Opinion sick of religion and this belief in a god.

[dissolved]

Britain - Muslim evangelist interviews an average rationalist guy in the street.

There are lots of such videos, namely religious person vs. atheist . I am posting this one here because of a hilarious comment by both men.

-

The Muslim guy is holding onto some widget. He tell the rationalist that the widget is made of metal and plastic . He then says that if you put metal and plastic in a bag and shake it for a million years....

...and the rationalist interjects and says why would you want to do that, only an idiot would shake a bag for a million years.:icon_chee:icon_chee . I find this convo. soo bloody funny, so thought I would share with you all. Ofcourse I knew where the Muslim evangelist is going with this. The rationalist doesn't argue very well though.

Starting watching at the 1:12 minute mark

[YT]zv071a3Nq1g[/YT]

Yeah, have seen this before. It's funny.

 

[PrettyRicky]

Why do anything? You are not required to do anything, you can sit there where you are until you die of thirst.

Why love your parents? You don't *need* to act.

I'm not sure what your point is. The Christian God expects to be followed. If he can't prevent pain then I'm not sure what makes him a God.

 

[dontsnitch]

I dont know if Im talking to the same person, but I think I am, Im talking about the dilema between free will and omniscient powers of god (predestination vs fatalism etcetc)

Its kind of hard to see that you are an atheist when you say you believe that god gave us free will etc etc etc...

I'm a believer, not an atheist.

I'm still trying to understand your exact objection, I've been discussing things with like a dozen people in this thread, so forgive me if I'm not remembering our previous discussion.

I contend that free will is enough to give pause to the problem of evil, which is any evil/harm/injustice/sadness.

As for an omniscient being producing fatalism, I don't see why it's the case. Knowledge of what you are going to say next, does not interfere with your choice to say it.

 

[dontsnitch]

I'm not sure what your point is. The Christian God expects to be followed. If he can't prevent pain then I'm not sure what makes him a God.

That's a different question. You previously asked why you should, and the answer is you are not required to.

The pain in this world is supposed to be temporary. Your real question is why God created this life (system) with free will in it (that leads to suffering).

 

[BJJ_Rage]

I'm a believer, not an atheist.

I'm still trying to understand your exact objection, I've been discussing things with like a dozen people in this thread, so forgive me if I'm not remembering our previous discussion.

I contend that free will is enough to give pause to the problem of evil, which is any evil/harm/injustice/sadness.

As for an omniscient being producing fatalism, I don't see why it's the case. Knowledge of what you are going to say next, does not interfere with your choice to say it.

it doesnt interfere, what it does is takes away the whole purpose of this life, which is the test to either enter heaven or not. but not only that, the problem is that you cannot know what the future comes if you are not predestinated to do something, every action you take will lead to a different result, you are altering the future with every decision you make...we debated for like 5 pages, but I will leave a link for it so you can read it, it much better explained.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_free_will

Sorry I misread you.

either you have free will or god is not omniscient.

 

[dontsnitch]

it doesnt interfere, what it does is takes away the whole purpose of this life, which is the test to either enter heaven or not. but not only that, the problem is that you cannot know what the future comes if you are not predestinated to do something, every action you take will lead to a different result, you are altering the future with every decision you make...we debated for like 5 pages, but I will leave a link for it so you can read it, it much better explained.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_free_will

Sorry I misread you.

either you have free will or god is not omniscient.

Yeah, this conversation is familiar, I think that was another thread.

I'm not convinced with that dichotomy. What we don't have free will is in existing, and I think that's where the dichotomy ends. We don't have the free will to exist, and God is omniscient, but our free will within the system, is not manipulated by God knowing what will take place, especially since God transcends the very system he created.

Edit: check out the "evil" thread, there are some related themes there.

 

[BJJ_Rage]

We don't have the free will to exist, and God is omniscient, but our free will within the system, is not manipulated by God knowing what will take place, especially since God transcends the very system he created.

Edit: check out the "evil" thread, there are some related themes there.

Im not saying or doubting god is manipulating our "free will", what im saying is simple, if there is a being that knows the future of your actions, then that means you were predestinated from the minute you were born to every action in your life, if you were not, then there is no possible way to know the future of your actions since you will be changing your future with every action you take.

I have, im not htat interest because IMO, its pretty simple, there is no possible way to determine whats evil and what is not, whats evil and not is in direct relation with the culture of the people judging the action, but also, is detirmined by the situation the action took place. Lets take a christian family, to kill is considered evil, but to a serial killer about to kill a little girl is not.

 

[dontsnitch]

Im not saying or doubting god is manipulating our "free will", what im saying is simple, if there is a being that knows the future of your actions, then that means you were predestinated from the minute you were born to every action in your life, if you were not, then there is no possible way to know the future of your actions since you will be changing your future with every action you take.

I have, im not htat interest because IMO, its pretty simple, there is no possible way to determine whats evil and what is not, whats evil and not is in direct relation with the culture of the people judging the action, but also, is detirmined by the situation the action took place. Lets take a christian family, to kill is considered evil, but to a serial killer about to kill a little girl is not.

I hear what you're saying, but I don't agree.

What do you think of the argument that says that time is relative, that God is outside of time, so these objections do not directly apply, since they are not necessary based on the logic of our time appearing to progress linearly?

 

[BJJ_Rage]

I hear what you're saying, but I don't agree.

What do you think of the argument that says that time is relative, that God is outside of time, so these objections do not directly apply, since they are not necessary based on the logic of our time appearing to progress linearly?

well, saying that god is outside time would only propose and ilogical answer to a logical problem (although the mere concept of god is ilogic by definition) May be you could come out and say that there are is an infinity amount of universes going on at the same time and that god is one for all them, I dont know some wacky stuff like that could propose and answer, but under a strictly lineal time line, free will and omniscience are irreconcilable terms.

I would like to know how you reconcile both terms.

 

[dontsnitch]

well, saying that god is outside time would only propose and ilogical answer to a logical problem (although the mere concept of god is ilogic by definition) May be you could come out and say that there are is an infinity amount of universes going on at the same time and that god is one for all them, I dont know some wacky stuff like that could propose and answer, but under a strictly lineal time line, free will and omniscience are irreconcilable terms.

I would like to know how you reconcile both terms.

The fact that it's illogical is exactly why there is no answer. The idea of God doesn't logically make sense to us, so if we sit down and dissect it, we will inevitably reach a paradox.

We always end up with something that needs to transcend the universe, the first cause as it were. You can see even guys like Hawking do this, because there is no logical stance.

Your argument here is to me no different than saying, the idea of God doesn't make sense, which I grant you. The only thing I can add is that life does not makes sense, we should never even be here to ask the question "why is there something rather than nothing?" because there should be nothing, given our understanding.

 

[PrettyRicky]

That's a different question. You previously asked why you should, and the answer is you are not required to.

The pain in this world is supposed to be temporary. Your real question is why God created this life (system) with free will in it (that leads to suffering).

Why questions are a waste of time unless you could speak with God himself. Always a one way conversation in my experience.

How questions are more useful. They occasionally have answers backed by evidence.

 

[dontsnitch]

Why questions are a waste of time unless you could speak with God himself. Always a one way conversation in my experience.

How questions are more useful. They occasionally have answers backed by evidence.

Perhaps, some will argue that God speaks through the bible, that you can find answers there. Others will argue these questions can be sought through philosophy.

 

[BearGrounds]

What would a Godless humanity be like?

 

[Krav McGraw]

Free will doesn't solve the problem of evil. Never has. Evil exists so that free will can exist? In other words, needless suffering of animals and children that goes unanswered only exists so that free will can exist?

Is that really the best an omnipotent god could do? I don't know about you but I'm not impressed.

 

[dontsnitch]

Free will doesn't solve the problem of evil. Never has. Evil exists so that free will can exist? In other words, needless suffering of animals and children that goes unanswered only exists so that free will can exist?

Is that really the best an omnipotent god could do? I don't know about you but I'm not impressed.

This seems like an appeal to anger. Your moral outrage has not relevance on whether it's true or not.

