It’s not William Lane Craig. It’s Alvin Plantinga. Plausibility is only relevant based on the claim. What exactly is it that you are you claiming? That the Judeo-Christian God is evil?
I think evil is the wrong word. Basically I think that, granting some type of objective morality, God and morality ultimately are very inconsistent. It pretty much ties into the Euthyphro dilemma and a basic epistemic problem. If God pretty much declares morality on a whim, then it really is kind of arbitrary and he is coercing us to fit into his model. If he abides by some standard, how can we come to know this standard? Because the concept of eternal punishment strikes many atheists as harsh and insane and I would never go along with somebody that does that. If God says that eternal punishment for finite crimes is moral somehow, I don’t know how to examine that claim because basically you just have to take his word for it. Because it is counter-intuitive (to me, at least), he could very easily be a celestial Adolf Hitler and playing mind games with me for all I know.
Like for an example, if you assume that somebody like O.J. Simpson is all moral, then whatever he does is by definition all moral. You can sit back and say that he had “morally sufficient” reasons for murdering his wife, but that is just running around in a circle. His omni-moral attributes are the very thing in question.
Most christians would agree with you. But they like the rest of us recognize that they are imperfect and most times do not turn the other cheek.
Sure the bible is seemingly inconsistant and there are contradictions/problems in the theology. But that has been what all of the changes over the past 2000 years have been about. Attempts to alter the theology to fit what we know today. There is nothing wrong with that. All feilds of learning do that.
Well we are talking about religion here.
Good just wanted to make sure we were on the same page.
If God pretty much declares morality on a whim,
Just curious… in your discussion with the other fella on this page, isnt this what you state you do to determine morality. Whatever you find that satisfies your preferences for what ever reason is what you declare as moral?
Hey Eric,
Let’s just be clear here: this list is called ‘Was Jesus a pacifist?’. It’s since degenerated, thanx to a few ‘atheists’ who just can’t avoid the subject on the grounds that it’s got nothing to do with them, into a debate over the truth or otherwise of Christianity & ‘atheism’.
On grammar, you can refer to me as anything you like, but try & spell right - it doesn’t help your standing to get that wrong. I woulda thought that was obvious, but…obviously not.
You believe in determinism, of a biological nature - you’ve already made that clear. Emergence? a macrolevel? This is just insanity, and it’s disappointing you can’t see it, but I shouldn’t be surprised: anyone that holds to biological determinism has got massive problems to start with. Once again, Christianity is opposed to both determinism and indeterminism, as these concepts are readily understood. (Charles Norris Cochrane’s ‘Christianity & Classical Culture’, published by Oxford University Press, illustrates this as it worked itself out in the debates between the Church fathers and the Empire, but I can take it you wouldn’t be interested…others may be, tho’, which is why I bring it up.)
That being said, following Dr Greg Bahnsen in what would have been his debate with Dr Michael Martin if Martin had had the balls to show up, by arguing the point haven’t you already lost the debate? Or is your debating the issue simply your gum-flapping reaction to the neurons inside your skull? In which case, how can you prove you’re right here in any way that makes sense to the biological reactions inside anyone else’s skull? And there’s the rub.
“A personal value isn’t going to be true or false, it is just going to be.” Now this is beautiful! “It’s just evolution! It just IS!” So is paedophilia, and nazism. So what you have is, whatever is, is right, unless someone bigger comes along and kills them – “Peace thru’ superior firepower.” This is what you say as well: “Obviously a pedophile effects me because I feel for the child and, thanks to a biological function known as MIRROR NEURONS AND A FUNCTIONING ANTERIOR CINGULATE CORTEX (no spirit needed thanks), feel compelled to take action.” Leaving aside the verbal gymnastics you use to justify ‘feeling something’ for the poor child, what, then, about a group, changing the context from paedophiles to social theory, who have evolved to such a level that they see corporate strength in numbers. They then generate the idea of the State, and hold that they are that State. They then conspire to take over a nation, and millions of people they see as ‘not-the-state’ are systematically exterminated (genocide). On an Hegelian basis, they see Historical evolution as requiring their current course of action, and all who oppose it must be put down as denying the Historical process.
That, sir, is the end result of your biological determinism (and, consequently, your ‘functioning anterior cingulate cortex’ theory), which is why Marx & Engels were ecstatic upon the release of Darwin’s ‘Origin of Species.’ And now we get to the reason for the existence of this website, as an opponent of such biological determinism, which then begs the question: What are you doing here?
Just quickly, I made a blue when I went straight for Sartre without first illustrating WHY Sartre sees man as a being whose passion it is to be God. Why does Sartre do this? Becoz he knows, as a product of 2,000 years of the Christian consensus, that one of the main functions of any God is as Lawgiver. What Sartre did IS exactly what you do: you determine for yourself what constitutes good & evil - you say it again & again. So, despite your protests to the contrary, you are a genuine Existentialist. But that’s ok, you’re not Robinson Crusoe there - just be consistent & follow it where it leads.
And we haven’t even looked at Nietzsche or Camus; let alone what you make of causation following Berkeley & Hume!
“/” - sorry for my misunderstanding. I repent in dust and ashes.
Leaving aside the verbal gymnastics you use to justify ‘feeling something’ for the poor child, what, then, about a group, changing the context from paedophiles to social theory, who have evolved to such a level that they see corporate strength in numbers. They then generate the idea of the State, and hold that they are that State. They then conspire to take over a nation, and millions of people they see as ‘not-the-state’ are systematically exterminated (genocide). On an Hegelian basis, they see Historical evolution as requiring their current course of action, and all who oppose it must be put down as denying the Historical process.
That, sir, is the end result of your biological determinism (and, consequently, your ‘functioning anterior cingulate cortex’ theory), which is why Marx & Engels were ecstatic upon the release of Darwin’s ‘Origin of Species.’ And now we get to the reason for the existence of this website, as an opponent of such biological determinism, which then begs the question: What are you doing here?
That’s patently absurd.
As if I were to say your christian dogma inevitably leads to the crusades, the inquisition, and burning witches at the stake.
I think we all can agree intellectual terrorism belongs back in the cave from whence it crawled.
“That’s patently absurd.”
What part?
“As if I were to say your christian dogma inevitably leads to the crusades, the inquisition, and burning witches at the stake.”
Well, you could say that…others have in the past - not a real good argument, but you could use it! The answer that Christianity gives for that remains the same, however, and that is, unless you presuppose the truth of transcendent Christian ethics, coming, as you do, out of the 2,000 years of Christian history, you can make no argument against ‘the crusades, the inquisition, and burning witches at the stake.’ After all, my forefathers 1200 years ago saw no problem sailing in on longboats and committing rape, murder, and pillage against the inhabitants of French & English villages. Why? They didn’t have a standard of ethics that saw such acts as inherently bad. And so you find yourself now having to go back over what I’ve discussed previously. And that is, you find such historical occurrences abhorrent, but when pressed, you can only say that you don’t think those things are very nice - you refuse to admit that you find them not very nice becoz you have the remaining traces of Christian ethical standards superimposed into you, but yet you can’t bring yourself to accept that behaviour as normative either. Leaving aside Eric’s biological determinism, which would absolve such acts without question, even if you personally disagree with Eric, you are still on the horns of that objective/subjective dilemma: “the inquisition was baaaad.” Why? “Becoz.” Becoz why? “I don’t like it.” Really…congratulations, you’ve given us your opinion. And we all know what opinions are like, don’t we!
“I think we all can agree intellectual terrorism belongs back in the cave from whence it crawled.”
Yeah perhaps, but you have to illustrate where this ‘intellectual terrorism’ is, something you either neglected to do, or couldn’t be bothered doing. Perhaps you agree with me, but I don’t know becoz you don’t choose to enlighten us? Lemme give you a tip: I would’ve thought Eric reducing consciousness to nothing more than electrical impulses in his skull can lead quite logically to, not just intellectual terrorism, but the genocide I spoke of. Of course, if you disagree with Marx & Engels utilizing Darwin to back up their theory of Historical Dialecticism, you’ll have a hard time proving it. Once again, you’ll be arguing from the perspective of your subjective opinion vs the Marxists. The only way to resolve that is to go to objective truth…we, as Christians, have that, which is why when Gary North speaks on this website about Marx, he speaks with authority.
Just quickly, let’s all be clear about this: Eric says he holds to biological determinism. He claims this in theory, but when pressed, is forced to argue as if his thoughts are coherent and have some ability to sway his opponent - if all was biologically determined he would have no basis to argue in the first place. Further, he would have no answer to, say, the ability of an audience at a Jerry Seinfeld stand-up show to utilize imagination in what Jerry is saying, and so find it funny, for instance. There is no ‘biological reaction’ going on here at all - imagination is not a physical thing - you can’t measure it in a lab. He raised the issue of Beethoven v Lady Gaga - same scenario. You can’t measure people’s tastes in a lab becoz it’s not a result of a biological reaction. He also argues concerning ethics that it’s pure subjectivity, but again, when pressed by others here, argues on the basis that some things are objectively evil, and that everyone ought to know this as a matter of course.
And here’s the rub, really: he will have to continue arguing for biological determinism regardless of how stupid he looks becoz, for him, the alternative is denied at the outset. That is, by definition, God cannot be allowed to exist, and so he ties himself in knots trying to justify his ‘atheism’ with his biological determinism. So, in trying to deny the existence of God, he will go to quite extraordinary lengths of absurdity, all the while claiming that it is he who sees the world the way it really is. What I’ve begun to show is that he has to presuppose the existence of God in order to argue against the existence of God, becoz only the God of Christianity provides the necessary preconditions of intelligibility (epistemology, metaphysics, ethics), without which he couldn’t make sense of his ‘atheism’ in the first place!
As for Epicurus, he’s jumped on here with a few one-liners he thinks settles the issue. They probably do, in his own mind. Let’s leave him there, then.
Hey Eric
Me again. I apologize for being so stupid, and egotistical, in not reading your posts that haven’t been addressed to me, but, going back over the list, I found this…
“If God pretty much declares morality on a whim, then it really is kind of arbitrary and he is coercing us to fit into his model. If he abides by some standard, how can we come to know this standard? Because the concept of eternal punishment strikes many atheists as harsh and insane and I would never go along with somebody that does that. If God says that eternal punishment for finite crimes is moral somehow, I don’t know how to examine that claim because basically you just have to take his word for it. Because it is counter-intuitive (to me, at least), he could very easily be a celestial Adolf Hitler and playing mind games with me for all I know.”
We Christians understand that atheists have a hard time accepting eternal punishment. We would humbly suggest, however, that it is encumbent on us all to know what the alternatives are - I always say life is all about options. What are the options here? You seem to know enuf to know what they are, so no need to go down that path.
But I would ask that you examine your claim: “If God says that eternal punishment for finite crimes is moral somehow, I don’t know how to examine that claim because basically you just have to take his word for it.” This is another common problem that I don’t wish to just dismiss as it is a good point. The orthodox Christian position is that the good is good as an objective standard becoz it reflects the character of the God who makes the distinction between good & evil in advance.
Without getting into the metaphysical problem that non-Christian thought has with evil, good is good becoz God declares it to be so. Is this enuf to convince those who are not adherents of Christianity at the outset? Probably not. Why, then, do Christians accept such an unlikely hypothesis?
The answer to that is not hard to find. If we know our Bibles, we know the story of the Fall of Man from his original sinless state to that of fallen man, wholly given over to sin. What was it that caused this? Remember what Satan said: “Did God really say…” He was asking Eve an epistemological question - prior to the Fall, God had told man that He could be trusted in all things Man needed to know. Satan came along and basically said that, No, all being is essentially on one level - God is simply a higher form of being than Man, and that His word had to be tested, just like Satan’s, at the bar of Possibility & Contingency.
He went on: “You shall not surely die…” Once again, putting the ball firmly in Eve’s court. She, not God, was going to be the determiner of all possibility in the Universe. Satan, once again, was telling Eve, 'It’s true, God is bigger than you…he’s the big bully of the universe and He can push you around, but just like you, He’s subject to the vast mystery of the universe, so you have as much right to decide things as He does. He might not like it, but You shall not surely die."
He hadn’t finished yet: what was Satan offering - fruit from the Tree of the Knowledge of Good & Evil. Most people today don’t know the Hebrew of the word ‘Knowledge’ in that context. It doesn’t mean ‘knowing’ the way we ‘know’ 2+2=4. It means far more than that, as Dr Abraham Kuyper pointed out over 100 years ago: it means ‘to determine for yourself’, so a correct translation would render it, “The Tree of Determining for Yourselves what constitutes Good & Evil”…now you know why they probably left it as ‘Knowledge’ - leave it up to the Minister to decipher it for his congregation!
So you can now clearly see how your statement fits RIGHT IN with Gen. 3:5! You reserve to yourself the right to examine the morality or otherwise of eternal punishment for finite crimes. This is exactly what Satan told Eve. God says, “I AM the Lord, I change not.” Basically, “What I say goes, and I say the good is good and the bad is bad, and I determine this, not you.” For the Christian, who has repented (had a changing of the mind in all things), this is sufficient, a looking at the world correctly. For the non-Christian, this is slavery and subservience. What is the real difference, therefore? Repentance, a changing of the will, learning to see things from God’s point of view. So it is no surprise that, as one who desires to remain the judge of the rightness of eternal punishment for finite crimes, you disagree with that. We cannot change your mind - that would be Gnosticism, a problem of insufficient knowledge on your part, and therefore a heresy. What does that require, therefore? Repentance - a changing of the mind/the will, which comes from God as a free gift.
Well, you could say that…others have in the past - not a real good argument, but you could use it! The answer that Christianity gives for that remains the same, however, and that is, unless you presuppose the truth of transcendent Christian ethics, coming, as you do, out of the 2,000 years of Christian history, you can make no argument against 'the crusades, the inquisition, and burning witches at the stake.
Ethics existed before Joshua. I can make any argument I desire. But… , I did not say christianity causes crusades and inquisitions. I said the argument that it does is as absurd as the BS you have been spitting out on this thread. Intellectual terrorism holds back all rational discourse, so why don’t you just tone it down a lil, huh?
After all, my forefathers 1200 years ago saw no problem sailing in on longboats and committing rape, murder, and pillage against the inhabitants of French & English villages. Why? They didn’t have a standard of ethics that saw such acts as inherently bad. And so you find yourself now having to go back over what I’ve discussed previously. And that is, you find such historical occurrences abhorrent, but when pressed, you can only say that you don’t think those things are very nice - you refuse to admit that you find them not very nice becoz you have the remaining traces of Christian ethical standards superimposed into you, but yet you can’t bring yourself to accept that behaviour as normative either
I don’t need some bronze age fairy tales, or an iron age hippie to realize murder is wrong. Let me ask you, why do buddhists, who existed half a millenia before Joshua, oppose murder, rape, and theft? They didn’t learn it from the son of man.
Really…congratulations, you’ve given us your opinion. And we all know what opinions are like, don’t we
If christian ethics are a fact, I’ll be a satanist tomorow, tyvm. Worship is its foundation, and worship is the worst action ever engaged in by men. I question, critically. These actions do not well suit a worshipper.
All ethics are opinion, I’m sorry you can’t handle that, or think it leads to murder and rape. But, one could make the argument that violence has gone down drastically as the world has started to realize that ethics are subjective.
Yeah perhaps, but you have to illustrate where this ‘intellectual terrorism’ is, something you either neglected to do, or couldn’t be bothered doing.
You think yourself wise enough to talk down to people with nothing but garbage, ridiculous arguments, yet you can’t be bothered to google “intellectual terrorism?” Don’t download it, just think about the words. What is intellectual, what is terrorism?
I would’ve thought Eric reducing consciousness to nothing more than electrical impulses in his skull can lead quite logically to, not just intellectual terrorism, but the genocide I spoke of
It can, and does, just like the worship of your extraterrestrial wizard.
The only way to resolve that is to go to objective truth…we, as Christians, have that, which is why when Gary North speaks on this website about Marx, he speaks with authority
Can you provide proof that christian ethics are objective? Also, what exactly do you mean by christian ethics? Is the old testament involved in this, teachings of hte church, or just what Joshua said? Are they objective because they were written down, or becuase they supposedly were given to a lunatic on a mountain by an extraterrestrial wizard?
if all was biologically determined he would have no basis to argue in the first place.
What exaclty do you know about biology? Are you denying the nature/nurture aspect of behavior? In your view, ethics can only come from faith? I have faith in Satan (sic), what does that say of my ethics?
You can argue all you like about biological determinism. The determinism Eric (it seems to me) is talking about is the divide between nature and nurture. We have no need of some ET to explain ethics, it’s a matter of biology and culture.
imagination is not a physical thing
You can prove that? You do know chimps create tools? THat means they have to be able to imagine just what that stick would look like without all of its leaves. Even if there were a sky wizard, nature could still explain imagination. Chimps can also lie, which takes imagination. Science; don’t knock it till you try it
You can’t measure people’s tastes in a lab becoz it’s not a result of a biological reaction
No. You can’t measure people’s tastes because they are largely subjective. Given the right taste bud make-up X will like green beans. But also, he may like them with butter, because that’s how his mother cooked them. Nature/nurture, no need of Lord Xenu here.
What I’ve begun to show is that he has to presuppose the existence of God in order to argue against the existence of God, becoz only the God of Christianity provides the necessary preconditions of intelligibility (epistemology, metaphysics, ethics), without which he couldn’t make sense of his ‘atheism’ in the first place!
I would be considered by most to be an atheist (tho I’m more of a natual deist). I in no way “deny” the existence of God. My stance is, if he exists, he’s useless anyway. Do good, be good, God can go play golf for all I care. I care not if I go to heaven, hell, or rot in the ground. God, the soul, nor the afterlife are usefull concepts for human liberation in any way.
Do I have to presuppose God to say that it would make no difference upon my life were it to exist or not?
So, go ahead. Keep talking down on people who question the universe, while you show blind obedience to some story book character, I care not.
(If I have offended any more reasonable christians, I apologize. I will not retract my statements, they are how I see it. But, they are a little harsher than would be with a reasonable debater, and there are a few appeals to ridicule in there. I have no problem with theists. I have problems with a/theists, or anyone for that matter, that is an intellectual terrorist.)
1
Jesus Christ was known as the “Prince of Peace”, the fact that a good majority of American Christians “appreciate” his values, attempt to apply it to their daily lives, and then engage in total war against foreign people who are largely innocent is beyond me.
On another (and a positive) note, I believe you will find that there are plenty of American Christians who are very anti-war as well. I believe it’s regional for some odd reason.
Didn’t read most of the posts in this topic, just contributing my two cents here.
I’m a little confused by comments from some of the anti-religion people on here. I can’t believe how easy people who are so used to denouncing fallacies can fall into them so easily based on their biases. Okay, we’re all human so it doesn’t really surprise me. Does “post hoc ergo propter hoc” ring a bell? For those who aren’t familiar, it means “after this, therefore because of this” and it’s a logical fallacy which I’m sure you’ve all been annoyed by before. Just because Christians are mostly pro-war (in America, I can’t speak for other countries), doesn’t mean it’s because of Christianity. Christians are typically Republican because it is the more traditionalist party. The other party is the party of gay marriage (combining a typically religious ceremony with something specifically denounced as immoral in the Bible) and abortion (which, if you’re honest with yourself, is murder.) Republicans just happen to be pro-war. People are susceptible to rhetoric and don’t always keep their belies at the front of their mind at the ballot box. And they’re also drawn to polarization. Which is why I hate politics and not people’s political beliefs.
Would you say that because evolution caused these imperfections that evolution is bad? I wouldn’t.
And as for “true Christians should be pacfisit communitarians”, I agree. And this could exist under Voluntaryism without violating anyone’s free will.
would humbly suggest, however, that it is encumbent on us all to know what the alternatives are
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vX07j9SDFcc
What was it that caused this? Remember what Satan said: “Did God really say…” He was asking Eve an epistemological question - prior to the Fall, God had told man that He could be trusted in all things Man needed to know. Satan came along and basically said that, No, all being is essentially on one level - God is simply a higher form of being than Man, and that His word had to be tested, just like Satan’s, at the bar of Possibility & Contingency.
He went on: “You shall not surely die…” Once again, putting the ball firmly in Eve’s court. She, not God, was going to be the determiner of all possibility in the Universe. Satan, once again, was telling Eve, 'It’s true, God is bigger than you…he’s the big bully of the universe and He can push you around, but just like you, He’s subject to the vast mystery of the universe, so you have as much right to decide things as He does. He might not like it, but You shall not surely die."
He hadn’t finished yet: what was Satan offering - fruit from the Tree of the Knowledge of Good & Evil.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1sTKVN9UAnw (specifically; 3:00)
The more that someone appeals to evilbible.com the more they discredit themselves as evilbible.com is saturated with fallacies of every sort and has been discredited: here is some of the evidence with a true and honest skeptic will take the time to consider.
Here is info on evilbible.com’s general unreliability:
http://www.truefreethinker.com/evilbiblecom