Time for a religion thread

Page 5 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

apoppin

Lifer
Mar 9, 2000
34,890
1
0
alienbabeltech.com
Originally posted by: Cheesehead
I've read a good chunk of the old testament with someone walking me through the bits of aramaic.

It's just a bunch of old goatherder's superstitions glued together with something resembling a code of laws and constitution.

The point when I became an atheist was when I found out that the Torah portion for my Bar Mitzvah was basically the ancient Judean 1040EZ.

that isn't the problem

read their self-serving propaganda

their "sacred writings" have been official documents of their religion for over 2,000 years - they say how they are "chosen" and that every other race will kiss their asses - in their OWN books
.. and it is manipulated to say what they wanted - the only difference between them and say a cult like Mormons with their fantasy about angels and disappearing gold plates - is that there were NEVER witnesses to their dirty lies 2,000 years ago

if we have trouble believing the "alien abductions" of today .. there is something that tells us not to swallow the fanciful stories of insane or stupid witnesses thousands of years ago
:roll:

it is logic that says that the organized religions are all liars and they want you to be their unquestioning slave and they have tortured and murdered millions of humans in the name of their deities that resemble their own twisted reasoning and black hearts. They hold back progress of us all.
 

skulkingghost

Golden Member
Jan 4, 2006
1,660
1
76
I have some mp3s of a talk given by a priest I know who is an exorcist that talks a bit about how the devil works, If anyone wants, I will cut them down (the whole talk is about 5 hours) and post some of the mp3's here.
 

geno

Lifer
Dec 26, 1999
25,074
4
0
Originally posted by: TallBill
Originally posted by: apoppin
it is all metaphysical

Religion is one ignorant way to attempt to explain it because the human animal is superstitious and afraid of dying

rose.gif

Plus we're stupid.

:laugh:
 

Jeff7

Lifer
Jan 4, 2001
41,596
20
81
Originally posted by: skulkingghost
I have some mp3s of a talk given by a priest I know who is an exorcist that talks a bit about how the devil works, If anyone wants, I will cut them down (the whole talk is about 5 hours) and post some of the mp3's here.
...you lend credibility to someone who claims to be an exorcist?

 

jonks

Lifer
Feb 7, 2005
13,918
20
81
Originally posted by: Peelback79
"But if he can do anything, can he create a rock so heavy he can't lift it?"

God: Well, there it is, a rock so big I can't move it. Hey Jesus!
Jesus: Yes Father?
God: Move that rock would you?
Jesus: No problem Father. *whoosh* <----rock going bye bye

Choose to believe, or choose not to believe. It's a choice. If you choose not to believe in God, then nothing anyone ever says will make you believe.
For Christianity to work for you, you must choose to believe that Jesus is the son of God, and that the Bible is the inspired word of God to man. There are no grey areas.
Um...

God: Well, there it is, a rock so big I can't move it.

You sorta gloss over that, but you have to stop right there. If He is omnipotent, that part is Unpossible. If He can do anything, no rock can be so heavy that He can't move it. So He can move it. But then he can't create a rock so heavy he can't move it. Uh oh, paradox.
 

skulkingghost

Golden Member
Jan 4, 2006
1,660
1
76
Originally posted by: Jeff7
Originally posted by: skulkingghost
I have some mp3s of a talk given by a priest I know who is an exorcist that talks a bit about how the devil works, If anyone wants, I will cut them down (the whole talk is about 5 hours) and post some of the mp3's here.
...you lend credibility to someone who claims to be an exorcist?

Every diocese of the Catholic church has one Exorcist appointed by the bishop, if people can not make it to the exorcist a priest must ask for permission from the bishop to perform an exorcism.

The people picked are usually older priests who have been priests for years and seen everything, I do trust them wholeheartedly, and I know that the ministry is getting more attention lately.

Example:
Last month I attended a conference on exorcism and spiritual warfare lead by Fr. Thomas Euteneur which was very eye opening ang a good frank discussion about how the devil works in the world. However if you do not believe in Catholicism, and its traditions, I can understand how you would discredit anyone who calls themselves an exorcist

http://www.hli.org/president_hli.html


 

apoppin

Lifer
Mar 9, 2000
34,890
1
0
alienbabeltech.com
Originally posted by: skulkingghost
Originally posted by: Jeff7
Originally posted by: skulkingghost
I have some mp3s of a talk given by a priest I know who is an exorcist that talks a bit about how the devil works, If anyone wants, I will cut them down (the whole talk is about 5 hours) and post some of the mp3's here.
...you lend credibility to someone who claims to be an exorcist?

Every diocese of the Catholic church has one Exorcist appointed by the bishop, if people can not make it to the exorcist a priest must ask for permission from the bishop to perform an exorcism.

The people picked are usually older priests who have been priests for years and seen everything, I do trust them wholeheartedly, and I know that the ministry is getting more attention lately.

Example:
Last month I attended a conference on exorcism and spiritual warfare lead by Fr. Thomas Euteneur which was very eye opening ang a good frank discussion about how the devil works in the world. However if you do not believe in Catholicism, and its traditions, I can understand how you would discredit anyone who calls themselves an exorcist

http://www.hli.org/president_hli.html

"Demons" are also battled by psychiatrists with their chemicals and their therapy

and they are a hell of a lot more effective
[pun intended :evil:]

What these supposedly educated superstitious morons still living in the mental middle ages call "demonism" IS mental illness

For Christianity to work for you, you must choose to believe that Jesus is the son of God, and that the Bible is the inspired word of God to man. There are no grey areas.
So will it work for me to choose to believe in the Easter Bunny and that an ancient Jewish document is nothing more than a badly written fable. You are right - there are no gray areas ... you have to suspend all logic to "believe" in a myth.

rose.gif
 

destrekor

Lifer
Nov 18, 2005
28,799
359
126
Originally posted by: apoppin
Originally posted by: skulkingghost
Originally posted by: Jeff7
Originally posted by: skulkingghost
I have some mp3s of a talk given by a priest I know who is an exorcist that talks a bit about how the devil works, If anyone wants, I will cut them down (the whole talk is about 5 hours) and post some of the mp3's here.
...you lend credibility to someone who claims to be an exorcist?

Every diocese of the Catholic church has one Exorcist appointed by the bishop, if people can not make it to the exorcist a priest must ask for permission from the bishop to perform an exorcism.

The people picked are usually older priests who have been priests for years and seen everything, I do trust them wholeheartedly, and I know that the ministry is getting more attention lately.

Example:
Last month I attended a conference on exorcism and spiritual warfare lead by Fr. Thomas Euteneur which was very eye opening ang a good frank discussion about how the devil works in the world. However if you do not believe in Catholicism, and its traditions, I can understand how you would discredit anyone who calls themselves an exorcist

http://www.hli.org/president_hli.html

"Demons" are also battled by psychiatrists with their chemicals and their therapy

and they are a hell of a lot more effective
[pun intended :evil:]

What these supposedly educated superstitious morons still living in the mental middle ages call "demonism" IS mental illness

rose.gif

This.

Demons, just like many other aspects of religion, are no longer needed in modern times, because we have answers for what they represented.
Demons were simply a way to describe why someone all of a sudden went all nuts or became a sociopath. The very act of being a pathological liar made it quite likely you were under the control of a demon.

We know a lot more about our minds, and can explain these things. Humans are corrupt and terribly self-centered, we don't need demons from hell to infect our minds for that to be true.

Nobody outside of the various churches has ever recognized anything called an exorcism, has never documented people doing terribly inhuman, devilish things. Not a single account exists other than bullshit from the churches and random websites "detailing" the events that took place.

For any documentation of someone going all berserk and a priest able to make them normal... the human mind is easily convinced when it's getting all jumbled about. It's much like hypnosis - it works for those that get into the mindset.
 

PlasmaBomb

Lifer
Nov 19, 2004
11,636
2
81
Originally posted by: destrekor
Originally posted by: lxskllr
Absolutely not. God is in control of all things good and bad. If you win the lottery that was God. If you get run over by a car, that was his doing also. If that isn't true, then there is no God. You can't be omnipotent, and powerless at the same time.

argh. Why you do this to me?

Cliffs?
 

Peelback79

Senior member
Oct 26, 2007
452
0
0
Originally posted by: jonks
Originally posted by: Peelback79
"But if he can do anything, can he create a rock so heavy he can't lift it?"

