Right! You absolutely should restrict the free will of people who run around causing harm. We have to, since Y-man doesn't seem to be helping. I don't see god stepping in to rectify this either, so the analogy is pure turkey farts; he apparently has no opinion on free will. In fact, god doesn't step in to do anything all, except in the twisted interpretations of the deluded. Confirmation bias takes care of that.

In fact, I think it may be fair to say that confirmation bias IS the active god people think they are worshiping.

On the atheist experience, this one guy said he had "an experience", where he was at his wits end and was begging to god to reveal himself and help him, and "some supernatural" stuff happened. Most likely he was hallucinating, but whatever. He said that this single experience, with no follow up evidence whatsoever, turned him into a christian. Not just a theist, a christian. That's some wacky confirmation bias right there.

(February 25, 2015 at 5:25 am)robvalue Wrote: On the atheist experience, this one guy said he had "an experience", where he was at his wits end and was begging to god to reveal himself and help him, and "some supernatural" stuff happened. Most likely he was hallucinating, but whatever. He said that this single experience, with no follow up evidence whatsoever, turned him into a christian. Not just a theist, a christian. That's some wacky confirmation bias right there.

If someone else prayed and nothing happened then other Christians would claim that he shouldn't test god but just keep forcing himself to believe.

---

(February 25, 2015 at 2:41 am)Ignorant Wrote:

(February 24, 2015 at 6:55 pm)IATIA Wrote: That makes no sense. You have provided no description of pastichalony, but rather used it as a descriptor and assumed one should be able to define pastichalony without reference.

That is precisely the senseless use of language that I was trying to illustrate, so thank you for the feedback on its effectiveness. It shouldn't make sense if I illustrated it correctly.

The person in that example is using the word "pastichalony" as if everyone just knows what it means. When he is pressed to offer a definition, he just keeps using the word which is not understood.

Using a word as a descriptor and assuming other people should be able to define that word without reference is, indeed, without sense.

It also happens to be what several people are doing in this thread with the word "good". However, hopefully you will notice that when I was asked to supply my own definition, I described the word "good" in a much different way than the hypothetical person was describing "pastichalony"

---

(February 24, 2015 at 7:27 pm)Nope Wrote: Christians say that their god is good so they must have some sort of definition as to what good is. If they can't even define good how do they know that their god is good or that anything that they do is good?

That is an excellent question for Christians who don't know what they mean by the word "good", but hopefully you will admit that it is just as excellent a question for atheists who say that god is not good. I'm not demanding a definition, but we should not assume that we all mean the same thing by the word, or that we all actually can articulate what it means according to our usage of that word.

And I said in another post that I am perfectly happy to use your definition as a starting point.

---

(February 24, 2015 at 12:42 pm)watchamadoodle Wrote:

(February 24, 2015 at 11:36 am)Ignorant Wrote: That is fine. Do you think it is good for a person to enter into public discussion about what is good for humanity when that person doesn't really know what they mean by "good for humanity"? If yes, then modern political society was made for you. If no, then hopefully you would admit that our society is in a severe crisis without criteria to judge the best ways to improve.

I see discussion as a way to create or refine my opinions, so I think it's o.k. to enter a discussion without a clear opinion. Of course it is also o.k. to enter a discussion with a clear opinion.

I don't know if our society is in severe crisis or not. I stopped reading the news several months ago, and I feel much, much better. I recommend it for emotional health.

On what basis is a country in severe crisis? I don't even know what country Ignorant is from but the fact that he or she says 'our' as if everyone is from his/her country, I am going to guess he is a fellow American. I have noticed that we Americans tend to act as if everyone is from the USA.

Many countries in the Middle East are in a severe crisis. The US has problems that need addressing but thankfully we are still a wealthy country without a war raging on our soil. Our problems aren't severe yet. Sorry for the off topic thread derail.

(February 24, 2015 at 7:32 pm)Godschild Wrote: There's noway that the fossil record can be anything other than speculation at best,

The fossil record is a component in a tapestry of evidence that leads one to the conclusion of evolution; the distinct morphological similarities between animals within the fossil record, plus their specific ordering within the geologic column, with every animal in place, and none out of order, among other things, is proof of evolution, regardless of how you want to dismiss it.

Moreover, the fossil record allows us to make predictions, and we've done that: if evolution is real, we should be able to go to X layer and find Y type of animal, and we've done that, finding Tiktaalik and others in the process. So was that just blind luck? Are you really going to tell us that it was sheer luck that we've managed to find exactly what was predicted, at exactly the right point on the planet, based on speculation alone?

Quote: there's no proof, no evidence, nothing. Many false statements over the years and some outright lies.

GC

There's plenty of proof and evidence of species transition, which is what evolution describes. Your only response to that was to dismiss the entire concept of species as a scientific conspiracy to undermine the biblical terms you pulled out of your ass, but we know that's literally false, as the term species predates evolution by centuries. In fact I find it rather ironic that you'll assert- baselessly- that there's false statements and lies within evolution following a set of assertions like that from you; will you retract your false statement, now that you've been given evidence that it was wrong?

Moreover, now that your dismissal has been proven baseless, what will be your next response to the fact that species to species transitions are what are described in evolution, and observed to occur? Obviously you can't use a false premise as your rebuttal.

Based on extrapolation from previous evidence!

(February 25, 2015 at 2:41 am)Ignorant Wrote: The person in that example is using the word "pastichalony" as if everyone just knows what it means. When he is pressed to offer a definition, he just keeps using the word which is not understood.

Using a word as a descriptor and assuming other people should be able to define that word without reference is, indeed, without sense.

I think you're being a little bit unreasonable, @Ignorant. Let's say you are trying to teach a child what "blue" means. You might show him a blue egg and say "blue". Then you might point to the sky and say "blue". After you show him a dozen things, he begins to understand that the common attribute is color and that color is "blue".

(1) I gave a list of things that I consider "good" (environmentalism, etc.)

(2) That wasn't enough, so I gave a definition where "good" is a metric used in decision theory. We all make choices, so we all must have a notion of "good". (I'll include a quote that might help make this clearer BTW)

Quote:The idea of expected value is that, when faced with a number of actions, each of which could give rise to more than one possible outcome with different probabilities, the rational procedure is to identify all possible outcomes, determine their values (positive or negative) and the probabilities that will result from each course of action, and multiply the two to give an expected value. The action to be chosen should be the one that gives rise to the highest total expected value.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Decision_theory

(3) That wasn't enough, so I emphasized that I consider "good" to be subjective, yet I believe that democracy proves that subjective notions of good are sufficient for government.

The definition you offered merely defined "good" in terms of "human fulfillment" which was left undefined. Then you said "God is good", because he is defined that way. I don't blame you, because I know that your view is an abbreviated version of the Catholic Encyclopedia article. That all makes sense to you, because you are a Catholic. Also I don't mean to oversimplify your definition. I probably overlooked some subtleties.

So I really don't see why you are using me as your example of not giving a definition for "good". It seems you are simply trying to avoid engaging with the thread topic by making this into a bigger problem. Sure, it would be nice to have an objective definition of good, but many atheists are moral relativists and don't believe there is an objective definition. However, we can still aggregate subjective definitions of good through voting and discussions like this. So let's discuss whether God is good.

BTW That is a cool word you invented "pastichalony". It seems like it should be part of the theology for the Flying Spaghetti Monster. Maybe I am a pastichalonist.

To me, the only meaningful definition of good is having a positive effect on the wellbeing of individuals and society, and as little negative effect as possible. This means for example being helpful, and not hurting anyone more than necessary, at its simplest. It's basic morality.

Any kind of "god given" rules do not fit this model. They are arbitrary, inflexible, do not change with context or society and only coincide with what is actually "good" by chance.

(February 25, 2015 at 1:47 pm)watchamadoodle Wrote: The definition you offered merely defined "good" in terms of "human fulfillment" which was left undefined.

Actually, I did define it. Here

Then you asked me about the conflict of human desire, e.g. Hitler's conflict of desire with others. I responded.

watchamadoodle Wrote:Then you said "God is good", because he is defined that way.

I don't remember saying that (can you point to it?), because that is a silly thing to say on an atheist forum. I do remember saying this:

"IF god IS the thing that, once obtained, completely fulfills our humanity, then he is goodness itself, and therefore, God is good. But only IF."
- Pg. 14, Post #138, linked above

In other words, if God is the thing that satisfies every human desire, then he is good. The test lies in the ability to satisfy humanity, not in his definition as good.

That is much different than saying, "If God is good, then he satisfies every human desire. God is good. Therefore he satisfies every human desire." Which, as I would hope you agree, I have not said.

watchamadoodle Wrote:I don't blame you, because I know that your view is an abbreviated version of the Catholic Encyclopedia article. That all makes sense to you, because you are a Catholic. Also I don't mean to oversimplify your definition. I probably overlooked some subtleties.

=) Sure, you may have overlooked some subtleties... or you may have completely misinterpreted one of the only two conditional statements I have made about God in relation to my understanding of goodness. =) And I don't read the Catholic Encyclopedia (much of its contents are dated), but I am happy to know that I don't contradict it. I consider my view a very abbreviated view of the Thomist/Aristotelian position, and I am happy to know that the Catholic Encyclopedia includes it. Aristotle explained goodness, human action, and ethics in a very similar way.

watchamadoodle Wrote:So I really don't see why you are using me as your example of not giving a definition for "good". It seems you are simply trying to avoid engaging with the thread topic by making this into a bigger problem. Sure, it would be nice to have an objective definition of good, but many atheists are moral relativists and don't believe there is an objective definition.

I am afraid that I can not really help what things seem like to you, so I am sorry if you are confused about my intentions. I just found it interesting that so many people seem to know which things are good and which things are bad, and yet they can't articulate what it is about those things that merit the predicate "good" or not.

If you want to rationally critique an attempted "proof" that "God is good", and you don't have at least a rudimentary formulation of what goodness is, what exactly are we doing? This question is my only intended interest in this thread. Don't hold your breath for some proof that God is good. Most rational people can see the logical precedence of securing an idea of goodness by which any such proof could proceed.

Quote:However, we can still aggregate subjective definitions of good through voting and discussions like this. So let's discuss whether God is good.

Well sure you can do that, but we can't pretend that any discussion that goes directly to the arguments (without arriving at common understandings of the words that will be used in those argument) will be a rational one. On an online forum, ALL you have is written text. It would almost seem self-evident that the meanings of the words you are using (especially an important a word in a discussion about god's goodness as the word "good") are worth hashing out.

I am not saying that you must accept my description of goodness, but if we both understand that word in different ways, you are setting yourself up for a discussion full of equivocation and ambiguity that renders it irrational. Would I like to do that? No thanks.

Quote:BTW That is a cool word you invented "pastichalony". It seems like it should be part of the theology for the Flying Spaghetti Monster. Maybe I am a pastichalonist.

Ha! I have no doubt that you are.

---

Nope Wrote:And I said in another post that I am perfectly happy to use your definition as a starting point.

As a starting point for what?

---

(February 23, 2015 at 1:57 am)Parkers Tan Wrote: My conception of goodness is pretty simple -- treat others the way I'd like to be treated, add to the general weal, and leave the world a better place than I find it.

This contradicts your god's opinions in certain instances, which isn't a problem for me insofar as I understand that your god is a figment of your imagination.

Where it comes from? Empathy. Look it up, if you need more information. Also, email your god the link, because he clearly doesn't get it.

Hey Parker's Tan, so your conception of goodness is an imperative to act in a way that you would like others to act toward you?

Does every person agree about how they think other people should act towards them?

(February 25, 2015 at 12:05 pm)Esquilax Wrote:

(February 24, 2015 at 7:32 pm)Godschild Wrote: There's noway that the fossil record can be anything other than speculation at best,

The fossil record is a component in a tapestry of evidence that leads one to the conclusion of evolution; the distinct morphological similarities between animals within the fossil record, plus their specific ordering within the geologic column, with every animal in place, and none out of order,

This is a lie many animals have been found at the wrong levels of the so called geologic column, a column that does not exist in consistence around the world. In places it doesn't even exist in a way to be identified with others.

Quote:Moreover, the fossil record allows us to make predictions, and we've done that: if evolution is real, we should be able to go to X layer and find Y type of animal, and we've done that, finding Tiktaalik and others in the process.

There have been many animals found that do not belong in certain layers, so speculation is all evolutionary science has. Actually a world wide flood would be a better observation of the geological column and the fossils found. The fossil record has never nor will it ever prove evolution.

Quote: So was that just blind luck? Are you really going to tell us that it was sheer luck that we've managed to find exactly what was predicted, at exactly the right point on the planet, based on speculation alone?

Yep, if you insist. I would have chosen the word coincidence. Is it, no what would you call finding many fossils in the wrong layers in the so called column, something like Christian scientist are sabotaging the dig sites. There is not one bit of proof that evolution is true, until that time if you don't mind I'm not buying it.

Quote: there's no proof, no evidence, nothing. Many false statements over the years and some outright lies.

GC

Quote:There's plenty of proof and evidence of species transition, which is what evolution describes.

None, zip, nothing. Now it's species transition, yesterday it was natural selection, the two are not the same.

Quote:Your only response to that was to dismiss the entire concept of species as a scientific conspiracy to undermine the biblical terms you pulled out of your ass, but we know that's literally false, as the term species predates evolution by centuries.

It was used then to denote kinds such as the Canine. Then evolutionary scientist used it to divide the Canine into different species, and to this day they are all still Dogs.

Quote:In fact I find it rather ironic that you'll assert- baselessly- that there's false statements and lies within evolution following a set of assertions like that from you; will you retract your false statement, now that you've been given evidence that it was wrong?

Evidence, good joke . I will not retract the truth, it's your burden to prove evolution, you've made the assertion, I do not have to prove anything, your burden of proof not mine.

Quote:Moreover, now that your dismissal has been proven baseless,

My dismissal requires nothing more than that, the burden of proof is with the one making the claim, seems I've heard that before, how about you.

Quote:what will be your next response to the fact that species to species transitions are what are described in evolution, and observed to occur? Obviously you can't use a false premise as your rebuttal.

Just because some scientist makes a claim and describes something with no proof means absolutely nothing. Speculation is all that evolutionary science has, nothing more. Species to species transitions have never been observed, if it were so the whole world would be abuzz. I do not have to use anything for a rebuttal, the burden of proof is in your court.

GC

(February 25, 2015 at 5:25 am)robvalue Wrote: Right! You absolutely should restrict the free will of people who run around causing harm. We have to, since Y-man doesn't seem to be helping.

I think disagreements like these come from poor definitions of "Free Will".
On one hand, to theists, the concept of Free Will crucial for us to acknowledge because as long as we do, we validate a certain idea of that theists need so that we can talk about all the horrendous things that people do with it. They want to present us with a dilemma. Either God makes robots, or he gives us the ability to act independenally from his wishes, and what we do will have consequences of cosmic proportions.


But here's where I think they're getting confused...In a discussion of this sort, when an Atheist says something like

" You absolutely should restrict the free will of the people going around doing a bunch of harm"

They are using the concept of Free Will merely to describe that there are a bunch of different people, all independently doing different things, and if the things they are doing are harming others, they need to be prevented from doing them.

This is where we need to be more accurate with our use of the term "Free Will". What causes a psychopath to kill a bunch of teenage boys, keep their remains in a freezer, and then thaw them out later only to have sex with their corpses? Free Will? Among the people who commit atrocities like this, very distinct and consistent similarities show up across the board. These people do things like this because it is their nature to do them. Variables such as childhood development, traumatic experiences, economic status, education level, geographical location, relationship experiences, or lack there of, these are all things that none of these people got to choose and yet everyone of them could be considered dominoes in a row that were all waiting for the first one to tip. If you combine all of those environmental factors with the neurophysiological vessel that was constructed entirely out of genes that they certainly didn't get to choose, it becomes quite hard to think of culpability in the same way. Sure, we should still lock them up until we can find a way to fix it, but it's a problem that we can nonetheless realize needs to be "fixed" rather than an opportunity to relish in the concept of justice served in by an eternal soul roast. This is the first problem for at least Christians like GC.

This is a much more difficult lens for Theists to view human behavior through. Because all of the sudden, our understanding of cause and effect within the mind has reduced this "free will" stuff to nothing more than a colloquial description of people doing stuff. Sure, they can pretend that they would behave differently if they were Jeffrey Dahmer or the like, but the truth is, if they WERE Jeffrey Dahmer, they would have done the exact same things. They would have literally BEEN HIM. So, now what? Well, if you believe an omniscient God created these people, then our understanding of the human brain has only placed Gods finger behind the first tipping domino. From a Theistic perspective, God giving us "Free Will" is more akin to tossing us the keys to a burning vehicle, and then sticking us with the fallout, and if that's the case, whether or not we're holding the keys, the car is definitely registered in Gods name.

(February 25, 2015 at 3:17 pm)Ignorant Wrote:

watchamadoodle Wrote:Then you said "God is good", because he is defined that way.

I don't remember saying that (can you point to it?), because that is a silly thing to say on an atheist forum. I do remember saying this:

"IF god IS the thing that, once obtained, completely fulfills our humanity, then he is goodness itself, and therefore, God is good. But only IF."
- Pg. 14, Post #138, linked above

I believe you meant Pg 9, Post #85, HERE