Silly question on one level. There was no such person in history. So any debate about what he did or did not do is pointless.
But I guess that if we're looking at the merits of the authors and editors who compiled the tripe in the Jesus fables, you could say they were inconsistent in their portrayal.
Still pointless as a video, though. Does more harm than good to even pretend for the sake of argument that their man-god even existed.
AtheistToothFairy
· 1 year ago
Fubtag: Still pointless as a video, though. Does more harm than good to even pretend for the sake of argument that their man-god even existed
Fubtag, I happen to agree with you that this god-man jesus never existed, as portrayed in the bible. However, I do not feel this video is pointless just because you and I don't believe jesus existed.
Many who have the potential to escape the xtian mind-prison need to find their way out SLOWLY and not all at once. Taking someone who is deeply indoctrinated in their beliefs, and convincing them that jesus never lived, based on the lack of evidence, along with our logical reasoning of such etc., would be extremely difficult to do.
How many ex-xtians here went overnight from being believers to non-believers, solely on the realization that jesus has no secular history records to show he once lived? While this lack of jesus evidence might be used in conjunction with other doubts xtians are having about christianity, I think most of us ex-xtians became so for other reasons that are outside just this lack of evidence for jesus.
Reaching a xtian mind is no easy task and the author of this video has found one interesting approach to place the needed seeds of doubt in a xtian's head. It's quite valuable, I think, to show how ridiculous the xtian dogma is, how imperfect the xtian leader was, by using their own bible scriptures against them, in order to make them start to open their eye's to reality.
So sorry Fubtag, but I have to disagree with you that this video was a pointless endeavor.
ATF (Who thinks each ex-xtian found their own path to their disbelief and this video just might represent one of those many paths we need known to the public eye)
Fubtag
· 1 year ago
I'll concede that it takes multiple lines of reasoning to disuade people from a mistaken notion, and that the arguments that resonate will vary with the individual. So I'll ammend that comment. It is pointless on its own to debate the actions of a non-person, except perhaps as literary analysis. If this is further used in that series of arguments that proves that apart from being fiction, the Bible is bad fiction, I can see your point. I personally stay away from those lines of reasoning with people. I'm not an evangelist for atheism, but a defender of my own psychological well being after a lot of abuse. The powelessness of the church stems from the non-existance of its principals.
Brandt
· 1 year ago
if thare was no jesus than there were no founding fathers... because after all we have more written information on Jesus than them, our first presidents, columbus, and even Martin Luther King Jr.
And quite frankly I think theres more written info on Jesus than yours and my great grandfathers and great great grandfathers, put together. in fact, maybe when i get old and die, my grand kids will just think of ME as a myth or a legend. (:o
Maybe i could write a sci fi novel on this...
AtheistToothFairy
· 1 year ago
Fubtag: It is pointless on its own to debate the actions of a non-person, except perhaps as literary analysis. If this is further used in that series of arguments that proves that apart from being fiction, the Bible is bad fiction....
Fubtag,
If this was just some fictional story character, which was clearly understood by everyone to be just that; fictional, then you're quite correct in that the only point of discussing that character would be for "literary analysis" etc..
This would be no different than walking out from seeing a movie and discussing the what-if's of the plot line etc.. In these cases no one in their right-mind would be asserting that these characters are of reality.
Things however change when we have a fictional character that much of the worlds population, doesn't see as a fictional and goes so far as to base their lives around what this character does and says and decrees to all. Worse yet, they believe so deeply in this fictional character and the general story overall, that some try and force this character's 'extended' dogma upon society in general.
While to you and I it's obvious that the bible is a merely a fable, and hence, most of it's characters must be as well, things aren't so apparent to those who have literally been brainwashed from the time they could understand human language.
To many of these xtians, god/jesus is as real as you or I, or the computer you're typing on. It is a difficult challenge to convince many xtians that it's all a huge lie. Many times our logic, our evidence, and our science, are seen as the tools of the devil. Anything outside of scripture is instantly held in question, so sometimes there is no choice in reaching these xtians, but to play the game on their own turf. That 'turf' being the bible writings itself.
This is why such video's I feel are important, as they try and reach the xtian mind on their own turf and playing by their own set of rules. Many xtians insist the bible is infallible. Therefore if one can show it's contradictions or as they call it,"problems", then one has a chance to prove the bible isn't the perfection of god's message to us. Once a xtian questions even one item of the bible, that opens the door to question the next item and so forth.
So, if jesus acted contrary to his own teachings and the teachings of his father, that could be the first step in cracking open a reality door in a xtian mind.
I understand that these kinds of debates with xtians aren't for everyone, so it doesn't surprise me that some like you just can't be bothered getting into such details of the bible with these xtians, but others here feel it's important to rid the world of this dangerous fiction and don't mind spending the time and effort to do so.
As they say; To each--- their own
ATF (Who would gladly expend the same effort towards discounting Alien-Piloted-UFO's, if it ever became such a popular belief, such as the belief of christianity has become)
Mindfree
· 1 year ago
Very good comment, ATF. I'm finding that I can only plant small seeds in all my fundy childrens minds.
AtheistToothFairy
· 1 year ago
Mindfree, Thanks, and just how young/old are these fundie children of yours?
Trust me, I know how difficult it can be to instill doubts in those we know so well. Sometimes I think the fact that they know us so well, goes against the validity of our arguments to their undying faith. Sometimes 'bad news' is rejected more strongly from those those we know and accepted easier from those we do not?
ATF (Who also knows that some xtians can't live without their false hope in a god)
Mindfree
· 1 year ago
Atf,There are 5 children in their 40's and low 50's. Very strong into fundy land, ie; no TV, home schooled etc. and now the grand children also. Only good that came out of it for me was it accelerated my conversion to reality.......Yes, I can "talk" easier to those I'm not as close to.
AtheistToothFairy
· 1 year ago
Mindfree: There are 5 children in their 40's and low 50's. Very strong into fundy land, ie; no TV, home schooled etc. and now the grand children also
So I guess they really live 'sheltered' lives then, yes? I have to wonder if fundies who remove themselves from the world to this degree, with no TV and such, are really trying to put themselves on a sort of Gilligans Island, isolated from the rest of reality and making their own quasi-reality instead.
Sounds like you (through your children) could relate somewhat with that Russian jesus video Dave posted here, where all his followers are totally isolated from the rest of society? Do your children live in some community that offers this type of isolation, or is it more self-imposed instead?
I sure can understand from what you said here, why you would have a snowballs chance in hades of reaching them with your rational mind. They truly have made their own Matrix world and shut out everything from the outside. Darn SHAME really.
>Only good that came out of it for me was it accelerated my conversion to reality.
Very interesting. What was it about their lifestyle that alerted you that something was amuck, to the point you found your way out of the mind trap?
Have you posted your de-conversion testimony here already. Did I miss it somehow?
ATF (Who thinks young children can be reached fairly easily. Grown adults of this age group...not so much, I'm sorry to say)
Tim
· 1 year ago
Fubtag, the point of the video is to show CHRISTIANS that their core beliefs are not true in the hope that they will somehow wake up and unlock the shackles, so to speak. Clearly, one can argue that Jesus never existed and argue it with much evidence but how many Christians will even listen to that one? None.
The vid isn't made for unbelievers, per se. It is made to show Christians that their beliefs are contradicted by the very book from which they get their beliefs! How ironic!
Hmmm ... While I certainly do not (any longer) believe in Jesus the god-man, I do think there is a historical person behind the myth. Most myths have a reality behind them. Most scholars, both religious and secular, agree that there is a historical Jesus, just as there was a historical Buddha. Fables don't just tend to grow up around nothing, but around something or someone.
angela
· 1 year ago
I tend to agree with you. Don't you find it ironic that the Bible the "inspired word of God" can be used to disprove Jesus and it can be used to prove Jesus depending on who is doing the interpreting? If the bible was literal than I don't think God would have left so many loopholes.
Tim
· 1 year ago
Just as there was a historical Zeus, and a historical Poseidon and a historical Baal and a historical Odin and a historical Kraken and a historical unicorn and a historical ...
Whether Jesus existed is not a crucial argument but it IS one of the questions that is becoming more explored and just because SOME myths had a real person behind them... you get the idea.
Tim
steve
· 1 year ago
who are these scholars I keep hearing mentioned? Most of those that "agree on jesus existence" get their info from the bible...hardly a reliable source of anything. Jesus was the sun-god of the gnostic-christian sect and like all other pagan gods he was a mythical figure, just like Horus, the sun-god of egypt.
ExFundie
· 1 year ago
Well maybe there was a man in history named Jesus, but only one secular historian seems to mention him... Josephus. The consensus of many is that Josephus was a complete fabrication himself. Also, the fact that the writers of the four gospels in the bible disagree on so many of the details of his life. For example, Was Jesus born of the holy spirit and Mary or Joseph and Mary? Who was Joseph's father? Where was Joseph from? Where did Jesus go after his birth and for what reason did he go? Really there are too many questions to ask here. Questions that get different answers depending upon which gospel you read. So did a man named Jesus really exist? Well maybe, but I am almost certain he was not the Jesus the bible tries to describe.
angela
· 1 year ago
exfundie: I am with you about Jesus not being the same person the bible describes. One of the big turning points for me was the whole issue of forgiveness. Jesus taught we are supposed to forgive our enemies over and over, yet he doesn't forgive people who won't believe. Not only that he PUNISHES his enemies for eternity...how's that for turning the other cheek!
sconnor
· 1 year ago
angela,
...a God who could make good children as easily a bad, yet preferred to make bad ones; who could have made every one of them happy, yet never made a single happy one; who made them prize their bitter life, yet stingily cut it short; who gave his angels eternal happiness unearned, yet required his other children to earn it; who gave his angels painless lives, yet cursed his other children with biting miseries and maladies of mind and body; who mouths justice, and invented hell--mouths mercy, and invented hell--mouths Golden Rules and foregiveness multiplied by seventy times seven, and invented hell; who mouths morals to other people, and has none himself; who frowns upon crimes, yet commits them all; who created man without invitation, then tries to shuffle the responsibility for man's acts upon man, instead of honorably placing it where it belongs, upon himself; and finally, with altogether divine obtuseness, invites his poor abused slave to worship him! -- Mark Twain
--S.
angela
· 1 year ago
wow , I have never seen that quote before. Very good
Brandt
· 1 year ago
ExFundie, you said that only one historian mentions him. only one? Hmmmmmm.....
if im correct theres more written information on Jesus Christ than on our founding fathers. but maybe your right.... you just have to realize that if your right and there was no man named Jesus, than there was no Ben Franklin or Thomas Jefferson or any of those guys.
You also said that the four gospels disagree on so many levels... but where?
also, joseph was marys husband, but he was not Jesus' blood father... that was Gods work. It would be easier to look at joseph like jesus'.....dad.
(Josephs father was Jacob. Jacobs father was Matthan. Matthans was Eleazar. And Eleazar was a descendant of David.)
AtheistToothFairy
· 1 year ago
Brandt,
You have so MUCH to learn <sigh>
Here's the cliff notes version....
Did Ben Franklin or Thomas Jefferson of our history, ever lay claim to having supernatural powers and/or a supernatural origin? The more extraordinary the claim, the more evidence that is needed to back up the grand claim etc..
Outside the bible, there is hardly a mention of your 'great' jesus in secular history, which in itself is awfully STRANGE for a god-man who did so much and had such a large following etc..
Joseph's heritage is greatly in question, because the bible provides not one, but two family tree's that don't agree with each other. However, if god was the father of jesus, why did the bible bother to trace the heritage of Joseph, when he wasn't even related to jesus? I "smell a rat" here, don't you?
Yes the gospels disagree with each other, and I'm surprised you don't already know this interesting fact. Must 'we' spend time showing you where they do? For starters, try to reconcile the resurrection story from each of the gospels. They don't agree, nor can they be made to agree.
ATF (Who also never could figure out exactly, just how did Judas die?)
telmi
· 1 year ago
ATF, excellent feedback.
I agree with you, Brandt has a lot to learn, with regard to his religious beliefs. And Brandt can of course learn by reading what other people say, especially people who have discovered the flaws in Christianity
AtheistToothFairy
· 1 year ago
Yes Telmi, he does have a lot to learn, but right now he's shaking his head at all of us, thinking he knows better and we are all very confused and just don't understand his babble book etc..
Or perhaps he's one of those who believes the devil has taken the necessary time to fool us; who knows what he thinks.
ATF
Barb
· 1 year ago
Jesus was "God's Work"? Now THAT is funny!!!
How did God impregnate Mary? So your God is a rapist? Not much consent when you are a 13-year-old Jewish virgin and that rascal Yahweh is just a-hankerin' to borrow/burrow your uterus so He can implant His seed which, by the way, was really the ejaculation of a space ghost...HUH????? And you call this insanity "history"???
Here are our possibilities:
God + Mary + Space Ghost =1 Jesus
or
God + Mary-Space Ghost =1 Chuck Norris
or
God -Mary + 1/2 space ghost =1 Frank Sinatra
LOL!! Go read a good book.
leotracks
· 1 year ago
Barbiebrains--
I love you!
Barb
· 1 year ago
Thanks, Leotracks :-)
sconnor
· 1 year ago
brandt,
if im correct theres more written information on Jesus Christ than on our founding fathers.
WRONG. The founding fathers have massive amounts of written evidence, including written testaments such as letters, speeches, signed documents, legal documents. At the library of congress, George Washington, alone, has over 65,000 original documents, everything from military records, financial account books, presidential reports, letters; with his signature, journals and diaries.
"Commonplace books, correspondence, and travel journals, document his youth and early adulthood as a Virginia county surveyor and as colonel of the militia during the French and Indian War. Washington's election as delegate to the First and Second Continental Congresses and his command of the American army during the Revolutionary war are well documented as well as his two presidential administrations from 1789 through 1797. Because of the wide range of Washington's interests, activities, and correspondents, which include ordinary citizens as well as celebrated figures, his papers are a rich source for almost every aspect of colonial and early American history." -- Library of Congress
On top of all the written evidence we have a plethora of physical evidences of Washington, as well.
Or, if you want to assemble a team of forensic experts they can actually go to where George Washington is buried and you can dig up his remains. HERE
No one wrote about Jesus while he was alive and Jesus himself didn't write anything. No one has ANY documents of Jesus as to his existence -- nothing nada, zilch! They were stories told and re-told over centuries -- the oral tradition -- before they were ever written down. Then copies of copies of copies were made from heresay and stories, where people could add and subtract what they wanted from the text depending on the agenda.
So basically Brandt you are either completely, ignorant, inept or too, lazy to do any real investigating on your own.
I just recently posted this; so here it is, Brandt, for your reading convenience . Maybe you will learn something. Everything I said to the other guy, greatly, applies to you, too.
This only points to your vast ignorance and gullibility and illustrates how painfully lazy you and other Christians are, when they do research. In fact, I would venture to say, you have not done any real research, into the matter (perhaps a click of the mouse here and there) but rely, solely, on christian propaganda and other lazy, christian apologists.
I have studied Josephus. I read all five of his books -- very interesting reads; I recommend them. If you actually took the time to study him -- for yourself -- then you would find, that Epherias added some of the text about Jesus, in around the fourth century. Josephus was what you might call a hardcore Jew and would never have written those lines. Under more examination of the texts you can see these as blatant forgeries. Did you ever wonder why Christians never mentioned Josephus before Epherias got a hold of the books? It's because the writing about Jesus were forgeries.
Forgeries aside, whatever else Josephus may have written about Jesus was hearsay, based on the stories that Christians told. But if you go with his writings, as evidence, you would have to explain this quote of Josephus, "Jesus the supposed Christ, is repetitious upon the tongues of the meek and insincere." Pretty much sums up christians, for me.
Additionally, All the other historians you could mention -- Tacitus, Suetonius and Pliny the younger (or the lesser known historians, Mara Bar-Serapion 73AD, Ignatius 50AD - 98AD., Polycarp 69AD - 155AD, Clement of Rome 160AD Tertullian 160AD - ?AD, Clement of Alexandria 215AD, Origen 185AD - 232AD, Hippolytus 236AD, and Cyprian 254AD) -- all wrote, well after Jesus' supposed death. Josephus was the earliest born, about seven to ten years after Jesus died and wrote his books 40-50 years later, the rest were born in the 50's, 60's, and 70's AD and all their writings were done well over a hundred years after Jesus' death. What this means is, the historians you could site were only around when other Christians talked about the stories of Christ --it's all based on hearsay. They were not around when Jesus was alive. They do not in any way confirm the Biblical accounts or the historicity of Jesus.
Now, what's even more devastating is, there are zero writings from historians from Jesus' time. Not a single scribe, historian or philosopher who lived during the time of Jesus wrote about what surely would have been a monumental piece of history. The historians Seneca 4BC. - 65AD and Pliny the Elder 23? - 79AD never mention Jesus. Philo Judaeus 20BC - 50AD lived in Jerusalem during the supposed life of Jesus. Philo Judaeus, a Hellenistic Jewish philosopher and historian wrote volumes on the lives of Jews in and around the surrounding area and nothing is mentioned about Jesus the Christ. Go figure?
I suspect you parrot these so-called evidences from either one of Josh McDowell's books or from one of a hundred christian websites, without doing any real investigation, of your own. I also, get the distinct impression, that you never read any of this information you offered up, let alone read it with a critical eye. It would seem you relied solely on faith, that the people relaying this information were delivering the holy grail of "proof", while being completely objective, which, obviously is not the case. I suggest, before you make ignorant statements you can't substantiate, maybe, it would behoove you to put a little bit (a lot more!) effort into researching, as opposed to clicking the mouse for your information.
The next two quotes, are you, in a nutshell.
"In religion and politics people's beliefs and convictions are in almost every case gotten at second-hand, and without examination, from authorities who have not themselves examined the questions at issue but have taken them at second-hand from other non-examiners, whose opinions about them were not worth a brass farthing." -- Mark Twain
"Faith is often the boast of the man who is too lazy to investigate." -- F M Knowles
And, Brandt , don't even, think to, mention the Talmud and Sanhedrin 43a supposedly talks about Jesus -- it would be a waste of your time.
--S.
Franciscan_Monkey
· 1 year ago
Brandt,
To be sure, there is a lot of written information about Jesus, if your standards are extremely liberal. One of the examples used by Christian apologists is that there over 5,000 "ancient" Greek manuscripts that contain portions of the New Testament. Sounds impressive, huh? I fell for that line, too, when I was a Christian apologist. When I started questioning my faith, that was one of the things I looked into. Something that the apologists don't mention is that the "over 5,000" figure of "ancient" Greek manuscripts includes documents from as late as the 16th century! Over half of them are after 1000 AD! So, let's investigate this further, shall we? Below is the number of New Testament Greek manuscripts per century:
1st century: 0 2nd century: 9 3rd century: 41 4th century: 43 (the 4th century is actually the first time we get a complete NT) 5th century: 53 6th century: 71 7th century: 42 8th century: 28 9th century: 77 10th century: 172 (now we're finally getting somewhere! Only 900 years later!) 11th century: 457 (more than the 1st through the 9th century combined!) 12th century: 583 13th century: 585 14th century: 521
Color me unimpressed.
Respectfully, Franciscan Monkey
For me, it is far better to grasp the Universe as it really is than to persist in delusion, however satisfying and reassuring. - Carl Sagan
AtheistToothFairy
· 1 year ago
Franciscan Monkey, I want to thank you for posting this data about the few early records supporting this jesus character.
The numbers here alone, make it clear that it wasn't until the 2nd century that anyone thought up this fable.
Obviously, if they had written this fable in the period it was said to have taken place, it would have been easy to detect by those reading it, that it was only a fable. Clever really, to make up a jesus fable and say it happened one century previous, so there was no one around left to interview or who could be found to act as witnesses of this christ person.
Surely if such a christ man existed, he would have been written about in short order after he floated up to heaven.
Did he leave some standing orders that no one was to write about him for ~100 years. Doubtful, and even if the story had him giving such a decree, it still wouldn't prove he existed, but would have been just one more clever method the writers used to make folks believe their concocted story. Frankly, I'm really surprised they didn't do this, given the other clever excuses they saw fit to provide to explain those who would refuse to believe in this christ.
Again, thank you for this important data, ATF (Who still thinks the fictional Bigfoot has more supporting evidence, than this jesus does)
Franciscan_Monkey
· 1 year ago
ATF (I can't help but think "Advanced Tactical Fighter" everytime),
Here's my opinion on the historicity of Jesus Christ. He may have been a totally fictional character, but there may have been someone that he was loosely based on. Some would say that he was based on Jesus ben Pandera, but there isn't much evidence of his existence, either.
Many of the teachings/quotes of Jesus Christ in the gospels seem to be in direct response to the teachings of Jesus son of Sirach, found in the Apocryphal book the Wisdom of Jesus, the Son of Sirach, also known as Ecclesiasticus, which was written in the 2nd century BC. Sayings against Jesus son of Sirach probably started to accumulate over the years, and then were put into the mouth of Jesus Christ.
At some point there seems to be a legend that Jesus Christ was from Nazareth, thereby necessitating Matthew and Luke to come up with ridiculous and contradictory stories to place his birth in Bethlehem in order to fulfill alleged Messianic prophecies. In the book of John Jesus is from Nazareth in Galilee, and this poses a problem since many thought that the Messiah was supposed to come from Bethlehem (see John 7:42). From this we can see that if there was a historical Jesus, he was from Nazareth and was not born in Bethlehem, as Matthew and Luke claim. Of course, the same could be said of a legendary Jesus, where the legend arose that he was from Nazareth, and then had to be modified.
Hyam Maccoby, a Talmudic scholar who died just a few years ago, makes a good case that there was a Pharisee named Jesus who was a small political threat to the Romans and was executed. Again, though, the evidence points quite away from the Jesus portrayed in the NT.
It would be virtually impossible for Jesus to have done the miracles it was claimed he did, have been as popular as the Bible claims, and have had events transpire the way the gospels claim (such as coming before Caiaphas the high priest, King Herod, and Pontius Pilate the Roman governor, or having many people come out of their graves) with no mention of him in official records or by contemporaneous historians.
Respectfully, Franciscan Monkey
For me, it is far better to grasp the Universe as it really is than to persist in delusion, however satisfying and reassuring. - Carl Sagan
Tim
· 1 year ago
Brandt, quit spewing Christian propaganda! There is NO contemporary writings about Jesus, the man. ALL the writings we have are at LEAST 20 years after he died and in the 1st century, only a handful of SECULAR documents exist that mention the RELIGION much less any Jesus. Josephus is the only one to mention Jesus outside the Bible in the 1st century and his mention is a later Christian forgery (most likely by Eusebiius sometime in the 4th century).
Please, PLEASE, go educate yourself before spewing this blatently false information as if it were uncontested common knowledge.
Tim
psychman86
· 1 year ago
Yea, we don't have a religion that damns one to hell built around the ideas of Washington, Jefferson and the like. On the other hand many cruelties against humanity have been conducted in the name of god, his little boy jesus and countless other dieties. How many hearts did the aztecs rip out of their neighbors in order to placate a sun god? I know, "that was different". Yea, how? They believed in an invisible god and what they believed about their god had consequences for those around them.
Think about it before you found your god and his son jesus you would not even think about giving your hard earned cash to any religious organization. Once you converted all of a sudden you were led to believe that your money troubles were due to a "curse" on your finances and that giving ten percent to gods team would remove the curse and "open the windows of heaven to such an extent that you would be unable to contain if all. Has that happened? Perhaps it happened because for the first time in your life you became focused in your efforts and stopped spending money on things that were frivoulous (whatever that means) and were more conscious of your spending. Ideas do have consequences.
So the idea that there was a jesus with magical powers and a god with the power of a Q (star trek reference) does have consequences. Being willing to submit to irrational thinking such as believing that there is a spirit world filled with gods, angels, demons, etc can have a profound effect on how individuals live their lives and those who come in contact with them; and not necessarily for the better.
I am totally against having such foolish beliefs and pretending that their was some sort mythical character such as jesus
My philosophy professor said it best when she told us that ideas do matter because " for better or worse, ideas have consequences".
ExFundie
· 1 year ago
Thanks ATF, your reply was what I'd have said. I had to double check my comment to be sure, but I did say "secular" history. Like you said, other secular historians of the time scarcely mentioned a man known as the Christ, and none but Josephus ever used the name Jesus Christ. Anyway, I remember being like Brandt... so ignorant as to the religion I so passionately followed. I used to speak like such an expert on what was true and right even though I had nothing real to validate it by. I operated on the assumption that what I thought I knew to be true, just had to be true. Therefore, it was absolutely true. Otherwise my whole judgmental and condescending life was based on a lie. Well, the latter turned out to be true... but I'm feeling much better now.
AtheistToothFairy
· 1 year ago
ExFundie, Wow, can I ever relate to what you said about your former self here !!
I once upon a time, was so sure that people had to conform to what the bible said were god's guidelines to life etc.. Like you, I also spewed these assertions out, 'knowing' my chosen interpretation of the bible just had to be correct (or at least close enough). By default, the bible was god's word and how could anyone dare question such an obvious fact.
Sometimes I wish I could go back in time and smack the heck out of my former naive self of 30 odd years ago !!
ATF (Who wasn't lucky enough in those old days, to have the resources online that now make it so easy today to find the truth)
XpastorDan
· 1 year ago
Here we go again!
A xtian quoting the bible to justify a bible story! Yes Brandt there has been much written about jesus. All of it hundreds of years after he supposedly lived. Do some real research, don't just listen to your pastor on Sunday A.M. No historian, that lived concurrent with the time of your christ, ever mentioned him.
Your bible is no more from god than your jesus is. You are only impressing us with your ignorance!
By the way, why are you on this site? You really don't won't to take on AFT, he'll smoke your ass!!! Get the Hell out of here!
XpastorDan
Stevie
· 1 year ago
Brandt,
You really owe it to yourself to look at the concrete evidence for the claims you're making. Rather than regurgitate what you've heard in Church try looking at the scholars and see what they have to say. Some scholars believe that there was a historical Jesus and the NT accounts contain some historical information co-mingled with the myth-making of the later Christians. Several of Bart Ehrman's books put a good argument for this position and do a lot to disentangle myth and probable reality.
Outside of the NT there is almost zero historical evidence of Jesus' existence. Josephus has a short interlude that is widely considered to be a later forgery but even if true its one paragraph in a huge volume of writing in which he talks of the early Christians - he lived years after afterwards. No contemporary records attest to any of the events claimed by the New Testament.
As for written evidence of Jesus life and death there is far more written evidence from different sources that Elvis lives or was kidnapped by aliens than for Jesus resurrection. For that, we only have the four gospels and their contradictory accounts of Jesus' life and the non-canonical gospels - and those are certainly not histories.
Steve
XpastorDan
· 1 year ago
Brandt,
Why are you here? Have you actually read the 4 gospels? I wrote you a longer answer about 45 minutes ago, but alas, once again I must have slipped and said something vulgar. I've been censored again.
Hey ATF and Barbiebrains - Don't you just get bored to death and sick to your stomach by all of these tedious, moronic comments by a seemingly, unending supply of fundie, pseudo apologists?
Great comments ATF, what does this make, about 20 times you've had to make similar comments this month?
Barbiebrains - You crack me up! How about - God + Mary + Holy Ghost = The first "Maneges 'a Toi" in history. Of course you know that the first council of Nicea never had Mary as a Virgin. It took the second bunch of Bozos, in the eigth century, to come up with that one. Why are Catholics so afraid of sex?
Can't wait to hear your reply.
XpastorDan
AtheistToothFairy
· 1 year ago
XpastorDan: Hey ATF and Barbiebrains - Don't you just get bored to death and sick to your stomach by all of these tedious, moronic comments by a seemingly, unending supply of fundie, pseudo apologists?
Hi Dan,
Well, I'm not saying it doesn't get to me at times, but think of it this way.....
How do you think a 3rd grade teacher feels, when the school year starts and she has to teach pretty much the same darn stuff she has taught for the last 10 or 20 years? The young minds she just taught the previous year have moved on and she has to do a repeat performance once again.
Sure, it can get tedious at times, not to mention very frustrating with some of these fundies, but one has to keep the end goal in mind. That goal being ridding some minds of delusional thinking. It doesn't even have to be the person(s) we are commenting to that might start to use rational thinking in their lives, but someone unknown to us in the background that is given their first doubts, that then starts them on the road to becoming an ex-xtian.
If I didn't think WM Dave's website had a great purpose and/or potential to spread the truth about christianity, I wouldn't spend the time I do posting here. These god based religions are just so EVIL that I feel something needs to be done to stop them, and to reach whomever we can with the reasons why they need to fade away.
We've all seen the results of what the religion mind-trap can do to a person's life and mind. While we surely can not save everyone who comes here and reads our thoughts, perhaps enough of the younger folks will become ex-xtians before they waste too much of their lives, like most of us here had the displeasure of doing.
Did that answer your question Dan?
>Great comments ATF, what does this make, about 20 times you've had to make similar comments this month?
Trust me, I don't keep count...LOL. However, to each NEW xtian visitor to this site, they might be hearing those old comments for the very first time, right, so I think they are worth repeating, yes?
ATF (Who won't apologize for repeating himself to these brainwashed xtian apologists)
Barb
· 1 year ago
XPastor Dan,
I am amused by the fundies....You forget that I have to face them in my own family during the Xmas holidays....Reading your posts gives me new ammunition to throw out over Xmas dinner... I just may get kicked out of the clan again.........Lots of fun!
Roman Catholics and Sex: The Roman Catholic Church fears sexuality because our medieval institution must dominate every aspect of the believer’s life. The RCC is about control and surveillance. The most vicious attack on your identity comes through the control of your sexuality. A genital-free MALE hierarchy is in charge of defining your body, your femaleness. If you are married by the RCC, you must attend a series of highly disturbing marriage seminars where a celibate priest details the “dos” and “don’ts” of marital sex. True story. You must sign a document agreeing that homosexuality is an abomination, that you will not use “unnatural contraception”, that you will accept all the children that Yahweh wants to implant in your uterus. This is the case in Catholic Mexico. I’m sure it is played out the same way in the U.S. Anyhow, this weird repression gets even creepier: the only method of “contraception” allowed is called “the rhythm method” which is incredibly disgusting. The WOMAN is responsible for taking her temperature each day, inserting a special thermometer, keeping a chart of her temperature and (revolting) testing her vaginal mucus. Hence, “mucus-sniffing” Catholics. The WOMAN must wrap her finger in a piece of toilet paper, jam the finger into the vaginal cavity and extract mucus. She checks to see if the mucus is slippery or stretchy because that will clue her as to her ovulation cycle. Now, if you really want to avoid a pregnancy, you must refrain from sexual activity at least a week before ovulation and another 3-5 days after ovulation. However, you must take into account the menstrual cycle which deducts another 6 days from sexual activity. When you do the math, you have only 10 days during the month where you can have sex. Call me crazy but this is a ridiculously short time frame. When couples question the short time frame, the Catholic nutjobs giving the marriage seminar propose having sex DURING the menstrual cycle. Get this: an added “plus” is that the menstrual blood acts as a “lubricant”. I find this repulsive on so many levels: the stench, the filth, the cramping makes it incredibly painful and who the heck gets to clean up? I know, I know…too much information but it really boggles the mind how hateful this organization is towards women.
:-)
BB
leotracks
· 1 year ago
"why are catholics so afraid of sex?"
Have you ever HAD sex with a catholic? Perhaps they fear the embarrassment.
Barb
· 1 year ago
After leaving the Opus Dei, I went on a girl-gone-wild spree and refused to date anyone associated in any way with Catholicism or a gawd-belief. Xian men make the worst lovers and married Xian men were the first to want to cheat on their stay-at-home wives. If you've never been pinched by a "committed, married-in-the-Lord", TRUE Xian, you have no idea what deep laughter is.......LOL!!!! Once they sober up from the infidelity, they RUN to these wacky Christian marriage seminars entitled "It Takes Three" (Gawd, "The Barbie Pinching" Hubby and the Deluded-Christian-Wife-Who-Wears-Glittery-Kitten-Sweaters).
LOL!
BB (Who in NO way advocates infidelity)
XpastorDan
· 1 year ago
SCONNER -
Maybe we could post your outstanding comments on the sign-up page and make everyone read it before they are allowed to post here.
You are one of the reasons that I come here almost daily. I really appreciate your intelligent input.
On a more personal note, may I say that my heart goes out to you. The loss of your son makes me weep every time you mention it. I can feel your pain and loss. My thoughts are with you my friend. When I was just one year old, my eldest brother was electrocuted while on vacation. He was eleven and was found face down in the mud after he touched the bumper of the car that was electified by a short circuit in the camping trailer attached. This hideous accident turned my mother half crazy and pushed her straight into fundie xtianity. I can't even begin to explain the fear that I was raised in!
Anyway, I think that you have shown tremendous strength to face your loss without turning to magic and mis-quided hope. Or, anger toward a god who isn't there. You know that life and death are just part of the human condition. I have to stop. I'm weeping again. Keep strong my dear friend.
XpastorDan
sconnor
· 1 year ago
XpastorDan,
When I was just one year old, my eldest brother was electrocuted while on vacation. He was eleven and was found face down in the mud after he touched the bumper of the car that was electrified by a short circuit in the camping trailer attached. This hideous accident turned my mother half crazy and pushed her straight into fundie xtianity. I can't even begin to explain the fear that I was raised in!
Hearing that story kills me and I, too, cry, at the drop of a hat, now. I am all, too, familiar, with how people behave, after their child has died. Some turn to drugs and alcohol, some cut themselves or abuse themselves, in different ways, others go crazy (most go crazy), some commit suicide, while others turn to religion. I am, so, sorry you never got to know your brother and because the way your mother was affected, I am sorry you never got to know her, as well. Knowing, how overwhelming and devastating it is to have my son die, I don't blame anyone, how they behave -- it's completely out of their hands -- I'm just sorry the repercussions harmed you, as well.
At the moment, wanting to die and waiting to die is my existence -- I just try and get through each day; my life hinging on one thought, that if I commit suicide, that could be a permanent solution, to what could be a temporary situation. The only thing I've got is time, but as I wait, I suffer and that takes a toll -- it's grueling.
"It has been said that time heals all wounds. I do not agree. The wounds remain. In time the mind, protecting its sanity, covers them with scar tissue and the pain lessens, but it's never gone." - Rose Kennedy
--S.
HOO-HAA
· 1 year ago
Interesting video... perhaps a bit 'light' in terms of its investigations?
I'm not sure if it would achieve a lot with many xians. Racism seems an attribute amongst contemporary fundies, and (for me) that was the only argument that was solid. The way jesus treated his parents was also a little nasty - later, he denies his family altogether, of course.
Either way, a worthy attempt to engage the fundies at a level which is, perhaps, more acceptping to them than outright dismissal.
HOO-HAA
XpastorDan
· 1 year ago
ATF -
Thanks for the gentle reprimand. You, of course, are right! I guess that I still have a few 'open wounds' that these trolls rub salt into. I was a grammer school teacher for 5 years and I did get bored with the curriculum. It just seems that lately there are so many xtians coming here that it takes the focus off of those whom have just written a Testimonial. Many times we haven't finished making one full round of comments to the person asking for help, and BANG, here comes the troll! This site was a sanctuary for me, when I found it. Thankfully, no christians came in on my first few threads. I really gained help and strength from all of you here. So many that come here are scared to even write what they have been thinking. Many are hurting and confused. They have good questions that deserve good answers, by intlligent, free thinkers, such as you ATF. It's kind of like being in a college level, say...Chemistry or Calculus, after class discussion, about gamma rays or prime numbers. In walks a 2nd grader and states "You guys are crazy, there is no such thing. Two plus two is four! That's all you need to know." And, here we go again chasing the 2nd grader around the room, trying to get them to sit down and listen. If we ever do set them down they just throw their hands over their ears and go "la la la la la la la la la la la la la la......"
This site is called Ex Christian, NOT discus christianity, or argue christianity, or Thinking about leaving christianity. It's EX, X, NO MORE, FINISHED WITH CHRISTIANITY! Maybe someone should start a site that caters to that whole kind of thing, but I for one, don't think that this site is the place for it.
Well that's my 2 cents worth. I seem to be saying the same thing, in different ways, in all of my recent posts.
TO: SCONNER - Thanks for your reply. I won't bring it up again. I know what it is like to think about suicide every day. Hey, on a lighter note, tell me what you think of this idea. My wife and I have always toyed with the idea of someday having a Bed & Breakfast. I had a couple of twists that I wanted to throw in. First, change it from B&B to S&S, "Supper & Sleep". Way back when we started talking about it, we thought it would be nice to just invite Ex Pastors (I was still one at that time), but now we are sure that we want to just invite EX Xtians. We are both great cooks and love to meet new people and have long discussions over glasses of red wine, in front of a fire. I envision a huge library of Free-Thinker books (Barbie Brains could be very instrumental in helping us stock the shelves! We wouldn't even care if the bindings had been chewed by cellulose-starved little Texans. It would just add to the ambiance!) We have started to make the dream come true. Our first baby step was to get to where we wanted to be. The great Pacific Northwest. We live on the Olympic Penninsula. Water, water everywhere! Majestic vistas! Fauna & Floura! Wild blackberries (we are going picking today. You haven't lived until you have had fresh, wild blackberries poured over homemade French vanilla ice cream!), you get the picture. Not for everyone, perhaps, but I think we will draw our fair share of X fundies and free thinkers. It is one dream that is slowly taking shape and giving me a little more reason to "keep going". Who knows, maybe someday we could actually meet in person and spend a week or a month in front of that fire. Boy, just think of the kleenex we would go through! I for one am very, very glad that you are still with us. You have much to offer the world!
XpastorDan
AtheistToothFairy
· 1 year ago
Dan: This site was a sanctuary for me, when I found it. Thankfully, no christians came in on my first few threads.
Hi Dan,
Well, my first 'RANT' post wasn't lucky enough to avoid a couple trolls trying to upset the works. I suppose that some first time posters would call it quits at that point, and while I almost did, I decided to see if this troll attack was unique to my post, or was commonplace instead. Of course, as we all know by now, the trolls and fundies can't help themselves, as the trolls hate our rational thinking and the fundies can't wait to show us the path to their god.
>So many that come here are scared to even write what they have been thinking. Many are hurting and confused.
I agree Dan, it can be scary to post one's feelings in a public blog, especially if one is new to posting their thoughts on the internet in the first place.
>They have good questions that deserve good answers, by intelligent, free thinkers, such as you ATF.
Yes, and I think for the most part, the members here do provide them with good answers and/or support, even if it's wrapped between fighting off the xtian/fundie/troll bullets.
>It's kind of like being in a college level, say...Chemistry or Calculus, after class discussion, about gamma rays or prime numbers. In walks a 2nd grader and states "You guys are crazy, there is no such thing. Two plus two is four! That's all you need to know." And, here we go again chasing the 2nd grader around the room, trying to get them to sit down and listen. If we ever do set them down they just throw their hands over their ears and go "la la la la la la la la la la la la la la......"
Oh yeah, it really is just this !! What is so plainly obvious to us, eludes the minds of most xtians who come in here. It really does feel at times, like you're arguing with a stubborn naive child, doesn't it?
>This site is called Ex Christian, NOT discus christianity, or argue christianity, or Thinking about leaving christianity. It's EX, X, NO MORE, FINISHED WITH CHRISTIANITY! Maybe someone should start a site that caters to that whole kind of thing, but I for one, don't think that this site is the place for it.
Actually, the FSTDT website, does provide a means to generate feedback to the things fundies say, but the shortcoming of their site's method, is that it's a one-way deal. For the most part, you can't have any interaction with the fundies whose comments are posted there, as they are culled from various websites and posted for all to read.
HERE however, one does have the chance to render feedback to something a fundie says.
While it sure can be frustrating at times and can also take away the focus of support for the original poster, I *personally* feel that even our debates with these fundies/trolls, serves a real purpose to.
Many of the counter-arguments to the dogma of christianity would not come-out for everyone to read, if we were not engaging these xtian comments and the inane concepts they present. Just the mere act of showing (the world?) the fallibility of their ideas, might be enough to get someone who is sitting on the fence, off that fence, and onto our rational side of thinking, yes/no?
Also, I can NOT speak for our Webmaster Dave, but I would imagine it would be a huge chore to monitor and erase every xtian post that comes in here, even if he desired to do so? Sure, he could put on the moderator approval switch, such that nothing would get through until he approved it, but how slow would things get here, if it was run using that method. As it is now, the recent comments take long enough to show up, let alone if moderation was installed 24/7.
If you look back in time at posts, for all the years Dave has been running this site, the xtians, fundies, and trolls have always been around. Even though they were, this site still thrives and new ex-xtians and the doubting Thomas still join us, regardless of the trolls and fundies.
Anyway, that's my take on things and I'm not saying this is the only way one can run a website, but it is one way, and so far, IT DOES WORK :) .
ATF (Who is grateful for what we have here, whether it's perfect or not)
Franciscan_Monkey
· 1 year ago
I agree with you, ATF. I like it when Christians post, even trolls, because it usually shows the weakness of their arguments. This can lead to more doubts in the minds of "accidentally visiting" Christians, which can hopefully lead to more deconversions. Which, of course, is a good thing.
On the other hand, those that have suffered a lot of emotional distress from their time in Christ's Grip of Death may not appreciate the Christians stopping by with their irrational and often hurtful comments.
Respectfully, Franciscan Monkey
For me, it is far better to grasp the Universe as it really is than to persist in delusion, however satisfying and reassuring. - Carl Sagan
sconnor
· 1 year ago
ATF, XpastorDan, Franciscan Monkey, and all,
For me, personally, straggling christians, that happen by, and can not refute our arguments, only bolsters what we have found to be massive holes, in their belief system. I noticed a trend, where these christians think they got it all figured out, then one of us hits them high, while someone else hits them low and miraculously, they're gone -- down for the count. I suspect they retreat to the comfy-cozy corners of christian websites, where their world-view isn't scrutinized. If in the long run they start questioning their beliefs, so be it, but at least we are free from the bondage of religious dogma.
--S.
buffettphan
· 1 year ago
XpastorDan,
Maybe you could start a franchise and open one of your S&S retreats for those of us on the east coast!?! 8-)
sconnor
· 1 year ago
XpastorDan,
TO: SCONNER - Thanks for your reply. I won't bring it up again. I know what it is like to think about suicide every day.
Don't worry about bringing it up. Talking about it doesn't make it worse.
Your S&S, for exchristians, is a great idea -- more power to ya'
--S.
TheOtherRainMan
· 1 year ago
I need one of those.
Hmm... a good idea for a business.
- TORM
Barb
· 1 year ago
XPastor Dan:
Sign me up for your S&S....However, only I get to perform the comedy...I am jealous of my audience...You need only provide the rotten tomatoes....
;-)
XpastorDan
· 1 year ago
ATF - Well said. I too think that Webmaster Dave does an amazing job with this site. I guess I'll try it your way for a while. Sorry if I sounded whiney!
What do you think of my idea for a retreat for ex-christians (see the last part of my comment to sconner above)? XPD (who thinks that ATF is much wiser than his years)
XpastorDan (sorry, I just love your little tag lines at the end of each post. I had to try it)
AtheistToothFairy
· 1 year ago
Oh Dan (XPD), I'm starting to think I've started a 'trend' with my tag lines...LOL
I think your retreat idea is a GREAT ONE!! Like buffettphan said, you would need to cover the country with them, so everyone had a chance to attend one.
ATF (Who will bring the HOT-non-cross-BUNS, if someone brings the RUM?)
Jonnyboy
· 1 year ago
So do you all object to xians dropping in and asking questions?
I understand there is a lot of antagonism in both directions, and that many xians make a nuisance of themselves, but if I'm polite can I hang around?
I promise that the destruction of the lovely website isn't my intention, nor is it my goal to convert or re-convert anyone.
(Edited because I didn't realize how the comment system was layered...)
sconnor
· 1 year ago
Fire away, Jonnyboy, but be prepared to have your beliefs scrutinized and if you utter as much as one breath of christian proselytizing propaganda, we will sick the wolves on you.
Have a good day.
--S.
AtheistToothFairy
· 1 year ago
Wolf #1 (in full dress TEETH) Reporting for duty, SIR !!
ATF (Who isn't worried about this website being destroyed by the sudden revelation that we are wrong about the bible god myth)
XpastorDan
· 1 year ago
Jonnyboy
Fire your first volley! We are ready.
XPD (Who will try to keep his vulgarity down to a minimum so webmdave won't have to censor him again)
XpastorDan (sorry ATF, my last one I promise. It's adicting!)
AtheistToothFairy
· 1 year ago
XPD, you kill me....but in a GOOD way :)
ATF (Who can't stop LOL now)
Jonnyboy
· 1 year ago
Ha! Well alright then. Bash away, as long as you don't mind me hanging out looking for interesting things.
My first question I'll just stick down here, since I don't actually know a better place to put it:
What would you say if I told you I was an intelligent person who believed in the existence of God? (I understand the need for, or at least the desire to make comments such as 'no such thing,' 'i'd laugh you off of the interwebs,' or even 'I'd say you were sadly deluded,' but they aren't really what I'm looking for here.)
sconnor
· 1 year ago
jonnyboy,
What would you say if I told you I was an intelligent person who believed in the existence of God?
I'd say whoopie-D-frickin-doo and ask you to define your god. So define your deity.
--S.
Franciscan_Monkey
· 1 year ago
What would you say if I told you I was an intelligent person who believed in the existence of God?
I'd say that a lot of intelligent people have believed in the existence of God. A lot of intelligent people have believed in a multitude of things, many of which were later discovered to be false.
I'd say, great, however, there is an inverse relationship between belief in a personal god and education level.
Most importantly, I'd say, why do you believe in the existence of God?
Respectfully, Franciscan Monkey
For me, it is far better to grasp the Universe as it really is than to persist in delusion, however satisfying and reassuring. - Carl Sagan
buffettphan
· 1 year ago
Yes, TruthSurge is "preaching to the choir" for most of us here. Hopefully by using their very own bible, that very same book they like to beat over our heads, christians may someday see the "buybull" for what it really is...a despicable book of bull they've bought into--hook, line, and sinker. A book used to control the masses. No wonder the disciples are called "fishers of men!"
Melodramy
· 1 year ago
What would you say if I told you I was an intelligent person who believed in the existence of God?
I'd say while stifling a yawn, that you don't have a single thing to say that we didn't all quite proudly and passionately spout at some point !!
Btw, which God? Yahweh of the Bible ?
XpastorDan
· 1 year ago
Jonnyboy-
O.K. so you believe in god. Do you believe that the bible is god's word? Does it reveal the god that you believe in? Would you believe in god without the bible? Give us some really good reasons WHY you believe in god. If you are really intelligent it should be easy for you, right...? I, for one, can't wait to hear a real intelligent reason for believing in god. I've never heard one!!! I tried for almost 50 years to come up with one, but, alas, the more intelligent I became, the less I was able to keep believing in foolishness!
There are many of us at this site just waiting for what you are about to give us. Make it good. Make it real good. Make it something we haven't heard before. Please, Please, Please MAKE IT INTELLIGENT! All of our souls rest in your hands Jonnyboy! You have taken on quite a responsiblity here. Are you sure you are up to the challenge?
What an opportunity! DON'T BLOW IT!! We are waiting.......
XpastorDan
Jonnyboy
· 1 year ago
Haha! Well, with such interesting conversation starters I think I'll just pick one.
You may or may not like it (and if you don't, by all means let me know) but I'm not going to sift through physical evidence for the existence of God, although I don't have much trouble reconciling a belief in God with my enthusiasm for science. I'm not an expert in metaphysics (yet) so I probably won't dig too deep into philosophy much either, although I think there is decent support for the existence of God to be found in the discipline.
I believe in God because I don't see a point to life if all that exists is the material world. If everything that exists is just humanity and the world that it finds itself in and adjusts to suit its needs, then I am catastrophically unimpressed. Call it existentialism if you like, or perhaps acute modernism. Humans don't appear to achieve happiness while they are alive, even when they have the highest standard of living, the fewest diseases, the most free time, the most fulfilling job, the most power, or money, etc. People "happily" married have affairs because they aren't "happy" anymore. During a new romance they feel "happy," "completed," or "alive," until reality crashes back in around them and everything sucks again. People with fulfilling jobs aren't fulfilled. People who are looked up to are just as miserable as everyone else. People kill people for money, or misguided belief, or convenience, or accident.
The long and short of it is that life kinda of sucks. Interestingly, however, people want to live for something. We have a desire for something beyond a satisfaction of our material needs, for something beyond intellectual engagement, or the opportunity to create something, or even the feeling of belonging to something or someone. People want life to have a point.
Unfortunately, the prevailing wisdom indicates that life is utterly ungoverned by extra- or super- natural forces. Which leaves humanity to blaze its own trail, to improve itself; we must make ourselves happy, or at least remove the obstacles we find on the road to happiness. And I don't have enough faith in humanity to believe that that is possible. It seems to me that the options are to believe that the point of living rests within humanity and the world it finds itself inhabiting, that it rests somewhere outside of humanity and the world, or it doesn't exist at all and life is, in the final analysis, utterly without a point. I don't want to believe that my life is without meaning. Given the choice between a humanistic set of beliefs and a theistic one, it turns out I have more faith in a God I can't see than I do in humanity.
Have at it guys! Hope it isn't a waste of your time!
BTW, sconnor, melodramy, and buffettphan-- I didn't actually address your comments. This was directed primarily at xpastordan and franciscan_monkey. Feel free to comment though!
buffettphan
· 1 year ago
Jonnyboy,
You said: "If everything that exists is just humanity and the world that it finds itself in and adjusts to suit its needs, then I am catastrophically unimpressed."
Just wondering........ Who says you or any of us are here to "be impressed?" I sure don't think it's anybody's or anything's duty to impress me -- nor vice versa.
We all get raw deals sometimes, but so much is still in our own hands. Don't give your power or your decisions or your joy to anybody else...real or unreal.
leotracks
· 1 year ago
Jonnyboy; "I believe in God because I don't see a point to life if all that exists is the material world."
This statement proves what franciscan monkey just said. Your belief is a choice, because you have not found any other reason to live. You are missing out. I agree that life kinda sucks, but there are things in life that make up for it. A conversation with a good friend, a good book, flowers, stars, the smell of autumn leaves.
Don't make the same mistake my mother has done, waste your whole damn life resenting everything, and waiting for god to make it all right. You will miss most of the good that is around you already.
Monkeys
· 1 year ago
Jonnyboy argument: God exists because ..... I am scared of life Counter argument: nuff said
AtheistToothFairy
· 1 year ago
Jonnyboy,
This was the point of my previous post to you. That some folks just want/need to believe in some THING, so they simply DO; and for no other reason.
Some believe in those aliens, because they are looking for some superior race of beings to supply us answers or to give us hope etc.. Like with you, they hold fast to those beliefs, not because they have evidence, but because they need that hope in their life. The lame evidence they do point to, is enough evidence for them to continue their belief, even if it's not enough for a skeptic.
You have no evidence for your god, other than the usual one of complexity or of a fulfillment to your hopes. That is enough for you, but to expect anyone here to believe in your god, that came about for your own personal reasons, as that is clearly asking far too much, isn't it?
ATF (Who wonders why a god believer of this caliber, still wants everyone else to believe the same as they do?)
sconnor
· 1 year ago
jonnyboy,
I believe in God because I don't see a point to life if all that exists is the material world.
Then explain why children; babies are born, only to die? My son's suffering and death catapulted me into the land of suffering. My eyes have been opened to suffering, all around me; my son only represents, all the children, in the world, throughout time, who have suffered in egregious and unimaginable ways and that is why I ask the questions, I do.
Someone dies of hunger every 3.8 seconds in the world — 75% of these people are children. That’s six million children who suffer and die of malnutrition, every year, before their 5th birthday.
Why would god send a baby, knowing the baby would suffer for three weeks, only to die?
Why do so many children suffer and die -- robbing them of their wants, needs, dreams and ambitions? How can there be an ultimate divine meaning to life, when these children don't even get a chance to experience life?
God's great plan -- pretty, shitty, fucking plan, if you ask me.
--S.
Franciscan_Monkey
· 1 year ago
So, basically what you are saying is that you believe in God because you want to believe in God. I think that this is probably the reason why most theists believe in a god of some sort. They may want to believe for different reasons, such as to feel like thay have a meaning or purpose in life, or the prospect of eternal bliss, or perhaps a desire for justice that will be meted out sometime in the future. All of these feelings are understandable, even if they have no basis in reality. If a belief in God is what makes you most happy, Jonnyboy, I say, go for it. My Carl Sagan signature fairly encapsulates my own point of view.
Respectfully, Franciscan Monkey
For me, it is far better to grasp the Universe as it really is than to persist in delusion, however satisfying and reassuring. - Carl Sagan
melodramy
· 1 year ago
Huh. Well I'm let down by the promise of deep intelligence behind the belief, when all we got was a bit of pouting about how meaningless / disappointing Jonnyboy's whole life would be if there isn't a big invisible magical deity somewhere who created Jonnyboy for the 'meaningful purpose' of demanding Jonnyboy's blind belief and devotion to itself for a few brief boring mortal years, in return for unending eternal bliss for Jonnyboy.
Like a creator of an entire universe would "need" to be believed in by a tiny bacterial speck on a blue dust dot. Mmm hmm. How exactly does this bestow incredible 'meaning and purpose' to Jonnyboy?
Jonnyboy correctly observes that permanent, uninterrupted happiness for living beings isn't a reality. Because he can fantasize it and resents it's not achievable, the only 'intelligent' and 'meaningful' conclusion is that it obviously exists somewhere else. (?!?!)
Geez Jonnyboy...how about learning to appreciate that you HAVE a life to live, you won the lottery by being here. Do you seriously not see any sense in forming purpose around your own happiness/well being and the happiness/well being of other human beings, or even other animals you share this life and planet with, who are DEMONSTRABLY REAL? They can interact with you and feel actual pain and pleasure as a result of your existence and actions. Instead you find it preferable to hinge your entire life's purpose on a big god-shaped inkblot chosen from amongst scores of inkblots created on the pages of superstitious desert dwellers, millenium past. How exactly does this give you more meaning? Why do you find more 'purpose,' living to suck up to a invisible magical being, rather than building your purpose around real living breathing beings? It's really entirely about that "eternal bliss," thing, isn't it. You feel you're owed.
You almost sound like a child who throws a tantrum and says you wouldn't want any stupid xmas present from your dumb old parents, and wouldn't ever want to give any stupid presents to anyone else - if a magical flying Santa who doles out juicy rewards for telepathically knowing if you're naughty or nice, isn't actually real. One's dumb old inadequate mortal parents could never compare to SANTA, so screw them and screw xmas!!
XpastorDan
· 1 year ago
Jonnyboy -
You Said...
"You may not like it... but I'm not going to sift through the physical evidence for the existence of God..."
Oh come on! That's what we're waiting for! Please sift through the "Physical Evidence" for us. That might get us to listen to you a little longer. As it is you haven't said anything new. "I believe because I want to believe, it's too frightening to think of this life without a higher being to give it meaning".
You Said -
"The long and short of it is that life kinda of sucks. Interestingly, however, people want to live for something. We have a desire for something beyond a satisfaction of our material needs, for something beyond intellectual engagement, or the opportunity to create something, or even the feeling of belonging to something or someone. People want life to have a point."
No offense Jonnyboy, but this is recycled preacher jargon. You've dressed it up a bit, (and by the way, you do write better than 90% of the fundies that drop by this site) but it's the same sopomorish, visiting evangelist, tent meeting, empty cliches that I heard my whole life! I was hoping for a lot more from you.
You also said -
"I don't want to believe that my life is without meaning. Given the choice between a humanistic set of beliefs and a theistic one, it turns out I have more faith in a God I can't see than I do in humanity."
Well, it turns out that my life only got meaning when I realized this is 'all that there is'. You see, I was like you, in that I spouted the same lame xtian pilosophy. I pounded the pulpit and told people that there was no meaning to life without god! Jonnyboy, I can't speak for you, but for me and every other xtian that I knew for almost 50 years, it was all about being LAZY, yes LAZY! It was too easy to say "God did it all" "I don't know why so many die every day from starvation and disease, Only god knows" "They probably angered god and he is punishing their country" "Don't ask me to help, I may get in the way of god's will" "Give money to the march of dimes or Jerry's kids? sorry, I only give to god, he will take care of those he sees fit to help (in the mean time, we need a new sound system for the sanctuary)" "Find out how the earth really evolved over billions of years, Oh no! I trust what the bible says" "In fact the bible has the answer for EVERY problem, all you need to do is read your bible and pray! God will do the rest!!!" LAZY, LAZY, LAZY! and SELF CENTERED! Who says there has to be a point to life for ME to be satisfied.
I am happier, more satisfied, more fulfilled, more giving, more accepting, more forgiving, more LOVING than I ever was as a xtian. I find much more JOY in being a secular humanist (and helping my neighbor) than I ever did as a Theist (and letting god do all the helping).
Sorry Jonnyboy, we asked for some REAL, SOLID reasons and proof, as to why you believe in god. I am not impressed with your answers. We've heard it all before. I'm very let down! How about the rest of you, did he convince anyone to go back to church & repent our unbelief?
I will go away now and let some of the real scholars have a chance at you. Thanks for dropping by -
XpastorDan
AtheistToothFairy
· 1 year ago
XPD: How about the rest of you, did he convince anyone to go back to church & repent our unbelief?
Dan,
Does driving-past a church(s) count as going-back? I suppose not huh?
Repent? First I would have to have something to repent of, and my sin-unbelief-basket is empty. So I guess I'll have to pass up the offer today.
I agree with you that he certainly writes far better than most of the xtian visitors we get here. That much I'll give him.
Jonnyboy is obviously smart, so he does need to hear this, so at the risk of repeating it here (again)....
Smart people believe weird things because they are skilled at defending beliefs they arrived at for non-smart reasons.
[Mike Shermer]
ATF (Who thinks all UFO sightings for the past 2000 years, are really poor ascended jesus, stuck in low orbit around the earth)
Monkeys
· 1 year ago
"Who thinks all UFO sightings for the past 2000 years, are really poor ascended jesus, stuck in low orbit around the earth"
I could not stop laughing! Great one!
Jonnyboy
· 1 year ago
Hmm. In order, I suppose.
@ Buffettphan What I hear you telling me, as you tell me to make my own decisions, is that the decision I have made is unsatisfactory to you. Are you sure that a desire for a point, or to be "impressed" is unreasonable?
@ leotracks Is your criticism that I choose to believe something, or that what I choose to believe depresses you? Because if you are criticizing the act of choosing a belief, you might want to take a look at your own and make sure that you choose to believe what you do. Belief without choice is something akin to brainwashing. If what I choose to believe is something that is too depressing for you to handle, that is certainly fine. I do appreciate your concern for my cynical side though!
@ monkeys
Yet another helpful summary. Thanks so much. I forget how afraid I am to go outside. (If you'll re-read what I wrote, I don't think I mentioned the abject terror that consumes my soul every time I see my own shadow. Glaring omission. My abject apologies.)
@ sconnor
Children are born in this universe whether or not God exists. They suffer whether or not God exists. You ask why God would send a child knowing it is going to soon die, but I don't see how a world without God changes what happens to that child. I don't ascribe all the cruelty in the world to God; in fact I attributed it to humanity and the vagaries of the natural world. My problem with assuming that no God exists is that a child's death is utterly and tragically meaningless in a purely materialistic world. Life is born and it dies, without meaning. I hate to resort to tired old theistic arguments about why God would allow suffering, because you have heard them all before. But what I can say is that in a world without God, there is no chance that a child's death carries more weight and more meaning than it does in a world with a God.
@ franciscan_monkey
You really are justified in assuming that most theists believe in a God based on an internal need or want. I think that it's reasonably fair. All I would like to assert is that belief in God is less unreasonable than many people accuse it of being.
And finally @ XpastorDan
HaHa! I found a compliment! You charmer, you!
In the spirit of reciprocity, I imagine you must have been quite a fiery pastor yourself! Your style is quite suited for the pulpit (which I mean in the best possible way.)
Well, I know you (satirically, I assume) laid on me the responsibility for converting everyone on this site to my way of thinking. I would like to once again (officially this time) say that I am not actually interested in converting anyone here. Believe what you want, it's your life. All I want to see is intelligent discussion of theism (for once.)
That being said, let me expound for a bit more.
You seem to think that I haven't considered your position when you assure me that when I look at things your way I will see everything in a new, sparkly light. Fortunately I am capable of understanding the nature of a world without God. I have given it considered thought. I'm sorry you're bored by my peaceable arrival at the opposite conclusion you have reached.
You seem to have recycled an argument yourself, a crowd-pleaser but not too terribly relevant. You may have heard something along these lines: "Christians are the most hypocritical people I know."
In case you haven't heard why this is a weak argument, I'll explain. People are hypocritical. Those who subscribe to religion are (usually) people. Thus those who subscribe to religion are (usually) hypocritical. I've taken some liberties with the syllogism, but if you leave out the bit in parentheses it's perfectly valid. Dressing up Christians as lazy doesn't change the fact that human laziness is remarkably widespread, and doesn't really say much besides the (mind-numbingly obvious) fact that Christians are people too.
The fact of the matter is that I am not a scientist. I can't compete with scientists.
If I concede that evolution is scientifically well established, can I just skip to cosmological arguments? I have a better handle on those (and they tend to be less flaky.) Tell you what, I'll throw out a statement I think I can back up, and you see if you like it better than my other, lengthier, less interesting 'proof.' Ahem.
There is (as far as I know) no scientific explanation of what caused the big bang, nor is one realistically possible. Have fun!
Monkeys
· 1 year ago
Just trying to help Jonnyboy :) does not change what you essentially wrote though
Jonnyboy
· 1 year ago
Yeah, I know. I'm not one of the great debaters of all time, and I really honestly do appreciate helpful criticism. Thanks for reading!
Monkeys
· 1 year ago
"Thanks so much. I forget how afraid I am to go outside. (If you'll re-read what I wrote, I don't think I mentioned the abject terror that consumes my soul every time I see my own shadow. Glaring omission. My abject apologies.)"
So There was no sarcasm in that statement. :) See above for why I said that was the gist of your argument.
Jonnyboy
· 1 year ago
hehe. that may have been sarcasm
sconnor
· 1 year ago
jonnyboy,
Children are born in this universe whether or not God exists. They suffer whether or not God exists.
Thanks for pointing out the complete, obvious. This doesn't advance your argument and is a complete waste of time.
I don't ascribe all the cruelty in the world to God; in fact I attributed it to humanity and the vagaries of the natural world.
Well, then, who created this natural world, with all the vagaries. And by vagaries, do you mean unimaginable, excruciating, vile and prolonged, suffering? Why didn't god foresee this? And why does he keep sending more, souls, into this abysmal planet of suffering?
You ask why God would send a child knowing it is going to soon die, but I don't see how a world without God changes what happens to that child.
Skirting the issue again. A world without god doesn't change anything. You believe in god, why does he send a child, to this earth, to be born, only to suffer and die?
My problem with assuming that no God exists is that a child's death is utterly and tragically meaningless in a purely materialistic world.
Right, but that doen't preclude that it is meaningless -- this world may very, well be meaningless. Also, what is the meaning, in a world where god does exists?
I hate to resort to tired old theistic arguments about why God would allow suffering...
That's because they are "tired and old" and ultimately, you do not have a leg to stand on. I would go, so far as to say, you find these "tired old theistic arguments" about god, allowing suffering, an embarrassment and you are too much of a chicken-shit to indulge us.
But what I can say is that in a world without God, there is no chance that a child's death carries more weight and more meaning than it does in a world with a God.
And what meaning would that be?
You agree, that there can be no ultimate divine meaning to life, if a life doesn't even get a chance at life -- correct? You want so much, to have meaning in your life, that you commit to magical thinking, not even knowing what that ultimate meaning is. Isn't it extremely, arrogant and morbidly presumptuous, that you have assigned meaning to your life -- without knowing what that meaning is -- while other souls don't even get a chance to experience life?
--S.
sconnor
· 1 year ago
jonnyboy,
There is (as far as I know) no scientific explanation of what caused the big bang, nor is one realistically possible. Have fun!
Argument from ignorance. At one time there were no scientific explanations for what caused disease and plagues (germs, viruses bacteria). At one time, there was no scientific explanation for floods, earthquakes, eclipses, volcanoes, droughts, tsunamis, rainbows, lightening, tornadoes, hurricanes, aurora borealis, comets, gravity, etc. etc. etc.
Jonnyboy, do you know who these might have been attributed to?
Just because science didn't have an explanation to these phenomenon, at the time, does not mean "god did it". Science does not concern itself with the answer "god did it" -- because if they did, we would all still be in the dark ages, which is exactly where some ignorant christians and creationists still are.
--S.
webmdave
· 1 year ago
Apparently JB is representative of the kind of Christianity that is being produced by the University of Tulsa.
Yee-Haw!
Jonnyboy
· 1 year ago
You googled me? Do you google everyone?
buffettphan
· 1 year ago
Jonnyboy--your response to me was:
@ Buffettphan
"What I hear you telling me, as you tell me to make my own decisions, is that the decision I have made is unsatisfactory to you. Are you sure that a desire for a point, or to be "impressed" is unreasonable?"
Well JB, since you asked, frankly, I could care less what decisions you make for yourself as long as you don't infect my life with them-- directly or indirectly -- through the education and/or political systems, for example. I'm also saying don't expect OTHERS to impress you or give you a point for your own life. That's a huge, unfair, and egotistical responsibility to assign to someone else. Your point to life has to come from within yourself--not from anybody or anything else -- real or unreal. It's your life. You are in charge of it.
What I hear you telling all of us (ON OUR WEBSITE) is "Here I am! A spoiled brat who wants to prove to you that I'm right and you're all wrong. Just try to impress me. I dare ya... I double-dog dare ya. I'll come back with even more recycled arguments. Because....... It's all about MEEEEEEEE!."
(Basically the same analogy Melodramy used about a spoiled child on xmas....)
Jonnyboy
· 1 year ago
I apologize.
I'm not trying to disrupt conversation, bend things around to be about me, or get you to prove your viewpoints. (Nor am I trying to hijack your website.) I'm sorry I came off that way. I'll try my best to stop. You don't have to impress me. You're right when you say that life isn't really about being impressed. What I think I meant was that I was unsatisfied with the state of the world. I'm sorry I came across as a spoiled brat, and I honestly want nothing more than to hang out and talk.
buffettphan
· 1 year ago
Jonnyboy,
Apology accepted. I'm glad to see from reading your recent posts on the site, that it seems as though you not only want to hang out and *talk*, but you also seem to want to *listen* . A nice change from most of the xtians we get on this site! So, thanks for that.
Monkeys
· 1 year ago
More helpful summaries
"I believe in God because I don't see a point to life if all that exists is the material world...... Humans don't appear to achieve happiness while they are alive, even when they have the highest standard of living....People who are looked up to are just as miserable as everyone else. People kill people for money, or misguided belief, or convenience, or accident."
People live unhappily
"Interestingly, however, people want to live for something..... People want life to have a point."
People want to be happy
"It seems to me that the options are to believe that the point of living rests within humanity and the world it finds itself inhabiting, that it rests somewhere outside of humanity and the world, or it doesn't exist at all and life is, in the final analysis, utterly without a point. I don't want to believe that my life is without meaning. Given the choice between a humanistic set of beliefs and a theistic one, it turns out I have more faith in a God I can't see than I do in humanity."
The world is frightening and bad - i want it to matter - so I choose to believe in God.
I cant help but feel intellectually shortchanged by the quality of this argument. ahem despite the fact that JB is politely phrasing his belligerence.
Jonnyboy
· 1 year ago
ZOMG!
ATF! I forgot about you! Sorry.
I did have something to say to you, although I kind of included it in my reply to XPD.
I don't intend to convert anybody. Belief (dogmatic or cautious) and disbelief (dogmatic or cautious) in what have you are free choices.
You also apparently posted while I was writing this, so I'll address that while I'm here.
It's a nice quote, and I think it has a lot of truth in it. It is incredibly hard to get intelligent people to abandon positions they feel they can defend. Unfortunately, right now I feel I can defend my position. That would, as you assert, make changing my mind quite a bit harder. Feel up to it?
Jonnyboy (who thinks the taglines are pretty sweet and doesn't mind a little bit of copycatting here and there)
AtheistToothFairy
· 1 year ago
Jonnyboy (aka tagline errrr, "borrower")
It's a nice quote, and I think it has a lot of truth in it. It is incredibly hard to get intelligent people to abandon positions they feel they can defend. Unfortunately, right now I feel I can defend my position
Well JB, seeing as how you like Mike Shermer's quote that I provided you, have you ever read any of his skeptic books or investigated his website? If not, then how about James Randi's skeptic website/books, or any secular skeptic website/books?
As more than just I pointed out to you, such books and websites, by such authors, teach one to 'demand' testable/credible evidence before forming a conclusion about "extraordinary claims". Moving down that investigative road from topic to topic, and seeing each type claim being easily debunked, when all is said and done, you have to conclude that we have no positive evidence for the metaphysical. Now, if you have beliefs in something metaphysical besides your god being, then I highly suggest you check out such authors.
So that leads to my question of whether you do believe things like Ghost, ESP, Telepathy, Psychic Healings, Aura's, Levitation, Astral Projection, Fortune Telling, Communicating with the Dead, and so forth?
Have you already possibly concluded that all these type things are bogus and the only metaphysical item left that is real to you, is your god? If so, then you have to ask yourself why you dismiss these things, yet are so sure this xtian god is the one object that remains off the list of dismissed items. However, if some of these items are believed valid by you, then you really need to look much closer at these odd claims.
As I think I said before to you, wishing / needing / hoping / believing that something extraordinary exists, has no power in itself, to bring that thing(s) into existence.
Also keep in mind, you are far from the first xtian to pay us a visit, and at the same time, was sure they had all the proof we would need to be convinced their god existed. Many have come before you, and I dare say, not a single god believer of any faith could provide any credible evidence to support their belief in some god.
What they bring us instead, are hearsay stories that someone told them about, or some personal experience that they felt was un-natural and thus, must have originated from their chosen god. They make positive mental connections to 'interesting' events that could easily be explained with nothing more than a coincidence factor, but they refuse to accept it as such. They need to believe it came from god, so therefore they fool themselves into believing so.
If every xtian has failed to bring forth any real evidence to us or any other skeptic, in all the eons they have been trying to do so, then really Jonnyboy, what do you think the chances are that YOU would have some very unique evidence to bring us, that would totally 'floor-us'?
Instead, what you've brought here is some interesting speculation but it all boils down to the same ending. You feel this universe, and us, are too complex to have come about without some type of godly assistance. Because you don't know the answers to some 'grand' questions in your mind, and because some of those questions so far have no answers by anyone else, you do like all xtians do here and form a conclusion that god must have done it.
It was pointed out to you already that this god was attributed to many of the previous unknowns humans have experienced, but once we finally learn the causes behind those unknowns, most of us realize that god had nothing to do with them, not now, not then. As each little mystery is solved of this nature, your god moves further and further away from the direct intervention he had been assumed to participate in. e.g. How many today believe god throws around lightning bolts and produces thunder?
Evolution easily accounts for how simple life evolved into complex forms and only the uneducated (or stubborn) would deny this (aka fundies). While we don't YET know the specific mechanisms of abiogenesis, it's obvious that it's only a matter of time/research before that answer is known as well to us, and I'm SURE we won't find out it was a "god did it".
The universe is a huge place and trying to discover it's origins is difficult at best. As xtians like to say, we weren't there to see how it was 'born' and looking back in time (via distance) has it's limitations. Does that mean humans will never figure out the origin of the universe. NO, but chances are it will take a lot longer to learn that information. However, one thing is for certain, there is zero evidence to examine that would point to some invisible creation force, that some would call god.
To the contrary, the more we learn, the more the list grows of things that have natural causes, that as I said, were once in the realm of some god hand. We know NOW that no god was needed to form the planets, our sun, the stars, or our own solar system. We now understand how such spectacular astronomical things came about, all without any gods.
So really, all the grand questions but one, seem to have been answered or at least have good hypotheses/theories about them.
If you have some emotional need to feel that some god caused the big-bang, then go right ahead and have faith in that, just as our ancestors relished in their faith of god causing thunder and the devil causing diseases and mental disease being caused by demons taking over one's mind etc..
That all said, you have nothing left to support your god, other than your own FAITH Jonnyboy, just as all xtians do. They believe because something inside them can't stand the idea that we are all on our own and that three is no afterlife reward for doing good things or for believing in the correct god, nor is there any god-doled-out hell punishment to avenge our hated enemies; as some also need to believe is the case.
In conclusion:
You do like all xtians must do, and try and perform spectacular mental gymnastics to bring your personal god into our reality, but when all is said and done, you truly have nothing to show us, now do you sir?
So again I ask you, WHY should we push aside all the "negative evidence" for your personal god that we have on the table, and then sign-up to your faith-supported belief in such a god being?
ATF (Who's just received a message, via ESP, from a Dead Soul in heaven, and it's telling him to levitate his Astral Body, into a future time, to a very sick Ghost, who is in need of some Psychic Hands-On Healing to tune up it's mal-colored Aura)
glebealyth
· 1 year ago
Jonnyboy, May I join in?
You say: "Call it existentialism if you like, or perhaps acute modernism. Humans don't appear to achieve happiness while they are alive, even when they have the highest standard of living, the fewest diseases, the most free time, the most fulfilling job, the most power, or money, etc."
Someone else may have already addressed this comment but my take it is that, at least in part, humans feel this way because, since the advent of the priestly class of fraudsters, they have been told that they are miserable, unworthy and unhappy because they haven't yet parted with enough of thier possessions to keep the priests in fatted calves. The priests don't put it quite like this, they tell us that we are unhappy because we are not in a right relationship with the local deity or dieties and that we may improve our lot by denying ourselves, taking up our purses and emptying them at the altar of the local fraud/religion. Try reading a little Rousseau. His state of nature, the first one, before communities grew up, is really quite idyllic and conducive to happiness. Hobbes is a little more cynical - red in tooth and claw. It is gods, and their attendant religions, that cause human unhappiness by creating a mythical creature against whom one will always appear unhappy and inadequate by comparison and compared to whose priests one will always appear poor. As the promises made by the priest of the giving and providential nature of their god are always false - of that their is ample evidence, with no need to argue about the mythicality or otherwise of the deity itself - so trusting in the deity necessarily leads to disappointment and misery. The purpose of a god is to keep the laity in fear. All gods (if they exist) threaten man with dire consequences for disagreement and non-cooperation. All priests get fat on the back of this fear. It is only when gods are abandoned and priests are ignored that happiness is achievable. As to a purpose in life - exposing the extent of the fraud of religious belief and the amount of misery caused thereby is quite a satisfying purpose for me.
Jonnyboy
· 1 year ago
@ glebealyth
Do you think that human desire for something beyond what we can achieve is (still) connected to priestly activity in the modern world? That strikes me as unlikely, especially given how much of a taboo it is in society to actually tell people that they are miserable, unworthy, and unhappy.
(Also, I'm not sure that what you have identified as "the purpose of a god" -controlling the laity- is the generally accepted purpose of God, even among atheists. I could be wrong, but I'm pretty sure the prevailing idea is that men created god to fulfill an evolutionary imperative that made their ultimate survival more likely.)
glebealyth
· 1 year ago
JB, The modern world is irrelevant to religion, hence the fatuous debate over evolution. The fact is that the principle of telling people they are miserable, unworthy and unhappy was established long, long ago. As soon as it was written down (holy writ) it became an unchallengeable tenet of the religion. Xtianity tells you that you are lacking in both hope and worth and that god is williang and able to remedy both conditions. Once ensnared, you are introduced to the "blessing" of tithing. Thus the laity is controlled and the priestly caste enriched.
Legal fraud.
webmdave
· 1 year ago
JB wrote, "All I want to see is intelligent discussion of theism (for once.)."
Me too. I seriously doubt you'll ever be able to fulfill that desire, however, as long as you're only interested in arguing on a website. If you were really interested in understanding any but your own opinion, you'd be reading and listening. I take it from the general timbre of your writing that you haven't read even one book that contradicts your current worldview. In contrast to that, the bulk of posters here have spent long months and years studying both sides of this issues.
Time and again Christians criticize contrary positions not because the arguments are weak or flawed, but for no other reason than that those arguments are contrary!
As an aside: Nicely phrased belligerence is a poor substitute for informed (intelligent) discussion.
Jonnyboy
· 1 year ago
I don't know that that is entirely fair to assume that I haven't thought about both sides of this issue. I'm certain most of you have.
Nor do I think it's entirely fair to accuse me of not reading things that contradict my worldview.
But the website is not for me, and so I'll accept this in the spirit I think you meant it in. I'm sorry I seemed belligerent, and I will attempt to keep things more civil, in the knowledge that I am a visitor. I will restrict myself to deliberate and well-thought-out answers, and will try my best to admit when I'm beat.
mea culpa
webmdave
· 1 year ago
Fair enough. Please list any books you've read that contradict your current worldview and I'll be glad to retract my assumption that you haven't really researched both sides of this topic.
Jonnyboy
· 1 year ago
Oh my goodness. I honestly can't think of as many as I thought. And far too many of them are textbooks. I have read textbooks about why god cannot exist, philosophical and scientific.
With regard to worthwhile books I have read nothing but classroom style excerpts.
This is hysterical! Very surreal. Hmm.
I got all prickly and you were right. I hate it when that happens. Damn. Oh, I have read Asimov's history of the world, that book I mentioned on another thread called "how to think about weird things" and other such weak-sauce stuff. I haven't gone out and picked up entire books by noted atheists and read them in their entirety.
I sit here entirely corrected. Damn. Alright, I'll go out and get some books. Can I come back after I've read them?
sconnor
· 1 year ago
jonnyboy,
I have read textbooks about why god cannot exist, philosophical and scientific.
And what books would those be?
--S.
Jonnyboy
· 1 year ago
Took two classes about the history and philosophy of science. two-thirds of one was devoted to debunking xianity, and gave glowing reviews of the scientific method, that creationism and ID are clearly pseudo-science, and then talked about the socialogical repercussions of science as the social factor replacing religion. I read excerpts from three of Dawkins's books, a textbook on critical thinking and the scientific method, and was graced with a professor who knew what he was talking about and re-ordered a lot of my thinking on the subjects. The other class I took was less sociology and more philosophy, and we went through, in detail, the history of, challenges to, and revisions within the scientific method. Additionally, we covered some basic metaphysics. I don't remember what we read, it was an anthology.
I said I was going to go get some actual books and read them... did you have anything to recommend?
sconnor
· 1 year ago
Jonnyboy,
Wow; you have a great memory. Can you put that great memory to use and answer my question? What textbooks were they?
--S.
...did you have anything to recommend?
Exchristian has an extensive list of books to choose from.
Jonnyboy
· 1 year ago
I sell my books back. I can't tell you. I've given you all the information I can. I'll attempt to find out what the books were, but no guarantees. If you'd like more information than that, I'm afraid you're out of luck.
sconnor
· 1 year ago
jonnyboy,
Yeah, I understand; you probably sold them back five or seven years ago and you probably threw away the syllabus and you couldn't go on line to see what books you'll need for the courses you took.
--S.
AtheistToothFairy
· 1 year ago
Sconnor,
JB said below, "two-thirds of one was devoted to debunking xianity"
Even if his college offered such a course that did this "debunking", one has to wonder how one takes such a course **in college** and then walks away from it, still thinking the bible is god's word to humanity and ready to defend it (here). It's not even like he switched to another holy book, because the bible had been shown to be a mere man-made book, full of problems etc..
ATF (Who also wants to know what textbooks JB read on this subject)
leotracks
· 1 year ago
JB--your response to me was as follows:
@ leotracks Is your criticism that I choose to believe something, or that what I choose to believe depresses you? Because if you are criticizing the act of choosing a belief, you might want to take a look at your own and make sure that you choose to believe what you do. Belief without choice is something akin to brainwashing. If what I choose to believe is something that is too depressing for you to handle, that is certainly fine. I do appreciate your concern for my cynical side though!
I was, in fact, pointing out that in your own words, your belief was made by decision, rather than evaluation and deduction. I do criticize people for belief based on such criteria.
Like many here, I was not raised an atheist, nor did I actively seek an escape from xianity. Through years of studying the bible, and its multitude of contradictions, errors, and implausible fantasies, I ARRIVED at the realization that biblical content was suspect at best. I resisted this position for sometime until further studies of philosophy, mythology and science provided the evidence that not only are god-based religions questionable, they are out right false.
You also suggested that I examine my own beliefs. Mine are based on EXAMINATION. I believe what is real, tangible, measurable. I believe in many people I know, because I KNOW them, I have seen their past behavior, and from that can extrapolate likely future behavior. Just using that criteria, god is not one who could be trusted, or believed.
Jonnyboy
· 1 year ago
After rereading what I wrote to you, I regret the way I attacked your beliefs, and would like to admit that I was writing without giving you the time you deserved. Poor choice, and you called me on it. My apologies.
Do you think that it is impossible (or intellectually pernicious) to believe in anything that is not scientifically or empirically well-founded?
XpastorDan
· 1 year ago
Thanks webmdave! Boy can you turn a phrase! "Nicely phrased belligerence is a poor substitute for informed (intelligent) discussion."
Right On!
Jonnyboy -
Read "Reinventing the Sacred" by Kaufman. It will give you something to chew on about the Big Bang and how it all started. You are not the only one to revert to that old, tried & true, fall back if all else fails, argument. I used it for decades! You are going to have to work harder to keep our attention.
XpastorDan
Jonnyboy
· 1 year ago
Thanks. It looks interesting. I am apparently gonna have to read some stuff, since I don't seem as familiar with actual atheist books as I thought I was. (although this book doesn't appear to be entirely a-theist. more like revisionist theist?) hmm.
ukrational
· 1 year ago
Hi Jonnyboy. I was saddened by your comment that life sucks. This is the only life we know we definitely have. We also know there is unspeakable wickedness and ugliness but there is also beauty and great kindness. This was pointed out in earlier posts by leotracks and XpastorDan but was completely overlooked by you. We see the things which matter to us. Christians soak in the teachings that the world and many of its unsaved inhabitants are bad, and that is what they see.
Please don't let cynicism and bitterness take root in your heart. I've seen it in people both Christian and secular who fashion their beliefs about humanity on this idea that people are basically bad. I recently had a phone call from an old man of 89, who has been a born again Christian most of his life. He asked me an atheist - for instructions on how to meditate since, as he put it, he needs some inner peace, because he wasn't getting it from his faith in God. He often used to speak to me of the wickedness of this world and on that we agreed to differ. What a waste - living in that way and missing out on what life could have offered ... Don't become this man
hells_bells
· 1 year ago
Jonnyboy - you think that all the bad things that happen on this planet can be ascribed to humanity. In most Christian circles I mixed in, death was treated as a bad thing. In Genesis 3, death is doled out to humanity (and, by extension, the world) as a punishment for sin - so death being a bad thing is "biblically based". Yet creatures were dying millions if not billions of years before the first humanoid even appeared on this planet. So, if death (as a bad thing) is humans' fault - then why did all those predecessors die? Sounds like a mightily pissed off deity to foresee a single act of disobedience and punish billions of innocent creatures as a result. OR death is a simple result of an organism not being able to refresh enough of its cells quickly enough for long enough - a fairly natural result from a evolutionary biochemical process. I prefer the latter explanation, because it makes some kind of sense.
Jonnyboy
· 1 year ago
I don't believe that all the bad things that happen on this planet can be ascribed to humanity. I believe bad things happen that are caused by the natural world (which encompasses most everything besides humanity) *and* humanity.
Of the two, I think humans tend to be worse,but that's just an opinion.
sconnor
· 1 year ago
jonnyboy,
Of the two, I think humans tend to be worse,but that's just an opinion.
You ignorant, little sod. Are you kidding me? When you start critically thinking let me know. Humanity vrs. humanity is just a pin prick compared to the devastation leveled by the natural world. The Black Plague, alone, killed 75 million people -- now, do a little, critical thinking and consider all the plagues throughout history -- think of all the diseases that have caused the deaths of billions upon billions of people. Additionally, consider all the deaths throughout history associated with bacteria, viruses, germs, and genetic abnormalities.
In the 20th century, alone, 70 million people have died from famine -- that's just in one century! Today, someone dies of hunger every 3.8 seconds in the world — 75% of these people are children. That’s six million children who die of malnutrition, every year, before their 5th birthday. And before you get your panties in a bunch and try to lay the blame on humanity for not coming to the rescue of these people, by distributing medicine and food -- you have to put starvation into context. Throughout history, billions and billions, have died from malnutrition and starvation, when it was impossible for humanity to come to the rescue. Couple this with earthquakes, tornadoes, floods, tsunamis, hurricanes, typhoons, heat waves, blizzards, volcanoes, lightening, mudslides, wildfires, and you'll start to get the idea that the natural world has it out for you. Also consider the unintelligent design of putting your food hole by your breathing hole, causing thousands to die, every year, by choking, to death and consider the unintelligent design, of the umbilical cord, that has caused the deaths of thousand of children, every year. And let's not forget those mental monstrosities, such as, Alzheimer's, clinical depression, bipolar disorder, complicated grief, schizophrenia, to name a few. Consider the natural causes of death like heart disease. Mortality rates for heart disease are higher than those of all forms of cancer combined, and is the leading cause of death globally, killing about 7.1 million people each year. This is the mortality rate, in the modern era; now, critically think about those rates, through out time, and tell me you are of the opinion that humans tend to be worse.
What about becoming extinct at any moment? Asteroids? Gamma rays? Ice ages? 440 million years ago. End of the Ordovician period. 370 million years ago. Near the end of the Devonian period. 245 million years ago. End of Permian. 210 million years ago. End of Triassic. 65 million years ago. End of Cretaceous.
In fact 99% of all life has gone extinct -- all by natural causes. What's your opinion now, jonnyboy?
--S.
...And are you going to address my other posts?
Jonnyboy
· 1 year ago
Laws classify crimes by malice. Do you think the black plague is more malicious than Charlie Manson? Dahmer? Bundy?
I mention malice because "bad" means more than just the amount of death that something causes. The natural world cannot intend evil. It has no agency, no choice. It does what it does.
So it depends on what's "worse." If the natural world putting an end to any form of life is as great an evil as one human killing another, then sure. Natural world is worse hands down. But I think the amount of "badness" we ascribe to something should take intent into consideration.
Monkeys
· 1 year ago
I dont think bad covers only malice. If you get hit by a car, that is going to be bad for you regardless of whether you were intentionally or unintentionally hit. Bad defines harm not intention. Intention defines the guilt of the party. Look it up in a book on jurisprudence.
XpastorDan
· 1 year ago
SCONNOR -
You are a human encyclopedia! Man you amaze me! Thanks for all of your input to this thread and to the whole exchristian.net site.
I think that once Jonnyboy comes around, he will make a nice addition to our little family. He is close! You can't be that intelligent and thoughtful and not soon come to the same conclusion that the rest of us have.
Come on Jonnyboy. Make the BIG step. Once you are on the side of REALITY, just think how much more you can learn! Don't waste that great big BRAIN that 4 billion years of evolution has endowed you with!
XpastorDan
sconnor
· 1 year ago
XpastorDan,
You are a human encyclopedia! Man you amaze me! Thanks for all of your input to this thread and to the whole exchristian.net site.
Thanks. To be honest with you, I didn't use to be like this. It wasn't until my son died, did I delve into why we suffer and what if anything, god has to do with it. My eyes have been opened to a mass world of hurt and I continually, read, always, with the pain of my son's death. I recently, read another book by Bart D. Ehrman, called, God's Problem: How the Bible Fails to Answer Our Most Important Question -- Why We Suffer. I highly, recommend it -- to all.
--S.
Jonnyboy
· 1 year ago
I would like to respond.
I would also like to do justice to the response.
I'm sorry you don't like me, but calling me names isn't going to get me to respond faster. It is intimidating, and it makes me want to be more thorough. It isn't as though your questions are trivial. They aren't. They are really hard, and I have to really think about them. I'm trying to do them justice so that I don't get immediately shredded.
sconnor
· 1 year ago
jonnyboy,
I'm sorry you don't like me, but calling me names isn't going to get me to respond faster.
Think of me as the Gorden Ramsay of apostasy. I'm going to be blunt and in your face and when I see you are being an ignorant dolt, I'm not going to pull punches -- if you can't stand the heat get out of the kitchen.
I mention malice because "bad" means...depends on what's "worse...should take intent into consideration.
So your statement, considering bad things happening, on this planet, comparing humanity and the natural world, "Of the two, I think humans tend to be worse,but that's just an opinion." -- you meant, it's worse because humans show malice or intent and nature doesn't? Wow, what a profound statement; that's, really, going out on a limb -- no shit.
Focus, jonnyboy, you're diverging again, we aren't arguing levels of badness and if it's worse if someone is malicious, we are arguing about egregious, horrendous, vile, unimaginable, suffering, in the world and why god created a world with suffering and why he lets it persist and why he keeps creating new souls to be sent, to this planet of mass, suffering, both caused by humanity's violent nature and nature's aberrations. If god is all-loving and had us in mind, then why aren't conditions for life -- well -- more livable; putting it gently?
--S.
Jonnyboy
· 1 year ago
Leaving, for the moment, an open question whether or not God is actively creating new souls and actively sending them to earth, I would like to know whether you want a biblical answer or a philosophical one.
You've probably heard the biblical answers before, but they do seem internally consistent (at least to me) given biblical doctrine. It's actually quite straightforward: God gives man free will (a good thing) man uses it (a good thing) to accomplish mostly bad things (a bad thing). God, in the knowledge that life is not confined to the material world, allows bad things to continue in the interest of preserving free will (still in principle a good thing) and redeems humanity (a very good thing) from its bad (but freely bad) choices while still allowing a free choice in the matter (a good thing.) Additionally, God takes an unnecessary burden upon himself (a good thing) and subjects himself to the human suffering caused by free will in order to rescue people from their bad choices, not necessarily in this world but certainly in the next.
Given the existence of a God with a personal interest in the affairs of humanity, human suffering is the single most discussed question in xianity Xianity can come up with a solution for this question, and although it may not appear ideal at first xianity can solve the problem (at least theologically.)
Omnipotence and omnibenevolence combined seem to present a problem in conjunction with human suffering. How can an infinitely good God, with infinite agency, stand to see people suffer? It has been asserted (often) that these qualities cannot co-exist, and furthermore that this disproves the existence of a god possessing those qualities. Since the strongest argument for why suffering exists is free will, it is also the one most frequently attacked.
J.L. Mackie criticizes it strongly in the treatise "Evil and Omnipotence," and his criticism follows the standard pattern. Either God is not omnipotent, or he is not omnibenevolent, or the existence of suffering needs to be explained in a way that allows those qualities to co-exist. He raises two reasons why suffering cannot be explained in a way allowing for an all-powerful, all-loving God, but they are both incredibly weak. (In fact they are so weak that I don't understand how any clear-thinking person can hold to either of them.)
His first claim in a nutshell is this: "God was not, then, faced with a choice between making innocent automata and making beings who, in acting freely, would sometimes go wrong: there was open to him the obviously better possibility of making beings who would act freely but always go right. Clearly his failure to avail himself of this possibility is inconsistent with his being both omnipotent and wholly good."
This actually boggles my mind. Maybe I understand it incorrectly? It seems to me that he is saying that a being that always chooses right and is also possessed of free will is *possible*, which I will easily grant. However, for God to ensure that beings possessed of free will always choose right, as he seems to be suggesting God could have done, seems to put a considerable limit on the notion of free will. In fact, it is categorically different from the unlimited free will I was mentioning before. Free will limited to only choose "right" is not free will, and if God's notion were to escape the creation of automata he would not be well served by enforcing a predisposition toward right choices so strongly that no one would ever make a wrong choice.
In short, I think this argument breaks down. Badly.
His second argument is from the difficulty in an omnipotent God's creation of free will. It is essentially the paradoxical question of whether or not God can create a rock so big that he can't lift it. Can God create a free will and then no longer control it? The answer I prefer (that God refrains from controlling free will when it leads to evil, even though he could if he so chose) is mentioned and then dismissed by Mackie in favor of a lengthy discussion of the ultimately silly question of whether or not God can can create something so _____ he can't _____ it (fill in whatever works for you in the blanks there.) He dismisses it with barely a paragraph to prosecute it. He indicates that there would have to be a loss in overall goodness if God took away free will in order to justify allowing it, which he then dismisses as incompatible with xian doctrine. Which it certainly isn't, especially given the idea that God created humanity to have free will in the first place.
Maybe I'm missing something? If anyone has anything that could point out to me why his arguments are sound, that would be helpful, because right now I confess I don't see it. He appears considerably predisposed against the idea of a benevolent and omnipotent God, which is alright, I suppose, if only he would adequately dispute the claims concerning that God. He doesn't though. Lemme know what you think.
Monkeys
· 1 year ago
Erm... JB
Did you read JL Mackie's argument in full? He deals with both your counter-arguments and I dont think you understand the crux of his argument. But We cant get there before discussing Sconnors earlier points on suffering from the natural world.
You are arguing against Mackie's specific attack on the (Men being responsible for evil defense) and NOT on his general arguments. We have to deal with the general arguments for evil and suffering before you can rely on that defense. You are framing the problem of evil by skipping a few steps ahead.
is this all you have on the defense of evil in the natural world? "God, in the knowledge that life is not confined to the material world, allows bad things to continue in the interest of preserving free will (still in principle a good thing)"
It makes no sense. It is eminently possible to have evil only arising from human action without natural evil while preserving free will.
Thats where you should start.
boomSLANG
· 1 year ago
JB: Leaving, for the moment, an open question whether or not [biblegod] is actively creating new souls and actively sending them to earth, I would like to know whether you want a biblical answer or a philosophical one.
Neither---as both are immaterial to the critical thinker/nonbeliever until you provide objective evidence for a "god".
JB: You've probably heard the biblical answers before, but they do seem internally consistent (at least to me) given biblical doctrine.
Actually, no, "biblical doctrine" is rife with contradictions and philisophical/logical inconsistancies. For a rather blatant example of the latter, "free will" and "omniscience" cannot coexist. It's as inconceivable as a "square circle".
JB: It's actually quite straightforward: God gives man free will (a good thing)...
Biblegod holds humankind responsible for a "trespass" they had no say in, whatsoever(a bad thing). If you call that "free will", then you have a very twisted definition of said concept(a bad thing), and I suggest you rethink(a good thing) the lunacy of what this "doctrine" is asserting.
JB continues..man uses it["free will"] (a good thing) to accomplish mostly bad things (a bad thing).
Once again, biblegod holds the entire human race responsible for the actions of two alleged human beings, who've presumably been deceased for thousands of years now. Biblegod, and its "faithful" proponents, maintain that this is the "Original Sin". In other words, future generations of human beings are inherently "evil". This, once more, removes "free will". If being a "sinner" is inevitable/inescapable, then theoretically, we must "sin", because if we could "choose" not to "sin", then we could avoid being a "sinner".
This is now two concise examples of how your "free will" proposition is severely lacking(a bad thing).
JB: God, in the knowledge that life is not confined to the material world,
Let's see.....biblegod "knows" something, but yet, you have not provided evidence that this "God" exists outside the pages of a book, or outside the "common sense" of your mind. Forgive me for finding that "reasoning" just slightly backwards.
JB: [biblegod]allows bad things to continue in the interest of preserving free will (still in principle a good thing)
So, we can logically infer that the will of man trumps the "Will of God". Hmmm...again, very backwards, and also begs the question----what is the point of "God" having a "Will"?
JB: and redeems humanity (a very good thing) from its bad (but freely bad) choices
Speaking of "bad choices"---if biblegod had the foreknowledge that "His Creation" would have the propensity to displease "Him", then why did "God" procede with that "Creation" in the first place? If your oven's thermostat is stuck on 500 degrees, but yet, you "choose" to bake cookies in it anyway, then you have no one to blame but yourself.
Additionally, if biblegod "regretted" creating these imperfect humanoids once he saw how they turned out(assuming "God" took the day off from being "omniscient"), then that implies that he was originally striving for beings that were unable to displease him. I don't quite see the "free will" in that idea. And anyway, why is "Mr. Perfect" assuming that all future generations will displease him because a "handful" already had done so?
JB: Additionally, God takes an unnecessary burden upon himself (a good thing) and subjects himself to the human suffering caused by free will in order to rescue people from their bad choices, not necessarily in this world but certainly in the next.
i.e.."God" creates the very problem that "God" seeks to have solved. Again, very unimpressive for a "God".
JB: ...human suffering is the single most discussed question in xianity Xianity can come up with a solution for this question, and although it may not appear ideal at first xianity can solve the problem (at least theologically.)
Oh, perfect. It can be solved "theologically". ReaLLY?
JB: Omnipotence and omnibenevolence combined seem to present a problem in conjunction with human suffering. How can an infinitely good God, with infinite agency, stand to see people suffer?
"agency"
.::thinks to self::...."hmmmm, that word sounds vaguely familiar"
But anyway---yes, the notion is that man's "free will" takes precedence over "God's Will", and it even takes precedence over human suffering. In other words, the child molester's "free will" takes precedence over the child's safety and well-being. How lovely.
JB: Since the strongest argument for why suffering exists is free will, it is also the one most frequently attacked.
Yes, and until you can solve it "untheologically", it will remain attacked. For that matter, until you can prove that "Christianity" has the monopoly on "Truth" that you and your Christian doctrine claim it has, your beliefs and philosophies will continue to be attacked, and rightfully so.(especially in light of the site's moniker)
In reason(a good thing), Boom'.
Jonnyboy
· 1 year ago
@ Monkeys
The reason I skipped the rest of his argument, which is lengthy and more completely thought out than this particular section, is that he explicitly states that the argument from free will "evades" his criticism of other defenses of an omnipotent God. He only offers two arguments to defeat the argument from free will, and those are the only ones I mentioned.
As far as natural "evil" goes, the most common theological explanation for human suffering at the hands of nature is that the fall from Eden corrupted all of creation. There is biblical support for this, but outside of a biblical understanding the answer is not as helpful as it could be.
One reason for an, admittedly specious, "short-earth" creationism is that it avoids the problem of millions of years of death, so if you like that idea better, run with it. Abandoning that position as unrealistic, there are a few things that strike me as important. One, it is entirely reasonable to argue that human suffering ranks higher on a utilitarian scale than any other form of suffering, and that millions of years of death (while problematic) is not as great an injustice as it might be if for example it was millions of years of human death. It may even be an acceptable trade-off for a chance at human life. (It might not of course, but I don't feel prepared to thoroughly argue the weight of life from a cosmic perspective.)
Two, there are things of value in a world that can kill you-- be it a sublimely powerful nature that connects you to the divine; a giant, consequence filled playground for humanity to mature in; or a world which allowed for the evolution of intelligent life. Dawkins, stirring orator and heroic voice for atheism that he is, makes this point for me (albeit with different aims) when he stresses the unimaginable wonder that characterizes for him the nature and existence of life as it is. You won't catch Dawkins condemning the cycle of death that produced his science. He thinks it's really cool (and looking at it from his perspective I'm inclined to agree with him.)
On a more direct note, with regard to this: "It is eminently possible to have evil only arising from human action without natural evil while preserving free will."
There are two things I would respond with. First, since we haven't entirely established what evil is, it might not be fair to call this "natural evil" an actual evil (although it's clearly an easy mistake.) Evil, as defined by God, might not include acts causing death without malicious intent. Second, what kind of world would that be exactly? A perfect natural world that doesn't cause death actually sounds like it could be a problematic environment, especially since no one could eat anything. I suppose God could provide manna from the skies, but would we ever develop as people if we were fed as infants are? What if we got tired of manna and attempted to eat some plant? Wouldn't we be causing "natural evil?" I suppose the easiest way to remove natural evil from the equation is to simply redefine nature as lacking the capacity to produce evil, but it doesn't seem a very satisfying conclusion.
What do you think?
@ boomSLANG
I wasn't asked for objective proof of the existence of God, I was asked to critically think about certain problems that arise if one posits the existence of God. That's what I'm doing. You'll have to wait your turn; like I said, I can't keep up with every single objection.
Free will and omniscience is a very interesting topic, which I would love to discuss after monkeys and sconnor are finished with me. Are there any other contradictions that come to mind?
Biblical doctrine strikes you as absurd? Fair enough. What isn't fair is piling up arguments against the claims of xianity on the basis of questionably self-evident truth while I am arguing within a framework of xian theology, and disregarding counter-arguments made within a framework of xianity as unsupported by, or inconsistent with your self-evident truths. Would you like me to pile up my own stack of questionably self-evident truths against yours? I'm only arguing from inside a framework of xianity at the moment. If you would like to make claims against xian theology as being inconsistent, you will have to do what wpankey57 is doing, and address the claims by accepting the basic tenets of xian doctrine as true and arguing for their inconsistency from the inside.
If you don't want to, that's okay with me, but I might have trouble responding sensibly.
sconnor
· 1 year ago
jonnyboy,
Leaving, for the moment, an open question whether or not God is actively creating new souls and actively sending them to earth, I would like to know whether you want a biblical answer or a philosophical one.
I want your answer; the one, that you think, is iron clad. I get the distinct impression you are not arguing with me but, instead arguing with another author -- diverging from the specifcs of my arguments. I want your conclusions, with respect to the arguments -- I posed. Can you do that?
I knew webmdave and boomslang would skewer you with the free will argument and I think they're not done, spanking you, yet. The only detail I can add is, how does the free will argument account for disease, mental illness, genetic physical deformity and natural disasters?
With that aside, I want to know what you believe? Do you believe, an all-loving, personal, god created you? Do you believe an all-loving god created this planet of suffering? Does he continue to create souls, sending them to a world, where he knows vile, unimaginable, suffering exists? How do you reconcile a god like this? And can you address me and my arguments, specifically, with your own thoughts and words. It's becoming increasingly frustrating, with you dancing around the specifics of my arguments. It's like pulling teeth; trying to find out what you believe. Can you make an unequivocal statement describing your beliefs in god?
--S.
hells_bells
· 1 year ago
Free will - if God exists and will judge us all on "sin", and "sin" is measured entirely in terms of what this God wants, then isn't the Christian concept of free will fatally flawed anyway? If you don't do what God wants, you fry. Basically Christians can only choose to do what God wants - hardly "free" will.
Monkeys
· 1 year ago
"The reason I skipped the rest of his argument, which is lengthy and more completely thought out than this particular section, is that he explicitly states that the argument from free will "evades" his criticism of other defenses of an omnipotent God."
Well if you have read his argument then your own argument would have understood and differentiated between second-order evils and good from third order freedom. Its going to be difficult to get there without getting this point out of the way which really describes and differentiates harm, causation, intention and free will.
"As far as natural "evil" goes, the most common theological explanation for human suffering at the hands of nature is that the fall from Eden corrupted all of creation."
Like boomslang so pointedly illustrates, Biblical arguments wont work when an uncertain argument comes from an uncertain authority. You still have yet to prove that you can rely on the Bible as an inerrant source. Furthermore you still run into the issue of omniscience and omnipotence - God knew the world was going to be corrupted and did nothing to forestall or intervene in it even though he had the power to. Furthermore he could have chosen a whole variety of consequences for creation even if men fell.So as it goes - the defense is far then effective on itself as it does not negate any of the other possible scenarios that an omnipotent and omniscient being could avail itself of.
"One reason for an, admittedly specious, "short-earth" creationism is that it avoids the problem of millions of years of death...."
Are we supposed to take this argument seriously? Its still an uncertain conclusion premised on an assertion which is even less based on evidence. Furthermore even one death is one to many. Is Charlie Manson a better person than Hitler becuase he did not kill as many? Or is one murder bad enough to contradict all-benevolent.
if the term natural Evil causes problems, then Let us then start with harm and suffering if it is less confusing.
A.) God created the universe (assumption) B1.) God is omnipotent (assumption) B2.) God is omniscient (assumption) B3.) God is benevolent (assumption)
C.) There is harm and suffering in the world (Fact) D.) harm and suffering is caused both intentionally by actors in the world and also by unintentionally by actors and the world on each other (Fact)
E.) It follows that if an omnipotent, omniscient and benevolent God (perfect designer) created a universe (his intentioned perfect design) where harm and suffering occurs intentionally (human) and unintentionally (natural and human) - then he intentioned that such harm and suffering would occur.
"Evil, as defined by God, might not include acts causing death without malicious intent."
How to define Evil (sigh - we wont have to go through this if you had just read Mackie's earlier arguments)
In other words God has the intention that harm and suffering will occur (regardless of harm or sufferings causation - natural or human) as he can forsee that his creation is dangerous and he has perfect control of creation itself. Think of the moral guilt of someone who builds an IED and makes it so that it blows up due to a vehicle passing through. He might claim fairly he was not there when the trap was triggered nor did he have any control over the circumstances that will trigger the explosion (he cannot control the car or the driver) - but designing and laying such a trap is still intentionally causing harm and suffering because he can reasonably forsee and expect that it will be triggered even if he does not want it to be triggered by certain people.he might prefer and genuinely wish that one group is not affected (civilians vs soldiers). But by all accounts he is still guilty of causing harm and suffering as the designer of the bomb because he reasonably foresaw that it could cause harm to any group. Read up any book on Jurisprudence and you will see this is how intention is determined in a court of law. It makes sense too - I fire a machine gun into a crowd although I genuinely do not want anyone to get hurt. But i also know that there is a high probability someone will get hurt. Knowledge of the outcome regardless of desire for it constitutes responsibility for that outcome to occur. Am I responsible for the harm and suffering caused when i fire a machine gun into a crowd even though I dont want anybody to be harmed? Responsibility is linked to knowledge of the outcome of an action.
Worse still for a God that knows everything and built everything perfectly as he saw fit and intervenes whenever he wants. The outcome he foresees is also that he desires and that he has designed to occur. he is thus fully responsible for harm and suffering.
It is your obligation then to differentiate why this harm and suffering (from unintentional sources other than himself) which God has intentionally created should be considered as not his responsibility. Something you have yet to do other than by defining natural harm and suffering as not "evil" yet it is still attributable to a creation which is fully designed to be this way by its perfect creator. The creator then is responsible as he cannot claim ignorance or lack of ability.
"A perfect natural world that doesn't cause death actually sounds like it could be a problematic environment, especially since no one could eat anything. I suppose God could provide manna from the skies, but would we ever develop as people if we were fed as infants are? What if we got tired of manna and attempted to eat some plant? Wouldn't we be causing "natural evil?"
jonnyboy's perfect world: No eating Possible better world 1: All the joys and sustenance when you eat - none of the joys and sustenance when you dont eat but also none of the starvation and death. You or others may force you not to eat (free will to eat not affected) (death is not the direct opposite quality of sustenance - one can choose to be sustained or not) Possible better world 2: One can starve to death however there is always food provided - one can only starve to death by choice or by the choice of others to deny food to you (free will to eat is not affected) Possible better world 3: One can starve to death but everyone is always provided with an adequate forewarning to choose an alternate path that if one remains or continues in a particular way - there will be a shortage of food. Others may still force you to stay but everyone will know what would occur. (eg. this currect crop WILL be destroyed by pestilence - you can choose to remain or move out - suprise crop failures do not occur) (free will to eat not affected)
jonnyboy's perfect world: development is impossible without the need to look for food. Analysis: This seems to be a curtailment of our free will - we are forced into doing certain things because of imperfections we are designed with. Our supposed "unlimited" free will is "limited". So much for it being a supreme value. Forced to develop rather than choose to develop or not. Possible better world: No development is needed for skills that are irrelevant in a perfect world. Although all skills are open to development one can choose whether to develop them or not. (development not limited and also not forced.) Possible better world: Development is possible because one is not forced by need but by choice.
eg. an analogy of the above argument Jonnyboy's perfect world: If you were not blind - you would not need to develop the skills of reading Braille Possible better world: One in which you are not blind due to natural causes. Possible better world: We could still learn to use Braille even if you were not blind - one does so because when chooses to do so. Tightrope walkers have use of their eyes but they can still choose to develop wearing a blindfold while tightrope walking because they want to not because they are forced to. (free will is not affected and is more important in living life) Possible better world: One in which you can ONLY be blinded by intentionally having your own eyes put out or if others intentionally do so to you (Free will is not affected)
jonnyboy's perfect world: All humans are fed as infants Possible better world 1: no human is force fed. All humans can choose to eat or not to eat - if they dont they forgo the joy of eating but do not suffer or are punished for choosing not to eat. However others may force you to forgo the pleasures of eating. (free will not affected) Possible better world 2: no human is force fed. All humans are able to choose not to eat but food is provided so their choice is always that of not eating and not due to deprivation or scarcity but because they choose or are forced by others not to eat. (free will not affected)
jonnyboy perfect world: choice to eat plants - presumably something bad to you will happen? Possible better world 1: different foods will have different taste - but all (even the tasteless) will be sustaining or at the very least result in no physical harm. (free will to eat different plants not affected) Possible better world 2: plants may cause damage but everyone would have intuition of which plants cause damage or not. Others or yourself can choose or be forced into eating this plant -but it is impossible to eat it by accident. (free will is aware) Possible better world 3: plant may cause harm but the cure is also inherent to its nature - we can access this cure through free will but we can choose not to do so. (free will enhanced)
There can be innumerable examples of better worlds ( I dont have to define what the perfect world is - only show a better world exists where free will is not affected.), all of which show that natural harm can be at the very best removed and at the very least linked specifically to human choice.
My argument: A.) If you can come up with a better world B.) where free will is preserved or enhanced C.) you cannot rely therefore on natural harm in this world being NECESSARY for free will
Your argument needs to prove the assertion that 1.) natural harm and suffering in this world is necessary for free will to operate 2.) There can be no better alternatives
As for the Dawkins argument - I have no idea how that is relevant to this problem as he accepts that the natural world is able to cause harm and suffering without a perfect designer. he imputes no responsibility to a creator. The wonder one gets when marveling the ocean is separate from the damage the ocean can do to you. Both values are what we perceive to be inherent to the ocean (the particular one created in this world) but each value is not inherent in the other. (the values of harm and beauty are not inherent in each other - they are separate)
"be it a sublimely powerful nature that connects you to the divine" If your argument for why there is harm in nature depends on connecting to the divine. Please show the logic of how it does so and why harm is necessary for nature to do so.
XpastorDan
· 1 year ago
SCONNOR-
Thanks for the heads up. I love Ehrman. He is kind of my De-Conversion Guru. His earlier book "The Orthodox Corruption of Scripture" is what really openned my eyes and put me on the road to discovery about where the bible really came from. Have a great week,
XpastorDan
webmdave
· 1 year ago
@ Johnnyboy and freewill
How free is freewill? Am I free to fly by flapping my arms? Am I free to crave raw meat? Am I free to dislike ice cream? An I free to be the most handsome man on earth?
Hmm?
The fact is, John, no one has freewill. We only have the freedom of expressing our natures. I can not change my food preferences, my looks, or my lack of ability to fly at will. I am not free to violate my nature. I can only do those things that a human can do, and I can only do them within the parameters of the talents, abilities and general limits of my personality. I am not free to be an artist, as I have no talent for art. I am not free to be a homosexual, because I am not attracted to men. I can pretend to be an artist or a homosexual or any number of things, but I am not really free to be those things. I am only free to be exactly what I am. I can no more choose against my nature than your God can choose against His supposed nature.
If I am evil, it is because I was born with an evil nature. I cannot choose to have a different nature than the one I was born with. If I was born with an evil nature, then where did that nature come from if I presuppose the existence of your omni-everything god?
If the nature of your god is only good, then your god does not possess the ability -- the free will -- to create evil. Yet, if your god did not create evil, then how could evil even exist anywhere in his creation? If your god doesn't have the free will to do evil, then his free will is limited.
If your god was good, and all free will is already limited, then he certainly could have created a world where free will was preserved, yet evil was non-existent. If you believe evil must be present to preserve free will, then there should be a good supply of evil in heaven. That'll be fun, huh?
wpankey57
· 1 year ago
Another major problem for me is the doctrine of hell, the ultimate evil. Just following the wonderful verses promising the Age to Come we read of the fate of those who will not be partakers of the New Jerusalem,
But for the cowardly, the unbelieving, the vile, the murderers, the sexually immoral, those who practice magic arts, the idolaters and all liars--their place will be in the fiery lake of burning sulfur. This is the second death (Rev. 21:8).
As John Wenham as so rightly said in his book The Enigma of Evil: Can We Believe in the Goodness of God?,
The ultimate horror of God's universe is hell. The other difficulties of the Bible and of Providence are real enough, but however appalling they may be, their seeming harshness and injustices are only temporary, cut short by death. The terrors of hell, on the other hand, belong to the world which lies beyond death. For a single being to endure pain hopelessly and unendingly, or even to pass out of existence and forfeit for ever the joys of heaven, is more terrible than any temporal suffering (1985, p. 27).
With deep heartfelt pity it seems to me that few people could possibly be deserving of such a fate. My problem stems, in large measure, around the issue of mankind's freedom, responsibility, and the sovereignty of God. Since earliest times, Christians have pointed to Genesis chapter 3 as the description of man's fall from innocence. From that point onward many in the Church have referred to the concept of original sin as an inner disposition or inclination toward sin. Augustine believed that the sinful nature of Adam was biologically transmitted to all human beings. Support for this view is said to be in a germinal form in (Gen. 6:5; cf. Ps. 51) were we read, "The LORD saw how great man's wickedness on the earth had become, and that every inclination of the thoughts of his heart was evil all the time." John Calvin taught that Adam's sin was imputed to all in the same manner as Christ's righteousness is imputed to all believers. Since Adam was the head of the human race and consequently, its federal representative all are thus born sinners because they participate in the nature and guilt of Adam their father. Later, Calvin's view was embodied in chapter 6 of Westminster Confession of Faith entitled "Concerning the Fall of Man, Sin, and the Punishment for Sin."
Since Adam and Eve are the root of all mankind, the guilt for this sin has been imputed to all human beings, who are their natural descendants and have inherited the same death in sin and the same corrupt nature. This original corruption completely disciplines, incapacitates, and turns us away from every good, while it completely inclines us to every evil. From it proceed all actualized sins (1979, p.12).
Other reformers took a slightly more optimistic view of the human condition. For them, total depravity did not mean that fallen man was totally incapable of any good, rather only that the effects of sin had permeated every area of man's being (including reason, contra Aquinas). The Apostle Paul taught that we were "all under sin" (Rom. 3:9-20), and "slaves to sin" (Rom. 6:17, 20). Contrary to the new life in Christ, which is lived by the Spirit, is the old life lived according to the flesh (Rom. 8:5-9). The Spirit is life whereas the Flesh (sarx) is death. For Paul, when he contrasted Flesh and Spirit over two thirds of the instances referred to sarx as the fallen human nature (cf. the N.I.V. Bible). Paul viewed mankind, apart from Christ, as being spiritual dead and dissipated in the lusts of their sinful nature. "And were by nature children of wrath, even as the rest" (Eph. 2:3). Taking all the Biblical evidence of man's inherent depravity to heart the drafters of The Westminster Confession of Faith declared in chapter nine entitled "Concerning Free Will" that,
Man fell into a state of sin by his disobedience and so completely lost his ability to will any good involving salvation. Consequently fallen man is by nature completely opposed to spiritual good, is dead in sin, and is unable by his own strength either to convert himself or to prepare himself for conversion. When God converts a sinner and brings him into a state of grace, He frees him from his natural enslavement to sin. By God's grace alone, freely given, sinful man is enabled to will and to do what is spiritually good. However, since the old sinful nature also remains, the believer cannot consistently or perfectly will to do what is good but also wills evil (1979, p. 17).
Now it's true that the Reformed faith does not speak for all Bible believing Christians, nevertheless, this tradition does seem to be the majority one. On the other hand, the Arminian position does teach that man's will is free and consequently may accept or reject God's grace. Norman Geisler reflecting this position notes that,
A further argument for free will is that God's commandments carry a divine "ought" for man, implying that man can and should respond positively to his commands. The responsibility to obey God's commands entails the ability to respond to them, by God's enabling grace. Furthermore, if man is not free, but all his acts are determined by God, then God is directly responsible for evil, a conclusion that is clearly contradicted by Scripture (Hab. 1:13; James 1:13-17). Therefore, it seems that some form of self-determinism is the most compatible with the biblical view of God's sovereignty and man's responsibility (1984, p. 430).
Without belaboring the issue of man's freedom and the providence of God any longer, I would like to tie the proceeding discussion to the doctrine of hell. John Wenham states, "to sin mean ultimately to forfeit heaven, and this the greatest possible punishment which anyone can ever receive, and this is the punishment which sin deserves" (1985, p. 70 Italics his). I have a tremendous problem with the phrase "this is the punishment which sin deserves." To state it plainly, it seems a terrible injustice and the greatest moral outrage to say a person deserves punishment for their sins when, as we have seen, they were incapable by nature to do nothing other than sin! Is a nursing inarticulate infant morally responsible for crying for its mother when hungry? Is such crying to meet a need, which may be inappropriate at a later stage, deserving of punishment? Certainly not! St. Augustine was aware of the charge that unending torture mounted to an eternity of evil. In order to rebut the charge he argued, that, whereas unpunished sin was an evil, sin properly punished was a good. Consequently, the existing of souls receiving their just punishment throughout eternity was a good and not an evil. I take objection with two issues (that are closely related), in his argument. First, I find the idea of hell as being a proper punishment as simply a case of supreme "over-kill." Although few might object to the thought of a Hitler or Stalin spending an eternity in an existence pictured by such images as the place of the "undying worm" (Mk. 9:48; cf. Is. 66:24), where there is a "fire that is not put out," a place to spend eternity "prepared for the devil and his angels" (Mk. 9:48; Mt. 25:41) and in the perpetual dreadful sight of "weeping and gnashing of teeth" (Mt. 8:12; Lk. 13:28; Mt. 13:42, 50; 22:13; 42:51; 25:30). Secondly, Augustine states that hell is a just punishment. Even in the Old Testament Israel was commanded to "take life for life, eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot, burn for burn, wound for wound, bruise for bruise" (Ex. 21:23-25; Deut. 19:21). The idea here was not a license for each member of the community to seek revenge, but rather it was a restraint given to the rulers of Israel for curbing the clan violence that inevitably escalated. Such a law was a welcomed relief compared to other such laws in the Middle East. This was justice, hell is not. Hell is unbridled, unrelenting torment and anguish for "the cowardly, the unbelieving, the vile, the murderers, the sexually immoral, those who practice magic arts, the idolaters and all liars, their place will be in the fiery lake of burning sulfur. This is the second death" (Rev. 21:8). Such a punishment surely doesn't seem proper or just for those that are cowards, unbelieving and liars! Jesus also taught that those who reject him (Mt. 11:20-24), and the prophets reap hell as their "reward." Also those guilty of hypocrisy (Mt. 23:15), hateful language and intent (Mt. 5:22), unfaithfulness (Mt. 24:45-51), unrepentant (Mt. 5:29-30), and the disobedient (Mt. 7:19) are liable to its judgment. Richard Mouw in his book Uncommon Decency deals with hell in one of his chapters. For him "hell reinforces the importance of human freedom" (1992, p. 138 Italics his). Mouw rejects the idea that hell is a "punishment imposed from outside" (1992, p. 138). Hell is rather the "culmination of a person's own freely chosen life-plan" (1992, p. 138 Italics mine). Continuing he states that, "because of our sin, however, we are incapable of mustering up the resources to live out a life-plan that glorifies God" (1992, p. 139 Italics mine). I think that it is more Biblical to say that it’s because of our nature (not sin per say which is only the effect), that we are incapable of mustering up the resources to live out a life-plan that glorifies God. We are by nature sinners; under sin, prone to sin, slaves to sin. Sin comes natural to us--glorifying God doesn't.
Hell is the ultimate and inevitable consequence of a persistent refusal of divine grace. It is separation from God--a state of affairs where we have finally cut ourselves off from the possibility of being healthy human creatures (Mouw 1992, p. 139).
Reformed theologians have taught that we are not really truly free to choose or reject God on our own. Our salvation or damnation is sovereignly predestined by the providential will of God.
At the right time, appointed by Him, God effectual calls all those and only those whom He has predestined to life. He calls them by His word and Spirit out of their natural state of sin and death into grace and salvation through Jesus Christ. . .This effectual call is freely made by God and is entirely an act of His special grace. It does not depend on anything God foreknew or foresaw about the person called, who is completely passive. God Himself gives life and renewal by the Holy Spirit. He enables each person to answer His call and to accept the grace He offers and actually gives. . .Others, not elect, may be called by the ministry of the word, and the Spirit may work in them in some of the same way He works in the elect. However, they never truly come to Christ and therefore cannot be saved (Westminster Confession of Faith 1985, p. 18).
Emil Brunner states that Calvin "denies human freedom, but he also maintains full human responsibility, while at the same time he asserts that God alone determines all that happens, without, however, ascribing to him the origin of evil" (Brunner 1952, p. 172). His evaluation of Calvin is one in which I am in complete agreement with,
This is the element in Calvin's thought which is so unsatisfactory, not to say painful and dishonest. He does not admit for a moment that there is an insoluble dilemma here, a paradoxical statement which cannot be regarded as free from two opposed assertions, but he proceeds as though everything were in order, while he is flying in the face of logic (Brunner 1952, 172).
Jonnyboy
· 1 year ago
First of all, this is really impressive. You do very good work.
There is wiggle room here (especially since I could just dismiss Calvinism.) To your credit you have readily admitted this, and since the point of this exercise is to think critically, I will attempt to not wiggle.
Ok, maybe I'll wiggle just a little bit with a disclaimer: Calvin is and always has been problematic for the xian faith (heck, you know that, you know more about him than I do.) He is at once helpful in his simplicity and strength of message, and completely unhelpful in the number of paradoxes he ends up raising. The easiest way out of this may in fact be to dismiss Calvinism as a relic and leave it at that. It is rather a large part of the reformed church though, as you mentioned, so I will attempt to avoid that.
Another brief disclaimer: (O.o) ---Holy crap. This is researched. I am feeling tentative, and so I am only going to look at a couple of things, until I get my bearings.
I have been taught that the biblical hell was not created for humans to inhabit. Is that wrong according to Calvinistic tradition? (BTW I am not a calvinist, nor anything even remotely close to presbyterian, so the doctrinal fine points will be a little over my head.)
Does Calvinism (or deterministic variants) offer anything besides paradox as a solution to this inconsistency? Like, could we posit that perhaps God knows all possible outcomes of all possible choices ever, but makes no actions beyond those required for certain conditions to appear? Leaving free choice possible, but known? Additionally, could God not intentionally limit his knowledge of the outcomes of free choices in order to provide free will?
Lemme know what you think.
With respect, Jonnyboy
webmdave
· 1 year ago
"I have been taught that the biblical hell was not created for humans to inhabit."
I was taught that too. However, since Bible God knows everything before it happens and is unchanging, it appears that since before the foundation of the world he was well aware that the bulk of humanity would be spending eternity, alive, in hell.
"Could God not intentionally limit his knowledge of the outcomes of free choices in order to provide free will?"
If you are determined to retain your faith in the face of all reasonable logic, then yes, your god could change his nature and not know the future.
Philip
· 1 year ago
It just gets more and more absurd.
So the most perfect conceivable entity, eternal, all-knowing, all-powerful, went out of its way to create an infinitely weak and sinful species of creature, then purposely made itself imperfect just so it could let those creatures make decisions it won't know about in advance so it doesn't have to take responsibility for letting those creatures damn themselves to a dimension of infinite torture that God didn't want to let them go in the first place, but somehow has convinced Itself that it must let them go to, to be "fair"?
Do you see now why we're ex-Christians?
Auracle
· 1 year ago
"When God converts a sinner and brings him into a state of grace, He frees him from his natural enslavement to sin. By God's grace alone, freely given, sinful man is enabled to will and to do what is spiritually good. However, since the old sinful nature also remains, the believer cannot consistently or perfectly will to do what is good but also wills evil (1979, p. 17)."
Sounds to me like God doesn't do a very good of "freeing" people does he? Kind of like going into a prison and unlocking the cell door and telling the prisoner "you are free to go" but then saying "oh wait, we need to keep this" and chopping off the prisoner's arm and tossing it back in the cell...or maybe slamming the cell door shut on one of the prisoner's body parts - you're kinda free. But not really.
Jonnyboy
· 1 year ago
@ webmdave (edited because of stacking problems)
An argument against free will! I was legitimately not expecting this to come up. I am taken aback.
A few questions for you (and BTW, very sincere kudos for this answer. I have been caught at a loss again, and I am very unfamiliar with arguments against the existence of free will)...
1) Is it impossible to change one's nature? 2) Have you been hanging out with Calvin? 3) Does acting in accordance with one's nature rule out free choice? What if free choice is more narrowly defined?
Additional uncertain musings: Is God not capable of evil? Whether he is or he isn't, if indeed he does exist the world, made according to his nature, should tell us things about him and his nature. Hmmm.
I'll have to go into this more thoroughly I think, since I have honestly never considered this angle of things before...
sconnor
· 1 year ago
jonnyboy,
An argument against free will! I was legitimately not expecting this to come up. I am taken aback.
Are F-ing kidding me? Do you even know what you are arguing?
JB said, Since the strongest argument for why suffering exists is free will,
--S.
wpankey57
· 1 year ago
Freedom and Determinism
Humans place great value in their freedom. Riots, revolutions, and wars have all been fought in the name of freedom or liberty. The passion that freedom arouses has been the heart cry of every nation, age and people. As the American patriot Patrick Henry once said, “Give me liberty of give me death.” Or as the state of New Hampshire has boldly stated as their state motto, “Live free or die” or again as Martin Luther King Jr. proclaimed, “Free at last, free at last, thank God almighty I’m free at last.” The American Founding Fathers wrote in the Declaration of In-dependence that, “We hold these truths to be self-evident: that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, lib-erty, and the pursuit of happiness.” No doubt, these statements give voice to humanities’ senti-ments about freedom! The desire to be free seems to be an inherent part of human nature. In this essay I would like to consider the nature of human freedom. Before we can consider that concept however we must ask the seemingly obvious question, “What is freedom?” At first glance the meaning seems perfectly plain. Freedom is that state of affairs in which one’s activi-ties are not curtailed or infringed upon by another. However, is the concept of freedom so easily defined and its meaning exhausted? Perhaps, one should rather ask, “What are the different kinds of freedom.” Certainly there are different kinds of freedom as well as different degrees of freedom. Even a cursory consideration of the word will yield a number of various meanings and dimensions: civil, social, economic, political, psychological, biological, metaphysical, and theo-logical. When one really explores the many facets of freedom it is not at all sure that we have in mind the same thing or understand the concept that lies behind such a common and seemingly obvious word. I would suggest that a great deal more is packed in the word F R E E D O M than is normally assumed! Many will recognize this to be question with a long history and one still lacking an answer sufficient to meet everyone’s satisfaction. Although these seem impertinent questions, and contrary to common sense, I feel one is obligated to raise them for the sake of truth and for the practical bearing it has on our worldview. As Carl J. Friedrich observed in his book The Philosophy of Kant, Like other great philosophers, Kant had the capacity for wondering about that which is taken for granted by all others. In an early essay, Einführung des Be-griffs der negativen Grössen in die Weltweisheit (1763), he remarked toward the end: “I who . . . usually understand that the least which all people believe readily to understand” (Italics mine xiv).
To wonder about the nature of freedom is not simply a philosopher’s quest or an idle exercise in theoretical abstractions. To think hard about the nature of freedom opens new doors of percep-tion some quite radical and provocative while others can be quite liberating. To ask the question differently one may inquire, “To what degree, if any, are individuals autonomous?” But are not the words ‘freedom’ and ‘autonomous’ tautological? Do we not, by defining the one, define the other? Since, I believe that this is indeed the case I’ll use the words synonymously. Webster defines autonomy as: “Independent or freedom, as of the will, one’s actions, etc.” Or “Undertaken or carried on without outside control.” Here, I think, are two quite different facets of the same word, the first being freedom of the will or freedom pertaining to one’s thoughts and actions whereas the second implies action taken independently of outside control. Though being two different facets of the same word the former is not necessarily inde-pendent of the latter as we shall see later. For most individuals both kinds of freedoms are possible. Namely, the possibility of free-will and freedom from political or state discrimination, control, or interference (the kind of free-dom the writers of the Declaration had in mind). While I do not doubt the existence of civil and political freedom and the opposite state of affairs where these liberties are not enjoyed, as history piteously testifies, I would question however the existence of free will. Therefore, the issues I want to address are not, “Do individuals face instances of political, social, and cultural restric-tions to their freedom, for indeed they do, but rather do we as individuals have a will that is free? Are our wills indeed free that is, are we truly autonomous or are we in fact governed by both in-ternal (physiological, psychological) and external influences (upbringing, environment) factors?” Do we readily acknowledge that the whole universe functions according to the ‘laws” of cause and effect whereas maintain, at the same time, that human beings are somehow exempt from the same laws? If we are indeed exempt, or significantly so as to ensure our free will, what reason(s) do we put forth as evidence? Few will deny that we are indeed influenced by internal factors (heredity = nature) and exter-nal factors (environment = nurture) but balk at the idea that these factors determine our thinking and behavioral processes. The idea of somehow being determined strikes many as patently ab-surd and beyond the pale of common sense. Others find it psychologically disturbing. As some reason, “If we are indeed determined then we are mere puppets or automatons. Our future, as well as our present, is out of our control. We are cogs in a great machine meshed with other cogwheels all operating wholly dependently and inextricable tied to each other!” Still others ob-ject to determinism on moral grounds. “If we are all determined then no one can take moral re-sponsibly for their actions; whether good or bad. The criminal is therefore not morally responsi-ble for his or her action. Nor can those individuals noted for their praiseworthy efforts be com-mended for them. What will become of our traditional concepts of justice, punishment, praise, and reward? For if determinism is true then one’s actions are as set or as inviolable as one’s gender, IQ, or the color of one’s eyes.” Determinism is perceived as a threat to the status quo. It is perceived as an attack against human dignity—a reductionism that reduces the individual’s long cherished notion that we choose our destiny and chart our own course through life to a chimera. Baron d’Holbach (1723-1789) stated the determinist thesis in its classic form: In whatever manner man is considered, he is connected to universal nature, and submitted to the necessary and immutable laws that she imposes on all the beings she contains, according to their peculiar essences or the respective properties which, without consulting them, she endows particular species. Man’s life is a line that nature commands him to outline upon the surface of the earth, without ever being able to swerve from it, even for an instant. He is born without his own consent; his organization does in nowise depend upon himself; his ideas come to him involuntarily; his habits are in the power of those who cause him to contract them; he is unceasingly modified by causes, whether visible or concealed, over which he has no control, which necessarily regulate his mode of existence, give the hue to his way of thinking, and determine his manner of acting. He is good or bad, happy or miserable, wise or foolish, reasonable or irrational, without his will counting for anything in these various states.
But, why would anyone object to the traditional notion of free will? The reason(s) upon closer examination seems, at least to me, quite obvious. As I mentioned above all agree that, at least at the macro level of existence, all things work according to the laws of cause and effect. To acknowledge this is to acknowledge the existence of causality. That is to say, that whatever happens at any given moment is the effect of some antecedent cause. The law of cause and ef-fect governs everything in the universe. That is, everything in the universe is entirely determined so that whatever happens at any given moment is the effect of some antecedent cause. If you were omniscient, you could right now predict exactly everything that would happen for the rest of the hour, for the rest of your lifetime, for the rest of time itself, simply because you would know how everything hitherto is causally related. Therefore, since all human actions are events, human action are not undetermined, are not free in a ‘real’ sense but are also the product of a causal process. So although you may imagine that you are autonomous and have free will, in reality you are totally conditioned by heredity and environment. My reasoning is quite simple. It can be stated in the following syllogism: Since every event (or state of affairs) must have a cause and Since human actions (as well as the agent who gives rise to those actions) are events (or a state of affairs Therefore, every human action (including the agent him or herself) is caused.
Clarence Darrow, of the Scope’s Trial fame, sought to follows this line of reasoning in plead-ing for leniency on the part of two boys who had committed a murder argued, We are all helpless . . . This weary world goes on, begetting, with birth and with living and with death; and all of it is blind from the beginning to the end. I do not know what it was that made these two boys do this mad act, but I do know there is a reason for it. I know they did not beget themselves. I know that anyone of an infinite number of causes reaching back to the beginning might be working out in these boys’ mind, whom you are asked to hang in malice and in hatred and injus-tice . . . Nature is strong and she is pitiless. She works in her own mysterious way, and we are her victims. We have not much to do with it ourselves. Nature takes this job in hand, and we play our part. In the words of old Omar Khayam, we are: “But helpless pieces in the game He plays; Upon the chess board of nights and days; Hither and thither moves, and checks and slays, And one by one back in the closet lays.” What had this boy to do with it? He was not his own father, he was not his own mother; he was not his own grandparents. All of this was handed to him. He did not surround himself with governesses and wealth. He did not make himself. And yet he is to be compelled to pay.
In more recent times one of the strongest proponents of determinism was B. F. Skinner. Freedom, Skinner argues, is not a fact of human experiences. All of our responses—the impulses that lie behind so-called free choices—are the result of unique past contingencies of conditioning and reinforcement that have shaped us into what we are. We only appear to be free because we are unaware of the number of possible combinations of variables that are antecedent to all our thoughts and actions. Although the hypothesis of universal causality cannot be proved it is something that we all assume. We cannot easily imagine an uncaused event-taking place in or-dinary life. Freedom is therefore an illusion. Among the illustrations used by Skinner is the account of a falling leaf. Picture a leaf, yel-lowed from the first frosts, fluttering and suddenly beginning to fall from the top of the tall, red-gold maple tree. In zigzag motions, hovering on the currents of air, it picks a path downward and settles eventually upon a cushion of leaves on the ground. Now, there isn’t a physicist alive who would argue that the leaf is “free.” The fact is that the leaf follows precisely known laws of physics, laws that can easily be found in any physics textbook. Yet as the leaf starts its fall from the top of the maple tree, what physicist, by applying his formulas, could predict the leaf’s trajec-tory or the spot where it will finally come to land? The journey is too complex; there are too many variables: air currents, atmospheric density, humidity, minute photon forces, the mass and the volume of the leaf, its configuration, and so on. The number of possible combinations of variables is so great that, although knowing all the applicable laws, predicting the leaf’s path or destination is a feat quite beyond the ability of any physicist (or computer) today. Part of the reluctance and antipathy that surrounds the concept of determinism is rooted in the mistaken notion that it is the same thing as fatalism. Fatalism is a doctrine that states that no matter what you do (or anyone does) certain events will occur. For example, if it is fixed by the stars or the gods or the Fates that you will die in an airplane crash at noon on November 10, 2003, no matter what you do, even if you stay away from airplanes, that event will take place. Determinism acknowledges that human choices and actions are necessary to produce certain events, but simply posits that our choices and actions follow causal processes. If you stay away from airports and are not kidnapped, you won’t die at noon on November 10, 2003—at least not in an airplane crash. One must keep these two concepts separate to avoid needless confusion. Determinism is not fatalism. It is not a passive resignation to the inevitable but an active pressing forward toward the boundaries of our possibilities. To state that all we say, do, think, and “will” is determined is only to acknowledge that behind all saying, doing, thinking, and “willing” lies antecedent causes. For example, let’s say that I want to become a librarian. I tell my wife one day that I’ve decided to go back to school and get my degree in Library Science. Was that decision to become a librarian really a free choice that I made? Did not that choice involve antecedent causes? I think one would have to agree that an uncaused choice or act of the will, that is independent from internal and external factors, is impossible. My decision to become a librarian only appears to be a free act of my will because I’m ignorant of all the factors that led up to that decision. Again, if I were omniscient I could trace all the factors back to the ‘beginning.’ Was I ‘fated’ to become a librarian? Certainly not! For, I did make certain choices, and perform certain actions to accom-plish my goal. Imagine that you are standing at the head of an extremely long row of dominoes that stretches back far beyond your ability to see the beginning. Now imagine that the domino that stands at the base of your feet falls towards you. Did the domino fall of its own accord? No. There must be a cause for its falling even if you are unaware of it. For the sake of the illustration let’s say that the domino behind the first one had fallen. Now, did that domino fall of it own ac-cord? Of course not! That domino too had a cause for its falling. The dominoes fall as the re-sult of causation. The falling is determinate, that is caused. Like the dominoes, although infi-nitely more complex, we live our lives. Each decision, each action, each word, is caused by gen-erally unknown antecedents—but caused nevertheless. And being caused—each decision, each action, each word is consequently not free. Unlike the dominoes however we are able to make choices and decisions. Choices and deci-sions that have antecedent causes but choices and decisions nevertheless. As I stated before: de-terminism is not fatalism. It is not a passive resignation to the inevitable but an active pressing forward toward the boundaries of our possibilities. What possibilities exist in a deterministic universe? Plenty! The possibilities are not infinite but they are beyond knowing. In the same way that no one can totally predict the trajectory of a falling leaf so no one can totally predict what each of us are capable of. I know that certain things are highly unlikely—that I will never run a three-hour marathon or become the next Pavarotti. But, I can train hard and run faster than I currently do now and I can take singing lessons to improve the quality of my voice. Even though I might have a good idea of what I am cable or incapable of I can never be quite certain so I press on to discover what I can achieve. But in the end, what I achieve or become or fail to achieve or become will all be determined by antecedent causes. That is a fact of reality that I can never escape. For in the end the leopard cannot change its spots nor can one ‘make a silk purse out of a sow’s ear.’ But you can always try!
webmdave
· 1 year ago
@ Johnnyboy,
Is it impossible to change one's nature? Answer this: Can a human being, of his or her own free will, choose to have the nature of a chicken? How about the nature of a bovine? Is it possible to assume the nature of a house cat? Or, is the human irrevocably stuck with the nature of a human being with no amount of "will" capable of changing that basic nature?
To look closer, can you choose, of your own free will, to fall madly in love with any woman you meet? Or, is something like that dictated by forces and influences outside the direct control of your "will?"
How about this: Do you have the ability to choose a different sense of humor than the one you have by nature? You find some things funny and other things not funny, I assume. Can you choose of your own free will to reverse your sense of humor on those things? Can you simply choose to find things funny you think not funny and vice versa?
Your second question I'll leave, as it appears to be an attempt at humor.
Third question: If we can only act and choose within our own nature, then to a very large degree it rules out free will. We think we have free will, but our illusion of owning a completely free will is severely limited by genetics, upbringing and circumstance. I can choose between a cheese sandwich and a peanut butter sandwich, both of which I like, but I cannot choose to hate the taste of cheese or peanut butter.
Your additional musings on the nature of your god: Consider this: Does your god define good by his nature, or is his nature defined by good? In other words, how can you tell that your god is good? If you measure your god's goodness by some definition of good, then your god answers to something outside of itself. If your god's nature is the very definition of good, then anything your god does is good and there is no measurable standard by which to define good. Either way, if your god's nature is all good, then only good can come from your god. If only good comes from your god, and your god is omniscient and all powerful, then there is no evil nor the potential for evil in any ideas and plans of your god. For there to be evil in your god's creation, there must have been evil within the plan of your god. Hence, your god is not completely and wholly good.
Since there is obviously all sorts of pain, disease, tragedy, and death in this world, I would have to conclude that either your god is evil, or your god doesn't exist.
As to your god's existence, that should probably be the first discussion, because all the discussion we are having here is on the presupposition without evidence that your god even exists.
Jonnyboy
· 1 year ago
An alcoholic's nature is to drink. Right? Most of the time it's even in their genes. Yet alcoholics can do something not in their nature. They can refuse to drink for literally decades.
Selfishness and greed are a part of human nature, but you can find people who quite literally give up all their material wealth for a cause.
You can very easily fall into trouble here. First of all, if we are regarding human nature as a whole, it is a statistical spread. There are outliers. And adaptability and willing oneself to change could be considered a part of human nature too, although you would have to be careful making that claim.
Let's say I choose to fall in love with the next girl I meet. I make plans, I follow through, and I will myself to fall in love. Do you simply assign that to human nature: "oh, it must have been in your nature to do that all along" (?) Because there is a real danger here. The statement "all things act according to their nature" is completely unfalsifiable if you keep it up.
sconnor
· 1 year ago
jonnyboy,
An alcoholic's nature is to drink. Right? Most of the time it's even in their genes. Yet alcoholics can do something not in their nature. They can refuse to drink for literally decades.
And yet they will always be an alcoholic, whether they drink or not. It's not the act of drinking, it is the disease that makes them want to drink. It is in their nature to want that drink, which they will battle their entire lives.
Can you address my arguments, specifically?
--S.
webmdave
· 1 year ago
Oh, and if you want to discard Calvin's theology as a relic, then you'll have toss aside the entire Reformation and return to Catholicism. Unless you are a Roman Catholic, you owe your English Bible and your present faith to the Reformers.
Don't feel bad. As long as I remained as ignorant of the development of Christian theology and thought as you currently admit, I retained a strong Evangelical faith. Ignorance in religious matters is indeed bliss.
Jonnyboy
· 1 year ago
Hehe. Calvin is only one branch of reformationist thought. I don't have to toss aside the entire reformation if I don't like Calvinism. Now if I throw away all of Calvinism, then I'm stuck throwing away most of the reformation, true. But I could be a Lutheran, for example, and hang on to most of the Reformation, barring of course Calvin's shenanigans.
sconnor
· 1 year ago
jonnyboy,
Hehe. Calvin is only one branch of reformationist thought.
No shit Sherlock; webmdave already established that. He he te he te he -- finger twisting in my dimpled cheek. (extreme sarcasm).
--S.
webmdave
· 1 year ago
Johnny, the entire Reformation was united and built upon a foundation that was only much later generally labeled Calvinism. In fact, even St. Augustine taught that man did not have the freewill ability to obtain salvation and that salvation was entirely by grace alone and required nothing on the part of the believer to obtain the salvation. The Reformers resurrected that view 1,200 years later in opposition to Roman Catholic return to a version of Pelagianism which evolved into Arminianism. Most Evangelicals today adhere to a modified form of Arminianism, but most Evangelicals are completely ignorant of how many changes in Christian thought transpired in 20 centuries to lead to their particular version of so-called ultimate truth.
Anyway, back to our original discussion: An alcoholic may quit drinking, but his or her nature is not changed. His or her BEHAVIOR can change by sheer force of will, but the alcoholic can never magically transform into a social or casual drinker. His or her nature toward alcohol stays the same. Let’s keep in mind that alcoholism is not illegal. No one goes to jail for alcoholism. Behavior is what determines a person’s guilt or innocence in law, not their nature. Since behavior can be controlled, people are held accountable for behavior. In Christianity, I am not only condemned for my behavior, but I am condemned for possessing a sin nature. In fact, it is the sin nature, acquired through “Original Sin,” that defaults all humans to everlasting hell – condemned already, and all that baloney.
Regardless of how you "choose" to understand these concepts, you still have offered nothing in the way of evidence that your divine man-god exists and lives in a believer's pulmonary organ. Care to go there?
If you are actually interested in educating yourself about these topics, then do some studying. All you are doing here is arguing your limited understanding from the shaky foundation of one tiny branch of your personal religious indoctrination. For more on the many conflicting views of Soteriology, click here.
Jonnyboy
· 1 year ago
@webmdave
Do you acknowledge the non-falsifiability of your proposed deterministic world? (out of pure curiosity?)
I''m not a close student of the history of reformation theology, and I'm not entirely sure I have time to pick up a specialized discipline in my spare time. I am, however, aware of the importance of the reformation, and of Calvin's thought.
Also, it occurred to me that if human nature controls human actions to the degree you assert, then I'm not entirely sure what the big deal is about human suffering. Since humans suffer, it must be in their nature to suffer. Since it is in human nature to suffer, then humans are fulfilling their nature by suffering. It is also inescapable, yes?
Also, of course humans can't take on the nature of a duck and fly around or grow feathers. Humanity is not all-powerful. Free choice is restricted by our nature, training, and habits. But to totally revoke the right of humanity to choose consigns humans to total passivity doesn't it? Life reduced to nothing more than the results of causes you have no control over?
AtheistToothFairy
· 1 year ago
Jonnyboy: Since humans suffer, it must be in their nature to suffer
Jonnyboy, Speaking of suffering laddie:
Your statement of suffering here, would especially be true for xtians who love to feel persecuted on behalf of this jesus and the subsequent dogma xtians assign to jesus. It doesn't even matter if their perceived persecution is religion based or not, as they will attribute any sense of feeling persecuted as have coming directly from their association with jesus and his-holy-ways.
For instance.....
Someone could put-them-down for the type (or color) of car they drive. Of course, this xtian believes that jesus guides his/her life in great detail, so jesus would have whispered to them what model of car to purchase and they would have naturally obeyed that order. From that day forward, they will automatically feel that anyone putting them down for their choice of car, is doing so because they surely must know that jesus told this xtian to buy that particular car over other devil-car-models.
Oddly enough, they not only can't realize that their belief in jesus had nothing to do with their being picked-on for their car choice, but they will also now relish in the suffering they endured for having obeyed the car-choice command of jesus
In a nutshell, everything and anything they do or say in life, is tied into their allegiance to jesus, so anyone who dares to put them down for anything, surely is picking on jesus and will naturally fry in hell. The persecuted xtian of course, get's god brownie points for having endured each assault on their xtian based character etc..
ATF (Who as a former xtian, once heard jesus tell him to paint his car ultraviolet, but couldn't find that color paint; not even at the holy church thrift shop)
Jonnyboy
· 1 year ago
Perhaps you misunderstood. I don't mean that people want to suffer. I mean that according to webmdave's argument for the non-existence of free will, suffering is a part of human nature.
webmdave
· 1 year ago
Johnny,
Suffering is not a part of our nature, it is a part of our circumstances.
I didn't mean to imply that humans have zero capacity for choice: I chose to have a cup of coffee before opening my email. I could have chosen tea. We make choices according to our nature. When those natures are of the type that are prone to harm others (murderers, rapists, thieves, etc.), we can expect to be separated from society by the rest of society who isn't fond of suffering. When those natures are prone toward self-destruction (substance abuse, etc), we either die or find a way to resist and restrain those natures.
I most certainly can demonstrate to a reasonable degree that my philosophical position here is solid. In fact, so can you. Try to change your nature right now. Just for a week or so, adopt as part of your nature an extreme loathing for English Literature. I assume you enjoy that topic currently. Well, graft into your nature, as an experiment, a dislike for English literature. We don't choose our likes and dislikes, they choose us.
Obtaining a handle on the historical evolution of Christianity is not a specialized discipline, any more than reading the Bible on Sunday is a specialized discipline. If Christianity is the most valuable and important topic in the world with eternal ramifications, then why would any intelligent Christian make the choice to stay functionally illiterate on any aspect of it?
Perhaps actually learning about Christianity instead of "believing" in Christianity is just not a quality generally found in the nature of a typical Christian.
Jonnyboy
· 1 year ago
I've decided to stop posting on this thread.
You are correct when you say that people can't change their natures (that's a property of natures), but even given that free will doesn't exist, I'm not sure that living my life as if I have no control over it is particularly beneficial to anyone.
Sigh. At any rate, this discussion got way bigger than I expected, and has ranged considerably further afield than I would have liked (it was never my intention to debate the existence of free will, for example). In addition, I seem to have thoroughly irritated several people, which was not my intention.
Sorry for "hijacking" your site.
Monkeys
· 1 year ago
I dont think webmdave is saying we have no control over our lives - he is saying we dont have "unlimited" free will. If God valued "unlimited" free will so much as you said, that he even allows egregious suffering and misery in order to preserve it. Why then is free will in reality so limited? The concept of "unlimited" free will is just another illusion, and its a tenuous excuse and rationalization for the real pain that is occurring in the world today.
boomSLANG
· 1 year ago
JB: I wasn't asked for objective proof of the existence of God, I was asked to critically think about certain problems that arise if one posits the existence of God. That's what I'm doing. You'll have to wait your turn; like I said, I can't keep up with every single objection.
First of all, I believe I said "evidence", not "proof". There's a difference. But fair enough; consider the request put forth, as I'd be curious to see what you consider "objective evidence", as I am with all of our "Christian" guests.
In the mean time, you concede to wanting to have a discussion under the pretense that your particular theology is true..or if you prefer, to discuss within the Christian "framework". Right, well, I was simply curious as to why you offered us the "option" of if we wanted a "biblical" explanation, or a "philosophical" one, in regards to your "soul" hypothesis. Why on earth would nonbelievers want a "biblical answer", unless you had evidence that the bible and your worldview were objective truth? That's why I asked the question.
JB: Free will and omniscience is a very interesting topic, which I would love to discuss after monkeys and sconnor are finished with me. Are there any other contradictions that come to mind?
Yes, "free will"/"omniscience" is very interesting, indeed.....for one, because it's a blatant contradiction, theologically, or "philosophically". But yes, other contradictions, you ask? Plenty---talking snakes and walking cadavers contradict reality, for instance. Another is that "God" is presumably "everywhere" at all times...i.e.."omnipresent", yet, "evil" is abundant, which at face-value, this contradicts the Christian deity's "omnibenevolence". Yet another is being held accountable for actions we had no say in, which at face-value, contradicts a "Just" deity. Another is being born inherently "evil", which at face-value, inhibits our "free will" to avoid being "evil". I could go on, but I don't want to overload you.
JB: Biblical doctrine strikes you as absurd?
Most of it, yes. I readily concede there are poetic truths within the bible, but they are not unique to "Christianity".
JB: What isn't fair is piling up arguments against the claims of xianity on the basis of questionably self-evident truth while I am arguing within a framework of xian theology, and disregarding counter-arguments made within a framework of xianity as unsupported by, or inconsistent with your self-evident truths.
I've already clarified this, above----well, I at least I think so.
In reason, Boom'
sconnor
· 1 year ago
Jonnyboy says, I can't keep up with every single objection.
Hmmmmmmm, that should tell you something right there; and there will be more objections, in the ensuing posts, you betcha'.
--S.
Jonnyboy
· 1 year ago
It tells me that, as I may have mentioned before, there are at least 4 people raising objections against me, and exactly one person addressing these objections. It also tells me that people on this particular website strongly disagree with me (not entirely surprised) and feel motivated to raise objections.
You suggest that because people on the internet disagree with me I should roll over?
sconnor
· 1 year ago
jonnyboy,
You suggest that because people on the internet disagree with me I should roll over?
Nope, what I am telling you is, you have come ill-prepared to argue and you are going to get bombarded my more objections and arguments. Up until now, you have done nothing, but flounder around and I suspect you have not done any original thinking, let alone any real, critical thinking. You still have not made a definitive statement, on what you believe, with regard to christianity and you have not made an unequivocal, statement, describing your beliefs, in god. I feel like I am debating a freshman high school student, who was given the objective but does not believe in it, nor have you prepared yourself properly.
Additionally, when you make statements like this, An argument against free will! I was legitimately not expecting this to come up. I am taken aback. -- It just points to your amateurish, ineptitude.
Is it possible that you came into this, without having any hard-felt views and you are simply, arguing for arguing sake -- learning as you go? Perhaps, using the debating method to acquire information? Because your debating skills are less then admirable -- maybe you should just stick to asking questions or maybe go away for a couple of years and brush up on what you believe, because this is becoming monotonous -- quite boring, actually.
So maybe, yes, you should roll over, at least, until you know what you are arguing or until you know what you believe in.
--S.
Jonnyboy
· 1 year ago
"Additionally, when you make statements like this, An argument against free will! I was legitimately not expecting this to come up. I am taken aback. -- It just points to your amateurish, ineptitude."
I thought it pointed to my willingness to argue on your terms, to withdraw statements I was not prepared to argue, and to critically discuss whether or not it was reasonable to maintain the existence of God.
Every time I attempt a to make strong statement I am chastised by someone on this site for not being willing to listen. When I make an attempt to listen and understand, I am chastised for not taking a definitive stance.
If you would like a definitive stance on my belief in God: I believe in the existence of God. If you would like a definitive stance on Christianity: I'm a fan of the apostle's creed. If you would like my debate history: I have never participated in a debate. If you would like my educational history: I am an undergraduate student aiming at a Ph.D. in English Literature.
Perhaps you could support your accusation that I have done no original or critical thinking?
Tim
· 1 year ago
"If you would like my educational history: I am an undergraduate student aiming at a Ph.D. in English Literature."
Literature, eh? Then you may be shocked to know that most of the events in Jesus' life (per the gospels) were "borrowed" from, primarily, two pre-existing literary sources: The Old Testament as well as Homer's Odyssey and Iliad.
May I suggest two books along these lines? "Gospel Fictions" by Randel Helms and "The Homeric Epics and the Gospel of Mark" by Dennis R. MacDonald.
Also, lest I just fling links at you w/o giving the indication I actually know what I'm talking about, here are just a couple of events that happened in Jesus' life followed by the source of them in the Old Testament.
NOTICE: the parallels are dense (more than 1 matching item), sequential (events happen in same chronological order), and often contain the same wording.
1. Calming The Storm
Mark 4:35-39 1. Jesus was in a boat during a storm 2. The storm was so intense it threatened to capsize the boat 3. Jesus was asleep while the storm was raging 4. The crew was afraid and woke Jesus for help 5. The sea grew calm miraculously after Jesus spoke to it 6. Once the sea had grown calm, those on the boat grew terrified
Jonah 1:4-6, 15 1. Jonah was in a boat during a storm 2. The storm was so intense it threatened to capsize the boat 3. Jonah was asleep while the storm was raging 4. The crew was afraid and woke Jonah for help 5. The sea grew calm miraculously after Jonah was thrown into it 6. Once the sea had grown calm, those on the boat grew terrified
2. Feeding the 5000
Matthew 14:13-21 1 A large group of people were gathered without food 2 Jesus told one of his disciples to feed the group 3 His disciple protested about the number of people compared to the amount of food 4 The people all received some food and were filled 5 After the meal, there was even some food left over
2nd Kings 4:42-44 1. A large group of people were gathered without food 2. Elisha told one of his disciples to feed the group 3. His disciple protested about the number of people compared to the amount of food 4. The people all received some food and were filled 5. After the meal, there was even some food left over
Now, for homework, you go read these and see if you can find dense and sequential matches between the gospel story and it's ancestor in the Old Testament.
3. Herod’s decree
4. Jesus’ last words (apparently, if you believe all 4 gospels, his last words was a veritable speech, as each gospel gives us a completely different phrase)
Tim
Jonnyboy
· 1 year ago
@ Tim
If you are referring to biblical "types" then I know what you're talking about. If you are implying that the Bible's densely layered symbolism is an inadvertent result of the NT being copied wholesale from the OT, then that's a new one on me...
I might have to find these books, since this is radically different from anything I have ever heard in any lit class which remotely mentioned the Bible.
sconnor
· 1 year ago
jonnyboy,
Perhaps you could support your accusation that I have done no original or critical thinking?
I don't have to, your words are enough evidence.
I'm with Boomslang, present evidence of your god or be gone. As of now I am finished with you.
--S.
That doesn't mean I won't jump in and out, though.
wpankey57
· 1 year ago
Jonnyboy, Thanks for the compliment. This was actually something I wrote for myself awhile back (sick huh?). In a book written by J. I. Packer "Evangelism & the Sovereignty of God," Packer (a Calvinist) calls the contradiction between God's sovereignty (vis-à-vis the doctrine of predestination) and evangelism (one's apparent choice of faith) an antinomy. An antinomy defined by Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary is 1). a contradiction between two apparently equally valid principles or between inferences correctly drawn from such principles; 2). a fundamental and apparently unresolvable conflict or contradiction. For Packer, following Calvin, individuals are predestined by God for salvation or damnation. In short, evading the logical inconsistency of such a view by appealing to the concept of antinomy! Concerning other “options” regarding God’s knowledge a number of recent Evangelical scholars (Clark Pinnock, Gregory Boyd, William Hasker and John Sanders) have put forth a position called “Open Theology or Theism.” Defined by Boyd as “Open Theism is the view that God chose to create a world that included free agents, and thus a world where possibilities are real. The future is pre-settled, to whatever degree God wants to pre-settle it and to whatever degree the inevitable consequences of the choices of created agents have pre-settled it. But the future is also open to whatever degree agents are free to resolve possibilities into actualities by their own choices” < http://www.gregboyd.org/qa/open-theism/what-is-...> Personally, I find Open Theism an interesting idea but in the end one that still leaves me intellectually unsatisfied.
Bill
Barb
· 1 year ago
Johnnyboy:
"If you would like my educational history: I am an undergraduate student aiming at a Ph.D. in English Literature."
No disrespect.....but you are in for a shock. How can you hold on to a god-belief, albeit a Christian worldview, that ticks on rabid misogyny, and at the same time open your mind to a world where binaries are blurred; borders, categories, linearity, syntax and sense are up for grabs? Again, I am NOT arguing or judging you....just completely flabbergasted. I dumped Jesus for Virginia Woolf, Joseph Conrad and George Eliot. The writings of the very homosexual Michel Foucault are a bloody nail on the moral coffin of 1845. I read the poetry of Garcia Lorca and preferred his rhythm to the babblings from the beyond. After Garcia Lorca, the Bible became repulsive. I cannot read it without an ironic kick. It is impossible to read the text without the ironic context; the ironic framing. The reader rewrites the text; (author)ity is questioned.
Not debating. Just puzzled.
BB
R McMillan
· 10 months ago
Baah...Baah...
I've never seen more straw mean being lit up in my life. Your arguments are like a Guy Fawkes marathon. And just like that botched conspiracy, no amount of pseudo intellectualism and turning from the plow will kill the King. Long live Jesus Christ King of Kings and Lord of Lords (Rev 19:16).
Christ was without sin from birth until death. "God made him who had no sin to be sin for us, so that in him we might become the righteousness of God" (2 Corinthians 5:21). He is the propitious sin offering for all mankind. And like the sin offerings mandated by the Old Testament Law, he was without blemish (Ezekial 43:18-25). This is evidenced in the following scripture, "For we do not have a high priest who is unable to sympathize with our weaknesses, but we have one who has been tempted in every way, just as we are, yet was without sin" (Hebrews 4:15).
The question of Christs sin nature is moot. The gospel of Luke records the many accusations leveled against him along with his responses. Every accusation from that time is baseless fantasy.Just like the Pharisees of old, you question, falsely accuse and plot against the God of creation all the time turning away those who would be saved. Know this doubters, "The wrath of God is being revealed from heaven against all the godlessness and wickedness of men who suppress the truth by their wickedness, since what may be known about God is plain to them, because God has made it plain to them. For since the creation of the world God's invisible qualities (his eternal power and divine nature) have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that men are without excuse" (Romans 1:18).
Jesus has spoken to you backsliders and perverters of his Truth, "Every plant that my heavenly Father has not planted will be pulled up by the roots. Leave them; they are blind guides. If a blind man leads a blind man both will fall into a pit" (Matt 15:13-14).
If you want a more in depth discussion about the sin nature of Christ, go to the following website.
>>I've never seen more straw mean being lit up in my life.
Funny how your entire bible dogma and history is made up of nothing but straw men. It's just so EASY to set them on fire and have a sing-a-long while roasting marshmallows over it's holy smoke.
>>Your arguments are like a Guy Fawkes marathon. And just like that botched conspiracy, no amount of pseudo intellectualism and turning from the plow will kill the King.
So I assume you have evidence for your King's existence, Mister Big Mouth?
>>Christ was without sin from birth until death.
So I take it that you actually knew this christ then and followed him around on earth, to be sure he never had out of wedlock sex or cussed at a fig tree etc.?
>> And like the sin offerings mandated by the Old Testament Law, he was without blemish
Now if only your silly bible book was without blemishes huh?
>> (Ezekial 43:18-25).
Oh this nutty guy. Yeah, I recall him. He was the one who ate those funny mushrooms and saw spacemen in their flying saucers, right?
>>The question of Christs sin nature is moot.
Yeah, I'll say, because christ never existed. He was no more real than Zeus and we know that Zeus was sinless to, don't we?
>>The gospel of Luke records the many accusations leveled against him along with his responses.
And of course we know exactly who wrote "Luke", don't we. I'm sure Luke was an upstanding citizen who would never make up fibs.
>> Every accusation from that time is baseless fantasy.Just like the Pharisees of old, you question, falsely accuse and plot against the God of creation
False! There is no bible god to plot against. He/She/It is just an ancient myth to appease the weak minded, like yourself for instance.
>> Know this doubters,
To doubt, would imply that I'm not sure. Well, I can tell you that I'm 100% sure your bible god never existed, so there is no doubt to speak about here.
>>"The wrath of God is being revealed from heaven against all the godlessness and wickedness of men who suppress the truth by their wickedness,
Have you been to this heaven you claim exists? Also, what gives you the right to call anyone here "wicked"?
>>Jesus has spoken to you backsliders and perverters of his Truth,
Last I heard your jesus did some "backsliding" himself, with a girl named Mary. Kinky girl, from what I've read about her.
>> If a blind man leads a blind man both will fall into a pit" (Matt 15:13-14).
Yeah, that pretty much covers you and your fellow compatriots. The blind leading the blind in a life of delusion.
You're one very sad spectacle of how infected a human brain can become with religious delusions.
If I were in your sandals, I wouldn't come back here until you have proof for your imaginary jesus character.
ATF (Who sure hopes someone is typing for this troll, while he's confined in a straight-jacket)
boomSLANG
· 10 months ago
Oh-my-goodness!...look, Lassie, look!...someone posted some scripture! C'mon boy, let's go round up some sheep.
Oh, and we should follow a link with the words "keep believing" and "sermon", and there we will find an "objective" discussion on theology.
ROFLMAO!!! Praise Jebus!
Astreja
· 10 months ago
R. McMillan: "Know this doubters, 'The wrath of God is being revealed from heaven against all the godlessness and wickedness of men who suppress the truth by their wickedness'..."
Booga Booga to you, too, R. May dear sweet Uncle Loki unconditionally format your hard drive, and may Auntie Tiamat eat your car.
freemanexc
· 10 months ago
Sorry to come in so late....
Jesus proves the non-existance of free will! "One of you will betray me. One of you will deny me."
Neither Judas nor Peter had a choice/free will according to Christian teachings and their magical father.
XpastorDan
· 10 months ago
R. Mc Fundie -
Here are some questions for you to ponder:
Who told you the Bible was God's word? Mommy, Daddy, Grandma; a man in a black robe?
How do you know that they were right? Have you ever researched it for yourself? (and I don't mean just reading Christian apologists, ie. Josh McDowell)
What "Faith" do you suppose you would be if you had been born in ......India - perhaps Hindu? What about Iraq or Iran - how about Muslim? If born in Mongolia? .... probably Buddhist.
What if you had been born in a different era? You would undoubtedly have worshipped the Sun or a River or Mountain. Perhaps you would have sacrificed animals or even humans in the persuit of your god.
If you are truly convinced that you have the TRUTH, then why don't you put your 'faith' where your mouth is?! Why don't you go off to Syria or Pakistan and tell those poor, mis-guided, Muslim, fundamentalists that they are all wrong. Tell them that their prophet was not of God. Tell them that Jesus is the only way. They were willing to put their "Faith" on the line, on 9/11!
I would like to see you Prove that your way, your book, your God (and his son) are the only true and real gods. Are you willing to sacrifice your life (like Stephen did in the book of Acts) to share the Truth with these lost souls? Are you willing to stare them in the face and tell them that they are on their way to hell? Or can you just do that from the safety of your bedroom, on the computer?
I challenge you to do so. I would like to see your beheading on U-Tube. Think of the Millions who would watch. Maybe a few would convert after seeing your heroic act.
What do you think, Mc Assh0le? Show some guts. Go forth in the name of your God.
All Comments
But I guess that if we're looking at the merits of the authors and editors who compiled the tripe in the Jesus fables, you could say they were inconsistent in their portrayal.
Still pointless as a video, though. Does more harm than good to even pretend for the sake of argument that their man-god even existed.
Fubtag,
I happen to agree with you that this god-man jesus never existed, as portrayed in the bible.
However, I do not feel this video is pointless just because you and I don't believe jesus existed.
Many who have the potential to escape the xtian mind-prison need to find their way out SLOWLY and not all at once.
Taking someone who is deeply indoctrinated in their beliefs, and convincing them that jesus never lived, based on the lack of evidence, along with our logical reasoning of such etc., would be extremely difficult to do.
How many ex-xtians here went overnight from being believers to non-believers, solely on the realization that jesus has no secular history records to show he once lived?
While this lack of jesus evidence might be used in conjunction with other doubts xtians are having about christianity, I think most of us ex-xtians became so for other reasons that are outside just this lack of evidence for jesus.
Reaching a xtian mind is no easy task and the author of this video has found one interesting approach to place the needed seeds of doubt in a xtian's head.
It's quite valuable, I think, to show how ridiculous the xtian dogma is, how imperfect the xtian leader was, by using their own bible scriptures against them, in order to make them start to open their eye's to reality.
So sorry Fubtag, but I have to disagree with you that this video was a pointless endeavor.
ATF (Who thinks each ex-xtian found their own path to their disbelief and this video just might represent one of those many paths we need known to the public eye)
And quite frankly I think theres more written info on Jesus than yours and my great grandfathers and great great grandfathers, put together. in fact, maybe when i get old and die, my grand kids will just think of ME as a myth or a legend. (:o
Maybe i could write a sci fi novel on this...
Fubtag,
If this was just some fictional story character, which was clearly understood by everyone to be just that; fictional, then you're quite correct in that the only point of discussing that character would be for "literary analysis" etc..
This would be no different than walking out from seeing a movie and discussing the what-if's of the plot line etc..
In these cases no one in their right-mind would be asserting that these characters are of reality.
Things however change when we have a fictional character that much of the worlds population, doesn't see as a fictional and goes so far as to base their lives around what this character does and says and decrees to all.
Worse yet, they believe so deeply in this fictional character and the general story overall, that some try and force this character's 'extended' dogma upon society in general.
While to you and I it's obvious that the bible is a merely a fable, and hence, most of it's characters must be as well, things aren't so apparent to those who have literally been brainwashed from the time they could understand human language.
To many of these xtians, god/jesus is as real as you or I, or the computer you're typing on.
It is a difficult challenge to convince many xtians that it's all a huge lie.
Many times our logic, our evidence, and our science, are seen as the tools of the devil.
Anything outside of scripture is instantly held in question, so sometimes there is no choice in reaching these xtians, but to play the game on their own turf. That 'turf' being the bible writings itself.
This is why such video's I feel are important, as they try and reach the xtian mind on their own turf and playing by their own set of rules. Many xtians insist the bible is infallible.
Therefore if one can show it's contradictions or as they call it,"problems", then one has a chance to prove the bible isn't the perfection of god's message to us.
Once a xtian questions even one item of the bible, that opens the door to question the next item and so forth.
So, if jesus acted contrary to his own teachings and the teachings of his father, that could be the first step in cracking open a reality door in a xtian mind.
I understand that these kinds of debates with xtians aren't for everyone, so it doesn't surprise me that some like you just can't be bothered getting into such details of the bible with these xtians, but others here feel it's important to rid the world of this dangerous fiction and don't mind spending the time and effort to do so.
As they say; To each--- their own
ATF (Who would gladly expend the same effort towards discounting Alien-Piloted-UFO's, if it ever became such a popular belief, such as the belief of christianity has become)
Trust me, I know how difficult it can be to instill doubts in those we know so well. Sometimes I think the fact that they know us so well, goes against the validity of our arguments to their undying faith.
Sometimes 'bad news' is rejected more strongly from those those we know and accepted easier from those we do not?
ATF (Who also knows that some xtians can't live without their false hope in a god)
So I guess they really live 'sheltered' lives then, yes?
I have to wonder if fundies who remove themselves from the world to this degree, with no TV and such, are really trying to put themselves on a sort of Gilligans Island, isolated from the rest of reality and making their own quasi-reality instead.
Sounds like you (through your children) could relate somewhat with that Russian jesus video Dave posted here, where all his followers are totally isolated from the rest of society?
Do your children live in some community that offers this type of isolation, or is it more self-imposed instead?
I sure can understand from what you said here, why you would have a snowballs chance in hades of reaching them with your rational mind. They truly have made their own Matrix world and shut out everything from the outside. Darn SHAME really.
>Only good that came out of it for me was it accelerated my conversion to reality.
Very interesting. What was it about their lifestyle that alerted you that something was amuck, to the point you found your way out of the mind trap?
Have you posted your de-conversion testimony here already. Did I miss it somehow?
ATF (Who thinks young children can be reached fairly easily. Grown adults of this age group...not so much, I'm sorry to say)
The vid isn't made for unbelievers, per se. It is made to show Christians that their beliefs are contradicted by the very book from which they get their beliefs! How ironic!
Tim
http://www.thegodmurders.com/
Don't you find it ironic that the Bible the "inspired word of God" can be used to disprove Jesus and it can be used to prove Jesus depending on who is doing the interpreting? If the bible was literal than I don't think God would have left so many loopholes.
Whether Jesus existed is not a crucial argument but it IS one of the questions that is becoming more explored and just because SOME myths had a real person behind them... you get the idea.
Tim
I am with you about Jesus not being the same person the bible describes. One of the big turning points for me was the whole issue of forgiveness. Jesus taught we are supposed to forgive our enemies over and over, yet he doesn't forgive people who won't believe. Not only that he PUNISHES his enemies for eternity...how's that for turning the other cheek!
...a God who could make good children as easily a bad, yet preferred to make bad ones; who could have made every one of them happy, yet never made a single happy one; who made them prize their bitter life, yet stingily cut it short; who gave his angels eternal happiness unearned, yet required his other children to earn it; who gave his angels painless lives, yet cursed his other children with biting miseries and maladies of mind and body; who mouths justice, and invented hell--mouths mercy, and invented hell--mouths Golden Rules and foregiveness multiplied by seventy times seven, and invented hell; who mouths morals to other people, and has none himself; who frowns upon crimes, yet commits them all; who created man without invitation, then tries to shuffle the responsibility for man's acts upon man, instead of honorably placing it where it belongs, upon himself; and finally, with altogether divine obtuseness, invites his poor abused slave to worship him! -- Mark Twain
--S.
you said that only one historian mentions him. only one? Hmmmmmm.....
if im correct theres more written information on Jesus Christ than on our founding fathers. but maybe your right.... you just have to realize that if your right and there was no man named Jesus, than there was no Ben Franklin or Thomas Jefferson or any of those guys.
You also said that the four gospels disagree on so many levels... but where?
also, joseph was marys husband, but he was not Jesus' blood father... that was Gods work. It would be easier to look at joseph like jesus'.....dad.
(Josephs father was Jacob. Jacobs father was Matthan. Matthans was Eleazar. And Eleazar was a descendant of David.)
You have so MUCH to learn <sigh>
Here's the cliff notes version....
Did Ben Franklin or Thomas Jefferson of our history, ever lay claim to having supernatural powers and/or a supernatural origin?
The more extraordinary the claim, the more evidence that is needed to back up the grand claim etc..
Outside the bible, there is hardly a mention of your 'great' jesus in secular history, which in itself is awfully STRANGE for a god-man who did so much and had such a large following etc..
Joseph's heritage is greatly in question, because the bible provides not one, but two family tree's that don't agree with each other.
However, if god was the father of jesus, why did the bible bother to trace the heritage of Joseph, when he wasn't even related to jesus?
I "smell a rat" here, don't you?
Yes the gospels disagree with each other, and I'm surprised you don't already know this interesting fact.
Must 'we' spend time showing you where they do?
For starters, try to reconcile the resurrection story from each of the gospels. They don't agree, nor can they be made to agree.
ATF (Who also never could figure out exactly, just how did Judas die?)
I agree with you, Brandt has a lot to learn, with regard to his religious beliefs. And Brandt can of course learn by reading what other people say, especially people who have discovered the flaws in Christianity
Or perhaps he's one of those who believes the devil has taken the necessary time to fool us; who knows what he thinks.
ATF
How did God impregnate Mary? So your God is a rapist? Not much consent when you are a 13-year-old Jewish virgin and that rascal Yahweh is just a-hankerin' to borrow/burrow your uterus so He can implant His seed which, by the way, was really the ejaculation of a space ghost...HUH????? And you call this insanity "history"???
Here are our possibilities:
God + Mary + Space Ghost =1 Jesus
or
God + Mary-Space Ghost =1 Chuck Norris
or
God -Mary + 1/2 space ghost =1 Frank Sinatra
LOL!! Go read a good book.
I love you!
if im correct theres more written information on Jesus Christ than on our founding fathers.
WRONG. The founding fathers have massive amounts of written evidence, including written testaments such as letters, speeches, signed documents, legal documents. At the library of congress, George Washington, alone, has over 65,000 original documents, everything from military records, financial account books, presidential reports, letters; with his signature, journals and diaries.
"Commonplace books, correspondence, and travel journals, document his youth and early adulthood as a Virginia county surveyor and as colonel of the militia during the French and Indian War. Washington's election as delegate to the First and Second Continental Congresses and his command of the American army during the Revolutionary war are well documented as well as his two presidential administrations from 1789 through 1797.
Because of the wide range of Washington's interests, activities, and correspondents, which include ordinary citizens as well as celebrated figures, his papers are a rich source for almost every aspect of colonial and early American history." -- Library of Congress
On top of all the written evidence we have a plethora of physical evidences of Washington, as well.
The Smithsonian collection
HERE
HERE
HERE
Of course if you took the time, you could find so many more physical evidences from different museums.
If that's not enough, go HERE
Or a record of his false teeth.
HERE
Or, if you want to assemble a team of forensic experts they can actually go to where George Washington is buried and you can dig up his remains.
HERE
No one wrote about Jesus while he was alive and Jesus himself didn't write anything. No one has ANY documents of Jesus as to his existence -- nothing nada, zilch! They were stories told and re-told over centuries -- the oral tradition -- before they were ever written down. Then copies of copies of copies were made from heresay and stories, where people could add and subtract what they wanted from the text depending on the agenda.
So basically Brandt you are either completely, ignorant, inept or too, lazy to do any real investigating on your own.
I just recently posted this; so here it is, Brandt, for your reading convenience . Maybe you will learn something. Everything I said to the other guy, greatly, applies to you, too.
This only points to your vast ignorance and gullibility and illustrates how painfully lazy you and other Christians are, when they do research. In fact, I would venture to say, you have not done any real research, into the matter (perhaps a click of the mouse here and there) but rely, solely, on christian propaganda and other lazy, christian apologists.
I have studied Josephus. I read all five of his books -- very interesting reads; I recommend them. If you actually took the time to study him -- for yourself -- then you would find, that Epherias added some of the text about Jesus, in around the fourth century. Josephus was what you might call a hardcore Jew and would never have written those lines. Under more examination of the texts you can see these as blatant forgeries. Did you ever wonder why Christians never mentioned Josephus before Epherias got a hold of the books? It's because the writing about Jesus were forgeries.
Forgeries aside, whatever else Josephus may have written about Jesus was hearsay, based on the stories that Christians told. But if you go with his writings, as evidence, you would have to explain this quote of Josephus, "Jesus the supposed Christ, is repetitious upon the tongues of the meek and insincere."
Pretty much sums up christians, for me.
Additionally, All the other historians you could mention -- Tacitus, Suetonius and Pliny the younger (or the lesser known historians, Mara Bar-Serapion 73AD, Ignatius 50AD - 98AD., Polycarp 69AD - 155AD, Clement of Rome 160AD Tertullian 160AD - ?AD, Clement of Alexandria 215AD, Origen 185AD - 232AD, Hippolytus 236AD, and Cyprian 254AD) -- all wrote, well after Jesus' supposed death. Josephus was the earliest born, about seven to ten years after Jesus died and wrote his books 40-50 years later, the rest were born in the 50's, 60's, and 70's AD and all their writings were done well over a hundred years after Jesus' death. What this means is, the historians you could site were only around when other Christians talked about the stories of Christ --it's all based on hearsay. They were not around when Jesus was alive. They do not in any way confirm the Biblical accounts or the historicity of Jesus.
Now, what's even more devastating is, there are zero writings from historians from Jesus' time. Not a single scribe, historian or philosopher who lived during the time of Jesus wrote about what surely would have been a monumental piece of history. The historians Seneca 4BC. - 65AD and Pliny the Elder 23? - 79AD never mention Jesus. Philo Judaeus 20BC - 50AD lived in Jerusalem during the supposed life of Jesus. Philo Judaeus, a Hellenistic Jewish philosopher and historian wrote volumes on the lives of Jews in and around the surrounding area and nothing is mentioned about Jesus the Christ. Go figure?
I suspect you parrot these so-called evidences from either one of Josh McDowell's books or from one of a hundred christian websites, without doing any real investigation, of your own. I also, get the distinct impression, that you never read any of this information you offered up, let alone read it with a critical eye. It would seem you relied solely on faith, that the people relaying this information were delivering the holy grail of "proof", while being completely objective, which, obviously is not the case. I suggest, before you make ignorant statements you can't substantiate, maybe, it would behoove you to put a little bit (a lot more!) effort into researching, as opposed to clicking the mouse for your information.
The next two quotes, are you, in a nutshell.
"In religion and politics people's beliefs and convictions are in almost every case gotten at second-hand, and without examination, from authorities who have not themselves examined the questions at issue but have taken them at second-hand from other non-examiners, whose opinions about them were not worth a brass farthing."
-- Mark Twain
"Faith is often the boast of the man who is too lazy to investigate." -- F M Knowles
And, Brandt , don't even, think to, mention the Talmud and Sanhedrin 43a supposedly talks about Jesus -- it would be a waste of your time.
--S.
To be sure, there is a lot of written information about Jesus, if your standards are extremely liberal. One of the examples used by Christian apologists is that there over 5,000 "ancient" Greek manuscripts that contain portions of the New Testament. Sounds impressive, huh? I fell for that line, too, when I was a Christian apologist. When I started questioning my faith, that was one of the things I looked into. Something that the apologists don't mention is that the "over 5,000" figure of "ancient" Greek manuscripts includes documents from as late as the 16th century! Over half of them are after 1000 AD! So, let's investigate this further, shall we? Below is the number of New Testament Greek manuscripts per century:
1st century: 0
2nd century: 9
3rd century: 41
4th century: 43 (the 4th century is actually the first time we get a complete NT)
5th century: 53
6th century: 71
7th century: 42
8th century: 28
9th century: 77
10th century: 172 (now we're finally getting somewhere! Only 900 years later!)
11th century: 457 (more than the 1st through the 9th century combined!)
12th century: 583
13th century: 585
14th century: 521
Color me unimpressed.
Respectfully,
Franciscan Monkey
For me, it is far better to grasp the Universe as it really is than to persist in delusion, however satisfying and reassuring. - Carl Sagan
The numbers here alone, make it clear that it wasn't until the 2nd century that anyone thought up this fable.
Obviously, if they had written this fable in the period it was said to have taken place, it would have been easy to detect by those reading it, that it was only a fable.
Clever really, to make up a jesus fable and say it happened one century previous, so there was no one around left to interview or who could be found to act as witnesses of this christ person.
Surely if such a christ man existed, he would have been written about in short order after he floated up to heaven.
Did he leave some standing orders that no one was to write about him for ~100 years. Doubtful, and even if the story had him giving such a decree, it still wouldn't prove he existed, but would have been just one more clever method the writers used to make folks believe their concocted story.
Frankly, I'm really surprised they didn't do this, given the other clever excuses they saw fit to provide to explain those who would refuse to believe in this christ.
Again, thank you for this important data,
ATF (Who still thinks the fictional Bigfoot has more supporting evidence, than this jesus does)
Here's my opinion on the historicity of Jesus Christ. He may have been a totally fictional character, but there may have been someone that he was loosely based on. Some would say that he was based on Jesus ben Pandera, but there isn't much evidence of his existence, either.
Many of the teachings/quotes of Jesus Christ in the gospels seem to be in direct response to the teachings of Jesus son of Sirach, found in the Apocryphal book the Wisdom of Jesus, the Son of Sirach, also known as Ecclesiasticus, which was written in the 2nd century BC. Sayings against Jesus son of Sirach probably started to accumulate over the years, and then were put into the mouth of Jesus Christ.
At some point there seems to be a legend that Jesus Christ was from Nazareth, thereby necessitating Matthew and Luke to come up with ridiculous and contradictory stories to place his birth in Bethlehem in order to fulfill alleged Messianic prophecies. In the book of John Jesus is from Nazareth in Galilee, and this poses a problem since many thought that the Messiah was supposed to come from Bethlehem (see John 7:42). From this we can see that if there was a historical Jesus, he was from Nazareth and was not born in Bethlehem, as Matthew and Luke claim. Of course, the same could be said of a legendary Jesus, where the legend arose that he was from Nazareth, and then had to be modified.
Hyam Maccoby, a Talmudic scholar who died just a few years ago, makes a good case that there was a Pharisee named Jesus who was a small political threat to the Romans and was executed. Again, though, the evidence points quite away from the Jesus portrayed in the NT.
It would be virtually impossible for Jesus to have done the miracles it was claimed he did, have been as popular as the Bible claims, and have had events transpire the way the gospels claim (such as coming before Caiaphas the high priest, King Herod, and Pontius Pilate the Roman governor, or having many people come out of their graves) with no mention of him in official records or by contemporaneous historians.
Respectfully,
Franciscan Monkey
For me, it is far better to grasp the Universe as it really is than to persist in delusion, however satisfying and reassuring. - Carl Sagan
Please, PLEASE, go educate yourself before spewing this blatently false information as if it were uncontested common knowledge.
Tim
On the other hand many cruelties against humanity have been conducted in the name of god, his little boy jesus and countless other dieties. How many hearts did the aztecs rip out of their neighbors in order to placate a sun god? I know, "that was different". Yea, how? They believed in an invisible god and what they believed about their god had consequences for those around them.
Think about it before you found your god and his son jesus you would not even think about giving your hard earned cash to any religious organization. Once you converted all of a sudden you were led to believe that your money troubles were due to a "curse" on your finances and that giving ten percent to gods team would remove the curse and "open the windows of heaven to such an extent that you would be unable to contain if all. Has that happened? Perhaps it happened because for the first time in your life you became focused in your efforts and stopped spending money on things that were frivoulous (whatever that means) and were more conscious of your spending. Ideas do have consequences.
So the idea that there was a jesus with magical powers and a god with the power of a Q (star trek reference) does have consequences. Being willing to submit to irrational thinking such as believing that there is a spirit world filled with gods, angels, demons, etc can have a profound effect on how individuals live their lives and those who come in contact with them; and not necessarily for the better.
I am totally against having such foolish beliefs and pretending that their was some sort mythical character such as jesus
My philosophy professor said it best when she told us that ideas do matter because " for better or worse, ideas have consequences".
Wow, can I ever relate to what you said about your former self here !!
I once upon a time, was so sure that people had to conform to what the bible said were god's guidelines to life etc..
Like you, I also spewed these assertions out, 'knowing' my chosen interpretation of the bible just had to be correct (or at least close enough).
By default, the bible was god's word and how could anyone dare question such an obvious fact.
Sometimes I wish I could go back in time and smack the heck out of my former naive self of 30 odd years ago !!
ATF (Who wasn't lucky enough in those old days, to have the resources online that now make it so easy today to find the truth)
A xtian quoting the bible to justify a bible story! Yes Brandt there has been much written about jesus. All of it hundreds of years after he supposedly lived. Do some real research, don't just listen to your pastor on Sunday A.M. No historian, that lived concurrent with the time of your christ, ever mentioned him.
Your bible is no more from god than your jesus is. You are only impressing us with your ignorance!
By the way, why are you on this site? You really don't won't to take on AFT, he'll smoke your ass!!! Get the Hell out of here!
XpastorDan
You really owe it to yourself to look at the concrete evidence for the claims you're making. Rather than regurgitate what you've heard in Church try looking at the scholars and see what they have to say. Some scholars believe that there was a historical Jesus and the NT accounts contain some historical information co-mingled with the myth-making of the later Christians. Several of Bart Ehrman's books put a good argument for this position and do a lot to disentangle myth and probable reality.
Outside of the NT there is almost zero historical evidence of Jesus' existence. Josephus has a short interlude that is widely considered to be a later forgery but even if true its one paragraph in a huge volume of writing in which he talks of the early Christians - he lived years after afterwards. No contemporary records attest to any of the events claimed by the New Testament.
As for written evidence of Jesus life and death there is far more written evidence from different sources that Elvis lives or was kidnapped by aliens than for Jesus resurrection. For that, we only have the four gospels and their contradictory accounts of Jesus' life and the non-canonical gospels - and those are certainly not histories.
Steve
Why are you here? Have you actually read the 4 gospels? I wrote you a longer answer about 45 minutes ago, but alas, once again I must have slipped and said something vulgar. I've been censored again.
Hey ATF and Barbiebrains - Don't you just get bored to death and sick to your stomach by all of these tedious, moronic comments by a seemingly, unending supply of fundie, pseudo apologists?
Great comments ATF, what does this make, about 20 times you've had to make similar comments this month?
Barbiebrains - You crack me up! How about - God + Mary + Holy Ghost = The first "Maneges 'a Toi" in history. Of course you know that the first council of Nicea never had Mary as a Virgin. It took the second bunch of Bozos, in the eigth century, to come up with that one. Why are Catholics so afraid of sex?
Can't wait to hear your reply.
XpastorDan
Hi Dan,
Well, I'm not saying it doesn't get to me at times, but think of it this way.....
How do you think a 3rd grade teacher feels, when the school year starts and she has to teach pretty much the same darn stuff she has taught for the last 10 or 20 years?
The young minds she just taught the previous year have moved on and she has to do a repeat performance once again.
Sure, it can get tedious at times, not to mention very frustrating with some of these fundies, but one has to keep the end goal in mind. That goal being ridding some minds of delusional thinking.
It doesn't even have to be the person(s) we are commenting to that might start to use rational thinking in their lives, but someone unknown to us in the background that is given their first doubts, that then starts them on the road to becoming an ex-xtian.
If I didn't think WM Dave's website had a great purpose and/or potential to spread the truth about christianity, I wouldn't spend the time I do posting here.
These god based religions are just so EVIL that I feel something needs to be done to stop them, and to reach whomever we can with the reasons why they need to fade away.
We've all seen the results of what the religion mind-trap can do to a person's life and mind.
While we surely can not save everyone who comes here and reads our thoughts, perhaps enough of the younger folks will become ex-xtians before they waste too much of their lives, like most of us here had the displeasure of doing.
Did that answer your question Dan?
>Great comments ATF, what does this make, about 20 times you've had to make similar comments this month?
Trust me, I don't keep count...LOL.
However, to each NEW xtian visitor to this site, they might be hearing those old comments for the very first time, right, so I think they are worth repeating, yes?
ATF (Who won't apologize for repeating himself to these brainwashed xtian apologists)
I am amused by the fundies....You forget that I have to face them in my own family during the Xmas holidays....Reading your posts gives me new ammunition to throw out over Xmas dinner... I just may get kicked out of the clan again.........Lots of fun!
Roman Catholics and Sex:
The Roman Catholic Church fears sexuality because our medieval institution must dominate every aspect of the believer’s life. The RCC is about control and surveillance. The most vicious attack on your identity comes through the control of your sexuality. A genital-free MALE hierarchy is in charge of defining your body, your femaleness. If you are married by the RCC, you must attend a series of highly disturbing marriage seminars where a celibate priest details the “dos” and “don’ts” of marital sex. True story. You must sign a document agreeing that homosexuality is an abomination, that you will not use “unnatural contraception”, that you will accept all the children that Yahweh wants to implant in your uterus. This is the case in Catholic Mexico. I’m sure it is played out the same way in the U.S. Anyhow, this weird repression gets even creepier: the only method of “contraception” allowed is called “the rhythm method” which is incredibly disgusting. The WOMAN is responsible for taking her temperature each day, inserting a special thermometer, keeping a chart of her temperature and (revolting) testing her vaginal mucus. Hence, “mucus-sniffing” Catholics. The WOMAN must wrap her finger in a piece of toilet paper, jam the finger into the vaginal cavity and extract mucus. She checks to see if the mucus is slippery or stretchy because that will clue her as to her ovulation cycle. Now, if you really want to avoid a pregnancy, you must refrain from sexual activity at least a week before ovulation and another 3-5 days after ovulation. However, you must take into account the menstrual cycle which deducts another 6 days from sexual activity. When you do the math, you have only 10 days during the month where you can have sex. Call me crazy but this is a ridiculously short time frame. When couples question the short time frame, the Catholic nutjobs giving the marriage seminar propose having sex DURING the menstrual cycle. Get this: an added “plus” is that the menstrual blood acts as a “lubricant”. I find this repulsive on so many levels: the stench, the filth, the cramping makes it incredibly painful and who the heck gets to clean up? I know, I know…too much information but it really boggles the mind how hateful this organization is towards women.
:-)
BB
Have you ever HAD sex with a catholic? Perhaps they fear the embarrassment.
LOL!
BB (Who in NO way advocates infidelity)
Maybe we could post your outstanding comments on the sign-up page and make everyone read it before they are allowed to post here.
You are one of the reasons that I come here almost daily. I really appreciate your intelligent input.
On a more personal note, may I say that my heart goes out to you. The loss of your son makes me weep every time you mention it. I can feel your pain and loss. My thoughts are with you my friend. When I was just one year old, my eldest brother was electrocuted while on vacation. He was eleven and was found face down in the mud after he touched the bumper of the car that was electified by a short circuit in the camping trailer attached.
This hideous accident turned my mother half crazy and pushed her straight into fundie xtianity. I can't even begin to explain the fear that I was raised in!
Anyway, I think that you have shown tremendous strength to face your loss without turning to magic and mis-quided hope. Or, anger toward a god who isn't there. You know that life and death are just part of the human condition. I have to stop. I'm weeping again.
Keep strong my dear friend.
XpastorDan
When I was just one year old, my eldest brother was electrocuted while on vacation. He was eleven and was found face down in the mud after he touched the bumper of the car that was electrified by a short circuit in the camping trailer attached.
This hideous accident turned my mother half crazy and pushed her straight into fundie xtianity. I can't even begin to explain the fear that I was raised in!
Hearing that story kills me and I, too, cry, at the drop of a hat, now. I am all, too, familiar, with how people behave, after their child has died. Some turn to drugs and alcohol, some cut themselves or abuse themselves, in different ways, others go crazy (most go crazy), some commit suicide, while others turn to religion. I am, so, sorry you never got to know your brother and because the way your mother was affected, I am sorry you never got to know her, as well. Knowing, how overwhelming and devastating it is to have my son die, I don't blame anyone, how they behave -- it's completely out of their hands -- I'm just sorry the repercussions harmed you, as well.
At the moment, wanting to die and waiting to die is my existence -- I just try and get through each day; my life hinging on one thought, that if I commit suicide, that could be a permanent solution, to what could be a temporary situation. The only thing I've got is time, but as I wait, I suffer and that takes a toll -- it's grueling.
"It has been said that time heals all wounds. I do not agree. The wounds remain. In time the mind, protecting its sanity, covers them with scar tissue and the pain lessens, but it's never gone." - Rose Kennedy
--S.
I'm not sure if it would achieve a lot with many xians. Racism seems an attribute amongst contemporary fundies, and (for me) that was the only argument that was solid. The way jesus treated his parents was also a little nasty - later, he denies his family altogether, of course.
Either way, a worthy attempt to engage the fundies at a level which is, perhaps, more acceptping to them than outright dismissal.
HOO-HAA
Thanks for the gentle reprimand. You, of course, are right! I guess that I still have a few 'open wounds' that these trolls rub salt into. I was a grammer school teacher for 5 years and I did get bored with the curriculum. It just seems that lately there are so many xtians coming here that it takes the focus off of those whom have just written a Testimonial. Many times we haven't finished making one full round of comments to the person asking for help, and BANG, here comes the troll!
This site was a sanctuary for me, when I found it. Thankfully, no christians came in on my first few threads. I really gained help and strength from all of you here. So many that come here are scared to even write what they have been thinking. Many are hurting and confused. They have good questions that deserve good answers, by intlligent, free thinkers, such as you ATF. It's kind of like being in a college level, say...Chemistry or Calculus, after class discussion, about gamma rays or prime numbers. In walks a 2nd grader and states "You guys are crazy, there is no such thing. Two plus two is four! That's all you need to know." And, here we go again chasing the 2nd grader around the room, trying to get them to sit down and listen. If we ever do set them down they just throw their hands over their ears and go "la la la la la la la la la la la la la la......"
This site is called Ex Christian, NOT discus christianity, or argue christianity, or Thinking about leaving christianity. It's EX, X, NO MORE, FINISHED WITH CHRISTIANITY! Maybe someone should start a site that caters to that whole kind of thing, but I for one, don't think that this site is the place for it.
Well that's my 2 cents worth. I seem to be saying the same thing, in different ways, in all of my recent posts.
TO: SCONNER - Thanks for your reply. I won't bring it up again. I know what it is like to think about suicide every day.
Hey, on a lighter note, tell me what you think of this idea. My wife and I have always toyed with the idea of someday having a Bed & Breakfast. I had a couple of twists that I wanted to throw in. First, change it from B&B to S&S, "Supper & Sleep". Way back when we started talking about it, we thought it would be nice to just invite Ex Pastors (I was still one at that time), but now we are sure that we want to just invite EX Xtians. We are both great cooks and love to meet new people and have long discussions over glasses of red wine, in front of a fire. I envision a huge library of Free-Thinker books (Barbie Brains could be very instrumental in helping us stock the shelves! We wouldn't even care if the bindings had been chewed by cellulose-starved little Texans. It would just add to the ambiance!)
We have started to make the dream come true. Our first baby step was to get to where we wanted to be. The great Pacific Northwest. We live on the Olympic Penninsula. Water, water everywhere! Majestic vistas! Fauna & Floura! Wild blackberries (we are going picking today. You haven't lived until you have had fresh, wild blackberries poured over homemade French vanilla ice cream!), you get the picture. Not for everyone, perhaps, but I think we will draw our fair share of X fundies and free thinkers. It is one dream that is slowly taking shape and giving me a little more reason to "keep going". Who knows, maybe someday we could actually meet in person and spend a week or a month in front of that fire. Boy, just think of the kleenex we would go through! I for one am very, very glad that you are still with us. You have much to offer the world!
XpastorDan
Hi Dan,
Well, my first 'RANT' post wasn't lucky enough to avoid a couple trolls trying to upset the works.
I suppose that some first time posters would call it quits at that point, and while I almost did, I decided to see if this troll attack was unique to my post, or was commonplace instead. Of course, as we all know by now, the trolls and fundies can't help themselves, as the trolls hate our rational thinking and the fundies can't wait to show us the path to their god.
>So many that come here are scared to even write what they have been thinking. Many are hurting and confused.
I agree Dan, it can be scary to post one's feelings in a public blog, especially if one is new to posting their thoughts on the internet in the first place.
>They have good questions that deserve good answers, by intelligent, free thinkers, such as you ATF.
Yes, and I think for the most part, the members here do provide them with good answers and/or support, even if it's wrapped between fighting off the xtian/fundie/troll bullets.
>It's kind of like being in a college level, say...Chemistry or Calculus, after class discussion, about gamma rays or prime numbers. In walks a 2nd grader and states "You guys are crazy, there is no such thing. Two plus two is four! That's all you need to know." And, here we go again chasing the 2nd grader around the room, trying to get them to sit down and listen. If we ever do set them down they just throw their hands over their ears and go "la la la la la la la la la la la la la la......"
Oh yeah, it really is just this !!
What is so plainly obvious to us, eludes the minds of most xtians who come in here.
It really does feel at times, like you're arguing with a stubborn naive child, doesn't it?
>This site is called Ex Christian, NOT discus christianity, or argue christianity, or Thinking about leaving christianity. It's EX, X, NO MORE, FINISHED WITH CHRISTIANITY! Maybe someone should start a site that caters to that whole kind of thing, but I for one, don't think that this site is the place for it.
Actually, the FSTDT website, does provide a means to generate feedback to the things fundies say, but the shortcoming of their site's method, is that it's a one-way deal.
For the most part, you can't have any interaction with the fundies whose comments are posted there, as they are culled from various websites and posted for all to read.
HERE however, one does have the chance to render feedback to something a fundie says.
While it sure can be frustrating at times and can also take away the focus of support for the original poster, I *personally* feel that even our debates with these fundies/trolls, serves a real purpose to.
Many of the counter-arguments to the dogma of christianity would not come-out for everyone to read, if we were not engaging these xtian comments and the inane concepts they present.
Just the mere act of showing (the world?) the fallibility of their ideas, might be enough to get someone who is sitting on the fence, off that fence, and onto our rational side of thinking, yes/no?
Also, I can NOT speak for our Webmaster Dave, but I would imagine it would be a huge chore to monitor and erase every xtian post that comes in here, even if he desired to do so?
Sure, he could put on the moderator approval switch, such that nothing would get through until he approved it, but how slow would things get here, if it was run using that method.
As it is now, the recent comments take long enough to show up, let alone if moderation was installed 24/7.
If you look back in time at posts, for all the years Dave has been running this site, the xtians, fundies, and trolls have always been around. Even though they were, this site still thrives and new ex-xtians and the doubting Thomas still join us, regardless of the trolls and fundies.
Anyway, that's my take on things and I'm not saying this is the only way one can run a website, but it is one way, and so far, IT DOES WORK :) .
ATF (Who is grateful for what we have here, whether it's perfect or not)
On the other hand, those that have suffered a lot of emotional distress from their time in Christ's Grip of Death may not appreciate the Christians stopping by with their irrational and often hurtful comments.
Respectfully,
Franciscan Monkey
For me, it is far better to grasp the Universe as it really is than to persist in delusion, however satisfying and reassuring. - Carl Sagan
For me, personally, straggling christians, that happen by, and can not refute our arguments, only bolsters what we have found to be massive holes, in their belief system. I noticed a trend, where these christians think they got it all figured out, then one of us hits them high, while someone else hits them low and miraculously, they're gone -- down for the count. I suspect they retreat to the comfy-cozy corners of christian websites, where their world-view isn't scrutinized. If in the long run they start questioning their beliefs, so be it, but at least we are free from the bondage of religious dogma.
--S.
Maybe you could start a franchise and open one of your S&S retreats for those of us on the east coast!?! 8-)
TO: SCONNER - Thanks for your reply. I won't bring it up again. I know what it is like to think about suicide every day.
Don't worry about bringing it up. Talking about it doesn't make it worse.
Your S&S, for exchristians, is a great idea -- more power to ya'
--S.
Hmm... a good idea for a business.
- TORM
Sign me up for your S&S....However, only I get to perform the comedy...I am jealous of my audience...You need only provide the rotten tomatoes....
;-)
What do you think of my idea for a retreat for ex-christians (see the last part of my comment to sconner above)?
XPD (who thinks that ATF is much wiser than his years)
XpastorDan (sorry, I just love your little tag lines at the end of each post. I had to try it)
I'm starting to think I've started a 'trend' with my tag lines...LOL
I think your retreat idea is a GREAT ONE!!
Like buffettphan said, you would need to cover the country with them, so everyone had a chance to attend one.
ATF (Who will bring the HOT-non-cross-BUNS, if someone brings the RUM?)
I understand there is a lot of antagonism in both directions, and that many xians make a nuisance of themselves, but if I'm polite can I hang around?
I promise that the destruction of the lovely website isn't my intention, nor is it my goal to convert or re-convert anyone.
(Edited because I didn't realize how the comment system was layered...)
Have a good day.
--S.
ATF (Who isn't worried about this website being destroyed by the sudden revelation that we are wrong about the bible god myth)
Fire your first volley! We are ready.
XPD (Who will try to keep his vulgarity down to a minimum so webmdave won't have to censor him again)
XpastorDan (sorry ATF, my last one I promise. It's adicting!)
ATF (Who can't stop LOL now)
My first question I'll just stick down here, since I don't actually know a better place to put it:
What would you say if I told you I was an intelligent person who believed in the existence of God?
(I understand the need for, or at least the desire to make comments such as 'no such thing,' 'i'd laugh you off of the interwebs,' or even 'I'd say you were sadly deluded,' but they aren't really what I'm looking for here.)
What would you say if I told you I was an intelligent person who believed in the existence of God?
I'd say whoopie-D-frickin-doo and ask you to define your god. So define your deity.
--S.
I'd say that a lot of intelligent people have believed in the existence of God. A lot of intelligent people have believed in a multitude of things, many of which were later discovered to be false.
I'd say, great, however, there is an inverse relationship between belief in a personal god and education level.
Most importantly, I'd say, why do you believe in the existence of God?
Respectfully,
Franciscan Monkey
For me, it is far better to grasp the Universe as it really is than to persist in delusion, however satisfying and reassuring. - Carl Sagan
I'd say while stifling a yawn, that you don't have a single thing to say that we didn't all quite proudly and passionately spout at some point !!
Btw, which God? Yahweh of the Bible ?
O.K. so you believe in god. Do you believe that the bible is god's word? Does it reveal the god that you believe in? Would you believe in god without the bible? Give us some really good reasons WHY you believe in god. If you are really intelligent it should be easy for you, right...? I, for one, can't wait to hear a real intelligent reason for believing in god. I've never heard one!!! I tried for almost 50 years to come up with one, but, alas, the more intelligent I became, the less I was able to keep believing in foolishness!
There are many of us at this site just waiting for what you are about to give us. Make it good. Make it real good. Make it something we haven't heard before. Please, Please, Please MAKE IT INTELLIGENT! All of our souls rest in your hands Jonnyboy! You have taken on quite a responsiblity here. Are you sure you are up to the challenge?
What an opportunity! DON'T BLOW IT!! We are waiting.......
XpastorDan
You may or may not like it (and if you don't, by all means let me know) but I'm not going to sift through physical evidence for the existence of God, although I don't have much trouble reconciling a belief in God with my enthusiasm for science. I'm not an expert in metaphysics (yet) so I probably won't dig too deep into philosophy much either, although I think there is decent support for the existence of God to be found in the discipline.
I believe in God because I don't see a point to life if all that exists is the material world. If everything that exists is just humanity and the world that it finds itself in and adjusts to suit its needs, then I am catastrophically unimpressed. Call it existentialism if you like, or perhaps acute modernism. Humans don't appear to achieve happiness while they are alive, even when they have the highest standard of living, the fewest diseases, the most free time, the most fulfilling job, the most power, or money, etc. People "happily" married have affairs because they aren't "happy" anymore. During a new romance they feel "happy," "completed," or "alive," until reality crashes back in around them and everything sucks again. People with fulfilling jobs aren't fulfilled. People who are looked up to are just as miserable as everyone else. People kill people for money, or misguided belief, or convenience, or accident.
The long and short of it is that life kinda of sucks. Interestingly, however, people want to live for something. We have a desire for something beyond a satisfaction of our material needs, for something beyond intellectual engagement, or the opportunity to create something, or even the feeling of belonging to something or someone. People want life to have a point.
Unfortunately, the prevailing wisdom indicates that life is utterly ungoverned by extra- or super- natural forces. Which leaves humanity to blaze its own trail, to improve itself; we must make ourselves happy, or at least remove the obstacles we find on the road to happiness. And I don't have enough faith in humanity to believe that that is possible. It seems to me that the options are to believe that the point of living rests within humanity and the world it finds itself inhabiting, that it rests somewhere outside of humanity and the world, or it doesn't exist at all and life is, in the final analysis, utterly without a point. I don't want to believe that my life is without meaning. Given the choice between a humanistic set of beliefs and a theistic one, it turns out I have more faith in a God I can't see than I do in humanity.
Have at it guys! Hope it isn't a waste of your time!
BTW, sconnor, melodramy, and buffettphan-- I didn't actually address your comments. This was directed primarily at xpastordan and franciscan_monkey. Feel free to comment though!
You said: "If everything that exists is just humanity and the world that it finds itself in and adjusts to suit its needs, then I am catastrophically unimpressed."
Just wondering........ Who says you or any of us are here to "be impressed?" I sure don't think it's anybody's or anything's duty to impress me -- nor vice versa.
We all get raw deals sometimes, but so much is still in our own hands. Don't give your power or your decisions or your joy to anybody else...real or unreal.
This statement proves what franciscan monkey just said. Your belief is a choice, because you have not found any other reason to live. You are missing out. I agree that life kinda sucks, but there are things in life that make up for it. A conversation with a good friend, a good book, flowers, stars, the smell of autumn leaves.
Don't make the same mistake my mother has done, waste your whole damn life resenting everything, and waiting for god to make it all right. You will miss most of the good that is around you already.
Counter argument: nuff said
This was the point of my previous post to you.
That some folks just want/need to believe in some THING, so they simply DO; and for no other reason.
Some believe in those aliens, because they are looking for some superior race of beings to supply us answers or to give us hope etc..
Like with you, they hold fast to those beliefs, not because they have evidence, but because they need that hope in their life.
The lame evidence they do point to, is enough evidence for them to continue their belief, even if it's not enough for a skeptic.
You have no evidence for your god, other than the usual one of complexity or of a fulfillment to your hopes. That is enough for you, but to expect anyone here to believe in your god, that came about for your own personal reasons, as that is clearly asking far too much, isn't it?
ATF (Who wonders why a god believer of this caliber, still wants everyone else to believe the same as they do?)
I believe in God because I don't see a point to life if all that exists is the material world.
Then explain why children; babies are born, only to die? My son's suffering and death catapulted me into the land of suffering. My eyes have been opened to suffering, all around me; my son only represents, all the children, in the world, throughout time, who have suffered in egregious and unimaginable ways and that is why I ask the questions, I do.
Someone dies of hunger every 3.8 seconds in the world — 75% of these people are children. That’s six million children who suffer and die of malnutrition, every year, before their 5th birthday.
Why would god send a baby, knowing the baby would suffer for three weeks, only to die?
Why do so many children suffer and die -- robbing them of their wants, needs, dreams and ambitions? How can there be an ultimate divine meaning to life, when these children don't even get a chance to experience life?
God's great plan -- pretty, shitty, fucking plan, if you ask me.
--S.
Respectfully,
Franciscan Monkey
For me, it is far better to grasp the Universe as it really is than to persist in delusion, however satisfying and reassuring. - Carl Sagan
Like a creator of an entire universe would "need" to be believed in by a tiny bacterial speck on a blue dust dot. Mmm hmm. How exactly does this bestow incredible 'meaning and purpose' to Jonnyboy?
Jonnyboy correctly observes that permanent, uninterrupted happiness for living beings isn't a reality. Because he can fantasize it and resents it's not achievable, the only 'intelligent' and 'meaningful' conclusion is that it obviously exists somewhere else. (?!?!)
Geez Jonnyboy...how about learning to appreciate that you HAVE a life to live, you won the lottery by being here. Do you seriously not see any sense in forming purpose around your own happiness/well being and the happiness/well being of other human beings, or even other animals you share this life and planet with, who are DEMONSTRABLY REAL? They can interact with you and feel actual pain and pleasure as a result of your existence and actions. Instead you find it preferable to hinge your entire life's purpose on a big god-shaped inkblot chosen from amongst scores of inkblots created on the pages of superstitious desert dwellers, millenium past. How exactly does this give you more meaning? Why do you find more 'purpose,' living to suck up to a invisible magical being, rather than building your purpose around real living breathing beings? It's really entirely about that "eternal bliss," thing, isn't it. You feel you're owed.
You almost sound like a child who throws a tantrum and says you wouldn't want any stupid xmas present from your dumb old parents, and wouldn't ever want to give any stupid presents to anyone else - if a magical flying Santa who doles out juicy rewards for telepathically knowing if you're naughty or nice, isn't actually real. One's dumb old inadequate mortal parents could never compare to SANTA, so screw them and screw xmas!!
You Said...
"You may not like it... but I'm not going to sift through the physical evidence for the existence of God..."
Oh come on! That's what we're waiting for! Please sift through the "Physical Evidence" for us. That might get us to listen to you a little longer. As it is you haven't said anything new. "I believe because I want to believe, it's too frightening to think of this life without a higher being to give it meaning".
You Said -
"The long and short of it is that life kinda of sucks. Interestingly, however, people want to live for something. We have a desire for something beyond a satisfaction of our material needs, for something beyond intellectual engagement, or the opportunity to create something, or even the feeling of belonging to something or someone. People want life to have a point."
No offense Jonnyboy, but this is recycled preacher jargon. You've dressed it up a bit, (and by the way, you do write better than 90% of the fundies that drop by this site) but it's the same sopomorish, visiting evangelist, tent meeting, empty cliches that I heard my whole life! I was hoping for a lot more from you.
You also said -
"I don't want to believe that my life is without meaning. Given the choice between a humanistic set of beliefs and a theistic one, it turns out I have more faith in a God I can't see than I do in humanity."
Well, it turns out that my life only got meaning when I realized this is 'all that there is'. You see, I was like you, in that I spouted the same lame xtian pilosophy. I pounded the pulpit and told people that there was no meaning to life without god! Jonnyboy, I can't speak for you, but for me and every other xtian that I knew for almost 50 years, it was all about being LAZY, yes LAZY!
It was too easy to say "God did it all" "I don't know why so many die every day from starvation and disease, Only god knows" "They probably angered god and he is punishing their country" "Don't ask me to help, I may get in the way of god's will" "Give money to the march of dimes or Jerry's kids? sorry, I only give to god, he will take care of those he sees fit to help (in the mean time, we need a new sound system for the sanctuary)" "Find out how the earth really evolved over billions of years, Oh no! I trust what the bible says" "In fact the bible has the answer for EVERY problem, all you need to do is read your bible and pray! God will do the rest!!!" LAZY, LAZY, LAZY! and SELF CENTERED! Who says there has to be a point to life for ME to be satisfied.
I am happier, more satisfied, more fulfilled, more giving, more accepting, more forgiving, more LOVING than I ever was as a xtian. I find much more JOY in being a secular humanist (and helping my neighbor) than I ever did as a Theist (and letting god do all the helping).
Sorry Jonnyboy, we asked for some REAL, SOLID reasons and proof, as to why you believe in god. I am not impressed with your answers. We've heard it all before. I'm very let down! How about the rest of you, did he convince anyone to go back to church & repent our unbelief?
I will go away now and let some of the real scholars have a chance at you.
Thanks for dropping by -
XpastorDan
Dan,
Does driving-past a church(s) count as going-back?
I suppose not huh?
Repent?
First I would have to have something to repent of, and my sin-unbelief-basket is empty.
So I guess I'll have to pass up the offer today.
I agree with you that he certainly writes far better than most of the xtian visitors we get here. That much I'll give him.
Jonnyboy is obviously smart, so he does need to hear this, so at the risk of repeating it here (again)....
Smart people believe weird things because they are skilled at defending beliefs they arrived at for non-smart reasons.
[Mike Shermer]
ATF (Who thinks all UFO sightings for the past 2000 years, are really poor ascended jesus, stuck in low orbit around the earth)
I could not stop laughing! Great one!
In order, I suppose.
@ Buffettphan
What I hear you telling me, as you tell me to make my own decisions, is that the decision I have made is unsatisfactory to you. Are you sure that a desire for a point, or to be "impressed" is unreasonable?
@ leotracks
Is your criticism that I choose to believe something, or that what I choose to believe depresses you? Because if you are criticizing the act of choosing a belief, you might want to take a look at your own and make sure that you choose to believe what you do. Belief without choice is something akin to brainwashing. If what I choose to believe is something that is too depressing for you to handle, that is certainly fine. I do appreciate your concern for my cynical side though!
@ monkeys
Yet another helpful summary. Thanks so much. I forget how afraid I am to go outside. (If you'll re-read what I wrote, I don't think I mentioned the abject terror that consumes my soul every time I see my own shadow. Glaring omission. My abject apologies.)
@ sconnor
Children are born in this universe whether or not God exists. They suffer whether or not God exists. You ask why God would send a child knowing it is going to soon die, but I don't see how a world without God changes what happens to that child. I don't ascribe all the cruelty in the world to God; in fact I attributed it to humanity and the vagaries of the natural world. My problem with assuming that no God exists is that a child's death is utterly and tragically meaningless in a purely materialistic world. Life is born and it dies, without meaning. I hate to resort to tired old theistic arguments about why God would allow suffering, because you have heard them all before. But what I can say is that in a world without God, there is no chance that a child's death carries more weight and more meaning than it does in a world with a God.
@ franciscan_monkey
You really are justified in assuming that most theists believe in a God based on an internal need or want. I think that it's reasonably fair. All I would like to assert is that belief in God is less unreasonable than many people accuse it of being.
And finally
@ XpastorDan
HaHa! I found a compliment! You charmer, you!
In the spirit of reciprocity, I imagine you must have been quite a fiery pastor yourself! Your style is quite suited for the pulpit (which I mean in the best possible way.)
Well, I know you (satirically, I assume) laid on me the responsibility for converting everyone on this site to my way of thinking. I would like to once again (officially this time) say that I am not actually interested in converting anyone here. Believe what you want, it's your life. All I want to see is intelligent discussion of theism (for once.)
That being said, let me expound for a bit more.
You seem to think that I haven't considered your position when you assure me that when I look at things your way I will see everything in a new, sparkly light. Fortunately I am capable of understanding the nature of a world without God. I have given it considered thought. I'm sorry you're bored by my peaceable arrival at the opposite conclusion you have reached.
You seem to have recycled an argument yourself, a crowd-pleaser but not too terribly relevant. You may have heard something along these lines: "Christians are the most hypocritical people I know."
In case you haven't heard why this is a weak argument, I'll explain. People are hypocritical. Those who subscribe to religion are (usually) people. Thus those who subscribe to religion are (usually) hypocritical. I've taken some liberties with the syllogism, but if you leave out the bit in parentheses it's perfectly valid. Dressing up Christians as lazy doesn't change the fact that human laziness is remarkably widespread, and doesn't really say much besides the (mind-numbingly obvious) fact that Christians are people too.
The fact of the matter is that I am not a scientist. I can't compete with scientists.
If I concede that evolution is scientifically well established, can I just skip to cosmological arguments? I have a better handle on those (and they tend to be less flaky.) Tell you what, I'll throw out a statement I think I can back up, and you see if you like it better than my other, lengthier, less interesting 'proof.' Ahem.
There is (as far as I know) no scientific explanation of what caused the big bang, nor is one realistically possible. Have fun!
So There was no sarcasm in that statement. :)
See above for why I said that was the gist of your argument.
Children are born in this universe whether or not God exists. They suffer whether or not God exists.
Thanks for pointing out the complete, obvious. This doesn't advance your argument and is a complete waste of time.
I don't ascribe all the cruelty in the world to God; in fact I attributed it to humanity and the vagaries of the natural world.
Well, then, who created this natural world, with all the vagaries. And by vagaries, do you mean unimaginable, excruciating, vile and prolonged, suffering? Why didn't god foresee this? And why does he keep sending more, souls, into this abysmal planet of suffering?
You ask why God would send a child knowing it is going to soon die, but I don't see how a world without God changes what happens to that child.
Skirting the issue again. A world without god doesn't change anything. You believe in god, why does he send a child, to this earth, to be born, only to suffer and die?
My problem with assuming that no God exists is that a child's death is utterly and tragically meaningless in a purely materialistic world.
Right, but that doen't preclude that it is meaningless -- this world may very, well be meaningless.
Also, what is the meaning, in a world where god does exists?
I hate to resort to tired old theistic arguments about why God would allow suffering...
That's because they are "tired and old" and ultimately, you do not have a leg to stand on. I would go, so far as to say, you find these "tired old theistic arguments" about god, allowing suffering, an embarrassment and you are too much of a chicken-shit to indulge us.
But what I can say is that in a world without God, there is no chance that a child's death carries more weight and more meaning than it does in a world with a God.
And what meaning would that be?
You agree, that there can be no ultimate divine meaning to life, if a life doesn't even get a chance at life -- correct? You want so much, to have meaning in your life, that you commit to magical thinking, not even knowing what that ultimate meaning is. Isn't it extremely, arrogant and morbidly presumptuous, that you have assigned meaning to your life -- without knowing what that meaning is -- while other souls don't even get a chance to experience life?
--S.
There is (as far as I know) no scientific explanation of what caused the big bang, nor is one realistically possible. Have fun!
Argument from ignorance. At one time there were no scientific explanations for what caused disease and plagues (germs, viruses bacteria). At one time, there was no scientific explanation for floods, earthquakes, eclipses, volcanoes, droughts, tsunamis, rainbows, lightening, tornadoes, hurricanes, aurora borealis, comets, gravity, etc. etc. etc.
Jonnyboy, do you know who these might have been attributed to?
Just because science didn't have an explanation to these phenomenon, at the time, does not mean "god did it". Science does not concern itself with the answer "god did it" -- because if they did, we would all still be in the dark ages, which is exactly where some ignorant christians and creationists still are.
--S.
Yee-Haw!
Do you google everyone?
@ Buffettphan
"What I hear you telling me, as you tell me to make my own decisions, is that the decision I have made is unsatisfactory to you. Are you sure that a desire for a point, or to be "impressed" is unreasonable?"
Well JB, since you asked, frankly, I could care less what decisions you make for yourself as long as you don't infect my life with them-- directly or indirectly -- through the education and/or political systems, for example. I'm also saying don't expect OTHERS to impress you or give you a point for your own life. That's a huge, unfair, and egotistical responsibility to assign to someone else. Your point to life has to come from within yourself--not from anybody or anything else -- real or unreal. It's your life. You are in charge of it.
What I hear you telling all of us (ON OUR WEBSITE) is "Here I am! A spoiled brat who wants to prove to you that I'm right and you're all wrong. Just try to impress me. I dare ya... I double-dog dare ya. I'll come back with even more recycled arguments. Because....... It's all about MEEEEEEEE!."
(Basically the same analogy Melodramy used about a spoiled child on xmas....)
I'm not trying to disrupt conversation, bend things around to be about me, or get you to prove your viewpoints. (Nor am I trying to hijack your website.) I'm sorry I came off that way. I'll try my best to stop. You don't have to impress me. You're right when you say that life isn't really about being impressed. What I think I meant was that I was unsatisfied with the state of the world. I'm sorry I came across as a spoiled brat, and I honestly want nothing more than to hang out and talk.
Apology accepted. I'm glad to see from reading your recent posts on the site, that it seems as though you not only want to hang out and *talk*, but you also seem to want to *listen* . A nice change from most of the xtians we get on this site! So, thanks for that.
"I believe in God because I don't see a point to life if all that exists is the material world...... Humans don't appear to achieve happiness while they are alive, even when they have the highest standard of living....People who are looked up to are just as miserable as everyone else. People kill people for money, or misguided belief, or convenience, or accident."
People live unhappily
"Interestingly, however, people want to live for something..... People want life to have a point."
People want to be happy
"It seems to me that the options are to believe that the point of living rests within humanity and the world it finds itself inhabiting, that it rests somewhere outside of humanity and the world, or it doesn't exist at all and life is, in the final analysis, utterly without a point. I don't want to believe that my life is without meaning. Given the choice between a humanistic set of beliefs and a theistic one, it turns out I have more faith in a God I can't see than I do in humanity."
The world is frightening and bad - i want it to matter - so I choose to believe in God.
I cant help but feel intellectually shortchanged by the quality of this argument. ahem despite the fact that JB is politely phrasing his belligerence.
ATF! I forgot about you! Sorry.
I did have something to say to you, although I kind of included it in my reply to XPD.
I don't intend to convert anybody. Belief (dogmatic or cautious) and disbelief (dogmatic or cautious) in what have you are free choices.
You also apparently posted while I was writing this, so I'll address that while I'm here.
It's a nice quote, and I think it has a lot of truth in it. It is incredibly hard to get intelligent people to abandon positions they feel they can defend. Unfortunately, right now I feel I can defend my position. That would, as you assert, make changing my mind quite a bit harder. Feel up to it?
Jonnyboy (who thinks the taglines are pretty sweet and doesn't mind a little bit of copycatting here and there)
It's a nice quote, and I think it has a lot of truth in it. It is incredibly hard to get intelligent people to abandon positions they feel they can defend. Unfortunately, right now I feel I can defend my position
Well JB, seeing as how you like Mike Shermer's quote that I provided you, have you ever read any of his skeptic books or investigated his website?
If not, then how about James Randi's skeptic website/books, or any secular skeptic website/books?
As more than just I pointed out to you, such books and websites, by such authors, teach one to 'demand' testable/credible evidence before forming a conclusion about "extraordinary claims".
Moving down that investigative road from topic to topic, and seeing each type claim being easily debunked, when all is said and done, you have to conclude that we have no positive evidence for the metaphysical.
Now, if you have beliefs in something metaphysical besides your god being, then I highly suggest you check out such authors.
So that leads to my question of whether you do believe things like Ghost, ESP, Telepathy, Psychic Healings, Aura's, Levitation, Astral Projection, Fortune Telling, Communicating with the Dead, and so forth?
Have you already possibly concluded that all these type things are bogus and the only metaphysical item left that is real to you, is your god?
If so, then you have to ask yourself why you dismiss these things, yet are so sure this xtian god is the one object that remains off the list of dismissed items.
However, if some of these items are believed valid by you, then you really need to look much closer at these odd claims.
As I think I said before to you, wishing / needing / hoping / believing that something extraordinary exists, has no power in itself, to bring that thing(s) into existence.
Also keep in mind, you are far from the first xtian to pay us a visit, and at the same time, was sure they had all the proof we would need to be convinced their god existed.
Many have come before you, and I dare say, not a single god believer of any faith could provide any credible evidence to support their belief in some god.
What they bring us instead, are hearsay stories that someone told them about, or some personal experience that they felt was un-natural and thus, must have originated from their chosen god. They make positive mental connections to 'interesting' events that could easily be explained with nothing more than a coincidence factor, but they refuse to accept it as such. They need to believe it came from god, so therefore they fool themselves into believing so.
If every xtian has failed to bring forth any real evidence to us or any other skeptic, in all the eons they have been trying to do so, then really Jonnyboy, what do you think the chances are that YOU would have some very unique evidence to bring us, that would totally 'floor-us'?
Instead, what you've brought here is some interesting speculation but it all boils down to the same ending. You feel this universe, and us, are too complex to have come about without some type of godly assistance. Because you don't know the answers to some 'grand' questions in your mind, and because some of those questions so far have no answers by anyone else, you do like all xtians do here and form a conclusion that god must have done it.
It was pointed out to you already that this god was attributed to many of the previous unknowns humans have experienced, but once we finally learn the causes behind those unknowns, most of us realize that god had nothing to do with them, not now, not then.
As each little mystery is solved of this nature, your god moves further and further away from the direct intervention he had been assumed to participate in.
e.g. How many today believe god throws around lightning bolts and produces thunder?
Evolution easily accounts for how simple life evolved into complex forms and only the uneducated (or stubborn) would deny this (aka fundies).
While we don't YET know the specific mechanisms of abiogenesis, it's obvious that it's only a matter of time/research before that answer is known as well to us, and I'm SURE we won't find out it was a "god did it".
The universe is a huge place and trying to discover it's origins is difficult at best.
As xtians like to say, we weren't there to see how it was 'born' and looking back in time (via distance) has it's limitations.
Does that mean humans will never figure out the origin of the universe.
NO, but chances are it will take a lot longer to learn that information.
However, one thing is for certain, there is zero evidence to examine that would point to some invisible creation force, that some would call god.
To the contrary, the more we learn, the more the list grows of things that have natural causes, that as I said, were once in the realm of some god hand.
We know NOW that no god was needed to form the planets, our sun, the stars, or our own solar system. We now understand how such spectacular astronomical things came about, all without any gods.
So really, all the grand questions but one, seem to have been answered or at least have good hypotheses/theories about them.
If you have some emotional need to feel that some god caused the big-bang, then go right ahead and have faith in that, just as our ancestors relished in their faith of god causing thunder and the devil causing diseases and mental disease being caused by demons taking over one's mind etc..
That all said, you have nothing left to support your god, other than your own FAITH Jonnyboy, just as all xtians do. They believe because something inside them can't stand the idea that we are all on our own and that three is no afterlife reward for doing good things or for believing in the correct god, nor is there any god-doled-out hell punishment to avenge our hated enemies; as some also need to believe is the case.
In conclusion:
You do like all xtians must do, and try and perform spectacular mental gymnastics to bring your personal god into our reality, but when all is said and done, you truly have nothing to show us, now do you sir?
So again I ask you, WHY should we push aside all the "negative evidence" for your personal god that we have on the table, and then sign-up to your faith-supported belief in such a god being?
ATF (Who's just received a message, via ESP, from a Dead Soul in heaven, and it's telling him to levitate his Astral Body, into a future time, to a very sick Ghost, who is in need of some Psychic Hands-On Healing to tune up it's mal-colored Aura)
You say:
"Call it existentialism if you like, or perhaps acute modernism. Humans don't appear to achieve happiness while they are alive, even when they have the highest standard of living, the fewest diseases, the most free time, the most fulfilling job, the most power, or money, etc."
Someone else may have already addressed this comment but my take it is that, at least in part, humans feel this way because, since the advent of the priestly class of fraudsters, they have been told that they are miserable, unworthy and unhappy because they haven't yet parted with enough of thier possessions to keep the priests in fatted calves.
The priests don't put it quite like this, they tell us that we are unhappy because we are not in a right relationship with the local deity or dieties and that we may improve our lot by denying ourselves, taking up our purses and emptying them at the altar of the local fraud/religion.
Try reading a little Rousseau. His state of nature, the first one, before communities grew up, is really quite idyllic and conducive to happiness. Hobbes is a little more cynical - red in tooth and claw.
It is gods, and their attendant religions, that cause human unhappiness by creating a mythical creature against whom one will always appear unhappy and inadequate by comparison and compared to whose priests one will always appear poor. As the promises made by the priest of the giving and providential nature of their god are always false - of that their is ample evidence, with no need to argue about the mythicality or otherwise of the deity itself - so trusting in the deity necessarily leads to disappointment and misery.
The purpose of a god is to keep the laity in fear. All gods (if they exist) threaten man with dire consequences for disagreement and non-cooperation. All priests get fat on the back of this fear.
It is only when gods are abandoned and priests are ignored that happiness is achievable.
As to a purpose in life - exposing the extent of the fraud of religious belief and the amount of misery caused thereby is quite a satisfying purpose for me.
Do you think that human desire for something beyond what we can achieve is (still) connected to priestly activity in the modern world? That strikes me as unlikely, especially given how much of a taboo it is in society to actually tell people that they are miserable, unworthy, and unhappy.
(Also, I'm not sure that what you have identified as "the purpose of a god" -controlling the laity- is the generally accepted purpose of God, even among atheists. I could be wrong, but I'm pretty sure the prevailing idea is that men created god to fulfill an evolutionary imperative that made their ultimate survival more likely.)
The modern world is irrelevant to religion, hence the fatuous debate over evolution. The fact is that the principle of telling people they are miserable, unworthy and unhappy was established long, long ago. As soon as it was written down (holy writ) it became an unchallengeable tenet of the religion.
Xtianity tells you that you are lacking in both hope and worth and that god is williang and able to remedy both conditions.
Once ensnared, you are introduced to the "blessing" of tithing.
Thus the laity is controlled and the priestly caste enriched.
Legal fraud.
Me too. I seriously doubt you'll ever be able to fulfill that desire, however, as long as you're only interested in arguing on a website. If you were really interested in understanding any but your own opinion, you'd be reading and listening. I take it from the general timbre of your writing that you haven't read even one book that contradicts your current worldview. In contrast to that, the bulk of posters here have spent long months and years studying both sides of this issues.
Time and again Christians criticize contrary positions not because the arguments are weak or flawed, but for no other reason than that those arguments are contrary!
As an aside: Nicely phrased belligerence is a poor substitute for informed (intelligent) discussion.
I'm certain most of you have.
Nor do I think it's entirely fair to accuse me of not reading things that contradict my worldview.
But the website is not for me, and so I'll accept this in the spirit I think you meant it in. I'm sorry I seemed belligerent, and I will attempt to keep things more civil, in the knowledge that I am a visitor. I will restrict myself to deliberate and well-thought-out answers, and will try my best to admit when I'm beat.
mea culpa
I honestly can't think of as many as I thought. And far too many of them are textbooks.
I have read textbooks about why god cannot exist, philosophical and scientific.
With regard to worthwhile books I have read nothing but classroom style excerpts.
This is hysterical! Very surreal. Hmm.
I got all prickly and you were right. I hate it when that happens. Damn.
Oh, I have read Asimov's history of the world, that book I mentioned on another thread called "how to think about weird things" and other such weak-sauce stuff. I haven't gone out and picked up entire books by noted atheists and read them in their entirety.
I sit here entirely corrected. Damn.
Alright, I'll go out and get some books.
Can I come back after I've read them?
I have read textbooks about why god cannot exist, philosophical and scientific.
And what books would those be?
--S.
I said I was going to go get some actual books and read them... did you have anything to recommend?
Wow; you have a great memory. Can you put that great memory to use and answer my question? What textbooks were they?
--S.
...did you have anything to recommend?
Exchristian has an extensive list of books to choose from.
Yeah, I understand; you probably sold them back five or seven years ago and you probably threw away the syllabus and you couldn't go on line to see what books you'll need for the courses you took.
--S.
JB said below, "two-thirds of one was devoted to debunking xianity"
Even if his college offered such a course that did this "debunking", one has to wonder how one takes such a course **in college** and then walks away from it, still thinking the bible is god's word to humanity and ready to defend it (here). It's not even like he switched to another holy book, because the bible had been shown to be a mere man-made book, full of problems etc..
ATF (Who also wants to know what textbooks JB read on this subject)
@ leotracks
Is your criticism that I choose to believe something, or that what I choose to believe depresses you? Because if you are criticizing the act of choosing a belief, you might want to take a look at your own and make sure that you choose to believe what you do. Belief without choice is something akin to brainwashing. If what I choose to believe is something that is too depressing for you to handle, that is certainly fine. I do appreciate your concern for my cynical side though!
I was, in fact, pointing out that in your own words, your belief was made by decision, rather than evaluation and deduction. I do criticize people for belief based on such criteria.
Like many here, I was not raised an atheist, nor did I actively seek an escape from xianity. Through years of studying the bible, and its multitude of contradictions, errors, and implausible fantasies, I ARRIVED at the realization that biblical content was suspect at best. I resisted this position for sometime until further studies of philosophy, mythology and science provided the evidence that not only are god-based religions questionable, they are out right false.
You also suggested that I examine my own beliefs. Mine are based on EXAMINATION. I believe what is real, tangible, measurable. I believe in many people I know, because I KNOW them, I have seen their past behavior, and from that can extrapolate likely future behavior. Just using that criteria, god is not one who could be trusted, or believed.
Do you think that it is impossible (or intellectually pernicious) to believe in anything that is not scientifically or empirically well-founded?
Right On!
Jonnyboy -
Read "Reinventing the Sacred" by Kaufman. It will give you something to chew on about the Big Bang and how it all started. You are not the only one to revert to that old, tried & true, fall back if all else fails, argument. I used it for decades! You are going to have to work harder to keep our attention.
XpastorDan
Please don't let cynicism and bitterness take root in your heart. I've seen it in people both Christian and secular who fashion their beliefs about humanity on this idea that people are basically bad.
I recently had a phone call from an old man of 89, who has been a born again Christian most of his life. He asked me an atheist - for instructions on how to meditate since, as he put it, he needs some inner peace, because he wasn't getting it from his faith in God. He often used to speak to me of the wickedness of this world and on that we agreed to differ. What a waste - living in that way and missing out on what life could have offered ... Don't become this man
Of the two, I think humans tend to be worse,but that's just an opinion.
Of the two, I think humans tend to be worse,but that's just an opinion.
You ignorant, little sod. Are you kidding me? When you start critically thinking let me know. Humanity vrs. humanity is just a pin prick compared to the devastation leveled by the natural world. The Black Plague, alone, killed 75 million people -- now, do a little, critical thinking and consider all the plagues throughout history -- think of all the diseases that have caused the deaths of billions upon billions of people. Additionally, consider all the deaths throughout history associated with bacteria, viruses, germs, and genetic abnormalities.
In the 20th century, alone, 70 million people have died from famine -- that's just in one century! Today, someone dies of hunger every 3.8 seconds in the world — 75% of these people are children. That’s six million children who die of malnutrition, every year, before their 5th birthday. And before you get your panties in a bunch and try to lay the blame on humanity for not coming to the rescue of these people, by distributing medicine and food -- you have to put starvation into context. Throughout history, billions and billions, have died from malnutrition and starvation, when it was impossible for humanity to come to the rescue. Couple this with earthquakes, tornadoes, floods, tsunamis, hurricanes, typhoons, heat waves, blizzards, volcanoes, lightening, mudslides, wildfires, and you'll start to get the idea that the natural world has it out for you. Also consider the unintelligent design of putting your food hole by your breathing hole, causing thousands to die, every year, by choking, to death and consider the unintelligent design, of the umbilical cord, that has caused the deaths of thousand of children, every year. And let's not forget those mental monstrosities, such as, Alzheimer's, clinical depression, bipolar disorder, complicated grief, schizophrenia, to name a few. Consider the natural causes of death like heart disease. Mortality rates for heart disease are higher than those of all forms of cancer combined, and is the leading cause of death globally, killing about 7.1 million people each year. This is the mortality rate, in the modern era; now, critically think about those rates, through out time, and tell me you are of the opinion that humans tend to be worse.
What about becoming extinct at any moment? Asteroids? Gamma rays? Ice ages?
440 million years ago. End of the Ordovician period.
370 million years ago. Near the end of the Devonian period.
245 million years ago. End of Permian.
210 million years ago. End of Triassic.
65 million years ago. End of Cretaceous.
In fact 99% of all life has gone extinct -- all by natural causes. What's your opinion now, jonnyboy?
--S.
...And are you going to address my other posts?
Do you think the black plague is more malicious than Charlie Manson? Dahmer? Bundy?
I mention malice because "bad" means more than just the amount of death that something causes.
The natural world cannot intend evil. It has no agency, no choice. It does what it does.
So it depends on what's "worse." If the natural world putting an end to any form of life is as great an evil as one human killing another, then sure. Natural world is worse hands down. But I think the amount of "badness" we ascribe to something should take intent into consideration.
If you get hit by a car, that is going to be bad for you regardless of whether you were intentionally or unintentionally hit.
Bad defines harm not intention. Intention defines the guilt of the party.
Look it up in a book on jurisprudence.
You are a human encyclopedia! Man you amaze me! Thanks for all of your input to this thread and to the whole exchristian.net site.
I think that once Jonnyboy comes around, he will make a nice addition to our little family. He is close! You can't be that intelligent and thoughtful and not soon come to the same conclusion that the rest of us have.
Come on Jonnyboy. Make the BIG step. Once you are on the side of REALITY, just think how much more you can learn! Don't waste that great big BRAIN that 4 billion years of evolution has endowed you with!
XpastorDan
You are a human encyclopedia! Man you amaze me! Thanks for all of your input to this thread and to the whole exchristian.net site.
Thanks. To be honest with you, I didn't use to be like this. It wasn't until my son died, did I delve into why we suffer and what if anything, god has to do with it. My eyes have been opened to a mass world of hurt and I continually, read, always, with the pain of my son's death. I recently, read another book by Bart D. Ehrman, called, God's Problem: How the Bible Fails to Answer Our Most Important Question -- Why We Suffer. I highly, recommend it -- to all.
--S.
I would also like to do justice to the response.
I'm sorry you don't like me, but calling me names isn't going to get me to respond faster. It is intimidating, and it makes me want to be more thorough. It isn't as though your questions are trivial. They aren't. They are really hard, and I have to really think about them. I'm trying to do them justice so that I don't get immediately shredded.
I'm sorry you don't like me, but calling me names isn't going to get me to respond faster.
Think of me as the Gorden Ramsay of apostasy. I'm going to be blunt and in your face and when I see you are being an ignorant dolt, I'm not going to pull punches -- if you can't stand the heat get out of the kitchen.
I mention malice because "bad" means...depends on what's "worse...should take intent into consideration.
So your statement, considering bad things happening, on this planet, comparing humanity and the natural world, "Of the two, I think humans tend to be worse,but that's just an opinion." -- you meant, it's worse because humans show malice or intent and nature doesn't? Wow, what a profound statement; that's, really, going out on a limb -- no shit.
Focus, jonnyboy, you're diverging again, we aren't arguing levels of badness and if it's worse if someone is malicious, we are arguing about egregious, horrendous, vile, unimaginable, suffering, in the world and why god created a world with suffering and why he lets it persist and why he keeps creating new souls to be sent, to this planet of mass, suffering, both caused by humanity's violent nature and nature's aberrations. If god is all-loving and had us in mind, then why aren't conditions for life -- well -- more livable; putting it gently?
--S.
You've probably heard the biblical answers before, but they do seem internally consistent (at least to me) given biblical doctrine. It's actually quite straightforward: God gives man free will (a good thing) man uses it (a good thing) to accomplish mostly bad things (a bad thing). God, in the knowledge that life is not confined to the material world, allows bad things to continue in the interest of preserving free will (still in principle a good thing) and redeems humanity (a very good thing) from its bad (but freely bad) choices while still allowing a free choice in the matter (a good thing.) Additionally, God takes an unnecessary burden upon himself (a good thing) and subjects himself to the human suffering caused by free will in order to rescue people from their bad choices, not necessarily in this world but certainly in the next.
Given the existence of a God with a personal interest in the affairs of humanity, human suffering is the single most discussed question in xianity Xianity can come up with a solution for this question, and although it may not appear ideal at first xianity can solve the problem (at least theologically.)
Omnipotence and omnibenevolence combined seem to present a problem in conjunction with human suffering. How can an infinitely good God, with infinite agency, stand to see people suffer? It has been asserted (often) that these qualities cannot co-exist, and furthermore that this disproves the existence of a god possessing those qualities. Since the strongest argument for why suffering exists is free will, it is also the one most frequently attacked.
J.L. Mackie criticizes it strongly in the treatise "Evil and Omnipotence," and his criticism follows the standard pattern. Either God is not omnipotent, or he is not omnibenevolent, or the existence of suffering needs to be explained in a way that allows those qualities to co-exist. He raises two reasons why suffering cannot be explained in a way allowing for an all-powerful, all-loving God, but they are both incredibly weak. (In fact they are so weak that I don't understand how any clear-thinking person can hold to either of them.)
His first claim in a nutshell is this: "God was not, then, faced with a choice between making innocent automata and making beings who, in acting freely, would sometimes go wrong: there was open to him the obviously better possibility of making beings who would act freely but always go right. Clearly his failure to avail himself of this possibility is inconsistent with his being both omnipotent and wholly good."
This actually boggles my mind. Maybe I understand it incorrectly? It seems to me that he is saying that a being that always chooses right and is also possessed of free will is *possible*, which I will easily grant. However, for God to ensure that beings possessed of free will always choose right, as he seems to be suggesting God could have done, seems to put a considerable limit on the notion of free will. In fact, it is categorically different from the unlimited free will I was mentioning before. Free will limited to only choose "right" is not free will, and if God's notion were to escape the creation of automata he would not be well served by enforcing a predisposition toward right choices so strongly that no one would ever make a wrong choice.
In short, I think this argument breaks down. Badly.
His second argument is from the difficulty in an omnipotent God's creation of free will. It is essentially the paradoxical question of whether or not God can create a rock so big that he can't lift it. Can God create a free will and then no longer control it? The answer I prefer (that God refrains from controlling free will when it leads to evil, even though he could if he so chose) is mentioned and then dismissed by Mackie in favor of a lengthy discussion of the ultimately silly question of whether or not God can can create something so _____ he can't _____ it (fill in whatever works for you in the blanks there.) He dismisses it with barely a paragraph to prosecute it. He indicates that there would have to be a loss in overall goodness if God took away free will in order to justify allowing it, which he then dismisses as incompatible with xian doctrine. Which it certainly isn't, especially given the idea that God created humanity to have free will in the first place.
Maybe I'm missing something? If anyone has anything that could point out to me why his arguments are sound, that would be helpful, because right now I confess I don't see it. He appears considerably predisposed against the idea of a benevolent and omnipotent God, which is alright, I suppose, if only he would adequately dispute the claims concerning that God. He doesn't though. Lemme know what you think.
Did you read JL Mackie's argument in full? He deals with both your counter-arguments and I dont think you understand the crux of his argument. But We cant get there before discussing Sconnors earlier points on suffering from the natural world.
You are arguing against Mackie's specific attack on the (Men being responsible for evil defense) and NOT on his general arguments. We have to deal with the general arguments for evil and suffering before you can rely on that defense. You are framing the problem of evil by skipping a few steps ahead.
is this all you have on the defense of evil in the natural world?
"God, in the knowledge that life is not confined to the material world, allows bad things to continue in the interest of preserving free will (still in principle a good thing)"
It makes no sense. It is eminently possible to have evil only arising from human action without natural evil while preserving free will.
Thats where you should start.
Neither---as both are immaterial to the critical thinker/nonbeliever until you provide objective evidence for a "god".
JB: You've probably heard the biblical answers before, but they do seem internally consistent (at least to me) given biblical doctrine.
Actually, no, "biblical doctrine" is rife with contradictions and philisophical/logical inconsistancies. For a rather blatant example of the latter, "free will" and "omniscience" cannot coexist. It's as inconceivable as a "square circle".
JB: It's actually quite straightforward: God gives man free will (a good thing)...
Biblegod holds humankind responsible for a "trespass" they had no say in, whatsoever(a bad thing). If you call that "free will", then you have a very twisted definition of said concept(a bad thing), and I suggest you rethink(a good thing) the lunacy of what this "doctrine" is asserting.
JB continues..man uses it["free will"] (a good thing) to accomplish mostly bad things (a bad thing).
Once again, biblegod holds the entire human race responsible for the actions of two alleged human beings, who've presumably been deceased for thousands of years now. Biblegod, and its "faithful" proponents, maintain that this is the "Original Sin". In other words, future generations of human beings are inherently "evil". This, once more, removes "free will". If being a "sinner" is inevitable/inescapable, then theoretically, we must "sin", because if we could "choose" not to "sin", then we could avoid being a "sinner".
This is now two concise examples of how your "free will" proposition is severely lacking(a bad thing).
JB: God, in the knowledge that life is not confined to the material world,
Let's see.....biblegod "knows" something, but yet, you have not provided evidence that this "God" exists outside the pages of a book, or outside the "common sense" of your mind. Forgive me for finding that "reasoning" just slightly backwards.
JB: [biblegod]allows bad things to continue in the interest of preserving free will (still in principle a good thing)
So, we can logically infer that the will of man trumps the "Will of God". Hmmm...again, very backwards, and also begs the question----what is the point of "God" having a "Will"?
JB: and redeems humanity (a very good thing) from its bad (but freely bad) choices
Speaking of "bad choices"---if biblegod had the foreknowledge that "His Creation" would have the propensity to displease "Him", then why did "God" procede with that "Creation" in the first place? If your oven's thermostat is stuck on 500 degrees, but yet, you
"choose" to bake cookies in it anyway, then you have no one to blame but yourself.
Additionally, if biblegod "regretted" creating these imperfect humanoids once he saw how they turned out(assuming "God" took the day off from being "omniscient"), then that implies that he was originally striving for beings that were unable to displease him. I don't quite see the "free will" in that idea. And anyway, why is "Mr. Perfect" assuming that all future generations will displease him because a "handful" already had done so?
JB: Additionally, God takes an unnecessary burden upon himself (a good thing) and subjects himself to the human suffering caused by free will in order to rescue people from their bad choices, not necessarily in this world but certainly in the next.
i.e.."God" creates the very problem that "God" seeks to have solved. Again, very unimpressive for a "God".
JB: ...human suffering is the single most discussed question in xianity Xianity can come up with a solution for this question, and although it may not appear ideal at first xianity can solve the problem (at least theologically.)
Oh, perfect. It can be solved "theologically". ReaLLY?
JB: Omnipotence and omnibenevolence combined seem to present a problem in conjunction with human suffering. How can an infinitely good God, with infinite agency, stand to see people suffer?
"agency"
.::thinks to self::...."hmmmm, that word sounds vaguely familiar"
But anyway---yes, the notion is that man's "free will" takes precedence over "God's Will", and it even takes precedence over human suffering. In other words, the child molester's "free will" takes precedence over the child's safety and well-being. How lovely.
JB: Since the strongest argument for why suffering exists is free will, it is also the one most frequently attacked.
Yes, and until you can solve it "untheologically", it will remain attacked. For that matter, until you can prove that "Christianity" has the monopoly on "Truth" that you and your Christian doctrine claim it has, your beliefs and philosophies will continue to be attacked, and rightfully so.(especially in light of the site's moniker)
In reason(a good thing), Boom'.
The reason I skipped the rest of his argument, which is lengthy and more completely thought out than this particular section, is that he explicitly states that the argument from free will "evades" his criticism of other defenses of an omnipotent God. He only offers two arguments to defeat the argument from free will, and those are the only ones I mentioned.
As far as natural "evil" goes, the most common theological explanation for human suffering at the hands of nature is that the fall from Eden corrupted all of creation. There is biblical support for this, but outside of a biblical understanding the answer is not as helpful as it could be.
One reason for an, admittedly specious, "short-earth" creationism is that it avoids the problem of millions of years of death, so if you like that idea better, run with it. Abandoning that position as unrealistic, there are a few things that strike me as important. One, it is entirely reasonable to argue that human suffering ranks higher on a utilitarian scale than any other form of suffering, and that millions of years of death (while problematic) is not as great an injustice as it might be if for example it was millions of years of human death. It may even be an acceptable trade-off for a chance at human life. (It might not of course, but I don't feel prepared to thoroughly argue the weight of life from a cosmic perspective.)
Two, there are things of value in a world that can kill you-- be it a sublimely powerful nature that connects you to the divine; a giant, consequence filled playground for humanity to mature in; or a world which allowed for the evolution of intelligent life. Dawkins, stirring orator and heroic voice for atheism that he is, makes this point for me (albeit with different aims) when he stresses the unimaginable wonder that characterizes for him the nature and existence of life as it is. You won't catch Dawkins condemning the cycle of death that produced his science. He thinks it's really cool (and looking at it from his perspective I'm inclined to agree with him.)
On a more direct note, with regard to this: "It is eminently possible to have evil only arising from human action without natural evil while preserving free will."
There are two things I would respond with. First, since we haven't entirely established what evil is, it might not be fair to call this "natural evil" an actual evil (although it's clearly an easy mistake.) Evil, as defined by God, might not include acts causing death without malicious intent. Second, what kind of world would that be exactly? A perfect natural world that doesn't cause death actually sounds like it could be a problematic environment, especially since no one could eat anything. I suppose God could provide manna from the skies, but would we ever develop as people if we were fed as infants are? What if we got tired of manna and attempted to eat some plant? Wouldn't we be causing "natural evil?" I suppose the easiest way to remove natural evil from the equation is to simply redefine nature as lacking the capacity to produce evil, but it doesn't seem a very satisfying conclusion.
What do you think?
@ boomSLANG
I wasn't asked for objective proof of the existence of God, I was asked to critically think about certain problems that arise if one posits the existence of God. That's what I'm doing. You'll have to wait your turn; like I said, I can't keep up with every single objection.
Free will and omniscience is a very interesting topic, which I would love to discuss after monkeys and sconnor are finished with me. Are there any other contradictions that come to mind?
Biblical doctrine strikes you as absurd? Fair enough. What isn't fair is piling up arguments against the claims of xianity on the basis of questionably self-evident truth while I am arguing within a framework of xian theology, and disregarding counter-arguments made within a framework of xianity as unsupported by, or inconsistent with your self-evident truths. Would you like me to pile up my own stack of questionably self-evident truths against yours? I'm only arguing from inside a framework of xianity at the moment. If you would like to make claims against xian theology as being inconsistent, you will have to do what wpankey57 is doing, and address the claims by accepting the basic tenets of xian doctrine as true and arguing for their inconsistency from the inside.
If you don't want to, that's okay with me, but I might have trouble responding sensibly.
Leaving, for the moment, an open question whether or not God is actively creating new souls and actively sending them to earth, I would like to know whether you want a biblical answer or a philosophical one.
I want your answer; the one, that you think, is iron clad. I get the distinct impression you are not arguing with me but, instead arguing with another author -- diverging from the specifcs of my arguments. I want your conclusions, with respect to the arguments -- I posed. Can you do that?
I knew webmdave and boomslang would skewer you with the free will argument and I think they're not done, spanking you, yet. The only detail I can add is, how does the free will argument account for disease, mental illness, genetic physical deformity and natural disasters?
With that aside, I want to know what you believe? Do you believe, an all-loving, personal, god created you? Do you believe an all-loving god created this planet of suffering? Does he continue to create souls, sending them to a world, where he knows vile, unimaginable, suffering exists? How do you reconcile a god like this? And can you address me and my arguments, specifically, with your own thoughts and words. It's becoming increasingly frustrating, with you dancing around the specifics of my arguments. It's like pulling teeth; trying to find out what you believe. Can you make an unequivocal statement describing your beliefs in god?
--S.
Well if you have read his argument then your own argument would have understood and differentiated between second-order evils and good from third order freedom. Its going to be difficult to get there without getting this point out of the way which really describes and differentiates harm, causation, intention and free will.
"As far as natural "evil" goes, the most common theological explanation for human suffering at the hands of nature is that the fall from Eden corrupted all of creation."
Like boomslang so pointedly illustrates, Biblical arguments wont work when an uncertain argument comes from an uncertain authority. You still have yet to prove that you can rely on the Bible as an inerrant source. Furthermore you still run into the issue of omniscience and omnipotence - God knew the world was going to be corrupted and did nothing to forestall or intervene in it even though he had the power to. Furthermore he could have chosen a whole variety of consequences for creation even if men fell.So as it goes - the defense is far then effective on itself as it does not negate any of the other possible scenarios that an omnipotent and omniscient being could avail itself of.
"One reason for an, admittedly specious, "short-earth" creationism is that it avoids the problem of millions of years of death...."
Are we supposed to take this argument seriously? Its still an uncertain conclusion premised on an assertion which is even less based on evidence.
Furthermore even one death is one to many. Is Charlie Manson a better person than Hitler becuase he did not kill as many? Or is one murder bad enough to contradict all-benevolent.
if the term natural Evil causes problems, then Let us then start with harm and suffering if it is less confusing.
A.) God created the universe (assumption)
B1.) God is omnipotent (assumption)
B2.) God is omniscient (assumption)
B3.) God is benevolent (assumption)
C.) There is harm and suffering in the world (Fact)
D.) harm and suffering is caused both intentionally by actors in the world and also by unintentionally by actors and the world on each other (Fact)
E.) It follows that if an omnipotent, omniscient and benevolent God (perfect designer) created a universe (his intentioned perfect design) where harm and suffering occurs intentionally (human) and unintentionally (natural and human) - then he intentioned that such harm and suffering would occur.
"Evil, as defined by God, might not include acts causing death without malicious intent."
How to define Evil (sigh - we wont have to go through this if you had just read Mackie's earlier arguments)
In other words God has the intention that harm and suffering will occur (regardless of harm or sufferings causation - natural or human) as he can forsee that his creation is dangerous and he has perfect control of creation itself.
Think of the moral guilt of someone who builds an IED and makes it so that it blows up due to a vehicle passing through. He might claim fairly he was not there when the trap was triggered nor did he have any control over the circumstances that will trigger the explosion (he cannot control the car or the driver) - but designing and laying such a trap is still intentionally causing harm and suffering because he can reasonably forsee and expect that it will be triggered even if he does not want it to be triggered by certain people.he might prefer and genuinely wish that one group is not affected (civilians vs soldiers). But by all accounts he is still guilty of causing harm and suffering as the designer of the bomb because he reasonably foresaw that it could cause harm to any group. Read up any book on Jurisprudence and you will see this is how intention is determined in a court of law.
It makes sense too - I fire a machine gun into a crowd although I genuinely do not want anyone to get hurt. But i also know that there is a high probability someone will get hurt. Knowledge of the outcome regardless of desire for it constitutes responsibility for that outcome to occur. Am I responsible for the harm and suffering caused when i fire a machine gun into a crowd even though I dont want anybody to be harmed? Responsibility is linked to knowledge of the outcome of an action.
Worse still for a God that knows everything and built everything perfectly as he saw fit and intervenes whenever he wants. The outcome he foresees is also that he desires and that he has designed to occur. he is thus fully responsible for harm and suffering.
It is your obligation then to differentiate why this harm and suffering (from unintentional sources other than himself) which God has intentionally created should be considered as not his responsibility. Something you have yet to do other than by defining natural harm and suffering as not "evil" yet it is still attributable to a creation which is fully designed to be this way by its perfect creator. The creator then is responsible as he cannot claim ignorance or lack of ability.
"A perfect natural world that doesn't cause death actually sounds like it could be a problematic environment, especially since no one could eat anything. I suppose God could provide manna from the skies, but would we ever develop as people if we were fed as infants are? What if we got tired of manna and attempted to eat some plant? Wouldn't we be causing "natural evil?"
jonnyboy's perfect world: No eating
Possible better world 1: All the joys and sustenance when you eat - none of the joys and sustenance when you dont eat but also none of the starvation and death. You or others may force you not to eat (free will to eat not affected) (death is not the direct opposite quality of sustenance - one can choose to be sustained or not)
Possible better world 2: One can starve to death however there is always food provided - one can only starve to death by choice or by the choice of others to deny food to you (free will to eat is not affected)
Possible better world 3: One can starve to death but everyone is always provided with an adequate forewarning to choose an alternate path that if one remains or continues in a particular way - there will be a shortage of food. Others may still force you to stay but everyone will know what would occur. (eg. this currect crop WILL be destroyed by pestilence - you can choose to remain or move out - suprise crop failures do not occur) (free will to eat not affected)
jonnyboy's perfect world: development is impossible without the need to look for food.
Analysis: This seems to be a curtailment of our free will - we are forced into doing certain things because of imperfections we are designed with. Our supposed "unlimited" free will is "limited". So much for it being a supreme value. Forced to develop rather than choose to develop or not.
Possible better world: No development is needed for skills that are irrelevant in a perfect world. Although all skills are open to development one can choose whether to develop them or not. (development not limited and also not forced.)
Possible better world: Development is possible because one is not forced by need but by choice.
eg. an analogy of the above argument
Jonnyboy's perfect world: If you were not blind - you would not need to develop the skills of reading Braille
Possible better world: One in which you are not blind due to natural causes.
Possible better world: We could still learn to use Braille even if you were not blind - one does so because when chooses to do so. Tightrope walkers have use of their eyes but they can still choose to develop wearing a blindfold while tightrope walking because they want to not because they are forced to. (free will is not affected and is more important in living life)
Possible better world: One in which you can ONLY be blinded by intentionally having your own eyes put out or if others intentionally do so to you (Free will is not affected)
jonnyboy's perfect world: All humans are fed as infants
Possible better world 1: no human is force fed. All humans can choose to eat or not to eat - if they dont they forgo the joy of eating but do not suffer or are punished for choosing not to eat. However others may force you to forgo the pleasures of eating. (free will not affected)
Possible better world 2: no human is force fed. All humans are able to choose not to eat but food is provided so their choice is always that of not eating and not due to deprivation or scarcity but because they choose or are forced by others not to eat. (free will not affected)
jonnyboy perfect world: choice to eat plants - presumably something bad to you will happen?
Possible better world 1: different foods will have different taste - but all (even the tasteless) will be sustaining or at the very least result in no physical harm. (free will to eat different plants not affected)
Possible better world 2: plants may cause damage but everyone would have intuition of which plants cause damage or not. Others or yourself can choose or be forced into eating this plant -but it is impossible to eat it by accident. (free will is aware)
Possible better world 3: plant may cause harm but the cure is also inherent to its nature - we can access this cure through free will but we can choose not to do so. (free will enhanced)
There can be innumerable examples of better worlds ( I dont have to define what the perfect world is - only show a better world exists where free will is not affected.), all of which show that natural harm can be at the very best removed and at the very least linked specifically to human choice.
My argument:
A.) If you can come up with a better world
B.) where free will is preserved or enhanced
C.) you cannot rely therefore on natural harm in this world being NECESSARY for free will
Your argument needs to prove the assertion that
1.) natural harm and suffering in this world is necessary for free will to operate
2.) There can be no better alternatives
As for the Dawkins argument - I have no idea how that is relevant to this problem as he accepts that the natural world is able to cause harm and suffering without a perfect designer. he imputes no responsibility to a creator. The wonder one gets when marveling the ocean is separate from the damage the ocean can do to you. Both values are what we perceive to be inherent to the ocean (the particular one created in this world) but each value is not inherent in the other. (the values of harm and beauty are not inherent in each other - they are separate)
"be it a sublimely powerful nature that connects you to the divine"
If your argument for why there is harm in nature depends on connecting to the divine.
Please show the logic of how it does so and why harm is necessary for nature to do so.
Thanks for the heads up. I love Ehrman. He is kind of my De-Conversion Guru. His earlier book "The Orthodox Corruption of Scripture" is what really openned my eyes and put me on the road to discovery about where the bible really came from.
Have a great week,
XpastorDan
How free is freewill? Am I free to fly by flapping my arms? Am I free to crave raw meat? Am I free to dislike ice cream? An I free to be the most handsome man on earth?
Hmm?
The fact is, John, no one has freewill. We only have the freedom of expressing our natures. I can not change my food preferences, my looks, or my lack of ability to fly at will. I am not free to violate my nature. I can only do those things that a human can do, and I can only do them within the parameters of the talents, abilities and general limits of my personality. I am not free to be an artist, as I have no talent for art. I am not free to be a homosexual, because I am not attracted to men. I can pretend to be an artist or a homosexual or any number of things, but I am not really free to be those things. I am only free to be exactly what I am. I can no more choose against my nature than your God can choose against His supposed nature.
If I am evil, it is because I was born with an evil nature. I cannot choose to have a different nature than the one I was born with. If I was born with an evil nature, then where did that nature come from if I presuppose the existence of your omni-everything god?
If the nature of your god is only good, then your god does not possess the ability -- the free will -- to create evil. Yet, if your god did not create evil, then how could evil even exist anywhere in his creation? If your god doesn't have the free will to do evil, then his free will is limited.
If your god was good, and all free will is already limited, then he certainly could have created a world where free will was preserved, yet evil was non-existent. If you believe evil must be present to preserve free will, then there should be a good supply of evil in heaven. That'll be fun, huh?
But for the cowardly, the unbelieving, the vile, the murderers, the sexually immoral, those who practice magic arts, the idolaters and all liars--their place will be in the fiery lake of burning sulfur. This is the second death (Rev. 21:8).
As John Wenham as so rightly said in his book The Enigma of Evil: Can We Believe in the Goodness of God?,
The ultimate horror of God's universe is hell. The other difficulties of the Bible and of Providence are real enough, but however appalling they may be, their seeming harshness and injustices are only temporary, cut short by death. The terrors of hell, on the other hand, belong to the world which lies beyond death. For a single being to endure pain hopelessly and unendingly, or even to pass out of existence and forfeit for ever the joys of heaven, is more terrible than any temporal suffering (1985, p. 27).
With deep heartfelt pity it seems to me that few people could possibly be deserving of such a fate. My problem stems, in large measure, around the issue of mankind's freedom, responsibility, and the sovereignty of God. Since earliest times, Christians have pointed to Genesis chapter 3 as the description of man's fall from innocence. From that point onward many in the Church have referred to the concept of original sin as an inner disposition or inclination toward sin. Augustine believed that the sinful nature of Adam was biologically transmitted to all human beings. Support for this view is said to be in a germinal form in (Gen. 6:5; cf. Ps. 51) were we read, "The LORD saw how great man's wickedness on the earth had become, and that every inclination of the thoughts of his heart was evil all the time." John Calvin taught that Adam's sin was imputed to all in the same manner as Christ's righteousness is imputed to all believers. Since Adam was the head of the human race and consequently, its federal representative all are thus born sinners because they participate in the nature and guilt of Adam their father. Later, Calvin's view was embodied in chapter 6 of Westminster Confession of Faith entitled "Concerning the Fall of Man, Sin, and the Punishment for Sin."
Since Adam and Eve are the root of all mankind, the guilt for this sin has been imputed to all human beings, who are their natural descendants and have inherited the same death in sin and the same corrupt nature. This original corruption completely disciplines, incapacitates, and turns us away from every good, while it completely inclines us to every evil. From it proceed all actualized sins (1979, p.12).
Other reformers took a slightly more optimistic view of the human condition. For them, total depravity did not mean that fallen man was totally incapable of any good, rather only that the effects of sin had permeated every area of man's being (including reason, contra Aquinas).
The Apostle Paul taught that we were "all under sin" (Rom. 3:9-20), and "slaves to sin" (Rom. 6:17, 20). Contrary to the new life in Christ, which is lived by the Spirit, is the old life lived according to the flesh (Rom. 8:5-9). The Spirit is life whereas the Flesh (sarx) is death. For Paul, when he contrasted Flesh and Spirit over two thirds of the instances referred to sarx as the fallen human nature (cf. the N.I.V. Bible). Paul viewed mankind, apart from Christ, as being spiritual dead and dissipated in the lusts of their sinful nature. "And were by nature children of wrath, even as the rest" (Eph. 2:3).
Taking all the Biblical evidence of man's inherent depravity to heart the drafters of The Westminster Confession of Faith declared in chapter nine entitled "Concerning Free Will" that,
Man fell into a state of sin by his disobedience and so completely lost his ability to will any good involving salvation. Consequently fallen man is by nature completely opposed to spiritual good, is dead in sin, and is unable by his own strength either to convert himself or to prepare himself for conversion. When God converts a sinner and brings him into a state of grace, He frees him from his natural enslavement to sin. By God's grace alone, freely given, sinful man is enabled to will and to do what is spiritually good. However, since the old sinful nature also remains, the believer cannot consistently or perfectly will to do what is good but also wills evil (1979, p. 17).
Now it's true that the Reformed faith does not speak for all Bible believing Christians, nevertheless, this tradition does seem to be the majority one. On the other hand, the Arminian position does teach that man's will is free and consequently may accept or reject God's grace. Norman Geisler reflecting this position notes that,
A further argument for free will is that God's commandments carry a divine "ought" for man, implying that man can and should respond positively to his commands. The responsibility to obey God's commands entails the ability to respond to them, by God's enabling grace. Furthermore, if man is not free, but all his acts are determined by God, then God is directly responsible for evil, a conclusion that is clearly contradicted by Scripture (Hab. 1:13; James 1:13-17). Therefore, it seems that some form of self-determinism is the most compatible with the biblical view of God's sovereignty and man's responsibility (1984, p. 430).
Without belaboring the issue of man's freedom and the providence of God any longer, I would like to tie the proceeding discussion to the doctrine of hell. John Wenham states, "to sin mean ultimately to forfeit heaven, and this the greatest possible punishment which anyone can ever receive, and this is the punishment which sin deserves" (1985, p. 70 Italics his). I have a tremendous problem with the phrase "this is the punishment which sin deserves." To state it plainly, it seems a terrible injustice and the greatest moral outrage to say a person deserves punishment for their sins when, as we have seen, they were incapable by nature to do nothing other than sin! Is a nursing inarticulate infant morally responsible for crying for its mother when hungry? Is such crying to meet a need, which may be inappropriate at a later stage, deserving of punishment? Certainly not!
St. Augustine was aware of the charge that unending torture mounted to an eternity of evil. In order to rebut the charge he argued, that, whereas unpunished sin was an evil, sin properly punished was a good. Consequently, the existing of souls receiving their just punishment throughout eternity was a good and not an evil. I take objection with two issues (that are closely related), in his argument. First, I find the idea of hell as being a proper punishment as simply a case of supreme "over-kill." Although few might object to the thought of a Hitler or Stalin spending an eternity in an existence pictured by such images as the place of the "undying worm" (Mk. 9:48; cf. Is. 66:24), where there is a "fire that is not put out," a place to spend eternity "prepared for the devil and his angels" (Mk. 9:48; Mt. 25:41) and in the perpetual dreadful sight of "weeping and gnashing of teeth" (Mt. 8:12; Lk. 13:28; Mt. 13:42, 50; 22:13; 42:51; 25:30).
Secondly, Augustine states that hell is a just punishment. Even in the Old Testament Israel was commanded to "take life for life, eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot, burn for burn, wound for wound, bruise for bruise" (Ex. 21:23-25; Deut. 19:21). The idea here was not a license for each member of the community to seek revenge, but rather it was a restraint given to the rulers of Israel for curbing the clan violence that inevitably escalated. Such a law was a welcomed relief compared to other such laws in the Middle East. This was justice, hell is not. Hell is unbridled, unrelenting torment and anguish for "the cowardly, the unbelieving, the vile, the murderers, the sexually immoral, those who practice magic arts, the idolaters and all liars, their place will be in the fiery lake of burning sulfur. This is the second death" (Rev. 21:8). Such a punishment surely doesn't seem proper or just for those that are cowards, unbelieving and liars!
Jesus also taught that those who reject him (Mt. 11:20-24), and the prophets reap hell as their "reward." Also those guilty of hypocrisy (Mt. 23:15), hateful language and intent (Mt. 5:22), unfaithfulness (Mt. 24:45-51), unrepentant (Mt. 5:29-30), and the disobedient (Mt. 7:19) are liable to its judgment.
Richard Mouw in his book Uncommon Decency deals with hell in one of his chapters. For him "hell reinforces the importance of human freedom" (1992, p. 138 Italics his). Mouw rejects the idea that hell is a "punishment imposed from outside" (1992, p. 138). Hell is rather the "culmination of a person's own freely chosen life-plan" (1992, p. 138 Italics mine). Continuing he states that, "because of our sin, however, we are incapable of mustering up the resources to live out a life-plan that glorifies God" (1992, p. 139 Italics mine). I think that it is more Biblical to say that it’s because of our nature (not sin per say which is only the effect), that we are incapable of mustering up the resources to live out a life-plan that glorifies God. We are by nature sinners; under sin, prone to sin, slaves to sin. Sin comes natural to us--glorifying God doesn't.
Hell is the ultimate and inevitable consequence of a persistent refusal of divine grace. It is separation from God--a state of affairs where we have finally cut ourselves off from the possibility of being healthy human creatures (Mouw 1992, p. 139).
Reformed theologians have taught that we are not really truly free to choose or reject God on our own. Our salvation or damnation is sovereignly predestined by the providential will of God.
At the right time, appointed by Him, God effectual calls all those and only those whom He has predestined to life. He calls them by His word and Spirit out of their natural state of sin and death into grace and salvation through Jesus Christ. . .This effectual call is freely made by God and is entirely an act of His special grace. It does not depend on anything God foreknew or foresaw about the person called, who is completely passive. God Himself gives life and renewal by the Holy Spirit. He enables each person to answer His call and to accept the grace He offers and actually gives. . .Others, not elect, may be called by the ministry of the word, and the Spirit may work in them in some of the same way He works in the elect. However, they never truly come to Christ and therefore cannot be saved (Westminster Confession of Faith 1985, p. 18).
Emil Brunner states that Calvin "denies human freedom, but he also maintains full human responsibility, while at the same time he asserts that God alone determines all that happens, without, however, ascribing to him the origin of evil" (Brunner 1952, p. 172). His evaluation of Calvin is one in which I am in complete agreement with,
This is the element in Calvin's thought which is so unsatisfactory, not to say painful and dishonest. He does not admit for a moment that there is an insoluble dilemma here, a paradoxical statement which cannot be regarded as free from two opposed assertions, but he proceeds as though everything were in order, while he is flying in the face of logic (Brunner 1952, 172).
There is wiggle room here (especially since I could just dismiss Calvinism.) To your credit you have readily admitted this, and since the point of this exercise is to think critically, I will attempt to not wiggle.
Ok, maybe I'll wiggle just a little bit with a disclaimer: Calvin is and always has been problematic for the xian faith (heck, you know that, you know more about him than I do.) He is at once helpful in his simplicity and strength of message, and completely unhelpful in the number of paradoxes he ends up raising. The easiest way out of this may in fact be to dismiss Calvinism as a relic and leave it at that. It is rather a large part of the reformed church though, as you mentioned, so I will attempt to avoid that.
Another brief disclaimer: (O.o) ---Holy crap. This is researched. I am feeling tentative, and so I am only going to look at a couple of things, until I get my bearings.
I have been taught that the biblical hell was not created for humans to inhabit. Is that wrong according to Calvinistic tradition? (BTW I am not a calvinist, nor anything even remotely close to presbyterian, so the doctrinal fine points will be a little over my head.)
Does Calvinism (or deterministic variants) offer anything besides paradox as a solution to this inconsistency? Like, could we posit that perhaps God knows all possible outcomes of all possible choices ever, but makes no actions beyond those required for certain conditions to appear? Leaving free choice possible, but known? Additionally, could God not intentionally limit his knowledge of the outcomes of free choices in order to provide free will?
Lemme know what you think.
With respect, Jonnyboy
I was taught that too. However, since Bible God knows everything before it happens and is unchanging, it appears that since before the foundation of the world he was well aware that the bulk of humanity would be spending eternity, alive, in hell.
"Could God not intentionally limit his knowledge of the outcomes of free choices in order to provide free will?"
If you are determined to retain your faith in the face of all reasonable logic, then yes, your god could change his nature and not know the future.
So the most perfect conceivable entity, eternal, all-knowing, all-powerful, went out of its way to create an infinitely weak and sinful species of creature, then purposely made itself imperfect just so it could let those creatures make decisions it won't know about in advance so it doesn't have to take responsibility for letting those creatures damn themselves to a dimension of infinite torture that God didn't want to let them go in the first place, but somehow has convinced Itself that it must let them go to, to be "fair"?
Do you see now why we're ex-Christians?
Sounds to me like God doesn't do a very good of "freeing" people does he? Kind of like going into a prison and unlocking the cell door and telling the prisoner "you are free to go" but then saying "oh wait, we need to keep this" and chopping off the prisoner's arm and tossing it back in the cell...or maybe slamming the cell door shut on one of the prisoner's body parts - you're kinda free. But not really.
An argument against free will! I was legitimately not expecting this to come up. I am taken aback.
A few questions for you (and BTW, very sincere kudos for this answer. I have been caught at a loss again, and I am very unfamiliar with arguments against the existence of free will)...
1) Is it impossible to change one's nature?
2) Have you been hanging out with Calvin?
3) Does acting in accordance with one's nature rule out free choice? What if free choice is more narrowly defined?
Additional uncertain musings: Is God not capable of evil? Whether he is or he isn't, if indeed he does exist the world, made according to his nature, should tell us things about him and his nature. Hmmm.
I'll have to go into this more thoroughly I think, since I have honestly never considered this angle of things before...
An argument against free will! I was legitimately not expecting this to come up. I am taken aback.
Are F-ing kidding me? Do you even know what you are arguing?
JB said, Since the strongest argument for why suffering exists is free will,
--S.
Humans place great value in their freedom. Riots, revolutions, and wars have all been fought in the name of freedom or liberty. The passion that freedom arouses has been the heart cry of every nation, age and people. As the American patriot Patrick Henry once said, “Give me liberty of give me death.” Or as the state of New Hampshire has boldly stated as their state motto, “Live free or die” or again as Martin Luther King Jr. proclaimed, “Free at last, free at last, thank God almighty I’m free at last.” The American Founding Fathers wrote in the Declaration of In-dependence that, “We hold these truths to be self-evident: that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, lib-erty, and the pursuit of happiness.” No doubt, these statements give voice to humanities’ senti-ments about freedom! The desire to be free seems to be an inherent part of human nature.
In this essay I would like to consider the nature of human freedom. Before we can consider that concept however we must ask the seemingly obvious question, “What is freedom?” At first glance the meaning seems perfectly plain. Freedom is that state of affairs in which one’s activi-ties are not curtailed or infringed upon by another. However, is the concept of freedom so easily defined and its meaning exhausted? Perhaps, one should rather ask, “What are the different kinds of freedom.” Certainly there are different kinds of freedom as well as different degrees of freedom. Even a cursory consideration of the word will yield a number of various meanings and dimensions: civil, social, economic, political, psychological, biological, metaphysical, and theo-logical. When one really explores the many facets of freedom it is not at all sure that we have in mind the same thing or understand the concept that lies behind such a common and seemingly obvious word. I would suggest that a great deal more is packed in the word F R E E D O M than is normally assumed! Many will recognize this to be question with a long history and one still lacking an answer sufficient to meet everyone’s satisfaction. Although these seem impertinent questions, and contrary to common sense, I feel one is obligated to raise them for the sake of truth and for the practical bearing it has on our worldview. As Carl J. Friedrich observed in his book The Philosophy of Kant,
Like other great philosophers, Kant had the capacity for wondering about that which is taken for granted by all others. In an early essay, Einführung des Be-griffs der negativen Grössen in die Weltweisheit (1763), he remarked toward the end: “I who . . . usually understand that the least which all people believe readily to understand” (Italics mine xiv).
To wonder about the nature of freedom is not simply a philosopher’s quest or an idle exercise in theoretical abstractions. To think hard about the nature of freedom opens new doors of percep-tion some quite radical and provocative while others can be quite liberating.
To ask the question differently one may inquire, “To what degree, if any, are individuals autonomous?” But are not the words ‘freedom’ and ‘autonomous’ tautological? Do we not, by defining the one, define the other? Since, I believe that this is indeed the case I’ll use the words synonymously. Webster defines autonomy as: “Independent or freedom, as of the will, one’s actions, etc.” Or “Undertaken or carried on without outside control.” Here, I think, are two quite different facets of the same word, the first being freedom of the will or freedom pertaining to one’s thoughts and actions whereas the second implies action taken independently of outside control. Though being two different facets of the same word the former is not necessarily inde-pendent of the latter as we shall see later.
For most individuals both kinds of freedoms are possible. Namely, the possibility of free-will and freedom from political or state discrimination, control, or interference (the kind of free-dom the writers of the Declaration had in mind). While I do not doubt the existence of civil and political freedom and the opposite state of affairs where these liberties are not enjoyed, as history piteously testifies, I would question however the existence of free will. Therefore, the issues I want to address are not, “Do individuals face instances of political, social, and cultural restric-tions to their freedom, for indeed they do, but rather do we as individuals have a will that is free? Are our wills indeed free that is, are we truly autonomous or are we in fact governed by both in-ternal (physiological, psychological) and external influences (upbringing, environment) factors?” Do we readily acknowledge that the whole universe functions according to the ‘laws” of cause and effect whereas maintain, at the same time, that human beings are somehow exempt from the same laws? If we are indeed exempt, or significantly so as to ensure our free will, what reason(s) do we put forth as evidence?
Few will deny that we are indeed influenced by internal factors (heredity = nature) and exter-nal factors (environment = nurture) but balk at the idea that these factors determine our thinking and behavioral processes. The idea of somehow being determined strikes many as patently ab-surd and beyond the pale of common sense. Others find it psychologically disturbing. As some reason, “If we are indeed determined then we are mere puppets or automatons. Our future, as well as our present, is out of our control. We are cogs in a great machine meshed with other cogwheels all operating wholly dependently and inextricable tied to each other!” Still others ob-ject to determinism on moral grounds. “If we are all determined then no one can take moral re-sponsibly for their actions; whether good or bad. The criminal is therefore not morally responsi-ble for his or her action. Nor can those individuals noted for their praiseworthy efforts be com-mended for them. What will become of our traditional concepts of justice, punishment, praise, and reward? For if determinism is true then one’s actions are as set or as inviolable as one’s gender, IQ, or the color of one’s eyes.”
Determinism is perceived as a threat to the status quo. It is perceived as an attack against human dignity—a reductionism that reduces the individual’s long cherished notion that we choose our destiny and chart our own course through life to a chimera. Baron d’Holbach (1723-1789) stated the determinist thesis in its classic form:
In whatever manner man is considered, he is connected to universal nature, and submitted to the necessary and immutable laws that she imposes on all the beings she contains, according to their peculiar essences or the respective properties which, without consulting them, she endows particular species. Man’s life is a line that nature commands him to outline upon the surface of the earth, without ever being able to swerve from it, even for an instant. He is born without his own consent; his organization does in nowise depend upon himself; his ideas come to him involuntarily; his habits are in the power of those who cause him to contract them; he is unceasingly modified by causes, whether visible or concealed, over which he has no control, which necessarily regulate his mode of existence, give the hue to his way of thinking, and determine his manner of acting. He is good or bad, happy or miserable, wise or foolish, reasonable or irrational, without his will counting for anything in these various states.
But, why would anyone object to the traditional notion of free will? The reason(s) upon closer examination seems, at least to me, quite obvious. As I mentioned above all agree that, at least at the macro level of existence, all things work according to the laws of cause and effect. To acknowledge this is to acknowledge the existence of causality. That is to say, that whatever happens at any given moment is the effect of some antecedent cause. The law of cause and ef-fect governs everything in the universe. That is, everything in the universe is entirely determined so that whatever happens at any given moment is the effect of some antecedent cause. If you were omniscient, you could right now predict exactly everything that would happen for the rest of the hour, for the rest of your lifetime, for the rest of time itself, simply because you would know how everything hitherto is causally related. Therefore, since all human actions are events, human action are not undetermined, are not free in a ‘real’ sense but are also the product of a causal process. So although you may imagine that you are autonomous and have free will, in reality you are totally conditioned by heredity and environment. My reasoning is quite simple. It can be stated in the following syllogism:
Since every event (or state of affairs) must have a cause
and
Since human actions (as well as the agent who gives rise to those actions) are events (or a state of affairs
Therefore, every human action (including the agent him or herself) is caused.
Clarence Darrow, of the Scope’s Trial fame, sought to follows this line of reasoning in plead-ing for leniency on the part of two boys who had committed a murder argued,
We are all helpless . . . This weary world goes on, begetting, with birth and with living and with death; and all of it is blind from the beginning to the end. I do not know what it was that made these two boys do this mad act, but I do know there is a reason for it. I know they did not beget themselves. I know that anyone of an infinite number of causes reaching back to the beginning might be working out in these boys’ mind, whom you are asked to hang in malice and in hatred and injus-tice . . . Nature is strong and she is pitiless. She works in her own mysterious way, and we are her victims. We have not much to do with it ourselves. Nature takes this job in hand, and we play our part. In the words of old Omar Khayam, we are: “But helpless pieces in the game He plays; Upon the chess board of nights and days; Hither and thither moves, and checks and slays, And one by one back in the closet lays.” What had this boy to do with it? He was not his own father, he was not his own mother; he was not his own grandparents. All of this was handed to him. He did not surround himself with governesses and wealth. He did not make himself. And yet he is to be compelled to pay.
In more recent times one of the strongest proponents of determinism was B. F. Skinner. Freedom, Skinner argues, is not a fact of human experiences. All of our responses—the impulses that lie behind so-called free choices—are the result of unique past contingencies of conditioning and reinforcement that have shaped us into what we are. We only appear to be free because we are unaware of the number of possible combinations of variables that are antecedent to all our thoughts and actions. Although the hypothesis of universal causality cannot be proved it is something that we all assume. We cannot easily imagine an uncaused event-taking place in or-dinary life. Freedom is therefore an illusion.
Among the illustrations used by Skinner is the account of a falling leaf. Picture a leaf, yel-lowed from the first frosts, fluttering and suddenly beginning to fall from the top of the tall, red-gold maple tree. In zigzag motions, hovering on the currents of air, it picks a path downward and settles eventually upon a cushion of leaves on the ground. Now, there isn’t a physicist alive who would argue that the leaf is “free.” The fact is that the leaf follows precisely known laws of physics, laws that can easily be found in any physics textbook. Yet as the leaf starts its fall from the top of the maple tree, what physicist, by applying his formulas, could predict the leaf’s trajec-tory or the spot where it will finally come to land? The journey is too complex; there are too many variables: air currents, atmospheric density, humidity, minute photon forces, the mass and the volume of the leaf, its configuration, and so on. The number of possible combinations of variables is so great that, although knowing all the applicable laws, predicting the leaf’s path or destination is a feat quite beyond the ability of any physicist (or computer) today.
Part of the reluctance and antipathy that surrounds the concept of determinism is rooted in the mistaken notion that it is the same thing as fatalism. Fatalism is a doctrine that states that no matter what you do (or anyone does) certain events will occur. For example, if it is fixed by the stars or the gods or the Fates that you will die in an airplane crash at noon on November 10, 2003, no matter what you do, even if you stay away from airplanes, that event will take place. Determinism acknowledges that human choices and actions are necessary to produce certain events, but simply posits that our choices and actions follow causal processes. If you stay away from airports and are not kidnapped, you won’t die at noon on November 10, 2003—at least not in an airplane crash.
One must keep these two concepts separate to avoid needless confusion. Determinism is not fatalism. It is not a passive resignation to the inevitable but an active pressing forward toward the boundaries of our possibilities. To state that all we say, do, think, and “will” is determined is only to acknowledge that behind all saying, doing, thinking, and “willing” lies antecedent causes. For example, let’s say that I want to become a librarian. I tell my wife one day that I’ve decided to go back to school and get my degree in Library Science. Was that decision to become a librarian really a free choice that I made? Did not that choice involve antecedent causes? I think one would have to agree that an uncaused choice or act of the will, that is independent from internal and external factors, is impossible. My decision to become a librarian only appears to be a free act of my will because I’m ignorant of all the factors that led up to that decision. Again, if I were omniscient I could trace all the factors back to the ‘beginning.’ Was I ‘fated’ to become a librarian? Certainly not! For, I did make certain choices, and perform certain actions to accom-plish my goal.
Imagine that you are standing at the head of an extremely long row of dominoes that stretches back far beyond your ability to see the beginning. Now imagine that the domino that stands at the base of your feet falls towards you. Did the domino fall of its own accord? No. There must be a cause for its falling even if you are unaware of it. For the sake of the illustration let’s say that the domino behind the first one had fallen. Now, did that domino fall of it own ac-cord? Of course not! That domino too had a cause for its falling. The dominoes fall as the re-sult of causation. The falling is determinate, that is caused. Like the dominoes, although infi-nitely more complex, we live our lives. Each decision, each action, each word, is caused by gen-erally unknown antecedents—but caused nevertheless. And being caused—each decision, each action, each word is consequently not free.
Unlike the dominoes however we are able to make choices and decisions. Choices and deci-sions that have antecedent causes but choices and decisions nevertheless. As I stated before: de-terminism is not fatalism. It is not a passive resignation to the inevitable but an active pressing forward toward the boundaries of our possibilities. What possibilities exist in a deterministic universe? Plenty! The possibilities are not infinite but they are beyond knowing. In the same way that no one can totally predict the trajectory of a falling leaf so no one can totally predict what each of us are capable of. I know that certain things are highly unlikely—that I will never run a three-hour marathon or become the next Pavarotti. But, I can train hard and run faster than I currently do now and I can take singing lessons to improve the quality of my voice. Even though I might have a good idea of what I am cable or incapable of I can never be quite certain so I press on to discover what I can achieve. But in the end, what I achieve or become or fail to achieve or become will all be determined by antecedent causes. That is a fact of reality that I can never escape. For in the end the leopard cannot change its spots nor can one ‘make a silk purse out of a sow’s ear.’ But you can always try!
Is it impossible to change one's nature? Answer this: Can a human being, of his or her own free will, choose to have the nature of a chicken? How about the nature of a bovine? Is it possible to assume the nature of a house cat? Or, is the human irrevocably stuck with the nature of a human being with no amount of "will" capable of changing that basic nature?
To look closer, can you choose, of your own free will, to fall madly in love with any woman you meet? Or, is something like that dictated by forces and influences outside the direct control of your "will?"
How about this: Do you have the ability to choose a different sense of humor than the one you have by nature? You find some things funny and other things not funny, I assume. Can you choose of your own free will to reverse your sense of humor on those things? Can you simply choose to find things funny you think not funny and vice versa?
Your second question I'll leave, as it appears to be an attempt at humor.
Third question: If we can only act and choose within our own nature, then to a very large degree it rules out free will. We think we have free will, but our illusion of owning a completely free will is severely limited by genetics, upbringing and circumstance. I can choose between a cheese sandwich and a peanut butter sandwich, both of which I like, but I cannot choose to hate the taste of cheese or peanut butter.
Your additional musings on the nature of your god: Consider this: Does your god define good by his nature, or is his nature defined by good? In other words, how can you tell that your god is good? If you measure your god's goodness by some definition of good, then your god answers to something outside of itself. If your god's nature is the very definition of good, then anything your god does is good and there is no measurable standard by which to define good. Either way, if your god's nature is all good, then only good can come from your god. If only good comes from your god, and your god is omniscient and all powerful, then there is no evil nor the potential for evil in any ideas and plans of your god. For there to be evil in your god's creation, there must have been evil within the plan of your god. Hence, your god is not completely and wholly good.
Since there is obviously all sorts of pain, disease, tragedy, and death in this world, I would have to conclude that either your god is evil, or your god doesn't exist.
As to your god's existence, that should probably be the first discussion, because all the discussion we are having here is on the presupposition without evidence that your god even exists.
Selfishness and greed are a part of human nature, but you can find people who quite literally give up all their material wealth for a cause.
You can very easily fall into trouble here. First of all, if we are regarding human nature as a whole, it is a statistical spread. There are outliers. And adaptability and willing oneself to change could be considered a part of human nature too, although you would have to be careful making that claim.
Let's say I choose to fall in love with the next girl I meet. I make plans, I follow through, and I will myself to fall in love. Do you simply assign that to human nature: "oh, it must have been in your nature to do that all along" (?) Because there is a real danger here. The statement "all things act according to their nature" is completely unfalsifiable if you keep it up.
An alcoholic's nature is to drink. Right? Most of the time it's even in their genes. Yet alcoholics can do something not in their nature. They can refuse to drink for literally decades.
And yet they will always be an alcoholic, whether they drink or not. It's not the act of drinking, it is the disease that makes them want to drink. It is in their nature to want that drink, which they will battle their entire lives.
Can you address my arguments, specifically?
--S.
Don't feel bad. As long as I remained as ignorant of the development of Christian theology and thought as you currently admit, I retained a strong Evangelical faith. Ignorance in religious matters is indeed bliss.
Hehe. Calvin is only one branch of reformationist thought.
No shit Sherlock; webmdave already established that. He he te he te he -- finger twisting in my dimpled cheek. (extreme sarcasm).
--S.
Anyway, back to our original discussion: An alcoholic may quit drinking, but his or her nature is not changed. His or her BEHAVIOR can change by sheer force of will, but the alcoholic can never magically transform into a social or casual drinker. His or her nature toward alcohol stays the same. Let’s keep in mind that alcoholism is not illegal. No one goes to jail for alcoholism. Behavior is what determines a person’s guilt or innocence in law, not their nature. Since behavior can be controlled, people are held accountable for behavior. In Christianity, I am not only condemned for my behavior, but I am condemned for possessing a sin nature. In fact, it is the sin nature, acquired through “Original Sin,” that defaults all humans to everlasting hell – condemned already, and all that baloney.
Regardless of how you "choose" to understand these concepts, you still have offered nothing in the way of evidence that your divine man-god exists and lives in a believer's pulmonary organ. Care to go there?
If you are actually interested in educating yourself about these topics, then do some studying. All you are doing here is arguing your limited understanding from the shaky foundation of one tiny branch of your personal religious indoctrination. For more on the many conflicting views of Soteriology, click here.
Do you acknowledge the non-falsifiability of your proposed deterministic world?
(out of pure curiosity?)
I''m not a close student of the history of reformation theology, and I'm not entirely sure I have time to pick up a specialized discipline in my spare time. I am, however, aware of the importance of the reformation, and of Calvin's thought.
Also, it occurred to me that if human nature controls human actions to the degree you assert, then I'm not entirely sure what the big deal is about human suffering. Since humans suffer, it must be in their nature to suffer. Since it is in human nature to suffer, then humans are fulfilling their nature by suffering. It is also inescapable, yes?
Also, of course humans can't take on the nature of a duck and fly around or grow feathers. Humanity is not all-powerful. Free choice is restricted by our nature, training, and habits. But to totally revoke the right of humanity to choose consigns humans to total passivity doesn't it? Life reduced to nothing more than the results of causes you have no control over?
Jonnyboy,
Speaking of suffering laddie:
Your statement of suffering here, would especially be true for xtians who love to feel persecuted on behalf of this jesus and the subsequent dogma xtians assign to jesus.
It doesn't even matter if their perceived persecution is religion based or not, as they will attribute any sense of feeling persecuted as have coming directly from their association with jesus and his-holy-ways.
For instance.....
Someone could put-them-down for the type (or color) of car they drive. Of course, this xtian believes that jesus guides his/her life in great detail, so jesus would have whispered to them what model of car to purchase and they would have naturally obeyed that order.
From that day forward, they will automatically feel that anyone putting them down for their choice of car, is doing so because they surely must know that jesus told this xtian to buy that particular car over other devil-car-models.
Oddly enough, they not only can't realize that their belief in jesus had nothing to do with their being picked-on for their car choice, but they will also now relish in the suffering they endured for having obeyed the car-choice command of jesus
In a nutshell, everything and anything they do or say in life, is tied into their allegiance to jesus, so anyone who dares to put them down for anything, surely is picking on jesus and will naturally fry in hell.
The persecuted xtian of course, get's god brownie points for having endured each assault on their xtian based character etc..
ATF (Who as a former xtian, once heard jesus tell him to paint his car ultraviolet, but couldn't find that color paint; not even at the holy church thrift shop)
Suffering is not a part of our nature, it is a part of our circumstances.
I didn't mean to imply that humans have zero capacity for choice: I chose to have a cup of coffee before opening my email. I could have chosen tea. We make choices according to our nature. When those natures are of the type that are prone to harm others (murderers, rapists, thieves, etc.), we can expect to be separated from society by the rest of society who isn't fond of suffering. When those natures are prone toward self-destruction (substance abuse, etc), we either die or find a way to resist and restrain those natures.
I most certainly can demonstrate to a reasonable degree that my philosophical position here is solid. In fact, so can you. Try to change your nature right now. Just for a week or so, adopt as part of your nature an extreme loathing for English Literature. I assume you enjoy that topic currently. Well, graft into your nature, as an experiment, a dislike for English literature. We don't choose our likes and dislikes, they choose us.
Obtaining a handle on the historical evolution of Christianity is not a specialized discipline, any more than reading the Bible on Sunday is a specialized discipline. If Christianity is the most valuable and important topic in the world with eternal ramifications, then why would any intelligent Christian make the choice to stay functionally illiterate on any aspect of it?
Perhaps actually learning about Christianity instead of "believing" in Christianity is just not a quality generally found in the nature of a typical Christian.
You are correct when you say that people can't change their natures (that's a property of natures), but even given that free will doesn't exist, I'm not sure that living my life as if I have no control over it is particularly beneficial to anyone.
Sigh. At any rate, this discussion got way bigger than I expected, and has ranged considerably further afield than I would have liked (it was never my intention to debate the existence of free will, for example). In addition, I seem to have thoroughly irritated several people, which was not my intention.
Sorry for "hijacking" your site.
If God valued "unlimited" free will so much as you said, that he even allows egregious suffering and misery in order to preserve it. Why then is free will in reality so limited?
The concept of "unlimited" free will is just another illusion, and its a tenuous excuse and rationalization for the real pain that is occurring in the world today.
First of all, I believe I said "evidence", not "proof". There's a difference. But fair enough; consider the request put forth, as I'd be curious to see what you consider "objective evidence", as I am with all of our "Christian" guests.
In the mean time, you concede to wanting to have a discussion under the pretense that your particular theology is true..or if you prefer, to discuss within the Christian "framework". Right, well, I was simply curious as to why you offered us the "option" of if we wanted a "biblical" explanation, or a "philosophical" one, in regards to your "soul" hypothesis. Why on earth would nonbelievers want a "biblical answer", unless you had evidence that the bible and your worldview were objective truth? That's why I asked the question.
JB: Free will and omniscience is a very interesting topic, which I would love to discuss after monkeys and sconnor are finished with me. Are there any other contradictions that come to mind?
Yes, "free will"/"omniscience" is very interesting, indeed.....for one, because it's a blatant contradiction, theologically, or "philosophically". But yes, other contradictions, you ask? Plenty---talking snakes and walking cadavers contradict reality, for instance. Another is that "God" is presumably "everywhere" at all times...i.e.."omnipresent", yet, "evil" is abundant, which at face-value, this contradicts the Christian deity's "omnibenevolence". Yet another is being held accountable for actions we had no say in, which at face-value, contradicts a "Just" deity. Another is being born inherently "evil", which at face-value, inhibits our "free will" to avoid being "evil". I could go on, but I don't want to overload you.
JB: Biblical doctrine strikes you as absurd?
Most of it, yes. I readily concede there are poetic truths within the bible, but they are not unique to "Christianity".
JB: What isn't fair is piling up arguments against the claims of xianity on the basis of questionably self-evident truth while I am arguing within a framework of xian theology, and disregarding counter-arguments made within a framework of xianity as unsupported by, or inconsistent with your self-evident truths.
I've already clarified this, above----well, I at least I think so.
In reason, Boom'
Hmmmmmmm, that should tell you something right there; and there will be more objections, in the ensuing posts, you betcha'.
--S.
You suggest that because people on the internet disagree with me I should roll over?
You suggest that because people on the internet disagree with me I should roll over?
Nope, what I am telling you is, you have come ill-prepared to argue and you are going to get bombarded my more objections and arguments. Up until now, you have done nothing, but flounder around and I suspect you have not done any original thinking, let alone any real, critical thinking. You still have not made a definitive statement, on what you believe, with regard to christianity and you have not made an unequivocal, statement, describing your beliefs, in god. I feel like I am debating a freshman high school student, who was given the objective but does not believe in it, nor have you prepared yourself properly.
Additionally, when you make statements like this, An argument against free will! I was legitimately not expecting this to come up. I am taken aback. -- It just points to your amateurish, ineptitude.
Is it possible that you came into this, without having any hard-felt views and you are simply, arguing for arguing sake -- learning as you go? Perhaps, using the debating method to acquire information? Because your debating skills are less then admirable -- maybe you should just stick to asking questions or maybe go away for a couple of years and brush up on what you believe, because this is becoming monotonous -- quite boring, actually.
So maybe, yes, you should roll over, at least, until you know what you are arguing or until you know what you believe in.
--S.
I thought it pointed to my willingness to argue on your terms, to withdraw statements I was not prepared to argue, and to critically discuss whether or not it was reasonable to maintain the existence of God.
Every time I attempt a to make strong statement I am chastised by someone on this site for not being willing to listen. When I make an attempt to listen and understand, I am chastised for not taking a definitive stance.
If you would like a definitive stance on my belief in God: I believe in the existence of God.
If you would like a definitive stance on Christianity: I'm a fan of the apostle's creed.
If you would like my debate history: I have never participated in a debate.
If you would like my educational history: I am an undergraduate student aiming at a Ph.D. in English Literature.
Perhaps you could support your accusation that I have done no original or critical thinking?
Literature, eh? Then you may be shocked to know that most of the events in Jesus' life (per the gospels) were "borrowed" from, primarily, two pre-existing literary sources: The Old Testament as well as Homer's Odyssey and Iliad.
May I suggest two books along these lines? "Gospel Fictions" by Randel Helms and "The Homeric Epics and the Gospel of Mark" by Dennis R. MacDonald.
Also, lest I just fling links at you w/o giving the indication I actually know what I'm talking about, here are just a couple of events that happened in Jesus' life followed by the source of them in the Old Testament.
NOTICE: the parallels are dense (more than 1 matching item), sequential (events happen in same chronological order), and often contain the same wording.
1. Calming The Storm
Mark 4:35-39
1. Jesus was in a boat during a storm
2. The storm was so intense it threatened to capsize the boat
3. Jesus was asleep while the storm was raging
4. The crew was afraid and woke Jesus for help
5. The sea grew calm miraculously after Jesus spoke to it
6. Once the sea had grown calm, those on the boat grew terrified
Jonah 1:4-6, 15
1. Jonah was in a boat during a storm
2. The storm was so intense it threatened to capsize the boat
3. Jonah was asleep while the storm was raging
4. The crew was afraid and woke Jonah for help
5. The sea grew calm miraculously after Jonah was thrown into it
6. Once the sea had grown calm, those on the boat grew terrified
2. Feeding the 5000
Matthew 14:13-21
1 A large group of people were gathered without food
2 Jesus told one of his disciples to feed the group
3 His disciple protested about the number of people compared to the amount of food
4 The people all received some food and were filled
5 After the meal, there was even some food left over
2nd Kings 4:42-44
1. A large group of people were gathered without food
2. Elisha told one of his disciples to feed the group
3. His disciple protested about the number of people compared to the amount of food
4. The people all received some food and were filled
5. After the meal, there was even some food left over
Now, for homework, you go read these and see if you can find dense and sequential matches between the gospel story and it's ancestor in the Old Testament.
3. Herod’s decree
4. Jesus’ last words (apparently, if you believe all 4 gospels, his last words was a veritable speech, as each gospel gives us a completely different phrase)
Tim
If you are referring to biblical "types" then I know what you're talking about.
If you are implying that the Bible's densely layered symbolism is an inadvertent result of the NT being copied wholesale from the OT, then that's a new one on me...
I might have to find these books, since this is radically different from anything I have ever heard in any lit class which remotely mentioned the Bible.
Perhaps you could support your accusation that I have done no original or critical thinking?
I don't have to, your words are enough evidence.
I'm with Boomslang, present evidence of your god or be gone. As of now I am finished with you.
--S.
That doesn't mean I won't jump in and out, though.
Thanks for the compliment. This was actually something I wrote for myself awhile back (sick huh?).
In a book written by J. I. Packer "Evangelism & the Sovereignty of God," Packer (a Calvinist) calls the contradiction between God's sovereignty (vis-à-vis the doctrine of predestination) and evangelism (one's apparent choice of faith) an antinomy. An antinomy defined by Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary is 1). a contradiction between two apparently equally valid principles or between inferences correctly drawn from such principles; 2). a fundamental and apparently unresolvable conflict or contradiction. For Packer, following Calvin, individuals are predestined by God for salvation or damnation. In short, evading the logical inconsistency of such a view by appealing to the concept of antinomy!
Concerning other “options” regarding God’s knowledge a number of recent Evangelical scholars (Clark Pinnock, Gregory Boyd, William Hasker and John Sanders) have put forth a position called “Open Theology or Theism.” Defined by Boyd as “Open Theism is the view that God chose to create a world that included free agents, and thus a world where possibilities are real. The future is pre-settled, to whatever degree God wants to pre-settle it and to whatever degree the inevitable consequences of the choices of created agents have pre-settled it. But the future is also open to whatever degree agents are free to resolve possibilities into actualities by their own choices” < http://www.gregboyd.org/qa/open-theism/what-is-...> Personally, I find Open Theism an interesting idea but in the end one that still leaves me intellectually unsatisfied.
Bill
"If you would like my educational history: I am an undergraduate student aiming at a Ph.D. in English Literature."
No disrespect.....but you are in for a shock. How can you hold on to a god-belief, albeit a Christian worldview, that ticks on rabid misogyny, and at the same time open your mind to a world where binaries are blurred; borders, categories, linearity, syntax and sense are up for grabs? Again, I am NOT arguing or judging you....just completely flabbergasted. I dumped Jesus for Virginia Woolf, Joseph Conrad and George Eliot. The writings of the very homosexual Michel Foucault are a bloody nail on the moral coffin of 1845. I read the poetry of Garcia Lorca and preferred his rhythm to the babblings from the beyond. After Garcia Lorca, the Bible became repulsive. I cannot read it without an ironic kick. It is impossible to read the text without the ironic context; the ironic framing. The reader rewrites the text; (author)ity is questioned.
Not debating. Just puzzled.
BB
I've never seen more straw mean being lit up in my life. Your arguments are like a Guy Fawkes marathon. And just like that botched conspiracy, no amount of pseudo intellectualism and turning from the plow will kill the King. Long live Jesus Christ King of Kings and Lord of Lords (Rev 19:16).
Christ was without sin from birth until death. "God made him who had no sin to be sin for us, so that in him we might become the righteousness of God" (2 Corinthians 5:21). He is the propitious sin offering for all mankind. And like the sin offerings mandated by the Old Testament Law, he was without blemish (Ezekial 43:18-25). This is evidenced in the following scripture, "For we do not have a high priest who is unable to sympathize with our weaknesses, but we have one who has been tempted in every way, just as we are, yet was without sin" (Hebrews 4:15).
The question of Christs sin nature is moot. The gospel of Luke records the many accusations leveled against him along with his responses. Every accusation from that time is baseless fantasy.Just like the Pharisees of old, you question, falsely accuse and plot against the God of creation all the time turning away those who would be saved. Know this doubters, "The wrath of God is being revealed from heaven against all the godlessness and wickedness of men who suppress the truth by their wickedness, since what may be known about God is plain to them, because God has made it plain to them. For since the creation of the world God's invisible qualities (his eternal power and divine nature) have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that men are without excuse" (Romans 1:18).
Jesus has spoken to you backsliders and perverters of his Truth, "Every plant that my heavenly Father has not planted will be pulled up by the roots. Leave them; they are blind guides. If a blind man leads a blind man both will fall into a pit" (Matt 15:13-14).
If you want a more in depth discussion about the sin nature of Christ, go to the following website.
http://www.keepbelieving.com/sermon/1999-02-28-...
Delusional, ranting and raving, lunatic TROLL.
You are CUCKOO!
--S.
>>Baah...Baah...
Is that your idea of talking in "tongues" to us?
>>I've never seen more straw mean being lit up in my life.
Funny how your entire bible dogma and history is made up of nothing but straw men.
It's just so EASY to set them on fire and have a sing-a-long while roasting marshmallows over it's holy smoke.
>>Your arguments are like a Guy Fawkes marathon. And just like that botched conspiracy, no amount of pseudo intellectualism and turning from the plow will kill the King.
So I assume you have evidence for your King's existence, Mister Big Mouth?
>>Christ was without sin from birth until death.
So I take it that you actually knew this christ then and followed him around on earth, to be sure he never had out of wedlock sex or cussed at a fig tree etc.?
>> And like the sin offerings mandated by the Old Testament Law, he was without blemish
Now if only your silly bible book was without blemishes huh?
>> (Ezekial 43:18-25).
Oh this nutty guy.
Yeah, I recall him. He was the one who ate those funny mushrooms and saw spacemen in their flying saucers, right?
>>The question of Christs sin nature is moot.
Yeah, I'll say, because christ never existed. He was no more real than Zeus and we know that Zeus was sinless to, don't we?
>>The gospel of Luke records the many accusations leveled against him along with his responses.
And of course we know exactly who wrote "Luke", don't we.
I'm sure Luke was an upstanding citizen who would never make up fibs.
>> Every accusation from that time is baseless fantasy.Just like the Pharisees of old, you question, falsely accuse and plot against the God of creation
False!
There is no bible god to plot against.
He/She/It is just an ancient myth to appease the weak minded, like yourself for instance.
>> Know this doubters,
To doubt, would imply that I'm not sure.
Well, I can tell you that I'm 100% sure your bible god never existed, so there is no doubt to speak about here.
>>"The wrath of God is being revealed from heaven against all the godlessness and wickedness of men who suppress the truth by their wickedness,
Have you been to this heaven you claim exists?
Also, what gives you the right to call anyone here "wicked"?
>>Jesus has spoken to you backsliders and perverters of his Truth,
Last I heard your jesus did some "backsliding" himself, with a girl named Mary.
Kinky girl, from what I've read about her.
>> If a blind man leads a blind man both will fall into a pit" (Matt 15:13-14).
Yeah, that pretty much covers you and your fellow compatriots.
The blind leading the blind in a life of delusion.
You're one very sad spectacle of how infected a human brain can become with religious delusions.
If I were in your sandals, I wouldn't come back here until you have proof for your imaginary jesus character.
ATF (Who sure hopes someone is typing for this troll, while he's confined in a straight-jacket)
Oh, and we should follow a link with the words "keep believing" and "sermon", and there we will find an "objective" discussion on theology.
ROFLMAO!!! Praise Jebus!
Booga Booga to you, too, R. May dear sweet Uncle Loki unconditionally format your hard drive, and may Auntie Tiamat eat your car.
Jesus proves the non-existance of free will!
"One of you will betray me. One of you will deny me."
Neither Judas nor Peter had a choice/free will according to Christian teachings and their magical father.
Here are some questions for you to ponder:
Who told you the Bible was God's word? Mommy, Daddy, Grandma; a man in a black robe?
How do you know that they were right? Have you ever researched it for yourself?
(and I don't mean just reading Christian apologists, ie. Josh McDowell)
What "Faith" do you suppose you would be if you had been born in ......India - perhaps Hindu? What about Iraq or Iran - how about Muslim? If born in Mongolia? .... probably Buddhist.
What if you had been born in a different era? You would undoubtedly have worshipped the Sun or a River or Mountain. Perhaps you would have sacrificed animals or even humans in the persuit of your god.
If you are truly convinced that you have the TRUTH, then why don't you put your 'faith' where your mouth is?! Why don't you go off to Syria or Pakistan and tell those poor, mis-guided, Muslim, fundamentalists that they are all wrong. Tell them that their prophet was not of God. Tell them that Jesus is the only way.
They were willing to put their "Faith" on the line, on 9/11!
I would like to see you Prove that your way, your book, your God (and his son) are the only true and real gods. Are you willing to sacrifice your life (like Stephen did in the book of Acts) to share the Truth with these lost souls? Are you willing to stare them in the face and tell them that they are on their way to hell? Or can you just do that from the safety of your bedroom, on the computer?
I challenge you to do so. I would like to see your beheading on U-Tube. Think of the Millions who would watch. Maybe a few would convert after seeing your heroic act.
What do you think, Mc Assh0le? Show some guts. Go forth in the name of your God.
XpastorDan