(November 29, 2014 at 6:18 pm)C4RM5 Wrote:

(November 29, 2014 at 5:39 pm)JaceDeanLove Wrote: Please elaborate. It's not much of a test if God knows the outcome. Also, why punish them for it?

I know that is what I said it was a test for Adam and Eve.

Then fuck your prick of a god.

So god is like a teacher who hands out a test to the first two students who enter the classroom. When those two students fail the test, the teacher flunks the rest of the class before they even know that there would be a test. This is apparently a completely fair and benevolent way to act.

(November 29, 2014 at 5:37 pm)C4RM5 Wrote: I believe God put the tree there as a test. God would have known as he is all-knowning. However Adam and Eve were not all-knowing they didn't know what the outcome was until they took the fruit.

Then 'God' is responsible for the outcome.

If you put a loaded gun in a room with a couple of 6 year old children, told them not to play with it, left them alone in the room, who is responsible when one of the kids dies when the gun goes off when they play with it?

(November 29, 2014 at 7:07 pm)C4RM5 Wrote:

(November 29, 2014 at 7:01 pm)Esquilax Wrote: But the very concept that the test deals with would not even exist if the test didn't exist. What it's like is the teacher inventing a subject out of nowhere and then testing his students on this subject, that didn't exist before he wrote the test, and pretending the results of that actually means something.

Exactly.

I need this to be seen a thousand times. FSTDT, here we come!

Quote:If you put a loaded gun in a room with a couple of 6 year old children, told them not to play with it, left them alone in the room, who is responsible when one of the kids dies when the gun goes off when they play with it?

According to the NRA - nobody.

(November 29, 2014 at 7:07 pm)C4RM5 Wrote:

(November 29, 2014 at 7:01 pm)Esquilax Wrote: But the very concept that the test deals with would not even exist if the test didn't exist. What it's like is the teacher inventing a subject out of nowhere and then testing his students on this subject, that didn't exist before he wrote the test, and pretending the results of that actually means something.

Exactly.

So, what you're saying is that god created a test, bringing into existence a concept that only makes the world objectively worse in the process, where a success state could not possibly bring a benefit, and the failure state brings immeasurable suffering and pain to every living being, for no reason, and you're okay with that?

If Adam and Eve never ate the fruit, they would not only not understand the nature of sin and the test, but they wouldn't even have a concept of what sin could be. The only "lesson" that could be learned from the test is one of failure, conditional to them failing, and frankly, not only is that a lesson not worth learning, but it's also not worth the price that was paid for it.

I've came to a point where I have to restrain myself from laughing myself silly when talking about the literalism of the bible.

After reading some wayyy cooler religious stories that are either more appealing (like fairy tales) or at least make a little sense (given the truths you have to assume)...I realized the the bible stories are certainly some of the most ridiculous stories. They are neither appealing or logical even upon the truths you have to already assume are valid.

It's hard to find biblical stories appealing, when they're mostly about how inadequate humans are, and how great Yahweh is. You can just forget about them making sense on a literal level.

(November 29, 2014 at 4:50 pm)Esquilax Wrote: Why just assume god's position is superior? If he's wrong, he's wrong; you're not going to appeal to authority with me, and just assuming that there's a good reason because you want there to be isn't going to get us anywhere. The factual case as it stands demonstrates that god was acting irrationally and redundantly. Your sole response has just been to assume there's a good reason, and to attack me for daring to question god, as though his authority means anything. But character assassination and presuppositions aren't arguments, they are, as I said before, ad hoc excuses made to avoid answering for obvious inconsistencies.

I've come to an epiphany Esquilax! I do assume God's position is superior because I believe that the bible is true. Since I believe that he is loving, just, all-knowing, etc., then everything he does is right. I believe that his act of salvation for us all was his supreme act of love for mankind. I believe that at the end of time we'll be with him and will understand in a way that we can't as humans on this earth. This is what the bible teaches and this is what I believe. We can't understand the mind of God and, therefore, are unequipped to judge his actions.

On the other hand, you and almost everyone else in this forum don't believe that the bible is the truth. In fact you don't even believe in God period. It appears that you think that if God did exist, that he should be expected to think and act as we do. On those grounds you make your judgments concerning the reasonableness and morality of God's actions in the bible.

So when it comes down to it, a debate between a christian and an atheist concerning whether or not the God of the bible is reasonable or moral is worthless. We can argue whether or not the bible is historically or scientifically reliable or other such things, but we can't argue about whether or not a supreme God who created the universe was acting ethically--or I guess we can, but the argument is meaningless.

(November 29, 2014 at 10:47 pm)Lek Wrote:

(November 29, 2014 at 4:50 pm)Esquilax Wrote: Why just assume god's position is superior? If he's wrong, he's wrong; you're not going to appeal to authority with me, and just assuming that there's a good reason because you want there to be isn't going to get us anywhere. The factual case as it stands demonstrates that god was acting irrationally and redundantly. Your sole response has just been to assume there's a good reason, and to attack me for daring to question god, as though his authority means anything. But character assassination and presuppositions aren't arguments, they are, as I said before, ad hoc excuses made to avoid answering for obvious inconsistencies.

I've come to an epiphany Esquilax! I do assume God's position is superior because I believe that the bible is true. Since I believe that he is loving, just, all-knowing, etc., then everything he does is right. I believe that his act of salvation for us all was his supreme act of love for mankind. I believe that at the end of time we'll be with him and will understand in a way that we can't as humans on this earth. This is what the bible teaches and this is what I believe. We can't understand the mind of God and, therefore, are unequipped to judge his actions.

On the other hand, you and almost everyone else in this forum don't believe that the bible is the truth. In fact you don't even believe in God period. It appears that you think that if God did exist, that he should be expected to think and act as we do. On those grounds you make your judgments concerning the reasonableness and morality of God's actions in the bible.

So when it comes down to it, a debate between a christian and an atheist concerning whether or not the God of the bible is reasonable or moral is worthless. We can argue whether or not the bible is historically or scientifically reliable or other such things, but we can't argue about whether or not a supreme God who created the universe was acting ethically--or I guess we can, but the argument is meaningless.

Arguing the Bible period is meaningless...