• Stephen Fry hits back at accusations of Islamophobia
    344 replies, posted
[QUOTE=Rapist;42064281]note: not all atheists do this[/QUOTE]Never said they did, but plenty of atheists (the ones I was addressing) were doing just that. Also, I'm apparently late so I must have missed somebody else saying what I said, so I apologize for that.
[QUOTE=TheDecryptor;42060036]If you don't have a belief in god, then you're an atheist, that's how it works. It's nothing to do with "leaning" or "polarising", it's just what they are.[/QUOTE] no if you lack a belief, or you believe that the debate is essentially unanswerable you're agnostic if you don't believe god exists, you're atheist if you believe god exists, you're a theist any other definition overlaps massively and don't give me that "anyone who has thought about it has a belief", I've studied philosophy for 5 years and will happily say that I lack a belief, actually, the very fact that I've studied it for that time is why I lack a belief
[QUOTE=Cloak Raider;42064500]no if you lack a belief, or you believe that the debate is essentially unanswerable you're agnostic if you don't believe god exists, you're atheist if you believe god exists, you're a theist any other definition overlaps massively and don't give me that "anyone who has thought about it has a belief", I've studied philosophy for 5 years and will happily say that I lack a belief, actually, the very fact that I've studied it for that time is why I lack a belief[/QUOTE] A lack of belief and not believing are literally the same thing. Every agnostic I've seen says they're different because they claim to not know. Well that a fucking stupid thing to say because no one can fucking know, that's the entire fucking dilemma. If people knew whether or not there was a god/gods there would be no debate. Either you believe in a god or gods, making you a theist or a deist, or you don't making you an atheist. Claiming to be agnostic is redundant.
[QUOTE=Rapist;42064281]note: atheists don't normally do this[/QUOTE] Fixed that for you and other people with no understanding that Atheists aren't a global hive-mind. I live my life not labeling myself and anyone else. Putting people in boxes makes you a full-on anti-social autistic retard asshole and nobody will like you. People who label themselves to others constantly either have inflated egos or giant confidence issues. Possibly both. "Oh hey guys LOOK i'm *insert social group here* Treat me differently!!! don't talk to me as a person!"
[QUOTE=Bomimo;42064632]I live my life not labeling myself and anyone else.[/QUOTE] hey aren't you that huge xenophobe who got banned for being an asshole to Americans multiple times and still hasn't learned their lesson yet
[QUOTE=Janus Vesta;42064621]A lack of belief and not believing are literally the same thing. Every agnostic I've seen says they're different because they claim to not know. Well that a fucking stupid thing to say because no one can fucking know, that's the entire fucking dilemma. If people knew whether or not there was a god/gods there would be no debate. Either you believe in a god or gods, making you a theist or a deist, or you don't making you an atheist. Claiming to be agnostic is redundant.[/QUOTE] Not true at all. The position of the agnostic is that we can't know, and thus saying there is or isn't is meaningless, so they do not choose. the position of the atheist is (often) that we don't know, and so choose to believe that there isn't. if agnosticism and atheism are the same thing, then why are people pulled to associate with agnosticism rather than atheism? Why do we even have the terminology? clearly because it isn't redundant. clearly because agnosticism as a word contains meaning that atheist doesn't
You do not choose whether or not you believe something. You believe it or you don't. If an agnostic believes in a god they are a theist, if they don't they are atheist.
[QUOTE=Sgt-NiallR;42047891] Shit, most Atheists are open to the idea, but they have thus far rejected it due to convincing arguments/evidence.[/QUOTE] You don't need to be open to the idea if there's no reason to believe in it. Believing in "possible" existence things that are nonexistent to, and not explainable science is useless, because there`s an infinite amount of such things. The truth value of claims "god exists" and "fairies exist" are equal, zero. They both have no empirical evidence. And that's why agnosticism does not close out atheism.
[QUOTE=Janus Vesta;42065071][B]You do not choose whether or not you believe something.[/B] You believe it or you don't. If an agnostic believes in a god they are a theist, if they don't they are atheist.[/QUOTE] that's an entirely different debate, jury isn't out on the whole 'choosing to believe' stuff. and no, you're trying to polarise the argument there's clearly a middle ground which people feel pulled to, which is not believing that god exists, nor is it believing that god doesn't exist. also because atheist contains meaning that isn't just 'a lack of belief' aka 'disbelief'
I was always under the impression that atheism/theism and gnosticism/agnosticsm formed a two dimensional coordinate plane. I don't understand how people are saying that someone can't end up at the zero mark on the atheism/theism axis and end up on the agnosticsm part of the other axis at the same time. In that situation it probably make more sense to identify someone as only agnostic, which is what other people in this thread have been suggesting. Not sure why that's such a big deal. Granted, its probably a far less common position, but it doesn't make sense to only look at four potential outcomes when we're talking about a spectrum of beliefs. It doesn't make sense to ignore the boundary regions, or to claim that they don't even exist.
