Then don't do it. Simple.

Why needlessly suffer? If your heart is in the right place that is all that matters. People will always read what they want too into your actions and words. Happens to everyone. And you may not want to hear this, but it is true that the negative stigmas are put less on you in America because you are a white male.

But don't blame all black people for your self-imposed penance and the bitterness it may bring you. No black commission orders white people to tiptoe on eggshells.>> ^Porksandwich:

I mean it sounds horrible saying it like is in this video......
But I have been in some situations doing work in predominately black neighborhoods where some of the people went out of their way to cause us problems, and a black guy working for us got up in a couple of their faces about it.
I have also had similar situations with some white guys who create problems for people when they think they should have been the ones who got the job or should be working.
Now, Im a white guy. And when you have a black guy act like this and see another black guy whose more attuned to your circumstances because he works with you being on your side...it makes it seem more racially fueled than if you have ignorant white people doing it....they are just white trash and you can write them off as white trash.......because you're white and you can do that.
But in the case of black people acting that way, you can't be sure if they just hate you because you're white or hate you because they think they deserve what you have like white trash does.
So........I can see the point of some of the comments the guy made because as a white guy you can't be sure how your actions will be seen...as long as the question of skin color or ethnicity is ever questioned. And it's questioned all the time in the US, so you have to be aware of that because some people will make issue of it if you just say you are sick and tired of ignorant bastards treating you this way because it makes you sound like a huge racist if you say it in reference to black people.....because it's always measured like that. Where as if a black guy said it in your defense, it'd be OK or at least less scrutinized.
And here's a fun thing to keep in mind. I have an US born Indian friend, I met him in college. The people who hated him most in college for seemingly no reason? Indians not born in the US, they hated his ass with a passion. I noticed it, thought maybe it was due to language they never spoke with him as some of them sucked at English and needed the others to help them figure stuff out. I asked and he said they hate him because he wasn't born in India. And you know who he came to hate the most? Non-US born Indians, because they treated him like shit for something he had no control over.
I mean if people just hate you because you are <whatever>, there ain't a whole lot you can do but ignore them. And if they keep it up and start to affect your life, you can only hate them back. Anything else is pretty much hoping the law will allow you some protection, because everything else is involves some horrible violence or death to solve it. You can't reason with irrational hatred.
I don't know the answer, but I can say that having to constantly wonder about this shit is stressing as hell but mentioning it to people draws this kind of "awww poor white male" crybaby attitude toward it. It slowly kills off your empathy/sympathy for others who think your life is awesome simply because you're male and white. I surely don't agree with this guy's view, but I have to wonder if in 40 years I'll be so tired of having to constantly weigh every comment or action I make against some invisible scale of political correctness will just wear me out and make me bitter.

I mean it sounds horrible saying it like is in this video......

But I have been in some situations doing work in predominately black neighborhoods where some of the people went out of their way to cause us problems, and a black guy working for us got up in a couple of their faces about it.

I have also had similar situations with some white guys who create problems for people when they think they should have been the ones who got the job or should be working.

Now, Im a white guy. And when you have a black guy act like this and see another black guy whose more attuned to your circumstances because he works with you being on your side...it makes it seem more racially fueled than if you have ignorant white people doing it....they are just white trash and you can write them off as white trash.......because you're white and you can do that.

But in the case of black people acting that way, you can't be sure if they just hate you because you're white or hate you because they think they deserve what you have like white trash does.

So........I can see the point of some of the comments the guy made because as a white guy you can't be sure how your actions will be seen...as long as the question of skin color or ethnicity is ever questioned. And it's questioned all the time in the US, so you have to be aware of that because some people will make issue of it if you just say you are sick and tired of ignorant bastards treating you this way because it makes you sound like a huge racist if you say it in reference to black people.....because it's always measured like that. Where as if a black guy said it in your defense, it'd be OK or at least less scrutinized.

And here's a fun thing to keep in mind. I have an US born Indian friend, I met him in college. The people who hated him most in college for seemingly no reason? Indians not born in the US, they hated his ass with a passion. I noticed it, thought maybe it was due to language they never spoke with him as some of them sucked at English and needed the others to help them figure stuff out. I asked and he said they hate him because he wasn't born in India. And you know who he came to hate the most? Non-US born Indians, because they treated him like shit for something he had no control over.

I mean if people just hate you because you are <whatever>, there ain't a whole lot you can do but ignore them. And if they keep it up and start to affect your life, you can only hate them back. Anything else is pretty much hoping the law will allow you some protection, because everything else is involves some horrible violence or death to solve it. You can't reason with irrational hatred.

