God vs Science

[serrated_colon]

lol evil argument.

The way I see this is that the immaterial first cause of our universe(which religious people refer to as God) cannot be characterized by temporal concepts such as beneficiency, goodness or by whether it is merciful or not. Why? Because we are not be able to comprehend its nature(I use this term loosely, as using the very term "nature" would imply relativity to our universe), and we can never be able to identify the cause as anything BUT the first cause in the chain which caused our existence.

Though I'll play devil's advocate and pretend I do believe that this "God" is all-good. No objective moral values exist in society, and to say morality is an instinct wouldn't be a very accurate statement as it is taught to a child at a very young age as one of the definitive concepts it must apply throughout its life. Humans in our nature seek pleasure, and to be free from pain. Morality either aids or hinder this, relative to the human's perceptions of certain situations. Thus, no objective morals can exist. Yet we have laws, we have rules, morals and ethics. There is good, and there is evil; the very fact that evil exists is proof that an objective moral value does exist and has been imposed on humans. Thus, "God" is the provider of the objective moral value.

Why did I address that? It still means he can be a malevolent being. Well, ponder this:
Evil is the lack of good, it relies on good and the essence of good to be defined in situations. Good does not rely on the essence of evil to be defined in situations. To make this clearer, it is similar to truth and lies. The statement "I always lie" is nonsensical because there is an element of truth in the statement. Despite this, the statements "I always tell the truth" or "I sometimes tell the truth" make sense, they do not rely of the element of lies, so to speak.

 

[Brain]

Because one cannot develop a coherent moral theory if you start including various exceptions, or loopholes, etc, or the principles you adhere to are prone to be different for different situations. Like "don't kill people who aren't threatening you" suddenly becomes "don't kill people who aren't threatening you, except when...". That's the kind of thing that automatically dooms a moral system.

You have offered no evidence that introducing more exceptions and more fine grained rules would make a moral theory incoherent, let alone doom it (besides the point, which I mentioned, that people need rules they can understand). At the core, morals are supposed to give you a guideline to behaving in such a way that some objective function is met. Killing is against morality because in general it has "bad" long term effects. You can easily make contrived situations where this ceases to be the case and suddenly it's not so clear anymore whether killing is moral or not. "Self-defense" is the most obvious one, but it is not nearly the only one. Well-chosen exceptions for the most common situations can help people behave in a more optimal fashion.

I really doubt such a system could be logically consistent, or actually present itself as a moral system. I suppose it's been done before with, say, the Indian Caste system, but even that was never that explicit about who would belong to each group (for all we know, the castes could simply describe people who got to their positions on relative merit without any state/religious coercion involved, but developed otherwise because of the leaders exerting their power to the detriment of others).

Or you could have a system that hierarchizes races and justifies that an "inferior" race is enslaved by a "superior" race. You could also have castes based on intelligence as evaluated by an IQ test. I see no "logical inconsistency" and it could easily be construed as a moral system where, for example, killing people with a low IQ if they disobey is okay because they are easily replaced and the harm they cause by disobeying would be greater than the little their lives are worth.

I meant "do not kill other than in self-defense". My mistake; I usually assume "do not kill" defaults to that. In any case, self-defense is always moral assuming the threat is legitimate, offensive war is absolutely illegitimate (though it gets sticky when we get into intervening in order to defend others), and the death penalty is not moral because it is retributive, not self-defensive.

How do you evaluate whether the threat is legitimate or not? Or, let's assume that someone is pointing a gun at me with the excessively clear intent of killing me and I have a gun. Clearly, shooting at him to kill would be a fine act of self-defense because there's no way I would survive otherwise. But what if I was a ninja master and I knew that I could easily avoid the bullet and neutralize the threat with my bare hands, without any casualties? Would it be immoral for me to take the easy way out and shoot the fucker or do I have a responsibility to avoid killing if I can?

And what's up with when you say "though it gets sticky when we get into intervening in order to defend others"? Can I kill someone who's trying to kill my child if it's the only way I can avoid it? It's not self-defense but it sure looks perfectly justified to me. What if it's not my child but some random other person? If I know that person X is planning an act of terrorism that might kill innocent people and that (somehow) the only way to stop him is to kill him, is that fine?

That's not a moral rule though; that's a societal preference. Morality generally regulates relationships between humans.

Fair enough. On a small tangent, would you agree that there's no way homosexuality between two consenting adults should be considered "immoral"? Would you agree that there's no way consensual premarital sex should be considered "immoral"?

This would only eliminate half the issue with killing - while it would not permanently destroy someone (and this assumes that all brains are backed up), it would still be an act of aggression and thus immoral, similar to how punching someone without cause is immoral even though it generally doesn't kill anyone.

The point still stands: an action is not just moral or just immoral, there are clear degrees. Killing is more immoral than theft, for example, and these degrees are part of the moral system. Even if an action remains immoral, if it goes from extremely immoral to barely worse than lying, the moral system has changed.

The greatest concession I can give to pragmatism is that morality benefits humans because human nature (whatever you believe human nature is derived from) is generally fixed and unchanging, and thus morality must be generally fixed and unchanging. Also, I find that "moral laws" that condone slavery and oppression are actually violations of fundamental morality, instead of moral systems proper.

