Freethought & Rationalism Archive

HRG · 02-25-2002, 10:57 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Satan Oscillate My Metallic Sonatas:
[QB]All,

A quick heads up:

It is impossible for God to commit murder.

murder:to kill (a human being) unlawfully and with premeditated malice
-Webster's Dictionary

In judging God one must also acknowledge the implications of His existence...namely He IS the law and has absolute authority to wield it.

Creating a universe does not imply in the least that one is authorized to pass prescriptive laws *) for sentient, self-aware beings which inhabit it. This authorization would have to be separately argued.

May I remind you that just power is derived from the consent of those governed.

Quote:

As such it is impossible for God to do something 'unlawful'...ie murder.

A just law applies to the lawgiver as well. Do you claim that the 535 members of Congress cannot enter into a common conspiracy to murder, just because they are the lawgivers for the US ?

Regards,
HRG.

*) which are quite different from descriptive which describe the behavior of the universe.

tw1tch · 02-26-2002, 09:39 AM

HRG,

Quote:

Originally posted by HRG:

Creating a universe does not imply in the least that one is authorized...

Authorized by who? The creation?

A creation that dictates the creator.

Amusing.

Satan Oscillate My Metallic Sonatas

[ February 26, 2002: Message edited by: tw1tch ]

Datheron · 02-26-2002, 11:57 AM

HRG,

Quote:

May I remind you that just power is derived from the consent of those governed.

Well, this is applicable only through a democracy, or probably more appropriately a democratic republic that we hold in the US. As such, it is still considered the "best" governmental system, and I heartily agree that a "merciful" God should not run a totalitarian dictatorship.

SOMMS,

Quote:

Authorized by who? The creation?
A creation that dictates the creator. Amusing.

Not really. Much of the attraction of God comes from his....kinder nature, his promise for a good life, salvation and what-not. You're right in that we cannot really authorize one who has authority over us in the first place, but we can discuss whether he is fit for such an authority. He may slaughter all he wants, but don't hypocritically call him kind or merciful.

Satan Oscillate My Metallic Sonatas · 02-27-2002, 10:36 AM

Datheron,

Quote:

Originally posted by Datheron:

You're right in that we cannot really authorize one who has authority over us in the first place, but we can discuss whether he is fit for such an authority.

Absolutely. We can certainly discuss it and perhaps (hopefully) will.

But first: If the creation decided that the creator should no longer have such authority...does that change the authority the creator has?

Satan Oscillate My Metallic Sonatas

David M. Payne · 02-27-2002, 03:41 PM

This post is for our theist friends here, as well as anyone else who would like to weigh in with any input on this subject. It was first posted by me on the Clemson Skeptics BB, which runs our soon to be new BB program.
The way that the fanatical theists mirror their behavior after the worst traits of �[S]He who doesn�t exist� God, is the biggest problem with these books. Some would argue that only those parts of the bible that are �convenient� for modern convention need to be given any credence. Of course this leaves open the matter of who does the interpreting, and the evidence is pretty conclusive so far, anyone who wants to start a new religion, sect, cult, etc gets to do the interpreting, and there are thousands and thousands of these religious sects/cults out there. And while most of them are positive in nature, the bad ones are the ones that will lead to the demise of mankind. 9/11 is the wake up call for the whole world as to just how bent on destruction some of these cults can be. It is only a matter of time before the symbioses of wacko cult and weapons of mass destruction is achieved. Only a lunatic can believe they won�t use these weapons to destroy the rest of us. That surely is one of, if not the biggest, problem inherent to religious belief in any of the Abrahamic religions, Judaism, Christianity, and Islam. There are a lot of good people in most all religions, but the bad ones are spoiling the barrel.
Another thing that the theological apologists like to bring up is the good old free will argument. (Try finding it in the bible, by the way.) God gave us free will and all the evil done by man is our fault. Interesting how this argument holds God blameless for all of man�s evil, but he gets full responsibility for all the good we do as a species. Good deal if you can get it.
Of course God�s innocence or guilt is subjective, and is open to interpretation by all who follow the arguments here. I think we present our case and the other side presents theirs, and the most logical, rational arguments will win the minds of those who follow such thought processes. The rest are reduced to bleating their cause to any that will listen. One can say that God can no more be held accountable for the actions of individual humans than any of us can be held accountable for the actions of another. Humanity however is not omnipotent; the Abrahamic God doesn�t have that limitation, does he? With great power comes great responsibility, and God is flunking the test, and has been for the whole of his being. Well OK, this is hyperbole I realize, as he doesn�t exist and never has; and these arguments are, in the end, just an intellectual exercise. Of course the theist side will be unable to use this last point effectively; after all, the God we are discussing here is real, right my theist friends?
And the final point I like to raise is that the religious tracts were written by man, not �[S]He who doesn�t exist,� so any positive morality was written by man anyway. We aren�t following God�s good morality; we are following our own, and have been from the beginning.

[ February 27, 2002: Message edited by: David Payne ]

KeithHarwood · 02-27-2002, 03:49 PM

A government can only rule with the consent of the governed. This is true of all forms of government, not just democracies. The only distinction is the means by which that consent is obtained. be it violence and intimidation, threats of hell fire or the ballot box. When the governed withdraw their consent (I'm as mad as hell and I won't take it any more) the government has no say in the matter. This has happened many times in history. Typically, there's a lot of bloodshed and the new lot who obtain the consent of the governed are worse than the ones they displaced (the French Revolution, for example), but any government that is not totally insane recognises this and squeezes as much as they can out of the governed without losing their consent.

Datheron · 02-27-2002, 04:25 PM

SOMMS,

Quote:

Datheron,

Absolutely. We can certainly discuss it and perhaps (hopefully) will.

But first: If the creation decided that the creator should no longer have such authority...does that change the authority the creator has?

Satan Oscillate My Metallic Sonatas

It changes the type of authority that creator has. He can either be kind to his subjects, and thus receive voluntary and elected authority; or he can rule with an iron fist, thus receiving forced authority. Obviously, it is hypothetical of us to call forced authority anything but that.

Datheron · 02-27-2002, 04:32 PM

KeithHarwood,

Quote:

A government can only rule with the consent of the governed. This is true of all forms of government, not just democracies. The only distinction is the means by which that consent is obtained. be it violence and intimidation, threats of hell fire or the ballot box. When the governed withdraw their consent (I'm as mad as hell and I won't take it any more) the government has no say in the matter. This has happened many times in history. Typically, there's a lot of bloodshed and the new lot who obtain the consent of the governed are worse than the ones they displaced (the French Revolution, for example), but any government that is not totally insane recognises this and squeezes as much as they can out of the governed without losing their consent.

Then you have just redefined what I meant by "consent". When I mentioned "consent", it is done with the implication that such consent is not forced or coerced from the governed; if we are to define it as you would, then the word would be meaningless.

Of course, there have also been many cases in history where consent was perhaps received and then revoked, but the governing body has grown too strong for futile efforts at resistance. Here, I am drawing a distinction between the military (which is not "governed", per se) and civilians; but the central point, that a government can still exist without the approval of its governed, is precisely what God is running.

HRG · 02-27-2002, 11:08 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by tw1tch:
HRG,

Authorized by who? The creation?

A creation that dictates the creator.

Amusing.

Satan Oscillate My Metallic Sonatas

[ February 26, 2002: Message edited by: tw1tch ]

"Authorization" does not mean in the least that we issue dictates to the one who is authorized. On the contrary, it means that he is permitted to issue just orders to us.

HRG.

hal9000 · 03-02-2002, 08:13 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by David Payne:
Why I Fear Religion

In the year 2000 there were about one billion people (912.3 million) who were atheist, agnostic or nonreligious. (according to Encyclopedia Britannica Book of the Year.) While that is the third largest group in the world after Christians and Muslims, A casual reading in the media might lead one to think we�re all but nonexistent. As one of this group, (strong agnostic) it�s with some measure of sad irony that I watch the outpouring of grief and anger by many religious denominations over the WTC and Pentagon bombings on 9-11-01. We hear the anguished denunciations that the Islamic fundamentalist terrorists, fearless of death, don�t represent the �true Islamic religion�. Really.
Though there are examples of good moral teachings to be found in all religious books, there are also teachings found in them that can lead right to the acts perpetrated on us by the Osama Bin Laden�s, the neo-nazi Christian right, and the other fundamentalist followers of the Abrahamic religions, be they Christian, Muslim or Jew.
Religious scholars often point to the �free will� argument, to explain away this murderous and barbaric behavior by religious zealots. So lets look at one disturbing example of God�s, not man�s, behavior, the great flood and Noah�s ark. (Geneses 6-9) God drowns everyone but Noah and his family for their �corruption�. OK, what sin and corruption did the babies and little children of these people, or for that matter the animals on this planet, commit? None. I guess they were in the wrong place at the wrong time, right? Is mass murder the only answer an omnipotent God had for this sinful behavior? In our time this would be called genocide, the first recorded instance I believe. But for the true believer it is the work of a �just� and �merciful� God? Not in my book. Of course there are many who would interpret God�s actions differently, and that begs the point of this intellectual exercise. One can interpret the holy books any way one wants to, because there will be no intervention coming directly from God on this, will there? There hasn�t been any direct intervention in man�s behavior in over two thousand years, has there? As long as there�s no direct action from God to prevent those that seek to take religion down the path of madness, death and destruction, we will continue to suffer from this barbaric behavior. Sooner or later the worst of these groups will possess weapons of mass destruction, and they�ll use them in the name of God. Genocide was good enough for God to use against those guilty of �corruption�, following his example should be OK for the zealots, right? Religious warfare is, after all, as old as recorded history, still ongoing, and apparently endless.
Humanity, not a mythical God, is in control of this planet and its resources. Isn�t it time to put the religious fables away and pursue our evolutionary path into the future? Humanity must use logic, reason and the rule of manmade laws to craft our future, not religious teachings that can be interpreted any way those in power want to interpret them.

Well this is interesting DP. Thought you were into the political, social, economic thing. I like this though it makes lots of sense. Didn�t Bill get into this last year with a bunch of fundies here?

Quote:

Originally posted by Pandora:
One thing I really hate about religious people is that they are so convinced that we need a sky fairy in order to have ethics.

When will they learn that religion is just a way of presenting a system of laws, morals and ethics all wrapped up in a nice big package of lies, threats and fantasy. Religion is a form of suppression and brain washing.

We are not “special”, we are animals like any other on this planet – the difference being that we are advanced enough to be capable of manipulating our environment rather than being manipulated by it.

What level of vanity and over inflated ego do you have to believe that you are so special? Or to believe that you are more than material? Or to believe that you will live forever? Or to believe that a deity if he existed would even consider your existence?

Are you so insecure and full of fear that you can’t live your life without believing that there is someone watching over you, that this person loves you unconditionally and that this person wants you to waste your time and money worshipping him?

Religion is a comfort blanket for adults. It’s time we all grew up. There is no God, there never was a Christ – you’ve all been conned, it’s all a pack of lies.

We have the earth with it’s resources, we have knowledge and science to help us use them, we have medicines and trained doctors to help fight diseases, we have the intellectual and emotional capacity to make this world a happier place for humanity.

With all the problems in the world today – poverty, disease, hunger, thirst… I think it appalling how much time and money is wasted on religion.

Why build a church when you could build a hospital?

Bravo Pandora! Well put!

Quote:

Originally posted by David Payne:
In the interest of saving some bandwidth, I will post a general reply to Spirit Branded (SB).
First off let me say that I don�t think God is the biggest mass murder of all time, because as a myth, he/she/it is incapable of killing anyone. This of course is a defense that will be unavailable to (SB) and any other theists for obvious reasons. As a role model though, the myth of God has set a very bad example of what to do when people aren�t behaving as the omnipotent one wants them to. After all as one who has unlimited power to do anything he wishes to, he saw the �Corruption� of the people and thought, �what should I do?
Should I:
(A) Snap my fingers and make them behave correctly?
(B) Appear in front of them all at the same time and explain that their behavior is wrong and convince them to change their ways?
(C) Find some other imaginative method of convincing them of the error of their ways?
(D) Kill them all, by drowning them like one would drown a litter of kittens one has no use for, except for one family of course, for pissing me off?
I�ll take (D)
Hell of an example he set in your holy book SB. Of course later you appear to pick and chose which examples are true, and which are not in your argument here. How convenient for you.
As for the Muslim world denouncing Bin Laden and his ilk for their terrorism, sure they say that, what else can they say? But Islam is diametrically opposed to western thought, its religious beliefs and way of life. Like all religions it thinks �God� is on their side against the forces of the infidels, like us infidels here for instance. You see it one way SB, I see it another and I think logic is on my side in this view. As for the legitimacy of Bin Laden, Millions of Muslims support what he is doing, and that is part of the point of this little intellectual exercise. If you have enough support you can fight for your cause, right or wrong, forever. Let me give you a little personal view of what that kind of support can mean. As a marine in Vietnam I learned a lesson about what a small widespread base of support can mean to a diehard fanatical foe. If we had chosen to fight that war to its conclusion, we would still be there. (And no, I don�t think what we were doing there was justified now, but I did at the time.) If 10% of the population supports such activity as terrorism, the terrorists can fight forever, and as they gain the weapons of mass destruction they will use them. About that, the mass destruction and murder of innocents during the terrorist attacks of 9/11 should remove all doubts.
I think Pandora, Jack, TQM, phlebas and ex-preacher have answered many of your other points quite well, so no need for me to reiterate them here. As to my being an agnostic who doesn�t believe in your Abrahamic �God� I am guilty as charged, though I did conceive of a �God� <a href="http://www.secweb.org/asset.asp?AssetID=105" target="_blank">here,</a> but it wasn�t your �God� that�s for sure. I like the way you gloss over the idea that if the great flood was true, the fact remains that the innocent babies and children, who were with out sin, were murdered anyway by your Just and merciful �God�. Quite an example he set, and it�s an example some of his followers in religion follow to this day. Oh that�s right, you only believe the part of the bible you want to believe in, or are convenient for you to believe in, right? By the way there are plenty of people in all three religions who still swallow the teachings in the Bible, Qur�an and Talmud hook line and sinker. These people are the ones who provide a fertile breeding ground for the religious terrorists of today and tomorrow, and that is the great threat that religion presents us with, never ending war, leading to Armageddon or the Apocalypse. Take your pick here.
Lets cover a couple of other points and I can wrap up this post and wait for your intellectually scintillating reply. When I referred to �God� not directly involving himself in straightening out those that sin in his name, I mean directly, as in person. Just because one hears voices in his head telling him what to do doesn�t mean God is speaking to them, does it?
As for your last point, you know something, I think that the Bible Qur�an and Talmud all have some fine teachings in them. It�s the evil stuff also within that will bring humanity down. That said here is something for you to ponder. Who wrote these books? Man did. So for those who follow the good teachings found within these books, what are they following? They�re following the teachings of their fellow humans, not the teachings of some mythical being called �God�. As for your last point about the evil of poverty, well I did get into that quite heavily, <a href="http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/features/2000/payne1.html" target="_blank">here</a> and I will revisit that subject from time to time in the future. So for now, let me wish you;

Logical analysis and a calm mind.

David

[ February 15, 2002: Message edited by: David Payne ]

Interesting way of putting it DP. Where did SB and the rest of the fundies go to anyway?

Quote:

Originally posted by David Payne:
This post is for our theist friends here, as well as anyone else who would like to weigh in with any input on this subject. It was first posted by me on the Clemson Skeptics BB, which runs our soon to be new BB program.
The way that the fanatical theists mirror their behavior after the worst traits of �[S]He who doesn�t exist� God, is the biggest problem with these books. Some would argue that only those parts of the bible that are �convenient� for modern convention need to be given any credence. Of course this leaves open the matter of who does the interpreting, and the evidence is pretty conclusive so far, anyone who wants to start a new religion, sect, cult, etc gets to do the interpreting, and there are thousands and thousands of these religious sects/cults out there. And while most of them are positive in nature, the bad ones are the ones that will lead to the demise of mankind. 9/11 is the wake up call for the whole world as to just how bent on destruction some of these cults can be. It is only a matter of time before the symbioses of wacko cult and weapons of mass destruction is achieved. Only a lunatic can believe they won�t use these weapons to destroy the rest of us. That surely is one of, if not the biggest, problem inherent to religious belief in any of the Abrahamic religions, Judaism, Christianity, and Islam. There are a lot of good people in most all religions, but the bad ones are spoiling the barrel.
Another thing that the theological apologists like to bring up is the good old free will argument. (Try finding it in the bible, by the way.) God gave us free will and all the evil done by man is our fault. Interesting how this argument holds God blameless for all of man�s evil, but he gets full responsibility for all the good we do as a species. Good deal if you can get it.
Of course God�s innocence or guilt is subjective, and is open to interpretation by all who follow the arguments here. I think we present our case and the other side presents theirs, and the most logical, rational arguments will win the minds of those who follow such thought processes. The rest are reduced to bleating their cause to any that will listen. One can say that God can no more be held accountable for the actions of individual humans than any of us can be held accountable for the actions of another. Humanity however is not omnipotent; the Abrahamic God doesn�t have that limitation, does he? With great power comes great responsibility, and God is flunking the test, and has been for the whole of his being. Well OK, this is hyperbole I realize, as he doesn�t exist and never has; and these arguments are, in the end, just an intellectual exercise. Of course the theist side will be unable to use this last point effectively; after all, the God we are discussing here is real, right my theist friends?
And the final point I like to raise is that the religious tracts were written by man, not �[S]He who doesn�t exist,� so any positive morality was written by man anyway. We aren�t following God�s good morality; we are following our own, and have been from the beginning.

[ February 27, 2002: Message edited by: David Payne ]

Here�s that link to Clemson. Boy it sure stirred up a lot of views and pages there. <a href="http://www.steelangel.com/skeptic/forum/viewtopic.php?t=17" target="_blank">Clemson link.</a> I�ve been away for a time DP, nice to see the secular web is still going strong. I thought these posts should be incorporated into one post. They kind of go to the heart of what you were saying. Too bad no fundies are up to the task of defending their God from this logical attack of their fallacies here.

[ March 02, 2002: Message edited by: hal900069 ]

[ March 02, 2002: Message edited by: hal900069 ]

02-27-2002, 03:41 PM	#25
David M. Payne Veteran Member Join Date: Oct 2000 Location: The land of chain smoking, bible thumping, holy ro Posts: 1,248	This post is for our theist friends here, as well as anyone else who would like to weigh in with any input on this subject. It was first posted by me on the Clemson Skeptics BB, which runs our soon to be new BB program. The way that the fanatical theists mirror their behavior after the worst traits of �[S]He who doesn�t exist� God, is the biggest problem with these books. Some would argue that only those parts of the bible that are �convenient� for modern convention need to be given any credence. Of course this leaves open the matter of who does the interpreting, and the evidence is pretty conclusive so far, anyone who wants to start a new religion, sect, cult, etc gets to do the interpreting, and there are thousands and thousands of these religious sects/cults out there. And while most of them are positive in nature, the bad ones are the ones that will lead to the demise of mankind. 9/11 is the wake up call for the whole world as to just how bent on destruction some of these cults can be. It is only a matter of time before the symbioses of wacko cult and weapons of mass destruction is achieved. Only a lunatic can believe they won�t use these weapons to destroy the rest of us. That surely is one of, if not the biggest, problem inherent to religious belief in any of the Abrahamic religions, Judaism, Christianity, and Islam. There are a lot of good people in most all religions, but the bad ones are spoiling the barrel. Another thing that the theological apologists like to bring up is the good old free will argument. (Try finding it in the bible, by the way.) God gave us free will and all the evil done by man is our fault. Interesting how this argument holds God blameless for all of man�s evil, but he gets full responsibility for all the good we do as a species. Good deal if you can get it. Of course God�s innocence or guilt is subjective, and is open to interpretation by all who follow the arguments here. I think we present our case and the other side presents theirs, and the most logical, rational arguments will win the minds of those who follow such thought processes. The rest are reduced to bleating their cause to any that will listen. One can say that God can no more be held accountable for the actions of individual humans than any of us can be held accountable for the actions of another. Humanity however is not omnipotent; the Abrahamic God doesn�t have that limitation, does he? With great power comes great responsibility, and God is flunking the test, and has been for the whole of his being. Well OK, this is hyperbole I realize, as he doesn�t exist and never has; and these arguments are, in the end, just an intellectual exercise. Of course the theist side will be unable to use this last point effectively; after all, the God we are discussing here is real, right my theist friends? And the final point I like to raise is that the religious tracts were written by man, not �[S]He who doesn�t exist,� so any positive morality was written by man anyway. We aren�t following God�s good morality; we are following our own, and have been from the beginning. [ February 27, 2002: Message edited by: David Payne ]</p>

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

02-27-2002, 03:49 PM	#26
KeithHarwood Senior Member Join Date: Nov 2000 Location: Baulkham Hills, New South Wales,Australia Posts: 944	A government can only rule with the consent of the governed. This is true of all forms of government, not just democracies. The only distinction is the means by which that consent is obtained. be it violence and intimidation, threats of hell fire or the ballot box. When the governed withdraw their consent (I'm as mad as hell and I won't take it any more) the government has no say in the matter. This has happened many times in history. Typically, there's a lot of bloodshed and the new lot who obtain the consent of the governed are worse than the ones they displaced (the French Revolution, for example), but any government that is not totally insane recognises this and squeezes as much as they can out of the governed without losing their consent.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.