Atheist Zealot

Post Reply New Topic

AG may wax eloquent but he lacks any sense of irony. Perhaps he should look at the topic title before he bangs on about how silly theists are.

Condescending narcissist™ here, I've just endured this Knifey-AG "debate" (more like one man delivering arguments as the other person progressively shutsdown their brain). Some of the lowlights of the "discussion":

• Knifey uses the "fall of man" or "original sin" to explain why we have natural disasters. AG points out that there was no point in pre-history when the first humans "dawned", and instead there was a continuous progression of increasingly "human", yet impossible to tell which one was the first human, human-like organisms. Knifey replies that the fall of man was "possibly metaphorial". Which means that his explanation for earthquakes and tsunamis, which happened WELL BEFORE, JUST BEFORE, DURING, and JUST AFTER the evolution of Homo sapiens, is utter bunk.
• Knifey pretty much fails to realize why the abscence of free will undermines his free will defense of suffering.
• Knifey develops a theological metaphysics where God can't be in the same place as "sin". But, wait, if God is Omnipresent than that means God is where "sin is". If God isn't where sin is, then the being is not omnipresent.
• On that note, since God is the source of all things; of all creation, then isn't he also the source of sin?
• Knifey resorts to "God works in mysterious ways" to explain how God will sort out the sane unbelievers who deserve oblivion at death and the unsane unbelievers who don't have the "free will" to choose to believe in God, so get into heaven or {???}. Essentially, a pretty lame cop out.
• Knifey claims that killing someone else aside from the wronging party (that someone else being your son, who is also yourself) "removes sin", so you can be with the wronging party. WTF??! !! Who'd have thought Atonement and Original Sin could've been made even more incoherent.
• Knifey demonstrates, throughout this "debate", why he dislikes atheists criticizing his beliefs: he has next to no ability to defend, address, or even comprehend basic points and his entire set of religious beliefs are comically muddled. To put it simply, debates on God only serve to pwn him. The Christian emperor truly has no clothes.
• Knifey gloats about having "beaten" AG, as AG "failed to convince" him of the rightness of the position that the Christian God doesn't exist. That wasn't very Christian of him, now was it?

All in all, I have one summary of the "debate":




Now, if only clear-minded liberal CALVINIST Orwell would come here, to set the theological record straight.

Last edited by Master_Pedant on 31 Aug 2011, 2:32 am, edited 1 time in total.

Perhaps you should read the OP and subsequent posts by Knifey before banging about how unreasonable AG's statements on theists silliness is. After all, it starts with Knifey claiming that belief in God vs the lack of belief in God is equivalent to a preference for chicken vs a preference for beef. Then, we AG states that theism is a factual proposition, not a culinary preference, Knifey DEMANDS a disproof of God and evades away from all of AG's points. Knifey aptly demonstrates why atheists are "zealous" towards him - he's either grossly intellectually dishonest or deluded. Indeed, were you intellectually honest you'd admit it.

The inference is invalid. You need to establish what a best possible world would consist of. What is the actual world lacking that is instantiated in the best possible world? Also, 6) is contentious. Why think if God exists that he is a perfectly good omnipotent being? Even if Christianity is false, Judaism (which does not posit God as a perfectly good omnipotent being) could be true. Deism could be true. Etc. In fact, there are Christians who do not accept that God is a perfectly good omnipotent being. Alfred North Whitehead and his followers are an example.

Not only do you need to establish changes for the better, you need to prove those changes would not have an unforeseen affect on the positive aspects that exist in this world. That's why I said you would need to create a world with the changes before you could say weather it was better. Just like there is a difference between an airplane blueprint, to the model in a wind tunnel, and then it's different again to the full scale plane. Maybe the promise of heaven is because earth is a failed prototype? ha.

It's not at all utter bunk. Everything I said fits together. A world without God will fall apart. If the world has never been full of humans that accept his sovereign rule then the world will have always had natural disasters. What is so hard to understand about that? This is one of the things I think might have happened. I have many theories about genesis that I am not closed to.
because you can't prove there is an absence of free will, and I don't think there is an absence of free will so why would I debate it?
I also believe the physical universe is part of God. Which means God would not only be where sin is, but be the one commiting it! wtfbbq. He is a complex being and can be many contradicting things lol.
I did say God himself is capable of sin, so yes he knows what it is, and yep he's the one who makes people with the capacity to sin. So indirectly God sins. oooerrr.
I was just guessing, it really doesn't effect me and I trust God to be merciful.
It's not really that complex, one entity can manifest themselves into three different entities. So one split entity killing another is not murder, it's suicide. If you can't understand that you should watch more television.

You seem to think because I don't know how God fits into every aspect of everything that logically I shouldn't believe in God. Everybody has gaps in their knowledge and the physical universe is one of the least interesting parts of God. But if you can prove any of my theories are wrong about God I am really willing and eager to know so I will change them, to something else that includes God. Enjoy your self-righteousness.

Best in what respect?

And why should a perfectly good omnipotent being give a damn. It will neither help nor hurt it to create a good world or a bad world or any world at all.

ruveyn

No, I actually do not need to establish what exactly is proscribed in a best possible world in order to say that certain traits entail it. In a discussion of premise 4, I will need to discuss reasons why this world is not the best, and this simply requires examining certain unnecessary traits of the universe that suck.

Point 6 is not contentious within the orthodox Christian belief set. Obviously premises of an argument may be contentious amongst the population that an argument is not directed towards, but that's irrelevant.

Alfred North Whitehead is a philosopher, not an exegete or an expositor of the Christian tradition. Christians adopted process theism, but process theology was an outgrowth of a speculative metaphysics, not a Christian enterprise. Process Christians are just a sign of how liberal Christianity is the cheap whore of philosophy, willing to combine with any idea without regard for any standards. I mean, hell, you could argue that my argument is wasted on Christian atheists, thus Christianity is not proven false, at which I will simply roll my eyes.

.............. Except that doesn't make sense..... There is no "lose" in a conversation where I admitted from the onset that I thought you were stupid and probably a waste of time. This was entirely "I will present reasons". If you aren't capable of understanding these reasons, I am not at fault for that in any sense. I didn't come in expecting you to change your mind.

ruveyn, waste your non-existent intellect on bashing Muslims, please.

"Best of all possible" worlds relies on an ranking system wherein worlds are evaluated according to an independent and comprehensive moral standard. If you don't recognize this then you don't have the proper ability to evaluate the argument. You're presupposing some form of subjectivism and that doesn't really engage the position.

Also, to M_P, I didn't use the property of omnipresence, only that Jesus is God. Therefore if Jesus was somewhere, then God can be there. Jesus was around sin, therefore God can be. The effects are basically the same, just one is simpler than the other conceptually.

In peace let me say again and again, ever so graciously waving my tail:

What possible ground do you have for deciding which "traits of the universe" are necessary?

What objective ground have you foir saying that aspects of the universe - to reflect your less than formal word - "suck"?

Nor you nor I have the place to stand nor the lever adequate to move that one.

To use another informal term, it is "dumb"

My bullet points weren't merely a summary of the debate. Some were observations of the absurdities in various statements Knifey made that didn't get expressed in the debate.

Yes, because arguing for your opinion and justifying it through argumentation and debate makes you a zealot

hardy har har

Zealots are rather sparsely distributed here. Ranters do not really count. Master Pedant is close enough he might accept the label, though atheism is not his zeal. AG is not a zealot, but does read closely what others write.

well... first, I agree with the "non-existent intellect" thing, heck, I think I am one of them, but I think I can recognize intellectuals even if I'm lacking some intelect, I have to thank you for your participation in here and giving a demonstration to all readers about proper intellectual discussions, as I believe you come up as the most reasonable and most persuasive.

Anyway, about what ruveyn said,.... well, the issue is that I wondered wether this position was a position strictly against the christian, jewish or muslim omnipontent and benevolent god, rather than other possible gods who don't care and are not as omnipotent. So, I wonder if these properties of benevolence and omnipotence can be atribuited to the deist god or any other god and wether impersonal gods are to be ignored as problematic or taken into account.

I do need to apologize for that comment though. It was very very blunt. I was rushed as I was trying to type that out during my lunch break. Also, I was more than a little peeved as my argument is *really* just a summation of the various other arguments against the existence of God.

For instance, in the problem of evil, it is argued "How could God have created a world where there is so much EVIL in it?" The presumption here being that a better world without evil is possible. In the problem of bad design it is argued "How could God have created a world with so much BAD DESIGN in it?" The presumption being that a better world would have better designs. And the list goes on and on with inconsistent revelations, natural evils, etc. So, I'm simply taking all of these and recognizing the concern as valid, and saying "Why doesn't God create the world with everything done right?" The idea being that splitting hairs on what an unjustified evil is ends up being pointless, and instead, we just need to say "Hey, this world is just not as good as some other possibility, and it is obvious".