The Problem of Good
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
14-12-2015, 08:35 AM
RE: The Problem of Good
(14-12-2015 06:03 AM)EvolutionKills Wrote:  
(14-12-2015 05:25 AM)Chas Wrote:  Apologetics is bullshit. Ask them to put in a "Reason and Skepticism" sub-forum or a "Why Evolution is True" sub-forum.

I'm calling it right here, right now.

First post on the first day of a "Reason and Skepticism" sub-forum on a Christian forum.

"Why I'm reasonably skeptical of skepticism, and you should be too"

Followed by excerpts from the book "I don't have enough faith to be an atheist". Dodgy

I don't know which forum you're talking about, but I used to be a member at worthychristianforums before posting here. As a non-Christian, I was limited to posting on three boards, one of which is apologetics.

Guess what you're not allowed to talk about on the apologetics forum: apologetics. Seriously. More specifically, you're not allowed to question apologetics or explain why the reasoning is bad. So, apparently, Worthy is a "safe space" for Christians to talk bad about other people who aren't allowed to defend themselves. They can only show up if they want to be converted.

That place is a fucking hole.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
14-12-2015, 08:40 AM
RE: The Problem of Good
(14-12-2015 08:35 AM)Chas Wrote:  
(14-12-2015 08:30 AM)jason_delisle Wrote:  http://www.christianforums.com/index.php...s/7918241/

Here is the link for the subforum sticky. I hope you can use it to navigate from there.

"You must have 100 posts and five likes to post in this forum."

Seriously? Assholes.
They don't want any debate. Chickenshit assholes.
I am working on that. I will start an underailable thread an we can all like each other's posts.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like jason_delisle's post
14-12-2015, 09:35 AM
RE: The Problem of Good
(14-12-2015 08:40 AM)jason_delisle Wrote:  
(14-12-2015 08:35 AM)Chas Wrote:  "You must have 100 posts and five likes to post in this forum."

Seriously? Assholes.
They don't want any debate. Chickenshit assholes.
I am working on that. I will start an underailable thread an we can all like each other's posts.

I question the worth of such a venture.

Subverting rules seemingly put in place to limit communication seems like a wasted effort. If they cannot be bothered with facilitating an open dialogue, then they're probably not interested in one, and subsequently not worth the effort.

[Image: E3WvRwZ.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 4 users Like EvolutionKills's post
14-12-2015, 09:43 AM
RE: The Problem of Good
(13-12-2015 11:15 AM)Alla Wrote:  
OddGamer Wrote:If you do good 'on your own' sometimes, then you can never know if you were 'inspired' by an outside force or not, meaning praising god for inspiration you didn't get is to steal the moral choice from yourself and give it to god (which he doesn't deserve). If god must always inspire every good act, then you are never good, but only inspiration from
We always do good on our own. Even when we inspired by God we still have to choose to act upon this inspiration. The same with temptations.
We always do evil on our own. It is up to us to resist temptation or not.
And you are right I may not if someone who helped me was inspired by God that is why I thank God all the time. In case God inspired I thank Him.
And to thank God as often as possible is good for me.
OddGamer Wrote:Hang on... Midiaanites. God says, of the same group, slaughter everyone but the virgin girls, and keep those girls. So the young girl children (a group that bronze-age savages would place a high priority on) are somehow 'innocent victims' but young boy children (not so highly prized) are somehow complicit with their parents being evil?
We don't know why God said to leave only virgin-girls. We may assume whatever we want but we don't know if our assumptions are true.
OddGamer Wrote:Or is god a misogynist? Take the boys out of a terrible situation, but leave the girls in a bad spot (slaves to the very people who killed their parents, forced to endure whatever treatment they get if they don't happen to want to be in that situation since they loved their parents)?
For whatever reason God wanted those particular girls continue to stay on Earth, we will not know those reasons. We only may assume that for example their situation became only better. They wouldn't be sacrificed to idols for sure. They wouldn't have sex with their own parents and with animals. They could become beloved children of new parents.
Both boys and girls were innocent victims. They were innocent victims of their evil parents choices.
OddGamer Wrote:Note that the male babies were slaughtered, too. Please let me know how a boy six months old is complicit in anything his parents do. Yet that boy was killed along with the rest.
May be it was not possible to take care of those beautiful little babies at that moment. If they would die any way alone.
OddGamer Wrote:People doing nasty things also seem to be quite happy. As gods you'd no longer be under the influence of god, otherwise you're not really a god yourself, just a more powerful human, really. And at that point, there's no reason to think you'd continue to do good things, that what we term 'good' will continue to make you happy as a god.
Yes, people do nasty things and seem to be happy. But you don't know if what seems is true. They may be happy but nasty choices have consequences. If not right away then later. Gods don't want to have those consequences which take away happiness.
Who told you that Gods do not have Gods over them?
OddGamer Wrote:Any sensible definition of the term 'god', unless there's a community. But then that community might change at any time, as other communities do.
There is eternal family of Gods. They change. In glory. Glory of every God is only increases.
OddGamer Wrote:This seems to make the assumption that becoming a god won't in any way change the perspective of a person, and neither will living for a long, long time, it assumes that people who do things a certain way frequently possess some attribute (honesty or kindness) that is somehow intrinsic at that point and not a function of the dynamic of their situation, which will change as the situation changes. That strikes me as a very limited way of thinking about human behavior.
God's are perfect beings. We can not comprehend eternity and we can not comprehend perfection. But I believe that time comes when I do.
We may assume anything now but we don't know if it is true.

P.S. I understand that you don't believe in God. So, I discuss with you a book and a story. I do not convince you that the story is true, that God is real.

Reading your answers to the above one can only realize that you are quite sick. You don't know what use was going to be made of the virgin girls they didn't kill? Really? Quite sick I repeat.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes DerFish's post
14-12-2015, 10:26 AM
RE: The Problem of Good
(14-12-2015 09:43 AM)DerFish Wrote:  
(13-12-2015 11:15 AM)Alla Wrote:  We always do good on our own. Even when we inspired by God we still have to choose to act upon this inspiration. The same with temptations.
We always do evil on our own. It is up to us to resist temptation or not.
And you are right I may not if someone who helped me was inspired by God that is why I thank God all the time. In case God inspired I thank Him.
And to thank God as often as possible is good for me.
We don't know why God said to leave only virgin-girls. We may assume whatever we want but we don't know if our assumptions are true.
For whatever reason God wanted those particular girls continue to stay on Earth, we will not know those reasons. We only may assume that for example their situation became only better. They wouldn't be sacrificed to idols for sure. They wouldn't have sex with their own parents and with animals. They could become beloved children of new parents.
Both boys and girls were innocent victims. They were innocent victims of their evil parents choices.
May be it was not possible to take care of those beautiful little babies at that moment. If they would die any way alone.
Yes, people do nasty things and seem to be happy. But you don't know if what seems is true. They may be happy but nasty choices have consequences. If not right away then later. Gods don't want to have those consequences which take away happiness.
Who told you that Gods do not have Gods over them?
There is eternal family of Gods. They change. In glory. Glory of every God is only increases.
God's are perfect beings. We can not comprehend eternity and we can not comprehend perfection. But I believe that time comes when I do.
We may assume anything now but we don't know if it is true.

P.S. I understand that you don't believe in God. So, I discuss with you a book and a story. I do not convince you that the story is true, that God is real.

Reading your answers to the above one can only realize that you are quite sick. You don't know what use was going to be made of the virgin girls they didn't kill? Really? Quite sick I repeat.

The interpretive christian branch of playing the, oh we don't possibly know what happened when they only inferred and never directly said things gimmick is so thin it's funny.

They'll pull that from OT and even still NT moments, but there is plenty more assumptions and meanings they'll ADD to phrases not there in the same & actually more excessive manners too. Like Jesus said it is done, that meant the OT rules aren't needed anymore, that's what it is over means... sure you get that but don't get what a society wants with it's young virgin girls? Or if a man who promised to kill the 1st one that walked out of his house after his battle won, he wins the battle comes home and his daughter walks out of the house, and it says He did what he promised.. oh idk, It doesn't REAALLY say he killed his daughter.

It's the cycle of believing what you want out of the big book of multiple choice.

"Allow there to be a spectrum in all that you see" - Neil Degrasse Tyson
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
16-12-2015, 08:06 AM
RE: The Problem of Good
As promised, I have created an "underailable thread " on the Christian forum. That way everyone can easily meet the 100 post and 5 like requirement needed to participate in the apologetics thread. Here is the link.

http://www.christianforums.com/index.php...s/7923391/
The Underailable Thread!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
16-12-2015, 08:13 AM
RE: The Problem of Good
(16-12-2015 08:06 AM)jason_delisle Wrote:  As promised, I have created an "underailable thread " on the Christian forum. That way everyone can easily meet the 100 post and 5 like requirement needed to participate in the apologetics thread. Here is the link.

http://www.christianforums.com/index.php...s/7923391/
The Underailable Thread!

The only acceptable solution was to remove that restriction. Drinking Beverage

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
16-12-2015, 08:23 AM
RE: The Problem of Good
(16-12-2015 08:13 AM)Chas Wrote:  
(16-12-2015 08:06 AM)jason_delisle Wrote:  As promised, I have created an "underailable thread " on the Christian forum. That way everyone can easily meet the 100 post and 5 like requirement needed to participate in the apologetics thread. Here is the link.

http://www.christianforums.com/index.php...s/7923391/
The Underailable Thread!

The only acceptable solution was to remove that restriction. Drinking Beverage
I agree. The explanation that I was given was that the forum had a history of problems with trolls. I am not sure how accurate that statement is. It was a compromise in order to allow non-christians to participate. They say that they are trying to put measures in place to prevent anyone from going on the forum with the sole intent of lashing out at it's readers. They believe that the measures would ensure that there would be civil dialogue about opposing viewpoints.

Remember the analogy I used about being a christian guest in an atheist's home? Imagine you had a close friend who was a Christian who welcomed you into their home. The level of respect you would show your friend is the type or respect they are asking for. For the record...this is what they are telling me and is in no way what my personal thoughts are.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
16-12-2015, 08:26 AM
RE: The Problem of Good
(16-12-2015 08:06 AM)jason_delisle Wrote:  As promised, I have created an "underailable thread " on the Christian forum. That way everyone can easily meet the 100 post and 5 like requirement needed to participate in the apologetics thread. Here is the link.

http://www.christianforums.com/index.php...s/7923391/
The Underailable Thread!

Requiring 100 posts means investing a fair amount of time and effort just to get the ability to even begin to question them on their beliefs. As far as I can see that is set up so that they can identify and ban anybody that might disagree in any way long before they get a chance to debate. They don't want any actual discussion or to have to deal with anything that challenges their beliefs. It is very sad that they are so insecure about what they hold that they go to such lengths to remain safe in their bubble.

If your beliefs are based on solid footing and if you care about believing what is actually true then you don't shun questions like that.

Atheism: it's not just for communists any more!
America July 4 1776 - November 8 2016 RIP
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes unfogged's post
16-12-2015, 08:32 AM
RE: The Problem of Good
(16-12-2015 08:23 AM)jason_delisle Wrote:  
(16-12-2015 08:13 AM)Chas Wrote:  The only acceptable solution was to remove that restriction. Drinking Beverage
I agree. The explanation that I was given was that the forum had a history of problems with trolls. I am not sure how accurate that statement is. It was a compromise in order to allow non-christians to participate. They say that they are trying to put measures in place to prevent anyone from going on the forum with the sole intent of lashing out at it's readers. They believe that the measures would ensure that there would be civil dialogue about opposing viewpoints.

Remember the analogy I used about being a christian guest in an atheist's home? Imagine you had a close friend who was a Christian who welcomed you into their home. The level of respect you would show your friend is the type or respect they are asking for. For the record...this is what they are telling me and is in no way what my personal thoughts are.

That sounds good on the surface, but it is bullshit. Trolls are always a problem on any forum and anybody who doesn't engage in civil discussion can be banned easily enough. The compromise is nothing of the sort, it's still a high bar designed to discourage challengers.

I'm not saying you don't see that, just noting that I don't believe them for a second.
What will be interesting is if anybody bothers jumping through the hoops and then isn't banned quickly anyway.

Atheism: it's not just for communists any more!
America July 4 1776 - November 8 2016 RIP
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes unfogged's post
Post Reply
Forum Jump: