Atheism/Existence of God Debates (Part 2)

Delirium · 18-03-2015 02:08PM

silverharp wrote: »

God in the OT is a psychopath, the amount of people "he" killed including babies and kids is too long to even reference.

From the charter:

Do not post anything intended to inflame or insult. The goal of this forum is to be a place where ideas relating to Christianity are expounded, debated and challenged. While discussion is encouraged, each member is expected to remain within the boundaries of taste and decency. If you disagree with a opinion expressed, please do so in a well mannered fashion.

Referring to God as a psychopath could be regarded as insulting/inflamatory by Christian posters.

Please bear this in mind when posting.

Thanks for your attention.

silverharp · 18-03-2015 02:15PM

Nick Park wrote: »

You would probably be better addressing that question to a Catholic. I can't possibly speak on that church's behalf.

I do think your sly, and scurillous, insinuations of racism are pretty unworthy of you. Can you not engage in discussion with people who disagree with you without resorting to that sort of stuff?

Its not racism and for clarity I have no view on soulless people , its a potential consequence of suggesting that soulless people lived along side Adam based on an out of Africa model of human development .
OK if not Catholic can you point me to your demonimation's view of evolution that hopefully has a detailed thesis that goes beyond god done it.?

Nick Park · 18-03-2015 02:15PM

marienbad wrote: »

Can you not engage in discussion without seeing what isn't there ? There is no accusation of racism here ! But I notice you do this with lots of posters and posts - easier to throw in red herrings than address the points made I suppose

Would you give over with '' your sly, and scurillous, insinuations of racism '' !

No, I won't give over. Because I know my history.

Given that it was a common assertion by the KKK that African-Americans lacked a soul, there is an apparent inference of racism when someone suggests (without anyone having mentioned any such thing) that anyone else might think that Africans (mentioned specifically) don't have souls.

Nick Park · 18-03-2015 02:22PM

silverharp wrote: »

Its not racism and for clarity I have no view on soulless people , its a potential consequence of suggesting that soulless people lived along side Adam based on an out of Africa model of human development .
OK if not Catholic can you point me to your demonimation's view of evolution that hopefully has a detailed thesis that goes beyond god done it.?

I'm delighted to hear that you weren't accusing anyone of racism. And I'm happy to accept your explanation. We can all, quite innocently, choose unfortunate words at times. Apologies for misunderstanding you.

I don't rely on a denomination to tell me what to think. I think each person needs to think issues through for themselves and make their decisions accordingly.

If you want a detailed discussion on evolution then I'm not sure that this thread, or maybe even this forum, is the place for it. There is a Creationism megathread.

My comments on evolution, in the context of this thread, have been limited to observing that there's nothing there that conflicts with the Christian doctrines of the Creation and the Fall of man. Nothing that you've posted has, in my opinion, changed that.

silverharp · 18-03-2015 02:34PM

Nick Park wrote: »

My comments on evolution, in the context of this thread, have been limited to observing that there's nothing there that conflicts with the Christian doctrines of the Creation and the Fall of man. Nothing that you've posted has, in my opinion, changed that.

But I'm pointing out plot holes (as i see them) for want of a better term. And if they can't be explained in a logical way then the proposition is absurd. Clearly the writers of the ot could not have known about evolution or understand that humans came out of a process taking millions of years. But if Christianity is holding on to the idea of an actual Adam then it should fit in with evolution which does have evidence and timelines.

marienbad · 18-03-2015 02:37PM

Nick Park wrote: »

No, I won't give over. Because I know my history.

Given that it was a common assertion by the KKK that African-Americans lacked a soul, there is an apparent inference of racism when someone suggests (without anyone having mentioned any such thing) that anyone else might think that Africans (mentioned specifically) don't have souls.

And when were we discussing the KKK ? I think that something we can all agree on , both atheist and Christians alike is that the KKK are beyond the pale . Give some level of respect to your fellow posters for God's and stop trying to find offence that isn't there .

Nick Park · 18-03-2015 02:38PM

silverharp wrote: »

But I'm pointing out plot holes (as i see them) for want of a better term. And if they can't be explained in a logical way then the proposition is absurd. Clearly the writers of the ot could not have known about evolution or understand that humans came out of a process taking millions of years. But if Christianity is holding on to the idea of an actual Adam then it should fit in with evolution which does have evidence and timelines.

Some Christians hold to Adam as a literal individual. Others, pointing to the fact that the word adam means 'mankind' in Hebrew, see him as representing the whole human race - that, in the words of the apostle Paul, "All have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God".

I don't see that either view is incompatible with the theory of evolution.

marienbad · 18-03-2015 02:39PM

Nick Park wrote: »

I'm delighted to hear that you weren't accusing anyone of racism. And I'm happy to accept your explanation. We can all, quite innocently, choose unfortunate words at times. Apologies for misunderstanding you.

I don't rely on a denomination to tell me what to think. I think each person needs to think issues through for themselves and make their decisions accordingly.

If you want a detailed discussion on evolution then I'm not sure that this thread, or maybe even this forum, is the place for it. There is a Creationism megathread.

My comments on evolution, in the context of this thread, have been limited to observing that there's nothing there that conflicts with the Christian doctrines of the Creation and the Fall of man. Nothing that you've posted has, in my opinion, changed that.

Which Christian doctrine ? You have already said you don't speak for the RCC, so what denomination do you belong to ?

Or is this another get out of jail card ?

Nick Park · 18-03-2015 02:42PM

marienbad wrote: »

And when were we discussing the KKK ? I think that something we can all agree on , both atheist and Christians alike is that the KKK are beyond the pale . Give some level of respect to your fellow posters for God's and stop trying to find offence that isn't there .

We weren't discussing the KKK, which is why I was shocked to hear one of their mantras being ascribed to anyone.

Anyway, silverharp has explained that he/she used the term without malice, so I'm happy to put it down to an unfortunate coincidence in phraseology. You, of course, must decide for yourself whether you want to engage in actual discussion or to keep being personal.

Nick Park · 18-03-2015 02:50PM

marienbad wrote: »

Which Christian doctrine ? You have already said you don't speak for the RCC, so what denomination do you belong to ?

Or is this another get out of jail card ?

I've already said which doctrines - those of Creation and the Fall. I myself am an Evangelical Christian, but these are historic Christian doctrines, held by the vast majority of Christians around the world irrespective of denomination.

The doctrine of Creation as expressed in the Apostles' Creed (which is referred to in the Charter of this forum as helping define what makes one a Christian) is that God is "the Maker of Heaven and Earth".

The doctrine of the Fall is that mankind once enjoyed a fuller communion with God, but became corrupted through sin, and that therefore sin has become a common denominator in us all.

At no point in this thread Have I advanced, or argued for, the position of any one denomination. So good luck with that off-topic discussion. I have been addressing silverharp's claim that these basic Christian doctrines somehow conflict with what we know about human origins. So far I don't see that he/she has presented any evidence that such a conflict exists.

silverharp · 18-03-2015 02:59PM

Nick Park wrote: »

Some Christians hold to Adam as a literal individual. Others, pointing to the fact that the word adam means 'mankind' in Hebrew, see him as representing the whole human race - that, in the words of the apostle Paul, "All have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God".

I don't see that either view is incompatible with the theory of evolution.

But you did indicate a day or 2 back that there was a god giving a soul to a single man and that the rest were "of men".
Are you know saying that there were multiple "adams" ? That basically God was trying to herd mice around central Africa and nobody was doing what they were told?
And again I mention the issues I'd have over the fact that people barely on power with cavemen raised without a formal language and subject to the rigours of a difficult environment could not be held accountable for being human and not perfect . while I go 100% with absurd , the alternative is god creating a rigged game.

Nick Park · 18-03-2015 03:07PM

silverharp wrote: »

But you did indicate a day or 2 back that there was a god giving a soul to a single man and that the rest were "of men".

No, please don't misrepresent me. I said that it was a possibility, but no more, and that I certainly wouldn't argue dogmatically for or against it. Remember?

As I've said before, I don't pretend to know all the details. I try to keep an open mind, and to remember that speculation is just that - speculation.

Are you know saying that there were multiple "adams" ? That basically God was trying to herd mice around central Africa and nobody was doing what they were told?

No, I'm saying that some Christians would see 'adam' as representing mankind (which is what his name means). Not multiple mankinds - just one.

And that mankind had a communion with God that was lost through deliberate sin.

And again I mention the issues I'd have over the fact that people barely on power with cavemen raised without a formal language and subject to the rigours of a difficult environment could not be held accountable for being human and not perfect . while I go 100% with absurd , the alternative is god creating a rigged game.

