The Christian Bashing thred.

[JAK]

Not as far as I know... I don't know that I know you.

[Midget]

Still we both have something in common, we're sad enough to be still up and holding some sort of vague conversation on the sinner. Well anyway good luck in your exams.

[JAK]

Thanks, you too.

We also both have copies of the hitchhikers guide making reference to the trilogy of four.

[David Bean]

No, you don't know each other, because I know both of you.

Edit: I meant, 'I know both of you and therefore I know that you don't know each other', not 'I know both of you, and therefore you don't know each other'. D'oh!

[hr]"Fiat justicia ruat coelum (let justice be done though the heavens may fall)" - Judge James Horton (family motto)

[exnihilo]

We started this journey in a christian-ocentric place. We (almost) discussed and debated profound theological issues and we ended up in a lamentably Christian place.

Yes, this is the 'Christian bashing thred (sic)' but for a moment there it looked like it might actually look at theology. Instead, not only did it fail to ddo so, it decided that anything outside of Christian dogma was outside of any interest in or need to discuss.

Net result? By failure to engage with 'the other' you implicitly recognise the existence of the Christian God and therefore defeat your own arguments.

[LonelyPilgrim]

Exnihilo,

I would be more than delighted to hear your views on theology, or to have you expound a Jewish perspective on these debates. However, for myself, I tried to move it into basic theological territory, but a) I am a Christian and have a difficult time shaking that bias, and b) as you point out, the refusal of the 'other' to engage in serious debate, either because they don't feel up to it, or because they find the idea of a 'serious' discussion about religion laughable, prevents this avenue of discussion from ever being realised, and so it comes to a close, and we are back where we started.

AS you say, lamentable.

[exnihilo]

And I'd be relatively happy to do it.

My point was that by saying - as many have on this thread - "the Christian God cannot exist" one is not implicitly stating that God cannot exist. And, yet, that is the conclusion that many have come to. Somewhat Christian-centric, and, as arguments go, fundamentally self-defeating.

[LonelyPilgrim]

Yes, but to deny the Christian God is also to deny the Judaic God, and the Islamic God, yes? I mean, bar the Trinity, we are talking about the same deity, the God of Abraham.

So that's a pretty sweeping refutation of God. Actually, if someone denies the possibily of the Christian conception of God then by denying the concept they deny any and all concepts of an omnipresent, omnipotent, omnicognizant, omnibenevolent God.

Not saying, hypothetically in my case, that a god with those qualities is necessarily the Christian God. Just that by rejecting the essence of the Christian God, it is the same as rejecting the concept of a Supreme Being altogether, with the possible exception of a diety that is all those things except omnibenevolent.

So, you are left with the possibility of an evil god, provided you don't reject the other 'omni's' (in which case, what justification is there to reject the idea of a good god?). Or you could try to make an argument for pantheism, which as a former pagan (yes, that's right, I wasn't raised Christian, I converted.), I would be interested to see someone attempt, but I don't think it could carry the same weight as an argument for monotheism. Somebody feel free to disagree.

Now I'd quite like to have a civilised theological discussion, and I'd suggest that you and I undertake it exnihilo, except I get the feeling that when it comes to basic theological points, we'd do a lot of agreeing and not much discussing. Unless someone wants to rise to the challenge and debate (and I mean debate, not just disagree) opposite us, I'm afraid we're stuck.

[Greebo]

Perhaps it depends *why* they reject the Christian God/depiction of God.

I reject the Christian God as depicted in the bible on logical grounds.

I don't use the argument from evil because by analogy that's a shite argument. Animal falls down a well for example, vicious little bugger it is too, no-one can get down there to help it because they get attacked if they do.
So it's decided to tranquilise the animal with a dart gun - which cause the animal some pain.
But being tranquilised they take it to the wild and release it and all is good.

The animal perceives it was attacked with the dart gun and, to the animal, this is a bad thing, but it was for an ultimate good that it was not aware of.

So disasters can happen to humans but they may still be leading to some good we're not aware of - so he can still be omnibenevolent (at least with reference to that argument).


The main reason I reject the Christian God is to do with his omnicognisance - he apparently knows everything. This must therefore include knowledge of the future. Our actions whatever we do, me typing right now, are known to him, what I'm about to type, he already knows etc.
Knowledge of the future cancels out free will, by default. If he knows (and I mean know, not knows the options or possibilites but knows exactly) what I'm going to do then there's nothing I can do to change that, thus I have no free will.


Another reason, but very much more minor, to do with his cognisance: People occasionally ask me 'what would it take, in terms of evidence, for you to believe in God?'
Well I don't know what form the evidence would take - but presumably God does, he presumably know exactly what it would take for me to believe, yet this obviously hasn't happened cos I don't.

Anyhoo - let's concentrate on my main reason for now (there are others but no sense in writing a book for a post). Is my reasoning wrong? If so, why?


Edited to add:
Actually no - the main reason I reject any god is lack of evidence - but we'll put that aside for now


[hr]http://www.greebo.org.uk - Loadsa drunken photos and suchlikes.

[Rob Hearn]

Of all the condescending self-righteous...urgh! why are you pushing this so hard? Some insecurity, no doubt.

Yes, I am condescending with regard to religion, as well as contemptuous and hostile, and I don't care who knows it. And I think what really shows insecurity is to accuse one's opponents of condescension. I have no reason not to believe in God, I just happen not to, and I'm happy to be proved wrong if proper evidence comes along. An athiest has nothing to gain by being an athiest, but a religious person generally has to overcome a lot of hurdles to cease being religious, such as, typically, admitting that their parents and the people who taught them are wrong, losing the comfort of an organised moral system in which wrongdoing is punished and virtue rewarded, and so on. Athiests expounding upon their impious views, and, frankly, common sense, surely threaten the religious worldview of anybody who holds it, and engenders the kind of insecurity that results in the abominable desire for censorship
demonstrated by many religious communities.

[JAK]

[s]Rob Hearn wrote on 15:25, 30th Dec 2004:
Athiests expounding upon their impious views, and, frankly, common sense ...



Before I start, it's Atheist.

Something that always annoys me is people saying that something is 'common sense' because they don't know what makes them think it. The concept of common sense, to me, is very strange. Maybe it's just the fact that I'm abnormal in certain regards here, but the words 'common sense', to me, sound like a excuse for an unjustified belief.

What do you mean by 'common sense', precisely?

[Rob Hearn]

Before I start, it's Atheist.

Damn.

It's common sense not to believe something till there is sufficient evidence.

[JAK]

[s]Rob Hearn wrote on 16:38, 30th Dec 2004:
[i]Before I start, it's Atheist.

Damn.

It's common sense not to believe something till there is sufficient evidence.
[/i]



Yes, I know you're saying that, but I am asking what you are viewing as a definition of common sense in general.

[Campbell]

it's things people don't try to question any more

[LonelyPilgrim]

Greebo,

Excellent question about the knowledge of the future vs. Free Will. I could expound at length, but will try to keep this short, as you can always ask for clarification.

Who says God knows the future? If this is the main thing keeping you from belief, then don't worry about it. I do not believe that God knows every detail about the future. I believe that he has a picture of the future orders of magnitude greater than our own because

a) He knows everything that is. ie. The exact state of the universe at the present moment. What everyone thinks and feels, all the physical forces at work, everything. Which means he is in a position to extrapolate the future to an impressive degree of accuracy. But that is not the same as knowing.

b) Anything He wants to happen, He can make happen. This is how the Old Testament God can tell His prophets the future. If God says, "Hey, there's going to be a famine in seven years," that does not necissarily mean that God looked into the future and saw a famine. Why bother, when in seven years' time, He can just cause a famine? So, anything involving God's own action that He has decided upon, He knows about, because God would have little reason to change His mind (the Abrahamaic God's decision to spare Lot being an interesting exception).

I personally therefore think it's perfecty reasonable to take the position that God knows some things about the future but not all. Those things that He wishes to be set, will be set. I realise that's probably not an answer along the lines you were expecting and if I were more awake I'd expound at greater length especially about why there's no reason to assume why omnicognizant must mean knowledge of the future...

[Rob Hearn]

You are saying, then, that god is not omniscient. Fairly radical. What's to stop somebody now saying that he isn't omnipotent, or benevolent? Nothing at all, as far as I can see.

[Greebo]

As I tacked on at the end of my post - it's not the main reason for my lack of belief - lack of evidence is.

But it is a reason why I think the christian god is a logical impossibility. What you're saying though is that God doesn't know everything - well fair enough but I don't think he can come under the heading omnicognisant then. But rather than continuing to argue the meaning of a word (can always return to it later if you want) let's try another reason.


This one does question omnibenevolence.
Fruit of the knowledge tree story summary:
God says 'Don't eat that, ever'
They eat it and gain knowledge of good and evil and get punished for it.

Now here's my problem. God punishes them for disobeying him, right?
How did they know it was wrong to disobey anyone (including God) if they had no knowledge of what was good or evil/right and wrong?

They had no idea it was wrong to disobey an order, yet they were punished for it.

(I realise it's a fairly picky point but I think it's still valid).



Hrm...do you consider it (going off on a complete tangent here) a weakness in God's omnipotentcy that he cannot defy logic, for example, he could not create a square circle? I would say no but I'd be interested to hear your thoughts.

On a related note - could he microwave a burrito so hot that he himself could not eat it?


(Edited for spelling)


[hr]http://www.greebo.org.uk - Loadsa drunken photos and suchlikes.

[exnihilo]

He's saying no such thing. He's clarifying the meaning of the word as used in the Christian conception of God. Defining terms is perfectly within the bounds of good argumentation, as it stands the argument was: omniscience is not possible, God is omniscient, therefore God is not possible. That is a syllogism. You can't defeat belief in God by a refusal to engage with the definitions given.

[Rob Hearn]

The argument is not that omniscience isn't possible. It's that god's omniscience isn't compatible with human freewill, giving the christian a choice: say either that the christian assertion of god's omniscience is wrong, or that we are not free. Given this choice, it is of course better to say that god is not omniscient, because lack of free will renders all notions of human responsibility meaningless. However, the church is very clear: god is omniscient. The church must therefore be wrong. And if it's wrong about this - which it unarguably is - then who's to say it isn't wrong about god entirely?

We already know it's been about a lot of things, and most would argue that it still is wrong about several moral questions (abortion, homosexual sex, and so on) even if it has, on pain of monumental ridicule and universal dismissal, conceded ground to science in its empirical assertions.

[exnihilo]

The church may very well be wrong, and indeed on much, is. But that's not the issue, the issue is that if you create a construct of omniscience which cannot be and then triumphantly state that that makes God an impossibility you have demonstrated nothing.