The bible isn't some mythical book written by some omnipotent being. It is a collections of short stories, carefully selected and complied by the Roman Catholic church 200 years after some guy names Jesus may or may not have lived. They were hand selected and occasionally edited to create a book that the Roman Catholic church could use to control and scare the pagan and outlying sects of early christianity under one banner.....theirs.

The bible is the inspired word of God, and your read of history leaves much to be desired. First, many of the books in the NT were considered canon around 140 AD, just as the early church was getting its start, and there was no conspiracy in selecting them. The only issue in the selection process was to weed out the gnostic writings and the uninspired works from the old testament era. Second, the RCC was not an institution until much later. By the time the bible was canonized in 367, the whole church was in agreement about what should be in it. There is also no evidence of editing. We have the early manuscripts and can check this.

To say this nation was founded on Christian ideals is a complete and utter fallacy, one that has been force fed to you and every other American for decades. The entire revolutionary war and the rebellion against England had absolutely nothing to do with god or religion. It was due to the occupation of Boston, the taxes levied on everything imported or exported from the colonies and the fact that the colonials were fed up with totalitarian control from a king 3000 miles away. When those men were killed at The Boston Massacre in 1770, their religion, race or background played zero part in the aftermath and the birth of a revolution that soon followed.

That's as biased a read of american history as I have ever heard. To say that Christianity had nothing to do with the founding of this country is patently absurd. If you want evidence, feel free to read my other post, or do some *unbiased* research. I suppose you have never seen the Mayflower Compact?

http://www.pilgrimhall.org/compact.htm

Were members of the first Continental Congress religious? Of course. Were they highly educated and well read? Absolutely. The Bible was one of the most widely available books at that time and I am sure every one of them had read it. I am a staunch atheist and even I have read it cover to cover (ironically reinforcing my atheism). Of course references to the bible are in the early writings, documents and monuments of the day. The bible, while complete, man-made fiction, is still full of fairly useful and often poignant quotes.

It's impossible for you to understand the bible without the Holy Spirit. It might as well have been written in swahili for the good that it did you reading it. The accuracy of the bible is not just a historical matter but also in how it describes the human condition. That's why you have those quotes you have to admit are undeniably true, because the bible tells us the reality of the human heart. Yes, of course the founders read it (many of them went to seminary). There were many books in those days, and many philosophies, but they specifically chose the bible, and books based on the bible, as references to draft our nations founding documents, which itself is well documented. Most of them believed the bible was the inspired word of God, which was the reason they used it, not because it was a "popular book of short stories".

Freedom of religion is as much freedom FROM religion and it is to practice whatever religions you want as you see fit. The separation of church and state was not only to avoid having a state religion, but to also avoid the church taking over the government as it had so many times in history. Sadly, we have fallen right back in the trap where religion, specifically CHRISTIAN religion, has as much impact on policy in the America government today as it did during the crusades in Europe when people's lives were dictated by what the church deemed appropriate and right and not the people as a whole. When you have a president of this nation saying that he went to war, ignoring Congress in the process, in the Middle East because god told him to, shit has gone WAY too far.

Apparently you don't know but there was a defacto state religion; almost every state had its own church, and every state constitution mentioned God. Again, they held church every sunday in the house of representitives. Clearly the founders were not interested in removing religion from government, they were only concerned about the balance of power. The secular dream you think the founders had never existed; they loved God and deliberately included Him in public affairs. After they wrote the constitution, Washington declared a day of thanksgiving and praise to God

"to be observed by acknowledging with grateful hearts the many and signal favors of Almighty God"

"http://www.earlyamerica.com/earlyamerica/firsts/thanksgiving/"

>> ^Hive13

@shinyblurry:

The bible isn't some mythical book written by some omnipotent being. It is a collections of short stories, carefully selected and complied by the Roman Catholic church 200 years after some guy names Jesus may or may not have lived. They were hand selected and occasionally edited to create a book that the Roman Catholic church could use to control and scare the pagan and outlying sects of early christianity under one banner.....theirs.

To say this nation was founded on Christian ideals is a complete and utter fallacy, one that has been force fed to you and every other American for decades. The entire revolutionary war and the rebellion against England had absolutely nothing to do with god or religion. It was due to the occupation of Boston, the taxes levied on everything imported or exported from the colonies and the fact that the colonials were fed up with totalitarian control from a king 3000 miles away. When those men were killed at The Boston Massacre in 1770, their religion, race or background played zero part in the aftermath and the birth of a revolution that soon followed.

Were members of the first Continental Congress religious? Of course. Were they highly educated and well read? Absolutely. The Bible was one of the most widely available books at that time and I am sure every one of them had read it. I am a staunch atheist and even I have read it cover to cover (ironically reinforcing my atheism). Of course references to the bible are in the early writings, documents and monuments of the day. The bible, while complete, man-made fiction, is still full of fairly useful and often poignant quotes.

Freedom of religion is as much freedom FROM religion and it is to practice whatever religions you want as you see fit. The separation of church and state was not only to avoid having a state religion, but to also avoid the church taking over the government as it had so many times in history. Sadly, we have fallen right back in the trap where religion, specifically CHRISTIAN religion, has as much impact on policy in the America government today as it did during the crusades in Europe when people's lives were dictated by what the church deemed appropriate and right and not the people as a whole. When you have a president of this nation saying that he went to war, ignoring Congress in the process, in the Middle East because god told him to, shit has gone WAY too far.

First paragraph is interesting, and has 2 good questions in it. One, how can you trust something that comes from something that can't be trusted. Second is the issue of what rationality even is. And is it even possible to bring it into question, ever. These 2 questions are the prime questions in my own person philosophy, and mirror some of the greater minds of history, I am, after all, only a single man in the long history of human thought.

I too am but a man, limited and small, but hopefully I can bring some godly wisdom into this. Between the two of us, maybe we can reduce this down to size.

I think the first question is actually very easy to answer, not to say that I didn't struggle for an answer for a long time. It is hard to think of things like this completely unclouded. But, the answer remains very easy, for me that is. There is a famous logical fallacy called "Guilt by association" , or, the Hitler Card, or various other things *Reductio ad Hitlerum when being MR. Smarty Pants *. For me to have a problem with its emergent nature from nature; I would need to be able to make an argument against it based on its own lack of integrity, not its associations with nature. One shouldn't be to troubled making this failed comparison, I do it more often than I care to admit!

Yes, I believe it is commonly referred to as the genetic fallacy. That the conclusion is inferred based on a defect of origins rather than the current meaning. I would not condemn rationality on that basis alone, but I use it to show that necessarily in the secular worldview, rationality is not the invincible and eternal God it is made out to be; that it had very humble origins inside a petri dish. This is just to crack open the door of introspection.

To say the same thing over, an objects creation doesn't mean it is still only consistent of the properties that made it. One can see this in ourselves, we are made from inorganic material, and thusly, it isn't proper to say we aren't organic because we came from the inorganic. Also, when I combine things of 2 different chemical properties, it is likely that I will arrive with something with completely different properties from the other two. So both in the logical base, and the higher abstraction, we fail to condemn rationality, we must attack its merits if we hope to win!

You're right, not much is to be gained by this particular argument about rationality. We must go deeper and suss out what it actually is.

The way you went about trying to condemn rationality from my own starting point of naturalistic existence was, however, the correct way to go about it. What I mean to say is you didn't try to use reason to undercut reason, like the postmodernists do, but tried to show that the foundations, at is concerns my own world view, are unfounded at the base. Proper technique, but a flawed argument, IMO. Leaps ahead of some European thinkers though

Thanks. I am happy that you understand that this is about worldviews and their foundations, because that is really the heart of the matter. Many people don't seem to realize that their belief system is a lens through which they perceive reality. Jesus said this is the pivotal issue:

Matthew 7:24-27

Therefore whosoever heareth these sayings of mine, and doeth them, I will liken him unto a wise man, which built his house upon a rock: And the rain descended, and the floods came, and the winds blew, and beat upon that house; and it fell not: for it was founded upon a rock. And every one that heareth these sayings of mine, and doeth them not, shall be likened unto a foolish man, which built his house upon the sand: And the rain descended, and the floods came, and the winds blew, and beat upon that house; and it fell: and great was the fall of it.

The second issue of the first statement is that of rationality itself. What is it that we even mean! For myself, I have divided the term into several sub-terms to help me both think about it, and talk about specific properties of rationality. The 2 terms that I an other continental philosophers have used are Logic and Reason. Reason being the so call a posteriori method of thinking, which fall to the realms of science, and Logic; being the dubed A priori, or statements that are a necessarily true...or true without need for examination. You might of read many of my rants on how I do not trust A posteriori as a method for finding truth. It leaves itself to all the problems of induction that for my part, have never been resolved.

I agree that we can reduce rationality into those two sub-terms, Logic and Reason. So let's examine..

For logic, we have the laws of logic, which are absolute, immaterial and unchanging. Yet the Universe is material and always changing. There is nowhere in nature to point to the laws of logic, yet they clearly exist. I account for these because God is a logical being who is absolute, immaterial and unchanging. So where does logic come from and how is it absolute? I don't see how they can be accounted for in a secular view.

To analyse reason, I'll just ask a simple question. How do you know your reasoning is valid?

As far as "TRUTH" with a capital T, I hold that science and all inductive methods have ZERO claim to it, and because of the way I define knowledge (as true, certain, belief) also does not expand human knowledge. So, as an element of rationality, I don't not hold it to any great merit of truth. It is GREAT at understanding the universe as humans can experience reality, but only so far, and only so much, and never in the fullest nature as to be consistent with the word "Truth". ( Turns out, I don't explain that I believe in truth only as far as A priori methods can show them, I think any attempt to say A priori isn't a good way to think about things results in you using A priori logical statements to show it isn't true, thus thwarting the objection)

Now here is the elusive question, and the one that plagued me as an agnostic. As pontius pilate asked Jesus, what is truth? Jesus claimed to be the way, the truth, and the life, and He meant this in a literal sense. The way, is in, the only true path for all human beings. The truth, because He is the Creator and Logos. The life, because He is the source of life. Bold claims, to be sure. He claimed to be the foundation of all foundations.

Is there is a truth? Well, it is true that I typed those words "is there a truth?". It is absolutely true even though only you and I know about it (and anyone else reading this). If the record were destroyed and the witnesses were gone it would still be true. If the Universe were destroyed it would still be true. Nothing can ever change that I wrote those words; the truth is the truth. Even if someone went back in time and stopped me from doing it, it still definitely happened. So, absolute truth exists.

The question is, how can you know what it is? You can know the things you have done, and seen, to a limited extent, but beyond that it gets progressively vague. Senses deceive, and so do people. How do you know anything for sure? Well there are really only two alternatives.

To know the absolute truth beyond a doubt you would either need to be omnipotent, or, you would need to receive revelation from an omnipotent being. So you would either need to be God, or God would need to tell you directly what is going on. Everything else is just speculation. It is like a person living in a pitch black room, who goes round and round inside of it, and thinks it is the whole Universe, until God opens the door from the outside.

Side question..what do you think of this statement?: God is perfect.

I don't know that I have ever heard a good explanation about free will. I should point out, that even in my Christianity, I was a 5 point Calvinist. I never have accepted that this quazi-random thing called free will exists in any way, shape or form. In the end, it doesn't even matter, either.

I agree that this is outside our control, of course. My assertion is that it is impossible unless it is something that is given to us. There is no meaningful free will in a determinalistic Universe, which I think is the inevitable conclusion of materialism. Personally, I believe that God controls everything, but in regards to love, we have the choice to love Him or not.

Let me expand why I think that. For me, I don't have the Theological problem you do. I don't have to explain goodness or evil in terms of human choices.

It is pretty simple theologically. Only God is good. Therefore, everything God tells us to do is good. Everything God tells us not to do is evil. The only way to know goodness is to obey God, because we canot obtain to it on our own.

I don't even have to believe in good or evil, or even if I do think it is a "something that exists", I HAVE to remain agnostic about it in the same way I do God, reason being is there isn't really a reasonable way to go about forming the groups "Good" and "Evil". Is it good to tie my shoe laces, or to just slip my feet right inside that shoe! It seems that most of life would either be impossible to show its good or evil value, but even more problematic, why and how!?

You may not define it but I submit that in your conscience you know what good and evil is, and that you live as if they do in fact absolutely exist. It is an intellectual quagmire if there is no moral lawgiver; it is all relative and meaningless. Yet, the whole world acts as if there is an absolute moral standard, and our conscience tells us that, before our intellect kicks in, that some things are right and others wrong. That isn't just wrong to murder someone, it is absolutely wrong. The guilt we have from past misdeeds tells us that we have trangsressed a moral law. So if there is no good and evil, how strange is it that we live as though there is? It makes no sense unless there is an absolute moral law, and in turn, a moral lawgiver.

We can see this problem in Christendom itself, there is no "one way" to be a christian! That was ALWAYS problematic for me. If truth was as easy as being in the bible, then everyone, and I mean everyone would be the same type of Christian. It would be the logical outcome of such a perfect and holy notion of good and evil. So either Christendom is in my same problematic position of not knowing the difference between good or evil, or if that even exists at all; if it wasn't some problem we created to increase the suffering of the world (like good ol Man Schopenhauer though!)

It isn't as black and white as all of that. Remember in the bible that God did non-stop miracles in front of the Israelites and they rebelled against Him anyway. Remember that Jesus did even more miracles and they ended up crucifying Him. So, the problem isn't with God, or His Word, it is with human beings. If you put God on the right and Satan on the left, and you lined up all of the Christians in the world between them, their placement in the line would be determined by what percentage of their heart they had given to God. Whatever percentage they haven't given to God is run by the world and their desires, and the more true this is, the less able they are to interpret the holy scriptures. It is the reality of sin that has created all of these different interpretations and denominations. There is one truth, and billions of Christians imperfectly interpreting it. The fact is, only Jesus was able to lead the perfect life of obedience to the Father. We all have a teacher, the Holy Spirit, to guide us into all truth, but only if we listen to Him.

So in other words, being the result of atoms bouncing around off each other degrading the absolute randomness of choices I make isn't something I have a problem with personally. As it is, my own existence, even if planned by nature or God or even myself, still remains so far beyond my ability to grasp at even day to day instances of any particular situation that even that; planned or random I have no real guess as to the goings on of that day. Perhaps if I was an all powerful God, with absolute knowledge of all factors of existence and all properties of existence I might find reality a little tedious.

It is much bigger than our limited awareness, that is for sure. What I have learned is that there is no such thing as coincidence. Try eliminating that word from your vocabulary for a few days. You might notice some very interesting things.

As to the quote, I think it a little dubious. For instance, it relates thoughts to fizz of a soda. That is fine, but they also have a comparison to HOW similar they are to each other. For instance, 1 and 2 are both numbers. There isn't really a problem with them both being numbers at the same time, its a party yall, all the numbers get to the dance floor! However, even in their exact "numberness" of being all "numbers", they still have differences to each other, even while still being numbers! So while the "one"ness of 1 being one is still just a number, a number which is a number exactly the same way 2 is, their is also a difference between 1 and 2, and it is inherit to the way that both exist. In the same way that A=A, A!=(!A). The basic laws of identity and contraindication. 1 may be of some degree of similarity to 2, and likewise, Fizz to thinking. But there is also a degree of separation. One could say the same, on a high level argument, that both smell and touch are of the "Same" physical representation of an object. So while the object they correspond to has a oneness with itself, the individual properties of its oneness are unique and independent. And not just via the method of induction, but it is AUTOMATICALLY apparent and true that things that are different are not the same. So the comparison of the atomic nature of both fizz and thoughts is ABSOLUTELY true, but so are there differences. It is those absolute differences that I, personally, use in my own method of philosophy which I borrowed and adapted from my limited understanding of Phenomenology.

I think you kind of missed the point here. It is just an analogy to show that if our thoughts are just the product of some brew of chemicals and electricity, and you and I just happened to get different chemicals, then your doubt and my faith have nothing to do with what we believe. They are just the natural result of how we are assembled and nothing else.

As to the last assumption of my beliefs, I actually don't have the same material requirement for existence. I find the views of George Berkeley, that we all exist in the minds of God, as the one of MANY, near infinite, plausible methods we could exist metaphysically.

Sure, there are many ways to imagine this, and I've heard quite a few. I think the only two meaningful questions concerning this is..is there a God, and if so, has He introduced Himself?

One might also mockingly bring up the idea of a spaghetti monster, but I have ALWAYS found that to be extremely uncharitable with the way "NORMAL" theory is crafted.

The FSM has no explanatory power. You don't get a Universe from flying pasta. The only workable theory is one that could explain all the meaningful questions that we have. I find all of those answers in Jesus Christ.

My current understanding of the universe certainly allows for a God, in fact, I find myself leaning that way more than my atheist brethren. It was, for me, certain, though, that the God of the Christian variety didn't satisfy all the problems that I had.

What problems do you feel He fell short on?

So my metaphysical undemanding doesn't have to find its roots in matter. I don't hold that matter is all there is, or that matter ISN'T all there is. I think there is not enough evidence to say either way. Moreover, I don't know that such evidence could even exist, which is why I am not only atheist, but also agnostic.

Ahh, but if you're agnostic you cannot be an atheist. If you don't know if the evidence could exist, then necessarily you don't know that it couldn't exist either. To be a true agnostic is to have no bias in either direction.

I think we are most likely creatures that are good at doing what we do, and truth...absolute truth, isn't really valuable as far as not getting eaten by a tiger is concerned.

It would be very valuable if God could help you avoid the tiger.

As such, I think humans have very few tools for understanding truth, from a Gods eye view perspective. It is the great arrogance of man that most cranktankerous arguments between scientists and religious people have with one another. We really do have more in common than different...we really have no clue what's going on. 7000 years of human discovery, great monuments of technology and thought, and yet, the truth is still as elusive as it ever was.

As I was saying above, without being God, or having direct revelation from God, we are only chasing our own tails. If there is no God we will never know how it all began or what is really going on. What I believe is that there is a God who has revealed Himself through the person of Jesus Christ. That we can know the truth, and the truth will set you free.

Hopefully, this huge wall of text has some merit and value, for I have written it while ill. I hope I have portrayed my message without the normal anger and hate associated with such inquiries. Of note, such pleasant conversations are truly all I exist for, if not for them, my life is worthless. As a person, I hope only to accomplish knowledge, and the pass that knowledge on to others. Nothing else really matters to me at all. Which is why, at times, I have lashed out at those undeserving because of the deep relationship I have with this type of endeavor. Imm'a let this fly now, and hope the typos don't completely obscure it, but I need to sleep.

I have enjoyed and appreciated your conversation. It certainly is a lot to chew on. I enjoy these kind of philosophical discussions; they have always been my bread and butter. I also appreciate that you are strictly concerned with knowledge, and how committed you are to it. I wholeheartedly approve of your endevour. Truth is what matters to me, second to love. When I was agnostic, I tied my brain into a million knots searching for it, and when I became aware there is a spirit, the mystery deepened 1000 fold. I feel I have found what truth is, which is the love of God, and I hope to share as much of that with you as I can.

>> ^GeeSussFreeK

1) You have decided that there must be a god, that it is inconceivable that there is not one. That there is no other possibility but there is some omnipotent being that runs everything. You give no logical reasoning for this, you have just decided, for yourself, that it MUST be and so there is no arguing the point. Well, on that point you are wrong. Not that there isn't, necessarily a god, but just that there must be one. There is nothing at all that says there must be a god. Go nuts believing that there is one, but don't think that you have come up with some endgame argument that there must be a god, because you haven't.

What I said is that if God isn't in charge it is someone else. Earth answers to a higher authority, one way or another. Stephan Hawking recently said that this power is almost certainly hostile to our interests.

I will say though that it is obvious there is a God. Anyone who believes that something like the Universe comes about by happenstance is in massive denial.

2) You then go on to this weird reasoning that because there must be a god, that it's better if said god is the one in your bible, because, well, he's tip top and damn super, and that he has a personal interest in every one of the 7 billion lives on this planet. Even, apparently, the billions that are condemned to poverty, starvation, murder and death. (And the far worse alternative is that there's some super being somewhere that doesn't give two rat's arses about us... I'm not sure how that's worse at all. What would I care if there's some overlord who is quite happy for this planet to just 'be' and do whatever we want, sounds great to me)

If you want to pin suffering and death anywhere, it rests squarely on mans shoulders. We could feed, clothe and vaccinate the entire world for what Europe spends on ice cream every year.

The worse alternative is being ruled over by something that doesn't care about us, which means that, at any moment we are completely expendible, or a resource to be used and abused as it sees fit. Look at what we do to the animals and then imagine what a higher being might do with us. Could be that we're being fattened for the slaughter.

&

3) You again make the assumption (with nothing to back it up) that this reality is created by your god, and so we must play by his rules... when

a) You've convinced no one that it is his reality, and
b) even if it were his reality, I don't think that ridiculous book written by a swathe of people across a vast amount of time, and rewritten by whoever happened to be in power at the time says anything like what he actually believes or wants.

Your conscience tells you that you've offended a holy God. And I will go out on a limb here and say I doubt you have ever read the bible, let alone understand what is in it.


>> ^spoco2:
@shinyblurry:

"Someone has to be God, this what you don't understand."
and
"If God isnt in charge, you should be scared of who is. It is a far better thing to have someone who loves us personally and cares about our lives. The alternative is far worse, and something that should worry any thoughtful person. Because if God isn't in charge, and it isn't you and it isn't me; it is going to be someone else. You might not think God is perfect, but again, you love His reality, you just don't want to play by His rules. What you're unwilling to do is take a long hard look at yourself and see that if you are going to be honest about it, the problem is with you and not with Him. You most certainly have some terrific sounding excuses for how you justify rebellion against God, but none of them will match up to your conscience."

There are a couple of GLARING, STUPEFYINGLY OBVIOUS problems with your 'arguments'.
1) You have decided that there must be a god, that it is inconceivable that there is not one. That there is no other possibility but there is some omnipotent being that runs everything. You give no logical reasoning for this, you have just decided, for yourself, that it MUST be and so there is no arguing the point. Well, on that point you are wrong. Not that there isn't, necessarily a god, but just that there must be one. There is nothing at all that says there must be a god. Go nuts believing that there is one, but don't think that you have come up with some endgame argument that there must be a god, because you haven't.
&
2) You then go on to this weird reasoning that because there must be a god, that it's better if said god is the one in your bible, because, well, he's tip top and damn super, and that he has a personal interest in every one of the 7 billion lives on this planet. Even, apparently, the billions that are condemned to poverty, starvation, murder and death. (And the far worse alternative is that there's some super being somewhere that doesn't give two rat's arses about us... I'm not sure how that's worse at all. What would I care if there's some overlord who is quite happy for this planet to just 'be' and do whatever we want, sounds great to me)
&
3) You again make the assumption (with nothing to back it up) that this reality is created by your god, and so we must play by his rules... when
a) You've convinced no one that it is his reality, and
b) even if it were his reality, I don't think that ridiculous book written by a swathe of people across a vast amount of time, and rewritten by whoever happened to be in power at the time says anything like what he actually believes or wants.
So... sorry, you haven't thrown down any arguments at all... you've spouted your beliefs, from your book that you think is the word of god, no matter how much it can be shown not to be... and somehow you think that's going to win over atheists.
To wit I say... BWAAAA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HE HE HE HE He he he he ha ha ho ho he he
he he
he
aaaahhhh, that's priceless, you're adorable.

@shinyblurry:

"Someone has to be God, this what you don't understand."
and
"If God isnt in charge, you should be scared of who is. It is a far better thing to have someone who loves us personally and cares about our lives. The alternative is far worse, and something that should worry any thoughtful person. Because if God isn't in charge, and it isn't you and it isn't me; it is going to be someone else. You might not think God is perfect, but again, you love His reality, you just don't want to play by His rules. What you're unwilling to do is take a long hard look at yourself and see that if you are going to be honest about it, the problem is with you and not with Him. You most certainly have some terrific sounding excuses for how you justify rebellion against God, but none of them will match up to your conscience."

There are a couple of GLARING, STUPEFYINGLY OBVIOUS problems with your 'arguments'.

1) You have decided that there must be a god, that it is inconceivable that there is not one. That there is no other possibility but there is some omnipotent being that runs everything. You give no logical reasoning for this, you have just decided, for yourself, that it MUST be and so there is no arguing the point. Well, on that point you are wrong. Not that there isn't, necessarily a god, but just that there must be one. There is nothing at all that says there must be a god. Go nuts believing that there is one, but don't think that you have come up with some endgame argument that there must be a god, because you haven't.

&

2) You then go on to this weird reasoning that because there must be a god, that it's better if said god is the one in your bible, because, well, he's tip top and damn super, and that he has a personal interest in every one of the 7 billion lives on this planet. Even, apparently, the billions that are condemned to poverty, starvation, murder and death. (And the far worse alternative is that there's some super being somewhere that doesn't give two rat's arses about us... I'm not sure how that's worse at all. What would I care if there's some overlord who is quite happy for this planet to just 'be' and do whatever we want, sounds great to me)

&

3) You again make the assumption (with nothing to back it up) that this reality is created by your god, and so we must play by his rules... when

a) You've convinced no one that it is his reality, and
b) even if it were his reality, I don't think that ridiculous book written by a swathe of people across a vast amount of time, and rewritten by whoever happened to be in power at the time says anything like what he actually believes or wants.

So... sorry, you haven't thrown down any arguments at all... you've spouted your beliefs, from your book that you think is the word of god, no matter how much it can be shown not to be... and somehow you think that's going to win over atheists.

To wit I say... BWAAAA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HE HE HE HE He he he he ha ha ho ho he he

he he

he


aaaahhhh, that's priceless, you're adorable.

This is a fantastic video.. the guy reminds me of my dad, the dog reminds me of my dog, and i know all too well that feeling of "If this dog realises i'm not omnipotent, he's gonna do a runner ... oh shit, there, he's gone.. ohhh double shit what's he doing now? OH GOD NO YOU STUPID DOG!"

I'm glad you reference your video, which is a perfect example of trying to make illogical moral exceptions for your deity. You accuse my comment of being but "a weak appeal to emotions", but it is actually a succinct argument refuting the video's thesis. But since you clearly cannot understand anything with a hint of subtlety, I will spell it out for you:

The video argues that evil must exist in order for there to be freedom of the will. Fine enough, but that only accounts for the kinds of evils done by humans. The things my comment link to are all examples of evils that are not caused by human actions, but by nature (i.e. "acts of God"), and affect perfectly innocent beings. A child who is born with a genetic disorder that will cause it (and it's parents) to suffer for it's whole life is not a matter of "freedom of the will". Answer me this, with a simple "yes/no" answer please: did the 13-day old baby killed by the family dog deserve it?

I know what you'll say: all of humankind, nay, of creation, is tainted because of "original sin". Remember how we've already discussed this ad nauseum? The concept of original sin relies on the story of Creation and the Fall. I know you literally believe that all of humankind is the offspring of an incestuous clusterfuck that started with Adam and Eve, and was renewed when God killed everyone except one family (incest ftw eh?). Let's put aside how utterly disgusting and impossible that is, and concentrate on how it is also a totally immoral belief. You are saying that God, omni-potent/benevolent, lets every single being be "tainted" with "sin" no matter how they live, and thus deserve anything nature's twisted ways will throw at them? All because ONE person did not blindly follow his orders (although without knowing it was wrong to do so)? Do you even realise what a sick, twisted tyrant of a deity you are defending?

It's clear you didn't understand the argument the video was making, or even your own argument:

The video is outlining Plantigas free will defense which states:

God's creation of persons with morally significant free will is something of tremendous value. God could not eliminate evil and suffering without thereby eliminating the greater good of having created persons with free will who can make moral choices. Freedom (and, often it is said, the loving relationships which would not be possible without freedom) here is intended to provide a morally sufficient reason for God's allowing evil

The FWD neatly solves the logical problem of evil. Now, you make a point from natural evil, but this also addressed by the FWD. The corruption that came into the world was from originl sin. You say it isn't fair that other people have to suffer for the choices of the prior generation, ignoring that every child is impacted by the choices of their parents, and every other generation before them. God would either have had to start over or prevent all evil, and either choice would eliminate free will. What you miss is that people still have the same opportunities to accept or reject Gods offer of salvation, regardless of original sin. Children who have no capacity to make that choice do receive salvation.

What you're really referring to is the Evidential problem of evil which goes like this:

A) It is improbable that an omnipotent, omniscient and omni-benevolent God, would allow gratuitous suffering.
B) Gratuitous suffering does exist.
C) Therefore it is improbable that an omnipotent, omniscient and omni-benevolent exists.

There are a few ways to address this argument. In chaos theory, something small and insignificant, like the flapping of a butterlfys wings, can lead to something large and powerful, like the creation of a hurricane. Likewise, the actions we undertake have a ripple effect that go beyond our finite understandings. In the movie sliding doors, there are two timelines to the story, where the heroine is trying to get on a subway, and either makes it at the last minute, or gets there a few seconds late and misses it. In the timeline where she makes it, she goes on to have a happy and successful life, but is suddenly killed in a car accident. In the other, she endures a lot of suffering but ends up living to a ripe old age.

Only an omniscient God could see how all of this is going to play out. Just because something may seem pointless to us at the time doesn't mean it couldn't turn out to be beneficial later. If God is working towards a greater good, suffering may be part of how that ultimate good is achieved. It's easy to think of examples. Let's say you were going to take a trip to Tibet to climb Mt Everest, but you ended up breaking your leg and cancelling the trip. Later you find out that the plane you were going to take crashed into the ocean. What seemed pointless at the time actually saved your life.

The invasion of Normandy resulted in untold casualities, but served the greater good of serving to end the war. So, it isn't something we can really quantify, whether some suffering is pointless or not. It is also an incomplete sample. You can say yes, when you only consider the suffering in the world, God doesn't seem as likely, but that is part of the picture. When you consider all of the good things, the probability starts to balance out.

1There was a man in the land of Uz, whose name was Job; and that man was perfect and upright, and one that feared God, and eschewed evil.(Job 1:1) The very first verse says Job was perfect. "But that's the narrator speaking!" you might interject. Fine:

And the LORD said unto Satan, Hast thou considered my servant Job, that there is none like him in the earth, a perfect and an upright man, one that feareth God, and escheweth evil? (Job 2:3) This is God speaking, and he follows by saying that "[Satan] movedst me against him, to destroy him without cause", i.e. "Satan made me do it". It is not Dan who is twisting the story, but you. Unless, of course, the Bible is not inerrant, but there's no way you'll accept that, now is there.

I've already addressed all of this. Although some translations render the word as "perfect", it is referring to an outstanding moral character and piety towards God, not sinlessness. This is proven by Jobs own words:

Job 9:20 If I justify myself, mine own mouth shall condemn me: if I say, I am perfect, it shall also prove me perverse.

Job 13:26 For thou writest bitter things against me, and makest me to possess the iniquities of my youth.

As far as "the devil made me do it", you fail to understand what is going on. Satan is like a prosecuting attorney in Gods courtroom.

Revelation 12:10

And I heard a loud voice in heaven, saying, “Now the salvation and the power and the kingdom of our God and the authority of his Christ have come, for the accuser of our brothers has been thrown down, who accuses them day and night before our God.

Satan laid a false accusation against Job, brought him to trial, and Job was tried and tested and found innocent.

Thankfully for you (and everyone else) he is but a figment of your imagination.

You protest too much, hpqp. Your fervent denial shows you have more than a clue. You accuse me of delusion but you're the one fooling yourself.

>> ^hpqp

The only way you can make the argument work is by distorting all the facts. First, job wasn't entirely innocent, by his own words, which I pointed out earlier. Second, there is no logical contradiction between a loving God and the existence of evil, as evidenced in this video:

http://videosift.com/video/Since-Evil-Suffering-Exist-A-Loving-God-Cannot

Which you so disingenuously downvoted, while providing a completely weak appeal to emotion in the comments. It turns out you don't have anything to back up all of your posturing and derision when it comes down to it, and you actively suppress anything which disagrees with your narrow views.

Third, Dans argument does fall falt for exactly the point that SDgundammX made. If the government has the right to enforce rule of law, how much more so does God? It isn't a moral compromise to defer to His authority. I defer to the authority of my government to enforce the law in much the same way. I don't necessarily agree with everything they do but I don't dispute their inherent right to do it, based on rule of law. If you want to make a case for anarchy, feel free, but that is exactly what you'll have to do. Even then it will be a weak argument against Gods authority. Again, note that while Job had outstanding moral character, he was a sinner by his own words, which means that God was legally justified.

Job 9:20 If I justify myself, mine own mouth shall condemn me: if I say, I am perfect, it shall also prove me perverse.

Job 13:26 For thou writest bitter things against me, and makest me to possess the iniquities of my youth.



>> ^hpqp:
@SDGundamX
I upvoted your comment because you make a well-argumented point (and also because it's nice to see a "wall-of-text" comment that makes a point instead of being the mindless ramblings of a godbot), but I disagree that Dan's point falls flat. One major difference between your analogy and Dan's is that Job is entirely guiltless, something which Dan takes pains to stress. The contradiction between god's omnipotence/omnibenevolence and the story of Job (as well as the very existence of evil in the world in general) is only one of Dan's points though. The other is that the religious mind will make excuses for immoral actions if religiously supported.
The problem with your analogy is twofold; first, a revenge-murder and an execution are not morally equivalent, because they are not done for the same purposes (as you point out) and because the revenge-murderer does not have the legal authority to kill, vested by the people - ideally at least - for the sake of protecting them (fyi I too am a strong opponent of the death penalty which I find totally unethical). And remember, Job is entirely innocent. Second, making special allowances for immoral gvt actions (e.g. torture) is no less morally compromised, imo, than doing so for one's imaginary sky-daddy.
Finally, (and this is what I always say when people say that god can do it cuz he's god): what good is a god who is morally inferior to your average human being?

@SDGundamX

I upvoted your comment because you make a well-argumented point (and also because it's nice to see a "wall-of-text" comment that makes a point instead of being the mindless ramblings of a godbot), but I disagree that Dan's point falls flat. One major difference between your analogy and Dan's is that Job is entirely guiltless, something which Dan takes pains to stress. The contradiction between god's omnipotence/omnibenevolence and the story of Job (as well as the very existence of evil in the world in general) is only one of Dan's points though. The other is that the religious mind will make excuses for immoral actions if religiously supported.

The problem with your analogy is twofold; first, a revenge-murder and an execution are not morally equivalent, because they are not done for the same purposes (as you point out) and because the revenge-murderer does not have the legal authority to kill, vested by the people - ideally at least - for the sake of protecting them (fyi I too am a strong opponent of the death penalty which I find totally unethical). And remember, Job is entirely innocent. Second, making special allowances for immoral gvt actions (e.g. torture) is no less morally compromised, imo, than doing so for one's imaginary sky-daddy.

Finally, (and this is what I always say when people say that god can do it cuz he's god): what good is a god who is morally inferior to your average human being?

The area in which believers and non believers differ in so many ways is in regard to how far in the future one can perceive the concept of “no pain no gain”.
When I first heard this analogy, and when I read Job for the first time, I too was tempted to see Dan’s point of view and get angry with God for the terrible evil He allowed to happen to Job. (Make no mistake God is responsible for Job’s misery and the death of Job’s family). But what I see now and Dan does not is the difference between the killer and God: purpose. The killer did it for no reason and God did this for a great reason. God permitted this incident for the purpose of instruction, demonstration, and perception. The pain Job and his family sowed produced some of the greatest fruit mankind has ever known.

Allow me to explain:
Let’s say my eight year old recently started taking things that are not his. I am concerned for the welfare of my son for his whole life and not his welfare for the moment so I punish him; say I give him a time out. My son does not perceive the long term benefits I may be doing for him by teaching him stealing is wrong so he now calls me mean or evil. I am doing something mean and evil to him to a degree for the immediate moment, but I am doing this in hopes that there will be a long term benefit that will outweigh the immediate pain.

Assume for a moment that God is indeed omniscient, omnipotent, and benevolent: all knowing, all seeing, all powerful, all loving. He knows every possible future for mankind. He may do things beyond our comprehension that for us for the “moment, lifetime, century, etc.” might seem mean or evil but He sees the long term benefits.

This is in essence what a believer believes. God has a purpose for everything. We may not see it or comprehend it but He is working for a greater good. Our faith and trust is in this. The story of Job is a very rare occurrence where God directly and drastically interferes with our lives. I’m certain that if Dan as well as Job were given the choice of sacrificing themselves for the good of their children, let alone mankind, they probably would. God choose Job because he knew he wouldn’t be cross with Him. I choose the word cross on purpose because for those who want to know Job is a type to Jesus who sacrificed himself for us.

>> ^rebuilder:

The human mind is morally compromised. My proof? The entirety of human history.

This seems like a lazy copout to me. There is plenty of good in the history of humanity, for one, but most of all, the human mind is the basis of humanity's morality. To say someone is morally compromised you need to compare it to moral standards, that are derived and developed by the human mind over time.
>> ^ghark:

I loved how he quickly dealt with the guy that yelled out "it's fictional" - that quieted down what I sensed was an air of religious zealotry in the room.

I really like that too, in fact he makes it clear from the beginning that both scenarios are fictional, in order to refute in advance the "it's okay cuz it's just a story/metaphor" excuse. This always reminds me of Luke 19:27, the end of an absolutely terrible parable Jesus is telling, and I quote: "But those mine enemies, which would not that I should reign over them, bring hither, and slay them before me."
Whenever I use this example to argue that Jeebs isn't all love and peace either, I am told "well it's a parable". Yes, but what are the moral principles it is trying to convey? That God is a like a tyrant who will destroy anyone who does not obey or refuse his rule.

As for you apologists, no matter which way you twist it, God clearly gives his assent for Job to be tortured and tormented for no reason. Omnibenevolent and omnipotent? Then evil. QED.

When atheists argue that "God" does not exist, they are usually arguing against a specific idea of god as defined by one or another religion, which is possible to do, both with logic and physical/scientific evidence (example: the Abrahamic God that apparently made all of humanity from the incestuous offspring of two people is easily disproven, while his omnipotence is logically incompatible with his omni-benevolence).

If He is so easily disproven, it's interesting how no one in history has ever done so. What you're detailing in the supposed conflict between Gods omnipotence and omni-benevolence is the logical problem of evil. Plantigas free will defense proves that they are in fact logically compatible, so you don't have an argument here.

Let's put it this way: do you believe fairies exist? If no, prove it! You can't explain why dew drops are so neatly arranged on spider webs, or how the beautiful designs in the frost of windowpanes are made, so fairies make them. Tada!! Sure, you can be agnostic about fairies, arguing that they're manmade fiction, and explain scientifically how dew drops and frost patterns work, but that's just eliminating one definition of "fairy", there are infinitely more! A-fairyists, meanwhile, live with the evidence-based assumption that the probability of fairies existing is null, and the burden of proof lies on those who insist that some sort of fairies exist.

See where this is getting?

Yes, I see where you're conflating the issue. Anyone can make a claim, but that doesn't make every claim equally valid. Yes, the absence of evidence is not the evidence of absence, and you can't disprove a universal negative. Yet just because you cannot disprove the existence of God does not make the God hypothesis equal to cosmic teapots. There is no good reason to believe there are cosmic teapots, but plenty of good reasons to believe there is a God. The difference lies in the explanatory power of the claim, which is the basis for believing any theory.

You believe in the theory of abiogenesis, presumably, even though there is no actual evidence for life from non-life. So by your logic, a magic teapot could be an equally valid explanation for the origin of life. But since Abiogenesis has more explanatory power (barely) for the origin of life than a magic teapot, that makes it more probable and gives you justification for believing it.

The burden of proof lies with whomever is making a claim, for or against. Your epistemological position about uncertainty is countered by the fact that certain claims have more explanatory power than others. I cannot absolutely prove magic teapots don't exist, but that doesn't mean I don't have good reasons to believe they don't exist; since they explain precisely nothing they can safely be discarded as a valid claim.

>> ^hpqp:
@GeeSussFreeK: I do agree, however, that many atheists like to posit the position that God, indeed, does not exist. That would require some evidence as absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.
@shinyblurry: Yes, they do like to posit that. When asked for that evidence however, they like to say they merely "lack belief", which is meaningless. Basically, they want to have their cake and eat it too. They want to say no to the question of whether God exists but escape the burden of proof. That is what this "lack of belief" is all about. It's not an "i don't know", it's a "no, but i dont have to provide any evidence for that".
When atheists argue that "God" does not exist, they are usually arguing against a specific idea of god as defined by one or another religion, which is possible to do, both with logic and physical/scientific evidence (example: the Abrahamic God that apparently made all of humanity from the incestuous offspring of two people is easily disproven, while his omnipotence is logically incompatible with his omni-benevolence).
I love how shiny uses the expression "want to have our cake and eat it to", which is a very rational and feasible desire (I'm a greedy atheist, I don't share my babby-cake with anyone. Mmmm, fetus fudge! <IMG class=smiley src="http://cdn.videosift.com/cdm/emoticon/smileevil.gif">).
Let's put it this way: do you believe fairies exist? If no, prove it! You can't explain why dew drops are so neatly arranged on spider webs, or how the beautiful designs in the frost of windowpanes are made, so fairies make them. Tada!! Sure, you can be agnostic about fairies, arguing that they're manmade fiction, and explain scientifically how dew drops and frost patterns work, but that's just eliminating one definition of "fairy", there are infinitely more! A-fairyists, meanwhile, live with the evidence-based assumption that the probability of fairies existing is null, and the burden of proof lies on those who insist that some sort of fairies exist.
See where this is getting?

@GeeSussFreeK: I do agree, however, that many atheists like to posit the position that God, indeed, does not exist. That would require some evidence as absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.

@shinyblurry: Yes, they do like to posit that. When asked for that evidence however, they like to say they merely "lack belief", which is meaningless. Basically, they want to have their cake and eat it too. They want to say no to the question of whether God exists but escape the burden of proof. That is what this "lack of belief" is all about. It's not an "i don't know", it's a "no, but i dont have to provide any evidence for that".

When atheists argue that "God" does not exist, they are usually arguing against a specific idea of god as defined by one or another religion, which is possible to do, both with logic and physical/scientific evidence (example: the Abrahamic God that apparently made all of humanity from the incestuous offspring of two people is easily disproven, while his omnipotence is logically incompatible with his omni-benevolence).

I love how shiny uses the expression "want to have our cake and eat it to", which is a very rational and feasible desire (I'm a greedy atheist, I don't share my babby-cake with anyone. Mmmm, fetus fudge! ).

Let's put it this way: do you believe fairies exist? If no, prove it! You can't explain why dew drops are so neatly arranged on spider webs, or how the beautiful designs in the frost of windowpanes are made, so fairies make them. Tada!! Sure, you can be agnostic about fairies, arguing that they're manmade fiction, and explain scientifically how dew drops and frost patterns work, but that's just eliminating one definition of "fairy", there are infinitely more! A-fairyists, meanwhile, live with the evidence-based assumption that the probability of fairies existing is null, and the burden of proof lies on those who insist that some sort of fairies exist.

See where this is getting?

@GeeSussFreeK

The whole "what is True/Real?" is a ridiculous posture to begin with, since we know full well that our knowledge is limited by our sensory input and mental faculties as homo sapiens (one of Hume's main points if I remember correctly). "Reality" and "facts/evidence", when spoken of in science, are always taken with that knowledge in the background, which is what allows one theory to be replaced with another or refined, i.e. scientific progress. Who cares if this is all a computer simulation, or a butterfly's dream, so long as the science works? Well, religious people do, and they are usually the ones to bandy around words such as TRUTH with a capital T, what with their god being omniscient/omnipotent and all.

So no, the uncertainty underlying scientific theories has nothing to do with the uncertainty of religious beliefs, and especially not with the Abrahamic faiths, which paint themselves into a corner by being so specific about their god and his creation/functions.

@Boise_Lib

I am sorry if my reply came off as offensive, that was not my intention. I am a stickler about using words correctly, and because debates about belief so often rely on twisting the meaning of words (e.g. "evolution = everything came from nothing"; "omnipotent = yes, but..." etc...), you can understand why it's especially important to know and use words correctly in this domain.

One thing needs to be made absolutely clear, despite it having been repeated ad nauseum: "I don't believe in god(s)" is not the same as "I believe there is/are no god(s)".

This is how Dawkin's describes himself as a "de facto" atheist:
"I cannot know for certain but I think God is very improbable, and I live my life on the assumption that he is not there".

(I would add that the gods most religions describe can be proven to be incoherent, illogically constructed and thus demonstratively impossible, not to mention terribly immoral.)

Let me put the question directly to you: are you agnostic about witches/witchcraft, Boise? This may sound condescending and mocking at first, but think about it: what evidence do you have for the (non-)existence of witches/witchcraft? Compare that evidence to the evidence you have for the (non-)existence of god(s), and you'll see why I say you're an atheist. Of course, it could be that you're agnostic about all forms of the supernatural, another thing entirely. [edit2: changed analogy to a belief that used to be a social norm]

edit: "cowardly" versus "strong/proud" is the wrong opposition to make here, and I am sorry that that is how my argument ended up sounding like. I should have formulated it differently: because it is the social norm (in most countries) to have a religious belief of some sort (or shut up about one's non-belief), most of us have internalised the idea that being atheist is "abnormal" in terms of social norms. Compare it with homosexuality: some gays are more "militant" than others, while many struggle to conform, even criticising those openly and militantly gay. Moreover, many will try to live a heterosexual life (because it's "normal"), or continue questioning/feeling guilty about their sexual orientation. I do not look down on nor mock such people, but do encourage them to confront social norms, as that is the only way they will change. The same goes for being atheist, and comments like @soulmonarch's about so-called "zealot-atheists" are saddening and serve only to solidify the notion that fighting against religious belief and in favour of rational/critical thinking is as bad as what the fundagelicals do, which is downright absurd.