I don't know the answer, but I can say that having to constantly wonder about this shit is stressing as hell but mentioning it to people draws this kind of "awww poor white male" crybaby attitude toward it. It slowly kills off your empathy/sympathy for others who think your life is awesome simply because you're male and white. I surely don't agree with this guy's view, but I have to wonder if in 40 years I'll be so tired of having to constantly weigh every comment or action I make against some invisible scale of political correctness will just wear me out and make me bitter.

Having watched the first 30 seconds again and thought about it, with Craig's ...Premise Two cannot be proven, and that's Craig's argument completely sunk, and it could have been the end of the video too.

I think you're looking at the argument from the wrong perspective. Let's examine the premises:

1. If God does not exist, objective moral values do not exist:

The basic question here is, in the absence of God, is there is any objective difference between good and evil? That, if there is no God, is the difference between good and evil like the difference between coke and pepsi? An example Craig gives is, is the difference like which side of the road that you drive on, which varies from culture to culture?

So, this is where you would make an argument for valid and binding objective moral values outside of Gods existence. You can invalidate the whole argument right here, but you have to provide a logical foundation. I have yet to see anyone refute premise one.

2. Objective moral values do exist

Now, to say this premise is false is to admit that objective moral values do not exist. IE, you will have to admit that torturing babies for fun isn't actually wrong. I have actually debated people who tried to defend it, but I give them credit for being intellectually honest, because that is the logical conclusion; that if objective moral values do not exist, torturing babies for fun isn't absolutely wrong. However, I think we both know that it is, therefore objective moral values do exist.

So, this is a rather tricky argument for an atheist. Qualia soup gets the whole thing wrong here. The basic trouble for you is, if you want to dispute premise one, you have to come up with a foundation for objective moral values outside of God. If you admit there is no such foundation, then we move to premise 2, and there you have to argue that objective moral values do not exist. If you can not argue it, or if you admit objective moral values do exist, then you are forced to accept premise 3, that therefore God exists.

For example, can we just accept that you and I exist, one independent of the other, neither a figment of the other's imagination? Can we accept that our normal external sensory input can be accepted as correct for the purposes of this conversation, (except in the trivial cases of optical illusions and so forth)? You probably know what I'm saying. I hate it when I get into an argument and think I've made a very strong point, only to have my opponent come back with, "Everything's subjective; you can't prove anything is real," or, "Maybe you imagined the whole thing, I mean, you can't prove you didn't," or, "You can prove anything with facts," or, "Well, you have your beliefs and I have mine," or some crap like that where I'm not talking about subjective facts or my own beliefs.

Yes, I can agree with all of this. I believe that the Universe is tangibly real, and is generally how it appears to be, in that it is not a malicious deception or a meaningless illusion. I believe we are both individuals made in the image of God with an independent existence and a soul. I believe we can come to meaningful conclusions about reality, and that there is a truth which is tangible, accessible to reason, and which does not change based on our interpretation or personal preferences.

Also, in theological arguments, I must insist on a couple things. The first is that words must have meaning. If you say something, you can't later say that it's not to be taken literally, or that that word has a different meaning when applied to God. The second is that everything logically entailed by a statement must stand with the original statement, and any other statement. If there's any inconsistencies, then at least one of the statements must be false.

I am very consistent when it comes to meanings. This is one of the hallmarks of literal interpretation, that the words in the bible, while they can sometimes be applied in a metaphorical sense, always have an intended meaning which is absolutely true in all circumstances.

Also, please don't assert supernatural things like the existence of Satan, or your knowledge of how he works, telling me these things like I'm ignorant of them, rather than fully aware of the stories, but sceptical. Say that it's what you believe or have come to believe or whatever, but don't say it like objective fact. Same goes for Bible verses. I don't accept them as fact any more than you'd accept Skeletor quotes as fact. To me that book is best treated as fiction, though it's possible it conveys some details of events that really happened, but pronouncements of the way the world is I absolutely do not accept as the word of God, especially since I don't believe he exists. I don't care if the Bible predicts atheists/sceptics. All that tells me is that people have been doubting the veracity of the word for 2,000 years, and someone took the precaution of adding a word or two against non-believers into the text so believers down the line would have justification "from God" for dismissing my arguments as guided by Satan, or whatever.

I generally won't propose arguments that would take faith to accept. I understand your natural skepticism because I used to be equally skeptical. I will just submit that when you are deceived, you don't know you are deceived:

2 Corinthians 4:4

In their case the god of this world has blinded the minds of the unbelievers, to keep them from seeing the light of the gospel of the glory of Christ, who is the image of God.

