Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Peter Kirby · 06-23-2002, 03:45 PM

Please remove the "only" in the second-to-last sentence. I was trying to describe a clear case in which I would countenance the claim of a resurrection, not the minimal case. I do not know what the minimum case would be exactly, but it is somewhere between two and a hundred.

best,
Peter Kirby

lpetrich · 06-23-2002, 04:33 PM

Quote:

Polycarp:
I simply said that it is not extraordinary to claim something that is believed by 80-90% of the people. ...

I wonder if Polycarp is willing to use that argument to support what he considers popular misconceptions? Things that he undoubtedly rejects, like astrology, the extraterrestrial-spaceship view of UFO's, etc.

And several religions have, or at least had, been around for much longer than Christianity -- yet Polycarp believes them to be false religions.

Quote:

Polycarp:
... My point was that many of the skeptics here would not have believed in the existence of kangaroos had they lived in 17th century Europe. I say this based on the criteria given by many of you for justification for belief in god(s). This would be the case even if some of your fellow Europeans returned from Australia telling you that kangaroos exist.

Actually, something like that had once happened. The duckbill platypus was first thought to be a hoax when a stuffed one first showed up in Europe in the 18th cy. -- it had a clearly mammalian body, but with a duck-like beak and poison spurs, so someone had thought that some hoaxer had assembled a composite.

Quote:

Polycarp:
If I created an intelligent robot and all it did was kneel at my feet and worshipped me, I�d be quite bored. But what if the robot was thankful to me for creating it? What if the robot appreciated the fact that I brought it into existence? What if it was so thankful for being created that it went out and tried to improve the world and make it a better place for all of the other robots (even the ones who didn�t believe they were created, but believed they just popped into existence as a cosmic accident)? Why would it do this? Because it loved the other robots and wanted their lives to be better. Me, as creator, knows the best way for a robot to live its life, so I tell the robot how they should live if they want robot society to be beneficial to all.

Interesting scenario. Polycarp, you should write a science-fiction story about that.

There are other features that this scenario could use, like some robots having different opinions on who their creator is, and some robots willing to fight Holy Wars over what you are really like because you never reveal yourself unambiguously.

And I am a creator of sorts -- a creator of software. But since I am neither omnipotent nor omniscient, I freely accept that others may learn something about my software that I had not already known. So if I was a creator of sentient robots, and I had neglected to reveal myself to them, I'd congratulate them for making up for that deficiency on my part. Yes, deficiency. And I'd be curious about whatever they had learned about themselves, since they would have plenty of experience with themselves that I would lack.

And how does discovering who one's creator is relate to making life better?

Quote:

Polycarp:
You want a creator that lets you do whatever you want and then rewards you for your behavior, even when the creator made you and knows exactly what is best for you. Hell isn�t for punishment. It�s to give people what they want � a life without a meddling god who interferes with all of humanity�s best laid plans. That�s what hell will be � everyone doing what they want without god anywhere to be found. No justice for wrongs committed, fighting for our own rights without regard for those of another, ahhh it will be such a wonderful place.

So the Bible is wrong and Hell is not being burned alive forever and ever? Also, this argument applies to people who believe in other religions as well as those who believe in none; that they all believe what they believe because they seek some pretext for disobeying the Christian God.

Quote:

Polycarp:
God doesn�t want to be worshipped to stroke his ego. He wants to be acknowledged as the one who is responsible for our existence, and then he wants us to go out and help all the other robots who need help.

Getting angry at those who worship other deities and at those who doubt or deny his existence seems to me to be a sign of uneasy vanity, as Bertrand Russell had put it.

Quote:

(Skeptical's comparison with human parents)
Polycarp:
One problem with your analogy � parents aren�t omniscient (despite what they may think). By definition, an omniscient being would know the best way for its creation to live.

But would be at fault for not making its creation perfectly well-behaved, since an omnipotent being would be responsible for everything that happens, either by commission or by omission.

Quote:

Polycarp:
... You want a God that makes robots without free wills, or at least the freedom to committ immoral acts. How do you �fix them� without allowing for the possibility of evil AND still allow them to retain their freedom? It�s not possible�

Plenty of non-wicked free will is still possible under that scenario. And I wish to remind everybody that Jesus Christ had reportedly taught that one ought to remove parts of one's body that make one commit sins. When one applies that teaching to free will, one concludes that it is best gotten rid of.

Quote:

Polycarp:
Hell doesn�t exist to torture people. God does try to �fix� people, but he doesn�t coerce them. You want �God the cosmic rapist� who leaves people no choice but to believe in him, not a god who respects your freedom.

This is from someone who claims that rejection of the existence of the Christian God is motivated by a desire to disobey that entity. Sheesh.

Quote:

Polycarp:
Why should a �lesser being� question a being who is omniscient and omnipotent?

"I'm just following orders", right?

Ted Hoffman · 06-24-2002, 01:02 AM

Polycarp
I don’t have time to answer 53 questions. Even if I did have the time, I wouldn’t do it because I think there would be 53 more questions waiting for me.

If you’d like to pick the 3 or 4 most important questions, then I will try to answer them. I don’t mean to be rude, but my time is limited.
Ok, so you are very busy. How long would it take to answer my 53 questions? 48 hours 30 minutes? 2 hours?
Whatever the case, if you feel you don't have the time to answer them, its ok with me. One day, I may find a theist who is willing to put aside some time to answer them.

It was a pleasure.

Ted Hoffman · 06-24-2002, 01:34 AM

[ June 24, 2002: Message edited by: IntenSity ]</p>

Theli · 06-24-2002, 01:50 AM

lpetrich...

Quote:

So the Bible is wrong and Hell is not being burned alive forever and ever?

I did get an answer on this question from Polycarp.
Apperanly, people who live in hell makes it "a hell".
This doesn't make sense though, unless you assume that hell is already such a hostile place (created by god) that no form of society, or even social bounds between people would be possible.
In wich god IS torturing people for ignoring him.

How can someone love such a god?

Quote:

And I wish to remind everybody that Jesus Christ had reportedly taught that one ought to remove parts of one's body that make one commit sins.

huh?
I've never heard that.
Doesn't that involve decapitating yourself?
And through that, suicide?

"duckbill platypus"...

What a stupid animal.

Theli · 06-24-2002, 02:41 AM

Skeptical...

Quote:

It also seems clear that such a view is pure and simple anthropomorphism ... "if horses could draw, their gods would look like horses"

Nice put. Gods seems to be simply embodment of human ideals. The devil with his horns, and god with his infinite wisdom.

Quote:

Inevitably, the mix of emotion and power would be catastrophic.

Obviously, a god that thinks just like yourself is something appealing and easy to believe in.
But could you imagine what would happen if such a being really existed?
What if it got angry at the humans, or tired of them?

Ted Hoffman · 06-24-2002, 04:45 AM

Skeptical,
I have to say I have been quite impressed by your arguments. Specifically:

Just because you create a human (or "thinking" robot), that doesn't mean you know the best way for them to live, unless you define "best" in a very vague way.

and It also seems clear that such a view is pure and simple anthropomorphism ... "if horses could draw, their gods would look like horses"
I find them very refreshing. As for me, I will start another thread with the questions Polycarp has ducked citing lack of time. The simplest cop-out of all times.

Vorkosigan · 06-24-2002, 06:55 AM

This is BC&A, not Critique Polycarp's Wacko Beliefs. Perhaps this thread should be taken to another forum. Shame, it started out with great promise.

Ted Hoffman · 06-24-2002, 10:06 AM

Vorkosigan,
Ok, I get your point. Sorry I almost hijacked the thread with my irrelevant questions. I will take my leave now.

brighid · 06-24-2002, 10:29 AM

Quote:

Here's my "logical" path to Christianity, it's sort of a funnel of thought. You have to remember that their are experiential factors at play in all this, too, but I leave those out for personal reasons.
Does some type of god exist? Probably.

How did you deduce that some type of god exists?

Quote:

What type of god exists? Monotheism seems more probable than other candidates.

Why does monotheism seem more probably then polytheism, pantheism, or another religious system?

And among monotheism why did you choose your specific sect of Christianity over Judaism or Islam?

Quote:

Did this god reveal itself in some way? Probably

How did you deduce that any god had revealed itself to mankind to conclude probably as opposed to yes, or no?

How did you deduce that the Bible was the actual revelation of a God, specifically the Christian God and not a clever trick by Satan to lead mankind away from Judaism? Or that Jesus was only a prophet of the Abrahamic God, and that Muhammad was an inferior prophet and Allah is not the true God?

Quote:

I think Jesus lived a life that pointed people toward god, and that his message was ratified by the act of god raising him from the dead.

You state that you believe Jesus rose from the dead, but you state you �logically� concluded this path. How is it logical to conclude that any human person, or other entity once dead is capable of rising? Outside of the Gospels, what evidence do we have of men, or other beings actually returning from death? Don�t you believe that extraordinary claims require equal proof? And if we are to believe this claim of miraculous awakenings based upon Scriptural context, and personal feelings why not believe the similar claims of other faiths? Wouldn�t that line of reasoning make it impossible to actually be a Christian if the basis of Christianity is to believe in only ONE God, and that none other than the JC God exist?

Other than the anecdotal personal experiences that have helped you decide upon this particular conclusion, could you please delineate your logical reasoning a bit more as the previous statements are very vague and leave many unanswered questions.

B

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

06-23-2002, 03:45 PM	#61
Peter Kirby Veteran Member Join Date: Jul 2001 Location: the reliquary of Ockham's razor Posts: 4,035	Please remove the "only" in the second-to-last sentence. I was trying to describe a clear case in which I would countenance the claim of a resurrection, not the minimal case. I do not know what the minimum case would be exactly, but it is somewhere between two and a hundred. best, Peter Kirby

06-24-2002, 01:02 AM	#63
Ted Hoffman Veteran Member Join Date: Feb 2001 Location: "" Posts: 3,863	Polycarp I don’t have time to answer 53 questions. Even if I did have the time, I wouldn’t do it because I think there would be 53 more questions waiting for me. If you’d like to pick the 3 or 4 most important questions, then I will try to answer them. I don’t mean to be rude, but my time is limited. Ok, so you are very busy. How long would it take to answer my 53 questions? 48 hours 30 minutes? 2 hours? Whatever the case, if you feel you don't have the time to answer them, its ok with me. One day, I may find a theist who is willing to put aside some time to answer them. It was a pleasure.

06-24-2002, 01:34 AM	#64
Ted Hoffman Veteran Member Join Date: Feb 2001 Location: "" Posts: 3,863	[ June 24, 2002: Message edited by: IntenSity ]</p>

06-24-2002, 04:45 AM	#67
Ted Hoffman Veteran Member Join Date: Feb 2001 Location: "" Posts: 3,863	Skeptical, I have to say I have been quite impressed by your arguments. Specifically: Just because you create a human (or "thinking" robot), that doesn't mean you know the best way for them to live, unless you define "best" in a very vague way. and It also seems clear that such a view is pure and simple anthropomorphism ... "if horses could draw, their gods would look like horses" I find them very refreshing. As for me, I will start another thread with the questions Polycarp has ducked citing lack of time. The simplest cop-out of all times.

06-24-2002, 06:55 AM	#68
Vorkosigan Contributor Join Date: Jan 2001 Location: Barrayar Posts: 11,866	This is BC&A, not Critique Polycarp's Wacko Beliefs. Perhaps this thread should be taken to another forum. Shame, it started out with great promise.

06-24-2002, 10:06 AM	#69
Ted Hoffman Veteran Member Join Date: Feb 2001 Location: "" Posts: 3,863	Vorkosigan, Ok, I get your point. Sorry I almost hijacked the thread with my irrelevant questions. I will take my leave now.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.