Do poly atheists know the Bible?

[Aeson]

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."

If you're saying God is a moron who didn't realize what handing people over to Satan would result in, then yes, God didn't have any culpability.

However God is usually depicted as all-knowing, in which case by choosing to hand them over to Satan he was also consciously choosing the end that would lead to.

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?

If I were omniscient, your analogy might apply.

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

Of which we have no evidence of course.

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?"

If I was all knowing and thus knew exactly what the child would do, it wouldn't be trust.

I'm not sure, but you seem to be saying Satan is trustworthy? Or are you just mixing up your analogies like everything else?

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.

I am not all knowing of course. God is assumed to be.

Satan (assuming he exists in the manner depicted in the Bible) isn't simply "untrustworthy" in any case. It's not like leaving your kid at a daycare where the floors aren't as clean as you'd like, but having no other options. It's handing your child over to Satan knowing full well that it will result in the death of the child. Very different things.

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.

I wouldn't call "giving my children over to Satan" as "doing good". But we obviously have different ideas about what is "good".

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

Often it plays a part. If someone with experience with a type of tool tells me that tool X is better than tool Y, and I trust their opinion, I will go with tool X unless there's some other source of info that appears to be more valid.

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.

At which point they dont' really understand how it works still. Much like you don't really understand what I've said.

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

Not the person giving their children over to Satan or obsessing over how to kill their wife and get away with it I suppose ...

[Aeson]

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.

I'm sorry it creeps you out to observe the wishes of other people about how they want to live their life.

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?

If I'm going to explain this to you, I first want you to claim that you disagree with the evaluation. There's really no point in trying to prove something when we both already agree with the conclusion I am promoting.

So just say, "I think allowing murder is beneficial for society" and I will proceed to waste my time proving why you're stupid to say so.

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

If we could show that **** tasted good and was healthy for you, people would eat it. If it had always been that way people wouldn't even think it was weird to eat ****. Kids would be running out to the **** truck to get a scoop of frozen **** on hot afternoons, and their parents sitting on the porch would smile at the enjoyment of the moment.

However, everything we know about **** is that it's disease ridden, smells horrible, and so we don't even want to try the taste of it. This is the same thing with murder. It's obviously against the will of almost everyone in society because of it's nature. If it's nature was different, then yah, so would be it's evaluation.

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

No. You just aren't looking at the big picture. Society can't benefit from disregarding the will of people in society to do what they will with their own self. That is the fundamental basis of freedom. Without it we're all just slaves. So when you say "oh, society benefits from making everyone slaves in constant fear of their lives" you are claiming something that can't actually happen.

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

There are countless reasons why society exists. The most integral is because there is more than 1 person within any given geographical region that we'd associate with any given society. The one that refutes you that the only reason society exists is that society benefits people towards obtaining their desires, not just limits them from it.

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.

There is no way to verify the "victim" perceiving a "benefit" in that case. (The use of "victim" and "murder" tends to suggest that it's quite otherwise.)

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

No.

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

It matters because I don't agree that killing a non-sentient being (say, a tree) and killing a sentient being (say, most people) are the same thing.

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

If all evidence were to show that a person had no sentience, then they really aren't a person. There are very few cases where this happens an the person isn't actually dead though.

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.

You've gone off the deep end now. This has nothing to do with anything I've said.

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."

I don't attribute anything to him. The story however does, and I discuss the things the story has attributed to him.

****tier than actually torturing them?

An all knowing all powerful being which hands someone over to be tortured is expressing their will for them to be tortured. There's no way around it. It's like saying throwing a baby in the ocean isn't drowning the baby, the ocean is the one downing the baby. Or like saying shooting someone isn't killing them. Only the bullet is guilty of murder.

It's just ridiculous logic.

You're discussing agency here.

Again, completely irrelevant to your assertion that I should be talking about how Satan is bad even though no one is arguing against that.

[molly bloom]

God gave you everything you have and life itself. Nice attitude.

Oh grow a pair, Mary. Is this the same loving, caring, sharing beneficent god that designed a delightful disease (epidermolysis bullosa) that kills children slowly and painfully ?

Epidermolysis Bullosa (EB) is a group of genetic disorders that result in fragility of the skin and, in some cases, other internal membranes and organs. Blisters, open wounds and sores form as a result of the slightest touch, rub or trauma.

Certain types of EB can be fatal in infancy and others are severely life-limiting. We estimate that there more than 5,000 people with EB in the UK, and 500,000 worldwide.