And you are very entitled to hold your belief. But that does not constitute evidence of any conflict between Christian doctrine and what we know of human origins. It seems to involve a lot of speculation on your behalf.

marienbad · 18-03-2015 03:21PM

Nick Park wrote: »

We weren't discussing the KKK, which is why I was shocked to hear one of their mantras being ascribed to anyone.

Anyway, silverharp has explained that he/she used the term without malice, so I'm happy to put it down to an unfortunate coincidence in phraseology. You, of course, must decide for yourself whether you want to engage in actual discussion or to keep being personal.

You are accusing others of being personal ! Matthew 7.5 springs to mind .

silverharp · 18-03-2015 03:35PM

Nick Park wrote: »

And you are very entitled to hold your belief. But that does not constitute evidence of any conflict between Christian doctrine and what we know of human origins. It seems to involve a lot of speculation on your behalf.

But I'm forced to speculate and trying to help you because you havnt stated how evolution ties into the story of adam. Just saying it does tells me nothing.
For instance Christians seem to indicate that creation was perfect? Was it or did the first spiritual human/s grow up with similar conditions to today in terms of physical environment? The bible says that all animals were vegetarian , this was clearly wrong and again is evidence that there was not a perfect creation for man.

Nick Park · 18-03-2015 03:49PM

silverharp wrote: »

But I'm forced to speculate and trying to help you because you havnt stated how evolution ties into the story of adam. Just saying it does tells me nothing.
For instance Christians seem to indicate that creation was perfect? Was it or did the first spiritual human/s grow up with similar conditions to today in terms of physical environment? The bible says that all animals were vegetarian , this was clearly wrong and again is evidence that there was not a perfect creation for man.

Since you were the one who made the claim, I think the onus is on you to show how evolution doesn't tie in to the Christian doctrines of Creation and the Fall. That is what you claimed, isn't it?

I could be wrong, but I don't remember the Bible saying that creation was perfect. It says that it was good. It also says that Adam was living in an environment where his needs were all met.

For those who treat Genesis as a story designed to convey spiritual truths, the details are not what it is about. It's a bit like arguing whether the 'boy who cried wolf' did so three or four times. That isn't the point of the story.

I think your beef here is more with a fundamentalist literalistic interpretation of the early Chapters of Genesis. If so, then there is a Creationism thread for that very purpose.

My understanding was that you actually had made a claim about the doctrines of Creation and the Fall. Therefore I thought you would want to talk about those doctrines and demonstrate how they are in conflict the science of human origins. Maybe I was wrong?

marienbad · 18-03-2015 04:16PM

Nick Park wrote: »

Since you were the one who made the claim, I think the onus is on you to show how evolution doesn't tie in to the Christian doctrines of Creation and the Fall. That is what you claimed, isn't it?

I could be wrong, but I don't remember the Bible saying that creation was perfect. It says that it was good. It also says that Adam was living in an environment where his needs were all met.

For those who treat Genesis as a story designed to convey spiritual truths, the details are not what it is about. It's a bit like arguing whether the 'boy who cried wolf' did so three or four times. That isn't the point of the story.

I think your beef here is more with a fundamentalist literalistic interpretation of the early Chapters of Genesis. If so, then there is a Creationism thread for that very purpose.

My understanding was that you actually had made a claim about the doctrines of Creation and the Fall. Therefore I thought you would want to talk about those doctrines and demonstrate how they are in conflict the science of human origins. Maybe I was wrong?

Should it not be the other way round ? i.e you demonstrate how your beliefs agree/disagree with the known facts of human origins ?

Nick Park · 18-03-2015 04:30PM

marienbad wrote: »

Should it not be the other way round ? i.e you demonstrate how your beliefs agree/disagree with the known facts of human origins ?

No, not at all, and I think if you reflect on things you'll see why.

Imagine if I said to you, "Marienbad, your posts contradict the laws of physics."

No reasonable person would expect you to examine everyone of your posts, compare them with every law of physics you can think of, and then demonstrate how they are consistent.

Instead, as you well know, the onus would be on me to demonstrate where and how your posts contradict the law of physics. Then you would have the opportunity to answer my specific claims. That's how reasonable discussion works.

It is plainly unreasonable to expect me to examine each and every one of my beliefs and then prove how each one of them agrees with every single point of scientific knowledge. That would result in a post of several million words.

The only sane way that a discussion like this to move forward is for the one who alleges a conflict to demonstrate what that conflict is. Then the accused can respond to that specific accusation. Anything else is just mud-slinging.

Cen taurus · 18-03-2015 04:48PM

ghosttombrown wrote: »

Why is this the deciding factor? It seems to me that choosing who is saved based merely on whether or not they believe one particular God myth over another would be a very flawed system. Why this emphasis on belief, what's so special about it? Why not actions?

Also, how is it fair? I've been chatting with some people, a few of whom tell me that no matter how hard they try, they just can't believe. Are they to be condemned as per your Bible quote?

There's nothing that could make someone who is determined not to believe in God believe. As we demonstrated earlier on the thread, even God appearing in front of people and creating planets for them would not be enough proof he was God, rather than an advanced alien spirit / being.

The two golden commandments are to love God and to love one another.
Pretty impossible to love God if you don't believe he exists. Growth in belief is also a gift from God, strengthened by his grace, through his sacraments, and if you don't ask you don't get. Simple sincere prayers, like "If you exist, develop my faith", will never be prayed by haters of God.

ghosttombrown wrote: »

What vices? Like Nick Park complained before about me straw-manning him, this too is a straw-man. The people I mentioned just up above, who can't believe? Not once did they mention having to give up their vices was a problem for them.
So it seems to me, Cen Taurus, that this is a false position of yours, this "they don't want to give up vices". I scanned over this thread, took me a little while, and not once did any of the atheists complain about it. So where are you getting this from?

orubiru wrote: »

I think this is kind of an unfair assessment of humanity.

I don't think that people are so dependent on their vices.

The majority of people care for, and love, their families and their children. Most people work hard and struggle every day to provide for their families.

To condemn them as "sinners", or to imply that they turn their back on God because they kind of just can't be bothered to give up their "vices", it's not a good view of the world.

Now, I know you can point to all the bad that happens in the world but these are the actions of a minority.

Man does not choose Evil and Man does not "sin". Some of us do. Not all of us. It's not right to suggest otherwise.

We can be good people without God.

You can go into any prison in the land and most prisoners will tell you they are innocent. They had no choice, they were providing for their families, great family men don't you know, and they were just looking out for their families and getting the other guy before he got them. The type of people who commit crimes rarely feel any guilt for them, they will always rationalise it. Sin is no different, and it's a pleasurable addiction, it heaps one on top of the other "I wasn't going too fast, she was asking for it, she was in the middle of the road". Anything can be justified. Ask the bankers and developers that placed their debts onto the ordinary people of Ireland to pay. The only crime in their minds was getting caught. Their vice, money, is their God, and they are slaves to their vices. They particularly hate anyone or anything telling them they might be wrong, from Gardaí to Christianity. Christ was crucified for telling the truth.

silverharp wrote: »

God in the OT is a psychopath, the amount of people "he" killed including babies and kids is too long to even reference.

Scripture is clear and consistent the whole way through that the penalty, consequences, and wages of sin, is always death, physical and worse, eternal spiritual death.

Harika wrote: »

Did not god create us in his own image? Genesis 1-27 So why are theists treating him as an infinite spirit what he clearly is not or are we spirits?

God is described as a Spirit throughout scripture. Man is made to God's likeness in his soul, which is immortal.

"For God is Spirit, so those who worship him must worship in spirit and in truth" - John 4:24

marienbad · 18-03-2015 04:48PM

Nick Park wrote: »

No, not at all, and I think if you reflect on things you'll see why.

Imagine if I said to you, "Marienbad, your posts contradict the laws of physics."

No reasonable person would expect you to examine everyone of your posts, compare them with every law of physics you can think of, and then demonstrate how they are consistent.

Instead, as you well know, the onus would be on me to demonstrate where and how your posts contradict the law of physics. Then you would have the opportunity to answer my specific claims. That's how reasonable discussion works.

It is plainly unreasonable to expect me to examine each and every one of my beliefs and then prove how each one of them agrees with every single point of scientific knowledge. That would result in a post of several million words.

The only sane way that a discussion like this to move forward is for the one who alleges a conflict to demonstrate what that conflict is. Then the accused can respond to that specific accusation. Anything else is just mud-slinging.

You would be quite correct if you reversed your thinking , we are not discussing all the laws of physics or all the laws of the origins of man . We are honing in on a specific area .

Only you know the total detail of your beliefs in the area under discussion, whereas the scientific facts are public knowledge and agreed by 99% of people, so the only means of progression is for you to demonstrate where there is no conflict.

Nick Park · 18-03-2015 04:54PM

marienbad wrote: »

You would be quite correct if you reversed your thinking , we are not discussing all the laws of physics or all the laws of the origins of man . We are honing in on a specific area .

Only you know the total detail of your beliefs in the area under discussion, whereas the scientific facts are public knowledge and agreed by 99% of people, so the only means of progression is for you to demonstrate where there is no conflict.

So someone is making allegations about my beliefs even though they don't know what my beliefs are. You really want to follow that line of argument?

"Hey, Nick, we think your beliefs contradict scientific facts. But, since we don't know what your beliefs actually are, we're demanding that you outline every single thing you believe and prove that there's no contradiction."

Have you ever read 'The Trial' by Franz Kafka?

marienbad · 18-03-2015 04:56PM

Cen taurus wrote: »

There's nothing that could make someone who is determined not to believe in God believe. As we demonstrated earlier on the thread, even God appearing in from of people and creating planets for them would not be enough proof he was God, rather than an advanced alien spirit / being./QUOTE]

Where was this demonstrated ?

silverharp · 18-03-2015 05:02PM

Nick Park wrote: »

Since you were the one who made the claim, I think the onus is on you to show how evolution doesn't tie in to the Christian doctrines of Creation and the Fall. That is what you claimed, isn't it?

I could be wrong, but I don't remember the Bible saying that creation was perfect. It says that it was good. It also says that Adam was living in an environment where his needs were all met.

For those who treat Genesis as a story designed to convey spiritual truths, the details are not what it is about. It's a bit like arguing whether the 'boy who cried wolf' did so three or four times. That isn't the point of the story.

I think your beef here is more with a fundamentalist literalistic interpretation of the early Chapters of Genesis. If so, then there is a Creationism thread for that very purpose.

My understanding was that you actually had made a claim about the doctrines of Creation and the Fall. Therefore I thought you would want to talk about those doctrines and demonstrate how they are in conflict the science of human origins. Maybe I was wrong?

In fairness i assumed i was not discussing this with fundamentalist so it is a little unfair to say I'm being literal about this , I have not asked you to defend a 6 day creation or the earth being 6000 years old . but at some stage your theology has to gel with history and science. So far I have evolution which gives a mechanism which does not need a deity or a fall. And along comes Christianity with one of the many creation stories that primitive man had a habit of generating. So far I don't see the creation story filling in any gaps in evolution.
On the flip side Christianity asserts that man had an innocent state before he rebelled? Whereas any particular adam character would have grown up like any "kid" of the era , would have had a brain chemistry similar to ourselves so essentially in chrstian terms would have been a "sinner" all through this soul giving process. So essentially god gave a flawed human a soul and then got annoyed that it didn't behave like "an angel" or similar impossible being
So my conclusion is that it would be impossible for a God to only give man a soul an expect it to behave in a perfect way. So I see the fall as being incompatible with evolution , hence being false and made up.

Nick Park · 18-03-2015 05:11PM

silverharp wrote: »

In fairness i assumed i was not discussing this with fundamentalist so it is a little unfair to say I'm being literal about this , I have not asked you to defend a 6 day creation or the earth being 6000 years old . but at some stage your theology has to gel with history and science. So far I have evolution which gives a mechanism which does not need a deity or a fall. And along comes Christianity with one of the many creation stories that primitive man had a habit of generating. So far I don't see the creation story filling in any gaps in evolution.
On the flip side Christianity asserts that man had an innocent state before he rebelled? Whereas any particular adam character would have grown up like any "kid" if the era , would have had a brain chemistry similar to ourselves so essentially in chrstian terms would have been a "sinner" all through this soul giving process. So essentially god gave a flawed human a soul and then got annoyed that it didn't behave like "an angel" or similar impossible being
So my conclusion is that it would be impossible for a God to only give man a soul an expect it to behave in a perfect way. So I see the fall as being incompatible with evolution , hence being false and made up.

But your argument is circular.

You start off with a preconceived assumption about the brain chemistry and moral nature of this "adam character", one that is based on your rejection of the doctrine of the Fall. Then you use that as the basis for an argument that leads you to the conclusion that the doctrine of the Fall is false.

Do you see the problem with that?

I am open to the possibility that a being, or group of beings, evolved that was somehow invested with a spirit by God and communicated with him. Prior to that there would seem to be little point in discussing morality - no more than there would be in calling a chimp 'immoral' or 'sinful'.

This being, or group of beings, then made a wrong moral choice and separated themselves from communication with God.

Now, I'm not trying to convince anyone else of the truth of such a scenario. I'm simply responding to your argument by asking you for the evidence that contradicts it.

silverharp · 18-03-2015 05:41PM

Nick Park wrote: »

But your argument is circular.

You start off with a preconceived assumption about the brain chemistry and moral nature of this "adam character", one that is based on your rejection of the doctrine of the Fall. Then you use that as the basis for an argument that leads you to the conclusion that the doctrine of the Fall is false.

Do you see the problem with that?

I am open to the possibility that a being, or group of beings, evolved that was somehow invested with a spirit by God and communicated with him. Prior to that there would seem to be little point in discussing morality - no more than there would be in calling a chimp 'immoral' or 'sinful'.

This being, or group of beings, then made a wrong moral choice and separated themselves from communication with God.

Now, I'm not trying to convince anyone else of the truth of such a scenario. I'm simply responding to your argument by asking you for the evidence that contradicts it.

I don't see that my point is circular . while I wouldn't describe a chimp as being a moral being I would argue that man becoming a moral being was a gradual one in line with the development of man so at no point could a god have created a moral being hence the term fall being meaningless , man didnt fall at any point.

marienbad · 18-03-2015 05:49PM

Nick Park wrote: »

So someone is making allegations about my beliefs even though they don't know what my beliefs are. You really want to follow that line of argument?

"Hey, Nick, we think your beliefs contradict scientific facts. But, since we don't know what your beliefs actually are, we're demanding that you outline every single thing you believe and prove that there's no contradiction."

Have you ever read 'The Trial' by Franz Kafka?

Again the misdirection , no one is making allegations about your beliefs , in fact you make my case for me . As I said '' Only you know the total detail of your beliefs in the area under discussion'' and it much more sensible for you to demonstrate how that conforms to the facts .

Or you can continue to play the victim .

And as an aside I suggest you reread The Trial as you obviously didn't get it the first time

Nick Park · 18-03-2015 06:53PM

marienbad wrote: »

Again the misdirection , no one is making allegations about your beliefs

Oh, really? I was having a discussion with silverharp about general and widely shared Christian doctrines, such as Creation and the Fall, and then you suddenly interjected with this:

marienbad wrote:

Should it not be the other way round ? i.e you demonstrate how your beliefs agree/disagree with the known facts of human origins ?

So you switched the topic to that of my beliefs. Then you followed it up with this:

marienbad wrote:

Only you know the total detail of your beliefs in the area under discussion, whereas the scientific facts are public knowledge and agreed by 99% of people, so the only means of progression is for you to demonstrate where there is no conflict.

If you disagree with something that I post, then specify it and address it. To his credit, even though we hold differing viewpoints, that is what silverharp is doing.

But your harping on by you, not about anything that I have posted, but about some unspecified belief of mine that supposedly contradicts science, is not reasonable or rational debate. This is a discussion forum, not the Spanish Inquisition or the thought police.

Attack the post, not the poster. If you disagree with something I post then that's grand, but you have no business claiming that I somehow have to justify my beliefs to you.

Nick Park · 18-03-2015 07:03PM

silverharp wrote: »

I don't see that my point is circular . while I wouldn't describe a chimp as being a moral being I would argue that man becoming a moral being was a gradual one in line with the development of man so at no point could a god have created a moral being hence the term fall being meaningless , man didnt fall at any point.

But what evidence or basis do you have for arguing that becoming a moral being was a gradual process? Do you have a single piece of actual evidence to support that belief?

You suppose that it happened that way, and your supposition is based on your non-belief in God. If you believed that an omnipotent God existed then there would be no reason to suppose that morality was not conferred in an instant.

So, in effect, your argument is as follows: "If, like me, you reject the existence and possible intervention of God, then morality developed gradually. If morality developed gradually, then at no point did God create a moral being. If God did at no point create a moral being, then the Fall did not take place. If the Fall did not take place, then that constitutes a valid argument in the Atheism/Existence of God thread."

If we boil that down to the initial premise and conclusion, then we are left with: "If you start off by assuming the non-existence of God, then that becomes an argument against the existence of God."

Circle.

orubiru · 18-03-2015 07:07PM

Cen taurus wrote: »

You can go into any prison in the land and most prisoners will tell you they are innocent. They had no choice, they were providing for their families, great family men don't you know, and they were just looking out for their families and getting the other guy before he got them. The type of people who commit crimes rarely feel any guilt for them, they will always rationalise it. Sin is no different, and it's a pleasurable addiction, it heaps one on top of the other "I wasn't going too fast, she was asking for it, she was in the middle of the road". Anything can be justified. Ask the bankers and developers that placed their debts onto the ordinary people of Ireland to pay. The only crime in their minds was getting caught. Their vice, money, is their God, and they are slaves to their vices. They particularly hate anyone or anything telling them they might be wrong, from Gardaí to Christianity. Christ was crucified for telling the truth.

Scripture is clear and consistent the whole way through that the penalty, consequences, and wages of sin, is always death, physical and worse, eternal spiritual death.

But the majority of people in the land have never been to prison and will never go to prison.

Obviously I can't deny that some people, bankers etc, do things that are bad and other people do things that would indeed be described as evil.

However, does that apply to humanity as a whole? Are we all sinners? Did we really choose evil over good? I look around and I don't see it. I think that the good far outweighs the bad and I think its really quite false to say that man chose evil. Some individuals, yes. In general, we are actually pretty good, I'd say.

I agree with the other poster, Silverharp. They are looking at it from an evolutionary point of view but I think, even if you look at it from a moral point of view, there was no "fall" of man.

We are not fallen beings, if anything we are rising and becoming better people with every generation.

orubiru · 18-03-2015 07:16PM

Nick Park wrote: »

But what evidence or basis do you have for arguing that becoming a moral being was a gradual process? Do you have a single piece of actual evidence to support that belief?

You suppose that it happened that way, and your supposition is based on your non-belief in God. If you believed that an omnipotent God existed then there would be no reason to suppose that morality was not conferred in an instant.

So, in effect, your argument is as follows: "If, like me, you reject the existence and possible intervention of God, then morality developed gradually. If morality developed gradually, then at no point did God create a moral being. If God did at no point create a moral being, then the Fall did not take place. If the Fall did not take place, then that constitutes a valid argument in the Atheism/Existence of God thread."

If we boil that down to the initial premise and conclusion, then we are left with: "If you start off by assuming the non-existence of God, then that becomes an argument against the existence of God."

Circle.

I don't get it. Are you suggesting that God "imprinted" morality onto Man at some arbitrary point in the past?

Or are you just saying that nobody can prove that it didn't happen?

I don't think that proving Man somehow "evolved" his morality would disprove the existence of God. It would cast doubt on the historical reality of the Adam and Eve in the Garden of Eden story. I don't think anyone was claiming the story as anything more than just a story though, right?

I really feel like you are attempting to "debunk" Silverharp's points when you dont really have to.

Why not tell us where you think morality came from then. Was it non-existent one day and God just came along and gave it to one or two humams, or all humans, or what?

I genuinely don't know what you believe here?

marienbad · 18-03-2015 08:03PM

Nick Park wrote: »

Oh, really? I was having a discussion with silverharp about general and widely shared Christian doctrines, such as Creation and the Fall, and then you suddenly interjected with this:

So you switched the topic to that of my beliefs. Then you followed it up with this:

If you disagree with something that I post, then specify it and address it. To his credit, even though we hold differing viewpoints, that is what silverharp is doing.

But your harping on by you, not about anything that I have posted, but about some unspecified belief of mine that supposedly contradicts science, is not reasonable or rational debate. This is a discussion forum, not the Spanish Inquisition or the thought police.

Attack the post, not the poster. If you disagree with something I post then that's grand, but you have no business claiming that I somehow have to justify my beliefs to you.

This is getting ridiculous at this stage ,this is an open thread any poster is entitled to comment whenever and on whatever they like , so get over yourself .

And there is no switching of topics, just the application of common sense , only you know your beliefs so it makes more sense for you to demonstrate where they do or don't agree with commonly accepted scientific facts .

If you can't or won't ,fine just say so .

As for attacking the poster , Matthew 7.4 again methinks

Atheism/Existence of God Debates (Part 2)

Comments