Total Posts:21|Showing Posts:1-21
Jump to topic:

Christianity

000ike
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/5/2011 5:10:27 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
Christianity can be attacked from many angles, but the one I think really hits hardest is the fact that it doesn't make sense.

So apparently, God creates humans and with the ability to think and act freely, only to test if they will diverge from his wishes. There is no inherent factor that decides who will diverge and who will not. Our theological positions come to fruition by nothing more than chance: the compilation of events in our lives, developed personalities, and upbringing. To create absolutely free creatures ENSURES that people will diverge from his wishes (WITH knowledge of what his wishes are). In short, its a system where people will indefinitely suffer.

To give human lives free will, but then establish a board of laws that are not to be broken is somewhat of a contradiction,... more accurately, it renders the concept of "free will" nothing more than a disingenuous offer.

Just for starters. The entire construct of this religion suggests an objective moral standard (which is absurd), and sets people up to suffer. This is why I believe many others and myself reject this theology..
"A stupid despot may constrain his slaves with iron chains; but a true politician binds them even more strongly with the chain of their own ideas" - Michel Foucault
16kadams
Posts: 10,497
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/5/2011 5:26:15 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
well it depends because the theory of evolution has its faults. Evolution makes sense, except on how life started. They say lightning hit the ocean which created life, a study disproved this where they go sea water and electricity through it multiple times, it never worked. So evolution makes sense until you get to the beginning. Also how did the big bang happen? the cant explain it but creationists can, There are 2 side of the story.
https://www.youtube.com...
https://rekonomics.wordpress.com...
"A trend is a trend, but the question is, will it bend? Will it alter its course through some unforeseen force and come to a premature end?" -- Alec Cairncross
logicrules
Posts: 1,721
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/5/2011 5:45:20 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 12/5/2011 5:10:27 PM, 000ike wrote:
Christianity can be attacked from many angles, but the one I think really hits hardest is the fact that it doesn't make sense.

So apparently, God creates humans and with the ability to think and act freely, only to test if they will diverge from his wishes. There is no inherent factor that decides who will diverge and who will not. Our theological positions come to fruition by nothing more than chance: the compilation of events in our lives, developed personalities, and upbringing. To create absolutely free creatures ENSURES that people will diverge from his wishes (WITH knowledge of what his wishes are). In short, its a system where people will indefinitely suffer.

To give human lives free will, but then establish a board of laws that are not to be broken is somewhat of a contradiction,... more accurately, it renders the concept of "free will" nothing more than a disingenuous offer.

Just for starters. The entire construct of this religion suggests an objective moral standard (which is absurd), and sets people up to suffer. This is why I believe many others and myself reject this theology..

You are correct, it make no sense. Your reasoning on why though makes no sense as well. Without free will there is no need for any law, rule, or conforming terms because all just act as someone else intends, the who becomes a problem but hey. As to objective moral standard, you again are correct as you have no will to exercise so no right or wrong and it all depends on someone else. So, I agree, to you religion makes no sense.
popculturepooka
Posts: 7,924
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/5/2011 6:06:41 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 12/5/2011 5:26:15 PM, 16kadams wrote:
well it depends because the theory of evolution has its faults. Evolution makes sense, except on how life started. They say lightning hit the ocean which created life, a study disproved this where they go sea water and electricity through it multiple times, it never worked. So evolution makes sense until you get to the beginning. Also how did the big bang happen? the cant explain it but creationists can, There are 2 side of the story.

Evolution doesn't have to do with the origin of life.
At 10/3/2016 11:49:13 PM, thett3 wrote:
BLACK LIVES MATTER!
MyVoiceInYourHead
Posts: 260
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/5/2011 6:14:39 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 12/5/2011 5:26:15 PM, 16kadams wrote:
well it depends because the theory of evolution has its faults. Evolution makes sense, except on how life started.

That isn't evolution. That's the theory of abiogenesis.

They say lightning hit the ocean which created life, a study disproved this where they go sea water and electricity through it multiple times, it never worked.

It was a poor comparison to the conditions of primordial Earth and they did it for a few hours instead of millions of years.

So evolution makes sense until you get to the beginning.

If evolution makes sense, then my feeling is that your God is not necessary to explain the diversity of life on this planet. He's somewhat redundant in that regard.

Also how did the big bang happen? the cant explain it but creationists can, There are 2 side of the story.

Saying "Goddidit" doesn't explain anything. The God hypothesis is a cop-out - an argument from ignorance IMO. For God to have created the complexity of the universe and keep it running, 'he would have to be at least as complex as the universe is now. So where did God's complexty arise?

I've got a better and simpler hypothesis than the God Hypothesis. It's called the G Hypothesis - only 1 letter instead of 3.
popculturepooka
Posts: 7,924
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/5/2011 7:14:53 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 12/5/2011 5:10:27 PM, 000ike wrote:

To give human lives free will, but then establish a board of laws that are not to be broken is somewhat of a contradiction,... more accurately, it renders the concept of "free will" nothing more than a disingenuous offer.


Ignoring the numerous other problems in your spiel the above statement is hard to make sense of. On thesis of autonomy (free will) it hardly follows that not respecting all autonomous choices (murder, rape, animal cruelty) makes the whole thesis a disingenuous offer. Are you going to explain? Respecting the ability and freedom for making choices doesn't mean one has to respect all choices - especially immoral ones.
At 10/3/2016 11:49:13 PM, thett3 wrote:
BLACK LIVES MATTER!
popculturepooka
Posts: 7,924
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/5/2011 7:25:03 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 12/5/2011 6:14:39 PM, MyVoiceInYourHead wrote:

Saying "Goddidit" doesn't explain anything.

Hard to see how it wouldn't supposing that it actually did happen.

Imagine the following conversation:

A: "How did the pyramids get there?"
B: "TheEgyptiansdidit."
A: "But that doesn't explain anything! It doesn't explain HOW they did it! It doesn't explain WHY they did it! It doesn't explain WHEN they did it! It doesn't explain anything; it doesn't add to our knowledge base! It's a useless hypothesis!"
B: "Okay? It's a bit odd that you think, Mr. A, just because I don't know HOW/WHY/WHEN TheEgytiansdidit right now that this answer doesn't increase our knowledge base. It lets us identify the makers. It lets us eliminate other spurious explanations, etc"

The God hypothesis is a cop-out - an argument from ignorance IMO. For God to have :created the complexity of the universe and keep it running, 'he would have to be at :least as complex as the universe is now. So where did God's complexty arise?

http://plato.stanford.edu...
At 10/3/2016 11:49:13 PM, thett3 wrote:
BLACK LIVES MATTER!
Wain84
Posts: 41
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/5/2011 11:09:27 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 12/5/2011 5:10:27 PM, 000ike wrote:
Christianity can be attacked from many angles, but the one I think really hits hardest is the fact that it doesn't make sense.

So apparently, God creates humans and with the ability to think and act freely, only to test if they will diverge from his wishes. There is no inherent factor that decides who will diverge and who will not. Our theological positions come to fruition by nothing more than chance: the compilation of events in our lives, developed personalities, and upbringing. To create absolutely free creatures ENSURES that people will diverge from his wishes (WITH knowledge of what his wishes are). In short, its a system where people will indefinitely suffer.

To give human lives free will, but then establish a board of laws that are not to be broken is somewhat of a contradiction,... more accurately, it renders the concept of "free will" nothing more than a disingenuous offer.

Just for starters. The entire construct of this religion suggests an objective moral standard (which is absurd), and sets people up to suffer. This is why I believe many others and myself reject this theology..

Not to mention the sanctions for slavery, disturbing rape aspects, god commiting and commanding genocide. The book that contains this is called "the good book", christians see this as ok because god is behind all this evil. I am completely in agreement with all of what you presented.
Gileandos
Posts: 2,394
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/7/2011 10:46:01 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 12/5/2011 7:25:03 PM, popculturepooka wrote:
At 12/5/2011 6:14:39 PM, MyVoiceInYourHead wrote:

Saying "Goddidit" doesn't explain anything.

Hard to see how it wouldn't supposing that it actually did happen.

Imagine the following conversation:

A: "How did the pyramids get there?"
B: "TheEgyptiansdidit."
A: "But that doesn't explain anything! It doesn't explain HOW they did it! It doesn't explain WHY they did it! It doesn't explain WHEN they did it! It doesn't explain anything; it doesn't add to our knowledge base! It's a useless hypothesis!"
B: "Okay? It's a bit odd that you think, Mr. A, just because I don't know HOW/WHY/WHEN TheEgytiansdidit right now that this answer doesn't increase our knowledge base. It lets us identify the makers. It lets us eliminate other spurious explanations, etc"

The God hypothesis is a cop-out - an argument from ignorance IMO. For God to have :created the complexity of the universe and keep it running, 'he would have to be at :least as complex as the universe is now. So where did God's complexty arise?

http://plato.stanford.edu...

Well explained.
Gileandos
Posts: 2,394
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/7/2011 10:58:36 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 12/5/2011 5:10:27 PM, 000ike wrote:
Christianity can be attacked from many angles, but the one I think really hits hardest is the fact that it doesn't make sense.

So apparently, God creates humans and with the ability to think and act freely, only to test if they will diverge from his wishes. There is no inherent factor that decides who will diverge and who will not. Our theological positions come to fruition by nothing more than chance: the compilation of events in our lives, developed personalities, and upbringing. To create absolutely free creatures ENSURES that people will diverge from his wishes (WITH knowledge of what his wishes are). In short, its a system where people will indefinitely suffer.

To give human lives free will, but then establish a board of laws that are not to be broken is somewhat of a contradiction,... more accurately, it renders the concept of "free will" nothing more than a disingenuous offer.

Just for starters. The entire construct of this religion suggests an objective moral standard (which is absurd), and sets people up to suffer. This is why I believe many others and myself reject this theology..

I am unaware of any other person that would use a similiar process of thinking in the real world.

For example:

- "Science is too complicated thus it is untrue."
- or "Science is not well explained so it must be untrue"
- or "I do not understand science so it must be untrue and those who do understand science must be full of it."

You can easily see such thinking does not apply to your first underlying unspoken premise.

Consider the following similiar deductive reasoning:
Theft as a problem to society and economics:

1) Banks (inherent system of costs for protection) would not need to exist if theft was no longer an issue.
2) Proper 'sterilization' of the mind (mind control) will result in the elimination of theft.

Conclusion:
The cost to the system that is banks could be eliminated if we sterlize people from the desire to steal.

This is logically coherent but systemically invalid.

-It ignores that Banks are a part of capitalism and financing as well.
-It only asserts that Banks are a cost rather than a means of production.
-It proposes making people sheep rather than leaving them with indepenent thought.

The list could go on and on.

Somethings are just more complicated than a simple summary with personal 'bents' attached to those statements.
MyVoiceInYourHead
Posts: 260
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/8/2011 6:04:34 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 12/7/2011 10:46:01 AM, Gileandos wrote:
At 12/5/2011 7:25:03 PM, popculturepooka wrote:
At 12/5/2011 6:14:39 PM, MyVoiceInYourHead wrote:

Saying "Goddidit" doesn't explain anything.

Hard to see how it wouldn't supposing that it actually did happen.

Imagine the following conversation:

A: "How did the pyramids get there?"
B: "TheEgyptiansdidit."
A: "But that doesn't explain anything! It doesn't explain HOW they did it! It doesn't explain WHY they did it! It doesn't explain WHEN they did it! It doesn't explain anything; it doesn't add to our knowledge base! It's a useless hypothesis!"
B: "Okay? It's a bit odd that you think, Mr. A, just because I don't know HOW/WHY/WHEN TheEgytiansdidit right now that this answer doesn't increase our knowledge base. It lets us identify the makers. It lets us eliminate other spurious explanations, etc"

The God hypothesis is a cop-out - an argument from ignorance IMO. For God to have :created the complexity of the universe and keep it running, 'he would have to be at :least as complex as the universe is now. So where did God's complexty arise?

http://plato.stanford.edu...

Well explained.

So the Divine "Simplicity" theory requires degree-level understanding just to ascertain whether that particular passage has any meaning at all in the real world? God's "accessible" message just became a bit exclusive.

God should have written a more coherent, easy to follow text than the Bible. Instead, 'he appears to be relying on puny human aplogetics to get his very important message over.
popculturepooka
Posts: 7,924
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/8/2011 6:49:15 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 12/8/2011 6:04:34 PM, MyVoiceInYourHead wrote:

So the Divine "Simplicity" theory requires degree-level understanding just to ascertain whether that particular passage has any meaning at all in the real world?

No. Actually it's very basic stuff if one actually took the time (5 mins) to be read up on what they are criticizing. Of course it gets more complex and dense when you want to get into want into a serious discussion about it. As with anything. Asking "where did God's complexity arise?" would be a classical example of a category mistake.

http://en.wikipedia.org...

