Religions > Atheism > just stating the fact that without divine authority, an atheist has no logical basis for his or her morality. That is why most atheists support terrorism, abortion, euthenasia, gay marriage etc..etc..etc..so I am not surprised in the least to hear th
| Topic: |
Religions > Atheism |
| User: |
"TRUECRISTIAN" |
| Date: |
03 Feb 2006 12:43:52 PM |
| Object: |
just stating the fact that without divine authority, an atheist has no logical basis for his or her morality. That is why most atheists support terrorism, abortion, euthenasia, gay marriage etc..etc..etc..so I am not surprised in the least to hear th |
just stating the fact that without divine authority, an atheist has no
logical basis for his or her morality. That is why most atheists
support terrorism, abortion, euthenasia, gay marriage etc..etc..etc..so
I am not surprised in the least to hear that they may support
DOGMOLESTORS
.
|
|
| User: "duke" |
|
| Title: Re: just stating the fact that without divine authority, an atheist has no logical basis for his or her morality. |
04 Feb 2006 08:40:08 AM |
|
|
On Fri, 03 Feb 2006 18:48:49 -0600, Uncle Vic <address@withheld.com> wrote:
No, God is not a sentient being, but almighty spirit.
What's a spirit? What's it made of?
Wow, the first intelligent question ever to be asked by an atheist in this ng.
Here's some challenging concepts for you.
Main Entry:1spir£it
1 : an animating or vital principle held to give life to physical organisms
2 : a supernatural being or essence: as a capitalized : HOLY SPIRIT b : SOUL
2a c : an often malevolent being that is bodiless but can become visible;
specifically : GHOST 2 d : a malevolent being that enters and possesses a
human being
3 : temper or disposition of mind or outlook especially when vigorous or
animated *in high spirits*
4 : the immaterial intelligent or sentient part of a person
5 a : the activating or essential principle influencing a person *acted in a
spirit of helpfulness* b : an inclination, impulse, or tendency of a specified
kind : MOOD
6 a : a special attitude or frame of mind *the money-making spirit was for a
time driven back — J. A. Froude* b : the feeling, quality, or disposition
characterizing something *undertaken in a spirit of fun*
B. God has free will.
No, God gives us free will.
No, we give ourselves free will.
No you exercise the free will that God gave you.
D. God is omnipotent.
E. God is omnibenevolent.
F. God is omniscient.
G. God is that which nothing more powerful
can be imagined.
I can accept those just to humor you.
They are the Christian definition of "god".
Those don't even scratch the surface.
there is no "class of gods". There is only one all-mighty Supreme
Being, by definition. Let's call him God for lack of a better name.
Nope. There are many thousands that have been worshiped throughout the
history of man. Yours is not even the latest, but it has only been
around for the last 2500 years or so.
There is and always been only one, and he created the heavens and the earth and
all that is in it.
You would have to be able to overlook logic and accept contradiction in
order to make that statement. "God" is all-powerful by definition,
(which you gave us above) therefore he is able to do away with evil, and
"god" is all-loving by definition, (which you gave us above) therefore he
would want to do away with evil. The problem is, there is still evil,
therefore your god(s) is/are either not omnipotent, or not omnibenevolent
as defined. This means he does not exist according to your definition,
which you accepted (just to humor us.)
God made us in his likeness and image, and that goes past our physical
characteristics to include free will. Our characteristics includes love v hate,
etc. And it is our free will that we exercise to choose either love or hate.
You might try to weasel out of this predicament by claiming an all-loving
god would not necessarily want to do away with evil to protect his
"children", but that would make him "not quite all-loving" which is not
how he is defined.
It has nothing to do with protecting us. It has to do with our choice of love v
hate. God wants us to choose to love rather than hate. He would have made us
robots is he wanted automatic response.
Since logic is obviously not your strongpoint, there is no reason to
continue refuting this post.
When are you going to start? I see nothing suggesting understanding in your
words.
duke
*****
"The Mass is the most perfect form of Prayer."
Pope Paul VI
*****
.
|
|
|
| User: "Uncle Vic" |
|
| Title: Re: just stating the fact that without divine authority, an atheist has no logical basis for his or her morality. |
04 Feb 2006 08:59:05 PM |
|
|
Once upon a time in alt.atheism, dear sweet duke (duckgumbo32@cox.net)
made the light shine upon us with this:
On Fri, 03 Feb 2006 18:48:49 -0600, Uncle Vic <address@withheld.com>
wrote:
No, God is not a sentient being, but almighty spirit.
What's a spirit? What's it made of?
Wow, the first intelligent question ever to be asked by an atheist in
this ng. Here's some challenging concepts for you.
Main Entry:1spir£it
1 : an animating or vital principle held to give life to physical
organisms
That's a good one. Do dogs need a spirit? How about spiders?
2 : a supernatural being or essence: as a capitalized :
HOLY SPIRIT b : SOUL
What's a soul made of?
2a c : an often malevolent being that is
bodiless but can become visible; specifically : GHOST
I see. The supernatural is treated as reality in this definition, which
renders the definition useless to an atheist.
<snip>
B. God has free will.
No, God gives us free will.
No, we give ourselves free will.
No you exercise the free will that God gave you.
Is "god" all-knowing? Then there is no free will. But that's logic, you
wouldn't understand.
D. God is omnipotent.
E. God is omnibenevolent.
F. God is omniscient.
G. God is that which nothing more powerful
can be imagined.
I can accept those just to humor you.
They are the Christian definition of "god".
Those don't even scratch the surface.
But they're included, right? I see omniscient is one of your approved
definitions. Say bye-bye to free will. They cannot logically exist
together. Dang, there's that "L" word again.
there is no "class of gods". There is only one all-mighty Supreme
Being, by definition. Let's call him God for lack of a better name.
Nope. There are many thousands that have been worshiped throughout
the history of man. Yours is not even the latest, but it has only
been around for the last 2500 years or so.
There is and always been only one, and he created the heavens and the
earth and all that is in it.
That's a lie. The bible says he did that. And the Hindus claim their
god Vishnu created the heavens and the earth and all that is in it. Who
do we believe, and why?
The bible also says it was done around 6,000 years ago, which is utter
*****. But the people that wrote the OT some 2,500 years ago didn't
know any better, and probably never thought anyone would actually call
their bluff. I'm calling it.
<you've snipped what I was replying to below, taking it mercilessly out
of context. Thank you>
You would have to be able to overlook logic and accept contradiction
in order to make that statement. "God" is all-powerful by definition,
(which you gave us above) therefore he is able to do away with evil,
and "god" is all-loving by definition, (which you gave us above)
therefore he would want to do away with evil. The problem is, there
is still evil, therefore your god(s) is/are either not omnipotent, or
not omnibenevolent as defined. This means he does not exist according
to your definition, which you accepted (just to humor us.)
God made us in his likeness and image, and that goes past our physical
characteristics to include free will. Our characteristics includes
love v hate, etc. And it is our free will that we exercise to choose
either love or hate.
Then say bye-bye to you omniscient god. Free will and omniscience (which
you have agreed above is one of the definitions of the Christian god)
cannot exist in the same context. It's as possible as a round triangle
or a three-sided square.
This is one of the qualifications for being religious, one I am happy to
say I do not have. It's the ability to accept the illogical as reality,
the unreasonable as truth, and contradiction as fact. Doesn't that make
you walk crooked or something?
You might try to weasel out of this predicament by claiming an
all-loving god would not necessarily want to do away with evil to
protect his "children", but that would make him "not quite all-loving"
which is not how he is defined.
It has nothing to do with protecting us. It has to do with our choice
of love v hate. God wants us to choose to love rather than hate. He
would have made us robots is he wanted automatic response.
Whatever floats your boat, Douche. It sounds good superficially.
Unfortunately, that's about as far as you religious whackjobs ever get.
I took a chance one day and I *thought* about your religious doctrine. I
applied logic, I applied reason. It didn't pass the test. This is why
priests and pastors tell you that going down that path is a sin. It
makes you fall from grace. It makes you come of age, the age of Reason.
--
Uncle Vic
aa Atheist #2011, aw Hellboy #5
Supervisor, EAC Department of little adhesive-backed "L" shaped
chrome-plastic doo-dads to add feet to Jesus fish department
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Sgeo" |
|
| Title: Re: just stating the fact that without divine authority, an atheist has no logical basis for his or her morality. |
03 Feb 2006 05:15:10 PM |
|
|
duke wrote:
On Fri, 03 Feb 2006 14:58:44 -0600, wbarwell <wbarwell@mylinuxisp.com>
wrote:
God does not exist and that can be proven.
Not a fart's chance in a hurricane of that.
------------------------------------------------IS THERE A GOD?
Strong Atheism's answer.
A BASIC DEFINITION OF GOD.
The general overarching definition of god as per
the major religions of the world is:
A. God is personal, God has will and conciousness.
No, God is not a sentient being, but almighty spirit.
B. God has free will.
No, God gives us free will.
God isn't all powerful then?
C. God is the creator of all.
Yes.
D. God is omnipotent.
E. God is omnibenevolent.
F. God is omniscient.
G. God is that which nothing more powerful
can be imagined.
I can accept those just to humor you.
"just to humor you"?
These are the basic attributes that can be claimed
for the god of orthodox Judaism, Christianity,
Islam, and Hinduism.
No, not hinduism.
Omnibenevolence and omniscience are actually
logically derivable from the claimed attribute of
omnipotence and so aren't not truely independent
attributes, and may be considered special aspects
of omnipotence.
There are other attributes of god, that he is the
only such god, that he is, is immortal and that
god has always existed that are not important
for this discussion and for now, can be ignored.
They are secondary arguments and are for the most
part not foundational or truly necessary, except
those that can be logically derived from the
attributes listed above.
A CLASS OF GODS
It is important to note here that this is a
definition not for a particular god, but an
entire class of gods.
there is no "class of gods". There is only one all-mighty Supreme Being,
by
definition. Let's call him God for lack of a better name.
By "class of gods", I think the poster meant the various types of gods
claimed by various religions.
Sub-theories about god are not important here.
Christianity claims one may attain salvation
only through Jesus, Islam claims the Christian
dogma that Jesus was the son of god is
blasphemous.
Ideas like this though, are of little importance
to the overarching and general claims made for a
personal, creator, omni-everything god. I have
coined a term, The Grand God of Grand Theologies
for this sort of god, this sort of theological
system of expansive claims for god.
Grand theologies are those theologies that have
adopted this class of god as their basic
attributes concerning the nature of god. But it
is important to remember here that what is being
discussed here is a class of gods, not particular
gods or specific gods.
THE FOUR GREAT THEOLOGICAL TRADITIONS
Again, Judaism, Christianity, Islam, Hinduism hold
to this basic Grand God and are typical Grand
Theologies holding to this basic class of god as
their basic definitions of what god is at god's
most basic level.
Nope, not Hinduism.
A big problem with this class of gods is, it
collapses rather easily into internal self
contradiction.
This is where you must get serious.
THE PROBLEM OF EVIL.
The problem of evil was first written down by
Epicurus in about the third century BCE.
But acknowledged by God for all eternity.
Did God do anything about it? Obviously not.
Today's formulation is:
A. God is defined as omnipotent;
B. and as omnibenevolent.
C. Evil exists.
D. God therefore, is not omnipotent as claimed.
You say it, but why not. You project no reason why he allows it, and
thereby disagrees with you.
The *theist* is being asked why God allows it.
You lose that one.
Not really.
E. Or God is not omnibenevolent as claimed.
F. Or god is neither omnipotent or
omnibenevolent.
G. Or god is not existant.
You must get past "D" before going to "go".
Already done.
THE FREE WILL DEFENSE
The free will defense of the problem of evil goes
back to St. Augustine who popularized it. It is
still popular, and is championed most notably
today by Alvin Plantinga, but also by other
theologiams.
God gave us free will, not St. Augustine.
St. Augustine is the person who made the *free will defense*. No-one's
saying that St. Augustine provided *free will*.
God gave man free will. Man freely chooses to do
evil. Ability to do evil is less evil than
lacking free will.
Which is why God gave us free will.
THE FREE WILL DEFENSE DEBUNKED.
God has free will.
Nope. You lose.
God must not be omnipotent then.
God is omnibenevolent, he has a good nature
incapable of doing evil.
A. If god can have free will, and a good nature,
this good nature is not allowed to cound
againts god's free will.
B. Nor is god's lack of ability to do evil
allowed to count against god's omnipotence.
C. Likewise, man could easily have a god like
free will and a god like good nature.
D. Inabilty then to do evil would no more count
against man's free will than it does for god's
free will.
E. If so, it also counts against god's free will
and god does not have free will as claimed.
F. If god does not have absolute and total free
will, thus free will is not a true necessity
at all.
F. If god is omnipotent and omnibenevolent, and
can give man a god like free will and a
god-like good nature incapable of moral evil,
god must do so or god is not moral, not
omnibenevolent.
G. Evil exists because he allows it to.
So free will does not exist,
You blew it in the preamble. God does not possess free will. God gives
us free will.
or it does and we can
have a god like free will and a god like good
nature. Either way, free will cannot explain away
the existance of evil. This free will defense
then, is a failed argument.
OMNISCIENCE VERSUS CREATORHOOD OF GOD
God is defined as creator of all in most
religions.
And god is claimed to be omniscient, all knowing.
A. God created the Universe and all in it.
B. God is omniscient, all knowing, he knows all
in the Universe and he knows the future of the
Universe and its contents.
Yep.
C. If god creates a Universe, he will know that
in 13 billion years this Universe will have a
man named John Smith in it.
Yep.
D. If John Smith is good and saved, or evil and
damned, God will know that.
Yep.
E. As he knows that the Universe in its present
state will have a John Smith, god may then
contemplate the future state of Smith and
decide if he will tolerate an evil Smith.
Nope. God does not interfere.
You're a deist?
I guess Christ never came down as the son of God?
F. If yes, Smith will be evil only because of a
specific personal and will choice made solely
by god.
Nope, by Smith. It's called free will.
See the section about debunking the free will defense. I'm going to stop
replying to comments about free will here.
G. If Smith is evil, then evil exists solely
because of a choice made by god.
Nope, by Smith in accordance with his free will.
In fact all
moral evil done by creations of god will be
evil and do evil only because of personal and
willful creations of god allowing evil acts
to be done, by direct decision of god.
Man does evil on behalf of his free will. God gave us free choice, and to
be suitably rewarded basis our decision - heaven or hell.
H. If evil exists in a world with an omniscient
creator god, it is solely and only because
god allows evil.
He allows man to free choose evil.
I. If evil exists solely because of personal
choices of god, god then is not as defined,
omnibenevolent.
An interesting concept. You're saying that God should not be
onmibenevolent because to do so would allow us to injure ourselves on
behalf of our free will. We injure ourselves because of our free will to
do so.
J. Man and any other sentient being in such a
Universe cannot have any free will, not even
in principle. A Universe with a god that
creates all and knows all precludes free will
for all beings god creates in the strongest
possible manner.
Nope, God knows our final free decision, but we don't. We still have to
make it.
The Grand God of Grand
Theology is thus self destroying, it is
incoherent and contradictory as a theory.
THE SITUATION SO FAR.
1. A minimalistic class of gods is defined, this
Grand God has been defined here with as few
terms as possible.
By your definition, but I've showed you to be in error.
2. The problem of evil dooms such a claimed god.
No, it doesn't.
3. The attempted defence, free will is fatally
flawed. God's good nature and free will doom
claims free will makes evil necessary for man
to have free will.
Free will is what you are hiding from.
4. Omniscience and creatorhood of god further
doom claims of god's omnibenevolence and
man's free will free will cannot exist for
man. All evil is the direct and knowing
creation of god contradicting claims of
omnibenevolence.