[QUOTE=bIgFaTwOrM12;42063567]No it doesn't because you are still freely deciding on your own, you're just restating your opinion that an omniscient being somehow affects free will without interfering.[/QUOTE] Oh okay, it's not like you're implying your opinion anywhere. Why don't you tell me why free will exists, and how it exists, when every action is predetermined? [QUOTE]In the case of those who've never been able to hear of God or are mentally/physically incapable of it, there are mechanisms of judgement in place to decide if they would had they heard it(not to mention an outright acceptance of very young children and other totally unable to understand the concept).[/QUOTE] "mechanisms of judgement" so we'll take whatever parts of the bible are most digestable and most justifying of gods strange neglectful parent status but if they don't fit, we'll throw them out until they do fit. [QUOTE]Well he wants each human to decide whether they want to be with him or not, that requires an established morality. So if God fixed every mistake we made, we'd have no inclination to regard morality as anything useful, we could do as we wish and everything would be wiped clean. Essentially, humanity would become decadent and spoiled with no regard for right or wrong, just doing as it wishes. [/QUOTE] So you're still going to continue saying over and over again you think the value of learning from a skinned knee would be higher in gods eyes than the life of complete and total innocence? What kind of crappy god is that [QUOTE]The old testament covenant was very different to the new testament one. Back then, laws of cleanliness and morality had to be followed to the letter and if they weren't, the punishment was very real. The tribes of Israel were on the move to establish the nation promised to them and all of God's actions were to protect them from the violent and amoral pagan cultures filling the surrounding lands. In any case, by claiming lives God isn't interfering with free will, it's not like he's actively taking control of people's minds and making decisions for them.[/QUOTE] Refer to above. You're simply throwing out what you want to, and keeping what you do. Cherry picking your religion and arguing about it [QUOTE]Well what would you propose he do, if he hates to see suffering and the taking of human life, does not want to interfere with the free wills of others and wants to keep morality as a vitally important aspect of our personal lives. There's no real better way to do it really.[/QUOTE] Yes there's a much better way to do it. Just not have a game with the lives of billions of sentient people. [QUOTE]Naturalism is the belief that nothing exists beyond the natural world, that is the definition I use and that is in fact the actual definition. As for your video, it is literally completely unrelated to anything we're talking about and I haven't even refuted any of the scientific theories mentioned in the video.[/QUOTE] Like I said, stop using it. It doesn't matter if you use it by definition. You make it sound like a horrible idea to not have faith in things that are evidenceless [QUOTE]Yes, I was arguing for deism from natural evidence last time, I wasn't even trying to prove God's existence in our previous discussion[/QUOTE] Yeah you were. you are here just as much. But now you're doing it with an abrahamic god which is a lot easier to discount than a magical non involved diestic creator. A god that directly chooses to meddle in the affairs of people, through prayer, through divine intervention, miracles, etc, is not respecting of free will. Is god real and acting out, or is god real and doing nothing, or is god not real?
[QUOTE=Cone;42064705]hey aren't you that huge xenophobe who got banned for being an asshole to Americans multiple times and still hasn't learned their lesson yet[/QUOTE] "People don't change, fuck your point! You can't possibly have improved your retorik to better reflect your opinions or changed your opinions, so let's just discount your entire point." I'll label THAT for you. That's called Argumentum Ad Hominem with a sprinkle of Disney "people are static" in there.
[QUOTE=HumanAbyss;42066492]Oh okay, it's not like you're implying your opinion anywhere. Why don't you tell me why free will exists, and how it exists, when every action is predetermined?[/QUOTE] I never said every action is predetermined, I said he knows what action we will freely choose before we ourselves do it. It's not like he's personally crafting the future, he's viewing all time externally as his own creation. There's no reason to think that simply observing what we will do is somehow affecting what we're doing, besides, you're just answering my question with a question. [QUOTE]"mechanisms of judgement" so we'll take whatever parts of the bible are most digestable and most justifying of gods strange neglectful parent status but if they don't fit, we'll throw them out until they do fit.[/QUOTE] Well as an omniscient being, he can determine whether a person would or would not accept him even if said person didn't have the chance. This has nothing to do with throwing out scripture whatsoever. [QUOTE]So you're still going to continue saying over and over again you think the value of learning from a skinned knee would be higher in gods eyes than the life of complete and total innocence? What kind of crappy god is that[/QUOTE] Why does respecting our free will and making sure we respect morality make him a crappy god? [QUOTE]Refer to above. You're simply throwing out what you want to, and keeping what you do. Cherry picking your religion and arguing about it[/QUOTE] Exactly which scriptures am I throwing out? [QUOTE]Yes there's a much better way to do it. Just not have a game with the lives of billions of sentient people.[/QUOTE] He's not playing a game with us, his respect for free will and refusal to let morality become arbitrary just make things more complicated,. You still haven't proposed a better way for him to go about it, you've just said his current methods are somehow like playing a game with us. [QUOTE]Like I said, stop using it. It doesn't matter if you use it by definition. You make it sound like a horrible idea to not have faith in things that are evidenceless[/QUOTE] Well, it is a horrible idea that proposes a meaningless universe, poses humanity as having no intrinsic value and states that morality is an artificial construct that's convenient sometimes. In any case, I'll continue bringing it up as long as you try to argue against a Christian world view through a naturalistic perspective. [QUOTE]Yeah you were. you are here just as much. But now you're doing it with an abrahamic god which is a lot easier to discount than a magical non involved diestic creator. [/QUOTE] Going straight off of scientific observation, you can only possibly support a deistic god from purely natural evidence. God on the other hand requires evidence from historical texts and philosophy to go along with natural evidence. In any case, this isn't what we're discussing. [QUOTE]A god that directly chooses to meddle in the affairs of people, through prayer, through divine intervention, miracles, etc, is not respecting of free will.[/QUOTE] Note you said meddling in the affairs of people, not the minds of people, the two are very different. miracles, divine intervention and prayer are not methods by-which God practices mind control on us, no biblical teachings even suggest that.
[QUOTE=Bomimo;42066915]"People don't change, fuck your point! You can't possibly have improved your retorik to better reflect your opinions or changed your opinions, so let's just discount your entire point." I'll label THAT for you. That's called Argumentum Ad Hominem with a sprinkle of Disney "people are static" in there.[/QUOTE] okay then. [QUOTE=Bomimo;41974624]You speak as if Atheism is a religious denomina- *stars and Stripes* *stops trying to reason*[/QUOTE] [QUOTE=Bomimo;41981518]So it's an entirely fake crisis. GJ 'Merica. Skip school during government class, why don't you![/QUOTE] you posted both of these one week ago. [QUOTE=Bomimo;41993630]Check the flag in the lower left corner. He's BORN paranoid.[/QUOTE] and you posted this only six days ago. is there some sort of amazing epiphany that you've reached in the last five days for no particular reason, after posting this kind of shit for four years straight?
[QUOTE=bIgFaTwOrM12;42068586]I never said every action is predetermined, I said he knows what action we will freely choose before we ourselves do it. It's not like he's personally crafting the future, he's viewing all time externally as his own creation. There's no reason to think that simply observing what we will do is somehow affecting what we're doing, besides, you're just answering my question with a question.[/QUOTE] So to you the idea of pre determined and knowing what happens before it happens are different. This is a problem. [QUOTE]Well as an omniscient being, he can determine whether a person would or would not accept him even if said person didn't have the chance. This has nothing to do with throwing out scripture whatsoever.[/QUOTE] but he's still letting that life be expunged, seemingly this doesn't matter to you. [QUOTE]Why does respecting our free will and making sure we respect morality make him a crappy god?[/QUOTE] He. Lets. Innocents. Die. To. Teach. Us. A. Lesson. I literally can't put it clearer than that but you are saying that the death of innocents so we learn "morality" which even by new testament standards is freakishly backwards today. This alone is enough to make me not want to believe in an abrahamic god. I don't need to believe in a malovelent and hateful father figure who'd rather see suffering and pain and death than anything else in some sort of show of "respect" of free will(what about prayers, miracles, etc) and so we learn a lesson. I can't tell you this anymore. You're not telling me why that's "right" or "better" [QUOTE]Exactly which scriptures am I throwing out?[/QUOTE] Well how about a few posts ago you tossed out the deaths of millions in the old testament because it's the old testament. [QUOTE]He's not playing a game with us, his respect for free will and refusal to let morality become arbitrary just make things more complicated,. You still haven't proposed a better way for him to go about it, you've just said his current methods are somehow like playing a game with us.[/QUOTE] I frankly don't see why we need to involve a god in the question at all and putting him in there in the way you have, explaining things as you have has left me with nothing but those notions. You haven't shown how you're right, you can't even say how i'm wrong aside from saying that I am indeed wrong. [QUOTE]Well, it is a horrible idea that proposes a meaningless universe, poses humanity as having no intrinsic value and states that morality is an artificial construct that's convenient sometimes. In any case, I'll continue bringing it up as long as you try to argue against a Christian world view through a naturalistic perspective.[/QUOTE] You say it is. I disagree. Many many people do as well. Being given meaning by another doesn't seem as valuable as ascribing yourself your own values. Well, then we might as well stop talking because you will forever see anyone who doesn't see a god as the most likely, easiest, best, most satisfying solution as lesser than yourself. every discussion we've had and every post i've seen you make has given me that impression. It's very hard to argue with a person like you, not because you post citations or facts, but because you deny those very things have meaning in a discussion with you. So what can ANYONE save the almighty himself do to convince you of something when the idea of facts and evidence is abhorrent to you when you use those facts/evidence to make a "naturalistic" view. [QUOTE]Going straight off of scientific observation, you can only possibly support a deistic god from purely natural evidence. God on the other hand requires evidence from historical texts and philosophy to go along with natural evidence. In any case, this isn't what we're discussing.[/QUOTE] No, not really. Care to do your end of this and say how you can do that? how does he require historical texts and philosophy to go off of? How about you explain rather than use buzz words in any order you choose to. [QUOTE]Note you said meddling in the affairs of people, not the minds of people, the two are very different. miracles, divine intervention and prayer are not methods by-which God practices mind control on us, no biblical teachings even suggest that.[/QUOTE] I didn't say jack shit about "mind control". I can't believe you don't see where I get "you put words in my mouth" from.
[QUOTE=HumanAbyss;42068911]So to you the idea of pre determined and knowing what happens before it happens are different. This is a problem.[/QUOTE] No it isn't, the two are completely different, also you still haven't supported in any way shape or form your claims on how an omniscient being destroys free will by default. [QUOTE]but he's still letting that life be expunged, seemingly this doesn't matter to you.[/QUOTE] It entirely matters to me and most importantly to God, the problem is that it's at the free will of others. Making exceptions to his refusal to respect free will in favor of keeping people from acting amoral essentially means that there is not free will as we could not possibly will against him then. As I stated, free will allows us to freely come to him or not as our own choice, that shows great respect for our ability to think for ourselves on his part. [QUOTE]He. Lets. Innocents. Die. To. Teach. Us. A. Lesson. I literally can't put it clearer than that but you are saying that the death of innocents so we learn "morality" which even by new testament standards is freakishly backwards today. This alone is enough to make me not want to believe in an abrahamic god. I don't need to believe in a malovelent and hateful father figure who'd rather see suffering and pain and death than anything else in some sort of show of "respect" of free will(what about prayers, miracles, etc) and so we learn a lesson. I can't tell you this anymore. You're not telling me why that's "right" or "better"[/QUOTE] As I stated, if he just fixed the consequence of all our misdeeds, right and wrong would have no meaning in any way. People would be able to go out and brutally slaughter each other knowing that there would be no real consequences, extreme cruelty would instead be arbitrary and subjective pursuit of personal goals. It would be a hedonist's wet-dream and would be much greater support for a so-called malevolent and hateful god. God, however, does not want this to happen. [QUOTE]Well how about a few posts ago you tossed out the deaths of millions in the old testament because it's the old testament.[/QUOTE] I didn't toss them out at all, the protection of the tribes of Israel on God's part and under his direction was ultimately to prepare for the birth of the Christ. The Christ that allowed was God incarnate so that he might pay the penalty for sin as long as we accept it I might add. It's not like God decided to order for the wars in the old testament or smote Sodom and Gomorrah out of amusement. [QUOTE]I frankly don't see why we need to involve a god in the question at all and putting him in there in the way you have, explaining things as you have has left me with nothing but those notions. You haven't shown how you're right, you can't even say how i'm wrong aside from saying that I am indeed wrong.[/QUOTE] Well you seem to have a better idea for how God could go about doing things while respecting free will and making sure we don't become spoiled pleasure obsessed brats, at least you have an idea of what the right thing to do is as opposed to what God has done. I can't say whether you're wrong or not until you actually propose another way he could do these things. [QUOTE]You say it is. I disagree. Many many people do as well. Being given meaning by another doesn't seem as valuable as ascribing yourself your own values.[/QUOTE] Why? How is making up some value for yourself better than having been created with intrinsic value? [QUOTE]Well, then we might as well stop talking because you will forever see anyone who doesn't see a god as the most likely, easiest, best, most satisfying solution as lesser than yourself. every discussion we've had and every post i've seen you make has given me that impression.[/QUOTE] I have no clue where you're getting this from at all, the idea that all people are equal is an incredibly important personal belief on my part. You're accusing me of valuing you less as a person based on what exactly? I'd honestly like to hear specifically some examples that have brought you to this conclusion. [QUOTE]It's very hard to argue with a person like you, not because you post citations or facts, but because you deny those very things have meaning in a discussion with you. So what can ANYONE save the almighty himself do to convince you of something when the idea of facts and evidence is abhorrent to you when you use those facts/evidence to make a "naturalistic" view.[/QUOTE] Facts and evidence aren't abhorrent to me though, I'm arguing from facts and evidence on Christian doctrine in this discussion and have used them in countless others on and off of this forum. Where did you get that I thought they were? [QUOTE]No, not really. Care to do your end of this and say how you can do that? how does he require historical texts and philosophy to go off of? How about you explain rather than use buzz words in any order you choose to. [/QUOTE] What I meant to say, is that using scientific evidence you cannot support God, you can only support a deistic god. I did not mean to say that you cannot use scientific evidence alone to support other world views. [QUOTE]I didn't say jack shit about "mind control". I can't believe you don't see where I get "you put words in my mouth" from.[/QUOTE] Would you disagree that interfering with a person's ability to choose for themselves is essentially like mind control then? You're saying that prayer and miracles somehow interfere with free will, meaning they would act as a sort of mind control, but you're not saying how.
[QUOTE=bIgFaTwOrM12;42069423]No it isn't, the two are completely different, also you still haven't supported in any way shape or form your claims on how an omniscient being destroys free will by default. It entirely matters to me and most importantly to God, the problem is that it's at the free will of others. Making exceptions to his refusal to respect free will in favor of keeping people from acting amoral essentially means that there is not free will as we could not possibly will against him then. As I stated, free will allows us to freely come to him or not as our own choice, that shows great respect for our ability to think for ourselves on his part. As I stated, if he just fixed the consequence of all our misdeeds, right and wrong would have no meaning in any way. People would be able to go out and brutally slaughter each other knowing that there would be no real consequences, extreme cruelty would instead be arbitrary and subjective pursuit of personal goals. It would be a hedonist's wet-dream and would be much greater support for a so-called malevolent and hateful god. God, however, does not want this to happen. I didn't toss them out at all, the protection of the tribes of Israel on God's part and under his direction was ultimately to prepare for the birth of the Christ. The Christ that allowed was God incarnate so that he might pay the penalty for sin as long as we accept it I might add. It's not like God decided to order for the wars in the old testament or smote Sodom and Gomorrah out of amusement. Well you seem to have a better idea for how God could go about doing things while respecting free will and making sure we don't become spoiled pleasure obsessed brats, at least you have an idea of what the right thing to do is as opposed to what God has done. I can't say whether you're wrong or not until you actually propose another way he could do these things. Why? How is making up some value for yourself better than having been created with intrinsic value? I have no clue where you're getting this from at all, the idea that all people are equal is an incredibly important personal belief on my part. You're accusing me of valuing you less as a person based on what exactly? I'd honestly like to hear specifically some examples that have brought you to this conclusion. Facts and evidence aren't abhorrent to me though, I'm arguing from facts and evidence on Christian doctrine in this discussion and have used them in countless others on and off of this forum. Where did you get that I thought they were? What I meant to say, is that using scientific evidence you cannot support God, you can only support a deistic god. I did not mean to say that you cannot use scientific evidence alone to support other world views. Would you disagree that interfering with a person's ability to choose for themselves is essentially like mind control then? You're saying that prayer and miracles somehow interfere with free will, meaning they would act as a sort of mind control, but you're not saying how.[/QUOTE] It's very simple. If someone, something knows everything that has is and will happen, then there is no free will as whatever action you will take will already have been determined. You can't do anything else, there is no other choice, there is no free will to do what you want because god already knows what you're going to do. Your actions are set in stone and are therefore not out of free will.
[QUOTE=mobrockers;42069603]It's very simple. If someone, something knows everything that has is and will happen, then there is no free will as whatever action you will take will already have been determined. You can't do anything else, there is no other choice, there is no free will to do what you want because god already knows what you're going to do. Your actions are set in stone and are therefore not out of free will.[/QUOTE] You're still mixing the definitions; in one God is actively controlling what people can and cannot do by setting it in place himself, in the other, he's viewing us outside of time and can therefore see the future of our decisions. I really don't see how this leads to a kind of fate, We still choose of our own free will, God just knows what it is we will choose.
[QUOTE=bIgFaTwOrM12;42069926]You're still mixing the definitions; in one God is actively controlling what people can and cannot do by setting it in place himself, in the other, he's viewing us outside of time and can therefore see the future of our decisions. I really don't see how this leads to a kind of fate, We still choose of our own free will, [B]God just knows what it is we will choose[/B].[/QUOTE] that would be predeterminism which is in direct conflict with free will
[QUOTE=Ninja Gnome;42070078]that would be predeterminism which is in direct conflict with free will[/QUOTE] How is God predetermining anything? He's not interfering with our will so that we make a choice that he's predicted, he's simply seeing the choice we will choose of our own free will. What aspect of that is interfering with free will?
[QUOTE=bIgFaTwOrM12;42070139]How is God predetermining anything? He's not interfering with our will so that we make a choice that he's predicted, he's simply seeing the choice we will choose of our own free will. What aspect of that is interfering with free will?[/QUOTE] in retrospect i should have used determinism to really get into this debate, we would need to delve into what exactly self is, [I]why[/I] exactly one is making the decision. god may not be interfering with free will, but free will may not be there to be interfered with anyways.
stephen fry is a pretty cool guy tbh he's right about Islam's criticisms being justified islam has hardly changed in the middle east and they are still doing horrible shit based on religion the other abrahamic religions have been limited to very loud members doing dumb shit while islam is on the scale of multiple countries
[QUOTE=Fire Kracker;42070239]stephen fry is a pretty cool guy tbh he's right about Islam's criticisms being justified islam has hardly changed in the middle east and they are still doing horrible shit based on religion the other abrahamic religions have been limited to very loud members doing dumb shit while islam is on the scale of multiple countries[/QUOTE] I'm not quite sure it's a problem with Islam, but it's a problem with anti-west governments, poverty, lack of education etc.
[QUOTE=bIgFaTwOrM12;42069423]No it isn't, the two are completely different, also you still haven't supported in any way shape or form your claims on how an omniscient being destroys free will by default.[/QUOTE] Because you don't care to listen or make the logical conclusions everyone else has that a god that knows the only actions you'll ever take, regardless of what options you have is it. There is no more to this argument. You have imputted NOTHING but doubt. Not a solution, not a contrasting opinion just a "no you're wrong" [QUOTE]It entirely matters to me and most importantly to God, the problem is that it's at the free will of others. Making exceptions to his refusal to respect free will in favor of keeping people from acting amoral essentially means that there is not free will as we could not possibly will against him then. As I stated, free will allows us to freely come to him or not as our own choice, that shows great respect for our ability to think for ourselves on his part.[/QUOTE] As a being who could stop the death of a baby, he'd rather let it happen because "free will" and "skinned knees"? Can you stop with the bullshit rhetoric? [QUOTE]As I stated, if he just fixed the consequence of all our misdeeds, right and wrong would have no meaning in any way. People would be able to go out and brutally slaughter each other knowing that there would be no real consequences, extreme cruelty would instead be arbitrary and subjective pursuit of personal goals. It would be a hedonist's wet-dream and would be much greater support for a so-called malevolent and hateful god. God, however, does not want this to happen.[/QUOTE] You're not listening to me. Still. You also completely just misunderstood hedonism in such a painful way. [QUOTE]I didn't toss them out at all, the protection of the tribes of Israel on God's part and under his direction was ultimately to prepare for the birth of the Christ. The Christ that allowed was God incarnate so that he might pay the penalty for sin as long as we accept it I might add. It's not like God decided to order for the wars in the old testament or smote Sodom and Gomorrah out of amusement.[/QUOTE] So the 10 million death of the bible(10 million to god, literally 14 deaths are attributed to satan, and yet, God is the good guy, and god respects life, and free will(despite expunging at his behest) Yes, you're making it very clear why religion is self contradictory, and the mental acrobatics people will go through to make it work for them. [QUOTE]Well you seem to have a better idea for how God could go about doing things while respecting free will and making sure we don't become spoiled pleasure obsessed brats, at least you have an idea of what the right thing to do is as opposed to what God has done. I can't say whether you're wrong or not until you actually propose another way he could do these things.[/QUOTE] that's not really how logic works when we're discussing the idea that God isn't really a good solution, nor an apparent one when applied to abrahamic standards, something he most certainly doesn't fit. But hey, you'll deny everything everyone who argues against you says because they're basing their views on evidence and that's just not good enough for you! [QUOTE]Why? How is making up some value for yourself better than having been created with intrinsic value?[/QUOTE] Why don't you answer how he gives me more meaning? how about you answer how he gives meaning to the lives of para/quadrapalegics or dead babies or what have you. What part of this is better? If people are free to choose what they want to do, the values they want to hold, and the things they want to believe in, they don't have an invisible sky daddy to blame their good deeds on, and their humanity to blame thier bad deeds on. Just personal responsibility. How about you say something besides "no you're wrong, please view things from a christian world view" [QUOTE]I have no clue where you're getting this from at all, the idea that all people are equal is an incredibly important personal belief on my part. You're accusing me of valuing you less as a person based on what exactly? I'd honestly like to hear specifically some examples that have brought you to this conclusion.[/QUOTE] I'm getting it from the totality of our discussions at this point where everytime someone has "evidence" or facts of something, or has what they call "reasonable doubt" you don't respect that and you make it apparent if you're not viewing it how you see it, it's not right. [QUOTE]Facts and evidence aren't abhorrent to me though, I'm arguing from facts and evidence on Christian doctrine in this discussion and have used them in countless others on and off of this forum. Where did you get that I thought they were?[/QUOTE] well right here for one... [QUOTE=bIgFaTwOrM12;41994850]Making it your entire world view is wrong because I have stated, strict evidentialism is utterly useless.[/QUOTE] [QUOTE]What I meant to say, is that using scientific evidence you cannot support God, you can only support a deistic god. I did not mean to say that you cannot use scientific evidence alone to support other world views.[/QUOTE] No, I mean you can't prove a diestic god by any stretch of the imagination. [QUOTE]Would you disagree that interfering with a person's ability to choose for themselves is essentially like mind control then? You're saying that prayer and miracles somehow interfere with free will, meaning they would act as a sort of mind control, but you're not saying how.[/QUOTE] If god is trying to teach people lessons on morality through his inaction in times of need for people(say a baby getting killed) then how can you go and say that it's okay for that god to grant prayers and cause miracles? How about the fact most prayers lead to other people not getting something "Let me win the lottery lord" "let me get a parking space lord" etc, both ideas cause someone else to not have that. [editline]3rd September 2013[/editline] [QUOTE=bIgFaTwOrM12;42070139]How is God predetermining anything? He's not interfering with our will so that we make a choice that he's predicted, he's simply seeing the choice we will choose of our own free will. What aspect of that is interfering with free will?[/QUOTE] Frankly, I don't even believe in free will, period. It doesn't exist. You have no choices in life. You've never made one. You've just gone through life as a result of chemical processes creating who you are today. Acting like that is the be all and end all of my mentality is negative. Knowing that realistically, through what we understand of the brain and neuroscience, I'm not a believer in "free will" as you put it because frankly, it flies in the face of logic as of right now. From a philosophical point of view, if you know someones making a choice before they make it, matter of factly, in an undeniable way, you may not be changing their actions, but you know full well they didn't really have a choice with another option. This was all that would ever be. If something is all that may ever be, is there a choice? No. Not really. If you really want to argue that we're only good because of God, then that's sad and terrible to me, and to imagine people are only good because they know there is a god that will hold them to judgement, that's no true altruism there. There's nothing but a selfish desire buried beneath all of that in my eyes. Then what about biological and evolutionary evidence that shows we got to be social in the ways that we have due to the success of the trait of helpfulness? Discarded, or is that gods work to you? what makes it gods work, how do you know, how do you know you're right and there isn't just a biological answer to it?
