Author Topic: The other question [#2646]  (Read 1272 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Online pianodwarf

  • Global Moderator
  • ******
  • Posts: 4356
  • Darwins +208/-6
  • Gender: Male
  • Je bois ton lait frappé
The other question [#2646]
« on: May 21, 2012, 04:20:07 PM »
Man is less than perfect… if that was not so, should anyone expect there to be amputees?

Instead of placing the challenge to God for healing amputees, why not ask the question… what is the solution to mankind's imperfections?

In other words, can mankind fix its own imperfections?  The history of mankind says "no"… no matter how hard mankind tries, it can't fix its own imperfections.  (who in life doesn't ultimately die?)

Therefore, mankind is ultimately not capable of achieving perfection, (for who gets up everyday saying "today is a great day to mess up)….

Mankind is however able to have hope in a "perfection to come".  Such hope inherently acknowledges a sovereignty beyond mankind itself,.. for those that are hopeful.

Clearly, not everyone is hopeful.  Yet Jesus claimed to be that hope.  Having faith in what one hopes for and being certain of what one cannot see is the only proxy of perfection in this life…everything else has already been dismissed or proven imperfect.

Certainly a perfect God could not possibly have caused mankind to choose imperfection.  However, a perfect God could easily have instructed mankind how to live perfectly if mankind so chose to follow the instructions.  Why would a perfect God not provide perfect instructions?… not possible.  Therefore, imperfection must be of mankind's own doing/choice.

The other question then is: why does God continue to tolerate mankind's imperfection… Jesus made the answer clear;  Because God loves us too much and wants to give everyone the opportunity to be restored to perfection by placing their hope in the "perfection to come"….

How you ask the question often drives the discussion.  Ask the wrong question, and nothing get's accomplished and people get led astray.  When mankind proves that it can control its own destiny and eliminate every imperfection, that's when mankind will be ultimately sovereign.  Who is willing to place there hope in that?  Apparently and sadly, many are.  However, that's the hope and faith in life that makes no sense and has no basis... 
[On how kangaroos could have gotten back to Australia after the flood]:  Don't kangaroos skip along the surface of the water? --Kenn

Online One Above All

  • Laureate
  • *********
  • Posts: 10820
  • Darwins +278/-36
  • Gender: Male
  • Supreme ruler of the multiverse; All In One
Re: The other question [#2646]
« Reply #1 on: May 21, 2012, 04:31:07 PM »
YHWH said that it would do anything that anyone asked. Still, even if we ignore that, the fault for mankind's imperfection rests on YHWH. It created us, after all. YHWH is still to blame for amputees not being healed. It is also to blame for the fact that we can't become perfect, because it made us that way.

BTW, are you saying that mankind should rise above YHWH? I remember a king in the Bible who said the same thing, as well as a few people who tried to go to heaven just a little too soon. IIRC YHWH sent the former to hell and made it so the latter couldn't communicate.
The truth is absolute. Life forms are specks of specks (...) of specks of dust in the universe.
Why settle for normal, when you can be so much more? Why settle for something, when you can have everything?
We choose our own gods.

A.K.A.: Blaziken_rjcf/Lucifer/All In One.

Offline rev45

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1206
  • Darwins +37/-2
  • Gender: Male
  • Did your parents raise you to be an idiot?
Re: The other question [#2646]
« Reply #2 on: May 21, 2012, 04:37:58 PM »
Clearly, not everyone is hopeful.  Yet Jesus claimed to be that hope.
Jesus made no such claim, at least none that has yet been found.  The words of the Bible are not Jesus', but from anonymous writers who are making the claims for him.  To say that an unknown writer said someone else made a specific claim would be irresponsible. 
Here read a book.  It's free.
http://www.literatureproject.com/

Could a being create the fifty billion galaxies, each with two hundred billion stars, then rejoice in the smell of burning goat flesh?   Ron Patterson

Online ParkingPlaces

  • Professor
  • ********
  • Posts: 6289
  • Darwins +729/-6
  • Gender: Male
  • Hide and Seek World Champion since 1958!
Re: The other question [#2646]
« Reply #3 on: May 21, 2012, 04:40:03 PM »
So this god of yours couldn't provide perfection now, but he can in the future. And that makes sense to you?

Human's aren't perfect because there is no such thing. The ability isn't built into us via evolution or any other means. So it gets rough sometimes. I, for one, am not very confused by the various ills that this world faces.

We could improve the situation if enough people wanted that. Apparently humans don't. So we don't have it.

Claiming that it is within reach in any sense is naive. Which is why religion believes such things.
Not everyone is entitled to their own opinion. They're all entitled to mine though.

Offline Brakeman

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1243
  • Darwins +47/-3
  • Gender: Male
Re: The other question [#2646]
« Reply #4 on: May 21, 2012, 04:47:22 PM »
How could a perfect god make an imperfect being like man?  If he strove to make men with any particular weakness, then we would be perfectly made to match his intended design. We would still be perfect.
Help find the cure for FUNDAMENTIA !

Offline Convinced

  • Freshman
  • *
  • Posts: 4
  • Darwins +0/-0
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
Re: The other question [#2646]
« Reply #5 on: May 21, 2012, 06:16:45 PM »
...not possible (by definition) for a perfect God to create anything imperfect.  And imperfection doesn't just happen... experience in life reveals cause/effect.  The atheist position has no answer to mankind not being its own imperfect god... the notion of perfection itself reveals that mankind looks beyond itself for a greater sovereignty.  Mankind falls shorts and intuitively understands this... just doesn't want to always embrace it.

Offline Tinyal

  • Undergraduate
  • ***
  • Posts: 245
  • Darwins +25/-1
  • Gender: Male
Re: The other question [#2646]
« Reply #6 on: May 21, 2012, 06:27:32 PM »
...not possible (by definition) for a perfect God to create anything imperfect.  And imperfection doesn't just happen... experience in life reveals cause/effect.  The atheist position has no answer to mankind not being its own imperfect god... the notion of perfection itself reveals that mankind looks beyond itself for a greater sovereignty.  Mankind falls shorts and intuitively understands this... just doesn't want to always embrace it.

Umm,  say what?

I don't know if it's just me or what, but this - even though composed in English - makes no sense whatever to me.

Can anyone translate?
Don't kangaroos skip along the surface of the water?

Online pianodwarf

  • Global Moderator
  • ******
  • Posts: 4356
  • Darwins +208/-6
  • Gender: Male
  • Je bois ton lait frappé
Re: The other question [#2646]
« Reply #7 on: May 21, 2012, 06:37:36 PM »
Can anyone translate?

I'm usually pretty good at that when I set my mind to it, but in this case, no, I have no idea what's being said.  It's almost like word salad.
[On how kangaroos could have gotten back to Australia after the flood]:  Don't kangaroos skip along the surface of the water? --Kenn

Online ParkingPlaces

  • Professor
  • ********
  • Posts: 6289
  • Darwins +729/-6
  • Gender: Male
  • Hide and Seek World Champion since 1958!
Re: The other question [#2646]
« Reply #8 on: May 21, 2012, 06:40:08 PM »
...not possible (by definition) for a perfect God to create anything imperfect.  And imperfection doesn't just happen... experience in life reveals cause/effect.  The atheist position has no answer to mankind not being its own imperfect god... the notion of perfection itself reveals that mankind looks beyond itself for a greater sovereignty.  Mankind falls shorts and intuitively understands this... just doesn't want to always embrace it.

Welcome Convinced. I assume you are the author of the original letter. Mostly because you use a lot of ...'s.

You are not writing clear enough for us to respond. I think I know what you meant, but I'm not sure. Your letter was legible, so I know you can do better. Give it another shot so we can be sure we understand what we're responding too.

Thanks.
Not everyone is entitled to their own opinion. They're all entitled to mine though.

Offline Convinced

  • Freshman
  • *
  • Posts: 4
  • Darwins +0/-0
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
Re: The other question [#2646]
« Reply #9 on: May 21, 2012, 08:00:20 PM »
For God "not" to exist, either:

1) mankind evolved from something perfect to become imperfect,
2) mankind evolved from something imperfect and stayed imperfect
3) mankind created itself as perfect and became imperfect
4) mankind created itself as imperfect and stayed imperfect

Since none of these alternatives makes any sense, the atheist position has no answer to the question why man is imperfect, fallible, prone to error etc.
It also makes no sense to say that a perfect God would have created an imperfect being...

Of course an atheist can't allow for God to exist at all.  The fact that mankind is willing to acknowledge its imperfect nature means that mankind has no problem assenting to an ideal of perfection.  This is easy to understand because mankind also intrinsically knows it was once perfect until it chose to disobey God's perfect instructions for how to live life.  The Bible provides the answer to what atheism can never solve.  Atheism has never answered the question why mankind is imperfect.






Offline Tinyal

  • Undergraduate
  • ***
  • Posts: 245
  • Darwins +25/-1
  • Gender: Male
Re: The other question [#2646]
« Reply #10 on: May 21, 2012, 08:10:52 PM »
The evidence demonstrates that 'perfect' and 'mankind' have absolutely nothing to do with each other.  Man - as all the other Great Apes, indeed as all other living creatures - evolved through natural selection to become just how he/she is.

This word 'perfect' you keep using is an invention of the human mind.  It has nothing to do with nature, or the natural world.  It's used when we see things with a conscious mind, and make a decision (based on our experiences and knowledge) to call something we percieve either perfect, or imperfect.

We don't (certainly we shouldn't) take some statements written mostly anonomously 2000 some odd years ago, by a bunch of people who's idea of advanced technology was a wheelbarrow, and try to apply anything of what they said to today's civilized society.  Anyone who does so is trying to take us back pre-dark ages, using a collection of letters and fantasies edited by politicians for crissakes!!

