"There is no heaven; it's a fairy story"
Discussion
enioldjoe said:
Well those 'in the know' and who are qualified to speak on such matters would seem to say otherwise.
Earlier in the year Alexander Vilenkin, speaking at Hawkin's birthday bash stated that "All the evidence we have says the universe had a beginning." So perhaps there is something in it?
Or maybe the notion of a beginning must be avoided at all cost as it points uncomfortably to an act of creation....?
This universe may well have had a beginning, the evidence seems that way. But that could just refer to a beginning in it's current form, and doesn't exclude other universes.Earlier in the year Alexander Vilenkin, speaking at Hawkin's birthday bash stated that "All the evidence we have says the universe had a beginning." So perhaps there is something in it?
Or maybe the notion of a beginning must be avoided at all cost as it points uncomfortably to an act of creation....?
mattnunn said:
carmonk said:
NobleGuy said:
Well quite, but if it's not made of matter then it's not a hydra (magical or not). It's something else. It may perhaps be someone else's idea of a "God". If when carmonk says "magical hydra" he means "something God-like" then perhaps the magical hydra did create the universe. In that context the magical hydra is as good an explanantion, but only because he really means "a God of some kind".
So if god decided he wanted to be a hyrda - made of matter - then you're saying he couldn't? Because if you are then you're not talking about a god, and if you're not then what I say stands.carmonk said:
mattnunn said:
carmonk said:
NobleGuy said:
Well quite, but if it's not made of matter then it's not a hydra (magical or not). It's something else. It may perhaps be someone else's idea of a "God". If when carmonk says "magical hydra" he means "something God-like" then perhaps the magical hydra did create the universe. In that context the magical hydra is as good an explanantion, but only because he really means "a God of some kind".
So if god decided he wanted to be a hyrda - made of matter - then you're saying he couldn't? Because if you are then you're not talking about a god, and if you're not then what I say stands.mattnunn said:
carmonk said:
mattnunn said:
carmonk said:
NobleGuy said:
Well quite, but if it's not made of matter then it's not a hydra (magical or not). It's something else. It may perhaps be someone else's idea of a "God". If when carmonk says "magical hydra" he means "something God-like" then perhaps the magical hydra did create the universe. In that context the magical hydra is as good an explanantion, but only because he really means "a God of some kind".
So if god decided he wanted to be a hyrda - made of matter - then you're saying he couldn't? Because if you are then you're not talking about a god, and if you're not then what I say stands.mattnunn said:
Not for our purpose no, but the nature of truth is independant of human experience, surely you must accept this. i have not made the assumption you accuse me of at all, rather the opposite, man's quest to unpick the truth behind the universe, using whatever tools, is precisely because of the irratating itch that we feel when when realise we are not the centre of the universe, as much as we would like to be, sceince tells us that, but so does God.
I think we need to separate the quest to explain the mechanics of a thing and the moitve for it.Of course we look to work out how things work. You see this in every child - my favourite was taking old bits of electronic equipment apart, sadly I had less success with re-assembly.
That is, in my opinion, entirely separate from the 'why' of motives. I'm curious about the 'what?' of the universe, if there was anything that led me to think there way a 'why?' I'd want to know that but my view is that there is no 'why', there just is existence. If I find a need to give it meaning then that has to come from me and the context I find myself in. I certainly will not accept the mismatched and frankly misanthropic purpose posited in the bible, for example.
It seems to me, Matt, that your concept of god is the Deist impersonal god and not the Theists personal god. How you can find this unprovable position more satisfying than the scientific assumption that there were unmotivated causes for the universe confuses me a little if I'm honest. Just based on track-record the scientific approach has answered most questions thrown at it and is in the process of solving more and more. It seems to me that the Theist position fails to do so utterly and the Deist position is worse at answering fundamental questions than science.
mattnunn said:
There was a fair bit of God around before the Bible etc... I'd suggest that as soon as our ancestors could communicate food, sex and warmth needs they'd have started on God, i.e the search for a universal answer.
Of course. it seems entirely natural to me that humans, lacking in knowledge of how the world works, unable to deal with the notion of their own non-existence, and seeking to have power over their fellow humans, invented the concept of god in order to explain things they were unable to understand, provide comfort for their fragile egos, and to facilitate social control by the ruling elite.But I simply cannot accept your argument that because f this, god has managed to achieve some kind of ontological existence.
TheHeretic said:
enioldjoe said:
Well those 'in the know' and who are qualified to speak on such matters would seem to say otherwise.
Earlier in the year Alexander Vilenkin, speaking at Hawkin's birthday bash stated that "All the evidence we have says the universe had a beginning." So perhaps there is something in it?
Or maybe the notion of a beginning must be avoided at all cost as it points uncomfortably to an act of creation....?
Can you get me a link, with the context? Everything I have read suggests that wenjust do not know. Ot may well be unknowable. Earlier in the year Alexander Vilenkin, speaking at Hawkin's birthday bash stated that "All the evidence we have says the universe had a beginning." So perhaps there is something in it?
Or maybe the notion of a beginning must be avoided at all cost as it points uncomfortably to an act of creation....?
I like how you seem to make out that I am avoiding mentioning a beginning. I am doing nothing of the sort. If you read what I wrote, you will find that I say we do not know what happened. The evidence points to a beginning of the universe, I never said otherwise. That would be the singularity. However, before that point, of there was a before, we do not know.
Even if there was a beginning, it does not at all point, comfortably or not, to a creation. It merely means there was a beginning, and another unknown. You can place God in that unknown of you wish, bit it will still remain unknown.
ChrisGB said:
TheHeretic said:
enioldjoe said:
Well those 'in the know' and who are qualified to speak on such matters would seem to say otherwise.
Earlier in the year Alexander Vilenkin, speaking at Hawkin's birthday bash stated that "All the evidence we have says the universe had a beginning." So perhaps there is something in it?
Or maybe the notion of a beginning must be avoided at all cost as it points uncomfortably to an act of creation....?
Can you get me a link, with the context? Everything I have read suggests that wenjust do not know. Ot may well be unknowable. Earlier in the year Alexander Vilenkin, speaking at Hawkin's birthday bash stated that "All the evidence we have says the universe had a beginning." So perhaps there is something in it?
Or maybe the notion of a beginning must be avoided at all cost as it points uncomfortably to an act of creation....?
I like how you seem to make out that I am avoiding mentioning a beginning. I am doing nothing of the sort. If you read what I wrote, you will find that I say we do not know what happened. The evidence points to a beginning of the universe, I never said otherwise. That would be the singularity. However, before that point, of there was a before, we do not know.
Even if there was a beginning, it does not at all point, comfortably or not, to a creation. It merely means there was a beginning, and another unknown. You can place God in that unknown of you wish, bit it will still remain unknown.
Forst result for 'BVG 2003 Vilenkin' was this.http://debunkingwlc.wordpress.com/2010/07/14/borde...
I'll look at the paper tomorrow, as the footy is on.
The annoying thing about Enioldjoe is he will appeal to Craig, etc, but refuses to actually talk about the content of these arguments.
gherkins said:
ChrisGB said:
But liberalism won’t tolerate distinctions like that – you agree or you are excluded.
This is the funniest thing to come out of the mouth of a Catholic for a long time. Not too hypocritical there. So a homosexual chooses to be so and presumably ChrisGB is one who thinks they can be cured of their "affliction".
What one says about one's sexuality is a discourse that may change over time, in fact I wouldn't believe it if a 15 year old said exactly the same 70 years later.
I have never said that homosexuality is a choice.
TheHeretic said:
ChrisGB said:
TheHeretic said:
enioldjoe said:
Well those 'in the know' and who are qualified to speak on such matters would seem to say otherwise.
Earlier in the year Alexander Vilenkin, speaking at Hawkin's birthday bash stated that "All the evidence we have says the universe had a beginning." So perhaps there is something in it?
Or maybe the notion of a beginning must be avoided at all cost as it points uncomfortably to an act of creation....?
Can you get me a link, with the context? Everything I have read suggests that wenjust do not know. Ot may well be unknowable. Earlier in the year Alexander Vilenkin, speaking at Hawkin's birthday bash stated that "All the evidence we have says the universe had a beginning." So perhaps there is something in it?
Or maybe the notion of a beginning must be avoided at all cost as it points uncomfortably to an act of creation....?
I like how you seem to make out that I am avoiding mentioning a beginning. I am doing nothing of the sort. If you read what I wrote, you will find that I say we do not know what happened. The evidence points to a beginning of the universe, I never said otherwise. That would be the singularity. However, before that point, of there was a before, we do not know.
Even if there was a beginning, it does not at all point, comfortably or not, to a creation. It merely means there was a beginning, and another unknown. You can place God in that unknown of you wish, bit it will still remain unknown.
Forst result for 'BVG 2003 Vilenkin' was this.http://debunkingwlc.wordpress.com/2010/07/14/borde...
I'll look at the paper tomorrow, as the footy is on.
The annoying thing about Enioldjoe is he will appeal to Craig, etc, but refuses to actually talk about the content of these arguments.
TheHeretic said:
gherkins said:
ChrisGB said:
But liberalism won’t tolerate distinctions like that – you agree or you are excluded.
This is the funniest thing to come out of the mouth of a Catholic for a long time. Not too hypocritical there. So a homosexual chooses to be so and presumably ChrisGB is one who thinks they can be cured of their "affliction".
The arguments of the absurd.
ChrisGB said:
Once again I haven't said homosexuality is a choice. No-one chooses, up to a point, who they are attracted to, but everyone chooses, up to a point, how they deal with that attraction. If I think gay sex is not conducive to well-being, it is only because I think most straight sex is also not conducive to well-being, it is not anti-gay to say so, it is anti-sexual revolution. Humanae Vitae was correct, you can suffer the consequences and kid yourself you are reaping the benefits... Adam and Eve after the Pill by Mary Eberstadt covers much of what I would say.
Erm, I believe you did say it was a choice, unless it was someone else. [Hal mode]One moment... One moment...[/Hal]
TheHeretic][Hal mode]The AE-35 unit is due to fail withing 72 hours[/hal said:
Chris, you said...
How is that done? Because I'm thinking if we all made a choice to be bisexual we'd all have twice the choice. I'm wondering, do I just load up a picture of a man's arse and stare at it, or... how does it work?Chris said:
Calling yourself gay and having sex are decisions, being black is not a decision
That to me suggests that being gay is a choice. Chris? How does it work?
TheHeretic said:
ChrisGB said:
In the 10 minute extract from his debate with his brother, titled Hitchens vs God on youtube, cited a few posts ago on here, CH sketches these ideas against God and against the desirability of faith:
1. There are much more elegant explanations of everything than the prime mover of deism, but my heroes accepted deism.
2. Even Aquinas couldn’t go from deism to theism.
3. Relgion is totalitarian
4. Religion will convict you of thought crime while you are asleep
5. We would not know right and wrong without heaven’s help
6. Religion was the first attempt at morality, philosophy, healthcare etc and was therefore the worst.
7. If humans have been around for 100,000 years and God spoke to Abraham 3-4,000 years ago, what was God doing for the other 96 thousand years?
Someone asked for a point by point rebuttal of CH, so here goes:
1. Show me a more elegant explanation of everything then – I can’t see any more succinct summary of the limits of science than the question How come anything rather than nothing? Lawrence Krauss has tried to show that there is no such thing as nothing (hehe..) and advanced the possible scientific answers to the question precisely no distance at all. He has over many pages shown that something comes from something, but we don’t need to buy his book to know that. He genuinely doesn’t see what he’s missing, so the first thing he needs is a grounding in philosophy. He should contact Blackfriars Oxford or talk to Fergus Kerr Blackfriars Edinburgh for some help.
2. A quotation would be helpful. People have latched on to it and have presumably read even less Aquinas than CH. I think Aquinas thought philosophy without reference to revelation could show that there were rational arguments for believing God existed, and that all that we know of God after that comes from deduction (negative theology) and revelation (from God, largely metaphorical). Contrary to popular imagining, Aquinas’s 5 proofs were in fact an attempt to show that it was possible and indeed necessary to advance rational argument in support of belief, against the idea at the time that God was self-evident and therefore needed no rational defence. I wouldn’t like to defend the view that Aquinas was a deist.
3. Personally I think the heart of liberalism is totalitarian – one in the end has to conform on the level of ideas, or one is excluded. Witness the nonsense aligning those who disagree with the gay rights legislation with those who opposed civil rights in the US. Calling yourself gay and having sex are decisions, being black is not a decision. But liberalism won’t tolerate distinctions like that – you agree or you are excluded. Is my faith totalitarian? I don’t consider that things are imposed on me, I see that doctrine makes sense. If I don’t agree, I can leave. In ages where this was not an option, social ideas of common good trumping any individual rights are the explanation more than anything to do with the religion itself, in the case of Catholicism. I remember in student days going to masses where there were university science lecturers, surgeons, professional footballers, BBC journalists, prostitutes, refugees, professors of history and philosophy, famous Marxists, European royalty and members of the Pitt club all in the same room. This to me is a sign of vitality and freedom.
4. This also sounds catchy, but talk to an experienced confessor and ask that exact phrase as a question, he will probably laugh and smile and direct you to the catechism. It is nonsense, but don’t let that stop any atheist believing it.
5. Can atheist and theist agree on the imperfectability of man, given the complete absence of utopias? And those that try hardest to achieve them in secular history fail the most spectacularly, eg. modern Europe. If I know my attempt to build a utopia will fail, I am happy to look for guidance, and find it in the gospels, and find pretty much the antithesis of goodness in much of modern society.
6. Christianity is hardly the first attempt at any of this. As Rowan Williams explained to Dawkins, he reads Genesis for what it says about humans and the human condition and finds it powerful, he doesn’t read it for 21st century science. Would anyone seriously defend this as a piece of logic? (first, therefore worst). Take morality, look at Matthew 5 for example, tell me this is the worst attempt and show me how the modern world has improved, where we now have 40 million or more abortions every year and we have ideas about sex that treat others pretty much as objects for our pleasure.
7. What was God doing? suggests a god in time, so not God. What is the fate of these people? I think the answer is that everyone has an idea of right and wrong, however quickly they overrule it, fail to educate it or make it silent, and they will doubtless be judged according to that, and any upright person in any age has every chance of being a saint. The CH question is irrelevant if there is no afterlife, and in the afterlife, are those who lived 5,000 years ago less likely to be there than those that lived 500 years ago, in say Italy? Please tell me.
The atmosphere of these debates is one of tribal conflict, you are not going to get decent arguments or discussion, it is going to be mostly hurling of one-liners and crowd-pleasers. The Williams Kenny Dawkins talk on youtube actually breaks that mould.
1) What is YOUR elegant explanation of everything? ...1. There are much more elegant explanations of everything than the prime mover of deism, but my heroes accepted deism.
2. Even Aquinas couldn’t go from deism to theism.
3. Relgion is totalitarian
4. Religion will convict you of thought crime while you are asleep
5. We would not know right and wrong without heaven’s help
6. Religion was the first attempt at morality, philosophy, healthcare etc and was therefore the worst.
7. If humans have been around for 100,000 years and God spoke to Abraham 3-4,000 years ago, what was God doing for the other 96 thousand years?
Someone asked for a point by point rebuttal of CH, so here goes:
1. Show me a more elegant explanation of everything then – I can’t see any more succinct summary of the limits of science than the question How come anything rather than nothing? Lawrence Krauss has tried to show that there is no such thing as nothing (hehe..) and advanced the possible scientific answers to the question precisely no distance at all. He has over many pages shown that something comes from something, but we don’t need to buy his book to know that. He genuinely doesn’t see what he’s missing, so the first thing he needs is a grounding in philosophy. He should contact Blackfriars Oxford or talk to Fergus Kerr Blackfriars Edinburgh for some help.
2. A quotation would be helpful. People have latched on to it and have presumably read even less Aquinas than CH. I think Aquinas thought philosophy without reference to revelation could show that there were rational arguments for believing God existed, and that all that we know of God after that comes from deduction (negative theology) and revelation (from God, largely metaphorical). Contrary to popular imagining, Aquinas’s 5 proofs were in fact an attempt to show that it was possible and indeed necessary to advance rational argument in support of belief, against the idea at the time that God was self-evident and therefore needed no rational defence. I wouldn’t like to defend the view that Aquinas was a deist.
3. Personally I think the heart of liberalism is totalitarian – one in the end has to conform on the level of ideas, or one is excluded. Witness the nonsense aligning those who disagree with the gay rights legislation with those who opposed civil rights in the US. Calling yourself gay and having sex are decisions, being black is not a decision. But liberalism won’t tolerate distinctions like that – you agree or you are excluded. Is my faith totalitarian? I don’t consider that things are imposed on me, I see that doctrine makes sense. If I don’t agree, I can leave. In ages where this was not an option, social ideas of common good trumping any individual rights are the explanation more than anything to do with the religion itself, in the case of Catholicism. I remember in student days going to masses where there were university science lecturers, surgeons, professional footballers, BBC journalists, prostitutes, refugees, professors of history and philosophy, famous Marxists, European royalty and members of the Pitt club all in the same room. This to me is a sign of vitality and freedom.
4. This also sounds catchy, but talk to an experienced confessor and ask that exact phrase as a question, he will probably laugh and smile and direct you to the catechism. It is nonsense, but don’t let that stop any atheist believing it.
5. Can atheist and theist agree on the imperfectability of man, given the complete absence of utopias? And those that try hardest to achieve them in secular history fail the most spectacularly, eg. modern Europe. If I know my attempt to build a utopia will fail, I am happy to look for guidance, and find it in the gospels, and find pretty much the antithesis of goodness in much of modern society.
6. Christianity is hardly the first attempt at any of this. As Rowan Williams explained to Dawkins, he reads Genesis for what it says about humans and the human condition and finds it powerful, he doesn’t read it for 21st century science. Would anyone seriously defend this as a piece of logic? (first, therefore worst). Take morality, look at Matthew 5 for example, tell me this is the worst attempt and show me how the modern world has improved, where we now have 40 million or more abortions every year and we have ideas about sex that treat others pretty much as objects for our pleasure.
7. What was God doing? suggests a god in time, so not God. What is the fate of these people? I think the answer is that everyone has an idea of right and wrong, however quickly they overrule it, fail to educate it or make it silent, and they will doubtless be judged according to that, and any upright person in any age has every chance of being a saint. The CH question is irrelevant if there is no afterlife, and in the afterlife, are those who lived 5,000 years ago less likely to be there than those that lived 500 years ago, in say Italy? Please tell me.
The atmosphere of these debates is one of tribal conflict, you are not going to get decent arguments or discussion, it is going to be mostly hurling of one-liners and crowd-pleasers. The Williams Kenny Dawkins talk on youtube actually breaks that mould.
As for your mockery, and derision towards Krauss, I find it odd that you feel that because you cannot grasp the notion of nothing that he is proposing...
My elegant expression of everything might be that God created the natural laws we see unfolding in the universe, and it is elegant because it covers the How come anything anyway PLUS everything that came after the beginning. But Hitchens' point is not about the unfolding of the universe, it is about the origin of everything. He doesn't mind the deist claim, but he thinks there are more elegant explanations of why there is something rather than nothing at all - so what are they?
But I do grasp the notion of nothing Krauss is proposing and it is blatantly not nothing, he is calling Ricci tensors, vacuum states and quantum fields his nothing. There are not "various notions of nothing" as he says, there is just no such thing as nothing. The universe is not reducible to nothing. Philosophy is crucial because if you are not going to accept the rules of reasoning, then you can assert pretty much anything and get people nodding along with you, but you will have left the path of reason. There is no such thing as nothing, nothing is that which there is no such thing as, out of nothing nothing comes etc. A grounding in philosophy is needed to test the basis on which you are building whatever thought construction you are into. If you want to argue that these things are nothing, then you need to have thought as consistently about the nothing as you have about the Ricci tensors etc. and Krauss's absence of philosophical knowledge makes his arguments flawed. He has merely found a lot of very small things that account for larger things. This is not creation from nothing. Don't kid yourself that there is experimentation to prove something from nothing, be strict with yourself about what nothing means, and don't think the argument's over because you can equate, for convenience, "nothing" with "not much".
The Heretic said:
2) "A quote would be helpful". Well, I presume you have a grounding in philosophy, unlike Krauss? Proposing Deism is simple. There could well have been an entity who started the big bang, and then has no input otherwise, certainly not favouring, or garnering attention from the primate inhabitants of a plnet in one of the spiral arms of one of the billions of galaxies. The way things seem to be in the cosmos we cannot disprove that. However, when you step from Deism, to theism, things become a lot easier to argue from that perspective. We apparently have an all knowing, all powerful, benevolents, and whatever God, Yahweh, (as an example). It takes an interest in what we eat, shag, wear, sow, who we speak to, who we marry, who we invite in, who we kill, and so on, and so on. So, can you, Chris, take the logical step from Deism, to theism? There may well have been a first cause, we have no idea, (and science says nothing about it, contrary to what the wavy armed people say), but can you logically argue that this God has any of these other properties, and how do you know what these properties are? Revelation is not evidence. It is not self-evident. If you insist upon that, then show us what this self-evidence is, and how do these self evident things prove the God of theism, and why people such as myself are denied these revelations?
So you are far from agreeing with Krauss then if you say a first cause may well have been. You haven't read what I wrote - Aquinas wrote his "5 ways" to argue against those claiming God was self-evident and needed / could have no rational justification. I agree with Aquinas, God is not self-evident. I have explained how Aquinas might have gone from deism to theism, but my point was that Hitchens' claim is invented. What is the quote from Aquinas please? I think most of your paragraph stems from your misreading, apologies for not being clearer.The Heretic said:
3) Liberalism is totalitarianism? How is that answering the question 'Religion is totalitarianism'? Many things may be totalitarianism, but mentioning one does not remove the question of the other. Your entire argument on that question is a complete sidestep of the actual question. Well done, but I noticed it.
Not really a sidestep - it was to say that the form of life Hitchens lived in and espoused was totalitarian in its way, so why attack what in his view was also totalitarian? A sidestep? You omit most of what I wrote.The Heretic said:
Why is religion totalitarianism? Well, for the Abrahamic religions, "Love me, or be punished for eternity" doesn't sound like totalitarianism to you? As he out it, "Love at the barrel of a gun", or "commanded to love the person you are to fear"? Not totalitarianism? Well, as you refused to answer the question, and go on a tangent, I'm not sure why I should. Is Religion totalitarianism? Well, Bananas are yellow, so there.
It's easy to invent a religion and dismiss it, and that is all that's happening here. Christianity says the beatific vision is the deepest longing of every human heart, and that it is a free gift available to all. It doesn't say, unless you are a dim fundamentalist, that there is eternal punishment for anyone in particular. So how is the correct view of the religion totalitarian?The Heretic said:
4) Again, avoiding the question. Does it not say in the bible that to think something is a sin? Have a look in the 10 commandments, it is an easy place to start. So can YOU tell us where morals came from? I personally think that the idea of altruistic evolution makes the most sense, and we can see it every day in nature. It explains a great deal. Being able to explain things is handy I feel. It certainly has more weight than 'god did it'.
I am not avoiding the question. A priest will chuckle at the idea that an outsider could believe sin is something not willed. A dream is not willed. Hitchens is simply mistaken, the catechism can set you right on that. Thinking is not dreaming, I am sure you get that this distinction is crucial.If healthy morals are so freely available to everyone without religion, how can you say promiscuity, infidelity, broken marriages / homes, fatherless kids, 40 plus million abortions a year etc. are a sign of greater moral progress now the influence of religion has waned? Show me a society that has reduced the influence of Christianity and become MORE concerned about the disabled, those conceived but not yet born etc. Hitchens is saying we know right and wrong without reference to a moral absolute. I am saying this might appear so for a few years, but compare the general consensus on the stuff I just listed 100 years ago with now and compare the relative influence of Christianity then and now. Abandoning goodness towards others in our most intimate relationships has been pretty much corresponding to declining influence of Christianity. Tell me those things I listed are signs of moral progress.
The Heretic said:
5) Man is an imperfect primate. We know this to be true. You seem to be having issues, as others have in this thread, with the definition of secularism, and probably atheism as well. You cite modern Europe as the sign to failure of secularism, presumably talking about Stalin, Hitler, etc? If not, what is the failure you refer to? Most secular nations on earth have the highest quality of life, life expectancy, and so on, and so forth. Remember that secularism is simply the idea that everyone should be able to practice whatever religion they wish, and not force it upon anyone else via the government. Can you point to some of these failures, and how they are directly attributable to either secularism, or atheism?
