I was just pointing out, that literal understanding of every word in Bible is obviously incorrect.Originally Posted by Theym
Senior Member
I was just pointing out, that literal understanding of every word in Bible is obviously incorrect.
Me is troll, me is moomintroll! Me likes ADoM... Me likes Dwarf Fortress... Dis two games is the ones best!
Oh, me likes zombies too!
Ancient Member
You can't prove a negative. All you can do is apply Occam's Razor.
Well, you can also have chance and other things that are not intelligence.
What properties do you associate with something that is designed? What properties do you associate with something that is not designed?
No true Scotsman works like this: If you were to say "No Christian would commit murder" and then I show you person Bob, who is Christian, and has committed murder, the fallacy then applies if you proceed to argue that "Well, Bob is not a real Christian".
Well, if those other texts are the Bible, then a lot of Christians would just claim that they're not in conflict at all, because, of course, the Bible is without error. In spite of the illogic of it, I think Protestants in particular tend to defer to Paul over Jesus, in practice at least.
No, just curious.
Well, it's relevant only in the sense that you're using them as examples of people whose lives have been improved by Christianity, and simultaneously arguing that a lot of Christians "fake it".
Well, as I've said before, I haven't excluded the idea that a god exists. I do think that if a god exists, he hasn't left us any compelling evidence to suggest his existence, and, until such evidence presents itself, will operate under the assumption that no gods exist. I do think it would probably be quite difficult for me, at this point, to believe in the Christian God again.
For the other, I didn't stop being a Christian because I stopped experiencing those types of things. Some of them I still experience. I'd say my deconversion to Christianity essentially followed two parallel tracks. On one track, I found myself repeatedly disagreeing with the Bible morally on a number of subjects, including a number of core doctrines. I couldn't find any resolution to these--the Bible didn't recognize their inherent immorality at all, and I wasn't able to get satisfactory explanations from other Christians I consulted either. I found myself being forced to reject a number of foundational Christian beliefs because they weren't consistent with what I believed a moral, loving God would do. At around the same period, I spent a lot of time thinking about what "giving my life to God" really meant. I reasoned that if God demanded that I commit my life to him, then I should be prepared to take that literally--half measures weren't good enough. I spent a few days contemplating some insanities--quitting my job and becoming a missionary, type of thing--and at some point it occurred to me that I'd better be damn sure I was right before completely changing the course of my life. So I decided I'd better spend some time making sure Christianity was true. Needless to say, I found that the preponderance of evidence suggested the opposite conclusion.
Hoping to win with every class, doomed. Archer, Barbarian, Bard, Beastfighter, Druid, Elementalist, Farmer, Fighter, Monk, and ULE Priest down.
Ancient Member
The text makes it abundantly clear who is being tortured. If you honestly think that the text can be sufficiently misinterpreted to say the exact opposite of what it appears to say, I would contend that the text is so unreliable as to be useless.
So you agree that it did give the knowledge of good and evil itself?
None of this implies that Adam had knowledge of good and evil prior to eating of the tree, which is the critical point.
Intelligence and ignorance are not mutually exclusive. Adam had no reason not to trust the serpent. Indeed, Adam didn't have any reason to necessarily trust God either.
Adam and Eve don't blame God. Eve blames the serpent and Adam blames Eve. And God overreacts.
Yes, I did think something was wrong with Christianity. I figured out that it was immoral and untrue.
Just so we're clear: the interpretation that you hold to be correct is one that most Christians have not held for over a thousand years?
Hoping to win with every class, doomed. Archer, Barbarian, Bard, Beastfighter, Druid, Elementalist, Farmer, Fighter, Monk, and ULE Priest down.
Ancient Member
Protestants obviously don't read the Bible as much as you. My memory isn't so sharp but I definately recall God spitting out lukewarm believers and hypocrites.
I used to study the Bible. It is actually a pretty fascinating book and I believe many things contained in it. I don't think I can interpret it for anyone else though. Everyone seems to read it in their own way, usually in the way that suits them best.
I said it before, and I'll say it again. If I knew scripture like you, I'd prolly be an athiest too.. -gut
／l、
（ﾟ､ ｡ ７
l、 ~ヽ
じしf_, )ノ
Senior Member
You've got one part of my question ansswered. Think more.
It did give more knowledge, than they initially had.
None of it implies that he had no knowledge of good and evil. Think of it as of math problem. Assumption, that he had no knowledge leads to contradictions. => he knew. Logic is power.
And the man said, The woman whom thou gavest to be with me, she gave me of the tree, and I did eat.
Just like you saying: well, people do sin, but only because God made them that way!
Just to be clear. Your view of Christianity is based on lots of assumptions. Most of all are about meanings of therms, like Love, justice, God, hell and so on. If you found out, that this view is immoral, you should've been revise your assumptions. Which you don't bother to do.
Just to be clear: yes. Cause, the one that most (i suppose, that you mean Catholics here?) christians held (or rather were rewriting to the needs of church as an organisation) is imoral and untrue. Poor protestants saw it, but instead of returning to original believes they just went: ahh, screw that! Let anyone decide for themselves...
Me is troll, me is moomintroll! Me likes ADoM... Me likes Dwarf Fortress... Dis two games is the ones best!
Oh, me likes zombies too!
Ancient Member
>> None of that evidence proves there was no guiding intelligence involved.
> You can't prove a negative. All you can do is apply Occam's Razor
So if they believe in the absence of god, without having proof, it is not faith, because of
Occam's Razor.
And I'm still calling 'unfair' on the whole 'if god did it, I assume it should be perfect' idea.
> What properties do you associate with something that is designed? What properties do you associate with something that is not designed?
On gut's design-o-meter, there would be at one end something that displays no signs of order, or
being created intentionally. Sneeze on a wall and note where the drops hit. Unless they form a
picture of Abe Lincoln, there is little reason to suspect they were guided into that pattern
intentionally. That droplet pattern could have occured with very little chance being needed to
explain its existance. In the middle, let's take the example of a single-celled organism. It
is more orderly, so takes a high degree of chance to explain its existance without guidance. I
don't know (or care) what the current theory is, about when single celled organisms evolved,
but I'll just use the figure 'millions of years'. That's a lot of chance, but we'll say it's
possible, just to go onward. At the far end of my chart, there will be humans, computer chips,
that sort of thing. The amount of chance needed to explain these things, using only
non-intelligent methods is out of my realm of belief.
> then I show you person Bob, who is Christian, and has committed murder, the fallacy then applies
if you proceed to argue that "Well, Bob is not a real Christian".
That still doesn't apply, due to the difference in being a scottsman, as opposed to christian.
The qualification to be an irishmen is to be born in the proper geographic location (or arguably
to have a particular genetical sequence, or upbringing). The qualification to be a christian is
different, it is philosophy/behavior. It is like saying 'Bob, a member of PETA, clubs baby seals'.
It is reasonable to suggest that no Person who really believes in the Ethical Treatment of
Animals would club baby seals.
> if those other texts are the Bible, then a lot of Christians would just claim that they're not in conflict at all,
A lot of christians handle rattlesnakes. I've told you before, a 'lot' of people doing, thinking,
saying, believing, ANYTHING doesn't impress me. It doesn't make them one iota more right than if
they were alone.
> I think Protestants in particular tend to defer to Paul over Jesus, in practice at least.
The ones who do should be polite enough to call themselves Paulists.
>>> Do you consider yourself to be a Christian?
>> Would that make a difference in our debate?
> No, just curiou
If I used process of elimination, then yes. Though to call me devout would be an insult to believers
such as yourself
>>> How do you know they're true Christians?
>> better question, why would I care?
> Well, it's relevant only in the sense that you're using them as examples of people whose lives have
been improved by Christianity, and simultaneously arguing that a lot of Christians "fake it".
I MEANT that MY life had been improved by them believing jesus. I don't care if they follow 100%,
as I don't expect perfection from anyone. I am happy for what I get. If them fearing hellfire
causes them to stop being alchoholics, good for me. If it doesn't cause them to stop cheating on
their taxes, well, life goes on.
> I found myself repeatedly disagreeing with the Bible morally on a number of subjects, including a
number of core doctrines. I couldn't find any resolution to these--the Bible didn't recognize
their inherent immorality at all, and I wasn't able to get satisfactory explanations from other
Christians I consulted eithe
Ahh, then here seems to be the difference maker. My propensity to label anything that disagrees
with me as being mistaken. I have never felt the need to consult anyone about anything I find false
about the bible.
> reject a number of foundational Christian beliefs because they weren't consistent with what I believed a
moral, loving God would do
ahh, like creating hell. It still doesn't bother me. Whether god is loving or not, whether god
made hell or not (or for what purpose) has no bearing on the reasons why I believe god exists.
> spent a lot of time thinking about what "giving my life to God" really meant.
...
> half measures weren't good enough.
Maybe the real choice isn't 'believer=slave' or 'non-beleiver=free'. That IS the way it is often
presented, but usually by those who are trying to get money/labor out of people.
> I decided I'd better spend some time making sure Christianity was true. Needless to say, I found that
the preponderance of evidence suggested
If my ultimate decision to either be a slave or free was based on said evidence, I'm sure I would
have found the 'preponderance' to suggest whatever it needed to, and I would have believed it to
the core of my being.
"Whip me!" pleads the adom player. The rng replies... "No."
Ancient Member
I will note my objection to the term "believe in the absence of God" as noted earlier. Strong atheism (eg. the positive belief that God does not exist) is not defensible as far as I'm concerned. The best we can do is to state that there is currently no evidence for God and some evidence against specific conceptions of God. Occam's Razor simply argues that a theory should not contain extraneous assumptions.
Well, strictly speaking they could be a member of PETA and club baby seals. I get your point, though.
