A mirror for you sinister immoral cruciphiles

Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by Mr McStizzle on March 4, 2010 at 11:31am

Your god is patently inconsistent, McStizzle. He's laid off the babies recently, hasn't he? He used to have a penchant for barbecuing them, having them put to the sword, or torn to bits by wild animals, but he's become a lot more subdued in his dotage.

The thing is, you believe this consistency is all about specific instances rather than general principles or God's wider intentions. If you cannot be certain of the reason these things took place, you cannot say for certain whether there is inconsistency.

Also, last I checked He didn't actually do any of the burning, killing or tearing of babies :) People, on the other hand, continue to do all these things and people are still torn apart by wild animals.

The wild animals thing is an interesting one, I assume you're referencing those who were attacked by wild animals after ridiculing the prophet for his baldness? Um...yeah...they weren't babies :)

Permalink Reply by Chris on March 4, 2010 at 12:04pm

Oh, so god never commanded his armies of israelites to kill all of the inhabitants of whole cities? What version of Joshua have you been reading, McStizzle? The Reader's Digest expurgated? And sorry, you're right - the bears' victims weren't babies - they were children. Makes all the difference.

Permalink Reply by Mr McStizzle on March 4, 2010 at 12:21pm

Oh, so god never commanded his armies of israelites to kill all of the inhabitants of whole cities? What version of Joshua have you been reading, McStizzle? The Reader's Digest expurgated?

No, He did. You said that He was doing the killing. I'm simply saying He didn't do the killing :)

And sorry, you're right - the bears' victims weren't babies - they were children. Makes all the difference.

Actually, they were "lads", young men.

The Hebrew word is naar which is usually translated as "young man" but has also been used to apply to servants and soldiers.

Permalink Reply by phatbat on March 11, 2010 at 3:21pm

McStizzle,

My my, you have got your knickers in a semantic twist haven’t you? I’m really struggling to make out exactly what this supposed distinction is between want and will that would have led you to correct me when I confirmed with you originally that this god thing can do whatever he wants to do.

You seem to realise you’re just trying to dig yourself out of a hole of your own making when you wrote:

I mean it's all kinda semantical and all that.

Yes it is all semantics and so I return to the original statement:

this god can do whatever he wants to do

From everything you’ve said this is accurate, even if I accept your distinction between “want” and “will” (which I’m not even sure you understand, let alone I) all that “will” would appear to add to the sentence is some kind of enhanced want, like really wanting something a lot. Which is fine if you like, are you happy to say that god can only do things he really wants to do? Or will the original sentence in bold above be more accurate?

So are you now happy with the above bold sentence? Is it correct? If you don’t accept it then the only alternative is that there are things this god wants to do but can’t.

Permalink Reply by Mr McStizzle on March 11, 2010 at 3:43pm

Yes it is all semantics and so I return to the original statement:

this god can do whatever he wants to do

This is rather naughty of you, because this is not the original statement. The original statement was:

So you are saying that this god can do anything if he wants it to happen.

So are you now happy with the above bold sentence? Is it correct? If you don’t accept it then the only alternative is that there are things this god wants to do but can’t.

Ironically, this is the impression I got from your original statement, that you were trying to imply that there are things God wants to do but can't. I would more or less agree with the statement "God can do what He wants to do." However, because He won't contradict Himself, there are certain things He won't do by force. For example, He doesn't want any to perish, however He will not force the decision to follow Him on us because it is His will that we have free-will.

Permalink Reply by phatbat on March 11, 2010 at 5:26pm

McStizzle,

This is rather naughty of you, because this is not the original statement. The original statement was: So you are saying that this god can do anything if he wants it to happen.

Well I mean both those sentences to mean the exact same thing, it wasn’t naughty. When referring to whether you can do something or not, the “wanting to do” and the “wanting the doing to happen” are the exact same thing.

See how much effort it takes to get you to accept the meaning of just one sentence is actually correct.

So we have established that this god can do whatever he wants to do.

So now we can move on.

However, because He won't contradict Himself, there are certain things He won't do by force. For example, He doesn't want any to perish, however He will not force the decision to follow Him on us because it is His will that we have free-will.

Who said anything about forcing anyone to follow him. Why not just not set the universe up so that there are bad consequences for the descendants of these supposed adam and eve characters based on the actions of said couple. And instead communicate directly with every living person in the way he did with adam and eve and give them actual moral teachings and maybe tests, where deliberations are based on the consideration of harm and suffering and the alleviation there of? That way everyone can still choose to follow his wishes and everyone who chooses not to is doing it after having been offered it directly by this god entity.

And before you resort to the same response you used in the post that started this latest sting off, we would not think we were mad if this god character was talking to us, or even appearing to us too, if it was happening to everyone, and it was exactly the same experience which we could all talk about and compare both the consistency of the appearances and the information this god was communicating.

Permalink Reply by Mr McStizzle on March 12, 2010 at 1:47pm

See how much effort it takes to get you to accept the meaning of just one sentence is actually correct.

The result of misunderstanding the intent of the question. It happens :)

Who said anything about forcing anyone to follow him. Why not just not set the universe up so that there are bad consequences for the descendants of these supposed adam and eve characters based on the actions of said couple.

This is like asking "Why doesn't the Creator just create a universe that requires no Creator?" In God we live, move and have our being. Existence isn't possible completely independent of Him. However, we can be estranged from Him and we can renounce His influence. It is His mercy that continues to make existence itself possible.

And instead communicate directly with every living person in the way he did with adam and eve and give them actual moral teachings and maybe tests, where deliberations are based on the consideration of harm and suffering and the alleviation there of? That way everyone can still choose to follow his wishes and everyone who chooses not to is doing it after having been offered it directly by this god entity.

And before you resort to the same response you used in the post that started this latest sting off, we would not think we were mad if this god character was talking to us, or even appearing to us too, if it was happening to everyone, and it was exactly the same experience which we could all talk about and compare both the consistency of the appearances and the information this god was communicating.

This is the funny thing. You recognise that He did this already with Adam & Eve, yet look what they did despite that. He effectively spoke to the whole of humanity when He spoke to them. They saw Him and were privy to direct communication. Any doubts in knowledge they had, they could have gone to Him directly. They were completely without excuse to turn their back on what He said...yet they still did.

Now these two people, placed in ideal circumstances, with everything good going for them still chose to question the word of the one who spoke to them. Why on earth do you think that it would be any different for 6 billion people who do not live in ideal circumstances and who don't have everything good going for them and who are direct descendents of those original two?

You are placing great faith in humanity, I'll tell you that ;) You're also not considering mankinds capacity for spin. If they don't want to beileve something, they won't. I recently read of a theory put forth that the 2 million Hebrews at Mt Sinai along with Moses experienced a mass halucination by taking psychotrophic drugs!

Dawkins tell us that even though everyone can perceive design in biological structures, this is actually an illusion and that anyone who thinks otherwise is mad! and many many many people have been convinced by this line of argument. Yet this "illusion" of design can "happen to everyone" and it can be "compared for consistancy"

In talking about God appearing, you say it can (supposedly) be "the same experience" which in and of itself doesn't actually make sense anyway because no one has the same experience of any event.

You also ask why God doesn't give moral teachings and tests...erm...have you not read the Bible? It is full of moral teaching and examples of the way God has tested, can test, and will test people. No one else has sinned in the same manner as Adam and so they do not bear the guilt of Adam's sin. Their sin is their own because in their own way they fall short of God's moral standard. In their own way they fail the test.

Permalink Reply by phatbat on March 19, 2010 at 4:09pm

McStizzle,

I said:

Who said anything about forcing anyone to follow him. Why not just not set the universe up so that there are bad consequences for the descendants of these supposed adam and eve characters based on the actions of said couple.

To which you said:

This is like asking "Why doesn't the Creator just create a universe that requires no Creator?"

After which you wrote some sentences from which I just couldn’t ascertain any relevance at all nor barely any meaning, but never mind lets concentrate on this assertion.

Are you actually saying that a universe like I described wouldn’t require a creator? But the one we have now does?

You really need to explain what you mean here and actually answer the question of why this god couldn’t have created such a universe as I proposed.

This is the funny thing. You recognise that He did this already with Adam & Eve, yet look what they did despite that. He effectively spoke to the whole of humanity when He spoke to them. They saw Him and were privy to direct communication. Any doubts in knowledge they had, they could have gone to Him directly. They were completely without excuse to turn their back on what He said...yet they still did. Now these two people, placed in ideal circumstances, with everything good going for them still chose to question the word of the one who spoke to them. Why on earth do you think that it would be any different for 6 billion people who do not live in ideal circumstances and who don't have everything good going for them and who are direct descendents of those original two?

You are placing great faith in humanity, I'll tell you that ;) You're also not considering mankinds capacity for spin. If they don't want to beileve something, they won't.

Oh come on, why waste a whole reply completely missing the point.

The point of me proposing this god appearing to everyone and speaking to everyone was not to guarantee that everyone behaves themselves, it was so that the situation was fair, unlike the way that you propose this god has gone about communicating the rules, which is to speak just to a few people and expect us to suspend the very incredulity we are expected to use to stop believing in all the other god propositions out there when proposed by other “prophets”. As it is the situation that you’re proposing renders this god either inept or bad.

So back to proposal please and this time respond properly.

Dawkins tell us that even though everyone can perceive design in biological structures, this is actually an illusion and that anyone who thinks otherwise is mad! and many many many people have been convinced by this line of argument. Yet this "illusion" of design can "happen to everyone" and it can be "compared for consistancy" In talking about God appearing, you say it can (supposedly) be "the same experience" which in and of itself doesn't actually make sense anyway because no one has the same experience of any event.

