Disprooving the bible, totally. [johnny skeptic]

Philosophy Forums Religion and Spirituality
21

Don’t miss-apply my motive. I didn’t say it was bad to destroy evil, I say it is imperfect and unwise to destroy both “good” and “evil” at the same time with some moronic dooms-day.

Whatever, God doesn’t have to disown and abandon earth just because two people ate one of his apples. Reason-ability is lacking here.

I repeat:

God = “all-wise”
He tells parents to cut of a part of their babies penis,
not all-wise.

Fear of hell + thirst for heaven [and perhaps metal] = Bias judgment of God’s claims and commands.

That’s rubbish. Humans can’t obey God because they can’t fully learn about his supposed “perfection”.
The bible’s fallacy is the scape goating. It’s not our fault for genetic imperfection, and it’s not the creators fault that all organic life on earth that he created is imperfect, suddenly it’s either meant to be that way – or it’s Adam and Eve’s fault. Blame and judgment are not a solution.

If God can’t show me how to do what he wants, or make it even possible for me to do what he wants, then he needs to shut the hell up – because we all know how useful a critical, self-righteous, staglant-ass upon a holy mount-vionist peanut-gallery is.

God never saved anyone from death. If you think God will do more for you then you do for yourself, it’s a lie. If you think God will do more for humanity then science, it’s not true.

Read my thread about creationists having a thirst for universal justice. Our need for a God caused us to imagine one that wasn’t even there.

I shall.

I will try to be, and who shouldn’t?

Life has a point. Life’s point is to overcome the stress and preasure around it. We are nolonger evolving physically; our real evolution as a species is now in the fields of technology. It’s the next step.

Belief in – and a desire for heaven – are a sign of the escapism that exists within human nature.

Pleasure and joy are the bodies natural reward system – and they are a message that says: “This is good.” Our body usually gets pleasure and joy when its needs are satisfied or filled. The only way that we can get [real] satisfaction is by our bodies take resources from our environment, and then use these resources to empower, build and rebuild our bodily system.

Our problem – as human individuals – is that we can’t always find or take what we need from our environment, and we cannot perfectly apply and use what we have been able to take. To blame the environment – instead of blaming the organism – is an act of self pity and complaint, and this is a poor substitute for personal sufficiency of capacity. Self-pity and complaint only works on our fellow species; self-pity and complaint do not work on an inanimate universe/planet.

Expecting the inanimate universe/reality to be sentient and humane, is a fallacy that leads to let-down and partial insanity.

Heaven is like “putting the wagon before the horse!” Instead of imagining a body and mind that are perfectly capable of getting everything that they need [from their environment] through personal ability, they [who want & believe in heaven,] want a paradise environment that can perfectly supply a human body with what it needs. Sadly, these people do not realize that a real solution only lies in a real and perfectly-self-sufficient physical body.

Maybe transhumanists realize that the only true solution to humanities problems – is to improve the system that is unable to solve the problem; and that system is the human body.

Transhumanism is a form of wisdom, and anti-escapism / anti-psychological-adamance.

And if you can’t give me any strait answers when I question God’s perfection, then I don’t have to give you any strait answers when you question what I believe in, but I will give you the answers if you ask specifically.

22

i’m starting to agree with thirst and uccisore more than at first. they say your arguements are so all over the place,of coarse we can’t properly answer them!

you say because we are imperfect,therefore god is because he created us? and we suffer now,but he does not want us to suffer?(therefore god is counterdicting himself?)

all of this is the universal issue of free will. the allowing of evil to exist in all of it’s forms to prove once and for all how ludicrus evil acts are.
in a certain future kingdom,what grounds will rebels have if they say to the theocrat(god/jesus) “you are unfair to not allow us to do this or that”

all of this hell will be remembered for it’s misery and vanity.

and you also underestimate that the world does not nessearilty revolve around you/us and the spirits are also faced with the universal issue of free will hence satan. an example of “god’s self-contradicting imperfection” OR a miss-use of free will.

these lessons exist for us,not god,for he knew the outcome from the beginning.(of the big picture.)

23

The flu evolved and is an obertunistic being that feeds off of a living environment. That is its meaning and its reason. ID is fake.

But there is also a claim that God has absolute virtue; this claim cannot handle or stand up to the crappiness of His own actions.

Who cares – is the one who has reason vs the one who puts the “God did it, God is right” bandade over the lack of understanding.

Don’t lie.
I already disproved your claim that pleasure cannot be had without suffering.