I admit the possibility that I could be deceived, so I think if we both can admit this, we will have a more fruitful conversation.

know you don't think Qualia's line of reasoning holds, but I don't know what you think of Craig's argument. Is it valid, in your mind? And here, I'm mostly interested in how you think. As I've said, the video was only intended to take apart the argument of one Christian apologist, and not to prove or disprove anything.

I think it is logically airtight. That if you cannot prove there is a foundation for objective moral values outside of God, and you cannot disprove that some actions are objectively wrong, that you must accept the conclusion of the argument.

I'm 99% sure you said in a comment somewhere that you're dubious of science. Could you explain what you mean by that? Science isn't a system of faith or a set of theories. It's a process of testing theories. Are you dubious of the process? What parts of it specifically do you mean?

I am dubious of the philosophy of empiricism upon which science is founded upon. Empiricism assumes that truth can only be discerned through our senses, and that our minds merely processes and categorizes this truth. I reject this view because there are clearly truths that empiricism cannot evaluate, including the validity of empiricism itself. I'll bring in craig again for this one:



I apologize for the title..it's just the best clip I could find.

Is it accurate to say that the sum of your experience of God is subjective, that's to say, is based solely on your own experience in your head, and possibly in things in the objective world that you have interpreted in a subjective way, and is not borne out in any demonstrable way in the measurable material world?

I would say my experience is generally subjective but is objectively confirmed, both by other people, and my daily life. You can say I have interpreted those experiences subjectively, and I am just fooling myself, of course. Personal experience is something hard to prove, as the other person is naturally skeptical of the other persons ability to evaluate what is true. All I can say is that truth is paramount to me and I am incapable of believing something just because I want it to be true. I would rather have nothing and die a meaningless death than live out a comfortable lie.

Please describe God. Where is he? When is he? What is he capable of? What does he feel? Is he immutable? Please add anything you can about why he did things like create the universe and animals and us and disease and suffering and inequality and joy, why he cares for us, why he cares what we do, why he made some things moral and some things evil, and any other informative facts. Is there a God the Father anymore, or just Jesus? Did Jesus have a human form and a godly form, or did he transmute from one to the other? What was Jesus before he was born? Was he born of the virgin Mary?

This is a rather large subject. I'll do my best..

God is perfect. He is holy, loving, and just. He exists outside of time and space in His own realm, which is called Heaven. He is capable of doing anything that can be done. As far as what God feels, that can be hard to quantify. For instance, you can say God feels love, but by definition, God is love. In general, from the bible, it seems God can be pleased, can be jealous, has compassion, is kind, is loving, can be grieved and can be angered. His nature is immutable, in that He is goodness itself. He is light and there is no darkness in Him. That doesn't change. He can however change how He interacts with us.

God created us out of the abundance of His love. It wasn't out of a need, as He already had perfect love within the relationships of the Holy Trinity, but it was an overflowing of that love. He created us to be in relationship to Him, as His children.

There were no diseases, or any inequality before the fall. He created the world perfectly, and He set us in paradise, to learn and grow under His care. However, because robots would be undesirable, He gave us free will to be obedient to Him or not. Unfortunately, we abused that, and broke fellowship with God. Sin and death were brought into the world because of it, and since then this has been a fallen creation. If you have something perfect, and introduce an imperfection, then it is no longer perfect and neither can anything perfect ever come from it. Sin and death ruined that perfection, and they are the cause for all of the disease and inequality today.

Because of this, God brought the law into the world, to give us a minimum standard for moral behavior. The law in itself was not capable of fixing the situation, as everyone fell short of the law, but rather it highlighted our need for a savior. This is the reason Jesus Christ came.

He came to Earth, putting aside His glory and position to live as a man, being the first human being since Adam to be born without sin. He lived a perfect life, though He was tempted in every way that we are, and fulfilled the entire law. Finally, He sacrificed Himself on the cross for the sins of mankind, as a substitutionary atonement for our crimes, and He tasted death for all men. God proved all of this by raising Him from the dead. So, Christ defeated death and sin on the cross, and imputed His righteousness, the righteousness of God, back into mankind. Therefore, anyone who accepts His Lordship will have his sins forgiven and receive eternal life. It is by the imputation of Gods perfect righteousness and substituionary atonement that the effects of the fall have been countered, and we are again reconciled to God and can enjoy perfect relationship to Him as His children.

God is three persons, the Father the Son and the Holy Spirit. Jesus ascended to Heaven and sits at the right hand of the Father, making intercession on our behalf. Jesus was born of a virgin, and was both God and man; He had two natures, which were united for one purpose in submission to the Father. Jesus, before He was born as a human being, existed as God. "Before abraham was, I am."

John 1:1-3

In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. 2 He was with God in the beginning. 3 Through him all things were made; without him nothing was made that has been made.

Hope that answers your questions.



>> ^messenger:

@shinyblurry

@shinyblurry

Having watched the first 30 seconds again and thought about it, with Craig's definition of objective moral values (OMVs) inserted into Premise One, it reads: "If God does not exist, then nothing exists which is good or evil independently of whether anybody believes it to be so." If by this he means, "If God does not exist, then nothing exists which is good or evil no matter who believes or does not believe it to be so", then it's pretty close to a truism, but as Qualia says, it leaves Craig with significant problems. Then, unfortunately, Q goes off apparently on an irrelevant tangent about people assessing other people's moral behaviour, which is the wrong argument to make at this point, as Craig's definition is all about things being moral or evil independent of everyone's judgement. The correct point to make here would be that by Craig's own definition of OMVs, it's now impossible to verify Premise Two because it would require either a human or God to assess that such a moral value or duty existed. This can never happen because Craig's definition of OMVs precludes humans from evaluating things morally, and the argument cannot, obviously, invoke God's opinion, since proof of God's existence is the argument's conclusion. So, by definition, Premise Two cannot be proven, and that's Craig's argument completely sunk, and it could have been the end of the video too.

Except something interesting happens: Craig contradicts his earlier definition of "objective" meaning that it doesn't matter what any human thinks, and presents the fact that 99% of people would say that torturing and caring for a child hold different moral values as evidence that OMVs exist, in other words, now, suddenly the definition of OMVs rests in what 99% of people think. This means he accepts somebody's assessment of moral value, if on a large enough scale. If Craig appeals to the moral opinion of 99% of people to prove objectivity in his own arguments, then obviously anybody arguing against Craig is allowed to do the same, so any points Qualia Soup makes in the video based on the opinions of humans in general stand because they follow Craig's own rules of evaluation.

So, Qualia's point is valid and relevant, that on the whole, we don't make moral judgements based solely on the act itself, but on what the person committing the act believed about their actions: a healthy adult killing a baby is viewed entirely differently than a retarded adult or a very young child killing a baby. This is not irrelevant if Craig's proof for Premise Two relies on the opinion of 99% of people. This shows that OMVs may not exist independent of what people think. It suggests the opposite: that judgements of the moral value of an action may only exist based on what people think.

QS: It goes on, asking "what do we make of a being that's decided that only one species is morally accountable?"

SB: This is simply a red herring. It makes absolutely no difference and is not relevant what we think about God holding humans accountable and not animals. Our standard for moral behavior is not measured by the behavior of animals. The relevant difference is that the standard for our moral behavior is measured by what God chooses as morally correct.

Here, QS is responding to Craig's accusations of atheists being "speciesist" for thinking humans are special, and throws it back in his face by showing by his definition, God is speciesist if he only chose to hold one species morally accountable. Also, your own argument that morality relies on what God decides is morally correct assumes the existence of God, which you cannot assert in the middle of a proof of God's existence.

The section that follows about "unevaluated value" makes the point that if there are moral values that exist but we lack awareness of them, then it's useless for them to exist undetected. And if we're not positing that a God already exists, it makes more sense for the actions to be noticed, and then evaluated as either evil or good at that moment, rather than to have already been evaluated morally by God, and then detected as morally good or evil by that person due to their internal morality detector provided by God. In other words, the capacity for moral judgement is not proof that God gave it to us. It could have evolved.

The argument beginning at 3:47 shows there's no way to determine that a person has detected something that was already evaluated as good by God and understood it as so, rather than has seen something and evaluated it as good himself by his own judgement.

***

And it goes on from there. Anyway, that's my evaluation of your evaluation of Qualia Soup's evaluation of Craig's ontological proof that God exists.

I'd much rather talk about you and me and our relative faiths in God, but before we go on, I have to know what the rules are and what I will be expected to establish.

About us
For example, can we just accept that you and I exist, one independent of the other, neither a figment of the other's imagination? Can we accept that our normal external sensory input can be accepted as correct for the purposes of this conversation, (except in the trivial cases of optical illusions and so forth)? You probably know what I'm saying. I hate it when I get into an argument and think I've made a very strong point, only to have my opponent come back with, "Everything's subjective; you can't prove anything is real," or, "Maybe you imagined the whole thing, I mean, you can't prove you didn't," or, "You can prove anything with facts," or, "Well, you have your beliefs and I have mine," or some crap like that where I'm not talking about subjective facts or my own beliefs.