We can even take it one step further and ask where your moral outrage is derived from if there is no God? It's just your opinion.

 

[Krav McGraw]

This seems like an appeal to anger. Your moral outrage has not relevance on whether it's true or not.

We can even take it one step further and ask where your moral outrage is derived from if there is no God? It's just your opinion.

You're not reading between the lines. It's a matter of justification on the theists' part. Does the existence of free will JUSTIFY all of the needless horror and pain in the world? Why would an omnipotent beneficent god set things up this way? I don't buy it and countess philosophers agree with me. Take it a step further and we ask whether god himself is evil for orchestrating it this way.

 

[dontsnitch]

You're not reading between the lines. It's a matter of justification on the theists' part. Does the existence of free will JUSTIFY all of the needless horror and pain in the world? Why would an omnipotent beneficent god set things up this way? I don't buy it and countess philosophers agree with me. Take it a step further and we ask whether god himself is evil for orchestrating it this way.

It doesn't matter who agrees with you, the conclusion is not a necessary one. Free will explains why there is evil. What you are objecting to is why there is free will.

God could be evil, fyi, that's a possibility.

 

[Krav McGraw]

Free will explains why there is evil.

No, it doesn't. It doesn't explain anything and it just creates more problems.

 

[dissolved]

What do Think about this debate?

In my mind Bart won this one easy.

I watched through all 3 hours (nearly) of that. And, honestly, it was a good debate.

So there's a few things I want to mention.

First, Bart Ehrman is considered one of the premier scholars in the world today on New Testament textual criticism. This is THE area of expertise for him.

Conversely, Dr. James White is in a league of very few for being a "Jack of All Trades" apologists who, unlike the euphemism, is actually very knowledgeable on many, many topics ie., Christian theology, world religions (Islam, Catholicism, JWs, Mormonism etc.) and other related topics. Within the debate, Ehrman actually said as much, that his study was specifically in textual criticism (and that he knew nothing of Islam).

In keeping with that understanding, it, to me, was amazing that White easily held his own and in fact I believe won the debate.

The burden of proof is on the critic. When you see that no other ancient literary work has the supportive, and variant copies of manuscripts that the New Testament does, it puts things into perspective. Socrates never wrote his wisdom out (hence the Socratic Problem) - they were written down after his death by Plato and others. Similarly, works by Josephus and every other ancient writing fall victim to difficult-to-prove-false criticisms. Using the mind of the critic to lead us to its "logical" ends, one would almost conclude that nothing written before the printing press is reliable in any sense. This is actually illogical.

When thousands of corroborating documents have been found and produced which support each other in meaning and retelling (penned generally by unscholarly individuals bent on spreading the "gospel" message), it points to as James White would describe as a driving force of truth (I can't remember the exact term he said).

Also, I like what one questioner at the end had to say, in that the discovery of the Dead Sea Scrolls was found to contain Isaiah (from the Old Testament) in 98% accuracy compared against the modern translation of the Bible. He brought out how the methodology of textual transmission of the Old Testament is considered very similar to how the New Testament came about (by Bart Ehrman in some of his writings). Ehrman had to admit that this was true though he continued to say that the book of Jeremiah was 15% shorter in the Dead Sea Scrolls.

My question is basically, what do you do with all of these writings then? They are some of the most numerous, and congruous historical writings the world has ever known? Further than that, one of Dr. James White's arguments (and one of textual apologists in general) is, that, unlike the controlled removal of variant copies in Islam, the number of variances in Biblical texts gives credence to a central and true message that they all point to (without interference - which is what happened in Islam).

Again, I would give the nod to Dr. James White and the side of the debate that says that the New Testament is a reliable and accurate compilation of the original manuscripts.

 

[andnowweknow]

What would a Godless humanity be like?

Nothing at all like humanity, unrecognizable even. Neanderthals buried their dead with objects...meaning they had some semblance of a belief in the afterlife, if not a fully developed belief system. Who knows how long they had been doing it, and they are much older than anatomically modern human beings. Obsession with the afterlife and questioning where we came from and where we are going is intrinsic to our species.