Atheism/Existence of God Debates (Please Read OP)

recedite

Soul Winner wrote: »

OK so who determines what is right and wrong?

We (society) do. Referendums, laws etc...

But in a world driven by purely Darwinian processes it doesn't matter what goes on as long as the group survives and propagates its DNA. There is no ultimate right and wrong, good or evil.
In this world rape is but another way of making sure that this happens and would be selected for by Natural Selection.

I already pointed that out. Then I explained how it was possible for natural selection to be a successful means of genetic engineering, while being morally wrong at times, in a philosophical sense. As expected, you were unable to grasp the concept.

Let's put it like this; Nature is red in tooth and claw. Nature is cruel. That's how it is, and that leads to ruthless efficiency.
In my explanation, rape and theft would be "selected for" as useful strategies for a certain (minority) element of the population. At the same time, the entire population would consider these activities morally reprehensible.
This is what we see in real life.

In your explanation, rape and theft would be "banned" by an omnipotent being, who nevertheless gave us "free will" to engage in these activities if we wanted to. The reason we might want to is because the horned bad-boy demon puts these kinds of ideas in our heads. Am I right? Again, this also explains what we see in real life, although nobody has ever seen either of the two main characters involved.

PDN

recedite wrote: »

We (society) do. Referendums, laws etc...

And what about when society and laws denote as good and right, things that are obviously wrong? (eg executing heretics, torturing suspected witches, killing Jews, imprisoning Capitalist Running Dogs etc)

Let's put it like this; Nature is red in tooth and claw. Nature is cruel. That's how it is, and that leads to ruthless efficiency.
In my explanation, rape and theft would be "selected for" as useful strategies for a certain (minority) element of the population. At the same time, the entire population would consider these activities morally reprehensible.
This is what we see in real life.

So what about when the majority thinks they are great? As with the persecution of Jews for many centuries.

When the majority finds theft to be a useful strategy, but a minority considers it morally reprehensible, does that make it OK?

tommy2bad

PDN wrote: »

And what about when society and laws denote as good and right, things that are obviously wrong? (eg executing heretics, torturing suspected witches, killing Jews, imprisoning Capitalist Running Dogs etc)

But its not so obvious that it didn't happen
So what about when the majority thinks they are great? As with the persecution of Jews for many centuries.
And God was invoked to justify it then too
When the majority finds theft to be a useful strategy, but a minority considers it morally reprehensible, does that make it OK?
Its called capitalism

God isn't necessary for any crime to be committed but He dose have a way of getting implicated in all of them at some time.
Funny how we take the credit for all the good stuff tho.

recedite

PDN wrote: »

So what about when the majority thinks they are great? As with the persecution of Jews for many centuries.

When the majority finds theft to be a useful strategy, but a minority considers it morally reprehensible, does that make it OK?

I'm not saying its ever OK morally, only whether its ever a successful strategy.

The system always rebalances itself, such that the exploited must be in the majority. Observe the number of predators v prey, or the number of cuckoos V the number of birds whose own eggs get kicked out of the nest by cuckoos.

In a nation of thieves, everybody becomes too security concious, spending all their time guarding their few possessions, missing out on co-operative trading, and ultimately the society fails.

In the case of the Jews, being in the minority, like an over-exploited prey, they faced either extinction, or changing to become excessively security concious and even more exploitative than their oppressors.

Soul Winner

recedite wrote: »

We (society) do. Referendums, laws etc...

Does that mean they are objectively right though? As PDN points out there were some really awful things that were lawful at one time or another. Were they only objectively right when they were made law? Obviously not, that would be a misnomer. When something is objectively right, its right independent of whether it is made law or not. The truth can be offensive but its never a sin. We find objective rights and wrongs in the world that we happen to inhabit, therefore if they exist then God exists, because in a world without God there are no objective rights and wrongs, just pitiless indifference as Dawkins puts it.

recedite wrote: »

I already pointed that out. Then I explained how it was possible for natural selection to be a successful means of genetic engineering, while being morally wrong at times, in a philosophical sense. As expected, you were unable to grasp the concept.

I think you're the one missing the point.

recedite wrote: »

Let's put it like this; Nature is red in tooth and claw. Nature is cruel. That's how it is, and that leads to ruthless efficiency. In my explanation, rape and theft would be "selected for" as useful strategies for a certain (minority) element of the population. At the same time, the entire population would consider these activities morally reprehensible. This is what we see in real life.

Yes but blind Darwinian processes are not concerned with whether something is morally right or wrong in our eyes, only what benefits survival. What we think of certain types of behavior is lost in irrelevancy under that scheme of things, and as such the moral codes that we make up for ourselves are cannot be objectively right.

recedite wrote: »

In your explanation, rape and theft would be "banned" by an omnipotent being, who nevertheless gave us "free will" to engage in these activities if we wanted to. The reason we might want to is because the horned bad-boy demon puts these kinds of ideas in our heads. Am I right? Again, this also explains what we see in real life, although nobody has ever seen either of the two main characters involved.

Well yes, of course as a Christian I believe that for God to hold His creation morally responsible for their actions He must give them free will to act contrary to His will for them. If He had set it up in such a way as to make us act the right way all the time then yeah He would have perfect creatures but we would be nothing but robots just doing what we were programmed to do. In order for God to get what He really treasures (viz freely given trust and love) then He had to risk sin. He could not get freely given trust and love without doing this. And yes the adversary is always on our shoulder (as it where) trying to get us to act in a contrary manner so that when we do things contrary to what we know is right he then pounds us with guilt over actions and manages to dislodge our trusting connection to God. he also shoves it in God's face. He is forever accusing man before God and He is also forever putting in our path reasons to distrust God, false reasons and lies, and convinces us that the things we know are wrong to do are somehow good things to do.

God wants us to trust Him when He says something, that He will bring about what He has spoken. When we keep this covenant with Him He has promised to give us eternal life. Those who fall prey to the deceptions and lies of the the adversary will fall into the same pit he has fallen into, misery loves company as the old saying goes.

Zombrex

Soul Winner wrote: »

Does that mean they are objectively right though? As PDN points out there were some really awful things that were lawful at one time or another.

What, you mean like how a few thousand years ago the "just" punishment for homosexual acts was stoning to death?

tommy2bad

Zombrex wrote: »

What, you mean like how a few thousand years ago the "just" punishment for homosexual acts was stoning to death?

Even today it considered a just punishment in some places.

Soul Winner

Zombrex wrote: »

What, you mean like how a few thousand years ago the "just" punishment for homosexual acts was stoning to death?

Stop jumping form making one one point to different point to backup your first point. This was a law given by God which as I've explained over and over and over again is a big difference than someone making up laws to suit themselves. If God exists then His laws are objectively right because He is the locus of goodness. There is no higher good than Him. If He doesn't exist then anything goes. Your definition of what's right and wrong is is a valid as anyone else's definition of it. All points of view are subjective and equally valid. I might prefer your standard to someone else's but that wouldn't make your standard objectively right either. Plus under Darwinian principles homo sexual acts would not be selected for because it would not aid in the furtherance of the tribe because there would be no copulation, so even under that scheme of things it would be a departure also.

God commanded the stoning. He does not want His creatures participating in homosexual activity. Will He forgive someone for doing so? Of course but it must be turned from and forgiveness asked of Him for it just like any any other departure from God's will. As the creator He sees it as a departure from what He intended for us. You don't have to like that but it is what it is. But as already said several times Jesus put away that Old Law by becoming the Law incarnate and fulfilled it and then died in order that it might pass away. He did this for all sinners, every single one, not just heterosexual sinners. The only thing that pees God off now is lack of faith in the blood of the perfect sacrifice for sin. All other sins are already forgiven and paid for through that sacrifice, its up to everyone to tap into that or not, but its there for everyone to avail of if they so desire. God will never approve our doing of any fleshly sin, but He will forgive any fleshly sin as long as the sinner can first acknowledge that it is an actual sin because God says it is, and then to ask God to forgive them for it.

Zombrex

Soul Winner wrote: »

Stop jumping form making one one point to different point to backup your first point. This was a law given by God which as I've explained over and over and over again is a big difference than someone making up laws to suit themselves.

The end result is the same though isn't it?

It being objectively wrong to stone homosexuals to death in the Christian system still produced homosexuals being stoned to death at one point in time. You can say it doesn't produce it now, but then neither does the socially decided upon moral system that recedite described.

I think I'll stick to the system recedite described.

Soul Winner

Zombrex wrote: »

The end result is the same though isn't it?

It being objectively wrong to stone homosexuals to death in the Christian system still produced homosexuals being stoned to death at one point in time.

I didn't say that stoning homosexuals under the Christian system was objectively wrong. Its just wrong for sinners to judge and condemn sinners. It was part of a system which Christianity displaced. Its not to be adhered to anymore. All that matters now is faith in God's promises under the new Way. This was even the case in the Old Testament. Anyone who was justified in God's sight was justified by their faith not by their works of the Law. Read Hebrews 11 for a full synopsis.

Zombrex wrote: »

You can say it doesn't produce it now, but then neither does the socially decided upon moral system that recedite described.

I think I'll stick to the system recedite described.

I'm not asking you to choose a system that you like better. I'm trying to explain that if God doesn't exist then no matter what system is thought up by us it cannot be objectively right. It might be good in our eyes but that is beside the point I'm trying to make. A pitiless indifferent Universe doesn't care what its incidental biological byproducts conjure up in their randomly mutated brains.

tommy2bad

I didn't say that stoning homosexuals under the Christian system was objectively wrong.

Well I will.
It is objectively wrong to stone homosexuals to death.
It is objectively wrong to stone adulterers to death.
It is objectively wrong to stone anyone to death.

He will forgive any fleshly sin as long as the sinner can first acknowledge that it is an actual sin because God says it is, and then to ask God to forgive them for it.

Thats where we digress, let me rephrase 'sin because it is not of God'. Note the difference, your way requires obedience on someones sayso, mine requires living up to a standard, isn't sin falling short anyway rather than disobedience?

Simtech

Soul Winner wrote: »

Its not to be adhered to anymore.

Is that because god got it wrong in the first place and then had to intervene to fix things? Seems like a fair assessment to from my uneducated point of view.

A pitiless indifferent Universe doesn't care what its incidental biological byproducts conjure up in their randomly mutated brains.

You're right, it doesn't but the 'incidental biological byproducts', otherwise known as society, do care and make their own laws without necessity for reference to god.

I still can't figure out how to split quoted posts and respond to each bit, how on earth is that done. When I press the " button it fills in the whole post in the reply window. How do you then split into pieces?

MrPudding

Soul Winner wrote: »

A pitiless indifferent Universe doesn't care what its incidental biological byproducts conjure up in their randomly mutated brains.

So what?

MrP

Morbert

tommy2bad wrote: »

It is objectively wrong to stone homosexuals to death.
It is objectively wrong to stone adulterers to death.
It is objectively wrong to stone anyone to death.

In what way is it objectively wrong?

Zombrex

Soul Winner wrote: »

I'm not asking you to choose a system that you like better. I'm trying to explain that if God doesn't exist then no matter what system is thought up by us it cannot be objectively right.

But the system you think is objectively right stoned homosexuals.

So why would anyone care?

If something was told to you was objectively right yet you thought it was wrong you would simply ignore it.

So what is the point?

Soul Winner wrote: »

A pitiless indifferent Universe doesn't care what its incidental biological byproducts conjure up in their randomly mutated brains.

A pitiless indifferent universe also never says homosexuals shouldn't marry, nor does it say execute your wife if she is not a virgin on her wedding night.

recedite

The reality is we tend to see right and wrong from the point of view of ourselves and our family or tribal group. "Right" is that which causes least suffering to those closest to us.Therefore it is a mixture of the subjective fading into the objective. The less closely related or similar to us the "others" are, the less "rights" we afford them. This allows us to happily kill animals for food nowadays, and in the past we made slaves of people or stoned homosexuals because they were different.

In making laws, we are actually perceiving and making updated judgements on these rights as described in the process above. Religious people then claim that they are uncovering some "objective moral truth" which coincidentally matches the law that they have already agreed upon.

tommy2bad

Somereligious people then claim that they are uncovering some "objective moral truth" which coincidentally matches the law that they have already agreed upon.

See what I did?
Cos I spent this thread saying that its people you have to watch for not God and then only some people, you're all nice btw

Soul Winner

Zombrex wrote: »

But the system you think is objectively right stoned homosexuals.

So why would anyone care?

You're still missing the point. I'm not explaining it again.

Zombrex wrote: »

If something was told to you was objectively right yet you thought it was wrong you would simply ignore it.

OK I'll give it another go. When something is objectively right or wrong then its right or wrong independent of what we believe or think. Just like if the Germans had won WWII, what they did to the Jews would still be wrong. If God does not exist then objective rights and wrongs do not exist, there's just whatever works for you. So maybe in such a world rape might be OK in one society but not OK in another society. The society which prohibits rape might be more sophisticated than the one which allows it but in a world where there is no absolute right and wrong one system is as valid as the other depending on your taste and neither one can claim that their's is objectively right and the other objectively wrong, OK they could claim it I suppose but without a locus of right and wrong to measure each system by then one is as valid as the other.

Zombrex wrote: »

So what is the point?

The point is that we actually live in an actual world which actually has actual objective moral values. Which means that there must be a God because objective moral values would not exist if there wasn't. But everyone here agrees that objective moral values do exist so therefore God exists. That is the point.

Zombrex wrote: »

A pitiless indifferent universe also never says homosexuals shouldn't marry, nor does it say execute your wife if she is not a virgin on her wedding night.

That's because a pitiless indifferent universe doesn't care what you do. God on the other hand does care, that's the difference. He wants what's best for His creation and will not just wink at sin because it suits the sinner. He created us for Himself not for ourselves. As the paradigm of rightness He determines what's sin and what isn't and anything that goes contrary to His nature is wrong in His sight and He will never compromise His nature to serve the twisted and corrupted desires of His fallen creation. He is in the business of saving sinners from their sinful condition not pandering to their every whim. We might cry like babies and hate Him for not giving in to us but that doesn't mean we are right about it.

JohnMc1

JohnMarston wrote: »

Question: Who does the burden of proof lie with, those who deny or those who accept the existence of God?

Personally I feel if both sides are interested in having a civil and respectful [unfortunately that's never the case. Especially online] debate then both sides should bring their best arguments to the table.

ISAW

Zombrex wrote: »

But the system you think is objectively right stoned homosexuals.

So why would anyone care?

If something was told to you was objectively right yet you thought it was wrong you would simply ignore it.

So what is the point?



A pitiless indifferent universe also never says homosexuals shouldn't marry, nor does it say execute your wife if she is not a virgin on her wedding night.

It think you were asked about this elsewhere
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=75924408&postcount=129

Zombrex

Soul Winner wrote: »

You're still missing the point. I'm not explaining it again.

Fair enough.

Soul Winner wrote: »

OK I'll give it another go. When something is objectively right or wrong then its right or wrong independent of what we believe or think.

Yes but if you thought something was wrong yet it was objectively right, you wouldn't do it anyway.

If it was objectively right to rape people (ie if God said it was) you wouldn't do it. In fact I seriously doubt you would believe that it was objectively right in the first place. You have already said you wouldn't follow the commandments of the Old Testament if you lived in that time, you have said that the New Testament overrides it, even though back then you wouldn't have known anything about the New Testament.

So what is the point in appealing to objectivity? Ultimately it always comes back to you and what you are prepared to do, or even prepared to believe.

Soul Winner wrote: »

The point is that we actually live in an actual world which actually has actual objective moral values. Which means that there must be a God because objective moral values would not exist if there wasn't. But everyone here agrees that objective moral values do exist so therefore God exists. That is the point.

Everything about the world suggests we don't live in a world with objective morality. Even your own religion changes notions of morality based on time and circumstance, it was ok to stone people to death then it wasn't ok to stone people to death, it was ok to have slaves then it wasn't ok to have slaves.

Soul Winner wrote: »

That's because a pitiless indifferent universe doesn't care what you do. God on the other hand does care, that's the difference. He wants what's best for His creation and will not just wink at sin because it suits the sinner.

But you only trust he knows best when you already agree with that assessment.

philologos

As has been explained in the other thread. We know on the basis of what God has revealed to us, that He wouldn't demand us to rape anyone. As the revelation of Jesus was the final revelation, and given that God isn't a liar all future prophesy, or all future communication from God to man will be consistent with what has already come before it.

As a result God wouldn't tell me to rape anyone. If anyone told me that God commanded me to rape someone, I would know pretty quickly that they were a false teacher in that they were proclaiming a different Gospel.

That's largely why as a Christian, I focus on God's Word primarily. Hypothetical scenarios such as what you have described as fruitless and pointless to consider in the light of Christianity due to their inherent incompatibility with it.

It's clear that you won't like this as it effectively shuts down hypotheticals which you see as bolstering your argument, but if you are to post about Christianity you'll need to think about what Christianity actually teaches.

Zombrex

philologos wrote: »

As has been explained in the other thread. We know on the basis of what God has revealed to us, that He wouldn't demand us to rape anyone. As the revelation of Jesus was the final revelation, and given that God isn't a liar all future prophesy, or all future communication from God to man will be consistent with what has already come before it.

As a result God wouldn't tell me to rape anyone. If anyone told me that God commanded me to rape someone, I would know pretty quickly that they were a false teacher in that they were proclaiming a different Gospel.

Well this isn't actually the relevant to the point, but how would you know that instead of knowing that the original interpretation was a mistake and that this later one was the true commandment from God?

philologos wrote: »

It's clear that you won't like this as it effectively shuts down hypotheticals which you see as bolstering your argument, but if you are to post about Christianity you'll need to think about what Christianity actually teaches.

Well no Phil, everything you said is actually central my point. I'm not trying to get you guys to see it

lmaopml

Zombrex, you are basing your arguement on what you perceive God commands - that he commands 'evil' as such, that he is the author of it, and not us - not that he allows it from a higher perspective.

You very easily swoop over the entire message, the old and new, and concentrate on just one aspect, like it glorifies you somehow - but even that doesn't hold up, because you have yet to say how God ever ever condoned rape...you just continue on like it's a given - which it isn't - it's been pointed out so many times.

Please try to be consistent, and not jump the gun - start at the beginning and explain yourself a little better...whatever way you gain from this is anybodies guess, but it would be nice to know what drives zombrex too.....

So...

philologos

What do you mean by "original interpretation"? - Simply put, if God has revealed Himself to mankind through the Bible, and if someone else comes along and claims that God has commanded me to rape people. I can discount that immediately on the basis that that doesn't hold up with what is Biblical.

This is the Christianity forum - when we speak of God, we mean the Judeo-Christian one. If you want to argue that we should consider another god-concept which encourages rape, that's another discussion for the hypothetical-what-would-god-do-if-I-made-him-completely-different section.

The discussion is no longer relevant to the Christianity forum if we go down this route.

Option 2 is a dead end and would be a waste of time to consider if we want to discuss Christianity.

Zombrex

lmaopml wrote: »

Zombrex, you are basing your arguement on what you perceive God commands - that he commands 'evil' as such, that he is the author of it, and not us - not that he allows it from a higher perspective.

Er, no. That is the exact opposite of what I'm saying.

Some of the Christians here as saying that if God commanded them to rape someone they wouldn't because they would judge that God wouldn't do that, that it is wrong to rape someone, it is not something God would do, and thus they would refuse to carry out such a command.

I'm pointing out that this breaks with the traditional notion that anything God commands is, by definition, right and moral.

Zombrex

philologos wrote: »

What do you mean by "original interpretation"? - Simply put, if God has revealed Himself to mankind through the Bible, and if someone else comes along and claims that God has commanded me to rape people. I can discount that immediately on the basis that that doesn't hold up with what is Biblical.

The original interpretation that the Bible is God's revelation and that what you understand from that revelation is correct.

Christians have evaluated and re-evaluated this interpretation throughout the history of Christianity.

philologos wrote: »

This is the Christianity forum - when we speak of God, we mean the Judeo-Christian one. If you want to argue that we should consider another god-concept which encourages rape, that's another discussion for the hypothetical-what-would-god-do-if-I-made-him-completely-different section.

The discussion is no longer relevant to the Christianity forum if we go down this route.

That is some what irrelevant. God, if he exists, is what he is. Christianity is a human interpretation of what God has commanded. God dictates Christianity, Christianity does not dictate God.

If God appeared before you and said go rape someone saying Well I learnt in Sunday school that God doesn't want me to rape people would probably mean very little to the all powerful creator of the universe.

Zombrex

philologos wrote: »

It's not "they would judge God wouldn't do that". Biblically He wouldn't, it's inconsistent with Christianity.

According to who exactly?

philologos wrote: »

Unless you can clearly demonstrate otherwise, it's a poor argument to make.

Demonstrating otherwise is irrelevant to the point. I'm not attempting to prove God wants you to rape people, no matter what ISAW mistakenly believes.

philologos

It's not "they would judge God wouldn't do that". Biblically He wouldn't, it's inconsistent with Christianity.

Unless you can clearly demonstrate otherwise, it's a poor argument to make.

That's why I asked you to choose 1 or 2. Separate your argument into 1 and keep focused rather than jumping between the first and the second. You seemed unwilling to help us even understand your position.

If you're going to discuss Christianity, then we're going to need to pluck out the Bible to focus on the logic we need to work within. If you're not up for that and want to talk about a hypothetical god-concept that contradicts Christianity, that's a different discussion as far as I can see it and not one that many Christians will be interested in engaging with on the Christianity forum. I think that's being quite fair.

Zombrex wrote: »

Demonstrating otherwise is irrelevant to the point. I'm not attempting to prove God wants you to rape people, no matter what ISAW mistakenly believes.

Then clarify what your argument is like I asked you to?

Apologies - I moved my previous post so I could consolidate all I wanted to say into one.

lmaopml

Zombrex wrote: »

Er, no. That is the exact opposite of what I'm saying.

Some of the Christians here as saying that if God commanded them to rape someone they wouldn't because they would judge that God wouldn't do that, that it is wrong to rape someone, it is not something God would do, and thus they would refuse to carry out such a command.

I'm pointing out that this breaks with the traditional notion that anything God commands is, by definition, right and moral.

You have been asked before, to point out where exactly God commanded 'rape' - you have not done so...but you base your arguement on the idea that he has!!!

God never commanded rape! Yes, I will without doubt understand that if you take one passage of Scripture on it's own and try to assign the ageless will of God to it, you could indeed paint a dark portrait - but that does not explain nor indeed hinder taking the biblical message as a whole, that includes the New Testament - The 'understanding' of everything before...

God never changed personality, he directs his will, he is just - One must read Scripture to understand it; from beginning to end, not be lazy...

Your approach is in my opinion lazy Zombrex, and lacking any kind of deep thought..although, perhaps I'm wrong...and the fact you are questioning so sincerely on the Christianity forum speaks for itself too.......I don't know....but you know what drives you too. I hope and pray that it's good things..