Otherwise, welcome to the forum!
Don't kangaroos skip along the surface of the water?

Online ParkingPlaces

  • Professor
  • ********
  • Posts: 6289
  • Darwins +729/-6
  • Gender: Male
  • Hide and Seek World Champion since 1958!
Re: The other question [#2646]
« Reply #11 on: May 21, 2012, 08:16:45 PM »
For God "not" to exist, either:

1) mankind evolved from something perfect to become imperfect,
2) mankind evolved from something imperfect and stayed imperfect
3) mankind created itself as perfect and became imperfect
4) mankind created itself as imperfect and stayed imperfect

Since none of these alternatives makes any sense, the atheist position has no answer to the question why man is imperfect, fallible, prone to error etc.
It also makes no sense to say that a perfect God would have created an imperfect being...

Of course an atheist can't allow for God to exist at all.  The fact that mankind is willing to acknowledge its imperfect nature means that mankind has no problem assenting to an ideal of perfection.  This is easy to understand because mankind also intrinsically knows it was once perfect until it chose to disobey God's perfect instructions for how to live life.  The Bible provides the answer to what atheism can never solve.  Atheism has never answered the question why mankind is imperfect.

Much clearer, thank you.

But you kind of have to explain why #2 makes no sense. We evolved, and we're here. Perfection wasn't actually a part of the process, and is not necessary in any case. It is neither expected or involved. We can perceive of the concept, but not of the actual reality of what perfection is. Because my version differs from yours and from all other versions.

The concept of "perfection" is simply each of us recognizing that things could be better. But perfection, taken to its logical extreme, would be so boring none of us would appreciate it. There would only be one perfect bird, one perfect movie, one perfect birthday present, one perfect type of weather, one perfect mountain, one perfect glass of beer. Nothing else would be acceptable, since it wouldn't be perfect. And then perfection would become a flaw.

Christians talk about the perfection of their god, but I don't think they have any idea what they're talking about. Other than an ideal. A very unhuman ideal.

Not everyone is entitled to their own opinion. They're all entitled to mine though.

Offline Astreja

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 2966
  • Darwins +256/-3
  • Gender: Female
  • Agnostic goddess with Clue-by-Four™
    • The Springy Goddess
Re: The other question [#2646]
« Reply #12 on: May 21, 2012, 08:44:04 PM »
2) mankind evolved from something imperfect and stayed imperfect... Since none of these alternatives makes any sense...

Frankly, I think that perfection is a nonsensical ideal with no basis in reality.  It does indeed make a great deal of sense that mankind evolved from imperfection and has no "perfect" state to look forward to.

Quote
It also makes no sense to say that a perfect God would have created an imperfect being...

Yet here we are, imperfections and all.  By your own reasoning, your god therefore cannot have created humanity and/or is not perfect either.

Quote
Of course an atheist can't allow for God to exist at all.

Hey, cool!  Atheists can prevent your god from existing?   8)  Feel the power!

Quote
The Bible provides the answer to what atheism can never solve.

From My reading of Genesis, that problem is not perfection vs. imperfection, but the existence of Talking Snakes™.  If you happen to have one on hand, kindly Fed-Ex it to My place at your earliest convenience.
Reality Checkroom — Not Responsible for Lost Articles

Offline jeremy0

  • Postgraduate
  • *****
  • Posts: 694
  • Darwins +26/-12
  • Gender: Male
    • Economics and Technology
  • User is on moderator watch listWatched
Re: The other question [#2646]
« Reply #13 on: May 21, 2012, 08:54:17 PM »
@Convinced, All: 
I'll put it simply:  man has never been able to achieve perfection, so they created a fictional place where everything is magically perfect.  With those same imperfect people.  That said, since everyone is imperfected by the time heaven arrives, who then do I choose to lead a perfect society?  Let some theist continue this debate with circular reasoning spread over multiple posts..
"If you find yourself reaching for the light, first realize that it has already touched your finger."
"If I were your god, I would have no reason for judgement, and you have all told endless lies about me.  Wait - you do already. I am not amused by your ignorance, thoughtlessness, and shallow mind."

Online ParkingPlaces

  • Professor
  • ********
  • Posts: 6289
  • Darwins +729/-6
  • Gender: Male
  • Hide and Seek World Champion since 1958!
Re: The other question [#2646]
« Reply #14 on: May 21, 2012, 09:20:01 PM »
If we think that things can be better, then we can take that idea to a point where things are as good as they can get. That is what we call perfection. It is an ideal, not a reality. We don't actually want it, unless we have a god or two to worship. Then perfection makes sense. Because what else would a god be but perfect.

We make up the concept. We make up the god. Neither is particularly useful.
Not everyone is entitled to their own opinion. They're all entitled to mine though.

Offline jeremy0

  • Postgraduate
  • *****
  • Posts: 694
  • Darwins +26/-12
  • Gender: Male
    • Economics and Technology
  • User is on moderator watch listWatched
Re: The other question [#2646]
« Reply #15 on: May 21, 2012, 09:24:25 PM »
^^ Especially when the people involved are waiting for the made up god and made up reality in order to start 'perfecting themselves'.  We are a hopeless society with religion..
"If you find yourself reaching for the light, first realize that it has already touched your finger."
"If I were your god, I would have no reason for judgement, and you have all told endless lies about me.  Wait - you do already. I am not amused by your ignorance, thoughtlessness, and shallow mind."

Offline Ivellios

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1077
  • Darwins +52/-0
  • Gender: Male
  • Seek and Ye Shall Find
Re: The other question [#2646]
« Reply #16 on: May 22, 2012, 04:33:53 AM »
There's also another dimension of "perfection" that no one mentioned and that Convinced obviously has not considered.

What Moses considered "perfect" is not what Jesus[1] considered "perfect." What Jesus considered Perfect is not what Convinced considers "perfect."

You see Convinced, a racist christian's god is perfect, and by sheer coincidence thier god is racist.
A sexist christian's god is perfect, and by sheer coincidence thier god is sexist.
One christian who is both, and by sheer coincidence thier god thier god is also both.
A christian who is neither, thier god is perfect, and by sheer coincidence thier god is also neither.

You see, when they say "perfect" people have thier very own definition and qualities that makes up "perfect." This is how they are able to hoodwink people. How would it be if they just flat out said: God is sexist, racist, pro-rape, pro-genocide, powermongering, warmongering control freak that wants to control people in all things, thoughts and activities, down to the finest minutia. My God YHWH is Perfect because of this! What do we have instead? "God is Perfect!" Halleuah! What are you reading THAT book ofg the bible for? you don't HAVE to read that! We'll cover it in a sermon, one of these days. When? Have Faith!

This is also known as SPAG: Self Projection As God. It's how you can totally agree with god, another christian full agree with god, yet try to kill each other because god told them one thing but told you the opposite. Anotherwords, "God" exists solely in your mind, and has no bearing on reality.
 1. or his authors

Offline Anfauglir

  • Global Moderator
  • ******
  • Posts: 6198
  • Darwins +408/-5
  • Gender: Male
Re: The other question [#2646]
« Reply #17 on: May 22, 2012, 07:44:40 AM »
Hi there Convinced - welcome to the board!  We don't often see the writers of emails to the site drop by to discuss what they've said, so I hope you stick around. 

Guys, let's make sure we give Convinced some breathing space to respond - let's let him come back on the points raised so far before we add any more!
Just because you've always done it that way doesn't mean it's not incredibly stupid.
Why is it so hard for believers to answer a direct question?

Offline Hatter23

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 3880
  • Darwins +257/-7
  • Gender: Male
  • Doesn't believe in one more god than you
Re: The other question [#2646]
« Reply #18 on: May 22, 2012, 08:41:02 AM »
For God "not" to exist, either:

2) mankind evolved from something imperfect and stayed imperfect

Since none of these alternatives makes any sense

Wrong, that one does. Perfection as far as complex systems(and yes single celled life is a complex system) does not exist. That is a human concept, and ideal.  Human evolved from something that sort of did well in an evironment, to something that did better. That's it. Stop playing with absolutes from the Platonic realm of forms.



, the atheist position has no answer to the question why man is imperfect, fallible, prone to error etc.

The "atheist position" is that there is no reason to believe in the divine. It has 'no answer' because it isn't part of the concept of "No god or gods"


It also makes no sense to say that a perfect God would have created an imperfect being...

We are agreement. That's kind of our point here.


Of course an atheist can't allow for God to exist at all.

While you are trying to be insulting through innuendo, you are correct. A Vegetarian can't allow for their consumpition of meat at all too. A Monotheist can't allow for other gods to exist either. It is part of the definition.



  The fact that mankind is willing to acknowledge its imperfect nature means that mankind has no problem assenting to an ideal of perfection.  This is easy to understand because mankind also intrinsically knows it was once perfect until it chose to disobey God's perfect instructions for how to live life.  The Bible provides the answer to what atheism can never solve.  Atheism has never answered the question why mankind is imperfect.

You are talking nonsense and superstitions, every bit as silly as some islander worshipping the god Ugabuga. If these instructions were 'perfect' then why do they contradict each other and are so imprecise that wars have been fought and hundreds of thousands died due to disagreements over what they mean?
An Omnipowerful God needed to sacrifice himself to himself (but only for a long weekend) in order to avert his own wrath against his own creations who he made in a manner knowing that they weren't going to live up to his standards.

And you should feel guilty for this. Give me money.

Offline screwtape

  • The Great Red Dragon
  • Administrator
  • *******
  • Posts: 12130
  • Darwins +646/-27
  • Gender: Male
  • Karma mooch
Re: The other question [#2646]
« Reply #19 on: May 22, 2012, 08:48:04 AM »
Please let's be courteous and not overwhelm Convinced, as Anfauglir requested.  Give him an opportunity to respond.  Thanks.
Links:
Rules
Guides & Tutorials

What's true is already so. Owning up to it does not make it worse.

Offline Convinced

  • Freshman
  • *
  • Posts: 4
  • Darwins +0/-0
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
Re: The other question [#2646]
« Reply #20 on: May 22, 2012, 11:36:13 AM »
Pretty rough crowd here.  Appreciation to Parking Places, Anfauglir, and Screwtape for their respectful approach and appeals to civility. 

Look, this is not a debate about evolution itself (to which I don't subscribe; evidence supporting cross-species evolution is not convincing to me)... nor is this a debate about the legitimacy of the Bible (which clearly an atheist does not accept as the word of God).  This is a discussion taking a more philosophical approach to the question raised regarding amputees.  "Ideas" or "principles" taken from evolutionary theory or the Bible should be in-bounds in thinking (reasoning) about the notion of perfection and imperfection and what can or cannot be deduced from using logic and what we know about life/reality.  Many great thinkers precede this collective audience that can be drawn from, but ultimately, each person has to decide for themselves 1) if God exists, and 2) if God does exists, does it matter to their life.  I think we would all agree that (as an example), there are many Christians who profess faith in God and it seems as though it makes no difference to how they live.  By the way, I acknowledge that the words ascribed to Jesus in the Bible were penned by others and have been translated numerous times throughout history... that's another entire topic, however; it was fair for that point to have been made.

I need to sign-off for now... hope to be able to jump back on either tonight or tomorrow and provide more detailed explanations around the issues of perfection and imperfection..  ps... sorry for the "word salad" in my second post, I was in a hurry and had to go... Also, nothing I have said in any way is intended to be an insult to any individual on this forum.  Obviously I take issue with the atheist perspective/point of view, however; I also attempt to value and respect others irrespective on their beliefs... cheers for now. 

Offline Ivellios

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1077
  • Darwins +52/-0
  • Gender: Male
  • Seek and Ye Shall Find
Re: The other question [#2646]
« Reply #21 on: May 22, 2012, 11:40:32 AM »
Pretty rough crowd here.  Appreciation to Parking Places, Anfauglir, and Screwtape for their respectful approach and appeals to civility. 

Hmm... and here I was thinking I was pretty civil myself.  :?

Offline screwtape

  • The Great Red Dragon
  • Administrator
  • *******
  • Posts: 12130
  • Darwins +646/-27
  • Gender: Male
  • Karma mooch
Re: The other question [#2646]
« Reply #22 on: May 22, 2012, 01:32:10 PM »
Hmm... and here I was thinking I was pretty civil myself.  :?

I thought you were too.  I think it is an adjustment to have more than one person at a time challenge your deeply help beliefs, which up until now you have assumed were bullet-proof.  It can seem daunting.  I think with some time he'll get the hang of it.
Links:
Rules
Guides & Tutorials

What's true is already so. Owning up to it does not make it worse.

Offline jeremy0

  • Postgraduate
  • *****
  • Posts: 694
  • Darwins +26/-12
  • Gender: Male
    • Economics and Technology
  • User is on moderator watch listWatched
Re: The other question [#2646]
« Reply #23 on: May 24, 2012, 12:50:03 AM »
<snip>ultimately, each person has to decide for themselves 1) if God exists, and 2) if God does exists, does it matter to their life. 
Convinced:  Your last post was much more readable.  I will respond:
1.  I don't know
2.  No.

Because the existence of a god is not a pre-requisite for the actions I will take in life.  Although I find it more rational that god either lives in a completely separated reality or doesn't exist at all, given the facts.  Me believing that god exists doesn't matter either way though, because belief in a god doesn't change anything in my life.  I am still going to do the types of things I did yesterday, regardless of my faith in Jesus or God.

This is a certain problem people have when praying - they say "God/Jesus, make me a better person".  Some people have answered "that is a dangerous prayer - god cannot make you better; however, if you accept him into your heart, you will automatically be better".  There is a problem here.  It goes like this:
1.  I can't stop doing something that the Bible says is bad
2.  So I pray that Jesus/God makes me change into a better person to stop doing whatever #1 is..
3.a.  Nothing happened, I still do #1, and Jesus said any prayer would be answered, so God doesn't exist.
3.b.  Nothing happened, I still do #1, maybe it wasn't according to God's will..
3.c.  Nothing happened, I still do #1, maybe I am condemned..
3.d.  Nothing happened, I still do #1, so let's try accepting Jesus into my heart.  Nope, I still do #1. 

The correct answer to this problem is 3.a.  Nothing happened, going by the bible, God said something would definitely happen.  This disproves the bible.  Don't make up excuses that it doesn't.  It simply means God has no bearing in your life.  Either accept that #1 isn't that bad and is a normal thing to do, or find your own way to stop doing #1...

