Christianity as a viral meme complex

[El_Machinae]

I know it's a weird definition of slavery. But artificial barriers to choosing my 'master' exist already, so my choice of 'masters' is already limited by laws (immigration being the easiest example to use). My point is that a bastardization of slavery already exists, and it's not considered immoral. People work for other people all the time; whether to get goods or to pay off debts.

If everyone considers slavery to be 'good', then it cannot be wrong, because the victims and the perpetrators consider the state of affairs to be acceptable.

 

[cgannon64]

If he can't get us to grow without torturing us, then he is not omnipotent.

That is patently untrue. To be omnipotent means to do anything possible. In some cases, it may be impossible to get us to grow by any other means - or, at least, any other means would acheive inferior growth.

The problem with having a God that can do no wrong, but doesn't have the same restrictions as us, is that his restrictions are unpredictable. I know that God is allowed to commit genocide (and thus it is a holy act when he does it), so how do I know that committing genocide is wrong? Alternatively, when a natural cause begins a genocide, how do I know if I'm performing God's will by trying to stop it?

To the first question: Because God has decreed that men do not have the right to kill men.
To the second: You should not assume that any kind of natural disasters are God's will. What I should have mentioned from the start is that it seems that God uses his power to kill very very sparingly. Not to mention that, to God, there is nothing wrong with killing someone. He has forewarned people that they should be prepared at death at all times; therefore, if they are not prepared for death at the time of their death, whenever it is, it is their fault.

Now, I merely mentioned that God has the right to kill because you were assuming that every death due to natural causes is directly God's will. We're getting into very tricky theological territory, but there is territory in-between the extreme Deist viewpoint and the extreme deterministic viewpoint.

If you wanted to, you could drag this argument out, and we could discuss exactly what God knew and picked when he made the universe - but that discussion would be over both of our heads.

We were discussing abortion. You've somehow come to the conclusion that an embryo is a person, when (imho) there's no good reason to sort out an embryo as a person without including a whole bunch of other things as persons(that we already discard blithely).

Like?

If I accept your premise that an embryo is a person, AND the premise that killing people is wrong, then I'm paralyzed with guilt ... I know that every act I take is killing potential people.

There is a difference in the potentiality of an embryo, and that of a sperm. Namely, that an embryo, left alone in normal circumstances, will become just like you. A sperm, left alone in normal circumstances, will die a few hours later.

But really, this drift is for the other thread. My point is that, because I have more knowledge of biology than the average Joe, the intent of every action I take becomes muddled, because I know that I'm hurting people or potential people with every action. If I was just dumber, then I could act with 'good intentions' more often. So, how can an increased intelligence lead to a more sinful life ... that just doesn't make any sense.

With more knowledge, what you perceive to be the best decision will be more precise than with less knowledge.

It seems that there are three stages in thought on this issue: The first is that of the ignorant person, who just acts blindly on instinct. The second is someone who realizes that all actions have potential negative consequences, and so they are terrifie of acting at all. The third is someone who realizes that, while the realization of the second stage is true, they cannot be held responsible for unforseeable consequences - and so, they act as best they can on the knowledge they have.

I don't see why you can't advance past that second stage.

That depends just how much you read into the word "objective". If you use the word as I do, it means that there is a corrective we can apply to judgements of good. We can apply experience and logic. Is exercise good for you? - try it and see; or simply observe the effects on others. Is such-and-such property rights scheme a rightful way to order an economy? First, use logic: is it fair? Does it arbitrarily advantage some over others? Second, look at the results: does it foster the general welfare?

This is objectivity on the most basic, modest level. It doesn't give decisive answers all of the time; it doesn't give you a mechanical decision procedure; but it does give you something beyond "he said, she said".

On the other hand, if you think "objective" means "eternal unchanging Platonic Form" then no, this doesn't get you any closer to that.

Now hold on for a moment. What you're saying is that there is an objective, or at least reasonable, method to discerning the truth. If this is true, shouldn't our lack of knowledge of the truth only be in our inferior or ignorant application of this method? We don't find out if exercise is truly good for us, because we don't have the time and wisdom to examine every side of the issue.

But, would you agree that it is possible, if such omniscience were possible, to discern this truth? Or does such truth not exist?

 

[El_Machinae]

That is patently untrue. To be omnipotent means to do anything possible. In some cases, it may be impossible to get us to grow by any other means - or, at least, any other means would acheive inferior growth.

Okay, here's a strange limitation: According to you, God contains all Good. This means that, regardlesss of anything, every single thing that He does is good. He's more than Good, but Good in no way limits him. However, once we delve into the 'possible', God is suddenly limited. There's this thing called 'logically possible' that He's bound by. Well, a greater being than God would be one that is NOT limited by logical possibility. See what I mean? There's a set {possible} which contains {logically possible} and {illogically possible}. God only belongs to the second set, and in fact, seems to be bound by the second set. By default, this means that He's not actually omnipotent, just partially so.

Namely, that an embryo, left alone in normal circumstances, will become just like you. A sperm, left alone in normal circumstances, will die a few hours later.

Yeah, sure. But don't you have a moral duty to take affirmative actions to nurture the embryo? Doesn't the woman have a duty to eat properly and get enough sleep? Doesn't she have a duty to stop exercising for 2 hours a day so she doesn't miscarry? etc. This 'person' is more than something that grows naturally, and it's up to the mother to take positive steps to develop into a being that's 'like me'.

Now, I slough off skin cells all the time. And if I take positive, affirmative steps, I can nurture skin cells to become embryos (through a process called dedifferentiation). Once they are embryos, I can nurture them to become a being that's 'like me'. Where's the duty there then? You claim that the woman has a duty to take positive steps to nurture an embryo, why don't I have the same duty? The chain of life is never interrupted - the cell remains alive the whole time.

An embryo can be nurtured to become 'like me', and a skin cell can be nurtured to become 'like me'. Why is there only moral onus in one case?

You should not assume that any kind of natural disasters are God's will.

Riiiight, because people, exercising free will, cause volcanoes to erupt? Or created smallpox? Or sent an asteroid hurtling into Russia hundreds of years ago? Or dropped so much rain that almost everyone on Earth died? An omniscient, omnipotent creature knowingly set events in motion where the Earth would be hostile to people on a random basis. And then He told people to 'go forth and multiply'. Damn straight I have to assume the disasters were God's will. He invented them.

So, how does the seismologist know that warning the potential victims of a coming earthquake is God's will?

Finally,

Because God has decreed that men do not have the right to kill men.

how can you possibly know this? When did God decree that men aren't supposed to kill? God kills, all the time. In fact, He's the biggest cause of genocide to date. So, how do you know? A book told you? The same book that says that rabbits chew their cud? Why accept the book regarding morality (you know, something that actually matters), if it can't even get simple biology right?

 

[Bozo Erectus]

El seems like its not so much that you dont believe in god, its more like youre mad at him because we arent living in an old Disney cartoon. God is so mean. He created a universe where sharp pointy things are possible, and sometimes, people get boo-boos!

 

[toothgnip]

El, if I may, I'd like to point out a few things in suitable detail that maybe would help clear up Christian theology to you. Of course, you are not interested in that, as your mind is already closed, and I expect a "la, la, la, I can't hear you!" type post from either you or others who believe as you do after each point.

Consider first of all the nature of God, from which all this stems.

God is a guy who's been working eternally (we can say this because we do not know the age of the universe or if there are more universes...and if there are more universes, there is likely no limit to that number, and hence God has never been out of things to do). That said, though He is immortal, though He has mad anticipation skills and as such can't be taken by surprise by anything nor can He be stumped by anything (omniscient), though He can do any physical task He pleases (omnipotent), and though He can be just about everywhere at once (omnipresent), He does have limitations. For example, He can not do evil. Nor can He force you to do what He tells you. Now here's where you seemed to get lost a bit earlier: The omnipotence. What does the omnipotence relate to? As I said, it relates primarily to physical tasks such as creation. However, when it comes to free will, He does not have control over what we do. He can anticipate perfectly what we'll do, He can tell you in any number of ways what He wants us to do, He can deal with us physically if we choose not do do what He wants us to do, but He can not force us to follow His will to the letter. Therein lies the limitation and, If I might say, yours. The omnipotence is therefore contextual.

 

[toothgnip]

Now, given that He can't make us or Lucifer (only Lucifer and us humans have the free will) do what He wants (or, in ol' Morningstar's case, wanted), He needs to have some way of dealing with those who willingly commit evil. As He cannot coexist with evil, and evil cannot exist in His presence, He's forced by his own nature to exclude permanently all those who do evil and don't repent from it whilst they have the chance. Therefore Hell is not so much a "fiery pit of unpleasentness" (to quote Shake from ATHF), but instead is merely existing completely outside the presence of God. And since God is the source of all Good, therefore existing outside His presence is an existence devoid of every and all good things. Hence, the metaphorical Hell is torturous to those who dwell in it.

 

[El_Machinae]

El seems like its not so much that you dont believe in god, its more like youre mad at him because we arent living in an old Disney cartoon. God is so mean. He created a universe where sharp pointy things are possible, and sometimes, people get boo-boos!

You still haven't addressed whether genocide is actually wrong or not. And yeah, the idea of God irriates me. If I believed in Him, I would hate him. I cannot appreciate a being that sets up a self-perpetuating system of suffering for His own edification.

However, that doesn't change anything. My logic is strong. How can a being, that causes suffering for no reason, be good? Now, I'll admit that my concept of "God" includes some type of salvation, in that sinners and faithful are treated differently when all is said and done, and that sinners are treated poorly. If this isn't true, then my logic falls apart, but my atheism doesn't matter either, then.

Of course, you are not interested in that, as your mind is already closed, and I expect a "la, la, la, I can't hear you!" type post

Ack! Like a stake through my heart! I'm serious, I don't think of myself as close-minded, but as asking the really tough questions. Ergo, you've given me valuable feedback. Now, to defend myself, I believe that I'm quite knowledgable regarding the Bible, ethics, and biology, and so I feel I have the right to have an opinion. You might not know, but I only disrespect a religion when it causes suffering.

 

[Bozo Erectus]

He can not force us to follow His will to the letter.

He cant? Who would stop him?

 

[El_Machinae]

However, when it comes to free will, He does not have control over what we do. He can anticipate perfectly what we'll do, He can tell you in any number of ways what He wants us to do, He can deal with us physically if we choose not do do what He wants us to do

Okay, here's a logical question for you then. If he can perfectly anticipate that someone with Free Will will reject Him, and another someone will not, then what's the value in creating the one who will reject Him? The Free Will of the someone who accepts Him in no way, shape, or form needs to be affected by the someone who isn't created. For example, my Free Will is not infringed by a person in South Africa dying or not dying. So, if I accept God, then there was no reason to create the person that would reject Him over there.

Is there a point to the suffering of the people who reject God? The Free Will of the people who accept Him is not infringed by their creation or non-creation, so the 'Good' people don't need the sinners. However, the sinners are negatively affected by their creation, so why create them?

Here's an anology (and it assumes that people have free will, but can be predicted): suppose my wife is pregnant with a healthy embryo. Now, I have a drug that will cause the embryo to split into twins, but I know that one of the twins will be 'sick in the head' and will be a psychopath (but through his own free will). Why would I make the twins? Why not just make the healthy kid? Why the affirmative action to make something evil, when the evil does not need to exist for the good to exist?

 

[Bozo Erectus]

You still haven't addressed whether genocide is actually wrong or not.

Do I think genocide is wrong? Yes. Do I believe god is guilty of genocide? No. Why not? Because a world where theres no pain, no death, no suffering, the sun is always shining and every body is happy, forever and ever, is a silly pipe dream. Youre mad at god because people die? Think about it, do you really want to be you forever? Ive got a crazy suggestion for you: maybe god, the creator of the universe, is slightly smarter than you and me, so we should give him the benefit of the doubt.

However, that doesn't change anything. My logic is strong. How can a being, that causes suffering for no reason, be good?

Did you ever see a toddler running around with a knife, or sharp scissors in his hand? When you take it away, the kid starts crying, screaming, kicking etc. He wants it back, but obviously you cant give it back to him. Now the kid hates you, and thinks youre mean..sound familiar?

 

[sanabas]

However, that doesn't change anything. My logic is strong. How can a being, that causes suffering for no reason, be good? Now, I'll admit that my concept of "God" includes some type of salvation, in that sinners and faithful are treated differently when all is said and done, and that sinners are treated poorly.

Doesn't this concept also require that the sinners are being treated poorly 'for no reason'? If the sinners are being treated poorly for a reason, wouldn't that destroy this particular argument that god isn't good? i.e. Assume god isn't actually omniscient, and is simply running some universes through to work out the best version of human souls for the important universe? So the suffering is for the purpose of improving some other universe.

Or assume god has decided that simply being a static soul isn't that good, what a soul actualy needs is the chance to make some choices and grow, so the world was set up for them. A necessary part of souls having that choice is that some of them might choose in a way that makes them unsuitable to be allowed back, hence they get sent somewhere else and therefore suffer. In that case the suffering is being done for our benefit. In that case, it also raises the question of why if free will and the opportunity to grow is a good thing, why is the ultimate aim of getting into heaven require losing that free will and opportunity to grow, but that question is separate from your logic.

I actually agree with you, if I assumed that god as depicted in the bible or as depicted by the religion I've been taught actually existed, that god would not be worthy of my worship. I just don't think your logic is completely ironclad yet.

 

[El_Machinae]

Do I think genocide is wrong? Yes. Do I believe god is guilty of genocide?

Dude: you said "God chooses that people should die", and then he caused aging. How is that different from "El_Mac chooses that people should die", and then I poison a water supply?

do you really want to be you forever

Okay, now you've lost me. Is there an afterlife where 'me' is preserved?

Did you ever see a toddler running around with a knife, or sharp scissors in his hand?

Did I put the scissors there, knowing I would have to take them away, knowing that I would be hated? What's the motivation for having the scissors there? I could ensure the safety of my child by removing the scissors ahead of time. I could let the kid know that scissors are dangerous by telling him (such that the child would understand).

 

[Bozo Erectus]

So your whole case against god rests against the fact that our existence isnt like some long, blurry ecstatic heroin trip? God went to alot of trouble putting together this very complex hologram so that our brief little existences could have some meaning to us. Would you really rather lay around in a Garden of Eden sort of place, like some sort of blissed out slug? Forget that thats impossible, its also undesirable.

 

[Suki]

I know it's a weird definition of slavery. But artificial barriers to choosing my 'master' exist already, so my choice of 'masters' is already limited by laws (immigration being the easiest example to use). My point is that a bastardization of slavery already exists, and it's not considered immoral. People work for other people all the time; whether to get goods or to pay off debts.

right, every time it happens the same way, the powerful draw more power to themselves, which would be evoloutionarily good for them, except that when the power levels become too obviously seperate, and class mobility drops to zero, those without power turn against those with. Since power is drawn from the population in the first place there's a new revolution and the cycle starts over. The trick to stabalizing it is to make the slaves feel les like slaves, the rulers seem more like they for some reason deserve their position.

why is genocide wrong?
because if you were given a choice to live in a world where it is right or a world where it was wrong you would choose to live in a world where it is wrong, for the same reasons (just on a larger scale) that you would choose to live in a world where murder is wrong, or theft is wrong, becaus genetic survivability in those worlds, on average, is reduced, or at least randomized enough to make it a bad thing. which would you rather (good) or (slightly more good + random beatings) even if option 2 gives more total good for you the random beatings at least make it seem worse. We choose to live a world where certian things are wrong by setting it as wrong and punishing those who whould disagree, and reduce the survivability of others, or destabalize the system.


toothgnip:
if god can create lucifer in any way god chooses, and can predict exactly how he will use his free will. In considering different models of lucifer they must not all have been set to turn against him, so he should have chose one of those. if they all do then not only is there no free will because if god can predict your future actions then they don't actually have any degrees of freedom, but not even god could make something that would act in a different way. Then he punishes them for it..

if you found out that you were wrong would that convince you?

 

[Suki]

the effects of the development of scientific mothod, critical thinking and public education on religious beliefs shows in an odd way memetics at work, and cognitive dissodance reduction.

start asking people to think coherently, "why should I believe this"-> cognitive dossodance -> suddenly "faith in the unknowable" becomes good -> gets written into the memetic code..

 

[El_Machinae]

Doesn't this concept also require that the sinners are being treated poorly 'for no reason'?

Yes. You're 100% right. So, let's look through the possible reasons.

- to benefit someone else. Well, causing suffering in one person to benefit another person cannot be purely good. First off, my Free Will is violated - I am not willingly suffering to benefit others, so I am not showing the "self-sacrifice" virtue. In addition, my suffering should not be necessary to benefit another if the Creator is omnipotent.

- to benefit God. Same reason, but even worse, since He's showing a selfish action.

- to benefit me. Well, yeah, I can see that. I can counter with 'omnipotence' and say He should have been able to benefit me without hurting me. But this also assumes that I benefit from my creation (at the end of the day), which means I benefit regardless of my actions - is there a 'scale' of benefit that someone receives? I thought 'Heaven' was just as 'good' for everyone? Where's the motivation to be 'good' if I'm rewarded either way?

what a soul actualy needs is the chance to make some choices and grow, so the world was set up for them.

Back to biology, then. 7/8 babies are miscarried. So, either they were 'never given a chance to grow' or 'they don't have souls yet' or 'they got enough chance to grow'.

- To say that a soul require life experience to be complete is a valid reason to avoid abortion, but is damning on the Creator for making a 1/8 success rate (since we can improve the success rate using science)

- To say that they don't have souls yet means that there is no 'harm' caused by abortions or ESC research. Sure, you've lost the 'potential' for a baby, but being abstinent for a month is the same loss of 'potential'.

- To say that they got enough chance to grow again says that there is no need to avoid abortions (your offspring is equally served by being raised to adulthood compared to just being vacuumed out). In fact, if 'life experience' can lead to the rejection of God, where's the motivation to run the risk of your offspring (which you love) rejecting God?

 

[El_Machinae]

So your whole case against god rests against the fact that our existence isnt like some long, blurry ecstatic heroin trip? ... Would you really rather lay around in a Garden of Eden sort of place, like some sort of blissed out slug? Forget that thats impossible, its also undesirable.

I know the way the world really work. That's my point. How can you call God 'perfect' when the universe is clearly not 'perfect? I'm not mad at the Universe, it just is. I'm just saying that the imperfect universe proves that nothing perfect created it.

Christian theology is also damned because of their concept that 'only some make it' at the end. This means that the others were not necessary for the final story, and therefore their creation was evil.

 

[Bozo Erectus]

The universe isnt perfect because people suffer, die of old age, get sick, sad, they get killed in natural disasters etc? What makes you think that a universe that didnt have those things would be perfect? Youre like a fish who curses the water.

 

[El_Machinae]

No, I'm like a fish that knows that water could be improved.

If it's okay that people die, then why can't I kill? If it's okay that people die, why should I feel obligated to stop it? Your 'perfect' universe is made better (or worse) based on actions I can take (of my own Free Will) - ergo it's either not perfect, or my actions don't matter. Why should another person's suffering be dependant upon my Free Will? That's not fair for them.

 

[Bozo Erectus]

Its not 'okay' that people die, its necessary, thats all. Its wrong to kill because when you kill someone you rob them of the only thing they have. Yes, we reorder the universe around us to suit our desires, we make it better. Awfully nice of god to give us a universe thats malleable and we can work with, right? It would kind of suck to be trapped in a 'perfect' universe where nothing needed to be done. As far as free will goes, yes, we're free to either cause or not cause suffering. We're also free as individuals to protect ourselves. Makes life more interesting doesnt it?