 |
|
|
|
 A Santeria oricha, similar to a saint, in Trinidad, Cuba.
June 9th, 2012
04:00 AM ET
My Take: Cuban cars, Santeria, and the spirit of improvisation
By Stephen Prothero, Special to CNN (CNN) - On a recent trip to Cuba, I was surprised to see so many classic cars. I knew Havana was famous for its 1950s Fords, Chevrolets, and Oldsmobiles, but I had no idea how prevalent “cacharros” were in small towns and big cities alike. When I asked a friend, the proud owner of a 1953 Ford, how Cubans kept all these cars running, he told me that they make things up as they go along. But this spirit of improvisation isn’t limited to adapting blender parts for your Mercedes-Benz engine. It’s evident in Cuban music, the Cuban economy and the Cuban-born religion of Santeria. Santeria came to the attention of Americans through a landmark Supreme Court case, Church of Lukumi Babalu Aye v. City of Hialeah (1993). After Hialeah, Florida, passed ordinances banning animal sacrifice (a common practice in Santeria), church members sued, arguing that the law was intended to specifically target them. The Supreme Court found in the church’s favor, writing that “the ordinances had as their object the suppression of religion.” Santeria is often described as a mix of Roman Catholicism and the religious traditions of the Yoruba people of West Africa. And in this religion, most of the “orichas” to whom Cubans give their devotion also have Catholic names. CNN’s Belief Blog: The faith angles behind the biggest stories For example, Ochun, the patron oricha of Cuba, is also Our Lady of Charity. And Yemalla, an oricha associated with water and fertility and the tides, has been syncretized into la Virgin de Regla. While in Trinidad, a cobblestoned town in the Sancti Spiritus province in central Cuba, my daughter and I had a long conversation with a Santeria priest at a shrine devoted to Yemalla. He said that every oricha is associated with various numbers, foods, colors, etc. Yemalla’s colors are blue and white, in keeping with her association with the sea. Her favorite fruit is the watermelon. And her number is seven. But what this santero (as Santeria priests are called) really wanted to tell us was that Santeria is not a cult. Many criticize Santeria for its use of animal sacrifice, he told us, but sacrifice is a part of every religion. In the Bible, what do Mary and Joseph do after Jesus is born? They take him to the temple in Jerusalem and sacrifice two pigeons, he said. Even the Catholic Mass is a form of sacrifice, though in this case what is offered up are bread and wine. Follow the CNN Belief Blog on Twitter Cuba is supposed to be both secular and socialist. In reality, it is neither, at least not in pure form. Just about everyone I met was working some sort of angle for money in excess of the meager salaries they earned in their real jobs. And even when the Cuban government denounced religion as an enemy of its Marxist-Leninist state, Cubans found ways to practice their Catholicism or their Santeria (or both). More than any other country I have visited, Cuba is a nation of improvisers. The opinions expressed in this commentary are solely those of Stephen Prothero. |
  About this blog
The CNN Belief Blog covers the faith angles of the day's biggest stories, from breaking news to politics to entertainment, fostering a global conversation about the role of religion and belief in readers' lives. It's edited by CNN's Daniel Burke with contributions from Eric Marrapodi and CNN's worldwide news gathering team.  |
|
|
|
Editor's Note: Stephen Prothero, a Boston University religion scholar and author of 
I tried the tooth fairy experiment. Turns out my mommy is the tooth fairy! And my daddy is Santa Claus! I'm so proud I could bust!
Prayer changes things .
Prayer doesn’t not; you are such a LIAR. You have NO proof it changes anything! A great example of prayer proven not to work is the Christians in jail because prayer didn't work and their children died. For example: Susan Grady, who relied on prayer to heal her son. Nine-year-old Aaron Grady died and Susan Grady was arrested.
An article in the Journal of Pediatrics examined the deaths of 172 children from families who relied upon faith healing from 1975 to 1995. They concluded that four out of five ill children, who died under the care of faith healers or being left to prayer only, would most likely have survived if they had received medical care.
The statistical studies from the nineteenth century and the three CCU studies on prayer are quite consistent with the fact that humanity is wasting a huge amount of time on a procedure that simply doesn’t work. Nonetheless, faith in prayer is so pervasive and deeply rooted, you can be sure believers will continue to devise future studies in a desperate effort to confirm their beliefs!.!.
Prove a god began the universe, Chad. Otherwise, you're dead in the water.
One of Chad's most ardent followers is rachel the atheist who just can't seem to get enough of him 😉
I'm an ardent believer. Chad has a big dick. That's all I need to believe in.
@Rachel
You said, "I'm an ardent believer. Chad has a big dick. That's all I need to believe in."
Do you believe in Santa, too? 😉
I see Chad's big dick, every night he isn't with his boy toy. I can see it; therefore it exists. Unlike God, which doesn't.
Kindness
For you.
A thought to consider without an ego response
Accept Jesus christ as your lord and saviour. You never know how soon is too late. Transcend the worldly illusion of enslavement.
The world denounces truth....
Accepting Jesus Christ (for me) resulted in something like seeng a new colour. You will see it .....but will not be able to clearly explain it to anyone else..... Its meant to be that way to transend any selfism within you.
Also... much the world arranges "surrounding dark matter into something to be debated" in such a way that protects/inflates the ego.
The key is be present and transcend our own desire to physically see evidence. We don't know anyways by defending our own perception of dark matter.
Currently.... most of us are constructing our own path that suits our sin lifestyle. Were all sinners. Knowing that we are is often an issue. But both christians and non are sinners.
We don't like to Let go and let god. We want control to some degree. This is what Jesus asks us to do. "Follow me".
It's the hardest thing to do... but is done by letting the truth of scripture lead you (redemptive revelation)... as I said .
Try reading corinthians and see if it makes sense to you. Try it without a pre conceived notion of it being a fairy tale.
See the truth...
do we do what it says in todays society... is it relevant... so many have not recently read and only hinge their philosophy on what they have heard from som other person...which may have been full of arogance pride or vanity..
Look closely at the economy ponzi, look at how society idolizes Lust , greed , envy, sloth, pride of life, desire for knowledge, desire for power, desire for revencge,gluttony with food etc .
Trancsend the temporal world.
Just think if you can find any truth you can take with you ....in any of these things. When you die your riches go to someone who will spend away your life..... You will be forgotten.... history will repeat iteslf.... the greatest minds knowledge fade or are eventually plagerzed..... your good deeds will be forgotten and only give you a fleeting temporary reward . your learned teachings are forgotten or mutated..... your gold is transfered back to the rullers that rule you through deception. Your grave will grow over . This is truth .
Trancsend your egoism and free yourself from this dominion of satan. Understand you are a sinner and part of the collective problem of this worldly matrix... Repent.... Repent means knowing (to change) The Holy spirit (within) will convict you beyond what you think you can do by yourself. Grace is given to those who renounce the world. That are" in" the world but not "of " the world.
Evidence follows faith. Faith does not follow evidence..... Faith above reason in Jesus Christ.
Faith comes by Reading or Hearing the word of god from the bible . Ask Jesus in faith for dicernment and start reading the new testament... You will be shocked when you lay down your preconceived notions and ....see and hear truth ... see how christ sets an example ... feel the truth....
Read Ecclesiastes. Read corinthians.
You cant trancend your own egoism by adapting a world philosophy to suit your needs. Seek the truth in Christ.
Sell all your cleverness and purchase true bewilderment. You don't get what you want ....you get what you are in christ.
I promise this has been the truth for me. In Jesus christ .
Think of what you really have to lose. ...your ego?
Break the Matrix of illusion that holds your senses captive.
once you do . you too will have the wisdom of God that comes only through the Holy Spirit. Saved By grace through Faith. Just like seeing a new colour.... can't explain it to a transient caught in the matrix of worldly deception.
You will also see how the world suppresses this information and distorts it
You're all smart people . I tell the truth. Its hard to think out of the box when earthly thinking is the box.
I'ts a personal free experience you can do it free anytime . Don't wait till you are about to die.. START PUTTING YOUR TREASURES WHERE THEY REALLY MATTER >
Its awsome and It's just between you and Jesus
my testimony
Romans 10:9
"If you confess with your mouth that Jesus is Lord and believe in your heart that God raised Him from the dead, you will be saved."
Only for the new members of this blog:
Solving the issues in less than 100 words. This is so easy one wonders why it took so long: (from a PowerPoint slide)
SAVING 1.5 BILLION LOST MUSLIMS:
THERE NEVER WERE AND NEVER WILL BE ANY ANGELS I.E. NO GABRIEL, NO ISLAM AND THEREFORE NO MORE KORANIC-DRIVEN ACTS OF HORROR AND TERROR LIKE 9/11 AND NO MORE SUNNI/SHIITE CONFLICTS.
SAVING 2 BILLION LOST CHRISTIANS:
THERE WERE NEVER ANY BODILY RESURRECTIONS AND THERE WILL NEVER BE ANY BODILY RESURRECTIONS I.E. NO EASTER, NO CHRISTIANITY AND THEREFORE NO MORE VATICAN COVERUPS AND NO MORE CONFLICTS WITH NUNS.
SAVING 15.5 MILLION FOLLOWERS OF JUDAISM:
ABRAHAM AND MOSES PROBABLY NEVER EXISTED.
(prob•a•bly
Adverb: Almost certainly; as far as one knows or can tell.)
Added details upon request.
===========================================================================================
Ache .. Nice and informative Site Also Take a look at http://miyoruba.com the also have helpful information about the religion
MOBY
It is quite impossible for anything which obeys physical laws to get past the 5 rational senses. If it does however it cannot by-pass the measuring instruments based on them so long as they exist!
I'm sorry Nii but my visual cortex is torn between visually seen things and daydream aspirations along with night shade dreaming. Sometimes I get lost in visualizations of the imagined making realities. Truth is much stranger than physical assumptions!
Chad, the burden of proof is on the person who makes a claim that something exists. Not the person who says otherwise. You really are unbelievably stupid.
as to reply in the wrong place?
yet YOU believe that God(with a capital G) DOESNT EXIST leaving out the other gods.
That makes a very bold statement
The burden of proof is on the person making the claim.
If an atheists says they have a belief that God does not exist, do they have a burden of proof?
No, you idiot. They don't. Get it? The burden is on you. Pretend to be stupid, Chard. It won't be a difficult act for you to carry off.
So, you are saying that if an atheist says "God does not exist", that it is up to the theist to prove them wrong, otherwise they are right?
well, the one thing that never ceases to amaze me, is the irrationality of the theist position.
1) why embrace a position that can't prove its central claim? It makes no sense..
2) why do theists take this irrational stance based on virtually zero understanding of the basic function of logic: that the burden of proof rests on the claimant, and skepticism to unproven claims is the correct and logical position?
Christians like to say "Why do you presume there's no god," or "You can't prove a negative" as if that somehow negates who has the burden of proof and that somehow skepticism of an unproven claim somehow translates to needing to prove a negative.
irrational, to say the least..
Tom, you just aren’t making sense. If you make the claim, “God does not exist,” you should have some justification for that. Or are you taking it on faith alone? 🙂
@Chad
You said, "So, you are saying that if an atheist says "God does not exist", that it is up to the theist to prove them wrong, otherwise they are right?"
