Typhon

Sorry, but that's not true. We, like Adam, should have free choice, free will, to decide whether or not to eat the fruit. I KNOW people (chuckle, I sound like a junior Mafioso there), and while yes, a lot of the people would eat of the fruit, there are people who wouldn't touch it. If your god was all-knowing, he or she or it would know this as well.

So, your god, with full foreknowledge, has condemned those who would have been blameless, along with those who WOULD HAVE sinned, as you say your mythological Adam did. That is not just nor merciful. It's down right unjust.

Furthermore, your god likewise already knows exactly who will and will not choose, based on this supposed Free Will again, to be saved. Everyone may supposedly get the choice (though I argue that this is demonstratively false, not everyone has an equal chance for salvation), but regardless, GOD ALREADY KNOWS WHO WILL AND WHO WILL NOT BE SAVED. He, she, or it has know this from before (s)he(it) even supposedly created man, before the fall, which god would known about as well.

So, on one hand, this god of yours is willing to condemn everyone, those innocent of the crime as well as those who would commit it if given the chance and Free Will to (and god knows which ones would and would not) based on this preknowledge, EVEN THOUGH WE ARE NEVER PRESENTED WITH THE CHOICE.

On the other, (s)he(it) allows everyone to supposedly choose whether or not to be saved, EVEN THOUGH LIKE THE SIN, HE ALREADY KNOWS WHAT CHOICE EACH INDIVIDUAL WILL MAKE.

This is silly beyond belief.

If (s)he(it) is willing to throw our illusion of free choice out the window for the sin, and judge us, the innocent along with the guilty, before we are even born, this same god ought to be equally willing (if (s)he(it) was either logical or just or likely either) to not bother presenting us with the choice for salvation, and just forgive us, the saved along with the damned. At the very least, you'd think it could cut out the wasteful crap in the middle, refrain from nailing itself to a big piece of wood, and just admit those who are (a) innocent of original sin (or would be, if given Adam's choice) AND (b) all those guilty of original sin (or would be, if given Adam's choice) but who would accept salvation (or would, if such a sacrifice was made and they given the choice) to its heaven.

If this dodgy god is willing to accept Adam as the "representative" of all humankind, and thus make Adam's choice the one that counts, why didn't it sent its supposed son/self to die for Adam's sin, giving Adam at the very least, the choice to redeem himself, and hence, the entire human race?

It is ridiculous to say Adam is on one hand, the eternal signifier of man when it comes to dolling out the sin points, but refuse to treat him as such when presenting man, which by the above, should really mean Adam, the so called chance for salvation.

You know why this doesn't make any sense? No surprise, because it is a blatant fairy tale. It is a made up creation story to explain where we came from, what gives us a moral right to be the sobs we are, the fiat to lord it over the rest of the animals, and most importantly regarding the whole "garden and fall" myth, how to explain evil, death, and suffering in a primitive and superstitious society.

Sheesh, whenever you hear Xians talking about Genesis, you realize what a load of primitive and impossible Leviathan dung it all is.

.T.

Noah and his ark, Adam and his Eve,
straight up fairy stories even children don't believe.

- MC Hawking, F*ck the Creationists

[ June 05, 2002: Message edited by: Typhon ]</p>

Bill Snedden

Although it's not strictly on topic, I can't resist posting this excerpt from Ayn Rand's Atlas Shrugged. It is a beautiful polemic against the manifestly evil doctrine of so-called "Original Sin".

Amen.

Bill Snedden

DaveJes1979

Philosoft
Dave: I didn't mention a point of no return. I just noted that since God's laws are universal, all are morally bound to follow them.

Dave: sin is rebellion and wrong relationship with God.

Dave: but some do. So who is right? Your appeal to evolution for selecting the right behaviors is futile. Evolution seems to have selected a number of contradictory moral behaviors. What makes any given behavior, under this scheme, right or wrong?

Dave: your theory cannot take even the first step to addressing specifics. You have not met my challenge. Your exposition of how population-level selection works is descriptive in nature, not prescriptive. You have told us how things are, not how they should be (an ethical system).

Dave: I want to know how an "ought" can, in principle, exist at all under your worldview. You have only told me that human behavior (including differing and conflicting perceptions of morality and value) is the result of X, Y, and Z. Once again, descriptive. You have not told us what makes any given behavior right or wrong. You have told us what IS, not what OUGHT to be.

HRG
Dave: actually, I already mentioned that God's decrees procede forth from His holy, all-good, and all-just nature, into a world that He has created with similar value-laden structure. Thus, whatever God decrees for man to do is good.

Dave: I do not know what you are asking for when you say you want a "definition." God exhausts the entire Bible revealing to us what goodness, justice, love, etc. are. Pithy dictionary or thesaurus answers do no one any good (although they, too, exist in our works of systematic theology).

Typhon
Dave: if they are dictated by our biology, then how can you argue against ANY given behavior? Its just one set of biology against another.

Dave: possessing ethics and logic is a very different matter than what I am discussing - that is having a worldview that accounts for ethics and logic. In other words, why does the atheist believe morality or logic exist (and how can he make such concepts meaningful) given his worldview?

Dave: of course, you utterly avoided the challenge. Why should I accept any given ethical system (such as one prioritizing life and liberty) over the ethical systems of terrorists or dictators? The atheist hasn't given me any such response.

Dave: your statements here have only given me a reason to value MY life and liberty - not the life and liberty of anyone else. Even some people do not value their lives - those who are suicidal. So why should I adopt your set of priorities over theirs?

Dave: because, given the conflicting values and ethical claims that exist, you have not given me any reason to choose one ethical system (that of a suicidal or terrorist) above another (perhaps life and liberty). After all, all of these systems have resulted from naturalistic processes. Therefore, you cannot object to any given system above another.

Dave: if there is no prescriptive mandate in your system, then definitionally, you have no ethics. Things just happen - no rightness or wrongness about it.

Dave: actually, I was simply responding to the preposterous claim that atheism is inherently peaceful. Secondly, the aggressions of the Middle East, and between India and Pakistan are fueled by unbiblical religions. I can only expect as much.


Dave: you still haven't given me any reason to adopt any given set of values- including those of life and liberty.

Dave: perhaps the tyrants are right, and the cultures that fight oppression are wrong. You haven't given me any reason to choose one above the other.

Dave: that statement is incoherent. You have divested the word "God" of meaning if you posit that He is not good or just. God would not be the precondition of morality if He was not good.

Dave: so this is basically what your ethical system boils down to - mere preference. Nothing is right or wrong, there is only preference.

Dave: so what? Any number of non-organic chemical processes exhibit varying levels of dependence upon collective behavior.


Dave: that "high risk" hasn't stopped many a power-hungry dictator. The last emperor of China lived and died a very comfortable life. He beat out the odds against your value system.


Jack the Bodiless

Dave: actually Jesus was punished for the original sin as well as actual sin of all. Of course, His is a unique case, as a willing sacrifice. There was no injustice here, since the wrath was in response to sin.

Dave: no, original sin is not a special case of exemption. Original sin started at Genesis 3, long before there was civil justice. It is a differentiation between the Creator-creature justice and creature-creature justice (civil justice).

Dave: it was judicial punishment (that simply means JUSTICE was involved, vs. atoning sacrifice)- but not civil punishment.

Differentiating between civil justice and original sin is not incoherent with the fact that God provides a normative standard of good. It simply takes into account the differing roles that are taken in the execution of justice: Creator-creature vs. creature-creature.

Dave: of course, I want people to follow the Golden Rule. But I want to know how the atheistic worldview justifies such a rule.

Dave: perhaps the minority is right. You haven't given me any reason to choose the majority above the minority.

Dave: if socially-conditioned norms just ARE, then you have no ethical system at all. An ethical system tells you what SHOULD BE. It is prescriptive. Your system is only descriptive ("is" without "ought").

Dave: what I am pointing out is that some people play the odds and win. Your little system can be beat. They are truly the winners. It is as if your values didn't even exist for them. There exists no compelling reason for such people to follow your system.

Dave: why am I "required" to do anything if there is no universal moral code? This is just another "should." Why should I (epistemically speaking) choose any given subjectibe code above another?

Dave: how does that answer my criticism?

Dave: this instance from Exodus proves only that Moses changed God's temporal decree or decision(what He said he would do under certain conditions), not that God's eternal decree (that which actually comes to pass) was changed.


Dave: the most literal translation I have at my disposal (the NASB) just says "offering".

Dave: there are many authorities that are ordained by God, but that does not mean that God has granted His infallible enforcement over them.

Dave: being a temple servant is not being "turned loose."

Dave: once again, "the Bible says so" only under your equivocation fallacy.

Dave: the death of the Egyptian firstborn was good because it was one (of many) manifestation of God's wrath against sinful humanity.

Dave: you are (fallaciously) assuming that your criterion of who is a Christian is either agreed upon (it is not) or adequate (it is not, because it is not biblical). Obviously those who "had problems with biblical morality" did NOT presuppose God's existence. To presuppose His existence is to start and end one's thinking with Him, as revealed in the Bible. It follows that it is impossible to find fault with God on these grounds.

Dave: the far side of the moon is not necessary to get an epistemological scheme off the ground. You cannot appeal to induction or morality (which ARE necessary to such) as a mystery if your worldview cannot even begin to account for these things. What lies in your mystery might be completely destructive to the knowledge you think you know. Such is not true with the Christian - since our mystery IS known by God, and He is thus in a position to both account for it as well as communicate accurately and sufficiently limited knowledge to His creatures.

Dave: I have done no such thing.

Dave: starting a fire is evil, though. God foreordaining evil is not itself an evil act, because He is doing it for morally sufficient reasons.


Jobar
Dave: that's the level of response I've come to expect around here.

Dave G.

DaveJes1979

Bill Snedden
Dave: alot of unargued assertions here. Not particularly compelling.

Dave: it does not follow that "he has no will." What it means is that his will is inclined to evil. Man acts and makes choices from his nature.

Dave: I can only imagine that this would be compelling for the person who has already made up their mind. Just a pile of unargued assertions. Yawn.

Jack the Bodiless

Dave:
OK let's take this r-e-a-l s-l-o-w.

According to you,"original sin" is WANTING TO EAT THE FRUIT. All of us (not just Adam) are guilty because we would all WANT TO EAT THE FRUIT if we were in Adam's position.

Therefore, according to you, Jesus was punished for WANTING TO EAT THE FRUIT.

Therefore you have NOW abandoned the doctrine that Jesus was without sin.
Again, let's take this r-e-a-l s-l-o-w.

You have argued that an absolute moral code exists because God DEFINES what is good and what is evil, what is just and what is unjust.

You have also argued that God IS "perfectly good and just".

Therefore God MUST adhere to the God-defined definitions of "perfectly good and just" in order to BE "perfectly good and just". There is no room for double standards. There CANNOT BE different types of "justice".

God fails God's own standards. Therefore God is unjust.
But the punishment of innocents for the crimes of others is UNJUST, Dave. You have also specifically decreed that "God does not punish innocents" (in defiance of the Bible). There is no doubt that Saul's grandchildren (and the child of David and Bathsheba, and MANY others killed by God or in the name of God) are completely innocent of the crime for which they are being punished. If they are guilty of anything in your twisted fantasy, they are guilty only of WANTING TO EAT THE FRUIT.

If kids can be morally, legitimately killed for this, then God (or the priesthood) can kill anybody at any time, for any reason or no reason. However, there IS a stated reason in the case of Saul's grandchildren and David's child: the crimes of Saul and David respectively. Again your Bible betrays you: they were killed for the crimes of others.
Are you now seriously suggesting that atheists should be masochists? WHY?
I have given you several reasons. Quit lying, Dave.
Socially-conditioned norms DO tell you what SHOULD BE. That is their function! If a society has conditioned modesty rules against public nudity, or bare ankles, then the rules are that you SHOULD cover up. Such rules cannot be questioned except by stepping outside them and adopting a different platform: this fact does not in any sense invalidate any atheistic worldview. Our common humanity allows sane people (i.e. not you) to agree on a common platform of shared values.
And exactly how many people does this apply to? What percentage of the world's 6 billion people have absolutely nothing to fear from any potential enemy?
so you are NOT prepared to accept that an absolute, universal moral code DOES NOT EXIST under metaphysical naturalism.

Therefore you have finally conceded that you had no idea what you were talking about all along. It's good to finally confirm that you've been babbling nonsense at us.

Before you next attempt to engage in debate, I suggest you try to LEARN what the position of your opponent actually is.
You say I cannot give you reasons. I have given you five reasons. Five does not equal zero.
God CHANGED HIS MIND. Again you abandon the Bible! He was going to do something, but Moses talked him out of it!
Yet AGAIN you abandon the Bible. Unauthorized practitioners of religious rites are supposedly stricken with leprosy or struck dead BY GOD HIMSELF.
Again, let's take this r-e-a-l s-l-o-w.

According to the Bible, God likes blood sacrifices. Bigtime. Tossing struggling animals onto altars and slitting their throats really turns him on. Burning the remains produces a "sweet savor unto the Lord".

And, according to the Bible, captured prisoners of war are to be slaughtered.

So why, exactly, should the priests NOT slaughter captured prisoners by tossing them onto altars and slitting their throats, as so many ancient peoples did?

Especially as there are NO Biblical verses which forbid this practise! The only Biblical injunctions against human sacrifices refer to the sacrifice of firstborn offspring to the god Molech.

You have NO reason to reject the Bible's clear endorsement of human sacrifice. You do this only because your faith is weak, and you are beginning to perceive that God is NOT the source of morality. He is nothing more than a primitive war-god.
This bullshit could just as easily apply to human sacrifice.
It is quite possible to start one's thinking with this premise and then discover that the resultant worldview is incoherent and self-refuting. The key is "...and end one's thinking with Him". You believe that blindness and stupidity are virtues. Furthermore,you believe that smart people aren't "true" Christians.

You are wrong. A Christian is a follower of the teachings of Jesus Christ, as revealed in the New Testament. Furthermore, as Jesus himself left no writings, there is even some leeway about the accuracy of the gospels. The entire Old Testament can be safely discarded. So can the teachings of Paul.
Except, of course, that it CAN account for these things.
Nope, because the regularity of the Universe is axiomatic to metaphysical naturalism. Therefore, if metaphysical naturalism is true, there cannot be any such nasty surprises. If you wish to argue that this axiom is unfounded, you must also accept the possibility of a trickster God who has fed you a pack of lies.
No. Again you attempt the double standard. You MUST accept that an arsonist firefighter is a good firefighter. He is doing it for a morally sufficient reason: the greater glory of firefighters. This follows directly from your belief that God defines a normative standard of good, and that God himself conforms to his own standards: "is perfectly good and just".

Incidentally, the depth of your predicament is evident in the mindless, robotic quality of your responses. You have built a false worldview upon a false premise: the existence of the Biblical God. Millions of "true Christians" before you have discovered this falsehood. Your problem is that you cannot allow yourself to THINK about the issues being discussed: you are requred to "end your thoughts" when they stray too far. This is the central doctrine of Christian presuppositionalism, and it's why they keep losing arguments against atheists.

You are crippling your mind.

[ June 06, 2002: Message edited by: Jack the Bodiless ]</p>

Jobar

Dave, "yeah yeah right right" is one way to escape from a circular argument- and you have frankly admitted that you are arguing in a circle, and even think that somehow something will get explained thereby. When actually all you can prove that way is who is the stubbornest.

You are demanding an absolute basis of morality here from (speaking for myself, anyway) moral relativists. I do not believe it possible to make a single clear statement about morality which is true under every conceivable circumstance. (And don't try to spring "love God" or something similar here. God is certainly unclear to all of us you dispute with.)

I use a sliding scale of morality, depending on (mainly) how I am treated. The central, 'default' position is "Do as done by." (The Brass Rule.) If I am treated fairly and honestly, I move up the scale to the Silver Rule- "Do not as you would not be done to." I try to treat all people this way- and if I am given the same treatment in return, I call those who do so friends or potentially friends. For a few- close companions, family, lovers- I apply the Golden Rule.

And for the times I am cheated or lied to or abused, I use the Iron Rule- "Do as you will, before done to."

Ever heard of the Prisoner's Dilemma? If you haven't I suggest you do a search for it. This seemingly simple problem gives a good explanation for why it is best to start out treating others well, and also why it is best not to treat others badly.

All of this explains perfectly well how to be moral without being a constant victim- as well as why one should so be.

And none of it requires any sort of absolute moral statement, nor any sort of God.

Bill Snedden

If you'll notice, when I posted the Rand quote, I specifically indicated that it was a polemic.

If Man's nature is evil, then God has stacked the deck against him. That's supposed to be justice?

Neither can Man's "evil nature" come from Adam's sin; even the smallest child knows that it's absolutely unjust to be punished for the misdeeds of another.

Besides which, the entire idea of innate depravity is clearly a post hoc fallacy.

When I got out of bed this morning, I could have chosen to take a gun to work and begin shooting my coworkers. I could have chosen to torture my dog. I could have chosen to rob a bank. I could have chosen to steal from the grocery store. I could have chosen to cheat on my wife. I could have chosen to do any one of a number of "evil" acts. Instead, I, like millions of other humans, chose to calmly eat breakfast and go about my day without doing anything even remotely "evil".

The billions of people who inhabit this planet make trillions of similar choices every day. If it were really true that man were innately evil or depraved, it should follow that the majority of the choices they make should be evil or result in evil. Simple consideration of the state of the world is ample indication that this cannot be so. While there is much evil in the world, there is much more good.

While I agree that the assertions are unargued, I imagine that Rand's sentiments would be compelling in some sense to anyone who hasn't already decided to renounce reason and humanity.

Regards,

Bill Snedden

Pomp

Dave, it occurs to me that you might enjoy spending some time in our Moral Foundations & Principles forum, interacting with a number of intelligent participants who routinely discuss the foundations of a number of theistic and atheistic moral systems.

Typhon

You missed the point. Our biology dictates that we argue for or against certain forms and/or expressions of behavior.

I don't know how much more simple to make this for you.

Behavior that is destructive to cooperation and the needs of our social species, is behavior that is viewed as negative. Our biology dictates this. We compete against each other for breeding and resource rights, but we also depend and cooperate with each other as well. In fact, recent studies show we are by nature, less prone to aggression and competition within our social groups than we are prone to altruistic and cooperative behavior.

Sigh. Here's an even simpler example:

Attacking an enemy tribesman or killing a lion, that is attacking your flock or threatening your kin group, is behavior that is viewed as being positive based on our biology as a member of a social, cooperative species.

Attacking randomly members of your own household or killing your own child, is behavior that is viewed as being negative based on our biology as a member of a social, cooperative species.

This is the SAME ACT in either case. Aggression, even killing, is not in and of itself a moral or immoral act. It is the context in which it occurs, that determines its relevant morality. This is NOT even remotely arbitrary or based on changing personal whim, but rather, dependent upon the needs and customs that have arisen from our evolutionary past and complex social present.

Sex is not an inherently bad act for example. It is one might add, an absolute necessity for a sexually reproducing species such as ours if we are to ensure our own continuation. Aside from the reproductive need, it forms connections, creates new allies, reduces stress, and promotes emotional bonding.

Sex is thus oft seen favorably and much desired in society. This is not unique to our species either.

Sex with your own offspring or even your neighbor's wife, is an example of the same act, being viewed with appropriate, and NOT arbitrary, negativity, as it is potentially damaging based on our biology as social, cooperative species. Sex with your close relatives can produce some unfavorable genetic results. Sex with your neighbor's wife, can start a war, or even result in getting you killed. Same with other species.

Sex can get you ahead, or behind, it all depends on what the rules of society and biology are in play.

I think why a lot of theists can't handle a real world basis for morality is in part because it is complex, it is not a simplistic system of static black and white acts. We have good reason however to believe that this only reinforces the validity of a naturalistic claim for morality. The world is complex, and rarely ever operates in a simplistic or even black and white manner. Why would we expect something as complicated as human behavior and human morality to be any less rich and diversified in its expression?

.T.

Typhon

Dave, it is annoying to have to keep repeating the same things over and over, because you refuse to abandon a set and flawed position.

Morality exists because it is a necessary component of human behavior which is dictated by our needs and evolution as a social species.

Logic is a tool, created by humans, which can be applied to solve certain problems. Math is a tool, created by humans, which can be applied to solve certain problems. Science is a tool, created by humans, which can be applied to solve certain. problems. These are damn "meaningful" and useful concepts considering we are a species of tool using and developing primates who owe in a large part, our survival to the ability to develop and use tools of this type.

Next you'll be asking me to justify the usefulness of a garden spade over sharp thoughts.

.T.