Hitch is dead

Devils and Satan, CS bleedin' Lewis and trickery. You couldn't make it up... For me and mine, fine. Not so good for a lot of others. Still, the sun is shining and spring is springing.

Er, we don't see that - ever. That's just meaningless blather. If you do can you please stop coming out with this utter bollox.

Have you been listening to the sermons of the ignorant again? This sort of archaic language isn't doing anything to help you.So what happened to freewill in heaven then?

The problem here is that you saying that we can’t get absolute answers from philosophy and by extension theology. You are absolutely right of course. That is the problem that Christian fundamentalists have and where they get off track. They look to an inerrant Bible, (or something close to that) to provide absolute answers.
It shouldn’t be understood that way and that is obvious because of not only minor inconsistencies but because of major contradictions such as writing that Yahweh commands genocide and public stoning and then we are told that we are to love our enemy and be merciful, forgiving and loving.I would agree with Paul when he writes that the authors were inspired by God to write what they did, but that doesn’t mean that their motivations for what they wrote were of God. People since the writing of the Bible are still being inspired to record their insights and understandings both philosophical and theological. I would also add that our scientists are inspired in what they do and what they learn can also give insights into what God has done and maybe even give us clues as to what lies ahead and how we can deal with it. For example the first hospitals had Christian roots and then through science we have modern medicine.So, it isn’t that a lovely kind god is a modern invention. That god was always there but the problem was people. Religion institutions are created by people around their religious beliefs and ultimately they usually go off the rails out of the lust for power and influence. When people get to that point of influence in the institutions they are expected to come up with absolute answers and so they do.The big thing that we can learn from philosophy and theology is that in one thing there is consistency. All major religions and something that just about everyone knows deep down is true, is the Golden Rule.

quote:

---

Golden Rule in Baha’i Faith: Lay not on any soul a load that you would not wish to be laid upon you, and desire not for anyone the things you would not desire for yourself. [Source: Baha’u’llah, Gleanings]
Golden Rule in Buddhism: Treat not others in ways that you yourself would find hurtful. [Source: Udana-Varga 5.18]
Golden Rule in Christianity: In everything, do to others as you would have them do to you; for this is the law and the prophets. [Source: The Bible, Matthew 7:12]
Golden Rule in Confucianism: One word which sums up the basis of all good conduct.loving-kindness. Do not do to others what you do not want done to yourself. [Source: Confucius, Analects 15.23]
Golden Rule in Hinduism: This is the sum of duty: do not do to others what would cause pain if done to you. [Source: Mahabharata 5:1517]
Golden Rule in Hinduism: Why does a man inflict upon other creatures those sufferings, which he has found by experience are sufferings to himself? [Source: Tiruvalluvar, Tirukkural Verse 318]
Golden Rule in Islam: Not one of you truly believes until you wish for others what you wish for yourself. [Source: The Prophet Muhammad, Hadith]
Golden Rule in Jainism: One should treat all creatures in the world as one would like to be treated. [Source: Sutrakritanga 1.11.33]
Golden Rule in Judaism: What is hateful to you, do not do to your neighbour. This is the whole Torah; all the rest is commentary. Go and learn it. [Source: Hillel, Talmud, Shabbath 31a]
Golden Rule in Native Spirituality: We are as much alive as we keep the earth alive. [Source: Chief Dan George]
Golden Rule in Sikhism: I am a stranger to no one; and no one is a stranger to me. Indeed, I am a friend to all. [Source: Guru Granth Sahib, p.1299]
Golden Rule in Taoism: Regard your neighbour’s gain as your own gain and your neighbour’s loss as your own loss. [Source: Laozi, T’ai Shang Kan Ying P’ien, 213-218]
Golden Rule in Unitarianism: We affirm and promote respect for the interdependent web of all existence of which we are a part. [Source: Unitarian principle]
Golden Rule in Zoroastrianism: Do not do unto others whatever is injurious to yourself. [Source: Shayast-na-Shayast 13.29]

---

In the Bible in addition to the quote from Judaism there is this quote from Leviticus 19.

quote:

---

9 ‘When you reap the harvest of your land, do not reap to the very edges of your field or gather the gleanings of your harvest. 10 Do not go over your vineyard a second time or pick up the grapes that have fallen. Leave them for the poor and the foreigner. I am the LORD your God. 11 ‘Do not steal. ‘Do not lie. ‘Do not deceive one another. 12 ‘Do not swear falsely by my name and so profane the name of your God. I am the LORD. 13 ‘Do not defraud or rob your neighbor. ‘Do not hold back the wages of a hired worker overnight. 14 ‘Do not curse the deaf or put a stumbling block in front of the blind, but fear your God. I am the LORD. 15 ‘Do not pervert justice; do not show partiality to the poor or favoritism to the great, but judge your neighbor fairly. 16 ‘Do not go about spreading slander among your people. ‘Do not do anything that endangers your neighbor’s life. I am the LORD. 17 ‘Do not hate a fellow Israelite in your heart. Rebuke your neighbor frankly so you will not share in their guilt. 18 ‘Do not seek revenge or bear a grudge against anyone among your people, but love your neighbor as yourself. I am the LORD.

---

The Golden Rule was present in Judaism right from the beginning and the Jesus tells us that loving one’s neighbor is the basics of all the laws and the prophets.
However when you read that quote from Leviticus we can see that it is still all about being good to their neighbours while limiting neighbours to those in their own tribe. But with a progressive understanding we come to Jesus who tells us that our neighbour is everyone including their enemies.None of this denies the fact that this belief is spread naturally within cultures, but it does show that it has been part of us from the beginning.The problem is in the institutionalized church there very often only paid lip service to that call on humanity. Humans prejudices, pride, greed, nationalism etc play a role in all religions. However many times they get it right as well.However I would suggest that there is reformation happening within the Christian church. I contend that studying Jesus within His time and culture, and getting away from studying the Bible as answering all the questions, we are shedding some false teachings and gaining new insights.Actually I believe that it has been people in your own country such as Polkinghorne, Wright, Bauckman who have been at the forefront of this. The church as I follow it now is a very different church than the one I grew up and grew away from. I guess it is what you call reliable. The Gospel of John was written by an eye witness, probably John the Elder — scroll down,who was either an apostle but more likely a disciple of Jesus pre-resurrection. Peole like Polycarp. Papius and Irenaeus , wrote accounts and were contemporaries of John and other eye witnesses.
Luke who wrote the Gospel and Acts travelled with Paul and would have met Peter James etc. The early church taught that Matthew was written by Mathew the tax collector but that is really uncertain but the book would have been written while there were still eyewitnesses alive. The authorship of Mark is uncertain and was the first Gospel written and was used as source material for parts of both Matthew and Luke.
There really has been considerable historical research, particularly by Richar Bauckman going through the ancient writings and history apart from what is in the Bible. He wrote a book compiling his research on all of this titled Jesus and the Eyewitnesses I’m part way through reading it now.

Which is why it's a useless way of finding answers. Either believe whatever suits your personality or don't accept ideas that have no foundation in reality. Of course it is. You're floppy, lovely god is brand new - unrecogniseable to an 18th century Christian. Oh ffs, the 'golden rule' is human nature. That's it; evolved moral traits. The 'do as you would be done by' trope is not a supernatural intervention, it's as much part ofus as our ears. How many times? The bible is hearsay. Hearsay is the opposite of reliable. That's why it's not regarded as evidence.

I did:

quote:

---

Once you have a planet, with the various elements, and the various conditions created by "being a planet" - power from a sun, weather, elements... you now have the everything required in order for biological evolution to begin and continue to occur until the power or elements run out.

​

We don't know every last detail of these processes... yet.
But every detail we do know (and we know many) shows us that they all occur without any intelligent agency required.

---

What part do you not understand? Cosmic evolution creating plants and suns?
Suns giving power?
Having elements on planets?
Having weather on planets?
How weather and elements and power can give rise to early life?
How early life evolves into modern life?There's lots of information on all parts.
Not all parts have concrete, fully understood answers.
But all parts have lots of information we know about them.
And all the information we know of all the parts - show that God is not required. There's nothing wrong with that.Everyone is allowed to believe whatever they want.
As long as you're not hurting others - you won't go to jail for it.But whatever beliefs you (or I) may have:
-none of the facts above disappear
-there is evidence, and factual support for a tentatively held, reasonable conclusion (not a belief) that all that exists is here without God
-there is no evidence, and no factual support for a belief that God is required for this universe to be hereEdited by Stile, : No reason given.Edited by Stile, : No reason given.

If something is present in all cultures and has been a part of us from the beginning, then we are the source of it. Something about human nature or group and social dynamics makes it necessary.There is a highly successful game theory strategy called Tit for Tat (quote leaves out section titles):

quote:

---

[Tit-for-tat] is also a highly effective strategy in game theory. An agent using this strategy will first cooperate, then subsequently replicate an opponent's previous action. If the opponent previously was cooperative, the agent is cooperative. If not, the agent is not.

​

Tit-for-tat has been very successfully used as a strategy for the iterated prisoner's dilemma. The strategy was first introduced by Anatol Rapoport in Robert Axelrod's two tournaments, held around 1980. Notably, it was (on both occasions) both the simplest strategy and the most successful in direct competition.

​

An agent using this strategy will first cooperate, then subsequently replicate an opponent's previous action. If the opponent previously was cooperative, the agent is cooperative. If not, the agent is not. This is similar to reciprocal altruism in biology.

​

The success of the tit-for-tat strategy, which is largely cooperative despite that its name emphasizes an adversarial nature, took many by surprise. Arrayed against strategies produced by various teams it won in two competitions. After the first competition, new strategies formulated specifically to combat tit-for-tat failed due to their negative interactions with each other; a successful strategy other than tit-for-tat would have had to be formulated with both tit-for-tat and itself in mind.

​

This result may give insight into how groups of animals (and particularly human societies) have come to live in largely (or entirely) cooperative societies, rather than the individualistic "red in tooth and claw" way that might be expected from individuals engaged in a Hobbesian state of nature. This, and particularly its application to human society and politics, is the subject of Robert Axelrod's book The Evolution of Cooperation.

---

For reference, the prisoner's dilemma is a game in which the police offer two prisoners a reduced sentence if they betray the other:

quote:

---

Two members of a criminal gang are arrested and imprisoned. Each prisoner is in solitary confinement with no means of communicating with the other. The prosecutors lack sufficient evidence to convict the pair on the principal charge, but they have enough to convict both on a lesser charge. Simultaneously, the prosecutors offer each prisoner a bargain. Each prisoner is given the opportunity either to betray the other by testifying that the other committed the crime, or to cooperate with the other by remaining silent. The possible outcomes are:

• If A and B each betray the other, each of them serves two years in prison
• If A betrays B but B remains silent, A will be set free and B will serve three years in prison
• If A remains silent but B betrays A, A will serve three years in prison and B will be set free
• If A and B both remain silent, both of them will serve only one year in prison (on the lesser charge).

It is implied that the prisoners will have no opportunity to reward or punish their partner other than the prison sentences they get and that their decision will not affect their reputation in the future. Because betraying a partner offers a greater reward than cooperating with them, all purely rational self-interested prisoners will betray the other, meaning the only possible outcome for two purely rational prisoners is for them to betray each other. In reality, humans display a systemic bias towards cooperative behavior in this and similar games despite what is predicted by simple models of "rational" self-interested action. This bias towards cooperation has been known since the test was first conducted at RAND; the secretaries involved trusted each other and worked together for the best common outcome.

​

An extended "iterated" version of the game also exists. In this version, the classic game is played repeatedly between the same prisoners, who continuously have the opportunity to penalize the other for previous decisions. If the number of times the game will be played is known to the players, then (by backward induction) two classically rational players will betray each other repeatedly, for the same reasons as the single-shot variant. In an infinite or unknown length game there is no fixed optimum strategy, and prisoner's dilemma tournaments have been held to compete and test algorithms for such cases.

---

Tit-for-tat was used to play the iterated version of the game.This would show how something like the Golden Rule, treating others fairly because you would want to be treated fairly, would arise naturally in human societies. And how empathy, an emotional basis for treating others fairly thus leading to morality, would become a part of our sociability.

Free will in Heaven is sorta like getting on a bus to London. Once you choose to get on that bus, you must ride it to its destination. You cant simply change your mind and order the driver to go elsewhere. Same with Heaven.

Yes it does. Width has to be wide for everybody, dogs have to be canine for everybody, evidence has to be evident for everybody. By definition.You can reject the evidence but you can't pretend it isn't evidence. You can believe something that isn't evident but you can't claim to have "your own evidence". But the scripture is fantasy-based.

Then The Lord of the Rings would be evidence for elves. And Grimm's fairy tales would be evidence for talking bears.

You're thinking of a prison bus.On regular buses, you can get off whenever you want. Or the driver can throw you off. There's no guarantee of getting to your destination.Edited by ringo, : No reason given.

To a large degree that is probably true. It is actually closer to a 2nd century Christian than to one from the 18th century. That is again your assertion. John was written by a disciple who followed Jesus prior to the resurrection so it isn't hearsay. Luke and Acts were written by a man who traveled with Paul and who had contact with the original disciples. It isn't hearsay. Matthew was possibly written by a disciple but it would have been written in consultation with the disciples. It is more unclear about who wrote Mark but it certainly would have again been with input from the disciples. Mark was the first Gospel written and was also a source for the other synoptics.I use the term disciples not as a synonym for apostle although they may have been. However, I does use it for those who would have followed Jesus during His life time.Obviously Paul abandoned his strong Pharisaic beliefs and gained his Christian understandings from the apostles.There are the others who wrote what they did with information gleamed from the disciples as I mentioned. You use the term hearsay pretty freely.

Firstly if it is there from the beginning then we can't be the source of it. Also I don't deny that it can spread naturally, but that does not rule out in any way the idea that there is a universal morality behind it that is the result of outside intelligence.I wouldn't argue against the tit for tat means of influencing others but that is a human strategy designed to bring about a motivated human desired outcome. In the case of empathy there is no motivation. I have trouble accepting the idea that those who sacrifice their resources and even their lives for people in other cultures far removed from them. You can say that this is an simply an argument from incredulity and that would be correct but so is the argument against there being an intelligence responsible for life.

Ask someone to explain to you the difference between what was is obviously meant to be fiction and what is obviously meant to be non-fiction.

Right, no freewill in heaven then. So it's possible for everybody to be perfectly content without freewill after all. So why all this fuss and bother with mortality and suffering if it's possible without?