God

[underruler]

Pedo-priests is a generalization, and I think they ruined the Christian religion for some people.

I'm not sure on the marriage thing opper, but I think that's why people put a lot of thought into the one they're going to marry.  I think if you get married, you should have tunnel vision and realize that that's it.

[SS]

Pedo-priests is a generalization, and I think they ruined the Christian religion for some people.

Aye. It's just one of those stupid media over-reaction things.

Priests are ultimately no different to any other people, and there's not going to be much of a difference with ratio of paedophiles then there is with the regular population.
It's just more of a shock when a generally trusted person is revealed as one...


(Night Spawn, not ignoring you... just going to reply when I've got more time. )

[opperdude]

i don't like people with tunnel visions... you should be open for all kind of things   :miffed:

if all religious people all have a tunnel vision i think that's a minus for them all
i refuse to sign me up to a tunnel vision  

[underruler]

a tunnel vision for other women...you can look at them and interact and all those things, but you have to realize that *you* have to limit your relations to friendship.

[Rug]

Its too late to respond to that, presently, Spawn, but:

I'm sure you're familiar with the most popular skeptic website online - infidels.org. I find it ironic that you present an article from Frank Zindler while skeptics themselves recognize the beating Zindler got at the hands of William Craig (top-notch debater) in their debate (source.
The irony is that Zindler never gave any of his arguments and never even refuted Craig's arguments (infidels and one of Zindler's biggest fans recognize this also). So I ask: for what reason should I takin in Zindler's arguments when they (a) can't even stand up under expert review and (b) aren't even put forth in live debates, which leads me to question the validity of the claims?

Simply? First one I found that fitted the bill. I didnt pay attention to author, nor am I big up on my debators. I tend to present my own opinions rather than other peoples, that article just has all the details.

[FragMaster1972]

Just a couple thoughts:

1st off--I'm sure you've heard things along these lines. Could God create an object he couldn't lift, and image he couldn't see, a noise he couldn't hear? One way or the other, it would prove this infallibe god of yours fallible.
I thought I remembered seeing a response, but can't find it now. I'd like a better explanation than what I remember seeing anyway.

2ndly. If this God dude loves us so much, then why are our entire lives (assuming you're religious. I'm not. ) be lived in fear of him? Why should we have to be afraid of the big man who says "do exactly as I say or be smited and burn in hell forever!" If he loved us so much, wouldn't he just be worried about us living good lives, in the sense of being good and enjoying our lives? Who cares who you worship, when you worship, whether you worship on your knees or standing up or standing on one wrist while flailing your legs back and forth in the air? If this god was *truly* so mighty, so loving, why wouldn't he just let us live how we want, and if we're good people (not good by our definition, but by his) then it's all good in the end?

also--you say he can't force people to do anything. fine. but the movie Bruce Almighty had an interesting thought on it. God might not be able to force people directly to do something, but he could influence them indirectly easily. There's no reason why he couldn't throw together a few events that would make people snap to...

[Perdition]

I think the idea is thta he could but he chooses not to.  or soemthing like that.

congrats on becoming a burseg by the way

[Night Spawn]

I tend to present my own opinions rather than other peoples, that article just has all the details.

Understandable.  I'm calling the details into question, though.  William Craig is probably the most well-known theist in the philosophical community, so everyone's wanting a piece of his evidences.  All Zindler had to do was challenge him with those type of details, but he didn't, and I'm wondering why.  All Zindler had to do, if his arguments are so worthy, was refute at least one of Craig's well defended "Arguments from Jesus' Resurrection", but he didn't (even the skeptics/Craig's critics recognize this).
Like I said though I'm willing to respond to the article and we can discuss it in a separate thread.

Hello, Frag.  You typed,

1st off--I'm sure you've heard things along these lines. Could God create an object he couldn't lift, and image he couldn't see, a noise he couldn't hear? One way or the other, it would prove this infallibe god of yours fallible.
I thought I remembered seeing a response, but can't find it now. I'd like a better explanation than what I remember seeing anyway.

Me and omnimors responded to that type of question here.

If this God dude loves us so much, then why are our entire lives (assuming you're religious. I'm not. ) be lived in fear of him? Why should we have to be afraid of the big man who says "do exactly as I say or be smited and burn in hell forever!"

Before I offer an answer, I disagree with the traditional definition of hell (place of fire).  I believe it will be banishment from God.