5. Since Free will for man is totally impossible,
free will cannot be a good quality, much less
neccesary.
No free will for man is impossible, because then man would not be made in
the image of God who is all love.
Here, the Grand God of Grand Theology has
collapsed. As has Grand
Theology. As pointed out, this destroys the claims
and viability of an entire class of possible gods,
all secondary and tertiary claims for such a god of
this class also fail, as do dogmas or secondary
or tertiary claims.
But not almighty God. Only a weak class of god (small g) like alcoholic,
sex drive, etc.
Your almighty God *is* the class of gods ruled out. Weak polytheistic gods
are not ruled out. And alcoholism and sex drive are not gods.
If a these Grand Gods cannot exist as defined,
specific gods cannot, nor can claims such as this
or that Grand God sent this or that relevation to
man or some prophet or did this or that.
These are not grand gods, but small gods that are satan driven.
God is thus disporven and is utter irrelevant
to anything real and existant.
You're successfully defined small gods, but not God almighty.
Actually, small gods *aren't* disproved by this, but God almighty is.
Better luck
duke
*****
"The Mass is the most perfect form of Prayer."
Pope Paul VI
*****
.
|
|
|
| User: "duke" |
|
| Title: Re: just stating the fact that without divine authority, an atheist has no logical basis for his or her morality. |
04 Feb 2006 08:15:00 AM |
|
|
On Fri, 03 Feb 2006 18:15:10 -0500, Sgeo <sgeoster@gmail.com> wrote:
B. God has free will.
No, God gives us free will.
God isn't all powerful then?
It usually comes with the territory of being the supreme Creator.
I can accept those just to humor you.
"just to humor you"?
It usually comes with the territory of being the supreme Creator.
there is no "class of gods". There is only one all-mighty Supreme Being,
by
definition. Let's call him God for lack of a better name.
By "class of gods", I think the poster meant the various types of gods
claimed by various religions.
Alcololism and gambling are classes of gods.
THE PROBLEM OF EVIL.
The problem of evil was first written down by
Epicurus in about the third century BCE.
But acknowledged by God for all eternity.
Did God do anything about it? Obviously not.
Evil comes from having free will, a characteristic God gave man so man could
choose God rather than being a robot programmed to say it.
duke
*****
"The Mass is the most perfect form of Prayer."
Pope Paul VI
*****
.
|
|
|
| User: "Uncle Vic" |
|
| Title: Re: just stating the fact that without divine authority, an atheist has no logical basis for his or her morality. |
04 Feb 2006 11:09:05 PM |
|
|
Once upon a time in alt.atheism, dear sweet duke (duckgumbo32@cox.net)
made the light shine upon us with this:
On Fri, 03 Feb 2006 18:15:10 -0500, Sgeo <sgeoster@gmail.com> wrote:
B. God has free will.
No, God gives us free will.
God isn't all powerful then?
It usually comes with the territory of being the supreme Creator.
I can accept those just to humor you.
"just to humor you"?
It usually comes with the territory of being the supreme Creator.
there is no "class of gods". There is only one all-mighty Supreme
Being, by
definition. Let's call him God for lack of a better name.
By "class of gods", I think the poster meant the various types of gods
claimed by various religions.
Alcololism and gambling are classes of gods.
THE PROBLEM OF EVIL.
The problem of evil was first written down by
Epicurus in about the third century BCE.
But acknowledged by God for all eternity.
Did God do anything about it? Obviously not.
Evil comes from having free will, a characteristic God gave man so man
could choose God rather than being a robot programmed to say it.
Illogic doesn't bother you a bit, does it?
--
Uncle Vic
aa Atheist #2011, aw Hellboy #5
Supervisor, EAC Department of little adhesive-backed "L" shaped
chrome-plastic doo-dads to add feet to Jesus fish department
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "wbarwell" |
|
| Title: Re: just stating the fact that without divine authority, an atheist has no logical basis for his or her morality. |
04 Feb 2006 04:36:54 PM |
|
|
duke wrote:
On Fri, 03 Feb 2006 18:15:10 -0500, Sgeo <sgeoster@gmail.com> wrote:
B. God has free will.
No, God gives us free will.
God isn't all powerful then?
It usually comes with the territory of being the supreme Creator.
I can accept those just to humor you.
"just to humor you"?
It usually comes with the territory of being the supreme Creator.
*****************************************************
OMNISCIENCE VERSUS CREATORHOOD OF GOD
God is defined as creator of all in most religions.
And god is claimed to be omniscient, all knowing.
A. God created the Universe and all in it.
B. God is omniscient, all knowing, he knows all in
the Universe and he knows the future of the Universe
and its contents.
C. If god creates a Universe, he will know that in 13 billion
years this Universe will have a man named John Smith in it.
D. If John Smith is good and saved, or evil and damned, God
will know that.
E. As he knows that the Universe in its present state will
have a John Smith, god may then contemplate the future state
of Smith and decide if he will tolerate an evil Smith.
F. If yes, Smith will be evil only because of a specific
personal and will choice made solely by god.
G. If Smith is evil, then evil exists solely because of a choice
made by god. In fact all moral evil done by creations of god
will be evil and do evil only because of personal and willful
creations of god allowing evil acts to be done, by direct
decision of god.
H. If evil exists in a world with an omniscient creator god,
it is solely and only because god allows evil.
I. If evil exists solely because of personal choices of god,
god then is not as defined, omnibenevolent.
J. Man and any other sentient being in such a Universe cannot
have any free will, not even in principle. A Universe with
a god that creates all and knows all precludes free will for
all beings god creates in the strongest possible manner.
***********************************************************
--
The first law of the false prophet has
always and ever been "Don't laugh!"
Cheerful Charlie
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "wbarwell" |
|
| Title: Re: just stating the fact that without divine authority, an atheist has no logical basis for his or her morality. |
03 Feb 2006 06:28:38 PM |
|
|
duke wrote:
On Fri, 03 Feb 2006 14:58:44 -0600, wbarwell <wbarwell@mylinuxisp.com>
wrote:
God does not exist and that can be proven.
Not a fart's chance in a hurricane of that.
Been done, over, you lost.
Sorry. No cupie doll for you.
------------------------------------------------IS THERE A GOD?
Strong Atheism's answer.
A BASIC DEFINITION OF GOD.
The general overarching definition of god as per
the major religions of the world is:
A. God is personal, God has will and conciousness.
No, God is not a sentient being, but almighty spirit.
Again, Puke does not understand what sentient means.
God has will and intelligence, that is the claim, not
a blind force of nature, dumb and brute.
That is materialism, pantheism.
B. God has free will.
No, God gives us free will.
Non sequitur. And a stupid one.
also disprovable
See the free will defense debunked below.
Clues stick word for those who want to
know more, google incompatibalism.
C. God is the creator of all.
Yes.
D. God is omnipotent.
E. God is omnibenevolent.
F. God is omniscient.
G. God is that which nothing more powerful
can be imagined.
I can accept those just to humor you.
can you imagine something greater than god?
These are the basic attributes that can be claimed
for the god of orthodox Judaism, Christianity,
Islam, and Hinduism.
No, not hinduism.
Yes, your deep ignorance of the span of ideas that can
be called Hinduism is deep and abysmal.
There are a number of advanced Hindu theologies t
hat meet this defition easily.
You never will google it up and do honest homework, are you?
You are just plain old wrong. Again. As usual.
Omnibenevolence and omniscience are actually
logically derivable from the claimed attribute of
omnipotence and so aren't not truely independent
attributes, and may be considered special aspects
of omnipotence.
There are other attributes of god, that he is the
only such god, that he is, is immortal and that
god has always existed that are not important
for this discussion and for now, can be ignored.
They are secondary arguments and are for the most
part not foundational or truly necessary, except
those that can be logically derived from the
attributes listed above.
A CLASS OF GODS
It is important to note here that this is a
definition not for a particular god, but an
entire class of gods.
there is no "class of gods". There is only one all-mighty Supreme
Being, by
definition. Let's call him God for lack of a better name.
There are a class of gods, having the claimed attributes as
listed above.
If you cannot understand teh word class, in this
context, you just lost the argument, ran off the
road and into the ditch of stupidity.
Sub-theories about god are not important here.
Christianity claims one may attain salvation
only through Jesus, Islam claims the Christian
dogma that Jesus was the son of god is
blasphemous.
Ideas like this though, are of little importance
to the overarching and general claims made for a
personal, creator, omni-everything god. I have
coined a term, The Grand God of Grand Theologies
for this sort of god, this sort of theological
system of expansive claims for god.
Grand theologies are those theologies that have
adopted this class of god as their basic
attributes concerning the nature of god. But it
is important to remember here that what is being
discussed here is a class of gods, not particular
gods or specific gods.
THE FOUR GREAT THEOLOGICAL TRADITIONS
Again, Judaism, Christianity, Islam, Hinduism hold
to this basic Grand God and are typical Grand
Theologies holding to this basic class of god as
their basic definitions of what god is at god's
most basic level.
Nope, not Hinduism.
Yes. Your deep ignorance is braying loudly here.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brahman
A big problem with this class of gods is, it
collapses rather easily into internal self
contradiction.
This is where you must get serious.
THE PROBLEM OF EVIL.
The problem of evil was first written down by
Epicurus in about the third century BCE.
But acknowledged by God for all eternity.
Non sequitur and sensely spewage.
Today's formulation is:
A. God is defined as omnipotent;
B. and as omnibenevolent.
C. Evil exists.
D. God therefore, is not omnipotent as claimed.
You say it, but why not. You project no reason why he allows it, and
thereby disagrees with you.
We are about to get into that, as usual, you shoot from
the lip and do not read carefully before doing so.
a real thinker reads first then posts.
a second class thinks goes back, erases his
error and goes back to where he was reading when
he realized "Dang, what I just oposted is nonsene".
You just rant on.
You lose that one.
No, you did.
E. Or God is not omnibenevolent as claimed.
F. Or god is neither omnipotent or
omnibenevolent.
G. Or god is not existant.
You must get past "D" before going to "go".
I did, you brain shut down at your
first comment.
THE FREE WILL DEFENSE
The free will defense of the problem of evil goes
back to St. Augustine who popularized it. It is
still popular, and is championed most notably
today by Alvin Plantinga, but also by other
theologiams.
God gave us free will, not St. Augustine.
You are so stupid it hurts.
You have stopped making any sort of sense at all.
You are now just blurting out nonsnese at random.
To stupid to handle thinking, to stupid to shut up.
God gave man free will. Man freely chooses to do
evil. Ability to do evil is less evil than
lacking free will.
Which is why God gave us free will.
THE FREE WILL DEFENSE DEBUNKED.
God has free will.
Nope. You lose.
God is omnibenevolent, he has a good nature
incapable of doing evil.
A. If god can have free will, and a good nature,
this good nature is not allowed to cound
againts god's free will.
B. Nor is god's lack of ability to do evil
allowed to count against god's omnipotence.
C. Likewise, man could easily have a god like
free will and a god like good nature.
D. Inabilty then to do evil would no more count
against man's free will than it does for god's
free will.
E. If so, it also counts against god's free will
and god does not have free will as claimed.
F. If god does not have absolute and total free
will, thus free will is not a true necessity
at all.
F. If god is omnipotent and omnibenevolent, and
can give man a god like free will and a
god-like good nature incapable of moral evil,
god must do so or god is not moral, not
omnibenevolent.
G. Evil exists because he allows it to.
So free will does not exist,
You blew it in the preamble. God does not possess free will. God
gives us free will.
I just blew free wil out the water and all
you are doing is blurting ignorant drivel
You lost again.
or it does and we can
have a god like free will and a god like good
nature. Either way, free will cannot explain away
the existance of evil. This free will defense
then, is a failed argument.
OMNISCIENCE VERSUS CREATORHOOD OF GOD
God is defined as creator of all in most
religions.
And god is claimed to be omniscient, all knowing.
A. God created the Universe and all in it.
B. God is omniscient, all knowing, he knows all
in the Universe and he knows the future of the
Universe and its contents.
Yep.
C. If god creates a Universe, he will know that
in 13 billion years this Universe will have a
man named John Smith in it.
Yep.
D. If John Smith is good and saved, or evil and
damned, God will know that.
Yep.
E. As he knows that the Universe in its present
state will have a John Smith, god may then
contemplate the future state of Smith and
decide if he will tolerate an evil Smith.
Nope. God does not interfere.
F. If yes, Smith will be evil only because of a
specific personal and will choice made solely
by god.
Nope, by Smith. It's called free will.
G. If Smith is evil, then evil exists solely
because of a choice made by god.
Nope, by Smith in accordance with his free will.
In fact all
moral evil done by creations of god will be
evil and do evil only because of personal and
willful creations of god allowing evil acts
to be done, by direct decision of god.
Man does evil on behalf of his free will. God gave us free choice, and
to be suitably rewarded basis our decision - heaven or hell.
H. If evil exists in a world with an omniscient
creator god, it is solely and only because
god allows evil.
He allows man to free choose evil.
I. If evil exists solely because of personal
choices of god, god then is not as defined,
omnibenevolent.
An interesting concept. You're saying that God should not be
onmibenevolent because to do so would allow us to injure ourselves on
behalf of our free will. We injure ourselves because of our free will
to do so.
J. Man and any other sentient being in such a
Universe cannot have any free will, not even
in principle. A Universe with a god that
creates all and knows all precludes free will
for all beings god creates in the strongest
possible manner.
Nope, God knows our final free decision, but we don't. We still have
to make it.
The Grand God of Grand
Theology is thus self destroying, it is
incoherent and contradictory as a theory.
THE SITUATION SO FAR.
1. A minimalistic class of gods is defined, this
Grand God has been defined here with as few
terms as possible.
By your definition, but I've showed you to be in error.
2. The problem of evil dooms such a claimed god.
No, it doesn't.
3. The attempted defence, free will is fatally
flawed. God's good nature and free will doom
claims free will makes evil necessary for man
to have free will.
Free will is what you are hiding from.
4. Omniscience and creatorhood of god further
doom claims of god's omnibenevolence and
man's free will free will cannot exist for
man. All evil is the direct and knowing
creation of god contradicting claims of
omnibenevolence.
5. Since Free will for man is totally impossible,
free will cannot be a good quality, much less
neccesary.
No free will for man is impossible, because then man would not be made
in the image of God who is all love.
Here, the Grand God of Grand Theology has
collapsed. As has Grand
Theology. As pointed out, this destroys the claims
and viability of an entire class of possible gods,
all secondary and tertiary claims for such a god of
this class also fail, as do dogmas or secondary
or tertiary claims.
But not almighty God. Only a weak class of god (small g) like
alcoholic, sex drive, etc.
If a these Grand Gods cannot exist as defined,
specific gods cannot, nor can claims such as this
or that Grand God sent this or that relevation to
man or some prophet or did this or that.
These are not grand gods, but small gods that are satan driven.
God is thus disporven and is utter irrelevant
to anything real and existant.
You're successfully defined small gods, but not God almighty.
Better luck
duke
*****
"The Mass is the most perfect form of Prayer."
Pope Paul VI
*****
--
The first law of the false prophet has
always and ever been "Don't laugh!"
Cheerful Charlie
.
|
|
|
| User: "duke" |
|
| Title: Re: just stating the fact that without divine authority, an atheist has no logical basis for his or her morality. |
04 Feb 2006 08:26:54 AM |
|
|
On Fri, 03 Feb 2006 18:28:38 -0600, wbarwell <wbarwell@mylinuxisp.com> wrote:
God does not exist and that can be proven.
Not a fart's chance in a hurricane of that.
Been done, over, you lost.
Sorry. No cupie doll for you.
I myself shot your theories I and II full of holes. So there must be something
else. Care to divulge it?
No, God is not a sentient being, but almighty spirit.
Again, Puke does not understand what sentient means.
Hey, you're starting to sound like mikey.
God has will and intelligence, that is the claim, not
a blind force of nature, dumb and brute.
Then I can agree. God is the supreme Creator.
That is materialism, pantheism.
Only to you
B. God has free will.
No, God gives us free will.
Non sequitur. And a stupid one.
also disprovable
See the free will defense debunked below.
I debunked that already.
I can accept those just to humor you.
can you imagine something greater than god?
God is ALL, so I can humor you.
These are the basic attributes that can be claimed
for the god of orthodox Judaism, Christianity,
Islam, and Hinduism.
No, not hinduism.
Yes, your deep ignorance of the span of ideas that can
be called Hinduism is deep and abysmal.
There are a number of advanced Hindu theologies t
hat meet this defition easily.
Hindus worship rivers.
You never will google it up and do honest homework, are you?
You are just plain old wrong. Again. As usual.
Hindus worship rivers.
there is no "class of gods". There is only one all-mighty Supreme
Being, by
definition. Let's call him God for lack of a better name.
There are a class of gods, having the claimed attributes as
listed above.
Alcoholism and gambling are classes.
Nope, not Hinduism.
Yes. Your deep ignorance is braying loudly here.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brahman
They worship rivers.
THE PROBLEM OF EVIL.
The problem of evil was first written down by
Epicurus in about the third century BCE.
But acknowledged by God for all eternity.
Non sequitur and sensely spewage.
Then you don't understand my correction of you.
Today's formulation is:
A. God is defined as omnipotent;
B. and as omnibenevolent.
C. Evil exists.
D. God therefore, is not omnipotent as claimed.
You say it, but why not. You project no reason why he allows it, and
thereby disagrees with you.
We are about to get into that, as usual, you shoot from
the lip and do not read carefully before doing so.
You've been tossing this garbage out for months. Why wait to now to fail to
defend it?
a real thinker reads first then posts.
See above.
THE FREE WILL DEFENSE
The free will defense of the problem of evil goes
back to St. Augustine who popularized it. It is
still popular, and is championed most notably
today by Alvin Plantinga, but also by other
theologiams.
God gave us free will, not St. Augustine.
You are so stupid it hurts.
Funny, I absolutely see the same thing in you.
You blew it in the preamble. God does not possess free will. God
gives us free will.
I just blew free wil out the water and all
you are doing is blurting ignorant drivel
God is all love and evil cannot survive all love. Therefore God gives free
will.
You lost again.
Try again.
duke
*****
"The Mass is the most perfect form of Prayer."
Pope Paul VI
*****
.
|
|
|
| User: "specs" |
|
| Title: Re: just stating the fact that without divine authority, an atheist has no logical basis for his or her morality. |
04 Feb 2006 08:55:02 AM |
|
|
God is all love and evil cannot survive all love. Therefore God gives
free
will.
I think the point most atheists would make is that if God is all love, why
would evil be allowed in the first place. Just so that we could be provided
with a 'choice' between one or the other? I think personally this radically
limits the true operations of the universe, given that it implies black and
white is the colour scheme of the entire spectrum of all that is.
.
|
|
|
| User: "wbarwell" |
|
| Title: Re: just stating the fact that without divine authority, an atheist has no logical basis for his or her morality. |
04 Feb 2006 12:35:05 PM |
|
|
specs wrote:
God is all love and evil cannot survive all love. Therefore God gives
free
will.
I think the point most atheists would make is that if God is all love,
why
would evil be allowed in the first place. Just so that we could be
provided
with a 'choice' between one or the other? I think personally this
radically limits the true operations of the universe, given that it
implies black and white is the colour scheme of the entire spectrum of
all that is.
Reading Exodus and Joshua, we see hate from
god and very little love.
Luke
14:25 And there went great multitudes with him: and he turned,
and said unto them,
14:26 If any man come to me, and hate not his father,
and mother, and wife, and children, and brethren, and
sisters, yea, and his own life also, he cannot be my disciple.
--
The first law of the false prophet has
always and ever been "Don't laugh!"
Cheerful Charlie
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "bob young" |
|
| Title: Re: just stating the fact that without divine authority, an atheist hasno logical basis for his or her morality. |
03 Feb 2006 11:26:03 PM |
|
|
duke wrote:
On Fri, 03 Feb 2006 14:58:44 -0600, wbarwell <wbarwell@mylinuxisp.com> wrote:
God does not exist and that can be proven.
Not a fart's chance in a hurricane of that.
------------------------------------------------IS THERE A GOD?
Strong Atheism's answer.
A BASIC DEFINITION OF GOD.
The general overarching definition of god as per
the major religions of the world is:
A. God is personal, God has will and conciousness.
No, God is not a sentient being, but almighty spirit...
...................you mean like a fart in a hurricane?
B. God has free will.
No, God gives us free will.
C. God is the creator of all.
Yes.
D. God is omnipotent.
E. God is omnibenevolent.
F. God is omniscient.
G. God is that which nothing more powerful
can be imagined.
I can accept those just to humor you.
These are the basic attributes that can be claimed
for the god of orthodox Judaism, Christianity,
Islam, and Hinduism.
No, not hinduism.
Omnibenevolence and omniscience are actually
logically derivable from the claimed attribute of
omnipotence and so aren't not truely independent
attributes, and may be considered special aspects
of omnipotence.
There are other attributes of god, that he is the
only such god, that he is, is immortal and that
god has always existed that are not important
for this discussion and for now, can be ignored.
They are secondary arguments and are for the most
part not foundational or truly necessary, except
those that can be logically derived from the
attributes listed above.
A CLASS OF GODS
It is important to note here that this is a
definition not for a particular god, but an
entire class of gods.
there is no "class of gods". There is only one all-mighty Supreme Being, by
definition. Let's call him God for lack of a better name.
Sub-theories about god are not important here.
Christianity claims one may attain salvation
only through Jesus, Islam claims the Christian
dogma that Jesus was the son of god is
blasphemous.
Ideas like this though, are of little importance
to the overarching and general claims made for a
personal, creator, omni-everything god. I have
coined a term, The Grand God of Grand Theologies
for this sort of god, this sort of theological
system of expansive claims for god.
Grand theologies are those theologies that have
adopted this class of god as their basic
attributes concerning the nature of god. But it
is important to remember here that what is being
discussed here is a class of gods, not particular
gods or specific gods.
THE FOUR GREAT THEOLOGICAL TRADITIONS
Again, Judaism, Christianity, Islam, Hinduism hold
to this basic Grand God and are typical Grand
Theologies holding to this basic class of god as
their basic definitions of what god is at god's
most basic level.
Nope, not Hinduism.
A big problem with this class of gods is, it
collapses rather easily into internal self
contradiction.
This is where you must get serious.
THE PROBLEM OF EVIL.
The problem of evil was first written down by
Epicurus in about the third century BCE.
But acknowledged by God for all eternity.
Today's formulation is:
A. God is defined as omnipotent;
B. and as omnibenevolent.
C. Evil exists.
D. God therefore, is not omnipotent as claimed.
You say it, but why not. You project no reason why he allows it, and thereby
disagrees with you.
You lose that one.
E. Or God is not omnibenevolent as claimed.
F. Or god is neither omnipotent or
omnibenevolent.
G. Or god is not existant.
You must get past "D" before going to "go".
THE FREE WILL DEFENSE
The free will defense of the problem of evil goes
back to St. Augustine who popularized it. It is
still popular, and is championed most notably
today by Alvin Plantinga, but also by other
theologiams.
God gave us free will, not St. Augustine.
God gave man free will. Man freely chooses to do
evil. Ability to do evil is less evil than
lacking free will.
Which is why God gave us free will.
THE FREE WILL DEFENSE DEBUNKED.
God has free will.
Nope. You lose.
God is omnibenevolent, he has a good nature
incapable of doing evil.
