• Welcome to the Internet Infidels Discussion Board.

I have now met a real life creationist.

Shouldn't you, then, be asking what evil is until you get an understanding?
wilson is the one claiming no one understands evil, that there are no offered definitions of evil AND the offered definitions are wrong. Wouldn't the burden be on him to provide a definition of evil, rather than just finger pointing and naysaying?

Of course, this assumes his goal is communication, not smug superiority.
 
Ok, go for it. What is your definition of evil?

"OK" what? Are you saying you don't know?

- - - Updated - - -

You want to try refuting that?


What?
You want to show me how I cannot refute philosophy without using philosophy?
I would say this is going to be amusing, maybe insert the popcorn emoji here, but i suspect wilson will just refuse to be nailed down to actually support his claim, dishonestly shift the burden of proof onto you, and claim uncontested victory for little or no reason.
 
Colorado changed their laws.

When was the last time the laws in your bible were changed, and who changed them?
The laws of the bible were never changed and never will be changed.

First off, I'm glad that Wilson is on this forum. It makes it more interesting. However, I'm sorry to say that the discussion is really totally useless. We speak a different language. Wilson believes that the Bible is holy and perfect. We believe that it is not. There is no reconciling this difference. We look for evidence in the natural world. He looks to the bible.
 
Please prove that God is not a thing.

Coming from a atheist, the request is senseless because it amounts to an admission of God's existence.

Not really. I'm really trying to prove a point that we speak different languages. To you, the bible is infallible and holy. Therefore, you derive your evidence from it. To me, it's just an ancient collection of myths from people from the ME. It is no more holy than the ancient stories that my people came up with. So to me, evidence must be something that has natural evidence. Something that can be falsified.
 
My motivation for posing the question doesn't change the question.
Who said it does?
You are asking me to exercise authority that I do not have. Definitions from me carry no weight.
You can always claim that's just my opinion.

You need to have a definition of your own to criticize mine. If you don't even know your own definition how can you be so sure mine is wrong?

Do you have an opinion on which authorities definition is the best one? I went with Hannah Arendt. Now you pick a philosopher, or try to cobble together your own

Consult a dictionary.

Dictionaries aren't deep enough. They don't explain why anybody would do or be evil. To do that you need to exercise a little philosophy.
 
Can you interpret each line and show its wisdom?
I'm not sure of your question. Anybody can interpret any line of text. Confucius' philosophy informed the emperor Xin and did such a stellar job that China now bears his name.
Give me and example, from Confucius' philosophy, that could benefit me and the rest of humanity.
Then, maybe you can tell me why the philosophy remains largely confined to the Far East.
Sure - paganism is older that Christianity; but Age does not determine quality, practicality nor wisdom.
Jesus Christ came long after the pagan philosophers and he exposed their flaws.
ha ha ha. You clearly need to read more pagan philosophy. Paganism is a lot more sophisticated and deep religious philosophy than Christianity ever was. Christian works makes no attempt to argue for anything or explain anything. All the arguments come from power. ie "my god can beat you up so you should obey". Christian theology is probably the most shallow religious concept ever devised.
But that is not, in any way, true. Christianity, of the biblical kind, argues for doing things because they are right - not because of might.
Example:
“. . .For those rulers are an object of fear, not to the good deed, but to the bad. Do you want to be free of fear of the authority? Keep doing good, and you will have praise from it; 4 for it is God’s minister to you for your good. But if you are doing what is bad, be in fear, for it is not without purpose that it bears the sword. It is God’s minister, an avenger to express wrath against the one practicing what is bad. 5 There is therefore compelling reason for you to be in subjection, not only on account of that wrath but also on account of your conscience. 6 That is why you are also paying taxes; for they are God’s public servants constantly serving this very purpose. 7 Render to all their dues: to the one who calls for the tax, the tax; to the one who calls for the tribute, the tribute; to the one who calls for fear, such fear; to the one who calls for honor, such honor.” (Romans 13:3-7)
This is about the law of the land, not about the power of God.
There's a reason pagan philosophy is required reading when studying philosophy today. None of the Christian theologians are.
You have given no example of pagan philosophy that should be emulated.
Here is an example; see if you can spot the foolishness:
“. . .There is one whose work is to cut down cedars. He selects a certain type of tree, an oak, And he lets it grow strong among the trees of the forest. He plants a laurel tree, and the rain makes it grow. 15 Then it becomes fuel for a man to make fires. He takes part of it to warm himself; He builds a fire and bakes bread. But he also makes a god and worships it. He makes it into a carved image, and he bows down before it. 16 Half of it he burns up in a fire; With that half he roasts the meat that he eats, and he is satisfied. He also warms himself and says: “Ah! I am warm as I watch the fire.” 17 But the rest of it he makes into a god, into his carved image. He bows down to it and worships it. He prays to it and says: “Save me, for you are my god.” 18 They know nothing, they understand nothing, Because their eyes are sealed shut and they cannot see, And their heart has no insight. 19 No one reflects in his heart Or has knowledge or understanding, saying: “Half of it I burned up in a fire, And on its coals I baked bread and roasted meat to eat. Should I, then, make the rest of it into a detestable thing? Should I worship a block of wood from a tree?” 20 He feeds on ashes. His own deluded heart has led him astray. He cannot save himself, nor does he say: “Is there not a lie in my right hand?”” (Isaiah 44:14-20)
I suggest trying to pick another target than paganism. You clearly don't understand what you're criticising.
Well - I showed you why I reject paganism. Now, you show me why I should adopt it.
Ovid's Metamorphoses is about human change. How we grow and evolve. It goes through the weird and wonderful sex lives of humans. It explores a whole host of themes. And it's a work that is still relevant today. The Bible has been completely thrown out by all psychology departments and institutions as complete garbage. It teaches us that we should be able to put a lid on our sexuality and be something we're not. No, shit that isn't working out.
Since that philosophy accepts sexual immorality, I have all the more reason to reject it. The lies and unfaithfulness that accompany it is clearly not worth it to us. Applying Christian principles works wonderfully for us. We are free from the guilt and sense of worthlessness that comes with the life style, as testified by many who lived it:
https://www.jw.org/en/publications/magazines/wp20110801/a-better-husband/#?insight[search_id]=fb5f8590-eccf-4a38-9e86-f427222ff218&insight[search_result_index]=2
If you're going to have a go at the merits of an ethical system, you picked the wrong target.
My choice is correct. It is YOU who chose the God of all the Universe as an enemy. You will lose.
So your argument is that because God is more powerful he doesn't have to be ethical? Does might make right? Is the stronger party always in the right, just because they are stronger?
As already explained, our obedience does not originate with fear, but with a love of what is right.
Would an evil God also be morally right?
How would I know? I have nothing to do with evil gods. Besides, you do not know what evil is.
Applications of biblical principles NEVER fail.
.... or perhaps, you've studied the Bible too much, and not other works nearly enough? Apart from it's large fan club the Bible isn't anything special. As sacred texts go it's remarkably shallow and uninteresting. Most other religious texts are better guides for life.
I don't think you can find one.
 
Since that philosophy accepts sexual immorality, I have all the more reason to reject it. .
What would the basis of that rejection be?

I suspect it's because it contradicts your philosophy. Meaning you're using philosophy to reject philosophy...
 
I'm not sure of your question. Anybody can interpret any line of text. Confucius' philosophy informed the emperor Xin and did such a stellar job that China now bears his name.
Give me and example, from Confucius' philosophy, that could benefit me and the rest of humanity.

That's not the point. The point is that his philosophy has stood the test of time. It's created a long lasting and stable empire that puts anything Christians have come up with to shame. Confucius still strongly influences Chinese society. Christian philosophy, arguably, stopped informing western society and ethical codes sometime in the 1700-hundreds.

If you want a lecture on the benefits of Confucian philosophy, I suggest talking to a Confucian. I'm not. He's certainly a pithy meme goldmine. Said things like this

Confucius said:
Our greatest glory is not in never falling, but in rising every time we fall.

Then, maybe you can tell me why the philosophy remains largely confined to the Far East.

