If the God of the bible does not exist, then why debate it?

Jimenezj
Theist
Posts: 344
Joined: 2011-12-16
User is offlineOffline
If the God of the bible does not exist, then why debate it?

In attacking Jesus Christ , Atheism might render itself a disservice. 

Do you lead an attack on a non existent being? 

Atheism to the logistician seems unreasonable. 

 

 

At night we see many stars in the sky. But when the sun rises, they disappear. Can we claim, therefore, that during the day there are no stars in the sky? If we fail to see God, perhaps it is because we pass through the night of ignorance in this matter. it is premature to claim He does not exist. 

Richard Wurmbrand

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


Vastet
atheistBloggerSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 13210
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
caposkia wrote:Look up the

caposkia wrote:
Look up the origin of the term.

Look up the definition of the term. Origin is irrelevant.

caposkia wrote:
Beyond that, if it's interchangeable, then you've confirmed its subjectivity.

Of course. All that remains is that you accept the reality of the subjectivity of the terms evil and bad.

caposkia wrote:
You've confirmed through research that these things never officially happened?

Yes. Though I question your use of the term official. That suggests it was put to a vote. Facts aren't democratic.

caposkia wrote:
m not trying to accuse you of trying to escape, but you have to admit, your denial of these events ever happening makes the conversation we were having completely pointless.

You're entitled to your opinion.

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


Vastet
atheistBloggerSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 13210
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
caposkia wrote:Consider

caposkia wrote:
Consider this.  If you live in America, I'm willing to bet you without conscious choice act much more like an American than anyone from any other country.  

And you would be completely wrong. Lets assume you used the proper term and nation, Canada. I do NOT act like a 'typical' Canadian. I don't like alcohol, I'm not the most friendly person you'll ever meet, I don't have the compulsion to apologise for everything, I don't like Celine Dion. I could go on.

You can pretend I'm influenced by things I don't want to be influenced by all you like, but that just makes you an arrogant liar who thinks he knows everything about someone he's never even met.

caposkia wrote:
Also, let's take into consideration the 1% of historical influence... if we just take the history of humanity from our estimated beginning as homosapiens, your severely limited influence is 2000 years worth.

Try less than 1% of 2000 years. And it still doesn't influence me unless I allow it to.

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


Vastet
atheistBloggerSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 13210
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
caposkia wrote:You can deny

caposkia wrote:
You can deny influence all you want, but again, you are only able to choose what you are conscious of.  It is not psychologically possible for you to be aware of all possible influence on your life past, present and future and you can only disallow and/or change that which you are conscious of.  

You can deny reality all you like, but that just brings you back to that arrogant liar problem.

caposkia wrote:
The only way of a 100% probability of life forming in our universe is in retrospect, because it's happened, so of course at this point it is 100%.

Wrong.

caposkia wrote:
But considering the reality of our universe and the conditions that needed to take place in order for life to not only be possible, but to actually form into intelligence are likely closer to .01% in 4 Billion years.

Wrong.

caposkia wrote:
In the case of humans, the number of evolutionary steps needed in order for life to happen is 4 each having 10%~snip

Wrong.

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


Vastet
atheistBloggerSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 13210
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
caposkia

caposkia wrote:
 http://www.science20.com/news_releases/the_mathematical_probability_of_life_on_other_earth_like_planets 

Funny all I see there is unsupported assertions couched in unshown mathematics. Where's the real calculation so I can rip it apart? It's been years since I had the fun of obliterating the unscientific and ridiculous probability equations creationists come up with.

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


danatemporary
danatemporary's picture
Posts: 1951
Joined: 2011-01-12
User is offlineOffline
Pogo (comic strip): "We have met the enemy and he is us"

 

re :: The tides of War

blacklight915 wrote:

caposkia wrote:

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

{blacklight915 wrote}

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


 

  The world suffers violence, and the violent take it by force.

  O, The endless sea of blood from the petty ambitions of the few

 Forgive the dark humor

Gospel of St Luke wrote:
  I have come to set the world on fire, and I wish it were already burning! (1 Cor. 15:52) (double meaning)

'People in present coming era [Kali age] turn out to be greedy, immoral and merciless; they freely enter into violence without cause and are unlucky and excessively covetous.' -

¬Srimad Bhagavata

  Pogo (comic strip): "We have met the enemy and he is us"

   Caposkia has a daunting task, I personally don't envy.  I might be wasting my time to point this out. But, I hope it could be a vehicle for another discussion. He may be alluding to societal structure being totalitarian and 'godless',. What is really at work ?  The historian and moralist John Emerich Edward Dalberg Acton is credited with the words:  "Power tends to corrupt, and absolute power corrupts absolutely". The immediate subsequent sentence  that follows :  "Great men are almost always bad men",(according to Dalberg-Acton). Another view of human history!! Many of these 'great men' (historically), are often steeped in blood and violence or find their means to power via warfare.  Positions of power are tenuous at best, and leaders fret (and fear) lose of control, (this can only lead to evil doing)!!  *O, The needlessly suffered that lay at the feet of their petty foolish ambition, paranoia & 'fear(s)' of those welders of power. Many of the greater monstrous atrocities you find throughout history, lie with the petty ambitions of the few...Every subject's duty is the king's; but every subject's soul is his own (Henry V)... The reasonable mind rejects the idea that human beings can be this callous and evil, but we all have to live with the reality that is... As humans, we have the ability to empathize and sympathize with pain and sufferings of our fellow man. Humanity has no want for lack of suffering. Religion at times provides a way for distorting our moral sense as much as or even more than supporting it. Acts such as rape, sadistic torture, or on a larger scale genocide are considered 'morally' reprehensible across the board, including with the 'godless' too. Others have felt nothing has stopped these things from happening. Some would argue making 'religion' almost a moot point.  I am unaware of any 12 Step program(s) for tyrants, short of a rude moralistic awakening. At the risk of sounding silly, mother must have failed to teach them not to be selfish.  If the leader or crown cannot be loved, at least he or she may be feared... It is no secret I am an anti-utopian myself! Whether pessimist or optimist. One lives in hope (for us all), that we'd collectively look to the better Angels of our Nature  (but sadly mankind may simply suicide long before then).

 ___

 (Edit:: Came Back to ADD the Image Uploaded 16±1 hours later)

___

 Great is the common suffering of mankind... HENRY V -- * Thou proud dream, That play'st so subtly with a king's repose; I am a king that find thee .. 


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

Beyond Saving wrote:

caposkia wrote:

Considering sin, this being doesn't hold a different morality, or if He does, then it is us that has a lower morality, not God.  God asks for animal sacrifices.  

How do you know that God's morality is better than ours? 

God created us based on His own characteristics, based on that alone, we could not have a higher morality than He.  Also, our morality seems quite subjective to the situation and has changed dramatically from one moment to the next let alone one generation to another.  God's morality is objective to the Laws He put forth and have not changed as far as we can tell from the beginning.

Beyond Saving wrote:

I haven't. There are many humans who don't share my morality. Christians often attempt to justify the supposed actions of their god. You have spent a fair amount of time justifying the murder of most humans in the world during the flood. How is that different than the humans who have rationalized murder, slavery and all other sorts of horrors in the past? 

The Law of God is clearly stated and so are the consequences for breaking it.  Also, those Laws are not only as clear as day, but they haven't changed or needed modification.  

Beyond Saving wrote:

Yet those of us who don't believe when we die are screwed. Is it supposed to make me feel better that someone else might go there with me because they somehow knew and suppressed it? I think the whole idea is rather absurd. I doubt there is a single person in the world who knows that god exists and seeks to suppress that knowledge. 

 

You might want to read the Gospels again then.

Those of you who don't believe are judged according to the Laws you were under.  I'm willing to bet you'll be found guilty of breaking many laws over the years no matter how minor you think they were.  

The idea is "all fall short of the glory of God".  In other words, none of us have been able to meet Gods standards due to the endless generations of mistakes made in the past.  I understand that they have compiled so much we can't tel anymore what is right or wrong.  

Beyond Saving wrote:

I can't think of any context or intention which makes genocide anything other than evil.

What if that race's intention was to eliminate all other followings/races?  Is it evil to commit genocide of that one people group or allow that one people group to commit genocide a number of times themselves?  

Races don't have intentions. Individual people do. It is evil to commit genocide on any group. 

I beg to differ if you look into history (if race is the wrong term or to broad, I mean people group).  And so which then would be evil, or both would and thus we should allow the greater evil to unfold to assure that a lesser evil doesn't happen?

Beyond Saving wrote:

I didn't say all of them were for minor reasons, just many. 

Ah.. so which ones specifically are "minor"?

Beyond Saving wrote:

Lots wife: Yeah, he killed her while killing a bunch of other people. I don't see how that makes his actions more justified. And once again you use the "he warned them" defense. I do not see how warning someone you are going to kill them necessarily translates into the killing being justified.

Did God actually kill her or just let her die?  Consider a war scenario where there was going to be a planned attack on a particular location due to whatever is happening there.  To all the people who didn't need to be in there, they were warned not to go in there because it was getting destroyed.  Someone who didn't belong chose to go back and ended up getting caught in the crossfire.  Was that killing unjustified?  justified?  or was it just that the person made the wrong choice despite the warnings?  Sure the army could have seen the person decided to go back in there and tried to retreat in order to save their life, but would that have been a smart choice or the right choice?

Beyond Saving wrote:

 

Er: Who knows


 

God

Beyond Saving wrote:

Onan: Seriously? Even if spilling his seed had terrible consequences for the future, Onan had no way to know. Don't you think that when determining the consequences for an action that intent should be factored in?

If you knew the context of why He was asked to do it in the first place, You would see He knew.  It was considered His duty as a brother-in-Law according to their laws at the time and they also knew God and more about Gods plans than we do.  He was not in the dark about what was happening.

Beyond Saving wrote:

There is a huge difference between someone who takes a gun and intentionally shoots someone and someone who is involved in an accident with a gun but had no intention to cause harm. If a 2 year old pulled that trigger, obviously they had no intention to cause harm- I would not support punishing the 2 year old at all, would you?

And what context could possibly justify sending bears to tear 42 children into pieces because they.... made fun of a man for having a bald head. The context is that the God of the old testament killed a lot of people directly and also commanded his followers to kill a lot of people including children and infants. He also ordered his followers to implement the death penalty for all sorts of offenses. To top it all off, these people were killed in some very brutal ways.  

Beyond Saving wrote:
 

 I don't believe it was God they were making fun of but Elisha.  Who was it then that turned, saw them making fun of him and cursed them?  If you read I think you'll see it wasn't God.  Was that a right choice?  The Bible doesn't say.  and yes the Bible depicts in many cases that people would have the power to curse others and have results from it.  

Beyond Saving wrote:

Yes it is. And your second sentence does not follow as a consequence. Other people's thought processes exist, but a thought process is not evidence, it is merely the formation of an opinion or belief. 

From what source?  How can you be sure it's their own?  Are you sure they have a thought process?  Are you even sure they have formed an opinion or belief?  Or is it in your own mind that you come to the conclusion that what you hear from them is an opinion or a belief?  Without physical evidence, none of this can be confirmed and physical evidence likely wouldn't provide a sufficient answer.  

Beyond Saving wrote:

Not necessarily. You could certainly have a system where a law such as murder is perfectly enforced while other laws are not. But, I would say that if you are going to have a law it should be enforced as perfectly as we are capable of enforcing it. 

...and to put that in perspective that's all God does but to enforce His Laws as perfectly as He is capable of enforcing them... which happens to be absolutely perfectly.  Without choice, Laws aren't needed and therefore would not exist, but because of choice, Laws must exist.  

Beyond Saving wrote:

A few years ago the town I used to live in put in red light cameras that created near perfect enforcement of red light laws. I got caught by one because it was 3 AM and I made a right hand turn onto an empty street and it was one of those no turn on red intersections. Is that a bad thing? I don't think so. Some day we will have fully automated cars that will drive themselves and perfectly obey all traffic laws and essentially remove our ability to choose to run a red light or speed. Will that be an improvement? Yes.

Would it be good if we could catch every single thief? Yes. Would it be good if no one could commit tax fraud? Yes. If there is a law that you would say should not be perfectly enforced, then I suggest that we should eliminate or modify that law.

I agree with you so far.  We have limits to our abilities and are not perfect in implementing law.  they constantly have to be modified.

Beyond Saving wrote:

One of my largest irritations with our current laws are our laws on drugs. They are selectively enforced. As a well dressed white man I can smoke a joint in front of a cop and expect no repercussions. If I was poor or black, I would be arrested for doing the same thing. That is wrong. Either everyone who breaks the law should be punished, or we should eliminate the law. That particular law I support eliminating.

...and again I completely agree with you, but you're coming down on my God for doing just that because you don't agree.  He hasn't needed to change anything about His laws since creation began.  instead, He enforces them to perfection and because they are so strict and we cannot be perfect, He allows us a way around it as long as we turn away from intentionally breaking them.  

Beyond Saving wrote:

I think the world would be a much better place if both of those acts had been prevented. If I was in a position to prevent either act and somehow had knowledge of what was going to happen I would have tried to prevent them.

I know and I agree with you.  It's because we cannot see the bigger picture.  We don't know how the world has changed truly because of those events.  We don't know what would have been without those events and we may never know.  God does.  It says in the Bible "these things must take place".  Why?  I don't know, but they must.  We may find out someday, we may not, but this goes back to Trust in God.  I know you have no trust in Him... you don't think He exists and you can't trust a figment of your imagination.  I trust God because I know Him.  I have no reason even till to think that what he "allows" us to do is ruining His plans for a better future for us.  

Beyond Saving wrote:

Consider the lack of crimes committed in a group of followers here on Earth, does God need to take a more active role in heaven?  

Are you saying that followers of God never do anything wrong or harmful? Must not be a single person in the world who follows God then because I do not know anyone who at some point has done something that harms someone else. People are emotional and fallible beings and whenever you have a group of them together they will make poor decisions no matter how good they are as people. I think even good people can be driven to commit bad crimes.

The difference with True followers is they already know they're bad people.  Therefore they strive always to be better.  There are also a lot of temptations on Earth as well as Satan that won't be in heaven.  I'm not saying they haven't done anything that has harmed others.  I am saying they're more aware of how bad they are and are working harder than others to be better people.  

Beyond Saving wrote:

 

Sure, they might still find salvation, whatever that may be, but clearly God is not necessarily going to protect their bloodline or protect their lives on Earth. So the original point, I do not believe that if someone before the flood started walking across the world to get to the Ark would have received any protection from god and most likely would have died during the journey.  

again I will say, He would have made a way like He always has in those situations.

Beyond Saving wrote:

His whole argument is that the entire field of geology is completely wrong. If you believe he is right, the only possible conclusion is that the Earth is ~7000 years old. His "evidence" of the flood relies on that. If the world is more than 7000 years old, then he has no evidence of the flood. His "evidence" relies on the entire science of geology to be completely wrong, as well as every other science that deals with the age of the universe. 

No it doesn't.  His case is that there is evidence of floods that could be considered of the magnitude of the flood in the Bible.  Regardless if the earth is 7,000 years old or 7 Trillion years old, the evidence remains.

Beyond Saving wrote:

Perhaps god should try writing a second book. If he wrote one that made sense, it would go a long way towards convincing people of his existence.

He did, it's called the New Testament.  It's important to understand where it came from, but the NT is what applies today.  

Beyond Saving wrote:

I disagree. If after you make the choice to spend time with your son and you later regret that choice, you are regretting it because with hindsight you believe that choosing the other option would have been better. When confronted with two or more options you chose one in the moment and later on decided that a different option would have been better, therefore, you now believe that you made the wrong choice. If after making the choice to spend time with your son, you continue to believe that your choice was better than the alternative, why would you regret making that choice? 

Are you suggesting here that God had no alternative choice but to make humans?  

Beyond Saving wrote:

We deal with them the same way we deal with any other foreign power. Hopefully, we would be able to resolve our differences peacefully. If not, perhaps it might lead to war. I don't think we would automatically have any higher moral standing just because we created the species or any more right to kill them than they have to kill us. Conflict happens because we live in an imperfect world. I certainly wouldn't support mass genocide. In very rare cases I might support a war to protect a vital interest for my own society, but only to the extent necessary to protect that particular interest. I would not and do not support attempting to control another society after our specific interest has been protected. 

What is God doing then but "protecting a vital interest for His own society"?  How can you be sure He went beyond any extent to protect that particular interest?  

To suggest as you do, that God was wrong is to suggest you have a vision into what was, is and could have been as an alternative due to alternative choices and from that information can deduce that the choice God made was not the best option.    It would be harder i think for anyoen to believe you have such insight than it would for anyone to believe in God

Beyond Saving wrote:

There isn't some magical increase in homosexuals, there are simply more of them that are willing to admit it in public. The funny thing is that when homosexuals are treated like diseased social outcasts is that many people don't admit to being gay. The idea that somehow heterosexuals are going to disappear is ridiculous. Birthrates have far more to do with how wealthy a country is, how educated and the available medical technology than it does with how socially acceptable homosexuality is.

I'm not suggesting the extreme that heterosexuals are going to disappear.  That would be absurd.  That woudl also not be needed for the extermination of humanity.  The thing with a society validating it is that others who may not have considered that avenue start considering it.  I don't remember where I read it, but there was a study done asking homosexuals if they had a choice in the matter... there was a good percentage that truly believed they had no choice.. but there was a significant percentage in that study that admitted to having made the choice.  Likely without the justification many would not have.  

I'd just like to clear the air here too.  I do not condemn homosexuals.  I have friends and neighbors that follow that lifestyle and I have little problem with them doing it.  The difference is I don't validate it or justify it.  I accept it as a choice they made and so I accept them for who they are.   They know where i stand on it and accept me for who I am as a follower of God.  I don't believe Laws should be created around any of it.  I believe it should be the choice of the individual.  If 2 people want to marry each other and they can find someone who has the power to marry them and is willing to do it, let the paperwork be legal.  They should also accept it if they find someone who refuses to marry them and move on.  It's a 2 way street.  

 


caposkia
Theist
Posts: 2701
Joined: 2007-05-15
User is offlineOffline
Vastet wrote:Look up the

Vastet wrote:

Look up the definition of the term. Origin is irrelevant.

Except that it applies in context with what we're discussing

Vastet wrote:

Of course. All that remains is that you accept the reality of the subjectivity of the terms evil and bad.

I have accepted their subjectivity today, but the origin still applies in the context of what we're discussing

Vastet wrote:

Yes. Though I question your use of the term official. That suggests it was put to a vote. Facts aren't democratic.

Except that in order for something to be "fact" a group of people must agree with sound reasoning.  

Vastet wrote:

caposkia wrote:
m not trying to accuse you of trying to escape, but you have to admit, your denial of these events ever happening makes the conversation we were having completely pointless.
You're entitled to your opinion.

if that's opinion, then what's your intention when discussing with me?


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

Vastet wrote:
caposkia wrote:
Consider this.  If you live in America, I'm willing to bet you without conscious choice act much more like an American than anyone from any other country.  
And you would be completely wrong. Lets assume you used the proper term and nation, Canada. I do NOT act like a 'typical' Canadian. I don't like alcohol, I'm not the most friendly person you'll ever meet, I don't have the compulsion to apologise for everything, I don't like Celine Dion. I could go on. You can pretend I'm influenced by things I don't want to be influenced by all you like, but that just makes you an arrogant liar who thinks he knows everything about someone he's never even met.

If your description of a "true Canadian" is legitimate, then i guess I've never met a true Canadian... I've been to Canada a lot and I've met numerous canadians and know a few as well.

Considering what I do know about Canadians at this point, you've fit the bill so far.. but alas, you are right, I don't know you and have never met you and therefore I cannot say for sure if you fit that bill lest I be an arrogant liar.  

Vastet wrote:

caposkia wrote:
Also, let's take into consideration the 1% of historical influence... if we just take the history of humanity from our estimated beginning as homosapiens, your severely limited influence is 2000 years worth.
Try less than 1% of 2000 years. And it still doesn't influence me unless I allow it to.

You have less power over those influences than you think... take a few psych classes and you'll see what i'm talking about.


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

Vastet wrote:
caposkia wrote:
 http://www.science20.com/news_releases/the_mathematical_probability_of_life_on_other_earth_like_planets 
Funny all I see there is unsupported assertions couched in unshown mathematics. Where's the real calculation so I can rip it apart? It's been years since I had the fun of obliterating the unscientific and ridiculous probability equations creationists come up with.

too bad I don't use creationist sources... ooh... I-I mean... WRONG!

 


Vastet
atheistBloggerSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 13210
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
caposkia wrote:If your

caposkia wrote:
If your description of a "true Canadian" is legitimate, then i guess I've never met a true Canadian.

I'm not making a no true scotsman fallacy, I'm simply describing some common stereotypes of Canadians. Stereotypes, while flawed, still tend to have a bit of truth to them.

caposkia wrote:
You have less power over those influences than you think... take a few psych classes and you'll see what i'm talking about.

Lol. I HAVE taken psychology and criminal psychology courses at college/university level. I passed them all at the top of my class.
I know for a fact that I'm right.
The courses combined with a very early instruction in critical thinking gave me all the power I could ever need to ensure the only things that influence me are those I want to have influence.
Perhaps you should take some psychology courses yourself.

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


Vastet
atheistBloggerSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 13210
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
caposkia wrote:Vastet

caposkia wrote:

too bad I don't use creationist sources... ooh... I-I mean... WRONG!

I don't care where you think they were developed, it was creationists who developed them. No credible scientist would, because there is insufficient information to devise a calculation.
So show me your creationist sponsored equation so I can destroy it without even trying.

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


Vastet
atheistBloggerSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 13210
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
caposkia wrote:Except that

caposkia wrote:
Except that it applies in context with what we're discussing

No it doesn't.

caposkia wrote:
Except that in order for something to be "fact" a group of people must agree with sound reasoning.  

Nope. Gravity exists no matter who agrees with it. Facts are not democratic.

caposkia wrote:
if that's opinion, then what's your intention when discussing with me?

To show any observers that the logic and scientific awareness of a theist is inherently flawed, and hopefully to the theist as well.

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


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

Hey Cap remind me what your position on NDE Near-Death-Experience cases are (less the lawyer speak)


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

caposkia wrote:

God created us based on His own characteristics, based on that alone, we could not have a higher morality than He.  Also, our morality seems quite subjective to the situation and has changed dramatically from one moment to the next let alone one generation to another.  God's morality is objective to the Laws He put forth and have not changed as far as we can tell from the beginning.

So if God had theoretically declared that rape was moral, would it be moral? In other words, is something moral (or immoral) simply by virtue of god saying it is regardless of our opinions? 

 

caposkia wrote:

Those of you who don't believe are judged according to the Laws you were under.  I'm willing to bet you'll be found guilty of breaking many laws over the years no matter how minor you think they were.  

The idea is "all fall short of the glory of God".  In other words, none of us have been able to meet Gods standards due to the endless generations of mistakes made in the past.  I understand that they have compiled so much we can't tel anymore what is right or wrong.  

No doubt I will be found guilty. Do you think it is right for a person to be judged under laws that they could reasonably believe do not exist? I didn't bother quoting it but you said God's laws are "clear as day", clearly not since many people don't even think it is clear that the lawmaker ever existed and even you admit that a reasonable person could come to the belief that there is no god. 

 

caposkia wrote:

Beyond Saving wrote:

Races don't have intentions. Individual people do. It is evil to commit genocide on any group. 

I beg to differ if you look into history (if race is the wrong term or to broad, I mean people group).  And so which then would be evil, or both would and thus we should allow the greater evil to unfold to assure that a lesser evil doesn't happen?

Give me one example in history of any group of people that was completely evil to the point where even their children should be exterminated. I am a bit of a history buff, probably about 30% of what I read is history, I can't think of any such group. 

At least you admit that the genocide was a "lesser" evil. Does it bother you that the God who is supposed to be the definition of all that is good committed an evil, no matter how small? For the record, I don't consider genocide a small evil at all, it is perhaps one of the largest evils ever committed by mankind. Certainly a much greater evil than those god routinely punishes humans for such as adultery or homosexuality.

 

caposkia wrote:

Beyond Saving wrote:

Lots wife: Yeah, he killed her while killing a bunch of other people. I don't see how that makes his actions more justified. And once again you use the "he warned them" defense. I do not see how warning someone you are going to kill them necessarily translates into the killing being justified.

Did God actually kill her or just let her die?  Consider a war scenario where there was going to be a planned attack on a particular location due to whatever is happening there.  To all the people who didn't need to be in there, they were warned not to go in there because it was getting destroyed.  Someone who didn't belong chose to go back and ended up getting caught in the crossfire.  Was that killing unjustified?  justified?  or was it just that the person made the wrong choice despite the warnings?  Sure the army could have seen the person decided to go back in there and tried to retreat in order to save their life, but would that have been a smart choice or the right choice?

They had weapons that could turn people into salt back then? Or are we no longer taking the bible literally. 

 

caposkia wrote:

 I don't believe it was God they were making fun of but Elisha.  Who was it then that turned, saw them making fun of him and cursed them?  If you read I think you'll see it wasn't God.  Was that a right choice?  The Bible doesn't say.  and yes the Bible depicts in many cases that people would have the power to curse others and have results from it.

He cursed them "in the name of the LORD". So was he a witch with some other supernatural powers to attract the bears?  

 

caposkia wrote:

From what source?  How can you be sure it's their own?  Are you sure they have a thought process?  Are you even sure they have formed an opinion or belief?  Or is it in your own mind that you come to the conclusion that what you hear from them is an opinion or a belief?  Without physical evidence, none of this can be confirmed and physical evidence likely wouldn't provide a sufficient answer.  

My point exactly. Everything people say is their opinion, without physical evidence to back it up, the only thing you have to go on is whether or not you respect their opinion on the topic. I'm not looking for anyone's opinions. I want physical evidence that I could at least in theory go and look at myself. Or at the very least look at pictures of it on the internet. 

 

caposkia wrote:

...and again I completely agree with you, but you're coming down on my God for doing just that because you don't agree.  He hasn't needed to change anything about His laws since creation began.  instead, He enforces them to perfection and because they are so strict and we cannot be perfect, He allows us a way around it as long as we turn away from intentionally breaking them.  

Do you think it is good to have laws that are so strict they are impossible not to break? 

 

caposkia wrote:

The difference with True followers is they already know they're bad people.  Therefore they strive always to be better.  There are also a lot of temptations on Earth as well as Satan that won't be in heaven.  I'm not saying they haven't done anything that has harmed others.  I am saying they're more aware of how bad they are and are working harder than others to be better people.

And in heaven they are still going to be the same "bad" people. Unless you make them no longer people, any group of people is going to have conflict, it is part of being human. And quite frankly, even with all of the bad that comes from it, I wouldn't want to live in a world without it.

 

caposkia wrote:
 

Beyond Saving wrote:

 Sure, they might still find salvation, whatever that may be, but clearly God is not necessarily going to protect their bloodline or protect their lives on Earth. So the original point, I do not believe that if someone before the flood started walking across the world to get to the Ark would have received any protection from god and most likely would have died during the journey.  

again I will say, He would have made a way like He always has in those situations.

Except for the thousands/hundreds of thousands of true believers he allowed to die painful deaths as they prayed for help?

 

caposkia wrote:
 

Beyond Saving wrote:

His whole argument is that the entire field of geology is completely wrong. If you believe he is right, the only possible conclusion is that the Earth is ~7000 years old. His "evidence" of the flood relies on that. If the world is more than 7000 years old, then he has no evidence of the flood. His "evidence" relies on the entire science of geology to be completely wrong, as well as every other science that deals with the age of the universe. 

No it doesn't.  His case is that there is evidence of floods that could be considered of the magnitude of the flood in the Bible.  Regardless if the earth is 7,000 years old or 7 Trillion years old, the evidence remains.

Yes, and the evidence he uses are rock formations that every other geologist uses as evidence of how old the Earth is. He argues that mineral deposits, sedimentary strata and fossils could only have been created by a massive flood a little over 4,000 years ago. Which means that dinosaurs and mammoths had to exist immediately before the flood and all of our conventional dating techniques are completely inaccurate. The evidence that Dr. Snelling claims is evidence of a massive flood, cannot be both evidence of a massive flood slightly over 4,000 years ago and evidence that the world is billions of years old. So if you are going to agree with Snelling that the rock deposits are evidence of a massive flood, you must also agree that those same deposits are not evidence of a process that was billions of years in the making.

Also you must believe that all the fossils we have found are of creatures that existed shortly before the flood. Which makes one wonder, why weren't dinosaurs mentioned anywhere in the bible? With all the other animals mentioned, you would think dinosaurs would get a sentence or two. At least a comment about why Noah couldn't fit any in his Ark. If you don't believe that all the fossilized animals existed immediately before the flood, then Snelling's evidence is not evidence of a massive flood. Those rock layers could not have been formed over eons and also formed by a massive flood instantaneously. If one theory is right, the other must be wrong; they are mutually exclusive.  

 

caposkia wrote:
 

Beyond Saving wrote:

Perhaps god should try writing a second book. If he wrote one that made sense, it would go a long way towards convincing people of his existence.

He did, it's called the New Testament.  It's important to understand where it came from, but the NT is what applies today.  

Excuse me, a third book. You know, come out with one since we have invented the printing press and have a completely different language. 

 

caposkia wrote:
 

Beyond Saving wrote:

I disagree. If after you make the choice to spend time with your son and you later regret that choice, you are regretting it because with hindsight you believe that choosing the other option would have been better. When confronted with two or more options you chose one in the moment and later on decided that a different option would have been better, therefore, you now believe that you made the wrong choice. If after making the choice to spend time with your son, you continue to believe that your choice was better than the alternative, why would you regret making that choice? 

Are you suggesting here that God had no alternative choice but to make humans?  

No, I am suggesting the opposite. He had infinite choices and he (according to you) regretted making the choice he made. Therefore, God made a mistake and chose an option that was not the best out of the infinite options he had. 

 

caposkia wrote:
 

What is God doing then but "protecting a vital interest for His own society"?  How can you be sure He went beyond any extent to protect that particular interest?

Which society is that? He isn't down here on Earth with us is he?

 

caposkia wrote:
 

I'd just like to clear the air here too.  I do not condemn homosexuals.  I have friends and neighbors that follow that lifestyle and I have little problem with them doing it.  The difference is I don't validate it or justify it.  I accept it as a choice they made and so I accept them for who they are.   They know where i stand on it and accept me for who I am as a follower of God.  I don't believe Laws should be created around any of it.  I believe it should be the choice of the individual.  If 2 people want to marry each other and they can find someone who has the power to marry them and is willing to do it, let the paperwork be legal.  They should also accept it if they find someone who refuses to marry them and move on.  It's a 2 way street.  

Your god has a very big problem with it, doesn't it bother you that god is punishing people for doing something that you don't have a problem with? 

As far as marriage, I am anti-marriage and don't think government should have any role in it at all. Let people declare themselves married or unmarried as they see fit according to their personal customs and deal with the legal stuff through contracts.  

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
Vastet wrote:caposkia

Vastet wrote:
caposkia wrote:
If your description of a "true Canadian" is legitimate, then i guess I've never met a true Canadian.
I'm not making a no true scotsman fallacy, I'm simply describing some common stereotypes of Canadians. Stereotypes, while flawed, still tend to have a bit of truth to them.
caposkia wrote:
You have less power over those influences than you think... take a few psych classes and you'll see what i'm talking about.
Lol. I HAVE taken psychology and criminal psychology courses at college/university level. I passed them all at the top of my class. I know for a fact that I'm right. The courses combined with a very early instruction in critical thinking gave me all the power I could ever need to ensure the only things that influence me are those I want to have influence. Perhaps you should take some psychology courses yourself.

I have.. college/university level... funny how we have a different view of influence and control.  There is conscious influence and subconscious influence.  If what you say is true, you must have reached Zen.  Congratulations!

 


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

danatemporary wrote:
Hey Cap remind me what your position on NDE Near-Death-Experience cases are (less the lawyer speak)

I'm not sure as to what degree you're asking.

I believe due to the commonality of out-of-body experiences with NDE's and with those the majority can recount specific details that they would have needed to be conscious and visually observing to recount that it is evidence of a spirit or soul.  


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

Beyond Saving wrote:

So if God had theoretically declared that rape was moral, would it be moral? In other words, is something moral (or immoral) simply by virtue of god saying it is regardless of our opinions? 

The simple answer is yes... but you have to understand that if rape was moral it wouldn't be considered rape as we understand it to be which is a very immoral act... our whole dynamic of morality would be different because it is based off of God's morals.

Consider this, extra-marital sex is considered immoral to God yet in today's American society it is considered moral by many.  

Beyond Saving wrote:

 

caposkia wrote:

Those of you who don't believe are judged according to the Laws you were under.  I'm willing to bet you'll be found guilty of breaking many laws over the years no matter how minor you think they were.  

The idea is "all fall short of the glory of God".  In other words, none of us have been able to meet Gods standards due to the endless generations of mistakes made in the past.  I understand that they have compiled so much we can't tel anymore what is right or wrong.  

No doubt I will be found guilty. Do you think it is right for a person to be judged under laws that they could reasonably believe do not exist? I didn't bother quoting it but you said God's laws are "clear as day", clearly not since many people don't even think it is clear that the lawmaker ever existed and even you admit that a reasonable person could come to the belief that there is no god. 

Which laws written in scripture do you find confusing?  We can discuss

Also, I left my quote above to confirm, but I had said we are judged according to the Laws we are under.  If you don't believe Gods laws exist, then you are held ot the same standard under the laws you do follow.    As you confirmed and I'll admit too, we still fall short

Beyond Saving wrote:

Give me one example in history of any group of people that was completely evil to the point where even their children should be exterminated. I am a bit of a history buff, probably about 30% of what I read is history, I can't think of any such group. 

by what source are you looking for this judgement?  I'm guessing it's not of God.  No human has the right to make such a judgement call though many have in history as I'm sure you're well aware... We likely don't agree though with their conclusion or approach.

Beyond Saving wrote:

At least you admit that the genocide was a "lesser" evil. Does it bother you that the God who is supposed to be the definition of all that is good committed an evil, no matter how small? For the record, I don't consider genocide a small evil at all, it is perhaps one of the largest evils ever committed by mankind. Certainly a much greater evil than those god routinely punishes humans for such as adultery or homosexuality.

Again, we're talking about it from a humanistic standard with the analogies.  To judge God on it would be to say that a judge committed an evil act by punishing a criminal according to the law... do you view criminal punishment as a lesser evil?  if so then your view is an evil god worldview.  

 

Beyond Saving wrote:

They had weapons that could turn people into salt back then? Or are we no longer taking the bible literally. 

She knew the consequence of turning back and did it anyway.  case closed.  moving on

Beyond Saving wrote:

He cursed them "in the name of the LORD". So was he a witch with some other supernatural powers to attract the bears?  

God in the OT gave people powers through the Holy Spirit and as in many instances seen in scripture, people made their own choices with them.  There is so little detail in scripture about this particular incident.  unless you have an outside source, we can only speculate as to whether God approved, whether he got punished for it or not like in the case of Moses or what unfolded on account of his choice.

Beyond Saving wrote:

 

caposkia wrote:

From what source?  How can you be sure it's their own?  Are you sure they have a thought process?  Are you even sure they have formed an opinion or belief?  Or is it in your own mind that you come to the conclusion that what you hear from them is an opinion or a belief?  Without physical evidence, none of this can be confirmed and physical evidence likely wouldn't provide a sufficient answer.  

My point exactly. Everything people say is their opinion, without physical evidence to back it up, the only thing you have to go on is whether or not you respect their opinion on the topic. I'm not looking for anyone's opinions. I want physical evidence that I could at least in theory go and look at myself. Or at the very least look at pictures of it on the internet. 

So point and case, things that we know exist cannot be proven by the means you're looking for.

Beyond Saving wrote:

Do you think it is good to have laws that are so strict they are impossible not to break? 

well, it does give us a standard which to strive for.  The thing with the Laws is when studying the scriptures, one must question why ti took God all the way up to Moses' time to establish the Law with His people...  People had been around for who knows how long before.  The Law had been established at that point because the people at the time were under the impression that they could achieve Gods approval by works.  God wanted to prove to them that it was impossible to do so and thus He made the Laws which were the standards that work would have to achieve in order to find approval with God.  He knew it was impossible and still is but they thought they could do it.  This goes into why Jesus came even from that point.  

Throughout history, grace is what allowed people to achieve God's approval.  It was absurd for them to think they could achieve those standards on their own, but they tried anyway.  Taking that understanding puts a lot of scripture into perspective

Beyond Saving wrote:

And in heaven they are still going to be the same "bad" people. Unless you make them no longer people, any group of people is going to have conflict, it is part of being human. And quite frankly, even with all of the bad that comes from it, I wouldn't want to live in a world without it.

conflict isn't necessarily bad as you've pointed out.  I dont' know what heaven is like, but I do know that Satan isn't there, neither are the temptations of the flesh like food, sex and entertainment needs.  what is needed is love and that is abundant.  

Beyond Saving wrote:

Except for the thousands/hundreds of thousands of true believers he allowed to die painful deaths as they prayed for help?

If they were true believers, likely they weren't praying for help so that they wouldn't die.  The Bible says that many will die for His namesake.  Those martyrs are among the elite and the painful deaths were brought upon by those who oppose God.    It is a terrible thing and I'm sure in the moment I might pray to God for help, however I would pray that it'd be over quicker if my escaping was not in his plans.  The Voice of Martyrs tells many stories of those you are referring to.  Many are still alive and in jail.  some, few have escaped or been set free to tell the story.  You might be interested in reading up on some of that.

Beyond Saving wrote:

Yes, and the evidence he uses are rock formations that every other geologist uses as evidence of how old the Earth is. He argues that mineral deposits, sedimentary strata and fossils could only have been created by a massive flood a little over 4,000 years ago. Which means that dinosaurs and mammoths had to exist immediately before the flood and all of our conventional dating techniques are completely inaccurate. The evidence that Dr. Snelling claims is evidence of a massive flood, cannot be both evidence of a massive flood slightly over 4,000 years ago and evidence that the world is billions of years old. So if you are going to agree with Snelling that the rock deposits are evidence of a massive flood, you must also agree that those same deposits are not evidence of a process that was billions of years in the making.

Also you must believe that all the fossils we have found are of creatures that existed shortly before the flood. Which makes one wonder, why weren't dinosaurs mentioned anywhere in the bible? With all the other animals mentioned, you would think dinosaurs would get a sentence or two. At least a comment about why Noah couldn't fit any in his Ark. If you don't believe that all the fossilized animals existed immediately before the flood, then Snelling's evidence is not evidence of a massive flood. Those rock layers could not have been formed over eons and also formed by a massive flood instantaneously. If one theory is right, the other must be wrong; they are mutually exclusive.  

I don't accept his dating as appropriate, but what he is using is evidence of major floods that would have formed such rock formations.  it is possible that one so severe happened 4000 years ago, however, I don't believe that was the Biblical flood.  Point and case still remains that severe floods to the magnitude of what the Bible describes could have happened in history.  They like this one he's talking about would be worse than anything we have seen in our recorded history.  

Beyond Saving wrote:

Excuse me, a third book. You know, come out with one since we have invented the printing press and have a completely different language.

why would that be necessary?  anyone honestly seeking out God will find someone educated in the field that can educate them on the language issues if they so desire.  The core beliefs and important information is quite clear.  We haven't been discussing core beliefs here.  

Beyond Saving wrote:
 

No, I am suggesting the opposite. He had infinite choices and he (according to you) regretted making the choice he made. Therefore, God made a mistake and chose an option that was not the best out of the infinite options he had. 

How are you aware of what options God had?  To say as you did, you must have insight into the "better options"  What were they and how are you sure those were better than the choice that was made?  

Also keep in mind that He intended to destroy humans, not "fix a problem"  it looks to me as if He had already put plans forward to do so before he found Noah to be worthy.  I think then He used it as a way of showing that the people had ample understanding of the impending doom and still did nothing to save themselves or their families.    This would also paint the picture of how selfish the people who were destroyed were. 

Beyond Saving wrote:

Which society is that? He isn't down here on Earth with us is he?

It would be His society.  And well... the bible says "where 2 or more are gathered in my name, there I will be"  paraphrased by me.  Revelation goes on to say that He will come down and live with His people on Earth... so in a way, yes he's down here and His society is those who follow Him.  

Beyond Saving wrote:

Your god has a very big problem with it, doesn't it bother you that god is punishing people for doing something that you don't have a problem with? 

i don't have a problem with safe speeding, pot smokers and some under the table gambling however the human law still punishes them for it.  i also don't support it and validate it like I said, so again it's their choice and I let the Law speak for itself.  I know they're all aware of the Laws they're breaking and they're ok with it.  Who am I to judge them?  

so to answer you strait, no because they're still breaking the Law... Even more so because if they're punished for it, then they chose not to take into their heart Jesus who died for them so that they wouldn't have to be punished for their wrongdoing.  

Beyond Saving wrote:

As far as marriage, I am anti-marriage and don't think government should have any role in it at all. Let people declare themselves married or unmarried as they see fit according to their personal customs and deal with the legal stuff through contracts.  

I like the tax benefits of being married, so in that I might not completely agree, but I do agree that it should not be politics.  Just give us the tax break and leave us alone.  I'm with you on that.


Vastet
atheistBloggerSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 13210
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
"I have.. college/university

"I have.. college/university level... funny how we have a different view of influence and control.  There is conscious influence and subconscious influence."

With sufficient education and introspection one can become aware of their subconscious on some levels (unconscious is the actual terminology, but if you took psychology you should already know that...). Anyone can do it. Most people don't try because it is hardly a fun experience trying to figure out who you are and why you do the things you do.

"If what you say is true, you must have reached Zen.  Congratulations!"

Thanks. Now where's the source for that probability equation? You've sparked a hunger in me.

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


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

caposkia wrote:

Beyond Saving wrote:

So if God had theoretically declared that rape was moral, would it be moral? In other words, is something moral (or immoral) simply by virtue of god saying it is regardless of our opinions? 

The simple answer is yes... but you have to understand that if rape was moral it wouldn't be considered rape as we understand it to be which is a very immoral act... our whole dynamic of morality would be different because it is based off of God's morals.

Perhaps your morality would be different. Many of us would still view rape as bad regardless of god's view on the subject, just like many of us are horrified at the idea of stoning people, the death penalty and genocide despite god apparently being ok with and even encouraging such actions.

So if God was pure evil, he would still be the definition of moral? Are you incapable of making decisions for yourself what is moral and what isn't? 

 

caposkia wrote:

Consider this, extra-marital sex is considered immoral to God yet in today's American society it is considered moral by many.  

That is because many of us are capable of having our own morality without relying on god to tell us what it should be. Personally, I think it is immoral to try to coerce someone into being monogamous. Most Americans (including most atheists) believe otherwise. 

 

caposkia wrote:

Which laws written in scripture do you find confusing?  We can discuss

Also, I left my quote above to confirm, but I had said we are judged according to the Laws we are under.  If you don't believe Gods laws exist, then you are held ot the same standard under the laws you do follow.    As you confirmed and I'll admit too, we still fall short

Well since I don't recognize being under any laws and I don't recognize the authority of god or any other invisible being, exactly which law am I going to be judged on and who is going to do the judging? 

 

caposkia wrote:

by what source are you looking for this judgement?  I'm guessing it's not of God.  No human has the right to make such a judgement call though many have in history as I'm sure you're well aware... We likely don't agree though with their conclusion or approach.

I'm asking for your judgement. God gave you free will, use it. You are the one arguing that there is some theoretical case where genocide is moral (or at least not evil). I said it would be evil to commit genocide against anyone, ever. You begged to differ on the basis that if we "look into history" there is some group that has intentions so terrible that genocide might not be evil. Name one group of people where it could at least be arguable that genocide would be an acceptable solution.

By my judgement, there is none, never has been and never will be.  

 

caposkia wrote:

Again, we're talking about it from a humanistic standard with the analogies.  To judge God on it would be to say that a judge committed an evil act by punishing a criminal according to the law... do you view criminal punishment as a lesser evil?  if so then your view is an evil god worldview.  

[/quotes]

Judges commit evil acts all the time. They punish people who are innocent, they enforce unjust laws and they pass sentences that are too harsh or not harsh enough. I think judges should be held to account for their decisions and that is why I am probably one of the few people who actually pay attention to who I am voting for when judges are on the ballot. There is nothing inherent in being a judge that means your own judgments cannot be judged.

Yes, I do view criminal punishment as a lesser evil. I view government in general as a lesser evil. I would much prefer a world where is was not necessary to punish anyone. Unfortunately, the reality is that not everyone is as great a person as me and my friends, so we need to have the necessary evils of police, judges and jail. Evils which in my opinion have gained more power than necessary and are used too aggressively.

  

caposkia wrote:

She knew the consequence of turning back and did it anyway.  case closed.  moving on

How is that relevant? The Jews in the holocaust "knew the consequences", does that make what the Nazi's did right? The whole point of the discussion is I am determining if God is a moral being worth following. I am unwilling to simply write him a blank check and assume that everything he does is good like you apparently are. 

 

caposkia wrote:

God in the OT gave people powers through the Holy Spirit and as in many instances seen in scripture, people made their own choices with them.  There is so little detail in scripture about this particular incident.  unless you have an outside source, we can only speculate as to whether God approved, whether he got punished for it or not like in the case of Moses or what unfolded on account of his choice.

Perhaps god should have been a lot more careful who he gave such powers to. At the very least it would have been nice for him to include an apology. 

 

caposkia wrote:

Beyond Saving wrote:

My point exactly. Everything people say is their opinion, without physical evidence to back it up, the only thing you have to go on is whether or not you respect their opinion on the topic. I'm not looking for anyone's opinions. I want physical evidence that I could at least in theory go and look at myself. Or at the very least look at pictures of it on the internet. 

So point and case, things that we know exist cannot be proven by the means you're looking for.

Really? Like what? 

 

caposkia wrote:

conflict isn't necessarily bad as you've pointed out.  I dont' know what heaven is like, but I do know that Satan isn't there, neither are the temptations of the flesh like food, sex and entertainment needs.  what is needed is love and that is abundant.  

Food, sex and entertainment happen to be three of the four things I love most about life. Certainly all three are things that I enjoy doing with people I love. I remain perplexed as to why people think heaven is such a great place to be, it sounds a lot like.... well hell.  

 

caposkia wrote:

I don't accept his dating as appropriate, but what he is using is evidence of major floods that would have formed such rock formations.  it is possible that one so severe happened 4000 years ago, however, I don't believe that was the Biblical flood.  Point and case still remains that severe floods to the magnitude of what the Bible describes could have happened in history.  They like this one he's talking about would be worse than anything we have seen in our recorded history.

Then his "evidence" is not evidence that you accept. If you don't accept it, why do you expect me to accept it? We are back to square one. Is there any evidence of the biblical flood?

 

caposkia wrote:

why would that be necessary?  anyone honestly seeking out God will find someone educated in the field that can educate them on the language issues if they so desire.  The core beliefs and important information is quite clear.  We haven't been discussing core beliefs here.  

Because all sorts of unbelievable things happened in the bible and as you said yourself, a reasonable person could come to the conclusion that there is no god. Perhaps he should make it so that only an unreasonable person would not believe in him, especially since we are going to be punished for not believing. 

 

caposkia wrote:

How are you aware of what options God had?  To say as you did, you must have insight into the "better options"  What were they and how are you sure those were better than the choice that was made?

You claim he is omnipotent. By definition an omnipotent being has as many options as can possibly be imagined. One better option would have been to not kill everyone.

 

caposkia wrote:
 

Also keep in mind that He intended to destroy humans, not "fix a problem"  it looks to me as if He had already put plans forward to do so before he found Noah to be worthy.  I think then He used it as a way of showing that the people had ample understanding of the impending doom and still did nothing to save themselves or their families.    This would also paint the picture of how selfish the people who were destroyed were.

Do you think destroying humans is a good intention? As a human, do you think you should worship a being that intended to destroy all of us? Replace god with some alien race that comes to destroy the Earth and I'm pretty sure you would regard those aliens as "bad". Why are you completely unwilling to make any kind of moral judgement of god?

Yes, humans are selfish. Should people be destroyed just because they are selfish? (I happen to regard selfishness as a good thing, but that is a rather long tangent to go down.)

 

caposkia wrote:

It would be His society.  And well... the bible says "where 2 or more are gathered in my name, there I will be"  paraphrased by me.  Revelation goes on to say that He will come down and live with His people on Earth... so in a way, yes he's down here and His society is those who follow Him.  

So he is a tyrannical dictator that thinks he can rule over us regardless of our desires. If we created an intelligent species, would you think we have the right to rule over them? I think we should give them the option of having their own society without us. I see nothing inherent in the act of creating a species that gives a moral right to rule them. 

 

caposkia wrote:

i don't have a problem with safe speeding, pot smokers and some under the table gambling however the human law still punishes them for it.  i also don't support it and validate it like I said, so again it's their choice and I let the Law speak for itself.  I know they're all aware of the Laws they're breaking and they're ok with it.  Who am I to judge them?

Then who are you to support laws that make those actions illegal? Perhaps you should join those of us in the legalization movement and help us legalize gambling, pot and raise speed limits in areas where it is safe. If you don't think that you have the power to judge someone for a particular action, why do you think that society should have that power? 

 

caposkia wrote:
 

so to answer you strait, no because they're still breaking the Law... Even more so because if they're punished for it, then they chose not to take into their heart Jesus who died for them so that they wouldn't have to be punished for their wrongdoing.

Perhaps God needs to change his law.  

 

caposkia wrote:

Beyond Saving wrote:

As far as marriage, I am anti-marriage and don't think government should have any role in it at all. Let people declare themselves married or unmarried as they see fit according to their personal customs and deal with the legal stuff through contracts.  

I like the tax benefits of being married, so in that I might not completely agree, but I do agree that it should not be politics.  Just give us the tax break and leave us alone.  I'm with you on that.

Of course you like the tax benefits since you benefit from it, but do you think it is fair that single people do not enjoy the same benefits? Why should you get a tax break that I don't get simply because you are married?

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


Marty Hamrick
atheist
Marty Hamrick's picture
Posts: 227
Joined: 2010-12-31
User is offlineOffline
Jimenezj wrote:In attacking

Jimenezj wrote:

In attacking Jesus Christ , Atheism might render itself a disservice. 

Do you lead an attack on a non existent being? 

Atheism to the logistician seems unreasonable. 

 

 

At night we see many stars in the sky. But when the sun rises, they disappear. Can we claim, therefore, that during the day there are no stars in the sky? If we fail to see God, perhaps it is because we pass through the night of ignorance in this matter. it is premature to claim He does not exist. 

Richard Wurmbrand

Bad analogy. The existence of stars, regardless of time of day or visibility has been confirmed by modern science. perhaps you mean that God cannot be understood or perceived through rational thought. What else is there that can determine the objective nature of observed reality?

Its not the "non existent being" that concerns me. Its what many believers do, thinking they are doing the will of this imaginary being that concerns me.

"Science flies you to the moon. Religion flies you into buildings."


caposkia
Theist
Posts: 2701
Joined: 2007-05-15
User is offlineOffline
Vastet wrote:"I have..

Vastet wrote:
"I have.. college/university level... funny how we have a different view of influence and control.  There is conscious influence and subconscious influence." With sufficient education and introspection one can become aware of their subconscious on some levels (unconscious is the actual terminology, but if you took psychology you should already know that...). Anyone can do it. Most people don't try because it is hardly a fun experience trying to figure out who you are and why you do the things you do. "If what you say is true, you must have reached Zen.  Congratulations!" Thanks. Now where's the source for that probability equation? You've sparked a hunger in me.

Which probability equation is that?  The one I provided a link for or the one I said I didn't remember the source for?  that being 10^64 give or take


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

Beyond Saving wrote:

Perhaps your morality would be different. Many of us would still view rape as bad regardless of god's view on the subject, just like many of us are horrified at the idea of stoning people, the death penalty and genocide despite god apparently being ok with and even encouraging such actions.

The thing is, believe in Him or not, if God is real then He created you with the views and desires you have.  You can speculate that you would still be horrified by the idea, but considering our hypothetical scenario, logically you wouldn't be.

Beyond Saving wrote:

So if God was pure evil, he would still be the definition of moral? Are you incapable of making decisions for yourself what is moral and what isn't? 

If God was pure evil, then evil would be good, but it's not, it's evil.  To a Christian, what you're trying to compare is water to dryness.  If water was dry it would not be water, if dryness was wet, it would be water, you can't interchange the two. 

Beyond Saving wrote:

That is because many of us are capable of having our own morality without relying on god to tell us what it should be. Personally, I think it is immoral to try to coerce someone into being monogamous. Most Americans (including most atheists) believe otherwise. 

so then you believe that morality is entirely subjective?  

Beyond Saving wrote:

Well since I don't recognize being under any laws and I don't recognize the authority of god or any other invisible being, exactly which law am I going to be judged on and who is going to do the judging? 

God ultimately judges and knows all laws put in place... you'd be judged based on the laws of the country/state/county/town that you happen to reside in no matter how many different ones that is.  You are also judged on what you understand and have been made aware of yet chose to oppose. I don't mean this necessarily as opposing God.  It can apply to that law that says don't J-walk and you do it anyway.  

Do you believe you're capable of following to a T all the laws you may be living under and have lived under throughout your life and have you?  (more rhitorical than not, but up to you on answering)

Beyond Saving wrote:

I'm asking for your judgement. God gave you free will, use it. You are the one arguing that there is some theoretical case where genocide is moral (or at least not evil). I said it would be evil to commit genocide against anyone, ever. You begged to differ on the basis that if we "look into history" there is some group that has intentions so terrible that genocide might not be evil. Name one group of people where it could at least be arguable that genocide would be an acceptable solution.

By my judgement, there is none, never has been and never will be.  

I choose not to judge because I haven't the authority in heaven or here on Earth to do so, but if God has made that judgement against another nation, likely that nation was responsible for many genocides and likely many more.  This is what I understand to be so.  To destroy them would be to prevent other genocides.   Unlike humans, God would logically have the power and authority to judge a whole nation and follow through with the consequences for that nation.  

Beyond Saving wrote:

Judges commit evil acts all the time. They punish people who are innocent, they enforce unjust laws and they pass sentences that are too harsh or not harsh enough. I think judges should be held to account for their decisions and that is why I am probably one of the few people who actually pay attention to who I am voting for when judges are on the ballot. There is nothing inherent in being a judge that means your own judgments cannot be judged.

Yes, judges commit evil acts... again we're talking on humanistic standards... so the obvious question then is do the judges that commit evil acts automatically condemn the judges who are just?

Beyond Saving wrote:

Yes, I do view criminal punishment as a lesser evil. I view government in general as a lesser evil. I would much prefer a world where is was not necessary to punish anyone. Unfortunately, the reality is that not everyone is as great a person as me and my friends, so we need to have the necessary evils of police, judges and jail. Evils which in my opinion have gained more power than necessary and are used too aggressively.

well I agree with you there and this statement reviels that you believe evil is subjective be it that not all would agree with you that law enforcement and government is "evil".  Also, per your explanation above, any form of attempted control and conformity to a way of life is evil.  

Beyond Saving wrote:

  

caposkia wrote:

She knew the consequence of turning back and did it anyway.  case closed.  moving on

How is that relevant? The Jews in the holocaust "knew the consequences", does that make what the Nazi's did right? The whole point of the discussion is I am determining if God is a moral being worth following. I am unwilling to simply write him a blank check and assume that everything he does is good like you apparently are. 

you're telling me the Jews in the holocaust chose that fate?  I think you'd have many who disagree with you.  

Relevance lies where a choice is able to be made by the one reaping the consequence.  

Beyond Saving wrote:

 

caposkia wrote:

God in the OT gave people powers through the Holy Spirit and as in many instances seen in scripture, people made their own choices with them.  There is so little detail in scripture about this particular incident.  unless you have an outside source, we can only speculate as to whether God approved, whether he got punished for it or not like in the case of Moses or what unfolded on account of his choice.

Perhaps god should have been a lot more careful who he gave such powers to. At the very least it would have been nice for him to include an apology. 

Perhaps there was a plan behind it regardless of what we see from the story alone... perhaps this man used sorcery despite his using the name of God in the curse, perhaps we can speculate all day on the pros and cons and perhaps by the time we're done we could have gotten nowhere and wasted a lot of time that could have wisely been use discussing something we don't have to speculate on.

Beyond Saving wrote:

 

caposkia wrote:

Beyond Saving wrote:

My point exactly. Everything people say is their opinion, without physical evidence to back it up, the only thing you have to go on is whether or not you respect their opinion on the topic. I'm not looking for anyone's opinions. I want physical evidence that I could at least in theory go and look at myself. Or at the very least look at pictures of it on the internet. 

So point and case, things that we know exist cannot be proven by the means you're looking for.

Really? Like what? 

the thought process of others per the origin of this part

Beyond Saving wrote:

Food, sex and entertainment happen to be three of the four things I love most about life. Certainly all three are things that I enjoy doing with people I love. I remain perplexed as to why people think heaven is such a great place to be, it sounds a lot like.... well hell.  

I enjoy all of that too, however if you are only spirit, food would not be a need or a desire, neither would sex be.  Entertainment on the other hand, it's very possible that there is entertainment up there.  

As far as what we know about heaven, we know very little.  As Chrsitians, we do know that God knows us better than we know ourselves.  When we are told by God that it is better, we must believe that He knows we'll think that when we're there.  It's trust between God and His followers.  We understand it as home.  What that will be like we can only speculate.  

Beyond Saving wrote:

 

caposkia wrote:

I don't accept his dating as appropriate, but what he is using is evidence of major floods that would have formed such rock formations.  it is possible that one so severe happened 4000 years ago, however, I don't believe that was the Biblical flood.  Point and case still remains that severe floods to the magnitude of what the Bible describes could have happened in history.  They like this one he's talking about would be worse than anything we have seen in our recorded history.

Then his "evidence" is not evidence that you accept. If you don't accept it, why do you expect me to accept it? We are back to square one. Is there any evidence of the biblical flood?

I almost erased my post above until I reread your post.... I'll... just leave that up there... for now...

As far as evidence of the Biblical flood, I don't know at this point if anyone has confirmed a dating on a flood that likely could have happened so far back.  I know they've found fossils in places that are very unlikely for that creature to dwell and so on in the estimated location.  Those are evidences, but to date a flood to a time period that is at best estimated is pretty difficult.  

Beyond Saving wrote:

 

caposkia wrote:

why would that be necessary?  anyone honestly seeking out God will find someone educated in the field that can educate them on the language issues if they so desire.  The core beliefs and important information is quite clear.  We haven't been discussing core beliefs here.  

Because all sorts of unbelievable things happened in the bible and as you said yourself, a reasonable person could come to the conclusion that there is no god. Perhaps he should make it so that only an unreasonable person would not believe in him, especially since we are going to be punished for not believing. 


 

have you been following any of the discussion?  Even between ourselves?  I've said I thought a few times now that you are judged for what you've done, not what you believe, yet you still believe it's punishment for not believing... maybe God has made it so that only unreasonable people would not believe... I could have been wrong.

Beyond Saving wrote:

 

caposkia wrote:

How are you aware of what options God had?  To say as you did, you must have insight into the "better options"  What were they and how are you sure those were better than the choice that was made?

You claim he is omnipotent. By definition an omnipotent being has as many options as can possibly be imagined. One better option would have been to not kill everyone.

How do you know that would have been better?  

Beyond Saving wrote:

Do you think destroying humans is a good intention? As a human, do you think you should worship a being that intended to destroy all of us? Replace god with some alien race that comes to destroy the Earth and I'm pretty sure you would regard those aliens as "bad". Why are you completely unwilling to make any kind of moral judgement of god?

You're assuming a particular judgement that I'd make against aliens... considering some of the movies that have come out concerning aliens destroying humanity like the one with Keanu Reeves (I don't remember the name)  I agree that we deserve to be destroyed.  That alien race's purpose was to protect Earth and we are destroying it slowly, so they chose to come and destroy us to preserve Earth.  Makes sense.  Quite unfortunate that I'd be a part of that however.    Just like in the flood however, the wheels had been put in motion and salvation was granted to the few that were left to start over and not screw up again.  

Beyond Saving wrote:

Yes, humans are selfish. Should people be destroyed just because they are selfish? (I happen to regard selfishness as a good thing, but that is a rather long tangent to go down.)

yea, I have a feeling (religion aside) you and I would disagree on a lot of issues moral or otherwise. 

Beyond Saving wrote:

 

So he is a tyrannical dictator that thinks he can rule over us regardless of our desires. If we created an intelligent species, would you think we have the right to rule over them? I think we should give them the option of having their own society without us. I see nothing inherent in the act of creating a species that gives a moral right to rule them. 

um... no, those who don't want to dwell with God aren't there.  They get to choose an alternative.  The thing is, be it that God created everything, the alternative is the absense of everything.  

Beyond Saving wrote:

Then who are you to support laws that make those actions illegal? Perhaps you should join those of us in the legalization movement and help us legalize gambling, pot and raise speed limits in areas where it is safe. If you don't think that you have the power to judge someone for a particular action, why do you think that society should have that power? 

It's not one person judging if it's "society" and there has to be some sort of limit to what is safe and not.  It's not my job to judge them.. That doesn't mean there aren't consequences to face for those actions and I believe if you're caught you rightfully face them because... well.. you know the law, but again, not my judgement, but the Law that judges them written by the society and leaders we live amidst.  