EB may be inherited in either a dominant (usually one parent carries the gene for EB and is affected by the condition themselves) or a recessive form (where both parents carry the gene but are usually unaffected, so the birth of an affected child is totally unexpected).

EB can also arise through a new spontaneous mutation whereby neither parent carries EB yet the gene mutates spontaneously in either the sperm or the egg before conception.

In dominant EB, there is a 50% chance of passing the disorder to children: in recessive EB the chance is 25%.

https://www.debra.org.uk/article-what-is-eb.html

Must be. And we ll know what major league scoundrels, retrobates and sinners small children are.

Presumably the same nice deity also designed vitamin deficiency diseases which afflict those well known blackguards, the poor, the deprived and famine victims ?

The face of poverty

Symptom of total destitution


The epicenter of this disease is in sub-Saharan Africa, the poorest region of the continent. There is a lack of knowledge about the exact etiology and extent of the phenomenon. It seems to be caused by a deficiency of the immune system as a result of malnutrition and, according to the WHO, it affects thousands of 2 to 6 year-old children every year. Epidemiological estimates are underway, but there are many obstacles: isolated and inaccessible locations, deficient health services, no systematic recording of cases, data manipulation by the authorities, extremely high mortality, hidden victims…

The infection develops within a few days from gingivitis, becoming ulcero-necrotic, to an unnoticed edema of the cheek, and then, with weakening of the natural defenses, becomes irreversible. The disease is even more unacceptable in this 21st century, given that a simple, inexpensive antibiotic treatment will prevent the development of gangrene, if it is administered at the onset of the first symptoms.

http://www.windsofhope.org/comprendrelenoma/prendreconscience/4/14/details.html?lang=en

[molly bloom]

Now the Bible is clear that we are not just God's play things. But you, mb, and others like to play this little game. That's cool though.

You're right. Mr. Yahweh says we have the free will not to believe he is all powerful and all knowing. But oh my, he has plans for us if we do not...

...... lest the anger of the LORD thy God be kindled against thee, and destroy thee from off the face of the earth.

That's from that lovely children's book, Deuteronomy.

As is this :

And then the Lord's wrath be kindled against you, and he shut up the heaven, that there be no rain, and that the land yield not her fruit; and lest ye perish quickly from off the good land which the Lord giveth you.

Just so you get the message :

Therefore shall ye lay up these my words in your heart and in your soul, and bind them for a sign upon your hand, that they may be as frontlets between your eyes.

And ye shall teach them your children, speaking of them when thou sittest in thine house, and when thou walkest by the way, when thou liest down, and when thou risest up.

Yay, let's hear it for supernatural carrot and stick time.

[molly bloom]

This is basic, basic stuff, Imran.

One would have thought a supposed history teacher would have known that Elizabeth I did not designate an heir. And that William III Orange and Mary Stuart had no children. And that the United Provinces was a republic in the 17th Century.

If you want to live in a greenhouse, Sister Bendy, don't use a catapult indoors.

[molly bloom]

How hard is it to just admit you were wrong, Sister Bendy? It's happened before.

Roll up! Roll up!


The State of Texas has a new carny attraction!


See the world's largest irony board !!!!!!

[molly bloom]

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

Religiously deranged.

[Ban Kenobi]

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?

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

[Kidlicious]

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

I don't believe humans are evil.

[Ban Kenobi]

Not even Hitler or Stalin or Obama...?

[Ben Kenobi]

I'm sorry it creeps you out to observe the wishes of other people about how they want to live their life.

If my wife tells me she wants to commit suicide you'd better believe I'm going to get her some help. Not shoot her, because 'that's fulfilling her wishes'. I notice you ignored that question, the one where I asked, "is the husband's word sufficient to establish that she wanted to die?"

If I'm going to explain this to you, I first want you to claim that you disagree with the evaluation. There's really no point in trying to prove something when we both already agree with the conclusion I am promoting.

I've already explained why murder is wrong. You have not. Which leads me to believe that if society were to change and permit murder you'd be arguing that murder is good. This, naturally, concerns me.

So just say, "I think allowing murder is beneficial for society" and I will proceed to waste my time proving why you're stupid to say so.

I've explained why it's wrong. You've cited that 'so long as society agrees with banning it that makes it wrong." There are problems with this view which is why I'm asking these questions.

If we could show that **** tasted good and was healthy for you, people would eat it. If it had always been that way people wouldn't even think it was weird to eat ****. Kids would be running out to the **** truck to get a scoop of frozen **** on hot afternoons, and their parents sitting on the porch would smile at the enjoyment of the moment.

So when Margaret Sanger comes along and says that the earth is overpopulated, and we should be able to kill undesireables, you see this as nonsense?

However, everything we know about **** is that it's disease ridden, smells horrible, and so we don't even want to try the taste of it. This is the same thing with murder. It's obviously against the will of almost everyone in society because of it's nature. If it's nature was different, then yah, so would be it's evaluation.

If 'it's nature were different?' What, the nature of murder? If you believed that everyone who died was going to heaven that would make murder ok?

Society can't benefit from disregarding the will of people in society

Uhh, again, you're assuming that:

1, democracy is the best way to organize society and that:
2, yes, society as a whole cannot benefit from stripping subsections of society of rights.

2 is false. This is why you've cited many times over that 'minority rights need to be protected.' Again, it's quite possible for society in general to benefit from stripping people of rights. 1, I agree that democracy is the best way to organize society, but again, there are serious problems within democracy that need checks and balances to prevent negative outcomes.

That is the fundamental basis of freedom. Without it we're all just slaves.

Again, if there were no benefit to people from slavery, then there's no reason for it to happen. Bad things don't happen because they are bad, bad things happen because it stands in the interests of certain people to benefit. As for slavery, we're already slaves, Aeson. The owner has just changed from a private one where you can escape to the state which you cannot.

If the mafia were to show up and demand a fourth of your wages, you'd call it oppressive. If the state were to do the same thing, you'd call it progressive. The result is the same.

So when you say "oh, society benefits from making everyone slaves in constant fear of their lives" you are claiming something that can't actually happen.

Uh, yeah. It's perfectly possible for society as a whole to benefit from enslaving minorities. That's why it's done.

The one that refutes you that the only reason society exists is that society benefits people towards obtaining their desires, not just limits them from it.

Again, this conflicts with Hobbes who argues that society is in place to constrain men from their natural impulses.

There is no way to verify the "victim" perceiving a "benefit" in that case.

Sure there is. If the wife has a disability, you'd support her dying because you believe her life to be unworthy of being lived, that it's painful and that she suffers.

No.

The Golden rule presumes well-ordered desires. This is an important distinction. Desires are desires. Some are well-ordered, and others are not. Society has to check desires that are not well-ordered, or what sociologists tend to call, 'anti-social'.

It matters because I don't agree that killing a non-sentient being (say, a tree) and killing a sentient being (say, most people) are the same thing.

Are you arguing that a tree is the same thing as an embryo?

If all evidence were to show that a person had no sentience, then they really aren't a person. There are very few cases where this happens an the person isn't actually dead though.

What if they had different levels of pigmentation? What makes your standard superior to this one?

You've gone off the deep end now. This has nothing to do with anything I've said.

So you think it's ok for the cop to shoot through an innocent bystander in order to shoot the person holding someone hostage? It has everything to do with it.

I don't attribute anything to him.

You've already stated that God is responsible for all the evil in the world because he doesn't prevent it from happening.

An all knowing all powerful being which hands someone over to be tortured is expressing their will for them to be tortured. There's no way around it. It's like saying throwing a baby in the ocean isn't drowning the baby, the ocean is the one downing the baby. Or like saying shooting someone isn't killing them. Only the bullet is guilty of murder.

Are you saying that Satan didn't have free will to choose to torture Job?

[Berzerker]

maybe God's creation was "contaminated" with evil because creation was not ex nihilo, even the story of Adam says God used clay or dirt and he says from dust to dust about our fate

[Ben Kenobi]

with evil because creation was not ex nihilo, even the story of Adam says God used clay or dirt and he says from dust to dust about our fate

So he created evil dirt and used that to make man?

[Aeson]

Not even Hitler or Stalin or Obama...?

You should try females instead.

[Aeson]

I've already explained why murder is wrong. You have not. Which leads me to believe that if society were to change and permit murder you'd be arguing that murder is good. This, naturally, concerns me.

I've actually already explained it at least 3 times explicitly in this thread (and several more times indirectly).

The reason is simply because a person has the right to choose what they will do with their own life, and doesn't have the right to take away that right from anyone else. Murder is one of the, if not the most extreme forum of violating the right of another person to choose what they will do with their own life.

Thanks for the laughs, I'll be travelling today though so can't participate till later ...