To All Of God's Critics

[TheBeast]

I think that Thumbelina has received more than enough exposure on this thread at this point. Several of us have given reasonable, reasoned responses to her. So much so that she has now fully retreated into simply repeating pure dogma without any offer of theological backing.

 

Obviously she will never be swayed by us, but I think more than enough argument has been presented to have some impact on those who are open to honest debate.

 

I think all reasonable people know that it is impossible to either prove or disprove the existence of God. But it is reasonable to examine various concepts of "God" to see if they are consistent with the observable Universe as we know it.

I'll take it one step further. We can 100% disprove the existence of God if we define "God" as the omniscient all-powerful and benevolent deity most Christians believe in. It takes some serious mental gymnastics to believe in such a god when there's so much messed up shit in this world.

[RipVanWinkle]

#1061 Ravenstar, I think every person who is not under the poverty should spend some time with the ultra poor. bill

[duderonomy]

BAA,

 

I say leave Thumbellina be. Let her be here (in the Lion's Den).

 

Everyone one of us found this place somehow, and so has she. If she is just a troll, as I said once that I think she is, then yes, report her and ban her to the outer darkness. But we must be sure before we make this judgement.

[boftx]

duderonomy,

 

What do you think of this comment by Thumbelina made on another thread? Sounds like a self-admitted troll to me.

 

Yes, I know you don't care too much, that's why I tease some on here, tease and pray that's all I could do for now.

 

You can find the comment here: http://www.ex-christian.net/topic/55934-today-you-will-be-with-me-in-paradise/#entry850765

[par4dcourse]

duderonomy,

 

What do you think of this comment by Thumbelina made on another thread? Sounds like a self-admitted troll to me.

 

 

Yes, I know you don't care too much, that's why I tease some on here, tease and pray that's all I could do for now.

 

You can find the comment here: http://www.ex-christian.net/topic/55934-today-you-will-be-with-me-in-paradise/#entry850765

Neither sounds like a hangin' offense.

[TheBeast]

duderonomy,

 

What do you think of this comment by Thumbelina made on another thread? Sounds like a self-admitted troll to me.

 

Yes, I know you don't care too much, that's why I tease some on here, tease and pray that's all I could do for now.

 

You can find the comment here: http://www.ex-christian.net/topic/55934-today-you-will-be-with-me-in-paradise/#entry850765

I wouldn't call that trolling. Where is she anyway? I'm a hungry lion looking for some Christians to devour.

[midniterider]

duderonomy,

 

What do you think of this comment by Thumbelina made on another thread? Sounds like a self-admitted troll to me.

 

Yes, I know you don't care too much, that's why I tease some on here, tease and pray that's all I could do for now.

 

You can find the comment here: http://www.ex-christian.net/topic/55934-today-you-will-be-with-me-in-paradise/#entry850765

 

I think a troll is someone who causes people grief for the pure enjoyment of pissing people off. Thumbelina's intent is to bring us to what people in the church have told her is the supreme being God.

[Thumbelina]

No I did not forget the lions, I got stuff to do, ya know. I did look through some of the posts and I'm actually learning some new things from some of the questions asked.

 

I'll answer some posts when I can.

[midniterider]

No I did not forget the lions, I got stuff to do, ya know. I did look through some of the posts and I'm actually learning some new things from some of the questions asked.

 

I'll answer some posts when I can.

 

Learning new things? Studying Thelema, no doubt. Take your time. No rush. :-)

[RipVanWinkle]

Learning is a good thing, unless in consists merely of learning to regurgitate canned answers designed to blur the issue at hand. Apologists are experts at that. bill

[TheBeast]

Learning is a good thing, unless in consists merely of learning to regurgitate canned answers designed to blur the issue at hand. Apologists are experts at that. bill

True. Can a fundie Christian learn anything about religion worth knowing until they learn objectivity? I say not.

[duderonomy]

duderonomy,

 

What do you think of this comment by Thumbelina made on another thread? Sounds like a self-admitted troll to me.

 

Yes, I know you don't care too much, that's why I tease some on here, tease and pray that's all I could do for now.

 

You can find the comment here: http://www.ex-christian.net/topic/55934-today-you-will-be-with-me-in-paradise/#entry850765

 

Teasing is pretty mild for the "Lion's Den", and what can prayer hurt?   You aren't quote mining, are you?

[boftx]

No. I saw that comment from her shortly after she made it and it stuck with me. It let me know that I don't need to consider anything she says as a serious attempt at honest dialog.

[duderonomy]

OK, I see what you are saying.

 

Still, take what Thumby says from a Christian perspective. Do you know how it feels to argue with lots of people at once here? I do. 

 

Also, how does one get to be a senior member here with only 122 posts?

[boftx]

I am very familiar with defending an unpopular position against many people at one time, trust me.

 

As for your question, I sent you a PM with what I think is the case.

[Guest Babylonian Dream]

Defending an unpopular position against many people alone is a fun challenge. That I'll say.

[boftx]

It is indeed a challenge, if not always fun.

 

I successfully defended the position in one of my philosophy classes that since there is no afterlife one should act in what I call one's Enlightened Self-Interest. One of the tenets is that there is no inherent obligation to those who survive beyond our own death. In other words, one is not obligated to worry about the future of the world for the sake of descendents just because they need to live in it beyond one's own existence.

 

Needless to say I not only pissed off but horrified the entire class, Christian or not. More than one classmate thought I was truly evil.

[midniterider]

It is indeed a challenge, if not always fun.

 

I successfully defended the position in one of my philosophy classes that since there is no afterlife one should act in what I call one's Enlightened Self-Interest. One of the tenets is that there is no inherent obligation to those who survive beyond our own death. In other words, one is not obligated to worry about the future of the world for the sake of descendents just because they need to live in it beyond one's own existence.

 

Needless to say I not only pissed off but horrified the entire class, Christian or not. More than one classmate thought I was truly evil.

 

And after their minute of horror was over they went home, turned on the tv and forgot about it all. :-)

[◊ crazyguy123 ◊]

It is indeed a challenge, if not always fun.

 

I successfully defended the position in one of my philosophy classes that since there is no afterlife one should act in what I call one's Enlightened Self-Interest. One of the tenets is that there is no inherent obligation to those who survive beyond our own death. In other words, one is not obligated to worry about the future of the world for the sake of descendents just because they need to live in it beyond one's own existence.

 

Needless to say I not only pissed off but horrified the entire class, Christian or not. More than one classmate thought I was truly evil.

 

I don't understand how anyone could have been horrified or thought you were evil. We really do not have any obligation whatsoever to worry about the future of the world and the people that might live on it in the future. It's not like some invisible being is going to torture us for not caring about the future of Earth when we die. Maybe the reason for the reactions was somehow "one is not obligated to worry about the future of the world..." was interpreted as "one should not care at all about the future of the world..." Misinterpreting your message might have made it sound scarier than it really was.

[boftx]

What horrified them was that I could defend what they considered to be an amoral position. I suppose it didn't help that the instructor, in seeking to throw me off the position one time, asked me if I would give up my heart (in a surgical procedure) in order to save my wife if that was the only way to save her life. I said no.

[bornagainathiest]

Here's a challenge to all of God's critics. If you were God and you had to create beings:

 

1.Will the beings you create be equal to you or less powerful?

2.What degree of free will will you allow to those beings?

3.How will you prevent those beings from hurting you, each other and their creation?

4.What will you do with those beings who break your rules?

 

If I were God and I HAD TO create other beings, then I wouldn't be the God of the Bible, would I?

 

The God of the Bible doesn't HAVE TO do this, but CHOOSES to do so, in order to share His infinite love with others.  That's the perfect definition of love in Christianity - doing something for another's benefit, regardless of how that act affects you.  That is a perfectly selfless act.  Jesus' willing sacrifice of Himself is just such an act of perfect, selfless love.

.

.

.

 

Therefore, as this kind of God, I'd choose to create other beings like this...

 

Because perfect fore-knowledge of everything is mine, I'd choose to create only those beings that I know will accept and love me. 

Any other decision would be manifestly and demonstrably less than perfectly loving, meaning that I would never act in that way.

 

 

Thanks,

 

BAA

[TheBeast]

What horrified them was that I could defend what they considered to be an amoral position. I suppose it didn't help that the instructor, in seeking to throw me off the position one time, asked me if I would give up my heart (in a surgical procedure) in order to save my wife if that was the only way to save her life. I said no.

I do understand why some would call you evil, but I don't see you that way. I'd be interested to know whether you have children, and if so, would you give up your heart/life to save one of them?

[TheBeast]

 

Here's a challenge to all of God's critics. If you were God and you had to create beings:

 

1.Will the beings you create be equal to you or less powerful?

2.What degree of free will will you allow to those beings?

3.How will you prevent those beings from hurting you, each other and their creation?

4.What will you do with those beings who break your rules?

 

If I were God and I HAD TO create other beings, then I wouldn't be the God of the Bible, would I?

 

The God of the Bible doesn't HAVE TO do this, but CHOOSES to do so, in order to share His infinite love with others.  That's the perfect definition of love in Christianity - doing something for another's benefit, regardless of how that act affects you.  That is a perfectly selfless act.  Jesus' willing sacrifice of Himself is just such an act of perfect, selfless love.

.

.

.

 

Therefore, as this kind of God, I'd choose to create other beings like this...

 

Because perfect fore-knowledge of everything is mine, I'd choose to create only those beings that I know will accept and love me. 

Any other decision would be manifestly and demonstrably less than perfectly loving, meaning that I would never act in that way.

 

 

Thanks,

 

BAA

If I was god, I'd have no motivation to do anything. People act in respond to needs and wants, but a perfect god has neither. Therefore, god has no motivation to do anything. He'd sit happily in the eternal bliss and fulfillment of his own existence with no reason to do anything else.

 

The fact that:

 

1. he chose to act means he wasn't completely fulfilled.

2. he created imperfect beings means that he cannot be perfect because perfection cannot create imperfection.

3. he created beings destined for eternal punishment means he cannot be omni-benevolent because he foreknew their existence and destiny, but chose to create them anyway.

 

The ONLY way anyone can justify the actions and existence of biblegod is if they refuse to submit themselves to (or are ignorant of) logical thought and intellectual honesty, which pretty much explains the existence of every fundamental Christian.

[boftx]

I do understand why some would call you evil, but I don't see you that way. I'd be interested to know whether you have children, and if so, would you give up your heart/life to save one of them?

 

It has been somewhat over 25 years since that time. I have a total of five children, ranging in age from 12 to 36 now. My philosophy is still the same, that one should act in one's Enlightened Self-Interest.

 

That said, because of different circumstances, I might consider such an action today. If I were to do so, it would not be out of some sense of obligation, but out of my feelings for my child (Jesus had it right that the giving of one's life for another is the greatest love one can show, but he didn't do that, and no Christian who expects to have an afterlife can, either. In their minds, they will never die.)

 

I would be most inclined to do so for my youngest child. She was born deaf. Apparently that wasn't enough of a hardship for her, she suffered a stoke shortly before her 10th birthday (she was in the hospital for that) that left her without the use of her left arm and barely able to walk. She almost died in my arms as I carried her into the ER. It breaks my wife and my hearts to remember how she would copy the gymnastics and dance moves she say on TV. I would consider it for her because she has already been dealt such a raw deal (by such a loving and merciful "God", right?) and deserves more in life.

 

My three grown children have their own families to take care of them (I have 9 grandchildren so far,) I would be less inclined though, as I am getting older and have less to look forward to, having lived a very full life so far even at only 59, and I would not rule it out completely.

 

It is my 14 year old that would be most problematical, but again, I could do so out of love. As for my wife, (a different one than at the time) the same practical considerations are in play. The simple fact is that I am the one with a good job and the ability to provide a good environment for the children, not her. If it is right to do what is best for your children because you love them (and not because you feel obligated to them) then I don't think my wife would disagree with me.

 

The surest way to get me to refuse a request to do something for someone else is to tell me I owe it to them as a human being.

[TheBeast]

 

I do understand why some would call you evil, but I don't see you that way. I'd be interested to know whether you have children, and if so, would you give up your heart/life to save one of them?

 

It has been somewhat over 25 years since that time. I have a total of five children, ranging in age from 12 to 36 now. My philosophy is still the same, that one should act in one's Enlightened Self-Interest.

 

That said, because of different circumstances, I might consider such an action today. If I were to do so, it would not be out of some sense of obligation, but out of my feelings for my child (Jesus had it right that the giving of one's life for another is the greatest love one can show, but he didn't do that, and no Christian who expects to have an afterlife can, either. In their minds, they will never die.)

 

I would be most inclined to do so for my youngest child. She was born deaf. Apparently that wasn't enough of a hardship for her, she suffered a stoke shortly before her 10th birthday (she was in the hospital for that) that left her without the use of her left arm and barely able to walk. She almost died in my arms as I carried her into the ER. It breaks my wife and my hearts to remember how she would copy the gymnastics and dance moves she say on TV. I would consider it for her because she has already been dealt such a raw deal (by such a loving and merciful "God", right?) and deserves more in life.

 

My three grown children have their own families to take care of them (I have 9 grandchildren so far,) I would be less inclined though, as I am getting older and have less to look forward to, having lived a very full life so far even at only 59, and I would not rule it out completely.

 

It is my 14 year old that would be most problematical, but again, I could do so out of love. As for my wife, (a different one than at the time) the same practical considerations are in play. The simple fact is that I am the one with a good job and the ability to provide a good environment for the children, not her. If it is right to do what is best for your children because you love them (and not because you feel obligated to them) then I don't think my wife would disagree with me.

 

The surest way to get me to refuse a request to do something for someone else is to tell me I owe it to them as a human being.

Thanks for elaborating on the context of your viewpoint. It might even be worth discussion on a new thread. Not because I want to debate the topic, but I'm always interested in seeing other perspectives, and I'm still curious to know exactly what you mean by "enlightened self-interest".

 

Most people view life through a set of ideals, and it's easy to make black or white judgements on that basis. I understand what you mean when you say you're the one most capable of supporting your children, which is the same situation facing me if I had to choose whether my wife or I should live assuming only one of us could.

 

My natural instinct would be to protect my wife above myself, but I'd predominantly have to consider the well-being of my children (evolutionary theory explains the reasons for that). Facing that moral dilemma was what made me take out life insurance. Ultimately, the welfare of my children takes precedence over that of both my wife and myself. Now that the financial situation is taken care of, I don't feel worried about my death so much.

 

Lastly, I'm completely with you when you say "The surest way to get me to refuse a request to do something for someone else is to tell me I owe it to them as a human being." There are no obligations or debts that come attached with our humanity. Hell, I didn't even choose to be born. I'll be damned if I'm going to accept debt on the basis of an existence I never chose (regardless of my current willingness to accept that gift). Lol.