Most atheists will not make that claim, but even if they did, they'd probably be correct. And, yes, those that make the bat shit crazy claims get to back them up with evidence.
It's the theists that claim that they have a magic friend. Anybody sane, can summarily dismiss that nonsense until evidence is provided. Unless there is evidence, your friend is on the exact same footing as any imaginary one. Your god is equally likely to exist as the Tooth Fairy, but less likely than Loch Ness Monster.
No, you stupid git. Try it this way, if you can manage to move your lips while reading: I don't believe in leprechauns. Can you prove they exist?
Idiot. Go sit on the retard bench with Chard. You're both idiots.
@DB
You said, "Tom, you just aren’t making sense. If you make the claim, “God does not exist,” you should have some justification for that. Or are you taking it on faith alone?"
Would you say that the Tooth Fairy "doesn't exist", or "isn't likely to exist"? I'm guessing you'd readily pick the former.
The complete and utter lack of even a hint of evidence suggesting there are any gods, makes the claim "gods don't exist" a reasonable position. Although not supported by direct evidence, it is unlikely to ever be shown untrue. It is far more reasonable than the claim that there are gods.
@LinCA,
But most atheists DO make the claim “God does not exist,” and they live their lives accordingly. Moreover, they make the claim with apparently unjustifiable certi-tude. If we make the claim ‘the tooth fairy does not exist,” we CAN prove that claim. We could, conceivably, place freshly pulled baby teeth under several thousands or even millions of pillows and place night vision cameras in those bedrooms. We could then examine the video and check underneath the pillows in the morning. The tooth fairy, in accordance with his nature, would have picked up those teeth and left some cash. If that did not happen, we could conclude with certainty that the tooth fairy (insofar as a tooth fairy is a being who takes baby teeth left under pillows and leaves some money in return), does not exist.
The theist position is the POSITIVE position: X exists, where X = God
The atheist position is the negative or SKEPTICAL position: X does not exist, because X has not been proved to exist.
I'm comfortable saying "god does not exist," as a simplification of the skeptical of X claim. We don't go around qualifying our negative claims about Santa's existence.
@DB
You said, "But most atheists DO make the claim “God does not exist,” and they live their lives accordingly."
I don't have any statistics, but most atheists I know don't exclude the infinitesimal small possibility that there are gods. The christian god can be readily dismissed as nonexistent as it typically is said to have contradictory traits.
You said, "Moreover, they make the claim with apparently unjustifiable certi-tude. If we make the claim ‘the tooth fairy does not exist,” we CAN prove that claim. We could, conceivably, place freshly pulled baby teeth under several thousands or even millions of pillows and place night vision cameras in those bedrooms. We could then examine the video and check underneath the pillows in the morning. The tooth fairy, in accordance with his nature, would have picked up those teeth and left some cash. If that did not happen, we could conclude with certainty that the tooth fairy (insofar as a tooth fairy is a being who takes baby teeth left under pillows and leaves some money in return), does not exist."
That wouldn't prove that the Tooth Fairy doesn't exist, it would make it highly unlikely. I accept that the Tooth Fairy doesn't exist, because it is a man made fantasy creature, just like all gods.
But if you accept your experiment to prove that the Tooth Fairy doesn't exist, it shouldn't be that hard to convince yourself there are no gods, either. Get your buddies together and pray for your god to place some money under those pillows. Check your videos the next morning. If there was no one in the room, and there is money, you may have had a divine intervention. If there isn't any money, it should prove your god doesn't exist (per your criteria).
@Moby Schtick
Didnt we do this exact thing on a different thread?
in any case:
=======================
In summary:
Can the position be proven:
– atheism: no, by definition the negative can not be proven
– theism: yes, by definition the positive can be proven
Has the position been proven:
– atheism: no, see above. It is impossible by definition to prove a negative
– theism: a) to billions of people, over the past 4 thousand years the answer is irrefutably yes. It has been proven
--b) There is ample evidence (origin of the universe, origin of life, fine tuning for life,
-- resurrection of Jesus Christ) to warrant investigation into the claims.
--c) the vast majority of atheists have not done any serious investigation into these root issues, so remain
-- ignorant to reality.
and, to re-iterate: when you're the one making the claim, you have the burden of proof: The fact that your claim is impossible to prove is irrelevant, you still have the burden. If you dont like the burden of an impossible position, dont adopt it
@Moby Schtick "Atheists don't need to prove that god does not exist to believe that he doesn't."
@LinCA "christian god can be readily dismissed as nonexistent as it typically is said to have contradictory traits."
@Chad "looks like you are saying that God doesnt exist, and that you have what you believe is some data to back that claim up..
what is that data?
@Chad
You said, "@Chad "looks like you are saying that God doesnt exist, and that you have what you believe is some data to back that claim up.."
Are you quoting yourself, or are you asking me to substantiate your assumptions about my beliefs? If you are quoting yourself, it must have been from a different conversation as it isn't in this thread. If you are asking whether I claim there are no gods, the answer is "no, I don't make that claim".
You said, "what is that data?"
It's the complete and utter lack of data supporting the existence of gods, that makes belief in them rather silly. Without any evidence to back up the existence of a creature, you've got to be particularly gullible to believe in them.
@LinCA "christian god can be readily dismissed as nonexistent as it typically is said to have contradictory traits."
=>I thought you said that God could be dismissed because of contradictory traits?
I must have read that somewhere else.. sorry.
@LinCA
”I don't have any statistics, but most atheists I know don't exclude the infinitesimal small possibility that there are gods.”
Then those atheists might be better defined as agnostics.
“The christian god can be readily dismissed as nonexistent as it typically is said to have contradictory traits.”
You’d have to specify those perceived contradictions.
“That wouldn't prove that the Tooth Fairy doesn't exist, it would make it highly unlikely.”
But I think it would prove that the tooth fairy doesn’t exist, because a being that DOES NOT collect baby teeth from underneath children’s pillows and leave money behind IS NOT the tooth fairy. It would contradict the TF’s nature to NOT collect the teeth because that’s how the TF is defined.
“I accept that the Tooth Fairy doesn't exist…”
I would hope so.
“But if you accept your experiment to prove that the Tooth Fairy doesn't exist, it shouldn't be that hard to convince yourself there are no gods, either. Get your buddies together and pray for your god to place some money under those pillows. Check your videos the next morning. If there was no one in the room, and there is money, you may have had a divine intervention. If there isn't any money, it should prove your god doesn't exist (per your criteria).”
An unanswered prayer would not disprove the existence of God. It would only prove that prayers don’t always get answered. There is nothing about unanswered prayer that contradicts the nature of God.
@Chad
You said, "=>I thought you said that God could be dismissed because of contradictory traits?"
I did. The christian god can't exists as it is logically impossible to be both omniscient and omnipotent. Either trait makes the other impossible.
@Lin "The christian god can't exists as it is logically impossible to be both omniscient and omnipotent. Either trait makes the other impossible."
please elaborate.
@DB
You said, "Then those atheists might be better defined as agnostics."
Atheism and agnosticism aren't mutually exclusive. I happen to be both. Theism is about belief in gods, or the lack thereof (atheism). Gnosticism is about knowledge, or the lack thereof (agnosticism).
I don't have any knowledge about gods, hence I'm agnostic. But because there is no factual knowledge, I don't believe the stories about them, hence I'm an atheist.
You said, "You’d have to specify those perceived contradictions."
See above in my reply to Chad.
You said, "An unanswered prayer would not disprove the existence of God. It would only prove that prayers don’t always get answered. There is nothing about unanswered prayer that contradicts the nature of God."
Because the real Tooth Fairy doesn't always leave money under the pillows of children, their parent take over that job. Same difference.
@DB
I said, "The christian god can't exists as it is logically impossible to be both omniscient and omnipotent. Either trait makes the other impossible."
You said, "please elaborate"
A god that is omniscient, would know his own future and would therefor be bound by it. If he knows what will happen, he can't change it. If on the other hand, this god has the power to do as he pleases, he won't be able to know exactly what will happen. Omniscience and omnipotence are therefor mutually exclusive. Any god that is claimed to have those traits, doesn't exist.
@LinCA "I did. The christian god can't exists as it is logically impossible to be both omniscient and omnipotent. Either trait makes the other impossible."
Now, in the english language, you just claimed that the God of Abraham doesnt exist.
just getting that straight..
@Chad
Yes, the one making the positive claim is making a claim that can be proven. Theism can be proven. It hasn't been proven, so the skeptic's position of disbelief is more logical than the believer's position. Atheism can't be proven, but it is the more logical position since it is a skeptical position in response to a positive position that lacks verifiable evidence.
No, theism hasn't been proven. It is a successful idea in that it has caught on quite well, but ideas that "catch on" are often wrong. That the sky is a dome, for example, or that the sun and moon revolve around the earth. Both sensible ideas if you don't have fairly sophisticated tools for proving otherwise.
No, there is not "ample evidence" for fine tuning. Fine tuning assumes a "tuner," that has not been proven.
No, the vast majority of atheists have not done "serious investigation" into these "root issues," because there's nothing to investigate if there's nothing to measure. If you can figure out a way to measure the claims you discuss, let us know. For example, "intelligent design." "Intelligent design" is a conclusion, not a testable theory. For "intelligent design" to be a viable theory, there'd have to be a method to test for it. Since ID proponents claim that EVERYTHING was designed, then the distinction loses all meaning. If everything is designed, there's no way to test the theory. If everything was white, you wouldn't know it, because you'd have nothing "non-white" to contrast with "whiteness." Same for ID.
The god believers are the one making the claim. I'm not making a claim when I say "god doesn't exist," I'm saving time. I'm only able to say "god doesn't exist," because you and others hold to the idea of god. If you didn't have the idea of god, my statement would be meaningless. The god believer holds the positive claim; thus, it is his task to prove his claim. I am justified in being skeptical until you do, and logic is on my side in that skepticism. If you want to fault me for making the skeptical position into a claim that can't be justified because you can't first justify your claim that god exist, then have fun chasing those "turtles all the way down." Frankly, I don't care what you think of my "claim" that god doesn't exist. If you could show verifiable evidence of your claim, you'd make my claim look stupid, and you'd not have to play your silly word games where you try to make logic seem to be what it isn't so that you can feel better about shirking your responsibility to provide proof for your positive position.
Yes, in short, though you refuse to try to understand it: "Atheists don't need to prove that god does not exist to believe that he doesn't."
@Chad
You said, "Now, in the english language, you just claimed that the God of Abraham doesnt exist."
Of course. In the form most often described, the dude is a figment. An imaginary friend.
But just because your god doesn't exist, doesn't mean no gods can.
Fantastic work, LinCA. Logic has a pretty recognizable ring to it, I must say.
Chad's logic dictates that because a lot of people believed in Thor, and no one could prove Thor didn't exist, he must have existed.
You see, Chad, when you reasoning can be used for other arguments than yours, either every one of those arguments is true, or your reasoning is screwy. Guess which one is the case?
I thought you said that "God could be dismissed because of contradictory traits?"
I have no idea who said that, but I'd sure like to buy 'em a pint and hear a lot more of that sort of wisdom. I plan to use that one.
