₦airaland Forum

Reyginus: I doubt if I believe you to understand my statement this way.
You are not taking into consideration that what we are dealing with is not reality but a work of fiction. Anything outside the context of the fiction cannot hold.

Once more you show that you have no idea of what you're doing or what you're supposed to do.

Reyginus: So asking if I can tell that a person has a good character, by looking at what he has done, can only be applied in the real world where there are no constraints attached to the behaviour of the people performing the actions.

You can only ask if one is satisfied with the way the evil character was potrayed but you cannot have any opinion outside it. Why? Because you were informed in the first place that none of the events happened in the real world. You cannot make anything once you are outside the plot the story followed.

Sorry but this makes no sense whatsoever. We can tell moral character in both real life and fiction. Saying you can't just shows that you're unable to think on your own. Or you just want to run from the Bible as usual.

Don't you know that you follow the plot of a story? Or do you need to have each person explained to you as being good or bad?

Reyginus: I read macbeth a long time ago. I cannot really recall more than where a character, either macduff or macbeth, bragged that no man born of a woman can kill him. Ignorant of the fact that the other was given birth to through a surgical operation.

Read the plot on Wikipedia. It's short. You can also read the short story in maybe Lamb's Tales from Shakespeare. Now you're even afraid to take a look at Macbeth?

Reyginus: I beg to disagree. I don't think the characters in fictional or real life are judged based on what they do.

It would be safe to conclude that they are judged based on the intent or motive of the action. Once we begin to judge people based on what they do rather than the intent behind the action, then, I think even measures like self-defence will be considered an evil thing. Then our understanding begin to dumb down.

Do you think that the action is irrelevant? Since you're so hung up on intent, go ahead and show me using the intent and actions in the Bible who had the better character. Draw up your list let's take a look at it. While you're at it, can you tell me the intent for the actions I listed Yahweh as carrying out?

Reyginus: Let's not act as if their actions decides how we should form our jugdement of good and evil.
If we assume it, which I think is wrong, we can only solve resolve this challenge by pointing out every portion of the bible where god or the devil did evil.

That will prompt us thereafter to weigh the crimes committed by the respective parties. Then another problem sets in. But if sonehow in the midst of our confusion, we got lucky enough to be moved by the right instincts, we will come to discover that we've wasted our time because our means of assessment is wrong, I the first place.

The intent at every sight of any evil God committed always appeared for the good. The bible will always tell you why the action or evil is for a greater good.

What was the good intent for God killing the 42 children, drowning everyone in Noah's flood and commanding the genocide? Then go on and list the devil's actions and the intent behind them let's take a look at it. Don't run from this task you've set for yourself.

Reyginus: The problem is that you want me to tell you what and what actions the devil carried out in potraying evil.

You are of the wrong notion that our actions define us. The problem with this is that an evil man can go away with a good name if he can pretend and veil his real self properly.

It cannot be a case against god because the intent of god in the bible was properly established. The same with that of the devil.

So you can't say what the devil did that was evil. You can't say what his intentions are for the actions. You can't say what God's intentions were for the acts I listed so what conclusion can you draw from the Bible?

Reyginus: Then you are no longer speaking of the same story. It is either you accept a writer's story as it is, leave it and mind your business, or write a new story to brigde the gap you found in it. You can debate it only if the story is based on true life events.

I don't really understand the meaning of the latter part of your statement. How you arrived at that conclusion I can't tell.

Have you ever heard of literary criticism? Look it up and realize that people can and do study works of literature. What did you find confusing in what I wrote?

Reyginus: Please don't confuse the two, bro. It is a categorical mistake. When two identities are compared, one committing an evil is entirely different from his being more evil.

The question was if there is any portion of the bible that can say that god is more evil than the devil. That question you neglected, since it can be verified from the bible, should determine which is the greater evil. You seem not to be looking at the reasons behind the actions committed by god. Abeg na!

What was the category error you claim I made? Or will this also be like your accusing me of having lied? No that isn't the question I asked you. The question I asked you was whether Yahweh or the devil had the worse character. Whichever one you pick, present your reason for picking it. You can state the reason why it was good for God to test people by asking them to kill their children and by commanding genocides.

Reyginus: I understand this argument so well to know that examples of evil acts committed by any of the parties will not take us any where.

The question should be, what did the bible say was his reasons? Was he labelled as a dictator for doing so? Was even seen as an evil?

Are you seriously saying that actions don't matter? Since you're so hung up on the intent, you say what the intent of the characters were.

Reyginus: Why this outburst when what I only asked was a simple question? My question still is, would you accept that the devil is evil if I can show you a portion of the bible were it was made clear? Is that not simple enough to deserve a honorable response?

And I've answered by telling you to present your evidence based on what the devil actually did not based on what someone else vaguely hinted that he did.

Reyginus: Lol. Piling up evils will not prove anything. Like I responded in response 2, the intent is what determines why anyone is good or bad and not their actions.

Actually, it goes a long way to reveal your character. Since you want to add intent to what you need to show, please go ahead and tell me the intent behind your God killing all the people he killed.

Reyginus: I still can't find it. You will do well to post it in responding to this.

Lol. C'mon! How can one make a blunder when he is asking for clarifications?

If you're seriously saying you cannot read a post sequentially including one that contains a quote you made, then there's nothing I can do other than to link you back to my original post and you tell me what you don't understand. Here's the link. Please highlight the phrase you find confusing.

Reyginus: Afraid!! Na wa o! I still don't understand. What is it that I am afraid of? I seriously want to know.

You're afraid of looking at what the Bible says about God.

Reyginus: No. I don't tell who the good guys in a movie are by their actions. I consider why they do whatever they do to be the basis of my formulation.

If we are to follow your advise then there will be no way to distinguish the good guys from the bad guys. Based on their actions: the good as well as the bad guys kill, both are usually very strong. These parameters can never tell you who is really good.

Are you seriously saying that what they did isn't important? If so, please also tell me why God felt commanding genocides and killing 42 children was a good idea but the devil hasn't done anything remotely evil.

Reyginus: Oh please, c'mon. I am now not asking you to react based on what truely happened in the story. Just take it as my little contribution to the work of art.
Again, who is the better character?

And I'm telling you that your summary didn't provide enough information. Why don't you leave it at that? e.g what did Merlin do? You just say he performed magic. What did Morgana do? She also performed some magic. You then say that Merlin performed more evil than Morgana at the rate of 10:1 but I can't judge that for myself because I don't know the acts they did, I can't compare what they did so how do I arrive at a conclusion based on what I've seen?

[quote author=rapture_ready]O boy...[/quote]Any questions?

[quote author=rapture_ready]What six month old babies?[/quote]The six month old babies that drowned in Noah's flood. And the ones that died in the genocide he commanded.

[quote author=rapture_ready]Maybe you should look up the meaning of metaphors?[/quote]I know the meaning. But you see, due to the difference between humans and programs, your metaphor is too weak to work.

[quote author=rapture_ready]Their free will is perfect. It's the choices they make using said free will - that's the problem. Next you'll ask me why didn't God make all their choices perfect.[/quote]Well why didn't he? It looks like he does in Heaven so what was the problem?

[quote author=rapture_ready]Really take a look at the metaphor thing. This does not look good on you.[/quote]Take a look at the fallacy of a weak analogy.

[quote author=rapture_ready]Who has been keeping score, you?[/quote]I'm sure you can too if you try. For starters your God drowned a lot of people in Noah's flood. How many did the devil drown?

[quote author=rapture_ready]God uses evil? Generalisations like that sound wacky without facts backing them up.[/quote][/quote]Really you should try to know your Bible.

NIV: 1 Kings 22

19 Micaiah continued, “Therefore hear the word of the Lord: I saw the Lord sitting on his throne with all the multitudes of heaven standing around him on his right and on his left. 20 And the Lord said, ‘Who will entice Ahab into attacking Ramoth Gilead and going to his death there?’

“One suggested this, and another that. 21 Finally, a spirit came forward, stood before the Lord and said, ‘I will entice him.’

22 “‘By what means?’ the Lord asked.

“‘I will go out and be a deceiving spirit in the mouths of all his prophets,’ he said.

“‘You will succeed in enticing him,’ said the Lord. ‘Go and do it.’

Jeremiah 4

10 Then I said, “Alas, Sovereign Lord! How completely you have deceived this people and Jerusalem by saying, ‘You will have peace,’ when the sword is at our throats!”

Ezekiel 14

9 “‘And if the prophet is enticed to utter a prophecy, I the Lord have enticed that prophet, and I will stretch out my hand against him and destroy him from among my people Israel.

Are those quotes from the Bible satisfactory?

[quote author=rapture_ready]Isaiah 14:12-15

12 How art thou fallen from heaven, O Lucifer, son of the morning! how art thou cut down to the ground, which didst weaken the nations!

13 For thou hast said in thine heart, I will ascend into heaven, I will exalt my throne above the stars of God: I will sit also upon the mount of the congregation, in the sides of the north:

14 I will ascend above the heights of the clouds; I will be like the most High.

15 Yet thou shalt be brought down to hell, to the sides of the pit.

Now go ahead and admit you are wrong and post a retraction.[/quote]Nothing there says that the devil wanted to overthrow God. He was already in Heaven and isn't God's throne supposedly above the stars?

[quote author=rapture_ready]God has caused much destruction of evil things. How is destroying a bad thing a bad thing? Like when the americans shot Osama, was that murder?[/quote]Are 6 month old babies evil? Are they bad things?

[quote author=rapture_ready]Why pretend you don't understand I was only using a program as an illustration? Anyway, for what it's worth, a program is a creation, I too am a creation, it's called a metaphor.[/quote]Are you? So there's no important difference between you and a program?

[quote author=rapture_ready]God didn't create imperfect beings, he created perfect beings - and then gave them free will [/quote]Why isn't their free will perfect? After all, their free will is supposed to be perfect in Heaven so what is the problem?

[quote author=rapture_ready]Why does he have a right to destroy it? Maybe because it's his creation? If I told you that you don't have the right to throw out your own soup that you cooked that has gone sour, what will you say?[/quote]Well humans are very different from soup so you need a better comparison.

[quote author=rapture_ready]Well technically, before the devil had his hare-brained idea to takeover heaven, there was no sin or evil. All the creation lived in peace and righteousness. God exalted him to be the chief of the angels, and he got proud and decided he wanted to be the oga@dtop. That is the first record of sin in existence.[/quote]Now let's take a look at the characters of God and the devil. Which one of them has killed more people?

Secondly, why does God use evil? If he uses evil, then it means that he wanted to have evil in order to use it.

[quote author=rapture_ready]Check again. He said "I will ascend to the highest throne bla bla bla", I'll find the reference in the bible for you later when I gat the chance...[/quote]Go ahead.

[quote author=rapture_ready]You are taking this the wrong way. God destroyed the bad parts of his creation. It's just a shame only Noah was found righteous. If say I write a program to add 1 + 1 = 2, and it keeps giving me 3 as an answer, I can very well delete it. If I build a robot to fetch me water and it keeps irreparably glitching and not working, I'll have to junk it...[/quote]So God has caused more destruction than the devil. After all, the devil hasn't been able to match God's destruction and killing.

[quote author=rapture_ready]Whatever God created, he has a right to destroy...[/quote]Firstly why would a perfect God create imperfect creatures?
Secondly you're not a program.
Why does he have the right to destroy it?

[quote author=rapture_ready]Spawn all evil?[/quote]How did the devil spawn all evil? Why does God use evil at all?

Reyginus: Simply because we are supposed to accept whatever a work of fiction tells us is true.

Except when you begin to argue that it is not fiction in the first place, then we can begin to question and take position on why the historian is so flawed in his position. We can dismiss his insufficient reasons with good rebuttals which will be acceptable at this point.

But once it becomes fiction, whatever the writer says is final. Just like make the statement that a character it is wrong for a character in a science fiction movie to be seen flying, even though you were informed that the movie is a sci-fi.

So you're saying that you cannot tell yourself by actually looking at what someone has done whether or not that person has a good character or not?

Who would you say has a better character between Macbeth and Banquo?

Reyginus: But you've also failed on your part to understand that a character in any fiction is not judged based on what he did but on what the director or writer says it is. You are insinuating what the bible never wrote.

False. Characters whether fictional or real are judged by what they did. In fact sometimes the writer doesn't say who they think is good or bad.

Reyginus: Do you accept that, as fiction and not a statement of fact, everything in the biblr is true? A yes or no will do. But you can answer in any way you want to.

The Bible contains some fictional elements but again, this point is irrelevant because we're talking about the actions performed by the entities mentioned in the book not whether or not the book was fiction.

Reyginus: Lol. But where have I shown any of the above. Please don't flatter yourself.

You show it each time you're unable to back up your claim that the devil had a worse character than God.

Reyginus: Ofcourse anyone can talk about it but my point is there is no way you can rationalize and come up to say that the director was wrong to label a particular character evil. It's his movie, his rules. Otherwise asserted, you are no longer talking of Harry Potter.

Actually, you can as long as you have a brain and can think, you can disagree with the author about whether or not based on what has been presented that a certain entity they created was good or evil. This reveals something else which is either you're afraid of actually reading what the Bible contains and talking frankly about it or you're lazy and want someone else to do your thinking for you

Reyginus: C'mon! Stop this deception. I didn't ask of any evidence of evil committed by Yahweh, I am only surprised that you cannot summon an evidence from the bible where it was written that God and not the devil is the evil.

This is why I say you're being lazy. I've cited evidence for you that shows that God is evil based on what he did. You even accept that Yahweh has committed evil acts but for some reason, you're still unable to form any conclusion unless you were spoon fed.

Reyginus: If you hold the bible to mean completely what it is saying, then I would like to see you tell me that all it says about god is a lie, but if you say it doesn't mean what it tells, on what basis are you now saying the devil is a better character while god is not?

I'm saying on the basis that Yahweh performed terrible acts while the devil didn't. I've listed some of the acts that Yahweh did that count as evil but so far, you've not been able to do the same for the devil.

Reyginus: Wrong response. I only asked if you will accept that the devil is the worst character if I could show you a portion of the bible where it is so written. There is no point saying more.

Since we are using the bible it would be logical if we can find what the bible say of devil and God. I think that would be enough.

You said I lied. I asked you to show me the lie and you change tack? Come on.
And this would be laziness to the extreme. It shows a refusal to actually think about what you're reading. Sorry but I actually think about what I'm reading. Don't just show me a quote saying "the devil is worse than God", show me what the devil did that makes him worse than God. That is the difference between someone who thinks about what they read and someone who merely counts letters.

Reyginus: Please, what is this? thehomer I believe I don't have to tell you that does that address what it is quoting in any way.
This is just a repeat of what you've saying from the beginning. Not really is it bad to repeat it, but it is bad to repeat when what you're quoting have nothing in relation with it. I advice you read that response.

Just state the evil actions done by the devil, compare them to God's actions and then you're ready to work.

Reyginus: Said what? Come and complete it. The statement is not complete.

Go back and read it. I quoted what you said after the colon.

Reyginus: I guess this is somehow attached to what you were trying to say above. I can respond to it less I make a blunder.

Of course it is attached. Didn't you read what I wrote? You've already made the blunder.

Reyginus: You may be sincere in your perception of how my post appears, but I am also as certain as you are that I am not trying to sound christain.

Actually, you are and that is why you're afraid of looking at what the Bible says about God and devil and forming your own conclusion about it.

Reyginus: No no no. That's not what I am saying for god's sake. I am not of the opinion that you can determine their character by looking at their actions. If I did, it would have been irrational for me to argue that god was the better character.

I am of the opinion that whichever character the movie describes as the better one, irrespective of his actions, is the better character. That's my point.

So when the producers of the movie don't write Bruce Willis is the good guy in this movie in the introduction, you find it difficult to tell who the good guys were in the movie Die Hard.
Or how do you think the good guys are? Isn't it by what they do? Or do they list the characters and say good guy after it?

Reyginus: Lol. I think it is the same problem with logicboy. Only that logicboy's PhD is still at its acute stage while yours have gone chronic.

By the way, you didn't answer this question:
with my brief narration of the characters merlin and Lady morgana, who would you say has a better character?

I couldn't form a conclusion based on what you wrote. As I said, I'd rather arrive at my own conclusions rather than be spoon fed.

