10 of 22
10
“Evil” does not exist?
Posted: 15 August 2013 12:09 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 136 ]
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  483
Joined  2013-06-01

The oldest picture of a unicorn is on a seal from the Harappan civilization in India. Looked like a cow with one horn.

The history of mankind is a game changer in finer detailed meanings of personal understanding of the words “faith” and “belief” and no two people are at the same level of understanding history. Kind of like the word “LOVE”, the dictionaries can give a meaning but to people there are many different levels.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 15 August 2013 12:55 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 137 ]
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  2011
Joined  2007-08-09
brmckay - 15 August 2013 11:42 AM

PlaClair - “So what is the origin of the belief in all those “false gods”? We know exactly where they come from: from the human mind, including all our desires. “

And where does the human mind come from?

Seriously? Do you propose an answer to that? And if so, how deep an answer do you propose that anyone can reliably give? And what does it have to do with the point?

brmckay - 15 August 2013 11:42 AM

As the metaphor of mathematics evolves, so does the reflection of our self awareness upon it’s origin. This is an unfinished work.

What is “the metaphor of mathematics?”

brmckay - 15 August 2013 11:42 AM

Trolling?  LilySmith’s arguments are as sound as any I’ve seen here.

None of us are free of some bias that colors what we hear and say.

Are we still wide open to learning or not?

I am but it can’t be done the way you just framed these points. To convey information or have a meaningful dialogue, we can’t just assert a conclusion without backing it up and getting into the particulars of the arguments.

 Signature 

I cannot in good conscience support CFI under the current leadership. I am here in dissent and in support of a Humanism that honors and respects everyone.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 15 August 2013 01:47 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 138 ]
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  815
Joined  2009-10-21

Reasonable Doubts high level debate

brmkay; If you want to hear some people really debate the existence of God, you should check this out.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 15 August 2013 03:05 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 139 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  5976
Joined  2009-02-26
LilySmith - 14 August 2013 08:42 AM
Write4U - 13 August 2013 04:17 PM

If God is unable to stop an evil entity to command evil acts, then your God is not perfect. And if god could control Evil, but allows Evil to exist, then blame God. You cannot have it both ways.

Evil is not an entity, it’s a behavior.  Evil is rebellion against God and his ways.  God allows evil on earth to accomplish his purpose, but always has complete control over it.  Here’s what God is doing on earth.  He has created mankind with a will of his own. He’s placed him in a temporal world—not the eternal kingdom of God.  For man to exercise his free will, he must know both good and evil.  Man must be able to choose to obey God or rebel against him.  Each generation of men and women play out their lives here on earth for all of God’s creation to witness.  We each choose our own way and reveal our hearts through our actions.  When each person has made his choice and God’s purpose for this earth is over, he will destroy all evil and bring into his kingdom all those who chose good.  God could destroy all evil now, but since mankind through his behavior is the source of evil, he would have to destroy all mankind.  Instead he has provided a way to save those who will come to him.  So he puts up with evil on earth—for a time.

When you die, God will grant access or deny entrance to Heaven. This is based on your deeds in life.  I think that is called a “legacy”. Sort of a mental thing, a memory.

You’re concerned about the innocent people who may die in a disaster, but all of us are going to die.  That’s the nature of a temporal world—we all die and the world will end.  The reason for death is so that those who have chosen evil rather than good will not have eternal life.  They face God’s destruction, because, as I said, God has complete control over evil at all times.

Thus God has to make the same moral choices as man has to make to either allow or prevent evil? At what point does God’s works change from Good to Evil? How many Good people are worth one Evil person. This is God’s choice, He is the moral commander in chief.

The Hebrew Scripture contains the basis of Christianity.  The Christian Scripture means nothing without it.  It is filled with teaching, law, prophesy and poetry all picturing Christ.  I suspect you don’t like some of the judgments of God against those who stood against him, but that is just an illustration of the final judgment to come.  It’s better to learn from it.  Evil behavior was judged then, and it will be judge in the future.

Wow, God’s punishment for evil doers includes killing a lot of good doers.  Where did “those who stood against him” come from? I never noticed God singling out an individual when he allows wars (IN HIS NAME) to kill hundreds of thousands of good people, who were innocent of the crime of evil.

The fact is, God does not make moral judgments of any kind, except through evolution and natural selection of those who survive to procreate. If we want to kill ourselves God could not care less. Sheez, He has an entire Universe filled with other life forms to take care of.

