Joined: Aug 12, 2011 Posts: 3254 Location: OK let's go.
Posted: Sun Mar 04, 2012 6:30 pm Post subject:
Vigilans wrote:
...There was no sun, needed to define day and night, months, or years, thus no calender, I'm afraid.
Oodain wrote:
not to mention that the current calender is far from the oldest found, many share similarities but those are as vigilans said, completely dependant on astronomy.
Do I really have to explain the calendar reference was a joke?
Joined: Jan 05, 2008 Posts: 3726 Location: The Landmass between N.O. and Mobile
Posted: Sun Mar 04, 2012 6:49 pm Post subject:
Vigilans wrote:
shrox wrote:
Vigilans wrote:
Ever heard of a calendar? Stupid dinosaur...you made me laugh though dinosaur so I will not eat you.
There was no sun, needed to define day and night, months, or years, thus no calender, I'm afraid.
Days and nights were divided by periods of light and darkness, not by lunar/solar revolutions. The language for "...and there was light" is used in such a sense to mean "light appeared." It doesn't refer to an original creative act. Over a period of time, whatever obscured the sun and the moon could have cleared from the sky revealing the two lights.
Joined: Jun 20, 2008 Age: 24 Posts: 12091 Location: La belle province
Posted: Sun Mar 04, 2012 6:51 pm Post subject:
AngelRho wrote:
Vigilans wrote:
shrox wrote:
Vigilans wrote:
Ever heard of a calendar? Stupid dinosaur...you made me laugh though dinosaur so I will not eat you.
There was no sun, needed to define day and night, months, or years, thus no calender, I'm afraid.
Days and nights were divided by periods of light and darkness, not by lunar/solar revolutions. The language for "...and there was light" is used in such a sense to mean "light appeared." It doesn't refer to an original creative act. Over a period of time, whatever obscured the sun and the moon could have cleared from the sky revealing the two lights.
I have a better, more rational, answer, though I don't think you're interested in it _________________ Opportunities multiply as they are seized. -Sun Tzu
Nature creates few men brave, industry and training makes many -Machiavelli
You can safely assume that you've created God in your own image when it turns out that God hates all the same people you do
Joined: Aug 12, 2011 Posts: 3254 Location: OK let's go.
Posted: Sun Mar 04, 2012 7:13 pm Post subject:
Vigilans wrote:
AngelRho wrote:
Vigilans wrote:
shrox wrote:
Vigilans wrote:
Ever heard of a calendar? Stupid dinosaur...you made me laugh though dinosaur so I will not eat you.
There was no sun, needed to define day and night, months, or years, thus no calender, I'm afraid.
Days and nights were divided by periods of light and darkness, not by lunar/solar revolutions. The language for "...and there was light" is used in such a sense to mean "light appeared." It doesn't refer to an original creative act. Over a period of time, whatever obscured the sun and the moon could have cleared from the sky revealing the two lights.
I have a better, more rational, answer, though I don't think you're interested in it
Posted: Sun Mar 04, 2012 7:29 pm Post subject: Re: free will and atheism
shrox wrote:
Lord_Gareth wrote:
...but I think it really, truly begs a much more important question - why isn't God held morally accountable for his actions? And, please, don't start on this 'God is the ultimate good' line, because it's just not going to hold water here. Even ignoring the Old Testament, which is chock full of examples of divine pettiness, injustice, and cruelty (I mean, seriously, sending an army of bears to eat the kids teasing his prophet? Really?) you run into the more general problem of disproportionate response...
Funny, don't you remember? He became mortal so we could KILL him. That would moral accountability, wouldn't it?
[Flagrantly lie about being out of the thread]Y'know, that's an interesting point, though I feel it woulda meant a little more if the death had, y'know, stuck. That being said, God's death didn't alter the unjust system he ordained and perpetuates; humans are still punished infinitely for finite offenses (and, for that matter, rewarded infinitely, which while much better is still technically unjust). To put this in more human terms, it seems kinda like a corrupt businessman giving a ton of money to charity and then saying it makes him a good person - yeah, sure, he did something, but he didn't actually address, y'know, the problem.
Joined: Aug 12, 2011 Posts: 3254 Location: OK let's go.
Posted: Sun Mar 04, 2012 7:38 pm Post subject: Re: free will and atheism
Lord_Gareth wrote:
shrox wrote:
Lord_Gareth wrote:
...but I think it really, truly begs a much more important question - why isn't God held morally accountable for his actions? And, please, don't start on this 'God is the ultimate good' line, because it's just not going to hold water here. Even ignoring the Old Testament, which is chock full of examples of divine pettiness, injustice, and cruelty (I mean, seriously, sending an army of bears to eat the kids teasing his prophet? Really?) you run into the more general problem of disproportionate response...
Funny, don't you remember? He became mortal so we could KILL him. That would moral accountability, wouldn't it?
