# Steven Pinker



## ambush80 (Jan 13, 2017)

"God's purpose sounds good in the abstract but in practice it always seems to be conveyed by human beings and that opens the door to a great deal of mischief."


----------



## Madman (Feb 25, 2017)

ambush80 said:


> "God's purpose sounds good in the abstract but in practice it always seems to be conveyed by human beings and that opens the door to a great deal of mischief."



I agree.  God is better at revealing Himself then I am at trying to show Him.


----------



## Israel (Feb 26, 2017)

ambush80 said:


> "God's purpose sounds good in the abstract but in practice it always seems to be conveyed by human beings and that opens the door to a great deal of mischief."



If the premise that the open door man finds tends to mischief, is that not all the more reason of persuasion toward something other than man?
But here I am not speaking in abstract. For either a man is persuaded (in himself) that that tendency toward mischief is ubiquitous, or he is something of the man that thinks the fault is only in _every other_. Himself being the only _true_ man.


----------



## ambush80 (Feb 26, 2017)

Israel said:


> If the premise that the open door man finds tends to mischief, is that not all the more reason of persuasion toward something other than man?
> But here I am not speaking in abstract. For either a man is persuaded (in himself) that that tendency toward mischief is ubiquitous, or he is something of the man that thinks the fault is only in _every other_. Himself being the only _true_ man.



He sees the fault in himself a reflection of every other and puts the blame on God.


----------



## Israel (Feb 26, 2017)

ambush80 said:


> He sees the fault in himself a reflection of every other and puts the blame on God.


 I do not think I am able to understand what you are saying.
Is it this: The faults _he believes_ he sees in others are really his own?
If so, Paul addressed that very thing with no recrimination toward God.
(If that is so, and if that being so you find some offense in man blaming God, we are closer to being on the same page than I would have believed...prior)

Or is it: The faults of every other are truly perceived, along with his own...and he is blaming God for it?

The premise being that "God" only is a manufactured scapegoat for the dismal way things might appear to such a one? With the seeming implication that if man would stop resorting to God as excuse...he might better fix things up? 

 Or is it to you, that everything is, at bottom, really hunky dory, nothing is off the rails at all...except as attributable to those theists feeling compelled to see things in some _malignant _way?

Or is it entirely something else you are saying?


----------



## ambush80 (Feb 27, 2017)

Israel said:


> I do not think I am able to understand what you are saying.
> Is it this: The faults _he believes_ he sees in others are really his own?
> If so, Paul addressed that very thing with no recrimination toward God.
> (If that is so, and if that being so you find some offense in man blaming God, we are closer to being on the same page than I would have believed...prior)
> ...



 I was attempting to adopt your manner of prose in hopes of connecting.  I must not be very good at it since the result was confusion.  My apologies.  I'll just continue to speak as plainly as possible.  

I was trying to express the notion that man invented God and the Devil (the Agent of God) to explain his prehistoric, unsophisticated observations of human nature and nature in general.  I contend that if man puts God in the correct context that he may better fix things up.


----------



## Madman (Feb 27, 2017)

ambush80 said:


> I contend that if man puts God in the correct context that he may better fix things up.



And here we are in 100% agreement.

A non-believer says "No god therefore..........."
and he must develop a worldview that is totally secular.  Everything has to begin at the point where matter created itself etc. He becomes the arbiter of right and wrong, he makes his own rules, he "does what is good in his own eyes".
He develops a science where "what if's" and "may have's" abound to a point that for some of us is harder to scientifically and philosophically believe than "god".

A believer says "In the beginning god, therefore ..........."
and he must develop a worldview with laws of physics, and science, and math, and philosophy.  A world of order and not of ciaos, where "love and nurturing" make as much since as "the world is red with tooth and claw".

Yes by all means let us put God in the proper context.

Genesis 1:1
Isaiah 55:6


----------



## bullethead (Feb 27, 2017)

Madman said:


> And here we are in 100% agreement.
> 
> A non-believer says "No god therefore..........."
> and he must develop a worldview that is totally secular.  Everything has to begin at the point where matter created itself etc. He becomes the arbiter of right and wrong, he makes his own rules, he "does what is good in his own eyes".
> ...


Christian Theism in its most basic sense entails observations that would necessarily be made by everyone everywhere and at all times, and thus it is as easily disproven as the alien in the bathtub. For instance, God is theoretically omnipresent, and granted us the ability to know him (to feel his loving presence, etc.), yet I have absolutely no sensation of any God or anything that would be entailed by a God, even though by definition he is within me and around me wherever I go. Likewise, God is theoretically the epitome of compassion, and also all-knowing and all-powerful and beyond all injury, yet I know that what demonstrates someone as compassionate is the alleviation of all suffering known to them and safely within their power to alleviate. All suffering in the world must be known and safely within the power of God to alleviate, yet it is still there, and since the Christian 'theory' entails the opposite observation, Christianity is false. Likewise, God theoretically designed the universe for a moral purpose, but the universe lacks moral features--animals thrive by survival of the fittest, not survival of the kindest, and the laws of physics are no respecter of persons, they treat the good man and the bad man equally. Moreover, the universe behaves like a mindless machine, and exhibits no intelligent action of its own accord, and there are no messages or features of a linguistic nature anywhere in its extra-human composition or behavior, such as we would expect if a thinking person had designed it and wanted to communicate with us.

Christians attempt to preserve their proposed theory by moving it into the set of unprovables that lack all evidence. They do this arbitrarily, and for no other reason than to save the proposed theory, by creating impassable barriers to observation, just as requiring us to look in every corner of every universe creates an impassable barrier for one who is asked to decisively disprove the statement "there are big green Martians." For instance, the advanced theory holds that God alleviates suffering in heaven, which we conveniently cannot observe, and he has reasons for waiting and allowing suffering to persist on Earth, reasons which are also suitably unobservable to us, because God chooses not to explain them, just as he chooses, again for an unstated reason that is entirely inscrutable, to remain utterly invisible to all my senses, external and internal, despite being always around and inside me and otherwise capable of speaking to me plainly.
~Richard Carrier


----------



## Madman (Feb 27, 2017)

bullethead said:


> Christians attempt to preserve their proposed theory by moving it into the set of unprovables that lack all evidence.


Not sure who Richard Carter is but apparently you believe he has more original thoughts on the topic than you do.

There are no more "unprovables" in Christianity then in a secular world view.


----------



## bullethead (Feb 27, 2017)

Madman said:


> Not sure who Richard Carter is but apparently you believe he has more original thoughts on the topic than you do.
> 
> There are no more "unprovables" in Christianity then in a secular world view.


I am not sure who Richard Carter is either.


Richard Carrier said what I was thinking better and that is why I used it.

In the secular world view we keep on looking to prove the unprovables.
Christiany immediately deduces back to a god that is in itself unprovable.
Secularists are not making claims that they cannot back up.

I didn't see a refutation from you about Carriers article.


----------



## Madman (Feb 27, 2017)

Not sure why I waste my time with this other than for the fun of it.

So here come some "pearls".



bullethead said:


> Christian Theism in its most basic sense entails observations that would necessarily be made by everyone everywhere and at all times, ............ granted us the ability to know him (to feel his loving presence, etc.), yet I have absolutely no sensation of any God or anything that would be entailed by a God, even though by definition he is within me and around me wherever I go.



This is correct.  Romans 1:18-20



bullethead said:


> even though by definition he is within me


Christians do not believe God is in the non-believer, therefore you and your spokesman are incorrect.
2 John 1:9-11



bullethead said:


> Likewise, God is theoretically the epitome of compassion, and also all-knowing and all-powerful and beyond all injury, yet I know that what demonstrates someone as compassionate is the alleviation of all suffering known to them and safely within their power to alleviate. All suffering in the world must be known and safely within the power of God to alleviate, yet it is still there, and since the Christian 'theory' entails the opposite observation, Christianity is false.



Compassion is one attribute as is, long suffering, righteous, just, etc.

As a parent I am compassionate towards my children, yet sometimes I punished them and sometimes I let them do certain things even though I knew it was not in their best interest.

Sometimes you let the "kids" have what they asked for.

Read The Book of the Revelation.



bullethead said:


> Likewise, God theoretically designed the universe for a moral purpose,


No He did not.
The total of Scripture tells us that God created the world for His glory.  You should read "A Dissertation Concerning the End for Which God Created the World" by Jonathan Edwards



bullethead said:


> they treat the good man and the bad man equally.


There is no such thing as good men.  there is only righteous and unrighteous.
Jer. 17:9
1 John 1:8




bullethead said:


> Moreover, the universe behaves like a mindless machine, and exhibits no intelligent action of its own accord,



A fine tuned machine.  Interesting how Carrier claims intelligence out of non-intelligence.



bullethead said:


> For instance, the advanced theory holds that God alleviates suffering in heaven, which we conveniently cannot observe, and he has reasons for waiting and allowing suffering to persist on Earth, reasons which are also suitably unobservable to us, because God chooses not to explain them,


Not everything is observable.  God tells us this will be so and we have no reason not to believe Him.  Your wife says she love you and I assume you take that at face value even though it is not observable nor is it provable.



bullethead said:


> just as he chooses, again for an unstated reason that is entirely inscrutable, to remain utterly invisible to all my senses, external and internal, despite being always around


1 Kings 8:27
John 14:18



bullethead said:


> capable of speaking to me plainly.



He is and He has.  The Bible.

I hope you would be better at saying what you think then he was.  He missed on so many points.

Use your own words next time.


----------



## bullethead (Feb 27, 2017)

Madman said:


> Not sure why I waste my time with this other than for the fun of it.
> 
> So here come some "pearls".
> 
> ...


He didn't say the Bible, he said Christians, and all you have to do is read through  the what is True thread to see examples of Christians saying exactly that.





Madman said:


> Compassion is one attribute as is, long suffering, righteous, just, etc.
> 
> As a parent I am compassionate towards my children, yet sometimes I punished them and sometimes I let them do certain things even though I knew it was not in their best interest.
> 
> ...


So your god is not above any human emotion or acts. It is not coincidental that your god thinks and acts just like you do.






Madman said:


> No He did not.
> The total of Scripture tells us that God created the world for His glory.  You should read "A Dissertation Concerning the End for Which God Created the World" by Jonathan Edwards


The total of reality tells us that we live smack dab in the middle of a planetary system within a galaxy that is within a universe that can, has and will destroy this planet and kill most if not all of its lifeforms randomly and without warning.
The sun is dying Madman.This world is finite. I am not buying into the glory part.




Madman said:


> There is no such thing as good men.  there is only righteous and unrighteous.
> Jer. 17:9
> 1 John 1:8


When you use only that book as your dictionary you paint yourself into a small corner.






Madman said:


> Afine tuned machine.  Interesting how Carrier claims intelligence out of non-intelligence.


How did you get fine tuned machine out of what you quoted him as saying : A mindless machine.
??




Madman said:


> Not everything is observable.  God tells us this will be so and we have no reason not to believe Him.  Your wife says she love you and I assume you take that at face value even though it is not observable nor is it provable.


Actions and evidence prove a Wife's love.
Two things that elude what you are saying and how it really is. 




Madman said:


> 1Kings 8:27
> John 14:18


2000 year old men can write whatever they want. Modern apologetics have to back it up.
Where is this outside of the bible?






Madman said:


> He is and He has.  The Bible.


That only holds water a few floors up.
He didn't write anything.



Madman said:


> Ihope you would be better at saying what you think then he was.  He missed on so many points.
> 
> Use your own words next time.


Wait a minute,  are you telling me that I should write my own words and you worship something that cannot do the same thing?

His points are valid. Just because you try to use scripture as a source of accurate information has you missing. These threads are loaded with self proclaimed Christians that do and say exactly what Carrier stated.
He has addressed those directly.


----------



## Israel (Feb 28, 2017)

ambush80 said:


> I was attempting to adopt your manner of prose in hopes of connecting.  I must not be very good at it since the result was confusion.  My apologies.  I'll just continue to speak as plainly as possible.
> 
> I was trying to express the notion that man invented God and the Devil (the Agent of God) to explain his prehistoric, unsophisticated observations of human nature and nature in general.  I contend that if man puts God in the correct context that he may better fix things up.





> Israel:The premise being that "God" only is a manufactured scapegoat for the dismal way things might appear to such a one? With the seeming implication that if man would stop resorting to God as excuse...he might better fix things up?



So that is my closest understanding?


Have you seen the movie "Arrival"?


----------



## ambush80 (Feb 28, 2017)

Israel said:


> So that is my closest understanding?



Yes.




Israel said:


> Have you seen the movie "Arrival"?



I have.


----------



## SemperFiDawg (Feb 28, 2017)

ambush80 said:


> I was attempting to adopt your manner of prose in hopes of connecting.  I must not be very good at it since the result was confusion.  My apologies.



No.  You're really good at it, hence the confusion.


----------



## ambush80 (Feb 28, 2017)

SemperFiDawg said:


> No.  You're really good at it, hence the confusion.


----------



## Madman (Feb 28, 2017)

bullethead said:


> He didn't say the Bible, he said Christians, and all you have to do is read through  the what is True thread to see examples of Christians saying exactly that.



You will have to take that up with them.  the implication was Christendom as a whole. 



bullethead said:


> So your god is not above any human emotion or acts. It is not coincidental that your god thinks and acts just like you do.


I tried to use an example that you could comprehend.  I'll aim lower next time.




bullethead said:


> The total of reality tells us that we live smack dab in the middle of a planetary system within a galaxy that is within a universe that can, has and will destroy this planet and kill most if not all of its lifeforms randomly and without warning.
> The sun is dying Madman.This world is finite. I am not buying into the glory part.



Yes it is finite.  
Isaiah 51:6



bullethead said:


> How did you get fine tuned machine out of what you quoted him as saying : A mindless machine.
> ??



Read the book, The Privileged Planet: How Our Place in the Cosmos Is Designed for Discovery



bullethead said:


> Actions and evidence prove a Wife's love.
> Two things that elude what you are saying and how it really is.


So those times she is angry with you shows her love?




bullethead said:


> 2000 year old men can write whatever they want. Modern apologetics have to back it up.
> Where is this outside of the bible?


Modern apologetics do back it up if you cared enough to do the research.



bullethead said:


> Wait a minute,  are you telling me that I should write my own words and you worship something that cannot do the same thing?


Are you telling me Carrier wrote what you told him to write?



bullethead said:


> His points are valid. Just because you try to use scripture as a source of accurate information has you missing. These threads are loaded with self proclaimed Christians that do and say exactly what Carrier stated.
> He has addressed those directly.



You are conversing with me.  I have not said any of those things and I nor the Bible nor Christian doctrine claim them to be true.  

If you want to argue, argue with ME.  I don't carry other Christians water nor do they carry mine.

Once again you fail on every point.  Information from non-information, matter from nothing, etc.  What is you problem with the biblical Jesus?

When you are able to answer those questions we will have a place to start.


----------



## ambush80 (Feb 28, 2017)

Madman said:


> Once again you fail on every point.  Information from non-information, matter from nothing, etc.  What is you problem with the biblical Jesus?
> 
> When you are able to answer those questions we will have a place to start.



Hope you don't mind if I join in.  There's alot of speculation as to how matter arose from nothing and thus information.  There's alot of speculation about eternal Energy/matter.  Then there's speculation about an eternal being.  That part weirds me out at a gut level but seems even weirder at an intellectual one.

My problem with the Biblical Jesus is the miracles.


----------



## bullethead (Feb 28, 2017)

ambush80 said:


> Hope you don't mind if I join in.  There's alot of speculation as to how matter arose from nothing and thus information.  There's alot of speculation about eternal Energy/matter.  Then there's speculation about an eternal being.  That part weirds me out at a gut level but seems even weirder at an intellectual one.
> 
> My problem with the Biblical Jesus is the miracles.


Awww dang it Ambush, now you said what I wanted to say....


----------



## welderguy (Feb 28, 2017)

ambush80 said:


> Hope you don't mind if I join in.  There's alot of speculation as to how matter arose from nothing and thus information.  There's alot of speculation about eternal Energy/matter.  Then there's speculation about an eternal being.  That part weirds me out at a gut level but seems even weirder at an intellectual one.
> 
> My problem with the Biblical Jesus is the miracles.



Yeah those pesky miracles give lots of people problems.


----------



## ambush80 (Feb 28, 2017)

bullethead said:


> Awww dang it Ambush, now you said what I wanted to say....



You slow, boi.


----------



## bullethead (Feb 28, 2017)

ambush80 said:


> You slow, boi.



Stinking Work  is always getting in the way of posting...


----------



## Israel (Mar 2, 2017)

ambush80 said:


> Yes.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Reminded of Dr. Banks caveat in regards to using a thing like "chess" to establish communication.
There is a language in which we are all alien to one another.

Who doesn't know of intercourse amongst aliens that hasn't led to misunderstanding, strife, and particular heartbreak? They could try marriage if they doubt.


----------

