Calzaer

I read through all 9 pages of this, so I'm sure as hell gonna add my two cents. :b

I love how SOMMS et al say we have freedom.

If I hold a flamethrower to your head and say "Do everything I tell you, or else you'll burn for eternity," you're not free. "Remember," I say, "You chose of your own free will to reject my free gift of not burning you for all eternity. So when I pull this trigger, it's all your fault."

Say... this is beginning to sound like an abusive spousal relationship! "If you weren't such a slut, I wouldn't have to beat you senseless. This is all your fault for disobeying me."

Satan Oscillate My Metallic Sonatas

Calzaer,

First...welcome.

Your analogy is skewed. A more accurate analogy of man's situation with God is this:

The President gives you the island of Maui and says you can do whatever you want. At some point however, you will have to choose where to live. "Can I live down in the crater of the volcano Haleakala?" you ask. "Uh...??...sure...if you wish. You can do whatever you want." says the President.




Your position that we have no 'freedom' is really just a complaint that we have to eventually make a choice.



Satan Oscillate My Metallic Sonatas

Philosoft

I'm tired of seeing belief determination reduced to absurdity. This is a terrible analogy. Per Christianity, the only possible destinations of our eternal souls are heaven and hell. We don't even get to choose our ultimate destination - we have to go through 70+ years of belief determination built on experiences and our reactions to those experiences. Then, if all those years of belief determination lead us to honestly conclude God doesn't exist and Jesus was just a guy, well, sorry you didn't have the right experiences, but you're going to hell.

It is not some flippant free-will decision to believe in God or not, SOMMS. It never has been and it never will be, no matter how many times you assert it is, no matter how many irritatingly inaccurate analogies you come up with.
A choice determined by circumstance and genetics. Your "ultimate free will" is a fantasy.

Calzaer

That's not a particularly good analogy. In order to make it better, the President had to create the volcano in the first place, and make it cover all but a tiny bit of the island. And then, in order to live on that tiny bit of the island, you have to do everything the President tells you to do. Otherwise you have no choice but to live in the volcano.

Oh, and you can never leave the island.

(FYI: Living in the crater on Maui would be perfectly safe. It's dormant and has been for a very long time; the only active volcano is Kilhuea, on Hawai'i (the Big Island).)

camerono

I think that the day that someone, believing that they understand god and jesus and that they love/cherish their godly relationship with him(I say believe because that is the basis of a belief system) said that "God works in mysterious ways" that all of christianity was doomed to be realized as misinformation taken to make sense of our universe, which for all intensive purposes, is infinite when compared to ourselves and thus cannot ever be full understood. Because there will always be questions that aren't answer, there will always be a person who blames it on god or some higher being. I know this, as christianity's belief system's main result is that if you eventually believe and accept god as your lord and savior then you will be saved. This only suggests to a critical person that the ONLY requirement to get into heaven is that before you die you take god as your savior and accept him, so really you only have to be a member when you die.

Scenario:

I person A becomes a great scientist, develops SOMETHING that saves millions of people's lives. Many of those people, arguably may have not believed in god, but then they see this person who has come and saved all of their lives. Now some of them think, "He is a sign from god~now I believe." and they do, because in their mind he is a being sent from god, a tool of god, sent to prolong this life of theirs before judgment. So now we have one person, who is a scientist, and doesn't believe in god, but we have millions more people who have maybe lived good, or bad or terrible lives, who now believe in god and THEY get to go to heaven? While the scientist, who has lived a life of focus and devotion doesn't? And NOT because he is a bad person otherwise, but because he didn't believe something, that isn't possible in the way that defines the universe, the same way of thinking that allowed him to save all of those lives.

How can this be right? It can't be, besides all of the flaws, or coincidences or things ACTUALLY stated to occur by the Bible, or whatever, it is still ridiculous to think that membership in the Christian club is all that is required to enter the clubhouse of heaven.

I would join if they had a cool logo, like a pentagon or something, but a cross...c'mon that's just boring.

HRG

Please tell me the logical deduction - step by step - which goes from

"God is the omnipotent, omniscient and omnibenevolent Creator of everything" (a descriptive statement)

to

"God owns us and has authority over us" (a prescriptive statement).

Please make sure to list all your premises, even the hidden ones

Regards,
HRG.

Wyz_sub10

...or...if anything god does is considered 'right', regardless of the morals of man, how can anyone be expected to differentiate right from wrong with any consistency?

Evolution assumes nothing about the origin of life. Evolutionary theory does not deal with abiogenesis.

You might want to stay away from evolution as a metaphor until you understand the basic concepts.

Wyz_sub10

Societies have moral autonomy. This is evident in culture clashes where morality differs between society. It is not an absolute.

Why? If we grant a god as creator, what is inherant in this role that makes him the source of all morality?

I think the point is that humans can recognize what makes for a better society and what cause damage to society. I would define morals as behaviour that respect the fundamental rights of others and contributes to a sustainable society.

Others might disagree with that definition.

Morality can exist independent of whether god is creator or not (or the source or not). This is non sequitur on your part.

Bill Snedden

Mr. Pot, meet Mr. Kettle...

Why not? What exactly is inherent in "creation" that confers moral authority? Question-begging indeed...

By those "unalienable" rights with which he supposedly endowed me: life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. By the reason with which he supposedly gifted me, and by the right of the image of rationality which I allegedly share with him and with which he created me.

A fabrication that exists only in your mind; I've never claimed any such thing. I obviously don't agree that our rights are an "endowment from a creator", but it is indisputable that the founding fathers did and I've never claimed anything different.

Newsflash: they're the same rights. Are you suggesting that "liberty, equality, fraternity" are not rights that are inherent in our own Constitution?

You can't possibly really be this ignorant.

What is an "atheistic principle" upon which a society has been founded? I can only think of one atheistic "principle": no god. Unfortunately, that's clearly an insufficient basis upon which to found anything, much less a society. Just like "god" with no additional definitions would be.

The foundations of all free countries in the world today are profoundly humanistic, regardless of whether or not the founders or members agree that the principles rest upon god-belief or not. Conversely, in today's world societies that stress "theistic principles" in their government tend to be repressive, autocratic, monarchies or dictatorships.

Saying it loudly or repeatedly simply doesn't make it so. You've got to prove your point instead of simply asserting it over and over and over and over and over ad nauseam.

Man obviously can sustain his own life. Modern man has been around for some thousands of years.

Can you say non sequitur? Good, I thought you could...

Ah, I see. So your god is a "do as I say, not as I do" kind of being. So, in addition to being a slavemaster, he's also a hypocrite. And you "choose" to worship such a creature? How very nice for you...

Why does it seem to be so impossible to both you and SOMMS that God might choose to be other than the malignant horror you suppose him to be? Why would a "holy" being choose to create a race of slaves? Why should a rational being expect slaves to worship him?

Of course I'm confusing nothing. Neither you nor SOMMS has provided any argument or evidence to support your view that "creation" encumbers moral authority over created rational beings. It might be nice to also see you demonstrate how this relationship cannot fail to obtain, and how your god could not choose to behave otherwise.

In other words, assuming for the argument that creation encumbers dispositive authority, what factors prevent your god from "choosing" to behave in what humans would term an ethical fashion toward his creation?

As far as the "objectivity" of morality goes, your understanding of ethical theory is obviously woefully inadequate for that discussion. Suffice it to say here that I would first require you to prove that morality must be objective before I would even consider undertaking such a burden.

Repeat after me, "when you assume..."

You are simply assuming that the Creator-creature relationship must be constructed according to the model in your head. There are other models. The parent-child model might be a good one. After all, Jesus specifically told us to name God "Father."

I must say though, it is gratifying to see from the totality of your response that you concede my point: you worship a slavemaster.

I hope someday that I can understand what drives a person to hate himself as much as some theists seem to. What is it about Mankind that inspires such a degree of self-loathing? Why would any self-respecting human being choose to worship a creature that treated him thusly? It seems to me very similar to a dog that continues to fawn over the master who abuses him. The only difference is, that I don't expect the dog to necessarily know better. I do expect people to engage in rational value judgements. I suppose that when one allows one's entire value system and ability to judge to become crippled, it's inevitable that they will then be rendered morally handicapped.

Regards,

Bill Snedden

Satan Oscillate My Metallic Sonatas

Bill,
Not quite true Bill...you are the only one who has ever mentioned killing themselves.


Right, and I said assuming we are slaves is assuming the conclusion you are trying to derive Bill. I am claiming nothing about slaves killing themselves...again, this is all you buddy. I AM saying we have freedom...whereas slaves obviously do not. Can slaves kill themselves? Maybe, maybe not. I don't know. You seem to be the expert on suicidal slave mentality here Bill.

Can slaves go to Arby's? No. Can we? Unfortunately...yes. Granted this is one of the horrible misuses of our freewill.





Correct. Because God's authority is not 'derived'. It is objective. It simply exists...regardless of what we have to say about it.



From my perspective you got shut down on the whole 'God is a slavemaster' thing. When this didn't work out for you dovetailed Fiachs 'post-enlightenment' comment. It really does seem to be a change in your argument. No big deal.



Oh really? Tell me Bill...given God exists and created the universe...which one among us commands God? Concerning ownership: see above.


Correction. Many, myself included, realize that the truths about post-enlightenment are about man...not God.








I need prove nothing Bill. This isn't about me 'proving' anything. It is about you acknowledging (or not) God's authority. If you don't want to...great. Fine by me. This doesn't change the fact that He has authority over everything.


Satan Oscillate My Metallic Sonatas