|
|
Gone
Sept 7, 2017 5:13:39 GMT
Post by Arlon10 on Sept 7, 2017 5:13:39 GMT
I'm certain that I'm every bit as disappointed this is not the Garden of Eden as Epicurus was. I'm not baffled though. I don't understand why Epicurus was so baffled. The questions then become ...
Did Epicurus have access to a Bible?
Could Epicurus read it?
If Epicurus had access to a Bible and could read it, why didn't he?
That's interesting. I wonder whether his garden had apples. It's not as interesting as The Meditations of Marcus Aurelius though.
Sometimes I pray to God, "Please, let me talk to someone who is not stupid! Just five measly minutes!"
Ancient Greece and Rome were very interesting times in the development of human thought. Religion in those times often meant the things atheists think it still means today. Of course modern religion does not. Anthropomorphic gods had already gone out of style in much of civilization when Greek philosophy stepped up to the plate.
|
|
|
|
Gone
Sept 7, 2017 5:42:52 GMT
Post by rachelcarson1953 on Sept 7, 2017 5:42:52 GMT
I'm certain that I'm every bit as disappointed this is not the Garden of Eden as Epicurus was. I'm not baffled though. I don't understand why Epicurus was so baffled. The questions then become ... Did Epicurus have access to a Bible? Could Epicurus read it? If Epicurus had access to a Bible and could read it, why didn't he? No, Epicurus didn't have a Bible, he lived three hundred years before the time of Christ. There was no Bible to read. |
|
|
|
Post by Arlon10 on Sept 7, 2017 6:05:08 GMT
I'm certain that I'm every bit as disappointed this is not the Garden of Eden as Epicurus was. I'm not baffled though. I don't understand why Epicurus was so baffled. The questions then become ... Did Epicurus have access to a Bible? Could Epicurus read it? If Epicurus had access to a Bible and could read it, why didn't he? No, Epicurus didn't have a Bible, he lived three hundred years before the time of Christ. There was no Bible to read. There was an Old Testament. It just wasn't quite as old yet. It did have the part about the Garden of Eden though. It also had the part about God not being one for pictures or statues, more of a cosmic force. |
|
|
|
Gone
Sept 7, 2017 11:36:43 GMT
Post by CoolJGS☺ on Sept 7, 2017 11:36:43 GMT
That's another silly quote.
I know exactly why I dismiss the rest of them.
Further, I don't care if someone dismisses my beliefs.
"If you have a faith, it is statistically overwhelmingly likely that it is the same faith as your parents and grandparents had... by far the most important variable determining your religion is the accident of birth. The convictions you so passionately believe would have been a completely different, and largely contradictory, set of convictions, if only you had happened to be born in a different place. Epidemiology, not evidence." Richard Dawkins That's another silly one. For some reason the quote ignores the fact that Christianity almost immediately expanded the moment it created. I know this is the point in time that people start talking Dark Ages and stuff but that doesn't change the fact Christianity is dominant and voluntary in most areas that it isn't actively discouraged/illegal. Of course, there's also the reality that even if most people are a particular faith in a region, it has nothing to do with the fact that people can & do choose other religions all the time. Theophobiacs bring up the stats all the time proving this. I know certain types of ignorant people want to think that I am blindly following my beliefs although these same people have NEVER made a convincing argument against my faith, but the reality is I am quite comfortable with my choice and, as always, perfectly capable of explaining it if they only cared about that rather than accusing me of something based on their stupidity. |
|
|
|
Gone
Sept 7, 2017 15:23:54 GMT
Post by rachelcarson1953 on Sept 7, 2017 15:23:54 GMT
No, Epicurus didn't have a Bible, he lived three hundred years before the time of Christ. There was no Bible to read. There was an Old Testament. It just wasn't quite as old yet. It did have the part about the Garden of Eden though. It also had the part about God not being one for pictures or statues, more of a cosmic force. Ummm, Epicurus was a Greek philosopher, and was probably unfamiliar with a Jewish document. And for god being more of a 'cosmic force'? He supposedly spoke directly to Abraham about sacrificing Isaac. And he admitted to being a jealous god... sounds more human than cosmic. |
|
|
|
Gone
Sept 7, 2017 15:49:54 GMT
Post by rachelcarson1953 on Sept 7, 2017 15:49:54 GMT
"If you have a faith, it is statistically overwhelmingly likely that it is the same faith as your parents and grandparents had... by far the most important variable determining your religion is the accident of birth. The convictions you so passionately believe would have been a completely different, and largely contradictory, set of convictions, if only you had happened to be born in a different place. Epidemiology, not evidence." Richard Dawkins That's another silly one. For some reason the quote ignores the fact that Christianity almost immediately expanded the moment it created. I know this is the point in time that people start talking Dark Ages and stuff but that doesn't change the fact Christianity is dominant and voluntary in most areas that it isn't actively discouraged/illegal. Of course, there's also the reality that even if most people are a particular faith in a region, it has nothing to do with the fact that people can & do choose other religions all the time. Theophobiacs bring up the stats all the time proving this. I know certain types of ignorant people want to think that I am blindly following my beliefs although these same people have NEVER made a convincing argument against my faith, but the reality is I am quite comfortable with my choice and, as always, perfectly capable of explaining it if they only cared about that rather than accusing me of something based on their stupidity.Well that's just silly. |
|
|
|
Gone
Sept 7, 2017 16:15:55 GMT
Post by Arlon10 on Sept 7, 2017 16:15:55 GMT
There was an Old Testament. It just wasn't quite as old yet. It did have the part about the Garden of Eden though. It also had the part about God not being one for pictures or statues, more of a cosmic force. Ummm, Epicurus was a Greek philosopher, and was probably unfamiliar with a Jewish document. And for god being more of a 'cosmic force'? He supposedly spoke directly to Abraham about sacrificing Isaac. And he admitted to being a jealous god... sounds more human than cosmic. Although most Greeks likely did not think so, the East, Persia, was a highly advanced (by standards of the time) culture when the people across the Bosphorus were still learning to use iron. Scholars might disagree over details but Judaism was a civilizing agent in the East. |
|
|
|
Gone
Sept 7, 2017 17:20:31 GMT
Post by rachelcarson1953 on Sept 7, 2017 17:20:31 GMT
Ummm, Epicurus was a Greek philosopher, and was probably unfamiliar with a Jewish document. And for god being more of a 'cosmic force'? He supposedly spoke directly to Abraham about sacrificing Isaac. And he admitted to being a jealous god... sounds more human than cosmic. Although most Greeks likely did not think so, the East, Persia, was a highly advanced (by standards of the time) culture when the people across the Bosphorus were still learning to use iron. Scholars might disagree over details but Judaism was a civilizing agent in the East. Nice deflection. |
|
|
|
Gone
Sept 7, 2017 18:04:40 GMT
Post by CoolJGS☺ on Sept 7, 2017 18:04:40 GMT
That's another silly one. For some reason the quote ignores the fact that Christianity almost immediately expanded the moment it created. I know this is the point in time that people start talking Dark Ages and stuff but that doesn't change the fact Christianity is dominant and voluntary in most areas that it isn't actively discouraged/illegal. Of course, there's also the reality that even if most people are a particular faith in a region, it has nothing to do with the fact that people can & do choose other religions all the time. Theophobiacs bring up the stats all the time proving this. I know certain types of ignorant people want to think that I am blindly following my beliefs although these same people have NEVER made a convincing argument against my faith, but the reality is I am quite comfortable with my choice and, as always, perfectly capable of explaining it if they only cared about that rather than accusing me of something based on their stupidity.Well that's just silly. What's silly?  |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Gone
Sept 7, 2017 19:27:34 GMT
Post by Deleted on Sept 7, 2017 19:27:34 GMT
Do you agree with this qoute from Epicurus
Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent. Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent. Is he both able and willing? Then whence cometh evil? Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him God? If you disagree with Epicurus, Why do you disagree ? And if you agree why do you agree ? Epicurus was a Greek philosopher who was born in Athens, Greece in the third century BC Hmmmmm, I'd have to think about it... |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Gone
Sept 7, 2017 19:33:54 GMT
Post by Deleted on Sept 7, 2017 19:33:54 GMT
The biggest one is simply the notion of a man putting stipulations on a god in the first place. There is no reason whatsoever to think a god is responsible at all for is creation except that it's what we think it should do All you are arguing there is that god is indeed "able, but not willing".
I never understood this one. Mostly because I tend to find "free will" to be a very fuzzily defined term. I will assume that your definition of free will is such that somebody sees a man trying to murder a child, and that person prevents the man from doing so, then he has removed the murderers free will. If so then this just, again, falls under the option of "able, but not willing". God refuses to prevent evil because he isn't willing to do so. And in either case, I think it's perfectly reasonable to draw judgments of an entity's character based on his actions. Or inactions. |
|
|
|
Gone
Sept 9, 2017 7:44:37 GMT
Post by Arlon10 on Sept 9, 2017 7:44:37 GMT
First, I didn't say I agreed with your assessment in the first place, so don't pretend that you have validated your argument.
Secondly, I'm not using free will for justification since we have it regardless, but rather dismissing anonymous' notion that it can exist with their definition of a god.
The type of free will that would exculpate your God simply cannot exist, because it defies the most fundamental rules of logic. Therefore, I will always challenge anyone who uses 'free will' to justify why they believe in a benevolent and omnipotent deity, regardless of how many times the discussion has been previously had. Free will (in the libertarian sense) cannot exist with anyone's definition of god. Cause always precedes effect and an already existing living being cannot be the designer of its own nature. I'm sure I've been over this before, but here it is again. How is it you can claim that all human behavior must be entirely predictable when you are not able to predict it? That does appear most unscientific and illogical. |
|
|
|
Gone
Sept 9, 2017 12:00:10 GMT
Post by CoolJGS☺ on Sept 9, 2017 12:00:10 GMT
@graham
I'm not arguing that at all since no one knows what god anonymous is discussing.
I've made pretty clear what I'm saying Mr Translator, but feel free to ignore it.
Not sure why it would be fuzzy. Free will is simply the ability to make the choices we want to. I Guess I should add within the confines of human ability, so I'm not one of those weirdos that thinks not being able to fly means I don't have free will.
Well, if we are talking about Yahweh/Jehovah, let's say he is able and willing since it's true. How does he prevent evil you think he's obligated to prevent? It sounds like you're complaining about the notion that we have free will if removing it can prevent evil.
However, it seems like a lot of theophobiacs would consider God evil just for telling them what to do without removing the choice to obey it, so why would it be better not to have it at all?
Heck, some of them are stupid enough to get mad at religious people who obey God and don't care about what others do. They can be a whacky bunch, but I digress...,
It's fine to make irrelevant and limited judgements on anything, it doesn't make it a rule or standard to follow. That quote is far from an absolute and for more reasons than the ones I provided.
People just get stuck on those two and they are the most obvious.
The quote is merely a complaint and probably used to justify something that is likely contrary to belief. It has no intelligence behind it since it can't have comprehension- Only agreement from those that think it sounds good.
It is limited by the human brain of the person who thought it up.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Gone
Sept 9, 2017 13:37:49 GMT
Post by Deleted on Sept 9, 2017 13:37:49 GMT
@graham I'm not arguing that at all since no one knows what god anonymous is discussing. That is actually what you did argue, though. That rather illustrates one of the problems - if free will is simply the ability to make choices, then god preventing evil would not conflict with free will unless he did so by altering everyone's minds such that they could not make the decision to be evil. Suppose that god decided to prevent rape, for example, not by stopping everyone from wanting to rape, but by showing up in a physical form every single time one person decided to rape another, and physically holding them off whilst yelling for the police - essentially what a human would do if he were there. That does nothing at all to prevent the person from making choices, it merely prevents them from carrying out their choices. So if that's what you mean by free will then god preventing evil would not impinge on human free will at all. See above. Preventing evil does not impinge on free will at all. Perhaps those objections are more to do with the things god tells people to do, and the things he doesn't tell them to do. He's big on telling people to worship him, for instance, but not so much when it comes to telling them not to indulge in rape, mass killing, and slavery. People we invent to make a point often are. It's fine to make relevant judgments too. |
|
|
|
Gone
Sept 10, 2017 13:21:23 GMT
Post by phludowin on Sept 10, 2017 13:21:23 GMT
How is it you can claim that all human behavior must be entirely predictable when you are not able to predict it? That does appear most unscientific and illogical. That's even more stupid than anything mic posted about free will not existing. Just because he can't do it doesn't mean that nobody else can. Or more generally: Just because humans can't do something doesn't mean that it's impossible. How cone volcano eruptions happen when you are not able to create them? How come birds fly when you are not able to? How come humans have the perceived ability to make choices when mic is unable to accept that this is all it takes to have free will? Not all questions deserve a good answer. |
|
|
|
Gone
Sept 10, 2017 13:52:44 GMT
Post by Arlon10 on Sept 10, 2017 13:52:44 GMT
How is it you can claim that all human behavior must be entirely predictable when you are not able to predict it? That does appear most unscientific and illogical. That's even more stupid than anything mic posted about free will not existing. Just because he can't do it doesn't mean that nobody else can. Or more generally: Just because humans can't do something doesn't mean that it's impossible. How cone volcano eruptions happen when you are not able to create them? How come birds fly when you are not able to? How come humans have the perceived ability to make choices when mic is unable to accept that this is all it takes to have free will? Not all questions deserve a good answer. There's more to it than that. There are free agents who are "aware" of their free agency. They can predict their own choices with remarkable accuracy while absolutely no one else can. |
|
|
|
Gone
Jul 29, 2018 11:56:44 GMT
Post by CoolJGS☺ on Jul 29, 2018 11:56:44 GMT
Bump for OP''s sake.  |
|
|
|
Gone
Jul 29, 2018 13:20:01 GMT
Post by CoolJGS☺ on Jul 29, 2018 13:20:01 GMT
|
|
|
|
Gone
Jul 29, 2018 16:15:50 GMT
Post by thefleetsin on Jul 29, 2018 16:15:50 GMT
god(s) are the ultimate excuses and finger pointing devices ever conceived by man.
|
|
|
|
Gone
Jul 29, 2018 18:34:33 GMT
Post by Aj_June on Jul 29, 2018 18:34:33 GMT
Why in hell would that thread have been deleted? This is not IMDb with its serial reporters and arbitrary deletions.  The OP deleted his original post for reasons that I don't know. |
|
