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

[Aufan59 80]

15 minutes ago, Shoney'sPonyBoy said:

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.

 

Empathy arises from physical forces.  I feel empathy therefore I care.

[Aufan59 80]

10 minutes ago, Shoney'sPonyBoy said:

Intelligence and consciousness doesn't separate you from rocks and trees in a materialist universe. 

Of course they do.  

[auburnatl1 5,031]

50 minutes ago, Aufan59 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!

 

 

 

 

 

 

Let me try to clean up your premise or whatever it is because the god creating rape (a verb) thing hurts my head: if God created the universe (physical and its rules - from the speed of light to quarks -that govern it) and also therefore us, then why would a good creator allow into human nature the  choice to consider harming others? Add to this issue also disease, mortality, meteor strikes, ect. Anything that sucks.

Basically, why isn’t this world …heaven now? Right?

[Aufan59 80]

4 minutes ago, auburnatl1 said:

Let me try to clean up your premise or whatever it is because the god creating rape (a verb) thing hurts my head: if God created the universe (physical and its rules - from the speed of light to quarks -that govern it) and also therefore us, then why would a good creator allow into human nature the  choice to consider harming others? Add to this issue also disease, mortality, meteor strikes, ect. Anything that sucks.

Basically, why isn’t this world …heaven now? Right?

Yes this is a fair assessment.

[auburnatl1 5,031]

1 minute ago, Aufan59 said:

Yes this is a fair assessment.

Got it. According to the Bible -this lifetime is a test. Satan, choice, unfair tribulations, ect. Mortality to immortality. Obviously you don’t buy it and don’t like the test, find it cruel, and therefore believe its author to be “evil”. I would suggest you might want to consider this more deeply and broadly, but to each their own. 

Im just trying to short cut 3 more days of this.

[SaltyTiger 7,859]

23 minutes ago, auburnatl1 said:

Let me try to clean up your premise or whatever it is because the god creating rape (a verb) thing hurts my head: if God created the universe (physical and its rules - from the speed of light to quarks -that govern it) and also therefore us, then why would a good creator allow into human nature the  choice to consider harming others? Add to this issue also disease, mortality, meteor strikes, ect. Anything that sucks.

Basically, why isn’t this world …heaven now? Right?

It would be Heaven without evil. Christians believe Gods work is not complete. 

[Aufan59 80]

1 hour ago, Shoney'sPonyBoy said:

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.

Yes, I used society’s agreed upon definition of evil - as all words are defined by society.  You took the opportunity to flip this around and change my definition of evil - that anything and everything society has ever found unpopular could be considered evil.  You agreed to the premise only by arbitrarily changing the definition.  

 

1 hour ago, Shoney'sPonyBoy said:

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. 

If that universe is impossible and he knew it (all knowing), he could have not created the universe.  The point still applies.

 

1 hour ago, Shoney'sPonyBoy said:

What I said is that according to Christianity, God IS creating a universe without suffering.

And many observations show that this is false, he did create a universe with suffering.

 

 

To be honest I’ve lost some interest in this debate with you, in lieu of your other position…that you are adamant meaning cannot arise from materialism, even for the person observing their own consciousness.

 

Empathy is naturally occurring and objectively exists.  Understanding that I have a shared experience with every other conscious living thing is quite meaningful to me, and to many others.       It is also fascinating based on the complexity required, and how it manifested from nothing but a collection of molecules obeying the laws of thermodynamics.
 

[Aufan59 80]

35 minutes ago, auburnatl1 said:

Got it. According to the Bible -this lifetime is a test. Satan, choice, unfair tribulations, ect. Mortality to immortality. Obviously you don’t buy it and don’t like the test, find it cruel, and therefore believe its author to be “evil”. I would suggest you might want to consider this more deeply and broadly, but to each their own. 

Im just trying to short cut 3 more days of this.

Do you consider the test to be fair?

 

Millions of humans have lived and died not even knowing the text existed,  through no fault of their own.  
 

I can understand the glamor of passing the test and the fear of failing it, but how can you ignore the plight of those that didn’t even get to take it?

[auburnatl1 5,031]

7 minutes ago, Aufan59 said:

Do you consider the test to be fair?

 

Millions of humans have lived and died not even knowing the text existed,  through no fault of their own.  
 

I can understand the glamor of passing the test and the fear of failing it, but how can you ignore the plight of those that didn’t even get to take it?

The extreme example of your point is the people who settled Easter lsland. Most isolated place on earth and no chance of exposure to judeo Christian religion. Did they “fail”?

Personally I’m not much of an everyone who doesn’t believe as I do fails the test. Which means I’ve modified how I see the test. Again, to each their own. 

[Leftfield 2,658]

2 hours 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.

Why do you say that if we're part of nature, free will is just an illusion, and that there is no "self"? 

[SaltyTiger 7,859]

27 minutes ago, Aufan59 said:

Do you consider the test to be fair?

 

Millions of humans have lived and died not even knowing the text existed,  through no fault of their own.  
 

I can understand the glamor of passing the test and the fear of failing it, but how can you ignore the plight of those that didn’t even get to take it?

Fair is a foolish debate for true Christians and a great question from you.

Are the millions not knowing the text doomed? Not all imo.

Answer is actually in Bible when you study it.

[icanthearyou 4,463]

So,,, if god creates humanity with freewill,,, god is evil.  And,,, if god creates man as his perfectly obedient pets,,, god is evil.

Therefore,,, god is inherently evil.  Certainly verified by the concept of absolute power is absolutely corrupt.

Still, that is worldly power,,, the only power we can truly understand.  And,,, reveals the arrogance and ignorance of man.

And yet,,, this is a wonderful discussion (despite the ignorance and lack of thought).  Wonderful in the sense of revealing the character of God.  Character that would come to earth in the most humble form.  Strive to make humanity understand that He is not the king of vengence but rather, the loving father promoting peace and selflessness.  The principles of love your neighbor and, turn the other cheek are the exact opposite of evil.

I can understand defining the destruction and hypocrisy of religion as evil.  However, God is not religion.  God does not need a religion.  God is about a personal relationship, a spiritual relationship, an unconditional honest, loving relationship.  And,,, we too often pursue knowledge of religion rather than pursuing a relationship with Jesus.

 

 

[icanthearyou 4,463]

2 hours ago, SaltyTiger said:

Fair is a foolish debate for true Christians and a great question from you.

Are the millions not knowing the text doomed? Not all imo.

Answer is actually in Bible when you study it.

What does accepting Jesus really mean?  Is it merely words at an alter call or,,, does it mean living the teachings of love your neighbor, mercy, charity, turn the other cheek?

Can you proclaim Jesus but,,, not really accept Jesus?  Are those who live the teachings and principles of Jesus without proclaiming Jesus,,, accepting Jesus? 

[SaltyTiger 7,859]

9 hours ago, icanthearyou said:

What does accepting Jesus really mean?  Is it merely words at an alter call or,,, does it mean living the teachings of love your neighbor, mercy, charity, turn the other cheek?

Can you proclaim Jesus but,,, not really accept Jesus?  Are those who live the teachings and principles of Jesus without proclaiming Jesus,,, accepting Jesus? 

“Not knowing the text” thing you are saying sorta what I mean. Why quote me in expressing your feelings?

 

 

 

[icanthearyou 4,463]

1 hour ago, SaltyTiger said:

“Not knowing the text” thing you are saying sorta what I mean. Why quote me in expressing your feelings?

 

 

 

As part of the larger discussion.  Please do not take it personally.  Merely discussion.  There is no challenge, no judgement.   

[auburnatl1 5,031]

12 hours ago, icanthearyou said:

So,,, if god creates humanity with freewill,,, god is evil.  And,,, if god creates man as his perfectly obedient pets,,, god is evil.

Therefore,,, god is inherently evil.  Certainly verified by the concept of absolute power is absolutely corrupt.

Still, that is worldly power,,, the only power we can truly understand.  And,,, reveals the arrogance and ignorance of man.

And yet,,, this is a wonderful discussion (despite the ignorance and lack of thought).  Wonderful in the sense of revealing the character of God.  Character that would come to earth in the most humble form.  Strive to make humanity understand that He is not the king of vengence but rather, the loving father promoting peace and selflessness.  The principles of love your neighbor and, turn the other cheek are the exact opposite of evil.

I can understand defining the destruction and hypocrisy of religion as evil.  However, God is not religion.  God does not need a religion.  God is about a personal relationship, a spiritual relationship, an unconditional honest, loving relationship.  And,,, we too often pursue knowledge of religion rather than pursuing a relationship with Jesus.

 

 

Well thought out.

[SaltyTiger 7,859]

19 hours ago, icanthearyou said:

So,,, if god creates humanity with freewill,,, god is evil.  And,,, if god creates man as his perfectly obedient pets,,, god is evil.

Therefore,,, god is inherently evil.  Certainly verified by the concept of absolute power is absolutely corrupt.

Still, that is worldly power,,, the only power we can truly understand.  And,,, reveals the arrogance and ignorance of man.

And yet,,, this is a wonderful discussion (despite the ignorance and lack of thought).  Wonderful in the sense of revealing the character of God.  Character that would come to earth in the most humble form.  Strive to make humanity understand that He is not the king of vengence but rather, the loving father promoting peace and selflessness.  The principles of love your neighbor and, turn the other cheek are the exact opposite of evil.

I can understand defining the destruction and hypocrisy of religion as evil.  However, God is not religion.  God does not need a religion.  God is about a personal relationship, a spiritual relationship, an unconditional honest, loving relationship.  And,,, we too often pursue knowledge of religion rather than pursuing a relationship with Jesus.

 

 

A longer version of your typical message in the end. Have you decided that God is “evil” per 59?

[SaltyTiger 7,859]

7 hours ago, auburnatl1 said:

Well thought out.

Not really 

[auburnatl1 5,031]

10 minutes ago, SaltyTiger said:

Not really 

Didn’t say he was right

[auburnatl1 5,031]

2 hours ago, SaltyTiger said:

A longer version of your typical message in the end. Have you decided that God is “evil” per 59?

I think @icanthearyou’s point is that people have corrupted Jesus’s simple message of peace. And instead of focusing on a relationship with Jesus, some Christian’s fixate and maybe misinterpret portions of scripture that takes them down paths away from Jesus’s primary love one another intent. 

I might be wrong but I don’t think he’s being as critical as youre taking it.

[SaltyTiger 7,859]

I get the message. Just asking a question. Hard for me figure where  ICHY is coming from or going at times. Congratulations if you can get on page with ICHY. 

[auburnatl1 5,031]

27 minutes ago, SaltyTiger said:

I get the message. Just asking a question. Hard for me figure where  ICHY is coming from or going at times. Congratulations if you can get on page with ICHY. 

10,000 face palms implies that’s doubtful 

[homersapien 11,446]

On 11/2/2023 at 6:43 PM, 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?

They are the product of the complexity of the anatomy and physiology of the human brain, naturally.

 

 

[auburnatl1 5,031]

4 hours ago, auburnatl1 said:

10,000 face palms implies that’s doubtful 

10001

[Aufan59 80]

On 11/3/2023 at 5:33 AM, icanthearyou said:

So,,, if god creates humanity with freewill,,, god is evil.  And,,, if god creates man as his perfectly obedient pets,,, god is evil.

Therefore,,, god is inherently evil.  Certainly verified by the concept of absolute power is absolutely corrupt.

Still, that is worldly power,,, the only power we can truly understand.  And,,, reveals the arrogance and ignorance of man.

And yet,,, this is a wonderful discussion (despite the ignorance and lack of thought).  Wonderful in the sense of revealing the character of God.  Character that would come to earth in the most humble form.  Strive to make humanity understand that He is not the king of vengence but rather, the loving father promoting peace and selflessness.  The principles of love your neighbor and, turn the other cheek are the exact opposite of evil.

I can understand defining the destruction and hypocrisy of religion as evil.  However, God is not religion.  God does not need a religion.  God is about a personal relationship, a spiritual relationship, an unconditional honest, loving relationship.  And,,, we too often pursue knowledge of religion rather than pursuing a relationship with Jesus.

 

 

The point about god being evil is not a religious one.  It is about the belief of an all powerful god.

 

I definitely like and agree with the peaceful teachings of Jesus, but the whole god thing completely subverts the message.