Atheist Zealot

Post Reply New Topic

Let me present you a hypothetical. Somebody posts a scripture, from a book that actually exists, the bible. He then asks people to hypotheses about the authors meaning. You say you would criticize peoples hypotheses and what they believe but are you going to criticize the bible verse? If so, you must limit yourself to the hypotheses contained there in, and the same goes for people replying to the thread. As soon as you attack the religion of those who make a hypotheses you're no longer refuting a hypotheses. You are Hypothesizing about what others hypothesize (because they haven't stated what they believe) and then refuting that. Where is the logic?

The best possible version has mental illness which deprives people of the effective ability to exercise free will? Even further, if this world is really the best world for free will, does that mean there is no free will in heaven? After all, heaven is better than earth, right? But... if free will can coexist with maintaining a heavenly state, why couldn't God have set things up to maintain a heavenly state on Earth? Going even further, I'd argue that the neuroscience suggests there really IS no free will. I mean, for instance, quantum indeterminacy balanced out by large numbers of atoms, and brains generally work at the "large numbers" point, even further, however our mind works, it doesn't work in an intuitive manner, as noted by the research referenced by John Humbach in this paper: http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm? ... id=1578445

The problem with blaming the "absence of God" is then you have to justify this absence. You can't justify this with a fall as Adam and Eve were in no sense the first man and woman and cannot act to represent the others around them. http://biologos.org/blog/does-genetics- ... mal-couple Even further, a lack of volcanoes, earthquakes, meteors, and all of these other things IS THE OPPOSITE of what geology would tell us. I mean, you've heard of Pangaea, right? Don't you think that the tectonic shifts required to split several continents would undoubtedly result in earthquakes? Of course they would. Unless the laws of physics are different, massive geological shifts cause earthquakes.

As for the means that God provided, the problem is that the atonement is rather absurd. God is punishing HIS OWN SON, just because he's gotta punish SOMEBODY in order to forgive, and this son of God is actually also God.... I mean.... seriously??? Like, not only does this make no sense of justice, it makes no sense of forgiveness, and arguably the trinity doesn't even make logical sense in that Jesus = God. The Father = God. Jesus != The Father. I mean, seriously, sure, you've put up a confabulated idea, but it really makes little to no sense given external realities.

In short, what you present is still rather absurd given the workings of reality, from what I have seen. I mean.... God isn't in any sense the best explanation of anything, often because..... most people use God to fill gaps in knowledge, but the idea really isn't good for developing a working knowledge of a broader reality. People just keep on cramming it in there due to their feelings.

No, if goodness lies in doing the best thing all of the time, and there is no best thing, then logically a perfectly good being doesn't exist.

My "definition of goodness" actually hasn't failed at anything. The only problem is that certain ways that reality can work can make being perfectly good impossible. I don't understand your last sentence.

In any case, hack apologist, you haven't covered more ground, and your argument is actually an utter failure. At *BEST* we're just handing it back and forth between modus tollens and modus ponens, and I don't really think that "at best" is really occurring at all, and even if it were, I really don't think you could ever recognize it.

It is the Courtier's reply all over again.

1) Is Astrology not the delusional, crazy, hysterical, ridiculous belief that stars and planets modify your behavior and fate?

2) Are quadratures not considered bad vodoo by Astrology?

You seem to have the strange notion that somehow people have to study aeons of Astrology before being able to criticize it. My reply to that claim is: Hell NO. You find empirical evidence for Astrology, because you are the one making the claim it is not absolute BS.

Since I do not intend to waste the rest of my life studying a BS voodoo thing people do to trick people and play with their insecurities. Then no, I am not going to study Astrology just so that I can claim there are is no empirical evidence for it.

Mostly because there really is not empirical evidence for it.

http://sd4kids.skepdic.com/astrology.html

Saying that "OMG YOU ARE MISINTERPRETING ASTROLOGY" instead of replying with actual evidence or admitting that there is none is avoiding the question. It is cowardly and it is dishonest. If this is the sort of morality that "mysticism" has given you then I'd rather continue being a materialist. You could at least try to at least point out what is the misinterpretation of Astrology that is making so cringe so much. Rather than pretend that we are the ones that have to do such research for you.

