No reason justifies disbelief.

[Belacqua]

I know you won't support your assertions, because it's not "fun," but this sentence isn't true.


Plato's Form of the Good is nearly identical to the Christian God described by many theologians. To recommend Plato here is to contradict yourself.

Jowett's translation of the Republic is 216 pages. That's "thin" compared to Proust, I guess. I suspect you haven't read it.

---

If platos form of the good exists, then platos form of the good exists.  Doesn't have a thing to do with gods, let alone the bloodgod christers worship.

We've been through this before. You think that the Christian God is unrelated to Plato's. I gave the titles of some of the many books describing the opposite. 

I understand that you won't change your mind.

[Peebothuhlu]

At work.

I think, Gae Bolga, that the Christian asserts their diety is 'All good'.

Though, how they can square that away with their diety also creating/instigating evil and suffering etc?

Yah, seems quite contradictory to me.

[fredd bear]

At work.

I think, Gae Bolga, that the Christian asserts their diety is 'All good'.

Though, how they can square that away with their diety also creating/instigating evil and suffering etc?

Yah, seems quite contradictory to me.

Funny, that in 2000 .  That the problem of evil remains such an embarrassing paradox for Christians.

I quote Epicurus again, because I think he's pithy:

       “Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent.
Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent.
Is he both able and willing? Then whence cometh evil?
Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him God?”

― Epicurus   .

---

At work.

Uhm.... given the dates... isn't it that the Christian's took inspiration from the classical Greek philosophers?

 If they did I'can't think of any examples.

I don' want to be flippant, because I  don't  know.  Not wanting it to be true is not good enough.

I'm open to any ideas, backed up with evidence.

[Belacqua]

At work.

Uhm.... given the dates... isn't it that the Christian's took inspiration from the classical Greek philosophers?

Christian theology is largely an adaptation of Greek philosophy. Nietzsche called Christianity "Platonism for the masses." 

Remember that in the New Testament age Greek ideas had already permeated Palestine, through the general Hellenist influence. So there is a Greek foundation, coming from people like Diogenes the Cynic, for the prophets of Christ's time. Of course this is all mixed with and expressed through Jewish ideas. 

The first sentence of the gospel of John is straight from Greek philosophy. The "word" being referred to there is the Logos, which has a long pedigree in Greek philosophy as the intermediator between the creator (like God the Father) and creation. In this sense it means something like "principles": the principles or laws of nature through which the One (to use the Neoplatonic term) emanates the many. 

After the New Testament was assembled the main interpreters (Anselm, Augustine, etc.) generally used Greek ideas. John Chrysostom and other important people were essentially Greek philosophers, speaking and reading Greek and completely at home in that system.  

I've been told on sites like this one that when people say "Christians" they want to refer to some subset of mainstream American Christians -- probably ones that live nearby. But that excludes Chrysostom, Dante, and many others who are not really affected by the kind of easy criticism that fredd bear allows himself.

---

If they did I'can't think of any examples.

This demonstrates an almost complete ignorance of Christian theology.

[The Grand Nudger]

If platos form of the good exists, then platos form of the good exists.  Doesn't have a thing to do with gods, let alone the bloodgod christers worship.

We've been through this before. You think that the Christian God is unrelated to Plato's. I gave the titles of some of the many books describing the opposite. 

I understand that you won't change your mind.

It's not surprising that apologists want to connect their turd to some better persons better idea.  They've been doing that for centuries. That's exactly what I commented on before. The realization that the turd idea is garbage, so lets find some other thing to bicker over.

[possibletarian]

I'm an athiest because i can't tell the difference between a god existing, and no god existing at all.

To simply declare that there is no reason to disbelieve is just that, a declaration. First show me something that could only happen with a god, then show me proof that is the only way it could happen, then i would believe.

[Belacqua]

To simply declare that there is no reason to disbelieve is just that, a declaration.

Simply to make a declaration is not to make an argument. 

Some people feel there are reasons to believe. You say there aren't.

Do you have any reasons for your assertion, or is it made for no reason? You have heard the reasons given by religious people, and you have declared that they are not in fact reasons. Did you make this declaration according to some reasonable standard, or according to nothing?

[The Grand Nudger]

Go grab your favorite copy of any magic book.  Put your thumb on the god.  Hold your breath until it squirms out from under that thumb and flits off the page and into the air?

[Peebothuhlu]

At work.

Well, since we can't 'Argue' things into existance. Any more than we can push clouds with our minds.

Looks like it'll be evidence presented first, hey?

[fredd bear]

At work.

Well, since we can't 'Argue' things into existance.  Any more than we can push clouds with our minds.

Looks like it'll be evidence presented first, hey?

Random thought:

In "Gulliver's Travel's  (unabridged; much more fun)

Gulliver is, I think in Lilliput. The court philosopher is screaming at him 'You don't exist! I've just proved you don't exist! So go away!"


There is small section in which Dean Swift takes the piss out of obscure religious orders;  Gulliver comes across an order of monks who eat nothing except cabbages which have died from natural causes.