Also, in theological arguments, I must insist on a couple things. The first is that words must have meaning. If you say something, you can't later say that it's not to be taken literally, or that that word has a different meaning when applied to God. The second is that everything logically entailed by a statement must stand with the original statement, and any other statement. If there's any inconsistencies, then at least one of the statements must be false.

Also, please don't assert supernatural things like the existence of Satan, or your knowledge of how he works, telling me these things like I'm ignorant of them, rather than fully aware of the stories, but sceptical. Say that it's what you believe or have come to believe or whatever, but don't say it like objective fact. Same goes for Bible verses. I don't accept them as fact any more than you'd accept Skeletor quotes as fact. To me that book is best treated as fiction, though it's possible it conveys some details of events that really happened, but pronouncements of the way the world is I absolutely do not accept as the word of God, especially since I don't believe he exists. I don't care if the Bible predicts atheists/sceptics. All that tells me is that people have been doubting the veracity of the word for 2,000 years, and someone took the precaution of adding a word or two against non-believers into the text so believers down the line would have justification "from God" for dismissing my arguments as guided by Satan, or whatever.

I know you don't think Qualia's line of reasoning holds, but I don't know what you think of Craig's argument. Is it valid, in your mind? And here, I'm mostly interested in how you think. As I've said, the video was only intended to take apart the argument of one Christian apologist, and not to prove or disprove anything.

I'm 99% sure you said in a comment somewhere that you're dubious of science. Could you explain what you mean by that? Science isn't a system of faith or a set of theories. It's a process of testing theories. Are you dubious of the process? What parts of it specifically do you mean?

Is it accurate to say that the sum of your experience of God is subjective, that's to say, is based solely on your own experience in your head, and possibly in things in the objective world that you have interpreted in a subjective way, and is not borne out in any demonstrable way in the measurable material world?

About God
Please describe God. Where is he? When is he? What is he capable of? What does he feel? Is he immutable? Please add anything you can about why he did things like create the universe and animals and us and disease and suffering and inequality and joy, why he cares for us, why he cares what we do, why he made some things moral and some things evil, and any other informative facts. Is there a God the Father anymore, or just Jesus? Did Jesus have a human form and a godly form, or did he transmute from one to the other? What was Jesus before he was born? Was he born of the virgin Mary?

I'll answer your most recent post in my next sitting.

@Crosswords
i am beginning to feel the stirrings of a man-crush on you.

look.
when it comes to money and economics schiff has made some great points and in 2004 was almost prophetic but when it comes to politics schiff appears to be a fish out of water and came to OWS with a self-righteous pre-conception and was rightly shown the error in his ways.

the argument about disbanding the EPA,the FDA or the DOE is a conflation.
we can argue the effeciency vs results but that is an entirely separate argument and has little to do with their actually designed roles and the necessity of those departments.

i do not understand those who keep touting the virtue of an un-regulated and "free" market.
unless you feel that indentured servitude,child labor and unsafe products that may harm or kill are perfectly acceptable.
it not only ignores history but conveniently ignores that uneven disparity that would be inevitable.
you think there is inequality now?
let a true free market become the mantra of pure capitalism and see what happens.
dont have resources and were not born in to an affluent family?
well go fuck yourself and make me a sandwich.

the game is rigged.
the system is fixed.
a CEO defrauds billions and walks away with 160 million in bonuses.
a man steals a pack of underwear and spends 30 days in jail,gets charged for the food and board and owes 500 hours of community service and a years probation at a 100 bucks a month.

all men are created equal under the eyes of the law?
i call bullshit.

I clicked on your comment in the newest appreciated comments section. I could have sworn that it read" Romney was not BORN a moron. Mormon .... moron.... quite the similarity, a coincidence? I think not.
>> ^EMPIRE:

Romney was not BORN a mormon.


http://joedonatelli.com/mitt-romney%E2%80%99s-magic-underwear/10/10/2011/

Romney was not BORN a mormon, he was born, as all babies, ignorant of everything, even stupidity. He was then raised as a mormon, and had the stupidity injected into his brain on a daily basis.

I don't believe it's not hard for someone to reject their religious background, but fuck... this world HAS to come to a point where we start calling religion out (every religion) on the stupid inane, bullshit it spreads.

If a person wants to believe in a non-specific godly entity which created the universe, that's one thing (although still pretty stupid, since there is zero evidence of that), but it's quite another when you believe in virgin births, and people parting seas in two, and talking snakes, and overlord Xenu, and Joseph Smith's unbelievably pathetic lies, and the word of schizos who think they talk to god and want to kill everyone who doesn't believe in them, etc...

Religion is NOTHING BUT bullshit, deception and complete ignorance. I'm not saying there aren't good people in all religions in the world (well, maybe most religions), but they need to get their heads out of their asses, and leave the fairy tales to children (which to be honest, in this day and age, are probably less likely to believe in something as obviously fake as a talking snake).

I said God allows evil to exist because He gives people the freedom to choose. It is better to have freedom and allow for evil than to have no freedom and be forced to act in a certain way. That in itself would be evil. I also said God can use that reality for beneficial purposes. Just because there is evil doesn't mean that God can't use that to fulfill His purposes. He isn't limited by evil. Evil is not a necessary part of His creation, but since humans keep choosing it, He works with it.

God destroyed the entire world in a flood that left 8 people alive. God is sovereign over His creation and we are under His law, and His judgement. Specifically, His condemnation was against wickedness:

"And God saw that the wickedness of man was great in the earth, and that every imagination of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually. And it repented the LORD that he had made man on the earth, and it grieved him at his heart."

He is not immoral for enforcing His law on immoral people. You seem to want to argue that people should be allowed to do whatever they want, and anytime God might punish someone, He shouldn't be allowed to. God would be immoral if He just let people do whatever they want..it's because He is just that he has laws that He does enforce.

>> ^Skeeve:
You said god allows evil to exist so people will "know" him. If he can stop evil, but does not do so, he is not a good being.
And your morality response is an absolute cop out. As far as we know, Hitler never murdered anyone. But because he ordered the deaths of millions we consider him evil. Your god ordered the deaths of an entire people (1 Sam. 15:2-3), the theft of property (Numbers 31:7-18), the abduction and rape of virgins (Deuteronomy 20:10-14) and the slavery of anyone not born an Israelite (Leviticus 25:44-46) and yet you consider him good? God specifically mentions the people of Samaria and that "their little ones will be dashed to the ground, their pregnant women ripped open" (Hosea 13:16). How fucked up do you have to be to think this is a benevolent god?

You said god allows evil to exist so people will "know" him. If he can stop evil, but does not do so, he is not a good being.

And your morality response is an absolute cop out. As far as we know, Hitler never murdered anyone. But because he ordered the deaths of millions we consider him evil. Your god ordered the deaths of an entire people (1 Sam. 15:2-3), the theft of property (Numbers 31:7-18), the abduction and rape of virgins (Deuteronomy 20:10-14) and the slavery of anyone not born an Israelite (Leviticus 25:44-46) and yet you consider him good? God specifically mentions the people of Samaria and that "their little ones will be dashed to the ground, their pregnant women ripped open" (Hosea 13:16). How fucked up do you have to be to think this is a benevolent god?
>> ^shinyblurry:

What I admitted to is that God allows you to have matches, and warns you that you could burn your house down, but if you ignore the warning He will still save your life..and you probably won't play with matches again in the future. If you listened to God you never would have burned your house down in the first place. God created a world in which evil did not exist; that He allowed us to screw up and bring it into the world means we have the freedom to choose. To take that away means we have no choice. What you are advocating is that God doesn't allow you to have matches, or if He does, to continually prevent you from abusing them. That isn't freedom.
As far as God breaking His own commandments, He would really only be subject to two of them, since the rest couldn't apply to Him. Lying, and murder. He never done either. He has never lied. He has killed, but it was never murder. Murder is to kill unlawfully. Under the law the penalty for sin is death. So if you want to point to places in the bible God took life, that was entirely lawful. Over 2 million people are born and die every day..giving and taking life is something God does all the time. That He is patient with us even though we are sinners shows His mercy. That He sent His Son to take our place so we could be forgiven and obtain eternal life shows His love.
>> ^Skeeve:
If I allow someone to burn your house down, only so that I can run in and save you when it is on fire so that you like me, am I a good person? You just admitted that your god does the same thing - allows evil to exist so humans will like him - so how can he be good? Why would anyone worship such a horrible creature?
As for the argument from morality that you have provided, if you provide me with something that is objectively evil, I will provide you with the bible verse in which your evil-ass god commanded someone to do it.>> ^shinyblurry:
Debunked? You're not a very good philosopher if you don't think there are any counter-arguments to this claim. First, the assumption here is that God and evil are mutually incompatible, or that God couldn't use evil to achieve His goals. If the entire purpose of your existence is to know God, and evil facilitates that, then God is capable of using it for beneficial purposes. Second, it presupposes that evil actually exists. So, if there is evil there also must be good, and there must be a moral law differentiating between the two, which leads to a lawgiver.
>> ^Skeeve:
Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then He is not omnipotent. Is He able, but not willing? Then He is malevolent. Is He both able and willing? Then whence cometh evil? Is He neither able nor willing? Then why call Him God?
Epicurus (c. 341 - c. 270 BC)
This garbage was debunked 2300 years ago.

Do you have an actual argument, or what? Creation could ultimately only come from a single source; it makes logical sense there is only one God. A true God is a being whom was not created by anyone else, for which whom no one is a God to Him. Humanity has worshipped many Gods, but it doesn't mean there isn't one God. Humanity has worshipped, the sun, the earth, clay, stone, wood, themselves, money, power, sex..there are a million different things that are a god to people. Still has no bearing on the argument there is only one God. And if there is, then you will answer to Him one day.

>> ^MaxWilder:
>> ^shinyblurry:
I think it's an apt comparison. There's spmething in her sneering commentary that reminds me of her. This isn't a girl who is disillusioned about the bible, this is someone who hates God. For all you idiots know she could be a satanist. There are quite a few satanists who put out this kind of commentary to smear God, knowing full well He exists..but just playing to the religious beliefs of secular humanists.
Hell is for sinners who won't turn from their sins. You don't seem to care where you're going so I don't why you are acting so outraged. You don't want to spend an eternity with God; He'd be giving you what you want..eternal seperation from Him. And when it does happen you won't be able to act surprised or claim no one tried to warn you either.

I also hate Zeus. And Shiva. And Woden. Oh, no wait, I don't hate them, because I don't believe in them. If, however, there were Woden worshippers who kept getting in my face about how I couldn't go to Valhalla unless I did as I was told, I might start getting a little pissed at them. Not their god. But how could I fail to believe in him? I mean, we named a day of the week after the guy!
How can you deny that Woden exists, Shiny! Do you skip directly from Tuesday to Thursday? You're just a Woden hater! Come back to Woden before it is too late! You can still have a seat in Valhalla! If you don't, then when you die you will be left out to shiver in the cold before the gates, never to be warm and welcomed! And you will have nobody to blame because you have been warned!
“Wôld, Wôld, Wôld”!
Heaven’s giant knows what happens,
Looking down from heaven,
Providing full jugs and sheaves.
Many a plant grows in the woods.
He is not born and grows not old.
“Wôld, Wôld, Wôld”!

>> ^shinyblurry:

I think it's an apt comparison. There's spmething in her sneering commentary that reminds me of her. This isn't a girl who is disillusioned about the bible, this is someone who hates God. For all you idiots know she could be a satanist. There are quite a few satanists who put out this kind of commentary to smear God, knowing full well He exists..but just playing to the religious beliefs of secular humanists.
Hell is for sinners who won't turn from their sins. You don't seem to care where you're going so I don't why you are acting so outraged. You don't want to spend an eternity with God; He'd be giving you what you want..eternal seperation from Him. And when it does happen you won't be able to act surprised or claim no one tried to warn you either.


I also hate Zeus. And Shiva. And Woden. Oh, no wait, I don't hate them, because I don't believe in them. If, however, there were Woden worshippers who kept getting in my face about how I couldn't go to Valhalla unless I did as I was told, I might start getting a little pissed at them. Not their god. But how could I fail to believe in him? I mean, we named a day of the week after the guy!

How can you deny that Woden exists, Shiny! Do you skip directly from Tuesday to Thursday? You're just a Woden hater! Come back to Woden before it is too late! You can still have a seat in Valhalla! If you don't, then when you die you will be left out to shiver in the cold before the gates, never to be warm and welcomed! And you will have nobody to blame because you have been warned!

“Wôld, Wôld, Wôld”!
Heaven’s giant knows what happens,
Looking down from heaven,
Providing full jugs and sheaves.
Many a plant grows in the woods.
He is not born and grows not old.
“Wôld, Wôld, Wôld”!

>> ^shinyblurry:

It has every bearing on his life, because that is his lot. His only purpose, and his only hope, is to do a good job and earn his reward. He was not born into authority himself, nor does he know anything about running a Kingdom. He will never be able to earn anything greater for himself, and he is only well suited for the task at hand.
>> ^jonny:
It is not at all "plain there is a King." A simple person may assume that he exists by faulty inference. A more thoughtful person, though, will realize that the actual existence of the king is irrelevant to his or her own life. What is directly observable in this situation is that there is a social and cultural power structure in place which forces conformity upon the peasants through "displays of authority", presumably enforced by the soldiers. The peasant may choose to believe in the existence of the king or not, but it will have no bearing upon the peasant's life.
>> ^shinyblurry:
Lets say there was a certain King, whom you had never seen..and you are one of his peasants. You're under his authority and expected to work for him in the fields for a wage, and that when you are of the age of retirement, he will give you a home on his land and thank you personally. You see soldiers of his, marching through the town. You hear people talking about his attributes, his justness and intelligence. You witness his authority displayed all around you. It is plain there is a King though you had never seen him.