[Flagrantly lie about being out of the thread]Y'know, that's an interesting point, though I feel it woulda meant a little more if the death had, y'know, stuck. That being said, God's death didn't alter the unjust system he ordained and perpetuates; humans are still punished infinitely for finite offenses (and, for that matter, rewarded infinitely, which while much better is still technically unjust). To put this in more human terms, it seems kinda like a corrupt businessman giving a ton of money to charity and then saying it makes him a good person - yeah, sure, he did something, but he didn't actually address, y'know, the problem.
It was the best answer I could offer. Many do dance around the issue.
Joined: Jun 20, 2008 Age: 24 Posts: 12091 Location: La belle province
Posted: Sun Mar 04, 2012 7:39 pm Post subject:
shrox wrote:
Vigilans wrote:
AngelRho wrote:
Vigilans wrote:
shrox wrote:
Vigilans wrote:
Ever heard of a calendar? Stupid dinosaur...you made me laugh though dinosaur so I will not eat you.
There was no sun, needed to define day and night, months, or years, thus no calender, I'm afraid.
Days and nights were divided by periods of light and darkness, not by lunar/solar revolutions. The language for "...and there was light" is used in such a sense to mean "light appeared." It doesn't refer to an original creative act. Over a period of time, whatever obscured the sun and the moon could have cleared from the sky revealing the two lights.
I have a better, more rational, answer, though I don't think you're interested in it
It doesn't have to do with Tom Cruise I hope.
Scientologists are not permitted _________________ Opportunities multiply as they are seized. -Sun Tzu
Nature creates few men brave, industry and training makes many -Machiavelli
You can safely assume that you've created God in your own image when it turns out that God hates all the same people you do
Posted: Sun Mar 04, 2012 7:41 pm Post subject: Re: free will and atheism
shrox wrote:
Lord_Gareth wrote:
shrox wrote:
Lord_Gareth wrote:
...but I think it really, truly begs a much more important question - why isn't God held morally accountable for his actions? And, please, don't start on this 'God is the ultimate good' line, because it's just not going to hold water here. Even ignoring the Old Testament, which is chock full of examples of divine pettiness, injustice, and cruelty (I mean, seriously, sending an army of bears to eat the kids teasing his prophet? Really?) you run into the more general problem of disproportionate response...
Funny, don't you remember? He became mortal so we could KILL him. That would moral accountability, wouldn't it?
[Flagrantly lie about being out of the thread]Y'know, that's an interesting point, though I feel it woulda meant a little more if the death had, y'know, stuck. That being said, God's death didn't alter the unjust system he ordained and perpetuates; humans are still punished infinitely for finite offenses (and, for that matter, rewarded infinitely, which while much better is still technically unjust). To put this in more human terms, it seems kinda like a corrupt businessman giving a ton of money to charity and then saying it makes him a good person - yeah, sure, he did something, but he didn't actually address, y'know, the problem.
It was the best answer I could offer. Many do dance around the issue.
Hey, it was a pretty good answer. I'm just not sure exactly how much torture and murder matters when inflicted upon a being for whom death is either a temporary inconvenience (conventional view) or an affectation.
Posted: Mon Mar 05, 2012 1:11 am Post subject: Free Will & Meth Lab Dangers
shrox wrote:
Vigilans wrote:
Ever heard of a calendar? Stupid dinosaur...you made me laugh though dinosaur so I will not eat you.
Hi shrox,
I've heard Napoleon had said the week originally had ten days, instead of the current seven. This change to seven days only was reportedly made because God unfortunately lost three fingers when his Meth Lab exploded on the first sixth day, by reports from Napoleon's Drug Czar.
Dinosaurs are not Kosher, and Jesus was too late to save, and clean, them for even conspicuous consumption.
Posted: Mon Mar 05, 2012 10:38 am Post subject: Re: free will and atheism
AngelRho wrote:
Quite simply, my position is if God is the author and creator over the universe and all things pertaining to it, then He can establish morality based on His nature/character and issue commands to that same effect.
What do you mean by 'based on'. It can mean a whole range of things. How god did it? Your response is nothing but 'I don't know, sort of' evasion.
Quote:
objective morality is a result of necessity, then it is a necessity deriving from divine characteristics and is thus sourced directly from God anyway.
What do you mean by 'necessity deriving from divine characteristics'? You complain that I dismiss what you said as nonsense gibberish, yet you continue to throw up these terms no skeptics would have any idea of.
Quote:
To use the Wiki example:
Quote:
Thus, for example, that murder is wrong is a truth, and though God commanded us not to murder he couldn't have done otherwise, nor can he revoke his command;
Well, if God is omnipotent, He certainly COULD have commanded us to murder and He COULD revoke his command. My response to this is that given several other divine attributes, such as being good and being perfectly good, God is not compelled to change if He knows He got it right the first time.
Wrong. God actually DID made similar command in the OT.
Quote:
Without doing any more homework--two things about Euth always struck me as suspect. Part of the problem is that the dilemma assumes a polytheistic worldview.
Where? Not in the modern formulation anyways.
Quote:
Ok, but what you're essentially doing here is opposing a subjective human opinion on the nature of God. You merely dislike what God has done. You haven't determined whether God might have had a good reason to do various things.
What reason is a good reason? Because god commands it? There is NO non-arbitrary and non-circular definition of 'good reason' to justify what god did. You are getting nowhere.
Quote:
Well, this is, again, from a purely human perspective. You should note that OT application of lex talionis is remarkably similar to justice in contemporary western society and also remarkably merciful in comparison to other ancient systems. Of particular interest is sectarian differences in interpretation.
How is your reply not another 'human perspective'?
TM wrote:
The Epicurean argument holds as it always has done. If God is perfectly Good, then evil does not exist, seeing as "perfectly good" is synonymous with "absolutely good". You cannot show that evil/sin is compatible with God unless you depart from the descriptions of God that actually makes he/she/it God or create conditionals such as "Any act done by God is by definition good".
@TM
The argument is dead in the sense 'perfectly good' is nothing but nonsense gibberish. There is no point pretending to understand what the theist is uttering.
I think that they have no right to question you turning to atheism, as, how can we truly answer the question is there a god or not? only when you die would you know if you were right or wrong( a bit grim i know)
i am a agnostic, and as per what i said above, how can we answer the question?
you belive what you want to believe, and if you turn back to religon or remain an atheist, you should enjoy the life you are living. rather than worry about the religon problem, because if you become atheist and you want to remain atheist, you are. same for theists
as for the hell thing, i think that is just a control device made up to enforce the religion laws. because, don't they say god is forgiving?
but with the hell thing or not, you should try to live to good morals to make the world a better place for others who sare this world to the person next door.
Joined: Jan 05, 2008 Posts: 3726 Location: The Landmass between N.O. and Mobile
Posted: Mon Mar 05, 2012 12:50 pm Post subject: Re: free will and atheism
01001011 wrote:
Wrong. God actually DID made similar command in the OT.
Evidence, please.
01001011 wrote:
Where? Not in the modern formulation anyways.
The original formulation depended on a polytheistic worldview, especially with the observation that the gods disagree among themselves on what pious is. The modern formulation only loosely resembles the original.
01001011 wrote:
What reason is a good reason? Because god commands it? There is NO non-arbitrary and non-circular definition of 'good reason' to justify what god did. You are getting nowhere.
Sure there is. I don't know what you mean by non-circular, though. I can't speak the mind of God, but it stands to reason that if the essence of God serves as a perfect moral standard and God's reasons by definition are good, then a non-arbitrary "good reason" would be axiomatic. Even a naturalist perspective is inherently circular without accepting some things from the outset. You're still trying to measure God by a human standard rather than by God's own standard.
01001011 wrote:
How is your reply not another 'human perspective'?
Not purely human. Read what I said again. If God is the God of the Bible and God's commands are true, then it is the responsibility of mankind to submit to God's commands rather than his own.
01001011 wrote:
@TM
The argument is dead in the sense 'perfectly good' is nothing but nonsense gibberish. There is no point pretending to understand what the theist is uttering.
Joined: Jun 20, 2008 Age: 24 Posts: 12091 Location: La belle province
Posted: Mon Mar 05, 2012 1:28 pm Post subject:
_________________ Opportunities multiply as they are seized. -Sun Tzu
Nature creates few men brave, industry and training makes many -Machiavelli
You can safely assume that you've created God in your own image when it turns out that God hates all the same people you do
Posted: Mon Mar 05, 2012 1:53 pm Post subject: Re: free will and atheism
AngelRho wrote:
01001011 wrote:
Wrong. God actually DID made similar command in the OT.
Evidence, please.
Just a random example: 1 Samuel 15
How is that different from my example?
Quote:
01001011 wrote:
Where? Not in the modern formulation anyways.
The original formulation depended on a polytheistic worldview, especially with the observation that the gods disagree among themselves on what pious is. The modern formulation only loosely resembles the original.
So you are only attacking the original formulation.
Quote:
01001011 wrote:
What reason is a good reason? Because god commands it? There is NO non-arbitrary and non-circular definition of 'good reason' to justify what god did. You are getting nowhere.
Sure there is. I don't know what you mean by non-circular, though. I can't speak the mind of God, but it stands to reason that if the essence of God serves as a perfect moral standard and God's reasons by definition are good, then a non-arbitrary "good reason" would be axiomatic.
By circular I mean simply calling whatever god is / commands 'good'. Even if god commands you to shoot everyone in a mosque, you would still call that good by definition. Either that or you are still judging god by 'human prespective'.
Really, you are just fantasizing a 'good reason' exists. You have no basis to think god has or need any reason. You have no basis to say that 'God serves as a perfect moral standard', which is another 'human prespective'.
Quote:
Even a naturalist perspective is inherently circular without accepting some things from the outset. You're still trying to measure God by a human standard rather than by God's own standard.
From the outset I already said such morality is nonsense. I am not measuring anything.
Quote:
01001011 wrote:
How is your reply not another 'human perspective'?
Not purely human. Read what I said again. If God is the God of the Bible and God's commands are true, then it is the responsibility of mankind to submit to God's commands rather than his own.
