We can't judge god by our standards.
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 3 Votes - 3 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
29-11-2013, 01:54 AM
RE: We can't judge god by our standards.
(29-11-2013 01:05 AM)Chippy Wrote:  
(29-11-2013 12:48 AM)EvolutionKills Wrote:  But for everyone else?
The argument has no persuasive force, it is question-begging so there is no point in invoking it with any Jew or Christian.

Really? For fuck's sake, It never works on anybody who isn't already an atheist? Well, I'd be curious as to how you've come to that conclusion. You'd think that those who are not hardliners and are also amendable to reason, those who are nominal in their belief or ignorant of what's actually in the Bible, might (just maybe) be persuaded once something like this is brought to their attention. To someone waffling on the fence, if they were looking at atheist arguments and reasons against Calvinist/Jewish assertions, I'd like to think we make the better case.

[Image: GrumpyCat_01.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
29-11-2013, 02:53 AM
RE: We can't judge god by our standards.
(29-11-2013 01:54 AM)EvolutionKills Wrote:  Really? For fuck's sake, It never works on anybody who isn't already an atheist?

Yes. The "Yahweh is evil argument" (YIEA) is predicated on a liberal-humanist conception of morality. If a person already has a liberal-humanist conception of morality then they are unlikely to be a practicing Jew, Muslim or Christian. YIEA makes sense only from a liberal-humanist conception of morality. Morality in Judaism, Islam and Christianity is about deity appeasement not humanism. If you are thinking about morality in terms other than deity appeasement then again you are unlikely to be a practicing Jew, Muslim or Christian.

Quote:Well, I'd be curious as to how you've come to that conclusion.

--Experience in talking with Muslims and various types of Christians
--Doctrinal understanding of Islam, Judaism and Christianity
--Knowledge of Christian and some Jewish apologetics

Quote: You'd think that those who are not hardliners and are also amendable to reason, those who are nominal in their belief or ignorant of what's actually in the Bible, might (just maybe) be persuaded once something like this is brought to their attention. To someone waffling on the fence, if they were looking at atheist arguments and reasons against Calvinist/Jewish assertions, I'd like to think we make the better case.

Those are low-hanging fruit and are probably just as likely to switch faiths as they are to become atheistic. For dithering Christians it is much more persuasive to point out that the salvific doctrine was revealed relatively late in human history and directly only to one small geographic region. That is intrinsically problematic for an ostensibly universalist doctrine of salvation. The Chinese and Indians were not worthy of a direct revelation? Even though they were literate civilisations that could have faithfully recorded the gospel? The salvific doctrine reached China and India very late in human history. Then there is also the issue of heresy and denominational proliferation due to disagreements about the salvific doctrine itself. These objections take the broader Christian narrative as given but question whether Christianity could have been more effectively launched by an allegedly omniscient deity. They sow doubt without trying to mess with the narrative and they are areas not covered by the narrative--and that is a key point. This approach applies also to Muslims. A Muslim was trying to persuade me that Islam is spreading because it is divinely protected. I asked, "If it is divinely protected then why did it split into two denominations upon Mohammed's death? If the ummah is protected why was it allowed to split on the account of a failure of succession planning by Mohammed? Why didn't Allah tell Mohammed to plan for his succession so the ummah doesn't split?" The Muslim had no answer except to say that Sunnis are a majority. I replied that the their numbers don't matter it is the split itself and so early in the history of Islam and that it was caused by a failure of succession planning that is the issue. I received no answer. Again there is no aspect of the Islamic narrative that explains this split. I have found that it is these practical considerations that raise the level of doubt of fence-sitters. These aren't killer arguments, they are seeds of reasonable doubt that are parasitic on the operational deficiencies in religious organisation.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 6 users Like Chippy's post
29-11-2013, 03:02 AM
RE: We can't judge god by our standards.
(29-11-2013 02:53 AM)Chippy Wrote:  
(29-11-2013 01:54 AM)EvolutionKills Wrote:  Really? For fuck's sake, It never works on anybody who isn't already an atheist?

Yes. The "Yahweh is evil argument" (YIEA) is predicated on a liberal-humanist conception of morality. If a person already has a liberal-humanist conception of morality then they are unlikely to be a practicing Jew, Muslim or Christian. YIEA makes sense only from a liberal-humanist conception of morality. Morality in Judaism, Islam and Christianity is about deity appeasement not humanism. If you are thinking about morality in terms other than deity appeasement then again you are unlikely to be a practicing Jew, Muslim or Christian.

Quote:Well, I'd be curious as to how you've come to that conclusion.

--Experience in talking with Muslims and various types of Christians
--Doctrinal understanding of Islam, Judaism and Christianity
--Knowledge of Christian and some Jewish apologetics

Quote: You'd think that those who are not hardliners and are also amendable to reason, those who are nominal in their belief or ignorant of what's actually in the Bible, might (just maybe) be persuaded once something like this is brought to their attention. To someone waffling on the fence, if they were looking at atheist arguments and reasons against Calvinist/Jewish assertions, I'd like to think we make the better case.

Those are low-hanging fruit and are probably just as likely to switch faiths as they are to become atheistic. For dithering Christians it is much more persuasive to point out that the salvific doctrine was revealed relatively late in human history and directly only to one small geographic region. That is intrinsically problematic for an ostensibly universalist doctrine of salvation. The Chinese and Indians were not worthy of a direct revelation? Even though they were literate civilisations that could have faithfully recorded the gospel? The salvific doctrine reached China and India very late in human history. Then there is also the issue of heresy and denominational proliferation due to disagreements about the salvific doctrine itself. These objections take the broader Christian narrative as given but question whether Christianity could have been more effectively launched by an allegedly omniscient deity. They sow doubt without trying to mess with the narrative and they are areas not covered by the narrative--and that is a key point. This approach applies also to Muslims. A Muslim was trying to persuade me that Islam is spreading because it is divinely protected. I asked, "If it is divinely protected then why did it split into two denominations upon Mohammed's death? If the ummah is protected why was it allowed to split on the account of a failure of succession planning by Mohammed? Why didn't Allah tell Mohammed to plan for his succession so the ummah doesn't split?" The Muslim had no answer except to say that Sunnis are a majority. I replied that the their numbers don't matter it is the split itself and so early in the history of Islam and that it was caused by a failure of succession planning that is the issue. I received no answer. Again there is no aspect of the Islamic narrative that explains this split. I have found that it is these practical considerations that raise the level of doubt of fence-sitters. These aren't killer arguments, they are seeds of reasonable doubt that are parasitic on the operational deficiencies in religious organisation.

Okay fair enough, I see your point and you make a very convincing argument Chippy.

[Image: GrumpyCat_01.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes EvolutionKills's post
29-11-2013, 06:18 AM
RE: We can't judge god by our standards.
Making a judgment about anything is the ability to assess it's qualities, to observe it's attributes.
If I can't assess god's attributes then I cannot know anything about the being.
Therefore the being has a value of zero. No morals, no power, no knowledge, no existence.

Insanity - doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
29-11-2013, 07:00 AM
RE: We can't judge god by our standards.
(29-11-2013 06:18 AM)Rahn127 Wrote:  Making a judgment about anything is the ability to assess it's qualities, to observe it's attributes.
If I can't assess god's attributes then I cannot know anything about the being.
Therefore the being has a value of zero. No morals, no power, no knowledge, no existence.

You are a font of invalid arguments.

I started writing a detailed refutation of the crap you posted but I deleted it. If you think that this garbage and the other garbage your posted earlier is a valid argument then there is just no point. You and Julius are both morons that I won't waste my time with. Village atheism at its best. Some patients are so ill there is no point giving them medical attention. Being so ignorant and unintelligent is sufficient punishment for you. I am happy to leave you as is.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Chippy's post
29-11-2013, 07:17 AM
RE: We can't judge god by our standards.
(28-11-2013 09:45 PM)Julius Wrote:  Bull Shit. Utter Bull Shit. You can't show me the Biblical Passage

I don't need to show you a Bible passage you fucking idiot. The idea of sola scriptura didn't appear until the Protestant Reformation. The earliest chuches--the Eastern Orthodox, the Coptic Orthodox and the Roman Catholic--are based as much on tradition as they are on scripture.

As I have already stated the Reformed idea of the noetic effect of sin is a key Calvinist idea and Calvinism does have a scriptural basis as does all of Protestanism.

Quote:and I never implied anything.

You implied that Protestanism--a major division in Christianity--can be disregarded to allow for your idiotic argument.

Quote:You are either a Troll or an Idiot. Which one is it Mother Fucker?

Yes because you are so erudite that anyone that contradicts your idiotic posts is either a troll or an idiot.

Lastly, dickhead, why do you randomly capitalise words? Don't you underdtand what a proper noun is? Fucking idiot.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
29-11-2013, 07:20 AM
RE: We can't judge god by our standards.
(28-11-2013 08:35 PM)Chippy Wrote:  
(28-11-2013 05:53 PM)Julius Wrote:  Yes...you got it right. However, the Christian Apologist will pull a 1000 Arguments out of his arse to try to contradict you, but they won't.

No that's NOT right. It is a fundamental doctrine of Christianity that humans are Fallen and they live in a Fallen world. The Protestant doctrine of sola scriptura is partly motivated by the belief in the corruption of human reason and intuition by the Fall. Revealed "knowledge" is necessary because humans are incapable of gaining knowledge of the salvific doctrine and of right and wrong through reason and intuition. Protestanism makes this point explicit in the concept of total depravity.

You are pulling Christian theology out of your arse. You are inventing your own Christianity to argue against.

But HOW, chippy. That's what I don't understand. HOW did the fall of man prevent man from recalibrating his moral compass? HOW did the fall of man mean that actions of god - if done by man - would land that man in hell, or life in prison?

That's what I don't understand. And I'm not just talking about the OT. I'm taking about the "evidence" of god that the religious assert outside of the bible. The one person he saves in a burning building while 15 people die sort of crap.

If I, as a human, started a fire - either deliberately or through negligence of not preventing that fire - and killed 15 people, but broke through the window to rescue one kid....no one would even care that I saved a kid. The fact that I caused 15 people to perish would have me indicted.

So why does the fall of man mean that god can't be judged by our standards if our standards appear to be MORE stringent than his?

A little rudeness and disrespect can elevate a meaningless interaction to a battle of wills and add drama to an otherwise dull day - Bill Watterson
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
29-11-2013, 07:27 AM
RE: We can't judge god by our standards.
(29-11-2013 07:00 AM)Chippy Wrote:  I started writing a detailed refutation of the crap you posted but I deleted it. If you think that this garbage and the other garbage your posted earlier is a valid argument then there is just no point. You and Julius are both morons that I won't waste my time with. Village atheism at its best. Some patients are so ill there is no point giving them medical attention. Being so ignorant and unintelligent is sufficient punishment for you. I am happy to leave you as is.

Classic Chippy: Vol 5

Theism is to believe what other people claim, Atheism is to ask "why should I".
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes sporehux's post
29-11-2013, 07:55 AM (This post was last modified: 29-11-2013 08:30 AM by Cathym112.)
RE: We can't judge god by our standards.
(29-11-2013 01:05 AM)Chippy Wrote:  
(29-11-2013 12:48 AM)EvolutionKills Wrote:  But for everyone else?

The argument has no persuasive force, it is question-begging so there is no point in invoking it with any Jew or Christian.

Quote:I don't care if you think it's pointless, I can and will use reason to make judgement calls and not simply accept things on authority alone. I might not be able to convince a Calvinist that their position is groundless, but he sure as hell isn't going to convince me anytime soon to abdicate my critical thinking and accept their position on faith.

Given that Calvinists believe in irresistible grace they are unlikely to try and persuade you to do that. Orthodox Jews also believe that they are God's chosen so they won't try and persuade you of that either.

The "Yahweh is evil argument" is just another example of preaching to the choir.

Ok, chip. Then I'm interested in knowing how you deal with this argument.

I'm surrounded by morons (Happy, kindhearted morons but morons nonetheless). I don't *only* surround myself with the intellectual elite. I'm not even one of them, like you apparently are, chip. Most of my family and friends are just every day regular people. Lamenting the situation is pointless - it's my reality. So let's just deal with what we have to work with.

It's worth noting that the smarter you are, as chippy you are a exemplar example of, the more your social skills suffer. I don't even *want* to be around *only* the intellectual elite.
Sometimes I want to be friends with someone who is nice, considerate and thoughtful. You are the bull in the emotional china shop. And I prefer not to surround myself by assholes, no matter how smart they are. Who wants to live with their guard constantly up?


So this is the best they have. I hear what you are saying that it's pointless, and on a purely philosophical level it is. But real life doesn't always work in ideals. Any philosophical surface discussions can be had but anything deeper than that and the conversation is above their head. And if I'm honest, sometimes over my head as well. (Those "what's reality and how do I know" arguments bore me and I feel are completely pointless)

Now, you could tell me that you would simply tell them to fuck off, and walk away, but if I did that to everyone I spoke to, I would have no friends left.

Do you mean to tell me that you would never teach anyone to ride a bike because they need training wheels first? Would you berate that child for not being as advanced as you? Everyone has to start somewhere. Looking down at those who crawl before they walk (as you once did) like they aren't worth your time is fine if you wanna take that position, but the majority of deeply religious people are everyday people who need to crawl. These are the masses. Not the scholarly religious. At least, not in my circles. And just because you wouldn't waste your time doesn't mean that I'm wrong for doing so. Ya know, my position isn't any less *legitimate* than yours just because they are different.

As I mentioned to you before, my path to atheism was that I first had to understand tht god was not as depicted (I was catholic - Catholics don't read the bible) that god was not love. Before I could realize he was never there to begin with.
Simply put: god was love. Then god was not love. If those who wrote the bible could be wrong about god being love, perhaps they are also wrong about god existing. Therefore, it was plausible that god didn't exist.

A little rudeness and disrespect can elevate a meaningless interaction to a battle of wills and add drama to an otherwise dull day - Bill Watterson
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Cathym112's post
29-11-2013, 08:36 AM
RE: We can't judge god by our standards.
I realize that these arguments are pointless. I get that. But these are the people I have in my life.

In fact, it's the one thing I miss most about religion. Sometimes I would love nothing more than to be like these people...skipping through life with shit in their pants like its a goddamn party.

I live in a world where I am, quite literally, the only atheist. I live in a world where I am the focus of conversion attempts. I am tired of just walking away from these, ok?

A little rudeness and disrespect can elevate a meaningless interaction to a battle of wills and add drama to an otherwise dull day - Bill Watterson
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Cathym112's post
Post Reply
Forum Jump: