dunadan

At my work we are pretty geographically distributed, so we use a chat client to keep the phone bills down. I had this interesting chat with someone from an office in Canada today.

--------------------------------
We start with a general discussion about my health (I have been fighting a throat infection recently)

--------------------------------

<colleague>Can't imagine you speechless somehow
<dunadan>Are you saying I am a blabbermouth???
<dunadan>;-)
<colleague>Well..
<dunadan>Besides, even if I don't have my voice, I can do 'chats' now. Isn't technology wonderful?
<colleague>No I just mean that with your wit around there is never much of a lull in conversation

--------------------------------
For all of you on #infidelchat, you can see I am a smartass at work too.

We then follow with a short trip into my religious feelings about Guiness.
--------------------------------

<colleague>a Guiness would be good for your throat if it is not smoky
<colleague>I am not suggesting getting rolling drunk, just a constitutional
<dunadan>I loooooove guiness
<dunadan>I think I will have to pick some up
<colleague>me too especially with a drop of orange
<dunadan>best on tap, but bottles are OK, and they have a new can with a ping-pong ball in it that actually tastes pretty good
<colleague>It makes it the right degree of frothy

--------------------------------
But how, you cry, is all this leading to an ii related issue??? It is coming! BTW, I absolutely adore the word 'constitutional.' So much more proper than 'tie one on,' don't you think?
--------------------------------

<dunadan>Yes, I was skeptical of it at first, but the proof is in the foam, as it were
<colleague>I think your name is cynical not Chris at all

--------------------------------
Can you hear the roller-coaster chain now? Chachunka-chachunka!
--------------------------------

<dunadan>I am a skeptic, not a cynic
<dunadan>I have belief in evidence only
<dunadan>I also believe that to remain silent about my beliefs in a general discussion is being dishonest with myself, which is why I will often speak up.

--------------------------------
She and I have had run-ins on theology before, you see. She is aware of my atheism. I thought I would throw in this bone:
--------------------------------

<dunadan>You know thats funny you should mention that, I was actually thinking about trying out going to a Unitarian Universalist church. There was a discussion of them on one of the freethinker forums I follow.
<dunadan>From what I have read about them, they strive to be all that is good about religion and none of what is bad.
<colleague>Backtracking, sceptism is born of cynicism, in many cases and you don't strike me as the type to get involved in an offbeat religious group, there is no foundation for the atrocities people are capable of without original sin and even run of the mill believers can become cold in faith or fanatical hence the horrors that occur.

--------------------------------
Ahh yes, already a backhanded personal attack on UU members, ‘offbeat religious group’ indeed!
--------------------------------

<dunadan>Hmm, from what I can see of their philosophy, I would say that their general definition of religion is 'what we believe to make ourselves better' as well as acceptance and tolerance of all beliefs. I cannot think of a better creed for a person of faith.

--------------------------------
Whether or not I ever go to one of their services, everything I have seen and heard of them so far has given me nothing but respect for their vision.
--------------------------------

<dunadan>And I disagree with you on your description of skepticism being related to cynicism. It is belief based upon the desire to understand and evidence. It may appear to be cynical to people who take things on faith, but is really a very fulfilling and rewarding philosophy. There is so much out there to know and understand, so much that we don't yet know that is demonstrable by experiment, that I just cannot follow the logic of believing anything on 'faith' alone. To me, a 'belief' is something that I HOPE is true, but do not feel we have evidence of, i.e. extraterrestrial life.
<dunadan>As far as original sin goes, what event do you cite as being the 'original sin?'
<colleague>No I agree
<colleague>Deviation from the will of God, it is a universal problem which causes all the bad situations.

--------------------------------
Chachunka-Chachunka! We are still climbing that first big hill! Notice I did not take the direct shot at god, but the much more tame ‘extraterrestrial life.’ Besides, to put god there would imply that I hoped her version of ‘god’ exists. We could do much better than THAT one!
--------------------------------

<dunadan>OK, do you feel that God is omnipotent, omnibenevolent and omniscient?
<colleague>Yep

--------------------------------
CLANG! Hands in the air! WEEEEEEEEE! It’s all downhill from here folks!
--------------------------------

<dunadan>Then there can be no sin. Everything that happens is by the will of god, and is for the betterment of humanity.
<colleague>NO it is not, that is where free will comes in, we chose to do right or wrong no-one makes us do it. The symbolism of the garden of eden is that God said no to one thing which was a trivial thing to forgo but thinking we could outsmart God landed us in our current permanent malaise
<dunadan>Before I respond to your full statement, how were adam and eve supposed to understand the concept of not being able to eat the apple? How could they be expected to know it was 'wrong?'
<colleague>They talked with God and he said no, and all people know about right and wrong instinctively our conscience is always there it is our choice to ignore it

--------------------------------
You know, I always knew my puppy knew it was bad to piss on the carpet from the beginning. He just did it out of spite.
--------------------------------

<dunadan>If god is omniscient, he/she knows all 'sin' that has been or will happen. If he/she is omnipotent, he/she can prevent anything from happening that he/she feels is detrimental to humanity, and if god is omnibenevolent, then he/she MUST take action to prevent anything that would be detrimental to his/her creations from happening. Ergo, all that happens is gods' will and is for the betterment of us, his/her 'creations.'
<colleague>That would make creation mechanical if responses were pre ordained, God chose to have an agape relationship with humanity which needs two to tango

--------------------------------
Hey! She’s starting to see the flaw in the logic! Lets help her out! And I have to give her credit for not biting my ‘he/she’ reference to god. I should have also included ‘them,’ but I think I made the point. Like anyone REALLY believes that a male could give birth to the Universe!
--------------------------------

<dunadan>You cannot 'choose' to be selectively omnipotent, omniscient, or omnibenevolent. The first time you do not act on knowledge of a detrimental action against your creations that you have the power to prevent, you are sacrificing one of the three.
<colleague>Not true, Jesus was the second Adam, he had all the powers of the Universe at this disposal, yet put himself under the control of mortality to provide for a greater good. He curbed his divinity as God does his interference in the world of mankind, we are responsible for our own actions, you can't blame God when his witness is everywhere in the microcosm and macrocosm or the universe. Are you suggesting that people are not bad or good by choice?

--------------------------------
Missing rib and all? No wonder the spear went in so easy. Kinda like a Shakespearean tragic flaw, is it not? Ahh! She follows up with the classic ‘make my position your argument’ tactic!
--------------------------------

<dunadan>OK, so now we get into an interesting philosophy: God sent his son, who was really himself, to his people so that his people could kill his son in order to save them from the wrath of . . . himself. All of which is chronicled by an etheriel spirit which was also . . . him. Or you take an alternative view, which is that the Jewish/Christian bibles are a compilation of fallible human works to provide a common set of stories and moral guides to people before we had developed the social and theoretical framework to test alternative hypothesis and determine 'truth' from 'fiction.' I do certainly believe that people are moral or immoral by choice. It is the beliefs that you are presenting (an omniscient, omnibenevolent, and omnipotent supreme being) that prevent true 'free will.' My point is that if there exists an omnibenevolent, omniscient, and omnipotent god, that all actions taken by people are known by that god (omniscience) and are for the greater good (omnibenevolence.) If they weren't, an all-powerful (omnipotent) god would HAVE to stop it, or he/she would no longer have all of those qualities.

--------------------------------
Loooooooooooong pause after this one. (Thanks to someone in the atheist webring for the ‘he of himself’ analogy. Can’t find the link to it right now though.) Notice I did not say her ‘beliefs,’ just her ‘position.’ Keep it non-confrontational. Besides, I wouldn't want to assume that she actually BELIEVES what she is saying, people play devils advocate, right?
--------------------------------

<colleague>I think you are mistaking the nature of God, his attributes, he is omnipresent, omnicscient, immutable, invisible, immortal, all powerful, and infinitely good, omnibenevolent is not one of them, he has provided common grace and conscience for us to live by even if you disregard his various direct words. he is not moved by sentiment try looking at this site for more info. I am going for my guiness now talk to you tomorrow
<colleague>http://www.pbministries.org/books/pink/Attributes/
<dunadan>It has been my pleasure! Fascinating conversation!

--------------------------------
Ahh, so finally she backs off of her original position, sacrificing gods ‘omnibenevolence.’ Of course he is still ‘infinitely good.’ I’m glad we made that distinction. By the time I could type my last response to her, she had put her client on ‘do not disturb.’ And I drove her to drink!!! Which brings up another good one:

Three Religious Truths:
1. The Jews don't recognize the Messiah.
2. Protestants don't recognize the Pope.
3. Two Baptists in a liquor store don't recognize each other.

By the time I could type my last response to her, she had put her client on ‘do not disturb.’ And yes, the link she sent me was broken. I am not authorized for that little piece of salvation apparently. If you delete everything after the .org you will see that it is, indeed, a Baptist site. And she called Unitarian Universalists ‘offbeat?’ Do you think I should send her the link http://www.landoverbaptist.org ?

BTW, anyone have any juicy tidbits on the ‘pbministries’ sect? Or any commentaries on her or my positions? I’m sure she and I will have more of our fascinating conversations in the future!