Fear, in english only rings of negativity (opposite of trust, and its synonyms are fright, dread and terror).  In Hebrew, it has other meanings - from negative (dread, terror) to positive (worship, reverence) and from mild (respect) to strong (awe) -- Prov. 9:10; Prov. 14:26-27; 1John 4:18; Deut. 10:12; .  Tverberg concludes,

"In fact, every time we read "revere" or "reverence", it comes from the Hebrew word "yareh", literally, to fear. When fear is in reference to God, it can be either negative or positive. The enemies of God are terrified by Him, but those who know Him revere and worship Him, all meanings of the word "yareh"." (Does God Want us to Fear Him?)

If he loved us so much, wouldn't he just be worried about us living good lives, in the sense of being good and enjoying our lives? Who cares who you worship, when you worship, whether you worship on your knees or standing up or standing on one wrist while flailing your legs back and forth in the air? If this god was *truly* so mighty, so loving, why wouldn't he just let us live how we want, and if we're good people (not good by our definition, but by his) then it's all good in the end?

He's much more personal than that, I believe.  Like any good father who wouldn't want his kids listening to this other father's rules and that other fauther's rules, God wants us to obey and love Him alone.

God might not be able to force people directly to do something, but he could influence them indirectly easily. There's no reason why he couldn't throw together a few events that would make people snap to...

Well, the influencing is inevitable.  Granted that God is the ultimate first cause, and wants to actualize people into existence, we've got a degree of influence from the get-go, for whatever situation God chooses to actualize will influence us.  This is a necessity, though.

I don't have much of a problem with a degree of influence, because I've been influenced all my life.  I still have the ability to choose whatever I want despite the influences.

SS:  Night Spawn, not ignoring you... just going to reply when I've got more time.

No rush at all, man.

[Lord Lanair]

2ndly. If this God dude loves us so much, then why are our entire lives be lived in fear of him? Why should we have to be afraid of the big man who says "do exactly as I say or be smited and burn in hell forever!" If he loved us so much, wouldn't he just be worried about us living good lives, in the sense of being good and enjoying our lives?

Hmm.... I'd like to respond to that.  We need to both respect and love God, seeing as how he is our creator, and does look after us in life, and fear him because he is omnipotent and ultimatly controls where our souls end up.  

And you dont need to do "exactly what he says."  You don't even need to do exactly what the Church says (this will be an interesting point of debate).  All you need to do is live a pious life, act charitibly towards others, and if you do that, you've suceeded in life.  Besides.... "enjoying our lives" usually conflicts with leading a Godly one.  


P.S.  Sorry for not reading the previous 4 pages... they do look interesting, but waaaay too long.  -_-  

[Rug]

Thanks to Rug and SS. I usually already get flaming responses by now... I think I'm liking this place more and more.

I can flame you if you really want. I'm much better at it. .

Why? You don't like it that harm/pain exists in the world, so I'm playing God and am taking us to the logical conclusions. I'm taking it all away. I see no reason to stop at any particular level of harm besides subjectively based preferences, which really amounts to no reason at all.

I've got a hypothetical, though (dont'cha love these?). Suppose a guy gets intentionally run off the road by a drunk driver, gets paralyzed waist/down, ends up falling in love with a girl, and devoting his life to a new-found dream. Then, in the end, thanks the wreck for ever coming out, because it led to all that he accomplished. If you foreknew this would happen, would you wrip this guy of a great future just because it took a little harm to bring the good about?

As C.S. Lewis bluntly puts it,

"Haven't you been to a dentist?"

His point is simple. Harm brings about good in some situations. Some extreme; some not extreme.

Errr... *ahem* the example you cited is non-lethal. Read what I said, again, please. Yes, in your example, the person is better off for the harm they come to - and, if God is so great and mighty - he would be able to see which cases will lead to death/maiming with no good effects, and those which leads to a happily ever after love story.

I'm calling the details into question, though. William Craig is probably the most well-known theist in the philosophical community, so everyone's wanting a piece of his evidences. All Zindler had to do was challenge him with those type of details, but he didn't, and I'm wondering why. All Zindler had to do, if his arguments are so worthy, was refute at least one of Craig's well defended "Arguments from Jesus' Resurrection", but he didn't (even the skeptics/Craig's critics recognize this).

The details are irrelevant, being frank. I've never heard of William Craig nor infidels.org, nor am I ever likely to - you have the look of someone who is practiced at this kind of discussion, and knows precisely where to get all their quotes. I do not. So sue me.

You don't go in-depth as to how they are both bad. All you have to do is present the criterian you use to determine the difference. It would be of much help in moving forward.

There are levels of good and bad. Nothing is black and white, it has a great deal to do with shades of grey. The man whomurders his wife is a lighter shade of grey than the man who murders 6 million, but he is still a far darker shade of grey than someone who holds to the laws of the land all his life, and donates £2 a month to the NSPCC... clearer, now?

Limited in the sense that absolute God would control us (he will force us to do nothing but good). You say this is a good thing? If so, then I simply have to digress... I don't know about you, but I don't want to be a puppet.

Wow, I can almost feel my words being twisted. Quite an accomplishment there. Read what I say, not what you want me to. You profess free will - even if free will involves someone taking a gun and shooting ten people, correct? That SHOULD NOT HAPPEN. It is why we have LAWS.

The world isn't total chaos, because plenty of good exists in this world.

Like fuck it does. My example given above (someone who holds to all laws/commandments, donates to charity and generally helps people all through their life) is rare. Stereotypical, but look at the Simpsons. How many people like Ned Flanders, even in a more limited form, do you see everyday?

Ok, so the question is likely being actively fucked by the fact we probably live in different countries, but I probably couldnt tell you what month I last saw someone that good. If you're getting at the fact that good exists in moderation in the vast majority of the populace, maybe it does - but not eough to be discarding our laws, methinks.

[Night Spawn]

I can flame you if you really want. I'm much better at it.

Nahh... I prefer discussions rather than arguments and name-calling.  Also, I wouldn't claim being good at flaming people, for it's a rather pointless thing to do and brings whatever discussion taking place down to the level of elementary students arguing in circles over who's 'momma' is worse.

Errr... *ahem* the example you cited is non-lethal. Read what I said, again, please. Yes, in your example, the person is better off for the harm they come to - and, if God is so great and mighty - he would be able to see which cases will lead to death/maiming with no good effects, and those which leads to a happily ever after love story.

I was quite careful to put this at the top:

"Why? You don't like it that harm/pain exists in the world, so I'm playing God and am taking us to the logical conclusions. I'm taking it all away. I see no reason to stop at any particular level of harm besides subjectively based preferences, which really amounts to no reason at all."

What if there are lethal cases like deaths, though, which have good outcomes?  For example, a man rushing into the street to push a kid out of the way from an oncoming car and taking the hit himself.  Should God just jury-rig the entire event to save the man's life, which he freely gave up?  This would amount to absolutely cancelling out free will in order to achieve whatever He prefers.

There are levels of good and bad. Nothing is black and white, it has a great deal to do with shades of grey. The man whomurders his wife is a lighter shade of grey than the man who murders 6 million, but he is still a far darker shade of grey than someone who holds to the laws of the land all his life, and donates £2 a month to the NSPCC... clearer, now?

Thanks for providing that.  I ask this question, because it puts the anti-religious viewpoint in a rather "confusicled" state.  My reasoning is thus:

Religious people judge between good and evil as according to how their God or "force" does (and pretty much every major religion agrees with each other on this).  Those that don't accept any type of religious doctrine have a good bit to answer for when they call one man "good" and one man "bad".  They aren't using any sort of objective standard to judge this.  According to their position, who is "good" or "bad" all falls down to subjectively based preferences, which wrips apart any attempts at commenting on the subject.

You seem like a smart/well-knowledged guy, so I'm sure you see what I mean.  I'll put forth an analogy, though.  Let's say I'm an atheist who holds certain standards which I use to judge between a good person and a bad person.  What are these standards based on?  It's inescapable that they are based subjectively, which amounts to a "moot" standard.  Some other atheist may hold certain subjectively based standard which is completely opposite of mine (i.e. that Hitler was a good person).  How am I to argue with him that his is wrong?

So, I ask: according to your view, by what reason should I accept the above quote as true?  Without any type of God ("cosmic parent") involved, how can it be true?

I can admit that no good human being exists in this world.  If one does, then who is this good human, so I can talk to him?

The details are irrelevant, being frank. I've never heard of William Craig nor infidels.org, nor am I ever likely to - you have the look of someone who is practiced at this kind of discussion, and knows precisely where to get all their quotes. I do not. So sue me.

They are very much relevant.  When someone gives me a link with a lot of information, before responding, I like to know who the link came from and the credibility of this person.  These are both honest questions used to judge the validity of the material.  

