|
|
Drakon-Deus
Undefeatable Hero
Nixonite
|
posted April 09, 2013 07:50 PM |
|
|
You lost me.
Bad phrasing by me, I could not care less about Islam. I know it exists and all, but I'm not interested in it and I've said why.
____________
Horses don't die on a dog's wish.
|
|
Seraphim
Supreme Hero
Knowledge Reaper
|
|
posted April 09, 2013 10:40 PM |
|
|
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z1BzP1wr234
I wonder how theist reason with that video. Please theists, watch it and then come back and tell me how you reason with the arguments there.
It is certainly presented in a good manner.
____________
"Science is not fun without cyanide"
|
|
Tsar-Ivor
Promising
Legendary Hero
Scourge of God
|
|
posted April 09, 2013 11:01 PM |
|
|
Teheehe, so funny how single-minded certain atheists are: rape is bad, murder is bad et cetera. Sure I agree from hindsight, but god has a far better vantage point to judge the situation, god isn't human, and giving him a human's logic is inane.
Giving god your personal definition of what's good or bad is equally inane.
You don't have to believe in god to realize that there's no such thing as good or bad, it all depends on how you view a given situation, as a curse or a gift. Like the concept of a glass being half full or half empty.
____________
"No laughs were had. There is only shame and sadness." Jenny
|
|
Hobbit
Supreme Hero
|
|
posted April 09, 2013 11:12 PM |
|
|
|
Seraphim
Supreme Hero
Knowledge Reaper
|
|
posted April 09, 2013 11:47 PM |
|
Edited by Seraphim at 23:51, 09 Apr 2013.
|
Quote:
but god has a far better view
Either you are trolling or need some critical thinking lessoons.
I am not going to spoil it for others. I am sure that 100% of all theists will not spot the dilemma. Actually, there is no dilemma to be discovered, its discussed by the narrative and let me guess, theists will not even hear the narrative.
Turns out that Religion is like self-induced OCD + Autism.
I am wondering if there is anyway to communicate with theists because logic, a common language dont cut it. Perhaps sign language would work.
____________
"Science is not fun without cyanide"
|
|
Tsar-Ivor
Promising
Legendary Hero
Scourge of God
|
|
posted April 09, 2013 11:59 PM |
|
|
Not sure why yer using one theist to judge all, maybe tis not I who is devoid of intelligence or common sense.
You ought to deal with your aggressive attitude before you even consider to have a discussion on anything or with anybody. I am not your little play thing, I watched 2 min of the video and turned it off, I don't care if the conclusion is somehow different from what I watched, I frankly don't have the time investment to entertain your crap.
Just an fyi, my comment shouldn't be viewed as a response to the video, I advise that you take it out of the context of your link.
____________
"No laughs were had. There is only shame and sadness." Jenny
|
|
Drakon-Deus
Undefeatable Hero
Nixonite
|
|
posted April 10, 2013 06:09 AM |
|
|
I agree with everything Tsar said on the matter.
____________
Horses don't die on a dog's wish.
|
|
Seraphim
Supreme Hero
Knowledge Reaper
|
|
posted April 10, 2013 06:17 AM |
|
Edited by Seraphim at 06:37, 10 Apr 2013.
|
And I could not care less about what you both think because its spam if it does not add to the discussion and its spam if its answers like "I agree".
So,the theists final step is to go away or throw another non-sequitor. Dont like my rhetoric? I dont like your either or the rhetoric of any theist for that matter.Why? Lots and lots of Non-sequitors.
Throwing a bunch of verses does not add to a discussion except that it is spam. Wanna show a source? Ok. But dont throw that when it adds nothing to the discussion.
Since both of you bailed out, it does not matter anyway. My earlier post was not based just on one theist.
The dilemma was:
Is it to God more important to safeguard the freewill or the will of the rapist to rape
Or
The womens freewill or will not to be raped. The inaction of god is siding with the rapists, which makes god malevolent. Again, this makes the belief in such a God redundant.
Whatever, with a dilemma like this, I bet Elodin will come aroind and throw another bunch of Bible verses to prove me wrong, which of course is a Non-Sequitor. Why? Because "God preaches Love" or "God will punish the evil" or "God Rewards the meek" does not help in any shape of form the situation above. The video makes it clear that HELL is just pure human tit for tat need for revenge. The evil doer must suffer forever! Just like tit for tat or lex talionis, its there to satiate the human need for revenge.
This discussions get heated because there is no compromise and to behonest: Throwing some bible verses or any other verses from another religion, do not solve the dilemma.
Question for those around:
Would you disclose your beliefs in public whatever they may be?
____________
"Science is not fun without cyanide"
|
|
Drakon-Deus
Undefeatable Hero
Nixonite
|
|
posted April 10, 2013 06:42 AM |
|
|
We "bailed out" because you are unnecessarily aggresive.
____________
Horses don't die on a dog's wish.
|
|
Zenofex
Responsible
Legendary Hero
Kreegan-atheist
|
|
posted April 10, 2013 08:15 AM |
|
|
Quote:
Teheehe, so funny how single-minded certain atheists are: rape is bad, murder is bad et cetera. Sure I agree from hindsight, but god has a far better vantage point to judge the situation, god isn't human, and giving him a human's logic is inane.
Giving god your personal definition of what's good or bad is equally inane.
The funny part is that you claim what god isn't (human) like you actually know for certain. This jabber works both ways, you know.  Besides, the very creation myth claims that the man was created in God's image, so how do you know that his "psychology" is vastly different?
Quote:
You don't have to believe in god to realize that there's no such thing as good or bad, it all depends on how you view a given situation, as a curse or a gift. Like the concept of a glass being half full or half empty.
Erm... what? If you believe in (the Christian) God, you also fully believe that there are such things as good and evil. That's the point of the whole religion, lad.
|
|
artu
Promising
Undefeatable Hero
My BS sensor is tingling again
|
|
posted April 10, 2013 09:02 AM |
|
|
Quote:
Teheehe, so funny how single-minded certain atheists are: rape is bad, murder is bad et cetera. Sure I agree from hindsight, but god has a far better vantage point to judge the situation, god isn't human, and giving him a human's logic is inane.
Giving god your personal definition of what's good or bad is equally inane.
You don't have to believe in god to realize that there's no such thing as good or bad, it all depends on how you view a given situation, as a curse or a gift. Like the concept of a glass being half full or half empty.
Well, you would be quite consistent if you weren't addressing him as the writer/inspiration of some very anthropomorphic books with some very human and judgmental rules. Calling the video maker single-minded while giving him the most repeated, cliche answer (it's even mentioned in the previous page of this thread -07:42 AM) is quite ironic. After all, his objection is anthropomorphic, only because your Abrahamic god he's trashing is so.
And how is hell half-full in your "interpretation"
|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted April 10, 2013 09:28 AM |
|
|
Seraphim, I disagree with your conclusion.
Logically and philosophically spoken, good and evil only exist because there is this "free will" idea. Without free will, good and evil doesn't exist, because there is no responsibility: animals don't seem to have free will in that sense: a carnivorous animals cannot decide to have mercy on its prey or something like that.
So without free will - without OPTIONS - we would just be automatons doing what we are programmed to do, which would make all discussions unnecessary, since there wasn't anything to discuss.
So free will can't be the point in question.
Instead the question would have to be - should God have done something to avoid "suffering of the innocent" and so on? Some magical insurance?
A wee bit of thinking shows, that this makes no sense, because it would make actions meaningless. Save someone out of a harmful situation? Why? Nothing can happen anyway, since there is magic insurance. Which means, that since nothing untoward can happen, THAT thing will completely lose its meaning: people, using free will, would be able to try out everything just to see the miracle saves happen.
In the end good/evil or good/bad are two sides of the same medal, and there are either both or none. You cannot eliminate evil and keep good, because without evil good loses all meaning. (The same is true with happiness and unhappiness, mind you).
The problem is a different one: the world and humanity are what they are because of the limitations humans have to put up with: long learning curve, short lifespan, no information except those they have secured themselves, accidents, death, desaster, violence, abuse, stupidity. Uncertainty and Fear. A fundamental loneliness that can be overcome only very rarely. Think about how HARSH life must have been at the dawn of civilization. How hard it still was at the time of the high cultures of the ancient times. How abysmally insecure and Spartan it was in the Middle Ages except for a chosen few. The BASICS of life and death are grim - that's what the Bible starts with: there WAS paradise, but humans lost it.
From my point of view the problem is another one: if God exists, he just expects a lot, even though he leaves us alone: It starts with Adam and Eve. They made a mistake, he casts them out and then frowns upon them, because things go down the drain, because of see above. That's somewhat silly - what did he expect? I mean, they didn't do what he wanted from the start, so why would they do it after they were cast out and had to live a harsh life?
Eventually he is so pissed with them, that he eradicates them except a second Adam and Eve for a restart, but apparently, nothing has changed because see above. And then he sends his son and expects that this will change everything? See above.
What is missing, if he's supposed to be a "father" is that he makes his presence feel. That's what fathering is all about, right? Oozing this aura of protection for the children, making them feel secure to be able to try things and prove themselves to eventually become a responsible grown-up. Supposedly, the devil is doing it all the time, albeit with a different agenda. So what's wrong with god? I'll tell you: he is a lousy father - and a single parent at that, making things even worse.
I don't think we owe him for this kind of parental education and guidance.
Now, I don't think ANY halfway responsible father, single parent or not, would act that way, especially not being a "caring" god - which simply means, that we can safely conclude this specific being does not exist.
Human logic? Well, he made us in his image, so it is written - it should be his logic as well, otherwise he taught us crap, yet again, right?
|
|
artu
Promising
Undefeatable Hero
My BS sensor is tingling again
|
|
posted April 10, 2013 09:49 AM |
|
|
I think the whole question of "free will or not" is misplaced as people take it as a dilemma of having free will or becoming mindless robots. Imagine an alternative universe where every individual irresistibly wanted to kill their wife, rape their children, then blow their our brains out and they only stop themselves because to do these things are a sin. Now imagine, one of them comes up and says "why do I have this urge to rape my children, wouldn't it be just easier if we were created differently." Now imagine the others telling him how important it is to make that choice and having the free will to do so etc etc.
The alternative to free will is not being a plant. We could have easily been created as individuals with a mind and decisions, without the urge to do bad things. It's like the difference between the ethics of Aristotales and Kant.
Aristotales: The better man is the one who doesn't even wish to steal even when he has the perfect opportunity.
Kant: The better man is the one who wishes to steal but who holds himself because he overcame his urges with his reason and used strong will.
|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted April 10, 2013 09:59 AM |
|
|
There is no urge to do bad things!
As there is no urge to do good things. As far as I know there is only the urge to survive and the urge to reproduce, and even them are not 100% hard-coded, but can be restrained and even overcome.
And that's ignoring the fact that "bad things" and "good things" would need a thorough definition first.
|
|
artu
Promising
Undefeatable Hero
My BS sensor is tingling again
|
|
posted April 10, 2013 10:10 AM |
|
Edited by artu at 10:12, 10 Apr 2013.
|
Quote:
There is no urge to do bad things!
As there is no urge to do good things. As far as I know there is only the urge to survive and the urge to reproduce, and even them are not 100% hard-coded, but can be restrained and even overcome.
Well, the abstract definitions of good and bad are man made, I'll give you that. But every high mammal that lives in groups develops some kind of social behavior code where some things are considered good and some bad. Evolutionary anthropology tends to focus all on the surviving part as you just did. (Groups who abuse their children couldn't survive). I'd say sophisticated abstract thinking and utilitarianism (not the 19th century movement, I use the word in a more general way) had a lot to do with it too.
|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted April 10, 2013 10:31 AM |
|
|
So? There is still no urge to do bad things.
There is only a grey area of clashing individual and social interests and the problem of sicknesses, dysfunctions and so on - the fact that specimens of life are imperfect. This however, is necessary for evolution, otherwise there were no mutations. So perfection is a concept debatable even in theory, because it is an open question whether perfection can even exist except as a rather vague concept.
|
|
artu
Promising
Undefeatable Hero
My BS sensor is tingling again
|
|
posted April 10, 2013 10:43 AM |
|
Edited by artu at 11:04, 10 Apr 2013.
|
Quote:
So? There is still no urge to do bad things.
There is only a grey area of clashing individual and social interests and the problem of sicknesses, dysfunctions and so on
And in everyday talk we call that bad. If it's a matter of precision to you, I can rearrange the sentence as:
The alternative to free will is not being a plant. We could have easily been created as individuals with a mind and decisions, without the urge to do things that are in the grey area of clashing individual and social interests and the problem of sicknesses, dysfunctions and so on 
Edit: And don't forget that the argument is presented to theists who DO believe in an absolute good and bad and defend the existence of bad by free will, proclaiming we would be robots without it.
|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted April 10, 2013 11:15 AM |
|
|
Quote:
We could have easily been created as individuals with a mind and decisions, without the urge to do things that are in the grey area of clashing individual and social interests and the problem of sicknesses, dysfunctions and so on
That's a rather silly claim with no more substance than "God exists", based solely on the abused "all-powerful" point, that claims, "if God is all-powerful, it means, he should be able to do the impossible, which is of course nonsense, because it would mean he would have had to make different "laws of nature" his creation is guided by. In this case he would have had to solve the general contradictions
1) allowing free will and somehow avoid all clashes of interest and
2) creating the perfect creature, but still allowing them "evolutionary development", lest they don't become completely static, while still maintaining perfection.
Absolute terms like "all-powerful" and "all-knowing" and so on destroy the fundamental workings of logic (and it has been shown that logic is error-free only if terms and variables are well-defined which they are not; Russel Paradox is an example: The "set containing all sets" is an example for a term that has its contradiction already in its definition).
In any case it amounts to the demand to get the good without the bad and the evil, and that's just as impossible as having negative charge without positive. If there was, by necessity it would just leave "charge" which was neither positive nor negative.
|
|
artu
Promising
Undefeatable Hero
My BS sensor is tingling again
|
|
posted April 10, 2013 11:20 AM |
|
Edited by artu at 12:36, 10 Apr 2013.
|
Oh, there would still be negative, just no hellish things. We are the alternative universe to where every one feels like Ted Bundy for example.
Edit: 20 post limit reached.
Quote:
I can't follow you.
Take the first example written before all the "what is the definition of bad" stuff, it is written to show that the "excuse of free will" is not valid to justify THIS level of suffering. (Of course, you have to believe in a just God for it to make sense, it is written to people who claim there is such an entity). Now imagine an alternative universe where everyone have the urges of Ted Bundy and it's a sin to kill young girls. When their atheist Ted says "why does God give us this urge to murder young women and then prohibit us to do so, the Ted Bundy priest answers, because of free will. You see where I'm getting at?
Edit 2: Reply to JJ's edit below.
What survival? The alternative to free will is an all time happy, eternal heaven. We're not kicked out remember. We won't have free will, but we will have minds and decisions. We'll still choose who to spend time with, what to enjoy etc etc. And if you come with the dialectic logic of good can't exist without bad (which actually applies to any ideal heaven), we'll have negativity enough to value heaven.
IF the alternative is all-time-happy heaven, free will is overrated because the alternative to free will is not being a mindless robot.
That is the idea.
|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted April 10, 2013 11:25 AM |
|
|
I can't follow you.
EDIT: I don't think that the dilemma is valid, because free will is a principle, not a privilege. The CAPACITY of good and evil and therefore suffering is unlimited, though, since free will is basically unlimited either.
It's like with forces. They can be used constructive and destructive. Or a tool. A hammer is a pretty useful tool when constructing things from wood and nails, but you can also use it to bash someone's skull in. No one has an URGE to do so, though.
So, IF someone uses it that way (or rapes a child or whatever the big evil is), the question is WHY.
Do you think humans should have - like good robots - something like a failsafe, short-circuiting them when they attempted to act that way?
That would be bad for survival, don't you think?
|
| |
|
|
This thread is pages long: 