Why would moral laws that condone slavery and oppression be violations of fundamental morality? Besides the fact neither of us would agree with such moral systems, I see no reason why they are not viable. An almost compelling case could be made for a system where smart people have more rights than stupid people (assuming you could actually measure intelligence reliably).

 

[franky]

A question regarding the Bible and God:

It's been asked countless times, and i'm gonna present that question here again to see if any believer in Christ wants to step forward and answer it.

These are the 10 commandments:

3 Thou shalt have no other gods before me.

4 Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image, or any likeness of any thing that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth.

5 Thou shalt not bow down thyself to them, nor serve them: for I the LORD thy God am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children unto the third and fourth generation of them that hate me;

6 And shewing mercy unto thousands of them that love me, and keep my commandments.

7 Thou shalt not take the name of the LORD thy God in vain; for the LORD will not hold him guiltless that taketh his name in vain.

8 Remember the sabbath day, to keep it holy.

9 Six days shalt thou labour, and do all thy work:

10 But the seventh day is the sabbath of the LORD thy God: in it thou shalt not do any work, thou, nor thy son, nor thy daughter, thy manservant, nor thy maidservant, nor thy cattle, nor thy stranger that is within thy gates:

11 For in six days the LORD made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them is, and rested the seventh day: wherefore the LORD blessed the sabbath day, and hallowed it.

12 Honour thy father and thy mother: that thy days may be long upon the land which the LORD thy God giveth thee.

13 Thou shalt not kill.

14 Thou shalt not commit adultery.

15 Thou shalt not steal.

16 Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbour.

17 Thou shalt not covet thy neighbour's house, thou shalt not covet thy neighbour's wife, nor his manservant, nor his maidservant, nor his ox, nor his ass, nor any thing that is thy neighbour's.

And there are many examples of God killing in the Bible. So why does he have permission to break that commandment? Because he's God and he can kill at his own discretion? And how do we have "free will" if the bottom line is "choose me or choose death"

And.. Found this from a google search:

For example, God kills 70,000 innocent people because David ordered a census of the people (1 Chronicles 21). God also orders the destruction of 60 cities so that the Israelites can live there. He orders the killing of all the men, women, and children of each city, and the looting of all of value (Deuteronomy 3). He orders another attack and the killing of “all the living creatures of the city: men and women, young, and old, as well as oxen sheep, and asses” (Joshua 6). In Judges 21, He orders the murder of all the people of Jabesh-gilead, except for the virgin girls who were taken to be forcibly raped and married. When they wanted more virgins, God told them to hide alongside the road and when they saw a girl they liked, kidnap her and forcibly rape her and make her your wife! Just about every other page in the Old Testament has God killing somebody! In 2 Kings 10:18-27, God orders the murder of all the worshipers of a different god in their very own church! In total God kills 371,186 people directly and orders another 1,862,265 people murdered.

 

[Polis4rule]

Why do atheists and agnostics always have to attack Christians/other religions, and why do Christians/other religions have to attack those who do not believe?

Seems like preaching peace is hypocritical where ever it comes from.

 

[ferron]

Why do atheists and agnostics always have to attack Christians/other religions, and why do Christians/other religions have to attack those who do not believe?

hey, i'm buddhist, and i honestly don't care what you believe in, as long as your reasoning isn't "[insert holy text here] tells me so"

 

[Deck Knight]

A question regarding the Bible and God:

It's been asked countless times, and i'm gonna present that question here again to see if any believer in Christ wants to step forward and answer it.

These are the 10 commandments:



And there are many examples of God killing in the Bible. So why does he have permission to break that commandment? Because he's God and he can kill at his own discretion? And how do we have "free will" if the bottom line is "choose me or choose death"

God killed in defense of his people Israel in the vast majority of those instances, and furthermore the Ten Commandments govern human interactions between God and other humans. They say nothing about God's interactions with creation as a whole. Being creator of the universe is a self-evident granting of universal fiat. Furthermore after God becomes a human (i.e. the New Testament) you'll find his supposed killing spree comes to an abrupt end. Jesus becomes his New Covenant, which replaces the old one he had with Noah, which was basically defined as "I won't flood the world and thereby destroy you all for disobeying me in systemic, institutionalized ways."

And.. Found this from a google search:

Given the propensity of atheists and anti-Christians to utterly distort the Bible and rip its passages from all context, a source for that interpretation would be preferred. For all we know you're posting from the factually erroneous Dan Brown's "The Da Vinci Code."

RE The Crusades in general:

The Crusades are events that took place a thousand years ago, in the interim time between Roman domination and The Renaissance. They are not largely known about, and most historians advise against calling the time period The Dark Ages anymore. That being said, trying to pull a historic "gotcha!" on Christianity and Islam because of the Crusades while failing to mention the terrifying monstrosities of secular systems in the last century is moral myopia at its finest. It took atheistic systems a mere century to reach the body count of religious ones spanning over millenia. That century was the 20th century, not the 10th. I defy anyone to explain to me why skepticism of religion is a healthy intellectual exercise but skepticism of secularism is not.


As promised a focus on Alpha/Omega:

Christians who believe in the Bible are naive and ignorant.

Christians who believe in the Bible are... Christians.

Is it really plausible to believe that a virgin woman can become pregnant without any evidence or means of impregnation?

God himself said so. This is one of those things you take on faith. Actual theologians hotly debate issues revolving around the virgin birth, including whether Mary had the free will to say no or not given circumstances. But since all things are possible with God, the actual act of insemination and virgin birth are trivialities assuming an omnipotent God. What you should find more amazing than a virgin birth is that God condensed his own spirit into the child. That is infinitely more inexplicable because it gets to the nature of the soul.

Did God really provide us with the physical means to achieve orgasm without having to engage in reproduction, but label it a sin even though it has no negative influence on anyone? This question can also be asked of homosexuality.

Neither of those things are sins in and of themselves. Sex is a sin outside of marriage for every Christian. Homosexual relations are inherently outside that construct so engaging in them is inherently sinful, but the temptation to do so is not. This important point is lost on most people who are trying to "score points" rather than actually discuss Christian theology.

I'm going to post some things I read from at least two different sources. Feel free to research and prove me wrong.

- Mary was not implicitly a virgin. The Bible has been adapted several times, each in a different language through time (a bad case of chinese whispers.) The term "The Virgin Mary" in its original archaic state could be taken to mean the maiden mary, essentially a kind hearted, young innocent woman, who was seen as the quintessential best kind of person fit to bear the son of God.

- Joseph was a handyman/jack of all trades, not specifically a carpenter.

- The Bible does not state that masturbation is a sin. I'm a little foggy on the details, and if someone could link me to the relevant passage, that'd be great. The basic idea is that (whoever it was that spilled his seed upon the ground, I thought it was Cain) angered God not because he had ejaculated, but because it was an act of contempt, with the intention to waste a possible life.

- I have one more on homosexuality, but I really don't know enough about what happened to say I know what I'm talking about.

It would help if you actually posted your sources because again, fabrications about Christianity are commonplace. I heard you were a lycanthrope and leiked mudkipz.

A true Christian, in my opinion, will read the Bible and use it as a "conscience", reflecting upon the mistakes of the characters, remembering to abide by the 10 commandments and taking comfort in that fact that they are good christians, and by extent, good people. By 10 commandments, I mean the basic 10; don't murder or steal ect. It's common sense really.

If it is such common sense, why is it so regularly violated? Because humanity has a sinful nature and needs to be reminded forcefully that letting their worst inclinations take hold of them is a condemnation of their soul.

Religious organizations have commandeered christianity and turned it into a cult. A priest might hate homosexuals for example. Popular consenus says that God does too! Whoo! that's so great for the priest! He has the power to influence people! He can preach his opinion to them, back it up with the Bible, and cleanse the world of these gay scum he so hates. Sunday school is a great opportunity for him to indoctrinate the kids too! Wacko!

Yet another strawman. Horace Mann and his statist ilk have turned public schools into thought-control centers. A public school teacher might hate Christians, popular consensus says that Christians hate (BAN ME PLEASE)! Woo! He can preach his opinion to them, back it up with bullshit gibberish of the kind you are spouting, and cleanse the world of the religious scum he so hates. Public Education is a great opportunity for him to indoctrinate the kids too! Wacko!

Don't laugh at that last one. I remember a while ago that one clergyman had convinced a family to donate their life savings to their church. All of it. They were so blinded by "faith" that they allowed themselves to be tricked into a scam. God didn't need their money. The priest did so he could buy himself that shiny new car, or go on that nice vacation he'd waited so long for.

While I'm sure there are some unscrupulous priests who do that, there are unscrupulous people in all organizations who abuse their authority. Becoming a preist does not make you inhuman, priests are sinners too.

I'm sure you've all heard the stories of gay kids born into christian families. The ones who kill themselves out of confused despair.

Blaming other people for someone's suicide is a very quaint out. Oh heavens, I like other boys, I'm so confused, I must end my life because my Christian parents hate me! Maybe if clueless morons weren't always bloviating about how intolerant Christians are, homosexuals wouldn't get the impression the religious boogie man is out to stone them or burn them at the stake.

It is so vile and cowardly for you and your entire lot of like-minded anti-religious drones to blame Christianity when you do nothing to actually help people in need. All you have is criticism. For Christians, for Religion, for faith itself. You have never lifted a single finger to help people understand that their proclivities will lead them down a wrong path. You lament the poor plight of gays who committed suicide, supposedly because their parents believe homosexuality is wrong, but all you have is a half-hearted lament. You would never reach out to them because you aren't compelled to; you would rather surround yourself with an air of moral superiority because your very belief homosexuality is morally neutral shields you from any responsibility for spreading the blatant falsehoods that led to this gay child's despair.

Maybe if the world wasn't full of moral retards blaming Christians for the deaths of gay children born unto them, there would be less gay suicide. But that might require the amoral secularist to get off their high horse (or their incontinent ass, actually) and treat Christians like human beings first.

Religion can rip families apart. Some of these parents are so ignorant that they would choose their religion over their own children. "Fuck maternal instincts and love, a child born against the word of the lord has no place in MY house!" The sad part is that once you flesh it out, this all just the opinion of some old man.

It's not just catholicism either. Everyone knows how fucked up scientology is. Muslims form gangs and attack people for insulting their honor too.

That isn't religion tearing families apart, it is selfishness. You just choose to append religion to it because despite your statement to the contrary below, you really do believe the religious are a different kind of human being, a backward kind.

Religion is a social stigma. You can't question it. You can't question someone's faith without being rude. You can't stop people from doing whatever they believe in. They can sue you, and chances are you'd lose.

This is laughable ignorance. Religious bigotry is the last acceptable bigotry. Which is easier to question in society: Homosexuality or Christianity? You're doing the latter and get nothing but adulation. I do the former and get called a mentally unstable bigot irrationally afraid of teh gheys.

I don't hate religion, I hate the religious organisations who twist it into something else and use it to empower themselves. God doesn't exist. Religious authorities have made him exist because it's convenient for them.

By the same token secular organizations have denied God because his moral precepts get in the way of their megalomaniacal ambitions, their desire for dominance over others through coercion and control, their need to be the God of their own empire, an empire founded on their image.

I'm an atheist. I'm bisexual, and completely comfortable with it. I sin all the time. I'm not going to hell. My morality isn't lacking in any way either. I believe in family, being kind to others, nonviolence ect. I want to be a good person, and I feel happy knowing that I am.

I don't need religion. I never have.

How noble of you, but no human decides if they or anyone else is going to hell. Not anyone who actually studies Christian theology instead of passing on the lies fed to them by mass media and fellow anti-religionists. My morality is lacking: I am a sinner, and I am morally required to be not just a good person, but a great person. God forgives me if I fall short, but only if I ask his repentance. I do not have the moral pretension it requires to declare myself a wholly good person, placated easily by the vibes of my own goodness. I will be judged in accordance with my deeds, my personal feelings of greatness will be irrelevant.

I am one of those people "indoctrinating" people at Sunday school, though Catechism is actually Monday nights most places now. As the confirmation class instructor, my only goal is to pass on the idea of Catholic moral agency to the teenagers who attend. I have actually studied my faith on the matters important to this task, and I could care less about the hapless lemmings who believe because I instruct in the ways of my religion I am doing anything more vile than any other instructor anywhere.

 

[MetalGearSamus]

If, in the future, humans became part machine and that it was possible to "back up" brains like any other data, "killing" would not be nearly as bad as it is now, thus shifting the moral boundaries.

^This is wrong.

Kill, to cause the death of an organism, or the act of doing so.

Death is the state of terminated life.

If you were able to "back up" your memories, personality, etc. then when your original body was destroyed you wouldn't be truly dead, you would continue your life in your back up.

Killing would still be just as immoral as it ever was but it would involve destroying both your original body and all of your back ups.

The destruction of one of your selves would not be as immoral as killing, but it would still not be killing.

 

[Brain]

^This is wrong.

If you were able to "back up" your memories, personality, etc. then when your original body was destroyed you wouldn't be truly dead, you would continue your life in your back up.

Killing would still be just as immoral as it ever was but it would involve destroying both your original body and all of your back ups.

The destruction of one of your selves would not be as immoral as killing, but it would still not be killing.

Your life would be terminated for the length of time between the destruction of your current body and the instantiation of another from your backup, and when "killed" you would lose any experiences from the moment of your last backup, hence losing part of what defined you at that moment. Furthermore, if one did not back himself up and was killed, he would effectively be dead. Yet, the blame would be widely put on him for not backing himself up. So you would indeed have situations where a person is truly killed, yet killing would still not be as immoral as it is now because people would have a responsibility to back themselves up, effectively taking up a huge chunk of the blame for their death.

 

[MetalGearSamus]

If you have the ability to back up your memories, and you are part mechanical, why couldn't you back up your memories in real time via WiFi or something? And what if you didn't have the ability to back up your memories (couldn't afford, technology not available/banned, etc.), would it still be partly your fault?

 

[Brain]

If you have the ability to back up your memories, and you are part mechanical, why couldn't you back up your memories in real time via WiFi or something? And what if you didn't have the ability to back up your memories (couldn't afford, technology not available/banned, etc.), would it still be partly your fault?

I don't know. It might be too bandwidth-intensive to do so. This is a hypothetical situation anyway, it only needs to fit the thought experiment :) It is also implied that anyone could do it relatively easily.

Basically, in a situation where it is trivial for anyone to protect themselves against X, the morality of doing X becomes much less clear cut. One could easily make a case that if a bike is left unattended and unlocked somewhere, it should be ok to steal it, because it is the owner's responsibility to lock it. It would provide an even stronger incentive for bike owners to use locks, which could be seen as a good thing. Similarly, if it was trivial for someone to protect themselves against death, it's not entirely clear that killing someone who doesn't make the effort should be immoral at all.

Another extreme idea is that if we had a society organized in such a way that successfully carrying out a crime was incredibly difficult, successful criminals might be revered rather than reviled. You would then have a strange world where nothing is immoral because any action which harms society would be so difficult to do that it would be impossible for it to happen enough to have a significant impact. You could have one successful bank heist in the world every ten years and whoever manages it would gain fame and glory. They wouldn't get arrested, nobody would even claim the money back because to carry out a successful crime would be seen as a deserving achievement. This is all play and thought experiments, but the point is that morality depends on many factors, a lot of which could change radically in the future in ways that we can hardly predict.

 

[obi]

The opening of the story is wrong. This isn't a problem science has with religion; it's a moral issue. The real tension between science and religion is that sciences tells you to question it, and accepts that as a way to make it better, whereas religion says not to question and claims errors are articles of faith. Science allows anyone to question; religion does not.

No Christianity is not responsible for the genocide of native americans

or the persecutions of religious minorities.

Obey what I command you today. I will drive out before you the Amorites, Canaanites, Hittites, Perizzites, Hivites and Jebusites. Be careful not to make a treaty with those who live in the land where you are going, or they will be a snare among you. Break down their altars, smash their sacred stones and cut down their Asherah poles. Do not worship any other god, for the LORD, whose name is Jealous, is a jealous God.

Be careful not to make a treaty with those who live in the land; for when they prostitute themselves to their gods and sacrifice to them, they will invite you and you will eat their sacrifices. And when you choose some of their daughters as wives for your sons and those daughters prostitute themselves to their gods, they will lead your sons to do the same.

2: Must be 100% consistent - as in it is not morally permissible to violate even one of said axioms.

I disagree. I think it would be better to create a hierarchy with things like murder and rape at the top, and theft and lying further down the bottom. This allows you to have axioms like "lying is wrong", but still not be morally obligated to be honest when someone asks where someone is so that they may go and murder them.




I'm considering locking this thread because it's too broad to have any sort of focused discussion, but I don't want to do it right after I made a substantial post. In other words, start taking your individual discussions to new threads.

 

[billymills]

I really enjoy these threads, if only for the good back-and-forth usually between obi, brain, and luduan against deck knight and ancienrégime.
While it may appear that nothing much gets accomplished, it is interesting to see both opinions (and far more importantly the supporting links and arguments).

And back on topic:

I believe this thread was initially intended to be focused on the story itself; however, the title could have been slightly less open. It's incredibly difficult for any of these threads to stay focused on a single topic, because everything ultimately leads back to similar issues (morality, interpretation of the bible, structure of science v. religion, to which obi just mentioned) all of which often appear in these threads, and all are interpreted differently.

If we actually made threads for each specific topic, I think we'd find that we were clogging up all of Cong, and all the threads would quickly become exactly the same.

 

[obi]

I think the main problem is that the thread title does not match up with the content of the opening post, but I didn't see this thread until it hit 6 pages, so it's a little late to fix that with a simple edit. It would be better for discussion if we had a thread for the basis for morality, a thread about the Spanish Inquisition, the tensions between science and religion / reason vs. faith, whether you can prove god exists, evolution, and global warming. Discussions naturally branch, but my rule of thumb is that if there is a ping pong posting that goes back and forth 2-3 times, it's probably going to keep going and thus should have its own thread. It's perfectly acceptable to just make a post in a thread saying "Hey, I started a new thread for this discussion, here's a link!". This allows the title and opening post to accurately describe the contents of the thread, which helps guide discussion. It also keeps people from having to read 10 pages of irrelevant stuff to finally get to the discussion they're interested in.

I'm not especially interested in and willing to contribute significantly to any of these topics, so I wouldn't be able to put the proper amount of effort into a good opening post, which is why I haven't done so and would rather someone else did.

 

[Phantom_IV]

In my opinion, the debate is rather pointless. Either God exists or he doesn't, but obviously he is a rather remote God, as evil can be seen everywhere and Christians (and people of other religions) can be as unlucky and downtrodden as the rest of us. If he is all-powerful, then he has everything he could ever want, and couldn't care less whether or not we worship him. Quite frankly I find it ridiculous that you could be denied heaven for not believing in God. What happens if you were a saint born into an island tribe on a remote island? Would God damn your soul simply because of the circumstances of your birth?

Might there be a supreme being? Quite possibly. But he could be Arceus just as likely as God and we'd have no way of knowing. Personally, I'd like him to be Arceus. I'm bringing my DS to the hereafter and saved a masterball for him.

 

[.//enigma]

Before you read this post, know this. I don't care if you believe in God. I am not telling you not to believe in God. But if your only reasoning is "The Bible" or any other religious book, I will face palm in real-life, and just laugh at the idiocy. Because a book that was probably written by a monk bored in school tells you things, you believe it?

When the Bible says to jump off a bridge, lets see how many people end up drowning.

I would like to skip the 6 prior pages of posts, and the discussion that belongs to them, as my post only deals with the beginning of the thread, and how the story itself is flawed.

Note: I am an atheist. Take that into account, as my opinions WILL be subjective and harsh.

1.) First, the professor was being really mean to the kid. He asked like 5 questions at once.

I agree with everything (from an atheists PoV) in the thread until the story changes from one side to the other.

2a.) According to the Bible: (yes, I read most of it)

God created humans.
Humans are flawed.
Therefore, God created flawed humans.

Flawed humans do evil.
Perfect humans do no evil.
Therefore, by nature, flawed humans do evil.

The punishment for evil is hell.
The punishment (wrong word choice) for no evil is heaven.
Therefore, the punishment for flawed humans who do evil is hell.

PLOT TWIST.

Therefore, the punishment for the creator of flawed humans who do evil is hell.

But wait, the Bible says that God cannot exist or be in hell. That is the Satan.

2b.) God is the opposite of Satan.
Yet both are punished with hell.
But the Bible says God is not in hell.
But he is.
But the Bible says God is not in hell.
But he is.
But the Bible says God is not in hell.
...

And it will continue like that for an infinity and then some, a contradiction.

3.) Due to the laws of science, we have EVERYTHING (read: our 5 senses) we need to see anything and everything in this and lower dimensions. We can see 3D objects (although they appear as 2D, whereas a 4D person would see 4D objects as 3D), 2D objects and 1D objects. We cannot see anything that does not exist. I have a pen next to me. I can see it. A blind man is sitting exactly where I am. He can feel it. A deaf man is sitting where I am. He can also see it. If you wish, you can also taste it. You can also hear it (provided someone drops it). You can use most of your senses to learn that there is an object (prior to humanity naming it a pen, it would not have been called a pen) that is long, and ovular, that is next to you on a piece of paper. We can neither see, hear, feel, taste nor smell a supreme being of any kind. Even if God was 4D, we would still be able to see him as a 3D object in a 3D world (watch Flatland on YouTube).

Points 4 and subsequent points are after the plot changes from an atheist PoV to a faith-based PoV.

4a.) Heat exists. Cold is the lack of heat. Isn't heat the lack of cold?

Do me a favor. Open up Microsoft Paint. Find a red, and cover the whole page with a red color. Now click CTRL + I. It will be a light blue. Close paint, and put a light blue as CLOSE to the blue you saw eariler. CTRL + I. What comes up? Red.

In scientific terms, the color red is the lack of "light blue" (unless you are talking hues, which I can't figure out opposites yet). The color "light blue" is lack of red.

Therefore, heat is the lack of cold, and cold is the lack of heat. Both red and light blue exist in a 3D world. We can see them. We can both feel heat and cold. Anything hotter than our skins outside temperature will feel hot, even if its the slightest bit. Anything colder will feel cold. Both are terms we gave to describe feeling. I understand that there is no middle point between heat and cold, but there is no middle point between plenty of opposites.

4b.) We have learned to define light as being represented by the color "white", and dark as "black". Again, go to Paint and put a PURE BLACK color. Invert it. White shows up. Invert white. Black shows up. Darkness is physically described as the lack of light. Because darkness and light are opposites, light can also be described as the lack of darkness.

4c.) Life is the absence of death. When people are NOT dying, they are living. Vice versa as well, when people are NOT living, they are dying.

5a.) I want you (and me) to put your beliefs aside. Completley aside. I can tell when one is being opinionated. Empty your mind. Forget what God is, forget what you read in the Bible, any religious book, forget atheism, forget that people don't believe in God. After, please scroll down.






Humanity had to start somehow. Either:

A.) Due to the geologic column, we have been continuing to evolve and adapt to our surroundings. Animals who live mainly in the sky adapted by having larger wings and big beaks to eat prey. Animals who swim got gills. Remember, this is over MILLIONS of years. Eventually, the ape started adapting to surroundings, got taller, muscular, developed speech capacities, etc. and humanity started.

B.) Someone who is not human created humanity.

Okay, you can remember all the stuff I told you to forget now. Humans and monkey's have a DNA strand that almost exactly matches each other. The only difference is intelligence, and they have a banana fetish.

A is much more believable than B, mostly because we can (to an extent) prove A, while B is just an idea floating out there.

5b.) Here is a story from the Bible (all non-Christians should know the story, but not the whole thing):

God created Adam and Eve.

Adam impregnated Eve twice, and she gave birth to two boys, Cain and Abel.

Cain killed Abel.

Cain populated the rest of the world.

There are only two things wrong with this story.

5b.1.) There were only three people left at this point, Adam, Eve and Cain. The only possible way that the population of Earth could have started is through inbreeding. That means, Cain and Eve had babies. Through scientific research, inbreeding causes multiple defects in babies. How come most of us turned out alright?

5b.2.) Supposed somehow Adam and Eve were the father and mother of humanity. How come religious such as Hinduism date back farther? And how come we are not all Christian? (I can understand break-off religious, but religions like Hinduism, or Buddhism are completley different than Christianity.)

6.) This is now getting into the student's remark about the professor's brain.

Due to medical advances, we can do either two things to prove the professor does have a brain. We can either:

6.1.) Take an x-ray of the professor.
6.2.) Kill the professor and cut open his head, tear through the skull, and find the brain.

You can now see, feel, taste, and possibly smell the brain. No hearing, though.

7.) Neither evil nor good exist. In fact, saying the exist is a blatant remark on anyone's part.

The following story is purely hypothetical. Any character who sounds like a person, either living or dead, is merely a coincidence.

Credit to Crab Helmet (from not this forum) for the story.

Me and my brother, Joseph, were on our way to our grandfather's house. I love my grandfather. He use to always give me a nickel and tell me about how in his day, people didn't have remotes, or fancy TVs, or waterslides.

The butler was standing outside the mansion door, and gave my brother the key to open the door. Instead of walking up and opening the door, he killed the butler and used him to ram the door open. He jolted up the stairs, opened the big door and shot my grandfather.

I stood there in horror. I believed with all my heart that my brother has just commited an evil deed. But, my brother knew a different story than I did. Due to his resources, he found out my grandfather was actually corrupt and planning to kill us on this visit. If we put the key in the door, the bomb would have killed us. At the exact same time, I believed an evil deed was just commited, and my brother thought he just did a good deed.

Both good and evil are interpretations, therefore neither exist. Hot and cold are not interpretations, however. Any normal person would touch a 120 degree Celcius pan and say it was hot. Or touch a -100 Celcius pan and say it was cold. The nerves in our skin send signals to our brains informing us if something is hot or cold. But it is our full opinion whether something is good or evil, as the story says.

8.) My finishing point:

This has already been stated in the thread, most probably, but here it is again.

Atheists believe God does not exist solely based on the lack of proof of His existance.

God-believers believe God does exist solely based on the lack of proof of His non-existance.

In both cases, I used the word "believe". Neither side (atheists nor faithists) know of the (non)existance of a supreme being. And yet we are debating more than ever. Why? Because we want to be right, when the fact of the matter is, neither one will be right UNTIL a substantial amount of proof is compiled that (dis)proves the existance of a supreme being.

This is the point I would like to make, probably the harshest of this post.

Atheists are composed mainly of scientists. Therefore, if a substantial amount of proof is given that God does exist, being scientists, atheists HAVE TO (whether they like it or not) believe that God exists.

God-believers are mainly composed of everything but scientists (5% of worlds population is atheist). After interviewing several people who believe in God (read: my (old) preist, my parents, my friends, my teachers, my cousins, my immiediate family, etc.), I can come to this conclusion. Most people who believe in a supreme being, if shown an infinite amount of evidence that disproves the existance of said supreme being, will ignore the fact(s) compiled and continue to believe in said supreme being.

I can understand if someone reads that and says "I believe in God, but I am willing to change my mind if shown proof." I understand that. That's the power of "most".

.//enigma

 

[.//enigma]

@ LMPL (for some reason, I cannot quote you)

At the same time, you cannot prove God.

No proof exists of there being a supreme being, and it goes the other way around as well.

THERE IS NO PROOF. And it will stay that way.

Using scientific reasoning, however, I can say that many things written in the Bible CAN be disproved or too far fetched to be true. Does that disprove God? Not at all.

For example, how can one person (Cain) populate the earth without inbreeding (with his mother)?

And if that did happen, how come we are not all Christain, how come most of us have no disorders, and how come religions date back farther than Christianity?

By using those three ideas, I can disprove the story of Adam and Eve, and John and Cain. And if I disprove that, who is to say the rest of the Bible isn't true?

 

[Eraddd]

@ LMPL (for some reason, I cannot quote you)

At the same time, you cannot prove God.

No proof exists of there being a supreme being, and it goes the other way around as well.

THERE IS NO PROOF. And it will stay that way.

Using scientific reasoning, however, I can say that many things written in the Bible CAN be disproved or too far fetched to be true. Does that disprove God? Not at all.

For example, how can one person (Cain) populate the earth without inbreeding (with his mother)?

Because God did make other people after...

And if that did happen, how come we are not all Christain, how come most of us have no disorders, and how come religions date back farther than Christianity?

By using those three ideas, I can disprove the story of Adam and Eve, and John and Cain. And if I disprove that, who is to say the rest of the Bible isn't true?

Congrats. You didn't do your research and thought "LOLOLOL INCEST" was the fastest way out. I'm Christian but hell, even I could do a better job of trying to disprove Christianity than you did. Why not take the generic route of "You can't prove it" and list various reasons like most people, which is sensible?

Edit: AHAHAHAHA. I enjoyed your little statements. I remember those in philosophy class.

God created humans.
Humans are flawed.
Therefore, God created flawed humans.

Arguement works, but the statements are wrong. Humans were not flawed as in he created them flawed. THey made it themselves that way.

Flawed humans do evil.
Perfect humans do no evil.
Therefore, by nature, flawed humans do evil.

I see no point of this one. You said in the first part "Flawed humans do evil" and rounded it off with "flawed humans do evil." What?

The punishment for evil is hell.
The punishment (wrong word choice) for no evil is heaven.
Therefore, the punishment for flawed humans who do evil is hell.

You did forget repentance... God does realize we are flawed.

I'm going to finish it off right now: if you're going to make arguements disproving Christianity, READ BEYOND THE FUCKING LINES OF THE BIBLE. FOR FUCKS SAKE.

 

[.//enigma]

Because cursing on the internet both proves your maturity and your intelligence. Obviously.

Find me the passage in the Bible which states that God made people after Adam and Eve (and John and Cain).

Also, CAN ANYONE PROVE ANYTHING WRITTEN IN THE BIBLE AS TRUE? Nope.

Which brings me back to this:

But if your only reasoning is "The Bible" or any other religious book, I will face palm in real-life, and just laugh at the idiocy.

Also, if God knew that humans were going to be flawed by nature, why is He punishing humans for the actions from there flaws.

God knows I am flawed. And when I become a serial killer and murder people because of my flaws, I will end up going to hell?

Then doesn't God belong in hell for created what would be a monster?

The Bible is full of contradictions, and even the simplist of lawyer's know that milk everything you can out of contradictions.

The Bible explains nothing. Let's take the Quaran (IIRC). People interpret the Quaran for themselves and become extremists bent on killing people.

Reading beyond/between the lines only works in a book that makes sense.

 

[Vine Whip]

Before you read this post, know this. I don't 2a.) According to the Bible: (yes, I read most of it)

God created humans.
Humans are flawed.
Therefore, God created flawed humans.

Flawed humans do evil.
Perfect humans do no evil.
Therefore, by nature, flawed humans do evil.

The punishment for evil is hell.
The punishment (wrong word choice) for no evil is heaven.
Therefore, the punishment for flawed humans who do evil is hell.

Erm no, you get into heaven when you repent for your sins. How much of the Bible did you read exactly? Yours was a pretty BS post

You can sin all you want, as long as you get forgiveness from them, THAT gets you into Heaven, if you dont do it completely, you go to.....(cant remember the name atm) a sort of Hell/Jail where you do "time" for your sins, before you get to heaven

 

[.//enigma]

Thou shalt not kill.

Like I said, I am a serial killer. I break the comandments, and I kill, and I repent. Where am I going to go? Obviously hell.

It's good to know that I can kill a million people, repent, and not go to hell. Just like I can kill a million people, say that I'm sorry, and not go to jail. I love Earth. [/sar]

 

[Eraddd]

Thou shalt not kill.

Like I said, I am a serial killer. I break the comandments, and I kill, and I repent. Where am I going to go? Obviously hell.

It's good to know that I can kill a million people, repent, and not go to hell. Just like I can kill a million people, say that I'm sorry, and not go to jail. I love Earth. [/sar]

Read the book of Hebrews. It explains all your shit there.

I hate assholes who try to go "OH LOLOLOL SERIAL KILLERS. I REPENTZ LOLS. TIME TO GO TO HEAVEN" trying to disprove Christianity. God you make a bad name for athiests. My respects go out to those who try to have a good arguement with idiots bumpin in every second.

 

[.//enigma]

Again, flaming me will prove your maturity and intelligence. Obviously.

You said yourself that as long as I repent for a sin, I will go to heaven. Therefore, I can murder a mass amount of people, repent, and still go to heaven.

And if you disagree with that, you have put yourself in a position where you have created a contradiction amongst the Bible and yourself.

Also, I am waiting for someone to say "Why do atheists say 'Oh my God' or 'God damn' or anything of that sort? They must believe in God!"

I'm just waiting. Because that is what my friends said, and they've been shut up about this topic for weeks now. Just waiting.

Also, I am getting tired, so I will be heading off to sleep. Normally I would make a joke about God-believers, but seeing that (most of) this forum is mature, I'll skip that.

I'll be back tomorrow afternoon.

 

[Eraddd]

Because cursing on the internet both proves your maturity and your intelligence. Obviously.

Because posting illogical proofs and bullshit proves your maturity and your intelligence. Obviously.

Find me the passage in the Bible which states that God made people after Adam and Eve (and John and Cain).

It doesn't explicitly say it. BUt guess what? Learn to deduce. If Cain went to the East to the Land of Nod WHILE Adam had sex with Eve and had Seth, I guess either Eve can be at two places at once, or Cain had sexual relations with his brother (who is consequently a women now and can sex change instantaneously) and had a son, which science is against you on that point.

Also, CAN ANYONE PROVE ANYTHING WRITTEN IN THE BIBLE AS TRUE? Nope.

I'm sorry if you're missing the point of the bible.

Which brings me back to this:

But if your only reasoning is "The Bible" or any other religious book, I will face palm in real-life, and just laugh at the idiocy.

Also, if God knew that humans were going to be flawed by nature, why is He punishing humans for the actions from there flaws.

Oh my freaken God. Whose fault was it to eat that damned apple. God's? It's obviously the humans and thus we have to atone for it. Guess if I disobey the law, I shouldn't be punished.

God knows I am flawed. And when I become a serial killer and murder people because of my flaws, I will end up going to hell?

Do you have the control NOT to be a serial killer? That decision is yours. God gave you free will, and it's yours to use or abuse. And yes you will go to hell.

Then doesn't God belong in hell for created what would be a monster?

Again refer to above. He didn't create us flawed. We brought it ourselves.

The Bible is full of contradictions, and even the simplist of lawyer's know that milk everything you can out of contradictions.

And yet, no lawyer has been able to fully come up to the podium and disprove everything right there on the spot, without being shot down. Prove me someone who can and I will show you a liar.

The Bible explains nothing. Let's take the Quaran (IIRC). People interpret the Quaran for themselves and become extremists bent on killing people.

I'm sorry if you blame irrational people irrationally interpretting a holy book. It's one thing to interpret. I can interpret the bible telling me to kill millions of people.

Reading beyond/between the lines only works in a book that makes sense. And you haven't proved it.

Bolded.

 

[alamaster]

@enigma

You are completely missing the point of the bible, it is useless to say that Christians cannot prove any of the stories in the bible because that notion really doesn't matter. I am a Christian and what I believe is that the bible is not meant to be taken literally, but for the messages it tells us. The morals. Basically a code to live by if you want to be a good person.

Just because the stories may or may not have happened does not make them any less meaningful.

As for your "mass murderer" argument, that is flawed because odds are if you happen to be a mass murderer you won't feel remorse for killing all those people. I do believe that if you are truly sorry for your sins then God will forgive you because that is what he does; he forgives. Someone who has sinned to that extreme wouldn't be remorseful unless they had a major life changing revelation that caused them to see the error in their ways.

 

[b0b3rt]

@enigma what's your username on YCM?

Also,

Also, if God knew that humans were going to be flawed by nature, why is He punishing humans for the actions from there flaws.

Oh my freaken God. Whose fault was it to eat that damned apple. God's? It's obviously the humans and thus we have to atone for it. Guess if I disobey the law, I shouldn't be punished.

This is ridiculous. If god creates humans with the capacity to become flawed, then he inherently assumes responsibility for all flaws that humans may develop. Unless it was an oversight on god's part? Oh, wait.