The atheist's journey - Religious Debate for the mature

[Mike da King]

call me a "Christian basher" if you will

I will respond to each section of the given prompt for this thread individually:
1. I, as an atheist, hope to correct the faulty logic of my peers so that they will better understand reality.
2. I doubt that I will "change everyone by disproving anything bible related." I think that disproving the bible is an enormous waste of time. I try no harder to disprove it than I do to disprove a rumor that I hear from a drunk person. However, by pointing out logical flaws in the arguments of individuals, I think that I will do, have done, and am doing a favor to those people.
3. So the Christian jouney is appealing to you. I myself prefer a harsh truth to a pleasant delusion. You are right about that second part.
4. I was sent to church for many years and a Catholic school for one year. Christians wasted my time and their own time in the worship of a God without evidence to prove His existence. This time could have been spent to better society.

 

[Ice Fisher]

Originally posted by Bumble Bee Tuna
Ice Fisher- The argument you are using is known as Pascal's Wager. It is horrendously fallacious, and you should be embarassed for using it.

Why are we only considering your god? Could we not change the wager like this?

I would rather live my whole life believing there was Allah and die and find out there wasn't then live my whole life believing there wasn't Allah and die and find out there was. In the first part of that statement nothing happens and in the other one you go to ****. Which one sounds better?

Couldn't we alter your wager like that, to make belief in Yahweh a bad thing? And wouldn't we have to include every other god? and what about hypothetical gods that might punish you for worshipping any other god? What you've done is made a false dichotomy. There are some religions out there that won't punish Atheists, but will punish actual worshippers of other gods. In that case, atheism is preferable to Christianity. This leaves your logic worthless, but I'm sure you'll stay a Christian even though I have just ripped the logical foundation for your beliefs out from under you.

http://www.infidels.org/news/atheism/arguments.html#pascal

read it.

-B

BBT first off you provided me a quite biased link in the first place. It's an atheists website. So I will give you a link from my side: http://www.ICR.org You'll have to follow some link to find info. Most Religions in the world like Mormonism, Buddhism and every other Eastern Religion, in fact pretty much every religion besides Christianity and Islam will accept you no matter what religion you are. And I can't believe in Islam because anyone who can put as one of the pillars of it's religion: a holy war to wipe out all others who do not believe in them. Also, any religion that causes people to do suicide bombing I just can not believe in. Another reason I don't believe in the other religions is that they were all founded by men. Men you can go to their graves and see. Go to Jesus's grave and there's nothing there.

 

[Bumble Bee Tuna]

One of the pillars of Islam is not holy wars, so scratch that objection to Islam. "Jihad", the pillar of Islam, is religious self-improvement, NOT the holy war term. Jihad can be used to mean holy war but the pillar of Islam is not about that at all. This is Arabic for you- in their language, words have very different meanings depending on context and writing.

And you can't believe in a religion that spawns terrorists? Then I guess you'll be leaving Christianity, seeing as it spawned Eric Rudolph, the Olympics Bomber. http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/w...&node=&contentId=A1196-2003Jun1&notFound=true

All religions are founded by men. Here you are begging the question. Christianity is true because it wasn't founded by men! How do you know Christianity wasn't founded by men? Because Christianity is true!

Jesus doesn't have a tomb or grave. You can't visit it to see it empty. It doesn't exist. How this ties into your points, I have no idea.

I'll get back to you on other religions that will punish you in the afterlife for being a Christian. This should be fun to research.

Christianity has no evidence. Thus your God has no more rational foundation than Beestro the Almighty. Beestro rewards everyone with a paradise for the afterlife, except Christians. He punishes them for eternity.

What's that you say? Beestro was just made up by me? Well, Jesus was made up by the first Christians. They have equal standing. The only way Christianity can be superior to Beestroism is if you assume that Christianity was in fact not made up, in which case you're begging the question.

You don't NEED other religions for Pascal's Wager to be fallacious.

-B

 

[Fyre Ball]

Pascal's wager is just a way to try to justify the spiritual with logical reasoning. It doesn't work.

Moving on, I'd just like to add, Jihad isn't even a pillar of mainstream Islam. It's a belief, yes, a tenant, perhaps, but not one of the five pillars.

"Religions in the world like Mormonism, Buddhism and every other Eastern Religion, in fact pretty much every religion besides Christianity and Islam will accept you no matter what religion you are."

I know of plenty religions that claim you have to be born into them and don't actively proselytize or accept converts. Mormonism doesn't accept just any religion. Perhaps on the outside it sort of does, but it demands conversion like any other sect claiming to be Christian. And very few people are actually allowed into Mormon temples. Judaism is another religion that won't embrace everybody with open arms.

Jesus is a man, even from a mainstream Christian standpoint. His essence is fully man and fully God. Thus, Christianity was founded by a man. Yay. Furthermore, Jesus really didn't found Christianity. Paul was the biggest influence in its founding, and I'm fairly certain he was a man.

When Beestro's healing seemingly terminal illnesses right after a believer in him is blessed with his holy water, or when he's stopping bodies from decaying, be sure to let me know.

 

[Mike da King]

Fyre Ball, your last statement is an example of ad hoc- you are saying that the ocurrence of "miracles" evidences the existence of God, yet you are merely providing a potential explanation. Beestro could just as easily be healing people with terminal illnesses as God could.

I would love to see a scientific experiment along these lines:
-the control group gets plain old water
-experimantal group A gets real holy water
-experimental group B gets water blessed by a shaman of Beestro
-the independent variable is blessing of water (double blind)
-the dependent variable is recovery from terminal disease within given time.

If any other religions claim that their deity heals the sick, they can participate in similar experiments. Twenty bucks says theres no difference given a random sample of subjects who all have terminal illnesses. We would only legally be able to perform this on inhuman animals, however.

The thing that has made the church so long lived is its structure - to test the power of God shows disbelief and thus is a sin. The DEVIL tried to test Jesus up on that hill (you know which one I'm talking about). Any system which is inapparent and inherently untestable is BS in my book, as there is no logical reason to accept this system.

Sorry about all the bashing. Tell me if your head is hurting yet.

 

[Gligar_Man]

id like to see alot of things that fuond religious beliefs scientifically tested... but theyll only say 'thats not the way of [insert jesus]' and then bring up how someone was cured from cancer by sleeping with snakes and stuff, :\ even though stuff like that even though in this case id say its a miracle to be cured from cancer, but not a religious one, it happens...

 

[smashattack]

I wouldn't believe in a god that sends everyone that doesn't believe in him in hèll. The logic is: It's better living as an atheist, not wasting time time for praying and going to church, enjoying every second of your life, living freely, not caring about another entity that decides your destiny, than believing in god, putting all your faith in something that might not even exist and praying to it in vain.

I would like some clarification here. If somebody can explain to me in a respectable manner why exactly Christians (or other religiously-affiliated individuals) cannot live a happy life, I sincerely would like to hear it.

And one question. Suppose a god/dess did exist, and he/she did send all nonbelievers to the underworld--do you think it would be logical to discontinue any faith in this entity, simply because you do not agree with it?

Please remain civil in posts, as I'd like to continue a mature discussion. Thank you.

 

[Fyre Ball]

Fyre Ball, your last statement is an example of ad hoc- you are saying that the ocurrence of "miracles" evidences the existence of God, yet you are merely providing a potential explanation. Beestro could just as easily be healing people with terminal illnesses as God could.

I wasn't providing an explanation. I wasn't even ATTEMPTING to. Let's look at what I said, okay?

When Beestro's healing seemingly terminal illnesses right after a believer in him is blessed with his holy water, or when he's stopping bodies from decaying, be sure to let me know.

I was asking to be notified when Beestro was performing miracles. Simple.

Nope, my head isn't hurting yet. Nice attitude.

 

[Bumble Bee Tuna]

Fyre Ball, do you honestly expect us to believe you weren't trying to make that point? I don't know why you don't want to admit it, but fine. If you want to deny it, fine, but forgive me if I don't buy your story.

You be sure to let me know when Yahweh starts doing those things, too.

Originally posted by smashattack
I would like some clarification here. If somebody can explain to me in a respectable manner why exactly Christians (or other religiously-affiliated individuals) cannot live a happy life, I sincerely would like to hear it.

And one question. Suppose a god/dess did exist, and he/she did send all nonbelievers to the underworld--do you think it would be logical to discontinue any faith in this entity, simply because you do not agree with it?

Please remain civil in posts, as I'd like to continue a mature discussion. Thank you.

Well, for one thing, nobody claimed Christians can't be happy, so you really should get rid of that strawman. But Christianity isn't exactly helpful to happiness, as far as belief systems go. Christianity instills a complete lack of self-esteem in its followers. The underlying message of fundamentalist Christianity:

"I am a worthless piece of ****, but luckily, Jesus is nice to me anyway. Even though Jesus is so great, he still cares about a completely pathetic loser like me. I don't even deserve to live, but luckily Jesus allows me to."

It's demeaning. This message has ruined many, many lives. I do not claim it ruins all Christians' lives. But it happens quite often. I'm merely trying to give you some insight as to how Christianity can cause unhappiness, since you asked.

Aside from that awful message, there's more:

For people who believe in ****, you have to actually live life believing that most of the world is doomed to an eternity of pain and suffering. Yes, you Christians are supposed to happily live your lives, all the while believing that many of your close friends are going to be frying in **** for eternity. I honestly don't know how you guys pull this belief off, because that belief would certainly drive me insane. I can't imagine being A-OK with the idea of my friends facing eternal ****ation.

It's not too hard for Christianity to make a person unhappy. It doesn't always make people unhappy, even if I personally will never understand how someone could hold the above beliefs and not be unhappy.

Onward to your next question:

If a ****-sending god did exist, would it be logical to have faith in it?

Of course not! Faith is never logical. I think the question you meant to ask is:

If a ****-sending god did exist, and you knew that it existed, would it be logical to ignore that god's commands?

The answer is: that depends. What is the god demanding? Yahweh seems to demand that you kiss his *** for all of eternity in order to go to Heaven. Many people think that sounds like eternal torment anyway. So many think it would be more worthwhile to live this life to the fullest and accept **** than be a Christian and be subservient to the tyrant that is Yahweh.

-B

 

[smashattack]

Originally posted by Bumble Bee Tuna
Well, for one thing, nobody claimed Christians can't be happy, so you really should get rid of that strawman.

I was under the impression that several people thought in this way. But if that's not true, I will dismiss it.

But Christianity isn't exactly helpful to happiness, as far as belief systems go. Christianity instills a complete lack of self-esteem in its followers. The underlying message of fundamentalist Christianity:

"I am a worthless piece of ****, but luckily, Jesus is nice to me anyway. Even though Jesus is so great, he still cares about a completely pathetic loser like me. I don't even deserve to live, but luckily Jesus allows me to."

It's demeaning. This message has ruined many, many lives. I do not claim it ruins all Christians' lives. But it happens quite often. I'm merely trying to give you some insight as to how Christianity can cause unhappiness, since you asked.

I totally see your point here, but must ask how atheism is any different. After all, isn't atheism saying that you only have one life, you should make the most of it since you're going to be nonexistent for the majority of eternity? Atheism can be just as demeaning, not only to yourself, but to others, simply because if one takes the "live life to fullest" idea, it seems as though one is worrying only about one's self and not how others are treated.

Now I know nobody really tries to be immoral (whatever their set of moral beliefs are), nor do they want to hurt anybody. But it seems to me as though atheism is a "everything is up for grabs" kind of life. Get what you can when possible, because you'll only have one chance.

As far as the quote you made, I understand your point again. But please keep in mind that, while the Bible states we are all sinners, it never says we are worthless. Suppose once again that a deity does exist. Do you think that you would be equal to it? No, because obviously any existing deity is much more powerful and intelligent than any mortal. Remember, this is supposing one does exist.

Also, suppose you were worthless (as well as I, everybody on these boards, and the entire world). Would we, as a race, be too prideful to accept any help from a god/dess? Or could we accept the fact that we do need help?

Aside from that awful message, there's more:

For people who believe in ****, you have to actually live life believing that most of the world is doomed to an eternity of pain and suffering. Yes, you Christians are supposed to happily live your lives, all the while believing that many of your close friends are going to be frying in **** for eternity. I honestly don't know how you guys pull this belief off, because that belief would certainly drive me insane. I can't imagine being A-OK with the idea of my friends facing eternal ****ation.

In saying this, I'm under the impression you think Christians don't feel any regret or loss from those who suffer eternal punishment. Your knowledge of religion seems to be limited (as well as my knowledge of atheists), and so I want to know why you think this. Nobody, not even the "tyrant" Yahweh, enjoys seeing people punished.

I think you misunderstand how **** works. Correct me if I'm wrong, but it seems as though you think God sends people to ****. Many atheists seem to forget that there are two sides to this. Good being God, evil being Satan. Satan is the one taking people to ****, not necessarily God. While the Bible does say that God punishes people, I believe that the Holy Book refers mostly to punishment as almost being self-inflicted. As in, a disbelieving person is not necessarily condemned by God, but by himself.

I hope you understand this and that it clears up some things for you. If some of it doesn't make sense, let me know and I'll reiterate.

It's not too hard for Christianity to make a person unhappy. It doesn't always make people unhappy, even if I personally will never understand how someone could hold the above beliefs and not be unhappy.

Well, the same goes for me with atheism. I truly cannot imagine becoming nonexistent. Honestly, the idea frightens me, and to think that I will never see my friends, family, or pets again is truly unsettling. I understand your view on Christianity and ****, and I hope you can understand mine on atheism and the idea of nonexistence after death.

Onward to your next question:

If a ****-sending god did exist, would it be logical to have faith in it?

Of course not! Faith is never logical. I think the question you meant to ask is:

If a ****-sending god did exist, and you knew that it existed, would it be logical to ignore that god's commands?

Hmmm... I suppose the second question mostly reflects what I was looking for. What I actually meant was, if a god existed, would you discontinue believing simply because you disagreed? That question is a little different from the one you thought I asked, so please feel free to answer it.

The answer is: that depends. What is the god demanding? Yahweh seems to demand that you kiss his *** for all of eternity in order to go to Heaven. Many people think that sounds like eternal torment anyway. So many think it would be more worthwhile to live this life to the fullest and accept **** than be a Christian and be subservient to the tyrant that is Yahweh.

Again, I feel you misunderstand certain aspects of Christianity. I wonder exactly what you mean by "kiss His *** for all of eternity". Do you mean to say that you think going to heaven means one becomes a slave? To do the bidding of a fierce, tyrannical deity? That's certainly wrong. Heaven is described as a place with "streets of gold", with no more tears or pain.

Please explain to me why people think that sounds like eternal torment. I don't understand where these ideas are coming from.

Some people think that it is more worthwhile to live this life to the fullest and embrace ****? Why? ****, if real, is eternal. A human lifespan is usually no longer than 120 years. **** extremely outweighs the experience of life. Again, please explain.

Thank you, have a nice day (or night).

 

[Magus]

I'd like to add a point:

Originally posted by smashattack
Heaven is described as a place with "streets of gold", with no more tears or pain.

So in heaven, you're saying it's impossible to be sad? How is that? You can talk to other people, but what happens if you say something that makes them sad? Are you forbidden to say it? Or does the person just ignore it? Both choices seem to forget free will, which seems kind of bad, you know, for "paradise."

By the way, if it's Satan who takes people to hell, why doesn't he take the good Christians? Is Yahweh only kind enough to take his believers, and forget about the rest of his "creations?" You said he's not punishing them, but failing to act is just as bad as sending them there himself. The situation is: a criminal is pointing a gun at the head of a person sitting next to you. However, you fail to utilize the cell phone, or shield, or gaint machine gun in your hand to save this person because he was rude to you once.

EDIT: I forgot Christians can't understand hypothetical situations. Disregard this post.

 

[Fyre Ball]

Fyre Ball, do you honestly expect us to believe you weren't trying to make that point? I don't know why you don't want to admit it, but fine. If you want to deny it, fine, but forgive me if I don't buy your story.

You be sure to let me know when Yahweh starts doing those things, too.

I thought I had you all fooled. Shucks.

But as you wish. I'll do the necessary research and bring you a bunch of examples of things I would call miracles and you can see if they're just explainable coincidences or folk tales and whatnot.

Here's one.

 

[Bumble Bee Tuna]

Originally posted by smashattack
I was under the impression that several people thought in this way. But if that's not true, I will dismiss it.

I've never heard anyone make this claim in my entire life, and if someone did I would think they were pretty stupid. About the closest you might get would be someone saying that a Christian can never be "as happy" or something of the sort but even that is hogwash IMHO.

I totally see your point here, but must ask how atheism is any different. After all, isn't atheism saying that you only have one life, you should make the most of it since you're going to be nonexistent for the majority of eternity? Atheism can be just as demeaning, not only to yourself, but to others, simply because if one takes the "live life to fullest" idea, it seems as though one is worrying only about one's self and not how others are treated.

Saying that you only get one life is completely non-demeaning. It says that your life is valuable, and you need to make the most of it. Eternity in heaven makes your life on earth meaningless. It doesn't make someone happy to be an immoral loner in life, so of course "living life to its fullest" does not mean becoming one.

Now I know nobody really tries to be immoral (whatever their set of moral beliefs are), nor do they want to hurt anybody. But it seems to me as though atheism is a "everything is up for grabs" kind of life. Get what you can when possible, because you'll only have one chance.

I'm really puzzled as to how you can see a worldview that says to make the most of your life as a bad thing.

As far as the quote you made, I understand your point again. But please keep in mind that, while the Bible states we are all sinners, it never says we are worthless. Suppose once again that a deity does exist. Do you think that you would be equal to it? No, because obviously any existing deity is much more powerful and intelligent than any mortal. Remember, this is supposing one does exist.

If a deity exists, of course humans are not 'equal' to it. but Christianity is worse than just "we're good, but God is infinitely good so by comparison we're worthless". Christianity says "we're inherently evil, terrible people, who are fully deserving of eternal torture but God is just such a nice guy that he is bothering to help us worthless sacks of ****." This viewpoint only comes out in fundamentalism, of course. Fundamentalists tend to have no problems using colorful language to describe the depths of our ****tiness. Other Christians have the same core belief, but tend to only go so far as "we're all sinners", reluctant to say we deserve ****.

Also, suppose you were worthless (as well as I, everybody on these boards, and the entire world). Would we, as a race, be too prideful to accept any help from a god/dess? Or could we accept the fact that we do need help?

I'm sure some people would, and some people wouldn't. We certainly never make decisions "as a race".

In saying this, I'm under the impression you think Christians don't feel any regret or loss from those who suffer eternal punishment. Your knowledge of religion seems to be limited (as well as my knowledge of atheists), and so I want to know why you think this. Nobody, not even the "tyrant" Yahweh, enjoys seeing people punished.

You really should read the works of historic Christian apologists. People like St. Augustine and Aquinas discuss in their apologetics how much of the enjoyment from Heaven will come from watching sinners in **** with delight. No modern Christian dares come to such a conclusion, of course. It does seem like some of the fundamentalists out there are very much looking forward to their "i told you so" moment. I would definitely argue with your assertion thayt "nobody" enjoys watching punishment. I do not, however, believe that most Christians enjoy it. What I don't understand is how Christians can even function in their day to day lives with such an unsettling belief. My brother is a fundamentalist. He probably thinks I'm going to ****. What I don't understand is how he can go through life, seeing me every day, talking to me, as if nothing's wrong. Something's wrong! I'm going to be punished for eternity! I just feel like if I held that belief, it would be such an important thing I would find that every time I saw a non-Christian, I would be unable to think of anything except their eternal fate. If they were my friend, it would make me terribly sad. I truly cannot understand how you can function.

I think you misunderstand how **** works. Correct me if I'm wrong, but it seems as though you think God sends people to ****. Many atheists seem to forget that there are two sides to this. Good being God, evil being Satan. Satan is the one taking people to ****, not necessarily God. While the Bible does say that God punishes people, I believe that the Holy Book refers mostly to punishment as almost being self-inflicted. As in, a disbelieving person is not necessarily condemned by God, but by himself.

Forgive me for being rude, but that is absolutely ridiculous.

First of all, Satan is a ridiculous belief. Why doesn't God just destroy Satan, right now? What's stopping him?

Secondly, God is supposed to be omnipotent. NOTHING that happens isn't God's responsibility. Because God can do ANYTHING, any outcome of any scenario happens because God chose that outcome. In this case, there are two outcomes: Person is saved, or Satan takes person to ****. God is capable of choosing the outcome, and it doesn't take any effort at all to do so. If Satan takes the soul to ****, it is only because God chose not to save the person. God is responsible for EVERYTHING. It is impossible to say that an event is not the fault of an omnipotent entity.

Well, the same goes for me with atheism. I truly cannot imagine becoming nonexistent. Honestly, the idea frightens me, and to think that I will never see my friends, family, or pets again is truly unsettling. I understand your view on Christianity and ****, and I hope you can understand mine on atheism and the idea of nonexistence after death.

So the idea that your friends and family will cease to exist is unsettling, but the idea that some of your friends and family (along with the majority of the entire world) being punished for eternity isn't? I definitely don't understand that.

You didn't exist for billions of years before you were born. When you die, think of it as being "unborn". Being nonexistent didn't bother you before you were born...

I find the atheist view of death to be a good one. Ceasing to exist certainly isn't a good fate- but the great thing about it is, you no longer exist to complain about it. You can't be unhappy if you don't exist.

Hmmm... I suppose the second question mostly reflects what I was looking for. What I actually meant was, if a god existed, would you discontinue believing simply because you disagreed? That question is a little different from the one you thought I asked, so please feel free to answer it.

I don't "believe" based on emotions. I believe based on facts. If a god existed, I would still not believe in one- until that god's existence were proven to me with evidence. If I was shown evidence, I would believe. I don't have a choice in the matter- I believe what is demonstrated to be true, and disbelieve what isn't. Perhaps the real question is would I worship it- Let's assume the God we're talking about is Yahweh. Yes, I would, because I don't see any value in having principles while being punished for eternity. I do know plenty of people who would not worship Yahweh even if they thought he existed. He has done some pretty heinous things, after all (see: Old Testament).

Again, I feel you misunderstand certain aspects of Christianity. I wonder exactly what you mean by "kiss His *** for all of eternity". Do you mean to say that you think going to heaven means one becomes a slave? To do the bidding of a fierce, tyrannical deity? That's certainly wrong. Heaven is described as a place with "streets of gold", with no more tears or pain.

Many Christians believe that Heaven is a constant worshipfest. Many seem to think of it as eternal enjoyment, perhaps a perpetual orgasm. Many think it is talking about the Kingdom on Earth with Christ reigning as king for a thousand years. There are a lot of interpretations of Heaven, because Scripture is not at all clear on the matter.

On another note, the idea of "no more tears or pain" seems impossible. Do you no longer have any will? If you do, how do you avoid being unhappy knowing your friend Joe is roasting for all of eternity? If you take the story of Lazarus literally, of course, you may even believe that in Heaven you'll be able to see your friend roasting in ****. And you'll still be happy? No tears upon seeing that? It's just another part of Christianity that makes no sense. The "no will" option is the only one that makes sense, which is of course what leads to the conclusion that Heaven must be nothing more than slavery and constant worship.

Please explain to me why people think that sounds like eternal torment. I don't understand where these ideas are coming from.

Plenty of people think eternal anything is eternal torment, because an eternity of anything will eventually get boring. It is, after all, eternity.

Some people think that it is more worthwhile to live this life to the fullest and embrace ****? Why? ****, if real, is eternal. A human lifespan is usually no longer than 120 years. **** extremely outweighs the experience of life. Again, please explain.

These people probably are taking the worshipfest interpretation of Heaven. And since they think Yahweh is a terrible, cruel deity (see: Old Testament, plus the whole **** concept even in the present), an eternity of worshipping Yahweh is **** anyway. Remember, I'm not one of these people.

Fyre Ball, there's really nothing I can do to investigate your miracle claim, but I will try to bring up some examples of the same tired "Crying statue/picture" in different religions to show that at least some people must be faking such a miracle. Just that this research will have to occur at a time other than 2:57 AM.

-B

 

[The Marooner]

First of all, Satan is a ridiculous belief. Why doesn't God just destroy Satan, right now? What's stopping him?

I won't post the rest of the paragraph, so look up one post if you want to see it. (And by the way, I use masculine pronouns to describe God, because I don't feel like writing He/She ove and over again.)

Now, I'm Jewish, so I don't prescribe to the "Pearly Gates vs. Firey Oblivion" thing, but I have read some christian literature (Dante, Milton etc.) and think I have an answer to your question (though, of course, a complete answer to such a huge theological question, is probably impossible, even for a Christian Scholar).

While God is omnipotent, he is not unbendingly stubborn. Abraham argued with God to reduce the number of good people he needed to find in Sodom to save the city. His anger towards Cain subsided eventually, and he allowed him to live out a relatively happy existence. In Paradise Lost, Satan attacks God for being tyrannical, but God does not destroy him; he simply casts him out of Heaven.

But why? If God is omnipotent, why doesn't he just destroy everything bad, leaving only the stuff he likes? It seems to me that the reason for that is that ultimately, God is driven by the same things we are, love being a very important one. He believes that there are certain ways that men should live out their lives. However, as any great man would do, he recognizes that it is not his place to force people to do his bidding. God realizes that true love has to be won, it can't be forced. If he forced people to love him, instead of trying to show them the right path, they would never truly love him.

Like any parent, sometimes he feels the need to discipline his children in order to show them the right path (this is slightly contradicted by the Book of Job, but I think those inconsistencies can be worked through), but, in the end, it is their choice whether to do the right thing or not. Free will, a very important concept in the bible, requires having two independent choices; if there were no Satan to follow, could we really make a choice to follow God? No, we would be forced to follow the only path available to us. That isn't the way God is ever indicated to want it. God doesn't choose the outcome of everybody's life; they do. Having unlimited power doesn't always mean you exercise it.

P.S. There are those Christian denominations that believe that God does decide who goes to heaven and who to ****. It's the concept of "Predestination."

 

[Lel]

Ok, I would like to make two points. My first one, relates to an earlier post way back. It is impossible to be a Christian and to believe in evolution. Some people are, and let me explain why it is impossible. Evolution means NO Garden of Eden, and NO Adam of Eve(if they "evolved from apes"), and therefore NO original sin, meaning Jesus died on the cross in VAIN, basically destroying the foundation of Christianity. I just felt that it was important enough to say, even though it didnt relate to any of the current discussions.

Secondly, some of you say that you would rather spend your life trying to get into heaven even if there is the slightest chance that it even exist, because even if you dont you end up as worm food anyway correct? So you choose this religion to make sure just in case God is real right? Well, what about the other religions? Do they not imply the same thing? So if you end up whorshipping the wrong religion, then in the gods eyes you would look far worse than someone who did noit believe in a religion at all. Whoops, chose the wrong religion, looks like you're going to h3ll or spend eternity as a worm. Oh well, at least you didnt throw away your life trying to get into a paradise, wait you did. Sorry.

 

[Bumble Bee Tuna]

Re: Marooner-

He doesn't have to destroy Satan. Just prevent Satan from actually inferfering with the world. Presumably God doesn't want to reveal himself so that can choose him with our own free will. So why allow Satan to restrict our free will? It makes no sense.

I don't think Satan is necessary for choice either. What about choosing not to follow either of them?

My will right now is saying I neither want to follow God nor go to ****. Yet I'm not allowed to make that choice. Looks like my free will isn't so important, after all.

So no, your apologetics do not help.

Lel- You might be right about evolution and Christianity- if original sin were a necessary concept for Christianity. It isn't. Even if it were, you could still believe the A&E story is symbolic. You could believe that evolution occurred to create humans, but it was God who gave humans the final kick into homo sapiens and gave a soul. There are many ways to reconcile Christianity and evolution. What you really should say is that "it's impossible to be a Christian Fundamentalist/Biblical literalist/inerrantist and believe in evolution".

-B

 

[smashattack]

So in heaven, you're saying it's impossible to be sad? How is that? You can talk to other people, but what happens if you say something that makes them sad? Are you forbidden to say it? Or does the person just ignore it? Both choices seem to forget free will, which seems kind of bad, you know, for "paradise."

By the way, if it's Satan who takes people to ****, why doesn't he take the good Christians? Is Yahweh only kind enough to take his believers, and forget about the rest of his "creations?" You said he's not punishing them, but failing to act is just as bad as sending them there himself. The situation is: a criminal is pointing a gun at the head of a person sitting next to you. However, you fail to utilize the cell phone, or shield, or gaint machine gun in your hand to save this person because he was rude to you once.

EDIT: I forgot Christians can't understand hypothetical situations. Disregard this post.

Your attempt at a sarcastic insult is amusing.

Anyway, you have freedom of choice in heaven, as far as I know. Just because there will be no pain, it doesn't mean that one will have no will. It just means that everybody will be so enlightened that they will never make mistakes, never accidentally say the wrong thing, and never stub their toe.

Your second paragraph has completely gone over my head. I really don't understand what you're trying to say, so it'd be great if you could please explain it to me.

Originally posted by Bumble Bee Tuna
Saying that you only get one life is completely non-demeaning. It says that your life is valuable, and you need to make the most of it. Eternity in heaven makes your life on earth meaningless. It doesn't make someone happy to be an immoral loner in life, so of course "living life to its fullest" does not mean becoming one.

No matter what each of us say, we'll both say that the other is demeaning. I think that atheism is dehumanizing simply because you have nothing to live for--other than pleasing yourself. That's not fair to the rest of the population, in my opinion.

I'm really puzzled as to how you can see a worldview that says to make the most of your life as a bad thing.

I didn't mean it that way. There is nothing wrong with living life to the fullest. In fact, I think God wants us to enjoy ourselves while on Earth, but we still cannot forget the "great commission"--helping others.

Christianity says "we're inherently evil, terrible people, who are fully deserving of eternal torture...

I disagree. Christianity says nothing of the sort. It states that, as you said, we are not equal to God, and therefore need his help. Rather than focusing on man's sin, Christianity tends to focus on God's acceptance of man.

People like St. Augustine and Aquinas discuss in their apologetics how much of the enjoyment from Heaven will come from watching sinners in **** with delight.

Honestly, that's just terrible. Whoever wrote that is either a religious extremist, or somebody terribly hurt by atheists or agnostics. In either case, it's not right to say that. I really don't believe those in heaven will laugh and mock those in ****.

No modern Christian dares come to such a conclusion, of course.

Of course not, since it's entirely foolish. As far as I know, nothing like this is ever written in the Bible.

It does seem like some of the fundamentalists out there are very much looking forward to their "i told you so" moment.

Many people think this way, whether atheists or Christians or Muslims or Jews... not one person can say they've felt a certain amount of pleasure from telling somebody "I told you so" after proving their beliefs correct.

What I don't understand is how Christians can even function in their day to day lives with such an unsettling belief. My brother is a fundamentalist. He probably thinks I'm going to ****. What I don't understand is how he can go through life, seeing me every day, talking to me, as if nothing's wrong.

I'm sure your brother loves you, and I'm sure he is in pain to believe this. Of course he doesn't want you to spend an eternity aflame, but the best way to show somebody the truth is to do it kindly and without force. He wants to help you, I'm sure, and I can also assure you that he functions daily simply by knowing that there's still a chance and it's not too late.

I just feel like if I held that belief, it would be such an important thing I would find that every time I saw a non-Christian, I would be unable to think of anything except their eternal fate. If they were my friend, it would make me terribly sad. I truly cannot understand how you can function.

You're not far from the truth. However, while it is painful, it only motivates Christians further to help those in need.

First of all, Satan is a ridiculous belief. Why doesn't God just destroy Satan, right now? What's stopping him?

Choice is stopping him. God's desire to allow everybody to live their lives to the fullest, yet still choose which way to go. You were saying that eternity in heaven would be one without free will, but without an antagonist, working against God, we cannot have two choices.

If Satan takes the soul to ****, it is only because God chose not to save the person.

You are saying that you want free will, yet you would want God to step in and save you, make the choice for you? God does not choose to save the person. He gives each person one lifetime to decide where they want to go. If they abandon God in life--he abandons them in death.

So the idea that your friends and family will cease to exist is unsettling, but the idea that some of your friends and family (along with the majority of the entire world) being punished for eternity isn't? I definitely don't understand that.

Both are unsettling, but in my belief it states that there is something I can do about it. If I were an atheist, I could do nothing but watch my friends and family turn to oblivion. In Christianity, I'm not so helpless. I can tell them about God, I can tell them what to do in order to go to Heaven.

I find the atheist view of death to be a good one. Ceasing to exist certainly isn't a good fate- but the great thing about it is, you no longer exist to complain about it. You can't be unhappy if you don't exist.

It's certainly not a bad view, but (as you know already) I prefer the idea of a perfect eternity.

I don't "believe" based on emotions. I believe based on facts. If a god existed, I would still not believe in one- until that god's existence were proven to me with evidence. If I was shown evidence, I would believe. I don't have a choice in the matter- I believe what is demonstrated to be true, and disbelieve what isn't. Perhaps the real question is would I worship it- Let's assume the God we're talking about is Yahweh. Yes, I would, because I don't see any value in having principles while being punished for eternity. I do know plenty of people who would not worship Yahweh even if they thought he existed. He has done some pretty heinous things, after all (see: Old Testament).

That answers my question. As far as God's "heinous" acts, those acts were inflicted upon those deserving of it. The Bible doesn't explain clearly enough the circumstances in each case, and therefore it is easy to misunderstand such things as sixty deadly teenagers were struck down from fire from above, rather than sixty young, innocent children were consumed by lions.

Many Christians believe that Heaven is a constant worshipfest. Many seem to think of it as eternal enjoyment, perhaps a perpetual orgasm. Many think it is talking about the Kingdom on Earth with Christ reigning as king for a thousand years. There are a lot of interpretations of Heaven, because Scripture is not at all clear on the matter.

You're right, there are many interpretations of what heaven will exactly be like, and I've heard a lot of them.

On another note, the idea of "no more tears or pain" seems impossible. Do you no longer have any will? If you do, how do you avoid being unhappy knowing your friend Joe is roasting for all of eternity? If you take the story of Lazarus literally, of course, you may even believe that in Heaven you'll be able to see your friend roasting in ****. And you'll still be happy? No tears upon seeing that? It's just another part of Christianity that makes no sense. The "no will" option is the only one that makes sense, which is of course what leads to the conclusion that Heaven must be nothing more than slavery and constant worship.

I think in some of my earlier statements in this post I answered this, but if you'd like a better explanation, let me know.

Plenty of people think eternal anything is eternal torment, because an eternity of anything will eventually get boring. It is, after all, eternity.

I've often wondered this, too, but my natural tendency to have faith causes me to lose all doubt. I'm sure God has something really cool planned out, and I'd rather not miss the party of eternity. :D Although people are "roasting in ****", I'll know that I at least did my best.

I hope this post helps you understand certain views of Christianity. Finally, I'm starting to understand why atheists think the way they do.

 

[Mike da King]

Smashattack, your local pastor would be proud to read your responses. My religion teachers handled tough questions in much the same way that you do (they used pure supposition). Like them, you are dead wrong about atheism.

I think that atheism is dehumanizing simply because you have nothing to live for--other than pleasing yourself.

Some atheists aim to support the net happiness of every entity that has emotions at any point in the future. That is my philosophy, so apparently atheists are not necessarily selfish.

However, this lengthy talking about the nature of Christianity seems silly to me. My question to all who may hear is this: Why must we disprove Christianity? There is NO EVIDENCE that has been presented yet to support Christianity in the first place! What? The Bible, you say? I can write a book about all the great stuff that Beestro did, but you should not be convinced that Beestro exists.

Miracles, you say? We don't understand why [insert amazing phenomenon] happened, so God must have done it, huh? There is a tendency among Christians (and people in general) to dismiss the religious people of the past as ignorant when the phenomena that were attributed to a deity are now explained by science and understood. What are the chances that science is all done explaining? Simply compiling a list of unexplained phenomena will not convince me that God exists. AD HOC. Do not tell me that everything that occurs is any sort of evidence for the existence of Mr. Omnipotent.

 

[smashattack]

Originally posted by Mike da King
Smashattack, your local pastor would be proud to read your responses.

Responses? I'm questioning certain things and attempting to partake in a mature discussion. If you want to remain immature and try to stir things up, please do so elsewhere. I actually find this very... educational, and I'd rather not have somebody ruin it.

My religion teachers handled tough questions in much the same way that you do (they used pure supposition). Like them, you are dead wrong about atheism. Some atheists aim to support the net happiness of every entity that has emotions at any point in the future. That is my philosophy, so apparently atheists are not necessarily selfish.

Wait... I am "dead wrong" about atheism, you say? Some atheists support happiness of everybody? I'm sorry, but doesn't that leave another "some" out? So I can't be dead wrong about it (just as Bee cannot be dead wrong about Christianity).

And then you say that is "your philosophy". So... are you saying that, since you are an atheist, your philosophies apply to all atheists?

Obviously that's not true, and there will always somebody in your terms of beliefs who still disagrees with you on certain points. Same happens with Christianity. Many Christians believe that the Harry Potter series is satanic and they hold ritual book burnings. I disagree and think that there is nothing wrong with the books.

There is NO EVIDENCE that has been presented yet to support Christianity in the first place!

Yes, there is some evidence. I recall that some people on this board have brought evidence up, but much of the opposition wouldn't hear it. It happened on both sides.

What? The Bible, you say? I can write a book about all the great stuff that Beestro did, but you should not be convinced that Beestro exists.

Umm... the Bible is a book meant to guide Christians. It is not meant to prove anything. What are you talking about?

Miracles, you say? We don't understand why [insert amazing phenomenon] happened, so God must have done it, huh? There is a tendency among Christians (and people in general) to dismiss the religious people of the past as ignorant when the phenomena that were attributed to a deity are now explained by science and understood. What are the chances that science is all done explaining? Simply compiling a list of unexplained phenomena will not convince me that God exists. AD HOC. Do not tell me that everything that occurs is any sort of evidence for the existence of Mr. Omnipotent.

Perhaps I am missing something from earlier in the thread, because I never posted anything about "miracles". These phenomena should never be taken as evidence anyway, because there is no hardcore proof that a deity was behind it. Any of them could be coincidence, and not a "miracle".

 

[Mike da King]

From now on, I'll limit the content of my posts to the matter at hand...:o

I think that atheism is dehumanizing simply because you have nothing to live for--other than pleasing yourself.

I never said that all atheists follow an unselfish philosophy, and I didn't have to do so. As long as any atheist has something to live for other than pleasing himself/herself, then your thought about atheism is inaccurate.

Yes, there is some evidence [to support Christianity]. I recall that some people on this board have brought evidence up, but much of the opposition wouldn't hear it. It happened on both sides.

The opposition wouldn't hear it? That's awful. I, for one, will hear this evidence. Evidence is the stuff of debate, even one on religion. The following quote exhibits an absence of evidence:

Anyway, you have freedom of choice in heaven, as far as I know. Just because there will be no pain, it doesn't mean that one will have no will. It just means that everybody will be so enlightened that they will never make mistakes, never accidentally say the wrong thing, and never stub their toe.

Your knowledge looks to me like supposition. If you really "know" it, how was it proven to you? My guess is that you were trying to propose a theoretical model of heaven that previous criticism would not apply to. You will never say the wrong thing in heaven...not because God won't let you; there must be free will...but because you can read people's minds? If everybody could do that, then why talk at all? Or does God restrict the permissible emotions in heaven so that nobody feels bad about what you say?

We agree that the Bible is not evidence of Christianity's truth. I figured that this would be relevant because of what I have heard from some other Christians.

Perhaps I am missing something from earlier in the thread, because I never posted anything about "miracles". These phenomena should never be taken as evidence anyway, because there is no hardcore proof that a deity was behind it. Any of them could be coincidence, and not a "miracle".

I tried to address several points from different sources in the span of one post. Previously on The Atheist's Journey: A Religious Debate (rated M for Mature) : someone announces that they will research unexplained phenomena for the purpose of showing evidence of the existence of God.

Why does God not make it apparent to all that Christianity is true and no other religion is? Why does he make those missionaries do His dirtywork in Africa? He must have been mighty pissed that the Native Americans worshipped their gods. And the ancient Egyptians. And the Romans. And the Chinese. And the vast majority of the human beings that have inhabited this planet over the ages.

 

[game and kirby]

Hmmm...

It's really interesting to see what's developing in the debate here. I left this thread a few months ago, due to lack of responses, and now I come back and see that two distinct factions have evolved, at least in the minds of the posters. There are the CHRISTIANS, a sect of illogical, irrational Jesus lovers who hate anything they don't understand and at the same time say that things they don't understand can be attributed to god, and there are the ATHEISTS, a group of hedonistic, amoral partylovers who are united by a common philosophy of deiphobia. How utterly inaccurate!

First of all, I've said many things about the Christian set of beliefs, all of which have yet to be disproved scientifically. Of course, that's not the way a Christian operates in a debate. It's obvious even to him or her that it's not possible to prove the Christian dogma scientifically, as is attested by the feeble attempts of various comers throughout the history of the thread. So now what? Do we resort to bashing each others views in a subjective, personal way? It's not a debate anymore. It's clearing up misconceptions about the other side.

But that's good enough for me!

First of all, atheists are NOT a sect. They are NOT a cult, or religion, or unified faction. They do not unite under a common banner. No cross, no crescent moon, no star of david, no yin-yang symbol, no serene portrait of the buddha in lotus position. Nothing. Atheists are not a religion who believes in NOGOD, the mysterious void of the lack of a deity. The very quintessence of atheism is the abstention from ALL religious belief.
Imagine this: 'J' like Granny Smith apples. 'H' likes Fuji apples, 'T' likes Golden Delicious apples. The dog likes French Red apples. 'B' doesn't like apples. You don't say 'B likes 'no apples' ' there is no kind of apple called 'no apples' . B just doesn't like apples, or anything to do with them.
So, because of this, Atheism is devoid of a unifying moral code, or dogma. Man, by nature, is devoid of a moral code. When someone takes up a religion, they are taking up a moral code particular to the religion. Atheists just abstain from that. They are not hedonists. They are simply not ascetics. They are not amoral. They simply don't have YOUR morals. That doesn't make them wrong, or bad, does it?

-G&K

 

[Mike da King]

This thread seems to be losing steam...

Man, by nature, is devoid of a moral code. When someone takes up a religion, they are taking up a moral code particular to the religion. Atheists just abstain from that. They are not hedonists. They are simply not ascetics. They are not amoral.

The system described above is ideal but unrealistic as of now. A religion acts as an axiom to its members, being given to them at birth. Some people take up religion before they can even comprehend what "moral code" means. In their impressionable youth, these people are taught that their religion is the unquestionable truth (hey, that rhymes! :D). Were the decision of religion (or lack thereof) made by logical, mature and unbiased individuals, it would not be for any religion due to lack of evidence.
Viewed objectively, the claims of any religion are no more truthful than those of others.

 

[game and kirby]

You seem to be saying that no one ever converts in this world, and that the only way people ever grow to be religious is through youth conditioning. This is rather unrealistic, since Christianity converted record numbers of indigenous cultures when the various European powers took to colonizing foreign continents. Even today, proselityzing still plays a considerable part of 'humane' missions to African nations. In reverse, people who are impressionable often take up a religion not as a moral code, but as a way of life, during those years where they 'don't know what a moral code is' When they begin to become ethical, conscious and thoughtful beings, they analyze their own beliefs. This is compulsory. Ingrained it might be, but only the most stultified individual has never wondered of the meaning of life in his adolescent years. When this analysis takes place, consciously or subconsciously, that person chooses his own religion.

I was born into a heavily christian catholic family. I went to Catholic schools all my life. I was baptized, had first communion, and was confirmed with the christian name Wulfstan. Then, when I was 15, I realised that religion was false, and was not needed for a good life. I realised that all it offered was a crutch, a support system. After a year of intense self questioning, I came to terms with the fact that I was not a follower of Christianity, despite the fact that my parents forced me to go to church. I was not eating the body of christ every sunday, I was eating a tasty morsel of unleavened bread, followed by a chaser of grape juice, fermented to perfection. It is the same thing with a three year old. Simply because his parents bring him to church, make him confess, and make him eat the eucharist, does not make him a christian. I could go into a Mosque today, and start praying and kneeling and cleanising myself, heck, I've done it when I went to Turkey, part of the 'experience' . Am I a follower of Islam? Nope.

-G&K

 

[Mike da King]

You seem to be saying that no one ever converts in this world, and that the only way people ever grow to be religious is through youth conditioning.

While it may seem as you said, I used the words "logical, mature, and unbiased" to describe the ideal decision-maker. I should have included "well-informed." Anyhow, I don't believe that anybody who converts to Christianity could possibly exemplify my description, even if they are adults. The most important part is LOGICAL. Christianity, in fact each religion, can be dismissed as a lifestyle option through logic.

I was born into a moderately Christian family. The Buddhism of my father's family succumbed to the Christianity of my mother's. I spent one year in a Catholic school and despised it. I underwent baptism, first communion, reconciliation, and almost confirmation (I took the required class) when I began to see the deception behind religion. I was 15. Upon baptism, I was a Christian. Upon confirmation, I would have become a fully initiated Christian (I paid attention in that class). When I was baptised, I was illogical. When I would have been confirmed, I was biased by my years as a Christian. I became aware of this bias and ignored the fact that so many people that I knew wanted for me to be confirmed. The very wording implies that I had once said "yes" to Christianity. Who are my parents to determine my way of life?

Man, by nature, has a selfish moral code. One of two things must occur for this to change:
1. He is deceived into thinking that a selfish moral code will land him in h***.
2. He becomes logical.

 

[rmusgrave]

A selfish moral code may not land you in heck, but it may land you in a different heck. One without friends or family or pleasures in life. Being nice always guarantees that people will respect you in some way, shape or form. I thought you would have figured this out by now.

 

[Bumble Bee Tuna]

A selfish moral code, aka Utilitarianism, aka the only valid moral code there is, can never lead to the unhappy life you describe.

Utilitarianism by definition is making the choices that will lead to the greatest happiness. If it makes you happy to have "friends or family or pleasures in life", your selfish choices will be the choices which insure that you have those things. Every person in the world, including the most generous and philanthropic are selfish. If it makes you happy to help others, then helping others is a selfish goal in some respects.

The end result is that Utilitarianism is the only valid moral code out there, and it is in fact the foundation of every other moral code out there anyway. The only difference between different moral codes is in the values you give to dofferent parts of the utilitarian pro/con equation in the end.

-B

 

[game and kirby]

Exactly. Perfectly put. Thank you so much, B.

 

[Mike da King]

A selfish moral code, aka Utilitarianism, aka the only valid moral code there is, can never lead to the unhappy life you describe.

Mr. Tuna, I must disagree. I do not believe that a selfish moral code is the only valid one. However, the definition that you put forth does not necessarily indicate a selfish moral code:

Utilitarianism by definition is making the choices that will lead to the greatest happiness.

If this is so, then I am a Utilitarian. Note that happiness is not restricted to myself. I contend that "making the decisions which lead to the greatest NET GAIN in happiness" is contained within this definition. By accounting for the happiness of others, this moral code is only partially selfish. Calling it "selfish" is like calling Beezo white. Sure, the face, wings, and pointy thing are white, but the adjective "white" does not accurately describe Beezo.

Also, hypothetically, somebody could be using a Utilitarian moral code but be in such a situation that he has no friends/ family/pleasures in life. To say that Utilitarianism CAN NEVER lead to the previously described life is to use an absolute when you should not. While I don't find your post to be perfectly put, I respect it far more than a certain one-line post of gratitude and agreement.

 

[Bumble Bee Tuna]

Does it make you happy to make others happy? If so, then making others happy is a selfish goal. The point is that all goals and moral objectives someone has are by definition selfish.

Of course Utilitarians can be unhappy. But if they are trying to make the decisions that lead to the greatest happiness, surely you see that it's impossible for Utilitarianism to be the cause of the unhappiness? You can still be unhappy, but you certainly won't have been led to that unhappiness by Utilitarianism. The absolute was as correctly applied as saying "A circle can never be square".

-B

 

[Mike da King]

Does it make you happy to make others happy? If so, then making others happy is a selfish goal. The point is that all goals and moral objectives someone has are by definition selfish.

My handy-dandy Webster's New World Dictionary tells me that something is selfish if it is overly concerned with the self and underly concerned with others. Under this definition, helping others is not selfish. A moral code need not exclude the self in order to be unselfish.

Of course Utilitarians can be unhappy. But if they are trying to make the decisions that lead to the greatest happiness, surely you see that it's impossible for Utilitarianism to be the cause of the unhappiness? You can still be unhappy, but you certainly won't have been led to that unhappiness by Utilitarianism. The absolute was as correctly applied as saying "A circle can never be square".

I do not see Utilitarianism causing unhappiness as an impossibility. To account only for present happiness and not for future happiness is a form of Utilitarianism under your definition. This moral code is clearly invalid and could LEAD TO many problems and an awful life.

 

[Bumble Bee Tuna]

Originally posted by Mike da King
My handy-dandy Webster's New World Dictionary tells me that something is selfish if it is overly concerned with the self and underly concerned with others. Under this definition, helping others is not selfish. A moral code need not exclude the self in order to be unselfish.

Well, I was really starting my argument with musgrave, and he was using what seemed to be a different definition. By that definition, much of what I said does not hold, but it also ruins rmusgrave's point so this is why I assumed he wasn't using that definition.

I do not see Utilitarianism causing unhappiness as an impossibility. To account only for present happiness and not for future happiness is a form of Utilitarianism under your definition. This moral code is clearly invalid and could LEAD TO many problems and an awful life.

Not accounting for future happiness is not Utilitarianism as I so handily defined it a few posts up, so that is invalid. You will not find any examples that contradict what I said that fit the definition I gave.

-B

 

[Mike da King]

Utilitarianism by definition is making the choices that will lead to the greatest happiness.

I have come to doubt the handiness of your definiton . Upon close inspection, it actually makes Utilitarianism out to be impractical. No human can be 100% certain which choices will bring about the greatest happiness, so chances are nobody is really a Utilitarian. If someone already knows what all of his choices are and which ones will lead to the greatest happiness, then he is able to be a Utilitarian.
Consider this definiton: Utilitarianism is making the choices that one predicts will lead to the greatest net gain in happiness.
Is it time for a new thread?

 

[Bumble Bee Tuna]

Of course practically speaking you have to go with the choices that you think will lead to the greatest happiness. You can be a Utilitarianist even if you sometimes fail at it- what matters is that you're trying to follow the principle. Just like you call a Christian a Christian when it comes to morality even when they fail to follow hundreds of different Biblical laws, from eating shellfish to stoning unruly children to death. You don't need to make a distinction between the ideal and the reality in your definition.

-B

 

[game and kirby]

Utilitarianism is by definition irrefutable as a philosophy. It is impossible for someone to voluntarily do something that makes them unhappy on a regular basis, let alone take it for a philosophy. Even the selflessness that Christianity preaches, or the balance and nonfocus that Taoism proselytizes are purely based on an utilitarian point of view. Even if helping out a man in need might get you hurt physically, not helping him would have made you feel guilty, and subconsciously, you are stating that the physical hardship is worth the feeling of satisfaction from having done something 'good'.

Under this reasoning, beggars are tradesmen who sell 'feeling good about yourself' emotions.

Also under this reasoning, 'good' loses its moral significance, since 'good' can be defined as differing values for happiness in different religions.

-G&K

 

[Avenger]

I agree, its confusing isnt it. But I think that if someone can do something and fell good about, than the physical hardship outweighs any thing else, I dont know if that has anything to do with it, but thats my opinion.

 

[Mike da King]

Originally posted by Bumble Bee Tuna.
You can be a Utilitarianist even if you sometimes fail at it- what matters is that you're trying to follow the principle. Just like you call a Christian a Christian when it comes to morality even when they fail to follow hundreds of different Biblical laws, from eating shellfish to stoning unruly children to death. You don't need to make a distinction between the ideal and the reality in your definition.

I try to keep the highest degree of accuracy in a debate, so while it may be unnecessary, I will make this distinction anyhow. What's there to debate about now?

I think that if someone can do something and fell good about, than the physical hardship outweighs any thing else, I dont know if that has anything to do with it, but thats my opinion.

Avenger, I would like you to clarify your opinion, please. That post is riddled with errors.

 

[GoronMoron]

To address something from a while ago:

Evolutionism vs. Creationism
They DON'T conflict.
They never specify how long a "day" is. In fact, days for them back then were however long they worked for. God created/did something each "day."

To clarify, here's how the Bible verses fit with the Big Bang/evolution:

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

Genesis 1:1
In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.

Merely the Big Bang; heavenly bodies and Earth were created then, correct?

Genesis 1:3
Then God said, "Let there be light"; and there was light.

Stars coming into existence or beginning their atom fusing; happened soon after the Big Bang.

Genesis 1:4
God saw that the light was good; and God separated the light from the darkness.

Since planets had already formed, they begin to revole around stars and rotate on their axis; day and night is formed.

Genesis 1:7
God made the expanse, and separated the waters which were below the expanse from the waters which were above the expanse; and it was so.

Evaporation from the heat of the sun.

Genesis 1:9
Then God said, "Let the waters below the heavens be gathered into one place, and let the dry land appear"; and it was so.

The water stays as oceans, and some evaporates and exposes dry land.

Genesis 1:11
Then God said, "Let the earth sprout vegetation: plants yielding seed, and fruit trees on the earth bearing fruit after their kind with seed in them"; and it was so.

By manipulating what He had available, He creates plants, which adapted to dry land.

Genesis 1:16
God made the two great lights, the greater light to govern the day, and the lesser light to govern the night

The Earth acquires the moon and, again, rotation is mentioned again.

Genesis 1:20
Then God said, "Let the waters teem with swarms of living creatures, and let birds fly above the earth in the open expanse of the heavens."

Genesis 1:21
God created the great sea monsters and every living creature that moves, with which the waters swarmed after their kind, and every winged bird after its kind; and God saw that it was good.

Genesis 1:22
God blessed them, saying, "Be fruitful and multiply, and fill the waters in the seas, and let birds multiply on the earth."

EVOLUTION has happened; what was once sludge is now a living, breathing animal.

Genesis 1:24
Then God said, "Let the earth bring forth living creatures after their kind: cattle and creeping things and beasts of the earth after their kind"; and it was so.

Genesis 1:25
God made the beasts of the earth after their kind, and the cattle after their kind, and everything that creeps on the ground after its kind; and God saw that it was good.

See above statement; the previous day was extremely short.

Genesis 1:26
Then God said, "Let Us make man in Our image, according to Our likeness; and let them rule over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the sky and over the cattle and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creeps on the earth."

Genesis 1:27
God created man in His own image, in the image of God He created him; male and female He created them.

Ah, yes. Humans. God merely took a previous creation (apes), took a small group, tweaked them a bit, and voila! Humans.

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

The point is, they told that He got from Point A to Point B; they didn't say HOW. The length of the days vary because they depended on how long He worked. Evolution happen between points A and B, which is why it isn't mentioned.


And even more evidence: The word "Adam" means "man"; that means he REPRESENTS the whole human race; he was not the only one. It also confirms this with the blessing of Cain: Genesis 4:15 - So the LORD said to him, "Therefore whoever kills Cain, vengeance will be taken on him sevenfold." This means that there were other people ("whoever"; not "Adam" or "Eve"; anyone who finds him). The Bible follows the story of one family representative of man.

All quotes taken from the New Revised Standard Version of the Bible.

I hope I have proved my point. Feel free to debate my points; I am not perfect.

 

[Mike da King]

One difficulty with the proposed sequence is the order of events.
For instance, many stars had come and gone before the Earth was formed.

 

[GoronMoron]

My theory is not rock-solid, I'll be the first to admit that. I am merely trying to show that both theories can work with each other. For the most part, I believe it does. Stars coming and going before the Earth was created is mostly a technicality, which is neither here nor there in this theory.

EDIT: A more satisfying explanation for the stars and Earth may be: replace the word "Earth" with "materials beginning to come together to create Earth" (loose debris, etc). It doesn't change the meaning of the explanation.

 

[Mike da King]

To say that the Bible's creationist story and the scientific theories of evolution and Big Bang can simultaneously be true is to utter a false statement.

I think that a belief in creationism is just ridiculous. You have to change the wording of the Bible just to avoid contradicting reality. Nothing resembling the earth was produced in the Big Bang, yet according to the Bible the earth was part of that first creation. Bumble Bee Tuna did a better job of wording part of a creationist story than a writer who was supposedly inspired by God.

If all that exists are heavens and earth, light is not "good," as God saw it. Light is just there. "Good" has no meaning without happiness. God needn't make things to make Himself happy. Day has no meaning before stars form or for an omnipotent God who is beyond time. Why divide the creation into meaningless units of time? God could just make everything at once. Why would a writer who is divinely inspired use such meaningless terms?