You have only asserted that it has bearing on his life (through mostly rhetorical gibberish). Your initial description of the peasant's life stated that the peasant will receive a reward upon retirement if the peasant accepts the king's authority and works in the fields. A peasant may do both of those and never consider the actual existence of the king, or if he does consider it, may reject it but still obey the directly observable authority of the society in which he lives. Is the peasant still entitled to his reward? If the reward is, in fact, contingent upon the peasant truly believing in the existence of the king, how will the king go about verifying that? Does this king have magical powers of ESP? And even if he does, how could the peasant possibly know that unless the king himself demonstrated it to him in person? Should he rely on the testimony of other peasants who are no better equipped to verify the existence of the king? Why not rely on his own abilities of observation and reason?

It has every bearing on his life, because that is his lot. His only purpose, and his only hope, is to do a good job and earn his reward. He was not born into authority himself, nor does he know anything about running a Kingdom. He will never be able to earn anything greater for himself, and he is only well suited for the task at hand.

>> ^jonny:
It is not at all "plain there is a King." A simple person may assume that he exists by faulty inference. A more thoughtful person, though, will realize that the actual existence of the king is irrelevant to his or her own life. What is directly observable in this situation is that there is a social and cultural power structure in place which forces conformity upon the peasants through "displays of authority", presumably enforced by the soldiers. The peasant may choose to believe in the existence of the king or not, but it will have no bearing upon the peasant's life.>> ^shinyblurry:
Lets say there was a certain King, whom you had never seen..and you are one of his peasants. You're under his authority and expected to work for him in the fields for a wage, and that when you are of the age of retirement, he will give you a home on his land and thank you personally. You see soldiers of his, marching through the town. You hear people talking about his attributes, his justness and intelligence. You witness his authority displayed all around you. It is plain there is a King though you had never seen him.

M'eh - conspiracy theorists are what they are and some percentage of a large population is going to agree with almost any theory that gets cooked up. The 9/11 Truthers are a far better example of this than the Obama Birthers. The idiotic conspiracy theory about 9/11 being a Bush inside job so he could declare war on Iraq to 'finish what his daddy started' and all that other bologna has not gone away to this day. The whole blood for oil crowd belongs in that bucket. You really think an electronic scan of a document is going to satisfy the die-hards? Haw.

The real issue here is the neo-lib kook left's continuous and increasingly plaintive and DESPERATE attempt to try and paint anyone who opposes Obama for ANY reason as a crazy birther, or racist. Completely untrue. A lot of people say they have 'doubts', or 'aren't sure' or other fuzzy comments of that sort when asked about Obama's birth. But very few people (GOP, Tea Party, whatever) say that Obama was definitely NOT born in the US, and should be removed from office because he isn't a citizen. Those who spit that hate speech to falsely denigrate an opposing group are just as crazy and prone to wearing tin-foil hats as the radical birthers.

The fact is that when polled, MOST AMERICANS (not just GOP) have said they were 'not sure' if he was born in the US or not. This isn't because they're birthers. It's because they have seen this guy's outlandish, anti-American behavior and just plain do not see Obama as "American".

Heck, even Obama doesn't see himself as an American really. He keeps going on and on about how great China is, and how great some other country is, and how wonderful Hugo Chavez is, and how great Islamic dictators like Amadinijad & Asad are, and how fantastic it is to bow to the Saudis, and I'm just getting warmed up. The guy can't open his mouth without saying how great everywhere ELSE is, while the same time whining about how Americans are stupid, gun-totin', bible thumpin', fuel burnin' jerks every time he goes anywhere. Not to mention his downright anti-constitutional behavior domestically with his czars, and ramming laws through, and ignoring court orders, and ignoring laws Congress passes, and NOT enforcing laws that already exist because he doesn't like them... And his constant arrogance and hypocrisy when he insults people (like Ryan) while in the next breath saying how everyone else has to stop being 'mean' (I could fill pages with lists of his double-speak jerky hypocritical arrogance). Add that to his crazy-@$$ pastors, his ties to terrorists like Ayres, his fanatical secrecy in hiding his past, his criminal tie (Rezko) and ON and ON and ON and ON and ON.

Needless to say that the bulk of America has doubts about this pathetic clown not because of his birth certificate - but because of everything else. So when the radical birthers come along, they may not really beleive he was foreign born but they see Obama the man himself and think, "Well... MAYBE..." Just like there was always enough about Bush for the bulk of America to think "Well... MAYBE..." when the 9/11 Truther spouted their bilge.