the loss of god

pm9347
Theist
pm9347's picture
Posts: 82
Joined: 2007-03-12
User is offlineOffline
the loss of god

im concerned that the loss of god in our society is creating a world that will be an terrible place to live. Look at the news everday the worst type of human behavior is is shown , our society is falling apart. now its true our media is the worst at reporting the truth. They are more interested in selling papers , but looking at the issue god has been removed from the basics of the community, and now people have lost the fear of judgement by god . Since they have no one to fear and fear causes guidance , they feel they are free to do whatever they want , killing , divorce , rape , etc. how do athiest maitain a moral system without guidance ? is there a moral code ? does the law become the guidance ? i need some understanding.

 

pat


tr1nity
Theist
tr1nity's picture
Posts: 104
Joined: 2007-05-28
User is offlineOffline
From Magus article

From Magus article 1:

 

“The non-religious, proevolution democracies contradict the dictum that a society cannot enjoy good conditions unless most citizens ardently believe in a moral creator. "

 

 

Your foolishness is to ignore the spiritual battlefield that we are clearly under of course. You assume to know that these "non-religious, proevolution democracies" this article speaks would exist as they are separate from faith in God. These types of societies are parasites feeding on the spiritual food overflowing from the table of the USA. They've been feeding for generations now. Their entire ability to perceive the world as they do only exists as an aspect of what has already been done.

 

The "dismal" performance of the US is merely that Satan's shock troops are at our gates in order to create this very perception. It's a false positive, nothing more.

 

This is true because doing right is never wrong and doing wrong is never right.

 

------L
C H R I S T
--------V
---------E
----------S


Magus
High Level DonorModerator
Magus's picture
Posts: 592
Joined: 2007-04-11
User is offlineOffline
tr1nity wrote:From Magus

tr1nity wrote:

From Magus article 1:

 

“The non-religious, proevolution democracies contradict the dictum that a society cannot enjoy good conditions unless most citizens ardently believe in a moral creator. "

 

Your foolishness is to ignore the spiritual battlefield that we are clearly under of course. You assume to know that these "non-religious, proevolution democracies" this article speaks would exist as they are separate from faith in God. These types of societies are parasites feeding on the spiritual food overflowing from the table of the USA. They've been feeding for generations now. Their entire ability to perceive the world as they do only exists as an aspect of what has already been done.

 

The "dismal" performance of the US is merely that Satan's shock troops are at our gates in order to create this very perception. It's a false positive, nothing more.

 

This is true because doing right is never wrong and doing wrong is never right.

 

Have any evidence to back up your claims or are you just making shit up again?


 

Sounds made up...
Agnostic Atheist
No, I am not angry at your imaginary friends or enemies.


tr1nity
Theist
tr1nity's picture
Posts: 104
Joined: 2007-05-28
User is offlineOffline
Magus wrote: Have any

Magus wrote:

 Have any evidence to back up your claims or are you just making shit up again?

 

 

You have any evidence that the reason their society exists at all came separate from their ancestors faith in God?

------L
C H R I S T
--------V
---------E
----------S


Jormungander
atheistScience Freak
Jormungander's picture
Posts: 938
Joined: 2008-07-15
User is offlineOffline
tr1nity wrote:Other than the

tr1nity wrote:

Other than the genocide thing, I never said anything like that was "ok", I just explained it's necessity as an option offering the argument against the automatic default to the claim of the description of the killing of women and children in the bible as being this something called "egregious".

 ...

You, on the other hand remain unable to offer your argument as to why it IS egregious. Just saying it is over and over again isn't an argument. It's called a "bald" or unfounded assertion.

This is what blows my mind in these kinds of discussions. The mass murder of infants and the enslavement of children is seen as a conditionally ok thing by people who defend the Old Testament as being moral. I'm going to make a bold claim here: genocide, the mass murder of infants and making sex slaves out of children is universally wrong. In the exact same sense that me going out and killing a family or raping someone is wrong, it is wrong to engage in mass murders and mass rape. Could we both agree that murder is wrong on a one person murdering another person basis? Most people then extrapolate from that proposition to thinking that murder is then also wrong when it is on an ethnic group versus ethnic group basis. It is wrong if the Hutus are mass murdering and raping Tutsis, it is wrong if Stalin is engineering mass starvation to wipe out vast numbers of people, and it is wrong if Eastern European ethnic groups engage in mass killings and rapes of other Eastern European ethnic groups. Can we agree on the inherent immorality of those three examples? The people here who are against the Biblical examples of genocide are against them on the basis that genocide is always wrong. We don't see any difference between Hutus attempting to wipe out all Tutsis and Israelites attempting to wipe out various neighbors.

 

 

 

tr1nity wrote:

Ok, I believe it is good that those tribes ,as described in the bible, were removed from the face of the earth. It allowed us to "live" here and now versus being dead or more likely non-existent as our ancestors would have wiped themselves out long ago.

You seem to be demonizing these tribes as being so purely evil that they must have been wiped out in order to allow the good humans to survive. Comparing them to cancer, a virus and the cannibal bear people from the "The 13th Warrior" is your attempt to dehumanize them. I'm not so sure that they were as evil as you seem to be thinking that they are. Israelites lived among some of those people and found wives among them. Were these senselessly evil people who had to be wiped in order for the Israelites to survive? Or, were these just a bunch of neighboring bronze age tribes, some of which were very friendly and good sources of foreign (ie: non-incest) wives? One of the things that the Israelites had to occasionally do is kill other Israelites that married foreigners. I do not believe that the genocides described in the Old Testament are moral because you suppose that we wouldn't be alive today if they didn't happen. We would still be alive, there would just be a few more North African and Middle Eastern ethnic groups. Wiping these obscure groups out wasn't a neccessary precondition for our modern existance.

Also, the Israelites aren't our ancestors. I'm Western and Northern European caucasian and you seem to be that kind of caucasian in your picture. We didn't come from a North African and Middle Eastern tribe. Are you claiming to be a Mizrahi Jew (you know, the ones actually from the Middle East and North Africa, unlike the European jews that we are mostly used to)? Are you claiming that modern civilized society could not have come about if those obscure ethnic groups weren't wiped out by ancient Israelites?

"You say that it is your custom to burn widows. Very well. We also have a custom: when men burn a woman alive, we tie a rope around their necks and we hang them. Build your funeral pyre; beside it, my carpenters will build a gallows. You may follow your custom. And then we will follow ours."
British General Charles Napier while in India


FurryCatHerder
Theist
FurryCatHerder's picture
Posts: 1253
Joined: 2007-06-02
User is offlineOffline
tr1nity wrote:butterbattle

tr1nity wrote:

butterbattle wrote:

What is "truth?" Why can't life exist if there is no "truth?"

umm, certain procedures must be followed to conceive and raise a child. The absence of following these procedures makes life absent. Is this not true? Further certain "spiritual" feelings MUST be acted on in specific ways to conceive and nurture a child. It is complex, true, but it does exist. The nature of nature makes the truth true or existent. It's existence "persists" even now. Our indiidual persistent existence defines or reflects the nature of the truth that made us so.

In a word -- "No".

There's no significant difference between homo sapien sexual reproduction and the sexual antics of other primates, none of whom are expected to believe in Jesus or die and roast forever in hell.

Additionally, I'm sure there are avowed Atheists, and non--Christian Theists who've managed to reproduce and raise children in a nurturing environment.

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


tr1nity
Theist
tr1nity's picture
Posts: 104
Joined: 2007-05-28
User is offlineOffline
 From Magus article

 

From Magus article 2:

"Agreement with the hypothesis that belief in a creator is beneficial to societies is largely based on assumption, anecdotal accounts, and on studies of limited scope and quality restricted to one population"

 

Incorrect, the entire social experiment visible today, is the result of faith in God. No society has persisted or evidently will persist separate from faith. As these are the evidentiary facts of the case I argue further that no society will, or even can, come about separate from faith in God, nor will it persist as evidenced by the absence of the existence of such societies.

 

I guess that would be an "assumption" as written in this article. Just pointing out the facts.

 

The fact is that the most godless society you could find today has roots of interface with the divine that affected their world views and has redirected every nation on earth to their present states.

 

 

------L
C H R I S T
--------V
---------E
----------S


Peppermint42
atheistSuperfan
Peppermint42's picture
Posts: 170
Joined: 2009-11-15
User is offlineOffline
Okay I've asked you before,

Okay I've asked you before, but maybe my questions were not worded correctly because you never give a real answer, you just allude to a previous post or go off on a rant that does not tell me anything I can translate into a "yes" or a "no", so let me try this one last time.

Does God make you love your family?

and

If God told you to kill your daughter would you do it?

 

I ask these questions because I want to know, not because I'm making a judgment on your character.  Some Christians do believe that killing (especially in the name of God) is justifiable.  I have a feeling that you don't want to answer them because the answer is "yes", and that creates some cognitive dissonance in you. On the one hand, you are a good Christian because God really is the center of your world.  On the other hand, you devalue your own relationship with those you love because they'll never mean more to you than your faith.

I'm not trying to turn you into an atheist here I just want you to be honest, both with all of us and with yourself.


tr1nity
Theist
tr1nity's picture
Posts: 104
Joined: 2007-05-28
User is offlineOffline
Jormungander wrote: We

Jormungander wrote:

 We don't see any difference between Hutus attempting to wipe out all Tutsis and Israelites attempting to wipe out various neighbors.

   

 

You are correct sir. It was and is never good that such a thing occur. Very good, now you go the next step. If you are attacked in your home, who gets to live in the house?

 

After that guess work is done, I would ask who "should" live in the house? Then I would ask "why?"

------L
C H R I S T
--------V
---------E
----------S


tr1nity
Theist
tr1nity's picture
Posts: 104
Joined: 2007-05-28
User is offlineOffline
Gallowsbait wrote:Does God

Gallowsbait wrote:

Does God make you love your family?

and

If God told you to kill your daughter would you do it?

  I have a feeling that you don't want to answer them because the answer is "yes", and that creates some cognitive dissonance in you.

 

Does God make you love your family?:

Sometimes he blesses me with the opportunity...occassionally yes.

 

If God told you to kill your daughter would you do it?:

 I seldom do what God tells me to do, in fact, yep never really have.

It would be difficult to find a reference of such a thing ever occurring in the bible except the very particular situation of Abraham. The assumption that God ever would ask me to do something like that is without a foundation. Abram was a very special relationship that built up to the covenant between God and all mankind. So the one time God did ask someone to do this it was apparently quite a thing to ask of someone, even to God! He changed His mind and sent His son to die instead.

 

A rather cavalier question to ask as the only person who could take the curse from us through His death has already done it.

------L
C H R I S T
--------V
---------E
----------S


Peppermint42
atheistSuperfan
Peppermint42's picture
Posts: 170
Joined: 2009-11-15
User is offlineOffline
tr1nity wrote:  I seldom

tr1nity wrote:

 

 I seldom do what God tells me to do, in fact, yep never really have.

 

.........

I don't even know how to respond to that.  I'm gonna go watch reality tv because that shit makes more sense than you do.


Deadly Fingergun
atheist
Deadly Fingergun's picture
Posts: 237
Joined: 2009-11-19
User is offlineOffline
tr1nity wrote:Does God make

tr1nity wrote:
Does God make you love your family?:

Sometimes he blesses me with the opportunity...occassionally yes.

 

If God told you to kill your daughter would you do it?:

 I seldom do what God tells me to do, in fact, yep never really have.

It would be difficult to find a reference of such a thing ever occurring in the bible except the very particular situation of Abraham. The assumption that God ever would ask me to do something like that is without a foundation. Abram was a very special relationship that built up to the covenant between God and all mankind. So the one time God did ask someone to do this it was apparently quite a thing to ask of someone, even to God! He changed His mind and sent His son to die instead.

 

A rather cavalier question to ask as the only person who could take the curse from us through His death has already done it.

Does your brain ever cramp up after twisting into pretzel shapes like this?

There is equally no reason to think that at some point this "god" fellow would not decide it was high time for human sacrifice. Precedent be damned (literally), this is god and this is his ant farm, to shake up and toy with entirely as he pleases. Just because you believe that so far god has been utterly just and fair and loving does not mean that won't come to an end. The all-powerful nature of this god person means any covenant that exists, exists for and at his discretion and his discretion alone.

Don't give me any crap about "Oh, god is love, he would never..." because you can not know that. You can know that "so far, he's all love and kindness" (even if folks might disagree) but the future is entirely up to the god fellow. If he decides the whole Abrahamic covenant and Christ suffering forgiveness no longer counts, well, that's it then, isn't it? Because, he's god and he makes the rules.

Big E wrote:
Clown
Why, yes, I am!


Deadly Fingergun
atheist
Deadly Fingergun's picture
Posts: 237
Joined: 2009-11-19
User is offlineOffline
Gallowsbait wrote:.........I

Gallowsbait wrote:
.........

I don't even know how to respond to that.  I'm gonna go watch reality tv because that shit makes more sense than you do.

*wince*

 

Best. Insult. EVAR.

Big E wrote:
Clown
Why, yes, I am!


tr1nity
Theist
tr1nity's picture
Posts: 104
Joined: 2007-05-28
User is offlineOffline
Deadly Fingergun

Deadly Fingergun wrote:

 he's god and he makes the rules.

He is so perfect that He reveals that any sin, even the slightest one, undoes everything ever made, even rules.

 

------L
C H R I S T
--------V
---------E
----------S


Deadly Fingergun
atheist
Deadly Fingergun's picture
Posts: 237
Joined: 2009-11-19
User is offlineOffline
tr1nity wrote:He is so

tr1nity wrote:
He is so perfect that He reveals that any sin, even the slightest one, undoes everything ever made, even rules.
So he's said. How do you know that's so?


 

Big E wrote:
Clown
Why, yes, I am!


FurryCatHerder
Theist
FurryCatHerder's picture
Posts: 1253
Joined: 2007-06-02
User is offlineOffline
tr1nity wrote:Deadly

tr1nity wrote:

Deadly Fingergun wrote:

 he's god and he makes the rules.

He is so perfect that He reveals that any sin, even the slightest one, undoes everything ever made, even rules.

Huh?

Okay, this is a new one on me.  Most Christians seem to believe that G-d can't change the rules mid-game.  Which is one of the reasons Christians contort "The Rules" so much -- trying to find some way to rationalize what can't be rationalized EXCEPT by claiming that their opponents in an argument have the wrong set of rules.

If your god can just change the rules, what's to keep your god from deciding that this or that act of worship or belief or disbelief is now grounds for being sent to Hell for a nice eternal roasting?

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


Jormungander
atheistScience Freak
Jormungander's picture
Posts: 938
Joined: 2008-07-15
User is offlineOffline
tr1nity wrote:You are

tr1nity wrote:

You are correct sir. It was and is never good that such a thing occur. Very good, now you go the next step. If you are attacked in your home, who gets to live in the house?

 

After that guess work is done, I would ask who "should" live in the house? Then I would ask "why?"

Not to be difficult, but I don't get what you are asking. Who gets to live in my house? Is 'house' figurative for my nation or city? If that is a literal question, then "my roommates" is the answer. It is their house (or one of them is on the lease anyways). I'm just renting a room. Who 'should' live in my house? Well, my roommates and me. We collectively pay rent and bills. By virtue of the monthly cheques we send out, we are entitled to live here. "Why?" Because the house's real owner has a lease with one of my room mates and he has room mates such as myself to ease the burden of covering the lease. I don't suppose that the realistic answers to your question address the point that it is trying to make. You'll need to rephrase what you are asking.

Keep in mind that the Israelites wiped out apparently non-hostile groups. Friendly groups that supplied the Israelites with wives and tried to intermingle with the Israelites were wiped out just as thouroughly as hostile groups. This isn't like you killing those assaulting your home. This is like you killing the family that a child of yours married into and then killing the child for being contaminated by contact with strangers. I'm not against Israelites defending themselves from assault from hostile neighbors. I am against them wiping out groups that tried to intermingle and be friends with them. That seems to be senseless barbarism on the Israelites part. This is why I think the Hutu and Tutsi analogy works so well for the Israelites. The Tutsis and Hutus weren't really even two distinct groups. There was frequent intermarriage and hybrid offspring. But, some Hutus wanted to kill all Tutsis and purge their own ranks of what they considered to be impure part-Tutsis. So they killed every Tutsi, everyone who married a Tutsi and every part-Tutsi that they could. This seems to be exactly, in every way, what the Israelites did according to the Old Testament. And this seems very, very immoral.

"You say that it is your custom to burn widows. Very well. We also have a custom: when men burn a woman alive, we tie a rope around their necks and we hang them. Build your funeral pyre; beside it, my carpenters will build a gallows. You may follow your custom. And then we will follow ours."
British General Charles Napier while in India


RatDog
atheist
Posts: 573
Joined: 2008-11-14
User is offlineOffline
tr1nity wrote: From Magus

tr1nity wrote:

 

From Magus article 2:

"Agreement with the hypothesis that belief in a creator is beneficial to societies is largely based on assumption, anecdotal accounts, and on studies of limited scope and quality restricted to one population"

 

Incorrect, the entire social experiment visible today, is the result of faith in God. No society has persisted or evidently will persist separate from faith. As these are the evidentiary facts of the case I argue further that no society will, or even can, come about separate from faith in God, nor will it persist as evidenced by the absence of the existence of such societies.

 

I guess that would be an "assumption" as written in this article. Just pointing out the facts.

 

The fact is that the most godless society you could find today has roots of interface with the divine that affected their world views and has redirected every nation on earth to their present states.


Just because religion has been present in all great civilizations in no way mean that it is beneficial to civilization.  Many things are present in civilization but are not beneficial at all.  To give an example of this I will repeat what you said with some alterations to subject which will be in bold, and one alteration to grammar which is underlined.

 No society has persisted or evidently will persist separate from murder. As these are the evidentiary facts of the case I argue further that no society will, or even can, come about separate from murder, nor will it persist as evidenced by the absence of the existence of such societies.

 

I guess that would be an "assumption" as written in this article. Just pointing out the facts.

 

The fact is that the most societies with low murder rates you could find today have roots of interface with murder that affected their world views and has redirected every nation on earth to their present states.

Reading this you would not come to the conclusion that murder is beneficial to society.  What you said also in no way proves that religion is beneficial.  The presence of religion in no way is an argument for the benefits of religion.  If you want to prove that religion is a good thing you are going to have to do better.  Maybe religion can not be totally annihilated from civilization, but just as with murder that doesn't mean we shouldn't try.


tr1nity
Theist
tr1nity's picture
Posts: 104
Joined: 2007-05-28
User is offlineOffline
RatDog wrote:  Maybe

RatDog wrote:

  Maybe religion can not be totally annihilated from civilization, but just as with murder that doesn't mean we shouldn't try.

 

Well I fear to make that association even remotely sane you would have to show that "murder" built anything at all. I mean no life has existed untouched by death after all. Death is absence just as murder is absence. The two cannot be compared in such a way because God has made and murder, from within what was made, has unmade.

 

I will agree that "general" revelation applies as a means of learning about the fundamental truths on which we stand. Death has certainly been a great motivator of many things, but it was not "death" that did it. It was the living souls whose motivation did anything.

 

To argue that God is good you merely have to identify that society is good. If you enjoy a civil society then the God that motivated the living individuals to build it is also good as good cannot come from bad. Murder simpy did not build anything to have something existant we can call good. If you had that, then murder would be good too by association.

------L
C H R I S T
--------V
---------E
----------S


Deadly Fingergun
atheist
Deadly Fingergun's picture
Posts: 237
Joined: 2009-11-19
User is offlineOffline
Deadly Fingergun

Deadly Fingergun wrote:
tr1nity wrote:
He is so perfect that He reveals that any sin, even the slightest one, undoes everything ever made, even rules.
So he's said. How do you know that's so?
Halooo?

Big E wrote:
Clown
Why, yes, I am!


tr1nity
Theist
tr1nity's picture
Posts: 104
Joined: 2007-05-28
User is offlineOffline
Deadly Fingergun

Deadly Fingergun wrote:

Deadly Fingergun wrote:
tr1nity wrote:
He is so perfect that He reveals that any sin, even the slightest one, undoes everything ever made, even rules.
So he's said. How do you know that's so?
Halooo?

 

It invloves the argument of good and evil. To offer an extreme comparison, I reflect upon the yinyang symbol and focus upon its darkness vs. light aspect. You can see why something such as this would be created within the material as we all are surrounded by both dark and light. They coexist with one another evidently as both types of events do occur. Dark events being those that cause us direct experiential pain at one end of the spectrum and those deeds and occurrences which bring us directly great experiential comfort and pleasure at the other.

 

We would need to debate this as I'm sure there are those of you that seem to reject good and evil, so in this limited post I must remain brief and assume that we may agree on this definition of good and evil or dark and light as I wrote.

 

If we assume this then I believe we can percieve a self evident truth that pain and death are directly connected and pleasure and life are also directly connected. So really life and death are the spectrums of light and dark. As this is the case it is impossible that the two can co-exist as life opposes death, it does not co-exist. It's merely existence and its absence which is a fundamental whole as existence will always walk with non-existence within the framework of a finite reality. The end is a part of the whole only in respect of the nature of the actual whole which is existence itself.

 

Only existence can and does exist therefore it is all there is. Absence cannot "be" anything at all. Only within the framework of existence can we perceive whole's and parts.

 

So fundamentally that which brings pain, brings death. Bringing anything at all can only occur within life as absence cannot bring its non-self anywhere as it is absent from "anywhere". So it can neither be anywhere nor bring anywhere.

 

Finally if THE life or God brought death, then life would do nothing more than unmake itself, therefore life cannot bring death and live.

 

Life makes the rules and if it brings its own unmaking then the rules also will be unmade as The Rules can only exist within the existence of The Life.

------L
C H R I S T
--------V
---------E
----------S


Deadly Fingergun
atheist
Deadly Fingergun's picture
Posts: 237
Joined: 2009-11-19
User is offlineOffline
tr1nity wrote:<trim>Life

tr1nity wrote:
<trim>

Life makes the rules and if it brings its own unmaking then the rules also will be unmade as The Rules can only exist within the existence of The Life.

That was full of logical leaps and assumptions.

 

That's immaterial, though, as even if I were to accept the argument as perfect, it still fails to answer the question because this god fellow made the rules in the first place - all of the rules - and your perception of them and where they lead exists only within the context f those very same rules. Meaning: Everything you think you know about god is the result of god's designs. God's actual nature is unknown, because the rules you use to define that nature came into existence after god did.

Unless god follows externally imposed rules, which leaves us with questions like: Who made those rules? Who made god? If god is a creation, is he really god, or just a demigod? Why isn't the meta-god mentioned in god's word?

Big E wrote:
Clown
Why, yes, I am!


Atheistextremist
atheist
Atheistextremist's picture
Posts: 5134
Joined: 2009-09-17
User is offlineOffline
Stop it deadly...

You'll only encourage him...


BobSpence
High Level DonorRational VIP!ScientistWebsite Admin
BobSpence's picture
Posts: 5939
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
I have genuine anguish for

I have genuine anguish for the indoctrination that baby in his lap is going to suffer as they grow up...

 

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

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

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

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


stuntgibbon
Moderator
stuntgibbon's picture
Posts: 699
Joined: 2007-05-17
User is offlineOffline
tr1nity wrote:any sin, even

tr1nity wrote:

any sin, even the slightest one, undoes everything ever made, even rules.

 

Then this god has made shoddy product, but good nonsense!    

 


Deadly Fingergun
atheist
Deadly Fingergun's picture
Posts: 237
Joined: 2009-11-19
User is offlineOffline
Atheistextremist

Atheistextremist wrote:
You'll only encourage him...
Probably true.

But internally inconsistent arguments drive me bonkers.

 

Big E wrote:
Clown
Why, yes, I am!


Atheistextremist
atheist
Atheistextremist's picture
Posts: 5134
Joined: 2009-09-17
User is offlineOffline
Mmmmm

 

I wonder what age psychologists would say a child must be to have achieved a state of free will? It would have to vary wildly. I'm not convinced I operate on the basis of free will at the age of 42. 

Anyway. There's something in Tr1n's tone at times that rather makes me think he's at heart a sensitive and decent person who is in the habit of judging himself much too harshly.

Judging from the way he's looking down at that kid I think everything there will be fine. And - fuck. He hasn't convinced me and I'm not the smartarse teenager of the 2020s his bub is going to be...


 

 

 

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


butterbattle
ModeratorSuperfan
butterbattle's picture
Posts: 3945
Joined: 2008-09-12
User is offlineOffline
tr1nity wrote:I would die

tr1nity wrote:
I would die very quickly through suicide most probably.

Ahahahaha! Omg,

You just made my day.

Edit: Oh wait, I'm sorry, (lmao), this is a very serious topic for you, isn't it? (rofl) I'll try (hahaha) not to laugh any more.

Our revels now are ended. These our actors, | As I foretold you, were all spirits, and | Are melted into air, into thin air; | And, like the baseless fabric of this vision, | The cloud-capped towers, the gorgeous palaces, | The solemn temples, the great globe itself, - Yea, all which it inherit, shall dissolve, | And, like this insubstantial pageant faded, | Leave not a rack behind. We are such stuff | As dreams are made on, and our little life | Is rounded with a sleep. - Shakespeare


butterbattle
ModeratorSuperfan
butterbattle's picture
Posts: 3945
Joined: 2008-09-12
User is offlineOffline
BobSpence1 wrote:I have

BobSpence1 wrote:
I have genuine anguish for the indoctrination that baby in his lap is going to suffer as they grow up...

*sigh* Yeah, daddy thinks women shouldn't have the right to own property. Poor kid.  

tr1nity wrote:
 If God told you to kill your daughter would you do it?:

 I seldom do what God tells me to do, in fact, yep never really have.

It would be difficult to find a reference of such a thing ever occurring in the bible except the very particular situation of Abraham. The assumption that God ever would ask me to do something like that is without a foundation. Abram was a very special relationship that built up to the covenant between God and all mankind. So the one time God did ask someone to do this it was apparently quite a thing to ask of someone, even to God! He changed His mind and sent His son to die instead.

A rather cavalier question to ask as the only person who could take the curse from us through His death has already done it.

We're not assuming that God would actually ask you, and it's irrelevant that Jesus has already relieved us of our sins. The question is hypothetical, understand? You still haven't answered the question. Pretty amazing. 

 

 

Our revels now are ended. These our actors, | As I foretold you, were all spirits, and | Are melted into air, into thin air; | And, like the baseless fabric of this vision, | The cloud-capped towers, the gorgeous palaces, | The solemn temples, the great globe itself, - Yea, all which it inherit, shall dissolve, | And, like this insubstantial pageant faded, | Leave not a rack behind. We are such stuff | As dreams are made on, and our little life | Is rounded with a sleep. - Shakespeare


tr1nity
Theist
tr1nity's picture
Posts: 104
Joined: 2007-05-28
User is offlineOffline
Deadly Fingergun wrote:That

Deadly Fingergun wrote:

That was full of logical leaps and assumptions.

 

 

you mean like this one?

 

Deadly Fingergun wrote:

Unless god follows externally imposed rules, which leaves us with questions like: Who made those rules? Who made god? If god is a creation, is he really god, or just a demigod? Why isn't the meta-god mentioned in god's word?

 

Why exactly is it that God would have to follow "externally imposed rules"?

------L
C H R I S T
--------V
---------E
----------S


jcgadfly
Superfan
Posts: 6791
Joined: 2006-07-18
User is offlineOffline
tr1nity wrote:Deadly

tr1nity wrote:

Deadly Fingergun wrote:

That was full of logical leaps and assumptions.

 

 

you mean like this one?

 

Deadly Fingergun wrote:

Unless god follows externally imposed rules, which leaves us with questions like: Who made those rules? Who made god? If god is a creation, is he really god, or just a demigod? Why isn't the meta-god mentioned in god's word?

 

Why exactly is it that God would have to follow "externally imposed rules"?

Because he has to operate constrained by the humans who thought him up?

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


tr1nity
Theist
tr1nity's picture
Posts: 104
Joined: 2007-05-28
User is offlineOffline
stuntgibbon wrote:Then this

stuntgibbon wrote:

Then this god has made shoddy product, but good nonsense!    

 

 

Do we justify things in debates or do we just stick to 1 liners?

 

Seriously, I'm curious. What's "shoddy" about it exactly? You brought it up after all.

------L
C H R I S T
--------V
---------E
----------S


Deadly Fingergun
atheist
Deadly Fingergun's picture
Posts: 237
Joined: 2009-11-19
User is offlineOffline
tr1nity wrote:Deadly

tr1nity wrote:

Deadly Fingergun wrote:

That was full of logical leaps and assumptions.

 

 

you mean like this one?

 

Deadly Fingergun wrote:

Unless god follows externally imposed rules, which leaves us with questions like: Who made those rules? Who made god? If god is a creation, is he really god, or just a demigod? Why isn't the meta-god mentioned in god's word?

 

Why exactly is it that God would have to follow "externally imposed rules"?

Ha! Hahahaha! You ignored the meat of my argument for this? What an utterly infantile act of quote editing. PATHETIC


I argued, in fact, that god does NOT follow externally imposed rules, and is in fact the imposer of rules. The rules you try to hold him to when you use them to explain his nature. But, since he does NOT have externally imposed rules, he can change the rules as he likes and when he likes.

 

Big E wrote:
Clown
Why, yes, I am!


tr1nity
Theist
tr1nity's picture
Posts: 104
Joined: 2007-05-28
User is offlineOffline
jcgadfly wrote:Because he

jcgadfly wrote:

Because he has to operate constrained by the humans who thought him up?

what about "humans thinking him up" constrains God?

 

 

 

 

------L
C H R I S T
--------V
---------E
----------S


tr1nity
Theist
tr1nity's picture
Posts: 104
Joined: 2007-05-28
User is offlineOffline
Deadly Fingergun wrote:But,

Deadly Fingergun wrote:

But, since he does NOT have externally imposed rules, he can change the rules as he likes and when he likes.

 

 

Well then your talking about unmaking. God would unmake Himself with any imperfection. The fact that we exist is due solely to the perfection of God. You can't do better than perfect ever. Our existence testifies that God has not failed yet. You argue that He could fail to be what He is, well then we would cease to exist just as God would.

 

Of course God is more than a rational idea. He also walks among us, so we can experience Him and reflect on the things we can know and compare them.

------L
C H R I S T
--------V
---------E
----------S


BobSpence
High Level DonorRational VIP!ScientistWebsite Admin
BobSpence's picture
Posts: 5939
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
tr1nity wrote:jcgadfly

tr1nity wrote:

jcgadfly wrote:

Because he has to operate constrained by the humans who thought him up?

what about "humans thinking him up" constrains God?

Because the capabilities of this imagined being is limited to what the people who imagined him could imagine...

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

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

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

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


ClockCat
ClockCat's picture
Posts: 2265
Joined: 2009-03-26
User is offlineOffline
:3

tr1nity wrote:

 He also walks among us, so we can experience Him and reflect on the things we can know and compare them.

 

Please elaborate. 

Theism is why we can't have nice things.


Deadly Fingergun
atheist
Deadly Fingergun's picture
Posts: 237
Joined: 2009-11-19
User is offlineOffline
tr1nity wrote:Well then your

tr1nity wrote:
Well then your talking about unmaking. God would unmake Himself with any imperfection. The fact that we exist is due solely to the perfection of God. You can't do better than perfect ever. Our existence testifies that God has not failed yet. You argue that He could fail to be what He is, well then we would cease to exist just as God would.
And again: How do you know this? Just repeating an assertion does not add validity to it.

You're making claims that only work if you assume the current framework constrains god, too. Yet, you obviously don't think god is so constrained (as in your reply to me above).

 

tr1nity wrote:
Of course God is more than a rational idea. He also walks among us, so we can experience Him and reflect on the things we can know and compare them.
Compare them to whatever is presented, sure.

Big E wrote:
Clown
Why, yes, I am!


Vastet
atheistBloggerSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 13211
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
tr1nity wrote:Vastet

tr1nity wrote:

Vastet wrote:
Oh cool, I was responded to. I understand that in order for life to exist, evolve, and propogate beyond simple abiogenesis, there must be mechanisms inherent to defend self and propogate. Human society has these mechanisms, or human society would not exist.

 

So this "necessity" god of yours "creates" things?

Huh? Please try that again? Your post was both broken and incoherent. The latter in part due to the former, though not entirely.

tr1nity wrote:

Vastet wrote:
That's actually wrong. There are a few.

 

And your list of them includes?

Canada
United States
England
France
Sweden
China
Japan

Should I go on?
Sure, all of them have religious people, but none are religious states/societies. In none of these is religion the law or the standard of living. So you were quite wrong.

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


jcgadfly
Superfan
Posts: 6791
Joined: 2006-07-18
User is offlineOffline
tr1nity wrote:jcgadfly

tr1nity wrote:

jcgadfly wrote:

Because he has to operate constrained by the humans who thought him up?

what about "humans thinking him up" constrains God?

 

 

 

 

As the writers of the Bible constructed him, he is limited by what they could dream up and understand.

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


BobSpence
High Level DonorRational VIP!ScientistWebsite Admin
BobSpence's picture
Posts: 5939
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
As far as we can tell, there

As far as we can tell, there is nothing "necessary" about our existence and survival. Some pre-conditions were necessary for us to have evolved, but our emergence was not "necessary", so neither were those conditions necessary in themselves. They could easily have been different, without violating any logic or basic natural law, in which case our particular Universe would not exist.

With regard to our urges to survive, what is true is simply that if random variation leads to creatures which have some instinct to avoid death, to survive, those individuals will be more likely to survive - ie more likely than the ones which don't run away from predators, for example. There is no purpose in current existence, it is all a consequence of the course of past events and the constraints imposed by the basic laws, along with a big does of random and/or chaotic variation.

There is no logical requirement that whatever pre-conditions were 'necessary' for our Universe to come into existence via the Big Bang involved an intelligent agent of any kind.

 

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

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

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

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


jcgadfly
Superfan
Posts: 6791
Joined: 2006-07-18
User is offlineOffline
tr1nity wrote:Deadly

tr1nity wrote:

Deadly Fingergun wrote:

But, since he does NOT have externally imposed rules, he can change the rules as he likes and when he likes.

 

 

Well then your talking about unmaking. God would unmake Himself with any imperfection. The fact that we exist is due solely to the perfection of God. You can't do better than perfect ever. Our existence testifies that God has not failed yet. You argue that He could fail to be what He is, well then we would cease to exist just as God would.

 

Of course God is more than a rational idea. He also walks among us, so we can experience Him and reflect on the things we can know and compare them.

Our existence is solely due to the perfection of God? Someone has a pisspoor idea of perfection then - look at how shoddily humans are designed. The only thing we have is the ability to adapt to the crappy environment you also claim God's perfection created.

Which image of God have you chosen to walk with? I count three in the Bible.

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


Magus
High Level DonorModerator
Magus's picture
Posts: 592
Joined: 2007-04-11
User is offlineOffline
tr1nity wrote:RatDog

tr1nity wrote:

RatDog wrote:

  Maybe religion can not be totally annihilated from civilization, but just as with murder that doesn't mean we shouldn't try.

 

Well I fear to make that association even remotely sane you would have to show that "murder" built anything at all. I mean no life has existed untouched by death after all. Death is absence just as murder is absence. The two cannot be compared in such a way because God has made and murder, from within what was made, has unmade.

 

I will agree that "general" revelation applies as a means of learning about the fundamental truths on which we stand. Death has certainly been a great motivator of many things, but it was not "death" that did it. It was the living souls whose motivation did anything.

 

To argue that God is good you merely have to identify that society is good. If you enjoy a civil society then the God that motivated the living individuals to build it is also good as good cannot come from bad. Murder simply did not build anything to have something existent we can call good. If you had that, then murder would be good too by association.

 

This is rich.  So I make an argument that god belief is bad for society and cite studies done to prove that point.  You respond that no society can thrive without it because there has not been one without it.  So RatDog says murder has always been there too.  Thus your respond that god belief is "good" to try to establish that it is different than murder. however this leads back the my first point you know the one with the links proving that it isn't good for society. Circular argument.

Sounds made up...
Agnostic Atheist
No, I am not angry at your imaginary friends or enemies.


Deadly Fingergun
atheist
Deadly Fingergun's picture
Posts: 237
Joined: 2009-11-19
User is offlineOffline
Deadly Fingergun wrote:And

Deadly Fingergun wrote:
And again: How do you know this? Just repeating an assertion does not add validity to it.

You're making claims that only work if you assume the current framework constrains god, too. Yet, you obviously don't think god is so constrained (as in your reply to me above).

Halooo?

Big E wrote:
Clown
Why, yes, I am!


Kevin R Brown
Superfan
Kevin R Brown's picture
Posts: 3142
Joined: 2007-06-24
User is offlineOffline
 ...Wait?  Magus? There's

 ...Wait? 

 

Magus?

 

There's a guy actually throwing OT scripture around? For real?

 

That's fantastic.

Trinity, do you still have your tongue? You better fucking not - the Bible implicitly states that you have to cut it out if you ever tell a lie. You don't want to go to...

HELL

...do you?

 

I hear the weather's pretty crummy down there.

 

EDIT:

Quote:
Does God make you love your family?:

Sometimes he blesses me with the opportunity...occassionally yes.

 

If God told you to kill your daughter would you do it?:

 I seldom do what God tells me to do, in fact, yep never really have.

It would be difficult to find a reference of such a thing ever occurring in the bible except the very particular situation of Abraham. The assumption that God ever would ask me to do something like that is without a foundation. Abram was a very special relationship that built up to the covenant between God and all mankind. So the one time God did ask someone to do this it was apparently quite a thing to ask of someone, even to God! He changed His mind and sent His son to die instead.

 

A rather cavalier question to ask as the only person who could take the curse from us through His death has already done it.

This is always classic, too.

 

Guy can't even just say, "No, I would not kill my own family if God told me to do that," 

 

Quote:
"Natasha has just come up to the window from the courtyard and opened it wider so that the air may enter more freely into my room. I can see the bright green strip of grass beneath the wall, and the clear blue sky above the wall, and sunlight everywhere. Life is beautiful. Let the future generations cleanse it of all evil, oppression and violence, and enjoy it to the full."

- Leon Trotsky, Last Will & Testament
February 27, 1940


Deadly Fingergun
atheist
Deadly Fingergun's picture
Posts: 237
Joined: 2009-11-19
User is offlineOffline
Deadly Fingergun wrote:And

Deadly Fingergun wrote:
And again: How do you know this? Just repeating an assertion does not add validity to it.

You're making claims that only work if you assume the current framework constrains god, too. Yet, you obviously don't think god is so constrained (as in your reply to me above).

Where art thou, Tr1nity?

Big E wrote:
Clown
Why, yes, I am!


Vastet
atheistBloggerSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 13211
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
Has he left us? Or has his

Has he left us? Or has his faith in his ability to convert the fallen wavered to the point he had to recharge on god visions?

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


Deadly Fingergun
atheist
Deadly Fingergun's picture
Posts: 237
Joined: 2009-11-19
User is offlineOffline
Vastet wrote:Has he left us?

Vastet wrote:
Has he left us? Or has his faith in his ability to convert the fallen wavered to the point he had to recharge on god visions?
Perhaps an atheist ate his baby?


 

Big E wrote:
Clown
Why, yes, I am!


Atheistextremist
atheist
Atheistextremist's picture
Posts: 5134
Joined: 2009-09-17
User is offlineOffline
No

 

It was a dingo...


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

Deadly Fingergun wrote:

Vastet wrote:
Has he left us? Or has his faith in his ability to convert the fallen wavered to the point he had to recharge on god visions?
Perhaps an atheist ate his baby?

Perhaps he read my signature and was so upset that Heaven was going to be full of nice Atheists, and Hell full of assh0lish Christians, that he gave Jesus up for Lent?

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


FurryCatHerder
Theist
FurryCatHerder's picture
Posts: 1253
Joined: 2007-06-02
User is offlineOffline
BobSpence1 wrote:Because the

BobSpence1 wrote:

Because the capabilities of this imagined being is limited to what the people who imagined him could imagine...

Stop it, Bob.  You're starting to make an argument for why we're not supposed to run around defining G-d.  Keep it up and no more cheeseburgers for you.

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