Do poly atheists know the Bible?

[Imran Siddiqui]

Of course it could be non-literal and only mean celibacy, but how can you possibly know which things Jesus said literally and which non-literally? Probably by going with whatever conforms to what you already believed.

Or, you know, taking Scripture seriously and trying to understand the context in which the words were said? And reading it within a very long Tradition of study.

This all assumes if you are discussing in good faith, which I don't think you actually are.

[Uncle Sparky]

What do you call a grown man with an imaginary friend? A lunatic.

What do you call a bunch of people with the SAME imaginary friend, who has a multiple personality disorder? Christians.

[Ban Kenobi]

Or, you know, taking Scripture seriously and trying to understand the context in which the words were said? And reading it within a very long Tradition of study.

This all assumes if you are discussing in good faith, which I don't think you actually are.

If by "discussing in good faith" you mean "being extremely charitable to the Bible and assuming none of it is stupid or wrong" then perhaps not. I don't get the impression that you really have a method for interpreting the Bible, you just go with whatever seems reasonable and if something doesn't make sense you can fall back on a couple millenia of people trying to rationalize it. You could prove me wrong by showing how you know which plain statements made by Jesus are literal and which aren't.

[Kidlicious]

Gribbler, if you can't even understand that Jesus didn't literally mean we should cut off our balls what's the use in trying to explain anything to you?

[Ban Kenobi]

And how do you know he didn't literally mean it...? Oh, right, that would seem ridiculous to us and we can assume Jesus never said anything ridiculous, therefore Jesus agrees with you.

[Ben Kenobi]

They are in the minority in most cases.

So why is that relevant? This is only relevant if you believe that "whatever most people believe is right is right."

The reason why consensus is important is only to show that other people also want to be treated the way I want to be treated in this regard.

So this is just subjectivism then. If consensus were to disagree with your personal values, you'd regard society as in the wrong. If it agrees, well, isn't that just convenient? What if I want someone to kill my wife? Why is that wrong, but assisted suicide ok?

That illustrates the overall benefit to humanity of disallowing murder as a general rule.

What overall benefit? You've not demonstrated any kind of societal benefit whatsoever.

It's what everyone wants for themselves

Ok. So you're assuming that giving people what they want is necessarily beneficial for society as a whole. Society exists to constrain people from their natural desires. Murder has a great individual benefit in many cases, else you would not see people killing people, and you wouldn't see laws against the practice.

, so protecting everyone from being murdered makes a lot of sense. (People who want to be murdered can just kill themselves ... )

Why? You certainly don't believe these protections should be extended to unborn children. Clearly 'protecting everyone from being murdered' doesn't make much sense at all, because looking after people is often difficult and inconvenient. Murder on the other hand is quite easy and convenient.

God gave them to Satan. He could have stopped Satan. His will was that they die so he could win his wager.

Ok. He could eradicate all evil, all disease, make people live forever. Why doesn't he?

Yep. Since God is claimed to be the authority behind the scripture, God (claimed via the authoritative source even) doing ****ty things call into question His morality in general.

What ****ty thing is God doing? God's not the one inflicting pain on Job. I'm surprised you have a ton of condemnation for God, but nothing for the Devil. Don't you believe he's responsible for his actions?

Why should I listen to someone about what is right or wrong when they feel letting people die to win a wager is something to do?

Again, do you believe that God has an obligation to prevent everyone from dying? Yes or no?

If God is omnipotent then everything that happens is done by him, or by his allowance for it to happen. Yes, that's the main problem I have with an omnipotent God ... every bad thing that's ever happened is necessarily his will being expressed.

What about the good things then? Is it only the bad which is his work and the good not his doing?

No. I didn't say "should" at all. I simiply said that most people, on most advanced subjects, will never be able to confirm those subjects on their own. They are reliant on experts int he field and their authority.

This is 100 percent contrary to what science is all about, btw. I could make this exact same argument wrt to religion and the Magisterium. Scientists are just the new priestly class of a nature religion.

Which is why the way authority presents itself is important. An engineer who builds their own house which collapses probably isn't the guy you want designing your house, even if you don't understand the engineering principles behind why his house collapsed.

Which brings us back to my point. It's important that scientific principles be empirically proven. This is why we believe them, not because of who did the proving and what resources they have behind them. Everytime science goes the route of authority, it results in bad science. Every time.

If people do not understand how it works, the solution is not, "believe in him because he has a lab coat". The solution is a way to figure out how to demonstrate these concepts so that people can understand how they work.

I'm glad though you can agree with me about why we should not trust the Bible on it's authority though.

Oh true. The problem is that, what else should we trust?

[Kidlicious]

And how do you know he didn't literally mean it...? Oh, right, that would seem ridiculous to us and we can assume Jesus never said anything ridiculous, therefore Jesus agrees with you.

I just know it. Just like I know the meaning of the Job, and if soneone tells me it means something else I can tell if that's bull****? How do I know that it's bull****. Can I prove it scientifically or in a court? How do you know art is beautiful? You either see the beauty or not. If you see it you know it's there.

[Ben Kenobi]

What do you call a bunch of people with the SAME imaginary friend, who has a multiple personality disorder? Christians.

What do you call people who believe that they themselves are God?

[Ban Kenobi]

Ok. He could eradicate all evil, all disease, make people live forever. Why doesn't he?

Because he doesn't exist.

[Aeson]

Wow. The attempts to miss, or rather deliberately obscure, the main point of the parable are stunning in its Ben-ness.

I haven't obscured anything. I noted several points that the story makes. I then made an analogy to what you are doing by pretending there's only one possible message of the story. You find the analogy "Ben-ness" ... which really means you find your position as such, since that's what it's an analogy to.

I just realized that you may not actually know what missing the forest for the trees actually means.
http://idioms.thefreedictionary.com/...+for+the+trees

I know when you use it you mean, "You don't agree with my myopic view about what the story is about, and keep trying to point out other issues than the one I'm incapable of seeing past."

[Aeson]

So why is that relevant?

For all the reasons you are ignoring.

So this is just subjectivism then. If consensus were to disagree with your personal values, you'd regard society as in the wrong. If it agrees, well, isn't that just convenient? What if I want someone to kill my wife? Why is that wrong, but assisted suicide ok?

Assisted suicide is where (in that situation) your wife asked for the assistance. I find it ok, since it's her life, she should be able to choose for herself.

In the case of you wanting someone to kill your wife, it is still your wife's life, and she still should be able to choose for herself.

I really hope you figure out the difference here before you ever actually do find a woman willing to marry you. Because it's a very important distinction.

What overall benefit? You've not demonstrated any kind of societal benefit whatsoever.

You're a moron if you need justification for why disallowing murder is of societal benefit.

Ok. So you're assuming that giving people what they want is necessarily beneficial for society as a whole.

No. Try again.

Society exists to constrain people from their natural desires.

No, that's only a small part of why society exists.

Murder has a great individual benefit in many cases, else you would not see people killing people, and you wouldn't see laws against the practice.

The benefit that matters is to the person who's life it is. Which generally is not benefited from being murdered.

I don't know why you hate Jesus and the Golden Rule so much, but you apparently disagree vehemently with it.

Why? You certainly don't believe these protections should be extended to unborn children. Clearly 'protecting everyone from being murdered' doesn't make much sense at all, because looking after people is often difficult and inconvenient. Murder on the other hand is quite easy and convenient.

If someone could show evidence that a fetus had sentience, I would 100% oppose abortion in those cases. At that point it's a being with it's own desires and rights. Which is why I oppose late-term abortions unless the woman's life is at risk.

Ok. He could eradicate all evil, all disease, make people live forever. Why doesn't he?

Ban's is probably the right answer.

There are many other possible answers that range from him not caring, to not being able to, to being a douchebag.

What ****ty thing is God doing? God's not the one inflicting pain on Job. I'm surprised you have a ton of condemnation for God, but nothing for the Devil. Don't you believe he's responsible for his actions?

It's rather ****ty to hand people over to Satan so he can have his way with them.

I'm not discussing Satan since no one here is claiming Satan's actions are noble and good. There's no argument from anyone here about that subject it seems. If someone were claiming Satan was awesome and did a really good job in Job, I would of course harangue them for being horridly stupid.

Again, do you believe that God has an obligation to prevent everyone from dying? Yes or no?

I think if you bring someone into existence, you should take responsibility for that existence and try to make it as good an existence as you can. This is what I would do for my own children. I certainly wouldn't hand them over to Satan to have his way with them just to win a bet.

I don't see why I shouldn't hold God to the same standard I would ask of myself (or expect from any decent human being).

What about the good things then? Is it only the bad which is his work and the good not his doing?

Yah, all the good things are his work too. But just because you do a bunch of good doesn't mean doing bad isn't doing bad.

This is 100 percent contrary to what science is all about, btw. I could make this exact same argument wrt to religion and the Magisterium. Scientists are just the new priestly class of a nature religion.

You're absurd. People use technology they don't understand every day. There's simply no way a person (even a highly intelligent one) can become an expert in every field.

This doesn't mean science is not empirical, it just means that from most people's perspectives, they're likely going to have to trust in their engineer, doctor, etc to know the answers they don't.

Which brings us back to my point. It's important that scientific principles be empirically proven. This is why we believe them, not because of who did the proving and what resources they have behind them. Everytime science goes the route of authority, it results in bad science. Every time.

You can't even parse simple English sentences.

If people do not understand how it works, the solution is not, "believe in him because he has a lab coat". The solution is a way to figure out how to demonstrate these concepts so that people can understand how they work.

People don't need to understand how everything works. The amount of time it would take to teach even highly intelligent people every last detail of modern technnology is absurd (and likely infinite ... the sum of human knowledge is growing faster than the rate at which a single person could learn it.)

Oh true. The problem is that, what else should we trust?

That you will be wrong about essentially everything.

[Ben Kenobi]

For all the reasons you are ignoring.

If morality is objective, whether any particular group of people or section of people at any particular time believe in it is irrelevant when evaluating the rightness or wrongness of said morality. If morality is subjective, it's also irrelevant because you couldn't evaluated rightness or wrongness through polling.

Assisted suicide is where (in that situation) your wife asked for the assistance.

How does society know she asked for it? Is my word as her husband and the only one to observe her dying sufficient to establish her desire to kill herself?

I find it ok, since it's her life, she should be able to choose for herself.

So you don't believe that society has an interest in suicide preventation?

In the case of you wanting someone to kill your wife, it is still your wife's life, and she still should be able to choose for herself.

What if I killed her and then said she was begging me to kill her to spare her suffering?

I really hope you figure out the difference here before you ever actually do find a woman willing to marry you. Because it's a very important distinction.

Oh, indeed. It really creeps me out that wanting to kill yourself is something we should just accept, and that trying to save and help someone who is suicidal is wrong.

You're a moron if you need justification for why disallowing murder is of societal benefit.

Smacking me with the 'oh it's obvious stick', doesn't answer the question. You've stated that society derives a benefit and I am challenging this preposition. How exactly does society benefit from this prohibition?

Or better yet - if it were conclusively shown that society actually benefited from murder, would that make it right?

No. Try again.

Ok, then, it's insufficient to establish that 'society benefits', just because certain laws align with your values.

No, that's only a small part of why society exists.

So why does society exist then? I've given you the Hobbesian argument.

The benefit that matters is to the person who's life it is. Which generally is not benefited from being murdered.

You've already stated that if the victim perceives a benefit associated with murder that it's ok to kill them. Even if they do not express said desire, because it aligns with their wishes to die. Autonomy triumphs everything else.

I don't know why you hate Jesus and the Golden Rule so much, but you apparently disagree vehemently with it.

If you want to die, does that make it ok to kill others?

If someone could show evidence that a fetus had sentience

Why does this matter? Are you saying that murder is only murder if the victim can perceive it?

At that point it's a being with it's own desires and rights

Interesting. So it's ok to murder people that you personally believe lack their own desires. Quite curious then the ban on murdering people.

Which is why I oppose late-term abortions unless the woman's life is at risk.

So because someone else may die, it's ok to kill an innocent bystander? Most would argue that it's not ok to kill an innocent bystander in order to attempt to preserve the live of another. You wouldn't side with the cop shooting through someone to kill the hostage taker.

Ban's is probably the right answer.

If he doesn't exist then why attribute evil things to him and not good things? It makes no sense to me. People look at suffering and say, "well a truly good God would remove this suffering. Ergo, since suffering exists, God must not exist."

It's rather ****ty to hand people over to Satan so he can have his way with them.

****tier than actually torturing them?

I'm not discussing Satan since no one here is claiming Satan's actions are noble and good.

You're discussing agency here.

There's no argument from anyone here about that subject it seems. If someone were claiming Satan was awesome and did a really good job in Job, I would of course harangue them for being horridly stupid.

Satan has free will too. He can choose not to torture anyone. He can choose to not do anything at all. God didn't order Satan, "torture this man", he simply said to Satan - "you may do with him within certain circumscribed limits."

It's like taking your child and giving him a certain responsibility. How the child chooses to manage said responsibility - is a clue to you whether to give the child more responsibility. Are you at fault if your child screws up? Or are you simply doing things with a well meaning purpose and end to it?

I think if you bring someone into existence, you should take responsibility for that existence and try to make it as good an existence as you can.

Ok. He offers that in heaven. Eternal life without pain and suffering.

This is what I would do for my own children. I certainly wouldn't hand them over to Satan to have his way with them just to win a bet.

If you had a child that you trusted and who loved you very much, would you give them the keys to your house, knowing that many things could go wrong with them being home alone? Would you go to your friend and say, "my son loves me very much and I am going to trust him with the keys?"

I don't see why I shouldn't hold God to the same standard I would ask of myself (or expect from any decent human being).

You trust your child with people you consider trustworthy and there are going to be times when you have to trust them to the care of others that you don't believe are trustworthy.

Yah, all the good things are his work too. But just because you do a bunch of good doesn't mean doing bad isn't doing bad.

So, if good things are done by Him and bad things are done by Satan, does it make it God's fault for the evil things that Satan does? Is someone at fault when in doing good, some people aren't helped? That's the point you're making here. You're blaming the person who is helping some people for not helping everyone.

You're absurd. People use technology they don't understand every day.

Do they use it because someone on TV told them to, or because it works?

This doesn't mean science is not empirical, it just means that from most people's perspectives, they're likely going to have to trust in their engineer, doctor, etc to know the answers they don't.

People who make decisions based on the authority of other people and not asking questions as to whether it will actually work - are opening themselves up to plenty of hurt. Caveat Emptor and all.

You can't even parse simple English sentences.

Again, do you buy something because the guy in the white suit on TV told you so?

People don't need to understand how everything works.

But you can demonstrate to them in a way that they understand that it works. That they are better off with it. This is why people use things. Why they use certain tools. They observe someone using them and using them in a way that they can see what the tool can do for them.

That you will be wrong about essentially everything.

The basic question is, "who should be the authority"? Yourself? Someone else?

[Kidlicious]

God is evil should easily be ruled out if you believe humans are good and do good. How can evil do good by creating things that do good?

[Aeson]

How does society know she asked for it? Is my word as her husband and the only one to observe her dying sufficient to establish her desire to kill herself?

In the vast majority of cases we know she asked for it by waiting for her to ask for it in a way that is verifiable.

In some extremely limited cases we aren't sure. Then we basically just decide who we trust more and go with their version of what she wanted.

You will note that in cases where it's after-the-fact, we rarely if ever trust the one who did the killing already.

So you don't believe that society has an interest in suicide preventation?

I don't think society's right overrides the right of the person to chose for themselves as to whether to continue their life or not.

What if I killed her and then said she was begging me to kill her to spare her suffering?

See above. You're almost surely not going to be viewed as a trustworthy source after the fact.

[Kidlicious]

Because he doesn't exist.

Or because it serves a higher purpose, a greater good. The point you really miss in Job is that Job (humanity) doesn't understand why bad things happen. That means you can't understand why God would make a bet with Satan. You assume it's because he is evil. The author, however, makes it clear that God is not evil. So he must have a good reason for betting Satan. It's just that you can't see it.