Last edited by Vexcalibur on 29 Aug 2011, 11:07 pm, edited 1 time in total.

If this is the definition of goodness, then nothing which is logically possible can ever be good. Its very obvious to the entire realm of modern philosophy that such a definition is the problem with the underachiever problem. You just insert it into your argument and mistake it for something profound.

No, nothing which is logically possible can ever be perfectly good. You're now being confused because YOUR OWN ARGUMENT requires that there are good things that are imperfect, that's what justifies God in being an underachiever IN YOUR OWN SYSTEM. I'm simply shifting the issue of imperfect goodness as reflecting on the moral capacities of an agent.

91, I also don't care about your bloated rhetoric to the "entire realm of modern philosophy". You're a dishonest hack. I've dealt with plenty of people on WP in the past, and you're the only one whose intellectual character outright disgusts me. The only reason to rebut your sillinesses are because other people may mistake your continual dogmatic propagandizing with something intellectually true or honest. That's just that, and I've said the same thing for.... almost a year now I think.

a grammatical quibble:
Hypothesis: noun. A speculation or guess.
Hypotheses: plural of hypothesis.
Hypothesize: verb. To speculate or guess.


Reading between the lines is valid in an argument. For example, if someone quotes the bible saying, 'Thou shalt have no other gods before me,' it is valid to speculate not only on the meaning of 'Thou shalt not...' but also on the possible origins of 'Thou shalt not...' and on the motivations of the autor(s), real and purported, of 'Thou shalt not...'.

But my point is, you should know what others believe before you dispute it. There are so many variations of belief when it comes to "christianity" that any blanket statement made to apply to all christians will invariably be false for one of them, making it a false statement. Only a fool would knowingly say false things in such instances. Please forgive my grammar, it's really not my strength.

Yes, but I do not think they are necessarily damned to eternal death. Like small children without the decision making power to follow Christ they are covered by their parents belief.
Heaven is full of people who have free will and yet relinquish control of their lives to God as christians do on earth.
Because like I said, they are not in a heavenly state on earth because there are people on earth who reject God. In heaven there will be no such people.
I'm not sure why the brain needs to work in an intuitive manner for God to exist?
I believe Adam and Eve are an allegory for what happened at the dawn of humanity.
I don't quite get the point you're making. I could guess but can you just explain this one again?
No this is not correct. It could only be Jesus who was killed as only He was without sin. A sinner accepting other sin would be like trying to fill a full bucket.

Yep, just like I have a mind body and spirit. So does God (have three parts).
It makes sense to me? I guess i'm seeing something you're not. Maybe you fail to understand God isn't interested in pure Justice. His mercy overrides justice because He loves us. It is a horrible thing for Him to have to do, let his Son be sacrificed, but that's how much He loves us. Also Jesus was not only flesh, so when He died God just made himself new flesh.
You can think it's absurd but I can't rebut your feelings. I think what you say that God isn't the best explanation as further proof God is real because, if we made it up, we could have made up something better.
I don't.
Again there is nothing to say apart from I disagree with your opinion.
I don't.

In the circumstances you propose there is no best choice. That does not mean there is no justifiable choice. You fail to distinguish between the two, which is just unnecessarily obtuse.

That doesn't really inspire confidence that this is the best possible world. All you just said is "Well, it's not as bad as it *COULD* be". Even further, why would a grown man who develops brain cancer, or schizophrenia, or anything else be covered by whatever his parents believe? He gets Alzheimers at 60, why then should his last years be the belief of his parents? I mean, the idea is ad hoc and frankly absurd.


Well, ok, but if children and the insane automatically go to heaven, and thus do not originally choose to relinquish their life to God? Why not just have this choice pre-made as the natural state of affairs? I mean, my basic point is that the "free will defense/theodicy" cannot work if free will ALSO works in heaven. If free will works in heaven, then it can work on earth. If free will does not work on earth, then it cannot work in heaven.


