The secret to defeating god.
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
14-01-2015, 11:42 AM
RE: The secret to defeating god.
(14-01-2015 10:47 AM)The Q Continuum Wrote:  Yes, the Genesis account says G_d and not Jesus by name, which name was revealed eons later in Isaiah 9, etc. But a reconciliation of Jesus's statements that no one has seen the Father and that He had fellowship with Abraham, etc. and that He is Creator and Originator (John 1) places Jesus as a literal anthropomorphic figure in the Garden.

No, not literal. There is literally no mention of Jesus in Genesis.

Quote:Can you escape the Garden?

Yes - it doesn't exist.
Quote:Can I?

Apparently not.
Quote:Can EVERY person at TTA, theist or atheist, honestly admit that they would have eaten of the tree

Rather presumptuous of you. You don't know that, nor do I , nor does anyone.
Quote:and are as responsible for the tree disobedience as Adam and Eve?

Absolutely not. I am not responsible for another's actions. That's bullshit ethics.
Quote:Would you admit that there are things you shouldn't do that you did because of desire?

Sure - that's likely true of many, if not most, people.
Quote:Would you and I both admit that we regret doing certain things and that willpower was insufficient?

Sure, so?

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
[+] 1 user Likes Chas's post
14-01-2015, 11:50 AM
RE: The secret to defeating god.
Chas,

He completely misses the point that if "all knowing" God knew Adam and Eve were going to eat the oh so tempting fruit, why place the tree there in the first place? Why let the snake in to tempt them?

Why bother creating paradise knowing that he was going to kick them out of it? Why didn't the all knowing God just create man, throw us down here on Earth as is, give us a list of rules to live by, including worshipping his greatness and kick back in his recliner to chill?! He went through an awful lot of bullshit on the account of our mistakes. He could have just made us infallible!

The whole thing has man's hands all over it and it should be apparent to every human with a functioning brain. You'd think this God fucker would perform a few real miracles now and again to keep us honest...stop a tsunami or make a sex tape with Scarlet Johannson and Kate Beckinsale.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
14-01-2015, 12:16 PM
RE: The secret to defeating god.
(14-01-2015 10:47 AM)The Q Continuum Wrote:  But there is (as always) an absolute wealth of information in such a brief Bible story(s). The Adam and Eve story is bedrock for so many peoples and cultures and says much about human nature and it's sometimes self-defeating nature.
Think about this.
A few bored guys sit around a camp fire together, possibly smoking dope, contemplate some aspects of life.
Hey, maaaaan, why do you think we are so different to the other animals?
Why do you think there are good people and bad people?
How do we know the difference between good and bad, how come other animals don't seem to know the difference?
How come it is bad to be naked? How come other animals don't know this?

They then imaginatively created a myth-story. They did it as a creative outlet, to entertain. It wasn't meant to explain truth. It was a creative yet complete bullshit story to explain a few observations that these guys had made about humans.
How do we know they were guys and not gals? It's pretty obvious isn't it?

People's behaviours and cultures are not shaped to conform to these stories. These stories were created by guys who had observed human nature and then invented a creative, entertaining myth.


(14-01-2015 10:47 AM)The Q Continuum Wrote:  Further, the story agrees with the "traps" you are mentioning, stating that God placed both trees in the MIDDLE of the Garden. No fencing nearby!
In most western cultures, human's have reasoned that entrapment is not just and people that have been tricked by the police are not punished by law as that would be unjust.

(14-01-2015 10:47 AM)The Q Continuum Wrote:  Yes, the Genesis account says G_d and not Jesus by name, which name was revealed eons later in Isaiah 9, etc. But a reconciliation of Jesus's statements that no one has seen the Father and that He had fellowship with Abraham, etc. and that He is Creator and Originator (John 1) places Jesus as a literal anthropomorphic figure in the Garden.
The character of Jesus was the son Mary. Mary does not exist yet, her DNA does not exist. Therefore Jesus cannot yet exist. If you find the bible contradictory, then join the club.


(14-01-2015 10:47 AM)The Q Continuum Wrote:  Can you escape the Garden? Can I? Can EVERY person at TTA, theist or atheist, honestly admit that they would have eaten of the tree and are as responsible for the tree disobedience as Adam and Eve?
It is not just to hold children responsible for the crimes of their parents.
It is not just to hold people responsible for crimes they haven't committed, for crimes you assume that they would commit. Humans are all different. We cannot all be held accountable for what two people have done.

If we take the story as poetic rather than literal. The eating from the tree of knowledge of right and wrong, simply means that people have come to hold beliefs in what is right and what is wrong.
I am a moral nihilist, I have no such beliefs, nothing is right, nothing is wrong. I don't eat from the tree, I find the tree ridiculous and a cause of much conflict among self-righteous controlling people.


(14-01-2015 10:47 AM)The Q Continuum Wrote:  Would you admit that there are things you shouldn't do that you did because of desire? Would you and I both admit that we regret doing certain things and that willpower was insufficient?
Not really no.
I think that without desire, life would be immensely boring.
I have no guilt of anything. Given new knowledge of outcomes etc if faced with the same situation there are probably things I would do differently, but given my knowledge at the time I had no choice but to take the path that I did.
Can't go living life, regretting one's path. Need to move forwards, have confidence in yourself and live life as you see fit.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Stevil's post
14-01-2015, 12:33 PM
RE: The secret to defeating god.
(14-01-2015 10:52 AM)The Q Continuum Wrote:  Better: Using language relevant to Bronze Age/Ancient Near East folk.

Dude, by this logic, we shouldn't educate children on things they don't currently understand. Children don't understand these concepts or have language to describe them, yet we teach them. I mean, what the actual fuck? Yes, I know the goat herders back then placed less value on education than we do today in lieu of placing value on burning goats for offerings and stabbing heathens in the face.

If you believe God has knowledge, why should he not impart it on his creations? My dad learned a long time ago that as a kid, I followed rules better if I understood the reason for them, rather than just giving arbitrary edicts.


(14-01-2015 10:52 AM)The Q Continuum Wrote:  Best: Not being presentist in your reading--not saying "I know how to communicate better to peoples of the ANE than ANE writers and I know how to communicate better than God in providing knowledge to my followers while WITHHOLDING the same knowledge from my detractors," in other words, if atheists say the Law is mundane and then Christians build healthier, happier lives on the Law, God's purposes are satisfied!

You need to get over yourself and stop making ad hoc excuses for weird belief systems. It makes you say profoundly dumb things.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like RobbyPants's post
15-01-2015, 02:35 PM
RE: The secret to defeating god.
(14-01-2015 11:42 AM)Chas Wrote:  
(14-01-2015 10:47 AM)The Q Continuum Wrote:  Yes, the Genesis account says G_d and not Jesus by name, which name was revealed eons later in Isaiah 9, etc. But a reconciliation of Jesus's statements that no one has seen the Father and that He had fellowship with Abraham, etc. and that He is Creator and Originator (John 1) places Jesus as a literal anthropomorphic figure in the Garden.

No, not literal. There is literally no mention of Jesus in Genesis.

Quote:Can you escape the Garden?

Yes - it doesn't exist.
Quote:Can I?

Apparently not.
Quote:Can EVERY person at TTA, theist or atheist, honestly admit that they would have eaten of the tree

Rather presumptuous of you. You don't know that, nor do I , nor does anyone.
Quote:and are as responsible for the tree disobedience as Adam and Eve?

Absolutely not. I am not responsible for another's actions. That's bullshit ethics.
Quote:Would you admit that there are things you shouldn't do that you did because of desire?

Sure - that's likely true of many, if not most, people.
Quote:Would you and I both admit that we regret doing certain things and that willpower was insufficient?

Sure, so?

If you find it presumptuous of me to state that each person on Earth has done things they regret, things that willpower did not do for them and things that were lamentable or wicked, you don't know people. You wouldn't say we're all sinners but it would be blind of you or me to say there are people wholly lacking moral or ethical flaws.

I'm told atheists on forums like TTA are bitter and angry. If you are not, your posts to me will be respectful, insightful and thoughtful. Prove me wrong by your adherence to decent behavior.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
15-01-2015, 02:42 PM
RE: The secret to defeating god.
(14-01-2015 12:33 PM)RobbyPants Wrote:  
(14-01-2015 10:52 AM)The Q Continuum Wrote:  Better: Using language relevant to Bronze Age/Ancient Near East folk.

Dude, by this logic, we shouldn't educate children on things they don't currently understand. Children don't understand these concepts or have language to describe them, yet we teach them. I mean, what the actual fuck? Yes, I know the goat herders back then placed less value on education than we do today in lieu of placing value on burning goats for offerings and stabbing heathens in the face.

If you believe God has knowledge, why should he not impart it on his creations? My dad learned a long time ago that as a kid, I followed rules better if I understood the reason for them, rather than just giving arbitrary edicts.


(14-01-2015 10:52 AM)The Q Continuum Wrote:  Best: Not being presentist in your reading--not saying "I know how to communicate better to peoples of the ANE than ANE writers and I know how to communicate better than God in providing knowledge to my followers while WITHHOLDING the same knowledge from my detractors," in other words, if atheists say the Law is mundane and then Christians build healthier, happier lives on the Law, God's purposes are satisfied!

You need to get over yourself and stop making ad hoc excuses for weird belief systems. It makes you say profoundly dumb things.

Well, Robby, I do agree with you and the other respondent who are saying it looks like overcomplicating biblical interpretation reads like a shell game. The Bible itself warns of complicated doctrines--a five-year-old can understand redemption and the gospel, for just one example.

While I hate to over-complicate solutions to Bible "problems", I must continue to provide detailed explanations as long as:

1. A foreign-language book is misunderstood in English, when there are excellent concordances and other tools to decipher best renderings, same as other foreign books.

2. Historical contexts are blithely, even utterly, ignored. For example, everyone at TTA on recent posts seems up in arms that it was okay for pork to be eaten well-cooked while ignoring the biblical injunction to demonstrate cleanness and uncleanness to Israel and the world. IMHO God cares less about pork being the other white meat or what's for dinner as long as we understand that uncleanness will be abolished, and punished, and cleanness (of spirit, not just dietary hygiene) will be rewarded.

3. Of course, I just want to remind you, not accuse you, that recent statements by some on the matter of pork and shellfish consumption has to do with modern farming and harvesting practices, with an eye like never before toward the public good and sustainability. I mean, pigs were pretty unclean back when and you know how they eat and live even now. I like my bacon same as the next omnivore but I know I have far healthier choices available. There's no way you went to your doctor last week, anywhere on Earth, and he or she advised that you get healthier by eating more sausage, scrapple, oysters and lobsters... aka the God who wrote the Bible knows His stuff!

I'm told atheists on forums like TTA are bitter and angry. If you are not, your posts to me will be respectful, insightful and thoughtful. Prove me wrong by your adherence to decent behavior.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
15-01-2015, 03:08 PM
RE: The secret to defeating god.
(14-01-2015 11:34 AM)unfogged Wrote:  
(14-01-2015 10:52 AM)The Q Continuum Wrote:  Bizarre: Explaining about cooking temperatures and parasites to millennia of persons who have neither microscopes nor thermometers.

Better: Using language relevant to Bronze Age/Ancient Near East folk.

Best: Not being presentist in your reading

It is hardly "presentist" to think that the book could have said "don't eat pork unless it is thoroughly cooked". A god who created those parasites would have known what the problem was and how to deal with it. He could have "inspired" an explanation that would have been understandable at the time; hell, he could have just flat out told them that there is life there that is too small to see. A blanket prohibition on pork, even if it was founded on noting that people sometimes got sick from it, just demonstrates that the author was completely ignorant of the cause. It shows that the bible is just the product of man's limited understanding at the time.