I am not talking about history, I mean today's society has failed people massively. We could have life expectancy and living standards and still be a happy nation, but the way of life we have in a godless state is not conducive to the well-being of everyone, for all the reasons I listed above. 40 million fewer people each year is extermination on an unprecedented scale, there has been nothing like it ever before.6) I think we can pass over. Matthew 5 is still something every society falls short of, so neither the first nor the worst.
The Heretic said:
7) Wow... Your answer is not an answer at all. The question was "What was your god doing for the other 96,000 years. Your answer is it is timeless? OK, can you tell us how you know that it is a timeless god, what it's motives are, and anything you know about the afterlife? As Hitchens said in his many videos on this issue, most people died in their 20's, of their teeth, IIRC, scrabbling for existence. Infant mortality was huge, (and yet abortion is an issue. Why is it perfectly fine for God to kill off millions every year?), so the question "where was god" is perfectly valid. Again, you fail to answer the question. People seem to just wave past notions of Gods motives, whilst appealing to them, for some reason. If god is loving, and all that nice stuff, why DID he sit idly by? Why did he need to send himself down to earth so he could be executed for the sins of others, knowing he in fact could not die, so making the sacrifice fairly worthless? As I posted earlier, what's the connection to having a scapegoat, and sin? If genesis was just a fluffy story on the human condition, why do we have original sin?
OK, to recap: Where was God for 96,000 years? Well, what would God's "being there" have looked like? Every person has a notion of right and wrong, and everyone makes a choice about refining that or ignoring it, etc. This is a huge moment in life, when we act one way or another with what we know to be right. This moment was available and is available to everyone irrespective of their exposure to religion. To have led an upright life in any age would be I imagine the most one could do in terms of "natural" morality. The key question here I am getting to is - where God "was" only matters in so far as the people then had less chance of an afterlife, and from what I have just said about morality, it can easily be argued that a person's uprightness is not dependent on the age he lives in.
The origins of a religion presuppose a fertile idea-world, and that requires written records, traditions etc., so needed a certain level of civilisation.
If it matters to you that there were 96,000 years of human before God revealed himself to Abraham, you have a human view of God. Why should any one of those millions of humans not be in heaven?
So "sitting idly by" betrays a picture of God as say a lazy human doctor, say.
But this is a little daft - blaming religion for what happened BEFORE the religion was there. It's like saying Why didn't God just create a geocentric solar system and leave it at that, therefore he doesn't exist.
And most obviously, but the rest was fun, I guess I need to say as well that your response is a sort of confusion - God as a poor early version of science / medicine. Knowing God would not have improved life expectancy except perhaps in reducing violent death. This is a typical Sam Harris confusion - to equate religion with a bad attempt at science. If you can't see that they are pretty much entirely separate pursuits then perhaps that needs to be the ongoing discussion.
Williams answers this point calmly and thoughtfully in the Williams Kenny Dawkins discussion on youtube.
One minor detail - you say that someone dying naturally is God killing them off. Do you really want to say that? If your granny dies at 95, has God killed her off? If I decide to suck out the brain of my daughter, being born at term, when her head has left the womb but the rest of her is still inside, completely legal in the US (partial birth abortion), because I in fact wanted a son, this is the same is it - God killing her off? There seems to be some confusion here.
I still hope that we can have a civil conversation.
The Heretic said:
Meh. You seem to be of the opinion that appealing to revelation, or God is actually an adult, grown up answer. It isn't. Answers explain. god explains nothing. As for debates being worthless, I don't think they are. Saying that, the vast majority of debates end up with the religious getting their arse handed to them, so I suppose deriding the format is a course of action, I suppose. When it comes to religion the explanatory are to be dealt with in favor, by the religion, or their proponents. They have yet to explain a single thing. Can you name one thing explained by religion? Can you name a single thing that is explained and reasoned by appealing to an unknowable idea?