Why have these people in the first place, though? I mean, just having every baby die and go to heaven is plausible, so why not just have a God who does that? Why even BOTHER with earth?


If the workings of the mind do not match our intuitions, then our basic notions of moral responsibility and free will are deeply skewed. Humbach's paper directly addresses both issues.


The dawn of humanity? What *IS* that? I mean, the line of what a human is, isn't one that evolution ever gave us, but rather it's a pragmatic category that we created for our practical purposes. The problem is that there isn't a single allele change that we can say "Oh yes, that is now human". Now, I suppose you can start talking about how proto-men gradually rejected God or something like that, but the problem is that every creature throughout evolutionary history has done things that in the conventional moral sense are evil. How do you really have a "turning away from God" when the status quo is apparently evil in the first place??? It isn't as if rape, murder, or any of this is somehow new to humanity. Ducks rape. Ducks are known for their rape attempts. But.... proto-man was chaste until marriage until some point where we considered this the "dawn"??? That makes no sense. You're just making up nonsense.


You state: "The imperfect nature of the world (natural disasters) are caused by the absence of God (he used to hold the world together and prevent these things from happening) because we turned our backs on God (at the fall of man)"

My response is "Natural disasters have ALWAYS EXISTED, even before all proto-men".

Basically, your statement is empirically false.


No, this really is correct. Christ took the punishment for sin. It is correct that he had to be sinless, but God is considered to have poured out his wrath on Christ, as a punitive measure where Christ substituted for man. That's why this is called the Penal Substitution Theory of the atonement. Someone substituted for the penalty. It's just morally absurd.


God doesn't have three parts though. Christ, the Father, and the Holy Spirit are each persons, not just parts. They are not independent Gods, but they have the same essential nature, and they are not the same as each other, even though each of them is the same as God.


Umm.... no, you don't understand the objection. You're failing to see something I see. I didn't say "God is only interested in PURE JUSTICE". I stated "not only does this make no sense of justice, it makes no sense of forgiveness", which is to say that it is a poor model of mercy. Why did God have Christ sacrificed? Well, under the Penal Substitution Theory, this was to FULFILL JUSTICE. Why did it fulfill justice? Because God can't just ignore the sin, he has to punish somebody, and apparently somebody can even include HIMSELF. The issue is that not only is it ridiculous to transfer moral wrongs(Would you like it if Al Capone never went to prison because somebody always decided to take his place), but it is ridiculous to require punishment to forgive. If God just wanted to be merciful, why *couldn't* God just say, like a human might "I forgive you. Let's have cake." I mean, it isn't as if a person is imperfect for just forgiving, so why is a God imperfect for doing so?


Do you apply the same standard to the Koran? No. Do you apply the same standard to Scientology? No. The very FACT that you would not consider the entire body of all of these other religions and their own absurdities to make your claim of "it's absurd, therefore it's GOTTA BE TRUE", is itself a sign that you really are just looking for any damn excuse to be deluded on the matter. Do you really expect me to feel challenged or even respect for a set of confabulations???

You know what's a better explanation of the poor fit between God and reality? God was invented by people who DIDN'T KNOW SCIENCE. Seriously, why do you think he doesn't FIT WELL with all of these historical and scientific issues? How about going further: God was invented by people who really didn't have a developed moral philosophy. The Jews really didn't invent philosophy. They didn't have the knowledge or systemization abilities of the Greeks, and Christians have attempted to LATER combine the diverging messages, but the problem is that the source isn't coherent. I mean, really, the belief in Christianity is ill-fitting but SO ARE ALL OF THE OTHER RELIGIONS, and they can't ALL be true.


No, instead you invent clearly false excuses to maintain the dead idea.


Except I am right. The author of Genesis didn't conceive of a world developed through millions of years of evolution. He conceived, quite reasonably, that a creator God could just up and create it all. In fact, the writings of Genesis even suggest this view, as the author takes the time to say that evening and morning passed during the creation week. This means that the author really thought that this was probably a week, and the Sabbath, being a reflection of the day of rest, also only makes sense for people who really thought creating EVERYTHING only took a week. After all, we don't say, there are 7 ages of indeterminate length, therefore... they somehow represent days. We don't even have to have a 7 day week. But the Jews took this seriously enough that they considered the day of rest for God to be the foundation of the Jewish week, which makes no sense if these weren't considered literal days, and the reasoning is seen clearly within scripture:


HA HA HA HA HA!! Knifey, you justify your faith with FALSE speculations, as if nobody would have thought about these issues, like whether the past earth would have disasters. You aren't running off of some objective fact that God most likely exists. You're just making stuff up, because you really want to believe. I'm not joking when I say that. You haven't even really *ENGAGED* some of the points of criticism, much less shown this acceptance based upon reason or rationality.

The choice is always worse than another possible choice and the selection of a worse choice is arbitrary, thus it cannot be justified. You can't justify a choice noteworthy for it's arbitrariness.

Nothing compares to the degree of obtuseness you continually show. You're a waste of time and breath.

My wife has a very simple and concise debunking of astrology; cesarean sections and induced birth. The stars don't have much to do with birth anymore.

No logically possible being could choose better, ergo it is the best logically possible choice. You are still trying to find a way to link logically possible with impossible. It cannot be done in the way you are insisting. What matters is the choice cannot be improved upon by any logically possible being. The choice is justifiable because there is no better choice that is BOTH logically better and logically pickable. You have found a choice that can be the first but is not the second. Thus, you have not shown an inconsistency. There is a good reason why the underachiever problem is dead.

You can assume my short reply is a lack of arguments, but the truth is, I'm too busy too spend hours refuting stuff on the internet. Sorry.

You've got google, and you could use it to look at some unbiased material if you really want

You don't need to study it for aeons, but you do need more than 5 mins reading skeptic sites.

It makes sense that he would be covered by his belief before he lost his mind, the loss of mind being a temporary limitation of his body and nothing to do with his spirit (or its salvation)

I didn't say that. Children of unbelievers go to "hell", (i believe in eternal death instead of hell which I take to mean death in the same way atheists think of death).
Because free will means you have no choices made up for you by default.
I said free will can work on earth, if everybody gave their life to God it would be like heaven. That hasn't happened nor will it happen in my lifetime so it can't be proven one way or the other.
God created us to love Him and be loved. If you had a stepford wife with a chip in her brain that made her love you, would it really mean as much? God made us with the ability to hate him so it would mean something when we loved him.
I would completely agree and say without God living in us our notions of moral responsibility are completely subjective. The ability we have to commune with God again because of the Christ is our salvation for more than one reason.

The first time we were smart enough to be aware of God.

Maybe the sinless period of man is part of the allegory.

But if Christ is God then he sacrificed himself. If i pushed somebody else out of the way of an on coming train only to be hit by the train in his stead, would that be morally absurd?

They are all parts of one God (I can cite scripture where the names of God are used interchangeably). God exists outside of the universe, he doesn't have to conform to the laws of physics.

ah, I finally see your point. The answer is God can not be where sin is, these are the "laws of physics" in the spiritual universe where God exists outside our universe. So it was not possible for humans to "eat cake" with God until the sin was taken away (in effect) which Christ did.

That is not what I was saying at all. The fact that if somebody made it up, it would be better, is not the underlying reason for me believing or disbelieving anything as that in itself is a purely subjective call and not really an argument. I was just having fun with you by what I said.

I don't think there is a poor fit, only people refusing to fit.

Clearly false excuses you haven't been able to refute to date. lol. Is somebody getting exasperated?

I think God told Abraham(?) or "showed" him the creation message to send the message of the Sabbath and other things. I don't believe in a literal creation in seven days and even if Abraham did, I don't really think it's crucial to the lessons God wants us to learn from it. Not everything in the bible is there for the sake of being a historical record.

I don't know what you're maniacally laughing about but I'm happy for you to prove my speculations false.

Last edited by Knifey on 30 Aug 2011, 3:10 am, edited 1 time in total.