@LinCA
I am really intrigued by your self-designated atheist/agnostic duality, but I think the two are incompatible. Agnosticism is, as you say, the lack of knowledge one way or the other, but atheism is a very definitive stance. How can you both be unsure of whether or not there is a God AND believe there is no God?
Regarding your incompatibility issue: “A god that is omniscient, would know his own future and would therefor be bound by it. If he knows what will happen, he can't change it. If on the other hand, this god has the power to do as he pleases, he won't be able to know exactly what will happen. Omniscience and omnipotence are therefor mutually exclusive. Any god that is claimed to have those traits, doesn't exist.”
I don’t think “God’s future” is an intelligible concept. God is timeless, so he doesn’t have a “future” the way we would think about it. God stands outside of time, and thus cannot be bound by it. We are bound by time because we are temporal beings. God is not a temporal being. But if I grant you God’s activity in the form you are describing, you still have not produced a contradiction because you have a fundamental misunderstanding about omnipotence. Omnipotence does not grant God the ability to make contradictions true. Whatever God's "future" is, it is so because he chose it. So, if God chose to do X rather than Y, with X and Y being contradictory events, he could not at that point do Y instead because that would be a contradiction. The inability to do contradictory things is not a limit on his omnipotence.
@DB
You said, "I am really intrigued by your self-designated atheist/agnostic duality, but I think the two are incompatible."
It isn't a duality. Your ignorance of, or inability to distinguish between, the different forms of atheism doesn't mean that I follow the version you would like to believe I follow
You said, "Agnosticism is, as you say, the lack of knowledge one way or the other, but atheism is a very definitive stance. How can you both be unsure of whether or not there is a God AND believe there is no God?"
There is a fundamental difference between:
a) Believing there are no gods, and
b) Not believing there are any gods.
Version a is a belief without evidence to back it up, while version b is simply a disbelief.
You seem to believe that there is only option a. This isn't surprising as most believers are atheists of version a when it comes to all gods except their own. But version b is the only rational position in light of complete and utter absence of any evidence in favor of the existence of any gods.
You said, "I don’t think “God’s future” is an intelligible concept. God is timeless, so he doesn’t have a “future” the way we would think about it. God stands outside of time, and thus cannot be bound by it. We are bound by time because we are temporal beings. God is not a temporal being."
That is really a distinction without a difference. Even if the lack of time for your god would somehow resolve the incompatibility (it really doesn't), it still binds him to the timeline he set out for us. There is no way for him to "change his mind" on anything affecting our universe. So, even if he exists, he'd still not have the ability to both know everything and change his mind.
You said, "But if I grant you God’s activity in the form you are describing, you still have not produced a contradiction because you have a fundamental misunderstanding about omnipotence. Omnipotence does not grant God the ability to make contradictions true. Whatever God's "future" is, it is so because he chose it. So, if God chose to do X rather than Y, with X and Y being contradictory events, he could not at that point do Y instead because that would be a contradiction. The inability to do contradictory things is not a limit on his omnipotence."
Yet if he changes his mind without knowing he'd do that (and it isn't really changing your mind if you already know you're going to do that), he's not all-knowing.
Which brings up another salient point. If your god is all-knowing and the creator of everything, he creates billions of people that he knows he'll send to hell for the "infraction" of not knowing about him, or for using their brain and simply rejecting the nonsense about him. Your god tortures people for an eternity for simply not believing in fairy tales.
Your god isn't good by any stretch of the imagination. He is a monster, far worse than any mortal could ever be. He makes mass murderers like Stalin, Hitler and the likes look like sissies.
Even if that monster of a god of yours existed, I would get caught dead worshiping him.
Ok, so here's what we have:
Positive Claim: @LinCA "Of course. In the form most often described, the dude is a figment. An imaginary friend."
Evidence for claim: @LinCA "The christian god can't exist as it is logically impossible to be both omniscient and omnipotent. Either trait makes the other impossible. A god that is omniscient, would know his own future and would therefor be bound by it. If he knows what will happen, he can't change it. If on the other hand, this god has the power to do as he pleases, he won't be able to know exactly what will happen. Omniscience and omnipotence are therefor mutually exclusive. Any god that is claimed to have those traits, doesn't exist.
Definitions:
Omniscience is the capacity to know everything infinitely
Omnipotence is unlimited power.
Error made:
The big error that LinCA makes is in assuming that God lives solely within our time and space. His argument only works if time is a linear progression for God.
If, on the other hand, God exists outside our time and space, He can know our future(having already seen it), but is not bound by the same linear progression of time that we are (living as we do in our universe).
As well, God is able to be be 'all-knowing' and 'all-powerful' realizing that the terms can also mean that God knows all that can be known and God can do all that can be done. Omnipotence doesnt mean the ability to do things that are logically impossible (God cant for example do evil)
So, as demonstrated, omniscience and omnipotent are clearly not mutually exclusive traits.
@Moby Schtick “Theism can be proven…. Atheism can't be proven,..”
@Moby Schtick "Atheists don't need to prove that god does not exist to believe that he doesn't."
@Chad “ it’s irrational to embrace a belief that by definition can’t be proven.
=========
@Moby Schtick “Theism s not "ample evidence" for fine tuning. Fine tuning assumes a "tuner," that has not been proven.”
@Chad “actually, no on both accounts. There is clear agreement that the universe is fine tuned for life’s building blocks, and there are non-theistic theories as to why this is the case..
Physicist Paul Davies has asserted that "There is now broad agreement among physicists and cosmologists that the Universe is in several respects ‘fine-tuned' for life".[2] However he continues "...the conclusion is not so much that the Universe is fine-tuned for life; rather it is fine-tuned for the building blocks and environments that life requires".[2] He also states that "... 'anthropic' reasoning fails to distinguish between minimally biophilic universes, in which life is permitted, but only marginally possible, and optimally biophilic universes, in which life flourishes because biogenesis occurs frequently ..."[2] Among scientists who find the evidence persuasive, a variety of natural explanations have been proposed, e.g., the anthropic principle along with multiple universes.
===============
@Moby Schtick “I'm not making a claim when I say "god doesn't exist," I'm saving time.”
@Chad 😉
Lets look at the definition, and compare it with your statement:
claim
Verb: State or assert that something is the case, typically without providing evidence or proof.
Noun: An assertion of the truth of something, typically one that is disputed or in doubt.
The first rule of holes, is that when you are in one, stop digging…
@Chad
Your problem is that you can't prove god exists. Do that, and no argument from any atheist would mean anything.
You play word games because they're all you have–since you can't provide proof.
The first rule of debate is: If your opponent doesn't understand the rules of logic, there's no use debating such a fool.
@DB
Atheism/theism deal with BELIEF.
Agnosticism/gnosticism deal with KNOWLEDGE of "spiritual" ideas.
Most atheists (don't believe in god) also do not believe that there is spiritual knowledge of god. It's like being both a car driver and a mechanic; just because you're a driver, doesn't mean you can't also be a mechanic.
If god were as reasonable to believe in as math or chemistry, everyone would believe. That's why muslim terrorists and christian fundamentalists use math and chemistry but believe in the god of their upbringing's culture. Since god cannot be verified by evidence than the disbeliever holds the more logical position. You even use this logic when it comes to god-beliefs different from your own.
@Moby Schtick "Atheism/theism deal with BELIEF., Agnosticism/gnosticism deal with KNOWLEDGE of "spiritual" ideas."
@Chad "I see that argument a lot from people that want to be known as atheists, but dont want the burden of proof that accompanies the traditional definition of the word. It’s been part of the drive to redefine atheism to include agnosticism.
Writers disagree how best to define and classify atheism,[23] contesting what supernatural entities it applies to, whether it is an assertion in its own right or merely the absence of one, and whether it requires a conscious, explicit rejection. However, it is generally contrasted with agnosticism.
agnostic A person who believes that nothing is known or can be known of the existence or nature of God or of anything beyond material phenomena;
Agnosticism is the view that the truth values of certain claims—especially claims about the existence or non-existence of any deity, but also other religious and metaphysical claims—are unknown or unknowable.[1][2] Agnosticism can be defined in various ways, and is sometimes used to indicate doubt or a skeptical approach to questions. In some senses, agnosticism is a stance about the difference between belief and knowledge, rather than about any specific claim or belief. In the popular sense, an agnostic is someone who is undecided about the existence of a deity or deities, whereas a theist and an atheist believe and disbelieve, respectively.[2] In the strict sense, however, agnosticism is the view that human reason is incapable of providing sufficient rational grounds to justify the belief that deities either do or do not exist. Within agnosticism there are agnostic atheists (who do not believe any deity exists, but do not deny it as a possibility) and agnostic theists (who believe a deity exists but do not claim it as personal knowledge).
@Chad
The second that you, or any god believer can provide proof, all the atheists arguments become meaningless. There'd be no atheism if there was no theism. Atheism is a response. You say god exists; the nonbeliever says, "Prove it." You believers don't, and can't, so you do the best you can–word games–philosophy. It's all you or any god believer ever has.
You can't disbelieve in my invisible dragon if I don't claim to have an invisible dragon. And just because you make the claim: "You have no invisible dragon," that doesn't mean that you now have the burden of proof and must prove my belief in my invisible dragon is wrong. I'm making the positive claim, regardless of how you word your skepticism/disbelief.
Chad, why the word games? Why not just prove your god exists and put this thing to bed?
@Moby Schtick "There'd be no atheism if there was no theism."
@CHad "true"
@Moby Schtick "Atheism is a response. You say god exists; the nonbeliever says, "Prove it."
@Chad "as stated multiple times on this thread, in their desire to be known as atheists has lead to multiple flavors.
Weak/Negative: makes no claim about the truth of the statement "God doesnt exist"
Strong/positive: makes a claim, so has a burden of proof.
Your statement (as pointed out by other atheist on a different thread, places you in the strong/positive camp, levying a burden of proof on you to substantiate your claim.
@Moby Schtick "Atheists don't need to prove that god does not exist to believe that he doesn't."
==============
@Moby Schtick "Why the word games?
@Chad "just pointing the logical fallacies atheists use..
=============
@Moby Schtick "Why not just prove your god exists and put this thing to bed?"
@Chad "It can certainly be demonstrated that the God of Abraham is real. That doesnt mean that all people will be convinced however, God has left room for people to reject Him.
which is a very bad decision.. I urge you to investigate the historicity of Jesus Christ for example, choose life!
Isaiah 1 "Come now, let us reason together," says the LORD. "Though your sins are like scarlet, they shall be as white as snow
@Chad
You can prove the god of Abraham is "real?" Why don't you?
By the way, you've completely blown your reputation in my eyes when it comes to your understanding of how logical reasoning works; you've proved you have no idea what you're talking about when it comes to logic. Your problem is that you're deluded and you think you have a skill that you don't possess. It's like watching a kindergartner break rulers with a karate chop and claiming he's the best fighter in the universe. It's cute, and you expend a lot of energy, but it's still just playin' tough.
Just to clear this up:
Saying, "No it doesn't" in response to a unproven claim is not tantamount to making a positive claim. Yes, the statement is a "positive statement," but it's a statement of skepticism in regards to an unsubstantiated claim. If the claim were substantiated, THEN saying "No it doesn't" would be a positive claim in need of proof by the skeptic.
Believer: Unicorns exist. <-Positive claim without proof
Skeptic: No they don't. <Logical, valid skepticism in response to a non-proved claim, NOT a positive claim unless you want to discuss it being a "positive response" in regards to how logical reasoning works–but that's a debate about logic, not the claim of unicorns existing.
@LinCA
I don’t know if you bookmarked this page, but I do hope you come back to it, so you can see my response.
“Even if the lack of time for your god would somehow resolve the incompatibility (it really doesn't), it still binds him to the timeline he set out for us. There is no way for him to "change his mind" on anything affecting our universe. So, even if he exists, he'd still not have the ability to both know everything and change his mind.”
There is no way for him to change his mind because doing so would contradict his immutable nature. God cannot contradict his own nature. Moreover, God is not a whimsical or indecisive creature who would be given to such mind changing. If God is omniscient and chose to do such and such a thing rather than its converse, then God WOULDN’T change his mind, because he would have already chosen the BEST course of action.
Futhermore, if this is how you are trying show an incompatibility between omniscience and omnipotence, then you continue to display a fundamental misunderstanding of omnipotence. You can try to limit God’s omnipotence by postulating innumerable scenarios, all of which would require some kind of silly logical incoherence. God can’t create a stone so heavy that he can’t pick it up, God can’t create a being more powerful than himself, God can’t create a math equation too difficult for him to solve, make a round square, and on and on. In order to disprove omnipotence, you have to give God nonsensical tasks to complete that cannot be completed with any logical coherence. Your proposed scenario amounts to this: “God can’t do something that he already knows he’s not going to do,” which is in the same nonsensical vein. It doesn’t prove the incompatibility of the attributes; it merely proves that one has to utilize nonsensical rhetorical devices to justify disbelief in God.
“Which brings up another salient point. If your god is all-knowing and the creator of everything, he creates billions of people that he knows he'll send to hell for the "infraction" of not knowing about him, or for using their brain and simply rejecting the nonsense about him. Your god tortures people for an eternity for simply not believing in fairy tales. Your god isn't good by any stretch of the imagination. He is a monster, far worse than any mortal could ever be. He makes mass murderers like Stalin, Hitler and the likes look like sissies. Even if that monster of a god of yours existed, I would get caught dead worshiping him.”
Indeed, Hell is a difficult topic for theists and atheists alike. Nobody likes to talk about it; it isn’t pleasant. But let me pose this question: what do you think the alternative should have been? Let’s speculate:
1. To avoid sending anyone to hell, one alternative could be to eliminate rotten eggs before they hatch. Since God knows who will be damned to hell before they are born, maybe God should have exercised his power to abort all the unborn fetuses of people who would ultimately reject him. Would that make him less of a “monster?” Imagine that in, say, 50 years, geneticists are able to examine the DNA of unborn babies and determine whether or not those babies are going to grow up to be horrible people. They could then choose to eliminate the ones who they know will turn out bad. Would you be comfortable with a society that eliminated the potentially bad babies? What if it was your own baby that the geneticists recommended be aborted? Would they be justified? Or would you prefer your baby and other babies be permitted to live their lives and make their choices?
2. Another alternative to perdition could be to take everyone into eternal paradise, regardless of his or her crimes. Now, there ARE Christians who believe in this brand of universalism. But, there is a problem with this scenario as well. Imagine a man is courting a woman with whom he is absolutely smitten. He loves her and he wants to spend his life with her. Problem is, the feeling isn’t mutual. She, in fact, can’t stand the sight or thought of him. He chases after her for years, wooing her, pulling out all the romantic stops to win her affection, but she never reciprocates. After years of rejection, the man finally says, “Look, I love you, and you don’t have a CHOICE!” He kidnaps her and forces her to live with him for the rest of their lives. So, what if God did that with all of the people who reject him? What if God, at the end of your life of rejecting him, said to you, “Look, I love you, and you don’t have a CHOICE,” and he kidnapped you and forced you to spend eternity with him? Would that make him less of a “monster?” If billions of people don’t want to be with God, to the extent that they would choose Hell if that’s the only alternative, how could God NOT give them what they want? It would make no sense for God to force people who hate him to spend eternity with him.
Now, somewhat parenthetically, let me offer you a different way of thinking about omniscience, which is connected to God’s timelessness. It could be the case that God knows a person will reject him because, from God’s timeless perspective, that person has already done it. That is, God can see the choices you will make because, from where God sits, you’ve already made them. In this sense, God literally knows “the end from the beginning” because he can look at both points on our timeline simultaneously. However, his knowledge is contingent on the choices you actually make (or made) within that timeline, and you would have to actually exist in order to make those choices. This of course gets into issues related to the philosophy of time, but it is at least some food for further thought.
Now, having said all that, let’s talk about what monsters DON’T do. Monsters don’t subject themselves to torture and death so that others can be forgiven. Monsters don’t offer people an eternity of paradise. Monsters don’t extend the gift of everlasting life indiscriminately to anyone who will accept it. God is NOT a monster.
Look, your sins, your rejection of God, your unbelief, those things were nailed to the cross of Christ 2 thousand years ago. God has already dealt with them. And he has offered you a gift that, like any gift, you can accept or reject. But that is YOUR choice to make, not God’s. He has been wooing you for years. But I can promise you this: He will NOT kidnap you against your will.
Thanks for the lively discussion.
I don't respect a being who sets up a blood sacrifice dynamic and then tortures his own child to "forgive" when an omnipotent god could forgive without such stupidity. Likewise any being who demands worship or tortures ANYONE forever isn't worthy of worship and is the worst terrorist imaginable.
God's plan just doesn't make sense: God sacrifices himself to himself to appease himself because a rib-woman listened to a talking snake and then did wrong before she knew what wrong was because she hadn't yet eaten of the knowledge of good and evil and so didn't know what evil was. That's just stupid.
@Moby Schtick “I'm not making a claim when I say "god doesn't exist," I'm saving time.”
@Chad
Lets look at the definition, and compare it with your statement:
claim
Verb: State or assert that something is the case, typically without providing evidence or proof.
Noun: An assertion of the truth of something, typically one that is disputed or in doubt.
The first rule of holes, is that when you are in one, stop digging…
@Chad
Nice job proving the god of Abraham is real, there.
You've got the burden of proof as you're making the positive claim. You refuse to acknowledge the rules of logic and you continually make a mockery of your own position every time you play your silly word games. Keep it up, I hope all christians learn from you how to debate so poorly.
@Chad
You said, "The big error that LinCA makes is in assuming that God lives solely within our time and space. His argument only works if time is a linear progression for God."
Not really. If your god is entirely outside our space and time, it can't act on anything within it. If it decides to enter our space and time, it has to contend with time. If it operates within our universe there is a "past" and a "future", and a god that knows what will happen in the future, knows what it will do to affect that future, and have no choice in the matter.
But, on a side note, why would there be any reason for a perfect being to enter into the universe it created? What could possibly be a reason for such a being to go back in after it created it? If this being is perfect, it's creations must also be perfect, as a single fuck-up ruins perfection. So by it's very definition, a perfect being can't mess with it's creation after the fact. That also makes prayer futile.
You said, "If, on the other hand, God exists outside our time and space, He can know our future(having already seen it), but is not bound by the same linear progression of time that we are (living as we do in our universe)."
Even if your god exists outside of our universe, the problem remains. As we appear to be locked in spacetime. In our universe, your god is powerless to change its mind or claim to have known it all along.
You said, "As well, God is able to be be 'all-knowing' and 'all-powerful' realizing that the terms can also mean that God knows all that can be known and God can do all that can be done."
Not according to your own definitions. But even so, that leaves only the possibilities for your god to either know the future of our universe, or have the ability to affect it, but not both? Or, the more likely scenario, is that your god doesn't exist at all.
You said, "Omnipotence doesnt mean the ability to do things that are logically impossible (God cant for example do evil)"
So when god created everything, it didn't also create evil? When it realized it had fucked up and, multiple times, in one fell swoop wiped out almost the entire world population, that wasn't evil? When it roasts innocent people for an eternity for simply not believing its bullshit fairy tale, that isn't evil?
You said, "So, as demonstrated, omniscience and omnipotent are clearly not mutually exclusive traits."
Of course, no such thing was ever demonstrated. I understand that, for your fable to make sense, you will have to convince yourself that they aren't, but just believing that doesn't make it so.
@DB
You said, "I don’t know if you bookmarked this page"
I did.
You said, "There is no way for him to change his mind because doing so would contradict his immutable nature. God cannot contradict his own nature. Moreover, God is not a whimsical or indecisive creature who would be given to such mind changing. If God is omniscient and chose to do such and such a thing rather than its converse, then God WOULDN’T change his mind, because he would have already chosen the BEST course of action."
If that is the case, then the bible is full of shit (no news there, really). Doesn't your holy book say that your god fucked up and wiped out almost the entire world population, multiple times?
For a being to be truly perfect, no interaction after the creation is possible. Any interaction causes a change from the original plan, constituting a correction. Any correction ruins perfection.
Also, if your god created everything and this is what it came up with, he isn't perfect by any stretch of the imagination. Just look at the mess it's made of its followers. Of christianity alone there are, by some count, 38,000 different denominations, sects and cults. Then you have the other religions, some of which lay claim to the same god. But, if anything, these various religions would rather exterminate one another than work together. A perfect being would be incapable of fucking up so badly.
You said, "Futhermore, if this is how you are trying show an incompatibility between omniscience and omnipotence, then you continue to display a fundamental misunderstanding of omnipotence."
You can twist the definition of omnipotence to suit your needs. That is perfectly fine by me. I don't need a logical contradiction to dismiss gods. The complete and utter lack of any evidence in favor of them is sufficient to relegate their stories to the category of fables.
You said, "You can try to limit God’s omnipotence by postulating innumerable scenarios, [...] it merely proves that one has to utilize nonsensical rhetorical devices to justify disbelief in God."
I understand that believers have to maintain the illusion of omnipotence and omniscience of their gods. Who would want to worship one that isn't? Any god who isn't both may be made subservient to one that is, and risk being demoted to only doing the weather.
I sometimes wonder if the christian god pissed off its superiors and was demoted to the weather desk. That could explain all those tornadoes and hurricanes in the bible belt. I'd be pissed, too, if I were a god but couldn't be in charge of everything.
You said, "what do you think the alternative should have been?"
The alternative is, of course, that there is no hell. There is no god, there is no heaven, there is no afterlife. When you die, you decompose and become worm food.
If, on the off chance that I'm wrong, and there is a god, the just way would be for this god to not unjustly punish those that haven't committed any offense. An eternal torment is not a fitting punishment for any crime. It is also a very poor deterrent. It is, in that regard, similar to three-strikes laws. A rapist with two strikes has no incentive to spare his next victim's life. On the contrary, by leaving a witness, he increases his chances of getting caught. A similar effect comes in play with only eternal torment. Once you've committed a crime that will yield the worst possible punishment, there is no reason not to let go completely and pile it on.
There is no justification for infinite punishment for finite offenses. As an atheist, I would be subjected to an eternity in hell for simply using my (then god given) brain and skepticism. A god that doesn't produce any sign of it self, yet expects people to believe in it, isn't rational.
You said, "Now, having said all that, let’s talk about what monsters DON’T do. Monsters don’t subject themselves to torture and death so that others can be forgiven. Monsters don’t offer people an eternity of paradise. Monsters don’t extend the gift of everlasting life indiscriminately to anyone who will accept it. God is NOT a monster."
Hitler loved his dog very much. That doesn't make him any less of a monster. A murderer who brings his mother flowers is still a murderer. Good deeds don't eradicate the bad.
It's not the good that defines a creature, it's the entire package. Your god doesn't stand a chance of being good, because of all the horrendous acts committed by it.
You said, "Look, your sins, your rejection of God, your unbelief, those things were nailed to the cross of Christ 2 thousand years ago."
Just FYI, I don't sin. Ever.
If you think that my unbelief would warrant someone, especially someone other than me, to be nailed to a cross, or that somehow that would "redeem" me, you've got some serious issues.
Aside from the fact that the sacrifice by your Christ wasn't one, any sacrifice is unjust. The only thing a sacrifice accomplishes is the satisfaction of a tyrant. Sacrifice, by its very definition, punishes the innocent. Only a tyrant that wants blood, but isn't interested in justice, would accept a sacrifice. Any god that accepts, or worse demands, sacrifice is by definition a tyrant.
You said, "God has already dealt with them. And he has offered you a gift that, like any gift, you can accept or reject."
If there is a god that created the universe and me in it, the gift I got was my ability for rational thought. That gift has led me to reject fairy tales.
You said, "But that is YOUR choice to make, not God’s. He has been wooing you for years. But I can promise you this: He will NOT kidnap you against your will."
You claim to know a lot about what your god will or won't do. Isn't that a little bit presumptuous? Wouldn't that be considered a sin?
@chad, are you high, or re ta rded? Absence of evidence is evidence of absence. There is in thousands of years of history, no evidence of any form of god. Thus the evidence stands the probability of a god is slim to none. Also the christian god is supposedly all loving and all powerful. Amy god that has said attributes would not allow good people to suffer, this a more positive proof against the Christian god
@LinCA “If your god is entirely outside our space and time, it can't act on anything within it. If it decides to enter our space and time, it has to contend with time. If it operates within our universe there is a "past" and a "future", and a god that knows what will happen in the future, knows what it will do to affect that future, and have no choice in the matter.”
@Chad “God can decide while outside the time/space of our universe to enter it for a reason. Once within our time space, He is still acting sovereignly according to His will, an act that was determined outside our time/space.
====================
@LinCA “ why would there be any reason for a perfect being to enter into the universe it created? What could possibly be a reason for such a being to go back in after it created it?
@Chad “to save us from our current situation of estrangement from Him”
====================
@LinCA “ If this being is perfect, it's creations must also be perfect”
@Chad “not if the creation has free will.”
====================
@LinCA “ So by its very definition, a perfect being can't mess with its creation after the fact. That also makes prayer futile.”
@Chad “no clue how you came to that conclusion.. a perfect being can create a perfect world, inhabited by person’s that have the free will to choose evil, which is what happened. God can then act soverignly to address the estrangement that resulted from that choice to do evil”
====================
@LinCA “ You said, "Omnipotence doesnt mean the ability to do things that are logically impossible (God cant for example do evil)" So when god created everything, it didn't also create evil?
@Chad “God didn’t create evil, He created free will. Free will created evil.
===============
Summary: Other than your comment about God being constrained by time when He is within our space/time (which was addressed in point #1 above), the remainder of your comments had to do with objections that you have with respect to God’s actions, nothing to do with the traits of omniscience and omnipotent being mutually exclusive, which was your original data point for the impossibility of God to exist.
So, again, as demonstrated, omniscience and omnipotent are clearly not mutually exclusive traits.
@Chad
You said, "God can decide while outside the time/space of our universe to enter it for a reason. Once within our time space, He is still acting sovereignly according to His will, an act that was determined outside our time/space."
Whether your god has its brain fart inside or outside our spacetime is irrelevant on whether it is bound by spacetime while in it.
You said, "to save us from our current situation of estrangement from Him"
In other words: "Because it fucked up the first few times. Ergo it is imperfect." Thank you for clearing that up.
You said, "not if the creation has free will."
The boundaries of free will would have to be part of the creation of a perfect being. If there is any need to go back in and fix anything, the creation wasn't perfect. And an imperfect creation can only be the product of an imperfect process.
You said, "no clue how you came to that conclusion."
Now, that I believe. It is pretty clear that you are clueless.
You said, "a perfect being can create a perfect world, inhabited by person’s that have the free will to choose evil, which is what happened. God can then act soverignly to address the estrangement that resulted from that choice to do evil"
A being that creates evil, or a person that can be evil, is by definition not perfect, as it has then created an imperfect product.
You said, "God didn’t create evil, He created free will. Free will created evil."
If evil is the result of free will, and your god created free will, then your god is directly responsible for evil. If your god was perfect, it would be incapable of creating something that spawns evil. The existence of evil proves, beyond a shadow of a doubt, that your god is not perfect.
You said, "Summary: Other than your comment about God being constrained by time when He is within our space/time (which was addressed in point #1 above), the remainder of your comments had to do with objections that you have with respect to God’s actions, nothing to do with the traits of omniscience and omnipotent being mutually exclusive, which was your original data point for the impossibility of God to exist."
An omniscient and omnipotent being would know, and have the ability to determine, the effects of its creation. So, even if the two traits were not mutually exclusive, a creature that doesn't use those abilities isn't perfect. If this creature did use those abilities, but elected to create the universe in its current form anyway, is evil for it elected to create evil.
You said, "So, again, as demonstrated, omniscience and omnipotent are clearly not mutually exclusive traits."
Nothing you said makes the original point any less valid. Free will is yet another nail in the coffin of omniscience. If it can be know what decisions will be made, there is no free will.
Irrelevant, foul language aside, these are your points, with refutations:
==========
@LinCA: “God is it is bound by our spacetime while in it”
@Chad "God can decide while outside the time/space of our universe to enter it for a reason. Once within our time space, He is still acting sovereignly according to His will, an act that was determined outside our time/space."
==========
@LinCA: “If evil is the result of free will, and your god created free will, then your god is directly responsible for evil . An imperfect creation can only be the product of an imperfect process.”
@Chad: “A perfect being can choose to make what ever he wants obviously, in this case He chose to make a perfect creation that had free will. Even angels have free will. Free will is God’s gift to everything He creates.
Free will is only free will if it truly is the freedom to do what ever you want.
==============
@LinCA: If it can be know what decisions will be made, there is no free will.”
@Chad “God can step into and out of our time and space, as such He already know’s what decisions I will make using my own free will. Quite obviously that doesn’t eliminate my free will”
@LinCA
“For a being to be truly perfect, no interaction after the creation is possible. Any interaction causes a change from the original plan, consti-tuting a correction. Any correction ruins perfection.”
With each post, you bring out another divine attribute to attack. So now we’re talking about divine perfection – ok. Well, your reasoning here is false as well. You assume that a perfect being cannot be relational, but that does not follow from the concept of divine perfection. A perfect being can certainly choose to relate to the free creatures he created. This interaction is not a deviation from the original plan because THIS INTERACTION WAS THE ORIGINAL PLAN. God’s original plan was always to interact with his free creatures and react to the free choices they would make.
“Also, if your god created everything and this is what it came up with, he isn't perfect by any stretch of the imagination. Just look at the mess it's made of its followers. Of christianity alone there are, by some count, 38,000 different denominations, sects and cults. Then you have the other religions, some of which lay claim to the same god. But, if anything, these various religions would rather exterminate one another than work together. A perfect being would be incapable of fu-cking up so badly.”
You haven’t said anything about God at all here. You’ve criticized humans and then tried to blame it on God. Humans produced these factions, not God. It simply does not follow that humans’ free choices disprove God’s perfection.
“You can twist the definition of omnipotence to suit your needs.”
But I’m not twisting it. I am following the laws of logic. You tried to appeal to a logical absurdity to disprove omnipotence. But omnipotence does not entail logical absurdities. You were, in fact, twisting omnipotence to suit YOUR needs.
“I don't need a logical contradiction to dismiss gods.”
Then don’t use one.
“The complete and utter lack of any evidence in favor of them is sufficient to relegate their stories to the category of fables.”
Then say THAT and don’t waste everyone’s time with logical absurdities. Now, regarding THIS claim:
“Complete and utter lack” is a bit hyperbolic, don’t you think? What about the very existence of the universe? Is it reasonable to believe that it exists uncaused? What about the various laws by which it is governed? Can chance produce physics? What about the systemic processes of nature? What about the complexity and sophistication of DNA? I know it’s hard for atheists to realize this, but there IS evidence for theism. Complexity implies intelligence. Sophistication implies design. It is reasonable to infer an intelligent source from complex and sophisticated mechanisms.
Regarding Christianity in particular, there is historical evidence for the existence, death and resurrection of Jesus. You would be hard-pressed to find historians who would discount the facts that Jesus lived and was executed by the Romans. You would also find it difficult to explain historically the explosive rise of Christianity WITHOUT a resurrected Christ.
The point is there IS evidence. It may not be the kind of evidence you desire or require, but it is evidence nonetheless.
“I understand that believers have to maintain the illusion of omnipotence and omniscience of their gods. Who would want to worship one that isn't? Any god who isn't both may be made subservient to one that is, and risk being demoted to only doing the weather. I sometimes wonder if the christian god pi-ssed off its superiors and was demoted to the weather desk. That could explain all those tornadoes and hurricanes in the bible belt. I'd be p-issed, too, if I were a god but couldn't be in charge of everything.”
Now you’ve just given yourself over to inane flippancy. I’m not sure there’s an argument to respond to here. I will say, though, that you appear to exhibiting yet another fundamental misunderstanding, this time about the concept of a monotheistic God. I’m not talking about polytheistic systems with deities who have specific domains.
“If, on the off chance that I'm wrong, and there is a god, the just way would be for this god to not unjustly punish those that haven't committed any offense.”
But what would that look like? You didn’t respond to my proposed alternatives, but the second one is relevant to yours, I think. Your proposal would require God to force people to spend eternity with him who do not want to spend eternity with him. How is that just?
“An eternal torment is not a fitting punishment for any crime. It is also a very poor deterrent. It is, in that regard, similar to three-strikes laws. A rap-ist with two strikes has no incentive to spare his next victim's life. On the contrary, by leaving a witness, he increases his chances of getting caught. A similar effect comes in play with only eternal torment. Once you've committed a crime that will yield the worst possible punishment, there is no reason not to let go completely and pile it on.”
Your incredibly grim ana-logy doesn’t hold. God doesn’t have a three-strikes policy. He doesn’t even have a three-thousand-strikes policy. His policy is this: all your strikes have been nailed to the Cross. And Hell isn’t meant to be a deterrent. My reason for believing in God is not because I don’t want to go to Hell; I believe in God because God makes sense to me, and because I genuinely love this ent-ity who has gone to such great lengths to love me. Fear of Hell is the least of my motivations vis-à-vis my theism. Similarly, my motivation for being a good husband to my wife is not that I fear she may divorce me, take my kids away, and bankrupt me with alimony and child support obligations. Indeed, those things would be Hell on Earth for me. But divorce is not a deterrent for abuse or infidelity or some other such marital infraction. I am a good husband to my wife because I love and respect her. Fear of divorce has no bearing on my feelings or actions toward her.
Hell is not a deterrent. It is the embodiment of a choice – to be forgiven or not, to accept God or reject him. It is a separation from God for those who wish to be separated from God.
“There is no justification for infinite punishment for finite offenses.”
There is if you’ve offended an infinite God. And, knowing that, God provided a way for us to avoid punishment and have life instead.
“As an atheist, I would be subjected to an eternity in hell for simply using my (then god given) brain and skepticism. A god that doesn't produce any sign of it self, yet expects people to believe in it, isn't rational.”
But God has produced signs of himself, some of which I mentioned above. And you have to use your God-given brain to read and interpret signs, do you not? The problem, as I see it, is that atheists don’t want signs that they have to think about; they want incontrovertible tangibility that leaves no room for thought or interpretation.
And since you mentioned rationality, do you think it is an effective use of your rational mind to believe that your rational mind is the product of randomness? Is it rational to believe that you have chance to thank for the ability to conceptualize? See, this is why atheism really needs to develop some better arguments for itself. If you’re skeptical about something, you should be skeptical about it because the alternative makes more sense. And that alternative should make more sense because of some evidence or line of reasoning. So, if a theist says that God exists because the universe must have had a necessary cause, and the skeptic rejects this, then the skeptic ought to have a good reason for believing that the universe can exist without a necessary cause. Likewise, if a theist claims that there is design in the universe because of all the complexity and sophistication therein, and the skeptic rejects this, then the skeptic ought to have a rational reason for believing that the sophistication and complexity of the magnitude that we can observe in the universe and in our world (in a single cell, even) can be produced by chance. Indeed, God has given you the tools necessary to make a rational decision. But you cannot fault him for what you decide.
“Hitler loved his dog very much. That doesn't make him any less of a monster. A murderer who brings his mother flowers is still a murderer. Good deeds don't eradicate the bad. It's not the good that defines a creature, it's the entire package. Your god doesn't stand a chance of being good, because of all the horrendous acts committed by it.”
So, in your mind, Hitler’s love for a pet is analogous to God’s open extension of forgiveness and everlasting life? That’s not even remotely comparable. Awful analogies aside, you produce an argument that is too easily reversible. I could flip your argument around and say the following:
Bad deeds don’t eradicate the good. It’s not the bad that defines a creature, it’s the entire package. My God doesn’t stand a chance of being evil, because of all the gracious acts he has done.
Now, that is not my argument, because I do not concede that there is any evil in God. I’m just showing that your argument is very subjective.
You continue to impugn the character of God because of the system of Hell. But you haven’t provided a viable alternative to the system. What you proposed is not viable because it would require God to force people to spend eternity with him who do not want to spend eternity with him. That is akin to kidnapping.
God is not evil because of Hell; God is good because he has provided a way to avoid Hell. God is good because he gives everyone the freedom to choose and because he doesn’t force himself on anyone. God is good because he loves even those who refuse to love him back.
“Just FYI, I don't sin. Ever.”
Then why are you so fixated on Hell?
“Aside from the fact that the sacrifice by your Christ wasn't one…”
Oh, no, don’t put that aside; I’d love for you to clarify that one. When does X not equal X?
“…any sacrifice is unjust.”
Watch those absolute statements. In a chess match, if I sacrifice one of my stronger pieces for better positioning on the board, and that sacrifice leads eventually leads to my victory, the sacrifice was hardly unjust. If a parent sacrifices his or her life to save a child, that sacrifice is hardly unjust. If a friend sacrifices a kidney to help a friend in need of a kidney transplant, that sacrifice is hardly unjust. If a billionaire sacrifices the better part of his fortune to combat world hunger, that sacrifice is hardly unjust. It is simply not accurate to say that “any sacrifice is unjust,” especially when you are speaking about a very particular kind of sacrifice.
“The only thing a sacrifice accomplishes is the satisfaction of a tyrant. Sacrifice, by its very definition, punishes the innocent. Only a tyrant that wants blood, but isn't interested in justice, would accept a sacrifice.”
You’re making the false assumption that God isn’t interested in justice. Have you read Amos? God is all about justice! And more to the point, the sacrifice of Christ was an act of divine justice! Simply put, God’s justice demands a penalty for sin. Christ’s death paid that penalty for everyone. Moreover, “a tyrant that wants blood” would not take his own blood, or that of anyone he loves. A tyrant would not willfully bring suffering upon himself.
“Any god that accepts, or worse demands, sacrifice is by definition a tyrant.”
No, a tyrant is, by definition, “a cruel and oppressive ruler.” Now, to show that a sacrificial act qualifies as an example of cruel and oppressive rulership, you would need to produce an unwilling sacrifice. And there is the rub, really. This is what turns claims of tyranny or divine child abuse on their heads: JESUS DIED WILLINGLY. He laid down his life; it was not taken from him. The cross was not forced upon him. It was something he willingly embraced for the sake of humankind.
“If there is a god that created the universe and me in it, the gift I got was my ability for rational thought. That gift has led me to reject fairy tales.”
If that God does exist, then the stories you rejected weren’t fairy tales.
“You claim to know a lot about what your god will or won't do. Isn't that a little bit presumptuous? Wouldn't that be considered a sin?”
Possibly. But I never claimed to be without sin. You did.
@DB
that was really very well said. nice job, glad we're on the same team!
@DB
There's a fallacy in your questions on the existence of the universe itself. The first is begging the question, the second is special pleading (only if you are attempting to avoid an infinite regress by saying that "god" does not have a cause). Also, stopping the regress at god (something not measurable or confirmable) instead of the actual universe (observable and testable) is a violation of occam's razor.
@DB
You said, "With each post, you bring out another divine attribute to attack."
Omnipotence, omniscience and being perfect are intractably related. A being that is both of the former can't be the latter if it doesn't use the former two for nothing but good. Your god fails miserably at that. So he either isn't omniscient or omnipotent, or is just plain evil. Or there is always the logical position that it doesn't exits.
You said, "You assume that a perfect being cannot be relational, but that does not follow from the concept of divine perfection."
I was talking about perfection. "Divine perfection" may be good enough for you, but it must fall far short of perfection.
You said, "A perfect being can certainly choose to relate to the free creatures he created. This interaction is not a deviation from the original plan because THIS INTERACTION WAS THE ORIGINAL PLAN. God’s original plan was always to interact with his free creatures and react to the free choices they would make."
Didn't your god drown virtually its entire creation because they were so fucked up it though it was better to start over? Your god was so imperfect it had to start over. Did it not have the foresight to see that coming? Did it not have the power to do it right the first time? Was its planned interaction so miserable that it couldn't control its creation by any other means? It had to completely destroy it? Multiple times?
You said, "You haven’t said anything about God at all here. You’ve criticized humans and then tried to blame it on God. Humans produced these factions, not God. It simply does not follow that humans’ free choices disprove God’s perfection."
The fuck-up that created this mess, apparently couldn't figure out how to leave some decent instructions. Yes, you better believe that it is your god's fault if it created this mess.
You said, "But I’m not twisting it. I am following the laws of logic. You tried to appeal to a logical absurdity to disprove omnipotence. But omnipotence does not entail logical absurdities. You were, in fact, twisting omnipotence to suit YOUR needs."
Just like your "divine perfection" you seem to limit the scope of "all" to a subset that you feel your god can live up to. Sorry, that isn't logic.
You said, "“I don't need a logical contradiction to dismiss gods.”
Then don’t use one."
I dismiss gods based on the complete and utter lack of evidence. Yours, in particular isn't merely dismissed as highly unlikely, but as completely impossible because of the contradictions.
You said, "Then say THAT and don’t waste everyone’s time with logical absurdities."
You may want to look back at the very first post that I made in this thread. You'll find that that is exactly what I said.
I said, and I quote, "It's the theists that claim that they have a magic friend. Anybody sane, can summarily dismiss that nonsense until evidence is provided. Unless there is evidence, your friend is on the exact same footing as any imaginary one. Your god is equally likely to exist as the Tooth Fairy, but less likely than Loch Ness Monster."
You said, "“Complete and utter lack” is a bit hyperbolic, don’t you think? What about the very existence of the universe?"
The existence of the universe doesn't, in any way, establish that there is a creator.
You said, "Is it reasonable to believe that it exists uncaused?"
Of course. Or you can just say that, because we don't have any evidence, we don't know. Making shit up may put your mind at ease but it doesn't establish any facts.
You said, "What about the various laws by which it is governed? Can chance produce physics? What about the systemic processes of nature? What about the complexity and sophistication of DNA?"
Same answer as above.
You said, "I know it’s hard for atheists to realize this, but there IS evidence for theism."
No, it is actually pretty easy to see that there isn't. All you have are logical fallacies.
You said, "Complexity implies intelligence. Sophistication implies design. It is reasonable to infer an intelligent source from complex and sophisticated mechanisms."
Nope, it doesn't, it doesn't and it isn't.
All you do is jumping to your preferred conclusion. You are arguing from ignorance. Just because you can't, or won't consider any alternatives, doesn't mean that your pet hypothesis is any more true.
That we live in a universe that seems perfectly tuned for us doesn't mean that it was. We can only live in a place that happens to be like that. Had it been any other way, we wouldn't have been around to know about it. Also, since our observations are limited to our universe, we will probably never be able to establish how this one came about, or whether it's the only one. That doesn't in any way establish, or even make likely, that there was a creator.
You said, "Regarding Christianity in particular, there is historical evidence for the existence, death and resurrection of Jesus."
Any "evidence" you have is from your bible. All you can possibly establish from that, is that there may have been some dude that thought he was special. In no way does that establish that he really was, if he even actually existed. Flimsy doesn't even begin to describe the evidentiary value of that.
You said, "You would be hard-pressed to find historians who would discount the facts that Jesus lived and was executed by the Romans."
You'd be surprised. The Romans must have not thought he was very special, as there isn't any record even indicating they did what you claim. Even so, being crucified by the Romans doesn't establish divinity. We'd have thousands of gods if it did.
You said, "You would also find it difficult to explain historically the explosive rise of Christianity WITHOUT a resurrected Christ."
Not at all. Gullibility is something that afflicts a lot of people. Religion is any easy tool to control the masses, especially if they are uneducated. Indoctrination of the children is key.
If you wish to spread the reach of your religion, adopting local customs into your religion helps. Nothing is as effective as claiming what they believe is actually from your religion. Maybe they just got it wrong somewhere along the line, but you can set that straight for them. You don't really think that Jesus was born on December 25th, or even at any time in winter, now do you? And, just for your information, the christmas tree and the easter eggs aren't christian in origin either.
You said, "The point is there IS evidence. It may not be the kind of evidence you desire or require, but it is evidence nonetheless."
No, the problem is that it isn't evidence of what you claim it is.
You said, "Now you’ve just given yourself over to inane flippancy. I’m not sure there’s an argument to respond to here. I will say, though, that you appear to exhibiting yet another fundamental misunderstanding, this time about the concept of a monotheistic God. I’m not talking about polytheistic systems with deities who have specific domains."
You claim there to be only one god. You seem strongly atheistic with regard to all others. You base your beliefs on some fairy tale for which you have no evidence. Even what you call "evidence" is equally supporting a host of other gods. Even the story of your Jesus isn't very original.
You said, "But what would that look like? You didn’t respond to my proposed alternatives, but the second one is relevant to yours, I think."
I didn't respond to your proposals because they were equally nonsensical. They both require fairy tale lands and the Tooth Fairy's second cousin as a ruler.
You said, "Your proposal would require God to force people to spend eternity with him who do not want to spend eternity with him. How is that just?"
No, you must have missed the point. If your god exists, it can collect the souls it likes, and simply let everyone else cease to exist. I have no interest in an afterlife. I'm perfectly happy becoming worm food after I die.
You said, "Your incredibly grim ana-logy doesn’t hold. God doesn’t have a three-strikes policy."
That depends on who you ask. It seems to have a one strike policy for for those that don't believe the nonsense.
You said, "He doesn’t even have a three-thousand-strikes policy. His policy is this: all your strikes have been nailed to the Cross. And Hell isn’t meant to be a deterrent."
That's true. I forgot. I guess as long as on your deathbed you claim to believe and ask for forgiveness, it doesn't matter what you did. Your god seems to have no issue with mass murderers, as long as they go through the motions in the end. Odds are that even Hitler is sitting pretty next to your god. Your god doesn't appear to be very picky when it comes to truly horrendous behavior, as long as you recant just in time.
I have a question in that regard. Does that recantation have to be honest, or is it sufficient to just go through the motions?
You said, "Hell is not a deterrent. It is the embodiment of a choice – to be forgiven or not, to accept God or reject him. It is a separation from God for those who wish to be separated from God."
Again, that depends on who you ask.
You said, "There is if you’ve offended an infinite God. And, knowing that, God provided a way for us to avoid punishment and have life instead."
The problem is, that without any evidence, how is anyone supposed to know there is such a creature. Odds are that, if there is a god, you are worshiping the wrong one.
You said, "But God has produced signs of himself, some of which I mentioned above."
No, it hasn't. As I've explained above, what you consider evidence of your god, isn't.
You said, "And you have to use your God-given brain to read and interpret signs, do you not? The problem, as I see it, is that atheists don’t want signs that they have to think about; they want incontrovertible tangibility that leaves no room for thought or interpretation."
Not really. The problem is that theists interpret "the signs" to fit their preconceived notion.
You said, "And since you mentioned rationality, do you think it is an effective use of your rational mind to believe that your rational mind is the product of randomness?"
So far, every single time that science and religion have been at odds, religion was wrong. Every single time. There is absolutely no reason to believe that this is any different.
Aside from that, science doesn't claim to know how the universe came about. There are some theories and speculation, but nobody claims to know.
The scientific answer in absence of evidence is, "I don't know". The religious answer is, "god did it". Inserting a god where there is no evidence, produces an "answer" that may ease the mind of those that rather have an answer than know the truth.
You said, "Is it rational to believe that you have chance to thank for the ability to conceptualize?"
Yes, of course. you seem to fail to grasp that favorable circumstances are a prerequisite for life to evolve. The existence of intelligent life doesn't imply that those conditions were created specifically for that life.
You said, "See, this is why atheism really needs to develop some better arguments for itself."
Unfortunately for you, atheism is the only rational stance. The only arguments are in support of atheism. the problem is that theists seem incapable, or unwilling of grasping them. Not that that is very surprising, as those that grasp them will cease to be theists.
You said, "If you’re skeptical about something, you should be skeptical about it because the alternative makes more sense."
ROTLMAO. Sorry, the Tooth Fairy story makes more sense than your religion. There is less bullshit in it.
You said, "So, if a theist says that God exists because the universe must have had a necessary cause"
Then the theist commits a logical fallacy. In this case, the theist argues from ignorance.
You said, "then the skeptic ought to have a good reason for believing that the universe can exist without a necessary cause."
No. The absence of an alternate theory doesn't lend any validity to yours. "I don't know" works for me. There is no evidence for any gods, it is therefor not reasonable to assume they exist. Nor is it reasonable to assign traits and deeds to these gods.
You said, "Likewise, if a theist claims that there is design in the universe because of all the complexity and sophistication therein, and the skeptic rejects this, then the skeptic ought to have a rational reason for believing that the sophistication and complexity of the magnitude that we can observe in the universe and in our world (in a single cell, even) can be produced by chance."
Same argument from ignorance. See above.
You said, "Indeed, God has given you the tools necessary to make a rational decision. But you cannot fault him for what you decide."
Your god doesn't exist. It didn't give me anything.
You said, "So, in your mind, Hitler’s love for a pet is analogous to God’s open extension of forgiveness and everlasting life?"
No, of course not. There is evidence that Hitler loved his dog. Which is more than can be said for your god's supposedly good deeds. So, contrary to your god's deeds, Hitler's love for his dog was probably real, but as an analogy, it'll do.
You said, "That’s not even remotely comparable. Awful analogies aside, you produce an argument that is too easily reversible. I could flip your argument around and say the following:
Bad deeds don’t eradicate the good. It’s not the bad that defines a creature, it’s the entire package. My God doesn’t stand a chance of being evil, because of all the gracious acts he has done."
Now you are just being ridiculous. That argument would mean that someone can murder at will as long as they provide a good deed in return. Sending a dollar to charity doesn't do anything to mitigate a crime.
You said, "Now, that is not my argument, because I do not concede that there is any evil in God. I’m just showing that your argument is very subjective."
I didn't expect you to concede that your god is evil. Again, if theists would look rationally at their faith, they wouldn't be theists. But just because you refuse to acknowledge it, doesn't make your god any better.
You said, "You continue to impugn the character of God because of the system of Hell."
Don't get pinned down on just one little atrocity, don't forget the wiping out of entire civilizations in the early days.
You said, "But you haven’t provided a viable alternative to the system."
I did. You must have missed it. I suggest to let dead people turn to worm food. Optionally, those that want to can elect to spend eternity with your tyrant.
If you insist that your god maintains a hell, I suggest it be reserved for those that believe in it. Not that I would wish that on anyone, but I know a few christians that would fit right in.
You said, "What you proposed is not viable because it would require God to force people to spend eternity with him who do not want to spend eternity with him. That is akin to kidnapping."
Again, that is not what I suggested. And, just FYI, if given the choice between heaven with your god, or an eternity in hell, I will gladly choose hell. Any day of the week and twice on Sunday.
You said, "God is not evil because of Hell; God is good because he has provided a way to avoid Hell."
No, your god is evil because it created hell, among other things.
You said, "God is good because he gives everyone the freedom to choose and because he doesn’t force himself on anyone. God is good because he loves even those who refuse to love him back."
If given the choice between two options, where one of them is eternal torment, it isn't a free choice. It's blackmail.
You said, "“Just FYI, I don't sin. Ever.”
Then why are you so fixated on Hell?"
I'm not. Hell doesn't exist. It just illustrates how unimaginably evil your god is (if it existed).
You said, "“Aside from the fact that the sacrifice by your Christ wasn't one…”
Oh, no, don’t put that aside; I’d love for you to clarify that one. When does X not equal X?"
If the dude was god-reincarnate, he knew he'd rise again in just a few days. Not much of a sacrifice.
You said, "In a chess match, if I sacrifice one of my stronger pieces for better positioning on the board, and that sacrifice leads eventually leads to my victory, the sacrifice was hardly unjust."
It's not a sacrifice if you receive a benefit in return. Your example is simply a trade of a piece for position.
You said, "If a parent sacrifices his or her life to save a child, that sacrifice is hardly unjust."
If there is a benefit to the person making the "sacrifice", it's a calculated trade-off. It's only a sacrifice if the object or person being sacrificed receives no benefit in return.
You said, "If a friend sacrifices a kidney to help a friend in need of a kidney transplant, that sacrifice is hardly unjust."
That's a donation, with the continued company of the friend as the return, not a sacrifice.
You said, "If a billionaire sacrifices the better part of his fortune to combat world hunger, that sacrifice is hardly unjust."
Again, not a sacrifice.
You said, "It is simply not accurate to say that “any sacrifice is unjust,” especially when you are speaking about a very particular kind of sacrifice."
Maybe I should have spelled out what "sacrifice" means. I wasn't referring to the metaphorical meaning.
You said, "You’re making the false assumption that God isn’t interested in justice."
If your god demands sacrifice, it isn't about justice.
You said, "Simply put, God’s justice demands a penalty for sin. Christ’s death paid that penalty for everyone."
Christ's death wasn't much of a sacrifice. Wasn't he the reincarnation of your god? Didn't he return to heaven for his eternal reward?
You said, "Moreover, “a tyrant that wants blood” would not take his own blood, or that of anyone he loves. A tyrant would not willfully bring suffering upon himself."
Now, if it can trick the gullible that it really was a sacrifice, it may be on to something.
You said, "No, a tyrant is, by definition, “a cruel and oppressive ruler.”"
And, guess what, that describes your god to a T.
You said, "JESUS DIED WILLINGLY. He laid down his life; it was not taken from him. The cross was not forced upon him. It was something he willingly embraced for the sake of humankind."
He made a trade. He knew what the reward was.
You said, "If that God does exist, then the stories you rejected weren’t fairy tales."
Of course, but what are the odds?
You said, "Possibly. But I never claimed to be without sin."
Doesn't that bother you? Aren't you afraid that if you stack up too many of these little sins, you'd end up in hell? Some christians may even claim that every sin is as bad as the next. If that's the case, you're fucked.
You said, "You did."
And I stand by that.
@Chad
You said, "Irrelevant, foul language aside"
Actually, my main point is that if your god actually exists, he fucked up, badly.
You said, "Free will is only free will if it truly is the freedom to do what ever you want."
If the outcome of any given choice can be known, the choice can't be made out of free will. If the outcome is known, the choice has already been made. If the outcome is known, there only remains the illusion of free will.
@LinCA "If the outcome of any given choice can be known, the choice can't be made out of free will. If the outcome is known, the choice has already been made. If the outcome is known, there only remains the illusion of free will."
@Chad "not if the the outcome is known by virtue of being outside our time/space.
obviously..
as said before, your reasoning only works if God is bound by our linear time... as He isnt, the argument fails.
@Chad
You said, "as said before, your reasoning only works if God is bound by our linear time... as He isnt, the argument fails."
If your god can know what choice you will make, before you make it, your choice isn't a choice and you don't have free will. If it doesn't know, it isn't omniscient. It's one or the other, never both.
@LinCA "If your god can know what choice you will make, before you make it, your choice isn't a choice and you don't have free will. If it doesn't know, it isn't omniscient. It's one or the other, never both."
=>you are still having trouble taking time out of the equation.
God exists outside our time/space (but can enter it).
As such He knows what choices we will make by virtue of our own free will.
again, omniscience and omnipotence are in no way irreconcilable traits..
@Chad
You said, "you are still having trouble taking time out of the equation."
You seem unable to grasp that you can't. Not surprisingly as it would undermine your entire argument.
You said, "God exists outside our time/space (but can enter it)."
It's irrelevant what your imaginary friend can or can't do. In this universe, we are bound by time. So if your choice can be known, you don't have free will. If your god doesn't know your choice, it isn't omniscient. Within this universe, your god can't be omniscient and omnipotent.
But whatever. I don't expect you to acknowledge that your imaginary friend is just that, imaginary. How about you provide some evidence that there are gods. Any gods. Doesn't even need to be specifically yours.
I already know that you are incapable and unwilling to imagine any other way the universe started. I also know that you are incapable of admitting that you don't know. I also know that you think that means that there must be a god. But that is, of course, baloney. Just because you ave a favorite theory doesn't mean it's correct. It doesn't prove anything. Even if nobody could offer an alternate possibility, that doesn't mean that your bullshit story is true.
The word "humanism" has a number of meanings. And because authors and speakers often don't clarify which meaning they intend, those trying to explain humanism can easily become a source of confusion. Fortunately, each meaning of the word const.i.tutes a different type of humanism—the different types being easily separated and defined by the use of appropriate adjectives. So it is relatively easy to summarize the varieties of humanism in this way.
Bootyfunk, Your "acclaimed" humanism site is fluff-it-N-stuff-it reading material which few if any will read thoroughly let alone be able to fathom the unfathomable and quite strenuous reading of all out gibberish thoughts! I find it a bit humorous that the writer did include "Christian humanism" and also "religious humanism" in his ranting way(s)
BTW, again which of the two paragraphs do you find as being unfathomable?.
It's funny that humanism cannot be pinned down upon just one issue of humanism. One tends to play-the-field so-to-speak. Fred Edwords should be given an award for not laying down a single humanist position but a myriad of declarations as to what humanisms entail! Bravo, bravo King Edwards for not laying down the singularism of humanism but rather the diversities of multi-levels of psuedo-thoughts pertaining to "humanalism"! Hence your humanisms are but "pick-N-choose" idiocracies!
Which of these 2 paragraphs are you Bootyfunk finding hard to fathom, the 1st or the 2nd?
Bootyfunk wrote,
"The word "humanism" has a number of meanings."
**very few philosophies have one exact definition. not sure what your point is here.
"the different types being easily separated and defined by the use of appropriate adjectives. So it is relatively easy to summarize the varieties of humanism in this way."
** example?
The 1st paragraph above was copied from your touted humanist site @ http://www.americanhumanist.org. You are such a fool Bootyfunk!
Christian Humanism is defined by Webster's Third New International Dictionary as "a philosophy advocating the self-fulfillment of man within the framework of Christian principles." This more human-oriented faith is largely a product of the Renaissance and is a part of what made up Renaissance humanism.
Resaissance Humanism is the spirit of learning that developed at the end of the middle ages with the revival of classical letters and a renewed confidence in the ability of human beings to determine for themselves truth and falsehood.
Religious Humanism largely emerged out of Ethical Culture, Unitarianism, and Universalism. Today, many Unitarian Universalist congregations and all Ethical Culture societies describe themselves as humanist in the modern sense.
"3.Humanism is a philosophy of reason and science in the pursuit of knowledge. Therefore, when it comes to the question of the most valid means for acquiring knowledge of the world, Humanists reject arbitrary faith, authority, revelation, and altered states of consciousness."
I guess then we are all a bunch of idiots judged by this above statement of probabilities meant to confound anyone with a brainyard kept mindfield of causations. Just another gibber jabber of "nausciousness" coming out of a so-called humanist site of nuttiness!
A little early to be drunk, isn't it, Puppy?
Nuttin like an early birdie special to get the heart pumping with vigor and stamina Tom Tom! I just love the smells of freshly brewed whiskey in the mornings! And you?
There is absolutely no thinking in your assertion that christ's historicity is like Hercules. Right on this post REALITY will tell u so! The reality is that most ancient history is unreliable! However the records concerning Hebrew history is the most accurate of all!
Hebrew history as per 1.5 million Conservative Jews and their rabbis.
origin: http://query.nytimes.com/gst/abstract.html?res=F20E1EFE35540C7A8CDDAA0894DA404482 NY Times review and important enough to reiterate.
New Torah For Modern Minds
“Abraham, the Jewish patriarch, probably never existed. Nor did Moses. The entire Exodus story as recounted in the Bible probably never occurred. The same is true of the tumbling of the walls of Jericho. And David, far from being the fearless king who built Jerusalem into a mighty capital, was more likely a provincial leader whose reputation was later magnified to provide a rallying point for a fledgling nation.
Such startling propositions - the product of findings by archaeologists digging in Israel and its environs over the last 25 years - have gained wide acceptance among non-Orthodox rabbis. But there has been no attempt to disseminate these ideas or to discuss them with the laity - until now.
The United Synagogue of Conservative Judaism, which represents the 1.5 million Conservative Jews in the United States, has just issued a new Torah and commentary, the first for Conservatives in more than 60 years. Called "Etz Hayim" ("Tree of Life" in Hebrew), it offers an interpretation that incorporates the latest findings from archaeology, philology, anthropology and the study of ancient cultures. To the editors who worked on the book, it represents one of the boldest efforts ever to introduce into the religious mainstream a view of the Bible as a human rather than divine doc-ument.
The notion that the Bible is not literally true "is more or less settled and understood among most Conservative rabbis," observed David Wolpe, a rabbi at Sinai Temple in Los Angeles and a contributor to "Etz Hayim." But some congregants, he said, "may not like the stark airing of it." Last Passover, in a sermon to 2,200 congregants at his synagogue, Rabbi Wolpe frankly said that "virtually every modern archaeologist" agrees "that the way the Bible describes the Exodus is not the way that it happened, if it happened at all." The rabbi offered what he called a "LITANY OF DISILLUSION”' about the narrative, including contradictions, improbabilities, chronological lapses and the absence of corroborating evidence. In fact, he said, archaeologists digging in the Sinai have "found no trace of the tribes of Israel - not one shard of pottery."
prob•a•bly
Adverb: Almost certainly; as far as one knows or can tell.
BOOTYFUNK
I don't think that u know the burden of proof rules as well as I, do you? Regurgitating what others tell u does not make you bright!
If u studied de Bible that's ok however its hard 4 a religious man to come to any other conclusion than u've whereas a spiritual man see things different!
Only for the new members of this blog:
Solving the issues in less than 100 words. This is so easy one wonders why it took so long: (from a PowerPoint slide)
SAVING 1.5 BILLION LOST MUSLIMS:
THERE NEVER WERE AND NEVER WILL BE ANY ANGELS I.E. NO GABRIEL, NO ISLAM AND THEREFORE NO MORE KORANIC-DRIVEN ACTS OF HORROR AND TERROR LIKE 9/11 AND NO MORE SUNNI/SHIITE CONFLICTS.
SAVING 2 BILLION LOST CHRISTIANS:
THERE WERE NEVER ANY BODILY RESURRECTIONS AND THERE WILL NEVER BE ANY BODILY RESURRECTIONS I.E. NO EASTER, NO CHRISTIANITY AND THEREFORE NO MORE VATICAN COVERUPS AND NO MORE CONFLICTS WITH NUNS.
SAVING 15.5 MILLION FOLLOWERS OF JUDAISM:
ABRAHAM AND MOSES PROBABLY NEVER EXISTED.
(prob•a•bly
Adverb: Almost certainly; as far as one knows or can tell.)
Added details upon request.
Prayer changes things .
action changes things; prayer wastes valuable time.
~Prayer doesn’t not; you are such a LIAR. You have NO proof it changes anything! A great example of prayer proven not to work is the Christians in jail because prayer didn't work and their children died. For example: Susan Grady, who relied on prayer to heal her son. Nine-year-old Aaron Grady died and Susan Grady was arrested.
An article in the Journal of Pediatrics examined the deaths of 172 children from families who relied upon faith healing from 1975 to 1995. They concluded that four out of five ill children, who died under the care of faith healers or being left to prayer only, would most likely have survived if they had received medical care.
The statistical studies from the nineteenth century and the three CCU studies on prayer are quite consistent with the fact that humanity is wasting a huge amount of time on a procedure that simply doesn’t work. Nonetheless, faith in prayer is so pervasive and deeply rooted, you can be sure believers will continue to devise future studies in a desperate effort to confirm their beliefs!.!.
Nii- Don't waste your time with the Atheists, when presented with proof on God they say you are twisting things to suit the Bible. They don't want to know the truth, they are caught up in there own folly.
the hole in your "logic" is that you have no proof for god.
what evidence do you offer? i'm all ears.
Bootyfunk- Study the Bible and don't just read it.
"proof on God"
LIAR!!! There is no damn proof outside of your buybull. Get your damn head out of the 1st century and attempt to live in the 21st century. Your ignorance is quite apparent. You are arrogant if you think that you know the answers when science can't even provide all the answers and when science does provide answers they are based on facts, not stories passed down through generations.
The LORD shall cut off all flattering lips, [and] the tongue that speaketh proud things:
Psalms 12:3
Amen.
TruthPrevails- I am tired of Giving the Atheist Proof, Study the Bible and don't just read it.
you assume much. anyone that disagrees with you hasn't "studied" the bible. wrong. i've studied the bible. i've read it with historical, religious and skeptical guides, too. perhaps you need to study the bible. or is that just a convenient way of getting out of actually presenting proof...?
tired of giving atheists proof? LOL. what proof have you offered?
The bible is no proof of god. That's the dumbest reasoning I have ever heard. That's like saying any fictional character from a book in history is proof of their existence.
BOOTY
Easiest proof that Christ existed is that His younger brother James the Just was the very first Christian bishop. He was bishop of Jerusalem when General Ti.tus, later the Roman Emperor Ti.tus Caesar razed it to the ground! I think u need more lessons in Roman history!
Bootyfunk- If you have studied the Bible, How long did it took God to Create the Heavens and the Earth, Not the things within the Earth.
MICKEY
I don't see any religion including Atheism as bad but it seems America now has what may be called "hatheists", they do not focus on their own spirituality but rather bash other religions. However I don't believe they rep Atheism worldwide. Charitable love will help u achieve spirituality!
and that's the big evil that atheists do? point out that you're in a cult. christians tell atheists we're going to be tortured forever all because we don't believe in a god for which there is no proof. yeah, that's real loving.
MICKEY
I believe school is out now, is it? Look here in science there is nothing like burden of proof! And legally speaking it is very impossible to prove there isn't God without scientific evidence. It is a scientific impossibility to prove anything beyond what the five rational senses may know!
Mickey
The number one proof that a God may exist is its idol. YHWH threw a challenge out to all other religions to say that His will be alive.
And there is ample proof that Jesus of Nazareth was a historical figure with brothers n sisters!
I love u as myself, hope u learn what it means n share it!
you're asking people to prove a negative. that's not how it works, tiger. if YOU make the claim, YOU provide the proof. i don't have to prove there is no god - YOU have to prove your claim. otherwise, following your "logic", prove my cat isn't god. you can't? then my cat must be god. all bow down to whiskers! meow meow amen.
"The number one proof that a God may exist is its idol."
LOL. what are you even talking about?
also, there is no good evidence that jesus ever existed, kinda like hercules. if you have some, i would love to see it. but i know you don't.
It's an easy trick to say that something exists, but it can't be sensed by the five senses. I can say that about the invisible dragon in my garage that breathes fire that cannot be seen and has no heat and cannot be sensed by any of the five senses. Do you believe in my invisible dragon or no?
@bootyfunk,
nope
@nope: yep.