Wow, really clutching at straws for analogies there. But you are conflating inferences drawn from observations being accurate and the actual observation themselves accepted as happening at all.

If this god entity just appeared and spoke to people throughout their life, giving moral guidance and justifications, answering questions, etc, this god would just become a fact of life like anything else. In your analogy the existence of the illusion of design is analogous with god in my proposal. Everyone probably accepts that there is such a thing as an illusion/appearance of design, and in my proposal, everyone would probably accept the fact that everyone had conversations with and saw this god entity (Just like we all accept that Richard Dawkins exists, due to the consistency of experience of him) they could compare what it looked like and compare what it said in response to certain questions and what it said was good to do, and what it said was bad to do, and why. In my proposal this label “god” would actually have some substance, something to anchor the label to. Someone could ask - “what is this god of which you speak?” And someone could answer - “it’s that entity that has spoken to you since you were a child that teaches you about morality and how to live a good life and wears a white cloak and has a long beard.” To which they might respond - “oh yes, I know what you mean, he’s full of great advice, and always explains why things are so when I ask.” You see? We could all agree on what the label god was a label for.

Now it is conceivable that some people might not follow the advice or the morality of this god in my proposal, but that doesn’t take away from the fact that it is far fairer, and also a very sensible way of communicating your message to people.

Get it yet?

You also ask why God doesn't give moral teachings and tests...erm...have you not read the Bible?

I was asking why not give them to each of us in the background of him appearing to everyone instead of just a few, as you well know.

Permalink Reply by Chris on February 18, 2010 at 7:22am

we are to blame for what happened to Jesus

Wrong. Assuming that 'Jesus' existed, how am I responsible for his torture and execution? I'm not, and I refuse to take any blame. This is like saying that I am responsible for 9/11. No difference. Your statement is obviously utterly irrational.

Evil Astronomer is completely correct - all of this tosh about blood sacrifice stinks of a barbarism associated with ignorant savages. Modern humans should know this for the immoral bunkum it is.

▶ Reply to This

Permalink Reply by Mr McStizzle on February 18, 2010 at 8:20am

Wrong.

Right, ok...

Assuming that 'Jesus' existed

Which He did.

...how am I responsible for his torture and execution?

You are a member of mankind are you not? The sinfulness of mankind made Jesus' sacrifice necessary. Had you lived during 1st century palestine or prior to His birth, what difference do you think it would make? Would you be any less a sinner?

Some say that we were all, so to speak, in the loins of Adam when he rebelled against God. In a sense you could say we all sinned with him. And even if he didn't sin exactly like him, we are all guilty of sin one way or another, sooner or later. Jesus' sacrifice was not limited to 1st century palestine. It stretched from one end of time to the other. It was for all mankind, all generations that would follow Him. God, foreknowing the sins all would commit from His eternal perspective, acted to make an atonement.

I'm not, and I refuse to take any blame

Fair enough. Do you take any responsibility for your immorality? Because that makes you accountable to God.

This is like saying that I am responsible for 9/11.

How exactly?

No difference.

If you say so.

Your statement is obviously utterly irrational.

I disagree.

Evil Astronomer is completely correct

Also disagree.

all of this tosh about blood sacrifice stinks of a barbarism associated with ignorant savages.

You all seem to be forgetting that I stressed at the beginning that most of the focus on the blood was an analogy for a deeper spiritual truth, although yes there is some literal blood sacrifice involed.

If you consider blood sacrifice as so described biblically as "barbarism" and the work of "Ignorant savages", do you look down equally upon those who give blood to save the lives of others? Is it not a blood sacrifice of sorts? Of course you don't.

Modern humans should know this for the immoral bunkum it is.

Are you vegetarian? Perhaps eating meat is also immoral as well? For are we not sacrificing an animal and spilling its blood so that we may live?

▶ Reply to This

Permalink Reply by Chris on February 18, 2010 at 2:03pm

f you consider blood sacrifice as so described biblically as "barbarism" and the work of "Ignorant savages", do you look down equally upon those who give blood to save the lives of others? Is it not a blood sacrifice of sorts? Of course you don't.

You're not seriously offering that up as an argument, are you? Do you know anything about fallacious arguments? Apparently not, because your posts are riddled with them. That one's just one example.

▶ Reply to This

Permalink Reply by Mr McStizzle on February 18, 2010 at 2:07pm

You're not seriously offering that up as an argument, are you? Do you know anything about fallacious arguments? Apparently not, because your posts are riddled with them. That one's just one example.

Simply asserting that something is a fallacious argument without reasonably justifying that assertion is also fallacious.

What is ironic though is that in talking about barbarism and ignorant savages, you are committing a logical fallacy.

If I have committed one or any, by all means show me and I will endeavour to avoid doing so again :)

• ‹ Previous
• 1
• …
• 5
• 6
• 7
• 8
• 9
• …
• 24
• Next ›
• Page