Our server costs ~$56 per month to run. Please consider donating or becoming a Patron to help keep the site running. Help us gain new members by following us on Twitter and liking our page on Facebook!
December 13, 2011 at 1:46 pm (This post was last modified: December 13, 2011 at 1:50 pm by Anomalocaris.)
(December 13, 2011 at 5:21 am)tackattack Wrote:
(December 12, 2011 at 8:31 am)DeistPaladin Wrote: @Tack
So can you describe what exactly IS the fall from grace to you?
The actual event; sure I'll try. I'm no scholar in this but here's my thoughts on it. There was a time when humanity lived in blissfull trust and peace with God's will. Something happened dogmaticaly some kind of choice or excercise of free will. Afterward there was a fundamental shift in human nature where we don't trust in God and disobey his plan. I wasn't around then so I couldn't comment from experience.
Infantilistic fantasy of worry-free suckling from an all caring, all nurturing, all protecting father with teats as an rather embarassing form of escapism from the reality that there have never been a wonderful past to serve as a guide, only through unstinting, self, not Jesus, guided striving along uncertain paths could you ever even earn a mere slight increase in the possibility of future improvement?
Sooner the fantasy is abandoned the more effectively can the reality be faced. Of course the eschatological aspects of Christianity makes no bones about the real purpose of the fantasy - not merely to allow you an escape - but to actively encourage you to escape in lieu of dealing with reality.
tackattack the fact that you do not believe in eternal torment is part of the reason why many of the issues probably don't bother you. I agree that if in the end we are all "redeemed" if you will then a lot of the problems with God, at least from a moral standpoint IF he were real, would be solved.
I am curious about what you think on a certain issue though. If there is no Hell/eternal torment is there any punishment for ignoring God/not giving him worship? If there is no punishment for it why exactly should we concern ourselves with what God wants for our lives? Why not just live in a peaceful manner and enjoy the life we have here?
I think I should clarify a little since you seems to have a wrong idea of my beliefs. While I don't believe in eternal torment, I do believe Hell is real and a place of destruction not torture. I'm also not a universalist (and a little pragmatic) and therefore don't believe that everyone will get reconciled.
To answer your questions from my perspective:
-any punishment for ignoring God? yes
-not giving him worship ?not giving anything including God worship.. by that definition no. Worshiping something over God yes.
-If there is no punishment for it why exactly should we concern ourselves with what God wants for our lives? Fear of punishment should be a motivator so factoring that out completely; we should, IMO, concern ourselves with what God wants for our lives because it enriches or betters our lives or is more useful than relying on a temporal self ability/ perspective.
-Why not just live in a peaceful manner and enjoy the life we have here? I do that as well, I'm sure many other people here do that as well. It will serve you fine while you're here.
(December 13, 2011 at 1:46 pm)Chuck Wrote:
(December 13, 2011 at 5:21 am)tackattack Wrote:
(December 12, 2011 at 8:31 am)DeistPaladin Wrote: @Tack
So can you describe what exactly IS the fall from grace to you?
The actual event; sure I'll try. I'm no scholar in this but here's my thoughts on it. There was a time when humanity lived in blissfull trust and peace with God's will. Something happened dogmaticaly some kind of choice or excercise of free will. Afterward there was a fundamental shift in human nature where we don't trust in God and disobey his plan. I wasn't around then so I couldn't comment from experience.
Infantilistic fantasy of worry-free suckling from an all caring, all nurturing, all protecting father with teats as an rather embarassing form of escapism from the reality that there have never been a wonderful past to serve as a guide, only through unstinting, self, not Jesus, guided striving along uncertain paths could you ever even earn a mere slight increase in the possibility of future improvement?
Sooner the fantasy is abandoned the more effectively can the reality be faced. Of course the eschatological aspects of Christianity makes no bones about the real purpose of the fantasy - not merely to allow you an escape - but to actively encourage you to escape in lieu of dealing with reality.
Your syntax is usually a little clearer than this chuck, but I don't want to digress into that. If I misunderstand your point please forgive me as it took a little extra to decipher this time. I don't believe I'm an ascriber to escapism. If you're advocating philanthropy and generosity as a self-regulated guide is more effective than Jesus for self improvement I would beg to differ. What process is not better improved from setting an objective standard?
Secondly, I'm not aware that Christianity advocates suicide as a way to get closer to God. I have done a little study on eschatology and I'm not aware of a standard/dogma that is an allowance of an escape (as most believe in the inevitable judgement), encourage suicide (see Muslims for that) or teach not delaing with reality.
(December 13, 2011 at 2:12 pm)Minimalist Wrote:
Quote:There was a time when humanity lived in blissfull trust and peace with God's will.
The muslims are still there, Tacky. Insh'allah.
No matter what happens it's always god's fucking will.
That's one of the major problems I have with my perception of muslims, it inordinantly lacks a sense of personal responsibility for my tastes.
"There ought to be a term that would designate those who actually follow the teachings of Jesus, since the word 'Christian' has been largely divorced from those teachings, and so polluted by fundamentalists that it has come to connote their polar opposite: intolerance, vindictive hatred, and bigotry." -- Philip Stater, Huffington Post
always working on cleaning my windows- me regarding Johari
Anymouse
Worshipper of Caffeinea, Goddess of Coffee.
Religious Views: Atheist (formerly Wiccan, with a Discordian bent). Erotic Romance novel editor. Handfasted to BethK, the smartest, coolest, sexiest, brightest atheist here.
Posts: 544
Threads: 62
Joined: May 25, 2011
Reputation:
15
(December 14, 2011 at 3:05 am)tackattack Wrote: . . . If you're advocating philanthropy and generosity as a self-regulated guide is more effective than Jesus for self improvement I would beg to differ. What process is not better improved from setting an objective standard? . . .
I can think of a huge number of processes which are not improved by setting an "objective standard." And even if an objective standard is arguably better, why must one insert "Jesus" as the objective standard?
By most accounts I have read and heard, disregarding whether the Bible is "objective" or not (or even a good standard), those accounts refer to "personal relationships," &c. Those are subjective standards, subject of course to the person interpreting.
My two cents, back to your own discussion. Just thought I would poke my head in on something that didn't quite make sense to me.
"Be ye not lost amongst Precept of Order." - Book of Uterus, 1:5, "Principia Discordia, or How I Found Goddess and What I Did to Her When I Found Her."
(December 14, 2011 at 3:05 am)tackattack Wrote: . . . If you're advocating philanthropy and generosity as a self-regulated guide is more effective than Jesus for self improvement I would beg to differ. What process is not better improved from setting an objective standard? . . .
I can think of a huge number of processes which are not improved by setting an "objective standard." And even if an objective standard is arguably better, why must one insert "Jesus" as the objective standard?
By most accounts I have read and heard, disregarding whether the Bible is "objective" or not (or even a good standard), those accounts refer to "personal relationships," &c. Those are subjective standards, subject of course to the person interpreting.
My two cents, back to your own discussion. Just thought I would poke my head in on something that didn't quite make sense to me.
Feel free to interject. I fel much more comfortable answering questions and clarifying than postulating unknowables or outright mental masturbation. Please feel free to list some examples of processes that aren't imporved by an objective standard.
You're speaking of the Christian idom of a personal relationship with God. I agree to an extent that it's subjective. I feel the Holy Spirit is an objective piece of God we use for that task (objective). I'm aware though most atheists and all materialists jus consider this talking to myself (subjective).
I was speaking of God as an objective moral standard through the example of Christ Jesus, however. One doesn't have to inject Jesus into it. One could interject Stalin, Ghandi, mother theresa, Darwin, Einstein, etc. One could also use a fluctuating standard liek societal morality or personal morality / conscience. I personally though feel they are less effective, and consequently less useful, standards.
"There ought to be a term that would designate those who actually follow the teachings of Jesus, since the word 'Christian' has been largely divorced from those teachings, and so polluted by fundamentalists that it has come to connote their polar opposite: intolerance, vindictive hatred, and bigotry." -- Philip Stater, Huffington Post
always working on cleaning my windows- me regarding Johari
December 14, 2011 at 9:59 am (This post was last modified: December 14, 2011 at 10:09 am by The Grand Nudger.)
"Consider" isn't the word Tack, you are talking to yourself.
You could align your sense of morality up with any other collection of stories and get exactly the same results. In fact, you could use the Bible as a guide in the reverse. Anything god would do (judging by the stories) are things to be avoided.
-Do not create life you have no intention of caring for.
-Do not blame others for situations you have created.
In twenty seconds and only going so far as the Garden narrative I have two great principles to live my life by. Biblical narratives are subjective standards. They mean different things to different people, and can be (and have been) leveraged in any way imaginable while still achieving largely the same results. They can also be used (and have been used) to justify things you might consider morally abhorrent; thought crimes, slavery, etc. You're the one setting the standard, it comes from you. It's only "Jesus" because that's the name you've given the backdrop for your internal morality play. It's likely that you'd come to the same conclusions from any system of religious belief. You could make Allah's commands work for you, you could make Lugh Lamfada's life your standard. You'd still be the person you are.
If you'd like to tell people that the standards they use are "less effective" you're going to have to do some serious cartwheels avoiding the fact that there are good people of every (and no) faith. Obviously these standards are effective, and it's fairly sanctimonious of you to suggest otherwise.
I am the Infantry. I am my country’s strength in war, her deterrent in peace. I am the heart of the fight… wherever, whenever. I carry America’s faith and honor against her enemies. I am the Queen of Battle. I am what my country expects me to be, the best trained Soldier in the world. In the race for victory, I am swift, determined, and courageous, armed with a fierce will to win. Never will I fail my country’s trust. Always I fight on…through the foe, to the objective, to triumph overall. If necessary, I will fight to my death. By my steadfast courage, I have won more than 200 years of freedom. I yield not to weakness, to hunger, to cowardice, to fatigue, to superior odds, For I am mentally tough, physically strong, and morally straight. I forsake not, my country, my mission, my comrades, my sacred duty. I am relentless. I am always there, now and forever. I AM THE INFANTRY! FOLLOW ME!
Basing your life on the morality of Jesus is problematic because Jesus is whatever you want him to be, depending on what part of the Gospels you read:
Atheist Forums Hall of Shame:
"The trinity can be equated to having your cake and eating it too."
... -Lucent, trying to defend the Trinity concept
"(Yahweh's) actions are good because (Yahweh) is the ultimate standard of goodness. That’s not begging the question"
... -Statler Waldorf, Christian apologist
(December 9, 2011 at 8:29 pm)aleialoura Wrote: Evolution is a fact, and those who choose to deny it are denying a fact.
I hope you realize by now that when you make baseless assertions like this I am going to simply make the opposite claim back since it holds as much water, so here goes…
“Creation is a fact, and those who choose to deny it are denying a fact.”
Quote: The laws of nature may not align with your absurd and offensive belief that the earth is only 6000 or so years old,
What law of nature are you referring to? Stop making assertions and actually back them up with at least something please.
Quote: "Goddidit" is not a fucking answer, it's something people made up a long time ago because they had no real answers.
So when a person looks at the ceiling of the Sistine Chapel and says “Michelangelo did it”, that’s also not the correct answer? It’s just an answer because we don’t have the real answer?
Quote: The bible has nothing to do with science. Take it from a student of astrophysics and anthropology. There is a reason "Intelligent Design" isn't even discussed at reputable universities. The reason is that those universities wish to remain reputable.
Scripture is a religious document that makes both scientific and historical claims. If you are so adversed in science then why do you keep mixing up creation science and intelligent design? Shouldn’t you know the difference? Just wondering.
(December 9, 2011 at 9:14 pm)Voltair Wrote: You and I may disagree on the Bible's theological claims but I have a feeling you and I would agree that we both distrust the religious claims of other ancient documents. You and I probably accept some historical information but probably easily discard the religious ones.
Yes we probably would both object to other religious claims, but for entirely difference reasons, I object to those claims because I accept scripture’s claims, you object to those other claims probably for entirely different reasons I assume.
Quote: The only way he could know of those events would be 1) Oral tradition passed down for thousands of years, 2) writings passed down for thousands of years, 3) some kind of divine inspiration, or 4) any other possibilities I omitted.
Numbers 1 and 3 I believe.
Quote: Oral tradition for thousands of years is problematic due to the issue of reliability. The assumption would be it was preserved accurately and the same with ancient writings. The issue of divine inspiration for Genesis I have been curious about as well. I am not sure how you would decide that Genesis was divinely inspired besides the fact that it was in the Torah and preserved for some time. Again you probably have an answer for that so before I go into that more I will let you give it.
Well the Hebrew people were renowned for their oral traditions; they’d learn stories like we would learn out ABCs or counting.
We are told by Paul that all scripture is divinely inspired, we also know that Jesus viewed Genesis as scripture because he quotes from it several times, so we can conclude that since all scripture is divinely inspired and Genesis is part of scripture, Genesis is therefore also divinely inspired.
Quote: I am not trying to be insulting but saying that science is built on the assumption that God exists seems to be unsubstantiated. With what you believe of course science is based on the existence of God. Based on what I do not believe though it most certainly is not. Making that statement does not prove anything other than what you believe to be true as quantifying how science is based on God seems to be a matter of theology and philosophy.
No insult taken, science is based on the principle of induction. The principle of induction assumes uniformity in nature which can only be justified by the existence of a providential God. The God of scripture is unique in the fact that He has revealed Himself to us and is also providentially controlling over all of His creation.
Quote: However I am curious as to how God is simply evident through creation. If that were true and I for whatever reason do not see that to be true what does that leave? In my mind that leaves several alternatives: 1) I am being deceived, 2) I am willing not accepting the evidence, 3) It isn't true, and of course 4) something else I potentially didn't put down .
Well the Biblical position on that is that everyone knows God exists in their heart of hearts because of His creative work; unbelievers simply suppress this knowledge because of its implications. So it is a form of self deception really.
Quote: It is either attacking me or attacking a being who supposedly can do no evil so I will get the ax. It doesn't offend me because that's the logical path one probably has to take in order to remain consistent with Christian beliefs.
Well that does make logical sense right? A Christian’s ultimate standard of truth is scripture, so they can either hold to what it claims or believe humans which are very fallible. It’s like many atheists ultimate standard of truth are laws of logic, do you really think an atheist would believe you if you told them that you doubted the law of non-contradiction was true?
Quote: What exactly have creation scientists done with the fossil record? I am assuming you have read a decent bit on this so I would ask you to summarize if possible. I won't really talk about the philosophy/theology again right now because I am partially tired of typing and my reply is also getting far too large.
Yeah I know what you mean, my reply is getting pretty long and I still have like ten other posts to respond to in this thread. The fossil record is the best evidence we have for a global flood. It gives us a record of millions upon millions of plants and animals being buried by flood waters all over the world. It moves from the less intelligent and less mobile animals upwards to the more intelligent and more mobile animals which were buried last. We find animals buried while fighting, giving birth, and eating, so it’s obvious it was fast and catastrophic burial rather than the slow and gradual record proposed by secularists. Two different interpretations of the same evidence really.
(December 9, 2011 at 10:05 pm)Zen Badger Wrote: 'If the math works" you keep saying that but you've never shown how it works.
You claimed awhile ago that you read the peer reviewed article on ASC, so I assumed you also checked the calculations in the article itself. Either way, position dependent relativity rather than velocity dependent relativity still works fine.
Quote: To keep it simple for you, in 1676 Ole Roemer, by observing the transit of Io behind Jupiter calculated when it should reappear, then demonstrated that the times differed depending on where Earth was in its orbit. This showed that light was taking longer to get to Earth the further away from Jupiter it was. Therefore proving that contrary to previous belief c was not infinite.
This does nothing to disprove ASC; I even believe this was addressed in the article you claim to have read. He was measuring the round trip speed of light, which is exactly the same whether you are using ASC or ISC (also known as ESC).
Quote: And, incidentally, shooting ASC stone cold dead before it was even born
See above, I even kept it simple for you.
Quote: Don't put words in my mouth, that is extremely bad manners, even for you.
I didn’t I illustrated the circular argument you were using to try and say Creation is not science.
Quote: And no-one with even the faintest understanding of basic physics could ever take either seriously.
So the fact that Einstein was originally going to use ASC rather than ISC means he didn’t have the faintest understanding of basic physics? You are priceless.
(December 10, 2011 at 2:11 am)TheDarkestOfAngels Wrote: However, The earth is not a closed system. It receives a huge amount of energy from the sun and help from gravity
The application of raw energy to a system actually increases entropy, so that does not help your case any.
(December 10, 2011 at 4:54 am)Anymouse Wrote: Posters of the Set are available at fine head shops everywhere, but essentially it shows how seemingly random objects will form an ordered solution. Mandelbrot's theory works well to show order (in this case abiogenesis) can arise from any random set (random non-living molecules).
You are really trying to compare the most sophisticated information language on earth, DNA, to the simple shapes we see in sand dunes?
(December 11, 2011 at 3:27 am)Minimalist Wrote: True, Alei, but it won't even slow Waldork down. He's committed to his sky-daddy and if facts contradict his fantasies he must ignore them.
What facts are you even talking about? You guys get pretty vague about all of these supposed facts; I am starting to believe they exist only in your minds.
(December 11, 2011 at 10:48 am)Norfolk And Chance Wrote: Nothing is really ordered but a product of circumstance. The reason everything fits together so well is because everything has had enough time to do the necessary evolution.
This ignores the point he made about entropy tending towards a maximum over time. So time is your worst enemy, not your best friend.
Quote: Surely it had to be made and programmed by somebody? It is actually harder to believe that a supreme deity managed to programme something so complex, not just for us but for billions and trillions of other things too. It's just too easy an answer. Goddidit.
Where do you get this notion that easy answers are always wrong answers?
Quote: Over TIME. Give it enough time and enough interactions can occur.
So you are essentially using the “Timedidit” answer?
Quote: People don't often seem to me to really comprehend how long a time 4.5 billion years really is. It's just a number right, a big number right, but you need to understand the hugeness of it. Think of light. It travels at c186,000 miles per second. Around 670 million mph. Travelling at the speed of 670 million mph it still takes over 4 years to reach the nearest star. The vast distance travelled in that 4 years is mindboggling, yes? We all understand that right?
If people actually comprehended how long 4.5 billion years is nobody would believe the ridiculous notion that the Earth has been around that long.
(December 8, 2011 at 3:30 pm)TheDarkestOfAngels Wrote: You've correctly ascertained that it is impossible. The laws of physics are demonsterably and demonstratably unchanging and hold true everywhere we see. The speed of light is about 300,000 kilometers (186,000 miles) per second and can and will never be anything else - same as gravity, thermodynamics, and numerous other things that creationists otherwise ignore.
That’s the round trip speed of light; nobody is asserting it is anything other than that. The one way speed of light can be different though as long as the overall round trip speed stays the same.
Quote: The creationist arguement of C (the speed of light) being able to change over time is disengenuous because there is no evidence that any of our laws of physics has or even can change over time. At best, they can argue that our understanding and ability to express and predict using physics has changed but that doesn't help their arguements at all.
Most creationists don’t ascribe to C decay, so this is a bit of a straw man.
Quote: Unfortunately for the YEC crowd, VSL as proposed by credible cosmologists does not support an Earth much younger than the age science currently assigns to it.
I like how you conveniently only consider old earth cosmologists as credible and then circularly use this to argue that the young earth cosmologists are not credible because they disagree with the old earth guys.
(December 11, 2011 at 8:23 pm)Chuck Wrote: An eternity with all the Shrinks in the universe can't help stupidity.
Sticks and stones Love, sticks and stones.
(December 12, 2011 at 10:23 pm)Voltair Wrote: Yahweh however knowing all things is more responsible than any inventor could ever be. Let's say it was inevitable that most of mankind would suffer eternally and let's say it was somehow out of Yahweh's control. Then Yahweh's moral choice would have been to never create man. You can slice it all sorts of ways but it still falls back to his responsibility. This is of course if the Yahweh was real etc.
Upon whose authority are you going to hold God to? Man’s?
(December 14, 2011 at 2:01 pm)Statler Waldorf Wrote:
(December 9, 2011 at 8:29 pm)aleialoura Wrote: "Goddidit" is not a fucking answer, it's something people made up a long time ago because they had no real answers.
So when a person looks at the ceiling of the Sistine Chapel and says “Michelangelo did it”, that’s also not the correct answer? It’s just an answer because we don’t have the real answer?
What a fucking retard you really are.
You are currently experiencing a lucky and very brief window of awareness, sandwiched in between two periods of timeless and utter nothingness. So why not make the most of it, and stop wasting your life away trying to convince other people that there is something else? The reality is obvious.
December 14, 2011 at 4:07 pm (This post was last modified: December 14, 2011 at 4:08 pm by Anomalocaris.)
(December 14, 2011 at 3:35 pm)Norfolk And Chance Wrote:
(December 14, 2011 at 2:01 pm)Statler Waldorf Wrote:
(December 9, 2011 at 8:29 pm)aleialoura Wrote: "Goddidit" is not a fucking answer, it's something people made up a long time ago because they had no real answers.
So when a person looks at the ceiling of the Sistine Chapel and says “Michelangelo did it”, that’s also not the correct answer? It’s just an answer because we don’t have the real answer?
What a fucking retard you really are.
This is a civilized forum, insulting the word "retard" is not acceptable.
. 