God: Well, there it is, a rock so big I can't move it. Hey Jesus!
Jesus: Yes Father?
God: Move that rock would you?
Jesus: No problem Father. *whoosh* <----rock going bye bye

Choose to believe, or choose not to believe. It's a choice. If you choose not to believe in God, then nothing anyone ever says will make you believe.
For Christianity to work for you, you must choose to believe that Jesus is the son of God, and that the Bible is the inspired word of God to man. There are no grey areas.
Um...

God: Well, there it is, a rock so big I can't move it.

You sorta gloss over that, but you have to stop right there. If He is omnipotent, that part is Unpossible. If He can do anything, no rock can be so heavy that He can't move it. So He can move it. But then he can't create a rock so heavy he can't move it. Uh oh, paradox.

I was making a light reply to your light remark. I suppose if you want a more serious answer: I believe God is perfect and His plans are perfect. Everything that happens He intends to happen. So yes, I believe God could create a rock so big He woulld't plan to move it Himself. So I guess the conversation would go more like this:

God: Well, I finally did it, I created a rock so big I have no intention of moving. Hey Jesus!
Jesus: Yes Father?
God: Move that rock would you?
Jesus: No problem Father. *whoosh* <----rock going bye bye

"So will it work for me to choose to believe in the Easter Bunny and that an ancient Jewish document is nothing more than a badly written fable. You are right - there are no gray areas ... you have to suspend all logic to "believe" in a myth." -apoppin

Yes, it would work for you. You just have to use you instinctual human logic. It makes perfect sense to us to do want we want and resist anything that gets in the way of us doing it. So if you choose to ignore God's call and believe anything that enforces your view that everything that happens is the result of a magical bunny, it'll work out great for you. Until you die.
Ironically you've chosen an Easter icon to worship. Considering that Easter wouldn't even be a holiday if it wasn't established by a bunch of religious 'wackos'.

Wacko Christian Logic: Easter - A day set aside to remember when Jesus arose from the dead to interced for us sinners at the right hand of God.
Man's Logic: Easter - There's a bunny that comes around and hides eggs! Weeeeeeee!

You're right, we're insane. :laugh:



 

lxskllr

No Lifer
Nov 30, 2004
60,968
11,301
126
Originally posted by: Peelback79

Wacko Christian Logic: Easter - A day set aside to remember when Jesus arose from the dead to interced for us sinners at the right hand of God.
Man's Logic: Easter - There's a bunny that comes around and hides eggs! Weeeeeeee!

You're right, we're insane. :laugh:

Easter is a co-opted pagan holiday. Between that and xmas, it's pretty obvious what they're really about ;^)
 

WelshBloke

Lifer
Jan 12, 2005
33,633
11,769
136
Originally posted by: ironwing
Originally posted by: zinfamous
I'm just waiting for someone to blame God after they lose the game.

That will be classic.

The other team is possessed by Satan and used demonic powers to win the game!

The Game;


Rule 1: Everyone is playing the game. They always have been and always will be. Participation in a game requires neither consent nor awareness of its existence.
Only when someone has told you about The Game does it become possible to lose, unless you independently create The Game.
The creator of The Game was the first person to realise that he was playing, and was therefore the first person to lose.


Rule 2: Loss is temporary. As soon as you forget about The Game, you start winning again.
It is possible for people to simultaneously lose The Game.
Causing others to lose The Game more than you is the only way to "win" The Game. Strategies usually involve leaving somekind of permanent reminder for others to see. e.g. answerphone messages, MSN pictures, forum posts, signs, graffiti etc.
Rule 2 can be interpreted in a number of different ways depending on:
When during the thought process of thinking about The Game constitutes loss?
(i) Whenever you think about The Game.
One interpretation is that any thought involving The Game constitutes loss. Therefore, the objective of this version is to forget about The Game. Experienced players can think about, and even discuss, The Game without realising they have lost. Not announcing this loss violates Rule 3. Whether or not a thought is about The Game is hard to define. For example, does thinking about this website count as thinking about The Game?
(ii) Whenever you remember that you are playing The Game.
There is a point at which you realise you are playing The Game without realising this means you have lost. Loss at this point would mean that the objective of this version is to forget that you are playing The Game. It is still possible to not realise that you have lost this version of The Game.
(iii) Whenever you then realise that you have lost.
When you become aware that you should lose, you lose. This version of The Game has seemingly paradoxical properties. The objective is to not realise you have lost. Unfortunately, the rule "Whenever you realise that you have lost, you have lost" does not explain how you lose to new players. However, this version of The Game prevents accidental cheating.
(iv) Whenever you realise you have thought about The Game.
It is possible to realise that you have thought about The Game without realising you have lost. This version still allows accidental cheating but significantly reduces it.
After reading these possibilities, you could well have forgotten that you are always playing The Game. No matter what version of the rules you play, you are playing The Game. You are thinking about The Game. You know you are thinking about The Game. Lose The Game. If you haven't just lost The Game, hopefully you have now. Only a true master could read this whole paragraph without losing The Game.
Do you lose when you are told about The Game by someone who has just lost?
There are 2 possibilities:
i) Yes
In accordance with Rule 2, you lose if you think about The Game (see above), even if this is because you have been told by someone who has just lost. Many people play that you do lose, but that loss does not have to be re-announced. This results in it being beneficial not to be around other players of The Game (in addition to the fact that them losing reminds you of the existence of The Game in the long term). It should be noted that hearing someone else announce their loss does not necessarily cause you to lose as you may not think about The Game.
ii) No
A new rule needs to be added to incorporate immunity if the trigger for rememberance was someone else losing. This rule would also have to take into account messages that are left about The Game.
Can you keep losing?
Some variations allocate a period of time, or "grace period", after losing The Game, during which you cannot lose. This is often based on preventing repetitive or continuous loss.
i) No grace period
Some players would argue that they do not need a grace period to prevent repetitive loss (see habituation). Involving time limits may in fact increase the rate of loss by associating The Game with when in becomes possible to lose again, as well as other time related occurrances.
ii) Grace period, often 10, 20 or 30 minutes long.
Do you need to know what The Game is to be able to lose it?
Another area for confusion is how much you need to know about The Game in order to lose it.
For example, if you have never heard about The Game before, and I lose and say "I just lost The Game" then are you now thinking about The Game even though you have no idea what it is?

Rule 3: You must tell everyone you can that you have lost.
It is possible to explain The Game to someone without realising that you have lost. Whether this counts as cheating or not depends on your interpretation of Rule 2.

 

Jeff7

Lifer
Jan 4, 2001
41,596
20
81
Originally posted by: Peelback79

Wacko Christian Logic: Easter - A day set aside to remember when Jesus arose from the dead to interced for us sinners at the right hand of God.
Man's Logic: Easter - There's a bunny that comes around and hides eggs! Weeeeeeee!

You're right, we're insane. :laugh:
The sad part is, you think one of those is more credible than the other.

A rabbit laying eggs is more probable; we've already got egg-laying mammals. One which hides eggs wouldn't be so far behind.

Versus a man who was his own father, who may or may not have been god, who sort of died, but then came back to life, and for whatever reason, THIS is how sins are removed.

I'd prefer some sort of Sin-Away aerosol spray.



Originally posted by: WelshBloke
The Game;
FFFFFFUUUUUUUUU-


 

Rio Rebel

Administrator Emeritus<br>Elite Member
Oct 9, 1999
5,194
0
0
There are some profound philosophical issues raised in this thread...but very little exploration of those issues.

These questions have been raised and pondered for literally two thousand years...and they are STILL being pondered today. Just in the last half century, Alvin Plantinga and Charles Hartshorne have written important arguments on the subject, and it is as alive today in philosophical circles as it was for Thomas Aquinas.

So the point is simple: If the great thinkers of our time consider this subject important enough and legitimate enough to continue to debate it, why do some of you kids think the answer is obvious?

The problem of evil, the proposed self-contradiction of omnipotence, the concept of benevolence - all of those are fascinating discussions that expand our perspective and deepen our ability to understand the most significant issue there could be to us.

And you use them to try to "win" an internet debate, and smugly act as if the answer is obvious?

The most ironic aspect of this is that the very thinkers who introduced these concepts would laugh at YOU for being so shallow in their application, and so dismissive of a topic that THEY considered crucial.
 

Rio Rebel

Administrator Emeritus<br>Elite Member
Oct 9, 1999
5,194
0
0
By the way, my post above obviously does not apply to everyone in the thread. Some of the comments have been very thought-provoking. I particularly enjoyed Welshbloke's post above. I'd recommend taking the time to read it, rather than prepare the next response in the "who has the bigger theological penis" debate. 😉
 

Madwand1

Diamond Member
Jan 23, 2006
3,309
0
76
Originally posted by: Rio Rebel
There are some profound philosophical issues raised in this thread...but very little exploration of those issues.
[...]
The most ironic aspect of this is that the very thinkers who introduced these concepts would laugh at YOU for being so shallow in their application, and so dismissive of a topic that THEY considered crucial.

OK, I'll bite. First, a little growl. You've dropped a couple of names, and presented essentially a content-free argument appealing to authority. Why didn't you do better yourself?

If however the only point you meant to express was that such questions have some merit, then I'd simply agree, and add that the mere presence in such discussions, whether supportive or contesting or even just expressing dismissal, is actual evidence of the vitality of such questions in the mind of the reader.

The problem with the argument from authority is twofold -- first, it presumes a true value in the processes which supposedly established that authority, which is about as circular as many of the supposedly philosophical arguments, second by appealing to authority, one loses the personal involvement and judgment, which is from another perspective the more important matter. Whether or not you believe in God or devils or whatever is of little importance, sensitivity and validity to me as a separate existent, and what I believe of God etc., is of the utmost importance to me from a personal perspective. Continuing on this line, idiocy as perhaps exemplified in some questions and responses here is a very good thing, in so far as it is an honest expression of the level of the participant at the time, who would transcend that level once some of the confusion, in particular such confusion as easily arises from unwarranted associations with authority, is cleared.

Cerpin Taxt, I find it fascinating how you contest a fantastic God with an appeal to an ever greater fantasy. There are however several possible resolutions to the specific objections you've raised so far, even I can suggest two: (1). What omni-benevolence? Even the traditional New Testament Christian has a hard time defending omni-benevolence on the basis of her scripture, and has an entrenched position for the opposite in fact with a white-wash on top. So what? Omni-benevolence of your fantastic degree is entirely unnecessary from many points of view, and successfully establishes that, modally speaking, it is possibly not really necessary.

(2) What good? If in Q-speak, the way to get some things done is to change the gravitational constant, of course, then in God-speak, the very definition of good is not something which is intrinsically known and thrown around in an imaginary objection to the reality or otherwise of God, but, if It exists, only gets meaning from the God who precedes it, as does all other supposed reality.
 

videogames101

Diamond Member
Aug 24, 2005
6,783
27
91
Originally posted by: Rio Rebel
There are some profound philosophical issues raised in this thread...but very little exploration of those issues.

These questions have been raised and pondered for literally two thousand years...and they are STILL being pondered today. Just in the last half century, Alvin Plantinga and Charles Hartshorne have written important arguments on the subject, and it is as alive today in philosophical circles as it was for Thomas Aquinas.

So the point is simple: If the great thinkers of our time consider this subject important enough and legitimate enough to continue to debate it, why do some of you kids think the answer is obvious?

The problem of evil, the proposed self-contradiction of omnipotence, the concept of benevolence - all of those are fascinating discussions that expand our perspective and deepen our ability to understand the most significant issue there could be to us.

And you use them to try to "win" an internet debate, and smugly act as if the answer is obvious?

The most ironic aspect of this is that the very thinkers who introduced these concepts would laugh at YOU for being so shallow in their application, and so dismissive of a topic that THEY considered crucial.

And all of that thinking and logic means nothing because without empirical evidence there still isn't a reason to believe in any religion.
 

destrekor

Lifer
Nov 18, 2005
28,799
359
126
Originally posted by: PlasmaBomb
Originally posted by: destrekor
Originally posted by: lxskllr
Absolutely not. God is in control of all things good and bad. If you win the lottery that was God. If you get run over by a car, that was his doing also. If that isn't true, then there is no God. You can't be omnipotent, and powerless at the same time.

argh. Why you do this to me?

Cliffs?

You haven't figured this out yet? My Cliffs would still be 3/4 of that length. READ IT! 😛 :laugh:

But I guess my general Cliffs for religion threads:
Religion is retarded.
We needed it to get to where we are.
We no longer need it.
Religion is still retarded.
Humans are retarded.
Mankind is doomed.
Aliens will hopefully visit us, give us intergalactic war.
Mankind will either continue to be retarded and be wiped out...
or...
Unite globally, ban practiced religion and all actual religions, leave it to personal belief, and fend off the aliens...
or...
who am I kidding...
Because we're, wait for it ... ... ... fucking idiots.

That work for ya? 😀
 

Jeff7

Lifer
Jan 4, 2001
41,596
20
81
Originally posted by: destrekor
You haven't figured this out yet? My Cliffs would still be 3/4 of that length. READ IT! 😛 :laugh:

But I guess my general Cliffs for religion threads:
Religion is retarded.
We needed it to get to where we are.
We no longer need it.
Religion is still retarded.
Humans are retarded.
Mankind is doomed.
Aliens will hopefully visit us, give us intergalactic war.
Mankind will either continue to be retarded and be wiped out...
or...
Unite globally, ban practiced religion and all actual religions, leave it to personal belief, and fend off the aliens...
or...
who am I kidding...
Because we're, wait for it ... ... ... fucking idiots.

That work for ya? 😀
I find your lack of faith disturbing. 😛



 

destrekor

Lifer
Nov 18, 2005
28,799
359
126
Originally posted by: Jeff7
Originally posted by: destrekor
You haven't figured this out yet? My Cliffs would still be 3/4 of that length. READ IT! 😛 :laugh:

But I guess my general Cliffs for religion threads:
Religion is retarded.
We needed it to get to where we are.
We no longer need it.
Religion is still retarded.
Humans are retarded.
Mankind is doomed.
Aliens will hopefully visit us, give us intergalactic war.
Mankind will either continue to be retarded and be wiped out...
or...
Unite globally, ban practiced religion and all actual religions, leave it to personal belief, and fend off the aliens...
or...
who am I kidding...
Because we're, wait for it ... ... ... fucking idiots.

That work for ya? 😀
I find your lack of faith disturbing. 😛

:laugh: As do I, as do I.

Come on 2012! Give us something fun to watch. 😀
 

Cerpin Taxt

Lifer
Feb 23, 2005
11,940
542
126
Originally posted by: Madwand1

Cerpin Taxt, I find it fascinating how you contest a fantastic God with an appeal to an ever greater fantasy.
It isn't my responsibility to defend the very coherency of omni-benevolence, because it wasn't me that suggested a being exhibiting such a characteristic should exist.


There are however several possible resolutions to the specific objections you've raised so far, even I can suggest two: (1). What omni-benevolence? Even the traditional New Testament Christian has a hard time defending omni-benevolence on the basis of her scripture, and has an entrenched position for the opposite in fact with a white-wash on top. So what? Omni-benevolence of your fantastic degree is entirely unnecessary from many points of view, and successfully establishes that, modally speaking, it is possibly not really necessary.
So what? I think you missed the thrust of my reductio. The proposition that omni-benevolence isn't itself coherent may be well-grounded, but it is irrelevant to my argument where the coherence of omni-benevolence is assumed arguendo.

(2) What good? If in Q-speak, the way to get some things done is to change the gravitational constant, of course, then in God-speak, the very definition of good is not something which is intrinsically known and thrown around in an imaginary objection to the reality or otherwise of God, but, if It exists, only gets meaning from the God who precedes it, as does all other supposed reality.
That's some amazingly loquacious question-begging.

 

Madwand1

Diamond Member
Jan 23, 2006
3,309
0
76
Originally posted by: Cerpin Taxt
I think you missed the thrust of my reductio. The proposition that omni-benevolence isn't itself coherent may be well-grounded, but it is irrelevant to my argument where the coherence of omni-benevolence is assumed arguendo.

What exactly is your argument? I could be "loquacious" about fine-pointed zen-like nuance approaching a laudatory nothingness, but I'd better not.

I'd take your position to be essentially the problem of evil as an argument against the existence of God. I grant that I didn't define God or good, or spell out the meaning of life, etc., but I think that the problem of evil as such is not dissimilar to the argument of the big rock in that it presumes a contrary definition in its contesting. The invalidity of a personal definition of good in the face of God is a valid argument in my view, and it's served its purpose entirely when it answers the stated problem of evil at that level. It is not a positive position, and it does not substantiate the existence of God nor does it answer the problem of evil at personal levels, but your posts weren't working on those levels either from what I saw.

If I've misjudged further, please clarify.
 

Cerpin Taxt

Lifer
Feb 23, 2005
11,940
542
126
Originally posted by: Madwand1
Originally posted by: Cerpin Taxt
I think you missed the thrust of my reductio. The proposition that omni-benevolence isn't itself coherent may be well-grounded, but it is irrelevant to my argument where the coherence of omni-benevolence is assumed arguendo.

What exactly is your argument? I could be "loquacious" about fine-pointed zen-like nuance approaching a laudatory nothingness, but I'd better not.
I had taken issue particularly with the suggestion that an omnipotent being that supposedly desired "good" in all circumstances might occasionally require the materialization of a "bad" circumstance as a necessary prerequisite to some later "good" circumstance. The point being that it doesn't make sense to say a being that could realize any circumstance should be somehow compelled to realize one that was purportedly undesireable to it.

I'd take your position to be essentially the problem of evil as an argument against the existence of God. I grant that I didn't define God or good, or spell out the meaning of life, etc., but I think that the problem of evil as such is not dissimilar to the argument of the big rock in that it presumes a contrary definition in its contesting.
I acknowledge that my argument assumes an objective measure for "good" and "evil." I rather maintain that the ideas of "objective good" and "objective evil" are themselves incoherent, so it is true that my argument stipulates something which I wouldn't ordinarily accept.

The invalidity of a personal definition of good in the face of God is a valid argument in my view, and it's served its purpose entirely when it answers the stated problem of evil at that level. It is not a positive position, and it does not substantiate the existence of God nor does it answer the problem of evil at personal levels, but your posts weren't working on those levels either from what I saw.

If I've misjudged further, please clarify.
My argument is indeed targeted at much more simplistic notions of good and evil which are rather commonplace amongst the theistic opponents I encounter on the web, and for that reason the argument has served me well. I also realize it's limitations, some of which you have touched on, but which I think also are beyond the purview of the argument's intended scope.

Now, I interpret your objection to predicate "good" upon any circumstance which God has "ordained" (i.e. it's good because God says its good), and furthermore that there is no circumstance which God has not ordained (which should follow naturally from his supposed omnipotence). I think this first begs the question of god's existence, and moreover it suffers essentially from the same incoherency as the idea of "objective good." The fact that God says something is good doesn't mean that I must agree, nor that my perspective is invalid, but that is now an entirely different debate.

I realize I may be erecting a (or several) strawman(men) as a consequence of projecting some of the more commonplace ideas about God, good, and evil onto you like I mentioned earlier, so you are invited to correct anything you think I've misapprehended. I've spent considerable time debating these subjects, and I have developed an unfortunate habit of stereotyping some of my opponents based on the theistic arguments and objections I've encountered the most frequently.
 
Oct 27, 2007
17,009
5
0
Originally posted by: Rio Rebel
There are some profound philosophical issues raised in this thread...but very little exploration of those issues.

These questions have been raised and pondered for literally two thousand years...and they are STILL being pondered today. Just in the last half century, Alvin Plantinga and Charles Hartshorne have written important arguments on the subject, and it is as alive today in philosophical circles as it was for Thomas Aquinas.

So the point is simple: If the great thinkers of our time consider this subject important enough and legitimate enough to continue to debate it, why do some of you kids think the answer is obvious?

I'm more than happy to discuss god and religion on a philosophical level. In fact I took a few Philosophy of Religion undergrad papers a couple of years back and found them fascinating (and got As on all of them). People on this very forum have accused me of not being a "real atheist" (see sig for my opinion on that) because I acknowledge the logical possibility of there being a god.

However, a possibility I simply can't accept is the truth of the myth of Christianity (or any of the Abrahamic myths). The science is conclusive - the Christian bible (and it's cousins) are wrong. Just plain wrong. If you want to believe in some butchered Christian myth that is created by desperate men on the run from the hard facts of modern science then that's your prerogative - but it's also without merit with regards to science or theology.

So with respect to the Abrahamic religions, we have two choices if we want to believe. We can believe in an out-dated myth that can be proven wrong by virtually every field of modern science, or we can believe in a manufactured "liberal" myth born of a cowering church from fear of being completely consumed by reason.

But having said that, I agree with you on a philosophical level, and although I most certainly do not and will not believe in something for which there is no evidence, in philosophical circles it's still an open question.