[code]One common objection to the Problem of Suffering is the widespread claim that evil is necessary for good - that suffering is necessary for happiness. This is an opinion often shared by believers and non-believers alike, and it basically states that if we never experienced any suffering, we would have nothing against which to gauge our happiness - we would exist in a single static state which we could not truly enjoy without knowing what another state is like. The argument has some intuitive appeal to it, but that alone does not establish it. After all, contrary to intuition, cold is not the opposite of heat, but the lack of it - there is in fact no ‘opposite’ of heat, and no such opposite is needed for heat to be a meaningful concept. It seems at least somewhat plausible then that an analogy could be made between heat and happiness. If we lived in a world where there were merely degrees of happiness, but no suffering, happiness could still remain a meaningful thing. Of course, one might define suffering as the lack or relative lack of happiness. Even in this case, however, I think most of us can imagine happiness still existing meaningfully in a universe where there is less of even this type of suffering (in other words, where no one is so lacking in happiness as to have a terrible cancer or be killed by a natural disaster); thus again the universe could have been created with less suffering without destroying happiness. Happiness could still be balanced by suffering in a universe where innocent children (who lack even basic understanding of the situation) don’t die slow deaths from disease.

There is another important point to be made regarding the claim that suffering is necessary for happiness. In the Euthyphro, Plato posed the question - are good things good (and evil things evil) because ‘God’ makes them so, or does ‘God’ make them so because they are that way (i.e. ‘God’ follows the rules already set)? In a similar fashion, one might ask - did the deity in question fully design ‘the way things are’ (from the laws of physics to the nature of consciousness) or did it work within constraints already set forth somehow. If the latter, the deity seems to, in some way, lose it’s place as first-cause and creator/designer; also, its power becomes quite limited, and omnipotence is lost. If the former, then the deity in question designed the very ‘rules’ by which happiness requires suffering (if that is indeed the case). An omnipotent, omniscient and benevolent designer deity could, it seems plausible, have created a universe where happiness did not require suffering. The suggested relation between happiness and suffering, even were it true, is not a defense for the deity’s choice, since it chose to design that very relation in the first place.[/code]

His originally claimed paradise idealism is proof that “He” wanted the world to not have suffering; then the “freewill” of “sinners” is what gets the blame.

Compare them with the claims about a non-existent virtue of God.

When you find that special way of proving the invalidity of my arguments against the claims that were initially for God, you help show that arguments for and against a non-existent God are useless, because bible claims about God aren’t facts.

Human suffering in the world is due to human weakness, imbalance, and adamance. – But the bible blames an “original sin”; this claim is false.

I’m not talking about anti-theism, I’m talking about disprooving the bible, which I am doing a fine job of.

Only if YOU miss-apply what I say.

The bible – is full of falsehoods and unreason-able claims.

This converstation is not about a specific subject, it’s about a compound if imperfect miss-conception, dreams and idealism that people claim is actually God’s own word and will; this is about the bible being written by imperfect people – and not by a perfect, godly inspiration; I already proved the bible’s imperfection, aswel as science prooving the bible’s imperfection, but then the believers choose to either not adopt the view of the critic – or they ignore the facts that prove bible imperfection – or they choose to change their own person version of what the bible means, instead of taking it literally [which was the original way that it was taken, Jesus proved that he was taking Adam, Eve and the “original sin” literally when he allowed people to kill him for no real reason].

Either way, I’m right and the bible is an imperfect book that claims it represents a perfect God.

24

god said"in the day you eat from it(fruit) you will positivly die."
[note one day is as 1000 years to god in the bible]
no one EVER lived to be 1000 did they? 900 maybe but not 1000.
if god were to go back on this,he would have commited the 2nd ever lie.

it’s not to my likeing that this positivly die thing is hereditary,degenerative and slow. but you are quite determined to step on god’s toes and tell him/us "god F’d up."you are asserting you know better than your primeary maker. if it was some random process,you do.

to make yourself belive he is not real is one thing.to make me belive,you must get around the impossibility of us happening without ID.*

*one heck of an issue on other threads,but i stand by my BIG picture.and creation is my foundation. to crumble my arguement you must dissprove creation.

25

If [any of] you can’t handle the width of the debate, that’s not my fault.

Sure, that’s about it. The Creator is not all-mighty or perfect – in the sense of organic, civilized ethics and efficiency.

If God commands humans to practice Alturism, the fact is that [the all-mighty, all-seeing, all-knowing] God is not practicing Alturism, so He is not abiding by His own law, so He is a hypacrit in this way.
^
And no, He is not going to punish me for saying that – just like he does not punish & undo the wost evils on earth.

No! It’s not! Freewill is simply the ability to select a variety of values and options. Freewill is part of choice, and choice is part of thought, and thought is made by will-power.

Freewill is not the problem, imperfection and inadaquisey are the problem; these are genetic; these are the fault of the creator – more then they are the fault of the creation, but the creation is also personally accountable for its own deeds, if it has to answer to some form of like that can react to its actions (and that only happens on an organic scale here on earth. No heavenly justice here.).

Proof is only needed when there is a lack of understanding – that God could have given us, instead of first hand experience.

What grounds will God have at God allowing all to be unfair?

God doesn’t need any “grounds”, and neither do we.
If we don’t get some real solutions, then we are eventually dead – end of story. God can either sit around and be useless, or he can give us some solutions, but right now humanities reliance upon itself is the only thing that stops human extinction.

If God was all-wise, and knew that “all of this hell” was bad in the first place, why would he allow it? If I saw something was about to kill me, and I could avoid it, then I would avoid it, because I had understanding and a love for life, and then I had the ability to prevent a death; God does not have this, and those who claim that he does have this – are lieing.

That – is narrow minded. Universal, blanket policies leave room for exploitation, but isolated and unique law&principal for each unique individual organism is the only path to perfect justice/law.

God’s modern rulership and desition is imperfect and corruptable.

Then he’s one cold son-of-a-bitch.

26

So,you are saying there should have been an easyer way? i way in which suffering would not have been included? i’m fine with that.

you would assume that god should have created us without the capacity to do or feel evil i presume.

however that tree at the garden of eden was called the tree of the knowledge of good and bad.

it would have been alot easier if we were not given an object lesson,sure.
but i feel all will learn exactly what good and bad is from all of this.

there is also the god becomes a dictator approach. kills any who opposes him. enforces the law. no real free will?..if god would have instantly annihalited those rebels at eden,it would have proven god had more power,but would it prove they were indeed wrong to rebel?

thier lesson is painfull,and i’m not likeing that.i’m here,now. what will i do?curse my creator cuz i feel bad? no i wont,cuz i’m not that fickle.
he gave us life. it is now miserable. how will we use that life? will we make a powerfull statment though seemingly out numbered by evil?
of loyatly?

27

Dan~

 If you say it 10 more times, you'll suddenly be right! What you said was, that the presence of the Flu and Immune systems somehow showed that ID was fake- through a contradiction in God's aims, it seemed to me. Now you've said nothing to support that at all. I'll say it again: If's God aim was for the world to be more or less like it is, then nothing in the world contradicts those aims, obviously. You need to prove that you know what God's aims are, and then prove that they could have been accomplished better than they were, in order to have an allegation of contradiction.

Crappiness? I’ll take that to mean “actions that ~Dan sees fit to whine about”, in which case, there is no contradiction there either. It doesn’t suprise me at all to know that some humans would whine about the actions of a perfectly virtuous Being.

I’m sorry, but I’m a very reasonable person, and the longer you hold out that this is about religion VS reason, the longer it will be before you address any of the key points, and the longer it will be before you realize you’re making a fool of yourself.

You didn’t disprove anything, you skimmed an article on the Internet that seemed like it applied, and pasted it here. Also, I never claimed that pleasure cannot be had without suffering, I said that certain kinds of pleasure, and especially virtue, cannot be had without it. Specifically, I said that recovery from an illness or other bad condition was a pleasure, one that could not be had without suffering. I also said that charity, mercy, self-sacrifice and now I add courage are often considered the greatest of human virtues, and none of them can be had without suffering, either. The article you’re hiding behind doesn’t even mention these things.

You’ll have to explain this, are you saying something about Eden?

It blames original sin in a higher allegorical fable about man’s origins, sure. If it turned out there was no talking snake in a garden back in the day, Christianity would not exactly be shaken to it’s foundations, much less theism. But no, go ahead- how is the claim of original sin false?

Then how come your responses after this to other people go right back to being about ID, free will, and other general attacks on theism not related to the Bible?
To this very point now, your entire argument has been to show that ID (intelligent design) is false- through incoherent mumblings about the flu, a hack version of the problem of evil, and so on. If now you want to talk about the truth of the Bible, we can START talking about that, but it’s plain to anyone reading that’s now what you were after- unless you somehow thinking ‘disprooving the Bible’ and arguing against ID are the same thing…?

Oh, is that what you’d like to talk about starting now? You probably think that’s a much easier hurdle to jump, eh?

Yeah, no kidding, Thirst came to this realization and mentioned it to you way before I did, and even longer before it apparently struck you.