(July 24, 2015 at 10:10 pm)Spacetime Wrote:

(July 24, 2015 at 10:00 pm)Randy Carson Wrote: Afraid of the question, are you? And everyone in the forum can see that you are dodging the question.

People have varying degrees of freedom based upon their mental capacity. Children below the age of reason have less freedom. They have to go to school by law, for example. At age 16, we allow children to drive automobiles with varying degrees of freedom. Above 18 (or 21) minors become adults and can vote and drink alcohol legally. At 21, people can legally enter into binding contracts, etc.

On a moral level, mentally handicapped people and children below the age of reason are not culpable for their actions and thus they cannot commit personal sins. They may not actually be capable of choosing between right and wrong AT ALL (though a child may know at some level that it is wrong to pull the kitty's tail, etc.)

Now, several of your photos (female circumcision, the one with the underground prison, and N. Korea) suggested that ADULTS had made moral choices that were evil. The starving child photo suggests no MORAL choice (that we know of - though moral choices to allow this child to die MAY have been made by someone) but rather a natural consequence of drought, etc. The child is below the age of reason and famine is not his fault; therefore, there was no moral choice made by the child.

Now, you have said, "Yes" to questions 1 & 2 regarding your own personal freedoms to make moral choices which you consider a good thing. So what about this:

Question #3:

If it's a good thing FOR YOU to have moral choices, would you agree that requires not only that YOU have complete freedom but also the possibility of choosing either good or evil? In other words, wouldn’t our freedom be severely restricted if we could only choose good?

THIS IS PERFECT!

No... not afraid at all, thank you... guy who has never seen the business end of a rifle... defending the rights of others.

No, but I do thank you for your service. However, yes, you are afraid of making a mistake...a mistake that might make you look bad in public among your new-found friends. But you're balking at a question asked by a stupid Christian...what kind of courage is that?

Quote:

Quote:People have varying degrees of freedom based upon their mental capacity. Children below the age of reason have less freedom.

So ... you are now back pedaling and admitting that not all humans have complete freedom?  Very well, Randy.  I appreciate your honesty.  On the idea that...

Quote:...based upon their mental capacity.

Persons with mental disorders are "less free"?  Huh, Randy?

Didn't see this one coming, did you?    I'm going to enjoy this.

I guess you didn't bother to read my post in its entirety before you started firing. Equivocation. Remember the word.

Quote:

Quote:Children below the age of reason have less freedom.

Freedom from what?  The right to be protected from sexual predators?  Freedom from human trafficking?  Freedom from the sexual urges of grown men with the money to pay their owners (adults... above the age of reason, you know... with "FULL freedom", according to you)?

Equivocation.

Question #3:

If it's a good thing FOR YOU to have moral choices, would you agree that requires not only that YOU have complete freedom but also the possibility of choosing either good or evil? In other words, wouldn’t our freedom be severely restricted if we could only choose good?

(July 24, 2015 at 10:00 pm)Randy Carson Wrote: And everyone in the forum can see that you are dodging the question.

Somebody stealing your M.O?!?

(July 24, 2015 at 4:37 pm)Randy Carson Wrote: A reputable, ATHEIST NT scholar like Bart Ehrman says Jesus existed. What about you?

Did Jesus exist, Pinkie?

Yes or no?

"Oh shit...my first appeal to authority didn't work...LET ME TRY ANOTHER!"

No, Randy. I do not believe Jesus existed in the historical sense. No matter how many mainstream scholars you name, I still side with the minority opinion in this case because I believe it is a better interpretation of the available evidence concerning the matter.

I know Randy is ignoring me mainly, that's fair play as I'm ignoring him much of the time. So I don't expect responses, I'll just play along now and again.

No, it's not a good thing to have evil choices. It would be far better if everyone had a massive range of only good/neutral choices all the time. There is no need for evil. The excuse that we "wouldn't appreciate good without evil" is crap, because God made things that way, if so. Just make us so we can and do appreciate everything without having to be kicked in the crotch first.

I can very easily imagine such a world in my head, and it's so utterly fantastic compared to this one that I'd pack my bags and go live in it in a second. If I can imagine it so easily, it should be a piece of piss for God.

Why the fuck does anyone benefit from having evil choices? If we were made to not even consider evil, we wouldn't miss it either.

Everyone can do whatever they want, and nothing harms anyone. Everyone can have whatever they want. It's so simple, it's ridiculous. Kind of like, you know, what people make out heaven to be.

By talking about shit like abortions, you've already assumed a whole lot about the terrible way God has designed things. You think anyone would ever have or need an abortion if I was in charge? Fuck no. If you want a child, you get a child. Done. If you don't want one, you don't get one. I wouldn't put the mother through agony either, or kill her sometimes.

(July 24, 2015 at 11:51 pm)Redbeard The Pink Wrote:

(July 24, 2015 at 4:37 pm)Randy Carson Wrote: A reputable, ATHEIST NT scholar like Bart Ehrman says Jesus existed. What about you?

Did Jesus exist, Pinkie?

Yes or no?

"Oh shit...my first appeal to authority didn't work...LET ME TRY ANOTHER!"

No, Randy. I do not believe Jesus existed in the historical sense. No matter how many mainstream scholars you name, I still side with the minority opinion in this case because I believe it is a better interpretation of the available evidence concerning the matter.

It's fine to side with whomever you like - as long as there is a valid reason for doing so.

If you can, please provide some evidence or some argumentation demonstrating why SEVERAL THOUSAND professional New Testament scholars (atheists and theists alike) teaching at accredited western universities are wrong concerning the five minimal facts I have posted here.

Everyone would love to see if you have anything besides your own opinion or the thoroughly discredited views of your mentor, Richard Carrier.

As a professional courtesy, it would also be nice if you could document your own academic credentials (schools attended, degrees obtained, peer-reviewed papers published, books authored, etc.) and provide a run-down of the ancient languages that you speak.

Thanks!

(July 25, 2015 at 5:59 am)robvalue Wrote: I know Randy is ignoring me mainly, that's fair play as I'm ignoring him much of the time. So I don't expect responses, I'll just play along now and again.

No, it's not a good thing to have evil choices. It would be far better if everyone had a massive range of only good/neutral choices all the time. There is no need for evil. The excuse that we "wouldn't appreciate good without evil" is crap, because God made things that way, if so. Just make us so we can and do appreciate everything without having to be kicked in the crotch first.

I can very easily imagine such a world in my head, and it's so utterly fantastic compared to this one that I'd pack my bags and go live in it in a second. If I can imagine it so easily, it should be a piece of piss for God.

Why the fuck does anyone benefit from having evil choices? If we were made to not even consider evil, we wouldn't miss it either.

Everyone can do whatever they want, and nothing harms anyone. Everyone can have whatever they want. It's so simple, it's ridiculous. Kind of like, you know, what people make out heaven to be.

By talking about shit like abortions, you've already assumed a whole lot about the terrible way God has designed things. You think anyone would ever have or need an abortion if I was in charge? Fuck no. If you want a child, you get a child. Done. If you don't want one, you don't get one. I wouldn't put the mother through agony either, or kill her sometimes.

So, if I understand you correctly, if someone wanted to have a child, Rob-God would simply make one on the spot or have it delivered by an angel or something? No labor, no delivery, no nine months of bonding with the child for the mother, etc?

(July 21, 2015 at 10:14 pm)Randy Carson Wrote:

(July 20, 2015 at 9:13 pm)Spacetime Wrote: 4) Why does god let thousands of toddlers die every day of starvation?

Thousands? That does seem like a lot...

Would it be acceptable to you if God only allowed a few hundred to die of starvation every day?

By the way, did you ever respond to this question?

Give me the keys. I'll sort this shit out.

You won't regret it! You won't get moany excuses from me about why people have to get cancer and starve to death. I can guarantee everyone will be happy all the time. And they'll never get bored being happy, either.

Apologists can't seem to decide if God designed everything, or has to cope with how things are. We see a flip-flop on this depending on what is convenient.

Quote:Equivocation.

Question #3:

If it's a good thing FOR YOU to have moral choices, would you agree that requires not only that YOU have complete freedom but also the possibility of choosing either good or evil? In other words, wouldn’t our freedom be severely restricted if we could only choose good?

Your question is nonsense because "good" is not objective, assuming the noun form which you have proposed. But, I'll do my best to answer.

It is knowledge and special empathy combined that allow one to 'choose good'. Your question posits that good is objective. I wholly reject your ignorant presupposition regarding the philosophy of goodness.

Therefore... your question is not only fallacious to begin with, but malformed at best.

Try again, Randy.

Let's recap the game so far...I'm in bold; you're in blue.

The Four-Question Approach to Thinking About Theodicy

Question #1:

Would you like to see laws prohibiting a person from choosing to have or obtain an abortion, prohibiting premarital sex, or prohibiting homosexual behavior?

And no.  If there is any more of a position to take here, it will be to the credit of humanism and not religion.

So, your answer is NO. Okay...that's fine.

Question #2:

Would you agree that it's a good thing that you have freedom to make moral choices regarding abortion or premarital sex, etc.?

If you're demanding that your subjective questions end in objective answers;

1. Yes, it is a good thing.
2 (alternative). Yes, it would be bad.

Again, if these conditions exist, they depend wholly on humanistic systems and the people (no deity required) that make them possible. Both answers neither require your god as the source of our morality or justify why such morality exists.

Randy, if you are going to read the next line in your script from the presuppositional argument, please read it here. Do not save it for the innocent children that bare your genetic signature, despite being disadvantage by the poison you have (no doubt) instilled in your off-spring, who deserve much, much better.

Okay. Again, these are not trick questions...and we're almost home.

Question #3:

If it's a good thing to have moral choices, would you agree that requires not only that we have complete freedom but also the possibility of choosing either good or evil? In other words, wouldn’t our freedom be severely restricted if we could only choose good?

Your question is nonsense because "good" is not objective, assuming the noun form which you have proposed. But, I'll do my best to answer.

It is knowledge and special empathy combined that allow one to 'choose good'. Your question posits that good is objective. I wholly reject your ignorant presupposition regarding the philosophy of goodness.

Therefore... your question is not only fallacious to begin with, but malformed at best.

Try again, Randy.

So, to sum up:

1. You do not want restrictions placed on what moral choices you can and cannot make.
2. You agree that it is a good thing that you have the freedom to make these moral choices.
3. You say that knowledge and special empathy enable you to "choose good". However, you have not yet addressed the question of whether the freedom to make those moral choices requires that you are free to choose either good or evil.

So, let's try again: does freedom to choose entail any sort of limitation or restriction by definition? Are you truly free if you cannot actually choose from a full range of possibilities whether good or evil?

The answer ought to be pretty straightforward given your response to question #1...you do NOT want restrictions on the choices you make...therefore, it seems that you value freedom that comes from your ability to choose to do good or to do evil.