Atheist reply to religous "question".

[Smackman]

One human didn't write the bible, the versions available today have been edited several times. I think they've actually determined that there were 5 instances in history where someone went in and edited the bible, which resulted in certain apparent inconsistencies that they didn't catch. This doesn't even include mistranslations and stuff which are impossible to interpret.

But essentially the hebrews started out as polytheists and progressed to monotheism at which point they went back in and cut out the mention of multiple gods. Thats why it switches between "there is no other god" and "you will take no other god before me" and "dont worship false idols". It's also why even in the old testament god's personality changes radically between chapters.

The hebrew mythology is derivative of the babylonian mythology (gilgamesh and shit)

Now the new testament is a lot like what happened when buddha showed up in india, basically buddha was considered some kind of messiah of the dogma they held in that region. (modern hinduism i think is linked) He was probably a philosopher who piggy backed on the hebrew tradition, his cult following just happened to survive beyond his death. (much like joseph smith)

Nowadays they have extensive criminal profiles on a specific kind of sociopath thats prone to starting cults to get what they want. (charles manson, that guy who made a bunch of people drink poisoned koolaid etc) And i honestly think that most religious founders are sick fucks who just dont organize mass suicide.

I don't think god was created by kings to rule though, I think he was created by sick fucks who think gods of themselves. They only rule because cults get power and ally with kings.

[talin]

He was making a statement declaring that he believes (opinion):
it does not matter if you believe in god or not
God may or may not exist
God may or may not care about/like us (humans)

He states that he knows (fact):
People lie
Television (is made by people and therefore) can lie to us
Monks (are people and therefore) can lie to us
The bible (is written by monks (people of religious faith) and therefore) can lie to us

Then he goes and says something I can't comprehend:
If they (TV, monks, the bible) are not the same, then they can lie to us. (I believe he means the bible because if you replace "they" with "the bibles" then he is referring to the fact that there are many variants of the bible giving different stories and contradicting each other so if one is true then another will be false so it stands to reason that not all bibles can be true because they all lie compared to one another. This threw me for a loop at first too.)

He then goes on to state that MAYBE one or possibly more are completely true in their own way but not all of the bibles and then asks how we are suppose to tell which bible(s) is/are telling the truth.
Then he assumes that most humans lie every day.
then he asks if god likes the lying humans.
Then he questions if we think that clerics (don't) lie and decide to break their own rules even though they tell others to not break them (or possibly change the rules to fit their needs?).
He then asks if the liars are the ones who translated the bible.
Then he asks who originally wrote the bible. (I guessing he assumes a human physically wrote it and might have lied about it's origin)
THen he asks if the bible is true.
then he asks what it is for if it does not "help" (does not say what it's supposedly does/does not help)
He then asks if it is simply a famous work of fiction like star wars (only taken as truth)
Then he asks what "the point" is.
He points out that there are many religions that each have different claims and asks which one is the right religion.
He claims that some clerics are more like bastards than "ordinary liars"
He then goes on to say that if you believe what they say, you are being tricked.
Then he states that the bible claims god is "true" (that he exists) but if the bible is not true then this means that what the bible say does not matter.
He acknowledges that god may exist but also that he may not.
He then claims that some clerics and monk just want our money
He says "fuck them all" and claims that god will judge him fairly on whether he was good or bad towards other rather than his beliefs but if there is no god then it won't matter anyway.

Can you make some sense of it now?

I'm shocked at your reply because 1 people lie, 2 your a person, and 3 your saying this is what the other person was saying.
Joking a side i think you miss the point of my statement. For most of his statements is seems like he's saying "Is the sky blue?" which most people would answer yes to.
Now it's such a jumbled mess that I personally see no way i can answer it and be sure what's really the question. As for your second post.... How the hell did you make it more confusing then the original?

That's more confusing? ...

ok, well you get that he was just giving his opinion.

Bottom line is that:
A. He says people lie.
B. He says that people created the bible.
C. He says the bible MIGHT be a lie.
D. He says god MIGHT not exist.
E. He says that whether god is real or not does not matter.

Frankly, I agree.

He also claim that some religious leaders are just crooks who want your money which I think might be true but have no proof of.

Also, thanks for the insight smackman, that was actually pretty informative. It's subject to further investigation on my part, but still something that sounds fairly believable. (Though I suppose assuming something is true just because it sounds believable is what got most religions (false or otherwise) their start.)

[BlueLight]

Talin... just stop. I didn't need you to overly simplify what he said; and i still I don't need you to overly simplify what he said!

[Valithan]

Thought I 'd jump in on the fun here. I'll probably cherry pick a few posts here in there, everyone so often, not in the sense for context-ignoring fallacies, but rather to pull in a few pieces of a lengthy thread as if I were posting about it along the way.

“Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able?
Then he is not omnipotent.
Is he able, but not willing?
Then he is malevolent.
Is he both able and willing?
Then whence cometh evil?
Is he neither able nor willing?
Then why call him God?”

Epicurus – BC 341-270

Its a fun quote, and there were alot like it I read when I was going through the concept of 'Evil" in my philosophy classes years ago and most of the arguments and thoughts, much like this example, are really only self-proving and not so much a logical thought; this relies on people to believe in the notion that the concept of "God" is a man-made construct to accept as logic. Which is a notion that many people already accept so they like to use this one and then don't see the inherent flaw in many concepts of trying to ascertain the nature of "God"

That is, they assume that our understanding of "Good" and "Evil" is that same for God. And yes, if he is a man-made construct, then he would fall into line with the limitations of human understandings and moralities. However, if "God" is truly omnipotent, all-knowing, eternal, etc. than his perspectives, understandings and concepts of "Good" and "Evil" are going to have a difference to mortals with a much more narrow perspective, esp in the long-term.

Limited understandings of morality take specifics cases and scenarios and try to scrutinize conditions and results into immediate good vs evil. And in these cases, it seems like hypocritical behaviors and moralities and therefore "God" can't really exist.

And yet people posit that man-kind is capable of progressing and growing and evolving (as can other manifestations of life)

Now, I'm not particularly siding or supporting one 'scriptural' record over an other, I'm just pointing out some of the flaws I see repeated when people try to 'disprove' "God". So to the above, I prefer to think of such examples (like the Ten Commandments) as intended progressive lessons. If "God" is an all-knowing being and he has in hand in the affairs in mankind enough to dictate how to be good, and progressively better, than the concept of how to be "Good" could also be capable of progress as time progresses. Or even regress.

The english language, mathematics, sciences all have patterns, progressive levels to be learned, and exceptions while in the learning process; so I don't see why 'moralities' and 'religion' can't be similar. For instance, while being instructed at the algebraic level, students might be taught that certain equations and forms aren't able to be simplified. But then at the calculus levels, that isn't really true anymore. So, was the past level of education (algebra) a lie, or just working within the realms of that level of understanding and following the rules and patterns at said level?

For what I see, human understanding is a relation of comparisons. How are good and evil different? How do you paint images for the blind? How do you perform music for the deaf? How do you get people to understand taste and smells and feelings to those unable to interact? Perhaps as 'mortals' we are all these examples and then some in comparison to deities. And so the chosen traces we are allotted of their existence are comparisons left to the level of what understanding we may have in comparison.

That said, I'll seque to the next quote I wanted to mention:

Well, the bible has been reprinted in one thousand different copies. If it was the word of god, wouldn't one book had been enough?

Considering that the entirety of everyone doesn't follow, or at least acknowledge, after any given book or bible, then apparently no, one isn't enough
If 'God' is all-knowing and all-seeing, then perhaps he intended, or rather understood that mankind would have a variety of versions and copies made, not for people to bicker over minute details, but to see other meanings and core principals that are kept the same, or perhaps even clarified.

[Smackman]

Its not there to disprove god, its there to point out that if he exists he's either a dick or just not a god we have to fear. That basically disproves the abrahamic god. (christians, jews, muslims) Because the religious texts all say that he is both benevolent and all-powerful. Him being supernatural in some way isn't a valid explanation for how that works.

