatemporary's picture
Posts: 1951
Joined: 2011-01-12
User is offlineOffline
caposkia

caposkia

   With you I am sure I am being overly nice. It is hard when you want to be nice and aren’t sure how to assert yourself (I can always manage to assert myself in a not so nice manner). How about heading over to the other Thread ? You are currently looking at two mainly and a third, long standing,  being inactive recently for a week. It has been clearly marked and posted already, so no need to re-post it on this Thread.  Okay?!? 

 


caposkia
Theist
Posts: 2701
Joined: 2007-05-15
User is offlineOffline
Jabberwocky wrote:caposkia

Jabberwocky wrote:

caposkia wrote:

yes, we know God regretted making mankind because of sins

If you can utter this and not realize how absurd it is, then you are, at least for the moment, futile to even discuss with. Is god all-powerful and all knowing? If he is, he would know how to change things when he originally created them in a way to prevent sin from every occurring.

If you can look at that statement you've said objectively, you'd realize how absurd that is.  to "prevent sin" is to make you a puppet.  Do you really want to live like that?

Jabberwocky wrote:

I can't even build a fire and tell you how long it will burn for. However, if I was all knowing (but not all powerful), I would be able to build a fire, then tell you exactly how long it will burn for. Then, if you add all-powerful to my list of attributes, I would be able to build a fire to burn exactly for as long as I want it to burn. 

Consider that you'd also know the difference in burning time depending on weather conditions, wood type and moisture level, elevation among other factors depending on where you start it in the world.  

Consider now that you would have the power to build a fire anywhere you'd like but you knew you only wanted to build one which obligates you to build it in a specific spot... also consider with all those attributes you have no need to build a fire, so why are you building one in the first place and once you've built it, why would you let it go out?

Do you see the correlation with what you're asking me in this?

Jabberwocky wrote:

So what does this mean? It means that after god created everything, he would have already known the outcome of absolutely everything that was ever to happen. So why wait for it to simply get so out of control that he ends up having to drown nearly the entire world? I guess in your world we just can't know this. We can't know why god chose mass slaughter to fix the world's problems. You figure an omnipotent being could come up with something better!

You'd figure, but then again we haven't a clue of the alternatives.  I consider all the possibilities my life would have if I didn't have kids... but I wouldn't change the choice of having kids for anything.  How absurd!

Jabberwocky wrote:

However, you know who couldn't come up with something better? Bronze age goat-herders. Everything makes more sense when you see the bible that way. You don't have to answer with "I don't know. It's mysterious. It's god's nature!". You can just answer honestly, and see genocide as genocide. You can see that it's just a story written by people who were living in a primitive society, and were still far from discovering a just system of morals. 

That would make sense if it wasn't written with confirmed prophesy and rational effective advice... those primitive societies seemed to have a better grasp on how to be succcessful in life than we do today... weird!


caposkia
Theist
Posts: 2701
Joined: 2007-05-15
User is offlineOffline
blacklight915 wrote:caposkia

blacklight915 wrote:

caposkia wrote:

what assertions are you talking about that were unsupported

In a different thread, you made the claim that some people in North Korea are motivated by their atheism to persecute and kill Christians.

I don't believe I clamed "motivated by their atheism" but either way, due to their lack of belief in any god, they see their leader as god and thus follow his ever whim no matter how harmful to themselves or others.  Instead of having a supernatural god, they have a human god.   this human god has a problem with Christians because they're bringing in the idea of an authority greater than him... need I say more?  

I dont' know how that's unsupported, that's easily researchable.

blacklight915 wrote:

 

caposkia wrote:

God is evil for making a choice you don't agree with.  Got it.

You're being an ass again. God didn't have to cause massive amounts of suffering, but He chose to anyway. That is why I think He is evil.

I get that.  I'm not sure what you're comparing this massive amount of suffering to be it that the lives that were destroyed in the stories in question likely were suffering in sin.   If it's hell in question, again it's a choice.   

Sorry for coming across like an ass again.  I'm trying not to be so blunt with you.  I forget sometimes.  

blacklight915 wrote:

Lack of evidence is what keeps me from believing. However, even if I did believe, my morals (as they are now) would keep me from worshiping.

one step at a time.  I think the best approach is to believe first.  That's more than half the battle.  If and when you do end up believing due to whatever evidence is needed, then we can talk about morality.  

blacklight915 wrote:

 

caposkia wrote:

but scientific evidence is not limited to the physical

Where did I say it was?

You suggested that you need the proof to be testable scientifically... how do you test something scientifically except by physical means?   Unless you are strictly referring to the scientific method. 

blacklight915 wrote:

And anything less than perfection makes me worthy of eternal suffering.

except that Jesus has taken that penalty for you and so you are not seen as worthy for eternal suffering.  

Point is, God does grade on perfection, which He knows none of us are capable of doing... All He's really looking for from us is humbleness in admitting that we can't be perfect.  He's not actually looking for perfection.

If you look into the Exodus where the Laws were drawn up, they were based on the idea that those people thought they could achieve Gods approval through their works.  This was Gods way of saying that was a futile attempt.  

blacklight915 wrote:

Which means taking God away doesn't always have a net negative effect. Also, if Satan doesn't oppose good, why is he considered evil?

 

Anything against God is considered evil.  Per the original understanding of the term evil, anything evil was not of God, anything good is of God.  As far as Satan is concerned, good is ok as long as it is not correlated with God, which makes his angle evil.


caposkia
Theist
Posts: 2701
Joined: 2007-05-15
User is offlineOffline
Beyond Saving wrote:caposkia

Beyond Saving wrote:

caposkia wrote:

alright, let's put it in perspective then.  What you're suggesting is putting a judge on trial for sentencing someone to death for a crime worthy of death according to the Law... On that jury I would say that the judge did their job appropriately. 

Using this analogy, the parents then likely somehow involved their child in the process... regardless whether the child was taught that murder was wrong, the child, by command of their parents likely killed someone themselves (considering our Law in this instance) and would be worthy of a death sentence be it that they are in college and are of age.  

What crime did the children commit? You said they deserved to die because of what their parents did. Exactly which crime did the children commit that made them deserve to die? We are talking about infants here that were drowned in a flood. I wasn't aware that infants were capable of committing crimes, let alone crimes that deserve the death penalty.  

Considering the analogy we're talking about above where we're talking about college age children, I don't know... do you have insight that I don't?  

Considering your twist on my words to apply also to infants, who is responsible for the safety and wellbeing of infants?  If a parent is not capable of taking care of them in that day and age, what happens to them?  If a parent like in this scenario pays the ultimate price for their crimes along with their friends and neighbors, what woudl happen to these infants?  

Don't sink to the Sunday school answer either.  You and I both know it wouldn't fly if I pulled it out.


caposkia
Theist
Posts: 2701
Joined: 2007-05-15
User is offlineOffline
danatemporary

danatemporary wrote:

caposkia

   With you I am sure I am being overly nice. It is hard when you want to be nice and aren’t sure how to assert yourself (I can always manage to assert myself in a not so nice manner). How about heading over to the other Thread ? You are currently looking at two mainly and a third, long standing,  being inactive recently for a week. It has been clearly marked and posted already, so no need to re-post it on this Thread.  Okay?!? 

 

 

I'll get to it.  No worries.  I always try to respond in a timely manner despite my chaotic lifestyle.

As for you, I know your intentions so don't worry about coming across differently.  it's not always easy to appropriately portray emotion through text.  


blacklight915
atheist
blacklight915's picture
Posts: 544
Joined: 2011-12-23
User is offlineOffline
caposkia wrote:If it's hell

caposkia wrote:

If it's hell in question, again it's a choice.

Just like giving your money to a person who threatens to harm you is a "choice". Just like accidently walking into the path of a sniper bullet is a "choice". Sorry for my mocking. However, I really don't know how else to respond to a statement so...twisted.

 

caposkia wrote:

Sorry for coming across like an ass again. I'm trying not to be so blunt with you. I forget sometimes.

You deliberately misrepresented my position, then mocked it. That does not count as "being blunt", caposkia.

 

caposkia wrote:

except that Jesus has taken that penalty for you and so you are not seen as worthy for eternal suffering

All He's really looking for from us is humbleness in admitting that we can't be perfect.  He's not actually looking for perfection.

Good. Then, even if I died shortly after finishing this post, I wouldn't go to Hell?

 

EDIT: I don't wish to explain why, but it's better for me if I stop talking with you. For now, at least. I really hope you don't mind. Don't feel you need to respond to anything above the line that starts with "EDIT".

 


Beyond Saving
atheist
Beyond Saving's picture
Posts: 5448
Joined: 2007-10-12
User is offlineOffline
caposkia wrote:Considering

caposkia wrote:

Considering the analogy we're talking about above where we're talking about college age children, I don't know... do you have insight that I don't?  

Considering your twist on my words to apply also to infants, who is responsible for the safety and wellbeing of infants?  If a parent is not capable of taking care of them in that day and age, what happens to them?  If a parent like in this scenario pays the ultimate price for their crimes along with their friends and neighbors, what woudl happen to these infants?  

Don't sink to the Sunday school answer either.  You and I both know it wouldn't fly if I pulled it out.

No, we are talking about a flood that killed every human being on the planet, that includes infants and all ages. I pull out the infants because I know you will try to convince me that the 5 year olds were already corrupted, evil and somehow responsible for their own choice to ignore gods warnings. (after all, if you warn your murder victim it isn't murder) The parents might bear some responsibility for making the psychopath mad, and maybe for failing to act from stopping the psychopath. But does that absolve the psychopath from responsibility?

Your first analogy was accurate. You just realized you had to change it because what your god did was so crazy and indefensible for anyone who takes the basic moral stand that killing innocents is wrong. 

 

If, if a white man puts his arm around me voluntarily, that's brotherhood. But if you - if you hold a gun on him and make him embrace me and pretend to be friendly or brotherly toward me, then that's not brotherhood, that's hypocrisy.- Malcolm X


RobbyPants
atheist
RobbyPants's picture
Posts: 148
Joined: 2011-11-30
User is offlineOffline
caposkia wrote:RobbyPants

caposkia wrote:

RobbyPants wrote:

Nice try. Who caused the flood? God.

Done and done. You fail at analogies. 

If "you fail at analogies" is your only defense on that then I guess my failed analogies are good enough.

Why did God cause the flood?  What was the alternative and outcome?  if you try to answer that, then you're lying to yourself... the correct answer is we don't know.  yes, we know God regretted making mankind because of sins, but why the flood?  why not other stuff?  Again we don't know.

 

RobbyPants wrote:
 
No, that's not what I'm saying, but that's because I reject the notion that there's something out there turning rapes in to "good" things on an unverifiable basis. 

Be it that there are people out there who claim that the child they bore from such situations was a good thing, it seems to be verifiable god or no god.  

RobbyPants wrote:

Let me put it this way: if you believe God can make everything good, and the good ending he wants is going to happen regardless... why does he allow evil and suffering in the first place? There's no reason for it if he turns the bad into good. This is actually a really creepy theological narrative. Typically, theists tend to fall back on the whole "you need to know darkness to know light" or "best of all worlds" defenses. This one is just... weird.

 

let me know if you have more knowledge than the rest of humanity on the subject.  

This is pretty much how every one of these debates ends. The theist saying that they don't know, but still believe anyway. 

 

 

 

caposkia wrote:

RobbyPants wrote:

You have to remember: in Caposkia's world, God is all powerful and all mighty when he's doing good things (or turning bad things into "good things"!) , but when it comes time to dole out punishments (including drowning babies!), suddenly he's an inanimate object; a force of nature that cannot be reasoned with.

He is literally talking about two different entities here and cannot keep his own narratives straight. It took me way too many posts into the conversation to figure this out, but it finally makes sense (well, as much as it can).

is that what I'm doing?  God is someone who turns bad into good... you seem to try to unjustify a judgement of a situation you have little if any knowlege about then try to turn it around and make it sound like I'm talking about 2 different things.  I'm talking about the same being.  The one who judges and the one who loves.  

You posit a being that loves and judges, but when he judges, he's absolved of all his actions as if he had no control but to act in the way that he did. So, when the babies get drown, you figure that that was either the only thing God could have done, or the best thing that he could have done.

I imaging if I ask you why it's the best thing, the answer will be some form of "I don't know, but I still believe it".

 

caposkia wrote:
Your take is that God drowns babies... what was happening to those babies before God drown them?  If God is so terrible for doing so, you must know what kind of life they had before hand.   Or is it that you're passing judgement on something you have no knowlege about.. you know, kind of like religious sects do.  

 

Again, more of you simply saying you don't know, but still believe regardless. 


cj
atheistRational VIP!
cj's picture
Posts: 3330
Joined: 2007-01-05
User is offlineOffline
RobbyPants wrote: Again,

RobbyPants wrote:

 

Again, more of you simply saying you don't know, but still believe regardless. 

 

Belief perseverance or confirmation bias - is a tendency of people to favor information that confirms their beliefs or hypotheses. No matter how much evidence you give them, no matter how many knots they tie themselves into in a debate, they will persist in believing their original idea(s).

The theory is that admitting you are wrong is very difficult for those people who have a strong self-image and the inaccurate belief or hypothesis is closely allied with that self-image. Caposkia appears to be someone who has a strong self-image of being christian and so s/he is not going to view alternative ideas in an un-biased manner.

William L. Craig has a video on his website and in it he states that it doesn't matter what evidence is presented against his ideas or how often he is called out during debates concerning his apologetics being incorrect, he will always believe in god regardless of evidence contrary to that belief. Caposkia follows in WLC's footsteps.

Mind you, I am not at all sympathetic to this. If my beliefs are incorrect, not in alignment with facts or my logic has fallacies, I want to know. And I want to correct my beliefs to align with facts. Some may remember that I have said - on these forums - that I was wrong on some fact. It is not a part of my self-image to be infallible. Nor do I believe that anyone is infallible, but some try harder to ground their ideas in reality and those people I will trust to have examined the facts in their area of expertise. Unless I feel inclined to look it up and determine the facts for myself.

I feel sorry for Caposkia - to ground your reality in an ancient manuscript written by late bronze age/early iron age goat herders and wishful thinking for an imaginary friend as an adult is pitiable.

 

 

-- I feel so much better since I stopped trying to believe.

"We are entitled to our own opinions. We're not entitled to our own facts"- Al Franken

"If death isn't sweet oblivion, I will be severely disappointed" - Ruth M.


Beyond Saving
atheist
Beyond Saving's picture
Posts: 5448
Joined: 2007-10-12
User is offlineOffline
RobbyPants wrote:caposkia

RobbyPants wrote:

caposkia wrote:

RobbyPants wrote:

Nice try. Who caused the flood? God.

Done and done. You fail at analogies. 

If "you fail at analogies" is your only defense on that then I guess my failed analogies are good enough.

Why did God cause the flood?  What was the alternative and outcome?  if you try to answer that, then you're lying to yourself... the correct answer is we don't know.  yes, we know God regretted making mankind because of sins, but why the flood?  why not other stuff?  Again we don't know.

 

RobbyPants wrote:
 
No, that's not what I'm saying, but that's because I reject the notion that there's something out there turning rapes in to "good" things on an unverifiable basis. 

Be it that there are people out there who claim that the child they bore from such situations was a good thing, it seems to be verifiable god or no god.  

RobbyPants wrote:

Let me put it this way: if you believe God can make everything good, and the good ending he wants is going to happen regardless... why does he allow evil and suffering in the first place? There's no reason for it if he turns the bad into good. This is actually a really creepy theological narrative. Typically, theists tend to fall back on the whole "you need to know darkness to know light" or "best of all worlds" defenses. This one is just... weird.

 

let me know if you have more knowledge than the rest of humanity on the subject.  

This is pretty much how every one of these debates ends. The theist saying that they don't know, but still believe anyway. 

 

 

 

caposkia wrote:

RobbyPants wrote:

You have to remember: in Caposkia's world, God is all powerful and all mighty when he's doing good things (or turning bad things into "good things"!) , but when it comes time to dole out punishments (including drowning babies!), suddenly he's an inanimate object; a force of nature that cannot be reasoned with.

He is literally talking about two different entities here and cannot keep his own narratives straight. It took me way too many posts into the conversation to figure this out, but it finally makes sense (well, as much as it can).

is that what I'm doing?  God is someone who turns bad into good... you seem to try to unjustify a judgement of a situation you have little if any knowlege about then try to turn it around and make it sound like I'm talking about 2 different things.  I'm talking about the same being.  The one who judges and the one who loves.  

You posit a being that loves and judges, but when he judges, he's absolved of all his actions as if he had no control but to act in the way that he did. So, when the babies get drown, you figure that that was either the only thing God could have done, or the best thing that he could have done.

I imaging if I ask you why it's the best thing, the answer will be some form of "I don't know, but I still believe it".

 

caposkia wrote:
Your take is that God drowns babies... what was happening to those babies before God drown them?  If God is so terrible for doing so, you must know what kind of life they had before hand.   Or is it that you're passing judgement on something you have no knowlege about.. you know, kind of like religious sects do.  

 

Again, more of you simply saying you don't know, but still believe regardless. 

Well said Robby, you have said in a few short sentences what I have been unable to convey in the last couple months in another thread on the same/similar topic. 

If, if a white man puts his arm around me voluntarily, that's brotherhood. But if you - if you hold a gun on him and make him embrace me and pretend to be friendly or brotherly toward me, then that's not brotherhood, that's hypocrisy.- Malcolm X


Jabberwocky
atheist
Posts: 411
Joined: 2012-04-21
User is offlineOffline
caposkia wrote:If you can

caposkia wrote:

If you can look at that statement you've said objectively, you'd realize how absurd that is.  to "prevent sin" is to make you a puppet.  Do you really want to live like that?

Consider that you'd also know the difference in burning time depending on weather conditions, wood type and moisture level, elevation among other factors depending on where you start it in the world.  

Consider now that you would have the power to build a fire anywhere you'd like but you knew you only wanted to build one which obligates you to build it in a specific spot... also consider with all those attributes you have no need to build a fire, so why are you building one in the first place and once you've built it, why would you let it go out?

Do you see the correlation with what you're asking me in this?

I'm going to consolidate this a bit, because we're splitting things up too finely again. I don't see what correlation you're speaking of. 

This is the problem when you're positing an omnipotent and omniscient being. He had to deliberately create everything how he created it, knowing each and every detail of the result. He would know that I would come to type this post. 

Now, what if this post was going to de-convert Christians (wouldn't it be nice!), and god simply decided to remove my desire to write it, is that a violation of free will? I would end up not writing the post because I simply didn't feel like it, but it was god manipulating my desires. Is that a violation of the agreement? I was never actively controlled, but my desires were manipulated deliberately, because someone above wanted me to behave differently.

But here's the problem. God could have made the universe a bit different, where all things until now were identical, but now I noticed a bird on my balcony, and decided to feed the bird instead of writing this post. God would have to know what tiny variable he had to change during the moment of initial creation in order for that bird to be there. By doing that, he would have prevented me from writing this post. Is THAT a violation of free will? 

If it is, then how does an omnipotent/omniscient god provide us with free will, when he created everything specifically in order for us to behave how we have thus far, and make the decisions that we have thus far? He would know a way for me to not write this post, but he also had to know how to create the universe in order for me TO write this post as well. That means that god created the universe that eventually resulted in my typing this post, and he knew that it would happen. If that is a violation of free will, then there can be no free will under Christianity, because god decided what we were all going to do anyways, even though we're the ones who are choosing to do it. He knows how long that fire will burn, and how. He knows in what order the molecules will be subject to the chemical reaction of wood burning.

If god knows these things going in, then our free will is worthless.

If he doesn't, he's not all knowing. 

caposkia wrote:

You'd figure, but then again we haven't a clue of the alternatives.  I consider all the possibilities my life would have if I didn't have kids... but I wouldn't change the choice of having kids for anything.  How absurd!

For an omnipotent being, the alternatives have to be literally anything. The alternatives have to be everything we can imagine, then everything that we can't even fathom. To say that the alternatives are anything less than that, would be to say that your god is limited, and therefore not omnipotent. So does god have these limitations, or does he not?

caposkia wrote:

Jabberwocky wrote:

However, you know who couldn't come up with something better? Bronze age goat-herders. Everything makes more sense when you see the bible that way. You don't have to answer with "I don't know. It's mysterious. It's god's nature!". You can just answer honestly, and see genocide as genocide. You can see that it's just a story written by people who were living in a primitive society, and were still far from discovering a just system of morals. 

That would make sense if it wasn't written with confirmed prophesy and rational effective advice... those primitive societies seemed to have a better grasp on how to be succcessful in life than we do today... weird!

No. There is no confirmed prophecy in the bible. I can predict that someone this weekend will win the lottery, and I will be right every single weekend. Why? Because I have provided no specific information. There are lotteries all over the world, and even on a very statistically improbable week where, say nobody wins the Powerball, 6/49 or LottoMax in Canada, EuroMillions, or anything of the major ones, I can look up lotteries all over the world, and without a problem, find several where someone won the entire jackpot. Now, if I were to tell you that "on this weekend, a person living in this community, will win this lottery", then I have done something more impressive. The bible never delves into specifics. When you are this vague, you can call your prediction correct just about any time you want. It does not mean that it is prophecy. 

The bible does have some rational effective advice. I'm glad it said not to commit murder, or steal. However, I highly doubt I require a book to tell me that.

 

Now, the bible also does tell you that rape is ok as long as you marry your victim (and that also means that the victim must marry their attacker), and even specifically outlines how much you are to pay her father for his troubles. It tells you how to treat slaves, and how much beating them is too much. It tells you to feed your enemies poo (Ezekiel 4:12...this one is fun). You find this to be a better grasp on how to be successful? Just which things in the bible that are illegal, immoral, and barbaric would you be doing if the law or society didn't stop you? 

Theists - If your god is omnipotent, remember the following: He (or she) has the cure for cancer, but won't tell us what it is.


RobbyPants
atheist
RobbyPants's picture
Posts: 148
Joined: 2011-11-30
User is offlineOffline
Beyond Saving wrote:Well

Beyond Saving wrote:

Well said Robby, you have said in a few short sentences what I have been unable to convey in the last couple months in another thread on the same/similar topic. 

Thanks. On another note, it looks like your quote tags are mis-matched somewhere. 


caposkia
Theist
Posts: 2701
Joined: 2007-05-15
User is offlineOffline
blacklight915 wrote:Just

blacklight915 wrote:

Just like giving your money to a person who threatens to harm you is a "choice". Just like accidently walking into the path of a sniper bullet is a "choice". Sorry for my mocking. However, I really don't know how else to respond to a statement so...twisted.

no, it's more like choosing jail or school as a choice.  What you example is force and an attempt to take choice away from the individual.  

blacklight915 wrote:

You deliberately misrepresented my position, then mocked it. That does not count as "being blunt", caposkia.

did I now.  Again, if I am being such a way, then we need to stop talking because I obviously don't respect you.  Your choice here... yet we're still talking.  That tells me that what you claim here isn't really true.

blacklight915 wrote:

Good. Then, even if I died shortly after finishing this post, I wouldn't go to Hell?

Depends on the choices you've made.  I can't determine through a blog whether you'd go to Hell or not.

blacklight915 wrote:

EDIT: I don't wish to explain why, but it's better for me if I stop talking with you. For now, at least. I really hope you don't mind. Don't feel you need to respond to anything above the line that starts with "EDIT".

 

that's fine.  I understand.  We're not really getting anywhere at this point.  We were making better progress before


caposkia
Theist
Posts: 2701
Joined: 2007-05-15
User is offlineOffline
Beyond Saving wrote:caposkia

Beyond Saving wrote:

caposkia wrote:

Considering the analogy we're talking about above where we're talking about college age children, I don't know... do you have insight that I don't?  

Considering your twist on my words to apply also to infants, who is responsible for the safety and wellbeing of infants?  If a parent is not capable of taking care of them in that day and age, what happens to them?  If a parent like in this scenario pays the ultimate price for their crimes along with their friends and neighbors, what woudl happen to these infants?  

Don't sink to the Sunday school answer either.  You and I both know it wouldn't fly if I pulled it out.

No, we are talking about a flood that killed every human being on the planet, that includes infants and all ages. I pull out the infants because I know you will try to convince me that the 5 year olds were already corrupted, evil and somehow responsible for their own choice to ignore gods warnings. (after all, if you warn your murder victim it isn't murder) The parents might bear some responsibility for making the psychopath mad, and maybe for failing to act from stopping the psychopath. But does that absolve the psychopath from responsibility?

Your first analogy was accurate. You just realized you had to change it because what your god did was so crazy and indefensible for anyone who takes the basic moral stand that killing innocents is wrong. 

I had to change it???  Since when did infants go to college?  What specifically did I change?  

anyway, Let's assume this psychopath btw is responsible... He is just as responsible as any other judge that is called a psychopath for sending a family member to death according to the law stated... and again, parents are responsible for their child... How many parents today would quickly change what they are doing if they knew not changing would mean the death of their children which would be squarely on their shoulders because they had a choice?

You can try to manipulate it all you want, but when it comes down to it, children are always victims of other peoples bad choices... this is accurate today and throughout history.  Does it mean the children were at fault?  even the 5 year olds?  

I don't care what age you make them, if they are considered a child, they are usually a victim of others mistakes and/or choices good or bad

 


caposkia
Theist
Posts: 2701
Joined: 2007-05-15
User is offlineOffline
RobbyPants wrote:This is

RobbyPants wrote:

This is pretty much how every one of these debates ends. The theist saying that they don't know, but still believe anyway. 

You're suggesting it's over???  so soon?  The problem with that statement is it automatically assumes that the believer in order to believe has to know everything.  that is ignorant.  If God is real, it is logical to conclude that believers know very little, but what they do know is a God that loves them and an understanding of the reasoning behind His laws and how we are not able to achieve His glory through works of those Laws.  

The subject at hand is asking me to be an eye witness and personal assistant of God during the time in question so I can determine how appropriate the approach taken at the time was.  At best we are speculating that people were not all bad and that the child victims had good lives until God took them away.  

RobbyPants wrote:

You posit a being that loves and judges, but when he judges, he's absolved of all his actions as if he had no control but to act in the way that he did. So, when the babies get drown, you figure that that was either the only thing God could have done, or the best thing that he could have done.

God chooses to be just and unchanging... that means he's not going to judge anyone differently than anyone else as harsh as that might seem.  Again you're trying to blame God for a choice the parents of those children made.

RobbyPants wrote:

I imaging if I ask you why it's the best thing, the answer will be some form of "I don't know, but I still believe it".

I imagine if i ask you what the better alternative could be you might answer I don't know, or just how about saving the children and killing the rest or some sort of compromise that you posit would not have any adverse future results... yet you still don't believe and still don't really know the results of an alternative choice nor what life was like at that time.  

I should ask you this... how would you expect me to know exactly why this one choice in history was the best choice?  I understand that God has not proven to me that he makes bad choices and all His choices in history have only proven a better future for His followers, so why should I doubt that it wasn't the best choice? 

 

caposkia wrote:
Your take is that God drowns babies... what was happening to those babies before God drown them?  If God is so terrible for doing so, you must know what kind of life they had before hand.   Or is it that you're passing judgement on something you have no knowlege about.. you know, kind of like religious sects do.  

 

Again, more of you simply saying you don't know, but still believe regardless.   

as are you apparently.  except that the 2nd part of your answer is; "but I still don't believe regardless"  If I'm wrong above and here then answer the question.  


caposkia
Theist
Posts: 2701
Joined: 2007-05-15
User is offlineOffline
double post

double post