Satan Disproves Christianity

[John V]

Fucking hell, you're really trying to drag this out. Fine. It's not that they couldn't as in were literally incapable of the act, but couldn't in that committing the sin would have been unacceptable to god, culminating in some divine punishment.

No, the situation is that they didn't want to commit murder or other sins.

BTW, are you really saying that God was oppressing Adam by keeping him from desiring to murder Eve - and Satan is the liberator? Seriously? Are you insane or evil?

[Esquilax]

No, the situation is that they didn't want to commit murder or other sins.

Which I've already told you is irrelevant to the actual discussion taking place.

BTW, are you really saying that God was oppressing Adam by keeping him from desiring to murder Eve - and Satan is the liberator? Seriously? Are you insane or evil?

Oh, no: that's why I asked you about the other sins as well. And you very kindly told me that all of them were unacceptable. Which is why I say you haven't actually provided an argument against the salient point at all; you claimed that things were different in the garden because the sole "oppression" was not being allowed to eat from one tree, but when pressed you admit that all the other sins were equally not allowed, and therefore the situation is no different from earth at all.

Your inability to understand your own argument is quite amusing, though.

[John V]

Which I've already told you is irrelevant to the actual discussion taking place.

Which you've already asserted incorrectly. It's not oppression to keep people from doing something they don't want to do. When you need to warp definitions so grossly to make your point, you should just consider dropping the point.

Oh, no: that's why I asked you about the other sins as well.

You mean the ones that Adam had no desire to commit?

And you very kindly told me that all of them were unacceptable. Which is why I say you haven't actually provided an argument against the salient point at all; you claimed that things were different in the garden because the sole "oppression" was not being allowed to eat from one tree, but when pressed you admit that all the other sins were equally not allowed, and therefore the situation is no different from earth at all.

Again, it's not oppression when they didn't want to do it.

Your inability to understand your own argument is quite amusing, though.

Your need to twist the definition of oppression is quite telling.

[Esquilax]

Which you've already asserted incorrectly. It's not oppression to keep people from doing something they don't want to do. When you need to warp definitions so grossly to make your point, you should just consider dropping the point.

Have you ever read 1984, John? It concerns an oppressive regime that brainwashes its citizens into compliance, so that they're no longer willing to commit acts that the regime has deemed unacceptable. Would you argue that they aren't being oppressed?

Again, the desire to commit an act and one's ability to commit that act are different things.

You mean the ones that Adam had no desire to commit?

You mean the ones he couldn't commit without punishment, no matter if he'd wanted to or not?

Again, it's not oppression when they didn't want to do it.

Brainwashing is still oppression. And what could be a more pure form of the act than creating the brain in question?

Your need to twist the definition of oppression is quite telling.

Okay, let's play this game, since you insist.

Definition of OPPRESSION

1
a : unjust or cruel exercise of authority or power
b : something that oppresses especially in being an unjust or excessive exercise of power

From our good friend Merriam-Webster. The second definition is the one we'll concern ourselves with: unjust or excessive exercise of power. Since you've admitted that all the sins remain in place in the garden, we can safely accuse god of persecuting thoughtcrime there, among other things. All the sins we atheists find pathetic and petty, you know the ones.

Interestingly, there's absolutely no word of desires or the countering thereof in this dictionary definition of the word. So, which of us is twisting definitions, here?

[John V]

Have you ever read 1984, John? It concerns an oppressive regime that brainwashes its citizens into compliance, so that they're no longer willing to commit acts that the regime has deemed unacceptable. Would you argue that they aren't being oppressed?

Nope. However, if they prohibited people from doing things that they didn't want to do anyway, no brainwashing would be necessary, and it wouldn't be oppressive.

Again, the desire to commit an act and one's ability to commit that act are different things.

Yep, and if someone doesn't want to commit an act, it's not oppressive if the act is prohibited.

You mean the ones he couldn't commit without punishment, no matter if he'd wanted to or not?

Yes, those. As he didn't want to do them, it's not oppressive that he couldn't.

Do you feel oppressed that you're prohibited from murdering and stealing and all sorts of other things? No - because you don't want to do those things.

Brainwashing is still oppression.

Yep, and no brainwashing took place. You don't need to wash out what wasn't there in the first place.

And what could be a more pure form of the act than creating the brain in question?

Are you arguing that creation itself was necessarily oppressive? This is what I think your position really boils down to.

Okay, let's play this game, since you insist.

Definition of OPPRESSION

1
a : unjust or cruel exercise of authority or power
b : something that oppresses especially in being an unjust or excessive exercise of power

From our good friend Merriam-Webster. The second definition is the one we'll concern ourselves with: unjust or excessive exercise of power. Since you've admitted that all the sins remain in place in the garden, we can safely accuse god of persecuting thoughtcrime there, among other things. All the sins we atheists find pathetic and petty, you know the ones.

No, as they didn't have such thoughts.

Interestingly, there's absolutely no word of desires or the countering thereof in this dictionary definition of the word. So, which of us is twisting definitions, here?

You are. No power at all is exercised in prohibiting people from doing things they don't want to do. You characterize no power as unjust or excessive power. Quite a twist.

[Esquilax]

So, awesome: just by fiat assertions with absolutely nothing backing them up.

So, let me just pose another hypothetical: Adam and Eve were charged with being fruitful in the garden. What if one of their offspring wanted to commit a sin? Would he be able to?

Would the prohibition against that sin just suddenly have come into existence the moment he wanted to do it, or would it always have been there?

Also, I'm beginning to realize that I could make the argument that, given that the fruit prohibition was against, in the end, gaining knowledge of good and evil, that satan would have equal justification to rebel whether that was the only rule or not. Just a thought.

Now, are you going to do something other than repeat yourself this time? Because I don't really have much desire to get into a "nuh-uh!" competition with you.

[John V]

So, awesome: just by fiat assertions with absolutely nothing backing them up.

Incorrect. It's completely obvious that it's not necessary to exercise power to prevent people from doing something that's never attempted in the first place. Your definition of oppression is based on exercise of power. Therefore, that certain things would have been sinful does not constitute oppression.

So, let me just pose another hypothetical: Adam and Eve were charged with being fruitful in the garden. What if one of their offspring wanted to commit a sin? Would he be able to?

We're not told specifically, but as like begets like, offspring would probably have been the same in this regard - the only sin they could commit would be eating from the tree.

Also, I'm beginning to realize that I could make the argument that, given that the fruit prohibition was against, in the end, gaining knowledge of good and evil, that satan would have equal justification to rebel whether that was the only rule or not. Just a thought.

OK, feel free to make it if you like.

Now, are you going to do something other than repeat yourself this time? Because I don't really have much desire to get into a "nuh-uh!" competition with you.

When you repeat previously refuted arguments, I repeat responses.

[Esquilax]

Incorrect. It's completely obvious that it's not necessary to exercise power to prevent people from doing something that's never attempted in the first place. Your definition of oppression is based on exercise of power. Therefore, that certain things would have been sinful does not constitute oppression.

Except that dictatorships are built on the whims of the dictators, not the desires of the people under their thumb. That's sort of... the main characteristic of a dictatorship. Since you've got absolutely no basis for saying that any creature in the garden would want to sin or not- and given that pesky human free will that led to the fall anyway- it's reasonable to think that that darn sinful nature would lead to... well, sin.

But that's not germane, anyway; you're the one so hard for dictionary definitions, and I posted one. According to it, god fills the criteria for an oppressor; a ruler with the power to actively oppress if he wanted, applying unjust rules to a group of people with no chance of appeal. Oh, and the punishment for breaking those rules is incredibly cruel and unjust, as evidenced by what happened in the end, so...

And yet you keep going back to desire- an element not even in the definition- to prove your point...

We're not told specifically, but as like begets like, offspring would probably have been the same in this regard - the only sin they could commit would be eating from the tree.

Like begets like, yeah. That's how straight parents have gay children, and no child ever has rebelled against their parents and ended up in vastly different living arrangements and lifestyles. Never happens.

[gilbertc06]

When you look at the old testament god, Lucifer just looks like someone who woke up and fought against oppression and then is vilified. for doing so. Not unlike someone who would go against the status quo and the powers at be today.

Yes, that horrible oppression of being allowed to do anything you want except to eat the fruit of one particular tree.

Including genocide, slavery, and everything else? Yeah.

[Bad Writer]

Apparently Esq isn't the only one that sees the implications of the above post.