I agree. Here's some suggestions that God could have placed in the Bible that was within the understanding of the ANE people:

a. Always boil water before you drink it.
b. Here’s how to make soap: mix lye, water, and animal or
vegetable fat, and use the resulting product to wash yourselves
all over regularly.
c. Brush your teeth twice a day. Use a papyrus reed to
do it.
d. Cook meat thoroughly before you eat it.
e. If a person is sick (not just with leprosy), minimize contact
with that person till he or she is better.
f. Use antiseptics such as strong wine, vinegar, or oil to clean
and dress wounds, or make your own. Here’s a recipe:
Add vitriol to seaweed ash, and lo! you have a purplish
vapor, which will crystallize on cold surfaces. You may call
it iodine, if you like. Mix it with alcohol to make a tincture
and use it to treat wounds.
g. Someday, an evil called “tobacco” will arise and wicked
companions will entice you, saying, “Come and let us go
smoke.” Have nothing to do with it.
h. Study moldy bread carefully. You may be surprised at
what you find.

And so on and so forth. While we're at it why could God have not placed the following in the Bible as well?

a. All things are made up of tiny particles called atoms.
b. The Earth is a sphere floating in empty space and rotates
once around its axis in a day.
c. The sun is a giant ball of hot gas very, very far away, around
which the Earth makes a complete revolution once a year.
d. The stars are distant suns.
e. Grind glass (ask the Phoenicians how to make glass) into a
circle with a thick center and very thin edges. Take two of
these “lenses” and, placing one in front of another, look at
an object nearby or far away and study the results.
f. Pass a sunbeam through a triangular-shaped piece of glass
and study the results carefully.
g. Many diseases are caused by tiny organisms called germs
that can be avoided by good hygiene.
h. Boil water to make steam. Pass the steam through narrow
tubes to build up “pressure,” which can be used to
do work.
i. Alternately stack disks of copper and zinc separated from
each other by cloth soaked in brine. The resulting pile will
generate power that may be harnessed to do useful work.


Now, that would be impressive and worth studying.

Instead, we get passages like this:

Deut 22:23-24: If within the city a man comes upon a maiden who is betrothed, and has relations with her, you shall bring them both out of the gate of the city and there stone them to death: the girl because she did not cry out for help though she was in the city, and the man because he violated his neighbors wife.

Now, that's what the goat-herders got. And that's why we live in a world today where things like Q and ISIS and Boko Haram thrive.
Doc
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 4 users Like docskeptic's post
15-01-2015, 03:11 PM
RE: The secret to defeating god.
(11-01-2015 09:52 PM)AlephBet Wrote:  The Lord here is Yahweh. He was in rebellion against Elohim. By selecting one nation, he was dividing mankind in a battle of bloodshed. Elohim is the Father of Genesis 1. Elohim made this promise to all nations:

Sorry. Wrong again. The Elohim was the Council of gods which originated probably in Babylon. Yahweh was the 70th son of El Elyon, the chief god of the Elohim. Yahweh "chose" no one. The Jews chose the war god, (Yahweh) as they wanted his assistance in their land grabbing activities, and agreed to worship only him, (the "covenant").

Insufferable know-it-all.Einstein God has a plan for us. Please stop screwing it up with your prayers.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Bucky Ball's post
15-01-2015, 03:24 PM
RE: The secret to defeating god.
(15-01-2015 02:35 PM)The Q Continuum Wrote:  
(14-01-2015 11:42 AM)Chas Wrote:  No, not literal. There is literally no mention of Jesus in Genesis.


Yes - it doesn't exist.

Apparently not.

Rather presumptuous of you. You don't know that, nor do I , nor does anyone.

Absolutely not. I am not responsible for another's actions. That's bullshit ethics.

Sure - that's likely true of many, if not most, people.

Sure, so?

If you find it presumptuous of me to state that each person on Earth has done things they regret, things that willpower did not do for them and things that were lamentable or wicked, you don't know people. You wouldn't say we're all sinners but it would be blind of you or me to say there are people wholly lacking moral or ethical flaws.

Re-read my responses and try again. Your post made no sense.

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
15-01-2015, 04:24 PM
RE: The secret to defeating god.
(15-01-2015 02:35 PM)The Q Continuum Wrote:  ...it would be blind of you or me to say there are people wholly lacking moral or ethical flaws.
Moral nihilists like myself lack belief in moral truths.
We don't consider that anything can be assessed as right or wrong, in fact we tend to think of moral statements as being incoherent, and nonsensical.

To make a claim that X is wrong you are assuming many things.
Such as:
-1) The end goal
-2) The important considerations
-3) The weightings of considerations i.e. pros and cons
-4) The perspective from which X is to be viewed

Is your claim:
-A) an objective claim?
-B) a personal judgement made by yourself upon the actions taken by another?
-C) a personal judgement made yourself upon your own actions a.k.a. a self critique?

If you are making a claim from A
You need to show how you have concluded that your answers to 1-4 applies to everyone.
e.g. A Christian might say that
1) the end goal is to be obedient to the Christian god,
2 ) that the important considerations are those things that their religious adviser/organisation tell them are important
3) that the weightings are to be determined by their religious adviser/organisation in accordance with their opinion on how the Christian religious text is to be interpreted, and any other information that they tell you the Christian god has given them special access to.
4) The Christian perspective and presented by the religious adviser/organisation that the believer follows.

The same logic above could be applied to other religions too, just replace Christian god with Muslim God, Hindu Gods etc and replace Christian religious text with Muslim religious text, Hindu religious text etc and replace Christian perspective with Muslim perspective, Hindu perspective etc.

With respect to some atheists (those that believe in objective morality)
1) the end goal is to minimise human suffering, maximise human happiness, or treat others as you would like to be treated, depending on whatever standard they have decided to use.
2) important considerations might be the amount of people that will be approve of the action, the amount of people that might disapprove of the action, suffering, benefits to the self...
3) the weightings are likely to be a personal opinion
4) possibly the perspective of humanity, or the perspective of all animals or the perspective off all living creatures that can experience pain, or the perspective of the self.

If you are making a claim from B
You ought to realise that other people take actions based on their own answers to 1-4 which could quite likely be different to your own answers to 1-4. You are making a moral judgement on others based on criteria that is unique and personal to you and unknown to the person actually taking the action. It would be like me stating that a person is bad for making themselves a cup of coffee, because I don't like to drink coffee. Well that person might not like to drink hot chocolate but they might really enjoy drinking coffee. The goal is different, it really doesn't make much sense for me to make a moral judgement of their decision. I can of course make an assessment as to whether that person's actions are in accordance with my own moral beliefs but I don't really see the value in making such judgement. That person certainly isn't going to agree with me that they should be acting according to my moral beliefs (the probably don't even know what my moral beliefs are or even what my answers to 1-4 are), that person isn't going to feel guilt for transgressing my own moral beliefs.

If you are making a claim from C
You obviously don't have to explain your own answers to 1-4 to yourself, they are personal to you, you already know what they are and you already agree with them. Sure you can assess (after the fact) whether you were acting true to yourself (or true to who you would like to be), sure you can choose to feel guilt for not living up to your own expectations, the guilt lives inside your own head, it is a world of your own making.
But you don't have to experience guilt. It is a choice that you have made, a black and white painting that you have created. A perception of yourself that you have invented which is a personal goal and more often then likely an unobtainable goal.

As an moral nihilist, I haven't painted the world in black and white, I don't have a perception of myself other than who I actually am.
To put this into plain English, I have no moral beliefs, I don't believe that it is my purpose or duty to be good. I don't even know what "good" is. I don't feel guilt for behaving bad. I don't even know what "bad" is. I behave the way that I do, because I am me, it's as simple as that.

So I wholehearted state that I am wholly lacking moral or ethical flaws.
In fact I am wholly lacking moral or ethical duties and beliefs.
Morality just does not apply to my decision making process, nor my self assessment. I am completely lacking the ability to make moral judgments on myself or others.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: