Basically in the garden there were no earthquakes. Then the fall happened, and everything started to decay (some people quote the 2nd law of thermodynamics here, but as a engineer they slightly mis-quote it) and nature (creation) will continue to do so until God makes a new heaven and a new earth.
Do you also believe (as many Christians do) that all the animals in the Garden were vegetarians?
If so, I'm curious to see where you draw the line between carnivores and plant-eaters. For example, do animals who eat zooplankton count as carnivores or vegetarians? (Obviously there must have been zooplankton in the Garden because God brought up every kind of living thing from the ground...)
Personally, I like the Akkadian mythology on this business much better. Stuff like earthquakes and miscarriages are post-Flood additions to reality that the gods made explicitly to curb human overpopulation.
Qingu we can argue from a moral perspective if you wish, I am sure you are all to ready to cut and paste, but I am not in the market to go three more rounds with you.
I am still curious to know whether or not you think slavery and genocide are evil. Or at least answer if they're evil in a morally absolute or relative sense—like, are some genocides okay and not others? These questions are easy enough for me to answer; I don't see why they'd be hard for you to answer.
See the quote above. There was no sickness before the fall either. These things came into being after the fall according to Christian doctrine.
So why do people after Adam and Eve deserve it? I never ate the apple.
So why do Adam and Eve deserve it for that matter? Its pretty clear in the story they couldn't tell right from wrong. :P
Because everybody knows you should always obey whatever a nebulous authority figure who may or may not actually be good says. It has never steered humanity wrong.
Because everybody knows you should always obey whatever a nebulous authority figure who may or may not actually be good says. It has never steered humanity wrong.
In Manning's defense, Yahweh wasn't so nebulous in Genesis 2-3. According to the Bible, he actually walked around the Garden.
Pastor: God is perfect, powerful, loving, and he made man in his image.
Unbeliever: But then why would god let bad things happen to us?
Pastor: God is vast and unknowable and questioning his plans is beyond our abilities.
Unbeliever: You just said god is powerful and loving! That's not the same as unknowable!
Evil is the natural result of the fall and free choice. If God did not let evil exist then we would not have freewill, and I know how much penny arcade loves them some freewill.
Nope. God could have given us free will and, simultaneously, a world with no evil. God is omnipotent. He can do anything. There's simply no rebuttal to this point - omnipotence answers every possible explanation. It's totally indefensible.
Because everybody knows you should always obey whatever a nebulous authority figure who may or may not actually be good says. It has never steered humanity wrong.
In Manning's defense, Yahweh wasn't so nebulous in Genesis 2-3. According to the Bible, he actually walked around the Garden.
If we are taking Genesis literally, God is worse than Hitler.
See the quote above. There was no sickness before the fall either. These things came into being after the fall according to Christian doctrine.
So why do people after Adam and Eve deserve it? I never ate the apple.
It's an allegory about the sinful nature of man. You aren't literally suffering for Adam's sin; his sin was a symptom of man's vulnerability to temptation.
This is not much better, of course, because it holds that man is easily corruptable and basically morally helpless - personally, I prefer philosophies that hold that humankind is fully capable of achieving nobility on our own.
See the quote above. There was no sickness before the fall either. These things came into being after the fall according to Christian doctrine.
So why do people after Adam and Eve deserve it? I never ate the apple.
So why do Adam and Eve deserve it for that matter? Its pretty clear in the story they couldn't tell right from wrong. :P
Christian morality is pretty clear that humans can't tell right from wrong without the grace of God. Adam knew not to eat from the tree because God told him to. It was like putting a big shiny red button in front of him with a sign that said "Don't Press the Red Button."
Feral on
every person who doesn't like an acquired taste always seems to think everyone who likes it is faking it. it should be an official fallacy.
Pastor: God is perfect, powerful, loving, and he made man in his image.
Unbeliever: But then why would god let bad things happen to us?
Pastor: God is vast and unknowable and questioning his plans is beyond our abilities.
Unbeliever: You just said god is powerful and loving! That's not the same as unknowable!
Evil is the natural result of the fall and free choice. If God did not let evil exist then we would not have freewill, and I know how much penny arcade loves them some freewill.
On Apotheosis' note, I think it would help if you define what you mean when you say "evil."
A lot of atheists, for example, think that earthquakes and floods and whatnots are evils innate to nature. Personally, I feel that things like slavery and genocide are "evil," and yet your god readily commands his followers to enslave people and commit genocide.
For the sake of not going on 3 pages lets not start quoting Lev. and Deut.
I would say that earthquakes ect. are evil and the result of the fall. I could get my bible and quote Romans 8, but I had a long day.
Basically in the garden there were no earthquakes. Then the fall happened, and everything started to decay (some people quote the 2nd law of thermodynamics here, but as a engineer they slightly mis-quote it) and nature (creation) will continue to do so until God makes a new heaven and a new earth.
Qingu we can argue from a moral perspective if you wish, I am sure you are all to ready to cut and paste, but I am not in the market to go three more rounds with you.
Is this why you get some people saying that Katrina was the fault of the gays?
Even if we grant it to be true for man's inhumanity to man (which I most certainly do not), it in no way addresses natural evils, like earthquakes, meteors, floods, and so forth.
That's just Mother Nature being a bitch. Or God giving us a test. Or punishing poor people. Whatever works.
All I'm doing is applying very basic logic to just one or two of the most fundamental claims made by those who argue that there is a God.
Exactly. Here's a fictional conversation to illustrate the point.
Pastor: God is perfect, powerful, loving, and he made man in his image.
Unbeliever: But then why would god let bad things happen to us?
Pastor: God is vast and unknowable and questioning his plans is beyond our abilities.
Unbeliever: You just said god is powerful and loving! That's not the same as unknowable!
The tone in the original post however did nothing to facilitate such a discussion.
Man, I'm civil and polite as they come most of the time, and let me tell you: it doesn't really help.
It just forestalls the inevitable whining and bitching about how caustic and mean and disrespectful i'm being towards their beliefs by about 3 pages instead of jumpstarting the process.
For proof see Richard Dawkins, who is nothing but polite, eloquent, and calm. Yet he is raged against as if he's the biggest cock to come to cock land since john holmes.
Dawkins is a huge pretentious cunt who masks his absolute cockacity in a thin veneer of high speech.
The tone in the original post however did nothing to facilitate such a discussion.
Man, I'm civil and polite as they come most of the time, and let me tell you: it doesn't really help.
It just forestalls the inevitable whining and bitching about how caustic and mean and disrespectful i'm being towards their beliefs by about 3 pages instead of jumpstarting the process.
For proof see Richard Dawkins, who is nothing but polite, eloquent, and calm. Yet he is raged against as if he's the biggest cock to come to cock land since john holmes.
Dawkins is a huge pretentious cunt who masks his absolute cockacity in a thin veneer of high speech.
"Ignorant, stupid, insane, or wicked."
I think that phrase has done more to set back the teaching of evolution in schools than anything else any other major atheist thinker has said in the last few decades.
Feral on
every person who doesn't like an acquired taste always seems to think everyone who likes it is faking it. it should be an official fallacy.
I think he's at least partially right, but you don't really put it that way when you're aiming to convince people, especially if you don't want a backlash.
The tone in the original post however did nothing to facilitate such a discussion.
Man, I'm civil and polite as they come most of the time, and let me tell you: it doesn't really help.
It just forestalls the inevitable whining and bitching about how caustic and mean and disrespectful i'm being towards their beliefs by about 3 pages instead of jumpstarting the process.
For proof see Richard Dawkins, who is nothing but polite, eloquent, and calm. Yet he is raged against as if he's the biggest cock to come to cock land since john holmes.
It's possible to be polite, eloquent and calm while still being arrogant and condescending.
Then maybe they should say that only, and not say words like "disrespectful."
Fuck respect. I don't care if you're Jesus Goddamned Christ, you're getting held to the same standard as everybody else. Nothing is sacred.
I think that phrase has done more to set back the teaching of evolution in schools than anything else any other major atheist thinker has said in the last few decades.
Though I agree, that's just because most people are ignorant. He's guilty of at the same time wanting to change the world and not understanding human psychology enough to do it.
