Atheism/Existence of God Debates (Please Read OP)

tommy2bad

antiskeptic wrote: »

I'm not sure that accepting some (what you consider to be) perverse aspect of your character is problematic in itself. It's what you do with the guilt that rises when you engage in that perversity (whether harming others or not). One thing to do is simply re-calibrate so that the perversity is no longer considered a perversity. Another is to suppress the guilt and maybe try harder to resist engaging in whatever it is next time. Both forms of denial.

It's important what happens to that guilt (which is actually intended to highlight and signpost the sin for what it is). If it is really buried down deep by means of virulent denial then it's as if that part of the conscience dies. It actually doesn't see the evil as evil anymore.





Door number three deals with the pain by taking a pain suppressant. This isn't at all unusual. M.Scott Peck, the psychologist writer of a very popular book some years ago made the observation from years of counselling practice that people weren't interested in a cure for their psychological pain, they simply wanted the pain to go away.

And the world, like any good market provides mankind with any number of ways in which to dull the ache.

Pain, might be psychologically difficult. It might bring to you the point of taking your own life. But pain ultimately is there to indicate something wrong and unless you apply the right fix you're wasting your time.

Suppression of guilt can be dealt with in two ways. It can be kept right down deep til the day you die when, the Bible says, all will be revealed about you anyway. Or the pressure of holding it in becomes too much as it swells to the surface where you can see it and you are overwhelmed by the truth of your awful condition.

The former position requires an act of will to maintain things. The latter the surrender of will to bring about the release.

Curiously, it's the surrender of will which brings a person to God. The exposure to one's true state which brings about a cry for help. Cry that way, and he will turn up and resolve your problem for you.





See above. Acceptance, then what. What do you do with the guilt?

Great post, however I'm wondering about the bold bit. surrendering of will, I have the feeling that this is a bit off for some reason. Possibly I'm uncomfortable with the idea of surrender or abandonment of my will.
If what your referring to is the alcoholics 'rock bottom' or John of the Cross's dark night of the soul, I agree, it might take that depth of letting go of 'the world' to bring about change but unless you make the decision by your own will to change then it's not really a positive thing.
No offence to you or your experience, more shading of the notion of surrender.

antiskeptic

tommy2bad wrote: »

Great post, however I'm wondering about the bold bit. surrendering of will, I have the feeling that this is a bit off for some reason. Possibly I'm uncomfortable with the idea of surrender or abandonment of my will.
If what your referring to is the alcoholics 'rock bottom' or John of the Cross's dark night of the soul, I agree, it might take that depth of letting go of 'the world' to bring about change but unless you make the decision by your own will to change then it's not really a positive thing.
No offence to you or your experience, more shading of the notion of surrender.

It's that kind of thing I'm talking of (although I wouldn't suppose the rockbottom need always be as destructive as the alcholics). But I choose surrender of will deliberately since I believe that salvation is finally arrived at not from an active choice made from a position of strength. Rather, it's a relinquishing of self-determination made as a result of defeat. Relinquishing because there is no other option at that point, no strength or fight left in the will to continue the resistance. It simply lays down it's arms and rolls over.

Such defeat was of course, preventable. All the way along, the will could have insisted it's will be done, that it's wrongdoing isn't wrong, that it could face the sickness and pressure and lonelieness that life throws at it, alone. That it was self-sufficient.

I recall conversing with a woman in her 70's, estranged from most of her offspring and alone in the world, insisting that she had never, ever sinned. Not once.

Weak, not far from death, her mind suffering from the consequences of drink, her body wracked by a life time of cigarettes. But the will still a rigidly in denial as it had ever been. More rigid probably.

RikuoAmero

Because "harm done is reason alone" is your criteria for what constitutes sin/immorality/transgression. But it need not be Gods. Certainly harm done is part of it but not all of it.

It's the only one that makes logical sense. If I impose any other criteria, then I'm veering into authoritarianism territory. So far, all I'm hearing from your side of the argument is "X is a sin because God says so" and that's not good enough for me.
1) I'm not hearing it directly from God, whom I'm not yet convinced exists.
2) I'm hearing it from a priest class, who all insist to me they are chosen by their god to spread his message, but there are thousands of conflicting denominations. I've even heard of a christian denomination that directly allows gay weddings in their church.
3) Your acceptance of something being wrong merely because you're convinced it is because someone said it is means you're not willing to think your way through moral issues. Can you honestly tell me that you do think your way through them and each and every time, what you find aligns with the bible, self-conflicting though it is? What criteria do you use other than "Because God said so"?

If Christianity is true then lust, even though it seeminlgy doesn't harm anyone (except you) is a sin. S'all.

Ifs are not a good tool to convince someone. If Voldemort was right about blood purity, we should go out and find wizards who can trace their ancestors for multiple generations to enslave us muggles for the greater good. Fortunately, we don't even need to entertain the possibility of Voldemort being right, since his existence has yet to be proven.
Also, if I grant your if, then this means the ceasing of intellectual discovery. So I imagine myself converting right this minute to your religion, saying to myself "Lust is a sin" and for some reason being happy with that. Well, why? Because God said so? At that point, I'm not moving forward, I'm not thinking and puzzling things through, I'm just happy to be lazy and wanting to be given an answer sheet.

If I may. You've shifted from a position of critiquing the Christian position (which involves accepting the Christian position true, for the sake of argument) to demanding evidence that the Christian position is true (which doesn't involve accepting the Christian position is true for the sake of argument).

So? Both methods are perfectly valid. I've done both and will continue to use both methods.

since I believe that salvation is finally arrived at not from an active choice made from a position of strength. Rather, it's a relinquishing of self-determination made as a result of defeat.

Thank you for yet again saying to us how horrible your religion is. That it involves an active destruction of a person's will, that it views thought and strength of character as enemies to be defeated. What happened to "God respects free will?"
*clap clap clap*

antiskeptic

RikuoAmero wrote: »

It's the only one that makes logical sense.

Surely you mean philosophical sense? As in, your philosophy. Logic is a different, formal discipline and can't be applied in the sense you're trying to apply it. If you disagree, make a logical statement that limits morality to harm causing.

IF my actions don't cause harm THEN they are not immoral is NOT a logic statement btw.

If I impose any other criteria, then I'm veering into authoritarianism territory.

I prefer sovereignty territory.

Since God created all according to his purpose he is entitled to have it according to his purpose. The only say we have in things is the say assigned to us by him. There is nowhere else we can turn to for our rights. Is there?

Even the right to rebel and express a different (groundless) opinion is a right granted by him to us. And if that right is granted but for a time then so be it - it's not an inalienable right but merely one with fixed duration and for a purpose decided upon by God.

So far, all I'm hearing from your side of the argument is "X is a sin because God says so" and that's not good enough for me.

The only thing I'm hearing from you is "sin or not because you say so". You pick "harm" but don't say why that should be a criteria. Why harm, other than because you say so?

You'll find you end up in arbitrary-land, leaning on some unspoken principle which, without anywhere to ground it, will too, be arbitary.

I'm always keen to hear someone who believes in a naturalistic evolution chase morality down to source. Because accidental/blind/mute/purposeless/amoral evolution is the only generator of morality in town. Some morality that!

3) Your acceptance of something being wrong merely because you're convinced it is because someone said it is means you're not willing to think your way through moral issues.

If God had an express view on a particular issue then I wouldn't have to think through since I've already concluded elsewhere that he is the fixed reference point. It's like not having to think about which way a house might be pointing when Googlemap compass shows which way is North.

That isn't to say there isn't thinking to be done on a multitude of issues such as FFA, gay civic unions etc. But the thinking would be aimed at figuring out "how would this fit in God's way of doing things" since he'd be my reference.

Can you honestly tell me that you do think your way through them and each and every time, what you find aligns with the bible, self-conflicting though it is? What criteria do you use other than "Because God said so"?

Consider the year of Jubilee (in the OT). God decreed that every 50 years, the land originally assigned to each of the Israelite tribes had to be handed back to that tribe. In the intervening years it could be traded, rented, sold etc but on 50 years it went back to the original owner. And so there was a complex system of value-assignment which took into account this decree - the land would be worth more in year one than in year 49.

What would such a system do for the current system in which vast wealth can be accumulated by individuals/countries with nothing, but nothing stopping them accumulating more and more leading to the kind of society we have today were some sections of the world starve and others stuff themselves so full they can't even think of what to spend their wealth on.

To answer your question: "God said so" is a choice I can choose just as "the general view of society says so (subject as it is to change)" or "just because I conclude so (subject though that is to change)" is a choice I can chose. I choose ... is the source in all cases. It's just that with God, his makes more sense than the alternative. Once you get to understand how it fits in the overall goal. Without that overall goal to hand his way wouldn't make sense to you.

Ifs are not a good tool to convince someone.

I'm not trying to convince anyone. I've told you that before.

So? Both methods are perfectly valid. I've done both and will continue to use both methods.

You'd be speaking to yourself in that case since I'm not evidencing God's existence so your objection that you don't believe as a counter to IF/THEN is boxing with shadows.

Thank you for yet again saying to us how horrible your religion is. That it involves an active destruction of a person's will, that it views thought and strength of character as enemies to be defeated. What happened to "God respects free will?"

The choice to continue rebellion or surrender that rebellion is respected by God. That you will reap the rewards for your choice, whatever that might be, will be the tangible fulfillment of that respect. (That's why annihilation as a eternal option doesn't make sense to me: it sidesteps the will of a person to remain a rebel to the end of their days)

It would be non-sensical to demand that some other option, than the options you've been presented with, be presented to you. God created with a purpose and goal in mind, we're a part of that and get to make a choice. It could have been another way had God been another god but this is the God we've got and this is the way it is.

marienbad

antiskeptic wrote: »

Surely you mean philosophical sense. As in, your philosophy. Logic is a different. formal discipline and can't be applied in the sense you're trying to apply it.



Or sovereignty territory if you like.

Since God created all according to his purpose he is entitled to have it according to his purpose. The only say we have in things is the say assigned to us by him. There is nowhere else we can turn to for our rights. Even the right to rebel is a right granted by him to us. And if that but for a time then so be it - it's not an inalienable right but merely one with fixed duration and for a purpose decided upon by God.





The only thing I'm hearing from you sin or not because you say so. You pick "harm" but don't say why that should be a criteria. Why harm, other than because you say so? You'll find you end up in arbitrary on leaning on some unspoken principle which, without God will to be arbitary.

I'm always keen to hear someone who believes in a naturalistic evolution chase morality down to source. Because accidental/blind/mute evolution is where you must end up. Some morality that!





If God had an express view on a particular issue then I wouldn't have to think through since I've already concluded elsewhere that he is the fixed reference point. That isn't to say there isn't thinking to be done on a multitude of issues such as FFA, gay civic unions etc. But the thinking would be aimed at figuring out "what would God reckon to do here" since he'd be my reference.



Consider the year of Jubilee (in the OT). God decreed that every 50 years, the land originally assigned to each of the Israelite tribes had to be handed back to that tribe. In the intervening years it could be traded, rented, sold etc but on 50 years it went back to the original owner. And so there was a complex system of value-assignment which took into account this decree - the land would be worth more in year one than in year 49.

What would such a system do for the current system in which vast wealth can be accumulated by individuals/countries with nothing, but nothing stopping them accumulating more and more leading to the kind of society we have today were some sections of the world starve and others stuff themselves so full they can't even think of what to spend their wealth on.

To answer your question: "God said so" is a choice I can choose just as "the general view of society says so (subject as it is to change)" or "just because I conclude so (subject though that is to change)" is a choice I can chose. I choose ... is the source in all cases. It's just that with God, his makes more sense than the alternative. Once you get to understand how it fits in the overall goal. Without that overall goal to hand his way wouldn't make sense to you.





I'm not trying to convince anyone. I've told you that before.




You'd be speaking to yourself in that case since I'm not evidencing God's existence so your objection that you don't believe as a counter to IF/THEN is boxing with shadows.





The choice to continue rebellion or surrender that rebellion is respected by God. That you will reap the rewards for your choice, whatever that might be, is the fulfillment of that respect.

It would be non-sensical to demand that some other option, than the options you've been presented with, be presented to you. God created with a purpose and goal in mind, we're a part of that and get to make a choice. It could have been another way had God been another god but this is the God we've got and this is the way it is.

You are offering nothing as a basis for your argument other than the bible says so and you are accusing him of misusing logic !

Why would anyone accept that ?

RikuoAmero

The only thing I'm hearing from you sin or not because you say so. You pick "harm" but don't say why that should be a criteria. Why harm, other than because you say so?

Simple, mutual self-interest. I desire to live in a peaceful society, able to pursue my dreams. Most other people desire the same thing. A quote I like from Terry Goodkind is "Your life is your own: rise up and live it". When it comes to social cohesion, and keeping things peaceful and civil, it is in our best interests to discover what works, what things do and do not harm people and society as a whole.
Take homosexuals wanting to marry, to be formally recognised by the state for being a couple just like a heterosexual couple would, to be allowed to have all the same rights (and responsibilities). When I look into that, all I'm seeing from your side of the camp is "God says no". Not good enough. When I examine the issue, I see no harm whatsoever can come from allowing homosexuals to marry. If you're going to try and convince me...
wait...

I'm not trying to convince anyone.

Right, you and I are done. I desire debates with people who are genuinely interested in trying to sway me to their side. Not people who have no interest in doing so, but merely want to say what it is they believe.

antiskeptic

marienbad wrote: »

You are offering nothing as a basis for your argument other than the bible says so and you are accusing him of misusing logic !

You don't seem to know what logic means either. With respect.

I'm not making any points other than those predicated on the bible being true. And am not addressing any points predicated on the bible being anything else but true, i.e. the points originally brought up by RA.

That RA has shifted into "requiring evidence" mode is his business. I'm not following him down that rabbithole.

marienbad

antiskeptic wrote: »

You don't seem to know what logic means either. With respect.

I'm not making any points other than those predicated on the bible being true. And am not addressing any points predicated on the bible being anything else but true, i.e. the points originally brought up by RA.

That RA has shifted into "requiring evidence" mode is his business. I'm not following him down that rabbithole.

So you have nothing to offer on the title of the thread ?

And if you think applying logic after you believe everything in the bible to prove anything than neither do you. With respect

antiskeptic

marienbad wrote: »

So you have nothing to offer on the title of the thread ?

And if you think applying logic after you believe everything in the bible to prove anything than neither do you. With respect

It's a catch all thread. I wouldn't get too hung up on a 1000 year old title.

Besides, there are way of arguing for the existence of God without arguing for the existence of God.

marienbad

antiskeptic wrote: »

It's a catch all thread. I wouldn't get too hung up on a 1000 year old title.

Besides, there are way of arguing for the existence of God without arguing for the existence of God.

There are indeed and I fully respect that , buts lets not be giving others lectures on logic along the way .

antiskeptic

marienbad wrote: »

There are indeed and I fully respect that , buts lets not be giving others lectures on logic along the way .

I've no issue batting away that which has no place: demands for evidence from a person who started out accepting-for-the-sake-of-argument the bible was true in order to forward an objection to the God therein contained (they didn't read the thread title either).

That and claiming my approach/argument illogical when it clearly isn't.

marienbad

antiskeptic wrote: »

I've no issue batting away that which has no place: demands for evidence from a person who started out accepting-for-the-sake-of-argument the bible was true in order to forward an objection to the God therein contained (they didn't read the thread title either).

That and claiming my approach/argument illogical when it clearly isn't.

any argument based on the bible as true is illogical . Might as well base it on the Lord of the Rings .

basing an argument on the basis that the bible is inspirational and a basis for living is a completely different matter . Not one I would agree with mind you ,but one I can understand .

antiskeptic

marienbad wrote: »

any argument based on the bible as true is illogical .

Give me the logical statement that demonstrates this so. Seeing as you're not open to 'lectures' on the subject I might as well let you slit your own throat.

Might as well base it on the Lord of the Rings .

What part of an opponent "undertaking to believe the bible is true for the sake of argument" in order to probe it's internal (in)consistency

..do you not understand?

Someone needn't do so formerly but if they chose to attack characteristics of God then they are, for the sake of argument accepting he exists.

marienbad

antiskeptic wrote: »

Give me the logical statement that demonstrates this so. Seeing as you're not open to 'lectures' on the subject I might as well let you slit your own throat.




What part of an opponent "undertaking to believe the bible is true for the sake of argument" in order to probe it's internal (in)consistency

..do you not understand?

Someone needn't do so formerly but if they chose to attack characteristics of God then they are, for the sake of argument accepting he exists.

Pompous much ?

For the very same reasons that you don't accept Lord of The Rings, the Koran, the Bhagavad Gita or a host of other books.

Why don't you accept the Koran then ?

antiskeptic

marienbad wrote: »

Pompous much ?

For the very same reasons that you don't accept Lord of The Rings, the Koran, the Bhagavad Gita or a host of other books.

Why don't you accept the Koran then ?

Address the substance of the response. Otherwise..

indioblack

antiskeptic wrote: »

Responsible for providing, sustaining and enabling the canvas on which all is painted: physically, emotionally, spiritually. And responsible for the fact things will end up with evil destroyed and righteousness prevailing.

Us for our ultimate destination.

And therefore responsible for the creation of this journey, the physical, emotional and spiritual mechanism that leads to the inevitable end.

marienbad

antiskeptic wrote: »

Address the substance of the response. Otherwise..

I addressed the heart of the response ,but as usual the avoidance kicks in....

antiskeptic

indioblack wrote: »

And therefore responsible for the creation of this journey, the physical, emotional and spiritual mechanism that leads to the inevitable end.

To one of a choice of two inevitable ends.

antiskeptic

marienbad wrote: »

I addressed the heart of the response ,but as usual the avoidance kicks in....

The "heart of the response" pointed out that the kind of biblical discussion being had (before RA switched tracks) was one that had no need for evidencing the truth of the Bible. You ask why not the Koran, why not the

Why not Haynes Workshop manual for the Audi A4 2001-2005?

Because the discussion involves the Bible knumbnutz

.

marienbad

antiskeptic wrote: »

The "heart of the response" pointed out that the kind of biblical discussion being had (before RA switched tracks) was one that had no need for evidencing the truth of the Bible. You ask why not the Koran, why not the

Why not Haynes Workshop manual for the Audi A4 2001-2005?

Because the discussion involves the Bible knumbnutz

.

Only because you try to make it so . And only then when they accept your rules that your interpretation of the Bible is true .

As your starting position is just completely irrational anything based on it equally so. So you may as well use the Audi manual or the Koran .

So why the Bible above the Koran , or why your interpretation of the Bible rather the that of the Catholic Church or those churches that seem to be able to accept LGBT relationships ?


Or will you avoid this one too ?

As an aside why is it so many Christian posters always resort to rudeness and arrogance in these conversations ?

indioblack

antiskeptic wrote: »

To one of a choice of two inevitable ends.

For the individual.
My point is that this is a created scenario - a journey logically influenced by the mechanism being used.

antiskeptic

indioblack wrote: »

For the individual.
My point is that this is a created scenario - a journey logically influenced by the mechanism being used.

So long as the influences are such as to enable a balanced choice for the individual then I don't see a problem. The created scenario isn't a predetermined one - it incorporates and permits free choice.

indioblack

antiskeptic wrote: »

So long as the influences are such as to enable a balanced choice for the individual then I don't see a problem. The created scenario isn't a predetermined one - it incorporates and permits free choice.

That would have to be a matter of belief - even for an individual's life it would require a god-like knowledge of that individual's entire life.
The scenario as it unfolds may not be predetermined - the stage most certainly is.

Benny_Cake

Mod: I've moved a bunch of posts debating LGBT-related issues to the correct thread. Keep posts on-topic - thanks.

Safehands

antiskeptic wrote: »

Give me the logical statement that demonstrates this so. Seeing as you're not open to 'lectures' on the subject I might as well let you slit your own throat.

I know a man who suffers from schizophrenia, a disorder which was only formally recognised as a mental illness in the 19th century. This man sees angels, dressed in golden armour, on one side of the street and demons on the other side. These beings are as real to him as a 46A bus driving down O'Connell St. The demons shout obscenities at the angels and sometimes at him. He knows that other people cannot see these angels, only he sees them but they are there. When he takes his medication, he calms down and the experience is less frightening for him as the Angels and Demons disappear.
We all know that he is in fact, hallucinating. There are no angels on the side of the street. There are no angels anywhere. There never have been. They are the stuff of fairy tales, like Tinkerbell and Snow White. That being the case, the whole story of the winged Archangel visiting Mary and Joseph to tell them that the Holy Spirit has impregnated her could not be true (because angels don't exist).
Logically, if Angels are not real the rest of the story of the virgin birth falls apart.
Conversely, the story can only be factual, if Angels are real, and Angels are only real when people have not taken their medication.
(Medication can never make a 46A disappear from reality) Pure logic at work!

RikuoAmero

Safehands wrote: »

I know a man who suffers from schizophrenia, a disorder which was only formally recognised as a mental illness in the 19th century. This man sees angels, dressed in golden armour, on one side of the street and demons on the other side. These beings are as real to him as a 46A bus driving down O'Connell St. The demons shout obscenities at the angels and sometimes at him. He knows that other people cannot see these angels, only he sees them but they are there. When he takes his medication, he calms down and the experience is less frightening for him as the Angels and Demons disappear.
We all know that he is in fact, hallucinating. There are no angels on the side of the street. There are no angels anywhere. There never have been. They are the stuff of fairy tales, like Tinkerbell and Snow White. That being the case, the whole story of the winged Archangel visiting Mary and Joseph to tell them that the Holy Spirit has impregnated her could not be true (because angels don't exist).
Logically, if Angels are not real the rest of the story of the virgin birth falls apart.
Conversely, the story can only be factual, if Angels are real, and Angels are only real when people have not taken their medication.
(Medication can never make a 46A disappear from reality) Pure logic at work!

As I myself was told earlier on, don't bother using logic. Certain people only accept the outcomes of logical arguments when it suits them, and disregard when it doesn't. If certain people did accept logical arguments, then they would not accept the bible as a valid source of truth, given that there are many logical arguments against doing so (such as no idea who the authors were (apart from Paul), no original manuscripts, books having been edited many times, contradictions all over the bible etc etc)

antiskeptic

Safehands wrote: »

I know a man who suffers from schizophrenia, a disorder which was only formally recognised as a mental illness in the 19th century. This man sees angels, dressed in golden armour, on one side of the street and demons on the other side. These beings are as real to him as a 46A bus driving down O'Connell St. The demons shout obscenities at the angels and sometimes at him. He knows that other people cannot see these angels, only he sees them but they are there. When he takes his medication, he calms down and the experience is less frightening for him as the Angels and Demons disappear.
We all know that he is in fact, hallucinating. There are no angels on the side of the street. There are no angels anywhere. There never have been. They are the stuff of fairy tales, like Tinkerbell and Snow White. That being the case, the whole story of the winged Archangel visiting Mary and Joseph to tell them that the Holy Spirit has impregnated her could not be true (because angels don't exist).
Logically, if Angels are not real the rest of the story of the virgin birth falls apart.
Conversely, the story can only be factual, if Angels are real, and Angels are only real when people have not taken their medication.
(Medication can never make a 46A disappear from reality) Pure logic at work!

I don't know if that piece is an attempt at arriving at a logical statement or a humorous caricature of atheist arguments of Christmas past. If the latter then Bravo! If the former then what else can be said but ... Good Grief!

antiskeptic

indioblack wrote: »

That would have to be a matter of belief - even for an individual's life it would require a god-like knowledge of that individual's entire life.
The scenario as it unfolds may not be predetermined - the stage most certainly is.

More a matter of deduction once concluding that the bible contains God's truth and having a degree on personal experience of God's character.

I'm not sure what difference you see between stage and scenario in order to agree or otherwise.

Safehands

antiskeptic wrote: »

I don't know if that piece is an attempt at arriving at a logical statement or a humorous caricature of atheist arguments of Christmas past. If the latter then Bravo! If the former then what else can be said but ... Good Grief!

Tell me, do you believe in angels, real angels with wings?

indioblack

antiskeptic wrote: »

More a matter of deduction once concluding that the bible contains God's truth and having a degree on personal experience of God's character.

I'm not sure what difference you see between stage and scenario in order to agree or otherwise.

Good point. If they are both parts of the same mechanism then they are created, imposed. In the Christian construct we have no say in the initial part of this process.