[quote author=rapture_ready]Well, in the beginning, he did try to usurp God's throne, got his treacherous butt tossed out of heaven, then proceeded to destroy God's creation out of pure spite...

Doesn't sound like Man of the year material to me...[/quote]Last time I checked, the Bible said he rebelled against God not that he tried to take God's throne.

Secondly, it was God who destroyed his own creation. Do you recall Noah's flood? What has the devil done that is even comparable to that degree of destruction?

Try looking for what the devil did to people. God has already done so much but what did the devil do?

[quote author=rapture_ready]I said the bible didn't go into too much detail about his specific actions, not that it didn't give any detail. It gave enough detail to make a veritable conclusion.

...For we are not ignorant of the devil's devices...[/quote]So what were the actions he performed that made you conclude that the devil had a worse character than God?

Reyginus: It may be terrible but you've not done enough ascertain if it really is.

It is terrible and I've shown the huge gaps in it over and over again.

Reyginus: I've not in any way here made an attempt to evade. I think if your assertions weren't built in the wrong premise that the bible didn't set out to demonize the devil. The reason I don't think this problem will be resolved.

Then how do you know that the devil's character was worse than God's character using the Bible?

Reyginus: That's not a sufficient reason to conclude it is rubbish.
The attack you came with is a weak one. You didn't tackle the problem in the first place, twisted it to something else.
You only showed that it can be question but not if a position can be taken outside what the director asserted.
What if in the beginning of the movie it was made clear who has the better character? That's the point you are deliberately running away from.
And please what is this talk about cold feet?

I've never watched Harry Potter myself.

Actually it is a sufficient reason to conclude that your response was rubbish. The question isn't about whether or not the fictional account is possible, but about which of the people under consideration had better characters.

Cold feet: (idiomatic, intransitive) to become nervous or anxious and reconsider a decision about an upcoming event. (from Wiktionary)

The fact that you've not watched Harry Potter isn't what is under consideration. What is under consideration is whether or not people can talk about the characters in the book.

Reyginus: Lol. This is not a good rebut and you know it.
I was expecting you to ask for evidence at this point, as you've been doing throughout the conversation, but I was dissapointed.

You should dismissed this point by showing me that the bible didn't say anything similar.
So long the bible made this point on several occasions, and you have no evidence to disproof it, neither is there any, then you have no option than to join in concluding that the devil has the worst character.

It looks like you're once again very confused. I've presented you with evidence of the evil Yahweh did according to the Bible so this paragraph doesn't contribute anything.

Reyginus: Lol. Another white lie. I will give you an evidence but you must first promise to denounce your position if I can present one.
But the way you are holding unto it, it seems you will not still give in even if I present you with the best of evidence. I will still give it a try once you accept.

Which of my sentences was the lie? You keep saying you'll present evidence but so far, your confusion has gotten the best of you. I'm still waiting for you to actually tell me the concrete evil that the devil did that was worse than God commanding genocides or the slaughter of 42 children.

Reyginus: No. He cannot be. And by the way, I didn't make that up, the bible did. The way the bible is written gives no room for god to be the worse character.
Even where you think he should be scorned, there is always a verse defending his action. As far as the bible is concerned he cannot be wrong.

It is just you paying some praise-singer to compose a song about you. There is no way his song can be about any other party. When they are mentioned it is only to show how you overpowered them.

More confusion I see. I'm sorry but commanding genocide to punish some men isn't good enough. You're welcome to provide the justification for the evil I've pointed out your God carried out and you can point out the evil that the devil performed.

Reyginus: Lol. But i've been doing that all along. Where did I say I don't know? Please state what I never said as if it is fact.

I know you've been committing the bandwagon fallacy. When you said:

Reyginus: 3. Some events are beyond the readers comprehension.

It means that you don't know what the devil did. If you knew what he did, it won't be beyond your comprehension.

Reyginus: I don't know if you've forgotten that I am speaking as an atheist here and not a christain.

From the third question I answered I made it clear to you that the bible is a work of fiction. I think from that point you will begin to understand that I must take everything in the work just like the writer advised if am to get the story.

I have no right to say the writer did a mistake in saying so and so person has the better character. I honestly think you cannot differenciate the fact that I, as an atheist, holds it as fiction with holding it as a reality when I was a christain.

Sorry but based on your responses so far, you're still speaking as a Christian who is afraid to take a closer look at what is actually written in the Bible. The fact that it is a work of fiction should free you to critically look at it and arrive at your own conclusions instead, you're saying for some hidden reason that the writer (who you don't know) said something that is clearly contradicted by the work you can examine for yourself.

Reyginus: Like I responded earlier I have not watched the Harry Potter series. But if you will do so well in narrating it in brief, like I did with Merlin, then I will have something to say.
With the little I presented, what do you have to say on Merlin? As in, who the better character is?

I can't summarize the entire series in a post just to make the point that you can actually look at the actions of a character even in a work of fiction for yourself to determine who had a better features.

Reyginus: The very big problem you've allowed yourself to fall into. You find it hard to accept that I can think without drawing from my christainity. Too bad.

No, it is what you've demonstrated so far in your responses. Your refusal to actually even take a look at the God of the Bible is why I say you're doing a poor job trying to mimic being an atheist.

Reyginus: I think my response above will do.

Sorry, your response was terrible and I exposed it as such.

Reyginus: Lol. I guessed right again. You didn't dissapoint me. With all due respect I marvel at your use of logic here.
I don't see any way you are going to see the point again with this logic of yours. Not at all. But I will still do well to tell why I think so.

All I see here is yet another attempt at an evasion that will fail and I'll go on to show you how it fails.

Reyginus: Your problem is that you seem to be treating the so-called fiction as something that really happened. You are doing what anyone shouldn't try after reading a work of fiction.
It caan never possibly happen, it is despicable and an attempt to deviate from the substance of the work.

This is rubbish and you know it. Anyone can ask about the character of the beings portrayed in works of fiction. e.g one can ask whether or not Harry Potter had a better character than Lord Voldemort. Saying that it didn't happen so we can't consider it is your attempt at hiding your discomfort. After all, billions of people believe that the Bible isn't actually a work of fiction so why have you suddenly developed cold feet?

Reyginus: Let me remind you. There are constants in this work of fiction, which once removed, is no longer speaking of the same thing. Some of this constants are:
1. God is always good irrespective of his actions'.

And I disagree with this claim based on the evidence in the Bible. So, this mere assertion has to be justified. And as I've shown, this God entity performs some very evil actions.

Reyginus: 2. The devil is the bad guy that tries in unexplainable means to destroy mankind'.

Another assertion that needs to be backed up by evidence. What were the means that the devil used? We know what God did but what did the devil do?

Reyginus: 3. Some events are beyond the readers comprehension.

Ah your final magical trump card. If they're beyond the readers comprehension, then based on what has been provided so far, God is the worse character until otherwise demonstrated.

Reyginus: What the bible is saying, as far as I and a logical majority are concerned, is that no matter the events intervened by God it is usually a good thing, which might be beyond the scope of the reader, but always for the limitation of the devil's power. I'm baffled that you are not seeing this.

Rather than making the fallacious bandwagon fallacy by talking about some logical majority, why don't you actually state how you reached the conclusion that God has the better character? State the actions performed by God and the devil and compare them to see which one of them has the worse character rather than magically saying we don't know therefore God has the better character.

Reyginus: It is not as if the bible failed to correct the notion that God's actions were evil, it even went further to tell you that for mankind to survive it is necessary for God to do the things he did. This is commonsense.

Simply shouting that it is commonsense doesn't make your statements sensible. So far, the Bible hasn't said what the devil did instead it says the evil things that God did but you magically say that it means God has the better character. Come on. Step outside your Christian thinking and take a sharp look at the information before you.

Reyginus: If you read a fiction work, say a movie e.g Merlin. From the outset, it was popularized that the destiny of the kingdom waa placed, by some supernatural providence which we dare not question, on his hands.
Notice how Merlin employed magic in dealing with distractions in the Kingdom of Camelot. He did evil things, with magic all in the name of protecting the kingdom. Then there was Lady Morgana, the witch.
Possessed by a demon, she was accused of witchcraft and was made to leave the kingdom. A comparison of the evil Merlin did to protect the Kingdom with that of Lady Morgana will be in the rough ratio of 10:1.
There comes somebody, a rational fellow, who tells you that Merlin was the worse character because he did greater evil irrespective of the essence.

I am sure you will not take this person serious or even if you do, it is because you are too shocked to hear it. That's the state I am in now.

I can't say because I haven't seen this Merlin movie but we can talk about something as well known as the Harry Potter series. Who would you say has the better character between Lord Voldemort and Professor Snape? I'm sure that most would say Snape and present evidence from the book talking about the actions of both Voldemort and Snape. That is all I ask you to do using the Bible but you keep floundering and trembling. And this tells me that you're not yet ready to be an atheist for some hours/days.

Whenever you're ready to look at things without your God glasses, just let me know.

[quote author=rapture_ready]@thehomer

You should realise that the bible was written about God, not necessarily the devil, so it doesn't go into much detail about specific actions of the devil.

If it did, it would cause nightmares...[/quote]So how do you know that the devil was actually evil? If you don't have enough information about the devil being evil yet you conclude that he must be evil, then you're committing the fallacy of an appeal to ignorance because ignorance of the devil's actual character doesn't mean he is evil.

Reyginus: You guys amaze me. What other evidence do you expect when the bible has already made it clear that everything worked for God. What you consider an atrocity is only a means to curb a greater atrocity the devil is planning.

This should be commonsense Read through my latest response to thehomer. Though I am not expecting something truthful.

Come on what greater atrocity? How many times did the devil command a genocide? How many times did God command a genocide?

Reyginus: If you knew me you'd have noticed I wasn't the knid of theist that uses the statement under dispute to defend myself. I was better than that.

All I know about you right now is that you're failing to support your claim.

Reyginus: I don't know what where you are getting the impression that there is no evidence. But since you want these evidence so bad I will go ahead and supply them.

I asked you for evidence, you tried all sorts of tricks to avoid presenting them. For some reason, you thought you didn't need to present them? Well think again.

Reyginus: I know you won't dissapoint me.

Mk. 1:13 - Jesus "was in the wilderness forty days being tempted by satan.

And this is worse than commanding a genocide?

Reyginus: Rev 20:2 "the devil and Satan, deceive the whole world".

Another mere accusation besides, God too uses deception.

Reyginus: 1 John 3:8 whoever continues to sin belongs to the devil, because the devil has sinned from the very beginning. The son of God appeared from this very season to destroy what the Devil has done.

Yet another vague accusation. What was the sin? Was it as bad as killing 42 children because some man was bald?

Reyginus: Rev 12:9 the huge dragon has been thrown out-that ancient serpent, called the devil, or satan, that decieved the whole world.

Gen 3:1-13-the devil took the form of the snake the deceive and destroy mankind.

I Pet. 5:8 - "your adversary, the devil, prowls about like roaring lion"

All these accusations are vague. Take another look at the examples I gave and you'll notice that they're very clear but with the devil, you've just presented vague accusations. This is a classic example of giving the devil a bad name to hang him.

We have Yahweh who commanded genocides, killed 42 children for mocking some guy, tested someone by telling him to kill his child, doing nothing while another one killed his daughter and toyed with Job. Then the devil who "deceived people". And your conclusion is that the devil is worse? Ignoring the fact that God too deceives people. In fact, he makes people do what they don't want to do like in the Pharaoh's case. Come on. You'll have to do much better than these passages. Note that I actually said what God did I didn't just say he "told people to do bad things". That would be the equivalent of saying the devil was worse because he "deceived people".

So, as far as I can see, you've not shown that the devil was worse. All you've said is that the devil deceived people but God does that too so God still comes out ahead on the worse character thing. You can help yourself by telling us what the devil's deception was. i.e what it is that the devil deceived us about.

Reyginus: There is no way this could have been the question. Try rephrasing it again. I've answered severally that God has the better character.
So, it is either you've lost track of the question or you are still trying to be mischievious. Your question was why I think god has the better character.

Well why do you think God has the better character? What evidence will you be providing? All I see here is yet another attempt at an evasion that has failed.

Reyginus: Frankly speaking, I do not consider the question too serious and sincere to come start digging up verses to support as evidence. I fail to understand why this is so hard for you to grasp.

This is such a ridiculous response that I wonder why you made it. You don't think you need to support your assertions? Should we just take your word for it? All I see is you trying and failing to present evidence supporting your claim.

Reyginus: Lol. Once again you forget that I have identified it as fiction, in the first place. You are arguing it without considering what the material was all about.

Sure you say it is fiction but why do you find it so difficult to state the reasons for your conclusion? Any one who knows how to have a discussion understands these basics.

Reyginus: How you don't see that how a fiction writer could make a particular character morally balanced than the other character. Once you begin to understand it in this light you begin to get the point I am trying to make.

Where is your evidence that what you say actually is the case in the Bible? Oh I forgot that Reyginus doesn't need to provide any evidence for his assertions. He is so wise that all words from his mouth must be true and need not be backed up with evidence.

Reyginus: I'm tired of repeating myself.

So far, you've not been able to present any evidence from the Bible that Yahweh has a better character than the devil.

Reyginus: That's the problem. By default you've assumed that my answers must be in agreement with that of some other atheists.
How am I sure that you are not already made up on what to agree upon. That seems perfectly the case here. It is as if there is a code of conduct without which whatever I say is meaningless.

Still failing in your attempt at yet another distraction. I didn't say your answers must be in agreement with that of other atheists, I said you should present evidence for your claims. My point with other atheists is that they won't try to be as evasive as you've been. By the way, you're still failing at it.

Reyginus: No difference with what I feel as a theist. It is not always easy.

Sure. If I asked you as a theist why you thought God was good using the Bible, you would have quickly provided quotes and what not. Now I ask you to compare God's character in the Bible to that of the devil using evidence from the Bible and so far, you've not been able to say why you think God has a better character than the devil. That question still awaits you.

Reyginus: Is that we what you want? I don't need a thousand example to proof that the devil was worse.
It will require us writing almost the entire bible here. And even with that, from the look of things, you will still not be satisfied.
The fact that the bible is interpreted to mean 'the word of God' should summarize it to any unbiased person. It cannot in any way proof that the devil is right at all. Where it seemed god committed evil it was attributed one way of the other to destroy the work of the devil.

Sorry but you're not a very convincing atheist. I asked you a direct question, presented you with the form of a response and showed how I arrived at my own conclusion but your response is that you'll need to write out the entire Bible? Did I have to write out the entire Bible to arrive at my conclusion? This tells me that you're still not ready to grab the bull by the horns. I didn't ask you whether the devil was right, I asked you which one of them had the better character.

Reyginus: No. I think it is the other way round. I wonder how anyone can evrn come up with the statement that the devil appeared better in the bible.
You are still missing the point. Everything, whether unjust acts, committed by Yahweh was performed to eradicate the work of devil.

Yet another evasion. Many atheists have come up with the statement that the devil's character was better than that of Yahweh e.g see here and here. Please try to defend your claims with evidence rather than mere assertions.

Reyginus: The fact that he uses evil to achieve good is usually as explained by the novel to curb the power of the devil.
This is commonsense.

No it isn't commonsense for an omniscient, omnipotent and benevolent entity to require evil. Once again, I see you're finding it difficult to think these things through like an atheist.

Reyginus: Whichever way the protagonist in a novel uses to achieve his purpose, he can never be worse than the antagonist.
This is commom knowledge naw!

Another pointless assertion that does nothing to help you. I simply asked you to compare their characters and using evidence from the book, let me know which one of them had the better character. You could easily answer the question in the pattern I indicated.

Looks to me like your facade of being an atheist is rapidly crumbling under a mild probing. If you disagree, you can take a look at the views expressed by other actual atheists on this forum and see what they think of the comparison of characters between Yahweh and the devil.

It isn't easy to pretend to be an atheist is it?

Reyginus: It is not my fault if you don't consider my answer direct.
I wonder the kind of answer you would prefer. If you are expecting me to read a new meaning into it, I am sorry to dissapoiny you.

I expected you say X was a worse character because according to the book, he did a, b, c, and d. Where a, b, c and d are terrible acts that are worse than what the other character Y did.

Reyginus: You are becoming mischievious about the whole thing. This is really unimpressive. You accuse me of neglect when you have refused to look into what is being said. I think it should be the other way round. I don't want to be moving in circles. Or is it the PhD syndrome.

I've read what you said but so far, I've not seen you directly answer the simply phrased question. You're the one squirming because you've suddenly become unable to answer direct questions.

Reyginus: This is a simple logic. The devil was potrayed as an evil character in the bible and he can never be anything different. If you are really following you'd understand that you can never distinguish the attitude of a character in a novel from what the writer would have it to mean and still be saying the same thing.
And please stop accusing me of not providing answers when you've not done so well yourself in understanding my posts.

You say the devil was portrayed as an evil character. I disagreed with examples and told you that accusing someone of being evil is different from showing that someone was actually evil based on the information you were given. I'm asking you to look at the information given about the characters of Yahweh and the devil and based on that available information with examples, form a conclusion on whose character was worse.

Reyginus: How would I know when it wasn't written on its cover.

Okay. So you don't know who wrote the book.

Reyginus: Lol. Now you are treating the work of fiction like some serious manuscript whose relevance cuts across the entire human race.

Some people take it that way so I wanted to find out what you actually thought about it. All I see you doing is trying to avoid giving a direct answer.

Reyginus: This is still fiction we are talking about, bro. I don't think there is anything to analyze if at the end of a fictional novel a writer decides to invoke some spiritual signifance, which he tries in some portions of the novel, to relate to the reader that he cannot understand because it is just the way things work here.

Some take it as being more than fiction that is why I'm trying to find out what your opinion of the characters is.

Reyginus: To decide this, do you agree or disagree that the writer determines what to make of a novel?

Not if it wasn't written by a single person. Secondly, I'm asking you not for what the entire fictional book means, but what you think about the characters portrayed in it. So far, you're running from giving an answer.

Reyginus: If you answer that, then kindly tell me who the writer of the bible

The Bible is a compilation written by lots of different people and compiled by another group of people. Many of them unknown.

Reyginus: We know this is not true. To determine what any story is trying to pass across, that is, to know who the hero is we must follow it to its end. In this case, the end vindicated god and humiliated the devil. C'mon, there is no way the devil could have been the hero.

[/quote]Again, I'm not asking for whether or not the devil was the hero, I'm asking about the characters of Yahweh and the devil as presented in the book. My question again was:

thehomer: Since the Bible is fiction, according to the fictional account, who would you say was the worse character? God or the devil?

So far, you've not given an answer and ignored the evidence I presented.

Reyginus: I think your post is in a way tempting me to make the wrong assumption that we know better than the fictional writer himself.

Who would you say is the fictional writer?

Reyginus: One thing is certain. If the writer of the series claimed the devil is the worst of characters in his book, even when what he has showned us reflects the opposite, we can only debate it if we can follow him to the end of the series.
The end of the series here should be the book of Revelation.
Notice how everything was turned on the devil at the end, how he failed to mention the atrocities committed by god in the past, the accusations labelled on the devil and the punishment that followed. That I think should be our basis for determining the worst.

Sorry but it looks like you're giving a dog a bad name to hang it. What he has shown us doesn't reflect the opposite. Who was responsible in the examples I presented? You didn't answer but instead ignored it to talk about the book of revelation. Simply turning around and blaming the devil for everything in the end would be like turning around and blaming everything in the end on Harry Potter as being the real bad guy in the book series. Simply accusing someone of a crime doesn't make them guilty. Why not actually take a look at the accusations and try to assess where the guild lies? That was why I listed examples for you. Why don't you address them and if you like, present the devil doing worse things than commanding genocides and testing people by asking them to kill their children.

Reyginus: You are twisting the novel now. The writer potrays the devil to be otherwise and I think it would be logical to follow him.
Just like when you tell me a beautiful story of how one man tormented a particular sect for following another man, because he feels the man they are following is very bad. You have the right to paint him as bad as you want him to be by narrating the evil the good man is certain the evil one breeds.

No, the writer doesn't portray the devil like that. The writer says what I pointed out to you that Yahweh did. You can help by saying what the devil has actually done. Not what you think he will do or what someone accused him of doing but what he actually did.

Reyginus: In that fictionary story, I think the devil was the worst character.
Yahweh wasn't a character so pleasing in any way but greater portion of evil eas attributted to the devil. You can blame it on the writers.

Yes evil was attributed to the devil but my question was "who had the worse character"? e.g the devil never commanded genocide but Yahweh did. Yahweh was willing to kill 42 children because they were mocking a bald man. He was willing to test someone by asking them to murder their own child and doing nothing when one man actually did murder his daughter. Then there was the case of Job.

Looking at all this, why do you think that the devil was the worse character? What did he do that was so bad?

Reyginus: After skimming through through the link I came to the conclusion that what Anton was suggesting is a marriage of Ethical Relativism and Pantheism, though incomplete.

I have a big problem with Ethical Personal Relativism. If the reason for my actions is always to satisfy myself, even if takes destroying the lifes of others and the environment, then I cannot be regarded as a responsible being. One has to be responsible for both himself and his environment if he is to live the good life.

Another thing is, why the title? Why should an organization established for the propagation of any good use a name that exists only in a corrupt fictional book? What was the intent? They can only be pardoned if the name was used initially to identify a good product.

Okay. Just so that we're clear that these Satanists aren't associated with the Satan in the fictional book of the Bible. Maybe the Satan of the fictional bible was a good product or at least better than his fictional counterpart.

texanomaly: Time is the coin of your life. It is the only coin you have, and only you can determine how it will be spent. Be careful lest you let other people spend it for you.

Carl Sandburg

I'd say money is the coin of my life i.e money is money in my life. It can fluctuate. Time is let's say evenly spaced. If I need more of it in the future, I won't be able to borrow from the past and frankly this is what I'd rather be doing now while watching the television. When it's time to focus on my work, I do that too.

texanomaly: @thehomer

This what I mean

I'm trying to take him seriously. I'm an atheist and would happily blaspheme. If he wants to be an atheist, he should be ready to do that too let's say as his sign of seriousness in the role.

If I wanted to pretend to be a Christian, I could also post a prayer accepting Jesus as Lord and Saviour and talk about eating his flesh and drinking his blood. But then, I'm not the one on the hot seat.

Reyginus: Fiction. Stop trying to kill the fun.

How is it killing the fun to actually make you - someone who volunteered to be an atheist - to actually try to walk in the shoes of an atheist? If you're going to voluntarily represent a position, you should be ready to totally live it. It is in fact one of the reasons why someone like me cannot be an actor.

Since the Bible is fiction, according to the fictional account, who would you say was the worse character? God or the devil?

By the way, what do you think about this form of Satanism?

You see, some of us take this atheist movement seriously so I would like to take you seriously as an atheist while I have you here.

Edit: Looks like you're discovering that it isn't easy to just drop early indoctrination and switch.

texanomaly: The lines are becoming blurry here.

What do you mean?

Reyginus: It is a distinct portion of the delusionary god. When the delusionary god supplies the placebo he is supplying the holy spirit. Like a fictional doctor offering through a nurse(Jesus) drugs(holy spitlrit) to administer on an in-patient.

Nothing as sweet as blasphemy against the Holy Spirit on a Sunday morning.

How would you describe the Bible?

Reyginus: The pivot of the loftiest of delusions exhibited by modern man. A mental construct permeated unknowingly as a placebo by the religious mind.

So God is a delusion, a mental construct. Good. How about the Holy Spirit? Is it also God?

Reyginus: Guys, I am going to represent atheism for some hours/days. I'd like you to throw in any question which you feel our resident atheists have failed to deal with. Or concepts of the theism which you believe destroys atheism completely.
Theists, atheists, pantheists, deists, panentheists, fideists, etc., are invited.
.....

This section must be lively again.

What would you say a God is?

Several Nigerian pastors have done worse. The difference is that we don't have YouTube clips of them.

Why is this shocking?

Deep Sight: In repeating that cultural values are the basis of criminal laws, you forget the topic .- the morality of the laws.

No it isn't forgotten.

Deep Sight: So when you say that morality is based on values, you thereby say that anything that is endorsed by the values of a culture is thereby morally apt.

Such as slavery, or killing twins.

Wrong and wrong. I said my morality is based on my values. I also said criminal laws are based on cultural values. None of these mean that slavery or killing twins is morally right. As usual, you avoid stating what your morality is based on and fail to better explain what you meant with your talk about "evil in itself".

Deep Sight: I could not possibly make it simpler.

Catching a flight now. Talk again later.

Maybe you couldn't but you would do well to first understand what is being said.

Whenever you're ready.

Joshthefirst: There is an absolute. Our consciences bear witness.

An absolute what?

Joshthefirst: Values can influence our consciences, but it does not destroy the fact of the absolutes. Values can infringe or shrink away from absolute laws, written in our consciousness.

What on earth are you on about?

Joshthefirst: They do not change them. Or the consequence of breaking them.

A former cultural value was that twins were to murdered and considered evil. It was abolished. It did not change the fact that murder is evil.

Anytime we try to shift the basis of the absolutes, we end up hurting ourselves

You do realize that the twins thing is something different. If killing twins was considered evil by those doing the killing, why was it done? I hope that when you answer that question for yourself, you'll understand why I said cultural values were the basis for criminal laws.

Deep Sight: ^^^^ Delude yourself. I have seen the end from the beginning as you have shown a determination to fail to address the core issues here. Wiegraf's turn out on this thread has been scandalously low minded and abysmal. He hops on your nonsense about cultural values after advocating force as the proper tool for the determination of morality. Bunkum. Trash.

Looks like you've gone unhinged. I wonder why.

Deep Sight: As for the nonsense on cultural values it of course is neither here nor there. It would ascribe as morally apt anything endorsed by the value system of a culture. This would include aztec human sacrifice, the killing of twins, child labor, honor killing, apartheid, slavery, gender apartheid, ethnic cleansing and every other perverse atrocity in history that has had the good fortune to be endorsed by a society as a cultural group based on their values.

Its a nonsensical nonstarter that makes no distinctions and I will not commit any significant energy to engaging such until and unless you answer the original questions properly and sensibly and show a grasp of the real problems and issues at play.

This is why I say you're unserious. You asked me what I base my morals on, I told you it was on my values. You erroneously thought it was interchangeable with morality but as that link shows, it isn't but you probably found that too difficult to grasp. You on the other hand were unable to say what you based your own morals on and kept running when your own question was turned on you.

You asked for the basis of criminal laws, and again, I pointed you in the direction of cultural values but that too got you confused. It made you so confused that you tried to throw some Latin words as your own excuse which I quickly exposed as being without merit. Pointing out that cultural values are the basis of criminal laws is a fact but for some reason, you confused criminal laws with morality. They're very different issues but in your stupor, you got them confused and revealed the shallowness of your thoughts.

Now we've come full circle. Whenever you're ready to engage in a discussion with the expectation of being ready to defend your own inquiries, just let me know. I'm still available to show you the right path.