What this means is, God does not affect any of our lives, unless we choose for it to affect us.  This means that it is not God that is having an affect on our lives, but rather ourselves.  Does that make sense now what I'm trying to say?  God didn't come to you and say 'follow me'.  You went or was brought to a group of people that believed in something.  You chose to believe in it as well.  Later,  you may choose not to believe in it any longer. 

Regardless of what road you take, you have taken it without the assistance of a deity.  You have chosen yourself, other people have made choices that affect you.  It's all causality. 

God has no affect on the causality of this universe.  None.  Therefore, it doesn't matter if you believe in him or not, and it doesn't matter that it has no bearing on your lives...
« Last Edit: May 24, 2012, 12:56:47 AM by jeremy0 »
"If you find yourself reaching for the light, first realize that it has already touched your finger."
"If I were your god, I would have no reason for judgement, and you have all told endless lies about me.  Wait - you do already. I am not amused by your ignorance, thoughtlessness, and shallow mind."

Offline kaziglu bey

  • Postgraduate
  • *****
  • Posts: 772
  • Darwins +121/-1
  • Gender: Male
  • There is no Big Brother in the sky.
Re: The other question [#2646]
« Reply #24 on: May 24, 2012, 08:10:36 AM »
Rough crowd? I don't know, I think that the responses to what you posted were pretty accurate. It's not like you were attempting to be flattering towards us in anyway. Also extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence, and this post:
Quote from:  Convinced

    For God "not" to exist, either:

    1) mankind evolved from something perfect to become imperfect,
    2) mankind evolved from something imperfect and stayed imperfect
    3) mankind created itself as perfect and became imperfect
    4) mankind created itself as imperfect and stayed imperfect

    Since none of these alternatives makes any sense, the atheist position has no answer to the question why man is imperfect, fallible, prone to error etc.
    It also makes no sense to say that a perfect God would have created an imperfect being...

    Of course an atheist can't allow for God to exist at all.  The fact that mankind is willing to acknowledge its imperfect nature means that mankind has no problem assenting to an ideal of perfection.  This is easy to understand because mankind also intrinsically knows it was once perfect until it chose to disobey God's perfect instructions for how to live life.  The Bible provides the answer to what atheism can never solve.  Atheism has never answered the question why mankind is imperfect.

is pretty condescending in my opinion, and states that atheism has never answered a question that has never been necessary to ask in the first place. So what?

You also say
Quote from: convinced
Look, this is not a debate about evolution itself (to which I don't subscribe; evidence supporting cross-species evolution is not convincing to me)... nor is this a debate about the legitimacy of the Bible (which clearly an atheist does not accept as the word of God).
Yet you were the one talking about mankind evolving, and said that the Bible had all the answers that we don't. Don't try to turn the tables just because your views were actually soundly challenged. If you are going to say that the Bible has all the answers to the questions we can't answer as atheists, then please 1) Inform us of the questions that we are not able to answer[1] and 2) Provide us with the answers to those questions, as found in the Bible.

Once you have done that, we can actually respond to those questions, and you can then determine whether or not we are capable of answering them. It couldn't help escape my attention that you assumed that there were questions that we as atheists don't have answers to. I'm not sure how you were able to determine that after only three posts in one thread. That's awfully presumptuous and arrogant of you, and I'm afraid I have to call you out on that.

Answer me this, Convinced: How is it that all the progress and advancement and enlightenment that has ever happened in the world has been accomplished via science, while all of the ignorance and witch hunting and oppression has occurred via religion? Does the Bible contain a blueprint for the Internet? Or is that one of the questions the Bible can't answer?
 1. Please ensure that these are questions are actually relevant to mankind, and are not just a result of highly evolved brains incorporating wishful thinking.
Seriously though... What would happen if the Great Green Arkleseizure didn't fram up the rammastam before the hermite curve achieved maximum nurdfurdle velocity? Now THAT would be something. AmIrite?

Offline Convinced

  • Freshman
  • *
  • Posts: 4
  • Darwins +0/-0
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
Re: The other question [#2646]
« Reply #25 on: May 24, 2012, 11:07:06 AM »
An attempt to summarize:

It seems like the core point of rebuttal from the responses above is that the idea of "perfection" is a function of the human mind (an illusion so to speak), and that it essentially has no linkage to reality, or to science (which I view to be an objective attempt to understand/describe life based on performing and interpreting corresponding research).  As a result, the notion of perfection is essentially meaningless to any discourse regarding the existence or non-existence of God. 

It also seems that of the four possibilities I described in my third post…

For God "not" to exist, either:

1) Mankind evolved from something perfect to become imperfect,
2) Mankind evolved from something imperfect and stayed imperfect
3) Mankind created itself as perfect and became imperfect
4) Mankind created itself as imperfect and stayed imperfect

… at least a couple of people in this forum seemed to think #2 might be true, while another expressed opinion suggested that an underlying question as to why mankind is imperfect, is irrelevant.

Just so we don’t lose focus on the original topic:

Why won’t God heal amputees? (which implies that 1- either God should, based on the interpretation of certain Bible verses dealing with prayer, but hasn’t yet… thereby making him a liar or delinquent by human standards, or that 2- God doesn’t exist).

My responses have been rooted in what I view as the nature of “perfection”… Although to date I have not specifically defined the term, I will in my next post because it is essential I believe to understanding what I mean by it.  First I wanted to level-set though and make sure I haven’t misunderstood the counter-points.

As an aside and I hope this doesn’t take on a life of its own, Kaziglu ended his last post with some very direct questions to which I would like to provide my viewpoint.

Yes, I think that the Bible does provide a blueprint to the Internet.  I think it is valid to say that based on what we read in the Bible, the blueprint is mankind.  Based on the Genesis account, mankind was given stewardship and dominion over creation.  Given the scientific and engineering progress mankind has made over history, mankind is definitely such a blueprint.  Unfortunately, mankind is also at the forefront of all the ugliness you mention that occurs in the name of religion. 

Kaziglu’s questions along with many others, once fully hashed out seem to always lead back to 1) Does God exist?, and 2) If God exists, is it relevant to my/anybody’s life? 

If those aren’t important questions, mankind has sure wasted a lot of time over history discussing (and disrespecting and killing its members) over them.  I do believe however, that mankind generally has a keen focus on the right questions.  At the heart of this thread however is: how the question is actually posed (i.e. The other question).   

At any rate, I’d like to try and keep the focus to the original topic and in that regard talk more about "perfection" in my next post… unless I’ve totally misunderstand the responses herein and/or people in this thread tell me to go find another forum.  Cheers.

Offline Omen

  • Professor
  • ********
  • Posts: 5955
  • Darwins +105/-15
  • One of the fucking bad guys; not friendly, tiger!
Re: The other question [#2646]
« Reply #26 on: May 24, 2012, 11:38:46 AM »
Are you pretending as if christians don't already claim to be healed miraculously through the imagined power of their deity?
"Religious faith is the antithesis to knowledge, it is the opposition to education, and it has to act in animosity against the free exchange of ideas.  Why? Because those things are what cause harm to a religions place in society most." - Me

Offline kaziglu bey

  • Postgraduate
  • *****
  • Posts: 772
  • Darwins +121/-1
  • Gender: Male
  • There is no Big Brother in the sky.
Re: The other question [#2646]
« Reply #27 on: May 24, 2012, 12:01:54 PM »
As an aside and I hope this doesn’t take on a life of its own, Kaziglu ended his last post with some very direct questions to which I would like to provide my viewpoint.

Yes, I think that the Bible does provide a blueprint to the Internet.  I think it is valid to say that based on what we read in the Bible, the blueprint is mankind.  Based on the Genesis account, mankind was given stewardship and dominion over creation.
Ok, you do realize that the Genesis account is entirely a myth, and has no basis in reality whatsoever, right? It provides a completely false idea of the origin of the universe and of life, and is neither useful nor meaningful in any way at all.  It says that there was light, and day and night, and plants, before there was a sun, that the moon gives off its own light, that the stars are fixed in the firmament of heaven[1] and that God made women from a rib. Come one, you can't possibly believe that.
Quote
Given the scientific and engineering progress mankind has made over history, mankind is definitely such a blueprint.
I didn't mean some far fetched metaphorical blueprint. I mean "This is how to make the internet. Step 1...." type of blueprint. You can't honestly expect me to consider your response as indicative of a valid affirmative answer to my question. 
Quote
Unfortunately, mankind is also at the forefront of all the ugliness you mention that occurs in the name of religion. 
Of course, because religion is man made. However, the holy texts, prophets, and priests all do or have advocated for all of that ugliness, and they have more than enough bible verses to justify doing evil in the name of God.

Quote
Kaziglu’s questions along with many others, once fully hashed out seem to always lead back to 1) Does God exist?, and 2) If God exists, is it relevant to my/anybody’s life? 

If those aren’t important questions, mankind has sure wasted a lot of time over history discussing (and disrespecting and killing its members) over them.  I do believe however, that mankind generally has a keen focus on the right questions.
The second question is irrelevant because the answer to the first question is that there is no reason at all to believe that God does exist.   
Quote
At the heart of this thread however is: how the question is actually posed (i.e. The other question).   

At any rate, I’d like to try and keep the focus to the original topic and in that regard talk more about "perfection" in my next post… unless I’ve totally misunderstand the responses herein and/or people in this thread tell me to go find another forum.  Cheers.
I think that it is pretty clear that a majority of non believers here don't buy into the notion of perfection at all. I would only say that perfection is an imagined human construct of some kind of ideal state of being in regards to whatever the subject is. Perfection is clearly and necessarily subjective, as it would depend largely on both the observer and the phenomena/object being observed. It's not a matter of mankind being perfect and then falling into imperfection. What is the reason to even postulate such a thing in the first place? What evidence is there that would lend one to suggest this as a question? How could we formulate that question into a falsifiable hypothesis? If that is not possible, what possible practical purpose could be served in ever considering such a question in the first place?

I think that it comes down to a difference in worldview. The claims you are making about perfection, mankind, and divinity are just absolutely meaningless to us. Furthermore, even if you were to convince us that some divine being were responsible for all of that, how could one possibly conclude that it is specifically the divine incarnation that you favor (and that you believe favors you)?

As an aside, although I obviously do not find much common ground with your answer, I appreciate you responding directly to those questions. I can do nothing but be as scrutinizing and skeptical and critical as possible, but I encourage you to consider my posts in the same light. Fair is fair.
 1.  The Hubble Telescope has yet to capture an image of the elusive "firmament".
Seriously though... What would happen if the Great Green Arkleseizure didn't fram up the rammastam before the hermite curve achieved maximum nurdfurdle velocity? Now THAT would be something. AmIrite?

Online ParkingPlaces

  • Professor
  • ********
  • Posts: 6289
  • Darwins +729/-6
  • Gender: Male
  • Hide and Seek World Champion since 1958!
Re: The other question [#2646]
« Reply #28 on: May 24, 2012, 01:03:20 PM »
First of all, welcome back. And don't worry, you will always be welcome here if posts of this quality are typical. We may disagree with each and every point, but at least you aren't tossing out biblical verses and assuming that they, on their own, make your argument for you. You are intelligent, literate and capable of stating your ideas/opinions/beliefs well. We want to hear more.

2) Mankind evolved from something imperfect and stayed imperfect

… at least a couple of people in this forum seemed to think #2 might be true, while another expressed opinion suggested that an underlying question as to why mankind is imperfect, is irrelevant.

Of the four, #2 is the closes to how I look at things, but only if this question is given in a multiple choice quiz. Mankind evolved from something, the perfection of which is not important. And we are less than perfect, but that is both because we're dumb sh*ts some of the time, but also because we are able to easily imagine a world that is better in all sorts of ways. The imagined better defines the present as less than perfect.

Perfect sucks as a goal, but is a pretty nice ideal.

Quote
Just so we don’t lose focus on the original topic:

You go on to say that you will be posting more on the original topic soon, and I look forward to reading what you have to say.

Quote
Unfortunately, mankind is also at the forefront of all the ugliness you mention that occurs in the name of religion.

We here at WWGHA will argue over the cause/effect part of that statement. Most of us probably agree that it is the concept of religion that causes many of the squabbles history has had to contend with. Not the only cause, but it is a biggie. Whether localized, like the occasional blow-ups in Northern Ireland, or global, like the current problems the world has with Muslim terrorism, if we lacked religion, things might be better. And if we were still fighting each other, at least the reasons would be clearer, because we would have fewer issues to fight over. And the actual problems would be easier to discern.

Al Qaida has said over and over that the reason they initially attacked the US is because of our military presence in their region. Their quarrel was not religion. However, their religious beliefs did allow them to take extraordinary steps to kill thousands, and our religious differences became the central theme for most who supported the war efforts in Iraq and Afghanistan.

A world without religion would still be at fisticuffs with itself, but we might be dying for better reasons, At least sometimes.

Quote
Kaziglu’s questions along with many others, once fully hashed out seem to always lead back to 1) Does God exist?, and 2) If God exists, is it relevant to my/anybody’s life? 

We've answered #1 to our satisfaction. We're busy trying to get the word out. If your biblical god does exist, then of course #2 becomes a relevant question. But if he is real, his own perfection lacks competence, because he's not very good at getting any of his story across to most of us on this planet. At least not your specific version. Whichever one that may be.

He was pretty good at making conditions ripe for Buddism to rise in the Far East. Quite competent at getting animistic religions formed throughout Africa and the Americas and Europe and Australia. Quite competent at nurturing the rise of Hinduism in India. But he was unable to turn his concentrated efforts in the holy lands into One True Religion™.

His insistence upon being "believed in" and wanting us to have "faith" is exactly the same requirement all the false religions have. That is, of course, because they don't have any real gods to believe in. So I ask this of you as I have of many other christians: Why does your god use the same strategy that all false religions require too? I assume that you agree with me that the Hindu god Shiva doesn't exist, but literally millions of people would argue with that assessment. Hence a belief system is clearly capable of being entirely false and yet entirely believable. How is Christianity any different?

I assume you will want to mention the Bible in your answer. But be forewarned. Hindus have old books too. Older than yours. But you know they are false. And you use the same reasoning that I use to assume that your Bible is false.

So you're got your work cut out for you.

And I, for one, am looking forward to hearing more from you.
Not everyone is entitled to their own opinion. They're all entitled to mine though.