[QUOTE=Cloak Raider;42064901]Not true at all. The position of the agnostic is that we can't know, and thus saying there is or isn't is meaningless, so they do not choose. the position of the atheist is (often) that we don't know, and so choose to believe that there isn't. if agnosticism and atheism are the same thing, then why are people pulled to associate with agnosticism rather than atheism? Why do we even have the terminology? clearly because it isn't redundant. clearly because agnosticism as a word contains meaning that atheist doesn't[/QUOTE] Think of it this way: If you have a belief that a god exists, you're theistic. If you don't have a belief that a god exists, you're atheistic. If you claim to know if a god exists, you're gnostic. If you don't claim to know if a god exists, you're agnostic. "Do you believe something exists" and "do you know something exists" are separate questions, and so they have different sets of labels. Furthermore, pretty much [I]everyone[/I] doesn't claim to know that gods exist, so saying you're an agnostic in the context of whether you believe in gods doesn't really tell anybody anything. I think it's fair enough for someone to identify as agnostic over atheist, if they feel their agnosticism is more important to them than their atheism, as long as they acknowledge that they [I]are[/I] technically an atheist too. If they don't then all it really says is that they don't understand what the terms mean.
I clicked the news article link hoping that the news site would have the courtesy to at least link the blog post. They didn't. Why is it that we are mandated to post the sources when even news sites fuck that part up? So when I went to Stephen Fry's official website [url=http://www.stephenfry.com/blog/]here[/url], I couldn't find it. It must have been taken down. Oh well, I wanted to read the actual post.
[QUOTE=HumanAbyss;42070623]Because you don't care to listen or make the logical conclusions everyone else has that a god that knows the only actions you'll ever take, regardless of what options you have is it. There is no more to this argument. You have imputted NOTHING but doubt. Not a solution, not a contrasting opinion just a "no you're wrong"[/QUOTE] I've asked how God's omniscience interferes in any way with free will, the only responses that I've gotten are about how God knowing the future somehow means that he predetermines our decisions, but one does not suggest the other at all. So what I'm asking for is a logical explanation for how the existence of an omniscient being automatically removes free will. [QUOTE]So the 10 million death of the bible(10 million to god, literally 14 deaths are attributed to satan, and yet, God is the good guy, and god respects life, and free will(despite expunging at his behest)[/QUOTE] Well Satan would be the entity driven on his hatred for God and his creation, trying to take every last one of us into the same suffering he endures before he's inevitably defeated. God on the other hand has to make difficult decisions as to how he could help us choose to be in his presence without infringing on our free will. So I'd say he's the good guy, yes. [QUOTE]that's not really how logic works when we're discussing the idea that God isn't really a good solution, nor an apparent one when applied to abrahamic standards, something he most certainly doesn't fit. [/QUOTE] You're claiming God doesn't fit the Abrahamic standards. You must have some sort of idea of what he could be doing if you're making these claims, let's hear it. [QUOTE]Why don't you answer how he gives me more meaning? how about you answer how he gives meaning to the lives of para/quadrapalegics or dead babies or what have you. What part of this is better? [/QUOTE] You made a claim and I asked a question, respond to my question and then I can tell you. If you believe you live in a universe governed solely by natural law, that all of life is essentially randomly formed machine that simply continues to follow these natural laws and that humanity itself is no different than the rest of that life fundamentally, how could you possibly assign any true value to anything that isn't just a false construct? How could you believe in any kind of morality without it just being a fabricated idea that ultimately is pointless? [QUOTE]If people are free to choose what they want to do, the values they want to hold, and the things they want to believe in, they don't have an invisible sky daddy to blame their good deeds on, and their humanity to blame thier bad deeds on. Just personal responsibility.[/QUOTE] People are free to choose what they want to do, the values they want to hold and the they want to believe in even in the context of Christianity. Also why would responsibility matter if there is nothing but this natural existence? [QUOTE]I'm getting it from the totality of our discussions at this point where everytime someone has "evidence" or facts of something, or has what they call "reasonable doubt" you don't respect that and you make it apparent if you're not viewing it how you see it, it's not right.[/QUOTE] This is developing into a pointless argument as to why you personally are offended by me holding my own beliefs strongly whilst defending them and putting arguments against yours. There is absolutely reason for anyone to think that I believe you to be a lesser human being because you personally have come to that conclusion through some strange thought process. It's needless to continue this part of the discussion because you clearly have built up some absurdly negative opinions about me for some reason. [QUOTE]well right here for one...[/QUOTE] Because I do not rely solely on evidence in my day to day life and see that sort of world view as useless does not mean that I utterly ignore any possibility of evidence. This is merely a severly misinterpreted quote. [QUOTE]No, I mean you can't prove a diestic god by any stretch of the imagination.[/QUOTE] This is turning into a pointless aspect of the discussion, we're discussing the Christian god omniscience and not the existence of a god. If you're going to be making matter of "fact" statements as arguments it's even more pointless. [QUOTE]If god is trying to teach people lessons on morality through his inaction in times of need for people(say a baby getting killed) then how can you go and say that it's okay for that god to grant prayers and cause miracles? How about the fact most prayers lead to other people not getting something "Let me win the lottery lord" "let me get a parking space lord" etc, both ideas cause someone else to not have that.[/QUOTE] It's not teaching lessons, it's keeping us from turning into amoral, self absorbed pigs that see God as the servant cleaning up our messes. As for prayer, here's a test on your claims: [url]http://www.lords-prayer-words.com/[/url] Take a look at this link, it's the Lord's prayer. It is what the Christ told us we should include in our prayers to God. Which aspect of it implies at God taking control of other people's wills?
This thread should probably be locked now.
[QUOTE=bIgFaTwOrM12;42071699]I've asked how God's omniscience interferes in any way with free will, the only responses that I've gotten are about how God knowing the future somehow means that he predetermines our decisions, but one does not suggest the other at all. So what I'm asking for is a logical explanation for how the existence of an omniscient being automatically removes free will.[/QUOTE] So try and do us a favour and follow logic that we've laid out for you [QUOTE]Well Satan would be the entity driven on his hatred for God and his creation, trying to take every last one of us into the same suffering he endures before he's inevitably defeated. God on the other hand has to make difficult decisions as to how he could help us choose to be in his presence without infringing on our free will. So I'd say he's the good guy, yes.[/QUOTE] Hmm well then. God sure does like to kill people and sure does like his people to call him the best guy around while he slaughters millions to save us from "amorality" [QUOTE]You're claiming God doesn't fit the Abrahamic standards. You must have some sort of idea of what he could be doing if you're making these claims, let's hear it.[/QUOTE] Uh, well, I've said this multiple times. An abrahamic god is omniscient, omnipotent, and benvolent. No matter how much you want to say "he's a good god!!!!" when I see that he freely allows the deaths of innocents to save us from some "amorality" that evolutionarily, doesn't exist then I have no reason to think he exists. What reason do you have? Faith, and evidence you've manipulated into that position. [QUOTE]You made a claim and I asked a question, respond to my question and then I can tell you. If you believe you live in a universe governed solely by natural law, that all of life is essentially randomly formed machine that simply continues to follow these natural laws and that humanity itself is no different than the rest of that life fundamentally, how could you possibly assign any true value to anything that isn't just a false construct? How could you believe in any kind of morality without it just being a fabricated idea that ultimately is pointless?[/QUOTE] "True" value. Pathetic attempt to make anything less than god given real. [QUOTE]People are free to choose what they want to do, the values they want to hold and the they want to believe in even in the context of Christianity. Also why would responsibility matter if there is nothing but this natural existence?[/QUOTE] Wow. I've waited a long time to actually meet someone who really, truly, and honestly thinks that if there isn't a god to give you a purpose, you're fully, and entirely meaningless. This is a massive and incredible dismissal of humanity and our ability to do great, and kind things. It's not like gods perfect and hasn't killed people. Where does he get the ability to declare true morality from when he freely breaks it [QUOTE]This is developing into a pointless argument as to why you personally are offended by me holding my own beliefs strongly whilst defending them and putting arguments against yours. There is absolutely reason for anyone to think that I believe you to be a lesser human being because you personally have come to that conclusion through some strange thought process. It's needless to continue this part of the discussion because you clearly have built up some absurdly negative opinions about me for some reason.[/QUOTE] I'm not offended by you holding those beliefs. I'm offended that instead of "putting arguments against mine" you just basically find a fancy way of saying "no" and leaving it there. Every time 1legmidget or I point out something that previously in the argument made a clear logical flaw you would glaze over it and continue to say what you were already saying. [QUOTE]Because I do not rely solely on evidence in my day to day life and see that sort of world view as useless does not mean that I utterly ignore any possibility of evidence. This is merely a severly misinterpreted quote. [/QUOTE] So you don't think you rely on the evidence that before, you had to eat, thus, today you must eat. Or following this logic down the literally million routes that it must follow in a common, ordinary day, that you absolutely, unequivocally use evidence to make your way through day to day life. And when you say you don't, it means that you are happy to turn off critical thinking and go down whatever route of thought you want because to you, their all equally valid. That is why the quote isn't misinterpreted. [QUOTE]This is turning into a pointless aspect of the discussion, we're discussing the Christian god omniscience and not the existence of a god. If you're going to be making matter of "fact" statements as arguments it's even more pointless. [/QUOTE] Well god must have the qualities we ascribe to him for him to be the same god we worship, or else it is a worthless effort in worshiping a being that isn't defined or even fully believable because there are no rules to him. If god has such and such qualities, the discussion of god is a discussion of his qualities. if his qualities don't fit a world in which they would make sense in then is that not a valid discussion? See, you just call an entire line of reasoning invalid based on your dismissal of what it means to argue "god" [QUOTE]It's not teaching lessons, it's keeping us from turning into amoral, self absorbed pigs that see God as the servant cleaning up our messes. [/QUOTE] That sounds like teaching a lesson in the most literal sense possible. [QUOTE]As for prayer, here's a test on your claims: [url]http://www.lords-prayer-words.com/[/url] Take a look at this link, it's the Lord's prayer. It is what the Christ told us we should include in our prayers to God. Which aspect of it implies at God taking control of other people's wills?[/QUOTE] oh so prayers that aren't exactly like that aren't considered? oh is that a part of the book we'll keep when it's convenient? [editline]3rd September 2013[/editline] If you really want to argue that we're only good because of God, then that's sad and terrible to me, and to imagine people are only good because they know there is a god that will hold them to judgement, that's no true altruism there. There's nothing but a selfish desire buried beneath all of that in my eyes. Then what about biological and evolutionary evidence that shows we got to be social in the ways that we have due to the success of the trait of helpfulness? Discarded, or is that gods work to you? what makes it gods work, how do you know, how do you know you're right and there isn't just a biological answer to it?
man i was hoping we'd talk about stephen fry itt, anyone else in the same boat?
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.