Christianity

[Immanuel Can]

OK. What if I say, "If the Bible is true, then God does evil because he does things in the Bible that he would consider evil if we did them"? Is that a problematic argument?

Well, then you're only going as far as asking a question like, "If Sherlock Holmes had not figured out the speckled band, would he still be tall and dapper?" In other words, while insisting the situation is entirely fictitious, you're asking for a serious and rational answer. And on that premise, no such thing would be possible. How can one answer an "if" about a fictional character? Having never existed, no "other case" is even supposable. You're not assuming enough even to pose the question coherently.

But again: the problem will not be what a Theist can or cannot do, either way. If secularism finds no warrant for evil, then it cannot speak coherently of any problem associated with evil. So to treat "evil" as any real thing, he's going to have to abandon his secularism -- and, as your question points out to us, his hope that the Biblical record might be merely fictional, as well.

I'm not insisting that the situation is entirely fictitious. I'm agnostic. are you saying God is a "fictional" character or that the Bible is a fictitious work?

Of course not. I'm simply pointing out that one cannot claim there's a problem of evil, and also that one doesn't believe in the real existence of such a thing as evil. A question like that is never going to make sense.

[Gary Childress]

Well, then you're only going as far as asking a question like, "If Sherlock Holmes had not figured out the speckled band, would he still be tall and dapper?" In other words, while insisting the situation is entirely fictitious, you're asking for a serious and rational answer. And on that premise, no such thing would be possible. How can one answer an "if" about a fictional character? Having never existed, no "other case" is even supposable. You're not assuming enough even to pose the question coherently.

But again: the problem will not be what a Theist can or cannot do, either way. If secularism finds no warrant for evil, then it cannot speak coherently of any problem associated with evil. So to treat "evil" as any real thing, he's going to have to abandon his secularism -- and, as your question points out to us, his hope that the Biblical record might be merely fictional, as well.

I'm not insisting that the situation is entirely fictitious. I'm agnostic. are you saying God is a "fictional" character or that the Bible is a fictitious work?

Of course not. I'm simply pointing out that one cannot claim there's a problem of evil, and also that one doesn't believe in the real existence of such a thing as evil. A question like that is never going to make sense.

So did you mean to say that "Atheists" can't say there is a "problem of evil"? "Secularist" technically can also refer to people who are agnostic and who therefore don't subscribe to a particular religious tradition.

[Immanuel Can]

I'm not insisting that the situation is entirely fictitious. I'm agnostic. are you saying God is a "fictional" character or that the Bible is a fictitious work?

Of course not. I'm simply pointing out that one cannot claim there's a problem of evil, and also that one doesn't believe in the real existence of such a thing as evil. A question like that is never going to make sense.

So did you mean to say that "Atheists" can't say there is a "problem of evil"? "Secularist" technically can also refer to people who are agnostic and who therefore don't subscribe to a particular religious tradition.

Well, if you're not sure there's a God, then you certainly aren't sure there's such a thing as "evil." How could you be?

[Gary Childress]

Of course not. I'm simply pointing out that one cannot claim there's a problem of evil, and also that one doesn't believe in the real existence of such a thing as evil. A question like that is never going to make sense.

So did you mean to say that "Atheists" can't say there is a "problem of evil"? "Secularist" technically can also refer to people who are agnostic and who therefore don't subscribe to a particular religious tradition.

Well, if you're not sure there's a God, then you certainly aren't sure there's such a thing as "evil." How could you be?

I'm not sure if there's such a thing as evil. Or, at the very least, I can't be sure that all 10 of the 10 commandments are the last word on moral duty.

[Immanuel Can]

So did you mean to say that "Atheists" can't say there is a "problem of evil"? "Secularist" technically can also refer to people who are agnostic and who therefore don't subscribe to a particular religious tradition.

Well, if you're not sure there's a God, then you certainly aren't sure there's such a thing as "evil." How could you be?

I'm not sure if there's such a thing as evil. Or, at the very least, I can't be sure that all 10 of the 10 commandments are the last word on moral duty.

Well, there's no moral duty you can be sure of either, if you're agnostic. All an agnostic can say is, "I don't know." He can't even say, "...and you can't either," because he has no basis, and no way of knowing whether or not that's true.

So an agnostic doesn't know any more about evil than an Atheist does. Neither one can describe any basis of which an evaluation of something as "evil" can be grounded and thus made compulsory to rational others.

[Gary Childress]

Well, if you're not sure there's a God, then you certainly aren't sure there's such a thing as "evil." How could you be?

