Why MT doesn't believe in this.

[Yanoda]

Can't devote much time here anymore.

Started working on my Thesis Paper, so I'm devoting my time and effort on this than here.
I'll see if I can find time to spare to spend 4 hours researching and writing up a post here.

Cheers

Yanoda

[Col. Hstar]

Just cleaning out my unread posts

Hey everyone. Come on up up and away to 100 pages. What's wrong why isn't anyone debating more.

Not everyone who posts here, just spits out whatever is on the top of their head. We take time to read and comment intelligently (as much as possible ) on each others posts

I don't think the last few posting have been about what you were saying. Darth Crater hates Honestar and Homestar hares Darth Crater.

Homestar even popped his stitches fighting with him That was a joke Col.

Ha Ha I actually was discussing different points from the bible with Wulfman, this ultimately comes back to what I was telling you about taking time to read the posts.
And would someone please, just please tell me how I hare Darth Crater?

Alright, since Homestar doesn't seem to grasp such basic points as that I'm using homosexuality as an example rather than discussing it directly, that a Bible passage talking about the murder of infants talks about killing without cause, or that even if we agreed on the abortion issue it wouldn't er...

I do "grasp" that you wanted to use them as examples and you don't want to discuss them directly. The discussing though was first between me and Wulfman, you interjected yourself into it, and I don't feel the need to debate abortion either or whether you agree with me on it. But the point was that you are accusing God of atrocities, like killing infants, while side stepping the issue of abortion, because it suits your argument. Guess what, abortion is the killing of infants too.

Ultimately this all comes down to whether or not we are going to accept God's authority and place in our lives. Some don't want him to have any place at all, so they claim there is no God, I personally respect his authority, that's my choice. Everyone has their own reasons, so we're all going to continue to believe what we will believe. Time will tell.

BTW @ Crater - If I have ever hared you in anyway, I apologize

EDIT - I don't think this has the steam needed to reach 100 pages

[Darth Crater]

If you understood that I was using homosexuality as just one example of personal traits that cause persecution, you would not have brought that "hate the act, not the person" stuff into it. I was not debating whether it is good or not. I was saying that homosexuals are persecuted, which is verifiable, and using that as a basis for my argument. If you'd prefer, I could point to the Holocaust victims, or to victims of natural disasters, or anyone at all who has ever suffered and died.

If I agreed that abortion was the killing of infants, it would have no bearing at all on the fact that the Bible justifies and does not condemn acts involving the killing of infants. Suppose, pending further research, I agree with you on abortion. From this standpoint: does, or does not, that passage indicate that God is willing to cause and allow the slaughter of infants?

Unfortunately, your reasoning is utterly backward on your final point. I believe there is no God, and thus I do not believe it has a place in our lives. It does not work the other way around - whether I want a god to have authority over my life has no effect on whether there is one. I'd love for there to be some omnipotent authority laying down rules for me to follow, but I don't see any. You should not base whether you believe something exists on whether you want it to exist.

[Col. Hstar]

If you understood that I was using homosexuality as just one example of personal traits that cause persecution, you would not have brought that "hate the act, not the person" stuff into it. I was not debating whether it is good or not. I was saying that homosexuals are persecuted, which is verifiable, and using that as a basis for my argument. If you'd prefer, I could point to the Holocaust victims, or to victims of natural disasters, or anyone at all who has ever suffered and died.
You still don't read what I said. It was a discussion Wulf and I were having, I was not responding to your views on homosexuality, please keep things in context

If I agreed that abortion was the killing of infants, it would have no bearing at all on the fact that the Bible justifies and does not condemn acts involving the killing of infants. Suppose, pending further research, I agree with you on abortion. From this standpoint: does, or does not, that passage indicate that God is willing to cause and allow the slaughter of infants?
No it does not show that god is causing and allowing the slaughter of infants, what it meant was that the people were no longer under his protection because of the choices they made. The consequences were that they would have to defend themselves against other armies that would come against them. That passage was a prediction, of what would happen to them at the mercy of other nations. Sort of like if I told a child, "if you don't listen to me and you run across the street, you'll get hit by a car" I'm not saying its ok or condoning a car hitting the child, a very simplistic example but it explains my point. The scripture is a warning of actions and consequences

Unfortunately, your reasoning is utterly backward on your final point. I believe there is no God, and thus I do not believe it has a place in our lives. It does not work the other way around - whether I want a god to have authority over my life has no effect on whether there is one. I'd love for there to be some omnipotent authority laying down rules for me to follow, but I don't see any. You should not base whether you believe something exists on whether you want it to exist. As I've said before, I believe in God, because of the evidence I see. You should not base whether you believe in something does not exist on whether you don't want it to exist

[Darth Crater]

You still don't read what I said. It was a discussion Wulf and I were having, I was not responding to your views on homosexuality, please keep things in context

I see. Let me return to the original point, then. Assume that the Christian god, as a consequence of creating the world, created homosexuals. Homosexuals are often tormented or killed (for religious reasons, though that's not relevant to the argument...). Why would a benevolent creator give humans a trait that results in harm to them?

what it meant was that the people were no longer under his protection because of the choices they made.

Exactly. He did not protect these people, and as a direct result, many infants were killed. Infants who had not made these choices, or had the opportunity to choose or to flee. In what way is this desirable?

As I've said before, I believe in God, because of the evidence I see. You should not base whether you believe in something does not exist on whether you don't want it to exist

Correcting for grammatical error, you seem to be in agreement with me on belief here. Let's restate it more generally: "How badly you want a belief to be true or false has no bearing on whether you should believe it". You were implying that I chose not to believe because I did not want God to exist, which suggests a misunderstanding of informed atheism. Hopefully this is now cleared up. (Note that there are probably some people who do think in that way - people who hold a belief don't always do so for the right reasons)

If we are both rational, or relatively so (it's hard for humans, and I'm far from perfect), then we should come to the same conclusion given the same evidence. What evidence do you see, which I have not, that favors an involved creator?

[Col. Hstar]

I see. Let me return to the original point, then. Assume that the Christian god, as a consequence of creating the world, created homosexuals. Homosexuals are often tormented or killed (for religious reasons, though that's not relevant to the argument...). Why would a benevolent creator give humans a trait that results in harm to them?

The Bible doesn’t comment on the biology of homosexuals, although it acknowledges that some traits are deeply ingrained - 2 Corinthians 10:4 Even if some are oriented toward the same sex, the Bible tells Christians to shun homosexual acts. I'm not going to get into a debate with you about the causes of homosexuality but I want to make this comparison. Many claim that violent behavior can have a genetic root and that as a result, some people are predisposed to it. The Bible condemns fits of anger. Is that standard unfair just because some may be inclined toward violence?

As far as people being tormented or killed because of their sexual orientation, you can refer back to the answer I gave Wulfman. And yes some religions promote discrimination, but that is a misguided ill informed view of how the Bible says a Christian should conduct themselves. The Bible says: ‘Honor men of all sorts’ or ‘Respect everyone.’ -1 Peter 2:17

Exactly. He did not protect these people, and as a direct result, many infants were killed. Infants who had not made these choices, or had the opportunity to choose or to flee. In what way is this desirable?

Just to be clear, this is the scripture I am assuming that you refer to - Leviticus 26:27-30. I'll cut and paste what I wrote earlier and then elaborate:
The beginning part of Leviticus 26 speaks of what blessing the Israelite people would enjoy if they followed the God's laws, this scripture points out the consequences that would arise if the left off and abandoned following God. He would abandon them. This happened in 607 BCE when God abandoned Israel. When the city came under siege by the Babylonians this cause a great famine, people inside resorted to cannibalistic ways. Disgusting yes, but not God's doing. It was the result of Israel breaking the Convent they had with God
Keep in mind that the book of Leviticus was written around 1512 B.C.E, it was a book of the laws that the people were to follow and that scripture, pointed out a warning of the things that would happen if Israel left God. Let me repeat that, If they left God. Let's assume you have a child, while that child lives with you in your house you have rules they must abide by. When the son/daughter grows up, and no longer wants to live by your rules they leave and move out. Are you then still responsible for what happens to them? If they have a child and something bad happens to the child, are you the guilty one? Of course not.

Correcting for grammatical error

Uh thanks? How about you respond to comments without becoming an elitist arrogant poo. Oops this must be what Bueno refers to as my hare for you

you seem to be in agreement with me on belief here. Let's restate it more generally: "How badly you want a belief to be true or false has no bearing on whether you should believe it". You were implying that I chose not to believe because I did not want God to exist, which suggests a misunderstanding of informed atheism. Hopefully this is now cleared up. (Note that there are probably some people who do think in that way - people who hold a belief don't always do so for the right reasons)

So if I understand you right Your saying your belief is more logical because you add the word "informed" to it Both Atheism and Christianity are beliefs that require a degree of faith, because no one has all the answers. Dress it up however you like, but it's still a belief and not a fact.

If we are both rational, or relatively so (it's hard for humans, and I'm far from perfect), then we should come to the same conclusion given the same evidence. What evidence do you see, which I have not, that favors an involved creator?

Yes we are both rational by the definition that we are both "endowed with the faculty of reason." The problem though it that we both feel that the others beliefs are irrational As far as giving proof again, I could cut an paste a lot of the posts that I have left before or you could go back and look. I would start with my post on page 65, 3rd post down. We can make this a circular topic. Then we'll be sure to reach page 100

[Darth Crater]

Uh thanks? How about you respond to comments without becoming an elitist arrogant poo.

As soon as you actually respond to any of my points, I'll get right on that.

For the final time - the homosexuality was an example. This means that it was not, in fact, the basis of my argument. Let me attempt to restate it. You claim the Christian god created the universe, and thus humanity. Many humans are born with conditions that, for one reason or another, cause them to suffer. For example, some are born with mental deficiencies (such as Down's), physical deformities, or more subtle flaws like hemophilia. Why, if the creator was benevolent, would he allow these things to occur?

I'm not talking about Leviticus, or about children growing up. Since you can't be bothered to go back two pages despite constantly demanding I do so, here's the scripture in question again:

Whoever is captured will be thrust through; all who are caught will fall by the sword. Their infants will be dashed to pieces before their eyes; their houses will be looted and their wives violated. See, I will stir up against them the Medes, who do not care for silver and have no delight in gold. Their bows will strike down the young men; they will have no mercy on infants, nor will they look with compassion on children.

This line, by your own admission, states that God is allowing the murder of infants who have done nothing wrong. Why would a benevolent deity allow this?

I meant "rational" more in the sense of "forms beliefs based on evidence". This is really a subset of the "rational" in Game Theory, which means someone who acts for maximum benefit to themselves. Since true beliefs provide better predictions than false ones, rational people want to ensure their beliefs are true. They're not fighting for any particular belief, but to discover the most accurate belief. The best way they can do so is by judging beliefs on how well they fit the available evidence and how well they predict new results. Since evidence is the same regardless of the observer, all rational entities observing the evidence will come to the same conclusion. (Not really relevant to the argument, this paragraph - just laying some thoughts out, though any corrections are welcome)

I believe everything in the mentioned post has been satisfactorily refuted, and thus is not valid evidence. That you have not dismissed it and reconsidered your beliefs accordingly suggests one of the following:
-You are fundamentally irrational, unwilling to change your mind regardless of evidence (or willing to twist what you view as valid evidence to fit your favored belief), and useless to debate with any longer.
-You are unwilling or unable to fully read my posts for some reason, and are not actually absorbing the evidence. Also useless to continue debating, though I might be able to fix this by putting things in simpler terms.
-You have counterarguments you have not given, which disprove my (and Yanoda's) points. In this case I desperately need to continue the debate, so that I can hear and consider them.

Considering my time isn't worth much right now, I have to gamble that it's the third, at least long enough for you to reiterate your arguments and me to find any applicable counterarguments. We also both need to minimize the possibility of miscommunication. Would you mind reposting any evidence you still believe favors the existence of a deity who both created the universe, and involved itself measurably after its creation?

[theavengers85]

Ok, I really wanted to stay out of this discussion and stick to science, but I have to throw this in.

Darth Crater, what you are touching on is the problem of evil in the world. The basic question is this: if God is all powerful and all loving, why is there evil?

This is a messy question to answer, and a perfect one doesn't exist. The best answer is that God allows free choice in the world, and people often do chose to do bad things, which He permits for reasons unknown to us.

But if I may, let me ask you some questions. If I am correct in assuming you take an athiestic view of the world (correct me if I am wrong), then you take a strictly physical/material approach (matter is all that is important, supernatural does not exist).

In your system, why is it wrong for infants to be killed? What makes that wrong? Doesn't survival of the fittest imply that the weaker ones will die so that only the strong survive? Where does the concept of "wrong" come from? Was it produced by the Big Bang? Any why is it wrong for there to be deformities if evolution predicts that this will happen.

Note: I am not in the least implying that any athiest takes a ruthless view of the world (I hope not at anyrate), but I would like to know where your concept of morals/ethics/right-wrong come from.


And yes Bueno, much thought goes into these posts.

[Col. Hstar]

As soon as you actually respond to any of my points, I'll get right on that.

And until then you continue sounding like a douche I joke of course, except when I'm really serious, which is some of the time but not all.

For the final time - the homosexuality was an example. This means that it was not, in fact, the basis of my argument. Let me attempt to restate it. You claim the Christian god created the universe, and thus humanity. Many humans are born with conditions that, for one reason or another, cause them to suffer. For example, some are born with mental deficiencies (such as Down's), physical deformities, or more subtle flaws like hemophilia. Why, if the creator was benevolent, would he allow these things to occur?

I know your using it just as an example, I'm showing you it's a bad example.
I am thinking your question is more along the lines of why has God created or allowed humans to suffer. I am willing to answer this, let me know if this is the thrust of your question though before I spend time with a long post. And I do have an explanation to offer, I must disagree with Cypher that the reasons for suffering are unknown to us.

I'm not talking about Leviticus, or about children growing up. Since you can't be bothered to go back two pages despite constantly demanding I do so, here's the scripture in question again:

Whoever is captured will be thrust through; all who are caught will fall by the sword. Their infants will be dashed to pieces before their eyes; their houses will be looted and their wives violated. See, I will stir up against them the Medes, who do not care for silver and have no delight in gold. Their bows will strike down the young men; they will have no mercy on infants, nor will they look with compassion on children.

This line, by your own admission, states that God is allowing the murder of infants who have done nothing wrong. Why would a benevolent deity allow this?

I see, my bad I didn't see that post at first. In essence though it is the same explanation. God is prophesying what will happen to the Babylonians who have captured his people. Isaiah was written 200 years before this particular prophesy came true. So it's a warning for the Babylonians, who themselves treated God's people harshly and with cruelty. It was also a promise of salvation for his own people, God was letting them know that he would free them from captivity.
Now as far as the Infant's being killed, that guilt laid solely on the armies of the Medes and the Persians. If you were to call the police on somebody who was doing wrong, and through the course of events that person is mistreated by the police officer, are you guilty because of the officers actions? No that's irrational. War waged by humans was very indiscriminate back then, as it still is today. Or do you think that the carpet bombings of Nazi Germany, and the atomic bombing of Hiroshima only affected military personnel?

I believe everything in the mentioned post has been satisfactorily refuted, and thus is not valid evidence. That you have not dismissed it and reconsidered your beliefs accordingly suggests one of the following:
-You are fundamentally irrational, unwilling to change your mind regardless of evidence (or willing to twist what you view as valid evidence to fit your favored belief), and useless to debate with any longer.
-You are unwilling or unable to fully read my posts for some reason, and are not actually absorbing the evidence. Also useless to continue debating, though I might be able to fix this by putting things in simpler terms.
-You have counterarguments you have not given, which disprove my (and Yanoda's) points. In this case I desperately need to continue the debate, so that I can hear and consider them.

Oh I see, so since you believe that you have refuted it and I haven't said "OH MY WHISKERS YOUR RIGHT!!! I WAS TOTALLY WRONG" then I must be the irrational one. Bravo.

Except, you didn't respond to the section where I gave an argument for creation. I might have missed it, can you point it out to me, did you explain how DNA molecules came about by chance?

Considering my time isn't worth much right now, I have to gamble that it's the third, at least long enough for you to reiterate your arguments and me to find any applicable counterarguments. We also both need to minimize the possibility of miscommunication. Would you mind reposting any evidence you still believe favors the existence of a deity who both created the universe, and involved itself measurably after its creation?

No, I'm not going to re post everything all over again, if you want to re-argue points from before knock yourself out.
I will restate my position though:
No er what arguments we make, creation/evolution, God exists/doesn't exist we both have to answer one question before moving on to anything else. "How did it all start?" Whether Big bang theory, or God's creation of the universe, what set everything in motion? The bottom line is that NO ONE has the definitive answer based on "physical" evidence.
My beliefs are that God started thing in motion, I base this on evidence I get from my observations of life and "creation" and my studies of the Bible. A book that I know you feel is untrustworthy, but I feel it is, (If that's something you wish to debate, it's fine by me)
You base your beliefs only on the limited physical evidence we have at hand, since you see none of a creator, you decide not to believe in him. And I do not say limited evidence in a diminishing sense or to put down the basis for your beliefs. But I say it as a fact. We just don't have all the evidence to say, how things started. You must then believe that the answer is out there we just haven't proven it yet, because how else would you answer the very first question. What caused everything to begin?

[Darth Crater]

And until then you continue sounding like a douche I joke of course, except when I'm really serious, which is some of the time but not all.

I assure you it's not intentional. Except when it is, which is some of the time but not all. I should try to moderate my tone, though - let me know if anything continues to offend you personally.

If I am correct in assuming you take an athiestic view of the world (correct me if I am wrong), then you take a strictly physical/material approach (matter is all that is important, supernatural does not exist).

Both correct. I see no evidence for the existence of the Christian god, any other deity, or souls. I am open to evidence that would change these beliefs, but do not think I will discover any.

Note: I am not in the least implying that any athiest takes a ruthless view of the world (I hope not at anyrate), but I would like to know where your concept of morals/ethics/right-wrong come from.

It pretty much goes like this: Life is good. Death is bad. Pleasure is good. Pain is bad. Maximize life and pleasure. Minimize or eliminate pain and death. (Bonus points for pointing out which work of fiction I borrowed the exact wording from!) In addition, while I'm pretty much required to value myself over any one other, humans are broadly similar and should be treated the same until they cause unnecessary pain or death to others. None of this is dictated by any external force, though. It's what I have come to believe over time, based on what I've seen and read. It's something that I believe would result in a ideal world if adopted by the whole of humanity. It is absolutely changeable, if I can be convinced that another system is better.

Now, it's more of an ideal - something to aim for - than a rigid code to live by. Ideally I would include most animals with a degree of sentience in "human", but I'm not going vegetarian just because they don't have cloned meat yet. Ideally I would send any spare money to a charity (or even better, we'd be past the concept of "money" altogether), but I naturally prioritize myself and people I know over statistics. I do, however, avoid harming others whenever possible.

In your system, why is it wrong for infants to be killed? What makes that wrong? Doesn't survival of the fittest imply that the weaker ones will die so that only the strong survive? Where does the concept of "wrong" come from? Was it produced by the Big Bang? Any why is it wrong for there to be deformities if evolution predicts that this will happen.

It is wrong for infants to be killed because they are human. I do not want any humans to unnecessarily die. The concept of "wrong" comes first from oneself, and second from society. I feel that killing infants is bad, and most people are like me, so we agree that killing infants is wrong. It is merely a social construct, something we agree on - there's no "wrong particle", "sin", or any related measurable force. If you want to change what society considers wrong, argue that something is or is not bad.

Survival of the fittest does not need to apply to humanity - it's a slow, inefficient, stumbling natural process. If we want to make humanity better, we can do it voluntarily, with our own methods. It is not "wrong" for there to be deformities, merely unfortunate. They are an imperfection, one that I was arguing a benevolent creator would not have made, but a deformed human is still human.

Any glaring flaws you can see in this system? If so, I should reconsider and possibly modify it to account for those.

If you were to call the police on somebody who was doing wrong, and through the course of events that person is mistreated by the police officer, are you guilty because of the officers actions?

If you knew beforehand that the officer would mistreat them? Yes, absolutely. You knowingly took an action that caused it to happen. In this case, since God took the action of doing nothing, infants were slaughtered. He knew this would happen, and could have prevented it without incurring a greater cost, but did not. I'm fairly certain this fits most people's definitions of "evil".

did you explain how DNA molecules came about by chance?

I thought I had. Short answer: abiogenesis - natural chemical processes, over a long period of time. Long answer: I'm not an evolutionary biologist (I could try to find someone with more experience if you want), but here's the commonly accepted explanation. Every process in the formation of RNA (DNA is basically just a mutation that came later) is a natural chemical process that was possible in the conditions of the early Earth. Chemicals combine into what we now call "organic molecules", and eventually some sort of self-replicating proteins. Over the vast amounts of time and space on Earth, it's possible that RNA or something similar came into existence several times. Once, it managed to survive and reproduce enough to become the ancestor of all life we know. (Other possibilities include the "panspermia" theory, in which life formed on another planet and was carried here by meteorites. Evidence of extrasolar life might lead us to favor this over local abiogenesis.)

What caused everything to begin?

I have absolutely no clue. Nobody has any clue. We have no evidence about anything before the Big Bang, and no way to gather evidence. It could have been created by a deity. It could be colliding branes, some sort of cyclic universe, or there could have been absolutely nothing. There is probably exactly one answer, but we might never know what that is, and I certainly don't think I'll ever find out.

Now, I don't see how this relates to anything after the Big Bang, which we do have very real evidence for. Pick whatever you like as an explanation for the universe's origin, but without evidence, don't use it to justify anything.

I would love to see evidence about anything before then, but I don't think anyone has convincingly provided any. The Bible is at best circular, and is mutually contradictory with most other religious traditions (yes, I'm willing to discuss the Bible's credibility in detail if necessary). Evidence for a being manipulating things within the universe (which I've also seen none of) would not also be evidence that said being had the ability to create the universe, or that said being followed the pattern of the Christian god specifically.