Support NeoGAF

[soul creator]

Are you talking about God or man?

Don't forget guys had to work harder than necessary for less results, does that count as a curse too?

I didn't know men had the ability to put a curses on people during the Eden days

 

[JGS]

I didn't know men had the ability to put a curses on people during the Eden days

So men don't hate women but God does because of the childbirth thing.

The rules have been changing so I'm just seeling clarification from everyone discussing it..

 

[Kinitari]

So men don't hate women but God does because of the childbirth thing.

The rules have been changing so I'm just seeling clarification from everyone discussing it..

You're making this more complicated than it needs to be. You were railing earlier against the usage of the word "Misogyny" when used to describe some of the ideas put forth in the Bible. Soul Creator is simply saying that the idea of God 'cursing women with childbirth' seems like a pretty hateful thing to do. No need to complicate it any more than that.

Do you think it was a hateful thing cursing women forever, for the sin of one woman, with the pain of childbirth?

 

[JGS]

You're making this more complicated than it needs to be. You were railing earlier against the usage of the word "Misogyny" when used to describe some of the ideas put forth in the Bible. Soul Creator is simply saying that the idea of God 'cursing women with childbirth' seems like a pretty hateful thing to do. No need to complicate it any more than that.

Do you think it was a hateful thing cursing women forever, for the sin of one woman, with the pain of childbirth?

Uhh, I'm not railing against it at all. I explained why I asked. I think all the accusations are a bunch of nonsense, but I was trying to see whether this was God who does not exist talking or men who thought up the idea that childbirth pain was caused because of female mistakes.

As a side point, I was sad to see that man's punishment wasn't mentioned at all nor was it addressed when I brought it up.

Why mention the woman having pains in childbirth and not the man having to work much harder all of his days which is actually a tougher punishment? My theory is that it doesn't coincide with the evidence used to suggest that the Bible has it in for women and not men.

EDIT: I am going to ignore the fact that they both got the death penalty too.

 

[Kinitari]

Uhh, I'm not railing against it at all. I explained why I asked. I think all the accusations are a bunch of nonsense, but I was trying to see whether this was God who does not exist talking or men who thought up the idea that childbirth pain was caused because of female mistakes.

You do this a lot.

I am not sure what you are trying to distinguish here - obviously people who are not believers don't think God exists - when they discuss God they are discussing the concept of God put forth in these Religions. It's like when people talk about how they think Nemo in finding Nemo was kind of a wimp for most of the movie, and grew balls near the end. Nobody... nobody actually thinks that Nemo exists, they are simply discussing the character and applying characteristics - they could say "The character Nemo in the movie 'Finding Nemo' - which I don't believe actually exists was a wimp, in the sense that the character being portrayed seems to me to be wimpy." No, they're just going to "Nemo was a wimp".

Do you really have that big of a problem with this concept? That people can talk about 'God' and apply characteristics to 'him' without believing in 'him'?

As a side point, I was sad to see that man's punishment wasn't mentioned at all nor was it addressed when I brought it up.

First of all, the punishment for man (as far as I understand) was that he needs to work and toil in the fields to get food, and that he couldn't just walk up to shit and get it whenever he wanted.

Secondly, this effects both men AND women. Women can't just walk up to shit and suddenly command food in their mouths.

Why mention the woman having pains in childbirth and not the man having to work much harder all of his days which is actually a tougher punishment? My theory is that it doesn't coincide with the evidence used to suggest that the Bible has it in for women and not men.

Let me find the exact quote:

And unto Adam he said, Because thou hast hearkened unto the voice of thy wife, and hast eaten of the tree, of which I commanded thee, saying, Thou shalt not eat of it: cursed is the ground for thy sake; in toil shalt thou eat of it all the days of thy life; thorns also and thistles shall it bring forth to thee; and thou shalt eat the herb of the field; in the sweat of thy face shalt thou eat bread, till thou return unto the ground; for out of it wast thou taken: for dust thou art, and unto dust shalt thou return (Genesis 3, 17-19) .

Real-talk translation: "Because you listened to your woman instead of listening to me, you can't just randomly come up and find food all over the place and eat it, you gotta work in the fields from now on, son! Oh, and you're going to die one day."

EDIT: I am going to ignore the fact that they both got the death penalty too.

Let's Tally it up

Men: Have to work for food. Will one day die.
Women: Have to suffer excruciating pain. Have to work for food. Will one day die.

 

[JGS]

You do this a lot.

I am not sure what you are trying to distinguish here - obviously people who are not believers don't think God exists - when they discuss God they are discussing the concept of God put forth in these Religions. It's like when people talk about how they think Nemo in finding Nemo was kind of a wimp for most of the movie, and grew balls near the end. Nobody... nobody actually thinks that Nemo exists, they are simply discussing the character and applying characteristics - they could say "The character Nemo in the movie 'Finding Nemo' - which I don't believe actually exists was a wimp, in the sense that the character being portrayed seems to me to be wimpy." No, they're just going to "Nemo was a wimp".

I do it a lot because atheist attack something they don't believe a lot.

Unlike your example of Nemo, who no one believes really exists, the people you are debating do believe God exists. In case you did not know, I am one of those persons. Therefore, considering that half of the silly arguments have to do with why God allows this or that, it makes the atheist look kind of silly to discuss things as if God is a fictional character with a person who doesn't. In fact, it makes them look silly to even be talking about God to people like me unless they are trying to be disrespectful

Spoiler

which is of course what they are doing

.

The reality is that although it's not disrespectful at all for atheists to talk amongst themselves about the fiction of god, it is extremely disrespectful to treat him as such when speaking of him to a person who believes he exists such as myself- far more than me questioning what kind of an idiot would be mad/upset/throw insults at a fictitious character.

So I do that a lot and I will continue to do so because I see no possibility of atheists stopping what they do despite the fact that if it's indeed all man-made, then focus on what kind of man would create laws you disagree with.

First of all, the punishment for man (as far as I understand) was that he needs to work and toil in the fields to get food, and that he couldn't just walk up to shit and get it whenever he wanted.

Secondly, this effects both men AND women. Women can't just walk up to shit and suddenly command food in their mouths.

You can't have it both ways. At least a couple of time, it was mentioned that women weren't allowed to work. Although this is hogwash, but the assumption was in those days that men worked in the fields and women cooked what was reaped and handles the day to day affairs of the family.

Proverbs 31 brings this out and is probably too nice to be mentioned as an example of how the bible views women. I'll have to recheck Dani's verses to see if it was considered a misogynistic one.

Back on point, no matter what Adam was going to be working for his food, but the curse made it difficult to do. Eve was going to be cooking the foos whether it was harder for Adam or not. The roles stayed the same, the punishment made both more difficult. Is childbirth painful? Sure, but it's momentary. At best it is on par with the punishment Adam received.

Real-talk translation: "Because you listened to your woman instead of listening to me, you can't just randomly come up and find food all over the place and eat it, you gotta work in the fields from now on, son! Oh, and you're going to die one day."

The actual verse and your translation make it clear that Adam was the one in greater trouble because he knew the consequences of his actions whereas Eve really believed what the serpent told her. They were both boneheads, but Adams sin was greater as the "dominant" creation.

Let's Tally it up

Men: Have to work for food. Will one day die.
Women: Have to suffer excruciating pain. Have to work for food. Will one day die.

You started with the wrong rules on your tally

Adamprior to sin:
Were to spread Eden to the rest of the Earth - aka work

Eve prior to sin:
Was to be a complement to the husband, a perfect match just like animals had perfect matches.

The couple prior to sin:
Were to have offspring, care for the earth, & have dominion over the Earth

Adam after sin:
Work was made harder as the ground was cursed. No more ability to make Eden. I read somehwere that the curse itself was lifted, but paradise was always lost

Eve after sin:
Labor pains

I know I'm opening a can of worms, but in Eve's case constant acknowledgement that her husband was going to dominate her. This actually happened with Adam and Eve. He went from loving her deeply to referring to her as woman, blaming God for marrying them, and mad that he listened to her.

However, no one in the Bible acknowledge Adam as an example to be followed - especially since it was his fault that mankind fell into sin and that's what is highlighted repeatedly.

Finally,

The couple after sin:
Dead people walking.

 

[Kinitari]

I do it a lot because atheist attack something they don't believe a lot.

Unlike your example of Nemo, who no one believes really exists, the people you are debating do believe God exists. In case you did not know, I am one of those persons. Therefore, considering that half of the silly arguments have to do with why God allows this or that, it makes the atheist look kind of silly to discuss things as if God is a fictional character with a person who doesn't. In fact, it makes them look silly to even be talking about God to people like me unless they are trying to be disrespectful

Spoiler

which is of course what they are doing

.

The reality is that although it's not disrespectful at all for atheists to talk amongst themselves about the fiction of god, it is extremely disrespectful to treat him as such when speaking of him to a person who believes he exists such as myself- far more than me questioning what kind of an idiot would be mad/upset/throw insults at a fictitious character.

So I do that a lot and I will continue to do so because I see no possibility of atheists stopping what they do despite the fact that if it's indeed all man-made, then focus on what kind of man would create laws you disagree with.

Essentially what you are saying is (without making this too complicated) - is that you think that Atheists should not speak of God as a fictional device, because it's disrespectful, and your way of... I don't know, evening the score? Is to ask a silly question? No when we talk about 'God' we aren't talking about the person who came up with the concept of God, or who the author was of that particular verse we are discussing - we are discussing the concept of God. If this bothers you because we don't believe, and you think not believing and talking about God is disrespectful - I am sorry, asking all the silly questions in the world isn't going to suddenly make me talk about God like he's real.

You can't have it both ways. At least a couple of time, it was mentioned that women weren't allowed to work. Although this is hogwash, but the assumption was in those days that men worked in the fields and women cooked what was reaped and handles the day to day affairs of the family.

Okay, I'll preface this by saying you are probably substantially more knowledgeable of the Bible then I am, so instead of arguing with you over what something means, I will agree - and then argue why I think believing those things is a problem.

Proverbs 31 brings this out and is probably too nice to be mentioned as an example of how the bible views women. I'll have to recheck Dani's verses to see if it was considered a misogynistic one.

Back on point, no matter what Adam was going to be working for his food, but the curse made it difficult to do. Eve was going to be cooking the foos whether it was harder for Adam or not. The roles stayed the same, the punishment made both more difficult. Is childbirth painful? Sure, but it's momentary. At best it is on par with the punishment Adam received.

The actual verse and your translation make it clear that Adam was the one in greater trouble because he knew the consequences of his actions whereas Eve really believed what the serpent told her. They were both boneheads, but Adams sin was greater as the "dominant" creation.

You started with the wrong rules on your tally

Adamprior to sin:
Were to spread Eden to the rest of the Earth - aka work

Eve prior to sin:
Was to be a complement to the husband, a perfect match just like animals had perfect matches.

The couple prior to sin:
Were to have offspring, care for the earth, & have dominion over the Earth

Adam after sin:
Work was made harder as the ground was cursed. No more ability to make Eden. I read somehwere that the curse itself was lifted, but paradise was always lost

Eve after sin:
Labor pains

I know I'm opening a can of worms, but in Eve's case constant acknowledgement that her husband was going to dominate her. This actually happened with Adam and Eve. He went from loving her deeply to referring to her as woman, blaming God for marrying them, and mad that he listened to her.

However, no one in the Bible acknowledge Adam as an example to be followed - especially since it was his fault that mankind fell into sin and that's what is highlighted repeatedly.

Finally,

The couple after sin:
Dead people walking.

It's really hard arguing this because I need to at first suspend my disbelief and pretend as though there was once a garden of Eden.

I'll keep my argument short, I think you can obviously see the sexism in the gender roles assigned to Adam and Eve, pre and post Forbidden fruit. Eve subservient to Adam. Beyond that, the fact that you think that Adam got the shit end of the stick post Forbidden fruit is odd to me. Adam was already destined to work the fields, now he is just supposed to work harder. Eve was just supposed to sit there and look pretty, have kids in what was (I am assuming) some painless and safe process. Now she has to go through ridiculous pain, multiple times in her life (40 was it?) risking her life every single time. I mean, at some points in the past the maternal death rate was 40/100 - this curse wasn't just momentary pain, it was a life of risk. And I don't even need to start on the fact that women work the fields all the time, and you never see men birthing children.

Honestly, I can't see anyway that the 'punishments' were equal. Adam forced to work harder, Eve forced into an even more subservient and life threatening role.

 

[jdogmoney]

I'll keep my argument short, I think you can obviously see the sexism in the gender roles assigned to Adam and Eve, pre and post Forbidden fruit.

Good luck with that, buddy.

I would like to type out a response to JGS, and I will, but I've had two hours of sleep last couple of days, and so my reasoning might be a little bit kookaburra sits on the old gum tree...

 

[Dude Abides]

One quick note and I'll return to the rest later.

It does seem to ring a bell, but... which three amendments were those? Amendments XIII, XIV, and XV? But what did I quote?

How embarrassing. I'll let it slide if you aren't from the U.S. (I'll even let it slide if you can't read Roman numerals, just 'cause I'm a nice guy.)

You're right. The thirteenth amendment does approve of forced labor as consequence of criminal conviction. So is it your view that slavery is morally acceptable? You seem to be doing your best to avoid addressing it squarely.

Oh, by the way, it helps to dig a bit deeper when talking about legal matters:

Conceding the major proposition to be true, that that congress has a right to enact all necessary and proper laws for the obliteration and prevention of slavery, with all its badges and incidents, is the minor proposition also true, that the denial to any person of admission to the accommodations and privileges of an inn, a public conveyance, or a theater, does subject that person to any form of servitude, or tend to fasten upon him any badge of slavery? If it does not, then power to pass the law is not found in the thirteenth amendment.

]To begin, Christians don't have to "concede" that slavery is wrong. Christians were instrumental in the abolitionist movement, and they based their opposition to slavery on Biblical principles. I think what you might have meant was, "What even atheists would concede," since atheists have no basis for believing in the inherent wrongness of anything. But I'll use your phrase, just to make you feel better.

Christians were also instrumental in the pro-slavery movement. And you've been touting the virtues of slavery at great length. So what point do you think you're making?

Second, I find it amusing that you base your morality on what Bible-believing Christians will concede.

Where did I say that the beliefs of fundies are the basis of my morality? The rather simple point is that Bible-believing Christians are necessarily ok with slavery, since the old testament explicitly condones slavery, which condonation you've gone to great lengths to defend. Thus, anyone who does not agree with you that slavery is immoral has no reason to take your Bible-based moral code seriously.

This is a confused sentence. You're saying that, on the basis of my posts, it is incorrect to say that some Bible-believing Christians will concede the inherent wrongness of slavery. But even if I had rejected the inherent wrongness of slavery, that would not mean that other Bible-believing Christians wouldn't concede the same. In other words, my posts cannot show what you think they showed, even assuming your characterization of my posts is accurate.

Your posts show exactly what I said they showed; at least some Bible believing Christians do not think that slavery is immoral.

You are clearly not well-enough aware of my "defense of slavery" to know that it was not a "defense of slavery." Feel free to read over that post again; I'll give you a hint to solving the conundrum that has you tying yourself in knots:

You engaged in a lengthy defense of slavery as practiced in the ancient near-east.

This is incorrect. Modern law does not recognize a right of ownership in another's labor--at all. Even once labor has been contracted for--and even paid for--courts will refuse to specifically enforce personal service contracts on the basis of (1) the common law, and (2) Amendment XIII (I'm sorry to bring this up again. I know it must still sting). Yet, in modern society we retain the employer-employee relationship. Therefore, the employer-employee relationship must not involve a right of ownership in the labor of another.

The lack of specific performance as a remedy in particular personal services contracts does not meant that "modern law does not recognize a right of ownership in another's labor. " That is a completely asinine statement. A promisee in a personal services contract is still entitled to damages - i.e. the value of the promisor's labor.

That's not actually the point you were referring to. The point you claimed I missed was that "[m]ost people think even Bible-believing Christians would concede slavery - the ownership of one human being by another - is inherently wrong, even if one form of ownership is crueler than than another." This other business about slaveries A and B is irrelevant, especially since you don't even believe slavery A is slavery!

Actually it was the point I was referring to. The point I claimed you missed, and which you did miss, was that your endorsement of ancient near-east slavery as less objectionable than antebellum chattel slavery does not establish that ancient near-east slavery was a moral practice.

Slavery is wrong because it violates the fundamental concepts of human equality and dignity held by people who think slavery is wrong.
In other words, you've got the conclusion in hand, and now you just need to find someone who agrees with it so that you can pretend you had a basis for arriving at that conclusion. WHOA! Look out! Here comes someone now! You agree with that conclusion, and therefore slavery is wrong because you think it is wrong! But then how is the following false if the above is true? Slavery is not wrong, because it is consistent with the fundamental concepts of human equality and dignity held by people who think slavery is OK.

Of course I have the conclusion in hand. Slavery is immoral. Everyone but you and JGS agrees. You're tying yourself in amusing knots trying to argue that it is moral. There's no way I can convince someone who thinks slavery is moral because God said so that it is not. All I can do is point out that, to anyone who thinks that slavery is wrong, that the morality you espouse is not to be taken seriously.

 

[JGS]

Essentially what you are saying is (without making this too complicated) - is that you think that Atheists should not speak of God as a fictional device, because it's disrespectful, and your way of... I don't know, evening the score? Is to ask a silly question? No when we talk about 'God' we aren't talking about the person who came up with the concept of God, or who the author was of that particular verse we are discussing - we are discussing the concept of God. If this bothers you because we don't believe, and you think not believing and talking about God is disrespectful - I am sorry, asking all the silly questions in the world isn't going to suddenly make me talk about God like he's real.

I didn't say that. I'm of the opinion that atheists who do this can't actually make an argument without it. I don't think they care one way or the other whether it's respectful or not of believers or else they wouldn't be debating them for no particularly good reason in the first place.

I'm saying that if an atheists wishes to discuss the matter in this way, then they should expect that a believer will respond differently than if they were talking to people who "obviously" see God as a fictitious person and characterize him as such. In other words, what I do is to question how something that doesn't exists is to be blamed for real issues in contrast with your Nemo example which doesn't get blame for anything.

Basically, if you do what you like, I'll do what I like. It's not retaliation at all, it's simply not stooping down to your opinion about God's existence. It shouldn't be that big of a deal.

Okay, I'll preface this by saying you are probably substantially more knowledgeable of the Bible then I am, so instead of arguing with you over what something means, I will agree - and then argue why I think believing those things is a problem.

Let's see how it works. As is the case throughout this thread though, knowledge of the Bible has nothing to do with your opinions on it. If I knew all there was to know about the Bible, it wouldn't change one lick your arguments against it since you don't believe a lick of it. This Adam & Eve thing is a primary example as there are a dozen scriptures highlight Adam's transgressions, yet some who don't know the Bible that well take one verse and say the bible blames Eve.

I'm just trying to explain the reasons why others view things in not quite the same absolutes as ones who have no belief to begin with with the primary reason being that to speak in absoklutes almost always makes the atheist argument wrong.

It's really hard arguing this because I need to at first suspend my disbelief and pretend as though there was once a garden of Eden.

You can view the garden of Eden as fiction and still deduce what it's saying and judging by what you wrote, it wasn't a roadblock at all.

I'll keep my argument short, I think you can obviously see the sexism in the gender roles assigned to Adam and Eve, pre and post Forbidden fruit.

Again, I think there is no sexism in the idea that there is a first creation. In fact, sexism because man was created first will never make sense to me and I've explained why already.

Eve subservient to Adam. Beyond that, the fact that you think that Adam got the shit end of the stick post Forbidden fruit is odd to me.

I did not say Adam got the raw end of the deal. After all, they both die. The curses put on them and who had the most severity is spliting hairs and ultimately pointless.

However, I do find it odd that the man's punsishement is so quickly and easily dismissed.

Adam was already destined to work the fields, now he is just supposed to work harder. Eve was just supposed to sit there and look pretty, have kids in what was (I am assuming) some painless and safe process.

You've never worked in the fields.

Work that is already tough but satisfying is never the same as harder work that is unsatisfying. Honestly, I've never heard the argument that work is work regardless of effort.

You may be assuming too much about childbirth. There would probably be at least as much effort as the animals had, but labor pain is a result of a woman's make-up. You can't even call it a weakness in comparison to men because men can't have them to begin with.

In any event, unless their popping out kids every year of their life, the pain experienced by a woman is alway a mixed blessing & momentary. They experience the pain but they get a bundle of joy. It was a curse that had a pretty happy ending for the woman and it didn't last that long. It's why women to this day go through it. Some now are still scrazy enough to have natural child birth without medication.

To me, the punishments seem at least equal considering that Adam no doubt endured hardships toiling a cursed ground, plus he had to do it all his life.

Even if you look at their account completely as literature, it clear by the way it's written that the judgements are meant to be equal and culminating in death. It simply has to do with what we focus on. The fact that no one but myself even brought up Adam's punishment says what the focus/goal is. No matter how you slice it, it is whacky to think that Adam got off lightly for his part.

Now she has to go through ridiculous pain, multiple times in her life (40 was it?) risking her life every single time. I mean, at some points in the past the maternal death rate was 40/100 - this curse wasn't just momentary pain, it was a life of risk. And I don't even need to start on the fact that women work the fields all the time, and you never see men birthing children.

I was not aware that Eve had 40 kids. Further there is no way that a calculation of 40% can be verified in the slightest and is made even more unlikely when discussing one women that was one sin away from perfection.

Honestly, I can't see anyway that the 'punishments' were equal. Adam forced to work harder, Eve forced into an even more subservient and life threatening role.

OK.

As I've stated, I can't understand why there wasn't at least acknowledgement of both of them. It goes without saying that you feel the woman got it worse and I have explained already why that may not be the case.

I fail to see why the idea that both Adam & Eve got punished severely for their sins is such a insane notion that we're spending this much time on actually disproving it.

 

[JGS]

Good luck with that, buddy.

I would like to type out a response to JGS, and I will, but I've had two hours of sleep last couple of days, and so my reasoning might be a little bit kookaburra sits on the old gum tree...

Get some rest buddy!

 

[JGS]

Of course I have the conclusion in hand. Slavery is immoral. Everyone but you and JGS agrees. You're tying yourself in amusing knots trying to argue that it is moral. There's no way I can convince someone who thinks slavery is moral because God said so that it is not. All I can do is point out that, to anyone who thinks that slavery is wrong, that the morality you espouse is not to be taken seriously.

If you are going to state the bold, then why throw my name in it?

I'm assuming you have the passage somewhere that mentions I think slavery is moral or that this is an obvious typo.

You're about to get the liar title thrown at you too.

I know it's not thast big of a deal to be called a liar if you are one, but the thing is that eventually it knocks all credibility out the window. I can at least respect your opinons, but can't even do that when you show yourself to be a liar. Liars are only good for insults and ridicule if spoken to at all.

Since you are quick to lie to prove what is already a silly point, it means you'll do it again. Your opinion and debating "skills" become [more] worthless since you are willing to make up stuff just to win.

So I'll assume for now that you do in fact have some reference of me indicating that slavery is moral. I'll be waiting.

Spoiler

Aw screw it! You're a liar.

 

[Chaplain]

Questions about God

Is there a God?

http://www.horizonsd.org/custom.asp?P=185

Who or what is God?

http://www.horizonsd.org/custom.asp?P=186

 

[Wickerbasket]

Questions about God

Is there a God?

http://www.horizonsd.org/custom.asp?P=185

Who or what is God?

http://www.horizonsd.org/custom.asp?P=186

I prefer this site.

Spoiler

I'm joking.

Unfortunately, those arn't questions that can be answered so easily.

For a lot of people, the concept of God is personal and based on faith which can make it hard to discuss.

 

[Slightly Live]

Questions about God

Is there a God?

http://www.horizonsd.org/custom.asp?P=185

Who or what is God?

http://www.horizonsd.org/custom.asp?P=186

Watchmaker hubris?

 

[gerg]

Watchmaker hubris?

Unfortunately. : (

To respond to the points of the article on a one-by-one basis:

1. Using epistemic arguments to form metaphysical conclusions is incorrect.
2. Learn statistics.
3. Pretty much the same argument as above. In any case, why is "chance" an inadequate explanation of creation? Other than that, Occam's razor.
4. I'd just flat out deny this. Of course, science cannot tell us why we should be moral, but religious beliefs aren't necessary to sustain morality either.
5. "God exists because God exists."
6. "God exists because God exists."

 

[JGS]

Unfortunately. : (

To respond to the points of the article on a one-by-one basis:

1. Using epistemic arguments to form metaphysical conclusions is incorrect.
2. Learn statistics.
3. Pretty much the same argument as above. In any case, why is "chance" an inadequate explanation of creation? Other than that, Occam's razor.
4. I'd just flat out deny this. Of course, science cannot tell us why we should be moral, but religious beliefs aren't necessary to sustain morality either.
5. "God exists because God exists."
6. "God exists because God exists."

So there are stats on the matter?

Further why is creation and inadequate explanation of creation?

I haven't been to the site as I tend to avoid religious ones, but more info on 2 would be appreciated since most Google searches bring up religious sites which would, of course, be immediately dismissed.

 

[gerg]

So there are stats on the matter?

It's not so much that there are absolute statistics proving the inherent likeliness of the earth's existence in its current state. Indeed, those would be difficult to find because the life-giving conditions of the earth are unlikely to exist.

Rather, the matter is more theoretical. Given a near-infinite (or equally large) number of repetitions of the same event (such as the creation of a planet), it is likely for an unlikely event to occur. Even on a 1000-sided die, with 999 faces covered in red and only one covered in blue, were you to throw that die one million times it is unlikely that you would never see a blue face on the top of the die at least once.

Anthropomorphic arguments towards the existence of a divine creator tend to focus solely on the possibility of the Earth existence in its current state (viewing this probability in a vacuum), and generally ignore the fact that the event in question has been repeated an incredibly large amount of times in the universe's history. In this manner such arguments represent a misunderstanding or ignorance of statistics.

Further why is creation and inadequate explanation of creation?

My argument wasn't that creation is an inadequate explanation of creation (in that it is possible for a divine creator to co-exist with all known empirical facts about the world), but that chance is also a perfectly adequate explanation of the earth's existence, too.

Given that we have two perfectly feasible accounts of a matter, Occam's razor would tell us that it is generally preferable to choose the explanation which demands that we accept the fewest amount of new assumptions: in this manner believing in God demands that we accept the possibility of something existing outside of space and time and the ability of such an entity to subsequently interact with matter that does exist inside space and time (and so on), whereas a naturalistic account of the world escapes such complexities.

 

[ampere]

So there are stats on the matter?

Further why is creation and inadequate explanation of creation?

I haven't been to the site as I tend to avoid religious ones, but more info on 2 would be appreciated since most Google searches bring up religious sites which would, of course, be immediately dismissed.

The problem with taking a current scenario (the earth being a place where life can flourish) and saying that it is 'too unlikely' to happen by random chance:

This is assuming that random chance set the current scenario as a goal.

-If we are a passive observer and we sit at Planck time with the modern, year 2010 earth as the goal, then the odds of it happening by random chance are astronomically low.

-However, this is not the case. Random chance does not 'choose' a goal.
Things happen randomly, and something happens as a result.
The notion that our current planet, or species for that matter, was a 'goal' is ridiculous.

I see this 'argument' brought up for creationism as well. The claim is that modern organisms (sometimes even ancient single cellular ones) are too complex to form on their own and wouldn't operate properly if every piece weren't in place.
This video might help clear up why this is not a valid argument but you can also see my point above.

 

[Metaphoreus]

Now why is this a problem?

This is a problem in the context of attempting to assert one's own morality as an objective morality, while at the same time denying the existence--or even the coherence--of an objective morality, which is what JGS is doing.

You're right.

I know.

Regarding the Civil Rights Cases, you bolded the wrong part:

Conceding the major proposition to be true, that that congress has a right to enact all necessary and proper laws for the obliteration and prevention of slavery, with all its badges and incidents, is the minor proposition also true, that the denial to any person of admission to the accommodations and privileges of an inn, a public conveyance, or a theater, does subject that person to any form of servitude, or tend to fasten upon him any badge of slavery? If it does not, then power to pass the law is not found in the thirteenth amendment.

When a court concedes something (or "assumes without deciding"), they aren't passing on the accuracy of the argument. What's more, when you see such a concession, you can bet that the court's holding will be in favor of the litigant not making that argument. As the perfect example of this general rule, see The Civil Rights Cases.

Christians were also instrumental in the pro-slavery movement. And you've been touting the virtues of slavery at great length. So what point do you think you're making?

I said that when Christians opposed slavery, they did so on the basis of Biblical principles. Your retort was that "Christians were also instrumental in the pro-slavery movement." What point do you think you're making?

Again, we return to your ridiculous claim that I've been "touting the virtues of slavery at great length." Taking what you wrote to be what you meant, I challenge you to find at least two virtues that I have attributed to slavery. Then, you'll have to show that I've "touted" those two or more virtues "at great length."

Where did I say that the beliefs of fundies are the basis of my morality?

First, you said:

Most people think slavery . . . is inherently wrong.

I can interpret this statement in one of a few ways:

• It could be a claim concerning the source of morality. (i.e., "Most people believe this is immoral, therefore it is immoral.")
• Rather than a claim concerning the source of morality, it could be an admission that you simply wanted to make the claim without having to defend it. (i.e., "I can get away with saying this even though I have no basis for believing it, because I expect nobody to challenge me on it.")
• It could merely be a recitation of facts, carrying no significant implications. (i.e., "Here are some words I strung together. Sweet, huh?") [As an aside, do "most people" actually believe that slavery is inherently immoral? What evidence do you have for this claim?]

But then, of course, you altered your claim:

Even Bible-believing Christians would concede slavery . . . is inherently wrong.

So, again, I can reinterpret this in one of the above three ways. What Christians concede may be the source of morality, something that led you to believe you could make the claim unchallenged, or a statement of fact with no significant implications ("Sweet, huh?"). Of course, I don't actually think that you base your morality on what "even Bible-believing Christians would concede;" it was just an amusing available interpretation.

I think the second possibility is the most likely with regards to your second statement, though I think the first is more likely with regards to your first.

The rather simple point is that Bible-believing Christians are necessarily ok with slavery, since the old testament explicitly condones slavery

If Bible-believing Christians are necessarily OK with slavery, then they could not possibly concede that it is inherently immoral. If Bible-believing Christians could not possibly concede that slavery is inherently immoral, then

• Under my first interpretation, slavery could not possibly be inherently immoral;
• Under my second interpretation, you proceeded to make your claim despite knowing that the basis that you hoped to protect you from criticism was false;
• Under my third interpretation, you lied.

which condonation you've gone to great lengths to defend.

What's more, a refusal to condemn is not the same as an explicit condonation. An explicit condonation would be, "Hey guys, slavery's OK." Regulation of a thing is not the same as condonation of that thing, but more importantly, you've already established that what is referred to as slavery in the OT wasn't actually slavery. Let's return to that briefly:

A promisee in a personal services contract is still entitled to damages - i.e. the value of the promisor's labor.

Since this is going far too far afield from the topic at hand, I'll concede the point. A right of ownership in the labor of a person refers to the employer-employee relationship. Now, what have you just proven? Let's combine some comments and find out:

A right of ownership in other person[s'] labor is . . . . an employer-employee relationship.

OT slavery [related] to ownership of [persons'] labor.

Conclusion: OT slavery was an employer-employee relationship.

Of course I have the conclusion in hand. Slavery is immoral. Everyone but you and JGS agrees. You're tying yourself in amusing knots trying to argue that it is moral.

You've utterly missed my point (again). On what basis do you say that slavery is immoral? What is the source of that morality?

I would say that cursing someone with the pain of childbirth is a pretty hateful thing to do

Now, we're getting somewhere. Of course, to show misogyny, you would have to show that it was motivated by the fact that women are women, but hatred of anyone seems inconsistent with God's character, so just establishing hatred here (even short of establishing misogyny) would be bad enough. First, let's look at the verses we're discussing:

So the LORD God said to the serpent, "Because you have done this, Cursed are you above all the livestock and all the wild animals! You will crawl on your belly and you will eat dust all the days of your life. And I will put enmity between you and the woman, and between your offspring and hers; he will crush your head, and you will strike his heel."

To the woman he said, "I will greatly increase your pains in childbearing; with pain you will give birth to children. Your desire will be for your husband, and he will rule over you."

To Adam he said, "Because you listened to your wife and ate from the tree about which I commanded you, 'You must not eat of it,' Cursed is the ground because of you; through painful toil you will eat of it all the days of your life. It will produce thorns and thistles for you, and you will eat the plants of the field. By the sweat of your brow you will eat your food until you return to the ground, since from it you were taken; for dust you are and to dust you will return."

A few points are apparent from this first reading:

• Only two things are "cursed," the serpent (3:14) and the ground (3:17).
• 3:16 is not normative, but descriptive. In other words, it shouldn't be used to, say, show that women shouldn't use pain medications during labor, nor that the man in a relationship ought to "rule over" the woman.
• There is no indication that 3:16 is directed at anyone but Eve; in contrast, God expressly refers to her offspring in 3:15. Thus, 3:16 can be interpreted as a relative increase in childbearing pains that only Eve could have recognized. To everyone following her, it would just seem natural.
• The marital division of labor alluded to makes sense here. The mother would nurture her young children while the father tended to the fields (and the children would help with the father once they reached a certain age). Women will usually have a stronger emotional tie to their children than men, for two reasons: first, women exerted a hell of a lot more effort in producing the child; second, a woman always knows who her children are--men can never be certain (or at least, couldn't be certain until very recently).

Looking a bit deeper reveals more:

• The literal translation of the first part of what God says in 3:16 is "Multiplying I multiply thy sorrow and thy conception." The word for "sorrow" is the same translated as "toil" in 3:17. (Making the literal translation of that portion of 3:17: "in sorrow thou dost eat of it all days of thy life.") What's more, what is being multiplied is not childbearing pains, but "sorrow" and "conception" (or pregnancies). It should not be a surprise that in a world where the ground is cursed and people must live by "the sweat of [their] brow," more children would be needed to even sustain a family.
• The second reference to "pain" in 3:16 is also rendered "sorrow" in the literal translation (and in the KJV). The word (a different one from the first reference to pain) is generally defined as, "pot, vessel; pain, toil, hard work."
• (Some have suggested that traditional translations are missing something between 3:15 and 3:16, and so mistakenly make God the agent in 3:16. These suggest that a more proper rendering would be, "A snare has increased your sorrow and sighing.")

To summarize, God did not curse Eve, let alone women. Second, He described the sorrowful existence that both Eve and Adam would lead from then on, but did not make any normative statements. The differential impact on Adam and Eve is wholly explained by the purely physiological fact that it is women, and not men, that bear and birth children.

Even on a 1000-sided die, with 999 faces covered in red and only one covered in blue, were you to throw that die one million times it is unlikely that you would never see a blue face on the top of the die at least once.

The problem is that we don't have a 1000-sided die. We have a die with an indeterminate number of sides, with an unknown distribution of colors, and we're rolling it an unknown number of times. This is the problem with your counterargument. For all we know, there are 999 billion billion sides and not one of them is blue. And if that's the case, it doesn't matter how many times you roll the die, you won't get blue.

 

[gerg]

The problem is that we don't have a 1000-sided die. We have a die with an indeterminate number of sides, with an unknown distribution of colors, and we're rolling it an unknown number of times. This is the problem with your counterargument. For all we know, there are 999 billion billion sides and not one of them is blue. And if that's the case, it doesn't matter how many times you roll the die, you won't get blue.

The highlighted statement presupposes the argument you seek to prove: namely that the Earth could not have been created through chance.

(And, indeed, it is in fact the case that at least one side is blue, as the Earth does exist.)

Even then, I'd question the relevance of merely increasing the unlikelihood of the Earth's existence in the first place, as I never disputed that this existence was unlikely; in fact, the number of sides on the die in the analogy is irrelevant - for all I care the die could have a google number of sides.

What's relevant is how many times the experiment (of rolling the die) is repeated, irrespective of how many sides the die actually has.

 

[Metaphoreus]

The highlighted statement presupposes the argument you seek to prove: namely that the Earth could not have been created through chance.

(And, indeed, it is in fact the case that at least one side is blue, as the Earth does exist.)

The question is whether the Earth--more specifically life--arose by chance. If it arose by chance, then yes, there is one blue side. If it was designed, then no, we know of no blue sides.

What's relevant is how many times the experiment (of rolling the die) is repeated, irrespective of how many sides the die actually has.

Well, all of the factors are relevant: how many sides the die has, how many of them are blue, and how many times the experiment is repeated all determine what we should expect. If the die has an infinite number of sides, then even given an infinite number of experiments, we should still never expect to see the one blue side.

My only point is that we know none of the facts necessary to make a judgment.

 

[gerg]

The question is whether the Earth--more specifically life--arose by chance. If it arose by chance, then yes, there is one blue side. If it was designed, then no, we know of no blue sides.

You've misunderstood the analogy. In the analogy, the blue sides represent the conditions needed for the earth to produce life. Considering that the earth has produced life, these conditions have been met, and thus the die has at least one blue face.

Whether or not the earth was created by a divine being or is the product of chance is represented in the analogy by either the dice being rolled and landing on the blue face by chance, or it being put by the experimenter on its blue face on purpose.

Well, all of the factors are relevant: how many sides the die has, how many of them are blue, and how many times the experiment is repeated all determine what we should expect. If the die has an infinite number of sides, then even given an infinite number of experiments, we should still never expect to see the one blue side.

It's impossible for a die to have an infinite number of sides, so I struggle to see the relevance of this statement.

Although, yes, it is a requisite that there be a large number of experiments. However, that a very, very large number of planets exist would seem to be a highly uncontroversial statement.

My only point is that we know none of the facts necessary to make a judgment.

On this attitude, then, it is best not to use the rarity of the earth's existence (or the lack thereof) as an argument towards the existence of a God, either. (You haven't yet made it clear whether or not you would indeed do so.)

[Edit: In any case, I'm happy to admit that the conclusion that the earth's existence is fairly standard may be at present unsupported. This is an entirely empirical question; arguments towards God's existence generally tend to relate to the probability of the existence of a universe which can support life, a matter which is much more philosophical in nature.]

 

[Metaphoreus]

You've misunderstood the analogy. In the analogy, the blue sides represent the conditions needed for the earth to produce life. Considering that the earth has produced life, these conditions have been met, and thus the die has at least one blue face.

I recognize that I was mistaken about what we were discussing the probability of, and I'm still not sure about allowing you to paint a blue face on the die because of Earth. Even allowing that one side is blue, however, so that the numerator in our probability is at least 1, how do you plan to fix the denominator so that we can figure out what the probability actually is?

It's impossible for a die to have an infinite number of sides, so I struggle to see the relevance of this statement.

My only point was that the mere fact of a huge number of experiments does not necessarily imply that we should expect an improbable result. We still have to know how that number of experiments relates to the probability. If the die has X sides, 1 of which is blue, and we run the experiment X/2 times, we shouldn't expect to see the blue side. So it isn't the absolute number of experiments, but the relationship between that number and the probability--in this case specifically, the denominator (since at this point we assume that the numerator is 1).

 

[gerg]

I recognize that I was mistaken about what we were discussing the probability of, and I'm still not sure about allowing you to paint a blue face on the die because of Earth.

Why not? Do you deny that the Earth has the conditions sufficient to sustain life?

My only point was that the mere fact of a huge number of experiments does not necessarily imply that we should expect an improbable result. We still have to know how that number of experiments relates to the probability. If the die has X sides, 1 of which is blue, and we run the experiment X/2 times, we shouldn't expect to see the blue side. So it isn't the absolute number of experiments, but the relationship between that number and the probability--in this case specifically, the denominator (since at this point we assume that the numerator is 1).

Sure.

As I wrote in my edit, most arguments towards the existence of God generally focus on the probability of the universe's existence in its current state, as that is a much less empirical matter than focusing on the earth's existence in its current state.

 

[Metaphoreus]

Why not? Do you deny that the Earth has the conditions sufficient to sustain life?

This is what I really wanted you to get to:

how do you plan to fix the denominator so that we can figure out what the probability actually is?

 

[BocoDragon]

I said it in this thread many months ago... but the one problem with this thread is that, due to English speaking gamer demography, it's doomed to be an Atheism vs. Christianity thread....

I consider that to be a tiny 5% slice of the world of religion.

 

[EzLink]

I know I've talked about this issue before in this thread, but I'm still having a very difficult time adjusting to life without religion. There is always this heavy sense of despair with me now, no matter what I'm doing. Sure, sometimes I'm able to push it to the back of my mind, but things feel so much less significant now because everything is so fleeting and the world is so terrible.

Recently I've been praying every night. Praying that somehow my faith is restored and I can comprehend the things I don't understand and believe like I used to. But I feel like I keep on moving closer and closer to atheism instead of the direction I want to go in

"Life is as meaningful as you make it!" I've tried to life this mindset, but I'm finding it difficult. Back in my church days, a common thing to hear would be that people without God fill their lives with temporary pleasures, pleasures that are ultimately unfulfilling. Depressingly enough I keep finding this to be truer and truer. The best parts about life are the little meaningless bullshit distractions. A new cd you love or a new movie or game to get excited about; doing some drugs or drinking some beer, giving in to your lusts or getting out of town for the day to do something fun

All temporary, none actually satisfying. Just small diversions from an otherwise terrible world where terrible things happen on a far too regular basis.

Even truly important things like family and friends and relationships will end eventually. Often times untimely and bitter. But without an eternity to look forward to, what else is there to live for but things that sometimes make you feel good, like the happiness of being around people you care about?

I truly hate being like this. I'm wondering if I should get some therapy, I don't want the entirety of my life to be me being an emo bitch over some chip on my shoulder from being raised religious. But at the same time, a therapist can't change reality. Can't prove that a God doesn't exist and that I don't have to worry about hell, and can't somehow make a mortal, godless life meaningful or significant.

tl;dr: fuck everything, waaaahhh wahhhhh I have it so rough in my first world country, etc.

 

[Dude Abides]

You're about to get the liar title thrown at you too.

I know it's not thast big of a deal to be called a liar if you are one, but the thing is that eventually it knocks all credibility out the window. I can at least respect your opinons, but can't even do that when you show yourself to be a liar. Liars are only good for insults and ridicule if spoken to at all.

Relax. Anyway, replace "Everyone but you and JGS" with "everyone but you and JGS (who thinks slavery is ok in some circumstances but not in others" agrees. Better?

Regarding the Civil Rights Cases, you bolded the wrong part:

When a court concedes something (or "assumes without deciding"), they aren't passing on the accuracy of the argument. What's more, when you see such a concession, you can bet that the court's holding will be in favor of the litigant not making that argument. As the perfect example of this general rule, see The Civil Rights Cases.

You're not a lawyer, are you? I hope not, because you don't know what you're talking about. "Concede" does not necessarily mean what you seem to think it does. One can concede an argument because it is not determinative of the outcome, or one can concede it because it is largely beyond question. The Court in the Civil Rights was using it in the latter sense, as the major proposition was clearly stated a few paragraphs up:

Still, legislation may be necessary and proper to meet all the various cases and circumstances to be affected by it, and to prescribe proper modes of redress for its violation in letter or spirit. And such legislation may be primary and direct in its character; for the amendment is not a mere prohibition of state laws establishing or upholding slavery, but an absolute declaration that slavery or involuntary servitude shall not exist in any part of the United States.

I said that when Christians opposed slavery, they did so on the basis of Biblical principles. Your retort was that "Christians were also instrumental in the pro-slavery movement." What point do you think you're making?

Uh, you said Christians don't have to answer for slavery - though I never claimed they did - because there were Christian abolitionists. I simply pointed out that you were attempting to have it both ways.

Again, we return to your ridiculous claim that I've been "touting the virtues of slavery at great length." Taking what you wrote to be what you meant, I challenge you to find at least two virtues that I have attributed to slavery. Then, you'll have to show that I've "touted" those two or more virtues "at great length."

Surely you don't think this pedantic literalism is convincing, do you? You went to great lengths to defend ancient near-east slavery. Is that better?

I can interpret this statement in one of a few ways:

You could, if you wanted to add your own baseless interpretation. Or you could take it as the straightforward descriptive claim that it is.

• It could be a claim concerning the source of morality. (i.e., "Most people believe this is immoral, therefore it is immoral.")

• 
  
  No, it could not be. The first clause is an accurate paraphrase of what I said. The second clause is your own invention.
  
  

  [*]Rather than a claim concerning the source of morality, it could be an admission that you simply wanted to make the claim without having to defend it. (i.e., "I can get away with saying this even though I have no basis for believing it, because I expect nobody to challenge me on it.")

  
  Correct. I did not expect anyone to actually defend slavery, until I ran into you and JGS (who actually only thinks slavery was ok in certain circumstances - that ok JGS?).
  
  

  Of course, I don't actually think that you base your morality on what "even Bible-believing Christians would concede;" it was just an amusing available interpretation.

  
  You don't seem to understand how arguments work. One way to start is from a shared premise - i.e. slavery is wrong. JGS (in some circumstances) and I share that premise, as well as I imagine 99% of the people reading this board. You apparently don't. So I don't know what your argument is at this point. You think slavery is ok because the Bible said it is. JGS is a more interesting case, because he thinks the Bible is a good moral guide and also thinks slavery is immoral, at least right now.
  
  
  

  If Bible-believing Christians are necessarily OK with slavery, then they could not possibly concede that it is inherently immoral.

  
  Correct. And anyone who thinks it is inherently immoral - i.e. almost everyone - has no reason to take Biblical literalists seriously.
  
  

  What's more, a refusal to condemn is not the same as an explicit condonation. An explicit condonation would be, "Hey guys, slavery's OK." Regulation of a thing is not the same as condonation of that thing, but more importantly, you've already established that what is referred to as slavery in the OT wasn't actually slavery. Let's return to that briefly:

  
  No, you don't get to make up your own meanings for common words. To condone something is to tolerate it. So, "Hey guys, if you're gonna have slaves, don't beat them too much" is condonation.
  
  

  Since this is going far too far afield from the topic at hand, I'll concede the point. A right of ownership in the labor of a person refers to the employer-employee relationship. Now, what have you just proven? Let's combine some comments and find out:
  
  
  Conclusion: OT slavery was an employer-employee relationship.

  
  Sorry, you've failed again. That two things share one feature does not make them the same. Can you think of any of any features of the master-slave relationship that absent from the employer-employee relationship? I bet you can if you try!

 

[Slightly Live]

This is what I really wanted you to get to:

Why are you bickering over the exact number of the denominator? He said it was huge. The exact number doesn't matter as it's a fact that there are and have been many Earth-like rocky planets that have formed.

If you want to get picky and start ball-parking the exact figure (I do not understand why you can't just accept the assumption that the number is huge) let's try it.

The Royal Astronomical Society in Glasgow, during their research, estimated that currently 3.5% of stars in the Milky Way harbour rocky planets. That means, over the lifetime of the Milky Way, there have been around a billion such rocky planets.

Obviously not every one of these planets would be suitable for life for various reasons (for example, closeness to the star, containing water, etc). So out of a billion possible candidates in the Milky Way, let's go on a very low estimate of just 1% that meet the same conditions as Earth (ie, containing water and a distance from the sun that would be suitable, etc).

So we have a number 10 million possible candidates in the Milky Way. However, we need to account for all galaxies in the known universe, not just our own. Conservative estimates put this number at around 100 billion (higher estimates are around 500 Billion, for the record). Some galaxies may have a greater or lesser amount of suitable planets but we'll go with averaging things out and stick with this low estimate.

So, you want a denominator? Here you go.

10 million x 100 billion.

 

[jdogmoney]

Even truly important things like family and friends and relationships will end eventually. Often times untimely and bitter. But without an eternity to look forward to, what else is there to live for but things that sometimes make you feel good, like the happiness of being around people you care about?

What else, indeed?


If you remain focused on eternity, simply dedicate your life to leaving the best possible legacy behind that you can. Make the world a better place for you having been there. You get the same feeling of working toward a greater good, but it's a good that you know for a fact is real.

I would hope that, in time, you can learn to focus on the life you have now. Despite what some would have you to believe, life is pretty freaking awesome. Live a good life. Don't worry about the details you can't know for sure, one way or the other.

 

[Metaphoreus]

I'm done wasting my time on you, Dude Abides. I will not participate in a discussion with someone as intellectually dishonest as you are. You use words so imprecisely as to render meaningful discussion impossibly tedious; you formulate your own definitions and then discard them when they lead to a result you don't like; you refuse to answer the questions set to you; you apparently cannot follow a discussion through more than only the most recent post, so that your responses render your meaning even less clear. So, I'm done with you.

Dani, I'm not interested in knowing what the denominator is; I only want to know how it will be determined. The number you provided isn't a denominator, but an estimate of the number of habitable rocky planets in the known universe. You also provided an estimated probability that a rocky planet would be habitable of 1/100, but you didn't explain how you determined it, and in any event, I'm not sure if that's the number we were looking for (though it may be.)

 

[gerg]

In any case, talking about what the "denominator" would be in order to work out the mathematical probability for the conditions of life is generally side-stepping another main fault of anthropomorphic arguments, which is that they make the logical leap from "highly improbable" to "impossible".

 

[Nocebo]

Hey I've been wondering about something. Can god/jesus forgive you for a murder? If you're forgiven will you go to heaven, even if you've committed murder?

 

[JGS]

Relax. Anyway, replace "Everyone but you and JGS" with "everyone but you and JGS (who thinks slavery is ok in some circumstances but not in others" agrees. Better?

I am relaxed and you are still a

Spoiler

liar

.

How about trying to not condemn someone or make blanket statements on the basis of your poor, insipid, & misguided opinion? Better?

We know that's not going to happen though.

 

[JGS]

Hey I've been wondering about something. Can god/jesus forgive you for a murder? If you're forgiven will you go to heaven, even if you've committed murder?

The first question's answer is yes, you can be forgiven for anything except the unforgiveble sin which is tied to blasphemy/apostasy.

 

[Nocebo]

The first question's answer is yes, you can be forgiven for anything except the unforgiveble sin which is tied to blasphemy/apostasy.

But do you believe heaven is real? And like the best place ever to be?

 

[JGS]

All temporary, none actually satisfying. Just small diversions from an otherwise terrible world where terrible things happen on a far too regular basis.

Even truly important things like family and friends and relationships will end eventually. Often times untimely and bitter. But without an eternity to look forward to, what else is there to live for but things that sometimes make you feel good, like the happiness of being around people you care about?

You answered your own question. In one post you mentioned friends, families, entertainment, & temporary pleasures. You just described life and it's not that bad. There are the more mundane things as well as the outright bad stuff, but there's a lot of good in life too.

Even if it's not for an eternity, it's still for decades. Take advantage of it since that's all you got if you're not religious. You may lack faith, but you can still have happiness and hope for a better personal circumstances during your lifetime.

As a religious person, I feel complete happiness is only by including worship in one's life. My suggestion would be to make sure you simply don't hate your religion and try another out based on correct answers (Like about Hell). Leaving a religion that is not satisfying for one that does works wonders.

However, if you don't believe, you don't believe. So all you have to focus on is this life so you better step to it. If you frame every little and big happiness in the framework of the sorry state of the world, you're taking big picture stufff and trying to squeeze it into your own little world which is not possible without going bonkers. Therapy may well be needed or at least some medication as you may be clinically depressed.

I'm rambling so I'll stop.

 

[Dude Abides]

I'm done wasting my time on you, Dude Abides. I will not participate in a discussion with someone as intellectually dishonest as you are. You use words so imprecisely as to render meaningful discussion impossibly tedious; you formulate your own definitions and then discard them when they lead to a result you don't like; you refuse to answer the questions set to you; you apparently cannot follow a discussion through more than only the most recent post, so that your responses render your meaning even less clear. So, I'm done with you.

Yeah, probably better for you to concede you have no real argument at this point better than continuing to flail about, amusing though your performance was. Wise decision. The irony in your third sentence gave me a chuckle, so thanks for that.

 

[EzLink]

What else, indeed?


If you remain focused on eternity, simply dedicate your life to leaving the best possible legacy behind that you can. Make the world a better place for you having been there. You get the same feeling of working toward a greater good, but it's a good that you know for a fact is real.

I would hope that, in time, you can learn to focus on the life you have now. Despite what some would have you to believe, life is pretty freaking awesome. Live a good life. Don't worry about the details you can't know for sure, one way or the other.

Yeah, I'm sure this is the best advice I'll be able to get on the problem. Trying to make the world a better place is one of the few semi-meaningful things you can do in your lifetime. I need to figure out how to get a perspective change too though, because I'm not sure just volunteering and being a good person will change my mindset on things

You answered your own question. In one post you mentioned friends, families, entertainment, & temporary pleasures. You just described life and it's not that bad. There are the more mundane things as well as the outright bad stuff, but there's a lot of good in life too.

Even if it's not for an eternity, it's still for decades. Take advantage of it since that's all you got if you're not religious. You may lack faith, but you can still have happiness and hope for a better personal circumstances during your lifetime.

As a religious person, I feel complete happiness is only by including worship in one's life. My suggestion would be to make sure you simply don't hate your religion and try another out based on correct answers (Like about Hell). Leaving a religion that is not satisfying for one that does works wonders.

However, if you don't believe, you don't believe. So all you have to focus on is this life so you better step to it. If you frame every little and big happiness in the framework of the sorry state of the world, you're taking big picture stufff and trying to squeeze it into your own little world which is not possible without going bonkers. Therapy may well be needed or at least some medication as you may be clinically depressed.

I'm rambling so I'll stop.

It isn't that I "hate" religion (although I do hate some parts of certain religions). I just don't believe it anymore. There isn't a magical "believe" switch you can just flip on and off.

My religious friend thinks this is a dumb analogy, but I compare it to believing in Santa Clause. What I DON'T mean is that religion and Santa have the same amount of credibility and evidence, that obviously isn't a case. Of course Santa doesn't exist. But in the same way I don't believe in Santa, I also don't believe in religion. And just as someone couldn't force themselves to suddenly start believing in Santa again, I can't force myself to believe in religion again, as much as I try.

I'm definitely not clinically depressed. I've gone through depression before. Not wanting to get out of bed, not wanting to eat, not caring about anyone or anything. I'm completely functioning and normal (not trying to imply depressed people aren't "normal", but you know what I mean). I care about others, I go about my day and enjoy the things I like. I just have an excessively bitter and bleak worldview, that's my problem. Wish there was an easy way to change that, but I feel like therapy may be my best bet even though I'm skeptical of how much it could really help

 

[the•rebel]

Is the Bible to be interpreted literally?

 

[JGS]

It isn't that I "hate" religion (although I do hate some parts of certain religions). I just don't believe it anymore. There isn't a magical "believe" switch you can just flip on and off.

My religious friend thinks this is a dumb analogy, but I compare it to believing in Santa Clause. What I DON'T mean is that religion and Santa have the same amount of credibility and evidence, that obviously isn't a case. Of course Santa doesn't exist. But in the same way I don't believe in Santa, I also don't believe in religion. And just as someone couldn't force themselves to suddenly start believing in Santa again, I can't force myself to believe in religion again, as much as I try.

I'm definitely not clinically depressed. I've gone through depression before. Not wanting to get out of bed, not wanting to eat, not caring about anyone or anything. I'm completely functioning and normal (not trying to imply depressed people aren't "normal", but you know what I mean). I care about others, I go about my day and enjoy the things I like. I just have an excessively bitter and bleak worldview, that's my problem. Wish there was an easy way to change that, but I feel like therapy may be my best bet even though I'm skeptical of how much it could really help

It's good you know the difference regarding depression.

I'm the same way with non-belief. Nothing has come along that comes close to getting me to stop believeing so I can't. That's why I don't work the conversion angle on the board as it goes about as far as an atheist trying to convince me God doesn't exist. However, I would be lying if I said what helps me cope does not include religious belief.

I also see where you're coming from as I get that view when something bad goes down. The most recent time that it was a constant concern was when I thought nuclear war would blow us all up at any time (thank you The Day After!).

I did learn how to not think so much about bad things I can't control which gave me more time to focus on the things that mattered the most, so maybe therapy will help with that.

 

[JGS]

Is the Bible to be interpreted literally?

Sure, as long as you realize that the Bible contains history, symbols, signs, parables, allegories, prophecy, & proverbs.

 

[JGS]

But do you believe heaven is real? And like the best place ever to be?

I believe most descriptions of heaven are symbolic, but the idea that you are where God is would be a wonderful place to live. Earth, however, has plenty of great places too.

I believe in heaven, but based on what I read I'm not sure everyone who is good goes there so I leave that alone and let more confident people than me explain it.

I do not believe in Hell as a place of torment. That one I'm very confident about.

 

[gerg]

It isn't that I "hate" religion (although I do hate some parts of certain religions). I just don't believe it anymore. There isn't a magical "believe" switch you can just flip on and off.

My religious friend thinks this is a dumb analogy, but I compare it to believing in Santa Clause. What I DON'T mean is that religion and Santa have the same amount of credibility and evidence, that obviously isn't a case. Of course Santa doesn't exist. But in the same way I don't believe in Santa, I also don't believe in religion. And just as someone couldn't force themselves to suddenly start believing in Santa again, I can't force myself to believe in religion again, as much as I try.

Indeed. You can't believe something you don't think is true.

I just have an excessively bitter and bleak worldview, that's my problem. Wish there was an easy way to change that, but I feel like therapy may be my best bet even though I'm skeptical of how much it could really help

[...]

Can't prove that a God doesn't exist and that I don't have to worry about hell, and can't somehow make a mortal, godless life meaningful or significant.

Question: Why do you need God's existence to make life meaningful?

Sure, as long as you realize that the Bible contains history, symbols, signs, parables, allegories, prophecy, & proverbs.

To say that such an interpretation is taking the Bible "literally" seems like a contradiction in terms.

 

[EzLink]

Question: Why do you need God's existence to make life meaningful?

I think a lot of it has to do with the fact that I always believed in God/heaven until a year and a half ago. I wasn't all that happy growing up, so the one thing I always held on to was the fact that someday this life will be over and I can live in eternal peace and happiness. I would always think about it, always look forward to it. Sad things were still sad, but they didn't feel final so I could cope with it. Whenever shit was going poorly in life, I knew I just had to hang in there because eventually everything would be okay, forever

Not having that crutch to fall back onto now is just miserable. And now I'm starting to invest way too much in other people, which isn't healthy. It isn't healthy because I'm using that to fill the void, and also because people will inevitably let you down. Or even if they don't, sad things can still happen and you can lose them. That has happened to me a couple times in recent memory and I'm really not able to handle it well. I have nothing to fall back on, and I'm clearly not to the point yet where I'm able to accept life for what it is and just move on when bad things happen or when people I care about suddenly aren't in my life anymore

 

[gerg]

Not having that crutch to fall back onto now is just miserable. And now I'm starting to invest way too much in other people, which isn't healthy. It isn't healthy because I'm using that to fill the void, and also because people will inevitably let you down.

Investing time in other people absolutely is healthy. Yes, people will invariably let you down, but they will also surprise you and consistently be a source of comfort and happiness, too. If you limit the time you spend building relationships with other people on the basis that they will disappoint you you will inevitability limit the time they can spend exceeding your expectations.

Or even if they don't, sad things can still happen and you can lose them. That has happened to me a couple times in recent memory and I'm really not able to handle it well. I have nothing to fall back on, and I'm clearly not to the point yet where I'm able to accept life for what it is and just move on when bad things happen or when people I care about suddenly aren't in my life anymore

The only thing I can say is to see a therapist. They should be able to help you deal with loss in your life. Other than that, it's not the case that there's an easy way to deal with loss either. In that manner I don't think that believing that everything will turn out great in the end is particularly healthy either, but I don't want to start playing too much psychoanalyst with your emotions.

 

[EzLink]

Investing time in other people absolutely is healthy. Yes, people will invariably let you down, but they will also surprise you and consistently be a source of comfort and happiness, too. If you limit the time you spend building relationships with other people on the basis that they will disappoint you you will inevitability limit the time they can spend exceeding your expectations.

The only thing I can say is to see a therapist. They should be able to help you deal with loss in your life. Other than that, it's not the case that there's an easy way to deal with loss either. In that manner I don't think that believing that everything will turn out great in the end is particularly healthy either, but I don't want to start playing too much psychoanalyst with your emotions.

Yeah I didn't mean that investing in other people is something to avoid, but I'm starting to use it as an "all eggs in one basket" sort of thing. I invest too much, too quickly. What I'm trying to say is that for me, its unbalanced. I put too much of an emphasis on it and so if something goes south it hits me a lot harder than what is normal, because I've made myself too vulnerable.

I would love to see a therapist, but I have no idea how to ask my parents. I'm not financially independent and cannot afford one on my own, but my parents are christian and think i'm the same christian guy i was two years ago. If I do tell them I need it, I certainly can't reveal the real reasons. And even if it didn't have anything to do with religion, it would still be hard. They love me a lot and as far as they know I'm perfectly fine and happy. It would be completely out of the blue for them, and I don't want to cause them undue stress and worry. Plus our family is really tight on money. And if I do ask them, they might try to send me to a Christian therapist. Still though, I guess an newfound awkwardness within the parent dynamic might be worth it to try and get some help

 

[Blergmeister]

I'm sorry, I'm confused on the confusion stats thing. No matter what the denominator is, as long as the numerator is 1, there is a chance of it happening. And given enough time/repeated attempts, the chance of that occuring is only greater and greater? If the chances are so minute that a person would side with the idea of a creator, I still don't see how that discredits the chance theory such that they cannot acknowledge it...

 

[Nocebo]

I believe most descriptions of heaven are symbolic, but the idea that you are where God is would be a wonderful place to live. Earth, however, has plenty of great places too.

I believe in heaven, but based on what I read I'm not sure everyone who is good goes there so I leave that alone and let more confident people than me explain it.

I do not believe in Hell as a place of torment. That one I'm very confident about.

Why don't all good people go there? What does it mean then to be forgiven by god? Can a murderer who is forgiven by god enter heaven?
Also what about people who've never had a chance to learn about god but never did a bad thing?