Morality is actually a biological construct. Humanity is like a macroorganism. Things like remorse and stuff are functions that we've evolved as a function for survival of the species. The more human something is the more its like you're hurting your species. individual survival is still a stronger instinct though, IMO the concept of a modern and civilized society is trying to make the survival of the macroorganism the stronger instinct as it is in a few people.

But thats the reality of it, morality is easily overruled by the needs or wants of the individual and even the presence of a religion doesnt fix that.

[Smackman]

I mean religion has all of those arbitrary and shitty rules that are talked about so much more than anything that reinforces survival or betterment of mankind. Every once in a while people defend christianity on the grounds of charity and stuff.... so okay some catholic nuns are good people? does it really take that much hate to produce a handful of good people?

[Valithan]

I don't see how that 'proves' anything, let alone that it disproves the abrahamic portrayal of "god" esp cuz I pointed out that it tries to place human-made limitations on a being that supposedly transcends those.

I'm not really sure how much religions (any or all) actually improve people, or worsen them. I figure people many people follow certain rules, or claim to, out of habit/tradition or apathy, and they're going to be jerks/assholes/etc regardless of religious affiliations or not. Yea, it gives a reason for people to organize, a name to claim and justify their actions, but I don't really see that as much different than a variety of other claims and rises across history.

However, I do find the particular implications some people place on 'finding religion' or spirituality in overcoming particular problems and addictions in their lives.

[OwnerOfSuccuby]

Sorry if i offend somebody. My English is bad i think some times it is like Japanese or Russian for you I can easyly read or translate something like engineering article, but to say or translate something that i realy think some times is not so easy becouse you have some words combinations that do not translate like just this words meaning and have some other meaning.

I like- like Talin wright but a little mistakes but idea is correct

I like to make my own point of view. I do not belive until i am sure in some thing. I do not say yes or no - i try to get more information until it will not be enough.
Do not belive in some thing is some kind of belive i think It is better to get a true data then do belive or not

I have some data that i get based on my experience. I see how TV lies. I was a eyewitness of some event, and that i see in real life and on TV was not the same. I see a lot of deception in my contry. Corruption is everywhere So it is no reason to belive in some thing. All you realy can get - the data based on your experience. Some times you can belive some body - if they have no reason to lie to you. If they have - they will do it very often. So if you have some separation of cranial sutures of data you can think "or he is lie or i mistakes". If you can check are you right or not - you can truly say that he lies. If you can not, you can belive him, belive your self or put it down untill you get the full data.

That is my point - belive or not - is some kind of probability, but it is not the truth. Only full complicated data without mistakes in it is.

Like belive in god or in bible is like belive not i can see or feel or check - but belive some body that is not true - or can be with big probability. It means that truth can not be find in this way, becouse if some think is not the thing you expect to see - that is not correct when you start check it - it can not be true, only in one way it can be - if you make a mistake. So it is better to get punish for your own mistakes then by your + others

[Smackman]

I don't see how that 'proves' anything, let alone that it disproves the abrahamic portrayal of "god" esp cuz I pointed out that it tries to place human-made limitations on a being that supposedly transcends those.

Thats a supernatural argument. Stuff thats existence would contradict itself in the normal laws of nature are improbable. in fact not a single supernatural even has been proven, only witnessed by people who's sanity is in question

[Valithan]

And how does it contradict itself? The claim is that because "God" is all good, he has to stop/prevent evil; why? And again, that begs the question: are our perspectives of 'good' and 'evil' the same as something that "sees all"? Philo 101 (not looking up the name) but I remember an article that was more along the lines that 'because babies burn in buildings a benevolent God can't exist" And from logical/rhetorical perspectives, I see that same issue there as here; its begging many questions.

Even if people don't buy into the notion of 'real' Gods and prefer to think of potential miracles and other strange phenomena attributed to aliens instead, its still largely a matter of different perspective; just because children throw a fit over not liking something doesn't mean the parents of that child don't exist because something 'bad' happened to the child.

[talin]

Talin... just stop. I didn't need you to overly simplify what he said; and i still I don't need you to overly simplify what he said!

I find it entertaining and I have nowhere better to go in this conversation. Well, I'll let you guys ponder what ever it is that we are trying to discover, I suppose if anyone has research or something proving one thing or another then they could post it here and exactly why it pertains to what ever this discussion has turned into.

[Smackman]

And how does it contradict itself? The claim is that because "God" is all good, he has to stop/prevent evil; why? And again, that begs the question: are our perspectives of 'good' and 'evil' the same as something that "sees all"? Philo 101 (not looking up the name) but I remember an article that was more along the lines that 'because babies burn in buildings a benevolent God can't exist" And from logical/rhetorical perspectives, I see that same issue there as here; its begging many questions.

Even if people don't buy into the notion of 'real' Gods and prefer to think of potential miracles and other strange phenomena attributed to aliens instead, its still largely a matter of different perspective; just because children throw a fit over not liking something doesn't mean the parents of that child don't exist because something 'bad' happened to the child.

you're still using a supernatural argument. "he sees shit that we dont" doesn't justify his actions. if that is the case then it is malevolent that he would deprive us of that insight so he could watch evil happen.

[BlueLight]

Smack... I'm sorry but how did you lose his argument? It's not that complex and we're talking about god so i don't see how we can't have a argument based on the supernatural.

Look if you want to prove to him that your quote works then define "Good" in a way that every one will agree on or at least the parts that will matter for your quote.
The problem is that it it assumes what good is and doesn't even define it.

[Smackman]

blue stop fucking lurking and waiting to snipe at individual replies like a whole fucking conversation didnt just happen... what's your problem?

[BlueLight]

what's your problem?

Well um... you were attacking the straw man.

[IrrelevantComment]

Out of interest, if I said that:
1) Happiness is good
2) Pain/unhappiness is bad
3) Actions that cause happiness are good, and actions that cause pain or unhappiness are bad
4) Moral "good" is therefore the action of maximising happiness and minimising pain or unhappiness.

Most people would probably disagree with my conclusion, but what point of the argument do you disagree with? I know 1 and 2 do not have an absolute logical foundation, but does that make them wrong?

[BlueLight]

Spoiler (click to show/hide):

1) Happiness is good
2) Pain/unhappiness is bad
3) Actions that cause happiness are good, and actions that cause pain or unhappiness are bad
4) Moral "good" is therefore the action of maximising happiness and minimising pain or unhappiness.

Most people would probably disagree with my conclusion, but what point of the argument do you disagree with? I know 1 and 2 do not have an absolute logical foundation, but does that make them wrong?

So thinking about it. these 4 objects really don't seem like a good foundation for what's Good & Evil but i admit i got nothing better. I'm not trying to say that this system is wrong or bad. Just that by instinct this seems odd or lacks content which really means nothing until i can find out why and/or where.

Putting this is spoilers since it's a bit lengthy and a different argument. it about there being a shaky foundation at least for 1 and 2.

Spoiler (click to show/hide):

So i would like to state first that there is some logical backing for 1 and 2, but it's not really good for this type of argument. This is more based on science then philosophy. here's a example:

Code: Select All Code

you have 3 people, the first is semi hungry; the second hasn't eaten in a while; the third hasn't eaten in days. You give each of them a apple.
you'll find that the first person gets a slight increase in happiness from eating; the second will have a higher increase in happiness and the apple will taste better; last but not least, the third one will have a higher increase in happiness and the apple will taste even better.

Now based on the fact that eating is good (and yes i'm assuming it is. If you want to debate it then you can starve to death! ), and dying is bad, (again if you support dying then try it out before questioning.) and when you eat you become happier. The hungrier you are the happier you become. this supports 1 and 2 of what's good. again we're sorta assuming a few other things but your going to have to do that anyways. (Are you sane? can you really prove your sane? If you were insane, how would you know you were insane?)

now i'm going to attack both 1), and 2), right off the bat.

1) Happiness is good
2) Pain/unhappiness is bad

Code: Select All Code

You have two kids that are, well, brats.
Kid A, you decided give him what ever he wants for the rest of his life. It's his birth day and you get him a xbox and he toss' it out the window and demands a new one; and since you love him, you buy the brat, a new Xbox.
Kid B, you've decided to punish when ever he does something wrong and lets assume you aren't being to harsh to cause Emotional damage. Now he tosses a Xbox out a window(I'd find that strange in this case but that's not the point.) and before he says a word you give him a firm talking and ground him.

Kid A, is likely to grow up being a brat but was in theory happy during his child hood. (I could see some one questing that.)
Kid B, is likely to not grow up as a brat but it requires him to be unhappy at some point.
 

Now i personally think that by not having unhappiness in Kid A, life, you've done something bad.I believe the opposite is true in kids B, life, because at points he was unhappy. Now if we say this is because it was a necessary evil, then my half tired mind could see a argument for 1) and 2).
However my example does sorta support 3)

Moving on to

3) Actions that cause happiness are good, and actions that cause pain or unhappiness are bad
4) Moral "good" is therefore the action of maximising happiness and minimising pain or unhappiness.

For both of these i've got to ask, "if you and some one else were the only two people left on the earth and you kill the other person so fast that he doesn't feel a thing; does that mean the action was good so long as you are happy?

going back to 3), here's another example:

Code: Select All Code

Your family is so poor you can't put food on the table. You ask a baker for food and he turns you down. Some one steals a loaf of bread from the baker and you catch the guy.
You can return the loaf of bread making the baker happy.
or keep the loaf of bread making your family happy.
either option might also make you happy, depending on what type of person you are.
which is good and which is evil/bad?


I admit this does support 4)'s, clause.


I think the problem with your system is the loop holes. I mean what's good for one thing is evil for another.
also if i were to use your system as a base for what's good and evil with smacks quote; then i could suggest that god taking action is evil. I would have to bring something new to the argument and it's questionable if other people would agree with me since it's subjective.

[Valithan]

Out of interest, if I said that:
1) Happiness is good
2) Pain/unhappiness is bad
3) Actions that cause happiness are good, and actions that cause pain or unhappiness are bad
4) Moral "good" is therefore the action of maximising happiness and minimising pain or unhappiness.

Because there are varying degrees of 'happiness' would that suggest that there are varying degrees of "good'? So perhaps 'morality' then is trying to not so much 'maximize' happiness, but rather improve it. For some, 'happiness' is just coping with life, getting the next hit of something or another, getting fed, sleeping and repeating the cycle. If some trip, high, etc is all it took for people to attain 'happiness,' then I think mankind would have stagnated long ago. Plus this form of appeasement happiness isn't sustainable for everyone and may have contradictory factors.

So I could make mention of models such as Maslow's Hierarchy of Needs, that while flawed, at least demonstrate that people have varying degree's of 'needs', 'happiness' and 'progression'.

Personally, I think the basis of 'good' is the ability to progress without strict detriment to others. If a form of progress is being made, than it is a form of good. Its still a subjective quantity, and conditional, but I think its easier to note degrees of progress than it is 'happiness'; esp since progression is often made at the expense of current happiness (most commonly seen in raising children)

So thats my two bits on that idea for now. Segue!

you're still using a supernatural argument. "he sees shit that we dont" doesn't justify his actions. if that is the case then it is malevolent that he would deprive us of that insight so he could watch evil happen.

Look Smack, if you're trying to make a complete dismissal of a case or perspective because of just one 'flaw' to a given 'argument' then you shouldn't be making the same, or worse, otherwise your case is not superior and your dismissal is invalid. Although 'superiority' is invalid anyway. And I'm going to wager you have ziltch experience raising children because the basis of the analogy I gave was not supernatural, but rather grounded in common occurrences. Though maybe you're ego-ranting and only reacting to key-words instead of reading the entirety of the post.

Yes, I am making suppositions on behalf of beings or entities that may or may not exist, but to simply claim it as 'supernatural' and avoiding issues you yourself raised, or even antagonized, is hypocritical. But frankly, you come off as disinterested in rhetoric and participate solely on a basis of being 'right' to sate your ego anyway. You want to make that claim that god is "malevolent" or doesn't exist, then you'll have to persuade people of that. And making the same stupid claim (*note, usage here is being qualified*) over and over again that its "one" or the "other" ignores that assertion that I made previously. And that assertion isn't 'supernatural' its pointing out the flaws in the claim you wanted to support in the first place. So no, I'm not making a 'supernatural' argument, esp since you seem to repeatedly miss that, I'm pointing out that much of the philosophy on the concepts of "Good" and "Evil" (and thereby many of the arguments and quotes made to 'disprove' "God") are flawed and wrong. Its not the claim that God has to exist, or even doesn't, but that the given claims being cited are not right.