I'm not sure if there's such a thing as evil. Or, at the very least, I can't be sure that all 10 of the 10 commandments are the last word on moral duty.

Well, there's no moral duty you can be sure of either, if you're agnostic. All an agnostic can say is, "I don't know." He can't even say, "...and you can't either," because he has no basis, and no way of knowing whether or not that's true.

So an agnostic doesn't know any more about evil than an Atheist does. Neither one can describe any basis of which an evaluation of something as "evil" can be grounded and thus made compulsory to rational others.

Fair enough. Two things:

1) Go back to my statement: "If the Bible is true, then God does evil because he does things in the Bible that he would consider evil if we did them"?

What is problematic about that statement?

2) I can't tell you that the Bible is mistaken, can you tell me that the Bible is all truth? What can you say as a "believer"? Anything and everything you want so long as it is written or at least alluded to in the Bible?

[Immanuel Can]

I'm not sure if there's such a thing as evil. Or, at the very least, I can't be sure that all 10 of the 10 commandments are the last word on moral duty.

Well, there's no moral duty you can be sure of either, if you're agnostic. All an agnostic can say is, "I don't know." He can't even say, "...and you can't either," because he has no basis, and no way of knowing whether or not that's true.

So an agnostic doesn't know any more about evil than an Atheist does. Neither one can describe any basis of which an evaluation of something as "evil" can be grounded and thus made compulsory to rational others.

Fair enough. Two things:

1) Go back to my statement: "If the Bible is true, then God does evil because he does things in the Bible that he would consider evil if we did them"?

What is problematic about that statement?

I did answer that. If you don't believe in God, then you don't even believe in the coherence your own question. You have no way of explaining why anybody should "consider" anything to be "evil." So what on earth can you possibly be talking about...fictions?

2) I can't tell you that the Bible is mistaken, can you tell me that the Bible is all truth? What can you say as a "believer"? Anything and everything you want so long as it is written or at least alluded to in the Bible?

One can either believe the account of evil as God characterizes it, or one has no fixed concept one can work with...none you can obligate a society to agree with, and not even one for which you can explain to yourself why YOU have any duty to adhere to it: nobody does.

[Gary Childress]

Well, there's no moral duty you can be sure of either, if you're agnostic. All an agnostic can say is, "I don't know." He can't even say, "...and you can't either," because he has no basis, and no way of knowing whether or not that's true.

So an agnostic doesn't know any more about evil than an Atheist does. Neither one can describe any basis of which an evaluation of something as "evil" can be grounded and thus made compulsory to rational others.

Fair enough. Two things:

1) Go back to my statement: "If the Bible is true, then God does evil because he does things in the Bible that he would consider evil if we did them"?

What is problematic about that statement?

I did answer that. If you don't believe in God, then you don't even believe in the coherence your own question. You have no way of explaining why anybody should "consider" anything to be "evil." So what on earth can you possibly be talking about...fictions?

I'm agnostic, there are plenty of things in the world that seem evil to me. Should I assume that there is no such thing as God and therefore no such thing as evil? (Assuming there even needs to be a God for something to be subjectively immoral.)

2) I can't tell you that the Bible is mistaken, can you tell me that the Bible is all truth? What can you say as a "believer"? Anything and everything you want so long as it is written or at least alluded to in the Bible?

One can either believe the account of evil as God characterizes it, or one has no fixed concept one can work with...none you can obligate a society to agree with, and not even one for which you can explain to yourself why YOU have any duty to adhere to it: nobody does.

Again, there are things in this world that even agnostics think are evil (or at least should never be done). Should I assume there's no God and that therefore we can do whatever we want to others?

[seeds]

I'm not insisting that the situation is entirely fictitious. I'm agnostic. are you saying God is a "fictional" character or that the Bible is a fictitious work?

Of course not. I'm simply pointing out that one cannot claim there's a problem of evil, and also that one doesn't believe in the real existence of such a thing as evil. A question like that is never going to make sense.

So did you mean to say that "Atheists" can't say there is a "problem of evil"? "Secularist" technically can also refer to people who are agnostic and who therefore don't subscribe to a particular religious tradition.

Gary, I don't mean to interfere with whatever point you are trying to make (or fun you are trying to have) with IC,...

...but you do realize, don't you, that no matter how clever, and polished, and intelligent sounding IC's responses are,...

...the bottom line is that you are trying to reason with a person who believes that it is fully justifiable for God to take the soul of an infant who died shortly after being born, and brutally torture that infant soul for an eternity in Hell simply because God omnisciently knew that that soul would, for whatever reason, not accept Jesus as its personal savior had it lived a few extra years on Earth?

And as to the Biblical stance on the question of the origin of "evil," God himself allegedly said...

“I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I the LORD do all these things.” -- Isaiah 45:7 (KJV)

_______

[Immanuel Can]

Fair enough. Two things:

1) Go back to my statement: "If the Bible is true, then God does evil because he does things in the Bible that he would consider evil if we did them"?

What is problematic about that statement?

I did answer that. If you don't believe in God, then you don't even believe in the coherence your own question. You have no way of explaining why anybody should "consider" anything to be "evil." So what on earth can you possibly be talking about...fictions?

I'm agnostic, there are plenty of things in the world that seem evil to me. Should I assume that there is no such thing as God and therefore no such thing as evil? [Assuming there even needs to be a God for something to be subjectively immoral.]

2) I can't tell you that the Bible is mistaken, can you tell me that the Bible is all truth? What can you say as a "believer"? Anything and everything you want so long as it is written or at least alluded to in the Bible?

One can either believe the account of evil as God characterizes it, or one has no fixed concept one can work with...none you can obligate a society to agree with, and not even one for which you can explain to yourself why YOU have any duty to adhere to it: nobody does.

Again, there are things in this world that even agnostics think are evil (or at least should never be done).

Sure. But WHY do they think those particular things should be done, and others not? They can’t answer, except to say, “Well, I just have a feeling of not liking some things, and liking others.” But that, too, also requires an answer to why.

Should I assume there's no God and that therefore we can do whatever we want to others?

No, you shouldn’t assume that. But an agnostic or Atheist has no particular reason not to. After all, what’s the basis of his belief that he can’t?

[Gary Childress]

I did answer that. If you don't believe in God, then you don't even believe in the coherence your own question. You have no way of explaining why anybody should "consider" anything to be "evil." So what on earth can you possibly be talking about...fictions?

I'm agnostic, there are plenty of things in the world that seem evil to me. Should I assume that there is no such thing as God and therefore no such thing as evil? [Assuming there even needs to be a God for something to be subjectively immoral.]


One can either believe the account of evil as God characterizes it, or one has no fixed concept one can work with...none you can obligate a society to agree with, and not even one for which you can explain to yourself why YOU have any duty to adhere to it: nobody does.

Again, there are things in this world that even agnostics think are evil (or at least should never be done).

Sure. But WHY do they think those particular things should be done, and others not? They can’t answer, except to say, “Well, I just have a feeling of not liking some things, and liking others.” But that, too, also requires an answer to why.

Should I assume there's no God and that therefore we can do whatever we want to others?

No, you shouldn’t assume that. But an agnostic or Atheist has no particular reason not to. After all, what’s the basis of his belief that he can’t?

So only a believer in the Christian Bible can believe they can't do anything and everything they want to someone else? Is that correct?

[Immanuel Can]

Again, there are things in this world that even agnostics think are evil (or at least should never be done).

Sure. But WHY do they think those particular things should be done, and others not? They can’t answer, except to say, “Well, I just have a feeling of not liking some things, and liking others.” But that, too, also requires an answer to why.

Should I assume there's no God and that therefore we can do whatever we want to others?

No, you shouldn’t assume that. But an agnostic or Atheist has no particular reason not to. After all, what’s the basis of his belief that he can’t?

So only a believer in the Christian Bible can believe they can't do anything and everything they want to someone else? Is that correct?

In theory, that has to be correct. Somebody who understood the implications of their Atheism/agnosticism would surely also have to conclude that no basis existed for them not to do whatever they felt the desire to do, so long as they also felt they could get away with it.

Fortunately, almost nobody lives like an agnostic or Atheist. They tend to want to speak about Atheism or agnosticism, but not to follow through on the corollary beliefs. Usually, what they seem to do is adopt some code they've been raised with, or find palatable, and then amble along in that direction, never pressing themselves on why they think it's obligatory. They don't tend to be interested in thinking their beliefs through to any particular logical termination point, because the whole reason for declaring for Atheism or agnosticism was to have some way of dismissing Theism; and beyond that, they never much thought about it. They certainly didn't ask it to explain their own moral obligations to them. And I suspect they'd be irritated to realize that it can't.

But Nietzsche did. Hume didn't have as much nerve as that, and bailed into Emotivism. But Nietzsche held course, particularly in his "Madman's Speech."

[Gary Childress]

Sure. But WHY do they think those particular things should be done, and others not? They can’t answer, except to say, “Well, I just have a feeling of not liking some things, and liking others.” But that, too, also requires an answer to why.


No, you shouldn’t assume that. But an agnostic or Atheist has no particular reason not to. After all, what’s the basis of his belief that he can’t?

So only a believer in the Christian Bible can believe they can't do anything and everything they want to someone else? Is that correct?

In theory, that has to be correct. Somebody who understood the implications of their Atheism/agnosticism would surely also have to conclude that no basis existed for them not to do whatever they felt the desire to do, so long as they also felt they could get away with it.

Fortunately, almost nobody lives like an agnostic or Atheist. They tend to want to speak about Atheism or agnosticism, but not to follow through on the corollary beliefs. Usually, what they seem to do is adopt some code they've been raised with, or find palatable, and then amble along in that direction, never pressing themselves on why they think it's obligatory. They don't tend to be interested in thinking their beliefs through to any particular logical termination point, because the whole reason for declaring for Atheism or agnosticism was to have some way of dismissing Theism; and beyond that, they never much thought about it. They certainly didn't ask it to explain their own moral obligations to them. And I suspect they'd be irritated to realize that it can't.

But Nietzsche did. Hume didn't have as much nerve as that, and bailed into Emotivism. But Nietzsche held course, particularly in his "Madman's Speech."

Why should an agnostic believe something like that? In my own life, I'd say there is such a thing as karma. I don't know if there's a God or not or anything about a God except, karma is a bitch. Look at where destroying the Palestinians is getting Israel. It's not only Christians who are against Israel pounding Gaza (Assuming some are, not sure about the ones on this forum), China is secular (I believe) and some of the world follows Buddhism. They believe genocide is wrong. Why do they believe that?

[Immanuel Can]

So only a believer in the Christian Bible can believe they can't do anything and everything they want to someone else? Is that correct?

In theory, that has to be correct. Somebody who understood the implications of their Atheism/agnosticism would surely also have to conclude that no basis existed for them not to do whatever they felt the desire to do, so long as they also felt they could get away with it.

Fortunately, almost nobody lives like an agnostic or Atheist. They tend to want to speak about Atheism or agnosticism, but not to follow through on the corollary beliefs. Usually, what they seem to do is adopt some code they've been raised with, or find palatable, and then amble along in that direction, never pressing themselves on why they think it's obligatory. They don't tend to be interested in thinking their beliefs through to any particular logical termination point, because the whole reason for declaring for Atheism or agnosticism was to have some way of dismissing Theism; and beyond that, they never much thought about it. They certainly didn't ask it to explain their own moral obligations to them. And I suspect they'd be irritated to realize that it can't.

But Nietzsche did. Hume didn't have as much nerve as that, and bailed into Emotivism. But Nietzsche held course, particularly in his "Madman's Speech."

Why should an agnostic believe something like that?

Like what?

In my own life, I'd say there is such a thing as karma.

Then you're a Hindu. That is, assuming you understand what "karma" means, which most people in the West apparently do not.

They believe genocide is wrong.

Who does?

Why do they believe that?

Why does who believe what?

[Gary Childress]

In theory, that has to be correct. Somebody who understood the implications of their Atheism/agnosticism would surely also have to conclude that no basis existed for them not to do whatever they felt the desire to do, so long as they also felt they could get away with it.

Fortunately, almost nobody lives like an agnostic or Atheist. They tend to want to speak about Atheism or agnosticism, but not to follow through on the corollary beliefs. Usually, what they seem to do is adopt some code they've been raised with, or find palatable, and then amble along in that direction, never pressing themselves on why they think it's obligatory. They don't tend to be interested in thinking their beliefs through to any particular logical termination point, because the whole reason for declaring for Atheism or agnosticism was to have some way of dismissing Theism; and beyond that, they never much thought about it. They certainly didn't ask it to explain their own moral obligations to them. And I suspect they'd be irritated to realize that it can't.

But Nietzsche did. Hume didn't have as much nerve as that, and bailed into Emotivism. But Nietzsche held course, particularly in his "Madman's Speech."

Why should an agnostic believe something like that?

Like what?

In my own life, I'd say there is such a thing as karma.

Then you're a Hindu. That is, assuming you understand what "karma" means, which most people in the West apparently do not.

They believe genocide is wrong.

Who does?

Why do they believe that?

Why does who believe what?

Why should an agnostic believe he can do anything and everything he wants to someone else. You said there was no reason they should believe the opposite.

Is China a Christian nation or somehow rooted in Christianity? Otherwise, as I plainly stated, China believes genocide is wrong. They're opposed to Israel's continuing attacks on Gaza.

I'm not a practicing Hindu any more than I'm a practicing Christian. So why do you say I'm a "Hindu".