Heaven, the house of god is a plenum of infinite Potential, it is the Implicate of what may become Real. It has no sense of good and evil.
Good and Evil are man made ideas and what is considered good or bad can vary greatly from town to town.
  “One man’s religion is another man’s witch craft”. And witches are evil so the witch has got to go.
Praise God !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!......................?...............................?

In the abstract, a philosophy of a sentient universe may sound attractive as it fits so well with our own model of intelligence and decision making.
In reality the universe is most hostile place imaginable, but behold, from all this cosmic violence a star is born with a small planet and billions of life forms. A few of these life forms are able to think in the abstract, and they do and imagine.
The Universe just functions as it has from the beginning, It just changes Form (in the abstract).

[ Edited: 15 August 2013 03:14 PM by Write4U ]
 Signature 

Art is the creation of that which evokes an emotional response, leading to thoughts of the noblest kind.
W4U

Profile
 
 
Posted: 15 August 2013 05:26 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 140 ]
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  296
Joined  2013-07-25
Lausten - 15 August 2013 10:49 AM

You’re behavior is very troll-like LilySmith. I’ll give you the benefit of the doubt, but the definition of “troll” extends to accidental behavior, so, you’re a troll. Statements like your’s above are designed to foment emotional responses. Worse it does it in the disguise of being erudite, making others try to straighten you out by explaining that one of the standard definitions of atheist is:

a disbelief in the existence of deity

In other words, no deity ever written about or described is believed by the atheist. The discussion of what atheism is, is a rich discussion, but you prefer to pull out one definition, the one you can work with and show how it is wrong, then say anyone who uses the word fits that. Not very Christian of you. Of course there are many definitions of Christian, so who’s to say.

This is what Lois said to me on this thread: “You do have a putative obligation to support your contention if you state publicy that there is a god. That means you are making a claim and when you make a claim the burden is on you to support it.  It doesn’t matter that you insert the word believe. If you really don’t want to be challenged, don’t make your beliefs public, especially don’t state them on a freethinker forum. .  When atheists challenge your stated belief they are not stating their belief.  Atheists have no belief to state.  They are rejecting your claim because you have failed to support it. Most atheists don’t say there is no god. When you catch one saying that demand support for his claim. “

This is not a “rich discussion” of what atheism is. A disbelief in the existence of deity may mean you don’t have a belief in a deity, but it doesn’t mean you don’t have a belief.  Lois said, “Atheists have no belief to state.”  Is that what you think atheist means—a person who has no belief at all?  That would be “apistos”—without belief, as opposed to “atheist”—without God.  I’ve said from the beginning that I cannot prove God exists, it is my belief.  But that’s not good enough for you. For some reason the atheists here can’t seem to let go of the idea that “atheist” doesn’t only mean they don’t have a belief in God, but that they don’t have a belief AT ALL.  I don’t think that fits any definition of atheist. Unfortunately that seems to make me a troll, but I’m not the one who started down this path.  I’ve been responding to those who say I can’t state my belief in God publicly without proof.  I was perfectly content to have a discussion about Determinism—the subject of this tread.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 15 August 2013 06:08 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 141 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  5976
Joined  2009-02-26

In Islam they say, “I’ll survive God willing”, just before they blow themselves (and 40 others) up.

Explain Determinism in that act of faith.

 Signature 

Art is the creation of that which evokes an emotional response, leading to thoughts of the noblest kind.
W4U

Profile
 
 
Posted: 15 August 2013 06:25 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 142 ]
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  2011
Joined  2007-08-09

The older I get, the less patient I am with people like Lily. Not only is she coming here as an outsider; she’s getting crushed intellectually at every turn, and refuses to admit it.

The premises of her theology are just silly. We have free will here, so we screw up, she says. So we’re subject to being cast into an eternal fire with no hope of redemption, as though there was some point or sense of justice in that; or that there would be some point in having faith in a god who would allow that to happen. Some of us screw-ups will go to heaven anyway, she claims, where the expectation is that paradise will reign forever and no one will ever screw up again. The other premises are so ridiculous that I have yet to see anyone ask why we’re suddenly going to become angelic after we’re dead - and if we’ll be capable of it then, with our “free will” still intact apparently, then why not now? It’s a childish theology when you really examine it. And of course she refuses to entertain the possibility that maybe - just maybe - she could be wrong.

Lily, you’ve come to this forum to proselytize. I predict that you will leave, sooner or later, as many others before you have done - not because you’re not welcome here but because your arguments, frankly, are pitiful.