I wouldn't have a problem with that
I've noticed
No, it doesn't have any bearing on the existence claims. It is entirely possible that God exists and is evil. Or incompetent. Or that God exists but just doesn't care. Morality makes a difference on whether or not a particular philosophy--in this case Christianity--ought to be believed, and whether the particular God that they adhere to, ought to be worshipped or obeyed.
Yes, I was certainly predisposed to accept evidence away from the insanity that I was contemplating. I was also predisposed to reject evidence that contradicted my beliefs. Maybe the two balanced out, maybe they didn't. I accept the possibility that I could be wrong. I think it's sufficiently unlikely that I'm not all that concerned about it, though.
Obviously the torture is being enacted either by God, or by some agency acting under his express wishes and authority. Were this not the case, God would be morally obliged to intervene and end the torture.
Except that it doesn't lead to contradictions. My reasoning is as follows:
God made Adam without knowledge of good and evil.
God made Adam without knowledge of death.
God made the tree of knowledge of good and evil with the intention of punishing Adam if he disobeyed His express command not to ate from it.
Because Adam had no knowledge of good and evil, he did not recognize that there was any problem with disobeying God.
Because Adam had no knowledge of death, he did not recognize the seriousness of the consequences of God's threat regarding death.
Because Adam had no knowledge of good and evil, he did not recognize that the snake could be lying to him (although technically it wasn't).
Therefore, Adam ate the fruit entirely ignorant of the possibility of both the moral implications and the real consequences of his actions.
Because Adam disobeyed God, God punished him for disobedience.
[Note for clarity: I'm treating Adam and Eve as the same person here. I don't actually feel that the addition of the extra person is relevant to the implications of the story. If you feel it is, then I can reform the argument reflecting this.]
So you're saying that Eve didn't sin by eating from the tree?
Nothing you've said here even remotely suggests that my evaluations of Christianity are incorrect. You certainly haven't made the case that my evaluations of Christianity are immoral.
I'll give you credit for your honesty.
Let's just put it this way. Catholics believe that Orthodoxy and Protestanism are immoral and untrue; Protestants believe that Catholicism and Orthodoxy are immoral and true. Orthodox Christians believe that Catholicism and Protestantism are immoral and untrue. I agree with all of you.
Hoping to win with every class, doomed. Archer, Barbarian, Bard, Beastfighter, Druid, Elementalist, Farmer, Fighter, Monk, and ULE Priest down.
Ancient Member
Protestants believe that Catholicism and Orthodoxy are immoral and true.
.................................................. .................................................^
"Whip me!" pleads the adom player. The rng replies... "No."
Junior Member
So what we have here is not a failure of the theory of evolution to explain how life developed, but a failure of guts powers of conception to properly envisage the entirety of that theory in action. It's not chance that shapes natural selection, it's time and inevitability. Although chance can play it's part in affecting populations, with natural disasters like floods and volcanoes, chance is not what affects the selective perpetuation of genes. Perhaps in very small populations chance may be the selection criteria, but then it's not evolution that's affecting them.
I think that's it's evidence of design that's most critical to the argument for a divine creator, yet it's consistently lacking. Once i saw a hilarious documentary advocating intelligent design, and as evidence of design they presented a banana, noting it's various perfections as a food source, how it perfectly fits in the human hand and many other "perfections". Funnily enough they made no mention of the fact that bananas as they exist today are in fact a product of artificially applied selection by humans over thousands of generations. Originally bananas were about finger sized and only barely palatable.
Ancient Member
> So what we have here is not a failure of the theory of evolution to explain how life developed, but a failure of guts powers of conception
agian, you speak as though your sect knows the truth and others just don't understand.
> It's not chance that shapes natural selection, it's time and inevitability.
I've heard the 'monkeys + typewriters + infinity = hamlet' theory before, and didn't believe
it then either. In an abstract dreamworld where nothing interferes, sure, but the logistics I
have experienced in this reality just don't provide the same idealistic environment as neverland.
You have finite time, with ice ages, supersized volcanoes, and meteors thrown in for flavor.
You say that it is 'inevitable' that when molecules bump together long enough, they will make
complex things. You try to avoid using terminology like 'bump together', but in essence, that
IS what evolution is based on (and indeed, what we are still doing now if you look at mating
that way). So if you look at it that way, even pentium processors are the inevitable result
of enough collisions, as human-level intelligence is inevitable with enough time, and they
will naturally want moar power for their video games. So why stop there, if human-level
intelligence and 100 teraherz processors are inevitable, why not humans version 2.0, or 3.0,
with some chips and beneficial bio engineering thrown in for good measure. Would only take a
bit more time, right? With enough time, they will merge with one another as a species, leave
their physical bodies behind and become perfection incarnate. There, you are back to the
same problem you started with... it's inevitable.
So which is more probable, ascention to godhood, or blasting ourselves back to the stone age?
Logistics suck.
"Whip me!" pleads the adom player. The rng replies... "No."
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