"Cliffs note" version: Irrelevant conclusion, Begging the question, Circulus Probando, Composition, and False Dilema. Oh, and to sum of the above, you're assuming I'm making a genetic fallacy, excluding 'supernatural' context, which is not the case. And thats not including what you've already been called out on, but I won't step beyond pointing those out.

P.S. I'm aware pointing out fallacies (or at least logical ones, cuz 'logical fallacies' can have their persuasive uses) doesn't actually improve anyone's argument or make progress. You want to try to call me out on something, then fine, I'll acknowledge that game and play a round.

[BlueLight]

"Cliffs note" version: Irrelevant conclusion, Begging the question, Circulus Probando, Composition, and False Dilema. Oh, and to sum of the above, you're assuming I'm making a genetic fallacy, excluding 'supernatural' context, which is not the case. And thats not including what you've already been called out on, but I won't step beyond pointing those out.

P.S. I'm aware pointing out fallacies (or at least logical ones, cuz 'logical fallacies' can have their persuasive uses) doesn't actually improve anyone's argument or make progress. You want to try to call me out on something, then fine, I'll acknowledge that game and play a round.

Just because i'm a jerk that does ad hominem, I'd like to add ad hominem, popular wisdom (I think i'll have to look this one up. I think i got it wrong but i'm dead tired so i'll hit the books later.) & Poisoning the well to the list.

Okay i'm done. So what if i wanted a few cheep shots.

[IrrelevantComment]

Because there are varying degrees of 'happiness' would that suggest that there are varying degrees of "good'? So perhaps 'morality' then is trying to not so much 'maximize' happiness, but rather improve it. For some, 'happiness' is just coping with life, getting the next hit of something or another, getting fed, sleeping and repeating the cycle. If some trip, high, etc is all it took for people to attain 'happiness,' then I think mankind would have stagnated long ago. Plus this form of appeasement happiness isn't sustainable for everyone and may have contradictory factors.

So I could make mention of models such as Maslow's Hierarchy of Needs, that while flawed, at least demonstrate that people have varying degree's of 'needs', 'happiness' and 'progression'.

I would say there are varying degrees of good. Giving £100 to charity is better than giving £10, although both are still good. Also I googled Maslow, and it seems his idea is similar to Mill's ideas of higher and lower pleasures, which I agree with, which says that certain pleasures are more worthwhile than others. I wasn't saying that we should just be high all the time, I was just simplifying my answer to try and keep on topic.

And on the subject of trying to improve happiness, rather than stagnating, part of the appeal of being a mathematician or scientist to me is that I may one day make some discovery that will improve people's lives. I agree with you about progression, but I see progression as a means of attaining happiness, if that makes sense. The way I see it, my argument works on a global level rather than a personal one: it isn't just about making yourself happy, but about making others happy (I believe that is linked in to the final stage of Maslow's Hierachy?) so by progressing, ie through science, you are doing "good" because you are probably making others happy in the long run.


Bluelight, there's too much to quote so I'll try and respond in one go. Taking your example of the two kids, I would argue that not only will kid b be happier in the long run, but he in turn is more likely to make others happy. I would also say that killing is wrong because you are removing someone else's ability to be happy, there is also a thing I agree with called the Harm Principle, which basically says you don't have the right to infringe other people's rights for the sake of your own. Personally, I think that by keeping the bread you are doing the right thing, although it would be better to steal bread from a massive company like Walmart or Tesco than from a baker.

Again, I have oversimplified my argument and lost a lot in the process, but in the system of morality I live by I try to maximise happiness in myself and others, not only in the short term, but in the long term by hopefully contributing to science and by, say, not spoiling a child so that they grow up appreciating more than just materialistic gains.