But he's right. And I don't presume to think I can change the world.
So I'll call people ignorant all day long on an internet message board for believing in santa christ cause it "feels good."
I get less pissed off at people who are jerks about being right than I do at people who are jerks about being wrong.
I think that if you've set yourself up to be the public spokesperson for a particular philosophy, you have a responsibility to your allies not to act in a way that alienates the unconvinced (or the convertible convinced).
Feral on
every person who doesn't like an acquired taste always seems to think everyone who likes it is faking it. it should be an official fallacy.
I get less pissed off at people who are jerks about being right than I do at people who are jerks about being wrong.
I think that if you've set yourself up to be the public spokesperson for a particular philosophy, you have a responsibility to your allies not to act in a way that alienates the unconvinced (or the convertible convinced).
I get less pissed off at people who are jerks about being right than I do at people who are jerks about being wrong.
I think that if you've set yourself up to be the public spokesperson for a particular philosophy, you have a responsibility to your allies not to act in a way that alienates the unconvinced (or the convertible convinced).
Nah. He's more of the no-nonsense cutthroat.
Harris is more of the advocate.
Hitchins is just a cockbag.
I actually think Carl Sagan was probably the best spokesperson for atheists (and potheads!), to the extent that we get a spokesperson. Peace be upon him, Willowhoo ackbar.
I get less pissed off at people who are jerks about being right than I do at people who are jerks about being wrong.
I think that if you've set yourself up to be the public spokesperson for a particular philosophy, you have a responsibility to your allies not to act in a way that alienates the unconvinced (or the convertible convinced).
Nah. He's more of the no-nonsense cutthroat.
Harris is more of the advocate.
Hitchins is just a cockbag.
I actually think Carl Sagan was probably the best spokesperson for atheists (and potheads!), to the extent that we get a spokesperson. Peace be upon him, Willowhoo ackbar.
The Demon-Haunted World is, I think, probably the best "atheist" book, even though it's not explicitly an atheist book at all.
Agreed; approaching religion alone is understandable as it is the largest form of that kind of thinking, but there are other consequences and Sagan approaches them all (or lots of them). He approaches the root of that thinking itself. Great book.
at around 4:50
-"Down there, in the basement of the brain are some of things our ancestors needed to survive: aggression, child rearing... following leaders blindly..."
too good.
Pastor: God is perfect, powerful, loving, and he made man in his image.
Unbeliever: But then why would god let bad things happen to us?
Pastor: God is vast and unknowable and questioning his plans is beyond our abilities.
Unbeliever: You just said god is powerful and loving! That's not the same as unknowable!
Evil is the natural result of the fall and free choice. If God did not let evil exist then we would not have freewill, and I know how much penny arcade loves them some freewill.
Nope. God could have given us free will and, simultaneously, a world with no evil. God is omnipotent. He can do anything. There's simply no rebuttal to this point - omnipotence answers every possible explanation. It's totally indefensible.
Except you are only taking omnipotence as far as you like it. If you accept that he can do anything including logical contradictions like free will and no evil, then the current world we live in is perfect. It matters not one bit if you think it is or isn't, due to him being omnipotent, even the imperfect is perfect. In other words, its the perfect defense for literally everything.
I suggest a more toned down version of omnipotence where you can't logically contradict yourself, or don't bother to have the discussion because you have already lost.
Pastor: God is perfect, powerful, loving, and he made man in his image.
Unbeliever: But then why would god let bad things happen to us?
Pastor: God is vast and unknowable and questioning his plans is beyond our abilities.
Unbeliever: You just said god is powerful and loving! That's not the same as unknowable!
Evil is the natural result of the fall and free choice. If God did not let evil exist then we would not have freewill, and I know how much penny arcade loves them some freewill.
Nope. God could have given us free will and, simultaneously, a world with no evil. God is omnipotent. He can do anything. There's simply no rebuttal to this point - omnipotence answers every possible explanation. It's totally indefensible.
Except you are only taking omnipotence as far as you like it. If you accept that he can do anything including logical contradictions like free will and no evil, then the current world we live in is perfect. It matters not one bit if you think it is or isn't, due to him being omnipotent, even the imperfect is perfect. In other words, its the perfect defense for literally everything.
I suggest a more toned down version of omnipotence where you can't logically contradict yourself, or don't bother to have the discussion because you have already lost.
...
Or there might not be a god. Or at least not an omnipotent one.
That's one of the big draws of Deism. No "Problem of Evil" or whatnot because the universe was created by a god who slamed some shit together and let it run.
I have a question to ask.... and I know it's always said in one way or another but it's a genuine question that I've never heard answered.
If I started a religion based on another book.... let's say the Lord Of The Rings. And I gained great success and many followers with it, believing that Sauron was an invisible god watching us constantly and that fairies and Hobbits and Elves were secretly living on the Earth. And out of this success I got very rich and started influencing political parties and had people voted in to power in major countries who said they believed in this religion and said that Gandalf talked to them and told them to do 'x' and 'y'.
Would other religious people be pissed off? Because there is just as much evidence that the things in the Lord Of The Rings are true as there are to the things in the Bible being true.
I mean, I know i'd be hella pissed off if a Scientologist came into power.
I have a question to ask.... and I know it's always said in one way or another but it's a genuine question that I've never heard answered.
If I started a religion based on another book.... let's say the Lord Of The Rings. And I gained great success and many followers with it, believing that Sauron was an invisible god watching us constantly and that fairies and Hobbits and Elves were secretly living on the Earth. And out of this success I got very rich and started influencing political parties and had people voted in to power in major countries who said they believed in this religion and said that Gandalf talked to them and told them to do 'x' and 'y'.
Would other religious people be pissed off? Because there is just as much evidence that the things in the Lord Of The Rings are true as there are to the things in the Bible being true.
I mean, I know i'd be hella pissed off if a Scientologist came into power.
Frankly, I don't see how this is functionally any different from what scientologists have done.
I think Gene Roddenberry actually made a pretty good silent "argument" for atheism. TNG as a universe was great because here you had an enlightened, advanced and unified Federation with likable, moral people. And they go about their lives solving problems without ever turning to a god. It's just a powerful example and I actually think it had a significant impact on me.
As for painting Dawkins as an "asshole" atheist, I think that's a bit of a stretch. He's outspoken, but I very rarely see anything other than fair, reasoned arguments from him. And I think the tendency to paint someone as an "asshole" just because they don't quietly tiptoe around when talking about faith is part of the problem.
RandomEngy on
Profile -> Signature Settings -> Hide signatures always. Then you don't have to read this worthless text anymore.
Posts
If so, I'm curious to see where you draw the line between carnivores and plant-eaters. For example, do animals who eat zooplankton count as carnivores or vegetarians? (Obviously there must have been zooplankton in the Garden because God brought up every kind of living thing from the ground...)
Personally, I like the Akkadian mythology on this business much better. Stuff like earthquakes and miscarriages are post-Flood additions to reality that the gods made explicitly to curb human overpopulation.
I am still curious to know whether or not you think slavery and genocide are evil. Or at least answer if they're evil in a morally absolute or relative sense—like, are some genocides okay and not others? These questions are easy enough for me to answer; I don't see why they'd be hard for you to answer.
Because everybody knows you should always obey whatever a nebulous authority figure who may or may not actually be good says. It has never steered humanity wrong.
Nope. God could have given us free will and, simultaneously, a world with no evil. God is omnipotent. He can do anything. There's simply no rebuttal to this point - omnipotence answers every possible explanation. It's totally indefensible.
If we are taking Genesis literally, God is worse than Hitler.
It's an allegory about the sinful nature of man. You aren't literally suffering for Adam's sin; his sin was a symptom of man's vulnerability to temptation.
This is not much better, of course, because it holds that man is easily corruptable and basically morally helpless - personally, I prefer philosophies that hold that humankind is fully capable of achieving nobility on our own.
Christian morality is pretty clear that humans can't tell right from wrong without the grace of God. Adam knew not to eat from the tree because God told him to. It was like putting a big shiny red button in front of him with a sign that said "Don't Press the Red Button."
the "no true scotch man" fallacy.
Is this why you get some people saying that Katrina was the fault of the gays?
Ignorance is not a defense in the eyes of the law unless you're Wesley Crusher.
"He's a liar, he's a sadist! He's an absentee landlord!"
Dawkins is a huge pretentious cunt who masks his absolute cockacity in a thin veneer of high speech.
"Ignorant, stupid, insane, or wicked."
I think that phrase has done more to set back the teaching of evolution in schools than anything else any other major atheist thinker has said in the last few decades.
the "no true scotch man" fallacy.
He could have done a lot better with that.
the "no true scotch man" fallacy.
ignorant is technically not a pejorative
we are all ignorant in some form or another
but that's not what it usually means, and i'm pretty sure that's not what he means.
Then maybe they should say that only, and not say words like "disrespectful."
Fuck respect. I don't care if you're Jesus Goddamned Christ, you're getting held to the same standard as everybody else. Nothing is sacred.
Though I agree, that's just because most people are ignorant. He's guilty of at the same time wanting to change the world and not understanding human psychology enough to do it.
But he's right. And I don't presume to think I can change the world.
So I'll call people ignorant all day long on an internet message board for believing in santa christ cause it "feels good."
Pretentious is an awesome word.
Man, I'm so pretentious because I think anyone who doesn't believe in gravity is ignorant.
So pretentious.
You're so pretentious to believe in the scientific method!
You're so pretentious to call others less knowledgeable than you when they assert there is a good reason for being a denominational Christian!
I think that if you've set yourself up to be the public spokesperson for a particular philosophy, you have a responsibility to your allies not to act in a way that alienates the unconvinced (or the convertible convinced).
the "no true scotch man" fallacy.
Nah. He's more of the no-nonsense cutthroat.
Harris is more of the advocate.
Hitchins is just a cockbag.
True that. Sagan was awesomesauce.
The Demon-Haunted World is, I think, probably the best "atheist" book, even though it's not explicitly an atheist book at all.
Agreed; approaching religion alone is understandable as it is the largest form of that kind of thinking, but there are other consequences and Sagan approaches them all (or lots of them). He approaches the root of that thinking itself. Great book.
He has this way of talking that makes his speeches sound so grand added to that, his turtle neck might as well be the Atheists' Roman collar.
edit:
-"Down there, in the basement of the brain are some of things our ancestors needed to survive: aggression, child rearing... following leaders blindly..."
too good.
the "no true scotch man" fallacy.
Except you are only taking omnipotence as far as you like it. If you accept that he can do anything including logical contradictions like free will and no evil, then the current world we live in is perfect. It matters not one bit if you think it is or isn't, due to him being omnipotent, even the imperfect is perfect. In other words, its the perfect defense for literally everything.
I suggest a more toned down version of omnipotence where you can't logically contradict yourself, or don't bother to have the discussion because you have already lost.
...
Or there might not be a god. Or at least not an omnipotent one.
That's one of the big draws of Deism. No "Problem of Evil" or whatnot because the universe was created by a god who slamed some shit together and let it run.
You still seem to be under the impression that Quantum mechanics are a kind of magic.
Look, it doesn't matter that there's a probability that your head will teleport to Pluto; it's not gonna happen!
Maybe I should've put: :rotate::rotate::rotate::rotate::rotate: after it?
isn't that the part they edited out from the end of the bible?
If I started a religion based on another book.... let's say the Lord Of The Rings. And I gained great success and many followers with it, believing that Sauron was an invisible god watching us constantly and that fairies and Hobbits and Elves were secretly living on the Earth. And out of this success I got very rich and started influencing political parties and had people voted in to power in major countries who said they believed in this religion and said that Gandalf talked to them and told them to do 'x' and 'y'.
Would other religious people be pissed off? Because there is just as much evidence that the things in the Lord Of The Rings are true as there are to the things in the Bible being true.
I mean, I know i'd be hella pissed off if a Scientologist came into power.
As for painting Dawkins as an "asshole" atheist, I think that's a bit of a stretch. He's outspoken, but I very rarely see anything other than fair, reasoned arguments from him. And I think the tendency to paint someone as an "asshole" just because they don't quietly tiptoe around when talking about faith is part of the problem.