Getting 'evidence' would break the system.

mrac

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

Since when did it become odd to believe that your own view on reality was correct? You appear to be arguing that you are correct, no? So where does that leave you?

We are right back at the genetic fallacy if you think that geography has any impact on the types of truths we are talking about. And you also miss my point if you somehow think that atheism - and all that atheism can entail - is a neutral position to hold. It isn't.

Each world religion claims something different and cannot all be true. If the main reason someone believes in religion X as opposed to Y is geography then doesnt that strike you as odd.

Atheism is a neutral position. All atheism says is "I dont know therefore, I dont know" it does not make up any stories, rules etc. to fill our gaps in our knowledge, it simply states I dont know if there is a god so there is no point in believing in the unknown until something proves otherwise.

antiskeptic

Zombrex wrote: »

Do you not personally find that utterly ridiculous though? The whole point of justice is that the consequences for a immoral action are faced by the person who committed the action.

That's the eye for an eye side of justice. And eye for an eye is valid and fair.

But there is another option for justice and that is forgiveness. Where the offended against pays the price for the crime against them. I don't find that ridiculous - I find it rather wonderful

The due penalty extracted for the crime committed.

The idea that God remains just (ie doesn't "wink at sin") by instead punishing someone who had nothing to do with the sin committed by us rotten humans is about as far away from justice as I can imagine. It is like beating to death your dog because your bank lost all your money.

The offence is committed against God and the penalty is paid by God. So not at all like punishing another who has no stake in the situation. Simply forgiveness.

Now of course this being the Christianity forum the response is probably "Ah Zombrex, but that is your notion of justice. God's notion of justice, ie the correct notion of justice, is perfectly happy with the idea of beating to death your dog because your bank lost all your money"

But these "Who are you to say what is good, just, fair, sensible, reasonable, not completely illogical" just end up making these concepts meaningless. You can no more say God is just than I can, you can simply say God does what he does and that is what it is, lets for no particular reason call that "justice"

We forgive others all the time (even if struggling to do so completely) and in so doing we deal with the offence against us. In true, full foregiveness, the offence is absorbed by the offended and relations between the offender and the offended are restored.

If you insist that justice can only ever entail eye for an eye then that is your perogative. And your semantic.

But again doesn't that highlight the issue. If relatively speaking I'm pretty much as bad as someone who skins babies alive why would I be forgiven? Why would the person who skins babies alive be forgiven? How is that adhering to "justice".

Per above.

A person should be forgiven because that is what love is about. That is what you would expect love to do (where 'should' indicates an expectation of love rather than an obligation placed upon love)

But that isn't justice though is it? If I deserve punishment then does justice not demand that I face it? You can forgive me, but that is forgetting about the justice part.

What's left after the penalty has been paid? Justice is satisfied

To say that God is both just and compelled to punish sin while also say he forgive sin is to me contradictory. But then I'm an atheist

God's wrath is compelled to punish sin. God's love compelled to forgive.

Zombrex

antiskeptic wrote: »

That's the eye for an eye side of justice. And eye for an eye is valid and fair.

But there is another option for justice and that is forgiveness. Where the offended against pays the price for the crime against them. I don't find that ridiculous - I find it rather wonderful

The due penalty extracted for the crime committed.

Yes but the whole initial argument is that God cannot tolerate sin, he must face it with justice. Forgiveness is a form of toleration, I will tolerate what you did because I care more about forgiving you than punishing you.

I've no problem with the idea that God can forgive someone, anyone can forgive someone if they do something to them. The issue is marrying such a concept with the equally pushed concept that God by his nature is required to deal with sin in a just fashion, hence the justification for hell and the need for salvation in the first place.

antiskeptic wrote: »

The offence is committed against God and the penalty is paid by God. So not at all like punishing another who has no stake in the situation. Simply forgiveness.

That is meaningless, the person who has faced the crime cannot also pay the penalty. I can forgive you for robbing my house. It would be pointless though for me to lock myself up in prison for 6 years. That would serve no purpose in the context of justice. I can forgive you, giving up any notion that I will serve justice on you, but that is not the same thing as paying the price you should pay.

antiskeptic wrote: »

We forgive others all the time (even if struggling to do so completely) and in so doing we deal with the offence against us.

Yes, we tolerate it because we decide that forgiving the person is a better alternative. But this goes back to the original point, a central argument from Christianity is that God cannot tolerate sin. God is compelled by his nature to face sin with justice. Except he doesn't in the case of when some is forgiven their sins. There is a contradiction there.

antiskeptic wrote: »

What's left after the penalty has been paid? Justice is satisfied

The penalty isn't paid. This is the biggest nonsense concept in Christianity. Again think of any example in any justice system. Would anyone ever think it served any purpose for me to go to jail instead of the person who robbed me, or who beat me up.

I can certainly tolerate the crime committed against me, forgive the infraction against me without seeking compensation. But it is utterly nonsense to suggest that I can equal things out by absorbing the punishment that should have gone to the person who committed the crime against me.

If you think of justice in terms of scales, someone robs me, tipping the scales against me. I can either demand punishment, tipping the scales back, or I can simply tolerate this slight against me, effectively forgetting about the damage done to me.

What would be utter nonsense is that instead of putting the punishment to the criminals side of the scales, balancing out the scales, I instead add this punishment to my side of the scales, pushing my scale down even further.

Not only have I suffered because of the original crime, but I have no suffered the punishment for that crime. That is an utterly nonsense concept in terms of both justice and forgiveness.

antiskeptic wrote: »

God's wrath is compelled to punish sin. God's love compelled to forgive.

Which is a contradiction. God cannot be both compelled to punish sin and also compelled to forgive sin (ie not punish sin).

Fanny Cradock

mrac wrote: »

Each world religion claims something different and cannot all be true. If the main reason someone believes in religion X as opposed to Y is geography then doesnt that strike you as odd.

Yes, all worldviews diverge at some point. This goes for theism, atheism, Marxism, solipsism and so on. Did I argue otherwise? That people hold to worldviews like theism, atheism, Marxism, solipsism because of sociological factors isn't particularly odd because we are all products of society to one extent or another. So when the word "odd" is used with respects to the geography of religious beliefs, and religious beliefs alone, it seems to me that what is being implied is that this has some bearing on truth of said beliefs. It doesn't. Now on the other hand, when atheists are found to give their own worldview a free pass I can't help but think this odd, or curious at the least.

mrac wrote: »

Atheism is a neutral position.

So a worldview that rejects, for example, theism, pantheism and panentheism is somehow neutral? How so?

mrac wrote: »

All atheism says is "I dont know therefore, I dont know" it does not make up any stories, rules etc. to fill our gaps in our knowledge, it simply states I dont know if there is a god so there is no point in believing in the unknown until something proves otherwise.

That sounds much more like agnosticism to me, which itself is not neutral. And I can't think of any worldview that is.

philologos

mrac wrote: »

Atheism is a neutral position. All atheism says is "I dont know therefore, I dont know" it does not make up any stories, rules etc. to fill our gaps in our knowledge, it simply states I dont know if there is a god so there is no point in believing in the unknown until something proves otherwise.

It really isn't. Claiming that there is no God or that it isn't likely that there is a God as most atheists do, the others I'd put more in the agnostic box than atheist, but that's for another discussion, isn't a neutral claim.

That's not a neutral claim, it's firmly off the fence.

Particularly as far as Christianity is concerned, there is no middle ground. Either one accepts Jesus Christ as Lord, and believes and trusts in Him, or one doesn't.

There's no neutral position.

antiskeptic

Zombrex wrote: »

Yes but the whole initial argument is that God cannot tolerate sin, he must face it with justice. Forgiveness is a form of toleration, I will tolerate what you did because I care more about forgiving you than punishing you.

I would agree that toleration is often confused for forgiveness - not least because even our best efforts at forgiveness is very often less than complete.

Forgiveness means that the offended actually carries the burden of the offence fully themselves. For example:

You borrow a laptop from me and through carelessness, leave it on a bus. My forgiving you means that I pay for the laptop myself and don't hold it against you at all. So far is the offence from my sight that I would have no hesitation lending you a laptop in the future.

Justice says that I am entitled to be paid for it. I am entitled to be annoyed with you. I am most certaintly entitled to review my policy regarding lending you things. But if I forgive you then I have forgone these rights and justice is content that the matter has been dealt with.

I've no problem with the idea that God can forgive someone, anyone can forgive someone if they do something to them.

I think you'll find that it's a rare thing to fully forgive. I would say that it is only with the help of God that someone can forego the righteous anger and retribution

The issue is marrying such a concept with the equally pushed concept that God by his nature is required to deal with sin in a just fashion, hence the justification for hell and the need for salvation in the first place.

That's the alternative~: eye for and eye justice.

Justice is there to serve the offended. If the offended absorbs the crime against them into themselves then has no leverage. But what has occurred is just - in the sense that all has been reckoned with and the case can be closed.

That is meaningless, the person who has faced the crime cannot also pay the penalty. I can forgive you for robbing my house. It would be pointless though for me to lock myself up in prison for 6 years. That would serve no purpose in the context of justice. I can forgive you, giving up any notion that I will serve justice on you, but that is not the same thing as paying the price you should pay.

The cost of the offence can be doing without a laptop left on a bus. And doing without the money that has to be directed towards paying for a new one - if a new one has to be bought. And doing without the expression of anger I am rightfully (in God's eyes) entitled to express, and to do without the right to protect myself from future loss by restricting my lending policies concerning you.

If I forgive I can pay the cost of the offence against me.

The penalty isn't paid. This is the biggest nonsense concept in Christianity. Again think of any example in any justice system. Would anyone ever think it served any purpose for me to go to jail instead of the person who robbed me, or who beat me up.

I can certainly tolerate the crime committed against me, forgive the infraction against me without seeking compensation. But it is utterly nonsense to suggest that I can equal things out by absorbing the punishment that should have gone to the person who committed the crime against me.

Our justice system would insist on dealing with a burglar despite your forgiving him. That is because the burglar is considered to have offended both you and the State. If you testify to your forgiveness then the court will likely reduce the sentence by way of accounting for your forgiveness - but it will still extract it's eye-for-an-eye inspired price

In so far as it concerns you, the penalty is fully paid if you absorb all the cost: the broken window, the forgoing of anger etc.

If you think of justice in terms of scales, someone robs me, tipping the scales against me. I can either demand punishment, tipping the scales back, or I can simply tolerate this slight against me, effectively forgetting about the damage done to me.

It's not just forgetting (although forgetting is a part of forgiveness). You put things on your side of the scales: the money for the busted window, your rightful anger, the effort taken to restore the relationship with the burglar, etc.

Balance restored. Justness done.

What would be utter nonsense is that instead of putting the punishment to the criminals side of the scales, balancing out the scales, I instead add this punishment to my side of the scales, pushing my scale down even further.

Not only have I suffered because of the original crime, but I have no suffered the punishment for that crime. That is an utterly nonsense concept in terms of both justice and forgiveness.

I can understand your postion. But you forget that it's God your dealing with. And so we have the offended (God) taking the cost onto himself (God) which provides for forgiveness for us. And we have God as Judge punishing on the basis of eye for an eye (which is just).

We have seen how the householder burgled can forgive but that the State will yet extract a price (of say, jail). God, in being offended is both the State and householder. How does the State forgive the offence against it unless it pays the price due it (i.e. it goes to jail in the place of the burglar).

Which is a contradiction. God cannot be both compelled to punish sin and also compelled to forgive sin (ie not punish sin).

If God wer human then you'd be right. But God isn't restricted to operating on a limited plane like you are. You're a 2D creature poo-pooing the idea of a sphere

Zombrex

philologos wrote: »

It really isn't. Claiming that there is no God or that it isn't likely that there is a God as most atheists do, the others I'd put more in the agnostic box than atheist, but that's for another discussion, isn't a neutral claim.

That's not a neutral claim, it's firmly off the fence.

Particularly as far as Christianity is concerned, there is no middle ground. Either one accepts Jesus Christ as Lord, and believes and trusts in Him, or one doesn't.

There's no neutral position.

That isn't what he means by neutral.

He means neutral in the way you might be by not accepting your friends argument that Man Utd will win next year while neither accepting your other friends claim that City will retain the title.

You are not saying anything about what will happen, you are simply not accepting what the know what will happen. You are neutral to what might happen.

philologos

Zombrex wrote: »

That isn't what he means by neutral.

He means neutral in the way you might be by not accepting your friends argument that Man Utd will win next year while neither accepting your other friends claim that City will retain the title.

You are not saying anything about what will happen, you are simply not accepting what the know what will happen. You are neutral to what might happen.

I don't think that is neutral. You still hold a position on the God question.

I don't think atheists realise that their position is just one of many on that topic. Essentially, if we are to use football teams as an example. You'd still be a side.

That is that atheism is a philosophy concerning God. As are faiths.

mrac

philologos wrote: »

I don't think that is neutral. You still hold a position on the God question.

I don't think atheists realise that their position is just one of many on that topic. Essentially, if we are to use football teams as an example. You'd still be a side.

That is that atheism is a philosophy concerning God. As are faiths.

Not really, we are all born atheist. Everyone in the world is born with no knowledge of, no belief of, and no concern of any god or gods. It's only when we get a little older we hear through our patients, church, the society we live in about a particular god(s). In your case that's the christian god, in the case of a Soudi person that would be allah etc.

PDN

I don't see anything here to justify this being a separate thread from the Atheism/Christian Debate Thread