DAwkins interviews creationist automaton

[Carol]

Ah, but something infinite and all inclusive cannot be all good as say Christianity claims. Said God must be both good AND evil or else the reasoning doesn't hold. To limit God in such a way is to put him/her/it in a box.

It is. They simply change His name to Satan or make reference to Satan's Power when said God is evil.

If Satan is a different entity than God, then Christianity is not a monotheistic faith.

 

[celtic_crippler]

Ah, but something infinite and all inclusive cannot be all good as say Christianity claims. Said God must be both good AND evil or else the reasoning doesn't hold. To limit God in such a way is to put him/her/it in a box.

Again..."man" can't wrap his head around it. It's beyond our capabilities at present.

We like to think we're great and all, but in the grand scheme of the universe we're not even gnats...though we are quite arrogant aren't we. LOL

We continue to try and relate things to what we know and what's familiar to us... but those things are quite trivial and tiny compared to what we don't know and what we aren't familiar with. We just don't want to admit it.

That's why we see human attributes given to our dieties, regardless of the religion. That in itself kind of disproves every religion, though not necessarily the existance of a supreme intelligence.

And if one accepts that, then what's to say what to us is a supreme intelligence doesn't have a supreme intelligence of it's own? Where's the ceiling? Is there one? We don't know...and our pea brains at this time in history can't comprehend it.

Perhaps we'll "evolve" to the point where we can someday... if we don't destroy ourselves first. LOL

 

[Xinglu]

Collins (you know...in the TIME article I posted a link to...lol) holds that "God" exists outside of the realm of nature and therefore is not subject to the same laws... that's part of his argument for "his" existance.

This of course, begs the question.

 

[Xinglu]

It is. They simply change His name to Satan or make reference to Satan's Power when said God is evil.

If Satan is a different entity than God, then Christianity is not a monotheistic faith.

It's really not. The God of the bible proclaims to be a jealous god, demanding humans worship "him" and no other God. Not that he is the only god in existence.

Furthermore in the book of Job when Satan comes to the heavenly council to challenge God to a bet, God asks where he has been, Satan responds by saying he's been traveling the earth. Unless God suffers from multiple personality disorder, they are two separate entities.

 

[Xinglu]

Again..."man" can't wrap his head around it. It's beyond our capabilities at present.

We like to think we're great and all, but in the grand scheme of the universe we're not even gnats...though we are quite arrogant aren't we. LOL

We continue to try and relate things to what we know and what's familiar to us... but those things are quite trivial and tiny compared to what we don't know and what we aren't familiar with. We just don't want to admit it.

That's why we see human attributes given to our dieties, regardless of the religion. That in itself kind of disproves every religion, though not necessarily the existance of a supreme intelligence.

And if one accepts that, then what's to say what to us is a supreme intelligence doesn't have a supreme intelligence of it's own? Where's the ceiling? Is there one? We don't know...and our pea brains at this time in history can't comprehend it.

Perhaps we'll "evolve" to the point where we can someday... if we don't destroy ourselves first. LOL

Actually plenty religions give no human qualities to the gods or completely noble and good gods. It seems more prevalent in the monotheistic religions to have an all good god.

 

[Archangel M]

I dunno where some of you all went to Church, but every Sunday I go I listen to sermons from the priest about forgiveness, tolerance, loving ones neighbor and helping the poor. Messages I think more of us should hear.

Im Catholic so sure, some sermons talk about the value of human life so the Churches stance on that issue is expressed, but thats probably the most controversial thing I have experienced in my Catholic upbringing.

I haven't heard one word from any of my Priests expressing violence, suggesting starting another Crusade or Inqusition. I think Stalin and Pol Pot show that political belief as easily as religion can be used to perpetrate evil, but thats the fault of the persons using religion and not the religion itself.

Human evil in the name of religion is "mans failure" not religions IMO.

 

[celtic_crippler]

It's really not. The God of the bible proclaims to be a jealous god, demanding humans worship "him" and no other God. Not that he is the only god in existence.

Furthermore in the book of Job when Satan comes to the heavenly council to challenge God to a bet, God asks where he has been, Satan responds by saying he's been traveling the earth. Unless God suffers from multiple personality disorder, they are two separate entities.

I dunno... what about the "trinity"? I mean, if he can be 3 things why not add a fourth? LOL

I dunno where some of you all went to Church, but every Sunday I go I listen to sermons from the priest about forgiveness, tolerance, loving ones neighbor and helping the poor. Messages I think more of us should hear.

Im Catholic so sure, some sermons talk about the value of human life so the Churches stance on that issue is expressed, but thats probably the most controversial thing I have experienced in my Catholic upbringing.

I haven't heard one word from any of my Priests expressing violence, suggesting starting another Crusade or Inqusition. I think Stalin and Pol Pot show that political belief as easily as religion can be used to perpetrate evil, but thats the fault of the persons using religion and not the religion itself.

Human evil in the name of religion is "mans failure" not religions IMO.

Perhaps...but then..who created religion?

 

[Chris Parker]

This is still going? Okay!

I'm going to touch on a particular thought that has appeared in the last few posts here, the concept of Good and Evil within a monotheistic Judeo-Christian faith structure, as it certainly gives rise to a number of issues if unresolved (spiritually speaking, you understand).

Within the Jewish faith (Tez, please correct anything I get wrong here!), there is no Satan as he appears within Chrstian doctrine, there is also no Hell. Instead, there is a concept of an afterlife, with an afterlife begining in "The World of Truth", and moving onto a connection with God after beign brought to terms with their mortal life, both as it was, and as it could have been. Of course, some people are simply too evil to be allowed to be in God's presence, so they are removed to Gehenna, a place of punishment, although not strictly speaking Hell.

Instead of having Satan as Christians know him, he here is one of the most powerful of the Archangels. The name Satan refers to "the Adversary", not really meaning the enemy, but an individual in place to debate with God. This is the set-up for the story of Job in the Torah and the Old Testament, Satan is not "the Devil" here, he is there to debate God and his way's of guiding the people's of the Earth. As said, in the story Satan is asked where he has been, and his answer is that he has been "wandering the Earth". He has been getting to know the lands, and the humans (alternate versions of Genesis include these trips to Earth, where Satan took other Angels down with him, and they fell in love with the beautiful women there, resulting in Giants, the children of the Angels and the human women; if you read the story of the Flood there are a very few references to the things to be wiped from the face of the Earth, and those include these "Heroes of ancient times"), and that begins the conversation which leads to Job's testing. But it is important to remember that this story, even when told in the Old Testament (Christian doctrine), comes from the Jewish faith, and in that, Satan is not necessarilly evil.

God, on the other hand, does all manner of not-particularly nice things, from wiping his Creations from the face of the Earth (Eddy Izzard once described this as "the etch-a-sketch end of the world!"), to "testing" Job by killing his livestock, destroying his family, ruining his financial and social standings, afflicting him with boils, and all to see what it took to have him turn against Him, telling his most loyal follower to sacrifice his son, only to change his mind at the last minute (although I must say that from a metaphorical and mythical point of interpretation, that is quite a brilliant story), to the complete destruction of two cities he wasn't happy with (Soddom and Gammorah), and the transformation into a pillar of salt a woman who dared to look back at the destroyed towns, and more. Not particularly nice, really.

Within Christian doctrine, Satan became the Great Enemy gradually, in fact, the name Satan (the Adversary) is used exclusively in the Old Testament, whereas it is used along with Beelzebub (Lord Of The Flies) and the Devil, as well as the Beast and the Antichrist (as emissaries of Satan in Revelations) within the New Testament. And the role of Devil, or Enemy, is built upon as you go through the Gospels, Matthew and Mark talk about the temptation in the Desert, with Mark focusing less on the temptation itself, and more on exorcisms of Demons, but then Luke misses it completely. Instead, he gives an exorcism story in which Jesus is pitted against "Beelzebub, the Chief of the Demons", raising his placement in the Demonic heirarchy. John, however, ignores any comment about Satan at all (although it should be stated that a main reason for the order of the Gospels is the focus on the death and resurrection, with that being increasingly emphasised as you go on. But that does show that Satan is not considered a main threat at this time).

By the time we get to Revelations, that is where Satan is promoted to Devil, the Fallen One, and the Great Enemy of the Earth. Again, it is important to remember when such writings were first penned, and the political climate surrounding them. When John wrote the book, it was not as a book, but as a collection of letters to the leaders of various Churches at a time when Christians were being persecuted and killed en masse, and was designed to give hope to them, that the oppresive (Roman) forces over them would be overthrown, and the book is full of symbology that shows that.

So really, the idea of Satan as being the epitomy of evil is actually rather artificial, with it being an introduced idea rather than core doctrine. And God is plenty good and bad by Himself. But they are definately seperate entities, Satan being created by God. He has served as a rallying point, but that was not his true role, at least not originally.

Now how did we get to this again? Oh yeah, Dawkins. Good article, by the way Crippler.

 

[Carol]

It's really not. The God of the bible proclaims to be a jealous god, demanding humans worship "him" and no other God. Not that he is the only god in existence.

Furthermore in the book of Job when Satan comes to the heavenly council to challenge God to a bet, God asks where he has been, Satan responds by saying he's been traveling the earth. Unless God suffers from multiple personality disorder, they are two separate entities.

Unless the passage is an allegory for the differing natures of God. That cycles back to the fundamental issue of this debate....

 

[cdunn]

Unless the passage is an allegory for the differing natures of God. That cycles back to the fundamental issue of this debate....

At what point do we put the book down, and go 'What do you want the book to say?'

 

[Carol]

At what point do we put the book down, and go 'What do you want the book to say?'

Immediately, if the book is being used to control my life or my community's education against my will.

 

[Chris Parker]

At what point do we put the book down, and go 'What do you want the book to say?'

Now here was I thinking it was that you pick the book UP and say "What do I want it to say?". And in that is the great strength and weakness of it's writings, they can be taken in so many differing levels of meaning.

 

[CanuckMA]

Chris, you've pretty much nailed it.

 

[Chris Parker]

I'm doing okay for rotten non-believer then? Cool.

 

[cdunn]

Now here was I thinking it was that you pick the book UP and say "What do I want it to say?". And in that is the great strength and weakness of it's writings, they can be taken in so many differing levels of meaning.

Well, if you're going to use it to get power, you have to be able to make the first parts of it music to your audiences ears.

 

[Omar B]

Great post Chris, gotta love that Satan.

 

[Ken Morgan]

This thread still has life?
Watch this video....http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FVZobzVJrSo&feature=related

 

[blindsage]

History of Western Philosophy

Ok, so Sukerkin's right, I'm obviously not asking the question correctly. I'm asking on a very personal basic level, where does the information you use to make rational decisions come from? How do you gather your evidence?

 

[blindsage]

Ah, but something infinite and all inclusive cannot be all good as say Christianity claims. Said God must be both good AND evil or else the reasoning doesn't hold. To limit God in such a way is to put him/her/it in a box.

If you assume a (modern) Christian interpretation as the sole definition of what good and evil are and what God may be. You can't argue against the existence of God and then take a single group's definitions and references as your sole reference points for the argument.

But in this case you are making assumptions for the argument from your own philosophy as well. There are your own definitions of good and evil that you are imposing on the discussion and then claiming the only 'rational' conclusion is x. But you aren't taking your own assumptions into account.

 

[Xinglu]

If you assume a (modern) Christian interpretation as the sole definition of what good and evil are and what God may be. You can't argue against the existence of God and then take a single group's definitions and references as your sole reference points for the argument.

But in this case you are making assumptions for the argument from your own philosophy as well. There are your own definitions of good and evil that you are imposing on the discussion and then claiming the only 'rational' conclusion is x. But you aren't taking your own assumptions into account.

Actually I am Taking my own into account. In order to talk about God, one must assume (even if it is for argument's sake) that a God exists or does not. First, we must come to an agreed upon definition of "good" and "evil" secondly, the argument must include the definition that the "believers" agree on as well as it is their God and their dogma. Words must mean what they mean or communication cannot be had. When talking about religion, one must use the religion in questions definitions in order communicate effectively with the believer. Which means for arguments sake, we must use their definition of good and evil.

I did not conclude "only x." I pointed out that using the believer's definitions leads to a non-cogent assertion.

Modern Christianity exists today and is relevant. So of course I use it's assertions. Why wouldn't I? The context of the conversation is predominately Christianity and it's views on good and evil, creation, and evolution. I don't see Muslims putting forth their views, Although some Jews have chimed in, they have not presented any official Jewish positions. I have only put forth what is relevant for the conversation. Which has already made a ton of assumptions just in it's very existence and continuation.

Furthermore, infinite by definition is limitless. Which means it includes and even transcends what we call good and evil. To label something as all good and yet call it to be infinite is a absurdity. And that was my point, nothing more, nothing less.

So please, you seem to imply that you know my philosophy: what is my philosophy then? Tell me what it is I believe.