 Signature 

I cannot in good conscience support CFI under the current leadership. I am here in dissent and in support of a Humanism that honors and respects everyone.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 15 August 2013 07:03 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 143 ]
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  815
Joined  2009-10-21
LilySmith - 15 August 2013 05:26 PM
Lausten - 15 August 2013 10:49 AM

You’re behavior is very troll-like LilySmith. I’ll give you the benefit of the doubt, but the definition of “troll” extends to accidental behavior, so, you’re a troll. Statements like your’s above are designed to foment emotional responses. Worse it does it in the disguise of being erudite, making others try to straighten you out by explaining that one of the standard definitions of atheist is:

a disbelief in the existence of deity

In other words, no deity ever written about or described is believed by the atheist. The discussion of what atheism is, is a rich discussion, but you prefer to pull out one definition, the one you can work with and show how it is wrong, then say anyone who uses the word fits that. Not very Christian of you. Of course there are many definitions of Christian, so who’s to say.

This is what Lois said to me on this thread: “You do have a putative obligation to support your contention if you state publicy that there is a god. That means you are making a claim and when you make a claim the burden is on you to support it.  It doesn’t matter that you insert the word believe. If you really don’t want to be challenged, don’t make your beliefs public, especially don’t state them on a freethinker forum. .  When atheists challenge your stated belief they are not stating their belief.  Atheists have no belief to state.  They are rejecting your claim because you have failed to support it. Most atheists don’t say there is no god. When you catch one saying that demand support for his claim. “

This is not a “rich discussion” of what atheism is. A disbelief in the existence of deity may mean you don’t have a belief in a deity, but it doesn’t mean you don’t have a belief.  Lois said, “Atheists have no belief to state.”  Is that what you think atheist means—a person who has no belief at all?  That would be “apistos”—without belief, as opposed to “atheist”—without God.  I’ve said from the beginning that I cannot prove God exists, it is my belief.  But that’s not good enough for you. For some reason the atheists here can’t seem to let go of the idea that “atheist” doesn’t only mean they don’t have a belief in God, but that they don’t have a belief AT ALL.  I don’t think that fits any definition of atheist. Unfortunately that seems to make me a troll, but I’m not the one who started down this path.  I’ve been responding to those who say I can’t state my belief in God publicly without proof.  I was perfectly content to have a discussion about Determinism—the subject of this tread.

Of course quoting one person is not a “rich discussion” of atheism. I said there is rich discussion available to you. You have an opportunity to interact with people who see the universe differently than you. Instead of doing that, you twist and turn words around like that. I could correct almost every sentence that follows, but there would be no point, you’ll just twist that too.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 15 August 2013 07:32 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 144 ]
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  2011
Joined  2007-08-09
Lausten - 15 August 2013 07:03 PM

Of course quoting one person is not a “rich discussion” of atheism. I said there is rich discussion available to you. You have an opportunity to interact with people who see the universe differently than you. Instead of doing that, you twist and turn words around like that. I could correct almost every sentence that follows, but there would be no point, you’ll just twist that too.

I hadn’t picked up this point but Lausten is absolutely dead right. Lily, you twisted the meaning of other people’s words again. If you want to have any kind of a real dialogue at all, or serve as an example of what you might think is Christian virtue, then begin with a little humility, honesty and responsibility. So far, we haven’t seen you display any of those virtues.

You’re not convincing anyone of anything, except that you’re another willing victim of a theology, and mind set, that makes no sense. You would serve your cause better by leaving this forum instead of embarrassing yourself and your intellectual allies further. Study and learn a little about honesty and responsibility in an argument. Then come back and try again. Sorry if this seems like lecturing but your posts truly are of a most abysmal quality.

 Signature 

I cannot in good conscience support CFI under the current leadership. I am here in dissent and in support of a Humanism that honors and respects everyone.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 15 August 2013 11:15 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 145 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  4380
Joined  2007-08-31
brmckay - 15 August 2013 11:42 AM

And where does the human mind come from?

The Flying Spaghetti Monster created it.

- is that a serious belief?
- is believing that the FSM does not exist a serious belief? Is it worth stating?
- do we need arguments to proof that the FSM did it?
- do we need a serious discussion about why the FSM does not exist?

Then why should we have a serious discussion if God exists or not? Why should the atheist say he believes, namely that God does not exist? Shouldn’t he also say he is an a-FSM-ist, an a-Zeus-ist, an a-Wodan-ist, etc? Why should he define himself as believing that X does not exist (X being some historic-cultural artefact). Do you realise that you are a-krishna-ist?

It was already stated hundreds of times in these fora, but it is true: atheism is a belief in the same way that not collecting stamps is a hobby.

 Signature 

GdB

“The light is on, but there is nobody at home”

Profile
 
 
Posted: 16 August 2013 05:56 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 146 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  9284
Joined  2006-08-29

GdB is right, of course. I would also like to know why the analogy of a unicorn is juvenile, since we have zero evidence for the existence of either one of them, God or unicorn.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 16 August 2013 08:38 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 147 ]
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  2011
Joined  2007-08-09

For once, I agree with George. The unicorn analogy is not juvenile at all, on the contrary, it is an excellent comparison. I picked up the idea from Massimo Pigliucci, who is a highly respected philosopher, and chair of the philosophy department at the City College of New York. He has a first-rate intellect and is not prone to juvenile remarks, especially on subjects like this.

Lily’s problem is that she doesn’t have a real answer for any of this, which explains why she makes remarks like that, along with many others. She doesn’t appear to be thinking rationally, she’s just reacting with whatever comes to mind. Superficially, if a person does it well, many people can’t tell the difference between a substantive response and a comeback. Unfortunately for Lily - or maybe fortunately if she pays attention - she’s not very good at it, and she has come to a place where people take these matters seriously.

The world of reason awaits you, Lily. You can change your life for the better today. Don’t miss the opportunity.

[ Edited: 16 August 2013 08:40 AM by PLaClair ]
 Signature 

I cannot in good conscience support CFI under the current leadership. I am here in dissent and in support of a Humanism that honors and respects everyone.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 16 August 2013 08:41 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 148 ]
Member
RankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  108
Joined  2013-05-31
PLaClair - 15 August 2013 06:25 PM

The older I get, the less patient I am with people like Lily. Not only is she coming here as an outsider; she’s getting crushed intellectually at every turn, and refuses to admit it.

The premises of her theology are just silly. We have free will here, so we screw up, she says. So we’re subject to being cast into an eternal fire with no hope of redemption, as though there was some point or sense of justice in that; or that there would be some point in having faith in a god who would allow that to happen. Some of us screw-ups will go to heaven anyway, she claims, where the expectation is that paradise will reign forever and no one will ever screw up again. The other premises are so ridiculous that I have yet to see anyone ask why we’re suddenly going to become angelic after we’re dead - and if we’ll be capable of it then, with our “free will” still intact apparently, then why not now? It’s a childish theology when you really examine it. And of course she refuses to entertain the possibility that maybe - just maybe - she could be wrong.

Lily, you’ve come to this forum to proselytize. I predict that you will leave, sooner or later, as many others before you have done - not because you’re not welcome here but because your arguments, frankly, are pitiful.

You declare “the premises of her theology ...silly”, her beliefs ridiculous and her arguments pitiful. Then insinuate that she is welcome.

You have already decided in advance that theology in general is absurd and from this you imagine that she has been crushed “intellectually at every turn”.

Yes, maybe she is here to proselytize, or maybe just to open your eyes to the amount of rhetoric you yourselves rely on.

As for my views,  I’m as appalled by the rank worship of “Reason” as Moses of the “Goledn Calf”.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 16 August 2013 08:43 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 149 ]
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  296
Joined  2013-07-25
Write4U - 15 August 2013 06:08 PM

In Islam they say, “I’ll survive God willing”, just before they blow themselves (and 40 others) up.

Explain Determinism in that act of faith.

Determinism theorizes that the Islamist who blows himself up was acting according to all those things in his life that came before and therefore he had no choice in his actions. In this view, the Islamist had no free will choice to do what he did and therefore no personal responsibility.  If that’s the case, then how can there be evil behavior since we are all programmed by preceding events to do what we do.  Personal faith would play no role since we have no choice concerning our beliefs.  We are all just acting according to the chemistry and environment that formed us.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 16 August 2013 08:48 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 150 ]
Member
RankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  108
Joined  2013-05-31
GdB - 15 August 2013 11:15 PM
brmckay - 15 August 2013 11:42 AM

And where does the human mind come from?

The Flying Spaghetti Monster created it.

- is that a serious belief?
- is believing that the FSM does not exist a serious belief? Is it worth stating?
- do we need arguments to proof that the FSM did it?
- do we need a serious discussion about why the FSM does not exist?

Then why should we have a serious discussion if God exists or not? Why should the atheist say he believes, namely that God does not exist? Shouldn’t he also say he is an a-FSM-ist, an a-Zeus-ist, an a-Wodan-ist, etc? Why should he define himself as believing that X does not exist (X being some historic-cultural artefact). Do you realise that you are a-krishna-ist?

It was already stated hundreds of times in these fora, but it is true: atheism is a belief in the same way that not collecting stamps is a hobby.

For a “non-hobby” you all are certainly devoted to it.

Profile
 
 
   
10 of 22
10