God's "accessible" message just became a bit exclusive.
God should have written a more coherent, easy to follow text than the Bible. Instead, 'he appears to be relying on puny human aplogetics to get his very important message over.

Is this you conceding that your point was erroneous? What important message could you be speaking about here? You were talking about God's "complexity"; it just seems that you made a conceptual mistake.
At 10/3/2016 11:49:13 PM, thett3 wrote:
BLACK LIVES MATTER!
MyVoiceInYourHead
Posts: 260
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/10/2011 1:31:09 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 12/8/2011 6:49:15 PM, popculturepooka wrote:
At 12/8/2011 6:04:34 PM, MyVoiceInYourHead wrote:

So the Divine "Simplicity" theory requires degree-level understanding just to ascertain whether that particular passage has any meaning at all in the real world?

No. Actually it's very basic stuff if one actually took the time (5 mins) to be read up on what they are criticizing. Of course it gets more complex and dense when you want to get into want into a serious discussion about it. As with anything. Asking "where did God's complexity arise?" would be a classical example of a category mistake.

http://en.wikipedia.org...

It depends how God is defined. If it is an all-powerful, all-knowing supernatural creator of the Universe it would have to not only have created everything we know, but also sustain it aswell. Every quantum fluctuation, every chemical reaction, the lot. If that doesn't make him complex then I don't know what does. And not only that he listens to prayers and interacts with people - millions upon million of them simultaneously. That's gonna take a helluva bandwidth!
Crede
Posts: 455
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/10/2011 7:13:07 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
It depends how God is defined. If it is an all-powerful, all-knowing supernatural creator of the Universe it would have to not only have created everything we know, but also sustain it aswell. Every quantum fluctuation, every chemical reaction, the lot. If that doesn't make him complex then I don't know what does. And not only that he listens to prayers and interacts with people - millions upon million of them simultaneously. That's gonna take a helluva bandwidth!

The problem here is your trying to imagine God as a super powerful entity that you can identify with like an Einstein or a super computer. So yes all those things on the scale of a human mind are incredibly complex, but for God these all could be not just simple, but without effort...e.g. He speaks and it is so.
Lickdafoot
Posts: 5,599
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/10/2011 10:25:03 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 12/5/2011 7:25:03 PM, popculturepooka wrote:
At 12/5/2011 6:14:39 PM, MyVoiceInYourHead wrote:

Saying "Goddidit" doesn't explain anything.

Hard to see how it wouldn't supposing that it actually did happen.

Imagine the following conversation:

A: "How did the pyramids get there?"
B: "TheEgyptiansdidit."
A: "But that doesn't explain anything! It doesn't explain HOW they did it! It doesn't explain WHY they did it! It doesn't explain WHEN they did it! It doesn't explain anything; it doesn't add to our knowledge base! It's a useless hypothesis!"
B: "Okay? It's a bit odd that you think, Mr. A, just because I don't know HOW/WHY/WHEN TheEgytiansdidit right now that this answer doesn't increase our knowledge base. It lets us identify the makers. It lets us eliminate other spurious explanations, etc"
WAKE UP AND READ THIS: http://www.debate.org...
Man-is-good
Posts: 6,871
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/11/2011 10:54:38 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 12/5/2011 5:26:15 PM, 16kadams wrote:
well it depends because the theory of evolution has its faults. Evolution makes sense, except on how life started. They say lightning hit the ocean which created life, a study disproved this where they go sea water and electricity through it multiple times, it never worked. So evolution makes sense until you get to the beginning. Also how did the big bang happen? the cant explain it but creationists can, There are 2 side of the story.

First of all, evolution does not hinge specifically on the beginnings of life. Abiogenesis does; its main purpose is to show how life arose from inorganic matter through natural processes.

Second, the so-called "debunking" of the proposed theory that lightening/electricity can catalyze conditions of life does not entirely destroy "evolution" (or rather, since you're attacking a strawman--abiogenesis) considering the fact that the latter has a number of proposed models, and what you described is only one step in the currently-accepted model of abiogenesis....
"Homo sum, humani nihil a me alienum puto." --Terence

"I believe that the mind can be permanently profaned by the habit of attending to trivial things, so that all our thoughts shall be tinged with triviality."--Thoreau
logicrules
Posts: 1,721
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/11/2011 11:02:57 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 12/11/2011 10:54:38 AM, Man-is-good wrote:
At 12/5/2011 5:26:15 PM, 16kadams wrote:
well it depends because the theory of evolution has its faults. Evolution makes sense, except on how life started. They say lightning hit the ocean which created life, a study disproved this where they go sea water and electricity through it multiple times, it never worked. So evolution makes sense until you get to the beginning. Also how did the big bang happen? the cant explain it but creationists can, There are 2 side of the story.

First of all, evolution does not hinge specifically on the beginnings of life. Abiogenesis does; its main purpose is to show how life arose from inorganic matter through natural processes.

Second, the so-called "debunking" of the proposed theory that lightening/electricity can catalyze conditions of life does not entirely destroy "evolution" (or rather, since you're attacking a strawman--abiogenesis) considering the fact that the latter has a number of proposed models, and what you described is only one step in the currently-accepted model of abiogenesis....

They may be attempts at explaining the inexplicable.
PARADIGM_L0ST
Posts: 6,958
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/11/2011 11:04:20 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 12/5/2011 5:26:15 PM, 16kadams wrote:
well it depends because the theory of evolution has its faults. Evolution makes sense, except on how life started.:

Evolution and abiogenesis are mutually exclusive propositions. Nobody knows how life originated on this planet, and until we can determine it, "we aren't certain" is just going to have to suffice. Regardless of that, filling in the gaps of things we don't understand with God is every bit as inept as supposing that life came to be without causation.

Also how did the big bang happen? the cant explain it but creationists can, There are 2 side of the story.:

Haha, creationists can explain it theoretically by using a hopelessly vague "Creator." It would be just as easy to purport the multiverse theory in the absence of evidence, and then pass that off as some kind of certainty.
"Have you ever considered suicide? If not, please do." -- Mouthwash (to Inferno)
MyVoiceInYourHead
Posts: 260
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/11/2011 12:51:21 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 12/10/2011 7:13:07 PM, Crede wrote:
It depends how God is defined. If it is an all-powerful, all-knowing supernatural creator of the Universe it would have to not only have created everything we know, but also sustain it aswell. Every quantum fluctuation, every chemical reaction, the lot. If that doesn't make him complex then I don't know what does. And not only that he listens to prayers and interacts with people - millions upon million of them simultaneously. That's gonna take a helluva bandwidth!

The problem here is your trying to imagine God as a super powerful entity that you can identify with like an Einstein or a super computer. So yes all those things on the scale of a human mind are incredibly complex, but for God these all could be not just simple, but without effort...e.g. He speaks and it is so.

Clearly I can only analyse and express myself from my own human perspective. It depends on how God is defined and whether or not 'he has revealed something of his character to we humans - from your post I assume you are a Christian? "He speaks and it is so," is a completely useless explanation for me. It sounds very poetic but so what?

If God exists and has created the universe and is sustaining it then my original post is valid from my own point of view - God must be complex. But defining God into existence is not sufficient. What's needed is convincing evidence. I can't find any.
Gileandos
Posts: 2,394
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/11/2011 4:16:16 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 12/11/2011 11:04:20 AM, PARADIGM_L0ST wrote:
At 12/5/2011 5:26:15 PM, 16kadams wrote:
well it depends because the theory of evolution has its faults. Evolution makes sense, except on how life started.:

Evolution and abiogenesis are mutually exclusive propositions. Nobody knows how life originated on this planet, and until we can determine it, "we aren't certain" is just going to have to suffice. Regardless of that, filling in the gaps of things we don't understand with God is every bit as inept as supposing that life came to be without causation.

That is suspect. Any current model and the earliest models dealt with abiogenesis as well.
They are constantly working on evolutionary abiogenesis models that are a part of all of the current models.

All evolutionists view a similiar generation of all building blocks of life.
It is dishonest to claim a 1950's model of evolution as seperate than abiogenesis.


Also how did the big bang happen? the cant explain it but creationists can, There are 2 side of the story.:

Haha, creationists can explain it theoretically by using a hopelessly vague "Creator." It would be just as easy to purport the multiverse theory in the absence of evidence, and then pass that off as some kind of certainty.

There is no creationist argument of any "Gaps".
That is a strawman. I would have thought you to be on this site long enough to realize there is philosophical and metaphyiscal evidence that clearly points to a designer.

Nothing is spontaneously made up as you are suggesting to fill the gaps. Your theory is the only theory with Gaps.
Philosophy and metaphysics clearly peer into the pre physical state of existence.