A. If god can have free will, and a good nature,
this good nature is not allowed to cound
againts god's free will.
B. Nor is god's lack of ability to do evil
allowed to count against god's omnipotence.
C. Likewise, man could easily have a god like
free will and a god like good nature.
D. Inabilty then to do evil would no more count
against man's free will than it does for god's
free will.
E. If so, it also counts against god's free will
and god does not have free will as claimed.
F. If god does not have absolute and total free
will, thus free will is not a true necessity
at all.
F. If god is omnipotent and omnibenevolent, and
can give man a god like free will and a
god-like good nature incapable of moral evil,
god must do so or god is not moral, not
omnibenevolent.
G. Evil exists because he allows it to.
So free will does not exist,
You blew it in the preamble. God does not possess free will. God gives us free
will.
or it does and we can
have a god like free will and a god like good
nature. Either way, free will cannot explain away
the existance of evil. This free will defense
then, is a failed argument.
OMNISCIENCE VERSUS CREATORHOOD OF GOD
God is defined as creator of all in most
religions.
And god is claimed to be omniscient, all knowing.
A. God created the Universe and all in it.
B. God is omniscient, all knowing, he knows all
in the Universe and he knows the future of the
Universe and its contents.
Yep.
C. If god creates a Universe, he will know that
in 13 billion years this Universe will have a
man named John Smith in it.
Yep.
D. If John Smith is good and saved, or evil and
damned, God will know that.
Yep.
E. As he knows that the Universe in its present
state will have a John Smith, god may then
contemplate the future state of Smith and
decide if he will tolerate an evil Smith.
Nope. God does not interfere.
F. If yes, Smith will be evil only because of a
specific personal and will choice made solely
by god.
Nope, by Smith. It's called free will.
G. If Smith is evil, then evil exists solely
because of a choice made by god.
Nope, by Smith in accordance with his free will.
In fact all
moral evil done by creations of god will be
evil and do evil only because of personal and
willful creations of god allowing evil acts
to be done, by direct decision of god.
Man does evil on behalf of his free will. God gave us free choice, and to be
suitably rewarded basis our decision - heaven or hell.
H. If evil exists in a world with an omniscient
creator god, it is solely and only because
god allows evil.
He allows man to free choose evil.
I. If evil exists solely because of personal
choices of god, god then is not as defined,
omnibenevolent.
An interesting concept. You're saying that God should not be onmibenevolent
because to do so would allow us to injure ourselves on behalf of our free will.
We injure ourselves because of our free will to do so.
J. Man and any other sentient being in such a
Universe cannot have any free will, not even
in principle. A Universe with a god that
creates all and knows all precludes free will
for all beings god creates in the strongest
possible manner.
Nope, God knows our final free decision, but we don't. We still have to make
it.
The Grand God of Grand
Theology is thus self destroying, it is
incoherent and contradictory as a theory.
THE SITUATION SO FAR.
1. A minimalistic class of gods is defined, this
Grand God has been defined here with as few
terms as possible.
By your definition, but I've showed you to be in error.
2. The problem of evil dooms such a claimed god.
No, it doesn't.
3. The attempted defence, free will is fatally
flawed. God's good nature and free will doom
claims free will makes evil necessary for man
to have free will.
Free will is what you are hiding from.
4. Omniscience and creatorhood of god further
doom claims of god's omnibenevolence and
man's free will free will cannot exist for
man. All evil is the direct and knowing
creation of god contradicting claims of
omnibenevolence.
5. Since Free will for man is totally impossible,
free will cannot be a good quality, much less
neccesary.
No free will for man is impossible, because then man would not be made in the
image of God who is all love.
Here, the Grand God of Grand Theology has
collapsed. As has Grand
Theology. As pointed out, this destroys the claims
and viability of an entire class of possible gods,
all secondary and tertiary claims for such a god of
this class also fail, as do dogmas or secondary
or tertiary claims.
But not almighty God. Only a weak class of god (small g) like alcoholic, sex
drive, etc.
If a these Grand Gods cannot exist as defined,
specific gods cannot, nor can claims such as this
or that Grand God sent this or that relevation to
man or some prophet or did this or that.
These are not grand gods, but small gods that are satan driven.
God is thus disporven and is utter irrelevant
to anything real and existant.
You're successfully defined small gods, but not God almighty.
Better luck
duke
*****
"The Mass is the most perfect form of Prayer."
Pope Paul VI
*****
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Sgeo" |
|
| Title: Re: just stating the fact that without divine authority, an atheist has no logical basis for his or her morality. |
03 Feb 2006 05:01:11 PM |
|
|
wbarwell wrote:
TRUECRISTIAN wrote:
just stating the fact that without divine authority, an atheist has no
logical basis for his or her morality. That is why most atheists
support terrorism, abortion, euthenasia, gay marriage etc..etc..etc..so
I am not surprised in the least to hear that they may support
DOGMOLESTORS
God does not exist and that can be proven.
So nobody has any authority for morals
otyer than logic.
Since you are wrong about morals and god,
you must have no morals. Just a superstition
That is why Christian history is so bad.
IS THERE A GOD?
Strong Atheism's answer.
A BASIC DEFINITION OF GOD.
The general overarching definition of god as per
the major religions of the world is:
A. God is personal, God has will and consciousness.
B. God has free will.
C. God is the creator of all.
D. God is omnipotent.
E. God is omnibenevolent.
F. God is omniscient.
G. God is that which nothing more powerful
can be imagined.
These are the basic attributes that can be claimed
for the god of orthodox Judaism, Christianity,
Islam, and Hinduism.
Are you sure about Hinduism?
Omnibenevolence and omniscience are actually
logically derivable from the claimed attribute of
omnipotence and so aren't not truly independent
attributes, and may be considered special aspects
of omnipotence.
How does omnibenevolence come from omnipotence?
<snip stuff unrelated to my questions>
.
|
|
|
| User: "wbarwell" |
|
| Title: Re: just stating the fact that without divine authority, an atheist has no logical basis for his or her morality. |
03 Feb 2006 06:06:52 PM |
|
|
Sgeo wrote:
wbarwell wrote:
TRUECRISTIAN wrote:
just stating the fact that without divine authority, an atheist has
no logical basis for his or her morality. That is why most atheists
support terrorism, abortion, euthenasia, gay marriage
etc..etc..etc..so I am not surprised in the least to hear that they
may support DOGMOLESTORS
God does not exist and that can be proven.
So nobody has any authority for morals
otyer than logic.
Since you are wrong about morals and god,
you must have no morals. Just a superstition
That is why Christian history is so bad.
IS THERE A GOD?
Strong Atheism's answer.
A BASIC DEFINITION OF GOD.
The general overarching definition of god as per
the major religions of the world is:
A. God is personal, God has will and consciousness.
B. God has free will.
C. God is the creator of all.
D. God is omnipotent.
E. God is omnibenevolent.
F. God is omniscient.
G. God is that which nothing more powerful
can be imagined.
These are the basic attributes that can be claimed
for the god of orthodox Judaism, Christianity,
Islam, and Hinduism.
Are you sure about Hinduism?
Yes. More advanced Hinduism states there is but one god
and most of what has passed for Hinduism is allegorical,
the ideas of good hearted but ignorant men.
There is but one god Atman, a world soul.
All is maya, illusion. All is the mind of god.
Alternatively in the past there have been other
theories, there was one god Vishnu, who created
all, and sent us avatars, supernatural prophets.
In some versions, Vishnu never visits us directly
at all, he is too far above mere existance for that.
Hinduism is a range of religinos and philosophies
going back thousands of years, and it has many versions
that developed over time.
Some like familiar Khrishna style religions we
Westerners might have small experience with are rather
throw-backs to earlier Vedic aspects of Hinduism.
In the more backwards villages, old style Polytheism
can be found. You can find quite a range in Hindusim
to this day.
For my purposes, I consider some of the more advanced
kinds of Hinduism which are essentially monotheistic,
and posit a single creator god who loves us and is good.
Even today though there are numerous schools of thought
about this, not all compatible with one another.
Unfortunately, all to many sources of supposed Hinduism
state their own particula theory as the Hinduism, hardly
acknowledging the man yother schools.
There are scholarly Indian works on all of this, some very
scholarly, vast multivolume works that are very expensive
tracing all these schools and ideas.
Very few of us will ever get our hands on these sort of
much less read it all.
But ffor my purposes I don't really need to, immanent
god, transcedent god, as long as that god is puported
to be the one true god, greator of all, all powerful,
and the source of all good, it fits in the class of
creator gods that are omni-everything.
No matter if you call it Brahman, Vishnu or Atman.
Omnibenevolence and omniscience are actually
logically derivable from the claimed attribute of
omnipotence and so aren't not truly independent
attributes, and may be considered special aspects
of omnipotence.
How does omnibenevolence come from omnipotence?
Its a subset. Omnipotence means having all powers,
so if you lack a power, saw omniscience, you
automatically lose omnipotence also.
Some theologians in the past have derived all
sub-powers for god from the claims of god's
perfection that holds all other perfection
that can be derived from that perfection.
Stanley Clarke and other theologians.
They take an Alselmian approach, there must be levels
of existance in the world and thus the most perfect
of all possible existances must be that most perfect
existance we call god. From that perfection we derive
all other claims about god, ominpotence, then
sub-perfections, omniscience.
Anselm used simlar reasoning to abstract levels of
good must have a highest good we call god.
God then is the greatest good possible. Only much
later did the word omnibenevolent get used to describe
this highest and most good.
This sort of reasoning has its roots back to early
Greek philosophers, most notably and explicitly Xenophanes.
Which was inspired from Paramenides. Something cannot
come from nothing so something must exist, from this all
else is logically derivable. If we can think about it it can exist.
If we cannot think about it it cannot exist.
We can think about god.
Everything is thus logically derivable, if you don't
look to close at the actual claims and how they work
in reality.
The claims of what god is were not just plucked from
the air.
There are schools of logical thinking behind all of this.
Not well thought out usually, but its there.
<snip stuff unrelated to my questions>
--
The first law of the false prophet has
always and ever been "Don't laugh!"
Cheerful Charlie
.
|
|
|
| User: "duke" |
|
| Title: Re: just stating the fact that without divine authority, an atheist has no logical basis for his or her morality. |
04 Feb 2006 08:42:06 AM |
|
|
On Fri, 03 Feb 2006 18:06:52 -0600, wbarwell <wbarwell@mylinuxisp.com> wrote:
These are the basic attributes that can be claimed
for the god of orthodox Judaism, Christianity,
Islam, and Hinduism.
Are you sure about Hinduism?
Yes. More advanced Hinduism states there is but one god
and most of what has passed for Hinduism is allegorical,
the ideas of good hearted but ignorant men.
He gotcha. Hindus worship the river and other such physical things.
duke
*****
"The Mass is the most perfect form of Prayer."
Pope Paul VI
*****
.
|
|
|
| User: "wbarwell" |
|
| Title: Re: just stating the fact that without divine authority, an atheist has no logical basis for his or her morality. |
04 Feb 2006 12:16:04 PM |
|
|
duke wrote:
On Fri, 03 Feb 2006 18:06:52 -0600, wbarwell <wbarwell@mylinuxisp.com>
wrote:
These are the basic attributes that can be claimed
for the god of orthodox Judaism, Christianity,
Islam, and Hinduism.
Are you sure about Hinduism?
Yes. More advanced Hinduism states there is but one god
and most of what has passed for Hinduism is allegorical,
the ideas of good hearted but ignorant men.
He gotcha. Hindus worship the river and other such physical things.
No more than Catholics worship the Crucifix
hanging above the altar.
But its you clowns that have a peculiar
attitude towards a cracker eaten at mass.
And again, there is a wide rang of religious
attitudes in India, just as there is a wide
attitude between trained christian theologians
and literalist, snake handling creationists.
Moron.
--
The first law of the false prophet has
always and ever been "Don't laugh!"
Cheerful Charlie
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Uncle Vic" |
|
| Title: Re: just stating the fact that without divine authority, an atheist has no logical basis for his or her morality. |
03 Feb 2006 08:24:49 PM |
|
|
Once upon a time in alt.atheism, dear sweet wbarwell
(wbarwell@mylinuxisp.com) made the light shine upon us with this:
Are you sure about Hinduism?
Yes. More advanced Hinduism states there is but one god
and most of what has passed for Hinduism is allegorical,
the ideas of good hearted but ignorant men.
There is but one god Atman, a world soul.
All is maya, illusion. All is the mind of god.
Alternatively in the past there have been other
theories, there was one god Vishnu, who created
all, and sent us avatars, supernatural prophets.
In some versions, Vishnu never visits us directly
at all, he is too far above mere existance for that.
Good post, good read. I always wonder about Hinduism, in respect to what I
heard the retired Reverend Dr. Robert Schuller of the Crystal Cathedral say
once, that all the gods of all the world's religions are just different
names for "God". Of course, that was just a vain attempt around xmas time
to get his particular flock to be more receptive to the fact that there are
lots of different religions in the world. Forget the fact that they are
contradictive, of course....
--
Uncle Vic
aa Atheist #2011, aw Hellboy #5
Supervisor, EAC Department of little adhesive-backed "L" shaped
chrome-plastic doo-dads to add feet to Jesus fish department
.
|
|
|
| User: "duke" |
|
| Title: Re: just stating the fact that without divine authority, an atheist has no logical basis for his or her morality. |
04 Feb 2006 08:45:04 AM |
|
|
On Fri, 03 Feb 2006 20:24:49 -0600, Uncle Vic <address@withheld.com> wrote:
Good post, good read.
But not enlightened.
duke
*****
"The Mass is the most perfect form of Prayer."
Pope Paul VI
*****
.
|
|
|
| User: "erikc" |
|
| Title: Re: just stating the fact that without divine authority, an atheist has no logical basis for his or her morality. |
04 Feb 2006 09:36:22 PM |
|
|
On Sat, 04 Feb 2006 08:45:04 -0600, duke <duckgumbo32@cox.net> wrote:
On Fri, 03 Feb 2006 20:24:49 -0600, Uncle Vic <address@withheld.com> wrote:
Good post, good read.
But not enlightened.
Duke Dinctionary: "Enlightened" == "talks and drools as thoughtlessly as
Duke."
Erikc (alt.atheist #002) | "An Fhirinne in aghaidh an tSaoil."
BAAWA Knight (retired) | "The Truth against the World."
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "wbarwell" |
|
| Title: Re: just stating the fact that without divine authority, an atheist has no logical basis for his or her morality. |
04 Feb 2006 12:26:37 PM |
|
|
duke wrote:
On Fri, 03 Feb 2006 20:24:49 -0600, Uncle Vic <address@withheld.com>
wrote:
Good post, good read.
But not enlightened.
You at least spelled it right.
As close to enlightement as
you'll ever get.
--
The first law of the false prophet has
always and ever been "Don't laugh!"
Cheerful Charlie
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "wbarwell" |
|
| Title: Re: just stating the fact that without divine authority, an atheist has no logical basis for his or her morality. |
04 Feb 2006 12:24:20 PM |
|
|
Uncle Vic wrote:
Once upon a time in alt.atheism, dear sweet wbarwell
(wbarwell@mylinuxisp.com) made the light shine upon us with this:
Are you sure about Hinduism?
Yes. More advanced Hinduism states there is but one god
and most of what has passed for Hinduism is allegorical,
the ideas of good hearted but ignorant men.
There is but one god Atman, a world soul.
All is maya, illusion. All is the mind of god.
Alternatively in the past there have been other
theories, there was one god Vishnu, who created
all, and sent us avatars, supernatural prophets.
In some versions, Vishnu never visits us directly
at all, he is too far above mere existance for that.
Good post, good read. I always wonder about Hinduism, in respect to
what I heard the retired Reverend Dr. Robert Schuller of the Crystal
Cathedral say once, that all the gods of all the world's religions are
just different
names for "God". Of course, that was just a vain attempt around xmas
time to get his particular flock to be more receptive to the fact that
there are
lots of different religions in the world. Forget the fact that they
are contradictive, of course....
Hinduism is as hellishly complex as any religious
literature or philosophy created anywhere at any time.
Anything you want to find in it is there. Some kinds
of Hinduism are pretty much pantheistic, you can argue
that are essentially as atheistic as Buddhism.
Or you can find backwoods Indian primitive tribes
that practice animistic religion with a thin smear
of Hindu terminology on top of that.
"Hinduism" is just a word that really does not mean much.
As it can mean about anything.
And it does this with a long, long history.
Basically all it really means is religion as developed
or practiced or debated in the Indian sub-continent.
Many people there no more take the usual mythologies that
are quite common, tales of Ganesha for eample,
any more as true than many ancient Greeks took their
mythology as true, all understand allegory.
Personally, I like jolly old Ganesha a lot better
than the miserable god of Exodus and Joshua.
--
The first law of the false prophet has
always and ever been "Don't laugh!"
Cheerful Charlie
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Sgeo" |
|
| Title: Re: just stating the fact that without divine authority, an atheist has no logical basis for his or her morality. |
03 Feb 2006 06:13:21 PM |
|
|
wbarwell wrote:
Sgeo wrote:
wbarwell wrote:
TRUECRISTIAN wrote:
just stating the fact that without divine authority, an atheist has
no logical basis for his or her morality. That is why most atheists
support terrorism, abortion, euthenasia, gay marriage
etc..etc..etc..so I am not surprised in the least to hear that they
may support DOGMOLESTORS
God does not exist and that can be proven.
So nobody has any authority for morals
otyer than logic.
Since you are wrong about morals and god,
you must have no morals. Just a superstition
That is why Christian history is so bad.
IS THERE A GOD?
Strong Atheism's answer.
A BASIC DEFINITION OF GOD.
The general overarching definition of god as per
the major religions of the world is:
A. God is personal, God has will and consciousness.
B. God has free will.
C. God is the creator of all.
D. God is omnipotent.
E. God is omnibenevolent.
F. God is omniscient.
G. God is that which nothing more powerful
can be imagined.
These are the basic attributes that can be claimed
for the god of orthodox Judaism, Christianity,
Islam, and Hinduism.
Are you sure about Hinduism?
Yes. More advanced Hinduism states there is but one god
and most of what has passed for Hinduism is allegorical,
the ideas of good hearted but ignorant men.
There is but one god Atman, a world soul.
All is maya, illusion. All is the mind of god.
Alternatively in the past there have been other
theories, there was one god Vishnu, who created
all, and sent us avatars, supernatural prophets.
In some versions, Vishnu never visits us directly
at all, he is too far above mere existance for that.
Hinduism is a range of religinos and philosophies
going back thousands of years, and it has many versions
that developed over time.
Some like familiar Khrishna style religions we
Westerners might have small experience with are rather
throw-backs to earlier Vedic aspects of Hinduism.
In the more backwards villages, old style Polytheism
can be found. You can find quite a range in Hindusim
to this day.
For my purposes, I consider some of the more advanced
kinds of Hinduism which are essentially monotheistic,
and posit a single creator god who loves us and is good.
Even today though there are numerous schools of thought
about this, not all compatible with one another.
Unfortunately, all to many sources of supposed Hinduism
state their own particula theory as the Hinduism, hardly
acknowledging the man yother schools.
There are scholarly Indian works on all of this, some very
scholarly, vast multivolume works that are very expensive
tracing all these schools and ideas.
Very few of us will ever get our hands on these sort of
much less read it all.
But ffor my purposes I don't really need to, immanent
god, transcedent god, as long as that god is puported
to be the one true god, greator of all, all powerful,
and the source of all good, it fits in the class of
creator gods that are omni-everything.
No matter if you call it Brahman, Vishnu or Atman.
Omnibenevolence and omniscience are actually
logically derivable from the claimed attribute of
omnipotence and so aren't not truly independent
attributes, and may be considered special aspects
of omnipotence.
How does omnibenevolence come from omnipotence?
Its a subset. Omnipotence means having all powers,
so if you lack a power, saw omniscience, you
automatically lose omnipotence also.
Why does 'all-powerful' mean 'all-good'?
Some theologians in the past have derived all
sub-powers for god from the claims of god's
perfection that holds all other perfection
that can be derived from that perfection.
Stanley Clarke and other theologians.
They take an Alselmian approach, there must be levels
of existance in the world and thus the most perfect
of all possible existances must be that most perfect
existance we call god. From that perfection we derive
all other claims about god, ominpotence, then
sub-perfections, omniscience.
Anselm used simlar reasoning to abstract levels of
good must have a highest good we call god.
God then is the greatest good possible. Only much
later did the word omnibenevolent get used to describe
this highest and most good.
This sort of reasoning has its roots back to early
Greek philosophers, most notably and explicitly Xenophanes.
Which was inspired from Paramenides. Something cannot
come from nothing so something must exist, from this all
else is logically derivable. If we can think about it it can exist.
If we cannot think about it it cannot exist.
We can think about god.
Everything is thus logically derivable, if you don't
look to close at the actual claims and how they work
in reality.
The claims of what god is were not just plucked from
the air.
There are schools of logical thinking behind all of this.
Not well thought out usually, but its there.
<snip stuff unrelated to my questions>
.
|
|
|
| User: "wbarwell" |
|
| Title: Re: just stating the fact that without divine authority, an atheist has no logical basis for his or her morality. |
03 Feb 2006 08:26:24 PM |
|
|
Sgeo wrote:
Omnibenevolence and omniscience are actually
logically derivable from the claimed attribute of
omnipotence and so aren't not truly independent
attributes, and may be considered special aspects
of omnipotence.
How does omnibenevolence come from omnipotence?
Its a subset. Omnipotence means having all powers,
so if you lack a power, saw omniscience, you
automatically lose omnipotence also.
Why does 'all-powerful' mean 'all-good'?
Who said anything here about all powerful and all good?
Here, the discussion is about omniscience.
But since you ask, god has all superlatives and is thus
the summun bonum, supreme good, see St. Augustine. A
lousy argument to be sure but not my argument.
This is also why Augustine says god is outside of time,
because he'd lose sovereignty otherwise so he must, being
perfect be outside time.
Likewise all he does is good, evil is simply lack of good,
lack of god really. If he could be affected by evil, he'd lose
sovereignty he'd be affected by evil and not perfect.
All powerful is implied by perfection again.
That god is perfect is an idea going back to Xenophanes.
Plotinus and others gave such Greek ideas to christianity via
neo-Platonism, Plato stated all gods are good.
Some theologians in the past have derived all
sub-powers for god from the claims of god's
perfection that holds all other perfection
that can be derived from that perfection.
Stanley Clarke and other theologians.
They take an Alselmian approach, there must be levels
of existance in the world and thus the most perfect
of all possible existances must be that most perfect
existance we call god. From that perfection we derive
all other claims about god, ominpotence, then
sub-perfections, omniscience.
Anselm used simlar reasoning to abstract levels of
good must have a highest good we call god.
God then is the greatest good possible. Only much
later did the word omnibenevolent get used to describe
this highest and most good.
This sort of reasoning has its roots back to early
Greek philosophers, most notably and explicitly Xenophanes.
Which was inspired from Paramenides. Something cannot
come from nothing so something must exist, from this all
else is logically derivable. If we can think about it it can exist.
If we cannot think about it it cannot exist.
We can think about god.
Everything is thus logically derivable, if you don't
look to close at the actual claims and how they work
in reality.
The claims of what god is were not just plucked from
the air.
There are schools of logical thinking behind all of this.
Not well thought out usually, but its there.
<snip stuff unrelated to my questions>
< | | | | |