Beyond Saving wrote:

Perhaps God needs to change his law.  

Why?

Beyond Saving wrote:

Of course you like the tax benefits since you benefit from it, but do you think it is fair that single people do not enjoy the same benefits? Why should you get a tax break that I don't get simply because you are married?

It's odd, but you tend to have more/higher expenses when you're married, so yea, I think it's fair.  


Vastet
atheistBloggerSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 13210
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
caposkia wrote:Which

caposkia wrote:
Which probability equation is that?  The one I provided a link for or the one I said I didn't remember the source for?  that being 10^64 give or take

The link didn't lead to an equation. It didn't even lead to a link to an equation. All it did was mention one, and some Prof Andrew Watson. Of which a google search turned up dozens of names that are NOT attached to any probability equation on the development and evolution of life.

So at this point the only evidence there even is an equation is your word. But you don't have sources or an equation to provide. And your links source doesn't appear to exist. So I must call bullshit on your claim there is an equation, and suggest you're pulling out random numbers unsupported by anything.

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


Vastet
atheistBloggerSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 13210
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
I'm bored and therefore I'll

I'm bored and therefore I'll go even further than destroying the very little information you've provided so far, and destroy information you've not provided.
A google search on "probability equation of life" provided ONE possibility: The Drake equation. Which was written up in 1961. 52 years ago. Decades before we even had seen a planet outside our solar system. 8 years before a man walked on the moon, even.

And that equation, written in complete ignorance of the 52 years of the knowledge of life, evolution, and the universe at large we've aquired since; was specifically limited to the Milky Way galaxy, and was even largely criticised in the 1960's.

In other words, you've got nothing to support your assertion. Nothing at all.

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


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

caposkia wrote:

Beyond Saving wrote:

Perhaps your morality would be different. Many of us would still view rape as bad regardless of god's view on the subject, just like many of us are horrified at the idea of stoning people, the death penalty and genocide despite god apparently being ok with and even encouraging such actions.

The thing is, believe in Him or not, if God is real then He created you with the views and desires you have.  You can speculate that you would still be horrified by the idea, but considering our hypothetical scenario, logically you wouldn't be.

We have already established that my morality is not the same as gods, so if God's morality were even more different, I would still be horrified. You are the one who's morality is apparently completely based on God. I find it rather scary that you just blindly accept the morality of a being you have never met as being good and apparently don't have the desire to even consider the possibility that it might not be good.  

 

caposkia wrote:

If God was pure evil, then evil would be good, but it's not, it's evil.  To a Christian, what you're trying to compare is water to dryness.  If water was dry it would not be water, if dryness was wet, it would be water, you can't interchange the two. 

Only if you define good as everything that is god, and evil as everything opposed to him. I don't define it that way, but fine, let us get away from the semantics. If God wanted us to sacrifice an innocent virgin to him once a year, would you do it? Does that make it moral to do it? 

 

caposkia wrote:

so then you believe that morality is entirely subjective?  

Yes.

 

caposkia wrote:

God ultimately judges and knows all laws put in place... you'd be judged based on the laws of the country/state/county/town that you happen to reside in no matter how many different ones that is.  You are also judged on what you understand and have been made aware of yet chose to oppose. I don't mean this necessarily as opposing God.  It can apply to that law that says don't J-walk and you do it anyway.  

Do you believe you're capable of following to a T all the laws you may be living under and have lived under throughout your life and have you?  (more rhitorical than not, but up to you on answering)

Wait a minute, so you are saying that God judges us based on human laws too? All of them? Or only the good ones? This is the first time I have heard any theist make this claim. 

What if the law says you are a slave? Is God going to judge you for escaping slavery? What if the law says all Christians should be killed? Is God going to judge me for refusing to kill Christians? (All of which have been laws in some country at one point or another) 

And if God is only going to judge against me for breaking some human laws, but not others, how am I supposed to know which he thinks I must follow and which I can break? 

 

caposkia wrote:

I choose not to judge because I haven't the authority in heaven or here on Earth to do so, but if God has made that judgement against another nation, likely that nation was responsible for many genocides and likely many more.  This is what I understand to be so.  To destroy them would be to prevent other genocides.   Unlike humans, God would logically have the power and authority to judge a whole nation and follow through with the consequences for that nation.  

If he exists he apparently has the power. Power does not automatically mean authority. Obviously, committing genocide to prevent genocide didn't work because we have had many genocides in our history. You "understand" it to be so, but a brief look at history demonstrates that God's enforcement is at best inconsistent and at worst random. Do you think committing genocide is a good strategy to prevent genocide? I know, you won't judge. You refuse to even consider the possibility that God is less than perfect. Kind of reminds me of the mother who is shocked when her little boy murders someone and in the face of irrefutable evidence will say "but he is such a good boy, he would never hurt anyone". It is becoming increasingly clear that you have no interest in really confronting your beliefs.  

 

caposkia wrote:

Beyond Saving wrote:

Judges commit evil acts all the time. They punish people who are innocent, they enforce unjust laws and they pass sentences that are too harsh or not harsh enough. I think judges should be held to account for their decisions and that is why I am probably one of the few people who actually pay attention to who I am voting for when judges are on the ballot. There is nothing inherent in being a judge that means your own judgments cannot be judged.

Yes, judges commit evil acts... again we're talking on humanistic standards... so the obvious question then is do the judges that commit evil acts automatically condemn the judges who are just?

That makes absolutely no sense to me. Please clarify. 

 

caposkia wrote:

well I agree with you there and this statement reviels that you believe evil is subjective be it that not all would agree with you that law enforcement and government is "evil".  Also, per your explanation above, any form of attempted control and conformity to a way of life is evil.  

If course evil is subjective as evidenced by you and me having different definitions of evil. I subscribe to the "non-aggression principle" I think it is the best way to conduct yourself in society and our society would greatly benefit if our laws followed the principle. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non-aggression_principle I think it is immoral to attempt to coerce another person to act against their will.

 

caposkia wrote:

you're telling me the Jews in the holocaust chose that fate?  I think you'd have many who disagree with you.  

Relevance lies where a choice is able to be made by the one reaping the consequence.  

No, I am arguing the opposite. Every time I point out someone who God killed and asked you if it was moral you respond with "well they knew the consequences, they made their choice" as if that somehow automatically makes the killing moral. The Jews had the same "choice" as many people killed by God in the bible, which is no real choice at all. Many were able to escape before the holocaust started, some didn't or couldn't because they either didn't believe it would really happen or they were unable to escape due to practical reasons. It really is comparable to Noah's flood except Hitler had a much longer list of people he liked. My point is that "she knew the consequences" is not relevant when I ask if the killing was just or moral.  

 

caposkia wrote:

Perhaps there was a plan behind it regardless of what we see from the story alone... perhaps this man used sorcery despite his using the name of God in the curse, perhaps we can speculate all day on the pros and cons and perhaps by the time we're done we could have gotten nowhere and wasted a lot of time that could have wisely been use discussing something we don't have to speculate on.

If God came down here and explained his actions we wouldn't have to speculate. Since he has not, when I am making the decision of whether or not I should worship this being all I have is the bible. I'm not adding anything to it, you have to add all sorts of things to it. And given that one of the laws God said should exist is that children should be stoned for disrespecting their parents, it is completely consistent with the God character that he would help a man kill kids who disrespected him. Furthermore, Jesus didn't refer to Elisha as a witch, or in any way as a bad man. He referred to him directly as a "prophet" and pointed to the miracles he performed as evidence of God's power. (Luke 4) If he was using evil sorcery, why would Jesus not have a problem with that and either say something about it or not talk about him at all?

 

 

Beyond Saving wrote:

caposkia wrote:

So point and case, things that we know exist cannot be proven by the means you're looking for.

Really? Like what? 

the thought process of others per the origin of this part

Ridiculous. We have entire fields of science dedicated to studying the brain, thoughts and how they work. We are well beyond being able to prove their physical existence and are now in the process of learning exactly how they work. That is why we are able to make drugs that can directly affect the thought process. There have been numerous experiments done and we have a number of different ways of monitoring and analyzing the activity that occurs within the brain while we are thinking. If I had the time, resources and interest I could replicate any of those experiments and get the same results.  

 

caposkia wrote:

As far as evidence of the Biblical flood, I don't know at this point if anyone has confirmed a dating on a flood that likely could have happened so far back.  I know they've found fossils in places that are very unlikely for that creature to dwell and so on in the estimated location.  Those are evidences, but to date a flood to a time period that is at best estimated is pretty difficult.

It is precisely due to the sea creature fossils found on mountains that the date is relevant to whether they are evidence of a flood or not. Most geologists believe that the mountains were slowly formed over billions of years, in which case it is not a terrible surprise that ancient sea creature fossils can be found on top of mountains as the mountains were once the sea floor. If the Earth is only 6,000 years old and the mountains were there all along then the fossils are evidence of a really big flood. So the bottom line is that you have no evidence unless you reject the theory of how mountains were formed.  

 

caposkia wrote:
 

have you been following any of the discussion?  Even between ourselves?  I've said I thought a few times now that you are judged for what you've done, not what you believe, yet you still believe it's punishment for not believing... maybe God has made it so that only unreasonable people would not believe... I could have been wrong.

Yes, but I can't attempt to follow a law I don't believe exists. I certainly can't ask Jesus for salvation when I don't believe he exists. That would be insane. So far you have indicated that if I had never heard of God or Jesus that perhaps I might be saved anyway, but you made it clear earlier that if I have heard and don't believe then I have chosen to turn away from God and since I don't follow his laws, I will face his judgement with no hope of forgiveness. 

 

caposkia wrote:

Beyond Saving wrote:

caposkia wrote:

How are you aware of what options God had?  To say as you did, you must have insight into the "better options"  What were they and how are you sure those were better than the choice that was made?

You claim he is omnipotent. By definition an omnipotent being has as many options as can possibly be imagined. One better option would have been to not kill everyone.

How do you know that would have been better?  

Because not killing innocents is better than killing innocents. 

 

caposkia wrote:

You're assuming a particular judgement that I'd make against aliens... considering some of the movies that have come out concerning aliens destroying humanity like the one with Keanu Reeves (I don't remember the name)  I agree that we deserve to be destroyed.  That alien race's purpose was to protect Earth and we are destroying it slowly, so they chose to come and destroy us to preserve Earth.  Makes sense.  Quite unfortunate that I'd be a part of that however.    Just like in the flood however, the wheels had been put in motion and salvation was granted to the few that were left to start over and not screw up again.  

Huh. I hope people who share your viewpoints never get political power.

 

 

caposkia wrote:

um... no, those who don't want to dwell with God aren't there.  They get to choose an alternative.  The thing is, be it that God created everything, the alternative is the absense of everything.  

I'm on Earth, I can't get off of it and you tell me that God is going to judge me. Where exactly is my choice? I have less choice than a dog on a leash. 

 

caposkia wrote:

It's not one person judging if it's "society" and there has to be some sort of limit to what is safe and not.  It's not my job to judge them.. That doesn't mean there aren't consequences to face for those actions and I believe if you're caught you rightfully face them because... well.. you know the law, but again, not my judgement, but the Law that judges them written by the society and leaders we live amidst.  

In our society you have input in who is elected, who is a judge and what the laws are. They are all done in your name regardless of whether you are personally involved in the process. I didn't ask you what the law was, I asked you what you think the laws ought to be. Since you live in a country where you have some small ability to select the people who write the laws, such questions are clearly part of your social responsibility to pass a judgement on them. If you choose to abdicate that responsibility then you are by default endorsing the law as it stands. Since you say it is not your place to judge people for performing the actions in question and these people are routinely judged in our society by judges and politicians who partially derive their authority from you, then it is clearly your place to support or oppose the law.   

 

caposkia wrote:

Beyond Saving wrote:

Perhaps God needs to change his law.  

Why?

Because it is a bad law. If you were God, would you make homosexuality against your law? If so why? If not, then why do you worship God when you don't agree with his laws?

 

caposkia wrote:

It's odd, but you tend to have more/higher expenses when you're married, so yea, I think it's fair.  

Complete bullshit. Everything from rent to insurance is more expensive when you are single. As far as cost of living, being married is much cheaper. Living with a roommate is next and being single living on your own is the most expensive.

http://www.theatlantic.com/sexes/archive/2013/01/the-high-price-of-being-single-in-america/267043/

 

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
Vastet wrote:caposkia

Vastet wrote:
caposkia wrote:
Which probability equation is that?  The one I provided a link for or the one I said I didn't remember the source for?  that being 10^64 give or take
The link didn't lead to an equation. It didn't even lead to a link to an equation. All it did was mention one, and some Prof Andrew Watson. Of which a google search turned up dozens of names that are NOT attached to any probability equation on the development and evolution of life. So at this point the only evidence there even is an equation is your word. But you don't have sources or an equation to provide. And your links source doesn't appear to exist. So I must call bullshit on your claim there is an equation, and suggest you're pulling out random numbers unsupported by anything.

Ok so neither... the more simple answer... so here you go:

Here's a link that breaks down all the necessary features of the universe and their odds of falling in the required range for physical life... you'll be happy to see that this page also references 258 sources for that reasoning.  Enjoy

http://www.reasons.org/articles/probability-for-life-on-earth


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

Beyond Saving wrote:

We have already established that my morality is not the same as gods, so if God's morality were even more different, I would still be horrified. You are the one who's morality is apparently completely based on God. I find it rather scary that you just blindly accept the morality of a being you have never met as being good and apparently don't have the desire to even consider the possibility that it might not be good.  

Met in what way?  Face to face?  of course not, I'd be dead.  But I do know Him, have had conversations, seen His works and support of his works from sources around the world.  Your morality is apparently not in line with most humans.

Beyond Saving wrote:

Only if you define good as everything that is god, and evil as everything opposed to him. I don't define it that way, but fine, let us get away from the semantics. If God wanted us to sacrifice an innocent virgin to him once a year, would you do it? Does that make it moral to do it? 

that is how we define it and if you look into history, where the word 'evil' originated. 

If that's how it was, then you'd likely be having your own version of sacrifice.  Also, considering the time of sacrifice not being uncommon it would be moral be it that a lot of cultures did just that, however those who follow this particular God knew that wasn't appropriate and God never asked of such a sacrifice.  Human morals have drastically changed since then.  

so yes, but through Jesus it is not necessary and through my God it is not moral.  

The problem with your angle is you're looking for reasons to call me and my God immoral.  You have to understand that if my God made it ok to do such a thing, then you'd also be making what we would consider very immoral decisions either against this God or for your own reasons.  During the times of sacrifices, non-believers of any god was quite unheard of and the battle usually was between 2 different followings, not believers and non-believers.  

If your asking if I would do it now, no.  I know my God and what Jesus did for us and it would go againt everything He teaches and is for.  I would know it wasn't my God asking for it. 

Beyond Saving wrote:

 

caposkia wrote:

so then you believe that morality is entirely subjective?  

Yes.

Which then means what you might find immoral or moral is only justified by you and thus anything that goes against your morality is wrong regardless of how "moral" it might be.  How religious of you. 

Beyond Saving wrote:

Wait a minute, so you are saying that God judges us based on human laws too? All of them? Or only the good ones? This is the first time I have heard any theist make this claim. 

He does...  Only laws that do not contradict His own.  

Romans 13:1;  "Let every person be subject to the governing authorities.  For there is no authority except from God, and those that exist have been instituted by God"

That is not to say that there are no corrupt governments, but that the Law the governments put forth is what we are to be subject to.  God's law is simplified to a point of love your neighbor.  If any law changes that, then it's probably corrupt.  I couldn't at the moment find the part that talks about conflicting laws.  I will keep looking

Beyond Saving wrote:

And if God is only going to judge against me for breaking some human laws, but not others, how am I supposed to know which he thinks I must follow and which I can break? 

Romans 13:9-11;  "For the commandments, "You shall not commit adultery, You shall not murder, You shall not steal, You shall not covet," and any other commandment are summed up in these words: 'You shall love your neighbor as yourself."  Love does no wrong to a neighbor; therefore love is the fulfilling of the law.  Besides this you know the time, that the hour has come for you to wake from sleep.  For salvation is nearer to us now than when we first believed."

Beyond Saving wrote:

If he exists he apparently has the power. Power does not automatically mean authority. Obviously, committing genocide to prevent genocide didn't work because we have had many genocides in our history. You "understand" it to be so, but a brief look at history demonstrates that God's enforcement is at best inconsistent and at worst random. Do you think committing genocide is a good strategy to prevent genocide? I know, you won't judge. You refuse to even consider the possibility that God is less than perfect. Kind of reminds me of the mother who is shocked when her little boy murders someone and in the face of irrefutable evidence will say "but he is such a good boy, he would never hurt anyone". It is becoming increasingly clear that you have no interest in really confronting your beliefs.  

that's not why I won't judge, but again we don't know those situations.  The question really isn't to commit genocide to prevent genocide, rather to prevent many many genocides.  What has changed due to those choices?  Can we know for sure?  I trust that it has changed for the better.  You obviously don't.  

Beyond Saving wrote:

Yes, judges commit evil acts... again we're talking on humanistic standards... so the obvious question then is do the judges that commit evil acts automatically condemn the judges who are just?

That makes absolutely no sense to me. Please clarify. 

If one judge is evil, does that make them all evil?  If so God is evil.  if not, we cannot use this analogy.  

Beyond Saving wrote:

caposkia wrote:

you're telling me the Jews in the holocaust chose that fate?  I think you'd have many who disagree with you.  

Relevance lies where a choice is able to be made by the one reaping the consequence.  

No, I am arguing the opposite. Every time I point out someone who God killed and asked you if it was moral you respond with "well they knew the consequences, they made their choice" as if that somehow automatically makes the killing moral. The Jews had the same "choice" as many people killed by God in the bible, which is no real choice at all. Many were able to escape before the holocaust started, some didn't or couldn't because they either didn't believe it would really happen or they were unable to escape due to practical reasons. It really is comparable to Noah's flood except Hitler had a much longer list of people he liked. My point is that "she knew the consequences" is not relevant when I ask if the killing was just or moral.  

well first were they directly killed or did they die due to their choice?  There is a difference.  If you know the consequences and can choose to walk away from them or into them, then yea, you know the consequences and make a choice to live or die.  

You're looking at it as if God was sitting there with a rifle saying make a choice... if you choose wrong I shoot you.  Rather the situations in question had events put in place that would put a person in danger if they chose to disobey God.  

It's like saying "this building is getting demolished in 10 minutes.  Don't go in there or you will be killed"  You then realize you forgot something inside and despite the warnings go inside anyway.  You are putting yourself in danger.  In a humanistic standard yes, you can delay a building being demolished if you got word that someone went into it.  However, it's a little different to shut off a volcano because someone made a bad choice.

Beyond Saving wrote:

If God came down here and explained his actions we wouldn't have to speculate. Since he has not, when I am making the decision of whether or not I should worship this being all I have is the bible. I'm not adding anything to it, you have to add all sorts of things to it. And given that one of the laws God said should exist is that children should be stoned for disrespecting their parents, it is completely consistent with the God character that he would help a man kill kids who disrespected him. Furthermore, Jesus didn't refer to Elisha as a witch, or in any way as a bad man. He referred to him directly as a "prophet" and pointed to the miracles he performed as evidence of God's power. (Luke 4) If he was using evil sorcery, why would Jesus not have a problem with that and either say something about it or not talk about him at all?

God has explained it in scripture, the problem is you're taking a part of it, not putting it in context with the NT and the culture of the time vs the culture of today and saying God is evil.  Yet God was consistent and is consistent with the times.  

Those who didn't stone children likely whipped them to the point of unconsciousness and likely blood and scarring.   Would you say then that is ok to do today?  it was ok by mans law then... and even not too far back in history. 

Beyond Saving wrote:

Ridiculous. We have entire fields of science dedicated to studying the brain, thoughts and how they work. We are well beyond being able to prove their physical existence and are now in the process of learning exactly how they work. That is why we are able to make drugs that can directly affect the thought process. There have been numerous experiments done and we have a number of different ways of monitoring and analyzing the activity that occurs within the brain while we are thinking. If I had the time, resources and interest I could replicate any of those experiments and get the same results.  

We can see brain activity, but not what someone is thinking or the process of it.  Yes there are mind altering drugs, but that does not determine that we know the thought process of an individual, rather we just know how to manipulate electronic pulses in the brain.  

There has been a lot of study to this date, to that you are right, but if you ask any scientist studying it, they woudl tell you we know very little even still.

Beyond Saving wrote:

 

It is precisely due to the sea creature fossils found on mountains that the date is relevant to whether they are evidence of a flood or not. Most geologists believe that the mountains were slowly formed over billions of years, in which case it is not a terrible surprise that ancient sea creature fossils can be found on top of mountains as the mountains were once the sea floor. If the Earth is only 6,000 years old and the mountains were there all along then the fossils are evidence of a really big flood. So the bottom line is that you have no evidence unless you reject the theory of how mountains were formed.  

not necessarily.  What was the dating of those fossils?  Don't keep bringing up the 6000 year old earth either, neither of us buy into that.

Beyond Saving wrote:

Yes, but I can't attempt to follow a law I don't believe exists. I certainly can't ask Jesus for salvation when I don't believe he exists. That would be insane. So far you have indicated that if I had never heard of God or Jesus that perhaps I might be saved anyway, but you made it clear earlier that if I have heard and don't believe then I have chosen to turn away from God and since I don't follow his laws, I will face his judgement with no hope of forgiveness. 

You are judged on what you know.   You know of Jesus and God, but you don't believe... it's also apparent you're not making a conscious effort to discover whether they do exist, rather your approaching the subject with.  "it's not true... unless I can shake His hand"  Doubting Thomas.

Beyond Saving wrote:

You claim he is omnipotent. By definition an omnipotent being has as many options as can possibly be imagined. One better option would have been to not kill everyone.

How do you know that would have been better?  

Because not killing innocents is better than killing innocents. 

by what?  your personal morality?  What justification do you have that:

1.  They were innocents by all means

2.  the alternative was a better outcome throughout history/

I need sources for this

Beyond Saving wrote:

Huh. I hope people who share your viewpoints never get political power.

likewise Eye-wink

Beyond Saving wrote:

I'm on Earth, I can't get off of it and you tell me that God is going to judge me. Where exactly is my choice? I have less choice than a dog on a leash. 

You're looking at the physical.  We're discussing a metaphysical topic

Beyond Saving wrote:

In our society you have input in who is elected, who is a judge and what the laws are. They are all done in your name regardless of whether you are personally involved in the process. I didn't ask you what the law was, I asked you what you think the laws ought to be. Since you live in a country where you have some small ability to select the people who write the laws, such questions are clearly part of your social responsibility to pass a judgement on them. If you choose to abdicate that responsibility then you are by default endorsing the law as it stands. Since you say it is not your place to judge people for performing the actions in question and these people are routinely judged in our society by judges and politicians who partially derive their authority from you, then it is clearly your place to support or oppose the law.   

Support or opposing a law is not making a judgement on an individual, rather it is upholding a societal ideal.  If that's judgement, then I guess I judge the nation as do the rest of the citizens.  

Beyond Saving wrote:

Because it is a bad law. If you were God, would you make homosexuality against your law? If so why? If not, then why do you worship God when you don't agree with his laws?

What's bad about it?  

Homosexuality?  Ok.  Consider that God designed everything including us.  His design has a specific purpose... By nature we can see what sexuality was designed for.  Is it wrong for God to be against the use of His creation for something contrary to its purpose?    

Beyond Saving wrote:

Complete bullshit. Everything from rent to insurance is more expensive when you are single. As far as cost of living, being married is much cheaper. Living with a roommate is next and being single living on your own is the most expensive.

http://www.theatlantic.com/sexes/archive/2013/01/the-high-price-of-being-single-in-america/267043/

I agree living single and alone is the most expensive, though most singles have roommates and/or much smaller places to live which cost less all around.  The increased cost of living due to larger locations and/or more usage of utilities/food/dating etc is not proportionate to size or useability.  Also, married couples tend to have to save up for a lot of things... e.g. house, kids, dates... a little different than the single life and roommate relationships.  

I'm not here to debate you on it, but i found that all that extra money I had when I was single was put into savings when we were married and now that we have kids... its' gone... and we never bought anything big with it.  

I am a believer that if I was still single, I'd still have all that money saved up unused... or at least if used, used on something significant that I would be enjoying now.  

 


Vastet
atheistBloggerSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 13210
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
@ Caposkia #1: local

@ Caposkia

#1: local abundance and distribution of dark matter 0.1

Right off the hop this equation makes an unproven assumption. We don't even know for certain there is dark matter. The theory behind dark matter is an attempt to explain certain observations in the universe. That it has gained wild popularity does not mean it exists. In fact it might not exist, and forces we are as yet unaware of may yet explain the observations.

Compounding the error of assuming its existence is assuming it must be distributed in a certain way, which is impossible to prove when we can't even prove it exists.

I'll now skip ahead a bit, since countering every single point would take me years.

5: density of giant galaxies in the early universe 0.1

Exactly what do densities of galaxies in the early universe have to do with us? We aren't in the early universe. If it was 10 billion years ago I'd agree this makes a very good point, but it's not 10 billion years ago.

6-16 are all speculation at best and irrelevant at worst.

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


Vastet
atheistBloggerSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 13210
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
The size, mass, and density

The size, mass, and density of our galaxy/cluster/etc are irrelevant to Earths existence and capacity to form life.

17 is a bit of an issue, if you ignore the fact that gamma ray bursts are extremely focused. A billion could go off every second, and unless they were pointed directly at us we'd never know.

I'm going to stop numbering these because the designer didn't bother to, and it's too easy to lose track.

number of stars in system 0.7

Completely irrelevant. There's absolutely no evidence to suggest we couldn't exist if there were 2 or 3 or 20 stars in our solar system.

distance from nearest black hole 0.2

We don't even know where the nearest black hole is. Only the nearest we've detected. And since they are undetectable unless in the process of feeding, making calculations based on this is ridiculous.

galactic tidal forces on planetary system 0.2

The impact of galactic forces on planetary systems is negated by the star(s) in that system.

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


Vastet
atheistBloggerSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 13210
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
mass of Neptune 0.1 ROFL.

mass of Neptune 0.1

ROFL. That's all I need to say about that.

oxygen quantity in atmosphere 0.01

Considering the only reason there's significant concentrations of oxygen in the atmosphere in the first place is because life put it there, this is quite literally stupid.

Ah the golden gem that is present in every creationists equation for life! This particular equation does it multiple times over! Most only do it once or twice:

quantity of forest & grass fires 0.01
quantity of anaeorbic bacteria in the oceans 0.01
quantity of aerobic bacteria in the oceans 0.01
quantity of anaerobic nitrogen-fixing bacteria in the early oceans 0.01
quantity, variety, and timing of sulfate-reducing bacteria 0.00001

It is USING PRE-EXISTING LIFE to calculate the PROBABILITY OF LIFE FORMING. Absolutely ridiculous.

I rest my case. Thanks, that was fun.

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


Beyond Saving
atheist
Beyond Saving's picture
Posts: 5448
Joined: 2007-10-12
User is offlineOffline
Vastet wrote: Most only do

Vastet wrote:
Most only do it once or twice: quantity of forest & grass fires 0.01 quantity of anaeorbic bacteria in the oceans 0.01 quantity of aerobic bacteria in the oceans 0.01 quantity of anaerobic nitrogen-fixing bacteria in the early oceans 0.01 quantity, variety, and timing of sulfate-reducing bacteria 0.00001 It is USING PRE-EXISTING LIFE to calculate the PROBABILITY OF LIFE FORMING. Absolutely ridiculous. I rest my case. Thanks, that was fun.

 roflmao

I didn't get that far into the link, simply too funny. 

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


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

caposkia wrote:

Met in what way?  Face to face?  of course not, I'd be dead.  But I do know Him, have had conversations, seen His works and support of his works from sources around the world.  Your morality is apparently not in line with most humans.

How have you had conversations with him? How do you know it is him?

Obviously my morality isn't in line with most humans. If it were there wouldn't be wars, crime and we wouldn't be constantly stealing from each other through the system known as taxation. If everyone shared my morality, the world would be a much better place to live. 

 

caposkia wrote:

that is how we define it and if you look into history, where the word 'evil' originated. 

The word "evil" comes directly from the word "yfel" which comes from the word "upelos" which means going beyond acceptable limits. I wasn't until the 18th century that the word "evil" really developed religious overtones. It is only in American dictionaries where the devil and god are mentioned in connection with the definition.  

 

caposkia wrote:

If that's how it was, then you'd likely be having your own version of sacrifice.  Also, considering the time of sacrifice not being uncommon it would be moral be it that a lot of cultures did just that, however those who follow this particular God knew that wasn't appropriate and God never asked of such a sacrifice.  Human morals have drastically changed since then.  

No, I wouldn't have my own sacrifice, it would just be a difference of whether or not I support a violent revolution. If our country supported such sacrifices because the Christian God said we should, I would fully support taking actions to stop them, including going to war and killing them. The morality (or lack thereof) of your god plays absolutely no role in my morality. 

It is a very good thing that human morals have changed. Would you want to live in a society that maintained the laws and punishments set up by God in the OT?

 

caposkia wrote:

so yes, but through Jesus it is not necessary and through my God it is not moral.  

But if God had decided it was moral, you would think it is moral too? IOW, the only reason you think sacrifices are immoral is because you believe God thinks it is immoral. Why? You are saying that if your God were the exact opposite of what you say he is, if he was evil and completely immoral by today's standards, you would still call him moral and still be a loyal follower.

What is it about god that makes you completely unwilling to make a determination of whether or not he is good before deciding to follow him? What is it that makes you apparently completely unwilling to even ask the question? This is the crux of what I am trying to get to. I simply do not understand how anyone can think that way. 

  

 

caposkia wrote:

Beyond Saving wrote:
 

caposkia wrote:

so then you believe that morality is entirely subjective?  

Yes.

Which then means what you might find immoral or moral is only justified by you and thus anything that goes against your morality is wrong regardless of how "moral" it might be.  How religious of you. 

How is that religious? It requires no belief in anything supernatural and recognizes that other people legitimately have different moralities than me. I don't expect you to just accept that my morality is right on faith. 

 

caposkia wrote:

Beyond Saving wrote:

And if God is only going to judge against me for breaking some human laws, but not others, how am I supposed to know which he thinks I must follow and which I can break? 

Romans 13:9-11;  "For the commandments, "You shall not commit adultery, You shall not murder, You shall not steal, You shall not covet," and any other commandment are summed up in these words: 'You shall love your neighbor as yourself."  Love does no wrong to a neighbor; therefore love is the fulfilling of the law.  Besides this you know the time, that the hour has come for you to wake from sleep.  For salvation is nearer to us now than when we first believed."

Well I can go through life just fine without committing adultery (I am single for life), without murdering anyone, not stealing and I am the least coveting person I know. Following that law isn't so difficult. 

 

caposkia wrote:

that's not why I won't judge, but again we don't know those situations.  The question really isn't to commit genocide to prevent genocide, rather to prevent many many genocides.  What has changed due to those choices?  Can we know for sure?  I trust that it has changed for the better.  You obviously don't.

I don't care if committing a genocide prevents 1000 genocides in the future. Genocide is always bad and anyone who places value on human life should agree.   

 

caposkia wrote:

If one judge is evil, does that make them all evil?  If so God is evil.  if not, we cannot use this analogy.  

Of course not, but I am not talking about judging all judges, just this one particular judge and in this case, on a particular decision he made to determine whether that particular decision was good or bad.

 

caposkia wrote:

well first were they directly killed or did they die due to their choice?  There is a difference.  If you know the consequences and can choose to walk away from them or into them, then yea, you know the consequences and make a choice to live or die.  

You're looking at it as if God was sitting there with a rifle saying make a choice... if you choose wrong I shoot you.  Rather the situations in question had events put in place that would put a person in danger if they chose to disobey God.  

It's like saying "this building is getting demolished in 10 minutes.  Don't go in there or you will be killed"  You then realize you forgot something inside and despite the warnings go inside anyway.  You are putting yourself in danger.  In a humanistic standard yes, you can delay a building being demolished if you got word that someone went into it.  However, it's a little different to shut off a volcano because someone made a bad choice.

Ridiculous. God is omnipotent, preventing the flood would have been as easy for him as not pulling the trigger. In the blowing up the building scenario, the person who goes in might be stupid but if the person with the switch knows the person went into the building or even failed to double check to see if anyone ignored the warning, I would say they are liable for the death of that person and are in the wrong. Under US law, a demolition crew that is responsible for such deaths can and will be charged for manslaughter. Just because the people were warned that the building was going to be destroyed is not a viable defense. I don't see it as a viable defense for god either, especially since God is omnipotent so by definition, knew that people ignored the warning and had the ability to stop the rain at any time.

 

caposkia wrote:
 

God has explained it in scripture, the problem is you're taking a part of it, not putting it in context with the NT and the culture of the time vs the culture of today and saying God is evil.  Yet God was consistent and is consistent with the times.

If God's morality is consistent as you claim then what difference does it make that humans had a different culture when judging God's morality? You say we have changed and he has not.  

 

caposkia wrote:

Those who didn't stone children likely whipped them to the point of unconsciousness and likely blood and scarring.   Would you say then that is ok to do today?  it was ok by mans law then... and even not too far back in history. 

It is not ok and God had the opportunity to say "Hey, I don't like it when you stone children." He didn't. He said, "you should stone people for all of these crimes". And the people obeyed because God is perfect and infallible blah blah blah. He had the ability, opportunity and power to say "This is wrong", instead he encouraged the behavior and to me, that says a lot about his moral compass. It makes far more sense when you look at god as the creation of barbarians who did not have the morality we have today.

As Zora Hurston said,

Quote:

Gods always behave like the people who created them

The Abrahamic god was created by ancient people who placed little value on human life. He got a face lift with the NT to make his values more consistent with the human values at the time. 

 

caposkia wrote:

We can see brain activity, but not what someone is thinking or the process of it.  Yes there are mind altering drugs, but that does not determine that we know the thought process of an individual, rather we just know how to manipulate electronic pulses in the brain.  

There has been a lot of study to this date, to that you are right, but if you ask any scientist studying it, they woudl tell you we know very little even still.

Of course we know very little, it is a relatively new field in science. However, we have evidence that it exists, which was my only point. Making the statement "other people have thoughts" is not a made up statement that does not have supporting evidence.

 

caposkia wrote:

You are judged on what you know.   You know of Jesus and God, but you don't believe... it's also apparent you're not making a conscious effort to discover whether they do exist, rather your approaching the subject with.  "it's not true... unless I can shake His hand"  Doubting Thomas.

I approach all knowledge with skepticism. Until you have evidence, all you have are theories that may or may not be true. I believe absolutely everything should be questioned repeatedly and we should always be willing to accept that what we think we know may be completely wrong. If that makes me a doubting Thomas so be it. That is how I approach all subjects, not just religion. 

 

caposkia wrote:

Beyond Saving wrote:

Because not killing innocents is better than killing innocents. 

by what?  your personal morality?  What justification do you have that:

1.  They were innocents by all means

2.  the alternative was a better outcome throughout history/

I need sources for this

Yes, my own morality.

1. We have already had this discussion- at least some of them were innocent because we know some of them were babies. 

2. People not being slaughtered is a better outcome for its own sake. 

 

caposkia wrote:

Beyond Saving wrote:

I'm on Earth, I can't get off of it and you tell me that God is going to judge me. Where exactly is my choice? I have less choice than a dog on a leash. 

You're looking at the physical.  We're discussing a metaphysical topic

The only existence I have is physical.

 

caposkia wrote:
 

Beyond Saving wrote:

Because it is a bad law. If you were God, would you make homosexuality against your law? If so why? If not, then why do you worship God when you don't agree with his laws?

What's bad about it?

He is punishing people that are not causing any harm. Even you said that you do not have a problem with it.

 

caposkia wrote:
 

Homosexuality?  Ok.  Consider that God designed everything including us.  His design has a specific purpose... By nature we can see what sexuality was designed for.  Is it wrong for God to be against the use of His creation for something contrary to its purpose?    

When he pretends to give us free will it is wrong. You can't give someone something and then get mad because they don't use it in a way that you like. Are we simply tools that God designed for a specific purpose and can use for whatever he wants? Or are we intelligent beings that ought to have the freedom to think for ourselves? You keep telling me that God did not design us to be robots. He gave us intelligence and the ability to make decisions. What right does he have to then turn around and punish us when we exercise the powers he gave us? Why should we recognize him as an authority and tolerate him claiming the right to judge us?

 

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
Vastet wrote:@ Caposkia #1:

Vastet wrote:
@ Caposkia #1: local abundance and distribution of dark matter 0.1 Right off the hop this equation makes an unproven assumption. We don't even know for certain there is dark matter. The theory behind dark matter is an attempt to explain certain observations in the universe. That it has gained wild popularity does not mean it exists. In fact it might not exist, and forces we are as yet unaware of may yet explain the observations. Compounding the error of assuming its existence is assuming it must be distributed in a certain way, which is impossible to prove when we can't even prove it exists. I'll now skip ahead a bit, since countering every single point would take me years. 5: density of giant galaxies in the early universe 0.1 Exactly what do densities of galaxies in the early universe have to do with us? We aren't in the early universe. If it was 10 billion years ago I'd agree this makes a very good point, but it's not 10 billion years ago. 6-16 are all speculation at best and irrelevant at worst.

It seems you're making a lot of assumptions at this point... as if you already know the answers.  

Considering your dark matter issue.   If dark matter is in fact false, then there is something else there.  Could be Tribbles for all we know.  Point and case, a certain volume of whatever it is is needed for things to be the way they are in the universe... that much science is sure about.  Per the study this person did, a particular distribution of it is necessary for life.  I'm not going to pretend I know why for this.

Considering density, that does matter when factoring in gravitational affects on the solar system and particular planet that is supposed to sustain life.  If the balance of gravity was off even by a miniscule fraction, our atmosphere would either crush us or be too thin to sustain us.  I don't know an appropriate thorough scientific explanation of exactly how density would affect the possibilities of life in a particular solar system, but I have heard that arguement in secular science before and it sounds legit to me be it that those talking about it when I heard about it were not trying to support any religious ideal.    If you have anything of sustinence to add to it, please do share, but don't just assume.  

Be it that this person took the time to reference over 200 sources for his conclusions.  It suggests to me that he might have done more research on the subject than both of us combined.  

 


caposkia
Theist
Posts: 2701
Joined: 2007-05-15
User is offlineOffline
Vastet wrote:The size, mass,

Vastet wrote:
The size, mass, and density of our galaxy/cluster/etc are irrelevant to Earths existence and capacity to form life. 17 is a bit of an issue, if you ignore the fact that gamma ray bursts are extremely focused. A billion could go off every second, and unless they were pointed directly at us we'd never know. I'm going to stop numbering these because the designer didn't bother to, and it's too easy to lose track. number of stars in system 0.7 Completely irrelevant. There's absolutely no evidence to suggest we couldn't exist if there were 2 or 3 or 20 stars in our solar system. distance from nearest black hole 0.2 We don't even know where the nearest black hole is. Only the nearest we've detected. And since they are undetectable unless in the process of feeding, making calculations based on this is ridiculous. galactic tidal forces on planetary system 0.2 The impact of galactic forces on planetary systems is negated by the star(s) in that system.

are you just pulling this stuff out of the air or do you have sources that back up your claims here?


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

Beyond Saving wrote:

How have you had conversations with him? How do you know it is him?

Obviously my morality isn't in line with most humans. If it were there wouldn't be wars, crime and we wouldn't be constantly stealing from each other through the system known as taxation. If everyone shared my morality, the world would be a much better place to live. 

That's what Hitler thought too.  Everyone seems to have their own ideals.

I have had conversations through prayer as all believers do, yes there was a 2 way communication involved.  How do I know it was him?  Same way I recognize a friend on the phone without looking at caller id.  If you know them, you know them.  

Beyond Saving wrote:

The word "evil" comes directly from the word "yfel" which comes from the word "upelos" which means going beyond acceptable limits. I wasn't until the 18th century that the word "evil" really developed religious overtones. It is only in American dictionaries where the devil and god are mentioned in connection with the definition.  

The concept of course went much further back.   I'm not arguing that the Bible had literally the word "evil" written in it be it that "evil" is English, but the word we translate it from is understood as "evil".  beyond acceptable limits makes sense.  In this case, beyond the acceptable limits that God put in place.  If it is not beyond those limits it is good, and if it is, it's evil.  

To get techinical OT 'Ra' was typically in reference to a "bad" usually physical but also referenced in other ways and typically associated with the sins people committed.  (Ot btw, way before the 1800's)  This bad is seen as the evil as translated.    Other Biblical origins translated today into "evil": poneros, kakos, kakon

 

Beyond Saving wrote:

No, I wouldn't have my own sacrifice, it would just be a difference of whether or not I support a violent revolution. If our country supported such sacrifices because the Christian God said we should, I would fully support taking actions to stop them, including going to war and killing them. The morality (or lack thereof) of your god plays absolutely no role in my morality. 

It is a very good thing that human morals have changed. Would you want to live in a society that maintained the laws and punishments set up by God in the OT?

you make a lot of assumptions for someone who is not taking into consideration the life of the time in question.  IF you supported a revolution against these followers it would have been for your god whoever that might have been.  You can say you wouldn't have had your own sacrifice, but is not killing others a form of sacrifice if your god says to do it?  That's kind of worse than animal sacrifice don't you think?  

We can go back and forth on this till the site crashes.  Point and case, you'd be thinking and acting different than you are now if the scenario we're discussing were to come to pass.  I can speculate considering my personality and morals now that I would never sacrifice animals.  I understand though that my personality and morals would be congruent with the society and culture that I lived in at the time.  

Beyond Saving wrote:

But if God had decided it was moral, you would think it is moral too? IOW, the only reason you think sacrifices are immoral is because you believe God thinks it is immoral. Why? You are saying that if your God were the exact opposite of what you say he is, if he was evil and completely immoral by today's standards, you would still call him moral and still be a loyal follower.

If Elon Musk (CEO and creator of EV company Tesla) were a oil co. guru, odds are his Tesla creation wouldn't be electric, so yes, considering that God created me and all of us, we likely would all be different if God was too.

Beyond Saving wrote:

What is it about god that makes you completely unwilling to make a determination of whether or not he is good before deciding to follow him? What is it that makes you apparently completely unwilling to even ask the question? This is the crux of what I am trying to get to. I simply do not understand how anyone can think that way. 

His sovereignty.  Be it that God defines what is good and what is bad, who am I to question the very rules that the creator put into me and everything I know to be real?  There's a whole Bible passage on this:  Isaiah 45:9-13

I'm sure you'll try to run with this in the opposite direction, but you have to think logically for a moment.  If God is thee sovereign almighty God as He is known to be, creator of everything we know to exist, then what is said has to be true whether you like it or not.    God knows how He wants His creation and as His creation, we can't question that.  

Again, I have also seen good come out of all that God has done.  And for what we can only speculate on, its just that, speculation.  Something doesn't go in the way you want it, you can't discount every good deed we can determine was of God for a possibility that something this creator did was bad when there are little if any grounds to support it.

Beyond Saving wrote:

How is that religious? It requires no belief in anything supernatural and recognizes that other people legitimately have different moralities than me. I don't expect you to just accept that my morality is right on faith. 

yet that's exactly what others of dispenationalist religions do and it's the very thing most non-believers I talk to hate about religious people.    Your supernatural belief is subjective morality and though you recognize the differences as others in religious sects do, you cannot accept the differences as legitimate and appropriate.  That is what religions do, it's separatism.  

Beyond Saving wrote:

Well I can go through life just fine without committing adultery (I am single for life), without murdering anyone, not stealing and I am the least coveting person I know. Following that law isn't so difficult. 

if you are the least coveting, then you still covet.  Either way, it is quite a simple concept.

Beyond Saving wrote:

I don't care if committing a genocide prevents 1000 genocides in the future. Genocide is always bad and anyone who places value on human life should agree.

any death is bad, but to preserve life, do we let the murderer run free?

Beyond Saving wrote:
 

Of course not, but I am not talking about judging all judges, just this one particular judge and in this case, on a particular decision he made to determine whether that particular decision was good or bad.

and be it that we can only speculate such, the case is thrown out.

Beyond Saving wrote:

Ridiculous. God is omnipotent, preventing the flood would have been as easy for him as not pulling the trigger. In the blowing up the building scenario, the person who goes in might be stupid but if the person with the switch knows the person went into the building or even failed to double check to see if anyone ignored the warning, I would say they are liable for the death of that person and are in the wrong. Under US law, a demolition crew that is responsible for such deaths can and will be charged for manslaughter. Just because the people were warned that the building was going to be destroyed is not a viable defense. I don't see it as a viable defense for god either, especially since God is omnipotent so by definition, knew that people ignored the warning and had the ability to stop the rain at any time.

The problem with that is if God stopped something everytime someone made a stupid decision despite warnings, nothing would ever get done IMO.  I think you see my point though.  You can speculate all you want, but when it comes down to it, God is holding us responsible for ourselves.  He's made it abundantly clear that He's not holding our hand and that He's going to do what He's going to do no matter what decision we make on our own.  You're talking above about wanting God to baby us.  God is letting us choose.  There are real consequences for every choice we make.  Why would God change that?  

Consider the person that runs back into the building that is about to be demolished.  When found out that they went back in, they would be arrested.  It doesn't matter why they went back in.  They would still be put into handcuffs and hauled off for booking?  Why?  They ignored clear warnings to stay clear of a particular location.  Same applies here, though instead of stopping everything and calling up human authorities, God just goes ahead with the plan.  Considering an afterlife possibility, we can speculate that the person had communications wtih God afterwords and God likely shrugged His shoulders and says:  'I warned you not to go back'.  

Beyond Saving wrote:

If God's morality is consistent as you claim then what difference does it make that humans had a different culture when judging God's morality? You say we have changed and he has not.  

That's just it, we have changed, He has not.  Back then, there were different reasons to question God's morality than now.  

Beyond Saving wrote:

It is not ok and God had the opportunity to say "Hey, I don't like it when you stone children." He didn't. He said, "you should stone people for all of these crimes". And the people obeyed because God is perfect and infallible blah blah blah. He had the ability, opportunity and power to say "This is wrong", instead he encouraged the behavior and to me, that says a lot about his moral compass. It makes far more sense when you look at god as the creation of barbarians who did not have the morality we have today.

just as much as we say "it is ok to hang/electrify/inject leathally, etc. a person for specific crimes today.  God also had limitations and did not include children in those laws... doesn't mean that people didn't try to include them anyway, but the Bible talks about parenting and how the parents are responsible for their children's discipline.  

Beyond Saving wrote:

The Abrahamic god was created by ancient people who placed little value on human life. He got a face lift with the NT to make his values more consistent with the human values at the time. 

or quite the opposite.  There were human/child sacrifices by followers of many other gods during that time.  Not once did the God of the Bible expect such sacrifices.  

Beyond Saving wrote:

I approach all knowledge with skepticism. Until you have evidence, all you have are theories that may or may not be true. I believe absolutely everything should be questioned repeatedly and we should always be willing to accept that what we think we know may be completely wrong. If that makes me a doubting Thomas so be it. That is how I approach all subjects, not just religion. 

Ironically I do too.  Why do you think I take the time to allow people like you to challenge my understanding?  That approach is the exact approach I take to the subject at hand.  The difference with me is I know a physical face to face is not logical and there are other logical ways of knowing and understanding this following.  I'm still willing to question any part of it if someone brings information to my attention that honestly brings rational and empirical contradiction to the table.  

Beyond Saving wrote:

Yes, my own morality.

1. We have already had this discussion- at least some of them were innocent because we know some of them were babies. 

2. People not being slaughtered is a better outcome for its own sake. 

Ok.  

Beyond Saving wrote:

 

The only existence I have is physical.

that's all you know.  You're not open to any other possibilities it seems

Beyond Saving wrote:

He is punishing people that are not causing any harm. Even you said that you do not have a problem with it.

people smoking pot aren't causing any harm according to some, same with theifs who sneak in and steal according to some.  If no one got hurt, then the crime is ok according to some, but that does not make it ok does it?

Beyond Saving wrote:

When he pretends to give us free will it is wrong. You can't give someone something and then get mad because they don't use it in a way that you like. Are we simply tools that God designed for a specific purpose and can use for whatever he wants? Or are we intelligent beings that ought to have the freedom to think for ourselves? You keep telling me that God did not design us to be robots. He gave us intelligence and the ability to make decisions. What right does he have to then turn around and punish us when we exercise the powers he gave us? Why should we recognize him as an authority and tolerate him claiming the right to judge us?

 

So when a drug dealer legitimately buys a car and then uses it to smuggle drugs, we're not allowed to get mad at them and/or arrest them for it?  That's not what the car was designed for and if I was the designer of that car, i'd be appaulled.  

Consider this in reference to the rest of your statement.  Our ancestors fought and died for what we call freedom today, yet we have many many laws in this country that punish us, sometimes severely for making decisions that some would say is simply exercising the power that we were given.  Why should we recognize our government as an authority and tolerate them?  why don't we just overthrow it and do what we want?  That would be true freedom right?

To answer both your questions of God designing us for a specific purpose and are we intelligent beigns that auto to have the freedom to think for ourselves.  The answer is "yes".  


Vastet
atheistBloggerSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 13210
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
caposkia wrote:It seems

caposkia wrote:
It seems you're making a lot of assumptions at this point... as if you already know the answers.  

A blatant lie. I pointed out that we don't know the answers the equation assumes.

caposkia wrote:
Considering your dark matter issue.   If dark matter is in fact false, then there is something else there.

So you don't understand what I said.

caposkia wrote:
Point and case, a certain volume of whatever it is is needed for things to be the way they are in the universe..

Prove it. You'll win a nobel prize for accomplishing something that millions of scientists over thousands of years have failed to.

caposkia wrote:

Considering density, that does matter when factoring in gravitational affects on the solar system and particular planet that is supposed to sustain life.

Only locally. A galaxy 2 million lightyears away is 100% irrelevant. The galaxy we inhabit didn't exist 10 billion years ago, the density of our galaxy then is 100% irrelevant.

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


Vastet
atheistBloggerSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 13210
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
caposkia wrote:Be it that

caposkia wrote:
Be it that this person took the time to reference over 200 sources for his conclusions.  It suggests to me that he might have done more research on the subject than both of us combined.

He can reference anything he wants, his conclusions based on those references ARE FALSE. I, a layman, have proved it. Period.

caposkia wrote:
are you just pulling this stuff out of the air or do you have sources that back up your claims here?

The things I'm saying are taught in high school. I suggest you attend one.

What, no comment on the ultimate flaw? ROFL.

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


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

caposkia wrote:

It seems you understood that I meant the writings were the writings of eyewitnesses... (not all)

however, your point that Mark was written 30-40 years later does not nullify the possibility of a first hand account, only that it was written later... Does that open us up to a situation where the story was handed from person to person before written down... it could, but then again, how long did it take during that time for eye witness works to be "compiled and finalized".  Understand that the 30-40 years isn't necessarily when it was first written down, but it is when it was formalized into a document.  Also, it is understood that Mark is a source for other NT books along with another book that we have yet to lay our hands on.. and maybe never will... no one knows when "Q" as it is called was written.  What you state can only be assumption at best and there is enough evidence in the writing to suggest it is a direct writing from a witness

Are you implying that the bible was written by witnesses while at the same time acknowledging that it wasn't? Also, if you believe that the "Q" source was true, wouldn't it mean that Matthew and Luke were at BEST second hand sources?

caposkia wrote:

Jabberwocky wrote:
 

I don't completely rule out the possibility, but I see it as an extraordinarily unlikely scenario. This is an incredible claim made, and it's only being written 30 or so years after. Have you ever heard of the alleged Roswell alien crash? There are a lot of places where you can read about what people who proclaim to have seen these things said. These are self-proclaimed eyewitnesses to what they understand to have been an extra-terrestrial phenomenon.  That sort of claim DOES require more evidence than at absolute best 2nd hand anecdotal evidence coming from self-proclaimed eyewitnesses, who already have come to the conclusion of what they saw actually was. When it comes to the Roswell crash, I think you would agree with me that they could have been mistaken, and misinterpreted what they saw. They could have been in a delusional state (be it due to drugs or something else). A combination of those two things can go a long way, as you may see something normal but uncommon, and interpret it as something other-worldly. Also, it is completely possible that some or all of the alleged witnesses are making the entire thing up! I doubt it's all of them, as someone most probably (but not definitely) saw something to set this off, and stay adamant that someone was wrong. However, it does not mean it's worthy of any consideration.

that makes sense, so what's your case for the scripture then?

Just like the Roswell crashes, I believe that anything in them that wasn't deliberately fabricated, was written by people who were mistaken about what they actually witnessed. Can you provide me with some information that could convince me that the people who wrote the bible did indeed see what they claimed, and were not delusional about the things that they saw?

 

caposkia wrote:

very little to none for sure.  How are you sure that at the time no historian heard a thing?  Or was it that they didn't think it was either legitimate or important at the time?  Unless people witnessed Jesus, as teh Bible stated, most did not believe he was who he said he was.\

1. If they felt it important to write about, then they would. 

2. The bible attributes many extraordinary and very public acts to Jesus

3. Any historian of the time would have found it important to write about said acts

4. They didn't. Why?

caposkia wrote:

only because history shows it to be so.  Jews would really be the only group that could claim we wrote an inaccurate revision because their books are the only ones older than the NT.  All of the Muslim writings not only have been written at least 600 years after the final book of the Bible had been finalized, but there is lots of evidence that the writer took many ideas from the Bible scripture... it's why they have so many parallels and follow the same God.

Holy crap, you're delusional. I can't be polite about this, sorry. The old testament wasn't the first thing ever written. Judaism is simply the oldest monotheism that still has a notable following in this world. You're assuming to begin with that their scriptures are authentic proclamations of the real god. You are providing 0 evidence. NONE! You are also acknowledging that the Jews could say about your book what you can say about the Muslim or Mormon scriptures, but you are not telling me why the Jews are wrong to deny your book, but you are right to deny the books of the Muslims or the Mormons. You are simply asserting it. As usual. 

Now I agree that the Qu'ran is plagiarised from the bible, but given the region and time it was written, that is not at all surprising. It does not mean that the bible is true.

caposkia wrote:

Jabberwocky wrote:

That Islam came after Christianity? Yes. That it was similar, and slightly plagiarized? Yes! That Christianity is correct, and Islam is a deviation (as you seem to suggest), no. Still haven't found Jesus in history.

Others have

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Existence_of_Jesus

"Virtually all modern scholars of antiquity agree that Jesus existed"

Once again (even as that article states). The most we can do is say that many agree that there was likely a guy named Jesus (which, while historians will deem it likely, almost none of them will tell you that it is certain). Some will say that a guy named Jesus was crucified. Anything further is guess-work. Maybe he was crucified for blasphemy. Maybe the blasphemy was a proclamation of being the son of god. It is still all a guess! No honest and proper historian will confirm any of that, because they're stuck at "there was probably a dude named Jesus that was crucified for blasphemy" (a common occurrence at the time). The only reason that historians even will concede as much as they do, is probably because it's more likely that the religion was based on an actual self-proclaimed messiah, rather than an entirely made up figure. Indeed it's probably why the historians of the era of 30-40 years after the alleged execution of the man wrote about him as well; they simply don't think that his followers made him up.

caposkia wrote:

that's fine.  Of course I claim that Christianity is correct and Islam is not, I'm a Christian... sorry if I forgot to mention that.  Though I am not unfounded on my reasoning as you likely see in this post.

This is an assertion.

caposkia wrote:

that quote you have of mine above is in reference to the Muslim texts being written 600 years after the final book of the Bible was compiled, not about it being the final correct word... nice try though.

Yes, but I called you on saying that the Qu'ran was a deviation from the bible, while simply asserting that the bible is true without providing evidence. I compared that to how the Christian New Testament is an addition (and in Jewish eyes, a deviation) of the Christian Old Testament, also known as the Jewish Tanakh. You simply asserted that you're right and the Muslims are wrong, and provided no supporting evidence. Hence, your claim is that the Old Testament was true scripture, as was the new. Then, everything further is a deviation. Now, unless you're open to the possibility of another book emerging that can support the two testaments that you do follow, then you do believe that the Christian bible is the final correct word. I know that you believe this, so don't try to play word games to pass it off as if you don't just to attempt to win an argument. You won't get that past me. 

caposkia wrote:

Jabberwocky wrote:

No. I am examining 3 Abrahamic scriptures. I find in them many similar themes, and many falsehoods. There is nothing that shows me that any of the 3 is more correct than another. I deem them all to be false (in exactly the same way that you deem the Qu'ran to be false). You are the one who is saying that the first one is incomplete, and only the first two together are the truth. You are affording a certain combination of these books a special status (one of truth) that you do not afford to all of them. Instead of providing why you think that's true, you're giving short answers, and breaking up my post to make it difficult to read (I have to have 3 tabs open just to cobble this together here).

I typically try to respond directly to specific points... I've learned from being on this site people get pissy when you respond to a large statement and forget to address something.  Sorry if that bothers you, from here on, I'll try to respond to yours more as a whole.

Anyway, the problem with you claiming that I claim that the Quran is completely false is that I can't claim it's completely false... because the Quran has a lot of scripture in it... therefore there is a lot of truth in it.  The problem with it is it clearly in many instances teaches against Chrstian teaching and pulls its followers away from Jesus as THE source for salvation.  Of course again, the research I've done shows the dating in general suggests that the Biblical scripture had a lot of influence in the writing and not the other way around

What a pile of garbage this bit is. You are implying that the parts of the Qu'ran that are true are the ones that are directly ripped from the bible. Assertions again. No proof! You literally, in this post, are presenting the words scripture, and truth, as synonyms. You are also defining scripture as applying only to Christian scripture. 

Now, of course the Christian scripture influenced the Qu'ran. Chronologically, things wouldn't really work the other way around. Where did I imply the opposite? 

Once again, WHY is my major question. Why do you deem the old testament to be incomplete on its own, the old and new together to be complete, but the Qu'ran and the Book of Mormon to be falsehoods?

caposkia wrote:

Jabberwocky wrote:

No. I was making an entirely different point, which you're trying to dodge again, rather than admit that this could have contributed greatly to the spread of Christianity.

I don't dodge.  I see those as excuses when you don't have an answer like the dodge accusation.  instead I may have misunderstood... let's try again, what was your point

Too lazy to read exactly what this was about this moment since there's no visible context. Maybe tomorrow. But IIRC, I presented why people would promote Christianity if it weren't true. Rather than say anything to that, you basically said "yeah, people could have spread it to exploit people like you demonstrated. That doesn't mean it's not true". It certainly doesn't help you though. 

caposkia wrote:

Jabberwocky wrote:

Which languages are you well versed in? Hebrew? Greek?

While we wait, Matthew 1 and Luke 3 give very differing genealogies of Joseph (Jesus's step-father if you will). Are the names mistranslated? Also, Luke holds 15 more names. Are we to believe that it was so badly mistranslated that most of the names were wrong, and many others were split in half (even though they seem to be full biblical-like names)?

If you'd like, answer that. If not, simply provide what your related languages credentials are, and we shall see how we can discuss this. 

Contradictions aside, you seem to take a literal view nonetheless. Let's start with Genesis. Adam and Eve could not have been the first people, as genetics have proven that our most recent common male ancestor, and our most recent common female ancestor, lived many many generations apart. Adam and Eve as written in Genesis are a genetic impossibility.

I'm better versed in Hebrew than Greek... 

Carm seems to have a good detailed explanation behind your differing genealogies question:

http://carm.org/bible-difficulties/matthew-mark/why-are-there-different-genealogies-jesus-matthew-1-and-luke-3

...and I agree with them that it's hard for me to believe that those who put the books together were blatently unaware of the conflicting genealogies and likely knew of the hsitory and found no problem with it.  Lemme know what you think.

Oh come on! So throughout the bible (old testament included) there was no issue with mentioning the names of daughters that were born to men, but all of a sudden, it was culturally impolite to dare to mention that someone was Mary's father, rather than referring to them as Joseph's? Utterly absurd. That is a blatant excuse, and nothing more. It was okay centuries before to write of daughters of a man getting their father drunk, and sleeping with him (Lot's daughters), but it was not okay to say that Heli was Mary's father? That's a new degree of absurd. Also, that bit about no descendant of Jeconiah ever having rights to the throne is particularly hilarious. The link you posted states that Jesus can still be king, since he is not a biological child of Joseph. If that's the case, why is this lineage relevant? Furthermore, following Jeconiah in your link, you have Shealtiel followed by Zerubbabel. These are also the only two names that also follow back to back in the lineage in Luke. Coincidence? I think not.

caposkia wrote:

Jabberwocky wrote:

Simple. Fear. Are educated people immune to every phobia? No. Humans almost unanimously have some fear of the unknown, and there is no greater unknown then death. I know many educated people with all sorts of fears, from heights, to dark, to spiders...anything! Hell, people who fear spiders can be scared of a spider even after they are convinced that they are harmless. Fear is not meant to be rational, and it is difficult to frame death in a comfortable light. Some people, once they've convincned themselves that they (and everyone else) will in some way cheat death, have every reason to re-assure themselves that that is the case.

I'm not sure if I can buy that as a reason, though I don't doubt that many hold to that reasoning... what of those that don't?  I can say that fear of death is not my reason... in fact, I'd be likely to follow a religion that offers reincarnation.  I think it would be cool to come back and live life many times in many different cultures... you also learn from past lives and become experts in certain fields after a while... i'd be destined to be rich at some point!!!... but here I am... believing that Christ is my salvation... 

That's a steaming pile of Christian humility if I've ever heard it. You even imply that re-incarnation would cause you to be destined for riches. Who knows? Maybe you've already used up your rich lives in the past, and are now destined to become poorer over time. 

Once again, you don't necessarily believe what you wish were true. I did say in my post "once they've convincned themselves" (excuse the typo). It's not easy to change religious beliefs in your adult life regardless of which direction. However, I would venture that it's much harder to accept Christianity in one's mid 20-s then it is to drop it. 

caposkia wrote:

I could have sworn that I've read more than 1 sentence from you... and over the 6 years I've been on here... yea, must have been more than one sentence... I'm also referring to those who are no longer talking to me.  You may still have something to prove.  

I almost doubt you have. Most of your responses seem pre-packaged, like a bad frozen dinner.

caposkia wrote:

...and I have read the Quran... and the Torrah... I did a study on Confucianism a while back and briefly studied ancient chinese culture which is riddled with religion and belief.

Ok. I understand why, as a Christian. you accept the Torah (as it coincides with the first five books of your "old testament" AKA the pentateuch....did you read the rest of the Tanakh as well?....(aka the rest of your old testament)). So what is unique about the combination of the old and new testaments as understood by Christians, that makes it even slightly more likely to be true than just the lone Tanakh, or the Qu'ran? Give me some solid reasons for once!

caposkia wrote:

You seem to imply many things about me that have no founding.  I went to a secular college, so you can't blame my classes.  I am going through a historical runthrough of scripture as we speak with PJTS.... and you'll find that it's not that simple really.  You want history, go to this thread:

http://www.rationalresponders.com/forum/17279

I'll check it out and respond on that later.

caposkia wrote:

Jabberwocky wrote:

 

I did cite extreme examples, but yes I do possess a severe distrust for those who claim to know god better than I do. There is almost no way to verify if the person authentically believes that, or if they're lying (the only way being is if they get busted admitting their deceit, or if James Randi shows up with a radio scanner in the case of Popoff). If somebody claims that god is speaking to them, that means that one of following three options are true:

1. They're lying

2. They're insane

3. God is really speaking to them.

Number 3 wouldn't be any less scary than 1 & 2 either, because it would also mean that god only speaks to some people.  It would also mean that, since god would know that frauds and insane people exist, he would deem it safe to communicate to humanity in this way, and tell them to give people advice, without providing some sort of evidence of authenticity.

The Bible in this case would be the Authenticity.  

So with that response, you've said that anybody who is alive today, and claims to know god better than you or I, is lying or delusional. Thank you for defeating your own argument.

caposkia wrote:

Jabberwocky wrote:

I never said that I was. However, if we are simply judged by our ratio of good vs. bad actions, then why is believing in Christianity necessary?

You are judged just as in a court of law... regardless of how much $ you donate to a good cause or how many hours you've served at a soup kitchen, if you're caught stealing, you're going to have consequences.  it's not good vs. bad.

Ok. So are there varying punishments? Do you know what they are? How? What is the criteria by which someone is condemned to everlasting punishment? Do you even believe that? It's hard to tell with your ambiguous responses. 

 

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.


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

caposkia wrote:

That's what Hitler thought too.  Everyone seems to have their own ideals.

And so did Gandhi. Some of us are right and the rest of you are wrong. 

 

caposkia wrote:

I have had conversations through prayer as all believers do, yes there was a 2 way communication involved.  How do I know it was him?  Same way I recognize a friend on the phone without looking at caller id.  If you know them, you know them.

What does he sound like?

 

 

caposkia wrote:

The concept of course went much further back.   I'm not arguing that the Bible had literally the word "evil" written in it be it that "evil" is English, but the word we translate it from is understood as "evil".  beyond acceptable limits makes sense.  In this case, beyond the acceptable limits that God put in place.  If it is not beyond those limits it is good, and if it is, it's evil.  

To get techinical OT 'Ra' was typically in reference to a "bad" usually physical but also referenced in other ways and typically associated with the sins people committed.  (Ot btw, way before the 1800's)  This bad is seen as the evil as translated.    Other Biblical origins translated today into "evil": poneros, kakos, kakon

My point exactly. The term evil has nothing to do with religion in general and your attempt to monopolize the term as only having meaning within your particular religion is absurd.

 

caposkia wrote:
 

Beyond Saving wrote:

No, I wouldn't have my own sacrifice, it would just be a difference of whether or not I support a violent revolution. If our country supported such sacrifices because the Christian God said we should, I would fully support taking actions to stop them, including going to war and killing them. The morality (or lack thereof) of your god plays absolutely no role in my morality. 

It is a very good thing that human morals have changed. Would you want to live in a society that maintained the laws and punishments set up by God in the OT?

you make a lot of assumptions for someone who is not taking into consideration the life of the time in question.  IF you supported a revolution against these followers it would have been for your god whoever that might have been.  You can say you wouldn't have had your own sacrifice, but is not killing others a form of sacrifice if your god says to do it?  That's kind of worse than animal sacrifice don't you think?

I don't have a god. I make my decisions all by my big boy self. I would support a revolution against barbarians as a secular human who values human life. I am secular no matter what you say your god believes.  My original point is that I am opposed to sacrificing innocents regardless of whether or not your bible says it is ok, you apparently are only against sacrifice because your bible is against it and would willingly support it if you believed your god supported it. While I am glad you agree with me, I find your lack of independent morality unsettling.  

 

caposkia wrote:

We can go back and forth on this till the site crashes.  Point and case, you'd be thinking and acting different than you are now if the scenario we're discussing were to come to pass.  I can speculate considering my personality and morals now that I would never sacrifice animals.  I understand though that my personality and morals would be congruent with the society and culture that I lived in at the time.

How would I be any different? Your god is bullshit. No matter what you tell me he thinks is good or bad, I still think he is bullshit. If your god were the greatest good in the world I think he is bullshit, if he were the greatest evil in the world I still think he is bullshit. My opinion on God's existence is not dependent upon whatever moral stands you attribute or don't attribute to him. Whatever the bible says about morality is not in the smallest way relevant to my morality. It is apparently completely decisive to your morality.  

 

caposkia wrote:

If Elon Musk (CEO and creator of EV company Tesla) were a oil co. guru, odds are his Tesla creation wouldn't be electric, so yes, considering that God created me and all of us, we likely would all be different if God was too.

So is it a good thing that you blindly follow God? Would it have been good if Elon Musk had blindly followed what everyone else in his country did and joined the military? Elon Musk wasn't an oil company guru because he explicitly decided not to be an oil company guru. You seem completely unwilling to make that decision yourself, instead you go with whatever you think god said. 

 

caposkia wrote:

Beyond Saving wrote:

What is it about god that makes you completely unwilling to make a determination of whether or not he is good before deciding to follow him? What is it that makes you apparently completely unwilling to even ask the question? This is the crux of what I am trying to get to. I simply do not understand how anyone can think that way. 

His sovereignty.  Be it that God defines what is good and what is bad, who am I to question the very rules that the creator put into me and everything I know to be real?  There's a whole Bible passage on this:  Isaiah 45:9-13

A human?

 

caposkia wrote:

I'm sure you'll try to run with this in the opposite direction, but you have to think logically for a moment.  If God is thee sovereign almighty God as He is known to be, creator of everything we know to exist, then what is said has to be true whether you like it or not.    God knows how He wants His creation and as His creation, we can't question that.

Why should we as the creation automatically accept what the creator wants? He created something intelligent. If he wanted robots he should have made robots.

 

caposkia wrote:
 

Again, I have also seen good come out of all that God has done.  And for what we can only speculate on, its just that, speculation.  Something doesn't go in the way you want it, you can't discount every good deed we can determine was of God for a possibility that something this creator did was bad when there are little if any grounds to support it.

Yet all the "good" I can point to humans who created it as well as all of the "bad", god doesn't seem to have a hand in it at all. Yet you credit him with everything "good" and blame us for everything "bad". All I am saying is that perhaps you should give credit where it is due, to all the humans who worked hard to bring good to the world without the help of any god. Like say, Elon Musk. 

 

caposkia wrote:

yet that's exactly what others of dispenationalist religions do and it's the very thing most non-believers I talk to hate about religious people.    Your supernatural belief is subjective morality and though you recognize the differences as others in religious sects do, you cannot accept the differences as legitimate and appropriate.  That is what religions do, it's separatism.  

I am missing what is supernatural about my beliefs. I accept that most humans have a different morality than I do. I tolerate other moralities insofar as they do not threaten me or my standard of living. If they do threaten me or my standard of living I am willing to use physical force against them. What is supernatural about that?

 

 

caposkia wrote:

if you are the least coveting, then you still covet.  Either way, it is quite a simple concept.

So desiring enough food to live is a sin? Do you think that is a good law?

 

caposkia wrote:

any death is bad, but to preserve life, do we let the murderer run free?

False dichotomy. There are many options between killing someone and letting them roam freely, especially when you are omnipotent. 

 

caposkia wrote:

Beyond Saving wrote:
 

Of course not, but I am not talking about judging all judges, just this one particular judge and in this case, on a particular decision he made to determine whether that particular decision was good or bad.

and be it that we can only speculate such, the case is thrown out.

Why? We have testimony of what happened from the defendant. IMO, the defendant's own story is pretty damning. If everything the defendant says is 100% true, he is guilty in my book. 

 

caposkia wrote:

The problem with that is if God stopped something everytime someone made a stupid decision despite warnings, nothing would ever get done IMO.  I think you see my point though.  You can speculate all you want, but when it comes down to it, God is holding us responsible for ourselves.  He's made it abundantly clear that He's not holding our hand and that He's going to do what He's going to do no matter what decision we make on our own.  You're talking above about wanting God to baby us.  God is letting us choose.  There are real consequences for every choice we make.  Why would God change that?  

We are not talking about God stopping someone from doing something. We are talking about God doing or not doing a direct action that he personally decided to do. This isn't a case of "don't put your finger in the electrical outlet" and we did it anyway, this is a case of "I'm going to beat you".

 

caposkia wrote:

Consider the person that runs back into the building that is about to be demolished.  When found out that they went back in, they would be arrested.  It doesn't matter why they went back in.  They would still be put into handcuffs and hauled off for booking?  Why?  They ignored clear warnings to stay clear of a particular location.  Same applies here, though instead of stopping everything and calling up human authorities, God just goes ahead with the plan.  Considering an afterlife possibility, we can speculate that the person had communications wtih God afterwords and God likely shrugged His shoulders and says:  'I warned you not to go back'.  

Instead of stopping, God demolishes the building anyways. My point exactly. The far more moral course of action is to stop everything. The fact that the person is an idiot is not sufficient enough reason to kill them. 

 

caposkia wrote:

Beyond Saving wrote:

If God's morality is consistent as you claim then what difference does it make that humans had a different culture when judging God's morality? You say we have changed and he has not.  

That's just it, we have changed, He has not.  Back then, there were different reasons to question God's morality than now.  

So do we stick to God's old morality or the new human one? Is is moral to stone another human? 

 

caposkia wrote:

just as much as we say "it is ok to hang/electrify/inject leathally, etc. a person for specific crimes today.  God also had limitations and did not include children in those laws... doesn't mean that people didn't try to include them anyway, but the Bible talks about parenting and how the parents are responsible for their children's discipline.

"we" don't say it is ok to hang/electrify/inject lethally etc. You apparently do. "We" do not. In fact, the state of Missouri is considering bringing back the gas chamber because many of us consider the death penalty immoral. So many of us that the companies that make lethal injection drugs refuse to sell them for the purpose of murdering convicts. Maybe you think the death penalty is great, but that is your pathetic morality. Not ours. The companies that make a profit selling the drugs have more morals than you and our government!

http://rt.com/usa/missouri-gas-chamber-execution-731/

 

caposkia wrote:

Beyond Saving wrote:

The Abrahamic god was created by ancient people who placed little value on human life. He got a face lift with the NT to make his values more consistent with the human values at the time. 

or quite the opposite.  There were human/child sacrifices by followers of many other gods during that time.  Not once did the God of the Bible expect such sacrifices.  

He killed 99.99% of humanity in a giant flood. Obviously, he has little to no value for our lives. 

 

 

caposkia wrote:

Beyond Saving wrote:

I approach all knowledge with skepticism. Until you have evidence, all you have are theories that may or may not be true. I believe absolutely everything should be questioned repeatedly and we should always be willing to accept that what we think we know may be completely wrong. If that makes me a doubting Thomas so be it. That is how I approach all subjects, not just religion. 

Ironically I do too.  Why do you think I take the time to allow people like you to challenge my understanding?  That approach is the exact approach I take to the subject at hand.  The difference with me is I know a physical face to face is not logical and there are other logical ways of knowing and understanding this following.  I'm still willing to question any part of it if someone brings information to my attention that honestly brings rational and empirical contradiction to the table.  

No you are not. You have repeatedly offered "evidence" from YEC'ers to support your arguments while at the same time voicing your disagreement with YEC. You are unwilling to even question your God in a hypothetical which leaves little to no chance you would challenge it directly. At the end of the day, you have zero evidence of your god. You rely completely upon faith and when you rely on faith no amount of evidence is going to convince you otherwise. 

 

 

 

caposkia wrote:

Beyond Saving wrote:

The only existence I have is physical.

that's all you know.  You're not open to any other possibilities it seems

I am perfectly open to them if you can provide a shred of evidence suggesting their existence. 

 

caposkia wrote:

Beyond Saving wrote:

He is punishing people that are not causing any harm. Even you said that you do not have a problem with it.

people smoking pot aren't causing any harm according to some, same with theifs who sneak in and steal according to some.  If no one got hurt, then the crime is ok according to some, but that does not make it ok does it?

People smoking pot are not causing any harm. I am mystified why so many people are in a rush to keep it illegal. Thieves cause direct and immediate harm in a society that is based upon the concept of private property. In a society where there is no private property, there are no thieves. That is a political question, do we prefer to live in a society where individuals own property, or do we prefer to live in a society where they do not? There are valid arguments for both and it really boils down to a preference. I prefer a society that recognizes private property. Whether theft should be against the law depends upon what kind of society is desired by the inhabitants. So do you want a society where gay people are equal or not? And what do you accept God punishing gay people even though we as humans decide we are willing to accept them as equals?  

 

caposkia wrote:

So when a drug dealer legitimately buys a car and then uses it to smuggle drugs, we're not allowed to get mad at them and/or arrest them for it?  That's not what the car was designed for and if I was the designer of that car, i'd be appaulled.  

The designers of the car have nothing to do with drug laws that is a decision made by society, a car dealer cannot and probably would not refuse to sell a car on the basis that they believed it might be used to transport drugs. (In case you haven't noticed, I am opposed to all drug laws and if I were a car designer I would not be appalled at a drug dealer using my car.)

 

caposkia wrote:

Consider this in reference to the rest of your statement.  Our ancestors fought and died for what we call freedom today, yet we have many many laws in this country that punish us, sometimes severely for making decisions that some would say is simply exercising the power that we were given.  Why should we recognize our government as an authority and tolerate them?  why don't we just overthrow it and do what we want?  That would be true freedom right?

We should. Our government has seized far more power than our ancestors ever imagined and I am sure they are spinning in their graves. I hold out hope that we can effect change without bloodshed and gain our freedoms back. I fear that might not be the case. Ultimately, I am not as good a man as many who have died before me, and I am unwilling to risk my own life and unwilling to kill for future generations. I find my current situation tolerable, so I tolerate it. Eventually our government will reach a point where enough people are no longer willing to tolerate it and there will be a violent revolution. I hope I am not alive as I have some small inkling of the horrors of war and no desire to experience them firsthand. But such is the history of human government, it becomes increasingly oppressive until the population revolts and a new power is installed. Democracy brought about the idea that maybe such revolts could happen without bloodshed, the success of the democracy experiment is still in doubt.

So exactly why should I recognize God's rule?  

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
Vastet wrote:caposkia

Vastet wrote:
caposkia wrote:
It seems you're making a lot of assumptions at this point... as if you already know the answers.  
A blatant lie. I pointed out that we don't know the answers the equation assumes.

you've really got to calm down and read before you reply.  I said "it seems you're making a lot of assumptions"  I did not tell you you were or make the claim that you were, the way you've been responded makes it seem that way.  Here i was looking for you to assure me you weren't... this reply wasn't very reassuring on that front.

Vastet wrote:

caposkia wrote:
Considering your dark matter issue.   If dark matter is in fact false, then there is something else there.
So you don't understand what I said.

Ok.  If so, then please explain.

Vastet wrote:

 Prove it. You'll win a nobel prize for accomplishing something that millions of scientists over thousands of years have failed to.

With the amount of sources this guy claims for his findings, I believe he did... unless you have some concrete information how his conclusions are false.  I need more than a question of how X applies or an assertion that X doesn't apply without some explanation.  I assume this means you've also begun the years long process of cross referencing his findings if you're so sure of yourself.

I think your'e getting lost in something too.  This particular subject in question is the odds of life happening, not proof of a creator though one leads to the possibility of the other through means of deduction.  

 

Vastet wrote:

caposkia wrote:
Considering density, that does matter when factoring in gravitational affects on the solar system and particular planet that is supposed to sustain life.
Only locally. A galaxy 2 million lightyears away is 100% irrelevant. The galaxy we inhabit didn't exist 10 billion years ago, the density of our galaxy then is 100% irrelevant.

source?


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

Vastet wrote:
caposkia wrote:
Be it that this person took the time to reference over 200 sources for his conclusions.  It suggests to me that he might have done more research on the subject than both of us combined.
He can reference anything he wants, his conclusions based on those references ARE FALSE. I, a layman, have proved it. Period.

you have proved nothing.  I see you make conclusions and ignore my request for sources or references.  I can take the same approach as you and claim blindly, but I have a feeling you wouldn't buy it from me.

Vastet wrote:

caposkia wrote:
are you just pulling this stuff out of the air or do you have sources that back up your claims here?
The things I'm saying are taught in high school. I suggest you attend one. What, no comment on the ultimate flaw? ROFL.

ok, then sourcing it should be easy.  I'll wait.   Be specific on subject matter be it that a lot is covered.  I don't remember going thorugh that much detail in my highschool classes let alone my college classes, but I'm willing to see what you've found.  BTW, Jesus is taught to elementary school kids, but that's not good support for His existence is it?  If so, I'll introduce you to Santa Claus.  


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

Jabberwocky wrote:

I compared that to how the Christian New Testament is an addition (and in Jewish eyes, a deviation) of the Christian Old Testament, also known as the Jewish Tanakh. You simply asserted that you're right and the Muslims are wrong, and provided no supporting evidence. Hence, your claim is that the Old Testament was true scripture, as was the new. Then, everything further is a deviation. Now, unless you're open to the possibility of another book emerging that can support the two testaments that you do follow, then you do believe that the Christian bible is the final correct word. I know that you believe this, so don't try to play word games to pass it off as if you don't just to attempt to win an argument. You won't get that past me. 

I've been strait with you from the getgo.  If you keep looking for issues, we're never going to get to the point.  If you're so sure I'm assertion king, please show me the flaws in my belief.  That should be easy right?  

I'll just say everyone who has taken your path has hit a wall, this path being trying to play the blame game for delusions, assertions or lies.  Why?  Because I never do any of it.  I'm here to have my following challenged.  this way I can grow in it.  if it is false, I will see that and correct my path, but so far, i have only seen more reason that it is true.  I have learned a lot from rational discussion with people on this site.  Many people are much more knowledgeable than I on scripture and history.  Those are the people I love to discuss with because I always learn something new.  Despite your beliefs in me, i'm not afraid to find out my following is wrong.  I'm not resisting change, but I do believe it's true and just like you, I'm not going to just change my mind because someone says I'm asserting or lying to them or am delusional.  They actually have to show me why and give me logical reasoning why their understanding is more correct.    

Just for the record, I have modified my understanding of small key aspects because someone more knowledgeable than me has shown me how I was mistaken.  I made it clear to them that i was wrong too and that I agreed with their understanding as well.  so let's stop the runaround and focus on the points.  All the rest is just distraction.

Jabberwocky wrote:

Now, of course the Christian scripture influenced the Qu'ran. Chronologically, things wouldn't really work the other way around. Where did I imply the opposite? 

Once again, WHY is my major question. Why do you deem the old testament to be incomplete on its own, the old and new together to be complete, but the Qu'ran and the Book of Mormon to be falsehoods?

Due to your complaint of my posts being too broken up, I'm not ignoring the rest of what you posted. I'm focusing on what seems to be the reoccuring theme with you.  If there's another point you want me to respond to, please repost it in a reply to this or another post and I will respond to it.  Maybe it will be less broken up and difficult this way.

It's more simple than you think.  You and I agreed that the Qu'ran is Bible sourced.   That would be one reason why I don't believe it's valid.  It disagrees with its main source... which implies either the source is wrong, theirs is wrong, or both is wrong.  I of course believe scripture is true, so I deduce that theirs isn't.  

One reason I deduce that is becasue their claims of Jesus are inconsistent with their sources claims and also historians claims (those who would give more detail about the Jesus person that is)  Historians accept at least that this Jesus person claimed to be the son of God and the messiah.  The Qu'ran denies this despite what historians or the Bible source say.  

It's also written by a person who grew up with a Jewish following.  This would go into why I believe the OT is incomplete.  Muhammad took that OT understanding and through possible manipulation of a demon angel (this would be an assertion based on Qu'ran claims) or maybe took it upon himself (another assertion) to claim himself as the long awaited messiah.  So now in question is why did the Jews of that time not accept Him as the True messiah?  Unlike Jesus, Muhammad managed to fulfill much less of the prophesies than Jesus is claimed to have fulfilled even by the Jews.  Jesus just by cross referencing the OT and the alleged 2 messiahs actions would be the more likely culprit being prophesied.  

The process at which Muhammad was chosen is also inconsistent with the OT source and His background.  Nowhere is an angel said in OT to use physical force to make an illiterate person write a Testament let alone every detail of it.  Part of the Bible's credibility is held up to the multiple authorships and sources for information.  The Qu'ran only has one.  Or 2 if you count both Muhammad and the OT scriptures.  These reasons alone put Muhammad in the skeptical eye of the Jew.  Not to exclude that He still failed to redeem Israel or become an earthly king as Jews believed.  

The OT is incomplete by design.  It propheies of a long awaited messiah with no conclusion of arrival of that messiah.  Even Jews woudl agree it's incomplete and they're still waiting for that coming messiah to complete the series.  

Book of mormon?  Again considering that their main source is scripture, they claim to be the book that fills in the gaps of the main book (The Bible).  Therefore, they automatically conclude that the Bible is the true, inspired word of God.  The problem is, if that is true, the Bible is quoted in Revelation and other parts that if anyone is to add to these books or take away from these books that the plagues written within scripture should be placed upon them.  In other words, just by doing the very thing they claim to be doing, they are condemning themselves according to scripture.  So both must be wrong or one must be right and the source of one takes precidence over the other that relies completely on that source.  

So why is scripture true to me?  Though a lot of historical research (see my thread with PJTS on a historical runthrough), science, consistency, personal experience and witnessed accounts, it has proven itself to me many times over.  

wait, i can smell the word of the day creeping up again.  I stopped here because there's a lot covered above.  Let's respond to that and then ask questions.  I will follow up with the questions you ask.  LIke what about history, science, etc.. but hopefully more specific than that.


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

Beyond Saving wrote:

What does he sound like?

quiet, calm, but speaks with authority.  The bible claims this too

Beyond Saving wrote:

caposkia wrote:

The concept of course went much further back.   I'm not arguing that the Bible had literally the word "evil" written in it be it that "evil" is English, but the word we translate it from is understood as "evil".  beyond acceptable limits makes sense.  In this case, beyond the acceptable limits that God put in place.  If it is not beyond those limits it is good, and if it is, it's evil.  

To get techinical OT 'Ra' was typically in reference to a "bad" usually physical but also referenced in other ways and typically associated with the sins people committed.  (Ot btw, way before the 1800's)  This bad is seen as the evil as translated.    Other Biblical origins translated today into "evil": poneros, kakos, kakon

My point exactly. The term evil has nothing to do with religion in general and your attempt to monopolize the term as only having meaning within your particular religion is absurd.

or that I've been focusing on the idea that the term represents..  If it's your point exactly, then we're in agreement.  

Beyond Saving wrote:

How would I be any different? Your god is bullshit. No matter what you tell me he thinks is good or bad, I still think he is bullshit. If your god were the greatest good in the world I think he is bullshit, if he were the greatest evil in the world I still think he is bullshit. My opinion on God's existence is not dependent upon whatever moral stands you attribute or don't attribute to him. Whatever the bible says about morality is not in the smallest way relevant to my morality. It is apparently completely decisive to your morality.  

how would you be any different?  All in all our conversation is bullshit isn't it.  You're just looking for reasons to discredit me and getting frustrated when you miss.  

Just in case it wasn't clear before, i don't care that you think my God is bullshit.  If you do though, obviously you don't care to know Him or educate me as to why, so it seems we're done then.  

It's obvious our moralities are not on the same plane.  You have your reasons, I have mine.  Unless you think we can make some progress with our conversations, I think we should both move on with our lives.  

Beyond Saving wrote:

His sovereignty.  Be it that God defines what is good and what is bad, who am I to question the very rules that the creator put into me and everything I know to be real?  There's a whole Bible passage on this:  Isaiah 45:9-13

A human?

So the Bible says

Beyond Saving wrote:

Why should we as the creation automatically accept what the creator wants? He created something intelligent. If he wanted robots he should have made robots.

He doesn't want robots and He has proven to us time and again His intentions are the best for us whether alive or dead

Beyond Saving wrote:

I am missing what is supernatural about my beliefs. I accept that most humans have a different morality than I do. I tolerate other moralities insofar as they do not threaten me or my standard of living. If they do threaten me or my standard of living I am willing to use physical force against them. What is supernatural about that?

your belief that that is a valid resolution to the problem

Beyond Saving wrote:

So do we stick to God's old morality or the new human one? Is is moral to stone another human? 

Is it moral to let a criminal act again without reprecussion?

Beyond Saving wrote:

"we" don't say it is ok to hang/electrify/inject lethally etc.

yea, we as humans do.  YOu may not, I may not, but "we" do because it's still ok in many places

Beyond Saving wrote:

He killed 99.99% of humanity in a giant flood. Obviously, he has little to no value for our lives. 

except that they are likely still living, just not in the flesh.  The Bible says God is a god of the living, not of the dead.  They will be resurrected again, thus the value placed on their lives.  You see death as the end, Jesus proved that death is not the end but a consequence of sin.  But you have to accept God to accept that.  

Beyond Saving wrote:

The designers of the car have nothing to do with drug laws that is a decision made by society, a car dealer cannot and probably would not refuse to sell a car on the basis that they believed it might be used to transport drugs. (In case you haven't noticed, I am opposed to all drug laws and if I were a car designer I would not be appalled at a drug dealer using my car.)

You are right to say that the designer of the car have nothing to do with drug laws and that it's a decision made by society.  Society has also determined that some bad is good and that also has no reflection on the designer.

Beyond Saving wrote:

So exactly why should I recognize God's rule?  

It trumps all other rule.  The established rule of our country has changed to the point of corruption.  The established rule of God will never change and gives us just as much freedom as it did in the beginning.  

So up to you if we should continue.  yes I skipped a lot, intentionally just to get to more concrete points.  if there's something you want me to respond to that I missed, just repost it so we can make it a focus


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

caposkia wrote:

how would you be any different?  All in all our conversation is bullshit isn't it.  You're just looking for reasons to discredit me and getting frustrated when you miss.  

Just in case it wasn't clear before, i don't care that you think my God is bullshit.  If you do though, obviously you don't care to know Him or educate me as to why, so it seems we're done then.  

It's obvious our moralities are not on the same plane.  You have your reasons, I have mine.  Unless you think we can make some progress with our conversations, I think we should both move on with our lives.

Unless you can explain to me why you blindly accept whatever god says is good as good I don't think this particular tangent can go further.

 

caposkia wrote:
 

His sovereignty.  Be it that God defines what is good and what is bad, who am I to question the very rules that the creator put into me and everything I know to be real?  There's a whole Bible passage on this:  Isaiah 45:9-13

Beyond Saving wrote:

A human?

Why should we as the creation automatically accept what the creator wants? He created something intelligent. If he wanted robots he should have made robots.

He doesn't want robots and He has proven to us time and again His intentions are the best for us whether alive or dead

So since he doesn't want us to be robots, why can't/shouldn't you question the rules he put in place? If he doesn't want you to be a robot, then why do you feel a need to blindly follow his rules without questioning them?

 

caposkia wrote:

Beyond Saving wrote:

I am missing what is supernatural about my beliefs. I accept that most humans have a different morality than I do. I tolerate other moralities insofar as they do not threaten me or my standard of living. If they do threaten me or my standard of living I am willing to use physical force against them. What is supernatural about that?

your belief that that is a valid resolution to the problem

First, how is the solution not valid? It has been more or less the standard practice of humanity for as long a time as history can recall. And second, do you know the meaning of the term "supernatural"?

 

caposkia wrote:
 

Beyond Saving wrote:

So do we stick to God's old morality or the new human one? Is is moral to stone another human? 

Is it moral to let a criminal act again without reprecussion?

It is far more moral than stoning the criminal and for many of the acts which god endorsed stoning as a punishment, I think it is moral to let them go without so much as a fine. 

 

caposkia wrote:

Beyond Saving wrote:

He killed 99.99% of humanity in a giant flood. Obviously, he has little to no value for our lives. 

except that they are likely still living, just not in the flesh.  The Bible says God is a god of the living, not of the dead.  They will be resurrected again, thus the value placed on their lives.  You see death as the end, Jesus proved that death is not the end but a consequence of sin.  But you have to accept God to accept that.

Oh yeah, right. I keep forgetting death is great when god is responsible. Yet Christians almost universally consider death to be a bad thing and go to great lengths to avoid it and punish those who are responsible for it....except god. 

 

caposkia wrote:
 

Beyond Saving wrote:

The designers of the car have nothing to do with drug laws that is a decision made by society, a car dealer cannot and probably would not refuse to sell a car on the basis that they believed it might be used to transport drugs. (In case you haven't noticed, I am opposed to all drug laws and if I were a car designer I would not be appalled at a drug dealer using my car.)

You are right to say that the designer of the car have nothing to do with drug laws and that it's a decision made by society.  Society has also determined that some bad is good and that also has no reflection on the designer.

Exactly, so why does god have any more authority as designer of everything than the designer of a car has over local drug laws?

 

caposkia wrote:

It trumps all other rule.  

But why? Perhaps I should phrase the question better. Obviously, his rule trumps all other rule because he is significantly more powerful than us and will judge us whether we like it or not. But why should we accept it? 

 

caposkia wrote:

The established rule of God will never change and gives us just as much freedom as it did in the beginning.  

Which is none. God doesn't give people freedom, he insists that you follow his rules and judges you on them. Freedom is when the governing authority restrains itself from making rules. For example, our government theoretically protects our freedom of speech by restraining itself from passing any laws regulating speech. Whether a government official likes what you say or not, they can do nothing to punish you for it. God didn't do that. He punishes us for absolutely everything he doesn't like and the only option we have is to beg for clemency. Granted, his punishment is significantly delayed so in the meantime we have the illusion of freedom, like a murderer that successfully hides from the police for a few years, but eventually, God has a 100% success rate at catching us for judgement. That is not freedom, it is totalitarian control with delayed punishment.

 

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


Vastet
atheistBloggerSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 13210
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
caposkia wrote:you've really

caposkia wrote:
you've really got to calm down and read before you reply.  I said "it seems you're making a lot of assumptions"  I did not tell you you were or make the claim that you were, the way you've been responded makes it seem that way.  Here i was looking for you to assure me you weren't... this reply wasn't very reassuring on that front.

I'm starting to wonder if talking to a wall would be more productive. Are you intentionally dodging comprehensibility? How is pointing out that the equation makes assumptions, an assumption? Did YOU read his sources? Do you know ANYTHING about science? You haven't even critically examined your own equation, yet you assume I assume the equation makes assumptions. How about you do some research. Until I'm getting paid to be your teacher, I'm not walking you through 12 grades of science education.

caposkia wrote:
Ok.  If so, then please explain.

The hypothesis of dark matter: http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dark_matter

Read the whole thing.

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


Vastet
atheistBloggerSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 13210
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
Hopefully, after you have,

Hopefully, after you have, you will understand how it is a hypothesis to explain an observed behaviour of the universe. Until someone actually proves it exists and defines its properties, it shall remain a hypothesis, subject to being thrown in the trash if new information explains those behaviours sufficiently without needing it.

caposkia wrote:
With the amount of sources this guy claims for his findings,

Quantity is not an adequate substitute for quality. Did you read his sources? No, you didn't. You simply arbitrarily assume he knows what he's talking about, despite the fact I PROVED he doesn't.
The first reference is to a creationist paper, not a scientific journal. Not one reference following that justifies his probability equations after that. I actually read a few of them. For example:
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v359/n6391/abs/359129a0.html
Has NOTHING within to justify making any probability equation towards the formation of life.

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


Vastet
atheistBloggerSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 13210
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
And we still have that

And we still have that ultimate hangup where he uses life to calculate the probability of life, which automatically refutes the entire equation all by itself. I don't need to spend years cross referencing journal articles, spending a few minutes is sufficient. You should try it.

caposkia wrote:
Source

Burden of proof is on the claimant, not the skeptic. So he (you) must justify why a galaxy a hundred million lightyears away has any impact on the probability of life in this galaxy. It isn't justified in his references, I checked. Hence I make the counter claim that it isn't relevant. YOU must provide a source to say it is relevant.

caposkia wrote:
you have proved nothing.

Quite untrue, you just don't like facing reality.

caposkia wrote:
ok, then sourcing it should be easy.

I did. Go to high school and get top marks in science classes. I'll wait.

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


Vastet
atheistBloggerSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 13210
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
In the meantime, how about

In the meantime, how about you explain why you're still defending this equation despite the fact it uses pre-existing life to calculate the probability of life forming, which is automatically self refuting. After all, if life already needs to exist in order for life to form, then the probability of life forming is 0. Yet he claims there is still a probability of it happening. So his math and his science are both critically flawed.

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


Jabberwocky
atheist
Posts: 411
Joined: 2012-04-21
User is offlineOffline
caposkia wrote:I've been

caposkia wrote:

I've been strait with you from the getgo.  If you keep looking for issues, we're never going to get to the point.  If you're so sure I'm assertion king, please show me the flaws in my belief.  That should be easy right?  

I'll just say everyone who has taken your path has hit a wall, this path being trying to play the blame game for delusions, assertions or lies.  Why?  Because I never do any of it.  I'm here to have my following challenged.  this way I can grow in it.  if it is false, I will see that and correct my path, but so far, i have only seen more reason that it is true.  I have learned a lot from rational discussion with people on this site.  Many people are much more knowledgeable than I on scripture and history.  Those are the people I love to discuss with because I always learn something new.  Despite your beliefs in me, i'm not afraid to find out my following is wrong.  I'm not resisting change, but I do believe it's true and just like you, I'm not going to just change my mind because someone says I'm asserting or lying to them or am delusional.  They actually have to show me why and give me logical reasoning why their understanding is more correct.    

Just for the record, I have modified my understanding of small key aspects because someone more knowledgeable than me has shown me how I was mistaken.  I made it clear to them that i was wrong too and that I agreed with their understanding as well.  so let's stop the runaround and focus on the points.  All the rest is just distraction.

Ok.

caposkia wrote:

Due to your complaint of my posts being too broken up, I'm not ignoring the rest of what you posted. I'm focusing on what seems to be the reoccuring theme with you.  If there's another point you want me to respond to, please repost it in a reply to this or another post and I will respond to it.  Maybe it will be less broken up and difficult this way.

It's more simple than you think.  You and I agreed that the Qu'ran is Bible sourced.   That would be one reason why I don't believe it's valid.  It disagrees with its main source... which implies either the source is wrong, theirs is wrong, or both is wrong.  I of course believe scripture is true, so I deduce that theirs isn't. 

One reason I deduce that is becasue their claims of Jesus are inconsistent with their sources claims and also historians claims (those who would give more detail about the Jesus person that is)  Historians accept at least that this Jesus person claimed to be the son of God and the messiah.  The Qu'ran denies this despite what historians or the Bible source say.  

It's also written by a person who grew up with a Jewish following.  This would go into why I believe the OT is incomplete.  Muhammad took that OT understanding and through possible manipulation of a demon angel (this would be an assertion based on Qu'ran claims) or maybe took it upon himself (another assertion) to claim himself as the long awaited messiah.  So now in question is why did the Jews of that time not accept Him as the True messiah?  Unlike Jesus, Muhammad managed to fulfill much less of the prophesies than Jesus is claimed to have fulfilled even by the Jews.  Jesus just by cross referencing the OT and the alleged 2 messiahs actions would be the more likely culprit being prophesied.  

The process at which Muhammad was chosen is also inconsistent with the OT source and His background.  Nowhere is an angel said in OT to use physical force to make an illiterate person write a Testament let alone every detail of it.  Part of the Bible's credibility is held up to the multiple authorships and sources for information.  The Qu'ran only has one.  Or 2 if you count both Muhammad and the OT scriptures.  These reasons alone put Muhammad in the skeptical eye of the Jew.  Not to exclude that He still failed to redeem Israel or become an earthly king as Jews believed.  

The OT is incomplete by design.  It propheies of a long awaited messiah with no conclusion of arrival of that messiah.  Even Jews woudl agree it's incomplete and they're still waiting for that coming messiah to complete the series.  

Book of mormon?  Again considering that their main source is scripture, they claim to be the book that fills in the gaps of the main book (The Bible).  Therefore, they automatically conclude that the Bible is the true, inspired word of God.  The problem is, if that is true, the Bible is quoted in Revelation and other parts that if anyone is to add to these books or take away from these books that the plagues written within scripture should be placed upon them.  In other words, just by doing the very thing they claim to be doing, they are condemning themselves according to scripture.  So both must be wrong or one must be right and the source of one takes precidence over the other that relies completely on that source.  

So why is scripture true to me?  Though a lot of historical research (see my thread with PJTS on a historical runthrough), science, consistency, personal experience and witnessed accounts, it has proven itself to me many times over.  

wait, i can smell the word of the day creeping up again.  I stopped here because there's a lot covered above.  Let's respond to that and then ask questions.  I will follow up with the questions you ask.  LIke what about history, science, etc.. but hopefully more specific than that.

Ok. So in your first paragraph, I agree. Let's shorten this and hit the topic we're focusing on. 

After that, you go on to say, basically, you believe the Qu'ran is false because you believe that the bible is true, and that the Qu'ran contradicts the bible. You of course, refuse to touch on the bible's own internal contradictions. The contradictions between testaments are generally greater than those within a testament. This is to be expected. However, you do not give the same authority to the Qu'ran. Your only reasons for this are:

1. You believe the bible to be true, and 

2. You cite that there is historical evidence that supports the truth of the bible. 

More specifically, you mention that historians agree that this Jesus character considered himself to be the son of god, or the messiah. Which historian? The only reference I could find that suggests as much is the Testimonium Flavianum, which is considered by historians to not be an authentic passage, rather it's considered to be one that was later interpolated by Eusebius.

Now, just for fun, you said that "if anyone is to add to these books or take away from these books that the plagues written within scripture should be placed upon them." Can you provide me a source that suggests that Joseph Smith had the plagues of the bible unleashed on him? If not...woullllldn't that sort of throw that idea out the window?

 

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.


danatemporary
danatemporary's picture
Posts: 1951
Joined: 2011-01-12
User is offlineOffline
Dana Walk away , Dana just walk away . . .

Caposkia wrote:
  To his own master he stands of falls; and he will stand, for the Lord (YHWH) is able to make him stand.  One person regards one day above another, another regards every day alike.  Each person must be fully convinced in his own mind.

Beyond Saving wrote:

caposkia wrote:

how would you be any different?  All in all our conversation is bullshit isn't it.  You're just looking for reasons to discredit me and getting frustrated when you miss.  

Just in case it wasn't clear before, i don't care that you think my God is bullshit.  If you do though, obviously you don't care to know Him or educate me as to why, so it seems we're done then.  

It's obvious our moralities are not on the same plane.  You have your reasons, I have mine.  Unless you think we can make some progress with our conversations, I think we should both move on with our lives.

Unless you can explain to me why you blindly accept whatever god says is good as good I don't think this particular tangent can go further.

  This IS WEAK, I'd be down right embarrassed IF "I" wrote this. THIS IS WEAK!! If you are so keen on challenging your position on the Bible, you've been talking to the wrong people bub. If you accumulate enough knowledge, you can NEVER go home AGAIN, I'm afraid. If you (Cap) consider yourself to be so  perceptive, then recognize your own feelings with this. You are taking it personally, like EVERYONE hasn't seen this happen before. You insult god and you've insulted everything I hold dear.