It isn't. Shoppenhaur introduced eastern philosophy into Western and created a blend of the two. Changed the world. Everything after Shoppenhaur is strongly influenced by Confucius. That includes Nietzsche, Heidegger, Sartre, Derrida and so on. His philosophy and ideas are today ubiquitous and so accepted in the west that we don't realise the source. We just think they are common sense now.

The west has a long history of taking ideas from the "colonies" and re-branding them as western. Confucius is no exception.

But that is not, in any way, true. Christianity, of the biblical kind, argues for doing things because they are right - not because of might.
Example:
“. . .For those rulers are an object of fear, not to the good deed, but to the bad. Do you want to be free of fear of the authority? Keep doing good, and you will have praise from it; 4 for it is God’s minister to you for your good. But if you are doing what is bad, be in fear, for it is not without purpose that it bears the sword. It is God’s minister, an avenger to express wrath against the one practicing what is bad. 5 There is therefore compelling reason for you to be in subjection, not only on account of that wrath but also on account of your conscience. 6 That is why you are also paying taxes; for they are God’s public servants constantly serving this very purpose. 7 Render to all their dues: to the one who calls for the tax, the tax; to the one who calls for the tribute, the tribute; to the one who calls for fear, such fear; to the one who calls for honor, such honor.” (Romans 13:3-7)
This is about the law of the land, not about the power of God.

It doesn't argue for shit. It's just commands. Also, terrible advice. This is how you perpetuate tyranny.

It looks to me like you've been so brainwashed by this that you can't see a divine command when it hits you in the face?

There's a reason pagan philosophy is required reading when studying philosophy today. None of the Christian theologians are.
You have given no example of pagan philosophy that should be emulated.

I don't think you understand what a philosopher is. A philosopher organises thoughts. They put the correct labels on things to make them easier to talk about. Socrates was one of the greatest geniuses who ever have lived. I wouldn't recommend anybody to emulate his example. The guy lived like a dirty beggar in the street, harassing and annoying his fellow Athenians. If everybody followed his example nobody would get anything done. Doesn't diminish his thought or genius.

Here is an example; see if you can spot the foolishness:
“. . .There is one whose work is to cut down cedars. He selects a certain type of tree, an oak, And he lets it grow strong among the trees of the forest. He plants a laurel tree, and the rain makes it grow. 15 Then it becomes fuel for a man to make fires. He takes part of it to warm himself; He builds a fire and bakes bread. But he also makes a god and worships it. He makes it into a carved image, and he bows down before it. 16 Half of it he burns up in a fire; With that half he roasts the meat that he eats, and he is satisfied. He also warms himself and says: “Ah! I am warm as I watch the fire.” 17 But the rest of it he makes into a god, into his carved image. He bows down to it and worships it. He prays to it and says: “Save me, for you are my god.” 18 They know nothing, they understand nothing, Because their eyes are sealed shut and they cannot see, And their heart has no insight. 19 No one reflects in his heart Or has knowledge or understanding, saying: “Half of it I burned up in a fire, And on its coals I baked bread and roasted meat to eat. Should I, then, make the rest of it into a detestable thing? Should I worship a block of wood from a tree?” 20 He feeds on ashes. His own deluded heart has led him astray. He cannot save himself, nor does he say: “Is there not a lie in my right hand?”” (Isaiah 44:14-20)

1. This is from the Bible, so it's obviously a straw man.
2. In what way is this philosophy?
3. This is just a description of Christians, but with an alternative fetish. This critique is equally valid against Christians. Praying to gods is an equally worthless activity for both pagans and Christians.

Well - I showed you why I reject paganism. Now, you show me why I should adopt it.

Who had said anything about adopting anything. I'm not arguing for you to become a pagan. I'm an atheist. Why would I try to convert you to anything?

Ovid's Metamorphoses is about human change. How we grow and evolve. It goes through the weird and wonderful sex lives of humans. It explores a whole host of themes. And it's a work that is still relevant today. The Bible has been completely thrown out by all psychology departments and institutions as complete garbage. It teaches us that we should be able to put a lid on our sexuality and be something we're not. No, shit that isn't working out.
Since that philosophy accepts sexual immorality, I have all the more reason to reject it. The lies and unfaithfulness that accompany it is clearly not worth it to us. Applying Christian principles works wonderfully for us. We are free from the guilt and sense of worthlessness that comes with the life style, as testified by many who lived it:
https://www.jw.org/en/publications/magazines/wp20110801/a-better-husband/#?insight[search_id]=fb5f8590-eccf-4a38-9e86-f427222ff218&insight[search_result_index]=2

My experience. Catholic girls are the weirdest freaky kinky girls out there. They seem to all hate themselves in various unhealthy ways. I think it has to do with Catholic guilt? Christian demands on unnatural human sexuality makes them into perverted sexual freaks. I don't think Christian morals fit any human. I think it's all self delusion. I think it's all about trying to be something we're not.

The pagans on the other hand was a far more open and honest society. I should say that they also had stringent and strict regulations on sexual behavior. They weren't nearly as free as we are today.

The Biblical advice on human sexuality is just terrible advice. Following them is the best way to create an insecure sexually dysfunctional basket case, unable to feel their own body, and in fear about their own sexual urges.


Most other religious texts are better guides for life.
I don't think you can find one.

One! I can find loads. Since Christianity is one of the dumbest and most shallow religions ever devised, any randomly selected sacred text is likely to beat it in wisdom. Here you go, help yourself.

http://www.sacred-texts.com/
 
Which is actually really funny. But of course, all Jehovas Witnesses should make their own companion piece interpretation. Not just Charles Taze Russel. But a good start!
What you don't realize is that JWs is a totally united community. What do you think contributes to that? If each person entertained his own interpretation of the scriptures and practiced such, that phenomenal unity would be shattered.
Yeah, that is comical coming from a group whose founder, Charles Taze Russell, laid multiple end of the world claims. Yet none of his BS came to pass. JW's are totally united, as long as they throw everyone out that ends up having second thoughts.

http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tan...look-at-jehovahs-witnesses-living-in-the-u-s/
Jehovah’s Witnesses have a low retention rate relative to other U.S. religious groups. Among all U.S. adults who were raised as Jehovah’s Witnesses, two-thirds (66%) no longer identify with the group. By contrast, about two-thirds of those who were raised as evangelical Protestants (65%) and Mormons (64%) still say they are members of those respective groups.

On the flip side, about two-thirds (65%) of current adult Jehovah’s Witnesses are converts – like Prince, they were raised in another faith.

http://www.culthelp.info/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=289&Itemid=8
In the past there were two ways a Witness could leave the faith. one could leave his or her congregation and the Watch Tower Bible and Tract Society voluntarily. Such an exit was described as "disassociation."(5) It meant a Witness could bow out quietly and no sanctions were associated with such a departure.(6) It is estimated that between 1969 and 1979, close to one million members quietly dropped out of the JWs.(7) The other way to exit was by expulsion or excommunication, a process the Witnesses refer to as "disfellowshipping". Disfellowshipping is a formal process for expelling dissenting or immoral members from both their congregations and the Watch Tower Society.


The first centuries of Christianity the Bible was a living work. Continually getting books added.
That is flat out false! A bible canon exists and it effectively prevents any new additions.
LOL…uh, yeah there was no ‘canon’ until the late third century AD. But by the end of the second century there was certainly a solidifying list of accepted books/letters largely in reaction to the Marcion sect’s abbreviated canon. But it is especially funny for a sect that didn’t emerge until more than 1,800 years after the spawning events, fixating on a canon that didn’t exist until the Protestant revolution from the 1500’s. Never mind the half dozen other Christian canons from sects that refused to unite around the emergent RCC canon.
 
Were recreational marijuana users in Colorado breaking the law in 2012?
How about if they do the exact same thing in 2017?

Where does the Christian god publish updates to the original laws he had placed in the Bible? He doesn't. So how are we supposed to know which laws are still valid?

Instead of skipping around on the edges and taking sniping shots at atheists, perhaps you should provide us with verifiable evidence that the god you believe in real.
 
Back
Top Bottom