America doesn’t need more God. It needs more atheists.

[jj3jordan 2,061]

10 hours ago, homersapien said:

You prove my point with that response.  Thanks.

You’re welcome.

[homersapien 11,460]

12 hours ago, auburnatl1 said:

Think of a novel - the author often utilizes “Bob thought to himself” - inner intent and deeper thinking not shown explicitly. Then there’s dialog , the next best thing for establishing intent - there’s some of that in the Bible but proportionally  not much. Most of it is a history book format. 

If you can read “the mind of god” from that  - you’re really good.

Why did god create the universe, in the design that he did (ie with suffering), and make it purely about faith? Ect ect 

It’s all about the whys.

Well, I thought the full context of my intended meaning of "knowing the mind of God" was obvious, but I guess not.  So let me expound:

The comparison was between a belief that given passages in bible are (literally) the "word of God" to "knowing God's mind" (regarding that passage).  My thesis is there is no difference.

Let's pick a random example:  "Israel has a covenant with God - they are Gods chosen people" (I am of course paraphrasing the idea.) 

If one truly believes that portion of the Old Testament literally represents the word of God, that necessarily means one purports to know/understand the mind of God for that particular issue, by definition. 

If God said it, He thinks it, by definition.

The same would be true for any other particular issue that is believed to be defined by the literal "word of God". 

I did not mean to imply the person knows the mind of God pertaining to other issues that are not addressed by "His words" in the bible, such as "motivation" or "why". 

So, you are expanding the context of "knowing Gods mind" to issues beyond "His words" in the bible.  I didn't mean to suggest or infer that.

Again, I thought the limited context was inherently obvious. After all, the actual comparison is between the belief that a certain passage in the bible is literally God's words and knowing Gods mind on that particular issue, defined by "God's words".

You ask the questions why did God create the universe? Why did he create suffering? 

Assuming these are issues that are not directly addressed in the bible, the only possible response - by anyone - is "I don't know".  This is true even for the person who believes the bible represents God's literal words (thoughts) because God provided no words or thoughts on that question/issue.

More to the point, those questions have no relevance to my thesis, since there are no "Gods words" defining them in the bible.

But if there did exist such a passage in the bible, the "God's words" believer would respond with "God said it" which is another way of saying they knew God's mind on that issue.  If God said it, He thinks it, by definition.

It's probably pointless to reiterate that, IMO, believing mythological passages in the Torah, written by an ancient Jewish men, passed down through tradition and translated through various languages for centuries are literally the words of God is highly irrational, but then religious faith is irrational, by definition.

https://iep.utm.edu/relig-ep/

The real danger is in how such beliefs are applied to real world politics. (Which is one reason I chose "Gods chosen people" as an example.)

Edited November 1, 2023 by homersapien

[homersapien 11,460]

4 hours ago, Aufan59 said:

I was just stating that it is selfish to worship evil in exchange for reward.

 

Speaking of "worshiping evil", how about the new speaker of the house? 

 He uses the bible to justify evil.

Mike Johnson is a pro-gun Christian nationalist. Yes, be afraid.

By Kate Cohen

 

The day after he was elected speaker of the House, which was also the day after 18 people were shot to death in Lewiston, Maine, Rep. Mike Johnson (R-La.) smoothly executed the rhetorical three-point turn that Republicans often use after mass shootings: (1) invoke prayer; (2) declare that now is not the time for politics; and (3) dismiss the foolish notion that gun violence is related to guns. To that point, Johnson told Sean Hannity, “At the end of the day, it’s, the problem is the human heart.”

In a statement, the Biden administration rejected “the offensive accusation that gun crime is uniquely high in the United States because of Americans’ ‘hearts’” and instead blamed congressional Republicans’ fealty to gun industry lobbyists.

No doubt gun industry donations have shaped Republicans’ uncompromising position on gun-control legislation. But there’s another force at work here, too.

The House will ignore calls to ban assault weapons — a ban the majority of Americans want — not only because its new speaker is a Republican but also because he is a Christian nationalist.

A Christian nationalist is someone who, like Johnson, believes the United States is a Christian nation and does not believe in what Johnson dismisses as the “so-called ‘separation of church and state.’”

Indeed, Johnson got right to work mixing church and state in his first speech after he won the speakership.

“I believe that scripture, the Bible is very clear: that God is the one that raises up those in authority,” he said from the pulpit — er, the House rostrum. “And I believe that God has ordained and allowed each one of us to be brought here for this specific moment.”

Johnson must have been so surprised when God brought together a majority to pass the Respect for Marriage Act last year! He himself voted no, of course, since, as he once opined, “Experts project that homosexual marriage is the dark harbinger of chaos and sexual anarchy that could doom even the strongest republic.”

Experts project that this kind of nonsense will spew from the Capitol now that the most powerful man in Congress is someone who has said that “every Christian should seek to bring industry, government and society as a whole under the sway of the principles of righteousness,” as Johnson told a campaign rally — er, a Shreveport, La., congregation, in 2016.

For Johnson, those principles include protecting not just fertilized eggs and children at risk of learning that gay people exist but also guns. Especially guns.

“At the end of the day, we have to protect the right of the citizens to protect themselves,” he told Hannity, “and that’s the Second Amendment.”

This should surprise no one. According to a 2018 study by the sociologists Andrew L. Whitehead, Landon Schnabel and Samuel L. Perry, “Americans who desire that religion, specifically Christianity, be officially promoted in the public sphere are deeply opposed to federal gun control laws.”

You see, Christian nationalists believe that the right to bear arms is not merely a constitutional right; it’s a God-given right. A 2021 survey Perry and a colleague conducted found that “among Whites who said America should be a Christian nation, more than 4 in 10 named the right to keep and bear arms as the most important right. Not freedom of speech. Not even freedom of religion. Gun rights.”

Why? Because they think violence is good.

In “The Flag and the Cross,” Perry’s book with Philip S. Gorski, the authors show that the higher White people rate on the Christian-nationalist scale, the more likely they are to agree with the notion of “righteous violence” — specifically that “the best way to stop bad guys with guns is to have good guys with guns.”

Those with a casual knowledge of Christian theology might have trouble squaring this pro-violence stance with Jesus’ reported instruction to “turn to them the other cheek.”

Johnson has an answer for that. “This is not someone’s personally affronting you or saying something horrible about you to turn your other cheek and forgive them,” he told that Shreveport congregation. “We’re talking about the very survival of the truth in our nation.”

He went on: “We serve the Lion of Judah, not some sort of namby-pamby little king. … ‘Our weapons are for pulling down strongholds’ — this doesn’t sound like a namby-pamby gospel.”

No. It doesn’t sound namby-pamby. It sounds like exactly the sort of ideology that might encourage rioters, who were told Christianity was under threat, to charge the Capitol on Jan. 6, 2021, carrying twin symbols of Jesus and guns.

“We can charge the very gates of hell and we must,” Johnson has preached.

On the same day he became House speaker and 18 Mainers were gunned down with a weapon that most Americans want outlawed, the nonpartisan Public Religion Research Institute released a survey about threats to democracy in advance of the 2024 election. It found growing support for political violence, especially among people who believe that the United States is a Christian nation, that the country has changed for the worse since the 1950s and that the 2020 election was stolen from Donald Trump.

Is charging the gates of hell a figure of speech? Will Johnson fight like a lion by genially ignoring calls to bring a gun-control bill to a vote? Or should Americans, accustomed to enduring political inaction when it comes to guns, begin to fear something even worse?

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2023/11/01/mike-johnson-christian-nationalism-guns-political-violence/

 

 

 

[NolaAuTiger 3,295]

11 minutes ago, homersapien said:

Experts project that this kind of nonsense will spew from the Capitol

"Experts"

Hahaha. What a stupid article. Thanks for the laugh. 

[SaltyTiger 7,870]

4 minutes ago, NolaAuTiger said:

"Experts"

Hahaha. What a stupid article. Thanks for the laugh. 

You waded through the initial statement and title to the article? Impressive counselor!

Edited November 1, 2023 by SaltyTiger

[homersapien 11,460]

12 minutes ago, NolaAuTiger said:

"Experts"

Hahaha. What a stupid article. Thanks for the laugh. 

I also thought it was pretty funny the way they mocked the new speaker (the part you left out):

"Johnson must have been so surprised when God brought together a majority to pass the Respect for Marriage Act last year! He himself voted no, of course, since, as he once opined, “Experts project that homosexual marriage is the dark harbinger of chaos and sexual anarchy that could doom even the strongest republic.”

[SaltyTiger 7,870]

1 hour ago, homersapien said:

The real danger is in how such beliefs are applied to real world politics. (Which is one reason I chose "Gods chosen people" as an example.)

The rejection of God by the Israelites is what the Old Testament is about. Without it there would be no New Testament. 

Regardless of how nasty, vile, and unchristian Israel can be there has always been a remnant and the everlasting covenant remains. 
 

Can understand your concerns over the political influences. Maybe we should just step aside and let God handle the situation.
 

 

[Shoney'sPonyBoy 350]

On 10/27/2023 at 10:20 AM, Aufan59 said:

 

Quote

You're getting into a debate about the definition of morality, which is not my intention nor is it required for the point I was making. 

Of course it is.  I don't mean to be insulting, but that's frankly a ridiculous statement.  The post I originally replied to was basically saying that anybody who believes in God is evil.  To act like morality is irrelevant to that statement is kind of absurd.

I

Quote

nstead, I start a point of presumed agreement: that rape, genocide, torture, etc. are especially immoral (evil).  If you agree with that statement, then logically an all powerful god that created rape, genocide and torture is also especially immoral (evil). 

But surely you realize that it kind of matters what the definition of the word "evil" is to you when you adopt that sort of justification for calling someone evil.  Because I have a different definition of the word than you...so do the strong majority of people around the world and in our own country.  

When asked what your definition was, you replied (paraphrase) "societally unpopular."  I guess that makes atheism itself evil—so fundamentalists who call you evil for your atheism are correct according to your own definition of the word—but that's a discussion for another time.

And here's why it matters:  The modified "Problem of Evil Trilemma" argument you are attempting to make falls apart precisely because one has to define what evil means in order for the syllogism to work., and that requires presupposing there there either is or is not a transcendent moral authority above the universe.  If you presuppose that there is, then the definition of evil is necessarily, "Whatever is in opposition to that transcendent authority," in which case the syllogism immediately shatters, or you have to presuppose that there is not, in which case you can pick any definition you like, but whatever it is is going to be meaningless in the context of an all-powerful Uncaused First Cause.

So if all you really mean by "God is evil" is that God is responsible for happenings that the majority of people in a given society at a given point in time don't like or think are "wrong," then fine.  Big deal.  So what?  That means that God was "evil" in 1865 for allowing people to sneak slaves to freedom through the Underground Railroad.  What a rotten bastard He was for doing that, eh?  He wouldn't become "evil" for allowing slavery to exist in the first place until the majority of society felt that way, some time in the future.  Then he would be absolved of being "evil" for allowing them to escape, but condemned for allowing slavery.

So if you're going to stick to that definition, o.k., you win, but you didn't win much.  Because that doesn't mean God is really evil in any sense that matters.  Certainly not in any sense that comments on quality of character or inherent divine goodness.  Just relative to the whims of the day.  Surely you realize that there's not one thing on your list that wasn't considered acceptable in society at one time and therefore not "evil" by your own definition.

 

On 10/27/2023 at 10:20 AM, Aufan59 said:

 

Quote

To go further, we don't even need to agree on what specific things are evil.

You mean other than the specific list you typed?

 

Quote

 We only need to agree that evil does indeed exist.

Nope.  We have to define it first in order to KNOW whether we really agree that it exists.  If I say I believe in UFOs and you agree, then we find out through discussion that by the term "UFO" I only mean secret military aircraft not known to the public and you only mean spacecraft piloted by alien beings from other planets, then we do not agree, do we?

Quote

 If you believe evil exists, and believe in an all powerful god that created everything, then you believe in an evil god. 

See above.  I believe that society deems certain things acceptable and other things not acceptable.  I can easily observe that those things change...some things that didn't used to be acceptable society now deems acceptable and vice versa.  So if all you're saying is that, and God created the world, so he created the eventuality of society adopting (ever changing) opinions on the desirability of actions, and the word you want to use to describe that is "evil," then sure, God's evil as hell.  Wow.  That's some win you got there.

Quote

I understand to refute this point you need to create a debate on morality, to give an all powerful god some wiggle room or ambiguity as an excuse for creating evil.

I'm not refuting it.  I'm agreeing with you.  But I'm doing so based on what you've actually said, not your attempts to have it both ways, which is what atheism ends up being a lifelong exercise in.  We both know that the whole reason you would even take the time to type that stuff out on a message board is because you think it's significant that you can prove that God must be "evil."  That it says something meaningful about His character or goodness.  But when asked what that actually means, your definition of "evil" is nothing God or anyone else should be afraid of being called.  Like I said above, at one time people who helped slaves escape slavery were considered "evil" by society, as they were seen as taking property that didn't belong to them.  Any moral innovator throughout history was evil according to you.  Jesus was evil for telling people who lived according to "an eye for an eye" to turn the other cheek.  Ghandi was evil for teaching non-violence to a violent society.  So was MLK.  They were all three assassinated because their "evil" views were so incompatible with the societies they lived in.

Gay people are still overwhelmingly considered evil in the Middle East, and according to your definition of the word, that makes them actually evil in their society.  So, sure, God's "evil," and so am I because I believe in Him.  Big deal.  I'm in some stellar company on that one.

Now, there's one of the two of us who has attempted to avoid the discussion since it began.  But it's not me.

On 10/27/2023 at 10:20 AM, Aufan59 said:

 

Quote

 

I am not outraged or scandalized by the universe acting like the universe. 

 

However I would be outraged if the universe acted like this at the hands of all powerful creator.  Luckily I have no logical reason to believe that there is an all powerful creator - and as you point out, no emotion reason to believe it either.

 

What you actually have no logical reason to believe is that life is entirely materialistic.  And I never said you had no emotional reason to believe in an all-powerful creator.  That's not what I have said at all.  That statement makes me wonder whether you have understood anything I have actually said.

I will say that your anger at a God you claim does not exist is revealing.  You might want to ponder what it might mean.

I genuinely don't believe in the Easter Bunny or the Boogie Man.  Therefore,  I don't feel any emotion at all toward either one.

 

On 10/27/2023 at 10:20 AM, Aufan59 said:

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Edited November 1, 2023 by Shoney'sPonyBoy

[Shoney'sPonyBoy 350]

I'm going to go ahead and respond to what I anticipate will be next, which will be another attempt to logically have things both ways.  I suspect the next thing will be, "So you don't think someone who facilitates torture rape should be ashamed of being called out for it?"  Which presupposes that torture-rape contains some element that makes it bad beyond your given definition of "evil."

Because the obvious answer given your definition is, not if the only reason it's considered bad is that it happens to be societally unpopular at this point in time in our society, no.

Now, we both know that's not the only reason it's considered bad.  But that's the only reason YOU gave for something being bad.

You can amend that definition now if you'd like, but according to the logical conclusions of the conditions you've claimed, nothing much anybody does should be very morally concerning to anybody.  It might be of practical concern as relates to self-interest, but not true moral concern.

Edited November 1, 2023 by Shoney'sPonyBoy

[icanthearyou 4,463]

On 10/30/2023 at 8:32 PM, SaltyTiger said:

The Christian faith is rooted from the Bible. 
 

No, Jesus is God.  Jesus is the basis of faith.

[SaltyTiger 7,870]

1 minute ago, icanthearyou said:

No, Jesus is God.  Jesus is the basis of faith.

I don’t disagree. Thank you ICHY.

[Aufan59 81]

3 hours ago, Shoney'sPonyBoy said:

I'm going to go ahead and respond to what I anticipate will be next, which will be another attempt to logically have things both ways.  I suspect the next thing will be, "So you don't think someone who facilitates torture rape should be ashamed of being called out for it?"  Which presupposes that torture-rape contains some element that makes it bad beyond your given definition of "evil."

Because the obvious answer given your definition is, not if the only reason it's considered bad is that it happens to be societally unpopular at this point in time in our society, no.

Now, we both know that's not the only reason it's considered bad.  But that's the only reason YOU gave for something being bad.

You can amend that definition now if you'd like, but according to the logical conclusions of the conditions you've claimed, nothing much anybody does should be very morally concerning to anybody.  It might be of practical concern as relates to self-interest, but not true moral concern.

I say that morality is defined by society and you turn on its head to mean morality is anything society defines.  You have confirmed why I have zero interest in debating the definition of morality with a theist.

However the UFO analogy does work.  We don’t have to agree with what UFOs are, just that an all powerful god must have created UFOs.

 

Presuming you think that UFOs are awful and should not exist, whatever that means to you in your heart and mind, then why worship a god that created UFOs?  Especially if he could create a universe without UFOs? 

 

This extends to things that might not be defined as immoral.  Malaria, child cancer, Alabama football.  Why would someone worship a god that created things that they find reprehensible?

 

Back to my original point, I agree with the original post that we need fewer of those people around, and more atheists.

Edited November 1, 2023 by Aufan59

[Gowebb11 9,388]

Anyone converted someone to “their side“ yet? 😂

[Shoney'sPonyBoy 350]

12 hours ago, Gowebb11 said:

Anyone converted someone to “their side“ yet? 😂

LOL.

Not on this topic or any other topic on an anonymous message board.  You think that's why people post on these boards?

[Shoney'sPonyBoy 350]

16 hours ago, Aufan59 said:

Quote

I say that morality is defined by society and you turn on its head to mean morality is anything society defines.

I didn't turn anything on its head.  I asked you for what you mean by "evil," you told me, and I applied logic to your definition.  You don't seem to understand what logic actually entails.  I find that common among atheists these days.

If there's some other aspect of what evil means that you left out, go ahead and amend your earlier definition.

Quote

You have confirmed why I have zero interest in debating the definition of morality with a theist.

I know I have.  Because it's a discussion you can't win.  One of a few reasons why atheism is fatally self-refuting out of the gate.  You want morality to mean something significant, but you refuse to acknowledge any significant source for it.  Like I've said all along, you want to have it both ways.  Logic (actual logic) doesn't work that way.

Quote

However the UFO analogy does work.  We don’t have to agree with what UFOs are, just that an all powerful god must have created UFOs.

I'm going to assume that's a joke.

Quote

Presuming you think that UFOs are awful and should not exist, whatever that means to you in your heart and mind, then why worship a god that created UFOs?

Because the part that you act like is a throwaway insignificant detail is the important part.  This part: " whatever that means to you in your heart and mind."  Again, this discussion started because you claimed to be using logic when you are doing everything but.  No even semi-serious logician would evaluate your proposition without defining terms. 

Also, thinking something is "awful" and thinking it shouldn't exist are two different things.

Quote

Especially if he could create a universe without UFOs?

What you mean is "especially if He could have created a physical world while still giving human beings free will."  Two things about that.

1.  That's an assumption.  Neither of us know whether it's true or not that He could have created this universe in its current form with both of those conditions intact.  To loosely quote C.S. Lewis, just because you slap the label "all-powerful" on God doesn't mean He's capable of logical contradictions.  Does being all-powerful mean that God is powerful enough to make a rock so big He can't lift it?  Exactly how would that work?  To directly quote C.S. Lewis, nonsense is still nonsense, even if you speak it about God. 

2.  According to the Christian conception of God, He IS creating a universe without pain, suffering, etc.  Once all of the rebellious have been culled and removed from the equation the imperfect will be perfected.

 

Quote

Why would someone worship a god that created things that they find reprehensible?

Because they would understand that just because THEY find something reprehensible doesn't mean it actually is.  Like I said from the outset, they understand that a Timeless Being great enough to create an entire universe probably knows a little more about what should be happening in it at any given point in time than a created being who has been around maybe a few decades and has never even seen a significant minority of one planet, let alone the vastness of the universe for all of time.  They would understand that they don't get to judge God, and to think that they could is laughably arrogant.  

Quote

Back to my original point, I agree with the original post that we need fewer of those people around, and more atheists.

Of course.  Just as long as you aren't under the delusion that your stance is based in logic.  Like I said from the beginning, you started out being commendably honest.  That the evidence doesn't matter to you and no amount of it would change your opinion.  But like almost everything you've said in this discussion, you want to say things like that but then act like they aren't true when it suits you to make some other point.  That was the truest statement you've made the whole time.

 

Edited November 2, 2023 by Shoney'sPonyBoy

[homersapien 11,460]

20 hours ago, Gowebb11 said:

Anyone converted someone to “their side“ yet? 😂

Well, it's hard to say, it's not like they'd admit it. 

[homersapien 11,460]

7 hours ago, Shoney'sPonyBoy said:

 

I provided an explanation for morality - evolutionary advantage.

And - considering we are clearly a social species - quite probable.

Edited November 2, 2023 by homersapien

[Shoney'sPonyBoy 350]

47 minutes ago, homersapien said:

I provided an explanation for morality - evolutionary advantage.

And - considering we are clearly a social species - quite probable.

I was conversing with that one poster so I missed it.

I've of course heard that argument before and I find it unconvincing as an ideological construct, and the main reason I do so is that it is that so much of what people claim is "evolutionarily advantageous" so often very debatable.  Democracy, for example.  I'm not at all sure that democracy is a net positive from a utilitarian standpoint, yet it is something that most human beings nevertheless hold as an ideal and act offended and morally outraged at the prospect of something else that is less egalitarian.  I don't think that impetus is a result of a practical survival advantage (it should be immediately obvious that everyone isn't going to have an equally valid or helpful opinion on how to survive or thrive), it clearly comes from some other impulse.  Or at the very least, we've out kicked our coverage and the impulse no longer produces the benefit, assuming it used to.

Whether I find it convincing or not, however, the problem with that construct in the context of the discussion I was having with the other poster is that it still provides no advantage over "societal popularity" in terms of a substantial basis for morality.  Because if human beings are no more than randomly electro-chemically engineered automated talking meat bags under the illusion that they are personal entities with free will that sets them apart from the rest of the universe, what moral advantage or significance is there in the species surviving?  So what if we don't survive?  No more significant than a wave in the ocean that thinks it is separate and distinct from the ocean breaking and disappearing.

[icanthearyou 4,463]

22 hours ago, Gowebb11 said:

Anyone converted someone to “their side“ yet? 😂

That is not really the point.

[homersapien 11,460]

41 minutes ago, Shoney'sPonyBoy said:

I was conversing with that one poster so I missed it.

I've of course heard that argument before and I find it unconvincing as an ideological construct, and the main reason I do so is that it is that so much of what people claim is "evolutionarily advantageous" so often very debatable.  Democracy, for example.  I'm not at all sure that democracy is a net positive from a utilitarian standpoint, yet it is something that most human beings nevertheless hold as an ideal and act offended and morally outraged at the prospect of something else that is less egalitarian.  I don't think that impetus is a result of a practical survival advantage (it should be immediately obvious that everyone isn't going to have an equally valid or helpful opinion on how to survive or thrive), it clearly comes from some other impulse.  Or at the very least, we've out kicked our coverage and the impulse no longer produces the benefit, assuming it used to.

Whether I find it convincing or not, however, the problem with that construct in the context of the discussion I was having with the other poster is that it still provides no advantage over "societal popularity" in terms of a substantial basis for morality.  Because if human beings are no more than randomly electro-chemically engineered automated talking meat bags under the illusion that they are personal entities with free will that sets them apart from the rest of the universe, what moral advantage or significance is there in the species surviving?  So what if we don't survive?  No more significant than a wave in the ocean that thinks it is separate and distinct from the ocean breaking and disappearing.

Democracy is not a result of a biochemical process - genetic mutation.

And it certainly hasn't existed long enough to confer an evolutionary advantage, even assuming there is one.  Very weak analogy. 

And there may not be a individual advantage to morality, but like I said, we are a social species. There's a collective advantage.  In fact, morality may be just as much of an advantage to an advanced social species as selfless sacrifice is to a social insect.

I don't understand the last paragraph at all other than to say it has nothing to do with nature.  I am referring solely to possible biological mechanisms or natural explanations for morality to exist.

Edited November 2, 2023 by homersapien

[Shoney'sPonyBoy 350]

1 hour ago, homersapien said:

Democracy is not a result of a biochemical process - genetic mutation.

And it certainly hasn't existed long enough to confer an evolutionary advantage, even assuming there is one.  Very weak analogy. 

And there may not be a individual advantage to morality, but like I said, we are a social species. There's a collective advantage.  In fact, morality may be just as much of an advantage to an advanced social species as selfless sacrifice is to a social insect.

I don't understand the last paragraph at all other than to say it has nothing to do with nature.  I am referring solely to possible biological mechanisms or natural explanations for morality to exist.

If materialist atheism is correct, EVERYTHING is the result of a biochemical process (or other impersonal forces acting on matter).  Our thoughts, our concepts (including democracy), our emotions, our ideas...what else could they possibly be the result of?  Again, this is atheism attempting to have it both ways.  If materialist atheism is correct, there IS no "us."  We're just part of nature (since you used that word) like air, water, rocks, bacteria, etc.  We're not separate in any way from it.  That includes our thoughts and ideas and intellectual constructs.  Will is an illusion.  Self is an illusion.  Everything about us was set at the Big Bang and all we are are the confluence of forces acting on matter arriving at a certain point in time.  That's not just part of what we are, that's ALL of what we are.  There's nothing else.  "You" don't have a thought.  There IS no "you."  Not like we conceive of, anyway.

"Democracy" is not an analogy.  It's a concrete example of (again) the logical conclusion of y'all's starting point.  What y'all want to do is claim that the nature of the universe (and therefore the nature of human beings) is limited to matter and material forces but also tacitly act and speak about us as though we're more than that or have more significance than that.  It's impossible for us to be more than that if your starting point is correct.

Therefore, it's impossible for us to matter any more than rocks, trees, molecules, etc.  The last paragraph that you claim to not understand means exactly that.  We don't matter and our actions don't matter...it doesn't matter whether we live, die, suffer, don't suffer, nurture, kill, rape, build up, tear down, survive, die out...none of that matters because none of it is any more significant than dirt washing away from a riverbank or cloud formations changing in the sky or the planet Venus revolving around the sun.  It's all simply impersonal forces acting on matter.  

What Trump does is of no consequence.  Your disgust at what Trump does is of no consequence.  If Trump starts a nuclear war that wipes out all life on the planet, that's of no consequence.  It's no more significant than world peace.

So you can indulge in such meaningless emotional exercises if your've been programmed to do so (remember, there really can't be any free will in your system, only the illusion of it), but I fail to see the benefit.  Actually, logic confirms that there can't possibly be any benefit.  Seems like a waste of energy, though.  Of course, logic also reveals that a waste of energy is also just as insignificant and meaningless...on and on and on, like an endless hall of mirrors.

Now, it's obvious why y'all don't actually live as though what you say is true.  What's amazing to me is that people can so stubbornly cling to an idea that is so obviously false that they themselves can't even live one day—hell, one hour—as though it's true.  How people can willfully (in my system people have agency and make actual choices) ignore such blatant contradictions despite having them pointed out clearly for them is beyond me.  Even academic atheists will admit everything I have said is true, yet in the very next breath they will make some statement that obviously acts as though the survival of the human race is important or that people suffering is significant in some way.

Lots of anger at God.  Only explanation I can come up with.  

Edited November 2, 2023 by Shoney'sPonyBoy

[Aufan59 81]

10 hours ago, Shoney'sPonyBoy said:

 

I guess to refresh you on logic, logic requires a premise and a conclusion.  My premise was that rape and genocide are evil.  The conclusion is that someone/something  who intentionally, knowingly and avoidably created rape and genocide is also evil.  

 

You can refute the truth of the premise or the validity of the claim.  

You agree with the premise, I agree with the premise, the whole forum agrees with the premise.  Starting with that premise is absolutely logical.

 

I think the claim is valid too.  Knowingly, intentionally and avoidably creating evil is evil.  You would apply this to logic to any other actor in any other situation, would you not?

 

You tried to refute the validity of the claim in multiple ways:

 

The first was by saying that my proposed universe with free will intact may be a logical contradiction.  This may well be, but does not mean that it was unavoidable, as it could easily be avoided by not creating the universe.

 

The second was that god may have initially created the universe without any pain, suffering, etc., but the rebellious caused that.  This is not refuting the claim, but instead refuting the premise by reducing god’s power either to know all or create, as if he made a mistake that will be corrected 

While you agree with the premise, I would say your later points are arguing against it, saying that god knows better:  “…[god] probably knows a little more about what should be happening…”

 

This is why I don’t want to have a debate on morality with a theist, because ultimately horrendous things are justified using god.  Hamas cooking babies is not only a part of god’s plan, but I am “laughably arrogant” for questioning the plan.  I prefer you stick to agreeing with the premise like you originally did - as I don’t care to debate whether rape and genocide are evil.

 

 

But since you seem to really just want a philosophical discussion about morality, I’ll throw you a bone, go ahead and describe your logical morality based on your world view like you proposed in a previous response to me.  I’ll listen!

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Aufan59 81]

17 minutes ago, Shoney'sPonyBoy said:

If materialist atheism is correct, EVERYTHING is the result of a biochemical process (or other impersonal forces acting on matter).  Our thoughts, our concepts (including democracy), our emotions, our ideas...what else could they possibly be the result of?  Again, this is atheism attempting to have it both ways.  If materialist atheism is correct, there IS no "us."  We're just part of nature (since you used that word) like air, water, rocks, bacteria, etc.  We're not separate in any way from it.  That includes our thoughts and ideas and intellectual constructs.  Will is an illusion.  Self is an illusion.  Everything about us was set at the Big Bang and all we are are the confluence of forces acting on matter arriving at a certain point in time.  That's not just part of what we are, that's ALL of what we are.  There's nothing else.  "You" don't have a thought.  There IS no "you."  Not like we conceive of, anyway.

"Democracy" is not an analogy.  It's a concrete example of (again) the logical conclusion of y'all's starting point.  What y'all want to do is claim that the nature of the universe (and therefore the nature of human beings) is limited to matter and material forces but also tacitly act and speak about us as though we're more than that or have more significance than that.  It's impossible for us to be more than that if your starting point is correct.

Therefore, it's impossible for us to matter any more than rocks, trees, molecules, etc.  The last paragraph that you claim to not understand means exactly that.  We don't matter and our actions don't matter...it doesn't matter whether we live, die, suffer, don't suffer, nurture, kill, rape, build up, tear down, survive, die out...none of that matters because none of it is any more significant than dirt washing away from a riverbank or cloud formations changing in the sky or the planet Venus revolving around the sun.  It's all simply impersonal forces acting on matter.  

What Trump does is of no consequence.  Your disgust at what Trump does is of no consequence.  If Trump starts a nuclear war that wipes out all life on the planet, that's of no consequence.  It's no more significant than world peace.

So you can indulge in such meaningless emotional exercises if your've been programmed to do so (remember, there really can't be any free will in your system, only the illusion of it), but I fail to see the benefit.  Actually, logic confirms that there can't possibly be any benefit.  Seems like a waste of energy, though.  Of course, logic also reveals that a waste of energy is also just as insignificant and meaningless...on and on and on, like an endless hall of mirrors.

Now, it's obvious why y'all don't actually live as though what you say is true.  What's amazing to me is that people can so stubbornly cling to an idea that is so obviously false that they themselves can't even live one day—hell, one hour—as though it's true.  How people can willfully (in my system people have agency and make actual choices) ignore such blatant contradictions despite having them pointed out clearly for them is beyond me.  Even academic atheists will admit everything I have said is true, yet in the very next breath they will make some statement that obviously acts as though the survival of the human race is important or that people suffering is significant in some way.

Lots of anger at God.  Only explanation I can come up with.  

What separates us from the rocks and trees is consciousness and intelligence.  I find meaningfulness from the shared experience of consciousness with others.  Just because I’m a collection of molecules with no free will doesn’t invalidate my conscious experience.

 

[Shoney'sPonyBoy 350]

4 minutes ago, Aufan59 said:

Quote

I guess to refresh you on logic, logic requires a premise and a conclusion.

And yet while those are two things required, they aren't the only two things required, are they?  Definition of terms is also required.  And a premise isn't true just because one starts with it.  It has to be supported.

To refresh YOU on the conversation, I agreed that according to your definition of the word "evil," God is evil.  Did I not?  I can copy and paste it if you'd like.

I also pointed out that according to your definition of the word "evil," God shouldn't be too worried that we just pronounced him "evil," as your definition of the word doesn't mean much of anything significant.

 

4 minutes ago, Aufan59 said:

 

Quote

You tried to refute the validity of the claim in multiple ways:

That is not true.  I agreed with your claim.  Now for the 4th time.  Let's be honest, shall we?  Agreeing with the claim and pointing out that the claim is meaningless are not the same thing.

Quote

The first was by saying that my proposed universe with free will intact may be a logical contradiction.  This may well be, but does not mean that it was unavoidable, as it could easily be avoided by not creating the universe.

No, that's not how that point came up.  Again, if you're going to just make stuff up, you don't need me for this discussion...I'm not interested in having to correct you point by point on everything.

The claim that God is evil for having created the universe at all is again unsupportable for the same reason it's unsupportable to claim that He definitely could have created our current universe with free will and no possibility for suffering.  Are people who have children evil for having had children?  You know, not every minute of their lives will be pleasurable.  They will inevitably suffer.  They might even be raped or tortured.  So are people who have them evil?  If not, why not?

Quote

The second was that god may have initially created the universe without any pain, suffering, etc., but the rebellious caused that.

Nope, I never said that.  What I said is that according to Christianity, God IS creating a universe without suffering.  I didn't say He tried, made a mistake, and tried again.  You are attempting to float that narrative.  God's creative process obviously involves evolution.  According to the Christian Bible, we're evolving toward that universe and always have been.

Quote

This is not refuting the claim, but instead refuting the premise by reducing god’s power either to know all or create, as if he made a mistake that will be corrected

Not that the "Problem of Evil" trilemma is valid for reasons already explained, but I noted something interesting in your modification of it.  The original trilemma allows for God to either be not all-good or not all-powerful.  Indulging a flawed argument for a moment, what if God's just not quite "all-powerful?"  What if He made the best universe He could?  What if he would rather have a universe with no suffering (which is what you really mean by "evil"), but couldn't figure out how to do so, so He made one with some suffering that would ultimately evolve into a universe without suffering, and all who wanted could be a part of that universe forever going forward, although they might have to suffer some along the way to get there?  That's a pretty good God, yeah?

Quote

While you agree with the premise, I would say your later points are arguing against it, saying that god knows better:  “…[god] probably knows a little more about what should be happening…”

Since you mischaracterized my earlier related statement, this one is irrelevant.

Quote

This is why I don’t want to have a debate on morality with a theist, because ultimately horrendous things are justified using god.

No, you don't want to debate with someone using logic because when logic is applied to your starting point it becomes irrefutably obvious that according to it there is no substantial such thing as a "horrendous thing."   So what if Hamas cooks babies?  Does it offend you when lightning strikes a tree?  Then why does it offend you when Hamas cooks babies?  There is no moral difference between the two if all that exists are material forces acting on matter.  If I'm wrong about that, then explain how I am wrong.  Explain how anything that anybody does is significant if human beings are what you say we are.  You haven't even attempted to do so (because you know you can't, not logically, anyway).  At this point it's time to put up or shut up.

Quote

I prefer you stick to agreeing with the premise like you originally did

 The original premise I agreed with and commended you for is that no truer statement was ever made on a discussion board than that no amount of evidence, however strong, will change your opinion.  Your mind is closed tighter than a drum.

I have also agreed that the things on your list are evil (like, actually evil, not just societally unpopular), but that is possible in my system.  It's not possible in yours.  To allow you to act like it is is to allow you to have it both ways logically, which I'm not going to do.

4 minutes ago, Aufan59 said:

 

Quote

But since you seem to really just want a philosophical discussion about morality, I’ll throw you a bone, go ahead and describe your logical morality based on your world view like you proposed in a previous response to me.  I’ll listen!

I will answer your question, but only if you can tell me how Hamas cooking babies in a universe in which there is nothing but physical forces acting on matter is in any way significant or anything that anyone (other than the babies being cooked) should care about.  You tell me that, and I will answer your question.

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Shoney'sPonyBoy 350]

7 minutes ago, Aufan59 said:

What separates us from the rocks and trees is consciousness and intelligence.  I find meaningfulness from the shared experience of consciousness with others.  Just because I’m a collection of molecules with no free will doesn’t invalidate my conscious experience.

 

And of what moral significance is consciousness and intelligence or a subjective experience?  

I get that it produces a system that creates an illusion of has self and produces an experience of having preferences, but so what?  Of what significance is that in the context of answering the question of why anyone should care what happens to you any more than rocks and trees.

And just your language reveals the attempt to have it both ways.  Intelligence and consciousness doesn't separate you from rocks and trees in a materialist universe.  They may represent more complex (illusory) physical phenomena, but so what?  They're still just the result of physical forces acting upon matter.  How does that mean your existence is any more valuable or significant than a rock's?  Why should consciousness or a subjective phenomena be protected from disruption (what we commonly call suffering) any more than any other physical phenomena?