Critical thinking, Why? Because apparently I am rubbish at it.

[Gordon]

Dear Vlad,

You have done it again, upsetting the atheists, jolly bad form

Dear Arun,

Light and joy more a quiet contentment✝️ Well except when I log on to this forum then I am FFSING all over the place, this forum is probably bad for my Karma❤️

Anyway, critical thinking, lets bring a bit of critical thinking into the problem of as you put it "unspeakable horrors in this world".

How much is the war in Ukraine and Gaza costing, where do you think Our Lord Jesus would rather that money be spent? I do not have to use much critical thinking to work this one out. This definitely makes me FFizz.

But the above problem is only the tip of the iceberg when it comes to mans inhumanity to man.

Gonnagle.

Have to say - if the 'God' Christians worship is indeed an 'omni God', as some of them believe, then surely it could stop these conflicts in an instant if it wanted to.

The 'Problem of Evil' indicates that either there is no 'omni God', or there is one but it doesn't give a fuck: why anyone would worship that beats me.

[Free Willy]

I never claimed it was an atheist argument. It is my argument. Gonners is into all this light and joy without considering the flipside in his assessment of god/religion/whatever the heck he's wibbling on about.

First of, I don’t share your view. If there is a problem, it’s with what God has allowed or conceded. That is the puzzle. Sure you can take the hard positional patriarchal view of certain religions or atheists but we forget the New Testament If you do that.

Secondly why should I take your view and not Gonnagle’s? Have you suffered more than he has or have you just come out more bitter in the end?

Critical thinking must surely include the thought that "hold on, God created all this and then threw in a get out clause (freewill) so that really bad things continue to happen while claiming to be a God of love". I would have thought that would give even the most ardent believer pause to reconsider matters, but no.....all quite happy with this god that allows unspeakable horrors.

Get out clause? Get out from what? What can be more morally final than the most moral thing? The most moral thing being what many seek. As John Gray, the atheist philosopher has said this has not been found in humanity or is likely to If that’s where you are trying to find it. Nor can we say humanity is progressing and getting better UNLESS there is a valid comparison.

Have you been critical enough on yourself in your search for the morally real, most moral entity?

[Free Willy]

Have to say - if the 'God' Christians worship is indeed an 'omni God', as some of them believe, then surely it could stop these conflicts in an instant if it wanted to.

The 'Problem of Evil' indicates that either there is no 'omni God', or there is one but it doesn't give a fuck: why anyone would worship that beats me.

But there is also a problem for you in the notion of Omnibenevolence. Who gets to decide what that is? Mine includes freewill, and God’s gift of himself in Jesus. What does yours include and how can it be achieved without unforeseen consequences?

[Stranger]

First of, I don’t share your view. If there is a problem, it’s with what God has allowed or conceded. That is the puzzle.

A puzzle!? If this world is a design, then the designer is amoral, at the very best. If it even notices and cares about humans and other animals, it is a sadistic monster.

Sure you can take the hard positional patriarchal view of certain religions or atheists...

Patriarchal? What the fuck are you wittering about?

...but we forget the New Testament If you do that.

The NT just makes things worse. The idiotic, foolish, unjust, bizarre, sadomasochistic nonsense of the crucifixion.

Secondly why should I take your view and not Gonnagle’s?

By assessing the argument. Gonnagle doesn't even seem to know if God refers to a thinking being or not...

What can be more morally final than the most moral thing? The most moral thing being what many seek. As John Gray, the atheist philosopher has said this has not been found in humanity or is likely to If that’s where you are trying to find it. Nor can we say humanity is progressing and getting better UNLESS there is a valid comparison.

Have you been critical enough on yourself in your search for the morally real, most moral entity?

The 'most moral thing' is a subjective ideal.

But there is also a problem for you in the notion of Omnibenevolence. Who gets to decide what that is? Mine includes freewill, and God’s gift of himself in Jesus.

Freewill is logically impossible with respect to an omniscient omnipotent creator, and the 'gift of Jesus' is God being insanely unjust and unfair.

[Free Willy]

A puzzle!? If this world is a design, then the designer is amoral, at the very best. If it even notices and cares about humans and other animals, it is a sadistic monster.

Patriarchal? What the fuck are you wittering about?

The NT just makes things worse. The idiotic, foolish, unjust, bizarre, sadomasochistic nonsense of the crucifixion.

By assessing the argument. Gonnagle doesn't even seem to know if God refers to a thinking being or not...

The 'most moral thing' is a subjective ideal.

Freewill is logically impossible with respect to an omniscient omnipotent creator, and the 'gift of Jesus' is God being insanely unjust and unfair.

Another day, another Shit flood from Big S.

[Free Willy]

A puzzle!? If this world is a design, then the designer is amoral, at the very best. If it even notices and cares about humans and other animals, it is a sadistic monster.

Patriarchal? What the fuck are you wittering about?

The NT just makes things worse. The idiotic, foolish, unjust, bizarre, sadomasochistic nonsense of the crucifixion.

By assessing the argument. Gonnagle doesn't even seem to know if God refers to a thinking being or not...

The 'most moral thing' is a subjective ideal.

Freewill is logically impossible with respect to an omniscient omnipotent creator, and the 'gift of Jesus' is God being insanely unjust and unfair.

Our whole legal system, belief in rights is based on the idea of freedom.

If there is no moral reality what right do you think you have calling anyone unjust and then thinking you are correct?Answer no warrant at all.

[Free Willy]

A puzzle!? If this world is a design, then the designer is amoral, at the very best. If it even notices and cares about humans and other animals, it is a sadistic monster.

If the world is designed then the designer must be amoral. Explain how you get from a to b here? Where does morality come from then?

Patriarchal?

Masculine and ruling some might say tyrannical. For some God is simultaneously tyrranical and weak depending on what suits their argument at the time

The NT just makes things worse. The idiotic, foolish, unjust, bizarre, sadomasochistic nonsense of the crucifixion.

The 'most moral thing' is a subjective ideal.

And you hoped to win this argument with a stream of subjective ideas vis, idiotic, foolish etc.

[Gonnagle]

Have to say - if the 'God' Christians worship is indeed an 'omni God', as some of them believe, then surely it could stop these conflicts in an instant if it wanted to.

The 'Problem of Evil' indicates that either there is no 'omni God', or there is one but it doesn't give a fuck: why anyone would worship that beats me.

Dear Gordon,

The thread is Critical thinking and the masters of all critical thinking are the Atheists, so put your critical thinking hat on and remember you have to see the other fellows point of view, you need to walk a mile in Gods shoes.

Gonnagle.

PS: Bonus points will be awarded for showing your working.

PS PS: There is no time limit on this exam.

[Gordon]

Dear Gordon,

The thread is Critical thinking and the masters of all critical thinking are the Atheists, so put your critical thinking hat on and remember you have to see the other fellows point of view, you need to walk a mile in Gods shoes.

Gonnagle.

PS: Bonus points will be awarded for showing your working.

PS PS: There is no time limit on this exam.

Gonners

I can certainly look at the other fellow's point of view: in this context that Christianity should be taken seriously, and that the NT anecdotes about 'Jesus' should be seen as especially profound or significant.

Having done that I can conclude that core claims of Christianity (that Jesus was divine, came back from the dead, could perform miracles, that he is still available to have a relationship with and is some kind of 'saviour') and conclude that these aspects are fallacious and/or incoherent, and that the lack of provenance regarding the NT anecdotes means that there are risks involving copying errors, mistakes and outright lies that cannot be, from this distance, ever resolved, so that what Jesus is reported to have actually said can reasonably be doubted - so I can simply dismiss this fellow's point of view, however sincerely he holds it, as not being a serious proposition.

On that basis, my critical appraisal is that Christianity is no more than codified nonsense, for the reasons noted above. I do understand that some people take it seriously, find it profound or like the 'window dressing' that surrounds it, but since I can see no good reasons or compelling evidence to take it seriously in the first place then I could never 'walk in their shoes' - for even a single step.

[Stranger]

The thread is Critical thinking and the masters of all critical thinking are the [meaningless gibberish], so put your critical thinking hat on and remember you have to see the other fellows point of view, you need to walk a mile in [meaningless gibberish] shoes.

You're not making any sense because you won't say what God refers to....

[Gonnagle]

Gonners

I can certainly look at the other fellow's point of view: in this context that Christianity should be taken seriously, and that the NT anecdotes about 'Jesus' should be seen as especially profound or significant.

Having done that I can conclude that core claims of Christianity (that Jesus was divine, came back from the dead, could perform miracles, that he is still available to have a relationship with and is some kind of 'saviour') and conclude that these aspects are fallacious and/or incoherent, and that the lack of provenance regarding the NT anecdotes means that there are risks involving copying errors, mistakes and outright lies that cannot be, from this distance, ever resolved, so that what Jesus is reported to have actually said can reasonably be doubted - so I can simply dismiss this fellow's point of view, however sincerely he holds it, as not being a serious proposition.

On that basis, my critical appraisal is that Christianity is no more than codified nonsense, for the reasons noted above. I do understand that some people take it seriously, find it profound or like the 'window dressing' that surrounds it, but since I can see no good reasons or compelling evidence to take it seriously in the first place then I could never 'walk in their shoes' - for even a single step.

Dear Gordon,

there are risks involving copying errors, mistakes and outright lies

Correct.

Who wrote the Bible, man, another way of describing man, homo Sapiens, and yet another way is homo narrans, we love to tell a story, but if the only way you read the book is looking for errors, good luck.

Gonnagle.

[Stranger]

Our whole legal system, belief in rights is based on the idea of freedom.

Doesn't change the logic that any freedom with respect to a being that has full control over our entire nature, nurture, and experience, is impossible.

If there is no moral reality what right do you think you have calling anyone unjust and then thinking you are correct?Answer no warrant at all.

Morality is based on empathy and compassion. Whereas exactly how that is interpreted is subjective, we can clearly see that any designer of the world had precious little of either. We could also apply what most Christians see as moral to the a designer of this world, and to the God described in the bible, for that matter, and see that it is manifestly unjust in those terms.

If the world is designed then the designer must be amoral. Explain how you get from a to b here?

This is just the problem of evil, and the endless suffering caused by nature itself.

Masculine and ruling some might say tyrannical.

I know what the word means, I just don't see what the hell it has to do with atheists...

And you hoped to win this argument with a stream of subjective ideas vis, idiotic, foolish etc.

We've discussed the absurdity of "Jesus dying for our sins" nonsense before. It's idiotic. God punishes the whole of creation for somebody eating the wrong fruit (whatever you think that represents), so we are all incapable of living up to God's standard, so we then stand in judgement for being punished and being as God made us. Then, God decides that it can all be made right again if it cosplays a human for a while, makes sure he's tortured to death, but not real death because he pops up again after only three days, but this magically makes it alright to forgive us for being how it made us, but only if we believe this crazy insane nonsense....

[Gordon]

Dear Gordon,

there are risks involving copying errors, mistakes and outright lies

Correct.

Who wrote the Bible, man, another way of describing man, homo Sapiens, and yet another way is homo narrans, we love to tell a story, but if the only way you read the book is looking for errors, good luck.

Gonnagle.

Gonners

If you are reading it as metaphor, or allegory or just plain illustrative storytelling then errors don't matter since, in that sense, the text is implicitly fictional. If read that way then I suppose there is 'meaning' to be found (as is the case in lots of literary prose that appeals to specific readers).

However, if the text is presumed to be accurate documentary history, and some Christians think it is, then that is a different matter entirely and the unaddressed risks of errors or lies fundamentally undermines any presumption of it being history.

[Free Willy]

Doesn't change the logic that any freedom with respect to a being that has full control over our entire nature, nurture, and experience, is impossible.

If you think logic is on your side, you know what to do, but to reckon, as you seem to that an omnipotent being has to do something seems rather odd. To say he cannot allow any freedoms anywhere comes into this. As always there is on this forum the arrogant delusion that though the free will/ determinism debate rages in the world, at Religionethics we atheists, we few, we happy band, put it to bed years ago.

[Stranger]

If you think logic is on your side, you know what to do...

Do you really need the argument again!? Ho-hum. If the exact state of your mind, and the exact state of everything it is perceiving at the moment of a choice, does not fully determine the outcome, then there can be no reason at all for one possible outcome rather than the others. Something that happens for no reason is random and randomness cannot make us more free.

This makes very little difference from a human point of view, because the details are way beyond our ability to access, but to an omniscient, omnipotent creator, it would be obvious what everyone will choose given the way it chose to set up the world. That is, it would effectively make all our choices for us.

...but to reckon, as you seem to that an omnipotent being has to do something seems rather odd. To say he cannot allow any freedoms anywhere comes into this.

It's a question of logic. If you think your God can do the logically impossible (like draw a square circle), then you'd have a point, otherwise not.

As always there is on this forum the arrogant delusion that though the free will/ determinism debate rages in the world, at Religionethics we atheists, we few, we happy band, put it to bed years ago.

I've read an awful lot about this but never seen an effective counterargument, but do feel free to post one...

[Gonnagle]

Gonners

If you are reading it as metaphor, or allegory or just plain illustrative storytelling then errors don't matter since, in that sense, the text is implicitly fictional. If read that way then I suppose there is 'meaning' to be found (as is the case in lots of literary prose that appeals to specific readers).

However, if the text is presumed to be accurate documentary history, and some Christians think it is, then that is a different matter entirely and the unaddressed risks of errors or lies fundamentally undermines any presumption of it being history.

Dear Gordon,

Correct, some Christians👍but the Holy Bible never was, never has been, never will be a accurate documentary history but ( and its a bloody big but ) your good self and quite a number of other atheists on this forum fall into the same category as the "some Christians" you are fundies, fundamental Atheists, so I will be adding that to my growing list of the different atheistic sects, committed Atheist, authentic Atheist, positive atheist, negative atheist, agnostic atheist and now fundie atheists.

Gonnagle.

PS: Sorry New atheists, but I think they are just fundamental atheists.

[Stranger]

Dear Gordon,

Correct, some [meaningless gibberish]👍but the Holy Bible never was, never has been, never will be a accurate documentary history but ( and its a bloody big but ) your good self and quite a number of other [meaningless gibberish] on this forum fall into the same category as the "some [meaningless gibberish]" you are fundies, fundamental [meaningless gibberish], so I will be adding that to my growing list of the different [meaningless gibberish] sects, committed [meaningless gibberish], authentic [meaningless gibberish], positive [meaningless gibberish], negative [meaningless gibberish], agnostic [meaningless gibberish] and now fundie [meaningless gibberish].

Gonnagle.

PS: Sorry New [meaningless gibberish], but I think they are just fundamental [meaningless gibberish].

No meaning for the word 'God' ⟺ no meaning for 'atheist' or 'Christian'...

Actually "fundamental atheists" is pretty much gibberish without your absurd refusal to say what 'God' refers to. We can only deal with the ideas of God with which we are presented. If that's fundamentalist, then that's what we'll deal with, if not, then not.

In your case, we have no clue what you mean by 'God' because you have point-blank refused to clarify, so all you say on the subject is meaningless.

[Gordon]

Dear Gordon,

Correct, some Christians👍but the Holy Bible never was, never has been, never will be a accurate documentary history but ( and its a bloody big but ) your good self and quite a number of other atheists on this forum fall into the same category as the "some Christians" you are fundies, fundamental Atheists, so I will be adding that to my growing list of the different atheistic sects, committed Atheist, authentic Atheist, positive atheist, negative atheist, agnostic atheist and now fundie atheists.

Gonnagle.

PS: Sorry New atheists, but I think they are just fundamental atheists.

I don't think there are these differences - atheism reduces to not holding beliefs about the existence of divine/supernatural agents/gods.

Perhaps you are picking up on how assertively that position is being expressed.

[Dicky Underpants]

Dear Gordon,

there are risks involving copying errors, mistakes and outright lies

Correct.

Who wrote the Bible, man, another way of describing man, homo Sapiens, and yet another way is homo narrans, we love to tell a story, but if the only way you read the book is looking for errors, good luck.

Gonnagle.

"if the only way you read the book is looking for errors, good luck."

Bit below the belt to Gordon that, Gonners. Gordon has rightly pointed out that indeed many Christians do read the Bible as being accurate documentary history. And the history of that is long and complex. All the mainstream branches of Christianity had for centuries regarded the Bible as sacrosanct, and they didn't like anyone to question its contents in any way - the penalties for doing so being extreme (this sentiment probably arose originally from a couple of texts, one from John (Your word is truth) and another from one of the spurious epistles to Timothy ("All scripture is inspired of God") - which is probably mistranslated anyway).
It wasn't until Samuel Reimarus (1694-1768. Born and died in Hamburg) attempted a critical appraisal of the scriptures that any real attempt was made to see them as purely human documents, and therefore probably full of errors and
contradictions of all kinds. But the poor bugger was so terrified of religious reprisals to his findings that he never dared to publish these particular thoughts in his lifetime. He started off what is known as the period of "Higher Criticism" (that doesn't mean 'better'). David Friedrich Strauss went further in his "Life of Jesus critically examined"; he did publish, with disastrous consequences to his career.
The Yanks didn't like all this "Higher Criticism" - they preferred the Old Time Religion, and in direct opposition to the European research, they doubled down on the idea of absolute Biblical truth, and gave rise to the pestilence of FUNDAMENTALISM*, which still plagues the world to this day, with the idea of an absolutely inerrant Bible.
As a consequence of this, I'd consider it the duty for all responsible people to expose this nonsense at every opportunity, and then perhaps all of us will be able to read and respect the Bible for its many virtues (which probably outweigh the horrors described therein).

*John Shelby Spong wrote a rather fine book called "Rescuing the Bible from Fundamentalism". Half the Yankee believers think he's the Antichrist.

[Gonnagle]

No meaning for the word 'God' ⟺ no meaning for 'atheist' or 'Christian'...

Actually "fundamental atheists" is pretty much gibberish without your absurd refusal to say what 'God' refers to. We can only deal with the ideas of God with which we are presented. If that's fundamentalist, then that's what we'll deal with, if not, then not.

In your case, we have no clue what you mean by 'God' because you have point-blank refused to clarify, so all you say on the subject is meaningless.

Dear Stranger,

Now it might just be me ( maybe I am being a bit precious ) but I can't help thinking that you are slightly angry about something, just a feeling❤️

Gonnagle.

[Gonnagle]

"if the only way you read the book is looking for errors, good luck."

Bit below the belt to Gordon that, Gonners. Gordon has rightly pointed out that indeed many Christians do read the Bible as being accurate documentary history. And the history of that is long and complex. All the mainstream branches of Christianity had for centuries regarded the Bible as sacrosanct, and they didn't like anyone to question its contents in any way - the penalties for doing so being extreme (this sentiment probably arose originally from a couple of texts, one from John (Your word is truth) and another from one of the spurious epistles to Timothy ("All scripture is inspired of God") - which is probably mistranslated anyway).
It wasn't until Samuel Reimarus (1694-1768. Born and died in Hamburg) attempted a critical appraisal of the scriptures that any real attempt was made to see them as purely human documents, and therefore probably full of errors and
contradictions of all kinds. But the poor bugger was so terrified of religious reprisals to his findings that he never dared to publish these particular thoughts in his lifetime. He started off what is known as the period of "Higher Criticism" (that doesn't mean 'better'). David Friedrich Strauss went further in his "Life of Jesus critically examined"; he did publish, with disastrous consequences to his career.
The Yanks didn't like all this "Higher Criticism" - they preferred the Old Time Religion, and in direct opposition to the European research, they doubled down on the idea of absolute Biblical truth, and gave rise to the pestilence of FUNDAMENTALISM*, which still plagues the world to this day, with the idea of an absolutely inerrant Bible.
As a consequence of this, I'd consider it the duty for all responsible people to expose this nonsense at every opportunity, and then perhaps all of us will be able to read and respect the Bible for its many virtues (which probably outweigh the horrors described therein).

*John Shelby Spong wrote a rather fine book called "Rescuing the Bible from Fundamentalism". Half the Yankee believers think he's the Antichrist.

Dear Dicky,

Cheers, thank you for helping the debate along, can't fault your findings, very interesting.

Gonnagle.

[Stranger]

Dear Stranger,

Now it might just be me ( maybe I am being a bit precious ) but I can't help thinking that you are slightly angry about something, just a feeling❤️

Gonnagle.

No, I just find people who say they believe something and then refuse all attempts to clarify what it actually is that they believe in, somewhat bizarre and not a little amusing.

I'm just illustrating the consequences of your reticence about what you believe on the things you then say. It literally does render most of it meaningless. I don't get why you (apparently) can't see that.

But whatever, you carry on and I'll go on pointing it out until I get bored or you decide to actually start posting something that makes coherent sense....

[Free Willy]

A puzzle!? If this world is a design, then the designer is amoral, at the very best. If it even notices and cares about humans and other animals, it is a sadistic monster.

Patriarchal? What the fuck are you wittering about?

The NT just makes things worse. The idiotic, foolish, unjust, bizarre, sadomasochistic nonsense of the crucifixion.

By assessing the argument. Gonnagle doesn't even seem to know if God refers to a thinking being or not...

The 'most moral thing' is a subjective ideal.

Freewill is logically impossible with respect to an omniscient omnipotent creator, and the 'gift of Jesus' is God being insanely unjust and unfair.

Sorry, can't do an in depth on this at the moment but straight of the bat...
Firstly, your fixation with everything having to have an external cause.
Secondly, the contradiction between that and the suspension of the principle of sufficient reason it actually entails, and thirdly your conflation/ confusion of "Knowing something" and "causing something".

[Maeght]

Sorry, can't do an in depth on this at the moment but straight of the bat...
Firstly, your fixation with everything having to have an external cause.
Secondly, the contradiction between that and the suspension of the principle of sufficient reason it actually entails, and thirdly your conflation/ confusion of "Knowing something" and "causing something".

Surely it is "Knowing something" and "allowing something"

[Free Willy]

Surely it is "Knowing something" and "allowing something"

No I think the proposal is God Knows so he causes. That is problematic.
"Allowing" suggests granting freedom which Stranger is actually arguing doesn't exist.