You picked Zindler's article, because (as you say) it "fitted the bill", but how do you know it does?  Do you honestly believe those claims from Zindler are valid when they don't even stand up to expert criticism?  You now know that Zindler doesn't put forth such arguments in debates and (according to his own peers) can't respond adequately to opposing arguments, which means you're putting blind faith in his material (unfounded trust).  Not only that, but you're bringing them forth as valid arguments in a debate, which they aren't (Zindler's own actions are evidence for this).  

I rarely do this, but I'll gladly respond to Zindler's article (and offer evidence in opposition to it) so we can discuss it in a separate thread.  I'm willing to point out the obvious major flaws in it, if you're willing to take part in the discussion?

Wow, I can almost feel my words being twisted. Quite an accomplishment there. Read what I say, not what you want me to. You profess free will - even if free will involves someone taking a gun and shooting ten people, correct? That SHOULD NOT HAPPEN. It is why we have LAWS.

One thing I am very careful not to do is twist people's words.  All I did was point out and respond to what you typed: free will is limited.  I then put forth a response saying that, if God were to force us to do only that which is good (not kill or have the thought to kill), then it amounts to puppetry.  It's definitely not a strawman attack at all.

It should not happen, but it does happen... yes, because of free will.  That's what happens with free will, though.  It's a sort of irreducibly complex system whereas it contains several working "parts" in order to achieve what we call "free will".  Take one of these parts out and free will is gone against or demolished.  You're taking out certain kinds of choices, which ultimately means taking choice, itself, out.  With free will comes a big responsibility - the responsibility to choose what is right.  It may be gone against a lot, but that doesn't make free will a bad thing.  It's merely a beautiful thing gone bad in some aspects due to mankind.

Let's cut straight to it: Why didn't God stop Hitler?  God didn't because of the free will Hitler had.  This doesn't mean Hitler gets off the noose, though.  He definitely will be judged and punished accordingly.  

-Spawn

[mole]

How many people like Ned Flanders, even in a more limited form, do you see everyday?

ned flanders is actually mentally unstable and had a troubled childhood thats why hes like that, and sadly there are thousands of people who act like him in the world

[Rug]

What if there are lethal cases like deaths, though, which have good outcomes? For example, a man rushing into the street to push a kid out of the way from an oncoming car and taking the hit himself. Should God just jury-rig the entire event to save the man's life, which he freely gave up? This would amount to absolutely cancelling out free will in order to achieve whatever He prefers.

Hah, now you missed the other condition. CONSENTUAL.

So, I ask: according to your view, by what reason should I accept the above quote as true? Without any type of God ("cosmic parent") involved, how can it be true?

Where is God involved? All I see are some laws that Moses wrote down, apparantly at the behest of a deity, who may or may not exist. They are, for the most part, sensible laws. No killing, no stealing, etc - forget the crap about only having one true god, just take the parts that actually MEAN something, and you have some good standards to live your life by.

Because I agree with the majority of the 10 commandments does not make me Christian by any stretch of the imagination. I really, really dislike the church and everything that it has done to this world and I don't buy in to the whole deity thing.

I rarely do this, but I'll gladly respond to Zindler's article (and offer evidence in opposition to it) so we can discuss it in a separate thread. I'm willing to point out the obvious major flaws in it, if you're willing to take part in the discussion?

No I'm not, as that would take up even more of time. This thread is already soaking up the majority of time I spend here, I don't need two debate threads.

Why didn't God stop Hitler? God didn't because of the free will Hitler had. This doesn't mean Hitler gets off the noose, though. He definitely will be judged and punished accordingly.

That makes God one helluva irresponsible 'parent' (as you refer to him). If a parent does not discipline their child, they become lawless rogues, 9/10 times. If God exists, he is a truly, truly, crap parent. Parents limit their children, set rules, and enforce punishments when they go wrong. God limited his children, set rules and... er... let them fuck it up?



 

[mole]

maybe he has the foresight to reralise what good hitler did for the world too

[Night Spawn]

Rug,

Hah, now you missed the other condition. CONSENTUAL.

The definition for "consentual" doesn't seem to fit in line with the topic, so maybe you mean "consensual" (Involving the willing participation of both or all parties)?  

For the second time, you've skipped over this quote from myself: "Why? You don't like it that harm/pain exists in the world, so I'm playing God and am taking us to the logical conclusions. I'm taking it all away.  I see no reason to stop at any particular level of harm besides subjectively based preferences, which really amounts to no reason at all."  

I understand that you're saying it's wrong God allows such things (like a parent beating his/her child to death) to go on, but this snaps right back into the Free Will Defense, which is in subject below:

That makes God one helluva irresponsible 'parent' (as you refer to him). If a parent does not discipline their child, they become lawless rogues, 9/10 times. If God exists, he is a truly, truly, crap parent. Parents limit their children, set rules, and enforce punishments when they go wrong. God limited his children, set rules and... er... let them fuck it up?

Parents do that up to a certain extent, then they have no choice, but to allow the child to take what he/she has learned and act responsibility in the world (remember, free will is a great responsibility).  I think God does this also.  He has set rules and enforces punishments (though, not immediately) when we go wrong.  So, God doesn't just let us mess it up.  God allows us to either choose between messing it up or choosing to abide by His rules.  From then-on, whatever we do is by our own fault.

Take your example of the kid who got beat to death by his parent.  You're saying it's wrong for God to allow that to happen, but would you be questioning such an incident, if the parents raised the kid up to be good?  Indeed, it was just as possible for that to happen.  It was all up to the parents.  Granted that the kid went to Heaven, I'm sure the kid would realize who swung the fist or weapon and I'm sure the kid would realize God set up the system in such a way that the parents didn't have to do that.  It was all up to them what was to be done.

The only ones irresponsible are the parent(s).  The only one acting irresponsibly with the Jews was Hitler.  They chose and will reap whatever judgments come their way.

I also typed this concerning free will:

"if God were to force us to do only that which is good (not kill or have the thought to kill), then it amounts to puppetry.  [What we're doing, in itself, won't even be good, because we wouldn't be doing it, but God would be jury-rigging it.]

[Killing] should not happen, but it does happen... yes, because of free will. That's what happens with free will, though. It's a sort of irreducibly complex system whereas it contains several working "parts" in order to achieve what we call "free will". Take one of these parts out and free will is gone against or demolished. You're taking out certain kinds of choices, which ultimately means taking choice, itself, out. With free will comes a big responsibility - the responsibility to choose what is right. It may be gone against a lot, but that doesn't make free will a bad thing. It's merely a beautiful thing gone bad in some aspects due to mankind."

Text within brackets was added to the original quote.

Where is God involved? All I see are some laws that Moses wrote down, apparantly at the behest of a deity, who may or may not exist. They are, for the most part, sensible laws. No killing, no stealing, etc - forget the crap about only having one true god, just take the parts that actually MEAN something, and you have some good standards to live your life by.

Because I agree with the majority of the 10 commandments does not make me Christian by any stretch of the imagination. I really, really dislike the church and everything that it has done to this world and I don't buy in to the whole deity thing.

First off, I notice you're still saying things like "you have some good standards to live your life by" despite my argument:

"Those that don't accept any type of religious doctrine have a good bit to answer for when they call one man "good" and one man "bad". They aren't using any sort of objective standard to judge this. According to their position, who is "good" or "bad" all falls down to subjectively based preferences, which wrips apart any attempts at commenting on the subject.

Let's say I'm an atheist who holds certain standards which I use to judge between a good person and a bad person. What are these standards based on? It's inescapable that they are based subjectively, which amounts to a "moot" standard. Some other atheist may hold certain subjectively based standard which is completely opposite of mine (i.e. that Hitler was a good person). How am I to argue with him that his is wrong?"

I'd like a response from the anti-religious side as to how they can possibly consider one man actually good or bad?

In response to your quote, it really doesn't matter whether or not God exists when Moses claimed to have divine orders.  What matters is that Moses had some type of objective experience.  (It obviously was a worthy experience, because most societies/religions have abided by it).  

Even if I grant you religions base their morality from SBP's, you still have to deal with how one person can actually be good and one be actually bad/evil.

I really, really dislike the church and everything that it has done to this world

That's like me creating a long list of anti-religious people who've done terrible things, then saying I dislike the anti-religious movement just because of what those people did.  I wouldn't do that.  I respect the anti-religious movement and learn from it day in and out.

No I'm not, as that would take up even more of time. This thread is already soaking up the majority of time I spend here, I don't need two debate threads.

Understandable.  Do expect some threads up on proofs for God anyway... you don't have to respond, if you don't like.  I respect the fact that you have more fruitful things to engage in with your time.