Debates are unsatisfactory for the reason I gave - they tend to be hurling of sound-bites, like those of CH above, not a sustained effort at thinking. This is where the Williams Kenny Dawkins one differs. As for who wins these debates, two of the three posted were by believers, so there is obviously a difference of perception about the outcome of these depending on the prejudices you start watching them with. Can I name one thing explained by religion? OK, let me try. Portiuncula. Will that do? This sounds like a Sam Harris sort of question, and he is not serious, in the way WL Craig isn't, by which I mean I think they are just not very clever.
Getting back to whether the mythical god has a view on genocide, chow down on this chunk of Deuteronomy:
"When you march up to attack a city, make its people an offer of peace. If they accept and open their gates, all the people in it shall be subject to forced labor and shall work for you. If they refuse to make peace and they engage you in battle, lay siege to that city. When the Lord your God delivers it into your hand, put to the sword all the men in it. As for the women, the children, the livestock and everything else in the city, you may take these as plunder for yourselves. And you may use the plunder the Lord your God gives you from your enemies. This is how you are to treat all the cities that are at a distance from you and do not belong to the nations nearby.
However, in the cities of the nations the Lord your God is giving you as an inheritance, do not leave alive anything that breathes. Completely destroy them—the Hittites, Amorites, Canaanites, Perizzites, Hivites and Jebusites—as the Lord your God has commanded you. Otherwise, they will teach you to follow all the detestable things they do in worshiping their gods, and you will sin against the Lord your God."
"When you march up to attack a city, make its people an offer of peace. If they accept and open their gates, all the people in it shall be subject to forced labor and shall work for you. If they refuse to make peace and they engage you in battle, lay siege to that city. When the Lord your God delivers it into your hand, put to the sword all the men in it. As for the women, the children, the livestock and everything else in the city, you may take these as plunder for yourselves. And you may use the plunder the Lord your God gives you from your enemies. This is how you are to treat all the cities that are at a distance from you and do not belong to the nations nearby.
However, in the cities of the nations the Lord your God is giving you as an inheritance, do not leave alive anything that breathes. Completely destroy them—the Hittites, Amorites, Canaanites, Perizzites, Hivites and Jebusites—as the Lord your God has commanded you. Otherwise, they will teach you to follow all the detestable things they do in worshiping their gods, and you will sin against the Lord your God."
TheHeretic][Hal mode]The AE-35 unit is due to fail withing 72 hours[/hal said:
Chris, you said...
This is the distinction: being attracted to a particular person is one thing.Chris said:
Calling yourself gay and having sex are decisions, being black is not a decision
That to me suggests that being gay is a choice. Saying that the way you have sex is the defining feature of who you are by calling yourself "gay" etc is a choice. You can have same sex attraction and not see it as the defining thing about you. The naming is a choice.
If you are attracted to someone, what you do about that is also a choice.
This is the distinction I made above in your quote, fleshed out. I have not said being gay is a choice. Sorry for the subtlety.
ChrisGB said:
This is the distinction: being attracted to a particular person is one thing.
Saying that the way you have sex is the defining feature of who you are by calling yourself "gay" etc is a choice. You can have same sex attraction and not see it as the defining thing about you. The naming is a choice.
If you are attracted to someone, what you do about that is also a choice.
This is the distinction I made above in your quote, fleshed out. I have not said being gay is a choice. Sorry for the subtlety.
There is some scientific evidence that there is a 'gay gene' though, so that being gay is just as intrinsic as being black, rather than a choice/decision about your sexual orientation.Saying that the way you have sex is the defining feature of who you are by calling yourself "gay" etc is a choice. You can have same sex attraction and not see it as the defining thing about you. The naming is a choice.
If you are attracted to someone, what you do about that is also a choice.
This is the distinction I made above in your quote, fleshed out. I have not said being gay is a choice. Sorry for the subtlety.
And to say gay people don't have to act upon it is a little disingenuous.
(If you like, I'll find the study info for you).
I think I should add from now on in any mention of gay sex that I think gay sex is bad for people pretty much in the sense that I think much non-gay sex is bad for people too, in not being conducive to the common good or stable society or happy families or well-brought-up children etc. If heterosexuals behaved better, it would be much more obvious why gay sex is not good for people, but I see no reason why people having gay sex should be any more restrained than others as things stand. The madness of society won't be changed by having a tiny minority act differently.
Gassing Station | The Lounge | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff